 Okay, it's more a comment than a temporal question, but you said you asked what was the rationale for the leftmost, and if it only would have been the hatred of the rich, I could say. It would have been okay, not okay, but... But think of it like this instead, that if you have a model of equality, then you kind of won't take out the individual choice and everything. And then you're getting closer to deciding the hegemonial outcome, and then you can control, you have full control over... So I was trying to be nice to the left. Yeah, but the question is, if that's the rationale for the left, what is your comment then of that? The opposite. In relation to freedom, because you can't only tackle that way that people are unfair, it also attacks the open society or our freedom. What attacks of us? The strife for equality. The strife for equality, yes. That's a good point, and we'll make it in the book. Let me just say about this hatred of the rich. It's more than hatred of the rich, much more than hatred of the rich, just even in terms of hatred. What it ultimately is, is hatred of life, it's hatred of progress. It's hatred of human beings, because what does equality lead to? Breaking legs, and it turns out not just of the rich, but of the small, of the tall, of the talented. We know what happens when you equate, you get the lowest common denominator. So they want everybody to be poor, and they know that's a consequence, because it's been tried a thousand times, and it's always that result. And yet they rationalize it, because nobody can live with that kind of hatred. So you create theories to explain that it's not the case, but what's really driving them, is in a sense a hatred of life. I think you're making up a different point, so I'm going to try to answer what I think you're asking, but I'm not sure I've got it. So part of what they're going after is no freedom and control over people. Because that's, and part of what motivates them is this desire for power. It's a desire to be the philosopher king, who gets to decide how we all live our lives, our miserable lives. They get to make the choices, such power over us. Freedom is, in a sense, the exact opposite. It says nobody should have power over you as a human being. You get to make the choices for your own life. And everybody gets to make the choices for their own life, and in that sense I am for equality. This is the only sense I'm for equality. So there is one sense in which equality actually means something. I don't think equality of outcome or any of these other equalities mean anything other than destruction. But there's one sense in which equality means something, and it's the sense in which the founding fathers in America talked about all men are created equal in the declaration of independence. And it's the sense of political equality. That is, we're all equally free. We all equally have a right to our own lives. We all equally have a right to make decisions for ourselves. We all equally have a right to be to liberty, to pursue our happiness. Nobody, nobody should be cursed. Nobody should be forced. Not that just tall people shouldn't be forced, or just aristocrats shouldn't be forced, or just white people shouldn't be forced. Nobody, no human being should be forced. Force should be extracted from the equation, leaving us all free. The argument for freedom is that my life is mine, belongs to me. To make whatever I want out of it. Poor, rich, middle class doesn't matter. The outcome is not the issue. It's the issue of freedom. It's the issue of autonomy. It's the issue of where the starting point is. The starting point for the left is always the group. And therefore they're worried about relative. The starting point for somebody who believes in freedom is always the individual. And the question is never, how am I doing relative to other people? Who cares? The question should always be, how am I doing relative to me? Relative to my capacities, relative to my abilities, relative to my values, relative to my ambitions. That's the question. So individualism doesn't lead to envy. Collectivism always does, because collectivism is all about the group. How am I relative to everybody else? How many states are positioning them? So freedom, to real freedom, freedom from coercion, allows individuals to thrive. And of course once we thrive, we thrive in different ways and in different capabilities. But at the end of the day, it's all about individual freedom. Alright, so I think if we talk about the sort of average vote there, I think most people have this passively towards the sort of utilitarian perspective where they say that it's good if we take wealth from the better off and distribute it to the less well off because it makes more benefit. But how do we even know that? Maybe the pain that you're causing the rich is greater than the benefit you're giving the poor. How do we even measure that? I mean I love utilitarianism. But if you are talking to me sort of, you want to try to convince me that it does impact better off with inequality. You can think that I guess that freedom is more important than its benefit. But I think more possibly you would like to argue that it does impact benefit more and it keeps the more benefit of the quality of life. But how would you do that? So I would make two arguments and I think you have to make them both. First of all I would make the argument that freedom benefits him more. Because I truly believe that getting a check from somebody else without earning it is actually harmful to you. It harms your self-esteem. It harms your pride and it makes it impossible for you to be happy long time. It's really important that people have a sense that they are earning what they have. And it's nice to give it to them, right? To theft from other people, which is what redistribution is. So in my view, welfare in the American model or the Swedish model institutionalizes certain people into poverty and into unhappiness. So it's not just poverty, it's unhappiness. So yes, they are relatively less poor because they have more money. But what they've lost is much more important than what they've gained. And I think that's an argument we have to make to prove it. What you've lost is pride. What you've lost is self-esteem. What you've lost is the capacity to rise up. You'll incentivize now to stay where you are and you can't rise up. But of course, you can make the economic argument. I don't think it's a utilitarian argument but you can make an economic argument. That, I mean, it's really simple. If they were to keep their money, what did they do with it? You know, one of the new theories that are coming out, it's so stupid. It's hard to even call it a theory. No, but it's the idea that the problem with the rich having a lot of money, this is coming out of, I don't know if the Piketty's actually said this, but Kugman has hinted at this. The problem with the rich having a lot of money from an economic perspective is that they consume solar. They consume solar. So they're sitting on this massive amount of money that's not being consumed. It's Gershmit's done. And we know that consumption drives the economy. So what we need to do is if we take that money from them and give it to poor people who have a high propensity to consume, then that money will be better for the economy. Now that is economic garbage. Because what happens to that money that the rich is so-called holding? It's invested. And every economic theory, by the way, including Keynes, Keynes never said this, including Keynes says that long-term economic growth is dependent on investment, which comes from saving. And what you want, and this is, you know, why is China grown so fast? Japan grew so fast? It's because they saved a lot. And part of the problem in the United States is we don't save. Now we've done well because the Chinese have saved a lot. They've invested in the U.S. But at some point, you know, that doesn't work. You have to save. Otherwise, there's no long-term growth from a purely economic perspective. So when the rich can make a lot of money, they invest that money, which creates more wealth for them, but it also, by investing, it creates jobs, it creates new products. And again, every time I buy one of these, I'm actually richer. Even though, financially, I'm poorer. I'm actually richer. So the poor, the middle class, are enormously enriched, for life, by the fact that the rich, assuming the rich are the productive rich, right, are building, are creating, are producing stuff that we all consider. But that's, you see, the problem with that is nobody's ever convinced by economic arguments. Ideally. I mean, not nobody, but most people. Because if they were convinced by economic arguments, we would be living in loss if they haven't today. I mean, we've had, I mean, people have really been good at explaining this stuff, whether it's Hayek or Mises, or Friedman. Milton Friedman was very good at explaining simple, you know, all of these so-called complex economics in very simple terms that people can understand, and nobody believed it. I mean, except for people in the room, there's no minority in Sweden, right? No, no, no, no. A tiny minority in the United States. Because people are, people are driven by what they believe is fair, what they believe is just. I believe people are driven by morality, not by economics. So they're willing to accept voodoo economics, made-up economics, completely bogus economics, if it justifies their moral beliefs. So the reason they're for redistribution of wealth is not for economic argument. It's purely because they believe it's fair and it's just and it's good. Even if you could prove to them that it lowered economic growth, they would still take the fairness out of you. They would still take it, you know, for most people. People want to be good, they want to be just, they want to be moral. They're willing to give up a lot of wealth in order to do that. It's why rich Americans vote to raise their taxes all the time on themselves. Because they think it's the right thing to do. And they're willing to be poor and do the right thing. And I think most people are. So we need to make them all argument. We need to make them all argument that inequality is fair and equality is unfair. Equality is indeed an evil idea. Can you give me a, can you be a little bit more specific? I've never been to Harvard. I've never been to class there, but can you give me an example? That's your advantage. Oh, thank you. Of how they are teaching sacrifice, how they are teaching altruism. Well, open daily paper and look at Mr. Carter, a peculiar creature who is telling you that we're going to overcome the oil shortage by driving less, by giving up. Let us all make a sacrifice. Let's lower our standard of living and we'll all be living better. Now is that a proper philosophy to tell a country that has pride and self-esteem at one time with all the faults in American intellectual equipment and there were a lot of faults. At least people were taught pride in their own country and in the good aspects the great achievements of this country. Today you're supposed to apologize to every naked savage anywhere on the globe because you are more prosperous because you've earned your money. You have to feel guilty and apologize for it while he hasn't and doesn't intend to learn from you. He just wants your money. That's what we're being taught.