Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@mariabravo7715 says : VI DEVONO AMMAZZARE>> <<@mauriceneville860 says : Roberts is an extreme right wing bigot and strong ally of extreme right wing bigots of Opus Dei, one of the most dangerous Catholic organisations in history. So naturally Jordan lives him>> <<@Tagraff says : Profit blinds the executive level, where wealth accumulation is the sole focus. Citizens are treated as mere assets, their lives and labor designed to serve the CEO and top executives. Meanwhile, profit distribution remains unchecked, with policies created to benefit the few at the top. This leaves many of us feeling that our work is meaningless, stripped of real responsibility. We pour our energy into systems that serve only the executives, harming ourselves and perpetuating a cycle of exploitation. Is this the system we want to continue supporting as a blind faith?>> <<@aaronsmith2942 says : 12:50 is something I bet alot of Americans don't do. Lol>> <<@dadadrew says : Which “famous” poem from Yeats? Pseudo intellectuals usually give up the act or become the real article after sophomore year in college. Not you. Bill Buckley is rolling in his grave. At least he was witty. Hire some smarter people in the “think tank” also dummies brevity is the soul of wit. Unless you are Tolstoy, 900 pages is a product of a think tank that has has done quantity in place of quality. Reagan wanted it to fit on a 3 x 5 card. Tedious and low quality. Both of these dudes should take a year off and read and stfu.>> <<@TheDuckofDoom. says : I have been around the libertarian space for 30 years and with the exception of some teenagers that just discovered economics, I have never come across this caricature of advocating the free market for its own sake. Free markets are simply an essential outcome of adhering to moral principles, so tightly linked that advocating for one is easilly confused with advocating for the other. Regulatory capture is a universal problem, like murder or theft, it is wholly independent of freemarkets. The bullwark against it in any society is the education and moral foundations of the general populace. If you manage to rid a society of regulatory capture the end result will be minimal government and free markets in an almost tautological sense because most of the purpose of government is regulatory capture.>> <<@ryan_alive says : Any active minded person who’s given even a cursory read of Rand will recognize straw-manning here. The ghost of Rand continues to haunt the cowardly modern conservatives.>> <<@freejamesbrown says : The key thing to hone on in is you are advocating violence and you pretend to be a Conservative>> <<@harryadam7679 says : It’s a goddamned tragedy what has happened to Dr. Peterson. He had a huge impact on my life and many others’. He shames himself with this guest.>> <<@happybird4942 says : @39:40: Jordan: "40 percent of Congressmen sleep in their office." Don't worry (too much); the professor seemingly misspoke. It's an estimated 40 congressmen, not 40% of congressmen.>> <<@Angel-d6y9h says : 1:19:15 Bravo!>> <<@LordLanceLotLegacies says : TLDR People are sharing personal stories of overcoming adversity, expressing admiration for Dr. Roberts, and discussing the challenges of conservative voices in academia.>> <<@Ministro_Da_Casa says : Peterson and Yaron Brook?>> <<@DebraNicholeDavisWorth says : Absolutely love this conversation! As a high school student, I read Ayn Randy’s The Fountainhead— rocked my world and catapulted me into a month of listless confusion about purpose. Glad to hear all these 30 years later, to hear this cogent analysis laying rest to the questions I’ve wrestled with. Moral duty is to the community AND self is properly ordered socially and spiritually. 👏>> <<@A_Swarm_of_Waspcrabs says : Yeah, but what if academia's pushing you out because your position's aren't that good? Like- you people are over here whining about Maoists or Stalinists in universities. I really have to ask- where are these people? Do they even exist? Does this demonstrate to these academics that you are approaching them in good faith? Because right now I find it pretty dangerous that Ayn Rand's philosophy is still being entertained to this day. You have a philosophy that had 60+ years to be really tried and tested, and it seems to do is convince poor people that they just need to believe harder to pull themselves out... them most simply don't. It just doesn't seem to be getting any results.>> <<@murilolamonato says : jesus>> <<@murilolamonato says : that felt good>> <<@mbasir says : What is a think tank? A propaganda outlet. That's it. It's a worthless entity. They are NOT academic units. Only propaganda units. That's it. The reason most of them are rightwingers, is money. They are there for the rich. oh, and can Roberts tell something about Project 2025?>> <<@dragonhold4 says : (23:34) "Progressives prioritize emotional comfort with little tolerance for emotional discomfort to set things straight" > The Bible doesn't align with Progressives because it warns "you will be hated for my sake", "Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword", "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it", "let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me".>> <<@PaddySlattery says : Here after his davos/wef speech. Incredible person. Thank you for this conversation.>> <<@robert8321 says : Go KEVIN! 🇺🇸 🌎>> <<@atestamonyoflove says : God I love you're daughter and hope to have one like her. She's so lucky to be her and that makes you very very lucky to be you, Jordan, I love your perspectives as they are great.>> <<@equsnarnd says : Dr. Peterson. I love what you do but when you start talking about Ayn Rand I want to pull my hair out. You say "...she never explains what rational self-interest is." OMG! She explains it in great detail in many of her writings. She may not have take a 20 page detour in a novel to explain it but her characters live it. Atlas Shrugged is replete with examples of it. But technically, she explains it in ther writings in the Objectivist Newsletter, in her essay Philosophy, Who Needs It, in her work on Objectivist Epistemology, in her books on Capitalism. The idea that you stated that she thinks Capitalism is the source of all that is good is simply false. And she says so explicitly. I really wish you would spend 1/10th the time to make yourself familiar with her works that you spend on Nietzche and Dostoyevsky or simply stop talking about her. Please. I have never seen you treat any other person you've quoted to bolster the cause of Liberty with such contempt as you have Rand. She doesn't deserve it.>> <<@mariojorge9529 says : Thank yoiu very much! Great episode!>> <<@shelaughs185 says : Rand falls short as an ideologist and writer because, though she got some things right, she discarded the God or higher power part. The first commandment is to love God, and the second is to love your neighbor as yourself. She got the second and skipped the first, which leads to us loving our neighbors and, by the way, ourselves.>> <<@edgarmorales4476 says : Christians have become way too lazy, letting Christ carry responsibility and "pay the price" for their own waywardness and sinning. How much do Christians really understood when Christ spoke about God and His Love for all humankind? How can Christians relish the thought of "God" killing Christ for the atonement of sins or angels killing first born babies when Christ himself has clearly told us that God is Love. Wasn't it first the pagans who have always been preoccupied with the shedding of blood to atone for their sins? Even Abraham, the founder of the Israelite nation, has been convinced he should take his only son into the desert and kill and offer him as a blood sacrifice to "God!" What a paganistic and revolting thought! Did not Christ thought of the animal blood sacrifices in the Temple? Loving all the wild things of creation as he did, the practice of blood sacrifice is an abomination to God. And for that reason, Christ was to put to death - all because people hold on to cherished beliefs. Christ knows Christians have received the inspiration of God into their minds and hearts but their stubborn adherence to cherished beliefs are impenetrable. Christians are hindered/hampered from salvation by religious beliefs and practices. But the time has come for Christians to get rid of cherished beliefs and grow in spiritual wisdom. (Hosea 4:6)>> <<@Nicholas-d2l says : Don’t have any letters after my name… but question for Dr Peterson? Are you involved or participating in any think tank in Canada? If so which one. In business, the one I’m involved in debate and we question everything!! Prepare for the worst and hope for the best..It’s not always about being intellectually right. It’s about being as right as possible for everyone. Many ideas can look,sound politically right. But are totally unproductive and end up causing more pain than gain for the majority…keep it up guys ! Your work, interviews are very generous and appreciated! Thank you! I can say from my experience the truth works! In my work politics,beliefs,acceptance,ideas,other things and votes are irrelevant…. $$$$ are the measure that something or idea works. And the government love to collect taxes … accountability respect of laws and rules are good guidelines until new better ones are debated and created …wow scary future ahead if idiocracy (like funny movie by same name) continues to prevail…hope you guys are well paid! I’m patient but wow …>> <<@rypoelk997 says : I don't know how you can have this conversation whaling about the intolerant left refusing to debate conservatives when we literally spent weeks avoiding a debate with big bad scary Finkelstein. C'mon>> <<@christophernuzzi2780 says : 1:22:50 Jordan Peterson is getting Howard Roark from The Fountainhead confused with Hank Rearden from Atlas Shrugged.>> <<@donhanley2487 says : As a critical thinker, a Ayn Rand fan, and a devout follower of Mr Peterson. I was quite impressed with the explanation given to Ayn Rands writing . I have found after reading Atlas Shrugged 7 or 8 times that people think they were hedonists etc. Ayn Rand was IMHO simply saying do what you do to the best of your ability, stand on your own feet, and make your life and life's work the focal point of all you have in you and fight those who would destroy businesses, or want to tell you how much the poor , sick , lame, and lazy need you to give it away for their benefits. The point is that I work for my own benefit, I earn ever dollar made, and I can do with it as l please. My business is no one else business and because I created it it's my intellectual property as well as real property. The other message she expounded was that a person must think for themselves and not be a sheep. Maybe my description is over simple , however I never found the need to pick apart her or any authors work. And try to analyze the characters or their actions into some theory that fits around today's ideology's. The liberal left especially like to nitpick and see monsters everywhere from everything. The constant State of Fear they spew is what sheeple ( people) who can't think for themselves eat like manna from heaven. To bring the change this country, and those others with a free market society, we, as critical thinking individuals must rid our governments of those who seek it's destruction any way we have to. By force if need be. Our founding fathers are spinning in their graces watching the destruction and misinterpreted of the truth . Prayers for your wife and family Mr. Peterson. I have enjoyed your work it's a wonderful and intelligent expanding experience Everytime.>> <<@mattf2545 says : With respect to Dr. Peterson & his guest.... It's obvious to me that neither of these gentlemen have a solid grip on what Ayn Rand really said & speculated on. I left this conversation slighty disappointed honestly. Her ideas deserve better defenders.🤷 But, 🍻 anyway 🇺🇸>> <<@asarg1776 says : I love seeing good people speak about the weighty matters in our nation and society. Bless both these men. What a great conversation. I love good people.>> <<@m3po22 says : I don't like conservative think tanks. They're so naïve about the problems we face. They think we can talk at problems or throw money at them and actually make a difference. Our problems are much deeper than that.>> <<@Ben..... says : I'm always disapointed when people who over simplify Rand. She wrote formal philosophy to my understanding. Atlas Shrugged isn't a summation of Objectivism. And "Narrow Self-Interest" doesnt sum up rand. its lazy>> <<@michaelpiatak8291 says : Jordan, not Howard Roark (from The Fountainhead) but Hank Reardon, the steel manufacturer of Atlas Shrugged was Dagny's lover.>> <<@evanmorrison2839 says : Oh my, enormous misunderstanding of Ayn Rand/Objectivism by JBP and Dr. Roberts. JBP does so much good work, but his strawmanning of Rand is unfortunate>> <<@FeedYourChi says : In reference to the problem with Ayn Rand, I don't believe she was ignorant of the "enlightened" qualifier on self interest. I think she assumed that if the entire world or entire economy if you prefer, were educated to believe in her philosophy, that that enlightenment would be self extrapolating and self expressed in the future generations and iterations of said economy.>> <<@FeedYourChi says : The left's proclivity to cancel is demonstrated in the way they protest. It's a direct metaphor. A few voices get very loud for as long as it takes to drown out the opposition, because they have no way to reasonably counter the argument.>> <<@wjyavelak says : On Rand: She does define self interest, but she does not make the common mistake of assuming it must come at some cost or injury to others. If you've read Atlas shrugged, this can be gathered from the pledge of those who resign from the corrupt State: " "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." She clearly saw self interest in good faith human relations, and therefore saw moral human action as defined by trading of intellectual, spiritual, and material values, which requires the responsibility of producing those values (intelligence, knowledge, insight, admiration, friendship, charity, kindness, shared interests, food, clothing, gifts, etc. etc.), and exchanging them with others in whom we recognize resonance with our value structure, never making a victim of anyone, including ourselves. This, vice devouring or feeding on or using one another. Also in Atlas Shrugged, she constantly highlighted the long term planning of Dagny and Reardon that was done by principle based analysis as 'good', and contrasted it with the concrete bound, range of the moment failures of the 'villains' in the novel. As a poignant set of examples from "The Virtue of Selfishness" she writes: "If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a “sacrifice”: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man who’s willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions." She is, of course, not speaking of sacrifice in the quite the same way you have framed it at times, as 'delayed gratification,' or something akin to foregoing the momentary immediate pleasures for some greater context good. But, even here, that 'good' is labeled good in context of your own value structure, based on the standard of human life qua human, which is constructed from defending the condition which the human tool of survival can actually operate, for that is how humans sustain life without victims: reason based action securing necessary consumables and relating with one another in good faith for good meaning. As for the free market: "In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade." from Capitalism This state of 'no man or group of men can use physical coercion' is a state of affairs that must be achieved, oddly, by force: defensive force. Human kind has not yet sorted out how to devise an agency of right force that only interferes with interpersonal force, fraud, and forcible privilege, and never mutates into the agent or handmaiden of such corruption. This is the moral reason, viewing human individuals as sacred. This dovetails with the practical reason given by Hayek - that the billions of individual actors making incremental trade offs in demanding goods and services with their supply of goods and services is the computational machine of progress, innovation, and efficient use of all materials and means of production, deriving its information from an uncorrupted pricing structure emergent from those countless trade offs, and that this linked chaotic system is always underperformed and usually corrupted by any set of self anointed smarty pants who think they can direct it better by force.>> <<@ghostbeetle2950 says : Great conversation, but the view of Ayn Rand that you both bring up when talking about the free market seems a bit unfair, in my opinion. Rand is, of course, VERY bullish on the free market, but her primary focus -in all her writings - as her BASIS for such a free market has always been on the ethics of an enlightened, long-view taking, multi-dimensional individualism that is VERY similar to the one sketched out by Jordan here. An individualism that is the opposite of "whim-worship", as she called it,was the alpha and omega of her philosophy. Her projected literary ideal, John Galt, rejects both the role of slave AND master, and creates a COMMUNITY based on reciprocal responsibility which generates a free market as a natural consequence of its own virtue. All the pragmatic limiting factors on individual hedonistic tendencies that Jordan rightly mentions, are inscribed in her definition of "self-interest". That might be easier to recognize if you also read her essays. Chris Matthew Sciabarra produced an excellent analysis of Rand's ability to avoid simplistic dichotomies in his book "Total Freedom - Toward A Dialectical Libertarianism" (2000), for anyone who might be interested in learning more.>> <<@lukesalazar9283 says : Aaannnddd Jeffrey Epstein and John McAfee didn't kill themselves>> <<@jamiepeay528 says : What came first, the chicken or the egg? You can't have a productive and peaceful society without the free market, and you can't have a free market without people taking personal resposnsibility. A free market and personal responsibility go hand in hand... So how do you make people take responsibility? You can't force people to be responsible, you can only allow people to suffer the consequences of being irresponsible. The moment you try to force people to be responsible, you take upon yourself the iligitimate authority of defining what responsibility actually is, and that in turn necessarily makes responsibility arbitrrily defined by fiat, while simultaniousley nullifying the opportunity for people to truly be personally responsible. The opportunity to be responsible is necessarily emergent and arises as a result of personal liberty. The same is true about the health of society. Just as you cannot force people to be healthy, either physically or mentally, but can only help them to learn to live healthy lives, neither can you force society to be healthy. A healthy society is also emergent, and can only arise as a result of allowing those who choose not be be healthy to suffer the conseqences of their own unhealthy choices. I think the problem most people have when it comes to understanding true Liassez Faire philosophy is that they don't understand the difference between governance and government... That is to say governance which exists as a result of the presidence of contract law, i.e. natural law jurisprudence, rather than government which ruling by arbitrary positive law jurisprudence. Contrary to popular opinion, you can have law without the existence of government. Government is essentially a monopoly on violence based on an illegitimate claim to the authority to arbitrarily dictate and define "law" by fiat, "laws" which are then enforced by the threat of said violence. And therefore if any government exists, the society will ultimately and necessarily devolve into a state of lawlessness, because if law can and should be arbitrarily defined and dictated by fiat via illegitimate authority figures and enforeced via the threat of violence, which government must therefire necessarily monopolize, then in truth law does in no way truly and objectively exist at all. There is either the rule of law, or the rule of government, you cannot have both at the same time.>> <<@anuragsinha2013 says : I really really like Dr. Kevin Roberts. I really really like Heritage foundation too.>> <<@xRASTAxXxLIONx says : We need Thomas Sowell>> <<@fifibibi3213 says : If we assume that Christ is God, then He is the Creator and Maker. Who is stronger, the Maker or the Made? Of course the manufacturer. How can the craftsman overcome the maker? God created Adam and Adam disobeyed God, and therefore God sent Adam down to earth and was able to return Adam to heaven again. So our Lord is not in need To descend to earth himself to atone for Adam’s sin. If we assume for the sake of argument that the Jews are the killers of Christ and the Jews are the descendants of Adam, then how can a creature kill the Creator!! He is the One Amen which means that God is. All three. If we use mathematical equations, we arrive at one in three by three, not one, so how can the father and son be? **Why did you begin to doubt the doctrine of the Trinity? Why did you reject it? - The doctrine of the Trinity is complementary to divinity and crucifixion, and the doctrine of the Trinity says: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, God The Holy Spirit is one, and the verse in the Bible says: “His divinity is not It departs from His humanity in the blink of an eye. Divinity is God. It does not separate from the Son for the blink of an eye. Rather, it separated from Him when the Son died and the cross was crucified. I liken myself to the one who was blind, which is the father. He went to a doctor who made him see the light. Can this person close his eyes again? No way, too. The blessing of Islam.😊😊🕌>> <<@fifibibi3213 says : Christianity In short, it is: Adam sinned, so God punished himself and abandoned the sinner!!😎😎>> <<@chrischristenson4547 says : Cowboys are heros You can trust them to go out to take care of a calf at night in the snow. Take the cows to grass and water when it is about 100 in Central Texas in the summer. Stay up at night to help a birth. Trust and responsibility are Central>> <<@cjg196 says : “She (Rand) seems to attribute to them (her heroic characters) a ‘vague nobility of character’…”. How about grounding themselves on their own values based on rational (meaning here based on reason, I.e. objective) ethics? How is it possible after reading one of her books multiple times not to at least observe the nature of these characters, even if you disagree with the validity of this characterization?>> <<@princing says : Message from Rand's Atlas Shrugged: Don't live for others and don't ask others to live for you. Message from Orwell's 1984: Tyranny wins when you cry out 'Don't do it to me, do it to Julia'. Message from Dostoyevsky's Bro. Karamazov: Even the darkness (of families, of society) can lives, institutions be valued. Why denigrate Rand she is the ultimate 'Big Short' of Chistianity.... where would we be with out her. Why expect the nitty-gritty of her characters to be artistically non-contradictory. Rand may not have saved the world but she certainly reset its value system and gave us a spiritual alternative to 'Love your neighbour as yourself' (Which, in itself and against a history of barbarism, is a noble impetus towards gaining civilization). Gratitude please.>> <<@willkamps3271 says : Ayn Rand goes through what constitutes enlightend self interested epistemology in the virtue of selfishness Jordan, it's a much quicker read than Atlas Shrugged>>