Suggested Weekend Viewing: Why Unregulated Capitalism is the Only Moral Social System
This is an EXCELLENT video from a full lecture by Dr. Yaron Brook, President and Executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, the full lecture given at University of California, Irvine on April 14, 2008.
He explains how government intervention, including the Federal Reserve caused the financial bubble/crisis. You might have seen Dr. Brook on Fox or Fox Business. I think he's somewhat of a regular on Beck's show now.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PcH8m2WozU&feature=PlayList&...
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSiJR6-M_6E&feature=PlayList&...
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MajAfFONwiU&feature=PlayList&...
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32fpERtb8XE&feature=PlayList&...
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkFvxYXwEJU&feature=PlayList&...
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApwSuTwlXm8&feature=PlayList&...
As you watch this, bear in mind that when Objectivists use the world "Altruism" they're not using it in the colloquial sense. They're using the original definition of the word, as it refers to an ethical doctrine. Wikipedia defines it as Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a MORAL OBLIGATION to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)
Also, "unregulated" doesn't mean no laws. When free-marketers speak against regulations, like Dr. Pauil, they're referring to laws to go beyond laws against force and fraud. "Unregulated capitalism" is another term for "free market capitalism." When free-marketers refers to "regulations " they're referring to government controlling your business. If government is controlling your business, it's initiating force against you and your business.
Isn't "free market" is a more useful
term that "capitalism," since it seems capitalism exists in every economic system, with only who controls or owns the capital establishing differences?
In free markets, there could be simultaneous systems of entrepreneur-owned capital, or cooperative, or socialist communities either trading inclusively or exclusively. And competing currencies or scripts; in other words, free choice for all, not one system imposed from the top.
Assuming some sort of government, laws against fraud could facilitate honest exchange and control pillage of naive people. Arguments for no government are at this point rather academic since it would take an even bigger paradigm shift for most people even that the already formidable shift toward properly limited government.
I watched it
It was dissapointing on a number of levels.
While I had read Ayn Rand in the 70s and admit she is one of my heros, I have my own ideas about Ayn Rand, but it wasn't until I went to a Grateful Dead show and saw the parking lot, who some here say is like a swap meet, but I don't think so because a swap meet people pay to be there for the swap meet and at the dead show, the parking lot was unregulated, unruled, anything goes, it was laissez fair capitalism and definately black market. Illegal drug dealing is black market, but even that has it's rules, where in the Dead parking Lot, I guess the only "rule" was to smile. Dr. Brook never went to a Dead show and saw the parking lot, so I can understand how he has a educated idea about what capitaliism is, but he is not very good at defending capitalism because he has not experienced the freedom and joy that comes with capitalism.
Finally, Dr Booth is not a good speaker and so he should employ slides, or films, examples to demonstrate capitalism rather than torturing his audience, under the burden of his title, to accept his limited speaking ability. I feel like the video is more about watching Dr Brook work on overcoming his speach impediment than making a case for capitalism.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Free Market
KenM says:
I haven't watched it, yet, but will soon. But the Granger seems to think that a totally free market somehow works in isolation. The free market still needs to operate within the established laws. I don't believe anyone said that, in a free market, everyone gets to do whatever they want. That is anarchy of some sort. I don't know what you saw at a Grateful Dead gathering, but it just sounds like an out-of-control garage sale. That is not a free market or even a sample of it.
KenM
When the established laws oppose capitalism
Capitalism can not operate within laws established to prevent capitalism.
The band, The Grateful Dead, was the government, so to speak, one bought a ticket to get into the show, so if you wanted to "play" you have to get a ticket. Rule number one.
Rule number two could easily be, "Don't get so high you have no idea what the hell you are doing"?
With capitalism in a free market, common sense becomes capital. In a corrupt market, a market with so many rules and regulations there is NO capital, only debt, there is no free market.
Everything is risk, even with rules and regulations that get broken by the establishment that makes those rules and regulations.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Agreed. I watched it also,
Agreed. I watched it also, and came away disappointed. I am always skeptical when someone says there is "only one way" to do something. There are millions of ways to skin a cat.
Basically he said, and emphasized that Capitalism and Altruism are incompatible. To that I say hogwash and hooey! Whoever believes that has a very shallow intellect, in my opinion. Altruism is on display daily in the family unit. Should we start charging our kids for room and board? Make sure they're a profit center for the family unit? Send them to work at the age of 5? Please.
The Altruism at the family and friend level does not rule out the possibility of competition in a market. I obviously have no problem with capitalism & competition, but I do think there should be some regulation at some level.
The Dead parking lot is a good example. While we "compete" in the marketplace, we are also cooperating. We cooperate to agree to, and abide by certain rules, aka regulations. In the absence of all regulation, what would stop the marketplace from devolving into a free-for-all, with people killing their competitors?
So the question is not that we need unregulated capitalism, imo, but as Ron Paul says, "what is the proper role of government."
Wrong definition of Altruism as well as Regulation
Altruism has multiple meanings. The definition that Rand is using is the, as I thought Brooks made pretty clear, is the ETHICAL DOCTRINE called altruism. Here it is on Wikipedia: "Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an "altruist." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)
See, he's talking about the belief that people have a MORAL OBLIGATION to help others. That's the original meaning of the term Altruism.
Rand says "Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice-—which means: self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—-which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a STANDARD OF THE GOOD."
That's the confusion you're having.
Now on Regulation. Unregulated capitalism doesn't mean no laws. It doesn't mean there aren't laws against force and fraud. You HAVE to have laws against force and fraud to have capitalism. That's what capitalism IS. It's a system where you're protected from force and fraud. It means that government is not subjecting YOU to force either. It's government not telling you how to run your business. That's what "free-market capitalism" is. Dr. Paul is exactly the same as Ayn Rand on regulations. Dr. Paul has made the same type of point as the elevator example in regard to the SEC. He says it should be abolished because it is the government coming into businesses and telling them how to run them and then putting their stamp of approval on them which creates the moral hazard. It makes people think they're safe because GOVERNMENT says they are, so they don't look out for themselves. All you need is laws against fraud. Laws against fraud is not what free-market capitalists refer to as "regulation." See also "Has Capitalism Failed?" by Ron Paul: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=688
"Bankers are putting poison in our food and water." - Psychotic dirtbag conspiracy theorist fake-libertarian, exploiter of Dr. Paul, Alex Jones
Ayn Rand says:
Rand says "Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible.
I do not believe there is any confusing between altruism, good will, respect or kindness when it comes to the family (and friends) and their preservation. In "Letters of Ayn Rand", Leonard Piekoff, Ayn talks about altruism at length. She brings up an example of a man who loved his wife and wanted to keep her alive, and people assumed this was a form of altruism, but she points out, when it comes to family (and she was NOT lucky with family) the man who wants to keep his wife alive is not keeping his wife alive for her sake, but for his own sake,
I don't believe it is the governments job to be the seal of good housekeeping anymore than it was the Grateful Dead's job to monitor the parking lot. I also think Nader has the right idea. in that, we don't need a bigger government, but a free market where people can do the jobs,,,, why shouldn't we have 1000 private EPAs competing to be the best? Why not have 1000 OSHAS and let companies pick a plan, and an insurance that works for everyone? Why not have 1000 private banks competing?
These massive companies we just bailed out, in a capitalistic society, they would have died, and that would have been devine justice... instead, there is no free market, just rules and regulations and very few choices.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Wow and Thank You Michael
It was at the Grateful Dead I witness capitaism at work. The underlying theme was not about who can make the most money. The selfish motivation of each competitor was to make it to the next show, The next show was already established, but who got in was not. Everyone who participated needed to compete in attracting buyers and there were no rules, and it worked because we had a community that was working to sustain the tour.
So if the USA (taxes) was a Grateful Dead concert (ticket), the government, like the band, would be very small by comparison. In a free market the band/govt. is what attracts the consumer/citizen, who supports the community with a free market by bringing their products and services to trade to sustain the band/government.
I think the biggest problem capitalists face is MSM, because we do not have a free market, but allot of rules and regulations to prevent one.
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")
Altruism Vs. Capitalism
KenM says:
I agree that altruism is incompatible with capitalism. At risk of being labelled of "low intellect," I think what Mr. Nystrom says is outside of the definition of altruism. Altruism implies giving up one's own values for someone else. I support and care for my family because that is what I want - a very selfish reason. I do not abandon my desires in order to care for my children. Rather, I care for my children because I value them and their role in my life. At no point would I forfeit my values for them. ANYTHING I do for them, would be because I want them to be safe and secure, not because I value them more than myself.
KenM
I'm very interested in
I'm very interested in watching this.
“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” -George Bernard Shaw
bump
to watch on the weekend.
Tough to listen to, imo
Sounds like he's recovering from a speech impediment. And he takes his time getting to the moral argument.
Look up the "Broken Window Fallacy"; it explains the moral case for capitalism much better (and more succinctly), I think.
If Dr. Yaron Brook is the best defender of Capitalism, its over!
Brook is such an ass-kissing Israel lover he wouldn't know right from wrong if it hit him in the face.
He and his institute needs to do a 180 on their position on Israel and the plight of the Palestinians or forever wear the label across their jackets, HYPOCRITES...
And again when it came to Bush's war of aggression against Iraq--He and his institute where AWOL.
Frankly, these nepotistic people are just racists in a pro-Jew sort of way.
In Peace & Liberty,
Treg
Your blaiming him for not being invited on news shows?
He was against the Iraq War. For example, he says so here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSZpDA8wlLY
Can you explain exactly what you mean about Iseal and the Palestinians, and do you have any proof for claims? Why are you so bitter?
"Bankers are putting poison in our food and water." - Psychotic dirtbag conspiracy theorist fake-libertarian, exploiter of Dr. Paul, Alex Jones
Thanks, book marked.
*
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
Actually
You might give people the time necessary to view the 6 videos you've suggested before you start assuming no one cares about them. What is there to say until you've watched the videos you've suggested?
I guess since this is not about
Fema Camps, chemtrails, controlled demolition, government-created swine flu, Noam Chomsky, or Fox conspiracy theories, no one cares.
"Bankers are putting poison in our food and water." - Psychotic dirtbag conspiracy theorist fake-libertarian, exploiter of Dr. Paul, Alex Jones
Don't be like that
You put a lot of video links up, and I don't have time for all the good videos that are out there. I already know why FREE markets are the only moral way to live, and I will be so arrogant as to say my reasons are as good or better than those given in the videos without even watching them. Why such a bold stance? My reasons motivate me to behave ethically in my business dealings, even when the other partner in the transaction does not do so. My reasons are good enough to keep me stuck to them even when it would be a temporary advantage to cave in. So, you want me to spend a LOT of time researching something that I have already researched, and incorporated into my life, and if I do NOT spend my valuable time where YOU want me to, I must not care about the issue?
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
hmmmmm
you may have a point.
the post has a bump from me I'm gonna watch it
WE ARE GOING TO WIN!
___.---.___
.' ( ) '.
) /)' '( )
',_( ';-;'\_,'
|-|
(")