Ayn Rand Interview

[YOUTUBE]7ukJiBZ8_4k[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]pMTDaVpBPR0[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]zEruXzQZhNI[/YOUTUBE]

 

This isn't an interview.
It's more like a mother helping her child with an addition problem while the child argues inanely.

I like the third part the most.

 

[goku usa]

In free competition, no one could corner the market on a needed product

(My apologies if I missed what she said. She had a bit heavy accent).

I'm not sure if I agree with that.

you admit that someone is producing the money the wealth, that would make those roads possible. now you have no right to tell the men who produce those wealth in what way you want him to spend it. if you need his money you can obtain it only by his voluntary consent.

She had me sold on that. fuck, when will there be an anarchist nation?

writing this as i watch

Edit: After watching further I must say I am more informed about the anarchist system. But I do have few questions. She says natural resources belong to everyone. No one can say that it belongs to them because they have more money. Now my question is, suppose you do get some natural resource, how would you go about to refine it if you don't
have the means of refining it (money)?

Edit: just realized that the host had a cigar in his hand the whole time. shenanigans.

 

Edit: After watching further I must say I am more informed about the anarchist system. But I do have few questions. She says natural resources belong to everyone. No one can say that it belongs to them because they have more money. Now my question is, suppose you do get some natural resource, how would you go about to refine it if you don't
have the means of refining it (money)?

Edit: just realized that the host had a cigar in his hand the whole time. shenanigans.

Go read her book, and also "Economics in one lesson". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson )

 

[Niini]

Haha nice, your an Ayn Rand "fan" hey (supporter is probably a better word xD You get the gist), I think I've seen you quote her before.

Two parts I thought were funny, when the interviewer says "Whats wrong with this philosphy" instantly presuming the foreign is wrong and then when he describes someone who wouldn't want to sell uranium to the US as being "strange" and having "strange beliefs".

But can you completely ignore emotion in one's morality as well as society. I've always thought of emotions as fundamental to the human condition

 

But can you completely ignore emotion in one's morality as well as society. I've always thought of emotions as fundamental to the human condition

Emotions are the result of cognition, not the cause of it.

 

[Niini]

They may be (just realised how dumb that other post was >.>), but they are nevertheless guaranteed and common to all mankind, why should they not be taken into consideration in an "ethical framework"

 

How do you prove that without walking into a post hoc ergo propter hoc scenario.

I would hold it to be self evident (as I explain one paragraph down.)

But if you consider it for a minute it is a performative contradiction to suggest that cognition proceeds from emotion, rather than visa versa. That would mean that some emotion randomly, stochastically, arrives in your brain, and causes you to initiate a cognitive process about something. In this case emotions are the dictates of the universe and there is no ability to change the mind of another, because there is no way to get at the cause of the thought; Humans become television sets pointed at eachother. So, in arguing this point you invalidate it. Because argument presupposes a mind to change, and that cognition is the root of the other person's position.


But one does not need the above argument as it (cognition preceding emotion) is self evident. Emotions always presuppose a something at which the emotion is aimed, even if the something is yourself or the universe. Emotions tied to nothing are literally unthinkable (and I challenge you to try come up with one.) Further, emotions always proceed cognition in your experience; You feel terror when you understand (i.e. gain cognizance of) some terrible event. Events you never learn of you have no emotional response for.


NB: The above is not to be confused with music which is a special not-well-understood case.