Free Market Revolution: Did Ayn Rand Provide a Path to Economic Prosperity?





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Sep 5, 2012

Author Yaron Brook talks to Bill Whittle about his book Free Market Revolution. Brook thinks that Ayn Rand provided answers to our modern fiscal and economic problems. You will want to hear more about the housing crisis, government spending, and roots of the current economic stagnation in this special PJTV interview.

See more at http://www.pjtv.com

Comments • 106

What happens when the "computer" decides you are no long viable (aka useless) and schedules you for "decommissioning". While that's fine with me, I doubt you'd appreciate it much. Nice attempt at a troll, I think your mom is calling time for lunch.
Do you have to take classes to be this stupid or does it just come naturally?
Translation: I don't read books.
Let us not confuse corporations (a separate legal entity in and of itself) with Companies. A corporation can be a Kind of company, but not All companies are corporations.
Americans and their obsession with free market capitalism. Moneyless communism is the only solution to the ecological, economical, social and many other problems. If we build a ecological computer-guided planned economy we could make a stable growth of industry, science and our standard of living..
Obsidian Wolf
I like Yaron and what he has to say a lot but I think he is giving Paul Ryan too much credit. Bill Whittle's comment on Ryan's budget being the only serious plan for shrinking government is a lie. Government wouldn't shrink under the Ryan budget, it would just get bigger at a slower rate. Ron Paul's proposed plan was a 1 trillion cut in government expenditure, now THAT is a plan for shrinking government.
In nature there are human and animal predators who constrain freedom. In society, freedom must be constrained by a govt which protects individual rights applied as objective law. Mutual agreements may be understood differently by each person who makes an agreement. They need objective judgment guiding the protection of individual rights applied to their agreement.
"In what context is there no difference between obligation and right?" Not what I said, watch the video. "You seem to agree that theres no freedom in nature " Nope, that's wrong. Freedom in nature is freedom unconstrained. Freedom in a social setting is freedom constrained by mutual agreements to respect one another's rights, and duties brought on by voluntarily agreed to contracts. 
In what context is there no difference between obligation and right? Obligation is caused by one's chosen actions relative to others. Eg, paying for something in a store. Duty is the false, nihilist claim that there are uncaused, unchosen obligations. You seem to agree that theres no freedom in nature but then you say that freedom can exist independently. 
"She said negative obligation, not negative right." And if you had bothered to watch the video link I gave you, you'd know why that doesn't matter. I'll only frame it by saying obligation = duty. "THUS theres no freedom in nature." To be completely free is to be free of restriction. That can exist independently or in a collective. I'm not making the argument that our rights flow from Government, so your citation of Rand here is meaningless. 
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...