 Thank you Thank you So I'm talking today about evils of socialism Evil is a strong word What is evil? You have to define your terms, right? What is evil? What does evil mean? By what standard can we measure some systems as evil and some systems is good? Something's bad. Something's good. What is the standard by which we use in order to make such declarations? Well, I'll be curious to find out what standards the socialists use, but I'm gonna tell you what my standard is My standard is human life individual human life That which supports human life Which allows individuals to flourish to be successful? To be happy that is the good Systems that allow individuals to make the most of their lives To be successful at living That those a good system What is evil? That's a good and what's evil? Evil is the opposite Evil is the destruction of life Individual life Evil is death and destruction The lack of freedom the lack of opportunities the lack of ability to pursue your dreams To pursue your values to pursue the rational requirements of human life The inability the inability to produce to create your vision your life Your happiness your flourishing as an individual a system that denies that that restricts that is An evil system so they can go home now because it's obvious, right? so why Do I say? That socialism is evil The socialism not promote individual life The socialism not encourage individuals to think for themselves and to live for themselves and to make the most of their own life and to be happy No, it doesn't it does the opposite nature socialism Deny the individual The very nature of socialism is to reject the idea of an individual the value of the individual and to promote to promote as it does everywhere where it's practiced the Sacrifice of the individual the sacrifice of the individuals life to the group some group make up your own group but a group In Marxism, it's to the Polateria But all socialists require the subjugation of the individual for the sake of the collective The denial of the rights of the individual to live as he see fit For the sake of what somebody decides I should ask who gets to decide Somebody is good for the collective That is the essence of what social admits This is why you need central planning you need central planning because only the central planner in his wisdom Can know what's good for the collective Because if we don't have central planners and we allow each one of you to do what's good for you Then what's gonna happen to the group to the collective to everybody else? You don't know all you know is what's good for You so central planning is not a starting point for socialism It is a requirement of socialism because what it starting point is the group the collective the rejection of you as an individual and We need authoritarians To channel What's good because how do we know what's good for a group? How do we know what's good for a group? I don't know I have no idea how you know what's good for a group Because groups don't have a consciousness Groups can't think Groups don't eat. We don't have a collective stomach. We don't have a collective brain We don't have a collective anything So you usually need need some kind of mystic. This is why I always think communism socialism a fundamentally mystical Beliefs because they need an individual could somehow commune right through some kind of mystical revelation with The proletarian to let us know what's good for the ball to and that's why you need a Dictator a leader somebody in control so The group is priming not the individual to me That is enough to prove That socialism is evil because it demands morally and politically the sacrifice of the individual to the group I didn't practice what actually happens in practice on the socialism Maybe I'm wrong maybe human beings flourishing incredibly successful and happy and prosperous under Socialism what actually is the history and the evidence? It's hard to look up there I'm gonna focus here, so I'm sorry. I'm ignoring you guys What's actually history? Socialism what do we know actually happens when people adopt this system? I might write this is is socialism so horrific to the individual well luckily for us or actually very very very Unluckily For most people so neither people have to live on the socialism. We have lots of examples We don't have to speculate about socialism. We don't have to just make it a theoretical idea we can actually look at history or Look at countries that are practicing it right now and I think my right now favorite example is Is a country called it's in South America. What what country right now is practicing socialism in South America Venetial Venetiala Has been socialist for 20 years And socialism has managed to take a country in which on average The individuals were the richest most prosperous most successful Individuals in all of Latin America in all of South America and make those people now the poorest people in South America In 20 years, it's taken a country from relative wealth to absolute poverty And this is a country. This is hard to do in Venetiala. Why isn't it hard to do in Venetiala because Venetiala has More oil than Saudi Arabia Venetiala has more oil reserves more oil in the ground or under the sea Then some of the Arabia you would enjoy the wealth, but no the socialists are so good at this That they have even managed to destroy the country of Venetiala And this is not a theoretical destruction. This is not just about people who are relatively rich now be relatively poor This is about people dying in the streets in Venetiala. This is about child mortality rates The weight at which little babies are dying has gone through the roof because there's no food to feed them They're not getting enough nutrition to be able to grow up This is a country where they can't feed their babies the bodies are starting to pile up in Venetiala It's not just the issue of inconvenience. There's no toilet paper in Venetiala There's no soap in Venetiala. They have to go into Columbia to get these luxuries But this is what socialism does. This is what it does everywhere wherever it's tried and to the extent that it is tried And Venetiala of course is a relatively mild case Where socialism is practiced more consistently It's much much worse You lived under it for decades Communism is just a logical extension of socialism North Korea millions of people are starving not a few hundred not a few thousand but millions the number of bodies the number of gets caused by communism I Don't know if you study this in Poland Is in the tens of millions of people it makes the Nazis look like amateurs and Yet when we see a Nazi when somebody weighs a Nazi flag we run Or we condemn them, but we need a communist everybody's very nice Communism is great It only killed 10 to 20 times more people than the Nazis did Soviet Union They killed about 60 million and that doesn't even count the people they starved Mao Zedong killed about 40 million that doesn't include about 40 million who starved We're talking about over a hundred million bodies of dead people because of Socialism not because the particular individuals because the fact is they adopted Ideas has done exactly the same thing. It wasn't that Stalin was an aberration Stalin was an aberration What is? Paul pot What is the rule of North Korea are they also aberrations and if they're aberrations? Why is it the communism attracts all the freaks in the world now? This is not You know, this is not theory Socialism and communism have destroyed tens hundreds of millions of lives killed The rest of the people who stayed alive were just poor They couldn't think what they wanted to think they couldn't act in the pursuit of their own values They couldn't all the things that I would survive or they barely survived life Sucked to use a technical term. It sucked on the communism. It was awful It was drudgery. It was great. It was miserable and that's taking the system of socialism seriously That's not some perversion of socialism. That's what socialism is It's the group first Central planners planning and if central planners are good at planning one part of the economy Why not have them plan every part of the economy and when they plan every part of the economy we call that Communism that's just an extension of if they're planning one we extend it to all of them Socialism has to evolve into communism Otherwise, it's being completely inconsistent. I think there was a bet that I would use my iPhone in the lecture now So luckily for us that we don't have a central planner who tries to decide these right this insignificant part of our life this This that makes our lives better, but at the end of the day, I mean significant part this We leave to the private sector this we leave to the markets because we know all of us know Even those who think they are pro-socialism know that if a government committee made this It would be ugly and stupid And I'm being nice and yet really important stuff like our health like our education Oh those we have to have central planners for because God forbid imagine imagine if the same minds you made this made our health care and Invest in our education Maybe they'd be as pretty and as efficient as this is I mean as powerful as this is so socialism is evil Because everywhere it's practiced It rejects the individual it suppresses individual thought it suppresses individual action It leads the death destruction and power everywhere where it's practiced and It has to lead to those things It has to lead to those things Because the fact is that the collective Their group as an end doesn't exist as I said, there's no collective stomach There's no collective brain. We don't collectively reason Individual is what is important the individual is what exists So when you build a model system and economic system about around the thing that doesn't even exist the collective Guess what happens? it fails and It doesn't really really bad thing To that that does exist Now there are lots of people who could talk about why socialism has to fail economically and I refer you to the writings of von Mises and Hayek and Milton Friedman and many many other time to explain the market system works How prices are necessary for the allocation efficient allocation of goods socialism economically Just is just inefficient. It's just silly and It doesn't work. It does not work Now some people are gonna say and I'm sure some people say well wait a minute Denmark it's also Really? I mean that's pretty funny There's very little central planning in Denmark There's no more central planning in Denmark than there is in the United States of America The Danish government does not own the means of production the Danish government Does not central plan It regulates its banks less than America regulates its banks It regulates industry less than so-called capitalist America. What it does is a redistribute wealth It takes it allows you the freedom to produce and then it steals your money and gives it to other people that it does And it does it pretty well But other makes economy and makes there's some freedom and some oppression It happens to have a different combination of elements than the United States system But it's still the same mixture the United States We regulate a lot and we redistribute a little in Denmark They regulate a little and they redistribute a lot On top of that, of course Denmark is a lot poorer than Americans are You can make comments while I speak all leave me I mean, of course they are on a per capita basis and in terms of the size of houses in terms of any economic measure Danes are a lot not a little bit poor So if Denmark was a state in the United States a state right like Massachusetts in California How would you think it would rank? If Denmark was a state in California, what do you think it would rank? Rich like like New York and California or poor like Mississippi It would rank number 49 It would be the 49 poorest state in the United States. Look it up. These are numbers. These are facts You can pretend people are good at pretending and if you're a socialist you have to be good at pretending Because all of history all of the facts of history suggest that you're advocating for a system that is an utter and complete failure And is responsible as I said earlier For the worst of horrific murders in human history, you know, I still don't quite understand how we tolerate socialists When we don't tolerate non-truth and that's the economics So as I said, I encourage you to read high about the why central planning never works at this center What's essential though reason why central planning cannot work because each one of us Has our own value we have our own life Some of us like Apple some of us like Samsung. We like different things. We want different things. We have different aspirations No central planner knows that they can't get inside your head. They can't figure out what's good for you What's bad for you? Not that they care, right? But even if they care they can't They can't tell what you actually desire what your life is really about They can average What they can do is sacrifice your life to other people which is what they're really good at they're really good It's sacrificing some people for the sake of other people, but nobody in that transaction actually benefits everybody loses They cannot decide what your values are values are individual values of the individual You cannot aggregate them. You cannot plan for them This is why markets work because we each go in as an individual and make decisions based on our priorities Not on somebody else's priorities when I pay Here it goes again when I pay $300 for this It's because this is worth more than 300 off to me But to you it might not be so you won't buy it That's the beauty of markets. We get to make Voluntary decisions about the values and the product and the services we as individuals want to consume It's not somebody else taking the decision for Central planning cannot work because we're different But that's what they hate they want us all to be the same and the whole point of socialism is to try to knock us down and make us the same And that means not just the material products But that means in what we think as well and this is why socialism always leads to oppression of thought But there's a there's a greater condemnation of socialism in my view and that is the moral Socialism is morally evil Because it places the group and the collective about the individual The standard of morality is not what's good for society. The standard of morality is not what's good for the Poletarian or good for the workers are good for any group. The standard of morality is what is good for you And you not as a collective not as a group, but as individuals I'm glad I'm glad The standard morality is what's good for each one of us and what is good for each one of us What's good for each other want each one of us is to be free to pursue our own individual values To make our individual lives the best life that we can make for ourselves Not for them not for them not for the group Not for the state But for you make your life the best life that it can be That's the purpose of morality and that is what socialism ultimately condemned and that's why Most people can't condemn socialism The reason socialism lives on is not because of its economics. There is no No capital and defense economic defense of socialism none never has been it is bogus economics from beginning to end But what they have is they have conventional morality on this side Because since Christianity every moral code Whether secular or religious has advocated for the sacrifice of the individual to the group every moral code says your life Doesn't matter what matters is their happiness you're supposed to sacrifice you're supposed to be selfless That's what religion teaches us. That's what most secular philosophers teach us and that's Where the socialists get their power We all accept it because morally what's how can it be bad to sacrifice some people for others? Isn't that what every moral teacher has always taught us? Yeah, and we're screwed because ultimately socialism is this secularized Christianity it's a secularized form Of the idea That the purpose of life is to live for others that the purpose of life is to sacrifice for others It's time to reject that morality It's time to come up with an alternative We can do so much better And there is an alternative The alternative that actually leads to human flourishing that actually creates Reco-values that actually allows individuals to pursue their life and their own happiness and that alternative is freedom That alternative is capitalism That alternative is free markets where free individuals voluntarily Trade trade what a concept doesn't exist in the social For value for value win-win When I buy my iPhone for three hundred dollars It's because it's worth more to me than three hundred dollars. I win an apple wins. Nobody loses We reject a system of liberal capitalism of individualistic capitalism The system that is created every ounce of wealth that we have on the planet today Until capitalism Wealth and income were flat for 10,000 years There was no wealth creation there was redistribution So some people are better at stealing than others But nobody created wealth Until we freed up those energies during the late 18th early 19th century until capitalism There were very few Grand universities and very very few people went to them. There were very very few schools Because most kids worked constantly all the time on the farm 50% of them didn't even make the age of 10 Capitalism has led to a longer life A more prosperous life It's led to freedom for individuals like never in human history have we seen It is under the system of capitalism That slavery was ended That women were emancipated That we have a sexual revolution where Your sexual orientation doesn't matter anymore That's under freedom not under socialism. That's where we respect individuals For the sake of their individual His and her life for the sake of their life Not as a sacrificial animal to be served up To some collective So we have an alternative An alternative is free market capital A system that respects and is built on the idea of individual rights and what individual rights Not what your modern intellectuals will teach you But what an individual rights at the core The freedoms The idea that every individual has the freedom to act On behalf of his own life Every individual has the freedom to do whatever he deems necessary In pursuit of the values necessary for his own life Individual rights are essentially individualistic. They have to be individualism of individual rights not group rights Not collective rights The system of capitalism is built on the principle that each individual is free That each individual is free to live his life to think whatever thoughts he wants To say whatever he wants even if it is offensive even if it triggers even if it's a much so-called today microaggression It's built on the idea that each individual's Purpose in life Is to pursue his own happiness Now that's a beautiful vision That's a beautiful idea That we give up We give up When we put the group ahead of the individual So socialism is immoral Because we reject individualism It is a failure Every way it is tried is not an example in history and you'll have a q&a in a minute You'll be able to challenge me on that an example of history of socialism creating any wealth And socialism is deadly It is destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions of people Literally murdered tens of millions of people All in the name of some grand experiment in human betterment Just study paul potts and the kameru's just go study what the soviets actually did and what they tried to do Or go study mao's great revolutions More evil of a set of ideas and a set of practices has never existed on the face of the earth So i encourage you today To reject these ideas Reject them for what they are Look around the world In south america there's another country It used to be the poorest country in latin america And today is the richest And indeed the free are socially the free What's that and that's chili Which adopted the exact opposite of socialism it adopted capitalist ideas not fully not perfectly But adopted some of them and not under the right circumstances But it adopted them it led to political freedom It led to economic freedom and it led to incredible prosperity incredible wealth That's in latin america But just to look around europe To the extent that a country respects the individual To the extent that it doesn't demand your sacrifice to the group To the extent that it practices economic policies that encourage trade That encourage Encourage wealth creation to that extent those countries get Which the individuals in those countries prosper to the extent that they redistribute To the extent that they control to the extent that they regulate To that extent those countries A failure So it's time to reject socialism but not to a vacuum To an ideal An ideal that's much more powerful than anything socialism ever offered It's an ideal of real capitalism Of what the west could be Of what the whole world could be every country in the world could be The ideal that even practiced a little bit just a little bit like in china and india and taiwan and south korea Has created brought two billion people over the last two billion people. What's that socialism brought them out of poverty? It was just a little bit not even a lot of capitalism just a little bit of capitalism Brought two billion people out of probably imagine what would happen if we had a lot of capitalism If we actually took it seriously if we actually practiced it consistently We would be richer beyond our imagination We have been more prosperous beyond our imagination And you would have more opportunities than you could imagine you have So reject socialism Adopt capitalism and to do that you have to reject the morality of sacrifice The morality of selflessness The morality That your light doesn't belong to you it belongs to the group And it's time to adopt a morality a moral code of individualism A morality that places your life as the purpose Your happiness as the goal Thank you More time than for lecture. We have time for questions. So please line up to this mic And you can ask anything to your own This microphone is waiting for you Who wants to ask a question? Ein Rand was an eastern european girl I just actually counted and 90 percent of the people in the room are dudes Or what? Dudes guys So girls can vote What shall we do about them? The fact that 90 percent of people who listen to your lecture are dudes So that means that like most of the people who will vote They will listen to your lecture Didn't listen to my lecture As as they are girls Yeah Since like Ein Rand Yes So The question is what do we do about the fact that not enough women show up to my lectures? I don't know we need a lecturer who's more good-looking That would be that superficial that that is disrespectful to women I apologize I don't know. I mean, it's a good question. Why don't women get more involved in uh in these activities? I wish they did But look, I'm very realistic about voting I know when it comes to the ballot box, I lose Right, so my goal here is not to Change politics in poland because that would be futile. I'm way too radical To change the political landscape of poland But if you guys have ideas on how to get more women here, I guess one way to do it is for you guys to get a date But then you would have to be stupid enough to take it to a lecture by me. So I don't know Because when I met my wife, so the first date I took my wife to was a lecture About these kind of ideas Now it might have been okay because I've been married 33 years happily. So maybe that's the secret Five years So so the question is what do we do about the tragedy of the commons, right? So let's let's let's first make clear That if you care about the commons, that is I guess nature and water and the air and the quality of them Then you certainly don't want to live under socialism No, I'll get to it. I promise I'll answer your question, but I have to Socialism was the filthiest political system ever East germany poland russia were filthy 30 40 years ago. They're much cleaner today When everything is in the commons when everything is a public good who takes care of it Nobody I take care of my house. I clean my backyard. This is the I'm getting to the answer I clean my backyard But when we have a common when we have public space nobody takes care says filthy Private property is the way in which we solve the problem of the commons So how do we do it? We sell everything. We make everything private property to the extent that we can You can certainly sell rivers. For example, if the river was privately owned Then you wouldn't be able to pollute it Because that would be a violation of private. I'll get to all your I'll get to the fish. I promise And there's legal precedent for this rivers used to be privately owned There used to be water rights and if you if your cows pooped at the top of the river And I was drinking at the bottom of the river that wasn't good So there were legal ways in which we resolved our disputes But when the government owns the river, how do we resolve the disputes? Whoever pounds the table harder, whoever yells the most whoever threatens to go on strike the most is going to win out Not individual interests But political interests political pressure groups, that's what happens when you leave it in the commons You need to privatize as much as you can and even fit there ways To corner off areas and give individual people or individual companies restricted fishing rights over those areas You know countries like iceland have attempted Strategies like this and a variety of different options being proposed And how you turn things that we think of as the commons into private property The more you can turn it into private property The less problem there is and I think you can turn almost everything into private property Yes, so there are a variety of mechanisms. You can actually Give certain fisheries property rights over certain schools of fish Particularly today with satellites where you can track this stuff, but I'm not a technical At the point is this I'm not a technical person about fish. I have no idea, right? But the principle is the question and I'm not an anarchist. I know there's some probably anarchic capitalists here. I'm not an anarchist I'm not a minocist. I don't I don't like that term. It's a stupid term. I believe in limited government I believe that government has a role in defining property rights. Somebody has to define those property rights and protect them So I believe in government that protects defines and protects property rights with a military judiciary in a police force and that's it So there is a role in defining these kind of property rights over Fish seas things like that But 99 percent Is just it just sell, you know sell the the the property and it's sold The question from live chat Try to convince you that abortion is in fact a violation of individual rights. Have you vote about this issue more? Okay, not related to socialism, but okay Uh, yes, I mean I think about it all the time because I always have some holy students challenging me on abortion Not always polis but often Catholic Um Yes, absolutely. I thought about it and yes, absolutely. I hold by my previous position abortion In the camera You over there, um abortion should be legal As a political question. I know you don't think so Abortion is a political question is a question that deals with individuals that exist right now right here in reality The woman exists The fetus does not as a separate human being it is a part of the woman Therefore it is the woman who has the decision now you can argue morality But the law only deals with individuals Not with potential human beings not with individuals inside somebody else's womb That's not an individual. It's a part of the mother And as long as it's inside the womb It is the mother's decision about whether to abort or not again You can argue the morality of it, but legally the state has no business Has no business telling a mother A woman that she has to give birth if she doesn't want to give birth to a child Second question from Keltuzar. How can we defeat the social justice warriors once and for all? How do we beat the social okay? So how do we beat the social justice warriors once and for all once and for all by rejecting them all or code? I mean, I'm gonna be repetitive all night But this is about morality if you accept the morality of the social justice warriors If you accept their collectivism or you accept the idea that the individual should be sacrificed to fill in the blank God The the pope the king the nobleman the palatarian the tribe the group anything you want Then they win Your life is yours not to be sacrificed to anybody You have a right to live your life as you see fit as long as you're not violating other people's rights In other words, as long as you're not using coercion on your neighbor You must be left free left alone and the social justice warriors can go to hell where they're ultimately going to go Although I don't believe in hell There's nothing there there the social justice warriors don't have a leg to stand on But we have to battle them on principle Not just on the particular issues that they try to bring up that you know, because they're smart they're clever In terms of how they present the issues. We need to chop their legs off of them Intellectually, which means take away the moral code that they rely on Hello, mr. Brook What do you think the libertarian movement as a whole as you know, it's heavily divided between Because of these arguments like heavily divided between what between abortion, for example, there's this anarchist who think the other the rest of the libertarians are stupid or something and What do you think the libertarian movement as a whole needs to Become united like in the 2008 we uh america had Yep america had romp all he pretty much united the the largest place of libertarians in america but The the primaries were kind of the daily rigged right he ran in the republican primaries look one paul You know i'll say something about one paul all one paul got in the republican primaries Was 10 percent of the republican vote That's not a lot Right in a few states he did very well But in most on average he got about 10 percent of the republican vote so one paul was very popular among young people It's very popular among libertarians, but most americans are not libertarians So you want me to comment on the libertarian movement, which is a tricky subject to be a comment on but i'm going to do it Right and piss off a lot of people here and in america I think the libertarian i don't think there is such a thing as a libertarian movement because for the reasons you've mentioned It's fractured and it doesn't have a common core I think Anarcho-capitalism for example of the general anarchism particularly the marui rothbard The school of anarcho-capitalism is substantially significantly philosophically flawed And a liability to those of us who believe in freedom the ideas are liability those of us who believe in freedom So I think the libertarian movement needs to call us but it needs to call us around A philosophy that can be defended not a set of ideas that undercut Freedom and undercut liberty, which I think I think many who follow marui rothbard do So It's going to stay fragmented for a long time Yes, it's going to be fragmented, but What do you think What do you think is there a chance in the near future for libertarian to flourish to To go into the minds of the mainstream In the near future if you mean by the near future 10 years In the next 10 years, we're not going to win Free markets are not going to win not in the sense that we mean free markets where where the rivers are privatized Rivers are not going to be privatized in the next 10 years. They're not going to be privatized in the next 20 years Maybe 30 40 50 60 is starting to talk about a time frame that I believe look This is I I'm going back to the same point. I've already made so I apologize if this bores you This is not a question of economics If the question was What better economics what system of economics works best? Free market would have won a long long time ago. We have no competition There's nobody in the world who comes close To the ability of the free market to produce wealth to produce Everything that we need in order to survive it to live it to thrive and flourish It's by far not even close the best system That's not the debate the debate is a moral debate And that's going to take a long time to change people's way of thinking from the collectivism That's been entrenched in us from millennia To an individualism that we saw a brief period in european history during the enlightenment that we embraced and then rejected very quickly So what we need is to return to that spirit of enlightenment that spirit of individualism And that's going to be hard Thank you So But let me also say this there's more energy among free marketers In eastern europe and of all places in brazil Then there is in the west The west in western europe in america You know we're too rich and lazy life's too good. Why have radical ideas when you can get the iphone 7 tomorrow, right? Why worry about free markets when life, you know, you're still making a good living you're driving a nice car life is good You guys in poland But even more so in some of the other east of european, you're still hungry You're still one more You still know you could be freer You could be richer You could pursue your dreams even more that is being allowed today So if there's hope for the libertarian Movement to the extent there is one I think it's in eastern europe. I think it's in I think it's in south america It's in places that have lived can't live socialism Live fascism that know what collectivism does to the soul Not just to the to the money, but to the soul of human beings how destructive it is and want something different And want something new so all the power to you guys because it's going to come from here I'm starting to believe that we should not look to america for for hope, but we should look elsewhere Dr. I have a question about morality because I'm I'm just curious Do you believe that uh morality should be uh taken an interest in uh economy or not? That's the first question. Yes, I do. So so you think that morality should be Uh should be a component of the good economy No economics is a science, but you have to have a moral foundation to be able to justify For example, uh, we posit in economics that it's good to maximize wealth But wealth maximization is not an economic question. It's a it's a moral question So is it good to maximize wealth is a moral question not an economic question And one of the reasons is economists who fail to convince Is because we make assumptions that we think is self-evident. Well, everybody's a utility maximizer No, they are not people are not utility as in is it financial utility wealth maximization people are not So you are saying that to being an economy economic that's the term which is Which has been used by a lot of Yeah A lot of economics. I'm saying there's no such thing as homoeconomics. That's what I'm saying really because most of people Who are seeing here from there both they are reading economy Economy is not about the morality. It's about just economy. Yeah And I'm just so I think this is why we're losing because economists Don't see the value and importance of philosophy philosophy is primary to economics Philosophy is foundational philosophy sets both the methodology and the morality of the assumptions you make in economics If my if I believe that the purpose of society is to achieve equality Then you will generate a different economic Whole economics in a sense will be a different creature if the purpose is equality if he's driven by equality Because what I'm hearing that's the answer on the socialism for you is the liberalism Yeah, but for me, it's not such easy because the answer on the socialism is christian for me. Yes Yeah, no first fact. Yes. So let me say you said about for example Words like for example abortion. Yeah, that is the women's choice. Yes for me. It's not so easy to Be such a liberal because we are living for example in some national Some nations. Yeah, we are for example, we are I know we have our interests. Yeah And you don't have an interest. There's no such thing as a polish interest You are individuals with interest There's no such thing as a polish interest and there's no so but let me let me let me deal with the more important question Which you said you say your solution to socialism is christianity And it is for you. I think you're wrong I think as long as you hold on to that and I'm gonna offend everybody here, but that's okay I think as long as you hold to your christianity socialism will not disappear from the world because I think socialism is secularized christianity My solution to socialism is not liberalism. You should read mark. It's not liberalism It's not liberalism. It's the morality of individualism, which is a morality that rejects christian morality I reject christian morality. I think christian morality is wrong. I think it's not good for you But all wealth is well Was built on the christian morality the wealth of the european Was not built in the 19th century the wealth of europe was built in the 14th century During the uh, no, that's just not true the wealth of europe Was built on a rejection of christianity The wealth of europe was was built in the 18th and 19th centuries In the 18th and 19th centuries the 18th century was called the age of reason not the age of christianity And the age of reason was an age of rejection of religion of marginalization Of religion where religion became a private activity and was was was secularized The era of the 7th the 18th and 19th century a secular era Where christianity is marginalized and that's why the individual suddenly flourishes human reason suddenly is elevated Human reason is suddenly elevated and the west creates enormous amounts of wealth the 14 15 16 17 centuries Essentially is a bloodshed of a war of combat of wealth Structure not wealth creation wealth creation only comes from the enlightenment and the enlightenment is much more pagan than it is christian Good afternoon, sir. Um, I have a question. Um, you said a few minutes ago that That you don't do not believe in anaheo capitalism you believe in limited government Yes, so how would you combine? individualism economic agenda with Kind of a national community Needs in the way especially in the wake of brexit and mr. Trump Successful today which clearly feeling and also signalized Disattachment between signals what signals this attachment between A group of people and their government and their their kind of all the institution of the of the government So i'm not sure i understand your question, but let me try right I'm not sure how it's connected to anaheo capitalism. So I believe in I believe in government. I believe in limited government And I believe that the job of government is the protection of individual rights. I do not believe in nationalism Nationalism is a form of collectivism It says that the nation is above the individual and the purpose of the individual while personally Is the sacrifice to the nation? I think that is an evil ideology I use evil, you know together with social and I think those who support trump For nationalistic reasons that is bad very bad I think those who voted for brexit for nationalistic reasons. It's bad. I supported brexit For capitalist reasons because once britain left the european union It was now possible for them to liberalize their economy in ways They could not do as part of the european union So it was a way to bring individualism to uk to britain in a well to the uk in a way that they couldn't As part of the european union. That's why i supported But a lot of people who voted for brexit supported for other reasons xenophobia hatred of immigrants anti liberal values so So I I I guess again my view is nationalism or nationalism the state as more important than the individual is bad And what we are individuals the state is our servant the state works for us To protect our rights and that's the only job of the state the state has no other responsibilities No other job no other work other than protect our individual rights to do that All the state needs to do is police military and a justice system. That's it Thank you I will try to play uh, the advocates and uh, you mentioned that or you defined uh, good as Uh, good system as the system which allows individuals to pursue their own happiness. Uh, and you mentioned for example, Denmark, which is relatively poorer than most of the states in the united states But actually if you ask, uh, average, danmark, uh, guy if he feels happy with his life Uh, he says he will feel much more happy than the guy in new york So all right. I get this question every time so Here's my stick standard answer to the happiness of Denmark question I mean, it's more there are a few steps to this one If you're Scandinavian, you expect it to be happy. It's part of the culture You ask a Scandinavian if you're happy. They generally say yes. I'm jewish You ask a jew if they're happy We always say no Because if we said yes, everybody would be happy. How could you be happy? Nobody's happy happiness So it's a cultural thing a lot of this is culture to If you actually take danes danish people in america And ask them if they're happy in america They're at least as happy as danes and Denmark if not happier So if you can control for all the cultural issues danes love Their lives in america as much if not more than danes in in in in Denmark and there's a reason for that if you just isolate danes Danes in america are richer than danes in danmark Danes in america live As long if not longer than danes in danmark There are fewer danes that are poor in america than they are poor danes in danmark Now part of that selection bias People who left danmark You know, maybe i'm more motivated more entrepreneurial. Maybe this is but the fact is that america doesn't prohibit danes from being happy So there's something else probably going on here when we do happiness studies, which i'm suspicious of how many people know what happiness is Can we define happiness? It's very hard. What's that? Yeah, it's different for different people. Aristotle said, I mean, I think there is a definition of happiness But it's very hard to define and to know even if you're happy Well, the definition of happiness is individual is for every single person It's individual, but it's also based. You see, we are a certain biological animal We have certain characteristics Certain things make human beings, quark human beings happy Certain things make us unhappy People are not happy in authoritarian regimes Again, the difference between danmark and the united states from the perspective of economic freedom is very small The united states spends about 36 percent of gdp by the government danmark spends maybe 42 percent of gdp It's not we're not talking about socialism and capitalism We're talking about a mixed economy of america and a mixed economy of danmark And i'm not saying one is better than the other because it's hard to tell they're both mixed I would like them both to be capitalist and i think people would be a lot happier by any measure if they were truly capitalist Considering that An objective state could not encourage citizens into paying taxes How long do you think it would last in a war full Powerful states and other terrorist groups that went to violently imposed their ideologies upon us I think it would last forever Because you know, so the question is in an objective state I mean, you know, when you don't coax taxes How is it gonna last when these other countries can use quotient to steal all their citizens' money and launch massive armies against it? Do you know how rich we're gonna be in an objective state? I mean me just giving a small contribution A fraction of my wealth would be far more. Look at pootin, right your pal over there on the east His economy is crumbling World creationist property He has So, yes, he can for a while pour whatever money he has into new missiles and new tanks and you But he's gonna go bankrupt very quickly If I had a rich country next to him, I could I could destroy him easily And you know, and you see this you see it's so You know, I don't know if you're asking where would it where would a free country get its funding from? Or you're asking how big the funding would be But I think if there was a real threat I would be willing to give a lot of money to the government to protect me if there was a real threat I wouldn't give them a dime to send my son to vietnam or to iraq But I would give them real money to to to do away with somebody who was trying to kill me and my family And that's what a voluntary society does in a voluntary society You pay for the things you believe in and if it's a war you believe in you pay a lot of money Because the war you believe because the war is a self-defense war and they're gonna kill you if you don't win the war So I'll give you an you know, I come from israel, right israel has A conscription army it's a draft you have to go and then go three years women go two years I think that's wrong Even for israel, which has an existential threat Israel should have a volunteer army And if your argument would be well not enough people will volunteer Then my argument will be that israel doesn't deserve to exist It doesn't if you're not willing to fight for your country then the country shouldn't exist Right if you love your country then volunteer to fight for it So you've got a mechanism here by which if you value the things that you live in if you value your family If you value your life if you value your possessions then fight for them And you have a much better army is it would be so much If it had a volunteer army then it is under conscription. I've no doubt about it That's a rather optimistic mission of people. I have a very optimistic vision of people and I know sometimes it's hard In certain countries to have that and I don't know about Poland in some countries It is that even though I grew in israel, which is a very pessimistic view of people most israelis have I have an american sense of people which is a very positive view of of human human beings when they are pursuing their own interest When they really have the freedom to value themselves and their lives and their families People are amazingly benevolent amazingly good and amazingly rational Thank you We call the socialism evil But uh, isn't it a necessary evil? Because I think that in the position between capitalism and communism The capitalism substantializes itself Capitalism what substantialize? Give substance to it the opposition gives substance to the capitalism and First capitalism is able to justify its own little evils Yeah, that's I mean that sounds like some You know marxist professor said this. I have no idea what that meant No capitalism works it doesn't work because communism exists It doesn't work as a counter to communism it works It works because it leaves individuals free to pursue their lives It works because it leaves entrepreneurs free to invent great things Go build them if they can convince people to give them money and come to work for them It works it creates wealth for everybody everybody in society is willing to Is better So why would you ever want anything else? Why would you want a mixture? Why would you want just a little bit of socialism or a little bit of poison? What you need is no I want no poison I want no socialism not a little bit not a lot it's evil evil even in a little bit of doses If you let the market work we become much richer and we're freer we're freer to do the things not just You know, it's no accident that You suddenly so flourishing the odds once capitalism comes into being Because suddenly the middle class gets rich. Not only did they get rich, but now they have time How many how many people do you think in the past went on vacations? 300 400 years ago. There was no such thing as a vacation You worked every day every day from sunrise to sunset vacations. There were no restaurants. There were no hotels You ate what you grew in the land Suddenly under capitalism you had free time you went to concerts you went to restaurants we today We spend more time doing stuff like that than we do working It's not the history of the human race the history of the human race is one of toil Constant toil and suddenly capitalism liberated us And socialism wants to return us to that condition of toil. I say tell what that I wanted I want my restaurants I want to go see a movie I want to have my free time and I love my work. I want to be able to choose my work. I don't want to be a farmer One of the beauties of capitalism is division of labor where we each choose What we can do And not told by the authorities what profession you should have So by every measure in my view of human success qua human Capitalism is great socialism is horrible. So why would we have a little bit of this horrible thing? We've heard quite a bit about about Denmark, right? For me Denmark is like a lovely village around the Merck shipping company, right? So that's easy to be rich Anyway, my question is this What would be your top five? If you were to rank countries by the possibility of them becoming the libertarian paradise my call is poland confers Your hope is the poland confers Okay, I I don't know. I mean, it's a tough one. I was just I'll give you an example. I was just in georgia georgia in tbilisi And it's pretty amazing in georgia. They've done things that I don't know any country in the world has done in a hundred years For example, there was a period of 10 years in georgia where they had no food inspectors There were no government food inspectors Guess what happened? What would you think would happen if we did away with food inspectors? Everybody would get sick, right? Because the best way for McDonald's to make money is to make you sick So the beauty of what happened in georgia is nothing happened. They had no food inspectors. Nothing. They have to this state There's no work Safety inspectors, you know people who go on the workplace and in factories and in construction sites and check that it's safe No inspectors guess what happened People didn't start dying falling off and bad stuff didn't happen. Nothing happened So georgia's done things in no other country that I know of so maybe it's georgia I think yes, I mean There seems to be an energy in poland seems to be interested in these ideas in poland that you don't see in many other countries um You see the same thing in brazil There's a lot of excitement, but it's a big country 200 million people say it's tougher I don't know. I don't know. I I just I you know estonia, maybe tough five I mean You know deep down really deep down. I still think it's the united states I still think it is you know why? because they still Down hidden under the trump and under hillary and under all the garbage is an american sense of life it still believes in individualism and So I'd say it's the u.s. It's probably poland georgia estonia brazil It's fine. And my columbian friends and stuff Somalia is a disaster somalia would never happen somalia is not Anyway close to a free market never has been all those silly books about somalia Whatever libertarianism a garbage. It's not you have to have property rights and you know property rights You can say that I got triggered by your opinion about christian. I'm not surprised But you came up here. You didn't run away screaming going to hang a teddy bear So you're much better than students at brown university thank you so I want to ask you to Think about more arguments christianity is often misunderstood Like crusades or burning. No, no, I don't think of it in terms of crusades But uh, like let me let me tell you a story right because I don't want to get along about christianity that could go all year So I personally I became an atheist at around age six. It's not that I have something against christianity I have against every religion almost equally some a little bit worse than others generally. I object to religion I object to the idea of faith I don't have faith You want to you want me to believe something show me evidence There's no evidence the existence of god There's no evidence to the existence of jesus and miracles and all this stuff It's mysticism which I reject all of it from deepak. Chopra to christianity I reject all of it new age new your old age doesn't matter to me But this is what this is the essence to me of christian jewish and muslim morality And I know you don't like to lump them all together. So if you don't think islam, but but this is true there's one Bible Is the molecule is a symbol of goodness of morality of virtue And that person is that all three religions agree It's very rare that all three religions agree about anything that person is abraham Now why is abraham considered a moral giant? What did he do? This is what he did God came to him and told him to kill his oldest son and he said Yes, sir Now god comes to me and asked me to kill my son. I tell him to go to hell I'm not trying to insult your god, but that's what I tell him. I'd rather die I'd rather be in eternity in hell Then kill my own son and and in the name of a god that would ask such a thing What an evil thing to ask And yet it is because abraham says yes, sir that he is considered a moral hero in all three religions Religion these three religions are morally authoritarian And I'm against authoritarianism in everything. I'm against philosophical authoritarianism Epistemological authoritarianism moral authoritarianism and political authoritarianism Thomas who? Aquinas Yes, Thomas Aquinas Who went crazy trying to combine reason and faith somehow and failed Yes, he is logical and at the end of the day, he's completely unconvincing He can't even convince himself. I don't believe and but but look Thomas Aquinas is a genius I I mean he brought reason back into the west He he caused the christian church to abandon its neoplaton Platonism that augustine established and he brought reason back into the church and back into western civilization And for that I hope he's in heaven and he should be he's a great hero even to an atheist like me I love Thomas Aquinas right for that fact But he's wrong when he tries to use reason to justify god all his arguments have been shown to be illogical and wrong There is no logical explanation for god and this certainly isn't a logical explanation for killing your son no matter who tells you to do So as I said, I don't want to have a long conversation with christianity two arguments But you compared christianity Socialism to christianity. Yeah, but the main Difference I can see is that christianity lets you to decide whether you want to sacrifice yourself and to what degree But social Made that decision for you. Okay. Let me let me give you another example now granted Jewish not christian, right? I know my old testament better than I know my my new testament So all my examples are from the old testament so you could say You know we've evolved from that When moses comes down from the mountain with the 10th commandment He's coming down the mountain with the 10th commandment And a bunch of jews are sacrificing a golden calf He does not go up to those jews who say You have a right to worship wherever you want Just leave us alone go out there and go do your thing He takes a sword and he kills 30,000 people And god rewards him for that makes his brother the priest of the jews Sorry, I don't like that god I don't like him. I don't want to follow his teachings. That is not right. That's not political freedom. That's not free speech That's not freedom of religion They made a choice for golden calf. It might be a bad choice. It might be an evil choice They didn't hurt anybody. They don't deserve to die And we could go on and on all night, as I said, and I'm not going to convince you and you're certainly not going to convince me But hopefully our plans have seemed to gout And also the second thing is that Christianity is more capital Capitalistic than you might think because Christians believe in afterlife. Yeah. Yeah, but just ask this current pope if he's a capitalist Everyone makes mistakes And the thing is Christians should believe that if you sacrifice yourself in this life You get Act in this life And sacrifice yourself in this life for the purpose of the reward. That is immoral You're supposed to act in this life properly Not because of the reward That's Christianity as I understand it. You're not the word is there, but that's not the purpose You can't use that if you imagine a concept that if you act to benefit somebody else and in the back of the mind You think it's going to make me feel good. It's not a moral act anymore. And Christianity holds a very similar view You have to do it because you're supposed to do it. The commandments don't say do these things And I've got candy at the end. They say do these things period There's somebody behind them My question is about not on religion. I hope no What's uh in your opinion the best way to reject socialism to advocate capitalism to annihilate Socialists, uh, should we simply Establish for example agios foundations and And so I think you have to start for start for run for Parliament for example and decentralize the regime Or maybe should we just simply persuade our families and our relatives? I think you change the world through education Education education education and education. I don't just mean formal education I mean speaking writing talking speaking right all the time right lecturing You know teaching if you're a teacher But you've got to use all the tools that you have to educate people about individual liberty And it has to be individual liberty versus socialism and what each one means to human life What they constitute in terms of human life And that's that's the thing that we have to keep pushing and politics will Politics will happen I don't view politics as my opinion Politics somebody who likes politics. God forbid, you know, we're going to politics But you've got the key thing we get the politicians we deserve America right now deserves Donald Trump I didn't think I'd ever say that but he does So what we need to focus is on the people particularly young people will open to new ideas So I say educate educate educate speak speak speak Tell the history of socialism tell them what's it really about and tell them what the You know what the alternative is like and what the benefits are the massive benefits are to an individualistic political system Sure, are there any socialists here? You said that the capitalism allowed All of us Make the number of working hours smaller but to be allowed to do that to like make the working the shorter A lot of it's a lot of workers shed on the streets in the process and Of course, it's it's bit it up things because the catalyst made the working days The number of working hours shorter earlier, right? Yeah, so Um So the answer is that historically that's just not true The blood in the street is not what caused our working hours to shorten Well caused working hours to shorten is the rise in the productivity of labor Which was caused by the investment the capitalists made and as that rise in As it happened. Yeah workers got more negotiating power because they were more productive. They could and they negotiated with look People tell me, you know capitalism You know, you needed government to get rid of child labor. It's completely false historically Child labor always disappears Always disappears before the laws the laws coming to place after the child labor has disappeared for two reasons One children are not very productive They're just not very productive so very quickly because of capital investment machines are replacing children And secondly, I don't know how we have I don't know a 10 year old Imagine having a 10 year old as an employee I mean, it's you can't manage it. It's ridiculous. So Capitalism got rid of child labor capitalism is the first economic system in human history that abolish child labor Not socialism not people in streets. You look at every country every single country Passes laws to eliminate child labor Exactly when child labor is almost non-existent before capitalism all children worked All children worked before capital. They just worked on the farm. We consider that. Okay factories is not they died before each 10 Half of them didn't make it to age 10 Capitalism improved the life of children dramatically Okay, but can you somehow justify that? Um The progress of the workers in the factories didn't contribute at all to the speed up of the process of making making life of The workers the progress of the workers in factories On the streets, yeah the process in general it's put it up things right a little bit because sure because they got more productive And they got some negotiating power and they negotiated better terms Okay, but it wasn't in america. There wasn't blood flowing in the streets by workers There were a few worker riots in the united states, but they were marginal as compared to the bigger questions That were going on in in and the capitalism in the 19th century in the 20th century. Yeah, but still if um, if if the capitalists the Owners of the factory didn't limit the number of the working hours should it should meet Would it be more profitable to them to wouldn't it be what more profitable to them if the workers Really from don't ask No, no, no, no, no, you've never worked. You've never been a boss. Look Actually, I will Let's do Workers are not more productive if they work longer. They're actually more productive if they work shorter hours and they're more intense Workers are paid well Not because the the the managers forced to pay them well because he's a nice guy They're paid well because that incentivize them to work more productively harder use their minds more and get engaged and Because it prevents them from leaving to the competitor who would hire them if they were being paid too little So the market is what drives up wages its competition But what makes the worker more productive is his own skills his own learning his own ability And the capital invested in him the machinery the knowledge that is provided to him by the owner So what drives up wages at shortens time is markets So I I am Henry Ford is a great example. So Henry Ford decided he wanted the best Workers in his factory in the world So he doubled the wages one day he woke up and doubled wages They I think they went from two and a half dollars an hour to five dollars an hour for his workers And what happened right the best workers came to work for Ford And he fired the people who couldn't produce at five bucks an hour He kept the good ones and it drove wages up and then gm general voters over here was looking his best workers Were going over that's a five bucks. They had crazy wages to five bucks for the best workers So that process of competition for labor competition for resources is what drives up wages at shortens the worker You've said today that the west lost its interest in I'm keeping it lost its interest in capitalism And my question is is there a way to keep the interest in capitalism permanent permanent in the society? If the economic culture disparity results in the lack of interest in the society No, I don't think it's economic disparity results in the lack of interest. I think it's the morality It's all about morality. So the week. So this is uh, this is the story of chili So chili has become very very rich, right to become very successful and you've got income inequality, right? and They used to be very poor And now two elections in the row. They've chosen socialist who's undoing all the things that made them rich And the question is why? So I asked uh, I didn't ask it. There was a talk by a Famous chili and by the name of josep in here. Josep in here is the one who privatized the pension system in chili So he was involved in this market liberalization So he was asked why is this happening? And pinier has asked answer wise the people who are successful feel guilty So they vote socialist in order to reduce their guilt Why do they feel guilty? Because Morality as we understand it as you guys understand as I understand Teach it. It's just supposed to be selfless Sacrifice is good. You're your small duty first and foremost is to take care of the poor And you're not doing it because you're too busy running your business and taking care of your family and doing the good things in life Which I believe all good, right? So what do you feel when you're living one life if you should be mother Teresa? What what do you feel? What's the emotion? guilt Now in order to reduce the guilt the easiest way is to delegate the responsibility to government You're more responsibility. You delegate to government. I vote to raise my taxes Why because that way those people won't be taking care of And I can go back to living my life and I feel better about myself because I I've made a sacrifice This is how it works, California We Ten percent to 13 percent 30 percent increase. How do you think the rich voted? The rich always vote to raise taxes in america because they feel guilty Another example if you're guilty, it's not intellectuals here. It's morality. I give you another example I was at a luncheon a lunch There's a lifetime achievement award for american businessman This is in Charleston, South Carolina. So there were no liberals liberals in america. So I know left this day these were all conservatives And they read long bios to recognize the achievements of this person, right? And what do they read in the bio a minute for their business achievement and nine minutes For their community service and their charity all the things that at the end of the day are insignificant to the lives of anybody What really matters is what you do with your business life You're changing the world every day you go to business if you're making money But they're so ashamed of making money conservatives They're ashamed of making money And what they love is the charity in the community service. That's what they're proud of I told them they should be ashamed. Luckily. I was a keynote speaker. I told them they should be ashamed of themselves Charity and community service are nice. I'm not against them But they're not what define you as a human being it's your productive achievement that define you But morality tells us your productive achievements are selfish You got to feel bad about them. You can't feel completely good about him as you get older You feel more and more guilty. I want to eliminate that guilt. That's unearned guilt I say no your life is the purpose of your life Go out and be self interested. That is morality morality is about self interest It's not about sacrifice. It's not about selflessness. It's not about thinking of others morality is But it should be as defined by Aristotle. I'm an Aristotelian tradition. I ran as the Aristotelian tradition It's about your life. It's about your eudaumonia It's about your flourishing and we can argue about what gives individuals flourishing But the focus of the entire science of morality should not be Studying some ancient book or revelation of what some being told us It should be the scientific study of what leads to human flourishing What activity should you be engaged in so you can live a flourishing happy long successful life? That's what morality should be about not commandment, but science And we know the science. We know what causes human flourishing We just need to unleash it Okay, so let's say that this question would be a bit about quite a relevant topic today and let's say current politics I mean the refugee crisis And I mean that once our lovely european politicians let all those people in what we should do with this afterwards Because well, most of them are actually young males. Let's say from the photographs at least I can see And they actually do not want to work in europe. They want us to let's say leave on the free stuff except welfare Yes, yes, so, you know, you've got a welfare state You can't just let anybody and everybody in who's gonna suck at the tits of the state, right? That's wrong. It doesn't make any sense In particular, it doesn't make any sense When we've got a war going on there's a war with radical islam which we pretend doesn't exist So you don't let the enemy just flood in Where you can't tell the difference that who's your friend and who's the enemy now? I believe really in open immigration when your country's free and when you're not at war Right, so get rid of the welfare state beat the enemy crush him as I would do and then you can have immigration Open immigration from my experience the disparity between the poorest and the richest is the most frequent Justification for intervention, you know those and how would you comment on that? How does your answer refer to a person who uses such an argument? Yeah, I'm not being rude. I'm just going to pick up my book It's called equal is unfair equality sucks The only quality that means anything is equality before the law equality of freedom equality of rights Other than that we're unequal look around the room. We're all different And when we're free They're going to be different outcomes. That's beautiful. That's amazing. I love inequality I think inequality is terrific inequality is a sign usually of freedom So I think we have to see a lot of libertarians say oh look at the capitalism people have less inequality I don't that's nonsense. My answer is who cares The gap is irrelevant. The question is Is wealth being created of people getting better off of the poor rising up the poor under capitalism used to be You know the poor in the west used to be dirt poor today. They're up here. They're still poor relative to the rich They got cars. They got iphone stuff. They're conditioning It's not the poor of cambodia. You want to see poor go to cambodia. They're no poor like cambodia in the west So I don't you know I don't worry about inequality. I you know, I give the example of inequality in Anything I love the fact that's you know, the guy who made this is like smarter than me He's more productive than me. He has he has a sense of beauty that I don't Right and he I could never build this And he made billions of dollars doing it. I love it I wish he'd made more because I would have been assigned to create greater products. Unfortunately, he died But When I see somebody make you a lot of money, I go cool. Thank you. You must have made my life better in some way That's the right attitude to uniform but read my book Okay, I got a pretty short question for you The first one is to repeat out the consequent objective. This will leave the world government That's the first I'd say that again Do I think that objectivism will lead to world government implemented consequent objective? Yes, it will lead in political practice long term That the result will be world world government. Yeah, no, I don't And I think that there's always going to be multiple states and it's good because I'll compete on different issues So I don't think objectivism Says Here's the list of laws all governments are going to have exactly the same laws There's going to be deviation. We're going to define property rights differently We're going to punish criminals differently And it's good to have different countries doing things a little bit differently And partially to see what works or what doesn't I do believe the ideal world all governments Will protect individual rights, but there will be some variation just like the founding fathers created a federal system with states Where each state could experiment within bounds They could experiment. I believe in a world where people would still experiment within the bounds of protecting individual rights Okay, so another question. Is there any candidate in current us elections that you would consider endorsing? No Okay, and the last question. No, I mean they're all awful, right I mean gary johnson is not a bad guy But he's just milk toast. I mean he's just not that interesting. I mean if gary johnson got up and actually You know gave a good speech about privatizing social security or doing something exciting and interesting I but I but I'm not you know, it's not worth endorsing If you're not if you're not really passionate about a candidate in there Okay, what's that? Grand paul What is that the father johnson was asked on the tv? What is that? johnson was asked on tv about Aleppo. Oh, yeah Yeah, I I don't know that get full some people doesn't know where nepo is and there's no clue what to do about it Yeah, and the last question Who do you think was the best u.s. President in history? Oh I don't know. I'm not a historian. I mean, I would probably have to say George washington because he quit He he could have stayed president forever and he did two terms And he said i'm gone Right, and he also didn't do a lot of damage. I mean, I think presidents almost never do good I mean, I think the first few presidents are probably pretty good at some real problems, but they're generally good And then I think cleveland In the in the 19th century and then coolage is the last good president that america had That was a long long time ago um, so But but I can't let me let me say this because that's something about this election They've never ever in the history of america being two candidates worse Than hilly clinton and donald trump Never this is the most disgusting worst election in american history. I wish they both Drop dead Because the vice president would be much better than the My question is have you seen the big short film, sir? The what big short film the movie. Oh, I haven't seen the big short movie. I have it I didn't just tell me what do you think about the punishment? Who's who's supposed to be punished? Who was punished in this film? I think I didn't see the films I don't know the students look If you're asking about the financial crisis the financial crisis was caused by socialism It was caused by an attempt of government to manipulate the housing market It was caused by a socialistic attempt to get us into homes By manipulating markets and manipulating us as individuals It was caused by massive regulation of the banks and distorting their incentives It was caused by a complete distortion of the financial markets in the united states It was caused by the socialist institution of a central bank Which That kept interest rates below the rate of inflation artificially for two and a half years and therefore created a bubble This was a crisis of policies from beginning to end Capitalism had nothing to do with it the three industries that were affected by the financial markets Housing mortgages finance are the three most regulated most controlled most socialistic markets in the united states They were the ones that took the hit Because they were the ones under the government government central planning It's central banking in housing in banks. It doesn't matter central planning doesn't work Government trying to manipulate the economy always leads to crisis. The financial crisis is a wonderful example of bad government of bad economic policies It's has zero to say about wall street. It has zero to say about so-called greed There's greed a friend of mine john allison always says there's greed on wall street every day The job is to make money, but if you create Perverse incentives If you create too big to fail if you tell them you can get all the profits, but we protect you on the downside You create bad behavior, but that's all the creation of government All right, no socialist Thank you, sir. Applause, please Thank you for listening to that You can see the link on the slide You can go to the website And there are five books Which will be drawn in front of those who will give you an email And tell you what they think about the event And to win there's a lot of travel costs On the european students for liberty conference in katowice And the registration fee Because ESFL is the sponsor of our coffee break And I invite you to meet with the project of the organization Tamprzestolik And now we'll see you in 10 minutes