 Good evening everybody and thanks for joining us for the your own book show Our podcast about objectivist living today, so What I did Because there was you know, there's so many topics we could talk about there's so many things that we can discuss is what I did today is Is I made a list up and put it up on Facebook of topics that I was ready to discuss and let you guys vote and I'll give you the list of topics if you guys are interested because we'll cover these topics in future shows I was gonna talk about the new immigration law There was just a proof that the Trump got behind today that that is gonna go in front of Congress I was gonna rational altruism whatever the hell that means you're gonna talk about different forms of altruism and Can they be such a thing as rational altruism cultural change? What's it gonna take? What's it gonna take to change the culture? Photography as art is photography art. I know and said it wasn't This is the fact that we can't today do all the things we can do today with technology Change that at all right change that at all Feminism agenda that's a big issue out there. It's a big issue being discussed And I was worried that that was gonna be the one that was would get chosen because I'm not sure I'm not sure I have that much to say about that the role of emotions in life On the revolution should we go and I'm the evolution is it time To get those guns out of your basement out of your closet out of your garage out of your under your bed or wherever you keep your m16 and You know take on the government is on the revolution Are we ready for on revolution and his things so bad that that is what is required now? All right, that was one of the topics I proposed Right and Let's see Then what else classical liberalism versus objectivism? What's the difference? What is classical liberalism? How does relate to objectivism? Vulgarity, this is my my my topic relating to scaramucci. When is vulgarity appropriate? When is it okay to say the f-word? Is it ever okay? When is it okay to say it in public? You know, what's up with vulgarity? Why do we live in such a vulgar time where everybody's talking where everybody feels free to express themselves? using Using vulgarity is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? I mean we're less impressed. Maybe it's a good thing Who knows so we were gonna talk about that and What was the final topic? Yeah free speech free speech so a free speech In the context of technology and I think for me that the idea I was gonna talk about was what's going on on YouTube on patreon on potentially Facebook and and Twitter you know the whole The whole idea of these tech companies silencing certain individuals of certain people and what should be the criteria, you know, they the private property they could do Whatever they want. It's not an issue of rights but What's appropriate when when is when is When is it appropriate for public company to sense the speech and what should be the criteria? I mean you could say legitimately whatever they want because that's true But what makes sense? Well, we'll be and why is it that it seems that on places like Twitter Patreon or any of these others It seems like the people on the So-called right Generally called them on the right Other ones that always banned so that was another topic. All right, and people voted I Asked everybody choose the top three and it was close kind of in the middle the top one was was easy so the Number one Topic that people voted to talk about was classical liberalism, which I thought was fascinating I had no idea people interested in that. I had no idea that was there was concern to anybody But people wanted me to talk about classical liberalism versus Objectivism so we will talk about that and I assume people know what what they were voting for so and what the Why they were voting for it the second topic they want to talk about was Was emotions the world of emotions in human life and we'll talk about that and the last one surprised me But it was about photography is photography art. What do I think so? Great, I mean all three good topics they were on my list One two three so classical liberalism first emotion second photography third. I'm gonna take classical liberal first We'll do a couple of segments on that and we'll take a break and then we'll do we'll do some of these others some of these others and immigration and some of these other ones I'm gonna leave for My show on the blaze on Sundays that you can listen to Sundays. It's at 11 a.m. Pacific time Every Sunday, so I will definitely cover the immigration and some of these other topics on that show I'm sure we'll also get back to these topics some of these topics when next week when I do the show again the The objectivist living the next objectivist living show will be a week from today So next Wednesday As I've told you in the past objectivist living is gonna kind of move around a little bit. Okay, so what is classical liberalism? What's what's what is it and and what's its relationship with? Objectivism and I take it as that's you know part of the questions being asked What's the relationship with objectivism is objectivism? Part of the You know, is it is a part of the classical liberal movement is a part of classical liberalism and that's that I think that's a good question to ask All right, so let's start with what classical liberalism is classical liberalism is really a term that came about as a as a response To the fact that the left Stole highway robbery in the middle of the day Stole the word liberalism So let's go back a little bit and talk about what liberalism meant in in the past let's say in the 19th century and And then talk about classical liberalism which is Just the old kind of liberalism as compared to modern liberalism, which is Associated with the left associated typically with the left I mean, I don't like to use the term liberal to describe my enemies on the left Because it's too good a term for them Liberal comes from the word liberty It is those who advocate for liberty for individual freedom It's always been a political ideology that advocated for the rule of law for economic freedom and To some extent or another or to some one definition or another individual rights so the basic principle of liberalism pre early 20th century in the United States was The idea of freedom You would I think I think one would argue that the funny fathers were liberals in that sense They were part of a liberal tradition that goes back at least a lock some some philosophers from from Holland and and Others that kind of set the fire set the foundation, you know, maybe you could anchor it with Spinoza But ultimately it's John Locke people like say Mill Ricardo include Adam Smith. It's a general respect for free markets. It's a general respect for capitalism It's a general respect for what they called natural law Many of them were utilitarians And all of them believed strongly in progress in progress and success and growth so This whole idea of progress has been good as as man as a positive influence in the world a Benevolent approach a generally a benevolent approach to life Which which led to this view that free markets Resulted in positive outcomes. So liberals before in the United States to this day Or at least until the last few decades liberal in Europe meant this this old form this old idea of liberalism advocates To one degree another right not objectivist, but to one degree another for freedom for Individualism to some extent right again founded on some form of you Utilitarianism if it's if it's mill or in some form of natural law if it's lock and in the tradition comes out of lock so these were really The liberals of their 18th and 19th century were really the thinkers As a play that really led to the whole idea of a political and economic freedom and who tried Not very successfully and we'll get to that to defend economic Liberty economic freedom and political fear You know that they they they believed in it but as well You know as I think it's obvious because they were utilitarians and Advocates of natural law natural law meaning that we get our rights of God that God somehow implants that impregnates us With with with some intrinsic form of rights So many of them by the way, and this is this is again probably why they failed To preserve Economic and political freedom. Many of them were economists and not philosophers So certainly in the 19th century and certainly in the 20th century the leading classical liberals the liberals And again, it's classical liberal because it's liberal in the meaning of the word from Classical times supposedly but not really classical times from the 18th and 19th century not in the modern American interpretation of the 20th century which means The left right which means Socialist light, I guess Or some form of collectivism and statism Somehow and I don't know the history well enough To explain how they did it although it would be an interesting question So maybe I'll do some research and get back to you on it somehow the left stole the concept of liberal and it the contrast became The left which was socialist and even even communist they were for progress see communism socialism and communism In the form that they took 50 60 years ago Actually had this benevolent positive vision in the distance future for what life looked like, right? Now It broke down immediately and it's ultimately it's nihilism because the outcome has to be destruction and death and and murder and so on but They had this vision and they wanted to industrialize and they wanted to progress and they wanted everybody to be rich Everybody to reach equally rich everybody had to be equal but but but the idea was to be rich. It wasn't like today's a left Which is nihilistic fundamentally nihilistic once the destroy once a knockdown is not interested in progress I mean the fact that they call themselves progressives and liberals is is the most disgusting thing in the world because they're not liberals Because they don't care about liberty and they're certainly not progressives because they don't want progress. They want going backwards They're they're all environmentalists. They want us to go backwards. They're anti industry. They're anti technological achievement and technological progress so these leftists Took over the term liberal Partially because they were at the during that period of time those advocating for industrialization and technological progress and and and and and a bright future in in, you know, you know Bizarre the test from reality way, but that's what they held, right? and Of course over time in America that got that got cemented and today liberal means leftist although again I try not to use that. I try to call them leftists or Or Regressives I love I love the term regressives as to counter progressives. I love the term regressives. They are regressives Because they want to go backwards. They want to destroy. They want to knock down. They're not progressives Also, so they were aggressive left or regressives generally took over the term liberal and We needed a term to describe those thinkers From the 19th and 18th century that believed in progress that believed to some extent or another in Individualism that believed to some extent or another in freedom and capitalism and The the name that was given to them from Locke to Adam Smith to mill to Bastiat to say Jean-Baptiste say to Ultimately to the Austrian economist was classical liberal and indeed the modern classical liberal movement Was really founded if you will through an organization called through the founding of an organization called Mont Pelerin the Mont Pelerin Society and The Mont Pelerin Society was founded in 1947 and so exactly 70 years ago by Free market advocates or at least, you know, relatively speaking free market advocates FAA Hayek Milton Friedman and Ludwig von Mises among I think that the dozen original founders. It was really FAA Hayek's original real idea and The Mont Pelerin Society was founded as a society to resurrect ideas of liberalism in its classical sense in its traditional sense so classical liberalism and to help promote those ideas and Over the years it has become the dominant classical liberal academic professional organization in which people participate present papers. It's not so much an advocacy Program as it much as it is a Society in which people come to exchange ideas Underneath this big umbrella called classical liberalism All right And and today many many not all but many libertarians I think the better libertarians the more intellectual libertarians would consider themselves classical liberal I think that that some conservatives Consider themselves Classical liberals and think about it also this way the classical liberals were trying to differentiate themselves from conservatives You know again liberalism in its initial meaning was anti-conservative because they were for progress for change for liberalization for liberty and not for conserving institutions in the name of conserving institutions not for The idea that institutions were good because they've existed a long time or or or or that certain social structures were good because they existed a long time They rejected conservatism. I always tell my conservative friends That the founding fathers were not conservative the founding fathers were radicals. They were liberal radicals. They were enlightenment radicals They were not conservative so In the 20th century when the left took over the term liberal There was a group of people who did not feel at home with the conservative banner and therefore needed to create a different banner for themselves and and the idea of classical liberalism predates the libertarian Movement and if you think about libertarianism as a movement It was really founded originally the term was used originally to be a home Not for people who generally believed in freedom and in individualism and capitalism But really to be a home for the people who believed in anarchy to believed in in and what they now call The contradiction of anarcho-capitalism you can't have anarchy and capitalism but anyway the people who believed in anarchism I mean it was it was libertarianism as a movement was really founded by Charles Murray's name pops into my subconscious, which of course, it's not Charles Murray It's Murray Rothbard. So I got Murray and the next thing came is Charles instead of Getting old getting old that that's what happens when you get old so Murray Rothbard was Was really the the guy who founded the libertarian movement Libertarianism and it really was the focal point of Not Classical liberals. I'm not sure I don't think that that of amesis or Hayek or Milton Friedman Particularly in in those early days would have felt comfortable in in the spanner of under this big tent of libertarianism That was dominated in those early days by the anarchists So they needed a term by which to differentiate themselves from the anarchist So though I'll tell you now that there are some anarchists. I would say The sane or anarchist and you can ask me at some point what differentiates sane or anarchists from Non-sane anarchists in sane anarchists, but the sane or anarchist the more credible anarchists. I think some of them now view themselves as belonging the classical liberal tent and and But but Hayek me's is Friedman were not anarchists and I I don't think felt at home in Suddenly in the 60s and 70s in in the kind of the libertarian tent I Don't think I don't think Hazlet would have viewed himself as a libertarian, but I do think all of them would have viewed themselves as Classical liberals that was the term that was comfortable and that's still a big tent But it's a big tent that for the most part again It's changing right now for the most part is more academic more philosophical more grounded in in economics, but but in in serious economists and that for the most part views a role for government and Sees its traditions going back not so much to my robot, but much more to Hayek much more to To Mises and and even further back and this is where it gets the big tent to Adam Smith To say to other thinkers so that you get a lot of people for example a little bit in the classical liberal movement today who are clearly You know also overlapping with with conservatism so the so the Conservatives who would identify themselves as more free market types Would be part of the classical liberal movement as it is today, but again these terms are very Loose and partially they're loose because they're not grounded on a on a on a systematic basic principal Philosophical framework indeed they have lots of they and they accept lots of philosophies. It is a big tent All right, we're gonna take a short break and And we'll be right back and we'll continue our conversation about classical liberalism and objectivism Did you know there's an easy automatic way to support the Einran Institute all year long For any purchase made at Amazon.com the Amazon smile program sends a small percentage to AI Doesn't matter what you buy if you shop at Amazon the money you spend can help spread Einran's ideas Are you a student required to read bad philosophers by the books on Amazon and support AI? First days anniversaries and Christmas all these purchases add up And if not just you imagine the results of every Einran fan in the country use Amazon smile support AI Are you smiling? Sure you are sign up is free and easy Just go to smile dot Amazon comm and make sure you select AI as your smile recipient All right That was a quick break and we'll go right back at it So as I said classical liberalism is the name for liberals in the traditional sense in the sense of the 1819 century and Again big tent many philosophical foundations But for the most part I think people who identify as classical liberals Tend to be intellectual tend to be interested in ideas tend to be interested in discussion pro free speech pro Just one extent or another free markets But generally on that in that direction pro individual liberty some of them will recognize the concept of individual rights others might be more from a utilitarian framework from Bentham mill framework and and Don't see a role for individual rights as as a concept But but are still claimed to be or support the ideas of Liberty. These are the kind of people that Einran really Associated herself with in the 30s and I think 40s, you know somewhat into the 50s It really is that the the original idea of fee of a foundation for economic education That That Einran was affiliated with in a very early days before she viewed them as way too compromising and in a sense selling out it is the It is the again the has lit that the the Mises and and the others free-market advocates and primarily economist and and I think that in and of itself is Their great weakness. There is no Philosophical foundation there's no one philosophical foundation and the many philosophical foundations are all weak You know, we're not going to get into now the weakness of utilitarianism the the weakness that is a natural law theory The weakness in every one of the types of defenses that all of these different thinkers presented and When these economists come and present the economic argument as brilliant as it may be For free markets, they have no philosophical grounding. They have nothing to ground it on except Utilitarianism and natural law and even you know von Mises tries to ground it on a kind of a Contian rationalism Which is the exact opposite of What you would need in order to ground his kind of economic theory you need an anti-contian philosophy So and and that at the end is the real the real Weakness of the movement is is a lack of philosophy You've got a Fantastic economics, you've got two economics to a large extent many of these people discovered many many many truths But you don't have the moral epistemological and metaphysical Foundation to ground it on for that matter. You don't have the political foundation to ground it in and and you get somebody like Hayek who Does some amazing things in economics isn't a brilliant brilliant economist But when he comes to his social thinking much of it is conventional Much of it is buys into what the philosophers are thinking at that point in time But what the philosophers are thinking at that point in time in the middle of the 20th century is much more consistent with socialism much more consistent with statism than it is with Freedom and true liberty So the real weakness the real thing that that undercuts classical liberalism is the lack of a philosophical foundation and The great tragedy in my view. I mean The greatest tragedy of the 20th century. How about that? That's a big statement Greatest tragedy of the 20th century is that these thinkers did not recognize the genius of iron man The greatest tragedy of the 20th century and going into the 21st century is That these people many of them geniuses brilliant Hayek and Mises and Friedman and Hazlitz and so many others They they recognized at least Mises and Hazlitz did so to some extent The benefits the genius of Atlas shrugged and and some of what Iron Man said, but they did not get it They didn't get the philosophy. They didn't get the importance of a philosophy They didn't get how a philosophy was really the foundation for everything they believed in from an economic and even political perspective and it's it's a It's a huge unimaginable tragedy Because Imagine imagine I mean, it's hard to imagine it's hard to that those people be converted to objectivism imagine that they had taken upon them upon them the the philosophical principles of objectivism and Use them instead of praxeology, which is what Mises comes up with instead of praxeology Uses objectivism as a foundation for the economic thinking now. I think they're all too old and too emmused in economics quite economics at that point to really Grasp the importance of what I ran had done and the importance of those ideas But think about what the consequence would have been and of course the tragedy continues because the best Economists and and to some extent the best thinkers in the world today are not taking I ran seriously So the best Thinkers in a variety of different realms out there academic realms do not take Objectivism seriously from the science as to certain fields within humanities that are doing may we okay or have good thinkers within them? Don't take objectivism seriously and it's a tragedy because people will die Millions of people will die in our future because the defenders of liberty did not identify the importance of philosophy One and did not identify the importance of I ran's philosophy to as much more fundamental. All right I'm gonna take calls three four seven three two four three zero seven five and a switch topics in a little while So if you're interested in asking a question about this issue Classical liberalism and objectives are a few more things to say But if you have any further questions about this feel free to call in 347 324 3075 I mean you can't ask on the on the chat We've got I've got let's see. I've got three chats going on. I've got I've got a chat on Facebook live I've got a chat that I can see I think what people are posting on YouTube and on Periscope And I've got the blog talk radio chat. So you could ask a question there Part of the problem with chats is they move fast. It's hard to capture the questions before it moves on So, you know, we can do that but yeah, I mean somebody notes here I mean, it's a tragedy that Sam Harris doesn't get it right as good as Sam Harris is and the good stuff that he says and The value it presents to the world imagine How more powerful his ideas would be and our ideas would be if he took Objectivism seriously engaged with those ideas, but more than that if he embraced those ideas You know, it's it's You know, it's it's pretty pretty cool. Whoops. What happened here? Following pages have become unresponsive Not sure what why why that said that but all right, so You can ask questions again What was the phone number 347 324 3075 if you want to ask a question you have to press one You have to press one in order to do it. So Press one and I will know that you want to ask a question. There will be a question mark. I have to say this every week, but I Have new listeners every week. So yeah, it's appropriate. All right, let's see What a major celebrity advocating brands ideas have a significant impact or would they be shunned and ignored Now I think they could have an impact not dependent on the celebrity and dependent on how they did it But yeah, I think every time a celebrity says Atlas Shogun was my favorite book It has an impact and the impact is that The impact is that people go read the book that people say oh, what are they doing right? Well, why are they saying this is a good book people care of all what celebrities think right then they would actually go I mean Angelina Julia said it said Brad Pitt has said it and then of course you you if they were committed objectivists That would be even more because then they could they would have a platform You see when you have a microphone not my microphone which reaches thousands when you have a microphone that reaches millions Then you can get people To read you can get people to engage with the ideas you can get people curious You can get people to come and listen to your own book show and listen to my podcast So yes having a celebrity who said this would would definitely would definitely make make a big a Big difference. Okay. Somebody asked a question. It's not directly related to it, but it's somewhat related because about Objectivism being a closed system and I don't know if I've talked about this on the podcast before not but but Anyway, it's some way here You know that they're upset about Objectivism being a a closed system and a growth objective is that they don't get this idea of a closed system and it it's I mean the two aspects of this One is Objectivism a name for a particular philosophy. It does not name the truth It names a particular philosophy. It names. I ran's philosophy That doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean everything is true. It certainly doesn't mean certainly doesn't mean it's complete I ran herself admitted that there were lots of gaps in her philosophy There's a lot of missing a lot of work needed to be done and indeed Knowledge is endless. There's no limit to human knowledge. They're always gonna be discoveries There's always gonna be new things new adjustments new changes that are gonna have to be made as new knowledge is Discovered new discoveries Science expands, you know Philosophy is not static truth is not static But objectivism is Because objectivism is not the truth Objectivism is not the collection of all those things that are true in philosophy Objectivism is the philosophy of I ran as she defined it as she Defined it now if she was wrong about something if she if if if some of what she wrote needs to be elaborated on Then the person who corrects what she wrote or the person who elaborates on Is doing philosophy? He's doing his philosophy But that now is not objectivism. That is whatever we want to call it in the future. Maybe it's Joeism or I don't know Whatever your name is that where you make the new discovery or you make you find the code the mistake in I ran and you correct it Or maybe there'll be a term in the future called Rand ism and Rand ism or Randy in Randy in is a person Who's influenced by I ran who's who's influenced by objectivism? Or maybe even agrees with much of objectivism, but the certain things they disagree There's certain things that they've changed. They've added a virtue or they've Fixed something else or they've just expanded Significantly above and beyond what I ran wrote in epistemology or in metaphysics and whatever By the way, I know I ran hated Rand ism, but she's not alive anymore. So to some extent it doesn't matter The point is that Objectivism names some thing a finite thing It names iron rands ideas and iron rands ideas are not equal to All future discoveries about the truth are not equal to All future expansions on objectivism. What is she? What if the genius of our day, whoever that may be today? Comes and says Here's some here's some elaborations and iron rands epistemology She she only touched on these issues. She's a man. Here's a new book on epistemology based on Objectivism and what if I ran well live and said I Disagree with this and I disagree with that and I disagree with these things Right, and she's not alive, but she might have and she might have disagreed with some of the things in there Why are you now a cheerleading the name? She gave to her philosophy to you all new things that might she might have agreed with or might not have agreed with It just doesn't make any sense to me It doesn't make any sense to me Right, and this does not mean That philosophy is a closed system. It does not certainly doesn't mean the truth is a closed system It doesn't mean that everything iron rands said is perfectly true. Although, you know in philosophy I believe she was right on everything It doesn't and it doesn't mean you can't add it doesn't mean you can't change It doesn't mean but it just don't call it objectivism. That's all it's a very simple thing. So You know, it's it's it's about what you name things. All right, um, I Got a few questions. What about hope a What do you think about him? I don't like him at all I mean, I mean again every one of these people I don't like has some good things that they've written but hope it is an anarchist he's got certain elements of Of What I think of racism in his writings Yeah, I don't I don't like hope at all and I I despise Again, Marie Rothbard Not the other Marie Marie Rothbard. I'm trying to train my subconscious live here on the radio So no, I mean the I don't Okay, let me say this and I'm gonna get into trouble But let me say this. There are two types of an alco capitalists out there in my view there's a type who The anarcho capitalism the subjectivism implied by it the rejection of objective reality the rejection of objective law the rejection of at the end of the day of reason is At the heart of their philosophy is at the heart of what they do at the heart of what they are advocating for and and and these You know an alco capitalists in my view are the enemies of liberty They give a bad reputation to liberty. They do damage the cause of liberty and they really do harm and I think well, I know that Marie Rothbard is one of them and I think hope is another of them and generally many of the people associate with the von Mises Institute today Unfortunately, it's called that because I don't think one Mises was not an anarchist and anarchists are not in this group Many people associated with the von Mises Institute fall into this camp, but then there are other Anarchists who Don't feel very strongly about it Who generally have this notion of they can't they can't see any argument against it They don't get any argument against it. These are typically economists They they kind of see forces evil and they they project that through and they see the force as being damaging economically and They But they like to apply economics to everything they apply economics to marriage and they apply economics to all sociology into politics and everything So why not apply economics to the problem of extracting force from society and they Rationalistically come up with this idea of Anarcho-capitalism, and I think it's pure rationalism Now I think they're wrong. I think they do damage the cause of liberty because I think the idea is a is a is a Ridiculous idea, and I think it falls apart very quickly, but I Don't put them in the same category as the first were committed philosophically to the idea of anarchy and subjectivism and I think ultimately to nihilism or at least there's an aspect of them that's nihilistic So I have more sympathy to those and and sympathy sympathy is not the right word You know I'm less Less offended by them less disgusted by them less angry at them more open to you know This discussion with them then they're committed philosophical ones So I think they are again different variations. I hope it is definitely in the in the first category. All right Let's see. All right, we're gonna take a quick commercial break, and then I want to come back and talk a little bit more about About classical liberalism Institute it's to promote I ran philosophy of reason rational self-interest and laudate their capitalism It's rare for employment to offer you the opportunity to impact the culture and make history But that's exactly what we do at AI each and every day We are currently looking for talented passionate and bright people who share a goal of raising awareness of iron rams ideas Visit AI dot iron rand or to learn more about open positions and how to apply That's AI dot iron rand. All right. That's a long lead out of the commercial So we're talking about classical liberalism and objectivism, and I just wanted to make One more point and I'm still looking for questions if you have questions feel free to ask them Particularly if you can ask them on these on this issue Anyway All right, so I wanted to talk about whether objectivism is part of the classical liberal tent And I would say no No in the sense that I don't think objectivism belongs in any tent Objectivism is a comprehensive philosophical system a comprehensive philosophical view We don't agree with other people on liberty and then say however you come to it is fine um We believe there's only one way to come to it part of belonging to a tent is to is recognizing that the other Ideas in the tent are legitimate I don't consider a utilitarian defense of capitalism legitimate. I mean it's it's it's respectable in a sense of respectable people believe in it But it's not legitimate not particularly when you're faced with alternative objectivism or the natural law or that religion is consistent with Capitalism none of those things are true utilitarianism and ultimately religion Lead to socialism lead to statism lead to the oppression of the individual lead to collectivism so It's not We're not part of the tent now We participate in the tent In the sense that we participate in the dialogue We participate in the discussion We participate in trying to convince other people in this tent And this tent is a generally I view it as a generally benevolent positive place the classical liberal tent That they are wrong That there is only one philosophical foundation For liberty for rights for capitalism for freedom for individualism and that is objectivism So I for example am a member of the montpellarine society So I go to their events the last three montpellarine society Sessions I think was the last three conferences. I was a speaker and when I speak it's clear that my position is different Than what is traditionally being held All right so We are not part of the tent But we are In the discussion and I think it's important for us to be in the discussion as long as The tent is a benevolent place interested in ideas interested in discussing ideas and has not given up on ideas in the name of Subjectivism win worship do whatever the hell you feel like it which is uh, which is part of many within the kind of an alcohol capitalist world uh Like that and and there's I mean I'm always open to talking to young people Because I think young people have been boozled by all kinds of ideas and you can always correct them and and give them more information And that's healthy, but You know with the with the uh with with sudden types It's just not worth talking to if the nihilism is there so subjectivism is there It's just not worth it. All right, you're listening to your own book show three four seven three two four three zero Seven five three four seven Three two four three zero seven five also if you have any questions You can and if you call in you press the one and then I know that you're wanting to ask a question um We've also if you want to ask a question on uh facebook. I'm somewhat Monitoring the chat on facebook. I'm also monitoring the chat on blog talk and even monitoring the chat on youtube three different screens um and for some reason on YouTube they're talking about law in southern right now. So that's that's a discussion. They're very irrelevant not relevant to our discussion right now um, and uh, what are they talking about on um on blog talk Objectivism doesn't have fellow travelers. I mean No, it doesn't in a sense. It doesn't a sense. It does right it has fellow travelers who agree with us on certain issues So on on some issues. I consider somebody like sam havers a fellow traveler on some issues. I consider Many of of of the the free market economists fellow travelers but as You know really as a as a as a philosophy as a Systematic set of ideas As a movement to change the world We do not have fellow travelers. I mean Objectivism is about somebody says objective is about individualism. It is but more fundamentally I mean, it's about reason. It's about reason as man's basic means of survival. It's about reason as man's guide um and uh and reason is is of course Goes hand in hand with individualism and to me those are the two concepts rational self-interest rational egoism and reason um, of course rational self-interest because they have rational in it already captures the issue of of of reason And somebody's asking what about typical leftist socialist? How do we have a discussion with them? I mean, it depends again Some leftists you cannot have a discussion with If they're the nihilist type if there's a type running around a pepper spraying people or support pepper spraying people If they if they you know, you just can't talk to them. Uh, they're nihilists. They're already They're already so corrupt. I don't believe you can get to them others Yeah, of course you have to talk to uh leftists because most young people are leftist today Our educational system our entire educational system is leftist So the only way to have an impact on the culture the only way to change the world is to talk to Leftists primarily young leftists and the way to do there is to is to challenge their fundamental beliefs To challenge their beliefs on morality the challenge. They believe some politics the challenge They believe some epistemology and to present an alternative a positive alternative a positive alternative That is good for them It is amazing to me The number of people out there who buy self-help books constantly buying self-help books Because they want to make their life better because they want to prosper because they want to be successful Many of those people are leftists many of those people are collectivists They're not going to get any help from self-help books if they're collectivists or if they're altruists or if they're Socialists, it's just not going to work Unless they really compartmentalize but compartmentalize people. It's just not going to work for them. So The best self-help thing for them is to adopt a philosophy of objectivism. Now, that's not enough You need to work at it Objectivism is a philosophy that's not just enough to understand the principles and let them just sink in You have to live it which means you have to integrate it constantly integrate and integrate and integrate and integrate You have to introspect you have to think about it We're going to talk about emotions in a minute and how that affects your emotional life and what it how it relates to emotions and so on So Well, I say they have to adopt objectivism. That's not a simple thing. All right, we've got a call Hi, you're new on book show. Who's this?