#77 YARON BROOK - Capitalism, Egoism, Objectivism, Ayn Rand, StateControl, Freedom, Altruism

[@Vanessakimphilosopher]

If I was Ayn Rand I would be very proud of Yaron’s ability to communicate objectivism so articulately.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

Yaron’s thoughts are gold.

[@rafaelcconceicao]

@@micchaelsanders6286 Hey Michael!

[@kdemetter]

Yaron did a great job here explaining the philosophy of Objectivism. It's difficult to grasp at first because it runs so contrary to our upbringing, but it actually makes a ton of sense. It's a powerful antidote against authoritarian and collectivist thinking, because it shows how these are destructive to the very core of what makes us human, our ability to reason. And that's unfortunately where the more classical liberal and libertarian views fail : though they share the goals of individual freedom, they are promoted without a good foundation. Which makes them appear weak when faced with dogmatic, will-to-power authoritarianism/collectivism. So even if you disagree with it, if you believe in freedom, you should educate yourself in it. It will give you a better position to defend freedom from.

[@joaomarques2985]

Ouço há muito tempo, mas é a primeira vez que comento. Embora possa não se refletir nas visualizações por várias razões, este foi um dos melhores podcasts até agora! A discussão de ideias, quando bem feita, é ainda mais importante entre pessoas com perspectivas diferentes sobre a vida :) Força nisso!

[@Despolariza]

Obrigado João! O espírito do projecto é mesmo esse: discórdia construtiva! ✌🏼

[@ab452]

Surpreso por teres trazido Yaron brook, parabéns!!

[@autopsychograph]

Este debate foi fascinante, e a explicação de ideias que nem sempre são o que pensamos. Muito interessante também ver o contraste enrome entre a perspectiva dos dois. Já li as novelas de Ayn Rand e conhecia a filosofia por alto, mas o Yaron explicou tudo com tanta clareza. Obrigado!

[@marcuscreasy6195]

Wow! Yaron did amazing! Great job explaining and defending Capitalism!

[@rafaelcconceicao]

This one was really really good! Thank you, Tomás!

[@Floatacious]

I really appreciate how you challenged Yaron, You pushed a really good interview out of him and yourself!

[@Despolariza]

Thank you!!

[@johngleue]

This was a great show! Yaron's so good at explaining the philosophy and he's not even a philosopher. This was great, thank you!

[@not_emerald]

Eu cliquei nesse vídeo por ver o nome do canal e o Yaron Brook na thumbnail. Vejamos como será, mas já estou positivamente surpreso. Edit: duas horas depois, aqui o resto do comentário. Conversa muito bacana! Não sou objetivista e sou cristão, mas estou mais de acordo com o Brook aqui. Não acho que o mero "estar vivo" seja o último valor a ser seguido, o exemplo do carro é muito bom para ver isso: sim, é verdade que manter o carro de acordo com a regulação do governo de 5 em 5 anos, mesmo ignorando as falhas burocráticas dela, deixa as pessoas mais seguras. Mas também é "mais seguro" você nunca deixar seu filho descer as escadas porque ele pode tropeçar e quebrar o pescoço na queda, isso garante que seu filho vai estar vivo, mas a alma dele vai ser esmagada. Em um argumento pragmático, pequenas regulações abrem espaço para outras, motivadas sempre por neuroticismo. Todos amam dizer que correr riscos é importante, e de fato é, afinal dentre outros exemplos você só vai conseguir dizer seus sentimentos para uma pessoa amada se correr o risco da rejeição, mas quando se trata de sistemas políticos não querem correr risco algum? Desculpe-me, mas não quero viver essa vida castrada. H.L. Mencken tem uma frase incrível sobre isso: "o homem médio não quer ser livre, mas meramente estar seguro". Eu iria mais além, diria que o homem médio prefere SE SENTIR seguro a estar, de fato, seguro. O exemplo do trigo também é bom, ao subir o preço do trigo isso sinaliza o mercado de que existe oportunidade de vender trigo, o que sempre faz os preços caírem. Sim, as pessoas que estão passando fome inicialmente vão pagar mais, mas a subida do preço vai causar mais competição, que todos sabem que faz diminuir o preço do produto.

[@Mike-oz2um]

Great interview, host Tomas asked good questions and did a very good job of presenting a lot of the usual arguments against capitalism and Dr. Brook gave great answers.

[@MrBentoTube]

So good guys, keep going guys

[@teresamira5283]

Pessoalmente, também achei um dos melhores, senão o melhor, Despolariza até à data. Excelente debate 👏🏽

[@Despolariza]

Obrigado Teresa!!

[@silvpaula]

Excelente podcast

[@mikkellarsen660]

Great conversation. Yaron is a rockstar!

[@Vazini]

Grande episódio! Gostei muito do debate e de saber mais sobre Objetivismo. Parabéns!

[@CavalieriTom]

Excelente entrevista, parabéns e cheers from Brazil 🇧🇷

[@drstrangelove09]

In so many of these, Yaron says something and the interviewer just does not get it. Also, Yaron says a thing that is true and serious and the interviewer laughs as if it was a ridiculous thing and it was spot on, true and not at all funny.

[@SiMeGamer]

It's hard to do. When you are challenged for your preconceived notions and ideas you've held for a long time, it will take you tremendous effort and usually time to reconcile them. There's a part at the start where they even talk about the fact that Yaron being 16 when he read the book was one of the reasons he was even able to change so much since he hasn't experienced that much yet. This is why indoctrination usually happens in younger places like schools and universities where people are more willing to accept ideas. It's important to remember that you can make the absolute best argument but for it to sink in for somebody else might take a while so I wouldn't talk down to the host. I remember wrestling for 2 weeks about a single concept of metaphysics in objectivism because it was counter to what I believed until that point - it was about the existence of infinitude. I couldn't logically accept it and I had to constantly re-prove it. I'd say a funny example would be to take a game of any kind and becomes better at it. You'll make the same mistakes over and over and sometimes you'll say "I can't believe I made that mistake again" and then you might follow with "wait, why is that a mistake?" and you'll see yourself going over it again and proving it again. It's very common and shows how much effort it takes to establish certain things as fundamental, at least for us humans and with how our brains work - maybe there are systems that can identify alternatives better but we don't have those systems. I can sympathize with the interviewer. Yaron is breaking his entire world view here. No matter how logical it is, his body, by instinct responds in opposition because of the effort required to change itself. So I recommend not being too harsh on these cases. You see it everywhere and have probably done so yourself. I do find it unprofessional as an interviewer though, so for that I can definitely deduct a few points.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

In todays nihilistic world, people will make fun of your for anything, so long as you take it seriously.

[@sh0k0nes]

Nervous laugh. This kid is out of his depth.

[@drstrangelove09]

@@sh0k0nes did not seem like a nervous laugh, more like a "that's ridiculous" laugh... it's quite clear that his views about morality and other issues are completely different than Yaron's... he has the convention views... this is how people react to Objectivism if they are strong advocates of the conventional views, which was my point

[@rufiahn8186]

@@sh0k0nes the kid is a physicist

[@j.b.6059]

Conversa excelente! Muito prazerosa e provocante. Parabéns pelo episódio 🫶

[@louislemar796]

Concerning the issue of food and famine, Yaron ought to have said, “why is there famine in the first place?” And The answer is, because capitalism and free markets haven’t been implemented in that part of the world. There hasn’t been a famine in a western country (where semi free markets and the price system reign) for well over a 150 years. It’s only in parts of Africa and Asia, where there are no property rights, rights of contract and association where famine still exists. In the west agricultural businesses are free to produce in the quantity that they are able, and price signals enable them to produce in order to meet demand, whatever it is, so that supply is regulated is real-time. As soon as demand increases price signals change informing existing businesses to increase their supply, and other businesses who want to make higher returns to come into the agricultural market and start producing goods of their own. Regarding the moral aspect of the question, no businessmen owes me or you anything. The fact that I may be starving as a result of a famine has no bearing over your life, and it is completely irrelevant to the successful running of a business. Does the fact that I’m starving change the law of gravity? No. People still have to work within the law of gravity regardless of other peoples suffering. Does the fact that I’m starving change any economic laws? like the law of supply and demand? Or the economic principle that a business cannot exist if it takes financial losses long term? No. But the more fundamental moral point here is that my life is not a mortgage on you, or on a business. The fact that someone needs something is not a moral claim against other people, it doesn’t impose an unchosen duty to fulfil. We are not our brothers keeper. Life doesn’t require sacrifice, it requires the gaining and achievement of values, not their loss. In a free society If you want to help people nobody can stop you, but don’t try to claim moral credit for helping others, that is not moral, that’s 1) virtue signalling which is immoral and 2) What is moral is your ability to survive, live, flourish successfully. It’s your ability to produce, create, live that determines how moral you are not how much you sacrifice.

[@Antonyyyyyyy]

Parei de ler na parte que não houve fome no ocidente nos últimos 150 anos

[@bleigh3369]

@@Antonyyyyyyy *"I stopped reading at the part that there has been no famine in the West in the last 150 years"* You do not identify *why* you stopped reading there. Is it because that is all the evidence you need in regard to the benefit of capitalism and free markets in regard to food? Or is it because you believe there have been famines in "the West" [aka "in a western country (where semi free markets and the price system reign)"] somewhere in "the last 150 years" (which would lead to the question: where?).

[@shurochka771]

diz me que és americano sem me dizeres que és americano.

[@shurochka771]

​@@bleigh3369first of all you should identify what is this "west" you talk about. Portugal for instance belongs to that western category? What is the "west"? Then maybe other people can teach you some history of the last 150 years as you clearly are deluded about it.

[@bleigh3369]

@@shurochka771 *"Tell me you're American without telling me you're American."* Say nothing without saying you're saying nothing. I'd tell you to clearly identify the idea you are trying to convey here, but it is obvious your purpose here is ABUSE not rational discussion about ideas.

[@id1513]

A tese segundo a qual a emoção ainda é uma resposta racional podia ser testada com o exemplo dos ataques de pânico, já que não é sequer claro se primeiro surge a resposta emocional ou puramente fisiológica nem o que está na sua origem. Excelente podcast! Parabéns!

[@nerd3d]

Great interview! I really appreciate the probing questions. Definitely thought provoking!

[@Despolariza]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@Luís_Barreira]

Muito interessante. Afinal existem mais utopias e é importante contactarmos com todas. Quanto mais alargado for o espectro mais conscientes estaremos das nossas posições. O mais importante é estabelecer à partida uma separação clara entre o pensamento filosófico e o politico. Esta distinção clara, deixa cair por terra, logo à partida, a tentação de colocar em prática um ou outro especto que achemos viável. "Isto era capaz de funcionar." Existe uma distancia imensa. Quaisquer que sejam os princípios filosóficos com os quais concordemos serão "apenas" princípios orientadores cuja realidade da sua implicação tem sempre imperfeições e maior complexidade. A casualidade da aplicação tem consequências que desafiam a lógica, o tal racional abordado. Desde logo porque era necessário um consenso sobre o mesmo; fazer uma análise da atual situação de um determinado país, que não partem todos do mesmo ponto; programas educacionais sobre a ética do egoísmo racional, influencia gradual sobre os partidos; uma vez consolidado não haveria politicas de bem estar ou redistribuição de riqueza visto que cada individuo é responsável pelo seu próprio sucesso e bem estar. Obviamente que teríamos resistência interna e externa nesta implementação e isso não significaria uma simples aversão à mudança ou desresponsabilização. Significa que filosoficamente as pessoas pensam de forma diferente. Porquê? Porque são livres de teorizarem e seguirem determinada filosofia de pensamento que é tão válida como qualquer outra que esteja alinhada com os pilares básicos dos direitos humanos.

[@rge1779]

Muito bom. Parabéns pelo podcast.

[@vicis_m1k549]

Bom 2025 para os protagonistas deste episódio e para todos que passarem por aqui 🫶🏽🍾🥂

[@elpancho_villa]

É interessante ver a reação de irritação e por vezes de quase ofensa ilustrada pelas gargalhadas nervosas do entrevistador, quando confrontado com afirmações mais pragmáticas que desafiam as suas noções de moralidade mais enraizadas. Em Portugal, estamos todos tão dependentes do governo e de regulação para tudo que não conseguimos perceber na essência o conceito básico de liberdade. Em suma somos uns bebés.

[@rationalcapitalist]

With regards to existence being axiomatic. This is a quote from Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged: “You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved. When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence-when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness-he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both-he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero. When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesn’t choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he has accepted it by uttering that sentence, that the only way to reject it is to shut one’s mouth, expound no theories and die.

[@Despolariza]

Fixe! Obrigado pela partilha. Os meus comentadores são os melhores 🤓

[@sumeo100]

Tomás aka "Lex Fridman" Portugês. Simplesmente Enorme ! Continua o bom trabalho.

[@Despolariza]

O Lex não fez contraditório, mas é um grande elogio na mesma 😍 Obrigado!!

[@andrefjbernardo]

Dizer que não sei quem, seja quem for, é o não sei quem português, é algo muito português, mas no pior sentido. Como se a pessoa só pudesse ser quem é enquanto apêndice de um outro nome. Uma espécie de pedido de autorização para se ser, sempre na condição de não se ser exactamente quem se é, mas uma extensão de outrém.

[@williamhyman]

Awesome Yaron

[@nuno.vilhena]

1:43:42 Excelente ponto de vista sobre a ideia de monopolio! Efectivamente, pensando bem, um verdadeiro monopolio seria algo que teria absoluto controlo sobre determinado produto ou serviço inclusivamente fazendo com que o cliente não tivesse outra escolha. Como isso dificilmente existe (acredito que possam existir alguns exemplos), efectivamente, muito pouca coisa é monopolio. Levo esta ideia comigo!

[@bleigh3369]

*"Excellent point on the idea of monopoly!"* In regard to monopolies and their supposed 'eviI', think about this as well: the fact that the individual is not the *property* of any other human being means he is the sole, monopolistic owner of his own life and his own effort. No matter anyone else's wishes, whims, desires, or needs, no one has the right to even touch the individual absent, or in contradiction to, his consent. That is the fundamental meaning of the term "monopoly". Put simply, "monopoly" identifies the fact of reality that an individual's life and effort (no matter how limited or expansive that effort) are his and his alone, to dispose of as he sees fit, to satisfy his desires. That fact is what people are attacking when they attack monopolies. Such people are rejecting the fact that the individual is *not* anyone else's *chattel*. That is the fundamental meaning of the attacks on monopolies.

[@louislemar796]

Freedom means the absence of coercion. The concept arises in reality because there are situations in which some men use physical force against other men which prevents the victims from acting according to their own personal judgement for their own lives. The classic example is slavery. Are slaves unfree? Yes Why? because they are being coerced and are unable to act according to their own judgement, they are being physically restrained by the force, or threat of force from other men and this was legalised by government. If government then abolishes slavery and release the slaves from their chains are they now free even though they have no wealth, no homes, no education, no healthcare, not playstation? Has their condition fundamentally changed from what it was previously? Yes. They are now able to take independent permissionless action where they were previously unable to. This is what the concept freedom denotes. Now image that the slaves lived with their slave holders on a small island and travel off of the Island by sea was impossible because the technology hadn't been invented by someone on the Island yet, so now we have freed slaves living with their former slave holders on the island, peacefully, building things, trading with one another, respecting each others rights. Are the former slaves still unfree because they don't have access to the internet? And cannot take a vacation to Europe? Does the fact that their options are fewer in reality to what can be imagined in your mind, or fewer than the options of someone else living in the world make them less free on island ? No. They are still able to take independent, uncoerced action toward some goal that they set for themselves. A person's freedom doesn't change relative to what options other people have, that would be bizzare, because it would mean that every time someone invents something new, like the electric lightbulb, the car, the television, the iPhone etc, everyone becomes less free until they have the newly invented item. What kind of concept is that? Freedom changes from being "the absence of force" to "the gain of every material good that i want and can image" and unless it i them i'm unfree. This new definition then justifies to the Marxists that they can legitimately use government force to distribute people's wealth to others to make people more free, but what they are actually doing is using force against the productive class, stealing their wealth and giving it away, thereby reducing their freedom and their "choices". A poor person living in the USA is free, he can take independent action to get a job and earn a living so that he can provide for himself. The defintion of freedom that the host of the podcast is using is an arbitrary one and it's an egalitarian one. Someone has achieved freedom only when every individual have the same wealth and the same options/choices as everyone else. But this is an attack against reality, because they is a metaphysical impossibility. Is a man unfree because he cannot get pregnant? Is a blonde women unfree because the man that she's attracted to prefers brunettes and doesn't find her attractive? Is a man who can only speak one language unfree because there are men who can speak multiple languages and therefore may have more opportunities as a result? Is a man less free because he didn't pay attention at school and got bad grades and therefore has a low paying job, versus the man who studied hard at school and is now a high paying doctor? You cannot equalise opportunities, because our opportunities are based on a combination of our genetics, time and place of birth, nurture, AND most importantly our own character and values. You cannot equalise this unique set of circumstances. Consider a young person today who has the opportunity to go into the video game industry and be part of the next team who makes Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4. Does the fact that he has the opportunity to do that, but an old man in his 80s does not, or did not when he was growing up make him less free? No, that would be bizarre and ridiculous. Freedom is not "whatever you want, whenever you desire it" it's not based on whims or emotion, or need, it's a factual condition of reality between how human beings are acting toward each other, are they using force or not?

[@WillfulThinker]

Spot on.

[@bleigh3369]

*"Freedom means the absence of coercion. ... physical force"* One thing you didn't define here is "coercion"/"force". The definition really helps identify why force can be invalid when it comes to human interaction. Also, the context of the concept "Freedom" is an important thing to explicitly identify. Freedom pertains TO human interactions - ie to contact individuals make with one another. It pertains to NOTHING else. Pointing out that fact is important. It identifies when the concept is and is not applicable. For instance, on a deserted island, one is neither "free" or "unfree" - because both terms identify a RELATIONSHIP between individuals. Where there are NO other individuals, there can be NO such thing as a relationship. There literally can be NO contact by one person WITH another. This fact that freedom identifies a relationship destroys most other 'definitions' of "freedom" (which identify THINGS a person supposedly should/must possess for whatever reason, NOT relationships between people). Moreover, while force is the method OF denying freedom, the term doesn't identify the principle the person is acting upon who initiates it. In other words, force is not the opposite of freedom (especially since force can be used to defend freedom rather than destroy it). Thus it is important to identify - in the context of human interaction - not only what "freedom" is, but what its antithesis is as well. (And unfree - aka non-A - doesn't identify what that thing is; it only identifies what it isn't. BIG difference). All of that helps eliminate any equivocations when it comes to the term "freedom".

[@elpancho_villa]

É deste pragmatismo que precisamos em Portugal. Em vez das cançõezinhas da treta que vendem o amor e a igualdade como a solução para tudo, ignorando completamente a condição humana e que não contribuem para nada senão a promoção e a sinalização de virtude dos próprios. Em Portugal vivemos na lalaland, completamente abstraídos da realidade e do que realmente importa.

[@ines6031]

Adorei o debate!

[@williamhyman]

Thank you Perception Evaluation Emotion Thought Memory Imagination In that order...from Dr. Peikoff

[@theovanoostrom8083]

There is no need to prove there is a reality because all knowledge stems from it. If anyone tries to refute reality (claim non-reality as knowledge), they would need to assert the existence of reality in the process, therefore making a deliberate contradiction.

[@johngleue]

You seen to misunderstand on a fundamental level how the profit motive is a great thing.

[@rockchartrand5993]

Are the people you force to live for others by taking their earnings to subsidize other people's lives free?

[@Despolariza]

The million dollar question. That’s why some libertarians entertain the idea of one being able to “escape” the social contract which they did not sign at birth. Theoretically it’s interesting and understandable, but in practice it’s a bit more complicated, especially in a scenario where you can’t escape to another country and therefore become a free rider.

[@knwoledgeispower]

@@Despolariza lets be real, it is impossible unless one wants to live isolated on an island. If one wants to live in society with minimal safety, there is allways a social contract one has to abide by

[@rockchartrand5993]

@Despolariza I don't want to be a free rider. I want to not be sacrificed nor demand other people's sacrifices. The social contract is a contract imposed on the able for the sake of the needy. It is the fundamental principle of authoritarian collectivism.

[@knwoledgeispower]

@@rockchartrand5993 you can always live by yourself isolated on a desert island if you dont want to abide by the social contract.

[@rockchartrand5993]

@knwoledgeispower or I can just live as a civilized human being who deals with others by means of trade instead of as a thieving parasite.

[@pedrosturken]

Muito bom! 👏

[@MsAcmc]

Episodio muito interessante. Vejo sempre algo positivo trazer pessoas polarizadas para o debate. Acho que os exemplos colocados foram excelentes deixando o Yaron um pouco em apuros. Pessoalmente acho que este ativista politico tem uma visão muito cor de rosa do conceito de liberdade e propriedade. Concordo que pontualmente o estado tem um peso excessivo na nossa liberdade no entanto vejo com melhor olhos esta realidade do que a realidade que seria se vivêssemos no mundo ideal do Sr. Yaron.

[@Despolariza]

Obrigado!

[@bleigh3369]

*"I see this reality with better eyes than the reality that would be if we lived in Mr. Yaron"* What parts of Yaron's "reality" do you feel are wrong, compared to which parts of yours you feel are right? And by what standard are you judging these two realities?

[@zardozcys2912]

Awesome guest

[@ghyabraci]

The section about dopamine is baffling. Dopamine and the release of dopamine that is associated with a behaviour or action is intrinsically linked with how addictive something can be. Behaviours or substances CAN be psychologically addicting. Nonetheless it simultaneously serves an ultimate purpose and it is what guides us to usually continue to do behaviours that are important for us. Even eating is linked to dopamine. Yaron has completely missed the mark with this one. Just because it isn’t physically addictive it does not mean that it isn’t addictive. Nice episode though. Obrigado!

[@bleigh3369]

*"Just because it isn't physically addictive it does not mean that it isn't [psychologically] addictive."* One has to ask you to define what you mean by "addictive" here - especially since you seem to be linking "dopamine" (ie chemical aka "physical" actions in the body) to both versions of "addictive".

[@ghyabraci]

@@bleigh3369 Psychological addiciton is mostly caused by an increased search for behaviours that release a high amount of dopamine. Obviously, with certain substances/behaviours that release unusually high amounts of dopamine, a dependance/addiction (psychological) can easily develop. Now, physical addiction means that any withdrawal from that sort of behaviour will cause sickness in the body. Beyond being physically addictive, these behaviours are also psychologically addictive (take heroin for example). Addiction in itself, is being obsessive over an activity, behaviour or substance. Usually to your own detriment and to those surrounding you.

[@hardnb]

A parte da história do rio mostra como isto é tudo uma utopia que só é boa para vender livros e palestras, não há qualquer adesão à realidade.

[@bleigh3369]

*"The part about the history of the river shows how this is all a utopia...no adherence to reality"* What part, specifically, about the history of the river are you referencing? And what idea, specifically, are you claiming that specific part of history supposedly contradicts?

[@franciscomarques5555]

Não é possível por legendas?

[@Despolariza]

Pode traduzir as legendas automáticas para português e aparecem por cima do vídeo!

[@luisagoncalves7889]

🫣 "carregue" no símbolo á direita/superior e escolha 🤷

[@susanaporto454]

Já vi alguns episódios deste podcast e ainda não subscrevi porque, sempre que o convidado tem ideias bem diferentes das do entrevistador, sinto que este reage com algum desrespeito (interrupções constantes, risos, mudança de tema, etc). É a minha opinião, não estou a dizer que é desrespeito, mas é isso que sinto, é isso que passa para este lado. Aconteceu imenso nesta entrevista, aconteceu também com o RAP, por exemplo. Quando o convidado tem ideias semelhantes, já não há interrupções e risos (por exemplo, com a Mafalda Ribeiro).

[@elpancho_villa]

In other words, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Ou em bom português, de boas intenções está o inferno cheio: uma boa forma de definir o Portugal de hoje.

[@polymaniac]

It's not that clear that dogs don't have abstract thoughts. They can have negative experiences, such as being bitten by a larger dog, they can then generalize that situation, and avoid being around large dogs in the future. I don't think they’re reacting instinctively, but instead taking action based on their negative experiences.

[@SiMeGamer]

This is most likely just based on a heuristic. That type of behavior has nothing to do with thoughts most of the time. Your neurons, by default, form certain connection that affect behavior. This is how you develop phobias, for example (I have a fear of high glass walls/windows and such because I had a friend who leaned on one and fell [he survived] so I always stay as far away as I can from those walls/windows). It's not rational and we know it's not because if you take an actual statistic and do proper structural analysis, the case of the phobia is either extremely rare or terrible interpreted by our senses due to a harsh experience. This does not mean dogs can't form abstract thoughts but it is a case that these types of behaviors do not indicate that level of thought because it can be caused by pure statistical happenstance. To see this in action, look at how modern node based AI systems work. If you feed it proportionally more data with some statistical bias, it will learn to behave towards that bias. And these are algorithms. They are as primitive as they come compared to something as sophisticated as a dog's brain, but they still have the same heuristic based results. This is why trauma is unfortunate but also why it is usually treatable for humans. I haven't done any research but from what I assume is that to heal a dog from trauma you'd have to prove to their system through huge amounts of alternative exposure in order to reduce the neural intensity and override it. I don't think a dog, on its own, can get rid of a phobia - which would suggest they are capable of thought and rationalization. I've never heard of a case like that.

[@Tegan-e1n]

The host of this is difficult to listen to. There’s a stubbornness that borders on arrogance. You can tell he’s left/Marxist in his thinking simply by trying to pass off his guest’s definitions as “ones that fit his philosophy or narrative”.

[@tomharrison6607]

this guy was a pretty nice guy so i don't really want it to happen but when someone says they don't exist or how can you prove this reality what would they say if a person like yaron reaches across the table and punches him in the face and says that is how we know what reality is and that we exist

[@johngleue]

In your "What is Freedom" section, you say that people who are poor are not free because their capacity to do what they really want has been throttled. But in reality, individuals have to be productive in order to survive. Those rare few who can not be productive must rely on voluntary charity. Being free of coercion from other men is what freedom means in a political context. Being "free" from the very nature of what it means to be a human being and removing productive action as necessary to or survival is an anti-reality view and amounts to the belief that the Garden of Eden can actually exist in reality. It's impossible. All that's actually accomplished here is the shackling of the productive to his/her non-productive counterpart by law, which is political force (coercion). Egalitarianism is not freedom. Property rights would cease to exist altogether. Rights are a right to action absent of physical force. They're not entitlements. My right to life means I have the right to pursue, however I deem necessary, my own happiness as long as I don't violate the rights of other individuals. You guys are discussing politics but I think that you might think you're discussing ethics. Politics is how man coexists alongside other men and ethics is how to best live your own life. Politics branches from ethics. So, for example, rights are a political concept and you wouldn't need rights if your were trapped alone on a deserted island. However you would still need ethics because you would still have to organize a hierarchy of values that would help you navigate and achieve your own survival. Political freedom is what you are discussing when trying to decide how a society should deal with its poor. We're conceptual beings, we survive by means of using concepts as tools and definitions are the essence of concepts. It's very important to define your concepts correctly like Yaron does in this talk or they'll steer you wrong. "A man is only as good as his definitions." -Ayn Rand

[@nuno.vilhena]

O que este sujeito defende é uma coisa que eu aprendi enquanto aquarista, a Entropia. Basicamente a Entropia fala do que acontece na natureza, quando deixada sem qualquer tipo de manipulação humana. Para ele, o mundo deverá acontecer de forma absolutamente natural e sem "proteccionismos". Ou seja, a desordem natural das coisas.

[@Despolariza]

Percebo a ideia mas a entropia não é isso. Tudo aquilo a que chamas de “natureza” são estruturas celulares altamente organizadas que representam precisamente uma vitória da vida contra a entropia, nomeadamente contra a segunda lei da Termodinâmica.

[@nuno.vilhena]

​@@DespolarizaA ideia é simples: para onde caminham as coisas sem constante regulamentação de tudo? Em que ponto a curva começa a descer e em que ponto começa a subir? É nesse intervalo que está a estabilidade. Sendo que, mesmo dentro dessa faixa de acontecimentos, haverá por vezes tendência de subida e tendência de descida. Só que anda dentro de um determinado espectro. Por isso, quando se quer regular muito determinada coisa, basicamente o que se quer fazer é meter a coisa a ir só numa determinada direcção. A ideia é complexa, não é fácil de debater por escrito.

[@nuno.vilhena]

​@@Despolarizamas argumentando que não concordo muito com essa ideia, a entropia não é ausência de organização. É ausência de manipulação (estamos a falar da mão no Ser Humano na natureza das coisas). Se o Ser Humano não manipular deliberadamente determinadas coisas, que rumo seguem essas mesmas coisas?

[@andrefjbernardo]

According to António Damásio, you're mistaking emotions with feelings.

[@rafaelcconceicao]

In what way?

[@andrefjbernardo]

@@rafaelcconceicao Basicamente, segundo António Damásio, sentimentos são a experiência mental que temos do processo vital que ocorre dentro do nosso corpo, enquanto que as emoções são acções, são movimentos. According to António Damásio, feelings are a mental experience of what happens inside our bodies. On the other hand, emotions are actions, movements of the bodies. Feelings can't be observed, while emotions are visible. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hX_XlZVph7Rrr6s kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHSycoFrjpuGb7c

[@ruiferreira9025]

Este senhor não se deve importar que haja individualismo no Ocidente, aliás, assim o prefere que o seja. Mas no seu querido país Israel, certamente que nacionalismo, militarismo etc em suma colectivismo é algo que deve defender fervorosamente.

[@miguelfreitas3186]

Super interessante! Espero que tenhas pago o jantar, o homem levou-te à escola em todos os problemas “bicudos” que lhe meteste há frente. A tua abordagem foi propositadamente provocadora, é o teu papel e fizeste-o bem, mas ele manteve-se fiel à lógica que uma ideologia se mede contra a média e não contra o unicórnio estatístico. Concordando-de ou não com as ideais podemos ficar ao menos com isso em mente, qualquer ideia ou ideal que consiga melhor a sociedade e o mundo em 1% deve ser levada a sério.

[@neuroticon]

Esta corrente de libertários está cada vez mais na moda e o povo deixa-se levar pelas bonitas ideias de """liberdade""", não percebendo que a ideia dos libertários é lucro para os mais ricos. Se o capitalismo está a criar um fosso cada vez maior entre ricos e pobres, então com estes libertários no poder estamos basicamente condenados. O futuro será uma bota a pisar-nos a todos, dizia Orwell. Essa bota parece cada vez mais ter alguns nomes escritos: Thiel, Musk, Bezos, Zuckerberg.

[@silvpaula]

let me interject here Yaron, Portugal isbowned by the Portuguese people! and that will be made very clear soon!

[@TheGabrielSilva]

The part where Yaron chooses to disregard (or ignore, maybe?) every other part of the definition of liberty and make it a 1 dimension measurement, really sets it apart and makes his philosophy thrive. Somewhat valid, but it just strikes me as a cynical move to fit the narrative. Ofc you don't want to change people's lives/situations if you don't see them as less free than you/others just because they are in stark contrasting ways of living. Anyhow, amazing episode, Tomás and the rest of the team. Thank you for so much food for our brains.

[@rafaelcconceicao]

Let’s say Liberty means: (1) political freedom (absence of coercion and no taxation), and (2) helping the poor to give them more opportunities. Let’s increase freedom 1 and 2 at the same time. Is it possible? No. Let’s separate concepts? Yes. This is not difficult.

[@Biologist19681]

So if you're forced to give up part of your life for the sake of others, how is this freedom? There's only one type of freedom, and that's freedom from coercion.

[@TheGabrielSilva]

@@rafaelcconceicao number 1 does mean freedom, number 2, however, does not. Yes, you can do it, but freedom per se doesn't mean giving to the poor. It's just one of many options. Just get any dictionary and look for freedom. (Maybe in Portuguese the results may vary). There are a couple of meanings of which I need to bring this one up: "right of any citizen of acting without coercion or impediment, by their will, as long as it is inside law's limits". This is where I find hard to understand how can be sick (as the example given in the podcast) not affect one's liberty/freedom (I'm using them interchangeably because I'm Portuguese, but I think even if you make them separate concepts, it would work anyway). Also, I totally disagree with you. You can very well have both. You just have to get enough people to willingly give to the poor. You may not be forced to give if you don't want to. Acknowledging all of these concepts doesn't have to reduce the importance or our ability to deal with any of them. In my point of view, outright saying one's limitations aren't leading to a lack of liberty does hurt the solving of those same limitations.

[@TheGabrielSilva]

@@Biologist19681 I'm not forcing no one... I'm just saying liberty/freedom do have a lot more meanings than "freedom from coercion". Yes, freedom from coercion is one sort of freedom, but so is freedom of choice, freedom of thinking, freedom of speech. And if anything caps any of those, in my mind, the individual has its Liberty conditioned. Even if it is by their own mistakes, or others, or whatever in the world happened to them. We can go case by case, I think it's important to do so so we can better try to help. But we cannot say their freedom is not at stake just because they have freedom of coercion. I mean, we can. It just doesn't tick right, to me. Have a nice one :)

[@rafaelcconceicao]

@@TheGabrielSilva to think to speak to act accordingly to your choices you need absence from coercion. The opposite of freedom is coercion.

[@vicente-tx5jr]

Fui a uma palestra deste gajo: aquilo é um culto. Sente-se isso de longe, mas tive que estar perto para percebe-lo. Ele é autoritário e não calmo. Qualquer gajo que rejeite o senso comum e vá contra tudo e todos é uma red flag.

[@ab452]

@@vicente-tx5jr Num culto não se expõem ideias onde a audiência tem na sua maioria opiniões contrárias. Se conhecesse o yaron saberia que ele está constantemente envolvido em debates (os cultos fogem ao debate), e na grande parte a audiência é de opinião contrária, como é o caso da audiência do despolariza, como se prova por esta caixa de comentários.

[@ab452]

@@vicente-tx5jr É irónico definir uma pessoa que defende acima de tudo o direito á propriedade privada como um autoritário, tendo em conta que o homem é o expoente máximo desse direito.

[@bleigh3369]

*"He is an authoritarian..."* Contrary to your faulty dictionary, demanding the individual NOT be treated as the PROPERTY of others is the *opposite* of "authoritarian". *"He is...not calm."* Contrary to your Stoicist principle, being passionate about one's ideas - especially when it comes to stopping things like rap e - is a *virtue*, not a *vice*. *"Any guy who rejects common sense...is a red flag."* Slavery was once considered to be "common sense". The FACTS of reality proved otherwise. So much for THAT "red flag". *"Any guy who...goes against everyone"* The Abolitionists went "against everyone". The FACTS of reality proved "everyone" wrong. So much for THAT "red flag". Put simply, you apparently hold the WHIMS of a Collective, not the FACTS of reality, to be your standard for judging an idea as true or false (talk about the very definition of "cult" thinking). In other words, you apparently hold the FALLACY of the 'Appeal to Numeric Authority' as your epistemological standard. It is NEVER a good idea to hold a fallacy - a contradiction of reality - as your standard for ANYTHING. Talk about the very definition of a "red flag"!

[@knwoledgeispower]

Surpreende-me ainda haver quem leve a sério esta filosofia/ideologia indefensável e insustentável em 2025. Tomás:" but me and my wife died, and we rather not" Yaron:"yes, that's very sad"

[@ab452]

His point is that limiting your freedoms leads to all kinds of perversion. Trying to prevent all suffering will lead to way more suffering. The example of the man curfew to avoid rape is the perfect example. If your car is actually a risk to others then the state should sue you, and make you accountable, serving as an incentive for people to maintain their cars. The current system is just a bureaucracy to make you pay for very little benefit.

[@knwoledgeispower]

@ab452 that is absurd, do you have any evidence to support that?

[@thedasilvaify]

Heis uma pessoa extremamente inteligente a quem seria difícil defender se atacado, doente ou outra coisa do género. Porque isso iria estragar completamente a sua filosofia. Só por isso. Nada de pessoal senhor Yaron.

[@ab452]

@@knwoledgeispower what is absurd? You want evidence that restricting individual freedoms in favor of the greater good leads to perversion? Just open an history book, how many lives were taken under socialism regimes.

[@ab452]

@@thedasilvaify O objectivismo não rejeita a generosidade, apenas refere que simplesmente não temos obrigação moral de estender a mão a quem precise, daí que um objetivista que dispense ajuda ao próximo o faça de forma genuína. No socialismo é-nos imposto que cuidemos dos outros, mesmo contra a nossa vontade, quer esse outro o mereça ou não, e muitas vezes em detrimento de ajudarmos quem nos é próximo e importante nas nossas vidas.

[@DariusExplains]

Objectivism is pro freedom and individualist but you could argue Rand's philosophy is a Rich mans ideology. Its alot easier to adhere to this when you have money.

[@bleigh3369]

*"Objectivism is... alot easier to adhere to this when you have money."* Objectivism identifies the FACT that the individual is the sole, monopolistic owner of his OWN life and his OWN effort, rather than being the PROPERTY of others, to be disposed of as THEY see fit, to satisfy THEIR desires. In other words, you just declared it is "alot easier" for you NOT to treat a woman as your PROPERTY - aka EPAR (backwards for Yt) - because "you have money". Conversely, you just declared that if you did NOT "have money", you would find it "alot" more difficult NOT to EPAR. Given those facts, one can only suggest you reconsider your philosophy's relationship between "money" and its moral principles.

[@DariusExplains]

Yaron says access to choice is not the same as freedom, then fast forward to where Primitive societies embrace religion over reason and he talks about how they toilet in poverty instead of using reason to innovate. He contradicts himself, having access to knowledge and resources is freedom. The wealthier and smarter you are, the more free you are.

[@bleigh3369]

​@@DariusExplains *"Yaron says access to choice is not the same as freedom.... He contradicts himself, having access to knowledge and resources is freedom."* He might contradict what *you* FEEL is the definition of "freedom" (which, of course, you FAIL to provide here). But, since you do NOT even identify Yaron's definition of "freedom", let alone identify HOW he actually contradicts *his* OWN definition of "freedom", you have done absolutely NOTHING to show Yaron "contradicts HIMSELF". In other words, your claim that "he contradicts himself" is a completely EMPTY accusation. Try again.

[@jamiro1737]

Que grande chalupa!! Este gajo é o suprasumo do liberalismo, chega quase a parecer um anarquista adorador de Nietzche 😂

[@Biologist19681]

Only he's not an anarchist nor does he like Neitzsche.

[@ab452]

@@jamiro1737 pessoas adoram rotular... O yaron odeia niilismo. Como é que alguém ouve este podcast e conclui isto...

[@bleigh3369]

@@Biologist19681 *"Only he's not an anarchist nor does he like Nietzsche."* You forgot to include: 'And he explicitly rejects liberalism.' ;)

[@lourencopinheiro2630]

O Yaron está tão traumatizado do contexto opressor do governo de Israel onde cresceu, que rejeita toda e qualquer intervenção de um governo na sua vida

[@rafaelcconceicao]

Porque deveria aceitar alguma opressão de um governo?

[@lourencopinheiro2630]

@@rafaelcconceicao não falei em opressão, essa eu tambem não aceito. falei em "intervenção" e a isso referia-me a proteção de direitos

[@rafaelcconceicao]

@@lourencopinheiro2630 mas ele aceita “intervenção” na proteção de direitos. Talvez tenhas uma definição diferente do que direitos significa.

[@lourencopinheiro2630]

@@rafaelcconceicao a definição que eu tenho de direitos são os que estão na constituição portuguesa

[@ValverdeCosta]

@@lourencopinheiro2630 exato, acho que a discordância começa por aí, a constituição portuguesa está completamente desfasada da realidade

[@harrylies]

Ayn Rand had delusions of adequacy