 Now, what is, you know, there's a lot of views, you know, going back to Mill and other philosophers about why we should have freedom of speech. So, what was the founders' purpose in the First Amendment and what is kind of an objectivist approach to what is the justification for First Amendment? So, if you're bringing in Mill, the big distinction is, is it an individual right or is it something granted to individuals because it's viewed as kind of serving, advancing some kind of social or public good. And Mill, we can talk about Mill in a minute, but he's more on the second axis, whereas I think when you're getting the First Amendment, this is earlier than Mill's writing on Liberty, it's coming out of the Enlightenment, Mill is a post-Enlightenment figure. The Enlightenment is much more at an individual level, so that as an individual, you need the freedom to be able to survey, consider, evaluate, weigh every argument, every idea being advanced so that you can figure out, you as an individual can figure out what do I actually think is true or not. And you can't allow any authority to give you pre-screen data to say, oh no, you don't need to see that, you don't need to look here and so on. That you're no longer, if you're on a quest for knowledge, if you allow someone to do that, that you literally, like you'll be put in jail if you want to read Galileo's text, that is you're surrendering the very quest for knowledge, if you give grant government that kind of power. And the Enlightenment means knowledge, what's illuminating you is knowledge, and you need a reasoning mind to reach it. And it's an individual mind that reaches knowledge. So I think of the First Amendment as it's defending crucial aspects of intellectual freedom. But it's the freedom for an individual to be able to think for himself, to talk to whoever he wants, debate, listen, and whoever he wants. Like he's in charge, not a government or any other authority says, yeah, you listen to this, you don't need to listen to that. And so it's not, it's not skepticism, it's not, and there's an element of this in Mill's argument, that it's like who could know and who could, so you have to leave every viewpoint. And so there are viewpoints that I think are wrong, irrational. I would not give them even the benefit of the doubt, take one of the things for hate speech of Holocaust denial. It's not like it's debatable, did the Holocaust happen or not? But you can't, for someone who's investigating it, that's a conclusion. That's a conclusion of having looked at the arguments and so on and looked at history and said like this is a complete conspiracy fantasy, it's ill-motivated. But that's a conclusion that you have to reach. You can't let someone already decide for you, even when it's wrong. You have to be able to say, yeah, I mean, this is crazy. But if you can investigate, you can't do that first-hand. So Mill's argument is more about truth coming out in a social context and the benefit to society? Yeah, it's a mixture of, I mean, this is my view of it. It's a mixture of some good points about what the quest for knowledge looks like and what it means. It's not dogma. It's conclusions reached by a reasoning mind. So you have to go through the process of reasoning and you need a freedom to do that. But it's mixed with the real social element that yeah, this is how truth emerges in the end and this is good for society that it's happening and the whole on liberty, and this is why Fine Rand really disliked Mill's on liberty, is there's a plea to allow the individual to function, leave him free because he benefits other people. Not because he needs to be free, so he can reach the truth for himself and his life and his values. It's other people will benefit if you leave people free to think and particularly innovators and people dissenters who stand outside of society and often challenging and so on. We're the better for it if we allow these people. So Socrates should be able to live or Galileo because he benefits other people. So it's certainly not an individual right and it's not an egoistic justification. It's not for your own pursuit of happiness you need this which is what it is in the Declaration of Independence. Society needs some of these people so we're better off if we leave them free. So this strikes me as you know this is so closely related to the ethical views of Mill certainly versus Fine Rand but even versus the views, the ethical views or the budding ethical views of the founders in terms of where so how is this connected to Mill's views of of ethics? Yeah so I think it's definitely connected that the whole utilitarian perspective is the greatest happiness of the greatest number. If you're thinking of that from an individual perspective it's the individual can pursue his goals, his values, his life, his happiness only if it's really contributing to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. So morally the justification for you living existing is the benefit to other people. It sort of includes you in the millions but you're lost in the millions if you and if you read Mill's utilitarianism which is actually very interesting to read. It's much more interesting than when you're taught utilitarianism in in a philosophy class today. He's pretty explicit and pretty explicit he's explicit about the connection to Christianity and he's not challenging the kind of Christian viewpoint that it's service to your neighbors but that's what makes you exalted and so it's not about your life and your happiness it's about other people and if you have to sacrifice and give up enormous things for the sake of others yeah I'm not as a utilitarian I'm not challenging that that's what moral virtue and heroism or idealism looks like and that's true. It is akin to Christianity. And the founders the whole idea of individual rights and the whole idea of viewing free speeches is that kind of implicit egoism even though they can't give it really voice. Yeah I think it's implicit and you will find some explicit formulations that I mean so even something like the pursuit of happiness it's the pursuit of your happiness so there's formulations that are very egoistic in that sense that they're self-interested it's about you your life your values your happiness but if you're asking at the level of philosophical doctrine and they advance a theory about this the answer is no and when they're operating at that level and this includes I mean one of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence Jefferson when he's operating at the level of what is morality and it's he's now in in sort of explicitly the philosophical realm it's morality it's not about reason it's about you have a moral sense and you can you sort of know and it's yeah in science we have all this kind of argument it's on that's not what goes on in morality and it's a much more conventional kind of watered down Christian view and it's about your relationship to other people and are you helping them it's it's it becomes much more conventional when you get at the level of explicit philosophical theory and justification what we need today what I called a 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 women's are 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 broads 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 figured at least a hundred of you actually like the show maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it but but at least the people who like it you know I want to see 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 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 you know and if you don't like the show give it a thumbs down let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes but uh if you like it don't just sit there help get the show promoted of course you should also share and uh you can support the show at your on book show dot com slash support on patreon or subscribe star or locals uh and uh and show your support for all for for the work for the value hopefully you're receiving from this and uh and of course don't forget if you're not a subscriber even if you even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend marks uh then uh 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're good notified right so um yes like share subscribe support like share subscribe support there you go easy do one or all of those please