Ayn Rand and the Moral Foundation of Freedom | Exploring Objectivism with Gloria Álvarez Episode 4

In this episode, Gloria Álvarez interviews Ayn Rand Institute board chairman Yaron Brook and philosopher Tara Smith about Objectivism's perspective on the relationship between fundamental philosophical issues and practical politics. They shed light on Ayn Rand's view of the proper limits of government power, what distinguishes Ayn Rand from libertarian thinkers, and why she held that advocates of a free society could not defend capitalism without defending its moral roots.

To be notified as new episodes in this series are released, subscribe and click on the bell:

[fabianmiranda]

i love that for this series with gloria they added the subtitles for her spanish speaking followers

[Avidcomp]

I just wanted to say that your title sequence in really nice. (I'm English, we say _nice_). The revealing colours on the image in particular.
I used to make many broadcast title sequences 1988-2010.

[steves]

Perhaps best presentations on Objectivism. Well explained differences between free market economics and objectivism; and libertarians and objectivists. The only useful and effective critique of the founders that I've ever seen. That is a well-reasoned critique, not a comparison of 21st century morality overlaid on 18th century thinking. Thought provoking and very useful. Thank you.

[FranciscodAnconia-GG-Recruiter]

'On Ego'


@44:14 & avoiding the errors of the *old guard*
Both Drs.Smith & Brook are sentencing neo-egoïsts to needless frustration and torture. You don't have to go through what they endured all their career(you can see the negative effects seared into the lines & palour of their faces compared to the youthful complexion of Ms.Àlvarez). The contrast is particularly notable in this interview - if you're ignoring it you've made the same mistake as they are. Miss Rand discusses this several times in both TheFountainhead and particularly in AtlasShrugged(reading time and turmoil in the faces of the people you encounter) and if you read beneath the page(through the greater intensity of implication)she shows how to solve it, as we who have withdrawn to our own Atlantis Refuge know and live every day.
Once the motor is conceived the best tactic is NOT speaking out and challenging the opposition as they prescribe: recall JohnGalt's words to a long-suffering Dagny; 'You'll not enter until you discover that you do not have to convince or conquer the world' ... 'The looter's code must run for once, it's undisguised course.' 'Withdraw your sanction, withdraw your support.'
If you don't see the proper transition path post-motor well, you need not read any further - my next sentences are for those who see and wonder ..wtf? ... hmmm, yeah, I wonder ... *the what*

So, your first step could be a helpful reminder .. no, not a philosopher's stone as is popularized in the popular culture, take it a step further forward, upward and most perfect representation\reminder; a 'PhilosoPhysicist's' 'Crystal'
What would that be?
A very crude, but helpful example of *The What* (except for the MaterialCause) that you all have to get to in order to make the jump to Atlantis can be accessed within the youtube system here if you can allow for some editing:




For a perfect *what* think about what the specifications would be for an AynRand Scholar as the perfect, mnemonic:
*a blue-green(FirstCause), amethyst(EfficientCause), trillion(FormalCause)*
Then go buy one for yourself ====­­> its what we use here in Galt's Gulch as venu-pass identification.
Normally I wouldn't reveal so much but on the occasion of the: 'This is JohnGalt Speaking' Day I'm feeling generous. Wouldn't you? as the prophecy unfolds to its perfect end(FinalCause).
MoralCode : MotivePower : MotorUnit
100% Indivisible, (Integrated) and Perfect
Longer, Happier, Healthier Living


And I mean it.


Francisco Carlos Domingo Andres Sebastiàn d'Anconia

[monicam]

Ayn Rand and Gloria Álvarez?? ..so disappointing pff..stinks

[stevesmith]

Help me understand how talk about individualism is coming from people who join and participate in an institution that by definition is a collective. Also individualism doesn't seem to include be manifested by parroting another person's philosophy. Introspection seems to be missing here.

[topol]

Government is a gun. Government is force, it cannot be anything but.

[radiozelaza]

Pinochet saved thousands of people by performing the coup. Pinochet saved Chile from the fate of Cuba or Venezuela. It was liberty OR death in that case - and he resigned eventually.
So it's ok to say "Pinochet did nothing wrong.".

[-bo]

On Gloria's point about "consumerism" and "materialism, " a lot of the time when you see that, it could just be someone celebrating their success and enjoying themselves, and there is at least no _a priori_ problem with that. You need a lot of specific information about a person's life situation, psychology, and motivations to make a judgment about why they are partying and if that means they are being profligate and boastful. Vices as well as virtues are individualized traits, and a lot of times when commies are whining about this, it's just moral grandstanding. Their real problem is that someone can have more than another at all.

[hookem]

When prof. Smith goes after Libertarians, I could see that Gloria was feeling hurt or emotional. Thank you Gloria for realizing she was not being mean spirited and that she was only discussing the incorrect ways libertarians think.

[enriquevillagomez]

Me encanta esta serie. Tara y Yaron son excelentes pensadores. Las preguntas de Gloria son excelentes para empezar a acercarse al Objetivismo.

[Jazzper]

"Everybody can like you if you stands for nothing" - very true

[victorsperandeo]

Yaron the Constitution was on a Gold standard - in 1913 an Unconstitutional Federal reserve was created IT was not built on sand -it was destroyed.Also the Progressive tax system began (see Marx) and this changed the system from Capitalism, to the Welfare State, which lead to (economic )Fascism, to now Corporatism aka Globalism.

[Ce-wzbq]

Awesome Gloria. Te amo! Eres una genia. Sigue adelante!

[xjmg]

How is Lockes view of natural law diffrent from an objectivist? Or an actual anarchist? Is it the understanding of what it means to be selfish?

[Jazzper]

Love it. So much insanity going on that people don't get consciously.

[SpacePatrollerLaser]

This video explains, why I reject the question "Is capitalism moral?". Capitalis is a political-economic system. It is what happens when the politics of individual rights meets the FACT that 1+1=2 and the First Rule of Behavior: Reinforcement (unless you are dealing with some way-out situations, this means "reward") increases the liklihood of the recurrence of the reinforced behavior while punishment decreases the liklihood of the recurrence of the punished behavior. Now a society CHOOSES its political system by the choices of the individual members. BUT, it has NO power over the fact that 1+1=2 nor the laws of behavior (those are part of human nature). So, once you have a political system in effect the political-econmic system that is comenserate with it is not opean to choice so it is a NECESSARY consequence; made necessary by the immutable nature of the laws of mathematics and psychology, as expressed by the immutable laws of economics. Being a necessity, therefore not open to choice, a political-economic system is not open to moral judgement. It is neither moral nor immoral; simply necessary. The morality of the matter is settled at a higher level (actually at the level of Epistemology; the choice to think or not to think. Hence "Reason Requires Capitalism") Capitalism or Socialism is the last derivative in the sequence Metaphysics+Epistemology (the two irredicible primaries of philosophy that bind it to the external world via the individual; the first in the form of "worldview" and the second in the form of system - and their ultimate social implementation! To advocate capitalism is to advocate individual rights based on Egoism based on "factual premises and valid reason yield true conclusions"; which last I heard from Mr. Spock but it sounds like Roddenberry put those words in his mouth from another source. Consider this statement "If I had to choose between capitalism not supported by reason or not at all, then 'not at all'". Actually, this statement is a bit self-contradictory; how could you have our idea of capitalism WITHOUT reason?

[Bit-while_going]

Yaron: money is not a sign that you have created value, it's the actual value that you create.
In the case that you earn something besides value in the form of money, then it's that, but when it's money, then it's the units of value that you earn and in any case, the only real value.
To say that money is a sign of value created is to imply that there is value elsewhere. So like where else could it be but in the hands of others, and that's not actually value.