The Republican Shift Toward Leftist Values | New Ideal Podcast
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2024
- Why do socialists seem to fear the Republican Party platform? Part of the reason, Ben and Nikos argue, is that they embraced the anti-globalization agenda of the left from 20 years ago, prioritizing nationalism over individual freedom. Watch the full video here: • Why Socialists Fear th...
Subscribe to ARI’s CZcams channel to make sure you never miss a video:
www.youtube.co...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.c...
- Google Play play.google.co...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.or...
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/si...
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynra...
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.or...
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
Bravo and please do more short videos.
Owning the Left by becoming the Left. Great strategy! Beautiful strategy! The best strategy you’ve ever seen!
You forgot the /sarc symbol. There are moronibiciles who will not understand and will agree with you.
When the cause of liberty is defended primarily through _pragmatic_ arguments, we will find it difficult to justify the benefits of full and fair freedom.... but when defended through _moral_ arguments, as Ayn Rand did, there are few who can rationally dispute us.
Liberty is necessary because it is just. That it is ALSO a more efficient way to organize society is only a plus - not a feature.
Full and free trade is a global aspiration. We are not living in a bubble. You are preaching to the choir. The question is, what can you do about it? If Ayn Rand's purest aspiration is the measure of success, we are already lost.
Necessity is based on life.
@@user-su7dn9kn3s you can read her article “What can one do?” .. Yaron Brook also has a great talk on it on youtube..
America has always been protectionist. Tariffs have been around since the beginning.
There's a big difference between the(mostly) neutral tariffs for the sake of gaining revenue(they were still immoral, but the founders didn't realise that taxation was not a necessity for the funding of a limited government), than the targeted tariffs to for economic nationalism and for the "divine right of stagnation", that dominates the worst aspects(an unfortunately increasingly the mainstream as the full video showed) of the American right.
Yes - and tariffs have been immoral since the beginning. Let's not fall into the nationalist's trap of pretending that everything the founding fathers did was right and just. They took us great leaps forward _toward_ liberty - but they were unable and/or unwilling to convince everyone of their time to embrace true and full freedom.
The difference today is that, unlike the late 19th century, when tariffs existed, domestic taxes were very low by today's standards. The federal government took about 15 per cent of the total pie. There is just no comparison with today.
So?
Thankkk you!
I think the west would do much better if it had more local production, instead of buying almost everything from dictatorships on the opposite side of the earth.
It would do better if it had this ambition, at least, and implemented it on objectivist principles. So many positives come with it.
So many of you believe you hold Objectivist views - yet are so far off course you are nearly part of the enemy.
This "Virtue" man is suggesting that a just government can initiate FORCE against some people to stop them from trading with others - and he "justifies" it by suggesting that it helps those he calls "local" producers. What of the "local" producers who wish to use resources from other areas?
It is NEVER just for a government to initiate FORCE against its people - for ANY reason.
If you do not understand THAT principle, you do not understand Objectivism - or morality for that matter.
Nationalism is a rationalization of the hatred of mans independent mind. Economics is superficial. But if you want to be a subsistence farmer, global capitalism will defend your right to be a short-range fool.
Trade is a moral virtue and a moral right. Tariffs are an immoral violation of individual rights. Trade is win-win. Protectionism decreases production.
@@TeaParty1776 i agree with all you say, which is also in agreement with my post. Except for your claim about protectionism which I don't know what you mean by.
@@Virtueman1 Maximum production is the product of the independent mind protected by individual rights. The mind is basic. Economists and govts have no knowledge of what is most productive. Free trade is a process of continual experiments by individuals w/a wide range of productivity. And these experiments have a wide range of success and failure over time. Watch Bloomberg TV.
Subsistence farming is extremely low production. Protectionism uses more resources for the same production than free trade. If each US state outlawed trade w/other states, production would radically decrease. How productive would you be if you had to produce everything you now buy. Could you build your own computer, car, house, medicine, etc ,etc. ? And, if so, how long would it take relative to people who specialize? Would you have time for food and sleep? You evade long-range, indirect effects.
The individual is the basic political value. The natiion is a mere tool. The nation is not a mystical entity w/demands and sacrifices.
Economics In One Lesson-Henry Hazlitt.
Capitalism-ayn Rand
1:40 “Not of America”? So, Alexander Hamilton wasn’t American due to all the protectionism he espoused? I think Objectivists give the Founding Fathers way too much credit on philosophical conviction. John Jay wanted to ban Catholics from holding office, to give another example.
The founding fathers, and especially the philosophy they implicitly held of a right to life liberty property and the pursuit of happiness, got the closest to objectivism that anyone had gotten in hundreds if not thousands of years. But the fact that they were not fully in favour of individual rights, and that the dominant morality was directly opposed to this, left the seeds for the philosophical, and eventually political shift we see the consequences of today in America.
Apparently Ayn Rand herself said that she couldn't have come up with the philosophy of objectivism until the industrial revolution. And on the specific example you mention thankfully the better elements in the founding fathers were able to win out and people of any religion(or lack thereof), were able to hold political position in the United states, he also failed in his push against Catholics in the new York constitution.
Ben Franklin thought of banning Germans from immigrating because they were statists.
i have been a strong "academic" purist capitalist (with the education to support it) but have learned the real world is not exactly like academic views of free trade. countries are bad actors. they have agendas beyond commercial trade, worker dislocations take generations to recover from. Not saying that protectionism doesn't have costs (inflated wages. But the narrow minded bookish economist view of free trade is missing alot in the "life, country equation"). Further, our dollar dominance deficit consumption framework of the last 50+ years has had many inequitable consequences to the domestic population. So, i suggest you get out there and live a little in the shoes of others. Additionally, there is the practical consideration of what a "better choice" has to do to win over a "worse choice". A purist platform is like a bear shxxing in the woods. It doesn't matter if no one hears it/votes for it. Some many more issues to consider, but i will stop here as i think you get the picture.
The picture I get is that you are comfortable compromising your values for a little bit of freedom. You will agree to wear the chains they put on you so long as those chains are long enough to reach that which you deem the minimum requirements to survive.
There is NO SUCH THING as being an ALMOST SLAVE.
We are either free or we are NOT.
Freedom, in a just society, means you have the right to do exactly as you please so long as you respect the rights of others to do the same and you refrain from initiating the use of force against others.
@@johnnynick3621 you are already a slave, but you don't know it because you can't recognize any world framework other than an academic textbook version of "freedom"
Trade is win-win. Thats why people trade. In the short-run, however, your protectionist attack on the science of economics will be good, until the bill for evasion comes due.
Individuals, not nations, trade. Trade is win-win. Thats why individuals trade. This has been known since 1776, when Adam Smith's, Wealth Of Nations, was published. In the context of long-range effects, there is zero evidence of trades alleged destructiveness. You rationalize short-range thinking.
Capitalism-Ayn Rand; excellent bibliography
In Defense of Global Capitalism-JOHAN NORBERG
Economics In One Easy Lesson-Henry Hazlitt
Planning For Freedom-Ludwig von Mises
@@TeaParty1776 got it.