 Ευχαριστώ για έναν άλλο επίπεδο με την Ευρώπη και την Ευρωπαϊκή Βασίου. Σήμερα είναι πιο σημαντικό να αγγίξουμε στους φίλους, τώρα δεν είναι ένας δευτερός, τώρα είναι ένας κλασικό-λυβερός. Είμανς εμμονς, είναι ο δημιουργός της Αδάμσμυθ-Ενστίτουτ. Είναι πραγματικό ένας από τα πιο ιστορικές κλασικά-λυβεράλοι στιγμές της Ευρώπης και της Ευρώπης. Είμανς έχει ρίθει πολλές αγγίες. Είμαι εδώ με ένα που είμαι πραγματικό, ο οποίος είναι ο πραγματικός-λυβεράλος της Αδάμσμυθ-Ενστίτουτ. Όχι τώρα είχε ρίθει κάτι στο Άνραντ, ο οποίος είναι ένας που γνωρίζει Άνραντ. Και είναι ο δύο αγγίες του Άννου, ένας που είναι ο Καπιταλής και ένας που είναι ο Δημοκρασίας. σήμερα ο Άννο μία Ευρώπης, ο Άντο this discussion you can participate in this discussion by sending a super chat. Raj is going to collect these super chats and we're going to ask our speakers questions. An huge thank you once more to the Android Institute for supporting this series of debates. We hope you enjoy them, and without any other delay. Ιαρών's sparring partner today by Emon, then Yaron replies, then we have a free flowing discussion, and then we go to SuperSat. So, Emon, thanks so much for being with us, the floor is yours. Well, thank you very much indeed. Of course, I don't look at it as being Smith versus Rand. I think you need both. I think Rand does a fantastic job of bringing lots and lots of people into the sort of liberal with a small L in the European sense movement. But I still think that in terms of philosophy that Adam Smith is the better philosopher. They agree, of course, on free markets, on free trade, on limited government, on all of these good things, but they differ on many things. Methodologically, in terms of their method, Rand is definitely a believer in a priori statements and a part of reason, and she believes in rights very strongly. Smith takes a more empirical approach. He asks what works. And his side, he has an idea that humans are naturally moral, that they're social creatures and they work together quite easily. He is not convinced by the rights concept because we don't really know what the natural law, what natural rights really are, and we argue between each other about what they might be. He also thinks that human reason, which of course Rand puts a huge stead on, is fallible and that observation is probably more reliable than trying to abstractly use our minds to work out how the world works. And I think that all of that is actually in line with how we as human beings do actually think. We don't think in sort of rationalist ways. We look at how we live and we look at what works and we look at what doesn't work and we do more of one and less of the other. So in terms of method, I think they're quite different. In terms of their attitudes on rights, which I mentioned, Rand is particularly strong on property as a natural right. Smith, of course, does believe in private property very strongly, but he's really in favour of it because overall it delivers better social benefits that societies with property rights that are well defended seem to do better than those who don't. So he asks again, you know, if you want to alleviate misery and generate prosperity, what's the best way. And the answer is indeed property and specialisation and exchange. That's got nothing to do with some concept of natural rights. In terms of self-interest, of course, Rand naturally takes rational self-interest as her guiding principle. Smith accepts the importance of self-interest very strongly, but he also thinks there are other motives that actually motivate us. Again, we're social creatures. We're moved by the condition of others. It distresses us when we see other people that are in distress. We make sacrifices for our family, for our country, and indeed for our friends. And we do that because we both benefit. We benefit ourselves by doing that. We feel better than doing that, just part of our human nature. And other people benefit from what we do. It's like the market. Two sides in a transaction and both are motivated by self-interest, but both of them actually benefit from the deal. When you get onto capitalism, and Rand famously was a radical for capitalism, I think her version is again about self-interest. And, of course, she sees altruism as being an outright evil. Smith, on the other hand, thinks that commerce alone is not capitalism alone, if you like, is not sufficient for a good society. That, again, there are a multiplicity of human motives. We have different values with value art and culture and lots of other things like that. Market exchange doesn't really do that. That is something in addition to market exchange. You can't really put a price on a work of art. Market exchange to Smith is not about selfishness, if you like. It's about respecting the other person. And we do respect people, and that is one of the reasons why we are altruistic towards them. In terms of government, well, I have to say, Rand, of course, saw government as being limited to protecting rights, particularly property. Smith saw it more about protecting the person from fraud and violence and indeed invasion, and about providing justice. But he also, much to the concern of many of us, favoured a certain number of public works like bridges, roads and canals, provided that they benefited everybody and provided that the market didn't actually provide them. And that actually comes at the end of The Wealth of Nations, which is a book that took him 15 years to write. And I think by the end of it, his friends were urging him to get on with it and finish. And the sections on public works are not as well thought out. But nevertheless, I think he sees public works as being necessary as a way to facilitate all of the other things such as commerce. So I think those are the differences. In terms of what is nearest to how people actually think, I think probably Smith is nearer. Thank you, Amon. So, Yaron. Thank you. And thanks Amon for doing this. It's kind of different to be debating with a friend, so I appreciate it. I think much of what the way Amon characterizes the differences between Ayn Rand and Anna Smith are right. I, of course, believe Ayn Rand is the superior philosopher and Anna Smith may be the superior economist, but that's where we're going to disagree. It's true. Methodologically, both are very different. I don't quite agree with the way Amon represents Rand's epistemology, if you will. I don't think she's a rationalist in a sense of ignoring empirical fact. I think she is an objectivist who takes empirical fact in and uses reason to induce truth from empirical reality. So she takes what works and what doesn't work, is foundational to understanding her methodology. It starts with reality, but reason plays an important role. Her whole ability to conceptualize is to conceptualize off of the facts of morality. I think that, you know, Smith, in a sense, does that implicitly, but is advocating for kind of empiricism that I don't think he actually engages in. The real difference, the big difference that I think really sets the tone for all the other differences, is both in method but ultimately in morality. Anna Smith is in his ethics descriptive, in a sense he's accepting the morality of his day. He accepts that people are capable of the morality as is common in society at the time. And he spends a lot of time on trying to figure out how to practice that morality properly. Einwand is a revolutionary when it comes to morality. She is challenging our conceptions of morality, our ideas in morality. Right or wrong, she is saying, let's rethink, why do we need morality? She actually asked the question, what is morality? What is morality? What's the purpose of it in human affairs? And she starts from that point and develops a theory of rational self-interest, which I think is unique and original, really on certain foundations of Aristotle, but very different than Aristotle's as well. For Rand, the conception of morality is a set of values to guide your life towards your survival, your flourishing, your happiness. Those values, some of them relate to other people, which is kind of the conventional morality, often limits morality just starting to change with other people. Rand expands that to your relationship with yourself. How should you deal with reality? How should you deal with choices you have to make about your own life independent of other people? And I think in that sense, her conception of morality is richer and broader than most of the philosophers. I think here she is really an original thinker. And so for her, everything is about creating the kind of politically and economically, creating the kind of environment in which individuals can actually live a moral life, can make choices. But her, of course, morality is about using your mind, using your reason, having an opportunity to observe reality, come to conclusions about it, try things, fail, learn from the failure, succeed, thrive, ultimately achieve that happiness. In a social setting, what kind of conditions need to hold for an individual to be able to pursue his happiness, to be able to live a good life, to live a flourishing life. And here, you know, the role of reason, the role of thinking and the role of action is really, really important to her. And she says, what is it that limits our ability to think? What is it that limits our ability to act? And what limits it is coercion, what limits it is force, what limits it is an authority with their ability to impose their views and their system on us. And that's where she gets the concept of rights from. So different than the Enlightenment, which sees it as kind of a natural rights, it's somehow embedded in who we are as people, when derives it from her morality, it's a consequence of moral people living together, trying to figure out how to interact with one another. The thing that you want to ban from such a society is force. And the concept of rights articulates that. The concept of rights for her is a moral concept that brings morality to the social setting and basically argues that individuals are free to act based on their own mind, based on their values in pursuit of their own ideals. So rights are what separate us, make it possible for us to live in a society and have it agreed upon in a set of rules. You can't use force against one another. And government's job is to protect those rights. It's to make sure that that indeed happens. It's to provide an objective system of law and an objective system of enforcement to a situation where people are acting freely. And the only thing they're really banned from doing is interfering with one another through force and fraud. So the role of government is to protect us from force and fraud, from an invasion, from I think many of the things that Eamon articulated, and nothing else. And capitalism is, in a sense, from an economic perspective, she called capitalism a political social economic system. So for her capitalism is the system that captures this view of government. I think most people think of capitalism as an economic system. But as an economic system, it is the economic system that arises when you leave people free and where you protect property rights. Property rights, for Rand, of course, the right from the idea of the right to life, the right to pursue your values, the right to pursue your values free of coercion. Part of the pursuit of life is the ability to retain the property one produces, the property one earns, the property one creates. So it's in pursuit of life. So she identifies the fact that as living creatures, we don't just get stuff. You know, it doesn't fall from man or from heaven. We don't just pick stuff off the ground. We actually have to create the stuff that makes it possible for us to live and to thrive and to succeed in life. And once we create it, it is ours. We have gained a right to it because of that act of creation. It is a part of that right to life. So it's free speech and the right to liberty and the right to pursuit of happiness in a sense of all applications of this one right, which is the right to life. Rand, of course, is not against helping others or being charitable. And she's not against spiritual values. You know, I agree completely about the value of art, certainly the value of art to me is not measurable in dollars and cents. You know, standing in front of Michelangelo's David, I can't put a number on it, right? It's just a truly deep and inspiring experience. And Rand would not question as she doesn't believe that all interaction is market interaction, that all interaction is commerce. One trades and one engages in spiritual trade with others that is not denominated in dollars. Friendship, love are all in a sense trades, but not trades that are commerce or thought of in terms of dollars. She views human beings as not just, I think, commerce, engage in commerce, but as complete human beings with a spiritual element to them, spiritual in the secular sense. And of course, she had a whole theory of aesthetics. So she had a deep love of the arts and a deep appreciation of it. Of course, she was an novelist. So and of course, when it comes to capitalism, Rand was, as Zamen mentioned, and was Rand was the pure, you know, a purist in a sense of government is there to protect individual rights and other than that, stay out. I think Smith was much more accepting of the idea of. The market failure or market not doing certain things that were valuable to society and therefore willing to act and that goes to the fact that Smith is more concerned with society and wealth creation and society. Rand is more concerned with the individual and individuals ability to pursue his own happiness to pursue his own values, and that the society society in a sense is the thing we have to protect the individual in society is his ability to pursue those. So she's she's let us interested in the social outcome of capitalism and more interested in the in the capitalism's impact on the individual and in the freedom it gives him to pursue his values. So I think that I think that Rand in the end, while certainly less significantly less influential than that I'm Smith. I mean as Smith had almost immediate impact on his culture and and is one of the most influential thinkers in 100 years following his death during his life but then following his death. I mean, his ideas were put into into into law into into into political effect and influences the thinking of professional economists and and and thinkers to this day. I still suspect that Rand 200 years from now will be the one who has the greater influence. So, before we go to the questions from the audience that are already in and the super chats. So I'm going to ask a question to both of you on one part that let's say, I'm Rand and Adam Smith are let's say open to criticism so. I'll start I'll start with you so what about the argument that says that when you support freedom on utilitarian grounds on what works. You find yourself in a situation where different people have completely different understanding of what mean quote what works. And we see this for example, these days with the lockdown some people say look we need to meet somewhere in the middle you have rights but also you have responsibilities. So we need to find something that works for everyone or something like that. This approach by Smith is responsible for the gradual erosion of liberties that we see in the Western world and the fact that it's very difficult to fight against these ideas. The opposite is also true that in terms of defining rights, it's by no means clear what human rights individual rights actually are philosophers over the centuries have tried to to work it out. But you know there's no definite answer to it. So there's just as much freedom of play there as there is in what you're saying. You know, do I have the right to call people by racially offensive names. Some free speech opponents say that I do and many others say that I don't. So, you know, I have a right over my property but does that extent to stopping airplanes at 30,000 feet flying across it. Well, these are things that we just have to actually work out as a society and what Smith says is, we do indeed work these things out as a society. And we look at what's practical and we look at what works and that's what we go on. And generally speaking, we can agree on most things that work. And yes, there's a constant debate on the other things where we're not sure. Yeah, I mean, I think that I think that it is problematic. While I think applying rights certainly can be complicated. As Amon mentioned, you know, it's not self-evident how you apply rights in every situation. I think rights give us clear unequivocal guidance, you know, in what direction to work them out and how to work them out. But eventually offensive speech is not violating anybody's rights because force is not engaged, coercion is not engaged. Now, yes, there are disputes today, but I think the fundamental dispute among philosophers and thinkers today around rights is about what rights are. That is about the very definition of rights, particularly over the last since Smith's day, rights have been undermined. And certainly the left has taken upon themselves to broaden the concept to apply to everything. So one needs a clear conception of what individual rights are, but once one has one, they provide very clear guidance. And I do think that what's good for society as a standard is a very slippery slope. Let's decide, how does one decide what is the mechanism? Is it democratic? Does the majority get to impose their will on the minority? In democracies, yes, but is that right? The whole idea of individual rights is to protect us from the majority. It's to protect the individual from what the majority sometimes would like to impose on them. And majorities, as we know, living in democracies are often, if not most of the time, wrong. So without individual rights, I don't think one, without a conception or without a defensive individual rights, I don't think one can protect what is crucial, which is the individual's life. And I think the world, as we see it today, as we have it today, where rights are being violated, where we're moving away or have moved away, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, farm freedom and capitalism are direct consequence of taking kind of a, what's in society's best interest perspective rather than a rights perspective? Right. And now, let's say, a difficult question for Yaron, and then Eamon can also comment on this. So what about the argument that, look, let's say we take a young person from the university, they've been bombarded with ideas that capitalism is impoverished, capitalism is bad, capitalism is immoral. Isn't it a smoother transition to start with something like the economic argument, to start with the classical liberal argument saying, look, we all agree that human beings have rights, we all agree that we want the poor to get richer, and capitalism is good when it comes to that. So could we say then that classical liberalism has been more successful, let's say, than objectives, because it's more easily, let's say, digestible to someone who comes for the first time into contact with these ideas? Yeah, there's no question. It's more digestible. It's less challenging in a sense that it's not challenging the fundamental core beliefs. For example, in morality, where you're not starting them off with something that is challenging, let's say, the religious beliefs maybe, or the secular beliefs about a moral code. There's pretty much accepted universally, except by objectivists. I mean, we really are the tiniest minorities here. But I don't think it can produce lasting results, and I've spoken about this often. I think that ultimately, the conventional morality that we live in is incompatible with capitalism. I think as Adam Smith correctly observed, capitalism or free markets are driven by self-interested individuals. They're driven by the motive of self-interest, the baker bakes the bread and so on. Ultimately, people act in commerce at least, for their own self-interest. That is hard to line up with a morality that says self-interest is tainted, which is the conventional morality. And as a consequence, that creates cognitive dissonance, which I think long-term, over time, erodes people beliefs in capitalism and ultimately leads them to status views because, hey, we can't trust those businessmen, we need to regulate them. Hey, we can't trust that charity will take care of people who really can't take care of themselves, so we need a welfare state. But the focus on the other leads them away from capitalism. And I think that ultimately, we have to challenge their most fundamental beliefs. We have to challenge their beliefs regarding morality. As I said, I think capitalism is impossible to defend ultimately without a proper conception of individual rights. So again, it's a challenge, that's not easy. So, objectivism is much, much harder, but I also think necessary ultimately. So, Aiman, is it then that not throwing the morality in the mix is a competitive advantage because it makes our life as, let's say, advocates as activists easier? Or is it what Yaron says that in the long term, we're going to be punished by that in terms of losing the battle of ideas? Yes. Well, in terms of the battle of ideas, you know, you began the question with talking about young people who are maybe at college and getting all this bad stuff. Well, in terms of getting those, yeah, I admit, you know, Rand is streets ahead, right? Rand is much more enjoyable to read than the wealth of nations, let's say. And it's certainly more enjoyable to read than the theory of moral sentiments. There's no question about that. And so Rand does an absolute sterling service in terms of bringing thousands and thousands of young people into the ideas of personal and economic freedom. So she wins on that score. I think that Smith wins in terms of actually describing how we as human beings do actually think. You know, people say that, well, Smith is a philosopher or that he's an economist. He's really a social psychologist. You know, he wrote about economics, he wrote about philosophy, but at the same time he wrote about politics and he wrote about aesthetics and rhetoric and other things like that. And he was really trying to work out how the human mind actually works. And I think you've got to sort of understand how the human mind works before you can then go on and say, well, how should we actually then behave? You've got to understand what the pressures are on us and why we come to certain decisions that we do. Many of the difficulties that I think Yaron has been describing, I do agree, are problems of democracy. Democracy in the sense that, well, the majority rule. And that's not what the original founders of the American Republic or indeed the Roman Republic had in mind. They did indeed think that majority voting was good for a few things that you couldn't decide in any other way. But certain rights, yes, came first. There's no question about that. And I think the 18th century thing is like Smith would say exactly the same. But you know, you're talking about rights that are pretty obvious and that there's very little dispute about it. What Yaron says, rights are basically a political expression of a moral concept. And people do disagree about morality and therefore they disagree about rights. You know, they may think, well, you know, we've got a right to live without being arbitrarily killed because of our views, for example. But there are many, many different things that they don't really agree on. And they don't necessarily agree that somebody isn't being harmed just because they're being called by a racist name. You know, when I was in America and Yaron's countrymen called me a limey, I was rather hurt and I still remember it. Now, is that an actual harm? And should we be responding to that by saying, no, you shouldn't do that, that you have no right to use this language? Well, you know, that's where you get to, but it's a moral discussion. Thank you. So let's go to the super chats now. So first of all, Jonathan raises a glass, a super chat glass in appreciation of Yaron. And CJ congratulates Yaron for his recent debate with Vos and he uses a term for Vos that I won't pass on the air, but it's not very pleasant. So and let's go now to questions. Thanks CJ and thanks Jonathan for your super chat. So super chat questions. So Christopher asks, what is Adam Smith's notion of the good? And I would add then Yaron can tell us how this relates to rants notion of the good. So what is Smith's notion of the good? Well, he thinks that we're created in such a way that we derive, I suppose enjoyment you might say by the good of others that we feel sympathy, as he called it or empathy as we would call it to others. So I think being aware of others, he would regard as being extremely important. And he would say that in our minds there is what he calls an impartial spectator who is somebody sort of outside our bodies that's looking into us and saying, well, you know, when you did that, were you really trying to help the other person? Or were you just doing it for your own satisfaction? Or were you doing it for some other bad motive? Or were you just trying to do the other person some good? So he's very strong on conscience and that we should be following our conscience, because that has been put in us by our creator who is either God or nature. Smith was very squishy on the idea of God, he talks mostly about providence and mostly about nature and so on rather than God, but anyway, how we're created and that leads us in the right direction. And that means that we've got to be self-critical and he sees the virtues as being prudence, but also justice and beneficence, being kind to others. And those really are his concept of the good person and the good society and the good virtues. Thank you, Yaron, what is the good for Ayn Rand and how does it relate to what Iman just said? I mean, the good for Ayn Rand is that which promotes human life, so that which promotes life, the one's capacity to survive, to live and ultimately to thrive and to be happy. So, and then it is an empirical question, okay, what promotes the good, what is good for human beings as individuals to engage in, in order to thrive. And so for her, that's where reason plays a central part, for her to be rational, to think is fundamentally how we gain values in the world. That is, again, we're not programmed to be successful in the world that they were not programmed to know how to do agriculture, to do hunting or to produce an iPhone. All these things have to be figured out and she places a central role for human beings to survive, for human beings to think, to use their mind to reason. And to be able to act based on that reason to pursue the values that they discover are crucial to their own life and to their own happiness. Her focus is very much on the individual in that sense. She thinks a society of individualists seeking their own happiness pursuing thinking through problems, trying to solve problems who are not using force and fraud on one another is a thriving successful society and that's the kind of society that she believes capitalism and the protection of individual rights as difficult as they might be sometimes to define and apply is achieves that kind of society is what it achieves. And again, the fact that there are disagreements about these things doesn't mean there's no right and wrong answer. You know, mostly we get wrong answers these days, but they're all right answers and that's that's the debate. So Rand, again, is more the revolutionary. Rand wants to educate people about these ideas, and to change their minds to convince them that they've got that they are thinking about them in a wrong way. That for example, their conception of free speech maybe is wrong that even though aiming justifiably was offended by being, by being called a bad name. That is not a violation of rights that rights actually need to involve either fraud or an act of violence against them and putting his emotions, hurting his feelings is not an act of violence. But that's that's that needs to be, you know, one has to convince that that's not there's no. Rand is very much that when I'm born with these ideas, they're not just there. They're not they're not categorical imperatives in my mind to just be discovered we have to engage in reason and discussion and in empirical observation to discover truth, and then to convince other people of those truths. Can I, can I, you're on. I mean, okay, my ass is about promoting life. Well, don't you think that Smith, though, thinks very much the same thing that that he's saying that morality is about a social system, which he didn't understand evolution. But it's a social system, which actually helps us to survive. And he says very plainly that if we didn't have these values and this morality, then we'd be dead. So, so, you know, Smith is quite similar to to Rangon that. And also, it seems to me that it's by no means clear what what promotes life it's it's a very distant goal that Rand sets herself and and there are many stages on the way where you can you can slip up so I'm not entirely convinced about life as being being a standard. I think it's too difficult to put a concept we just don't know how it works. So, I think the difference is that Smith's that morality, broadly speaking, conventional morality, I think it's very limited in that it's primarily focused on interaction with other people, primarily focused on our relationship with other people. Now that's important. There's no and Rand doesn't reject the importance of interaction with other people. And she views it through the lens of justice and treating people the way they deserve. I don't think there's any lack of empathy in a sense in Rand. It's just a question of why somebody is in the situation there is. I mean, it's, it's somewhat shocking to reread Atlas Shrugged and and see all the other places in which Dagni, the self interested business woman, you know is is kind and pleasant to bump to bums right to people who are who are who are writing on a train for free and who are in a sense stealing and just sit and have a meal with them to discuss because she's trying to understand, and she has empathy given the situation in the world. Why are you in the condition what happened why why is a human being in this position, but if she comes to the conclusion that it's your fault that is you did something wrong and therefore you're in this condition then justice with demand one attitude and and a different and I don't know that they disagree about that if they sat down at Smith and her about how you evaluate particularly individuals. But I think morality is much richer for Rand in the sense that it's not self evident what life demands. So I agree with you, amen. It's not self evident what life is the standard means. This is why we need philosophers. This is why you need somebody like I'm Rand and other philosophers and and we could argue about and and I'm open to the argument okay she got this virtue wrong, or there should be this other virtue or whatever. But I think she got the standard right. And now the question is, how we figure out what the different virtues are to reach that standard. And, and that's where I think that's where the debate would be right. So she had the same same standard I think as Aristotle or similar standards ever so but they disagree about the virtues. They don't have the same virtues. And I think we can have those debates and those discussions at that level once we accept if the individual life is the standard and that's what we're focused on. Now let's debate what are the virtues that lead to that. I think I think is crucial. I, you know, from my understanding, you know, I think she's right about those virtues, but I'm open to the idea that they might be more they might be less they might be something she's missed, or there might be something wrong there but I, I like. I want to live in a place where that's the debate. That's the discussion because I think we've moved a lot further. And what role does social interaction play in that bigger picture which are again I don't think she denies but again some people I think it's a bigger role than what what ran thought or a smaller role. Those are the kind of debates that I think are interesting. Okay, let's go to some more questions from the audience. Mario Lin says a worthy opponent of amen so thank you Mario Lin and question from super K peel. So it would be impossible to have a discussion on Adam Smith and the invisible hand not to come up so did I run the grid with the invisible hand idea and amen if you want to tell us a bit what the invisible hand is because many people are getting it wrong. Yes, well actually people who are experts on Adam Smith don't necessarily get it right either it's a very difficult concept. And it's a it's a phrase which he mentions only, I think three times in all of his books, and it's it's a pretty oblique thing, but but I think the general concept is this that we all pursue our self interest, but in pursuing our self interest. We actually create general benefit for humankind. When we go into the marketplace. We go there intending to benefit ourselves by buying things that we need, but then we give our money to the trades people who consider themselves to be better off as a result so we both benefit from the the exchange, and when this happens over the whole society. Then it's as if, said Smith as an invisible hand that's pushing us to do the right thing, create a good society and the flourishing society. So I think, so I think, so I think I ran certainly agrees with the idea behind it. I think what she would argue is that it's not invisible in the sense that she would say well of course if people pursue their self interest properly. You know rationally understood that yes, people are better off and she articulates the trader principle. And that I think a deeper understanding what self interest means and how self interest works and the self interest leases towards engaging in win-win relationship in trader relationship leads one to the idea that yes, you know everybody who's participating in the system. Everybody's willing to be productive and willing to be a trader is better off as a consequence of this free market and in that sense that everyone's better off is something that Rand would agree would agree with. And I think it's important also you're on to distinguish between self interest and greed. And Smith of course, and the other 18th century thinkers of the time made the comment that we're all self interest we have to be self interest interested because if we weren't self interested we'd be dead. We wouldn't be doing the things that we need to do to keep keep us alive. Whereas, you know, my father was a mechanic he ran a small repair shop. If he'd been greedy if he tried to cheat his customers, he wouldn't have any trade because they would tell their friends and that would be the end of that so there is a big difference between greed and self interest and we're in favor of self interest and we're against greed. Yes, so a couple of things one is when didn't view people as just as a self interested naturally although she'd agree that they have to be self interested in some aspects of their lives otherwise they couldn't survive that the self interest is needed to survive. But she viewed selfish just again as a moral ideal that is something you really have to work at and you have to go beyond just the certain level of self interest that we all engage in just in order to survive and do it consistently across one's life. And with regard to greed itself, I think is one of these concepts that it kind of depends on the definition but yes, we're all against and we all should be against the idea of exploiting other people in order to supposedly achieve our values. And if it golds golds Oath and golds Gulch and Atlas Schrock this of course, I swear not to be allow myself to be exploded to live for other people but also will never expect other people to live for me and exploit other people so yes it for being honest is being self interested, having integrity is being self interested so those are part of what it means to be self interested in a sense of morality morality is what allows you to be self interested it is, it's completely integrated into it. So yes that kind of behavior is is out so the win win behavior is moral behavior and it leads everybody to be better off and that's this a sense in which that is the invisible hand. Okay, another question from Frank. Sorry, first from Jeff. First of all, Jeff, thank you for your kind words. So Jeff is asking he's trying to read more and he's asking his question is for Amen. Do I need to read the theory of moral sentiments before I read Wealth of Nations so what's the proper order for someone to understand Adam Smith payment. Don't read either. There was possibly long. They're extremely confused, and they're written in the flowery 18th century language. What you should do is you should read my primer on Adam Smith it's it's called the condensed wealth of nations, the subtitle and the really condensed theory of moral sentiments. And I what I've done there is in 100 pages where where Smith takes more than 1000. I've summarized his argument put in some of his quotes and explain some of what he's what he's trying to say. And I think I don't think you need to read one before the other or whatever they're two different parts of the human mind. He never completed or he never even started actually a book on politics which he probably intended to write, because by then he was kind of famous and people were throwing themselves that money probably didn't even time. But we have some notes from students who sat through his lectures about politics so those are very interesting as well. So they're just different parts of the human mind. I don't. And I think they go together actually. I mean, I, you know, people talk about it's it's sort of German expression desk, Adam Smith problem, the Adam Smith problem that, you know, they're saying, oh, you know, we're all self interested blah blah, and in the moral sentiments he's saying oh no no we're all motivated by the the wealth and prosperity of others. Well, no, you know, he's saying that these are two different motives within this week we are a complexity of motives, and it's not one single thing this is, I think probably what I'm most concerned about in random. There's no single thing which drives us and which explains everything and I think it's too simplistic. I would say I'm trying to put a link of that book on the Super Chat, but Amazon says it's run out of stock it's not available anymore. You can get it free from Adam, Adam Smith.org. Okay, so Rosie, if you can put the link on the Super Chat, that would be that would be great. Okay, next question. Next question is from Frank. Would aiming agree that Mandeville was as radical as Rand in his own way, and that Adam Smith provided an acceptable version of Mandeville. Mandeville is great fun. I do recommend it. He produced this thing called the fable of the bees, and his argument is the beehive you know carried on, because all the bees were pursuing their self interest. But certainly, you know, some had the decides no we've all got to support others and be helpful to others and all that kind of thing, and then the bee society just falls to pieces. And there's a certain amount of truth in that that society works and I think the thing that Smith would would think that yes society works because we do actually have the social psychology that we have However, we came by it Providence, or he didn't know that evolution but but but we do, and whether it's God who knows, but that's the way that we are built and if we didn't have that particular arrangement of human characteristics, then society wouldn't actually work work very well. So I don't know that I wouldn't describe Smith as a sort of apologies for for for Mandeville I think Mandeville was took an impish fun in poking the existing institutions and I think probably Rand had a bit of impish funding it's actually the same. You last their last question unless we have any other last mean question from the audience so you have both been leading a big organization that support freedom and you've been around and you've seen good days and bad days about the ideas of freedom. Now that we've been 18 months into this adventure, how do you see the future and are you more confident less confident. And what did we do wrong without going to deep into it what did we do wrong and we found ourselves in this position of defense at the moment. We western societies or what people who appreciate freedom. I don't know that we did anything wrong. The world got messed up very very quickly because we have too little influence in it. So I think that's that's the bottom line I think people people particularly politicians, as you'd expect panicked and resorted to what politicians know best which is the imposition of force and broad stroked solutions that disregard the individual and disregard individual freedom. No respect for that now no real caring for that just in that sense it seems like the Chinese model a softer more friendly version of the Chinese model, you know one the day. So I'm as always optimistic about the long term, because I think good ideas and the right ideas went out over time. And I think that I think if anything the the lockdowns and covert an opportunity for us to inspire young people around the right ideas and around ideas of liberty and freedom. I think a lot of people know something went wrong, and they don't know exactly what and I think there's a lot to learn, and there's a lot we can talk about as examples from what happened under covert, both how the market worked in some cases, and how the market wasn't allowed to work in other cases how people's mind and actions were free. We got vaccines and where there weren't a lot to be free, you know, we got a lot of repression. So long term, I'm very optimistic, but but short term I'm very worried, because I think the status to have learned an important lesson. And the important lesson is we'll let them get away with almost murder not quite murder but close to it right. You know, we live in societies that just folded when the status said, we have to lock you down, and we have to keep you locked down and keep you locked down and keep you locked down and no standards no objectivity no endgame, no solutions. People just, there was no rebellion, there was no standing up against them or anything like that so that scares me in terms of what they've learned and what they now think they can get away with, with regard to maybe climate change or with regard to other social ills that they might, they might conceive of. Even are you more optimistic or less optimistic. Yeah, you're on our both optimists. In his case, it's natural, I have to force myself, but I'm still, I'm still an optimist. I think it's interesting that there's been a huge amount over the last couple of years, one of the things which has been very interesting and rather encouraging is the amount of public debate. The amount of facts and figures and arguments that there are in circulation and people, you know, take different sides and all the rest of it and there's probably no clear right and wrong as to what we should do shouldn't do. But we've had a very good, generally good, worldwide public debate about it, but I think that's good. And I think also the revolution in medicines, I think is just going to be just amazing, the mRNA technology is just going to give us a real step up. You know, Rand, of course, did write about the economics of emergencies and I think emergencies are different. You've got to watch it because as FA Hayek said, an emergency is a good excuse for status to pile on more statism and more collectivism. So, you've got to watch it and the point about an emergency is that firstly, something is unexpected and it's unusual, but secondly, it's got to start and finish. You know, an emergency doesn't go on forever. And I think we've probably got an emergency which is going to go on forever because as Yaron said, there's no clear standards as to how you get out of it. And I think that that is partly a problem of our contemporary democracy. I think that democracy has elided into populism. And, you know, to some extent, the increase of the franchise expansion of the franchise, which, you know, my favor of my great aunt was a leading suffragette, but it's legitimized the political process or legitimized democracy, which means that it's legitimized the political process. So, politicians say how wonderful democracy is forgetting that it's a way of deciding things that you can't actually decide in any other way. And it's not necessarily a great way to decide things you can't decide in any other way, but politicians tell us how wonderful it is and therefore that we should have more of it. So before you know where you are, they're legislating about the size of your fizzy drinks can. And so that has gone, you know, far too far, but I'm full of optimism, particularly because, well, let me pay my tribute to Rand again, because the minds of young people are fresh and alive and open to new ideas and thinkers like Rand have opened those minds yet further. So I'm optimistic, you know, the old folks, okay, that they're into statism, right? They're collecting their pensions and they love the government because it keeps them fit and healthy and educates their kids for nothing and all the rest of it. Younger people know that there's a better world out there and that we as individuals, we can make a difference to that world and that's something which really needs to be encouraged. Okay, we have two more minutes and two super chats. So I'm going to throw both super chats and you pick whatever you find more important on them. So AvidComp asks, so basically we need to get straight with the difference between altruism and benevolence because otherwise we underpin a moral bankruptcy. So altruism and benevolence, not the same thing. And Fabian asks, had the liberty movement adopted Rand or Smith more, would it be better off? Which if so? So this is a question that other people had the whole discussion. So should the liberty movement adopt more of Rand or more of Smith? And the other question, altruism and benevolence, not the same if we don't make the difference, we're in trouble. I think Yaron is the man for altruism versus benevolence. I wouldn't venture into that myself. But in terms of the liberty movement, no, I think it's a matter of mutual respect. I think that both are important and lots of other liberal thinkers are important. I wrote a book called 101 Liberal Thinkers and there's more that I had to miss out. It's a hugely fertile field of thought and as I say, there's no right answers and people come up with ideas and then 100 years later somebody else refutes that and proposes another liberal idea and then that carries on and then somebody tweaks that another century later. That's how liberal thinking grows and develops and widens and deepens and it's a wonderful process to watch. It's sometimes a messy process to watch, but it's a very fertile movement. Yaron, parting words on these two questions. Sure, I mean altruism as it's a term coined by Augustine Comte, the 19th century French philosopher, describes the idea of living for the sake of others, that is, your own happiness, your own self interest should not be a factor in your actions. And I think Smith has a little bit of that, right? Part of his objective observer is supposed to tell you, don't do it, just make sure that the motive is the right motive. Rand would question whether Rand would say a self-interest motive is a good motive, it's not a bad motive, but that's where the disagreement is. Should one live for others, should one do stuff for others where one self doesn't get any benefit? I think benevolence is a different concept. Rand very much viewed other people as a value and she was benevolent towards them. Other people were productive, had minds, they were doing things in life. Is she benefited directly from them or not? Whether we benefit directly from them or not, they are benefiting the world in which we live by being productive and good people and therefore one should treat people well, one should treat people nicely because they're human, they're alive and life in and of itself is a value to a living being. With regard to the Liberty Movement, I'll just say I do think that the Liberty Movement would benefit if they took Rand more seriously. I wish they did. Amen is an exception in the movement where he has, he disagrees with her, but he's taken her seriously and engaged with her ideas and deserves a lot of respect for that. I think too few do and I think the movement would benefit enormously from having her, not just her ability to attract young people to the movement because I think she deals with morality and that's what inspires them, but also to engage with her philosophical ideas and let's have the debate out in the open and let's have good ideas win and end, the best ideas win and end, let's hash them out in the open. And I think the Liberty Movement has been more open to that. I'd say over the last 10-15 years than it has been in the past. So I'm encouraged and I think and I hope that that debate and that discussion is going to continue into the future. Thank you so much both. I think it was a good discussion. People enjoyed it. Maybe next week we slightly change the tone because Yaron is debating a leftist on the issue of property rights, good or bad, so the discussion between will be with Professor Matt McManus. Professor McManus is writing on Jacobine, but he knows also about the chiselism, so it's not someone who is your typical leftist who has no idea, so it should be an interesting discussion. So, a huge thank you to Iman Butler and I know I mispronounce your name every time, but I do this with everyone so you should not be offended with that. And thank you to, again, check out his work, check out his books, check out the Adam Smith Institute. Hopefully Raji has put the link for his work on there. Again, as I said in the beginning, I've read the classical liberal primer. I've also used it in class. It's a very good introduction to the ideas of classical liberalism. It's relatively short and good. So thank you so much for being with us. Thank you, Yaron. Thanks to our viewers and thanks to the Anran Institute for supporting this series.