Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Ayn Rand: Philosophy, Objectivism, Self Interest | Yaron Brook | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

  1. As a geo-libertarian, I don't feel Yaron Brook represents my views. I agree that reason and science should be essential pillars. But as I know Yaron, we have huge differences in how we apply that principle. Please have someone from the Niskanen Center on, for an interview with libertarians who doesn't deny the results of climate science. (http://niskanencenter.org/)
    1
  2. +216trixie I've not read Rand ... I haven't heard anything about her I can't deduce from other thinkers. I agree fully that science and reason should be the foundation. So argued Thomas Paine. But I also observe that many who call them selves "libertarians" uses that principle very selectively.
    1
  3. +Sebastian Lundh ... and another climate science denier. I'd rather see an interview with a libertarian who actually respected the principle of science and reason.
    1
  4. Sebastian Lundh No ... but we've now had 4 climate science deniers. (Yaron, Crowder, Shapiro, Watson). I don't really think a quest for a rational approach to an ideology of liberty needs more science deniers. I'd much rather see a libertarian who's not a science denier. Like Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center. (Michael Shermer is libertarian and actually got the science straight.... so we have had one.)
    1
  5. Sebastian Lundh Why would Steven Crowder? You see... I didn't say they would. I'm also perfectly aware that that doesn't need to be a part of an interview. But - as Yaron said here - science and reason is important for thinking straight in terms of ideology. Personally I don't need Ayn Rand to tell me that. Thomas Paine argued that centuries before. ... so if this is supposed to be a conversation about how to navigate based on reason between the absurdity of the regressive left and the GOP circus. - then it actually matters that the people you engage with in that discussion takes science seriously. Climate deniers do not.
    1
  6. William No. I'm asking Dave to show that classical liberalism doesn't have to be the stereo-type anarcho-capitalistic, climate science denying, government-is-a-big-socialist-conspiracy type. I'm asking Dave to show that there's actually libertarians who apply the principles of science and reason, but don't make exception when the science says something they can't wrap their pre-defined polices around. (ok... Michael Shermer was here and that's good) I'm a classical liberal. But I've been VERY MUCH disappointed by the way many other libertarians have reacted to the science of climate change and where science denial as bad as creationism has crawled out of the wood work everywhere. This goes totally against what people like Yaron is preaching with a science and reason approach. ... which again isn't that original. Thomas Paine argued that 240 years ago.
    1
  7. William I was not criticizing Dave Your question about Paine is cryptic. I sense a strawman? No you are (obviously) not a science denier. I hope you are aware that I didn't base my comment about Crowder, Shapiro and Yaron on statements like the one you expressed. We probably agree on a lot... You questioned my motivation for this. I told you that the motivation was that I believe there actually is a reason based classical liberalism out there to find, but I've been chocked to see how many who calls them selves "libertarian" who abandons reason as soon as it (seem to them) conflicts with the conclusions they want to reach. The brand of libertarianism which is stereotyped in the public discourse is often the anarcho-capitalist kind which put unregulated enterprise above acknowledging scientific facts. That's a shame ... it's a huge shame. We can do better than that. But we need the voices heard. And that was what I tried to encourage.
    1
  8. William Well... the first thing is to not deny the science. Then we can argue solutions. I fully respect that you acknowledge the science and believe a market driven solution is the best. So do I - actually - .. .however. I also recognize that this is a tragedy-of-the-commons and that the free market forces will not work as long as there are huge negative externalities. The normal libertarian solution to a tragedy-of-the-commons is to privatize. We just simply cannot privatize the atmosphere and the climate. So this leaves only one solution, which is government regulation. But then the regulation should set out to solve only one problem: Making the free market forces work, but getting rid of the negative externalities. That's why I support a fee-n-dividend carbon tax as the simplest most effective market oriented solution. Wrt. Paine I meant that he in his writings "Rights of Man", "Age of Reason" and "Agrarian Justice", argues for and deploys a reason based approach to determining who society should be. I think Thomas Paine was right. No, I don't think Yaron is "incorrectly applying" as much as he's just being hypocritical. Mind you, I don't regard this as a small issue. I know he didn't mention climate change in this Interview, but make science, reason and an evidence based approach central to his message. ... which is in stark contrast to what you get when you listen to his speech at the Heartland Institute.
    1