 Bye, bye, bye because everyone 10 did nothing. Socialism is not compatible with altruism because I'm forced to pay taxes it's not altruistic at all Secondly I agree that the present crisis is a Catastrophic third wave of monetary policy if we didn't have central banks would he have been avoided Gyda hwn o'r hoedg wrtha'n roi yma, gyda'n hoedg o'r hoedg yma, ond o'n gwybod ymlaen ymlaen. David Cymru, y byddwn hefyd imbryd i'r rhan o bobl, a fynd i'r staf님 yna ymlaen go Battery Civil. OK? Optimism, optimism, optimism. Socialism, optimism. How about we do this? Let's leave emotion and optimism to last, because you want to end on a positive note. Let me do socialism, torture and then... No, there's nothing in altruism that says that it has to be voluntary. Utilism does not require you to voluntarily sacrifice. It's fine to force people to sacrifice. There's nothing in the Christian ethic, there's nothing in the Jewish ethic, there's nothing in the Islamic ethic, there's nothing in the Contian ethic that suggests volunteerism. If I think you're not giving enough to the poor, it's completely fine for me to force you to give more and you'll still land up in heaven as a consequence. So the fact that you are forced to do it doesn't change its moral status necessarily. But the other orientation is consistent with socialism. Socialism, you can sell socialism with altruism much easier than you can sell capitalism with altruism. Capitalism is unaltruistic, even though it's voluntary, even though it's charitable, even though people give more under capitalism to charity than they would under any other system. They're far more pro-like, pro-charity, pro-people than under any other system. The motivation is not altruistic, it's selfish fundamentally, even when they do charity and as a consequence, if you're an altruist, capitalism is up. That's a quick answer. Torture. How many of you watched 24? Oh yeah. There's no question in my mind that under certain circumstances, life or death circumstances, torture is absolutely moral. Not only that, I would argue that it's a moral necessity, that not to torture somebody, when you know that torture will save lives, when you know that that person is a beggar, I'm assuming that, that torture person is a beggar, you know that person is a beggar and lies will be saved if you don't, then it would be immoral not to torture him because then these people are dying. Now, I'm also assuming something else, that torture is effective. I have no opinion one way or the other about that. That's a technical question, you'd have to ask the experts. I think it is, but that's just a personal opinion. You know, a little bit based on the fact that I used, I certainly used really military intelligence a long time ago. I didn't actually do any torture, I promise to go on. I'll give you an example, and actually this comes from a leftist, Alan Dushawitz, who's an American leftist, but has written on torture. And this example is, you know, you make a person, make a person. Your child has got a bomb strapped in, and a terrorist is right in front of him and only he can dismantle the bomb. Are you willing to do whatever it takes to get that terrorist to dismantle the bomb? My question is about terrorist suspects as opposed to known terrorists, because I think that's usually where the question is. Well, there's no question, there are great areas here. You don't torture somebody you don't know, but look, it's why I like 24, because it presents these kind of moral dilemmas. There's a nuke going off in Los Angeles right now. You've got a person that you're convinced 80% is responsible. He's the only one who can dismantle the nuke. The nuke goes off and 150,000 people are going to die. What do you do? Well, there's a certain point where, you know, if he's innocent, there's no torturing will be ineffective. It would be stupid. There's a waste of time. You've got a bomb to dismantle. At some point, it becomes the only practical thing to do. It's great, and that's why it should only be in an extraordinary circumstances. But I think it's left to the experts to make those kind of evaluations. So I don't rule torture out, is my point. But it certainly don't suggest that every criminal should be tortured, or every suspect of a crime should be tortured. Emotion and optimism? Emotion and optimism. I am optimistic. And I do believe that we need to make an emotional case for capitalism. And as you can see, I'm a pretty emotional guy. And I think we can make an emotional case. I think we have to make the rational case, but we can do it with passion, first of all. Secondly, I go back to this notion of the pursuit of happiness. At least in America, we can hook people with this idea of, here's a morality that completely justifies, provides a basis in philosophy and morality for your pursuing your happiness. You don't have to feel guilty for being successful. You don't have to feel guilty for working hard at taking care of your family and not worrying too much about starving kids in Africa. You shouldn't feel guilty about those things. Americans, at least, and I think generally human beings, respond positively to that message of self-fulman, self-actualisation, happiness, individual happiness, taking care of oneself and one family. I think that is the message that needs to be conveyed. And capitalism is a system that allows them to do that. It's the only system that leaves them free to pursue their own happiness. That's something people can really grasp onto and relate to. And the reason I'm happiness is because of that. People still respond positively to that message. And, you know, I believe that Iron Man is probably the best communicator of these ideas ever. And part of my optimism is the fact that through many of our programs, we believe that about a million kids in the United States every year are reading Iron Man. Iron Man sales in the bookstores. I'm related to our own activities. Iron Man sales in the bookstores. She sells, somewhere close to double what she sold when she was alive. So, that was struggle. She sells about double the number of copies today, every day in the bookstores. Then there was a best seller, a New York Times best seller in 1957 when it first came out. The growth rate is clearly upwards. More and more people are talking about her ideas. More and more people are taking her seriously. Today there is a chain in the philosophy of objectivism at the University of Texas in Austin. A top 20 philosophy department in the world has a chain of philosophy of objectivism. There are regular seminars among philosophers to talk about her ideas. You know, there are at least somewhere between 50 to 100 universities in the United States where Iron Man is being taught on a regular basis. So, I'm very optimistic because I think these are powerful ideas. And if we can expose enough people to them, people respond positively to them. Our enemy is ignorant. And if we're getting these ideas out there for you, people are reading the books, people are being engaged with these ideas, then I cannot help but believe that we will win. Thank you all. One who defends capitalism with such vigour and flash, I think deserves a medal. And so, here is your one with Adam Smith. Thank you.