Liberal, Objectivist, Conservative: Divergent Voices (Leonard Peikoff on McCuistion TV)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 апр 2023
- "Ideas do matter. Philosophy matters," says host Dennis McCuistion in this lively 1998 televised debate featuring Objectivist Leonard Peikoff, conservative Phyllis Schlafly, and liberal Phil Wexler. Topics include abortion, welfare, the economy, government spending, taxes and affirmative action.
Video courtesy of The McCuistion Program at mccuistiontv.com
Subscribe to ARI’s RUclips channel to make sure you never miss a video:
ruclips.net/user/subscription_...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.com/us/app/ayn-r...
- Google Play play.google.com/store/apps/de...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.org/donate
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/signup
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynrand.org/
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.org/events/
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
![How Sweet - NewJeans ニュージーンズ 뉴진스 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 240524](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UEELqlGOl_k/mqdefault.jpg)
It's always a wonderful day when ARI puts up more Leonard Peikoff content
Peikoff is a great thinker.
Well, he DID spend 30 years learning from (arguably) the GREATEST thinker in history!
@@davidblankenau That would be Rothbard
@@matthewapsey4869 Rothbard was a dishonest, nasty man who ripped off Rand without credit, and who ended by supporting dictatorships over the United States.
@@matthewapsey4869 HAHAHAHA!! AYN RAND! Rothbard was a f****ng Anarchist.
The Libertarians appropriated pieces of Rand's philosophy (such as non-initiation of physical force), but rejected the philosophical foundation underpinning ALL of Objectivism.
I love it when you pull these out of the archives. I'm pretending it's 1998 and this is live tv. How thrilling.
The ironic part is you don't even have to fantasize too much in order to pretend this aired just yesterday.
@@PoLanka65 goes to show, a nations actions are guided by philosophy. Which comes first, and gives plenty of warning if you take their assertions to their logical ends.
Great on so many levels. I can’t imagine seeing a discussion like this today- from the intelligent questions of the host and audience, to the respectful and thoughtful responses. It shows how prescient Peikoff, and Rand, were on these issues. It shows just how far the wacky Left and wacky Right have fallen from the semi-plausible Liberals and Conservatives of the 90s. It shows the religious and altruistic seeds of destruction that led to the bankruptcy of today’s Liberals and Conservatives. It shows that Rand’s ideas are just as relevant today as then, that they have stood the test of time, and that this is our opportunity to fill the intellectual void. Thanks to Dr Peikoff for carrying the torch then, and to ARI for carrying it now.
"The purpose of "majority" is for choosing the personnel of Government - not it's principles" Thank you Leonard, I will be using that.
This is exactly what I want from ARI. Thank you so much for this.
THANK YOU, ARI, for publishing this fascinating discussion! I hope there is much more available content to be released in the near future!
More Peikoff please
What a treat. Peikoff’s intellectual clarity is so apparent when he’s in a room with disintegrated folks (like in the famous 1984 socialism debate). I must say though, the conservative and liberal were both somewhat charming, in their own ways.
A well conducted program that explored ideas in a civilized way. Twenty five years later you are unlikely see its likes again.
It’s weird when things like this bring tears to my eyes. Simply hearing people speak with intelligence in a public way like they used to do, it’s such a great feeling to hear someone speak with conviction and confidence in a literate and articulate manner and very sad to see how divided and low we have fallen since not so long ago. 😢
This discussion, as wrong as Wexler and Schlafly were about many of these issues, could not even be held today because of the massive intellectual and moral deterioration of both the so-called "liberals" AND the "conservatives". Wexler and Schlafly seem almost rational by comparison. Peikoff, of course, ran rings around both of them, and today any real Objectivist would (and does) destroy any argument each side could ever make, on ANY issue.
It’s like they are all operating in about 22 levels of comprehension and the other two shine a light on two or three levels that are easy to see because they deal with what’s happening in life, but Leonard shines his all the way to the bottom level and all the rest become easier to see.
Excellent intellectual discussion on issues still active, unresolved and about the same ideas. Unfortunately this level of discussion of ideas is mostly gone now.
Peikoff is just so awesome!
End all Foreign Aid.
Including Israel.
End all Bail Outs.
Waiting for the outrage.
Peace!
\o/
End 'intellectual property' protectionism, too.
@@matthewapsey4869
Thanks for the reply Matthew.
The U.S. government gives 20 years to extract as much profit as you are able. Then open it up to competition.
Peace!
\o/
@@DavidCodyPeppers. Should not give you a monopoly in the first place, it's evil.
@@inspectremagna Not sure what to say to that. Sort of, but you know that you're conflating different things. The mind is how we choose what to acquire as property and how to do this, 'intellectual property' however is a bogus state-granted monopoly over the production of a particular action / implementation of information discovered by an individual, but this is a totally unjust demand of negative easement over the property of others.
Not that it's a significant metric, but Dr. Peikoff had more applauses than the other guests, maybe even combined. To think on an open stage, the general population doesn't think Objectivism is absurd. It's a shame that these types of discussions among differing ideas don't happen more often. Great discussion.
Thank you, ARI. This is a most interesting discussion - With some unexpected turns. Leonard Peikoff, as always, is amazing. I was surprised at how well spoken the conservative lady is. (At least on some of the issues).
Why surprised?
I forget where I seen Ayn Rand write about this, but on an open stage, where two (or more) opposing ideas are clearly expressed, it's the more rational idea that will likely win. But when the differing ideas are on a stage, and there's obfuscation or evasion, the irrational idea(s) will likely win.
With this discussion being so open and clear, Dr. Leonard Peikoff was able to dissect the ideas of the opposition, effectively dismantling them. Amazing job Dr. Peikoff!!
48:00 Great point on racism.
That Wexler hairdo. PRICELESS! NEVER SEEN THAT IN MY LIFE! Here we are 25 yeaers later and closer to socialism.
Thank you for uploading this! I thoroughly enjoyed watching it!
53:26 Nine second sound bytes! 🫣
That was totally awesome. Thank you ARI.
Excellent!
Are you going to publish Dr Peikoffs debate/discussion with David Horowitz?
I didn’t know that existed!
@@sybo59 neither did I. I need to see it all.
@@bingbong3643 I tried Googling and found a Peikoff podcast clip in which he answers a question about his opinion of Horowitz. He says he’s never read any of his work, but had him on his radio show at one point and was completely turned off. Peikoff says Horowitz compared Rand to Stalin for having an absolutist view of morality. So I don’t think there was ever a formal debate, but I’d love to hear the radio clip, if it survives anywhere!
Pretty close to the issues we face today, but they use reason and intellect instead of tribalism to make their points.
Yes, it’s important to also see this now as we were children, young or for what other reason, Mau have been disinterested. Now they have a captive audience.
43:03 Oh the modern woke crowd would LOOOOOOVE him!
If I didn't previously know the philosophy of each guest before the introduction, I would have EASILY identified the Liberal just by appearance.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
"we can tell whether the fetus is male or female". Wow, today's woke crowd would really hate that idea.
Civilized America… so much nostalgia
27:27 & 27:47 🇺🇸🗽 👏🏻.
I see it for the first time. Cool one 😮
Ibm genuinely surprised that Peikoff would participate in something like this, instead of throwing a tantrum about vnot sanctioning evilv.
Phil backed into a corner reverted to a feelings based argument without a logical foundation behind it. As for the woman presenting at the hospital, I would have immediately called that out as a 'lifeboat scenario'. You can't fabricate a hypothetical situation and then base your argument upon that because even if it was disproved, you can keep on modifying the scenario until you win the argument which takes the debate further away from reality.
Wow. I look at this, the free to choose series, Rand on Donahue and Johnny Carson... Tv used to be much better.
This was amazing Peikoff rocked it
Also... It seems liberals and conservatives used to be much better ..
Oh, never seen this one before.🍿
22:20 "You're letting Washington enlighten us?" 🔥
Not a criticism of Objectivism but I want to know how the police, military and court system would be financed without the progressive tax system. That is one thing I have not heard explained. Building a world class military is not cheap.
Extremely Civil
We have fell so far in 26 years. Imagine conservatives and liberals today. I wonder if these guys realize Lenard is canadian.
pseudo intellectuals won’t debate objectivists today. We will never see debates like this again. Same with debates from Milton Friedman back in the 70’s/80s.
Well said! 42:48.
TV used to be good? Weird... O.O
Clips of Dr. Peikoff from the show. Feel free to share!
"Technically a parasite."
No, it has to be a different species to be "technically" a parasite.
This reminds me of how just a quarter century ago, liberal meant something far different than it does today. I believe Mr. Wexler is a true liberal, where it meant freedom of expression, freedom of choice. Just one example, the prayer in school. Wexler stated that the school should not be forcing beliefs on children. Today's version of liberal would be against pulling children out of school and in favor of forcing beliefs like globalism, socialism, transgendrism, etc. It seems to me that when this was filmed, the liberals would have been the ones pushing school choice more than conservatives.
Why must he emphasize 'attached' (machine or womb) why can't he accept that a true human can exist with an ego in the mother - that has no autonomy over whether it may keep receiving nutrients & shelter? Well... i guess he doesn't get a potential & actual Man are derived from whether it has whole awareness (not whether it's in this or that moment o childbirth necessarily)
Phyllis was right about sound bite culture.
People who say you can't judge a book by its cover have never met Phil Wexler, nor any of the other self-righteous, anti-social clowns who are his spiritual compatriots.
Thank you as an
1.Objectivist I hold Capitalism as my pursuit, political or otherwise
2. A Conservative I hold that the Fiscal power be removed back to how MAN lived before the emperor, chief or President.
3. As a Liberal I believe in a public made up of individuals, where 1mm off the skin of your body, either is your private property or a public property, public meaning other free citizens ie Liberals each as an individual..
These people seem a little behind in terms of fashion.
This is what prevents me from believing and working for a secular society. A world of logic and reasoning is great until you end up at the place where what people are spending time on is reasoning themselves out of hedonistic consequences, and then start asking questions like when can children consent? Is it possible for animals to consent? And of course with one's belief in their ability to rationalize comes a growing group's tendency to believe they ought to be able to force people to help others.
Everytime a society "goes secular" it's as if degeneracy and disgusting people start to leave the decent people in the dust. I don't know if I believe in God, but I only want to live in a christian society.
4:50 Rights don't come into conflict, hence 'right' -- there is only one just victor in a conflict over a scarce means. The fetus is an invader that has no right to the mother's body, she has every right to evict it at any point should she choose, regardless of how much this offends pro-life sensibilities. I used to lean pro-life, but the more I think about this, the more I see the pro-choice perspective is the only correct application of property to the dilemma.
Leave it to an anarchist to boil moral questions down to a matter of property.
@@sybo59 Moral questions _are_ a matter of property.
@@matthewapsey4869 You have it precisely backward. Rights are an extension and application of ethics.
It is unethical for an assortment of strangers to veto another rational humans decisions, and force them to produce offspring like cattle to their own detriment, and eradication of countless future options to find success and happiness for themselves.
Conservatives want to force unwed and early age mothers, or those in poverty, to birth their offspring.
While simultaneously labeling the child illegitimate.
Then eradicating most welfare for single mothers and children. While keeping the welfare for seniors who already had their chance and failed to earn or save enough to retire.
Then they believe in conscripting the child at age 18 to be arrested, detained, tortured, and deported into a war zone. To be decapitated maimed or captured and tortured. In the name of "national security" they wish to abort young men by conscription thru the selective service.
The Right is an incoherent nut factory.
YOUR GOD KILLED HIS OWN SON! SO WHY CAN'T SHE?
When liberals held some similar views with objectivists.