 Right. Okay. Well, hello people watching. Myself and Jaron were due to do an event at, was it King's College London? Yeah. But we had some trouble makers. They weren't that much of a, yeah, they weren't that much Trouble, but the administration got a bit sketchy and skittish. And so we've found another venue. Sorry for the inconvenience, everyone, by the way. So Jaron, we were due to speak about Objectivism. Yes. Looking forward to speaking about Objectivism. Before Antifa interrupted us. Sorry, this is going to be awkward because I haven't got the correct recording equipment either. Right. Okay. So I want to talk about the moral foundations of Objectivism. So would you like to give us a quick rundown? Just called like that. Well, I mean, the idea is it's egoism, isn't it? It's a question of what you're really asking. Are you asking what is the ethics of Objectivism? Or you're asking kind of the metaethics, where does it come from? Because that's harder. The basic ethics. Let's talk about the basic ethics. The basic ethics is that your life is the standard of value. If morality as a science is supposed to give you guidance about which values to pursue in life, what is right and what is wrong, what is the right path in life, and what is the wrong path in life. Objectivism argues that the guide, the standard by which you decide what is right and what is wrong, what is a good path, what is a bad path, is your life, your survival, and ultimately your survival as a human being, and what that means as a rational being, as a rational animal. So what is good for you as a rational human being is what is good. What is a threat, we experienced that today, what is a threat to your life as a rational human being is evil, is bad. And those are the categories. And now Objectivism says, okay, once you have that, then it's a scientific question. What leads to human flourishing? What leads to individual success? What leads to good life? What leads to survival and prospering? And what leads to destruction and death and bad stuff? And misery and depression and everything else? And if we identify the things that lead to a good life, those are your values and the things that were avoided are those that lead to a bad life. So it's fairly simple once you accept the principle that your life, not the group, not the collective, not the tribe, not even your friends, not even your mother, not even your family, your life is the standard by which everything else is evaluated. So, I mean, this seems like the ultimate ethical standard of individualism to me, like the final possible one, because one thing that Peacock talks about often is the comparison between the ethics of egoism compared to the ethics of altruism. Would you like to tell us a bit about the ethic of altruism? Yes, the ethic of altruism basically sets out that your purpose in life is other people's well-being, not just that you help other people, not just that you open doors in a polite and nice. The whole point of your life, your moral purpose in life is the well-being of others, and you are good to the extent that you're willing to sacrifice your life, to sacrifice your values for the sake of others. Now, who are these others? Phil and the blind, right? And, you know, the Nazis are going to pick theirs, as Dr. Peacock talks about in the book. Communists are going to pick the Poletarian. You know, the racists are going to say, your white little thing or whatever their culture is. It's some group out there, but it's not you. And indeed, if you read the real altruists, if you read Augustine Comte, the French philosopher in the 19th century, or even Emmanuel Kant, who really, I think, really secularizes this approach, and we can talk about the fact that this approach is fundamentally Christian, but Kant secularizes this approach. And what Kant says is, if you meet a happy person, you should be a little suspicious, because happiness is achieved through thinking about yourself. And we know that thinking about yourself and pursuing your own self-interest is evil. You know, somebody happy, suspicious. He also says, if you, in pursuit of helping somebody else, let's say, you know, you fall down and I come and help you up. If I, when I went to help you up, thought for a minute, oh, I'm going to feel good about helping Carl out, right? He's a good guy. I'm going to feel good about myself, not a moral act, because as soon as you bring yourself into the motivation of it, you take it out of the realm of morality. So they are true altruists in the sense that you have to have this pure selfless motivation. Your interests, your emotions, your values, what you think should never enter into the equation. You should be, in a sense, the servant, the slave of the other, filling the blank who that happens to be. Yeah, that's really interesting, actually, because, like, I think that's, I mean, there's been an awful lot of work done by cognitive psychologists following in the sort of the line set by David Hume saying, you know, reason is the slave to the passions. I think the latest work by Jonathan Hite is about as good as I think it's going to get. It's not quite like that, but it's pretty close. But basically it means you can't really do anything that isn't self-interested. And if you actually think, right, can you actually take an action for which you don't feel some kind of, just, you know, you don't feel that you've done a, if you do a charitable act, you think, well, I'm a good person because I've done charitable act. Well, you've identified your own self-interest. To do something that would be completely against your own interest would be irrational. It would look silly. You'd have to end up ruining yourself for no reason at all. Like, hacking off your own arm for no one's benefit. So I would disagree with the few, with multiple levels of what you just said. Two things. I think people, I think 99% of people on the planet don't act in their own self-interest. I think most people don't even think properly about what their self-interest is. So I don't think self-interest is whatever you feel like. I don't think whatever self-interest means, whatever makes me feel good. I mean, if there was a line of cocaine here, I mean, I know that sniffing it will make me feel good. I mean, there's no doubt, right? I would get high. Is it in my self-interest? That's a different question. Exactly. And that requires thinking. That requires consideration. That requires long-term planning. That requires taking into account the entirety of my life and what is the effect of this line of cocaine going to have on me? To me, that is what self-interest means. Rational long-term evaluation of this act is, in that context, is it good for me? I think very few people actually do that. But I would even say more than that. I know lots of people who do stuff that they know is bad for them. I know lots of people who do stuff that is sacrificial, that is against their self-interest. For example, I know lots of people who take the cocaine over and over and over again, knowing, rationally knowing, that it will destroy their lives, right? People act in self-destructive ways all the time. People get into relationships with people that they know are bad for them. And they won't break up and they stick with those. So, lastly, they know. Is it worth determining distinguishing between, say, immediate self-interest and long-term self-interest? No, because then you're assuming that there's such a thing as short-term self-interest. I don't think there is. I think there is. I think short-term self-interest, by definition, is what is... It's gratification of the passion, isn't it? Yes, so there's worthwhile separating self-interest with gratification of passions. I don't think those two are the same at all. Indeed, and this is a key point in Rand's philosophy. The key point in Rand's philosophy is emotions are not tools of cognition. Emotions are not guides to action. Satisfying one's passion in and of itself is self-destructive, not self-interested. It usually leads down rabbit holes. And what you want, what you really want is to always be guided by reason and not negate your emotions. I mean, I'm a pretty emotional guy, right? But to identify your emotions, to recognize your emotions, to understand your emotions, and then, if they're rational, to act on them. But then, you know, even I sometimes feel something, and I go, why did I feel that? That's stupid. And then I think about it, and hopefully I can undo it. I think what you're speaking to is an ideal, but I don't think that humans ever really reach that ideal. I mean, there's an awful lot of cognitive psychology that shows that people do just literally follow their passions, and then their reasonable, their faculties are basically acting like a lawyer. After the fact, why did I do this? Now I have to make up an excuse for why this has happened. So I think in an ideal world, and yeah, absolutely, if people were a lot less emotional and able to fully rationalize their behavior before they take it, but I don't think that means that they don't act in their own immediate self-interest. It's just that it's very short-sighted, and as you say, destructive. But also I think people do act altruistically, but let me just address this, because I think it's important. Ransomal reality is not descriptive. It is prescriptive. So it's not saying this is how people act. Of course they don't. And in that sense, if you read Anna Smith's theory of moral sentiment, Anna Smith describes how people really act. And in that sense, he's not prescribing a morality. He's describing a morality. So he's not a moralist at all. He's not, indeed, a philosopher. What Inran is saying is, yeah, you all act in this way. Don't. There's a better way to act. So she's saying, yes, I don't want to put it words in her mouth. I would say, yes, there are all these cognitive psychology issues. Learn from them. So you have a cognitive bias? Correct it. You notice that you're following your emotions instead of being led by your mind? Fix it. So what she is trying to do is provide us with a tool for living, not describing how everybody lives. That's boring. That's for psychologists and cognitive scientists to do. The question is, how can we live? What is the ideal? What should we strive towards? And maybe we can't all, maybe in the world today, we can't all achieve 100% perfection at. But what should be, where should we try to go to? The ideal is struggling. Yes, the ideal is struggling. That's the role of philosophy. The role of philosophy is not to describe the world as it is. The role of philosophy, particularly morality and on. Epistemology, metaphysics is the world as it is and human nature and human cognition as it is. But when you start talking about morality and all the way to politics and even aesthetics, the role of philosophy to tell you how the world should be, what you should do to change yourself to become better at living, at being, at being a human being. And look, even when it comes to the epistemological issues, I believe that our knowledge of psychology, this relates to Jordan Peterson or our knowledge of cognitive sciences relating to hate, these are young professions. We know very little in them. And I think there's a lot yet to be discovered. I think Jonathan Haidt way over emphasizes the genetic makeup. So does Jordan Peterson and a lot of others. Kind of the evolutionary biology, the conditioning, the genes, versus none of them really talk about it. The role of free will and our own role in designing our own software, in setting our own path in life and how much that is. I don't think you're a fairly representing Haidt there because he does say that the problem is, is on one side you have the social constructivists who think that everyone's a blank slate and there's absolutely nothing and that's not true. And we know that's not true. And on the other side you have the genetic determinists who are just the opposite, who think that there is no point to being a cognitive animal because eventually you're going to have to follow the genetic programming. Neither of these are correct. We know they're not correct. So the reason... But I think that both parties, if you think about that dichotomy, the social constructivists think that you are determined by your environment, by other people. What is missing from that picture? You've got genes here and you've got environment here. And to me, the most important factor in determining who you are and who I am is the third factor, which is me. The choices I make, the cognitive... It's a cognitive process driven by a particular choice that we make and Rand emphasizes that the essence of free will is not lifting my hand. The essence of free will is the choice to focus your mind, to use your mind to use your reason or not. And that's the essence. That's the core of what free will is. And most people who talk about psychology today, including height, don't talk about that third element. And when they do talk about it, they really avoid this issue of free will as much as they can. I don't think he does. I mean, he does talk about the fact that the... I mean, he uses the metaphor of the elephant and the rider. The elephant being your passion itself and the rider being your reasonable faculties and how they're constantly trying to make excuses. But let's not say that they can't steer the elephant when necessary. He does have data and goes into this. But getting to the thing I wanted to talk about. Okay, so my... The reason I don't consider myself to be an objectivist is because I think that altruistic ethics have evolved because human beings need one another. And until human beings don't need one another, I think there will always be a place for this. And I don't think that a purely rational egoistic form of morality will... I mean, I don't think it's suffice for me personally, but I also don't think it suffice for the general population because I don't think most people will really be able to fully grasp what we're talking here. And I'm not trying to sound condescending, but if you think you're an average football fan, then they're not... I don't think they're ever going to get through Atlas Shrugged. Well, I'm not convinced. But take Greece. I truly believe that in ancient Greece, the idea of altruism by everybody, Plato, Aristotle, nobody would have accepted it. And if you think about Aristotle's ethics, it's about finding those virtues and values that promote your domine, your own flourishing, your own success. But beyond that, this idea that egoism means, I don't want you, I don't need you, I don't want to have anything to do with you, but you're kind of implying it. You said that we need human relations. Of course we need human relationships. It's hugely in my self-interest to engage in human relationships with other people. That's true, but I'm talking... Some people anyway. I'm talking in physically dependent ways. I mean, for example, if you have your mother and she's sick and she can't work and she needs money from you, you're going to have to do an altruistic thing and provide food and board for her. But really, so two options stay with my mother, right? One is I love her. And if I love her, it's not altruism. Maybe you hate your mother. Option number two is I hate my mother and then I'm not helping her. And I think it's completely legitimate to write and model not to help her. So, I mean... I disagree on that. There are parents who abuse their kids. I think it's a massive sacrifice to help those parents. Those parents should be shunned. You should never speak to them again. You should walk away from them. You owe nothing to your parents. You didn't ask to come into this world. You know, if they mistreated you, and they violated a sacred contract that they have with having a child, and they don't deserve one Iota of help. So, I think, yes, if you love your mother, it's not altruistic. And if you don't, you ought to love your mother. You shouldn't help your mother. And I think this is exactly where people, to go back to the previous discussion, I think people actually do act against their self-interest. A lot of people help their mothers when their mothers don't deserve help. Some mothers should not be helped. I think I've worked out... I think I've worked something out. Okay, so the question is self-interest. I guess the best way to describe it would be objectively defined. Yes, objectively defined. So, as in, anyone can look at that chap over there, and if you know a few things about him, then you can determine his self-interest as objectively as he can. No, you'd have to know a lot about him. You'd have to know every little detail about him. Only you can really define your objective. No, it's objective. Objective in a sense that it corresponds to reality. See, objective is not that other people... Oh, you needed me to move this way. Sorry. Okay. Objective is not about, you know, where the other people can do it for you. Objective means that it's rational, that it corresponds to the facts of reality out there. So, you know, what self-interest means is taking into account everything you know about you, everything you know about the world. What is in the long run truly good for you? Now, this is not materialistic. This is not about, well, make me the most money. So, if you love your mother, you want to help your mother. If you love your friend, you want to help your friend. But, you know, there are certain people who come for me to help. They're dying from cancer, whatever. And I'm going to say, absolutely not. You're an SOB, and I'm not going to help you. And there are people who would come to me for help, and I would give them everything I have, because I love them and I care for them. And they're incredible value. I like my wife, my kids, my best friends, right? So, you know, egoism does not mean isolation from other people. It does not mean helping, not helping other people. It certainly does not mean not interacting with other people, because, but it means interacting with other people in the way that benefits you in the long run in the big picture thing. And that means judging people who are my friends and who are my enemies, who do I like, who I don't like, who don't want to associate, who I don't want to associate with, and managing your life. Not based on what's good for them, but based on what's good for you, interacting with people that are good for you, and not, for example, you know, if you don't like your family, I tell this to young people all the time, if you don't like your family, if you really don't like them, if they do damage to your life, walk away. You owe them nothing, right? So if your parents are really destructive to your life, then move away. Now, my parents were not destructive to my life, but they, you know, but you know what? I didn't have to be with them constantly, so I moved 7,000 miles away. For parents who are pretty good, right? They're not, nothing wrong with my parents at all, and I love them to some extent. So it's, it's, it's, I mean, I do. I mean, but I live my life a lot more, and I live my life much more than that. So I went not to be close to my parents, I moved 7,000 miles away because that was the place where I could make the most of my life, and being in touch with my, my siblings and my parents is somewhere in my high-care values, but you know what? It's not at the top, because other things are more important to me. So I think the reason I couldn't call myself an objectivist is because of the definition of self-interest as being used. I see, I would define self-interest as being a lot closer to the nose. I don't think most people, when they're following their self-interest, are making long-term rational decisions. Because they're not following their self-interest. That would be my definition. Well, that's, exactly. They're not following your definition of self-interest. What I'll call immediate self-interest for the, for the conversation. I think people, I almost forced to follow their immediate self-interest. I don't think they have much of a choice. And the reason that, I don't necessarily ascribe to the definition of self-interest that you use. I mean, if we call that rational self-interest versus immediate self-interest. Followed rational self-interest. Just, yeah. That's fine. And so I can't really get on board with self-interest in the way that most people understand it and the way I understand it. Being a moral decision, because it's not a decision. So, so would you say, this is the question right, from a prescription perspective, what would you advise a young person? Would you advise the young person to be rational self-interest? Absolutely. Well then, then you agree. Well, I agree that you should look to your long-term future and understand that you're, and it's not just your own self-interest though. That's the thing. It is also for other people. And the thing is, I think a lot of people need to do things for other people to feel like they are an actualized person, that they are actually doing something good in the world. I mean, some people do. And you know, in a rational world, in a rejectivist world, there would be social workers, right? There would be people that their profession would be in a sense to help other people. But again, it's because it enhances their lives. Yeah. Because it's what interests them. It's what they're interested in. How do you get other people to be successful? So you work with other people to be successful. But this is the point. Morality is about prescribing. Morality is not about describing. And the question is, would you prescribe to a young people to be rationally self-interest in this expansive sense that I've defined it, in a sense that everything should be evaluated based on what's good for you, but that includes other people and includes spiritual values and includes all these things that truly add up to what it means to have a flourishing, successful, long-term, happy life. I don't think you need to prescribe self-interest to people. That's the thing. I think really, I mean, maybe there are occasions where you can find someone who isn't self-interested, even if we make the distinction between rational self-interest and immediate self-interest. I think it's very difficult to find someone who isn't in some way following their own self-interest. And I think that that's not really a choice. I think people pretty much have to do that. I think that if you're not making a choice, I don't think you can really consider it to be moral. So forget the word self-interest. Put aside the word self-interest I made because I think it's creating cognitive challenges here. Would you prescribe for people to be rational versus an alternative follow their emotion? Of course. Well, you think everybody here is self-interested. So then the only thing to change are rational beings. No, no, I know. But if you want to change the world, you want to make the world a better place. Would you tell people, in pursuit of your self-interest, you should be rational? I think everyone should be rational generally. Even if they're not pursuing their own self-interest, they should still be rational. I think if you're rational, you're pursuing your self-interest period. So fine-rand pursuing your self-interest means being rational. So for who the virtue that encompasses all other virtues is rationality. And the value, which is what you call the cardinal value, is reason. So rationality is the practice of reason. So for who? If you're prescribing to people, be rational. You're basically prescribing to them be self-interested because that's what it means. And you're saying they're self-interested automatically. So all we need to do is shift them from, which I don't agree with, but I'll accept for the purpose of this discussion, all you're asking them is to shift from being self-interested based on emotion or based on cognitive biases to a self-interest that is based now on reason and rationality. And that's a huge step forward if we can just get people to do that. It would definitely be a good start. Don't get me wrong. That's what morality is about. Well, I don't think I agree with that. That's the thing. Because I don't think you can get away from being self-interested in some way. And if you're not making the choice, then I don't think it's moral because I think morality requires you to make a choice. But the choice is to be rational. That is a choice. Yeah, but that doesn't mean you're necessarily being moral. So put aside, is rationality a choice versus so that we... For some people. I mean, I would say for most people. Is anybody rational automatically? I don't think anybody is rational automatically. No, I think you probably have to work on it. I think you have to work on it. I think it's a choice. So being rationally self-interested is a choice and therefore is qualifies as morality. And then the alternative question I would have is, what then qualifies as morality? How do you define morality if you're taking self-interest out of the equation? The problem isn't whether you're being emotionally or rationally self-interested. I think the problem I'm stumbling over is the fact that it's the self-interest part. This is something you don't have a choice in. Everyone has to be self-interested. No, Teresa was not self-interested. She hated her life. She suffered through it. If you read her diary, she was... I don't know about Mother Teresa, to be honest. You'd have to read Hitchens' book about Mother Teresa. I would, yeah. He did a really good book on Mother Teresa. I've heard not good things about her, actually. No, she was an awful human being. And she really was. And she was an awful human being to a large extent because she wasted her own life. She suffered. She was miserable. She questioned the existence of God constantly because she was suffering and miserable and hated what she was doing. And then what she did to people, she took poor people and helped them not die. But then she would refuse to help them go beyond that because the meek shall inherit the earth. So the idea was you want to keep them poor. Right? So, you know... That sounds horrible. It's horrible. The idea... So he was a woman who was dedicated to her own destruction and the destruction of other people. And I think that lots of people like that... That might just be something to do with Mother Teresa's own mental problems or something. I mean, I'm thinking... I'm thinking for the sort of regular person, like, I just... I can't square it that something that I think people inevitably have to do. I mean, accepting Mother Teresa maybe, because I would say that's probably something wrong with her. And from the sounds of it, it sounds like she has many problems. But I think the problem is if self-interest really is something you have to do, then I couldn't consider... Forget self-interest. Rational self-interest is something you have to do. Any kind of self-interest. I wouldn't be able to chalk that up as a moral decision in the same way I wouldn't be able to say going to sleep as a moral decision. Yeah, but again, because you're equivocating, right? So take away self-interest. Put that aside. Let's focus on the rational part of it. You've accepted that that's a choice. So the rational self-interest is a choice. Yeah. And therefore is within the realm of morality because it is a choice and you can live this way, being rational self-interest. You can live another way which is emotionally self-interest. Or you can live a third way which is sacrificing to other people, which again is a choice because you would argue that they're automatically emotionally self-interest. We're all programmed to be that. So Mother Teresa has to make a choice maybe because she screwed up to live an altruist, a truly altruistic life. And then what I'm saying is I want you to make a choice to be rational self-interest and I think those choices are the essential characteristic of morality. Now if you choose to be rational self-interest, now there's a whole series of kind of if you wore virtues and values that that necessitates. If you choose to be rational then you have to be honest because honesty is an essential characteristic of rationality. You have to produce for yourself. And this is really important in objectivism. Because if you're living in reality you have to be able to know that you can use your mind to feed yourself, to survive by yourself. So productiveness is a virtue. And then you want to be able to categorize people. These people are good people for me. These people are bad people for me. And that's the virtue of justice. So you get the virtues and objectivism, the actual guides to action from the idea of rationality as applied to my life, as applied to what will really, not emotionally and not in a moment, but what will really long term make my life the best life that it can be. Right. I think that's where the difference in opinion comes from then. Because in my opinion, it doesn't really matter whether you're choosing to be rationally self-interested or if you've just allowed your emotions to draw you into it, it's the point of self-interest on which I have the problem. Because like I said, that's an essential characteristic of human beings that you really can't change. And even then, I'm not even sure if... I'm not even sure if... That's for self-interest too. It's better to be dead than to be suffering. Or they could choose not to be suffering. You know, they're not living in a concentration camp. I think if they have the option, they will. I understand it. Well, we all... I mean, if you're... Middle class kids in the suburbs have the option to choose a better life. I can understand how many suicide in a concentration camp, absolutely. But the fact is that people constantly choose to do things that are bad for them, that make their life miserable long term, that make their life horrible, that make their life good in the short term. No, there is no... When I'm high on coke, I'm having a good time. You're high. There's a down that follows, right? That's true, but that's the point. It's not always the best long term solution, but it's still something I did because I wanted to satisfy a particular self-interest at the time as I was going through it. But if it causes you pain long term, it can be in your short term self-interest. It's not truly in your self-interest. It might be in your emotional desire. It might be a whim, but it's not really good for you. I mean, self-interest means good for me. Not emotionally pleasing for me. It means good for me. This, I think, is a sort of ideological definition rather than a more sort of, I guess, flat packed standard perception of it because it's a philosophical definition which does not accommodate regular use of the word. Regular use of the word, granted. But words change in meaning, and Einwand had a whole theory of how you define words. And, you know, as a philosopher, she had the responsibility of saying, well, wait a minute, is the common uses of the word self-interest or selfish? Right. And if self means, at the core of it, taking care of self, then no, your short term pursuit of the cocaine is not taking care of yourself. It's being excluded from self-interest. So, I guess I'm bewildered at this point. What do you consider morality? What is morality? Well, I mean, that's a good question. I'm not saying I have the answer. Well, I mean, this is the, I think this is something I'll probably end up changing at some point in the future. But I think that you can separate it out into several things. I mean, it is virtuous to act in your own self-interest and obey the laws, make other people's lives better, say, through capitalism, you know, through fair trade, and to not hurt other people. And so you're not infringing on other people's lives. So why? Why is it moral not to hurt other people? Because you're not hurting other people. That's the thing, right? I mean, this, what... So where does that intrinsic value that other people have come from? And then you expect the same consideration from them in return. And I agree it comes from your own self-definition of your own wealth and your own virtue and your own value. And I agree that people do that, but I'm just trying to, I'm trying to get from the theory into reality. That's my problem. And is anyone familiar with the mouse utopia experiment? Yeah? Okay, I'll throw the people on. I saw a few faces. Basically, it was an experiment. I can't give you the details off the top of my head. So they provided a large closed environment that had... One beer is all that I can, myself, interest can deal with. Call on the other hand, can handle another one. I can handle another one. So they provided a closed environment to a population of mice with an unlimited amount of food and resources they needed to survive. And after however many generations, the mice had changed. Their behavior had changed. They weren't acting like mice. In fact, there was a class of mouse kind of emerged that they called the beautiful ones. And these mice didn't really socialize with other mice. They didn't breathe. They didn't mate. They didn't do anything for fun. They basically sat there all day preening themselves to make themselves look perfect. This is why they were called the beautiful ones. And Objectivism looks... Basically what the mice were living under was real communism. This is what the communists want at the end of capitalism, obviously. So no one's wanting for any resources. No one's needing anything. And this is the final stage of communism that these mice were living in. And I think that essentially they had adopted this kind of rational self-interest ethic without knowing it, obviously. But this is basically I think the end state of morality for humans when no human ever actually needs another human. But that's completely upside down, right? So it's essential for human happiness, for human flourishing, for human success to be productive. It's a sense... Only right now, I mean... No, not right now. I mean right now we live in such a high standard of living that you don't need to be very productive to be able to survive, to be able to live. If you think about our lives today, as compared to the lives of human beings 250 years ago, and for all of human history... Yeah, but that's just a defensive degree. There's nothing today. I could live today I could work an hour day and live better than my ancestors did, right? And yet, I choose to work like 12 hours a day like a maniac, right? Because I get so much of my self-esteem so much of my self-worth so much of my passion and my interest from the work that I do. The same about other human beings. We get so much benefit from our association both spiritual and material through trade with other human beings. So the idea that the end of rational self-interest is sitting around in your room masturbating No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying. No, no, no. The thing is... What do you work on when there's nothing left to be worked on? The next thing to be worked on. There is no such thing. Human need is infinite. Look at somebody like Elon Musk. Look at somebody like Elon Musk. 100 billion dollars. I can't even imagine what that means to be worth 100 billion dollars. What does he do? He works all day. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. And he's planning a space exploration company. He's pouring money into rocket ships that will take people to the Mars and stuff. There is no limit to human imagination. There's no limit to human... I'm not saying when you went there. No, never. There will never be as long as we have mines. I agree. There will never be an end to the kind of ideas that we have, the kind of artistic endeavours. For example, we have today more artists than ever in human history per capita basis. Why? Because we're rich. So we can afford to be entertained all the time. So, I mean, there's no end to how much of this stuff you can have. Yeah, I agree. And that's kind of why I couldn't be an objectivist, because while human beings need each other to do something, I think the sort of egoistic version of morality will never be as... I don't think it's something that will ever be accepted, because I think the whole point of morality is a way for human beings to bind with one another and actually form a reason to have relationships. I mean, I think a morality of egoism is the best bond human beings can have. I mean, I've been married 35 years, right? So, I've bonded... No, no. My wife is amazing and I wouldn't have it any other way. And that bond is fantastic because we're both egoists. We both value our own lives and we relate to one another as egoists. That is the reason I stay with my wife is she provides me with immense pleasure, immense satisfaction, immense contribution of my life. I have friends who I've had for many decades. Why? And they're all egoists, right? I don't have friends who are not objectives. I mean, it's true because... and I don't have that many friends, but the friends that I have are really, really good friends. Why? Because we value each other for what we really are. Now, for something fake they don't expect me to sacrifice for them. But I think I have better friendships and better love relationships generally than most people because I'm an egoist. So I think it's exact opposite. I think if people really value human relationships they will become egoistic because think about it. I mean, you don't marry somebody out of sacrifice. Well, I mean, a lot of people do selfless. Well, then they get divorced the two years later as a consequence. Nobody goes to their loved one the night before they get married and say you don't really do anything for me. This is completely selfless. I'm doing this as an act of major sacrifice. And if they did, they'd get slapped in the face and the wedding would be over. Thank God. Because, of course, the reason you get married with somebody is because of the way they make you feel. And hopefully it's reciprocal. Otherwise, don't get married because it's a massive mistake. You're not doing a favor to others. I think people... look, people make massive mistakes in their lives. People do stupid things all the time. Again, morality is not about descriptive. It's about prescriptive. What I'm telling people is don't get married for that reason. Yes, people get married for lots of awful reasons. Don't do it. If you value your life, hear the things you should look for when you get married. If you value your life, this is how to behave in these kind of circumstances. Morality is supposed to be a guide to action. Not a description of action, but a guide, a guidebook that tells you which... what is the right path? What is the wrong path? Marrying out of a sense of duty, marrying out of a sense of sacrifice, marrying out of a sense of self... self... selflessness is the wrong path to taking life. That's the guidance Objectivism gives. So where's the compulsion to help the needy then in Objectivism? There is none. I mean, you shouldn't help the needy unless you find some reason to help them. Unless they help you. No, it's not a direct help to you. Or whatever. Unless they somehow benefit your rational self-interest. So, for example, I love children. I love children. I love babies. I know people who say, babies, you don't get anything out, back from them. No, they're full of shit. They're full of shit. I love babies. If you came to me in a rational world, in the world today, I'm pretty cynical, but if you came to me in a rational world and said I'm starting up a charity to help babies that have been abandoned by their mothers, or help cure cancer, I would like... I'd write you a big check, no problem. Because I love... but if you came to me, I'd call it who could work, but he's not really interested in working. He's just sleeping on the street. To hell with him. I have no motivation to help him. So, now somebody else might say I value X. I value Y. But each one of us would be good, and some people won't have anybody in terms of charity. I don't think charity is that important in life. I don't think helping the needy is that important in life. I don't think most people need help. I think 99.9% of people can take care of themselves if we give them the opportunity to do so and then institutionalize them through welfare into poverty. So, on that we can agree. So, helping the needy is not to me a moral... it can be moral. But for the most part, most people help the needy out of a sense of guilt. And I don't feel guilty. I didn't do anything to cause them to be guilty. I don't think you should feel guilty because you see someone who has problems. So, if somebody came to me in my neighborhood and had a problem, and I would probably help them and the reason I would probably help them is I have a very benevolent view of human beings because I know what's possible. People work out there. People are working out there and making my life... I mean, I think those Chinese workers who make this stuff is so cool. Never mind the engineers that actually design it. Never mind the chip maker. I mean, people are amazing creatures. Amazing creatures. So, if some stranger comes to me and said, look, I'm really following hard times, I would be happy to help them under the assumption of their potential. If I know somebody is a bastard, I'm not going to help them. Exactly. So, you're being self-interested. Actually, I'm more interested in the bastard. Yeah, fuck that guy. Yeah, fuck that guy. Exactly. But I know a lot of people who would help the bastard out of a sense of guilt. Lots of people do that. So, again, what I'm saying is proscription. You should not help the bastard. Only help good people. Or at least people you don't know anything about. Right? So, give them the benefit of the doubt. But if you know somebody is a bad guy, right, he's a member of Antifa or something, don't help them. Don't help them. Don't give them any assistance ever, right? So, be selfish. If somebody is going to harm you, then it's insane to help them. Now, somebody might not immediately help you, but in the grand scheme of things, there are human beings and human beings are good. If we take care of our plants, we take care of our pets, to me, any human being, almost any human being who hasn't done me any harm is more valuable than a pet, right? I'm not big on dogs and cats. So, I'm happy to help people. The idea that objectivists are not going to help people is bizarre on the contrary. We're some of the most benevolent, friendly, nice people in the world because we value ourselves. And if we project another people, wow, they're living the kind of life. How wonderful is that? Right. Okay. That's very interesting, and I guess we can leave it there. Thank you very much. Oh, my pleasure. Thank you. Sure. Let's take some questions. I'll let you... Can someone pass that cross? Yeah. We'll need to share the microphone. Sure. Thank you. What do you do with... What do you do with people that got to some problems in life outside of their capacity, outside of their limits of actions and they get into massive depression, that they get into internal problems or they get cancer, they get things that are beyond his repair? What would be the way... Should we help them? That's the first question. And the second one is what's the best way to take those people out of those internal problems so they could be libertarian, subjectivist, anarchist, not the kind of anarch... like anarcho-capitalist. Yeah. Yeah. But how do you help those people? Let's go back and forth. I mean, I would say that that is the role of psychology. I mean, a healthy psychology, a real science of psychology would be to help people like that regain their values, regain their perspective, regain their rationality, put them on the right track and help in that way. The question is, would you help them? Again, it depends if it's a basically good human being and I don't know, they lost their job and they got depressed and things deteriorated. I would be happy to help them, particularly if they started on the right track. That is, if they committed to going to see a psychologist or doing group... you know, group therapy works, I don't know. But whatever thing that works. So, you know, people who are addicted to stuff and if they are really, truly dedicated to getting off of it, I'm happy to help. If they're not, then I'm not going to help them. I guess you're asking about welfare and universal healthcare and things like that. No? You all die. Well, I mean... Well, this is the thing. I mean, the question is, who's going to help them? Isn't it? Yeah, so I mean... This is incidentally why I'm okay with a social safety net and universal healthcare. It means that there is at least something that is guaranteed to be there to help them. But, I mean, yeah, obviously I think people who have fallen on hard times and are down on their luck might... I mean, the only charity I actually do is giving money to homeless people. But then I know that they've had the money and they needed it and I don't trust charities to be honest. But yeah, I'm fine with a social safety net. One of the things that I find interesting about Jectivist is the role of government is generally described to me as the only domain that government can have a role in is in the use of force. And I'm characterizing that correctly. I actually... I don't see why the government can't do other things. I mean, who's going to build the roads? I guess is the question. Yeah, answer that one. I mean, the reason we object to government doing other things, building the roads, is the only way for them to do that is to use force. So what I object is to anybody, an individual or a group taking my money without asking, right? So using coercion against me. So I find it fascinating that if you came to me and said I need help and I said, yeah, I can't help you right now and you pulled the gun and took my money, that would be stealing. Everybody in society would accept they're stealing, go to jail, we don't accept it. But if you've got everybody to vote to take my money, that's okay. Anything that's immoral for an individual human being to do is immoral for a group to do. That's the point of the question. We imbue the government with powers that not an individual can have. No, but that's immoral. That's the essence of immorality, the essence of immorality. So Socrates is corrupting the youth just as we tried to do at King's College and the group decided that it was a bad thing and they killed him, right? So that's not right. So why is it right to take my money? Because the group decides that my money should be taken away from me. So the requirement for us to live in a society is you live in a society which is an implicit consent to It's not implicit because nobody asked me. I do not want to give my money out. Otherwise you'd have to leave. Where would I leave to? No, I have a right to live wherever I see fit without people using force against me. That is the essence of human life in a society together. See, the point of Objectivism H is the agreement we make when we live in society is not we'll use force whenever we have enough votes to use it. The essence of the agreement we make when we live in a society is that force will never be used against another human being. Not arbitrarily, not arbitrarily in initiation. So if somebody doesn't want to do something I would never force them to do it. Never force them to do it. For example, if someone is just refusing to follow the laws then force has to be initiated against them to make them follow the laws. The law isn't necessarily against violence. They still have to have force initiated against them in order to follow the laws. No, because we live in a corrupt society. We live in a society in which laws are not. No, society is there only as a government to have laws that protect us from violence. There shouldn't be no other laws. There should be no other laws. So I would say not only is something like welfare destructive to the person to me because money is being taken away from me without my consent which I view as incredibly destructive it's taking my life, it's taking my time, it's taking my effort without my consent. But I also think it's destructive to the person receiving it because I think that they are being told here's a check, don't think, don't produce, don't be rationally selfish, don't pursue your life, we'll take care of you, you're too stupid to do it yourself which I don't think 99.9% of people are. And the same with healthcare. I think not only by universalizing healthcare am I getting an inferior product I mean a dramatically inferior product to what the marketplace could provide. But we're all getting an inferior product and then what we're telling doctors is you have to accept this amount of money for this treatment, you don't have any other options so we're enslaving the doctor and the nurse and the entire medical profession because we believe that it is an essential good. Well so is agriculture, why don't we so is food, why don't we nationalize all food production in the world food is more important than health if you don't have food. Well it's what they did in Venezuela and now everybody's starving. What I mean is they're making sure that if the argument is everyone is entitled to X then having a social safety net is to provide the X. And my argument is nobody's entitled to anything unless you produce it and then if you want something that you don't have, ask for it. I mean if my neighbor came to me and said look my son needs an emergency procedure I don't have an emergency, could you help me out? I'm more than likely happy to rate him a check and help him out. But if he comes with a gun at me, if he gets the neighborhood to come at me to provide that health care, that's just morally offensive. I mean the purpose of the state itself, I mean the state has to be imbued with powers that no one individual can have otherwise you're going to have people being the judge in their own trial and things like this. So we have to give to the state. There's one issue which we have to give to the state because we can't handle it, this is why I'm against the Anarchy, right? There's one issue that you have to extract for society so that markets can emerge and volatility can emerge and that's forced. And that's the one thing that we have to imbue government with, with protection. It has to be the agency that protects us from frauds and criminals and gangsters and terrorists. They're making a pragmatic up, for example it's going to be cheaper and easy if we just have nationalized roads and then pay a small road tax. It turns out exactly the opposite. Absolutely no question, particularly today with modern technology we could have a GPS you could have a GPS on your car that told you exactly which roads and who you have to pay. It could be so cool and the owners of the road would take care of the roads so much better and they'd be building new tunnels and new things which today government couldn't even imagine to do. I mean the transportation would be a hundred years more advanced if it privatized the roads. Well the first, who built the railroads in, in, in England? It wasn't government. Oh it was Brunel. Yeah, it was private enterprise. Who dug the first canals in the United States to transport goods from one place to another? It becomes useful to more people more often to have these six nationalized roads. I mean like for example I don't have to go through a toll every time I change road. Yeah, but you are going you know as a consequence of that you're getting a tax system and a whole infrastructure that is massively inefficient in order to fund that road. It means I pay less anyway because I mean if I have to pay a toll on every road I may as well pay a small amount overall. You wouldn't have to pay a toll on every road. I mean the idea of privatizing road, I mean there'd be books written about it. I mean there are private roads and you have to pay a toll to go. Yeah, some private roads you'd have to pay a toll on some private roads you wouldn't have to pay a toll on depending on why the road was built and who is actually managing the road. You could imagine trade associations building roads to get you to the shopping mall because they have a strong incentive for you to travel to the shopping mall. You can imagine insurance companies building roads for you to drive because they want to sell your client's insurance. You could imagine I mean the only thing missing from imagining how private markets and roads are the last thing to be privatized. The only thing limited is our imagination and I always say people ask me things like well how would the market deal with problem X and my answer is usually I don't know but my experience with markets is that they will always come up with a better answer than anything I could imagine because if I could imagine those good answers I would be a billionaire today because I would have either done it or invested in it but I can't imagine you know if the government can build roads roads are fine and healthcare which is far more sophisticated than this far more difficult, far more important far more valuable, I certainly don't want them to do and education which I view as the most important product produced by in society that is the last thing I want government to touch I think it's more about just convenience rather than innovation in that regard that is perfectly functional as it is like a road it doesn't need any particular innovation we just need them done effectively and maintained well across the country I'm happy to let a government do that I saw what happened in this country last week when it snowed a little bit a little bit that's a British problem it's not a British problem but it wouldn't happen if somebody had an economic incentive around those roads self-interested incentive about keeping those roads clear so snow is unusual and rare but the thing that we're missing is what is possible and I don't have an answer of what is possible because again I would make a lot of money if I did what is possible to transport human beings from point A to point B if we privatize that problem if we said to the marketplace you get to innovate with regard to transportation from point A to point B everything regarding that transportation from the road to the mechanism by which we use train automobiles is regulated I'm not saying they're not regulated but it's still a market it's just a regulated market and it's foundation the road is owned by the government it's like money you don't get innovation in money but that's not saying you can't create a new foundation privately like with the trains of course you can because the government won't let you and the trains once the government nationalized them and then privatized them it all disappears yes originally in a beginning state you could create something new and then they take it from you because it's a public utility yeah I agree should we get another question you choose the lady whoever gets up I have a slide weird question I have a weird question would you be in favor of giving people a choice to let's say get a card that will allow them to not to pay any taxes whatsoever and not be able thanks to not paying taxes not to receive any social services at all could they drive in the roads that's a good question what does it mean not to get social services so yes generally I would like I would be in favor of that as an option because I would certainly take advantage of that option and I'm actually doing it right now I don't know if you guys know but I've moved to Puerto Rico and by moving to Puerto Rico Puerto Rico is the only place on the planet so I'm today in the really unique position where I'm paying very little taxes and granted the services in Puerto Rico are not that great right so I'm not getting a lot in return I've given up I haven't given up on making citizens but I've given up all the goodies that I would get in California so I think that would be an interesting option but you'd have to define what government services are because you don't want to buy them I mean I personally would have no problem with that to be honest it sounds like quite a good idea it's as likely to happen as the elimination of those services because the status would never allow would never allow giving people that I imagine Jeremy Corbyn being like yeah I'll be fine with that even in America today you can't opt out of social security I would opt out tomorrow I don't need that money be safe for me I can save for myself but nobody's going to allow you to opt out of social security now in Chile this is a real fascinating experiment in Chile they allowed what they did was they created a private track where you could invest in mutual funds and had money managers and so on and they gave people an option you can stay with the government plan the social security government plan no changes to it or you can take the same amount you would have given the government and put it into this private set of funds still not my ideal I can't dictate your saving to you at all but better than the system of just giving it to government 99% of Chileans including the socialists have moved their money out of government programs into the private sector but is it because the government program was not final salary was it the final salary program yeah yeah yeah and still they chose no absolutely absolutely because they realized that they could do a lot better so social security in America you get a specific sum it's guaranteed for you but the fact is that even with a moderate level of investing I would make a lot better just by buying an index fund and going to sleep at night and not thinking about it just putting it actually in a saving account at a bank even at the low interest rates that we have today you would do better than the return that the government promises you and they're still going bankrupt in spite of that okay should we go for one more question let's go for the gentleman so does the government grant us rights or are we born with rights we have rights inherently the purpose of a government is to protect those rights anyone in disagreement no I mean I would just add from where we get those rights we get those rights from our nature and we get those rights from our nature as rational beings if we were not rational beings we would have no rights rights are the recognition that in this goes to the nature of government and you can't get to the nature of government without going through rights rights are the recognition that in order to thrive as human beings we must use our mind and that the enemy of the mind the enemy of reason is force and therefore when we are together when we are in a social context we must eradicate force from human activity so that each one of us can act free of coercion can pursue whatever values including your short-term self-interest values whatever values you want free of coercion even when so if the government is there just to protect our rights right then how can it violate our rights and when it takes money from me it's violating my rights the whole point of rights is the elimination of coercion that is the essential coercion on authority and a gun that is what rights wipe out and when we let it back in through the government we're violating rights and of course the founders of the America understood this and that's why they said the biggest violator of rights in human history is government and therefore we have to limit government we have to constrain government as weak as possible so that they won't be tempted to violate our rights didn't help okay well thank you very much you're welcome