Пікірлер

• 
  @ganrimmonim15 сағат бұрын

  I describe myself as a left leaning centrist. But as that is a European left leaning centrist I can probably drop the centrist for the purposes of this discussion. I am reading your book with interest and enjoyment. Whilst I am not sure that, nor indeed current circumstances are enough to make me abandon the centre left. I have been made some what uneasy by the attidudes of some who, should be my fellow travellers. I am Jewish, and a Zionist (albeit one made uneasy by Bibi's polices in general) but seeing people with badges saying 'lgbt students for ham as' made think, do you not know who those people are? And if you do why are you giving them your support? Again I'm a centrist and will work with, almost, anybody on a cause by cause issue. Not asking what you think about Y if we are working together on X. For example I happy work with people to campaign against the death penalty (when I know that they take a different view on abortion). And I will work with with people who are Free Choice even if I know they are pro-death penalty. Because why would I care? But again I am really enjoying your book. keep them coming.

• 
  @Mal123456715 сағат бұрын

  You mean, the philosophy she stole from John Locke, Aristotle and Murray Rothbard.

• 
  @user-zo8gz9yp7n22 сағат бұрын

  We put limits on economic activity and punish those that go too far. Were the political actions of Statin, Lenin, or Mao ever punished?

• 
  @subalray2245Күн бұрын

  😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😊😊😊😊😅😊😊😊😊Adelle

• 
  @cambuddeКүн бұрын

  Funny I was already thinking about Ayn Rand before she even mentioned her. She was ahead of her time when it came to exposing the victimhood power play

• 
  @mustang607Күн бұрын

  Individuals free to voluntarily collaborate with other individuals overwhelmingly create the best as well as avoid the worse of what we have today.

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP2 күн бұрын

  Correction: the primary aspect of socialism is the forfeit of all individual human rights, including ownership (the right of possession of your own body) to the government.

• 
  @Flower-do9tc2 күн бұрын

  Dios... Envidia vs Javier Milei.

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP2 күн бұрын

  Even then, he will not understand because it’s not the reality alone that yields the truth but the reasoning in the mind that makes sense of the reality. Unfortunately, most people can’t reason.

• 
  @chrismcintyre56682 күн бұрын

  Obscenely pregnant?! Is that a godly description of our future? Since when has pregnancy been so objectively sexual? Obscenely pregnant? Jesus Christ! I'm coming Mommy!

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP2 күн бұрын

  He speaks UNcommon sense 😄

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP2 күн бұрын

  An example of the intellectual bankruptcy in academia. 😞

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP2 күн бұрын

  Here is an example of the illogical political bankruptcy in the U.S. Here the government is addressing the result of the problem (the closure of the business) rather than the cause of the problem (the crime). 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP2 күн бұрын

  The error here is in the premise that one can “get ahead” while being “controlled.” This is an impossible paradox-a Pinocchio one to be exact. 😂

• 
  @kitakitzFarm2 күн бұрын

  Uhh Ahh Uhh Ahh GATES IS A CLOWN🤪

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP2 күн бұрын

  Sounds like she is trying not to say “economic restriction.” 🤔

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP2 күн бұрын

  Correction: property rights are not “under attack.” They simply do not exist anymore. Two examples: (1) if you own a home, you have to pay for a permit to give you permission to alter the home you supposedly own and (2) you don’t have the right to commit suicide (end your own life) which means you don’t have permission to your own existence. Furthermore , “ownership” is a right in itself-i.e. the right of possession of something. Therefore, if you have no right to something, you do not own it. Hence, socialism and fascism are the same instance of the same thing, which makes the definition of fascism a contradiction of terms.

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP3 күн бұрын

  Facts!

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP3 күн бұрын

  This sounds like the a violation of politicians’ own anti-kickback statutes that they enforce on all of us. 🤔

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP3 күн бұрын

  Spell check, please!!!!🤬 It’s spelled “noumenal,” not “nominal.” 🤦‍♂️

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP3 күн бұрын

  Can these so-called “objectivists” start spell checking please?!!😫😩

• 
  @patrick30163 күн бұрын

  Twisted Bill Gates Microsoft mentality - So-called benevolent dictators “doing the hard thing for humanity” by shoving their global fascism down our throats in our best interests, which coincidentally serves to empower and enrich their own elite corruption and psychopathy.

• 
  @freesk83 күн бұрын

  Gates is a Cuffy Migs. A Dr. Ferris.

• 
  @stevengovorchin3 күн бұрын

  It is much easier to articulate a point when you actually believe in what you are saying. He struggles to put together the phraseology that will justify his position. He should just come right out and say that he is against freedom and that we should turn over control of the world economy to him and his fellow elitists.

• 
  @novacancy72533 күн бұрын

  Wow Jennifer, always great conversations and awesome guests ❤👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 ( I’ve been following you from clubhouse app!)

• 
  @jffryh3 күн бұрын

  Are you admitting that climate change is real and that a carbon tax would help solve the problem? It'd be nice if you could be more persistent about this

• 
  @PenixderGallier3 күн бұрын

  actually the word is not climate change anymore, now its all about global heating, because we need to counter-balance moonular freezing, no matter the cost. anyone against this is a savage and an idiot.

• 
  @Lunareclipse19963 күн бұрын

  Did she apologize to Jordan Peterson for writing a hit piece on him when she was a “good soldier of the progressive left”?

• 
  @novacancy72533 күн бұрын

  I didn’t know this, tho makes sense, she admitted to have cancelled some friends or colleagues for not staying in place when she was woke. Do you happen to have a link, pls? To the piece she wrote about JP?

• 
  @Lunareclipse19963 күн бұрын

  ​@@novacancy7253 I think the article is called "Jordan Peterson custodian of the patriarchy". She wrote the piece in 2018. I wonder how she feels that despite her hit piece, he went on to become more successful. I wonder if she apologized to him and others who she cancelled. If not, she doesn't seem to have genuinely changed

• 
  @novacancy72532 күн бұрын

  @@Lunareclipse1996 thank you

• 
  @muiroht13 күн бұрын

  Excellent discussion. Thank you!

• 
  @DebbieLucas-pp9vp3 күн бұрын

  Funny he was a trans.

• 
  @marcomarin11963 күн бұрын

  How is this a reason to not do it though?

• 
  @mollytanzer87364 күн бұрын

  Way to go using the amalgamated plagiarized work of millions of artists to make a trailer for a book about how the individual should always be compensated for their labor. 100%, no notes, truly A+ work understanding the assignment guys

• 
  @shakamuni014 күн бұрын

  22:00 Dr Shiva exposed the SISA censorship network and then the grifters like Musk who are controlled opposition "broke the news" on the censorship network.

• 
  @SteffiReitsch4 күн бұрын

  She's the top Merchant of Doubt. According to her not enough is known to do anything. And when will there be enough known? NEVER! The cigarette industry also hired sell outs like this for years. In climate science the old wench is regarded as a disgraced outlier.

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP4 күн бұрын

  Another error, in the reasoning of the atlas society: free speech is mandatory for the good of individuals, not the public. Inalienable rights do not apply to the idea of an abstract collective.

• 
  @PrinceBieBrockP4 күн бұрын

  The atlas society needs a thought checker. Reason is a mental faculty, i.e. an ability, not a trait. 😂

• 
  @herbertwest92664 күн бұрын

  That's the worst take on Kant I ever heard. I don't know enough about Rand to know whether Hicks is just blindly following a bad take she is responsible for as a fanboy or is himself responsible for that mess and didn't understand her all that well, but it's utterly unprofessional whatever the original source of this is. Kant was far from putting faith over reason. His whole endeavour was about proving the objective legitimacy of the laws of the sciences by an analysis of the fundamental conditions of human experience and reasoning. While some arguments may be outdated today (he was using Euclidean geometry for an important proof that was outdated by the time of the arrival of Einstein's theory of relativity), Hicks doesn't seem to have any clue whatsoever what the whole point of the Kantian argumentations was directed at. There may be a slight whiff of truth in the "faith" reasoning presented here considering Kant (certainly still child of his time in this regard) didn't outright dismiss faith as necessarily absurd, but located questions like those about the existence of god outside of the realm of possible empirical experience and thus outside of the kind of reasoning science and philosophy can and should engage in. It's not relativism but even trivially true that what our brain makes us experience as, for example, an apple, is nothing more than our sensory experiences of the visuals of the apple, the taste in our mouth when we eat it, the pressure in our hand when we lift it up, the sound we hear when it falls to the ground, and so on. There is no "direct" relation to the thing outside causing the representation our minds will give us and there never can be. Is the "apple by itself" similar, vaguely or vastly different? We can't know, because everything we sense about the apple is fundamentally a representation transmitted through the neurological network of our brain - Kant recognizes this simple fact of the conditions of our experience truthfully, but also teaches his readers that in the end it doesn't matter. He allows us to trust the rules and conclusions (i.e. laws of nature) we can deduce from the things that appear to us and thus solves a long-standing philosophical debate relevant in his time. To paint this as some kind of "postmodern" mumbo jumbo that puts feelings over facts and gives rise to irrational and arbitrary ideas about the world is an almost infantile misconstruction of the arguments presented in the critique of pure reason and the intentions behind his work as a philosopher. Kants arguing was meant to purge professional sciences from contamination with religious quackery and endless engaging in mythological speculations doomed to lead nowhere. It was also a clear rejection of any meddling with epistemological relativism of the kind postmodernists would like people to take seriously centuries later. While it's true he left some possibility for private belief in speculative religious possibilities (i.e. "non-rational" private speculations or hopeful fantasies about non-experiencable things that may or may not exist in some way beyond the limits of our reasoning), framing his work as a fundamental apology of religious dogmatism or fundamental-sceptical rejection of a reality is utterly misleading. As is Hick's ludicrous attempt to count Kant as a figure of "counter-enlightenment" - that stands diametrically opposed to the vast majority of sane takes that would of course place him very clearly as one of the leading figures of the enlightenment movement. I liked some arguments Hicks made in other contexts so far, now I'm actually wondering if I've been listening to a hack all the time. He seems to be able to fail badly in judgment and to unashamedly argue completely out of any professional depth when he is trying to lecture about branches of philosophy he doesn't know much about or seems for whatever reason pre-disposed against.

• 
  @todddesorte44704 күн бұрын

  Jewish has nothing to do with white. It’s a religion. How stupid.

• 
  @mustang6075 күн бұрын

  The party state and corporate integrated together in a militant manner sounds a bit too fascist to me.

• 
  @coupons4205 күн бұрын

  I know it’s old, but this needs to be spread across the internet like a wildfire. Biden was warned his spending “budget” would skyrocket inflation from the left and right economist, but he didn’t care. And here we are…

• 
  @KatarinaDinnar7 күн бұрын

  Very beautifuly done. Now it became even more relevant then before. I feel like we are those ancient man of old, that are losing the battle. This novel looks like a prophecy more and more each day.

• 
  @nothingiseverperfect7 күн бұрын

  Not enough gay tension. In the book they were two breaths away from Atlas Pegging.

• 
  @mikespalding36227 күн бұрын

  Excellent perspective. Thanks for the refreshing view of humanity and progress.

• 
  @strong29237 күн бұрын

  Ayn Rand was magnificent at any age. Goddess of philosophy!

• 
  @timmothy587 күн бұрын

  a true fortune teller...thank...love...

• 
  @travcat7568 күн бұрын

  For this guy individualism is attitude & I can't say I really like his

• 
  @darthvirgin71578 күн бұрын

  greatest American President in the 20th century……Franklin D Roosevelt. Ronny Raygun is the reason we have a gaping wide income inequality in this country. “trickle-down” economics is that “golden shower” the upper 1% happily dispenses to everyone else.

• 
  @TheReconBEAST8 күн бұрын

  god bless ron paul. real american hero. need more ron pauls around

• 
  @sayantanmazumdar38 күн бұрын

  Iran weapons sale, Nicaraguan contras.

• 
  @jaystrickland41518 күн бұрын

  The contras were good it was a terrible thing we stopped supporting them.

• 
  @sayantanmazumdar38 күн бұрын

  @@jaystrickland4151 LOL.

• 
  @TSERJI7 күн бұрын

  @@sayantanmazumdar3 tbf, the Sandinistas (the govt the Contras tried to overthrow) themselves gained power through a coup, not democratically

• 
  @RichardLucas9 күн бұрын

  "Who good they have it"? You didn't have time to proofread the title and prevent undermining your own credibility. Someone else was going to beat you to the punch with this awesome upload.

• 
  @erics31019 күн бұрын

  Never get enough of Milton. ❤