Objectivism, Abortion, Objective Morality, and the Minimal State | Yaron Brook Interviewed - Yaron Brook Show

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
You know the quarter Berry.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Sois hi?

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Everyone, Welcome to Zuga now in English. I know this
is not very common. We typically speak in Portuguese, but
we we couldn't waste a chance to speak with Iron Brook,
which is the guests of today. Thank you so much
for being.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
Here, Thanks for having me and speaking English.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
Appreciate It's an amazing pleasure to have you here. I
know that you've been doing some events here in Portugal
in the last day. You left some today here I think,
how is it called Atlas? At Atlas Campus is helping
to make to put that together as well for some
For the the people that are listening at home, guys,

(01:02):
this is a new space, so pardon us if we
will have some like sound issues or image issues. It
will get better through time. It's the first time we
are doing the postcar podcast in this space. However, for
the people at home that don't know you. So, Aaron
Brook is the shareman of n RN's institute, we'll talk
about what that means.

Speaker 3 (01:19):
Who is rant?

Speaker 1 (01:20):
Where is objectivism? Is the author of books like Free
Market Revolution, Equal is Unfair, which is also a concept
that will discuss today, and the leading advocate for capitalism
and objectivism. So thank you again for being here. It's
an honor.

Speaker 3 (01:34):
How it's been a pleasure.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
How it's been the visit so far in Portugal, It's good.

Speaker 3 (01:37):
Everything's been good. It's a quick visit. I'm on a
European tour, so this is I don't know, the ninth
event I'm doing in ten days or something ridiculous like
that in nine different countries. But it's all good.

Speaker 1 (01:51):
It takes stamina. Well done for that.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
Yeah, I know it takes temina, because I'm not sure
I have it anymore. I used to do a lot better.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
People here in Portugal might be wondering. Okay, tell me more.
I've never heard about this objectivism stuff. Who is n Rant?
So can you? Can you tell us? And let's start
with that, what is objectivism? Who is n Rant?

Speaker 3 (02:12):
Sure? I mean? Ironland was an author and American author
who wrote in the middle of the twentieth century and
probably had a probably among the most important thinkers of
the twentieth century. I think she'll have a profound impact
on the future of mankind, certainly of the US and

(02:33):
in Europe. She's a best selling author. I think she
already had huge impact. I'd say on kind of the
generation that elected Margatacher and Ronald Reagan, and kind of
the move to the to the right that happened in
the nineteen eighties, or to the free market right that
happened in the nineteen eighties. She still sells an amazing

(02:55):
number of books, so she's still somebody who inspires people
all over the world. Her books have been translated into
pretty much every language, including Portuguese. And we were just
talking Portuguese in Brazil and Portuguese Portugal, because I guess
you guys don't read each other's translations, but like the.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
English American stuff, you know, we like to keep it.
But it's a bit different. It's a bit different. The
differences in language are more extreme in terms of I'll
do construct phrases. Although we obviously understanding each other, we
don't like it both ways, so we just keep translating
again and again for Portuguese Portugal and Portuguese Brazil.

Speaker 3 (03:33):
Yeah, so her books are translated pretty much into every
major language out there and a lot of minor languages.
I mean, she was born, She's got a fascinating life history.
She was born in nineteen oh five in Saint Petersburg, Russia,
and she kind of witnessed the Russian Revolution from her balcony.
I mean, it happened right there in Saint Petersburg. So

(03:54):
she lived under communism. She experienced what communism was like.
Her father, who was a pharmacist, owned a pharmacy that
was taken from them. The apartment was taking from them,
had to live with other families, and she, from a
very young age, had a kind of an individualistic spirit.
She was an independent thinker and she hated Communism from

(04:17):
day one. And it was obvious that if she stayed
in Russia she would not survive. They would kill her.
So she got out as soon as she could. There
was a small opening in the nineteen twenties where she
could leave and go do some research in the US
and come back, but she knew she would never come back.
Her family knew she would never come back. Made it

(04:40):
to the United States, got there, you know, a young
Russian woman with nothing, went to Hollywood because she wanted
to write for the movies. Ultimately got all kinds of jobs,
odds and ends jobs, and ultimately became a script writer
in Hollywood. She will plays her first novel is We

(05:03):
the Living, which is a very kind of autobiographical novel.
It's about a young woman growing up in Russia and
witnessing the revolution and dealing with that. Very powerful novel.
If you want to understand communism, read with the Living.
She wrote a small book called Anthem that was first
published in the UK, kind of a dystopian novel atte

(05:28):
very very small, quick read. And then she she wrote
a book called The fountain Head, which took her quite
a few years to write. She was It was published
in nineteen forty five, and she sent it out to
publish this and nobody wanted it, so twelve publishers rejected it,
and then the thirteenth thirteenth publisher took it and didn't

(05:50):
print a lot of copies because they didn't think it
would amount to much. But it became a best seller.
It became a kind of a word of mouth bestseller,
you know, to this day, tens of thousands of copies
just in the United States, and then globally because it's
been translated. And then she started working on a magnus Opus,
which is Atla Shrugg, and she published that in nineteen

(06:11):
fifty seven. This time all the publishers wanted to publish
it because they'd seen what happened with The Fountainhead, and
it came out as an instant bestseller. It again still
sells hundreds of thousands, I think of copies all over
the world, and she became a real celebrity in the
United States. At that point, she started writing philosophy and

(06:33):
commentary on the culture. So she didn't write another novel,
but she wrote lots and lots of articles that were
then put into books Capitalism, non Known Ideal, the Virtue
of Selfishness, pretty controversial philosophy, Who needs it? These are
the kind of books she wrote about the very early
beginnings of the environmentalist movement and about the new Left

(06:57):
which was rising in the nineteen sixties, so she really
covered that. She talked about politics and everything that was
going on in the world. Really during that period. She
analyzed and covered given her unique philosophical perspective, and she
wrote some pretty philosophical books like Introduction to Objectivists of Pistemology,

(07:18):
and she landed up calling her philosophy kind of all
these ideas that she developed in the novels and then
that she developed in her nonfiction writing. She called that
the philosophy of objectivism. So that came together, and it
turned out given all her writings that she you know,
she had a position on metaphysics and epistemology, on ethics,

(07:41):
on politics, and on aesthetics. She's got a book called
the Romantic Manifesto, which is a theory of art that
she developed. So you know, I think she'll go down
as one of the great philosophers and certainly maybe the
most important thinker of the twentieth century.

Speaker 1 (08:00):
All Right, and that's said, with all those amazing novels
and so on, I've read fountain Head and not Los Shrugged,
I've not. I've not read With the Living yet.

Speaker 3 (08:08):
So you should. I think you'll enjoy it. I think
you will.

Speaker 1 (08:11):
Oh will? I will?

Speaker 3 (08:12):
Thanks.

Speaker 1 (08:13):
So that said in a Nutshelle, how can you describe
to people that never heard about objectivism?

Speaker 3 (08:19):
What is that? I mean?

Speaker 1 (08:19):
People have heard the virtue of selfishness.

Speaker 3 (08:22):
They are in.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
Portugal, so they will scream far right if you say that.

Speaker 3 (08:27):
So well, I don't know if I wish for the
far right thought the virtue selfishness. I don't think they do.
But in Portugal, and we can talk about that. Everything
they don't like.

Speaker 1 (08:35):
Is the far exactly. In Portugal, everything that is not
like social democracy. Socialism type is a far right extremist. Well,
let's explain to people.

Speaker 3 (08:43):
Is objectivism so subjectivism, I mean it's hard to do
because objectivism is philosophy. So it's many many, many books,
many many volumes could be written. But on kind of
on one foot the brief topic. You know, I believe
that reality is what it is. It's not what you
wish it to be. It's not what what somebody else

(09:04):
wishes to be. It it existence exists as a the
law of causality kind of Uh. And then we as
human beings have the tool to no reality. We know
reality through reason, through our senses and through our and
with the use of our mind integrating the information we
get from our senses. We don't know it from our emotions.
Our emotions are not tools of cognition. They don't teach

(09:27):
us about reality. They teach us about ourselves maybe, but
not about reality. And we don't. We don't learn truth
from revelation. Truth comes from reason, from from from observing
and integrating. Uh. And then you know, reason is a
faculty that only individuals have. There's no collective consciousness, there's
no collective thinking. Uh. And so individual is the unit

(09:49):
that is of importance, and uh the individual should, according
to objectivism, pursue his own interests, his own life, survive, thrive, flourish,
and ultimately happiness. So the goal of morality should be
to teach us how to live, how to live well,

(10:10):
how to flourish, how to thrive, how to be the
best human beings we can be. It's not to teach
us how to sacrifice and live for others, and it's
not to demand other sacrifice for us. It's to live
your life as an independent human being, using your reason,
your means of your tool to know the world as

(10:30):
your guide and then you know. So if such individuals
pursuing their own happiness, pursuing your own life, they want
to be basically left free, recognizing that the enemy of
reason and the enemy of thinking is force cousion. So
you want a political system that rejects that takes out

(10:52):
of society force and cosion. So you want a government
that has a monopoly over the use of force, but
only can only use it in retaliation, can only use
them to protect people from force inclusion. So she's against socialism,
she's against fascism for left, for right, she is she
is for capitalism, which he defined as the system where

(11:14):
the government's sole job is the protection and defense of
individual rights, where all property is owned privately, and where
there is a complete separation between state and economics. So
so pretty radical as a as a free marketer, as
the you know, but it's more than just a market.

(11:35):
It's the idea that rights much must be protected. That
is the role of government.

Speaker 1 (11:39):
So you spoke about some concepts that some people might
think they're very subjective, like happiness, right, Happiness for me
can be can mean very different things than what it
means for you. Happiness for you might be doing a
very nice tour through Europe talking about and random objectivism.
To me, happiness is like staying with my family and
enjoy a nice a nice dinner them. So how can

(12:01):
that be the self interest joining force of the pursuits
of happiness. How such a subjective thing can can be
meddled and consistent with objectivism?

Speaker 3 (12:14):
Then, So, first, I don't think it's subjectives, you know.
Subjective is a term, a philosophical term that really means
you know, whatever, whatever you feel like. Well, and I
think the pro the principles, the rules to achieving happiness
Happiness is not just something that you win, that you whim,
that just comes out of your own particular whims. It's
certainly personal. Each one of us is going to experience

(12:37):
happiness differently, in which can experience happiness from different things.
But even then there's a principle guiding it all. Happiness
comes from achieving your values, assuming those values are rational
and pro life. Right, If your values involved injecting heroin
and UH and being a sadamasochist, then you're not going

(12:58):
to achieve happiness by your values. Your values, well, you
destroy you, make you unhappy, and actually kill you. So
you have to have life affirming rational values. If you
have life affirming rational valuers, and they can be a lot,
it can be. I think everybody needs a career. I think,
you know, we can talk about that. But career is
where you get your self esteem, and I think self
esteem is necessary. But some people might emphasize more family,

(13:23):
some people might emphasize more travel, some people don't like
to travel. There are a lot of specifics that differ
from people, but I don't call them subjective. Hopefully, you know,
you can define what your values are and why their
values to you, you know, and in a rational way,
in a way that you can communicate, and I can

(13:44):
do the same for mine. So the formula for happiness
is to achieve your rational life affirming values, and to
constantly strive to improve, to constantly strive for something better,
whether it's within your career or whether it's within your family,
you know whatever.

Speaker 1 (14:01):
Real what if myself interested just to maximize pleasure.

Speaker 3 (14:05):
Well then you won't be happy. You'll land up being miserable.
The hedonists don't actually achieve. They achieve momentary pleasure, but
they don't actually achieve happiness. We are not a being
that is pure material. That is, we're not a being
that can only survive on a material a pleasure. Pleasure

(14:30):
is important. I'm all full pleasure. I love pleasure. I
think pleasure is great, and pleasure is a requirement for happiness,
but it's not enough. And people who dedicate themselves just
to having to partying and drinking and drugs or whatever, sex, whatever,
you know, they can have fun for a while, but
that doesn't add up to happiness. And that's another thing.
Happiness is not a momentary emotion. It's not like I'm

(14:52):
happy one minute and I'm not happy the other minute.
Happiness is an underlying state of being. It's some that
you carry with you for you actual real life. You
can get bad news, you can something really horrible can happen.
It makes you very, very, very sad, and yet fundamentally
you're still a happy person. So happiness is not something

(15:14):
that you switch on and off all the time. It's
something that once you attain it and you sustain it
is sustained as an underlying sense of a being.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
So when you say self pursue your self interest and
your own happiness and so on. But at the same time,
there's judgment in terms not judgment in a bad sense,
but judgment in the sense of, obviously there are ways
to pursue your self interest that are better than others.
How do you explain that to people? A little bit
more little because some people say, oh, awesome, I can

(15:45):
pursue my self interest. I will just do what I
want and anybody can be good. Is there such a
thing as objective morality on the objectivist framework?

Speaker 3 (15:54):
Absolutely, I mean reality is objective. So the standards of
your behavior, the prince supposed by which you behave, which
is what morality kind of articulates, are objective and they're
not dependent on you. They are uniform to the entire
human race. That is, these are principle that apply to everybody,
no matter where they are, no matter what their circumstances are.

(16:17):
That is, it's true for all human beings that the
way in which we survive, the way in which we thrive,
is by the use of our reason.

Speaker 1 (16:24):
And can you give examples, like one of those universal
objective moral rules.

Speaker 3 (16:30):
Live by reason, live by your mind, be rational. Be
rational is a moral principle. I know that's very outside
the norm of what people consider morality, but that's because
I think morality today is completely messed up, and it's
anti human and it's it's destructive. It's why we have

(16:52):
so many problems in the world, why we have so
many political problems, but also just personal problems. There's a
lot of people unhappy in the world. There's a lot
of poverty and death and destruction in the world, and
it comes from the fact that we have a screwed
up morality. So I think for two thousand plus years,
or really since the beginning of mankind, we've messed around

(17:15):
with morality, and we've dedicated morality to thinking about how
to sacrifice the other people, and how to place the
well being of other people in front of everything else.
And we haven't really thought about how to make our
own lives good. And this is the revolution I think
that iron Ran brings. So then number one, if you
had to boil down all of Ironrand's thinking into one

(17:35):
principle guidance to life, think, use your mind. I mean,
the reality is that almost any time you get into
trouble and you go, oh God, that that was a mistake,
it's almost always the case that you followed your emotions
and you didn't think it through beforehand. I mean it's
almost never that you go, I thought about it too much, right,

(17:59):
It's I didn't think it through. I didn't really look
at all the evidence. You know, you you get involved
with a with a woman who's you know, ultimately not
so good for you. Yeah, you let your let your
libido dictate what you do, rather than think about about
what the consequences of what your what your actual actions
on what her character might or might not be. So

(18:20):
thinking is the essence is that the core of human
morality what guides us to flourishing, it will makes every
value possible. I mean, none of us are born if
you look at just basic human values. None of us
are born with the gene to hunt. I mean, I
know some men think they do, but they don't have it. Right.

(18:41):
You know, if you go up against a bison, you
have to run down a big animal. Right. We're not fast,
we're not strong, no clause, no fangs. Right, So you're
not going to be successful. So you need tools. You
need weapons, you need you need strategy, you need teamwork.
All of that requirets thinking. All of that requition. We
don't have a gene to create bows and rows, bows

(19:04):
and ls. Some genius invented it. We probably burnt him
at the steak and uh and and and then people
copied it with some genius had they invented. So, you know,
the mind is the source of all human values.

Speaker 1 (19:17):
So what do you decay? For example, there's a bunch
of a bunch of people that would say, I'm thinking
clearly and very precisely. That's why I reached a conclusion
that socialism is the best You even had the expression
of scientific socialism, as you know, right, So they really
wanted to prove the point that socialism was the best

(19:38):
rational economic system that you could have. How do you
work with those people in terms of rational with better reasoning,
what is our.

Speaker 3 (19:45):
Sure So you could you could make an excuse for
maybe car marks that he didn't know better. Maybe right,
Mars is full of contradictions and full of full of
garbage and his writing, but you can make it. Use
that one hundred and fifty years ago, two hundred years ago, Okay,

(20:06):
it seemed scientific, although it wasn't today with the complete
failures of socialism. I mean, what people who are socialists
today do is they take a knife and they stick
it in both of their eyes and they blind themselves
to reality. The one thing socialists don't do is use

(20:26):
their mind. The one thing socialists don't do is think,
because if they use their mind, if they use their eyes,
if they use their mind, they would see the complete
another failure of socialism. And if they use their mind,
they would see that socialism cannot work because it's a
rotten theory. Marx is wrong and pretty much everything he
said why he's still popular is bizarre. Right, emotional, it's emotional,

(20:50):
it's driven by emotion, it's driven by morality, right, by
a rotten morality.

Speaker 1 (20:58):
That's one thing that I was about to say, which
is if I go to the streets right now in
Portugal and I ask someone about their most important let's say,
top three values that you have. I bet you like
eighty percent of people will say equality in one of
those values. But you would say, and you wrote it,
equality is unfair. Yeah, absolutely, So can you do you

(21:19):
care to explain that concept to people, which is very
foreign here in Portugal?

Speaker 3 (21:23):
Sure, I mean we're all different, we have different skills,
different abilities. I mean, it's a fact, and it's what
makes life interesting and fun. Is the fact the world different.
Wall the same, it would be horrible.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
So given the wall different, we all have different values.

Speaker 3 (21:36):
We all work at different jobs, a different level of engagement.
We work harder, we work less. Some people like to
be at the beach a lot of the time. Some
people are lazy, some people are hard working. We have
different moral characters, all different in every dimension. So the
outcome of that is going to be we're going to

(21:56):
produce at different levels. So it's produced a lot. So
it's produce a lot a bit, And the economic inequality
is just a reflection of how much you produce. And
that's that's just reality. You can ignore reality, you can
evade the reality you can pretend it doesn't exist, but
the fact is we all produce different amounts, and therefore

(22:18):
income is different and our wealth is different. When you
try to equate us in terms of outcome, then you
have to use cursion. You have to use force. You
have to take from the person who was really hard working,
had a great idea, started a business, created something that
didn't exist before. You have to forcibly take from that
person and give it to In some cases people who

(22:40):
just maybe are not that smart, or maybe people who
are you know, got a bad break in life, or
people who are lazy, or people with bad moral character
who people don't want to work hard, who you don't
want to sit in front of the television and play
video games all day. So they get by using force.
They steal, in a sense, the wealth from the person

(23:01):
who actually created it. So the only way to achieve
equality is through violence. It's through taking. And so equality
is a phenomena of violence, and it is it ignores
the metaphysical reality they were not equal, the mesicallygical reality
that we don't produce the same amounts. Now, people believe

(23:22):
that businessmen exploit the money they own is not earned right,
rich people do. But the reality is that you can't
become rich unless you make products that people want and
you sell it to them at the price they're willing
to pay, and thus doing your making your customers lives better.
Because nobody buys stuff to make themselves worse. Nobody buys

(23:45):
stuff because they don't care. People buy stuff because they
believe that by buying it, their life will be improved.
And you're doing that by creating the stuff. By opening
a store, by opening a restaurant, you enhancing the lives
of the people you engage with. And instead of viewing
them as virtuous, as good people because they've gone out there,

(24:10):
they've worked, they've they've created something for themselves and made
everybody else's lives better, we viewed them as scoundrels, as
bad guys, exploiters, and we want to take their stuff.
That's unbelievably unjust. There's another moral principle, right justice. Justice
means getting what you deserve. If you sit all day
and play video games, you don't deserve anything, right, you

(24:33):
deserve the video game. That's it. And if you starve,
it's your problem. If you go and build a new
company and create a new product that people enjoy and
value and are willing to pay for You deserve to
make a lot of money. So the system that allows
some people to make a lot of money and other
people to have less is a system of justice, the

(24:54):
exact opposite of kind of social justice, which is what
the socialists push for.

Speaker 1 (24:58):
Ye, So it's complete reversal. They don't even believe in
objective morality, right, They the New Left, and this every
type of thing that I've seen, they all deny objective morality,
but they seem to be the most moralists as possible. Yes,
a funny combination.

Speaker 3 (25:16):
They live by a certain objective morality. That is, their
morality is based on on altruism. The morality is based
on the idea that the poorer you are, that the
less you have for whatever reason, it doesn't matter to
them why you're more virtuous, you're good. And the more
successful you are, the ritue you are, the more prosperous

(25:38):
you are, the more you've done with your life, the
more evil you are. And the idea is that the
only way to get success, to be successful in life,
is to exploit the unsuccessful. So everything is about oppression
oppressed and oppressed oppressor. So the successful oppressors. The failures
are oppressed, and therefore the failures of the good guy

(26:00):
and the successors are the bad guys. And you can
see that all over the world. So if a country
is rich and successful and prosperous, they must be evil.
If a if a country is poor and miserable and
treating people horribly, and everybody is everybody is really in
bad shape, well they must be oppressed. So the other
good guys and and and that's global politics today.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
So there's a phrase from Solzenski that really puts it
well in terms of equality. It was also born in
Soviet Union, born and lived there, and all these books.

Speaker 3 (26:31):
Were persecuted then were sent to the Gulags, and I
lived a horrible in.

Speaker 1 (26:37):
The Gurlag archipelago. He says. He has a really good
quote when he says that human human beings are born different.
That's it, just like you said. So if we are different,
we will never be the same. Only and if we
are free, we will never be the same.

Speaker 3 (26:50):
Right, exactly.

Speaker 1 (26:51):
The only way that we are equal is if we
are not free, yes, absolutely, and even and even then,
you know, even when we not free, we're not equal.

Speaker 3 (27:01):
I mean, it was everybody equal in Soviet Union. No,
I mean, is everybody equal in the Gulug? I mean,
I think one of the points he makes is no,
not even in the Gulag. Some people are more industrious
and find ways to do better in the Goolug. Some
people just give up and die very quickly in the Goolug.
So even when you have zero freedom, when everything is controlled,

(27:23):
we're not all going to be equal, you know, because
we're all different.

Speaker 1 (27:27):
And that's what would you say that the quality is
are anti human value?

Speaker 3 (27:32):
Yes, now there is one form of equality that's proke,
human and good. I mean, the founding fathers of America,
they start off the Declaration of Dependence. They start off
the Declaration Independence with the statement all men are created equal.
But they they didn't mean it in a sense that
the socialists or the left mant it. They mean it,
and they meant it in the sensus. Politically, that is

(27:53):
that all men have equal rights. They will all have
the right of life, liberty, you know, property, in the
pursuit of happens, we all must be protected by the
law equally. That sense, a political equality, I think, is
the only sense in which equality means anything for human beings.
Any other sense of equality, equality of outcome, equality of opportunity,

(28:15):
all forms of you know, trying to evade the metaphysical
reality and using force and coasion in order to do it.

Speaker 1 (28:26):
So permit me a pivot now in the discussion. So
we are known as a libertarian podcast. We discuss about politics, economics, philosophy.
That's why you're here, right. Why did n Rand didn't
refer to ourselves as a libertarian much? Why objectivism and
objectivists in general don't refer to themselves as libertarian because

(28:49):
it seems as a political system. I mean, libertarianism seems
like an expected political system if you think objectively.

Speaker 3 (29:00):
Or maybe not. This is what we're going to talk about, right,
So it's not that Ironman didn't refer to herself as
a libertarian. Ironland was very negative on libertarians. She was
very negative on them. And so I think there are
a few reasons. One, objectives is a philosophy. It's not
a it's not politics, it's not a political it's not

(29:20):
just a political philosophy, it's a philosophy. And Ironmand rejected
the idea that you could have a political philosophy libertarianism
without a system. Morality, epistemology, metaphys without a philosophical foundations.
She thought it was a waste of time to just
focus on politics as mostly in an economics, which is

(29:40):
what most libertarians focus on. She said, you need a philosophy,
and everybody has a philosophy and what And she worried
that because the libertarians accepted anybody's philosophy, that it basically
made the politics untenable. It made the politics unintelligible, and
ultimately it was a weak foundation. It was a quicksand right.

(30:04):
You couldn't build a good foundation. You needed a proper
philosophy to have the foundation of liberty. And of course
she was right. And the consequence of that is that
you you know, what does libertarianism actually mean? Right? You know,
some libertarians believe in limited governments and individual rights, but

(30:24):
there were a lot of libertarians out there who believe
in anarchy, that there should be no government and anything goes.
Libertarians have defended pedophilia. I mean, if the child wants it,
they have at liberty to do it. Right. It's pretty crazy,
but they're all under the tent of libertarianism because they
have a rotten definition of a philosophical definition. You know,

(30:45):
the So the libertarians who take a lot of different
and and and in many cases pretty crazy positions right now,
for example, you've got libertarians who hate America, who hate Israel,
who hates civilization, and who are pop puting, and yet
they call themselves libertarian. You know, the libertarians. There's no

(31:06):
liberty in any of the you know, there's no liberty there.
And you've got at the same time people who are
exactly the opposite. So is what is libertarianism? What's the
policy that libertarian actually retornis am actually advocate for. And
I think the problem is it's too big of a pretent.
There's too many different elements underneath this label, and it

(31:26):
doesn't have the proper philosophical foundation. So there's no way
to fix the tent without a foundation.

Speaker 1 (31:33):
I would say. And we can speak a little bit
about it, because I completely agree with you when you
say that libertarian libertarianism is incomplete. And most of people
that say they are libertarian and they don't think too
much about it because it sounds good. It doesn't sound
good in Portugal at all. It's a very hard thing
to sell, let me tell you. But it does sound

(31:53):
good in people that try to prioritize freedom because that
sounds good, right, I mean, why should people steal from me?
Why should people tell me how to live? I should
decide that for myself. It's very consistent with objectivism. But
they try to explain everything and try to re orientate
the world in a sense with only objective, with only
libertar Liberty is very simple, actually, and it doesn't try

(32:14):
to solve much. It's it's very in my mind, that's
my perspective. I see it just as the principle of
non aggression, no non aggression, the non aggression principle.

Speaker 3 (32:23):
That's it.

Speaker 1 (32:24):
So it doesn't tell you all to live at all.
It just tells you you shouldn't aggress and initiate violence
against someone else, and that's it. In all forms. Anything else,
then you have other systems that inform your reasoning. But
of course, example we are Libertardian and conservative, so I
super agree with you that without a moral system that

(32:46):
underpins your liberty, then you just descend into guests.

Speaker 3 (32:50):
Absolutely so. So so yes, I mean, this is this
is the challenge, right So.

Speaker 1 (32:57):
But I wouldn't say it's a fault of Libertatianism. I
would say people are just trying to do with libertarianism
more than it promises.

Speaker 3 (33:03):
But look, libertarianism is really a term that was founded,
created really in the nineteen sixties to a lodge extent
by Mario rothbod Correct, who was an anarchist who believed
in a lot more than a non aggression principle. And
of course the non aggression principle is not a principle
because it has to have a mal reason. Why don't digress?

(33:26):
I mean, every system of thought in human history was
pro aggression. You know, Judaism is progression, Christianity's progression Islamist progression.
Every secular philosopher and ever existed is progression if it's
for the good cause, if it's for the right cause, right,
and they've all practiced aggression. So you need to justify

(33:49):
the non aggression principle. It's not a starting point, it's
an end in a sense. And I think in order
to justify the non aggression principle you have to have
the right moral code. Almost everybody has a wrong model code.
And therefore when you come to the non aggression principle,
they go, well, that doesn't sound right, that doesn't make
any sense, because it doesn't it's inconsistent with what forward before.

(34:12):
So you know, so libertarianism from the beginning, we're set
up as a system that's much more than non aggression.
It has positions and pretty much everything, and it has
positions about and even when it comes to kind of
if we agree that there should be an individual right, well,

(34:33):
where the rights come from, which rights exist, who has rights?
How do we apply it in government? Those all tricky questions.
They're not obvious and how to do it. Non aggression
doesn't tell you how to solve those problems. Those are
problems that need we solved. And yet your philosophical foundations
are going to dictate to a large extent, how you
solve those problems, and therefore we disagree. So I think

(34:54):
it's a problem to have a big tent. And since
I do have a philosophy, I do have the model foundations. Uh,
there's no reason for me to belong to attend because
I find itself. For example, I think libertary. I think
anarchists people who call themselves an alco capitalist. I don't
know if you guys call yourself an aco capitalist, but
I think that is a very very dangerous ideology. I

(35:16):
think it's an anti freedom ideology that ultimately leads to bloodshed.
I don't think it leads to the non aggression principle.
I think it actually leads to aggression. And it's a
it's a it's an issue in arco capitalism that actually
engages the idea of individual rights. Right. It's because there's
no entity that actually protects individual rights, because individual rights

(35:36):
are tradable in the marketplace.

Speaker 1 (35:38):
What do you say if people give you some like
historical examples like the medieval Island because people also have different.

Speaker 3 (35:46):
I love Medieval Iceland because it's yeah, everybody, everybody, everybody
gives me the me, just finish.

Speaker 1 (35:51):
Because some people also see an archo capitalism in different ways,
and I really don't like it when people think, oh,
an archo capitalism is just there's not going to be
leadership at all, no hierarchies, no everything. And I think
that's pretty dumb, to be honest, I think that's pretty
dumb to think that humans will organize themselves in that

(36:12):
way because leadership and aerarchy is a pretty natural human
expectant consequence.

Speaker 3 (36:18):
Yeah, so I've never be free. I've never heard of
a design of an alcoho capitalism that makes any sense
to me. They all fall apart, they all turn into violence.
And so Iceland was one of the first examples that
people always use. In one of the primary example, David
Friedman used it, of course. So I visited Iceland, and
I asked, as a libertarian economist there, I said, you know,

(36:41):
how do how do I learn about that period in
Icelandic history? Because I'd like to learn more about what
actually happened. He said, the best thing is is go
read the Sagas, the story of kind of the stories
of what was going on. So I bought they were
selling the Sagas, and I bought them and I read
them on a plane and all, my god, right, so

(37:02):
this is what happened in Iceland. Right, I would steal
your horse, so you would come and kill my wife,
so I would kill your children. And then we go
in front of this big gathering right that they had
once I don't know a month, once a year in
Iceland in and we and they say, oh, well, you
guys need to stop, and you give him and you
compensate him and say okay, and we do all that,
and then we go back home and we go No,

(37:24):
I'm still pissed off. At you, So I go kill
some more of your children, and you come and steal
more of my host. And the whole saga is is
everybody's killing everybody else, constant violence, which is exactly the
way I perceive anarchy to be. Anarchy is a system
of violence. It's a system.

Speaker 1 (37:38):
But that's not what happened, right, That's.

Speaker 3 (37:40):
Exactly what happened in Iceland.

Speaker 1 (37:41):
Because most of most of the most of the data
informs that there was much less murder than the medium
average of what you had in Europe.

Speaker 3 (37:50):
No, they were the First of all, You've got to
be suspicious of data from that period of time, particularly
if you're doing median vis a vis might not that story.
These are the only accounts we have. These are really
the only accounts we have of what happened in Iceland.
We don't have detailed records, we don't have a history,
a formal history. Really, all we have to learn from

(38:13):
Iceland to Loge extent is what the stories that were told.
This is. This was not a civil This the other thing, right,
it's pretty primitive, right, This is not a civilization where
they were doing science or or writing, or engaged in writing,
or engaged in history. Or engaged in everything. It was
primitive and it stayed primitive for a very very long time.
So if you look at societies where you actually saw progress,

(38:36):
which I care about, I just don't. I don't want
to live in Iceland, you know, just being a farmer.
I want to I want I want to progress. If
you look at progress, progress doesn't start in Iceland. Progress
starts in Florence. A progress starts in in in in
Europe under very very different conditions h than it did
in Iceland. So there's no example that I know of

(38:57):
in human history where a it was truly peaceful and
b you actually had anything good happening. Right. So it's
one thing to live in peace, it's another thing to
advance the progress for good stuff to happen.

Speaker 1 (39:10):
Becausepaia progress pretty much. I mean, they build amazing palaces.
They made themselves rich by planting tobacco that it was
forbidden in Italy at the time. Caspaia.

Speaker 3 (39:19):
Yeah, I don't know. I don't know the story because.

Speaker 1 (39:21):
It was like five hundred of years long, their story.
But I think you make some great points. I think
you make some great points.

Speaker 3 (39:27):
And you know I've debated this. You can find my
you know, I've done a couple of debates on this,
when in Poland and one with Blan Kaplan. Uh, and
they've got to link the essay on why I objected
OCCO capitalism.

Speaker 1 (39:39):
I think you make some good points, and it is
difficult to defend in a sense because it's a freedom system,
so you don't really know, but you are defending.

Speaker 3 (39:47):
Because it's not a freedom system. This is the fundamental
philosophical issue. It's not a freedom system because for freedom
you have to define what freedom means. And to do
that you have to have a principle of individual rights.
You have to have a system of right and rights
need to be defended, and you can't. You know, Brian Kaplan,
when I debated him, acknowledge the fact that in a

(40:08):
system with multiple police forces, where we're competing and different judiciaries, yes,
the individual rights will be violated because you know, what
come to compromises. I'm not buying an idealistic system in
which we compromise on individual rights.

Speaker 1 (40:23):
That happens nowadays, right, well, nowadays, it's not a good system.

Speaker 3 (40:26):
I'm not defending. I'm not defending the system that exists today.
I'm not defending government.

Speaker 1 (40:32):
Even more if you already have law enforcement states.

Speaker 3 (40:36):
Well, I'm saying you have to have. I mean, we
don't live in a world that understands what individual rights are.
We don't live in a world that has composed its
laws and its principles based on individual rights. So we
don't you know, we can't learn much about what a
proper system would look like based on you know, what
we have today.

Speaker 1 (40:54):
Exactly, So that it's a fair argument both ways, but
you do you make a good case for it. I
would like to extend some of these conversations also for
some of the rights, because you spoke about and one
of their phrases, it was really a good one that
I'd like just said, if the pursuit of happiness is
rational and pro life, objectivists are not known for being

(41:15):
pro life, right, so I would like to discuss that
point on an abortion so when the right to life begins?

Speaker 3 (41:24):
So, yeah, we're very pro life. I mean, objectivism is
all about pro life. It's the life of the mother,
the life the life. Yeah, it's all about semantics, right,
I mean, you guys chose the anti abortion side, chose
pro life for some antic reasons. Sounds good. We're pro
poor life, the real human life that actually exists, versus

(41:47):
the potential human life that doesn't exist yet. So we
view a fetus is not human, right, it's a potential human.
It will become a human being, but it's not yet human,
and it's not yet an individual, so rights about individual.
So it hasn't been individuated, it hasn't been separated. So

(42:07):
all the rights at this point politically, all the rights
with the mother, you know, the it's it's the state
has the total responsibility of protecting the mother, not the fetus.
The state has no relationship with the fetus. It's not
an individual, it's not being separated, and it's not human yet.
It's only a potential human. It's certainly in the first

(42:28):
few months it's just you know, it's am CLMP of cells.

Speaker 1 (42:32):
But you don't think it starts after a few months, right,
Well when when? No, because it's worth worth defending that.

Speaker 3 (42:40):
Well, once it becomes human and separate, So when it's born.

Speaker 1 (42:44):
So when it's born, So for example, if if I
have like eight months, if so there's a newborn which
was born a little bit prior to the nine months,
let's say seven months and a half, is already born
is in terms of development is exactly the same as
the other.

Speaker 3 (43:01):
Well, it's not. It usually has to be in a
in a you know.

Speaker 1 (43:04):
Special case, let's say eight months now, it doesn't really matter.

Speaker 3 (43:07):
I mean, it's not a matter of time. It's a
matter of being born. But that's matter what I.

Speaker 1 (43:11):
Want to that's what I want to test with you,
which is if I'm more like a week prior and
there is the same baby which is still in the womb,
I mean, those are essentially the same beings in terms
of development, in terms of capabilities and everything. So why
one can be killed and the other as the full
right to life?

Speaker 3 (43:28):
It seems a bit I mean defense, I mean, because
they are completely different entities. One is breathing, the other
is achieving all of it's all of its life requirements
come through the ambility corde. It's not breathing, it's not eating,
it's not digesting. It's it's it has no individual life.

(43:49):
It's not an individual yet, you know. It's it's it's
not right to begin at the time. To be to
have rights, you have to be an individual. So it's
just a legal it's a legal concept, right.

Speaker 1 (44:00):
So uh, but let's not discuss it that the legal concept, right,
because legality doesn't dequate to morality. Let's keep it on
the morality.

Speaker 3 (44:09):
But on all principle, it's often immol to have an abortion.
So morality is about reason and rationality. So it's a
question of why is a woman having an abortion? Uh,
if you if you lived in Brazil and had Zica
and and your your fetus's brain had shriveled and was
like tiny, and if it was going to be born,

(44:30):
it would survive for a few months in complete out
of misery and pain the entire time.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
It's immoral not to abort that child, you think so?

Speaker 3 (44:40):
Absolutely? But absolutely are.

Speaker 1 (44:42):
We certain that that's going to be his life?

Speaker 3 (44:44):
I mean, that's called science. It's it's called science.

Speaker 1 (44:47):
It because not certain one under oh yes it is.

Speaker 3 (44:52):
Example, if you if you have a shrunken brain and
and you know, we we know what zeka is, we
know how it performs.

Speaker 1 (44:59):
Absolutely we know exactly what the life is going to do.

Speaker 3 (45:01):
An example, and even if it's not, let's say I'm
going to have a child, yeah, and it's ninety percent.

Speaker 4 (45:06):
Probable that I'll have it a life like that exactly,
I would I would absolutely kill it before. Absolutely, But
why because because the misery of ninety percent probability misery
is so horrible that I would never.

Speaker 3 (45:20):
Want to inflict on another human being that kind of misery.
It's why I believe in That's why I believe suicide
is not immoral. It's often moral. It's why you know,
so I think sometimes sometimes life is not worth living.

Speaker 1 (45:33):
Yeah, but you just said, like some a few moments ago,
that you can be suffering a lot and still be happy, right,
So it doesn't really equate to a utilitarian.

Speaker 3 (45:42):
A baby, a baby that has no conception and is
born and is just suffering. It's it's intense pain. Oh god,
I would give I would do anything to avoid that.

Speaker 1 (45:53):
But if even if I said to you, okay, let's
then forbid every single others of the ninety nine point
six percent of abortions, you would still didn't care because
you would still be in favor of that.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
Right. Yeah, but again you you you shifted on me
because you've gone to politics inte of morality. Right, So
politically politically absolutely, it's not an individual, it doesn't have rights, no,
but morally speaking, morally politics, but you know, may.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
The point is, is it rational. That is the point.

Speaker 3 (46:23):
Look, almost no abortions happened in eighth in the eighth months,
the number of abortion in the eighth month is almost zero.
And when it does happen, you would be fine with it.
But when it does happen, yeah, But the point is
that that we're looking we're talking about actual phenomena, like
because of morality, not because of legal Because of morality,
doctors won't perform the abortion in the eighth month, and

(46:45):
and and mother and and and and potential mothers don't
want to do it. So that's that's a moral point. Legally, yes, legally,
state has no business it, right, the state has no business.
So Mali doctors won't do it for good reason. And
I don't think you know, I think it's good that
they don't do it if you're a woman, because it's
because somemall issue. Let me get to the mall issue.

(47:06):
If you're a woman and you've they you know, you're
you're pregnant, you know you're going to have a baby,
and you know coming eight months you feel like you
don't want to have it, that's you know, again, my
morality is about reason. Right, you have to take responsibility.
So at that point, just you're you know, the whim
of not doing it. That's why you know it's it's

(47:28):
it's harmful to you as a woman to have an
abortion at the eighth month. It's dangerous for you. There's
so many reasons why you wouldn't want to do it.
So the only time we have abortions in the eighth
month is either because the fetus is really in bad
shape and it's not it is going to have a
horrible life, is not going to survive, or the mother
is going to die as a consequence. So those are

(47:50):
the only abortions in those stations. Earlier than that, most
of almost all abortions happened before the twentieth weeks, something
like ninety two percent of abortion having before twenty first week.
And at that point, Yeah, it's not a human being,
it's not individuated, and it has no there's no moral issue.
I view it the other way around. Look, if you're

(48:13):
a woman and you're pregnant and you don't want.

Speaker 1 (48:16):
To have a child, don't have sex.

Speaker 3 (48:20):
Oh god, yeah, but that's that's what it boils down to.
You should have sex. Sex is wonderful, Have lots of sex. People,
Please sex.

Speaker 1 (48:27):
And why the sex exists. Let's be rational, why the
sex exist in nature?

Speaker 3 (48:32):
Yeah, but see we're not animals. No, but my question, Yeah,
for sex existence. We're not animals, but we're not that
kind of animals. We'll step above animals. So we can
take something that in the animal kingdom only exists for procreation,
and we can make it a spiritual, meaningful, pleasurable, you know, engaging, stimulating,

(48:53):
fun thing to do.

Speaker 1 (48:54):
But the next sequence of sex will remain. You can
do all of that.

Speaker 3 (48:57):
No, but that's why you have contraception. Right, you can
have abortion. This is the beauty of abortion. So I'm
not just anti anti abortion, I'm poor abortion. I think
that if you're if you're a woman and you're pregnant
and you do not want to have a child, you
your moral obligation is to have an abortion because the
worst thing in the world is to bring a child
into the world who is not wanted. So have that

(49:20):
abortion and and live your life. And plus you're gonna
have to live nine months. I mean, I had a predator.
I've got two kids, so I know what pregnancy is like.
Nine months which are hard. You know, it's not easy
for a woman to go through pregnancy, particularly when you
don't want it. So I think the right thing to do,
the rational thing to do, the moral thing to do,
is to get an abortion, and to get it very

(49:41):
very early. This is why abortion pills are great, and
getting an abortion in the first three months is ideal
because it very little medical impact on you. It's still
just a clump of cells and you get to live
your life the way you want to live your life.

Speaker 1 (49:55):
We are a comp of cells, just much more more
cells than yeah, but we're.

Speaker 3 (49:59):
Not comp of cells, not human. My my skin cells,
my skin cells are human. They have all my DNA.
But I do this and they die just like the fetus,
and they die.

Speaker 1 (50:08):
They are human as well.

Speaker 3 (50:08):
Yeah, but that's why we don't. We don't get upset
when my skin cells die. We don't get accept when
when you.

Speaker 1 (50:14):
Brush your screen. It will never become a full rational
human being.

Speaker 3 (50:19):
With The point is you cannot conflate a potential with
the actual, exactly the the the fetus's potential. It's not
actual until it's actual, and one day will become actual.
And the separating point is pretty clicker.

Speaker 1 (50:34):
Because I would say it's much it's I would say
probably if you ask an adult human being, what do
you think would be worse? You're not being desired in
the world by your mother, are you dying? They will
pretty much say, I mean that would.

Speaker 3 (50:50):
But you're not get conscious of your own death, so
it's meaningless, right, So you never existing is the point.

Speaker 1 (50:55):
And a lot of a lot of humans about the
four months old.

Speaker 3 (50:59):
Yeah, but you can't because he's already experienced reality and
he's already functioning by himself. And and it's it's.

Speaker 1 (51:05):
Completely itself, is not autonomous.

Speaker 3 (51:06):
Nobody's walking, he's calling, is sticking, he's moving, is moving.

Speaker 1 (51:11):
He's moving inside of the belly as well.

Speaker 3 (51:13):
No, it's just moving with a fluid. He's moving. He's
not self initiating action. It is a huge is a
huge difference.

Speaker 1 (51:20):
So if a baby moves in the womb, it's not
the mother that moves it.

Speaker 3 (51:23):
It moves by himself. No, it's floating in the liquid
and it moves around.

Speaker 1 (51:26):
Come on, it kicks, you know that, you know, come on, But.

Speaker 3 (51:30):
It's not kicking because it wants to kick. It just kicks.
It's not it's not it's not self directed. But the
action is not self.

Speaker 1 (51:37):
It's the same. I know two months old at all. Yes,
it doesn't decide anything, it just acts.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
But some things it decides absolutely some things at once,
and it desires and it goes. It sucks, right, it
knows how to suck.

Speaker 1 (51:48):
Because the I have an issue with because I think
ultimately is another version of the consciousness argument. It's like, oh,
it doesn't have this particular ability that I think is
necessary for you to give him rights. The conscious people
they say, oh, they need consciousness, they need to feel
pain and feel consciousness. And that's around an arbitrary number
that sometimes put that twenty weeks or whatever. Some people

(52:10):
say eight weeks, some people. It varies widely.

Speaker 3 (52:12):
Yeah, I think it's I think it's somewhat arbitrary. I mean,
I I someone understand people who say, you know, if
it could survive outside the womb, then you shouldn't abort it.
That That is what I think is there is the
most reasonable argument you can make. But but I don't
accept even that argument because again it's not you know, legally,
it does not it does not have the rights. And look,

(52:34):
I don't think women should have bought.

Speaker 1 (52:37):
But after a certain point, what do you mention legal
legally doesn't have the right thing. It doesn't really matter
because we're talking about morality.

Speaker 3 (52:44):
So legally, so again, morality legally I.

Speaker 1 (52:46):
Could be could considered a threat to the States and
to me.

Speaker 3 (52:50):
To me, the moral is the rational, uh it is.
It is mauld to do with your body as you
see fit, and it is mauld to do with your
body what you think is going to make your body better.
The fetus is part of the mother's body. To deny
her the ability to determine what happens to her body
is to deny her freedom. It's to deny her agency.

(53:11):
And it's imo. It's immoral to tell a woman you
you know, you can't make a change in your body
that has massive implications for the rest of your life.
Having children, as you know, because you have them, is
a massive, you know, responsibility, it's huge. So and to
deny sex because of that, which which I think ultimately

(53:34):
is a lot of the motivation behind some people at
least anti abortion stands, is horrific. Sex is a re
information of life. It's a beautiful thing. It's an amazing thing.
People should be encouraged to have sex, not not discourage,
and then use contraception, use the methods not to get pregnant,

(53:55):
and if an accident happens, there's an out. You're not
doomed then to having a child for eighteen years. You're
responsible to me. If you have a child, you're not
responsible for it for eighteen years. In every aspect, it's
not a small responsibility. This is a major responsibility. So
be very, very very sure that you want it. And

(54:16):
I want to give you as many opportunities to get
out of that decision as possible, so that when you
take on responsibility, you know exactly what's happening.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
Isn't that because I understand obviously the concept. It is
a it is a challenge of different moral systems in
terms of bodily autonomy, and oh, you are telling the
woman what to do with her body. I mean, I
would say it's not everybody is within everybody, But it's fine.
It's a fine argument. It's valid, it's and the right
to life and all of that. I understand that complication.

(54:46):
But wouldn't you say that's fleeing away from consequence. I mean,
obviously I want to have sex for pleasure only sometimes,
and that's fine, that's completely fine, it's reasonable. I think
that's a great evolution.

Speaker 3 (54:58):
All the sex I have today, all the sex I
have to for pleasure.

Speaker 1 (55:01):
Exactly, you're not not having. But if it happens because
it is a natural consequence of sex, it is an
expected consequence of sex. Why should you have? Why should
you not deal with the consequences?

Speaker 3 (55:12):
You want dealing with?

Speaker 1 (55:14):
Is a life?

Speaker 3 (55:15):
You know? Yeah, if one of the ways in which
we deal with the consequence is to go through a
small medical procedure and get rid of it, It's very
easy and very simple. Is you know, you can take
a pill and it just it just flushes out. So
so you know, science, science is made. But but but
everything is about dealing with the consequences. That is, again,

(55:37):
if you don't view the fetus as as as fully
manifest human life, then the best way to deal with
the consequence is to get rid of it.

Speaker 1 (55:46):
So, for example, imagine on the pursuit. Yeah, we do
have questions, Okay, good, when does human life begin?

Speaker 3 (55:57):
Objectively speaking, well, and it's separated from the mother, when
it's an actual independent being, I e.

Speaker 1 (56:05):
It both, But that's when you recognize rights. Right, human
life begins at conception, right, it's human and it's a life.

Speaker 3 (56:12):
Absolutely not my again, my my skin cell has all
the DNA that that that cell has in the beginning,
and it's I don't consider it human life. So it's
it's it's a couple of cells, you know, splitting and
it's multiplying. But it's not it's not yet human. It's
not yet developed into into into a human being, and
it's not individuated. So no human life begins when it's born.

Speaker 1 (56:36):
Let me ask you something. It's life, it's just not human.
Imagine I'm doing an abortion potent human life. Imagine I'm
doing an abortion at seven months whatever. It doesn't matter
because for you morally it would be no problem because
it's not a human yet.

Speaker 3 (56:48):
I didn't say there would be no problem. I said
it would be.

Speaker 1 (56:50):
Why would be a problem.

Speaker 3 (56:51):
Then again, it depends on why the woman is doing it.
Because it's seven months. It's it's a complicated medical procedure
seven months.

Speaker 1 (57:01):
It can happen.

Speaker 3 (57:02):
Yeah, so it can be moral. I'm not saying it's always.

Speaker 1 (57:06):
So you would have a problem if I would do
a procedure on a seven month pregnant woman that would
abort the child. But I would I would do it
slightly different. I would cause the most painous possible to
the fetus. Would you have a problem with that?

Speaker 3 (57:21):
Yeah, because you're being a sadist and you're not a
good human being.

Speaker 1 (57:24):
But it doesn't matter. It's like it's like causing the
most pains possible to this phone. Yeah, but you wouldn't
have a problem with me smashing my phone.

Speaker 3 (57:32):
So do you have a problem Do you think I
would have a problem with you causing the most pain
possible to your dog? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (57:38):
That was my next question.

Speaker 3 (57:40):
Yeah, I think it's I think it's to cause a
lot of pain to your dog, so purposefully right to
go through a process of making pain for your dog
for no reason I value, so you value. Yeah, but
I have no problem with you killing your dog. I
don't think you should go to jail for killing your job.
I don't think it's always in mal to kill your dog.
If your dog has cancer and you kill it, that
that's okay.

Speaker 1 (58:00):
But no one is talking about going to jail. It's
talking you feel it easymoral. If I would beat the
shit out of my tops, I think that's a pretty
nasty thing to even though you don't recognize.

Speaker 3 (58:11):
So, so the feed is you need to kill it
quickly so it doesn't feel pain.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
That's right.

Speaker 3 (58:16):
So this is what happens in abortion. In an abortion,
In an abortion, they do everything to zero. It's not
it's obviously not a comp ofselves for seven months, right,
it's it's it's it's a live being.

Speaker 1 (58:28):
It's just not human exactly. But I mean, if it
doesn't add the right to life, it certainly doesn't have
the right to comfort. Why should we protect it from suffering.

Speaker 3 (58:36):
I'm not saying anybody should protect it. There's no legal
issue here. You have an issue with it, yes, morally,
I have an issue with inflicting pain on purpose. Right,
we're talking about on purpose here. Now we're not talking
about it's the only way to do with the abortion.
We're talking about on purpose and inflicting pain. I have
a problem with anybody inflicts pain on purpose to another
living being, whether the human or not. And this is

(58:59):
not human.

Speaker 1 (58:59):
But but now, but you just every.

Speaker 3 (59:01):
Cell in my body is living. That doesn't make it human.

Speaker 1 (59:04):
So I agree that it's not human. What is it?

Speaker 3 (59:07):
It's a fetus. It's it's a potential humans on the
way to becoming human.

Speaker 1 (59:11):
Just like a child, it's on the way to becoming
an adult.

Speaker 3 (59:13):
No, a child is already human, and it's already separate
and already has its own mind, and it's already conscious,
and it's already doing a lot of things. It makes
it a human being.

Speaker 1 (59:21):
I super appreciate you entertaining this go back and forward.
I would put too much on data. I think it's
it's it's it becomes a bit clear. I disagree. It's fine.
You obviously disagree with me. I don't think it's super consistent.
I think it lacks consistency on the fact that, then
why should I care about inflicting pain on something that
I don't even that tobute value at all. However, I

(59:44):
super appreciate you.

Speaker 3 (59:45):
But I don't think. I don't think. I don't think
it's right to not that you reat value to it
at all. It's a potential human being. There's value that
every potential has a value. The question is how high
is that value and how important? If you weigh the
value of a of a fetus and again most of
them before twenty one weeks of a three month old
fetus versus the value of a woman who's going to

(01:00:05):
give up eighteen years of your life to take care
of it. To me, it's click cut who who you
side with.

Speaker 1 (01:00:11):
Thank you, thank you for that, for clarifying that it's
really good. Can I test the pursuit of happiness value?
So imagine I'm a father, I am actually and I
do have two children. So imagine I decided to have
an amazing family, amazing wife, two kids. But then I say,
you know what, my pursuit of happiness requires me to

(01:00:33):
abandon my family. Now, my ultimate objective is to go
to somewhere else create I don't know, let's do something
virtues like a company, solve a lot of issues to people.
I could even create an organization that creates easiest way
for you imagine the most virtual stuff. But I would abandon, completely,

(01:00:53):
abandon my family. Would you say that's completely fine with objectivism.

Speaker 3 (01:00:56):
No. And the reason is that when you have child,
and this is related to our previous conversation, when you
have a child, you're in a sense signing a contract.
So you could you could take take business. Right, Let's
say you sign a contract where you're going to, uh,
you're gonna you know, somebody's gonna invest in your business

(01:01:17):
and uh, you know you you just for ten years.
These are the terms, and this is all and let's say,
a year into it, you go, yeah, I don't feel
like doing this. I'm gonna go go go go in
an island interest. No, that's that's a that's.

Speaker 1 (01:01:31):
A you know, you're you're beingoist.

Speaker 3 (01:01:33):
You are you are violating something much more important, which
is your integrity. You're violating your your you know you've
made you've made commitments. So being an egoist means having integrity.
Being an egoist means being honest. That's what rationality means.
You cannot be rational and not be honest. You cannot
be a rational being and have no integrity. You cannot

(01:01:56):
be a rational being and not be productive. You can
be a rational being and live off other people, assuming
you're an adult. Right, So, once you have a child,
you basically signed an eighteen year contract to take care
of that child. Now, after eighteen years, you have no
obligation to in my view of sixteen or seventeen. Some

(01:02:16):
way along the line, you stop having obligations to your children,
and indeed your children have no obligations to you. Those
obligations anything beyond eighteen obligations that hopefully are created by
the fact that you've got a relationship and you like
hopefully love each other. But you know, not all parents
love their kids, and not all kids love their parents.

(01:02:37):
And yet they made a commitment, so eighteen years they're
stuck with it. This is why I'm so poor ebotion,
because don't get in, don't get into that commitment unless
you're one hundred percent sure you want to do it,
because otherwise you score up your life and you score
up your kids life, which is what happens to a
lot of people.

Speaker 1 (01:02:54):
So what what would you say? Because you said in
the beginning, and there's something that objectivists say and the
I'm super thankful for you to entertaining this this type
of scenari don't you say because you said, we are
anti sacrificed. You should not be sacrificing to anybody other
than yourself.

Speaker 3 (01:03:11):
But sometimes you are. Yeah, but yeah, but sometimes you
make mistakes in life, right, So sometimes you make a
mistake and uh, you know you you you have children
when you don't really want children, and you've.

Speaker 1 (01:03:23):
Got to suffer the consequence of your mistake. Just like
just like my abortion point for me now, just.

Speaker 3 (01:03:30):
Again, having an abortion, ask any woman who's had an
abortion is not costless, No, it isn't so well, no,
because because the woman has to go through a medical
procedure that's pretty unpleasant. And uh and and so so
she is suffering some consequences and the latest she waits,
the consequences are bigger. I was just but but the

(01:03:52):
point is that point is that it's not so. Sometimes
in life, you get you you invest in a stock
and it's in a goes down. You didn't intend it
to go down, but it goes down. You lose. Those
are the consequences of making bad decisions, or in this case,
it might not have been a bad decision. Things outside
of your control. You know. Sometimes you marry the wrong

(01:04:15):
person and you have to figure out how to separate. No,
you know, because if you marry the wrong person, that
is a contract that's reversible. Having kids is not a
reversible contract. It is, So that's the difference. Some contracts
are reversible, some or not. When you make an obligation
to the bank to you take out a loan and
you have to pay ten payments of whatever, that's not reversible.

(01:04:38):
You have to make the payments. So even though you
now regret taking out the loan, the business didn't work out,
you have to continue and that's an issue of integrity,
and you're not going to be happy unless you stick
to your commitment.

Speaker 1 (01:04:54):
That is, your happiness depends on your integrity. I can
tell you why I'm much much happier if I abundoned
my family. I can tell you that, No.

Speaker 3 (01:05:01):
That's just not true.

Speaker 1 (01:05:03):
I don't I don't believe you. I do not believe
I agree with you. I think you wouldn't be the case,
but I would. But people would make that.

Speaker 3 (01:05:10):
Yes, But you see, almost all of those cases are
based in emotion, and objectivism against rejects arguments from emotion. Look,
objectivism holds that I said, be rational is the primary value,
but it has it has virtues, virtues that every human
being has to bide by if they want to be happy.
You're not going to be happy, you know. One of

(01:05:31):
the visues that might be controversial is unless unless you
have pride. Pride is one of the virtues that are
required in order to be happy, and pride means that
you take your life seriously. Pride is a commitment to
model excellence. Pride is a commitment to live the best
life based on them all principles that you can lead
and if you don't have that you, I don't think

(01:05:54):
you can achieve happiness.

Speaker 1 (01:05:55):
I completely agree with what you said. What I was
trying to get at is that sense on when you
say we should not sacrifice for others. I think this
is clearly an example of you should be selfless in
the way that you take care of your children. You sacrifice.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
Never be selfless. God, you're not selfless with your kids,
because I mean, you're not selfless with your kids, So.

Speaker 1 (01:06:18):
So you certifice.

Speaker 3 (01:06:20):
For them, you do not sacrifice. I never sacrifice my kids.
So if I stay, to give me an example of
a sacrifice you make for your.

Speaker 1 (01:06:28):
Kids, have time, I don't think that I other. Okay,
so you could go to the movies and in my
business or even in my work, yeah, I know that
I would achieve more. I would have it mylf. You
do you sacrifice for that?

Speaker 3 (01:06:41):
You do less at work? Because so what's more valuable
to you your children or your work?

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
Definitely my children.

Speaker 3 (01:06:47):
Well, then how is it a sacrifice? You're training a
lower value your work for high value your children. So
a sacrifice is when you give up a high value
and get nothing in return, or give or give up
a high value and get something of low value. In
the turn, or give up a high value and get
something in return in another life. You know, you know which,

(01:07:07):
which I don't think exists. Right. So if right here
on earth you are giving up something of low value
and getting something of high value, that's a trade. I
do that every single day. So I don't sacrifice my kids.
When I don't go to the movies and stay with them,
it's because they're most important, more important than than the movie.
If they're sick and I don't go to work because
I and I stay with them, it's because they're more

(01:07:28):
important than me going to work that day. So I
always have a higher key of values, and I strive
to always. You know, we can't do everything in life.
You can't do every single thing that you want, so
you always have trade offs. You want the trade off
to be higher, agree instead of low. So that's not
a sacrifice.

Speaker 1 (01:07:47):
I agree with you in everything.

Speaker 3 (01:07:48):
That's so, So you're not sacrificing.

Speaker 1 (01:07:51):
However, in the example that I gave you, I would
be sacrificing because I don't put my kids up in
that hierarchy of values and I want to live, and
you're telling me that's immoral. You should stay, you should sacrifice.

Speaker 3 (01:08:04):
I'm saying that your integrity, your moral virtues are right
at the top of your moral hierarchy of your high
k values. Otherwise you cannot achieve happiness. So the standard
of morality is your moral code. So once you've made
that commitment having your children, are going to take care
of them eighteen years and just abandonment. Now, I'm not

(01:08:24):
saying you shouldn't get a divorce and take care of
them in another way or but you have to. You've
made a commitment to your kids, and to some extent,
you made a committed to the wife. This is why
there's alimony and all these other things. So you financially
might support her, but you have to live up to
your commitments. That's called integrity, and that's a that's a

(01:08:44):
significant portion of that is at the top of the hierarchy.
Moral values is always at the top of the higher chary.

Speaker 1 (01:08:50):
You're a good sport. Thanks a lot. Because I'm trying
to also connect with the public in portogh because they
think that oh, no, sacrifice is a good thing.

Speaker 3 (01:08:57):
But see sacrifices losing that says.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
I think there is a crack in the world. I
would say because if I don't value my family even
if I've done the previous commitment, that can change my mind. Right,
you're not opposed to changing my mind in terms of my.

Speaker 3 (01:09:13):
Again, this is why studying a family is such a
big deal. And this is and it's a big deal.
It's not and I think you know, I'm not worried
about people not having a lot of kids, you know,
because I think a lot of people do a lousy
job with their kids and shouldn't have kids. So it's
a big deal having a family. It's a huge responsibility.
Make sure you're ready for it. Make sure you're with

(01:09:34):
the right partner for it. You know, I don't believe
you should have children a year after you get married.
You know, get married, live with a woman for five, six,
seven years, make sure you're compatible, make sure you work together,
and then have kids. Right. I know people who have
a bad marriage and to solve the conflict in the marriage,
they have kids. That it drives me crazy. It was

(01:09:56):
idea ever because the kids will just make that all
the challenges even was but but so yeah, I take
it very seriously. Your commitments in life are very serious.
If you say you're going to do a job, do
the job. If and here you said, I'm going to
do the job of taking care of these kids, then
do it. Uh and so so, Yes, it is sometimes

(01:10:17):
you have to make long term investments and you have
to you have to live up to those commitments.

Speaker 1 (01:10:21):
Yeah, I agree, I agree, I agree with that. Can
we move on to a simple question. So and Wren
said that she liked Aristotles, right, Yeah, what she liked
about Aristotles.

Speaker 3 (01:10:33):
I mean she liked she liked a lot about Aristotle.
I mean she liked his emphasis on reality a is
a kind of the whole idea of reality is what
it is, and the identification of that. She liked.

Speaker 1 (01:10:45):
Uh, she liked and ethics. I think that's true.

Speaker 3 (01:10:48):
Yeah, I mean she she basically liked the ethics. The
standard of the ethics is individual human flourishing. She would
disagree with the particular virtues. She had different virtues, and
she comes at them very ferily than Aristotle does. But
she likes I mean, he's the only other philosopher, a
thinker who had an egoistic moral system. His system is

(01:11:10):
based on your own flourishing, and here are the ways
to get it. They disagree on the ways, but they
agree on the human flourishing as the standard you dominea,
happiness is the stand is what you strive towards. You know.
She liked the fact that he was the father of logic,
right and and really the father of science. He was
a scientist himself. Now, he wasn't a very good one

(01:11:30):
in a sense that a lot of his conclusions scientific
conclusions turned out to be wrong, but his methodology was right.
So the only way to correct Aristotle is to use
Aristotle's method to correct it. Look, he was the greatest
philosophy in all of human history. I think, you know,
almost all of the modern world that exists today is
due to Aristotle. Uh and and so yeah, I mean

(01:11:53):
she was she was the only he's the only philosopher
she really admired because of Zados. I mean, ideas were
I mean, there were flaws in them, but again, he
lived twenty five hundred years ago, so you'd expect that.

Speaker 1 (01:12:07):
Would she disagree with him also on because he had
the mover argument for the existence of a deity right
existence of a god?

Speaker 3 (01:12:15):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (01:12:16):
What did?

Speaker 1 (01:12:17):
Would and Rand also disagree on Objectivists also disagree with
aristotles on that if to move something, there needs to
initiate movement, and there needs to but there's needs to
be someone that initially moves something in the universe is moving,
you know how it goes?

Speaker 2 (01:12:31):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:12:31):
Yeah, I mean and and you know who initiated the initiator?

Speaker 1 (01:12:35):
So this was my slik way of introducing religion.

Speaker 3 (01:12:38):
Yes, so so who do you think who initiated the initiator?
You know, I don't think it's a particularly good argument,
but again, it's twenty five hundred years ago, you know.
I think Iman, you know, argued that religion was a
permittive form of philosophy. I think Aristotle is pretty advanced philosophy.
And that's why God plays such a small role in universe.

(01:13:00):
It just thoughts and then he walks away. He's not
a present God. So you know, I don't think I
don't think it stands up. His argument stands up to
logic and reality. But I'd rather take his argument for
the existence of God as something that moved it and
went away then conventional religions argument for ever present God

(01:13:25):
who intervenes in human affairs and who listens to our prayers.

Speaker 1 (01:13:30):
Do you think it is at least or it has
been utilitarial and speaking like if you think purely as
a utilitarian, I think at least that has been Would
you recognize the utility of it to create those moral
codes that you say are essential for humans to flourish
with freedom within each other.

Speaker 3 (01:13:51):
No, I think it's exactly the opposite. I think it's
I mean, in almost every realm, I think religion has
been a net negative for humanity, particularly i'd say over
the last two thousand years. Yes, I mean, what it
did is retard the ability to come up with rational,
objective moral codes. Because it's it.

Speaker 1 (01:14:12):
Even if you're so, let's focus on European experience, because
otherwise I'm not just just your talk just about you.
Most of most of the philosophers of like the Dark
Ages and the Middle Ages are they are there. They
were all like priests, like.

Speaker 3 (01:14:27):
Yeah, and they were terrible philosophers. They were really really bad,
with exception of a quietness. We'll get to good. Yeah,
well not really good. He was good, but we'll get
to why he was good. He was good in comparison
to everybody else, he was really good, but in terms
of objectively he was only good. And in comparison to Aristotle,
I mean, but so so the point is this imagine
a world and I know it's hard, but imagine a

(01:14:48):
world that where Christianity never rises. And who takes Aristotle seriously,
just Aristotle right takes Aristotilian philosophy and now says, okay,
let's work on this problem that he gave us how
to construct the best moral system, given you doming air,
given the need for human flowishing, I think we would
be a thousand years more advanced today than we all right,

(01:15:10):
I mean, that is an amazing world. You wouldn't have socialists,
you would't have communists. You know, you wouldn't have a
fascist because because you'd have built a moral system from
the beginning on a foundations of reason, on a foundation
of science, and a foundation on the best philosopher ever
was laying, which is a foundation of self interest. Instead,

(01:15:35):
and I don't want to I'm gonna say harsh things
about Christianity. I don't want to offend it. So instead
you get Jesus. Instead, you get a philosophy that says
that your idol, your hero, is somebody who died a
most horrific death, a really painful death. We really talk

(01:15:55):
about pain, right, A horrific death, not for his sins
that I could get under stand right, but for everybody
else's sins and in an act of ultimate sacrifice that
is horrific. That's the ma all ideal. So the mall
ideal now is for me to sacrifice the other people
the all ideal, and every saint, every saint that we
have in the list of saints, all give up their
lives for the sake of you know, other people.

Speaker 1 (01:16:19):
Higher idea, but not a higher.

Speaker 3 (01:16:21):
Idea that's connected to this world, the higher idea that's
connected to another world. Then none of us have any
evidence exists. All of it is about the other world.
So if you think about Aristotle, Aristotle believes in he
doesn't believe in sacrificing for another world. You know, he
doesn't believe in sacrificing for God. His God just set
the world of notion and it's gone. He doesn't believe

(01:16:43):
in sacrificing for other people. He believes in sort of
virtues that will get you. I disagree with some of
those virtues, but that's a see, that's an interesting conversation.
We can have a conversation once we agree that you
need virtues in or to achieve individual happiness, and that
this world is our standard we can now have an
a discussion about which virtues make sense, which virtues don't. Instead,

(01:17:04):
we have had two thousand years of discussing how to sacrifice,
who to sacrifice, to win, to sacrifice when it's not
good to sacrifice, and then what Thomas Aquinas does. Because
for a thousand years, up until Thomas Aquinas, Christianity was
almost exclusively and all the philosophers and all the monks
and exclusively focus on on on the other world. This

(01:17:26):
world sucked. It was horrible. It was terrible. You just
need to somehow survive it and you get to the
other world. And it was it did.

Speaker 1 (01:17:33):
It really sucked at the time.

Speaker 3 (01:17:35):
It did, and it did to a large example because Christianity,
I mean Christianity was the cause of the sucking.

Speaker 1 (01:17:40):
It was more, it was more advents than other cultures
in Filago, for example, that the Church founded most of
the universities.

Speaker 3 (01:17:47):
That no, I mean, I mean, I'm reading a lot
of history right now, so I'm writing a book, by
the way.

Speaker 1 (01:17:53):
But didn't Church created most of the universities.

Speaker 3 (01:17:56):
But late late in the Middle Ages, I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:17:58):
There were no universities property.

Speaker 3 (01:18:00):
But the universities in the beginning when they started, they
were universities. By the way, we're talking about Europe Kale right, Oh, no,
the scale was much larger. Baghdad was much larger than
anything was done in the West. In Bukar, in Central Asia,
in India and China, there were universities on a scale
much bigger than anything that existed in the West. They

(01:18:21):
were richer, they were more prosperous, they were they were
more advanced scientifically in every respect in the West. The
West from the period of the rise of Christianity until
Thomas Aquinas and really until the Renaissance till fourteen hundred,
was a primitive society on a global scale. It was
way behind the Arabs, the Muslims, it was way behind

(01:18:43):
the Indians, and it was way behind the Chinese. I mean,
what does a magnitude behind, Right, It's only when Thomas
Aquinas does something miraculous instead of the focus on the
other world, which I think sustained Europe into poverty and
misery for a thousand years. By the way, in those
thousand years in Christendom, not a single astronomic observation was made.

(01:19:08):
Right now, for most of the Greeks and the Romans,
people will make astronomical observations all the time. And this
is just an indication of almost no science, almost nothing.
All the scientific achievements are happening in the Arab world,
in the Indian world, in the Chinese world. So then
the Quinas says, I've read Aristotle, and Aristotle puts a
huge emphasis on this world, on reality, unhappiness. Maybe we

(01:19:30):
need to integrate them. So he brings Aristotle in from
and then you start seeing progress. Then you start you
get universities. Then, I mean the university started a little before,
but also from the discovery of Aristotle, the University of Paris.
They're getting the book where they're getting Aristota from from
the Arab libraries in Coldeba and Toledo. That the Christians
are concrete and they're taking those books and they're translating.

(01:19:53):
They read Aristotle not in Greek because they don't know Greek.
They read him in they translate the Arab transfer of
the original Greek into Latin. And that's how they read Aristotle.
Since the Arabs who save civilization as horrible as that
as I unimagine was that is given the Arab world today.
But it is interesting because what happens in the Arab
world is they have this amazing enlightenment in sense of

(01:20:16):
Renaissance enlightenment from eight hundred to twelve hundred, and it dies.
It dies for a couple of two reasons. One mongol
invasions kill a lot of them. But the second is
they start taking Islam seriously. And the more you take
religion seriously, the less progress science success there is the
more so. And that happened in the Christian world, that

(01:20:39):
happened in the Islamic world, it happens, it happens in
India with Buddhism and everywhere you go. When religion is primary,
then science and progress and human happiness and flourishing and
all of that goes down when religion is subsides and
you allow for these ideas to come up. And of

(01:20:59):
course the wealth that we have today is a product
of enlightenment. It's a product of a secular society. It's
not a product of religion. It's a it's an egagment
of religion. And again, just having moral values doesn't guarantee
feeder happiness. You need the right moral values, and I
think Christianity has the wrong moral values because it emphasizes
another world and it emphasizes wu based, an authority based system,

(01:21:23):
which also opens up human consciousness to authority.

Speaker 1 (01:21:27):
Can I can I object to that? Examples? So for example,
you mentioned socialism and communism. I mean, everybody knows that
was an atheist movement. Everybody knows that.

Speaker 3 (01:21:38):
But it's just not true.

Speaker 1 (01:21:39):
So even called religion.

Speaker 3 (01:21:42):
People, yes, even even what's his name, oh God, this
book called Dominion, which is which is a big, very
successful book. Even in Dominion, he knows and he realizes
that all marks does, and all that socialists do is
secularize Christianity. That is the fun mental thing that they do.
They take them all code of Christianity and they secularize it.

(01:22:03):
And indeed, if you look at the first communes, the
first socialist settlements in the in human history, they're all
Christian and and then the the the Church suppresses them
because it doesn't want its authority questioned and it doesn't
like this this stuff. But it's all based on someone

(01:22:24):
in the mound. It's all based on the ideas in
the Old Testiament, at least their interpretation of it. You
might have a different interpretation, and that's fine. It's one
of the beauties of of of of religious books. You
can find whatever the hell you want in them. You
bring your own philosophy to it, and you and you,
and you, you take from it what you want. But
you know, no socialism and and and and communism, of

(01:22:48):
all the trappings of religion. They have all the trappings
of a particular religion, Christianity. It's it's a it's a
very Christian, secularized Christian philosophy, and it's basically based on
idea of sacrifice. It's based on the idea of morality
that the individual doesn't matter. There's some higher being that
you should sacrifice too. And here they replace God with
the proletarian, and you should sacrifice to the proletarians they

(01:23:11):
replaced they replaced the pope with a with a dictator,
because you need somebody to commune with the spirit, you
need somebody to get revealed truth. And it's the exactly opposite. Yeah,
but it's exactly opposite.

Speaker 1 (01:23:23):
People will inevitable create hierarchies of value, and they will
substitute all the things.

Speaker 3 (01:23:27):
Yes, but the whole point is not to substitute God.
The whole point is to go by reason, to go
by rationality, and rationality is not a God. Reason is
not a god. Reason is a methodology, and the beauty
of the Enlightenment is that it doesn't. What it does
is it introduces reason. And what Marks does, in spite
of calling himself scientific, is you reject reason. He rejects

(01:23:48):
evidence that the communist reject reason, Fascism reject reason. So
all of these are the rejection of reasons I view,
I view anti reason ideologies, religion, communism, socialism, Marxism, they
have much more in common. What's new is the Enlightenment
and objectivism. Objectivism I view as a continuation of the

(01:24:11):
spirit of the Enlightenment, of the ideas of the Enlightenment
is pro reason, so anti reason, proism. That's the way
you should divide ideas up.

Speaker 1 (01:24:19):
And you're probably very aware of the French Revolution.

Speaker 3 (01:24:22):
Yeah, but the Frenchier evolution was motivated primarily Again, history matters.
The Frenier evolution is primarily motivated by the one thinker
in France who is anti Enlightenment, and that is Russau.
Russau writes his first major essay is an essay that says, but.

Speaker 1 (01:24:39):
They use the same arguments, did they even substitute.

Speaker 3 (01:24:42):
Is pro Yes? You know that right, yes?

Speaker 1 (01:24:45):
And you know the consequence, yes, course.

Speaker 3 (01:24:48):
But they're inspired. They're inspired not by the Enlightenment that
actually advocated for reason. They're inspired by Rousseau, who's a
bad guy, but he's the one who dominated why because
he the closest to Christianity. He was the closest of religions.

Speaker 1 (01:25:03):
So when people were built, rejected Christianity, they even burned known.

Speaker 3 (01:25:08):
But that's the beauty of it, right, The beauty of
it is that if you create a secular philosophy, it's
very similar to Christianity. You can be added Christian and
pretend that you're free of Christianity, but you're not because
it's so similar. The difference is the funding fathers, the
founding fathers, created a new system, not based on Christianity,
not connected, not based on Christianity. No individual rights.

Speaker 1 (01:25:31):
It's given by God, right, I mean, it's there on.

Speaker 3 (01:25:33):
The it's by by they create it exactly. So yeah,
but but but what kind of what kind of creator
is it? It's nature? It's Christian They were all English,
they were they were not Christian. They were deists. Most
of them were deists. Jefferson was a Deist. They were
very unconventional Christians. They viewed more. They viewed, Uh, Christianity

(01:25:55):
is as you know, they rejected all the miracles, right.
You know there's a Jeffersonian Bible where he cuts out
of the New Testament all the miracles.

Speaker 1 (01:26:05):
I didn't know that.

Speaker 3 (01:26:05):
Yeah, there's something called the Jeffersonian Bible. You can look
it up. It's really interesting. No, you know, they are
men of the Enlightenment. If you look at their libraries,
their libraries are dominated by Enlightenment writings, the Minutes of Science,
the Renaissance Man. Yeah, religion plays a role. They hadn't
completely rejected it yet, but it's a small role relative.

(01:26:27):
There's no The whole system of government that they create
is something that's created. It comes out of the writings
of Lacke, and it comes out of the writings of
Monusque and out of others. It's not something that they're
just taking from the Old Testament or the New Testament.
It's something that they create a new whereas the French
Revolution is very much in its values aligned with Christianity.

(01:26:50):
That's why, you know, and that's why it's so easy
to accept. That's why the masses just embrace it so quickly.
But you have to separate the Enlightenment from so is
the first anti Enlightenment philosopher, and he is the most
influential philosopher during the French life, during French Revolution, which
is the tragedy. The French Revolution could have been a
good thing if it had just gotten rid of the

(01:27:11):
king and they hadn't had all the bloodshed. But it
could have been. It could been. It could have mimicked
the American Revolution, and they chose not to mimic the
American Revolution and in that sense, to be an anti
Enlightenment phenomena instead of a po Enlightenment phenomena.

Speaker 1 (01:27:24):
Yeah, awesome, and we will move to that. Let me
just do a final point on that. What about if
you look at today, So the secular world of today,
why don't you say that it's more idnistic.

Speaker 3 (01:27:35):
I hate the secular world of today exactly, but I
also hate the religious world of today. So it's it's
a false economy, right to take there.

Speaker 1 (01:27:43):
But it's the world without religion, and look at what
it brought to Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:27:47):
But you know, it's a world without religion, and yet
here we sit streaming all over the world that marginal
cost of zero this podcast. It's an amazing world that
we have because it's it's a non religious world. So yes,
I mean a lot of people lack values because they
haven't been introduced a prof of philosophy. And what we

(01:28:08):
need is to replace religion, not with nothing, not with
a void. I'm not arguing that we should all become
hedonists nihilists, which I think a lot of people become,
but replace religion with philosophy. And if we replace religion
with philosophy, then the world would as good as it is.
And I think it's pretty wonderful as it is in
spite of out all our negativity. It's pretty amazing that

(01:28:30):
we're sitting here and doing what we're doing. And I
flew here and everything. It could be so so so
much better and people would be so so much happier.
But for that, they don't need the cutch of religion.
What they need is a new philosophy.

Speaker 1 (01:28:43):
Awesome, thanks a lot for clarifying that. Let's go to
some of the questions. Okay, okay, but are your favorite
thing then? So Mario Golmus says that religion has delayed
science for decade maybe centurists. Those are facts, he said,
So it's with you and the monol Bourgado says that

(01:29:06):
it can say what it wants, but the West wouldn't
be what it is today without Christianity.

Speaker 3 (01:29:12):
Yeah, we wouldn't have socialism, we wouldn't have communism, we
wouldn't have all the bad elements.

Speaker 1 (01:29:16):
Well, I think that's a bad example, right, because socialism
it's it's like an atheist movement.

Speaker 3 (01:29:21):
But it couldn't be.

Speaker 1 (01:29:24):
But it's not a good example.

Speaker 3 (01:29:25):
First of all, it's not true because as I said,
the first the first socialist communities were Christian communities in
in the in the in the tenth century.

Speaker 1 (01:29:33):
The first university is like in Europe or Catholic. But
again they were the biggest philosophers.

Speaker 3 (01:29:38):
But you don't need you know, the universities came about
in spite of Catholicism, not because of Catholicism. They they weren't.
They weren't They weren't made possible by Catholicism. They somehow
achieved the success in spite of being in a Catholic world.

Speaker 1 (01:29:55):
But they were. But I understand what he's saying, But
they were actually directly funded through the She's not like
they against the searching looks, let's just funded them.

Speaker 3 (01:30:04):
I get that the church, the Church often acted against,
you know, certain of its interests, that then changed its mind.
So so you know, the church funded all the great
art in the Renaissance, and then Luther got pissed off
at that and among many other things, and started. So
there was a counter there was a counter reformation, and
you know, they went to the they went to the

(01:30:24):
Sistine Chapel and in Michelangelo's what do you call it? Uh?
When you be when the dead all rise? Uh? And
and and Jesus decide who goes to heaven hell? What
do you call that?

Speaker 1 (01:30:39):
I don't know what he called that. When Jesus came
zus volta it's see the connect anyway, there's the.

Speaker 3 (01:30:48):
Huge painting in the Sistine Chapel. There is and and
and the pope pope tells them to cover up all
the penises. Ye yep. Because the counter reformations they go
back and forth, right, they go back and forth during time.
But look, the reason universities were founded, the reason that

(01:31:08):
the Church, the Church did that is not because of Christianity.
It was because they were discovering all these secular writings
in these libraries. They were discovering in Spain of Aristotle
of the first doctors from Greece, the astronomers from Greece,
the scientists from Greece, and they needed to integrate this
material and they created universal universities for that. So it's

(01:31:31):
the discovery of a secular world. And when we look
at a secular world, you can look at Greece, you
can look at Rome as examples, rather than looking at
at socialism or communism. Those were just a secular and
in the Greece you could argue more and yeah, but
you know, gods that are running around among us and
having sex is not exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:31:51):
It's not exactly religion. But let me just push back
a little bit because I've been reading Lock and even
some of the founders in the in the US are
always pretty adamant in terms of their inspiration on Christianity
to found our society. And even Lock himself he has
texts saying what I've written is not for the beast

(01:32:12):
Like atheists. He actually said.

Speaker 3 (01:32:14):
That I know, I know, I know, but but but yes,
I know that, but but but look, you know, he
lived in the he lived in the early you know,
in the seventeenth century, in the late part of the
seventeenth century, you could not be religious at that point.
Everybody was. Everybody was crazy. Everybody no, no, he he
doesn't believe atheists have rights, and he doesn't really Catholics
have rights, by the way, so he says really nasty

(01:32:35):
things about Catholics.

Speaker 1 (01:32:36):
That's true, and he.

Speaker 3 (01:32:37):
Has to escape London and go to Amsterdam because the
Catholic king is coming. So look, I mean, Lucke is
not God right and and he's flawed.

Speaker 1 (01:32:47):
And I say that because a lot of people.

Speaker 3 (01:32:49):
But his logic is not derived from theology. His logic
is derived from reality.

Speaker 1 (01:32:56):
He himself said it was I know.

Speaker 3 (01:32:58):
But but it wasn't.

Speaker 1 (01:32:59):
Yeah, and there was I was about to say something. Oh.
There is a book called Inventing the Individual. That's why
I say this, And I'm saying this for a point,
which is the eventual of the individual. That book argues actually,
and it goes to the history of the Church and
the history of Christianity, and it argues that actually the liberal, objectivists,
libertarian all those combination of values that combine with each

(01:33:22):
other to create the individual, and that sense, the egoistic
individual that should pursue its happiness actually derives from Christian believes.

Speaker 3 (01:33:31):
That is that is a big reach because you know,
when Christianity dominates the no egoists and they know people
pursuing their values, what you get as the Dark Ages.
When Christianity wins, what you get is collectivism. You don't
get individualism, you know, and and the creation of the individual.
You know, you already have those ideas in Greece before

(01:33:53):
I'm on Greek philosophers, before the invention of Christianity. So
so no, I don't buy any of those argum. It's
like exposed people looking back and try to rationalize. If
you actually look at the history, it's very clear Western
civilization becomes civilized when it introduces Greek ideas, and the
more committed it is to religion, the less civilized it is.

(01:34:17):
The more committed it is to Greece, the more civilized
it is. So there's a direct relationship. So I've got
a book coming out. You might be interested. I mean,
it's I'm hoping to come out next year because we're
still writing it. But it's basically Christianity versus the West.
So my argument is Christianity is hampered West, and the
West not helped it. That it's it's held it back

(01:34:40):
and we'll compare with some of the other civilizations. This
is why I'm doing a lot of reading on this
with the other civilizations at the same time. But it's
it's pretty amazing what was going on, for example, in
Central Asia in the ninth and tenth century when there
was nothing going on in the West.

Speaker 1 (01:34:57):
Thanks a lot, Thanks a lot for thinking and.

Speaker 3 (01:35:00):
And I just want to say this, the reason it
was going on in Central Asia is because they were
translating the Greeks. So you know, they had all the
Aristotle's writings, that Plato, they had the other science, and
they worked they developed that. So even though they were
nominally Muslim, they you know, Islam was in the background,
and they focused on philosophy and science. Just like post

(01:35:23):
a Quinas, we kind of put religion Christianity a little
bit to the side and we focus on Aristotle and
the sciences and all this stuff. So every civilization that's
exposed to Greek ideas does well.

Speaker 1 (01:35:38):
All right, Thanks a lot for explaining it. I think
it's pretty clear your your view, and that's what matters
the most.

Speaker 3 (01:35:42):
Yes, you have more appreciate that.

Speaker 1 (01:35:44):
I could finish off with.

Speaker 3 (01:35:47):
There's a lot of religious opposition and I could tell that.

Speaker 1 (01:35:50):
No, but it's it's it's because I knew that like abortion,
religion and all of those topics will give an interesting
conversation for you to actually explain your views. And I do.
I do disagree, and I think that's obvious. But but
it's good. Another question, says Manuel, Uh, a Christian society

(01:36:14):
can resist better to invasion of Muslims, for example, which
is happening right now, to a secular society.

Speaker 3 (01:36:25):
I think that's absolutely not the case. It's it's, uh,
you know, a secular society. Again, what secular society? Secular
means nothing, right, So what secular society and objective is?

Speaker 1 (01:36:35):
Second that Europe is a very secular organized society right now?

Speaker 3 (01:36:39):
Right, I mean yeah, but but it's but secular without
values is not a value to me. Right. I'm not
defending I'm not defending a Europe as a stance today
versus some Christian ideal I think.

Speaker 1 (01:36:52):
Christian idea, right, I mean we organized around the Crusades,
I mean Portugal was born that way.

Speaker 3 (01:36:57):
No, I know. And the first people, you know, who
are the first people you killed out you killed during
the Crusades, Who were the first Muslims? No, first people
you killed in the crusade. Read up in the first
crusade with the Jews. So the crusade starts in northern
Germany and northern France and northern Germany. They sweep down
in Germany, they killed any Jew they find, They kill
whole communities. They slaughtered them all way before they reached

(01:37:21):
they reached the Middle East. So it was bar Babic Christianity.
It has been in its history of bar Barbic religion,
and it it you know, it went to war with
the Muslims over something that was irrelevant. What was irrelevance
to a peasant in France who wouled Jusalem? What a
stupid War's engaging.

Speaker 1 (01:37:39):
Not only about that, right, because all of the most
of the Middle Easts, in that part which is now
I mean Israel, it was a Byzantine empire, was Bristian, right,
so they were defending the invasion of in Christian territory.
There became an attacks on non prior Christian lens.

Speaker 3 (01:37:56):
There was never a well, there was all the time, right,
I mean, much of the crusades were in Scandinavia, which
were pagan countries, and there was an attack there to
convert them into Christianity. Most of Europe was Christianized by
the sword, and through through you know, Constantine, post Constantine
to own Empire expans Christianity throughout Europe by the sword.

(01:38:19):
So so no, you know, I think that the best
way to combat the kombat Islam is with a with
a secular ideology that's based on reason. And believe me
that my views, if people had listened to me after
nine to eleven, or even before nine to eleven, then
we would not have an Islamic problem right now. So again,

(01:38:42):
I don't sympathize with everybody who says I'm secular. I mean,
obviously communists and socialist are my enemies on ninety nine
percent of the stuff. Just because they say they're secular
doesn't mean anything to me, doesn't make them my allies.
I have a particular philosophy, This is the point. And
Christianity it doesn't know how to deal with Islam and

(01:39:02):
UH and the secular world does it does the secular
it doesn't. It doesn't know how to deal with the
slamp and and what it will lead to is religious wars,
which is not what we need. What we need is
the deal with the Slam and the deal with the
Slam through reason, and then the stand Islam is a
religion and why it's an enemy of the West, and
how to deal with it as an enemy.

Speaker 1 (01:39:21):
For example, maybe I'm creating a false picture, but I
don't think I am, Which is, if you are. If
if Islam looks at the Christian world as infidels and
they want to create a world in which they are
not here and they convert to Islam, they are using
the sword. So it's I mean, it's self defense that

(01:39:41):
you would use the sort back, and that's I think.

Speaker 3 (01:39:44):
I'm all for using swords back. I have no problem
with you.

Speaker 1 (01:39:46):
I think that's that's Manuel's point, which is, Look, I've
looked at history and I seen Christians coming up together
around the same values and combating Islam. Yes, but what
would I don't think you like, but what another religion? Yes?

Speaker 3 (01:40:00):
But what world were they defending? It was a Christian world, yes,
and thus primitive, barbaric violence and unfree. So you cannot
have a Christian world uniting to fight Islam and have freedom.
The Christianity and freedom are not compatible, and particularly not
compatible when it's going to go to war.

Speaker 1 (01:40:21):
Now, now, what are the nations that are most free,
they all left Christian backgrounds.

Speaker 3 (01:40:26):
In the world secular today. They've all they've all mean
secular since they became free.

Speaker 1 (01:40:30):
But you don't think there's an underlying contamination effect on everything.

Speaker 3 (01:40:36):
Every single one of the free countries. Japan is not
a Christian country, and it's a it's a it's a
it's a free country relatively speaking, right, South Korea, Taiwan,
Hong Kong, Singapore.

Speaker 1 (01:40:47):
Korea was influenced by the US to be a free country.

Speaker 3 (01:40:50):
Yeah, all of these countries were influenced by the US
and all and the US was influenced by the Enlightenment
to be a free country, by the secular Enlightenment to
be a free country. And again, Jefferson read, you know,
the founders of America read a lot more of the
secular Enlightenment than they did of theological debates about how

(01:41:10):
many how many Angels that and I have a needle.
So so the America is a secular country. And the
freedom that America enjoyed is a product of its secular nature,
not of its religious nature. And coming together on the
false ideology which I think Christianity is is not helpful.
So in order to combat Islam. You need to think

(01:41:32):
and you need to figure out how to defeat them.
It's not that hard because they're pretty weak and pretty
barbaric and pretty primitive. So it's not it not hard
to defeat is Slam.

Speaker 1 (01:41:40):
And but they're winning rounds in Europe. I think that's
Manuel's point.

Speaker 3 (01:41:43):
Oh, I agree that they're winning.

Speaker 1 (01:41:44):
But that and n say about this migration problem in Europe.

Speaker 3 (01:41:48):
I don't know what I mean would say. I'll tell
you what I would say, because men did not have
this problem. You know, Islam, the Islamic world has a
real problem of fundamentalists, religious fundamentalists, Islamism, Islamic radicals, however
you want to call it, Islamic totalitians who believe that
God has given them the world and they will dominate

(01:42:09):
the world, and they should rule over the world, and
they will use force in order to gain that. The
West has to recognize that. First step one, recognize that fact.
Step two, identify that it's a real threat, and declare
war on it. So after nine to eleven, George Bush,
a good Christian, I called Islam a religion of peace
and celebraated the Ramadan. On October two.

Speaker 1 (01:42:29):
Thousand and one in two.

Speaker 3 (01:42:31):
Thousand and one. Yes, in the White House Ramadan October,
a month after nine to eleven, the Ramadan was celebated.
Now that is unbelievably Christian, turn the other cheek, love
your enemy like you do, and horrifically anti objectivist, an
anti reason and anti rationality. I said at the time,
declare war and crush them. Any make a list of

(01:42:53):
every organization and every state that adheres to Islamic fundamentalism.
That would be al Qaeda, obviously al Kaida, you know
today isis ramas Chris Bala, islami Jihad, the Muslim brotherhood
which is behind all of this.

Speaker 1 (01:43:08):
Iran not Iraq was a secular country.

Speaker 3 (01:43:11):
Who cared? I mean, the guy was a monster, but
he didn't you know, he wasn't spending terrorism around the world.
Who did? I won, So you won should have been
the target. So if you understand who the enemy is Islamic,
this Islamist ideology, then you can have a proper list
of enemies. And it's not oh, it's a it's a

(01:43:32):
religious world. We have to push back on Muslims because
some Muslim countries are not your enemy, but some are
really your enemy. Iran is an enemy and destroy them
and then we all over and we could have destroyed
them in a maunt of weeks months.

Speaker 1 (01:43:49):
So what the advice would you give for us that
are struggling in Portugal. We are struggling a.

Speaker 3 (01:43:53):
Long claar war on Islamic on the Islamist not Islam,
on the Islamist ideology. So make it so that you
can kick them out and and and and and you know,
if they're preachers out there, preaching Sharia and preaching the
destruction of Western civilization, send them packing.

Speaker 1 (01:44:11):
I agree. Okay, let's move on. If Islam was a
religion of peace, the Islamic extremists would be extremely peaceful.
That's for sure a good point.

Speaker 3 (01:44:24):
Well, there is no such thing as a religion apeace.
That is a contradiction in terms. There's never been a
religion of peace. Again, Christianity christianized Europe by the sword,
and not against Muslims, against Pagans and against Jews. Yeah,
I mean, this is the combination of Rome and Christianity, right,
and and Augustine, Augustine who is one of the fathers

(01:44:46):
of the Church. Augustine has whole writings about the morality
of war, and in order to justify when is war
justified was only justified to convert somebody to Christianity, So
was ali fied for good? Good defined by Christianity. And
this is my point about force. Everybody. Everybody agrees force

(01:45:07):
is okay if it's for the right cause. Augustine, who
defined Christian morality with regard to violence, said violence is
okay if it promotes Christianity.

Speaker 1 (01:45:17):
Yeah, but sorry, guys, if I'm taking a while to translate,
because you guys write in Portuguese and I have to
translate in my hand. And by the way, that noise.

Speaker 3 (01:45:25):
You're hearing is it's pouring wain hopefully, I don't know
if you're hearing, we're hearing it.

Speaker 1 (01:45:33):
What's other questions, Odrico, can you scroll a bit so
I can see a little bit more questions? Do we
need to leave, Miguel, Yeah, we will finish, finish right away.
So let's see if there's any last question and we'll
just finish.

Speaker 3 (01:45:48):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:45:51):
It's the same people's using the correct term fundamentalist Islam,
meaning it's how Islam was funded. That's true violence, force,
et cetera.

Speaker 3 (01:46:02):
Yeah, I mean, I mean it's interesting how the different
religions were founded. Islamos founded and this is what gives
them the I don't know, the the gall if you
will to go out and try to try to dominate
the world. They were founded by a warrior, by a
warrior trader. Uh, you know. And and and Christianity was

(01:46:24):
founded by you know, somebody was crucified.

Speaker 1 (01:46:29):
A peaceful guy. Right, they never heard anybody.

Speaker 3 (01:46:31):
Yeah, peaceful, but I'd say week week and uh suffering
and uh and failed right as a as an individual,
he never saw his success. If if you think as
a man, if you think he was successful, what happened
you're successful? Well after his death. Muhammad was successful in
his life. But but that tells you something about the
attitude of both religions. Right, Muhammad was successful during his life,

(01:46:54):
the whole plot he was. I mean he conquered lands,
but he conquered lands, I mean successful in in those
kinds of times.

Speaker 1 (01:47:01):
I think Jesus being being being murdered by the Romans
and the and.

Speaker 3 (01:47:06):
That it makes it makes it good.

Speaker 1 (01:47:09):
That was that was the plan. It was not like
it was successful on this plan. It was actually the plan.

Speaker 3 (01:47:14):
It's not his plan, you know. I I don't think
that was I don't think he was a plan you know,
I think le Yeah, he had the masses with Jesus
a certain point. No, he had he Christian. He doesn't
really gain any it doesn't gain numbers and cloud or
anything until Constantine. You know, it brings it into the

(01:47:35):
Roman Empire. That's when it really starts taking off. And
and then it's using the soul to conflot people.

Speaker 1 (01:47:42):
Thank you so much. It's been a real pleasure.

Speaker 3 (01:47:44):
Pleasure.

Speaker 1 (01:47:44):
Are really a good fun guy to discuss a lot
of topics.

Speaker 3 (01:47:47):
With sounds good.

Speaker 1 (01:47:50):
How okay, what do you need? It's in what's up?
Or yeah, I will I will, uh, yes, okay, yes,
of course. Okay, guys there at home, if somebody is
interested in her hearing more about what we are discussing here.

(01:48:11):
There's going to be extra conferences and events. There was
one yesterday. It's already recorded and available in YouTube because
I saw it. There's going to be uh in a
conference in the seventeen and nineteen of April. Is that
it in the next year, And there is a group.

Speaker 3 (01:48:32):
Called CON's it's an in conference in Porto. Uh it's
we do want to year? Is that? No, we do
any year in Europe? But it is the first time
it's in Porto. First time it's in Portugal, so that
we'll be being speaking a number of speakers from the
US and so yeah, people should should should go check
it out online and uh hope to see a lot

(01:48:55):
of a lot of people from Portugal at the conference
if we can will be there, Yeah, that'd be great,
beret to go.

Speaker 1 (01:49:01):
There is also a group of Objectivists in Portugal. If
people want to join what is the group called objectives
in Portugal? Where where can they find them? Okay, get
in touch with with with us comment down below and
we will comment where you can find I guess there

(01:49:23):
are groups Discord, Instagram, whatever, there are groups that you
can join.

Speaker 3 (01:49:26):
And there is an event on Thursday, so the day
after tomorrow this since this is live, there's an event
in Lisbon on Thursday with a pretty pretty famous people
who's will be there in Carlous. It's called in the
morality of Capitalism.

Speaker 1 (01:49:45):
That's that's a good topic we would not disagree on.

Speaker 3 (01:49:48):
Yeah, so you can you can, well we will disagree
on what the morality is, but.

Speaker 1 (01:49:53):
Maybe not, maybe not, we don't know. Thank you so much.
Is there a pleasure any extra last message you want
to give before we.

Speaker 3 (01:50:00):
I mean, people should check out my podcast You run
book show. You can find it on YouTube pretty easily.
You on bookshow dot com is the website and if
you're interested in iron Rand go read some minevent. I
think everybody will benefit from it, whether you agree or
not agree. In the end, read at less the Fountain
at read the Virtue of Selfishness, provocative title or capitalism

(01:50:22):
not known ideal. These are good and you can check
out I ran dot org a y n r n
d dot org for information about her, about her life,
about the books, what languages they're available in. It's all
available on the website.

Speaker 1 (01:50:37):
Thank you so much.

Speaker 3 (01:50:37):
Er my pleasure, absolutely, super real fun absolutely and it
was really fun. It was fun for me absolutely.

Speaker 1 (01:50:44):
Guys, stick with us. We'll have a NEXTRA podcast today
at nine pm, probably between.

Speaker 3 (01:50:50):
Eight and what about your kids?

Speaker 1 (01:50:53):
Yeah, what about talk kids exactly, That's what I say
about sacrifice. Guys, stick with us. We will have a
conversation about home schooling, about even I mean, you'll see,
you'll see Juan Calsu and the sand will be here.
You know them already. It's going to be a great conversation. Tonight,

(01:51:13):
and we will actually try to follow, for example tomorrow
and in the other days, the presidential interviews on on
a typ so be be sure to follow that as well.
If you still don't follow us on Instagram, you will
be always aware of the next episodes. Thank you so much,
Thank you for the questions, Thank you for listening. If
you like it, share it with everybody that you know.

(01:51:35):
Thank you so much. And Susan, thanks you guys.

Speaker 3 (01:51:47):
You know, the quarter of public.

Speaker 2 (01:51:56):
So spious.

Speaker 1 (01:52:00):
Some Kingrodas and mothers Sibius and awesome

All Episodes

Objectivism, Abortion, Objective Morality, and the Minimal State | Yaron Brook Interviewed

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

.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;}Objectivism, Abortion, Objective Morality, and the Minimal State | Yaron Brook Interviewed