Ayn Rand on Donahue 1979 (1/5)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- Ayn Rand attacks altruism as evil and both defines and defends her philosophy of objectivism. Rand also explains how monopolies cannot exist unless they are supported by government erected barriers to competition.
Playlist for all 5 videos:
• Ayn Rand on Donahue 19...
Note: When comparing prices in different years you have to adjust for inflation! A dollar today doesn't have the same buying power as a dollar 30 years ago.
data.bls.gov/cg...
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
gregmankiw.blog...
bpp.mit.edu/usa/
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
- Noam Chomsky
She's basically saying that people should pursue goals based on their own (selfish) wants and needs, and that in doing so it actually makes the world a better place for everybody. Conversly, she's saying that people shouldn't pursue goals for the "good of society" or for the good or somebody else, and that in doing so it actually makes the world a worse place for everybody. This is the opposite of what many believe to be true, but it makes sense when you delve deeper into the philosophy.
Being "selfish" doesn't simply mean accumulating material things (because humans have other needs) but to act fulfill ALL your needs, including the need to be compassionate & lessen feelings of guilt. If by giving you feel compassion, that's a pleasurable feeling. Only if you give without receiving anything, no feeling, no reward of any kind can it be truly selfless. Kant defined pure altruism this way - Rand hated Kant and thought true altruism is evil - hence her promotion of "selfishness".
only people who can't act selflessly claim all others are selfish. it stems from a disbelief that people could actually love others unconditionally and without any selfish motive. i love all life, and i wish some people could believe that.
3:59 I love how as soon as Ayn Rand mentions Nazi Germany the camera switches to a young blond woman.
This is so funny. I'm always surprised that people take her seriously. But they do, nonetheless.
Great statement.
05:08 .... "you know what I'd say .... check your premises!!"
I'm gonna use that line in the future ...
I think I understand this.
A Monopoly couldnt happen because if say a Walmart did indeed try to buy up all the competition, so that they thought there was no more competition. Somebody would eventually get tired of buying those high priced goods and start his own grocery store or w/e, that would sell its goods for cheaper prices, which would inevitably make Walmart go out of business if they dont wise up and lower their prices.
The Free Market makes it so the cheapest goods are available
This is the animalistic, irrational, herd-mentality that collectivism reduces humanity to. The free market does exist, and always exists. Von Mises has shown that "black markets" (free markets) ALWAYS exist within controlled, collectivist economies. They are essential for the survival of society, due to the inefficiency of state confiscation of labor and distribution of goods. Americans are suffering because of government favoring corporations, and penalizing consumers - not due to markets.
There is a saying I first heard in Kindergarten that applies here: "Two wrongs don't make a right". A level playing field is REWARD based upon MERIT, with no force involved.
A great regret I live with is not discovering & meeting this woman while she was alive; Her books were the cause of my rebirth.
To clarify, in my original post I meant that Rands definition is selfish in 2 ways. 1st, it is a nice easy strawman she can knock over. And 2nd, it is using the paradoxical selfish manifestation of altruism. Many people do charity work for themselves, not others. Their motivation is not truly altruistic, it is to maintain their identity as a good ____(usually some religious or statist label). But this is not altruism. Altruism is motivated by the need and suffering of others not by dogma.
Milton Friedman does a fantastic job in defending Capitalism on Donahue, twice, and yet Rand called him a "miserable eclectic."
She called him a socialist, and she’s right
_“It seems that for some people the idea of compassion entails a complete disregard for or even a sacrifice of their own interests. This is not the case. In fact, you first of all have to have a wish to be happy yourself - if you don’t love yourself like that, how can you love others?”_ - Dalai Lama XIV
YES
This lady is my new hero!
U a jew too?
She is the only person who's ever been this prominent who I can honestly say only one of the best for everyone.
I don't agree with the doctrine of Objectivism, but I certainly enjoy this woman as an orator. She carries herself, linguistically, very staunchly.
there is no such thing as free market, Ayn Rand
Wilson23 ....Go live in a communist country and look for a Free Market. That’s where we are headed with DemoRats today!
@Jason Fisher When you mix human nature with economics the free market is as real as your God.
Did Rand have problems? Of course. Everyone does, if you expect the people you look up to be perfect, then you have no one to look up at all. I wish people could just agree that a lot can be learned from this OBJECTIVELY intelligent philosopher.
i love how when she says just look at them and the camera moves to the audience hahaha
The movie Atlas Shrugged: Part I was destroyed by critics and lost over $15.373 MILLION since it's release! This means not only did critics think it was an absolute piece of shit, but the free market thinks it's a pile of shit too.
Man, this went waaayyy over the heads of the audience.
As much I then politically disagreed with Phil Donahue on an array of issues, I have always appreciated his civility of course as well his respect towards guests of opposing views. This is rightly demonstrated when he hosted Milton Friedman in addition to Ayn Rand.
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
back in my parents day, a lot of people within local communities would voluntarily give 10% of their income to their church every year
Phil Donahue was the FUCKING man! Not a single TV host would go toe-to-toe with someone this intelligent anymore. THIS was REAL talk-show TV.
Phil Donahue is a great interviewer, he gets right into it. I have learned more about Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman by watching his interviews with these great people.
Jews both
_“One of the bitter ironies of the 20th century was that communism, which began as an egalitarian doctrine accusing capitalism of selfishness and calloused sacrifices of others, became in power a system whose selfishness and callousness toward others made the sins of capitalism pale.
"_
_"In a free market unhampered by well-intentioned busy-body do-gooders pushing intrusive interventionalist policies upon us, we self-interested people who know best about what is best for ourselves would find a way to get by just fine."_
_"Just think about all the options we would enjoy!”_ - Thomas Sowell
You're right about that. But it's all about reason and common sense, unfortunately it's not so common anymore.
@starmanskye You brilliantly made the point in just the allotted characters; very well done!
And I think you'll also admit that while Rand wasn't necessarily "right," she was a powerful voice who made a social commentary that DOES have value!
WE ARE ALL CONNECTED..... PERIOD.
Rand's definition of altruism strikes me as being selfish itself. Real altruism is not about the sacrifice but about the other. It's about doing what is best for the whole, not the whole except you, but the whole including you> it's about transcending selfishness without losing the self(at least this is how I understand it). It's not that the self is bad, but that if left unchecked can grow into something hideous. A destructive force.
Notice how everyone merely argues with their opinion that her philosophy is BS? That is all they have, OPINON.
Try and debate what she is saying, you can't. She is spot on with economics, philosophy, altruism, and Collectivism in general. Those of you that are arguing in favor of Collectivism are arguing for the Marxist cause and you don't even know it! She writes about this in her books by the way.
Ayn Rand was brilliant! She was correct on so many levels today as she was in her time
15 years ago when I was in school people either passed or failed and I was proud of my achievements. Now everyone passes and get like leveling classes but there is no effort, exams are easier and children don't have any general culture knowledge. Competition is good, it encourages us to be better....
Set your ego aside and accept that not everyone beleives that being selfish is a positive attribute.
this quote: "Our government was created to allow for change as the nation grew"
because it shows a blatant disregard for all the trillions of lives lost in history to oppressive governments. non of the governments started out oppressive, they started with good intention. the only thing we should have learned from history is that the government will never be better at taking care of you then you would be on your own.
Pure genius. Ayn Rand is the greatest philosopher ever.
She brings up some great points and I am excited to read into them further. However, when the interviewer implied that $2.50 a gallon for gas was extremely expensive I laughed so hard!
What makes her philosophy so great and what is her contribution to the field of philosophy?
When it comes to addressing the needs of the poor, disabled, mentally ill, etc., Rand has absolutely nothing to say. This isn't part of her vocabulary. She espouses the harshest form of social darwinism.
Rand's analysis of altruism was made (at it's root) in response to the philosophy of Kant,whom she believed made the final leap by saying that a truly moral action should have NO benefit for the actor. I have been trying to remember which two dictionaries she used without success.
When I think about how American patriotism demands a certain amount of altruism, she might have something going on there. I remember how anybody trying to say anything bad about 9/11 would have a room full of people verbally attack them. They refused to think for themselves and lashed out at anybody who did.
"The very definition of a "free society" is one in which NO ONE could use force against others, except in self-defense."
My point is that if you do create a free society it will inevitable in time not become free as those in the top will put into place structures to stop making it free anymore.
Ayn Rand was insane. Phil Donahue should have ripped her a new one when she said that monopolies can't exist in a free society! Of course they can and it is due to that fact that her whole argument/philosophy is flushed down the toilet. Her idea of interpersonal relationships doesn't involve recognizing the other as an individual, which is self-defeating because no one would recognize anyone else as an individual. No golden rule, everyone out for himself and consideration for others is evil.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
At first I totally disagreed with her philosopy on alturisim, but as i listened to her a little harder I now agree with her. I believe that one should serve others and help them out whenever they need it. But don't run oneself into the ground and sacrafice your life for the person.
Atlas Shrugged. I read it about 3 months before the financial meltdown last year. Extraordinarily insight into the small, crabbed men of business who run to the government for protection. (I'm not a follower of Rand, btw. I was just shocked by the similarities to the current situation.)
Inheriting a railroad is just a normal part of American life. The central conceit of Atlas is that Dagny Taggart gets to run the Taggart Transcontinental railroad because she's an amazing talent. It's nothing to do with the fact that her father died and willed the company to her and her siblings. For Randians, hard work gets you to the top, not nepotism, no matter how much nepotism appears to be on display.
"Are you unaware of what a massive FAILURE that was in the USSR?" That's not an argument. Look at Sweden, Norway, they have income redistribution and haven't failed so far.
When ppl speak of pure altruism in philosophy the feeling of compassion must be removed. Pure altruism requires giving with a lack of compassion. Like I said before, if you give and get a good feeling from giving it is selfish.
On the tycoon raising the prices, If he raised the prices to an outrageous amount, his customers couldn't purchase it, and therefor the Tycoon looses profit.
You are so right, anyone who has a complete balanced life has made some sacrifices for self and others. It is not realistic or satisfying to live any other way. You can only imagine those who live solely for themselves, I assure you, they are the most miserable of all creatures.......
I think the distinction there is compelled sacrifice vs. voluntary sacrifice. If you think you have to sacrifice yourself to be moral it’s not the same as voluntarily helping and being charitable. Big difference
If you rise your children, and take care about your family it isn't an altruism- according to definition! Because it's in your interests to care about your values, guard them because you love them , you want them to be happy for your self-satisfaction, and altruism it's sacrifice your valuables in the name of commonweal, DISINTERESTEDLY.
I think its sad how people misinterpret what she is saying and get offended without fully understanding it. If only you understood, you would change your mind. Fact is impossible to deny when you understand that it is fact.
@technoviking Again, it's a problem with words. Rand often began by saying, "First, let us define our terms." Altruism, as she would define it, is a system of using force to compel people to sacrafice their interests for the "good" of some vague group such as "society" or "the church" or "the poor" or "national security". The key is FORCE....no one should be FORCED to be altruistic. What you earn is YOURS to use as YOU see fit....you own it to no one, you are NOT a slave.
Poor Donahue, he wants to know how we "feel." He should be concerned with how we think instead.
Say what you want about either of these two, I'm sure you will agree that you will find no more stimulating a conversation anywhere on television today. Donahue was not perfect but I would submit that he absolutely brought out the best of whomever he happened to be interviewing on a given day. NO??????
No one helps someone JUST because you see a need. When a beggar asks you for money, you give it because you felt pity. The amount you give is not determined by how much the person needs but by how much you wont miss / the amount needed to end the feeling of sorrow. True altruism would be taking the beggar home while wanting nothing in return and not patting yourself on the back for your action. Only religion can make a person do that, and even then they act selfishly to earn a place in heaven.
If you study her philosophy and you love logic and consistency, then you love her philosophy. Consider her ethics and try to find a better philosopher than her! Her philosophy makes you happy and succesful over the long hall, because it will built self-esteem. I also think she provides a great foundation for laissez faire capitalism, a moral answer to why capitalism is the most humane system.
If you say that Rand is warning us about being selfish, then you don't comprehend her meaning of selfishness, and why it is a virtue. Learn her meaning of selfishness and only then can you clearly evaluate it in regard to yourself. I understand her meaning regarding selfishness, and that is why I clearly not only understand that it is a virtue, but also as to why.
That's because any human being who has empathy looks at someone who doesn't and says "OMFG, get away from me you fucking monster!"
If the state can't initiate the use of force, you can't have taxation. If its voluntary it can't become a monopoly. You're evading the basic points here.
If it forbids the use of force to defend oneself against others it can only do so by initiation of force itself. and if it doesn't forbid the use of force for self-defense, there can't have a monopoly on it.
You can tell when a cheap point is being made... the crowd will be applauding it.
And I encourage you to demand RATIONAL standards and rights, as defined in "The Nature of Government" and "Man's Rights" by Ayn Rand.
there's a lot that is obviously bad about selfishness and arrogance.
Sorry for the typo--I just find her Objectivism view on morality to be arbitrary and because of that, not too objective. For me it's difficult to study philosophy while stuck in frames of references that are absolute.
When I said unforeseen, I was trying not to overuse unpredictable. Also when I said atoms have random movement, I was referring to the "vacuum" that atoms occupy to have non-linear direction. In my view, if atoms had no vacuum they'd occupy a space that would give them predictable motion that is again deterministic.(I hate this word too BTW.)
@sybo59 LAWLZ, you are literally the 2nd person to get the reference after about 4 years on youtube. You just made my day.
"......in a free society people who gain advantage will put in unfair restrictions over others as soon as they can so it will no longer be a free society for some." This is so irrational as to almost be beneath contempt. The very definition of a "free society" is one in which NO ONE could use force against others, except in self-defense. How, precisely, do you then envision anyone would " put in unfair restrictions over others"?
Read Rand's essay "The Nature of Government"
She is saying that if a person is limited to bettering them self they are limited to a better society. Its like if are government would put a cap on a persons wage, in turn they limit the productivity of that person, and by limiting the productivity of that person they limit the society around that person. This goes not just for people but for corporations and organizations.
Altruist? In 50 years of my life I have never met, or even heard, of an Altruist in the sense that Ayn Rand describes. I know both rich and poor people who help others and none are even close to Rand's definition. She is just beating on a Straw Man in order to justify that helping people is not a moral virtue.
Donahue called her a warm human being. Warm by temperature only.
Whoops! I meant to say "writes" like a first grader! If you compare her writing to Robert Heinlein.
What is "discrimination"? It is the act of telling the difference between two things. We discriminate every moment of every day, and we MUST in order to survive. Every man must be free to act upon his own judgement in order to survive. Anything less short-circuits the essentials vital to survival: reason and discrimination. So long as he does not initiate the use of force a man not only has the RIGHT to discriminate, he MUST discriminate, between good and bad, value and nonvalue, daily.
@AnubisEye009 It's a fair question. If you study the progression of Standard Oil, though, you will find that their market share was already steadily diminishing long before the Sherman antitrust legislation was enacted to break apart the company. First they were beaten out abroad, and eventually their domestic dominance was reduced as well. What you have to recall is that oil was then considered a dangerous and speculative investment; Rockefeller was one of the very first to even pursue it.
She hated the savagery of people from the mid-east, collectively not as individuals. That does not necessarily make her racist. I know someone who cannot stand a select group who happens to be of a specific race but its due to their own individual ignorance. But here is the kicker; That select group does not speak for the rest of their populace. Such people CHOOSES to remain ignorant rather than each setting themselves apart by becoming a person of genuine integrity and actual virtue.
Not what I meant actually. What does she do in that is different in the different branches of Philosophy that include: Epistemology, Aesthetics, Logic, Metaphysics, and Ethics? I mean did she ever do anything new? Like how Kant re-established the rift between Empiricism and Rationalism? Or how Kierkegaard invented existentialism? Did she have any idea that was original or a reinvention of a pre-existing idea? Does she compare to Sextus Empiricus, Epicurus or Epictetus?
Explain how Objectivism is a religion. Objectivism is based on the primacy of existence. Religion is based on the primacy of conscoiusness (God's). Objectivism is based on reason. Religion is based on faith.
What I meant by my comment was that rand is basically straw-manning the concept of altruism. I don't disagree with what she's saying, just that she's not really talking about altruism. Altruism doesn't have to be taken to the extreme of owing your life to others. It can be much simpler, just doing good things for people without worrying about what you are getting out of it. She's twisting the definition in order to justify her world view.
I mean The classic argument for income redistribution IS that those who higher pay don't deserve all of the higher pay because their education and position was partly a gift to them by the society they live. Further by taxing the very rich little freedom is taken away ( as one dollar for a rich person isn't much) and giving it to someone very poor increases their freedom quite a bit (as one dollar to someone starving is a lot).
To all those who think this woman is a lunatic at least take away from this her claim that all monopolies are created by special favours from government. There is substantial evidence to prove it and it's usually used as an argument against capitalism. Banks (special relationship with central banks), Microsoft (copyrights granted by laws), many of the richest people in the took advantage of nationalization, etc. etc.
"They determine what people are promoted and who is employed. " First, in a free market Objectivist society, no one is forced to take a job, and everyone is free to negotiate with an employer over wages. You will be free to start a business, and since it is YOUR property only YOU will have the authority to decide whom to hire and whom to promote. If you oppose this, you are saying that no one should have control over their property? That is insane.
I find much to admire about Ayn's charachter, not least of which she was a completely self-directed and self-determined person. I encourage you to read "Who Is Ayn Rand?" by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden for some details. My admiration aside, it is her principles, not her personality, that matters.
When did she say that Russia being bad was the sole reason she has for altruism being bad? Earlier in the video she explains why she believes altruism is bad.
So we will have private police forces for hire to round up murderers, etc? And I suppose we would have a private court system that delivers justice to those who pay the most? Your ideas are adolescent at best.
Rand's journal entry written when she was 30: “One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one’s way to get the best for oneself. Fine!”
So the Germans were right?
Please provide subtitles
The most free market we have ever seen has just led to the most massive financial collapse in history. Derivatives were unregulated they just brought the world economy to its knees. Free market advocates have no ground to stand on, period.
...but when it happens in damage of your own interests, and when these people try to insult and degrade others, who work for themselves, and when they advocate their help as a single virtue in the world, meanwhile nobody helps them to carry their burden-this becomes a totally sick system.
Donahue's intellect is greatly outmatched by that of Ayn Rand.
A free market society does not "favor" anyone. A government as described by Ayn Rand in "The Nature of Government" and "Governement Financing in a Free Society" would be incapable of giving out advantages or disadvantages. In that society, every individual would be free to deal, or not, with whomever he chose. The only way anyone could become successful would be to convince others to trade freely for what he offers. Nothing could be more just.
You dare to attack Rand's proposal as "impossible" by YOU propose to identify precisely which rich have robbed exactly whose ancestors? Guess what? Without goverment regulation and control, it would not be possible for anyone "rich" to harm anyone "poor". If you feel you are being "expoited" in a free market, you are free to quit and work for someone else, or even to start your own business. No one in a free market can FORCE anyone to work for them or to buy their products
Saying that suppose in you are a farmer and you usually share the food/profit among your children based on how much each of your children cultivates to motivate them. Suppose one of your children has a lot of food, more than he needs, and another very little that he is starving. The point of having unequality to provide motivation is undermined by the plight of your starving child. In this case if you care for both equally you may choose to redistribute the food accordingly.
$2.50 per gallon is used as the extreme example of monopoly abuse. :'(
You dont understand what she's saying. A human being has emotional and psychological needs. She's not saying you shouldn't fulfill those needs. What she's saying is you cannot allow your irrational emotions to guide your decision making. You need to understand the reasons behind your emotions and make the best decision. If you rely on someone, helping them is rational. Because the better off they are the more you can rely on them. So I take care of my family because I need them and I value them.
what are you talking about? objectivism is compatible with taxes and government services. what is wrong with the state is the use of force to tax people for services that won't necessarily benefit them. it is morally neutral for the objectivist to use roads or any other service that the government is providing. one might call it "looting" but the real evil is the majority imposing their will on a minority through the monopoly of government force.
There's nothing wrong with self-sacrifice when it is done for the benefit of one's own children, who are the carriers of one's own genes. This is very common in nature. Organisms make tremendous sacrifices for their offspring. Altruism is also found when social animals will make sacrifices for their pack. Humans too naturally make sacrifices for their tribe, race, and country. The perversion occurs -- and Rand never acknowledges this -- when this tendency is extended to humanity at large.
@elizabethfaraone "Very difficult circumstances in Europe"? First, since when is Russia a part of Europe? If government agents seized everything your family had ever worked for, stole all your money and made you homeless, would you call that "very difficult circumstances? The fact that Rand had ample personal reasons to despise communism in no way invalidates her arguments against ANY form of collectivism.
Her reasons are philosophical reasons and not economic ones. She wants fundamental liberties for individuals. Forget the conflict of economists about free market and interventionism. Just listen what she says at a philosophical level. You'll learn a lot.
How does that formula work? How do you 'adjust for inflation' how do you work out purchasing power of the dollar 20 years ago.
To Donahue's stupid argument about oil barons forming monopolistic companies in a purely free market I say this: read Ludwig von Mises' article "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth," something absolutely everyone should read. A monopoly is, in a free market, impossible, simply by virtue of what a free market is. There is no way for a monopolist to calculate, and so, assuming no coercion, no monopolist could stay a monopolist for very long.
I think there are so many better philosopher out there. She is very gradeschool.