We Ignore the Unconditional Right to Self-Defense at Our Peril | Written by Ben Bayer

The West is free today because it didn’t allow even the death of innocents to impede its right to self-defense. Written by Ben Bayer. This audio is created with AI with the permission of the author.
Read the article here and follow us on Substack: new-ideal.aynr...
Subscribe to ARI’s KZbin channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/

[@RashadSaleh92]

Meanwhile Gazans on X who are voicing their criticism of Hamas/Sinwar are constantly attacked by “activists” from the rest of the world with the nastiest of curse words… they don’t even try to discuss what is being said, just replies with curse words by people with “Free Palestine” in their bio and the Palestinian flag next to their name. “Free Palestine” doesn’t mean any kind of freedom you would think of to these people.

[@bleigh3369]

"they don't even try to discuss what is being said, just replies with curse words" ABUSE is the entirety of their philosophy. When they can not physically ABUSE, they verbally ABUSE. And the "freedom" to ABUSE is the only "freedom" they seek.

[@johncloptop1585]

🫡

[@CapitalistSpy]

Very very interesting

[@raguramramamoorthy8569]

hi ... i have a doubt regaridn gopen source softeware,.....like is ti capitalism or not

[@bleigh3369]

'Is open source software capitalism or not?' A person EXERCISING his RIGHT to his OWN life and his OWN effort, disposing of it as HE sees fit, to satisfy HIS desires, is the definition of Capitalism. In other words, Capitalism is NOT limited to monetary trades between individuals. That is but one of the many aspects of Capitalism. THE fundamental principle of Capitalism is the individual's monopolistic RIGHT to his own life and his own effort. And Capitalism stands in opposition to ALL moral, political, and economic systems which treat the individual as the PROPERTY of others, to be disposed of as THEY see fit, to satisfy THEIR desires. Capitalism thus recognizes the fact that the ONLY valid means by which others may come in contact with the person or property of an individual is with that individual's PERMISSION. And "Open Source" is simply ONE of the MANY ways an individual can grant others his permission for contact with his property. It is the EXERCISE of the individual's right to his life and his effort and is in no way a VIOLATION of anyone else's rights (since NO one has the right TO the life or effort OF others) Thus "open source software" is indeed an example of the practice of Capitalism.

[@oldgerbs9389]

Fundamentally true.

[@adambrown8867]

As I've been saying for 8 years now; if we don't use the 2nd Amendment for it's intended purpose then the 2nd Amendment has no purpose at all.

[@Luke-lb2cv]

This has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment

[@JohnnieGarner]

@@Luke-lb2cv Wrong!

[@adambrown8867]

@Luke-lb2cv My point being everything that is happening is because we don't use the 2nd Amendment for it's intended purpose. No crisis makers, no crisis. No terrorists no terrorism. No traitors no treason. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to clean house when needed, like right now.

[@DrMackSplackem]

It's the reason why we have the 1st one.

[@adambrown8867]

@DrMackSplackem We are losing the 1st Amendment though, because we aren't using the 2nd Amendment. People get arrested now with zero due process for practice of the 1st Amendment.

[@Kvell55]

So correct and perfectly explained. Thank you

[@BretBlakeslee]

If you think any explanation is PERFECT you are a moron.

[@DerykRobosson]

2:02 Both sides are equally guilty of playing the victim card. When two things want to occupy the same space and eliminate the other, war happens. One side wants to kill an idea; the other, people. There is only one likely outcome and it isn't the elimination of the idea.

[@bleigh3369]

"Both sides are equally guilty of playing the victim card." The two sides here are the OPPOSITE of "equal" - for the same reason a r@pist and his victim are the OPPOSITE of "equal". The fact that the r@pist wants to kill the woman's idea that her body is her OWN rather than HIS - and the fact that the woman wants to kill her r@pist to stop him from r@ping her - does NOTHING to change the fact they are the OPPOSITE of "equal".

[@nonsolorasatura9093]

Individual make a society, don't viceversa, as said by collectivism. Since individual have no freedom of expression, no for self-defense, no freedom to trade, why the individual must sacrifice himself for the institutions? The usual hypocrisy of the double standard. Just the idea that someone give you right is a joke. It's equivalent to say that you trade to be a slave, voluntary.

[@bleigh3369]

No offense intended, but it would appear English is not your first language. As such, I'm sorry to say but a lot of what you are saying is incomplete or incoherent. "Individual make a society, don't viceversa, as said by collectivism." The intent of this statement is unclear. Individuals are indeed the creators of society. But collectivism doesn't say society is the creator of individuals. "Since individual have no freedom of expression...[etc]" Again the intent of this statement is unclear. Are you claiming that individuals have no RIGHT to the freedoms you list? Or are you claiming that, under particular governments they do not have these freedoms? If so, which governments are you referencing, since both "Palestine" and Israel are both the subject of the article here. And both sides argue that those freedoms do not exist in the other. So it is not at all clear as to what and who you are talking about here. "why the individual must sacrifice himself for the institutions?" Again, the same problem as above. "The usual hypocrisy of the double standard." Collectivism indeed treats the individual as the PROPERTY of the Collective - ie the individual has no rights and is thus treated as nothing but the means of achieving the Collective's ends. That the individual is treated as Chattel of the Collective having no rights is neither "hypocrisy" nor a "double standard". So WHAT you are considering to be "hypocrisy" here is completely unclear, as is WHAT are the TWO, contradictory standards you believe some UNIDENTIFIED group is practicing. "Just the idea that someone give you right is a joke." Once more, the intent of this statement is unclear. Like many who comment on the ARI channel, are you claiming that human beings do not possess rights - that rights are arbitrary whims (jokes) created by men? Or are you claiming that the idea that rights are created by men - ie given to the individual by the Collective - is the joke here? "It's equivalent to say that you trade to be a slave, voluntary." And finally, this statement makes no sense whatsoever. What is being trades, to whom? And how does that trade make you a slave? Etc. Your broken English has, unfortunately, left your entire post completely incomprehensible. :(

[@JohnnieGarner]

Self-defense starts with the individual. While the video concentrates on national issues of self-defense, this is only rational if the individual has the right of unconditional self-defense. The recognition of this is what is behind the Second Amendment.

[@kazuoua]

I guess you missed the part where he denounced vigilantism and why an individual in a free society does not have an unconditional right to self defense. That being said, the second amendment has nothing to do with self defense, it speaks about the need of a well regulated militia to protect a free nation and not about individuals defending themselves by means of firearms, unless from a tyrannical government.

[@JohnnieGarner]

@@kazuoua I guess you are brain-dead and incapable of thinking in principles.

[@bleigh3369]

"if the individual has the right of unconditional self-defense" He does. Of course, in a proper State, the individual delegates that right to the State to ensure the objective defense of EVERY individual's rights - ie to bar physical force from social relationships. That is the very definition of a government: "an institution that holds a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographic area". And, in a proper government, that monopoly is granted by the citizens to the State as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control - ie, under objectively defined laws". Put simply, a proper government is the AGENT of the individual's right of unconditional self-defense.

[@BretBlakeslee]

Yeah, like Russia's unconditional right to self-defense against Ukraine. The word "UNCONDITIONAL" is a lie.

[@bleigh3369]

Claiming Russia's actions are "self-defense" is the only LIE here. BB here apparently doesn't know the difference between a violator and the defender against that violator - aka BB doesn't know the difference between the r@pist and his victim. Hint for BB: the r@pe victim using force against the r@pist is self-defense. The r@pist adding additional force on top of his initiation of force, trying to stop his victim's self-defense, is NOT "self-defense". And, yes, Russia IS the r@pist in this example.

[@lilacfunish]

Please explain how destroying 70% of civilian homes, schools and places of worship is defense and not a crime against humanity.

[@diegomorales8616]

Are you judging the goals of each side?

[@kazuoua]

Did you even watch the video? He literally answered this: you do whatever it takes to win the war and minimize casualties on your side. If you can spare innocent lives you do it but not if that would jeopardize your victory. If you need to take down 100% of civilian infrastructure to win the war you do it. When the Allies waged war against Germany they flattened their cities and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, not for the fun of it but because it was necessary to win the war. It’s the same here.

[@DrMackSplackem]

This was explained clearly LOL. Did you even play the video?

[@bleigh3369]

"Please explain..." That you DISHONESTLY IGNORED the EXPLICIT answer he gave to your question BEFORE you even asked it doesn't MAGICALLY make that answer disappear - no matter HOW hard you WISH otherwise. Now, do you disagree with his answer? If so, do you have an actual argument, supported by facts, to present against it? Or are you just saying his answer makes you FEEL BAD - ie you are trying to commit the Fallacy of the Appeal to Emotions?

[@SofozMc]

Exactly my point. Israeli-Palestinian issue didn't start on October 2023, it's a lot deeper and wider than that.

[@SofozMc]

There are so many contradictions in this video and cherry-picking. I don't think Ayn Rand would value this channel. It definitely doesn't promote critical thinking... it just provides conclusions and facts that support them. In reality, facts should come first and conclusions second. I'm unsubscribing and unliking this video.

[@bleigh3369]

"There are so many contradictions in this video and cherry-picking." Yeah - SO many that Sof couldn't identify even ONE, let alone back up his ARBITRARY accusation with rational arguments using facts. Talk about the definition of behavior Ayn Rand explicitly did NOT value.

[@kesor6]

You lost me when you started saying that the government is the one who is responsible to dole out justice instead of the people who are being massacred. And then you followed by saying French government is somehow allowing freedom ... completely dillusional arguments.

[@lilacfunish]

Isn’t that why the people pay taxes for services of defense?

[@kazuoua]

Huh? How would the massacred people dole out justice? What are you talking about? Are you saying Palestinians should dole out justice? Or Israeli citizens? What? Do you understand the purpose of an army?

[@kesor6]

@@kazuoua A Militia's purpose is to protect the people. A modern government's led army purpose is to protect the government and not care about what happens to the people. Which is what you have seen happen in Israel, and many other places. The people being massacred, the army and government have zero responsibility for it.

[@kesor6]

@@lilacfunish In theory, yes, but not in practice. Most countries, probably all countries, collect taxes in order to sustain a fat and unproductive government that completely misses its goals. Israelis pay taxes through the nose, and still their government and its army allowed for thousands to get massacred.

[@bleigh3369]

@@kesor6 LOL