 Fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show. On this Sunday afternoon, I was trying to present that. There we go. Yeah, thanks for joining me. I am still in Austin, Texas. We'll be here for the rest of the week. And tried to do as many shows as I can during the week. We'll see how that works out. I'm here doing, participating in some seminars and they kind of go all day. So it's going to be interesting to see. Oh, video, thank you for reminding me. I need to click that button. So we will see kind of when I'm available and what's possible. I think the only times I could do these shows is probably either early in the morning or late at night. So we'll see what we can make, what we can make work from both of those. I think you should have video any minute now. There we go. Let's see, what did we, what else did I want to say before? Oh, yeah, this seems to be quite a stir happening on Twitter. And I expect this to continue and intensify as election season gets closer. Two issues have caused my enemies to phone with their mouth and become obnoxiously irrational as they usually are. One relates to what I said before the last election about people voting for Trump. And the accusation, of course, is that I said that anybody who votes for Trump cannot be an objectivist. That is ridiculous. I never said that. I know a number of people who are longtime objectivists. I know a lot of objectivists who voted for Trump. So that was never my position. But it has been perverted and distorted and turned into that. And yes, there's no question. You can take a sentence, a paragraph of a show that I do extra perenniously where I might have gotten a little bit angry and that came out as the suggestion. I almost immediately made it clarified. But of course, nobody wants to actually hear the clarification. And so, yeah, people voted for Trump. Have we been sowing a voter for Trump? And I know many others who voted for Trump. And I never argued that those people were not objectivists. I did say that people who apologized for Trump were people who justified everything that Trump did. I did not think we're objectivists or we're not representing objectivism. There was not an objectivist position. I did say that. I hope by that. And that is absolutely true. You can be an apologist for Trump. You can't justify his insane irrationality and justify it and stand by it and defend it and still call yourself somebody rational. Being an objectivist, I think, requires rationality. I did not switch my position. This was always my position. I said it over and over again. There was one show where I got a little excited and passionate about. But before that show and after that show, my position never changed. So, yes, you can choose of the hundreds, thousands of hours that I produced and hundreds of hours that I talked about Trump. You can choose to focus on a sentence here, on a statement there. But it's basically dishonest. I'm calling you on it. It is fundamentally dishonest. And you guys are lying about this. Particularly those of you who follow the show and listen to it and those of you who've listened to those shows. You're lying about it. You're being dishonest about it and to hell with you. Anyway, that was the first issue. The second issue was Trump was terrible for America. Trump is terrible for America. Trump was a disaster for America. Trump for America was still suffering the consequences of the disaster. The worst Trump for America will probably suffer it for years, if not decades to come. But, you know, okay, that's for another show. Why should I apologize? There's nothing for me to apologize about. You guys, like you can and others, who are apologists of Trump cannot be considered objectivists. I hold by that view, apologists. That is justifying anything that Trump did under all circumstances. And those of you who did it, you don't deserve an apology. And that is what I said, and I repeated that many times. So, again, there's an uproar on Twitter. On Twitter doesn't take much to create an uproar. The other uproar is that, I guess, in Tennessee, a court ruled that a law banning drag shows is unconstitutional. I guess banning drag shows that children might attend is unconstitutional. The court basically threw that out and said it's not constitutional. And the court is right, and I said the court is right, and God. People just flipped out over that. Anyway, here we are. You know, some of you do listen all the time, and some of you are clearly dishonest. And you hear what you want to hear, and you tune out what you don't want to tune out. One thing you're not, Ken, is objective when it comes to these things. Shows what I asked, if folks on Twitter believe that you have the influence of swinging elections. No, it's not an issue of swinging elections. They are upset at me for condemning them as non-objectivists as if my condemnation matters that much to begin with. But more than that, some of them I did condemn because some of them are clearly apologists for Donald Trump. But it's a question of what my position on Donald Trump was and wasn't. And they are misrepresenting the truth. And that is fine. And, you know, so be it. And, of course, they drag Linda Peacock's name into this at every opportunity because they want to appeal to authority when it's convenient for them to appeal to authority. And God forbid we get any authority when that authority disagrees with them. Then they argue, oh, it's an appeal. But they will appeal to authority at every opportunity they have. And so anyway. So in the spirit, in that spirit of, you know, in the spirit of creating controversy, in the spirit of pissing people off, in the spirit of losing subscribers, I picked, you know, I decided to talk about immigration today. I guess I'm, you know, why not? Let's have it at it. Let me just say I'm not going to talk about every aspect of immigration. There are a lot of different issues around immigration that we can talk about. Of course, you can ask me questions about any of them. I'd be happy to answer them or to try to answer them. But there is, so I, you know, I'm not going to cover all of them. And we're going to have a lot of shows on immigration. This is a big issue. It's an issue that's important to me. I am an immigrant, but it's super important to me. I think it's super important in America. And it's super important in the world right now. And we'll get to that. So this is an issue we will keep returning to. And, of course, I'm definitely open to your questions. The super chat is open. You can ask questions about immigration. I encourage you to ask questions about immigration. It's a controversial topic. It's one that splits the objectives movement. There's disagreement in the objectives movement. Famously, this is an issue Lena Peekoff and I disagree about. There's a kind of debate we did where Amy Peekoff was moderating it from years ago. I can't feel what year 2014 maybe. Years ago where we kind of hash out some of our differences around this. I don't think in the end I convinced Leonard and I don't think he convinced me. So I think we probably still disagree over the issue of immigration. So if Leonard and I can disagree, by the way, we're still friends, there is obviously complexity to the issue. And there's obviously a lot going on around the issue. So I encourage you guys to ask questions about it. I'm just going to one last comment on the Trump thing. Ken says, Notice Your Honor has never tried to put an argument against those who objectively voted for Trump. I actually have. I have done many shows where I presented an objective argument of why Trump was the worst of all candidates. I did a number of shows on why I thought Trump is destroying this country and destroying the Republican Party. I had a conversation with Peter Schwartz about that on our interview, but I've done many shows about that. I sat down with Leonard Peekoff for two hours and discussed the Trump issue and why I thought it was why I had my views about Trump as they are. I don't know that I convinced him. He didn't convince me, but the point is, no, I've never hidden and I've never tried not to convince people. I've never laid out my argument. You might not accept it. As I said, Ken, you're an apologist for Trump. I don't know that there is an argument you would accept. But the argument that I've never laid out my arguments against, I mean, and if the arguments against Trump have only, by the way, solidified and intensified, since he lost the election, the irrationality of this guy has just been so evident that, to me, the argument against him being president. Anyway, my point is, I have laid out hours and hours and hours and hours and hours of my arguments against Trump objectively to try to convince you. Haven't convinced you? That's fine. Your problem, not mine. All right, immigration. I think the reason this has come to the forefront is I did a show on this or it was a piece of a show that I did a few weeks ago or a few days ago. Is numbers coming out of the U.K. and really numbers coming out of all of Europe as to the pace of migration, net migration into these countries? Partially, so there's a migration into Western countries, the United States, Europe, even Australia, is reaching certainly in Europe all-time highs. Part of that, there's no question, is catching up because of COVID, catching up because of the significant decline in migration and there's a certain built-up pen demand and that has resulted in a dramatic increase. But in particular in the U.K., the increase in migration has been dramatic and interesting. Interesting because one of the reasons the U.K. engaged past Brexit was in order, supposedly, was in order to reduce migration into the U.K. And that was so many part of the goal of those who voted for Brexit, at least that's what it seemed like and that's what people talked about, that they wanted to see a reduction in immigration into the U.K. And yet what's happened since Brexit is you've actually seen an increase in immigration into the U.K., it's just shifted. Whereas before Brexit, the dominant country from which people were migrating to the United Kingdom was Poland because it was easy because under EU regulations you can move to any country and you get a work visa and it's easy to move. And there was a real backlash against Polish migration. There are more immigrants now than there were back then but now the immigrants are predominantly from places like India, Nigeria and many kind of third world but colony, former British colonial countries. So it is curious and that we've seen an increase in migration and in particular we've seen an increase in migration, in particular we've seen an increase in migration among, God what was I going to say? I lost my train of thought, I have to stop looking at the chat and the discussions about Trump and focus on this. So we've seen a significant increase in migration in places like the U.K. But even in Germany and other parts of Europe you're seeing a dramatic increase, the United States obviously and other places. And the real question is, oh yes I know what I was going to say, that the increase in migration in the U.K., interestingly enough, is under a conservative government, a conservative government that is often reeled against migration, that is promised time and time again to reign in migration and housing. And here in the U.K. we're talking primarily about legal migration. That is, this is not about people sneaking across the border and a resistance to sending them back, although there are some of that and that's increasing. People getting on boats from France, not Frenchmen but Africans and Middle Easterners and others, getting on boats in France and crossing the canal and coming illegally to the United States. But that is not the majority, the almost overwhelming majority, almost overwhelming majority is legal. So in spite of the fact that they have said they want less legal migration, they haven't been living up to it. And it's interesting because you're seeing the same phenomena all over Europe in spite of a conservative and right wing pressure, in spite of governments over and over again saying we don't want more migration, we're going to limit migration. The reality is that has not happened. And part of the question is why? Why are countries in the West increasing or at least holding steady legal migration into the country? And why in spite of the fact that voters might even penalize them for them? Why is this happening? And I think the answer is very similar across the border, though in the UK this is more so if you will. But this is true in the United States, it's true in all of Europe. And you're seeing even companies like Japan and South Korea start questioning their migration policies and start opening up, if very, very, very slowly, to more and more migrants coming in. And a big part of the reason for that is not some realization that immigration restrictions are violations of rights. I believe they are, they're both violation of rights of the person immigrating, but in some sense even more importantly there are violations of rights of the citizens of your country. Might want to employ those migrants, might want to sell them property, might want to rent them property. So, you know, restrictions and immigrations are massive violations of individual rights. But, you know, it's not that these countries are suddenly becoming defenders of individual rights and caring. There's basically two, you know, two paths, two reasons why migrants are coming in. James T. says the UK has a lot of immigrants coming in and pass that never lead to citizenship, they have created systems to bring people in and along to visas. True, but that's why in the UK we look at net migration, that is, there are more people coming in and leaving, because they're constantly people leaving. It's true in the United States to the less extent, but in the UK it's true because a big chunk of those migrants are students and families of students. But it's also true that even though people come in with visas that don't lead necessarily to citizenship, they still stay a long time, they still ultimately do lead to citizenship. I came to the United States on a visa that was clearly not intended to lead to citizenship. I came on an F1 visa, which is a student visa, at the end of that thing you're supposed to go back. Most people do go back to their country. You're not expected to become a citizen. I became a citizen illegally without breaking the law, without lying, cheating, stealing. Although, you know, I would have broken the law if that would have been the only way to become a citizen. I certainly would have broken the law. But I didn't. And the reason is that once you're in, all kinds of paths open up that provide for legal change in your legal status. You get an incredible job after school, you know, and then you switch visas. You marry somebody local and as a consequence you get citizenship. There are lots and lots of ways in which you can stay. So the fact that somebody enters on a visa that is not kind of bound for citizenship doesn't mean they're not going to be bound for citizenship. Many of them do become citizen. So I think there are two reasons that explain what is going on in the world in terms of migration. The first is economic. And that is that, you know, the West has a real population problem, a real demographic problem. And some of it is demographic, some of it is you could argue alternatively the West has a real jobs problem. I've mentioned this in my other show. The UK can't find enough people to work at the NHS, can't find enough dentists, nurses, doctors to fill those positions to a large extent and they can't compete economically. If you're a really good doctor you try to leave the UK and go somewhere where you can make a decent living like the United States. In the UK you have a government employee basically. You can do some private practice but it's very difficult to become wealthy given the limited scope of the private practices in the UK. So the UK basically, the Brits are not attracted to medicine. It's a hard profession, it's hard hours, it's hard work. It's rewarding but it's very difficult and wages are low. And therefore Brits are not attracted to it. So who is attracted to it? Well, if you trained overseas you can come to the UK, you can get additional training and you can qualify to be a doctor in the UK. And they import, they import nurses and dentists from all over the world, all over the world. And a big chunk is just to fulfill the job openings that the NHS has, the National Health Service has. Just not enough Brits doing that. But that's true of a lot of jobs. And part of that again is the way we've structured it. The NHS are artificially low wages, low wages constructed because they govern employees because of social life medicine. But others, it's because of demographics. The West is getting old, as is Japan and South Korea, as is the United States. We're getting old. Many countries like Germany and other European countries have an aging population. They promise them the moon in terms of pension plans and the kind of standard living that they will expect in retirement. And yet there's not enough young people working and paying into the system to pay for the wonderful welfare promises that are being made. So governments, even though they don't really want to, are basically allowing large numbers of migrants to fill jobs that either nobody else will fill or they're just not people to fill them because there's not enough people locally to fill them. And to bolster their welfare states so that they can keep on going so that they can continue to exist. I mean, today, 10% of the French population was born outside of France. In Germany, 20% of the population was either born outside of Germany or are children of people who were born outside of Germany. I couldn't find the number for people born outside of Germany, just people born outside of Germany. But it's just over 20%. It's like 22%, 23%. Either they were born outside of Germany or the parents were born outside of Germany. Sweden, it's 14% of the population was born outside. In the UK, it's 17%, 17% of the population in the UK today was born outside of the UK. And in the US, it's something like 15%. So, and at least in the US, these are close to historic levels, close to what it was in like the 1890s when migration as a percentage of the population was enormous. But in a place like France and Germany, which are being pretty homogeneous and have not really had much migration, suddenly it's 10%, 20%, between 10% and 20%. But the reality is that these countries cannot sustain the welfare states that they built up without allowing a vast number of immigrants in. And you see that, you see that all over the place. Now, the UK, I think, is probably the country with the most assimilation, with the best assimilation in Europe. I mean, it is pretty amazing how well assimilated migrants are in the UK. And you look at the government. Look at the UK government and look at how many of the people, you know, within the UK government, are either immigrants themselves or children of immigrants. Look how many of them don't look European. The UK has really done a phenomenal job culturally in assimilating people into British culture. And I think the UK is richer and better for it. And if you go to London and you kind of see the diversity in London and the number of people have just adopted British behavior, customs, culture, it's quite stunning and quite positive. So, as you know, I'm a huge for migration more broadly. So, let's see. So, yes. So the number one is just economics. It just, there is an economic need. And look at the United States, we have, I don't know, 12 million somewhere between 10 to 12 million unfilled jobs. And it's at record high and yet unemployment rate is at record lows. And so we've got, it just jumped up to 3.7 but not exactly clear how that happened. More people are starting to look for jobs suddenly. But unemployment rate is below four, solidly below four for a long time. And yet that 12 million open jobs. Now, there are a lot of people who are not working, which the unemployment rate doesn't capture because they're not looking for jobs. And employment rate only captures the people looking for jobs who can't find them. That's the consequence of the welfare state. That's the consequence of paying people to stay home. It's a consequence of not encouraging people to go to work. But it's a reality. There's 12 million jobs unfilled in the U.S. economy. That has a real consequence. The result is the jobs are not getting done. Stuff is not getting built. Values are not being created. Production is not happening. Which lowers, you know, everything else held constant. Basically lowers the quality of life standard of living and lowers the amount of wealth created in the United States. United States needs right now 10 million immigrants to fill those 10 million jobs because Americans won't do them. We know Americans won't do them because they're sitting home playing video games in their parents' basement. So the economics, not ideology, is driving much of the migration approach. Now, the United States is, I take the United States as somewhat unique in the world right now. In the fact that it is completely ignoring the real needs of the U.S. economy, it's ignoring the economics. It's ignoring itself interest in ways that are deeply troubling. And this is stunning because this is true of left and right. There is no political party today in the United States. And sadly, even the libertarians now are anti-immigration. There's no political party in the United States today that is pro-immigration. And I hear you talking about legal immigration. There's no political party in the United States today that's pro-legal immigration. So one of the consequences of this is that we are losing, and I think I gave you some data on this a few weeks back, the smartest and the brightest, the graduate students, the STEM researchers, the people who can work in a chip manufacturing plant, who can be the future entrepreneurs. I mean, what is it? 40% of all startups in the U.S. have at least one immigrant as a founder. 25% of all the people working in startups are immigrants. Those immigrants, those immigrants that obviously and immediately and so easily demonstratably, that's a word, produce value and create wealth and create jobs and make America what it is in many respects. So many of those people, those are the people who are not allowing it. We have our entire immigration system structured to make it really difficult for those people at an else expense. And one of the shocking things about that is the country that is most encouraging of people with STEM to come and work over there is China. China is willing to accept immigrants. China is suddenly encouraging Chinese to come back. I mean, Chinese are low-hanging fruit when it comes to brilliant migrants that want to work in STEM and want to stay in the United States. The U.K. has been much better at this by allowing Hong Kongers to come there and accepting huge numbers of Chinese students and then encouraging many of them to stay as immigrants in the U.K. and yet the United States doesn't want them. So we don't have enough entrepreneurs. We don't have enough builders and creators and makers and people who, again, like that, create value and wealth and benefit the new country. So the United States is the one country out there that seems to not be motivated by economics. If the United States was motivated by economics, we would dramatically expand legal migration of people who could find high-value jobs in the United States. And that is not happening. Quite the contrary. Now, you know my view of migration policy is that anybody could fight a job in the United States. Whatever their job is, including picking strawberries, should be let in on a visa link to their having work and as long as they have the work, they can stay given a period of time if they lose a job to find a new one, but basically that they can move to the United States as long as they can work here, as long as they work here, as long as they don't become, in that sense, drain on the welfare state they should be invited in. I mean, I think ultimately, you know, in the ideal state is open immigration, but as a transition to that, a situation where anybody who can find a job in the United States is allowed in, I don't think you have to give them citizenship. I'm fine with delaying citizenship as long as any of you like, lifetime as far as I'm concerned, I don't really care. I don't think they care. I don't think the migrants care. So, you know, don't give them citizenship, the first generation, only the second generation. And, you know, I don't have any problem with that. I think citizenship, in a sense, is overrated. People don't come here to become, don't come to countries to become citizens. They come for work. They come for freedom. They come for liberty. They come to escape oppression. They come to maximize their productivity, to maximize their ability to work with great people. They come to boost their own productivity in their own lives and their own happiness. You know, whether they become citizens or not, I think is a big secondary question. In that sense, whether they vote or not, I think is, for me, is unimportant. And I don't think it's that important for them either. I don't think they come here in order to vote. They come here in order to live. Voting is a very small, I know for most of you it's a huge part of life, but for them, very small piece of what it means to be alive. So that's one reason for this migration is economics. Again, it doesn't explain the United States, because the United States does not seem to be motivated by economic factors. And those are very self-interested factors, by the way. It makes complete sense to be motivated by that. Although again, I would like a system that is motivated by individual rights and protection of individual rights. Your own citizens' individual rights, never mind the individual rights of the migrants themselves. The second reason, but the reality is that's not what motivates. We're talking about what actually motivates, not what should motivate. The second reason is altruism. That is the inability to resist the suffering, to resist the pain that migrants obviously have. That is, I think in the end it increases migration and I'm all for that, but the reality is countries are not doing it for good reasons, they're not doing it because they respect the dignity of the migrants, they're not doing it because they respect the individual rights of the migrants. They do it because they can't say no in the face of suffering. I think to a large extent this was an issue for Germany with the Muslim migration. It guilt-driven, guilt-driven over their behavior in World War II with the Jews and guilt-driven, just generally guilt, Christian guilt. I think it's part of the U.S. I mean, how can you say no to the poor El Salvadorians and Guatemalans and they go through these amazing hardships. Now again, I would let them in. It might concern, but not out of a sense of guilt or out of a sense of altruism, but out of a sense of respect for their individual rights. But that's not what's driving it. Driving it is clearly a real sense of altruism. There are illegal migrants in the U.K., primarily Africans, some Middle Easterners. And again, the motivation, the driving motivation there is around guilt and around suffering and around we owe them in some sense because a guilt that is associated with colonialism, a guilt is associated with empire, guilt is associated with being white, I guess, and so-called privileged, as they call it. So I think these are the things that motivate a country, sadly, rather than what I think should motivate them with, which is self-interest, individual rights, respect for individual rights. But of course, there is no respect for individual rights about almost anything. There is no respect for individual rights around economic issues. There's no respect for individual rights around social issues. Individual rights, in a sense, disappeared from the public discourse in the United States. I don't think they ever played a role in the public discourse in much of Europe, maybe implicitly, but certainly not explicitly. As Jeremy Bentham once said, and I think this is the view of most intellectuals and ultimately most politicians and people in the judiciary, individual rights and nonsense on stilts is their perspective and therefore they have to come up with other excuses, other reasons for this. Okay, quickly, I want to talk about what impact this has on the West. I mean, if the West is going to be filled with people who don't necessarily share the same background, who don't share the same color skin, who don't come from the same cultures, what is going to happen to the West? And I think here, and this is where I disagree with so many people on the right, I think here it depends on the West's attitude. I think the UK has a relatively positive attitude here. It has a certain, you know, much more so than other countries, but even in the UK there are real problems. And that attitude is they will assimilate, they will become Brits. We have certain principles by which we live, we expect them to adhere to those principles. Now, sadly this is not done consistently and not applied throughout and maybe the best example of this is in England is the grooming gangs, the committed rape on an unbelievably large scale where British authorities let them get away with it or stayed silent in the face of it, didn't uphold the rule of law in the way you would expect them to. And you see the same thing in Sweden. Sweden is overrun by gangs and overrun by violence from the migrants, but Sweden has never made an effort to integrate them, has never made an effort to assimilate. And they've acknowledged that, they've completely failed in integrating and assimilating. They haven't brought them into the workforce, they haven't brought them into the school system, they've isolated them. The UK is a little better than that or much better than that. There's a lot more assimilation that happens in the UK, but not consistently and obviously not in law enforcement and not consistently over time. And this is to a large extent a consequence and I think the same is true in the United States. The United States is excellent at assimilating. It's excellent in turning immigrants into Americans. And even those complaining about voting, you can start to see immigrants voting more like the native population proportionally within a generation. So second, third generation migrants from Latin America vote much more like the overall general population so they've integrated, they assimilate. And to an extent in America they don't assimilate. It's to a large extent a consequence of the left's insistence on multiculturalism, the left's insistence on white guilt and white fragility and all this nonsense. And the West's insistence that the culture is not superior. That is the most destructive thing one can do from the perspective of the most destructive thing you can do from the perspective of assimilation in a culture is not recognized as superiority of a culture. They came to you for a reason because you're better than where they came from. So insist that they adapt to this new culture that is better, that they know is better because they voted with their feet to show that it's better. I think also voting patterns particularly in the US are to a large extent a consequence of the fact that Republicans are so explicitly hostile to immigrants that immigrants are unlikely to vote for them. So assimilation is an attitude kind of thing. It is a consequence of the belief in yourself, it is a consequence of belief in your own value and it is a consequence of the kind of education you provide and that is something within our control and therefore it's something that we can bring about. We can help people and encourage people and in some sense demand that people assimilate if they come into our country. I think UK has been relatively good. I think the United States is probably the best in the world although again not as good as it used to be and moving away from that. France has been pretty bad but not as bad as Sweden. Germany has been not as good as the UK, maybe not as bad as Sweden but somewhere in the middle and the consequence of this are that they are vast groups within these countries that have not assimilated and have viewed themselves as the other and often that manifests itself in higher crime rates and antagonism to the local culture. I want to talk about one final aspect of this and then I'll turn to your questions. One final aspect of this is that one of the consequences of this migration one I think of the really scary consequences of this migration is the rise of a new right across the board. I think there's a real danger in the UK that the Conservative Party becomes because it keeps promising to reduce immigration and doesn't because it plays to the xenophobia of some people in UK but then doesn't actually fulfill what they want that ultimately the Conservative Party will become irrelevant and a further right much more explicitly xenophobic much more aggressively anti-immigration and much more anti-liberty, anti-freedom across the board I think a party will rise to replace the Conservatives in the UK, if you will, political landscape. I think that is true in the United States where I think the Republican Party is going to drift to the right on many issues but they kind of drift to the right that is going to be clearly one of the top issues that quote concerns Americans is immigration they know very little about it they don't understand the statistics, they don't understand what drives it they have no understanding of the immigration issue but they are anti-immigration and there's a growing anti-immigration not just towards illegal immigrants but also towards illegal immigration that the Republican Party drift even further maybe the Democratic Party as well towards being more and more anti-immigration but I think that drift is accompanied with being more and more anti-freedom and anti-liberty more broadly, generally anti-immigration sentiment go hand in hand politically with anti-liberty, anti-freedom sentiment if you believe in individual rights, you believe in individual rights of your own citizen it's not that hard to see that you are violating their rights by not allowing them to engage in a transaction with somebody who wants to come into the country you're seeing far-right groups you're already seeing a far-right group in Sweden have a significant presence in parliament and together with the anti-immigration aspects they are anti-free market aspects they're anti-other elements of individual rights associated with it the far-right political party in Germany that has, I guess the founders had certain fascist Nazi elements they've screened those people out so they are at least assuming that they're not fascist the neo-Nazis but they are not good, they're not pro-liberty, they're not pro-freedom you're seeing them on the rise partially because of the bad economics in Germany and the stupid climate change stuff but also to a large extent because of immigration you're seeing of course the rise of the populist rights in France, rise among other things because of the rise of this issue of immigration when they're not good in economics, they're not good in liberty, they're not good in anything else I mean Marie Le Pen was against pension reform which is just a tiny little thing to prevent bankruptcy from the system from going bankrupt because the populist policies are government state intervention government control doing what's good for the people and then of course you see the same thing in Italy which elected you know a far-right candidate who's turning out to be pretty decent actually and nowhere near as bad as I think many feared you know Spain has one of the probably the most the biggest rise probably in the next election the party that will do the best in relative terms next election is a political party of the far-right that is very anti-immigration and again not good on any other issue we're getting, liberty and freedom so the real damage immigration is doing is not the immigrants the real damage that immigration is doing is you know facilitating the rise of a far-right almost fascist elements in a variety of countries in the United States you know immigration could be a major issue that fuels a Republican victory in spite of the fact that on many other issues people are not aligned with the Republicans abortion for example but immigration is so much in people's mind that it could be I think every single one of the Republican candidates is terrible on immigration they have to be because otherwise they can't win the nomination but some of them are particularly bad we know Trump is just horrific DeSantis is really bad on immigration the E-Verify the now requirement in Florida for every employer to use E-Verify is just a massive violation of individual rights I'm glad to see Representative Massey, Congressman Massey coming out vocally against E-Verify E-Verify is a system that can be used easily to control your work to control labor, to control who businesses employ who businesses don't employ it turns businesses into enforcers of the law rather than law enforcement enforcing the law and it creates massive costs bureaucracy it is a clearly anti-market and anti-freedom and anti-liberty proposal and Florida now has mandated its use in the entire state which is horrible and I think DeSantis but every Republican is saying that they can do this would make this a national policy Congress actually passed this as national policy I don't think it passed a House, I don't think it passed a Senate there's one advantage of divided government and I think that no matter what what's his name, Biden will veto it so an advantage of divided government is some really really bad stuff like the Republicans immigration bill that passed a House is not going to get passed a Senate, not going to get passed Biden which is good yep, alright let's see alright so that's a spiel in immigration we could take this in a lot of different directions I will be doing lots of shows on immigration in the future as news hits so as issues come up and we talk about them but given the numbers out of the UK I thought it justified doing a longer show on it let me just quickly look through this to see to see if there are immigration specific issues not many, it's surprising that you don't want to challenge me or you don't want to ask any questions around immigration assimilation is being stifled by the illusion of control most government officials have when I came to the US I got a green card and a social security number providing housing transportation etc is creating ghettos yes, but of course that only happens to a small minority of immigrants most immigrants you get a social security number you get a work permit the problem today is and I highlighted this a few days ago on the show is that a lot of these asylum seekers where the whole immigration policy is shifted towards benefiting asylum seekers because of altruism that these asylum seekers are brought into the US and they're forbidden from working, they're not allowed to work and that is insanity and then yes you're right, you give them housing you give them transportation, you put them in particular neighborhoods you create ghettos but more importantly you create a whole population now that is not working and you create a whole population now that is dependent on government law and you create a whole population now that is going to be dependent on government for a long time and that's acceptable the welfare state does that with Americans, why not do it with immigrants I mean I find it the welfare state is unbelievably destructive unbelievably destructive what we need to actually be doing is increasing immigration and borrowing them from getting any welfare zero welfare for immigrants you want to come here, you want to walk all the way here you get a little work permit to the country, fine but we're not giving you anything, you get a little work permit you can go find a job, find a job, fine can't find a job, back home we won't support you, die of starvation I mean if that was the attitude immigration would be a lot healthier but we subsidize non-work we subsidize people to come here and then not work I'm just looking quickly to see if there is any more questions or comments on immigration shockingly not much James G says, why did you pick the USA over the UK to immigrate to for college based on everything you know now do you still pick the USA over the UK were there any other countries you considered studying no I mean I didn't consider any other countries but the United States is clearly still is the freest major country in the world it is still the place that ultimately will shape the world it's still the place that has the most opportunities if you're an ambitious individual I mean the UK, I love the UK and I love London in particular and I like the UK a lot but I don't know that I want to live in the UK I would still prefer to live in the United States there's a spirit, there's a certain entrepreneurship entrepreneurial spirit, there's a certain attitude in the United States that you can't really replicate or has not replicated anywhere else in the world and as such I don't regret moving here I regret the fact that since I moved here things have gotten quite a bit worse but that's true in most of the world you know they're more pretty places they're more convenient places but the United States is the place where you have the most opportunities to make a difference, to make a difference in your life to create value, to live the best life that you can live so I don't regret it for one minute let's see, okay let's go to some of the big super chat questions Michael, Michael has really opened his wallet today thank you Michael, really really appreciate it Michael is probably over time with consistency, my biggest super chat supporter certainly asked the most questions no question about that, but he puts his money in the questions so we have a $100 question for Michael by the way we're about halfway, a little better than halfway and so this is a super chat, it would be great if we could make it to $6.50 like we did yesterday it's important as I've told you this is my income the show and my lectures, that's my income and in order to sustain in order to keep me going in order for me not to get another job this has to pay all my bills and it doesn't quite do that today so I'm going to have to find ways to generate more income from the show over the next six months because as of right now the show is not supporting me, anyway enough Michael says you say if you lie in one aspect of your life it corrupts your entire psychology but I've known people who are 100% honest in business while having affairs on a spouse or being dishonest another way in their personal lives I don't see it transferring over it transfers one to one it's not that a lie here necessitates a lie over there although often it does and one wonders if those business people if they're put under the right kind of stress in the right kind of circumstance will they break will they revert to the easy out which they live under in their personal life of lying or cheating to get themselves out of it so the fact that you know and you think they're 100% honest in the right circumstances they're always going to be 100% honest but I think that what fundamentally happens is once you start lying in a particular aspect of your life it corrupts your thinking it corrupts your rationality it makes you it leads to you being less happy being less successful you might carve out a part of your life business let's say where you're not going to lie but I don't think you can either live up to your full potential if you're trying to cover up lies over here and worried and concerned and spend too much energy on covering up the lies and trying to compartmentalize your psychology to be able to deal with the lies over there while you're doing business I don't think you can be as successful as you could otherwise be I don't think you can be happy I think it hurts you in multiple ways but those multiple ways are not necessarily that if I lie in this realm of my life I have to lie in every realm of my life it means that if I lie in this one realm of my life it's going to corrupt every realm of my life there's going to be an influence in every realm of my life and I'll hold to that these 100% honest in business but who lies elsewhere it's hurting their ability to be great businessmen it really is because it corrupts their reason okay Michael also for $50 I was watching some Margaret Thatcher's old speeches she was a real firebrand as she was surprising such a collectivist society as the UK would have voted for her even Reagan wasn't as forceful and as a friend of privatization of fan enterprise I agree Margaret Thatcher was a huge impact she not only impact changed England in more dramatic ways than even Reagan changed America but I think she changed the world I think many people many governments many people around the world look at Thatcher and looked at the UK as a model as an example and there was a dramatic change in people's attitude towards economics and towards politics in the post Thatcher world she was amazing I mean your question of how could a collectivist society like UK I mean I think the real answer to that is they were desperate it wasn't some big intellectual change although there were some of that but they were desperate the UK was sinking and sinking fast it had suffered a massive brain drain it was suffering a drain of talent it was London was filthy and dark and people were depressed and there was no energy no energy and I think to a logic stand and remember in the UK you vote for a political party you don't vote for the premiership necessarily and Thatcher became the leader of the Conservative Party partially by default because the person they wanted to become the head of the Conservative Party didn't want the job and he suggested Thatcher get it it wasn't like she was super popular it was that the left had done such a bad job running England into the ground that there was a Conservatives were going to win and then Thatcher to some extent by chance became the leader of the Conservative movement and then became Prime Minister and then was very successful but even early on in the early years of the Thatcher premiership she was very unpopular and nothing she did seemed to work and she was budding up against crisis after crisis until the Falklands and it's fascinating because her response to the Falklands and the British victory over Argentina in the Falklands war I don't even know if many of you know of there was such a thing as the Falklands war but there was and Britain won and it regained control over the Falkland islands which are off the coast of Argentina in the Atlantic Ocean that propelled her popularity that made her popular and then once she was that popular once she was that you know once she was that popular you know she could get she could do the kind of things that she did she couldn't do it before the Falklands the Falklands are what made it possible for her and so it's the nationalist pride of winning a war that made it possible for Thatcher to really liberate the UK economy which is kind of interesting what else I wanted to say there is another aspect of this which I think is important there was a real intellectual movement in the UK in support of free markets Hayek was of course in the UK the Institute of Economic Affairs and ultimately the Adam Smith Institute were strong advocates for free markets there was a online conservative movement that had become much more free market in many ways much more than in the US conservatism always had a very tentative relationship with free markets and liberty in the UK primarily because UK conservatives are fundamentally secular they're not religious the idea of free markets and conservatism was much more natural and much more cohesive and coherent they advocated for liberty not just for and did not focus did not focus just on you know there wasn't a focus on religion that American conservatives have that undercuts their promotion of liberty and promotion of economic freedom alright alright we're about 280 short of our goals so when we've got about 80 people on the chat so I don't know $5 per person would certainly get us past the goal so you can use a sticker just to make a contribution so those of you listening right now live you're going to see the show continuing even those who might not like what I have to say seem to listen a lot and seem to be on here all the time one way in which you can make sure that that continues indefinitely is five bucks five bucks on shows that you listen life to you're getting a value hopefully I assume you're here you're a trader become a trader alright iron meal cut went to a Mexican restaurant with my friends like a week ago food was amazing can't believe Trump wants to wall them off it's the food the food that's convinced you iron meal cut yes Mexican food is fantastic and one of the amazing thing that I don't think people really appreciate about Mexican food is how varied it is that is from northern Mexico southern Mexico western Mexico eastern Mexico central Mexico is very different and there's a wide variety and it's delicious and it's amazing and there's some really really really good some of the best restaurants in Mexico City there's some phenomenal Mexican restaurants in Mexico City but the reality is right now and has been since 2008 is that there are not a lot of Mexicans coming into the United States Mexican migration into the United States was mostly negative that is Mexicans going back to Mexico before COVID I don't know what the numbers are post COVID but I don't think there's been a spike in Mexican migration into the United States for a number of reasons the US economy was not doing that well during the 2008 2009 and post 2009 period even during Trump years there just wasn't that much growth in employment so a lot of Mexicans went back to Mexico and at the same time Mexico's economy did relatively well and jobs were created and economic growth happened and they could find decent jobs over there and they went back to family most of the migration into the United States today is from places like Venezuela, Cuba El Salvador, Guatemala and other places like that Columbia and China surprising quite a few Chinese are being caught on the border trying to sneak into the US so it's not a lot of Mexicans Mexicans are already here and many of them go back and very few new Mexicans come back to the United States because life in Mexico has gotten better Andrew I'm not pro Tom Cotton but he seemed sensible he was voicing alarm over defense budget cuts yes there's waste to cut but that's outpaced by the military's needs it seems wrong to spend less inflation adjusted annually thoughts I'm not convinced of that I think that the problem with the military budget is not that it's too small the problem with the military budget is that it's not being invested well it's not going to the way things that the United States actually needs to defend itself particularly in the Pacific it's not being deployed strategically often the defense spending is being deployed politically to manufacturers in different counties where congress people have and what else so it's and then there's a lot of waste in terms of money being allocated to units that are responsible for nation buildings and then of course we have troops in 120 different countries bringing them home bringing troops even from South Korea home or cutting them back dramatically or maybe building bases elsewhere and shifting them I just think like much of what happens in the federal government there's no strategy and I think that if you had a proper foreign policy strategy if you had a clear identification of who the enemy was and who the enemies are and how you can deploy American resources, American troops, American weapons systems to protecting this country the most effectively I think you could probably cut the defense budget I think there's a lot of money that is wasted not from the perspective of I don't know paying a lot of money for a hammer but wasted from the perspective of not being strategic not being spent strategically yeah I'm not a fan of Tom Cotton for a variety of reasons no one asks, no one thank you very much for this show and sharing your views on the subject the best arguments against immigration is probably how insecure we are about our own culture so we fail to uphold our values when they're challenged absolutely, I think that's absolutely right immigration is our own failing our own willingness to stand up for the culture and to advocate for it and insist on assimilation and insist on educating them about the value and of the culture they're moving to and the history and so on we become a culture filled and riddled with guilt and looking down on ourselves or a culture where like a lot of people on the right oh they're very proud to be an American but their Americanism boils down to collectivism boils down to superficiality a lack of understanding what really America is about individual rights, freedom, liberty very very few people in America today understand that very very few people in America today understand the founding documents what they represent and what they say about what America is what makes this country unique, what makes this country special and yeah so it's not surprising as a consequence of that that immigrants come here and they don't get it and they don't know Americans don't get it and look all the problems America faces today are not caused by immigrants I mean unless you consider 19th century immigrants in the equation they're caused by Americans they're caused by Americans, they're caused by the ideas that are prevalent in America today that go unchallenged and questioned alright James do you get to keep more dollars by a super chat or by PayPal for the Texas video generally I get to keep more dollars from PayPal than I do from YouTube how is Dallas? I was in Dallas do you like it better than Austin or Houston? no I mean my favorite city in Texas is definitely Austin it is the prettiest city it's got rolling hills it's got water it's very green Dallas is flat I mean it's a nice city, they have beautiful neighborhoods it's a growing city as is Austin, as is Houston I don't particularly like it's flat it's super humid, it's super hot it's just my least favorite of those Austin than Dallas then Houston, San Antonio is probably somewhere between Dallas and Houston but that's just me I mean that's my preference but the nice thing about Texas Austin, Dallas and I haven't been to Houston in a long time but I assume Houston as well is how much growth there is and there are queens everywhere and there's building going on everywhere and there's a dynamism to all these cities that you don't see in many other places in the United States so it's an exciting place to be I think you get the same sense in Tennessee you get the same sense in Southwest, Northwest, Arkansas and other places Michael, I've always appreciated an iron-rand reference in pop culture Episode 6 of Mrs. Davis I don't know Mrs. Davis features a copy of Alice Shrugged on a bookshelf that also acts as a lever to a secret entrance oh cool, cool yes, I appreciate those references too I definitely think they help our case and they get more people interested Michael says, where do you see political discourse in a hundred years? Well, altruism and collectivism still be big players you know, I don't know I mean, I certainly hope and believe that they will not be that, you know, Objectivism will be the dominant secular philosophy out there there'll be some that the debate will be between, I think, the remnants of Christianity and Objectivists there'll be some collectivism altruism obviously because of Christianity but there'll be a lot less of it and really they will have to they will have to in a sense engage with Objectivism as the real alternative but a hundred years is very difficult to predict Adam says, here in Southern L.A. County in Southern L.A. County we have chefs from every place in the world, yes you do Peruvian is way better than any of the many regions of Mexico what is your favorite? Peruvian food, really good Peruvian food I haven't found outside of Peru Peru, Lima has some of the best restaurants in the world Lima is one of my top cities in the world for food so that is hard to beat but, you know, Mexico Mexico City has some amazing restaurants and Mexican food can be super amazing I mean, I think here in Texas you get a lot of Tex-Mex which is not exactly Mexican food I think in California you get Mexical-Mex which is not always authentic Mexican food I think if you can find elevated authentic Mexican food it is amazing but I'd say, you know, you can find great restaurants in any of those places in South America, I think Lima is probably the best place for food in all of Latin America including Mexico, I'd say Lima you know, Sao Paulo has a lot of good places Rio, Sao Paulo in particular some of my favorite restaurants in Sao Paulo Mexico City has a lot but yeah, Peruvian food is amazing particularly at the top restaurants in Peru I actually think that the number one restaurant in the world which will be revealed this month in Valencia, Spain there's a big event without reveal the number one restaurant in the world will be Central in Lima an amazing restaurant and maybe right now I think Lima has two of the top five or top ten restaurants in the world I think it will still have that Central and Miado are both top restaurants so yeah, Peruvian food is amazing but Mexican food can be amazing if you go to the right place I tell like children comfortable with self-interest because they don't trust their own minds or they don't trust the minds of the majority of the population I think it's both I mean there's a sense in which they don't trust their own minds this is why they love academia and they love tenia and they love they don't have to go out there into the world and actually be challenged and actually put their mind up against the marketplace academia is a very safe place but they certainly don't trust the minds of the majority of the population I think many intellectuals implicitly or explicitly are Platonists and they really view themselves in some way or another as a type of philosopher king Michael, you mentioned on yesterday's show that Republicans and blue-collar voters don't matter because they're not intelligent I didn't say they don't matter I did say generally if you look at intelligence they're less intelligent sounded a little elitist and dismissive I am an elitist I think you know in some regard right intelligence matters people with intelligence know more than people without high intelligence knowledge matters you know so expertise matters I want experts I respect experts and the reality is that the demographics of the Republican Party skew less intelligent not less intellectual, less intelligent now that doesn't mean intelligent people don't do crazy stupid irrational things look at the Democratic Party it's filled with intelligent people super smart people who do horrific things so intelligence doesn't give a T.U. good result but if we believe if we believe that the fight ultimately is about ideas and look intelligence in a sense more important than intelligence is honesty and what's really important is that combination of intelligence with honesty they're the ones that shape the world the intellectuals, the smart people in the world the experts they're the ones that shape the world one way or the other how do the common people know a lot of the stuff that's going on in the world they know a lot of stuff that's going on in the world experts go out there and research and discover stuff and they benefit from that so at the end of the day the experts the smart people are the ones who shape the world and therefore they're the ones you should be focused on they're the ones you want to replace they're the ones you want to dominate you want to dominate that because that will allow better ideas, good ideas to shape the world they're the ones that matter it's a reality is Adler Shrugger the elitist book? yeah I mean basically what she's saying is the great industrialist the great thinkers are the ones that matter and even the great scientists are the ones that matter because if a great scientist goes evil Dr. Stadler look at the damage the damage is unbelievable but he's the one who matters it's not the puny little bureaucrats it's not that much what really matters is that Dr. Stadler what really matters is people with vast intelligence who can really change the world and you want them to change the world for the better you want them to have the tools to do good things but Adler Shrugger there's in that respect we're talking about an elite a business elite, a cultural elite of a particular type you know the whole notion of elites and not elites I mean you got to call it like it is you got to describe who makes a difference and who doesn't make a difference in a particular context and businessmen, successful businessmen make a difference in ways that most other people don't and intellectuals make a difference big difference in ways that most people just don't and intellectuals make a difference and most intellectuals today make a difference to the negative make things worse, not better Richard, thank you $100 thank you for all you do, really appreciate that thank you Richard alright, we've got we've got quite a few questions we're $90 short Richard has got us really really close to getting to our target so I don't know 5 $20 questions and we can get there or just somebody like Richard putting in $100 or $50 or something we can make it, we can make it call right now, doing $5 $2 will blow through the target alright, James says when people move states is this a form of migration people move states from north to south east to west, it changes a state's culture, yeah I guess it's a form of in-migration what's called in-migration, migration within a country you see that in everywhere, China has seen the largest in-migration in human history with probably hundreds of millions of people moving from the countryside into the cities into cities all over China and certainly changing that country and changing its culture you've seen that in the UK over many years the growth of London and the dominance of London but the dominance of cities and people moving from the countryside into cities that certainly changed the culture London is a very different place than Manchester, it's a very different place than the countryside and you see it in the United States people moving to California for many many years California being the magnet for in-migration and now people leaving California and many people moving to Texas but there are some Texans who are leaving Texas and then people moving to Florida and a lot of this kind of in-migration happening and it does, if it's on a large scale enough it could certainly change the politics and it could change the culture of a particular place Michael, doesn't Christianity provide something equivalent to the Catechoga Imperatives before Kant? No, because there was a clear there was a clear communication of what you are required to do under Christianity there are priests, there are popes, there are people who communicate the exact nature of what you're supposed to do to some extent the Catechoga Imperatives leaves you blind to morality because they don't actually tell you what you're supposed to do, there's some general advice but they doesn't provide you with enough principles now what happens is people then rush in and that's what all the thinkers post-Kan do they rush in and try to provide you with content to fill in the Catechoga Imperatives but in some sense they leave you kind of blind and alone and that opens up the possibility of different dictators or Thoaterians or just intellectuals or philosophers to fill in the gap whereas in Christianity there is dogma Lewis my view is you have a work contract with criminal background checks properly done, welcome to our country that's the way it should be today in a truly free society everybody's welcome and with a criminal background check but everybody's welcome after that background check because in a free country the only way you can survive is by having a job and if you have money and you don't need a job and you want to live in my country I don't care, that's fine too as long as you don't become a leech on everybody else Andrew, going back to yesterday's show would the pragmatic argument against laissez-fait fall away if people believe statism was immoral yes but in order for people to believe statism was immoral they would have to accept certain moral principles and that would undermine their pragmatism to begin with so the pragmatism of course impacts their view of moral principles the skeptical of moral principles which to the extent that they believe moral principles exist they're altruistic and therefore they don't take them too seriously so yes, of course, I think it all starts with morality if we can undermine altruism if we can undermine cynicism with regard to morality if we could get people to embrace a morality of individualism capitalism is easy laissez-fait capitalism is easy to convince them of James says, being in Texas do you see people mixing and interwinding the state has a lot of diverse groups however do you see people blending, walking together I think so, I mean it does have a lot of diverse groups not as much as California but yeah, you know, Austin in particular is a very cosmopolitan city it's why I like Austin in particular it's because the university is here there are people from all over the world and I think there's a lot of openness to that there's a lot of and you see that in Texas much more than in the past Texas has become much more cosmopolitan you know, Dallas and Houston I think as well it's all become much more cosmopolitan in that sense and people mixing and you get lots of great food now in Texas, I went to a Peruvian restaurant pretty good Peruvian restaurant yesterday, right, so you know, there's a lot of good food there's a lot of culture and there's just a lot of people a lot of entrepreneurship and a lot of people working so Texas is a great state great state with some real flaws but a great state Andrew, the left's altruism makes them unable to effectively defend immigration absolutely, they don't argue from the standpoint of why immigrants are good for America I agree completely, absolutely James says happy Sunday, Iran, because I've never heard it and I'm curious how does your viewpoint on immigration differ from Leonard's Leonard wants to limit migration because he's worried about the fact that immigrants vote Democratic he thinks that Democrats ultimately are going to kill this country, destroy it and he thinks it's going to happen imminently, that it's a real existential risk and given that it's an existential risk in a sense given that it's an emergency he thinks that you should limit migration and particularly from those places where you know they're going to vote Democratic I think a big part of my differences with Leonard on particular issues have to do with our assessment of the current world if you believe that today we're on the precipice of destruction that it's an emergency it truly is an emergency then yes, certain things would be different you'd have to prioritize different things you'd have to think about the world in a different way I am not that pessimistic and I don't think we're on the cusp of collapse, I think there's time and I also don't think that immigration or the Democrats necessarily in and of themselves are the ones driving us towards that total collapse I worry about both Democrats and Republicans and I worry in particular about if Republicans overwhelm, that is if they want everything I think they become very very dangerous I am a big proponent forever really since I moved to the US but certainly since the 90's I've been a proponent of divided government I think the best that we can hope for today given Democrats and given Republicans is is what do you call it you know divided government gives to the most time given the state of both political parties I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican I support the candidates fully I think that if we can divide government effectively then Republicans can do the stupid things they want to do Democrats can do the stupid things they do they unfortunately agree on certain stupid things that they want to do together like the Chips Act and other acts that they can pass in bipartisan fashion but that's the minority of things and most things they disagree and nothing happens and I think the best we can do is a huge advocate of gridlock and the reality is that from a government spending perspective which is a good proxy for government intervention and economy, Democratic president a House and Senate or Senate dominated by Republicans has brought the best results since World War II and so Leonard is much more worried about the short run and because he views the state of the world as an emergency on certain concrete views around things that need to happen we have like who to vote for and immigration we disagree I think that's the source of the problem because we don't disagree on the philosophy we don't disagree on what things would look like in a free society we don't disagree on any philosophical issue I don't think I think it's a matter of how do you apply it given the world in which we live and what is our assessment of the world in which we live if someone else is enjoying the show I'm sure you didn't mean to miss my $20 question to Ankhar, God I don't know how I missed that sorry about that Gail really sorry, I'm wrong I'm not sure how I missed it Andrew do you accept the premise that there are more schisms and objectivism than other sub-groups of the population no, not at all not at all there's schisms among libertarians there's schisms among Neo-conservatives There were schisms among conservatives, huge schisms among conservatives. The schisms in every intellectual, the schisms among Marxists, there were schisms among communists, the schisms among socialists. Intellectuals disagree. And because they take ideas seriously, the disagreements lead to fracturing. It shouldn't surprise anybody. What's your favorite cut of steak? What cook temperature? Medium-rare ribeye. Although, you know, when you travel around the world, you discover that other places have different cuts, and they are cut in Brazil that are particularly good, and they're cut in Argentina that don't quite fit. But generally, from the standard American cuts, I'd say ribeye, and I'd say medium-rare. And if it's bone-in, even better, bone-in ribeye, medium-rare. I like fat. Fat gives the fats where the flavor is. In your future flying segments, you didn't mention planes like Cessna and Piper, Cherokees, some are jets, some turbo planes. What might happen to them? I don't know. It's not that important. I mean, the reality is it's not that important in the context of effect of large numbers of people, not that many people fly. But yeah, I mean, and I don't know how much the climate change advocates are worried about Cessnas and Piper, Cherokees. It might guess is that they will ground all of them if they could. I don't think they will be able to, but they want to ground everything. They want us back to the caves, right? I mean, they have no interest, no interest in anybody flying, anybody consuming fossil fuels. Now, it is more likely that you'll have light planes, the equivalent of Cessnas and Piper, Cherokees, that are electric planes. So it's much more likely to have a small plane that's electric than to have a big passenger plane that's electric. So I think you'll see kind of a revolution in small planes, which will allow them to fly because they can run on electricity with a significant battery. All right, we are done. We are 81 dollars short. So if somebody wants to jump in and just get us there, that would be fantastic. But I am done for the day. I actually have to go now. Thank you, everybody. I wish you'd ask more questions about immigration. Maybe in the future, you'll ask more about immigration. Thank you to all the superchatters. Thank you to everybody who supports me monthly. You can do so monthly on Patreon or on www.uronbookshow.com slash support. Thank you for everybody who's listening. Don't forget to share shows that you like. Don't forget to like, press the like button before you leave. It helps with the algorithm. And yeah, I'll see you. I'm not sure exactly, but we'll figure it out as the week evolves. I'll figure out when.