 You know this So why do I like this? Why do I use it so much? Why is this a great prop for talks that I give? What is it about this? That makes it so effective at least I think it's effective because I use it so often better be What does the iPhone represent? What does it mean? Why is this so important at least to me? Why do I think it represents What we be talking about so far at least on the side of of of egoism and selfish It represents taking your life seriously It represents taking your life seriously both in its production Think about Steve Jobs. Think about what he represents. Think about the focus the energy a single-mindedness and his emphasis on beauty and efficiency and Just the creative genius that he was the energy he projected and the product that he made so Here's a symbol of somebody taking his life seriously It represents What he talked about in terms of think was Keith in terms of value for value the trade of principle He is a product that Steve Jobs made and that I love He made money off of it and it was an expression of his Ability his passion his world view so he benefited and I benefit as I say many times in my talk This is worth a lot more than the thousand dollars. I paid for it for a variety of reasons Which I've talked about over and over again and So you get the producers passion You get and and kind of taking life seriously you get the trade of principle and then you get my use of it I Mean I love this because it's attached to my hip and I use it all the time and I use it all the time for what I I use it to enhance my life to learn about the world to listen to music to navigate to get to the crazy places I go to Because I take my life seriously I want a tool that allows me to maximize my ability to live execute on my life so The iPhone really represents a lot of what we're talking about in a sense of in in in a sense of Attitude stores it how we use it and how it was produced and this idea of the trade assistant And of course in that sense it represents What capitalism is all about? It represents What capitalism is about because what is capitalism about at the end of the day? What is capitalism all about why do we care about capital? Why should we care about capital because capitalism is the system of the pursuit of happiness It's a system that allows us to pursue our own values as producers as consumers As traders. It's not just some abstract theory. It's not just some abstract system It is the only system in human history that leaves us free to pursue our values as individuals That allows us to pursue Ultimate value of happiness our life of flourishing our success as human being and you know, this is why It's so important This is why I'm so passionate about it not because it's Pareto optimal which you know like some definitions maybe it is But that's meaningless Because it makes my life has the potential to make my life better and all of your life's better It's because it means something to each one of us. It makes it possible for us to pursue our happiness How does it do that? Why is capitalism the system of the pursuit of happy? Why does it make that possible? How does that work? Why is it the only? political social economic system consistent with the egoism and Why is it inconsistent with altruism? We heard two talks today about what altruism is and about what selfishness is. This is the system of selfishness And selfishness is the morality of happiness the morality of life Well, because as Keith told us To be an egoist to be selfish requires what? What is Invan's morality? What's the one key virtue though? The one key reason rationality We need to be able to think we need to be able to solve problems We need to be able to figure out how to live. We're not programmed with that knowledge We don't have that embedded in our gene. We don't know how to live instinctually We have to choose how we live. We have to learn how to live We have to evaluate the world evaluate reality set goals Figure out how to achieve those goals how to achieve those value We have to use our mind our mind is our only tool to be able to achieve those values to pursue those goals So reason is our means To that end the end being life the end being flourishing the end being happiness Reason is the way we attain that reason has one crucial enemy Rationality has one thing Where we just can't you can't be rational being rational as irrelevant. It doesn't make any difference So there's one context in which you cannot produce a rifle You might have You won't even try to produce an eye Just like for example, there are lots of medicines today. There's a lot of research today. The Sun nobody even tried Because of what what is the thing that? Makes it impossible really to be rational to use reason to think force a gun Only points a gun to the back of your head It doesn't matter what you think And why bother because it doesn't matter what you think all that matters is you better do what you're told Otherwise life is over Indeed you can see force manifest itself all over our society today You know one application of it is regulation, right? If I tell you that you need permission in order to start a business and That permission will not be granted to you if you start this type of business Then you're not even going to think about starting this type It's walled off a whole section of reality from you because There's nothing you can do about it. There's no actual application you can do because somebody has said if you Involved here. There's no permission You're never gonna be able to make a living at it. You never gonna be able to do anything practical with it You know there's plenty of areas within for example Bio biotechnology that have been walled off by regulation Be basic you said and we don't approve stuff like that even the way you know There's a lot of talk today about life extension and life extension medicine There's a lot of research and a lot of stuff But all of it is within certain walls because that because they have to first cure disease Because the FDA will not approve things that are just life extending so nobody does just like so I mean, that's just one little area. There are thousands of these that exclude human thought or take a History in which new innovators new thinkers will often go into the stake well That makes clear what I should do not get burnt at the stake if my life is in value. I'm not gonna think So force is the one enemy a reason they're for the one enemy of self-interest of the pursuit of happiness and Other people inflicting force on you is the thing that you want to make sure you don't encounter if we're gonna Have a society if we're gonna live among other people and there's a huge value to doing so and force is the one thing We want to extract Force is the one thing we want to make sure We don't deal with one another using Because it is an indication of the thing that makes life possible our mind a reasoning a Rational capability and that's This concept of the concept of individual rights is captures that idea It captures the idea that in a society In a civilized society is what we're striving toward Force is unacceptable Individual rights is the concept that says that each one of us as an individual is free Free to use your mind to pursue your values Free of what? free of the use of force on you and Notice that this concept implicitly assumes what? That you should pursue your values that pursuing your values is a good thing and They're using your mind to pursue the values is the right way to do it. It excludes this idea I think there was an a this question about interest about What about the bad guy who has thinks he has an interest right? The Al Capone thinks it says in his interest to shoot people and kill people Well implicit in the idea of individual rights is the view That that's unacceptable. You know we'll talk about whether it's interest or not, but it's unacceptable That is not an appropriate way of pursuing one's interest that appropriate way pursuing one's interest Is by using one's mind the enemy of using one's mind is Al Capone so you want to exclude Al Capone from the equation And we need in order to implement that we need in order to implement the idea of Excluding force we need to form an institution a monopoly over the use of force Whose job is to exclude force? His job is to protect us from the use of force from the Al Capone's of the world The rest of them to objectively try them and to punish them Keep them away from the rest of it So the concept of rights is a concept that bridges a morality of self-interest a morality Pursuing your values a morality of using your mind to pursue your interest with okay Well, what kind of political system does that mean? So it's a bridging concept between a morality and our politics and our social philosophy I saw ideas about how we live in a social con It's not ingrained in us. We don't have quote natural rights in a sense that somehow they're implanted in us So they're given it to us by God It's a concept that explains explain how we must live if We are to pursue our happy to pursue our life In a social context so you can see that capitalism now this idea of capitalism, which is the idea of a system of government Where the government sole responsibility is the protection of individual rights is Dependent now on a very specific conception of man Man as thinking Thinking being a rational being and Man is needing freedom freedom from coercion freedom force in order to pursue his value So it's a positive conception of The kind of world we need to create so that human beings can thrive and flourish and live their lives to the fullest can take life seriously and Not be constrained and limited By other people's whims other people's desires are propones called interests Imposed significant limitations and our interest by definition. That's what force does So capitalism as an ideal is The system in which Government so responsibility is the protection of individual rights. It's a system in which there's a complete separation between the government and in a sense our lives our economic lives they have no interference in Steve Jobs Decision to build an iPhone is vision for it the exact engineering that goes into it the beauty on lack of beauty that appears in it government has no business in there It has no business Somebody serious going on That because I said Steve Jobs Steve jobs coming back It has no business in that trade that I engage in with Apple and telling me whether that trade is good or bad Right or wrong. How could it? It's based on my values and it's based on apples value. How do they know what my values are? I don't know what apples values are That win-win relationship is none of their business They have no role to play So I have no role in the production side They have no role in the trade side and they have no role in my consumption decision Note that today they have a role in every single one of them, right the production side All kinds of rules and regulations may be the most dominant in the case of Apple because it's a relatively Unregulated businesses employment law all kinds of rules about how employees should be treated How much they should be paid and what all of that, right? On the trade where I can buy it under what terms I can buy it and then of course There's usually attacks on top of the buying And my consumption the same kind of thing in every one of these pieces The state today has a role in that sense We don't live under capitalism even though I use Apple as an example of what capitalism produces It's an example of what the ideal of capitalism kind of the underlying ideal Produces it even though we don't have capitalism It's like that the idea of free production the idea of free trade the idea of frequency of freedom and consumption To the extent that we have it we get iPhones to the extent that we don't we don't get iPhone It's a capitalism is the system. It's grounded on this idea of rights It's there to protect us for force For a reason always remember the reason It's not you know too many particularly libertarians think you know freedom liberty capitalism. That's the ideal That's what we're striving towards. That's the whole purpose. No It is an ideal but there's a reason it's an ideal It's an ideal because We value our life It's an ideal because it's the only system that leaves us free to live a flourishing successful life. It's an ideal because Fundamentally only we as individuals could choose our own values and choose the path in pursuit of those values Only we can reason for ourselves and therefore capitalism is ideal because it allows us leaves us free To pursue those values to pursue that light and it's why capitalism is incompatible with altruism It's incompatible with the idea of self-sacrifice Yes, in a sense under capitalism you are free to sacrifice yourself But a society that believes that sacrificing yourself is noble is good that altruism is the appropriate morality capitalism cannot survive because Every one of the transactions every one of the engagements the whole principle of the system is built on your right to your own life You'll write to your own happiness That the purpose of your life is your own success that is baked into capital It's the reason it exists at the reason that Political system evolved it started from the idea that each one of us has a mind each one of us is capable of reason each one of us is an Individual and his life is sacred and Now you want to tell me Yeah capitalism is great, but the real purpose of life is to sacrifice that your life is meaningless That the group is all important. Well, if the group is all important, why should I pursue my values? If the group is all important shouldn't Steve Jobs consult with other people about what the iPhone should include Shouldn't he get permission from the government? Maybe to see what features he should or shouldn't include Shouldn't he maybe take a vote or poll? Or maybe even a what do you call it? focus group a test group to see if people even like it because the purpose is not his Vision his values his ideal the purpose is satisfying others and sacrificing himself And you're on what do you buy an iPhone for the people starving in Africa? So why you pursuing an iPhone if altruism is serious then why engage? Why aren't you giving money to starving people somewhere? And of course if you're not Iran or if you're not Steve Jobs If you continue to pursue the self-interested goal in spite of the fact that you know Altruism is the right morality Then we're just gonna have to do something about we're just gonna have to use force to stop you Oh, but you say force is bad, but why? Why is it bad if achieve some social well-being if it results in sacrifices sacrifice good So once you accept altruism once you accept the morality of sacrifice You can't be against force and if the goal of force is ultimately the well-being of somebody who needs it And it's okay So all these attempts and you see it all over the place from conservatives and libertarians that justify capitalism some social utility perspective or some You know idea of self-sacrifice or idea of altruism. It's good for the people It cannot work. It never will work. It never has work and indeed quite the opposite whatever freedoms we had However close we got to capitalism We are declining and moving away from it because of Altruism because the only defenses have been from altruism and they cannot stand in The face of the altruistic attack against yeah, I have to stand it as the well-being of the poor. I shouldn't buy my iPhone There are plenty of kids out there that needs saving and to be able to stand and say tough I'm gonna buy the iPhone in spite of that requires you to be self-interested and Not just be self-interested but also have the kind of pride that on car talked about That says I'm self-interested. I know it and that's right and that's just and I understand why it's right And it's just I'm not gonna succumb to the guilt that you're trying to impose on me Which a whole society is constantly trying to impose on us Particularly and those who have been successful particularly in those who have who have achieved great things or produced great things and achieved great fortunes They're constantly and attack Trying to be guilty and the sad Tragedy in the world in which we live today is that they don't have the pride They don't have the knowledge many of them They don't have the self-esteem and the confidence the more confidence to say I don't feel guilty What I'm doing is right and just the wealth I've earned is mine Objectivism would give them those words would give them those ideas Would change their soul to be able to do that and stand up in front of their supposed accusers If they allowed it to do so We get books into their hands and they would take them serious so Capitalism is a system of individual rights Capitalism is the system really of Selfishness of self-interest of egoism. It's the antithesis of altruism and It must be defended on the basis of individual rights Which can only be defended on a morality of egoism and And the idea of selfishness and a morality a system That is a system of self-interest. It's not just interest It's a whole, you know a Whole morality whole system already and I really encourage you those of you haven't yet to read the virtue of selfishness To read the writings about what? It entail But all of this entail what the morality entail and why it's so important and at the end of the day It's important not because of capitalism. It's important because what it does to your life It gives you the self-esteem the confidence to live a full life It gives you permission. It's the wrong word, but it gives you the knowledge To take your life seriously To live your life to the fullest To achieve the flourishing and happiness that every one of you is capable of and only when you do that I Think can you turn to changing the world? Can you turn to fighting for? Capitalism, so why do I use my iPhone? Because I think it captures It captures everything that I find important about these ideas It captures what the potential of capitalism is That is rarely achieved and I think the iPhone Symbolizes a case where it has been achieved It symbolizes the kind of life that we could all be living the kind of tools that we could all have The kind of freedom that is possible in the world It's about our own personal values about we value as individuals Right, that's why I can use the iPhone because it truly is a value. I'm not lying to you. I'm not it's not an act Hey, so when you think about capitalism Rather than think as an abstraction Think about the things that are important in your life Make it personal Because it is it's about your life Your ability to be happy your ability to be successful your ability to take life seriously and thrive Thank you. Nicos is gone Where's Nicos? Oh, there you are. I missed my four minutes. Sorry All right. Yeah Questions on anything Does it work? Yeah, great. So in the view of a bit of objectivism We should primarily be self-central than every care for the others is a derivative of that But the care for others is many times important Does it have any other name other than a benevolent Benevolent is it is this the name and then I'm talking I want to think for a second about Future society or less a fair society where I'm wondering if we if it would be rational to judge other people according to among other stuff according to the level of Of Benevolence how much do they Acknowledge other other others people needs in the in the trade of living together and then even another Hypothetical question is if I were a business owner in this futuristic less a fair capitalistic society Would it be rational for me to demand my employees to donate some of the money to a public organization as some kind of proof of their Benevolence Yeah, that'll prove that they're benevolent when you force them when you when you require them to do it That's very benevolent of them, right? You know, they're just keeping their jobs. I'm not sure how that links the benevolence. Okay, so we'll get we'll get to all of that I think I'm gonna forget half the question. You ask first. I would never use the word soft the term self-scent it I'd self-centred. I don't like it. You know, it's it's I don't think of myself as self-scented in the sense that the world revolves around me I am the most important thing to me, but that doesn't mean the world revolves around me Which was such self-centered means I think self-scented is often Actually the kind of negative selfishness that you know is people that are self-centered They treat people other people badly because other people supposed to just revolve around them So I would definitely separate those out. We're not self-centered. We're not advocating for that Other people the value of other people is in a sense. They value to you. Yes But there's a sense in which they value to you because they're people, right? So it's not that you're measuring. Okay, you give me five and you give me four and you know And I don't know you so I'm gonna give you all There's something about human life that is valuable to you and that is the knowledge of how precious life is how? significant life is how much life a beautiful life is and How much that life can ultimately contribute to me, but that's just one of I mean think about think about the fact that we love Some people not me, but some of you love your pets, but I don't have pets, but you like animals. Why? There are value to you. They give you something that's not particularly tangible some kind of visibility They provide you but part of it is that they were living being. I love I like plants What do they give me nothing? Not visibility, right? They don't look you in the eyes with that sad look the dogs do You can pretend that they actually know what you think. I don't know whatever, right? So why do I have a plant because it's a living thing. It's it's this beauty in the fact that it's alive So I love other human beings because even they're much more than plant, right? So I love them much more than I love a plant so I Think benevolence is one term although again I think in a sense benevolence is a broader term because benevolence is a whole attitude towards the world Towards reality. It's not just a term that relates to your your attitude towards other people So I wouldn't use benevolence just in that context Benevolence is a much broader term. It's it's it's your attitude towards the world and reality and human beings are part of that They have a positive attitude towards human beings You know, you can use charitable you can use you know, you can just use Benevolence towards people or you could just use nice to human beings But again, I'm nice to human beings because the human because human beings represent a value to me Would I evaluate people and how much charity they give I think that's what you were getting to know Absolutely, not to a large extent because you don't know what's going on in their lives You don't know if the charity is a sacrifice or if they have the money to give or if they value the same causes as you value It has to be their value. They have to know that this represents a value to them if they're gonna be charitable to wood and You can't evaluate that for them Again, what's their child is sick and they the the the money is going to treat him a half You know just to make it dramatic right that they need to save the money for you You don't know then and that's and the whole point of you know in a sense Telling people that you're the terms of your employment require you to give charity. I Mean, that's not a sign of benevolence. I want to keep that job So they're gonna give they're gonna give the charity right they're gonna do what you tell them to do or they'll leave just what they should do but It's you're not Embracing, you know, they're not embracing this kind of charitable ability that would only be that would have to be a choice that they make and Again, it has to be a choice within a context of their values their lives What's available to them? Now if somebody's a joke towards other people if somebody really is nasty and horrible and doesn't like other human beings and treats and Like shit. Yeah, you evaluate that, you know say value any human beings is complicated But I there's no okay, how much does he give to charity as a line item that I that I Use for that kind of I said this many times. I don't think charity is that important. I just don't know why the obsession with it Hasn't really, you know, it helps some people in in times of emergency, but it's just not that important for the most part You know life has gotten better on earth Not because of charity other people are better off Come out of poverty if succeeded like not because of chat just not important Thank you Thanks So my question relates one of the things that have become more relevant over the last two years again Which is vaccination and inoculation? I think it's very interesting that I ran stated that there is some room for the government to actually force inoculation on the population And I want to challenge that as in in a starting from the assumption that you would have a completely free society I think that I don't see the reason for the government intervention where for example a Grocery store can choose who they want to Leave into their store what they require for them in terms of protection in terms of inoculation And then the same would go for parks and what are now public spaces what but what that would then be Private spaces again, so I don't really see the need for force in there, and I think that free market could what a free Yeah, the free society could fix that itself Yeah, so I think absolutely in in in 99% of the cases 99.9% of the cases that works that You know as long as we're completely free as long as property is completely private Then private individuals can make choices by the businesses can make choices Can make choices about these things and that's and that would work, right? But the two two issues they want is they're gonna be cases where that's not good enough But when you Infected with a disease Constituted a threat on other people and where private businesses cannot check on that imagine if Ebola it wasn't COVID It was Ebola and Ebola you get you die You know, it's hard to give to other people today, but imagine a strain of Ebola where you could other people could get it easily And You're a walking threat by the very nature of you being out there among people you are violating their rights So what Ryan said is it is absolutely appropriate for the government to take a person like that and isolate them and Exclude them from being a threat to other people So the government has a position there and and it's not like the storm and knows if you have Ebola or not, right? You could lie remember the government is there to protect us from people who don't respect our rights Right if they all respected our rights if nobody committed murder under, you know, maybe the maybe we'll need Any government, right? But that's not the case. There's always somebody who's gonna I mean we'd always need a government for a variety of positive reasons, but Even the protection function depends on the fact that there exist people out there with bad motives and bad reasons who are not rational Who do stupid things and you need a government to protect it's absolutely appropriate for the government in certain? Circumstances and these circumstances need to be made objective They need to be clearly defined and I'm not gonna do that right now But they need it because I don't know but that this is real thinking needs I mean I recommend uncle got his essay on On on on COVID it was published What's two years ago now or a year and a half ago? Where he kind of lays out what would it look like under a free market to actually have a legal regime that respected individual rights And what would be the role of government under such a process? I think that's you know You would have to define what kind of disease would the government get involved in So that would be one more and then and then what kind of involvement depending on how bad it was And what would that involvement look like but you would have to define all these things but to say no You know in freedom. We can take care of it. Well, we can take care of everything And you know, but no we can't because you constitute a threat to other people and There are plenty of irrational people out there that we won't protect it and remember we don't live under capital That's the other aspect. There's plenty of stuff in the world in which we live today that is not private property So what do you do about all the stuff that I mean? Yes, in a laser fair capitalist society There's certain things that would happen that you cannot you cannot apply today And in you know in cases like this you have to deal with public property and public spaces and what happens And you know whether we like it or not the government's run the hospitals or they control the hospital So once once a government runs a hospital then you know, how does it make sure that it's not overrun? And it becomes Once whites are violated once a government gets involved in our lives. It can't just say well in this case We're just letting the hospitals overrun because hey, let's say, but there's no as if it So it's mixed economies are hard and it's hard to decide what is right and what is wrong politically within a mixed economy because of that because The government restricts all the hospital beds It doesn't allow new hospital beds and then when the hospital belts are needed It just says well now I'm gonna leave it alone and let let let let them all collapse. Okay, so you It's one of the evils of having a mixed economy is that the government has to do a lot more than it should do in times of an emergency In in a free market Government would add no involvement in hospitals. They wouldn't care about hospital capacity That would be a private sector problem and that would be an issue But we don't live in that world so the government has to care about hospital capacity because it's responsible for hospital capacity Okay, thanks So you're on not in the mixed economy, but in a culture that embraced Capitalism and individual rights properly understood. How would that culture react to the war in Ukraine? And to somebody like president Zelensky His calls for help Well, I mean the problem is that what happened in Ukraine wouldn't happen in such a cult that is Putin wouldn't dare So in a culture that respected freedom that respected individualism the respected property You know Putin wouldn't dare to do what he did a culture that would have responded to his previous Acts of aggression properly. He wouldn't care to escalate those acts of aggression. It's only our weakness It's only our lack of principle It's only the fact that we didn't respond to the act of aggression in the past that made this possible But I think that appropriate Question then is You know, it's okay. So let's say he the culture converted today. Well, what should our attitude be right now? And look Russia's an aggressor and it's an aggressor it's using force. It's invaded another country It is unequivocally the bad guy here There's nothing positive to say about Russia and none of these so-called expert. Oh, they were afraid of NATO different None of that has any of the business NATO is not an aggressor has not been an aggressor against Russia Russia is at fault here. So it's a it's a bad act. And then the question is what do you do about it? What is the appropriate response in a rational world towards it? Well, if you're in Europe and You're worried and you see this and you live in Europe and and and Let's say Russia was capable of taking Ukraine. It looks like they're not but I'd say they were capable of taking Ukraine then what's next and if I were Poland or Slovakia or you know anybody on that border Romania You know even Germany, I'd be worried. It's a real threat He's clearly expressed ambitions that go beyond the border of Ukraine He's a person that bishops over the Balkans and he's just say ambitions towards the old Soviet Union You know Putin said that the greatest tragedy of the 20th century is not World War one or World War two or the Holocaust Anything like that. It was the breakup of the Soviet Union So he has a goal that do away with that breakup. You have to take that seriously and as Europe I would think that you would mount a defense of Europe of your own country and that would mean Helping Ukraine in whatever way possible defeating the Russians in whatever way possible without igniting a nuclear war how to do that exactly It's probably beyond the scope of my knowledge, but Can't just sit back. This is a real threat to every person who Likes whatever freedom. We still have in Europe. Now. I don't think that's the case for America America's far away Putin is not a threat to America. This is why I don't think America should be part of NATO I think NATO should be an alliance to protect Europe. Europe has a threat. It's called Russia Today it's there to protect From Russia. The United States doesn't even even evolve. Europe is rich. It's wealthy You can mount an army and and by the way conventional warfare wise NATO would crush Russia in days. You can see how pathetic they are, you know versus Ukraine So yeah, I mean this would be something that you would actually you would actually get involved in In terms of evaluating Zelensky. Look before the war He was a very mixed because you know, there was a lot of corruption and continued to be a lot of corruption in Ukraine It wasn't exactly the symbol and emblem of freedom It was better It was moving generally in the right direction I visited Kiev a number of times and clearly The desire was to become more western the desire was to move towards more freedom They were struggling to figure out how to do that given the history of corruption That was really ingrained into their political system. They were trying to you know When you when you have every president kind of be corrupt It's hard suddenly to be the good guy who cleans everything up And without also seeming to be destroying democracy now i'm not changing Zelensky did that or didn't I don't know enough about it But generally the trend was positive trend But once the war started the guy has Risen to the challenge in an unbelievably inspiring way. I mean, he's a hero He basically has stood his ground. He's fighting not for some mythical collectivist idea of Ukraine In the same way Putin is Putin is fighting for a mystical Russia and all you have to do is listen to his speeches He talks about the the soul of the Russian people the the unity of the Russian whatever Right, it's complete mysticism and complete at other unmitigated collectivist Zelensky is fighting for his home fighting his family one of the most inspiring things about him But generally about all the Ukrainians interviewed is that they know exactly what they're fighting They're fighting for Their family their life their home Their little community and yes Ukraine as as a as a relatively free state But it always starts when you ask them with themselves with their own life with their own property with your own people they love In in a you know, you know self-interested guy Why why why should people why would an egoist ever fight in a war? Because their life depended on it because they values depended on because they freedom depended on and you've seen that comes through It with the Ukrainians as they fight. I think this war is illustrative of a lot of different things, you know that Why authoritarianism can never really be successful? Why are people highly motivated by their own selfish reasons are far A far more likely to win a war than are people motivated by Mysticism and nothingness Why weapons in the west the fossil-period of weapons from russia all of these things? I mean, you're seeing it's a real I mean, there's a real learning opportunity here Uh in in terms of what collectivism and what mysticism and what nationalism produces This is what the potential of freedom to produce is and that contrast Hopefully people will learn something from it, but it's right in front of it. Yep. Thank you Okay, so This iphone is mine your iphone is yours We both have the freedom to utilize this tangible property. Yep The intangible idea behind it I'm not quite sure so my question to you is If someone made that exact same technology identically Using their own resources and own materials What gives us the right to in this use to initiate force against them for utilizing their property as such Intellectual property rights essentially. Yeah, so Because somebody created the ideas The intellectual property That put all that together That every one of those elements is a product of a human brain of a human mind and You're copying it And you're not rewarding the person who invented it Somebody actually it's it's no different than physical property in that set, right? I That to makes a physical property yours you put work into it. It's yours. You can't take it not just because I happen to draw a liner on it because It involves my effort my work my action You know in the intellectual property that goes into the phone is the product of somebody's mind And they own it They own it just like they own other products of their mind Now it's different so it has a like said limited life span and all that all kinds of laws and and and control and Different application. It's applied in different ways and physical property. But fundamentally It's the fact that somebody created it and you just you know copying it Is a rejection and and of the fact that somebody else made it Made it, right? You're not you're not compensating them for the fact That you're just copying and you should And indeed that's what intellectual property rights usually do is you'd go negotiate with them You buy the right to use it and you use it. It's not like it limits the ability to use these things Look at samsung. How similar is that to nifo? That doesn't actually limit what happens under a free moment And say hypothetically this person made the product without knowing of The original innovator in that sense. Yeah Would that still be immoral from the part of the from your perspective? I don't think it would be I don't think it would be moral for somebody who invented it from scratch and didn't Copy anything to do it, but it would be illegal Okay Because the law recognized the property ownership of this person It grants them a certain lifespan and the new person entering is violating that so he was innocent He didn't know you don't blame him morally for doing that But you don't facilitate it because the person who invented it originally the guy who The guy who comes for coming in first matters And doing it first Gives him his ability to profit from it And if you're taking that away from him That would be illegal in a free society How would you objectively determine the lifespan of the say patent? I don't have an answer to that. Okay. I mean talk to At a masar for redine rand's essay. I mean that there has to be some consideration of Um You know of of who invented it You know the enough time for them to be able to make profits off of it But without it going on forever so that it stifles all future innovation How you actually come up with that? Length is for legal philosophers not too hard. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you very much But the iron man just got an essay in capitalism I don't know an idea the book I recommend everybody read on patents and copyrights She she she goes through the reasoning how you would set that time frame Um, and and I think that makes I think that that reasoning makes sense What the exact number is I think is going to depend on a variety of different contextual issues Um, and it's probably in some cases today too long for some things and too short for other things because today It's not determined by any kind of legal philosophical methodology. Today. It's determined by political Lobbying it's determined by by poll politics right like disney has a lot of power So uh mickey mouse's copyright has been extended Basically for almost forever Other people don't have political power pharmaceutical companies Their patent rights are probably shorter than they should be Yeah You touched on the great opportunities we have for example to buy an iphone or not But if we look at other countries around the world There are very poor people who live in unimaginably Unimaginably conditions and they don't have that opportunity Why isn't it unfair that they don't have that opportunity and don't have the same education as we have to make those choices Yeah, I mean it's it's it's terrible that they don't and This is why it's important to fight for capitalism if you care about human life if you care about people's opportunities If you if you want people to have the opportunities to live successful good happy life If you know as benevolent being we want that then yes And the solution of that is capitalism the solution of that is freedom. There's a reason Why we are relatively rich and they're relatively poor and in terms of countries and the reason is always The kind of political system they live on diverse is the kind of political system We live under the ideas that animate us versus the ideas that animate them And and it's it's it's you know So if you care about that all those philanthropists who seem to care a lot about Africa Cool, they should be promoting capitalism in Africa And that would get people out of poverty or a lot of them buy iPhones It will increase the number of opportunities they have and and that's just on the material side But fundamentally they could pursue happiness They could actually use their reason think about all the increased production that would be in the world All of us would be better off everybody becomes better off as everybody becomes freer So yeah, I you know, it's not like I don't care about the fact that they are poor people in parts of the world They can't benefit from all the wonders. It's we do care, but that the solution is not Me sacrificing the opposite the solution is to bring them the kind of freedom and liberty that We know works With decentralization Being a rising term in the space of web 3 cryptocurrency NFTs and the eminent metaverse I'm interested to get a real take On a objectivist view of these technologies and what it could do for Pushing human innovation forward Um Well, the problem is that half of those things. I don't know what they are I mean, I kind of know what they are, but I don't really know what they are So I'm I'm bringing it to a large extent, right? Look objectivism. It doesn't have a position in any particular technology. We're pro technology We're pro progress. We're pro innovation Um, so it really depends on to some extent what all that means if you think if if you think as some people think The crypto the crypto will save the world and we'll all become free And we'll have to we'll skip over philosophy and we'll skip over Politics and we'll skip over that we'll just be free because we're living up Then no that ain't happen The solution to the world's problem is not bitcoin even though bitcoin might be fantastic It might be a great tool might be a great product. It might be really really important It won't solve our problem and putting on 3d glasses and living in the metaverse Is not living it's it's entertainment. It's it's it could be more than entertainment They might be trade there. They might be spiritual values. They might be a lot of stuff there But you still live in a physical world And force is still applied to you on the physical world and as long as that case you're not free You you know, you you might be free for those moments that you're out there And and even that is probably controlled because there probably limits on what they could show you and what they could screen And who you are and they've gathered me information about you and all kinds of things, right? And they might use who you shoot you you don't shoot To to to politically categorize you and give you a social score And who knows right how this is going to be used. So it doesn't solve The political problem. There's no shortcuts in that Uh, so I'm all you know Generally, I'm pro all innovations even when I don't understand them. Um, I'm generally pro technology and and moving forward I I resist the temptation of of blaming all our problems I don't know on social media or This technology that because I'm old enough to remember when all our problems were blamed on kids listening to the radio too much Or watching tv too much or listening to radio. I'm not that old but watching tv I am uh, and um So so I'm skeptical about the fact that technology is the problem You know, it's our ideas that are the problem. We won't change the world But I have very pro innovation very pro progress. It excites me that these things are happening There's a sense in which it excites me that I don't understand them because that means they're over there Which is great, right that they're pushing ahead faster than I can keep up um Yeah, I mean, I'm generally very excited about Technology biotech and particularly right now excites me crisper gene editing, you know super babies, whatever Um, I'm excited about those technologies I'm excited about the ability to enhance human life and and expand the realm of opportunities to happen Which I think technology allows Thank you. I mean, I'm looking waiting for the day where I show my affluent every good old that old product You know, we're way ahead of that. So that that'll be cool Yep What's the objectivist response? No. No, I have it lower. No, just start the question at the mic not Okay, okay What's an objectivist response to strategic threats? So if it's um say Huawei bidding for 5g infrastructure in the uk are Huawei being for 5g infrastructure in the uk or if it's No, we Huawei Chinese company. Oh, how are we? Oh, well, okay Or if it's a Nord Stream 2 we're Germany and Russia collaborating and if it's more protectionism is there a route for Well-behaved countries to eventually collaborate across borders Yeah, it's so hard in a world Where farm policy is not guided by any principle In a world where almost all governments are mixed economies and mixture of authoritarianism and freedom Um to then give specific advice about a particular project um, I mean if Something like Nord Stream 2 requires government of authorization and Germany is sitting in and knows, you know, the German government has to improve it Or maybe even fund it and they know they're going to become dependent on Russia Well, then of course, why would they do it? It's like Duh and right now they're going through the Duh moment, right where they're realizing Yeah, but we everybody knew this. No, it doesn't surprise anybody, right? They shut down the nuclear power plants. I mean you can go on and on about all of german strategic Uh challenges as a mixed economy where the government has evolved in making itself making itself dependent completely on russian Why don't you in the uk those of you who live in the uk? Why aren't you fracking? there is I don't know how many decades worth of natural gas right under the soil right here in the uk Available relatively for free not for free, but relatively cheaply energy companies want to get at it And the government won't let you And yet everybody talks about these and the options and knows that and nobody talks about it's right here The solution is right here. Just freedom is the solution How is it a different is a difficult issue, right? If there's reason to believe how is this telecommunication chinese telecommunication company? If there's reason to believe and it probably is that how is being used by the chinese government to spy on us And it it could be taken over by the chinese government and therefore infrastructure would be shut down Then the solution is not The solution is then to ban how? And yes, should free countries ban together to exclude certain companies or certain entities that That threaten it. Yes, they should right. We shouldn't have a united nations It's an abomination. We should have a united free country alliance. I don't know what you want to call right? And that is where these kind of issues would be discussed but The point is I think the point the more important point is That in a world in which a country like america actually stood for freedom and liberty and actually had self respect and pursued its own Interests in the world stage and protected individual rights and represented capitalism. None of these issues would come up Right, you wouldn't have to defend taiwan because they wouldn't dare And it wasn't that they wouldn't dare because america might intervene but because they wouldn't dare Because they'd know what was involved and they wouldn't dare And and and and how we wouldn't be even an issue. Of course, you don't deal with You know authoritarians or people who want to kill you or real threats to you Everything is much clearer once you stand on the good guy side But if you're not a good guy If you're like mixed you're better You're much better, but you're not quite good And you know and you're certainly not proud of being good and you know to assert the fact that you're good And you don't associate only with good people. I mean I've said You know My farm policy, I I wouldn't have an embassy in china. I wouldn't have an embassy in russia I wouldn't have an embassy in about 150 countries in the world. Right. Why do we recognize diplomatically authoritarian? Why do we have an embassy in saudi arabia? We shouldn't have as a government not as a people you might want to trade with them. It is a as a government Why do you sanction regimes that are evil and hostile? so But that's that's unimaginable right now. We're sanctioning everybody in russia But we still have an ambassador there And we still have diplomatic relations and we still treat them as a legitimate country And there's still a security council of the united nations But we really think they're evil and then biden says Putin shouldn't be president everybody flips out You can't say that. How can you say that? How can you devine in the internal affair? What are we doing? It's exactly we're saying they evil, but you can't say they're evil Because you know, you don't nobody has a self-esteem the confidence to actually do it's a biden did by accident because almost everything he does I think it's by accident and But it turned out to be a really good thing that he did And yet the world is accusing him of you know, the democrats and the republicans all accusing him of you can't say that You can't call for the deposition of foreign leader. Why? so it's a whole I mean Our view of foreign policy is is so different than anything that exists out there. It's hard to apply it here and not You have to have a holistic view and if america actually represented capitalism and freedom actually didn't have diplomatic relations with certain countries and and and allowed individuals to trade Unless you are a threatening country and then you have an embargo Then the whole world would be different everything would be different and and none of these issues would even come up, but That's science. It seems like science fiction, right? Because it's so far removed from I once did a Nikos wants me to finish I I once did a class Talked to a foreign relations class, right? They were studying at some university foreign relations and I just described kind of my Attitude to what font bossy and how I would do things and I would relate to other countries and and so on and at the end And there were a lot of questions. It was really good interaction everything but the end the professor the guy he said I've never heard anything like that Um, where do you get the stuff on it's not any of the books I read It's not any of the foreign policy stuff that I've studied in college and university It just isn't objectivism is so different than everything else out there And once you start applying it to practical reality The conclusions the outcome is so different than everything that's out there that they don't even know how to categorize it if they if they give it If they're serious enough to actually consider it, they don't know where to put it Are we realist? Are we pragmatist? Are we this or we that? No, we're not any of those. We're objectivists And that's different Thank you