However, I do agree that during this interview Yaron Brook could have focused more on the essentials rather than get into an economic argument. In fact, his argument on “stabilizing in a way that increases freedom and gets government out of our lives”, is kind of reversing the hierarchy of political principles. Because obviously, getting the government out of our lives WILL increase freedom and do all the stabilizing we need. He missed the essential in this argument and I think that being the Executive Director of the ARI he should be focusing more on the essentials of Objectivism rather than geting bogged down in economic arguments.

In regards to your points about “market” talks. Perhaps an answer to the question, “Did the free market cause the economic meltdown?” would be:

“That question is non-sensical. Consider that a free market is a word used to describe individuals trading value for value through mutual consent, i.e. absent any coercion. The “economy” is a word used to describe where these transactions take place, e.g. local economy, Canadian economy, world economy.

Like a “market”, an economy can either be free or it can be hampered by outside forces. Individuals can either trade freely with other individuals or their transactions can be interrupted or affected by other parties. When this hampering occurs what would result are negative consequences on the natural outcomes of these transactions. An economy, like a plant growing freely from the ground, will naturally continue to grow (provided there is adequate water and sunlight) unless an outside source prevents it from doing so.

To suggest that individuals trading freely with one another (i.e. a free market) would cause an economic “meltdown” would be a contradiction in terms because a “meltdown” necessarily implies the very opposite of economic freedom, i.e. a hampering of that market. ”

All in all, good thinking in showing that individualist advocates shouldn’t get trapped in collectivist lingo and arguments.

Glenn