Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman

[Ubermensch]

Below: An interview with Ayn Rand, in which she runs circles around, teaches, refutes, outwits, exposes and ultimately obliterates and demolishes every objection and question thrown her way.

Below: A scrub asks Milton Friedman a question, and Friedman displays a brilliance on par with Rands.

Notice how at around the 3:30 mark, the scrub refutes his own opening question (causing the entire audience to notice and laugh).

At the end of the video, Friedman reveals that he actually agrees with the scrubs overall point, and that he merely wanted to spend six minutes pointing out the "surface" nature of the conversation (a conversation that rests upon "unchecked premises" in Ayn Rand's words).

Cheers to my fellow Rand fans out there:

@Vigilante
@OldFaithful
@axiom
@luniac

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[axiom]

It's so amazing how pure and beautiful rationality can be.

 

[germandude]

It's so amazing how pure and beautiful rationality can be.

With Friedman yes. Ayn Rand has a few things going for her, but her immaturity and overconfidence showing in her "I know everything about everything" attitude makes you refute much of her stances. For example, she would never vote for a woman president and her hate (albeit expected as she is Jewish) for the eastern Muslim countries put her on par with a mental patient. As an example, in Germany, we have not only these 2 `issues` of her but almost the whole system is going against what she is saying. And you know what? It`s working.

There are many good philosophers out there, but she is getting all the support for her 1-2 principles that are seemingly good for business and in fact they are not. Most people read her when they are up to until 30 years old. Then they outgrow her, realizing that if nobody cared about each other society wouldn`t work. While her cameo roles in the lives of people do bring a notch to balance beliefs, she shouldn't be given much more credit. Being quick to respond (even though the response doesn`t have to make much sense) and polarizing things must not be considered as rightfulness. For that, we have marketers.

 

[MitchC]

In what sense is "It working" in Germany

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[germandude]

In what sense is "It working" in Germany

We have minimal problems. Good enough for me.

 

[Villain]

"And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other... has failed, utterly failed." - Angela Merkel

 

[lowtek]

.....

There are many good philosophers out there, but she is getting all the support for her 1-2 principles that are seemingly good for business and in fact they are not. Most people read her when they are up to until 30 years old. Then they outgrow her, realizing that if nobody cared about each other society wouldn`t work. While her cameo roles in the lives of people do bring a notch to balance beliefs, she shouldn't be given much more credit. Being quick to respond (even though the response doesn`t have to make much sense) and polarizing things must not be considered as rightfulness. For that, we have marketers.

It's pretty clear you didn't even listen to the first 5 minutes of her interview. Nowhere does she say not to care about society.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MJ DeMarco]

This Milton Friedman quote is in my book, at least the rough draft. It's my favorite smackdown in a time when two sides actually conversed instead of shutting down the debate because the potential facts might violate safe spaces.

"Of course none of us are greedy, it's always the other fellow who's greedy."

 

[Ubermensch]

This Milton Friedman quote is in my book, at least the rough draft. It's my favorite smackdown in a time when two sides actually conversed instead of shutting down the debate because the potential facts might violate safe spaces.

"Of course none of us are greedy, it's always the other fellow who's greedy."

Here is the full quote:

“Well first of all, tell me: Is there some society you know that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy, it’s only the other fellow who’s greedy. The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.”

And another good one:

“In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on its origin and not on its content. Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your country" implies that government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshiped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.”