What a psychopath. I couldn't even make it through the whole video.
Same here, worst.
That apple hasn't fallen very far:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
I am from Buenos Aires where the Iranians bombed 2 buildings killing 200 people. If I were you I would listen to Peickoff more carefully
Here in California the Iranians snuck into my yard and stole my lawnmower. They are truly desperate people who are trying to bring history's most powerful military force to their door step.
I'm from American where our government has bombed millions of innocent men women and children to death. If I were you I wouldn't listen to Peickoff more carefully.
I don't recall Ayn Rand being THAT bad of a masochistic Zio-freek.
wow, truly a monster and then he says that the united states has to stand up to a bully.... what a demented world view
Despicable.Years ago as a young libertarian-to-be (back when book stores were abundant) I'd look on the shelves and see Ayn Rand books lined up.Yet no Mises, no Rothbard, no Hazlitt...no Austrians whatsoever.I remember thinking to myself "I bet the establishment is ok with Rand, otherwise there's no way these books would be at eye level in my face."Of course, I read all of her books, and inevitably when I reached the topic discussed above, my suspicions were confirmed.I've heard several times, that with libertarians, it usually "starts with Rand". It seems to be the first test to see how serious you are. If you stop with Rand, then the State has you. But if you move on, keep searching ,and discover the real deal, then you've passed.http://Mises.org
Chris I couldn't agree more.Regards
wow! That brings back some bad memories from the fall and winter of 2001. Holy cow were people willing to do absolutely anything to kill Muslims back then. These Rand folk are very emotional, they aren't objective, and not using logic. Iran, Really? wow! just wow! Thank goodness for antiwar.com otherwise there would be a lot manufactured consent. also O'riely actually sounded like a really decent human being in that (relatively speaking)...another WOW!Like Chris R. above said mises.org. But please also read antiwar.com, I also love Scott Horton's pod casts on antiwar.com/radio.
Please realize that, like libertarians, there are a wide range of 'Rand folk'.Peikoff, as head of the Ayn Rand Institute, is the head of the "Orthodox Objectivists".There are many Objectivists that don't care for him or his Institute, and many of those align more with libertarians (OOist following the attitude that libertarians are 'false freedom types').
Correct. Many libertarians who subscribe to Objectivist principles vehemently disagree with Peikoff. These libertarians consider Peikoff's take on Objectivist principles to be VIOLATIONS of Objectivism, not expressions of Objectivism. These libertarians include men like Nathaniel Branden, whom Peikoff considers a heretic. Let's not commit the same mistake that Peikoff did above when he implied that everyone in Iran is a terrorist. Otherwise how are we any different from Peikoff?
It's not that complicated. Peikoff is a zionist. End of story.
What a freiking maniac. This is despicable.
We have a MORAL OBLIGATION to use nuclear weapons on civilians in a country that has committed no acts of aggression on American soil? Wow, that guy is completely nuts.
I'm so glad my initiation to libertarian ideology was Ron.Paul/Rothbard/Rockwell.Without a zero tolerance for war, libertarianism is much less appealing.
As bad as you all think Peikoff is, his point on self defense is valid. If we are indeed under attack or a credible threat exists (I mean for real, not government propaganda) then Peikoff's idea of war is the correct one. Go in, beat the crap out of the enemy with full force and no mercy, and end the war as quickly as possible. Ron Paul agrees with this to the best of my knowledge. The only difference of opinion is, is there a credible threat to the physical security of the country? He thinks yes, you all seem to think no. That's it really.
You have no right to murder an innocent human being who has not threatened you.
"The only difference of opinion is, is there a credible threat to the physical security of the country? He thinks yes, you all seem to think no. That's it really."That's a mighty big difference when the Randian in question believes the state's propaganda as if he's never even considered the possibility that it's just propaganda.And that is the problem with objectivism. Ultimately, their logical reasoning stops dead in its tracks once the nature of the state (e.g. its monopoly on force) becomes the topic, when with libertarians, the nature of the state is the very core issue to begin with.Imagine that there would be no state with its monopoly on force (which is a main staple of objectivism, otherwise they'd think we're just savages). Then there would be no foreign policy that has caused all the blow back. There would be no taxation for the funding of military industrial complex (which needs war to justify its size and existence), there would be no monopoly on force and no monopoly on the availability of information. There would be "collectivization" of guilt or responsibility among the population for the actions of those with said monopoly. I could go on and on.The whole distinction between Peikoff and a lot of us is so large because he believes in the rightful existence of the VERY ROOT CAUSE of all modern threats to America. Saying there is only one difference of opinion between Peikoff and us, is like saying there is only one difference of opinion between a rapist and innocent people, about how you expect rape victims to respond, and what you should be allowed to as rapists do to retaliate against rape victims.
Your point is interesting. I don't like labeling myself as an "objectivist" or "libertarian" or any prepackaged set of beliefs as it were. I do believe in the monopoly of force, but I also believe it should not be used willy nilly like peikoff wants. Does that put me somewhere in the middle? Who knows.
Natural that a theiver of land would be fine with Peikoff.
Amspirnational - I assume you live in the United States, in which case you're a theiver of much more land than I am, and my people were given Israel by the creator of the world, and my nation is much older than a mere 236 years. We beat you by thousands. Your people were not given America. You stole it from the native Americans and stuck them on reservations against their will to run casinos in shame.And I am not fine with Peikoff. I'm merely explaining the disagreement in a more fine tuned way.
So, Rafi, might makes right, and possession is nine tenths of the law. It's the current occupiers of Palestine claiming the moral high ground that irks me and other reasonable people. You're a genocidal fascist; just own it and get on with the ethnic cleansing. Signed, SheikhYerbouti.
God that was revolting, I couldn't make it past the first 45 seconds. I never realized how anti-liberty Randians are.
He is the only person who I have ever seen make O'Reilly look like a voice of moderation.The non-veteran weaklings like Peikoff are always the most blood thirsty. Easy to do when other people will be doing the fighting.
One of the big problems Goldwater had with his campaign was the bellicosity of his foreign policy statements. Even back then, the Randians took much the same the same attitude as this guy. While some Goldwater supporters would defend him as being misrepresented by the media or guilty of hyperbole, the Randians would defend his most rash statements and take it a step further just like this guy. But at least back then, the threat from the Soviet Union was credible. The idea that Iran represents a threat to the US is just laguhbable.
Rafi is correct. Piekoff's error is believing that Iran is a serious threat to the US. He has bought into the hysteria and propoganda. Not all so-called "Randians" agree with Piekoff on this point.
He's got more problems than just that. The guy has no problem murdering innocent people. He's a maniac.
Disgusting! Is this what America has become?
Thanks for rebroadcasting it. I couldn't watch it a second time as I saw it years ago. Check out ARI Watch, they regularly refute ARI's insane foreign policy from an Objectivist viewpoint which references Rand's opposition to US entry into WW2 and strong anti-Zionist themes.My boyfriend heard Rand denounce US foreign policy in October 1966 in DC at the opening NBI Lectures as "imperialistic going back to 1898."We tried to point this out to a Randroid named James Valliant but he wouldn't take it in.
Excellent point. The trouble with the Peikoffian Objectivists, if I may coin a term, is that they seem to think that the right to self-defense and retaliation exempt one from the need to distinguish between one's victimizer and the innocent person standing next to him. This premise is so obviously indefensible one wonders how any rational individual with a moral conscience could possibly endorse it. One is tempted to conclude that those who in fact endorse the a premise are quite literally insane.
Yaaron Brook (Ayn Rand institute) debated Bob Casey earlier this year; pretty good radio - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcNmO3oArWQ