 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is the Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. I need some lighting. Much better. Much better. All right. Hi, everybody, welcome to Iran Book Show. On this Sunday afternoon, I apologize for the delay, but I don't know, Zoom decided that I did not have the appropriate permissions to share, to share what was going on. So now we are, now we're all working. Ian's got something going on there with the lighting. This is, it looks like it's on a railway track on Mars or something. I don't know where it is. All right. Let's see, everybody's here. All right, today. Let me just get all this stuff done. That's closed. That we're done. All right. If anybody asked me anything, and we're on with some of our regular contributors, we've got, how do you pronounce it? Ion, Ian? I don't know. It should be Yuan. Yuan, Yuan. Yes, it's like, like the composer Yuan Volkan, no. Yes. Yes. Not with a H, but you know, it's okay. All right. All right. Where's it from? Well, I'm French Canadian and my family is French Canadian, but the name itself is Romanian. Romanian. Okay. All right. Cool. All right, Roy's here. Ian's here. Debbie's here. Adam, Nick. I don't know where Jennifer is. I think she's traveling somewhere in the world because she usually never misses one of these. So thanks, everybody, for joining me. As always, we will go around with our panelists and invite them to ask questions. And then we will, I will also take a super chat questions. So feel free to ask questions about anything. This is an Ask Me Anything show. So you can literally ask me anything. Let's see. Let me just go because we were late. Let me just go quickly on Twitter and let the world know that we are live. Just so nobody might have given up on us. You know, okay. I assume everybody's in Twitter all the time. All right. There we go. Cool. All right. Let's start with. Adam, you're on first on my screen here. Adam, you're on first. Thank you. I guess both of us come from a culture where at 13, you become an adult in training, and you can turn to your parents for backup and questions and help if you need it. But you're considered able to make your own major decisions like your career decision and so on. Unfortunately, the majority North American culture does not recognize that. And there have been cases of kids being forced by their parents to study for a career they did not want and similar things. What is your opinion on correcting this? Now I know that California has corrected this in a very major decision which is abortion. Girls over 13 can decide to have an abortion if they need one without the consent of their parents. But there are similar issues in many aspects of teenagers life. And how should the law acknowledge the fact that human mental development is continuous? It doesn't just jump from child to adult suddenly at a specific age. Yeah, I mean, I don't know what culture you grew up in, Adam, because I wasn't allowed to do what I wanted to do at 13 at all. And I grew up in a culture where there were clear expectations, what profession you would go to, into, and there were definitely penalties if you deviated from that. So it was still, even though technically you have a bar mitzvah and you're supposed to be an adult, my generation or we took that seriously, the parents were still very involved. So I think for the most part the law has no place here. And that is, for the most part, it's not the world of the state to interfere in the way parents raise their kids and parents might raise their kids badly. But I don't think there's a way for the law, I mean, with one exception I'll get to in a minute. I don't think there's a way for the law to improve our culture. They get rid that gets rid of helicopter parents. They get rid of the idea that you should micromanage your child at any age but certainly once they become a teenager. We need to encourage a culture we need to educate people to promote a kind of independence among teenagers and as the teenager as you said it's a continuum. And as they become more mature as they although one could argue that there's a certain point in teenage hood that one becomes less mature before one becomes more mature so there's definitely a kind of a sliding backwards. One of those hormones kick in, but it, you know, parents need to be aware of the maturity of their child and to be able to allow and facilitate freedom as appropriate. Because the kid grows older so I, you know, I don't think the state needs to do this I approve of the idea of abortion because abortion is, you know, such a grieve consequence. And a child of anybody 13 should not have a kid so if a parent forced a child to have a kid that would be such level of abuse. You know, I don't approve for example of children making decisions about changing the agenda without parent approval or at any point I don't think they should until they are fully adults until they've fully gone through puberty. So, you know, there I would hope that this California is probably going to allow children to have gender, what do they call the gender affirming treatment without their parents permission which I think is wrong. But I think it's, I think it's tricky. Ultimately what I think it has to be an age 1718 has to be some age in which you become an adult and completely independent of your parents. And then I think a child who feels like they're being hold back by the parents or feels like, like they can be independent and they don't need their parent should be able to go in front of a judge and prove their maturity prove their, the fact that they are capable of being independent of the parents and emancipate themselves which I think is exists today. I think that option exists today in the law, and I would like to see it. You know, it becoming a bigger deal that is easier for teenagers to emancipate themselves. And I'd like to see more teenagers do it but I think the question of how much independence the child has that's a cultural issue. And it's an issue of really influencing the influencing the parents and changing the parents over time. Well, my own experience in a secular Jewish family was that at 13, even though both my parents were medical scientists and wanted me to go into some kind of medical profession. Since I had decided that other things interested me more. I didn't feel any opposition from them so you were lucky my dad. So the very day that I enrolled in my engineering degree, who rang me and in to try to get me into medical school he basically said I can get you into the medical school today. You change your mind today I'll get you in. None of his kids became doctors. You know luckily he's got a granddaughter, who is in medical school so I think he feels a little vindicated but but he was full of frustration. I will tell you this in, you know, in our world, it was inconceivable that you would go into the humanities for example, it wasn't that I rejected it it was that it didn't even rise to consciousness, because it was inconceivable you either were a doctor, or you were a scientist or engineer, and maybe maybe it was acceptable to be a lawyer, but that was it. Anything else was a complete waste of time and would have been, you know my parents had no control over me at the end because I was an adult, but anything was shut down and in high school I took, you know, the most advanced math and the most advanced science classes, not necessarily because I enjoyed it, but because, you know, I was that was expected by my parents. And so, you were lucky, my parents and I think most parents are a lot, you know, a lot more demanding, you know, in most Jewish households you either become a doctor or lawyer, or you're disinherited. So, you were lucky, Adam. Great. Yohan or something like that. Yohan, I'll get it. It's okay, it's close enough. First of all, I just want to say it's been around six years since I've watched you on YouTube. I've been following you since then. I would like to contribute this year and I intend to increase my contribution. And I would like also to thank you because you changed a lot of things in my head how to think and whatnot. So I would like to thank you first time on the show. And yes, thank you. I appreciate all of that. Thank you. My first question is, do you remember at the end of the romantic manifesto, the short story? Yes. Okay. Because when I read it, it's been about two, three months now because I've changed books since all I ran. And I was wondering what was the moral, if I can say like that, because I had like three ways to interpret the ending. Okay. And spoiler alert if someone hasn't read the book. Just to remind me what it's about. Okay. So it's the writer. You follow the inside of the head of the writer. He wants to write something, but is torn between writing something that is impactful and something that will sell because some of his friends and I'm not going to comment because the simplest thing in the world, and it's been, I read the romantic manifesto recently, but for whatever reason, I obviously skipped that because I don't remember. So you're going to have to, I'm going to have to take a pass on this one and get back to you after I read it again. Okay. Okay. Do you have another question? Well, yes, I have another question, but it's a little more personal, like for you, because if you don't want to answer, it's okay. But you said that you like speeding, right? Yes. Okay. So, so in my head, there is something that doesn't work, because like speeding is kind of dangerous, depending on how you do it. And you're an objective. So you, you won't understand like you don't want to put other people in danger. And you also understand that contracts quote unquote, you must follow them. So when you when you go to like the Iowa or something, you are contractually obligated to follow the laws, follow the speed limit. So I'm not sure why you speeded it. Can you like explain because I it's just something that's like it's okay. I mean, this is from my perspective, this is government regulation. It's got some rationale, but it not complete because I don't think this should be in a sense one speeding speed limit. It should be based on your experience as a driver. How well you drive. I see people driving slowly, who should not be behind a steering wheel, because they're dangerous to people. So it, I think that, you know, who knows what it would be in a rational society and if a rational society, if the roads were private and that was the deal I had, I wouldn't speed. But I think they would be some recognition, for example, if you're driving, if you're driving a Mercedes Benz or Porsche versus if you're driving a tiny little Kia, it doesn't make any sense to me that you would have the same speed limit for both cars. That is the speed limit might be written into your insurance contract, or might be some kind of understanding, you know, among the people who own the road and insurance companies and you, I don't know exactly how it would work. But it just does the whole system, the way it is today doesn't make sense to me. And, you know, some highways that are clearly built for speed, and if you have a car that is built for speed, it seems like, you know, this whole speed limit is a way to thwart you back. Indeed, the reason speed limits were imposed in America and the highways has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with usage of gasoline. You know, what do you call it, speed limits were put in place during the 1970s, during the oil crisis, in order to, because the faster you go, the more gas you burn in order to reduce the amount of gas that you burn. So that also ticks me off. And then in terms of just personally, I enjoy it. I enjoy the feeling of speed. I definitely avoid putting other people in danger, although I guess there's always some danger. But if they behave themselves, if they don't do anything stupid, then I think I'm a good enough driver as to not put them in danger with my speed. And I don't speed to the extent that it is putting my life or their life in, it doesn't increase danger to an extent that I think is irresponsible. So hopefully that's not a rationalization, but that is a reason. That makes sense. Okay, yeah, I understand. Okay, sure. All right, Roy. Okay, so I want to talk about and get your counsel on the distinction between art and non art. Yeah, I'm trying to find art as, as you know, but just to get it out of the table, a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. No, I'm okay with that. For the most part. I think it's the application of that. That definition where I start having trouble and I think we may be missing things is the thing so with with sculptures or paintings of people or things that exist in real life or in fictional descriptions. I'm fine with the word recreation. That's the word I have the most trouble with. Novels and plays the author selects attributes traits, virtues and separate that he or she has observed in real life people and creates not recreate but creates characters and events and narrative. So there's a basis in reality. There's never really a recreation is a creation of something new based on observation. Okay. So I'd be more comfortable, a little bit more comfortable replacing recreation with representation. So bear with me. I'll be over before two hours of that I assure you. So now it's getting trickier for me. Until the past few days I was content to classify architecture jewelry furniture, etc as decorative arts. And in most cases, I think they're still holes, they still mainly are. Even if it's a nice looking building, it's still good of art. But I thought more about the facts of the two works that have had the greatest impact on me, Michelangelo's David and the Taj Mahal. David is no one would challenge the fact that David is a work of art. Okay. But I think that to classify the Taj Mahal as architecture, there's something wrong about that. But the effect that both David and the Taj Mahal had on me, the moment my eyes laid eyes on him, the tear started flowing and flowing and flowing. While I was in the museum, while I was on the grounds of the Taj Mahal, and for some time afterwards. So look at the Taj Mahal and say it's architecture. There are many beautiful buildings in the world, but the others don't make such a statement of majesty and serenity that Taj Mahal does. And this is the same thing applies to Gaudi's Lhasa Grada Familia in Barcelona. It ain't just a church. It is a celebration of the human spirit and human imagination. And so it is with lovely jewelry and much of the furniture designed by Gallet, Majorelle and Ruhlmann. Now, I ran went out to, I'm almost finished, I ran went out to say that art, quote, conditions or stylizes man's consciousness by conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence. And I like that. I believe that the examples I've cited do just that, and that they may not necessarily recreate like like novels they selected package elements found the reality to create something new, and definitely a certain way of looking at existence. I mean, they're hybrids. And some may be, you know, just clearly just, I don't want to say just our, or just like both. Yeah, but I think it's important to differentiate. I mean, we have a very, very different view of Gaudi. But well, you know, I find, I find the cathedral, one of the great monstrosities of, of architecture of all time. Outside or inside. Outside is the monstrosity of that inside. Both. I mean, it's, I mean, I hate cathedrals generally, because I find cathedrals to be purposefully oppressive of individual human being. You know, they're big and audacious for no purpose. They have high ceilings for no purpose other than to make you feel small. So I object to all cathedrals, including, you know, some of the greatest most beautiful ones and in Europe I don't like any of them. Christianity writ large. It's a waste of real estate. It's, and then Gaudi, I find just, just like he's Dr. Seuss of architecture. Every time I walk into a church or any religious building and I try to avoid it, I feel unclean. Yeah, yeah. I don't feel unclean, but I feel like, God, the amount of suffering that went into building this building, all for the sake of what in particularly, you know, if you think about ancient cathedrals in an environment where people had nothing where they were suffering where they were barely eating. And this is what the authorities wanted them to do. It's very similar to the pyramids in Egypt. It's the brutality that is involved in it. But okay, so let's get to the art part. No, look, I think it's really important to have different categories, right? So nothing is to say that a great piece of architecture can't move you and can have a profound impact on you and cannot. I mean, certainly falling waters of Frank Lloyd Wright has that impact on me. Just a real emotional impact and I definitely think there's an issue of stylization of your consciousness that affects it. But it's important to have two separate categories, a category of art for art's sake, a category where art is just for reflection, it is just, that's the only purpose of it, is contemplation, that's it, there's nothing else. And decorative art, which typically has a purpose beyond the contemplation and its primary purpose is not contemplation, you wouldn't say that the primary purpose of falling water is contemplation, the primary purpose of falling water is to live in. And it indeed only gains value, contemplative value from the fact that you can, you can imagine living in it, you can, you know, that it is a living space. And I think that's true of, you know, I haven't seen the Taj Mahal, so I don't know, but it's certainly true of any other piece of architecture that I've ever seen that's impressed me that skyscrapers or whatever. They are beautiful, they're inspiring, they move you, they, but their primary purpose is not that, their primary purpose is functional. And they wouldn't move you if they didn't have that function, if it was just piece of concrete, going up into the sky with nobody inside and no offices and nobody living there, you'd say it's an obelisk, it's an Egyptian obelisk, which is, again, I hate the Washington Monument. So one of the reasons I hate the Washington Monument in Washington DC is because it's this piece of concrete driving into the sky in its Egyptian. What the hell is it got to do with Washington, right? You know, Jefferson has a great monument, Lincoln has a great monument and Washington has got stuck with that Egyptian bellic symbol. So it gains part of its beauty and meaning from its functioning, the same with jewelry. If it was just a thing, it wouldn't mean as much, but if it's a bracelet or if it's a necklace, it gains its beauty partially from the function itself. So it's just, it's not, it just serves a different purpose and I think ultimately it goes to a different level of, because the metaphysical value judgments are not as deep because it has to serve this functional element, so it's more narrow in its ability to project those values. I actually like the recreation, the recreation, and I do think a novel recreates, it doesn't recreate the world as it is, it recreates a world that the artist imagines. You know, just like Dolly recreates, he's not creating and he's not photographing, he's recreating because every element within his paintings could exist, it just doesn't exist in that combination, the same in a novel. But, you know, and architecture doesn't do that, and of course music is the real problematic one with that definition, but we're not going to go there today, unless you ask me to. So it's important to have different categories, not to diminish the one relative to the other, but just to cognitivity hold them as different because they are different. One is for the sole purpose of contemplation, and the other's not. That makes sense. Thanks Roy. Ian. So I was reading on Twitter, tweet I think it was by Michael Sharma a while ago and he was talking about conflicting rights. I think it was in the context of free speech but he's talked about it in our context as well. And it's a pretty common take on rights, one that you know we would disagree with. And I think what they don't seem to get to me is that what you have to look for is where is the right, you know, because usually in any situation only one person has a right in a particular context. And instead, they see two people interacting so I think they both have a right in that context, even though it might be in my house, so I have the right to say, get out. I have a right that conflicting. That's not a conflicting right. Yeah, they don't understand the contextual nature of knowledge. So rights are contextual just like every other piece of human knowledge is contextual. This is why, if you have an intrinsicist view of rights, you have this intrinsic inside of you somewhere there's this thing called the right to free speech. And I tell you you can't talk in my house. Well, okay, so you're saying your right to determine what happens in your house is superior to my right of free speech because we each have it inside of us. Whereas our understanding of his rights is you have a freedom to act in a particular way in a context where such action is appropriate. You know, so for example, it's not appropriate. If you're violating somebody else's rights, it's not appropriate if you're in somebody else's property. It's not appropriate unless it's in your ground it's not appropriate. If you're clashing with other people. So there is always for objectivism, every concept every absolute like this is always within what is the context. So you have a right to speak freely on your property. Right. And we don't always add that but that's the context. The context is a context of property. You don't have a right to come on my property and say whatever you want to say. You don't have a right to go on on on, you know, on the radio and say whatever you want to say, it's their property. They get to decide. They're not conflicting rights that's understanding the boundaries or the context in which rights manifest. Does that make sense. Yeah, I was thinking of this as a rate not existing, but I think it's a better clarification to say that they're contextual enough to understand the context to see, you know, my right applies here and your right doesn't apply. If you have a right to have a right and context is gone. Right. And the point is on my property rights with regard to free speech don't apply because rights with regard to free speech is something the government protects you from. And I, you know, but not, or put it this way rights are the right to free speech is contingent on other people. They don't publish you being willing to allow you to speak on the property. And you, unless you have the property and then you have the right to speak say right whatever you want on your property. And this is of course a confusion about abortion. The concept of rights does not apply inside the womb. There's no concept. There is no context. The context needs to be a social context where you're an individual acting in the world. And you're not an individual acting in the world. You're not there's no social context so they're no rights. And they can't even imagine that because rights are something as a human beings you have you get your, you know, you're, you're, it's God just gives it to you or whatever. The nature just gives it to you. And so the intrinsic view of rights does not permit the subtleties not the right word but the understanding the context is everything. Yeah, I think it's interesting that this issue cuts through so many things and clarify so many things like the issue, who should be allowed to play in certain sports competitions. The question is, who's sports competitions, who's property are you running on who's organizing it they get to determine what the rules are. Yep, you know, you have the right to be taught evolution school, well who's school, who's paying you know it's like it cuts through 90% of the issues that come up. If you just get this. It shows how in so many ways, the primacy of the property of property rights, because who's is is goes to the property right who has the property right here. And, and, and that is going to, you know, provide the context in which what action is permitted or not. Good. Thanks. All right, Nick. Yep. Okay. I wanted to ask a question on the. What, what do you think, maybe you do show on this too. What do you think are the most important lessons of the Ukrainian war. In terms of. I mean there's. It's hard to do lessons. But you know you take, you take a look at how the, you know, the hard left user to the Chomsky type. He's just against whatever America stands for he just takes. If it's X, he takes why right we know him he's got he's amoralistic and he just against it then you take the conservative view, which also has a moralistic framework and tries to whitewash everything. You know, Tucker Carlson and, and Peterson, who's, you know, who'd say that, you know, they're all the same, you know, and then they do a straw man argument type of argument type of argument. I think they're too woke. I think the Tucker Carlson view is in the Jordan Peterson view is we hate the left and that that that frames everything so everything is framed in terms of is it good for the left or bad for the left. And, you know, Putin losing is good for the left. So they're against it. Right. Moralistic they're both very moralistic, they're very moralistic. They're very moralistic, they believe in that, you know, Putin should win because Putin's anti left. And therefore he's on, he's on the good guy. He's a good guy. So he made a mistake by going to war but he's fundamentally a good guy rushes a good country, because they're not left. They're very moralistic. The left is evil. Anything to help the left is evil. Therefore, if Putin loses that helps the left therefore it's evil. But they've got it inverted. But that's my point, you know, they got the good guy and the bad guy inverted where they've making the question voted based on their morality right so it's not that they aim a model they've got a morality. It's wrong, but they've got a morality and what specifically is that the. What's the standard. Whatever you're against, whatever is good for the left is evil. That's the standard standards on. It's a great standard. What's wrong with that. You know, whatever, whatever's good for my enemy is, is there is harmful to my life, and therefore is bad. So, and that's, you know, so Jordan Peterson is saying the position of, yeah, Putin shouldn't have gone into Ukraine but he fundamentally represents Western civilization and therefore we cannot allow Putin to lose. And, you know, Putin's fighting. Ultimately, the fight wall going to have to fight one day. And, yeah, I mean I did a whole show on this. So it's, it's not a moralistic it's, it's, it's framing everything in the world today and you see this on the right. In the context of the grand universal battle of left versus right. So, look, I think lesson learned from the Ukrainian war, one impotence of authoritarians that dictators can win. The dictators are pretty impotent authoritarian regimes are pathetic, they're poor, they don't make good soldiers they don't get make good machines they don't get good tanks, they don't make good, good stuff. China pay attention because this applies to you to write so that's, you know, same with Iran same with Venezuela, they're incompetent, authoritarians are incompetent they're not good. Those people out there who want to see America become more authoritarian. That means more competent that means weak that means all the bad stuff that goes with authoritarianism. You know, not just a loss of the loss of freedom, but loss of freedom has existential implications. What else. The lesson motivation learn matters right. If you're fighting to to preserve your own home, your own family, your own, your own property your own land, you're going to be a much better fighter that you're in if you're invading somebody else's and you don't even know why you're there. You have no motivation and no desire to be there. So motivation, motivation matters. The unbelievable superiority of Western military equipment over the equipment of anybody else. I mean, God, the difference between Russian artillery and artillery that the US has provided the Ukrainians the difference between Russian tanks and and Western tanks, I've seen that explicitly, but the difference in just equipment the anti tank missiles that the Ukrainians had the American and British anti tank missiles are just so like light years ahead of anything Russia has. It is, it is truly stunning. And then of course, what this has taught us in terms of domestic policy is that the libertarians. And the far left hate America and this is just one more opportunity for them to express that hatred. So if you're seeing the Mises caucus and Norm Chomsky both agree on that this is all America's fault somehow and Putin is the good guy that the conservatives are just completely bankrupt they have no clue what the hell is going on in the world, and all they can pedal is fear and conspiracy theories. And have you noticed AOC has been silent. Yeah, because she's probably she's conflicted she's conflicted I'm sure much of the left is conflicted. And plus, you know Biden so far, clearly taken sides clearly stood up to Putin, although he's an idiot, Biden but he's clearly stood up you have to give him credit for that. People on this fall left don't know exactly what to make of that and they're not as comfortable as Biden is in, in taking this position. So, I think the Europeans have learned anything in real time. I mean, the obvious, Germany's keeping its nuclear power plants the three of them, the three nuclear power plants. They're operating and open so they've learned something. I have they learned much they've learned Putin is a is a monster. So they've learned a few things. You know, how sustainable is the learning. I don't know, probably not hugely sustainable. I don't know how long it'll last. What if the winner is bad and the, and the, a lot of these people are going to get voted out and in the consequences of bills going up. Just a reality hits them in the face. It's like a cold slap. Yeah, I mean, I think the wind is going to be is going to be better than expected. Climate change, of course. No, I think it's going to be better than expected. Because I think the purposefully talking up the crisis so that when things are not so bad, they get praised for it. I do think they've got alternative sources. We'll see what happens, but I, you know, I'm not as pessimistic about the winter as many people are. Yeah, some of them will get elected. It will get kicked out of office. But what will they learn from that? Will they learn from that? So learn when a shitty, I doubt it. You know, nobody, nobody learns from these kind of things. People don't learn from experience anything. So the voters won't learn the politicians won't learn. So back to square one, I think once this crisis is over. It's ideas, ideas, ideas. It's not. All right, thanks, Nick. Debbie. Hi, you're wrong. Hey, Debbie, how are you? Good. Good. Good to be talking to you. I have a question about art as well about a specific couple of works of art that you talked about. Well, I don't know how recently now, but about the TV shows House of the Dragon and the Rings of Power. I'm watching both and enjoying both. And it's, I'm struck by how different their views of people and in the world are presented even against the same, essentially the same backdrop of this sort of medieval fantasy world and in one case there's a heroine clearly a principal hero and in the other there's no heroes and that's explicitly by the statement of the creator of the show that no one in this world is a hero. So I think you mentioned that you might comment on those two and they're differing perspectives and I'd love to hear what you have to say about them. But when they're both finished, at least season one is finished, I'll try to do a show comparing the two but but yeah, so I haven't watched the last few episodes to no spoilers please. I'll catch up. I'll catch up next week but let's see. So House of the Dragon is, yeah, it's a show explicitly this is true of the original the the was it called Game of Thrones Game of Thrones. There were semi heroes in Game of Thrones but at the end of the day, the whole notion is that power power is corrupting power corrupt even the best people that there is no ultimate virtue that ultimate virtue is linked to religion and religion is corrupting ultimate virtue causes you to be horrible disgusting, horrifying things that all you could be as a pragmatist that all you can be as you know which is what, at the end of the day. What's his name, the hero, the one guy who survives. John Snow. You know, he's he rolls with it. He's not the guy who shapes the action for the most part. He rolls with it. He adapts. But he has no vision. Yeah, it's not like he knows how the world should work. It's not like he can rally everybody wrong like Daenerys did. So the whole world construction is power is corrupting virtue is associated with religion and therefore bad. And it's just it's just it's just a game and it's just it's a it's a really really really bloody game. And you better be tough and you better be strong if you want to survive and that all the that's all that matters. Right. There's some, you know, the better ways to die and the worst ways to die but to live. It doesn't really matter right. So, and dying is a big part of that show right how people die is is a big is a is made a big deal out of the show so the dramatic moment in the chapters I've seen today is when that the pregnant woman asked the dragon to burn her life. Right. I mean, yeah, but that and that's a real statement moment right because that's her preferred way of dying. Right. She knows she's going to die the other way. But anyway, so it's it's it's a very, very, very cynical world. And I think the author of Game of Thrones is super cynical. It's very modern. You can tell that it's model. The, the, what's the other one called rings of power rings of power rings of power is basically, you know, this is Tolkien. And, oh, Ken is a Christian, and token has a very, very clear view of morality, a very, very clear view of virtue. He believes in good and evil as powers in the universe powers in the world. There is God and the devil fighting it out for man's soul and here Sargon versus whoever the God is not exactly represented here by anybody in particular but the devil is right. So there is a devil that keeps bringing on the orcs to kill us all into whatever do horrific things to the world. So, so wrong, so wrong. And in the battle is a real battle in real world in a real life between good and evil. And some people take the side of evil and some people say it's like a good. And that is the battle. That is the, that's the whole thing. And, you know, the, the, the elves are kind of God's angels here. Right. They are, they are fighting for the good. They're leading the battle. They are, in a sense, invincible. They, you know, but, you know, when you, when you go when she goes on the boat that thing, you know, to paradise. And she jumps off the ship. She refuses to go because she wants to fight. But that's, that's the war. The war to some paradise to be with God and everything. So they are really, they represent the messengers of God. Man is man. So he's conflicted. Some good, some bad, but generally weak and generally very susceptible to manipulation. So men often side with Sauron, right, often side with the devil. They, they, they are weak and they can, they will do that. And then there are these, what are they called the little guys? Dwarfs or the half foot? Yeah, they're the dwarfs, the half foot, they're the innocent little creatures that just stuff just happens to them. And, and then of course, a load of the rings, one of them is assigned the mission, but they can be brave. The, the hobbits basically, they're on the side of, of, of good, but they're the pure innocence. They're like children. They're, they're super innocent. So you don't, you know, you don't expect much of them, but they're not very tempted by evil because of this, this just innocent child like character. But it's very Christian in its whole drive. Temptation of the whole idea of the temptation of the devil, the temptation of evil. I mean, T.S. Tolkien was definitely a, there is a Christian theme throughout everything he writes. Yeah, good and evil being metaphysical. Yes, metaphysical as opposed to in Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon where it's, there are kind of conflicting elements within each person. And, and, and there is no, yes, and there are no heroes because there are no good because they both share the view of human nature as, as, as not being very, very good, but, you know, at least Christianity, this is difficult to Christianity pure subjectivism, Christianity at least provides some kind of vision of the good Game of Thrones that cynicism that subjectivism provides no vision of the good. Although I will say for Game of Thrones, the two characters that were as close to good as people get in that world had good happy endings, Sansa and Arya. They both had happy endings. I don't know if you remember that. So like it wasn't entirely like they weren't all just like John Snow, but like, yeah, but I think the point still stands. Yes. And, and, of course, is trained to be an assassin and you know so. I like Arya is my favorite character in Game of Thrones and I think she has the best ending to she's going to explore the world. Sansa, I can't remember what happens during the end, but, but yeah, I mean, there are good characters there. There was some goodness in people, you can see it. Although this season, this prequel, there doesn't seem to be anybody good. I mean, I had some hope for the daughter, but she's just boring at this point. So she's white. So, yeah. There was some good in the Game of Thrones universe, but it's certainly not dominant. No. Thank you. All right, Matthew. Hi. What about demographics, I guess I, you know, you offered some great analysis, you know, as it relates to the great resignation and housing and, you know, just the topic in general, and even on a global scale so just bringing it back to housing, you know, birth rates are and have been declining and immigration is restricted. How and why do we find ourselves in a housing shortage, and then how long before we find ourselves with the housing surplus. We find ourselves in housing shortage because still has have, you know, so with 350 million people, even if our population is growing very slowly. 1% is still three and a half million people. So 1% is a lot in terms of just sheer numbers. And the fact is that right now, we have a housing shortage about 10 million units. So there's about 10 million units short of what people are demanding. So some people are just getting richer. They want to move from the shitty house they have or the bad apartment that they have into a nice nicer place. And then you do have some immigration, you have some baby. And those people are getting to the point where they want to leave their mother's basements and they want to go out and and buy a place and there's just not enough building happening. And how did we get to this situation? Simple just didn't build enough. Why didn't we build enough simple government regulations government didn't allow us to build enough. And the thing about the shortage of housing is it's not everywhere. Right. Because people that say are leaving Ohio. There's no housing shortage, but people are moving to California. And in California, there is a housing shortage and housing shortage in California is too fun. One is it's the very low end. That's why they have so many homeless people. So there's not enough housing at the very low end and it's not, it's very expensive. So it's not even the low end is not really low end. And there's not a lot of housing at the high end. That's all the engineers moving there were making well into the six figures. And there's no housing. There's just isn't anything. So that is, and the reason there's no building in California is because of regulation because they don't allow building because they just don't allow building they don't allow building high in San Francisco they don't allow building anywhere in in many of the neighborhoods in in the bay area. They don't allow dense housing, they don't increase house density. So the suburbs have grown and grown and grown, but the commute becomes so horrific that and they won't expand the highways. So highways exactly the same as they were 20 years ago. They won't expand them because they want you to suffer driving your evil automobile into work because they don't want you there they want you to leave. So everything is geared towards encouraging people to leave California, because that's what the Greens want. That's why we don't even have housing. Now, if the population sucks literally shrinking. That is, if both rates drop further and immigration squeezed even more than once the 10 million shortage is made up in a sense, you know if there's building enough. At some point, at some point, they'll either be a surplus or they might not be a surplus they might just be it might just be matched right because old houses go out of commission they fall apart they become decrepit. Maybe the authorities will allow enough buildings to keep things at equilibrium. I don't know. The shortage is the entire US but but the shortages focused in particular areas where the demand is high. It's again there's no shortage in the Midwest so it's the entire US well it's it's the it's those places who have a shortage added up at 10 million. It's not net. Right, so it's not the shortage minus the surplus in places that, you know, where people don't want to live. So somebody says in Denver the shortage is 35,000. In Denver has grown very fast and I'm surprised there's a shortage in danger in Denver but it probably needs the government probably doesn't give enough permits and the other problem is here's the other problem. To build homes you need home builders and home builders need employees and guess who your typical employee at a construction site is an illegal immigrant. So when you restrict illegal immigration strict the numbers employees available to home builders, which restricts the number of homes home builders can build such just another reason why. So, yeah, and you know I know you have bemoaned the architecture and what's what's going to happen with architecture right as the housing industry becomes more and more automated. The materials are going to be more and more standardized, and you're just going to have more and more of the cookie cutter, turning out of of these, you know standardized automated factories and and job sites. It could be but you know Frank Lloyd Wright designed some cheap homes that could be modular and could be produced in mass, and that have a better architecture and you can play around with the unit so you can make them different, rather than all the same. But yes, part of part of why you drive in Denver in Dallas or these places you see all these McMansions and they're all exactly the same is because that's cheaper. It's much cheaper to build everything the same it's it's less architecture funds. It's just less thought has to be put into them and and as you said it's standardized manufacturing says everything gets. I worked in the industry and I know that you know working with automation vendors from Europe is totally different than working with an automation vendor from America, just for the variances and materials and the standardization of the sizes there versus here you know it's a kitchen is three times the size of a kitchen and in Europe and the type of automation that we're talking about here is, you know just that much different than and what they're they're used to. Yeah, but I don't think the automation is what limits us architecture. I think if you had real creative architects, they could use the standardized materials to create relatively cheap housing that is more interesting and more varied and much and still big. You know, we value our space in the US still big though, without giving up, you know, you know, look, Europe is also for the most part all the same right. You go and you look at 19th century row houses they're all the same, you know, there's not a lot of variation. What I find is when you get to places that are wealthy enough to have single family homes. Americans choose, even though I think they can afford to they choose to have very boring architecture. And that's unfortunate. All right, thank you you can move forward. All right. I've got tiny little super chat questions let me do these quickly I guess you guys don't want to do super chat today. All right, let's do more Andy, which is 200 AR SS and Argentina passes, which is basically worth nothing to the buck 33 but in real terms on the black market, it's actually worth half of that it's worth like 50 cents or something. Debbie's already left us all right. Let's see. I don't see the chat. There it is. All right. Let's see. Marty says, in an objective society would military outsourced the necessary components such as military equipment to private companies. If so wouldn't that create a conflict of interest among government and private companies. It would. I mean, how to structure a proper way in which to contract the purchase of military equipment is an interesting question. It would have to be done by the private sector because I don't think the government should can and could get into the actual manufacturing and I think it would be unbelievably inefficient. So how to do it I agree with you it can create conflicts, how to do it exactly who these companies allowed to sell to other than to other than to your other to the your own government is an issue. This is an issue competition is an issue. These are all things that would have to be worked out in a rational government. I don't have the exact solutions to it but would have to be that private enterprise actually built the military equipment. It couldn't be the government itself. Marty also asks previous super chat just like we have it today among many other sectors where pressure groups compete for government subsidies and favors. Yeah, I mean you would have that and you would have to because it's one sector, because it's only the military. Hopefully you could somehow limit the damage and limit the distortion and perversion that occurred. But I agree with you it is a challenge. All right, Michael says if you had to move back to me in Latin America which state would you choose I don't know. Don't know, still contemplating it. I, there's no ideal state right now for me to move into. So, and it depends on my tax situation depends on health situation depends on a lot of things I don't want to live in Manhattan. And I don't want to live I don't think in California so it's, it is, it is. It's a real issue. And I know people who are struggling right now want to leave California. Where do you go. I don't know, maybe two different places, like I don't know summer in Seattle and winter. In Arizona. How about that summer Seattle winter in Phoenix. That's what I would do no way am I going to Tel Aviv. On my dead body, am I going back to Israel. Okay, Justin says, what is your opinion is Tucker Carlson's primary philosophy pragmatism Tucker Carlson is a pure pragmatist, just become a pragmatist. Tucker's about, you know, power and attaining power and popularity and attaining popularity. That is all he cares about. He doesn't have more of a philosophy than does it work and what I need to say to manipulate these people and how do I get more audience and what do I, how do I manipulate them to to be aligned with whatever it is that he is seeking at that moment. So, there is no philosophy beyond that. It's, it's, it's the good old American philosophy of pragmatism. All right, let's see good morning you on besides David what are your favorite heroes stories and legends of myth. Oh, God. I don't know I like a lot of the, I like a lot of the Greek myths. I forget his name, but I can't remember names. You know I like, I like some of the heroes stories. I like some of the kind of the swashbuckling heroes of 19th century kind of romantic literature, the three musketeers and things like that. I like Westerns, I like kind of the heroes of Westerns. You know so I like the Greek myths I like the heroes Westerns. I mean I don't particularly like David right I like the sculpture, but David, the king was an asshole. I mean he was just a, he was a real absolute. He killed people. He, he, he, you know, the, you know, if he slept he slept around he, he was, you know, he was a really it was not a particularly likeable guy. He was good in his youth in his heroism vis-a-vis Goliath. And then it's all downhill after that is, you know, he is, it's pretty shocking when you actually read about David, why he's considered this great hero to the Jewish people. There are a lot of, I mean, there are a lot of heroes both in literature and in movies that I have. Okay. That's the last question and then we'll go back to the panel. When you start traveling full time again, be sure to spend extra money and get a larger more modern, safer rental car. We can't afford to lose you safe travels. My car was modern, it was a Jeep, it was a, it was an SUV Jeep, it was pretty safe. I don't know, I don't know, you know, I was, I wasn't renting a, a, what do you call it, a Kia. When you have other people who are completely utterly irrational, you know, who do dumb, stupid things, you suffer the consequences, that's life, and you just have to accept it in some cases. It's the risk of living. I am traveling full time. I'm just not driving much. I'm leaving for two weeks for Europe. When am I leaving on Tuesday? And, but I won't be driving. Anyway, I don't think. All right, let's go back to a panel this time. I've got Ian going first. Sorry, I had to find the unmute button. So, a couple of things that come up in the history of capitalism, and I don't think it's really relevant for what we call capitalism but it comes up a lot and I wanted to know if you'd looked into these and had any thoughts and that's kind of the mercantilist stuff like the big trading companies like the East India Trading Company or the Hudson's Bay Company that kind of owned territories they were in and they, they were private companies, but they had their own militaries they invaded countries they did all these crazy things and kind of the related thing that I was thinking about was the opium wars, where England forced China to accept the opium trade. Yes, we have the right to trade what we want in your country, which is a very strange idea. So, yeah, so I'm not sure what the question is. So I just wanted to get your thoughts on this whole mercantilism and those what are considered companies in a sense by a lot of people. And they are, you know, they're just companies that were granted monopolies by government that were assigned responsibilities by government and then, in a sense government turned a blind eye to these companies violating individual rights on a massive scale certainly the West Indies Company in India and so on. There are historical mistake, they happened obviously but it's kind of sad because partially they gave markets a bad name and they get capitalism bad name, even though it's not capitalism we know that a lot of the rest of the world doesn't. They did bring, they did bring kind of Western civilization or certain ideas of Western civilization, Western education, Western technology, Western knowledge to the far reaches of the earth and some of the some of the cultures that gained that benefited from it although again I'm not sure they benefited as much as they also lost so it wasn't a voluntary trade obviously one culture imposed itself on the other. So, so I think, I think it's a, it was probably inevitable that it would happen because it was not a lot of understanding of freedom free markets capitalism any of that back then. The West was kind of just trying to figure stuff out as they went along. They didn't have a good understanding of economics this is before Adam Smith this is before a lot of the great economists wrote and taught and and and we gained an understanding on. So, it's a period of time that is very mixed where, and a lot of those companies like the disappeared, or at least shrunk dramatically, once their monopoly power was taken away from them that that is once they were allowed to properly compete with other companies that were established under freedom to compete against them so I think that's what I have to say about them I'm sure there's more to say probably show just on that. What am I missing, I think it's related to the idea to a colonialism, like in academia like the biggest crime in the world is colonialism. But they never say what's wrong with colonialism and the thing that's wrong is that they didn't give the people the rights that they should have in the countries they went to. Yeah, but you let it come to the US and given people rights, no problem. Sure, but and of course, but it's more complicated than that because historically, they didn't have the concept of rights and historically, they didn't have rights in their own country so what were they giving So the whole approach to judging history from the perspective of knowledge, full knowledge is ridiculous, right, you have to judge history and based on the context of the time. And they want no rights there was no concept of rights there wasn't this idea of rights. They were struggling to figure out what to do. They discovered new land they discovered, you know, they went to India they discovered the stuff. They thought there was a lot of potential in India if they sent, they established a company that was responsible for trade and established a beach head dead. And then there were problems in India and they couldn't secure the trades they sent some. So they allowed the company to have mercenaries that you know, and sent to troops and then it kept getting out of hand but it wasn't at no point that they sit down and say, colonialism. Good thing bad thing, what does it mean. How do we deal with it, you know what a rights, it should we give them right should we. All of that context comes later, looking backwards, it can't be there in the 18th century it just doesn't exist the language is happening. These kind of ideas now you ready in the late 18th century are starting to get critics of colonialism critics of these monopolies, Adam Smith and others and they should respond faster to the critics. But the idea that they had a fully formed model view. And then they went over there and they just chose to be evil. This child is it's modern historian exposed reading it's these are complicated things for a people that for people who did not know much better did not know much more. Right. I think one of the great examples of the historical context is Columbus. Yeah, I mean Columbus came over to the world and then treated people poorly. But, like how are the people treated back in Spain in Portugal, and the answer is poorly, right. Difference, and the reason he treated them for this because religion, which nobody ever says nobody plays religion for it so. Yes, context, we started off the program with context it's all about context, you have to have the proper historical context to be able to judge these things and to be able to put a proper estimation on them. You did a whole film that's like I've been interesting topic. Yeah, good. Good. We can go to that. All right, boy. A couple of months ago. I was watching a video of the woman who was interviewing you or those you and she was discussing. Capitalism rational self interest capitalism. And this was towards the end of the show. She said, you would talk about the fact that capitalism, if we're really adopted in places like India or place in Africa. The other thing would rise, etc, would be a benefit to those people. And she said something about if you're interested in rational self interest, why would you care. Your answer was, well, there'll be more people for me to trade with. And I thought, ooh. Yeah, but that's not as fundamental. It's certainly true that there would be, because I know just to introspection, and also from what I know of you. That's not the reason, the primary reason you'd be happy for them. I know just again thinking of myself. I'm delighted. When I see people get better. There's also to which you're getting better than they've become happier, the pride they can then take in themselves. So I just thought maybe you would just the end of the conversation. And you're just sticking with the economic issue. I don't know. So I just want to bring. Well, I mean, I try to be I take trade to be more than just economic trade to be in the spiritual values but yes you get joy out of human success and out of human achievements and out of human ability. And I think that joy, to some extent, comes from the fact that that represents a potential trade, whether that trade is in spiritual values or real values. It's, and it's, it's a, you know, part of the trade is the fact that they inspire you, because they give you, they inform you of what is possible for human beings, the kind of life that is possible for human beings and the kind of joy that is possible for human beings and that. That is, that is all inspiring. But yeah, I don't know that it's, I don't remember that, but I don't know that it's always useful to put it in terms of trade. It's, it's, it's bigger than that. It's bigger than that. It sounds, it sounded mercenary. And I said, Oh, that's what they think of us. Yeah, yeah. It could change, could change, could change the cash register, and it is much more. I know you know that. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Good. Thanks Roy. Let's see where we Nick. I wanted to talk about the Iranian situation when we take the historical basis in terms of the youth uprising against the older guard. In 2012, during the Arab Spring, where they imported a whole military police, I forget what they're called, where they, where they, I'm not sure where they imported these thugs, and they called the local population because they didn't trust the local force. This is in Iran. This is Iran. And I'm sure they'll try the same thing to keep in power. Do you think they have a better chance or I mean this generation on the generation of youth who want them out. No, it's, it's very hard to tell. I don't think I'm in a particularly good position to predict what's going to happen over there. It certainly looks like it's bigger. It's cross generational. I think the fact that is being led by women gives it a certain model appeal and and projects a certain courage. Today there were videos where you could see some of the security people actually joining the protests. I don't know if that's widespread I don't know if that's real. It's really really hard to tell what's going on on the on the ground. It's a pretty big protest day and pretty bloody day a lot of people were killed today. Some striking videos online of just young people lying dead in the street. You know because everybody has a cell phone now you get real time dead people and it's just it's just horrifying to watch the fact that it's on cell phones. The fact that it's being broadcast all over Iran the fact that they're all connected. I don't know how they stop this unless they kill a lot of people and now they could, and they they've known to do it but are they going to kill a lot of girls. I mean it's part of the power of this is killing women just has a different impact. And are they going to go to high school and start shooting girls what exactly are they going to do. And what are the men going to do at some point you know you're seeing here and there, men out there supporting the women and trying to protect them. But, you know, ultimately I think the fathers and the husbands of these women are going to come out into streets as well I think some of them have already many of them still will. And maybe some of these women are the wives and daughters of some of the people in the security forces so it's going to be interesting to see how it evolves. I don't know what the mechanism of replacing the regime is because these things usually entails somebody on the inside flipping, and it's not clear who here is going to flip on the inside. It's not going to be the, I mean one of the clever things the Arabs do and the and the Iranians have done is they make their military generals very rich. They give them massive economic holdings, so that they have a huge incentive and keeping the system going, a huge monetary incentive. So it's hard to tell where who's going to flip where's it going to come from this regime has been in power for so long, and it's so entrenched and you know, you can probably be a higher up in the Communist Party and not be a communist in the Soviet Union, because what does it really mean to be a communist. Can you really be a higher up in the Iranian regime and not be a committed Muslim. I don't know I mean it would be hard to see who these people are maybe some of the more moderate forces will rise up to support this and I just I don't know. But I fear that it's going to get bloody because that's what they've learned from the past, when they bring out these special troops when they kill a lot of people it works, it suppresses everybody goes home. We'll see if that happens this time. You know, regardless their days are numbered. I mean whether it happens now or whether it happens 10 years from now. Hold on days are numbered that you know who cares right. So it's it's it when they're getting up there all the mullahs and that they're getting up there but they all have kids they all have is they all have one of the big things that the harmony is a is 80 something is old and expect the sun to take over supreme leader. So there's no I mean it's not an issue of generation. It's an issue of religiosity of religion. The question is, fundamentally how many people in Iran support the sharia law, and how many people are willing to fight it. How many willing people are willing to put their lives on the line to fight sharia law. What's that the younger generation isn't ready to fight for them. Well, some of them. We don't know how widespread this is as compared to the total population. I don't know. I'm sure they're young people who are religious. Those are not the cities in which the demonstrations. They are counter demonstrations that regime organizers of young people demonstrating for the regime. But, you know, and there are a lot of young people in the military who are going to be asked to shoot. Will they shoot. That's basically what it boils down to will they shoot. And I don't know what the answer is. I'm not I don't I'm not enough on the ground in Iran to tell. But yes, at some point, your authoritarianism ends. But it could be it could take a long time. Soviet Union was 70 years. All right. Thanks, Nick. Let's see Adam. Yes, I, if this one is too quick, I have another question. Have you seen the deep rooted tree, which is takes place in the next king after my country. And I think is even more romantic and really an excellent series. I recommend it. Okay, have a seat. Eat the one class. I haven't. I've got it. I've got it downloaded, but I haven't actually seen it now. Okay, so this was my preferred question. But now, since this was very quick, I have a bad one. Yeah, which is that conversion therapy where clergyman supposedly offered therapy to gay boys. In terms of what is actually happening. The reality is this is just a way for pederasts to find victims. The fraud, and not only is it the fraud, but it's a way to find victims who are ashamed to have been victimized and are not likely to come forward. So I think that there is a very strong case for making it illegal, simply because of what kind of fraud it is. I don't think you can make it illegal. It's psychology is a fraud the whole field of psychology you could argue is a fraud, or much of it is a fraud, behaviorism is a fraud, voyeurism is a fraud. But you can now if certain therapists are victimizing their patients and they put in jail that that's pretty straightforward, but you cannot make a ideas and their articulation illegal. And when the ideas are really evil, you just think you can't, you can't make Catholicism illegal even though it, it is a place where pedophiles go and, you know, hide and go after boys. So, no, state cannot be involved in that. They don't send them to these horrible things. Okay, essentially, if the state cannot be involved in this sort of racket. How fraudulent does a fraud need to be to be illegal. At what point do you draw the line. It cannot be I don't know but it cannot be. It cannot be based on ideas it cannot be my theory of psychology versus your theory of psychology my theory of conversion or whatever it cannot be idea driven. Now, if you think about most philosophies the frauds, right Christianity is a fraud, it's the biggest fraud in human history, right, there is no God, and this suddenly wasn't a Jesus who came back to life. That's fraud, right, but it's not the kind of fraud that the state can prosecute so there has to be some kind of objective. Standard or material. There has to be some kind of breach of contract that is that is easy to define and to, and to see, you know, I sell you a, I tell you it's a diamond and it's really glass right that's that's that's straightforward. It's clear what I was selling it's clear what the glasses, when it comes to Jordan Peterson promising to give you independence and freedom but his book really doesn't fall doesn't apply to ideas in that sense in the legal sense. How you differentiate exactly. I don't know what about services I promise to do a specific service, and I don't do it that services involves ideas. It's complicated, and I don't have an answer, but it. I just don't see how it can, how the law can infringe on it. If it does, then we're in a very dangerous realm where the government gets to decide what ideas are true and what ideas are false. Thank you. Thanks Adam. You on. I need help with some chewing are you up for it. Some chewing. Yep. Good. Yes, because it's funny because I want to piggyback on the property right idea. Because I was reading understanding objectivism. And in the book. I, I found out that I have an intrinsic view of property right. And in the book. I look at it. And then I was reading it. And then I was reading it. And then I went to the house, and Lina pick off said, if you, if you are swimming in the ocean and you happen to, to go on the on an island and someone is there. Say, it is my property so you cannot go there. He literally say, well, you just hope to kill him first before he kills you. that this particular situation is null because there is no society. So property right in that context doesn't apply. Am I correct so far? Yes, it's an emergency. There's no context of society. And you cannot use your property to, you know, you cannot in the name of defending your property rights cause somebody else grieve home. You know, so for example, a different example would be. Okay, because just hold on because I came up with another one, which could be closer to reality. It's closer because it's still a forfeit. But let's suppose that we have a object to this society. Like when I mean by that is like capitalism, where government is only there to protect you and property is really owned by people, private people. And let's suppose I have I'm making a road trip down to the US and I came to Texas and my car broke. So I took my cell phone and no battery. So I need I need help. And I saw a city along the road further down. So I go there. But to my surprise, the city is run by racist and they are all black people and they don't want to help. But if they don't help me, I'll die. So is it the same situation as the island? Or since there is clearly a society there with property and all that, the same logic apply or it doesn't? No, I mean, you're creating a sci-fi example again, because it's a capitalist country, but somehow this society full of racists who actually while they're racist, they completely protect property rights and they are completely pro-capitalism and they live in this flourishing city somehow. I mean, none of that makes sense, right? None of that is consistent and congruent. But look, if you're on the verge of death, then you got to do what you've got to do to survive. And if that means stealing somebody's phone and making a phone call and then returning that phone to them, then that's what you do. And you know, given that it's a capitalist society, remember, then the legal system will punish you. But the punishment is not going to be very large because you were dying and nobody would help you. And you just did this to survive. So you'd be slapped on the wrist and have to pay a fine or something and you'd have to leave, right? So you realize that you're breaking the law. In a sense, you realize you're violating, you're breaking somebody else's rights. You're willing to suffer the consequences because in this context, your life depends on it. Okay. I'm going to just sit right side of the road and let yourself die because these people are being irrational, right? Because they're racist. Okay. So again, that would never happen because no such society could exist. No, I know it was just like the principle that I was trying to understand, like where you draw the line because the follow up question is similar. So instead of a racist society, let's suppose that you lost your job. Like here, where I live in Montreal, well, I lived in Montreal. Now I'm, I mean, I don't live there anymore. But there was the homeless people that literally broke glasses from the commerce to get arrested. And they were put in prison because it was author in winters. And they get free meals. So my questioning is at one point, should you accept that someone breaks the law to help themselves survive? You know, you know where I'm going? Because if, if I can quote unquote do whatever it takes to survive. That's so, that's so removed from the other examples, because now you're taking somebody who's clearly irrational, somebody who's clearly not productive, somebody who's clearly not seeking their own rational long term self interest. You know, then it's meaningless. They can never do anything. They can't do anything right. So you can't accept what they're doing because they put themselves into this position. It's not a rational person who an accident happened. He fell out of a boat and he lands up on an island or, or you got stuck in your car and you didn't mean it and you're generally a productive and you have a phone but you ran out of batteries. You know, it's not a rational person. It's, it's, you're now taking about irrationality, unproductivity, immorality, and you're saying when, when can they do XYZ? They can never be right in a sense. Okay, so, so if I understand correctly, in the first two examples, I could be a quote unquote good person, a rational person, but their circumstance is not right for me. So I need quote unquote help. And the third one is more some something like is perpetual. It's, it's something that you created because of your habit or something like that. And therefore it's for that reason that you cannot do like break the glass or something like that because it's something repetitive. You're not productive, right? Yes. That's right. Okay, okay. I understand better. Thank you. Sure. Okay. Good. Okay, Matthew. Yeah. So kind of a long one, I guess. Have you ever been camping? What is your understanding of camping? What is the appeal of camping? Does it have something to do with seeking or pursuing comfort? Are you having to work to build fires and cooking and cleaning? What does it say about a culture? Is it unique to North America? Did people in Hong Kong go camping in China? Oh, wow. Okay. Yes, I've been camping. It's been a long, long, long, long, long time since I was last camping. So what does it mean? I think there's a certain pleasure in being out in nature and managing and coping and changing nature in a small way to fit your needs, making a fire, building a tents, boiling water, whatever, whatever, all those. I mean, nature's beautiful and nature's there's a lot to enjoy, but there's a certain pleasure in, hey, I can do this. I can live in this. I can survive here. I don't think it's about comfort. If you like comfort, like I do, don't go camping anymore. But I think that camping primarily provides that sense of being one with being competent to live with nature, within nature. And it gives you a sense of confidence and a sense of pleasure being able to spend a few days out in the wilderness and still survive and still survive. Other cultures do it. Yeah, just camping all over the world. I think it requires wealth, the certain level of wealth to camp. So I think it's wealthier cultures have this recreation that is camping. Europe, there's a lot of camping, I think, that happens in Europe, maybe not as much as in America. America's also more of as more uncultivated land, more wilderness. So there's more places to go camping than you would find in Europe. I don't know if in Asia they go camping. I'd be surprised if they didn't. I think they probably do, probably less than America, partially because they're only rich recently. So it's kind of as a leisure activity. They were too busy trying to survive before to actually get pleasure out of, you know, partially it's the pleasure of somebody rich, relatively rich, living in a comfortable home, protected from the elements and everything like that, saying to themselves, I can go into the wilderness and I can still survive and I can still be successful. I can still conquer, I can still be self-sufficient. But you have to have that starting point. If you're a subsistence farmer, you're not going camping. Camping is a relatively modern phenomena of relatively affluent societies. Yeah, I think that's right. I think there's some definite objective value there where, you know, you're going out and you're conquering, you're achieving, you're providing and there's a sense of pride that definitely comes with that. Absolutely. But I wouldn't call it leisure. But it is because it's not productive. It's time that you're not making a living. So you have to be able to, it's a vacation, right? We go camping on vacation. So you have to be wealthy enough to have vacations. Most of humanity doesn't have vacations. Fair enough. Good. Thanks, Matthew. Okay, let's do these. We got a few super chat questions and then we'll call it a night. Ready? Going on two hours. Michael says, none of my philosophy professors have heard of the Iron Man Institute. Is this a bad sign? I mean, it's not a good sign, but it's not particularly a bad sign. What would they do if they knew about the Iron Man Institute? It's not like they'd do anything with us. We in the past have had a booth at like the American Philosophical Association meetings. We've tried to engage with the philosophy profession. It's not clear there's much to be achieved in doing that. James Taylor asks, feminine doesn't mean submission. It means a different kind of energy. Yeah, I don't think it means submissive. You know, and that's not what Iron Man talks about. Iron Man talks about feminine being oriented towards the hero. It's a hero worshipping. That doesn't make you submissive to be a hero worshipper. That's not what she means by that. And to say it's a different type of energy doesn't say anything. What kind of energy? How does that energy manifest itself? You have to actually have a positive case for your femininity and what that all means. Harper says, would you live in New York City full-time if it had California weather? When I visited for the first time this summer, it just has more life and enlightenment energy than any other city. I suddenly had a period that appears in my life where I would have loved to have lived in New York City. Right now it's too much of a hassle to live there. It's too intense for me. Now 30 years ago I would have loved to live in New York City. Reggie, would you choose to live in Japan or Australia if they were the only choices? I live in Australia. They speak English. It's a much more diverse society. It's much more space. Food is better in Japan. I've given that. But the language is a big deal. I want to live somewhere they speak English. Although I live in Puerto Rico, so go figure that. All right, Emmanuel. Concertos and symphonies are really tough to get through. They are 30 minutes shorter. They are 30 plus minutes to get through. Shorter classical pieces, raft cities and waltzes are much more enjoyable for me. Why is that? Because you have a short attention span and that's one of the ills of modern society. One of the ills of modern society is we can't concentrate for more than a few minutes. We've been conditioned by three-minute songs, by video games, by short movies. We don't read as much. We just don't have attention spans. In the 19th century people would easily go to three, four-hour concerts and just sit quietly and listen to music for two, three hours. We are not capable of it because of the kind of lifestyle we have, because of the television, because we have instant gratification. To listen to a symphony or concerto requires real effort. The reward is deep and fulfilling, but it requires you to actually concentrate on the music for 30, 40, 50, 60 minutes and not let your mind drift in a million different directions. It's why everybody today is trying to meditate. Music served that function in the past. You focused your attention on the artwork. You focused your attention on the music for long periods of time and today we're just literally not capable of it. I mean, we could, but you need to train yourself and there are actually techniques to train yourself to focus on music for longer. We can talk about that sometime, but it's all about attention span. But it was uncontrollable inflation of a recession. Is there any, is there another option? Any chance to fed or not crash the economy is going to survive? I mean, there's always a chance. I think we're going to have a recession that doesn't mean we won't have inflation. I don't think we'll have uncontrollable inflation. I think we'll definitely have a recession. Maybe we'll have some inflation. Is there another option? Sure, but nobody's willing to do it. The other option is to dramatically cut government spending, massively deregulate the economy. Yeah. Then you could have a growing economy with no inflation. Any chance to fed will not crash the economy. There's always a chance. I just don't think it's likely. Is tech going to survive? Yeah, tech will survive. Tech is too value-added for it to disappear. Tech will survive, but at least initially at much lower valuations than we used to in terms of an investment. All right, everybody. Thank you. Appreciate the panel. Thank you to the Superchatters. Let's see. I don't know yet if I am going to do a show tomorrow or not. I might. We'll see how the prep for the trip goes, but I will try to do it tomorrow. Then Tuesday I'll be out. I might try to do a show from London on Wednesday. So potentially I'll see you tomorrow. If not, I'll see you on Wednesday. Thanks, guys. Have a great night. Bye, everybody.