Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Yaron Brook - Tea Party Patriots American Policy Summit Speech

Rate this topic


CapitalistSwine
 Share

Recommended Posts

So..basically this has been a mini-nightmare for me to do for some reason. I have recorded many videos before with this program (like 50), without a single hitch. However, the first time I recorded this, even though my sound was set to record only from my system, it picked up background noise in the room. (I was given permission to record this, and by Yaron personally as well to upload it) and this is likely the version most of you have seen that have seen this already if you did not have a Summit virtual ticket to watch the online stream directly.

The video quality is the exact same of what the live stream was. They did a replay of these speeches on there this morning so I re-recorded it to fix the background noise issue. That is gone now. Had to get up at 7am to do so since that was when it was replaying... The audio doesn't sync after awhile, but thats because the stream itself screwed up while I was recording the replay :dough: , so that was and is completely out of my hands/out of my control unless and until ARI puts up their own version of this (which they usually do). The sound is what is important though...

According to several people that were at this event in person, this was the only speech that received a standing ovation by the audience (seen at the end) that night. Yesterday was the first night.

Enjoy:

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that was exactly the right speech to give to the Tea Party movement. Here's a movement with a lot of potential, a lot of anti-welfare state rhetoric, and the major goal of rolling back government spending, but without a clear principle to outline a coherent program of what exactly should be rolled back, of what this new smaller government should and should not be doing. Basically, it's just a bunch of people gathered together who don't like *something* about what the Republicans and especially the Democrats have been doing in office. And here, Yaron Brook takes the opportunity to speak to these people and uses it to effectively and convincingly isolate the single most important principle for the Tea Party to focus on: that of individual rights. As he says in the speech, 85-90% of the money the government is spending, it's spending on things it has no business doing. But how do we come up with a coherent vision of exactly what changes to make, beyond the few obvious choices that mobilized the Tea Party movement in the first place, like Obamacare? We desperately need to understand the concept of individual rights, in order for the Tea Party to be for something, something systematic and clear enough to base government policy around, rather than just against a few specific things. And that integrating principle is exactly what Brook focuses on: its history, its meaning, its basis in the moral supremacy of the individual, and most of all its importance for us today.

In short, this is exactly the focus that I would choose for a speech to these people at this time, and he does it with clarity and conviction. Great speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that was exactly the right speech to give to the Tea Party movement.

I agree.

Hmmm... Is the ARI associating itself with the Tea Party movement? If so, given that the party is so amorphous, is there any particular branch it's associating itself with?

As far as I am aware, they are not associated with them, depending on how you define association in this context. However, they have always stated that they believe the Tea Party movement could be a powerful force for change IF it had proper intellectual leadership and philosophy injected into it.

I believe this has been the main goal of all of Yaron Brook's speeches to Tea Parties thus far, including this one. While there certainly is a lot of rabble within these groups, the religious social-conservatives and whatnot, there is still potential to at least get them moving in the right direction. Further, one must keep in mind that there are quite a few people within these tea parties, and some may be more libertarian or what have you, and less conservative than the majority that represents the overall group.

Even though I do not feel they probably understood the message he was trying to give to the extent necessary, the fact that they gave a standing ovation for his speech and his speech alone that night is definitely a good sign that we have at least turned the gears in some heads.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, damned near ideal for the circumstances. He certainly didn't focus on anything that was unlikely to provoke disagreement (abortion, immigration, etc.), but then the Tea Party is not about those issues (despite the attempts by some to hijack it); in fact much of the leadership has actively resisted efforts to get it to focus on those issues. Meanwhile Yaron Brook has enunciated a specific underlying prinicple. Maybe in time people will realize that the typical consevative stance on those issues contradict the principle... and actually make the right choice about how to resolve the contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great speech.

CS, thank you for posting it.

I became quite infuriated with this process, since I have never had problems like this before when recording, but the fact that so many people have watched and enjoyed the speech (which I think was a great speech at that) due to the fact that it would have been unavailable to them completely or for a fair amount of time (depending on if ARI puts a version of their own out eventually or not) made it worth it. I also wanted my own proper copy. No problem. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great speech!

Wish it could have been more radical on two points, though:

1) He all but suggests that the Constitution needs rewriting according to the Declaration's logic; why not come right out and say it? After all, that is where the Tea Party is heading, is it not?

2) He (like Ayn) doesn't take Jefferson et al to task for crediting a "Creator" with providing my inalienable right to life. I would like to see this highlighted and fixed, if possible. Ayn says its a minor point, but I disagree -- this is the ESSENTIAL crack in the philosophical base. Would religious groups have gained the level of current influence in a nation that did not so credit an imaginary father-figure as monarchical dispenser of rights?

Again, great speech, really made my day to see this stuff developing in my lifetime, while I am still relatively young. Hey, the economic situation may have a silver lining if it gets folk off their mental sofas and into the salon (meant in the old French way, not a hair salon).

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Icosahedron: You have to remember that Yaron Brook has to take into account his audience. Taking the deist founding fathers to task for mentioning a "creator" would have alienated a large chunk of his audience. When you're doing a public speech, you can't alienate your audience. There are many issues that Tea Party is notorious for having flawed philosophical understanding of: abortion, homosexuality, separation of church and state. You just shouldn't bring it up when at least half of your base may disagree with you on the role of religion in politics.

Hook the crowd first. Let them learn more about you, and one day - they'll come across the video, speech, or article that addresses why politics should not be influenced by faith.

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very good speech.

I have to agree with the concern of just backing up the tea party with(very good) speeches that don't provide some push against the more conservative elements of the tea party. A tea party that doesn't take up things like pro gay marriage and anti drug ban positions is just going to be the republican party with a new name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was clever, to an audience of people obsessed with the constitution, to point out that the founding fathers were willing to die for a principle. And then he explained that principle very clearly, not by talking about non-initiation of force or something complicated, but by saying "The government should do only one thing." That was a nice simplification. Re: dying for a principle, I think perhaps back then people lived in filth and muck a lot of their lives, and an unbreached morality was the only way to stay human. I don't know if people today take principles so seriously. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) He (like Ayn) doesn't take Jefferson et al to task for crediting a "Creator" with providing my inalienable right to life. I would like to see this highlighted and fixed, if possible. Ayn says its a minor point, but I disagree -- this is the ESSENTIAL crack in the philosophical base. Would religious groups have gained the level of current influence in a nation that did not so credit an imaginary father-figure as monarchical dispenser of rights?

Not to pick hairs, but in defense of Jefferson "creator" was added later in the editing. His original was as follows:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable;[2] that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights[3] inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting with the choice of what you consider as the most important values in life.

Moving into the historic basis and fundamental issues underscoring the moral principle of the tea party that is symbolic of the course of this great country.

A quick dispelling of democracy - contrasting it to the constitutionally limited republic and moving directly into the moral principle of rights it was based on, and illustrating the misuse of rights which muddy the waters out there.

Limited government, by trying to understand the principle and state it clearly as: life, liberty, property (which is the pursuit of happiness)

Focusing on individual rights, by distinguishing the difference with entitlements - the wholesale attempt to whitewash theft, and the redistribution of wealth, as an affront to the right of the individual from whom that wealth is being deprived.

While touching on social security and identifying it as a sensitive issue, he moves right back into standing up for principles that are worth standing up for.

The fight for freedom, liberty, the sovereignty of the individual, which summarized into individual rights.

Beautiful Yaron, eloquent and powerfully stated. Thanks for making this available CS.

edited for spell check.

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point re Jefferson, thanks for helping me salvage that memory. So really, my only remaining beef with TJ was his consistent practice of slavery -- i.e., why did he not, once it was so clear to him how important freedom was, stop using slaves? Unlike religion, the use of slavery was not ubiquitous in the colonies, and I sure wish TJ had reformed himself so that I could hold him up as the shining example that the Declaration suggests he was.

Oh well.

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point re Jefferson, thanks for helping me salvage that memory. So really, my only remaining beef with TJ was his consistent practice of slavery -- i.e., why did he not, once it was so clear to him how important freedom was, stop using slaves? Unlike religion, the use of slavery was not ubiquitous in the colonies, and I sure wish TJ had reformed himself so that I could hold him up as the shining example that the Declaration suggests he was.

Oh well.

- ico

Jefferson inherited the slaves and the plantation with quite a bit of debt which was collateralized, in part, by the slaves(which were property). He was a spendthrift and a poor businessman, at least insofar as he was busy with other errands like intellectually fueling a revolution, so it was not until the end of his life that he possessed the means to free many of his slaves, which in fairness, he did. If cars started being given AI and then a large part of the population starting thinking they should share our rights, it would not change the fact that under the law your car still belonged in a sense to the lender and could not be freed without the permission of the bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that there were extenuating circumstances, but the moral equation does not balance. It is not appropriate to use slavery to gain value, even if you are in debt. Jefferson knew that, but acted in contradiction to his principles in his personal life, at least in regard to continuing to possess slaves. If the slaves were collateral, then I guess you are saying he didn't want to forfeit them into some even greater horror than simple slavery.

But then again, he did find the funds to build Monticello, so who are we kidding?

- ico

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that there were extenuating circumstances, but the moral equation does not balance. It is not appropriate to use slavery to gain value, even if you are in debt. Jefferson knew that, but acted in contradiction to his principles in his personal life, at least in regard to continuing to possess slaves. If the slaves were collateral, then I guess you are saying he didn't want to forfeit them into some even greater horror than simple slavery.

But then again, he did find the funds to build Monticello, so who are we kidding?

- ico

If I remember correctly, with the exception of the glass for the windows, Monticello was built from materials made on his lands. The bricks,the wood, even the nails were made from materials . He tried to monetize his nail making operation but failed. Also, Monticello was built over the course of like 40 years and during that time, a number of slaves became skilled tradesmen as a result.

In saying that the slaves were collateral, I'm saying that they were not his to free. It would be as reasonable to ask why he didn't free his neighbor's slaves. I don't mean to portray him as a Randian hero, just to suggest that he shouldn't be judged by that standard.

Also I didn't mean to hijack the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In saying that the slaves were collateral, I'm saying that they were not his to free.

I would appreciate it if you could give me the source for this information, particularly this part about how they were not his to free. I am a great fan of Jefferson in several respects, and have always been interested in him more than most of the founders intellectually speaking. This is all a bit off-topic but the conversation has already evolved a good bit. One of the main points of contention with him is in the area of slavery (obviously) especially with liberals, well read ones and otherwise (obviously, many liberals read versions of revisionist history of the like of Howard Zinns, and they either are ignorant of these facts, or purposefully leave them out), and when the point is brought up about him not freeing his slaves my main argument is that these people were progressive in many other areas and to expect them to have excelled in all of these areas, particularly one that was the cultural norm since pretty much the beginning of time, and was even more exceptional in other parts of the world, is somewhat unreasonable, and that I am also aware he wrote..I believe it was called Notes from Viriginia or something of the like in which he was essentially struggling with himself at the notion that slaves and blacks in general should be treated differently, which is more than can be said for most people at that time.

Also an important update on this video:

I received a youtube pm from the creator of the famed Galt's speech series that has become quite popular (the one with all of the images and voiceover making it quite cinematic) and this was his message:

Hi-- thanks for putting up the different versions of Yaron's Speech. The video in the first upload is less jerky. If you make it available, I have the software to sync the audio of #2 with the video of #1. It's a good enough speech that I'd go "full galt" and put images etc to it (if you know my Galt series)

Hope you can upload the first for me-- i'll do the rest

I plan to do this and upload it as a separate video to my channel. Whenever this task has been completed I will post the link to the video in here.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would appreciate it if you could give me the source for this information,

Wow...I want to say that it was 'Jefferson and his Time' which I read 17 or 18 years ago, although I read it on the back of a few other shorter biographies so I could be mistaken. If you haven't read that set and are a fan, I'd recommend it, anyways though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware, they are not associated with them, depending on how you define association in this context. However, they have always stated that they believe the Tea Party movement could be a powerful force for change IF it had proper intellectual leadership and philosophy injected into it.

Around 2:29 he states, "Now, we have taken the name 'Tea Parties'...." The inclusive "we" would indicate at least he is a Tea Party member. I'm not sure if he's there representing ARI or Yaron Brook, but one would have to assume at least his support by this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Around 2:29 he states, "Now, we have taken the name 'Tea Parties'...." The inclusive "we" would indicate at least he is a Tea Party member. I'm not sure if he's there representing ARI or Yaron Brook, but one would have to assume at least his support by this statement.

It could also be a more generalized 'we' as in America, as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Update: This is the improved version with proper audio syncing to the original, well-recorded video. The audio syncing was done by GaltSpeaking/XCowyboy2 who has made the high-quality Galt's speech series you have probably already seen. My thanks to him.

So if you plan on downloading this or something, this is the one you should download.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is likely the version most of you have seen that have seen this already if you did not have a Summit virtual ticket to watch the online stream directly.

When I first watched this video--it came across twitter--I thought some Tea Party conservative made it, due to the Sheriff Joe thing that popped up. Strong speech though. Thanks for the recording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...