Ayn Rand's Ideas: An Introduction

Najtrazeniji:

Kategorije:

Ayn Rand's Ideas: An Introduction - Ayn Rand Institute

Uploaded by: AynRandInstitute
Video Description:
http://www.aynrand.org
An excerpt from a lecture by Dr. Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, introducing Ayn Rand's revolutionary ideas.
Recorded in Irvine, California, on June 2, 2003. See more at http://www.aynrand.org/reg_ls_index

Tags for this video: altruism Ayn capitalism egoism Ghate Institute morality Objectivism Objectivist Onkar philosophy Rand rights selfishness

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by AynRandInstitute

Related Videos

NEG 1 - Ayn Rand as an insignificant philosopher	The Fountainhead - Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand)	The Fountainhead Commercial (good one)

The Passion of Ayn Rand	Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 1 of 5	Reason vs. Faith, Question 8 of 8 - Ayn Rand Institute

Share This Video:

Comments for this video: Show || Hide

Comments for this video on YouTube

A politician on the ... ( 1 month ago by deinse81)

A politician on the other hand gets payed by taxpayers, and the voters are the one's ultimately deciding his pay and whether he gets to keep his job. If voters wanted to pay someone important more money, I'd be fine with that. The fact is they don't. Shareholders on the other hand obviously do, since they get a bigger return on their investement from a good CEO, than from a cheap one. As owners of a company, it is their right to determine such wages, not yours, or the employees' and customers'.

I don't need to ... ( 1 month ago by deinse81)

I don't need to look it up. My business is to know these data, and I know my business. Such a rise in CEO pay is impossible. Your study was doctored. If you look at all Fortune 500 companies, and what they pay their current CEO's, the rise is significantly less than tenfold, compared to 2001.
Also, the size of the american companies considered was much bigger than the size of japanese and canadian companies, that's why the difference is so striking.
Compare 200 random, equal size companies.

denise: you know as ... ( 1 month ago by jnycnuk)

denise: you know as well as i do - as a shareholder - we are powerless to limit execs wages. the board of directors (who also are like pigs at the trough lately) control the strings.

That's not true, ... ( 1 month ago by deinse81)

That's not true, but sell the shares if you feel that way. Start your own business.
This is how a real study on an economic trend
looks like:(It's a PDF file)
Turns out CEO pay for DOW companies didn't even double in your time period, despite huge profits for the shareholders. (note how worker's salaries rose at the same pace-it's all in there):
Sorry, google "CEO pay data DOW", click the fifth link
I can't seem to be able to post a link here.

denise: well, that ... ( 1 month ago by jnycnuk)

denise: well, that is an odd opinion for someone that is suppose to be collecting data (refusing to look at ALL of the data) for business. american execs are like nero - they are fiddling while rome (THE USA) falls.

denise: i sold my ... ( 1 month ago by jnycnuk)

denise: i sold my entire portfolio months ago. before the crash. google [ceo worker pay widens].

advancethinking; ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

advancethinking; perhaps you do not know that no one has absolute ownership of land. Only the sovereign does, in the US it is the states. Each state has retained the right to tax land among at least three other things that belie what sounds like your claim to some kind of absolute ownership. Taxes on land value are for the purpose of paying for public services that make land more valuable like roads, sewers, schools, police and fire protection and on and on. Are you expecting to get a free ride?

advancethinking; ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

denise81: it turns ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

denise81: it turns out the sovereign state holds superior title, called allodial, to all other owners who only have "fee simple" title which only confers right to use. The state retains the right to tax land any way it sees fit and usually it does so by assessing the market value of land and taxing land value. The purpose is to pay for public services. How else and who else should pay for services that serve land and make the market value of land higher. Are your expecting a free lunch?

denise81: to ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

denise81: to continue: it is appropriate for you to have fee simple title for the purpose of exclusive use of land and for protection of improvements you make on the land. No argument with that at all. What is not yours is the value of your land because the community creates that 100%. The state can tax land value but it chooses not to do so more than a little bit. Mostly states tax labor and capital to pay for services that make the land more valuable. That makes us landowners parasites.

denise81:first ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

denise81:first there was no such thing as unclaimed land. All of it was claimed by the previous inhabitants from who it was taken. No shame, all land is subject to being conquered if it can't be defended. But mere conquering does not give you absolute right to ownership of land unless you are the sovereign and you alone are not the sovereign. All of us including you are the sovereign and as such we have a right to tax land we let you use and base that tax on land value that we all create.

Two separate points ... ( 1 month ago by deinse81)

Two separate points: ownership and sovereignty.
1. I did not suggest ownership is claim. I said ownership is claim of something not in use, and the ability to put it to use. (and I listed the way that was practiced by early settlers)
The indians did not own land: I doubt they even claimed it(other than to try and keep europeans out), and they didn't use it, certainly not the whole cont.
2. I am sovereign on my land: don't test me on that, because I'm also armed. You have no right to my land.

"The community" is ... ( 1 month ago by deinse81)

"The community" is just a stolen concept meant to justify tyranny. It is not an independent entity, with rights, abilities and needs. Forcing an individual to be part of this fake concept, thus taking away his property and freedom, is tyranny.
Community in its real meaning is a relationship between a group of consenting individuals. If the community starts using force, it becomes a gang (or a tribe).
I believe you are confusing the two concepts: civilization made tribes obsolete.

denise81: OK have ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

denise81: OK have it your way. But if you do not help us pay for the roads, sewer systems, street lights, police and fire protection, schools, courts, etc. all of which make the market value of your land higher then please do not use them. If community does not exist then we, the community, the people, do not recognize your existence and we hereby suggest that you not show your face. Nonetheless we do have the right to come on to your land. I do get your point but threatening me/us is silly.

denise81:OK have it ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

denise81:OK have it your way again. As a member of the group of consenting individuals and because access to land is a necessity of life for every individual, if we cannot share the earth on some sort of agreed upon basis, your version of absolute ownership of land is a death sentence to many of us. That is what I call tyranny. Millions have died because of your version of property rights in land. Do you consent to death/poverty should the shoe be on the other foot?

Millions died ... ( 1 month ago by deinse81)

Millions died because of property rights? You're getting really irrational buddy, so bye.

deinse81:thinkest ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

deinse81:thinkest thou not? Property in human beings called slavery is one good example. Somehow it was decided that this was not a good idea and this "sacred" right that people were willing to defend by killing others (and of course dying for)was changed at least officially. Just goes to show that what we think is unquestionable is not always so. I merely question how you as landowner come to own the value of land you do not create and why most of us think it OK to tax wages which we do create.

So your big idea of ... ( 1 month ago by deinse81)

So your big idea of deciding who should use land is by force? Which gang("community") can kill the others faster?
You really don't think a strong government to protect property rights is a better solution?
As far as the Indians claiming land, they certainly did not: they had no notion of individual liberty, let alone property rights.
However, now they can own land, just like the rest of us, so it all worked out.(except for some atrocities that were committed, which are regrettable)

I'm fine with not ... ( 1 month ago by deinse81)

I'm fine with not using public property if it means I wouldn't be forced to pay taxes. However, I certainly have a right to life, liberty and property, and we have to have a voluntarily funded government to protect those rights.
As far as "the community" goes, let me repeat: that's a stolen concept, used trying to evade the fact that you are talking about a gang which relies on force to achieve its goals.
"When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty."--Confucius

Value is not a ... ( 1 month ago by deinse81)

Value is not a physical, concrete concept. As a result we do not own value. The things we own (physical things, such as cars and land) happen to have a subjective value to us.
That's what makes trade possible: object A is worth more to me than to you, as a result you are willing to trade it, and I am willing to buy it for set amount.
As far as slavery: it's wrong because you are using force to take away someone's inalienable right to liberty. It has nothing to do with property rights.

Great post. ( 1 month ago by kailabreece)

Great post.

deinse81: a strong ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

deinse81: a strong government to protect property rights is the better solution. We have never had one. All governments now take what truly belongs to me, my earned wages from labor and profit from real capital investment which I won't do if I can't keep the reward. On the other hand all governments allow landowners to keep the value of land, a value they do not create. How is your right to keep what you do not create greater than my right to keep what I do create?

deinse81:Confucius ... ( 1 month ago by ourearthhome)

deinse81:Confucius was all about reciprocity. Publicly provided infrastructure that serves your land making it more useful and more economically valuable (a value you do not create) calls for the appropriate reciprocal response on your part which is to help the rest of us pay for these services. What better way to pay for these things than by an assessment against the value these services give to your land? Should I pay for the services to your land out of a tax on my earned income from working?

Who decides what ... ( 1 day ago by Diosade)

Who decides what rules need to be followed regarding private property? Who decides what's fair? Rational thinking can't solve this problem, it's about who is most powerful. It's all about power...

Smesni Video Snimci

www.videosnimci.net

Ayn Rand's Ideas: An Introduction - Ayn Rand Institute