Skip to comments.Dr. Yaron Brook Explains Why Ayn Rand Was Right--01-27-2012
Posted on 01/27/2012 1:25:57 PM PST by appeal2
Dr. Yaron Brook has led the Ayn Rand Institute for the past 11 years. He believes the most important debate of out time is not economic but philosophic: you are not your brother's keeper. Rather, your primary purpose is to the live the best life that you possibly can. This means being your own master and living on YOUR terms. You will be the most successful when you are the freest to pursue your goals and dreams. Unfortunately, this important debate is all but ignored during most political campaigns. Until we address this threshold issue, not much human progress will be made.
As Dr. Brook puts it, all statistics and collectivists assume your purpose on Earth is to care for your brothers in need, whether you want to or not. Even the Founding Fathers made this error, and we are all still paying the price. The big problem is that this thinking is so ingrained in all of our psyches, that very few us even know we should be questioning it. However, through the work of Ayn Rand and her followers, as well as the institute, a true debate about forced altruism is now being had. And this can only be a good thing that will eventually free man from the shackles of unlimited government.
Listen to the Interview
I admire Ayn Rand. In hibh school, I was in a play called “the night of January 16th.”
As a Christian, of course I believe that we should care for our brother. We are NOT, however, his keeper. Think about it. In Genesis 4, when God asked Cain where his brother was, Cain replied, “I know not: am I my brother's keeper?”
And God did NOT say, “Yes”. Instead, he accused Cain of murdering his brother.
We care for other people because Christ cared for us. But a “keeper” implies that not only do we care for, but we control, our brother. Zoo animals have keepers. Adult human beings do not.
And if they do, the keeper is sinning, just by trying to control them. Not to mention the theft, violence, and extortion required to do it with someone else’s money.
I guess this was meant to read 'As Dr. Brook puts it, all statists and collectivists'
That’s right, there is a big difference between the type of Altruism Dr. Brooks is talking about and Christian Altruism. As a Christian you choose to help your fellow man because it is in your self interest. You want to do God’s will and be a good Christian. True Altruism is different. It holds that man’s only justification for existing is to serve his fellow man. That he must put the interests of others always before his own. That to help yourself is evil but to help another good. That it is his duty to sacrifice himself for the good of others. That is the philosophical foundation of all forms of collectivism. All anyone has to do is check out some of Hitler’s and Stalin’s speeches and see how many times they use the words “Altruism” and “Sacrifice” and “selfless”. To be a true Altruist you must not have any self interest at all, even in your own life. That is why Ayn Rand said it was evil. Altruism always sacrifices the good to the evil. The hard working to the shiftless. The profitable company to the failing one. What most people call Altruism is really good will toward your fellow man. When Obama talks about taking from the haves by force and giving to the have-nots, that is true Altruism.
The difference is, with self interested good will you use your own money voluntarily and in Collectivism you use other peoples money taken by force.
Ayn Rand was not writing about the future... she was writing about what had already happened.... check out what hoover and roosevelt did during the 20’s and 30’s.... everything she wrote about in atlas shrugged, they did....
I really loved Yaron brooks’ speech at the 9/12 rally.
Yes, after reading “The Forgotten Man” by Amity schlaes I could see where she got a lot of the situations she used in Atlas. Its interesting that she was writing her books during the 20’s and 30’s when all this government intervention was starting to happen on a massive scale. Of course she also saw first hand the consequences of collectivism.
I am not my brother’s keeper. But I am his brother.
I misread and thought it was Glen Yarbrough.
In scripture, we encounter moral obligations to do something for the poor.
The modern scenario, though, involves the question as to whether the State has the right to extract the fruits of our labor at gun point, in order to "redistribute" it. My viewpoint is that I will (and have) taken care of relatives, friends, and random strangers, but I only want to do it according to MY will, not the State's.
Charity extracted at gunpoint is robbery.
what most people fail to realize (because it is not taught in the schools) is just how close to totaltarianism / communism we actually were....
That is EXACTLY right. Congratulations. You GET it.
So many either won’t or can’t.
That was extremely well put. Thanks.
Please see "Seeing Around Corners" for an introduction to the science of modeling societies: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/04/seeing-around-corners/2471/
John Paul II really stressed the social nature of man in his writings. Each individual person cannot be fully understood outside the context of his or her family, community, nation, world. The collective does exist, and individuals adhere in the collective.
Why doesn't that lend itself to socialism? Because it is also an undeniable fact that the best way to ensure that the collective thrives is to protect the rights of individuals to make their own decisions, including about what they'll do for work, how much they'll work, whom they'll work for, where they'll live, and so forth. This unleashes unimaginable energies that redound inevitably to the benefit of the collective.
Actually, I have to say that I was "converted" to Catholic Social Teaching ages ago. The most insightful - and eerily prescient - document on this topic is the Papal Encyclical "Rerum Novarum, published at the end of the 19th century. All of the answers are there. I strongly urge all to read it, especially Objectivists:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.