"Conservatism vs. Objectivism" by Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand at Columbia University -- part 6: Conservatism vs. Objectivism
Course playlist: • Ayn Rand at Columbia U...
In this 1964 radio interview, Ayn Rand summarizes Objectivism’s central tenets and then explains why she is not a conservative but rather a “radical for capitalism.” Rand addresses a variety of related topics including conservatives’ views of the welfare state, voting advice for young Objectivists, the status of Libertarians, and advice for young Objectivists about working with conservative political groups.
SUBSCRIBE TO NEW IDEAL, ARI'S ONLINE PUBLICATION
aynrand.us12.list-manage.com/...
SUBSCRIBE TO ARI’S KZbin CHANNEL
kzbin.info_...
ABOUT THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE
ARI offers educational experiences, based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn Rand viewed the world - and to consider the distinctive insights offered by ARI's experts today.
SUPPORT ARI WITH A DONATION
ari.aynrand.org/donate/credit...
EXPLORE ARI
www.AynRand.org
FOLLOW ARI ON TWITTER
/ aynrandinst
LIKE ARI ON FACEBOOK
/ aynrandinstitute
EXPLORE ARI CAMPUS
campus.aynrand.org/
INFORMATION ABOUT OBJECTIVIST SUMMER CONFERENCES
objectivistconferences.com/
LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND STUDENT CONFERENCES
aynrandcon.org/

[@zero0The]

Thank you for helping students such as myself accessing Ayn Rand's ideas! Conservatives need to realize the harm they inflict upon freedom every time they say "capitalism is great, but..."

[@Gnolomweb]

Too much freedom will cause destruction?

[@mystars1598]

@@Gnolomweb As I read Objectivism, people are always covered by objective laws to define and penalize destructive behavior. And a life of freedom is never guaranteed free of trouble or heartache or other people doing bad things, maybe even to you. Freedom is freedom to think and to choose, not just to be safe and coddled.

[@easybake8420]

The correct way would be, "capitalism is great, because..."

[@dontfit6380]

Michelle Black How would you know? What model are you judging that on? Where in the world have people known too much freedom? Are you so domesticated, tamed, beat down and helpless that you would argue against freedom? If that is the case I am sad for you.

[@dontfit6380]

Michelle Black I apologize I spoke before I saw your question mark. I read it as a statement

[@Bhiles92]

Crazy how this is still true today. Conservatives still clinging to mysticism and libertarians still agreeing on economics and politics but all over the place on philosophy

[@ZhonLord]

The republican nominee back in 1964, mind you. The ARI actually posted an article on the reasons she would have more-than-a-little disapproved of Trump. Granted, he's a symptom and effect not the cause, but still. ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/11/06/the-anti-intellectuality-of-donald-trump-why-ayn-rand-would-have-despised-a-president-trump "This is best symbolized by the appearance on the political scene, late in the novel [Atlas Shrugged], of Cuffy Meigs. Although I suspect we are only at the beginnings of a similar political descent, the parallels, unfortunately, exist. Meigs is a short-range amoralist uninterested in arguments or reasons or facts, who carries a gun in one pocket and a rabbit’s foot in the other. President Trump carries the nuclear codes in one pocket and Infowars in the other." We didn't exactly have the choice between one option that was objectively good and one that was objectively bad in the 2016 election, which is why I say he's an effect and a symptom.

[@BuFFoTheArtClown]

You know, when I first stumbled upon objectivism I was dumbfounded at how issues today mirror issues 40 years ago. As I learned more about the objectivist philosophy I realized that philosophical questions are timeless because they deal with the epistemological issues of humanity. Basically what I'm saying is that I realized, through objectivism, at the issues we face today are the same issues humans faced 10000 years ago and will be the same issues humans will face 10,000 years from now if humanity is unable to understand objective morality and I correct Guide to Life. As long as humans hold contradictions and evade reality your great-great-grandchildren will face these exact same issues.

[@Krisk236]

Homo Liber she’s gotta be really hungry still then. That’s such a tiny snack. Get out of here with smut comments like that.

[@ryanhocstetler]

@@ZhonLord I would have agreed a couple years ago when I was influenced heavily by a socialist and bought into legacy media's false narratives. Then I started to see through the b.s. and gained respect for trump when he grew a backbone and stood against the war machine. It's a shame he didn't fire more people. Even moreso, the people he hired should have been better vetted; but hindsight is 20/20. We need more populists to adress the *corruption* in government. And, really, who knows any more where we'll be a year from now as a nation?

[@ryanhocstetler]

@@BuFFoTheArtClown very true. I used to worry that people would utilize human nature to gain for themselves at the cost of the masses, before I realized that was exactly what was going on for years, likely decades, just in our society: Progressivism. I should have read Ayn Rand earlier on. More people ought to.

[@OneMoreLayman]

I’ve just come to admire and dig in more about Mrs. Rand, but besides abiding by her philosophy, I love her intellectual honesty, that spells integrity. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@socrateos]

Thank you for uploading this video. It clarifies the differences among Conservatism, Libertarianism and Objectivism.

[@Boyonabicycle]

The most startling thing it that Ayn Rand is broadcasting on Columbia University’s radio station.

[@yaroslavmuradian5959]

Thank you

[@HLLTAF]

I hope all these radio programs will be out into playlist?

[@rndyh77]

Thank you! I can't stand the terms liberal and conservative. I want to know if someone is a socialist or a capitalist. In the US, socialism is being revealed now that Bernie and his ilk feel empowered to actually say it our loud. We have to discuss these terms explicitly so people know what they are, and what we're getting ourselves into.

[@DaughtersofOrion]

💯💯yesss. Liberalism to me is classical liberalism, which is clearly defined by John Locke. and Conservatism by Edmund Burke. They’re clear cut ideologies that are clearly defined ... yet classical liberalism is often considered alt right these days... which is perplexing. And classical conservatism is dead as well. That’s why I call them left and right. Bc these people generally aren’t conservative or liberal.

[@ryanhocstetler]

@@DaughtersofOrion it's a shame that by 'liberal', nowadays, most think of progressive as synonymous where, historically, 'progressive' ideas have been used by despots to gain trust and power to do unspeakable things to large groups of people while adhering to their promises only as long as it meets their terrible ends Ex: public housing, "free" healthcare, state education,...

[@Joshtheloserking]

Socialism can exist with capitalism and capitalism can take forms that you probably would not approve of.

[@robabiera733]

Ayn Rand once wrote that a political battle was a skirmish fought with muskets, while a philosophical battle was a nuclear war. Clearly, she had her own nuclear arsenal when it came to ideas!

[@aarodful]

Amazing and sad how little the political landscape has changed.

[@davee91889]

What is the symbol in the right supposed to mean? Could someone tell me?

[@unseenone1152]

Conservative because they are mostly theistic.

[@jgalt308]

They appear to be a variant of "Christian" prayer beads...like the "rosary" for catholics. I would guess probably "eastern orthodox" or a spin off of that branch...since I have seen the shorter versions...without a cross from that region...as for the precise configuration. I have no idea...although if the pattern holds the different shapes would represent different prayers for the each shape.

[@guilhermesilveira5254]

Conservatism is colleticvism. Same of socialism.

[@OneMoreLayman]

Just an analogy to any kind of religion. Those are catholic rosary beads. Objectivism is not for beliefs, rather it is for convictions based on reason. The money on the left is an analogy to capitalism, a tenet proclaimed by Objectivism.

[@robert549]

Completely wrong g

[@orsonwelles4254]

Some guys question implied that you had to 21 in order to vote?!

[@beardedmountain4893]

You had to be 21 to vote before the Vietnam war ended. Too many men died with out the right to vote so they lowered the voting age.

[@jj4791]

They should have raised the conscription age. But then, who would they recruit if everyone they picked had a fully developed prefrontal cortex?

[@Mr.Witness]

7:50

[@DaughtersofOrion]

Rand : conservatism is not defined Edmund Burke: **rolls in grave**

[@ixcxe6663]

Objectivism is basically the core of Conservatism, as is Anarchy. Anarchy comes from the greek words "an" meaning without and "arcos" or "archon" which were sovereigns and/or masters. Anarchy literally means "No Masters". When governments and/or civilizations fail the default "states" of being (in order) are Self-Reliance, Family, Tradition, and Culture. America literally has NO MASTERS, for it was designed so all STATE power is BORROWED in limited capacity from the CIVIL AUTHORITY (citizens) who it is exclusively tasked to SERVE, not Rule. And no powers of rule are held by any one person or group for our checks, balances, terms, branches, offices, etc. exist to FRAGMENT all government, group, and individual power (mastery) as a means to PREVENT TYRANNY. Yes, America is "By the Actual (root) Definition" an ANARCHY. It is also Conservative, for our founders fought to preserve all that was good about the Enlightenment Period, Science, Christianity, Common Law, and individual traditions. They fought to PROTECT, not to FORCE CHANGE. Want Proof? Britain remained as it was before, it simply had no more rights over us, and we saved all the best things that British Society enabled (though eventually we also shit-canned others, Slavery being the #1 and most difficult). The founders were liberal, but ONLY in a limited sense (they "liberated" America from British Rule and Oppression)... as the MAJORITY of their motivations and impetus were FORCED UPON THEM. Conservatives REACT to Tyranny (Involuntary and/or Immoral Measures)... they do not act in haste nor Willingly ENABLE TYRANNY ( because that's what Liberals do, read the definition of the word). Modern ethics may teach that selflessness is a desirable trait, and it has its place, but outside times of immediate threat and looming danger to those truly close to you, selflessness merely enables personal failure while exacerbating one's inability to self-maintain. Selfless people are also the tools of collectivism and weakness, whereas positively selfish people are pillars of leadership and moral strength in any society. Conservatives are people who approach change with caution (not fear as many liberals suggest) so as to protect PROVEN methods, environs, relationships, beliefs, traditions. values, etc. from the ravages of hasty and/or unwise decisions and actions. Thus it becomes obvious, that self-reliance (and other positive forms of selfish behavior) are a core fundamental of Conservatism, for if one cannot maintain self they will be incapable of maintaining or protecting anything or anyone else. And their downfall negatively impacts any external or internal things of value that they sought to protect. Objectivism is an awesome and mostly correct philosophy, but also incomplete, because Ayn Rand's perceptions and conclusions weren't properly challenged long enough... nor by any persons who were suitable. It isn't a critique of Ayn's genius or a detraction from Objectivism...simply an honest observation, and her explanations were also "colored" or jaded by the times in which she lived and her own imperfections. As I stated in the beginning... Anarchy, Conservatism, and Objectivism are practically inseparable no matter which realm of the human experience they're applied to. Anarchy is simply more active and primitive (tribal) but no less valid. Conservatism is more assessing and defensive. And Objectivism is simply more direct (unapologetic) because the truth is NEVER something to be ashamed of. All of them are based on a simple (Common Sense) order or magnitude and importance. Self, Family, Tradition, Culture... and being 100% VOLUNTARY. One cannot voluntarily accept ANY philosophy until they've actually studied and tested it of their own accord. Many people represent themselves as "this" or "that" but often do so erroneously out of ignorance, indoctrination, greed, or other forms of INEPTITUDE and/or IMMORALITY. The Positive Individualist Philosophies of Anarchy, Conservatism, and Objectivism (when properly studied and understood) are all about COMPREHENSION, CONFIDENCE, MERIT, and MORAL PROCESS (positive discrimination of self interests and external FACTS). They are also 100% all about Capitalism and American Values. One thing that many people fail to understand... America IS Capitalism, the only codified system of Civil Contracts and laws that place ALL Sovereignty in the Hands of Lawful Citizens (The Civil Authority) that our government is designed specifically to serve equally (as Sovereign Individuals) through rights of property ownership, labor, and self-determination... with our SOLE RESPONSIBILITY being that we maintain the rights of our fellow citizens to maintain our own (quid pro quo) and act morally as we maintain a collective vigil AGAINST TYRANNY (as noted below). So-Called "Positive Collectivist Philosophies" are mostly SUBJECTIVE bullshit (TYRANNY). Women's Studies, Socialism, Sharia Law, Identarianism (LOL, just made that one up for the SJW's), Communism, Statism, Monarchy, Racism, Anti-Colonialism, Modern Feminism, Kleptocracy, Theocracy, Globalism, The Nazis, Postmodernism, Marxism, Fascism, etc etc. (basically anything that isn't one of the Positive Individualist philosophies) and all have a number of things in common. 1) Liberalism 2) Involuntary (forced) Participation 3) Deception (immoral behavior and actions) They all place the group (STATE) above the individual, are not morally aligned nor objectively grounded, and (as always) they are the espoused philosophies of the faux-erudite LEFT (Liberals). What they fail to COMPREHEND is that these things are REPETITIVE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR ATROCITIES. They destroy the self, families, traditions, cultures, and anything of PROVEN MERIT because they are nothing more than the fantasies of Ideologues, and the INEPT who serve them. They also have another thing in common, their most defining & CORE characteristic... SOCIOPATHY is the modern clinical term LEGION (aka EVIL) is the biblical term Modern Conservatives, Republicans, Nationalists (not the racist connotation), Objectivists, Anarchists (real ones, not the antifa idiots or other nihilists), Capitalists (again, has zero to do with profiteers and corporatism), Individualists, Christians, and other MORAL PERSONS who seek BOTH PERSONAL and SHARED PROSPERITY need to: Stop being wimpy little apologists and ENFORCE OUR LAWS while shit canning all the unconstitutional CRAP the leftists have forced into our country. That shit is IMMORAL and ILLEGAL... so stop being FUCKING IDIOTS where OUR Rights and Individual Sovereignty are concerned. The past always comes back to haunt, and our modern era is a "ghosting" of sorts where the essence of the American Revolution (Free- Willed Rebellion) is coming up against the French Revolution ( A Micromanaged Power and Class Struggle). Postmodernism is a CRAP attempt to re-validate the same lame shit (Identitarian Power Dynamics) so Socialism gains more widespread acceptance (through IMMORAL ACTS). Individualism, Voluntary Process, and MORALITY (Capitalism & Freedom) versus Collectivism, Involuntary Process, and IMMORALITY (Socialism & Slavery) The french revolution wasn't about and didn't result in slavery you say? Well then what do you call STATE WELFARE if not DEPENDENCY (another name for Slavery). Look at who the power actually went to and who profited most... they were the ones handing out scraps... and trips to the guillotine for any who failed to fall in line. HuGGz

[@Whaylie]

Do you copy and paste this into every comment section for objectivist videos, or do you write this mini essay every time you seen fit to proselytize to those darned liberals

[@ixcxe6663]

I write what pops into my head as I come across various things that interest me, and/or as certain topics grab my attention... or as I can provide some information or a point of view that is either LACKING or Scarcely considered for various reasons. If you don't like or agree with me doesn't matter... because no one is twisting your arm to do so (that's a fascist tactic of the LEFT aka Socialists, Communists, Democrats, Sharia, RINOS, Neo-Cons, and other Corrupt persons or Tyrannies). If you don't like free speech that's YOUR issue, and I care not.

[@mystars1598]

Rand NEVER advocated anarchy, your reading of the dictionary definition notwithstanding. Wait....dear god, I answered before I read your WHOLE screed. Too much of a mixed bag there.....I can't figure out what you stand for. Free speech is one thing, but unintelligible speech is quite another. You are entitled to either, but one would hope you might want to attract another intelligent being.....or not.

[@mikeb5372]

Your definition of anarchy is basically cherry picking just one definition and disregarding the much more prevalent definition(s) which are essentially- absence of government. A state of lawlessness and disorder due to an absence of authority. There can be no objective law without some form of government, be it very small on a town level or larger on a national level. It's this understanding of the definition of anarchy which Ayn Rand bases her view in regards to anarchy. To simply say anarchy means no ruler leaves the entire spectrum of cause and effect unanswered. However it's not difficult to figure out what causes and effects can be reasonably deduced from having no law and no authority, all for themselves but no one for any particular thing. A society of perfectly honest, non violent, highly rational and well reasoned people would need no authority but that reality doesn't exist. Perhaps in a million years it might

[@ixcxe6663]

@@mikeb5372 What I provided was the ORIGINAL/CORRECT definition, both historically as well as politically/socially precise. The later "version/definition" (as a synonym of chaos or disorder) came about due to intentional misuse of the term. When it was used to describe (for instance) the "red brigade" of Paris/France. Which as a collectivist/leftist mob of nihilists that sought the destruction of its government. Mostly as a format to introduce a communist/socialist (aka fascist) replacement. The etymology of words through their historical/misconstrued/inept (aka liberal) use or acceptance (often created through or by corrupt government or inept journalism) DO NOT vacate the original/actual meaning of any word. The public acceptance/use of "new meanings" do not override their original (aka true) definitions as afforded within their language of origin. And most of those "additional meanings" of various words (like the term anarchy) are/were established by &/or through propagandist revisionisms for whatever reason (though mostly to perpetuate various political or societal tyrannies. After all, it's often easier to simply change perceptions of verbiage than to more directly censor things... though doing so is (no doubt) still a form of censorship. So, & in light of this, my previous statements indeed remain functionally and historically accurate, as well as presently concise and correct Hope that clarifies. HuGGz

[@user-jh3oq7wk6s]

I am hardly a Leftist, but how exactly Objectivist dogma is different from the Social Darwinism? Divorcing the state from the economy? Who then will standardise what represents value and what does not? The market?

[@Mr.Witness]

That would involve reading the philosophy. You could say the same how is Aristotelianism different from social darwinism etc etc... objectivism does have specific clarifying positions it makes explicit if you really carr

[@GusAlanis]

The value of the US Dollar is determined by its demand in the market and, if you remove the distortions that state introduces one can say that such valuation would be more accurate.

[@robrophside3691]

Objectivism advocates for nonaggression. That alone makes it extremely different from social Darwinism (at least of the stereotypical "might makes right" kind).

[@mikeb5372]

Yes, the market. The market is what determines value in economics regardless of the political condition. The market is like nature in that it cannot be defied without consequence

[@owlnyc666]

I do think that both Libertarians and Objectivity would vote today, 07\28\2022, for Conservative Republicans as being a lesser evil than Progressive Democratics. Trump may be a second hand, crony capitalist but at least he isn't a Democratic Socialist. Conservatives may be bad but they are not as bad as Liberals-Progressives.

[@Polyglot_English]

You are the problem.

[@owlnyc666]

@@Polyglot_English So I have been told.

[@XavierBonapart]

Your opinion but jts incorrect

[@owlnyc666]

@@XavierBonapart Your opinion that my opinion is incorrect, is incorrect. What is incorrect about my opinion..

[@jj4791]

The problem is, they aren't safe best because they all lack any philosophical foundation to their idiotic whims. Ao they will always make more bad decisions and fail to fight against worse ones.

[@eyeservantez]

We are not Conservatives.

[@malvyres]

Yes thank you for posting this! The title could use some work (especially since you made it up) how about the justification for Neo-Liberal Economics? Anyway, Nicely explains the roots of each of the ways that we like to pretend there is any ideology that hasn’t been bent toward acceptance of capitalism. Poor Ayn Rand, I wonder if she realized she was a woman? I wonder if she ever realized her dream of Daddy finally loving her?

[@mikeb5372]

So, a nobody like yourself arrogantly criticises an exceptional genius like ayn Rand by psycologizing? Maybe you need to put your ego in check there Dr. Freud

[@Transpower]

I agree with Ayn Rand most of the time, but Samuel Alexander was a much better philosopher. Happiness is an emotional state which humans share with animals and plants--therefore it cannot be the goal of human beings. We are on the Earth for ethical character development. Study the Reciprocal System and prove it for yourself. www.reciprocalsystem.guru

[@gabrielduran291]

What evidence are you inferring from that plants have an emotional state? Besides that wrinkle, happiness can't be the goal because it is shared or because it is an emotion? Those are mutually exclusive. Which one is it? If either why not? Apart from your characterization of happiness, Rand wouldn't say that happiness is merely an emotional state, but an emotional state of non contradictory joy as a result of achieving your values. Furthermore, she hold happiness as the purpose but she does not hold it as the standard. For her, man's life is the standard. There are ideas, terms, actions/behaviors that lead to a sustained non contradictory state of content and joy vs others that lead to self destruction. There is factual evidence all around us, one just has to study it.

[@mikeb5372]

@@gabrielduran291 Your comment shows an excellent understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Rarely do I come across as accurate a description as yours