Yaron Brook on Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and Objectivism

[@chrismcgraw2112]

Yaron expresses the most deeply benevolent, pro-human, beautiful ethical theory anyone ever has. It's deeply moving.

[@TRIPP5_Shurikens]

Why would he be? Granted Yaron is not the most poetic or emotional advocate of Objectivism, but the description of the philosophy itself is spot-on.

[@TyyylerDurden]

@VDG it is more obvious for me that you aren't a very smart person.

[@tessa7973]

This is the perfect description of YB and his talks!

[@Howtragicforyou]

@VDG yep you’ve never read any Rand. She never said giving to charity was wrong. She said that self sacrifice for its own sake is wrong. Your inability to discern the difference is not uncommon. Perhaps actually read some of her work before you shoot your moronic mouth off, your take belongs in the trash.

[@Howtragicforyou]

@@yeelahowah7476 yeah VDG deliberately misrepresented Rand, not uncommon, however it seems you are not exactly about to dissuade any falsehoods. She wasn’t against charity, she was against charity at the point of a gun. If you want to be charitable then be charitable, don’t just vote for someone who will use force to take money from people you don’t like to be charitable for you, all the while skimming money off the top. In other words get off your ass and help people if that’s what you want to do, just don’t be surprised if reckless charity leaves you in need of some yourself.

[@PabloAlvestegui]

Excellent conversation. Yaron Brook is brilliant and a great spokesman for Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, the philosophy of love.

[@TLOK1918]

"The philosophy of life" would be a much better description.

[@donaldclifford5763]

He certainly is worthy to bear the mantle he does of president of the Ayn Rand Institute, and for as long as he has.

[@alexcipriani6003]

😂😂😂 biggest quackery ever

[@GeorgWilde]

@@alexcipriani6003 Ok, you follower of philosophy of hate.

[@09Ateam]

Yaron Brook was amazing. Definitely convinced me to dig deeper into objectivism. 100% agree with his take on liberals and conservatives.

[@DeeperWithDiego]

I learned about objectivism when I was 35. I'm 41 now, and my life is better than I could have ever imagined possible!

[@tomgip]

GREAT conversation!!! Thanks for having and sharing this conversation!!

[@garyhughes1664]

Can’t believe this channel doesn’t have many more subscribers. It’s one of the best I’ve come across and this discussion with Yaron Brooks is just spot on. Loved it.

[@drcphd]

Agreed. I didn't know he published the videos on KZbin until very recently. I suspect and hope he has a bigger audio audience.

[@joeblue4116]

@@drcphd Ayn Rand’s novels are childish fantasies that more often than not engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. You’re better off reading - Lord of the Rings.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@joeblue4116 The real world is real, requiring mans independent mind. Ther real world is not social approval, requiring a dependent mind.

[@joeblue4116]

@@TeaParty1776 What the heck does that even mean?

[@TeaParty1776]

When man chooses to evade focusing his mind on the real world, life become a disaster. Instead of choosing to focus his mind, he tells himself that life is evil. And that focusing mind onto reality is unrealistic. Thats your hidden context that you carefully evaded.

[@avneet12284]

Wow, what an incredible guest !! So good

[@fredseiler9109]

Excellent discussion! Please bring Yaron back for more!

[@drbudgy]

The reason that morality is not just about others, is that morality is fundamentally about all choice. Principles to guide OUR choices. If the concept of ethics is dependent on the concept of volition, then on a fundamental level ethics begins with the choice to think for ourselves or not.

[@TeaParty1776]

Morality is about survival.

[@danielm5161]

That widens the definition of "morality" so much that it becomes semantically useless. If "Morality" and "Choice" are defined the same way then why not throw the word "Morality" in the trash and just say "Choice"? Obviously "moral" choices are a sub category of Choice and Volition. Yaron is just using a semantically wider definition of the word "Moral" and then pretending like he has some superior insight into it that Pinker or Shermer don't have. But with the widening of his definition goes the clarity of his point.

[@drbudgy]

I agree Teaparty. In the sense that since our life is the source and the standard of our values. And this is why Crusoe on an island alone actually needs moral principles. It starts with using his faculty of reason to gain knowledge of his environment in order to secure his own survival. He doesn't need rights but he does need ethics.

[@danielm5161]

@@drbudgy But a dog, goat, lizard will also use their instincts to attempt survival on an island alone. They don't need "Moral Principles" to seek shelter, food and safety on an island, sheer evolutionary instinct will suffice. Your definition of moral principle isn't wrong, it's so all encompassing and abstract that it's meaningless.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@drbudgy Rand gave a lecture at West Point where she described the situation of a man who crashes on another planet. I think she discusses this in _Romantic Manifesto_.

[@josephkellard6432]

Michael, I don’t know what you did exactly, but you brought out the best in @YaronBrook. I’ve watched a number of his longer-form interviews, and this may just be his best. It would be great to see him as a repeat guest-your rapport with him was great.

[@BCtruth]

Yaron articulates the most pro-human, rational, and moral system as I have ever heard.

[@DeathEater93]

Awesome interview. You need to bring him back for a second one!

[@bingbong3643]

Peikoff disagreed with Rand all the time. She never excommunicated him. In fact, he was her heir. In the book understanding Objectivism there is a good disagreement they had over horror movies. In particular, The night of the living dead. Rand being hip enough to debate that movie is cool enough. Anyways, I think Peikoff won that debate. Rand even accepted his reasoning for why he valued it. She still never watched horror movies, but the point is she never excommunicated any Oist who did.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

He didn't disagree with her all the time.

[@TeaParty1776]

Your triviality harms your mind.

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404 based

[@GeorgWilde]

@@s0lid_sno0ks Let's go ape shit about ancap vs ojevtivist. I say "givernment that is prevented from doing X (plug in anything that objectiviss define as not the proper role of the government)' is a pure nonsense. You say that government is the monopoly on force, so you have no force left to prevent it from anything and it can do whatever it will. In short: Limited monopoly on force is a contradiction. Got it? Let's go ape shi about this.

[@RogerFusselman]

Put Yaron Brook on your channel, I subscribe. Put another ARI person on your channel -- Greg Salmieri comes to mind as freethought-topic-appropriate, or Ben Bayer -- that's when I buy some merch, if ya have it. Both or either of those guys would do well on critical-thinking issues, such as evaluating the news, conspiracies, consumption of and skepticism of information, reliable sources -- the kind of stuff we need for navigating our online world nowadays. You and they would heavily overlap on those issues, but it would be interesting to see where you guys clash, too.

[@phamnuwen9442]

Alex Epstein

[@aeomaster32]

A thank you to Michael Shermer (Owle?) for being willing to give Yaron so much uninterrupted time to answer questions. Thanks to Yaron Brook for his excellent presentation.

[@meinking22]

Excellent conversation. I especially enjoyed the discussion starting around 1:32:00.

[@drbudgy]

It is simply not true that Objectivism holds that man is infallible. Concepts are open ended which can be validated through non contradictory identification and certainty is achieved within the context of a given persons knowledge. New information can updated that knowledge. But on the matter of fundamental philosophic principles, yes, Objectivism is essentially 'set', there are minor issues in the philosophy that perhaps could be updated but which would not change any of the fundamentals which are determined by reality/reason/law of identity.

[@bingbong3643]

Yaron knocked this reciprocal altruism question out of the park. 1:34:13

[@conversationswithnature3577]

Loving the fact that someone in these conversations brings up the Estonian system!

[@scottwilson4798]

Fantastic conversation - Michael had some great questions to get the best out of Yaron

[@lukecockburn1140]

This was a great episode

[@Eltopo1368]

Brilliant. Thank you for this balanced exchange

[@Shmookcakes]

Hi Michael! I would love to see a conversation with Greg Salmieri. He's an Objectivist who talks about how to be an objective consumer of science, as well as how to interface with experts in general. THAT would be a cool conversation!

[@louissteinmeister510]

Awesome interview! Looking forward to a second!

[@patriciak8936]

Michael sits there blinking with very slightly raised brows while Yaron talks about crazy stuff.

[@ToTheNines87368]

Funny how we live in a world where the rational is considered crazy by so many people.

[@stefanburns3797]

More people need to listen to Yaron and objectivism. I come from the Sam Harris, Dawkins, Shermer etc intellectual movement back in the 2010’s and it was truly a great movement. Religion was being pushed away and science and reason was being embraced and understood with passionate advocates. But there were a few nagging philosophical questions that they weren’t answering and I was left searching for new ideas. As you can see above; objectivism is kind of a shock to the system in terms of it radical ideas and how consistently they’re held. I know you’ve heard every misrepresentation of Rand but do yourself a favor and read her if you’re interested in ideas and what I think are true ideas.

[@matthewstroud4294]

Well put. Similar journey to me. Watched a lot of the Hitchens, Harris debates, then Peterson. Generally, these guys are heroes, but only relative to the mainstream. It turns out, the more you consume, the more cracks you see in arguments that do a great job against religion, but don't supply many satisfying answers on how to live. Since encountering Dr. Brook on Dave Rubin, I got interested in Rand. Now I barely consume anything from Harris, Dawkins, Pinker, Peterson, et al. They don't deal with fundamental questions, and where they attempt to, their answers are rehashed Christian ethics and determinism or insights from meditation. I don't ignore anyone, but I find it hard these days to even listen to Harris.

[@alexcipriani6003]

lol you need to read a bit above and beyond just Ayn Rand to actually understand the implications of what she is proposing. One should start with Hobbs and Rousseau, also reading the enlightens era philosophers from Descartes and Kant will make one look at Ayn Rand as a coloring book..simplistic and nothing interesting

[@matthewstroud4294]

@@alexcipriani6003 I view Rand as easy to read, relatively easy to understand, and very hard to implement (but worth it if and to the extent you can). I view (from what I know) Kant & Hegel as very hard to understand, but most people live like that anyway, and Rousseau and Marx as collectivist devils (I don't know any Hobbs). All of the four I mention are pressing for destruction of the individual mind and it's ability to know reality. Judged by the followers of these philosophers, their ideas are, on balance, evil (anti- individual human life). Rand is opposed to them all, as you probably know, but I have no interest in reading any more of any of them. Not because she thought they were wrong, but because in my personal experience they are wrong. Perhaps your lack of interest is masking your unwillingness to meet the challenges that her ideas propose. But, I certainly do not assert that, because I couldn't possibly know it.

[@alexcipriani6003]

@@matthewstroud4294 if there was anything of value in Rand it would’ve been studied in university…. What I am saying is that by contrast if you were to read enlightenment era philosophers, not even read you could listen to current day philosophers explain you their writings you’d see what a high caliber philosophy means compare to Rand. Kant has different writings where he looks at things from different epistemological approaches. “Critique of pure Reason” and “Critique of practical Reason” also Marx studied as a philosopher has a lot of good insights he developed the first version of business cycles used today…there’s also a lot of things that were wrong but he was nonetheless a smart guy. Even his critics recognized his genius see Karl Pooper. They definitely don’t press the destruction of the mind quite the opposite....the role of philosophy is not to give you the right answer although it rises to, but, you learn multiple ways to think and forms of analysis some ideas evolve or change from philosopher to philosopher, hence your level of thinking becomes more complex.

[@alexcipriani6003]

@@matthewstroud4294 plato.stanford.edu/contents.html BBC has a good philosophy channel they actually have a Ayn Rand episode

[@danielm5161]

In regards to the vaccines, I think the general public has been a bigger disappointment then the government has. Anybody has been able to get the vaccine for free without any hassle by visiting their local CVS for months now. But the citizen has to walk their self in and get it, a surprising number of people can't seem to get that done. The state has done their part, the vaccine's are there and waiting.

[@kurokamei]

Thank you for enriching my live with this exchange. Awesome

[@monkerud2108]

apart from me not agreeing at all, Yaron is a good dude :)

[@chuckleezodiac24]

plus he sounds like Kripke from The Big Bang Theory TV show...

[@kdemetter]

1:07:03 Why would they have to put you in jail or kill ? They can simply take the money right from your bank account. They don't have to put a gun to your head. They just have to nod to your bank and they will do exactly what the government asks them to do.

[@aescubed]

It’s a metaphor. They are ultimately using force. The government is supposed to be our servants that protects individual rights from all tyranny, private or public. So from that perspective, they are using force for unjust ends.

[@amazingbollweevil]

At around 1:11:11, he talks about all the poor people who came to the US in the 1800s and how they thrived. Sure. The one who SURVIVED thrived. A very clear case of survivorship bias.

[@redcenturion88]

Boo hoo

[@TheOrdener]

Funny story on the Objectivist movement. I went to a conference in the early 90s the one in Reston, VA). My girlfriend was a vegetarian for health reasons, and at the dinners she was served a separate dish from the rest of us. I could tell that some people at our table initially thought her vegetarianism might be a symptom of other irrational ideas. But after talking to her, and realizing that her dinners usually looked better, not only was she accepted, but others started requesting vegetarian meals too. In short, I do sometimes feel people in the movement are a little afraid to give opinions for fear of getting something “wrong.” But generally, as far as intellectual movements go, the group seems pretty healthy to me.

[@jessedustin160]

Yaron Brook says: "When we’re young we’re idealistic. . . . We’re looking for our own truth. . . . We’re out there searching, and Ayn Rand appeals to those people. Now, some of them hold on to that idealism - I’m certainly one of those people. . . . Others succumb to society. . . . This is the core of morality in my view: Can you hold on to what makes you you? Can you hold on to your unique values, or do you conform with everybody else?” The problem with this view is that most Capitalists, and certainly most Objectivists are glued to Society in the form of Capitalist Entertainment and News and such, and therefore, are more likely to succumb to that Unreality. Covid was a great example of this; Objectivists were quick to join the Covid bandwagon, and quickly supported the mandates and shutdowns, sacrificing Generations of Young folks, who have lost education and work opportunities, possibly forever. Yes, Capitalists and Objectivist succumbed very quickly to Society, because they surround themselves with the tools that other wield over them, Capitalist News & Entertainment.

[@TeaParty1776]

> most Objectivists are glued to Society Your "society" is a contradictory package-deal of poisoned water ,containing both a generic society, which might be good, and the capitalist society you hate. Objectivism includes the independent judgment that a society of independent judgment is good for mans life. That is not an attack on independent judgment.

[@jessedustin160]

@@TeaParty1776 I do not think I disagree with you, I was just pointing out that most Capitalists and Objectivists, contrary to what Yaron Brook thinks, succumb to the unreality of modern society worse than most.

[@TLOK1918]

Which Objectivists were in favor of lockdowns? On principle, no government can rightfully order you to close your business or forcibly quarantine healthy people.

[@doctorx0079]

Name an Objectivist who was in favor of shutdowns. Amesh Adalja is not in favor of shutdowns.

[@jessedustin160]

@@TLOK1918 So in other words you're saying, "no government can forcibly close your business, unless you are sick. If you are sick the government can do whatever the hell they want with you" Thanks for proving my point, I'm guessing you call yourself an Objectivist.

[@afarwiththedawning4495]

Space is probably the worst example of collectivism "working" better... The progress in that sector has been hampered by gov restrictions and lack of vision since the 70s.

[@drstrangelove09]

Yaron is correct!

[@yurik1068]

I'd like to see at least six million people like Yaron who think the same way give them a piece of land let them have the system of government and economy that they want, and see the results in about a year.

[@davidanderson9664]

It is called Somalia - everybody happy there. D.A., J.D., NYC

[@KD-rs6xx]

@@davidanderson9664 omg I literally uttered that out loud when the worse place on earth was mentioned. About 30 minutes ago in Maine

[@AbhilashKorraprolu]

@@davidanderson9664 you dont even know what your talking about lol

[@damonhage7451]

@@davidanderson9664 Are you saying Yaron is an anarchist? I mean, if your going to lie about somebody, don’t do it on something this obviously false.

[@reason827]

Yaron Brook and Shermer: two great atheists.

[@justinelombardi5697]

How does Objectivism deal with externalities, irrational behavior, and the free-rider problem for air, soil, and water? For example management of a factory chooses to dump poison in water and does not feel the cost of that action the people downstream do. Don't tell me bad press will make bad actors behave.

[@borisreitman]

The people downstream then have a legal case to sue the factory.

[@matthewstroud4294]

Capitalism as a system requires that all property is privately owned. Externalities either effect your body or your property. The government is there to protect your rights.

[@TeaParty1776]

Externalities is a pseudo-scientific, package-deal of rights, inc/property rights, and their absence. Its an altruist attack on rights, obligating sacrifice. Individuals have a right to only themselves and their property, thus actions affecting something else are economically and morally irrelevant. When individuals have no rights in something, they have no right to be paid or obligation to be punished. Free-rider is another term for positive extrernality. There are "externalities" everywhere. Consistent enforcement is impractical and would destroy an economy. Does the owner of a beautiful car have a right to collect money from everyone who admires it? Irrational behavior is punished by the market w/loss of money and property. You evade the power of mans independent mind to guide successful social living. Or do irrational people magically become rational when they are members of govt? Biden has been a politician for 50 years and he's still an ignorant ,unprincipled, power-lusting compromiser w/faith in govt as source of wisdom. What does he know about the production of wealth except that he can stick a govt gun in the faces of productive people?

[@doctorx0079]

Go ask Yaron on The Yaron Brook Show.

[@YashArya01]

2:04:29 “In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.” - Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged.

[@richardthomas9856]

I live in Puerto Rico! I pay federal and Puerto Rican taxes.

[@LeonKukkuk]

Superb example of a political scientist yet to make the move from doing his political science from the comfort of the easy chair to moving to the forefront of political science by doing it from sitting at a desk.

[@zane62135]

I think Yaron did a good job of explaining the ideas, and I don't think they are incorrect, but... he fails to take human nature into account. The fact is, a lot of humans don't necessarily have a strong desire (or the capability) for success in business. Many people just want to show up at a predictable job and live an average life. Under his ideas, it's obvious that the intelligent and inventive people would end up crushing the average people. What are you going to do when the average people get pissed and want to destroy you? There is no mechanism to resolve this.

[@matthewstroud4294]

I think you misheard what he said, and your comment is definitely not based upon what Objectivism is about. Rand's starting point in philosophy is human nature. The fact that people have different levels of ambition is - as I see it - a metaphysical fact. It is also a fact that 99.9% of humans can use reason and apply thought to their lives, but many choose not to. A rational human, looking to improve their life, is not going to crush anyone else if their goal is to flourish and gain self-esteem. The world contains many people that are irrational, evade reality, and do try to take advantage over others. That is what moral principles are for.

[@TeaParty1776]

> intelligent and inventive people would end up crushing the average people. In case you dont get out much,, intelligent and inventive people have been constantly increasing wealth, wages and jobs for 250 years. Pre-capitalist economies had stable poverty so that one persons gain was anothers pain. But, at least, youre honest about your hatred of that enemy of human life , mans independent mind, that source of moral decisions that has terrified virtually all since we climbed down from the trees. As that righteous hater of intelligent and inventive people said, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Without those intelligent and inventive people, average people will have only the kingdom of heaven for their future. Unless, of course, the Rep/Dem policy of $trillions in govt spending will bring that kingdom down to Earth, as it came down in the Dark Ages and the Soviet Union. Or do you expect that politicians can "invest" all that looted and counterfeited money better than intelligent and inventive people? What stocks does Biden own?

[@chrismcgraw2112]

Yaron be spittin'!

[@laxr5rs]

Yes, like all Rand people - spitting unsupported BS.

[@chrismcgraw2112]

@@laxr5rs If by "unsupported BS" you mean "perfectly clear, rational, obvious truth," then you are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! :D

[@micchaelsanders6286]

@@chrismcgraw2112 Yes. I am moving away from the idea that people who reject Objectivism are confused. They really are dishonest and don't like the law of identity.

[@EnlightenmentExponent]

The description mentions that abortion was discussed. Did I miss it or is it not in the conversation?

[@TheDcfan01]

It is not in the conversation, but yaron is pro abortion, as was ayn rand. she said: "Abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

[@cobbler3376]

Excellent

[@StefanTravis]

Rand on economics? Coming soon: Velikovsky on physics, Chopra on cosmology, and Mary Baker Eddy on medicine.

[@matthewstroud4294]

Von Mises and Hayek on ethics - terrible. Rand gives the moral basis for their economics.

[@albionicamerican8806]

Even Rand's friends admit that Rand was not particularly learned, especially in philosophy, ironically. And this despite the stereotype about how intellectual Jewish immigrants in the last century would stuff their homes with all the books they could afford and read voraciously, like her contemporary Isaac Asimov. Yet that didn't stop Rand from making authoritative-sounding pronouncements about all kinds of subjects to her youthful, unworldly followers, who didn't know any better. By contrast, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and many of the early Marxists were classically educated and well-read men who could have spoken competently about philosophy, history, art, music, literature, the sciences of their time and so forth off the tops of their heads. Their table talk must have been pretty damn impressive. Rand must have known this about her philosophical adversaries, so why didn't she try to follow their example? Instead the only character in her novels who has a home library and reads a lot is the villain Ellsworth Toohey, and that is to show that he's a parasite on other men's minds.

[@artherladett442]

Thanks for this comment. Asimov is one of my heroes! He was not only a voracious reader, but a tireless writer!

[@TyyylerDurden]

Where did you get this information about some mystical "friends" who admits your claims? Considering you are a fan of bizzaire pseudophilosophers like Engels and Marx, it seems to me that you lie, just like your idols.

[@BrianBattles]

Sounds like he's making a parodied interpretation of what is considered well being. Going on vacation in the Maldives might be swell, but actual well being is having at least X amount of calories and nutrients each day, having clothing, a home and a bed, being able to see a doctor when you're sick, being taught to read, etc. That should be recognized as objectively part of basic well being. Everything else is more or less frosting on top. No one's going to suffer if they can't visit a tropical island or drive a Porsche or whatever, so you can't just claim well being is necessarily subjective.

[@QED_]

The trouble with your materialist perspective on "well being" is that it's easily falsified by just _one_ counter example. I'll give you _two:_ we know for a fact that at least one person in the WW2 concentration camps (no calories, no clothing, no home, no bed, no doctor) retained pscyhological well-being . . . and that at least one rich person (unlimited calories, clothing, homes, beds, and doctors) has commited suicide.

[@BrianBattles]

@@QED_ I don't believe any person survived a concentration camp with no calories.

[@professorderoteiro]

There is an obvious difference between a residential property and a commercial property for doing business. You cannot discriminate against people in your home, only prevent them from entering for obvious reasons of security and privacy. However, in a professional business environment, there is no question of privacy and there is another function that is commercial, social, etc. If the State does not regulate the discrimination of people in business environments, ghettos and violent acts began to exist.

[@aeomaster32]

Freedom of association is a core part of being free. You own your business, and have a right to choose your customers. I am bald, and if a store refused to serve bald people, I would accept their choice with no sense of injustice being done, even if I thought they were nuts.

[@professorderoteiro]

@@aeomaster32 Your opinion makes no sense as it is unreal. There will never be prejudice against bald people. Prejudice only occurs in relation to blacks and minorities. Not to mention that many markets sell products that are necessary for human beings to live. The sale cannot be decided on racial grounds. This is anarchism. Besides, how would children be living in a racist society in this way?

[@TLOK1918]

​@@professorderoteiro ​ It's your opinion that makes no sense. If anti-discrimination laws were repealed tomorrow, do you believe that the majority of business owners would start denying services to minorities? If not, then such laws have little to no bearing on social behavior. The few businesses that discriminate will be penalized by the market and suffer the consequences of their irrationality. Minorities will still be served by the vast majority of businesses. But if you believe that the majority of people are racists and are forced to serve minorities only because of anti-discrimination laws, then why aren't they electing politicians who will repeal those laws and let them discriminate freely? They are, after all, the majority. Moreover, the simple moral principle remains: Anything you've built belongs to you by right, and you should be free to do with it as you please, regardless of the needs of other individuals. If you don't want to trade with an individual or a group, no matter who they may be, the state has no moral authority to force you to do it.

[@professorderoteiro]

@@TLOK1918 I didn't say most people are racist. I said that minorities are affected by prejudice. If tomorrow the laws that punish racism were banned, people would be more racist and idiots. Children in some places would have to suffer discrimination from other children and even from entrepreneurs/salesmen. I didn't say that most stores would start denying service. This is pure fallacy of the "scarecrow attack".

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

@@professorderoteiro Law is not about protecting minority groups. Law is about shielding individuals from violence and fraud. Full stop. You have a child's understanding of law and people like you are the reason the world is collapsing.

[@Zack_Raheem]

Finally

[@robinwcollins]

Brooks thinks Israel should just battle the Palestinians until victory. Unbelievable naivity. No understanding of the legitimacy of Palestine's "right to property" as defined by international law. His alternate view is "there is no solution to this." So he also denies the existence of nation states. "All land is owned by individuals", he argues. Missing is an argument for the legitimacy of personal ownership of property, and property "rights" (based on what?) which is the essence of libertarianism and objectivism.

[@borisreitman]

The argument for property rights is that it's necessary for man's reasoning faculty. The reasoning faculty acts to mould nature to its will. Therefore, the resulting product is his. For the full argument, read Ayn Rand's epistemology. She proves that property rights are the primary rights that makes all the other rights possible. As for the Palestinians, until their political system has freedom for their own citizens, their country has no right to exist. E.g. a country sanctioning shooting rockets from hospitals means that its citizens have no rights.

[@erixoz8535]

Ok, this guy's kind of stupid. Just let crooks make their fake ID's at home. Brilliant, not.

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

9/11 as a precussor to a global trading system.. A new form!

[@neilatkinson3974]

Ok, so he was able to get a good hit and run attack on Trump in, I would have been a little disappointed if that hadn’t happened.

[@billkeon880]

That’s the problem with libertarianism if you want to live in the modern world and high populated cities etc. If you want the Wild West with little population. Privatizing schools is the end of modern society because half of the US would not teach science and teach creationism instead. Back to the Dark Ages

[@qeoo6578]

1:00:00

[@rodgerrichardson2735]

I think Yaron lives in La-La land ...

[@BrianBattles]

How can you tell if you truly have free will?

[@chuckleezodiac24]

if you can resist the irresistible urge to kick Sam Harris in the balls when you see him, then you truly have free will...

[@thomasmitchell6609]

I just heard an Objectivist cite the Bible in support of his argument! Yehaaaaw!

[@chuckleezodiac24]

Jews built the pyramids of Egypt!

[@brockb4452]

Idealistically, it is spot on, but loses its value in many practical applications. At one point I was an objectivist, but the only way it works is if there’s a cultural buy-in to it (just like any other philosophy) by everyone, and you’re simply not going to get that in a diverse country like America. Specific contradictions I started noticing in the Philosophy is what ultimately turned me away from it, but I tend to get along with people who are inspired by it from a moral standpoint- they tend to hold individual accountability as an ultimate virtue

[@sybo59]

Respectfully, Objectivism does NOT require cultural buy-in to “work.” Your phrasing makes it sound like you don’t have a deep grasp of the philosophy and what it is for. I don’t know what “specific contradictions” you have in mind, but I’d highly recommend listening to Peikoff’s “Understanding Objectivism” course, which clarifies a lot of common misconceptions among Objectivists. And on the issue of buy-in, you might find this enlightening: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b321gHt-nJ5_o68

[@SebastianLundh1988]

I can't believe people take objectivism seriously. Also, release Bernardo Kastrup's podcast already, God!

[@brockb4452]

Idealistically, it is spot on, but loses its value in many practical applications. At one point I was an objectivist, but the only way it works is if there’s a cultural buy-in to it (just like any other philosophy) by everyone, and you’re simply not going to get that in a diverse country like America. Specific contradictions I started noticing in the Philosophy is what ultimately turned me away from it, but I tend to get along with people who are inspired by it from a moral standpoint- they tend to hold individual accountability as an ultimate virtue

[@matthewstroud4294]

@@brockb4452 What contradictions?

[@alaskansummertime]

Quit listening when he was talking about Israel respecting human rights. I've seen bags of potatoes that had deeper thoughts than this guy.

[@damonhage7451]

Well… he’s right, so maybe you should still be listening. It doesn’t make sense to stop listening to somebody because they said something true.

[@carvakasatyasrutah9249]

Does anyone else think he looks like Avi Loeb?

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

How do you know that's what people want: we share a common experience, hence reason!

[@micchaelsanders6286]

14:20 What do you mean "we can argue about it"? Of course fire departments should be 100% privatized.

[@phamnuwen9442]

Fire protection does contain some aspects pertaining to rights protection. If I negligently or intentionally cause a fire, it may threaten the lives or property of others.

[@KD-rs6xx]

Americans are too Nice

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

That vexed me pretty well concerning Rwanda's genocide!

[@matthewstroud4294]

Your government should be instituted to protect your rights and the rights of the other citizens in the geographic area that the government has control over. Action overseas should be based upon that premise. There is nothing to stop any individual from going to another country to fight in what they view as a moral war. But the actions of your home government has the ability to send it's soldiers without their consent, so it should be totally clear about the reasoning for the action, and it should be based on a constitutional principle (assuming the constitution is there to define the operation of government in the protection of rights).

[@normativeRandroid]

To what extent does Shermer still believe his "Unlikeliest Cult" essay? Perhaps a retraction is in order.

[@petoskeystoned6221]

Michael Malice would be a choice guest for discussing anarchy

[@borisreitman]

Yaron Brook had a debate with Michael Malice at the Lex Fridman's talk show.

[@mondobear22]

He conflates morality with narcissism. He should should just use the words we already have like self-centeredness or self-care, or self-interest or self-gratification. Morality has to do, specifically, with how we treat others; it's a method for which we can determine and recognize what is good or bad behavior as it effects others. Nice guy though.

[@DeathEater93]

Morality (noun): principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. So, you are wrong.

[@mondobear22]

@@DeathEater93 ... as it effects others. Are you referencing from a dictionary? Keep in mind that dictionaries are merely reference books. Dictionaries are useful but like bibles they are not authoritative. If you choose to give them authority over your narratives, fine, but I reject your claim.

[@borisreitman]

Morality is not only about others, but about yourself too. Is moral to poke one's own eye? Cut off one's own X ?

[@mondobear22]

@@borisreitman Not by my definition since morality should be the force behind creating laws. No laws should restrain the individual from doing whatever he wishes to his body. In other words who is Subject A to say Subject B can't mutilate his body? Labeling self-mutilation as immoral is pointless and only serves to self-flatter the one judging the act.

[@matthewstroud4294]

Expand your definition of ethics. You can't decide how to treat others if you don't first know how to treat yourself. For instance, the moral principle of honesty is primarily about not lying to yourself, i.e. deliberately evading reality or being irrational. To have a blanket principle to not lie to others could get you into harmful situations. Work inward to be the best human you can. Look outward with benevolence and treat strangers as potential values to your life. Treat bad people as the deserve.

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

Hence, affect, reason and desire becomes similar in definition!

[@albionicamerican8806]

I have to wonder if men latch onto ideologies of rugged, atomized or radical individualism like Rand's (or like Jordan Peterson's, for that matter) as a way to rationalize their ineptitude in forming friendships and attracting mates. By contrast, tribally-oriented men usually have plenty of friends, not to mention the fact that they can usually also find women who want to marry them and start families.

[@TracyPicabia]

@VDG the question is how do you opt out of tribalism in western societies. It's all but mandatory. Dump the self appointed charismatics, priests, gurus, ideology peddlers etc would be the start that Shermer would presumably endorse

[@lukecockburn1140]

Peterson says start with yourself & fix that he doesn't tell people the rest of the story but I have heard him say family is the most important thing & if you look at his life id hardly say it's individualistic

[@albionicamerican8806]

@VDG Blacks and Jews in the United States have literally thousands of organizations set up to promote their respective interests. If that's not tribalism, I don't know what else you could call it.

[@damonhage7451]

Oh it’s this guy. Here with the whole “collectivist guys get the girls so collectivism is good” spiel.

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

I am become skeptic concering that latest logical conclusion: what is a good culture

[@albionicamerican8806]

It's interesting that some Objectivists lately have felt the need to attack "tribalism," like that Greek migrant to the UK who speaks English with a thick accent and uploads videos for the Ayn Rand Centre UK's KZbin channel. Tribalism is a part of man's evolved nature which has enabled him to keep the human species in business in a harsh and dangerous world over many thousands of years. Yet Objectivists say that Rand came along n the 1940's and 1950's to tell us that we had gotten this all wrong, and that man really flourishes as an atomized individual. Objectivists are making an extraordinary claim here in defiance of the species' evolutionary experience, so what evidence do they have to support it?

[@mormovies]

First of all, Rand warned about a return to extreme tribalism back in the 60s! All evolved traits and behaviors are not desirable. Tribalism evolved for survival when the only way to survive was to band together and use force and violence. Advanced civilization allows us to live as individuals and trade and exchange without the use of violence.

[@volition51]

The evidence is free will. It made us a new species, capable of conceptual knowledge. Reaching the concept of individual rights lets us leave tribalism - and force - behind, but only to the extent that we understand it.

[@DeathEater93]

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@mormovies Only I think we're in the process of discovering that "advanced civilization," based on atomized individualism, is not sustainable in the long run. I suspect that a technologically competent civilization in the latter 21 Century and beyond is going to look pre-Enlightenment in its social aspects, more like _Dune_ than _Star Trek_ . In other words, the forces of natural selection will favor tribal, traditional, hierarchical, aristocratic, monarchical, patriarchal and even religious social structures over the failed social experiments that came out of the Enlightenment.

[@mormovies]

@@albionicamerican8806 "failed experiment"? Deny all data and you're performing a worthless intellectual exercise in alternative reality. Enjoy.

[@alexcipriani6003]

can hardly think of a bigger fraud than Yaron and his insidious ideology of individualism. When Yaron says that gov shouldn’t interfere with my life he makes an appeal to the individual and the idea of individualism what he actually means is corporate personhood.

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

So do you oppose corporate oligarchies running your life or not? Is individualism insideous, or is Yaron simply not a consistent individualist?

[@alexcipriani6003]

@@s0lid_sno0ks yes I oppose corporate oligarchies running my life. Yaron simply wants gov to not interfere in his business, that also includes not interfere in the affairs of the same oligarchies. He is arguing against gov coercion but he is ok with corporate coercion relative to employment because hey we got at will employment

[@nixpix814]

Corporate personhood? That's how you view family, friends, coworkers? Are you on drugs?

[@alexcipriani6003]

@@nixpix814 that is exactly my point... that is not how I and others view them that is what Yaron makes you think off when he says individual what he actually means is “corporate personhood” you might want to research that term if it foreign to you

[@nixpix814]

@@alexcipriani6003 When socialists say "what he actually means" I have learned to stop listening.

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

or sound has a reason giving effect to the lighting!

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

And coud be understand in such manner, for science as well...

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

And I have coined in my book, what scientist refer as cause to reason... That affect should be understand as reason

[@TeaParty1776]

Abstract from concretes, not from your emotions.

[@NewsdeSpencer]

Just one example of how ridiculous this guy is, have insurance companies issue drivers licenses. So does he advocate a insurance mandate that al drivers have insurance? If not why would I get either insurance or a license. I could go on about private schools with no standards, how different would the school choices (and outcomes) be in New York compared to Mississippi. Objectivism is great if you are already wealthy.

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

Laissez-faire isn't preventing you from becoming wealthy. Aside from your bad attitude, it's taxes, fiat currency and regulations that suck your wealth away or block you from generating it. Want a job? Can't justify 15/hr? Too bad. Go mooch off welfare then. Got some capital? Want to hold onto it? Too bad. Throw it in the rigged stock market, because your dollars are based on nothing and prepetually inflated out of existence.

[@phamnuwen9442]

You're asking why a rational person would get traffic insurance or learn how to drive. Because they would like to avoid having an accident? Because they would like to avoid owing millions of dollars in reparations to someone potentially being injured in an accident they cause?

[@albionicamerican8806]

Genuinely accomplished men existed long before Ayn Rand showed up, and there are plenty of them around now who haven't read her stuff. The Atlas Society leader interviewed gerontologist Aubrey de Grey a few weeks back, for example, and he admitted in the interview that he wasn't familiar with Rand's novels or philosophy. Yet Aubrey in his spare time solved an outstanding mathematical problem a couple years back, as a diversion from his interesting work in coming up with ways to reverse the effects of aging as an engineering problem. It's like the equation is: Objectivism + Man ≈ Man.

[@mormovies]

Before Rand, there were humans who applied reason and shunned violence. Rand is only the first to make a moral case for reason and rational self-interest. She never claimed to invent success.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@mormovies Even better, Rands ideas are abstracted FROM the lives of successful people. Shes not a mystic or subjectivist.

[@TLOK1918]

"Men can accomplish great things without having read Rand" is an interesting take for sure.

[@doctorx0079]

Objectivism is the best ideas of Newton, Edison, Einstein and Carnegie. And Aristotle.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@TLOK1918 Rand generalized from great accomplishments of many people in the past. But she identified explicitly and fundamentally what they only knew implicitly and superficially. This is a guide to life.

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

Concerning poverty limits of third world country, a meal a day is only poverty to man who feeds on three meals a day

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

With understanding much malice is remedied!

[@albionicamerican8806]

I think it's interesting that Leonard Peikoff waited until Ayn Rand was dead and he got his hands on her money before he married and had a daughter. It's like he was afraid to start a family while Rand was still alive, for some reason. Given Rand's negative portrayal of mothers, children and family life in her novels, it's not hard to imagine Peikoff's reluctance to live like a normal guy, instead a sterile Objectivist nerd, when he knew that Rand was going to make him the heir to her estate.

[@DeathEater93]

What's your problem? Like, seriously. Do you know that you are a joke in the Objectivist circles?

[@TeaParty1776]

@@DeathEater93 The culture is absurd. Objectivists can use an occasional knee-slapper. Humor helped Russians survive Marxism.

[@doctorx0079]

Could be a coincidence

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

The gradations of effect!

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

Provided man believes life is ordered and has a reason and purpose to it!! But all things concerning life do have a reason!

[@laxr5rs]

You mean... like the Quantum Delayed Choice experiment. You should stop taking coming books for real.

[@mkilptrick]

Living in Puerto Rico so he doesn't have to pay higher taxes. Sounds like he is living off the welfare of the local people while benefiting off the US system of government. EPA sets a national standard. If we didn't each state would allow companies to damage their property for profit then move elsewhere to live. One of the more interesting interviews I've heard in a long time. I remember reading Atlas Shrugged many decades ago but my memory isn't so good.

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

How is him keeping his money somehow taking from the poor of Puerto Rico?

[@bradleyadams9430]

Why do these people who are soooo intent on using innovation to eliminate jobs and enrich corporations sooo intent on cutting corporate taxes and social programs?

[@avneet12284]

Your premise is flawed. Innovation doesn't eliminate jobs. Are there more people working after computers or before? Millions more. Ditto for every innovation. Technology, on balance, is a massive job creator. This is an important concept to get. People don't get it because the job losses are obvious but the job creation is unseen and hidden till you look. And when you do look it's an iceberg which is gigantic where you can't see it - underwater.

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@avneet12284 Service jobs in restaurants, hotels and Walmarts are not productive. That's why these industries can't raise their real wages, unlike the historical trend in factory jobs where wages were tied to improved productivity in producing material wealth.

[@avneet12284]

@@albionicamerican8806 If restaurant service jobs weren't productive there wouldn't be any. Well, yeah, if all you ever do is flip hamburgers your wages won't go up much. But that's not what most people do. They get the work experience and they branch out for something better. Not every job is going to net you a six figure salary. You have to figure out what you want to do to get more productive if that's what you want. Nobody owes it to you. You owe it to yourself. You mustn't blame others. Also, $ isn't everything. If you are a teacher you won't be rich. But if that's your passion that's great.

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@avneet12284 Wealth comes from producing stuff, not from providing "services." The heroes in Rand's novels are constructing useful new buildings or making and moving commodities and manufactured goods. By contrast, the villains operate in the "service" economy. Rand says in a couple places in _Atlas Shrugged_ that the bad guys are showing their depravity by trading "favors" (services) instead of goods.

[@avneet12284]

@@albionicamerican8806 That's totally inaccurate. Wealth comes from producing good AND services. Rand is talking about cronyism not production of services. Think of what you are saying. By that logic, banks, insurance companies, tech firms etc don't produce any wealth. I mean this is outlandish.

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

Let man be his own standard by which he is judged!

[@laxr5rs]

Which man... the tyrant holding a gun to your head. I take it you're fine if those who grab power hold it over you. I mean, YOU didn't grab the power, so ... who are you?

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

A lightning has a reason, giving it desires!

[@albionicamerican8806]

A couple generations after Karl Marx died, organized political movements in his name were overthrowing governments and trying to build unworkable utopian societies. And this happened because Marxism appealed not only to intellectuals, but also to rough men from the working class who were willing to get their hands bloody to effect social and political revolutions. Nothing of the sort can happen with Objectivism, no matter how much time passes, because Rand's philosophy appeals mainly to soft people who work with their minds, or who at least aspire to. Instead the dwindling number of Objectivists will just sit on the sidelines and continue to complain about the decline of Western civilization. Marxism over a century ago showed what a really powerful, though fundamentally flawed, idea looked like, and Objectivism is simply nowhere in that league, even if it is somewhat better grounded empirically. (Which I have reasons to dispute, of course.)

[@DeathEater93]

lol!

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

Much of the world's problem is not a problem

[@albionicamerican8806]

Rand's novel is a mess because of all the conflicts between what she says and what she shows. Like how many of the villains are more successful at attracting women than all of the heroes; yet John Galt, who was a 30-something male virgin before he hooked up with Dagny in the train terminal's store room for his only given sexual encounter in the novel, is supposed to be the story's philosophical authority about how sex works. Seriously? Jim Taggart has WAY more experience with women than Galt. Not to mention the absurdity of Galt's confident and competent handling of his unexpected meeting with Dagny in Galt's Gulch. Sorry, no typical adult man is going to buy that. You learn how to deal with women through experience with them, starting at an appropriate age; you won't develop those skills from studying physics and philosophy, and then building a perpetual motion machine.

[@damonhage7451]

Oh hey. It’s you. Haha

[@laxr5rs]

Hey! This wordy Dude likes comic book reality! Good for him!

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

Both maintaining lunacy!

[@albionicamerican8806]

In a way the Rand obsessives like Yaron Brook are engaging in false advertising. If Objectivism actually worked, then the men who applied it consistently - the "Operating Objectivists"? - would start to show abilities which border on looking like superpowers from science fiction and comic books. Instead, in the real world, Objectivism is a kind of cosplay or theater, where Objectivism + Man ≈ Man.

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

Concerning 9/11, I have interpreted it as the giving way to a global trading system!

[@DstnyCln]

Whenever I listen to a Libertarian speak, I get sick of the non-stop hyperbole. Everything is black & white. It's either freedom or tyranny!

[@matthewstroud4294]

He's NOT a libertarian.

[@DstnyCln]

@@matthewstroud4294 Funny, I posted that comment about 1 minute before they got to that point in the video where they start talking about the differences between Libertarians and Objectivists and Randists or whatever. Yeah, they're *so* different. I bet only one of those groups sees the world in black & white.

[@matthewstroud4294]

@@DstnyCln I won't dispute that Objectivists tend to see things in a more black/white way than is usual in today's culture. That is the effect of following principles. The term "libertarian" is so broad as to be meaningless. The only people that use it are either confused or leftists trying to group people they don't like with anarchists.

[@DstnyCln]

@@matthewstroud4294 Huh? There's an entire political party who call themselves Libertarians who get between 1 & 5 million votes every cycle. I think Michael Shermer has even identified himself as libertarian on the podcast before, although he has also occasionally criticized libertarians.

[@matthewstroud4294]

@@DstnyCln Watch this clip and you'll see what I mean. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZyrlH16q66Zo9k

[@Titurel]

“No one has the right to tell me their decisions about life and morality are better than mine! Israeli and “western” choices and morality are better than Islamic choices and morality!” I overdosed on hypocrisy.

[@borisreitman]

Not a hypocrisy. In socialism, the government forces you to think a certain way. In capitalism, you are free to think however you want, to listen to whoever you want. The government doesn't enforce anyone's view.

[@doctorx0079]

Islamic morality sucks

[@mckincygolokeh7991]

The categories of variations as evil..

[@carolynwertelecki698]

Why can't we privatize the EPA or better yet, get rid of it. Corporations would never pollute because it would make them look bad.

[@eatmanyzoos]

it doesnt make them look bad already? we shouldnt let conservatives and corporations lobby and run for government specifically to sabotage the EPA turning it into a useless damaging thing that it doesnt need to be.

[@s0lid_sno0ks]

@@eatmanyzoos They bare none of the consequences, because they capture regulatory bodies like the EPA, and get off with slaps on the wrists. With no EPA, it's back to basic law. If your pollution causes damages, you pay. Do it enough, you're a criminal and your assets are seized and auctioned off to someone else. Regulation is merely a lever for these people to pull in their favor. They can more easily absorb the compliance costs than their competition, giving them larger market share, and they often write them so that their punishments are not severe.