 Thank you. Thank you all for coming today. I'm curious how many of you have read Ayn Rand? Anything by Ayn Rand? Half of you, the rest are we. So anything we do in life, anything we do in life as adults is guided by some kind of loss. Whether we think whether when we look at the world or make decisions about the world, we are guided by some ideas that we've absorbed from the culture, absorbed by parents, absorbed from religion, from the priest, the farm, one of our classes and our professors. But we have a certain presumption of ideas in our minds that help us live our lives on a day-to-day basis. Some of those ideas can be contradictory. Some of us think it through and figure out what those ideas really are. Some of us just live our lives with this little person inside our brains telling us that's right, that's wrong, do this, don't do that, without really having thought it through. And deciding what your as an individual philosophy is, whether you accept science or not, and the conclusions of science or not, is going to depend on what your view of human reason is, whether you think knowledge is accessible to scientific exploration. Now today in the 21st century that seems silly, because we all accept scientific knowledge. But just a few hundred years ago or even in America today, because it contradicts their philosophy, religion in this case, they don't accept knowledge for example, and they're suspicious of evolution because it contradicts their predetermined idea. How we view our emotions, what we dictated by our view of our philosophical views of life. Should we use emotions to make decisions in life? Should we follow our passions in our emotions? Should we ignore our emotions and only follow reason? We do something, combination, little bit of emotions, little bit of reasons, sometimes this, sometimes that. That depends on your view of emotions, where your emotions come from. What did they tell us about the world? A philosophical view about what should guide our decision making. That's philosophy. Should we make decisions for ourselves as individuals on emotions or whatever we feel like doing? Or should there be a state dictates to us what we should and shouldn't do? And what should be the balance between the two? How much freedom? How much authority? How much should be dictated? How much should be left to individual decision making? How do we know? What are the principles by which to decide which is right and which is wrong? The political principles, is it just what works? But it's interesting because the socialists all believe socialism works and they have their stories. Totally capitalism works and they have their stories. How do you decide which is true? And when we study history, how do we know what really happened? And what didn't happen? And what's a story somebody tells? What do they say the victors write their history books? The wars? Write the stories of the battles? Not the losers? How do we know? How do we know? How do we choose a path in life? You know, should you, when you graduate, a lot of students here, when you graduate to the university, should you do what you want to do? Follow your passion? What interests you? Where you can make money and go and do it? Others are important. If your mother wants you to go become a doctor, she can become a doctor. They may go happy. Depends on your personal philosophy. There's some people who say you've been to, you've accepted it explicitly, whether you've just, it's just there, what things have been doing in life. When you're young, when you're a student, a jumble of things that you've absorbed from all these different sources, so whatever you decide your philosophy is, but good, because you get exposed to a variety of different ideas, then you think about them and you choose the options that whatever you do, it doesn't matter. If you care about your life, if you want to live a good life, you have to choose the right path. Very much focusing is. This is why it's a philosophy for living, philosophy for living here, being successful here, being successful as a human being. So first, you know, the five branches of philosophy and of how much we won't get into this, I won't be technical, I promise. But there's metaphysics, which is why. What are we studying metaphysics? It's the study of how we know the one with implicit rights, what we should do, studies with form of government, the steps which studies art and the world of art. Take the four with the first four and if you have questions about art, then let's let's do the first four. But what is that your reality, the creation of our own mind? There's nothing really out there. It's all flux and changing and contradicting itself and say nothing's absolute. You're like, you know, your reality is your reality, my reality is mine, based on wins or based on whatever. It decides that even if you use a reality, that would very much determine constant and absolute. It is a it's steady, it's constant, it is and we all experience the same reality. Well, so we see it differently, but we can both describe the table, measure it, show it. It is a table with specific dimensions, with specific nature and it doesn't really change things are what they are according to that nature. It's not where it doesn't depend on my wishes. My wishes won't make it so. It doesn't change the reality. Things are what they are. In metaphysics, in metaphysics, science ran is, reality is what it is. And that has implications to all of us. Science, therefore, is legitimate to science studies, things as they are. And we don't have multiple sciences depending on who we are, how existence, existence exists, it is as it is. What about epistemology? How do we know what exists out there? Do we know based on feelings? Feelings tell us what reality is about, what feelings describe the table? Do we get revelations as this the absoluta, but we don't see it. We're in a cave. See is reality. Who knows reality? Soon skills, soon abilities. Essence of table-ness exists. Where the real table is, this is just a shadow of the table. Looking to see the real reality, so the way we know the truth is through revelation. That mystical part, and that's how we know the truth, doesn't discover the truth using the scientific method in some mystical phenomena. Your emotions is telling us the truth. That would dictate one path of revelation and that would dictate the discoverable by use of what? Step one. You might use Google step one. Essence of what doesn't, what's right and what's wrong. You lose logic, so you accumulate facts. It really is, these facts are real. You use your senses, accumulate facts, you use Google, accumulate facts, you cross-check what you find in Google, because never trust Google. You collect facts and you use logic to resolve them and discover the truth. And that process is called what? Use that information to come up with more abstract ideas and to discover what is right, what is true. So reality is what it is and these have the tool to discover the reality, to discover what is and isn't. It's our mind, our thinking, our reason. But then there's, they've got three programs here in this data, valuation. There's no thinking as something only human out here. There's fall, fact, no, there's fact, yes. Animals accept the data that their senses provide them, gauge our reason. What must be. I think certain efforts, we actually have to focus. What were you saying, Kenji? It's pretty well. There is such thing as you making choices, about what to think about, what not to think about, to think or not to think. You know the saying from Shakespeare? The sense that's to think or not to think. This fix, we have the tool to know that tool is reason. And then what should we apply that reason towards? In more reality in terms of how you should live. Other people, should you live for yourself? Should you live for your mother? You live for yourself. You live for yourself. Sometimes with fathers, sometimes with yourself. How much? It depends. Now you decide when you do this or when you do that. What's what? What's more demanding. What's more demanding? Reality is the reason. And if we decide, right, how to guide that reason, what the purpose of thinking is going to be in our life? Are we going to think? What should we think about how to make ourselves better? Maybe we decide one, when we decide, we have that principles to guide us. You're determining, making the decisions, making the thought, but not tools of cognition. What means to know? They tell you about yourself, but they don't tell you about what's right and what's wrong in the world out there. Thought for principles, about what works and what doesn't. What guides us in the direction of what doesn't. Most of history, and most people believe, have a good perspective. But good for? For society, for the state, for me, we call that immorality, we call that emotion. You should be sacrificing for other people. You should be living for other fights, your own interests for the sake of other people. And you say, well, what does society need? Does it need doctors? And I don't know. Does it need plumbers? Yeah, need plumbers. Okay, I'll become plumbers. Because that's what society needs. We all laugh, but like this. This is what we're talking about. What's good for society? How do we solve that problem? It is. Tell us what's good for society. And tell us what society needs. And tell us, decide what profession you should have. Because the philosopher king knows what's good for society, and you don't. What's good for society? So I'm going to decide for you what's good for society. Because I've decided I'm a philosopher. If you say you should do what's good for society is, at the end, somebody is going to dictate what's good for society. That's how we get dictators, get tribal leaders who told us what we could. Constantly tell us what we can and can't over us. That's not the reason they're doing it, they tell us. It's because it's good for society. If you'd ask Stalin or Mao, if they were killing all the people they were killing, what would you do for society? Lenin said once, to make it unlit, you need to break a few eggs. It's really important to make a decision about when the choices we make is to live for others, to sacrifice. The fruits of life is to live for others. Anytime anybody tells you anything. Why? If you were, you still wouldn't be sure because you could. Shouldn't I live a life less important than your life? Why is my life less important than society? The human being faces a fundamental choice. You decide to live, to thrive, as a human being for themselves. What's that? Do what we should avoid. What we should pursue, and what we should do. This is the goal. Ethics should tell us these are the things you should do, and these are the things you should avoid. These are the values, and these are the vices. As human beings we want to thrive and survive. What's the one thing that is most important for us to do? It's happy, but how do we know what makes us happy? How do we know what it's human being to coerce human beings? Not just as an individual, but as a human being. How do we know what leads to happiness? Are we experiencing things? Now we don't only need to experience things in ourselves. Why? Because we can what? Is it human success and happiness, and what doesn't? No, what we know. And how are we going to discover knowledge that will lead to success as individual human beings? Human beings, just at the level of survival. It is survivalist species. We have to hunt it. We can farm, right? We farm and we hunt. Anybody here have the gene for farming and hunting? You think you have the gene for farming and hunting? Everything goes with money. Everything goes with money. Our money is a massive abstraction. Before money, everything comes up. Everything comes up for money. Where does everything come from? From the other people. What's that? From the other people. Other people have to make it. These things. And how do they make them? There are great balances in economics. I mean, the whole field is a mess. It's a disaster. The assumption in economics is there's stuff in the world. So how to get it and how to until what? That's how somebody makes it into something. Upper study of economics. It's not a study of the stuff in the world and how to divvy it up. And the scarcity. Economics is how to produce it. How to create it. How to trade it out. And scarcity doesn't even come into it. So how do we get guns? How do we get a bornello? How do we get the tools to farm? How do we get the idea of farming? Somebody had to fire it out. Somebody had to produce it. Somebody had to make it. Everything that we, chairs, don't just come into existence. We treat them as if. But somebody had to figure out a chair. They don't have chairs. They sit on rocks. For most of you in history didn't have chairs. Somebody had the idea of a chair. None of you have a gene for hunting. You want a hunt? You have a gene for a hunt. It's called your reason, your mind. What do beings need in order to survive? Has to be produced. Has to be starts when it starts with reason. We have to learn about the world. We have to build the weapons, the tools in order to go hunting. It's kind of species real. Even the strongest among you is one with the sabertooth tiger. We've hunted bison. We've destroyed the sabertooth tiger. They're all in the museum. You guys, one of us has that kind of skill. Build weapons to help strategies to hunt. So that you can't live unless you figure out. If you care about yourself, if you want to live for yourself, the number one value has to be moving forward, figuring out what is the best. Did you have to survive? You're happy you're a queen of society where everybody's happy. If you want to be happy. Like we said, you're going to choose a career based on what? Based on what's good for you. If you want to become a politician, you better care about... Politicians are never a good example to bring up when we talk about morality. Let's talk about those. I'll just wait until he comes up and he did it also for himself, but also he needed to cook. Yes, he did it for the people, but even before we get to his customers, that Steve Jobs needed a relationship with which he has happened. What did he have to do with it? What? He made their lives easier. He made their customers' lives easier. How did he make it easier for them? He didn't give them a phone. He didn't give anybody who reflects itself is to train. Think of a body. Something of a value. Less value or more value than what I gave up? I give something up. Where do I get in return? More value or less value? More value. More value. You know, we buy that iPhone. $1,000. I pay $1,000 for this. Is that because this is wood? More than $1,000? Less than $1,000? This human cost me $1,000. I paid $1,000 for this. How much is it wood to me? If I bought it for $1,000. It's a simple question. I bought it for $1,000. It cost you $1,000. It cost me $1,000. Is it worth more than $1,000? Exactly $1,000 or less than $1,000? Two more. Otherwise, why would I give it up $1,000? This is worth more to me. So you don't buy it. This is worth more than the money I gave. A sandwich for $3. It's a sandwich worth. So trade is about value for value when both parties do what? A transaction in which I'm better off. How about Apple? Is Apple better off? Because they say, yeah, they're better off. Why? Cost them to make. They exploit it. It's by trading with other people. Win, win relationships with other people. So enjoying it. It both parties are getting something out of it. If only one party is really happy about the friendship and the other one is not so happy about the friendship, the friendship will not. Splice it or implicit. Whether a relationship has to be value for value. A trade for yourself doesn't mean going to Liberty Bill weapons for me to go hunting on a business. In a society there's a massive value but it's a value one engages with other people because it's not a value if I'm going to be exploited. Fancing in my own life, if I'm not able to pursue my values, to pursue what's good for me. Philosophy is about individuals pursuing their own self-interest. Traders within a society. Focus on your own happiness. Focus on your own values. Because you live once, life is short, shorter than you guys think. What's more important than you? There's a lot you can talk about in terms of ethics. In terms of how to live a good life. Especially in tale. What kind of virtues one should pursue. But all those virtues need to be discovered by reason. Guided by what's good for you in this life to live a happy, successful, proper, prosperous, an acknowledgement that reality is what it is. It's not what you're wishing to be. Ethics. Ethics is about you pursuing your values, making the most out of your life. Using reason to discover the values and then live them. What happens when we get into this society when we're in a group? Can somebody stop me from pursuing my values? Can somebody obstruct my ability? Can somebody stop me from applying my thinking? Applying my thoughts. Can actually somebody stop me from my force? It's a force of courage or power, a gun. If I stick a gun to the boy, shoot you. There's no point in thinking. Thinking won't only get you a job. All you can do is do what you're told. You research this, but you can't research over here. I'll shoot you if you research this as a scientist. Maybe at night you can do a little experimentation over here when nobody's watching. That's regulations. Regulations, for example, in an economy like ours. You can do this, you can't even think. We've decided it's good for society. We know that the Federal Drug Administration, which is the administration that approves drugs, right, won't approve what are called life extension products and just extend your life. They're not interested in that. What they want is to cure cancer and cure heart disease. You see, they're not going to spend any money because they want to prove it to you. And I tell you, if you take this capsule, you can add 50 years to your life. And the FDA says, no, we don't approve it. What does that mean? Something that can stop us from thinking, that can stop us from pursuing our self-interest, that can stop us from trading and engaging in win-win transactions is force. Is it gone? Do you really want to live a good life if you want to pursue your self-interest, if you want to pursue daggers and thinking and trading with other people? Because a society where there's no force, a society that doesn't intervene in my voluntary transactions with other people, that doesn't try to tell me what's good for society, how I should live, what I should. And that's what we call that society is a capitalist society. A society, capitalism is a system in which the government doesn't force itself on us. It protects us from coercion and forced by other people, leaves us free, free to live our lives as we see fit. Without intervention, obstructing our ability to trade, to think, to produce, to make, to pursue your own life on this earth based on how to live. Not a society that takes that money and redistributes it, not a society that regulates what we do. It's something that people pursuing their own self-interest reality, for what it is, recognizes that we have one tool to know that reality, reason, recognizes that your purpose in life is your own happiness, your own wellbeing, your own flourishing. Principles on how to do that call only society. Leaves us alone. So there is a human relation that people are accustomed to, or that's what it is all about? So there's a whole, yeah. So there's an iPhone. And to produce that iPhone, there's an entire support to mines in Africa, factories in South Korea and India and all these places and all assembling all this stuff. Factory China in order to assemble this stuff, what does it need? Let's start with people. To get people to come and assemble stuff in the factory in China. Okay, so if the system is such that they are forced to go and work in factories in Africa and that would be wrong. Guns are being used. Coercion is being forced them to do something. Then that's wrong. That's immoral. That's unjust. And it shouldn't happen now. That's not what happens in China. Nobody is forced in China to go not forced in China to build iPhone. And you can go on the interviewation. The situation is they're very poor. They live, they're used to living. Which means you farm, but you're still living. 300 years ago. That's wrong. What's wrong in China? This is enough to know. It's not that they are forced to go. They're not. So what happens is that farmers in the countryside are very poor. The German company comes in because then they move from the countryside to the city. Millions and millions and millions and millions tens of millions of people, hundreds of people. They're making enough to live and send money back home to the farm where their grandparents and their kids are still living. Until they make enough money and then they bring the kids with them into the cities. And the fact is entire population of China, 1.3 billion people is like $2, $3 a day or less. 20% 3% Doing a communist party official. You lived a good life, but everybody else was doing poor. 95% of the Chinese population count out from absolute poverty. And they chucked them because of force. But because there was a little bit of freedom, St. Cathar came in, built factories, they got jobs. And they became more productive. Now why are wages going up? Wages are going up because they're more productive. What's going on? I think the reason people are leaving China now trade barriers that, you know, on Trump and regulations that the Chinese government is imposing and they're driving up the cost of labor, artificial. And win-win, Apple wins because it gets relatively cheap labor. Although, you know where Apple goes to China? Does it go to China for cheap labor? Because in China, they can get 200,000 engineers tomorrow if they need them. They can't do that in Silicon Valley. They're just not enough people. You can't get the numbers. And it's not just engineers, it's tool makers. And people who make stuff that is necessary for Apple, China has those capacities, the rest of the world just doesn't, on that chain in Apple's case. There probably is real exploitation going on. And the reason for that is local political dynamics in the country. So for example, certain minerals are mined in Africa. They're not mined in psychosia, right? The countries in which those mines are have no rights. They don't protect anybody. In those countries, there's a slave to the government, leaders, the people who set up a political system in those countries. Those transactions have to be a win-win transaction, except again, there's some mining issues in Africa, which I acknowledge. From the local perspective, one other thing I want to say is just about your comment, because there was a lot there. How much metal? How much of the available metal in the world? So when we want out of gold, what will we do? Let's say this 500 tons of whatever. And the derivatives were very good at it. It's a good example of how we find out when something gets too expensive. But this little ball here called earth, Japanese just landed a spaceship. We're going to go mine on the asteroids. And you'd think it's funny, but people used to think that getting oil was science fiction. And now we get a bunch of oil from the distribution. Why can't we get minerals from asteroids? We were lucky. What's the mood for? There is no such thing as limited resources. Resource is our imagination. It's our ability to think and discover and find new stuff. Just in my lifetime, there's peak oil. There's no more oil. And then some genius figures out another way to find more oil, part of oil in planet Earth. We live in the best environment for human beings that ever lived in, ever. You drink the cleanest water you have ever drunk. Your water, I mean, if you've got lead, then fix it. But the fact is that human beings, human beings, today are living longer, better lives than ever in human history. Do you know why Europeans drink beer? Water was undrinkable lakes before. So they had to drink beer because they needed to avoid it. Why did they drink tea? Because it forces them to boil the water. Because the water used to be undrinkable. You think nature is clean. We have the science, so we clean the water. No, they drank it because they did not clean the water. No, all they knew is if you drank the water, you died. You got sick. So they had to develop alternatives. It's not that they had an understanding of the knowledge of why, but they drank the water and they got sick. So if you get out alternatives to it. Today, our water, even with the lead, is cleaner than it's ever been for human consumption. It's cleaner today than it's ever been before. You think that living in a little mud hut with wood, cooking in the wood inside the little mud hut, the air you were breathing was cleaner than it is today? No. There's a reason why your life expectancy is well into the 80s, maybe even higher than that. Why we live healthy lives than our ancestors lived. It's because our environment, human environment, is the best cleanest for human beings than it's ever been before. With such expectations that now we can measure to the millions of whatever every particle in the air and we all get hysterical because, oh my God, you've got particles in there. We've always had particles in there. Pristine, relatively cheaply. Human environment. Again, the human environment. If you're a snail, a spotted owl, and no guarantees, but for human beings, it's never been better. And it's one of the most depressing things, is how depressed you guys are about the environment. Human beings can clean it more, can make it better, sure. We are all the time. And by the way, the richer we get, the cleaner the environment is. The more capitalist the country is, the cleaner the environment is. The more we cannot individuals, the cleaner the environment is. The filthiest countries in the world, or communist countries. The filthiest areas in the world, anybody so nobody cleans it. My backyard is quite clean. I take care of my stuff. People take care of their stuff. So, we're in the environment because we're mining. We're using the environment to better our lives. And the environment, in and of itself, is not a value. The only thing of value is our lives. What gives other things value? God. What gives them value? Only you can give stuff value. There's no intrinsic value out there. There's no, the earth is not valuable in and of itself. Build this there, use it to exploit it. How do we survive as human beings? Human beings don't just adapt to their environment. Human beings change their environment to suit their needs. We chop down trees to build out. We blow up mountains to build, you know, buildings from rocks. But you said it's just me. The only way human beings can survive is by changing the environment. If we stop changing the environment, we die. But it's time without agriculture. But agriculture requires massive changes to the environment. World enough food for 8 billion people just can't. It's science fiction. It's like the idea that we can create enough electricity for the whole using solar energy. It's just as ludicrous and just as science fiction. That's the caves. We can live in caves. But then life will suck. Not being so depressed. That's what you always do. Now it's, there are fewer poor people in the world right now. There are more people who are middle class. There are more wealthy people than ever in all of human history. There are more opportunities for young people globally than it ever points, any point in human history. Life for a human being has never been better than it is right now. Changing the world. Unending. It's not going away. Us today that were 100 years ago or 150 years ago. Partially because of technology. We can grow more food and smaller parts of land. So we've abandoned land to forests now. As I said, both of them is the same. Exactly what libertarianism is. Because it's a lot of different things. You've got a variety of different anarchists over here. From an alcohol capitalist, to an alcohol communist, to all kinds of anarchists who call themselves libertarians. I mean it's true. Way to classical liberal, limited governments, small welfare state. You've got now, if you can fight online, leaning hard to the libertarians. That's a block. What's that? That's a block. That's a what? Yeah, it's a website called Leading on the Libertarianism. Bunch of philosophers who are some of the libertarians who want a minimal welfare state, and they even want universal basic income. She's got libertarianism everywhere from universal basic income. We distributional world to kinds of variations around. And against that, because she's against UBI, and she's against anarchy. And she's, you know, where is she in between? So first, the term libertarianism doesn't mean that much. Because it's so white. And so this was, the world should be. And then she defined it, and she called it that. And she thought, she thought it was meaningless and confusing that there's white variety of people, right? Claim they were for liberty when she didn't unify that. That's one. Second, Rand really believed that in order to get to liberty, and in order to understand why liberty was good, you had to have a philosophy. You have views on all the things that they discussed today, metaphysics, epistemology, and primarily morality. That politics didn't come out of nowhere. So libertarians claim to have a non-aggression principle. Although the people of UBI say it's okay to use aggression sometimes in order to provide the funds for UBI. And that anarchists, in my view, you know, it's unclear that there's a non-aggression principle because now it's a tradable commodity. She says, you can't have all of this if you believe in a non-aggression principle. And a non-aggression principle is not obvious. You have to understand where it comes from. And is it a principle? And what's that principle based on? And it can only be based on a particular morality. And the morality can only be based on a particular ideology. So she thought libertarians, in a sense, what they could need it to. They don't want to define themselves. They don't want to make what the clear agenda is. And it's too wishy-washy and no philosophical foundations so they're for the whole thing collapsed. That would suit you. And the contradictions are there. If you're an anarcho-capitalist, I think that's in contradiction to objectivism. Because objectivism does not believe you can trade in force. It does not believe that is a commodity that is tradable. And if you're a UBI libertarian, a bleeding-hawk libertarian, then you violated the non-aggression principle by raising taxes against the UBI. So, you know, she was very friendly with certain people who would call themselves libertarian like von Beesers, Hasslet, and others. And she despised other libertarians like von Beuh and many others because of, she considered, anarchy anti-liberal. So that's where the contradictions... What's that? Because the anarcho-capitalist society doesn't set and force cannot be traded. And why can't it be traded? You can get into the whole anarcho-capitalism thing. What's my debate? There's a debate on who to when debate in an anarcho-capitalist in Poland for about a year ago. An anarcho-capitalism is basically a negation of the idea that force is special. Force is different. In my view, in a capitalism group, force is anti-life. Force is anti-reason. Force is anti-capitalism. Force is anti-market. It's a different type of human activity than any other activity. You want to treat it just like iPhones. Just like legitimate things that human beings do and create a market in it. Think that's untenable, impossible, self-destructive, and contradicting. And all that leads to is, and every anarchist, every anarchy leads to ultimately force. That is, it leads to violence. It leads to support. I mean, we have anarchy today in certain parts of our economy. Like the mafia. The mafia functions on the basis of anti-anarchy. Have you ever seen a Godfather movie? You are your police and legal system. I have my police and legal system. I'm, I don't know, one family and you're another family. And how do we resolve disputes? Well, once in a while, we'll have a council meeting. We'll get the council together. And the council will say, well, you need to pay him compensation for... But then I'm unhappy with that deal. So I slaughter half of your family. So you come and slaughter half of my family. And that's private law. That's private armies. That's private police forces. It's the mafia. What's that? It's a state of war. It's a constant, permanent state of war. That's what anarchy is. That's what anarcho-capitalism is. All the examples I've read from David Friedman and all the rest, all the examples of prominent states of war, I'd rather live in socialism than anarcho-capitalism. Because I'm less likely to die. So anarcho-capitalism is anti-liberty. It's anti-freedom. Because it elevates force above reason. It makes force part of what we transact. And it makes force something that we clash over. Constantly. And why are we so sure of this? We've become a real world. That what? Did I say I'm sure? No, I'm not sure. When it comes to human beings, I'm not sure of much, right? There's no guarantee limited government won't grow. It's our job to make it not grow. It's our job to enforce, but it doesn't grow. I mean, even in 1776 or when they did the American Constitution, somebody asked Franklin as he was leaving the Constitutional Convention, said, what have you given us? And he says, a robotic karma if you can keep it. It requires vigilance. Liberty requires vigilance, eternal vigilance, right? Now the more we know, the more vigilant we can be. I think the founding fathers of America did the best that they could do given the circumstances that they have in the establishment system that created the greatest country in all of human history and sustained economic growth, sustained prosperity, and relative freedom in 250 years, not bad. But it's decaying. It's decaying because they didn't build the philosophical foundation for it. They didn't have the tools to preserve it. And we, not you guys because you're older than America, but we in America betrayed it. We turned our backs on it. But that would happen in any system. No system can sustain people who don't believe in the system anymore. So today, we know a lot more than the founding fathers did. I think we could create a much better constitution, a much better government, a much better system than they did. Will it always exist? I don't know. It depends on people. It depends on the choices they make. It depends on their philosophy and their ideas. Yeah? Um, my question is about, uh, parents and their kids. Do parents have any kind of responsibility or they agree? And what kind of clear relation can you come to with that? So why did, why did they respond to all these parents towards their children? So I think parents have a lot of responsibilities towards their children and a lot of obligations towards their children. This is why I tell people don't have kids unless you really want them. And unless you know and acknowledge and accept the responsibilities that you're taking on, because it's a huge thing to have kids. It's not a trivial issue. It's not easy. It's massive amounts of work, massive amounts of effort, massive amounts of money. So your responsibility as a parent is to raise the kids to be the best human beings they can be. Teach them how to think, teach them how to live, give them the basic skills, up until the age of 80. Up until they can take care of themselves when it's 17, 18, 19. It doesn't really matter. But up until they are adults and can take care of themselves. That's the responsibility you take on when you have kids. Is to take care of them up until that age. What's the reason? What's the reason to have kids? No, to have the social security. Well, because you're bringing your life into the world. It's a life that didn't choose to come into the world. You made the choice. Children cannot take care of themselves. You, by having kids, are taking on the responsibility of taking care of them. You have acted in a way to bring something into existence. Didn't ask to bring it into existence. This is why I think that kids don't have a responsibility towards their parents. It goes one way. Because they didn't ask to be here. Action the parents took in order to bring the kids into the world. Now, if you love your parents, then you have a responsibility that that love creates. Right? But you don't have an obligation if you haven't been a child of somebody to take care of your parents. You only have an obligation that's chosen because you love them because you care for them. Some parents don't deserve to be loved. Okay, what's the next? Is dependent on what other people say? So my happiness is dependent on somebody else's unhappiness. Think of a situation like that where I'm going to be happy if you're unhappy. Why? Yeah, yeah, because I don't see. So to me, love is a response to something. It's a response to values. If you don't have any values, I'm not going to love you. But it's not unconditional. I can think of a number of things she could do and I would stop loving her. You can pretend there's such a thing as unconditional love, but it doesn't exist in the world. I mean, maybe some parents love their children or pretend to love their children unconditionally. But you know what? If certain things that my kids will do and sometimes they come very close, I will stop loving them. That's not an asset. It's a fix that never changes. It changes. Some things your husband will do will make you stop loving him unconditionally. Everything is dependent on the value the thing has to you. This is dependent on other people's happiness, not on unhappiness. I mean, if my wife's unhappy, one of the things that makes me happy is when she's happy. Again, it's a win-win relationship. It's not a lose-lose relationship. So I want the people around me to be happy, to be successful, to do well, and that makes mine like that. I can think of a situation where somebody else, at least they're my enemy and I hate them. With somebody else, unhappiness makes me happy. No competition. I get it. Because I believe there's such a thing as objective law. I think that certain things that are wrong, if you think they're right or not, they're wrong. Police that identifies the things that are wrong and excludes them. I'll give you an example which I gave in this debate that I did, and I encourage you to watch it. Because I think having sex with children is wrong. It's evil. It should be outlawed. But let's say there's somebody over there who thinks sex with children is fine. There's a police agency that agrees with that. They'll be fine with sex with children. All right, this is not a pretend situation because this is... Walter Block talks about this and he defends this, right? He defends us like that. And there's some parents who will need to give their kids that sex with them. Police agency and a legal agency. That's what you somehow agree with. But that's the point. Anarchy has nothing to do with personal freedom. It has nothing to do with personal freedom. Because if, in David Friedman's favorite example, Iceland where they were all swarming each other, left and right, that's right, they don't believe in personal freedom. How are you going to stop this? So it's violent. But you see, I'm saying, it's sad and unfortunate that we get into a situation where we're fighting with this war. You're legitimizing it. You're saying it's okay to have various police forces with different definitions of personal liberty, with different ways in which they believe personal liberty is implemented. And I'm supposed to live with other police forces in the same geographic area that each has a different definition of what personal liberty is and how to defend it and what copyrights are and what contract laws. Each one is different. And we're going to fight. As I went into geographic area, personal liberty brought something different. Go over there and create your country over here. Believe the competition has to be in a different geographic area. You cannot have overlapping jurisdictions in the same geography. It doesn't work. It leads only to violence. It cannot work. How do we deal fascists? We ignore them. If they're over there, if they're in here, we outlaw them. But fascism is not allowed. You see, in your system, the fastest are their police force. The commies are their police force. I have my police force. Five other versions of libertarians are their police forces. How do we resolve disputes and tell who is a shooting man? The hostile takeovers are like business. The hostile takeovers are two police forces that are fighting. That takes over the government a little bit. Police in business. And I don't mind monopoly over the use of force. Got it? But a monopoly dictated by the marketplace for the use of force is really scary. Brutal. The biggest gun is going to win it out and dictate everything. So if all the phone companies vote, if you have one phone company, there'll be alternatives and they know the substitute products and they know that markets don't work in that way. That doesn't work with force. Force is different. You can get shot. Apple can't shoot me if I use Samsung. But your police force can shoot me if I don't want to use you. They can have to be saying either side of me will shoot you. Who's going to stop them? My police force? My police force doesn't have as many guns as your police force. Your police force. Yes, I want the government. The government is a necessary group. Not a necessity. We've seen there many types of... Let me give you another example. I don't know why this is so hard. There are a lot of institutions out there. For example, scientific knowledge. They figure it out and they decide what the truth is. You don't have to accept it. But that's what scientists knew to people about the topic. Knowledge that is not market driven. Should not be market driven. It should be like science. The principles of law should be this. In this case, scientists of law, philosophers of law. And law is a different institution than a marketplace. Just like physics is a different institution than a marketplace. To be in a market is law. Force needs to be monopolized. It needs to be extracted from society. It's the one thing that must not be traded in. Is nuts. And the non-cocapitalist, it just doesn't work. And it doesn't make any sense. And at the end of the day, it results in disaster. And I know it's appealing. But, you know, because every talk I give people ask, you can ask the same question. You can ask it. My question was that... You mentioned the gangs, right? The first question is, what's the difference between the mafia and the state? The gangs like mafia and gangs like that. And the second thing, I don't believe that the mafia will not have the same influence as they have in the government in this system. I think the... No, if we didn't have a government, everything would be mafia. They would have much more influence. Look at stateless societies today. Somalia. What do you have in Somalia? You have gangs. Competing gangs. All over Somalia. Then the gangs. And it's a disaster. Now, there is a state in Somalia. There's no state. There's no government. There's no central government. I mean, there'd be long periods of time when there'd be no government in Somalia. That's why libertarians love to use Somalian as an example. I don't know for what, because it's a disaster. Okay, but for example, what if the garlic would disappear in Norway? They would just kill them in Norway, for example. In Norway? Yeah, they would kill themselves. It would take about a year or two, and you'd start having mafias and start shooting each other. Yes. Why? You think? Why? Why? Because there's no other way to resolve disputes. Why? There's no other property. There is a court. There is a million courts. No, there are a million courts. What happens when the court's disagree? Yes. What happens when the court's disagree? There's no other property. There's no final arbitrator of what the law actually says. Because there is no law. Because there are five laws. All on the same geographic area. Let's say you're the one who defined my property this way, and so you're the one who defined my property that way. How do we resolve this dispute? Well, if I've got a bigger police force, I know how to resolve this dispute. In year one, when Norway goes anarchistic, in year one, they start shooting each other. By year three, you have authoritarianism. That has to be the outcome. The outcome of anarchy is authoritarianism. It's a big thing. There's a big difference between the mafia and government. A huge difference. I mean, thank God, right? The government in Norway is not driving around shooting people in the streets. The government in Norway, for the most part, secures and protects individual rights. It doesn't violate their rights. It doesn't use violence as the tool on a day-to-day basis, right? So the government in Norway is no way new ideal. It's still pretty bad for the mafia. But the Texas aren't day-to-day basis, right? Yeah. So, yes. But they don't shoot you if you don't pay your taxes. Yes, you ought to tear off a little bit better than shooting people. Well, it's just... I'm not justifying governments as they are today. I'm just saying they're much better than a mafia. If you want... You know, you could go to certain neighborhoods in New York. You could go to live by mafia rules. Not if they're probably not in New York, but there are places in the world where you live by mafia rules. Believe me, there are a million times worse living under government. Even a bad government. This is why you wouldn't want to live in Somalia, even though there's no real government. And private law. You know, David Friedman uses this example of private law. He uses Sharia law under tribal law in Somalia. And you might be okay with Sharia law, but I don't think you'll go for it. So it's okay. There's no government. So it's... No, it's not okay. It's whether they recognize or not. Yes, but the same thing has happened. Like, North Korea exists and nobody's... Yeah, but I don't use North Korea ever as an example of something good. David Friedman, your advocate for anarchy, uses Somali Sharia law as an example of private law. I would never use North Korea as a good example. North Korea is evil, right? Sharia law is evil. I don't want Sharia law under anarchy. And I don't want North Korea. I want a particular form of government. Only one particular form of government is good. Everything else is bad. I don't need competition. I know exactly what's good. I don't need competition to define what's good. You need, in any system, you need a final authority over the use of force. If you don't have that final authority over the use of force, then all we do is land a fighting over the final authority over the use of force, which leads to authoritarianism and anything. So if you want to move the world towards North Korea, Anarchy is a great step in that direction. I was going to agree with you because every time we use force, every time the use of force occurs, it means that it's a reason to broke down, right? It means that negotiations broke down. There's no reasonable outcome already. So we're not talking about morality already. It's outside of the moral. There's no morality in anarchy because there's no standard in anarchy. Anarchy is whatever you want it to be. And whatever police force, as I said, we're child sex. If there's a group of people that want to have sex with children and they can find a police force, somebody with a gun, to protect them, that's okay. They can be your neighbors. So morality is broken down. There is no moral. There's no guide. My point is there is absolute good and bad. They're all objective laws. They are a correct definition of moral rights. And there needs to be somebody who defies those things and then implements them. And there needs to be checks and balances and ways that we can dispute when we think things are wrong. And you know, this is basically the American system of government, which can be improved significantly, but it's basically the original conception of government, which I think works in Israel. Okay, we'll take one more question. Two more questions. Yeah, okay, my question is, we hear in cases where the Jews and Christians will imagine why they can't fight with each other for a number of reasons, like the gang that's safe. Sure, there are lots of situations. Gangs often cooperate with the state. Not my state, not a good state. No, the two are crashing. The state wants to crush the gangs. But Adam legitimizes the gangs. That's what I don't like about it. What's the history of another case? They call me too difficult to find the best ways to defend you. That's right. So if I'm the guy that has sex with children, my police force is going to do whatever it can to defend me. I don't want to live in a world like that. That's his nature of limits. The nature of law becomes impossible in the same sex with children. It means that he has another mechanism of keeping the... And who executes? Who decides what natural law is and who then is the final authority with regard to it? There is no entity, because that's exactly what government is. But once you inject government, you inject the idea and I think, what the beliefs in that? But once a block points out, there is no arbitrator. Therefore, anything goes. Normally, these things are wrong. But who actually enforces that? Nobody can enforce it. If I have a protection agency that's willing to protect me. Stealing stuff. You don't pick pocketing. You're there. And there's a police agency that's willing to protect me. Come and get me. Politics, yes. It's the way the world works today, right? If countries steal from one another and there's no sense of fall, policy is anarchy. You know, Russia wants to take some of your land. They take some of your land. Who's going to stop them? It's immoral. It's against natural law. It's not right. But who's going to stop them? Now, in international affairs, we accept that. But now you want to bring it out to every little decision every individual wants to make in international order. But now you want to take that, which is a little decision every individual makes. Natural law. He believes that picking markets is fine. And there's a police force to defend him that they can pick in markets like me. Thank you very much. The anarchists again. That's okay because it's the most dominant view within the libertarian movement. It has a certain appeal to its logic. It seems consistent. It's built on a morally corrupt foundation. And it rejects the fundamental philosophical issue here. It rejects the objectivity of law. It rejects the idea that there's certain things as rock bottom hints that are absolutely wrong. And that somebody has to be the final arbitrator of those things. And somebody has to have a party in those things. And that's what the institution of government, you don't want to call it got caught on heels with something. It has to be an entity that protects those laws that. Okay, thank you very much. Tomorrow, 10.30, we have another lecture in Black Sea University. You're welcome in your time. The chance to just come there. And the topic will be different. So we'll write the companies. So maybe you have more argument to go on. And of course, we're continuing our autumn series Friday evening with Kagan and we'll have the next lecture for that series as well. We have debates on anarchism and my YouTube channel.