 I have a deep question, not so philosophical. Deep but not philosophical. I was taking notes, occupied takes actually, in a run of art pen. Okay. I'm a, by the way, member of Ethics Committee of the Berthelen Party of Russia of the Federal Committee. Okay. So, I'm not going to argue about the pace, and I just have one question. Have you actually read, I am writing in the book of her? I will, I will. Yeah. Yeah. It doesn't feel like it did, because one of the major takes of Iran is the plus struggle between oppressor and nomenclature, each of us. She's ex-soviet person, right? So, she perfectly knew what she's talking about, right? So, James Taggart, he was just, David Taggart, Taggart, right? It's not one country he needs, another country. Surprisingly, for a person who's president, fine, Andrea Vincitute, you take a lot of takes about how one country is better than another country. Like, I'll let you quote too. Basically, free countries. Yeah, I believe some countries are better than other countries. I mean, you don't have to quote me. I'll say that again. So, the Iran Bay is that almost any country as a statist organization is bad against its own people. Like, let's say you talk about free speech and political prisoners is what qualify, it basically disqualify, it basically frequent country in a authoritarian country. So, what's your take on Julian Assange, for example? Well, Julian Assange is a criminal for a variety of reasons. I'll tell you exactly why Julian Assange is a criminal. Snowden is a hero, but Assange is a criminal. So, first of all, it's pretty ridiculous to accuse me of not having read Iran when you clearly are completely ignorant of Iran's writings. She talks about differences between countries all the time. In all her writings, in all her essays, she talks about, she even makes comments about Israel and the difference between Israel and other countries. In Israel at the time when she made these comments was a socialist country, and yet she viewed it as a superior country to other countries. So, you know, you can ask a question and you could disagree with me, but to start off by just making silly accusations and showing off your ignorance is ridiculous. Julian Assange is a criminal because Julian Assange has no respect for human life. He is willing to publish anything, including stuff that would harm human life, that would destroy the capacity of free countries to protect themselves and defend themselves. He was willing to publish trade secrets of corporations, anything that's secret. He is willing to publish, including violation of property rights, which is trade secrets and corporate information, which is none of his business and is not in the public domain and the public has no court right to know it. He is not a defender of freedom and freedom information or anything like that. He does not have a concept of freedom. He doesn't have the concept of individual rights or concept of property rights. You're talking about why freedom is a concept free of coercion. Did Julian Assange curse somebody to obtain this information? Yes, he stole stealing his coercion. He stole, he, okay, other people stole it and he published it. So, the guy who buys stolen goods from the thief is not a criminal because even though he knows it's stolen goods, he's not a criminal. Of course, he's a criminal. So, once you are facilitating crime, so Julian Assange was facilitating crime by publishing stolen material. So, he's a criminal. I don't think there's any question. Snowden, on the other hand, clearly identified areas in which the United States were violating the individual rights of its own citizens, made sure to take out of what he published that which could harm agents and people in foreign countries that might have been harmed by the release of the information. Tried to go through the channels to get things, couldn't do that. So, he released information. He's a hero. And I would... Yes, but he stole from those who do not have a right to keep it. Which is, in your opinion, if there is a moral right to... So, if you say, if you steal, but for good, like Robin Hood would do it, right? No, Robin Hood's a criminal. Right? Robin Hood's a criminal because... He's a morally justified crime. He's morally justified to steal from the government in order to reveal the government's criminality. It's not... Assange didn't do that. Assange would publish anything. And Assange would publish anything. And it's not morally okay to steal from private businesses. But I don't want to... So, that's my opinion on Assange. You asked for it? You got it. I don't want to get into an argument about it. In terms of differences... This is a problem with libertarians. The problem with libertarians, and you can see this in the new Mises Caucus in the American Libertarian Party right now, the problem with libertarians is you cannot make distinguishing differences between countries. For you, for Maui Wathbard, North Vietnam was a better country than the United States, which is so evil and so disgusting. I mean, he used to celebrate every time an American pilot got shot down during the Vietnam War. You can be anti-war without relishing the idea of Americans dying there. You can be anti-war without wanting the North Vietnamese to win when North Vietnam took South Vietnam, when they united Vietnam under communism. Libertarians in America celebrated. This is why I don't call myself a libertarian. This is why I don't want to be associated that much with libertarians, because I think that's disgusting. If you can't see the difference between communism, between authoritarianism, where you can't speak, between Putin's Russia and Japan and the United States, then you're blind. And you're making yourself blind because you're not blind. You're making yourself blind. Am I making yourself blind? You're destroying yourself and by doing this in the name of liberty and freedom, you're destroying the liberty and freedom movement. And that's why nobody will take you seriously. So, of course, there's a fundamental difference between if I say something and a policeman comes in and drags me off to prison. There's a big difference between that, that plus all the other coercion, and where the coercion is limited to one sphere, let's say taxation or economics. It's still bad. It's still evil. But it's a different degree of evil. It's far less than a police state is. So, yes, I value countries. I would rank them. There's an economic freedom index for a reason. So, you can rank them in terms of how free they are, and you can still condemn them all. And countries are legitimate. Ayn Rand was not an anarchist. Ayn Rand did not believe in anarchy. She argued against anarchy. She called libertarians in the 1970s hippies of the right, which was not a compliment. She advocated, she loved America. She loved America as a country. She loved America in spite of hating its politicians. And she thought it was an amazing country. And when she compared it to the Soviet Union, she thought the Soviet Union was fundamentally evil. And she thought America was fundamentally good, in spite of the fact that there was still coercion going on. That's Ayn Rand. You call Japanese, for example, a Japan basically free country, right? So, right after Snowden, your favorite guy, they passed the law, which basically prevents things like Snowden ever happening again in Japan. It doesn't prevent Snowden violated the law. So, passing a law against Snowden doesn't help. The whole point of Snowden is he violated the law. No, no. I mean, that's the thing. I mean, it's actually a sign. You can't have a law that prevents Snowden from happening. You publish, if let's say you're Snowden and you leak information from Japan, and you give it to me, and I publish it, we both go to prison for three reasons, forever. Right? So, there is no freedom of speech in that sense at all. Or like, I'm not even talking about human rights things. Like, I don't know what to say. Women can't have their own last names, you know, after the marriage. Or like, they have to, for example, stay divorced after a divorce for like, almost a year, because, you know, who knows. So, Japan could be freer. It's so much freer than Russia. That's the point. Yes, of course. There are more aggressive regimes than others. That doesn't make you more taken moral stance saying like, oh, US is all correct, and Russia is all wrong. Nobody said, you will never hear me say. You will never hear me say the US is all correct. You didn't mention a single example of US. Your whole lecture was about how terrible China and Russia is, which is pretty much China and Russia are terrible. Yeah, but like, US is comparably terrible. US is not comparably terrible. No, we're near as far as Iran war and Iraq war was totally justified, same as Ukraine war, right? There's a massive difference between the one you are, massive difference between the one you are talking about. Let's talk about Israel. In West Bank, if you enter a relationship with a Palestinian lady, you have to notify the Israeli government and take a 27-month-old. You really shouldn't talk about things you don't know anything about. Oh, yeah. People really do, yeah. Yes. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran book show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening. You get value from watching. Show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals, and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, 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.