Drug War; HK Fire; Failure; NATO; Swiss Tax; Costco; Fuentes; Waymo | Yaron Brook Show - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
A lot of its window lattle cells and individual loss.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
This is the show.

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Oh right, everybody, welcome to your one book show on
this Tuesday, December second. I hope everybody is having a
good week.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
A little unusual, I want, I know. But earlier today
we had a.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
I guess, a live live stream of a panel on
forty eight years to the Iron Rand Institute and a
participating in that, and that they scheduled that right on
top of where I usually schedule the show.

Speaker 2 (00:49):
Hopefully you saw that it was it was, It was
all fun, and.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Hopefully those of you less familiar with the Iron Rand
Institute learned something and those of you more familiar. I
got to remember the good old days and the great
present and the even more impressive future. So yeah, check
it out. It's on the Inn Rand Institute website. And
all right, let's see today we are going to be

(01:19):
talking about a bunch of different topics. Yeah, nine, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight,
eight eight. I'm slacking off a little bit, sorry, No, No,
nine topics, eight topics. All right, let's see, do I
have any remind us to give you shows? All week
times might vary a little bit. I've got some other

(01:40):
stuff going on, so times might vary, but there will
be a show every single day for the rest of
this week, including Saturday, and probably a members only show
on Sunday. So if you're not a member, sign up
for membership and maybe maybe our gifts some membership. Maybe
our gifts some memberships and uh, you know, and we'll

(02:05):
increase there we go. I just gifted Fight membership, so
we'll gift some memberships and we'll do a members only
show on.

Speaker 2 (02:14):
Sunday, if not this Sunday, next Sunday.

Speaker 1 (02:17):
But it definitely will be one of the next two Sundays. Okay,
let's see what do we want to do. We're gonna
jump right into the drug wall. I mean, this is
the big stories right now. I think in terms of
what's going on domestically, is the continued you know, the
bombing of these boats. We'll talk about that, uh and

(02:39):
and this thing where they bombed a boat two people survived,
and then they they killed the two people because god,
you can't let any of these people alive. You just
have to execute them at see. That is the new
policy of the US government. So we'll talk a little bit.
We'll talk about that in the context of the drug wall,
and then we'll talk about, of course the partnering today

(02:59):
of the phone.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
I'm a president of Honduras, you know.

Speaker 1 (03:05):
Who was accused got forty five years in jail four
drugs for bringing drugs into the United States. So we'll
talk about why, what's going on? What is it about
this administration that you know is willing to.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
Kill the guys in the boats.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
But if you're a big shot, you get you get
free ride, even if you're involved in the basically the
same trade. So let's let's tell with a little bit
of history, because you know, the drug the drug wars,
I don't know, people think it just existed forever. Did
you realize that between eighteen eighty, eighteen eighty one, eight

(03:50):
eight zero, eighteen eighty and nineteen ten, you know, cocaine
and heroin were sold in retail stores. They were sold
off the shelf, no prescription needed, no you know, cash
in the middle of the street from a gangster looking
guy needed.

Speaker 2 (04:10):
You can just walk into a store and buy something.

Speaker 1 (04:12):
The coca cola, Coca cola, you used to have a
little bit of coc in it, a little bit of
coke in the coca cola. Yeah, that would be cool,
that would be cool, No wonder. The drink took off
and it was incredibly successful. I mean, everybody knew that
these drugs were harmful. Everybody knew that these drugs were

(04:33):
potentially addictive, you know, but they were you know, basically
the government it was none of their business and none
of the business of the government to tell you what
you can and can't consume, what you should shouldn't do.
And the idea was you responsible for yourself. You make
the choice. It's there.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
You know it's harmful.

Speaker 1 (04:56):
If you choose to use it, it's your problem. But there
was a real backlash to that, and we saw that
both in terms of in terms of alcohol use and
in terms of narcotics. And there was a huge push
during this era to ban alcohol and the prohibition movement,

(05:18):
which ultimately succeeded, and and to ban narcotics, you know,
starting in terms of narcotics, starting in nineteen fourteen with
Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, which effectively criminalized non medicinal opium
and coca products. Than in nineteen thirties, you had the

(05:38):
federal bio of narcotics. Just as the government was backing
away from prohibition on alcohol. And by the way, alcohol
is in many respects a much more dangerous drug than
a heroin and cocaine in terms of your behavior is

(06:00):
what you do. A lot of crime is committed under
the influence of alcohol, and you know, a lot of
a lot of domestic violence, a lot of violence is
committed under alcohol. You don't get much violence. You don't

(06:20):
get really violence if you consume heroin. Like heroin, you
inject and you're like your space out there. There's no
not a lot of violence associated with consuming heroin. Anyway,
the federal alcohol was legalized in the nineteen thirties and
the government doubled down on narcotics. So the idea was

(06:42):
to really to increase the punitive the punishment for drug offenses,
and there was a real moral panic during the nineteen
thirties around drugs. In nineteen fifties, they experimented with mandatory
minimum sentencing for drug offense, but then they were piled
in the nineteen sixties. They you know, they didn't really

(07:05):
think it was it was particularly effective at anything. Generally,
one thing you'll see in the entire history of the
War on drugs is it's not effective. It hasn't stopped
the consumption of drugs, and it certainly hasn't stuffed to
deaths from consumption of drugs. In the nineteen seventies, Nixon declared,
and this is the war drugs. Nickson declared drugs public

(07:29):
enemy number one. What an enemy? An inanimate object is
the enemy. In nineteen seventy the Control Substance Actor was passed.
It created different schedules for different drugs. The DA Drug
Enforcement Administration, the headquarters for the execution of the War

(07:51):
on drugs, was created in nineteen seventy three. They tried
to cut off international supply, primarily for Mexico. They also
of government funded treatment programs, but the push was LAWNODA
Lonoder seventies was a period of rising violence, and this

(08:11):
was the priority. Drug policy was also used. I don't
think there's any question to target groups administration and like
suddenly anti war activists, the black community, and this continued,
you know, into the nineties, indeed into the yeah, into
the two thousands. Really during the nineteen eighties there was

(08:33):
an escalation in the warm drugs. You get minimum sentencings
sentencing in eighty four and eighty eight, you get the
Anti Drug Abuse Act in nineteen eighty six. It by
the way, it created sentence, the guidelines that discriminated that
if you had if you were caught with crack versus

(08:56):
powdered cocaine, you got one hundred times biggest sentence for
the crack possession. And and this was deemed has been
deemed as kind of a racist policy because crack was
being used in the black community, cocaine was being used
by Wall Street types. Huge expansion during the eighties in

(09:19):
a drug task forces, swat teams, militarization of the DA
civil asset forfeiture of civil asset forfeiture where they take
your assets first and then you have to fight to
get them back if they suspect that you that it's
a drug related uh, you know, violation. So it's it's.

Speaker 2 (09:42):
It was just it was just.

Speaker 1 (09:47):
Huge escalation and huge militarization, steep rise indug related drug
related arrests, especially for possession, much higher incarceration rate this,
you know, much high, huge number of people in jails.
There was also a whole plan around Columbia where they

(10:07):
they funded the combat of cocaine production and against armed groups.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
So the US paid Columbia to fight this.

Speaker 1 (10:15):
Uh. There was a policing corporation and military corporation with
Mexico Bolivia, who basically the sources, particularly of cocaine coming
into the United States. UH.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
There was also attempts to.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
Uh you know, uh destroy the crops, UH to spray
poison over the crops, to try to destroy the crops,
and particularly in in UH in Colombia, also an attempt
to increase this the the sentences and the penalties against

(10:51):
drugs in Asia, which was a source of a lot
of the heroine coming into the United States. Consequence of
all this is massing constration. Prisons in the United States
have exploded since the nineteen seventies growth an organized crime.
If you outlaw drugs, you create a huge profit opportunity

(11:12):
for organized crime. So the creation of Mexican cartels, Colombian cartels,
other international cartels, the transferred drugs around the world. Remember
that after during the Afghan War, Afghanistan became the number
one producer in the world of heroin, and that heroin
had to get to the United States, had to get

(11:32):
to Europe, and that was a lot of the money
that the profits from that went directly into the pockets
of various Islamist groups, terrorist groups. So yeah, the creation
of organized crime is huge and probably the biggest, the
biggest public safety consequence of the War on drugs. Basically,

(12:00):
when you penalize the use of drug what you discourage
is treatment, You discourage harm reduction, you discourage needle exchanges,
and what you actually causes much worse health outcomes fund
the drug use. For example, HIV spread in the eighties
and nineties because of contaminated needles and the lack of

(12:23):
needle exchanges. And again there's no profit incentive to go
in and try to innovate and come up with new
treatments when the whole phenomena is tainted by illegality. The
one drugs has cost to date trillions of dollars on policing, prisons,

(12:45):
fund interventions, attempts to disrupt the supply of drugs in
the United States, and beyond that, I don't know how
you measure this. Thousands and thousands and thousands, maybe hundreds
of thousands of deaths as a consequence of the various
wars between organized crime entities in Latin America but also

(13:09):
in the United States. Many of the drive by shootings,
many of the deaths in place like Chicago almost always
gang related and what are the gangs doing?

Speaker 2 (13:20):
The mainly fighting.

Speaker 1 (13:22):
Over you know, territory to sell drugs. And of course
what we saw is the militarization of police and you know,
which has all kinds of consequences. Now, you know Nixon
was tough on drugs, were you know, it was tough
on drugs, and then Trump has now come in as

(13:44):
as tough on drugs. Uh, stop the drug trade. Get
rid of fentanyl. Now why do we have fenanel? What? What?
What is the deal with you know with fentanyl? Fencannel
is a is ah is. I mean you factioned opiode.
It's a synthetic product. It's super cheap to make, really

(14:06):
easy to make, easy to smuggle because it's small the
profit to weight ratio, I mean, you make so much
money off of so little. It has one hundred x
the potency one hundred x the potency of heroin. Oh no,

(14:27):
it's fifty times heroine, one hundred times morphine, fifty times heroin.
Doesn't require farming, easy to put together, lab and produce it,
and then you can add it to other products, a
very very tiny quality quantity of it. You know, enhances
I guess the high you get from heroin or even

(14:49):
marijuana or pretty much anything. So it's easy to smuggle,
easy to bring in, incredibly powerful, easy to overdose on.
And a lot of the deaths associated with the last
fifteen years or ten years.

Speaker 2 (15:05):
Have resulted from Fenton off because.

Speaker 1 (15:07):
A lot of the overdose deaths, a lot of the
kind of epidemic of drug deaths that have happened over
the last twenty years happened from people using legal drugs
that they managed to get prescribed or you know, things
like oxycotton and things like that. So you know, you

(15:30):
can get high without doing something illegal, without going the
illegal route. But now you can find fentanyl and heroin, oxycotton, cocaine, methamphetamines,
even in xanax. And of course this is all the

(15:51):
consequence of it being illegal, you know illegal. If you
make something illegal, what happens. It distorts spics, demand stays high.
You know, making something illegal doesn't necessarily reduce demand that much.

Speaker 2 (16:08):
Supply becomes very very.

Speaker 1 (16:10):
Risky risk of a risk, it's the violence risk of
asset forfeitures, so higher prices because very few people are
willing to enter the field because of the risk. Higher
prices to compensate for the risk. Higher prices mean higher
profits for every everything that actually gets sold. You don't
get real competition price competition. Competition is all over violence,

(16:36):
it's all over dominance. What prohibition creates are monopolies, monopolies
over certain areas, and the only way to break into
that area and create competition is by killing the people
in the area and taking it over. So prohibition raisors

(16:57):
revenue for criminal organizations and actually does very little to
reduce demand. Now what else, Now, what else does it do? Now?
You know, it's just the criminality size, the economies of scale.

(17:19):
You have to beat bribes again, you have to buy
weapons for the for the for the inevitable wars between
the cartels. You you have to go into you know,
you go into other criminal activities. You have to have
finance smuggling networks. It's difficult. You have to build tunnels
under the US border or whatever it is, or boats
to go around it. It's expensive. So scale matters. You

(17:43):
need huge profits. So there's a huge incentive to engage
in violence to create big cartails rather than small cartails.
And one of the ways in which you inhibit competition
is by being extraordinarily violent. Like if you start killing
huge numbers of the opposition of the competitors, new competitors

(18:07):
don't arise, they don't want to mess with you. The
more enforcement is, the more violence there is, the more
you raise the cost of supplying the good, the more
the incentive is for strong, dominant you know, cottels to
dominate everybody else. Now there's also a huge incentive to innovate.

(18:31):
I mean, there's innovation when it comes to trafficking methods, tunnels, drones, submarines,
sticking the drugs, I don't know, swallowing them, put them in,
you know, all kinds of stuff upper and literally opening
people up, putting them in and closing them up. Also
higher potency drugs because you want to pro weight your carrying.

(18:55):
You want to maximize potency fentanyl for example. And of
course one of the big incentives that happens because of
prohibition is the incentive to corrupt the police and the
political institutions to bribe them, and the incentives that the
police have, you know, to take a bribe for not

(19:18):
enforcing a victimless Remember there's no victim in drug there's
supplying demand, there's a there's a cell and a buyer,
and you know they're just acting based on their values.

Speaker 2 (19:32):
There's no there's no there's nobody here who's a victim.

Speaker 1 (19:39):
So the war on drugs is a massive, catastrophic failure,
unmitigated failure. And the economics of it straightforward, The politics
of it are straightforward. This is a means by which
the government gains more power, gains more weapons, gains more control,

(20:00):
gains more surveillance, gains more excuses to monitor you, and
to build up a domestic military force to go after
the cartels. But for what to prevent them selling a
good Americans want to buy. It's just like alcohol. Probition
of alcohol created the modern mafia. The mafia that we

(20:23):
see in the movies all created during prohibition. Prohibitions create
organized crime. All right's stress forward to Biskey today. You
know Trump came in and this is a big item
in his agenda. Right, we were gonna go to war
with the cartels. We were gonna invade Mexico. We were

(20:44):
going to go after China for selling fentanyl. Of all
China sins, China sells, Chinese companies sell the the the
chemicals used to create fentanyl to Mexican cartels who then
make the fentanyl in Mexico and smuggle it into the

(21:05):
United States. And and a lot of some of this
has to do with the fact that, you know, if
Chinese wants to get his money out of China, one
way to do that is to get the cartels to
buy him a house or or a luxury condo in

(21:25):
Los Angeles, and in exchange, the cartel gets a bunch
of a bunch of.

Speaker 2 (21:32):
Chemicals to make fentanyl.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
So it's a way of the Chinese to get money
out of China, and it's a way for the cartels
to get their fentanyl. Anyway, Trump comes in, I mean
he clearly, you know, he's anti drugs.

Speaker 2 (21:45):
It plays with his audience.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
You know, Maga hates crime or they say they hate crime,
they hate drugs, And it really does seem like, you know,
they want to they want the criminals in jail. They
want uh, you know, make the war on drugs a
big deal. They want to. You know, fentanyl is a killer,
and if you smuggle fentalon into the country, you are

(22:10):
killing Americans. You're not selling Americans a product that then
kills them, you are literally killing Americans. So yeah, you know,
go after the thugs. This is this is Trump's possey.
You know, go after the people that you suspect might

(22:35):
be smuggling drugs in particularly if you've got another agenda.
We talked about this yesterday with Venezuela. Blow them out
of the water, kill them all. Who cares, You don't care.
This is tough on them. But then you wonder if
he's really that tough on drugs, if he really cares
that much on drugs and drugs coming into this country,

(22:56):
then why is he just partoned I mean today pardoned
one of the world's biggest drug dealers, the former president
of Honduas. And here's to think about Trump. Trump hates
petty gangsters, violent criminals, people standing in the corner street,

(23:22):
you know, selling drugs, and and and and the the
the various uh people smuggling the drugs into the United States.
Hates that. That's awful. But when it comes to political leaders,
you know, crime generally is okay. I mean, everybody does it.

(23:44):
We all do it, We all kill people, right. You know,
it's no accident that this drug kingpin that he just released,
that he's pardoned, was the former president of a country
that he's suddenly showing a lot of interesting because there's
an election there and he wants his guy to win,

(24:04):
so he releases him. Now, who knows what kind of
back back office deals were made.

Speaker 2 (24:10):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
Some of Trump's supporters. I was reading some big shots
within the MAGA, like this guy from Hondua's and were
lobbying Roger Stone. I think was lobbying on his behalf.
I mean, think about the way he treated conference MBS
Muhammad bin Suliman, who killed an American reporter, slaughtered him.

(24:37):
That's okay, no big deal. If you're a president who
kills people, that's okay. You're above the law. You shouldn't
go to jail. I mean, he keeps saying Nataniel should
be pardoned in Israel, not because he thinks Antennio is innocent,
but because he's a prime minister. You shouldn't go You
shouldn't be able to go after a president or a

(24:58):
prime minister or a king or you know, you shouldn't
be able to go after these guys. Putin kills, Yeah,
and nobody goes after Putin. He's completely comfortable with, you know,
political leaders doing just horrific stuff. But yeah, kill those

(25:22):
people in the boats don't even show any evidence that.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
Anything.

Speaker 1 (25:29):
I mean, this guy, this President Hernandez, this is an invigation,
investigation that the Trump administration started against his brother back
in twenty eighteen. His brother was indicted in twenty to
eighteen and convicted in twenty nineteen. And you know that
ultimately led to Hernandez himself, to the president. This is

(25:55):
not some random guy. This is not some conspiracy. This
is these guys, you know, this is this is something
the the justice around pursuit for a long time and
got a conviction. Now again, I'm for legalizing all this stuff,
but got a conviction and put him in jail. And

(26:17):
the accusation was that he was responsible with the smuggling
in of massive quantities of cocaine into the United States.
Doesn't matter.

Speaker 2 (26:27):
He's a former president.

Speaker 1 (26:29):
He's got friends in high places pardon him to help
with to help with war and drugs. You know, I'll
say that at one side of my mouth, and you
know it's it's a complete disgrace, and it shows how
ridiculous it is. You're going to kill the mules, alleged mules.
You don't even know they all mules. You don't even

(26:49):
know they're carrying drugs with no due process, no due process.
But the drug lord. Let him go. Let him go.
We don't want him in our jails. Let him go.
By the way with this, uh, you know, the the
boat that was bombed and then two people survived and

(27:11):
they held on and a second bomb killed them.

Speaker 3 (27:15):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (27:16):
The White House spokesling today said that that was done
as an act of self defense.

Speaker 2 (27:26):
Yeah, because those.

Speaker 1 (27:27):
Two were gonna, I don't know, they were gonna they
were gonna swim to the closest navy I don't know,
frigate and and kill the sailors on board. So they
had to take them out. Otherwise they would have been
a direct threat to America. I mean, it really is.
It really is stunning. Uh, the just the callous way

(27:51):
in which they treat human life. And you know, the
drug smugglers. Okays, when do we in the United States
just execute drug smugglers with no trial, with nothing, just
execute them straight up. I mean it really is a

(28:12):
new low I think for the United States in the past.
By the way, when the Coast Guard stopps boats in
the Caribbean and searches them for drugs, a significant percentage
twenty one percent of the boats stop by the Coast
Guard off the coast of Venezuela, where they thought they
were smuggling drugs, they find no drugs. So there's a

(28:35):
good chance the twenty percent of these boats that the
Navy is blowing out of the water and killing people
for they're not even carrying drugs. They might be just fishermen,
like some of their families are claiming. But this is
the new attitude, This is the new attitude of the
American rate. Life doesn't matter, particularly if that light belongs

(28:58):
to somebody who doesn't look quite like you.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
Particularly that life.

Speaker 1 (29:01):
Belongs to somebody who lives south of the border who
might one day become a God forbid of a legal immigrant.
Might as well blow them out of the water. Now,
why give them even the opportunity. Again, these boats cannot
reach the United States. They're not smuggling drugs into the
United States, even if they're moving drugs. But even if
they're moving drugs, since when do we summarily execute suspect

(29:24):
their drug dealers. But here's the thing.

Speaker 2 (29:29):
I want to show you this. This is Megan Kelly.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
I guess this is Megan Kelly. You've got to listen
to this I find it chilling, horrifying. She's talking about
this incident with the boat, and listen to how she
I mean, yeah, just listen to this. I don't know

(29:54):
how to describe it because it's so I find it
so horrifican, you know, making Kelly. This is not techer
call said a point just so though she's friendly with Taka,
this is making Kelly, who used to be pretty mainstream
Fox kind of mainline contributor, and what she says here
is nuts and reveals a really, really, really really doc soul.

Speaker 4 (30:20):
So I really do kind of not only want to
see them killed in the water, whether they're on the
boat or in the water, but.

Speaker 3 (30:26):
I'd really like to see them suffer.

Speaker 4 (30:28):
I would like Trump and Hegseth to make it last
a long time so that they lose a limb and
bleed out a little like, I'm really having a difficult
time ginning up sympathy for these guys who ten seconds
earlier almost got taken out by the initial bomb, but
because they managed to get ejected, you know a little.

Speaker 1 (30:48):
Too soon, had to be taken out in the water.

Speaker 4 (30:51):
I realized, legally it may make a difference, but truly, Mark,
this is a tough case to really gin up the
sympathies of the American people.

Speaker 1 (30:57):
Really, she doesn't want to just see them die. She
wants to see them suffer slowly. She wants to see
them bleed out. Why did they kill her family? Are
these the terrorists who ran the plane into the you

(31:18):
know will Trade center? Are these isis terrorists who have
just decapitated your family members or trying to get themselves
into the United States to kill you know who knows who? Speechless,

(31:39):
I guess she wants to see them bleed them out.
She wants them to suffer. Is it's just you know people, Yeah,
maybe maybe we don't even know this smuggling drugs. So
to your pals, Megan, who are using them? How many
of Megan Kelly's pals used drugs? How many drugs are

(32:01):
used by interns you know in in Congress? How many
drugs are used in Wall Street? How many drugs are
used in Silicon Valley. All these places use drugs, Silicon Valley, LSD,
you know, Wall Street cocaine. But they all use drugs.
But the people who deliver the drugs not even to

(32:23):
the United States, probably from you know, Venezuela to somewhere
in Central America or to one of the islands, or somewhere.
They deserve a slow, tortuous death. I mean, Magan Kelly,
if she had a way, I guess she would introduce
torture into the American justice system. Of course, we you know,

(32:44):
why call it a justice system. This is mainstream, right,
this is just standard. Right. She's a psycho, I mean, yeah,
but this is this is them. They just hate they hate.

(33:08):
These people are dark skinned. Uh and uh, they come
from Venezuela, a shithole country, and they don't deserve to live.
They just don't deserve to live, and they deserve somehow, somehow,
they deserve to die solely. I mean, there's a if
there was hell, you know, sadly there isn't, I guess.
But if there was hell, there's a special place for

(33:30):
people like Megan Kelly in Hell. And it's and it's
in one of those lower rungs, very low rungs. It's
just disgusting. And again, this is making Kelly. It's not
fuint As or somebody. All right. Uh, let's see Hong Kong.

(33:52):
So there's a horrific fire in Hong Kong, in a
in a a an apartment complex was several buildings, and
the fire jump from building to building burned down I
think about five buildings overall. Over at least one hundred
and fifty one people have been killed from this fire,

(34:15):
and there's still a lot of people missing, and so
the number is probably going to increase. Just powable, I
mean for the people living there and the people who've
lost relatives. Anyway, this is going to be and is
already an excuse for people to say, see capitalism. This

(34:36):
is all about contractors who are trying to save money.
This is what happens when you have a place like
Hong Kong where you have less fair capitalism and you
have freedom and all of this stuff. Because it turns
out that the netting they were doing renovations in the
building and the netting they put outside some of it,
most of it was fire retarded, but some of them

(34:57):
it was not supposedly to save money, and it caught
fire and then expanded from netting to netting and took
down the buildings. A number of people have already been
arrested because of this as part of the negligence. Associated
with this criminal negligence, there were inspections there were officials

(35:22):
carried out sixteen inspections of their innovations since July twenty
twenty four. They had warned the contractors supposedly multiple times
in writing that they had to meet fire safety requirements.
Of course, there's an investigation now. The one thing they're
not investigating is the actual government or the government inspectors

(35:43):
or the owners of the buildings. Because what is interesting is,
you know, Hong Kong's loves a fair and almost every
sector except one. There's only one sect in Hong Kong
that is not at all, you know, loves effeir, and
that is housing. I don't know if you knew this,

(36:06):
but the fact is that all the land in Hong Kong,
all the land in Hong Kong is owned by the
government and always has been. Property is not sold. It's
provided on lease to developers. The leases are typically fifty
to ninety nine years. The state controls all the land

(36:27):
auctions and all the land leases, so it sets the
land supply. It influences land prices directly. And you know,
prices of Hong Kong real estate have always been horrifically
high because they've been kept that way by the government.
So Hong Kong is a free market economy built on

(36:50):
a state land monopoly which limits the supply of land.
In addition to that, and this is interesting, forty five
to fifty percent of the population live in public rental
housing or in subsidized home ownership schemes, although you don't

(37:14):
really own your home. The Hong Kong Housing Authority provides
rental housing and sub subsidies for apartment sales, and the
Hong Kong Housing Society different from the Authority, which also
provides housing programs. Not surprising, these buildings that burned down

(37:38):
were owned by the Hong Kong Housing Authority. These were
government built houses, renovations funded by the government. You know,
contractors are hired by the government. This is a government project.
This is not an example of las fak capitalism in

(38:00):
any shape or form. And you know, housing in Hong
Kong amazingly you know, run by the government, run by
the government. So again I.

Speaker 2 (38:18):
Note that Hong Kong's laws a fait.

Speaker 1 (38:22):
Pretty much in every other realm except I mean, they've
got regulations in a bunch of different places, but relatively minor,
except in housing, where they control not only supply of land,
but they build and own and run and subsidize fifty
percent of all the housing in Hong Kong. So don't

(38:43):
let anybody tell you when there's a housing issue in
Hong Kong that it's an example of Las fait gone crazy.
It's not. It's another example of government intervention and the
government role in the economy makes things crazy. All right.
Let me just remind you before we talk about failure.

(39:04):
Let me just remind you of our super chat and
the need to meet targets and the way in which
you can set the content of the show by asking
questions and me answering them. So please feel free to
jump in with questions or with stickers, or any way

(39:24):
any other way you would like to. Yeah, those are
the two ways to support the show. Questions are great
because that way you also guide the topics.

Speaker 2 (39:33):
And the content of the show.

Speaker 1 (39:36):
We do have targets two hundred and fifty an hour.
We're still on the first hour, you know, and so
we've got two hundred dollars to go just to make
the first hour, and we're ready forty minutes into it.
So we've got twenty minutes to raise two hundred dollars.
And today is Giving Tuesday for whatever that means giving Tuesday.

(40:00):
Don't give me out of charity, give me out of
value for value as a trade. All right, last week
I think he was Let's see when was this When
was this story? Yeah, November twenty seven, So last week
there were a couple of stories, one in the Wall

(40:20):
Seat Journal and one in Router's that described the constant
failure of and and and duels and Duell is a
what is it. It's a high tech defense contractor a
run owned created by Palmer Lucky the young billionaire. Anyway,

(40:46):
describing all the failures then Anderill has gone through Andreill.

Speaker 2 (40:52):
You know, producers drones, It produces.

Speaker 1 (40:57):
Unmanned boats, onmanned submarines, all these things. And and it's
just the whole article is just a description of all
the ways in which they, you know, the technology uh
keeps failing. And it's it's really critical of of all
these failures uh in uh in the tech. And it's

(41:21):
really sad to see because and the all is really
and the Earl is really just practicing what Silicon Valley does.
It's just practicing kind of the ethos of Silicon Valley,
the ethos of you know, SpaceX, but really of the value.

(41:42):
In general, you don't put out products that are perfect.
You expect a certain level of failure. You learn for
that failure, you respond quickly to that failure, You fix
that failure, and.

Speaker 4 (41:57):
You go on.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
And you can't. You can't.

Speaker 1 (42:06):
Succeed unless you're willing to accept failure as part of
the process, unless you're willing to accept how many times
did the rockets explode? For Musk before they got a
perfect launch. Every time it exploded, they learned something new

(42:31):
and got closer to making it work. And indeed, that's
how you learn the problem with the American defense industry
is that they try to make perfect products. They try
to produce the ultimate, and as a consequence, it takes

(42:51):
them forever to produce anything. They go way over budget,
and of course they're never perfect. Andrew is trying to
change the way that defends the bug works. It's putting
products into play, into real combat situations, for example in Ukraine,

(43:15):
or into real trials, for example in navy exercises in
order to test the technology, find the bugs and fix them.
For example, some of its boats you know failed in
this naval attempt. There was a bug in the soft
way they fix the bug three days later, they redeployed,

(43:40):
worked perfectly. You want to fix the bug now, not
when you're using them against the Chinese Navy and suddenly
it all fails. But this is the whole attitude of
Silicon vality. You build, build, build, and you constantly fix.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
And this used to be the way other fence contractors
used to work. You know, when they first tested.

Speaker 1 (44:10):
What would become the ICBM, the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile problem program.
When they first when they first tested these missiles, the
missiles often exploded on the launch pad. It took them

(44:31):
a long time to get it right. You know. THO,
which was the initial intermediate range ballistic missile, you know,
it blew up after rising eighteen inches off the ground.
And the response was not, oh my god, this company

(44:52):
is a failure. They don't know what they're doing. Fire
the guy in charge of it, you know, bring on
somebody new, you know, don't stop following, you know, stop
stop the project. It was the opposite. Everybody is that
this is what was going to be required. They learned
from this. They kept on working, they kept on trying,

(45:13):
they kept on failing, and they succeeded. Indeed, the guy
responsible for the failure wasn't fired, he was celebrated, and
he ultimately is the guy responsible for an entire intercontinental
ballistic missile program that the United States has.

Speaker 2 (45:35):
His name was his name was Schweiver.

Speaker 1 (45:38):
Schweiver. They actually, you know, he is known as the
founder of ICBMs, and I guess his name is emblazoned
on the Space Force base in Colorado Springs. So you know,

(46:03):
it used to be a time when we understood that, yeah,
you're gonna try stuff, you're gonna fail. And this goes
to the whole attitude I think in America today a safetysm,
safety ism, attitude, and attitude that celebrates safety and emphasize
the safety. We'll get to this again at the end
of at the end of the segment when we talk

(46:24):
about WEIMO instead of risk taking, instead of embracing failure,
embracing the idea that things will fail. And indeed, you
know in life you're going to fail in life. You're
going to fail in life. Embrace that, build on it,
learn from it so that you can be successful. There

(46:45):
is no success without failure. So when you read these
stories that are just long lists of all the things
that have gone wrong, be skeptical. Be skeptical. All right,

(47:05):
let's talk quickly about NATO. You know, Uh, there's a
big meeting today of of NATO foreign ministers, the meeting
in Brussels. It's an annual thing and you know, Americans
always show up. America is the number one member of NATO.

(47:29):
This year a secondary Rubio decided not to go, and uh,
you know there's an empty chair there with with no America. Basically,
the US is saying to Europe, you're on your own,
good luck.

Speaker 4 (47:47):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (47:48):
In the meantime, with cough and and and uh, his
buddy Putin are sitting down and negotiating a deal without
bringing in the Europeans or the Ukrainians to figure this out.
You know now, because Ukraine has some input into this deal.
Over the weekend, Russia wasn't happy with what they're proposed

(48:10):
by Wikoff. So we're still not close to the deal.
But one thing is clear. Europe is being cut out, police,
cut out by the Trump administration, and who knows what
the attitude will be in with future administrations. Europe continues
to buy F thirty five's in the United States. So
what when the United States doesn't approve of a European

(48:32):
War and cuts back on their support for those f
thirty fives. I think Europe is more and more and
more it's already realized this, but it's more and more realizing,
and I think today was kind of a wake up
call for them again. They're on their own, and they're
going to be on their own Visa v. Russia because
America is not helping, not even sure America will arm them,

(48:55):
never mind sens troops to help them. And you know,
maybe the long term is for the better, but there
are way better ways to do this than this kind
of stab your ally in the back method that the
Trump administration is engaging in. So yeah, I mean, Russian

(49:22):
and phil shials are saying that, you know, there's a
lot of work ahead in terms of the peace talks,
and it's constructive and we're working in the right direction,
but clearly the Russian is not Russia is not interested
in compromise. It's just not interested in compromise. Ukraine keeps
giving a little bit more and a little bit more

(49:44):
under pressure from the United States, and Russia keeps saying, no,
we want to go back to what we originally demanded.
We're not going to compromise. The Russians have been clear
that no, you know, they will not compromise. They found
no deal. And Trump keeps trying because he loves Putin

(50:06):
and yeah, and because I mean we talked about this,
I think the other day.

Speaker 2 (50:11):
Because she's been promised.

Speaker 1 (50:13):
Vast I mean, huge, humongous economic opportunities if he signs
off of this, including by some accounts, a very juicy
real estate deal right across from the Kremlin on Red
Square itself, Trump Tower, mall. Who knows what to be

(50:36):
to be determined? Right, Yeah, the most corrupt government in
American history does not does not disappoint all right, Let's see, Yeah,
you know the Swiss, the Swiss.

Speaker 2 (50:55):
Amazing. So there was a leftist group in Switzerland.

Speaker 1 (51:01):
Decided, like a lot of europe decided that they that
it was time to start taxing the rich to a
lot of rich people in Switzerland, and they wanted to
impose a inheritance and gift tax of fifty percent on estates. Right,
so on estates if anything over what is it forty

(51:26):
seven million pounds or let's say fifty million dollars, it's
more than fifty million dollars, but anything over that, anything
over that they wanted a fifty percent tax. And in Switzerland,
in order to get things like this approved, you have
to go through a referendum where everybody gets to vote.

(51:46):
The entire public gets to vote. Even the government was
opposed to this, but this was proposed by a far
left Young Socialist party. A lot of people were worried
because of the kind of the populist winds blowing through
Europe that would affect Switzerland and you know, take money
from the rich and redistributed, and England's trying to do that,
and all the people left, and there was a real

(52:09):
risk that, I mean, this was a reality. If Switzerland
had passed this, rich people would have left, and people
were preparing for this. Federal government lobbied against it because
they would oppose the initiative.

Speaker 3 (52:23):
It.

Speaker 2 (52:25):
You know, Switzerland's want of swisslm's big appeal.

Speaker 1 (52:27):
One of the things that carries its economy is the
fact that it's a pretty good place for rich people
to go live and they're going to be taxed at
a pretty low rate. This would have killed that. Places
like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Hong Kong, Singapore. I'm making huge
text concessions to get rich families to move over there.
Switzerland does not want to, and a lot of them

(52:50):
have from London, for example. Switzerland does not want to
be anyway. The vote was held this weekend on Sunday,
and it wasn't close. It wasn't he been close. Seventy
nine of the Swiss public objected rejected the initiative. Forty
of the population participated, seventy nine percent voted against, and

(53:15):
people were worried about a very narrow defeat. If it
had been close, maybe they would have come back with
something like only a twenty five percent tax or fifty
percent on people with one hundred and fifty millions, that
fifty million, they would have changed it. But a defeat
like this basically makes it now for sure that they're
just not going to come back with another referendum like this, right,

(53:38):
So no inheritance stacks of fifty percent in Switzerland. Switzerland
usually comes through on these things. And that's good. That's good,
all right, let's see yeah quickly. On Costco, Costco is

(54:00):
sued sued the Trump administration over tariffs. Even though the
case is not in front of the Supreme Court, a
bunch of companies are suing the government because they're afraid
that if they don't sue the government and the Supreme
Court rules that the tariffs are illegal, then they will

(54:26):
not get the money back. That is, only companies that
are in the pipeline with lawsuits against the government over
the tariffs will be deemed eligible for a refund of
the tariffs. So a bunch of companies, mostly small to

(54:47):
medium sized companies, have sued in trade court to get
their tariffs back while everybody waits for the Supreme Court
to decide. And today it was announced that Costco is
is trying to do is trying to do the same.
You know, usually companies wait for a quote ruling, but

(55:09):
here everybody's worried that the way it will be interpreted
will exclude them, and so they are suing in advance.
And of course the stakes are huge. We're talking about
billions of dollars of tariffs from the bottom line of
these companies, and so far Costco is the biggest name,
although companies like Revlin and Kawasaki, Mogatas and others have

(55:30):
also filed.

Speaker 4 (55:32):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (55:32):
And yeah, you know, we will see, we will see
what happened.

Speaker 1 (55:37):
My guess is that you won't get ruling on these
lawsuits until the Supreme Court rules on the lawsuit in
front of them, which is the lawsuit that declare that
about whether the law the Trump used to impose the
tariffs is appropriate it is does the other constitution authority

(56:00):
to do it given that law? And uh, some indications
are that the serping Court is going to rule against Trump.
I'm hoping you can't you can't tell what this quote,
but they are hopeful signs that the court will actually
rule against Trump and and deem many of his tabis,

(56:21):
most of his tasks, not all of them, but most
of his tasks basically illegal and violating of the law.
That would be pretty amazing, pretty amazing, all right, all.

Speaker 4 (56:40):
Right, So.

Speaker 2 (56:42):
God, I'm going to show you a clip Offuentis.

Speaker 1 (56:46):
I don't like showing you a Clipperfuentis, but you know,
I feel like we need to because he's in the news,
he's everywhere. We've talked about him a little bit, and
he is doing a masterful job. I have to say.
What he does is on his show on Rumble, he
is viciously anti Semitic, racist, horrific views of women, just

(57:15):
a just unbelievably horrific when I say he is a fascist,
that he that he admires Hitler and all these things,
people go, you know, it's.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
From the show.

Speaker 1 (57:29):
You can find clips of him exactly saying all that
he wants to kill Jews. You know, he is clearly antisemitic,
racist and a hit led Meyer. But when he goes
on these big podcasts like Tucker Cousins, but also others,
there's a bunch of them he's been on lately. He
was on what's his name, Patrick Bin David, He's been

(57:50):
on a bunch of others. He comes across and he says,
you know, I don't hate anybody. I'm not a racist,
I don't hate the Jews, I don't hate the Muslims.
I don't hate these people, and and and he just
plays it. And if that's all you see, then you know,
you could be fooled into thinking, well, okay, what's so
bad about I've seen people say I watched this techner

(58:12):
calls and interview. He's not that bad. Yeah, I don't
like him, but he's not that bad. He didn't let
it slip that he likes Stalin. That's bad, but liking
a communist is not as bad as liking Hitler. You
get a lot more, a lot more leeway on on
the communism side than you would on the on the
on the Hitler fascism side, So people people just don't

(58:34):
take him serious. I thought I'd take a clip from
the show that's not him being antisemitic or racist. This
is a clip that actually deals with his philosophy, his
actual political philosophy. What is thing for it to actually

(58:55):
think in terms of politics? And I think this is
very revealing, and everything else is an outcome of this.
Everything else is a consequence of this, not directly, but
is a consequence of this. And I think if you
watch this clip, I think what comes across clearly is
that he's a fascist. And you know, this is who

(59:23):
he is. This is who these people are platforming, supporting,
covering four, you know, giving given the opportunity to spout
all this horrific stuff. But again, when he goes on
the mainstream shows, he's you know, he's a well dressed
young man, very articulate, obviously smart, knows his stuff, says

(59:45):
stuff that's wrong, but nothing you know, horrifically outrageous. So
let's see what he's about. If you can't stomach for intice,
now's the time to I don't know, go do something else. Oops?
Where did that move?

Speaker 4 (01:00:10):
All?

Speaker 1 (01:00:10):
Right? Play?

Speaker 3 (01:00:12):
The problem with libertarianism is that liberty is not the
highest political virtue. The highest political virtue is order, the.

Speaker 1 (01:00:21):
Highest political order, highest political you know virtue. The highest
political principle is order. That's straight out of the fascist playbook. Right,
it's not about liberty, it's not about freedom, it's about order.
That's straight out fascism. Who gets this dem what order is?

(01:00:42):
Of course, it's whoever is in power.

Speaker 3 (01:00:45):
That is the greatest ordering principle. That is the greatest
governing principle. Order, order comes from.

Speaker 1 (01:00:53):
Order comes first. He knows exactly what he's saying. He
understands what this means and what this implies. You know,
you want order in the streets, and you want order
in terms of people's behavior and what people say, and.

Speaker 2 (01:01:13):
You do not want outliers first.

Speaker 3 (01:01:15):
Liberty comes second, and liberty is second.

Speaker 1 (01:01:18):
Note that we believe as objectivist the liberty politically individual
rights come first. That means the individual comes first. We'll
get to that in a minute. Rights come first, and
rights just a cognition of freedom. So for objectivism, liberty,
freedom politically do come first? Absolutely, come first.

Speaker 3 (01:01:40):
Order has to be maintained by a powerful state. Yeah,
it has to be maintained by authority. And where does
authority proceed from? Force? Guns? Overwhelming force, power that comes
out of the end of a rifle.

Speaker 1 (01:01:58):
Overwhelming force and power that comes out of the end
of a rifle. That is where order comes from. He's
absolutely right. Order requires authority. Authority is established to force
through the through the use of the guns. Again, he's

(01:02:18):
not hiding anything. This is his basic fundamental political philosophy.
He is fundamentally anti liberty and everything that employs and legitimacy.

Speaker 3 (01:02:31):
The people have to believe in the authority of the state.

Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
People have to believe in the authority of the state.

Speaker 1 (01:02:38):
Right, So you want to brainwash the people, they have
to march, they have to hire all together, they have
to do They have to express.

Speaker 2 (01:02:48):
Uniformity in ideas. They have to give.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
The authorities a mandate to.

Speaker 2 (01:02:58):
Use the gun establish order.

Speaker 3 (01:03:06):
And if these things are being undermined by freedom, by liberty,
then you don't get liberty.

Speaker 1 (01:03:11):
So if these things are being undermined by freedom and liberty,
you don't get liberty. If that isn't fascism. I don't
know what is so you don't get liberty if you
know the authority of the state is undermined, or the
uniformity the the you know, the support of the people
for the state is undermined.

Speaker 3 (01:03:32):
And people like to say that Ben Franklin, about liberty
and safety, liberty and safety. It's about order and disorder.
Forget about safety and liberty.

Speaker 1 (01:03:42):
And note that order is not equal to safety. He's
smart enough to reject that. What is not about safety?
What is about order? It's about doing the things you're
supposed to do. It's about doing them in a way
that you're told to do them. It's about reducing uncertainty,

(01:04:04):
it's about eliminating outliers. It's about everybody falling into place
into place.

Speaker 3 (01:04:17):
It's about order and disorder. And what Hobbs writes is
that even a bad order is better than disorder.

Speaker 1 (01:04:25):
Yeah, Hobbs was an authoritarian and advocated for an authoritarian
for a king, for a strong authoritarian state, because you know,
bad order is better than disorder. But you see, that
is a false economy. You know, this is an argument
against anarchy. Anarchy is the worst.

Speaker 2 (01:04:45):
And I agree with that.

Speaker 1 (01:04:46):
Disorder anarchy is the worst, most violent, most horrific state
of living. Bad order is better than complete disorder, complete anarchy.
Liberty and freedom. Liberty and freedom are not disorder. Liberty
and freedom are not chaos. This is why you know

(01:05:13):
a state protecting the individual rights is necessary, why we're
not advocates of anarchy. But he creates a false dichotomy.
It's either order or disorder. It's either order or anarchy.
And look, it's exactly what Hitler said, It's exactly what
Mussalini said. It's whatever dictator says. If not for me,

(01:05:33):
there'll be chaos, they'd be anarchy, and nobody wants anarchy
and chaos.

Speaker 3 (01:05:40):
Then chaos. Then a war of all against all, a
total collapse of authority.

Speaker 1 (01:05:45):
That's anarchy. A war of all against war all, that's anarchy.
And that's why OBJECTIVESM rejects anarchy and rejects this false
dichotomy created by Hobbes.

Speaker 3 (01:05:55):
Because do you know what happens when the power goes out? Rape? Okay, rape, murder, looting, pillage, marauding, barbarism,
an orgy of the crowds, an orgy of violence and
chaos and hatred and anger.

Speaker 1 (01:06:14):
Okay, and all of that, all of that because everybody
hates that. Nobody wants rape and pillage except the supporters
or fromas.

Speaker 2 (01:06:24):
Nobody wants that.

Speaker 1 (01:06:26):
The solution to that is not a constitutional government. It's
not liberty and freedom right. It's order. It's authority. It's
a bowel of a gun. It's a aunuthoritarianism. It's fascism.
It's the state imposing its will on us, not.

Speaker 2 (01:06:47):
Just doing policing.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):
Like America has not had a you know, pillaging and
rape being and all this stuff going on, and we
haven't had order either. Our city isn't a particularly ordered
we don't have central planning around everything. And yet liberty
properly understood, freedom properly understood eliminates the chaos, the.

Speaker 2 (01:07:13):
Anarchy, the rape and the pillage. But you see fearm hungering,
is that the kik of all fascists.

Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
If not for my authority, there would be anarchy in
the streets, and that we cannot have. We cannot have.

Speaker 3 (01:07:32):
It's like the kinds of war crimes in Abu Grabe. Okay,
it's like the kinds of war crimes.

Speaker 1 (01:07:38):
He's not gonna say Hamas on October seventh, No, he's
gonna take Abu Grabe, you know, which was not that bad.

Speaker 2 (01:07:45):
In the big thing of things, nothing is compared to
October seventh.

Speaker 1 (01:07:48):
He's going to use able grade because that's anti American, right,
Abu Grade was committed by Americans, and these people all
want to use examples that make America look bad.

Speaker 3 (01:07:59):
He's committed to Vietnam in Iraq, when you have a
total order, you get things that it's beyond human comprehension.

Speaker 1 (01:08:08):
No did all of those things Abu Grabe, Iraq, Vietnam
were all done by the state, by the authorities in
a system government, military, which is about order. So the

(01:08:30):
biggest violators of rights, the ones who commit the most
rape and pellage and murder, are states that are concerned
with order.

Speaker 3 (01:08:41):
So this is a very free country. This is one
of the freest countries to ever exist. And the problem
is that those things are starting to become undermined. The authority,
the force, and the legitimacy that founds the authority of
the state, which holds the country together, which enforces the laws,

(01:09:02):
and libertarians that have a little bit too much faith
in people and a little bit too much faith in
the individual. I don't believe in the individual.

Speaker 1 (01:09:08):
There it is, that's his philosophy. He does not believe
in the individual. I do not believe in the individual, and.

Speaker 3 (01:09:16):
I'm individualistic, but I'm not an individualist.

Speaker 1 (01:09:19):
That doesn't make any sense. Of course, I mean individualistic,
but I'm not an individualist. Doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 3 (01:09:25):
Individualism only makes sense in a white Christian patriarchal society.

Speaker 1 (01:09:30):
Individualism only makes sense in a white patriotical society, right
Christian society. I mean, think of how mixed up, completely
screwed up that is, and how racist it is. So
that is a philosophy of political philosophy of nik Foantis.

(01:09:52):
He is not an individualist. He doesn't believe in individualism.
That individualism makes any sense. It only makes sense in
a white Christian patriarchal society. In other words, you need
to keep women down. My nowity's down. Anybody who looks

(01:10:13):
definitely than you down, and you, the elite white patriarchs man,
you can now, I don't know, be individualistic, whatever the
hell that means. He's such a bullshit. I mean, he
is ignorant and he's smart, but he is philosophically and

(01:10:38):
ideologically nothing just nothing. He just spouts stuff that means
absolutely nothing like that bit about individualistic, but I'm not
an individualist. What the hell? This is a rotten human being.

(01:10:58):
This is somebody to stay away from. Don't buy into
his moderate interviews. If you want to see the real
nique for intest, watch his show where he contradicts himself
all the time, but where he also spouts his vile, racist,
anti Semitic, anti women, you know, anti sex garbage, really

(01:11:22):
really really horrible human being. The fact that he has
millions of followers it is more an indictment of the
state of the world than anything else I can think of.
All Right, finally, finally a positive story. This is an editorial.
You know, we talked about way more yesterday and then

(01:11:44):
I saw this in the New York Times today Today's
editorial in the New York Times.

Speaker 3 (01:11:49):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:11:50):
This is written by a guy named Jonathan Slotkin. Jonathan
Scotland Slotkin is a newoen a brain surgeon, a neurosurgeon.
And the up d is the title is the data
on self driving cause is clear we have to change course.

(01:12:15):
And what is this data? You know, I'm going to
read you this paragraph. Self driving car company Weymo recently
released data covering nearly one hundred million driverless miles in
four American cities through June twenty twenty five, the biggest
trove of information released so far about safety. I spent

(01:12:38):
weeks analyzing the data.

Speaker 2 (01:12:41):
The results were impressive.

Speaker 1 (01:12:43):
When compared to human drivers on the same roads, weimo's
self driving cars were involved in ninety one percent fewer
serious injury or worse crashes and eighty percent fewer crashes
causing any injury. It showed a ninety six percent lower
rate of injury causing crashes and intersections, which are some

(01:13:07):
of the deadliest so far. Other autonomous vehicle companies don't
report to report incomplete data way more By contrast, published
everything I needed to analyze the data crash statistics with
miles driven that allow accurate comparison to human drivers in
the same locations. If weay MOOS results indicative of the

(01:13:30):
broader future of autonomous vehicles, we may be on the
path through eliminating traffic deaths as a leading cause of
mortality in the United States. While many see this as
a text story, I view it as a public health breakthrough. Well,
I mean, public health is a questionable concept. The reason

(01:13:52):
autonomous vehicles are safe US straightforward. A system that follows rules,
avoids distractions, seas in all directions, and prevents high speed
conflicts will avert deadly collisions much more often. These vehicles
aren't perfect. A passenger heading to the airport was recently

(01:14:13):
struck stuck inside a Weimo that looped the parking lot
round about for five minutes. Waimo issued a recall last
year to update the software on its vehicles after one
hit a utility poll at low speed while pulling over,
and there have been two fatalities and one serious injury,
and crashes involving Waymo vehicles. In all three cases, however,

(01:14:37):
human driven vehicles caused the collision, so you know, he
says again, this is in his term.

Speaker 2 (01:14:50):
He says, in medical research.

Speaker 1 (01:14:52):
There's a practice of ending a study early when the
results are too striking to ignore. We stop when there
is unexpected harm. We also stop for overwhelming benefit. When
a treatment is working so well that it would be
unethical to continue giving anyone at placebo. We stop it

(01:15:18):
when an intervention works as clearly, you change what you do.
There's a public health imperative to quickly expand the adoption
of autonomous vehicles. More than thirty nine thousand Americans died
in motor vehicle crashes last year, more than homicide, plane crashes,
and natural disasters combined. Crashes are the number two cause

(01:15:40):
of death for children and young adults. But death is
only part of the story. These crashes are also the
leading cause of spinal cord injury. We surgeons see the
aftermath of ten thousand crash victims that come to emergency
rooms every day. Every day. God they combine economic and
quality of life life told exceeds one trillion dollars annually,

(01:16:04):
more than the entire US military or medicare budget. So
you know, he says, this is not a cultural replace
every vehicle tomorrow, but because it's you know, it's expensive
and you wouldn't be able to.

Speaker 4 (01:16:19):
Do it, but.

Speaker 1 (01:16:21):
You know it needs a whole attitude towards these cause
needs to change completely. He says, this certain different translation
will this transformation will happen. We can guide it towards
a safer, more equitable future, or let it enoughfold haphazardly
around us, or we can put barriers, as many cities do,

(01:16:42):
to prevent it from happening.

Speaker 2 (01:16:43):
So even the New York Times Now is coming out.

Speaker 1 (01:16:47):
I guess at least one editorial in it coming out
in favor of autonomous cause that bodes well for the
future of the technology. Let's hope the government doesn't get
too involved other then to allow this to progress, to
allow it to be successful. All right, guys, that is
the news for this December second, and we will move

(01:17:13):
to the super chats, and before that.

Speaker 2 (01:17:16):
I'll tell you a little bit about our sponsors.

Speaker 1 (01:17:19):
Let me just remind you again of the trade involved
in the show. You, guys, I delivered the show. You
listen for free, and you trade with me by doing
super chats and by and by engaging doing stickers and

(01:17:43):
supporting the show. I know many of you do support
the show, and some of you support the show very generously,
but that many of you out there that do not.
I just encourage you to think about that and think
about becoming a trader and finding ways to support the show.
You can come on Live now, if you're Twitter, you
can come over to YouTube and do a sticker. Or
if you're on the show, they're of one hundred people

(01:18:04):
watching live right now, you can do a sticker. Even
ninety nine cents helps ten bucks helps anything like that helps.
You can do a stick if you don't want to
ask a question, and it all adds up and it
would be great to get your input and feedback and
financial support, so please consider doing that. Those of you

(01:18:26):
who are not listening live, the best way to support
the show is vit Patreon Patreon dot com. Just put
in your on book show and you can become a
monthly supporter of the show. You can also do that
on PayPal, either one of those two platforms. Right now,
I'm looking for six new people to do Patreon. That's
the goal for the end of this month, so six
new people. At twenty five dollars, you get to participate

(01:18:48):
in our live you know, chats once a month, conversations
once a month. You get to be on video and
ask questions for twenty five dollars a month or more.
For ten do a month or more, you get a
a ad free version of the podcast. So please consider
going to Patreon and signing up. Caesar Vida, thank you

(01:19:12):
for the sticker, CP Milk and I think that Jonathan Honing,
thank you for the more than one sticker, several stickers.
Natural Observer, thank you for the sticker that was your
tenth super Chat. Thank you, and let's see who else
do we have? You know, we have Catherine, thank you,

(01:19:33):
so thank you guys. I appreciate it. And if you've
never been never done super Chat, it's really easy clicking
that dollar sign underneath the chat and you make a
contribution with a credit card and I am you know
you We become traders, We become traders. All right. Let's
see I want to remind you of rams Day Weekend

(01:19:56):
Objective's Confidence. It's happening January thirtieth to February second in
Fort Maya's Flaweda's gathering of objectivists and to come and
and and and listen to a few Objectives speakers. You know,
it's a lot of fun. You get to interact with
a lot of people. You get to interact with the speakers.
It tends to be relatively small, relatively intimate, so you

(01:20:18):
get real quality time with people. Have you been swing
and will be there. I will be there, Ellen Kenna,
Shoshana Milgrim, Geen Maroney, Peter Schwartz, and Don Watkins will
be there. We'll also have a panel in addition to talks,
there'll be a panel discussion with me and and Howie
and Peter Schwartz. Uh and uh there'll be trivia and

(01:20:40):
and just time to hang out and and enjoy the
company of other objectivists. So please consider coming. You could
be in worse places in the world. At the end
of January early February, the weather is going to be gorgeous.
Fort Maya's is amazing in terms of weather. There are
lots of restaurants in the area. Join us.

Speaker 2 (01:20:58):
It'll be a fabulous weekend.

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
And uh and there's a If you sign up before
the end of December, there's a significant discount, so make
sure to sign up. You can find the information and
signing up on the website rans day Con all one
word ransday Con dot the b v H t H
E b v H dot com and uh, yeah, go

(01:21:23):
go to that website. Read more about it, check out
the talks.

Speaker 2 (01:21:29):
Sign sign up. I want to see you there.

Speaker 1 (01:21:34):
All right, we have uh you know what what did
what did they want? Uh?

Speaker 5 (01:21:45):
Sorry, I'm just uh, I'm just looking for something, see
if I can find it. No, yeah, I'm not sure.

Speaker 1 (01:22:01):
All right, So a few things remind everybody. The Iman
Instry is holding a conference in Porto, Portugal. Porto, Portugal,
beautiful place, and.

Speaker 2 (01:22:17):
I'm gonna be there. Uncle will be there, and.

Speaker 1 (01:22:21):
Ben Bear and tats Fani and Nikos, famous nikos will
be there, and you should be there. And you know,
you can sign up for this conference by going to
ironmand dot org. Slas's start here. Those of you under
thirty four can apply there for a scholarship which will

(01:22:42):
pay a lot of your expenses, maybe even all of
your expenses.

Speaker 2 (01:22:46):
So sign up, join us for this conference. It'll be
a lot of fun.

Speaker 1 (01:22:52):
In Porto is an amazing really an amazing city, in
a beautiful city. One more thing, Yeah, so, Michael Williams
is a sponsor of the show Defenders of Capitalism Defenders
Offcapitalism dot com. Michael's a friend and we work together
on Defenders of Capitalism. I have lectured for Defenders of Capitalism.

(01:23:14):
I lecture every year, several times a year for them
in Colorado at the leadership program of the Rockies. You guys,
you guys should check him out Defenders of Capitalism dot com.
We also have Alex Epstein who is a sponsor Alex
Epstein dot substack dot com. And Alex of course is
the leading authority on all things for example, environment environmental

(01:23:38):
related and power energy related, and you should check out
his substack and his talking points. All right, one final thing.
I mentioned this the other day. My son is looking
for a job and he is a software engineer, has
worked for Amazon for several years.

Speaker 2 (01:23:58):
And is now looking for a new job.

Speaker 1 (01:24:00):
If if you are interested in hiring a software engineer,
it would have to be either in the Los Angeles
area or a remote job. But if, if, if you
look at somebody in the LA area in California, or
somebody who could work remote for you, then check him out.

Speaker 2 (01:24:23):
Neve Brooke and I V.

Speaker 1 (01:24:25):
Brooke. You can find his details on LinkedIn and or
you can drop me an email. I know one of
you know some of you have already. You can drop
me an email and I'll put you in touch with
Neive and you guys can communicate and see if there's
a there's a match. He's a good guy, good good guy.
He's not a kid anymore. He's in his thirties. He's
a good guy. And I I I yeah, I'm biased,

(01:24:48):
but I think I'm not biased objectively. He would you would?
You would? You would do good bye by hiring him?
All right, let's let's run down these which had questions,
not a lot of them, so this won't take long.
You can ask ask away if you'd like to that

(01:25:09):
doodle Bunny says. You say you don't view Ein Rand
sleeping with another man while married as a mal failing.
I highly doubt Frank felt the same way. He may
have let it go because he wanted to continue to
be supported by Rand financially. How do you know this?
I mean, I love it when people who never met

(01:25:29):
Frank don't know anything about Frank, you know, basically transporting
their own insecurities to other people. I mean, that's how
I see it. You don't know that Frank felt that way.
He was not a shy person to express his opinion,
and he was a unusual and extraordinary guy.

Speaker 2 (01:25:55):
And you have no clue as to what he thought.

Speaker 1 (01:25:58):
I felt about the whole thing, and to pretend that
you do is a little ridiculous. She loved him, and
I'm pretty sure that if he had really objected, she
wouldn't have done it. And the idea that he did
it and ought to be supported by her like some
kind of parasite is really the meaning to both Frank

(01:26:20):
Anti ein Rand and I don't think eve either one
of them deserve it. Andrew Rand said, a morally good
person may evade. Sometimes some may disagree, but I think
that reflects defining by essentials and emotional understanding and be

(01:26:44):
emotionally understanding, and that one may really feel acute fear
that cripples one's thinking. Yeah, I mean, I think that's right,
whether it's feo or what it exactly is. She recognized
that you could fould sometimes, you can make a mistake,
you can you can do something that is wrong sometimes,

(01:27:06):
I mean, particularly if it's on a relatively more minor issue,
you know. So she she she recognized how prevalent evasion
is and that you know, making you know, doing it

(01:27:27):
in cerdent circumstances is not wiping out all the good
things that you do. Being immol particularly some immoralities, does
not wipe out all the all the thinking that you do,
all all all the positives. So while she was very moralistic, uh,
you know, she she definitely recognized that people have a

(01:27:48):
psychology and that that that people do indeed evade because
of fear, because of second handedness, because of all kinds
of things, all kinds of emotions that we pick up
when we're younger, and that's I mean, fear probably being
the dominant one that make it very difficult to undo.

(01:28:14):
So I agree, Liam, as much as people hate the left,
as Americans are getting a taste of real fascism from
Trump and his thugs, they will vote to reverse course.
I think that's probably true, particularly if they Democrats can
field candidates that are not, you know, total crazy leftists.

(01:28:36):
So if they learned the wrong lesson from Mamdani's victory
in New York, if they think that's the future of
the party, then they might lose to the thugs on
the right. But if they can put up more call
them moderates, then yes, I think they can beat the
Republicans and there will be a backlash against the thuggishness

(01:28:59):
of this administration. Harper Campbell, do you agree with Harry
Binswinger that if Democrats win big in the mid terms,
Trump will not serve in the power. Well, I mean,
I don't think. I don't think Harry said that he wouldn't.
He said he fears and he worries that he wouldn't,
and I do too. That is, I don't think Harry
said that it was a certain te or even a

(01:29:20):
high likelihood. He said it's possible, and I think it's
definitely possible. How probable it is, I don't know. It's
a fifty to fifty ninety ten in which direction. I
think it's probable. You know, there's possible, sorry, possible. It's
probably less than fifty percent. But can you even imagine

(01:29:40):
contemplating that possibility in any other administration. So even if
it's only twenty percent, that's a lot. Even if it's
only ten percent, it's a lot. So you know, I'm

(01:30:01):
with Harry as it being a concern. It's not an
issue of giving up power his seat. It's an issue
of letting Democrats come in and be sworn in as
members rather than basically shutting down Congress or engage, you know,
dragging Congress the elections through the courts, litigating every single

(01:30:22):
one of the places where he lost and trying. I
don't think that's going to happen. I think he's going
to accept the defeat, but it's hard to tell. So
I think there's a positive probability he doesn't. But notice
Harry didn't say it was even probable, never mind certainty.

(01:30:44):
High doctor books should the next president in case he
is willing to use law fair to try and imprison
Trump for everything he's done in the last ten years,
or should they aspire to be unifying figure in the
United States. I answered this question exactly the same question
days ago. You literally literally the exact same phrasings. It's
humans from you. I said at the time that the

(01:31:08):
priorities should be justice, and I think the only way
to unify the country is to, you know, clearly, objectively
go after people when they break the law. So to
the extent that they are clear cases in which Trump
has violated the law, not the kind of law fair
that brought some of the stupid cases in Manhattan, but

(01:31:30):
real things that he did that violated the law, then yes,
he should go to jail for that. You know, it's
important to engage in justice.

Speaker 3 (01:31:42):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:31:42):
And and you're not going to unify the guy the
country by by by pretending otherwise, right. I think you
need to do both. You need to figure out a
way to unify the country, and that's hard enough by
hopefully hearkening back to you know, the purpose of the
American government and the founding principles. And at the same time,

(01:32:05):
you will need to prosecute him for real crimes, and
you'd have to think about what is straightforward, what is
unequivocal that he's done. I wouldn't do marginal stuff. I
wouldn't go after him for little stuff. I'd only go
after if you can actually prove he violated the law
in a big way where the Supreme Court would uphold it. Now,

(01:32:26):
note the Supreme Court has given a lot of latitude
to presidents, kind of a lot of leeway to do
illegal things, and as long as it's done in the
capacity as president, it's okay. She'd have to be very
careful that you were objective and you can easily prove
the claims that you're making. Lincoln a perfect context of

(01:32:48):
ambition versus safety. Safety America was how astronaut deaks was
seen as necessary casualties to get to the Moon. In contrast,
after challenging explosion, we needed to shut down the entire
space exploration for years, while the experts hate on those
with ambitious goals. Yes, I think you're absolutely right. I

(01:33:11):
think the NASA is a great example of the real
dangers and evil of safetyism. Lincoln Trump Casinos now opening
in Moscow, Doha, Riad featuring musical performer Taylor Swift in
proper booker attire, of course, cuying to a casino near you,

(01:33:39):
I like numbers. Should builders use materials lasting fifty years
plus years? I mean, it depends on what you're building,
but for almost for most things, yes, for most things, yes,
and buyers should be concerned to ask the questions about
what is the quality of the materials being used for

(01:33:59):
the building. I would asque who should who should be
selling producing hard mind altering drugs in an objective of
society when it's not life enhancing? Who would be selling
I don't know, Uh, people who are not particularly high

(01:34:20):
self esteem, uh, ambitious producers that every culture is going
to have. That an objective of society doesn't mean everybody
is a high self esteem objectivist. They're They're going to
be all kinds of people, even in a rational objective
of society, and they will be the kind of people

(01:34:40):
who sell drugs, willing to sell drugs even in that world.

Speaker 5 (01:34:44):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:34:46):
So, yeah, it doesn't worry me. There's always going to
be those kind of people. Lincoln. In other news, the
White House is picking a fight with a pupstar today
over use of a song in an ice video. Typically
immature White House response. Yeah, I mean the singer was

(01:35:08):
picking a fight with Ice because they said, you use
my song inappropriately, and the White House is lashing out
at them, as is immature.

Speaker 2 (01:35:18):
Behavior of this White House.

Speaker 1 (01:35:21):
Lincoln, I've noticed a high level of overlap between objectivists
and Asperger's syndrome. Do you think there is anything about
Asperger's that draws those with it to the philosophy of objectivism.
I have no clue. I really just don't know. I
don't know if the colliation is there. I don't know
if that's true. I don't know much about Asperger's, so
I just don't know. Andrew, whoops, What did I do? Andrew?

(01:35:47):
Do you view empiricism as leading to rationalism or that
they are essentially disconnected opposites. No, I mean there are opposites,
but they play off of each other, neither one of them.
I mean, irrationalists can't completely ignore reality, and when, or
put it this way, when people realize no, rationalism doesn't

(01:36:09):
make any sense. It's completely ignows reality, they swing to
the other extreme, where they go only data, no generalizations.
But of course, even in parisis can't really hold that
because you have to generalize sometimes about your data, so
you know, it's a swing, you know, in terms of
fashions between the two. So they play off of each other,

(01:36:29):
but they don't lead in one particular direction as far
as I know, As far as I can tell, Viles
Leveyo rants exposing fuentes, please create short clips of them.
He's such an idiot. I don't understand his appeal. Yeah,
he's a Volga sleazy whiny. I mean, I guess by

(01:36:52):
some standard he's funny, but he's such a whining weasel
that Yeah, I don't understand it either. He said things
that outrageous and people attracted to outrageous stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:37:04):
All right, guys, I will see.

Speaker 1 (01:37:06):
You tomorrow thanks to the super chatos. And yep, see
you tomorrow. Not exactly what time, but it'll probably be
in the early afternoon. Bye, everybody,

All Episodes

Drug War; HK Fire; Failure; NATO; Swiss Tax; Costco; Fuentes; Waymo | Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Drug War; HK Fire; Failure; NATO; Swiss Tax; Costco; Fuentes; Waymo | Yaron Brook Show