 Today he seems like the likely next Prime Minister and he will always be criticizing only on policy and not on ethics. Luckily, without your own work, we wouldn't have been able to get away with that. So, please welcome your own work. Thank you. Thank you all for coming. This is my first talk for the tax alliance. So thank you guys for having me and they do great work. So to the extent that you can support what they do. So, today on campuses, we find that the most exciting, the most motivated group of students seem to be those students supporting Kobin. You know, if you looked at the numbers coming out of the last election, I mean it was unbelievable. It was well over 60% of UK students voted for Kobin. Voted for the Labour Party, not just any Labour Party, right? Not the Labour Party of the 1990s, but the Labour Party of the 1960s was immensely popular on campuses. As you went through the age groups, it was fascinating, right? As you went through the age groups, the support for Labour declined a little bit. Once you got to really old people, that's where the Conservatives did really, really, really well. If you look at American politics, you're seeing the same basic phenomenon. Bernie Sanders was incredibly popular among college students. He easily, easily won the college student vote. And one wonders if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, who would have won? I suspect Bernie would have had a great chance of actually winning that election. So, 150 years or so after Karl Marx wrote his famous books, 27, 8 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we're seeing a resurrection of socialism. Over almost 40 years now, since Margaret Thatcher came to power, we did British politics. Ronald Reagan came to America and we did American politics. The Berlin Wall comes down. It's the end of history, we're told. Because collectivism, socialism, communism were dead, finished, never to be resurrected again, and so-called liberal democracies were now going to rule the day. So what happened? I think we need to ask ourselves. How did we get from there to here? Why is socialism on the rise again? And what can we say about socialism? What should be our evaluation of socialism? Young people think it's great. Why? Where does that come from? Because let's do a quick history and my guess is that this group doesn't need much history when it comes to what socialism has brought to the world. But what is the essence of socialism? The fundamental philosophical core of the socialist idea. What does it uphold? What does it raise above all of you? Equality. So the socialist idea at the core is about everybody having equal outcome. And what does this equality assume? What does it reject? It rejects the value of whom? Of the individual. So the essential of socialism is the group above the individual and the group, the group must be a group of equals. Equal in outcome, equal in how they live. Equal not in rights, not in freedoms, but in wealth, in consumption, in how we live, in outcome. Those are the essential characteristics of socialism. Where has this been practiced? Where has this been tried? Well, everywhere. Everywhere. It's been tried in its most extreme or most consistent form, obviously, in the Soviet Union. Where we know what happened. What happened? Maybe we don't know what happened. Certainly those kids at the universities don't know what happened. Somewhere north of 100 million people died of starvation, of basically just slaughter in the gulags, in camps. Not that dissimilar to the Nazi camps of the Holocaust. All in the name of what? Equality. Of the individual doesn't matter. It's okay for you to be killed. It's okay for all these people to die, because individuals don't matter. What matters is that, ultimately, one day, the collective, the proletarian, will thrive, will live in this utopia, this wonderful world. To achieve this dream of utopia, they had to kill 100 million people. Well, one has a sense they only got started. If they had stayed as brutal, they would have killed many, many more. It was tried in China. Same thing, tried in China. It's slightly different version. More Asian, if you will. But still, the idea is the same. Everybody is the same. The individual doesn't matter. Sacrificing as many individuals as we need to in order to achieve the dream is okay. So how many did they kill in China? I understand about 60 million of the stars a day in the Cultural Revolution. Well, before the Cultural Revolution, actually. But yes, any way between, it depends on who you read and the estimates. But this is where it gets kind of weird, right? And dark and strange, because we're quibbling between some way between 40 to 80 million people. As if 40 is a small number, and 80 is the shocking one. 40 to 80 million people were starved or just killed in order to achieve a dream of equality, a dream that relied on the idea that the collective, the group, is what's important and we can kill individuals because at the end of the day, they don't matter. What matters is this happiness, well-being, prosperity of the group one day in the distant future. This is the legacy of socialism. Now if that is an evil, I don't know what is. That is evil. Now the socialists tell us, oh well, that isn't real communism. That's the job. That was Stalin, that was, they're nuts. They were crazy. They were dictators. That's not real communism. Real communism is what? It's placed in the collective above the individual and it's a dream of perfect equality. Now if you look around the room, anybody here equal? To anybody else in any significant thing about them? Well, we're now with different heights, with different weights, with different levels of intelligence, with different levels of motivation, with different in every characteristic one can imagine. We're different. I mean, there's certain things that are the same and that's what makes us human. But once you accept that we're human, we're different. That's the reality. That's metaphysics. That's not social construct. It's metaphysically true that we are all different with different abilities, capabilities, motivations, skills, education levels, and almost everything else. What happens when you take a group of people who are different and try to make them the same? Well, we know what happens because they tried in the Soviet Union, in China, and maybe the most extreme example of this. Maybe the one that was the most explicit was a story, I've told before and some of you might have heard this and it's in my latest book, but it's a group of intellectuals who study in Paris under the great philosophers, French philosophers, Diderot and Sartreau and existentialists and all the egalitarian philosophers. And they took this seriously and they wanted equality, equality of outcome, real equality. They wanted people to be equal. So they went back to their country and they actually gained political power in their country. And they looked around and they said, people are not equal. What are we going to do? Some people live in cities. Some people live in a countryside. How do you make people equal? You empty the cities. You drive everybody into the countryside. But you know, even in the countryside, people are not equal. Some people can read. Some people can't. Some people have, you know, weight glasses, which is a sign of education. Some people don't wear glasses. Some people are good foragers for food because they were foraging for food. They were so hungry, right? Some people are not good foragers for food. What do we do? How do we make them equal? Well, we can't. You can't take away an education from somebody. You can't take away their skill to read and write. You can't take away their intelligence. You can't take away their motivation. So what do you do? If you want a population that's all equal and if the collective is your standard and the individual doesn't matter, what do you do? You kill them. So if you wore glasses, you were shot. If they knew you had an education, you were shot. If you were a good forager, a good farmer, a good anything, you were shot. In Australia, they have a term for this. You know, chop down the tall poppies. You don't want to see those tall poppies up there. Well, these guys did it. This was the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. These are the killing fields of Cambodia. This is two million people out of a population of somewhere between five and six million. 40% of their own people they shot in order to achieve equality. Socialism. That's all they were doing. They were good socialists. And, you know, we were talking about Nam Chomsky before, but Nam Chomsky, the famous, probably most cited American intellectual of the last 50 years, was an apologist for the Khmer Rouge for years and years and years after all this came out. Why? Because they were trying to achieve a noble good. So they mean, yeah, they screwed up a little bit on the means. But the goal was good. So he have obviously the most extreme forms. So we say, well, they're not real socialists. But they are. They are the exactly the real socialists. If you read Marx, they're implementing exactly what he wanted implemented. And if you read Marx's letters, Marx was not shy about the need in on the way to utopia to eradicate a lot of people. It's completely open about that. Actually, certain races he didn't like and thought, I think the Slavs won his list of ones that could never become authoritarian. They could never get into that mode of being part of this collective. Yeah, but they are moderate socialists. What about the moderate socialists? Well, what's the success story of moderate socialism? Well, Chavez in Venezuela was a moderate socialist. I mean, he was Stalin, and he wasn't Mao, and he certainly wasn't Pol Pot. So, you know, what did he do? He basically, you know, the oil company had already been nationalized before he took over. But he nationalized all services industries around the oil fields. And then he nationalized and turned into collective farms or the farming businesses. I mean, nothing wrong with that, right? That's kind of, that's just plain vanilla of both socialism, right? I mean, what does Corbyn want to do? He wants to nationalize some stuff. Nationalization is a core to this and it's good for the country and it's for the group and it's for the collective and to hell with individuals who own it. No, they don't matter. And ultimately, is this central planning better than each of us doing our own thing and all this chaos running around in the marketplace? If we could plan how many tomatoes or potatoes or lettuce we needed to make, wouldn't that make more sense? Well, you see how much sense it makes by the fact that today in Venezuela, people are literally starving. Little babies are dying of malnutrition in Venezuela. Now, let's put this in context, right? Venezuela has more oil reserves than any country on the planet, more than Saudi Arabia. They just can't access them because when they nationalized everything to do with the oil fields they lost all the technology and their ability to innovate and their ability to stay on top and to go out and explore and find all the oil. The oil is there. They just need to go get it. They don't have the capital. They don't have the resources. They don't have their ability. So oil is drying up. There's no food. We're talking about a country that is one of the most fertile countries in the world, certainly in Latin America. Used to export food before the farms were nationalized. But you know what, it turns out it's funny, it's kind of weird that collector farms in Ukraine and collector farms in China and collector farms in Venezuela and I'd even say collector farms in Israel don't work. They don't produce the goods. Nobody cares. We're going to try it again because we're sure next time it'll work. Einstein had something to say about what do you call somebody who tries to do the same thing over and over again expecting different results. That's insanity. And yet socialists are insane. Because everything that everything the socialists are attempting everything they claim to want has been tried before. There's not a single original idea that they have that somebody has not tried around the world and has uniformly without any exception failed at it. I mean, yes. Scandinavia, right? All fall back to it. But Scandinavia. But Sweden is wonderful. Right? I hear that all the time and of course when Bernie Sanders wanted to give people a model of socialism he didn't use Venezuela that he would have done 10 years earlier when he was praising Chávez when Jeremy Corbyn was praising Chávez to the Hilt. They all point to Scandinavia. But everybody should know the history of Scandinavia. I mean, it's pretty simple. Certainly if Sweden seems to be very straightforward. From 1870s or approximately 1870 until 1960 Sweden had the freest economy in the entire probably in the world or close to it. It was probably freer than the United States. It had rule of law protection and property rights and basically laissez-fait or as close as we've come to laissez-fait. And you know what? They became the richest country in all of Europe. On a per capita GDP basis Sweden was the richest country in all of Europe. They had, I think it was four of the 10 largest companies in Europe were based in Sweden. And in 1960 they decided to adopt socialism. And they took all their wealth a lot of it. And they started redistributing it. And by 1979 what was the largest industry in Sweden? Anybody know what the largest industry in Sweden? The largest money maker in Sweden in 1979. Abba Anybody remember Abba? Abba? The rock group? Waterloo? I remember watching the Eurovision where they won. 1972 or 73 or something like that. They won with Waterloo. Abba was the largest thing in there. You know what number two was? 1979 Johan Berg a tennis player who then got up and left and went to Luxembourg or something because he didn't want to pay the taxes. Industry had gone from Sweden. Sweden no longer had the largest companies in Europe. They had collapsed. By 1994 Sweden was what Greece was a few years ago. They were bankrupt. They were finished. And since 1994 Sweden has been liberalizing their economy. Has been freeing it up. Has been reducing regulations and been cutting down on redistribution. It still redistributes a lot. It's still regulated but relatively speaking it ain't socialist any more than America's socialist. It spends more on redistribution than the United States does. It regulates less than the United States does. So it's got a different balance. Most of the economies today are these mixed economies. Some capitalism, freedom. Some socialism, government intervention, control. And Sweden has a slightly more government oriented mixture than the United States. But not overwhelmingly so. It's not socialist or America's capitalist. America's not capitalist and Sweden's not socialist. They're both mixed economies with some of each. But even when Sweden homogeneous Sweden smarts of Swedes and all the collective love they have for each other supposedly couldn't make socialism work in Sweden. They went bankrupt. It's never worked anywhere. Anywhere. Israel, I grew up in Israel. I grew up in Israel during period when it was socialist. The largest employer in Israel in those days was the labor union. The labor union owned the means of production. They owned the factories in which their people worked. And Israel was a poor country and relied extensively on support from Jews all over the world and from other countries and German reparations and all kind of other stuff. They innovated the smart people. They're hardworking because their existence depended on it. So they survived. Israel has little under 40 years basically from the day I read out the shrub. It turns out that it's close. Israel has been slowly liberalizing its economy. I read out the shrub in 1977 that was the first year where non-labor party won the election. That was 1977. Every election up until that point in Israel's history, the left had won. And they'd be liberalizing. They're no bastion of capitalism. But they are far removed from the socialism of all. And what's happening is they become rich. They're doing unbelievably well. Every time I go to Tel Aviv I go whoa, I don't even recognize this place. Skyscrapers and cranes and industry and they are the number two place for high tech in the world after Silicon Valley. Why? Because we've unleashed some capitalist forces there. Socialism fails everywhere. And yet it's incredibly popular. It's incredibly popular. It's like one of these sports teams that loses all the time and yet the fans never abandon it. But here it's much, much, much, much, much much worse than that, right? Because here you suffer real consequences. It's not just the emotional pain of your team losing. It's if you embrace if Corbin comes to power and does what he says he'll do, which is I doubt he'd actually do it, but if he did it or if Buddy Sanders came to power and actually did, we would all suffer. All the people who voted for him would suffer. And they know that and they could see that if they only looked at history. If they only examined the facts. There are real consequences. This isn't a game. Look at Venezuela. They have no dogs and cats in Caracas anymore. Because they've eaten them all. The zoos were broken in relatively early and all the animals there were eaten. It's hard to imagine how the richest country in Latin America 30 years ago has become the poorest country in Latin America in the span of 30 years all because of socialism. And nobody cares. How many stories do you see about Venezuela? How many stories do you see about Venezuela? They actually point to socialism as the cause. The left has come up with 3,000 excuses. They excuse Stalin. They excuse the Soviet Union. They excuse Mao. And now they're in the excuse of Venezuela. They excuse Pol Pot. They excuse them all. Every single one of them. And you can be a communist in polite company. You can go to a cocktail party and somebody say, yeah, I'm a communist. You know, how's that? Looking for you or whatever, right? Go to a party and say, I'm a Nazi. Spitting your face. They'll throw you out. Now I think justifiable. I'm also spitting in the face. Well, not spitting. They're throwing people out of parties who are Nazis. But why do we treat Nazis differently than the communists? Indeed, communists have killed many, many more people than Nazis. Their ideology is just as evil and just as bad. It's the same ideology in a sense that Nazis remember were national socialists. What the Nazis did is they took socialism. They collected as what matter. The individual doesn't matter. And they added a racial element to it. Which is, you know, like adding evil on top of evil. But the essential is the same. The group is what matters. My group. Not your group. My group is what matters. And everybody else, you know, can be killed. But it's the group that matters and the individual doesn't. It doesn't matter. And we kill as many individuals as we need to in order to achieve some dream, some utopia for the group. So, in my view, anything that claims to be socialist is not just bad. It's not just wrong. It's evil because it is advocating for defeat. It's advocating for pain. It's advocating for death. Whether they're willing to acknowledge it or not. It's what it means. It's what it's always been in practice. Now, if you were socialist 100 years ago, I could give you slack. Maybe even 50 years ago because we didn't know the full extent of what was happening. But you cannot be a socialist today. And be innocent. Now, again, I give anybody under 25 slack. Jeremy Corbyn is not under 25. Neither is Bernie Sanders. Neither are a lot of these people. Their ideology is an evil ideology. Now, what's the standard of evil? How do we define evil? Because, granted, if Jeremy Corbyn comes to power, we're not going to have concentration camps. I don't think so. Same with Bernie Sanders. So, it's not the death that is the essence. Just the only thing that makes it evil. What's the criteria for evaluating what is evil and what is good? Well, my criteria is whether it's good for human life or bad for human life. That which promotes human life is the good. That which promotes human flourishing is the good. That which destroys human life. That which destroys human flourishing is evil. Socialism everywhere it's tried. It's the capacity, the ability to flourish. To be successful as an individual human being. And therefore, it is evil through and through. So, we're left with this puzzle. If everything I've said is true, why is it so popular? Because it is unbelievably popular. And I think there are two reasons. One more superficial and one deeper, though. You could argue there are more than two, but we'll focus on two. The first is ignorance. People are just ignorant. And our educational system I think works hard to keep them ignorant. And we can ask the question, why does it do that? Which is an interesting question, but it does. Particularly in America, I have a feeling the same is here, but less so, but the same. From Kate, from kindergarten through high school, we don't really teach history. We whitewash it. We distort it. We pervert it. Particularly right now. The West, according to our intellectuals today, is evil. Anything the West has done is bad. Anything other people have done is good. And everything is distorted based on these new post-modern, if you will, lenses that people have. So they don't know. A lot of young people just don't know. And when they do know Stalin killed this many people, Mao killed him, they don't connect to two ideas. It's Stalin was a bad guy. Hitler was a bad guy. Mao was a bad guy. Popat was a bad guy. Maybe one day they'll recognize Chavez was a bad guy. But it takes an intellectual next step to say, well what's common to all of them? Oh, they were all socialists. And a teacher's not going to do that in the world we live in today. So a lot of these kids don't know and sadly enough they don't have, they haven't been taught to think in a way that allowed them to integrate it and see it for themselves. So if they're not told it, they don't do the integration themselves. But there's a deeper issue. This relates to the failure of let's call them the right. The people who traditionally have opposed socialism. The fundamental failures are Mao failure. It's a failure to define morality. It's a failure to reject the fundamental ideas of socialism. It's a failure to reject collectivism. And the morality in which collectivism rests on. It's a failure not just to reject it because many people talk about, oh, we don't believe in collectivism. But then the real failure is to properly identify what we stand for or what the right stands for. What's the alternative? What's the alternative to collectivism? Well, in most cases, the alternative to collectivism is a different kind of collectivism. So what you get is collectivism is the left fighting collectivists on the right. But they are very few and far between. People who opposed socialism because they are pro-individualism. They are pro-individual life. They are pro- the right of individuals to their own life. The idea of individualism has not been defended. Has not been articulated. And has not been given wide, you know, appeal. Hasn't been communicated wide. So collectivism for most people today is the standard. And now we are just fighting about which kind of collectivists. And the socialist collectivists is just a little nicer than the right-wing collectivists. And they are more what do they call it, the word now that the right-hands globalists. They love that word. So it's more global, which means it's more welcoming. It's more embracing. It's nicer. It's just a nicer form of collectivism. Rather than kind of the nationalistic closed off angry people in the right are angry. And borderline often xenophobic racist right, collectivist right, and sometimes not borderline, sometimes all in racist. And yeah, people don't want that. That's ugly. It's unappealing, justifiably unappealing. What we need and what I think I grant provides the moral defense of individualism and a complete rejection of all collectivism. The idea that individual is the being and all of morality, of politics. It's about the individual. It's about the individual's ability to flourish. It's about the individual's ability to live a good life. And to do that one has to reject the morality that says that your purpose in life is to sacrifice fathers. Because if your purpose in life is to sacrifice fathers, then others are more important than you. And that's in politics collectivism. That implies that group over there that I'm supposed to sacrifice too is more important than me. The whole morality of altruism and altruism is not being nice to people. It's not being kind. It's not being polite. It has nothing to do with altruism. If you read Augustine Kant The category of golden palliative is to sacrifice for the well-being of others. The well-being of others is your purpose in life. Your moral purpose in life. To the extent that you think you might benefit from helping other people to that extent your action is not moral. To the extent that you think, oh, I might enjoy dishing out the soup in the soup kitchen. It's not moral anymore. If you're motivated by anything to do with your own interests. That means that you as an individual are insignificant, unimportant in the big scheme of the world. Philosophy is set it up that way. If my moral purpose in life is to serve you, who's important here? Me or you? You obviously. Now there's kind of a contradiction here because for each one of you you're supposed to serve us. So it's not clear but that's why you ultimately need a supreme leader to tell us how to allocate sacrifices. Because we can't do it as individuals because we're not important. We're insignificant. So what we need to advocate for is the importance of the individual. Only individuals reason. Only individuals think. Only individuals can discover the truth. They can learn from one another. They can benefit one another. But nobody can think for me. Nobody can know stuff for me. Only I can know. Or not. For myself. The individual is the only moral agent. I need to decide how to live my life. And the purpose of my life should be my life. Staying alive is a good start. And then living the best life I can live. It's the moral purpose of my life. It's the flourish. It's the succeed. Act living as a human being. Which means using my mind. Because that's the tool that we have that makes us human. So socialism falls apart because why should I sacrifice for the parliamentarian? Or for this group or that group or any group? And why should you sacrifice for me? Nobody has a right to demand anybody's sacrifice. If we believe in the sanctity of individual life. If we believe in a morality that says your purpose of life is to flourish. Is to make your life the best life that it can be. What is the only political system consistent with that? It's a system that leaves us free to do exactly that. That doesn't try to dictate to us what our value should be or shouldn't be. How we should act or how we shouldn't act. How we should live and how we shouldn't live. The only political system consistent with a morality of individualism is a political system of individualism. Which is a political system of freedom. The only enemy of the individual the only enemy of a rational life. The only enemy of human reason is force. Is coercion. Is authority. Is somebody forcing you to do something you do not want to do. And that's what we have a state for to stop people from doing that to us. And we have separation of church and state so that the church stops doing that to us because the church has dominated the authority business for a long long time. We don't want any kind of church. Religious or you religious. And we don't want crooks and we don't want themes and we don't want terrorists. We don't want other people using force against us. So we have a government to protect us so that we can be free. Socialism is the negation of that. Social is the creation of government so that we can be slaves. Slaves to our brothers. Slaves to whatever the collective that the socialist of the time declares whether it's the Aryan race or the proletarian or the Cambodian peasants we are all slaves to that collective which is defined by that particular socialist movement. Socialism is slavery. Capitalism is freedom. And we need to take those words back you know take them away from the left. The left has does not believe in freedom. Freedom means nothing if the state is there to tell you what you can and cannot do and how to do it and who to sacrifice to. That's not freedom. That is slavery. A form of slavery. So the reason the left is on this sentence in my views is one nobody's challenged altruism. Nobody has challenged this belief that morality demands sacrifice from the individual. And until you challenge altruism you cannot be successful in defeating the left. But it's worse than that. Nobody has actually presented an alternative to socialism. That will appeal to young people. What is an alternative that most of the not the crazy right, the moderate right if you will appeal. We don't want socialism. We just want a little bit of socialism. We don't want it all the way. We just want a little bit. Capitalism is kind of good but it's kind of not so good as well. It's got this greedy stuff and self-interested stuff that we don't want. So we want a mixed economy. The biggest advocates today who are antisocialists want a mixed economy. And what has made or trump or Ronald Reagan or any or even Margaret Thatcher, what did they really want? They wanted less socialism. But not the eradication of socialism. Not an idealistic vision of what true freedom looks like. Nobody has presented that vision. You know what young people want? They want to believe in something. They want a vision. They want to believe that there is something pure. They're idealists. I know that's a dirty word these days. They're idealists. Yeah, I'm an idealist. I hope you're idealists. But we need to define our ideals. My ideal is politically freedom. That means no socialism. That means no redistribution of wealth. That means no regulation of businesses. That means freedom. It means the government doing what it's supposed to do. Protect my rights. Leave me alone otherwise. If we protected an ideal to young people rather than, oh yeah, socialism is pretty good in these things but not so good in those things. I'll end with a story from healthcare in the United States. I suspect that this is the one group that's going to attack the NHS. I won't be it's like religion in this country. It's bizarre. You say anything against the NHS people go. I feel like I'm going to be lynched. So we had this whole debate about Obamacare a few years ago, right? Obamacare. And the Republicans were against Obamacare. They really hated Obamacare. And there was an editorial that was published in the Wall Street Journal in the National Committee. And he wrote how Obamacare is terrible. It's socialism in medicine. All these bad things are going to happen. And he goes on and on and then he says, you know, but just be clear we are going to defend Medicare. We Republicans believe in Medicare. Medicare is how do I, well Medicare is for people over 65. So we believe as Medicare. Medicare is really good. So the next day, so I read the article in the Wall Street Journal and I'm horrified. And then the next day, the guy is on the radio and he's being interviewed by NPR, which is definitely a leftist thing. And the interviewer says, so let me understand this. You're saying socialism medicine is wrong. It's bad. It's evil. That's why you won't vote for Medicare. For Obamacare. He says, yeah, it's terrible. It does all these bad things. He says, then why are you okay with socialism medicine for people over 65? Because that's what Medicare is. Be consistent. If you hate socialism, you hate socialism. You can't have a little bit. You can't choose who to sacrifice when. You're just like the lefty. When you do that. It's okay to sacrifice young people for old people, but it's not okay to sacrifice, I don't know, middle age people for middle age people. I mean, I don't know what the difference is. But that Medicare basically sacrificed young people. Socialism is bad, but then let's be consistent. Let's go all the way. Either sacrificing some people for other people is bad. If it is, then let's go all the way. That if we, the so-called defenders of freedom, defenders of the market, defenders of capitalism, defenders of individualism, go halfway and where we've lost before we even started. Young people want ideals. Let's give them ideals that you can really get excited about. What's more exciting than the ideal of freedom? What's more excited than the ideal of making your life the best life that it can be of living a great, flourishing, successful, happy life. Thank you. Talking about why is socialism so popular, do you think a lot of it has to do with a mindset where a system's intentions or its motivations are more important than the actual result? That seems to be the mentality that it's more about what you want and what you actually cause. That's been a shift because of the failure. I don't think Marx viewed it that way. Marx thought within reasonable time frame you would get to the point where you got the results. It was going to happen, maybe a generation, but he certainly didn't think it would happen take forever. And I think because of the failures they have to shift towards the means, the ends justify the means and the ends are way out there and we'll get there one day. And of course I would argue that the modern socialists I mean this is a I mean not the modern socialists in politics but the modern socialists in academia are not socialists. They're really nihilists. What they only care about is the destruction that they're causing. What they really want is to knock people down. What really drives them is hatred and envy. It's not about equality. They know you can't get equality. They don't believe in equality. What they believe in is knocking those bastards who've made a lot of money down or knocking those bastards who were too smart down. You know the kid, there's one kid who loves to build towers and lab bit stuff and really gets upset when they're towering next time. And then there's the kid who enjoys, literally enjoys going around and knocking everybody else's towers down. He's he's the one who became the professor. Because the guy because the guy built the towers went into business. He went to build stuff. I mean, but what do you do if you only like knocking stuff down? You go into demolition. Not that many jobs in there. Or you go into academia which is one big demolition job and the most extensive one in the human mind. But that's what they do. Their motivation is pure nihilism. Now the postmodernists say it, right? There's no truth. There's no reality. There's no ideal. We can't. I mean they reject Marx. The idea that postmodernism is a Marxist ideology is wrong. They are the rejection of Marx. Marx believe in the truth. In an ideal. It's something to strike towards. Postmodernism rejects the very idea of an ideal of something to strike towards. Their whole purpose is to knock everybody down. So how do you know who to knock down? So they create hierarchies, right? It's called intersectionality today. Hierarchies. And the most oppressed group are black and a certain type of transgender. I'm not knowledgeable enough in the various types of transgender to tell you which. That's the most oppressed group you have to, oh and I guess you can't be female and transgender. Something like that, right? And the most oppressive group is white male. You know, irredeemable. Now imagine if some reason transgender black people gain power, then postmodernism would be against them. Intersectionism is a method by which they try to gain power. Yeah. So let's say they gain power. They gain the power. Then they'll be against them. They'll be against anybody who's perceived to have any kind of power. And to them everything is power. Economics is power. Everything is in terms of power. But all they can understand is power. This is why for them speech is violence. Because speech is a form of power. A projection of power. And power is a form of violence. And they can differentiate between economic power and political power. Everything's violence. And that's why it's okay to beat people up if you don't like what they say. And they can excuse that and they can have tutorials in the New York Times saying it's okay to beat people up for speaking because speaking is a form of violence. It's all connected. See, they're not about truth. There is no truth. They claim there is no truth. But try saying something they disagree with you. They'll beat you up. They're about the primacy of emotion. And for them the most important emotion, the emotion that drives them, the emotion that animates everything that they do is hatred. And the better you are, the more you achieve, the more you succeed, the more they hate you and the more they're driven to the story. I mean, it's really, really hard for good people to understand this. Because I can't imagine anybody in this room is driven by hate. Or anybody in this room can even understand that as a motivation. But that is the only explanation when you look at what they say and look at what they do. Is that they're there to knock stuff down. They resent life. They resent the world. They resent human beings. They resent intelligence. They resent wealth. They think they want to go back to nature but they hate nature. Put them into Amazon and see how long they survive. But they hate nature. Because at the end of the day they hate their own life. That's the motivating factor. And that's what they're projecting onto everybody else. And these are the professors. And imagine those professors teaching these kids. And the kids absorb pieces of it. The better ones absorb it superficially. It's fun at the moment. And the bad kids absorb it fully and they become the professors of the future. And this is a process of the gene going on. In some extent since I think the modern extent certainly since the 1960s. When the 60s generation then became professors and entrenched in academia. Small groups of individuals are the people who usually manage to make an impact, an intellectual impact and stimulate other people. In this country recently we've had the IEA and the Adam Smith Institute and on the other side of course for many years we've had the Babian Society. What is ALRI? What is the objective of this movement in America doing to promote these ideas in our country in particular and elsewhere in Europe? So I agree completely. Small groups of intellectuals change the world. You see this going back to the Greeks. Aquinas change the world. In terms of Aquinas change the world within the Catholic Church by bringing Aristotle in. You saw in the Enlightenment think about a handful of people that we know change the world. This is to a large extent due to their achievements that again go back directly to Aristotle and to the Greeks. Ideas drive history and part of the achievement in the UK in my view is AI and Adam Smith but part of the fact that it doesn't seem to hold and it's not radical enough is because to some extent AI and Adam Smith are not radical in their philosophy more so in their politics but less so in their philosophy. What the Einstein Institute is trying to do is to bring those ideas the philosophical ideas into the culture less so in the politics Adam Smith and AI are doing the politics. We're not going to add much. For us it's about the philosophy so that means universities for the professors and it means students at high schools I have a theory I think it's true that the most effective time to get to people with new ideas is some way between the ages of 16 and 30. After a certain point it's very hard to change your mind about anything important in life. You've got so much invested in it and there's even certain ideas about how the brain gets calcified in some sense. It's just hard to get those neural networks to move around and change. It's much easier when you're young and it's much easier when those hormones are gushing in and you're rebelling against the world and you don't agree with anything your parents say and you don't agree with anything your teachers say and then I want to give you good ideas at that point. That's my entry point. We do a lot of lecturing on campuses we're trying to get ideas taught at universities in the United States and the UK across Europe. Europe is hard for a variety of reasons. Language being the smallest of them because it's more continental and there's more opposition but the UK I think is very promising. When I first came to the UK in my role at AOI probably 12, 13 years ago there was nothing here in terms of online learning. You couldn't walk into a book still there were no books, nobody heard of her there was just nothing. Today the Guardian runs a full page story on her and I think it was a front page the Economist just did a cover story on entrepreneurs in England shrugging and going to France of all places, you guys are nuts. They use shrugging in the Afro-Shrugged sense as if everybody understands exactly what they mean. Today she's here, you walk into any book store they've got copies of Iron Man's book, so there's been a real change over the last 10, 15 years and I think it's partially because I started coming I mean giving talks, engaging, talking to people we started the Iron Man lecture series six years ago which by the way this year is on November 13th, Mark and your pet calendar is November 13th, I think it's right this hall and I'm giving the talk this year and I think getting the books read is mission number one. One of the cool things that's happened over the last two years in UK is that in the A level politics class now Iron Man is required reading she's listed as a conservative thinker little do they know but that's okay but all these kids and then the examine, don't tell anybody with the examination boards write questions for this and how to provide teacher materials, they don't know anything about Iron Man, so we approached them and said hey we'll provide you with the materials and they said great, that's wonderful thank you so much, so we've provided them all the materials for the teachers to use and the materials by which they will basically examinations are on the module on Iron Man, so Iron Man hopefully will become even bigger, particularly in high schools this year, I did a tour of the seven of the top private, you know here you call them public high schools it's up to say, public high schools in the UK so I've eaten the Harrow and Oxford Girls School and Headington and Winchester so Westminster just down here and that's going to become an annual thing so every year I'm going to come and do a week or two of just going to the high schools because it was great these kids are smart they're intelligent and what is from Eaton, Eaton I spoke to Politics Club, what is from Eaton so every place I went I bought a box of all of Iron Man's books, all of my books for the library and word from Eaton is those books have been gobbled up and that I've converted at least two or three of the students to rabid Objectivist or Libertarian or some variant, right, so it's working it works, the right age these are the right ideas and these are supposedly the best of the brightest at least the brightest so we continue doing that we continue working with Adam Smith in particular because they've been the most receptive to working with us on on bringing these ideas to young people when I'm here I'll be back in November to give the Iron Man talk there's a growing Students for Liberty movement in the UK and they're having their regional conference here in London on November 11th so I'll be speaking at that and they'll have a whole day a whole day of programming, I encourage you guys to support that and to come I'm not sure when London but it's online and then I'll be speaking King's College, Exeter and maybe Southampton and certainly Cardiff and maybe Plymouth so I'll be doing a South West England kind of little tour I speak regulated Oxford so as you mentioned we've got a bunch of objectives coming I just scheduled Teres Smith to speak at Oxford in November for a philosophy professor and a philosophy seminar type thing and so we've got this guy who's kind of interested in Objectivism at Oxford kind of open to it so he's a Hume scholar so there's a lot of things going on right now particularly in England, in Europe most of the action is in Eastern Europe so almost nothing in Western Europe the Germans, the French, the Italians couldn't care but when you go to Ukraine I'm going tomorrow I leave for Tbilisi, Georgia I've got four talks in two days at four different universities in Tbilisi I then go then I'm going to Azerbaijan in Baku I have no idea what to expect there so we'll see and then I end the trip I'm actually speaking in Paris which is going to be interesting I'm speaking in Paris and in Copenhagen I'm doing a panel with Fleming Rose but then I'm going to Kiev and Kiev always get phenomenal exceptions Ukraine, Poland is another place huge energy in Poland so I think Eastern Europe and Bulgaria and I was in Albania last year all these people listening to my podcast in Albania was like whoa and it turns out that because they lived under communism they know they tell them socialism's evil they know their parents have told them stories they've lived it and they know fascism's evil so they know the two alternatives because they've lived the two alternatives and it's not that they know what's true or what the third alternative is but they know these don't work so they're looking and the best thing for us I think is people are looking and if you want to find people looking Eastern Europe, the other place on the planet the Zill is first of all every single politician in the country is under indictment I think 75% of the House of Parliament the president's being impeached the current president is under indictment the Supreme Court I think is even everybody, everybody corrupt all of Latin America are these massive corruption scandals and it's causing and this was a country where young people when they were 14 about 6, 7 years ago you were promised the moon you were one of the bricks you were going to be the biggest economy in the world you had natural resources you were going to manage your economy like the Chinese and they failed and they're poor and there are a lot of young people lots of them and they're pissed off because they want to be rich and they've got the internet and they can see what the west is like and it's rich and Brazil is exciting just the energy of the people the energy of young people and they're fed up and they really want change so I think the places around the world where things are really happening which I'm excited about and we try to leverage it to the extent that we can I was really interested in the part where you said we should remove socialism time I don't think that's a politically feasible thing to do I think too many people are too invested in things like the National Health Service that you're never going to get political capital to make that happen so is it worth divorcing the concept of social programs from socialism because the core premise for socialism is seizing the means of production the NHS, I think you'd have to be quite generous to determine the means of production of the NHS and I agree with Hayek when in the road to safety we said there's nothing anti-individualistic about something like universal health care there's nothing that violates anyone's individual liberties in that regard in fact for a lot of people it's going to help them because they might be down on that I personally have relied on it myself so I'm definitely an individualist so I can definitely see the appeal and the necessity to have one and I think to divorce the concepts of socialism and social programs I don't see a problem with social programs as long as they're not seizing someone's property like with the farms in Venezuela for example these people own those things the government comes and takes them that's unacceptable to me because it's not protecting private property rights but if the government is to set up the NHS they're not seizing anyone's property they're not violating it's basically expedient for us to say let's keep and support the NHS and carry on so let's think about that right they're not seizing anybody's property so I hypothetically suggest then but that's impossible right because A if I'm a doctor pretty much the only place I can work is for the government I can set up but you can't compete with the government I mean there's nothing good for free there are a few doctors who are private doctors and a few can exist but you know I didn't go to the best medical school and I I still want to have a private practice but I'm competing against a product that's been given zero I would say they've seized my problem and nulled the value of my education and indeed when the NHS was created they had to seize doctors practices because it was the only way in which they could create the NHS of course they seized doctors practices but more than that how is it funded it's funded by seizing people's money not by people paying insurance but by seizing people's money not based on how sick you are not based on what you'll need in the future it's not insurance this is just pure seizure of people's money with the promise of providing with the service this is pure socialism the means of production doesn't just mean manufacturing it means anything that's a productive activity a healthcare is a productive activity and now the idea that we can never do away with the NHS that is the idea that I think is dramatically mistaken and has to be challenged because we can't do away with the NHS from my view we've lost because it means that because it means that healthcare will only continue to deteriorate which it will in the UK you can tinker with it you can improve it a little bit and if the United States adopts because you guys are free writing off the United States I mean nobody tells you this I tell it to every audience I can but the whole world is free writing over the fact that we still have some freedom in our healthcare system so about 48% of American healthcare system stop private which means 75 to 90% of all medical innovations happen in the United States it means all experimentation all the failed stuff that makes possible innovation happens in the United States because we're so free to do it it means that we pay we're the only country in the world where consumers are actually paying enough for the drugs to make it possible for drug companies to do research and development when America becomes socialist I mean you guys should be the biggest advocates for private healthcare in America so that we can so you can continue to free write off of us so we pay for all the R&D it's our drug but why do we have to pay the most in the world for drugs because you guys pay cost companies make a little bit off of you so how are they going to pay the R&D or somebody has to pay a lot we pay a lot because the market so my point I'm saying what I'm saying in principle if a government were to say right here here's a new industry we're going to create this using tax payer money I'm assuming that nobody here is against the idea I'm against the idea of cursing people to pay taxes particularly for something that the market case can provide so we could I'm willing to concede I'm willing to put for another time the argument about whether you should pay taxes or whether you should use ghost of taxes for police, military and judiciary because I think those have to be provided by the government I don't think any other entity can provide but there is no other human activity primarily and particularly I mean education healthcare and all the others that the private sector cannot and will not provide a much better service not even in the same universe as what the government provides and why to realize why I want to understand what the government is the fundamental nature of government is a gun what government is is force it's a monopoly of force there's no place for force in healthcare so for example that's what the NHS says the NHS basically says these are the ways in which we treat your disease these are the approved by the government ways in which we treat your disease these are the tests we take and this is how long you have to wait for those tests and I don't care if you can pay for it and I'll pay for it this is what happens this is like that's force in healthcare and it destroys healthcare the thing you say it's approved by the government but I mean like private health companies are regulated so they're also approved by government yes they should be regulated I always find the argument well this is force I feel like they've done this it's just like well yes but technically everything a government does a government is a necessary thing so I want the government only to do things with force is the only way to do the thing that they're going to do so policing is force because I said it during the talk what makes innovation and progress and success as a human being possible and that's reason and thinking and force negates that when I tell a doctor these are the 5 things you're allowed to do he's not going to think about the 6th and 7th and 8th and 9th things because there's no point in it Galileo once he's in house arrest he doesn't want to be brought to the state there's no it suppresses human thought it suppresses innovation it suppresses the application of the human mind through the problem at hand so when the government controls education education becomes standardized and stupid when the government provides healthcare it becomes standardized and stupid because it's negating the mind of the doctor and it takes away their freedom to think outside of the box and to do what they want because what is the penalty force that seems to be jumping a few steps nobody is forcing doctors to work they can choose to not be doctors and do something else these are all things they have to do but you're reversing freedom freedom which is my ability to do whatever I want people who voluntarily deal with me and then somebody comes in and puts a gun to the back of my head and says no you can't deal with this person you have to deal with that person and you're saying well I can stop being a doctor if that was the case but the evil was that somebody pointed a gun at me not that I walk away don't walk away, why can somebody come and tell me you can't do this you have to do that why does somebody else have authority over my life if I want to be a doctor and if I want to treat people in a certain way and people are willing to be treated by me so I'm not forcing them to be treated by me why is anybody coming in and telling me you cannot do that how is that legitimate doesn't that de-legitimize any kind of government regulation absolutely so you don't think that should be any good I think as long as you are not either posing a viable risk where they can be proved to another human being or doing something clearly harmful to another human being you should be left free of all government regulation yes absolutely there'd be no reason to regulate what you're doing if it's not posing any particular risk but I mean you could not 99% of regulations have nothing to do with this I'm not in favor of superfluous regulation obviously but it just strikes me that this is I just find it a bit un-numerous I guess I don't agree that this is exactly as you're describing I guess I'll have to think about this well it is think about a teacher in a system not like the UK where you have relatively quite a few choices but a system like Sweden where all the schools are run by the government and you have a teacher in Sweden and you want to start your own school and you guys have kids who want to come to attend my school and the state says I don't know that's true okay so where's the limit so you know if you extrapolate from that you'll agree with some of my extreme examples but all of the NHS is exactly the same thing NHS forces doctors to behave in ways that doctors do not want to do because the government has the ability to force to do that in a private sector if they didn't like what the hospital told them to do they could leave and start their own practice here they can't leave and start their own practice because the government has monopolized when it's a private sector but here it's a real monopoly not a private sector monopoly your contention was that you're offering a service free but it's also like you just said it's going to be in theory a doctor hosting a private practice he's going to be more attentive he's going to be better at his job there's no economic in spite of the fact that the government provides things to be of inferior quality it drives private capital out when it comes to building highways in Latin America schools when it comes to there's no economic and there's no moral legitimacy for the government to be involved in things that doesn't have to be involved and I agree with you, you need a government because of the things it has to do and the only thing it has to do is military and police and to this issue it doesn't have to do anything else and therefore it shouldn't do anything else because by doing it it violates people's rights it restricts other people's freedom using that gun that it got in order to do policing it's now using that gun to restrict what I can do I want to develop a new form of energy that nobody's heard of why do I need permission from the stupid EPA from a bunch of bureaucrats at the EPA in order to do it it's none of their business okay well I think maybe I was going to sorry yeah I would have liked to make a number of comments on your talk but there's two number one I don't think these students were voting for socialism they were voting because Corbyn said I would reduce or get rid of your tuition fees if you were a student who wouldn't vote for that obviously they would so let me address that and then I'll ask you the second question I don't believe that I don't believe people vote economics I don't believe people vote their pocketbook issues in California we've had two referendums now this is a massive referendum everybody votes on whether to raise taxes on the rich or not and they're going to raise taxes by 30% and then the second referendum was to make it permanent the first one was to do it for five years and then to make it permanent how do you think rich people voted I mean everybody would say yes nobody would vote to raise their own taxes all of them voted for it if you look county by county through California you will find that rich people in the richest county voted to raise their own taxes people don't vote to make themselves rich if people voted to make themselves rich we would be living in lazific capitalist heaven because nothing makes people richer faster than capitalism people don't vote pocketbook issues people vote morality people vote what they think is right they vote what makes them feel good and they associate feeling with morality morality tells them sacrifice is good and their equality is wonderful and you can see this on campuses if you go on campuses they're not worried about the tuition they're worried about those transgender kids will not be treated exactly right they're worried about me coming on campus being a fascist or whatever that's what they're worried about the tuition you see the demonstrations in Berkeley and in the United States those aren't demonstrations of lower tuition those are demonstrations to shut people up because they don't like their ideas but my point if you're a student and you're offered that chance that your tuition fee is going to be reduced you're a rich guy and you're offered to vote not to raise your taxes how are you going to vote people don't behave that way people vote something deeper well the second point is about anti-socialism in fact it wasn't socialism the left wing at the Nazi party were exterminated in 1934 long ago Hitler was anti-socialist anti-bolshevik so I don't think you can compare you can compare there are differences there are differences I agree that fascism and socialism are different in superficial ways but in the deep fundamental way they're exactly the same both advocate for the collective over the individual both require supreme leader in order to channel the will of the collective so we all know who needs to be sacrificed they are the exact same thing this is why I hate the label right and left right and left are the same they are ultimately collectivist pro-sacrifice anti-individualistic that's the Nazis, that's a socialist it's the same thing now it's true the Nazis didn't believe in state ownership of the means of production they believed in state control over the means of production what's the difference between control and ownership we're quibbling now very little so the communists took it over the fascists said we're going to leave the CEO in place but we're going to tell him how to run the business we're going to control everything that he does that's the difference between fascism and socialism to say one is more evil than the other is bizarre because they're both just as evil and they're both philosophically indistinguishable well we're at the socialist part of the Nazi party most of them are discriminated against because titler didn't want to take over the means of production and he killed all or anybody who viewed as an opponent he killed all it could be added that Joseph Goebbels was a left-wing socialist to the end of his life and lots of articles against capitalism made speeches against capitalism was never rated by Hitler and the Nazis were never pro-capitalist there was no sense they were fascists and communists and fascism are equally distant from capitalism and this is the thing I don't want any peace of them so I'm a purist going back to the point I'm a purist so I don't believe there's an axis I believe there's left right and then there's capitalism and individualism over here it's a third dimension and I don't want any piece of those in my capitalism because I think any piece of it taints what is possible and it's less than ideal and why settle for less than ideal and I think you don't get the ideal unless you fight for it the left is very good at this they fight for an ideal 50 years in advance and then they chip away and they get to it at the end it was a dream and they slowly chipped away and they finally got it by the way, you mentioned Hayek you should see a wrote a I meant a copy of wrote a serfdom and all her marginalia comments on the side it's very entertaining yeah so first thank you very much for your talk it was great second, what is your view about refugee from muslim country which many of them don't support human rights and I met them here refugee or muslim an immigrant who came to this country and they don't support our human rights so what is your view so I think you have to divide the issue into two here I don't believe you should have an immigration policy that says policy that says we're going to have an ideological test at the border and if you pass the test you can come in if you don't pass the test you can't come in because then you're giving the government massive power over which ideology is okay and which ideology is not okay I don't trust the government to provide health care I certainly don't provide the government to figure out what ideology is I mean I would be excluded my ideology would be perceived too radical to be allowed into the United States on the other hand you can't allow just mass immigration into a territory with no constraints like what is going on today in Europe you can't and there's a if you do crisis it's not just a natural flow of immigration which you have nothing against I'm talking about millions of people suddenly showing up at your shore even if you had a laissez-faire country complete capitalism my ideal even then you wouldn't allow it because the land will all be private and where would these people go they wouldn't be up you would have to stop them from violating people's property rights so in a mixed economy today it's harder because there's a harder justification but you cannot allow masses of people just in now add to that the weird war now we don't recognize the war we have declared war we pretend we're not at war but we're at war right and if you define the enemy that we're at war with then some of these people coming across are indistinguishable from that enemy and during times of war you have to do dramatic things for example shut the border down and say we can't let anybody in because some of the people coming in might be enemy agents like during World War II I'm sure there were significant restrictions of Germans coming to America certainly of Japanese they were interned after all in America which is legitimate but they support the human rights put aside the human rights because I don't think that's relevant because my view is if they were coming in and drips and grabs if they were coming in slowly and now I'll get to my second point about assimilation there will be assimilation but my claim is right now we're at war with Islamists call it what you are I like Islamist totalitarianism or jihadism I don't believe we're at war with Islam I think that's silly to say we're at war with Islam because that doesn't give you a political enemy to fight philosophically sure we're at war with Islam but from a political perspective we're at war with certain interpretations of Islam now if we declare war I've been saying this since 9-11 or even before that if we declare war then you can put up walls walls are stupid but you can put up restrictions you can ban people from coming but you first have to declare war you have to identify these people are the enemy and then in my view the war could be won very very quickly some of you hood my foreign policy stuff I don't think it takes I mean we're talking about fighting people who have you could crush them in days this is not hard stuff this is not even North Korea which is complicated this is easy I mean the fact that ISIS still exists is a symbol forever of the pathetic weakness of the west pathetic you know it just drives me nuts there's this convoy Hizballah a terrorist Islamist organization kind of deal with ISIS because Hizballah was beating the crap out of ISIS but they wanted to cease fire this was on the border with Lebanon and they let ISIS evacuate the territory and go to Iraq so ISIS got themselves and their families into buses and they're traveling across Syria everybody knows this across Syria to the Iraqi border you got ISIS fighters right there now I'm president or with a button I bomb every single one of those buses and kill everybody I mean it's sad that their families are there but it's their families I don't consider that innocent I feel sorry for the kids but that's war no what are the Americans doing they're bombing the road as the buses move forward they're putting potholes in the road so the buses can't move they won't bomb the bus because that would be you know immoral they're bombing the road that's war I mean that's absurd so either go to war and win or go to war stay home what I hate you know it's like the mixed economy what I hate is this mixture I've been going to war but I'm not going to kill anybody I'm going to pretend that I can run a humane war as if there is such a thing the only kind of war that you should fight is a war in self-defense and then you should win it and winning it means the unpleasantness of killing a lot of people so you have to declare war you have to close the borders for the period of the war and you have to make restrictions about mass migration you can't have mass migration now what's the right number is hard to tell it depends on the circumstances it depends on the country but clearly it can't be the kind of numbers we're getting to America in my view has no excuse because there's no mass migration there's no problem of immigration in the United States I mean it's all demagogy of Ann Coulter and Donald Trump there's no there's a crime problem of illegal immigrants there's no mass illegal immigration into the United States over the last 10 years is negative more immigrants left more illegal immigrants been back to Mexico after the financial crisis and have come back since nobody talks about that there's no statistics about crying along illegal so nobody really knows one way or the other but it's not out of control like Donald Trump presents it there's just so much nonsense about this immigration oh I had the other point was and then I'll shut up I blame the lack of assimilation in the West on the West the problem is that we do not advocate for anything we don't stand for anything now unequivocally Western civilization now Western civilization just to be clear because these days you have to be has nothing to do with race has nothing to do with geography has to do with ideas that happen to come from Greece and who knows what race those people were probably Asian Central Asia probably not the same people who are there today who cares it's ideas it has to do with ideas Western civilization is the best civilization in human history the ideas discovered primarily in Greece and in the Enlightenment are the ideas that drive human flourishing and human success and human prosperity anywhere they're tried when the Chinese adopt a little bit of them they do well when the Japanese in their constitution general I don't know if you know the story of how the Japanese constitution was written by General MacArthur and he crammed it down their throat yeah I mean he didn't get the tribal leaders of Japan to sit around and devise a constitution he wrote it for them he meant to resist it and it's the only it's the only constitution in the world that has the right to the pursuit of happiness in it in the United States it's in the declaration of independence it's in the constitution guess what because they have that kind of language in the constitution and the legal structure accordingly they've done phenomenally well in Japan relative to other Asian countries so we have we have the secret sauce that humanity's been looking for for thousands of years and instead of telling the Muslims look you can live like us you just read Locke and read Adam Smith and you know and read the founding fathers of America and you know read the stuff this is the truth this is what will make you happy and prosperous and we've tried it and look how rich we are and look how look at Michelangelo look at the beauty we created look at all this wonderful things that we've done with the world instead of that we say now your culture is just as good as ours you guys go ahead I mean I was sworn in as an American citizen in 2003 and George Bush comes up on this massive screen right and he says you know this is the speech he gives all these ceremonies and he says cherish your culture and teach your kids about your culture and I'm going if I wanted to cherish my culture and teach my kids about it I would have stayed in Israel I don't want my culture I reject my culture I escape my culture I don't want that I came to America because I want to be an American celebrate what it means to be an American not my culture now yeah we're multiculturalists Italians bring on the pizza Chinese bring on the chicken you know bring the elements that are good and drop the stuff that's garbage and unfortunately Islam, modern Islam has very little good to offer the world so drop it and we should be saying that it's not a matter of putting a gun to their head and demanding it it's enough to just say it to just have a mall back on and say we have what it takes to flourish as a human being drop the nonsense and yeah the first generation immigrants won't get it but the second we'll get some of it and the third by third if you look at all the stats by the third they're pretty much completely assimilated when you have a backbone when you advocate for something and the problem with immigration today is multiculturalism multiculturalism is an evil doctrine of egalitarianism of equality it's like socialism for culture and it's just as evil and as long as we are multiculturalist it's our fault so when people accuse immigrants of that I go no our fault you know in America second and third generation Latinos are flying Mexican flags and chanting we want Mexico right why? because their parents didn't do that because their parents risked their lives to come to America because they go to school and in the schools they're told that America stole the land from the Mexicans and the Americans are evil and bad and they should be proud of their Mexican heritage and Mexico is just as good as America then they go out into the streets with their flags it's ideas, drive history but you know if we told them what we told them in the past which is yeah it's probably true that America engaged in some wars it shouldn't have had it took some territory it shouldn't have happened but you know what you are better off for it because you live in the freest land in the world and it doesn't matter if you're brown or black or white or green or yellow or orange what matters is your freedom and you can make the most of your life because of the American system of government and isn't that a beautiful wonderful thing and you should celebrate that and Mexico do you really want to live in the slums and I said sorry let me look in the store I said I want to look in the store I've got to buy you said you can approve parts of people at a time to fly these old yes great I'm on a time to fly I don't do that so that's a bit more generous of you than myself well generally with debating people you should be nice yes and I know it's hard when you're young to be nice I wasn't when I was young I was an asshole and I because I thought I knew the truth and everybody who didn't thought it was going to bang them over the head with the truth until they got it but that's not a good way so treat everybody nicely so it's probably good okay but that being said quite a lot of my friends are talking about some young people there is this idea this issue yeah I'm a lot more used towards your side of the argument but they it's quite interesting there's a sick irony going on in the sense that they are very often in my group anyway are the sons and daughters of very wealthy self made people absolutely absolutely who then votes in support policies which they'll be fine their bank of mum and dad will pull them through it but it's also going to be poor people who start to support that through the social tendency described but on the other side of things when I debate and they say to me that there's this idea of what the person looked like before the NHS about them you know you had the south of London which was relatively wealthier and you had in the midlands in the north where it was almost a third of a country you know you had children you had a statistic like I can't run off the top of my head but that's the number of kids not living past the age of five it was atrocious yeah and so I you know let's say fair and there's mechanics and it's science not the most ministerial where wealth comes from with a free economy but I mean there's can you help me destroy the validity that they have in saying that if we free up markets and sort of to make the NHS more the inverse towards the American system they say that people have dropped gold and hurt a lot of people what would you say to them why do you think I mean a lot of things you could say to that I mean there's a lot of arguments but but just from purely kind of economic argument if you show any one of those kids an iPhone and say what do you think this will look like in the government designer yeah I mean they'd be they'd laugh and they'd think oh yeah it would be horrible it wouldn't even function it would be massive and they say what do you think is more important healthcare or the iPhone and they say healthcare why do you want the government who can't even design a simple stupid little iPhone to design something so complex and deal with something so difficult like healthcare and that gets them thinking at least the fact is that in every single area of human endeavor when the market is left alone it produces better cheaper more widespread prosperity than anything government can ever do whether it's in technology which is the least regulated industry we have today and it's the way all the innovation is happening or any field or whether it was imagine what flight would have been like the first airplanes would have been like if you'd had a regulatory environment like Boeing and airbus have to live under today you would have never gotten off the ground imagine if Thomas Addison in his laboratory had to have the safety if he'd had inspectors coming in and telling him to weigh his goggles right all the time he would have never invented what he invented so in every field when you free up the human mind and you free up human when you free up human ability when you leave people alone they succeed beyond our imagination and beyond my dreams one of my arguments is always I don't know what a purely private healthcare system would look like because I don't have a good enough imagination I could have never come up with an iPhone if you'd ask me what will a smartphone look like worse than the government probably right I just don't have that imagination it's just not I'm not Steve Jobs that's the beauty of it I don't have to be Steve Jobs so what will healthcare look like under free market I don't know but what I do know it'll be competitive it'll be cheap it'll have various quality and price points it will be accessible to everybody because how many people don't have a smartphone today can I just take a point about the healthcare that you're making because by liking healthcare you have healthcare systems based on the public then you will generate invariably greater technologies that will address the treatment of diseases if you look at evidence it shows that the majority of diseases are purely preventable by lifestyle changes and public health interventions that actually do not that do not generate sales and actually the greatest healthcare gains could be through social education programs that are not based on that's just a lack of imagination imagine if I open a practice a healthcare practice that said exactly what you just said it turns out that most diseases are preventable and I'm going to teach you how to do this and all I want is a retainer I want you to pay me 50 bucks a month and I'm going to help you find a trainer or exercise program and I'm going to help you with nutrition and I'm going to help you with these things he's going to charge a set fee and if that is true and I'm not going to argue the point with the disease are preventable because that's a scientific point not a political point if that is true then that model will work and it will drive a lot of conventional medicine out of business so yeah who's going to be who's going to do better at educating us about healthcare do you think the private sector government now I know the American government I don't know how the British government does it but I know that one week a butter is evil and it will kill you the next week a margarine is evil and it will kill you and then the third week butter is actually pretty good for you because saturated fat is actually good but then no this and then when you actually investigate what's actually going on at least in America it turns out that it depends on who lobbied that week so if it's a cattle industry there's lobbying and butter is really good and then of course medicine itself is evolving and our knowledge of medicine is evolving I don't want authorities telling me and forcing it so when the government does it it really impacts people they have a food pyramid I think the food pyramid is bullshit based on the research I've done I might be wrong I'm not an expert but to the best of my knowledge eating a bunch of grains is not that good for you and maybe why we're so obese in America is because we've been eating great for breakfast great for lunch and great for dinner maybe not but maybe right but why have a government food pyramid you know have competing pyramids have people have different practices and compete for these things let's figure it out let the marketplace work these things out the marketplace is a million times better in everything that doesn't involve force that government will ever be because what the marketplace does is it rewards thinking and when we look at private medicine today and say this is how it behaves yeah this is how it behaves in a highly regulated highly distorted government dominated marketplace we have no clue what a truly private health care system would look like because none exist in the world but in areas where there is private health care for example in veterinary care veterinary care right pets in America it's a big deal I don't know if here you know you guys have complex operations on cats and dogs because insurance doesn't cover and because it's not heavily regulated by the government and because you don't have all these BS stuff prices have gone down quality has gone through the roof and accessible to almost everybody even poor people where pets get fancy stuff done to those pets Lasik surgery which is not covered by insurance and not regulated by government or regulated mildly by government in the United States drop dramatically in price and quality has gone through the roof I want that on everything now I know that because I've got insurance in the United States in my view I get the best healthcare in the world if I had something happen to be right here in England I would get on a plane and suffer a flight back to America so I would not have to go to one of your hospitals I grew up in Israel my father's a doctor in socialized medicine he worked at Hackney for two and a half years here in England for a while in the old days when that part of London wasn't very hip as it is today I don't want socialized medicine it's not good for you it kills people and in England it's killing a lot of people every single day and this is the real cost the cost is death there's no bigger cost than that as an individualist that is horrifying so I'm not giving up on the NHS I'm going to slam it every opportunity I have because it kills people and a private healthcare system doesn't kill people people will still die but far fewer people and for innocent mistakes not for not hysterically not because they're waiting for an MRI I need an MRI the other day I called in the morning with the three hours I got an MRI and it cost me four hundred dollars most people can afford four hundred dollars if they have to have an MRI now history is complicated I don't know the history of the NHS when was it founded? it was the day before George's first life 1948 after the war so it's hard to tell it's hard to tell the state of the relative healthcare how much it was because of the war and so on I'd have to study the history but I can tell you things like people tell me OSHA in America is this government entity that regulates workplace safety and they show you charts and the charts so here's OSHA passed and safety in terms of number of deaths or injuries on the workplace has gone like that so everybody says well look OSHA is an incredible success and you'll get social what you do is you show them the four graph so it turns out that if you go a hundred years before OSHA right a lot of people were dying in the workplace were relatively unsafe technology didn't exist people didn't really know what they were doing and it's been going like this ever since and the fact that OSHA was introduced had no impact on the slope of the graph so I wonder if you looked at the same thing about child mortality were the changes in child mortality coming to that point did NHS really change or was that a trend that was happening anyway and even if NHS did change something at what cost who suffered it's not free so if you actually want to do the history you want to have to dig into the history and figure out what the facts really are and then again look at the reality today the reality today is you don't have a good health care system I mean even as compared to European neighbors also have types of socialized medicine they're better than the NHS the NHS is one of the worst in the world and it's not a good place to be in I'll put it in Australia and the one in Singapore is even better than the one in Australia so the one in Singapore relies 100% on private insurance and now it's a form of universal health care but it's all private insurance there's no government provided health care it's all provided by the private sector we don't have insurance we don't have time for that we have to be out of here sorry guys thank you all