 All right, James, you up next. Oh, came at the right time. Yes, you did. How are you? I'm working on getting some distinctions down in my head between a few different viewpoints. Can you go over a little bit between egalitarianism and utilitarianism and compare and contrast those two viewpoints? Sure. Utilitarianism is the idea of the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. It doesn't have anything to say about what that looks like at the end. That is the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. Maybe that's equality. Maybe that's, I mean, some defend capitalism on the basis of utilitarianism, because it leads the greatest. But it's basically the idea that it's OK to sacrifice some for the sake of others. It's OK to, you know, there are no minority rights in a sense in utilitarianism, because it's the majority. It's the greater good measured by numbers, to some extent. Now, the most sophisticated utilitarians, the one also give minority rights, like the free market guys usually acknowledge that individuals have rights. But they don't know how to defend those rights, where do those rights come from? There's no moral defense, because they would make the argument that rights are utilitarian, because a system that has rights makes more people happy than a system that doesn't have rights. Something like that, you know, that's kind of a utilitarian. Egalitarianism on it. So utilitarianism has a long tradition going back to, I think, Mill in the 19th century. It's kind of a moral idea that's being debunked by many different types of philosophers. So it's not unique to objectivism that we criticize utilitarianism. It's very much critiqued out there. Egalitarianism is about the outcome, right? It's about the outcome not focused on a majority. It's focused on equality. Now, different egalitarians have different views of what equality means and how you get equality. But the idea is that we all have some form of equality of outcome at the end. And how we get there, whatever, whatever it takes, right? So in a sense, there's a similarity. If you equate equality with happiness or good, then it's if you have to sacrifice some people in order to attain equality, then so be it. So there's a sense in which it can be utilitarian. But it is a distinct view. And for example, John Rawls, who's the most sophisticated of the modern egalitarians and the most deceptive and therefore destructive of all the egalitarians. He's the most influential thinker in modern political science. He says something like, you can advance at different rates as long as your advance leads to the worse off, also being slightly better off. So he recognizes that, like in capitalism, the entrepreneur should make more money. But he should only make more money to the extent that the poorest person in society, what I call the wife-beating drunk, they should be better off as well. And if that means taxing the entrepreneur, limiting the entrepreneur so that the wife-beating drunk can get more money so he can become better off, then that's OK to do. But the goal is constant improvement of everybody, but primarily, not constant improvement of everybody, sorry, constant improvement of the worse off, whether that means that the better off are worse or whether it means the better off are better, doesn't matter. The standard of morality is the worse off and their improvement. Egalitarianism ultimately means equality of outcome, not in the dual-wall sense, but in most thinker sense. And I've written about that in Equal is Unfair, my book. And that leads to the Cameroos, the cut off, the tall poppies, anybody with distinction, chop him down, bring him down. So there are various varieties of egalitarianism, but the end is its most consistent form in its equality of outcome. That's all that you need. So you can make, in theory, you could have an objectivist arguing for free market, kind of like politics or whatever, based on a utilitarian saying like, oh well. Objectivist, it wouldn't mean it wouldn't be objectivist not like in that way. You can have a free market, most free market economists, even Mises Hayek, were utilitarians. And there are even some free market economists and philosophers who claim they are egalitarians like John Walls. They love John Walls. Even though I think it's a complete contradiction, they try to solve that contradiction. There was a book, a famous book by a scholar at, what's the really good school in Rhode Island? MIT. What's that? MIT. Or no. No. That's in Massachusetts. I think it's Brown. I think it's Brown. John Tomasi, who is a very famous political scientist. And John Tomasi had a book where he said basically, look, I like Hayek. I'm kind of a libertarian. I like Hayek. But I really like John Walls too. I like this idea of egalitarianism. So I'm going to write a book where I show you how I'm going to make them work together. I'm going to make you see that libertarianism and egalitarianism work together. And it was painful, torturous, to read the book and see him kind of trying to figure this out. And it was hopeless. But he did it. He wrote the book. And he was praised that they owed for it. All the libertarians loved it and came out and brought him to speak and paid him a lot of money and everything. No, being conventional is very lucrative. I don't make as much money because I'm not conventional. If I wanted to make a lot of money, I'd be conventional. Cool. Awesome. Thank you. Sure. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought. All right. Before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there. Help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your own bookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value. Hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe. Because that way, you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.