 He's given us speech now on free speech, which I need to listen to, and I'll probably listen to in critique on one of on a show in the future, because he's really being actively engaged out there around free speech. So most of the interviews about that and I encourage you to watch it, because I think it's interesting. It's interesting to see what Mark Zuckerberg has to say about issues relating to free speech and privacy and other issues, other issues of that related here. But I'm picking a different section of this because I think it links to some of the other discussions better. I want to talk about free speech, but I want to get a better sense. I don't think he makes a lot of sense in his interview with Dana Perino on the issue of free speech. I'm hoping I can find a source where he makes more sense so we can actually criticize his real ideas because I'll understand them. Here I don't quite get what he's talking about. So what I want to hear is, you'll see, she's asking about what he thinks about being a billionaire, and what he thinks about Bernie Sanders' claim that there shouldn't be any billionaires. So we're going to watch this and I'll comment as we go along as I usually do. So let me move that over there. Alright, so this is Dana Perino from Fox News interviewing Mark Zuckerberg, and it'll just be, I think I've got a two minute clip here, although I'll probably stop it. I think Sanders has long been saying that he doesn't think billionaires should even exist, and you have said that, you know, maybe I don't even need this much money, but do you believe you earned your money fair and square? So, simple question. Do you believe you earned your money fair and square? Right? Should have a pretty simple, straightforward answer. Listen to Mark. By the way, is the volume on the video good? Is it too high? Is it too low? I don't know if there's anybody out there who can answer my question in real time, but let me know if the volume's off. So look, here's what I basically, what I said and what I believe is I don't think that in some cosmic sense that anyone deserves to have billions of dollars. So what does that mean? So instead of saying, yeah, I made a fair and square, two and a half billion people use my product. I haven't stolen anything from anybody. I think I made the world a much better place because of Facebook. I assume he believes that he is the CEO of Facebook. It is his baby. And this is how much the market has valued my contribution to doing all this. But now what he says is in a cosmic sense, nobody deserves billions. In other words, value is not something that is human. There's a cosmic sense of value, which means kind of a intrinsic sense of what is valuable to some being or some entity or something outside of human being, outside of trade that determines what is a value. And now I don't know that he's religious. I don't think he is. But he's saying, and this is a typical philosophical idea, what is valuable and what is not valuable is not dependent on humans. It's not what is valuable to you, but it's just value is a value. And how do we know that? Well, through revelation, through communion with this cosmic sense, that's Plato, right? There's a world, there's all the forms out there where real values are and we know what they are. Some people can communicate with that and then they tell us what are true values. So there's a long philosophical tradition of viewing this, not in terms of value, economic value in the marketplace, value in terms of what I contributed and what other people contribute to my life and what I contribute to their life and the trade, the win-win relationship that is a trade, which is where I would have gone with the question. No, he has to place it. There's an intrinsic value outside of human well-being, outside of human marketplace, outside of the human world in a cosmic sense. I mean, religionists would say, well, from a God perspective, from a religious perspective, well, nobody should really have a billion dollars. It's not in the Ten Commandments. It's not, you know, in a big, if you've got a guy up there, a God up there who's deciding what justice is based on who knows what criteria, then why a billion dollars? What is his criteria? No, but justice is about this world. Justice is about your relationship with other people. Justice is about trade. And if you're trading with other people and you're gaining because they're gaining and you're impacting so many people's lives and you're providing so much value that you are worth billions, then of course the billions you deserve. Of course the billions are just. Justice needs to be in this world. It's getting what you deserve, deserve based on what? Based on what you produce, based on the value you create. And somebody like Mark Zuckerberg has created immense, enormous, humongous value. But he can't say it. And the broader point I want to make here is until businessmen can say it, we lose. Until we have a group of businessmen who are unapologetically saying, yeah, absolutely I made my money fairly, absolutely I've earned my money, absolutely it's just that I have a billion dollars. Because, here's why. Here are the reasons. Now, a boy is just saying, well, he's just playing coy because he represents a company. I don't believe that for a second. And if you read his letter where he founded his charity, where he gives away 99% of his wealth, if you read the letter he wrote to his daughter when that started, if you listen to other things that he said and done, he's just a part of the culture. He's not an objectivist. He's not philosophical. He doesn't have a philosophical defense of his wealth. And that's what we're missing until we have business leaders who have a philosophical defense of their wealth, who understand where wealth comes from, who understand what wealth is, who understand what value is. What does he care about? I mean, is anybody going to stop using Facebook because Mark Zuckerberg just declared that he deserves his wealth? No, it has no impact on his business. And indeed, all he does by playing politics is undercut his business because it makes him fodder for politicians and it makes it possible for people to play on his guilt, which you see all the time when he goes to testify before Congress. All right, so in a cosmic sense, he doesn't deserve it. A lot of people who do really good things. A lot of people do really good things like, I don't know, Mother Teresa. She didn't make billions. I wonder why? Maybe she didn't do good things to the same extent that you did good things, Mark. Maybe some realms where people do good things are valued less by the marketplace, valued less, in other words, by other people. Why apologize? And kind of, and help a lot of other people. The standard is helping other people? No. The standard is trading with other people. The standing is creating value for other people. The standard is the recognition that that value has been created. That's what justice entails. Not helping other people. Helping other people is not the standard. But you'll see that's exactly where he's going to go to. He's going to go to his charity. He's going to go talk about charity because that's what is associated with justice. That's what is associated with goodness. That's what is associated with morality. Well, compensated for that. But I mean, at some level, that's really a lot of wealth. Now, it's not necessarily that I agree with some of the policy prescriptions. That's good. He doesn't agree with the policy. Some of these folks are putting forward. I mean, some people think that, okay, well, the issue or the way to deal with this accumulation of wealth is, let's just have the government take it all. And now, the government can basically decide all of the medical research that gets done or all of the... And I personally believe... So he's saying, and this is a good point. I give him credit for saying this because a lot of people won't say this. He's saying, look, the solution that people present to this, I mean, I'm interested in what his solution would be, although he never presents it. I think his solution is, I'll give it all to charity because I feel guilty about it, right? But what he's saying, what he's saying, is that the solution that everybody has, like Bernie Sanders, is to tax the money away from me and give it to government. And the government will then spend it on medical research and all these other things. And he's saying, is that the best use of this money? By what standard, by the way? What's the standard he's using when he's asking the question, is this the best use of the money? The standard is society. The standard is collectivism. The standard is other people. The standard is implicit altruism. The standard is the good of society. The standard is who can benefit society more, me or them. But accepting that the standard is not my well-being, not my happiness, not what I want to do with these resources, not my property rights, not my selfish interests in achieving my personal happiness. No, the standard is, can I deploy the money better for society than the government? Bill Gates does the same thing, Warren Buffin does the same thing. But at least he points out, government is not very good at allocating resources. Good friend. The relationship time at our philanthropic initiative, the Chan Zuckerberg initiative that I run with my wife. And basically, I think it's good that there are different philanthropies and different organizations that can put competing ideas out about how to do research or science in different places. By what standard? Again, by the standard of what's good for society. I mean, I agree with him, competition is good. I mean, if he was serious about this competition stuff, he would be advocating for eliminating a lot of government programs. Not just not taxing him, but actually returning more of his taxes to him and actually eliminating government programs. Eliminating the welfare state so we can have competition and providing welfare to people. I mean, he's not going to go that far. But at least he's willing to say, don't tax me more because. You know, maybe what we're doing is going to be good. Maybe it's not. But I fundamentally believe in that competition and that you want different ideas out there. I asked him about. So I think, I mean, I encourage you to watch the whole thing. I think it's a pretty, as I said, it's pretty mixed. It's a combination of stuff that I agree with and combination of stuff that I don't quite think he knows what he's talking about. But it's that weakness on the wealth question that just illustrates all the stuff we talk about here all the time in terms of, you know, why we can't reverse the trends. Why it's so difficult. Why, why, you know, the fact that altruism and collectivism so dominant in the culture makes it impossible for businessmen to defend themselves until they're willing to defend themselves. It's very hard for me to defend them when they're undercutting it. And everybody, even somebody like Mark Zuckerberg, who's really a smart guy, can defend it and buys into the collectivistic arguments. And I know a lot of you hate Mark Zuckerberg for a variety of different reasons, but Mark is brilliant. He's created values that I benefit from and that you guys benefit from and you should all be thankful to Zuckerberg for creating Facebook and the huge benefits that that has provided you and my life. It's just sad that he does not have the philosophical tools to be able to defend himself and defend his company and to defend his wealth and defend his right, moral right to live his life as he see fit and run his company as he see fit. And you don't have to use it if you don't like it. He later on, you know, answers arguments about answers to claims about discrimination against conservatives and all of that. And you're not going to be satisfied with his answers. But I think it'd be interesting, you know, you might find it interesting to hear directly from him what he thinks about all these things. I would, I would follow that. I don't find somebody says Facebook breeds misery. No, you, as individuals, breed misery. You might use Facebook to breed misery, but I don't find Facebook breeds misery with me. If you're miserable, deal with it. Don't blame a tool. Don't blame the tool. All right. Now, what we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think, meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. Using the super chat and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity. Go to your own book show dot com slash support or go to subscribe star dot com your own book show and and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next.