 I can share it with you next day. Ready? So me nes rhyme, asti! Ydw i eidiw hwnnw, fawr i'n Gymru, ac mae'r ddiweddau Cymru ar y ddefydledig gwych gwyllf Arsodd, a'n tu o deydech chi i'n gwneud Rwy'n ei chael iddyn nhw i ddim yn gweithio Ddodg Deyrnas i'n mynd i ddod, yn ystod o'r ddoddau yn y cyfnod Cymru, oherwydd mae'r ddoddau yn ddoddau'r ddoddau a'r ddoddau yn ddoddau'n amser. Fe dweudio ar gyfer y ddyn nhw, mae'n gweithi'n amser o'r dros ysnod, oherwydd mae'n i'n ddoddau. A oherwydd, mae'n fawr hynny yw'n gwneud o'r ddoddau o'i ddoddau, oherwydd mae'n nani, oherwydd mae'n gwneud o'r ddoddau a'r ddoddau. is. Also we have Professor Ostrouca in the Colleva who is going to help keep the peace hopefully. That should be a very interesting number also. As I said, thank you very much for coming. I would like to hand over and I hope everyone enjoys. I'll start by asking the first question. The first question I'd like to ask to Yannan is, Yannan, what is autism to you? So it's not a question of what is autism to me, it's a question of what is autism. And altruism is a term coined by a pharell philosopher by the name of Augustine Combe in the 19th century. And altruism is the term that he refers to his moral system. And that moral system basically says that the purpose of an individual's life is to serve others. Your whole focus comes to ethics and morality should be how do I help those in need. And it's not about, well it makes me feel good to some other people or the world is a better place if I help other people. No. Comte actually says to the extent that you're motivated to help other people. By some I'm going to feel so good or it's going to make my life better in some way, then it's out. It's not moral. So any consideration of self, any consideration of self-interest must be rejected from action to be moral. It must be less complete. That is the morality of altruism. The morality of altruism is basically a morality of slavery. It's a morality that says that you, your life should be enslaved to anybody who needs something. Anybody who has less than you. Anybody who is struggling in any kind of way. Your duty, the moral obligation and you should do it out of a sense of duty. Not out of benevolence, not out of again, it makes me feel good. But out of a sense of duty, your obligation is to help and assist and give to them. Now of course no way is a consideration of what the people who get all this stuff, what their moral status is. I guess they need to find somebody even more in need than they are and give it all to the next person because otherwise they're not moral. But the idea of what it should be, it should be taken into account. Now in that sense nobody is really an altruist or very few people take altruism and apply it in that way. Because it's anti-life. I mean at the end of the day you're going to die because all you're doing is looking for needy people to help them out. And you can't live and there's no purpose in life and nobody wants to live like that. So it's not like most bad philosophies. It's not a philosophy to actually live by. But it's a great philosophy to actually control people by because we set this goal. You should live for others. That's what nobility is. That's what morality is. You should be selfless. You should never think about what's good for you. That is what true virtue is. And nobody does it. Oh, you bad people. You should all feel guilty. And hey, I know how to reduce your guilt a little bit. Because you're not going to help the needy enough. You're not going to sacrifice enough. I'm here for the government to help you be better people. I'm just going to raise your taxes a little bit. I'm just going to control you a little bit more so that I can help the people you should have helped to begin with. So it's a way at the end of the day to control people and to get people to do what those in power want them to do. Because at the end of the day, how do we know what the needy you want? How do we know who's needy to begin with? Somebody has to let us know. Somebody has to guide us. Somebody has to tell us whom to sacrifice to and how much to sacrifice to them. And there are plenty of volunteers to guide our altruism and to force us to be altruistic, to accommodate the needs of those that the people in power decide to decide. So to me, altruism is a philosophy very much aimed at controlling us. It's unachievable. It's aimed at reducing guilt. And as any Jewish mother or Catholic mother will tell you, guilt is in a mess. Look at people like Gates and Juan Buffett. Gates said in an interview talking about his house that he's not sure if he should feel guilty about how big of a house he has. Because the house has a home. It's called a trampoline room. All the room is one big trampoline. The kids go in there and bounce around. I mean, it sounds like unbelievable fun to me. And he says, you know, he's not sure he should feel guilty about that. Why should somebody like Bill Gates who changed the world, right, who made his money feel guilty of anything that he has? But altruism is the system that inculcates that kind of guilt, particularly in successful people, particularly people who've done a bit of self-interested stuff like make money. OK. Well, I have never really spoken or even thought about altruism in any deep way. I was launched into this, more than happy to do. I know that Aaron has thought about this a great deal before. I like you, I just came on to see you speak really. I'm happy to respond as well as I can. What I will say is that certainly altruism is not enough to base a society around or base an economy on. And it is longing a problem for socialists, and not socialists, but collectivists and traditionalists of all sorts. The opposition, as Hyde so many years ago, the opposition, or one of the oppositions to capitalism, has been that it is not based around altruism. It is not based on what is fundamentally a kindly and self-sacrificing principle. It is based ultimately on rational self-interest, which is not wholly the opposite of altruism, but pretty far away from it. And Adam is the most famous thing about the butcher, the baker, and so on. Serving society, making people's lives better because of their interests, has never served well with people, even before Adam Smith even came up with that analogy. And even today, perhaps especially today, although people may accept that from the point of view of efficiency and progress, actually having the butcher and baker providing some of their own self-interest works better than any other system, we only may grudgingly accept it, rather than there was a way of doing it, which was actually based on training for other people. Now, that is not to say that altruism is a bad thing per se, and possibly this might be where myself and your own disagree somewhat. There's absolutely a room for altruism. People should be allowed to do with their money what they want to do with it. And if they want to give it to other people, I think that is not just a valid use of their money. I think people should be applauded for doing it. I think it's an absolutely laudable thing. But per se, you cannot make society a reality. It's sometimes claimed that communism is based around altruism. It's not, and they were quite, it isn't quite, in places where it's still practiced. I mean, people were paid for doing their jobs under communism. The problem with communism wasn't that they didn't have any incentive at all. It's just that they didn't have sufficient incentives, because the profit motive didn't exist. And some people were basically incentivised at a pretty low and consistent level across the piece, and in fact had an incentive really to do more than their neighbour did. So I am neither for or against altruism. I don't think it's a suitable system of governance, and although it's a nice thing to do, you're never going to get very far with it if you depend upon it. But in the title of the debate today, things like healthcare and welfare and foreign affairs, and these, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting we have a health system based on altruism, nor a welfare system based on altruism. People can make the case that some foreign wars have started on an altruistic basis, and I think we'll probably get into that as the evening wears on. But for me, issues like healthcare and welfare, the system has to be judged not on how altruistic they are, but simply how efficient they are. I'm not going to discount a priori the possibility that there is more for government in healthcare and welfare. It's not even about giving your money away to people. That's none of that as altruism. Altruism is about living your life for the sake of other people. Make other people the primary value, the primary purpose of your life. That is always evil, always wrong, always out. I'm nothing against charity, nothing against helping people, certainly not people who deserve help. Nothing against being kind and nice and opening doors to old ladies or whatever, although I'm not sure we're supposed to say that. Two genders, two sexes, yeah. Old people, old gender neutral people. So, I think one of the problems in how to let your world today is that we've taken this term that is clearly used in a particular way in terms of denouncing self-interest, denouncing the profit motive, and denouncing your right to live for the sake of your own happiness, and using it as kindness, or using it as being nice. With kindness being nice and being charitable, all completely consistent with living your life for yourself, your own self-interest, consistent with the profit motive. Indeed, the best way to change the world and to make the world a better place is through the profit motive, I think we'll probably agree on that. So, to me, terms of important, concepts of importance, and altruism as a concept means something and it's used in a very kind of perverse way. I don't want to say one thing about Adam Smith, because I agree politically that one of the problems that we live in is that Adam Smith said, look, the baker bakes for his own sake. He doesn't bake it for his customers. I mean, customers are there because he needs to make a living, right? So, self-interest drives the capitalist economy, capitalist economy driven by self-interest, and everybody knows that. But what Adam Smith said kind of, right, he said, yeah, and self-interest is not this really thing. We're not excited about self-interest, right? It's not virtuous, it's not noble. So, you've got a bunch of people doing these things that are not so nice, you know, they're almost a vice. But it turns out when you add all these vices up, it turns into a good thing because society as a whole is better off. And nobody buys it. Nobody buys this idea that self-interest somehow, when it's additive, it turns into something good. And I think that's part of what we fight when we're trying to advocate for freedom of capitalism is this idea that people resent self-interest. And this is, I think, Rand's contribution to this debate. Rand says, no, no, no, no. You've got to say, yeah. Self-interest is what virtue is. Self-interest is noble when it's rational, long-term self-interest. That is what morality should be about. Morality should be about figuring out how to live the best life you live, discovering principles that help guide your life. And then, of course, when people out there doing this virtuous stuff, then the sum of all those virtues is a better world, just like Adam Smith describes it. It's not adding a vices, it's adding a virtue. When the baker is concerned about feeding his family, that's what he should be concerned about. That's what virtue constitutes is taking care of yourself and the people you love. So, I don't think we can ever win the battle for freedom and capitalism unless we win the battle against altruism and for a moral conception of self-interest. And that, I think, is where the rubber hits the road. That's where the real interesting stuff is. It's in ethics. Because I think once people accept the idea of the ability of a rational self-interest, then, of course, they want to be free. Because the only way to pursue your own happiness and the only way to pursue your own long-term interest is to be left free to go out there and try different things and fail, succeed. But live your life and your own standards and are based on other people's standards. It's altruism that makes socialist statism and all the statism junk and mumbo-jumbo that's palatable is this idea that I shouldn't take care of myself. That's not my moral narrative. Other people should take care of me. It's their responsibility. It's actually their job. It's actually their moral duty to take care of me. No, it's not. Did I jump in? Those who call themselves effective altruists aren't really altruists. They're acutilitarians. So there's a difference. I'm sure you'll think that acutilitarians was also people. But at least an acutilitarian says not that I should be self-interest at all, but that you should give your own interest exactly the same way as everyone else's interests in the world and maximise the sum total of people's interest in partial. That seems like a theoretically more robust foundation than a morality that says your interests don't count at all. All that you should care about are other people's interests. How about the view that as Bentham said everyone counts for one and no one for more than one? What's wrong with that? Well, so much better than altruism, I agree, and effective altruism is an attempt of this utilitarian facade to altruism. I still think it's wrong, and I think it's in my terminology evil. We're all like this, whether we admit it or not, and I always do this test into a group of people who claim to be altruists. I ask them, okay, kids are drowning in a swimming pool and the neighbours kids are drowning in a swimming pool. What kids do you say first? And everybody takes them more than my neighbours kids. I don't buy the Christian idea of love thy neighbour like yourself. Nobody does, nobody should. You don't know your neighbour like yourself. You're never going to get as much of a neighbour as you can provide yourself. You're never going to get, they can do happy. These guys have a dirty mind. What's important to me morally is my happiness, and your happiness should be what's important to you. So politically, we should all be treated the same, right? So the one which I'm an advocate for equality is politically equality, equality of rights and equality of freedom. But morally, the unit, the agent is individual, and morality is there to guide the individual to achieve his, his own individual flourishing. And to the extent that other people's wellbeing is beneficial to yours, which I think it is, then to that extent to them, or you don't. And so I'm not against charity, if it's charity that is consistent with your personal values. But against kind of the blind charity of just giving to whoever, or as effective altruism, looking for the people as remote as possible, as far away from you as possible, so that you diffuse any claim of self-interest, even though they think it's good for you. So you look for the people in Africa, you don't help people in your neighbourhood. You look for people in Africa as far away from you as possible to help them. That, that idea I reject, you know? If I'm going to help people, I'm going to help people close to me. I still don't see how it's actually evil. I mean I can understand why you care more about yourself than other people. I can understand why you care more about your children than other children. I can understand why you even care more about the people in this room than the people on the other side of the planet. You care about the people in your own country than the people in another country either. But I don't think it's a, I think it's a kind of false dichotomy to say that either you, because you don't care about other people as much as you care about yourselves, that you essentially shouldn't care about them at all, and that he's actually evil to care about them. So I never said that, right? I don't argue that you shouldn't care about them at all. Although at the end of the day, they owe it to me to let, you know, you can ask me, do you care about the fact that people are dying right now in Africa? And my answer is yes. I mean the human beings, they care about life. Is it kind of sad that they're dying? Am I willing to do anything about it? And the answer is no, I'm not willing to. I don't write a check and send it to Africa. I've got limited resources, I've got limited time, I've got a limited life, and my focus is on making my life the best that it can be on this planet. And I don't think helping people in Africa right now is the best use of my time. The standard, the issue is what is the standard? For me, the standard is my life, right? What is good for me? And that doesn't mean I don't care, it just means it's all within the context of it. You, what effective altruism, or what utilitarianism in all it wants to do, is to change that standard, and that's what I view as evil. It takes the standard away from my life, and it creates some kind of utility function across this room, or across this nation, or across this planet. And then in places you're just somehow, you know, the interest of the group here somehow above the interest, because I do need to sacrifice what I believe is good for me for their sake. It's that shifting of standards which I view as the essential evil. It's moving away from what's good for me. But what you, if I understand your question, you really object to it as the government taking on you giving to the people. You don't object to other people giving their money to after being a star, because you personally don't want to do it. It's what you say is a fact. Well, you object to it. No, I object to more than just that. So, um, so let's take two crap politically. You can do whatever you want with your money, right? You can give it to anybody, you can commit suicide. You can do whatever you want with your life. Do you think they're making a mistake? But morally, I don't think they're making a mistake. Morally, I think they're making a mistake. Because morally, I don't think we're taught and I don't think they do it to really consider what's in our own self-interest. I don't think we're taught to contemplate that, to consider that. You know, Alice thought of you that as a science, right? The science, in reality, is to figure out what is good for you, what virtues you should pursue, what actions you should pursue in order to live the best life they can be. I don't think we teach that. So, I think a lot of people, a lot of people with money find themselves in a situation with money and politically sure they can get out. I'm not going to stop on these curves. You have to stop them for giving them money, right? But I would like, I think the world would be a better place. I think we'd be much more likely on the road towards capitalism, a people in capitalism, real free markets. If people actually considered, instead of the old implied by how they were raised, actually considered what is truly my, what's the best thing I can do with this money to make my life the best life that it can be. It may turn out that Bill Gates gives it to Africa. I doubt it. I mean, I'd be to see a lot of homeless kids under the bridges. There's a lot of stuff you could do locally. But the whole point Bill Gates giving it to Africa is to show the world, look, there's nothing in it. There's no self-interested. And that's sad for me. It's sad that he had to exert effort to show that he is moral when I think that. I think it's because he thinks the most efficient use of his money in reducing misery and saving lives is that people are actually dying out in these houses. No, absolutely not. And indeed, I think it's done more to help people to prevent death in Africa by creating Microsoft than he ever will do with his funding. I mean, think about the improved logistics to get food to Africa because of use of PCs. Yes, you can do that. It's not a false microcosm. I mean, he did both. He's already done it with Microsoft. He now uses last fortune, which is, I mean, the marginal gains from around the million balance of million bucks to him is essentially zero. But the game, I don't want to get too excited about it, but the game that's starting out for him is way more than that. I'm not sure it's even anywhere close to zero. I think the marginal gain is huge because I don't think the marginal gain to somebody like Steve Joe Bill Gates is measured by money. So I think it's my success. It's by achieving something. I think if you watch Bill Gates being interviewed, as I have a few times, when he talks about his investments in startups, because he does that, he invests in companies, he's invested heavily in this fourth generation nuclear technology. He tried to build a plant now in China. He gets excited. His eyes shine. You can tell this guy loves technology, he loves investing, and he'll change the world doing that, really change the world, really improve the lives of people. When he talks about influenza, he's excited, but it's like, yeah, it's not that important to him. The real stuff. You can tell that if you took away the guilt, if you took away other people's expectations of what he should do, I don't even know if he feels guilt. I know he thinks he should feel guilt. If you took that away, I think Bill Gates would have never left Microsoft. And second, I think he'd be spending his time investing in high-tech companies, growing companies, not because he needs another billion dollars, but because of the fun of creating new technologies and seeing a flourish around the world and really changing the world, really making it a better place through technological change, which is the way you really bring people out of poverty, not by investing in what, malaria and nets. I mean, great. I have nothing against that. And if that's what he ultimately chose to do, I would say I have no problem with it. I just don't think he's going through the right methodology making that choice. I think he's being influenced too much by other people and by a wrong moral code. What would you do if you had his money? I don't know. I'd probably be, you know, I'd probably find something I would love doing and his, you know, if I loved investing, I would probably invest it by now. And then I would, what I would do, actually, is I would invest heavily, I would invest heavily in what I think really changes the world and that is ideas. I would go to Africa, but I wouldn't go to Africa with malaria and nets. I would go to Africa with copies of Atlas Shrug and just a common sense, and just a common sense, you know, the wealth of nations, right? So I would go to the Mises and I ran to Africa because I think that's how you cure poverty. You cure poverty without being capitalism. I think that's everywhere it's tried, it works. So I wouldn't be, I think what he's doing is marginal at best. I think you can do, I mean, look what's happening in Rwanda right now in Africa. In Rwanda, the president of Rwanda for whatever reasons, maybe it's random accident or whatever, interviewed some people about what they think you should do and they said property rights and free markets and he's about it. And Rwanda is, I think, the fastest growing or one of the fastest growing economies in Rwanda. In Rwanda, in this little country in Central Africa, is he helping the poor more than anything don't gates is doing? Absolutely. Absolutely, and long-term that will change Africa. They're now talking about a free trade zone like throughout Africa, but there are no tariffs throughout Africa. I think that will improve the fate of poor people a million times more than anything that we used to. That's a question about lack of duty to be at all after this. So here's a scenario. You like to climb peaks in this country and this is the point you want to climb. You're headed up the mountain, you're nearly at the top and you see this couple, one of the people in the couple drops down and has a heart attack. They don't have a cell phone. They don't. Should you phone 999 in this country and console the spouse and the person who's got the heart attack? Or should you, you won't be able to meet your goal of getting binar with it? Sure. And I think most people hear you up to do that. I mean, would you say it's only if I have this feeling of sympathy that I should do that, if I really want to achieve my goal of climbing the mountain, then it would be... See, you've made it easy, right? Because Peter Singer uses another example that makes it a little harder. We can take on Peter Simbers, the river, and the child doing it. We can use Peter Singer's example to make it even tougher. But look, two points I'll make. First, one doesn't define morality based on emergency situations. The whole trolley... The whole trolley examples are false examples. This is not life. Life is about what you do every single day with your mind and with your life and with your money and with your choice. I think it's sad to me that philosophy has deteriorated so much that all we talk about is these emergency situations. None of it's actually... Who's actually in a real situation? No, no, I know it's a real situation for somebody. It's a real situation in which that's happening every single day. So, for example, every single day a child is dying in Africa and I could pick up my cell phone and wire them money and save their life. Every single day I choose not to do it. And all of us do. Almost all of us do. This makes no difference whether it's sending money or this... Maybe if you're the only person you can save them. So, there's no question in my mind that everybody with any kind of sense of themselves, any kind of sense of the world would stop and help the person there. There's no doubt about that, right? Life is precious. Life is a value. Somebody else's life is a value to me. You know, not knowing who they are, a really nasty, horrible human being, I probably keep walking. But not knowing who they are, every human life is a potential, somebody called a potential value, a value of life. Hey, I take care of my pets. If I take care of plants, I value life. Life is a beautiful thing. Other people's life is a beautiful thing to me. So it is a value to me, therefore, yes. But take Peter Singer's example. Peter Singer's example says like this, right? You've got a child, you're walking to work, and you're in a nice suit, and you're in nice shoes and everything. And in a shallow water, so you're not misting your life, there's a child drowning, and you have to get into the river, ruin your suit, ruin your... So it's $300, $400, something like that. It's not a very good suit. And so you ruin your suit, you're getting the child and you're being about, would you do it? And you go, well, of course you'd do it. I mean, if the child died, and it's just $300, of course you would save your child. What happens if it happens the next day? And the next day. And I'd say I would take a different route to work. If every time I walk, it's ridiculous. I mean my life is not, I am not, in a sense, enslaved to children dying. Children, you know, drowning. And I'm knocking myself into a position where I have to save every child that's drowning. And that's why I don't send money to Africa. Because that's not the purpose of my life. Now, if I had the kind of money bill gates, I would think strategically about what is the best way to make an impact in the world. I think there are two ways. One through technological investment. And the second is to study ideas that really make a difference. And I would make sure that I was having fun doing it. Because I need to get a value from it. So that was how I treated it. So Judith Thompson, the one who wrote the article about the climate. She says, we don't have to be good Samaritans. So you don't have to go on that every day. We have to be at least minimally decent Samaritans. But that's not altruism. This is again the perversion of concepts, which I think hurts us. I think it's important when you talk about morality, when you talk philosophically, that we clarify exactly what we're talking about. That's being a good Samaritans. That's being a good person. It's being nice to a man. Altruism doesn't mean something different. Altruism is a much more all-encompassing philosophical approach to morality. And when we dilute our concepts, I think we all dilute. Peter Singer is an altruist. Peter Singer wants you to say that kid every single day. He wants you to send, I mean to begin with 10% of your money after you've covered ultimately a lot more than that. Because it's always the marginal dollar. Is the kid's life more important than a suit? Yes, so you have to send $300. Is he more important than your car? Yes, so now you have to send $10,000. And it's always going to increase. I'm not. I reject that philosophy. He's all and you're nothing. And the truth is somewhere in between. No, truth is with me. Can I jump in there and ask? We have some questions back there. I'm okay to jump in. And I don't want to dominate Chris's. So how can we adopt capitalism when people are dying of malaria? So if Bill Gates is saving lives and obviously you're able to live for capitalism, then is he not in the long run saving more lives by sending these nets? Is that not in his own self-interest? Do they double Microsoft computers? Or invest heavily? Well again, I think you're conflating and I think this is what's always done. You're conflating self-interest with monetary gain. And self-interest is not equal to monetary gain. Self-interest equal to self-interest, which is what is truly in your selfishness, which includes material well-being and includes spiritual well-being. And there's a lot. The spiritual well-being is big. It's not. And this is why I don't think Bill Gates gets his kicks out of making another billion dollars. I think he gets his kicks out of achieving another goal. Having a goal, whether it's a material goal or non-material goal, it's the goal that's important to these guys. It's what billionaires work harder than most average people, even after they're multi-billionaires. Because it's not the extra billion. It's about the fun of making the extra billion. It's about achieving the extra billion, not what you're going to use the extra billion for. I don't think you have to cure malaria in order to establish capitalism. I think what happens when you establish capitalism is surprise, surprise. Malaria is cured. Right? So I come from a country that used to be very malaria-prone in the early part of the 20th century. And what made malaria go away were not net, what made malaria go away was drawing swamps, building cities, building civilizations. Civilisation made malaria go away. And that's the precursor to getting rid of... I'm originating from Israel for those with full disclosure. Israel in the early 20th century, they got rid of the malaria was, they got rid of the swamp. Today you're not allowed to do that because of wetlands and you're not allowed to eliminate swamps. But we used to call them swamps in the ugly, horrible places where ugly bad mosquitoes used to live. And by buying them out and bringing them to the streets from Australia and places like that, they got rid of the malaria problem in Israel. So, and of course, there's a vaccine, there's not a vaccine. What's the treatment from malaria? There's a treatment from malaria. It goes like when I travel to these places, they give you pills to take. That's a product of capitalism. But the way to solve disease problems like that is to bring realisation, which involves bringing capitalism. Quick job over to Chris, actually, very quickly, because he's decided during this... I'll see. No, no, George, you're not going to do that at all. Well, I still... I'm still not convinced that the two things are incompatible. I don't see why Bill Gates can't spread terrorism and spread technology and things and also give his surplus money. So, of course, it's impossible that money with investment handing out translations of other drugs possibly to be better off with the variant. That's something you could probably test empirically. Perhaps. I mean, we both were institutes that were funded by donors, right? Absolutely. These people... I don't know. I am fine. I am fine. I am fine. I am fine. I am fine. I am fine. I am fine. I am fine. This is a very difficult task of going to people and trying to get them to their rational self-interest to donate their money to the end of an issue. And if I was convinced that Bill Gates went through the process of figuring out that he was in his rational self-interest to give nets, I would be all for that. I have no problem with what you choose to do with you money if you are doing it for the right model reason. And I think there can be a right reason to give malaria. So I'm not saying that there's no reason ever to give malaria nets, a ddweud y cyd-慰fyrddion y Beth yn ddefnyddio'n Gymru, rydyn ni'n cael eu ddefnyddio bod morhefnod gan y bydd y cyd-wyr newyddiaeth yn gweithio. Mae ein ddylai y mawr yn froad. Mae rhaid i'r gwaith ddi oed ar hyn. Roedd yn ddi-hwy, mae rhaid iabaith iawn i'r cyd-wyr newyddiaeth yn ddefnyddio'r gyda ond roedd. Ond mawn ni'n rhai bod ei tynnu i chi ei wneud, efallai y bydd y peth yn ddangos. Yn roedd efallai ei ddweithio nad oed yn ddaw i fathion arfyniad. ddim unig yn fawr, i'r ddafod i'r sythmeidio, fel ydych chi eisiau i'r ddefnyddio i gyd, ddau i'n bhel yn amlwg o'i defnyddio, felly mae'n ddau deilio i unig. Felly'n gweithio'r ddegi'n ddim unig o gyd, doooad o wanthio i'r ddeg diwrnodd. Fe fel Dawb John Gott's Cytici yn dod o'r ddeg, oedd ddeg o'i ddeg yn ei ddeg ar gyfer y dig, felly mae'n gweld i'r ddeg o ddeg o'i ddeg hamdiddio i'r ddeg ar gyfer ar gyfer y ddeg diwrnodd, Mae'r rôl gan chwarae, rydych chi ddweud llei? Yn y bydd eich hŷr o cwynhau i'r bwrdd, yn ystyried i'r yw hefyd yn y pari? Yn y bydd eich hefyd, yw hefyd, nid y gallwch gael fod yn y cyflwyneu hefyd yn ddod yn dweud elwerdol eich drwyddiad yma. Yn mynd i'r pryd yw rwy'n eisio i'n edrych felly mae'r ddod yn goleidio. Felly, mae'r ddod yn goleidio. Yn ni'n ddod yn goleidio a mae'r gwaith yma yma y decision eich ddiogel But that is the reality, a book cant have everything that you want to have in it, an author has to make sure that what is in it and what isn't. As somebody who's had children, which I suspect some of them have not, I don't sacrifice my children. I do stuff for my children, but my children are really, really important to me. So when I don't go to the movies that stay with my children, that's not a sacrifice. My children are more important to me than going to the movies. I mean, we throw this word out sacrifice without defining it, without thinking it through. Sacrifice means giving up a higher value for something of less value or for no value. Otherwise, it's not a sacrifice. Other ones are doing what's good for me, right? It's good for me to invest in my children. Now, why is it good for me to invest in my children? I mean, the two aspects of this. One is your child did not ask to come into this world. You chose to bring them in. By making that choice you made a commitment. It's an implicit contract that you made to take care of that child to the best of your ability up to a certain age. In my case, 18 and they're out, right? Well, maybe a little beyond that. What's that? I'm sorry. It's not arbitrary to draw an 18. Well, no, it's not arbitrary to draw an 18. Your responsibility as a parent is to take care of the child until they can take care of themselves. So when they achieve, whether you want it to be 17 or 19, that's somewhat arbitrary, the exact date. But it's until they have the mental capacity and the physical capacity to take care of themselves. Once they take care of themselves, you no longer have a moral responsibility to take care of them as a parent. You want to take care of them because you love them, but you no longer have the moral responsibility or actually a legal responsibility. I think as a parent you have a legal responsibility to take care of your kid up until that age. So you have taken on a legal moral responsibility not to involve parents, but it would be nice if it was to involve parents. You love them. That is your great pleasure from taking care of them even though it's hard. But a lot of things we do in life are hard that we enjoy doing and are hard. Sometimes it works. It sucks. You hate your boss. You hate your co-workers. But you know what? You love your job basically. So some days just suck. That doesn't mean it's not in your self-interest to keep on with the job. Because over the long run the job is good even though in any particular time it's hard with kids. And that's why I tell people don't have kids unless there is an unless. You really thought about it and you really committed to having the kids because it's 10 times harder than you think. It's the toughest thing you probably will do in life. So make sure you want to do it because otherwise you will suffer and the kid will suffer. Nobody bit wins if you have kids. But once you have them you're committed. I sign a contract to pay my mortgage and they say you know I don't feel like paying. No. The same thing with a kid. Once you have a kid you're committed whether you like it or not. You've got to love them a lot. I think some parents don't love their children which is sad. But they're still committed. No, we've got a lot of them. Chris, do you want to come back on that at all? I totally agree with what you were saying about Bill Gates and virtue signaling. Virtue signaling is an act of narcissism. So that I can sit within a party and say to other people I'm more moral than you because I did this and you didn't. So he's not doing it for being artistic. He's gaining something for his money. That's the reason that he's doing it. I don't think that's a good thing. I think ultimately it makes the whole event generate and we're focusing on the wrong things. I agree with you on that but it's obviously narcissism. I agree with you completely. I don't think that the alternative in life is to be Mother Teresa or to be Europe, right? It's not to be a complete self. People don't behave in ways that are either completely self-interested. I think they should. They don't. Or to be Mother Teresa. What happens is you get all kinds of variations. And what Bokey I think is, is somebody who basically lives a pretty self-interested life. Because of the way he grew up and if you read a little bit about his family and his father in particular and his wife who is very Christian and if you read about some of the people surrounding him, I think he has felt he is told he should feel guilty and should do these things. And he does it in order to reduce the supposed guilt that he has. So I don't think he's doing it altruistically. I think he's doing it stupidly. He's doing it to appease other people. He's doing it to appease his unearned guilt. Guilt he shouldn't have to be guilty of. So he's done it out. But he's not being self-interested either. He's somewhere... Where do you place Mother Teresa? Where do you place Mother Teresa? I think Mother Teresa is an immoral, meaningless, stupid, second-handed act that you shouldn't engage in. You're immoral person. It's just so... A couple of almost essential points. First of all, Mother Teresa was not a nice person. She was really tight as a model of opportunities. She willingly hundreds of thousands of people suffer of her religion. Secondly, virtue-signalling, at least term, is used all the time now. And I think James Bartholomew, in the spectator, came up with it a couple of years ago. And it's now used in relation to anything that vaguely involves showing off or anything of that kind. As James said in that article, what differs virtue-signalling from other forms of attracting attention to it is that there is zero cost involved to it. So he was originally talking about people on Twitter expressing their interest or sign petitions or whatever it may be. 10 seconds of being a keyboard warrior. Bill Gates, whether or not you agree with his charitable actions, and personally, I think he actually looked pretty good, is not virtue-signalling in that sense. He clearly has got the skin in the game. He's put a lot of money in it. So you can accuse him of showing off. You can say that even though the sums of money are enormous, they probably don't mean much to him. That's probably true, but he's not actually virtue-signalling. And the fact that the amount of money he's spending doesn't mean anything to him. I think it's a very good reason for him to spend it altruistically, rather than just to afford it, or even buy millions copies of a stroke. I really don't see the issue there with people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, who have promised to give away most if not all their fortune. In that lifetime, I think it's very much actually an acceptable place of hello when people decide to do that. And they should be condemned for it. Can I ask you a question? Do you think it's bad that Bill Gates feels guilty for his system? Well, does he? I'm not sure he does. He says he does. I mean, in a recent interview, he said something like, I'm not sure if I should feel guilty for having a big house. Should you feel guilty for a big house? No, absolutely not. No, I'm guilty for position. So the date about how to use your money and whether you should give it to charity or not, I don't think it's an interesting thing, because I agree that if Bill Gates actually figured out that this is the best again with being kind and being charitable and doing these things and helping people out, to see nothing inconsistent about that with rational self-interest. If it does, right? And I think of all the people who have ever done charity. Let me be on record. It's not inconsistent or rational self-interest, why? Because he gets such a blow of self-satisfaction doing. No, because, again, because I think life is a value to what self is. One values one's own life. One values life and values living beings. And to see suffering is unpleasant. It's just, it's not just unpleasant in a sense of it, I don't want to look. But to know that people are selfish, you know the potential that human beings have. There's a spiritual value in seeing people, flourishing beings, seeing people. To do something about that is not self-interest. No, I think it is self-interest. I think it's absolutely self-interest. No, because as you said, the money Bill Gates is giving is insignificant. It's not a sacrifice. It's still billions of dollars. He's giving billions of dollars to get something in return. And he gets something in return. He gets the satisfaction of knowing that he's helping. Life helps. Yeah, in a sense of satisfaction. But that kind of, it produces a definition of, or it broadens the definition of self-interest so wide that it can come as almost anything. No, because... If you say that, oh well, yeah, he's sacrifice less and less, but he feels good from doing it. It's kind of a sort of logical definition of what he does here. There's nothing you can't do which won't be self-interest. Yeah, so this is why I keep trying to make a caveat about it, right? So if you actually think it through and decide that these are the things that are good for you, so that the reason you feel good about it is not because you have some unowned guilt or because it's some random emotion, but you really decided, based on your hierarchy of values, that helping these people in Africa is really consistent with it, then it's consistent with your self-interest. To the extent that you're doing it to appease some guilt, which I think Bill Gates is doing to some extent, to the extent that you're doing it because it just, you don't even know why it makes you feel good in the moment. That, to me, is not self-interest. Self-interest has to be justifiable rationally. Not to me, to self-interest. Why isn't the swaging of guilt self-interest? Because it's unowned guilt. It's unowned guilt and therefore the real self-interest is to get rid of the guilt. Why do you have it? Wouldn't the solution be to get rid of the guilt so you don't have to be based on some guilt that you don't have it earned? To me, rhan, it's not some superficial idea of self-interest. This is a deep idea about what it means to live a good life. I think it's much more how people think about Aristotle. How do you live a good life? What he's saying is, she's not against charity, but she's saying before you give charity, think about whether this is the best use of this money for you. If you find that rationally, that this is the best money, that's fine, then you add charity to it. But I don't think people go through that process. And therefore, again, that process defines whether it's going to be a good thing or bad. OK. I'm from here. Hi, Dr Rick. I already told him I'm a very big fan. Thank you both for this. I wanted to get your thoughts on the Tamilism. You know, Joltonson speaks a lot about the principle 20% of people do the work. And you can see that some people are just born smarter or they're born more, really is, more effective than I am. So, people, when you set the expectation of theft, you're assuming that it's completely earned by the hard work or whatever. But some people are just born smarter. Bill Gates, I'm sure, is born more smarter than anyone in this room. So, do you think it's fair to say that it's theft if they had a massive amount of advantage when they started? I'm not sure why it's unfair. It is what it is. You know, my book, Equal is Unfair, is, I talk a lot about this. You're born the way you're born. That's not an issue of fairness or unfairness. If I'm tornaded, OK, if a hurricane hits my home right now, destroys my building and all my valuables are destroyed, my wife's there, you know, whatever. Really something bad that happens. Is that unfair? No, what do you think? Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's metaphysical. It happened, right? It's a case. It's not good. I'm really sad about it. But fairness is above my choices. You don't apply the idea of fairness to what genes you were born with because nobody had control over that. You can only apply morality. Model terms only apply to those that are chosen. So look, some people are born smarter than others. Some people are born more athletic than others. You don't use the example of LeBron James a lot. LeBron James is born more... Now you work in college and it wasn't just LeBron James. But you know, Jews don't have those genes. We don't have them to play basketball like that, right? That's just reality. It's not fair that I can't play basketball like LeBron James. It is. That's reality. Now the fact is that every single dime that LeBron James gets for playing basketball, whether it's marketing or whether people are paying to watch it, he deserves it because he values basketball. Actually negative value. People would pay not to watch me play basketball because it's such a negative value. So that's just reality. So why is it fair for me to take some of LeBron James' money? Which he created. He created with superior genes and give it to me with my inferior genes. That's just wrong to do that. But his wealth wasn't created on choice. Some of that wealth wasn't created by choice. But of course everything is created by choice because at the end of the day you have to apply those genes. Your genes don't automatically drive you. You have to drive. I know a lot of people born, not a lot. I know a few people born with LeBron James' genetic make up who are nothing. They made different choices on the bottom of it. I know people with IQ of really high Qs that have done nothing because they made different choices than other people with high IQs. I would certainly agree that it's not an issue with that as the way you're born. It makes no sense to try and apply, like you say, more reasoning to it. I think the practical question is what we do in a society which because of various things beyond people's control and their genes are upbringing where they're born, the rest of it. What we do to make sure there is a lower threshold below which people aren't sick and I think that is a more interesting question and I don't think altruism is the answer to it. I'm not sure that free markets provide the floor to it either. I'm thinking here particularly about welfare and healthcare on the bill tonight. Very briefly, and again, these are not issues that I particularly focus on in my own research. It seems to me that although people outside the argument will give you examples from the past of friendly societies and actually much more successful systems of healthcare and welfare than the left will ever give you credit for today when it acts as if everything before 1948 was just a hellish free-for-all, it nevertheless was suboptimal. The current system we have is clearly suboptimal, spending over 100 billion pounds a year to really put the outcome of God knows how long and yet poverty still clearly persists. The NHS is actually discrease really as a national healthcare system and people's attachment to it in this country speaks to how appropriate people are in this country really and how naïve they are about how systems work elsewhere. Having said that, I think the problem with the insurance model with both welfare and healthcare is certainly more true in the past but it remains true today is that some people simply work for it and some people have particularly bad luck and there are of course things to do to avoid bad luck, there are lots of things you can do to avoid being unemployed, there are certain things you can do to avoid falling into ill health but all of these things are literally just random chance. If you have a child or with some terrible defect and they're going to recover from that, that is not your fault, there's nothing you could have done about it if you get the key and so on and so on, there's lots of random elements to this. So the question is the way to deal with that is to have insurance basically. However, some people can't afford insurance and so what do we do about that? Well obviously we could do something like that just the way it is, life isn't better or we can have some kind of national insurance system which is what we theoretically have in this country but naturally it's a policy scheme but the principle behind it is I don't think unsam. I don't think it's something that should persist for a very long time but I don't think it should be a seeking plaster over this period of early capitalism that we're currently in until we get the point in which everyone can afford insurance. But given in the case of healthcare, given how healthcare costs tend to rise way above the GDP and inflation for reasons that have nothing to do with the inherent costs of the NHS as it happens all around the world, I think that for the first and future there will always be people who won't be able to afford health insurance you can call it criticism or you can call it altruism but I think there is a case for the government underwriting that and I just don't think we should have the health system that we have in this country because there is no reason whatsoever for the government to actually be providing healthcare. That's the problem with a lot of nationalisations in this country including with education. It makes sense for the government to provide a safety net for those who can't afford it. It makes no sense whatsoever for the one massive government bureaucracy to attempt, very unsuccessfully most of the time, to actually provide a service. I mean I just think this is an area where we'll disagree. I'm a purist. I don't believe the government should provide it. I don't think coercion should ever be used on anybody in order to achieve some kind of social goal or in order to achieve, in this case, to help people who maybe can't afford health insurance or can't afford food. I do believe in a safety net though and here we'll talk back to our discussion before. I do believe in a voluntary safety net in a charitable safety net. Now I happen to think healthcare costs move a little differently. I don't think it's accountable that they rise. I think there are plenty of examples where they don't rise. I don't think insurance should be and is in most cases so expensive that people can't afford it. But there's always going to be some people who can't afford it. I accept that completely. There's only some people who, whether for their own fault or not, can't afford health insurance, can't afford to live, can't afford to survive. And I think they depend on other people. Other people have to fund them. And the question is, do we force other people to fund them or do we rely on people voluntarily helping them? And I think we have to rely on the voluntary health because I think that once you accept force, once you accept coercion, you've got the NHS. I mean, no matter how you structure it, you end up with the NHS. In America, we're heading towards the NHS even though we had a very different system and we're heading towards that primarily because once you accept the government's role in these kind of things, you've accepted coercion. The slopey slopes do actually exist in the world and they do actually work in the world. Now, let me just one caveat. In the transition between the world we live in today and the world I'd like us to live in, but I don't think we will anytime soon, solutions like this are inevitable, right? We're going to have to have transitions. And I'm, for example, the way to solve the problem with education today in America and I assume here it's for the government to fund it, but not to run it, right? So if you say to any council, they call them in the U.L. so you get a check and you can say to any school you want. The government is funding that education. The same thing with healthcare. If you can't afford healthcare, the thing to get is a voucher where you can use it to buy insurance rather than the government provides you insurance. I'd like to see you still participating in the market to buy insurance, but with the government funding it if you can't afford to fund it. And the same with a lot of these things. I think there are ways to do it more efficiently as we transition to the day where those vouchers are actually zero because nobody needs them or because we built a voluntary safety net. You've been waiting a while. Yes, yes. Well, thank you for coming. So actually, I've always been very impressed with capitalism as a solution for more and more wealth. But I've been thinking about how capitalism puts... Capitalism puts... So without taxation, without anything, capitalism puts people who are obsessed with work and they have most of the money. And people who are not like that are at the bottom of like New Zealand. Is it good that we are sharing this way of life? To enslave yourself to somebody you may not like. I mean, some people don't like working in banks, but they do it just to increase the hype. So maybe someone would like to play music instead, but they can't because they're too poor. How would you rationalise on that? Is it the answer to... So I don't get the whole framing of the question. All capitalism is, is a system that leads you to free those decisions for yourself. So my kids, I brought my kids, you know, maybe falsely to believe that what they should do in life is who they have to do something they love doing. So they're both starving artists. And they chose to be starving artists and while I need to help them, I'm not going to help them so that they're not starving artists. This is the life they chose and this is what they're going to do. They're going to suffer or be joined through it. You know, they love it. They're having a blast. They're poor. I want one of the way they live, but they're pursuing what they really believe and what they value and what they enjoy. I provide them with the safety net, right? Voluntary. But you know, they could have gone to work in a bank and they're both smart and they work hard, right? So you position it as people who work hard make money. You know, I know a lot of people who work really hard who never make a lot of money either because the work that they do is not that value-added or because they do work in areas that is value-added but only very few people know it's value-added. So very only very few people buy it like artists. Artists is very hard to make a living because you might create something. You might be a genius but very few people know you are a genius. So it's not a correlation between hard work and wealth. But the beauty of capitalism is you get to make those choices. You can go work for a bank, make a little bit of money, then do your art. You can do your art and then go work for the bank. You can try different professions. You can move around. You decide how obsessed you want to be with money. There's no... Capitalism doesn't say. There's no commandment in capitalism. Thou shall do everything in your power to make as much money as possible. No. You want to make a lot of money and you can then you do it. You don't want to make a lot of money like a lot of us, right? We chose to work in a non-profit sector. I chose to be in exactly a lucrative profession. I've got a PhD in finance. I could have gone through Wall Street. I literally gave up millions of dollars to do this. That's reality. I don't regret that. This is a lot more fun than sitting at a bank making a lot of money. Capitalism gives you those opportunities to make those choices about your life. It's not the system that dictates a way of life. That's the big difference between socialism and other status systems. It just leaves you free. Chris? You get the opportunity to maximise your utility. It's a horrible phrase. It's such a shame that the word utility over time comes to me on the opposite. Once it's made, utility is happiness, really. You can measure happiness with money that the economists do at the time. They try and put a monetary value on happiness. Obviously, you can put a monetary value on money. If somebody is in a bank earning a lot of money, but is not being particularly happy, you can still add up their total utility. If somebody is in a band being very happy with their money, you can allow it. It's quite possible that two are more or less balanced out. Shred off happiness for money and vice versa is the important thing. The answer is that they have the opportunity to do that and they are broadly speaking. Yes, we can't create a world in which bankers necessarily as happy as a musician when he's on stage. And vice versa. We've talked about unfairness before. Thomas Sowell talks about cosmic justice. That's what he describes social justice as. Sometimes what it is is an utopian vision in which everybody is happy in every aspect of their life. I haven't made any trade-offs or having to do any efforts. And there's a reason that's because they've paid a lot of money. It's because often the job is quite dull. You have to spend years perhaps to do it. You have to do very long hours. And there's a reason. There's a massive oversupply of poets and musicians. It's because everybody wants to do it and it's good fun. Although banking can be fun. I mean, I know bankers who love what they do and it's a challenge and it's just like being good engineer. I mean, some people have a blast doing it. And ideally find something where you make money and have fun doing it. That's the idea. How long do you have? I mean, yes. Absolutely. That's not self-interest. Look. It goes to what is the purpose of it for rational self-interested individuals. Right? So as rational self-interested individuals, one government to do the one thing government I think is instituted to do, which is protect our freedoms. Government is force. Government is a gun, gun is coercion. The only place that a gun that force has in our world is to provide self-defense. It's to provide us against the real bad guys and use force and guns against us. To me, the only role of government is the protection of individual rights, which now Bentham said rights are what nonsense are. Stillt, I don't think they are. I think they're real. They're basically freedoms. Rights are freedom. I want the government to protect my freedom to act and leave me alone otherwise. Now what does that relate to Farm Policy? What that means is the job of the government is to protect individual rights and leave people, foreigners who would come into the country to meet terrorists, invaders, or whatever. And that's it. So it's there to protect me from bad actors who want to hurt the citizens. We need this. And it's in my self-interest to delegate that responsibility to the government. It pays me to the government to do it. Because when the Nazis come, just me fighting by myself is useless. We need an institution that can actually protect our lives from the bad guys. When it comes to Israel, the first thing you have to do is define who are the bad guys and who are the good guys. I think it's clear based on who... I look at countries to define who are the good guys and who are the bad guys and I look at do they basically protect individual rights or don't they? Countries that basically protect individual rights are the good guys. Countries that governments that don't protect individual rights and their citizens are bad guys. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict that's fairly easy is with all its flaws and I'm a huge critic of every government that Israel's ever had basically is a rights-respecting government that protects these rights. You can own property, you can be gay, you can see whatever you want for the most part. It has a lot of many rights-protecting policies that are with any other western country in the world and it's basically a good country. The Palestinians are the opposite. They don't have their own system, they never have. They don't respect their own people's rights, they have everybody else. They're committed to violence. Those are good guys. Those are the bad guys. The job of the Israelis is to protect its citizens from the bad guys. That's my short version of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And well against all that I would just add and see the intervention if it's based on some interest but I think we'll probably certainly just a second range of war we'll probably just have annihilising ISIS Felly mae'r defnyddio yn cymryd, yn ystafell o'r balle, fyddwch i'r cyllid ymweld, yw'n cael y cyllid ar gyfer y cyllid ymweld, yn ddweud eich hwnnw lle mae'n gwneud o'r cyllid yn gwybod, ond mae'n cael ei ddechrau'n cael dechrau i'r well ffasg, i'n ddweud y pobl y gallwn o'r llyfr ymientech, ond mae'n cael eu gwybod, nid o'r cyllid ymweld, yn ymweld ar gyfer y cyllid, ac mae hynny'n cael eu cyllid yr oligol yn gwneud. i ni'n meddwl am y sgol y dyfodol ardal. Rydyn ni'n ei bach yn ridech arall ti wneud arall o dda i'r newid. Nawr, mae'r ffordd o'r ddefnydd i'r ffordd i'r ffordd yn ysgol. Roedd am y gallwn i'n mynd i ymwyno fe ychydig yn ffordd i'r ffordd o'r dyfodol. Yn ystod, rwy'n gweld am y dyfodol, a olygu'n am hynny o'n ddim yn ffordd i ddwyno i'r ddofyn. But you know which is so I believe in individual rights, I don't believe that you'd vote to silence me. I don't believe you can vote to take my money away from me, I don't believe you should be a vote to regulate my business. So I don't believe that majority has power over individual. I believe in a state that defines clearly the rights or freedoms of individuals and whose leaves them alone no matter how people vote. Maiddym nhw'n Jonathan swrdd, gallais llawn yn holl deallu 포 yng Ngyslwn Cyngor Hyいくel Gweithiau Oesol. Wrth colliar yllaw sydd i'r aelod yn hatnaf pan o'u cyfrydaf ffaith og f verify yng Ngyslwn Cyngor Hy kafond. So mae'r Lorllen bob hanfadh gan O iba Reif New Make yn eich heddaethedd a residus o Gymraeg sustainedэgol administr i Staff NZ neu Ffalu Traddedol рок. O f Nextedeke, gan rwy'r ffaith seeds mod Hate imprisonedMar, FO efallai, mae'r cael ei ddweud yn ei bwyntio'n gwneud y gallu'n Foundation ystod o gyflwydoedd? Mae'r newid ar nyfodd am y locals yn unig i weithio, ond bod yn ysgrifennid ysgrifennid yn ei gweithig, rhaid i'n cyfnod yr awdurdodau. Rhyf i. Y flwyddyn i'r gwyloedd, a adrodd yn cynyddiad o'r cynyddiad hynny'n mawr. Nid yw ypoonodd newid i'r rhaglen, nad yw'r bwysig yw'r cyllid yn eu hunain mynd i'r byddau. o'r ddweud o'r parwydau cyfaintio'r parcef. Mae'r parwydau ar gyfer yma, mae'r ddweud yng Nghymru, ar gyfer y ddefnyddiad, mae'r ddiogel ar hyn yn ddigonol yn ddigonol iawn. Roeddwn i'n ddweud yng nghymru, wedi bod yn cael ei ddechrau, yn ddweud yng Nghymru. Mae'r ddweud allan am ymddiad yn cael ei ddechrau mewn ddweud. Roeddwn i'n ddweud ychwanegwyd samennod y boedd yn ychydig iawn, sweetnessbeth ar yr un yn ymddindig, yma. Y prônwch erbyn yn mynd i, a dweud bod ti'n teimlo. Rydym yn gweithio hyd defnyddio'r polisi, rydym eir stockndedig. Y prônwch yn ymddindig yr Un i'r un ond yn gweithio'r polisi yn y rheiniad a, at cwrs, yr bêl i'r wahanol sydd wedi'i gofyn ar y shodra iawn. Bydd yn llwyster sydd yn ddech chi'n rhaglifio'r bêl i chi, I did, the regulations and the controls that cause the imposing the laws on every state that doesn't consist of good laws, bad laws, lack of freedom of speech and all these things have now tilted the balance away from the EU maybe. I'm still not convinced because I have a feeling that what you leave the European Union will actually make it worse. You'll have the worst of all worlds. You'll lose the free trade and free movement of capital and so on, and you'll keep all the regulations, controls, and lack of free speech, which I think is the way you're trending. But at least you'll have an option by electing a different government to eliminate all that, or by electing a socialist government to make it even worse. I don't know what that's going to do. So, to me, Brexit is not all good. Brexit just gives you now the opportunity to make it worse or to make it better. And truthfully, I don't trust you. I don't trust anybody, right? Because generally in the world now, with a few exceptions, what bothers me about European Union is not that they're doing things unelected. You know, I'm not a big fan of democracy to begin with. What bothers me about European Union is they're doing bad things when they're unelected. At least doing bad things you should be elected. But bad things are bad things, right? When you elect people and they do bad things, you can at least vote them out of power. Here, they do bad things and they're no consequences. And that's really bad. Go ahead. Do you vote on Brexit? You know a lot better than I do on this one. Well, I mean, I care many of your concerns, obviously. There's no obvious reason to assume it's going to become a free monotopia in a couple of weeks. But at least the option is all the way around with the EU. Yeah, I'm not a massive fan of democracy. I don't believe in Churchill's view of it really. But the further a government is away from the people, the greater the temptation to centralists to be on-crisised and regulate everything under the sun. And that's been the word with the European Union. That is, I would say, guaranteed to get worse, whereas in this country there's only maybe 50% chance it'll get worse. I think what a lot of remainers don't realise that people vote Brexit is it wasn't just about the way the European Union is now, which has clear flaws, but I agree it also has many benefits. We're not going to get this chance again. Where do we think this thing is going to be like in 20, 30, 40 years time? And people who voted for the EEC in 1975, I have no idea what it would turn into. The centralising tendency is absolutely in the DNA of the European Union. And it's the fear about what will happen if we stay here, because we'll certainly never get another chance, I don't think. And so when people who voted remain say that people who voted Brexit said, you don't know what you voted for. No, remainers didn't know what they voted for. I have no idea what they voted for. And so I think that is, for me, a very important point that, yes, it takes a certain amount of speculation about where the thing is heading. But the direction of travel is very, very clear. It is away from national democracy. It is generally speaking towards a more religious economy. And although things are by any means great in Britain, I would argue that Britain actually does have a tradition of a kind of fluffy capitalism and democracy, whereas a lot of Europe has a tradition of communism and fascism. I agree with that. I'll expand on this point there as well. I think the issue of the EU is culturally, which leaves the expansion. So a lot of post-communist states in the intellectual thousands like Paul and Romain or Gary has run the EU, it leaves lack of any sort of culture of freedom of capitalism and rights. So surely there's that fundamental essence of cultural income back to that, that makes the EU open and independent. Well, I would say it's the most countries you need to worry about. Yes, exactly. The country that needs to worry about transogyny, the name of our people. Yeah, exactly. I think that Western Europe has actually really suffered a lot of party states. They tend to be out of France back fairly well. Unfortunately, a place like this is going the other way. But at least they have that memory. It's a country that never quite falls like France. They're the danger of it. Yeah, I think this whole culture is a big deal. I think it's what makes Europe problematic is that you worry too much about these things. If you have a good culture, the good cultures will win out. If you're willing to defend that culture and you're willing to stand up for that culture. And I think Europe is actually a place where I see no more interest in capitalism and freedom in good ideas than I do in a place like Italy and France and Spain and even Germany. And remember most of the bad stuff that's happened in Europe in the last 250 years has originated in Germany. So while it's true that the Eastern Bloc, the German Marxist ideas seriously, it did originate there. So the ideas came from there. You know, I think that would not be my concern about your opinion. My concern, I agree with, I agree completely. It's the direction and heading towards more status and more centralisation, more authoritarianism. More authoritarianism. And Britain has a chance to escape that. Again, the question is will it take it. But at least you have an option. You bought an option. I'm a finance guy. Options have value. And if a Brexit certainly has a positive view in that sense, you always want to have options. You should ask the best people it happens. I'm just going back to what you said earlier. I don't understand why you're saying that an action demonstrated by guilt rather than what you define as rational self-interest makes it model. In the case of the child in the river, if I find it in my rational self-interest to say that it's model, but if I do that of guilt then it's immoral, I don't understand that distinction. I also don't understand who we are to tell someone actually you're not doing this out of rational sort of interest to serve altruism and that was wrong. Well, I'm not telling them how they're doing it. I'm asking them why you're doing it. I'm not in a position to tell somebody else what motivated them to do them. But you can ask them because most people don't think they should act in their own self-interest. So I'll never tell you I acted in my self-interest because they don't think that's a good thing. Yeah, I think it's very important why you do stuff, not just what you do. I'm not a consequentialist in ethics. I think a lot of it has to do with your motivation. I don't think the two are, you know, and I think one and I think the two go hand in hand. But I think why you do something is relevant because what is ethics about? Ethics is about it's a code of ethics to guide your life. It's to guide your life in a particular direction, in the direction of good, in the direction of, in my view, in making your life the best life that it could be. It's principles to help you live the best life that you can live. So then the question is, is in this action have you applied the principles enough? If you've applied them, then it's more because you've done something that adds to your good life, adds to what it means to be a good person. If you haven't, I'm not saying it's amol, but it might be amol. You haven't done the things that add to the good life. And that's the standard in the end. It's not the actual action that is more amol. It's did add to making you live a better life enough. And only you can decide that. I'm not going to have the moral police, right? Going around saying, oh, that might have been nice, but you did it for the wrong reasons and so on. My point as an educator is to try to educate people to give them the tools to make the right decisions and to help them live their good life. Yes, you want to. There's many not feeling guilty when you're guilty. So let's talk about guilt for a second, right? So there are two types of guilt, earned guilt and unearned guilt. Sometimes you do stuff that you should feel guilty about, bad stuff. And then, rationally, what you should do is try to do something that redeems you, whatever that happens to be. Maybe it's to feel sorry, maybe it's to give some money away to compensate for somehow it's related. I don't know how. It has to be something related to the action that you took for which you feel guilty. But this idea of unknown guilt, which I think dominates our culture. I think most people feel guilty for something they haven't indeed the opposite. I think a lot of people feel guilty for their virtues, the good things that they have done. Then the rational thing to do is question the guilt. It's to undo the bad guilt that you feel. Psychologically, you want it to be the position where you don't have to feel the guilt. You're not going to reduce it by giving the money away. You're going to reduce it by rethinking your values and rethinking whether you should be guilty or not. So would you say it's similar to say if you have an alcoholic who's feeling terrible because he hasn't taken a while? Are you saying that giving the money to the charity out of guilt is like giving him another drink? Or are you just getting rid of the unknown guilt is like sort of believing you're an alcoholic? It's not a perfect analogy, but it's not bad. It's very similar. So I've been reading that your parents, they were founders of one of the keyboards. Is this general? No. At some point, I wanted to live in the keyboards. When they first ever go to Israel, they wanted to live in the keyboards. They never did, actually, luckily for me. I think they have a socialistic view and that you ran some of my family and ran through. I was one of those few who read out the Shrug that had changed my life yet. I was wondering if you tried to engage in a conversation about those new values that you've earned. Maybe if you managed to convert them to renders and more. So yes and no. So when I read out the Shrug that was 16 years old, most obnoxious 16-year-olds who read out the Shrug, most people who read out the Shrug and then become obnoxious 16-year-olds. I thought I had just discovered the truth and it was my job to convince everybody and you around me of the truth, even though I didn't know what the truth was and I was just a 16-year-old. So I was an obnoxious teenager who went around arguing with everybody about Shrug and about Objectivism and about Capitalism and about this stuff. I had a lousy job and I'm sure I was obnoxious to be around. A 16-year-old who I can identify as doing the same thing. I yelled at my parents as that's what you do when you argue in Israel. And it had zero impact. Now my parents are not socialist anymore, but that's primarily not because of me, but because of reality, because of the world. Socialism failed. I think most people realized that socialism failed. There's no left in Israel. It's interesting in Israel. There's no political left anymore. The political left is tiny and significant, because socialism was tried along and significant. Because socialism was tried along time ago and sucked in. There's no kind of a fun place to live in right now because there's no socialism. There's still some, but it's less socialist. What happens to socialists when they abandon socialism is that it comes to politics. In other words, there's no ideal, because my ideal failed, therefore they cannot have any ideals. And their attitude towards me a lot of the time is, you think you know stuff. What do you know? It's not that they have an argument. It's just they don't like my certainty. A lot of you don't like my certainty. Like I say, that's evil. People are like, whoa. You can't say that. They don't like the socialist, but they're not capitalist either. Have I had some impact at the margin a little bit, but not a lot of impact. And generally my advice to young people is don't try to convert your parents. It's a waste of time. And you've probably got a decent relationship, a good relationship with your parent. Don't spoil it. That's a valuable relationship you'll enjoy through your life. You can actually have friends and have a relationship with people with whom you disagree. It's okay to disagree. Right? Not everybody in the world has to be with you in everything. So don't be obnoxious. Don't be me when I was 16. So my question is, countries in the world have taken these ideas and involved them in the best. How do you protect them if our fragile without coercion contradicts a result of doing that? I mean, countries in the world that have done an okay job implementing them, and you know those countries. Whether it's Singapore and Hong Kong that it does it in the realm of economics, but not in the realm of other freedoms. Right? You want to be careful in Singapore, would you say? And whether you chew in the street. In Hong Kong now, the Chinese have compounded a lot of other freedoms. And also on economic freedom. You go to Hong Kong, they laugh at the idea that the second free is country in the world because they don't feel that way, right? Maybe because they remember what it was 20 years ago when they really were. The United States and the UK in any century came pretty close to it and have abandoned much of it, I think, over time. So I think, and you know New Zealand's in fairly good shape or at least you know New Zealand's in fairly good shape or at least you know economically and again Ireland, I don't know your neighbor over here. Pretty cool. I look at the numbers and like they're richer than you guys. They're much richer than the UK is now on a GDP capital basis. They've got lower taxes. The statistics are not reliable. They've got a lower taxes. The statistics are not reliable. They've got a lower taxes. They've got a lower taxes. I mean, I really built the proofs that these four copper taxes they had a 40% GDP last year. I believe that the world is in a well-darn one. I mean, I think the world is in a well-darn one. I think the world is in a well-darn one. I think the world's airlines are based in Ireland technically along with Apple and Google. Some of me are in England but I don't know what to say. I'm just cheating a bit. It's Switzerland's opinion. Anyway, this is fairly good. It's Switzerland's opinion. Anyway, this is fairly good. But none of them are capitalist fully. And there's a reason for that. Most of them are moving away from capitalism. The only country right now moving towards capitalism will see if it actually happens. Maybe, I'm hopeful, is her country which is Brazil. Those interests going on right now in Brazil is worth watching. We'll see if it happens. Fingers crossed. And I think the reason is what I said in the beginning. I think that the moral code that all of us carry with us from childhood is consistent with socialism, consistent with statism. And we drew into that direction the economist pushes us back, reality pushes us back and then we drive back towards socialism with so many things that are worse. Until we figure out a moral code, I think we have. Until we adopt a moral code consistent with capitalism that actually we made it we also feared about it. Until we do that, we'll always go like this. So you guys went to socialism and then you got thatcher moved a little bit towards capitalism then you drifted back towards socialism now. I'm not sure where you're going to go. It's not clear. You might drift further towards socialism and it's all this and generally drift leans left. Lean towards more statism. And America is the same way. And even the Democrats were relative free marketers and they drifted back towards the left. And today in America I mean don't even give me stuff. It's morality to me everything at the end of the day is about morality. It's about as long as we hold altruism it's about an ideal. Not that we live it. No you live it. But it's an ideal. And I agree about Mother Teresa but I think that's why she was the same. I think she was the same because she was under this role pathetic horrible human being. I think most saints are. I mean you can be happy to be a saint. That is inconsistent. You don't go to museums with paintings of saints smiling and having a good time. Because that's again sacred. It's anti self-interest. It's not about helping other people. If helping other people with the standard of morality Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos will be on the Mount Rushmore morality. We already have sainted them. Because they helped humanity. They helped the poor more than any philanthropist more than any government or any charity has. And I'm not against charity. The charity didn't bring full out of poverty. If you look 300 years ago all of us were poor. At the absolute level almost none of us were. 8% of the world population were poor. Why? Because of the Rockefellers the Conagys, the great industrialists of the UK but none of them are saints. But they should be. They're the real saints. The real moral heroes. And when we have a society that doesn't view the great industrialists of that 18th century as wealth of barriers. Use them as moral not just financial, but moral heroes. We think of Jeff Bezos put aside the sex as a moral hero. Then I think we'll be ready for socialism. But we won't until we want it to do that. They are the great people in our society. Not because they're philanthropy. They're philanthropy's nice. But they're moral heroes because of the wealth that they create. What do you want the truth to do? I recommend Christopher Hage's book about the truth. It's excellent. Where she did? I'm there. Who hasn't asked the question? We're going to take these four questions and you're going to do short questions and we're going to try to be quick. Start there. My question was about money and altruism. What do you think about money in terms of what we're using right now? In fact more exactly to put this question is do you think that money we have right now by decree is consistent with capitalism? I think that maybe... So my answer is no. It's not consistent with capitalism. I don't believe in ffiat money. I don't believe the government should control the money supply or the money or anything to do with money. I think the Bank of England's abomination that destroyed free banking in Scotland and destroyed it in the name of power in the name of control. So it's not. But on the other hand people who make money are making money because they're producing that. What would you say like maybe if we had a more objective money introduced something underlined by a commodity maybe then all the banking institutions we have right now it's sort of like altruistic... They would have to be completely different if the money supply was privatized. Banking would be very different than it is today. Today there are public eternity and there's so heavily regulated. They basically do what the government tells them to do. And that's why the financial crisis being caused by capitalism is such a joke because this is the most regulated industry in the entire universe. So they did what their incentives and what their regulatory structure encouraged them to do. Which is screwy. That's what the regulations encouraged them to do. Is there a chance for government innovation? And is that government's innovation or the creation and application of new ideas would it need to have its own city as the gals gosh? The answer is yes. Why has all of the experiments from the one that exists in Chile to the first project in New Hampshire to Liberland and Serbia all of those intention communities or attempt to create a world for capitalists or for libertarians have massively failed in the world of history? Yes. As you've already seen, it's not libertarians can't agree on anything. So how can you get a bunch of them together and make them expensive to work out? Especially in some of the swamp like in Liberland and all these free-standing things. It's a lovely idea, but it's going to be an element of kind of law and the flies to it. Well, it's not even a lovely idea that way these people perceive it. You really think that at a plot of land contest between Ireland and Bosnia and Serbia as soon as you build anything one of those countries, and I remember the president in quotes of liberal land, and I said as soon as you succeed a little bit like an invader, you say, no, no, no, CNN will be there. They won't let it happen. CNN was there when the Soviets and the Bosnians in Croatia spotted each other in mass and nobody gave up. You think libertarians are often, I don't call myself a libertarian for this, divorced from actual reality from the way people actually behave in real life. None of these, you know, there's a famous story of the libertarians who planted a flag on an atoll in Fiji, and two days later the king of Fiji with a few troops came and kicked them off. There's a reality, there's a real world out there, it's not inside your head. The only way to bring about a better world is through education, it's changing people's minds, and it's through working what we do, writing books, educating, there's no shortcuts, there's just no shortcuts. I don't think there's innovation in government, not on a big scale. The big innovation was done in the Enlightenment, and that is the idea that an individual would have the rights and that the job would go and detect them. The US government was a massive innovation. If we had a government that was established in the Constitution in the 18th century, then today the problem is nobody cares about the Constitution and I'm getting what's a piece of paper with no meaning. The Supreme Court decides every few days how it will interpret it only tomorrow based on democracy. Aren't we doing a lot of democracy and isn't that extremely inefficient to spend your life convincing the 51 or the largest majority to adopt your plan then to execute it so that eventually there is no land here, this is why I like Mars and colonising the moon but if you think that the powers to be, again, your politics, right, if you think that the powers to be are going to get laissez-faire capitalism on Mars on the moon, you should be the moon that is a harsh mistress by Robert Henlein. I mean, you be, as soon as they establish semi-freedom on Mars on the moon that's on a spaceship to the next planet because he knows the status that's coming and they're going to destroy his new founded capitalist idea unless a significant number of people believe in our ideas, our ideas will fail. I've told all these materials that bad guys have nukes and the bad guys believe, really, really believe that using force to impose their will is okay. The modern state has built up that idea. So why do you think they're going to let you have a little galt somewhere there's no way that Marines are going to show up and they are going to shut you down as soon as you achieve anything? Imagine a free bank on one of these islands a free bank that does not play by the Federal Reserve's rules that does not believe that it's money laundering to use drug money because we believe in drug organization, right? So drugs are okay. How long do you think the US government is going to let you run that bank before the Marines show up and shut you down? I mean, again, you have to be you have to focus on the reality suggested unless we get a large enough group of people and at least one nuke pointed to Washington D.C. You'll never get it. You should should destruction has worked. Okay, last good question. I wanted to go back to the altruism bit and I think you're pointing at a contradiction when you're saying that you should use this framework and this method of self-interest in rationality to us is guilt or feeling at you here. It's not a value. Guilt is a destroyer. You might call it all but it's the result of a value that you're doing. You're evaluating the way that makes you feel guilt. That's something that Kristen mentions in his assessment of the public health law and how they confuse different values in terms of self-interest and some people value more health and some people value more pleasure they get out of it and both are okay but you have this view that some of it is not okay. What if someone uses the rational self-interest to decide that it's okay to feel and if I don't help all the people I should feel guilty about it? Guilt is a negative emotion. It creates stress. It creates... That's just not a positive. It's not a value towards a happy, prosperous, successful life. So nobody... It's like all the people out there who are masochists who enjoy pain and therefore you would say it's an irrational self-interest to whip themselves three times a day. Yeah, but they're sick. A healthy animal doesn't do that. A healthy animal doesn't. So yes, there are some people that get pleasure out of killing other people. They really seem to get pleasure out of it, right? Now they're abnormal sick human beings. You don't structure a society you certainly don't structure a moral code around sickness. You structure it around health. Most people don't want to feel don't want to pursue the negative emotions. Not unless there's a... you might pursue a negative emotion if there's a better goal, more to achieve. But look, life is complicated. This is easy. I always tell people if you want to be selfish in the randier sense of the term, it's hard work. It requires really thinking about the trade off. What values you want to pursue and what expense, how much you want to invest in it, what kind of work, how hard you will need to work at this particular is the guilt I feel earned or unearned. Psychology is hard. You have to care about your psychological health. Do I want to smoke as I get pleasure out of it? What's the chances that I get lung cancer? All of those decisions you have to make and I'm all responsibilities in you to make them. And I'm saying, yeah, make them. It's not easy and I'm not... I might judge you but I'm not going to dictate how you should make your choices but you have that and you're going to make mistakes about it. Right? So life is not simple. It's not easy. I'm not making the difficult choices about thinking through it. What I want to do is get people thinking about these these things. I don't think most people think about it because they're not allowed, they don't allow themselves because they be taught to think about what's good for you and selfish and they fall outside their own belly. They want to be good. Everybody wants to be good. Everybody wants to be more adjustable and I want to I want to introduce them to a new way of thinking about what more values are. Last one. So my question is you're talking about this philosophy and I think it's very beautiful. Can you talk about how an ideal society looks like? Yeah. It's easy, right? An ideal society and this society is a society where there's no coercion or where coercion is outlawed and where there is a government that does based on one thing protecting individual rights which means a police force, a military, and a judicial to obvestrate disputes between us and to bring criminals to justice. It means that all of that has to be funded and organized voluntarily and it means that it's a society in which we can only legitimately interact with one another on a voluntary basis through I can't force you to do anything. I think a society like that is beautiful. I think that it's a society pursuing their own self-interest in a variety of different ways or different values. I think a society like that has a safety net but I don't think it's a government safety net. I think it's a voluntary safety net. I think that safety net has a lot to do with insurance but also has an element of charity that supports those who cannot afford insurance which I think is a fraction of 1% so I think you don't need a lot of charity to take care of them because in a robust insurance market and a society people are motivated by their own self-interest and they are pursuing their own values. It's a society that values money but also values spirit values, the arts. I think the complete set of real human values that make a human being the best that he can be and I'm sad that I'll never see such a society and I think it's a beautiful idea to fight that. I second that. So I guess that's it. Thanks guys.