 Alright everybody, welcome to your Unbrook Show on this Saturday. It's already June, summer is here, and I am in a hotel in Austin, Texas, so traveling again here for a couple of seminars on philosophy and economics, on statistics and epistemology. Should be really, really interesting, I'm looking forward to it, so that is next week. I'm here on the weekend because on Thursday I did a debate at Parkland in, I don't know if you're familiar with Parkland, it's this amazing facility, I'll tell you a little bit about it in a minute. Anyway, I did a debate at Parkland in Dallas on inequality. Should the government intervene? Should the government do something about inequality? And I debated James Galberth, this is my third time debating James Galberth. James Galberth is the son of Kenneth Galberth, Kenneth Galberth was one of the most influential economists of his day, 1960s, who wrote some of the most influential books, popular books on economics, really dominated the debate, was a leftist economist primarily, but was a real significant voice during the 1960s, I think I'm going to mention him in initiative too. James is a son, Jane is continuing the same tradition of leftist economics. I debated him years ago at University of Texas in Austin where Varoufakis, the famous Greek economist and politician was the moderator of that debate, and then I debated him again in Chicago during Chicago Ideas Week a few years ago, and then we debated yesterday, Thursday, no, Thursday, at Parkland. Anyway this idea for the topic today, effective status arguments was basically hatched during this debate because I was watching as he was making his arguments, I was watching audience and you could tell that some of his arguments really resonate with him and it's just kind of arguments that I think I've seen in other debates that I've done over the years that actually resonate with the arguments and I'm going to separate what I think is effective into two, you know, what are the political, economic, if you will, arguments and what philosophy do they represent and then what are the moral arguments and what philosophy that represents. Varoufakis is kind of a nutty leftist. He just lost big time in the Greek election so that's good, well for that, for him losing. But he's a way out there leftist in economics, he's a real hater of capitalism and the fact that he lost in Greece is very good, it's a good sign. All right, so before we get into all that, I was going to say something, anyway, oh I was going to tell you about Parkland, I do want to tell you about Parkland. I also want to remind you that the Iran book show is basically funded by contributions from you guys, I do these shows and I do a lot of shows, I don't know if there's anybody out there in the podcasting YouTube world who does as many hours as I do, maybe they are, but think about it, every single weekday then in the morning for the news roundup, at least when I'm not traveling and then in the evening and on the weekends you get longer shows, eight shows a week when I'm home and you know hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of content. I can dedicate that kind of time, I can dedicate that kind of time because of the support you guys provide, there's no other way for me to do that, I live off of the money that you guys provide, you know yes maybe I bought a really really nice home because you know from money from the hedge fund, but the hedge fund does not provide me much in terms of my you know day-to-day income that is you, you guys, so all of you superchatters, thank you, all of you monthly contributors, thank you, if you want to become a mathy contributor you can do it on youronbookshow.com slash support, you can do it on Patreon, just put the Iran book show in Patreon and of course if you want to ask questions and if you want to support the show like Wes just did for 50 bucks, you can use the superchat feature and you're watching live, you can use the superchat feature right here and we have goals for the superchat 650 for the kind of weekend logo shows and 250 for the news roundup, so thank you Wes for getting us going, thank you also, I think I saw something from, yes Robert, thank you guys, you can use a sticker to support, not ask a question, you can ask a question, either way is good and of course again those are not listening live, really really really appreciate it if you can become a monthly contributors on Patreon or youronbookshow.com slash support, it make again, couldn't do the show, would have to find some other work if not for the support you guys provide, so thank you. All right, Parkland, I want to tell you something about Parkland, Parkland is this amazing complex in Dallas, it was initially a Parkland hospital, it was a hospital I think, early part of the 20th century, founded as a hospital, it then kind of was abandoned, fell into ruin, it was this building falling apart and really in ruinous and about 20 years ago or so, the Crow, you know I think Holland Crow, Crow family, took it over, bought it and for those of you don't know the Crow family is a huge real estate family and very very successful, real estate in Texas, you know in the night, it has been dominating Texas real estate for decades, I interviewed with a Trammell Crow which was in 1989 for a job when I graduated with an MBA and you know didn't get the job luckily, luckily didn't get the job, but didn't get the job because I was an immigrant and they weren't sponsoring immigrants and 1989 the real estate market in Texas fell off a cliff, so it wasn't a great time to be in real estate, but the Crow family has done phenomenally well, anyway they bought the hospital, they renovated it, they turned it in an office building, they built an entire complex around it all with the same kind of classic architecture and turned it into this amazing office park, it's actually today the highest rent in Dallas is in Portland for office space, the people who rent there also, I think everybody participates in rent-owned, I don't know, but it's some combination of rented-owned, everybody's kind of a stakeholder in the project, it's a unique business model, but what truly makes this place unique is the buildings are filled with art, some of it great art, some of it good art, some of it eh, but it's filled with art, it's just stunning and amazing and beautiful, also the grounds are filled with quotes from great thinkers and shockingly enough, shockingly enough there is a quote from MeinRand as part of this, there's a really nice quote, I can't remember, in one of the buildings, in one of the, there's a tower there, in one in the tower, but they're quote from Jefferson and just some amazing, amazing quotes and the whole place is just built around a particular aesthetic, the aesthetic is primarily classical and if hopefully we'll get the video of this debate, there is a debate chamber in the building, one of the buildings is the debate chamber and there's a stage and they are, they're seating all around and it's again very classical, filled with art and very, very beautiful, one of the most beautiful places I have debated or done a talk and you know here we pretty much filled the room, it was, I think there was a lot of, a lot of interest in the crowd, in the audience and I think the debate really went well and was interesting, people found it interesting. I got to meet Holland Crow and got to meet the CEO of the organization and others so it was certainly, it was certainly a worthwhile event and a valuable event and one that I really enjoyed so, so just wanted Parkland an amazing place, if you haven't got an opportunity, I don't know if that it's open to the public but if you ever have an opportunity to business there or meet somebody there or come to one of these events, I think if we do future events there and I think we will, we'll open them up to the public so that we can invite people for the institute, can invite people historically, you know so far I've done two events there and both events were just private events only for the people associated with Parkland but I'm hoping that in the future we'll be able to do, to do events more broadly so I'm looking forward to that and I'll let you know and hopefully some of you can visit because it is, it is truly a place worth visiting. Let me just say thanks for all the superchatters already, we're doing really nicely in the superchats so thanks for all the questions, keep them coming in particular you know the $20 questions are valuable because they help us get to the goal faster so if you can do a $20 cash question that is definitely to my advantage and you are guaranteed to get an answer and you also, I tend to prioritize those. So what are the arguments that are effective and you know in a lot of you in the chat earlier I saw what kind of trying to anticipate what I would say and brought up the issue of altruism and there's no question altruism is going to play a big role in this but I want to put aside for a minute altruism because I think there's something that appeals to Americans even in a sense even more than altruism or the altruism is a piece of it and we'll get to that piece in a minute. So there are basically two arguments one of which is altruistic but the other is I think a little different and I think this is important because Americans and this is I think uniquely American although I think it's it's it's also now in in Europe I think I think is also pretty a big deal in Europe as well. Nobody actually wants to be an altruist not consistently not all the time they don't actually want to live it. So the altruistic altruism basically means sacrifice the idea of personal sacrifice individual sacrifice sacrifice of a value an important value to you for nothing in return or return of a lower value it is a net loss most people don't want to lose not not in a day-to-day life and while they find the argument for altruism that I'll mention in a minute convincing and it tugs at their heartstrings and everything they also resisted to some extent because they don't they know the consequences and they don't want to actually fully unequivocally live it. What is unique to Americans and I think I think America has exported this to a lot of the rest of the world what is unique to Americans is this idea that they want they in a sense they want a better life they want economic progress they want some semblance of personal happiness they want to advance their own life they want to be better so they want their altruism they want a cake and eat it too they want their altruism handed to them a little bit but not too much and what they really want is they want economic growth they want the tech they want advance they want the progress they want all that so you know what philosophy kind of allows you what philosophical ideas kind of allow you to in a sense have your cake and eat it what what philosophical ideas you know allow you to be pragmatic when you you know sorry I just said it right to be altruistic sometimes and to be a little bit self-interested sometimes and to generally seek economic growth and to and to want economic success and maybe a little bit freedom is not bad and a little bit of this and a little bit of that what is the what is the philosophical theory that allows you kind of to dabble and to have a little bit of everything and to avoid really at all costs you know consistency and principle well ultimately it is pragmatism what really drives most Americans ideologically is some form of pragmatism pragmatism is this notion you do what works you don't really hold any principle consistently you might have ideals and ideas which you practice sometimes when it's convenient when it doesn't hurt too much and you you you don't think too much about the long-term long-term consequences who knows what they're gonna be how do you even tell what you do with them so so your focus is primarily on on the short term and and you you avoid principle and you avoid pain and to the extent that you can and you dabble with your altruism you do a little bit of it here and there and but but you don't want to do too much and you don't want to engage in too much and you convince yourself that it's somehow good and you maybe even convince yourself that you enjoy it what really works on Americans is and and and James Galberth from an economic political perspective and James Galberth plays on this really really well I think and and so do almost everybody except for the for the you know far out socialists or leftists is this notion that life's pretty good you're on what are you complaining about why do we need to engage in this radical experiment of capitalism of freedom of you know getting rid of the welfare state and so security and Medicare and getting rid of regulation I mean that sounds really risky and and and who knows what will happen we can't actually tell we we can't actually figure out what will happen I mean a lot of it as James Galberth said during the debate a lot of it sounds very appealing it sounds very appealing it's it's yeah freedom and and liberty and technology and progress well all for that and economic growth off of that but you know don't we kind of get that anyway I mean isn't it don't we get that in a mixed economy and yeah we can make the mixed economy a lot better we can get rid of bad regulations and keep the good ones and we could we can make redistribution more effective and more efficient and and so on but well do we really want to attest whether people can survive and less affect capitalism without any redistribution do we really want to test do we really want to attest whether businesses are not going to kill us if we deregulate we can't tell of course what exactly will happen because remember there are no principles and and yeah sure government uses force to redistribute wealth yeah sure government uses force to regulate but okay so there's a little bit of force why is that such a bad thing if the outcome is pretty good you know no it's not ideal and and and and life is you know what's wrong you know entrepreneurs you get an iPhone your progress is happening life is getting better most of you in the audience pretty pretty good life is pretty good pretty happy and and with this crowd on Thursday you know this is a this was a pretty well-off crowd if you will so what they what they present is a is an anti-idealistic pragmatic a little cynical view of the world and it resonates it resonates because people are generally most people are comfortable and most people have given up on idealism and most people don't believe in principles to begin with and particularly if you're speaking to an older audience principles sound they sound kind of cool but they sound dangerous you know they respond very positively to my passionate principled argument but would they actually embrace it no too risky too dangerous too uncertain and again life is pretty good I mean I keep telling you guys and I know most of you don't believe me that life is pretty good even in this world right life expectancy is increasing we're getting cures for for various cancers we keep getting these amazing technologies money people keep making money and some people make a lot of money and live really really well and yeah there were problems there's there's there's a lot of poverty but but even the poverty with redistribution of wealth not that much poverty in America so so we've kind of cured that and yeah people are kind of unhappy but who can be happy happiness happiness is very difficult to attain and you know Amir says people are not ready to suffer for ideas but the point is that not people are not ready to suffer for ideas because the ideas I present are not ideas for which people will suffer people are not willing to take risk for their ideas and because you could argue life is pretty comfortable today to move towards the last of your capitalism is risky from their perspective it's a change and yeah you know the pissed off it it's it woke and you know if you're conservative and you know the left is pissed off in inequality and even the right views inequality is a little problematic because it creates social unrest and maybe inequality led to the election of Trump and maybe inequality you know has led to woke and maybe inequality is is is this is what they're being told so they don't know because again they don't have any principle to latch on to they don't have any ideas that they can hook on to and and try to understand the world so they don't really understand it since this moment moment or year to year and again they want a better Republican candidate or the anti the left most most of the people in the audience I think on Thursday were conservatives they want to bet let's if your capital oh that's a little scary that's a little problematic so I think the problem in America and this is a problem that is you know that this is a problem that is really inculcated into into the minds of people when they're very young is the problem of pragmatism is the problem of not really believing in principles and and and the reason not to believe in principles and they have a good reason I think not to believe in principles is that is that is that most principles is that most principles are bad principles if you're raised with the with the idea the principle of let's say altruism that says you should sacrifice you should give up the things that you value you should live for other people your life doesn't matter your happiness doesn't matter they are not essential and and and you have even a shred of self-esteem you don't want to live that life you don't want to be like that so you say to help with principles I'm gonna be a pragmatist and almost all businessmen in America today are to some extent pragmatist almost none of them idealistic of either left or right I mean even when they cater to the left or woke or whatever they cater to the left because they think it's what they need to do in order to you know to keep their business float in order to get more customers in terms of in order to to appeal to the to the cultural elites if you want but it's not out of principle it's not because they truly believe and this is this is the way the world should be there's almost none of that it really is just a just just kind of pragmatism okay now we'll walk we'll do woke for a few years and something else will come about later and we'll do that it's there's very little conviction I think particularly among businessmen but I think in Americans generally and and this is why I think this is part of what appeals in somebody like like Trump or is the is the lack of principle it's it's the pragmatism you know I'm not here to tell you we're gonna be more capitalist I'm not here to be more free markets I'm not here to I don't know culturally the founding fathers I'm here to try to make things work we've got these problems and we need to solve them and I can solve them and I know how to make things work and that's what our focus needs to be it it's you know pragmatism and arguments for pragmatism I think ultimately in the context of altruism because there is no alternative I think ultimately are the most effective arguments for statism and that pragmatism basically again indicates it look still getting economic growth and and things are good and you know if you go to if you if you're smart and you you you know you you invest and you really you know you you really try hard and you work hard and and you become an entrepreneur and you will need to take risk you can be successful in this world what you know again why why change why why why go for something that could upend everything and and that's what that's what somebody like James Galgith will tell you God you want that you know people gonna die of food poisoning you want that Elevate is gonna drop from the sky you want that you remember that building in Miami collapsed because of no regulations or because you know imagine if there were really no regulations all these buildings would collapse do you really want that that sounds risky and I can say no no no hear the ways in which the market would regulate these things but that sounds kind of science fiction and nobody's tried that before and and and you know that sounds like an argument from principle and principles principles don't work principles don't work so it's very hard to convince an audience that has been trained on pragmatism again pragmatism is to say give do what works in the short run avoid principles and avoid thinking too much about the long run because the what there's no way in reality practically there's no way to think about the long run without thinking in principle because the long run involves too many variables too many problems you cannot predict the long run without principle thinking and yet our educational system teaches kids not to think principally our culture teaches kids not to think principally and when they encounter principles you guys there one two three let me know in a chat if you guys are still there and if we're still running all right okay hopefully hopefully you are I'm back okay I went away and I'm back so what they always say is look yeah their problems today there's you know there's the real issues and and if you're if they're conservative then what they say is yeah they hawken back to to the 1950s in those days we had we had a much better culture we had families we had you know there was none of this lbgtq stuff and so there's a nostalgia to the past that is associated with a culture an amazing culture of the past you know and and they say oh yes can we can we resurrect that and of course the conservatives are focused on culture so so that is they focus it's it's a hawkening back to the 50s and the beautiful culture of the 1950s and you know when women were women and men men and families were families and there was none of this gay stuff going on and then and then the liberals hawken back to the past right and when they hawken back to the past they hawken back to to the 50s when we had high tax rates and lots of regulations and big unions and powerful unions and unions controlled things and wages went up and wasn't that a beautiful thing and and and there was bipartisanship both conservatives and by partisanship and and we got things done and the government built a highway system and we went to the moon and isn't it amazing and we could you know so what we need is to is a resurrect that's a both on nostalgic to us kind of a past the statist culturally I'd say square limiting collectivist past and the nostalgic nostalgic also to the Cold War there was an enemy we knew who the enemy was we were all united around having an enemy this is why I think they're trying to recreate a cold war right now you know to have one enemy that they can all rally around now that the China make it and China's helping they're trying to make it China China's a process assisting in in turning itself into a turning this into a real cold war but they but this nostalgia thing is amazing and how many times did did james go with oh once when the unions were strong and once when congress was functional and congress isn't functional anymore and we got stuff done and there was bipartisanship and we could we could get stuff done again and no principles no we just need a tinker tinker with the system will make it better if we elect this or let like that guy if we we just reshuffle the politics a little bit and we get the Supreme Court to do this or that then we could get and everything's everything's everything's great and this is the consequence of pragmatism they again they can't think a principle they can't think and he's not a socialist he's not a communist he doesn't want that he wants the mixed economy and I think the strongest argument for in a in a pragmatic world in a world where people are basically pragmatist the best argument for statism is mixed economy and the fact that it seems to work and there's a way in which until it collapses maybe we can't convince adults this is why by the way I think our focus should be on young people because young people are not yet given up an idealism young people I think are still open to the idea of idealism still view idealism is a potential and what we need to convince them of is to abandon the idealism of socialism the idealism of the left idealism even of communism and embrace an idealism of liberty an idealism of freedom but once people reach a certain age and they've given up once they give up on idealism once they give up on principles once they give up on some vision for the future once they give up on being willing to take a risk about the future about change it's it's over it's finished it's hard to convince them and this is one sense in which there's a sense in which it's hard to convince conservatives and then I think you know certainly left of center people and that is because conservatives at that point have bought into conserving the best we can do is not embrace too radical of a change the best we can do is to conserve it's to look for the past it's to bring back the 50s and I think you know a lot of the left it are conservative in the sense that James Goldberg wants to conserve wants to go back to the 50s as well a different variation of the 50s what we need to capture are the young people who are interested in change who are interested in making the world a better place who believe that making the world a better place changing you know and taking risks for that change is a worthwhile goal but who are open to challenging altruism see it's all driven by altruism right why do we become pragmatists why do people become pragmatists they become pragmatists because altruism is not viable they become pragmatists because altruism is anti-life they become pragmatism because altruism is is anti-happiness and anti anti-american but so they abandon it and they abandon principles with it but they don't abandon altruism completely they abandoned it as a system of principle they still hold it as a moral ideal they just don't think I'm all ideal can be achieved and therefore it tugs at their heartstrings I mean at every point in it in these kind of debates my opposing party will say but basically but what about the poor you know in your own system people are just gonna die in the streets people are just gonna be you know nothing good's gonna happen look at look at the wonders of the world today we've taken care of old people with Medicare and Social Security we take care of poor people with the welfare state and Medicaid we've got people covered we you know we're doing altruistic duty we're taking care of people everything and look like life is better things are indeed better now I can make the case in a five-hour debate about why things are not better why poverty is you know why maybe you've gotten rid of poverty which you have to a large extent in America but what you've taken away from poor people is self esteem what you've taken away from people is the ability to be happy what you've taken away from people is the ability to actually make a life for themselves interesting interesting fact very few people in America today are poor because of the welfare state so redistribution has basically raised almost everybody above what you consider real poverty and but what has happened is that the poor what has happened is that the amount of income the poor receive is very low so when you look at income inequality it's very high because the poor make very little money the people in the bottom two deciles right the 20% poorest people in America make very little money but once you count for redistribution once you account for the welfare state suddenly they're almost middle-class what incentive does that created why is it that their income is so low their income indeed is lower in some respects and it was before the war on poverty their income is lower than it was before we started the welfare state and that's it's kind of obvious what's happened over the last 50 years is we've disincentivized work so it turns out that very few poor people actually go to work they don't work why work when the state provides for you why work when you can just get payment so the point America are not that poor but not because they work and make a living but because they get a substantial amount from the various welfare programs that the federal state local governments provide and therefore they stay out of the workplace this is why you know while unemployment is very very low you know labor force participation is not that high a lot of people a lot of young people don't work and if you work and you start making a living and you do you know okay then all those welfare benefits go away and now you're working and you're making about as much as the welfare recipient is making but you're working 40 plus hours a week and then they're working I think something like 12 hours a week if anything and you're making about the same income that would cause resentment and angst and disillusionment and all the features of American society today and are the poor better off no they're worse off but you see that's a long argument that they're worse off and that the lower middle class is worse off because they're they feel alienated because they're working hard and they're getting about the same income as their welfare recipient so you know so again but superficially somebody like James Gilbert says look we've solved poverty there are very few poor people in in America welfare state is working it's beautiful it's amazing particularly if you just look at the economic numbers the amount of money people bring in the amount of money people have in the bank right and you don't look at the long-term consequences and you don't know the long-term consequences you can't really think about the long-term consequences to the long-term consequences will require principal thinking and in Americans and Europeans don't do principal thinkings too difficult too hard too abstract and have been trained haven't learned you know don't believe in it and what principles will they think based on the principles they think the principles that they they've been taught to use are bad principles all right so I think this combination of guilt that altruism inflicts on us with pragmatism and the idea that things are pretty good which is a pragmatic argument things are pretty good white white shake things up is their best argument there is no principled argument against capitalism there's a principled argument against liberty and against freedom the argument the the argument that seems to resonate most with people again people of a certain age I'm not talking about I'm not talking about young people but people of a certain age is why you walked about why why you know do things different it's it's too risky too risky and it's very difficult to argue against that because there's a sense in which it's too late for the audience I mean the audience could be more conservatives they want a little bit more free markets they don't want to be too radical they don't go all the way and of course that will never win audience is kind of left of center right of center but once they're older once they've accepted pragmatic way of thinking and once they've accepted and you know I talked to some people after the event really nice people friendly people we talked about religion we talked about capitalism and and basically you know they like me they like what I say they it all sounds cool but it's a little too much and it's a little it's radical it's very entertaining they find it entertaining they find it even invigorating and and and motivating but but it can't they can't I don't think they can actually hold it it can't change them because because they're conditioned to be to be a pragmatist and by the way religion you know Americans who and a significant number of Americans particularly successful Americans you know are religious and then when you combine religion altruism freedom liberty individualism founding fathers America capitalism and you I mean that is such a mishmash that the only way they can make court sense of it the only way they can deal with it is in a sense not trying to integrate it all not trying to make it all fit not trying to make it all work but just you know just just being pragmatic about being sure to him about it man this a realm of my life or function this way in that realm or function that way and and and not worrying about consistency and not worrying about principles because we don't have them alright so this is again why it's so important to go after young people before they give up on the idea principle before they give up on the idea of idealism when they're still you can still you know connect with them connect with them on the on the on the on the on the principle of something completely new something completely radical something completely consistent something that shakes up the world young people are so more willing to take risks than older people and and look one of the one of the things that that embracing a new philosophy and embracing a new a new set of principles is is it risky and the more you have the more you have you know invested in in the ideas that you live with day-to-day the less risk you're willing to take on on shattering that and changing that and adopting something new alright so that hopefully found that interesting and that that kind of kind of a few lessons learned from from the debate yesterday or Thursday alright I do want to let you know we'll be doing a show tomorrow I'm not sure exactly what time but it'll be sometime in the afternoon or early afternoon maybe probably not as early as this not probably not 12 but maybe maybe one two something like that or three we'll see but but it will be tomorrow sometime in early afternoon won't be late I'll be doing a another show I'm not sure what the I'm not sure what the topic will be although I thought I had that let me just let me just see if I can find it yeah tomorrow will be controversial you know I don't do controversial enough things so tomorrow will be controversial tomorrow talk about mass migration kind of in the West so we talked a little bit about what's happening in the UK you know kind of somewhat you know what's happening on the southern border of the United States Australia's experiencing high very high levels of migration so Germany and and so we will talk about what's going on in the world and why this is happening now and what are the consequences and what are the dangers and what are the what are the potential benefits and how do you deal with it all how do you deal with it all right all right so reminder about the super chat we're about about halfway to the $650 goal a little less than halfway we you know so appreciate any additional questions no more questions at the $510 level if you want to if you want to ask questions make them a $20,000, $50,000 questions or just support with a sticker that'll be great as well just because we are we have a lot of questions we've got a ton of ton of $5,000, $10 questions and we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving a goal so maybe if we get a bunch of $20 questions we can get there faster as I said earlier this is the way I make a living so your support is crucial to me continuing to do this you can do that support through the super chat if you're live and if you're not live you can support the show with a monthly contribution on Patreon or on your on bookshow.com slash support and yeah I appreciate all of you supporting and yeah if I had a bet I would say to somebody's comments on the chat I would I would suggest I would say that yes it's likely that Denver is gonna be the NBA champion sad what happened to Celtics I still don't quite get it how they can play so badly when when things matter the most but there you go all right let's take a look here all right Adam Adam has a couple of questions Adam says one buffer just called companies juicing profits one of the shames of capitalism just another example of business leaders putting down the phrase capitalism a shame also I enjoyed your interview with Sam Sam Davis thank you yeah the interview with Sam was was fun I feel a little bit bad about it because I think I may to be in he's really young and I may to be maybe a little too aggressive with regard to the the discussion epistemology and I didn't want to be but it just came out I lost patience a little bit and that you know that's too bad so I need to engage more with these David Deutsch fans there are a lot of them and and there seems to be quite a few of them that who are who are somewhat interested in Ayn Rand as well so they they're worthy of engagement they're wrong in epistemology I don't know if they're open to be to the fact that they're wrong in epistemology but they're wrong in epistemology but I think I think I'd like to engage more with them on on the epistemology issue I feel you know maybe I'm calling it you know maybe I know enough to be able to engage with them we'll see I might test that out but it would be good to have to have one of the philosophers with me to do it yeah company juicing profits I mean I don't know what juicing profits really mean it's a company playing games with their accounting companies being short-term and and are they companies like that sure would they be companies like that under capitalism sure fewer they'd be dealt with much faster I think the mixed economy makes it much more likely that these companies exist I think that the prevalence as we've talked about in the show of pragmatism makes it much more likely so so many of our business leaders are pragmatists have been trained and to think short term have been trained to think in in without principle and again associate this is so crucial to understanding CEOs they reject the idea of of of altruism being a principle again that they're influenced by altruism it tugs at their heartstrings they in their personal life they're altruistic but they get it that altruism has no place in business but what do they replace it with they don't have an alternative philosophy they haven't adopted an alternative philosophy so what they replace it with is kind of an alt a pragmatism what can it what works what can I get away with and this is why we are it's because we don't have an alternative philosophy a consistent alternative philosophy to the kind of altruistic you know to Christianity to to to German romanticism to to just take the philosophy that affects the culture to pragmatism and therefore everybody becomes pragmatic and consistent they get away with they try to get away with stuff some of them take it all the way to to to deceiving and and breaking the law and and and doing immoral things because hey they can get away with it hey it works in the short run some don't because they realize that's bad but but still my my tinker a little bit in order to quote juice prophets without thinking about the long run because who knows what the long run will bring why think about it too much and none of this has to do with capitalism it has much more to do with the epistemology it has much more to do with well epistemology with philosophy with the lack of principle in our world and of course the lack of principle is what leads us away from capitalism the lack of principle is what leads us away from from from individualism from honesty from morality and you know but that's you know you can't expect one Buffett to see all that this is again it's very hard for them to see it for them what exists today is capitalism right you know again it's like James Goldberg's right have a little bit of freedom a lot for the most part we're free you know we run our businesses yeah there's some regulations many of them are burdensome maybe we should have few of them maybe they should be different but generally they can't even imagine a world without regulations and they can't imagine that that's what capitalism is capitalism is basically people have property rights or semblance of it and they and they are kind of free to make a lot of the choices that they make in business and in consumption in their lives and that's good enough the mixed economy therefore is it's good enough and that's capitalism and yeah we can tinker with it again we can make it a little bit more left a little bit more right a little bit more regulated a little less regulated a little higher taxes a little lower taxes but let's not go overboard and that to them is capitalism this range of options that they have and that's what they talk about and they can't you know you come to them and say no capitalism is this it doesn't register it doesn't mean anything to them it's inconceivable to them that you have a principle that you have a definition that you stick to it that there is such a thing as capitalism and it's not like the way the world functions today what's the difference oh that that's radical that's crazy you know a separation of state from economics that's dangerous that's high risk I don't want that they can't think in those terms so it's not surprising that you see even some of the better people like Warren Buffett using terms like capitalism this way and referring to the pragmatism a certain business leaders as consistent in some way with capitalism they can't conceive of anything else and nobody presented a coherent you know systematic argument that they can understand because I don't think they can understand any such argument today they're too old too set in their ways too risk averse to commit it to the status quo and that's really the big danger a commitment to the status quo and I think much of America's committed to the status quo status quo is pretty comfortable certainly for one Buffett made a lot of money off of the status quo all right reminder to everybody questions or supports we have we have was a yes I'm looking for this yeah we have about 70 people watching live you know $5 from everybody would easily get us over the over the top so please please consider doing a $5 sticker or $20 question or like Adam a $50 question or like West just $50 support all of that would get us to our goal important to get to a goal keep the show going Shahzad possibly convincing status argument the world is devastated by Cordy seps fungal pandemic and we need to keep the survivors safe yeah yeah I mean the world think about it differently the world is a dangerous place people as individuals are not particularly equipped well to deal with this dangerous place we need to all stick together and we need to be willing to sacrifice and we need to be willing to work together and we need the status quo in order to keep us all safe because the world is such a dangerous place and some people a vast significant number of people can't take care of themselves in this world and and and we need we need therefore to have a state had redistribution also by the way some of the real problems some of this Cordy seps fungal pandemic is caused by the greed of some people and therefore we need regulations in order to control them and and you say no people don't behave this way in a free market yeah right nobody believes that that's just that's just detached from reality idealism we need to stick together we need the mixed economy we need to regulate in order to keep the world a safe place so that all of us can thrive that's the argument hey Daniel just came in with $20 and got us just passed a halfway mark to the 650 so we've now raised 326 so thank you guys thank you Daniel friend Harper says are you familiar with eSops employees stock up opportunity programs if a company is a hundred percent owned by employees associates would you make it socialist I don't get a say in how anything is run but someone told me that socialism no eSops are not socialism you know in eSops really employee stock opportunity programs really a majority of the stock and really really almost never a hundred percent of the stock and when it is a hundred percent of the stock the real issues I mean I don't think we can rule it out that such an arrangement can't work but the real issues because often the employees find that they start fighting among each other you know how to how the organization should be run because they each have different incentives and different motivations again short-term pragmatism but if you think about an eSop eSop is just giving shares to employees and employees then become part owners of the company and that's not necessarily a bad thing to the extent that what they then do is hire professional managers to run the business to make money and they can't they can't pay employees too much because then the value of the stock goes you know beyond too much being more than productivity justifies or more than the market justifies because then in a sense they share price will go down and they lose as owners so you know it's a way and a healthy way I just don't think a hundred percent ownership is healthy but it's a healthy way to incentivize employees to you know work for the sake of maximizing shareholder wealth because they are shareholders so generally I think the board should be shareholders and I think your management definitely should be shareholders and and I think employees should all have shares and an eSop is one way in which to grant employees all shares again I don't think it's healthy for the employees to control the company because I think it creates too many opportunities for what they perceive in the short run as conflict of interest and and distract from the actual work that needs to be done so giving employees a big chunk of the company is share ownership not a bad thing eSops generally not a bad thing you know anyway eSops are good when properly when properly done you know giving everybody an incentive to work for the same purpose Michael people on the right tend to think cities are bastions of nihilism and filth why rural small-town America is wholesome and mall I suspect there's a lot more cynicism in Missouri and small towns and in big cities I think that's absolutely right I mean this is the big challenge the conservatives have and a lot of people in the right have big cities particularly the cities on the coast the cities that are most leftist are some of the most productive places in America it's where innovation happens it's where progress is achieved you can hate on San Francisco you can hate on the barrier you can hate in California but California is the biggest economy in the United States it is a place where a lot of people want to live and it is a place that is is supremely productive and amazingly productive and and we're almost all the innovation in America gets created now that might that'll change as the politics of California gets worse or as it filters and affects people people will move and create other areas of the country that are productive and innovative and so on but it over the last 50 years Silicon Valley has been the most productive the most innovative the most exciting the most amazing place in America and from up from up from a production and creative thing and yet it's super left and people can't put that together San Francisco is an amazing city and a lot of amazing innovative breakthrough companies exist and a lot of some of the most smartest most productive most innovative individuals live there and it's in decline right now and you know for quality of life has gone down but for a long time this is the pragmatism right until you actually see that decline it's still you see the bottom for a long time it was in decline and yet amazing at the same time New York you can argue about you know New York and by the way crime rates are not that bad in New York but you can argue about New York what about what do you call it mall decay and filth and all that stuff and nihilism and all that stuff but New York unbelievably productive the bank is there allocating capital and they're working hard and they're doing amazing things restructuring US economy in a variety of different ways and allocating capital to through the economy you've got Silicon Alley which is a hugely innovative part of New York City which is a lot of technology companies in a variety of different industries and generally you've got you've got a spirit oh the other thing you have in big cities is culture museums and concerts and all kinds of concerts from jazz to classical to all the all the stuff exciting vibrant you got the best chefs the best restaurants rule America is dull boring not very particularly productive and and life is two-dimensional it's it's you know city life is exciting life and and and it's yes you know the reality is and this is the sad reality in America today that that the left is the left is for you know not that crazy left at the left generally is is more cultured it's more interesting it's more innovative it's more productive smarter and smarter just based on intelligence then the right the right is duller less interesting culture less interested in innovation less interested in progress and and not a smart and until the right well don't call it the right until those of us who advocate for individualism those who advocate for capitalism those who advocate for a proper American political system can attract the smart the innovative the the cultured the the the the people who believe in progress and and and and a smart the smart people we won't we won't when we need all the billion people on outside having the dumb people on outside gives you nothing on your side gives you nothing and in that sense the cities and the big cities and the cities you know often the cities in that are super blue are where the real action is you know here I am sitting in Austin a blue city but compare it to anywhere else in Texas you know this is where the innovation is this is where the tech is this is where the progress is this is where this is where the culture is this is where the excitement is but the excitement is I don't consider Peter teal on my side you might but I don't you got some smart people but the overwhelming majority of smart people are not on the right there's just not I'm not on the right either so don't don't count me please but they're not Adam says I think everybody is tempted by pragmatism to some degree but imagine waking up in a world driven by objectives principles what an amazing ideal to strife or yes but I think one of the reasons everybody almost everybody in the culture is attracted pragmatism one of the reasons is is because of our false view of idealism false view principles being rooted in altruism and all of us have that because all of us grew in an altruistic culture but imagine where the principles that that that ingrained in you that are part of you from when you were very young in all your life are principles of the pursuit of happiness of individual of individual success of individual thriving imagine if those that is who you want what you are then I don't think pragmatism would be tempting for a second exactly imagine a world driven by objectives principles there's no temptation of pragmatism I mean some people might be so lazy as to fall into pragmatism because pragmatism is a lazy philosophy but most people I mean imagine kind of what a culture living by objectives principles looks like it's exciting it's thrilling it's interesting it's emboldening it's risk-taking it's focused on progress it's focused on success it's focused on innovation it's what a wonderful amazing place to live in and then you know the rewards of thinking principle are kind of obvious and the rewards of nothing the danger of not thinking principle are kind of obvious kind of the the damage done by not thinking principle is obvious as well right okay just another reminder about the super chat with our $260 short so we could do a bunch of $20 questions that would be a lot of $20 questions you know but but but we could also do that would be 10 13 20 dollar questions which is doable you know you can also do a sticker some of you can also do $50 questions to get out of there faster or $100 questions which would get us there even faster but it would be you know there about 70 people watching right now so again four dollars from each person we get there so that's another option it's just everybody do a little bit not gonna happen a few of you are gonna have to step up alright Daniel oops what did I do I crushed Daniel there we go start if I wanted to allocate a portion of my investing money into something riskier higher return which would be an option small cap mutual funds well I mean it it really depends I mean it could be fun for example to invest in in the future and therefore take a take a portion of your money and put it into a tech fund or biotech fund or or something that has the potential for really really high growth it's gonna be very volatile it's it's gonna go up and down a lot but the reality is that you know the future is going to be driven by technology it's gonna be driven by biotech it's gonna be driven by AI it's gonna be driven by these new exciting technologies and I think investing in that a small portion that portion that you're willing to take risk with and you're willing to accept volatility is both thrilling exciting and and can juice you know in in the right kind of environment can can juice the returns in your portfolio so that's what I've done in the past and I enjoy that the idea that I'm investing in these exciting technologies of the future you know you want to enter at a good point you don't want to enter technology when it's hyped and bubbly and so on like at the end of 2021 now it's probably not a bad time to enter even though those stocks have done pretty well this year than nowhere near kind of the height so you know you could invest in small cap tech you know small cap biotech things like that that I think fun and exciting that that's what I would do rich Richard said what do you think of this capitalism pitch for people with retired parents capitalism keeps your parents are moving in with you well you know does it they don't view it that way right this is the challenge you have the debut the welfare state is keeping their parents are moving in with them that is if you did away with social security if you did away with Medicaid their parents wouldn't have enough money and they'd have to move in and when they become you know the perception is the other way around the perception is that it's the welfare state that keeps that allows all the people to live with dignity independent lives free of their of having to live with their children so I don't think it adds anything you still back to having to explain what capitalism is how it works how the how the poor benefit from it how old people might benefit from it how they the children might benefit from it how they become wealthier you know but it's hard because it's it's uncertain from their perspective it's uncertain it's risky it changes the status quo people understand a status quo hard for them to comprehend in unknown future and a different future a changed future risky future David thank you $50 well that that really helped get us closer to that goal now the 70 people only have to do $3 each he says in a corporate setting how do you how do objectives principles help individuals make decisions when their self-interest conflicts with a well-being of others in the organization well yeah you know I'd need a concrete example of what you actually mean but at the end of the day you have to really think about whether your self-interest does so you have to think of your self-interest in the long-term principled integrated into the well-being of the organization because you benefit when the organization benefit and so on so as long as you're you know I'm not I'm not saying there's never a conflict between your self-interest and the well-being of the organization of others in the organization but make sure that that really is the case and that and that you're not you're not restricting what you could see of a self-interest and you're not limiting it and you're not being too short-term and too emotional in terms of defining self-interest but look at the end of the day you're responsible for your self-interest and you're not responsible for what happens to others in the organization your responsibility is to pursue what's good for you again rationally if it's it has to be rational and you're sure your values are rational and and you're you're actually thinking about this for the long-term interesting in a corporate setting you do what's good for you and given that it's work and given that your corporate setting it's good for the for the business it might not be good for some employees whom I cannot live up to this standard you've said or this decision you've made but in order to really dig into something like that I need an example I needed to see what you're thinking about to make sure that you think about self-interest right and then you think about the well-being of your colleagues right because sometimes they might take a hit in the short run but you know pursuing your self-interest actually leads them to to do better in the long run or to leave the organization where they maybe don't belong and to find jobs that are more tuned to what their skills on what the perspective is but yes if you have a proper conception of your self-interest and a proper conception of you know the organization then you know there should be no conflict between your self-interest and the organization not to say no conflict in your self-interest and the short-term consequence to other people or if they irrational so so yeah I mean again if you if you want to try me again on that with an example that would be good John says it seems to me thank you for $50 again we're getting much much closer to where we need to be so really really appreciate it it seems to me that progressive progressive are using the term liberal more frequently to describe their views after having avoided the term in the past I don't know I don't know if that's true so I don't like I don't like progressives or liberal to define the left because I think neither the left is neither progressive nor liberal but I think liberal was very popular I'd say during the Clinton era into the into the early 2000s and then went out of became less popular and the left avoided liberal because they understood that liberal was associated with liberty and freedom and and and and just some extent the status quo and not changing it too much and they became radical they became much more extreme and to the extent they became much more extreme about their irrationality they didn't want to be associated with liberal so I don't actually don't see or hear them but to the extent that they might be doing it it's to achieve respectability liberal is a respectable title I hate that the left dominates liberal but you know but it's better than the right dominating liberal I think the other thing that's happening is there is a real growing power that is that is identified as illiberal left and illiberal right and and people identify themselves as illiberal there's a whole sub-stack for the illiberal right and so people in rejecting the illiberal left and the illiberal right identify themselves as liberal I think you're seeing more people on the right talk about themselves as liberal in the classical liberal sense and more people on the left calling themselves liberal to differentiate themselves from the wacky left and the wacky right that are clearly illiberal so maybe the term is is having a comeback because of the rise of the the illiberality of the the crazy left and crazy right and and it's definitely in both sides of the political spectrum you're getting this right of illiberalism as I as a term that people are embracing and endorsing and and and and supporting so as a counter measure I guess you've got you've got liberal on the rise thank you John thanks for the $50 okay we're on a hundred and sixty dollars short so now not just a question two dollars from everybody who's on right now to get us what we need to be all right we're down to the five to the two five ten dollar questions rather than twenty dollar questions exhausted those although you know eight twenty dollar questions would get us to our targets so we could get to our six hundred fifty dollar target today if if you guys ask the right questions for the right amount of money all right Michael says is it easier for the gene pool to produce an Einstein than an iron I don't know and I don't think the gene pool produces anybody I mean I ran I think I think some extent is more unique because her genius it you know applies to the broad scope of all human experience the philosophy it's very rare to have philosophical genius I think it's there's a sense in which it's easier for the genius to be very focused on a particular issue or particular challenge a particular problem like like you know physics or math or particular issue around those then to the genius to be focused on the nature of reality of nature of man the nature of morality you know kind of philosophical so only in that sense but is that determined by the genes I don't think so the genius is determined by genes but where you choose to focus that genius I think is ultimately the patterned by your own choices and by your your chosen values rather than by I mean there might be some element of genetics where your mind is more tuned to mathematics or physics or aesthetics I don't know but but certainly it's not only that Frank don't JFK enthusiasts visit Parkland Hospital maybe I mean it's Parkland Hospital where JFK was treated after he was shot anyway it shut down and it was by the time we reached into the 90s and 2000s completely run down place and and uninhabitable Michael as fascism is the stage you reached one communism has proved an illusion no I don't think that's true I think fascism is to a large extent a kind of a conservative state-centered yeah but a conservative state-centered backlash against communism fascism almost always arises in response to communism not in response to communism and proving an illusion but is but but communism being too dramatic too threatening you know you saw that with Bismarck and establishing a welfare state in order to try to stop the rise of the radical of that kind of the extreme left you saw that even with Hitler's rise as a response to in a sense the growing influence of communism in Russia but also in Germany and you saw that in the rise of Mussolini in the same thing in Italy so so fascism tends to be a response by a conservative what's viewed as a conservative culture too and a culture that believes in hierarchy and believes in in and is tempted by authoritarianism to the threat of communism freedom is never conceived as an alternative that the solution to to freedom being repressed by the left is to have the right repress free Mopokki Mopokki thank you in a hypothetical situation where your children lives are in danger is it rational to sacrifice your life in pursuit to save them conditioning there isn't another alternative to save them yes I wouldn't call it a sacrifice you give your life up and the reason is that you know once you have children those children become in a sense the high you know one of your highest values maybe the second highest value but even though your life is the highest value not making every effort possible to save your children you know given how high of a value they are or your wife given a high of a value she is basically it would make life not worth living if you fail to do that so you're willing to give up your life because a life without that value your child your wife it's just not worth living in particularly not having done everything one can in order to make that life possible you die with the knowledge that you have saved your greatest value it's the same reason why it makes sense to fight and risk your life for liberty and freedom not because you don't consider your life important because in the context of your life liberty and freedom are the most important things to live to make possible life to you and for people you love and to so you're willing to risk your life in order to sustain those very very very high values and again you couldn't imagine living in a world that didn't have freedom or you couldn't imagine living in the world where you weren't willing to fight for such a value and in a world like that that's a sacrifice see to me the sacrifices not to try to save your kids not to fight for liberty and freedom because in a sense that they you're giving up a higher value liberty or your children or your wife for a lower value I don't know comfort security something like that so it's a question of the hierarchy and how much you're willing to risk and you know look we risk our lives life is risky and then the the more important a value is the more you're willing to risk thank you Mopok here appreciate the question right really close to achieving a goal three dollars from everybody well actually we just got 50 bucks so two dollars from everybody would get us there let's see David says thank you for your feedback an example is if a company hired a new department head who implemented a Machiavellian subjective dog eat dog culture wow I mean then I mean a few things you'd have to consider one is you'd have to consider leaving because if if that kind of culture was not a culture you could thrive in why stay an alternative would be to somehow find a way to get rid of this manager or to move departments or to do what was necessary but it suddenly you have to pursue your self-interest but your self-interest is unlikely to be served by playing the game that this manager has created if anything what you want to do is create a greater situation where you can get use this dog eat dog to get rid of the manager to undermine him but yes that is a horrible situation to be in and it's a it's a reason in your self-interest to really consider leaving the job or to or to or to moving to a different department but not being willing to tolerate that kind of work environment because it's unbelievably destructive to you and to your teammates right so and if you can't leave really can't leave then yeah you know what choice do you have but to play this game but really do everything you can to get rid of this manager either by you leaving or by getting them to leave in one way or another you're not going to be happy your your ultimate interests are not going to be served by working in this kind of environment I hope that's helpful David do you agree with the quote never tell your problems to anyone 80% don't care another 20% are glad you have them no I mean that I think again it's it's kind of these silly aphorisms and and you know you have people you trust you have people who who maybe love you you have people who you have relationships where part of that relationship is built about telling them your problems and advising one another and really thinking through that's what partially what a romantic partner might be for you're not exclusively you're partially and what friendship is for I mean no I don't buy these these kind of silly things 20% 80% don't care 20% well where your friends where where's your loved ones suddenly they care and suddenly they don't they're not glad you have problems that's what friendship and romantic partners are anyway so people do care find people who care that's what friendship is about Michael says I've been reading about Kant recently he was an extremely anxious and erotic person they can't implement implant neuroticism on the population through his work I mean there's a sense in which he did I mean it's a kind of a schizo- cranny philosophy you know he detaches a mind from reality that'll create anxiety he tells them morality is is categorical imperatives that have incentives embedded in in their consciousness somehow but they don't know that it's embedded they can't find it they they don't know where to go to find these categorical imperatives so they they're very uncertain they're very you know so yeah I mean it's he did in some deep sense embed you know anxiety and eroticism into culture but remember it already existed there this dichotomy from Christianity from other philosophers he just institutionalized and made it much more solid and made it much more respectable if you will Michael says were the Nazis biological determinists while communists were evolutionary environmental determinists well yeah I don't know I mean maybe you could make that categorization certainly the Nazis are biological determinists but there's there's elements within communism that is also biological determinant you know it's not clear if you ask a communist if you take a child of a proletarian and put him in a bourgeois does he become automatically bourgeois maybe but yeah I mean they're all determinists with with with different elements attached to it alf says thank you alf can I call myself an objectivist if I don't haven't read any of Invan's books don't yell at me I'm not going to I don't think so I think that would be really hard because I don't think you know what objectivism is without having really read Invan's book now you might read Invan's book and says and say this is confirmed you know the ideas that I already have I think that's to some extent can happen but she'll give you actual the philosophy you know it's articulated so I think you can say everything I've heard from objective about objectivism makes sense to me and I think I'm probably an objectivist but I'd say until you read Invan you don't really know I mean you don't know about yourself it's not about what I think it's about what you think and I just don't think you've you've you've compared your ideas and and and your values and your your with objectivism you that contrast cannot happen until you actually go to the source and I encourage you to go to the source I mean I unless you've read maybe objective with philosophy of Invan by Leonard Peekoff but I'm assuming you haven't read that either so courage you go read Invan fiction nonfiction just just jump in just jump in if you like fiction start with fiction if you if you think fiction might not appeal to you then jump in with a nonfiction but but we did and challenge yourself and and then see are you other ideas do the ideas line up completely or don't they Michael says did you read Craig Biddle's post responding to your show with on-call the guy is on hinge I did not read Craig Biddle's post responding to my show with on-call I did not so I'll I'll I'll I'll accept your evaluation of it I don't know that I'll ever read it probably not why waste my time time is too valuable life is too short it's great to see how defensive he is that he has to respond almost in satinously to everything he's got now a whole blog I guess part of his website devoted to the conflicts pretty funny I think pretty sad and fun Michael says is their police officer is being a police officer today a model given a good amount of what they do is violate individual rights I don't think so I think good amount of what they do is also protecting individual rights we couldn't have a civilized world without policemen I think it's a difficult job it's a difficult job to calibrate what you do and how you do it well and I in a lot of them don't completely understand that what they're doing is violating rights I wouldn't say was a mall for for policemen but it does place them in a very very difficult tricky situation I don't I don't I'm not would be jealous of them you know that it's hard to be a policeman and calibrate right with regard to you know the different laws that are on the books Kim thank you Kim we're chipping away at this goal we're gonna looks like we're gonna make it so good thank you guys Kim says how to how to deal with irrational religious family members that don't bring you you much value should I just stop communicate with them I mean that there certainly is an option I mean I think ultimately what you want to try to do is calibrate your relationship to them to the value that they provide you to the extent that they provide you some value calibrate the relationship to that value they provide you a little bit of value have a little bit of a relationship but you know spend a little bit of time with them don't spend too much when you spend time with them focus on those things that with his added value don't focus on things that are not but don't sacrifice that do not place family members above reality did not place family members above your own self-interest to not place the commitment that the duty supposedly to family above your own life you know deal with family to the extent that is your self-interest deal with family to the extent that it that it furthers your values deal with family to the extent that it that it furthers your happiness but and and cut it cut them off cut people off to the extent that they do you damage or waste your time which is doing you damage or you know don't provide you with any kind of value Kim I hope that is helpful not easy not easy to do but important to do important because we live in a world where we're we're still consumed by altruism and altruism tells us family family family the world tells us family family family family is is the unchosen right friends are chosen families unchosen and you have to calibrate that relation to to the values they actually actually in reality not based on programming not based on what the culture says not but with other people says what you think the value they have to you okay Frank says isn't the point of iron man how you evaluate her levels of thinking how you evaluate her levels of thinking isn't Atlas Shrugged the novel about detachment and individuality no I mean I don't understand what detachment actually means in this in this context it's certainly about individualism it's about being an individual but it's about it's about reason and individualism reason individualism I ran said that Atlas Shrugged was about the wall of the mind in in in human life in life in life both on an individual level and a societal level so I ran is about using your mind to using your mind always using your mind using reason and rationality to evaluate reality to evaluate the world and to and to choose and pursue your values that's individualism your values your mind your life and its reason evaluate the world judge the world understand the world comprehend the world which is what you do using reason so those that's what you're that's what it's about and and it's not about detachment and it's not about it's about collaboration it's about you know other people and enormous value to you it's about detaching yourself from other people only when other people are a disvalue to you only when other people can do are doing you harm only when other people are actually causing you to fail in attaining your values or slowing you down in the attainment of your own values friend Harper said or friend Harper says cheers to being a member of the YouTube channel live shows members are blast and 12 yeah please become I mean what hopper friend hopper is really saying is come join us as a member of the Iran book show you can do that by pressing the join button below and you know if you you know I would recommend that you join at the lowest level $5 and then if you want to contribute to the show more do it on patreon or on paypal your book show dot com slash support but the members do get a one show a month that is exclusive to them it's a lot of fun and I encourage you to do that and it's another way again another way to support the show lots and lots of ways to support the show and more coming more coming in the not too distant future what are some things philosophy can have no real position on well lots of things I mean philosophy has no position on on a particular scientific theory once once it's once that theory is based on reason and connected to reality and follows the proper philosophy of science methodology you know philosophy doesn't have a position on that specific it doesn't have a position on you know the fastest route to get from here to there it has no position on on how you are on a lot of things and on how you know philosophy is just setting the foundations it's not involved in the concrete it doesn't have position on the concrete again it's setting the foundations for you to evaluate the concrete and to judge the concrete philosophy you know in a sense your philosophy shapes everything but it doesn't have a position on everything whoops did that again Michael says have you had any communication with Stephen Hicks does he add any value to the objectives movement does he hold some academic credibility he definitely holds academic credibility you know look I don't want to I'm not here to again talk about other intellectuals and judge them and you know except people like I want a particular you know Stephen Hicks is a nice guy and but I but I think he's I think he's wrong and I think I think he shouldn't be associated with it with the at the society he should be doing what he's doing and I think his positions on certain things wrong or wrong but he suddenly has academic credibility and some of his views for example of post modernism and so on are interesting and valuable I just think he he he is wrong on his views and objectives some of his views and objectives why has the fight to legalize drugs been so ineffective I so stausel ask Ron DeSantis about it why because to legalize drugs requires you to abandon to believe in individual responsibility it it it it it requires you to think that people are really rational beings and and can indeed decide and shape their own lives it requires you not to be altruistic and not to care too much about those people who decide to destroy their lives by use of drugs and all of those without challenging altruism without challenging emotionalism and pragmatism and all these other things it's very hard to fight to legalize drugs in a vacuum let's see by the way we're only $35 away from achieving our goal so hopefully somebody can step in and just get us over the hump oh god more of these Harper Campbell does Biden use the term frozen abstraction and correctly he was flinging about these objectives terms during the debate I don't think they were used properly I don't think they were used properly either but I don't remember and I can't I can't bring it back you know accurately and fully enough in order to in order to analyze it and I'm gonna go watch it again in order to in order to do that I'm less interested in critiquing you know we did that with I did that with uncle enough not important enough to spend a lot of time and a lot of questions on you know Craig and these other people they you know they're not worth they're not worth it's the effort why are private landlords allowed to own section 8 housing the government pays the rent and the landlord never has to interact with the tenants or make repairs on the building it's a total scam you know I don't know I haven't looked into section 8 housing but the real question is why is there such a thing as section 8 housing why is the government providing anybody with housing why is that why is that needed and it isn't and you know and it's not proved to be that effective either look at the number of homeless people they all in the world so yeah we should challenge section 8 housing on principle all right anybody want to jump in and do the last thirty five dollars to get us to our target make my day brownie asked would you trade Jalen Brown for Michael Porter assuming they had the exact contracts I don't know Michael Porter's game well enough to be able to say look I actually I like Jalen Brown I like the team God I don't know what's wrong with them there's it's they can't handle the pressure for some reason and I think this truth Brown I think it's true Tatum to some extent I think it's true of all of them every single one of them there and I don't know whoa I don't know how you figure that out and and how you solve that problem I think it's a coaching issue maybe maybe it's a charity show I don't know Michael Porter well enough but also like the fact I have to admit that I like the fact that the core of the Celtic team four of their starters really you know were you know organic they'll take I like those kind of teams like the old Celtics of the 80s it wasn't all based on trades and it wasn't all based on getting up creating a super team by hiring people it's the idea of you know recruiting the best players and building them within organizations and and using their draft well I like teams like that I find that appealing and and and so on so so yes that's I so that's why I don't like the idea of breaking up the team even if under some circumstances it would make them a little bit better all right all right my ribbons thank you $300 this is the last 60% of the $500 required for you to review the novella unromantics by Megan ribbons I am on it now so I have no more excuses I've been paid up all right I think I downloaded it I think I've got it ready I just need to get through it if you don't mind my burns without any money or anything just ping me once in a while reminding me if you don't hear from me it might take me a little while but but ping me and I will I will get get that done thank you thank you thank you thank you all right so we've blown away the target thanks everybody all the super chat is particularly mayor Benz but everybody else who did this my last question from philosophical zombie hunter pragmatists may get away more in the US but the UK has barely had economic growth in 15 years and the NHS costs more every year no not sustainable I agree but I don't think I don't think most people in the middle class and the successful people in UK they're not panicking yet they're not worried yet they should be but but they're not and and there's still this sense of yeah life's pretty good for them and and they're not looking for alternatives and which is unfortunate and sad you know and partially because nobody's presenting the world alternative is normal with that you're out there partially because the life for the middle class and so the upper middle class and the wealthy in the UK is still really really good but yes I fear that it might not be sustainable and at some point it'll be at such a level of crisis that they will they will be open to alternatives and I plan to be there when they are open to alternatives all right everybody thank you thank you for the support we blew through the target thank you for being here on a Saturday I know it was pretty early in the morning for most of you and I will see you all tomorrow we will talk about mass migration maybe we'll see I think that'll be the topic all right talk to you talk to you then and