A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		 NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives
NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail
Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged
OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

 Friday, June 26, 2009

Yaron Brook and Peter Schiff

By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM

I've not yet had a chance to watch Yaron Brook's many interviews posted online over the past few months, with one exception: this stellar 19 minute in-studio interview of Yaron Brook and Peter Schiff on Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch. To hear The Virtue of Selfishness discussed in such a positive way was mind-blowing, but I was particularly pleased to see Dr. Brook -- once again -- hammer on the moral fundamentals, rather than merely skimming the political surface.

You can find that interview, plus tons of other multimedia goodies, collected at the new web site ARC TV. Clearly, I have lots of catching up to do!

Labels:

Share |
   E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)
  Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail
Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

 Comments

Friday, June 26, 2009 at 6:38:28 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Derek Ciocca

Hey, thank you for posting that link to ARC-TV. I hadn't found that site before.

Friday, June 26, 2009 at 7:34:14 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Rob Abiera
E-mail: rob(at)robabiera.com
URL: http://moralitywar.blogspot.com

Diana - You have GOT to watch Yaron's speech at the Virginia Republican Convention! He is electrifying!

Friday, June 26, 2009 at 12:20:26 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Thomas Shoebotham
E-mail: celloshoe(at)yahoo.com

It is interesting in the Schiff/Brook clip how Dr. Brook constantly takes political/economic issues down to the more fundamental philosophical principles, while Schiff, good as he is, stays mostly at the level of economics. For Schiff, the basic problem is "too much regulation", while for Brook the basic problem is ethics, "not enough selfishness, properly understood". They see the same facts, have many similar ideas about many issues, but only one of them truly gets to the root of the problem they are discussing.

Friday, June 26, 2009 at 18:36:26 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Dave B
E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com

Thomas, I hope you're not saying you are surprised by this, are you? Virtually nobody in the media today could "get to the root of the problem" like Yaron & company (yet). But with more programs like this, with more (and longer) rational discussions, we may see a few mainstream media-types eventually learn to speak and think more philosophically. This interview is a very positive, encouraging sign of things to come.

Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 10:18:57 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Jay

I think Yaron was awful.

He was trying to make the case that Madoff was not self interested, but rather self destructive; this was a poor argument.

Madoff was an average investor, perhaps even below average, but we will never know. He decided 20 years of sort term money would be worth prison, and decided this scenario was better than a life of mediocre income. I, personally, would not take this deal, but it was his decision to make, not mine. He made whatever cost benefit decision he made by his own process. Ultimately it was destructive, but ultimately out bodies are destroyed. He values the present more than the future. My values of these two outcomes are irrelevent. This was a self-interested decision.

Yaron's point is poorly made.

Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 10:20:33 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Jay

Thanks for the link though! I enjoyed it and am always interested in these view points.. Please do not mistake my disagreement with Yaron's point to be dis-interest in exposure. :)

Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 10:35:38 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Andrew Dalton
E-mail: andrew.s.dalton(at)gmail.com
URL: http://witchdoctorrepellent.blogspot.com

Jay-

A proper understanding of self-interest requires taking into account all of the consequences--including the consequences to one's character, which will inevitably impact one's ability to gain values in the future. Attempting to gain a value (money in this case) at the expense of destroying one's own ability to engage in productive work is not a legitimate "cost benefit decision." Bernie Madoff did not choose one legitimate path among many; he chose the wrong path, and now he is facing the consequences.

Besides, what evidence do you have that Madoff did a calculation of how much money was "worth prison"? I consider this to be an arbitrary claim.

Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 17:20:31 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: RT

Jay -- same with Peter Keating! He decided fame and money was worth selling his soul (mind) for. According to his 'cost-benefit', better to be rich and famous even if only for awhile and even if it was all phony based on ideas stolen from others. Much better than being an obscure painter, even if painting is what you truly love to do. And the constant anxiety and self-doubt, the lack of self-esteem, the inability to feel proud of your non-existent accomplishments -- that's just part of the cost-benefit! I guess Ayn Rand had it all wrong -- Peter Keating was truly self-interested after all.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 10:32:38 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Dana H.

To say that Madoff's choices were the result of a cost-benefit analysis is both arbitrary and psychologically naive. An advocate of the cost-benefit hypothesis would have us believe that Madoff in effect put together an Excel spreadsheet with the pros of a Ponzi scheme in one column and the cons in another, and by this process came to the conclusion that the pros outweighed the cons.

What actually happened is probably more along the lines of: Madoff found he wasn't meeting his clients' earnings expectations, so he fudged the reports a bit. Having gotten away with this, he experienced both relief and a little thrill. So he cheated a bit more the next time the returns didn't look so good. By a series of such steps, he ultimately ended up perpetrating a massive fraud. But from his first little cheat, he had declared war on reality. At no step along the way was he acting in his actual self-interest.

Cost-benefit analysis is an aspect of long-range thinking. A characteristic of dishonest people is that they don't think long-range.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 at 19:55:09 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Anthony

Madoff may have been an average or even poor investor, but he certainly had other skills which he could have put to good use. Considering that he was so skilled at convincing people to believe in lies, just think of what he could have done if he had used his skills of persuasion to convince people of the truth.

It is nonsensical to think that Madoff sat down and did a cost/benefit analysis 20 years ago before engaging in his scheme. Moreover, I would say it is arbitrary to even say that he gained much significant value from the stolen money that he had in possession. Perhaps he did enjoy himself most of the time, but perhaps he didn't.

You say you personally would not take this deal, but then you say your values are irrelevant. How can you say your values are irrelevant when you offer absolutely no reasoning why you believe Madoff's values are any different from your own? By Madoff's own statement he says that he made a mistake and that he is tormented by it. Sure, he could be lying, but if you're going to claim that you need some evidence to back it up. It makes perfect sense that he now realizes that he was wrong, and it makes perfect sense that he would be tormented by this mistake. If he had done a cost/benefit analysis 20 years ago and concluded that this was the right choice, then he wouldn't be tormented now.

No, I don't see anything selfish whatsoever in what Madoff did. In fact, as I say in my first paragraph, I think Madoff clearly would have led a much much happier life if he had used his skills for good instead of for evil.

 Post Your Comment

Name or Handle:
E-mail:
URL:
 Remember Me
 
Comment:  
No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links.

Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome.

The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays.

To weed out spammers: 5 plus 0 equals 5028021296364645749