Michael Nguyen You should learn how not swear, get angry or cuss. it will improve your personal life immensely. As for the DOD and the President, they don't control who goes to war and who doesn't. It's the bankers. Destruction is profitable, especially when you overinflate an economy. Just ask Hitler's heirs.
Dear critics of self-defense, please name one example from history that shows how appeasement or self-sacrificial rules of engagement led to victory. I don't know of any. Thus, I suspect you are not advocating victory but rather self-sacrifice.
@@johnsutton9915 That's the point--the response should be disproportionate. It's not "you kill one of us, we kill one of you"; it's "for every one of us you kill, we'll kill a thousand of you and raze your infrastructure to the ground, so don't even think about it". That's the only way to deter your enemies _before_ they attack you.
@@johnsutton9915 The difference is, I'm not for attacking any peaceful individual or country for any ideological or material reason. I'm for defending myself with the greatest possible force and to the greatest extent when attacked. I agree that civilian casualties should be minimized as much as possible. But intentionally crippling yourself and not fighting seriously because innocents will get hurt just incentivizes your enemies to use them more as meat shields and keep attacking you while you refuse to defend yourself. What the US should have done in 2001 was to use the full might of its Air Force to destroy all Taliban and Al'Qaeda quarters and camps with no regard to collateral damage, and to employ Intelligence and Special Forces to hunt down those who escaped and assassinate them, then get the hell out of there. There would be civilian casualties, but overall much fewer than the current debacle that lasted 20 years and achieved nothing. Their blood would be on Al'Qaeda's hands for attacking the US and the Taliban's for aiding and abetting them. The moral blame lies with the tyrants who oppress their people, not the free country that defends itself when attacked.
@@johnsutton9915 It's a philosophy: egoism. Yes, I want to be safe and happy, and I'm willing to defend myself when attacked, no matter the cost. Potential attackers should think twice. I don't want to bend any other culture to my will, I'm prepared to leave them alone as long as they leave me alone. I don't want to "civilize" or "Westernize" Afghanistan or any other country, but I do want justice for Al'Qaeda's attack on the US. What about the civilians and innocents _they_ killed? Perhaps you misunderstood me. I'm not advocating for a Genghis Khan-like retribution where tens of thousands are intentionally slaughtered and mountains of skulls built to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies. But when terrorists and their helpers are hiding behind civilians because they know you won't be able to touch them, _not_ taking the shot and letting them do as they please is sheer folly. You say for any one of them we kill, we create 100 more enemies. What then do we create if we don't retaliate when attacked, appease our enemies, and display nothing but weakness and cowardice? More friends? Will the Taliban respect and fear us then, or will they be encouraged to be even more aggressive? Finally, justifying the barbarisms of Islam as just "a difference of ideas between languages and cultures" is contemptible. Is stoning adulterous women to death, killing apostates and executing homosexuals simply a cultural difference I'm supposed to respect?
@@johnsutton9915Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video. First thing Yaron talks about is the the insanity of the "just" war theory.
I think that is a wrong analysis as it places emphasis on the behavior of the enemy. It suggests that we should behave as they do to win. We should use proper rules of engagement because they are objectively the right thing to do. If they have sacrificial rules of engagement, or immoral aggressive rules of engagement, neiter would didcate what ours should be to defeat them.
Mat 5:39 "*But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."* That's fucking stupid.
***** When you put it that way, yes. But in practice and throughout history it didn't work. Gee, you crucified me and so I rose from the dead. Then my philosophy destroyed your Rome. And from the Ashes of the Roman Empire rose American democracy and republicanism which tried to rule the world but failed miserably.
Mmm.. on a personal level between people, I think it does. Seems to me those popular, basic teachings of Christ are the same as you'd see in Zen Buddhism...which I personally love. I really don't think it means...go ahead and hit me some more. When you turn the other cheek, usually you are turning to look them square in the face. I'm pretty sure there's more to that quote, in fact I'd wager that it's a powerful piece of advice that's misconstrued for interesting reasons. I think it's so weird the way these kinds of quotes are dangled in our faces all the time but nobody actually knows what they mean.
@@sokainabn6764 Awesome! I saw that you've a Muslim name and you said you're an Objectivist, so I just couldn't resist my curiosity to hear your opinion on Religion. I too am an Objectivist and a Non Religious Man, but I'm into Spirituality (means, I've my own Spiritual beliefs, just for helping me live my best life). You're the first Ex-muslim Objectivist I've known, I am very happy to see you reject Religion and embrace Objectivism. Wishing you the very best for your life ahead! ⚡💐⚡
Asking when is it morally proper and necessary to wage war is like asking when is it morally proper and necessary to destroy the planet. Each death from killing in any war results in trillions of lives lost to the infinite future. Asking what should be the goal of a war is like asking what should be the goal of suicide or destroying a planet of 8.8 billion humans. Asking under what conditions if any, is it morally proper to use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons is like asking what form does society want to take for its own suicide. I am surprised that Ayn Rand's name is being used to promote wars. I thought the objectivist selfish philosophy was based on reason. War is not reason. No war is ever reasonable. All war mongers have been declared insane by the Church of Scientology. War is a form of group psychosis. If your group needs money and supports the end of all wars on earth, then a trillion dollars will be made available to fund your efforts, otherwise any group that supports war, any kind of war, should be abolished. See my work on the Octodragon.
There is a difference between being the aggressor and being the one defending himself in a war. There is a difference between good and evil, an important one.
Exactly. Are you just supposed to sit back and take it when someone flies planes into your buildings? No. We are not the ones who started this war. Islamists did that.
The fact that Ayn R's based her position on alteuïsm and rational egoism on those people that create stuff for humanity (not politicians) seems to have been totally lost on this man. In addition, assuming Bin Laden being the genius terrorist behind the 9/11 attacks there are some serious flaws in his rationale: - the man was not Iraqi - nor based in Iraq (or Iran) - a rerrorist (group) is not a nation - 3000 killed vs over 100,000 is out of proportion - no Weapons of MD - Sadam was a proxy to fight Iran prior to the Iraq invasion. - leaving the invaded countries w/o much (re-)constuction. Whether Ayn Rand's great principles are not hijacked here for another rational egoïsm is hard to prove.
+Alex S. Gabor It is not so much the "illustrating positive values" of killing people. It is not so much positive as it is an acceptance that war will be bloody and cruel. War by its very nature is cruel and evil. There will be casualties no matter how "just" or "right" you are. It is naive to believe that wars can be fought without cost. Some rules of engagement ignore the realities of war and can hinder the overall success of a war effort.
you seem to confuse "altruism" which is the individual voluntarily giving of his own using his own free will , with government stealing from the common man, "for the godd of the common man.
Silly man tried to explain Rand's philosophy to the executive chairman of the ayn rand institute. They should have gotten rid of him from the podium much sooner
Citizens in an 'enemy country' are not necessarily enemies. They might be victims of the real enemies and may be completely innocent. To kill an innocent person is wrong. Why should the lives of Americans be worth more than the lives of people in other countries?
No, there is a difference between just pointlessly killing innocent people and winning a war by which civillians will die which they always will. Also, there are often very few innocent people when they elect such governments by popular vote. Also, any innocent people who may die are the result of the aggressor, not the defender, by the law of causality. With your evil view good will always lose and such a person isn't really good, but suicidal and self-hating, which isn't good at all. If you want to commit suicide then do so, but don't murder your fellow countrymen by forcing them to fight sacrificial wars.
AlwaysReason You can't win a war without people dying in the enemy country. They are your enemy. Your enemy isn't innocent. There could be innocent people who oppose that enemey and support you and if you know about them then it is in your interest to not kill them if you can avoid it. You don't seem reasonable.
+MrApplewine What war, genius? The perpetual war to transfer public money to private hands? That war is being thoroughly won. No other war really exists. We're just murdering thousands of innocents in the process of robbing US treasury.
AlwaysReason Those are wars of altruism. I don't support those. I only support selfish wars. All the altruists look around the world and say "what ar eyou going to do about Alepo" or this or that. But, because the USA is the strongest the altruists see it is an obligation for us to sacrifice our soldiers to go fight wars that aren't in our self-interest. Objectivists and Capitalists don't share that morality. We only support destroying our enemies and threats to us.
Why should soldiers protect the citizens of their own country in case of an invasion? That is "the ethics of altruism" (a package-deal if there ever was one.) No Objectivist can, consistently with his principles, be either a soldier or a policeman, because these are inherently self-sacrificial professions. Why should an Objectivist ever take the bullet for anyone else, let alone complete strangers? Objectivists, therefore, have to hope that there are enough non-Objectivists left in the country to protect it.
American soldiers get paid and receive awards and special retirement privileges when they retire. There is also a path to promotion and leadership within the ranks of the military. They fight for themselves as much as for everyone else. They don't want to live in a world where the enemy dominates them. Also, ideally (and as Yaron explains), minimal or no American casualties are sustained in a war, only enemy casualties. So ideally, they don't have to take a bullet, they only give bullets.
To not confront danger when it threatens your values is not in your self-interest. Moreover, to hope that someone else will protect your values for you is to abdicate your responsibility for your own life, which is a disastrous way to live. As for dangerous work, I think that one should not do it unless they are willing and able to pursue and protect their own life and values with their work. A policeman should serve not to die for others but to help create a world where people, including himself, don't suffer and die in the hands of aggressors. A soldier should fight not to die for his country but to protect his own future as a citizen of his country. I think that to the extent that you shy away from these responsibilities at the time of need, to that extent you are endangering your own life.
In addition to my previous comment, I want to add that it is our moral obligation to make dangerous work as safe as we can, either through knowledge, training, equipment, etc. At the same time, it is also our moral obligation to make such work as rewarding as it deserves to be, i.e. with respect to its value in our lives.
Also also, to accept that you must be prepared to self-sacrifice is the accept that your life is expendable, not to others but to yourself! This undermines your value for your own life both morally and emotionally, because your emotions are derived from internalised values to a great extent. This in turn undermines your motivation to mitigate dangers to your own life and to confront such dangers with care and reason.
![Eminem - Fuel (feat. JID) [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/t5H_CewqpKA/mqdefault.jpg)
100% agree
I swear this man should be advising the president and the dod
Michael Nguyen You should learn how not swear, get angry or cuss. it will improve your personal life immensely. As for the DOD and the President, they don't control who goes to war and who doesn't. It's the bankers. Destruction is profitable, especially when you overinflate an economy. Just ask Hitler's heirs.
Relevant today.
Its relevance is transcendent, it'd seem.
Dear critics of self-defense, please name one example from history that shows how appeasement or self-sacrificial rules of engagement led to victory. I don't know of any. Thus, I suspect you are not advocating victory but rather self-sacrifice.
Straw man
@@johnsutton9915 That's the point--the response should be disproportionate. It's not "you kill one of us, we kill one of you"; it's "for every one of us you kill, we'll kill a thousand of you and raze your infrastructure to the ground, so don't even think about it". That's the only way to deter your enemies _before_ they attack you.
@@johnsutton9915 The difference is, I'm not for attacking any peaceful individual or country for any ideological or material reason. I'm for defending myself with the greatest possible force and to the greatest extent when attacked. I agree that civilian casualties should be minimized as much as possible. But intentionally crippling yourself and not fighting seriously because innocents will get hurt just incentivizes your enemies to use them more as meat shields and keep attacking you while you refuse to defend yourself. What the US should have done in 2001 was to use the full might of its Air Force to destroy all Taliban and Al'Qaeda quarters and camps with no regard to collateral damage, and to employ Intelligence and Special Forces to hunt down those who escaped and assassinate them, then get the hell out of there. There would be civilian casualties, but overall much fewer than the current debacle that lasted 20 years and achieved nothing. Their blood would be on Al'Qaeda's hands for attacking the US and the Taliban's for aiding and abetting them. The moral blame lies with the tyrants who oppress their people, not the free country that defends itself when attacked.
@@johnsutton9915 It's a philosophy: egoism. Yes, I want to be safe and happy, and I'm willing to defend myself when attacked, no matter the cost. Potential attackers should think twice.
I don't want to bend any other culture to my will, I'm prepared to leave them alone as long as they leave me alone. I don't want to "civilize" or "Westernize" Afghanistan or any other country, but I do want justice for Al'Qaeda's attack on the US. What about the civilians and innocents _they_ killed?
Perhaps you misunderstood me. I'm not advocating for a Genghis Khan-like retribution where tens of thousands are intentionally slaughtered and mountains of skulls built to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies. But when terrorists and their helpers are hiding behind civilians because they know you won't be able to touch them, _not_ taking the shot and letting them do as they please is sheer folly. You say for any one of them we kill, we create 100 more enemies. What then do we create if we don't retaliate when attacked, appease our enemies, and display nothing but weakness and cowardice? More friends? Will the Taliban respect and fear us then, or will they be encouraged to be even more aggressive?
Finally, justifying the barbarisms of Islam as just "a difference of ideas between languages and cultures" is contemptible. Is stoning adulterous women to death, killing apostates and executing homosexuals simply a cultural difference I'm supposed to respect?
@@johnsutton9915Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video. First thing Yaron talks about is the the insanity of the "just" war theory.
Brilliant and logical. I needed this. Thank you Yaron for your work.
I can hear him channelling Peikoff.
That is why we have not had any decisive victory anymore and we are facing enemies have no such rules of engagement.
I think that is a wrong analysis as it places emphasis on the behavior of the enemy. It suggests that we should behave as they do to win. We should use proper rules of engagement because they are objectively the right thing to do. If they have sacrificial rules of engagement, or immoral aggressive rules of engagement, neiter would didcate what ours should be to defeat them.
Much like modern society in general..............
When individuals act in self-defence then it's OK, but when nations act in self-defence then suddenly it's no longer enough to justify their actions.
To be fair, nations don't objectively exist.
And these people just loved to filibuster. Too much patience by yaron
Relevant forever.
Is there a transcript of this speech by any chance? It would greatly help me with my summer philosophy paper. Viva la objectivism!
YARON BROOK THE BEST
Tywin Lannister approves this message.
Tywin would probably approve of Just War theorists. It makes his enemies weaker.
Excellent!
Mat 5:39
"*But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."*
That's fucking stupid.
To turn the other cheek means to offer a surprising alternative that will take the opponet off guard. It's actually an awesome quote, IMO.
***** When you put it that way, yes. But in practice and throughout history it didn't work. Gee, you crucified me and so I rose from the dead. Then my philosophy destroyed your Rome. And from the Ashes of the Roman Empire rose American democracy and republicanism which tried to rule the world but failed miserably.
Mmm.. on a personal level between people, I think it does. Seems to me those popular, basic teachings of Christ are the same as you'd see in Zen Buddhism...which I personally love. I really don't think it means...go ahead and hit me some more. When you turn the other cheek, usually you are turning to look them square in the face. I'm pretty sure there's more to that quote, in fact I'd wager that it's a powerful piece of advice that's misconstrued for interesting reasons. I think it's so weird the way these kinds of quotes are dangled in our faces all the time but nobody actually knows what they mean.
True that!
1:40:30 Onkar is exactly right.
I just learned that I, an objectivist living under a semi-authoritarian regime, have no right...I find it hard to wrap my head around it
So, are you a Non Religious person now? 😀
@@alekhyapatra3367 it's been 3 years since I became non-religeous, how's that relevant?
@@sokainabn6764 Awesome! I saw that you've a Muslim name and you said you're an Objectivist, so I just couldn't resist my curiosity to hear your opinion on Religion. I too am an Objectivist and a Non Religious Man, but I'm into Spirituality (means, I've my own Spiritual beliefs, just for helping me live my best life). You're the first Ex-muslim Objectivist I've known, I am very happy to see you reject Religion and embrace Objectivism. Wishing you the very best for your life ahead! ⚡💐⚡
@@sokainabn6764 Which Country do you live in now?
@@alekhyapatra3367 Morocco
1:34:40 Great point.
Asking when is it morally proper and necessary to wage war is like asking when is it morally proper and necessary to destroy the planet. Each death from killing in any war results in trillions of lives lost to the infinite future. Asking what should be the goal of a war is like asking what should be the goal of suicide or destroying a planet of 8.8 billion humans. Asking under what conditions if any, is it morally proper to use biological, chemical or nuclear weapons is like asking what form does society want to take for its own suicide. I am surprised that Ayn Rand's name is being used to promote wars. I thought the objectivist selfish philosophy was based on reason. War is not reason. No war is ever reasonable. All war mongers have been declared insane by the Church of Scientology. War is a form of group psychosis. If your group needs money and supports the end of all wars on earth, then a trillion dollars will be made available to fund your efforts, otherwise any group that supports war, any kind of war, should be abolished. See my work on the Octodragon.
There is a difference between being the aggressor and being the one defending himself in a war. There is a difference between good and evil, an important one.
Exactly. Are you just supposed to sit back and take it when someone flies planes into your buildings? No. We are not the ones who started this war. Islamists did that.
who started vietnam war ? iraq war(s) ?
#Bankers
Alex S. Gabor please explain
The fact that Ayn R's based her position on alteuïsm and rational egoism on those people that create stuff for humanity (not politicians) seems to have been totally lost on this man.
In addition, assuming Bin Laden being the genius terrorist behind the 9/11 attacks there are some serious flaws in his rationale:
- the man was not Iraqi
- nor based in Iraq (or Iran)
- a rerrorist (group) is not a nation
- 3000 killed vs over 100,000 is out of proportion
- no Weapons of MD
- Sadam was a proxy to fight Iran prior to the Iraq invasion.
- leaving the invaded countries w/o much (re-)constuction.
Whether Ayn Rand's great principles are not hijacked here for another rational egoïsm is hard to prove.
He won't lose any sleep over starving the Russian people.
I dont believe this.....he gave shermans example...:P
vivek raina He is war mongering by illustrating the positive values of killing throughout history by the use of currencies to create conflict.
+Alex S. Gabor It is not so much the "illustrating positive values" of killing people. It is not so much positive as it is an acceptance that war will be bloody and cruel. War by its very nature is cruel and evil. There will be casualties no matter how "just" or "right" you are. It is naive to believe that wars can be fought without cost. Some rules of engagement ignore the realities of war and can hinder the overall success of a war effort.
you seem to confuse "altruism" which is the individual voluntarily giving of his own using his own free will , with government stealing from the common man, "for the godd of the common man.
gray man Altruism doesn’t have anything to do with being voluntary or not.
Silly man tried to explain Rand's philosophy to the executive chairman of the ayn rand institute. They should have gotten rid of him from the podium much sooner
Let Israel fight it's own wars.
Corey Smith They would, and they would win, if the US got out of the way.
@@damonhage7451 iran would destroy israel if not for the US backing it receives
Citizens in an 'enemy country' are not necessarily enemies. They might be victims of the real enemies and may be completely innocent. To kill an innocent person is wrong. Why should the lives of Americans be worth more than the lives of people in other countries?
No, there is a difference between just pointlessly killing innocent people and winning a war by which civillians will die which they always will. Also, there are often very few innocent people when they elect such governments by popular vote. Also, any innocent people who may die are the result of the aggressor, not the defender, by the law of causality. With your evil view good will always lose and such a person isn't really good, but suicidal and self-hating, which isn't good at all. If you want to commit suicide then do so, but don't murder your fellow countrymen by forcing them to fight sacrificial wars.
+MrApplewine That is a position of an bionic moron, made in a laboratory out of parts of lesser morons.
AlwaysReason You can't win a war without people dying in the enemy country. They are your enemy. Your enemy isn't innocent. There could be innocent people who oppose that enemey and support you and if you know about them then it is in your interest to not kill them if you can avoid it. You don't seem reasonable.
+MrApplewine What war, genius? The perpetual war to transfer public money to private hands? That war is being thoroughly won. No other war really exists. We're just murdering thousands of innocents in the process of robbing US treasury.
AlwaysReason Those are wars of altruism. I don't support those. I only support selfish wars. All the altruists look around the world and say "what ar eyou going to do about Alepo" or this or that. But, because the USA is the strongest the altruists see it is an obligation for us to sacrifice our soldiers to go fight wars that aren't in our self-interest. Objectivists and Capitalists don't share that morality. We only support destroying our enemies and threats to us.
except ... jesus christ was in fact resurrected with many witnesses.
Why should soldiers protect the citizens of their own country in case of an invasion? That is "the ethics of altruism" (a package-deal if there ever was one.) No Objectivist can, consistently with his principles, be either a soldier or a policeman, because these are inherently self-sacrificial professions. Why should an Objectivist ever take the bullet for anyone else, let alone complete strangers? Objectivists, therefore, have to hope that there are enough non-Objectivists left in the country to protect it.
American soldiers get paid and receive awards and special retirement privileges when they retire. There is also a path to promotion and leadership within the ranks of the military. They fight for themselves as much as for everyone else. They don't want to live in a world where the enemy dominates them. Also, ideally (and as Yaron explains), minimal or no American casualties are sustained in a war, only enemy casualties. So ideally, they don't have to take a bullet, they only give bullets.
To not confront danger when it threatens your values is not in your self-interest. Moreover, to hope that someone else will protect your values for you is to abdicate your responsibility for your own life, which is a disastrous way to live.
As for dangerous work, I think that one should not do it unless they are willing and able to pursue and protect their own life and values with their work. A policeman should serve not to die for others but to help create a world where people, including himself, don't suffer and die in the hands of aggressors. A soldier should fight not to die for his country but to protect his own future as a citizen of his country. I think that to the extent that you shy away from these responsibilities at the time of need, to that extent you are endangering your own life.
In addition to my previous comment, I want to add that it is our moral obligation to make dangerous work as safe as we can, either through knowledge, training, equipment, etc. At the same time, it is also our moral obligation to make such work as rewarding as it deserves to be, i.e. with respect to its value in our lives.
Also also, to accept that you must be prepared to self-sacrifice is the accept that your life is expendable, not to others but to yourself! This undermines your value for your own life both morally and emotionally, because your emotions are derived from internalised values to a great extent. This in turn undermines your motivation to mitigate dangers to your own life and to confront such dangers with care and reason.
Apparently, someone here has never heard of a neighborhood watch...and those ones people don't even get paid to participate in.