 I want to read you this quote. So this is from a number of articles. They keep saying this kind of stuff in one formulation and another. So this is a quote, COVID-19 pandemic has transformed our understanding of what is possible in terms of collective response to a global challenge. And that's what the great recess is about. Successful or unsuccessful collective response? They are assuming successful, of course. And I think they have been successful in the sense of what they've discovered. And I'm curious to see what you think about this. What they've discovered is that we'll go along with pretty much anything, that they can shut down, shut us down in our homes, lock us down, close everything, keep us from work, and we just roll over. I think that's what they've discovered. Yeah, that doesn't sound like what they're saying, though. Well, not in those terms, what they're saying is we discovered that we can take collective action, lock everybody up and everybody goes with it. Oh, I see. Yeah, no, no, I see what you're saying. Because just to me, it's sort of obvious how bad the collective action was. And let me just say something about the conspiracy thing, because I think this is a complete dodge. So as you're saying, the great reset is advocated by these very influential people. So what would it mean to say it's a conspiracy? The only thing that you could say is that you'd be exaggerating how influential it has been thus far. But the essential idea I would describe as global fascism. I mean, that's what it is. And so, I mean, it's basically a bunch of people who are saying we should have global fascism there in a very influential position. And then people who are sort of on their side are saying, oh, no, it's a conspiracy. They haven't been that influential yet. But it's like, no, we're trying to stop them from being influential. So it's a total non-position to call it a conspiracy theory. And so what's interesting is, OK, you have this campaign for global fascism. Sometimes I think of it as a pseudo-scientific fascism. And part of the problem is that the whole capitalism side is characterized as anti-scientific, whereas capitalism makes science possible and is based on the science of human nature and what production and flourishing require. But there's this whole false alternative between pseudo-scientific global fascism and then supposedly unscientific global capitalism. But if you look at the pandemic, just you just look at what has what's the most optimistic thing that's happened is the development of a vaccine. Can anyone really say that this is the? I mean, maybe they're saying this, but it just seems obvious that the lack of vaccine, the lack of PPE, just all of this is clearly a lack of capitalism. I mean, it's just that's just the way. So you could say there are things people can say that you've addressed, that Ankar has addressed in his article, like there are things about, oh, well, capitalism has no means of dealing with people who are demonstrably dangerous spreading infectious diseases. And then we'll say, well, no, that's not true. If you can define something as a rights violation, the government can get involved. But just in terms of the freedom to come up with cures, people, I mean, that is a total failure of the pseudo-scientific fascist establishment that there were all these things, all the sand in the gears and all this prevention of stuff. And the thing anyone would have to give Trump credit for if they gave him credit for anything. He doesn't deserve credit for much with this thing is like, okay, he got some bureaucratic stuff out of the way. There's just a theme here where like the fascism and central government dictation of things is clearly causing massive problems. Capitalism is clearly causing massive good things. And yet the solution is, let's completely get rid of capitalism and give people complete control. Yes. And they of course are taking credit for the vaccines. They're taking credit through, and again, while the Trump administration did take away some barriers, most of them are still in place and we still don't have, for example, home testing for a buck a piece and stuff like that, which was scientifically available, but not approved. But then there's the whole warp speed thing. So they take it as all of this, the whole vaccine thing is a proof that you could have public-private partnerships to get stuff done, because they use all of it as public-private, right? So the government funded these vaccines, you know, the one in Europe is out of Oxford University and it was funded by the British government, it was funded by the U.S. government. The U.S. government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on upfront buying the vaccines so that these companies can develop it. And generally you're right in identifying this as fascism. It's not typically socialism. What these people advocating is not directly the state ownership of the means of production. So they're not advocating, for example, that all these like Pfizer become a government company. What they're advocating for strongly is, oh yeah, we want corporations, but we want to completely control them. We want government-private public partnerships, which is just fascism, which is just means government control over the means of production. So they really are fascist and they view the vaccines as an example of the success of fascism. And what about like, okay, so that makes a little sense to me, so what about the lack of PPE or the lack of testing? Is anyone really arguing that if we weren't a lot freer, we wouldn't have like, it'll be a lot easier to produce PPE and it'll be a lot easier to produce. I mean, the government is just pointing a gun at us and saying you cannot do home testing. But of course they're arguing this, right? Because they say, you know, if only we'd had better central planning. If only we'd had a COVID czar from day one, then he would have immediately, just like in World War II. And you know, the status love to use World War II as an example. You know, we would have taken over GM. We would have stopped building those evil cars. We would have take, I mean, I'm just making this up, right? But they would have taken over a factory and we would have forced them to make PPE any end. We would have used the managerial ability of GM, right? We admire the managerial ability of GM. But what we need is a central planner to allocate in the common good and the public interest how resources need to be deployed. And if only we'd done that at the beginning of the thing, there would have been plenty of PPE. Just like there were plenty of tanks in World War II, right? We did that in World War II. We got lots of tanks by using this methodology. So, you know, they're mildly sophisticated. They're not, you know, this, you know, you can pretend that there's something there. Right. Well, okay. So then I would just say, yeah, it's interesting. Cause you know, you've been in more of this. I know a lot about the climate part of this, which I know we'll jump to in a second. But I mean, I thought since the beginning of this, that pro-freedom people really need to make clear that this is a failure of the anti-freedom side in a whole. And that, and partially that means explaining a fro, you know, what Ankar talked about, like a pro-freedom approach to infectious disease, like that kind of thing. But also just how, if only we had health capitalism, like all these issues of like, all these things that don't apply to any other feel like, oh, shortages of capacity. How the hell are you talking about shortages of hospital capacity? Nine months into something that everybody cares about. It's just- And as I pointed out on shows, you know, the whole, even the idea that hospitals don't have emergency capacity is all a product of government because it has to be approved by, every time they expand by one bed, they have to get an approval of the government. That, you know, everything about this crisis. And I think I did a, I've done some shows where I've described how a capitalist economy would respond. It's complicated because who knows how a capitalist, all we know is that it would respond and respond a thousand times more efficiently. You can imagine the role of health insurance companies would have in a truly free healthcare system. You could imagine what hospitals would do and how clinics and how doctors would respond higher pharmaceutical. But of course, then in a real emergency, they would respond like a hundred times better than what we can imagine. And in ways we can't even imagine, that's the beauty of markets. Yeah, I mean, there are at least, I mean, but at least there are just these obvious, almost Soviet style failures that, you know, can't, we just know even with a less regulated part of the mixed economy that we wouldn't even expect. But nobody is making that argument. So I make the argument, you know, John Cochran, the economist makes it once in a while. I don't see a lot of kind of the libertarian economists really engaged in these issues. Unfortunately, maybe I'm missing it, but, but you don't, I mean, this is that, we saw the same, if you remember, we saw the same things during the financial crisis, right? We were like, no, this isn't a market failure. And it was like nobody else speaking about this. Even the free market economists were for a long time, quite silent about the causes of the financial crisis and who dominated? The status dominated, you know, the story and to this day, everybody thinks capitalism failed. So one final point about this in terms of persuasion, as I have a term I'd like to use called arguing to 100, which basically means that you, like 100 is the ideal or the goal that everyone is agreeing to. And so like in, there's, you know, the goal of equality and then the evil negative 100 is inequality. And like, you don't wanna play that game. You don't wanna agree, oh, equality is 100. And then sort of start arguing, oh, this policy doesn't decrease equality as much as you think or that kind of thing. And so with, you know, part of the great title, capitalism, the unknown ideal is the idea that like a capitalist society is an ideal. And part of that is always having an exciting vision of what that looks like. And then also looking at the existing society and look at, oh, look at how the capitalist elements are making possible all of these amazing things. And I think sometimes when people feel like the dominant thing is against them, so the dominant thing is anti-capitalism, then they think the solution is just to react to the individual charges. But it's actually much more powerful if you have your own positive ideal and you say like, this is what we're actually for. This is what we need to move toward. And then this evil is going against that. And that's, I think a lot of the free market people are very reactive versus having a vision of a positive world. And without that vision or without clear positive policies to get there, you can, I mean, you can just sort of move backwards more slowly. Yeah, and you can't inspire, you know, particularly young people want idealism. They want a vision. They want something they can fight for. The socialists, you know, they keep, the socialists keep altering their vision. So, you know, now they have a whole story about worker-owned factories and how wonderful they would be. So they keep, every time something fails, they alter their vision and they have any, but they always have an ideal. They always project some form of utopia out there that people can get excited about. And I agree with you completely. Outside, other than, you know, than random, you know, in gold's gold, obviously, there's the ideal has not really done that and never does that. You know, I've talked about the fact that the left, for example, on healthcare, the left has always said, we know what we want. And they've said this publicly. We want 100% socialized healthcare. For 100 years, they've said this, right? You can go back to the 30s and you can find this. We can't get it all at once. So we're just going to chip away and we're going to keep compromising in that direction. But that's where we want to go. We all know that. We all acknowledge. So everybody's to the left of Bernie Sanders in terms of their ideal, they're just compromising on how to get there. The right has never said what we want is 100% private healthcare. And look what a beautiful, here's how it would work and here it goes. They've always said, we don't want that. We don't want what the left has, but we want it a little bit. And every time the left wins, the right embraces that program, Medicare, whatever, and then just fights a rear-guard action constantly. And there's no vision. There's nothing to strife towards. So you have to lose when you don't have a vision. Yeah, and there must be a lot just because morally the ideal is collectivist. So like how are you going to have, if your ideal is collectivist, the way it works is, okay, the people trying to set the policies to get to the ideal, which means government control of it. Well, it's just a human nature isn't good enough for that. It's not good enough. And so then what ends up happening is it becomes these appeals to imminent disaster. So it's just, oh, if Medicare gets passed, like let's say in the 60s, like no healthcare is going to work and everything is going to be totally dysfunctional. And then guess what? The world doesn't end. And so then they embrace it and say, well, of course, Medicare, who would challenge that iconic American institution? But no, we don't want this prescription drug thing or whatever. But it's always like, yeah, we accept where we are in the progression and then we kind of make this overblown claim that literally the world is going to end with the next regulation versus, versus no, like we could have a much better world where we would have so much of an opportunity to be healthier. And there will be all these cures that are discovered. I mean, just think about examples. I'm sure you know people like this. People very close to me like this where a sibling or a mother or father dies of something that then is completely curable 10 years later. And you just think about what is like, and I just always think those bastards, those status, like we would have definitely had this cure had it not been for them restricting freedom. And, but that's part of the perspective of having like an ideal of, oh, this is what would happen if we had health freedom. And you're right that the ideal is rooted, has to be rooted in a moral vision. And the problem is that 90% of people on the right or more have the same moral vision as the left so that they can't construct an ideal out of the altruistic morality that they hold. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Broads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes, that should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, I wanna see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I wanna see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego, it's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at youronbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or Subscribestar or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up, you'll know what shows are on, when they're on, you'll get notified, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go, easy. Do one or all of those please.