What a delusional cunt. The market has never worked for the vast majority: it works for those who own everything. Capitalism, in its pure Ron Paulish form, and Communism are both silly and are based on EMOTION, not reason and rationality. This filthy cunt is basing her "objectivism" on her own emotions, not on facts and logic. I feel sorry for those of you who buy into this crap....
ayn rand is brilliant BUT too much mental masterbation. the world is to complex and has too many variables to make hypotetical judgemets. REMEMBER COMMUNISM? mENTAL MASTURBATION!
What about when a business/corporation sets up a parent company with subsidiaries and grows so powerfully that there market share allows them to set extremely low prices, lose money long enough to make their competition go bankrupt. Then that corporation can buy lobby power enough to control government policy? Then continue to buy the latest fastest machinery and set up a structure to never let small business compete with them? Nobody, not even Ayn, has total knowledge how to make life work.
@ChadMault To the undercutting argument - As soon as you raised prices to a monopoly, someone else would enter your market and undercut you at a profitable price. You can't sell below cost indefinately.
As to the second, that's corruption and Rand opposed it.
The final question, if economies of scale allow large producers to sell goods cheaper than small producers and still make money, why is that even objectionable?
I love Phil Donahue solely because he was the only show that was willing to give any notable person a voice on his show; even someone as ridiculous as Ayn Rand.
I don't doubt that he would even be willing to allow David Icke on to present his alien reptiloid illuminati views with the audience.
She's cute. But if she were a nihilist then she would denounce morality altogether because "what you do doesn't matter", I can't accept nihilism because philosophy and existence is not senseless or useless or unfounded, it's bull.
I like to think that Phil is just being contrary in this segment. I do this with my wife to get a rise out of her. You play devil's advocate even though the logic is not self sustaining. I can't imagine he was so stupid as to not understand simple logic.
@ChaosDynamics if you assert that the universe stemmed from chaos than your assertion is invalid because a universe of a chaotic nature would indicate that conceptualization is impossible (which it is clearly not) and furthermore your assertion would have no more value than a "chaotic", meaningless grunt.
God is a word for the relationship between the seemingly infinite and mysterious substance of the universe and the logic within the human intellect. There's nothing arrogant about that claim. The problem with God is in the faulty definitions people use. Also, we don't need to use the word God. We just need to realize that the universe is mysterious and yet knowable. "More mystery, more knowledge"
Rand acknowledges that logical actions can and usually are rooted in "selfishness" or "greed".
She also acknowledges that people have and allways will have to die, while others continue on living.
As well as she understands that socialism or religion can not be used to fix the problems of mankind, without at the very least bringing others unto us.
@MrTamzah74 She is in fact pretty smart, but it takes here some time to translate her thoughts into english.
I'm not an objectivist, neither am I a complete atheist, but she makes some very important points that most people today just don't want to accept anymore. It seems that they feel that the truths of life are too "tragic" or "dark", but they're not. They're just different from what the people of this age is used to reflecting on on a daily basis.
Donahue is such a bozo. His line of questioning and reason is way beneath Rand's intellect.
Their discussion reminds me of a university student who asks the professor a lot of questions during lecture, while the professor carefully and articulately answers in attempt not to let the answers fly over the student's head.
@Omnicron777 it has to do with burden of proof, if i say the moon is made of cheese it's my responsibility to prove it, not your responsibility to prove it's not, same situation with god
@SevenStringShredHead There is creativity in the universe. We are a product of the mysterious creativity of the universe. Whatever you want to call it, however you want to describe it, that's what it ultimately is...God is the connection between the seemingly infinite and mysterious substances of the universe and the logic of the human intellect, although you don't need to use the word "God" to identify the importance of that relationship.
The audience is really annoying me in this interview. I mean, no matter whose sentiments you agree with, these people are having a philosophical argument. Applause doesn't really fit into that argument. It's just an interruption, in many ways similar to applauding in the middle of a philosophy lecture. It doesn't really matter what YOU agree with. It's important to get the ideas out on the table and think about them. I don't agree with Ayn Rand, but I respect her for her interesting ideas.
Honestly, I really love the format of this show, and I wish we had more like it. It seems like a real genuine conversation, unlike the phony presidential debates.
@Joyeuseful It's not at all like applauding in the middle of a philosophy lecture because here two sides are being presented. People applaud to let others know which points they agree with. In the case of one person delivering a philosophy lecture, one point of view is ultimately being rendered.
Someone compared me to Ayn Rand a couple of days ago, like I was going to be insulted.....I really want to thank J.Period Blackmore for the fb diatribe that sparked my interest in learning more about this amazingly insightful and eternally influential woman. Thanks again JP
So anyone who want to go "Galt" - Please - make us suffer of it please.
We need some free places in your monopolistic economy. Just do not be surprised, that you will not be able to return in your hard earned places - ok ?
Oh i am understand now, She was burn in Russia but She was a Jew. And She was stay Jew with Slavic accent. Never mind, i am have nothing against being Jew born in Russia or even against Black skin Jew born in Russia. (i am know of some examples)
@ChaosDynamics Universe stemmed from and still is chaos...controlled chaos sort of in the best case scenario, but extreme chaos otherwise...there are explosions millions of times larger than are plant ever day...objects thousands of times the size of our planet colliding...the conditions for life to develop as they have on this planet are pretty rare...
@martydrooo Not chaos. Knowable mystery. After all, we are a product of or aspect of the universe and we possess the faculty of logic which implies that the universe is not "chaos", just, mysterious, temporarily unknown, etc...
@ExpandingUponWealth I don't think we're arguing in the sense that neither of us is really wrong. In all probability our own universe isn't the first to exist, and the laws of physics in this universe probably didn't exist in the previous one if it collapsed on itself/imploded. So the universe doesn't really know what it itself is. Everything is constantly evolving and I don't think theres a "source code" if you will -- nature just keeps trying. 99.99% repeating of things is a mystery to us...
@CoonAndFriends2 I laughed about that too...but I think even if she didn't mention it, theres alternative energy that can be a check to oil...back then not so much...and didn't accept the possibilities of cartels, which exist in this day and age in industries that aren't natural monopolies like oil...heck, there was a bust up of the zipper cartel recently...I agree with her but its never cut and dry about certain things...
@000BrokenCity000 So, you're saying the smarter one is the more wrong and immoral they are and vice versa? So if God is completely moral and always right then he is completely without intellect and a totally moronic fuckwit, according to your own logic, anyway.
no one can create all powerful conglomerate. In research literature its called "conglomerate discount" because Stock markets don't "like" this kind of business because of their inherent inefficiency and lower the price of this kind of companies.
The reception for Rand's fiction from literary critics was largely negative, and most academics have ignored or rejected her philosophy. Nonetheless she continues to have a popular following, and her political ideas have been influential among libertarians and some conservatives.
Oil is a finite resource, only so many competitors can join the market, after a while all the oil fields will be most probably controlled by a few companies creating an oligarchic market and there's no reason to stop them colluding and charging extortionist prices. It's the rational thing to do.
In a Free Market society, anybody can go ahead and start up their own business to compete with the big shots.
If the big shots truly decided to overprice their goods in thinking that nobody would compete against them, somebody will start up their own business and then sell the goods for cheaper. The big business would have their customers taken from the new company. The Big business would then have to lower prices to keep customers.
@ImaginedWriter ....agreed. History has proven it, and were trillions in the hole from wars we are engaged in.due to control of petroleum resources.....and it has bankrupted America.
So, if you're that blue collar worker who needs to buy gas at the unheard of rate of $2.50 per gallon (!!!!) to do your business, all you need to do is die, and take your wife and kids with you. Well I know that's the philosophy of the current right wing teapublicans. But already they're starting to balk at killing Medicare and Social Security.
So, if you're that blue collar worker who needs to buy gas at the unheard of rate of $2.50 per gallon (!!!!) to do your business, all you need to do is die, and take your wife and kids with you. Well I know that's the philosophy of the current right wing teapublicans. But already they're starting to balk at killing Medicare and Social Security.
While I agree with her philosophy for the most part, I'm not going to give up on my faith. My faith is where I draw strength from, but I do not use it to make all of my choices by.
My logic and reason won't allow me to just accept that all of this just happened by chance. To concede that is to throw logic and reason out the window.
But as long as you don't push your belief on me, or ridicule me because of mine, then I won't push mine on you.
okitsply. I guess you don't understand economics. What caused our economic disaster was the Federal Reserve System. Microsoft is not monopoly because their is open competition. You were probably educated in shitty public schools.
I, like Ron Paul agree with Ayn on free markets and limited government, however she is simply wrong when she says that faith contradicts reason. Philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas have written volumes on this topic and have come to the conclusion that true faith and true reason can never contradict one another. Her absolute assertion that God does not exist, is in itself contrary to authentic reason. It is unreasonable to believe that self aware life can develop from matter only.
Many of the economic fallacies she speaks of have happened. There is a monopoly on energy, and for that matter, even retail (Wal-Mart). Big business IS bad for the little guy, of which this country is made of, a lot of little guys. She's just stubborn and old. "I don't give a damn about my critics!"
@SubjectE Wal-Mart is selling affordable goods that the consumer wants. How is that bad? What monopoly are you talking about? Be sure the example you give is one that has absolutely no government interference in it.
I, like Ron Paul agree with Ayn on free markets and limited government, however she is simply wrong when she says that faith contradicts reason. Philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas have written volumes on this topic and have come to the conclusion that true faith and true reason can never contradict one another. Her absolute assertion that God does not exist, is in itself contrary to authentic reason. It is unreasonable to believe that self aware life can develop from matter only.
@thinkertank1 god is obviously unknowable so whether reason and faith contradict each other or not doesn't really matter (it does contradict each other btw). The fact is whether we are atheists, christians, muslims or jewish we are all agnostic. Agnosticism goes to what we know. Too bad most religious people won't admit that they can't possibly know. It's extremely arrogant to make the absurd claim to know a god exist and even more so to claim to know the mind of god.
@robertchflynn your naivety kills me. You actually think that things are black white like that? People whole-heartedly believe they know god exists. Like U said, "it doesn't matter", what we know in this situation. If u think people just won't admit because of arrogance then U are insulting everything we know about psychology & the human condition. Cognitive dissonance goes beyond arrogance & immaturity to admit your wrong. U seem to be the immature one that is clinging towards cynical pessimism
@thinkertank1 Aquinas was also an altruist if there ever was one, and preached that the rights of the "needy" were superior to property rights. That theft was ok if you really needed something. This socialist, altrusism directly contradicts the free society Rand and Paul speak of.
@BurningOrchids You're opening a huge topic, one where the word "needy" would need to be defined. Example: If my family is starving to death because of a calamity and wealthy private individuals are hoarding food, those individuals would be violating my family's right to life as they would be preventing me from acquiring the means of survival. The right to life supersedes all other rights and in this case the "needy's" rights override property rights. There is no contradiction.
@thinkertank1 Is it true that just because your family is starving, that gives you a right to make a claim to another person's property? The right to life as understood in the U.S. Constitution is defined as being the right to one's own life as opposed to someone having the right to your life i.e. serfdom as practiced in 18th century. The meaning of the Constitution must be understood in those terms rather than the modern liberal (false) notion of a living, breathing Constitution.
@RolandStGermain Yes, in the EXAMPLE I GAVE one would have the right to another persons property, (Hoarded Food). Private property rights are not absolute. I am not making a liberal argument here, this is common sense and conforms with the natural law. If a wealthy person bought all of the food and more than they could ever need, my ability to survive has been rendered impossible. Should my family starve because 1 person had the means to buy all the food. Look at the example again.
Donauhe really impersonate the opposite side of the people he interviews brillianty while not becoming rude. The main arguments of the left is to invoke feelings, for example the feeling of animosity against ms. Rand for her lack of "compassion" or getting the audience to feel moral superiority for saying "I Believe in Altruism". My only problem with ms. Rand is her objectivism, its something out of the Greeks Relativists theory.
@begood20000 God was the earliest attempt at ascribing a cause to astrological events - such as day and night, and to life and death and to all manners of existence.
For instance: When they became able to; human beings likely considered why something as the Moon/Sun would apparently rise and fall without any external, visible force. With what information they could ascertain, they attributed it to invisible forces. Surely something that could move celestial bodies was very strong.
I may not agree fully with Ayn Rand but we seriously need more women like her. Women who are intellectual and are damn proud of it! Ayn Rand has some True Grit and I'm sad she's gone. I would have loved to see her talk live. Thanks for this upload!
@YesWeCantaloupe Trying to compare God being somewhere with gold being somewhere is a bad analogy because we have proof that gold exists.
We don't know if there is gold on pluto because we've never been to pluto but if gold was like God you'd never find it there.
God was suppose to be in heaven in the sky but since the creation of aircrafts heaven no longer seems to be in the sky. But before aircrafts were invented we could say about heaven in your words- 'We just don't know'.
I have a wonder: She explains that she does not believe in historical forces that dictate outcomes, yet she says in two of her interviews (this one and the Mike Wallace interview) that history will support her theories. Anyone care to explain?
Use the analogy of the phone company. It was a monopoly for years and there was poor service and no technological invention. Once ATT was broken up suddenly we had cell phone, text messages etc...
I read and like AR but resolve the following situation. If Shell, BP and Exxon corner the market, they cease to be a source of stress to each other and join forces against other stressors like other commodities. So it would be a single oil provider against eg grocers and lumber producers. The newer forces of stress created by the monopoly spread out to each family who sacrifice their new fishing boat, clothing and food for energy necessary to get to a job 40 miles from their home.
how hard is it for Phil to figure out, that back then if you charge 2.50 a gallon and no one can afford it, then how can you continue to sell that fuel at 2.50 a gallon? if no one can afford it then you cant sell it at that price. thats the free market!
@232009jordan He also forgets that if a competitor charges 2.25 a gallon for the same quality of fuel, the competitor will get all of the business. In July of 2008, when unleaded regular was upwards of $4.00/gal, the gas station that sold at the lowest price was flooded with business and ALL the other stations were nearly vacant. The station that charged the most was bought off by a competing oil comany that year. Consumers rewarded and punished according to the most value at the least cost.
Energy and technology are being withheld to maintain the need for oil. There are many alternatives to oil but oil men have bought and murdered anyone who tries to say "We don't need oil".
@votumseparatum1 How do you know these things? If men have been bought and murdered by oilmen, why would you say such things in a public forum. If you actually believed that oilmen were murdering people, would you not be afraid that they would murder you? I think perhaps that you do not really believe this.
@cartman1492 I think you have no idea what you're talking about. Killing people for talking about something would that something TRUER in the eyes of others so you DO NOT kill anyone. This is not a state where freedom of speech is banned.
Also I know these things because I read and RESEARCH. It is also fact that most technology is usually developed, then release to the public much later. Look at the GPS system. It was used by military LONG BEFORE anyone heard of it.
@cartman1492 Don't you think because of the problems with oil, people have, over the years, developed better alternatives? Isn't that logical? And wouldn't it be more logical that greedy oil men would try to prevent these alternatives from getting out to population by buying the technology or simply killing off people who refused to bow? Oil isn't going to be around forever so people need new ways to live without oil and oil men want to suppress this b/c it will put THEM out of business.
@votumseparatum1 The free market encourages the private sector to come up with something new. The government gets in the way, with taxes and regulation on top of regulation. The oil companies are actually trying to come up with something new, especially since they are forced to buy it elsewhere. There is more oil inside the continental US than the middle east...but the government doesn't allow it's drilling. The oil companies don't set the price, OPEC does.,
Faith is not contrary to reason. Faith establishes an environment in which reason can function. As an obvious example, one must have faith in the continuing validity of reason in order to reasonably begin the reasoning process. Can an atheist worldview account for the continual validity of reason? I don't think it can.
Ayn Rand is missing 1 variable i.e. unlimited money. If you could create unlimited money you could buy out all compitition and corner every market. This is what has happened w/ the federal reserve and the people that own shares in the fed are the wealthiest on earth and rulers of it. These same people (the House of Rothschild) are the creators of communism. What the communist's need to do is go after the top dog the money maker. The only way to have equality is to destroy money forever.
Its still the same principle as she stated. Even though the fed is not a "Government" institution per'se, they are a central bank which we know is no good. Secondly as she stated before, it is with government backing that a monopoly is created. She knows this and rand was completly opposed to the FED. ITs against the very core of her economic policy. Rand like Rothbard she was against even money monopoly.
Phil Donahue is a patient and insightful interviewer... I disagree with him wholeheartedly... yet he listens and sincerely tries to understand his guests.
Can you imagine a numbnuts like O'Reilly or Olbermann interviewing this brilliant woman?
I was thinking this exactly. Where has true reporting gone, where not everything is just a shouting debate, where one person is just trying to learn and listen.
@poppanolan, what an excellent point. I'm picturing O'Reilly and Olbermann trying to bull doze over her and not even realizing when their points of views are being intellectually destroyed.
@poppanolan Yes, I can imagine it. O'Reilly: Altruism bad?! That's a loony idea! Rand: You haven't let me explain it in the proper context. How can you expect--- O'Reilly: If you can't break it down into 3 easy-to-understand bullet points, it's not a good idea. Olbermann: Wait, she thinks capitalism is a good idea? I can't even argue with that nonsense. Not worth interviewing.
@poppanolan ...this "brilliant" woman has made the classic mistake of supporting reason over morality. I agree with Donahue whole heartedly, and his statement at 2:06 regarding oil and wasteful dependence on it was as true then as it would eventually be in 2003-06 and the oil driven wars of the 21st century (now in the trillions). Rand is brilliant, but again, the market WAS cornered. John Rockefeller manipulated politics into a monopoly and Congress was eventually bought off or outmaneuvered.
@SuperOmnicron ood Point... I agree that she was not perfect! Name calling is usually for the people who have trouble articulating a point. I am not here in defense of Rand... but... she is right about many other things. Like without government cooperation a monopoly CAN NOT exist. So whilst you make a good point, you are actually agreeing with Ayn Rand. The woman had a contempt for fascism. Fascism, as we all know, is the partnership of Govt and corporations.
@poppanolan , Donahue was a patient and insightful interviewer, but Rand lost objectivity when she refered to Saudi Arabians as "savages". Any OBJECTIVE person doesnt apply words like "half-wit" or "savage". It is too simplistic a label for someone as obviously intelligent as she is to use in a public discourse. The idea is to engage and find solutions to people we share our planet with not denigrate them as "unworthy" to co-exist. This is how genocide is rationalized.
@SuperOmnicron Good Point... I agree that she was not perfect! Name calling is usually for the people who have trouble articulating a point. I am not here in defense of Rand... but... she is right about many other things. Like without government cooperation a monopoly CAN NOT exist. So whilst you make a good point, you are actually agreeing with Ayn Rand. The woman had a contempt for fascism. Fascism, as we all know, is the partnership of Govt and corporations.
@SuperOmnicron Yes, one of Ms. Rand's shortcomings is her tendency to be insulting. The same problem appears in John Galt's speech from ATLAS SHRUGGED. She goes so far into logic and morality and virtue but then just loses herself in these counterproductive insults. But no one is omniscient. She has her contradictions but, aside from the philosophy I have constructed, her's is the second best. In the context of the time she established hers, it was the best.
@armenws Indeed we need more debate. Our culture us starving for it. We also need more courtesy in our culture. So many people don't know how to communicate disagreements courteously and constructively. After all, the whole point is to come to agreements and progress- the only way we do that is by debating until we reach certain agreements.
@LadyScorpio39 - To be more specific, she said 'rational' self-interest is her definition of selfish. And she did NOT say that helping others is amoral (or immoral). She said that the 'philosophy of altruism' is evil. She defines altruism as the belief that self-sacrifice is the highest moral virtue. When altruism is forced on you by a government it results in a dictatorship. There is nothing wrong with helping others if it's your choice. Her book The Virtue of Selfishness explains in detail : )
@LadyScorpio39 - I know that the things she says go against what most people were brought up to believe but I've read her books and I was surprised to find out how wrong most people are. Like I said, her book 'The Virtue of Selfishness' explains it in detail and 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' by Leonard Peikoff lays out her entire system of philosophy. I think we all want to be moral but there are many wrong paths. Sometimes you have to start over to get on the right road.
@djangothecat Well said. In fact, that's what I did. I had a completely different philosophy set up (sloppy, inconsistent, false of course) and Ms. Ayn Rand taught me how to assemble my mind, and set it up to succeed her philosophy.
Well, it's not that you need to "search outside of your ideologies" because every system of thought however organized or unorganized it may be is an ideology. What people need to do is think logically.
You've got to give it to Donahue... nobody these days would devote such a large amount of time to a philosopher, particularly that of the Rand school of thought.
Or if they did, the interview would be cut short to give equal time to an interview with Beyonce and a musical interlude by Kesha. :D
he makes no sense when he says that he'll just buy them up, does he not understand for a transaction to take place that they, the other party, has to agree to the terms of contract? They dont have to sell theyre business to your mr.donehue, just because youll offer them a billion dollars doesnt mean theyll sell it to you.
Her free market model of relying on selfishness just seems like an assertion of the Nash equilibrium, born from cold war paranoia. It relies on heavy absolutism, but human nature isn't so black and white. Some situations call for selfishness, others count on cooperation. It's far more complicated than just reasoning.
I was born to Jewish parents who are Israelis citizens by that virtue alone. If you are not Jewish you cannot have an Israeli citizenship.
Google it?
Why would people who were born on that land be living in refugee camps then if they could just apply for citizenship?
I try not to get mad because I realize the disinformation in this computer age is staggering. Your ignornace is a product of you not seeking out the info yourself and getting it from videos and google.
@Symbolc0729 again, your facts are personal anecdotes and questions. my facts come from the israel ministry of foreign affairs which states, "regardless of race, religion, creed, sex or political beliefs." so i don't know who to believe.
my ignorance? you are confusing being granted automatic citizenship as a jew, with being required to be a jew to be a citizen. you can't even get your facts straight. you don't need to be jewish to be an israeli citizen. find out for yourself.
this guy makes no sense (verbally) but his NLP tactics say it all! This wmoan has the courage of her convictions and look...no hand movements or intimidating 'lean ins'. Says it all my friends.
It makes me laugh how he uses the NLP techniques of over gesturing to get force his point across but she just sits still with the courage of her convictions and lets her mouth alone do the talking. I may not agree with everything she says but I defend her right to say it. A true free thinker!! A shame I was never introduced to her at University, but that speaks volumes!
Mrs. Rand sounds like someone who has not read any of the medieval scholastic philosophers, such as St. Augustine, St. Anselm of Canterbury, and St. Thomas Aquinas, the last of which utilized Aristotle's Metaphysics to provide logical proofs for the existence of God.
People who tried to corner the market and went broke??? Carnegie? Rockefeller? Rhodes? Edison? Notice she gives no example... You know who died in poverty... Tesla! Galileo! Copernicus! Im not a religious person, but people who have been Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists etc have contributed greatly to our development as human beings. Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and the like.
Why dont you adress the fact that she doesnt mention anyone who supposedly went broke trying to corner the market in the US before our economy was compromised by "socialists".
All the people I mentioned were early in Americas history. Why can I give examples of people who are religious that contributed greatly to mankind and his development.Someone who is as intelligent as Ayn Rand isnt ignorant of the facts.. she thinks you dont know any better.
@Symbolc0729 why don't you make a list of all the markets that are cornered and start from there.
you mentioned einstein, not religious, and newton, who came from a time when every one was religious, or else they did what they did to galileo.
she supports isreal? she has been dead for almost 30 years, so she doesnt support anyone. in this video, she gives her reason for supporting isreal.didnt mention theocracy. maybe because its 1979 in this video. lol
Balfour declaration of 1917 is the visible start of zionism in history.
The State of Israel was created in 1948 it was 1 of 2 theocracies in the region. Israel was handed over to the Zionists as the homeland of the Jews. Judaism is a religion it had been a theocracy for 30 years in 1979. She supported a "altruistic" theocracy while condemning them because she had gotten a little nutty in her old age. She was much more coherent in her 1959 interview.
@Symbolc0729 i couldn't really follow your point in your last post. i'm going to assume you were making the point, again wrongly, that israel is a theocracy. even if it could be argued that it is, it certainly was not in 1979. do you know what a theocracy is? furthermore, she was asked who she supported in a specific conflict. she didn't just start shouting about isreal. at least represent her accurately. oh but wait..then there's no reason to argue. ha
@Symbolc0729 you talk about opinion? who forced you to do all those things in your life? no-one. why should you get to set the price of gas? no answer. what is your whole argument? opinion.
then you put words in my mouth and misrepresent israeli citizenship requirements. israel does not require one to be of a certain religion to be a citizen. you are wrong on that. so what is your point?
What a delusional cunt. The market has never worked for the vast majority: it works for those who own everything. Capitalism, in its pure Ron Paulish form, and Communism are both silly and are based on EMOTION, not reason and rationality. This filthy cunt is basing her "objectivism" on her own emotions, not on facts and logic. I feel sorry for those of you who buy into this crap....
tstruss912 1 week ago
@tstruss912 Fine, you can disagree but it is really necessary to refer to this woman as a "delusional cunt"?
djs259 1 day ago
@djs259 Well, I believe her to be a manipulative sociopath. She's a dangerous cunt. Is that better?
tstruss912 18 hours ago
The Hunt Brothers must have missed this episode... lol
MrBiggMan 2 weeks ago
ayn rand is brilliant BUT too much mental masterbation. the world is to complex and has too many variables to make hypotetical judgemets. REMEMBER COMMUNISM? mENTAL MASTURBATION!
adwaye 2 weeks ago
Universities are all Keynesian
mike6459 1 month ago in playlist Ayn Rand on Donahue 1979
What about when a business/corporation sets up a parent company with subsidiaries and grows so powerfully that there market share allows them to set extremely low prices, lose money long enough to make their competition go bankrupt. Then that corporation can buy lobby power enough to control government policy? Then continue to buy the latest fastest machinery and set up a structure to never let small business compete with them? Nobody, not even Ayn, has total knowledge how to make life work.
ChadMault 1 month ago
@ChadMault To the undercutting argument - As soon as you raised prices to a monopoly, someone else would enter your market and undercut you at a profitable price. You can't sell below cost indefinately.
As to the second, that's corruption and Rand opposed it.
The final question, if economies of scale allow large producers to sell goods cheaper than small producers and still make money, why is that even objectionable?
Darkside007 1 month ago 2
In my opinion her views on government are SO wrong but her views on religion are exactly my own
nataliewheeleryo 1 month ago
@nataliewheeleryo
Gods and Governments don't exist as anything more than concepts. In reality, there is just man and his reasoning mind.
KyleSkullz 1 month ago
I love Phil Donahue solely because he was the only show that was willing to give any notable person a voice on his show; even someone as ridiculous as Ayn Rand.
I don't doubt that he would even be willing to allow David Icke on to present his alien reptiloid illuminati views with the audience.
xxFortunadoxx 2 months ago
@xxFortunadoxx Bro, you're ridiculous. You can tell Phil Donahue was loving it.
Khayman8888 1 month ago
@xxFortunadoxx I didn't say he wasn't.
xxFortunadoxx 1 month ago
She's cute. But if she were a nihilist then she would denounce morality altogether because "what you do doesn't matter", I can't accept nihilism because philosophy and existence is not senseless or useless or unfounded, it's bull.
Hoobifta 2 months ago
I like to think that Phil is just being contrary in this segment. I do this with my wife to get a rise out of her. You play devil's advocate even though the logic is not self sustaining. I can't imagine he was so stupid as to not understand simple logic.
CSK225 2 months ago
Interesting
ayanni07 3 months ago
She would have doen far better as a Humanitarian Atheist rather than a nihilistic one.
BrotherGrimace1 4 months ago
@BrotherGrimace1 She wasn't a nihilist, DUMBASS
ppw00 2 months ago
@BrotherGrimace1 Objectivism is almost a polar opposite of Nihilism.
Khayman8888 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
silly old cow.
smartarse001 4 months ago
She has a striking resemblance with Helen Thomas.
erginakif 4 months ago in playlist More videos from brittle13
@ChaosDynamics if you assert that the universe stemmed from chaos than your assertion is invalid because a universe of a chaotic nature would indicate that conceptualization is impossible (which it is clearly not) and furthermore your assertion would have no more value than a "chaotic", meaningless grunt.
ExpandingUponWealth 5 months ago
God is a word for the relationship between the seemingly infinite and mysterious substance of the universe and the logic within the human intellect. There's nothing arrogant about that claim. The problem with God is in the faulty definitions people use. Also, we don't need to use the word God. We just need to realize that the universe is mysterious and yet knowable. "More mystery, more knowledge"
ExpandingUponWealth 5 months ago
@MrTamzah74 For example,
Rand acknowledges that logical actions can and usually are rooted in "selfishness" or "greed".
She also acknowledges that people have and allways will have to die, while others continue on living.
As well as she understands that socialism or religion can not be used to fix the problems of mankind, without at the very least bringing others unto us.
ToxinalX 5 months ago
@MrTamzah74 She is in fact pretty smart, but it takes here some time to translate her thoughts into english.
I'm not an objectivist, neither am I a complete atheist, but she makes some very important points that most people today just don't want to accept anymore. It seems that they feel that the truths of life are too "tragic" or "dark", but they're not. They're just different from what the people of this age is used to reflecting on on a daily basis.
ToxinalX 5 months ago 8
Donahue is such a bozo. His line of questioning and reason is way beneath Rand's intellect.
Their discussion reminds me of a university student who asks the professor a lot of questions during lecture, while the professor carefully and articulately answers in attempt not to let the answers fly over the student's head.
314Aurelius 5 months ago
circumstantial evidence... there isn't any.
Classic
baihbalm 6 months ago
@Omnicron777 it has to do with burden of proof, if i say the moon is made of cheese it's my responsibility to prove it, not your responsibility to prove it's not, same situation with god
SevenStringShredHead 6 months ago
@SevenStringShredHead There is creativity in the universe. We are a product of the mysterious creativity of the universe. Whatever you want to call it, however you want to describe it, that's what it ultimately is...God is the connection between the seemingly infinite and mysterious substances of the universe and the logic of the human intellect, although you don't need to use the word "God" to identify the importance of that relationship.
ExpandingUponWealth 5 months ago
@ExpandingUponWealth i'm not sure what that has to do with my comment, or which one you're responding to
SevenStringShredHead 5 months ago
@Omnicron777 did i say you can't prove a negative, or you aren't called upon to?
SevenStringShredHead 6 months ago
you are never called upon to prove a negative, that's a law of logic
brilliant woman
SevenStringShredHead 6 months ago
@000BrokenCity000 Fuck that shit. The serpent FTW!
TheManiacalSatanist6 7 months ago
I love how Phil Donahue is always getting his ass handed to him by people like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand.
TheManiacalSatanist6 7 months ago
Why does he have to be all up in her face? Have some respect she is an old lady. She owns his ass. xx
Crystalgirlist 7 months ago
The audience is really annoying me in this interview. I mean, no matter whose sentiments you agree with, these people are having a philosophical argument. Applause doesn't really fit into that argument. It's just an interruption, in many ways similar to applauding in the middle of a philosophy lecture. It doesn't really matter what YOU agree with. It's important to get the ideas out on the table and think about them. I don't agree with Ayn Rand, but I respect her for her interesting ideas.
Joyeuseful 7 months ago in playlist Ayn Rand on Donahue 1979 12
@Joyeuseful
Honestly, I really love the format of this show, and I wish we had more like it. It seems like a real genuine conversation, unlike the phony presidential debates.
KyleSkullz 1 month ago
@Joyeuseful It's not at all like applauding in the middle of a philosophy lecture because here two sides are being presented. People applaud to let others know which points they agree with. In the case of one person delivering a philosophy lecture, one point of view is ultimately being rendered.
TulanePunk 3 weeks ago
capitalism gives a poor man a chance to lift himself out of his poverty.
socialism will lead to communism. government is involved enough in our lives!
LadyScorpio39 7 months ago
While I may disagree with Ayn Rand on many issues and agree with her on others, I cannot deny the brilliance of her intellect.
sweetsweatyfeet 8 months ago
And as I read further down on the comments I have become aware that opinions and a**h*|*s have more in common than we originally suspected.
Jadee5310 8 months ago
Someone compared me to Ayn Rand a couple of days ago, like I was going to be insulted.....I really want to thank J.Period Blackmore for the fb diatribe that sparked my interest in learning more about this amazingly insightful and eternally influential woman. Thanks again JP
Jadee5310 8 months ago
So anyone who want to go "Galt" - Please - make us suffer of it please.
We need some free places in your monopolistic economy. Just do not be surprised, that you will not be able to return in your hard earned places - ok ?
MrDobrod 8 months ago
Well , She moved US in 1926. After some time She decide, that She must to TEACH american citizens how to live their lives. Very interesting.
MrDobrod 8 months ago
Oh i am understand now, She was burn in Russia but She was a Jew. And She was stay Jew with Slavic accent. Never mind, i am have nothing against being Jew born in Russia or even against Black skin Jew born in Russia. (i am know of some examples)
MrDobrod 8 months ago
I am cannot believe in it - did she has slavic accent ?
MrDobrod 8 months ago in playlist Interesting videos
@ChaosDynamics Universe stemmed from and still is chaos...controlled chaos sort of in the best case scenario, but extreme chaos otherwise...there are explosions millions of times larger than are plant ever day...objects thousands of times the size of our planet colliding...the conditions for life to develop as they have on this planet are pretty rare...
martydrooo 8 months ago
@martydrooo Not chaos. Knowable mystery. After all, we are a product of or aspect of the universe and we possess the faculty of logic which implies that the universe is not "chaos", just, mysterious, temporarily unknown, etc...
ExpandingUponWealth 5 months ago
@ExpandingUponWealth I don't think we're arguing in the sense that neither of us is really wrong. In all probability our own universe isn't the first to exist, and the laws of physics in this universe probably didn't exist in the previous one if it collapsed on itself/imploded. So the universe doesn't really know what it itself is. Everything is constantly evolving and I don't think theres a "source code" if you will -- nature just keeps trying. 99.99% repeating of things is a mystery to us...
martydrooo 5 months ago
@000BrokenCity000 Every time you type "your" when you mean you're, the Pope kills a kitten!
goldenthroat86 8 months ago
Ayn Rand must think you can dig up oil with a shovel in your backyard.
CoonAndFriends2 9 months ago
@CoonAndFriends2 I laughed about that too...but I think even if she didn't mention it, theres alternative energy that can be a check to oil...back then not so much...and didn't accept the possibilities of cartels, which exist in this day and age in industries that aren't natural monopolies like oil...heck, there was a bust up of the zipper cartel recently...I agree with her but its never cut and dry about certain things...
martydrooo 8 months ago
@000BrokenCity000 So, you're saying the smarter one is the more wrong and immoral they are and vice versa? So if God is completely moral and always right then he is completely without intellect and a totally moronic fuckwit, according to your own logic, anyway.
BoozyBeggar 9 months ago
no one can create all powerful conglomerate. In research literature its called "conglomerate discount" because Stock markets don't "like" this kind of business because of their inherent inefficiency and lower the price of this kind of companies.
Mishkafofer 9 months ago
The reception for Rand's fiction from literary critics was largely negative, and most academics have ignored or rejected her philosophy. Nonetheless she continues to have a popular following, and her political ideas have been influential among libertarians and some conservatives.
elizabethfaraone 10 months ago
Oil is a finite resource, only so many competitors can join the market, after a while all the oil fields will be most probably controlled by a few companies creating an oligarchic market and there's no reason to stop them colluding and charging extortionist prices. It's the rational thing to do.
Her theories don't fit reality or self interest.
ImaginedWriter 10 months ago
@ImaginedWriter No that wouldnt happen at all.
In a Free Market society, anybody can go ahead and start up their own business to compete with the big shots.
If the big shots truly decided to overprice their goods in thinking that nobody would compete against them, somebody will start up their own business and then sell the goods for cheaper. The big business would have their customers taken from the new company. The Big business would then have to lower prices to keep customers.
superlucci 10 months ago
@ImaginedWriter basically in a free market society. It is guaranteed that you will be getting the cheapest price available for goods.
Since anybody can go up and start their own business
superlucci 10 months ago
@ImaginedWriter ....agreed. History has proven it, and were trillions in the hole from wars we are engaged in.due to control of petroleum resources.....and it has bankrupted America.
SuperOmnicron 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So, if you're that blue collar worker who needs to buy gas at the unheard of rate of $2.50 per gallon (!!!!) to do your business, all you need to do is die, and take your wife and kids with you. Well I know that's the philosophy of the current right wing teapublicans. But already they're starting to balk at killing Medicare and Social Security.
RMG0223 10 months ago
So, if you're that blue collar worker who needs to buy gas at the unheard of rate of $2.50 per gallon (!!!!) to do your business, all you need to do is die, and take your wife and kids with you. Well I know that's the philosophy of the current right wing teapublicans. But already they're starting to balk at killing Medicare and Social Security.
RMG0223 10 months ago
what about collusion? it doesn't always work, but sometimes it does and without government you have no recourse.
mrzipdisk 10 months ago
I think Phil's playing Devil's Advocate in the religion argument.
gracebasherguy92 10 months ago
While I agree with her philosophy for the most part, I'm not going to give up on my faith. My faith is where I draw strength from, but I do not use it to make all of my choices by.
My logic and reason won't allow me to just accept that all of this just happened by chance. To concede that is to throw logic and reason out the window.
But as long as you don't push your belief on me, or ridicule me because of mine, then I won't push mine on you.
EchoMike03 11 months ago
okitsply. I guess you don't understand economics. What caused our economic disaster was the Federal Reserve System. Microsoft is not monopoly because their is open competition. You were probably educated in shitty public schools.
vinndawg91 1 year ago
Carnegie was protected by tariffs and quotas. Rockefeller was protected because he was given free land grants by the government.
vinndawg91 1 year ago
3:24 BAM!!! I'm a university student and have learned that everything I have been taught has been against true capitalism.
cookiesonsteve 1 year ago
brilliant!
featheredmusic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I, like Ron Paul agree with Ayn on free markets and limited government, however she is simply wrong when she says that faith contradicts reason. Philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas have written volumes on this topic and have come to the conclusion that true faith and true reason can never contradict one another. Her absolute assertion that God does not exist, is in itself contrary to authentic reason. It is unreasonable to believe that self aware life can develop from matter only.
thinkertank1 1 year ago
Many of the economic fallacies she speaks of have happened. There is a monopoly on energy, and for that matter, even retail (Wal-Mart). Big business IS bad for the little guy, of which this country is made of, a lot of little guys. She's just stubborn and old. "I don't give a damn about my critics!"
SubjectE 1 year ago
@SubjectE Wal-Mart is selling affordable goods that the consumer wants. How is that bad? What monopoly are you talking about? Be sure the example you give is one that has absolutely no government interference in it.
Seiku 1 year ago
I, like Ron Paul agree with Ayn on free markets and limited government, however she is simply wrong when she says that faith contradicts reason. Philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas have written volumes on this topic and have come to the conclusion that true faith and true reason can never contradict one another. Her absolute assertion that God does not exist, is in itself contrary to authentic reason. It is unreasonable to believe that self aware life can develop from matter only.
thinkertank1 1 year ago
@thinkertank1 god is obviously unknowable so whether reason and faith contradict each other or not doesn't really matter (it does contradict each other btw). The fact is whether we are atheists, christians, muslims or jewish we are all agnostic. Agnosticism goes to what we know. Too bad most religious people won't admit that they can't possibly know. It's extremely arrogant to make the absurd claim to know a god exist and even more so to claim to know the mind of god.
robertchflynn 1 year ago 19
Comment removed
jtincubus 6 months ago
Comment removed
jtincubus 6 months ago
@robertchflynn your naivety kills me. You actually think that things are black white like that? People whole-heartedly believe they know god exists. Like U said, "it doesn't matter", what we know in this situation. If u think people just won't admit because of arrogance then U are insulting everything we know about psychology & the human condition. Cognitive dissonance goes beyond arrogance & immaturity to admit your wrong. U seem to be the immature one that is clinging towards cynical pessimism
jtincubus 6 months ago
@thinkertank1 Aquinas was also an altruist if there ever was one, and preached that the rights of the "needy" were superior to property rights. That theft was ok if you really needed something. This socialist, altrusism directly contradicts the free society Rand and Paul speak of.
BurningOrchids 11 months ago
@BurningOrchids You're opening a huge topic, one where the word "needy" would need to be defined. Example: If my family is starving to death because of a calamity and wealthy private individuals are hoarding food, those individuals would be violating my family's right to life as they would be preventing me from acquiring the means of survival. The right to life supersedes all other rights and in this case the "needy's" rights override property rights. There is no contradiction.
thinkertank1 11 months ago
@thinkertank1 Is it true that just because your family is starving, that gives you a right to make a claim to another person's property? The right to life as understood in the U.S. Constitution is defined as being the right to one's own life as opposed to someone having the right to your life i.e. serfdom as practiced in 18th century. The meaning of the Constitution must be understood in those terms rather than the modern liberal (false) notion of a living, breathing Constitution.
RolandStGermain 11 months ago
@RolandStGermain Yes, in the EXAMPLE I GAVE one would have the right to another persons property, (Hoarded Food). Private property rights are not absolute. I am not making a liberal argument here, this is common sense and conforms with the natural law. If a wealthy person bought all of the food and more than they could ever need, my ability to survive has been rendered impossible. Should my family starve because 1 person had the means to buy all the food. Look at the example again.
thinkertank1 11 months ago
Did anyone check her ears? Are they pointed? I'm damn sure they are. She just must be a volcan!
chceszpicie 1 year ago
this lady is pure evil, dangerous or probably never loved or hurt
sportingcristal666 1 year ago
@sportingcristal666 you have 666 at the end of your name and you call her evil? LOL
Can I ask why you think that? Or is it just an emotional thought you're having?
ZupaSC 1 year ago 2
Donauhe really impersonate the opposite side of the people he interviews brillianty while not becoming rude. The main arguments of the left is to invoke feelings, for example the feeling of animosity against ms. Rand for her lack of "compassion" or getting the audience to feel moral superiority for saying "I Believe in Altruism". My only problem with ms. Rand is her objectivism, its something out of the Greeks Relativists theory.
killerbee2k 1 year ago
If God never appeared to humans then by what means would we have discovered him by ourselves?
begood20000 1 year ago
@begood20000 God was the earliest attempt at ascribing a cause to astrological events - such as day and night, and to life and death and to all manners of existence.
For instance: When they became able to; human beings likely considered why something as the Moon/Sun would apparently rise and fall without any external, visible force. With what information they could ascertain, they attributed it to invisible forces. Surely something that could move celestial bodies was very strong.
HylianSpirit 1 year ago
I may not agree fully with Ayn Rand but we seriously need more women like her. Women who are intellectual and are damn proud of it! Ayn Rand has some True Grit and I'm sad she's gone. I would have loved to see her talk live. Thanks for this upload!
Megahertz3002 1 year ago
Phil is a prick
folio61 1 year ago
There is no evidence for *gold* on the planet Pluto, but that does not mean there is no gold on Pluto. We just don't know.
YesWeCantaloupe 1 year ago
@YesWeCantaloupe Trying to compare God being somewhere with gold being somewhere is a bad analogy because we have proof that gold exists.
We don't know if there is gold on pluto because we've never been to pluto but if gold was like God you'd never find it there.
God was suppose to be in heaven in the sky but since the creation of aircrafts heaven no longer seems to be in the sky. But before aircrafts were invented we could say about heaven in your words- 'We just don't know'.
begood20000 1 year ago
I have a wonder: She explains that she does not believe in historical forces that dictate outcomes, yet she says in two of her interviews (this one and the Mike Wallace interview) that history will support her theories. Anyone care to explain?
Cranfillr 1 year ago
@Cranfillr I'm tempted to think you're missing something...
GrandFunker 1 year ago
@GrandFunker If I am, I apologize, it's just my interpretation and something I've been wondering.
Cranfillr 1 year ago
Use the analogy of the phone company. It was a monopoly for years and there was poor service and no technological invention. Once ATT was broken up suddenly we had cell phone, text messages etc...
chairde 1 year ago
I read and like AR but resolve the following situation. If Shell, BP and Exxon corner the market, they cease to be a source of stress to each other and join forces against other stressors like other commodities. So it would be a single oil provider against eg grocers and lumber producers. The newer forces of stress created by the monopoly spread out to each family who sacrifice their new fishing boat, clothing and food for energy necessary to get to a job 40 miles from their home.
isoarcars 1 year ago
Finally all commodities join forces and what you have is an economic dictatorship not unlike a polical dictatorship. Am I right or wrong.
isoarcars 1 year ago
how hard is it for Phil to figure out, that back then if you charge 2.50 a gallon and no one can afford it, then how can you continue to sell that fuel at 2.50 a gallon? if no one can afford it then you cant sell it at that price. thats the free market!
232009jordan 1 year ago
@232009jordan He also forgets that if a competitor charges 2.25 a gallon for the same quality of fuel, the competitor will get all of the business. In July of 2008, when unleaded regular was upwards of $4.00/gal, the gas station that sold at the lowest price was flooded with business and ALL the other stations were nearly vacant. The station that charged the most was bought off by a competing oil comany that year. Consumers rewarded and punished according to the most value at the least cost.
jadedmastermind 1 year ago
@232009jordan Never underestimate Phil Donahue's ability at willful ignorance.
cartman1492 1 year ago
Energy and technology are being withheld to maintain the need for oil. There are many alternatives to oil but oil men have bought and murdered anyone who tries to say "We don't need oil".
votumseparatum1 1 year ago
@votumseparatum1 How do you know these things? If men have been bought and murdered by oilmen, why would you say such things in a public forum. If you actually believed that oilmen were murdering people, would you not be afraid that they would murder you? I think perhaps that you do not really believe this.
cartman1492 1 year ago
@cartman1492 I think you have no idea what you're talking about. Killing people for talking about something would that something TRUER in the eyes of others so you DO NOT kill anyone. This is not a state where freedom of speech is banned.
Also I know these things because I read and RESEARCH. It is also fact that most technology is usually developed, then release to the public much later. Look at the GPS system. It was used by military LONG BEFORE anyone heard of it.
votumseparatum1 1 year ago
@cartman1492 Don't you think because of the problems with oil, people have, over the years, developed better alternatives? Isn't that logical? And wouldn't it be more logical that greedy oil men would try to prevent these alternatives from getting out to population by buying the technology or simply killing off people who refused to bow? Oil isn't going to be around forever so people need new ways to live without oil and oil men want to suppress this b/c it will put THEM out of business.
votumseparatum1 1 year ago
@votumseparatum1 The free market encourages the private sector to come up with something new. The government gets in the way, with taxes and regulation on top of regulation. The oil companies are actually trying to come up with something new, especially since they are forced to buy it elsewhere. There is more oil inside the continental US than the middle east...but the government doesn't allow it's drilling. The oil companies don't set the price, OPEC does.,
GrandFunker 1 year ago
Faith is not contrary to reason. Faith establishes an environment in which reason can function. As an obvious example, one must have faith in the continuing validity of reason in order to reasonably begin the reasoning process. Can an atheist worldview account for the continual validity of reason? I don't think it can.
Xerxal 1 year ago
for $2.50 a gallon!? What an outrage!!
timothy51886 1 year ago
@timothy51886 Well I guess Donahue was wrong when he said that would cause people to go on welfare.
Seargent363 1 year ago
"There have been people who have tried to corner the market repeatedly and the result has been that they went broke."
Interestingly, about a year after this interview took place, the Hunt brothers tried to do the same with the silver market. They lost billions...
Ayn Rand - 1
Interventionists - 0
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago
Ayn Rand is missing 1 variable i.e. unlimited money. If you could create unlimited money you could buy out all compitition and corner every market. This is what has happened w/ the federal reserve and the people that own shares in the fed are the wealthiest on earth and rulers of it. These same people (the House of Rothschild) are the creators of communism. What the communist's need to do is go after the top dog the money maker. The only way to have equality is to destroy money forever.
doomsdaypreacher 1 year ago
Its still the same principle as she stated. Even though the fed is not a "Government" institution per'se, they are a central bank which we know is no good. Secondly as she stated before, it is with government backing that a monopoly is created. She knows this and rand was completly opposed to the FED. ITs against the very core of her economic policy. Rand like Rothbard she was against even money monopoly.
Bigturns33 1 year ago
phil donahue is an ass
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
oil export subsidies you moron
LordAgonis 1 year ago
Phil Donahue is a patient and insightful interviewer... I disagree with him wholeheartedly... yet he listens and sincerely tries to understand his guests.
Can you imagine a numbnuts like O'Reilly or Olbermann interviewing this brilliant woman?
poppanolan 1 year ago 104
@poppanolan if o'reilly was the interviewer, rand would have to the patient one haha.
(personally i find Donahue a tad hostile and unsettled in this particular interview)
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@poppanolan if o'reilly was the interviewer, rand would have to be the patient one haha.
(personally i find Donahue a tad hostile and unsettled in this particular interview
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
@poppanolan Your'e absolutely right, I have always liked Phil Donahue. No I can't imagine O'Reilly and Olberman interviewing Ms. Rand :) Your'e right
atlasshrugged2u 1 year ago
If im not mistaken Donahue agreed with rand. Here he plays devils advocate for the purpose of interview. I do know he admired her a great deal.
Bigturns33 1 year ago
@poppanolan
I was thinking this exactly. Where has true reporting gone, where not everything is just a shouting debate, where one person is just trying to learn and listen.
LedZeppelinSongs 1 year ago
@poppanolan Perfectly said, and just the right examples too. Well done.
CincinnatusUSA 1 year ago
@poppanolan They don't deserve to get to interview someone like Ayn Rand.
GompCelticPL 1 year ago
@poppanolan She would eat them up for breakfast.
Mo613 1 year ago 5
@Mo613 she is a cult leader, nothing more
Ruffneckization 7 months ago
@poppanolan, what an excellent point. I'm picturing O'Reilly and Olbermann trying to bull doze over her and not even realizing when their points of views are being intellectually destroyed.
jakeyw11 11 months ago
@poppanolan Yes, I can imagine it. O'Reilly: Altruism bad?! That's a loony idea! Rand: You haven't let me explain it in the proper context. How can you expect--- O'Reilly: If you can't break it down into 3 easy-to-understand bullet points, it's not a good idea. Olbermann: Wait, she thinks capitalism is a good idea? I can't even argue with that nonsense. Not worth interviewing.
sithmaster2019 11 months ago
@poppanolan ...this "brilliant" woman has made the classic mistake of supporting reason over morality. I agree with Donahue whole heartedly, and his statement at 2:06 regarding oil and wasteful dependence on it was as true then as it would eventually be in 2003-06 and the oil driven wars of the 21st century (now in the trillions). Rand is brilliant, but again, the market WAS cornered. John Rockefeller manipulated politics into a monopoly and Congress was eventually bought off or outmaneuvered.
SuperOmnicron 9 months ago
@SuperOmnicron ood Point... I agree that she was not perfect! Name calling is usually for the people who have trouble articulating a point. I am not here in defense of Rand... but... she is right about many other things. Like without government cooperation a monopoly CAN NOT exist. So whilst you make a good point, you are actually agreeing with Ayn Rand. The woman had a contempt for fascism. Fascism, as we all know, is the partnership of Govt and corporations.
poppanolan 9 months ago
@poppanolan , Donahue was a patient and insightful interviewer, but Rand lost objectivity when she refered to Saudi Arabians as "savages". Any OBJECTIVE person doesnt apply words like "half-wit" or "savage". It is too simplistic a label for someone as obviously intelligent as she is to use in a public discourse. The idea is to engage and find solutions to people we share our planet with not denigrate them as "unworthy" to co-exist. This is how genocide is rationalized.
SuperOmnicron 9 months ago
@SuperOmnicron Good Point... I agree that she was not perfect! Name calling is usually for the people who have trouble articulating a point. I am not here in defense of Rand... but... she is right about many other things. Like without government cooperation a monopoly CAN NOT exist. So whilst you make a good point, you are actually agreeing with Ayn Rand. The woman had a contempt for fascism. Fascism, as we all know, is the partnership of Govt and corporations.
poppanolan 9 months ago
@SuperOmnicron Yes, one of Ms. Rand's shortcomings is her tendency to be insulting. The same problem appears in John Galt's speech from ATLAS SHRUGGED. She goes so far into logic and morality and virtue but then just loses herself in these counterproductive insults. But no one is omniscient. She has her contradictions but, aside from the philosophy I have constructed, her's is the second best. In the context of the time she established hers, it was the best.
ExpandingUponWealth 5 months ago
@poppanolan Great Comment!
indicatorguys 8 months ago
@poppanolan Agreed - no matter your politics, it seems reasonable public debate is a lost art.
armenws 8 months ago
@armenws Indeed we need more debate. Our culture us starving for it. We also need more courtesy in our culture. So many people don't know how to communicate disagreements courteously and constructively. After all, the whole point is to come to agreements and progress- the only way we do that is by debating until we reach certain agreements.
ExpandingUponWealth 5 months ago
@poppanolan Would be either ass kissing, or head on bashing...Donahue is definitely good at what he does...
martydrooo 8 months ago
@poppanolan Phil was more casual then. I think now he would have talked over her.
MagUalghairg1916 7 months ago
@poppanolan
brilliant women? are you serious???
selfish is the way, helping others is amoral. i paraphrase her words, but thats basically what she said. you consider this intelligence???
LadyScorpio39 7 months ago
@LadyScorpio39 - To be more specific, she said 'rational' self-interest is her definition of selfish. And she did NOT say that helping others is amoral (or immoral). She said that the 'philosophy of altruism' is evil. She defines altruism as the belief that self-sacrifice is the highest moral virtue. When altruism is forced on you by a government it results in a dictatorship. There is nothing wrong with helping others if it's your choice. Her book The Virtue of Selfishness explains in detail : )
djangothecat 7 months ago
@djangothecat
thats not what i got from what she said. are we listening to the same person?
LadyScorpio39 7 months ago
@LadyScorpio39 - I know that the things she says go against what most people were brought up to believe but I've read her books and I was surprised to find out how wrong most people are. Like I said, her book 'The Virtue of Selfishness' explains it in detail and 'Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand' by Leonard Peikoff lays out her entire system of philosophy. I think we all want to be moral but there are many wrong paths. Sometimes you have to start over to get on the right road.
djangothecat 7 months ago
@djangothecat Well said. In fact, that's what I did. I had a completely different philosophy set up (sloppy, inconsistent, false of course) and Ms. Ayn Rand taught me how to assemble my mind, and set it up to succeed her philosophy.
ExpandingUponWealth 5 months ago
@LadyScorpio39 Yes brilliant. Anymore questions? Look deeper....the truth is available to you. You need to search outside of your ideologies.
poppanolan 6 months ago
Well, it's not that you need to "search outside of your ideologies" because every system of thought however organized or unorganized it may be is an ideology. What people need to do is think logically.
ExpandingUponWealth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Even in in her eighties, this woman was a genius. Donahue looks like such a moron, with his ignorant questions- and she knows just how respond.
babs3001 1 year ago
Comment removed
babs3001 1 year ago
Comment removed
babs3001 1 year ago
You've got to give it to Donahue... nobody these days would devote such a large amount of time to a philosopher, particularly that of the Rand school of thought.
Or if they did, the interview would be cut short to give equal time to an interview with Beyonce and a musical interlude by Kesha. :D
janetzki1 1 year ago 2
he makes no sense when he says that he'll just buy them up, does he not understand for a transaction to take place that they, the other party, has to agree to the terms of contract? They dont have to sell theyre business to your mr.donehue, just because youll offer them a billion dollars doesnt mean theyll sell it to you.
camdaddy09 1 year ago
Her free market model of relying on selfishness just seems like an assertion of the Nash equilibrium, born from cold war paranoia. It relies on heavy absolutism, but human nature isn't so black and white. Some situations call for selfishness, others count on cooperation. It's far more complicated than just reasoning.
postrealitysyndrome 1 year ago
Not Random
I was born to Jewish parents who are Israelis citizens by that virtue alone. If you are not Jewish you cannot have an Israeli citizenship.
Google it?
Why would people who were born on that land be living in refugee camps then if they could just apply for citizenship?
I try not to get mad because I realize the disinformation in this computer age is staggering. Your ignornace is a product of you not seeking out the info yourself and getting it from videos and google.
Symbolc0729 1 year ago
@Symbolc0729 again, your facts are personal anecdotes and questions. my facts come from the israel ministry of foreign affairs which states, "regardless of race, religion, creed, sex or political beliefs." so i don't know who to believe.
my ignorance? you are confusing being granted automatic citizenship as a jew, with being required to be a jew to be a citizen. you can't even get your facts straight. you don't need to be jewish to be an israeli citizen. find out for yourself.
watty024 1 year ago
this guy makes no sense (verbally) but his NLP tactics say it all! This wmoan has the courage of her convictions and look...no hand movements or intimidating 'lean ins'. Says it all my friends.
jamiemakk78 1 year ago
It makes me laugh how he uses the NLP techniques of over gesturing to get force his point across but she just sits still with the courage of her convictions and lets her mouth alone do the talking. I may not agree with everything she says but I defend her right to say it. A true free thinker!! A shame I was never introduced to her at University, but that speaks volumes!
jamiemakk78 1 year ago
Mrs. Rand sounds like someone who has not read any of the medieval scholastic philosophers, such as St. Augustine, St. Anselm of Canterbury, and St. Thomas Aquinas, the last of which utilized Aristotle's Metaphysics to provide logical proofs for the existence of God.
Pilatocus28 1 year ago
Why is Phil so hostile to her?
cunnidvd 1 year ago
Donahue's posture is condescending. You'd want to scream "personal space" when talking to him.
sdarvell 1 year ago
Symbolc0729 1 year ago
@Symbolc0729 Einstein?
watty024 1 year ago
@watty024
Was a Jew.
Symbolc0729 1 year ago
@Symbolc0729 wasn't religious.
watty024 1 year ago
@watty024
Why dont you adress the fact that she doesnt mention anyone who supposedly went broke trying to corner the market in the US before our economy was compromised by "socialists".
All the people I mentioned were early in Americas history. Why can I give examples of people who are religious that contributed greatly to mankind and his development.Someone who is as intelligent as Ayn Rand isnt ignorant of the facts.. she thinks you dont know any better.
She supports Israel.. a theocracy lol
Symbolc0729 1 year ago
@Symbolc0729 why don't you make a list of all the markets that are cornered and start from there.
you mentioned einstein, not religious, and newton, who came from a time when every one was religious, or else they did what they did to galileo.
she supports isreal? she has been dead for almost 30 years, so she doesnt support anyone. in this video, she gives her reason for supporting isreal.didnt mention theocracy. maybe because its 1979 in this video. lol
watty024 1 year ago
@watty024
Balfour declaration of 1917 is the visible start of zionism in history.
The State of Israel was created in 1948 it was 1 of 2 theocracies in the region. Israel was handed over to the Zionists as the homeland of the Jews. Judaism is a religion it had been a theocracy for 30 years in 1979. She supported a "altruistic" theocracy while condemning them because she had gotten a little nutty in her old age. She was much more coherent in her 1959 interview.
You dont know better
Symbolc0729 1 year ago
@Symbolc0729 i couldn't really follow your point in your last post. i'm going to assume you were making the point, again wrongly, that israel is a theocracy. even if it could be argued that it is, it certainly was not in 1979. do you know what a theocracy is? furthermore, she was asked who she supported in a specific conflict. she didn't just start shouting about isreal. at least represent her accurately. oh but wait..then there's no reason to argue. ha
watty024 1 year ago
@watty024
Citizenship is guaranteed based on ones religion. Is that the case in any other Democracy in the world.. NO!
You know where that is a prerequisite? Saudi Arabia. Iran is a little more liberal in that sense because there are Jewish citizens.
I wasnt making any points I was telling you the fact. The only thing you give me is opinion.
I.e. You believe a state that requires one to be of a certain religion to be a citizen is not a theocracy.
China calls themselves a democracy too btw.
Symbolc0729 1 year ago
@Symbolc0729 you talk about opinion? who forced you to do all those things in your life? no-one. why should you get to set the price of gas? no answer. what is your whole argument? opinion.
then you put words in my mouth and misrepresent israeli citizenship requirements. israel does not require one to be of a certain religion to be a citizen. you are wrong on that. so what is your point?
watty024 1 year ago
@watty024
Well there you go.
Did you know how the gas spike happened. This is why you two dont understand the term Hostage.
READ!
A barrel of oil was traded 73 times before it was bought. Unrealistic amount of speculation