 Dave Rubin is a talk show host, comedian, and TV personality, as many of you know. The host of the popular YouTube talk show, The Rubin Report. Dave regularly addresses big ideas such as free speech, political correctness, and religion. Among many other high-profile guests on the show, Dave has interviewed Sam Harris, Ayan Hirsi Ali, and Larry Elder. And we also have Yaron Brooke here tonight. Yaron Brooke is the chairman of the board of Ayn Rand Institute, renowned best-selling author and host of the nationally syndicated Yaron Brooke show, which broadcasts live on BlogTalk radio and YouTube. Brooke is also an internationally sought speaker whose talks promote capitalism, inequality, Ayn Rand, and her philosophy, which you all know to be objectivism. Brooke was born and raised in Israel, served as a first sergeant in the Israeli military intelligence, and earned a bachelor's of science in civil engineering from the Technion Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. He moved to the United States and received his MBA and PhD in Finance from the University of Austin, Texas. The Ayn Rand Institute fosters a growing awareness, understanding and acceptance of Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism in order to create a culture whose guiding principles are reason, rational self-interest, individualism, and laissez-faire capitalism. Student programs are a major focus of the Institute and include annual essay contests for nearly $100,000 in prizes, student conferences, student club support, seasonal internships, and campus events. So if you are interested in that, you can visit Ayn Rand.org. And then one more thing, we want to give a big thanks to our amazing event photographer, Albert Aronov of Starfall Productions. He's available for graduation pictures, videos, anything of that sort. So at the end of the event, if you'd like to speak to him, right back there. Thank you. I'm Anthony, president of Young Americans for Liberty. And I also want to thank Christina, who's president of Turning Point, also campus coordinator. And Alex from the Ayn Rand Institute. I don't know where Alex is, but without these great minds and these great institutions, we wouldn't be able to put this event on. So you guys know who you came to see. No further ado, Dave and Yaron. All right. Thank you guys. You probably heard our mics. This is just for the feed. So we're going to try to talk as loudly as possible. First off, I'm very excited to be here. I just had my first ever police escort to a bathroom. So I guess that means I've made it at this point. You've lived now. Now you've lived. Now I've lived. I mean, there are police out there. I usually only do these events either with 20 police officers or a former IDF soldier. So we've got to go. Who does not know Krav Maga? You do not know Krav Maga. Uh-oh. We're in a lot of trouble. All right. Well, thank you guys for coming out. We're going to talk about big ideas and we're going to talk about free speech and we're going to talk about the role of the government. First off, we are putting this on my YouTube channel. So can you crazy conservatives, Republicans, Objectivists, whatever you consider yourselves, can you make some noise for the people watching this? Wow. I'm actually shy. I mean, I recognize a lot of you guys from some of the events through ARI and Turning Point that I've done lately. So it's just amazing to me that for as crappy as everything seems on college campus these days, you guys are out here to talk about ideas. Yaron and I had about an hour in the car earlier to do this. I think we've already given the talk to each other. We're really open right now. We're willing to kind of take this in any direction. We're going to try to push and pull on each other a little bit, but we don't really have an agenda here. But I think originally this was set up to be about limited government, which is one of your big things. I'll let you kick it off and then we'll see. But we want you guys to interact. We're going to do about 45 minutes of us talking. And then we're going to do questions totally uncensored from you guys. So Yaron, take it away. Sure. And I'm going to swivel a little bit because you're all over the place. So yeah, the role of government. So we were talking in the car coming in here and one of the interviews that Dave has done recently was Stephen Pinker. And I don't know if you've read his latest book, Enlightenment Now. Let me just endorse it right now. I disagree in the book, but the book is phenomenal in everybody. Everybody on the planet should be reading this book. He's endorsing a big lefty, by the way. Yeah, a big lefty, right? And one of the things that Pinker identifies is he goes through a whole series of chapters where he tells us how good life is right now on planet Earth. It's never been better. And he's absolutely right. Life expectancy, poverty rates, hunger, all of these things. We're in a better situation today than we have ever been before. And he identifies the cause of that. And the cause, he says, is basically human ingenuity, ideas, the application of human reason in solving problems. Now, how's this related to the whole of government? Because you ask yourself, what kind of environment allows for the thriving of human reason? What kind of environment allows for ideas not just to be thought of, but then implemented in reality and brought into existence? And what you realize quickly, and if you study the history, this is exactly what happened, is that for ideas, for people to come up with ideas, for people to implement ideas to make them a reality, they need to be free. They need to be free. You can't have it when the Catholic Church is telling you, I don't know, the sun goes around the earth, it doesn't work the other way around. You can't have it when some autocrat tells you what to think or what to do, what business you can open or what business you can't open. You need to be free. Free to think, sometimes ridiculous ideas that fail, but then you fail. That's okay. But for the successful ideas to work, people have to have the freedom to try them and to go out and do them. And then, so freedom of what? Because freedom is a word everybody loves. Nobody's against freedom. But freedom from what? Well, freedom means freedom from coercion, freedom from force, freedom from authority. And if you think about what that means, it really is the concept that the founding fathers described as individual rights. Rights really are the recognition that each individual should be free. Free from coercion, free to live their life as they see fit, free to think and to speak and to act as they see fit, as long as they're not harming other people. They have the right to pursue the rational values necessary for their own existence in their life. And therefore, the only role of government, as I see it, is to make that freedom a reality. And to make that freedom a reality, what we need is to extract force when we get together to make sure that you guys, you know, this is why we have the police here, right? Don't attack me because of what I'm saying. That's it. So we need freedom from force. So the role of government is basically that. It's to guarantee that we can say what we want to say, do what we want to do, and otherwise leave us alone. So police, a military, and a judiciary. And that kind of environment is what fosters the kind of creativity that is made and the production that has made this world such an amazing world, right? So, yeah, it's simple. So I love that one of the things he said there was freedom to think because you guys are in college. This is where you're supposed to learn how to think and unfortunately what's happening obviously on most college campuses these days is that thinking is sort of becoming an outlier in what's going on. So it's interesting, he references, your own references, Stephen Pinker's book. Stephen Pinker, again, as I said, he's a lefty. I think he would probably say he's a progressive who would disagree with you on virtually every political topic. And that's what I think is so cool about what's happening these days and I think it's probably why you guys watch my show or you're involved in this whole thing that's happening right now. The example I like is if you take two guys that I'm sure you guys are familiar with, Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris. These guys disagree on literally every political topic there is from, forget political topic, they disagree on the most existential questions of the universe, right? Whether God exists in the value of religion, to abortion, to taxes, to literally just down the line, the whole thing. Yet they're allies now because there is a massive realignment happening that if you will agree on defending free speech, defending someone's ability to think and live their life for themselves, that in a pluralistic society we're actually supposed to disagree on those things. So I think that's a beautiful thing right there. But unfortunately, we're sort of only seeing tolerance one way these days. Yeah, and the beauty of this alliance is two things. One is this idea of freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of thought. But the second is that the standard for truth is reason. Reason is the way in which we communicate. Reason is the way in which we deal with one another. You know, it's not my God versus your God and my revelation versus your revelation. No, even if you're religious, like let's say Jordan Peterson maybe is, nobody's actually sure. Maybe even Jordan's not exactly sure. Well, I'm going on tour with him. There you go, you'll find out maybe. But you know, at the end of the day, the standard is reality, the standard is reason. Right, and the beauty of Stephen Pinker in his book is, well, yeah, I think there's some inconsistencies there, some ways in which he abandons reasons, but he venerates the idea of reason, of reality-based thinking, of facts. And the same on many issues, Ben Shapiro, right, even when we talk about politics or whether there's a disagreement on politics, we agree that the standard should be what is true, what is actually in reality. But that's why I think there's something actually special about him. And if you look here, right, we've got the Young Americans for Liberty. This is a libertarian organization, obviously. Turning Point USA, a lot of their main guys are Trump supporters. You're not a Trump supporter. That's an understatement, yeah. That's an understatement. I voted for Gary Johnson and I should be judged accordingly. I mean, Gary Johnson, by the way, he is the first person that actually ever made me question whether weed should be legal or not because the man could not remember anything. True. But this shows you that there's a diversity of idea happening right now on what I would say is basically the sort of center-right, basically, that we could get into some of our political differences. I'm happy to do that. But that you guys are here and that no matter what we say right now, you came because you wanted to hear about some diverse ideas. And unfortunately, you know, I offer this all the time. My next six months, year, basically, is full with speaking gigs and not one is from a Democrat organization or a left organization or a progressive organization. You know, I'm gay married. That should have... I'm not even gay. I just did it for the cred. But that should have some cred with these people. You know, I'm pro-choice. You know, we could go down the list. I'm for some social safety net that I know we disagree on. Plenty of those things. That should get me some cred with the left. But unfortunately, there is a real corruption in the side that is always preaching about tolerance. And what I'm finding, and I find it more and more, is I talk to these people who I have massive disagreements with. I'm sure some of you guys saw Ben Shapiro on my show where we disagreed about abortion and the death penalty and a bunch of other things. But yet you guys invite us here. So that actually does say something. That's a real credit to you. And we just aren't seeing this on the left. Do you think it was always like this on the left? Because it's new, I think, for young people. And even for me, it was sort of new. I don't think it was always like this on the left. I think the left was better in the past. I think the left, indeed, in many respects, the left was better than the right on the issue of free speech. And the right was actually oppressive of free speech for a very long time. So you're talking about Berkeley 30 years ago. Certainly if you go back to the 60s, but since then and before the 60s, there was definitely a sense in which the left was much more open to new ideas. And look, I think you're more positive on the right than I am. Because if you went to CPAC this last year and there was a speaker at CPAC who spoke about, who was from the Cato Institute, and he said some positive things about immigration. You would think he just said we should kill all babies or something. The room exploded. They booed him. They tried to get him off stage. And many of the people in that auditorium would have shut him up if they could have done that. So I think we're a little too positive about some people on the right. I mean, I was at an event just before the election in Chicago. And this was like everybody was over 65. It was like a tea party group. And I was on stage. And I said something positive about immigration. I'm very positive about immigration. You can ask about that. And oh my God, these 65-year-olds were standing up and cursing me and yelling at me and trying to get me off the stage. So there's a certain intolerance, unfortunately. I think it dominates the left. And it's in certain parts of the right on certain issues. And it's scary. Because, again, I think this group realizes this. Once you lose the ability to speak, they're basically, once you're silenced, they're basically limiting what you can think. And once you do that, they were right for authoritarianism. It really is the end of what we call western civilization, which I think America is still the beacon of or still struggling to remain the beacon of. This is the issue of our time. There's no more important issue. And this is why this coalition has come together. It's because this is the most important issue I can think of is the issue of free speech. It trumps immigration, welfare, politics, any of these other issues. If you can't speak, then you can't think. And if you can't think, it's over. I'm curious, how many of you guys saw just in the last couple weeks the amount of articles from Vox and Salon and all the usual players who were sort of mocking the free speech fighters? Did you guys see that? We'll do some of this by applause just so the people at home can get it. Did you guys see those articles? I know you don't want to applaud those articles specifically. So that was a little weird, I suppose. But I thought that was really interesting that suddenly, and these again, and you may be right that I've been a little too easy on elements of the right when it comes to this. For me, it's like I come from the left. So when I see the right, when I see the race realists or these people that want America to be a white state, to me that is so ridiculous and they have no institutional power and they're a bunch of true racists. Not the way that racism is thrown at you guys or at us. So to me, those people aren't even worth thinking about or even it's just irrelevant. So perhaps you may be right that I've given them a little bit of a slide there but what I would say is it's interesting to me that suddenly in the last couple weeks there's been this push on the left media to mock the free speech people. The very people who will defend these ridiculous organizations like Salon and Vox to print these usually awful things. I'm sure many of you guys saw the articles written about Jordan Peterson in the last couple weeks. Yeah, everyone's nodding. We'll defend their right to do it. Absolutely. I mean, that's on the barricades. I mean, literally on the barricades. I find it interesting that they get microaggressed I guess or they find offensive certain things that we say. Oh, by the way, we have a room of puppies in case any of you are offended by any of the hate speech up here. And cuddly teddy bears just in case something live scares you. Like a puppy. But they can go after Jordan Peterson. Offend him, misrepresent him or misrepresent Ayn Rand or misrepresent me. And we're not... I get agressed. I get triggered and nobody cares. Right? What about me? You can insult me and there's like if I say something about them, oh my God, they're so sensitive you feel complete, no problem. Insulting and really being violent against us and we're supposed to just take it. Now let me just say something about this left-right. I think one of the reasons I'm sensitive in terms of more critical of the right is because I'm perceived as a member of the right and Ayn Rand is perceived as belonging on the right. And I don't want to be I don't want to be associated with Donald Trump. I don't want to be associated with some people on the right. So when people write like Salon does often Trump's Ayn Rand cabinet. Right? I make a special effort to make it clear that there's no relationship between anybody on Trump's cabinet and what Ayn Rand really meant. So I am much more sensitive to the nonsense on the right because people want me to belong there. I don't believe I'm on the left or on the right. I think we're like on a slightly different dimension. So I'm clearly much more sensitive about the right. And I also think, I mean, that's a whole other question. I also think the right there's a certain danger there as well. Yeah, right. And I also, you know, as I'm sure many of you guys have seen, I think these labels are getting increasingly meaningless left-right. I'm sure if we polled all of you guys that your political opinions would be all over the place and that's what it's supposed to be. That is what freedom is supposed to be. It's not supposed to be ingrained into a political party. But as I saw all these articles about free speech and they were supposedly putting out polls that, you know, students are more tolerant than ever. And then if you actually read them, it was that they were just intolerant of racist speech, which of course is insane because they label everything they don't like racist. So it doesn't quite work. But just by again, by applause, which is a little bizarre, how many of you on campus here have been afraid to either say what you think politically to a friend or a faculty member or in class or anything like that? I know it's a weird thing to applaud. Wow. Yeah, I got to figure out a better, but something else, should it be booze for that? Yeah, booze is good. But that right there shows it. I mean, I don't think the same thing as if we were, if I was invited again, if there was a progressive group that would invite us here, Jerome and I would be happy to do it. And I think if I asked them, you know, how many of you guys have been afraid to share your opinions on intersectionality or third wave feminism or whatever else it is, I'm pretty sure none of them are having that issue. And actually, the survey showed that. The survey they were all quoting says that people on the left don't believe that there's any problem for them to express themselves, but they do recognize that conservatives or anybody on the right do have a problem expressing themselves. So the survey showed exactly this. But what was interesting is the way the survey was phrased. It was, what do you see as more important? Free speech or diversity and diversity in something else and inclusion, diversity and inclusion. First of all, setting those two against each other. What does diversity and inclusion even mean? Define your terms, right? And then to set it up against free speech, and there, a majority said diversity and inclusion are more important than free speech, which is shocking. I know many of you guys know this, but just think about what they mean by diversity. I could look around this room. I see a diverse group of people in color and probably sexuality and ethnicity and religion and all of that stuff. How many of you, I mean, is there anyone here that wants to be judged by that, your sexuality or your color or your religion? I mean, religion's not an immutable characteristic, but they've sort of dragged it as one. I'll judge them based on their religion. Yeah. I'm the atheist in the room. There you go. I mean, there you go again. So okay, so we have an atheist. I mean, I think generally conservative, there's an idea that conservatives aren't that happy with atheists. But again, you're invited to all of these places. So this actually is what diversity is all about. But shifting from that a little bit, let's do some hot button things because we touch on them a little bit in the car. The gun thing is big, obviously, right now. So there was the Parkland shooting, it's horrific. Just watching what's happening on Twitter now where they're taking all of these kids and that's what they are, their kids. And they've suddenly become leaders of a movement on both sides. And I think regardless of what your feelings are about guns, I think there's an absolute danger in having young people who don't have a full handle on the issues, who've experienced something horrible, but that doesn't make you an authority on how legally we should be guiding ourselves. But the gun issue seems to have trumped everything else. Trumped even Trump. Yeah, I mean two things. One is relating to the young people. I mean, you guys have all grown up in an educational system that has told you that what you should value are your emotions and how you feel. You've gotten ribbons for coming in last or whatever, right? Not to hood yourself with steam or anything. I can't even say coming in last. There's no first and last. There is no last. There is no. And what we're seeing today is exactly a reflection of that is adults, we are now venerating their emotions of 16-year-olds. Now, they have emotions and it's true, but what are the facts? What is the data? What are the rights issues involved? Let's have a real conversation about it. And I get in trouble when I talk about guns, including within the Objectivist community. A lot of people disagree with me violently about guns. I'm not a big fan of guns. You know, this is from a former IDF guy who used a lot of big guns. I think you have a right to certain guns, but I don't think you have a right to any kind of gun. And a discussion about that, right? And a real discussion about what are the issues and how do you decide? That isn't happening, right? So on the one side, you get the people who say, you know, it's a second amendment that I get my A.R. 15 or whatever, right? And what about the tank and what about the other stuff? Where is the line? Nobody wants to have the discussion of what is the line, right? And then you have the other side, you'll ban everything. And there's no actual discussion about what is the role of government? Is there a role of government? If there is a role of government, I think there is a role of government because we're talking about violence. We're talking about weapons. We're talking about things that are built for the purpose of violence. How do we have... And I don't have the answers. Actually, this is one of those issues where I don't have a clear... Usually I'm like, this is it. I don't have a clear answer on the guns, but I know that it's an interesting conversation to have and there are a lot of deep issues to be discussed. And I don't see any of that conversation happening out there. So I was pulling out my phone not because I was going to tweet while you were talking, but somebody tweeted something at me on the way here, actually, and I thought it was really interesting because I sent out a couple tweets on guns. And he wrote, people generally don't understand why Second Amendment absolutists fight against almost all gun regulations. In a vacuum, they may even think that some of those regulations are appropriate, but in a context where you know the opposition will keep pushing for more, you have little choice but to stand your ground. And I really thought that captured it for me because I'm not a huge gun guy in general. The two places I've lived in my life basically are New York City and LA. I'm around liberals and not around a lot of gun people. It's not even one of the issues. It's becoming a pet issue of mine because it's so important right now. But this isn't something that I've talked about in a really broad sense. But I thought that position was interesting, that knowing the way people operate now, that if you give an inch, they will take a mile. And I'm sure some of you guys saw at the rally the other day in D.C. one of the survivors was giving a speech, young girl, and she basically said we're going to start with bump stocks and then we're going to keep going. In effect, we're going to keep going until all guns are banned. And I thought that is how these people operate. And now they're openly saying it too. And I know that's not a position to say well I can't negotiate. That's not an ethical position to say I can't negotiate. It's a real one. It's a real issue. But that represents one of the great challenges we have in our society where you can't have a conversation. And if you can't have a conversation, what are we doing? And if you can't have a conversation about guns and you can't come up with a reasoned argument about guns, then what are we doing? That's just one issue. And I don't think that's any different than a discussion about a thousand other issues that are out there where people cannot have a conversation. But what's happening is we're becoming tribal, right? There's the gun guys who are all going to get together and they're going to be radical all the way because they don't want to give an inch because if they give an inch something will happen. And then there's the anti-gun people and that's it. And where do we go from that perspective? What is, again, I think what loses is reason. What loses is the ability to actually have a discussion about an issue and think about it thoroughly and deeply. And we're becoming tribal on almost everything, right? It's what are these guys, you know, I belong to this group and they belong to that group and there's no conversation. Now look, there's certain issues where I am going to stick 100% of my position but it's not because I would moderate that position if I thought the other side. No, because I think it's actually true. And I'm not going to stick to a position that's always false because I'm afraid of the other side forcing me into a compliment. Because I think that's my mistake. But a lot of people will. And that's why critical thinking is so important because even though I understood the idea behind that person's tweet I don't want to be in that position where I start defending things that I don't like just because I hate the other side and I think that's where so many people happen to be these days. You know what? I'm going to let you pick the next topic. We said we'd bounce back and forth. What else is on your mind at the moment? Wow, I mean, right now on my mind is probably, the thing I talk about mostly right now is trade because of what Trump is doing, which I think is bizarre and absurd and ridiculous. So it's not fair because I don't know that you have a position of thought about it. But yeah, go ahead. I'm a YouTuber. I've thought about almost everything. That's right. Come on now. It's Dave Rubin because he's thought about it. I'm sure I can take trade and make it into a demonetization topic. Do it. Somehow I will be able to... What are the chances we get monetized right now on YouTube? What do you think? We talked about guns so probably... Oh, right. So we're already... As long as guns are not in the title, but they run the algorithms and they find guns and you're off. Well, you know what? Watch. I'll make the move there. I'm curious, how many of you even think that the YouTube situation and the Facebook situation, so demonetization, tracking you guys, how many of you think that actually, maybe second to free speech as your own laid out is really the issue of the day? How many of you really think that that's... That one you didn't applaud for, but you all raised your hands. Okay. Yeah, so a lot of you do think so. So this is something we disagree... I don't know if you disagree on it. So, you know, I think we agree on, but others, you know... So I think what YouTube is doing is awful. I think what Facebook does is awful. I think all that stuff's awful. And I think it's their right to do it. I think it's their property. It's their business. They created it. And if they want to mess it up and they want to screw it up, or if they want to exclude me, then they have every right to do that. Right? And it's up to us, you know, to come up with an alternative. You know, I forget who the entrepreneur who started YouTube is, but he created something, and Google runs it, and they own it, and they get a set of rules. And if they don't like what we say, or they don't want to demonetize it, it hurts, but they have... You know, so I actually think that Prager suing YouTube is really, really bad for the cause of free speech. It muddies the water about what free speech really is. It takes away this differentiation between what is public and what is private. So I'm with Yaron on that. And you guys, I think, know my feelings about Dennis Prager. I love Dennis. Have you ever done any events with him? No, no. All right, well, let's see if we can make that happen. That'll be interesting. I'd love to facilitate that, though, and I think I probably can. I did an event years ago, we were both on a panel together, and it got heated very quickly. All right, but that's what it's all about, right? So I agree with your premise there that these companies can, of course, do whatever they want. I tweet this constantly, and then people always say to me, oh, a libertarian who's saying that why are you complaining? You're not supposed to complain because you don't want government involvement. I say that's actually, you're making the reverse point, of course. You're supposed to use your voice in a free society to hopefully influence these companies. I feel like that's going to be the one that I'm going to have to just tweet for the rest of my life. Well, and we should stop using Twitter for that offended. I mean, if we really think that Twitter's doing something horrible, then the best way is to boycott. I mean, we had this conversation on your show about what to do about the baker, right? So I believe that you should have a right to discriminate about anything, right? Not just towards gays, but towards people you don't like or anything. No Jews allowed is, I think, okay to put up as a sign in your store. I don't think anybody should go into that store. I think we should all boycott, right? And I think that's the appropriate way in which we deal with a business that does something you don't like, but they have a right to do it. It's their property. I have a right to invite anybody I want to my home. It's my property. And believe me, I have very strict... Oh, put it this way. My wife has very stringent criteria. But who gets invited to a home or not? Yeah, I've never been invited to your home. Well, you're invited. My wife likes you. Yeah, but in Puerto Rico now. You can ask me about Puerto Rico if you want, because I live in Puerto Rico now. But he hates taxes. He hates taxes. What's going on there? Yeah. So you have a right. All right. Yeah, there's... First applause we got to that. There you go. Hating taxes. So a store, my business, is just an extension of my home. It's mine. That's what it means to have private property. It's mine. And I have a right to do what I want with it, including be stupid, and irrational, and suicidal, and discriminatory, and evil, and bad, as long as I'm not punching somebody in the nose, even a Nazi. As long as I'm not punching somebody in the nose, I have a right to do it. And the way to deal with that is to boycott those businesses. And ultimately, if we really get to the point where Twitter is, we will boycott Twitter and we'll find a solution. You really believe in all of our ingenuity to be able to find ways around these businesses. They will not dominate us. So I have a slightly different point of view on this, but I think it's a rich place for a conversation. So look, I did my PragerU video, and I've talked about why I wouldn't force the government to force the baker to make the cake, right? You can get a cake elsewhere. I would say that one of the things that we still have in this country, at least for now, is the foot vote. We have states' rights, and if you don't like something that's happening in your state, you can go to another state. This is a beautiful thing. If we did not have that, you'd have to leave the country. Or you can come to Puerto Rico. Or you can go to Puerto Rico. Do they have any gay bakers in Puerto Rico? I'm not sure. I don't think they put a gay bakers in Puerto Rico. Probably not. But I personally would not have the government force the baker to provide a specific service. Now you're actually taking it a step further, because what you're saying is it's not about a specific service. Like in this case, it's a cake that maybe he doesn't normally make. So that's a specific service. You're saying, actually, if he doesn't want gay people to be in his store, he doesn't have to be. Now we have the Civil Rights Act of, I think, 1964. And that, 63 or 64? 64, I think. 64, okay. Which that forced businesses not to discriminate based on color and several other characteristics. I'm okay with that, because at the time, there was so much discrimination and so much inequity. And there were still laws on the books in different states that allowed for it that this is an odd case where I think the federal government did the right thing. Where I think there's an interesting libertarian or objectivist argument to make against that in 2018, which I think is your argument. So I would say that certainly the federal government had a role in 64 to play. And I support most of the Civil Rights Act. And they suddenly had a responsibility, a moral responsibility, a legal responsibility, a constitutional responsibility to make sure that all the states got rid of whatever discriminatory laws they had. That's what the Civil War was about. And if 100 years later, we still have to fight that battle, it's horrific, right? The federal government has a responsibility to make sure the states are not in a significant way violating individual rights and discriminating by law. But I don't believe the federal government or state government or any government has a right to impose their will on my private property. And even if you could make an argument that you needed a corrective action in 1964, which I don't support, because I think once you do it, it's a slippery slope and you get the baker. You get these situations. There's no way to avoid it. And not only that, but you get the situation where the government today can tell me who to employ and what conditions to employ, who I can fire. Today, there's ageism and there's a million isms that determine who I can fire and hire. I can be sued in California if I fire somebody who's older because there's ageism or something. So there's no end to that. And that is the slippery slope of the 64 Civil Rights Act. So, but even if you assumed, okay, you needed a corrective measure in 1964, okay, it's gone. Enough is enough. And I also think that a lot of the rise of the racist right today is a consequence. It's a backlash of the identity politics of the left, which in all of that is institutionalized into the Civil Rights Act. So affirmative action is a racist policy. It's a racist policy. Whether it's corrective or not, it's racist. Once you adopt as a federal government a racist policy, then who's to say that racism is not okay on the left and on the right? And what you're seeing is, I think it's legitimized the rise of a new form of racism that is widespread in this country. Which, by the way, if you guys want to see how this is so, how this actually creeps up into all of these businesses, you know, I'm sure many of you saw this, but Google has a lawsuit involved because they had a practice of not hiring Asian or white male engineers. That actually is racism. You should be hiring people based on whoever's most qualified, but you shouldn't be saying, we are literally, I mean, that is literally what they were going to do. They were not going to hire white males or Asian males. I mean, I can look out here, there are some Asian people. That means you would be less inclined to get a job because of what you look like. That is actually the definition of racism. So the more this stuff gets institutionalized, the more we're actually going to see the rise of this identitarian, right? And that's what we're trying to neutralize. And of course, there's an identitarian left and it's all playing off. And I think it really gets legitimized by the 64 Act. And look, Berkeley does the same thing. It doesn't take more Asians because I think 40% have Berkeley's Asians. And they've like said, enough. We need diversity. So in the name of diversity, they're taking less qualified students in the name of this diversity thing. So, no, I think the 64, I mean, I supported, I support, I was alive then, but very little. So I didn't support Goldwater, but I ran supported Goldwater. And Goldwater agreed with most of the civil rights except that portion that basically intervened in private property and created affirmative action. Goldwater was not a racist. So he believed that we should get rid of any kind of institutionalized racism. But you don't get rid of institutionalized racism by creating reverse institutionalized racism. That just perpetuates the racism problem. I feel like we should talk a little bit about how this also crushes creativity. Because I'm sure many of you saw this. Peter Thiel is taking his companies and he's leaving Silicon Valley. He's leaving San Francisco, right? I mean, the guy's worth about $4 billion. He can't even afford to live there anymore. I mean, that's a real problem. I thought that was funnier, no? I thought that was all right. But I think what he realized there is that this diversity memo that was forcing him to either hire a certain way that wasn't based in qualification, what that will actually do to creativity, I think Ayn Rand certainly had a lot to say about this. Well, again, it's freedom. What creativity depends on is freedom. It's the idea of coming up with whatever ideas, using your reason, being judged based on the quality of the ideas, based on the truth of the ideas, but not based on the color of your skin, not based on whether you're woman or man, not based on any of these irrelevant criteria. But just on the quality of what you are creating. And you can't do that anymore, right? You can't talk in some of these corporate environments, particularly in Silicon Valley, about anything outside of the box, anything that doesn't fit into some frame of people who call themselves leftists, I guess. And look, I love Silicon Valley. In many respects, I think Silicon Valley is the model for America. I mean, they're the hardest-working, most creative, most innovative, most exciting people in the planet. But isn't that the irony? It should be a libertarian haven, right? Yes, it should be. Or it secretly is, I think, is possible. I think they're more kind of free market, free thinkers in Silicon Valley than they give a credit for, but it's this oppressive leftist kind of ideology, particularly on social issues, that does not allow those people to even speak up. Now, you know all the Google Memo, the mural, you know. I don't necessarily agree with what was written in the memo, but the memo was pretty lame. I mean, it was pretty uninteresting, right? He said some stuff that a lot of evolutionary psychologists don't necessarily agree with, say, this was not radical, it was not crazy, and yet he gets fired for writing something that, yeah, a lot of people could easily disagree with, but that's a great conversation to have about the difference between men and women and the fascinating conversation to have. Even as I'm saying this, I'm dreading the idea of actually having that conversation because it's so scary, right? But it's a fascinating conversation to have, and you can't have it because there's a dogma that says there are no differences. But of course there are differences, just look around the room, we're different, right? And the idea that biological differences don't have manifestations psychologically and in other ways is absurd, right? So, but we can't, you know, if I said that in front of certain audiences, third wave feminism or whatever, they come after me, right? Well, what's even more dangerous about that is that Google asked James to write the memo in effect. You know, they were all sent to these courses and they were asked, well, what do you think about this? Let us know. And I'm sure, I don't know the numbers, but I would venture to say that 90% of the employees that went to these things probably never did what they were supposed to do. They probably went there, probably were tweeting half the time and went to sleep. And then this guy actually listened. He goes, this is a problem at this company. I'm going to do what I'm supposed to do. I'm going to respond. He then sent it out privately, by the way. This is one of the biggest misnomers about this situation. And he wasn't fired when he sent it out privately. No. And then someone else leaked it. He wasn't looking for attention. I mean, he did exactly what the company told him to do. I believe this was the end of August. By the way, he had just been given a promotion for good work in June. He was fired by, what, October? Yeah, he was fired because of the public pressure on Google. It wasn't even within Google. I mean, some people within Google clearly want him in and out. But it was the outcry among the, you know, the people who supposedly count in Silicon Valley, the diversity chiefs at all these organizations that really got him fired. It wasn't even, while he was just in Google, nobody seemed to really care. And by the way, did you guys see this other thing a couple months ago? I think it was YouTube, but somebody correct me if I'm wrong. There was an Asian woman who was hired as the Diversity Officer for YouTube. Yes. She said that she wanted diversity of thought, and that includes white men. And then she was forced to step down in a week. I mean, really think, was it YouTube? She literally said she wants diversity of thought and that she didn't care for as a man, woman, Asian, black, you know, whatever the thing. She just wanted diversity of thought, and she thought that good thinking wasn't associated with the color of your skin. And she was fired for that. I think it was YouTube. Yeah. I think it was within Google again. Okay, I'm getting a couple now. Maybe not. No. Oh, it was Apple. It was Apple. No, I don't think it's Apple. No? No, but it might not have been YouTube. Anyway, you can Google it. I'm sure the YouTube commenters would be very friendly to us on this error. Somebody is tweeting you right now correcting our mistake. But yeah, it was definitely, she was definitely, that's exactly what she said. And she was accused of that. So there's almost this, and it's not a majority of people. I mean, I know lots of people in Silicon Valley don't believe any of this crap, right? But there is a, it's the culturally important people in some way, right? Who guide this. And they're intolerant. They're intolerant to any view that is not fit their view of the world. And it's horrific. So let's shift a little bit. Yeah, where are we at? Just so I know. We've got another six minutes. Six minutes. And then we're going to jump into Q&A. So I think the other issue that is huge right now that I think your generation gets. You deflected the trade stuff pretty well. I noticed that. That's good. Thank you. Good job. Good job. Trade, yes, yes. No. Boring. Who the hell? Nobody watches. That's why he has hundreds of thousands of, you know, that's the difference. I'm going to do a subtle move into something much sexier, which is the crumbling of mainstream media, and we can mock CNN. How about that? Would that be better? I'm a crowd pleaser. You know, trade. Yeah, let's talk about trade. See, can I defend mainstream media for a second? Oh, yeah. Go ahead. I mean, so I agree with all the criticism on mainstream media. But the fact is, the fact is that the only people who actually have reporters out there, the only people who have people out there around the world actually are trying to report news. And many of them don't report news. They report bias. But it is the mainstream media. Now, I think they're horrible and awful. But the fact is that in terms of news, not in terms of commentary, it's commentary you have all the options in the world. But in terms of actually knowing what's going on in the world, what's tragic is we have no alternative, right? If you actually want to know what's going on right now in Cairo, nobody other than CNN or the New York Times has anybody there. And that makes their bias even worse because there's... And the idea of objective journalism, I don't know if anybody here is in journalism school. Nobody, right? One guy threw his notebook in the back. Yeah. Nobody, not a single person. I mean, almost every school is probably represented here, but journalism in English maybe is not. I mean, they're not taught objective reporting. They're not taught that there is such a thing as objective reality. So it's not even that I blame them. I blame their professors who've taught them this garbage. But we don't even actually have information coming in that's reliable. So I actually read all the mainstream media. I have to. Because there's no alternative. There's nobody else. Yeah. So you want to make a couple of interesting points there. So first, you're right. In terms of reporting, you know, I get people that come up to me. I was out once with Ben and somebody came up to me. I said, oh, you guys are the only people I trust. And I was like, man, if that's true, we are. Fuck. I mean, who we are? You know, like, I'm trying, man. But I'm one guy. I don't have people out in the field in Cairo, you know? Although I tweet with a guy in Cairo. But you know what I'm saying? And what Ben done is commentary for the most part. He doesn't actually precisely give you news. Right. And Ben wouldn't deny that, by the way. I think Daily Wire does a nice job of doing news. But I don't know how many people they have on the field in these places. Yes, somewhat. Most of even that is interpretation. But this is the strange place we're in. We're now reliant on very few people that are actually doing true reporting and true journalism. There are a couple, by the way. Tim Poole, who I'm sure some of you guys know, I think is one of the best. But what is now passed as news. You know, I don't watch CNN anymore. Sometimes I put it on mute and I play the Looney Tunes theme song. But every now and again, I'll be at the gym and CNN's on, and I just watch on mute. But do you watch Fox? No, I don't watch any of them. Yes, I don't watch any of them. I mean, Fox is just as bad. But the bias is that way. However, which is the only network that will put either one of us on? It's Fox. Fox won't put me on anymore. Oh, well. I mean, no. I guess they haven't got to me yet. During the elections, they wanted me to endorse a candidate, and I refused. I said I don't like any of them. And because I wouldn't endorse a candidate. And then in 2012, because I was criticizing Republicans, they literally told me that because I was criticizing Republicans, they would not have me six months before the election. I was banned from Fox. So what I would say is the reason I focus on CNN more is because everyone knows what MSNBC is. Everyone knows what Fox is. Yes, that's true. They're not pretending. I'm pretty sure you can look at what network Kennedy's on and not go, what are these people about? You know, like, I don't think it's really like that, right? Yeah. But CNN is pretending. Yes. And I think that that's the bigger problem because you can watch virtually any show on CNN. And what they're passing as news really is 24-7 Trump hysteria. And I'm obviously sitting next to somebody who shares some of those views, but that they're trying to gin us all up into some sort of craze. Well, for very different reasons, right? Yeah, for very different reasons. Very different reasons there. But that they're trying to gin us all up into caring about things that don't matter, as opposed to caring about the things that do matter, which is why you will never see conversations like this on CNN. The amount of traction that a guy like Jordan Peterson, who's getting by talking about psychology and telling you to clean your room is... My room has never been cleaner, by the way, after spending some time with this guy. He still needs to walk on me, obviously. Yeah, you could clean up your room a little. But that is what's happening here. There is a disconnect between the people that are supposedly giving you news and what you guys are realizing the truth is. And the fact that there's about 20 of us that seem to be trying to offer a defense on that is actually scary to me. And my view is this has been going off for a long time. It's just people have just realized it. But I remember 20 years ago, CNN was just as biased as it is today. Just people didn't realize it. There wasn't this counter. You know, I don't know how many of you ever listened to BBC. The BBC's nutty left. I mean, it's crazy left. But it's the only... Again, only news source, if you want global news, or if you read The Economist, again, The Economist even is pretty left. But if you want to read about what's going on in Africa, that's the only source there is. And the left has dominated the news sources throughout. And they bias... So I listen. I don't watch any television. I hate television news. I can't stare. I tend to start throwing things. Fox, CNN, CNBC. Doesn't matter. There's something visceral about the image. But I listen to NPR. I listen to NPR a lot, although in Puerto Rico less so. Pashi, because it's just, you know, in Puerto Rico it's just relaxed. You know, who wants to listen to NPR when you relax? But... And I actually find it really good, because they're intellectual, they report stories nobody else reports on. They're biased. They're obviously biased. I've now got a bias radar, and I correct for the bias whenever it comes across. But I read The New York Times. And The New York Times is all biased. And you can read it, and you can adjust for everything. And it's sickening, because it really... But then you go, okay, so what do I read? You know, where can I get any kind of information? Not at Breitbart. Right? And so there is no objective reporting out there. There's no... And it hasn't been for a long time. I mean, this is a scary thing, is this is not new. This is just being discovered, I think, by some people. But it's... The bias on the left has been around... I mean, you guys don't remember, but when Ronald Reagan ran for president, there were only three networks. There was no other television news, ABC, NBC, and there was no Internet. So the only news you could get, the only news you could get was ABC, NBC, and CBS, and PBS, right? And they were radically anti-Ragan. I mean, they would make... You think they're making fun of Trump? They would make fun of Reagan constantly, right? And there was no alternative. This is all there was. And Reagan's like a giant as compared to Trump, right? So in some sense, it's even more biased. So I actually think we're better, in some ways, better today, because I think this bias has been going on for a long time, and today there's at least voices that recognize the bias and are talking about the bias. So in that sense, I think actually the media landscape is better because we have an Internet, because your show, people actually discuss ideas and hundreds... You know, more people watch your show than many of the network stuff. So, you know, we actually blessed today in the fact that technology has made it possible for us to broaden our horizons in ways that didn't exist 20 years ago, 10 years ago. Yeah, if you guys want a little more on this, I'm sure some of you saw it already, but I believe the second time I had Eric Weinstein on, he talks about the four types of news, four types of fake news. One of them is that he says, you know, it's not just what they're saying that can often be fake, but it's what they won't say. So, for example, when it happened to be his brother, Brett Weinstein, at Evergreen College, I'm sure many of you guys are all nodding already, so you know the story, and I'm sure everyone at home knows the story. Brett, a guy who had fought racism his whole life at Evergreen, perhaps the most left college in all of America, he said that, no, we can't tell students not to come to class one day because of the color of their skin. He was actually fighting racism. The Times did not report on that for weeks and months, and yet at one point had written two or three op-eds about it. So they didn't want it to be in their news section, but then they could offer it a very tepid defense from a sort of liberal op-ed position. And that also is a type of fake news if they just sort of ignore one position. You know, but just to be, you know, just because we haven't touched on any controversial issues, I mean, just think about the Middle East, right? If Israel, in some context, shoots a Palestinian, that's front-page news all over the world. If Egypt bombs what they call terrorists in the Sinai and they kill hundreds of people, it doesn't make a single news agency. Nobody knows that Egypt has been bombing the hell out of the Sinai for the last two years trying to eradicate ISIS from there. Put aside whether it's just or not, the very fact that they're doing it, nobody cares, nobody reports it, it's completely silent. And there's so much of that going on in the world, we only know, we only hear about a tiny little sliver of what's going on. And, you know, one of the things I think Stephen Pinker, again, if we can end, maybe we can end on Stephen, one of the things he points out is we never hear about the good stuff. All the good news, like I say in my talks, probably the most important news story of the last 30 years, right, that nobody talks about is the fact that over the last 30 years, a billion people have come out of poverty in the world. Because, by the way, of capitalism. And New York Times, New York Times doesn't report that. I mean, all the graphs that he has in that book should be front page. That's the most interesting, important stuff going on in the world, the eradication of hunger, the eradication of extreme poverty through market forces. And nobody reports that, but we hear every little thing, like every, you know, violence at an all time low in the United States right now. But every little murder, particularly if it's committed by an illegal immigrant, is reported on immediately. Again, depending on the media source, who reports and who doesn't. And that is so tragic, because we don't actually have an objective view of the state of the world, of what's going on in the world, of what are the real dangers. How many people report about free speech issues? The New York Times doesn't cover that. Well, the guys that do seem to be Salon and Vox and the rest of that pocket. All right, that seems like a fitting ending. I would say this just to put a cap on it, which is that it's up to you guys. Like the pressure is truly on you guys. You know, like, you guys live, you're going to college in a incredibly unique time right now. These issues, I mean, I was smoking pot and playing Sega Genesis for four years in college. I wish, in a weird way, I wish I had paid more attention. You were before pot, I guess. But you guys are truly at school at an incredibly unique time because the things that you're thinking about are the exact same things that everyone, your parents, your grandparents, everyone you know, everything is up in the air right now. And you guys truly, I'm not saying this to Pander, I would not do what I do if I didn't think that there was a chance we could correct this thing. But the only way that guys like us can correct this direction is if we have more people like you. So I thank you guys for coming out. Give a big round of applause to the people at home for watching. And let's do some Q&A. You guys view, like, the issue with the Civil Rights Act as 64. Could you agree with, like, you know, it should have been done that the government shouldn't be discriminating but part of this is, you know, people have the right to do that. But just, you know, the government really. You know, wherever you need government, you know, to do those things, you know, they're discriminating it so you can't really do anything about it. Obviously, but, you know, if it's anything private, you know, then that should be up to the business owners. Well, I know your answer on this. So I'll let you field it, but I think we're in complete agreement. Yeah, I mean, my view is government should absolutely not discriminate. I think the government's job to go back to my opening statement is to protect individual rights. The individual rights of every human being are equal in a right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. And you don't protect rights by violating some people's rights. You can't do that. It's a government no. Now, I will challenge one thing. I don't think the government needs to do the DMV. I don't think the government needs to do 90% of what it does today. So we can privatize all that. But yes, government should never discriminate. That is a real evil that needs to be fought. We weren't going to do a whole event without someone saying, get rid of the DMV, were we? No, it's a key feature of philosophy. I am an honorable capitalist, but my question is fairly easy. I would hope so for Mr. Yarrow and Burke. Who is John Gove? That's what I'm talking about. At the end of the day, anybody who takes his own life seriously, anybody who uses reason to guide their life, to make their life the best life that it can be, and rejects the altruistic guilt and the unreason that dominates our culture can be John Gove. That would have been pretty hilarious if he would have been like, who? Who are you talking about? Good evening. My question is for Dr. Gove. So regarding, you said that you support Twitter's right to ban accounts regarding the speech issue. And I'm guessing as a objectivist, you support having as many private businesses as possible as opposed to public services, is that correct? Given those two conditions, wouldn't that mean that speech would always be a, it wouldn't be free speech, but business, person, authorized speech that is? No, because in a sense, yes, there's a sense in which that's true. But look, free speech is a limitation on government. The First Amendment is a limitation on government because it's a limitation on force. You have the ability to use your home, and particularly today, I mean again, modern technology has made so many of these issues kind of bogus. I consider my computer and generate videos on multiple platforms, ignoring YouTube. I can probably start my own platform, I mean probably people here could help me program that and get it out there. So as long as it's, a private business is not restricting your speech, a private business is determining what it allows down on its private property and that's its right. So it's not business granted speech, it's, you know, your speech is up to you and your responsibility to find the delivery mechanism for it. You know, in, there was in the old days, the idea of equal time on on radio and TV, I forget the name of the The Fairness Act. The Fairness Act. And the idea was all stations, I mean and I actually supported that as a counter to, you know, the bias that existed that she so, but you know, opinions is that, does that respect, right? What is the Fairness Act? So I'm an Objectivist. Do I get equal time with a leftist or with a communist or with a, where do I how do you even do that? It's impossible to actually allocate time if you know, in that kind of sense. And no, this is something where the government has no role in. The role of the government is to protect you from somebody literally silencing you on your property and the main reason why the First Amendment exists is because throughout history, government has silenced people. And in Europe right now, I mean, we talk about the U.S. but Europe isn't much worse situation than the U.S., you saw that in the U.K. but Europe generally because they have hate speech laws and you know the massacre in Charlie Hebdo when they went and killed all the cartoonists. Well, the French government was trying to shut down Charlie Hebdo just a weeks before that because Charlie was offensive to all these things, religion and everything else, right? And the French government was trying to do it. So the French government in that sense lied with the Islamists. And so that's the real dangers when not only will the French government not protect the cartoonists from the Islamists, but when the French government itself is trying to shut down the cartoon shop. Yeah, very quickly on the Google, Twitter front of this, there's interesting arguments to be made because Google actually controls so much of our information right now. I fall more in line with what you're on saying, but I think you guys, I mean get to any point, right behind me, get them to invite Dennis Prager here to talk about that because he also comes from a libertarian perspective, conservative perspective. But obviously has a difference. I'll debate Prager on that issue happily. I will set it up. We'll set it up. Yeah, go ahead. Hi, first off I just wanted to say I'm a huge Ironman fan and this is a bit of an abstract question I want to say. So I completely believe in the power of the individual but I think it's also inevitable that culture itself is collectivist especially in the modern world like you see all these groups on campus and everything that are just so identity politics based. So I don't think it's always been that way. So I just wanted to ask about your perspectives on how it became that way, how individualism has become so antagonized and why that's such like an evil thought like the present day especially amongst young people. That's a great question. Well, let's both take a stab quickly. I would say this. It's simply lazy thinking. That is the easiest and most honest answer. It is lazy thinking to look at you and you have brown skin. What can I discern from you from that other than your skin color? Absolutely. You like curry. Okay, you like curry. I like Indian food. There you go. We can go for dinner after this. But really if I was to look at you and think that I know anything else about you other than that right now. You're a woman you have long hair. The things that I can see those are the things that you can tell by looking at somebody. But to think that you know more about somebody because of that. If I was taking the leftist view of this I'd look at you and go oh well she's brown skin so she must be a progressive woman and blah blah blah. That is actually prejudice. That is prejudging. That is the essence of where racism and xenophobia comes from. So this whole thing that we're fighting is based in lazy thinking. If you actually care about people. If you care to sit down across from somebody and look them in the eye as I'm doing with you now. You will learn a lot more about people and you will have all of your your own prejudices will melt pretty quickly. And it's actually the antidote to racism to believe in the individual. So I mean I agree with all of that. I think it's important for us to realize because I think we take certain things for granted. Individualism is a huge achievement. It's an achievement. It's an ideological achievement. So the human race has been collectivistic from however long you want to count the human race as being around. We were tribal we hated the other tribe you know Jews hated everybody else. Everybody else hated Jews. I mean this is the way it's being forever. And then these thinkers came about during the enlightenment. And they said no all of that is wrong because all of that is based basically on emotion. It's lazy thinking. It's non-thinking really. No we all have this capacity to reason. We all have this capacity think as individuals. We can't eat as a group. We don't have a collective stomach. We certainly don't have a collective brain. For the first time in human history really during the 18th century and even they were flawed because they still had slavery these thinkers came up and said no individuals are the moral unit, the sacred unit the thing that is most important because they can think for themselves they can use their own reason to judge and evaluate the world. Remember before that we all of human histories tribal, authoritarian dictatorship which god do you believe in that dictated everything. So for the first time this period and I think it's never gotten the full defense this idea of individualism and it's never been grounded and what has happened is that knowledge that came about in the enlightenment for a start the adoration of the reason and the understanding of reasons role in human life has slowly been eroded primarily by German philosophers and the German romantic tradition and so on and when we abandon reason we abandon thinking the default is tribalism the default is collectivism. So you have to think about it that's the default individualism and achievement and what we need is to resurrect the ideas of the enlightenment. This is why I love Steven Pinker's book right even if I don't agree with everything in it. The idea that the enlightenment is what we should aspire towards is the right idea we can we can argue about the details later but it's the idea of individual reason and the efficacy of reason and the importance of reason that's the battle it's not political. That's why I can love Steven Pinker in spite of the fact that politically he probably votes for something completely different than me but it's the adoration of reason that's what it's about and we have to recognize that there's an achievement because otherwise we get lazy oh individualism well that's easy right no I mean it took 100,000 years of human history to come up with the idea of individualism and it's too easily dismissed and we need a fight for it that's the real bad thank you Hi I would love to see you it's in the works we were talking to his people great but my question is for Mr. Brook and it's healthcare is a right and I've been certainly wrestling with the subject the counter argument of course is that to make healthcare right requires the coercion of either directly of the healthcare provider or indirectly of the taxpayer and therefore it is tantamount to slavery and that one cannot have a right to enslave that exercise a right if you must if you have to infringe upon somebody else's right to do it it can be a right well I'm very sympathetic to that to the other counter argument but what the speed bump that I'm running into as I think through this because I don't like these points I like to think things through our current legal system guarantees one the right to an attorney if they're accused of a crime and also right to trial by jury both of which would then coerce the at very least the time and labor of another so my question is what am I missing is it mislabeled as a right is it a different kind of right and how is it fundamentally different than the alleged right to healthcare Wow that right there is a guy who knows how to ask a question that was a beautiful question it not only was it a beautiful question I've never heard it before and it was really well formulated and I haven't even thought about it in that context so it's a new thing for me to think about I think first of all that we have to rethink about the whole idea of a right you know the whole idea of a jury I'm not convinced of that that is truly a right and you know just because somebody said a long time ago that something's a right doesn't make it a right I think thinking through exactly the way you prescribed it one has the question is that a real is it a right in that sense but you know if you accept that right then if you accept the right the jury is the same kind of coercive activity then you have a right to food and you have a right you have all the positive rights and that and everything collapses and I think you have to question and I don't have an answer for you right at the end of the day I'm happy to say I don't know because I haven't you have to question whether you would categorize the right to a jury and the right to a publicly paid attorney as real rights and what would be the alternative and how you know you have a right to be treated justly right that you have a right to and what is justice require and justice can't require the coercion of other people so one has to think through and it would have one would have to solve that problem but I wouldn't use that to undercut everything else I would just say there's an issue there to think about and there's an issue there to solve not that gives me now the right to curse everybody into doing whatever the hell I want in the name of rights no you don't empty the concept of rights just because there's a not a clear understanding how to apply it to a particular area and clearly I don't have I wish one of my philosopher friends were here philosophers of law and on how that how the issue of rights applies to the jury and the other issue but again don't be tempted by something you don't know and don't know exactly how to apply by throwing up the whole concept which is what if you apply the right to health care then rights don't mean anything then you then forget about rights and you will try to be a little more brief because there's so many of you my question is for Dave and just a disclaimer I'm on the left but I support free speech great my question is about Russia game because I'm on the left and a lot of Democrats have been using that to silence my voice I think like Bernie Sanders is an Russian agent who is behind the Black Lives Matter starting to remind me of when Alex Jones would talk about how Soros is behind anything well that one's true I would never I would see it from liberals and Democrats and I'll just want to let you guys know Democrats shut down leftist voices as well it's not just those on the right I just want to see what your opinion about the whole Russian I just want to thank you for your time yeah well I appreciate your question because I am someone that comes from the left I mean I was a progressive basically my whole life I worked at the young Turks I understand what that thinking is and I'm sure most of you guys know my basic story but I started seeing an absolute collapse of thinking of intellectualism of honest brokering of basically diverse motives of all of your opponents but actually thinking you know these people might just think differently and we got to sit down with them so without going too far down the rabbit hole of Russiagate what I would say is if you are struggling to debate properly on facts you will go down every rabbit hole there is and I think that unfortunately there's a lot of these days especially because of the way we get news there's a lot of rabbit holes to go down struggling down these days once fact out everything is open because imagination is limit less good evening fellow but my question is towards the end of what we covered as a libertarian recently the budget that was passed included a $70 billion increase in defense which is greater than the budget for the Russian military right so it will take them a decade to make the point of spending this year and once you give it to them it's never taken back okay and that story was not covered in press at all okay so a 70 billion dollar increase and as a libertarian you know that's one is how can you justify a good amount of money for defense and I know defense is important right but the other question is how come YouTubers and other sources of media are not covering that story we're going to come to the point where DOD has said that our budget deficit is an existential crisis yeah well first off thank you for your service I would say quickly on that that I tweeted out that day I mean if you're a libertarian or a classical liberal of course you should be disappointed by Trump signing this thing and of course I mean government all the government does is make big budgets so that it can reach those budgets so it can spend that money so that it can get more money the only way we can push back on this I mean people thought that Trump was going to somehow magically come in and not do that and it's exactly what he's done so if you really want limited government you have to stop voting for people that believe that government the answer I think Trump kind of tricked people a little bit on this but you should vote for more people like Austin Peterson who's running for senate in Missouri I love Austin I mean that's the only thing to do very quickly on the YouTuber part I don't think there's some sort of grand conspiracy I mean I'll certainly talk about it more on my show I would have loved to have seen something that would have been a 20 I mean just naming a number 20% cut across the board on everything guess what the government will still function and if the post office closes tomorrow I'm pretty sure Amazon could figure it out so there's but everyone's afraid to say well we're going to have to do some of that stuff and let's see what happens and I think your own would say that the private sector could step in in almost every case yeah in almost everything except the military because I think that is a legitimate function of government and I do talk about the fact that our military budget as is is way overblown if we actually let the military win wars instead of building so-called you know building societies building democracies and we've got troops in 120 different countries not 120 different countries are not very few are indeed given the size of our military no we should be shrinking military spending but coalescing it about really defending America bringing troops home and really actually you know I'm a hawk when it comes to to the military and this is the thing that Trump supposedly signed the budget because he's so pro-military and so he let them spend all this other stuff so but no even on the military you shouldn't be spending this money I agree with you completely and I do talk about it I think generally I don't find a lot of YouTube unfortunately on the more economic issues there's a lot on the social issues on free speech which is great because I do think free speech is the most important issue that there's just not a lot on the economic issues I think there's a lot of lack of understanding of the economic issues thank you we have about 15 more minutes of question and answer we'll try to get there back hi guys it's so great to have you here at UCF thank you guys so much for coming you guys mentioned journalism and you mentioned Silicon Valley but you didn't mention the Hollywood and I'm a film major I'm about to graduate and turn the abyss of death and destruction before anything but I wanted to know your advice on that in particular I'm looking at jobs at Siena unfortunately because that's the closest thing to me do you advise staying silent and just going under the radar and getting into my film industry as I am or being more vocal about it and being a little bit braver and trying to affect some change I'm so stuck between both ends well I'm pretty sure you just lost the job at CNN by doing this on my channel but okay forget that I would say don't worry about them they are a dying dinosaur we are watching them sink into the Le Brea tar pits right now get on YouTube get I'm some guy that started a YouTube channel that's it right you all can do that open a Twitter I mean all that stuff get on there start making great films put it out there tweet at me if it's good I'll retweet you I mean that's really it you don't need them anymore they're dying let's let them die and figure out what comes next and don't and believe me at how old you 19 maybe you're 22 if you're going to compromise at 22 you will compromise way more at 33 and 44 and 55 so why would you compromise now just get out there and do it I don't think you can beat that answer all right so with free market there tends to be some sort of compulsion in the grand scale of focusing on capital gains as opposed to potentially positive social movement for example mass media covering like the bad news the good news in terms of YouTube kind of censoring the stuff that may cause worry is there a way for the free market to practically solve that or is just kind of an issue of there are alternatives such as Vimeo but they tend not to be as effective as YouTube so is there a free market way to address such an issue yeah I mean I I think if things get bad enough on YouTube then alternatives will arise I think that the people with money right now trying to think up of ways to to to fix it I think I think as long as human beings want more negative news than positive news they'll be provided with more negative news the positive news the market is not there to fix our cognition and to fix our desires it's not there to fix in that sense now we can advocate for fixing if we change this audience and the audience wants really good news the media will provide that so you can't expect the marketplace to fix social problems although I think it does you know I think discrimination is stuff like that can be fixed by the market ultimately it has to be an intellectual force so the fact that I'm for free markets doesn't mean I think free markets everything right I still think that they're going to be people like us advocating and speaking and arguing about the issues because I think intellectuals shape the culture I think they dominate the culture and you know they function within a free market but that is not you know I don't know that John Locke would have been the less paid public speaker in the world yes he was the most influential thinker of the Enlightenment so it doesn't exactly I mean I think I ran was the most important thinker of the 20th century nobody would know nobody thinks that except me so you know I talk about that I advocate for that you know hopefully over time I'll build a market for that but it takes time you know these things take time we'll see how quick we can do as many of these as possible earlier you guys talk about boycotting different social media such as Facebook, YouTube so when things are that big there's right now there isn't a whole lot of competitors for them and also on top of that if a lot of conservatives start boycotting these wouldn't it just create more of a bubble where conservatives are in their own bubble and liberals are in their own bubble and then we never get to talk to each other via social media we don't get to have discussion anymore and then on top of that I don't exactly know where you would go when something as big as Google doesn't exist but people talk about being they don't say they're going to Google something on Bing so what do you think is an answer to that other than boycotting I mean there's a couple things there first I think you're right and you see this sometimes in the new conservative free speech site you know or social media thing yes there's a risk there if all the conservatives leave and then Twitter remains all lefties there's a problem there what I would say and you're on just alluded to there are I can't get into all the specifics but there are major discussions happening with big time money people in Silicon Valley right now trying to solve this problem so if you feel that you don't want Facebook to have all your information or you don't or you think Twitter shadow banning people or you're not happy with YouTube videos not going out to feed then use those sites or don't use those sites but in the meantime we're just in complete agreement that the market has to solve it and it's just going to be a little messy so the things that you're worried about probably will kind of happen but eventually I think it'll present itself I'll just say this quickly life did exist before Facebook there was my space that just shows the difference in age there's an ammo even before my space it was Friendster wow you guys got Friendster reference wow alright that was pretty good okay great I'm the chapter leader of Citizens Climate Lobby here in Orlando and I've heard both of you speak about climate change I have a question about that well-defined property rights are the foundation of market forces and the market allocates resources efficiently to these market forces what about when property rights are not well defined like in the atmosphere which we're allowed to use like a free fund how could the market or what should the government do to make the market correct that problem let's give a one-liner on this I just did a show that we shot last week it'll be up next week about some conservative solutions to environment so definitely check that out I mean I would say that nothing the government should do nothing about it and if it's a real problem then again education is important let's educate people about that people will change their behavior if they really think there's a danger and they really think there's a threat I think the problem with the climate change debate is primarily the solution being offered the solution being offered don't use carbon fuels is a non-solution it's a non-starter it's stupid it means death and destruction you know if there really is a problem and again I usually take a neutral stand I'm not a scientist I don't want to get into that debate if there really is an issue let's be creative about finding solutions to it sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere you know spray something into the atmosphere that dissolves the CO2 I don't know I'm right it can't be what I know because I'm alive you cannot ban fossil fuels that is a that is an anti-life answer and as long as that's the answer the environmentalists present then forget about it they can win but their winning means the destruction of civilization as we know yeah we gotta thank you though I'm a fan and I'm hoping that later you're available to the picture my question is for Brooks I know you're a former IDF and you also have been to Israel and I noticed that open caring is not is very common over there and even the fact that that comes are not prohibited in schools in Israel and you don't really I don't hear any news of mass shootings in Israel and so I want to know what your perspective is on not harming every teacher but those teachers that are experienced with firearms in order to have the right to I mean people carry openly in Israel if they're really really well trained so you don't Israel is not does not have liberal gun laws for just everybody if you're you know but then everybody goes to the army going to the army doesn't guarantee that you're well trained those people who really well trained are the ones who you see open carry and of course in Israel you see security guards everywhere because there's security guards everywhere look I think the school shooting debate we're having the wrong debate I don't think school shooting is about guns school shooting is about why young young kids in this country between the ages of 14 and 17 why so many of them are so angry are so nihilistic are so hateful that they would go into a school and want to hurt their fellow students not into the mall not to a stadium somewhere but into a school now this semi suggest something wrong with our schools so I think we need a debate in this country about education policy about what government schools are doing to our kids why there's so much nihilism and partially I think this relates to antifa and relates to the violence that's out there there is a real nihilistic street Jordan Peterson talks about this a lot in our young people in your generation why I think it's because of the educational system I think it's because of government schools and I think our government schools are training young nihilists are causing people to become nihilistic that's the problem that's what needs to be dealt with that's what needs to be challenged and yes short term if you want to security guard there if you want to arm a teacher if they're well trained if they know how to use sure I don't have any problem with that right but I don't think that's a long term solution the long term and the thing nobody wants to talk about why are these kids so angry at their school I mean think about the mentality of wanting to kill everybody not a bully I can understand a kid being bullied and taking a gun and wanting to shoot the bully no everybody and you know the Columbine kids wanted to blow up the school 100,000 people they had bombs they didn't work luckily right the bombs didn't work and it's not about guns right if they don't have guns all their bombs so it's about education and I what I want to have is a real discussion about progressive education about government schools about where the school should be privatized about all of that to me is a thousand times more important an issue than guns guns is not an important one way or the other in my view now I know a lot of people disagree with me on I don't think guns matter if they took all our guns it doesn't matter and if we kept all the guns it doesn't matter that much what matters a thousand times more is what's happening in our schools all right we're going to try I have a question concerning the United States healthcare system just make it short I have the knowledge that the United States spends more money than any other country on healthcare so how would you would you advocate more like Germany for instance instead of the wall no so let me cut let me cut you off because we're going to make this short right I advocate for complete privatization of healthcare 100% but let me let me add this I don't care how much money is spent on healthcare like I have spent a lot of money on unlike MRIs and CAT scans just to make sure I wasn't going to die now in the column of wasted money that counts as wasted because they didn't find anything cool I mean I view that as a positive but if you're if you look at aggregate numbers then we spent a huge amount of money yes because we spend a huge amount now what is the right number to spend on healthcare who gets to decide the reason I want it privatized the reason I want to privatize is so you can decide so I don't decide for you so we as a group don't vote to decide how much to spend on his healthcare I want every individual to decide how much is appropriate some people spend a huge amount they'll get MRI every year they'll check and some people say I don't want to spend that much I'm going to spend less and if you had real free healthcare free market healthcare you'd have variety of different insurance policies and a variety of different options that would be categorized your preferences rather than social preferences alright let's do 30 second answers alright we're going to do 30 second answers I don't know we're going to try I've never met 30 seconds I'm on the firmly side I'm firmly on the side of very pro gone I don't believe in anywhere on regulations I have a direct desire to have the left and the right kind of have a national discussion on legislation for your honor but what we see time and time again is anytime there is legislation it's not pro-liberty it's anti-gun so why am I coming to the table if I know the answer can you honestly tell someone like me there's a chance after coming to this table that legislation is going to go in the right direction if not why am I coming to the table so this is sort of what we addressed earlier about if you give something are they just going to I mean I just think that we should have a discussion there used to be a semi-automatic there used to be a ban on certain guns and it went away so you actually won one battle in that discussion right it went away I don't know I'm not admitting I don't know what the answer is exactly but you know the idea that you should be able to own a tank delegitimizes your right to own a sidearm and the idea that nobody should have any guns delegitimizes their position the position is somewhere in between I disagree I agree with ownership of tanks yeah I know you do but that alright we'll save that one for next time as somebody who's actually been in one, shot one blown stuff up with one I don't Hi concerning the education system in the United States do you think that should be handled by the federal government some people say that when it was with the states there were better results we could quickly do for me it would be about going to the states and as local and local and local as possible and with as much choice as possible I believe government is essentially coercion and government is essentially a gun and I don't believe guns belong in schools and therefore I don't believe government has any any role in education now I would be willing to concede that in a transition period and it could be a long transition period government funds education but government should never run a school whenever government runs a school it is corrupting so I like education saving accounts which Arizona is experimented with and Nevada is experimenting with where the government funds but you get to choose what form of education your kid gets and where it's given whether it's on the internet or in a private school but it should be 100% privatized thank you unfortunately this is going to be our last question for the night oh man we would state we would stick around we'll take some selfies after though good evening with the prevalence of folks out there like Mike Gallagher, Dennis Prager those type of folks running the conservative discussion have you noticed that that kind of stifles out your voices as people that don't really fit into a conservative box but have more conservative allies in terms of free speech for me I would say no actually the Prager You video that I did is literally their most watched video ever I have a couple disagreements about politics but he's running basically a conservative website and not only have the most watched one but I just shot another one a couple weeks ago that I think will be out next week or a week after that so I think and I'm pretty sure you would agree with me that for the disagreements we may have with these guys that there is an absolute willingness to talk it out and agree to disagree and also agree to I'm friends with a lot of these guys you know what I mean I mean Ben Shapiro is not thrilled with gay marriage but you know I've had dinner with he and his wife with my partner I mean it's fine and I think that that's a more overriding thing so I've seen some movement on the conservative side intellectually that I'm happy to keep talking to them about so my experience is a little different and it depends on who we're talking about so suddenly some people in the religious right and I do think Prager belongs there are intolerant of certain views and it certainly Prager's so far at least intolerant of anything to do with Ayn Rand and it's been pretty explicit from his perspective and I think that's quite a few people on the right so I'm less positive generally about the right than Davis but because I've seen that intolerance at least towards me and my people who agree with me and I also worry and this is again part of my perspective of the right I worry that the right gets associated with religion and to me I'm an atheist and I don't think atheism is irrelevant to the discussion I think it's I'm more on Sam Harris's side on this issue I think atheism this question of religion is an important question I think it needs to be resolved ultimately I think for western civilization to exist we need to have that conversation and I think we will win so I think I worry about the dominance of religion on the Republican Party I worry about the dominance of religion on the so-called right and I do see some intolerance on that side to not just to the atheism but the kind of atheism that I bring maybe a more strident perspective on these kind of issues and you know and I take the abortion issue seriously and I probably disagree with many of you and I'm with Dave on abortion and there's a number of these other issues that I think where we really do clash and there really is an issue Ben Shapiro seems to be an exception to that he's really open to discussion and debating and having a conversation about it but we'll see where all of this goes I think this is fascinating what Dave has managed to do and I really give credit to Dave here is he really has through his interviews and through the network that he's created he's created kind of in a sense an umbrella of people who are interested in debating serious ideas and having real conversations about deep issues and it's the Dave's credit that this is all coming because I don't think it would have happened by itself somebody has to be kind of the facilitator and you know Dave saying to some of these Iron Man guys are not that bad and you know and you know hey Ben Shapiro is a nice guy and all of this somebody has to be the mediator but having that conversation I think is so crucial to our progress towards more freedom and more liberty and more conversation and more free speech so I celebrate what Dave has done even if I disagree with a lot of the people there on a lot of the issues I think having that conversation is so crucial and for you to be exposed to these conversations I mean for the last 20 years there's been no television worth watching of any intellectual content you now have the best interview of his generation actually creating great intellectual content I mean it's amazing he actually blushed I'm a little young for a lifetime achievement award but you guys are an incredible piece of everything that Iran just said so I thank you guys for coming out and defending free speech and open inquiry and critical thinking and all that good stuff we have a dinner to go to right after this but we'll hang out and say hi to a couple of you guys and I'm sorry we didn't get to all the questions and now make some noise for the people at home so that they know you guys are all here thank you guys, thank you