 תביא ירון ברוק, אני רק ארצות היום בטשע, טשע בערב, טשע ברבע וזה שעות על מה אתה הולך להרצות? על הפריעי רקוזית של מדינה חופשית, מה זה פריעי רקוזית, ביווית, המנכות הפסיסיות מה צריך בעצם בששתהי מדינה חופשית, בשביל להילחם בחירות? אוקיי, בהצלחה אני מתכבד זמינת הדורר המסכם של האירועה של הכנס דוקטור ירון ברוק ירון ברוק מנהלת מרכז העינרן מזה 15 שנה מזה שנתיים מעורב גם בפעילות בארץ ותומך בדרך התמיכה אינטנסיבית של מרכז העינרן העולמי בנציגות המקומית בשבוע האחרון הוא התגיעים את המאמצים הגדולים גם בשבוע של כפיצות מתעתם מטה סטודנטים לטה סטודנטים בארצאות, שחיסו פעם או פעמיים ביום ואני שמח לסכם את כנס החירות השני עם ארצאתו התנאים היחחיים הנדרשים למהפכה של חופש ההרצאת הנה תעבר באנגלית ולהגשיירון ‫הוא תתפתח על ידי ‫שעשיון על ידי נגדת. ‫אז תודה רבה, ‫אני חושב שאתה תלכת בועז ‫בסליחת ותארגת, ‫אז אני חושב שאתה תלכת בועז. ‫אבל אני לא יודעת מה שם ‫אז אני לא יכולה להתארגת. ‫תודה רבה. ‫אני רוצה לתודה אתם. ‫הוא 9.15 פי. ‫תמיד, שתי אורידים ‫שמחלשו על זה לדעים אלקציה. communicate technical stuff like that so he should be congratulated for having the patients the stamina to stay around and be here I think we started at 10 AM this morning since being a long day I really liked being at the end in spite of the fact that I know half of you asleep and it's going to be quite struggle for me keep you awake I liked being at the end and I particularly like coming after a whole של שרikat לאמות, השבאים שהם מופעים שבשקל, שטברly Umm, א׏יה, אכונ annex, אכונום בבקשה, נגדיתנית, אגצות משקל, נגדיתן, נגדיתן, נגדיתן, נגדיתן, נגדיתן. על פרי מורכז, על פרי מורכז קפלוס סיסטם. ואז אקונמיסטים עשו את זה, עשו דקד. אני אומר, אנחנו לא נחשבים לגמרי אקונמיסטים, בגמרי היסטריה, כמו מובילים, שבאפיקציה, לגמרי. אתה יכול, אתה יכול, לגמרי לגמרי אקונמיסטים, כמו אקונמיסטים, כמו אקונמיסטים, כמו אקונמיסטים, כמו התיית, להאיך על את זה. ולא בז'יה, כמו מובילים, לגמרי, דקד. לגמרי המורכז על הדקד, אקונמיסטים. הוא לא יגב, הוא יודע כמובשים High Man, הוא רוצה לעצינתי, אני נקראת את את הדקד, אני חושב שיום הוא שלא כרימה, אם את ביי, כ에서도י there's a principle, place control will never work on anything, no matter what which you put them on. All of this, we know and even if we didn't know the details you just have to have eyes in order to see that free markets and capitalism that where ever it's tried to whatever extent it's tried, it is an enormous success. I ask my audience is how many of you been to Hong Kong and I assume it's isn't gonna to be a large number of anybody here ever been to Hong Kong? אני אומר, חונקאם, את לא צריכים לבין משהו על איקרונות אבל חונקאם הוא עשיתי קצת 75 שנה, חונקאם היה קצת קצת חונקאם איתך איתך איזו ריסוס, בין קצת יש לי הרבה קצת כאן, שזה יכול להיות קצת זה היה קצת קצת עכשיו שאתה לך חונקאם, 7.5 מיליים אנשים שחונקאם ויש לי קצת, יש לי קצת כמה קצת שקצת כמה מנהקנית גדיפי פרקפטר, אני לא חייבי פרקפטר, אבל גדיפי פרקפטר קצת, קצת הוא אוכל כך שלו של美國, עשיתי קצת הם עשיתי קצת כמה קצת כמה קצת, 250 שנה ויש לי חיים בין קצת הם ישרות מאוד פרקפטר, הם לא חייבים קצת הם עשיתי קצת כמה קצת, יש לי קצת קצת הם ישרות מאוד פרקפטר והם כתובילים קצת, כמי שאתה לא יודע, אם כאן עוד, כך שם עשיתי כך שם עשיתי קצת ‫צדור לצד BuK א scholarship אופן pair ‫ calmly ‫ referendum ‫ ‫את מ SVP ‫בכпонס ‫תק masses ‫שמסית ‫בס такое ‫אז הואgaryד ‫שמסית ‫זו לא עשם ‫ видео שזה נראה שזה נראה So with all due respect to the economists and I am one to some extent I'm a finance PhD so I'm not quite an economist but I'm a minor economist if you will, I deal with a certain part of the economy with all respect to the economists the problem is not economics the problem is not economic training although we need it, let me not diminish that we need it, we need it, we need more of it, we need lots of it but people are blinded by it anyway they got the best schools, they get the great economic education and then they become statists, socialists of one form or another anyway in spite of it we need much more than economics economics is necessary but not sufficient for the battle that we're engaged in for the war really that we're engaged in economics is crucial economic knowledge is crucial but it's not what drives the world and I think one of the great challenges that economists have many economists that I've met particularly in the United States and many great economists people like Gary Becker and others who believe that economics explains everything and it doesn't people care more about more than wealth they care more than just about standard of living I shouldn't say just about standard of living but they care more about other things than about standard of living about wealth creation and the fact is that they care about the poor or put it, frame it a little differently they know they should care about the poor but whether they really care about the poor is a real question there are much more fundamental values if we need to advocate for if we're going to achieve a free society and my end is not wealth I acknowledge this is where we differ my end is not wealth my end is individual freedom and I emphasize individual freedom my end is my freedom even if you could show me economically that my freedom and each one of our individual freedom would lead to a lower standard of living which I think by the way is impossible and I don't think would happen I would still take the free I would still take the free so my end is different but to reach that end and I think by reaching that end we also reach a higher standard of living and more wealth and the poor are better and everybody's better off we need to recognize these values that people have need to acknowledge them and need to deal with them now I'll give you one that is very relevant to Israeli society and is becoming more and more relevant to American society and certainly in Europe is much more similar to Israel than it is to the United States and that is the notion the ideal if you will, of collectivism we have to acknowledge the fact that Israel is fundamentally a collectivistic society now what do I mean by collectivism I don't mean hanging around in a group and having a good time and being a collective I mean the philosophical idea that the standard by which we measure everything is the collective the group the public society that society is the framework of reference and we as individuals are just tools to get to a better society to get to a better common good to get to fulfill the so-called public interest I think this is a very very bad idea an idea that is you know in Israel it's part of their mother's milk we drink when we're babies it's in the songs we sing when we're little kids it's in the stories we are told I mean of all the things I had to overcome to get to the philosophical position I have today collectivism specifically Jewish collectivism was the hardest of all because it was so ingrained in us when we were so small but it is a deadly idea because at its core it teaches us to believe that our lives are meaningless as individuals that what matters is the group and you hear it this is something that is common in the world generally and this is something that has existed from the beginning of time and there are certain interest groups of course that have an interest in you believing that you are nothing that what matters is the group every tribal leader in history has wanted you to believe that and by the way who knows what's good for the group he does and if he's not sure exactly or he can't convince you very effectively he hires a witch doctor and the witch doctor and him one takes care of the material side of the group and the other takes care of the spiritual side of the group and you're all ultimately slaves to those two and this has been a pattern throughout human history a pattern throughout human history again that has said your life is not yours it's not yours to live your life belongs to the tribe your life belongs to the king your life belongs to the state your life belongs to God or to the pope but it doesn't above all belong to you and of course by that standard what is good for people what is good for the public what is the common good who is the common anybody hear the common who is the public I mean I know that you're not the public you're the tiniest minority within the public the smallest minority always individual each one of you is a minority the smallest minority so what becomes of this common good public interest collectivism when you add in democracy what you get is gang warfare not warfare with fists warfare with votes but warfare with votes turns into fists because the government is a fist let's not forget what the essential nature of government is the essential nature of government is coercion the essential nature of government is force George Washington said that in his second inaugural address government is force now force can be used for good to protect us, to defend us to arbitrate between disputes to define objective laws property rights and so on but guns for the most part are used for evil to control us to tax us, to regulate us to tell us how what we should believe in so we have to be very careful with this force but when you combine the public interest with democracy what you get is gangs and you see in Israeli politics it's exactly what it is it's a bunch of little groups all with a little agenda all getting together and who are they going to screw in the end the individual because the individual is not even there he doesn't exist, it's blind to them they are they have to appease their group of voters and this group has to appease their group of voters and even their group is not homogeneous so collectivism always leads to statism and it leads to the lying and it leads to the you know pulling up and raising up the people who support your cause whether they've got PhDs in economics or not, you call them what you need to call them in order to get you away and people who believe in the common good, people who believe in the public interest have never thought history had a problem in lying through their teeth to get what they want I mean just think of every authoritarian regime in history, it's always been it's always been for whom yeah, it's always been for the common good so the public interest, I'm not doing this for me God forbid I'm doing it for you I just happened to channel the public interest I know it's in the public interest and I'm going to impose it on you so in my view as long as we hold the collectivist view of the supremacy of the group as long as we hold the view that even includes such a concept as the public interest because I don't believe there is such a thing as the public interest even in this room there's not a uniform interest even in this room there's not unanimity about almost anything yeah and this is a relatively homogeneously ideological group or values group but we still don't agree right so there's no such thing as the common good the public interest as long as we hold those ideas we lose we lose one of the things that really gets me is this whole inequality debate and I assume it's happening in Israel because I saw a presentation where inequality numbers were shown and the debate infuriated because my response to inequality is who cares why is it relevant to anything because it's not how somebody else is doing relative to me is irrelevant to me now if he's stealing lying and cheating to get where he is then that's a problem but the problem is not the gap the problem is that he's stealing lying and cheating cronyism is a problem the inability of poor people to rise up because in my view government a rise up into middle class to become richer is a problem there are lots of problems I'm not denying the existence of a problem but inequality is not a problem whether it's growing or shrinking or flat who cares it's irrelevant but you see if you're a collectivist it's very important because a collectivist views a pie we've got GDP we've got national assets we've got national income and now we need to decide how to divide it and who gets what and we need to divide it so that what so that we achieve equality or that we achieve efficiency or that we achieve something else but what pie I don't see a pie I see your stuff and your stuff and I see you working hard and I see you're really really lazy I'm not producing anything I see individual creation but I don't see a pie and I don't see why it's my job to divvy it up you created yours and you created yours good for you and if I trade with you maybe I can grow my pie but as long as we view things in this collectivistic way which unfortunately economics lends itself to do because it's about aggregation, right? it makes it easier if we start aggregating but I think in the aggregation we fall into a real danger a danger of wiping out the individual and giving credence to the idea that there is such a thing as national income there isn't, there's no national income there's your income and my income and here's income yeah we can add it up but adding it up is meaningless so I think to really fight for liberty to really lay a foundation for liberty we have to reject collectivism and what we need to embrace is a philosophy of individualism and in this sense this is not a new project this is a project started way back but in modern times if you will it was a project really started in enlightenment project started by the thinkers of the enlightenment the age of reason who elevated knowledge and reason and thinking and being rational elevated it to being supreme it's the time of the scientific revolution we can know reality we can explain reality we can understand reality but who understands reality who knows reality who has reason who thinks only the individual there's no collective consciousness there's no group think there's no floating something we can help each other think we can engage in conversation which is wonderful but at the end of the day you have to think I have to think on no thought happens we don't think together and of course the enlightenment recognizes and out of the enlightenment comes the whole idea of individualism out of Jaloc and out of the thinkers following comes the idea of reason and individualism as the two foundational principles of western civilization and I think those are the two foundational principles of western civilization reason and individualism and individualism doesn't mean going off on a desert island and living by yourself that's just plain stupid because clearly the benefits of associating with other people both on a spiritual level of friendship and love and relationships and just the fun of being around people is a huge value division the economic value of division of labor and specialization which Adam Smith elaborated on that raises your own well-being just the fact that you're in a community that's producing is incredibly valuable so individualism doesn't mean isolationism it doesn't mean going off and not caring about anybody and I'm just going to do my thing and turn my back on everybody else now it means engaging in the world being part of the world embracing the world loving the world but individualism says that the standard of value is not the group it's the individual it's each one of us that the standard of the good is what's good for the individual the standard for political good the point of politics the existence of government is to protect the individual the individual to allow the individual to be free so he can pursue his life so he can pursue his values so he can make his life what he wants some of us choose to make a lot of money some of us get PhDs and choose not to make a lot of money so let's teach because we love teaching I love teaching but no this is much more fun than making money it's not about money that's another thing that the left likes to describe all they want is money on the desert island what you can do with the money on the desert island but the whole idea is to create government to create a society that leaves the individual free and societies exist as an abstraction they just don't exist as a metaphysical reality only individuals exist as a metaphysical reality society is an abstraction and we need that abstraction but what we need to recognize is that the only reason to get together is not to loot from one another not to steal from one another not to kill one another but to trade at every level spiritual and material to create, to build, to make stuff and to grow and we need to be protected and this is again out of the enlightenment comes this idea that the only wall of government is to protect us from the fact that there are bad guys there are always bad guys in every group there's a bad person who will use force who will try to steal who will try to cheat and at the wall of government is to protect us from those bad guys external and internal to our own group and other than that we're also going to get into disputes we're going to disagree once and while even if we're completely rational even contracts can be ambiguous and sometimes there's a real dispute somebody has to be the referee at the end that's it the purpose of government in the enlightenment according to the light of thinkers was that the protection of our freedoms and they articulated this in a concept one concept which I think is the core of what we need politically to fight for individualism if you're willing morality and the core political principle is individual rights and I know it's been corrupted by the left but that's what they do they take words and they flip them justice what does justice mean fairness what does fairness mean you always get you know replace one word with another what does fairness mean what does fairness mean it means equality today fairness means equality but it never used to fairness meant used to mean in the old days even I remember those fairness used to mean getting what you deserve justice meant getting what you deserve you're bad you get bad you're good you get rewarded that's what fairness used to mean and the left has taken that term and flipped it on us and turned it into equality which according to the old definition of equality of outcome is the most evil idea in human history and if you're interested in some good examples of why I would be happy to give it to you in the Q&A if we have time for it so we can't give up on the concept of individual rights anymore than we can give up on the concept of justice we have to redefine and individual rights is the recognition that your life does not belong to the group individual rights is the recognition that to the extent that we form a group and form a government the purpose is to protect your life individual rights is the recognition that you are free free to act on your own behalf free to pursue your values free to make whatever decisions you want good and bad if you have a right to life by the way you have to have a right to commit suicide that's what it means to have a right to life and some people commit suicide quickly some people commit suicide slowly but they have a right to commit suicide slowly I'm for legalizing drugs by the way all drugs but I recognize that actually doing that will increase the number of people who commit suicide slowly but they have a right to do that to their lives not mine and it's not yours and it's not the government it's their life that's the whole point it's individuals so we need to resurrect this concept of individual rights and of course this period of the enlightenment it's a croning achievement in my view it's great success story is the establishment of the United States of America in 1776 you could even say that's around the time when the enlightenment is about to end tragically for humankind but they established a government at least in their idea there were always there were flaws and there were inconsistencies but in the idea was the principle of government there to protect us and that's it leave us alone otherwise so remind you this is the foundation the foundation is already there it's already in the founding of America what the founders did not have in my view is a more grasp of what it completely meant is a more philosophy to ground their individualism and their freedom and their individual rights but I think we have that now I think that's Ayn Rand's great achievement she's given us that philosophy she's given us that foundation we have no excuses anymore you can the philosophical foundations for individualism, for individual rights are there read the virtue of selfishness capitalism I don't know an ideal there's a lot of work to be done in the philosophy but the principles are all in existence what we need is to embrace those principles to talk about them to educate people in them so that we couple the economic understanding that freedom works and it does and we can show it and we can prove it with the notion that freedom is right freedom is just freedom is good freedom is virtuous why? because your life is yours it doesn't belong to anybody else in my view this is a powerful message to the young people because young people are looking for answers, they're looking for truths they're looking to understand their own lives and their own world and when you're 16 when I was 16, when you guys were 16 when you're 16, I don't know somewhere in your 20s, you're searching and you're not just searching for material things you're searching to understand the world you're searching to figure out your place within the world am I just a cog in this machine what is my relationship to the state, the group, the tribe and I think a message that says the most fundamental thing in terms of our lives is that your life is yours your life is yours and there are objective standards by which you can live you can make that life a success objective truths immorality that can help you make your life the best life that it can be that is a powerful message for a young person and oh by the way if we all practice that if we all engaged in that pursuit of our own self-interest of our own life, of our own flourishing you get rich too in a sense that we all get richer because we have a free society and we know the results of a free society that is an exciting message for young people that's something people can get engaged with that's something that can change the world so let's go change it thank you okay we have time for a few questions yeah what are you sort of being with okay so the question is so the question is how do you change a culture particularly a culture like Israel where collectivism is so embedded and so part of the way we grow up and unfortunately there is no easy answer to that and there is no magic bullet if there was one I would be shooting it already there just isn't there is no work and this is education education education there is no alternative to speaking and talking and more importantly maybe than anything else writing even though people don't read anymore if they don't read anymore we've lost we have to write we have to communicate but my point is we need to continue communicating all the economic ideas what nobody does is we need to start communicating these more fundamental philosophical ideas and I want to say something about who is to blame for all this so it's the media we talked about the media and economists no we were the media and economists so I have a different view of how ideas spread I think the most important people in a culture are as bizarre as it might seem the philosophers I think they dictate everything so that the reason good economists are ignored is because most of the people in the media took philosophy classes sociology classes or English classes the humanities classes that are all very influenced by philosophy and they're all postmodernists and postmodernism says there is no reality there is no truth certainly we don't know the truth so this economist whatever he said what's the difference it's all opinion anyway there's no reality now that's subtle but it's true that's a philosophy sneaks in everywhere so that people don't really think there is a truth so for example in education in America at least we take 10 year olds and we put them around in a circle and ask them what they think about the current political events what does a 10 year old think about anything he doesn't know anything he has an opinion about politics 18 year olds should barely be allowed to speak about politics that was supposed to be fine but okay but a 10 year old but it's not about facts it's not about truth it's not about science it's about opinion and that comes straight from postmodernism and postmodernism comes from Immanuel Kant through a lot of other philosophers and through Foucault and Sartre and all the people Israelis love to read and if you really want to get deeply into this in a sense all of western civilization is a battle between two philosophers all of our history is a battle between two philosophers Plato and Aristotle and collectivism and statism and socialism and fascism and all of that is Plato straight out of the republic straight out of the whole idea that we just live in a cave and we see shadows and we need philosophers kings who actually commune with the truth to let us know what reality really is versus Aristotle who facts a fact he got his science all wrong almost everything he said in science is wrong but he established a scientific method and that's why he's the great one of the reasons he's the great philosopher he invented logic and our side is about logic it's about facts but if people out there think the reality who knows what reality is we don't see reality anyway we need commune with the spirits that know what reality is then of course we're going to lose because we're about logic and facts and reason so we have to elevate reason, facts, logic before we can even have any other discussion so in that sense all this is really really really hard so there's no easy but it's education education education because the left dominates the universities we have to find alternative ways to get to people and my hope my only hope I think is that we find a way to use the internet really really really well we find a way to use the internet brilliantly in order to get our ideas around academia which is so dominantly left and let me just recommend two books one is Redign Man because I think she's really really important she probably started out the struggle and didn't finish there are lots of other books Redign Man and second there's a wonderful book about Plato and Aristotle which I think is really useful in this debate I don't include everything in it but it's very useful, it's called The Cave and the Light which is a description of the periods in which Plato wins versus the periods in which Aristotle wins and interchange between the two throughout history yeah where Aristotle is the example which is supposed to be always raised but it's interesting is that you don't have a much better example telling people, ok they think that well he will raise it which is strange because if you look at the markets let's say a company does something where they work and other companies are raised but this is my whole point yeah yeah most of the country הם לא ילדים בגלל ההעזאם, הם לא ילדים כי כשמאים בית ביסודית, כשמאים בית ביסודית כן, הצפים ממיקים דיבר של שטטלו של שטטי, קודם לא יעדים הם לא יעדים. עכשיו, לך כך כך, ככה, אשר-טיגר, ככה, ממיקים הסינקאבור פסימיה ממיקים, תפסימיה של הסוב-קריאה, תאוון ואז גם כך, תאילנות של איזה ובכותכן אבל, הנה זה, שפה היא, שהפלוטין הולכסי לא תתתם מה שבוער. We know what works. Hong Kong, we've got a great economist, we can explain what works. People don't care what works. What they want is what you said feels good, which is true. But that feeling good is driven by their collectivistic morality and by sense of collectivism. Therefore what I'm saying is that's what needs to be challenged. Until we challenge that, until we knock collectivism, that is, the idea that your life doesn't mean anything except in the context of a group, that idea needs to be crushed, it needs to be trashed in a heap of history. It is an evil, evil idea. Nobody's asking me about equality. It's a really evil idea and we need to eliminate it, and only then can we start talking about what works, what's good for the individual, how do I become wealthy, I'm a prosperous, how do I get a better standard of living? Only then can we look at Hong Kong and say, ah, that's a pretty good model. According to your individualistic ideology, why should we ever go and fight in the army and potentially endanger our lives? Good question. So why would you ever go into the army if you're an individualist? Because you're an individualist. In other words, you care about your life. And because you care about your life, you care about your freedom. You want to be free. You realize to what extent freedom is necessary for you to have a successful life. So you would fight for a country that guarantees that freedom. I don't believe in joining an army to fight for a bad country. I don't believe in risking your life for a bad cause. I'm not a patriot of a geography or the ethnic group. I'm a patriot for ideas. So if the country that I am in upholds my freedom, protects me, defends me, and I can live and live the best life that I can have, love the people I love, watch my children go up free, then I'm willing to fight for that. I'm willing to kill the people who try. By the way, I would fight differently than we fight today. I would fight to win, because I value my life too much to risk it in the cause of a tie, or a draw, or a loss. So the only reason to go to war is to win it. There's never any reason to go to war for any other reason. I love General General, I'll end with this on this point. I love General Sherman, who won the Civil War for America. And General Sherman said war is hell. And I would add, if you're not willing to make it hell, stay on. Yeah. I would like to hear your opinion about the inequality. Yeah, let me tell you. I'm not going to give you the whole my opinion on inequality, because I'm writing a book on it. You'll get that book next year. It's almost done. The publishers are ready. We've got a contract. We come out early next year. But I'll give you why I think equality is the most evil ideology ever. Because it is an attempt to fight a metaphysical fact. The metaphysical fact is we're all unequal. That's the way we are. Isn't life beautiful? I mean, imagine if we were all equal, how horrible would that be? I mean, I don't want to be the same as all of you guys. I mean, I don't want lots of you wrongs running around. I love the fact that we're different. Our differences make us unequal, metaphysically. And I give a couple of examples. I'll give you this example. I'm an awful basketball player. But I, I demand, I want, I feel like I have a right to get on a court with LeBron James and play one-on-one basketball and have a chance of winning. You want to be as rich as Bill Gates, right? I want to play basketball with LeBron James. Well, how do we do that? Because LeBron James is like a gazillion times better than me. So how do we do it? How do we make us equal? Tie his hands. You haven't seen me play. You got to break his legs. I mean, let's be honest here, right? You break his legs, maybe one-on. Now we laugh. You laugh, right? But I don't laugh because that's exactly what's being done to us in the name of equality. I work hard for the money I own. Money is a reflection of time and effort and brainpower and a lot of other things of your productive ability. But if fundamentally it's time, I work hard. And every year, some bureaucrat sticks his hand in my pocket and takes 50% of my money. Now that is 50% of my time, which represents 50% of my life. This stealing my life from me, this stealing your life away from you, as Corinne earlier showed, right? You spend half your life working for the government and the other half working for yourself. Well, that's theft in a brutal way, all in the name of equality. Now, if you gave me a choice between having my legs broken once a year or having 50% of my money taken from me, I'm not sure which choice I would make. I mean, that's how much I value my money. So breaking LeBron James' legs is not funny. It's done every single day to every single one of us. And that's how you have to think of inequality. The idea that inequality is bad and you always have to think, what are they going to do about it? They're going to break people's legs. That's what they want to do. To create equality. The only way to make us equal is to destroy us. And to destroy anybody who's a success or like in Australia, they say chop down the tall poppies. Anybody who sticks up, you chop them down. And I'll, again, I'll give you this brutal example. There's one regime in human history who took this to the limit. They dedicated to themselves to the ideal of equality. They studied in Paris, right? Students of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albel Camus. They took their philosophy seriously and they went back home and they took over the government and they said we're going to establish equality. But the problem is, people are not equal. So what do we do? Well, some people live in their fields and some people live in their cities. So that's not equal. So we empty the cities. We drive them all out into the fields. But you know what? Even in the fields, some people are better at foraging food than other people. Foraging is going to pick food, right? So we ban foraging. We shoot anybody who's caught foraging. But still, some people have an education and some people don't. How do you make that equal? You shoot everybody who has an education. Some people are smart. Some people are not. You shoot everybody who's smart. Some people, as a reflection of being smart, weight glasses. So we shoot everybody with glasses. Now this happened. This is the killing fields of Cambodia. This is exactly what motivated Paul Pop. And this is why, to this day, there were intellectuals all over the world who still justify Paul Pop. Because he fought for an ideal that all of us, oh, not all of us in this room, but all of them out there believe in equality. There's only one meaning to the term equality. Really, really important. Only one meaning to the word equality. Everything else is what Iron Man called an anti-concept. Everything else is illegitimate. And the one meaning of equality in politics is equality of freedom, equality of rights In a sense, equality before the law. We're all born free. We're all born with liberty. We're all born in a sense owning our own lives. But once we're born, the outcome, what we do, how we do it, all of that is going to be unequal and that's great. We should celebrate inequality. Because it is. That's life. That's human beings. We're done. Thank you all.