Denis Prager Does It Again
This guy is doing a great job working to educate the public and take on misinformation from socialists and totalitarians.
He may be a religious nut (which most of you know I am not), but I see little/no religious dogma in these messages.
We need more of this! Much much more! This is how people's mins can be changed. We need a candidate to point to PragerU when asked about his views.
He may be a religious nut (which most of you know I am not), but I see little/no religious dogma in these messages.
We need more of this! Much much more! This is how people's mins can be changed. We need a candidate to point to PragerU when asked about his views.
The Pudzer Prager University video is, in name only, trying to defend a free society on the basis of a hopeless foundation, but it is worse. His foundation supports the opposite, and it isn't freedom he wants, but people functioning as if in a "market economy" to support welfare statism. They are FINOs -- freedom in name only.
Ayn Rand's title, "Obliteration of capitalism", means not just obliterating what is left of capitalism, but the obliteration of the very concept of capitalism. As she put it:
"I [have] said that the 'liberals' are coining and spreading 'anti-concepts' in order to smuggle this country into statism by an imperceptible process—and that the primary target marked for obliteration is the concept of 'capitalism', which, if lost, would carry away with it the knowledge that a free society can and did exist.
"But there is something much less attractive (and, politically, much more disastrous) than capitalism's enemies: its alleged defenders—some of whom are muscling in on the game of manufacturing 'anti-concepts' of their own."
Pudzer's mangling of the essence of capitalism as serving consumers is the same anti-concept Ayn Rand wrote about over 50 years ago when she cited Gov. George Romney's infamous non-reply to the communists promise to "bury capitalism": "Americans buried capitalism long ago", Romney announced, "and moved on to consumerism". (Governor George was the father of the current "moderate" Mitt.)
Ayn Rand wrote, "There are the economists who proclaim that the essence (and the moral justification) of capitalism is 'service to others—to the consumers,' that the consumers' wishes are the absolute edicts ruling the free market, etc. (This is an example of what a definition by non-essentials accomplishes, and of why a half-truth is worse than a lie: what all such theorists fail to mention is the fact that capitalism grants economic recognition to only one kind of consumer: the producer—that only traders, i.e., producers who have something to offer, are recognized on a free market, not 'consumers' as such—that, in a capitalist economy, as in reason, in justice, and in reality, production is the precondition of consumption.)...
"Since none of these attempts can succeed in disguising the nature of capitalism nor in degrading it to the level of an altruistic stockyard, their sole result is to convince the public that capitalism hides some evil secret which imbues its alleged defenders with such an aura of abject guilt and hypocrisy. But, in fact, the secret they are struggling to hide is capitalism's essence and greatest virtue: that it is a system based on the recognition of individual rights—on man's right to exist (and to work) for his own sake—not on the altruistic view of man as a sacrificial animal. Thus it is capitalism's virtue that the public is urged—by such defenders—to regard as evil, and it is altruism that all their efforts help to reinforce and reaffirm as the standard of the good.
"What they dare not allow into their minds is the fact that capitalism and altruism are incompatible; so they wonder why the more they propagandize, the more unpopular capitalism becomes. They blame it on people's stupidity (because people refuse to believe that a successful industrialist is an exponent of altruistic self-sacrifice )—and on people's greed for the unearned (because, after being battered with assurances that the industrialist's wealth is 'morally' theirs, people do come to believe it)."
Puzder, like Hayek and many other such predecessors, is yet another welfare statist attempting to "defend" capitalism as "serving" consumers in what he calls "economic democracy" (a leftist term). Starting from freedom the premise leads directly to welfare statism, which only differs in degree from full socialism, and which the ethical premise of altruistic egalitarian nihilism ultimately requires.
Puzder is a Pragmatist who defends "markets" to the extent they produce what he wants to fund his altruism. In this video he goes farther than his conservative counterparts of 50 years ago, in line with the increasing welfarism in practice over that period: He sanctions the severe welfare statism of European socialism, only stopping short of the next step of what he calls socialist "central planning" and "Venezuela".
"There are no socialist countries in western Europe", he tells us. "Most are just as capitalist as the United States. The only difference, and it's a big one, is that they offer more government benefits than the U.S. does. We can argue about the costs of these benefits and the point at which they reduce individual initiative, thus doing more harm than good. Scandinavians have been debating those questions for years.
"But only a free market capitalist economy can produce the wealth necessary to sustain all the supposedly fee stuff Europeans enjoy. To get the free stuff, after all, you have to create enough wealth to generate enough tax revenue to pay for everything the government gives away. Without capitalism, you're Venezuela."
That is not capitalism; it is Pragmatist obfuscation of welfare statism mixed with socialism fed by remnants of capitalism in the name of capitalism -- much farther along than his conservative counterparts employing the same "service defense" of capitalism 50 years ago -- as he pretends that it's all a "benefit" of "free stuff" fueled by a "market economy" under "capitalism". He is a living, contemporary example of what Ayn Rand called the obliteration of the concept "capitalism" with conservative anti-concepts.
His appeal to "benefits" and "doing more good" of altruistic welfare does not acknowledge the inevitable pressure group warfare, the loss of freedom, and the degrees of worsening economic stagnation under the progressively increasing controls and taxes of welfare statism morphing increasingly into full socialism. He only tolerates an "argument" over "costs" and the "point at which they reduce individual initiative" -- with no mention of why anyone should want to live under the stagnation or anywhere near such a "point".
In "Conservativism: An Obituary", Ayn Rand wrote, "Capitalism is based on individual rights--not on the sacrifice of the individual to the 'public good' of the collective. Capitalism and altruism are incompatible. It's one or the other. It's too late for compromises, for platitudes, and for aspirin tablets. There is no way to save capitalism—or freedom, or civilization, or America—except by intellectual surgery, that is: by destroying the source of the destruction, by rejecting the morality of altruism.
"If you want to fight for capitalism, there is only one type of argument that you should adopt, the only one that can ever win in a moral issue: the argument from self-esteem. This means: the argument from man's right to exist—from man's inalienable individual right to his own life."
But what if I'm not? What if I don't see myself being able to start a company and hire people? What if I believe that my only realistic option is to work for others? What if I'm worried about how I could put food on the table or what would happen if I became ill?
Such people might be interested in socialism. Not because they are altruistic, although socialism is often wrapped in the language of altruism, but because they are self-interested. They want the maximum they can get and have been led to believe that by supporting the government in capturing the wealth of producers they will personally benefit.
What the defense of capitalism as a servant of the consumer does is to tell people who do not see themselves as producers "what's in it for me". That's shelves full of food at reasonable prices, goods and services made to fit their needs by companies who spend great effort to figure out those needs. By a virtual consumer's paradise.
It's not about calling the producers altruistic, we know that they are trying to maximize their market, it's about answering "what's in it for me" for the bulk of the people who will not start a business of their own.
Reason and individualism are in the self-interest of everyone at any level of ability by the requirements of human survival. A cynical calculation of savagery is not. The various kinds of utilitarian "greatest good of the greatest number" were a collectivist product of the counter Enlightenment. It is not the world of either Atlas Shrugged or the founders of this country.
Under capitalism everyone is a producer. Trade can only occur between productive people who have something to offer each other. There is no "class warfare" driven by envy and resentment. To repeat, as Ayn Rand put it in her analysis cited above, "capitalism grants economic recognition to only one kind of consumer: the producer—that only traders, i.e., producers who have something to offer, are recognized on a free market, not 'consumers' as such—that, in a capitalist economy, as in reason, in justice, and in reality, production is the precondition of consumption)."
That requires an ethics of individualism. It requires knowing what is in fact in one's self interest as a way of life, not how to live off others. Responsibility for one's own life requires "seeing oneself as a producer". One cannot plunge into politics cynically pandering to those who don't, ignoring the philosophy on which politics is based, with a utilitarian calculation based on collectivism, and expect to get a free society out of it, or any kind of society fit for the sense of life of rational individuals.
Pandering to those who "do not see themselves as producers" with a cynical "what's in it for me" aberration misrepresenting rational self-interest is a false alternative to altruism, and is what altruists promote in order to obliterate the very concept of a Howard Roark or Hank Rearden or Eddie Willers. The false alternative is two sides of the same fraudulent coin. Both encourage pressure group warfare and collectivism as a moral ideal, making capitalism, individualism and civilization impossible, which is what the video is doing.
Tell people to go for "what's in it for me" and you get the pressure group warfare savaging producers at all levels, with nothing in principle telling them where to stop, only cynical utilitarian calculations trying to optimize the unprincipled Pragmatism. The phony morality of altruistic "service" as a moral ideal then parades itself as a "civilized" alternative to the savagery it then proceeds to reproduce.
You might seem them as a free agent selling their services in a free market, for the most part they see themselves as desperately trying to find any job that will take them. You will not win them over by telling them that they are free to start their own companies and determine their own future.
"What's in it for me" IS the essence of self-interest in determining what economic system to support. Individuals must feel that they will benefit from it. If you tell them that a free market system is the only moral way for people to interact but they feel that such a system will leave them personally at a disadvantage, you are asking them to be altruistic.
The Prager argument tells them that even if they do not feel the master of their own fate, a system that empowers the producers will make life better for everyone and thus it is in their self-interest to support it over socialism which promises to explicitly address their needs.
There isn't anything inferior about working for someone else, which most people do, exchanging value for value. No one is "trying to win them over" by telling them they are "free to start their own companies". Most people do not. They do have have the right to "determine their own future" through their own choices in their own lives, including what they do to earn a living, and that is what individuals are supposed to do.
"What's in it for me" is a crude, utilitarian, anti-philosophical Pragmatist substitute for ethics, not an ethics of rational self interest -- which does not include deciding to be a looter under socialism as one option in the name of 'self interest'. Like any form of choosing to live as a parasite that is in no one's self interest. Rejecting it is not "asking them to be altruistic". Did you not read Atlas Shrugged, let alone any of Ayn Rand's non-fiction or the history of the rise of this country?
The conservative argument for an anti-concept replacing the concept 'capitalism' in the name of "service" tells people they need not be responsible for their own lives, which is owed to them by a "system" -- which is why the video winds up endorsing welfare statism under European socialism in the name of "capitalism" while evading what capitalism is and everything that makes capitalism and freedom possible. It is the result of a collectivist mentality of apologizing for "producers" as servants making "life better for everyone" as if the normal state of individuals were not "producers" for their own lives, trading value for value.
You don't appear to understand what 'self interest' means as a way of life and that it does not mean plunging into politics as if politics were the starting point and all that matters. That is the destructive Pragmatist dead-end of anti-philosophical "libertarianism".
The reality is that those people have to be convinced that that a free market of individualist producers is in their interest or they will band together and send thugs, called policeman, to get stuff from those who have it. Of course they have to wrap it in socialism to salve their conscience.
The reality is that no formal structure will long prevent the masses from constructing the social organization they think is best for them. You must convince them that a free market of individuals is in their best interest.
You can tell them that they will be able to bargain for more for the labor they produce, but frankly, a large part of society simply doesn't believe they can effectively bargain for anything other than by banding together collectively. They will act upon that belief unless you can convince them that they will be better off in a market-based system.
I understand the goals of self interest and free individuals I did start a company. But you cannot cling to a philosophy of what people should understand in the face of the reality that they do not.
The Prager argument speaks to even those who do not see themselves as empowered.
The "Prager argument" in this horrid video -- a more extreme European welfare statist version of the old conservative "capitalism is service" anti-concept -- promotes that false view of America and panders to and encourages those led to believe it. It is not an argument for individualism and capitalism, which it is progressively destroying.
Convincing anyone "that a free market of individuals is in their best interest" does not begin with politics and especially does not begin by promoting an altruistic ethics contrary to it with a mentality of crude, concrete bound "what's in it for me" unprincipled Pragmatism. "Espousing objectivism" does not mean the anti-philosophy libertarians equating Objectivism with their politics as an axiom and eclectic anything-goes Pragmatism and worse for the rest. Pragmatism is not "objective reality".
It not possible to advance capitalism and freedom by "Pragmatically" appealing to principles promoting their opposite of altruistic service to others and people as "victims" with nothing of value to "offer the free market". That is not "objective reality". Contradictions do not exist.
Offering a moral sanction, power and "service" to those who do not see themselves as "empowered" to live their own productive lives is reprehensible and destructive, not an argument for capitalism.
Pandering to a rising entitlement mentality only encourages it. It helps and speeds the progress of the left while cutting off capitalism as an antidote with a corrupted anti-concept obliterating both capitalism and the concept 'capitalism', as conservatives have shown for nearly a century and who are now reduced to begging to let us serve through European-style socialist welfare statism in the name of avoiding "Venezuela".
Nothing could bring Venezuela faster than that kind of "opposition" to the left in the name of its opposite, capitalism. Convincing anyone "that a free market of individuals is in their best interest" requires appealing to the best in people, not pandering to and promoting the worse while denouncing the best as "greed".
"If you want to fight for capitalism, there is only one type of argument that you should adopt, the only one that can ever win in a moral issue: the argument from self-esteem. This means: the argument from man's right to exist—from man's inalienable individual right to his own life." Such a rejection of hopeless Pragmatism is recognition of what is required, not "clinging" to a proper philosophy.
I am appalled, I argue with them on a regular basis but cannot convince them that pay should have the slightest connection with value produced. They insist pay should be based on needs and decry the decline of unions which would make the corporations pay them more.
It's very sad, but it's my observation of the political reality in America. It's not universal but it is a very significant portion.
I think that the Prager argument is valid. I know that I spend a lot of time trying to make my product more attractive to customers not because I'm altruistic but because I want their money. However why I do it is irrelevant to THEM, what matters to them is that I do it.
To shun them is to surrender, and allow even more media and socialists to affect them and others.
Self-esteem is an intractable place to begin this discussion.
The problem is that unless we deal effectively with these people they will become the majority and it doesn't really matter what our philosophy is, the guys with the guns will come to take "our fair contribution".
Ultimately this requires widespread acceptance of the right ideas, which means replacing the intellectuals who are undermining and destroying what is left of the American sense of life. In the meantime the best in the American sense of life and its ideas, to the extent they are recognized explicitly, are all there is to appeal to. Once that is gone or in a small minority, it is much harder to change the ideas that are accepted than it is even now.
As you have said, you don’t agree, fine. I don’t plan to watch the US turn into Venezuela and then remind you “I was right” on your deathbed. You convince people your way, and I’ll do it my way.
Conservativism promoting a collectivist, invalid concept of capitalism and capitalism's opposite -- altruistic service and welfare statism following along with the counter Enlightenment -- is not a step in the right direction no matter how often it is "said many times".
Thoritsu acknowledged in this same thread that he does not know where Ayn Rand discussed the conservatives' bad foundations
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
It continues to be destructive for the same reasons Ayn Rand explained long ago, and now takes the form of even worse statism, in accordance with 50 years of worsening practice following the same false premises.
We now see it in this video taken to a more explicit and extreme level politically in sanctioning the even worse welfare statism of European socialism in the name of "capitalism", obliterating both capitalism and the concept 'capitalism' in a hopelessly destructive, unprincipled Pragmatist argument.
Anti-philosophical conservative and libertarian hostility to Ayn Rand ignoring that every politics depends on an ethics and that "freedom and value of free choice" are the opposite of altruistic sacrifice is no more 'practical' now than ever. Neither is the personal hostility.
Not sure what it says, because I stoped actually reading them about a month ago, when you demonstrated a mind narrow enough to traverse a nanotube.
If you can’t stand up to “diatribe” and “narrow mind”, man up, and deal with the assertion.
I don’t think you’ll find much support that open minds don’t belong here.
You seem to think that this Ayn Rand forum should be "open" to anything except rational explanation of Ayn Rand's positions in response to posts advocating their opposite, which responses are to be denounced with personal hostility for daring to be here. That you have limited time to post does not mean that no one else can answer it for the benefit of those who are interested.
Well, go get me kicked off if you want. You are a giant waste of time.
I am reminded of the "Bert & I" skit where one fellow has been to the communist lecture and comes home spouting to his friends about how it's "share and share alike." His friend says, "So if you had two hogs, you'd give me one of them?" "That I would, that I would." "And if you had (sly pause) two HOSSES, you would give me one of them?" "DAMN YOU Eban, you KNOW I got two hosses!"
That's not a step in the right direction.
Most pertinent to the Puzder "defense" of capitalism in particular is her 1965 article "The Obliteration of Capitalism", also in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Puzder is a welfare statist.
False foundations means philosophical, in ethics and epistemology. Every politics presupposes an ethics; faith and altruism contradict capitalism.
There is not a socialist/communist/maoist government that has outperformed a market based capitalist economy ever.
M. Thatcher "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”
In any case, I am a non-believer and support anyone else’s right to their belief. However, when those beliefs are used to limit the freedoms of others (illegal gay partnerships, abortion or buying liquor on Sunday), we have a problem. Those guys are nuts. Not sure where Dennis Pragers intentions end.
What set me off was the fact that there are many out there who immediately go on the defensive, whenever religion is brought into the equation. We're not in 17th century Europe, but by the way many people react, you would think people were getting burned at the stake on a regular basis (although...the Middle East does appear to be going through such a period).
I know the above sentiment is far from Randian. However, respect for others is not.
If there is some for a higher being, great. Let’s objectively evaluate it. If someone asserted they were God’s son today, they’d get locked up or shunned (nuts). The only thing that keeps the belief from being dismissed is social inertia and fear of the unknown.
There are many levels of belief and I, for one, am open to listening to all kinds of belief systems. The fact that people have performed extraordinary things based solely on their own courage and FAITH in something gives me pause in disparaging them and their beliefs.
Courage, certainly has nothing to do with believing in an afterlife. Quite the opposite. However, using that argument and manipulating people to fight for the benefit of those in leadership certainly happens.
Others, if I have interpreted what they say correctly, believe that there are some things that can only be answered by having faith in themselves or something bigger than themselves. My main point was that to call them "nuts" was unnecessary and likely, insulting to many people reading here.
“Nuts” was not intended to be that negative. It was a colloquialism. I readily accept that I am a nut in many ways. I waste time on fast cars, fast computers, weird guns, soccer three times a week, et al. Most are wasteful, maybe not soccer.
I meant I am not an overly religious person, which is true, since I am an atheist or agnostic.
The last thing I will say on this matter is that we do no kindness to OUR side (and, I do believe Objectivists and Conservatives CAN BE on the same side) by ACTING like the arrogant left.
Have a lovely rest of your day!
Who is hit-and-run 'downvoting' the point that Ayn Rand's philosophy is not religious conservativism?
Don’t know, who is down voting. Telling everyone they are wrong/ignorant/misleading unless aligned with your 1mm laser is a likely contributor.
The statement "Ayn Rand was not a conservative (or a liberal) and there are fundamental differences between her philosophy and religion (and other intellectual traditions)" is not "Telling everyone they are wrong/ignorant/misleading unless aligned with your 1mm laser". The difference between Ayn Rand's philosophy and religious conservativism is fundamental. Please drop the personal hostility.
Hostility? No. Just pointing out the completely impractical nature of your arguments. You can’t even convince me, and I am largely in agreement. No chance of convincing any significant population, and that is my objective.
Personal hostility:
"Telling everyone they are wrong/ignorant/misleading unless aligned with your 1mm laser is a likely contributor."
"diatribe on greed"
"It was your diatribes that are not compelling. This one included. Not sure what it says, because I stoped actually reading them about a month ago, when you demonstrated a mind narrow enough to traverse a nanotube."
"remind you 'I was right' on your deathbed".
Who erodes the arguments for “our side” more, me asserting religion is dogma, or your Conservative friends asserting homosexuality and premarital sex is evil?
“Our” failure in appealing to the masses is from conservative religious dogma, not fiscal freedom, and the left have latched on to the former to further their objectives on the latter.
Do not paint me with the brush of socialist totalitarians (arrogant left). It is religious intolerance that has alienated the majority, and allowed the left to co-opt fiscal freedom, business and capitalism as evil by association.
If you want to have something bigger than man to lean on, just consider the Universe with all the laws and things that exist. Learn to be rationally selfish and then you will not need some "God of the Gaps" to explain that which is a mystery at present. Rights is no mystery. It is a necessity for life of a selfish being and is secured by opposing force with force and in a good society by government applying that force.
An inalienable natural right by our nature as human beings to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" here on earth is philosophical recognition, not submission to a "something higher than other men", and is not "secured" by any such thing. Nor did the secular government founded to implement the Declaration through limited government protecting the rights of the individual have anything to do with any religious higher being securing anything.
The founders had no such notion as a god handing down, let alone "securing", rights as commandments; they recognized rights by our nature as what we in fact are, however we were "created" (evolution was not known at the time). Enlightenment thinkers recognized that is is up to man to discover for himself through reason what those rights are by looking at the facts of our nature.
See Carl Becker's classic The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, and Bernard Bailyn's equally classic The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.
The country was not founded on religion and philosophical ideas are not "just paper" without it. Our rights can only be "secured" by a general philosophical acceptance of, and social organization implementing, the ideas of man's rights.
I do not agree with religion mainly because it is hypocritical with their claimed moral visions. Read the dogma and it is difficult not to understand how while preaching love and tolerance the 'scriptures' also allow for the destruction of anyone who does not agree or at the least the plundering of the infidels or any who disagree with their institution. That stated Dennis' elucidation of the goals of the left and statists is clear and makes it easy to understand why they are dangerous.
The tractor factory officially produced 2 tractors the last year in business, the rest were stolen buy the workers.
I asked him , how do you trade a tractor for toilet paper? He looked at me like I was stupid and said , you get a lot of toiler paper :)
One thing about money is that it seems to translate into power. Then that money translates into whatever those in power deem important. Even though Amazon is a capitalist company, those in power there seem to be pushing for socialism. It proves to me that the elite seem to be even more blind than a common voting citizen. Every time we 'donate' to Amazon, it seems to more want to control our destiny. That is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Ozarks and Hillsdale are stridently religious schools, not something that should be supported by those who support reason, rational egoism and capitalism, which those schools undermine.
The same goes for politicians, most are not even known, in that case only the loud ones, the ones that make noise are known.
And that's interesting that Ozarks and Hillsdale are strictly religious, neither one of them ever impressed me that way. I view them both as educating in the direction of believing in the Constitution, economics, and government, how Congress works and why it doesn't, and all the other aspects of what the conservative side believes in. I've looked at many of their courses and even get some of their mailings, never saw anything religious about any of it. In any case I'll look back to see, but I never saw anything that I would consider religious about them.
As for the money influence issue, in a culture in which collectivism and statism are progressively taken for granted at the expense of what we recognize as the right of the individual to his own life, it is only to be expected that more money goes into promoting that collectivism and more of it is available for money to buy. It's the nature of what people predominantly believe, not the fault of money.
If you have money you can still use it to publish and broadcast individualism, but there is much less of that and nothing to protect the rights of the individual from buying government power. If you are poor in any society you can't do as much as what you would like to..
As usual, we stand, burried in the filth. Hillsdale offers a shower and water in exchange for nothing, but you reject it, in favor of the unreachable castle and feast.
There is a day to depart from Hillsdale, if they maintain a religious tithe is due. That day is not today, and it poisons us none at all to wait and see.
If you can learn something from a Hillsdale video and have the time for it, then do it, but watch out for what they are leaving out or distorting (like the lecture on Plato that was discussed here a couple of years ago and a lecture undermining science they broadcast, but not discussed here on this forum). And always remember that conservative reliance on "tradition", especially when it evades fundamental requirements, is not an argument for a free society.
Want to guess what percentage of the population saw it?
There are a wealth of them, and they are all well done.