 Ok, mientras ya no se va alistando, primero, para los personas que no tienen un dispositivo, esto, a través de esto van a poder tener la traducción al español, entonces los que no lo tengan, pueden pasar a la mesa de Atlas, por favor, y lo único que tienen que hacer es verificar que está, bueno, por lo menos la audición, aquí arriba, y van a poder tener la traducción en vivo. Y lo único que quiero es que, gracias al Enhanzante, para toda la audiencia que vino el día de hoy, va a haber un concurso, en el que presentar un ensayo corto de las unas palabras, sobre qué se entiendieron de la charla del día de hoy, que los principales tratamientos de Enhanzante, a los que entiendieron de la charla del día de hoy, lo pueden enviar hasta el día de domingo, van a tener la oportunidad de ganarse los las tres, un par de novelas en él. El ensayo honor va a tener la oportunidad de ganarse los tres libros, que lo podemos mostrar aquí, para que animen a escribir. La paura. La paura. El manantial, los que vivimos, y la obra de comer, la cabilloteada. Así que, en Enhanzante, el día de hoy, es algo que está promoviendo en Enhanzante, no pasa muy seguido, y... ¿Vas a tener un seguido? ¿Se va a enviar el correo de Enhanzante? Es un poco, no, en Enhanzante, no está muy seguido. Cualquier cosa me pregunta, me voy a hacer. Y si alguien necesita montarlo en correo, a la seguida se lo ponen. Gracias. Thank you. I apologize for not speaking Spanish. So this is going to be in English. If you don't have the translation and you need it, there's still an opportunity to go out there and get it. Thank you all for coming here. This is my first time in Bolivia. It's exciting to have the opportunity to speak to all of you this evening. I didn't see the response to Maria's questions. Thank you. How many of you have read Ain Rand? Read anything by Ain Rand? Okay, so about half of you have read something by Ain Rand. That is good. So when I was 16, I lived in Israel. And in Israel when I was 16, everybody, my age, was a socialist. And I was a socialist. I was committed to socialism. I was a collectivist. I very much believed in the state and the power of the state and the importance of the state. And a friend of mine gave me one day a copy of Ain Rand's Atlas Shrugged. And I read this book. And it took me a long time to read the book because I didn't like it when I started reading it. I didn't like it because it presented ideas to me that I did not agree with. Everything it said, I thought was wrong. And I fought it. I argued with Ain Rand. I remember throwing the book on the wall because I was so frustrated. And I slowly read it. And by the time I finished it, my life was changed forever. All of my ideas were different. Are the monitors not working? You're getting noise. Some of you, it's working. If you don't work, they go over there and they'll switch it. So Atlas Shrugged changed my life. I read a book that changed the way I view the world, changed the way I view politics. But the most important thing Ain Rand did for me was she changed the way I look at myself and my own potential in terms of my life and my own goals and values in terms of my life. Now, if it was just a story about me, who cares? But the reality is that Ain Rand has changed the lives of hundreds of thousands, millions, maybe even tens of millions of people who have read her books. Tens of millions of people have read her books. Many of them will tell you that their lives have been changed. Many of the most successful people in America, the country I live in today and the country I know today, many of the most successful people in America were influenced and their lives were changed by reading Atlas Shrugged. The founders of Silicon Valley, everybody know Silicon Valley? You know, the founders of companies like Apple and Oracle and Dell and Microsoft and Sun Microsystems and all list of them and the venture capital community in Silicon Valley. The leaders of those companies will tell you they were inspired by reading Ain Rand. It's what made it possible for them to do the hard work. And if anybody's involved in a startup, you know how hard the work is to do the work and to be inspired to be great, to be inspired not just to be okay, not to be mediocre, not just to somehow get by, but to be great, inspired to live the best life that you can live. That's what Ain Rand has the potential to do to those who read her books. So those of you who haven't yet read Ain Rand, I encourage you to do so. So I want to tell you a little bit about Ain Rand's life and about Ain Rand's philosophy and why these books have so much power to change people and to impact people's lives. Ain Rand was born in 1905, long time ago, in St. Petersburg, Russia. She was born to a middle-class family. Her father owned a pharmacy in the building that they lived. So he owned a small business. In 1917, when she was 12 years old, her world was turned upside down by the Communist Revolution. Suddenly her father didn't have a pharmacy. It was nationalized, socialized. Suddenly, they didn't have an apartment. They didn't have a home. Their home was taken by the government, and they now had to share their home with other families. So Ain Rand witnessed, as a child, as a teenager, she witnessed what Communism really did to people, how it destroyed lives, how it made achievement and success impossible. Later on in her life, she will describe that kind of world and what happens to good people in that kind of world in a wonderful novel that I think is available back there called We the Living. We the Living is the most autobiographical of all of Ain Rand's works. It's a book about the life of a young woman in the Soviet Union, under Communism, the men she falls in love with and how their lives are shaped by this authoritarian regime, by Communism, by the suppression of the good, the productive, the individual mind. She experienced this firsthand. She went to university in the Soviet Union in Russia, and she realized very early on that if she had to stay in the Soviet Union, if she stayed in Russia, she would not live, she would not survive. She had opinions, she had a mind, she had a voice, she could not keep a quiet. She was an independent young woman who had a view of the world that was different than the view of the Communists out there. From a very young age, she decided she wanted to be a writer, a writer of fiction. And she loved the things she loved. Remember, this is the early part of the 20th century. She loved movies. She loved the movies from Hollywood that she had seen as a child. The silent movies, in those days there were still silent movies. The romanticism of the movies, the drama of the movies. She loved, as a child, she loved heroes, heroes in books, heroes in movies, heroes in novels. She loved the idea of a hero. She wanted to be a writer, but she couldn't be a writer in the Soviet Union. She couldn't be a writer in communism, because the kind of books she wanted to write, they would have never allowed. They would have killed her, and she knew that. So, in her early 20s, in a small window of opportunity where she could get out, she claimed she was going to go to the United States to do some research for a project for the university, and she managed to leave. Her family knew she would never come back, even though they had signed letters guaranteeing that she would. She went to the United States, and she had family in Chicago. She spent a little time in Chicago, but then she went to Hollywood. She wanted to start her career as a writer, writing for the movies, because she loved movies. So, she shows up in Hollywood, this is the late 1920s. She showed us up in Hollywood, this young Russian woman with a thick Russian accent, with English that is okay. It's good, but it's not great. Not her first language. And she goes to the studios. I don't know, you're too young to know who this was, but Cecil B. DeMille. So, I think Cecil B. DeMille was that period's Steven Spielberg. Okay. So, he was the greatest director of the time, the most famous director of the time. And she goes and says, I want to work in the movies. And they go, who are you? Lots of people want to work in the movies. So, they said, you know, no, basically. So, she goes outside, she walks outside. This is a true story, she walks outside. And outside, in a driveway, in a limousine, is sitting, in a convertible, is sitting Cecil B. DeMille. And she stares at him, this little Russian girl is staring at him. And he says, why are you staring at me? And she tells him this story. She's just come from Russia. She can't go back. She wants to be a writer in Hollywood. She wants to be in the movies. And he says, you want to be in the movies? Get in the car. So, she gets in the car. He drives her to where he's making a movie. He's making a movie called The King of Kings, which is a movie about Jesus Christ, right? Silent movie. And he says, here's a pass. And you can come to the set of the movie for a week. And you learn how movies are made. This will get you in. And indeed, she becomes an extra on the movie. You know what an extra is? It's the people in the background. And you can see in certain scenes of The King of Kings, you can find Ayn Rand's face in the movie. And she's an extra on the movie set. She learns about the movies. She meets her husband on the set. She finds the guy she likes. She trips him, gets his attention. Later, she marries him. She's a woman who knew what she wanted, right? And she gets into those thoughts doing stuff in the movies. She works all kinds of little jobs. Anything to be in the movie. She works in the wardrobe department. She helps out in different aspects of all kinds of things. All this, the while, making very little money. All in a while in the evening, studying English. Writing, writing, writing, writing in English. Finally, in the 1930s, she writes a play. And the play gets produced in Los Angeles. And then gets produced in Hollywood. And then she writes We the Living, a book about living under communism. But nobody wants it. They publish it, but nobody wants to read it. The intellectuals in New York in the 1930s kind of like communism. It sounds like a good idea. So they're not interested in somebody criticizing communism. So the book doesn't do very well. She writes a little book called Anthem. Again, you can find it in the back. Anthem is a wonderful little book. You can read it in two hours. You can be done with it. And it's a fantastic little book. But it can't be... Nobody will publish it in America. It gets published in England. English, as you might know, they like dystopian novels, like 1984 and Animal Farm. Well, they published Anthem, because it's a dystopia novel, that they like. And then she's set about writing The Fountainhead. This is a book about an architect. It is a book that she finally finishes in 1945. She sends it to publishers and 12 publishers tell her no. Or 11 publishers say no. We're not interested. Too philosophical. Too much, too many ideas. And they turn it down. The 12th takes it. Finally. She doesn't give up. The 12th publisher takes it. But they don't believe in it. They don't believe it will do too well. So they only publish a few copies, 2,000 copies, which is a lot, a lot, in those days in America. But as soon as it gets published, people start talking about it. They start reading it and talking about it. And soon they have to print more copies. And more copies. And more copies. And the book becomes a New York Times bestseller. It sells hundreds of thousands of copies. And to this day, it sells in America hundreds of thousands of copies. It's being translated into every language in the world. Important big language in the world. Except for two. Only two languages that have not translated in Rand. Anybody want to guess what two languages, big languages that are not translated in Rand. What's that? Arabic is one. No, all the books in Chinese. And they sell well in Chinese. All the books in Russian. They sell well in Russia. They even sell well in Ukraine. What's the second? Close to Arabic. Farsi. Farsi in Arabic. The only two languages. Every other language. Three or four different Indian languages. And then every European language. And her books are everywhere. So that's the fountain in Atlas Shrug. She publishes 12 years later in 1957. By that point, she's so famous. And the books have done so well that the publishers are bidding to publish her books. And when Atlas Shrug is published, again hundreds of thousands sell to this day millions of copies sold. She is a mass of success. Here's this little... She was a young woman in her early 20s when she came to America. With nothing. And she made it. She achieved the American dream. She published the books. She wanted to be a writer. She published the books she wanted to write. She became famous. And after Atlas Shrug, she devoted the rest of her life to writing her philosophy. But why was she interested in philosophy? I mean, she wrote stories. She wrote novels. So why philosophy? What got her interested in these ideas? You know, about ethics. About the theory of knowledge. We call that epistemology. About metaphysics. Why would you need to know these things? Why did this interest, this young woman who was writing novels, writing stories? Well, Inran wanted to write a particular kind of story. She wanted to write a story about heroes. She wanted to project in her story her view of an ideal man. Of an ideal human being. What life could be like at its best, at its most successful. And the problem was that when she looked around the world and she read philosophies and what they wrote, what she found was that people didn't have a good view of heroes, the intellectuals. They didn't have a positive view of an ideal man. Most of our philosophers in the west are cynics. You know, our religion teaches us we are all, you know, we have original sin and we are all fallen. And heroes, great achievers, amazing human beings who live amazing lives. That is very foreign to much of what we learn in our school, in our lives. So Inran discovered that if she wanted to project, if she wanted to really create this ideal man, if she wanted to really have a vision so her novels could have great heroes, she had to discover a philosophy. She had to articulate a philosophy that reflected these kind of heroic ideas. She couldn't count on the philosophy that existed at the time. You know, the postmodernist to say anything goes. Or the fascist to say you're nothing. Therefore we need a dictator to tell you what to do. Or the communist to say you're nothing. Do what the parliamentarian wants you to do. Every other philosophy out there said you as an individual don't matter. You as an individual are just a sacrificial animal to some greater good out there. Whether it's the parliamentarian. Whether it's the state. Whether it's the race. Whether it's just your poor neighbor. You don't matter. What matters is their needs. Their desires. Their wants. Not yours. So she had to come up with a philosophy because her view of man was not that at all. She wanted to project heroes who lived for themselves. And that's how she became a philosopher. She came a philosopher so she could write novels in order to write novels. But her goal was always to write novels. And then when she wrote the novels she finished writing the novels she dedicated the rest of her life to explaining this philosophy. Articulating it beyond what was in the novels themselves. So what is this philosophy? And I'll do this short and we'll get to the heart of this. Philosophy basically argues that reality, the things out there are what they are. Reality is what it is. You don't create it. Your wishes don't create reality. Your desires don't create reality. Your emotions don't create reality we sometimes want into. But reality is what it is. It's not created by consciousness. A is A. That's a fact. So we should always adhere to the truth. We should always adhere to the facts. And we as human beings can know reality, understand reality and indeed ultimately help shape reality the world out there of nature by use of our minds. Our tool of survival, our tool of knowledge is our reason, is our mind. Other animals survive by other means. Right? What makes it possible for, I don't know, a giraffe to survive? What makes it possible for a giraffe to survive? I know it's English, it's hard, but what? What's that? Instincts, but what particularly about its physiology? Yeah, long neck. So they can eat the leaves at the top that the other animals can get to. Nature's giving them a long neck, right? A cheetah, a cheetah, or a leopard in Amazon. How do they survive? Speed, stealth, right? Nature's giving them the ability to maneuver and to catch their prey. We... And they all have instincts. They all know exactly when they're born. They know exactly what they need to do and how to do it. We as human beings don't know anything when we're born. We don't know anything. We don't know how to hunt. We don't have claws. We don't have fangs. We're not very fast. We're not very strong. We lift weights. They're still not very strong. It's compared to animals out there. And yet, not only do we survive, but we thrive. Build buildings. We have video where we're live streaming all to the world. How do we do that? That's crazy. How do we do all this stuff? How do we do that? Everything that we have around us? How do we live some amazing lives? How do we... Anybody here know how clothes are made? I don't know. Some of you might know, but I don't know. How do we get all this stuff by using our minds? Somebody has to think. How do we catch animals? We don't run after them and grab them. We have weapons. We have traps. We have strategies. Mind. There's always a mind that's figure these things out. We have a mind to produce weapons. We have a mind to produce weapons. So, Ferrand, the human mind is in a sense everything. It is what makes life possible. It is what makes achievement possible. It is what makes life possible. You cannot survive as a human being unless you use your mind. So, she believed that the way we know things, or she knew that the way we know things is through our reason, through our rational mind. Again, not from our emotions. Not from other people. If we're going to be successful and we're going to live, we have to use our own mind. And in ethics, what is ethics? Morality. What is morality? Morality is a code of values to guide you in your life, to tell you what is right and what is wrong. What to do which is good and what not to do that is bad. And most of us have been brought up with a pretty conventional morality, the morality that exists in our culture. And that morality tells us what is good. What is good? What is the good? The good is to help others. The good is to sacrifice for others. My mother, I grew up in a Jewish household. And my mother used to tell me, think of others first. Other people are more important than you. Others first. You last. Now she didn't really believe that because she wanted me to be successful and to be successful you have to think of yourself. But our morality teaches us that you should always put others first. They are more important than you. So virtue is ears or constitutes being selfless, living for others, self-sacrificing. And this is true of all the religions. And this is true of most secular philosophies. Living for others is a standard of good. Living for yourself, thinking about yourself, thinking about your own happiness, your own success is bad. It's bad. What do you call somebody who thinks about themselves? Selfish. And selfishness is a bad word. What kind of behavior do we associate with somebody who is selfish? They lie, they cheat, they do anything to get their way. They step on people, they don't care about anything. That's selfish. That's our conventional morality. Einwand said, whoa. She said, why? Why are their lives more important than your life? To you. Why should you subordinate your life for other people? You only have one life, one. You don't get to try it again. And your life should be the most important thing to you there is. Your life, you live once. Why shouldn't you live your life and make the most of it? Why shouldn't you live the most exciting, satisfying, flourishing life that you can't? And if reason is a means by which we survive, why not apply reason to this question of how to live a great life? How to live a good life? For you, for yourself. So for Einwand, selfish means a good thing. It's not about lying and cheating and stealing. For Einwand, selfish means thinking about how to make my life the best life that it can be. For a selfishness means using your mind to live a fantastic life, to make the most of your life, to flourish as a human being. And when I was 16, that was the message that really got me. You mean I don't have to live for them? You mean I don't have to die for the state? You mean it's okay for me to live for me? And it's not just okay for me to live for me. What she inspired in me is You can achieve real happiness. You can be incredibly successful. You can have an enjoyable, flourishing, successful, prosperous, amazing life. Why settle? Why be mediocre? Why be like everybody else? Why just have an ordinary life when you can have a great life? And that's what her father told me es lo que su filosofía y sus libros inspiran a nosotros. Y Rand would say, lying, cheating, stealing. That's not good for you. I mean, if you don't believe me that lying is bad for you, do this experiment for a day. Lie to everybody. And see what happens. You'll hate yourself, they'll hate you. Nothing good will come of it. Lying is a stupid strategy. It's self-destructive. It's self-defeating. There's only one profession in the whole world where lying gets you ahead. What is that? Politics. Politics is the only profession where you gain through lying. In a free society, if you lie in business, nobody will work with you. Nobody will trust you. If you lie in marketing, nobody will buy your product next time. Only in politics, for some bizarre reason, we keep voting for the same idiots, even when they lie and lie and lie to us, we still vote for them. But that's unique to politics. Stealing, cheating, all the same thing, they're self-destructive. To be truly self-interested, to be selfish, to live your life for you requires you to think, to accept reality, to evaluate the facts, to reshape your world based on your values, to understand what your values are, to introspect, to learn about the world and learn about yourself. It's a lifelong adventure of gaining knowledge, using your mind, shaping your world and living the best life that you can live. And why, again, you only live once. Every minute you're alive, you'll never have back. It's gone. Better make it a good minute. Because if you don't make it a good minute, it's a waste. It's gone. It's over. Never get it back. Can't redo it. There's no rewind. There's no reincarnation. And if there is, you might come back as a cockroach. So I wouldn't count on it anyway. So Rand inspires us to live for ourselves, not sacrificing to other people, and not asking other people to sacrifice for you. It's not about exploding other people. It's about trading with other people. Trade is a beautiful thing, at any level. What does trade imply? In Iron Man's philosophy, there's something called the trade of principle. When I buy an iPhone, one of these, I pay $1,000 for this. Why do I pay $1,000 for this, a lot of money? Why am I willing to do that? Because it's more valuable than $1,000 to me. This thing is worth tens of thousands of dollars to me. Don't tell Apple. I don't want them to raise my price. But it's worth, I mean, I could do a whole lecture just on the value of this to me. Because I remember life before an iPhone. You guys don't. But I remember life before an iPhone. I know how much value this gives my life. I just give you one example. I can read a bedtime story to my kids by video from anywhere in the world at a cost of zero. I mean, how much is that worth? I remember the days where I could only call home once a trip because long distance calls were so expensive. Now I can video conference with my kids for zero. I mean, there's no number. There's no number for the value that that presents to me. So I am better off of buying an iPhone for $1,000. How about Apple? They're worse off? No, they're better off too. And that's the beauty of trade. It's win-win. I win and they win. Voluntary exchange is about win-win relationships. And if you think about not just about material trade where it's win-win. But if you think about our spiritual lives, love, love is a very important thing in life. Is love about sacrifice? If I sacrificed to my wife all day, didn't get anything back from her, that wouldn't work. I'd be frustrated. She'd be frustrated. It wouldn't work. Ayn Rand gives this wonderful example. Imagine, you're about to marry the woman of your dreams. Somebody's dreams. You're about to marry this amazing woman. And you go up to the night before you're going to get married and you say to her, I have no self-interest in this marriage. This is pure sacrifice. I'm doing it for you. I mean, she would slap you in the face and walk away. I mean, love is the most self-interested emotion of all. Why do you love somebody? Because they make you feel great about yourself and about them and about the world. That's what love is. It's about that emotion that they generate in you about, wow, this is great. This is positive. This is exciting. That's love is you want to love because you're going to feel better about the world and about you and about everything around you. And hopefully they feel the same way about you. That's the kind of trade. Win-win. If you don't have a win-win relationship in a marriage, it won't last. If you don't have a win-win relationship with your friends, it won't last. The key to living a good life, in many respects, in a social respect, is to create win-win relationships with people. And if it's win-lose, walk away. If somebody only creates you pain, if somebody only creates problems for you, walk away. If you can't create a win-win relationship, it's not worth having it. I don't care if they're family. I don't care if they're friends. I don't care what they are. It's not worth it. You only have one life. Every minute you waste it, every minute you waste it on something that is unnecessary is a minute wasted in that valuable life. So Rand presents this exciting morality. And I think that's the most important part of a philosophy. It's the inspiring part of the philosophy. But there's also a political aspect to this. If you want to live a great life guided by your reason, pursuing the values that you believe are important for your life, if you want to live the best life that you can live, then what's important to you when you enter the realm of society? You want other people to tell you what to do, right? You want somebody to sit in your shoulder, the government to sit in your shoulder say, ah, can't start that business. No, no, no. Can't negotiate that. Oh, no. Don't drink that drink. It's got too much sugar. Don't allow it. You want other people to make decisions for you, right? No. If you want to live the best life that you can, if you want to pursue your values, you have to use your mind. You don't want other people to make decisions for you. You want to live based on your decisions, based on your choices, based on your mind. It doesn't matter if it's a majority. It doesn't matter if it's a dictator. It doesn't matter. I want to make my choices. I don't want you telling me how to live, what to do, what business to open, how to negotiate, what to buy, what to sell. I want to make those choices, because it's my life, not yours. Leave me alone. Get out of my way. So for Rand, the politics is obvious. Freedom, the freedom to live your life based on your values, using your mind in pursuit of your values. The only political system that allows for self-interest is a political system of freedom. It's a political system where the government protects you from other people who want to hit you, who want to steal your stuff, who want to defraud you. But other than that, it leaves you alone. A government that helps arbitrate disputes when we get into disagreements, but leaves you alone. And lets you live your life based on your values, using your mind. That's why freedom is important. Freedom's not just an abstract idea, oh, we love freedom. Why? It's kind of cool. No, freedom is personal. It's about my life, my values, my mind, my choices, my happiness. I want to be free, because I want to be happy. I want to be free, because I want to use my mind, doing what I believe will lead to my happiness. So Rand is a capitalist. She believes in capitalism as a system, but not the capitalism that today, not American capitalism, whatever the hell that is, which is a mixed economy of some socialism and some private enterprise. Rand believes in a complete separation of state from economics. A complete separation of state from pretty much our lives. The state's job is one, to protect us, to protect our freedom, to live by our own mind in pursuit of our own values. That's it. Police, military, a judiciary, to arbitrary disputes, and that's it. No the government intervention. And that's the kind of society where you get heroes. That's the kind of society where people can live great lives, when people can do the best that is possible to them. Live amazing lives because they have the freedom to do so. So Rand changes people's lives. She changes people's lives because she inspires them to greatness. She inspires them to what is possible. She inspires them to use their mind, to pursue their happiness by pursuing the values important to them, the values that challenge them to be the best that they can be. So I hope those of you who haven't read Rand will read her. Those of you who have read her, maybe read her again and read her some more. I think she's the most important thinker of the 20th century and one of the most important thinkers in human history. She inspired me, she's inspired thousands. I hope she inspires you. Thank you all. And I think we've got time for questions. And you can ask the questions in English or Spanish. And if you ask them in Spanish, somebody will yell them at me and translate. Well, no. I'll translate, we'll translate. Don't be shy. And you can ask questions about anything. Which of Ayman's ideas don't I agree with? I agree with all her philosophical ideas. I'm not a philosopher. I'm not at that level. Everything she said philosophically makes sense to me. I don't know of any of her philosophical ideas I disagree with. You know, when it comes to particular applications, I don't know, foreign policy or politics or who to vote for, or things like that. There's lots of things I might disagree with her on particulars. But in terms of philosophical ideas, I pretty much agree with everything she had to say. It's going to be like a million of people that were working for independence and other groups. And I'd like to know whether it's a selfish action or a selfish action. It's going to be a selfish action, and I would like to do charity. But why do I need to do charity? Por lo menos, yo hago lo que me representa, que es una moneteria que hace que me sienta cómoda para ayudar. Y, por lo tanto, es un ámbito de suerte. Pero cuando se trata de una altruista acción, es difícil para mí determinar realmente qué una altruista acción sería buena para mí, porque, al final, todo que se va a ver y ver, es que yo se sacrifí por la alma. Porque no es un ámbito tan barato, o sea que yo me sentí mal, etcétera. Pero entonces, como unnie, podemos decir, es un altruista, ponía algo altruista para otros porque quiero salvarlo, soy tan malo de poder confiar en el sentido que estoy teniendo. Así que, me gusta ver que meった entre un altruismo y un sófico. Esa es la selfisidad. Las ánimas de Rahn venen muy totalmente a la de una transformación con la gente. El sociedad. Y aún entre laslicidades libertarias. Creo que ella la tiene de una manera muy diferente. De ser selfis, es para buscar valores para promover tu vida. Ser selfis, no significa simplemente hacer cosas que te creen que son buenos. Cocayne me hace sentir bueno. No es selfis, hacer cocaine. porque las consecuencias de la longitud son malas. Así que, aunque me hace sentir bien ahora mismo, es malo para mí. Puedes darles la caridad y te hace sentir bien. Pero te hace sentir bien porque tienes una idea falsa de tu guilte, de tu propio suceso. No digo que es sobre ti, pero en general, puedes tener una idea falsa. Y por lo que, por dar la caridad, tienes una idea falsa que va a creer y creer y es muy difícil para ti. Así que tu caridad puede ser malo para ti, tan malo. Puede ser malo. Pero para qualificar como malo, tienes que poder ir a una explicación racional. ¿Por qué es bueno para ti? Y no puedes usar, me hace sentir bien. Los sentimientos no son primeras. ¿Por qué? Así que tienes que poder venir con una explicación racional para que tu caridad sea bueno para ti. Y no creo que la gente haga eso. Creo que la mayoría de las personas les da la caridad de un sentimiento de guilte o solo porque todo el mundo lo hace o solo porque... Y tal vez hace sentir un poco bien, pero no piensa en eso. No es tan malo. El altruismo es hacer una acción que sabes o deberás saber que es maravilloso para ti que te hace worsarte, pero es bueno para otros. La gente lo hace todo el tiempo. Tienes un hermano rato. No es un buen hombre, es un mal hombre, pero él sigue vendiendo a ti solo y te mantienes dando tu dinero. Y sabes que nunca te lo darás. Pero te mantienes dando por qué, porque te sientes malo, porque te sientes malo, porque tienes algo, porque tienes una familia. Pero es malo para ti. Estás perdiendo dinero, nunca te verás de nuevo. Y él es malo, no deberías ser parte de tu vida. Tienes el altruismo, y te mantienes sus intereses debajo de tu propio. Tu propio interés estarás conmigo. O un ejemplo de uno de los libros de Iron Man. Tienes un pintor. Tu sueño es ser un artista, un pintor. Pero tu madre quiere ser un arquitecto. Esto es de la Fountainhead. Tu madre demanda que seas un arquitecto. Entonces, te dices ok, voy a ser un arquitecto de mi madre. Pero esto es tu vida. Y esto va a ser lo resto de tu vida. Sí, te hace tu madre feliz un poco, pero vas a ser miserable para el resto de tu vida. Eso es un sacrificio. Eso es el altruismo. Y yo creo que a la mayoría de las personas acta altruísticamente a la mayoría del tiempo. Más malo. Ahora, en order a vivir, en order a vivir, tenemos que ser un poco selfi. Tenemos que trabajar, tenemos que producir, tenemos que crear, tenemos que caer en amor. Eso es un selfi. Pero hay muchas oportunidades en la que sufrimos. Uno otro ejemplo, y eso es en la política. Yo creo que el altruismo es muy poderoso en la política. Por ejemplo, y no sé cómo funciona en Bolivia, por lo que voy a dar un ejemplo de California. Pero quiero que alcance porque me gusta bajar la taxa porque soy un político. Quiero que alcance en la richa. Y ahora se me da la rica. Y ahora hay que estar con un partido. Pero No quiero hacer taxas en la rica. ¿Por qué no hacemos taxas en la rica? Pues porque tienen dinero y porque a todos les gusta que les guste la rica. Así que es fácil hacer taxas en la rica. Pero la cosa maravillosa en California es que la rica siempre vota para hacer taxas. ¿Por qué? Pues porque lo que hago es decir a las personas ricas que si no hago taxas en la rica estos niños aquí no van a tener una educación. Y las personas ricas saben que esto no es verdad pero lo que pueden hacer es decir, por favor, te daré un poco más. Eso es altruismo. De nuevo, no están tomando lo que es bueno para ellos. Y ellos votan para hacer taxas. Ellos votan para regularse a todos los jóvenes por altruismo. Así que nuestra política es dominada por altruismo. No lo entendí en primer lugar. ¿Cómo lo hago? Así que no estoy exactamente seguro de lo que estás preguntando. Tengo que intentar responder porque ¿Cómo vas de estas ideas abstractas para hablar de Ayn Randall? Para mí, estas ideas abstractas no significan nada con Ayn Randall. Es decir, Ayn Randall es la filosofía de Ayn Randall y creo que su vida se puede hablar de. Creo que la diferencia entre el objectivismo y los libertarians que estás diciendo la diferencia fundamental es que los libertarians no tienen una filosofía. El libertarianismo es una idea política y incluso como una idea no es firme porque tienes todos los tipos de libertarians y se desiguran sobre las preguntas políticas. Randall creo que nunca habrá libertad y nunca habrá la mejor visión de un libertarianismo que algunos libertarians no creen. Sin cambiar las ideas filosóficas del mundo que las políticas y las economías quedan en una fundación filosófica en una fundación de valores en una fundación epistemológica y, al final, una fundación metafísica. Así que la única manera que podrás alcanzar lo que los libertarians quieren es si adviertas para el egoismo para el interés. Y la única manera de hablar sobre el interés es si te digas por razón y tienes un punto de vista epistemológico. Creo que la rigura del movimiento libertario es que no tomó lo más serio que no tomó la filosofía de libertad la filosofía de los mercados. Imagínate me gusta imaginar estas cosas pero es hopeless pero imagínate que Hayek, Mises y Friedman lo tomaron en serio incluso si no lo completó pero lo tomaron en serio como una filosofía, eran economistas los grandes economistas los seguros ellos intentaron pretender, es verdad, que no necesitas la filosofía la filosofía la filosofía Friedman dice que la filosofía no importa los economic truths los economic truths y Hayek lo tomó en la filosofía social pero no creo que es una particularidad original cuando se trata de esas cosas lo que necesitaban era la filosofía y si el Adem Braystein tomó la filosofía la filosofía de libertad porque lo que el libertadismo está perdiendo es un modelo de la fundación epistemológica y no tiene eso ahora, quiere un gran tento pero el costo de un gran tento es perdido Did you get the question? ¿Cuándo haya una filosofía? ¿Cuándo las ideas con las personas en el camino de ideas porque sino que lo que le pasa ¿Qué le pasa? Chile Chile es un modelo de la fundación para los mercados para los mercados del país y nosotros pensábamos que los mercados de la América estarían más liberados y luego regresaron porque las ideas no están preparadas para los sistemas y eso es lo que pasa y no puede tener long-term changes en cuanto a los adecuados y los terrenes para que las ideas puedan ser aplicadas para los mercados para generar gran trabajo para las políticas para las ideas pero no puede tener un efecto long-term y no puede tener un efecto long-term se trata de que el cambio es un cambio de idea no sé si lo voy a decir pero tiene que generar un cambio de ideas para que la política se siente y se siente gratis que es oferta a los mercados para los mercados para los mercados y ahí es la oportunidad de ganar en el long-term en el medio tiempo es más maravilloso pero en realidad en Chile lo sucedió entonces creo que las condiciones porque la mayoría de las personas continúan a pensar que las alturas de los sacrificios que van a ser correctas por la participación de los mercados para votar por la frontera para que nos encarga para que nos trabaje para que nos muden para que la política se siente gratis y que se siente gratis y que nos voten para que nos siente gratis y que nos siente gratis y que nos siente gratis pero en realidad no puede ser aplicada yo diré la cultura de las políticas que necesitamos las personas dicen, ¿por qué no vas a ir a la oficina? vas a ser un buen speaker energético y todo porque lo perdemos nadie quiere votar por estas ideas nadie cree que si tuviera 100.000 personas aquí yo consideraría ir pero no, tenemos 70 personas aquí porque nadie nos agree con eso nuestro objetivo es cambiar la cultura con estas ideas en nuestro controversial y entonces las políticas van a ser así es fácil pero ahora la cultura no está preparada si fuimos honestos si fuimos honestos y dices lo que realmente creo como si fuimos a América dice, tenemos que tener la seguridad privatizar la medicaría tener la regulación del gobierno tener la estatua de la welfare así que tienes que preparar la cultura para estas ideas y eso hace mucho tiempo no hablaba mucho de la Segunda Armada no pensaba no pensaba que era tan importante como muchos libertarians y conservadores es un issue complicado en la una mano tienes una derecha de self defensa y tienes una derecha deberías siempre llamar a la policía pero tienes una derecha en la emergencia para poder defenderse y creo que ella cree que ella tiene la right a tener las armas para defenderse eso no incluye un tanque no incluye un tanque y no incluye un gran arma probablemente incluye un arma de mano o un arma de disparo así que el gobierno tiene un rol en ayudarnos a definir lo que es que si estás en el lado del país y si te llamas a la policía a tomar unas tres horas tienes que tener una gran arma para defenderse y si estás en la ciudad y la policía está en el lado de la mano puede ser un arma de mano así que es nombrado tienes que pensar en esto y tienes que pensarlo y necesitas las filosofías de la ley para realmente articular y pensar en los casos de la legislación sobre la regulación de armas no es para que puedas owning nada pero ella también no creía que el gobierno debería dejar todo y luego es una pregunta de finding la right balance creo que el debate en los Estados Unidos sobre las rights de armas es muy salvo y muy emocional y no muy nuances y bien porque he visto la historia que promueve algunos elementos de la libertad como la propiedad o lo que estamos viviendo o el cambio de los servicios como el camino de los colegios o si quiero seguir o no el comandante cuando me personalizo mi fe entendiendo que no puedo explicar pero eso es un ejemplo de los valores de las mañanas pero como sabes no no sería un ejemplo de eso Rand no dice valores lo que sea o lo que sea o lo que sea y eso significa que te interesa ella dice no ella dice que eres un being de la naturaleza te adecuas valores particulares y esos must be the values y los principales todos ofrecemos a los seres humanos y esos son los valores de la moral y el número uno de los valores de la moral para los seres humanos es la rationalidad usando tu mente y en ese sentido cualquier cosa que compromete cada vez que te pones razón por eso te adecuas tus valores adecuas tu vida adecuas tu posibilidad de la felicidad así que creo que por eso no si crees algo tienes que tener una razón rational por eso por qué es un valor por qué debes procurar cómo se engancha tu vida Rand es no un subjectivista sino un subjectivista filosófica ella es un subjectivista filosófica ella crea que tus valores son basados en tu naturaleza y la naturaleza de la realidad y te adecuas valores que te adecuas tu vida basado en los factos de la realidad basado en evidencia siempre basado en razón gracias