 All right, about Inrant Institute relations or your relations to other groups, why are you so so like hateful towards libertarians when they seem to be the closest ally to your ideas? Well, I'm only hateful to some libertarians. There's some libertarians who I love, who are great, who I support, who I've worked with, who I've been on panels with, who I've done all kinds of things. The ones I hate tend to be the ones who tend to be the rabid anarchists, the people who believe that anarchism is a solution. And as I said, in my debate with an anarchist in Poland, I consider anarchism, and you could include so-called anarcho-capitalism in that, I believe that it's as bad as communism and fascism. I believe that it is the devil. It is really, really, really destructive to human life. I know I've just offended a bunch of you. I can see it on Sebastian's face, but that's the problem of video, right? But that is the reality of what I believe, right? I think anarchy leads to nothing, and I've said this dozens of times. I think anarchy leads to nothing by bloodshed, destruction, bloodshed and destruction. And I think ultimately it leads inevitably to authoritarianism. So I hate anarchy. I hate that set of ideas. And I'm hostile to particularly intellectuals who try to spread those ideas, and I've tried to interact as little as possible with them. But I don't hate other libertarians. I mean, there are many libertarians, economists, political scientists who, again, I think do good work. Some people at Cato, not everybody. Some people at Phi. I work with Phi. I've worked with Cato. I've worked with lots of different organizations over the years on specific issues, on broad issues that they were good at. But the idea of a big tent, I think dilutes the philosophy to the point where it's meaningless. And as I said, I find anarchy offensive. So I'm not interested in being in a big tent with people I find offensive. So I think that, so I have no, I don't reject, you know, I speak to libertarian groups all the time. I speak to Students for Liberty. I speak to Federalist Society, to Adam Smith Society, all over the place. So I don't consider myself hostile to libertarianism. I consider myself hostile to an alcocapolis. And I consider myself hostile to the idea of a big tent. I think the idea of a big tent is bad. But regarding the anarchism, I think that maybe those people, let me just don't understand it yet. They don't necessarily need to be evil, evil persons, right? I've never said they're evil. I think some of them are evil. I think if you're, you know, you know, hope a few others, I would consider them all. But no, I mean, particularly young people, I don't consider young anarchists evil. I think when you're young and you're still trying out ideas and anarchy has a certain logic to it and a certain rationalistic, you know, logic to it, beauty to it or whatever, sense to it. Yeah, that's why I talk to people who are anarchists, why I tried to, you know, convince them otherwise. But yes, you know, if you're an anarchist in your 40s, something's wrong. Well, but still, we don't see you cross-posting much with some libertarianism. Like, I think you once told me that you wouldn't, or maybe Tom Woods told me that you would never appear on his show. I will never be on Wood Show. No. Why? Because he's over 40 and he's an anarchist. I mean, that's it. If you're over 40 and an anarchist, I'm not sitting on stage with you. You're a bad person. This is not, these are not neutral ideas. And I said before I'm passionate, I take ideas seriously. I take ideas seriously on how they impact your life and my life, my life primarily. Anarchy is a destructive ideology. I'm willing to tolerate it when you're young, because when you're young, you're still trying to figure out what's true and what's not. And you're experimenting with all kinds of ideas and you're trying to figure it out. At some point, my intolerance disappears and it goes away. And I'm not tolerant of anti-life ideas from people who should know better. And Tom Woods should know better. Now, it's not just that he's an anarchist. It's that he's, you know, he's part of the Mises Institute, which is pro or semi pro slavery in the South, right? It was anti the Civil War. That is, that has, you can find articles that underlying racist agendas, not that Tom Woods is, but the organization is affiliated with is, that are pacifists, which I consider, you know, nutty, the pacifists, the anti-American in foreign policy, every sin in the world, the pro Hugo Chavez. It's why I hate Juan Paul, hate Juan Paul, not just dislike Juan Paul. It's because he's pro Hugo Chavez, pro Maduro's regime. So I will not deal with people who are over the certain age, let's say 40, who advocate ideas that I consider fundamentally anti-life and who might be confused with the projectivism. So people like Tom Woods, Murray Wattbaud, anybody affiliated with the Van Mises Institute. I mean, I find those ideas worse than the worst ideas of the left. To a large, and to some extent, because these people claim to be Iron Man fans, they claim to be pro-liberty. When they're exact opposite, they're anti-liberal. Now I've become grumpy, right? Now I'm living up to my reputation. It's, it really is, there is a fundamental philosophical, but not just philosophical, in an abstraction. There's a fundamental difference between the kind of libertarian, the Nelka capitalists of Tom Woods, and objectivism. These are philosophies that are completely opposite. They happen to have some agreement on economics. But with all due respect, economics is not that important. And I'm an economist, and it's not that important. But they have no relationship when it comes to morality. They have no relationship in epistemology. They have no relationship with metaphysics. And they don't have any relationship in politics because the one's an anarchist and one, one believes in actually limited government. So, and no relationship in aesthetics. So in 90% of the philosophy were opposed. And you want me to be their friend because of 10%. But I have more in common with leftists than with the Nelka capitalists when it comes to the totality of their ideas. There is two issues with that and issues. I don't point out that don't you think that the more good would do just go and debate him? You don't have to endorse him. And the second point is that- Debating somebody, let me just finish. Debating something is an endorsement. Debating somebody is a sanction. I, you know, there's, and there's no reason to debate him. That's, that's the bigger problem. Anarcho, you know, and again, I'm going to insult some of you, but tough. Anarcho capitalism is not a legitimate ideology. It's not a legitimate set of ideas. It's not worthy of debate. It is a fringe, marginal, insignificant portion of the world is an archo capitalist. And most people grow out of it relatively quickly. Right? So again, they're not that many over 40. And it's just not worth debating. I mean, I did that debate in Poland. I've done it once. Anybody can go watch it. And if you don't, you know, if, if that's not good enough, then, you know, you're going to have to figure it out yourselves. Yaron hated this debate. He didn't want to come. I was not sure if even this is going to happen. I mean, since then, since then, Yaron mentions this debate like every time. I guess, I guess. I did hate it. And I, and there's a sense in which I'm glad I didn't. There's a sense in which I feel a little dirty for doing it. I mean, he was there defending, you know, sex with children. I mean, or he couldn't argue against it. I mean, I can't think of anything more where I want to wash my hands and stay away. You can check the recording. And at Obiektivism.pl, it was, I don't remember the title, I will post it in the, in the event afterwards. You need to find all you do is do Yaron Brooke Anarchy. And that's the first hit you get on YouTube. All right. And if you want to support this, not so grumpy man in headphones, you can go to YaronBrooksShow.com and check all that. He has a question Adam asked. So I might as well answer it because it's related. He says, couldn't you make the same argument against Objectivism? Friends only small portion of people in the world are Objectivists. True. Absolutely true. And I'm always surprised when people agree to debate an Objectivist. You know, and I always say, when somebody says, I don't want to debate you, Yaron, I would say, I understand him completely. He's got nothing to debate. He's got nothing to gain by debating me. And I don't blame people for not debating me. I go, yeah. I mean, let's say, I don't know, Steven Pinker. Why doesn't Steven Pinker agree to appear on stage with me? Because he's got nothing to gain and everything to lose by it. So I am Objectivism is fringe and small. Absolutely. I happen to be in that fringe and small. If I'm going to go and debate, if I want to grow the movement, I'm not going to grow the movement by going to another fringe and small and even less reputable group than Objectivists, which is then Alcocapolis. I would much rather go to big groups where I can get lots of people like leftists and conservatives. And then I can open people in the middle. And then I can get a lot of people. But why would I go being fringe to another fringe little group and argue about minutia in front of 17 people who already made up their mind? I would much rather go to big audiences and big groups and debate big issues. And that happens to be the left and the right. One of the problems that I find with libertarians is they love to argue among themselves. Perfect audience for you and Objectivists to go. And if not, Tom Woods audience of the podcast. I can tell you the audience that has been most successful, the appearance that I made that has been most successful for me by far. It's not even close, right? In terms of subscribers, followers, all either. Is when I first appeared on Dave Rubin. Now, in those days, Dave Rubin's audience has changed. But in those days, who was Dave Rubin's audience? It was left science and reason respecting. That's who the audience, my ideal audience is not religious. Respect, right, reason of science, tilting a little left. That's my best audience. And it's always been my best audience. The problem is getting them in the room because they hear Ein Rand and they run, or they hear capitalism and they run. The beauty of somebody like Dave Rubin is you could get in and they were listening to him. And we had this great conversation, which turned I've got more people have come to me and said, wow, I started reading Ein Rand because of your appearance and Dave Rubin and anything else I've ever done. It's people like that. I would much rather go on Dave Rubin's show than Tom Wood's show. Tom Wood's show, everybody who listens to Tom Woods, not everybody. 70% of people who listen to Tom Woods already know I exist. I've probably listened to something I've already done and decided to dismiss me and go with Tom Woods. What do I gain by going to Tom Woods versus going on, if I could go on Joe Rogan's show? That would be great. Get exposed to millions of new people, people who are generally thinking, generally listening, generally engaged in the culture. That is like a million times better than going to another libertarian event. Mark Skousen wants me to come to Freedom Fest. And Freedom Fest is wonderful, but again, it's this, I want virgins. For those of you who don't know what I mean by virgins, people who've never been exposed to their ideas. People who are new, people who maybe know a little bit, but don't know that much. That's, look, I'm not a philosopher. So my job is not to take people who know something about objectivism and make them really deep intellectuals. My job is to expose people who don't know much about their ideas to their ideas in a legitimate, interesting, legitimate, interesting way. 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 roads. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to youronbrookshow.com, slash support, or go to subscribestar.com, your onbrookshow, and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next