David Kelley & Richard Salsman - Ask Us Anything

Speaker 0 00:00:00 Thank you for joining us today. Uh, I'm Scott Schiff hosting, um, the Atlas Society's founder, David Kelly and Atlas Society Senior Scholar, Richard Salzman here for an Ask Us Anything session. Uh, want to encourage everyone to share the room. If you've got a question, please raise your hand as well. And, uh, we'll bring you up here on the stage to ask it. I've got a few from social media channels. I even asked, uh, chat, G p t for some quote challenging questions, uh, for you both. Um, I'd like to start off with, uh, just a general question about ai. I've been thinking about, I, we've seen evidence, uh, David, uh, of bias in in chat G P T and now, uh, Google is, is racing to, to finish their version. Uh, China's making a version, CH two, um, you know, is, is there a, a real role right now for, for intellectuals and scholars to be helping to kind of craft principles of, of what a more objective AI should be about and incorporate? Speaker 1 00:01:16 Well, uh, I think the short answer is, um, that, uh, uh, I have to assume that a quite a large number of intellectuals, at least in the sense of very knowledgeable technicians, uh, familiar with ai, have been involved in creating this product in the first place. Um, of course, the whole trick about AI is to automate everything you can. So that, um, I mean, that's the point of, I, that's in my view, the point of old computing is to, um, take, uh, you know, as with, um, a slide rule in the old days or, um, pocket calculator or whatever, to, um, devise machinery that saves us some, um, cognitive time and is faster, more accurate, et cetera. Um, but <laugh>, I, I have a long standing view, uh, and I still stand by it, that AI is not itself literally intelligent. It is a product of human intelligence and, uh, where we offload, uh, or we create systems, um, technology that can, um, you know, I simplify and, um, expand our ability to function cognitively. Speaker 1 00:02:45 So anyway, um, but I think that, um, to the extent that you've found bias, I haven't really explored this, uh, the way you have, but to, to the extent that you found bias in it. Yes, absolutely. Um, this can be a much better product if it were less, um, uh, laden with assumptions that are built into, if they're built into the system. Or maybe it's just the fact of what they go at and collect, um, is biased and or, and if, if that's the case, you know, that's, that's a much harder problem because, you know, there's so much, uh, left wing conventional thinking, et et cetera that's out there, that they are presumably scouring off ver websites. Um, that we, you know, it, it's like <laugh>, our goal at the Elder Society with the culture at large is to make our voice heard, get our ideas out there and more prominent. Um, but we're, you know, we all know we're fighting a kind of uphill battle. Uh, so anyway, that's the best answer I can give. I did look at the questions that, uh, the assignment that you gave, um, chat G B T, and it was, it's quite an interesting, um, the questions it came back with. Um, maybe we can talk about that. Anyway, um, that's my best answer to your question, Scott. Speaker 0 00:04:13 That's great. I appreciate it. And we will get to some of those questions. Um, I do want to, uh, you know, welcome Richard, uh, Richard, I don't know if you, uh, had any kind of, uh, opening comments before we open it up to questions? Speaker 2 00:04:28 Nope, I'm ready to go. Thanks. But thanks for also for sending the questions on, uh, Austrian economics. I think you generated those through Speaker 0 00:04:35 Chat, G P Speaker 2 00:04:36 T, uh, the chat, uh, Pete. Yeah, thanks. Thanks. I, and I, and I, I've noticed the same, uh, pattern. Maybe David noticed in the objectivism questions, if this, if it's true that this, uh, feature Coles answers from the internet, it, it shares in the problems associated with that. Anyone who goes to Wikipedia will know the problems of accuracy or not. And so, um, that, that, but I think there is some, I'm, I'm always pro technology, so I like new gadgets and stuff like that, but I, you know, as with everything from fire to the wheel to nuclear power, it has to be handled rationally cuz they always, these things always can be used for bad, uh, results. But, um, anyway, that's my, just my opening thoughts. Speaker 0 00:05:17 Great. Thank you for that. Um, we do have, uh, Ron up here. Ron, I, uh, dunno if you had a question for David or Richard. Not yet. Thanks. All right, good. Well, we, uh, we may bring it back to you, uh, when they do, um, let me, uh, shift gears to international politics. Um, old school journalists, Seymour Hirsch put out a piece showing evidence that the US was behind the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. Uh, what is the moral status of that, if true? I is NATO in a de facto war with Russia? Speaker 1 00:06:00 I don't know, I know nothing about this. I'm, I'm afraid, uh, Richard, does that, have you come across this? I this Speaker 2 00:06:07 Is, yeah, I, I, I do know this story. Seymour Horseshoes does Lean Left, but it's a Polish applies winning, uh, journalist who's probably in his eighties by now, and, and goes as far back as reporting on the Mei massacre at Vietnam and, and other things. So he came out with a fairly detailed, uh, full, uh, sourced, quoted, cited, none of these, you know, unnamed sources thing, uh, a couple days ago because since, I think it was in September when the Nord Dream two, uh, pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Western Europe was blown up. E even at the time, it was immediately identified by Sweden and others as a sabotage act. So the question was never whether it was blown up in sabotage, the question was w who, why, where, and at the time, I, I recall only maybe Tucker Carlson and some others, uh, saying, uh, the US and NATO did it. Speaker 2 00:07:01 Uh, and others would just reply that that was, they were Putin's stooges. And, and even claims, uh, from the other side that Putin would blow up his own pipeline when all he had to do, of course, was just turn the spigot off if he wanted to punish Western Europe <laugh>. So Seymour Hersch's essay, which is easy to find, uh, on the internet, is really, I think, quite damning and quite convincing. So now you could go two ways with this. You could say that it's not true, and we're back into the status quo of a week ago, but if true, uh, and I, um, it doesn't surprise me in the least if that's true, but the ramifications of this are enormous. I think Russia always had this view. But, uh, Biden and Victoria Newland, Victoria Newland is in, I believe the State Department, Biden himself, when asked, um, before it was blown up what the US would do with the Nord Stream two. Speaker 2 00:07:51 And he said, if Russia invades Ukraine, there will not be a Nord Stream two, it just won't exist. And the follow up question at the White House was something like, well, what does that mean? And he was reluctant to say, we're gonna go blow it up. But, uh, Victoria Newland, once it was blown up, she testified before Congress on the pa pa part of the Biden administration, basically applauding the result, um, saying, it's now metal at the bottom of the sea. Or I forget how she put it. Same thing with Tony Blinken, the her boss, secretary of State applauding it. Now, um, one of the interesting things that Hige came up with is, and I'm, I'm, I'm familiar for other reasons that this is a true thing in Panama City, Florida, on the panhandle north of there, there's a naval, uh, US Navy training, uh, facility that specializes in underwater demolition and underwater. Speaker 2 00:08:41 And he has seems to have found an, uh, a spoke, uh, a, um, whistleblower, if you will, or something like that from in there. Now, back up, if it's true. Um, yes, you could say that, um, whether the US did it alone or in consultation with Norway or wherever else, it's an act of nato. Yeah. So it's an act of destroying a Russian, uh, asset. And now of course, then the debate will be supposed it comes out to be true. They'll, they'll just say, well, we lied in the beginning, but it's a legitimate bombing because we are, after all, at war with Russia. Now, unfortunately, they don't really say today they're at war with Russia. Um, and of course, uh, Ukraine is not in nato, so there isn't any real commitment by NATO to defend Ukraine. And yet, more and more military hardware is going in there, as we know Germany as well, probably soon, advisors from the US and elsewhere as to how to use the machinery. Speaker 2 00:09:33 Just cuz you said machinery into the war zone doesn't mean the Ukrainians know how to use it. So this is usually the step next taken. So I, I think this Hearst story and expose, if true, is a very important thing to expose. And certainly from this turn point of an accurate portrayal of what the US is actually doing in, in that region. I, I'm already on record at at Atlas, so I'm not gonna say more opposing the US pushing NATO further and further eastward in recent decades toward the Russian border. And my own reaction to the Russian cases, both in Crimea in 2014 and more recently, Russia is reacting to the US meddling in Ukraine. So the u the US is known to have overthrown the duly elected leader of Ukraine in 2014. They just fermented a revolution and got rid of him because, um, he was pro-Russia. Speaker 2 00:10:23 So that was what Washer was reacting to when it annexed Crimea in 2014. This more recent one was Linsky running around with Biden and elsewhere saying, we're gonna be members of NATO soon. They're not, actually, haven't been eligible for nato, mostly because of the corruption in the country, and, um, they're not considered having sufficient security to handle weapons. So those are two major, those are two major defects. NATO doesn't just take in anyone, but that has been the problem with Ukraine and it's not gotten any better, uh, since the war started. So, um, that's really I think, what the questioner's asking about. What do they think of the Seymour Hirsch, uh, expose, uh, which you can find on the internet. Speaker 1 00:11:05 All right, let me jump in here, uh, for a second because I, yeah, I disagree with Richard on this, on the Yeah. Uh, Russia, uh, Ukraine war that's going on. But, um, I, I'm not gonna jump into reasons or counter arguments, but I, I, I do have a question for you, uh, Richard. And for anyone else who, who knows more than I do, I, you know, I've been aware of the, the, uh, sabotage to the, that Nordstrom two line. And, um, I assumed that it had something to do with Germany's reluctance to lower or cut off its imports of energy, uh, from Russia on which it was dependent. And, you know, it's the sanctions and uh, uh, on, on Russian, uh, energy sources, oil and natural gas have been expanding over time. But, um, I'm, so the question is, was this partly, you know, directed against Germany as much as Russia? Speaker 2 00:12:14 Yeah, well, my first reaction would be if, if NATO did this with the US consultation, that would be odd because it would be the US attacking Germany or trying to pun punish Germany for continuing to import NatGas. Now, of course, if, if NatGas is shut off completely, uh, from Russia to Western Europe, the lights would go out. So ru so Western Europe has been grappling with this, at least for a year or two, that they are rely, and Trump, remember Trump warned about this when he was in power, Trump was taunting them, basically saying, why are you relying so much on imports of fossil fuels from Russia? And, and so they still do. But you know, that David, I think that would be akin to suppose Germany was fully on board for, uh, helping Ukraine. They have, they've, they've been mixed actually, and against Russia, and somehow didn't like the fact that the US was still importing Russian oil. Speaker 2 00:13:01 I mean, if they sunk one of the ships sending Russian oil to the us that would be an act of war of Germany against the us. So, uh, now if you go the other way and say, well, somebody else sabotaged it to punish Russia, uh, to punish Germany for continuing to import, uh, I don't know. It depends on who that is. It's hard to have a hard time believing Russia would do it cuz Russia loses the revenues, uh, for sending fossil fuel. So I, I think it comes down to identifying who did it and why, and then go from there. Speaker 1 00:13:29 Right. No, I understand. Um, and I'm not arguing, uh, the propriety of it, uh, I'm just saying, uh, yeah, what was the goal? So anyway, Speaker 2 00:13:36 I think another interesting angle on this, David, would be the environmentalist reaction, because from some es uh, from some estimates, uh, I dunno whether these are totally accurate or not. Some estimates are saying something like, this is the biggest, uh, and, you know, ecological disasters since fill in the blank. And the environmental community, of course, has been completely silent. So the, the issue would be why it, it shows actually their a testament to how seriously they take the banning of fossil fuels, you know, that they would say, well, this at least stops the flow of fossil fuels, so it's okay with us. Right. They're not, not gonna get into the nitty nitty gritty of, of war time anyway. Speaker 1 00:14:18 Well, I thought, I thought there were some environmental voices. Um-huh <affirmative>, I can't cite specifics who are happy about the, uh, energy struggles and increasing prices and Yeah. You know, savings, uh, declining use, um, right. Because hey, less global warming if it, you know, anyway, but you, Speaker 2 00:14:40 So, but do you remember in the late eighties, uh, in the late eighties, David, I think it was the Valdez crash where Exxon had a tanker and I think the pi the pilot was drunk or something like that. So the Valdez oil spill, the environmentalist, you know? Right. You know, probably rightly used as a, you know, this is terrible. And look how outrageously, uh, negligent Exxon is. And, and yeah, that went on for, for years, and I think there was a huge multi-billion dollar settlement. I, I'm just saying, now, here's a case where this isn't an accident. This isn't like a tanker running into something. This is someone who, a someone or some group that actually sabotaged the thing and created, you know, probably something 10 times Valdez and they're quiet. So it's a, it's interesting. Yeah. Yeah. Because it's a kind of a test of what they care about. Speaker 0 00:15:27 That's true. That's like how the, uh, anti-war, uh, left seems to have disappeared, um, mm-hmm. <affirmative>. But, uh, I do wanna give Clark a chance to chime in Clark. Speaker 3 00:15:40 Yes. Uh, thank you so much, uh, guys, for, for doing this. I, I'd like to switch to a different part of the world, uh, and specifically Richard. Uh, I'd like to ask about China. I think it's interesting how, you know, <laugh>, the Keynesians like Biden are, are arguing what a huge threat China is. I mean, even though, you know, every time I go to Walmart, it seems like half the stuff is made in China, which, you know, is not exactly a threat, but I get the arguments they're making from what I can tell is that China is a threat precisely because it's economically strong. And, you know, you would think that, that, you know, people like some of these people like Biden would've read economics in one lesson or may, maybe that's too much to to expect. But obviously, you know, as, as a rule, you wanna l you want your neighbors to be economically strong. You want, you know, your next door neighbors to, to be productive, healthy, wealthy wise. But, but, but this argument that somehow China is a threat, not because of what they're doing, I guess politically, but just precisely because they're a threat, because they're so economically strong. It's very depressing to me, <laugh> when I read this to think that, gee, I mean, it sounds like a lot of people need to catch up with Adam Smith and David Ricardo and say, and, and, you know, Basti. I mean, and what, what are your thoughts on that, Richard? Speaker 2 00:17:08 Well, that's a good question. And I think you're right to suggest that there's a kind of melding of two different things that muddy the analytical waters. And one would be, uh, are they really harming us by sending us stuff, uh, to be sold at Walmart? The obvious answer to that is no. And now on the other hand, if they're using their increased economic prowess to fund a military that threatens us, well, that has to be, that has to be examined, and then it has to be discussed. And that would be the only reason I would worry that wow, they have economic prowess wedded to military prowess. And again, that's not enough military prowess that could hurt us. Uh, cuz you know, Britain has military prowess and it fed by their, you know, eco eco, their economic situation. That's not the threat. It's economic prowess plus military prowess, plus it's anti-American. Speaker 2 00:18:00 I, I'm not, uh, as convinced as these other, uh, China phobes are that China is arraying a military, uh, against us. But I do think, going back to the economic point, I do think the more you taunt, punish, restrict China economically as Trump did, frankly, uh, the, the Trump protectionist program did that, not just against China, of course, it was also against Mexico. So, but the protectionist policies, economists have long shown that nations are more likely to go to war if they start with trade wars. The trade wars, you know, tend to proliferate into military wars. So, uh, the US has done that in that regard. Um, I think you're right, the, the idea that American politicians, as they've done from both parties over the last couple of decades, it goes something like this. And those are old enough to remember, we'll, remember they did this with Japan as well. Speaker 2 00:18:54 Instead of blaming US policy makers, uh, by their regulations, taxes, and others for restraining and gutting and eroding American economic prowess, they pick a scapegoat abroad. And of course, they would pick specifically a countries abroad that seem to be building their economic prowess. So that was done in the 18, uh, 1980s against Japan. Japan was a scene as a threat. And then the language would be something like, they're stealing our jobs, they're stealing our factories. You know, when really what's happening is capitalists flowing to relatively freer countries. And in the case of China, they've been liberalizing since 1978. Now, they've definitely taken steps backward, but they're not a maoist country as they were prior to Mao's death in 1976. So, um, they, we know they're much more pro economic, um, growth. They're, they, they produce a, apparently a coal, a coal, uh, burning plant every, uh, couple weeks or so. Speaker 2 00:19:53 So they're not anti fossil fuels as, as is the case in the us. And, um, so, um, I don't wanna go on too much about this, but we sh I, I agree with the idea that we should be welcoming and applauding other countries with economic prowess that benefit us. And they certainly do it by us importing voluntarily their stuff and, and, and set aside and analyze separately, uh, the military thing, by the way, there's a very interesting, I think, paradox that conservatives you'll find are dealing with. If you, if you say to conservatives, is j is China, you know, monumentally more productive and prosperous now than you know, in 1978? And they would say yes. Now, if you go into the theory of and say, does that mean it's more communist or more capitalist? The, the answer has to be, they became more capitalist. I'm not saying they became capitalist. Speaker 2 00:20:44 I'm saying they moved in the direction of the, the principles of capitalism and away from the principles of communism. So you can't have it both ways and call the current regime co or the current system. They're communist. Cuz you'd be left in a situation of saying, apparently communism produces abundance. I mean, it doesn't. So, um, I would rather go with the facts on the ground, which are, they are clearly productively abundant and sending us stuff that benefits our lives. It's gotta be because they've liberalized to some extent. And we should be applauding that, not, uh, opposing it. And look internally for how we're shooting ourselves in the foot with environmental rules and taxes and all the anti manufacturing policies, uh, that have been adopted in the US at least since the last 50 years. Speaker 0 00:21:32 Good stuff. Thank you. Um, let's go to Craig. Craig, thanks for joining us. Do you have a question for one of our scholars? I don't know if you're able to unmute. There Speaker 4 00:21:43 You go. There we go. Yeah. Okay. Um, you know, during the 1830s, forties and fifties, America had a huge debate whether free labor should have to compete with slave labor. And the answer was, slave labor should not exist. And we fought a civil war in which 750,000 people died to free 4 million slaves. Now, framing the moral question of China is the same thing. Should free labor in the free world, and especially in America, have to compete with slave labor in China? And the answer is no. The slave labor shouldn't exist, and we should have nothing to do with them or the Russians for the same reasons. Speaker 2 00:22:23 So is, uh, David, do you wanna take this or you want me to, Speaker 1 00:22:27 Let me jump in here? Um, yes. Speaker 2 00:22:29 Okay, Speaker 1 00:22:29 Good. Because it's, uh, you know, this, it is partly an normative issue. Yeah. You know, I think, um, I think a country that uses slave labor is, uh, pariah and I, I applaud people who, you know, will not purchase, um, from, for example, the stuff produced in the Uyghur, uh, areas in the West, which are essentially slave labor. And, um, of course in a, in, in a, uh, let me say authoritarian country like China, uh, with, you know, a single ruler, no democracy, no, no real constitution or Bill of Rights or anything like that. It's hard to distinguish what's, what's genuinely free from what is not. Um, I appreciate that China o has liberalized, uh, over last three or four decades and, uh, that has had, um, good economic results, um, internally and in terms of the products they can export and trade. But, um, you know, I I think when you're dealing with, um, trade with another entity in another country, and even in the case of the Civil War with the country that it was divided, uh, as massively as rivers a slave was, um, there are reasons that that go beyond economics into, um, imposing con constraints in the name of human freedom and our own values of individual right. Speaker 1 00:24:14 And freedom. So, you know, that doesn't deal with any of the economic issues. It, it's just, but it's a moral stance. And I think, Craig, it's, it's a good question for that reason. Speaker 2 00:24:28 Yeah. If, if I were to just jump in the, uh, my, my stance on this has always been something like, um, at the level of which I think the question is asking should, should a state, in this case, the United States do anything about blocking and preventing trade due to this condition. So, so let's stipulate that there is slave labor, say, in China. I, I think foreign policy-wise, my, my position has been you first have to have the state department designate the other states of the world as other friends or foes of the us. Now, I know that sounds black and white, but it could at least, and I don't think it really does this, it could, they do, would do it with terrorist states, but they should do it with all states have some criteria for saying, you know, this is a legitimate state and or not. Speaker 2 00:25:14 And now if it's a legitimate state, even if flawed, and that's putting too nice a word on slave labor, <laugh>, um, the, you can't, um, restrict trade. Now, inter interactions or international relations include not just trade, but say diplomacies and embassies and things like that. The State Department could make a distinction saying, listen, China has slave labor. Here's the evidence for this, this violates American values. I'm totally in agreement with David on this. The US must make a statement like that. But then it does, I think, have to make a judgment cuz otherwise businesses and others who travel can't plan accordingly and, and, and can't figure out, you know, whether they're gonna be prosecuted or not by the US for dealing with these others. Uh, you could say, listen, we're not gonna have any diplomatic relations with them, but, uh, we're not gonna stop people from buying, you know, stuff at Walmart that comes in from China. Speaker 2 00:26:02 I know that sounds a little bit mixed, but, um, unless you can designate them as they are a national security threat to the United States, um, then they shouldn't be off on, on the li off the list, so to speak. You know, and like equivalently, if you said to, if you said there's no slavery in Iran, suppose there isn't. But they still represent a threat to us cuz they keep saying death to America or death to Israel, and they got trying to get nuclear weapons or something like that. See, so, so if you go the other way, you're basically saying no, the criteria for not dealing with them is they represent an existential threat to the United States. And I would include Iran in that. I would include North Korea and maybe even Venezuela. And there the US could legitimately say, you can't trade with the enemy and we're gonna go after you if you do trade with the enemy. I don't know. I don't know if that helps. So add to the debate. Speaker 0 00:26:54 Great. Appreciate it. Uh, let's go to jp. Jp, thank you. Speaker 5 00:27:01 Thank you. Um, I, I I came up to, to ask, uh, if you could give, gimme a, uh, an objective, an objectivist, uh, take on, um, on gender ideology and, uh, gender affirming care, whether it's right or it is a crime. Speaker 1 00:27:22 Gosh. Uh, you by gender affirming, uh, JP do you mean, um, uh, government protections for, for trans people? Speaker 5 00:27:33 Well, no, it, it goes a little bit be beyond that. Currently, it's, it's being, uh, spoken of as, um, as assisting, uh, children in transitioning and, uh, uh, going under, uh, the knife for transforming your body's, uh, male into female or, uh, or the other way around. Speaker 1 00:27:57 Okay. Yeah, I have thought about that. It, I'm not an expert, uh, by any means, but I mean, uh, let me start with, um, the ideal should be the rule of law in which all people are, you know, equal before the law. If someone wants to, um, live a certain way as an adult, um, I may not like it, but, but what I don't like and don't like, uh, what I admire and don't admire is irrelevant to the law. That's the nature of freedom. Children, however, are a special case because, um, children, uh, let me put it this way, the moment they're born, they have the right to life. They do not have the right to freedom. I mean, parents who don't let their kids drive, uh, before they're 16 are not kid kidnapping or imprisoning their kids in a, uh, criminal method. They're taking care of the kids. Speaker 1 00:28:58 And, um, you know, you acquire the capacities to make choices as you mature. Now, what that point of maturation is, you know, that's, that's arguable and, uh, um, but it, it's certainly not at, uh, age 12 or 13 or whatever, uh, when I understand some of the stuff is beginning as, as people, you know, in, in puberty are beginning to have issues of their sexual, um, interests and sexual identities. So I would say no. Um, it is, there's a, with with children, um, because they are not full, fully mature adults, um, the full protections of freedom do not apply them. Not they have protections, have any state protections. Um, preferably lo uh, local should be, um, you know, reasonable fair and in their interests, but on top. So I would, I would say, um, Speaker 1 00:30:10 You know, there's a, there's a rule, uh, there's a rule for government and I, as I say, mostly local government in preventing child abuse and protecting children up to the point when they can make their own decisions fully and rash and responsibly. But on top of all that, um, the, um, we're talking just about any con restraints that the government might be entitled to or might be appropriate for the government to impose, but it should not be subsidizing these things government. Well, this is a form of welfare, and it's taking taxpayer money to support things that, um, some taxpayers object to morally, but in any case, it's taking their money that they could spend for their own uses, um, to, you know, transfer to someone else. And, which I'm opposed to in general. So I'll leave it there. Speaker 2 00:31:15 Yeah, I don't, I don't think I, I couldn't say it better than David. I had on my list the two major points he made the issue of minor versus of age, very critical. And so if you're asking is it a crime for these things to be done? But minors, I would say yes, and especially with, you know, they're going outta their way to not inform parents even worse. And I, the other thing I had on my list, same thing, David. I had the same thing. Public funding, no public funding. So I've always had this on abortion as well. I, I'm, I'm for abortion rights, but I'm, I'm so sympathetic to those who oppose abortion and say, well, can we at least not have government funding it planned parent whatever? Yes, that's very fair. There's no reason people should be compelled to support actions or speech that they, uh, revile, you know. Speaker 2 00:31:59 But the other thing I would maybe add to the list, David, I, I'm, because I'm seeing this mandates that healthcare professionals service these kind of procedures and things like that. So I'm worried, I'm worried about that as well. If you're a medical professional who doesn't want to do it, you really shouldn't be penalized or fired or whatever for not participating in the procedures themselves. And I believe that's beginning, um, to happen. So I'm, I'm worried about that more philosophically, it might interest people that, you know, when you used to fill out old, uh, forms for getting a job, they'd say, what's your sex? Remember, it would say male or female didn't say gender. And I do know philosophically there's been a shift toward the idea. There's a bifurcation that's happened where sex is considered objective and biological and genital oriented, but that gender has expanded into a more, a subjective, non-scientific kind of feeling of how you self-identify. And that's opened up a huge, as we know, well, that's been opened up this kind of Pandora's box for, uh, people, uh, being subjective about it. And once you have that, philosophically, it becomes very difficult to handle the kind of things David talked about equal protection before the law. Yeah. But if, if we allow and, and sanctify the idea, well, I feel like I'm, this one day, I'm a one day a non a the next day a complete violation of Speaker 0 00:33:21 <laugh> aristo Speaker 2 00:33:22 <laugh>. Um, but that's what, that's what they've done with gender. Gender has become this more expansive concept that goes beyond sex. Speaker 1 00:33:31 Absolutely. Yeah. Good brief point, Richard. Thanks. Speaker 0 00:33:34 Yeah. Uh, powerful topic. I'm sure that's gonna come up again. Uh, Lawrence, thank you for joining us. Are you able to unmute there? There you go. Do you have a question? Speaker 1 00:34:05 Hey, Lawrence, if you can hear us, uh, this is David. Okay. You don't look muted, but you must be. Speaker 0 00:34:11 Yeah, there's something going on with your sound. I'm gonna, uh, actually go to Dana while you're getting that fixed, Lawrence, you may need to leave and come back. Um, but, uh, we'll try that. Dana, go ahead. If you've got a question. Speaker 7 00:34:28 Oh, I just have, uh, a few comments too numerous to all air right now, but, uh, I disagree with a lot of the things have been said about transgender people. Uh, I am one. And, um, I believe that, uh, it is not the standards of care, uh, do not allow surgery before age of majority, which is in most states, 18 or 21. Um, there just isn't surgery done according to standards of care. Um, what is done is, uh, there's a thing called affirmative treatment where, uh, transgender people explore, uh, their behavior, uh, as to what they think is appropriate and what's inappropriate. That's what affirming care means. Uh, and some people who, uh, think they are one gender, and I'll define that in a minute, uh, go back to just deciding that's not for them, that I wanna differentiate between sex and gender. Uh, sex has to do, its definition is at birth, what the doctor or the midwife puts down as being your sex, uh, which presumably is a indicator of re reproduction, but we know that's not always true. Speaker 7 00:35:58 Um, any rate. So, and gender has to do with behavior. There are a whole set of gender behaviors that culture, uh, has, uh, evolved. And, uh, transgender people, uh, and, and their categories masculine and feminine. Now they're whole, are whole much other categories as well. But, uh, transgender people just don't feel comfortable performing the behaviors that they've been assigned according to their sex, uh, and may be behave in other manners. So, as far as the comment about government, uh, subsidizing it, except for Medicaid, uh, treatments, I don't know that that's the case. It's private insurers have taken that on by and large. Uh, there have been studies done that show that, uh, you can pay me now or pay me later. You can either, uh, treat according to affirming care or you're gonna pay for it probably more in terms of problem, medical problems in including depression, uh, reactive depression tube, uh, problems, um, and, and other, other things that occur if you don't treat. So the insurers, by and large have gone along with it because it saves them money, uh, that treating, using affirmative treatment, uh, uh, is actually the humane thing to do. And, uh, they, uh, would rather treat that than, uh, treat, uh, depression or attempted suicide. So those are a few of my comments. I have a lot more, I've written four books on the subject, uh, and, uh, from a scientific point of view, uh, and, uh, some of the things that were said here are just simply not true. Speaker 0 00:38:00 Let's, uh, give, uh, David and Richard a chance to, uh, you know, comment on that. Um, I, for me, I Go ahead, Richard. Speaker 2 00:38:13 Well, I, I, I would be curious, Dana, you said with things that, uh, we said were not true. What, what would be one? Speaker 7 00:38:21 Well, the standards of care, uh, do not include, uh, transgender genital plastic surgery until the age of majority. Well, I'm looking at the children just don't get that. Speaker 2 00:38:31 I'm looking at the Boston Children's Hospital website. If you go, if you go to Center for Gender Surgery, Speaker 7 00:38:38 Right, it's, Speaker 2 00:38:39 It, it says The Center for Gender Surgery at Boston Children's Hospital offers gender affirmation surgery services to eligible adolescents and young adults who are ready to take this step in their journey. Now, I just looked up adolescents, Speaker 7 00:38:53 But that's not transgender gender plastic surgery, which is what was mentioned. Speaker 2 00:38:58 So if I could finish my sentence, I, I just looked up a adolescent adolescence is 10 to 19, unless I get the definition of adolescents wrong. It's 10 to 19 years old. Um, so I, I don't know why they would have that on their website advertising it, basically, but I'm just, just from the standpoint, Dana, of, it's not like we're making this stuff up. It is on the Boston Children's Hospital website, and there are many other, Speaker 7 00:39:24 Yeah, there are different kinds of surgeries. I would point out, uh, general plastic surgery, i e and I hate to use the term, but sex change surgery is just not done according to the standards of care until the person is an adult. Yeah. Speaker 2 00:39:39 Well, not sure what this website's saying then. It's pretty, pretty brazen, pretty open. And I, I assume you wouldn't be for public funding this, sorry, mandating that people provide these services. Speaker 7 00:39:50 I don't, I don't believe it's done, except in, in case of Medicaid, which is government subsidized insurance, and I'm opposed to that. Speaker 0 00:40:01 Well, uh, it's, uh, fair to, uh, make that distinction between the different types of surgery. David, go ahead. If you wanted to say something. Speaker 1 00:40:13 Uh, I was just gonna say, uh, Dana, you obviously know orders of magnitude more about this than I do, so I, you know, I can't argue with any of the points if, if anything that I'm saying is wrong, um, or with the, let's leave aside the issue of government funding. Um, uh, but the, um, you know, I just, I, I do think that, um, there is, uh, so I'm, as I said, when people become adults, their lives are their own, their pursuit of happiness is left, should is and should be left to their own, uh, uh, judgment about what, what will make them happy. And I, you know, I'm all for people being happy under whatever circumstances. It's for somewhat at my age. It's a little, uh, weird to see the explosion in recent years, uh, this kind of thing. Um, but I, the one thing I would really argue with you about is biological sex is not just a matter of what, you know, the doctors who deliver baby, assign doctors don't make that stuff up outta, there is a biological difference. Speaker 1 00:41:36 Um, sorry, I'm in the middle of Washington DC with ambulances and police going by all the time. So sorry for the rough neighborhood. Yeah. Now it's just a major one <laugh>. But, um, look, we could go explore this issue of, of, of, of sex and gender for a long time. I've watched over the years that, um, the term gender being switched, uh, used to be a purely linguistic term. Some languages were gendered, some were not, or some were partially gendered, like, uh, English pronouns or virtually every noun in some of the other romance languages. Uh, tell me why, you know, in, in French vol, tu car is feminine. I'm kind of feel like that when I'm in a great car and just, and nevermind. Um, but sex is part of biology. Uh, individuals within a species, of course, any living organism, including human beings, is vastly a vastly complex system. Speaker 1 00:42:52 So not everything you can say is going to, not every dichotomy you can draw is gonna be true universally. That is 100%. But the fact is, mammals come into varieties, male and female. Um, reproduction is across species and including humans as a certain, um, way of happening, more or less automatically. That's the norm. There are norms. They don't have to, I'm not saying moral norms, I'm saying, um, biological scientific norms of what, what we, what we know about living things, including humans. So, I, I don't want to relativize the whole idea of sex. Um, it has foundation in reality, in nature, and, um, with whatever exceptions, um, there may be. Uh, but it's not just what the doctors call us at Speaker 7 00:43:53 Birth. Well, uh, there, I disagree with that, but I would make the point that, and I've laid out the evidence for the idea that gender is also biological, and there's gen, uh, uh, genetics and other evidence that supports that. And it is different from sex. Uh, the, if you want to go, I, I, I'm giving you the operational definition of six, and that's what most, uh, uh, the most of, uh, uh, culture goes by. You know, it's what's on your birth certificate. Uh, you can, you can have, I can have a long discussion about chromosomes and genes, uh, but that is the def facto, uh, definition of sex. It's what the doctor says, the person is based on looking at his external genitalia at birth. Speaker 2 00:44:51 Yeah. And, uh, if I could just add, I don't believe, Scott, uh, just quickly just to add the, uh, issue of surgery, um, and whether it's being done on minors or not, I think it is being done on minors being advocated, uh, on websites, but, but there's also an issue of puberty blockers. So there's also another thing. So there's also an issue of chemical treatment of minors. I mean, puberty obviously means 11, 12, 13 years or so. We're talking about minors. So puberty blockers would have to be thrown into the mix of, it isn't just an issue of, well, surgery isn't, or is being done puberty blockers, no small thing. And I'm just looking at the Mayo Clinic. If you just put in Mayo Clinic puberty blockers, they have a whole section on puberty blockers for transgender and gender diverse youth. That's the title of the section youth. So I think more confirmation evidence of what I said earlier, that it's undeniable that this is being done, uh, to minors and often without parental, um, involvement, which I think is criminal. It's, it's just criminal at the other time. Speaker 7 00:45:56 Affirmative, affirmative care. The principal's affirmative care for minors includes a team of, uh, the parents, the doctors, psycho psychologists. Well, and, and that's the way it's supposed to be conducted. And is conducted. Speaker 2 00:46:11 Yeah. I'm, I'm talking about Speaker 7 00:46:13 One thing we've, one thing we haven't talked about is parental rights here. Yeah. Speaker 2 00:46:17 I'm Speaker 7 00:46:17 Talking about parents have a responsibility for raising their children and for, uh, taking care of them and Yeah. Uh, and the state and the, uh, uh, the, the state and the child are not the only players here. Speaker 2 00:46:34 Yeah. And I'm, I'm talking about, I'm, I'm talking about parental involvement and rights as a necessary but not sufficient condition, because if parents facilitate this and harm their minors, I mean, there's many cases where there's domestic abuse of minors not having to do with gender changing that where you can jail the parents because they're irresponsible parents. So the idea that the parents are in the room with people from the Mayo Clinic or the Boston Children's Hospital doing this, it, it, I'm not arguing that that validates it. I think you are, but I, I wouldn't go there. I think, well, Speaker 7 00:47:08 The parents, well, the parents have the, the parents have the distinct choice between allowing their children, uh, to go into a load where they are attempting suicide or to get, get them some kind of treatment. And that, that the statistics on that are pretty bleak in terms of 40% of transgender people commit suicide or try to, and, uh, children, children do the same. In fact, the the percentage is higher. Speaker 1 00:47:38 Okay. Can I make a suggestion here? Um, Scott, uh, primarily, I, you know, this sounds like a topic we could, uh, you know, right. All the way to the end of the session. Um, Speaker 0 00:47:51 I agree. And we have other questions. I do think, you know, it might make a good topic at some point in the future. Speaker 1 00:47:58 Sure. Speaker 0 00:47:59 Okay. Um, but, uh, I do have a, uh, question from, um, uh, from Instagram. It's, uh, from dementia, and he says, should the US be offering asylum to people escaping terrible regimes? Speaker 1 00:48:21 Morally, I would say yes. Um, because I'm not afraid of immigration. I'm not, or imi IMI immigrants, um, you know, I think they, they come with mouths to feed, but hands to work with. And if, you know, barring criminals and infectious people, um, my view is they wish to welcome them. But I have a special sympathy for those who are fleeing oppression. Um, and the kind of danger that is often the case. And I don't, frankly, I don't see a difference between those who are applying for asylum because they're fleeing the threat of danger from gangs in Guatemala or wherever. Um, versus those who are coming for better economic opportunities. Um, you know, that's a mind body dichotomy, which I don't buy. They coming, coming for the chance of a better life and earning more money by through your own work, I think is a great thing. So I know that immigration is a horribly, uh, complex situation as at least as complex as previous discussion we were having, but, uh, previous topic. But the, um, and asylum is, that's part of the system that we have now. And, um, so, but to the, because we have it, um, I would say, yeah, let's keep that door open. Speaker 2 00:49:57 Yeah. Dave, David, I like that answer. And especially the mind body split, because I know the, the asylum stuff I've studied, it usually is restricted to political and religious persecution. But when I think about it, and I think you're right to include the economic, if we said someone is fleeing politically cuz they can't vote or revolt or someone's fleeing for religious reasons, you know, cuz they can't pray or worship. But what about the person who's leaving? Cuz they can't eat. I mean, they can't produce, they can't, they can't get a job. And Yeah. And that the asylum program doesn't really include economic, um, refugees and why shouldn't it? Uh, the other thing I think about is it is true that the asylum system is more temporary. It's like a temporary respite or refuge. And it's, it's quite short. It falls, I think, quite short of citizenship. So I would go further and not only include all of these political, religious econ as I think David is, but also, um, that why should it just be a temporary thing? Why not? Why not permit a, a full path to, uh, citizenship? But, uh, yeah, I, I'm, I mostly endorsed what David says. Yeah, I like that. Speaker 0 00:51:11 Was there a place for having, um, a special Cuba, you know, uh, position during the Cold War, for example, as a, an affront to communism? Speaker 2 00:51:23 Yeah, and I think we did do that, right, David? I mean, Einstein and, and Veron brawn, a whole bunch of people came over both during the thirties and forties and afterwards. Yeah. You mean, you mean Scott to particularly target enemy regimes and get their best and brightest, not Speaker 0 00:51:38 That kind thing. Well, not when it comes to Cuba, that, that too, but in Cuba it was just, it was because of Castro almost outta spite, Speaker 2 00:51:47 Right? Yeah. Yeah. I don't personally, I don't mind that I like that Speaker 1 00:51:53 <laugh>. Yeah. Um, but I'm leery of this because there are some negative examples. Like, my understanding is that, um, during Hitler's reign in Germany mm-hmm. <affirmative> mm-hmm. <affirmative>, there were cases of Jews coming to this country and being turned away. Hmm. Um, yeah. And I think there was even a movie by that ship of fools or something like that. Speaker 2 00:52:18 Yeah. Right. Speaker 1 00:52:19 David And uh, yeah. You know, so I would rather not leave it to, in the hands of politicians to decide who's, uh, who's worthy of admitting and who isn't. That's one of the problems with all these restrictions. I mean, especially if you go back to the first years, the early, uh, 20th century when there were severe limits on people from Asia, you know, the China exclusion, um, yeah. And you know, that that was a prejudice, it was popular. And, um, so politicians responded to it. Yeah. You know, the popular prejudice, but that's not what politic politics should be. The law should be universal. Speaker 2 00:53:03 Yeah. I I al you do agree, David also that this is a wonderful opportunity for a free country to convey to the world what it's, what its principles are, you know, so it seem, it may seem like a minor thing, you know, these trickle of people who come in or they come in during certain wars and, and other things like that. But, but it's an opportunity for the state department or the government generally to say, these are the principles we stand by. We welcome with open arms, these people, and why? Because they're fleeing political tyranny, religious tyranny, economic tyranny. So, um, for those who on the right, even who are against Im, uh, immigrants, and I know you're not David, neither of us are, um, they're losing this opportunity to make that statement, uh, you know, by closing the borders or putting up walls and stuff like that. So it has a, it has a kind of philosophical self-confidence type message as well by, by saying this. And then we're not doing a mind body split by just taking in political refugees, but not say economic ones. So Speaker 1 00:54:02 Yeah. And that positive message, we, we are open. Yeah. Is, um, because of its universality and principled nature, it is a better message to send the out into the world than saying, well, we hate Cuba and, you know, so we're gonna welcome all Cubans under special circumstances. Speaker 2 00:54:22 Right. Yeah. I I'm even troubled somewhat sometimes by when someone will say, I think Trump said this once, we'll let in people, you know, because we need software programmers or something like that. So the kind of social utility argument, uh, not the individualist argument is sometimes given. So it's, well, we'll let them in, but we need to make a calculus of, you know, whether they're gonna help the country or not. I, I don't know about you, David. Yeah, I'm, I, I don't like that kind of approach either, but Speaker 1 00:54:52 That infuriate me. Um, yeah, I mean, I welcome brains from everywhere. Yeah. I was just noticing in the news today, um, the head of Google and the head of, uh, Microsoft, you know, um, are both Indians, <laugh>. Yeah. Um, yeah. They're, uh, you know, I kept wondering what, what is it about India that <laugh>? But, um, yeah. Anyway, the, um, you can, of course I welcome the, you know, at the pyramid of ability, the smartest people, the most productive people will shower more benefits on everyone else than Yeah. Yeah. People lower down in the, in the scale of, um, ability. But the scale, that scale of ability involves people who are doing important productive work. Yeah. I don't care if it's just, uh, you know, you know, laying down your, a new sidewalk for you, Richard. Yeah. You know? Yeah. That makes your life better. Makes, and, you know, they'll go on and if they're good, um, they will do that and there will be more sidewalks, uh, in, in the country, maybe small matter. Yeah. It's, it's value added. Speaker 2 00:56:07 Yeah. And there's this distinction is worth rejecting because even though, yeah, we endorse the idea or the concept of a pyramid of ability, uh, it's, it's an error. I think the right, and maybe even subjectivists might stumble into because we prize the best and the brightest, but that doesn't mean we're discriminatory against those at the lower end of the pyramid. And then the other thing we have to remember is when they cross the border, they may be low on the pyramid, but the whole point of coming to a free country is they, they go from the bottom of the pyramid to the top very quickly, cuz they're now in a free environment. So you, you have no idea whether someone coming over on a raft is the best and the brightest, potentially. They, many of 'em are, and we just don't know it yet. So, um, so yeah. So the idea of only take in the best and the brightest, um, yeah, I think we both agree is kind of, uh, problematic. Speaker 0 00:56:57 All right. Good. Well, um, here's another one from Matt. Uh, should objectives be concerned with the culture war? Speaker 1 00:57:07 Hmm. Speaker 1 00:57:11 I'll leave that now. <laugh>, that's the war we're in. Um, you know, the culture war is, um, it's the level of, you know, what's going on in a society, uh, one level up, so to speak, from the economy and, and the issues of regulation and control. So it's not as directly, um, affected by, at least in the US by co by, um, my government. But it's the source of people's political views and what, what they value, the kind of character that they, um, aspire to and want their kids to aspire to it. Those are cultural matters. And if, when you are teaching, um, equality over liberty, when that is the message you're getting from all sides in education and, uh, when, when identity politics is the message you're getting, that your identity is, is determined by your race, sex, or, you know, in the old days class, the Marxist, um, class, uh, dichotomies, you, you are, um, you are undermining the values that actually make for a good society and, and productive society based on individualism and responsibility. So yeah, I think we should be fighting culture and it actually, the Atlas Society, that's our mission. Um, we have, there's so many great organizations like Cato and others that are fighting the economic battles and against regulation and stupid welfare programs, but, um, we need to fight for the, we're fighting for the values that affect how people think about their own lives, but also the society they wanna live in. So, yes. Yeah, Speaker 2 00:59:25 I agree. David, another way of thinking about this is, I hen Rand one, one wrote an essay called Our Cultural Value Deprivation. So, so the idea of culture is very important and, um, it's a value we can be deprived of it, and that's terrible and it's inhumane. And, uh, now here is where objectivity comes in. You have to make the case that, you know, here's an objectively superior culture, whether that includes, you know, the arts and, and entertainment or however culture is defined, education and stuff like that. And that's widely rejected today. You know, your culture's no better than my culture. So, but, but I, I don't know about you, David. I I'm kind of impressed and, and, and heartened by the phrase, we hear more and more that politics is upstream from culture. It's a phrase the conservatives will often use. So they've, they've, they've, it's almost like they've come to recognize that this is important. Speaker 2 01:00:22 And now objectivism might say, well, uh, yes, politics is upstream from culture, but philosophy drives culture. So we go deeper. We, we go deeper and say the proper philosoph foundations give you the good culture and, you know, all flows from that. But, um, uh, if it's called a war, you know, usually war well done and well executed is you make delineations and clear distinctions between the good guys and the bad guys, or in this pace between the good culture and the bad culture. So you'd have to resist and, and, and throw off post-modernism, you know, as Professor Hicks has shown it to be something that makes, uh, culture arbitrary better, reject that idea that has to be part of the war. I'm not sure the conservatives are always clear on that, but yeah, that's, that's all I'd add. So, Speaker 1 01:01:11 Sori Richard, let me just add Yeah. Um, I agree completely with your analysis. The, except for the vectors here, uh, the usual statement is politics is downstream of culture. Speaker 2 01:01:25 Oh, oh, okay. I, Speaker 1 01:01:27 Which is downstream from philosophy and the Speaker 2 01:01:29 Objective. Okay. I <laugh>. Okay. Yes. I don't, I don't wanna misstate It's the, the cause and effect aspect. Speaker 1 01:01:36 Yeah. Speaker 2 01:01:36 Right. I got the upstream downstream wrong. Speaker 1 01:01:39 It's, but lemme just add, since we're, yeah. This has been a, a, a principle, um, thesis of objectivism, at least in its social analysis, is that, uh, ultimately philosophy governs the, um, uh, the shape of the culture, the values and virtues of people embrace, and thereby through that, um, affects the, um, the government, what people expect the government to do and what they forbid it to do. Um, but I just want to emphasize, um, a point that's maybe, um, inside politic, inside objectiveness politics here. But when we talk about philosophy, listen, in my view, we don't, we should not be talking about philosophy departments, academic, professional philosophers. We're talking about philosophical ideas. Yeah. Which can come from all kinds of different sources. Uh, public intellectuals like Jordan Peterson, who's not a philosopher, Perza or a Rand who, who's not in an academic department to pick a better example, um, philosophy departments. I, I say that especially because philosophy departments have, have almost, uh, uh, woven themselves out of many, uh, with, with some exceptions, but have almost, uh, you know, taken themselves out of any, uh, serious impact by their, their logic chopping and their very narrowly focused. Speaker 2 01:03:15 Yeah. There's also a, a, a concept out there, the, uh, the long march through the institutions, again, this idea that it's a, a many front war from the left or maybe even from the fascists. So if you just look up long March of the institution, some of it comes from sk, who's a, uh, an Italian communist from the, uh, I don't know, about 90 years ago. And another activist from the sixties, Rudy Duch, um, long March. So it's the idea that it can't just be politics, it has to be everything. And we have seen everything, right? It's in the Pentagon, whatever woke, you know, suppose it's captured by the idea of woke. It's everywhere. It's in Hollywood, it's in corporate suites. It's E s G, it's in the Pentagon. So the, the universities, obviously that's been a while. So, and, and remember also in, um, China, under Mao, they did call it the cultural revolution. I mean, it was, it was, it was political tyranny. But if you just look up cultural revolution, you know, China, it was a recognition that, you know, it has to be a full frontal assault, truly totalitarian on all aspects of your life. Not just political, economic, but the way you think, the way you deal with people, your family and stuff. So it, it's no coincidence that they use the phrase cultural revolution. Speaker 0 01:04:33 I think long March is from China as well. Mm-hmm. Speaker 1 01:04:36 <affirmative>. Speaker 0 01:04:37 Um, but that's great. Uh, I do, um, that, that was great stuff. Uh, I'm definitely hanging out with the Wright Ayn Rand group. Um, but, uh, here is one from Michael Liebowitz. Uh, Rand said that rights don't exist until there is a political society. I disagree. Do you? Speaker 1 01:05:00 Okay. Um, can I ask, uh, this is Michael asking the question, Speaker 0 01:05:06 Right? He's saying that, you know, Rand said rights don't exist in a, um, until you have a political society and that he disagrees, and he's wanting to know if you do as well. Speaker 1 01:05:18 Okay. I'll, I'll try to be brief because this is an issue in, um, uh, classical liberalism and, uh, libertarianism and objectivism. A lot of the initial, um, theorists of rights like John Locke talk about natural rights, rights that are given to us in some ways or are moral norms, uh, that apply to us in the state of nature. But Rand's view in the objectives view, which I agree with, is that in a state of nature, uh, if they're ever was one or would be one, um, you can't just commit yourself to respecting the freedom of property and, um, the lives of other people, cuz you, they, they can pose the threat to you. And there's no protection against that threat except your own resources. And those resources may, may involve, um, taking the law into your own hands if there's no other law. So Rand's view was that rights are principles, um, that protect a sphere of freedom for individuals. Speaker 1 01:06:36 And when she said principles, um, she was make saying that rights are not things out there or attributes of human beings per se, or gifts from some being like a God. They are principles, moral principles, and the principles say this is the way a society should be organized. It should be organized to allow individuals to pursue their lives, to exercise their freedom and their own judgment, to speak as they wish, think as they wish, and, um, pursue their lives, make, you know, engage in trade, um, uh, you know, willing trade between, um, mutually voluntary, um, in a mutual, voluntary way with partners. And, but all of that, um, is possible only by having a system of law that defines those rights and protects them. Otherwise, even the definition of what your right is, is unclear. I can claim a right that, um, that, um, you deny what happens then without a government in the state of nature. Speaker 1 01:07:57 We just, uh, we argue and quite possibly will fight if it's important enough. Government is a way of reconciling those, creating a system. What sometimes in philosophy called composible rights, that is my right, is defined in such a way that there's no conflict, conflict with your rights. Yeah. And we can deal with each other by trade rather than force. So that is the reason why, um, OB object objectivism takes that view. So it, I'll I'll leave it there because it, there's a lot more you could say. This is a huge issue, but, um, I'd like to know, um, if, if, if this is getting to the question. Um, cuz I think I've heard the question before and have ar have had arguments with many libertarian over the years, um, but I may not be getting <laugh> your individual particular question. Speaker 2 01:08:53 It did. I could just add quickly the, I I I totally agree, David, I'm, uh, I'm looking at her saying a right is a moral principle, defining and sanctioning freedom of action in a social context. So that could, could be, well, it's first a moral principle. So the idea, I think Michael said something like, she said, rights don't exist until politics. I can't find where she said that, but I, I think the closest context would be when she's critiquing anarchism, when she critiques anarchism, it's pretty clear that she's saying a government is absolutely essential to protecting rights. You know, but, but clearly her definition of rights, uh, whether you agree with it or not, it's not this issue of it only comes in with politics, is for her, it precedes politics. I think, David, that's why you were talking about state of nature with another name for pre government, another name for anarchism. And, uh, and then when you go to her definition of government itself, of course she'll say the only I'm quoting now, the only proper purpose of her government is to protect man's rights. So obviously these rights proceed, uh, the idea of how they're protected and how the government reacts to them. So it could be, Michael, that you're referring to her comments o on anarchism, which it clearly stresses the idea that without government rights are, are likely to be widely violated for sure, but not because, uh, they aren't moral principles. Speaker 2 01:10:14 If that makes sense. Speaker 0 01:10:17 You know, I sometimes hear, uh, Ann Caps argue that that is, that it would be better if we were in that kind of state of nature because, you know, you couldn't just mess with someone because you didn't know what they'd do to them, uh, or they'd do to you. And so, uh, that's part of why, you know, that's part of their argument for why you don't even need a government. Speaker 2 01:10:39 Yeah. And maybe the more, maybe the more plausible one is citing just the historical evidence of the fact that there has never been in all of human history, an institution that has murdered more people than states. You know, and they would say, they would say, even in a state of nature, it isn't possible for people to organize on such a scale. So that, that is the most plausible argument I've ever heard against states, the state, they've just misbehaved so badly. But on the other hand, the UK and US are, are amazing examples of behaving well, uh, over the last two or 300 years, you know, relative to history, at least relative to history. Speaker 1 01:11:19 I just, I I would add one thing here. When I say that the, um, Rens definition of rights as a principle, um, applies only within a system that, um, you are either creating or reforming, um, an existing, you know, system of law and adjudication. But the principle itself is based on something much, much deeper. It's based on the ethical needs of human beings as individuals, the need for acting, you know, pursuing your life by reason and pursuing, um, engaging in productive activity that supports your life, the ideal of dealing with others that the greater benefits of dealing by trade than by force. All of that is true, you know, prior to government, logically speaking. Yeah. Um, and maybe temporarily speaking, but it is not actionable. It is not, you can't make it a real operative situation without government. And that's why this view of rights is tied in with the argument for government in the first place was against Chy and Scott. You know, I gotta say, yeah, some people would flourish in a, uh, that kind of situation without a government. Look at the mafia in Sicily, look at Beirut in the, uh, you know, in the seventies or eighties, may maybe even now, you know, <laugh>, they, good luck, Speaker 0 01:13:02 <laugh>. What what about the general, uh, you know, morality of seeing people that are going in the same direction, they, you know, and we wanna reduce government, but just kind of pushing in the same direction with the intention of stepping off before we get to know government. Speaker 2 01:13:24 Well, I've seen it, I've seen this strategy, uh, presented or by incap sometimes. And the, the equivalent would be something like, um, you know, the Marxists want to complete public ownership of the means of production. But if you look at the communist manifesto, it has 10 planks that amount to the welfare state. So they're reforms, but they're not complete revolution. Right. And so they're their argument. It is, or at least we're moving in the direction of complete totalitarian. And sometimes they hear ancap saying that they'll say, we need less government, less in our lives. So why not adopt the position of no government at all? Maybe if at the end of the day we split the difference, we'll end up with a constitutionally limited republic, uh, you know, of the founder's variety. And that's just, I just don't believe that. I think that's not true. You, you need to name your goal in a rational way, which to me is not anarchism and go for that. Um, but I don't know whether people, other people see that strategy as well. Zero government will somehow get us less government, though the advocacy of zero government will get us less government. I don't think that's true. Even as a strategy. Speaker 0 01:14:32 Well, Speaker 1 01:14:33 Let me give you an analogy, Scott, um, that I've used in lectures before. The analogy is someone who is, uh, trying to create, create a perpetual motion machine, okay? Now it is rational to reduce energy loss and through friction or whatever as much as possible to cut it by factor of 10 to cut it by a factor of a hundred or a thousand. That's what good engineers are doing all the time, making machines more efficient. And so there's an asymptotic approach to zero loss, but we never reached the ASAM tote. Those who believe that we can are cranks trying to invent a perpetual motion machine, which you can't do. And my, in my view, the analogy is that anarchists are like those cranks, uh, I'm sorry to put it that way, but reducing, um, the size of government and offloading anything that could possibly be done on private, in a private way, like security guards in, um, uh, real estate development and, and so forth. Anything is great. And so we can approach asymptotically a minimal government and more and more minimal. That's great political theorizing. But if you say, let's hit the asymptote, let's say no government, that you're in the same category as the perpetual machine in there. Speaker 0 01:16:17 Yeah. I, I mean, I'm convinced that something else like a mafia would, uh, do it. I'm just thinking practically in terms of political allies when the, you know, balance is, is against these people that are just for unchecked centralization of everything. Speaker 2 01:16:39 And one of the main, apart from the philosophy of it, one of the main problems I have with anarchists and anar libertarians, whatever they call themselves, is, there's, so David knows this from the history to, there's so much important work to be done delineating or, or specifying what I, I call political engineering. And, and what the framers were doing, they called them framers for a reason. The suggestion of an architecture of governance, um, the rule of law, the separation of powers, all the things Montesquieu Locke and the founders Hamilton and others taught us that is being lost today. And anarchism, of course just says none of it and none of it. So there isn't any study really of, well, how to properly constrain governments and make them behave. And tremendous amount of work has been done in the angle American world in this regard, but so much more has to be done. It's such a tragedy for supposed liberty lovers to basically say, that's off the table now, let's just bash the state and get rid of the state. I I'm into making the state behave better. Uh, but that doesn't mean that can't include eliminating it, obviously. Speaker 0 01:17:52 That's fair. Um, I do wanna go to Lawrence. Uh, Lawrence, uh, are you able to, uh, is your mic working? Speaker 11 01:18:00 Can you hear me now? Speaker 0 01:18:02 Yeah, it's not too bad. Speaker 11 01:18:05 Okay, perfect. Uh, so my question, uh, David, Richard, either one I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, is I had a conversa, I was in a conversation with a few people the other day, and it was on that topic of slavery in the United States, like y'all were talking about earlier. And one of the people made the statement, I'm tired of people giving, uh, I'm tired of people making the statement. We have to view things from people who lived during that time and sort of the arctic argument that we shouldn't be giving a pass for people who practiced slavery because, and their argument is, was abolition was a thing during that time. So it seemed to me they were just doing this sort of universal condemn condemnation of people, even though the concept of abolition and the rights for all people is still a relatively new concept in the world. So I, I'm curious if this is perhaps a wrong mindset, what they're making the statement here, it takes time for people to be introduced to these new ideas. So just to make this statement, because there was a small group of abolitionists, everyone should have immediately agreed with them. Seems like a false premise to start with. Speaker 1 01:19:25 Wow. Um, I don't know, Richard, you, I I, you probably know more about this than I do, but I will just make one point that, um, I think we, we should avoid anachronism or anachronistic thinking. Um, if you look at human history, slavery was part of it, uh, from the get-go. So was, uh, control, top-down control the first in every civilization that are arose, um, on its own, as far as we know, whether Egypt mess Betan China or, um, the Americas. There was slavery. There was often human sacrifice, there was top-down control. There were, um, rulers, uh, and, uh, highly organized what we, what looks more like, a lot more like Fal arrangements, um, with surfs and, um, elites. And what happened over the course of history is that we discovered freedom thinkers. It's long series of thinkers discovered freedom. And that idea took time to spread, and it spread to the point where in the u in the United States, in the, in the colonies, um, they said we we're gonna have a free society based on what we've learned from our British war bears and what we're going to implement it for real. But even so, there was the phenomenon of slavery, which still existed, um, in the US as in many other places. Um, England did abolish it first, uh, before the us as I understand it. Um, the US abolished it finally. And, um, Speaker 1 01:21:35 There's still celebrity in some areas, um, in the Middle East and elsewhere. So you have to look at this in terms of a process by which we discovered freedom and we discovered equality of people before the law. And they were not obvious. They were never part of human history. <inaudible> societies were the diametrical opposite of our ideal. We discovered the elements of that ideal over time through many thinkers, just as we discovered electricity and gravity and many other scientific factors through the efforts of people whose theories were, uh, replaced the primitive folk science of the ancient Greeks and, uh, and Egyptians and, and prior to that. So yeah, I would've looking back as an American, I would've, I would be happier now if celebrity had been polished earlier, but it wasn't. And, um, it was not under, not for me to do. Um, but eventually progress made itself felt. And people, the idea of, of equality before the law spread and led war, as Craig was saying, that killed, that we're, you know, hundreds, uh, I think Craig's number was 175,000, uh, that was, um, that was even more than I would've guessed, but, uh, died to end slavery. So I think overall it's a good story, um, but one that is not finished and, um, progress should continue. Anyway, I'll leave it Speaker 2 01:23:32 There. You know, Lawrence, uh, I like that an, I like that David Lawrence, I have to confess that I am actually sympathetic to this view that David's absolutely right. You can't been, you can't be anachronistic. But if you look that up, it basically says you can't hold people accountable from, you know, centuries ago who didn't know what we know now. So something like that would be, I don't know, prior to the heliocentric view of the motion of the planets, you can't accuse people of being idiots, you know, before that was discovered. But in the case of slavery and abolition, you're absolutely right. Anyone who says, listen, the, the arguments were there. And as David mentioned, the actions were there. So not only the arguments for abolition, uh, preceded the US Civil War, but I think France abolished it in 1789 Britain in the 1830s, believe it or not, even the czar of Russia, abolished stom, uh, around, uh, the US Civil War period. Speaker 2 01:24:26 So you've got France, Britain, Russia, these are huge cases of, so, so in other words, today, if you go back and say, no, we can hold people responsible in the antebellum period in the US for continuing to clinging to the argument and the practice of slavery, I do think there's something to be said there. It doesn't justify our course reparations today, because that's an injustice imposing on people today. Things that, you know, they're imposing on the sons, the sins of their fathers. That's just irrational. And, and, and, and arguments like reparations are due because slavery built this country. That's just not true. Slavery was wiped out after the Civil War. The, the south was pretty much burned to the ground. So all the labor market in the US was free after that. The right to vote was free. So anything we have today, anything that was built as, as they call it in the Gilded age, uh, 1865 to World War I, were built by, uh, free labor. Speaker 2 01:25:23 He, here's another thing I'm sympathetic to when you almost never see the founders are just lumped together as racist slavers, but that's not true. The Federalists, uh, were not the, the hamiltonians, uh, were against slavery and were not racist. And the anti-federalists went the other way. So the anti-federalists, the Jeffersonians fed into the Confederacy and the secessionist arguments later, not only the anti-Federalists not wanting the federal government in 1789, but wanting to break up the union said, what, 70 years later. So I don't even see much distinguishing between the founders on this issue, which I think is, is helpful because then you can point, it's nice to be able to point to founders, prominent ones too. The Federalists were being so good on this issue, uh, at the, from the beginning, and they were mostly in the north granted. But, um, so I'm a, I'm a bit sympathetic to this view of people aren't off the hook from this, from the 17, late 17 hundreds, eight, especially in Britain and America, where the arguments were known. Speaker 1 01:26:29 All right, well said Richard. Thanks. Speaker 2 01:26:32 Thanks, David. Speaker 0 01:26:34 Great, thank you for that. Um, you know, I have this, uh, question. Um, I heard a prominent objective say, the religious right is ultimately antilier. It has to be antilier, it's religion will demand it. It might not come out now and be the first thing they want to tackle, but the logic of it necessitates that they're ultimately, they're going to be antilier. I i this contradicts, you know, what I've observed of religious people. Now, maybe, you know, they mean people that you know are, are into christianism or the, the philosophy, but I, I thought that was an unfair charge. Uh, quick thoughts on that with our remaining time. Speaker 1 01:27:18 Yeah, I have to jump in on this. Um, for many years, decades, objectiveness have been making claims that group X ideology y um, who are apparently defending liberty in public discussions, are really destroying it because they're underlying values, uh, are incompatible with liberty, whether it's libertarians, uh, objectives, I, I'm sorry, libertarians, religious people or whatever. Um, you know, and that argument is worth considering, but I would also invert the argument and say, look, why would someone advocate liberty? Whatever their conscious beliefs are, they must see something good in liberty. Well, what's good in liberty? Individualism, rationality, productiveness, and the, so, I'm, I'm, I've always assumed dealing with this issue over many decades that people who are genuinely, that I consider to be genuinely supporting liberty, such as the Cato Institute or the recent foundation, despite my differences with some of their views, Speaker 1 01:28:41 They must be implicitly accepting some of the foundations of liberty, because they are not card carrying altruists. They're not card carrying mystics, or they wouldn't be defending liberty. They may try to work those doctrines in somehow, but it can't be total. Because if you look at re truly religious people who want a theocracy or, you know, uh, some libertarians, uh, who are, who are, uh, uh, really, you know, wanna make it consistent with altruism or those who wanna make it consistent with a, um, you know, utilitarian approach, um, they're off against people who take those same approaches and will argue the opposite. Why do they come out in favor of liberty? It's gotta, if, if objectiveness are right, that the true basis of liberty is individualism, reason and, uh, uh, respect for achievement, those have to be in the minds of these advocates somewhere. So I take these arguments with a real grain of salt. I'd rather be consistent all the way down, be, you know, I <laugh> I often said I vote Republican, but I think objectives Speaker 2 01:30:17 <laugh>. I never heard that, David. That's good. Yeah, Speaker 2 01:30:21 I, I would just add quick, uh, Scott, I would just add quickly, Ayn Rand, uh, very often said, uh, religion is a primitive form of philosophy. So the compliment in there is it's philosophy. The, the criticism is it's primitive. And so we're in a unique position, though, to approach these primitive philosophies and make them enlightened. Whereas if we're up against, say, a neo list or a relativist or a post-modernist, you know, who don't believe in absolutes, there's, there's a, it's a very difficult bridge to cross. And so, you know, that, that, that's another reason why I have a hard time thinking the religious right has to be, is, will be never hear anything other than neoliberal. We, we forget also that many objectives are former, you know, Catholics or former Jews, or, but notice very rarely former Islam. So if religion is, if religion is a primitive form of philosophy within the great religions, you could say, you know, that Islam is the most primitive form of religion. So, but there are more sophisticated forms, and that's where we can bridge. Um, David and I had a whole session actually on, uh, uh, Hebraic and capitalist relations and anti-Semitism going together with anti-capitalism. So as, so, um, right, just generally I would reject Scott that idea that it has to be illiberal. They're an enormous opportunity for us to convert. Um, um, I'll leave it at that. So Speaker 0 01:31:51 Thank you very much, uh, great answers from both of you. Great note to end on. Uh, I just wanted to say quickly, um, Wednesday coming up, uh, the Atlas Society asks Jonah Goldberg at 5:00 PM Eastern, uh, with Jag. That should be a really good interview, I'm looking forward to. And then one week from today back on Clubhouse at 6:00 PM Eastern, uh, Richard will be back here doing, um, on the distrust, hatred of finance, which, uh, a actually, I I'm really looking forward to relates to that antisemitism topic as well. But, uh, thanks so much to everyone for joining today. Um, it was a great session. We talked about a lot of good topics and, uh, we look forward to being back next time. Speaker 1 01:32:41 Thank you, Scott. Scott, Speaker 0 01:32:42 Thanks everyone. Take care. Thanks, Scott. Thanks David. Thanks everyone.