 All right, let me introduce Yaron Brooke. He is the host of the Yaron Brooke show. He's an author of a number of books He is also chairman of the iron ran institutes board of directors. You're on Brooke. Welcome. Thanks for joining us. Thanks Elon This is exciting. This is this is great. It's great to see so many people online It's great to see so many people from so many different countries. So Welcome everybody and and thanks. Thanks for being here. All right. So today what I want to do is talk about the implication of this radical view in ethics in politics, which is the study of How we how we build societies when we all come together when we interact with one another Ethics is primarily about how we live our lives about ourselves and ethics applies Certainly it applies in every circumstances. It applies In your day-to-day life. It applies in every decision you make it applies on a desert island and it applies when you're interacting with other human beings politics is The application of that ethics the application of an ethics to how we interact in a social context So let me let me start by by by doing it this way, you know a lot of people Uh, I think intrigued and confused and bewildered By the popularity these days of socialism Um, you know, bony sand is even though he's not doing as well as some expected is Is a self-avowed socialist and is doing quite well AOC you've got lots of politicians out there We're advocating socialism and generally among young people not just Thanks for reminding me to take that off. Uh, although when q&a starts I'll have to put it back on It's not just in politics, you know, we have uh academics at universities with social student clubs. We have a vast You know somewhat bewildering popularity of a political ideology That every way and to the extent that it is tried has failed And and I'm not gonna I'm not gonna give you another history of socialism I'm just gonna assume that you understand that it's failed that it is a unsuccessful political ideology Wherever and whenever and to the extent that it is tried it to that extent fails And yet and it's incredibly popular and it's not even that the people Who advocate for this idea say Deny that it is failed What they typically say is But but next time we we we can actually do it better We can do it right next time And and it's it's bewildering to most of us because Well, wait a minute. You've tried it a hundred times. You've tried it a thousand times You've tried it in so many different various so many different places and it fails Why Why does this idea still have Such a strong appeal on people primarily the young And I think if you don't understand the relationship between ethics and politics This is truly bewildering and this is truly a mystery and this is hard to understand But let's think for a moment about the ethic that is dominant in our culture And on car and ilan have talked about this. I think that's dominant in the culture Is an ethics of other ism. It's an ethic of altruism. It's an ethic of that says that the purpose in life The ethical purpose in life Is other people that virtue nobility morality being a good person entails being selfless entails Sacrificing And sacrificing being the idea of giving up a value for and getting Nothing or something less valuable in return. So being worse off. That's what a sacrifice is. It means being worse off Otherwise, it wouldn't be a sacrifice. It would be more like an investment If you're going to be better off in the future because of what you do now That's not a sacrifice The whole idea of a sacrifice is that you are worse off that you're taking a step backwards and backwards from what? Backwards from life backwards from your values So we live in a world In which the popular common ideology Is that of sacrifice that of self-less ness? And particularly among the young who tend to be idealistic about their morality tend to want to apply their morality more consistently tend to believe That they can build a world Based on their morality. So they tend to be idealistic Well, they want to take this morality of altruism of caring for others a placing the well being of others above their own well being A morality of self-lessness. They want to take that and manifest it politically They want to manifest it in how we relate to one another because the morality is all about how we relate to one another and of course The political ideology most consistent with such a morality Is socialism? I mean what a socialism advocates? It advocates sacrificing those who have for those who haven't well that makes sense We should be focused on a well being of others and and who Who needs to be focused on the most well those who have the least those who are the most needy And sacrifices noble sacrifices good. So it's okay to sacrifice some Particularly people who are so-called privileged. I hate that word For the sake of those who do not have anything So sacrifice is built into socialism and sacrifice is a moral noble beautiful thing. So how could we be against it? socialism is about the good of society the public good the good of Everybody not you not specifically any individual but some amorphous group some undefined entity called the public well That's great. That's that's non selfish. That's non self-interested. That's Self-less. That's them I can focus on them. That's good. And again if I have to sacrifice for that If I have to pay higher taxes or not be able to pursue my values and I'll be able to pursue my profession Or not be able to do what I really want to do with my life That's okay because this is what virtue requires. This is what morality demands and of course altruism Because it emphasizes the idea of selflessness It undermines the idea of an uncle talked about this of self-esteem of self-confidence of of of the efficacy of your own mind then Who knows what's good? For the group for the other for the public I you know, I don't know and why would I trust my mind and that that would be really selfish If I just relied on my own reason to determine what's good for others and that of course leaves one susceptible to the expert the philosopher king that the Elite that the elitist that is going to tell me well, this is the sacrifices we need This is what is good for the common. This is what is good for others. This is how you should sacrifice So to the extent that a culture takes its altruism seriously And particularly to the extent that Young people want to be idealistic and take that morality seriously And to the extent that that culture is altruistic to that extent It'll be socialist I mean indeed. I think the puzzle and the the the thing that should amaze us Is that we're not even more socialist than we are and that I think is As an aside credit to our founding fathers and the spirit they created in america, which is Very anti altruism in spite of this. So there's a battle between A certain spirit of individualism a certain spirit of the pursuit of happiness a certain spirit of self-interest Which is reflected in our business lives, which you've affected it Kind of the self-help attitude that most americans have they want to be better. They want to be happy Clashing With our morality if we just relied on morality We would already be socialists But I represent a completely different moral view and What I want to do now is talk about what kind of Political system that moral view necessitates so that if our spirit if For whatever reason we believe capitalism is good and socialism is bad The only way we can fight in my view for capitalism Is by rejecting altruism and adopting this moral code that I in rand Articulates because it is the only moral code It is the only moral foundation For this system of capitalism and let's let's see why that is and and how that is Well, we've talked about this idea of Of living your life Based on your own reason In pursuit Of your own values in pursuit of the values you de-necessary for your survival for your thriving for your flourishing Ultimately for your happiness It is your judgment your mind Which is your tool for living life. This is foundational to iron rands view of self-interest Reason is a cardinal value Rationality is the integrating Virtue. We just had elan Explain that So to live well to live as a human being But even just to survive We must use our rational faculty. We must use our mind I mean when I have live audiences, I would typically tell you to look around the room and And observe You can't do that right now But maybe maybe there are other people around you where you are and and just observe what a pathetic animal we are physically How Physically from a purely materialistic perspective We couldn't survive. We couldn't have beaten the sabertooth tiger. We couldn't have hunted The bison we couldn't have eaten. We couldn't have survived at the most basic level if we just relied on our physicality From really the beginning of mankind we have needed To rely on our minds As Lenny Peacock puts it reason is our basic means of survival. We cannot survive without using reason We cannot hunt. We cannot build tools. We cannot Agriculture cannot do agriculture all of those were quiet thinking never mind using zoom and video conferencing a a seminar across the world in lifetime with people participating and you know multiple speakers and multiple i mean In conceivable to people even just a few decades ago and now just a relatively trivial thing all of that acquires The use of the human mind So man's life requires thinking man's life requires reasoning it requires An independent mind the ability to observe Facts of reality integrate them and discover knowledge Discover truths But that requires something once we get into a social context once we have other people to deal with Because what can other people do to us? They can actually restrain ability to think restrain ability to be an independent thinker to actually Look out into the world to discover truth articulate truth and then to act on those truths What is an impediment? What is the one thing? It can actually stop us from thinking or at least make thinking so painful So few tell That we lose all motivation to do it. What can other people do to us? To restrict the ability to pursue the one value necessary for our own survival Well, the one thing they can do is they can put a gun to our heads Tell us to obey Tell us to follow orders Tell us to ignore our own thinking Think of Galileo's house arrest What did that do to Galileo's mind? Did he go into that house arrest fully motivated to discover new truths in physics? To publish them and articulate them and teach us all No If he continued to do that he risked being burnt at the stake His books would have been burnt There would have been No way for him to communicate with the rest of us A gun had been placed to his head the equivalent of a gun And not only did it silence his hand in writing or silence his voice But if science is mad he went into that room or that house or whoever was under house arrest and How do you motivate yourself to think new thoughts to discover new truths when You can articulate them And if you do you risk death If you're interested as a young scientist out there in exploring life extension technologies How to allow human beings today to live to be 150 or maybe older There's a lot of interesting fascinating science going on looking at this But the government today says We're not interested in that kind of science. We're not interested in your product We're not interested in your discoveries around that kind of science and Without our approval without our stamp of approval. You can't market him. You can't sell them. You can't bring them to market You can't turn it into a business called regulation the FDA How many people are going to let their minds are going to focus their minds on that issue? How motivated can you be when you know it's a dead end because even if you make a discovery nobody's going to let you actually be able To get it out there into the world to get a product to sell a product and put aside making the money It's more about the ability to change the world Regulations shrink the scope of our thinking Because they are forced because they tell us you cannot go there. You cannot do that So the thing that restricts the human mind that makes human thinking ability to think futile meaningless Is force coercion An authority with a gun an authority with the ability to impose itself on all of us So if you care about your own life if you're truly selfish And importantly because you care about your own life. You care about your own mind You care about your ability to think to independently think often to think differently than other people to To disagree and then To be able to take those thoughts and apply them in reality Whether in business whether in writing a book whether in Who you want as a friend or a lover? You want to use your mind and act on your rational thoughts your rational conclusions If you value that Then you recognize the true enemy your true enemy Is in a social context other people trying to force Other people trying to course you other people trying to impose their views on you I mean they can argue we can debate We can disagree But once you pull out a gun Once you make a fist I am silenced My life is in real jeopardy so for I ran the most important the most important idea that of of social interaction Is that force be excluded and look before before I read library and I think it's important to say That rands individualism rands Selfishness is not about isolation It's not about going living on a desert island or in some forest all by yourself and producing your own food and no Other human beings are massive value to us They produce products that are hugey beneficial to our lives Whether it's works of art whether it's iPhones whether it's books Whether it's food I don't want to have to go out and raise my own food. I like that food comes from the supermarket and the way in which We most benefit from interacting with other human beings Is by letting them live their lives by letting them think for themselves by they need them Use their minds to live the best life for themselves Hopefully producing values necessary for their survival And that some of those values are valuable to me as well and then interacting with them through trade Whether it be material or spiritual through voluntary transactions through voluntary trade That is the appropriate way for human beings to live in a civilized society That is the only way we can maximize the benefits of living in such a society And it is the only way A truly selfish human being wants to live a desert island Is a huge sacrifice So we want to live in society But we understand that the one thing we need to eliminate from society is force and for that For that purpose We institute government Government is a human institution And the purpose of this institution according to rand Is to be the monopoly over the use of retaliatory force a government That doesn't initiate violence never initiates force does not cause does not serve as an authority Other than it only uses force It only is coercive as an act of self-defense to protect my freedom Now we have a concept And it's a concept that you know, it comes out of the enlightenment comes out of enlightenment philosophy But I think iron rand sharpens its definition We have a concept to capture this idea that in a civilized society and in a civilized society force coercion authority Should be eliminated should be extracted that concept is the concept of individual rights Now rights are moral idea There ain't no idea about how an individual should live his life They basically say the way an individual should live his life Is in pursuit of his own values using his own mind And the only way to do that is if he's free rights to quote iron rand Right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context basically says And and rand points out that there's only really one right, which is the right to life The right to take the actions necessary for you to live your life using your mind free of coercion free of force free of authority so in that sense rights Are moral sanction of a positive You know people talk about negative rights positive rights, which I think confuses at all It's the idea To quote rand that you are free to act on your own judgment for your own goals by your own voluntary uncourse choices And the role of government The only role of government according to rand Is to protect that freedom to protect your rights So notice that rand doesn't come At government from the perspective of what's good for society. What's good for the public. What's good for that common She starts with the individual She starts what's necessary for the individual for his own survival for his own thriving for his own flourishing She starts with happiness In a sense with man's pursuit of happiness and ask the question What kind of social structure? What kind of government? What kind of political system? Do we need to facilitate this pursuit of happiness to make it possible for individuals to pursue that? Not to guarantee happiness Not to guarantee the most happiness for the most people but to guarantee you the freedom to pursue your happiness And that Is the system of individual rights That is capitalism capitalism, which is a political social economic system In which the role of government is limited to the protection of individual rights Primarily property rights, but individual rights broadly Where the government has no involvement in the economy Where there is a true separation of economics and politics So it's not a question, you know, we've got a million questions right now What should the fed do about the you know the economy and should raise interest rates a low interest rate? In a true capitalist society, there is no fed there is no central planner to make these kind of calls to make these kind of decisions The only role of government Is to protect you from people trying to steal from you Trying to defraud you the only role of government Is to protect you To protect your property So Capitalism is not what we have today. I think this is important to know because people are so confused We don't have capitalism today What we have today is a mixed economy with some elements of freedom. We're still free in certain realms in certain parts of our lives somewhat ever shrinking amount of freedom And a lot of government intervention A lot of what you might call socialism or just statism The state is involved in regulating almost every aspect of our business lives Many aspects of our personal lives What we have today and the world out there that is constantly being evaluated Is not capitalism the problems that occur out in the world right now are not problems of capitalism They can't be because it's not a capitalist world It's a statist world It's not quite a communist world It's not quite even a fully socialist world But it is a world dominated by statism dominated by government intervention where individual freedom with the ability of the individual to flourish with the ability of the individual to make decisions for himself to think for himself and to act for himself are limited and restricted so If we care about capitalism, which I think a lot of people come to Iran Not everybody, but a lot of people come to Iran because they share This idea of political freedom Particularly in the united states. Maybe they admire the founding fathers. Maybe they have a huge respect For american history and achievement That has been america because of those elements of freedom that have existed in american society This freedom cannot be sustained this capitalism Cannot whatever elements of capitalism still remain in america Cannot last under the assault of altruism And we cannot move Towards greater freedom towards true capitalism towards a truly free world Without rejecting completely rejecting the morality of altruism And replacing it with something positive because it's not enough just to be against something One has to be for something And as I said at the beginning The only moral code consistent with freedom consistent With capitalism consistent with the idea that each individual has an inalibible weight To pursue the values necessary for his own life using his own mind The only morality consistent with that Is objectivism It's the idea Of rational self-interest the idea Of selfishness the virtue of selfishness freedom depends on our embracing An alternative moral ideal I'm all ideal that is about freedom. It wouldn't be a beautiful thing if people people embraced A true moral ideal of freedom And advocated for and fought for and what passionate about their own individual freedom And the social system capitalism that makes such freedom possible All right, so I'm gonna I'm gonna end there we could go on for quite a bit But I know there are a lot of questions. So I'm gonna Allow us to move into a into the question period I don't know. How do how do we do this Elon? How do we do the questions? Hey, you're on so on card is going to join for this q&a. We have a spreadsheet. We're gonna Pick from we have lots of questions. You're right. I'm glad you were allowed the space for it On card. Do you want to pick some out? Sure. Yeah, I can do that Oh, you have the spreadsheet. I don't see it. Okay Yeah, so let's take One from the Philly attendees who we had to cancel on so And this is it's it's about thinking about your life in a society in a culture so the question is how do you adjust your expectations on what's possible to you? Based on The the culture you're in or changes the trends in the culture Without becoming a victim To that sort of you're just succumbing to what's happening in the culture Yeah, I mean, that's a great question and it's it's it's it combines both I think it's a lot a lot of it is kind of a psychological a psychological issue I think you have to be objective About what is possible. You have to look at the reality as it is look at facts And don't let yourself become overwhelmed by the negativity Look at the opportunities and the positivity. I mean in spite of how bad things are and they are bad um One You know approach you could take is thinking about the fact that this you still have more opportunities today than you've had With a few exceptions here and there over history in all of human history a hundred thousand years There's been a few moments in history. Maybe the late 19th century. Maybe Uh parts of the 20th century where you've had more opportunities that today but It's still Relatively speaking amazingly feed. Don't let the fact that you know What the potential is Cause you to be so depressed that you can't take advantage of the opportunities as they exist today Now there's certain professions in which this is much harder than other professions and and and that's just a reality That you have to accept and it's part of Part of you know approaching career choice objectively. It's part of approaching How are you going to pursue your values objectively? I don't know if you're If you're an artist that is probably harder today than it was certainly a hundred years ago, uh to pursue your art because the cultural The culture is so corrupt in terms of the art that it likes If you're entrepreneur in certain fields, I mentioned life extension There are lots of other fields, uh, and I'd say here particularly if you're poor I think the state Has limited your possibilities the opportunities even more than if you You know, if you're starting out in a different decent position with with decent opportunities But What choice do you have other? Then to be as ambitious as you can within the context of what is possible to you And at the same time fight to increase your freedom So I'd say those are the two things I would focus on one I'm gonna find my passion. I'm gonna Be as ambitious as I will ever do. I know it's going to be harder. I know it's a greater challenge But what option is it? And make the most of what What is available to me? And then at the same time fight for the kind of world I believe in I I don't think you can do it without the fighting You need the you need to kind of fight for the world just for you. I think for your Sanity you need to be able to to to express yourself to and to to project the image of the kind of world you would like to see Replace the world we live in You want to add Bianca? Um, I just say one it's easy to think of the culture as monolithic So you are putting in its different industries, but there's also different countries And you have to be willing to move and relocate like so life extension. It's not the same regulations everywhere So you might have to set up a company and move if that's really what your passion is I mean, we're both we've left the countries. We were born in and and if people want to understand why Uncle and I and you probably know this more about me than uncle are so passionate About immigration and about having As fierce immigration as we can it's exactly this point um To deny an ambitious young person The ability to move to a place where they can live their life can actually Pursue their values in a world where you can't do it fully anywhere but to to to deny them the ability to to go from a Hellhole to a place with relative freedom that is such an evil in my view that You know, it's it's what motivates me to be so passionate about immigration and somebody who did it Uh and didn't move from hell hole move for pretty on card did as well for a pretty good place that even better place I only imagine what it's like if you live in a hellhole to to suddenly pull up walls to prevent you from moving so um anybody who values the the human potential values the human mind values um the ability of human beings you've got to be Pro immigration the details we can get to in mixed economy and all of that but the essential characteristic of being pro immigration I don't think is negotiable So we have another one from philly, but I'll we'll get to it But uh, I want to bring in another question that's related It's sort of a different angle on the same thing But it also relates maybe not obviously but it relates to the egalitarian issue Um, and it's how it runs And this is now quoting the the the same that her pull yourself up by your own bootstraps mentality Manifest itself on a large scale Well, I'm not exactly sure what it meant by a large scale, but I think part of it it's meant can everybody do it Is this only for some people and then the pull yourself up by your bootstrap if you take that seriously it means I did it alone. Yeah. Well, yeah, so Okay, so those are two issues. So one is can everybody do it That's just basically yes. So they it's true that some people are born Let's say with with real cognitive problems or real physical problems Maybe you can't and they are dependent on others But that is a that is a tiny fraction of the population. It is way less than 1% An overwhelming majority of human beings Can take care of themselves can be ambitious can Live a good life Not all can become uh isic newtons Uh, not everybody can become a steve jobs, but in whatever Whatever the scope of your ability You can be the best that you can be you can Uh exercise your faculty to the maximum you can be an independent thinker in In your life in the pursuit of your values So Yes, everybody can do it and and the point about a large scale the other angle of a large scale is What ran cares about a wound ran is focused on is on individuals On every individual and yes, if you add them all up you get a grand scale, but she doesn't look at and say You know for the public for society She looks at it can an individual Determine their own life can an individual Choose their own values shape their own values and pursue them and achieve them And yes, everybody has that potential, but it requires effort. It requires focus. It requires using your mind And it it's not automatic which is key, right? It it's not and this is why when you look around you see oh, but look millions of people don't do this That is true millions of people don't do this. Maybe a majority of people don't do it And but you have to ask the question why is it because the program that way is it inevitable that they're not Are they incapable of it and ran's question answers unequivocally? No It's not because the program that way. It's not because they're not capable of it. It's because they chose not to do it for whatever reason It's within their power to choose differently It's within their power to change and it's within their power to engage that faculty of reason in pursuit of their own values So that was the first point. The second point is alone I mean There's a sense in which it's alone And that sense says that you have to engage your mind your reason nobody can do that for you. Nobody can turn it on for you You have to choose to want to think To value and to pursue those values But then from that point is everything that you do alone. It goes back to my desert island thing Well, of course not, you know, you've got parents. You've got teachers. You've got friends You've got people who are trading with you with values a variety of different values And and you know Achieving something doesn't mean you achieved every single element of it you achieve what you achieve You achieve what you contributed to the creation of whatever it is, right? But in a social context you benefit enormously from cooperating with other people trading with other people And and working with other people to achieve your values and whatever values you share with them Yeah, part of the reason I brought it up and put it in that context is this is a common argument today that it's you get the If you if you say you've achieved something or somebody says I've achieved something it's well Someone paid for the roads you drove on to work and someone paid for the school where you were elementary kid and got educated So what do you mean you did it and it's it it equivocates between You did everything and what you did was essentially you And you made choices and you did something and in that sense you did it alone And this so and it's often they'll put it's well Did you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and that means like literally go from zero To you're an adult and you did it all nobody taught you how to read or speak and so on and of course that was manifested Obama's famous speech you you didn't build that, you know and and uh elizabeth warren specializes in it Yeah, so he got it from elizabeth warren she was even before that and the idea is you had great teachers You you drove on road and all of that is true. You did have great teachers, you know and and But that's not what it means to build something It doesn't mean I did every literally I I went out and went to the quarry and Cut up the rock to make the concrete to to build the building. I mean that is absurd um, and of course everyone on the call it a supply chain of everybody's talking about supply chains these days supply chains of the creation of this value Just as demands that everybody in that supply chain gets Uh compensated according to what they contribute to whatever it is that is being created So in a sense every single one of those people built that they built Whatever their portion is in building the thing that is being built and they all get compensated for it So it's not like you exploited them. You didn't exploit your teacher Although I will say if you had a great teacher I say this often if you had a great teacher when you were kid and and you think that and and you Just to finally believe that she had a great a real impact on who you turned out to be and the choices you made on Exposing you at ideas you wouldn't have had then write them a letter, you know And if you rich send them a check, you know express your gratitude and and that's an act of justice That doesn't mean you shouldn't take pride in your own achievements It's just an expression of justice to thank the people who who helped you along the way. There's nothing Nothing wrong about that nothing that diminishes you about other people helping you to the contrary Um, okay. Let's take one more kind of wide issue and then there's questions Unsurprisingly about response to the pandemic and so on. Um, so we'll get to that in a second But what the last kind of wider question which is about thinking If we had capitalism full capitalism or if we're moving in that direction, what would it look like? 50 100 years from now and in particular Would it look like that there would be a massive concentration of power in a few hands? And most people not doing much and sort of useless and you might even think I mean part of the question might be it's Isn't where are we already moving in that direction with the Facebook and google and so on having so much power and so few hands and everybody else is sort of powerless and soon to be useless I'm not like not needed Yeah, and and this is a big issue and and you see it articulated by people on the left people on the right libertarians I mean really throughout throughout the whole political spectrum this idea that robots are going to take our jobs um, the return for Uh, you know monopolies are going to dominate and the return for certain types of skills are going to be massive and the return on all other skills are basically going to be zero and since robots are taking our jobs and then You're going to be in a sense. There's going to be nothing to do um, and and what disney had a movie uh, you know a cartoon movie about that the little robots and everybody's Everybody just sits in a chair and eats and drinks all day because they don't have to do anything because the robots are producing everything and it's um, so this is not a new idea and indeed This idea that technology reduces the amount of jobs And the technology causes a massive concentration of wealth and everybody stays poor and there is an old idea It's an idea that goes back to the 19th century. It's an idea that that uh, at least one part of it the concentration of wealth gets uh thoroughly articulated by calm ox um And he predicts a certain path for human, you know, where all the wealth is concentrated in a few hands He basically makes exactly the same prediction that the the people like thomas piquetti and others are making today um so And of course the luddites and and the anti technologists Starting in the late 18th century were predicting that technology would create these two classes where almost all of us and and the facts the historical facts the empirical historical facts suggest the exact opposite that is that technology creates more jobs and it destroys always everywhere and Just think about the number of people Working in productive jobs today and let's take out a productive subsistence farming because that's not really productive. So subsistence farming is how most of us lived 300 400 years ago. We grew food and we ate it So productive job is where you you produce something and you trade where you're actually creating wealth in a sense You're trading with others because you're creating what economists call the supplies We're creating you you're raising your standard of living over time um technology The number of people today working in such productive jobs is in the billions the entire human population 120 years ago was less than a billion and today working Number of people working productive jobs is in the billions And you get a sense that there's no end to the number of jobs that are going to be out there And there is no end human needs human wants human desires are infinite And unless you're a science fiction writer and a good one at that It's hard to imagine what the jobs of the future are going to be It's hard to imagine what people are actually going to do in the future. I don't know. I mean, I couldn't imagine That literally I can't remember the number but it's it's it's close to a million people something like that Work today in the gaming industry And some people get paid to play games Online. I mean, that's just bizarre to me, right? Because I'm from a different generation Most of you think gaming is just it's always been here. It's just it's just so the kind of industries the kind of jobs the kind of work is You know, it's hard to imagine but every fact that we know about human nature And about the world out this suggests That technology creates more jobs and the fact is the technology Makes possible productivity For the least able So somebody Who can't do math very well Let's say for a cognitive reason not because of Suddenly can use a calculator and then can use a spreadsheet Spreadsheets are not that hard to use and they can do very complicated math without really knowing anything about the underlying math Because the spreadsheet's doing the work for them and suddenly they are a million times more productive than they were before there was a spreadsheet so Technology actually enhances the productivity of the least able Enhances the productivity of those who can't program the computer but can actually use it almost everybody can use a computer So I think it's the exact opposite. I you know, and there's no doubt in my mind and you can again you can you've got we've got tons of empirical evidence That what capitalism does is it raises the standard of living quality of life of everybody now Some people are going to be super rich and how super rich are they going to be in capitalism? Yes, they're going to be people who are super rich how super rich. I don't know And I don't care maybe You know Bill Gates Would be richer than he is under real capitalism. Maybe he wouldn't maybe he'd have more competition Because without regulations, they'd be more competitive and that would drive down his profit margin hard to tell But it doesn't matter the point is that whatever the outcome is It's an outcome based on freedom based on voluntary interaction based on trade So capitalism if we had capitalism a hundred years from now I don't know what it looks like in that kind of detail What I do what I can tell you is that everybody everybody who's living under that system a hundred years from now is Thousands of times better off than they are today in every dimension of their lives That some people are dramatically wealthier than others is absolutely true But if they've lived under capitalism for a hundred years, nobody cares But everybody in that society except those who refuse to use their minds Everybody in that society is better off the the people who refuse to use their minds What I always refer to as the wife beating drunk Is probably worse off, but then why do we care? We certainly shouldn't care about structuring a society around the wife beating drunks War being we should focus it on the war being of those who are willing to use their minds and they A thousands of times better off than Than we are today Okay, let's try to take two questions about The current situation had all I mean I'm condensing but there've been a few more than two questions So condense them into two So one about thinking about markets and one about government so on the markets people are going into stores and there's Nothing on the shelves particularly like hand sanitizer or paper towels toilet paper Do you think it would be worse or better if we had we were closer to a free market? That's one and then in terms of government thinking of a Um of a proper government. What should its powers be? in the in the case of a pandemic So if I'm a lot of plug my show I my plan is to do a whole show tomorrow on what government what what capital what pandemics look like under capitalism so because I think there's a lot to say about that so but broadly here I would say to the second question first Is that the role of government is the same in a pandemic as as it is in everything else the role of government is the protection of individual rights and There is a role here because if I have a a virus or disease that clearly is life threatening or A significant represent a significant health threat towards other people Then the government's job is to prevent me from infecting those other people So I'll give you an example just infuriates me because everybody's so blessed about it There was a guy the other day who flew on a jet blue plane And as he got off the plane, I guess he told the flight attendant. No the other. Hey, I've got coronavirus Now you know proper world that guy would be in jail in five minutes Right, he would be quarantined but more than that he would be I think at a criminal prosecution for endangering other people and potentially if other people got the disease Liable for the cost of treating them and if anybody died liable for manslaughter so Proper government would take those kind of things super seriously, right? It would it would it would it would Once somebody's identified with having the disease it would insist on them being isolated and quarantined And of course because borders do matter one of the things that it would be doing is is in Assessing people entry into the country one of the qualifications would be are you carrying an infectious disease and You know, it's completely legitimate for country to be checking people as they enter the country Of whether they're carrying an infectious disease and if they are either quarantine them or send them back where they came from So it's it's it's that's part of what a government would do So in a true laissez-fait capitalist economy, I think that that is Really all it would do including all that's necessary to make that possible, which is not trivial Now I think in the world in which we live in today Which is not ideal and where the government has all these has all these Is involved in so much of our lives already It can't only do that When 50 60 of the healthcare system is controlled by the government It can't say well, we're gonna let them all could deal with that You know, we're not going to be involved. It has to be much more engaged in the world today Than it would be under a purely capitalist system and that would include things that haven't been done Well today like like, you know facilitating the testing like Making sure there are enough beds hospital beds making sure there are enough hospital supplies and all of that And let me just say about the supermarkets things would be Better much better in a free market For a variety of reasons because I think I think if we were in a free market people would be more rational I think the god, you know the the way the government has dealt with this has encouraged this kind of Behavior, I think that businessmen would have been given Had more expectation We price gouging would have kicked in which would have moderated people Holding stuff. So there were a lot of mechanisms that in a free market would have dealt with this and of course People could have people could have immediately asked people to go paid people to go and over time You can't do that. They're all kind of label us. There's so many ways in which production is restricted today And you can't as an emergency situation just ramp up production as a one-time thing Uh, that in a totally free market, there would be a lot lot fewer shortages than there are today Welcome back everyone. Thanks for joining us at iron ran con live I'm going to be joined in just a moment By my colleagues, you're on brook and on cargate and we're now Going to try to make a dent in the long list of questions that we have in this general q&a panel Let's turn to the question period. We have a lot of questions And I I cut you off you're on about you wanted to add a few thoughts or you you you were talking about I wanted to add anything the previous question. Okay, let's go. Let's do that Yeah, I would say on the on the first aspect of it about government power I think one of the things so I I agree for sure that in when you're dealing with infectious disease That's easy. I mean I'm here. It's easily transmittable That there's a role for government to protect people's rights and so to quarantine isolate But I do think one has to also think about this issue and not downplay it's importance, which is how the government's going to do it and particularly what How the decision-making works to wield this power So part of the separation of powers is to create a system of government where the government's checking itself and the Less there is a that or the more it's decayed The more any kind of power even legitimate power it's wielded It can be wielded in all kinds of bad ways and there's no check So This is like for the war power government should have the power war But if congress completely cedes to the executive branch you decide We were supposed to declare war but now that never happens. It's all all of the powers in the executive branch It can be easily abused And the same to declare a pandemic I think congress should have a role in it and they should be checking each other and disputes The supreme court would resolve so that like you kind of a pandemic that's going to I mean likely last two years and they're wielding this power At least you saw after 9 11 again seizing emergency powers that they never give up and you have to really be sensitive to Yeah, that happens that they take power and never give it up And what are the checks and balances to make that this this power will be wielded objectively not non objectively I just one quick thought about that so that you mentioned the idea of wielding power or so seizing power and then not giving it up I mean, that's an established pattern and one of the things I One of the things I think is really concerning now is that This is the the mechanism by which Government grows in significant ways when people are really afraid and they see government as sort of this savior in It's you know, it happens in wartime But now it's I mean, I think it's this really cause for concern because of people's attitude towards government So the kind of culture that we have And the attitudes people have towards government which is tell us what to do You know, should we wash our hands? Should we wash our hands and it's as if you aren't a responsible adult So it's it's heightened. I think by the context of This situation where there's limited knowledge. There isn't really acknowledgement of what is going on Yeah, I mean notice the lack of outrage for the massive, you know violation of individual rights that's going on right now I mean the state of california Is just taken over taken hotels and motels right to hell with private property We're going to use this to quarantine people and and and you know, you'd think this would be anti the constitution, but Or we're going to just cancel events, right? We're just going to tell you you have to cancel events Why can't I decided to cancel events or the attendees decide not to come to my event? So okay No, the government has to decide no more events beyond a certain All of these things are massive violation of rights confiscation of private property And nobody is outright because it's in the name of emergency and notice all these governors They'll have one case and they're announcing emergency powers in every almost every state in the union What that what are emergency powers? They're the power now to violate rights on a scale that normally they couldn't And and and then nobody will question and nobody is questioned. I mean look at what's happening in idly, which is truly You know stunning, you know, what they've managed to do in idly and compare it for example to a more rational government whether by accidents or You know planned which is the south korean response, which has been much more rational and much less Rights violating and they're in much better situation. The moral is the practical much better situation than idly or the united states or Or any of these other countries See line any next question. Yeah, so shall we to switch a little to What a directly moral issue. So this is from daniel watching on zoom Philadelphia attendee appreciate you coming to the online version. So I'll read this question. You guys take a stab at it How does one integrate one's history of immorality in the past to one's current state of self-esteem? i.e Dealing with guilt and then there's a related question How should we relate to others past immorality in judging their current character? And then there's a third problem. Why don't we take those two elements and I'll see if we can fit in the follow-up um I'll take the well so one Distinction that one has to make at the outset. I think is this There's such a thing as earn guilt and such a thing as unearned guilt and it's particularly relevant When one's thinking about morality and what we were talking what we were talking about for the last three hours if If it's true that the conventional morality is wrong Then it's going to make you feel guilty For all kinds of things that you should not feel guilty for So if it's telling you pursuing your own life and happiness and career and being concerned with your loved ones And not with your enemies if that's evil Then if you're doing that you should feel guilty for it and If you're now starting to question that moral view you can think about your past Like I felt guilty a lot so and you have to think Yeah, but maybe for most of it. I shouldn't have felt guilty and so it's relevant I think you should think about your history and because it's what forms your character So you should think of what's forming my character But you have to be open to the possibility particularly if you're changing your moral views To think okay, I've been evaluating myself as guilty for that But I actually I shouldn't I should think of that as something good About myself and much of Atlas shrug the story revolves around this of people condemning themselves For what in fact on a better morality or let's put it just on what I ran thinks of as a better morality They should think of themselves as not just not guilty but good for what I've done So a lot of the business people beat themselves up for their virtues So that that's one thing that is very important And then on the second if you now still think there's things in your past It's uh that I were wrong and I made bad choices and I should not have done that The you only live in the present and extending it into the future There's nothing you can do about the past But in the present you can make amends for instance of the people you think that you wrong Or that you hurt or if it's just directed towards yourself that it was I was lazy and I didn't put a lot of effort in and I never tried to build a career So you haven't really heard anybody else. You've hurt yourself It's what am I doing now and to the extent it might be hard But am I trying to get into a better path to get a job that I like and not resent Um and try to have more constructive relationships at work instead of trying to sabotage myself and everybody else It's and it's you have to evaluate yourself of what am I doing in the present? But that includes am I making corrections and amending things I've done wrong in the past? And to the extent you can I think you should try to do it Yeah, and I think that that same methodology applies to judging other people although they you you know less about them You know less about the processes in their own mind But if somebody you know has done bad stuff in the past that is objectively bad that is truly bad Then have they recognized that have they apologized for it? Have they done anything? to compensate if there was damages and are they On a proper path so people can redeem themselves not everything is redeemable, but Most things are redeemable. They can redeem themselves, but that requires them To initiate it and to actually engage in activities that shows that it's genuine And that they won't do it again because to the extent let's say they did it to you It is dangerous for you to deal with somebody who does harm to you Unless you are now convinced that they won't do that harm again to you again be selfish. So Uh, you have to you have to have enough evidence That they are on the right path that they understood their mistakes and they will are committed to not doing them again or In order to to be willing to re-engage with them or to forgive them Yeah, and I think that actually covers the third element which I didn't raise but so that was the issue of forgiveness So there's a place for it, but there are certain conditions that have to be met Alon, can we take one question that came up in yours? That I think it would be good to address which was What's the difference between self-interest and rational self-interest? You can start on that Alon if you want. Yeah, I mean, I'll take a quick response to that I mean the the broad category in philosophy is I mean, it's an answer to the question of who is the beneficiary of your action And the ego is a more self-interest means you are the beneficiary of your actions, but that doesn't tell you How you achieve values doesn't tell you how to identify them And it doesn't really give you What iron round theory gives you so so the the addition of saying it's rational self-interest it's identifying that There's a kind of a A principle that you need to follow to to identify your interests and Figure out how to be the beneficiary of your actions. What are actually things in your interest? What will benefit you? And this is in contrast with I mean, there are other theories of egoism and the other theories Some of them will say it's you have to um You know find things that make you feel good and that's what it means to to be Egoist and then there are still other theories that say well, it's automatic We're all essentially throughout psychology. We're all basically egoistic. So the contrast is the way I understand it is Adding the the modifier rational is to point out that it's A matter of choice and that you need to think about how to accomplish your interests So I hope that's a good start for I hope you agree with that Uh, if you want to add anything to this All right, so I wanted to flag a quick question. This came up in your it's a response to your talk on car And I think it's worth just uh two parts to it number one Uh, you referenced a book in your presentation that has a foreword by bill gates So what is the title and who's the author just so people were interested could look up that resource um, the so the author's peter singer who's a professor of philosophy and it's um I always get it's famine affluence and morality, I think But it might be affluence famine and morale But if you search peter singer and famine you'll find it on amazon. Okay, and then part two um This I think has generally just uh, which of rand's essays Would you recommend to get the most in-depth reflection of her moral thinking? Well to get the in-depth it's the lead essay in the virtue of selfishness So that's her nonfiction book that's essays on morality and the lead essay is the objectivist ethics And there she presents The the structure of her ethics and its basic principles And the argument for them, but it's a difficult essay So because what she's doing is presenting her system of ethics how to think about it what's radically new and different In it it's there that she's making the connection that the whole why do we need a morality? Where do values come from so it's dealing with the fundamental foundational issues if you're Want to get your toe wet? there's other things to read so um There's other essays in that book uh That you on particular issues about for instance about moral judgment um Uh, she calls it one of the essays the cult of moral grayness that people say you can't there's no such thing as black and white There's only shades of gray and the and she doesn't think that is true So there's a lot of things you can get to get your toes wet one of one of them is There's a in I think it's in the voice of reason The essay who is the final authority in ethics and this deals now again in a pretty sophisticated way But it deals with the common question. Well, if there is no god Who decides what's right and wrong? Where is the morality come from and and she thinks that this is It the cold question is completely wrong Um, so and that is a lead you'll start to get some of her view But if you want really the in-depth one and want to read one thing it's the objective is death Yeah, and I will just say quickly for those of you who are interested in getting that Obviously, you can find it in the virtue of selfishness, which you can buy everywhere books are sold But on our website on iron rand.org you can find both the objectivist ethics and Um, who is the final authority in ethics, which is a related one and I think as well the cult of moral grayness Um, I'm pretty sure that's online too Okay, so let's turn to some more questions Okay, how about this one from Stephanie on zoom? If this morality of self-sacrifice that we've been talking about today is considered Quote unquote unquestionable How do you suggest the question be raised so that it doesn't get shut down? In other words, so that the rational approach can be communicated Um, yeah, I I can say a few things and then someone else can say some more um so I would say two things one is to Ask the question that iron rand says you should ask Which is why is that the good? um By what standard and where do you get this standard? So if it is it's it's about Sacrifice and giving up Like why why is that what morality is about who decided that who determines that what's the argument for it and um, you will get Responses to that and so the second part of my answer is there's no easy way to this This is the it's the most difficult issue for somebody to question because You don't meet someone leave aside a very young child who doesn't have moral views Part of the moral views is what I put in my presentation that you can't think about moral questions It's about your feelings your emotions So when you say like why and what's the argument that the pushback will be you don't need an argument Don't you feel this and if you say no or if you even just say i'm starting to question this I'm starting to wonder about it. You the response is that's evil um, and From a certain perspective it is evil from there for the the conventional moralities You're not supposed to question this you're not supposed to have doubts. It's the same when you're doubting religion It's one of the main things that comes is You're not supposed to ask questions. Stop asking This is a common thing for young kids when they start asking questions. Stop already Stop thinking about it. It's you're supposed to believe you're supposed to accept Don't you feel it and then if you're asked, well, no, I don't there's something wrong with you um, so to have the Intellectual and moral courage to question this you have to stand outside of it But to stand outside of the good is to be evil And you will be and I mean you can take iron rand as a lightning Why is she a lightning rod of so much criticism? Because she's saying look what everybody thinks is good is evil and the response is that's evil what you're saying If you're questioning what's good, you have to be on the side of evil and that There's no getting around that so there's it's there's things you can do to try to encourage people to ask questions but you have to be sensitive to the fact that the culture for for In this in a sense logical reasons pushes the person to think no, I should not be asking question. That's evil All right, let me throw another question at you guys. This is from uh, someone who is anonymous on zoom Uh, doesn't duty make people follow rules and therefore maintain the social structure So in effect a challenge to some of the views raised Why is maintaining the social structure a value? I mean what social structure You know the the communists followed rules and there was a social structure in communism That entailed tens of millions of people dying. It was a structure It's like people who say oh, we shouldn't do that because it'll increase instability Well, who said stability is a value? What does stability mean in what context? Where is stability in the middle east of value is stability in the midwest of value? I mean These are all thrown out there as if we should all accept them as that Structure is important. Some structures are awful The the structure of the catholic church the structure of communism the structure of fascism and I would argue the structure of a mixed economy and beyond that what is Even if you could argue that somehow Everybody playing their little bits You know reduces violence and our lives are somehow marginally better, which you can't but let's say well, what about their lives? You know, what about the people who are following duty their lives are not better their lives are miserable and and They now you you're basically treating them as cogs in a machine We we want the social stability So we're treating you like a little cog and you have to follow these duties so that the machine can function It's a completely collectivistic Anti-individualistic view of the world And of and it places a value in something that in and of itself independent of what the structure actually is um Is is not a value is is actually can very well be an anti-value which is stability or structure Okay, I've got another question for you On so we've talked a bit about quite a lot about altruism and luke on youtube is asking what I think is a I mean I think it's a tough question. So Can you explain why altruism is bad? Why did it last as a philosophy for so long and You could even amplify that I would say by saying and it's hold on people is so strong. How does that work? I mean, I'll say so part of it The the previous or I guess it's two questions ago now is relevant how hard it is to question this Is really relevant for how it endures um but it's the If you know about the history of the west Christianity had to stamp out the ancient world and particularly stamp it out or take it over intellectually, so it's not true that um Throughout the whole history of the west. It's been saturated with altruism and particularly the ancient greek period Which is the period of the most? astonishing intellectual and cultural progress if you see from one of the greek started Um, I mean about seven eighth century bc to where they end up in a few hundred years It's just it's unbelievable when if you know anything about and it's if you read about the culture and read some primary things Um sources about it whether it's some go to some of the plays It this is not a culture that's saturated in altruism Um, and indeed I think much of what christianity teaches if you've told an ancient greek love your enemy He would think you're great. I mean I really you would think you're crazy Um, and should be checked into a mental institution So it's it comes to dominate, but that's it comes to dominate because the supernatural View of the world comes to dominate and then it's the whole You're subordinate to a whole other realm and a whole other power and when that wanes Altruism waits, so it's true that it in terms of explicit doctrines This is what's preached in morality, but in the wider culture There are forces that push against it and it's the result of the from the renaissance onward But what the renaissance was was rediscovery in the ancient world and finding Oh, no christianity is not the only way to look at the world And the rediscovery of reason gave people self-confidence to think for themselves And to value their own minds in a certain way and once you start to get that People take altruism less seriously and it was on its way out So the fact I brought up in my talk Mill and Kant and I said they're 19th century They're resurrecting altruism, but they're resurrecting it because it's being pushed out and Kant's explicit about this I'm here to save religion and particularly the religious ethics because it's going to lose Um, and unfortunately he saves it, but that's a complicated philosophical issue of why nobody could answer kan And so everybody thought yeah, he's shown that reason has nothing to do with morality and morality is about Commandments from some beyond we don't know what beyond it's called the numinal world but it's like we don't know what it is, but I guess that's where it comes from and so And that but it was saved so it was on its way out. So it's not just it's always there Um, and there's nothing you can do about it. Yeah, and and that the alternative is such an achievement right that that that's Coming up with a model code that is consistent with human nature that actually can answer The challenges of cons and the other philosophers And and can complete what started in the enlightenment Um, it is is not easy and it's it's really really a massive achievement And this is part of the genius of iron man is that they they once had the philosophers who did this They maybe there's some who tried at the edges, but nobody actually Could create a system that actually presented an alternative to altruism an alternative that people could actually live and an alternative that did involve sacrificing others to self for example, but that actually It took self interest seriously to our philosophical perspective and from the perspective of human life So I think it's that combination of the difficulty in giving up religion and and the the The ability of philosophers kind of to secularize these ideas and then just a monumental achievement that is Objectivism And the difficulty in having somebody come up with that monumental achievement now. It's up to us To to put it into place to to saturate the culture with an alternative to altruism All right, I have a number of questions still I would love to get through so let me try to Um, I know it's always hard, but let's try to give slightly shorter answers. So we have more time Uh, I know you always bristle at that. You're on that's okay. Um Okay question from aya on on facebook Um, I'm just going to summarize a portion of it But aren't certain key things like food shelter security a sense of belonging prerequisites for self-esteem And if you if you're lacking in some of these imagine someone who's desperately poor Uh and fundamental resources. How can you actually achieve self-esteem? So isn't there like a precondition of uh that is relevant here No, so all of those things have to be produced. None of those things is just a given none of those things are supplied by reality For us and it's indeed the achievement of those things That is what leads the self-esteem And this is true of a poor kid and a rich kid. It doesn't matter That is let's say you're born rich and yeah, it's all around you but if you don't actually engage your mind and create something and and Gain the certainty that you could build it even if your parent didn't give it to you You could produce the wealth even if you didn't inherit it You could you are going to produce wealth in for yourself Then you're not going to have the self-esteem and and of course a poor kid who doesn't have it by creating By building by educating himself by by getting a job by making a living by putting food on the table They are gaining the self-esteem. So it's true for every human being that they must experience The idea that they are competent to put the food on the table and to put a roof above their head In order for them to gain the self-esteem. It's a prerequisite for everybody no matter what your starting point is Okay, let me i'm going to put together two questions One is from giordo on zoom and the other one is From alec both from zoop. So the two questions are basically I think in response to our presentations Why are we in in this conference equating religion? With irrationality and then sort of the the related question from another person is Of all the religions out there isn't out there some that are more sort of self-oriented more So more rational more life oriented. So you guys want to take those two parts um So the second I think there are interpretations of a religion that can be More or less hostile to human life Uh, I mean, it's just christianity. There's so many sects and within the sects You have to like how do they actually interpret and what do they take seriously of this and what don't they? But I think it's when you're talking about in a modern period All of this it's because of outside forces It's so the reason christianity does not look the way it looked in the middle ages Is you had the renaissance and the enlightenment and you have the rediscovery of all the ancient learning And then you have it going beyond that the discovered modern science galileo newton and it's Yeah, well our text told us the world's created in seven days and the earth said this are we going to stick to this and The the enlightenment's pushing no be rational and some people try to make um Uh a kind of truce. Okay. Yeah, we'll be rational about this kind of stuff But let us still believe that if I eat this cookie That's the body of christ and so on and then it's a well that's stupid So we won't wait and it and it's so they can start to look like it gets better But it's not getting better qua religion. It's getting better because outside forces are neutralizing it really I think that's what happened now that when you go into the Like the early origins of philosophy of religion. It's different because they don't know any better But that's not the modern context where you have so much rational secular null And why do we create a religion with the rationality because religion is based on the negation of rationality In in some scope of life, you know, different different religions different periods of time just as on car said You know that scope of life might be everything So follow the book even if the book says the the sun goes around the earth, right up to You know the catholic church through galile To today we follow the book only in these things right the things that we decided you should follow the book But whatever it is It's the negation of reality and the negation of evidence the negation of your senses negation of Thought whatever it is it it is requiring faith, which is the opposite of reason It's requiring you to submit to authority Over your own thinking mind in whatever scope your particular religion applies it to but religion qua religion is always anti reason and anti reality anti fact