And we're live! @eamonnbutler opens by paying tribute to the life and works of Ayn Rand. How do her works influence the modern world, and what would she think of modern times? Find out by watching along with us right now via the link below!

https://fb.watch/3pl0-59yD-/  https://twitter.com/ASI/status/1354816045404483594
Dr Tara Smith says that thinking of all the influences that Rand has had on her, she says she was struck from early on by Rand's demand that we 'say exactly what we mean when we speak'.

She says Rand was refreshing, avoiding hedging and getting to the heart of the issues.
"Fudging things fakes things"

If Rand was being interviewed, she refused to waterdown and she spoke up to her audiences. Her commitment to the individual and egoism is refreshing. "Your life is yours," unconditionally — "Each person is an end in themself."
Rand on race relations: it is an insult to see the individual merely or encourage the individual to see themselves merely as belonging to a group. That is as true of race as it is of all other characteristics. Accidental groups that you happen to belong to do not define you.
For Thomas Walker, Rand is the reason that he is where he is and doing the things he is doing. Rand gave him the confidence to "want a certain life for myself" and that being self-interested was moral. She tied together disparate thoughts into a coherent philosophy.
But what about exceptions? Does Rand fit every rule?

Thomas says that Objectivism isn't about rules, it's about recognising reality of the world around you.
Tom Burroughes says when he came across Rand, he was already on the track of classical liberalism and saw the collapsing philosophies of collectivism.

"She made clear that the pursuit on one rational long term interest is wise, efficacious, and morally good. Your life is yours."
How she addressed altruism. The strangeness of the idea of taking a lesser value, and encouraging others to do so. Other individuals pursuing happiness aren't predators. Pursuit of rational self-interest allows for benign interaction and the build up of natural sympathy.
"We're all going stir crazy with lockdowns" says @eamonnbutler

Tom Burroughes replies simply "Yes."
Emergencies are limited in time, not the normal run of events. Morality has to be based on the normal run of events. Extreme situations are not the basis for normal moral guidance, Tom says.

She'd have issues with specifics, while as conguent as possible with human liberty.
A pandemic is an emergency, but when things go on a long time, at what point is this a new normal? When should we wrestle back control from Government?

Tara says some lockdown powers have been abused, but our health has been threatening to life and some restrictions are needed
Tom Walker says the emergencies are often and too often used to justify actions that push state control well beyond the reasonable level. Cites income tax and long-run terrorism controls that have diminished public & private life as ones that went well beyond their sell-by date.
Dr Tara Smith says one of the things she's most worried by in the West has been acquiescence to all and any state control. She is worried about the "meekness of lambs" and the impact that will have on the spread back of liberty at the end of the pandemic.
What does Rand think about the silenceing of opinions?

Dr Smith says she was a staunch advocate of freedom of speech, no matter how offensive it is. Fraudulent or misrepresentation is a violation of rights. Reckless endangerment is violation of rights. But other than that? No.
How would Rand respond to the huge rise in debt? She'd say the problem is the state is involved in far too much of our life. Tom Burroughes says she'd likely have called for a huge retraction in the activity of the state, the long it goes on the harder it will be to do.
We've argued that furlough allowed a block on people being impacted by covid and kept deaths lower than needed. But Tom argues that furlough could've been less, with people able to switch jobs and do jobs remotely, people could've found different roles without endangering others.
Tara takes a purist position: No one has a right to an income, no one has a claim to resources of others.

Tom says that we've seen too much 'attributing to the virus what is actually attributing to government action.' If gov stops trade, they have a bigger duty to compensate
Tom Walker says that even if we agree that the pandemic requires controls on travel, we should only accept controls on entry. No government, no free society, should accept controls on those wishing to leave. That is the act of totalitarian states.
Rand thought that war could only be justified. "Is a trade war ever justified," asks @eamonnbutler?

Trade is between individuals says Tom Walker, but China with its state owned enterprises is between individuals and the Chinese Community Party's state.
You can follow @ASI.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.