 All right, one more issue in terms of the things that people are saying, hey, this is proof that we need to do it differently, right? This is proof that freedom doesn't work in some capacity. And then I think we'll go to how a capitalist government would deal with this or capitalism would deal with this. And then we'll take a few questions. I might not take all the questions because I really do need a run and go help my wife with stocking up. But, you know, good example of disrupting our values. But so I'm getting a lot of messages in the in the super chat as well and everywhere else. Oh, this is proof that globalization is bad. This is proof that we need to build everything at home because we're short on XYZ fill in the blank of what was short. That's being manufactured in country XYZ primarily China because we like to beat up in China. But but in China or somewhere else, so we're dependent on this dependent on that and we can't produce it at home. Therefore, we must bring our production home so that we can make sure that in emergencies of one in a 80 or 10 year or 15 year time, we will have everything we need to cope with the situation. I mean, that is equivalent to saying in my situation right now in Puerto Rico, why the hell did my ancestors ever leave the subsistence farm? Life would be so much easier if I had a farm out here in the Puerto Rican Hills and I was growing all my food. And I didn't have to rely on the supply chain that the supermarket say engaged in. I wouldn't have to rely on on all these, you know, on on companies that might be shutting down and other things. I could just take care of myself and just just just produce everything that I need. Well, not rely on them. Yeah, but there's also the dimension that so when we're talking about capitalism, I mean capitalism is the system that emerges from the protection of individual rights and that's often lost. People just think capitalism is people doing whatever they they feel like and for money. And so if you look at part of the job under capitalism of a government under which capitalism emerges is to define rights, including things like if other countries are bringing over things like they have practices where they have bats, you know, in their food and stuff, that's the kind of thing our government should have an interest in and should be vigilant about. So often, I think the way we deal in trade, the government isn't always thinking through all the potential rights violations. But I mean, just the productive ability game that you get from being able to deal with seven billion other people around the world versus not. I mean, that is that is so many years to your life in in every dimension. This is kind of a funny example, but you would like it like the show. You can hear me now, right? Yeah, the show Mr. Sunshine that you turned me on to like I heard somebody say, you know, like, oh, why, you know, we only want American shows and stuff. And I'm just thinking how amazing is it that kind of people who embody kind of the best of what America stands for creating things around the world? And you just think, oh, isn't it amazing that we can trade with over seven billion people, including, by the way, we can trade with them to benefit when we do idiotic things ourselves like Green New Deal. I mean, part of the reason of our standard of living is we're trading with China who's smart enough to use lower cost energy more consistently than we are. So I think that you can look for ways in which rights can be better defined. But I mean, it's just it's a you have to think about your productive ability is like a fundamental determinant of your ability to survive and flourish. And trade is essential to that human interaction is essential that for for many people, energy is essential that we see across the board people are just ignoring life requires production. And so your productive ability is the fundamental. And that's why freedom is fundamental to all those values goes back to it also goes back to something you said earlier about the emergency is the dealing with the emergency is the number one value in life. Right. So now we have to shut down trade in order to for when needs an emergency. Yeah. Yeah. So we have to sacrifice years of our lives in normal life years in order to deal with a once in a lifetime kind of situation where there's an emergency. Not to mention that the whole thing is bogus, right? So the fact is that even if we bought back production to the United States, let's say of, I don't know, anything masks, right? There's only so much you could scale production in the United States if all the masks were being made in the United States. But the fact that you can scale them up, you can scale them up much faster in China and you can scale them up much faster in lots of other countries. We could be importing masks from all kinds of countries right now who are really actually scaling up production. It's not just our ability to scale up in one geographic area. You're taking advantage of multiple geographic areas of their ability to scale. The profit motive works on a global scale. Demand for certain products is going to increase during an emergency, which means capital will flow into those industries. Labor will flow into those industries. There'll be a huge increase in supply of those products. Nobody is going to know. Again, if China is an enemy country and he wants to see the United States crushed by the virus and restricts the ability of their companies to sell us stuff. Then, you know, that's a problem. If we believe that then we should treat China as an enemy. That's a whole different policy issue. But in a normal course of events, Chinese companies want to make money. They sell us the stuff on large scales. So the whole idea that AU sacrifice normal life for the emergency is nuts. And secondly, in an emergency, you want supply chains that are robust, that are working well. I mean, one of the first things I would have done if I were president would be lower tariffs to zero as soon as the emergency happened. I would have done that well before this. But one of the best things to do in an emergency is to take out any restraints on trade, any restraints on production, any restraints on people able to voluntarily supply the goods that are necessary in order to deal with the crisis. And just one quick comment is with the normal life, you could think of it from an objectivist perspective, it's the, you know, the interference with the pursuit of values. That is the emergency. Like that's what we regard as this is, that's the worst thing you can do is prevent. I mean, so in any kind of sustained way, you have a weight to that versus, no, the only thing that can happen is some sort of human cause threat. And so all we need to do is we just need to restrict our action infinitely. So that we don't make a mistake that ends up hurting us. Yep. So let's talk about how capitalism would deal with the pandemic, what would happen on the capitalism? And what would happen, you know, with a proper government limited to its role as protecting individual rights that that is. So what, what individual rights, how does individual rights apply to something like a pandemic? Well, I mean, so the major examples I've been thinking of I already mentioned, so I'm curious to see yours because I mean, I mentioned certainly just the broad idea of its its rational individuals using their own judgment. They define what health and health care are, and then they get to control the production and pursuit of it. So that obviously applies to tests. It applies to the scaling of hospitals. I think there's, there's one other interesting dynamic, which maybe you can shed more light on, which is just, there should be a huge amount of profit incentive to help people here. And it seems like in many cases they're being told, oh, just give this away. Like, I want, if my life is at stake or other people's lives are sick, I want to be able to pay a fortune. I want people to be able to have a fortune to cure this. So I'm really interested in other dynamics that you've noticed or thought about. Let me just, let me just say this. So the wall of a government in a pandemic like this is very limited. It's limited to protection of rights. And that means it's limited to restricting the ability. So, so restricting the ability of people who actually are a threat to other people from being mobile. If you carry the virus, if we know you have the virus, you should not be out there flying on planes and doing other things. This is by the way why it's so important to have tests testing. For example, if, if I could test myself before a flight. And, you know, before I left and before every trip, then it would be much safer for me. And it would be much safer for everybody else, because I would know this is okay to fly because I don't have the virus and now it's not okay to fly. I should stay home. You know, there was a case where this guy was on, went on a flight at JetBlue. Now, initially it was reported that as he left the flight, he told the flight attendants, oh, by the way, I've got coronavirus. That turned out that he had been tested before they took off, I guess a couple of days and he got the results while he was in the air. Now you shouldn't have flown anyway, if he was, if he suspected. And let's say you know in a capitalist country somebody like that is on a flight and gets off and says hey, I'm, I'm going to positive. Somebody like that should be arrested. I mean that's criminal, because he's clearly endangering the values of the lives of the people around him. He is acting. You know he knows he has the information he knows he should be arrested and prosecuted that's criminal. Somebody could die on that flight for getting the virus from him. So the government's job is to quarantine those people that we know have the virus, so to make sure they quarantine themselves. But this is with a certain level right of, because it can't be well if you have a cold, then the government gets to say you can't move. And part of it should be, you know, private institutions setting their own. I mean so there's a certain level at which if it was like super contagious Ebola, where the guy dies immediately. It's kind of obvious and then this this seems to be a case where it's warranted but it's, it's not, there has to be some threshold that's, that's national. And this is where it's hard right. So none of these things are easy. And the whole idea that government is limited to protection of individual rights that sounds easy and straightforward. You have to figure out what this violation of individual rights mean in this context is giving somebody a cold of violation of their rights. Not really. I mean it's clearly not a good thing but it's so inevitable it's so you know to restrict people's ability to move if they've got a cold would be so debilitating to civilization that it's just absurd. So where is the limit. That's why we need experts we need real experts in the science. We need real experts in applying science to the question of individual rights. And we need somebody to be able to say yes this is actually an emergence. This is this is a this is a real threat. There really is something here. Ebola is a clear example although Ebola is very hard to transmit from human to Yes, it was that deadly that it's clear cut if it's cold. Clearly it's not an emergency coronavirus probably qualifies but you'd have to have some some some meet they you'd have to have some real argument you couldn't just arbitrarily do it. So the government would have a role in defining this is, hey, yes, this is what this is what qualifies as violating rights, we're letting you know, and they would have to be objective about it and have to communicate about it. So that we would know when what they consider violation of rights. That's what objective law requires. So I have a challenge to that or at least there because I think so I mean one thing is if it's doing that part of it is has to incorporate all the things we've mentioned before so it has to really value normal productive life it can act like we're doing this out of But we're talking about a capitalist government that has the right. I mean it's ultimately based on on values and do you value production and do you value the pursuit of happiness but one thing I've been thinking of is if we actually had protection of rights across the airport, that means there wouldn't be everything wouldn't be this common area that then the government's jurisdiction the plane, the airports, the streets, these would be places where they could set their own private policies and then the burden of proof for a government would be something like something that's so airborne that it cuts across people's property very easily and then you have to adjudicate it so I think if you had more capitalism, these things would be much more resolved. Instead of like the airlines to produce policies and make them clear for the owner of the street to announce or the owner of the restaurant okay you know you're not you're not you're not welcome here if you And you could choose where to go. Yeah, although, of course because because some of these things you can't test and you can't test very quickly. And it's hard to know if you have it or not so. But private individuals would figure out and again, because this is primarily deadly to older people, it would be pretty clear old people shouldn't go out it shouldn't be enforced by the government, but it should just be a clear incentive for them not to go out and they in a sense taking on a risk. If they are going out and it's their responsibility it's their risk that they're taking on. In terms of industry I think I think here, you know you can get the imagination go wild who has an incentive profit incentive to restrict the spread of the virus to make sure that people get get well quickly and efficiently. And to make sure there are enough hospital beds to make sure that that actually all this the entire supply chain associated with the virus functions efficiently and well I mean there's one industry that is really should be vested in this and have a profit incentive around this. And that's the insurance industry. I mean insurance companies would play a huge role in these kind of situations, right. They have an interest in testing, because if you test, then they then you can self isolate and it won't spread and they won't have to pay the hospital bills for lots of people. They have an interest in getting the people are really sick, quickly into a hospital, so that they can be treated as early as possible so they don't deteriorate so they have to do the most expensive stuff, which is kind of the ICU stuff. They have an interest in getting a vaccine quickly. So they have an interest in increasing their own investment in vaccine they have an interest in antivirals, so that we can quickly give get antivirus there's many people as possible and cure them and get them out of hospital which is very expensive for an insurance company. So insurance companies have a massive interest here and I think I think this is true in so many different realms that it's hard to imagine in a free market how important insurance would be more broadly. You know you can think about fires you can think about you can think about safety in the road to as an incentive to have people drive safely well insurance companies because if you don't drive safely they're the ones who actually pay the bills often. There's all kinds of ways in which insurance companies are motivated in a truly capitalist economy to make sure the products that we're buying and selling up a good products or safe products. To make sure you know that you could imagine that instead of instead of an FDA and FDA insurance companies would hire labs to check drugs that they would then be approved by the insurance companies to be to be given to people in consultation with doctors, because that's what they would cover. And it would go on and on and on in the different ways in which a business like insurance is incentivized to reduce its expenses maximize its profits and therefore participate in an active way in the entire supply chain which is the delivery of health or the delivery of health care. Yeah, I mean, it's just so and it's just these and I would just say is, you know, as a both of us, you know, we're going to be more prosperous than the average person in part just living in, you know, in the freest part of the world but even within that. You know, the thing that most affects us is our longevity is the lack of freedom in medicine. Like that's the thing where one of us will die of something, and then 10 years later, there will be a cure for it and it's because people slowed down progress like for sure. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot of information science and all of this stuff that people don't even invest in dovening go into, because the FDA has basically said we're not interested we're not going to prove that. Think about all the dollars that would go all these billionaires who are spending money going to Mars. They might be spending money on life extension they think that they could get by the regulation to go to Mars. I'm not convinced of that. But, you know, they know they can't get by the regulations to produce life extension stuff say put some money into it but imagine the flood of capital that would go into that. If the FDA was not involved if the FDA was not, you didn't need permission in order to do science and produce products that were actually extending human life so absolutely I mean the way in which. And this is what is really scary about the whole Medicare for all and government takeover of health care. If we think it's bad now. It's like a million times worse when the government takes over the entire healthcare system. And the fact is that the rest of the world still relies on the US for medical innovation for new treatments for for new ways of thinking about disease, because our doctors are relatively free. And they have, you know, it's a we, you know, we're in a sense subsidizing the entire world is healthcare systems, because we are still free and they are not. And when we are gone. Then there's nobody just there's nobody to subsidize our healthcare system there's nobody to innovate there's nobody to come up with new treatments there's nobody else out there in the world. There's no way to go to get freedom in healthcare which is so crucial to individual life. I mean, one promising area is just the digital revolution and you know, mental sort of machine power, they call AI which is not really the right way to think of it but in terms of these machines that can really amplify our mental abilities that's pretty exciting and then in probably some of the relaxation of things in response to this may lead to some of the evolution of medicine, including you mentioned oh you can now have a doctor in Colorado who didn't come from Colorado, more of the telemedicine and just think about, there's no way that it would all be these like doctor visits where you're paying your $30 just these random stuff versus all the stuff we're doing digitally so I think that there's just so much I have one comment about objectivism. And all of this so I could think of capitalism as what would it look like if we had real capitalism, but I've thought about in this crisis in particular, what would it be like if say there were 10 times the penetration for prevalence of objectivist philosophy and I think of okay what are with the things we've been talking about I mean in terms of one thing objectivist philosophy offers is really good methodology for understanding and by implication explaining things. And how much better off would we be, if there were a lot of people who could clearly on explain what's going on I mean we have we're fortunate we have our friend Amish Adalja who's been helpful but imagine. You had dozens of people like that and and then if you think about it's now you're thinking methods are going to be related to your values because how are you even deciding what the values are when you're when you're explaining something well, people who really value individual lives and the pursuit of happiness and can give us risks in that context and then you know related to that is just causal principles, being able to explain the way things work and the way they interrelate with a lot of precision I mean the way people just throw around all these terms like oh this is exponential and this is just not the level of clarity and so one thing I find that as an objectivist intellectual myself I find this as a kind of inspiring but also a challenge to think about okay how can this way of thinking be spreads that there are specialists in different fields who can bring clarity and it's part of what I've tried to do with the energy issue and associated and environmental issues. But I'm really feeling like I wish I wish there were more people who had this because it makes it so hard to make these life and death decisions and the other philosophical perspectives or lack of perspectives just aren't doing the job so our whole knowledge system just isn't isn't giving us something that's nearly as good as what I know is possible based on what objectivism makes possible. I mean I think absolutely it's and it's I mean wouldn't it be great if we had right now people who who because right now I think there's a lot we don't know about this virus I mean it's a lot that is still weird to me in terms of how it's in terms of why it's doing why it's betting in one way in Italy in a different way in China and South Korea and and the Brits the Johnson's government is treating this completely differently and they've got a whole different approach to it that's based on behavioral science and some statistical modeling that they're doing which is completely different and I finding just reading about all these different things and what they're doing. It's bewildering to me exactly what is going on and what is the real science behind it and what is what is voodoo and what is real and and it would be great if we had specialists and Amish is swamp so he can only do so much but if we had specialists in all these subfields that could actually you know enlighten us in terms of what is actually going on so we can make better value judgments about our own lives because it is kind of spooky what's going on to what extent could this evolve can what extent to this could really be a fight a threat to our lives. I mean we don't know because we don't have the kind of clear presentation of science that would be required for us to have real visibility and what the level of threat really is. And it's very frustrating and reading about it it's so difficult to find any kind of really good information about what's going on in the world. Other than what the government is saying which is which is, it's impossible to know the value of the information they bring out. This is slightly promotional but like I've been working for a while the second version of the moral case for fossil fuels and part of it as I've, I've brought in more like objective as talent to help me think through some of the stuff and you know it'll be out I think at some point next definitely at some point next year by then but it's like, I'm really seeing my, I just, you know what what I try to try to give people an energy what I would want anywhere which is a really clear account, including that takes into that helps you make sense of all the different conflicting claims you hear a part of it as you read these articles, and they're so disjointed and you don't know how one thing relates to the you don't know how to and so part of what you would want is for each presentation to be engaging the most plausible arguments of the others and showing where they're going wrong so if anyone has any recommendations of, of people who are actually doing this, you know you can email me at alexandalexapsine.com or email your on but I mean, just to find one or two or three really good thinkers would could save so much. Absolutely and in any you know imagine if there were thousands of millions so that every field had real objective thinkers in them I mean it just it would be it's hard to imagine what a truly capitalist truly free world looks like but doesn't even need to be we don't even need to be totally free we just need more of young smart people to be excited. Yeah, every increment that that gets as close to that or gets more people thinking properly is going to improve our lives dramatically. You know I was going to exponentially build, but you know I'm not sure everybody knows what that means but dramatically, you know and really exponentially because it does work exponentially brainpower works exponentially. It's why having more humans on the planet is a good thing not a bad thing. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Using the super chat and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show. Many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time so I'll do it again maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity go to Iranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribe star.com Iranbrookshow and and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this to keep this going.