 The only way to clean up human environment is to get rich. Rich countries are clean. The human environment today is the best it's ever been in all of human history. That's amazing. On a scale of 1 to 10, one being communist Russia under Stalin, and 10 being Iran's free market society, where do you place Donald Trump? Speaking of oil and land, the environment. This has been something we should be going around for some time now. Greta Thunberg, the environment is going to die. This is where I am concerned, because I'm a big fan of wildlife. I want this earth to prosper. We talk about self-interest. Why do you want the earth to prosper? The air we breathe, the water that we drink. So you want human beings to prosper? Or do you want the earth to prosper? You have to decide. Human beings, our existence is intrinsically tied. Maybe. But who do you care about? Do you care about the earth? The earth? Or do you care about human beings? Both. No, I want you to choose. I only care about what? I don't care about the earth. I care about human beings, and to the extent that human beings need the earth, then I care about the earth. The primary is human beings. The primary is human beings. We have to take care of our own interests. So let's start with that. The primary is human beings. So then we get on to pollution, whether it's in the water, whether it's in the air. How, if we're going to advocate for a free market society, how on earth are we going to protect the environment, to the extent that our lives are beneficial? So you have to start with facts, right? The fact is. Global warming, do you believe in the global warming climate change? Let's say global warming. The fact is that the human environment today is the best it's ever been in all of human history. That's amazing. You literally breathe the cleanest air you've ever breathed. It's cleaner than in the little village in Pakistan where they were burning wood and where the cooking stove inside the house was polluting the air because of the fact that we're burning carbon fuels and we have electricity and we have all these things that make it possible for us to breathe unbelievably good air inside our homes. I have a little thing in my home that actually gives me the quality of the air in my home and it's pretty cool and it's pretty amazing, right? You drink the cleanest water we've ever drunk in all of human history. The water was so bad that they were drinking beer because the water was so bad. Exactly, and the Thames River used to smell so bad. It used to stink, right? But Northern Europeans drink beer because the water was so bad. Chinese, why did they drink tea? Why did they invent tea? It forced them to boil the water. Amazing. To kill the bacteria? Amazing. So we live longer, healthier, easier lives as human beings than ever in all of human history. Fewer people die today of weather events than ever in human history because of industrialization. All of this, the cleanliness we experience today is all a consequence of industrialization. We have what do you call it, Hoover's, you know, the clean our carpets. Yeah, vacuum cleaners. We have robots who do it. I don't know if you've seen the robots. Yeah, I've seen the robots. You don't even have to pull them. It's cool, right? We have amazing technologies, air conditioning, air filters. You can have filtering systems. That's within, like, for example, your office, your house, whatever. Outside, go outside. It was amazing. As compared to London in the 19th century, we had a horse done all over the place. So let's go to India or like China or Bangladesh. Yeah, so poverty stinks. Quite literally. Poverty stinks in every aspect of it. And how do you become rich? By burning, by using the cheapest, most efficient form of energy, like today's carbon fuels, maybe one day we'll be nuclear, but today's carbon fuels. In order to get rich so you can clean up the mess. The only way to clean our environment, the only way to clean human environment, if you care about little worms, if you care about spotted owls, I can't help you. But if you care about human beings, the only way to clean up human environment is to get rich. Rich countries are clean. Not because of the environmentalist movement, but because rich people want to clean environment. They do things that make it clean. Including passing laws prohibiting polluting of those compounds that actually hoods our health. Okay, so this is interesting that you mentioned that. Because the free market would say to the companies, you can basically, there's no regulation, of course the protective of property rights and so forth. But when it comes to polluting, like if a company is releasing all these gases. Yeah. So if the gases are clearly hoodful to your life, and you could show it in a court of law, then you would sue the companies. That costs a lot of money, and that takes a long time. In the process, they could still be guzzling these gases. Okay, but life expectancy is still like what, for your generation, well into your 80s, maybe into your 90s. Well, you know, so you're losing one year. But the fact that there's industrialization has made it possible for you to live in your 80s. Remember, just 150 years ago, your life expectancy was under 40. So saying this whole global climate thing is number one. Well, let's wait for climate. We'll get to climate. Whatever you want to call it. Climate change is global warming, because I know there's a slight difference. No, look, two different issues. There's pollution and there's climate change. Climate change is if somebody is peering out a chemical that hurts me, I sue them, I take it to court, we try it. If I can prove that what they've done is hoodful to me, then they get to pay a big fine. And then the government can pass a law, once it's proved, that says that chemical is bad for human life, we're excluding it. Now take climate change. Now let's make some big assumptions. There really is climate change. And it's human cost. I consider those big assumptions, because I'm not convinced that it's human cost. Climate change is all the time. So the fact that this climate change is indisputable, the fact that it's human cost is, I think, still questionable. But let's assume it's true. The primary question everybody has to ask is, so what? So it gets hot and warmer. So you know what the primary cost for Britain is? Well, you're going to have to invest in air conditioning, because it's going to get hot. And by the way, you should have air conditioning anyway, because it gets hot anyway sometimes in the summer. And it would be much more convenient for human life if you had air conditioning. So this will be an impetus to improve British life by buying air conditioning. OK, so that's a massive oversimplification. Tell me what the damage of Britain getting a little warmer is going to be. I personally don't mind hot summers, but that's a very... What about warmer winters? Right now it's pretty cold outside. I enjoy warmer. I mean, I like to say Canada would become habitable. I don't know if you're joking, though. I'm not. I don't understand how people live in Canada today. It's way too cold for two human existence. OK. Think about all the cultural land that is underneath the ice sheet in Canada that suddenly becomes usable for humans. And it's true. Some people have to move out of the Southwest in the United States, because it's too damn hard and they can't live there. No, migrate to Canada. Why is that such a terrible thing? So... Weather has changed throughout human history. So if I were to give you the analogy, so this whole earth is a house and it's fine, the temperature of the house is slightly more habitable, but there are certain parts of the house that have been so damaged that they are beyond repair. Another reason, I believe, in open immigration, let those people move to the parts of the house that are more habitable. But then surely the house is getting smaller and smaller in terms of the habitat part? There's no science behind that. That's complete BS. There's no science that says that we're going to boil this planet to an extent that the whole planet is going to become inhabitable. That just is untrue. By the way, and if it is true, to the extent that that is true, then people are investing a lot of money without government help in trying to solve the problem. You know, the primary problem, if there is a problem, to see a true mission is nuclear. Something the Greens reject, which to me tells you everything you need to know about this problem. The only solution to the problem, the only viable solution to the problem is something they reject, which means they don't want to solve the problem. So what's the underlying game for them? What's the real... Destruction. Of... Destruction. Of capitalism and human life. Because that's what it means to destroy capitalism. It means to destroy human life. The only reason that 8 billion people are on a planet right now and they can eat is because of capitalism. So it's like a side way to attack capitalism, not through the main way. Absolutely. But it's more than to attack capitalism. It's to attack human life. There are people in the world, it's hard to believe, but there are people in the world who hate for the sake of hatred, who like knocking down stuff, who like destruction. Right? Who want to see death and destruction. And if you're such a person, then your primary tool right now is climate change. This is a great way to destroy the capitalist system. And by the way, who are the biggest victims? Africa. Africa's going to be the biggest victim of the anti-climate change. Why is that? Because Africa could get rich. What would it need to do? What would it need in order to get rich? Cheap energy. But you're taking away the cheap energy. Now you're saying you can't use fossil fuels. That means Africa stays poor. Because you can... There's no way they can afford solar energy. There's no way they can afford wind energy. And the wind and solar energy... It's like a minimum wage on a... Yeah! It's like sitting in a minimum wage at a thousand bucks an hour. You're basically keeping a lot of people poor. Okay. And that's what you're doing to Africa. Now, notice that people like Bill Gates who believe in climate change are pouring billions of their own dollars into developing new technologies. If the environmentalists really believed in climate change and really wanted to help human life, they would be supporting efforts by Bill Gates and other people to promote nuclear. Instead, what is... Take Germany, right? They're shutting down all their nuclear power plants. They're literally shutting down all their nuclear power plants and building windmills and solar panels. Solar panels in Germany. I've never seen a sunny day in Germany. And then what happens is, suddenly their production of electricity is going like this. It's going way down. So what do they do? They import natural gas and coal and they reignite old power plants and their CO2 emissions are going up because they shut down nuclear power. Now, I can understand a green who comes to me and says, look, I really believe this and I want to invest heavily in nuclear power because that's the only viable solution. I respect somebody like that. And I say, you know, maybe I'm willing to consider what you have to say. But if you're coming to me and saying, the only way to solve this problem is to get rid of far-self fuels, you're not serious. You don't really care. You're not pro-human growth in human success in human life. One very last quick question on the environment. You said spotted owl, tigers, lions, elephants, rhinos. These animals are suffering because human beings are expanding. So I'm a realist in the sense I understand the cost of human expansion and human beings living. At the same time... I like lions. I want lions and tigers and rhinos and owls to survive. I can't afford it. Okay, let's get together with a lot of people who like them and buy some. So the solution is private property. Like everything else, the solution is private property. There's an organization in the United States which I respect their work, right? What they do is they raise money and they go buy forests. They buy forests and they understand that they will never use those forests. It's a non-profit that wants to preserve forests the way they are. Fine. Private property. And you know what? The only place in Africa where elephants are not endangered species are where elephants are being privatized. There are certain areas in Kenya where the elephant population is being privatized. You own this property and you know how you make a living of the elephants? You sell hunters' licenses and you let the hunters shoot elephants. But you have a strong, self-interested, eco-friendly environment that allows you to live in the wild. But you have a strong, self-interested, economic capitalist profit-seeking interest not to let the elephants die out. So you only allow X amount of hunting. And you invest in security and protection to keep out poachers. That's what's got the most outrage in social media. And yet, that's the only thing reviving the population of elephants in Africa. Every place in Africa that has privatized their wildlife has actually seen an increase in that wildlife. And everywhere where the state is responsible for the wildlife and banning poaching, the poachers get around it because the state won't invest enough resources. But if it's my elephants, you're not shooting them. I'm going to have enough security around that you won't shoot them. If you want to shoot them, you have to pay me. And then I'm only going to let you shoot one because I have to preserve the species. So the solution to all these animals going extinct is to privatize them because private property is the only consistent form of property. It's the only form of property and it's the only thing consistent with human life and flourishing. To incentivize the protection and its flourish. You know, I am an advocate for private property not because it incentivize the protection of elephants. I'm in charge of private property because it's the only institution that is consistent with human life. It's the only institution that's consistent with human flourishing and human survival. We as human beings need to own the stuff we produce. And when we do so, look at history, good things happen. Okay. And that is applicable to elephants as well. In lions and tigers. We're going to play a little game here. On a scale of 1 to 10, one being communist Russia under Stalin and 10 being Iran's free market society. Where do you place Donald Trump? So 10 is Iran. And one is Stalin. Donald Trump is such an enigma. Four. Four. So, okay. Closer to communism. No. Interesting. Barack Obama. Four. I don't think there's that big of a difference. Clinton, Reagan. Reagan, maybe five. Everybody else four. So who was the closest to Iran and who was the closest to Stalin, American presidents? Closest to Iran would be, I don't know, Grover Cleveland, maybe Coolidge, maybe Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, the founding fathers obviously. And closest to... Well, I mean, you'd have to have a long line of FDR, Johnson and Obama and Trump. They're the most statists. You say Trump also is in that category. Yeah, he's a complete statist. He calls up CEOs and tells them where they can put their factories and where they can. Who they should fire and who they shouldn't fire. I think that's a strong point. He's a complete, you know, central planner. And he believes in it. So he's deregulated a little bit. He's got a little bit of taxes, but government spending is like, it's back to Obama levels. So it's back to the first Obama administration, second Obama administration, spending actually declined as a percent of GDP. Now we're, through the roof, percent of GDP. So no, in many respects, Trump is a complete statist. I mean, the wall, I mean, all of that is, I mean, who built the wall? The Soviets did. They keep their population in. Berlin Wall is gone, yeah. But it's the same thing, right? People have a right to go where they want to go unless they're harming other people. The state has no wall in interfering in human movement unless that movement is a violation of rights. And a Mexican coming to America is not a violation of rights. An American going to Mexico is not a violation of rights. Okay. Building walls is disrupting that movement. And that's wrong. Two last questions from social media. I have a question for Yaron. Does objectivism have a marketing problem? If objectivism is so inspiring, why aren't more people aware of it or inspired by it? And that's by G.S. Singh. I don't think the problem is a marketing problem, although if you have a better marketing solution, I'm open to alternative marketing mechanisms. Because when you say words like selfish, altruism is bad. You shut the minds of people. They're like, okay, this must be evil. Young people who want to change the world, they're revolutionary, they want to love and care. If you say altruism is bad, be selfish, they're like... Love and care is not revolutionary. Love and care is like... everybody loves care. I agree, but I would say that. If you want to be a revolution, come join the real revolutionaries. We're the only real revolutionaries out here. That is true. But I would say that the left or communism socialism has a better... We don't have a marketing problem. What we have is 2,000 years of really, really, really bad philosophy and religion problem. So to overcome Christian, Judaism, Islam, to overcome Marx, Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer, every philosopher and human before that, is going to take a long time. And the reason people... If you'd said selfish to a Greek in ancient Greece, they would say, well, of course, what else is there? Because that was the culture. The culture was even Plato, who's very dictatorial. He does it because he believes an individual should pursue their self-interest. He just says you can't completely do that for yourself because you need a philosopher king to guide you. But the purpose is not to sacrifice your life for the collective or for God. The purpose is still to live for your life. So we went through a dramatic cultural shift with the rise of Christianity. And it's going to take a long time to recover from the damage done by the monotheistic religions, primarily Christianity and Islam. Judaism has never attained enough political power to have a big impact or philosophical power. So it's going to take a long time. And I'm not arguing that we couldn't do a better marketing job. But that's not going to solve the problem. So maybe if I was better at marketing, I'd go from 16,000 subscribers to 100,000 subscribers. But the better marketing is not going to change the world. What needs to change the world is for people to actually be, listen, listen, and engage. And then, well, of course, ego doesn't make sense. I mean, what else is there? Why should I live for you? So this is anybody other than me. I mean, does anybody really love their neighbor more than themselves or like themselves, right? What's the old testament? The new testament tells you, love your neighbor like yourself. I don't love my neighbor like myself. I don't really think I love my neighbor. I like some of my neighbors. I respect their property rights. But I don't love my neighbors. And you don't need to. It demeans the value of love. But I love myself. I love my wife. I love my kids. I don't love my neighbors. He's a heartless man. Just stop loving your neighbors. But you don't. See, I'm the only one who actually says it. Everybody thinks they should love their neighbors. And what does that do? See, this is the trick that Christianian socialists understand. Guilt is unbelievably powerful. Your mother probably understands this. Jewish mothers certainly understand this. Right? If you guilt people, you can really use them. So if you make everybody believe that they should love their neighbors, but they don't. Oh boy. Shame them. Shame them. Exactly. And then you come to them and say, look, you should really love your neighbors. You should really help them out. We know you don't. But you know what? If I raise your taxes a little bit, we'll take your money and we'll help them for you. And you go, oh, good. That way I get my, just my guilt. I get to not love my neighbors all at the same time. Fantastic. And that's what the state does. The state basically uses guilt in order to expand its power. Guilt alleviating mechanism. Yes. I mean, the rich vote for higher taxes all the time. On themselves. I was going to ask. I'm not sure about time. Very quickly. Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet, they are for higher taxes. Because they all feel guilty. And this is the altruism. They know they should care for their fellow man. As much philanthropy as they do, they don't think it's enough. And they don't want to do more philanthropy for a variety of reasons. So it's easy for them to say, the state should curse me into more philanthropy. That's what taxes is. And then I'll feel a little less guilty. Some contracting the morality thing. You guys deal with it. That's what everybody does. That's what the church has taught us. That's the whole idea of sin and Catholicism. So you don't help him just to. Okay. Last question. Last question. I mean, this is the flaw in human beings according to Christianity and according to conventional morality. We're all too selfish. And that's the fundamental flaw. That's really the original sin. Eve wanted knowledge. How dare she want knowledge? Because remember, she didn't eat from some random apple. The apple she ate from was the tree of knowledge. That's what God didn't want her to eat. He didn't want her to have knowledge. He wants you to be ignorant. He wants you to be stupid. So she takes a bite from the tree of knowledge. That is the sin. Now what is that? So basically, and that's self-interested. Knowledge is self-interested. So basically the original sin is yourself-interested. And now you have to spend your life in service of others. In service of others to overcome that. And since you can't overcome it, since you're going to be selfish anyway, then we have to penalize you by taxing you, by regulating you, by controlling you, by doing all these things to you in order to compensate for that original sin, which is how dare you think of yourself. Amazing. Last question. Please do ask Jaron about comparison between secular humanism and objectivism. And why he believes objectivism is the best option for ex-Muslims. Also please ask Jaron if there are any upcoming efforts to translate objectivist literature into languages spoken in Muslim majority countries like Urdu or Arabic. I believe that a lot of ex-Muslims will find their lives enriched by objectivism. That's by Cheryl's. So what's the first one? Secular humanism versus objectivism. Secular humanism was a certain development in the field of ideas as the world transitioned away from the Dark Ages, the Middle Ages, and from the dominance of Christianity and Christian dogma. So secular humanism comes around in the Renaissance as they're discovering Greek ideas, secular ideas, pagan ideas, but really rediscovering philosophy. And they're trying to integrate it and they're trying to figure out what makes sense, but they don't have a solution to the moral question, to what is goodness, what is ethics, what is right, what is just. So basically what they do, and this is what IQ's Marx have been doing, but really everybody does it, they secularize Christianity. They take the basic premise of Christian morality, the basic commandments, the basic ideas of Christianity, and they turn it into something secular. Because that's a dead end. Because the way to crush that is to say somebody says you should live for other people, is to ask them why. And there's no answer, particularly if you don't believe in God, because the Christian answer is because God said so. By the way, if God says you should kill your oldest child, you should do that. You know, the only character who is a holy figure for all three religions is Abraham. And why? Because of his blind obedience. His blind obedience. He says to God, you know, God comes to me and says, kill your son, I go to go to hell. I at least argue with him. I know he's all powerful, so he'll do what he wants, but at least argue with him. Job does it. But no, Abraham says, yes sir, and he goes, and you know, God stops him in the last minute. And then we get the sacrificial lamb, which is the whole right. So it's all about sacrifice. It's all about self-sacrifice, sacrificing your most important value. Religion is authoritarianism, and then people say, why? Why should I do that? And there's no answer. It's funny because a lot of religious people say that atheists just hedonists, they only care about pleasure. Some atheists are. But this is the difference between general atheism and objectivism. Objectivism has an objectively proven, objectively derived from reality, code of morality, that if you don't live by, God won't strike you down, but reality will. You'll get what you deserve. The hedonists don't have fun. They have fun in the short run, and they suffer in the long run. If there was a line of cocaine here, yeah, I'd get high, but I'd suffer long term. So the objectivism is a morality to have fun, to have a good life, to ultimately achieve happiness over the long run, and it's a set of principles that leads to that. So yeah, atheists need a source of morality. And since they've rejected God as a source of morality, which was never really there, because there is no God, the only other source of morality has to be reality. So you have to figure out from reality, from human experience, from knowledge of history, from knowledge of human psychology, what are the things that will lead to a good life. Okay. So I believe in a sense that Einwand is the culmination of secular humanism. In that sense, Einwand is the ultimate secular humanist. She's all about the human being. She's secular. And she is the first thinker in a long line starting in the Renaissance to actually solve all the philosophical problems that existed. I'm not saying everything she said is true, or everything she said will be true forever. I don't know of any things that are wrong in it, but they might be. The point is that she is in a line of thinkers that start in the Greeks, go to the Renaissance, continue through the Enlightenment, then there's an anti-Enlightenment, and then she is the resurrection of that Enlightenment. In that sense, she is the culmination of the Enlightenment, the culmination of secular humanists. It means nothing to me to be a secular humanist today if you have Einwand. Einwand is so much better, so much fuller, so much more complete, so much more interesting, so much more logical and rational that it's a cop-out to be a secular humanist and not be an objectist. And the last part of that question was are you translating any of your works into Urdu, Arabic, Farsi so for the Muslim world? So we don't translate any of Einwand's works. People in particular countries do the translations of the works, and then they get them published in those works. So we would definitely support anybody who's interested in translating Einwand into Farsi or Arabic. Some of Einwand's essays are translated into Arabic, but they were translated in Israel into Arabic, right? And I do think that people, I know I have followers in Saudi Arabia and I have followers in Kuwait and in all of them at least in Arab countries. But imagine if one of the wanted to translate Einwand into Arabic and get it published there. Now maybe in a country like Tunisia that seems to be heading in the right direction is becoming more secular and maybe they could do it there. Maybe in Egypt. Maybe in India because India you wouldn't translate. In most Indian languages most Indian languages are already translated. So Farsi and Arabic are the two languages that it's not and I hope somebody does it. I think it'll be a project, somebody will do it. I think it's just a matter of time and I will definitely support it and I think it's a good idea. Most translations are pretty bad so it can't replace learning English and but it's better, it's part of that marketing effort. Very last thought. This is the very last question, very last thought. Sorry, I've taken so much of your time, I've really enjoyed it. When you look at the Middle East and you look at the Muslim world where do you see the future next 50 years, 100 years is it going to get worse or better or is it more the same? I think it's really hard to judge. I think generally it's going to be more of the same potentially getting worse. I think there might be some specific spots where it gets better. I hear good things about Tunisia but who knows. I really think that the long-term future of the Middle East is much more likely to be dominated by the Islamists, the radicals, the Nubians by the secularists but you never know. People are free will. People are constantly discovering new ideas. You're seeing what's going on in Lebanon right now with people in the streets and really taking their lives risking their lives to stand up to among others in advocating for really more freedom. That's what the Lebanese want. They want less corruption and more freedom. They're not quite ready to challenge religious authority but they're certainly moving in that direction. It's better I think than the general Arab Spring. Arab Spring was the problem with the Arab Spring was it wasn't a movement for anything. It was against the existing regimes. But it wasn't a secular movement. It was the brotherhood. It was a hodgepodge of everything. And of course the most consistent elements of the ones who win. So the Arab Spring was won by the brotherhood and so did the Egyptian military. They got rid of them ultimately. I find it difficult to be optimistic about any place in the world right now. But that's just a reality. I mean I look at the United States it's moving towards statism and authoritarianism. I live in Europe it's a complete mess. I mean UK might be in better shape than most generally. We haven't spoken about Brexit which is not a bad thing because I'm sick and tired of that. So I think the UK is generally in better situation than most countries. I think you have a better educational system. You know the British no more than most countries. And you've got a certain element of civilization here that is better. But you know China's moving in the wrong direction right now. For years I was very optimistic about China. And over the last five years I've shifted to the Muslims like the Muslims. Especially what they're doing to the weaker Hong Kong and the Hong Kong. But also what they're doing to the Muslims in western China. But more than that the fact that this president is an authoritarian in a way that his political powers increased not decreased. The previous presidents would decrease in political power he's increased it. You know the whole social credit system all these things. But you look at South Korea's gone left with more socialist policies. The whole world is moving away from what I think is the pinnacle political achievement in human history. And that is the founding of America. The Declaration of the Madison Constitution are two most important political documents in human history. And the world including America moving away from those documents. I cannot be optimistic right now. But any place in the world and I think the Middle East is the most in terms of where it is today and probably where it's heading. And one of the problems is and I'll end with this is that the world needs a beacon. It needs hope. It needs somebody to emulate and somebody to strive to be. And America was always that. And Barack Obama and Donald Trump have done more than any other two presidents in American history to do away with that. Both of them don't believe in American exceptionalism. And America is just another country that nobody should emulate us. Donald Trump would be that kind of guy. When Donald Trump was asked about Putin's killing of journalists, Donald Trump says yeah, we kill people too. What's the big deal? I mean literally said they could find it on YouTube. Donald Trump is not an American exceptionalism. Donald Trump is an American first because they happen to be these borders and he happens to be an American. So America is more important but he doesn't know what America is. America is somebody to emulate. What the Middle East needs is to look up to something to strive towards. And as America is in decline I think that goes away and it's sad. You're seeing already people wanting to emulate China and that is very scary and very dangerous. Very dangerous. So to try to end on a positive please. And the positive is that for the first time certainly since ancient Greece we have available to us and really available to all of us a pro-life pro-human flourishing pro-individual happiness philosophy. We have a set of ideas that can free us from history, can free us from the constrained place class by religion. All the new atheists were all Christian in their morality. They challenged their epistemology and their metaphysics and they refused to challenge their morality. Here's a woman who comes about and yeah, the atheism stuff is easy. The morality stuff is hard. And we have now a philosophical system that turns the world upside down. That really, that kind of completes what the founding fathers of America did. It provides a philosophical foundation for freedom. It provides a philosophical foundation for capitalism. Philosophical foundation for liberty. I mean the world will be a much better place. The world will be an amazing place if more people embrace this philosophy. It will change your life and you'll discover a whole new world and a whole new potential for human beings that I think has been suppressed constantly by the status, by the Marxist, by the conservatives, by everybody. There is a possibility of human flourishing that is unimaginable to us if we embrace the right ideas. Yaron Brook, it's been an absolute pleasure. I really enjoyed it. Please subscribe to your channel. Good interview. I enjoyed it. It's been an absolute pleasure. Are you touring elsewhere as well? I'm doing 7 countries in 7 days starting tomorrow. Wow, that's amazing. So lots of talks in the next week. Fantastic. It's been a pleasure once again. And I hope to see you soon. Guys, thank you for watching. I hope you enjoyed this. And if you liked this, please subscribe and like. I'll see you guys next time. Thank you.