 Yes. Well, first of all, thank you for coming here, very interesting. So, when I think of the philosophy of Anne Rand and what the speakers have said today, I can't but think about the parallels with Marxism and communism, because both say people, if they act morally, will make decisions that will benefit themselves and others. So, Anne Rand says if everybody is moral, then this free economy will not only bring benefits to the person creating the business, but also, I'm assuming, to everyone else. Marx also says the greatest miracle in the modern world is the factory, greater than the pyramid itself, and he comes to a different conclusion, and we're all moral, we all work for the common good, and the working class, who actually provides the labor, will benefit. So my question to you is, we right now, in some economies, have freedom from regulations. I know you want more, I just, I'll be honest, I wouldn't want less. And we see, for example, child labor. Until very recently, child labor was common. Right now in the United States, which I think you're from, there's a good trained realm meant for lack of regulations in people in a town are suffering, pollution, which if a factory owner is allowed to do what they want, they might do more. Now, you can argue they don't have the morality that Anne Rand is talking about, by making decisions that are in the best interest of everyone, but it seems like you're advocating to remove regulation, where this morality doesn't exist, and the result is death. There's a lot in poverty, and people are very discontent with the current state of capitalism right now, because it is hard to afford things, and the freedom that they have is just the freedom to consume, and choose between various tastes of ice cream or makeup. So I find that to be kind of the conflict here, because our capitalist system causes people to beg in the streets, and the young man who said, oh, I want to help this person, but that is the reality of what we see, and we've also seen the United States with homeless encampments. Sure. All right, there's a lot there. So let me try to unpack this a little bit. One, yes, there is a similarity between Marxism and Anne Rand, in the sense that both systems are based on morality. I think every system in the world is based on some moral code, some ethics. That's true of Marxism, that's true of every single idea. But some moralities are true, and some moralities are false. Some moralities actually promote human life, and some moralities destroy human life. The morality that Anne Rand bases her ideas on is a very different morality than Marx's basis his ideas on, and I will take Anne Rand any day over Marx, and pretty much over anybody else, for a couple of reasons. One, Marx's morality rejects the individual, denies the individual, denies the individual any sovereignty. You don't have a say in your own life. Ultimately, the Poletarian decides for you what you do. The Poletarian indeed decides for you what is truth. There is the dictatorship of the Poletarian in which you don't get to make decisions for yourself. That's, you know, and secondly, again, why should I sacrifice other people? Why not live for yourself? There is no ultimate answer to that question. Let me get to the child. I haven't finished, believe me, we'll get to the child. So, to begin with, I don't expect anybody to sacrifice for me, and I will not sacrifice for anybody else. That is a moral code that results in freedom, in a capitalist version. So, morality always leads to a certain political system. You cannot have a political system with no morality. Every political system assumes something about a moral code. And I'm arguing that the moral code of Marxism, the moral code of Statism, the moral code that exists today in America, and the moral code that exists today in Colombia are all wrong, because they're not iron-ran. And, consequently, we have political systems that are horrible, that are bad, that are wrong, that iron-ran rejects and I reject. Which brings me to the question about, but what about America? Well, first, put aside the morality of America. We don't have capitalism in America. People like to call anything they don't like capitalism, but the reality is, what does capitalism actually mean? Capitalism means a separation of state from economics. Capitalism means a system where the state doesn't regulate some, the state doesn't regulate at all. Not capitalism means private property, the rule of law, the protection of contracts, and no regulations. No intervention by the government. If you allow intervention, then it's a mixed economy. Some socialism, some capitalism. In capitalism, there's no welfare state. In capitalism, there's no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and a million other government programs that are there to facilitate. And I know the common definition, dictionary definition of capitalism is, describes everything in the world today. But that's not the capitalism I ran talks about, it's not the capitalism I talk about. The system in the United States today is rotten. It's better than a lot of other places, but it's rotten. But let me just make this comparison with Marx, because you brought Marxism in. The closer we get to Marx, the more people die. Not just kids working, we'll get to kids working in a minute, but literally kids dying by the tens of millions. That's the Soviet Union, that's China. Indeed, every country in the world that is socialized farming, that is socialized food production, suffers from famines and death and destruction. Just look at Venezuela right now. Socialism kills, and it kills in large numbers. Now, socialists always say, well, we've never tried it fully, we've never gotten it right. But the closer you get to it, the more death and destruction there is. Capitalism, on the other hand, the closer we get, we've never really achieved it. But the closer we get, the more wealth, the longer life, the more successful people are. And indeed, the fewer people die of starvation, the fewer poor people they are. And I even will argue the fewer children work. But let's talk a little bit about child labor, one of my favorite topics. What did children do before capitalism? What did children do 500 years ago? They worked. They played, children played. The children didn't play, they worked on the farm. And parents would have 10, 12 children. Why did we have so many children back then? One, because they needed to work. But B, what was the other reason we had so many children back then? They died. Half of them didn't make the age of 10. 50% of children didn't make the age of 10. 50% of children said if you would survive, they would be cheap labor on your farm. Children have always worked. When did children stop working? Only one period in all of human history. In that 100,000 years of human history, children stopped working only once. You're going to answer the question? That's bullshit. So let me answer the question because that is complete mythology. No, let me finish. I haven't answered. That's complete nonsense. Every single country, if you look at the countries in the world, when they reach a sudden GDP per capita, and when children are no longer working in factories, governments pass laws to exclude children. This happened in England. It happened in the United States. It's happening right now in Indonesia and Malaysia and Asia. When parents can afford to keep the kids from work, if they can afford to send them to school, then they pull them out of the workplace, they send them to school, and the government then takes the credit for it after the fact by passing a law. Check your history. You can see this in every single country. It's always at the same GDP per capita. Always at the same place. There's a little book just about child labor and sweatshops from Texas Tech University. I'll think of his name in a minute. But that documents empirically the exact relationship between child labor and when the laws pass and what happens. The reality is the children have always worked. They stopped working when capitalism makes them so productive that they now make enough money to be able to feed their children without the child working. Because what happens if today you shut down sweatshops in poor countries? What happens to those kids? What's the alternative instead of working? What's the alternative for them? There is no schools. The governments don't have enough money to pay for the schools. There are no schools in these places. So what would they do? Nationalization. Yeah, that's a route to poverty. Very, very fast and speedy route to poverty. You see how the mythologies survive? It is fascinating to see how in spite of all the empirical evidence, in spite of all the history of the last 150 years, in spite of the fact that socialism and nationalization have been disastrous every single time they've been tried, every single time they've been tried, we still latch onto them. Because we don't have the self-esteem and the confidence to believe we can live for ourselves. We don't have the self-esteem and confidence to believe that maybe you believe that you can live for yourself. But oh no, those other idiots out there, they can't survive if the state doesn't help them. God forbid, we leave them alone to live for themselves. You know much better how other people should live than they know about their own life. So you want to dictate their life for them. But every single example of state nationalization of industries has failed empirically. Just ask François Mitterrand, who was the socialist president of France in the 1980s, and who nationalized the entire banking system. And four years later, I had to reprivatize them because it was such a disaster. Ask the kibbutzim in Israel, who were these beautiful socialized farming communities that seemed to be incredibly successful until it was discovered that they were completely subsidized by the government. And as soon as the subsidies ended, they all failed. And today there are no kibbutzim in Israel. You can go industry after industry after industry when they're nationalized, they fail. They die. They disappear. You want a success? Look what happens when you privatize industries. Then they go through the roof. But the reality is the child labor is what happens when we're poor. As soon as parents get rich enough, we pull our children out of labor and the alternative children have is to work or to die. And it's only rich middle-class people from relatively wealthy backgrounds and wealthy countries who sit back on their nice cushy sofas in comfortable countries who think, oh my God, those kids shouldn't work over there. Really, you know, my kids don't work so their kids didn't work without having any concept of what life is like in these countries and why these kids have to work in order to survive. I'm sure there are parts of the question I didn't answer, but yes. So if you'd like to see the Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.