 OK, to może zaczynamy, więc kto jest na zewnątrz, zapraszam do środka i chyba już jest ten czas, że mogę Państwa powitać bardzo serdecznie, dziękuję za przybycie. Zacznę może do organizacyjnych rzeczy, bo ich na końcu ludzie nie lubią słuchać, więc... Organizatorium wydarzenia jest obiektywizm.pl. Naszych partnerów możecie widzieć na slajdach Stowarzyni Libertarianskiej, Tutmi Zesta, Fundacja Forum Obywatelskiego Rozwoju, ISFL, Centrum Adama Smitha, Warsaw Enterprise Institute oraz SKN Biznesu, któremu dziękujemy za sale oraz nagłośnienie. SKN Debat Gospodarczych NZTS-u będzie prowadził debat w później godzinie 20. Pewnie będzie również leki pościsk, ale to wszystko pewnie wiecie z Facebooka, bo jak widzieliście Państwo na Facebooku było dość gorąco. Mam nadzieję, że dzisiaj będzie tutaj kulturalnie i sympatycznie. Powody, dla którego organizujemy takie wydarzenie, są również Państwo znane. Kapitalizm, to słowo oraz idea znajduje się pod odstrzałem wielu środowisk na wej i z lewej strony. Naszym zdaniem należy obronić tej idei, należy się nie wstydzić mówić, jestem kapitalistą, należy edukować ludzi, dlaczego ten system, nierogulowanyj w unorymkowej gospodarki jest nie tylko najbardziej efektywnym w kwestii dystrybucji, produkowania dóbr w społeczeństwie, systemem organizacji społeczeństwa, ale jest również najbardziej moralnym. Ale żeby się obronić, musimy zaatakować. Dlatego tyle ode mnie, a obronem w postaci ataku na zło socjalizmu przeprowadzi doktor Jaron Brug z Iron Run Institute. Przewitajcie do prawami. Możemy znać, że jakiś system jest świetny, jakiś system jest dobry, coś jest źle, coś jest dobre. Co jest ten standard, który używamy, żeby zrobić takie deklaracje? Będę ciekaw, żeby znalazć, co standardy socjalizmi są. Ale ja wam powiem, co jest moją standardą. Moja standarda jest humana życie, individualne humana życie. To, co pomaga humana życie, co pozwala indywidualni, żeby się zakończyć, żeby się zakończyć, to jest to dobre systemy, które pozwala indywidualni, żeby zrobić największe swoje życie, żeby się zakończyć w życiu, że to są dobre systemy. Co jest wśród wśród? To jest dobre, a co jest wśród wśród? Wśród jest przeciwko. Wśród jest dystrykcja życia, wśród indywidualnych, wśród śmierci i dystrykcji, wśród freedom, wśród oportunity, wśród możliwości, żeby osiągnąć drzwi, wśród wśród wśród wśród wśród wśród wśród rachów ijątku imię ludzi, wśród wśród wiary wśród zakończenia ludzi, wśród rekoracji ludzi. Wśród apeksualnie. Na pewności, które rekorujemy,ומiny, świątyni, świątyni, świątyni, świątyni, świątyni, że socjalizm jest świetny, że socjalizm nie powozyje inny życie, że socjalizm nie wytrzymaje inni, żeby myśleć dla siebie i żyć dla siebie, i zrobić najwięcej w swoim swoim życiu, i być szczęśliwi? Nie, to nie, to nie, to jest W moxizm jest do połatwienia, ale wszystkie socjalizmy, potrzebują wytrzymań z indywidualniem, do załatwienia z kolektywną. Ten benial jest wytrzymań z indywidualniem, żeby wytrzymać, do załatwienia z tego, co ktoś znalazł, że ktoś znalazł, to ktoś znalazł, żeby wytrzymać, że socjalizm nie powozyje, że socjalizm nie powozyje wytrzymań. To jest dlaczego potrzebujesz centralnych planów, ponieważ tylko planer centralny w swoim zwierzch w tym, co jest dobre dla kolektywni. Ponieważ jeśli nie mamy planów centralnych i możemy pozwolić każdego z tymi, żeby zrobić to, co jest dobre dla was, to co się dzieje? Do grupy, do kolekcji, do wszystkich innych. Ty nie wiesz. 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 the 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 some kind of mystic. This is why I always think communism, socialism, a fundamentally mystical belief. Because they need an individual who can somehow commune. There's some kind of mystical revelation with the proletarian to let us know what's good for the proletariat. 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. But what about in practice? What actually happens in practice under socialism? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe human beings flourish and 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 going to focus here. Sorry, I'm ignoring you guys. What's actually history but socialism? What do we know actually happens when people adopt this system? Am I right? Is socialism so horrific to the individual? Well, luckily for us, or actually very, very, very unluckily. For most people, certainly the people who have to live under 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. I think my right now favorite example is a country called in South America. What country right now is practicing socialism in South America? Venezuela has been socialist for 20 years. 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 Venezuela. Why isn't it hard to do in Venezuela? Because Venezuela has more oil than Saudi Arabia. Venezuela has more oil reserves, more oil in the ground or under the sea than Saudi Arabia. You enjoy the wealth. But no, the socialists are so good at this, that they have even managed to destroy the country of Venezuela. And this is not a theoretical destruction. This is not just about people who are relatively rich now, being relatively poor. This is about people dying in the streets in Venezuela. This is about child mortality rates, the rate 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 Venezuela. It's not just the issue of inconvenience. There's no toilet paper in Venezuela. There's no soap in Venezuela. 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 Venezuela, 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 guests caused by communism I don't know if you study this in Poland is in the tens of millions of people. It makes Nazis look like amateurs. And yet, when we see a Nazi, when somebody weighs a Nazi flag, we run. Or we condemn them. Or we need a communist. Everybody's very nice. Communism's great. It only killed 10 to 20 times more people than the Nazis did. The 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 100 million bodies of dead people because of socialism. Now because the particular individuals, because the fact is they adopted these ideas has done exactly the same thing. It wasn't that Stalin was an aberration. If Stalin was an aberration, what is Popat? What is the rule of North Korea? Are they also aberrations? And if they're aberrations, why is it the communists that 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 them. 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 do all the things that I would do to survive. I barely survived. Life sucked, to use a technical term. It sucked under communism. It was awful. It was drudgery. It was grey. 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. 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. But 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 a lecture now. I'm so lucky for us that we don't have a central planner who tries to decide these. This insignificant part of our life. This. This that makes our lives better, but at the end of the day, and it's 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. Those we have to have central planners for. Because God forbid. Imagine if the same minds who made this made our healthcare. 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 poverty. 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, the 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. The individual is what is important. The individual is what exists. So when you build a moral system, an economic system around a thing that doesn't even exist, the collective, guess what happens? It fails. And it does a really, really bad thing. That does exist. Now, there are lots of people who can 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 economists who explained the market system works. How prices are necessary for the allocation, efficient allocation of goods. Socialism economically is just inefficient. It's just silly. And it doesn't work. It does not work. Now, some people are going to say, and I'm sure some people will say, wait a minute, Denmark is socialism. 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 industries less than so-called capitalist America does. What it does is it redistributes 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 it makes the economy and makes there 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. In 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. 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 poorer. So if Denmark was a state in the United States, a state like Massachusetts and California, where do you think it would rank? If Denmark was a state in California, where do you think it would rank? Rich like New York and California or 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 of complete failure and is responsible, as I said earlier, for the worst of horrific murders in human history. I still don't quite understand how we tolerate socialists when we don't tolerate Nazis. And that's the economics. So as I said, I encourage you to read high about why central planning never works. What's the central reason why central planning cannot work? Because each one of us has our own values. We have our own life. Some of us like apples, 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 and what's bad for you. Not that they care. But even if they care, they can't. They can't tell what you actually desire. What's 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 at 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 are 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 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 it. 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 what we think as well. And this is why socialism always leads to oppression of thought. But there's a greater condemnation of socialism in my view. And that is the moral condemnation. 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 proletarian or good for the workers or good for any group. The standard of morality is what is good for you and you and you. Not as a collective, not as a group, but as individuals. I'm glad. The standard of morality is what's good for each one of us and what is good for each one of us. What's good for each one of us is to be free to pursue our own individual values. To make our individual lives the best lives 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 condemns. 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 their 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 morality 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. 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 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. That doesn't exist in socialism. For value for value. Win-win. When I buy my iPhone for $300 it's because it's worth more to me than $300. I win. And 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. There were some people better at stealing than others. But nobody created wealth. Until we freed up those energies during the late 18th and 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. 30% of them didn't even make 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 capitalism. System to respect 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 individualistic. Individual rights. Not group rights. Not collective rights. 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 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 everywhere it is tried. It is not an example in history and you'll have a Q&A in a minute. You'll be able to challenge me in 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 those common rules. 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 that used to be the poorest country in Latin America and today is the richest and indeed the freer socially the freer. What's that? That's Chile 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 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 well creation to that extent those countries get which 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 are 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, in India, in Taiwan in South Korea has brought 2 billion people over the last 30 years out of poverty 2 billion people what's if socialism brought them out of poverty it was just a little bit not even a lot of capitalism but 2 billion people out of poverty 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'd be 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 life 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 a lecture we have time for questions please line up to this mic and you can ask anything to your own this microphone who wants to ask a question Einrand was an Eastern European girl I just actually counted and 90% of the people in the room are dudes dudes guys so girls can vote what shall we do about them the fact that you listen to your lecture or dudes so that means that most of the people who will vote they listen to your lecture didn't listen to my lectures as they are girls like Einrand 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 is more good looking that would be superficial that is disrespectful to women I apologize I don't know it's a good question why don't women get more involved 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 so my goal here is not to change politics in Poland 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 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 but it is happily so maybe that's the secret tragedy of commons so it's perfection and if we don't set them they're gonna die out in let's say 5 years in certain area so without government it can't be done so so the question is what do we do about the tragedy of the commons so let's first make clear about the commons that is I guess nature and the 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 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 I clean my backyard but when we have a common when we have public space nobody takes care of it private property is the way in which we solve the problem of the commons so how do we do it how do we solve 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 your cows pooped at the top 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 or how does 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 comments you need to privatize as much as you can there are ways to corner off areas and give individual people or individual companies restricted fishing rights over those areas 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 comments 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 we 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 but the principle is the question and I'm not an anarchist I know there are some probably anarchic capitalists here I'm not an anarchist I'm not a minarchist 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 defines and protects property rights with a military judiciary in a police force so there is a role in defining these kind of property rights over fish, seas things like that but 99% is just sell sell the property and it's sold the question from live chat I tried to convince you that abortion is in fact a violation of individual rights have you voted about this issue more? ok now related to socialism but ok yes, I mean I think about it all the time cause I always said some Polish students challenging me on abortion not always Polish, but often Catholic yes absolutely I thought about it and yes absolutely I hold by my previous position abortion camera, I'm supposed to look at the camera you over there abortion should be legal as a political question I know you don't think so abortion as 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 stupid 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 it'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 second question from Kultuzar how can we defeat somebody has to explain the joke to me how can we defeat a social justice warrior once and for all how do we beat the social okay so how do we beat the social justice warrior once and for all by rejecting their moral code i mean i'm gonna be repetitive all night but this is about morality 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 pope the king, the nobleman the polyterian, 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 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 gonna 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 to try to bring up cause 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 what do you think the libertarian movement as a whole as you know it's heavily divided because of these arguments to it's heavily divided between what between abortion for example there's this anarchist who think the other, the rest of the libertarians are still gonna something and what do you think the libertarian movement as a whole needs to become united like in the 2008 America had yeah, America had Rumpel, he pretty much united the largest population of libertarians in America but the primary they were rigged he ran in the republican primaries look Juan Paul I'll say something about it all Juan Paul got in the republican primaries was 10% of the republican vote that's not a lot in a few states he did very well but in most on average he got about 10% of the republican vote so Juan Paul was very popular among young people very popular on 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 and piss off a lot of people here in America I think the libertarian I don't think there was such a thing as a libertarian movement because for the reasons you've mentioned it's fractured it's a common core I think a narco-capitalism for example or the general anarchism particularly the Maui Rottbad the school of narco-capitalism is substantially significantly philosophically flawed and a liability to those of us who believe in freedom the ideas are a liability those of us who believe in freedom so I think the libertarian movement needs to coalesce but it needs to coalesce around philosophy that can be defended not a set of ideas that undercut freedom and undercut liberty which I think many who follow Maui Rottbad 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 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 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 you're starting to talk about a time frame that I believe look 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 and to live and to thrive and to 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 collectiveism that's been entrenched in us from millennia to an individualism that we saw a brief period in European history during the Enlightenment when 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 but let me also say this there's more energy among free marketers in eastern Europe and of our places in Brazil than there is in the west the west in western Europe in America now we're too rich and lazy life's too good why have radical ideas when you can get the iPhone 7 tomorrow why worry about free markets when 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 Europe you're still hungry you still want more you could be freer you could be richer you could pursue your dreams even more than is being allowed today so if there's hope for the libertarian movements to the extent there is one I think it's in eastern Europe I think it's in South America it's in places that have lived socialism lived fascism that know what collectivism does but it's all not just to the money but to the soul of human beings how destructive it is and want something different so all the power to you guys because it's gonna come from here I'm starting to believe that we should not look to America for hope but we should look elsewhere doctor I have a question about morality because I'm just curious do you believe that taking an interest in economy that's the first question so you think that morality 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 we positive in economics that it's good to maximize wealth but wealth maximization is not an economic question 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 as economists we fail to convince is because we make assumptions that we think it's self evident well everybody's a utility maximizer no they are not people are not utility is it financial utility so you are saying that to be an economical that's the term which has been used by a lot of a lot of economists I'm saying there's no such thing as home economics that's what I'm saying really because most of people who are seen here from there they are reading economy is not about the morality it's about this economy so I think this is why we're losing because economists don't see the value and importance of philosophy philosophy is primary economics philosophy is foundational philosophy sets both the methodology and the morality of the assumptions you make in economics if I believe that the purpose of society is to achieve equality then you will generate a different economic whole economic in a sense will be a different creature if the purpose is equality if it's driven by equality because what I'm hearing that the answer on the socialism for you is the liberalism but for me it's not such easy because the answer on the socialism is christianity for me first fact so let me say about for example words like for example abortion that is the women's choice for me it's not so easy to be such a liberal because we are living for example in some national some nations we are for example we are we have our interest 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 but 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 to the world because I think socialism is secularized christianity my solution to socialism is 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 full wealth is 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 no, that's just not true the wealth of europe was built on a rejection of christianity the wealth of europe was built in the 18th and 19th centuries in the 18th and 19th centuries the 18th century was called the age of reason 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 secularized the era of the 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 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th centuries a centuries of bloodshed of war of combat, of wealth of 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 i have a question you said a few minutes ago that you do not believe in the government so how would you combine individualism individuality economic agenda with a kind of national community especially in the wake of brexit and mr trump which clearly refers to feeling and also signalize disattachment between group of people and their government and their kind of all institution of the government so i'm not sure i understand your question, but let me try i'm not sure how it's connected to another capitalism so 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 is to sacrifice to the nation i think that is an evil ideology i use evil together with socialism 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 in a way that they couldn't as part of the european union so 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 guess again, my view is nationalism or nationalism the state as more important 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 protecting 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 the advocates and you mentioned that or you defined good system as the system which allows individuals to pursue their own happiness and you mentioned for instance danmark, which is relatively poorer than most of the states in the united states but actually if you ask average danmark guy if he feels happy with his life he will feel much more happy than the guy in new york so alright, i get this question every time so here is my standard answer to the happiness and danmark question i mean there are a few steps to this one, if you are Scandinavian you expect it to be happy it's part of the culture you ask a Scandinavian if you are happy they generally say yes i am jewish you ask a jew if they are happy we always say no because we say yes everybody happy, how can you be happy nobody is happy a lot of this is culture two if you actually take danes danes people in America and ask them if they are happy in America they are at least as happy as danes and danmark 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 danmark and there is a reason for that if you just isolate danes danes in America are richer than danes and danmark danes in America live as long if not longer than danes and danmark there are fewer danes that are poor in America than there are poor danes and danmark now part of that is selection bias people who left danmark maybe are more motivated more entrepreneurial but the fact is that America doesn't prohibit danes from being happy so there is 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 it's different for different people I think there is a definition of happiness but it's very hard to define and to know even if you're happy definition of happiness is individual it's for every single person it's individual but it's also based we are 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% of GDP by the government danmark spends maybe 42% of GDP we're not talking about socialism and capitalism we're talking about a mixed economy of America and a mixed economy of Denmark 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 curse its citizens in depending taxes how long do you think it would last if there weren't full powerful states and other terrorist groups that went to violence because they're ideologistic on this I think it would last forever so the question is in an objective state where you don't curse taxes how is it going to last when these other countries can use coercion to steal all their citizens' money and launch massive armies against you do you know how rich we're going to be in an objective state to give a small contribution a fraction of my wealth would be far more look at Putin, right your pal over there on the east his economy is crumbling wealth creation is plumeting so yes, he can for a while pull whatever money he has into new missiles and new tanks but he's going to go bankrupt very quickly if I had a rich country next to him destroy him easily and you see so I don't know if you're asking 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 do away with somebody who's trying to kill me 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 in because the war is a self-defense war and they're going to kill you if you don't win the war so I'll give you I come from Israel Israel has a conscription army it's a draft, you have to go men go 3 years, women go 2 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 would 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 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 if you have a much better army Israel would be so much better if it had a volunteer army than it is under conscription I have no doubt that's a rather optimistic vision of people I have a very optimistic vision of people and I know sometimes it's hard in certain countries to have that but 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 human of human beings when they are pursuing their own interests 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 my call the socialism evil but isn't it a necessary evil because I think that in the position between capitalism and communism the capitalism substantializes itself capitalist what? give substance to it the opposition give substance to the capitalism and first capitalism is able to justify its own little evils yeah that's that sounds like some 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 leaves individuals free to pursue their lives it leaves entrepreneurs free to invent great things go build them and produce people to give them money and come to work for them it works it creates wealth for everybody everybody in society is willing to work it's 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 a little bit of poison what you need is no I want no poison I want no socialism not a little bit if you let the market work we become much richer and we're freer we're freer to do the things not just it's no accident that you suddenly saw flourishing in the arts once capitalism comes into being because suddenly the middle class gets rich and not only do they get rich but now they have time 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 from sunrise to sunset 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 me what that 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 we are 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 for me Denmark is like a lovely village around the Merck shipping company 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 first your hope is the poland first? that's my call ok I don't know it's a tough one, I was just in Georgia Georgia and 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 ten years in Georgia where they had no food inspectors there were no government food inspectors guess what happened what would you think would have happened 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 are no work safety inspectors you know people who go on their workplace 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 they've just done things and no other country that I know of so maybe it's Georgia I think yes there seems to be an energy in Poland seems to be interest in these ideas in Poland that you don't see in many other countries 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 Estonia maybe 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 deep down hidden under the Trump and under Hillary and under all the garbage is an American sense of life that still believes in individualism so I'd say it's the US it's probably Poland Georgia, Estonia, Brazil Colombia what about Somalia Somalia is a disaster Somalia would never happen Somalia is not anywhere close to a free market never has been all those silly books about Somalia whatever libertarianism garbage you have to have 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 so you're much better than students at Brown University so I want to ask you to think about my argument Christianity is often misunderstood like crusades or burning no no I don't think of it in terms of crusades let me tell you a story because I don't want to get so long on Christianity that could go all year right so personally I became an atheist at around age 6 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 me to believe something show me evidence there's no evidence to existence of God there's no evidence to existence of Jesus and miracles and all this stuff but 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 get Islam but this is true there's one in the Bible that all religions is the molecule is a symbol of goodness and it's a symbol 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 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 older son and he said yes sir now God comes to me I'd rather go to hell and 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 than kill my own son 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 to combine reason and face 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 but look Thomas Aquinas is a genius I mean he brought reason back into the west he caused the Christian church to abandon its neoplatonism 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 but he's wrong when he tries to use reason to justify God all his arguments are being shown to be illogical and wrong there is no logical explanation for God and there certainly isn't a logical explanation for killing the son no matter who tells you to do it as I said I don't want to have a long conversation with Christianity two arguments Christianity socialism to Christianity but the main difference is that Christianity lets you decide whether you want to sacrifice yourself and to what degree but socialism makes that decision for you let me give you another example granted I am Jewish not Christian I know my Old Testament better than I know my New Testament i you could say we will fall from that when Moses comes down from the mountain with the Ten Commandment coming down the mountain with the Ten Commandment and a bunch of Jews are sacrificing a golden calf he does not go up to those Jews and say you have a right to worship wherever you want just leave us alone go out and go do your thing he takes a sword and he kills 30,000 people and God rewards him 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 to worship a golden calf it might be a bad choice it might be an evil choice they don't hurt anybody they don't deserve to die i ja nie chcę cię zrozumieć a ty na pewno nie chcesz się zrozumieć ale oczyszczam się i druga rzecz to, że Kruschenko jest bardziej kapitalistycznie niż może być bo chrześcijański wierzą w południach tak, ale po prostu pomyślejmy to, że wszyscy zrozumiecie i to jest to jest chrześcijański powinien wierzyć że jeśli się zrozumieć w tej życiu zrozumiecie i zrozumieć się w tej życiu i zrozumiecie się w tej życiu na porządku zazwyczaj to jest imal jesteś zazwyczaj w tej życiu nie zazwyczaj to jest chrześcijański jak zrozumiecie jest tam ale to nie jest zrozumieć nie możesz użyć tego jest to imal że jeśli się zrozumieć żeby się zrozumieć to nie jest zrozumieć chrześcijański jest bardzo podobny do tego do tego, bo musisz do tego nie powiedzmy do tych rzeczy to nie jest zrozumieć to nie jest zrozumieć to jest zrozumieć to jest zrozumieć nie jest z religią, wiesz nie, oczywiście co w tym swoim opinii najlepszy sposób do wyrazić socjalizm do wyrażać kapitalizm do aniołatów socjalizm powinniśmy po prostu przystawić na przykład AGO a tak naprawdę zaczynałeś na parlament, na przykład i bazować reżim czy powinniśmy po prostu zasłużyć swoich rodziców myślę, że ci się zmienił do edukacji i edukacji, ale nie po prostu formalnego edukacji mówić, mówić cały czas lektować teaches, jeśli jesteś ulepszy Ale musisz używać wszystkich tool, które masz, aby ulegać ludzi, o swoim ludzie, a to musi być swoim ludzie vs. społeczeństwo. I co każdego z nich to znaczy dla humanistów. Co oni konstytuują w związku z humanistą. I to jest rzecz, w której musimy poszukiwać. Polityczne will happen. Nie widzę, że polityczna ma imię. Polityczna, ktoś, kto lubi polityczny, godz. I teraz, my zjedziemy do politycznych. Ale mamy ważną rzecz. Jesteśmy polityczni, o których dodałyśmy. Ameryka teraz dodała do Donaldu Trumpa. Nie myślałem, że tak. Ale nie tak. Więc musimy skoncentrować ludzi, zwłaszcza młodych ludzi. Chodźmy do nowych idei. Pytanie się, że polityczna ma imię. Po dwóch regionach. Chodźmy do nowych dzieci. Chodźmy do nowych dzieci. Więc bardzo szybko. Ponieważ polityczna ma imię, myślmy, że polityczna ma imię. I drugie... Nie wiem, jak... 10-year-old. Imaginaj, że ten 10-year-old jest employmentem. To jest... Nie mogłeś to powiedzieć. Więc polityczna ma imię. Więc tak. Po Nie dlatego, że rejestracer założył się dobrze, ale dlatego, że on jest dobry. Oni założyły się dobrze, dlatego, że musiało ich wytrzymać, żeby pracować bardziej produktywnie, żeby używać swoich mężczyzn, żeby się wytrzymać. I dlatego, że nie pozwoliło ich do kompetitorów, którzy wytrzymały ich, jeśli byli załatwi. Więc market jest to, co wytrzyma się, to kompeticja. ale to, co oznacza pracę bardziej produktywą, jest jego własne skilly, jego własne nauczycje, jego własność, a kapital wpadł w niego. Maszynę, zrozumiania, jest do niego przyzwyczajeną. Więc to, co trwają użytki, w krótkim czasie, to markety. Henry Ford zdecydował, że on chciał do najlepszych pracowników w jego bakterii w świecie. I tak, on się zbudował. Jeden dzień, on się zbudował i zbudował. Myślę, że oni zbudowali do 2,5 dolarów do 5 dolarów do jego prac. I co się stało? Najlepszy pracowcy zbudowali do FORD. I on się zbudował do ludzi, którzy nie mogli producjąc 5 dolarów. On się zbudował do dobrej, a to zbudował i to zbudował. I GM, General Motors, tutaj, był zbudowany, że najlepszy pracowcy zbudowali do 5 dolarów. Oni zbudowali do 5 dolarów do tej pracowcy. Więc ten proces kompeticji, dla lewa, kompeticji dla reżyserów i co zbudowali do tej pracowcy zbudował. Jesteś dzisiaj, że west zbudował jego zbudowanie i zbudował jego zbudowanie w kapitalizmie. Moje pytanie jest, czy jest to możliwe, żeby zbudować zbudowanie w kapitalizmie, permanentnie w społeczeństwie, iוש overcoming themcious parity results in the lack of interest . No, ii ruiningceksin is also the lack of interest. scenario euros. it's all about morality. This story of Chile. Chile has become very very rich, to become very successful and you've got income inequality. And they used to be very poor. And now two elections in the road they've który wciąż nie ma żadnych rzeczy, które mnie nie poddali. I pytanie jest, dlaczego? Nie zapraszam, nie zapraszam, bo to jest rozmowało z nimi o名u Josep Piner. Josep Piner jest jednym, który wciąż wciąż wciąż w ciele. Znaczy, on był zainteresowany w tym marketu liberalizacji. Więc on był zainteresowany, dlaczego to się dzieje? Jesteś w domu i robisz dobre rzeczy w życiu, w których wierzę, że wszystko jest dobre, prawda? Więc co czujesz, gdy jesteś w życiu jednym, który powinien być mamą Teresa? Co czujesz, co nazywa się? Gilt. Teraz, aby wyrazić gilt, najwyższy sposób jest delegacją odpowiedzi do państwu. Jesteś wyrażającym odpowiedzi do państwu. Chciałem wyrazić mojej targu. Dlaczego? Ponieważ w ten sposób, te ludzie zostaną zajęcią się. I mogę wrócić do życia w życiu i czuć się lepszy ze mną. Ponieważ zrobiłem zakończenie. To jest tak, że działa. W California, z 10% do 13%, 30% increase. Gdzie myślisz, że chcesz wyrazić gilt? Dlaczego? Chcesz zawsze wyrazić gilt w Ameryce. Bo oni czują gilt. Inny przykład. Chcą gilt. To nie intelektualne. To tutaj. To moralność. Dlaczego? Byłem w lunchie. To jest wyrażającymi wyrażami do Ameryce. To jest w Charleston, w S. Carolina. W Ameryce nie są lepszymi. Nie są lepszymi. Wszyscy są konserwującymi. I oni czują długie biały, żeby zrozumieć wyrażania tego człowieka. I co oni czują w biały? Dlaczego? Dlaczego? Morality jest o self-interest. To nie o sacrificie. To nie o self-listy. To nie o myśleniu o innych. Morality jest, ale to powinien być, defined by Aristotle. I'm in the Aristotelian tradition. I Rand is in the Aristotelian tradition. It's about your life. It's about your eudaumania. It's about your flourishing. I 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 commandments, but science. And we know the science. We know what causes human flourishing. We just need to unleash it. That's a long answer. Are you having a time to look nervous? Ok, 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 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, live 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 pretend doesn't exist. So you don't let the enemy just flood in where you can't tell the difference of who's your friend and who's the enemy. Now, I believe 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 cannot have immigration. Open immigration. From my experience the disparity between the poorest and the richest is the most frequent justification for intervention and all those. And how would you comment on that? How would you answer 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 are 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 a freedom. So I think we have to... You see a lot of libertarians say oh look at the capitalism we have less inequality. I don't... That's nonsense. My answer is who cares. The gap is irrelevant. The question is is what we created? People getting better up or the poor rising up? The poor under capitalism used to be... The poor in the west used to be dut poor. Today they're up here. They're still poor relative to the rich. They got cars, they got iPhones, they got air conditioning. It's not the poor of Cambodia. We want to see poor go to Cambodia. There are no poor like Cambodia in the west. So I don't worry about inequality. I give the example of inequality in anything. I love the fact that the guy who made this is smarter than me. He's more productive than me. He has a sense of beauty that I don't. And I could never build this. And he made billions of dollars doing it. I love it. I wish he made more. Because I would have been a sign that he created greater products. Unfortunately he died. But when I see somebody making 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. It's really good. Ok, I've got a pretty short question for you. The first one is to think that the consequent objectivism will lead to world government. That's the first set, say that again. Do I think that objectivism will lead to world government? Implemented consequent objectivism will lead in political practice in long term that the result will be world government. No, I don't. And I think that there's always going to be multiple states and it's good because they'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 and 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 U.S. elections that you would consider endorsing? No. Okay, and the last question. No, I mean they're all awful, right? All of them. 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 gave a good speech about privatizing social security or doing something exciting and interesting but it's not worth endorsing if you're not really passionate about a candidate. Okay. What's that? What is that? Johnson was asked on TV. What is that? Johnson was asked on TV about Aleppo. Oh, yeah, sorry, I don't know that. 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 an historian. I mean I would probably have to say George Washington because he quit. 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 probably pretty good had some real problems but they're generally good and then I think Cleveland in the 19th century and then Coolidge is the last good president that America had. That was a long, long time ago. But let me say this because I have to say something about this election. They've never, ever in the history of America been two candidates worse than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Never. This is the most disgusting worst election in American history. I wish they both dropped dead. Because the vice president would be much better than the president. My question is have you seen the big short film? The what? Big short film. I haven't seen the big short movie. I haven't. Please tell me what do you think about the punishment? Who's supposed to be punished? Who was punished in this film? I didn't see the films. I don't know. 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 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 government 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 in 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 has zero to say about Wall Street, it has zero to say about so-called greed. There's a friend of my 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. No socialist. Thank you sir, applause please. Thank you for listening to that. Cześć, możesz po polsku. Zanim pójdziemy na przerwę kawową bo taka będzie i wysłuchamy tej fascynującej debaty już goście się powoli zjawiają. Jeśli macie jakieś uwagi co do organizacji tego co się wam nie podoba podoba, biorę to na klatę zapraszam na Afterparty też chęli wypiję piwko. Ale tutaj widzicie czasem na slajdach się przewija link. Możecie wejść na ankietę na stronie i do wygrania jest pięć książek z im. i powiedzącą myślą o wydarzeniu. Oraz do wygrania jest Zwod kosztów podróży na Europejską Liberty Konferenc w Katowicach oraz opatr rejestracyjnej ponieważ ESFL jest sponsorem naszej przerwy kawowej i zapraszam do zapoznania się z projektem tej organizacji tam przez Polikum. A teraz przerwa widzimy się 10 po 8.