 Okay, this is Stefan Kinsella, this is the Kinsella on Liberty podcast. Today is February 28th, 2013. Today's show is a little bit different than normal. This is kind of a personal themed podcast episode. So some people may not be interested at all in this, and that's fine. What I'm doing is I'm talking with my good friend Jack Chris. Jack say hello. Stefan, good morning. How are you? I'm perfectly well today. I worked out this morning already, Jack. Have you run yet? No, I haven't run yet, but look, you kind of set us up poorly, I think. Now, I think a lot of people are going to be interested in this. This is going to be probably the most fascinating discussion you've ever had. Well, you see, you're a professional radio guy. You can obviously tell that I'm not. I have a different approach to this, and this is not going to be an interview of you by me since I'm not an expert at that, but I think we just have a conversation and you might want to steer some of this too. But let me just explain to listeners who you are and how we know each other. What are you? You're 47 too, right? Like me? Yeah, yeah, getting close to 48, closer every day, you know, you and I both. And we've known each other since 1988, maybe? It was 88, yeah, and we can go into that. It's kind of interesting because our philosophy and politics kind of led to our meeting, as you recall. But yeah, it's been, what, 25 years? Yeah, long time. And you, before we go into that, so tell people who you are. Well, again, Jack Chris, I live in Jackson, Mississippi. Steph and I am a business publisher, both online and in print. I'm kind of one of the dinosaurs hanging on to print publications. I am a published author, my collection of political and philosophical essays. Ready, Aim, Right came out in 2004, Quail Ridge Press. And I'm currently finishing up some revisions on a book that I have been working on for some time called The Great Greek Philosopher, Aristotle for Children. And my 11-year-old daughter, Dagny, is illustrating that book for me. So, and some other projects as well, but an entrepreneur. And I dabble in political philosophy, as you know. And as your daughter's name might indicate, you and I might have an INRAND connected past there. Well, yeah, I guess that would be a good way to kind of second to the introduction on how we met. You know, it was in 1988, I was doing talk radio in Jackson, Mississippi. The station I was working at at the time was the first talk radio station in Mississippi. And WJNT, right? Yeah, WJNT. Jackson News Talk, is that what that stood for? News Talk 1180, yeah. And I was the resident libertarian. In fact, I think prior to meeting you, I had interviewed Ron Paul, who was then running for president on the LP ticket, had interviewed Noree Rothbard. Yeah, I have a picture of you, a black and white picture of you and Murray in Jackson when he visited. And I might put that on the podcast blog post about this. That's a good picture, one of my favorites. Well, thanks. Yeah, I mean, there were a lot of people I had the chance to meet. And you know, in those days, and this is kind of interesting for some of your younger listeners. I mean, this is all pre-social media days. We didn't have computers. I mean, we, a fax was something exciting in those days. And no one had cell phones. So, you know, I would call up these universities where these professors taught. I mean, you know, I just called T-Bore McCann one day at Auburn, Alabama, and introduced myself. But you had, I had interviewed David Kelly, who many of your listeners know, is now the, I believe the executive director of the Atlas Society in Washington, D.C., and renowned Objectivist philosopher, had interviewed him. And you had, I think, written, David, about the possibility of meeting some Southern Objectivist. And he referred you to me, and you wrote a letter, and then we eventually met. So, it's kind of interesting. You know, that took a process of probably weeks, if not months. And now, you can just click an email or a chat, get in touch with people. Yeah, that was around the, that was in, that was around 87, 88. And I was just starting law school around then. And I think I had been corresponding by, you know, typed printed letters in the mail with Kelly for a while. And he had, he brought me back several letters over a period of months. And, you know, I was alone in Prairieville, Louisiana. I was kind of into Rand and mildly into libertarianism at the time. And I think you were similar, or you were maybe more into libertarianism than me at the time. But we were both into Objectivism to a certain degree. And I think I was alone. And I just kind of asked Kelly if he knew anyone around the area. And he said, he brought me back and he said, well, there's a guy in Jackson, Mississippi. I mean, you know, Baton Rouge to Jackson was, was that about three, four hour drive, something like that? Yeah, yeah, about three or four hours. And, and there were so few of us, you know, I mean, I think I remember responding to you. I mean, I'm so glad to meet a fellow, you know, libertarian Objectivist. It was really exciting news to me because there was no one here. Even, you know, in Jackson, this is, we have three colleges and a university in town that people, you know, and I had read Atlas Strong, no one knew about Ludwig von Mises. A few people knew about Iron Rand and I was, I was essentially alone. So it's interesting how things have changed in the, in the intervening 25 years, it really is. And you and I were around a similar age and we had similar interests. And so we started corresponding. And then I drove to Jackson several times to visit you. And you drove to Baton Rouge a couple of times visited me. So we, we, and I think you even interviewed me on your show. I even have that one still in the voucher system. I think it was kind of pro vouchers back then. And I think another time I was there, I was in the studio watching you do your show and your show was so good and your voice is good as people can tell. But you interviewed amazing people. You interviewed, you knew Rockwell. You interviewed Murray Rockbar. You interviewed, I remember Bob Schaefer. I don't know if you interviewed T-Board, but you interviewed a lot of the luminaries of the time. And unfortunately, we've lost a lot of those tapes. Otherwise, they'd make good podcasting material. But one time I was in the studio and I was just listening to you interview. You were interviewing Lou Rockwell. And during one of the breaks, you know, he was, we were just waiting during the commercial. And so I, I got online and told Lou, I had read a lot of the stuff from Mises Institute and, and was happy to meet him. And he was very cordial and nice to me. And so that was my first kind of meeting with Lou in your studio on the radio. That was, that was a lot of fun. And I forgot about that. You know, Lou did a weekly show with me. We did, I believe, every Friday. And one of the highlights of my life and career at that point in 1988, I took a summer, I called it a pilgrimage to Auburn. And met Lou, T-Boar, Mark Thornton. I believe Jeff Tucker was there, if I'm not mistaken. And I spent two or three days just roaming the campus and, and sitting in on classes and, and you know, hanging out with these people. And to me, I was 23 years old. That was the equivalent of, I guess, some of these kids going to the beach or something. Yeah. You know, we sound like a bunch of old geezers talking about this, but, but it is fascinating and prospective to look at how nascent this was, even though the movement had been in existence for many, many years, as we know. Still in those days, it was all via mail and, and telephone calls. And people, especially here in the South, I mean, where, where we were, you were in Prairieville and I was in Jackson. They didn't really know about libertarian ideas. And this was very, very radical at the time. You think it's radical. Now, in those days, when I would interview someone, like David Friedman or Lou Rockwell would come on the air. I remember after the Exxon Valdez still Lou came on the air and he said, okay, I'm going to go fill up an Exxon today. I'm going to, you know, just all this stuff, it sounded so blasphemous and so counter to everything, the prevailing, you know, news media at the time. And it was a lot of fun for me. Yeah. Just these ideas out. But yeah, I mean, you know, you, you mentioned Steph and I was privileged. I look back now, it's kind of, it's almost all inspiring at the time. I didn't realize all these people I was talking to, and just how wonderful it was. You know, Murray Rothbard was, was the most, what a gentleman, excuse me. Just the nicest, very, you know, you read his works and they're so, it's so strong. The words are so powerful and well-read and logical and hard-hitting. You would expect this monster of a man, you know, this, this fire-breathing philosopher. And yet he was just so quiet and humble and in person, you know. And great people I got to meet. So anyway, that's all the reminiscing. Yeah. And the reason I started out a little bit in the beginning of the podcast, talking about how this is personal, I just, you know, this is, I just wanted to warn people this may be a little self-indulgent, but I think this history is important too. And, you know, in a sense, I always hate these older kind of geezers that say, you know, in my day, it was like this. And I don't really, you know, you and I are one generation or so behind the modern kids who are just steeped in the internet and everything. But we're, you know, we're only in our late 40s, so we're not really old geezers yet. And so, you know, we have lived the internet revolution. And, you know, I remember you and I, we went to, I think we went to a few Mises Institute conferences together. So we would meet up there too and have a lot of fun. You visited me to Pennsylvania when I lived in Philadelphia. You visited me there once or twice. We had a blast there. Well, and you were always, you know, kind of ahead of the curve. It was, and I say this, I mean, we're friends and everything, but it's a sounding to me just how quickly you took these ideas and essentially forged your own path. I mean, so often in our movement, and I say our movement, the libertarian movement, quote unquote, and you see this today, there are a lot of people who unfortunately may not think originally. They tend to adopt a set of principles for whatever reason, perhaps correct reasons, but then maybe they don't live by them or understand them fully. But you took these principles and went your own way. And I respected that immensely. And I think, you know, your stature today, it's very impressive. I'm kind of pleased, you know, the friend and proud of the fact that you did do this. I mean, you never were pinned down to one ism or, and you understood that that perhaps was not the way to liberty in the first place when so many others, and you know who I'm talking about, we saw people. We lacked people who really were clones of the philosophy they espoused. And that's not thinking at all. Well, I think when we started becoming good friends, 88, 89, it was kind of the tail end of our more hardcore objectivist infatuation, although you're still probably more interested in it than I. And we can talk about that. But we were both sort of becoming anarchists, I think at the time, right? And we're libertarian. And if you remember, you and I, and you reminded me of this the other day, you and I went to this conference in Dallas in 1988. It was called Meeting of the Mines. And it was 89 and it was the last. You told me it was the last objectivist conference Kelly did before he founded iOS Atlas or something like that. But it was David Kelly. John got a got health. Alan got help. John read that. And I thought there was one other. But anyway, we had a lot of fun there. And Kelly's lectures were fantastic. And we got to meet David. And I've always liked that guy. He's he's a fantastic thinker and speaker, very eloquent, sincere, amazing mind. And but you remember there was a weird event with with the with the with the Barbara Brandon book there. Yes, I do. And in fact, I was just about to bring that up. You know, it's funny because that was March of 89. And you you recall when we pulled into Dallas, it was I think 80 degrees. Yes. And we got snowed in. There was a blizzard. Yes, Dallas. No one knew about it. We had to stay an extra day. But yeah, there was there was some tension there at the time between Kelly and Rip half because we were and we were a little bit unaware of what was going on. And we can go into the reasons why. But that was David Kelly's last lecture at an officially sanctioned objective as conference. And and you what do you mean though? What was that? Wasn't the iron ran Institute? Was it at the time? I don't think it was. No, it was Donald Heath put on a conference with some local Dallas objectivist. And it was kind of a regional thing. But but I believe they are supply and the speakers, or at least they were all ARI sanctions. Well, it was it was basically the orthodox objectivist put it that way, right? Yeah, yeah, that's right. That's right. And you and I, yeah, we were at an after hours event. I remember Alan Gotthel, who some of your listeners may know, he's a very well known Aristotelian scholar and an objectivist. He was teaching people how to do the stroll. Do you remember that? I don't remember that. And I was so amazed. I was so amazed because I didn't think objectivist had fun, you know? I mean, it's the objectivist taking drinks and dancing. But anyway, you and I were in the group and some some young kids, objectivists were talking about whether or not it was the proper thing to perhaps burn Barbara Brandon's book. I think that came out. It was called The Passion of Iron Rand. And that biography came out in 86, if I recall. And it was it was sort of a band by the, you know, Peacoff type of official objectivist. And because it revealed a lot of details about personal issues between Nathaniel Brandon and Iron Rand, etc. And I think Kelly was getting in trouble because with the orthodox guys, because he had published a positive review or said something positive about the biography, right? He had. He had published or yeah, I believe he had published a review by Robert Benonato, which was not totally a glowing review of the book. But it was it was not, you know, Peter Schwartz was calling Barbara Brandon Weiss. And Leonard Peacoff was saying that he wouldn't even read the book and no one should. So that was the kind of atmosphere that was at the conference. I think you and I were standing there listening to these young people talk about the morality of burning a book. And I remember we both looked at each other and our jaws dropped. Yeah, I think this kid, I think the kid actually said he had bought the book, but when he started realizing that it was being denounced by the high priest, that he went into his backyard and had a book burning ceremony. I think he I think he literally burnt the book to show, you know, to please the gods or something. And I wonder, you wonder where this kid is today. You know, I don't know. Maybe he's a person for his or you or something. I don't know. I don't know. But that was the only objective of this conference I've ever been to. I think you've been to a couple of others since, but that's it. After that, I started going to Mises Institute Things and getting involved more in Austrian economics and you know, I spoke at in 2006 at the Atlas Society. I gave two lectures and Nathaniel Brandon was there, T. Boer McCann. I believe that was maybe Robert Devinado's last appearance before he too left the Atlas Society. And, you know, you're right. I mean, David Kelly, a brilliant mind and it has saddened me over the years to see all the schisms. It angers me somewhat. It also saddened me. And, you know, I am not the objective as I used to be, but I still admire I ran greatly. And you and I have had this discussion. I think that most people do enter either anti-capitalism or libertarianism through ran. And I still think that that's probably the best entry or entree for anybody, you know, to read Atlas Shrugged. Yeah, it's kind of keep going back and forth on this. I got really sour on the whole Randy movement because of the cultism and the kind of the humorlessness of among a lot of them and her anti-antichism and then now her pro IP views. But and I don't think she's the main entree into libertarianism anymore. I think she was and she's still a major one. But I think like the Ron Paul type movement brought in so many people through Austrian economics and all that. That's just kind of my anecdotal impression. But yeah, I've also come to reevaluate like the fountainhead. I used to love it. And that's the first one I read by her because to me now the fountainhead is it has individualism in it, but in a weird way. I mean, here you have an architect who refuses to do what his customers want. I mean, that's kind of weird. And then one of the central plots of the story, plot lines of the story is he blows up someone else's private property because of IP. So it basically is IP terrorism. So I think the fountainhead, I don't even recommend it. I say, I say do not read the fountainhead. Now Atlas shrugged on the other hand, I'd kind of in my mind that it soured. Like I'd read it two or three times years and years and years ago, probably 15 years ago as a last time. And with the movies, I decided to, I watched part one of the movie and I forgot exactly what happened in parts two and three. So I started reading the novel, picked it up at part, basically where part two would start. And I loved it. It was much better than I thought. I guess I'd bought into all these these haters over the years who say it's got wooden characters and stilted dialogue. I think she carefully constructed that novel. The characters are not supposed to be realistic. And it's just great. It's a really great novel. Yeah. I think the fountainhead may be a better written novel. I mean, I think I'm a better writer now than I was 20 years ago. And when I reread these books now, I tend to notice that it's not the message so much that hit me when I was 18 and I first read it. Now I look more at how it's written. And I think the fountainhead may be a better written book. Yeah, I agree with you about Atlas. And it's interesting, Stefan, that now it seems that the Randians and the Objectivists are trying to possibly open up a bit more than they did when you and I were first entering the movement. I mean, Inrian Institute has a very charismatic younger guy, Yaron Brooke, who is kind of offering the stick out to a lot of conservative groups and even libertarian groups. And when you and I were just entering the movement, that would never have happened. As you recall. And that may shock some of your listeners. I mean, you know, at one time, between never met, you know, you would never have any interaction between the Mises Institute, say, and ARI. I'm not saying you have a lot now, but, you know, you never would have dreamt that you would have seen an Iran group at, say, a Students for Liberty conference. Or at the, what's the conservative conference that was just held in DC? Is that Young Americans for Liberty? Well, the other one. The one that Chris Christie was not invited to, you know, the big one. The name escapes me now. Not the Federalist Society. You don't mean that one? Not the Federalist Society. No, this is the big event in DC that just took place. In fact, I had a young friend of mine who is with Students for Liberty and he sent me a text saying, I'm sitting next to David Kelly, you know, the Atlas Society had a booth there. And I believe the Iran Institute had a booth there as well. Oh, is that the thing that I think Jeff Tucker went to? And because he said he talked to David Kelly there too. Anthony Gregory. I forgot what it's a student. I don't remember what it was called. But the objectives still have this sort of latent kind of conservative idea that, you know, our natural alliance, like the libertarians, have a natural alliance with the conservatives. Whereas nowadays that sort of idea is dissipating among a lot of radical libertarians. Like they think we have more in common with left libertarians in some ways, right? Or even even some parts of the civil libertarian left than with these kind of straight, you know, these moral majoritarian type conservatives. I don't know if we have much in common with any of them, to be honest. I mean, there are some ways we can make inroads, but I really don't like the idea that the Republicans or the conservatives are our natural sort of home or allies. And yeah, I was going to say even further, I think we're seeing the objectivists and some libertarians hang onto the notion and the libertarian party included that change can be made through the political system. And I know that in reading your your articles and posts on Facebook and blogs, you have really stood by your principles that, you know, we can't work through a system that is, you know, rotten to the core. Many of us still believe and still get excited about the fact or revel in the fact that they can get the ear of a congressman or a congresswoman. And I don't think, you know, I've discussed this in private. I don't think that just because, you know, Paul Ryan has read Atlas Shrugged that that's going to make any difference. You know, I mean, let's face it, a lot of people have read Atlas Shrugged, a whole lot of people, and we haven't seen just a ton of cultural change. So I don't know what it's going to take, but I think if I may be so bold to say, I think the objectivist movement is a little bit behind the curve in thinking that they can work through politicians and change the culture. I don't think it's going to happen. I think it's the monster that demonstrably that it's been shown if you can't have. I mean, you could argue that if more American citizens had read Atlas or had read, you know, Murray Rothbard or Austrian economics or Henry Haslett or Bastiat, then that might make a difference because naturally the politicians are going to cater to the prevailing ethos and sentiments in society. So that's how politics will get better is if we change the attitude of the masses, not the politicians. The politicians are always going to cater to, you know, what they can get away with by popular sentiment. It's just unrealistic to think. I mean, Ron Paul was such an anomaly, right? And, but I would say that, you know, let's to close off the objectivist stuff, you know, her four basic points of her philosophy was reality and realism, you know, epistemological realism, self-interest and capitalism. And it broadly stated, I think you and I and even like Rothbardians would agree with all those. We just think that capitalism means anarchy or at least I do. And we think that that would imply no intellectual property. So we would disagree with the Randians on their application of those principles. But the four general principles, I think are solid. And so depends on what you mean by objectivist. But now you go ahead. If you don't mind, let me play interview. I want to turn the question because we started talking about how we first met 25 years ago, which is kind of interesting. So do you think I'll put the question on the table for you to answer? Do you think that this country is more open or we are more open as a nation to the idea that you and I were interested in 25 years ago today than we were then? I don't know if, I don't know if the people, the masses are or for a long time going to really be interested in ideas in this kind of libertarian intellectual sense. I mean libertarians attract the people that are kind of interested in working these issues out and studying these things. So I don't and I don't know if the change has to come that way. Anyway, what I do think is that there's been a gradual kind of background appreciation, you know, seeping into journalists and professors and people an appreciation for the need for free markets. Now they're not pure, they're not consistent, but you know the Soviet Union collapsed in 90 or something like that. And you know that's a good teaching lesson to people. Now people kind of have a sense that central planning is going to not work. So I think that, you know, things like that. And then I think the emergence of all this decentralized technology and sort of the ability to be an entrepreneur with just a very low startup cost, you know, and infrastructure costs now. And this sort of dynamic attitude of the young internet generation has made people just more entrepreneurial. So I think in a way they're more and I think people are generally more pro-civil liberties, you know, and they're generally more for economic freedom. It's just that they want, they want their security as well and they're inconsistent on war. Right. So there's a lot of work to do, but I think there's, there is, I mean, you can see Austrian economics is mentioned in fairly mainstream press now. It's known. It's not obscurity more. Libertarianism is as well. So I think there is more receptiveness to it, but you know, not enough yet. Well, it's interesting and frustrating at the same time. When I see posts, for example, from the American conservative, which I appreciate as a good publication, a well-written and interesting publication, recently they posted something on a blog about the fact that conservatives need to realize that being pro-war is also being pro-welfare. But at the same time, you see, or we hear a president who just gave a State of the Union address where he was as blatantly collectivist as any president since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964. And so you wonder how much really has changed. I mean, you know, and yeah, we can say that politics is not, you don't have to understand it. You don't have to participate in it, but it rules us, Stefan. You know, I mean, it does influence our, unfortunately, our every waking moment. Well, it does influence us, but I don't know if it rules us. I think there's a lot of distraction on that, and there's a lot of clamoring by certain people to get control of the state or to influence the state to give them favors, but there's a huge swath of private life that just ignores the state and goes around it. They recognize it as a dangerous predator. You know, they've got to deal with it. But I, I think the hope is not politics. Like you said, the hope is that we're just going to hopefully we can survive the coming, you know, possible catastrophes because of the state's meddling over the years. If we can survive, then I'm hopeful that just civil society and technology will allow the free market that still does remain to keep growing and gradually just outpace and outrun the state. The state is a slow, stupid, lumbering beast. And, you know, if they had predicted what the internet would be, they would have killed it, right? But they can't. And hopefully it's too late for them to kill it, although they keep trying with SOPA and SISPA and things like this. Right. So I'm hopeful that people will just, I mean, like Bitcoin is maybe emerging. You know, that the state may have caused that to emerge. I don't know if Bitcoin would ever emerge in a free market. You just have gold or something like that as money. But Bitcoin is emerging as a way to get around taxes and regulations online gambling and spying on people's transactions and things like that. So things like this keep emerging. You know, we have encryption, we have cell phones now, we have the internet, of course, and we have the torrenting of files. All this stuff is just really, we might reach a certain tipping point where the state just becomes more and more irrelevant. Or at least, even if it keeps growing, if the economy and the private sector and technology can keep growing even faster, then gradually the state becomes a smaller percentage of life. You're generally optimistic and you and I also have this discussion often. I just, I wonder if there will be a significant sea change in our lifetime. And, you know, what will, what will happen in the meantime? Well, some cataclysmic event take place. I mean, no one knows for sure. And in any kind of philosophical thought is incremental. But, you know, Steph, I don't think that this change, this philosophical change is going to come through think tanks. I don't know if it's going to come through the internet. You know, I wonder how it's going to take place. It is an educational thing, which is another point of concern for me, because I don't know if free market philosophy, philosophies are being taught to our young people. They have to discover it on their own, and usually when they're much older. But I wonder how this change, how do you see it, a gradual building away? Yeah, I think it's gradual, but it could, like I said, there could be some tipping point type of events. I'm not sure. It's hard to predict the future. I wouldn't say I'm an optimist. I'm hopeful, as I said, I'm hoping that the better outcome happens. And I think it's possible. I am, like, I'm a personal optimist. I mean, Murray Rothbard used to say, we need to be short term pessimists and long run optimists. And I think that's probably right, in case we kill ourselves off by gray goo or something like that. But I'm an optimist in my own life, because look, we live in a world where we, like in America, we have lots of opportunity, but there are dangers. So I just view the government as a dangerous obstacle or a beast. You know, just like the possibility of a plague or disease or hurricanes or wild beasts. It's just another thing we have to keep an eye on and conquer and work around and try to find a way to prosper and succeed in the face that it's just another challenge. It's unfortunately a challenge that shouldn't be there. But I think, so I'm a personal optimist in the sense that I think people can succeed and have a flourishing, happy life, even though there's a state out there. It's harder than it would otherwise be and that's unfortunate, but whining about it doesn't change it. But that's what's the thing. Very important. Well, let me mention the thing. You asked about think tanks. I think the role of think tanks and intellectuals, I agree, we're not going to change society, but I think it's important number one to keep the remnant alive. You know, like a knock talked about, although we're much more than a remnant now. But I think we're preparing the groundwork for when changes start happening and people start looking for coherent explanations. So when the average person or the masses start moving in a certain direction, then there's a whole group of educated people like intellectuals and professors and businessmen who were interested in Iran when they were kids, you know, who can then sort of provide a framework for people to hang their hats on. You know, when the when the Soviet Union collapsed, then people started getting interested in Mises' explanation about socialism because that was there already. So go ahead. Yeah. I was going to bring up just two related points. One positive and one maybe not so positive in my view. First of all, I think in 1988, which is where we saw this conversation and you and I started our friendship, Ayn Rand would have been laughed at at most colleges and she was and I was laughed at. I think now the culture has changed. I say Ayn Rand. I'm almost talking about all the material ideas when I mentioned Rand umbrella term, Rand the mothership as it were. It's not laughed at. It is taken more seriously in the universities and colleges. I think I'm not of college age, but I do interact with a lot of students and professors and I think that's a positive thing that the idea of libertarianism is not poo pooed or ridiculed as it was 25 years ago. On the negative side though, Steffen, I mentioned that I primarily am a salesman in my day to day business and entrepreneur and I meet with a lot of small business people and entrepreneur some of whom are very well educated. Some of whom what is particular that I'm bringing up works in the financial market and what disappoints me is for example, I had lunch with this gentleman not long ago and he was railing against regulation, government regulation against banks in the financial sector and he made some very salient and correct points. But then he turned around in the same breath and said, however, I do think the government should take over healthcare. Right, right. And I think government should, you know, so there's this inconsistency and this man is well off, he's well educated. He owns a business too as a matter of fact. And yet, he doesn't, himself, see the inconsistency and the illogical statement he's making. And that's what concerns me and he would call himself a conservative, a free market Republican. So, you know, we've come, we've covered a lot of ground and we have come a long way but we've got a long, long way to go too. Well, yeah, I mean, well, first of all, I think the way to look at it is I'm not a doom and gloomer in the sense that, you know, it's time to get the hell out of the country. I mean, first of all, I don't know where you're going to go. And it's just not realistic. I mean, the reason the state, the U.S. state, I mean, can tax successful Americans so much is exactly because it doesn't make sense for them to leave. So, they had them, they had them, you know, by the short and curlies really. I mean, if I were to leave and go to another country, even if I find one that's freer for a while, you know, my income goes down by a factor of 10, unless I'm in a certain special field. So, you know, for my personal selfish point of view, it's better to make X dollars and have it 40 percent taken than to move somewhere else and have 90 percent lost just because I don't have as many economic opportunities. But I would say that society is getting better and is getting worse. So there are two different trends, right? So the internet, freedom, even the libertarian movement are getting better. But some things are getting worse, like the state's getting more like a police state in terms of their, you know, the way police and civilians' relationship used to be 30, 40, 50 years ago seems different than it is now. You know, it's more of a hostile relationship now than the friendly cop, you know, on the beat. Officer friendly, yeah. Yeah. So things are getting worse in some ways. But I do believe that the reason you and I are free marketeers is we believe freedom and the free market is better than the government. And it's better in a lot of ways. It is more powerful than the government. It's more productive than the government. It's not centrally directed by the like the government and it's not evil-minded like the government. And unfortunately, destruction is easier than production. So the government, even if it's weaker in a sense than the market, can do a lot of damage. So I'm, the reason for optimism is just to believe that the market will eventually defeat the state or at least marginalize it. It's going to be a long process. I hope, I think. I do get confused sometimes and frustrated by what its citizens riled up. I mean, for example, so often the citizenry seems very docile about issues like taxation. I mean, the majority of their income can be taken away. And yet, this gun control thing just had people really, literally, no pun intended, up in arms. Yeah. You know, I mean, the internet was flooded and with, with comments and people here and you know, in Mississippi, it's a rural state, a lot of hunters. You know, you would think you would have thought the world was coming to an end. Don't take my guns. And yet it's okay to take most of the money that I earn. But the other thing that interests me somewhat, and I do, I don't like to see all the anger back and forth. And that's why I typically stay away from people. I don't have any respect for people like Ann Coulter and people who, they're demagogues and there's a little bit baddie in my opinion. I think libertarians, for example, could find common ground with, say, the Occupy movement. Yeah. And I think... Or the Tea Party movement. I think the both Occupy and Tea Party are both hopeful developments, as was the defeat of SOPO. It's probably one of the biggest achievements of liberty in a long time. Or... Well, my... Yeah, I agree with you. And many of my friends on the left who are highly intelligent people, I think the problem is, and I don't mean for this to sound condescending, but I think maybe there's some economic issues that they may not be... Understand completely. And, you know, freedom is not 20%, 30%. It's all or nothing. And while many people on the left want freedom in certain areas, they deny it in others and they don't see or lack of consistency in their position. And the same can be said of conservatives, too. And that's still a major problem. But I think, really, I'm wondering now, because you talked about this earlier, about conservatives to making common ground with them. I'm wondering if now the libertarian movement actually has more in common with the left than it does with the right. I wonder. I go back and forth on that. I don't know. I start thinking that sometimes when I hear Republicans say horrible things and then I see a leftist say something horrible and it gets my hopes dashed. But there are a certain type of leftist. Of course, the left libertarians are largely great. They've been great on IP for a long time. They're good on anti-war. I don't agree with some of their personal tastes or predictions about how society might be organized in the future if we have a pre-society. But I don't care. I'd be happy to give it a try and see who wins. But yeah, I think, and then even some of the civil libertarian left, like say the Cory Doctor O-type people, they're not libertarians. They're kind of for socialized medicine, but they are strong civil libertarians. They're kind of for the free market. They're strong for internet freedom. So I would like to get to the point where we have such a dominant case where they're trying to make an alliance with us, you know, where the left and the right want to make an alliance with us. And you see that to a certain degree. There's a this recent libertarian forum in or whatever it's called in New Hampshire. I think Cory Doctor O was there. So he's coming to the radical kind of anarchist left libertarian volunteerous crowd. So he's going there and that's got to influence him over time because he sees people consistent and passionate. As for your comment about freedom being all or nothing, I agree in the sense of making a coherent case for it. But in terms of living your life, freedom is just one of the many things we need. Right. We need freedom. We need, you need to have health. You need to have security. You need to have shelter. And so I look at all these things and just challenges. So even if we don't have perfect freedom from the state, you know, it's up to you as a entrepreneurial human to find a way to survive and prosper and flourish in the face of it. And I think it's obviously possible. It's a challenge, especially a challenge not to be corrupted. In other words, you could, if you want to go work on Wall Street and make a bunch of money, I mean, so maybe some of that's legitimate, but you know, a lot of times you do it by modulating your message and kind of being a compromising sellout, going to work for the government for a while and getting credentials there that's revolving door problem. So that tends to corrupt people or at least make them afraid to even look into what the truth might be because they don't care. They want to make their money more than they want to be correct on ethical theory. You're right, you're right. And the other side of the coin, Stefan, are those who want to become martyrs for the cause. And you know, nobody's helped by your becoming a martyr, you know. Society is not, if you want to take the utilitarian argument, and you're not, your family's not personally, but you and I have seen that too. A lot of people who devote themselves to the cause and almost do want to go down as a martyr, you know. And so there's a sellout, there's a martyr, and then there's that, if it's possible, that happy medium. You know the truth, and you're trying to seek out the truth, but you know you have to live in 2013 in America. Yeah, I've always kind of thought it was weird that there's this idea among some, especially the activist type libertarians, right, that we have some kind of duty to not only be an activist, which you know takes a lot of time and sometimes money, it takes away from your ability to make money in a regular career, whatever, for the benefit of the cause or something. And that's almost altruistic, right? And you and here, Randy is talking like this. If you remember that, at that 1989 conference we went to, I met some guys that when they heard I was in law school, they started mocking me because I would have to take the the bar exam and I would have to become a member of the bar, which means I have to swear, you know, an oath to be an officer of the court and they were saying, you know, you can't do that. It's immoral to do that and all this kind of stuff. And so if that was true, then no one could be a lawyer. No one could be a doctor, I guess, under socialized medicine. So all the principal people who care for liberty would have to marginalize themselves and be basically losers. And what kind of ability would they have to spread the message of liberty or even, you know, you know, be a successful citizen. Now, I do think there's some things you shouldn't do. I mean, you shouldn't be an IRS tax agent. You know, you shouldn't be a guard at the federal prisons. You probably shouldn't even be a soldier in the army. But it's a practical, prudential moral matter about how to draw the line and, you know, you can drive on the roads. You shouldn't martyr yourself by saying, I'm not going to drive on the roads. Those kind of issues. So I think it's a practical thing and the government makes it difficult, but I don't think we have an obligation to be martyrs or even to be activists. I think your only obligation is to be a good person and not violate other people's rights and not advocate that the state do these terrible things. You know, I met a young man recently who was interesting. He had read most of Rand and Leonard Peacock and Mises and talked a good line, apparently or seemingly. And when I asked him what he wanted to do for his career, he said that he wants to go work for a state senator. So, you know, will he make a difference? I mean, you remember when Greenspan in 87 was named head of the Fed, so many people thought, oh, great, you know, he's gonna, it's a ploy or it's, and he's gonna bring Iron Rand ideas to the Fed, but a lot of us were also disappointed. And I felt the same way in talking to this young man. I mean, you know, did he not see the contradiction? Maybe it was family pressure or something. I don't know, but I don't know. I don't think you could really change the culture by working for a senator. Do you? No, I don't. I don't think, I think there's two things wrong with being quote disappointed in Greenspan. Number one is, to be surprised, is ridiculous. I mean, you know, just like if you have a welfare system, you know, you have a trough of money people can come get for free. People are gonna be attracted to it, and they're gonna go to it. So to be surprised that if you have these institutions of power that people will respond to it is ridiculous. And just because you understand the gold system and understand the government shouldn't be doing this doesn't mean that it's not in your personal interest to go do it. So no one should be surprised that Greenspan did this. And but to be disappointed is almost like this kind of politician hero worship kind of thing where your hopes are dashed and your hero is just disappointing you. It's, I don't think you should look up to these people at all anyway. So, you know, when when a congressman like Rand Paul or even Ron Paul with some of his votes or actions does something that's I think is un-libertarian, not disappointed. This is politics. You know, you have to be realistic about it. I agree with that. And I think that's kind of a hard lesson for a lot of people. But again, it goes back to putting their their faith or trust, if you will, in the political movement or politicians. Yes. And that's not gonna happen. One thing that is bothersome. And this would be a whole another topic, but I can tell you, as an entrepreneur, and a very small businessman, the regulation burden is getting harder and harder. Right. And I see a lot of people, you know, Mississippi, a lot of businesses here do rely on state and, you know, federal monies. And they're, they're very willing to take it. And they almost have to take it. Now, it seems as if a lot of businesses are lining up for that type of money. I mean, you know, even for advertising campaigns, they'll get a grant from the city or something for 100 grand or $150,000, which may not sound like a lot, but to a small business, it's a hell of a lot of money. Right. And I'm seeing that more and more. And it's almost as if you're damned, if you do, you're damned, if you don't, if you believe in the old ratio out or, you know, work at it. It's very difficult now. And a lot of people are cutting, I'm not gonna say cutting corners, doing things that perhaps they wouldn't have done 20 years ago because the economy is so much worse. It's a tough predicament, Stephanie, it really is. I know. And, you know, these young people trying to come up to be entrepreneurs, it's gonna be harder for them too, and a lot of them are gonna be disillusioned. I agree. Well, why don't you, you got anything you want to plug? You said you had this upcoming book on Aristotle. What else? Don't you have a a journal? You have a website for the journal? My website is pro-biz-ms.com p-r-o-b-i-z-ms.com and we are in the process, in fact, I'm meeting with some people tomorrow to really redo the site and have a nice new YouTube channel and so on and so forth. It is primarily for businesses here in this state, but we have some writers who have been published in, you know, Huffington Post and The Daily Beast and people of all political persuasions. I try to get as many ideas on the table as I can in my publication. Did you get permission from the High Priest of Libertarianism before doing that? What the heck? Did you get permission from the hierarchy, the priest before doing that? Yeah, after I went up and burned a few books and made sacrifices, I did that. And yeah, the book on Aristotle, I'm hoping it will be out later this year and certainly I'll let people know. You know, it's funny because I, having a daughter, young child, you know, you have a young son, I noticed that there were children's books about everybody from Shaquille O'Neal to Tim Tebow to, you know, Einstein, but I had never come across a children's book on, who I still think is the greatest thinker of all time, Aristotle. So I took it upon myself to write such a book. And again, it's my pleasure to have my daughter do the illustrating. So we're going to have that out later this year. We'll see. I'd love to see it. Send me a free PDF copy. No, I'll, you know, $9.95. Yeah, you've got to put food on the table, right? We'll get a copy right. And how about that? I'll help you. Let me just say, I know we got to go, but it's a friend and someone who has known you for a long, long time. I'm, you know, and people may not realize that they may have just come to know you, but you're truly an original thinker, you're an independent guy and a lot of us are very proud of you. So, so keep up, keep up the good work. It's tremendous work you are doing. Thanks, Jack. I appreciate that and good luck with your pursuits and we'll get together soon. We'll do it, my friends. Thanks for having me on the show. All right. Talk to you later. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.