First Principles Debate #1: (Improved Audio!) Government's Proper Role

After the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath a great political divide emerged among many Americans reexamining the direction of our country. One side says that unleashed free-market policies led to the worst downturn since the Great Depression, and calls for effective government to foster more equitable prosperity. The other side says that government has grown too big and too intrusive, and calls for the country to rediscover the virtues of limited government and free-market capitalism.
This is a second upload correcting annoying audio shortcomings in the earlier upload at v=zVA5nE3TIsk of title, "First Principles Debate Series I - Government: What Is Its Proper Role?"

Moderated by WNYC's Brian Lehrer, this unique debate series will examine this divide and the social, economic, and moral beliefs that underlie politics in America today.

In this, the first part of the three part debate series, President of Demos, Miles Rapoport debates President of The Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook, about the proper role of government.



:

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• objectivism
• objectivist
• ayn
• rand
• progressivism
• progressive
• liberal
• libertarian
• Democrat
• democracy
• government
• policy
• public
• Yaron
• Brook
• Miles
• Rapoport
• WNYC
• Brian
• Lehrer
• Its
• Free
• Country
• debate
• first
• principles
• First
• Principles
• Demos
• Ayn
• Rand
• Center
• Institute

[vincentrand100]

Thanks for posting! OBJECTIVISM WINS!

[TeaParty1776]

@wildcatcoady Since a right is a condition for individual survival in society, the denial of rights is the denial of individual survival in society. The history of collectivism is the bloody, concrete proof of that.

[KajiCarson]

This is great. A sober and reasoned debate between two civilized adults -- more of this is needed in the public sphere.

[SpellboundSolution]

Reason begins at 20:10.

[natdavi]

@DireHippo what about the southern states outlawing abolitionist groups in violation of the 1st amendment?

[natdavi]

@wildcatcoady Collectivism is the believe that the basic unit of a society is a collection of people (which is called a collective) as opposed to individual persons. There are many forms of collectivism:

society based on family is tribalism, based on community is communism, based on society is socialism, based on a state is statism, based on race is racism, based on class is classism (or Marxism for its founder). All of these forms of collectivism are against individualism.

[natdavi]

@wildcatcoady circular reasoning fail. You're arguing that right have to be granted by somebody b/c rights are granted by somebody. Rights are a description of human nature, ie it is right that people should be allowed to keep what they earn. You do not grant someone the right keep what belongs to him, you recognize that it is right and respect his right. The fact is that people can choose not to respect each other. You say rights are granted, but actually they're recognized and respected.

[TeaParty1776]

@MartyNMC61 You decide, by a rational standard.

[DireHippo]

I agree with Yaron's statements, for the most part. However, his argument for the civil war is quite incorrect. The initiation of the war and its continuation was not slavery. Slavery was used as an ex post facto justification. There's quite a bit of literature on the subject, including Lincoln's inauguration speech. Unfortunately, our schools (being massive federally controlled entities) have a pro-giant-centralized--all-con­trolling-government theme to them.

[BkAlex]

At 32:00, Miles Rapoport makes the standard, but entirely false/dishonest/ignorant, Liberal argument that the Preamble to the US Constitution grants the power to government to provide for the "General Welfare." This is in direct contradiction to James Madison's (considered the father of the US Constitution) views in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere.

[DavidsIllustrations]

@TeaParty1776 an incredible summation 

[blspro]

"Go an live in Somalia then! No government there!" And here you see the false alternative Hounds and others like him accept. Either you must accept govt initiation of force or you must accept gang warfare -ie no govt at all. A govt which is *limited* to the defense against the initiation of force? They blank it out and create their straw man of 'no govt.' in its place. And they engage in this blatant pretense because they can't win against the *actual* idea - as the debate clearly demonstrated.