 I thought it was quite appropriate in dealing with ethics and it being a bit of a pick-up convention No, no, no, I didn't mean to say that That a lot of you guys are probably here for the kind of like pick-up and Relationships and that's what we're gonna obviously a lot of the speakers speakers. I thought ethically it would be It would be inappropriate to avoid the issue of love and what what love really is as a kind as a concept So ethically what of love Lovely picture there Fundamentally to love is to value now I go into a bit of a debate over whether or not love is an emotional whether or not love is a Concept that we've created to denote our value of something and I think it's a latter And I think if you guys are familiar with any of Nathaniel Brandon's works as far as I'm aware He kind of has the same sort of line of thought like love is is to value and I think that's actually his own quote Yeah, yeah So I Only a man with an unyielding uncompromised standard value can even begin to consider love if love if the love is to value You have to have that measuring post by which you deem what is valuable And if that's your own life and you've got the self-esteem to be able to say that your own life is that standard of value Then you've got the means by which to judge whether or not something is valuable to yourself and whether or not you truly love it If a man does not value himself, how can you value anything else? Love is a judgment of value It's to say in your mind that what you love is valuable to you and your life and your happiness To love without condition is to not love at all by loving everyone equally without any judgment of the value to your life They represent you effectively love no one it makes love it inflates love as a concept. It makes it Unvaluable how am I doing for time? Okay, should be good. I feel like this is going on for ages Okay, so Yeah, well Okay, so moving on from love love talking about relationships Necessarily we have to move on to the idea of rights and what are rights? Socially they're how man recognizes morality in other men If man's life is an end in itself He has to recognize that fact in every man because every man is a man Every man is in existence and every man necessarily has the same code of values or should have the same code of values in the same moral value measuring post so to attempt to Not recognize that or to not recognize that in another man is to contradict that exists in yourself and that that's your standard of value So like I say rights to the means of recognizing the unavoidable fact in man's dealings with each other Excuse me so The primary conflict then when it comes to ethics and what determines rights and what determines how you should Live your life and make your choices ethically and what is moral what is valuable is Your own rational self-interest whether you live for the sake of your own life Whether you live for your own goals and your own happiness or whether you live for the sake of others which is altruism now Just to clarify usually people use to look at the conflict of egoism versus altruism but and I was actually talking to someone I can't remember who about I think it was actually he's not here About this idea of Nietzschean egoism and I like to Kind of keep that separate and I'll go into the into the reasons why and just a moment just because Egoism from Nietzsche's point of view is irrational And I'll explain why in just a moment So the conflict from rational self-interest to altruism is is ask the question You know is man a rational animal does man have a right to his own life and his own interests? You know or is he obligated to live for the sake of others as A slave to any dictator Any omnipotent being that some arbitrary construct or to society itself to the majority of others to the mob rule of Democracy ethics should be distinct from a mock democracy. It doesn't have a rightful place in there because That holds that whatever the majority says is good is moral and whatever the minority say Yep, I think there is a proper purpose for it in but it definitely doesn't relate to any form of ethical system So things that aren't optional things. That's useful. It's useful and then and the nature of man's Code of values Unfortunately, certainly from my perspective and from hopefully the way I've presented to you guys today It's not a matter of choice. It is it is a necessity of reality And when it comes to a government and we'll I'll briefly go into politics or I don't want to kind of dwell on it too much in this talk is it should should only pertain to things that are purely optional things that don't have an impact on Directly on whether or not man can achieve his own life is his own liberty and his own happiness So and in fact, I was going to suggest that any of you guys haven't read it You should read Anthony's blog post Liberty Unlocked declarationism I was going to go on to suggesting that anyway because he does it does a great job of Kind of debunking the whole bullshit that is government that exists nowadays They could play it, you know