Former MSNBC Chris Matthews WILD DEBATE With Krystal And Saagar | Breaki...

Would you like to see the problem with the media?

Steve Keen: Marxism, Capitalism, and Economics | Lex Fridman Podcast #303

Matt Taibbi: How the Left lost its mind

Why Do Conservatives Fall For Fake News?

She misconstrues POPULISM, see Bernie Sanders, and comment. 

Maybe We Were Wrong About Ranked Choice Voting: Use STAR Voting instead!

Seder DEBATES Ayn Rand Institute Libertarian Yaron Brook

This started off well, then both Sam and Yaron went off on tangents, and got into the weeds of the complexity of free trade between accountable individuals.

Both agree that the only ligitimate purpose of GOVERNMENT is to protect the people. What they disagree about is HOW MUCH responsibility should be PERSONAL (individual) and how much the government should step in.

The point of the PROGRESSIVE LEFT is that all people are equal and should be treated JUSTLY, and the GOVERNMENT should provide justice, and provide security even against the bad decisions of the individual. The FAR LEFT would go even further and ask government to provide food, shelter, healthcare, etc. for everyone, because SOME PEOPLE can not EARN those things for themselves through free (fair) trade.

The point of Yaron Brook's Libertarians is that justice and security are the personal responsibility of the individuals involved, and the government should not be a parent, just a guard dog. People need personal responsibility to LEARN.

Thus Yaron believes that it is immoral for the government to tax everyone to protect those who make bad decisions from themselves, even if it is the MAJORITY decision of our population in this DEMOCRACY. It is a reasonable disagreement, as the MAJORITY can make bad decisions (see Slavery, Housing Crisis bailouts, mask wearing, etc).

Mr. Brooks voluntarily choose to JOIN this DEMOCRACY and must therefore voluntarily pay his taxes, but he has the right to disagree with how the tax money is spent and the freedom to try and convince others. I note that Yaron is very clear on Ayn Rand and Objectivist Philosophy, and that he simply doesn't agree that everyone is 'equal', so those who lack MERIT shouldn't be rewarded and protected from their personal decisions. He's very EXPLICIT about his beliefs.

What fascinates me is that SAM doesn't recognize that his PERSONAL decision to recognize human suffering, his VALUE of empathy, shouldn't be imposed upon everyone, just because it's his INDIVIDUAL choice. It's not wrong to provide charity if you BELIEVE that you are paying for something you freely choose to desire (ending suffering, etc.), but it is WRONG to enforce your beliefs on others.

Ayn Rand Fan Debates ‘Objectivism’ With Sam

A rational actor who cares about THEMSELVES would limit their use of antibiotics to protect THEMSELVES, and those they care about, from future harm. And TAXES can be voluntary, if you FREELY CHOOSE to be part of a nation or other governmental organization in which YOU give the power to tax. The Nation of the USA was developed upon the value of the INDIVIDUAL, what RAND loved was that the USA is a government of the PEOPLE who freely choose to be part of the nation and, freely choose to pay taxes, unlike Stalin's Russia where she was afflicted by Authoritarian (military totalitarian) Collectivism. The RATIONAL SELF INTEREST is that we can all freely choose to join a Union, a State, or a Country. Objectivists choose to work, to freely trade with others, and produce, not because they are cohersed, but because they are ENLIGHTENED, and recognized that all INDIVIDUALS are limited and NEED others to survive. Dan didn't think things through, but neither did Sam. If you monopolize land, which is against RAND's ideals, then I choose to monopolize Oxygen, and therefore I will trade you Oxygen for Land. Else we can justly put some things off limits to ownership, like the commodities necessary for survival. As RAND would say, denying an individual the resources for survival is violence. You need not earn money, you need only CHOOSE to be self-sufficient. Robinson Crusoe had FRIDAY, a person who freely chose to be a slave. Libertarians are not Objectivists. Objectivism is an internally consistent rational philosophy, and in creating it Ayn Ran created the first SECULAR ETHICS. This is the first step in defeating the irrational ethics of religions. The MR audience will never achieve the goal of a collectivist union as long as it allows for the irrational religious people to be part of the collective, for they always divide to conquer. Any Rand laid down the foundation for a Rational Ethics, but was never allowed to move on toward ENLIGHTENED rational self-interest, because everyone attacked her out of fear that rational objectivism would defeat their own schemes for power and control. Too bad she only lived through WWII until 1984, she never saw the outcome of 'free market' capitalism, and couldn't critique the failures, yet if you read her fictions, she not only predicted Neoliberal Corporate Democrats, she also predicted #tRump (see Mr Turner from Atlas Shrugged). Rational, Self-Interested people can freely choose to become part of a collective, if it is in their own best interest. Enlightened Rational Self-Interested people already have.

Former Libertarian Begs Sam To Take Ayn Rand Seriously

The reason Sam doesn't care about the difference between Libertarians and Objectivists, and thinks it's "Sociopathic Mental Masturbation" is because he's not RATIONAL, he is NOT a philosopher, he's never thought through first principals, he doesn't care about defining his values or stating premises. He's a Leftist Political Commentator, but he doesn't even know what that means, he's just being provocative for ratings*. What the caller is TRYING (and failing) to say, is that CONTEMPORARY LIBERTARIANS used AYN RAND's philosophy to legitimize their immature concept of "freedom", but by REVERSING the very concepts and values she developed. Rand RATIONALLY THINKS that people should be REWARDED for their MERIT, and she would define "merit" as being good at whatever 'job' you choose to do. Thus, for RAND those who are good should become wealthy by EARNING payments through free (fair) trade. Today's LIBERTARIANS reverse Rand's ethic, they BELIEVE that those who have WEALTH must have MERIT. The problem is, of course, most rich people, who use these libertarian arguments, did not EARN their money. Most rich people get their money in one of three ways: THEFT (or fraud), INHERITANCE, or MARRIAGE. Thus libertarians think that the rich have MERIT, which Rand would think was false, she would call them thieves and/or parasites (children/spouses).  The reason that SAM and EMMA don't like BOTH Objectivists and Libertarians because neither likes TAXES or REGULATIONS. The political LEFT believe that taxes and regulations are NECESSARY to balance OUTCOMES, but the Libertarians believe that "taxes are theft", taking from the productive to give to the unproductive, and Objectivists think that taxes and regulations limit FREE (fair) TRADE (contracts) between people (such as unions and governments). Reversing the relationship between "MERIT" and "WEALTH" in a meritocracy is not trivial, it is fundamental to our government and way of life. Understanding this would help the LEFT be coherent and achieve political power by uniting those Objectivists who are Enlightened, and Rational. The first step is coming to a commonly agreed definition of MERIT. I define MERIT as MLK Jr. did, as the content of one's character and the quality of one's mind, and I would add hard work and persistence. Does Sam's argument have merit? No, he doesn't care.

Mass ownership of rental property should be illegal: a rant.

How do you know if something is true?

How Did The Universe Begin?

The Story of Cosmology: The Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy

Great Historical Review of Current Cosmology uses notes