Yes, it is about education. I completely agree with you. But education is a process of connecting pathways between things we already understand and things we don't yet understand. If you don't start with what the students think they already know and then give them a link to something else, you will fail as an educator.

The audience for his remarks isn't you or I who properly understand the role of government, the failures of the welfare state, or the proper definitions and application of terms. He is speaking to those who have been taught fallacious views and definitions. They believe in a welfare state which coddles them and protects them in their safe spaces from the harsh realities of life. These socialist "think-they-wanna-be's" (made up term) have been given bogus definitions for many important concepts. However, no one can redefine something for someone else - they have to change their minds willingly. That commonly means going down to their level to establish a common ground, then building up from there.

But he is a businessman speaking about the difference between forms of govt; he should better understand what Capitalism really is. It's about education here.

Again: He's not speaking to Objectivists. He's speaking to people who think they want to be Socialists - those who have a very different definition of altruism.

Capitalism is not about altruism at all!
Altruism is self-sacrifice - as in shortcutting his own business; it is not merely satisfying his customers.

Very well stated indeed! +1 and more if I could!

I'm sure many here remember Hank Rearden's ringing defense of himself and his own right to exist, before that silly three-man panel. You might think Andrew Puzder ought to have said the same.

But do you remember Hank Rearden saying he could remind that kangaroo court that he, Rearden, has accomplished more good than they could ever hope to accomplish? Remember him going on to say that such courts, and what they represent, do not serve the public good?

Andrew Puzder decided to come right out and say it--to defeat socialism on the very terms upon which the Millennials think it's so great. It's one thing to say, "Your terms don't give you the right to my substance." It's another to say, "Even on your terms, your proposal wouldn't work anyway."

The only improvement I would make in this scenario, is that it is for the seeker of votes, not the defender of his property, to say the things Andrew Puzder decided to say. "How's that working out for you?" is a political argument, not a moral one.

Yes, but remember, he's speaking to the poor confused Millennials who think Socialism and Bernie Sanders are the bomb. I'm not going to fault the guy for trying to speak to his intended audience in terms they are going to use. We can correct them AFTER we get them engaging the little grey cells.

Interesting how Puzder switches the terms altruism and greed when talking about capitalism and socialism.

Thanks Blair,
A great article about a producer .https://http://www.ispot.tv/ad/wmnZ/carls-jr-...
Yummy
I never cared for jalapeño's but after this ad I can see some like it hot.
!https://youtu.be/2AdViveJYD0

Thanks, blarman, for reminding me how close we came to economically losing the American Dream (not to mention our borders) to The Evil Hag.
Yes, due to lib dumbing down and indoctrination, I know the USA may still become Venezuela in the long run.

Excellent. Thanks for posting, blarman.