 Young people are idealistic. They want to believe in some kind of ideal and I think the left is is very good They've got this suit this bizarre notion of of what socialism can do if we get it just right this time and The right has some idealism in religion associate. I think it's less attractive to young people But you know, maybe when Jordan Peterson tells him to make their bed. That's attractive But we need we need a we need an We need to be idealistic. We need to portray a beautiful picture of the future What we do a lot and we're very good at is complaining. We complain about the world today We complain about the present. We complain about the government. We complain about the culture But we are not very good at projecting our ideal and projecting what is possible and giving people the tools To live the best life that they can do So today we are discussing how to make classical liberalism mainstream again. It's obvious that Modern politics is dominated by leftists and conservative movements But there is little place for the classical liberal ideas or what I would call maybe the true liberal ideas, right? I think one of the reasons one of the obvious reasons is that In general, most people don't really know what classical liberalism is And why it could be a viable alternative in modern politics for the mainstream for the dominant ideologies So could you please explain very shortly What is the essence of classical liberal ideas? How it differs from modern dominant ideologies and how to revive Its place in the society the society's awareness of it So I think classical liberalism almost purposefully is not a very very Clearly defined term But it it is an emphasis in political discussion on liberty on individual liberty on individual freedom It is the idea Broadly speaking that the government should be limited should be limited primarily to protecting our lives and our property It should be primarily focused. I think in the best interpretation of classical liberalism it should be Focused on the protection of individual rights properly properly defined and properly understood And then generally the government should leave individuals free to pursue their own lives Free to start their own businesses contract with other people It should protect property rights. It protect contract rights It should provide for the national defense and police force and the judiciary But beyond that The classical liberals tend to be skeptical about anything else that the government does Some of us would like there to be a complete ban on the government doing anything else But classical liberals generally have wanted small and limited government I think part of the part of the reason the classical liberalism is less known today Is that many of these liberal parties of a long time ago? In a sense sold their soul to the devil They compromised and compromised and compromised and compromised to the point where they merged into a left Or merged into the conservative movement. They didn't stick to their principles They didn't uphold this idea of limited limited government Some you know The at some point there was a crisis and some people needed help so the government helped them and then the crisis Maybe there's another group that needed help and then the the the help got institutionalized and we got a welfare state And the liberals didn't really fight against the welfare state And then and then maybe there was some business crisis and the state said, oh, we better regulate that because businessmen are behaving badly And the liberals didn't adamantly object and then that expanded slowly And and slowly the liberals kind of lost the passion about fighting over this So I think for the public They just really haven't experienced classical liberal ideas in any kind of organized systematic way They're not familiar with them because much of the of the older liberal Ideology kind of faded away as the liberals as the liberal agenda was compromised And indeed in the united states it got so bad that ultimately the left stole the term liberal Yeah, and today when you say liberal in america, everybody thinks you're talking about the left Um, and so if they object to the left they object to liberalism and then what are they left with? Kind of a conservative right, uh, so so there's a lot of confusion about the term There's a lot of confusion about its history And ultimately there's a lot of confusion about what it really stands for and and this is where I think The biggest problem lies with classical liberalism. What is it? What do we actually believe in? Yeah? I think we will get back to the problem of the dichotomy But do you have any ideas about how to solve this problem, you know Well, I think I think there are two things that have to be done and and any solution I give you is not going to be a short-term solution and any solution I give you is not a silver bullet that everything changes instantaneously I think the first is We need to be clear about what classical liberal is is and what it stands for and I think we need to Bolster its defenses. We need to bolster its philosophical foundations For example, classical liberalism is Traditionally has always been a dominant primarily of political philosophy But political philosophy rests on other branches of philosophy rests on certain foundations moral foundations epistemological foundations I think to really dominate We need a consistent moral and epistemological philosophy. We need a set of ideas That are not just economic and not just political a set of ideas that don't just involve Yeah, we get a higher GDP and and yes, I value freedom, but I know other people don't value freedom How do I get them to value freedom? Well getting people to value freedom has more to do with morality and more to do with Philosophy for their own life and what kind of life they want to live then it has to do with economics and politics So I think we need to engage in much more with a cultural debate about What people should live for how to live? What are what lives are worth while living? And uh and and and become advocates of human reason, for example, because I I don't think I give you a quick example, right? Plato the philosopher believed that Most people lived in this cave ideas this cave analogy and we see shadows in the wall And we don't know reality and we can't know reality and we can't know truth and in a sense we can't take care of ourselves Only the philosopher Can exit the cave that we're in and see the actual reality the sunshine the world of forms as he advised it So only the philosopher knows the truth now if that's true if that's epistemologically true Me and you can't see reality only the philosopher. They can see it Then freedom is useless to us. Yeah, because we can't we we can't discover truth We can't discover how to live we have to just listen to him every authoritarian regime in history Yeah, it's basically based on this platonic idea We have to be willing to challenge that not just politically not just emotionally But also philosophically and say no we believe in reason We believe every individual has the capacity to reason therefore every individual has the capacity to discover truth Discover his own values knows what to do with his life and therefore what we need Is freedom so that individuals can pursue their happiness Not so that we can maximize gdp as many people do right many classical the both tend to do But so that individuals can actually live the fullest most complete life that they can and they have the capability to do that Because we're all beings of reason man is the rational animal Let me elaborate a little bit on the issue of truth and maybe put it a little bit differently, right? So I think part of the problem with Statism and with intrusive ideologies in general is maybe even the obsession With the idea of truth, which is not necessarily the same as truth, you know, but I think for classical liberals Part of the idea is that you know Many issues on many issues truth is subjective, right? Or on many issues. We don't even have truth, right? So I know you represent an ideology, which is called objectivism. So it may sound kind of, you know Mutually exclusive but on the other hand, I think if you really value truth Or value like the most important principles in life So to say you have to be a little bit minimalistic, right about this principle So this is where we disagree and where I find myself disagreeing often with classical liberals. Okay So I think there's a real difference between dogma and truth. Yeah I think there's a huge difference between being dogmatic and being a truth seeker But I consider myself a truth seeker and I think good people seek the truth I seek the truth in my own life. I want to know for example, what is really good for me Now I know that sometimes I'm gonna make mistakes. Truth is not reason is not infallible. We're gonna make mistakes But I'm looking for what's right and what's just and what's true I want to know that in the physical world. I want to know You know, I disagree with Hume. This is a mug and that is water and I am drinking it There's it's not a probability shit thing. This is certainty. This is truth And I think that that that Hume for example and others Other classical liberals who have become skeptics and become skeptics partially as a defense mechanism against the Truth of communism or the truth of authoritarianism. Yeah, I think that's a mistake And I think it it opens the door up to kind of the subjectivist left So my values are my level of my my truth was forgotten. My values are mine in that sense. They're subjective, right? You know, what what how much I value water versus coke only? I know you You can't tell me what's right with regard to that. But whether this is a mug or not That's an absolute truth that both of us should be able to agree on Truth is really really important and having a mechanism to discover truth is really really important and understanding The process of discovering truth is really really important and that freedom part of the reason we want to be free Is so that we can go on and discover what's true and what's good But we can't force people to have that's why it's not dogma, right? So you can't and so this is the opposition to a catholic church that That burns people at the stake or that puts Galileo under house arrest because he's searching for the truth People can be wrong about stuff. I can disagree with them. They might be right. I may be wrong absolutely politically We are free To and we can't impose truth on other people, but we certainly can advise people I certainly want my doctor to be able to tell me I I think this is the treatment. I think this is the right treatment. I think this is true In that sense, I might get a second opinion But I hope that the medical science comes up with truths because I want to live long And and I want them to be able to to cure diseases and that requires science and truth So I I'm a huge believer in science And truth what I don't believe is imposing Any of that on other people people have to discover indeed. It's not truth if it's imposed on you That's one of the things that philosophically is important if you accept something because somebody told it to you It's it's not true for you. It's just it's just something you accept it. It's just it's subjective It's completely arbitrary I want people to have to to embrace the mechanism of truth discovery Which is human reason and I think classical liberalism needs to embrace this it needs to embrace the fact that You know that free markets is that they work is true And it's it's not questionable It's not it can't be a skeptic about this that we all the facts line up They all line up for the cause of freedom So I think epistemology is really important having a theory of knowledge Is really important and having a theory of knowledge that leads to actual discoveries about the world Is crucial for liberty to continue with the issue of why modern classical liberalism is weak So obviously it's mostly associated with libertarianism nowadays And would you agree that libertarianism tends to attract for whatever reasons? Many people who are dogmatic or radical and who in turn radicalize or Make this ideology more dogmatic Appear make it appear more dogmatic to most of the people So what are the reasons behind that and and what's the possible solution? So I think there's a couple of things here. I mean, I actually like the word radical So as I embrace the word radical, I think dogmatic is a bad word But radical means consistent and radical means bitch. I I like that word, but Um, I I do think it's dogmatic. I do think a lot of people attracted to it. I think a lot of people Who embrace these ideas don't fully understand them Don't internalize them into their own life. At the end of the day, I always ask people, why do you want to be free? And if you hesitate and you're not sure how to answer that there's a problem You haven't internalized the value of freedom and it can be I just want to do whatever the hell I want It has to be a real value to you. Why do you want to be free? I I know why I want to be free because I want the opportunity to live the best life possible to me I want to pursue happiness and the more freedom is the more opportunities they are for me to pursue happiness for me And I want to live the most flourishing successful life. I can freedom is one of the prerequisites for that So so I think a lot of people have not internalized it have not made it personal don't understand it and they the theory Is in a sense a floating abstraction And they've studied the theory. It looks true to them. It all connects You know kind of logically But they haven't really Seen it in reality brought it into their own lives and understand how it's connected to life and and and humans human existence and human survival And young people it's almost inevitable that young people would be dogmatic right because you just don't have the life experience I was no question when I read Iron Man for the first time. I was on a crusade I was going to convince everybody and kind of a You know hit their head with a hammer kind of way and then as you as you go all day you you you you you learn a How to convince people how to how to debate people but also you learn that my goal in life is not to convince them a goal in life is first to To understand and to live a good life and to study the ideas And and convincing others is something you you do later and you certainly don't achieve anything By throwing a hammer at their head right at being being obnoxious and being nasty I think the other problem that exists in libertarianism Is I think at some point and I think I think this the point is really Marie Rothbard more than anybody else At some point libertarianism takes a off ramp off of the liberal highway If you will and and it goes off in a direction of what I consider An ideologies that that's antithetical to classical liberal and and and I think to reason and that is the idea of anarchy I I think anarchy is a disaster. I think anarchy is is is counter to liberalism in in classical sense It's counter to freedom Anarchy devolves and must devolve logically and existentially in reality Into gang warfare and violence. It always has it always will there's a reason why in the culture Anarchy is a negative term. It's chaos. Chaos is not a good thing Uh, and I think I think one of the things the classical liberals like the founding fathers of america understood and I think that Ayn Rand understood is that government is not a necessary evil government is a necessary good Government creates the conditions for human flourishing if it's the right kind of government And it's limited and it's it's limited by the principle of individual rights If it's limited by that principle, it's a necessary good civilization can exist without Some entity you don't like the word government call it something else. I don't care But some entity that has the monopoly over the use of retaliatory force Only uses force in retaliation. I mean to protect never to uh violate people's rights And that is what creates the conditions for market stay evolve It creates the conditions for people to experiment with art experiment with their personal lives, maybe Sex marriage who knows but it provides the conditions and and that make all that possible without Violence without force without coercion from other people uh anarchy Rejects all that and I think creates a condition where human flourishing is impossible And I think that too many young Libertarians Are attracted to this I can do anything I want to do kind of an emotionalist attitude and they get the logical Sequence that Rothbard or somebody else lays out And they never connected to to actual reality and actual reality. It doesn't work So you would probably mostly agree with robert nozick on his defense of the minimal state I mostly do I would do it a little differently And I man does it a little differently, but but in spirit. Absolutely. I agree. So maybe another issue is that Maybe libertarians are failing really to communicate their empathy to most of people like it seems like a very anti-empathic so to say ideology because maybe partly because libertarians refuse to Engage with many important issues such as environment in many cases like some of them do engage but many don't and Many people they have this Kind of perception that they just don't care, you know And they are just bad people who only think about themselves, etc, etc So what would be your response to that? Well, I I think that a proper political movement has to have answers to all the questions that concern people whether it's Whether it's questions like Environmentalism or the environment or whether it's questions like what to do about the poor which always comes up When you're discussing these things you have to have an answer the answer might not be the most pleasing answer Always but you have to have an answer and you have to have a program Environmentalism is a good example. I think libertarianism has a lot of interesting things to say can have Or free market ideologies classical liberalism can have a lot of interesting things to say while not negating the fundamental principles of of property rights while not negating the fundamental principles of a limited government that's limited To the protection of individual rights one then what one needs to do is frame the environmental debate in the context of individual rights in the context of You know Something happening in an environment that actually does me harm Well, then if something something's harming me then the government has a role to play And then we have to figure out exactly what well under what conditions and it can be complex It it might not be straightforward Now obviously the the the simple way to the simplest way to deal with it most environmental issues, but not all of them Is is private property the more private property we have the fewer environmental issues we have and the reason for that is simple We know we've got a thousand years of common law history that says you can't drop your garbage in my backyard Well, if everything is somebody's backyard Yeah, even things like lakes and rivers and and oceans and stuff and we can't find ways to privatize these things and we have You know in the history we have done things like this Then we can we can explain to people how You know having water rights Solves a lot of the water cleanliness issues and and the same but there are issues that go beyond that air for example It's very difficult to conceptualize in terms of property rights I'm breathing something that you're polluting. What do we do about that? And there harm is an issue if if I'm harmed by something you're doing We know that if you blast your stereo Really really loud in the middle of the night, I can sue you even in a laissez-faire capitalist world I can sue you you don't have a right to intrude on my on my sleep Like that. Well, you don't have a right to Throw your cyanide or whatever they and and so You go to courts You know you you you you have some conclusion about the damage that this does to people The government has a wall to look at that and see hmm It looks like these particular chemicals are really damaging to human life They have a they have their bill. They have I think the obligation then to either reduce their use or to ban them or to do something In in that limited way in the name of protecting your rights But I just want to give one counting example because this is it's a dangerous Imagine in the middle of the 19th century You're in london the industrial revolution is happening. Everybody's burning coal everybody People are burning coal in their homes people are burning coal in the factories The air is full of black stuff You're going to get some of you are going to get some of us are going to get sick um Do we stop the industrial revolution? Do we ban coal at that point or do we realize that Maybe people are getting sick, but overall Something important is happening here And and we need to let it play out for a while at least and then maybe clean it up But we need to play it out China faces the same Faced I think the same uh challenge If development requires some pollution for a while But the value of development the value of becoming rich the value of bringing a billion people out of poverty is huge Well, maybe we can tolerate some pollution for a while And then clean it up So these are the kind of issues that need to be thought through and and I think governments need to Need to be involved in thinking them through but there's real danger of stopping progress before it happens If you do if you overdo it if you exceed the limit sure, so basically we agree that there is a place for regulating pollution or other environmental factors Because of the need to protect individual liberty and because of the need to protect property rights. So Yeah, of course, but concerning your example, I think you've really um Touched on another crucial issue here because many libertarians really have this kind of approach where they just don't want to weigh Pro and con factors They just want to have this simplistic answer where where they say, you know, if it's noise Why why are you talking about noise? Are you a socialist or something like that? You know, I've heard this kind of arguments or you know Somebody can just go in the street and shoot all around him unless he hits you, you know But but it's obvious from the scientific or truth perspective that that if there's somebody running around With a gun and just shooting, you know, there is a chance that he will hit you and and I My freedom to some extent Includes the freedom to be Protected from that risk, right? Absolutely. So if I mean take a simple example, certainly a gun would qualify But let's say Somebody is driving on the private streets, but they're driving in a way that is clearly in danger. Yeah, right? Maybe they're drying fat but not just fast. They're swerving and they're cutting off people and and they're gonna kill somebody There is absolutely a wall of of our police force of of of a law to say Irresponsible driving harmful driving and you have to make it objective and you have to be careful again not to give the state too much power But yes Risk is a factor. Let's say you're next to a construction site and I believe there should be no regulations of construction You know, let the market work But you notice that the crane Is tilted and it looks like it's gonna fall and on your house Can you call the police? Well, of course you can there's a real risk in there Police send an inspector in and say, you know what? You guys you're a crane. You've got it wrong. You need you need to fix it So there the risk real risk again, and you have to be careful and we have to be objective and we have to be truthful Real risk is a concern It is something a real threat is a concern and it's something that that A threat to life and a threat to property Just like today if I threaten you, right? I'm gonna kill you I'm gonna do something the police can stop me and I think that's completely legitimate It goes beyond speech at that point now. It's it's it turns into a physical threat When a physical threat is faced whether it's through Pollution or whether it's through a crane that's tilted or whether it's to somebody driving drunk Absolutely, I think the state has a role to play and and we should think very carefully on how to Make those laws and make them limited and make them limited to individual rights again and how to protect But absolutely, uh, I think this idea of anything goes Is is very dangerous and we know what happens when anything goes when you get the chaos of anything goes People demand order and the order then is provided by a strongman the order, you know Anarchy will always devolve into authority. So since we've already criticized anarchy and we've You know stated that some libertarians have um excessively restrictive view of the role of the government Maybe it's at this point not obvious to some of the listeners Then what's what is the essence of our problem with the statists, you know, like with with the left or with the conservatives? because at one On one hand, obviously there is place for involvement in the environment and and you know Things like that. But on the other there are still lots of areas Where there is no need for state involvement whatsoever and where modern states are Increasingly involved. I don't think of it as there's a place for the government to be involved in my environment I think of it as is there's a there's always a place for the state to be involved when life is threatened when Exactly. That's what I mean is a real threat For example, I don't think there's any role of government in welfare. So what to do about the poor nothing the government has nothing to do with that But if I'm running at you with a knife, yes, the state is there to protect me And if I'm throwing cyanide in your face, yes, the state is supposed to protect me So when life is threatened when property is threatened or when life is attacked or property is attacked That's when a state gets intervened whether that attack is through the air. Yeah, that's the climate Whether it's it's in other way and of course what what defines the modern left and the modern right is there are no limits Exactly on the state power. The modern left is obsessed with With redistributing wealth and and using what I produce to help other people And taking my wealth and redistributing it to others and Of course i'm controlling what businessmen do and how they do it and what they do In central planning and the idea that they can plan everything but even when it comes to the environment They believe that the environment is an end in itself It's not only an issue of threats towards us But we have to protect snails and we have to protect this and we have to protect that Because they have a value in and of themselves. They have an intrinsic value that does not relate to human beings The government should only be involved where humans are involved the government should only be involved in protecting human life Nothing more than that And there is no intrinsic value in nature Value is something that comes from human beings. We value nature You value nature you love forest by some I think there are even more obvious examples like modern states like georgia or any european state for that matter Are heavily involved in education in culture in sports, you know, like Why because i mean There nobody's gonna die if we don't have a volleyball team More than that. I think by by by having a volleyball team you're denying somebody the capital to have what he wants to have And and and yes education. I mean the horrors of public education are well known But more than that there's this they are now One of the reasons people don't know about classical liberalism Maybe it's because the state is running our educational system and they have no interest in knowing about it So yes, the the government is involved in everything I think I think one of the worst things is the environment because I think it's all encompassing They use it to regulate everything else But I agree education health care europeans love their socialized health care Where the state is telling you what medicines to take the state is telling you what treatments to get And and and this is where the right comes in right the right Is a little bit more sympathetic in economics? Okay, you can do your thing in economics a little bit But they want to regulate culture They want georgia to be georgia And and they want to regulate immigration and they want to make the movement of goods and services and people and capital They they they want to regulate they you know, they want the national sports team or whatever So so the conservatives Have given a in a lot to the left on economics It's interesting how the debate between the left and right has changed over the last few years It used to be mainly about economics Now it's mainly about culture And the battlegrounds have shifted basically the rights conservatives have given up on economics They've given into the left the state could do anything in economics now And and now the fight is about I don't know lgbtq, right? That's where the fight is It's not about regulations or anything like that. But yes, I ran said once The left because it's marxist is materialist Uh, therefore they care about the material world. Therefore they want to control and regulate the economy They don't believe in a spiritual world. So they don't care what you do in your bedroom They don't care how you behave generally. They leave you alone in a spiritual world The right is not even not too any more But it was it was in the old left, right and then the old right Didn't care about the material world because there's an afterlife, right? So the material world doesn't matter. So yeah, you can do your capitalism if you want It's kind of grubby and we don't really like it, but you can do your trade and your free markets But the spiritual world that's important. What you do in bed That's really important. So that we want to regulate what's interesting about the modern left and right Is now they both care about everything and they want to regulate everything and they want to control everything And they don't want to leave us even a little bit of freedom. That's why We talk about an opportunity for the classical liberalism now is the time I think the left and the right have proven themselves to be completely bankrupt People are starting to get it that there's something really really wrong in the culture Something really really really wrong in the economy the economy is approaching bankruptcy in the west The culture is approaching bankruptcy in the west now is the time to offer an alternative And I think I think the the the alternatives, you know and the way to do that Is There are shortcuts here the way to do that is educate educate educate educate teach people about this alternative Teach people about freedom teach people about the value of freedom to their own life Teach people about the value to the culture and to the economy Of freedom and we need to we need to talk talk talk educate educate educate and get the word out there Write books write articles do podcasts do videos do whatever we can to get a clear consistent And this is where again i'm for truth right a consistent message of the value of liberty without Denying real issues and real problems and real challenges and how and presenting we need to present real solutions but I think there we are facing another huge challenge beyond education because You know the way democracy is structured unless it's very restrained by constitution Is that you know politicians can spend money essentially? um, and If you can spend money you can sell ideas about the ways of spending that money So one problem is that we don't have any limitation on where the state can get involved You know, but the other problem is that the state has no limit on the amount of resources it controls, right? Sure. So so it's an uphill battle. It's very difficult for us. Uh, I would say that this is a reason why I think the most powerful tool we have today beyond the ideas that we have It is is the web is the internet. I mean, uh, it doesn't cost us much To get onto the internet. It doesn't cost as much to produce videos I mean people producing videos and making a lot of money off of just iPhones and stuff It doesn't it doesn't require the kind of capital and resources to educate people Like it did in the past the past year to study university year to study now you can do everything online So I think I mean I find it disappointing that that uh People who advocate for free markets have not better utilized and better capitalized On the existence of the internet and the ability to communicate ideas to large numbers of people at a marginal cost of close to zero And uh, and and we've left even these channels To uh, I'd say the right is pretty good at it You know the jordan peterson's the better purers of the world and then and of course the left is also good at it And and where is Where is our jordan peterson? Where is our capturing the imagination of people? Where is ours? Using this new medium to communicate effectively with the world and and inspire that's the other thing we need And and this is something I think that's really important young people are idealistic They want to believe in some kind of ideal And I think the left is is very good. They've got this suit this bizarre notion of Of what socialism can do if we get it just right this time And the right has some idealism and religion associated. I think it's less attractive to young people But you know, maybe when jordan peterson tells them to make their bed, that's attractive But we need we need a we need an We need to be idealistic. We need to portray a beautiful picture of the future What we do a lot and we're very good at is complaining. We complain about the world today We complain about the president. We complain about the government. We complain about the culture But we are not very good at projecting our ideal and projecting what is possible and giving people the tools To live the best life that they can do again. I think this is one of iron man's strengths because she wrote novels She told stories stories were projected. I think In particular philosophical ideal that I think young people respond to it's why she's she's so popular among young people But we need to do a much better effort on every front from economics all the way to morality and projecting And an ideal and exciting people and getting them excited and passionate about the future that this Free market classical liberal ideology can lead to I think you've touched on a very important point Which is how to attract young people And I would even specify that we really need to attract creative people, you know And you've mentioned jordan peterson Even jordan peterson is a part of this problem with the left right dichotomy because you've probably heard The way he describes Liberals versus conservatives his vision is that you know, like liberal is liberals are inherently this Creative types and conservatives are order-oriented types. This is liberals in the american sense. Yeah, exactly That's the problem because when jordan peterson Talks about liberals versus conservatives. He really talks about leftists versus Conservatism and he doesn't see a place for true liberals there. Yeah, but he's also wrong. I mean It's also wrong because the reality is If you look at who is a Strong leftist in in the united states. It's not just the creative types It's lawyers and it's It's successful people. I mean, that's the sad thing. It's smart people Smart and successful people attract it the liberalism for all kinds of reasons liberalism in the american sense. The leftist partially because they've rejected religion And and and because they they're taught that this is dichotomy if you're religious, you know, that's conservative So you don't want to be that so all they've got is kind of this exact and partially because the right rejects science and rejects I think seeking truth in this world They tend to go left You know, so I think yes, we definitely need creative types If you know what I also think we need noble prizes in physics imagine a noble prize in physics You know in the noble price speech talking about the liberty to think And to to use his reason on problems that may be the conventional wisdom that and you know, this is what I mean by I think what a broader vision of what liberty and freedom mean And how they apply to individual life and how they can inspire individual people Because the kind of thinking that leads us to say entrepreneurs should be allowed to start any company they want Without asking permission also says to the scientist You can explore an adventure you want without asking for permission and without the government dictating We're now on this is a hot thing. So I will give only money to that So it's it's we need people in in all fields. I think the most important ones are creative fields Art I think is aesthetics is crucial The reason I don't think we could have had an enlightenment without a renaissance Right. See you have to have the the art maybe even before you have the the more ideological part of it So we need we need sculptors and painters and musicians and and novelists and video makers and movie makers And then I think we need educators We need a lot of educators. We need people who can teach and and and educate people where they do it online Or where they create their own schools or whether they create alternatives We need scientists. We need to link our vision to science Because I because I think science is an incredibly powerful tool and a good tool again I think part of the part of the damage libertarians are doing in the post-covid era if you will is blaming scientists for what happened and and and and Maybe some scientists need to be blamed. They made mistakes, right? And and and some of them are some of them are just wrong But to blame science To wrap it all up and we don't want You know scientists should well scientists have an important role to play and they tell us something about the physical world That we didn't know that we don't know not all of us can know these things not everybody's the Epidemiologist even though everybody is our amateur epidemiologist these days among among conservatives and libertarians in particular We need experts. We need scientists. Let's not throw throw that out. So we need a whole We need young people. We need idealists. We need passionate people. We need people to understand How important freedom is to their own lives and understand it What they really want is to is to make their lives the best lives that they can live exactly. So I think If we were more successful at disassociating Classical liberalism from conservatism and from anarchy, we would attract more Creative types because this is the ideology of freedom, right? I agree completely And even with your example about London in the 19th century I think there is the answer to the issue why We need scientists, you know because to weigh the pros and cons to weigh the risks You have somebody to calculate that right roughly speaking, right? We're living in it right now. I mean somebody has to calculate the risk of climate change Somebody has to calculate the risk of not using fossil fuels Yeah, and and and somebody has to give us at least a vision about what is possible into alternatives The common man most of us can't do it. I don't know what those all that might read up about it I have I'm educated somewhat about it But those somebody has to provide Do the lab work that is necessary to provide data so that we know what we're doing So Absolutely, I think we need I think the classical liberals need to separate themselves from from the right I think they've been associated with the right with very negative elements within the right You know and particularly today with the rise of nationalism and the rise of of authoritarian rights and the rise of a of a kind of of a kind of paleo right and It's very dangerous. I think for those of us who believe in freedom to be associated with them And of course, I think it's easier to disassociate with the left But we should make sure that we're not lumped in together with Because maybe we use the word liberal sometimes lumped together with with the left. We need to define our own space We are the advocates of Liberty and freedom and individual rights and limited government Sure. So to wrap it up. Let's talk a little bit about the history how we got here, right? So Obviously founding fathers of the u.s. They had their own flaws. They were different people But on the other hand I would guess that they simply didn't envision all the potential risks Which would come with technological progress which would come with democracy because you know, like there was not much evidence about democracy Back in 1776, right? Well, they wrote about democracy. So Madison writes about democracy and he warns us about democracy and he says democracy We are not creating a democracy in america. Democracy is a bad thing. Democracy is always Devolve into majoritarian rule where the majority oppresses the minority It's why ultimately we have a bill of rights in the american constitution So they were very aware of the risk of democracy But you're right. They didn't know all the reasons. I mean industrial revolution hadn't started yet The the kind of progress hadn't existed. They didn't understand all the risks. We have now 250 years of experience We know what the flaws are with the constitution. We can do a much better job I think but I'd say there's the the deeper flaws With the founders and they were philosophical intellectual and again, I'm not blaming them because again, they were writing in the 1770s They only knew what they knew But the reality is that that america was founded on on a certain ideology of of quicksand of You know, they they they weren't quite willing to give up They they find out a foundation that is laid in in religion So they were minimum enlightenment that said religion should be in your home But they didn't really have an alternative methodology for for For living for values for morality for discovering truth So they are they're conflicted men and that I think ultimately is in is in the is in the founding This is why I think to some extent they feel responsible for the common good And therefore thomas jefferson gets involved in public education very very quickly because it's for the common good Whereas I think we understand that there is no such thing as the common good There's the good of individuals that you can aggregate in some sense, but there's no We're not targeting the common good. We're targeting the good for individuals and we and the good for individual as a As as as the best within an individual is to be free And we leave people free and some people abuse that some people ruin their lives because they're free but also maybe to give a particular example like The u.s. Was founded on Literally on the opposition to The excessive taxation, right? so But probably probably it was hard for them to envision that we would have States like controlling 50 percent of the gdp. Yeah, but they you know, but from the beginning they had they had tariffs from the beginning They they they struggled with how to balance this idea that they knew taxes was somehow bad coercion And force and with the needs of the state and they struggled with their taxes were very low in the beginning but You know, maybe they couldn't predict it 50 percent and maybe 10 percent it crept up quite dramatically Of course they were founded on the on the great contradiction of slavery and that should have been a real indication That something was going to give something was was a problem here But you know, they gave the government the right to coin money They gave the government the ability to do things that I don't think government needs to do or should do That open up a pandora's box in terms of violation of rights. Maybe not now, but as we move forward You know, if on the beginning banking, for example, is regulated in america So says good as they were and they were about as good as any political group of people ever were They didn't know they couldn't predict We now have a lot more data. We have a lot more knowledge We also have I think better ideas Again, I will mention iron man because I think she's a key figure In in some ways in completing The philosophical mission of the enlightenment In solidifying our defensive reason and solidifying our defense of this idea pursuit of happiness of individualism And we have a lot more capabilities today to a create a better constitution But also just to educate people about life in a way that would pose less of a threat To whatever government we institute Let's remember that no matter how strong the constitution is if people don't want it, you won't survive So, uh, you know when franklin, I think it was franklin walked out or maybe madison walked out of the constitutional hall Somebody asked him what government did you give us and he said a a a a Republic if you can keep it, right? And it's it if you could keep it and then there's a phrase about eternal vigilance For for the cause of liberty We the people always have to be vigilant we the people always have to be but to do that We have to be educated about it. We have to commit to it. We have to believe in it We have to want it we have to want freedom and that's where I think we need to educate people on the value of freedom to their lives To why it's good for them to be free now, you know, we like to talk about abstractions and demand supply and How is it affect my life? Well, here's a whole menu of artificial life in every aspect Thank you very much. I think what you just said summarizes our issue our topic pretty well so Thank you for Finding time for this podcast. Thanks for having me. Bye