Yaron Brook Speaks at Tea Party Protest, Washington, DC

http://www.aynrandcenter.org
Yaron Brook delivered this call to defend individual rights at a Tea Party protest in Washington, DC, on September 12, 2009.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ARI
• ARC
• Yaron
• Brook
• Washington
• DC
• tea
• party
• individual
• rights
• protest
• capitol
• Objectivism
• Objectivist

[Scoforever]

He should have just done the John Galt speech.

[legendre007]

Another stirring speech from Dr. Brook.  :-D

[darkyjoy]

I feel ashamed he goes talking with the tea party...I don´t think they will do anything for freedom...and looking at Sarah Palin or Geller and their strong religious convictions I don´t see how that matches the main idea of objectivism....

[sybo59]

He was about to say "and God is not real", until that damned music cut him off.

[iverson92123]

@Scoforever Nice!!!!! I agree.

[prairieobjectivist]

Thanks Dr. Brook for a great (if a bit brief) speech on the moral essence of Objectivism.

[1deadlysquirrel]

"Tea Party" is a Big Lie. It's not the simple 1700s. We now have millions of life-saving water-food-air-safety, police, military, etc. provided by "big government" (We the People). During the real Tea Party there were no freeways, bridges nor school that allow real tax-paying patriots to work & contribute to the superior progress this nation has. I've never whined about paying taxes as without regulations many of us wouldn't be here. Due to Cheney's deregulations the Gulf is an oil pool."

[stephleom]

AYN RAND REVOLUTION

[stephleom]

AYN RAND REVOLUTION

[mkloppel]

I was there. I am glad this was posted.

[Sam26100]

Lottery? first time I hear that.

Voluntary contributions would definetly be sufficient.

First of all if you look at all the voluntary aid that America gives, domestically and abroad, you can get an idea of just how willing people are to give money for a cause they believe in.

Secondly, it takes a lot less money to defend a country, than it takes to have an army capable of invading others, such as the one we have today. Osama Bin Laden has demonstrated this, against the commies

[freesk8]

Rand suggested that govt be funded by a lottery or by voluntary contributions.

I stated why I don't think lotteries make sense.

But do you really think that voluntary contributions could be sufficient to provide for defense, police, courts and the basic objectivist/minarchist/liberta­rian limited govt?

I'm not so sure. What if forced taxation were necessary because of the tragedy of the commons or some form of free rider problem?

Would you advocate it then?