 I have a response to that from Don Corleone, you know, he always said that he's been in the world of guns and in the world of finance and he always considered the world of finance to be much more dangerous. And so I think that one of the things that I've been struggling with about, you know, considering capitalism for my entire life is, if we were to go to a more deregulated style of capitalism, it seems to me inevitable that it would have a destabilizing effect on society as a whole. You have these experiments and that's great, you're right, you're free in a free market, you know, to have these experiments and a lot of them are going to fail. But isn't that going to necessarily lead to a society that is largely destabilized? And the other thing that I've noticed, especially now, I mean, it's probably easy to say to any critical question of capitalism, well, you know, it's because it hasn't really tried yet. I think that a lot of these are philosophical ideas that are hard to get to a real understanding of, so I just want to caution anyone listening that, you know, you've got to really think about this. I've got really in depth and really listened to, so I'm really proud of everybody here. The last thing I would ask is, you know, if I were going to make my own pie, right, I would start off with wanting access, not necessarily ownership, right? I think we conflate those things a lot and I think what's important is access to a kitchen and to an oven and to flour and to sugar. Now, I have to ask, is my sugar contaminated, right? These are the sorts of things that we have to actually ask the question. We have resources in common. I don't own five gallons of the ocean that may or may not be polluted by plastics that are profitable for people to not care about. So my question would be to anybody, how do we actually deal with these things that cannot be specifically allocated? Thank you. Oh, okay. You ended on a different question than I thought you were asking. I thought most of that was targeted to me, so I'll start. I mean, let me just comment on this issue of cooperation because, of course, Steve Jobs didn't build himself. Nobody would argue that he built the iPhone himself, but everybody along that supply chain with the possible exclusion of the slave labor in Africa, which I'm certainly not going to justify, was paid and was paid enough so that they did the work. That is everybody in a capitalist society exchanges values for value and win-win relationships, otherwise they don't enter those relationships. And yes, 10,000 people to one Steve Jobs, but you know what? There's only one Steve Jobs. The 10,000, not all of them are replaceable, but a certain percentage of them are more replaceable than a Steve Jobs. It's supply and demand, right? So the people who actually assemble the iPhone in China are probably easily replaceable. The engineers who help them in China are probably not very replaceable, so they own a higher wage. And they add less value, right? The guy who actually assembles the iPhone, anybody can do that. To you doing it as an individual, you're adding the least amount of value. The guy who added the most value to the entire supply chain, including all the people at Apple who worked on the design and Ives and all these guys, the guy who added the most value was Steve Jobs, and that's why he gets the most, right? And again, it was all voluntary. Again, and I'm putting it inside the slave labor because slave labor is evil and clearly I would be against that. In terms of plastic in the ocean, and I'm going to have a response that you're going to laugh at, but it's my response and I believe in it. I mean privatizing, right? The ocean, or the use of the ocean in some way or another. In Iceland, they have found ways to privatize, in a sense, the fishing stock. And again, I'm not an expert on this, so I don't have solutions to every problem the world has ever presented. But I do know, surprisingly, but I do know that privatization works. You don't dump your garbage in my backyard. The more backyard you create, the cleaner the environment becomes. So the fact is when the building wall came down, the thing that really shocked people was not so much the poverty, but the filth. The filth. When stuff is socially owned, owned in quotes, it's filthy. Nobody takes care of it. The fact is, and this is true everywhere you go, everywhere in the world, the fact is the private property is generally clean and taken care of because it's mine. Because I care about it, and the legal incentives to do it. If you dump your garbage in my backyard, I sue you. There's a well-known mechanism for dealing with polluting somebody's private property. The more stuff we can privatize, and I don't know exactly how you do it, but the more stuff you can privatize, the more stuff that we care about we will have. I'll give you one quick example. I think it's elephants, but I think it also applies to lions in Africa. The way the elephant stock has been declining for years in Africa because of poachers who go in and kill them. The way they have saved the elephant in Africa is basically by privatizing the elephants. They've created private reserves where they're allowing hunting, but now the private entity has an interest and a motivation and an incentive to stop the poaching because the poaching cuts into their profit. So people can buy licenses to shoot the elephants from the private owner, and now the private owner has an interest in reviving the elephant stock because you need more elephants to shoot. Now, I don't like that in the sense that I find shooting an elephant to be pretty despicable, but the fact is that the more elephants because of this mechanism than they were before, and the same thing happened with fishing in Iceland and I think actually Norway. I think Norway has a very creative privatization kind of model of fishing and fish stock and how to do that, which I can't elaborate because I don't know it. But imagine if we could do that on a larger scale. Imagine if you could do that over the ocean because people have uses for the ocean. It would clean it up. It wouldn't even do it. It's an interesting idea. Could you speak to the other issues of the idea that perhaps the economics is just as coercive in certain circumstances as, you know, a gun and the other concern being, well, I'm sorry, I'll just let you finish. Okay, so I'm not sure what that means exactly because I know that there is this idea that economic power is the same as political power. If I'm the only job provider in a specific job... Yeah, so move. I mean, move. I'm serious, right? So if you're in Southern Ohio, I mean, one of the things I want to complain to have about modern America today is if you're in Southern Ohio and you don't have a steel job, instead of voting for Donald Trump so he can impose tariffs so he can save your job while killing 40 other jobs, how about just get in a car and drive to Northwest Arkansas where there are plenty of jobs, where they wanted listings. That's what we used to do in America. We used to go to where the jobs are. We didn't believe that we were born and going to die with the same job. We didn't believe that our generations were going to... So you move. And again, if you look... Now, I said that pure capitalism has never existed and I in Rand wrote a book called Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal because it's never been actually practiced. But again, the closer you get to that ideal, the more jobs are actually created. People got on rafts and were willing to swim to make it to Hong Kong in order to get a job, in order to start a business, in order to provide for their family something. And GDP per capita in Hong Kong today is higher than in the United States. So you can... And there was no safety net, or there's very minimal safety net and very minimal social services, what we consider as the basics. So all of it very minimal. And yet people went there because they had opportunity and they had that desire. So they wanted to be free. They wanted to be free from coercion. And they wanted those opportunities that freedom actually creates. So economic power and political power are not the same thing. With economic power, there are always options. Always options. With political power, there's no option. There's no option. I don't pay my taxes, I go to jail. I don't follow the regulations, I go to jail. There's a gun. With economic power, there's no gun. And there's a fundamental difference between those two types of... You don't like your employer? You're not getting the right wage? Leave. There are plenty of other employers in the world today. You don't like McDonald's? Go to some health store and buy vegan boogers. I don't know. I mean, the beauty is you've got options and you get to choose. In that sense, it's the most democratic system ever. Because individuals, democratic in the sense of individual choice, individuals choose with their feet, individuals choose with their wallets, individuals have options and they make the wishes expressed in their market activity without coercion. I think this reply is emblematic of a mistake common to the libertarian right, massively overestimating the power of exit to check private power. Most people can't pick up and move to northwest Arkansas. Moreover, we see here a flaw in neoliberal capitalism. Get rid of borders. Get rid of communities. Commodify everything. Move to where the jobs are. Abandon your family. Abandon your friends. Abandon your church. Abandon everything. Everything must be subordinated to profit. That's where this ends. But maybe that sounded pretty good to me, actually. I'm kind of into this private property thing. So maybe what we should do is this. As you were talking about oceans, privatizing oceans, I kind of got interested in that. I'm genuinely curious what you would say to this. Suppose we privatized the entire surface of the earth. And then I'm a big shot awesome entrepreneur. I become fantastically wealthy and through a series of perfectly voluntary transactions, I acquire the whole damn earth. Well, among the rights of private property are the rights to exclude. And I notice there's seven billion other people on my stuff. So I say, this is infringement of my rights. Maybe out of charity I will allow you to continue to exist on the surface of the earth, which I own. But you better, I hope I like you. And it turns out I don't like you. So get off. And then among the rights of private property are the rights to enlist the state to enforce your property rights with force. So it looks to me like I reduct you over the whole position. If his position is true, if I were to voluntarily, through voluntary transactions, acquire the surface of the earth, it follows that justice would enable me to kick all you off into space and die. That to me looks like a reductio ad absurdum of the whole position. Sure. I mean, yeah, you can create science fiction nonsensical examples. It's a counter example. There's no counter example here because there is no possibility and we can walk it through the example of anything like that ever happening. And indeed you've had basically private property in the United States. So most of the United States, at least most of the East Coast of the United States, is privately owned. Has anybody ever approached even close to owning the entire East Coast of the United States? Has anybody even approached owning the entire island of Manhattan as anybody even approached? But if they did, if they did. But they can't. But if they did. No, but metaphysically, but metaphysically they can't. You can't go against nature. But will you admit that if they did, and if I decided... But they wouldn't. You can't... Oh, I don't know. That's not how philosophy works here. That's not how philosophy works. It is how philosophy works. It's how good philosophy works, so it's a bad philosophy. You don't hypothesize something that's metaphysically impossible. Because yes, the metaphysically impossible is impossible. Yes, if that happened, it would be wrong. But it is metaphysically impossible for such a situation to occur. I mean, it's just not an example that actually has any reality to it. I don't believe philosophy is about trams or metaphysically impossible situations about what would happen in a different universe. So I don't think it's a legitimate... I don't think it's a legitimate question. Is there any questions like if one property owner is surrounded by another property owner and how do you access your property? That are somewhat realistic that you can come and you can see situations like that. And they've always been in common law in the theory of property rights. They've always been ideas about access and how you should be able to access your property and exit your property. So the law is always provided within capitalism for the ability to deal with real situations like that. Like the absurd one, but ones that are more realistic. Well, I would just really draw a distinction between things that aren't going to happen and things that could happen, although they're extremely unlikely. And the scenario I sketch is not going to happen, but I don't see the metaphysical impossibility. And I think it's a really telling example because what it forces you to say but you won't say is this. You are willing to protect the rights of private property, let the heavens fall. And that's what libertarianism is about. It's not about freedom. It's about protecting private property, guys. That's what it's about. They dress it up in freedom, and I respect what you've said, but I think this is really the core issue. I know I interrupted you. Libertarianism is an ugly, selfish philosophy. So you can't just present it as such. You've got to dress it up by talk of freedom. Because talk of the rights of private property doesn't really inspire people because that's just protecting rich people. And most people aren't rich. So what libertarians do is they don't talk about private property, they talk about freedom. What the counter example forces libertarians to do is acknowledge that in a scenario where protecting private property legitimately acquired entails literally booting all of humanity except for the private property owner off in the space, they're kind of inclined to protect private property. But he won't quite say that. But that's what follows from the theory. This, to me, is a reductive ad absurdum, not just to buy and rent, but for Robert Nozick and all libertarians who put property rights at the center of the theory. I think property rights are important. I just don't think they're the only thing that's important. So let me just respond to that because it's important. One, yeah, we're selfish. So I'm not going to walk away from that. I believe individuals, primary moral responsibility, the only moral responsibility in life is to their own prosperity and their own well-being and their own survival fundamentally. And that does not mean you live in a desert island. It does not mean you treat other people like shit. It means you respect their rights as well. But I am full rational egoism and an advocate for that. I don't think it's ugly. I think it's beautiful. And I don't put property rights at the center. I don't think property rights are at the center. And this is why I think this is a ridiculous example. At the center is the right to life. There's only one right. Property rights don't exist in a sense. There's only one right, and that is your right to your life. That's it. Your right to your life means you have the freedom to act in this world in any way you please, accumulate whatever property you happen to accumulate. And I think you have to accumulate property in order to survive. But again, property is a derivative of your right to your own life. Your right to this, to you, to being you, to making decisions for yourself, to using your mind as you see fit. Property is a derivative of that right. And let me just clarify because it's important for the video because everybody's left. I'm not a libertarian for whatever the distinction matters. I think libertarianism is too big of a tent. I don't consider myself belonging to this tent because there are people there that I consider. I know many consider me crazy, but I consider crazy. I think anarchism is not a bad idea. It's an evil idea. It's really wrong, and I don't want to be in the same tent as anarchists. So I don't consider myself a libertarian. I consider myself an objectivist for whatever it's worth. And an objectivist place is the right to life as the center. The right to liberty, the right to pursuit of happiness, the right to property, all derivatives of the fundamental right to your life, which means the decisions you make, which means the actions you take in order to achieve your life. And in that sense, I'm an egoist. You have a right to pursue the values you believe rightly or wrongly, it turns out, that you think will promote your life. I don't believe I have a right. I should be able to interfere in your ability to do that, as long as you're not interfering in my ability to live my life. So property is an outcome of that, not the foundation, not the beginning. And here I'm different than a lot of the libertarians who start with property and go from there. I start with life. 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.