"The Rise of Authoritarianism in the West" by Yaron Brook in Oslo on December 1st, 2024

[@haraldvinje]

Great event, good talk and a pleasure to meet with dr Brook!

[@kdemetter]

I've been worried about this for a while. Thanks, interesting talk

[@faza553]

‘Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.’ - John Milton

[@passord1d493]

Hei har du opphavsretten på denne videon? Dersom 'ja' da vil det vært kult om du hadde lisensiert dette verket under creative commons lisens på youtube. Takk

[@futures2247]

yes we do pay for health care its called TAX and i'm very happy to pay that.

[@faza553]

MEDICAL SERVICES ≠ HEALTH care.

[@Gullstandard]

@futures writes «We do pay for health care its called TAX and i´m very happy to pay that». Taxpayers pay for everything governments do, some of it useful, much of it not useful, all of it in a very wasteful manner and all of it very inefficiently done. It would have been much more efficient if every person could pay for the things he actually uses and not pay for the things he is not interested in. The welfare state is not sustainable; in the US, the government debt is about 120% of GDP; in the UK, it is 98% of GDP. This will lead to enormous problems in the near future. NHS is in serious trouble: «The NHS is in seriously poor shape», «Why is Britain’s health service, a much-loved national treasure, falling apart?», «Patient satisfaction with the NHS is the lowest it has ever been. Worsening health outcomes are also harming economic growth» (Google will help you find the links). In the US, the health care system, because of government regulations, is extremely expensive and inefficient. These kind of problems cannot be fixed by more money from the taxpayers. Even if @futures «is very happy» being forced to pay taxes, it does not follow that it is moral to force everybody to contribute to the government.

[@chimpskij]

@@Gullstandard Just grow up, already.

[@Michelle-c2r4e]

Would you like a date lol

[@chimpskij]

Starting with a superficial understanding of history and philosophy that can at best be described as sophomoric, the descent to Ayn Rand was no real surprise. It's fascinating to see how self-professed "objectivists" hold views of history that are selective and subjective in the extreme, without even attempts to challenge their subjective presuppositions with facts. When he hails the rise of the autonomous individual, for only in the next breath to mansplain away half the US electorate, this is involuntary comedy. The lack of self awareness is staggering. Ironically, with zero understanding, this man lays out much of the intellectial foundation of the rise of actual authoritarianism today. It is growing out of the nutcase right like himself and their intellectual mirror image the "liberals", both acting in complete isolation from facts and reality, both seeing their (extremely subjective and imaginary) moral superiority as justification for any and all depraved policies they routinely enact. They can insulate themselves from democracy and the popular will, but not from a corrupt buffoon who outplays them at their own corrupt game. And it makes their heads spin.

[@sindrerudshaug]

This rant impresses nobody outside your own ecco-chamber:-). There has never been a single, rational line of critique against Rand, able to stand, when rational people get involved. That is why Rand is hated by the left. Our universe, as observed and described by her, is not malleable enough for anti-thinkers.

[@haraldvinje]

This "critique" has no substance or no examples to back up any claims and thus is just not interesting. It is if as I said "you are just dumb and ignorant and therefore wrong".

[@sindrerudshaug]

@@haraldvinje Rational critique is a postulation, not a link. My critique needs no documentation, as it applies directly to reason. A link does not appeal to reason. Is not a postulation, as a "basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief." Funny that both yall "objectivists?" follow unreason🙂

[@elanbair4571]

is this a mindless Chat-GPT drivel?

[@chimpskij]

@@haraldvinje I don't know how you fail to see both the substance and the concrete example. But then again, you're probably an "objectivist", and so liberated from having to consider objective facts.