That lecture convinced me that I am 100 percent atheist. Before I thought that i am 99 percent agnostic atheist. Becaiuse of the concepts of arbitrary and posibility. Never thought of it that way.
The arbitrary and the possible is a great place to start with that conversation, but really it is more significant than that. God is really meant to be the being that can invalidate the law of identity. If the law of identity has the potential to be invalidated, then all knowledge of any kind is impossible, including knowledge of god.
Among those on the political right, I respect objectivists the most, but I strongly disagree with anyone, including Dr. Peikoff, who claims that white people are responsible for the fact that some Black people choose to believe nonsense. Those of us who are Black have free will, and if we choose to believe Kantian rubbish, it is our own fault, as we are all capable of thinking for ourselves. However, I do agree with the general point about culture and history regarding how things got to this point.
11:00 I disagree that this was "jury nullification".While reason requires deliberation, there is no law compelling deliberation. The jurors may decide on any basis what so ever. This was NOT Jury nullification is was deliberate revenge. They did not nullify murder laws.
Prikoff makes a great point in the Q&A about the moral purpose of a defense attorney and the need to place truth and justice above any defense, but he leaves aside the important fact that it is the capitalist system above all else that encourages the opposite approach and which leads to the Derschewiz' of the world thriving on the coffers of the obscenely rich.
Yes great insight from Peikoff on that point. I will argue that a rational lawyer would not attempt to defend someone he believed to be guilty - no matter how great the financial compensation - out of self respect and respect for the work he does.
Hello, this is admittedly thick reading, but I tried to back up my critique of your critique, with all the context, reasons, and definitions that I thought may qualify. This is a respectful critique, and I do well expect you to try to shoot down my arguments, and if you can then I learn something, it's win/win either way. I'm not sure that Capitalism can encourage anything, being a noncorporeal abstract politico economic concept, but let's say it can for a moment. To have a capitalist system in the way L. Peikoff would view as embodying the essentials of the concept, it must be in a society that has agreed on the principle that political and economic freedom, is not only moral but also practical. Not moral “because” it's practical, but moral because it allows individuals to have control and ownership of their own lives, so long as they're consistent in their moral philosophy and understand that “All” people are equally free in the eyes of the government. This means that only the state uses physical force(legal monopoly on use of physical force), and only in retaliation to a criminal who initiates force against a victim, additionally the state follows the same principle for foreign affairs, just with the military instead of the police. Practical, because it's the only system that can feed the population we currently have, as well as rapidly speed population growth, leading to a larger market of ideas and products. This growth in manpower combined with the division of labor principle, is very easily defendable as the most beneficial spontaneously appearing abstract political concept that mankind has yet recognized and identified. The light motif of this topic if you notice, is a clear separation between state affairs, and private/economic affairs. Capitalism in pure form, is whatever type of social system that effectively extracts physical violence from society, and protects the rights of each individual, so that if they work to build something, they know they will have ownership of the fruits of their labor, otherwise why build a factory and industrialize? It'll just get nationalized in 10 years right when it's at its best. Nobody achieves industrialization through service to the public good. With that background set, it should be obvious that when using the above outline of the concept capitalism in comparison to your important fact that you mentioned, should make it stand pretty stark against the chatter as to why this fact is most likely not a fact. In a court system, what is the ultimate authority in that particular hierarchy? Then ask yourself, in a capitalist free market economy, who is the ultimate authority? Notice that according to the carefully brief conceptual description that I provided, state and economy are properly separate, similar to church/state separation, and for similar reasons too. If there is a court issue, is capitalism the correct direction to level blame? Capitalism allows people to be free and make their own choices, ultimately making the highest authority in the private/economic sector, that of the individual. If under this type of system, you find the society distasteful, it is not an abstract concept you have true issue with, but that of human nature itself. Capitalism would therefore more likely encourage people to take action to provide for their lives, in the way they see fit, so long as no rights are violated, and all deals are win/win. The courts and what encourages them is different. Lastly, to explain the court corruption, is the wrong way to go about it. The state(Guns/Power) is inherently corrupt and destructive, hence the constitutional and checks and balances neutering the state in the USA is subjected to, so that it cannot easily violate individual rights, throwing the economy into disarray and intelligibility, which then results in pain for citizens. The true question to ask to get at this correctly, is just this. How did we develop a relatively non-corrupt objective court system? Because corrupt political institutions are the historical norm. You may point out that the current US system does not follow those principles as strictly as before. This may lead you to conclude logically, that the US is not a capitalist nation, but a kind of mixture of, 1) Overreaching State corruption of the free market, and 2) A basic law structure that protects some rights, but allows force to be arbitrarily injected based on whims of bureaucrats. Mixed Economy. This complicates things extraordinarily, allowing less scrupulous or nefarious social commentators to attribute market distortions caused by state manipulation, incorrectly, to the system itself, as opposed to the true cause, the state overreach. e.g., "Markets fail, we need more government!" which leads to another distortion, which the state will again sell itself as the cure of, despite their status as the poison. Not out of nefarious conspiracy usually, but out of incompetency. This cycle is what was discussed for days at the constitutional convention. How the government concentrates power, is through incompetency when taking control of systems in society that are better run by private individuals, and also by posing themselves as the only solution to the problem that they created, then when attempting to fix their mess, they necessarily cause another distortion that they see as “market failure” and feel that only they can fix, on and on and on like this until the return of true tyranny, or a rebellion.
Capitalism has nothing to do with the fact Public Defenders get murderers and worse off the hook every day, while taking their salary from the victims.
I don't feel like listening to this whole thing but it should be mentioned that the crime scenes were completely contaminated by LAPD. Also, the lead detective for LAPD was caught on tape making hours of self-incriminating comments. There's no way that the jury could have rendered a guilty verdict.
Nothing Mark Fuhrman said changes the facts of the case, including the DNA evidence that placed OJ at the murder scene. Nothing the LAPD did supports the absurd notion that they were out to "get" OJ. In fact, the LAPD liked and admired OJ prior to the murder case. The jury's verdict wasn't based on the facts of the case at ALL. It was indeed nothing more than an emotional statement.
Hours and hours day after day of testimony and argument is wearing. Jury members naturally get bored, fatigued and at some point stop paying attention or even fall asleep. After saturation and input overload I'm surprised anyone was capable of making an objective judgment. Fatigue and overload cripples the metal faculties like no other. I'd be surprised if anyone wasn't mentally spent to the point where everything disintegrated in their minds. Peikoff talked about this limited capacity of human cognitive faculties in one of his courses. He called it "crow epistemology" after an experiment with crow's ability to sort out different numbers of hunters.
There is nothing wrong with emotion as long as emotion isn’t your guide to action. Once you establish rational and objective ideas then your emotions will too be rational. But emotions are not the primary
That lecture convinced me that I am 100 percent atheist. Before I thought that i am 99 percent agnostic atheist. Becaiuse of the concepts of arbitrary and posibility. Never thought of it that way.
The arbitrary and the possible is a great place to start with that conversation, but really it is more significant than that. God is really meant to be the being that can invalidate the law of identity. If the law of identity has the potential to be invalidated, then all knowledge of any kind is impossible, including knowledge of god.
Peikoff is spot on.
21:00 So prescient. Perfectly captures what has come to pass in the 14 years since this lecture.
The government has now gone over, 100%, in support of the arbitrary. The ease at which one is accused of ‘racism’ is an example.
LP starts at 2:10.
Start - 2:12
“F. Lee Bailey has the distinction of having passed his prime without ever having reached it”!
1hr 9 mins amazing
Among those on the political right, I respect objectivists the most, but I strongly disagree with anyone, including Dr. Peikoff, who claims that white people are responsible for the fact that some Black people choose to believe nonsense. Those of us who are Black have free will, and if we choose to believe Kantian rubbish, it is our own fault, as we are all capable of thinking for ourselves. However, I do agree with the general point about culture and history regarding how things got to this point.
Excellent.
11:00 I disagree that this was "jury nullification".While reason requires deliberation, there is no law compelling deliberation. The jurors may decide on any basis what so ever. This was NOT Jury nullification is was deliberate revenge. They did not nullify murder laws.
Still relevant
Q&A - 55:27
1:17:49 😂😂
Prikoff makes a great point in the Q&A about the moral purpose of a defense attorney and the need to place truth and justice above any defense, but he leaves aside the important fact that it is the capitalist system above all else that encourages the opposite approach and which leads to the Derschewiz' of the world thriving on the coffers of the obscenely rich.
Yes great insight from Peikoff on that point. I will argue that a rational lawyer would not attempt to defend someone he believed to be guilty - no matter how great the financial compensation - out of self respect and respect for the work he does.
Hello, this is admittedly thick reading, but I tried to back up my critique of your critique, with all the context, reasons, and definitions that I thought may qualify. This is a respectful critique, and I do well expect you to try to shoot down my arguments, and if you can then I learn something, it's win/win either way.
I'm not sure that Capitalism can encourage anything, being a noncorporeal abstract politico economic concept, but let's say it can for a moment. To have a capitalist system in the way L. Peikoff would view as embodying the essentials of the concept, it must be in a society that has agreed on the principle that political and economic freedom, is not only moral but also practical.
Not moral “because” it's practical, but moral because it allows individuals to have control and ownership of their own lives, so long as they're consistent in their moral philosophy and understand that “All” people are equally free in the eyes of the government. This means that only the state uses physical force(legal monopoly on use of physical force), and only in retaliation to a criminal who initiates force against a victim, additionally the state follows the same principle for foreign affairs, just with the military instead of the police.
Practical, because it's the only system that can feed the population we currently have, as well as rapidly speed population growth, leading to a larger market of ideas and products. This growth in manpower combined with the division of labor principle, is very easily defendable as the most beneficial spontaneously appearing abstract political concept that mankind has yet recognized and identified.
The light motif of this topic if you notice, is a clear separation between state affairs, and private/economic affairs. Capitalism in pure form, is whatever type of social system that effectively extracts physical violence from society, and protects the rights of each individual, so that if they work to build something, they know they will have ownership of the fruits of their labor, otherwise why build a factory and industrialize? It'll just get nationalized in 10 years right when it's at its best. Nobody achieves industrialization through service to the public good.
With that background set, it should be obvious that when using the above outline of the concept capitalism in comparison to your important fact that you mentioned, should make it stand pretty stark against the chatter as to why this fact is most likely not a fact. In a court system, what is the ultimate authority in that particular hierarchy? Then ask yourself, in a capitalist free market economy, who is the ultimate authority? Notice that according to the carefully brief conceptual description that I provided, state and economy are properly separate, similar to church/state separation, and for similar reasons too. If there is a court issue, is capitalism the correct direction to level blame? Capitalism allows people to be free and make their own choices, ultimately making the highest authority in the private/economic sector, that of the individual. If under this type of system, you find the society distasteful, it is not an abstract concept you have true issue with, but that of human nature itself. Capitalism would therefore more likely encourage people to take action to provide for their lives, in the way they see fit, so long as no rights are violated, and all deals are win/win. The courts and what encourages them is different.
Lastly, to explain the court corruption, is the wrong way to go about it. The state(Guns/Power) is inherently corrupt and destructive, hence the constitutional and checks and balances neutering the state in the USA is subjected to, so that it cannot easily violate individual rights, throwing the economy into disarray and intelligibility, which then results in pain for citizens. The true question to ask to get at this correctly, is just this. How did we develop a relatively non-corrupt objective court system? Because corrupt political institutions are the historical norm.
You may point out that the current US system does not follow those principles as strictly as before. This may lead you to conclude logically, that the US is not a capitalist nation, but a kind of mixture of, 1) Overreaching State corruption of the free market, and 2) A basic law structure that protects some rights, but allows force to be arbitrarily injected based on whims of bureaucrats. Mixed Economy. This complicates things extraordinarily, allowing less scrupulous or nefarious social commentators to attribute market distortions caused by state manipulation, incorrectly, to the system itself, as opposed to the true cause, the state overreach. e.g., "Markets fail, we need more government!" which leads to another distortion, which the state will again sell itself as the cure of, despite their status as the poison. Not out of nefarious conspiracy usually, but out of incompetency. This cycle is what was discussed for days at the constitutional convention. How the government concentrates power, is through incompetency when taking control of systems in society that are better run by private individuals, and also by posing themselves as the only solution to the problem that they created, then when attempting to fix their mess, they necessarily cause another distortion that they see as “market failure” and feel that only they can fix, on and on and on like this until the return of true tyranny, or a rebellion.
Capitalism has nothing to do with the fact Public Defenders get murderers and worse off the hook every day, while taking their salary from the victims.
What capitalism?
But the glove was planted. No doubt OJ was guilty, but that glove was planted. End of story. Innocent.
And yes, the defense was entirely arbitrary. Does not change the fact that policemen planted evidence.
Police planted OJ's lucky stabbing gloves?? Who knew?
@@geekonomist You ever used a leather golf glove?
No doubt OJ was guilty? Have you ever done any research on Glen Edward Rogers? He actually confessed to killing Nicole Brown Simpson!
I don't feel like listening to this whole thing but it should be mentioned that the crime scenes were completely contaminated by LAPD. Also, the lead detective for LAPD was caught on tape making hours of self-incriminating comments. There's no way that the jury could have rendered a guilty verdict.
Nothing Mark Fuhrman said changes the facts of the case, including the DNA evidence that placed OJ at the murder scene. Nothing the LAPD did supports the absurd notion that they were out to "get" OJ. In fact, the LAPD liked and admired OJ prior to the murder case. The jury's verdict wasn't based on the facts of the case at ALL. It was indeed nothing more than an emotional statement.
I don't know what completely contaminated means, as apposed to contaminated.
@@ssoonnyymm wow, speaking of completely...I completely forgot I commented on this. lol. So much has changed in the last year. Long live OJ!
@@normanleemorris6002 nothing has changed . The evidence is still there
Hours and hours day after day of testimony and argument is wearing. Jury members naturally get bored, fatigued and at some point stop paying attention or even fall asleep. After saturation and input overload I'm surprised anyone was capable of making an objective judgment. Fatigue and overload cripples the metal faculties like no other. I'd be surprised if anyone wasn't mentally spent to the point where everything disintegrated in their minds. Peikoff talked about this limited capacity of human cognitive faculties in one of his courses. He called it "crow epistemology" after an experiment with crow's ability to sort out different numbers of hunters.
Boy this guy is using a lot of logical fallacies SMH
Like what? Peikoff does not commut fallacies.
Religion is a logical fallacy.
You could have at least pointed out one.
Jesus twinkletoe down out of the sky and suggest that to you, did "He"? Your username indicates that you habitually give logic a back seat.
@@lefantomer What you just posted shows you have no common sense, intelligence or mind of your own .
This guy is in an overly emotional rant about how blacks people were overly emotional about the OJ verdict LOL
There is nothing wrong with emotion as long as emotion isn’t your guide to action. Once you establish rational and objective ideas then your emotions will too be rational. But emotions are not the primary
@stop immigration Your mother!!!
The rational and logical mind understands that emotion should not be a guide to action as my good man just said, but should rather be a defense of it.