 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. Everybody, welcome to Iran Brookshow. On this Sunday afternoon, everybody is having a good weekend. Which would I do there? All right, so yeah, hope everybody's having a great weekend. Whether here is, it rains once in a while. I don't like that. Yeah, we got a pinned message. We figured out how to do pinned messages. People think, one of the female thinks it's cool. All right, we'll see if it works. We'll see if it works, all right. Today, we're going to talk about, so this is a sponsored topic today, sponsored by Adam Campbell. And so this is my understanding of what he wanted. We kind of went back and forth. He wanted me to go over a number, if you will, of objections to capitalism, and objections to freedom. With examples of how it works in a small, free society. So the size, the context would better illustrate the mechanism of exactly what's going on and how it's working. And I think this is a valuable exercise. So I'm willing to try it. I'm going to set it up in a particular way. And then we'll go through some issues. And of course, I'll take super chat questions on this as well. How would a free society deal with these? And I think that will help us illustrate how it may be a more simple way, how complex things happen in real life. Size matters because size brings in complexity. It doesn't change the principles. It doesn't change the ideas. But it changes the ability of people to comprehend what exactly is going on because there's so many moving parts. So we're going to make an effort to simplify, to reduce the number of moving parts, to focus in on parts of, and we're going to create this world so we could turn this into a video game, I guess, or somebody can turn this into a video game and then we can go from there. All right, someday. But for now, we're going to try this out and then Adam will decide if whether I fulfilled the requirements of the sponsorship or not. If not, I'll have to make another effort, given that he's put real money behind this. So let's see if we can, if this should be fun, it should be interesting, and we'll see how it goes. All right, before we get to that, of course, just a quick reminder that we use the super chat feature here on YouTube to support the show and to ask questions. So it's a way for you to interact with the show. It's a way for you to be a part of the show. It's a way for you to express your thoughts and to ask questions. And of course, importantly, it's a way for you to express value for value and support what it is that I am doing here. And let me get rid of these headphones because for some reason it's hot today. I don't know that it's, I don't think it's hot out here. I think it's, I just, I walked out this morning and I don't know what it was, but I wore myself out. My body is still now recovered from it and I'm just hot and tired, hot and tired. All right, so super chat is available. We've got a $600 goal. As you know, Catherine is here to remind you and to keep track of the numbers and to get us going. This is trade, value for value. So I will try not to talk about it too much. We'll leave it to Catherine to encourage you. Of course, you can also support the show by going to youronbrookshow.com slash support. Or you can, action to action just replace my pinned announcement, right? He just, you know, demoted me. Action in addition to the link you should have, it should say support the show here or something like that. So it's not just the URL, I think. Right? All right, I get it that I have to, I get it that I have to type in HTTP, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, ta, but I was trying to talk and do a show. Who has time to type in all that stuff? All right, cool. So action to action is pinned to post. I think you'll fix it in a minute. We'll get a nice pin. And of course that's where you can go to support the show. You can also do it on a Patreon, a subscribe star. But it is my preferred method. It's on my website through PayPal. Stephanie's eating a watermelon. All right, you know what they say, it's green on the outside and red on the inside. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Let's see, any other administrative stuff that we have to talk about? I don't think so. There will be a show on Tuesday and on Thursday at 7 p.m. East Coast time. Actually, there won't be one on Thursday. What am I saying? There'll be a show on Tuesday and a show on Wednesday at 7 p.m. East Coast time this week. Thursday's my wedding anniversary, so no show. And instead, I'll move the show to Wednesday and then we'll see after that. I've also got guests coming in from out of town. So on Thursday. So we'll see what we get from there. All right, I see questions starting to roll in. That's great. I will get to them after we start covering this and I wanna see if we get, ultimately I wanna see what we get in terms of questions relating to the topic. Okay, so here's the setup, right? This is the way we set this up. We've got a free country. A really free country. A free country ruled by a constitution that is based on the principles of objectivism, separation of state from economics, all everything is privately owned, government limited to the protection of individual rights. And let's say it's on an island. We won't say Puerto Rico, but let's say it's on an island, right? And let's say 100 people live on this island. There's 100 people living under an objectivist inspired constitution, because there is no objectivist constitution, I mean, if I wrote a constitution, an objectivist inspired constitution. And this thing is coming to existence as we speak. It's somebody bought the island, I don't know, sold it off to everybody who wanted to participate, 100 people. And then basically they formed the government, they created the constitution, it's there. It's got an airport, it's people are working there, some people might have, I don't know, farms, some people might have consulting businesses, some people might have started small, I don't know, manufacturing businesses, whatever it is. But there were 100 people there, all right? So now I'm gonna look at a number of the different issues that we confront here and everywhere. It's confronted with in terms of how do we deal with them? And can we draw from this kind of the principles that seem to be very confusing to people when it is applied to the world in which we live today and maybe part of that confusion is this issue of size and complexity and we're in a mixed economy in how it would work and so on. So that's the setup, that's what we're creating this hypothetical and then we can see. Ryan says make it 100 million, I mean, 100 million assume people. It's gonna get to 100 million pretty quickly, right? We'll talk about it. It starts with 100 people. You have to start somewhere, right? You have to start somewhere. All right, so let's, I'm gonna start with the issue. I'm gonna start with the most controversial issue because it's the most fun. And plus, I think that through this issue, we can illustrate a lot of other key points. I think we can cover it. I'll just give you a sampling of what Adam, kind of the issues that Adam mentioned. Actually, I'll read you the whole list. Productivity, kind of where does it come from? Does it come from the man? How does wealth created? Taxes, how do you tax? Immigration, welfare, entrepreneurism, money, prejudices, woke culture, drugs, banking, government. How do all these things, how do they play out in a society like that? And can we use that in order to learn something about the world in which we live today? Yeah, Paulo, let's call it Lezdefe Island. Great name. It's, maybe it's, even the UN now has recognized it as a nation. So it's a country, it's separate. And the dark secret, the real dark secret on Lezdefe Island is that it has three nukes. It has three nukes, one pointed at Washington D.C., one pointed at Beijing, and one pointed at Moscow. And these are stealth nukes, so they can't be shot down. These are, you know, it's Lezdefe Island. They've created the best nukes in the world. And they can't be shot down. So nobody is, nobody's gonna invade this island because if they invade, they're gonna be wiped out, right? Or at least a lot of people are gonna die. So there's a kind of a mutually assured destruction understanding, and that is why it's left free. I've always argued with libertarians and with other advocates of let's buy an island and create an island. I've always argued that the thing that you need in order to make it truly free, in order to prevent the United States from shutting it down, is a nuke pointed at Washington D.C., and that way they won't touch it, all right? So we got the nukes, we're all clear. They're not invading. We've all set up, 100 people showed up. They've each got their own expertise. They're each starting to do stuff. There's high speed, you know, fiber, optical cable. So, you know, they don't have to, they don't have to, they're working by providing services outside and they're flying in and out because there's an airport. But they basically are residents and live and citizens of this island. And we're gonna look at, you know, the different political issues that come out, right? I guess people are upset that we have nukes. We're gonna have nukes. Las Vegas Island, I'm telling you now, Gold's Gulch in the real world has nukes. So that's just a precondition. You know, that I have set for my Las Vegas Island. All right. So let's start with one of the toughies. And then work away from that into some of these others because I think this is a good one to illustrate a lot of the issues and a lot of points that involve. So let's start with immigration, right? Let's start with immigration. Now remember, this is an island in which all land is private. The airport is private. The roads that are being built are private. All the land, all the homes, all the developed or undeveloped land, everything on this island is owned by somebody. And let's assume that at the point zero at the beginning of it, the infrastructure's already built, all that's built, let's assume at that point zero that all the land on the island is owned by residents of the island. Now I own a house on this island and I want to employ a maid in the house, clean, cook, do all this stuff, right? And we'll get to taxation. We'll get to taxation. There's no need to taxation because there's very little the government is gonna do but we'll get to taxation and develop what I think. So let's start with immigration. So let's say I own a house on this island and I wanna hire a maid and I don't wanna hire anybody on the island already. All the people on the island right now are not interested in being a maid. They don't have the skill set, they're not qualified. And I'm willing to pay quite a bit of money to being a maid onto the island. So I put out job ads all over the world and then hire my ideal maid and fly her in. Well, does she need a visa? Granted by whom? Whose business is it? Who I hire? And who's coming to work for me, right? They gonna stop me from hiring her? That's a violation of my rights. By what right are they gonna constrain who can come and work for me? Who can provide me with services? You know, is the private airport gonna have some kind of constraints? Maybe within reason, but a rational island, a laissez-faire island has right of ways, even on private property. And if the airport just can't randomly ban people from entering. So what restrictions would be placed on me bringing in this maid? Now, maybe the local police have a station at the airport and they screen the passengers as they come in and they just make sure that there are no criminals coming there, you know, well-known existing criminals. So, you know, people that the government is looking for because they're terrorists or foxes. Make sure maybe that nobody within infectious diseases is coming in. Maybe they have some, these little thermometers that radiate out and make sure you're not coming in with a fever now that we live in an age of infectious diseases. But other than that, what role does the government have in telling me put aside the immigrant? Who I can, I cannot hire. And isn't it a violation of my rights to tell me no, can't hire anybody or you can't hire people from China or you can't hire people from Ecuador or you can't hire people from Scandinavia or they have to be from Africa or whatever, right? By what standard? So no, there's no visa. A visa would say that the government has the right to restrict somebody's coming in. The government has a right to restrict how long they stay, by what standard? I, a citizen of the island, have rights. I'm just part of those rights. I have a right to invite anybody into my house, to hire anybody I want to hire to work for me. How does the government get a role in placing itself between me and the people that I'm hiring, the people that are coming to work for me? So no, I mean, I hire this woman, she comes, starts working for me as a maid. Now, maybe initially she lives, I've got a spare bedroom or a separate unit and she lives there. But ultimately, let's say she wants to move into her own place. Well, now she's gonna have to go out and she's gonna have to find a place to live. She's gonna have to find something. All the land is already private. And assuming I'm not the only one who's hired some people who've come in, maybe they're not 100 people on the island anymore, maybe they're now 125, because ooh, 25% increase in the population of island. That sounds scary. Maybe they're 10 new people. And maybe most of them are maids, they're not owning a huge amount of money, but, and maybe one of the residents on the island says, oh, I've got a empty plot of land. I can build a small apartment complex and rent it out to these immigrants and to these people coming in. And you can see that now there's, the immigrant has created production. But even before that, let me take a step back as I meant to say this. So the immigrant arrives, she arrives, the maid arrives, she has no money, right? She's coming from a poor country and she comes with no money. She's got a job. She wants to go buy stuff. Well, she can't. She has no money. So what does she need to do in order to be able to buy stuff? Well, she has to produce. She has to work. Before she actually can consume, she has to produce. Now it's true that in an arrangement like this, I would probably advance her some money under the assumption that she's going to work. So it's still the fact that she has to work in order to produce in order to consume. So once you break it down like that, once you start with a point zero, once you start with somebody coming in who does not have anything and who's not your work, it's obvious that they can't produce anything. Sorry, they can't consume anything. They have to first produce. They have to earn a living. And this is kind of the straightforward, obvious case that production has to proceed consumption. A person, an individual, and always look at economics and these kinds of principles at the individual level, my right's being violated by you not allowing me to bring in somebody to work for me. Why is it your business who I bring in? Now we'll get to some of the political issues that might be involved in this in a minute as we illustrate all these different aspects of it. So she has to work first and then she can consume. And now she's doing something productive. She's earning some money and now she can take that money and go and consume. And her consumption now is gonna shift the mix of things that were consumed on this island before. Let's assume now they're 10 maids. They might consume different things than the owners of the home. And that'll create demand for those things which might result in somebody on the island producing the things that she consumed. But it might also just result in the store owner now shifting what he buys or imports from another country. From the United States, let's say. But what he's gonna import is gonna be determined by his assessment of what his customers want. Or his assessment of what he can sell his customers on, what he can convince his customers to buy. And is there ever a circumstances where on this island you could imagine the government or me or any one of us, because remember the government at the end of the day is us, particularly on a small island with a small number of people, it's us. Well, we say to this guy and said, you have to buy from these people. You cannot buy from those people. Or if you buy from those other people, you're gonna have to pay a tax. You're gonna have to pay us for it. How would that ever, how would anybody imagine doing that? Where would that come from? In a rights respecting society. What right would any of us have to tell him you can't buy stuff from Ecuador. You can only buy stuff from Colombia. If you buy from Ecuador, we're gonna tax you. Now we could say as individuals, you know what, if you buy stuff from China, let's say, I'm not gonna buy it. And now we'll shift his behavior. But under no circumstances do I have the right to tax him for buying from some producer and not buying from others and penalizing him. I mean, that, as Wanda Freeman says in the chat, that's like the mafia. So you can, you can start seeing how you could never imagine. You could never conceive of an idea of tariffs on this world. You could never conceive of real limitations and migration on this world, in this world. I mean, because it's such a clear violation of individual rights, of the rights of the people. I'm not talking about the rights of Chinese producers. I'm not talking about the right of the immigrant coming in. I'm just talking about the rights of the hundred people who live on the island. And you can see, of course, that these people as they come in because they're starting, in a sense, from zero, they're starting with nothing. They have to work in order to be able to consume. There's just no other way, unless they're giving gifts. But where does the gift come from? It comes from the work of whoever provided the gift. At the end of the day, wealth has to be produced, has to be worked for. Somebody has to do it. Whether it's the person who gives you the gift or whether it's you, somebody has to do the productive work in order to make that money come into existence. We'll get to money in a little bit. Money's complicated on an island with a hundred people. Yeah, maybe not. All right, well, it is complicated, but we'll see how complex we want to get into it. So this is, now let's say it's not working out. She's no good. And I fire her. Well, now what? Well, she can stay on the island and look for another job or she can leave and look in the rest of the world, go back where she came from or go somewhere else. The fact that she is on my island, the fact that she lives here, if she has a apartment and everything, how does that give her a claim against the income and the wealth of other people on the island? She came here, she did a job. I don't need her anymore. Maybe she did a good job, she did a bad job, but for whatever reason, I don't need her anymore. She can just claim, well, I'm here, pay me to stay. I mean, if somebody wants to out of the goodness of their heart, they certainly can. Don't see why anybody would. Unless, you know, maybe she got into an accident while working for me and now she can't work for me anymore. I'd feel bad about that. I might help supportive for a while on kind of a charity basis, but assuming nothing's happened, she just can't find work, it doesn't want to work. But what right? But what right? Does she lay a claim on other people's wealth and other people's income? So you can see welfare. Welfare is just that. I mean, it's not about millions of people, it's about one person who's lost their job or never has worked. And now because they're alive and because they're here, they demand that somebody feed them, clothe them, house them, buy them an iPhone. Why should anybody? Oh, she can certainly, maybe she's saved up for money, maybe she can buy a store and open a store, maybe she can buy a plot of land and you know, maybe she can do something productive on the island, I'm not kicking it off. But her more responsibility to her life is to figure out where she can be productive, where she can go, where she can live. But that's her responsibility to her life, not mine or the hundred people on the island's responsibility. Again, welfare would never arise. There would be charity. Charity primarily I think focused on the people who bad things have happened to, bad luck, house burned down, maybe there was an insurance. They got sick, you know, they did something that destroyed the capacity to earn for a while. So you can see how welfare is, you know, it just doesn't, again, it doesn't arise. There's no context in which it would be created. And it's obvious, the violation of rights. You know, somebody literally has to go around to all the hundred people on the island with a gun, you know, and say, give me your money, I'm gonna put you in jail. Give me your money, I'm gonna put you in jail. And what are you gonna use the money for? The people might ask, well, Iran's maid was fired and she doesn't have any money to live on, so we're gonna give it to her. I mean, most people would look at this person with kind of a weird looking threatening to put me in jail, she could take my money to give to some stranger. Why is this my problem? Why does this have anything to do with me? So there's no welfare on this island. There cannot be any welfare on the island. Again, people who establish such an island who have self-esteem, who respect their own productive ability and therefore their own wealth, their own what they have done in order to, they're not just gonna give it away under the threat of a gun, they're not gonna allow politicians to reach a state where they could put a gun to them. Of course, there are very few politicians on an island of a hundred. Maybe there's one, he's the judge, he's the sheriff. Maybe he's not the judge and the sheriff. Maybe there are two, one is a judge, one is a sheriff and one of them also serves as president, because I don't know what else. And maybe there's a third guy whose job it is to press the button to launch the nukes, right? That's it. I don't think there's anybody else in the, there's the police, there's the military and there's the judge. And there's somebody who supervises them. For four people max, some people can double up. I think the policeman can also be the guy on the nuke button. I think that's fine, right? So it's a pretty cool, so you don't get welfare because it just, you can't imagine the mechanism by which it would arise. Now, how do you fund these four political guys? How do you fund the policeman? And the nukes need maintenance. They're probably fairly expensive. There's a whole technology, you have to keep them updated. I don't think we're gonna test any on the island, but you certainly need to keep the nukes maintained. I mean, it needs to be kept as a credible threat. So how do you fund this? We've just talked about tariffs, you can't have tariffs. So how do you fund this, right? The three salaries maybe, and maintenance of the nukes and maybe a police car and something like that. That's about it. Well, it's an objectivist-inspired island so we don't believe in coercion and we don't believe in force. She can't coerce this. So you basically, once a year, the people in charge say, okay, here's our budget. We need X amount of money. We need a million bucks. Not only a hundred people in the island. Is that reasonable, you know? We need a million bucks to run. It's high on a capita basis because there are a lot of people and we have three nukes. So what do we do? How are we gonna raise this million dollars? Well, they basically make it a fundraiser. They tell people, look, you want a police, you want the military, you want these nukes, you want to keep it, they appeal to people's self-interest. Well, this is how much it costs. And you can contribute whatever you want when I'm gonna force you and we're gonna advertise a list of how much everybody has given online. I don't know, we're gonna post it in the local Bogosi store, whatever. It's like super chat, exactly. It's a super chat. And everybody's name is gonna be on there and how much money you gave. So like if somebody gives the whole million, the rest of us feel a little uncomfortable because wait a minute, in a sense, he's buying up the whole government apparatus. We don't like anybody to have that much influence. And maybe even the Constitution says no one person could give more than X percentage of the total proceeds, 10% or whatever the total proceeds. We don't want to have too much influence, but it's voluntary. And, you know, one person might have a bad year at some point and no income coming in and he can't really contribute it. And, you know, people are going, wait a minute, we've all paid in and you haven't paid anything. You're kind of free writing off of us. And he says, look, I apologize. It's been a bad year. I can't make it. I promise to make it up next year. And people will probably say, yeah, that's fine. No problem. Cool. And maybe instead of that, the guy says, or maybe the next year, he doesn't make it up. He comes up with excuses and he never makes it up. And then people say, oh, this guy's a real free writer. He's kind of a scumbag. He keeps saying he's going to make it up and he doesn't. Now can they force him then? No, I mean, just because somebody's a scumbag. But we start making him into a social pariah. He's not invited to parties. We discriminate against him at the grocery store. We even have a sign at the front of the grocery store, if you're the owner of the grocery store, you can do this. Saying if you haven't paid your taxes in X number of months, don't even bother coming in. So police it, in a sense, through voluntary action. But no coercion. I don't have to sell you the stuff in my grocery store. So you can see now, again, that when you have such a small function of government, when there's so little for the government to do, you don't need a lot of taxes. Taxes are relatively minor. And it's easy to make them voluntary. And it's easy to, in a sense, monitor who's paying and who's not. And you don't have to force against those who are not paying. You just have to use some social pressure. Again, they don't have to pay. And they can leave if they don't like it. But one of the features of a private society is that you can discriminate. And it's likely that in a rational private society, you would discriminate against people who are trying to free right off of you. And not against people based on the color of their skin or the ethnicity or anything else. But you could. And let's say there was a racist in the town, opened up a coffee shop, put up a big sign on the door, says no Jews allowed. Well, we believe in private property. We believe in free speech. There's nothing. There's no excuse to use violence against this person. But what can we do? We don't like it. Assume we don't like it because we don't like it. We can boycott him. We can not go to the coffee shop. We can refuse him our business. We can walk a few more steps or ride in the car for a few more minutes and go to another coffee shop. I mean, I don't think the maid has to have a prepaid return ticket. The maid just has to explain to her that if she leaves, she's going to have to fund it. Or she'll have to find another work until she raises enough money to leave. Because there's certainly a possibility that she can start her own business in town and stay. So in terms of prejudice or culture, I think the attitude towards all that in a free society is who cares? You want to be prejudice. You want to hold crazy, wacky ideas? I don't want to have anything to do with you. I'm not going to interact with you. And look, interaction is not just. And this is, I think, again, you can imagine this in a place with 100 people rather than 100 million people. But interaction is not just about friendship. Interaction is also about work. Interaction is also about trade. Interaction is also the buying and selling. I don't want to have anything to do. And this is particularly true if you understand that the world is not a zero-sum game, that the world is value-added. I don't want to have anything to do with people who advocate horrible ideas. If I lived in such a place and a communist move on to the island, they're allowed to in my world. I mean, by what right do you do a political test on my maid? None of your business when she moves in. So if you're a communist or if you're a fascist, I, as an individual, won't work for you. Won't trade with you. Won't engage in business with you. How are you going to survive? You're going to have to leave. See, boycott people with bad ideas. You don't use violence. You don't lose force with a legalized force because it's so-called legitimized by government or just individual force. You don't use force. There's no force in this island. There's no coercion. There's the police that is there to retaliate, that is there only as a function of catching the crooks. All right, we've covered that. Banking is too hard. Let's talk about how do we keep, well, let's talk about how wealth is created on this island. How do people get richer? I mean, there's 100 people. We've got some immigrants coming in. I think we'd have a lot of immigrants coming in because it's such a free place. People will come in and set up shop. They would start buying up land from the people who were there originally. They would break up the land at the smaller units. There'd be huge demand for that land. The value of the land would rise. People on the island who came there first, their wealth would rise as the value of the land rose because more people would want it in order to use and to live on and to come there. Every one of the people, the first 100 people, if they started a factory or office or whatever, hired people, programmers, tech guys, whatever, those people would then have now demand for homes. Value of homes would go up. But to build those homes, you'd need construction workers. That's more immigrants coming in to build the homes. Maybe some of them go back. Maybe some of them stay. There's regular business here to build homes. And you can see how you start getting a real economy here. And then more and more people are there. Now there are 200 people or 300 people. And we need to find ways to entertain them. And yes, Netflix is nice, but wouldn't it be nice to do something in person? And maybe we start a little theater. And we invite orchestras from other countries to come by and play music or bands or whatever your thing shtik is or play, what do you call it, actors and to come and produce plays. And people come and they do that. And we build a theater. Somebody runs the theater. And you can see how the quality of life as more people come, as more interaction there is, as more specialization happens, as we bring in more and more specialized people. And this, of course, is necessary. Because of the fact that immigration is open and anybody with skills, anybody with talent, anybody who has an idea of how to produce something, to make something that has a value to the people already there, or who can do it remotely and produce values for other people around the world, but still be then and start consuming on the island, which is, again, a value to the other people on the island. You can see how this immigration creates nothing but positives. Now it gets more crowded, so let's hope we're starting with a big island. Or maybe the island is an artificial island. And we can keep adding modules to it. And we can keep expanding it through modules and just taking over more and more and more of the sea. Who knows? You could let your imagination roam. Maybe it's a space station. And we keep adding to the space. I don't know. And one of the feedbacks says, who does the job interview for the policeman and judge? Interesting. I don't know. I think that's the only part of the system where you actually vote. So that's where there's an election. We all do the job interview. They propose themselves. They advertise. They have suggestions about what they would do. And we vote. And my guess is that most of the time they'd only be one candidate. But if that candidate got corrupted or they were doing things a little wrong or we didn't like what they were doing, then somebody else would go for the job. And we would get a choice. The only context in which we're going to vote is to vote these people in. And as the thing grows, maybe we'd need a small legislature. And maybe we'd create, I think the Constitution would already do this, create some division of powers and allow for the political entity to grow, but grow only in some proportion to the population. You could probably have some recall election. You could probably have a process of impeachment, which would require that. I mean, this is the kind of stuff that the Constitution, Robert Stovefield says, and he's right. This is the kind of Constitution that kind of stuff the Constitution says. Is it one man, one vote? No tax, not one tax. One man, one vote. Does everybody vote? The immigrants vote? Probably not. But there are people who are just born in the island vote. I mean, I have, you know, I would argue that maybe you have to pass a test before you vote, no matter whether you're an immigrant or whether you're already there. Maybe there's certain things that only certain people can vote. I mean, this is the kind of work that needs to be done to really structure Constitution and structure the process, the details of what actually constitutes it. Yeah, there would definitely be a minimum voting age, or there would be, if there's a test, as I think there should be, then you have to pass the test and the test would be really, really hard and nobody under a certain age would be able to pass it. Would there be child labor laws? Of course not. Why would there be child labor laws? Whose rights are being infringed when children go to work, deliver papers, or go to the factory for that matter? There's no keyboards, there's no sharing, there's no equality. The only thing that gets voted on really is who the judge, the policeman, and the guy with the button on the nukes. And over time, you might imagine you need a legislature because there are issues about property rights that are getting complex and you wanna be able to define them clearly and you need a legislature in order to do that and you might elect the legislature. But again, that's the Constitution. Even it's an origin would describe the process of how this political entity would evolve so that it would take into account the growth complexity of society but always maintain the principles. Yeah, of course all drugs are legal. Again, you're not violating anybody's rights. I mean, how would you exclude drugs? What would be the criteria for excluding a drug? And who would decide? Would you now build an entire medical bureaucracy to decide which drugs are legal and which drugs are not? Would you then establish a whole police force that regulated this and supervised this and monitored what you were injecting exactly and whether it was approved or not approved? I mean, think about this again with a hundred people. Let's say I wanted to buy, let's say I took some poison, Clorox, which is poison. And instead of using it to clean the floors, I injected it into myself. Is that illegal? I mean, who gets to decide that fentanyl is destructive? By what standard? Why is it my business if you want to take fentanyl? Why is it my business if you want to destroy their lives? There's lots of ways to destroy your life. Lots of ways. You could drink too much and a lot of people destroy their lives by drinking too much. You could eat too much. You can eat the wrong food. That would be destroy your life. You could sleep with the wrong people, have sex with the wrong people. That could destroy your life. Sugar's pretty destructive. You can gouge yourself on sugar. Yeah, fentanyl is more destructive than some of these things, less than others. Who gets to decide? Science decides. Reality decides that it's destructive. Who gets to decide which destructive things are okay for people to use and which destructive things are not okay for people to use? Why do you get to decide for me? Why is it any of your business? Why a drug special? Why isn't the same thing applied to food? Why isn't the same thing applied to sex? Why isn't the same thing applied to education? What if I decide that my kids are going to not get an education? I'm just gonna let them party. I'm just gonna let them roam around all day. I'm not gonna send them to school. Now you might think I'm immoral. You might boycott me. You might not wanna sell me stuff in your grocery store because you think that I'm not raising my kids appropriately. But it's none of your business. None of your business. I wonder if you guys are getting detail. Who records property? Who records at the beginning? It's the policeman or the president or whatever. And over time you create a property registry, a patent registry, you know, you do all the things that a full government needs. And again, all of that is in the Constitution. It gives the government the authority the Constitution does to have these things. But you can see that once you ball it down to 100 people living in a place, it's, I think, clearer to see. And this is the point I think Adam was trying to get us to. It's clearer to see how these things work. Yeah, it's a function of the courts. That's why it's the policeman or the judge. The judge, I guess, would do it. Judges doesn't have a lot of work to do. So it matters what to double up and do more than one thing. And yeah, some of the registration would cost money and that's some of the way to pay their judge his salary. You know, there are a variety of different ways in which the government provides certain services that can be charged for. But not everything can be charged for. So you can see that on a small scale we can understand how this works and how rights are protected and how it seems unimaginable and unthinkable to violate somebody's rights. Drugs can make people like animals, absolutely. And if the animal misbehaves, then there's a jail. And you penalize people for their actions that violate other people's rights. You don't penalize people for, let's say it makes you act like an animal, but before you take the drug, you build a padded room in your house and for now you act like an animal inside the padded room, you can't get yourself out of it. And why do I care? I care if you're going into my property and abusing it. I care if you're driving like a maniac on the road and placing the risk of other people infringing on their risk. Plus the roads are private, so I can set the rules of how you drive on my road. So I care about what you do and I don't let you off the hook because you're under the influence. Maybe the penalties are even harsher if you commit a crime under the influence than if you didn't commit a crime under the influence. I don't know. These are the kind of things you'd have to work out as legal philosophy. Now here's Adam, this is great you're on. You can also see how quickly it goes bad. If the far left or the far right was suddenly in charge of this prosperous island. Yeah, I mean you could see it immediately. If you start taxing people, if you start using coercion, if you start banning certain behaviors like even drugs, it starts with drugs and then it goes to banning discrimination. And then it starts saying, okay well we're gonna take your money to help the fire made. And then we're gonna say, wait a minute, I don't like you building these condominium buildings right next to my property. I want some zoning, I want some planning. And you can see once you accept even a order of force, once you accept even for the sake of protecting people from themselves, protecting them from drugs, once you accept a little bit of force, the whole thing deteriorates. The whole thing goes away. So yeah, I think you can see how it works and how it doesn't. We can think in terms of money. I mean, it's simple. The bank, somebody starts a bank on the island. The bank says, look, we're gonna issue our own currency. It's the brook bank. And you're gonna have, you're gonna get brook dollars. And each brook dollar is backed by gold. And in order to open an account with us, you have to buy gold and you have to deposit it at the bank. We can arrange that for you, don't worry. If you bring your American dollars, the Canadian dollars or whatever you bring to us, we'll go out there into the financial markets, we'll buy the gold, we'll put it on reserve here and we'll issue you brook dollars. And you can always exchange those brook dollars into gold. I mean, not always, most of the time. Most of the time depends on the contract. Then we use those brook dollars to issue loans. We encourage people to open saving accounts with us so they're locked up for a while. They can't just take them whenever they want. And you create, maybe there's another competitor that arises, it's the Ed Bank. And Ed issues his own dollars and he runs it a little differently and he makes different loans and we compete. And likely that Ed also backs up his currency with gold, but maybe he doesn't, maybe he backs it with Bitcoin. And we'll see which one works better, which one makes more sense. And in the middle, in the meantime, most people don't use brook dollars because it's too inconvenient. They usually exchange the book dollars for dollars because that's what they're trading with overseas, but as the economy locally grows and there's more exchanges happening on the island, it becomes easier, it's more stable, you know exactly its value, it's backed by gold. And now you only convert it to dollars when you're exchanging something or somebody outside. You're always looking at the exchange rate between dollars and gold. You know, the book exchange rate with gold is flat, it's steady, it's a given. All right, let's put a line there, we're already at almost an hour, wow, okay. Let's see if there are questions relating directly to this, but we'll start with $20 questions. Roland says, kudos to Adam for sponsoring this. This is precisely what I think is solely missing from the objective is content, all right. Hopefully that was helpful. I'm curious, Roland, if you thought that was the kind of content that's missing and that was helpful content, I need to be able to speak. Let's see, oh, we've got some 50 dollar questions. I forgot, let's do the 50s first. Liam says, as I'm reading through the comments section on your videos, I'm seeing the majority of enthusiastic and positive. I used to be, it used to be half to two thirds or negative. The number of enthusiastic young people understanding and fighting for objectivism is growing. I think that's absolutely right. I think we're making an impact, as I always tell you, it's one mind at a time. I don't think there's shortcuts. Remember, more and more and more people are reading Iron Rand every year, hundreds of thousands of people are reading Iron Rand. Now, when they read Iron Rand, there's so many avenues open to them in terms of learning more about the ideas. There's all the courses that Picoff has done that's available online for free. There's all the material that Iron Rand Institute puts out. There's all the lectures, courses, Iron Rand University, you know, ARC, UK, and there's your own book show and all the other objectivists who do shows all over the place. There's just a ton of content. So whereas in the past, I think, somebody who read the book and got excited, it excited my mind if faded because they didn't know anybody and they didn't quite understand and they didn't know who to ask and there wasn't that amount of content and to get a lot of people's courses cost a lot of money and they didn't have that. In the meantime, their parents and their schoolmates and their teachers were all coming down on them and condemning them and marginalizing them for holding these ideas and they had no support network and they gave up. And now, it's not that more people are reading, more people are exposed, it's now there's a support network. See, community does matter and that support network does matter. It does help. It helps keep people from fading away. All right, we just to give you an update with $372, so $228 to make it to 600. I think that's very, very doable today and that would be great. Let's see, Hopper, Hopper Campbell, another $50, thank you. I mean, with $50, we could make it, a few $50 would make it there very quickly, right? Hopper says, the problem with a lot of objectivist intellectuals is they violate the spirit. They violate the spirit but not the letter of objectivism. They understand it academically and can explain the ideas in a wonkish, unemotional way, but they're not raw, raw fiber and speakers. I don't think that's violating the spirit. I mean, I get what you're saying, but, you know, don't disparage. It's, a lot of that is an issue of personality and it's an issue of the kind of work that the intellectual does. And for most intellectuals, I'd say actually for most intellectuals, the main thing they do is write. They're not, you know, out there interacting with thousands of people and they don't need to be because the fact is that the thing that actually moves the world is the written word. It's books and articles, essays, that's what matters in the end. It's what lasts. It's what you can retain. It's what you highlight and underline and think about and go back to constantly. I keep going back to Iron Rands nonfiction essays. Not her lectures. I don't listen to Iron Rands that often. I certainly read her. So there's a division of labor among intellectuals. Among objectives intellectuals, just any, like any other movement. Every movement is the same in this sense. Those are gonna be more charismatic, if you will. They're gonna be better verbal communicators. They're gonna get people excited. They're gonna deliver the message with more emotion, but they don't necessarily go, let's say, to as much depth. They don't do as much writing. They don't develop the ideas in the way that they need to be developed. So I'll give you a personal example. So I don't know. You could argue that somebody like Greg, go on call, uncle got it, Greg, tell him you are not the most energizing, rah-rah public intellectuals. I couldn't do what I do without them. So to the extent that I am the rah-rah guy, right? My rah-rah comes not so much. A lot of it doesn't come so much from my original thinking about abstract ideas and about the idea philosophical ideas. But my taking those abstract ideas from people like Uncle and Greg, and we formulating them or delivering them in a way that is understandable to people, that is motivating to people, that is condensed for people, that's integrated for people. But that's my job. My job is a communicator, not necessarily as a originator of the ideas. So there's all kinds of intellectuals and they all serve an important function. And to criticize some because they're not the same as others is a big mistake. What we need is hundreds of objective intellectuals all doing their thing in the way that they do it as long as they are intellectual and as long as they are producing content. And content could be teaching content, could be writing content, could be lecturing content, could be advising, educating. It could be small groups because they're training the future intellectuals. I mean, where would we be? Without the training that future intellectuals get. Maybe those future intellectuals are more like me, but they need to be trained. Maybe like people who are less charismatic. So there's a clear division of labor within the world of intellectuals and don't disparage the ones that you don't necessarily connect to, to a large extent, because you probably don't know what they're doing, an extent of their influence. All right, R&G Papi says does society have a right to preserve cultural political values? Does Hungary have the right to remain hungry? Or is it a moral for them to prevent mass migration from a radically different culture, this Israel? So let's take the island. There's a hundred people on the island. I've hired a maid to come and work with me on the island. The maid comes from a very different culture. She's from the Philippines. And I've also hired some construction workers because I wanna build an office building on this island and I must hire some workers to come and work in the office building. They're gonna be programmers. And the construction workers I've hired are from and I'll go with the stereotypes. They're gonna be from Mexico. And a lot of the programmers are Hungarians, Eastern Europeans. And now just because of me, there are 225 people on the island, 25 of them, not from the original 100 who founded it and are bringing in a new culture, new music, new attitudes. Now all the land is private. So they still have to live by the law. They still have to abide by the law. But they open up their own bars. They open up bars that may be different than the kind of bars you're used to or maybe they invite musical groups to perform that may be different than your musical groups. And now when you walk around the street maybe the first 100 people had generally white skin and now suddenly they've got all kinds of colored skins. Now you tell me at what point anybody on this island has a right to say, stop, you can't do this anymore. We've got a culture, we've got to preserve. Nobody has that right. And you create a constitution to make sure that the constitution could not be changed and you create, or not change easily obviously and you create a constitution that maybe doesn't allow the new people come to the island to vote at least not for a long time or not until they pass the test. But by what right do you limit who comes into your country? By what right do you limit my ability as a resident in the country to invite whoever I want to come here to work for me? And what are the standards? I'm gonna give them a test if they're religious, they can't come. If they're brown skin, they can't come. If they come from shithole countries, they can't come. What's the standard by which you define this? So again, in a free country, in a free country, you have no right to limit people's ability to employ people from anywhere in the world that they want to. You have no basis, no basis in rights. Rights is all you care about. To stop people from entering the country again, unless there are threats somehow and you have to define that threat. Now, why do we want Hungary to stay hungry? What's the value of Hungary? Roland here says he's from Hungary. As a Hungarian, I certainly object to Hungary remaining what it was in the past. Hopefully it will become more like America, yeah. And what is more like America means? A right respecting country that welcomes anybody who's willing to work and is willing to respect the rights of other people. And in a free world, the same goes for Israel, absolutely. So again, Israel is unique only because the Jewish people are constantly under threat. If that threat goes away, cause people are generally rational, then yeah. Anybody should be able to go anywhere. I think at the end of the day, this is why there'd be a lot fewer countries. There won't be just one, but there'd be a lot fewer countries than there are today because who the hell cares what the borders are exactly around Hungary and why is that special? So absolutely, it's all now mass migration is tricky because if land, you know, take the island for example, you can't just have people coming and entering the country uninvited. You can't just have people coming onto the island because there's private property and just putting up tents. And Gary and so on have a right to decide. Oh, it's exactly right. Let the Canadians decide. The Canadians have decided they want vaccine mandates. They decided it. They elected Trudeau. They elected Trudeau just five months ago under the banner of vaccine mandates. Let the Canadians decide. There's no issue of rights anymore. It's the hell with rights. God, you guys make me angry. You cannot have let the people decide, let the Hungarians decide, and individual rights and the same umbrella doesn't exist. Once you say, let the people decide, individual rights out. Individual rights out. There's no such thing. We're talking about here about the principle. We're talking here about rights. We're talking about here about a free society. And God, when did Hungary develop its culture? And who did it steal it from? And to what extent is it original? Wasn't Hungary's culture mainly a result of being part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and importing much of it from Austria, which was richer and more prosperous and more successful? Am I getting into trouble here? What is Hungarian culture? Is it different than Austrian culture? Maybe. And some things, food is a little different. But essentially the good things about the Hungarian culture are good things about European culture. What's so Hungarian about them? Operetta, a couple of composers. We talked about immigration. Immigration is my right as a citizen to invite anybody I want to my place, to work for me, to produce for me. Can't produce, you have to leave. Why is it any, again, why is it anybody else's business who I invite onto my island? My property. My business. My real estate. And again, mass migration is not possible because, because, thank you Travis, really appreciate you becoming a multi-subscriber to YBS. Really appreciate that. Adam says immigration goes back to production. On the island only the productive would be motivated to move there. Yes, because there's nothing else they can get there. But also they can just come, right? They can come and rent a hotel room. That's fine. Hotel rooms are available. But they can't squat on anybody's land because everything is private property. So mass migration is out. There is no such thing as mass migration in a free society. You don't accept mass migration. And I don't think any country should accept mass migration. And mass migration is completely an artificial phenomena usually of war. A real, some other real destructive phenomenon. And yeah, you have every right to stop mass migration. By the way, you know, it's not like Hungary stopped mass migration to Hungary. None of the people who tried to migrate wanted to go to Hungary. Every single one of those Muslims who came from wherever in the world who wanted to go through Hungary to get to Germany, Sweden, places where they got checks. Nobody wanted to stay in Hungary. Hungary didn't close the border to protect Hungary. They closed the border to protect Germany. And the real reason they closed the border was to make a point that they were the defendants of Western civilization because they weren't letting the barbarians in. But the Hungarians, none of the people wanted to stay in Hungary. None of them did. Royal Lent says all that is good in Hungarian culture is ultimately based on ancient Greece. Yes. All that is good in Western civilization is ultimately based on ancient Greece. Greeks? They're Southern Europeans. We don't like Greeks. But yeah, they get cred for all the culture we have. Well, it says the things you covered in the show are good stuff. We need more of this. Nothing like a positive vision of the world we want to achieve. Yeah, I agree. You still get to all this negativity and about these issues. Yes, Greece as an Athens, not Sparta, absolutely. Thanks, wonderful. Greece, when we say Greece, at least on this show we mean Athens. I mean Athens. So there is no such thing as preserving a culture. You want to preserve your political values, absolutely. You do that by having a powerful, strong constitution. And you do that by articulating who can vote and who can change that constitution. And you make it very, very difficult. That's how you preserve your political values. But I'm not sure that any political values in Hungary right now that are deserving of preserving. I mean, Hungary now is borderline authoritarian, has horrible political culture, horrible political values. Basically, Ottawa is basically divided up the country among his family and college and high school friends and giving it to them. Ed says, I'm confused, Iran. Isn't that what's happening in our Southern border mass migration? Didn't you support that? But today you say no mass migration. I've never supported it in terms of willy-nilly anybody, millions of people just crossing the border. I have proposed, and I've been very clear on what I proposed, you have a job, you allow it in. In the current context of America, in a free society where all property is privately owned, the government has no role in immigration, just has no job in it. But mass migration is impossible because everything is private property. And all those people just crossing the border where they're crossing the border right now will be infringing on private property and we'd be prosecuted for violations of private property. But today, when 75% of all the land west of the Mississippi is owned by the government, we don't have a free country with private property. But we should have check posts. On the Southern border, I've said this many times, we should make it super, super easy for anybody to immigrate. As many people as can get a job in the United States should be allowed to immigrate into the United States. Given that we have a welfare state and given all the other constraints that we have in America today and given the fact that not all property is private and it's not a completely free. Anybody who can get a job, whatever job, as a gardener, as a garbage collector, as a programmer, anybody who has an employer who's willing to send them a letter saying, when you come to the US, I'll give you a job that's verifiable, should be allowed into the country. And then you'd not have mass migration anymore. The only reason we have mass migration on the Southern border is because we have such a primitive, broken, decrepit, inefficient, and ineffectual legal immigration system. If you want to reduce illegal immigration, well, legalize it. I want legal immigration for hundreds of thousands to millions of people because right now there's 10 million jobs going unfilled in America today so you could bring in 10 million people and they'd have jobs and 10 million new people came to the US, just their activity would create more jobs so you'd have to bring in more. Yeah, immigration is going to be substantial but based on jobs, which is how I explained it on the island, right, nobody comes in who can't afford to produce, who can't produce because what are they gonna live on otherwise? So everything I said in the true to the hundred people on the island is true to immigration today. If you can afford to come to the United States and live in the United States without being dependent on welfare, you know, come on over. Well, what happens if you get fired after you get here? Maybe after several years, should you be sent back? I mean, ask the question, an island, I actually gave you, that is an example on the island. The maid gets fired. Well, as long as you don't allow them to get welfare, then they either find another job or they leave. It's pretty simple or if they have savings, they can live off their savings. Or if some charity wants to pay for their existence and some charity can pay for their existence, why do you have to have set laws, set rules? It depends on how they're gonna finance their existence but existence needs to be financed. So the state doesn't have to impede or decide where they're gonna live. But the state can say, you're not getting anything from us, figure it out. Even in a mixed economy, we could ban immigrants from getting welfare for the first 20 years. We cannot allow them to vote for at least one generation. You could do a lot of things with it in order to preserve these things. Now society cannot design itself, that's democracy. We're not for democracy. All right, anyway. I don't wanna get bogged down in immigration, it's a stupid topic. If Reagan could not have been elected without an Iran, Michael asks, how come after Reagan thinks slid back? You would think Iran would have had greater influence on politics as more time went on. No, I mean, I don't think she had a lot of influence at the deep level. She had a big influence on a superficial level. She had the influence at the level of making things like capitalism a positive view of capitalism, a positive view of markets, a positive view even of pursuing your own happiness in a sense of, if you remember that generation in the 80s was called the me generation. Me, me, me. A sudden okayness to being a little selfish. Not fully selfish in the objective sense. So she had an impact on the sense of life. On the attitudes, but not on the ideas and the philosophy. Not enough. So it didn't go deep. Didn't go deep. If it had gone deep, it would have survived. Michael says, people can't even tolerate the N-word in a movie. You really think they tolerate gulags and concentration camps? Humanity is too soft and dust off another shore. Oh God, you are so naive, Michael. People don't tolerate the N-word because it's the N-word and because it's being deemed politically offensive. But the culture can turn like that on people. And it can turn very quickly. I mean, again, I've told you this many times. If you'd asked people in 1925 in Germany, if they could imagine a day in which there would be concentration camps in the heart of Europe, they would have said you're insane. I mean, we don't, we might not like the Jews but we're civilized. And they turned on a dime because people's ideas are so mushy, because they're so anti-conceptual, because they're not tied to a proper morality and a proper epistemology. They are easily, they are gullible and they easily manipulated and they can easily become the victims. Victims is the wrong word. They can embrace and embrace an ideology that leads them to concentration camps. It's happened before. It happened in Germany, of all the countries in the world in Germany. Who would have believed that? Nobody in the 20s would have believed that. Or in the teens, or in the late 19th century. Michael also asks, you notice the package deal anti-social. That's how the characterized sociopaths and criminal types as anti-social personality disorder as though not wanting to follow the collective and fit in makes you defective. Yes, anti-social is definitely a package deal. It packages together individualists who might not want to be second-handed or why not just want to follow the group who might not fit in in a conventional sense with real sociopaths. And you have to be very careful when they start talking about things like he's anti-social. Michael also asks, Michael asks a lot of questions, but they're all $20 questions, or most of them so. I had a professor say, absolutely certainly leads to Auschwitz. Isn't this a package deal? Yes, absolutely certainly as evil ideas leads to terror, but absolutely certainly in reality and reason leads to tyranny being impossible. Absolutely. And you hear this all the time. All the time. That Sunty is fascism. That Sunty is authoritarianism. And here they're mixing epistemology with politics. Yes, Sunty of a leader on how you should live and what your value should be is authoritarian. That's the political. And it's got a epistemological implication. He knows more what's good for you than you do. But suddenly, an epistemology is necessary for human beings to live, to thrive, to survive, to achieve happiness, and to be free. Andy asks, would political parties exist in a free society that has internalized the idea that government cannot violate rights? What is the correct way to deal with factions in terms of using the majority to capture government? I don't know if you have political parties. It really depends, and you'd have to really think this through in a sense of what are the kind of disagreements that would happen, legitimate disagreements, that would happen in the context of a proper constitution. And to what extent do you think those disagreements will cluster around particular ideas so that all the disagreements would be of A and then all the other type of disagreements, they would be opposed by B and they would cluster around those? Or would the disagreements go in all kinds of other directions and not be clear to cluster around a party where they captured all those disagreements? I don't know. I don't know. The clearer the constitution is, the more radical the constitution is, the less one, and of course the founding fathers, never didn't believe that there would be political parties, although they started them almost immediately, but they were hoping there would be no political parties, there would be no factions. And I think that's the right goal, that is the clearer the constitution is, the better the constitution is, then you don't have political parties because it's pretty clear, and there might be differences in personality, there might be differences on marginal issues, there might be differences in style, there might be differences in, I don't know, there could be differences in terms of certain definitional issues or certain approaches to foreign policy, what constitutes a threat, what is a threat to the interest of American citizens, to the lives and property of Americans, what doesn't constitute a threat, so you could imagine around foreign policy issues, there being some divergence, but again, I think that divergence is between individuals rather than between political parties because it's not, there's no principle, I don't think, but again, I think you'd really have to think it through, you'd really have to think it through. What is the, how much, how much degrees of freedom are left to politicians once you have the proper constitution in place, and what does that look like? That's a good question. Adam asks, back to the island, a hyperproductive person would not be constrained by the other occupants because the people would be negatively impacted, because the people, the Bezos types, they would not be vilified, the contrary. The Bezos types, they would be heroes. I mean, any healthy culture would be Bezos as a hero. He's made life better for every productive person, probably on planet Earth, certainly in the United States. Even if you lost your job because of Bezos, he's made your life better. The kind of jobs that are available to you are better than the job you lost. And you live in a free world where you are enjoying, you're the beneficiary directly and indirectly of all the wealth creation that others have produced. So the more productive a person is, once a culture internalizes the idea and makes it part of the culture, that the world is not as zero as some world, that your gain is my gain, that in a free market, it's win-win. Then the more productive you are, the more values you've created, the more you benefited me, the more I admire you, the more I respect you. Oh, I mean, this hungry question keeps going on. The Hungarian language is very unique and unlike anything else in Europe. Who cares? Why is there even a Hungarian language? Lots of languages have gone on to existence. Is it really that bad for the world that languages go out of existence? It just makes it more difficult to communicate having multiple languages. Hungarians migrated to where they present Hungary is a long time ago over a great distance. Yeah, they did. They should go back to where they came from. I'm kidding. So what? Some Hungarians still immigrate out of Hungary and they go other places. And some people might move into Hungary from other places. Why does any of that matter? Why does language? If you wanna keep talking Hungarian, nobody's gonna stop you. I think, you know, this is, I mean, language is a big part of nationalism and I think it's a detriment. I mean, it hurts Puerto Rico here because there was a period in Puerto Rico in history a few decades ago where they decided they wanted to become independent and they wanted to leave the United States. So the governor who wanted this basically banned the teaching of English in schools. So there's a whole generation or two here in Puerto Rico who never learned English in school. Now, is that good for them or bad for them? Bad for them. It's detrimental to them. But what is it about the places where we come from? Like my ancestors came from Lithuania. I have no feeling of longing for Lithuania. I have no interest in going to see the little shtetl village that my ancestors came from. Lithuania, Latvia, that area of the world. That's where my ancestors came from. So who the hell cares? By the way, that was three generations ago. Since then, they've lived in South Africa and my parents were born there. They've lived in Israel. I was born there. Now I live in the United States. My children were born here. Who cares? Maybe we should send me back to Lithuania, where I belong. I don't think the Lithuanians would want that. Although, I hear that I could apply for Lithuania in passport. That might be worthwhile doing. Gives me access to Europe. Iran, go back to Lithuania. Yeah. Or Brie went to visit her ancestors' castle in Ireland. Yeah, I mean, if my ancestors had a castle, I would go visit, sure. But look, Brie, my ancestors didn't have a castle. They had a little, you know, they had a synagogue. At least one line of them, they're all rabbis. I mean, I come from a long, long line of very, very Orthodox religious Jews, rabbis. So I don't wanna go back to visit their synagogues. To visit their synagogues. If it was a castle, that would be cool. Castles are cool. Yeah, I know. I don't think there's a Iran, the great in the past. Remember, you know, Jews are not allowed to become the great. They weren't allowed to become, you know, it's rare that they were allowed to become too wealthy. They were regularly slaughtered because they were outsiders and they were different. Maybe that's why I get so upset at the nationalism, the xenophobia, the racism. Maybe cause the history of my people is wanna be persecuted for being different. Shadow Blade, thank you for the support. I appreciate it. Jews are not just, one of the people says, Jews are not allowed to own slaves. Not only weren't we allowed to own slaves, but we were slaves in the past. Spassboy says that Trump won. Wow, I didn't know that. God, this must be breaking news. Quite a revelation, I'd say. Amazing. They never go away. The mindless Trump boys never go away. It's pretty amazing. Yeah, we weren't allowed, you know, so let's see. Friend Harper says, I think a book about this Las Vegas Island would be wonderful. A neat way to concretize, to concretize this ideal. I'm starting with getting, gaining sovereignty and expanding it on objectivism principles. Do I have to talk about the nukes in the book? Cause I don't wanna give that away cause I'm keeping that as my secret weapon for when I actually start the island, right? I'm afraid that if I mention the nukes in the book, then the powers to be will prevent us from ever building the island. Friend Harper says something from ingenuism. I thought would be helpful for the YBS audience. The difference between preventing a problem versus solving a problem. Paternalism is fundamentally preventing problems with force versus innovating solutions. Yes, I mean, regulation is preventing problems but it's, it's, it's, doesn't even know what the problem is there. It's preempting. Preempt of law is bad versus under freedom what you get is innovation. What you get is solving problems. What you get is constantly working to figure out how to make things better. The whole focus is on making things better not on the downside, but on the upside on creating wealth, on creating values. All right, it looks like we have $100 shorts. $104 technically, but $100 short. So if somebody could come in with $100 and would be there, we could get $520 questions. You guys know the math. We get $10, $10 questions. But let's try to make $600, make Catherine's Day and just keep us on there. Yesterday was amazing, right? All right, Daniel says, have you been to Vieques or Kuleba Island yet? I've been to Vieques. So Vieques was one of the first places I came to when I visited Puerto Rico. At the time there was a W Hotel there. There was beautiful and amazing. Since then it was destroyed by Maria. And I think it's been bought by one of the Bitcoin billionaires on the island. So it's no longer a W. Now it's, we'll see what he does with it. But basically it was bought by a Bitcoin billionaire. Rafael says, the Socialist Party won elections by majority recently in Portugal. Oh no, that's not good. Anyone is hiring in the US. Yeah guys, but they don't want you Rafael because you're not American. If anybody has a job for Rafael, please hire him. He wants to get out of Portugal. Just as I'm visiting, right? Brett says, what is the fate of the national parks and wilderness areas under free market capitalism, prior time? Well, all land should be privately owned. They are privatized. And I think the government auctions them off and it depends if the people buying them are people who wanna preserve them as national parks and wilderness, they will. And if the people buying them want to develop housing communities there and cliffside things, then they will buy them. But it should be private property one way or the other. Hopefully, because we all love national parks and wilderness areas, the people who buy them and the people who value them the most are going to be the people who wanna preserve them as wilderness areas or as parks. And they're the ones who raise the money and they raise more money than anybody else and they buy that property. But there's nothing to say that any particular property needs to be a wilderness area and any particular property needs to be a national park. Those are dependent on what people want and what people want is reflected in how much money they're willing to pay for it. If the value of having a national park is very high, people are willing to pay a lot of money for them. And then it's just a matter of creating a foundation or creating an organization that gets all that money in order to buy them. Free trade, thank you for the contribution. Really appreciate it, thanks for the support. All land should be privately owned. Governments should own no land, except for military bases, police, things. Jeff, thank you, great hypothetical show. I wish it existed, me too, believe me. That's 100 Canadian dollars. That gets us very close to 600 American dollars. In old days, when the Canadian dollar was close to the American dollar, we would have been there, but we're not quite there yet. So Catherine will do the math and let us know how close we are or not. A11 U Pencil says, is talking about your new clips? You said they were just commercials and an ad. So couldn't a one minute elevator pitch also take off if done as an ad? Maybe, but I think what people like about the one minute clips, I think, and we can certainly experiment with this. But I think that what they like about the one minute ad is they're not canned. What they like about them is that they're spontaneous. What they like about it is that they just come across as a spontaneous thing, right? But we can certainly try to do some canned ones and see, of course, canned is more work for me, more money if we edit them and right now we'll take them as they are and see how far that gets us and maybe we'll have to produce one minute videos at some point. It's slowing down today. It's coming down now again. So we'll see if another video takes off again and pushes us up into the status here. Kyle with 20 bucks and almost 600 bucks. So it's probably 590 something. Thanks for the show. Have you seen the Eat and Press copy of Atlas Shrugged? Is that like the Leatherbound copy? I think so. It's beautiful. It's a beautiful edition. So the Leatherbound copies of Atlas Shrugged is called Eastern Press. Eastern Press, they are truly beautiful, beautiful versions. You guys should definitely get some. Liam asks, the growth of your show was stagnant for so long. How did you maintain motivation to keep doing it? Because it's not about sheer numbers. I mean, you guys provide me with their ongoing motivation. The fact that in spite of the stagnant growth, Super Chat was always very healthy and good. The fact that the monthly contributors keep contributing. The fact that every show, somebody comes out and says, hey, because of you I read, I ran, or because of this, of that, that you did. You know, that's what keeps me going. The sheer numbers are nice to see them grow, but it's not the standard that I use. It can't be because this is not about the sheer numbers. One of the things that really motivates me is the fact that in the OEC class, the Objectivist Academic Center class, a number of the students there that are taking advanced courses in Objectivism and are the future intellectuals, say that they discovered Objectivism and became interested in becoming Objectivist Intellectuals because of my work or they were inspired by me at some level, some point, somehow. That doesn't take millions, right? And anyway, I'm convinced that if you do the work, if you do good work, if you continue doing it, if you experiment, if you try different things, but if fundamentally the work is good, and ideas are right, then you will grow. Now, I know that if I structured these videos differently, if I made them shorter, if they were more scripted, if I looked more at the camera, I didn't say, you know, and there was one topic and there was a lesson to add, get this all the time. I lose a lot of people, particularly on the podcast, but particularly people who don't watch live because I interact with the chat, right? They don't like it. And I can understand them not like it. They're listening on their headphones as they're taking their walk or as they're doing something else. They don't want to hear me communicate with the chat when they can't see the chat itself. So I know that there are things that I could do to make this show reach bigger audiences. I don't tell logic stand because I'm trying to do something that I really enjoy on top of everything else. I like the interaction with the chat. I like doing this with you guys. Even, you know, even when I think people being irrational gives me a sense about the culture. If on my chat, people are as irrational and sometimes, sometimes irrational, sometimes nationalistic, sometimes just wrong on so many things that it gives me a sense of what the culture's about, what's going on in the culture. So to me, it's invaluable to be interacting with you and I like the live aspect of it. But I get it that this could be bigger if it was different. And the other thing about scripted shows is they take a lot of work. I mean, a lot of work. I couldn't produce eight hours a week of this stuff. And it's a different kind of work and it's not work I enjoy that much. And I'm at a point in my career, I mean, this is reality. I'm at a point in my career. I mean, my purpose in life is not to protestize and convert you. I mean, that's, I'll do that as long as I enjoy doing that. But I'm at a point in my career where I don't like, I'm not gonna do things I don't like doing. I'm not gonna do things that I don't enjoy doing. And I'm not gonna do things that are so time consuming. Other things that I do that are also important, I can't do them. So for now, this is what we're gonna do. Now, if I get to the point where I can do one scripted show a month, maybe, maybe we'll see. Yeah, and then you can, yes, I could hire a director, I could hire a producer. I could do all these things partially. There's still not really enough money in this to do all that. So I pay Action Jackson to do all the videos and the one minute videos and the short videos and editing and some marketing and stuff like that. And yes, I've hired marketing firms in the past. They have not worked out well. People have produced short videos for me that were more scripted and slick, didn't really work. I think there's something about the authenticity of the show that helps. But yes, I'm sure I could up all of those things. I'm sure I could up all of that stuff, but it's not easy. It's not easy. And even if you up the quality of all those things, there's no guarantee that it would actually work. And it's a lot more work for me and it's a lot more money for me at this point. If I got to the point where, and I think I've said this in the past, if we could double the monthly support, yeah, double it, then I'd go full out and hire top-notch like marketing production teams to see how they could help do this. I mean, that would free up enough of my time so I could focus on doing that. But that would, we would have to double, we would have to double the monthly regular support that we get right now. All right, free trade says, idea for funding of a lot as if a government. Government sets up Goldback Crypto, which is voluntary to use and takes a small cut of every transaction. PPL uses this currency so a lot, people use this currency as long as they think government is doing a good job, thoughts. Well, why? I mean, my bank is also gonna set up a Goldback Crypto. Who do you think is gonna do a better job providing that Goldback Crypto to the people? How can government compete in the competition of currencies? So I don't see how, you know, this is the problem with a lottery, this is the problem with anything the government does that private sector can also do, how they compete? They're not gonna be better than everybody else. So I think that's a challenge. All right, quickly, Michael says, who told you Sam Harris said he had nothing to do with you? He knows who you are. Yeah, I think he doesn't know who I am. I think he was Dave Rubin. Dave Rubin told me, who at the time was very friendly with Sam Harris, had a great relationship with him. So that's who told me. Great way to illustrate the concepts. Thank you, Michael asked, political parties won't exist, will be able to replace elected representatives with AI operating system that simply follows an algorithm. No, we can't. The law is not just simply an algorithm. You require philosophical thinking to do law properly, to be a judge, to legislate. That requires human beings, AI couldn't do it. What do you think about the idea of raising money for the government by charging a fee to have contracts able to be used in court? I like that idea, it's Ayn Rand's idea. I like that idea that's certainly part of how you raise the money. It wouldn't be all you use to raise the money. It wouldn't all be used. It would be one of the ways, an important way. It would be how you would fund the court system. Michael says, I think 100 years from now, objective scholars will look back at this time period and realize the mixed economy is a lot more resilient than theoretical and ideological models predicted. I don't think you need 100 years. I think you can look at it now and see it. I say that all the time. It's why I'm not as doom and gloom as some others and as I think objectives have been in the past because of how resilient I think the mixed economy really is. Galwing says, thanks, Johan, for fighting the misinformation being spread about capitalism and selfishness. My pleasure, and I mean that. Colt says, keep up the good work, nice show today. Couldn't watch yesterday's show because of work. You can catch up on it tomorrow, no live show tomorrow. Fenharper says, tractable growth stats of objectivism will make for a wonderful show, to be honest. I don't think I have heard anyone talk about this in one go. I think it would be motivating. All right, let me think about how I would do that and what kind of stats I would use. But yeah, I think you get some of that. When the CEO of ARI does his annual state of ARI presentation, a lot of that is related to numbers and a lot of those numbers relate to the prevalence and the spread of objectivism. But I'll look into what I can come up with. All right, cool. Another two-hour show, almost two hours. Thanks everybody, really appreciate it. You can click at uranbrookshow.com slash support at the top of the chat here to go and become a monthly supporter of the uranbrook show. I appreciate that enormously. That's the best way to support the show. It's steady, it's constant, it's predictable. And it's something we wanna double. We wanna double in the years to come, at least double in the years to come so that basically I can make a living just doing this and nothing else and maybe even expand this to doing other things. That would be pretty cool. For that, we have to double or more, I haven't run the numbers recently, but we have to double or more kind of the monthly support that you guys provide. What else do we need? Oh yeah, you can also do on Patreon, a subscribe star. You can also use locals. And again, thank you for everybody who participated in the Super Chat today, whether it for a dollar or for several hundred dollars. I really appreciate it from everybody. I appreciate the support, I appreciate the confidence you have in me and I appreciate the questions that you have. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Adam Campbell, for sponsoring this show, for making it possible. You can sponsor a show. Just write to me at uranbrookshow.com. No, no support. You're on at uranbrookshow.com. Bye everybody.