 Let's turn to another objection which Jim Brown raised earlier, which is one about free will. If you deny free will, if you deny the very nature of man as a choosing, thinking, thinking as in choosing, what's the point of thinking if you don't get to choose? The point of thinking is to choose, to shape your action, to shape your life, to shape your thinking. If man is just determined by stimuli, by the things that happen to him and to some extent by the genes that he has, if it's not choices, then first of all, there are a few things. All the advancements that we've had and the left, the environmentalists very much think this. All the technology we have, all the innovation, all the success, all the wealth that has been created was going to be created anyway. You can't attribute it to any particular choices because these don't exist. You can't associate it with any particular ideology because it doesn't matter. Free will doesn't exist. The world as it is had to be as it is. It was determined from day one. It's just the way the atoms clashed. And suddenly you can't give more credit and therefore view them as deserving those people who made a lot of money because of the world is the way it is or made a lot of money making the world the way it is. They had no choice. It's just the way it is. What makes them worthy if they have no will, if they're not choosing to do what they do? I mean, this is directly reflected in Obama's famous speech, you didn't build that. You didn't build that. So it's not you. So you don't fully deserve it or maybe at all deserve it. And if you don't deserve it, then it's going to be here anyway, whether there's Steve Jobs or not, we'd get an iPhone. And if we're going to get an iPhone anyway, then why should we admire Steve Jobs and why should we pay him a lot of money? The money's not going to incentivize him. He's just determined to do what he's going to determine to do. I mean, the whole thing is self-contradictory. But any argument about free will is self-contradictory. You can't even make it without, in a sense, applying the ideas of a reasoning mind that chooses to think that there's no choice. What? So if you're anti-free will, you're anti-merit, notice how many philosophers these days are anti-merit, then you're going to be anti-capitalism because by definition, the distribution of wealth is going to be viewed as unfair, unfair because nobody deserves what they have. And egalitarianism becomes very attractive. Nobody deserves what they have, so everybody should get the same because everybody's equally undeserving. And the wealth will be created anyway. This whole idea of about incentives, incentives, assume people actually choose. I read this book once written by these radical environmentalists, and we're talking about all the things that they want to do in order to solve the world's problems and clean the world and everything. And a lot of it relied on advanced, new advanced technology that doesn't exist today. And their attitude was, the attitude was, well the technologies will just come into existence. We need them. Need, this is again a primacy of consciousness, need is a force in nature. Need as a force in nature brings about the reality of innovation, technology, new things that we need. That's enough. You don't need entrepreneurs, a mind, incentives, freedom. No, it just happens. It just happens. And for most people, it appears that way. I got an iPhone. Wow, there's an iPhone now. I have an iPhone. There's no conception of who made it. I didn't have an iPhone before. How did it come into being? Who built it? Who imagined it? How many years did it take them? What kind of capital did they need to raise? Did anybody take any risk? It looks like it's a huge success. Nobody risked anything. But of course it wasn't guaranteed to be a success. And on and on, they can't conceive the whole chain of events that is creating, building entrepreneurship. It just, again, happens. It happens to them. And they benefit from it. Cool. But they don't give credit to anybody for it, because it's just like nature gave. It's just like God dropped manna from heaven. Even Karl Marx, clearly Marx hates capitalism because of its implicit and explicit self-interest. If you read, it's all over his work. My favorite Marx essay is on the Jewish question, where all his anti-Semitism comes through, and where he hates the Jews being selfish and capitalist. He gets the connection. He gets the selfishness and capitalism of the same integrated somehow, or interwound somehow. And he hates them both. He hates capitalism because it's selfish. And he hates the Jews because he believes they are the source of selfishness. And of course Marx is a determinist. So he believes again that it doesn't matter. Capitalism will happen. It'll run its course. And then the parliamentarian world rise up. That'll run its course. And then ultimately, without explaining exactly how, or you get a utopia of the parliamentarian, and that'll run its course. But it all is determined. That is the end state, I guess. But that's a determined end state that has to go there. And in that sense, it's easy for him to reject dessert, reject individual values. Note that if you're deterministic, if you take your determinism seriously, I don't think everybody takes their determinism seriously. I don't think Sam Harris and some of these others take it seriously. They claim to be determinists, but then they act like they're not. But if you take your determinism seriously, then you have no personal values. What does it even mean to value something? It's not like you care, but what is you? What is I? Is there an I? If you're a trillion determinist, there's no I. I mean, even for Sam Harris, she says, at the end of the day, there's no I. There's just the collective consciousness, whatever the hell that is. There's no I. And if there's no I, there are no personal values. And reason doesn't matter, because reason really doesn't matter if you don't have free will. Capitalism is gone. Capitalism is a system of individuals pursuing their values based on their own judgment, based on their own reason, in pursuit of their own happiness. Pursuit, pursuit, pursuit. Pursuit guided by what? Guided by their mind, guided by their reason, guided by their choices, by their choices. So capitalism, again, implicitly assumes free will. And then capitalism also makes a point that it's objective that some people make a lot of money and some people make less, because some people create more value than others. More value for whom? For their customers. For whoever their customers happen to be, for other people. So some people create more value, some people create less value. And therefore some people deserve, because they activated their own reason, their own choices, to create that value. And some people don't, because they didn't.