Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Ayn Rand: The Good and the Bad
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 май 2015
- Joined by guest Michael Malice, Tom discusses Ayn Rand: her philosophy, the good and the bad about Rand and her ideas, Objectivism and libertarianism, and more. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show: itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/t...
www.TomWoods.com/400
www.MichaelMalice.com
www.SupportingListeners.com
www.RonPaulHomeschool.com
www.TomWoodsHomeschool.com
www.LibertyClassroom.com
"I have the right views and I click on the right petitions and I post the right updates, therefore I am a good person."
What a great line.
It's kind of funny how many Libertarians love Ayn Rand, when she in fact openly despised Libertarians. She hated them more than Marxists, Conservatives, and Liberals combined. Murray Rothbard even harshly criticized her cult like attitude.
I'm not a fan of her myself, but I do occasionally agree with her on Capitalism and the dangers of altruism.
***** In spite of what Rand herself said about libertarianism,she actually agreed with 90 plus percent of the philosophy. I think that her problems with libertarianism had more to do with her personality. She was a control freak who was annoyed that the movement took off and proceeded without her. I loved her novels,but I am glad that it gained its independence from her because the movement would have been held back had it developed under her control.
But wasn't she a warmonger? The Ayn Rand Institute, unlike other Libertarians, advocate preemptive war against Iran. She openly opposed charity of any kind. Ayn Rand also believed the American government should support Israel against its Arab allies, she believed Palestinians and Native Americans didn't deserve rights because their lack of understanding of property rights.
***** You're right about that.
+NihilisticIdealist She didn't oppose charity of ANY kind, that is a common misrepresentation about her views.
She can say whatever she wants, but she is a libertarian. She's just her own strain of minarchist coupled with a comprehensive moral philosophy. When virtually all of your political/ethical/economic beliefs map with libertarianism, you're a libertarian. Otherwise categories become meaningless.
Michael Malice should do a debate with Yaron Brook.
it happened kind of
Nathaniel Brandon was a psychologist and best selling author, who wrote books, (lots of them) on self-esteem, all based around the Objectivist principals he learned through Ayn Rand and her books. He was also Ayn Rand's lover and about 20 years younger. It was a pretty elaborate program. Man, it's so weird. I read those books so long ago after reading Ayn Rand.
tom woods your show is a godsend!
Great show Tom. I've only read 'philosophy, who needs it' , but I'd recommend it as an introduction to objectivism for those who, like myself, aren't interested in Rand's novels.
The first chapter is a speech that she gave at west point academy, which covers a lot of the basics. Many of the other chapters describe a romantic history of philosophy, featuring Aristotle as the hero and Plato as villain.
Quite bonkers, but highly enjoyable.
dave jones What about it is bonkers?
That there is some binary divide between Aristotle & Plato, one entirely good, the other entirely evil.
I believe Rand and Peikoff actually talk about the positive aspects of Plato and his philosophy in several places, among them being the fact that he basically invented the subject of philosophy, and they also point out several things that they regard as flaws in Aristotle, one being that he was mistaken about the nature of concepts.
Put in the context of the rest of Objectivism, the question of judging the philosophies and character of Plato and Aristotle is actually quite nuanced, or at least argued for at length.
You’re missing out on We the Living then!
Tom, you need to get Yaron Brook for an interview like this.
Tom, after listening to this episode, I feel the need to listen to some mid-70s Rush.
Tom, please could you do an episode specifically debunking Anarcho-Communism/Syndicalism.
One of the only Anarcho-Capitalist vlogs on youtube in the UK has recently become AnComm and clearly has never studied the origins of private property or considered negative rights a la Rothbard.
BadMouse? That guy was an idiot as an ancap and is still an idiot today.
BadMouse is a straight up commie. "Anarchist" means nothing to him
I'm an atheist.
When I first started listening to you, I had always been curious of what stance you took on religion. Then after listening you for some time, you released the episode 272 (Am I a dummy for believing in God). I listened to it and was immediately disappointed.
But I continued to listen to your podcast (explanation below) and as you noted in this episode, when you released 272, some people loved it and some people hated it. I was in the latter.
I admit that I was wrong to be disappointed. Its like enjoying a metal band but then casting them aside because of their 40 tracks, 39 are metal and 1 is soft.
I was once a subscriber to "The Thinking Atheist" podcast, but I have recently unsubscribed to it. Its not that I don't agree with the things they talk about, but its that there is no definite answer. There is no way to prove atheists right or wrong and no way to prove religious people right or wrong. Its literally a "hand over hand game on an infinite pole"
With economics, however, I feel there is overwhelming evidence that the Austrian views are correct. I feel that there is overwhelming evidence that the NAP is universal and true. I feel that immoral acts are immoral no matter how you dress them up with different words.
Of your 400 episodes, you only cover religion on 1 and I think there is good reason for that, I'm guessing similar to the reason above, but also because its what "REALLY" matters. Politics and economics affect everyone of us every day. What god you believe in vs what gods I don't believe in doesn't affect anyone outside of you and me, respectively.
I recently finished reading your books "Real Dissent" and "Meltdown". Of which are both great books and the material covered in those two books are PRECISELY what matters. After reading those two books, (I'm going to read more in the future), I am convinced that you are the best advocate of anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism and (or) voluntarism of any other podcast out there. I listen to others like Peter Schiff and Stefan Molyneux and Gerald Celente, but you are by far the most entertaining, as well as the most consistent in releasing content. Other podcasters release content randomly and spread out, but you seem to release it much more often.
Anyways...tldr; I don't listen to you for your religious views, I listen to you for the work you do towards free markets, libertarianism and capitalism...etc. Its all great stuff and you do a great job at presenting these ideas.
/end brown nosing.
Damn. Sak Suk got me.
Ryan Anderson The opposite for me. If he'd said he was an atheist that's all I'd remember about him every time I thought of him.
Mak Muk
Have no idea who Gary North is. But I tend to disagree with stoning people to death. It's just not very nice!
Ryan Anderson It's a bit strange that someone promotes reason to think about economics, but has a huge elephant in the room of believing in a bible in which the main character take 5 bread and 2 fish and break it forever.
Also religion rests very much on 'you are a sinner and you need someone to redeem you and some guidance with hell and heavon and commandments' which is exactly what the states rests upon, you are bad and need guidance from us.
I can't see how one can be contradicted and one confirmed.
You can prove that people can not be brought back from the dead, that there are no square circles (somneone can not be all knowing and all powerfull at the same time), that the conservation of matter and energy holds.
Ryan Anderson "Politics and economics affect everyone of us every day. What god you believe in vs what gods I don't believe in doesn't affect anyone outside of you and me, respectively."
Yes, it's because, in western society, we understand the importance of separating church and state. Hopefully, in the not too distant future we'll also understand the importance of separating money and state.
We don't tolerate using force to impose religious ideology on our neighbors. The same concept should apply to economic ideology.
My particular problem with Rand was her hatred for Anarchists, or any Libertarian who might come close to that position. She spent a good deal arguing in favor of the State. She was an ardent supporter of the military industrial complex and was fully on board the anti-Communist craze of her times. I can't get inside her mind and gauge how far she was willing to go in order to support Reagan's massive spending.
I don't think I have any problems separating her quirks from the important points in her writing. Nor am I in any way bitter because she thinks I'm no better than a Commie. Nearly everything she thought about Individualism is part of modern Libertarianism. There is no point to "introducing" Libertarians to everything they already share with Objectivists.
Javor Georgiev She supported some wars, and against initiating most of YS wars (including WW2). She never defended the MIC.
She did not vote for Reagan and advocated against him.
Since she was not an anarchist, she described her ideal State’s limited powers. She didn’t bother with most Libertarians, not write much about them other than to say she agreed with their economic positions.
Tom have you done some in depths on Herbert Spencer?
One question i had about Rand's Objectivism, In order to subscribe to her philosophy does one have to be an atheist like her? Can one be a theist and still hold to her philosophy?
globescape No, one cannot. It’d be like being a Catholic doubting the Rebirth of Christ.
I'm generally in line with Dr. Woods and Mr. Malice here. I'm a fan of Ayn Rand's novels and I even took on the title of one of them as my screen name. I even adopted aspects of objectivism in my own life, without fully signing on. But I think objectivists need to work on their PR skills. The few I've spoken to, and Rand herself, just don't come off as nice people. Principled and consistent? Perhaps. But the attitude they seem to give off plays right into the stereotypes of cold, unfeeling, selfish right-wing capitalists. Not going to win many battles that way, even with a sound philosophy. Ironically, I get the same cold, dour vibe from some of them as I do from communists and I KNOW supporters of individual liberty have more to offer than that. ;)
I don't mind that they're selfish capitalists who lack empathy for normie trash; what I hate is that they're a bunch of Israel-Firster war hawks.
How can they treat leftist in good manners if they are driven by principles whereas leftists are driven by peoples? If they treat leftists in good manners, then leftists will take its ill-advantage.
I find the principled cold approach refreshing it's what woke me up from my college indoctrination. Rather a cold principled person speak objectively than one who panders and lies with a warm face!
this topic would have been soo much better discussed with you and yaron brook, or maybe with all of you 3..
rafael17264 - for sure
yaron doesn't like tom. they despise anarchists.
That's why it would be a good talk or debate.
But, Objectivists tend to despise a lot of people.
@@s0lid_sno0ks tom wants no government, really?
Michael Malice is more fun to listen to; and Yaron is grating to listen to.
I come from a rothbardian perspective here so I'm biased. But to me the NAP seems a lot more useful than be rationally self interested and believe in capitalism. To me Objectivism has always seemed a bit incomplete and ill-defined on the edges to really be a moral philosophy to live your life by. Not that it is wrong as such.
"We the living" was my first as well. It was good.
Of all her fictional works I think "We The Living" works best as a novel. It espouses her philosophy but in a less heavy handed way then her more known works
I came to finally understand Mises after reading rands non fiction. She put the 'reason' behind his human action.
Any time someone advocates to understand Rand only through her fictional works is someone who you shouldn't ask for an opinion on rand.
Her non fiction is the true Rand, especially Leonard Pickoff books, because it gets to the fundamental principles behind her fiction.
amazing ....
I disagree with the statement that people don't want philosophical speeches in politics, a good example is Margaret Thatcher who was fairly philosophical and principled. And of course she was one of the most popular politicians of the 1900s.
I can believe her ideas were essentially formed by 8-10. I was definitely very pro free market capitalism by age 10, because I could observe that government sucked at basically everything. I thought it was inefficiency or something, which it partly is, but that doesn’t answer why government is less efficient.
So it wasn’t until much later that I understood *why* this was the case - because consensual relationships lead to positive sum games, which add up across a society. While government is coercive, which leads to zero sum or negative sum games.
Also, businesses invest in successful projects, while government pumps money into failures out of compassion and virtue signaling or something. Not thinking about compassion for the taxpayer, or the huge disincentives for performance this creates.
I find her emphasis on integrity odd - trying for integrity all the time isn’t in your self interest. Integrity is a situational value.
I definitely agree with the guest that comedy is something to be weaponized. I’ve thought for a while that comedy combined with logic can make skits that show how absurd so many socialist ideas are, and a comedy routine is more memorable than a dull logical argument.
I agree with Rand that people should understand the groundings of classical liberalism, but I’d base it more on logic and history than philosophy.
Never read Atlas Shrugged (the plot seems silly to me, businessmen going on strike), and I don’t know what laissez faire has to do with BDSM?
Her attempts to control her inner circle seem authoritarian, not particularly liberal, live and let live type stuff. Though she’s free to associate with who she likes. It seems off from ideas about liberty though.
Denouncing charity? I don’t get that at all. I think its overrated, but it’s still very valuable.
I loved Anthem. I couldn't put it down.
I loved "We The Living." I think it was much better than her later books.
cynthia386 I want to read that now. I could never even begin to read Atlas Shrugged.
Weirdly I see much similarity between Rand's demand for not following and justifying your actions as ethical with Kierkegaard's despising so called Christians who just turn up to church on Sunday
The ethics of egoism as laid by Rand is absolutely necessary to combat statism. People aren't motivated to pursue communism or fascism because of their economic efficacy; they're motivated because it's the "right thing to do."
Why the Milton Hate? Free to choose is the best Liberty content to ever get on TV.
There's a good deal of crossover between the Austrian and the Chicago school yes, but there are also several large differences as well. Someone may correct me on the details, but one of the largest points I have heard is that Milton thinks the Great Depression happened because the Fed did not handle things properly whereas the Austrians will say that the Fed being involved at all made it happen and prolonged it.
True limited government, assuming it is and remains rule of law bound, has three essential functions; police, courts, and military. All three present major problems under private control due to conflicts of interest when one's conflict, potentially Liberty, is at odds with the paymaster.
Just limit their authority to the retaliatory use of force.
jepkratz Police follow the rule of law when they arrest you for pot.
The courts follow the rule of law when the throw you in jail for pot.
The military followed the rule of when they invaded Iraq.
< face palm >
jepkratz There are major problems with leaving those functions in the hands of an organization with a monopoly on force. Under such an arrangement, those wielding the power inevitably abuse it. Yes, there will be problems with anarchism, but there are just as many problems with government. The questions is which has the incentive structure to better address those problems.
jeffiek You're trying to compare a run amok, clearly unbound by Constitutional rule of law, collectivist government, apple with a limited Constitutional republic orange. The perversion of the original American vision has been over a century in the making to what we have now. The problem has been an apathetic, uneducated, and intentionally misguided public as to the real purpose of the growth of the size and scope of government. Apples and oranges. < face palm>
jepkratz
Sorry but the first pot arrest was in 1937
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_R._Caldwell
We can go back to 1798 if you like:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
And as for war? Try 1861-1865
Your limited government? You'll have to ride your unicorn to find it.
Do a episode on why we don't need political party organizations
I must say I'm very dissapointed with this episode.
Half the time spent on her biography, half the time on what's wrong with her and her followers. That's NOT important! Noone cares or should care!
She developed a new concept of egoism and altruism. She developed a new moral theory which contrary to all others MAKES SENSE. She and several other authors after her (Peikoff, Tara Smith, Yaron Brook and others) have proved across a whole library of works why this is important for capitalism. Why oh why is it so hard to spend 10 minutes on these actual ideas and the actual 1000+ pages of published arguments for them?
Why do you instead invite a guy on the show who does not want to talk about any of that but instead wants to talk about her friggin' personal psychology and personal letters? And who foolishly says on your show that Rand claimed to have Deduced Objectivism in her head basically in the crib back in russia? That one was a lie.
Do you care that much about Hayek's or Mises' psychology? No, because with Ayn Rand you are in some fundamental ethical disagreement that you don't want to think about, which basically makes you feel that she is so wrong that there has to be something deeply wrong and disturbed with her psychology. And so you proceed to discuss her psychology to "find out how someone can be so evil as to promote egoism". That way you can safely avoid to think about the issues she raises.
Totally wrong guest and totally wrong diacussion. You cannot have a politically oriented show on Ayn Rand that is not about her ideas themselves, it is simply not productive.
Virtueman1 "And so you proceed to discuss her psychology to "find out how someone can be so evil as to promote egoism" "
That has nothing to do with why they were talking about that. The impression I got from the interview was that they generally agreed with her philosophy. You're assuming a lot about their intentions that simply isn't true.
You are right.why is everyone into character assassination and not the ideas.
I know the tactics of the collectivists, (Left I define), and I see you do also. So I was not going to watch any of it, but was not comfortable with simply taking your word for it. I jumped the vid to min 2:53, and heard "This crazy lady".
Just a portion I know, but what a coinci-dink huh?
Malice is a giant Rand fan. She's the reason he's an anarchist today. He owns like all of her first editions and is one of her biggest advocates. Methinks you're just butthurt that they criticized her and didn't advertise Objectivism like you wanted.
For the record, they can do whatever the fuck they want. It's not your show.
@@EarthSurferUSA
Maybe if your dumb ass had the patience to listen to 3 whole minutes, you would have heard the literal 3 seconds preceding "this crazy lady" and see that he was referring to the unfair popular misconceptions about her. Also are you actually referring to either of these guys as leftists, or did I misinterpret that? Are you actually that big of an idiot?
This podcast is too rushed it needs to be longer
12:28 - Michael Malice mentions how people act in the sense of "Salvation Through Faith", wherein if someone has the right views, clicks on the right petitions and posts the right updates, they get the sense that they are a "good person". I can see why he comes to this conclusion because the concept of "Salvation through Faith" has been perverted in a theological sense. Salvation through faith in its essence teaches all men are sinners and therefore no one is good enough to enter heaven. However, Jesus Christ, God incarnate ,who knew no sin, paid the penalty of sin so that sinners no longer have a sin debt. The simple belief on the finished work of Jesus is what makes a man worthy to enter heaven - not because of his own goodness but because the perfect goodness of Jesus is imputed on that blemished sinner. So technically, the notion of "salvation through faith" is the realization that you aren't good enough or better than everybody else. And in a Biblical perspective, "Salvation through faith" deals with whether a person enters heaven or not. But a lot of examples in the Bible show believers suffering the consequences of their actions because of the sins they committed. So while a believer may be saved from the fires of hell, the Bible is clear that a believer's actions still has consequences, which means a believer can still suffer from the consequences of bad decisions (whether its decisions about money, work, relationships etc.). To clarify, believing in "Salvation through faith" in its true context doesn't mean a person is relieved from accountability of his actions.
"A law for the equalization of incomes" yes, a stretch.......almost. BUI for 90% + of Americans would do the trick.
Rand ironically didn't understand art. In Atlas Shrugged, in Galt's Colorado Utopia Dagny was free to watch any play there or see any musical performances but not free to see lectures on science or technology. The implication being the latter could be used to benefit the looters world but somehow the former was less important and doesn't generate new ideas
"Everyone who is interested in or follows Ayn Rand is a humourless automaton who doesn't want to have children, I don't want to say that"
Tom Woods
It's a fashionable badge of honor to pick Rand apart.
I have a sense of humor and I want as much kids as I can.
Totally wrong about the Objectivist view on charity and selfishness.
Atlas Shrugged is a bonkers, brilliant and messy novel. Part brilliant polemic, part train station pulp Mills and Boon romantic bollocks.
I'm a bit disappointed in this podcast. Considering what she has done for the liberty movement (would there even be a Tom Woods Show without Ayn Rand?), I think she deserves more praise than criticism, especially from your guest who speaks like a jester. I also laugh at loud at those who off-handedly say 'she didn't get everything right' and then say nothing else, nor contribute to identifying what she 'got wrong'. Ironically, how large must your ego be to say things like that? Rather than the smugness, how about you prove yourself and make a contribution? I think Tom Woods is worthy of this, but not the guest. And briefly on the purges, she was passionate about ideas and getting them right. She was less interested in a democratic/academic method of spiralling slowly to the right ideas, spending the copious amount of time needed to 'hear all sides' - she wanted to discover the right ideas swiftly in order to save America. Don't forget about the threat of communism that was occurring at exactly this time. People who complain about the purges seem to always be the ones who were purged - I guess to this day they are still hurting from this judgement.
You seem to be implying she got everything right. This is a demonstration of the absolute cult mentality that many of her followers subscribe to, which Malice explicitly mentions.
Rand was brilliant and seminal. She was also human and fallible. She was a statist, for one, and offered the weakest, most basic bitch criticism of anarchy that any normie NPC trots out when you mention defense agencies. A monopoly on law and force is inherently incompatible with individual rights, and by extension Objectivism. To be a true Objectivist, i.e. one who holds reason and individual rights as primary, one must reject the state outright. It is an inherent double standard on rights and therefore criminal by nature. Yaron is also absurdly wrong on this issue, despite being so good on so many others.
Defending persons and property and rendering opinions on disputes are not criminal acts. Ergo, any attempt to violently monopolize the provision of these services is an inherently criminal act itself. Saying "bad shit might happen" is not an argument, and, ironically, is exactly what everyone says when they advocate for authoritarianism.
'would there even be a Tom Woods Show without Ayn Rand?'
Yes. Would there be a Tom Woods Show without Murray Rothbard? Doubtful....
Ayn Rand's dislike of libertarians was not rational. Sure, libertarians ground their philosophy in things like non-initiation of force rather than objective reality and reason, but Rand's politics are virtually identical and many people claim to be both libertarians and Objectivists. Why hate libertarians more than socialists or conservatives? I suspect Rand just wanted to keep 'pollution' out of her movement.
Religion is a canned, primitive philosophy? Coming from Rand, that's pretty rich. Her metaphysics is, according to Michael here, "objective reality, what's right in front of us".
JB Sweeney Michael Malice isn’t Ayn Rand, and he did not pretend to encapsulate her metaphysics; that was her answer when asked to literally stand on one foot, and was therefore brief. You may search her own words or the Ayn Rand lexicon for her own quotes on metaphysics, and her disagreements with others on metaphysics.
Not sure the guest really gets all of rands
I accidentally found out that a few Objectivists get upset when you say "Ann" instead of "Ayn." It became a source of occasional great entertainment ever since.
Michael's mischaracterization of salvation by faith is rather jarring.
Yep. If you kill babies and just plead to jesus, you will be fine. But if you are an atheist and are a nice person, you will go to hell. This is one big problem with religion.
She was intellectually lightweight and clearly emotionally unstable. Her ridiculous, unreadable novels are to writing what underarm deodorant is to writing, only less so. This, while her philosophical essays are of barely a high school level of philosophical competence. The less I hear from Michael Malice the better I don't like it. At all.
You are FOS
@@thomasott2709 And you're hoping for my attention. Congratulations. I know I must mean a lot to you.