 You know, right, in a sense, I take too much for granted when I criticize Bernie Sanders for somebody who is not familiar with my arguments. That is, I assume on the show too much that you guys know where I'm coming from. And therefore, I think a lot for a lot of people when I criticize, when I criticize, let's say social medicine and stuff like that, I think all the arguments are made of valid, but it's out of left field for them. And it's really difficult for them to really get it because they don't understand the context of what we're actually talking about, what I'm actually talking about, you know, and the context they're missing, they get it from the instances they bring up, but not explicitly is really the moral content, the philosophical content, because the reason socialism is wrong, the reason socialism is evil, the reason socialism is, is something you want to avoid. It's not primarily because, or not only, because it doesn't work. I mean, to me, well, of course it doesn't work. It's obvious it doesn't work. Because fundamentally, it's immoral. It's detached from reality. It's detached from human nature. It has a bad perspective on human nature. So if you take on, you know, so what I want to do today is really talking about that, rather than talk about, well, the Canadian healthcare system is not as good as the Americans and da, da, da, da, da, da, da, da, you know, and all the concretes and look what happened in, in, in, in Soviet Union, what happened in communist China, look at, look at, and then they come back with what about Norway and what about Sweden and all the stuff. Let's talk a minute about what socialism is. That seems to always be missing from the debate. And, you know, they don't define their terms. Nobody defines their terms. Bernie Sanders doesn't define his terms. He takes it all for granted. And what are the foundational ideas on which it is based? You know, on which it is based? So that's what we're going to do today. We're going to, we're going to talk about what is socialism? What are the philosophical ideas on which it's based? Why are those philosophical ideas evil? And since they are evil, well, then socialism is evil. And, and, and its outcome is always negative. That is the outcome is always, is always harmful. All right. So what is socialism? I mean, socialism is a, I mean, we, the multiple, I've looked at dictionaries, they all have different definitions, but they're all about the same, particularly socialism, as it's always been understood versus how I think that what they call today democratic socialism, they're trying to shift it around and change it. But basically, socialism is a political and economic system of social organization, which advocates, and I'm reading from a dictionary online, that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated, regulated as a modern way of saying it by the community as a whole, or by the state, or if you want to use Marxist terms by the workers. So socialism is a social, political, economic system that advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned by the state, the community, the workers, right, in various interpretations of that. And of course, under democratic socialism, what they argue is, well, we don't own all the means of production, we have a little bit of capitalism, you know, we have a little bit of markets in there, we don't know all the means of production. But at the end of the day, through the democratic process, voters get to make economic decisions and get to dictate resources, allocation, ownership, production, what gets produced, what doesn't get produced. So in the end, it's through the political system, through voting, the means of production get determined, even if there is a pretense of private ownership, the private ownership owns it, but through regulations and control. And that's kind of a blend of socialism and fascism, because fascism, I know fascism, most people think of fascism as primarily racist, but fascism is not primarily racist. Fascism in its original theory is this control over the means of production, control over the means of production, through the use, through the use of the state, through the use of regulation, while leaving people with the pretense of private property. So socialism fundamentally is about collective control, collective ownership of the means of production of economic activity, any kind of economic activity. Socialism fundamentally is about the group making decisions by, you know, idealistically, from their perspective, democratically. So, you know, some socialist idealists will say, well, the way factories or the way businesses should be run is democratically. And I've mentioned, Ayn Rand has a great, great illustration of how well that works in Atlas Shrugged, where she has 21st century motors, basically turn to that form of managing a business where everything is voted on. You know, that could be, it could be through the state, it could be, like with democratic socialism, some mixture, and the way we allow markets some places, but the mixture is determined in the end by voters, by a democratic process, by majority rule, by the majority dictating. And of course, Marx's whole view is different, because with Marx's view, the majority didn't matter. It was not about, it was not about democracy. It was about what was good for the proletarian and, and socialism is a phase that you go through on the way to pure communism. And, but it's not a democratic phase. There's no democracy in Marx. There's no importance for democracy. You know, it's the will of the proletarian must be, you know, that is what must be fulfilled. And if the proletarian are not the majority, then tough, because it's the proletarian that are going to dictate, they're going to dictate what happens in a, in a kind of a Marxist socialist. And the term socialism predates Marx. It's, I think I've seen the date as the date as being 1830. Somebody asked, I think people, Bernie, conflate expanded welfare programs with socialism, they don't really mean government control of the means of production. Well, but they do, right? So suddenly the emphasis in modern times, and we'll get to why that is the emphasis in modern times with regard to socialism is the welfare state is welfare programs and expansion of the welfare state, you know, a dramatic expansion of welfare programs. The Scandinavian kind of model where, you know, a very, very generous and a large percentage of, of GDP is spent on redistribution of wealth and a reduction of, of income or wealth inequality. But of course they also want to control the means of production. Now, not to the extent that maybe old line socialist used to, not to the extent of owning the means of production. But I don't think the, the, the Bernie Sanders when he gets into, when he, if he ever, if he ever wins the presidency is about deregulating business because we socialists, we don't want to control the means of production. Quite the contrary, Bernie Sanders wants to increase regulations, increase controls. He doesn't quite argue for nationalizing the banks, which used to be very popular among socialists maybe 30 years ago, but he suddenly wants to regulate them so much that they could be the equivalent of owned by the state. So this idea that they don't want to control the means of production is blatantly false. They want to control the means of production. They might not want to technically own the means of production. They want to find the right balance where they can use the means of production from their perspective optimally by giving just enough freedom to the entrepreneur and the businessman to create just enough wealth so they can tax just enough of it so that they can have their welfare state. But of course, they want to control business. They want to control what products are built and, and, and how they're built and how much employers, employees are paid. I mean, minimum wage is not a part of the welfare state. It's a part of controlling the means of production. So yes, again, they don't own the means of production, but they're clearly controlling them. So no, socialism is very much about even today, even among the Boney Sanders fans about not just a dramatically expanded welfare state, but a dramatically expanded control of business, control of the means of production and the distribution of production and the, and trade generally, right? If Boney had his way, we'd have, he told us he wants a transaction tax on all stock dealings. He wants much more regulation of financial industry, a much higher minimum wage, which was regulation on labor. He wants the government to intercede everywhere where there's economic activity. So no, Boney is no different in any fundamental sense than what you would consider traditional socialists. The fact that he puts in democratic socialism in front of it makes no real difference. It's just a trick what they want. They want you to think, oh, we're a little, we're a little less rigid in our socialism, but they're not really. So let's, let's talk a little bit about so what does this actually mean? What is the, what is the essential characteristic of socialism? I mean, the essential characteristic is that it's a political, social, economic theory that places the group primarily in the realm of the material, because that's what interest socialists, the material realm, wealth, and wealth creation, and economic activity. It places the interests of the group vis-a-vis economics as primary. And it is a system that's, that, that advocates the, the negation of any kind of individual, right individual sovereignty over their own activity, over their own production, over their own, you know, distribution, exchange, trade. Individuals don't matter. And this is, this is the, the fundamental idea behind socialism. Individuals don't matter, other than in what they contribute or sacrifice to the group. The only thing that matters is the collective. The only thing that matters is the group. Individuals are meaningless. Individuals can be sacrificed. Individuals can be treated unequally. Individuals can have their property taken away, because property, there is no such thing really as individual property and the socialism. Everything is collectivized. Socialism is the idea of, you know, the value of collectivization and the negation of the individual. So you cannot separate socialism as a form of collectivism. And collectivism is saying that the group, however you define that group, is superior to the individual. And for the sake of the group's wellbeing, individuals can be sacrificed. So let's, let's take, let's take healthcare, for example, right? Healthcare, for example. So socialized healthcare, that's a big issue for Bernie Sanders. It's a big issue that comes up anytime we discuss socialism or discuss economics or discuss politics. It's an issue that when I discussed it on my show on Bernie Sanders, all these people flipped out about, well, let's take, let's take healthcare. So they deal with nationalizing the healthcare system, which is what socialized or Medicare for all is. It's nationalizing. It's not just increasing the welfare state. It's government control over the means of production, because that's what it means is government control over doctors, government control over hospitals, government control over what treatment you get and what treatment you don't get, government control over every exchange, because they set the price, right? You don't set the price with the doctor. They set the price with the doctor. You get it for so-called free, right? It's government control over every aspect of the means of production of healthcare. For what aim? Well, for improving the healthcare of society, I would say, right? And many would say, but my healthcare treatment is great. I actually have the best healthcare in the world. I have fantastic doctors. I pay them well. I have amazing, amazing hospitals. I got two MRIs a couple of weeks ago, within a couple of days, and my insurance paid for it, and I had some out-of-pocket expenses, but they weren't too bad, and the MRI machine was state of the art, and it was amazing. And then I went to see a specialist, and a specialist did what he had to do. I have amazing healthcare. Now, I truly believe that it could be much better and could be much cheaper. So I'm not saying this is the pinnacle of possible healthcare, but I have pretty damn good healthcare. And if I go to the people advocating for Medicare for all, and I say, but my healthcare is great, they would say, it doesn't matter. You are just one individual. And by the way, you an individual has money. You an individual can afford health insurance. By the way, 90% of Americans can afford health insurance, but put that aside, they have health insurance, but put that aside. You don't count. What counts is the group. Now, when you boil down, what does the group mean? Because that's the next step, right? Who do the socialists care about? Because, yeah, I mean, to some extent, the socialists care about the majority, the majority will, but what does the majority care about? What really gets people revved up? What really gets people excited? What gets people excited about socialized healthcare, even though I would argue that most of the people who are going to vote for it will actually land up with worse healthcare than they have today. But they'll vote for it. Why? What gets them excited? Is it the argument? Do you hear a lot of the argument? Well, society will be better off. At the end of the day, no. At the end of the day, you don't hear that argument. That's not how it's phrased. That's not how this form of collectivism is presented. What are you here? Well, what about the poor and the uninsured and the people who get lousy healthcare today? What about them? So take socialism, take the collectivism of socialism, social well-being, and we don't have a standard for determining what's good for society. How do we, how do we figure out? Because, I mean, if you did like a utilitarian game, right, if we pretended utilitarian could be calculated, right? And you look at all the, at the healthcare Americans get today, people who have insurance, and you look at the quality they get, right? Taking out uninsured, taking out people on Medicaid, taking out people who clearly get lousy healthcare, which is Medicaid and uninsured. You take those out, you take the majority, the vast majority of Americans, and you add up all the utilities that they get out of this fantastic healthcare. And then you give zero utility value, you know, all this is BS, but I'm, you know, let's play the game. And you give a zero utility value to the people who are getting lousy healthcare, let's say they get zero. And you add it all up. And you, I don't know, you add that up to a number. And then you switch to socialized healthcare where everybody gets worst healthcare, but those 10% are uninsured and the people who get Medicaid get better healthcare. Then that average, I would imagine just thinking about it, and, and I could prove it because I could prove what would happen under socialized medicine in the United States would be much, much, much lower. Now nobody does that exercise. Nobody can do that exercise. That exercise is impossible to do as I phrased it. So nobody, nobody talks that way. And if they did, they'd lose everybody, right? So what do they do? They latch on to what morally makes this collectivism possible, which is altruism. Altruism is not being nice to people. Altruism is not opening doors to old ladies or giving your seats to some, to a pregnant woman on a, on a, on a, on a bus. Although I guess that could be viewed as sexist these days. And I don't know, do you, can you even tell that it's a woman? You know, what gender exactly are they? And, you know, put that aside. So you don't do that. What altruism, what altruism actually means is to live for the sake of others. It's the primacy of other people's wellbeing over your own. Altruism really means being self less. That is an essential part of altruism. And that's why, you know, arguably nobody is a, is a pure altruist, but altruism infects everything, everything in our world. Because it, because it says to be good, to be moral, to be virtuous means to sacrifice for others means to give up stuff that you value for other people's wellbeing. It means never to think about yourself, never to think about your own wellbeing, never to place any real value on that. Now we all do, but then we're expected to feel guilty about it. And we do. Most older Americans, successful older Americans that I meet feel guilty about their success. They again won't necessarily admit it, but they do. Because altruism demands it. How did you get successful? You thought too much about yourself. Now, if I've got really good healthcare today, and somebody says, yeah, but those people don't, and I say, yeah, but my healthcare is great. They're not my problem. Oh my God, our health breaks loose. Right? I mean, you're being a selfish bastard. You only care about yourself. And if you propose something like well in a free market healthcare system, you know, most of them would be able to afford healthcare because insurance rates would drop and you know, how do you know that? And isn't that a system based on, you know, you know, self-interest? And what about those who can't afford healthcare even under that system? Well, they would have to rely on charity or they won't get healthcare. Oh, well that's outrageous. You mean rely on charity around a good will of people? Well, I, you know, we don't believe in that. People won't be charitable, particularly not in your world because they're self-interested. I mean, any path you take to criticizing national healthcare, for example, leads you down a road of having to go after altruism and having you have to defend self-interest. And there's no other way to do it. And of course, since the culture is so immersed in altruism, well, most people think, well, okay, so my healthcare will be a little worse, but those people over there will be okay. And I'll be able to sleep at night. I'll be able to feel good about myself. And yes, there's a pain threshold at which it will be so bad that people stop caring about those other people. But we live in a pretty rich society in which, for the most part, you know, we don't, we just don't consider that. We just don't consider that. We think, you know, it'll be good enough. Good enough. Plus, you know, one of the distortions, one of the big distortions when it comes to healthcare is Medicare. Everybody says Medicare for all. And you assume, well, the amazing, the first of all, Medicare today has a lot of private insurance associated with it. And Bernie Sanders would exclude that. That would all be gone. So what makes Medicare pretty good is the fact that it has private insurance. But what really makes Medicare pretty good is that it's unlimited spending. The government just spends and spends and spends. If you're sick, you're old person, they'll just spend money on you. And of course, that cannot continue forever. In spite of what the modern monetary theory economists will tell you, you cannot just print money and spend it forever. So, you know, at some point, you have to ration, you have to control, you have to limit, you have to reduce the quality and the extent of the healthcare you're providing. So Medicare is a fallacy because people look at it today. But even when it only deals with people over 65 and they say, wow, you know, but even that is not sustainable. And everybody knows it's not sustainable. But now they want to expand it to include everybody. Well, that is ridiculously not sustainable. But again, nobody, nobody cares. So we have to sacrifice a little bit for the sake of, it's not even the common good in the end, because the common good, if the common good is measured by numbers, and I hate that term, right? Because it doesn't mean anything. But if it's measured by numbers, then it would be, then the system we have today is better than Medicare for all. And a system of pure capitalism is clearly better than what we have today. But it's not presented that way. It's, we have to suffer, we have to sacrifice for the poor. We have to sacrifice for those in need. I mean, socialism at the end of the day is a political system built in the idea, political, social, economic system built in the idea that everything must be geared towards the needy, at least modern socialism, not, not Marxist view. I think Marx was pretty ruthless about some people. To Marxist, everything was geared towards the proletarian, but the whole idea of the proletarian has lost much of its meaning in, in modern society. So basically what's replaced the proletarian is the needy. And the needy includes, it turns out, if you look at Scandinavian countries, most of us, most of us need something. Most of us don't want to rely on ourselves. Most of us, you know, are afraid that we might not be able to afford X, Y or Z. And most of us, ultimately, are willing to accept a welfare state, even if it includes us, even if it hurts us, because it helps those needy. Socialism in modern day is 100% geared towards needy from a, from a welfare perspective. And from a control of the economy perspective, it is geared 100% towards suppressing and controlling self-interest, controlling profit, suppressing profit, denying businessman entrepreneurs the ability to run their business. Again, running it in a way that, quote, helps the needy, minimum wage laws and so on, people who can't take care of themselves. So, you know, we have to, you have to now have a million regulations that are supposedly protecting you, the needy, farm toys that might not be good, a farm, you know, a million from food that you might get poisoned. Again, I'm not trusting the self-interested motive to provide good food and not trusting the fact that some people, that people can think for themselves, and we'll get to, we'll get to thinking for themselves in a minute. It's, it's substituting the, substituting the judgment, the intelligence, the ability of the bureaucrat and of the majority for the individual. So, individual doesn't matter, his role is to sacrifice the needy and what the needy need and how we can make sure the individual kind of, in a sense, produces the most so we can take the most so we can provide the most for the needy is we give that to the bureaucrats and we regulate that through democracy. But the enemy, the enemy of socialism, this is what makes it evil, is the individual. The enemy of socialism is individual judgment. The enemy of socialism is independence, the virtue of independence. The idea that you can judge for yourself, that you can be an independent person materially and as an independent thinker. Socialism categorizes you either as somebody who must be sacrificed to the needy, which is a group that grows ever more because it's easy to grow, right? Think about it. There's a group over there that's really, really poor and they're really, really needy and they don't have anything. And we can all agree they're really, really on the verge of dying of starvation. And we give them a little bit so that they no longer on the verge of dying starvation, they're a little bit better than that. But then they don't have iPhones, or they don't have a home, or they don't have a good job, or they're just barely getting by. Now that becomes a need, an iPhone becomes a need, a good job becomes a need. Having a home becomes a need. And then okay, now they've got an okay home, now they've got an okay job and they might even have an iPhone. But they're not getting world-class healthcare. And they can't afford, I don't know, to go to the movies five times a week or whatever the next thing is. And then the needy grows and grows. And in most modern social welfare societies, we have now turned 50% of the population into the needy. The middle class now needs government help. They can't get to that next level without some. And then you've got the sacrifices, the people who need to be sacrificed in order to fill the needs. So socialism categorizes people and those two bases, those to be sacrificed and those who are the beneficiaries of the sacrifice. The individual is irrelevant and the standard of the sacrifice is altruism. And the standard of regulating and control is a deep distrust, hatred of anything, anything that smacks of self-interest. And by that standard, you could argue America is already socialist in many ways. Our banking system is already controlled by the government. Most of our industries are controlled by government. And government is interfering in all of our activities and they, any sense of self-interest, they try to crush. And suddenly people who call themselves social democrats are completely committed to this. And of course, we have massive redistribution today, massive redistribution of wealth. And we've got basically 50% people being sacrificed to 50% who some recipients of sacrifice. Of course, if you understand the impact of these kind of policies and the impact of socialism, we're all being sacrificed for nothing. But that is always the case. What was the purpose of in Lennardswood breaking some eggs, i.e. killing a bunch of people for the sake of the future of communism? Well, for nothing, because at the end the future of communism was nothing. It was death and destruction. And that was it. There was no end beyond that. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought.