Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 All right. Uh, well, so David, would you be willing to do a little bit of an AMA with us? I'm sure. In the, in the interim. So, uh, this is where we can, um, take some questions from the audience. I see Roger here who may have SU questions about comps and, and objectivism, um, and others. Uh, and then I can also pull from, uh, from our many questions on Instagram from our 62,000 followers there who submit dozens of questions, um, every, every week. So, uh, so yes.
Speaker 1 00:00:48 All right. Yeah. Um, fire away,
Speaker 0 00:00:53 Scott, you want to start us out?
Speaker 2 00:00:56 Uh, this is just something I've been thinking about, you know, sometimes I think that believe in determinism, they're stuck on the fact that really a reality can, you know, we'll, you know, once it's done it can only have happened in that one way, even though what's going to be happening in the future is what we have control over. So, I mean, is there a way to kind of integrate and find a kind of common ground with determinants in some way in, in that sense?
Speaker 1 00:01:32 Well, not common ground, because I think free will versus determinism is a stark philosophical difference. But, um, the couple of relevant things, one is that, um, yeah, the past is done, it can't be effected. Um, and however, there is a cognitive bias or fallacy called a hindsight bias in which you think that what actually happened in as a result of actions you might've taken was inevitable, or even more to the point, um, things you could have done. Um, you kick yourself because, oh, I should've seen that. And, um, so it's a real bias, but it pertains to the realm of human action. So that's sort of a mental issue here is the distinction ran group between the metaphysical and the mandate that the physical facts are just there. They're not all verbal. Um, you know, everything from the law of gravity down to, um, the snow that we just had in Washington, you know, that's not a manmade bag, it's just a reality. You deal with it one way or the other, but man-made stuff is a result of human choice, either individual choices or, you know, political, social, cultural things. Um, and that's open to our choices what's done is done for sure. But in the future, you're right in the future, we have, uh, you know, we have real choices and, um, both certainly it individually. Yes. And then whatever influence we can have on wider cultural political aspects is, you know, it takes many people to tango, so to speak, um, at that level.
Speaker 0 00:03:31 Okay. Uh, I have a question here from, um, let's see, Gabby on the top asking, is it a moral to trade commercially with bad people like communists, and then he further elaborates or to buy goods and services from a place that is obviously a money launderer take into account that there are no other places to buy from.
Speaker 1 00:04:01 Yeah, this is a tricky issue. It goes back a long time and objectivist, um, discussions, um, pertaining to the issue of sanction. Um, in my view, the sanction has two elements. One is, um, material support. You give to people by trading with them. And, um, the other is moral support. You say, you give by affirming their, okay. Most of our transactions are with people we don't know very well. You know, I don't know mind McCann, our mechanic or the people at the checkout line and a whole foods or Safeway. And, you know, I don't know, think about them more, but they're doing their job well. That's, that's the scope of our and the entire scope of our transaction. So I, you know, I found out that Safeway was donating, um, some of his profits. So again, I mean this China, uh, XTANDI is trying to, um, I, you know, I wouldn't, I personally would not shop there, but this is a judgment call, you know, sanctioned in the morality of objectivism is based on self-interest.
Speaker 1 00:05:12 So, you know, you, you wanna, you want to do good, but not at your own expense. Um, so I think every, I think there's a wide scope of personal judgment here. Um, back in the day, I remember, you know, a lot of Objectivists in the sixties and seventies would not go to the Bolshoi ballet, even huge passionate ballet dance, despite the fact that the show was the best in the world. But, um, you know, I understand that, but if you're, you know, you're artistic and we're the most important thing in your life, you know, your, your, your ticket to the Bolshoi, uh, or today let's say, uh, you know, a film coming out of China is, um, you know, it's, you're, you're not maturely helping them. Um, except in a Morgan away, I've mentioned China. I would not buy anything that I know from that Western province, which is where the weavers, um, have been oppressed and imprisoned. That's slave labor. I don't want anything to do with it, but that's a minimal cost to me. Um, so, you know, that's, that's not a clear answer, I'm sorry, but it is a judgment call.
Speaker 0 00:06:49 Okay. Here's a question from, uh, angel 12, 7 91, should Objectivists join the military.
Speaker 1 00:06:59 Sure. I mean, it's a valid profession and, um, uh, an honorable profession defending freedom is, uh, it requires, you know, there's nothing in the military is the proper function of government. And what it does is, um, essential to the maintenance of freedom and, um, our own personal safety security. So I, you know, I, I think it's great. Um, you know, it, it does, it takes courage. It, you're putting your self at risk, including up to the point of, you know, your life. Um, and I'm, I'm really proud of the soldiers who have done that and the same applies to police and fire. Um, so yeah, I don't know what reason that would be against it.
Speaker 0 00:07:56 Um, I mean, perhaps it's the issue of, uh, of self-sacrifice, although I think Rand has discussed how you have a hierarchy of values, and if, uh, you would not want to live in a country which isn't free, or, you know, if the preservation of a free democracy is your highest value, that, that it would not be considered a sacrifice. Um, and then of course, Iran herself, uh, wrote, um, about the military. She admired, she even I'd say almost identified with the soldier and she went out of her way to, uh, address military audiences. Um, I think in 1972, the U S Naval academy, which that address became a part of their curriculum. And, um, of course, most famously her 1974 address to the U S military academy at west point, um, became the title of her book philosophy needs it. So,
Speaker 1 00:09:05 And I just add one point here on the issue of sacrifice, because, you know, this is a question that's come up before the people in those dangerous professions, lifesaving, um, professions that involve risks to oneself. People engage in those professions are highly trained not to get killed. I think it was general patent. I forget that phrase, but your goal is not the ideal is to get the enemy killed. And, um, you know, they're very safety procedures. And if you're, you know, if you sacrifice, if you go in with the idea of sacrifice, you're useless, you know, the, if you're willing to do is use your craning and, um, your character, including like, you know, a huge vein of, of courage to be sure, but, um, minimize the risks and, and, uh, do the point where you have a irrational chance of success. And I, I suspect if you talk to anyone in the military, uh, or the police or the fire department, um, they would say the same thing You're right. Event. I ran, like, I didn't actually know about the Naval academy off those.
Speaker 0 00:10:34 Yeah. And then there's that, um, you know, one of her earliest literary heartthrobs, so to speak was, uh, was that character Cyrus who, who was a soldier and soldiers of course, um, figured in, uh, in her literature and we, the living and, um, of course red pawn. Right. So, okay. We have a, and again, everybody that are here with us, um, apologies, we don't quite know what's happened to , but, uh, fortunately we have our founder, David Kelly here. Um, I believe we also have, uh, our senior scholar Steven Hicks. Um, and, um, I'm going to send you an invite, Steven, to get you up on stage, if for no other reason than to ask you this question, we get every single week on Mehta modernism that I think you are really the only one at the Atlas society who is best positioned to, to answer that. Um, but meanwhile, David, uh, we've got a questions in Kirby. Graham asking is the use of force ever acceptable if it benefits society as a whole, and maybe, you know, talk to the framing of that question is kind of a utilitarian calculus to begin with.
Speaker 1 00:11:56 Yeah. Um, the whole idea of benefiting society as a whole is, um, not quite an invalid concept, but flows what there is such a bound concept of the public interest, but the public interest is not something over and above individuals. It's a common interest that all individuals have in protection of their rights. So that's what the use of force should be limited to. I mean, this is a, the objective stereo of government, um, how you apply that in for example, uh, w work on the context of work and work time is very tricky. It raises you that civilian casualties and so forth, which would be a long discussion. But, um, but apart from that, I didn't really know what would benefit society by the use of force other than criminal law and military, um, engagement with enemies, uh, because it would, it, it would be a non-retaliation or use of force, uh, and there thereby would violate someone's rights.
Speaker 1 00:13:19 So, I mean, I would, we'd have to look at examples to make that clear, but, um, you know, like, I don't know, I, I'm not sure what the context would be. Let me just take one. That's kind of current the COVID pandemic or any, uh, any infectious disease. There is a case to be made for some role for coordinate training people who are at, just because it, um, their, their good contagious qualities are not just a matter of their own health, but they can affect other people and no one has a right to infect other people, um, deliberately, or even if, you know, we're not sure whether you're contagious, if there's a good risk, um, Dermot by objective standards, then, um, you know, there's some scope for government action here. Um, I, having mentioned COVID what, what our government has done and most of Western and, uh, developed country governments have done is way, way, way over the top. Um, so, but that's the only thing I can think of where that is not just a simple case of the military using with knowledge workforce.
Speaker 0 00:14:49 Roger, welcome.
Speaker 3 00:14:52 Hey, thanks. Yeah, it has a little bit of a connection trouble I'm here now. Um, I, I, I missed a little bit, it was in and out, so I missed a little bit, but one thing is popping around my head, as you've been talking about this, David is, is, you know, there's always situations where you, or, or a nation or a government or, or the knee needs somebody else to do something that, that they don't want to do. Um, and, you know, even if it's as a, you know, I don't, I don't, I need you to not tell me to do things. You know, there's always, there's always some, some forum where you need to somehow compel or convince somebody else to do something that, that you need. Um, and I always say there's four ways to do that. You can rationally convince them. You can try to inspire them.
Speaker 3 00:15:48 You can threaten them, or, or, or you can bribe them. Um, and then each have their, their benefits and each have their drawbacks. Um, and so I guess the notion of the military, and it's more general function and stuff that the vaccine, I guess, and maybe this is, I'll ask this more personally view you as I think I did last time, you know, when somebody's not doing something you need them to do what, what's your go-to. I will, I will say that I, I like the bribe. I will, I will, I will offer people money to get what I need. Okay. I'd love to hear what you, what your strategy is.
Speaker 0 00:16:21 I love that Roger. I had a dear friend, Jim Kimsey, he, he actually is a west point graduate and a, uh, army ranger and put in the first, uh, money to, into Amazon, not Amazon, um, into AOL and became a billionaire. And when ever we would be out and about, and there was an issue and somebody, you know, there was a problem or somebody wasn't doing what we wanted them to. He had a famous saying, how can money solve this problem? So much of it. So he's like, okay, well, can we, can we,
Speaker 3 00:17:05 What can I say? Yeah. How much will it cost to make this go away?
Speaker 1 00:17:10 Right. Well, that's, yeah. I mean, that's a voluntary, um, offer. Um, and so it's within the realm of the possible, uh, at a lot of the economy works that way. Um, you know, I, I don't think wages are bright because most people or ideally people love their work. And, you know, the payment is, uh, a win-win situation for both the employer and employee, but, you know, there's some jobs that are, um, no one would really want to do unless it was being paid. That's not a bribe, but it's a incentive of the broadly same nature, um, persuasion, um, is also voluntary. Um, and so that's two of your four, Roger. Um, what were the other two?
Speaker 3 00:18:01 Uh, sure. So, you know, you, you can, you can bribe somebody or pay somebody. Um, you can, you can rationally convince them. Unfortunately, that's the, one's almost impossible. Um, because most people aren't, aren't that rational. Um, and then, uh, you can try to inspire them. So, you know, uh, inspire, oh, Hey, I heard, I heard this thing from a spirit above you should, you should listen to me about this, right. Um, uh, uh, or, or, you know, some mother smile type thing. And then, and then you can threaten them, um, you know, if you not to be too crass, but if you kidnap somebodies family, you'll, you can get them to do what you want. There's a lot of risk involved in that, of course, but you'll at least you'll at least get them to do what you want in the short term. So you can bribe, threaten, convince, or inspire, um,
Speaker 1 00:18:50 Kidnapping, unwanted family.
Speaker 3 00:18:53 Right. And you have to be to strategic about that. Correct.
Speaker 1 00:18:58 Uh, guys, um, of those four, um, all of them accept threats are, um, voluntary. Um, and they leave the, uh, the person free to go long or not. Um, I think they're all can be effective. Um, but a threat is, it depends whether we're talking about a coercive, right. Um, if I, you know, if I'm an employer and someone is just not doing their job, then there will come a point when I just have to say, look, you know, this is not working out. If you can't perform to the, um, mission of the organization, then maybe it's not your mission. And some to go, that's a kind of threat, but it's voluntary. Uh, but if I say, you know, I'm going to keep kidnapping your family. That's, that's a crime it's, it's, it's an use of force, which is, um, immorally, um, bad. And in this case, um, you know, properly illegal,
Speaker 3 00:20:09 Right, right there, there's risks associated with that type of thing. Um, I, uh, I don't know if you've ever watched 24. Um, but that's what,
Speaker 1 00:20:19 One of my favorites,
Speaker 3 00:20:20 Oh, my FA I, I rewatched the whole thing about every two years. Um, and I, I always think about, uh, president, Alison Taylor, um, who had the choice of, uh, protecting her daughter from, you know, being arrested in like season six or something. And, uh, you know, she, or, or, you know, giving her up, giving her up to the, uh, to the Senate to punished and she, and she gave her up. And I just always found that to be the most, um, I don't know, noble, noble thing. I w I want my leaders to not be, um, compelled by threats and kidnapping. I don't know, just out there.
Speaker 1 00:21:04 Yeah. I've just been rewatching a 24. I'm only through season three and I forgotten the later episode you're referring to, I will get to it, but, um, um, I saw it once. I just don't remember, oh, you'll love it.
Speaker 3 00:21:20 I love him when you get there, she's the best, but, you know,
Speaker 1 00:21:24 In 24, for those who are also fans, uh, Jack Bauer cuts corners all the time because he's dealing with really bad people. And, um, some of those things, you know, I believe in the rule of law that, um, and the use of force by the, by the government against criminals or others should be, uh, you know, prosecuted under, you know, in accordance with the rule of law, but, you know, he's fighting us and, uh, who don't show up for trials. So, you know, apart from the excitement of the show and just, you know, what a guy is, um, uh, I just, you know, I, this is an area where I'm not an expert in national security or military, um, activities. Uh, I just know that there are constraints, at least in the U S about what you can and can't do. And if he cuts corners, you know, it always works out well, it wouldn't, uh, the reason the rules are there though, is that it doesn't normally work out if you're not Jack ethics of emergencies
Speaker 3 00:22:48 And the whole shows an emergence.
Speaker 1 00:22:52 That's a great point, Scott. Yeah. One emergency after another season by season, you can't, I can't believe some of the disastrous scenarios.
Speaker 0 00:23:08 Okay. We've got another question here from hand sanitizer order. I love some of the, uh, the screen names of our followers on Instagram. And he wants to ask about thoughts on the libertarian party and chairing this.
Speaker 1 00:23:30 Well, I, I guess I still feel, you know, all along in my many decades of activism, um, you know, I, the libertarian party number energies, you know, I'm, you know, I have a lot of good friends who are caring and sympathetic. Maybe it would be back to visit, but not, you know, not quite in the fall, but, um, and you know, places like keto and the reason, I think, reason foundation magazine have done just wonderful things along with the many other groups to do for justice and so forth. But, um, the party, I just don't think, you know, the electric trying to kind of promote the returning ism at the electoral level is, is just misplaced. It's got very little chance and most it's, it has a community they'll never win in today's political context and they will, um, they can engage in persuasion and some, some of the candidates have been, you know, very good speakers, but they're not speaking objectivism.
Speaker 1 00:24:50 So what I've always thought is I think objectivist, I vote Republican if I can't. Um, Trump was a hard one, but, um, well, every Republican candidate is art. Um, so, but electoral politics is you just, I think the proper just, you know, approach do it is you just try to move things in the right direction, but you're not trying to convince people in one shot to eliminate the welfare state, eliminate regulations on business. It's not happening. Um, so they get a fraction of her sander, maybe one or 2% max. Um, there's a lot more to say, but that's what I would say.
Speaker 0 00:25:49 Okay. Here's another question from Indian libertarian, our patriotism and nationalism forms of collectivism.
Speaker 1 00:26:04 No nationalism is yes, because that, I mean, nationalism is very, open-ended kind of Germans, a lot of variants, but it, it, the essence of it is that the nation is, uh, a collective entity and we should support it. Um, so it's the idea of a collective then takes precedence over individual rights and individual choices. Patriotism though, um, properly understood anyway, is, you know, the recognition that our founding fathers, the declaration of independence, the constitution created, uh, the outlines of a good society, a free society, not perfectly, but better than anyone had ever happened before in history and better than anything that's around today. So, um, you know, I think it it's an honor. I considered it an honor to be in American and, um, celebrate the 4th of July, despite the fact that I, I hate and oppose a lot of what the government are our us government does. So Patriot patriotism is what does that say? It properly interested means embracing the American greed, um, which is individualist freedom, loving, open to the pursuit of self-interest and, um, dealing with other people by trade rather than force or hierarchy or futilistic attitudes. So in that sense, I'm a, I consider myself a Patriot and, uh, I think it's a good thing, but it's not, that's not nationalism.
Speaker 0 00:27:59 Okay. Um, left to get some questions from the audience. So please raise your hands. Otherwise, I've got another one here from Instagram, a no-show Dhaval asking thoughts on the Julian Assange, extra
Speaker 1 00:28:19 Julian Assange edition. I'm not sure what the expedition is, but, uh, he's all extradition. Okay. Yeah. Um, I, I know who Julian is knowledges, uh, and I think, what do you get in revealing? Um, national security secrets is wrong and actionable, potentially actionable, but this is outside, you know, really outside my expertise. Maybe someone else can address it better. Um, and particularly whether it should be extradited from written to the us. Um, I gather there's some news about that. I think the British government find they've read to do that anyway, anyone outside. I'm sure there are people on this call who are more informed than I am.
Speaker 0 00:29:17 Okay. The rule then move on to the next question. Uh, we have one again from a newish Deval asking what is the meaning of life?
Speaker 1 00:29:33 Oh, I love that one. That's a quiet as I've just aggression there. But as a philosopher, when I am in a group or at a bar or something, I get talking with someone and reveal that I'm a philosopher. That is the most common response. Okay. Could you tell me what the meaning of life is? It's actually, it's actually pretty simple. It's your life and what you make of it. Um, the meaning of life is to live, enjoy and have a good one. I think it somewhat deeper level. The meaning is the values that you seek to produce and create in the world, your passion or invention, artistic creation, pursuit of knowledge, suit, uh, uh, uh, a business ideal, um, creating products, selling them. I mean, every profession is not nearly everyone. If you consider a crime of profession or lobbying of profession, like, um, but all the productive ones are done by people who care about getting results and that's their life. And that's the meaning of their life. Meaning doesn't come from anything higher or outside yourself. It comes from within what drives you? What, what you, what do you, I mean, I always think of it this way. What do you want people to say if your funeral, this is what he did or she did. Um, so
Speaker 1 00:31:36 Internal
Speaker 0 00:31:39 At Amor tech asks, what are objectivism is views of states rights?
Speaker 1 00:31:49 Um, yeah, there's been a lot of talk by some objects is a whole little sub-industry of people writing about the civil war and the succession issue. Um, I would S I would say state, you know, the states are a political device. That's, uh, um, has a history in the U S because of the colonies, separate and United in United States with a division between the federal system of some responsibilities to go to the federal government. Some most properly are left in the states and other countries have provinces and their own departments and so forth. I think it's the one advantage of the federal system is what they call the states as a laboratories of democracy. There are a lot of political issues about how best to you, a policy, even the proper limited proper ones and states try different things. And, um, we've seen a lot of that during the pandemic, despite the overarching federal inventions, but Florida in Texas might one way New York and Massachusetts went another way.
Speaker 1 00:33:15 Um, and the outcomes provided a lot of interesting data. However, um, I can't say this is the political science question more than a you lyrical philosophy question. I mean, what political philosophy philosophy can say is simply that we need to government, the government should protect individual rights and how that is, um, carried out in government structure is really probably the question of economics, um, sociology history. And, uh, I don't have a universal answer do it, but I don't think, but I would say that, uh, in the regard, your issue of since cessation, um, there's a kind of somewhat a fairly bright line distinction between, um, succession that's, that's motivated by, as in the civil war, like the Southern states desire to keep slavery, which is just a vicious, um, use of coercion and invalid, you know, I'm glad that the dependency was defeated and, you know, slavery was abolished. So on the other hand, if the United States became very oppressive, the federal government became very oppressive and say, Wyoming, uh, wanted to succeed and say, no, this is terrible. Um, it, it would be a complicated issue, but it would, there would be some moral justification for it beyond that, you know, we're into political theory and even political science fiction.
Speaker 0 00:35:10 Okay. Captain Scott asks thoughts on open borders.
Speaker 1 00:35:18 Well, ideally voters should, I think they should be open. The only restrictions on immigration I can see as justified are, um, we don't want criminal people, you know, serious criminal records. We don't want people who will infectious diseases, at least until they get over them. Um, and ideally people who are not going to go on the welfare program programs, not, unfortunately we have the welfare programs and they there's a lot of controversy back to what extent they are a Gras for immigrants. Um, back in the eighties, I wrote a piece for a parent's business magazine on Pauling for open borders. Um, and, um, at the time he was responding to, um, a bill proposed by Senator Simpson's senators, Simpson, and Zoely maybe Mazzoli was a Congressman. Anyway, um, the research I did for it at the time was that even with the welfare state, the taxes that legal immigrants pay, um, Mandy payroll taxes, um, a way and a use of a welfare state or public education or anything.
Speaker 1 00:36:43 So even with the welfare state, um, at that time it was a good deal, but I enlarge, I think the ability to cross borders and live in the country, you prefer, it gives you the best opportunities or your own life, your family, your work, your wealth, um, is a good thing. And we also benefit, I mean, you know, one thing that immigrant immigrants come with a master feed, but two hands to work. And there are many studies that show, you know, some of the great benefits that economic benefits from immigrants, uh, around the world. So I say the research I did was years ago. I go, I don't know where things stand now, but, uh, I do not.
Speaker 1 00:37:42 Thank you. And from an objectivist standpoint, a political in political philosophy that there's any serious argument against immigration. There's only local ones concerns about welfare state in particular. And I, I do think this is complicated because we, we have laws about immigration. I think those laws are crappy and should be repealed, but as long as they exist, um, illegal immigrants are doing something illegal. And I don't endorse that, although I understand why people flank Guatemala or, uh, other hellholes wanting to come here for their own safety and security. Um, so I'm have a lot of sympathy. I just think that, you know, the proper approaches to open the borders legally, uh, to a greater extent,
Speaker 0 00:38:47 Okay. We always get questions about anarchy every single week. So, um, maybe if there's repetition, what is, what is the case against anarchist?
Speaker 1 00:39:05 Well, anarchy has many different forms left and right. Um, but if we're talking about, you know, Liberty, Karen and occasion, the so-called, uh, uh, and there's a common name I forget, but, um, uh,
Speaker 0 00:39:26 Narco capitalism
Speaker 1 00:39:28 And narco capitalism. Thank you, Scott. Yes. Um, I think there's an incoherent doctorate because, um, yeah, the whole idea is that get rid of the state. And we just, um, put a protection of our rights on the market with, through protection agencies, but, um, and that the economy will go on and that the protecting agencies will function like grocery stores or any other free market operation, but the whole free market presupposes that our property rights and rights of contract and speech are protected without that. Um, there's no, you can't assume that the market, that there will be a market and historical experiences that, um, when governments fail, um, as they have in many places, they root, for example, uh, Lebanon or Iraq, or, you know, elsewhere, um, there's, there's in a popular sense, anarchy, chaos. And so I think you need to take for off the market and that's a role of government to protect individual rights so that the market and read them and exchange in flourish. We have a lot of material on our website about this. Um, if you just do a search on anarchy, you'll see some, I think, some very informative and more detailed discussion.
Speaker 0 00:41:24 Damian, did you have a question for professor?
Speaker 4 00:41:27 Uh, yes. Um, I've been thinking about this in the, uh, I guess the abortion thing for me. Well, my question is what is born give it, is it outside of the body or is it the cutting of the umbilical cord with a B
Speaker 1 00:41:45 I'm sorry. Damien, could you say the first
Speaker 4 00:41:47 Part again, to be born, like to be born outside of the body, wants to C-section or through the birth canal, or is that cutting on the umbilical cord? What is this, what would you say that, that it's born?
Speaker 1 00:42:02 Well, I, that understand the term born means, uh, you know, when the baby is out of the mother's womb. And, um, but I'm wondering if your question is really about when the human individual life begins. At what point we have a person.
Speaker 4 00:42:26 I think I've had that conversation already. Uh, that probably led me to this part of the conversation is when we recognize it because, okay. I guess we stand at the mothers, I guess, for lack of a better word as a host. And so at that, I don't know, child organism, whatever you want to call it is, is dependent upon the mother's still. Yeah, we don't necessarily recognize it as I know, person with full rights or whatever, but that's what I, that's why I'm, I'm asking a question. It's just, when do we, do you acknowledge it? Because I guess that will leave me some more questions.
Speaker 1 00:43:11 Oh, sure. Okay. Um, you said this is a question that comes up in the context of understanding abortion and, you know, per gender, you know, just human birth and, and, and life. Um, I would say that when a child is born, uh, that child has a right to life. That's part of our legal system. And it seems to me, um, a valid part, however, um, you know, rights have to be embedded in a legal code. And that involves some decisions about what rights people have in what context, and in this case, particularly what age. So a newborn infant, I, I would say has a right to lie, but you know, not a right to property contract Liberty, um, in the full sentence, because they're not capable of it. So it would be absurd to say that, you know, the parents put their child in a crib.
Speaker 1 00:44:13 Um, the kidnapping, the kid is he may not want to go to bed. That's, that's absurd. The parents that, you know, he, he doesn't know enough, it's not, doesn't have the capacity to make his own decisions yet that will come. And so the whole, um, the whole system of individual rights in property, Liberty pursuit of happiness as well as life, um, is really defined in terms of a mature adult who's, um, in possession of his faculties. Um, and we don't, we're not born that way. We get there through growth and childhood learning, et cetera. So, but I do think that, um, once a child is born, uh, the right to life applies. So now there are societies that, um, had a concept of rights, but they were so poor that like in ancient Greece, sometimes a family that had a good, they couldn't support, you know, aging long, long centuries before millennia, before abortion, before birth control, um, what sometimes is leaving newborn in, in that, you know, they would expose the, that is put them out on hillside and that whatever happened. Um, I can't say that it's morally wrong. I would say it's, it's acronystic and make a snap judgment. That's wrong without considering the circumstances of a society like that. But in our society, I would say, you know, once the child is independent organism, then book court is that child is a person and with the right to life.
Speaker 5 00:46:09 Thanks, Damien. Oh, welcome. Ah, thanks. I love getting pinged into these rooms. These are, uh, I look forward to these, um, it, uh, I wasn't, I was just planning to listen, but then I, I realized that David's, uh, handling the tough questions today. And since, uh, since he's solved the abortion question, I wanted to move to something, um, uh, just as easy, just as easy to figure out. And, uh, and that's immigration. Um, like I I've read Rand's thoughts on open immigration and coming from, you know, where she came from. I can understand that perspective. I'm just wondering, like, what is the, uh, what is your view dated on immigration today? You know, when we think of like open border policies, I'll just go my concerns out there. Uh, while I definitely, uh, all for the individual, I do also want to be a respecter of property rights.
Speaker 5 00:47:05 And I wonder if you, in a world where, uh, travel is easier and well, at least not with COVID, it is, but, uh, but prior to COVID travel was easier getting to the border is never been easier. And, uh, and, and, and now we have a world in which we have 7 billion plus people, and we have policies that will, you know, provide medical care to anybody. Uh, but, but more specifically, my concern would be around property rights. You know, we don't have properties for, um, 7 billion people. And, and I'm just wondering, like what your thoughts are on open borders and immigration policy, you know, under the lens of, you know, objectivism.
Speaker 1 00:47:51 Well, that's interesting, I've never thought about this issue from the standpoint of property, but it seems to me, you know, property rights are rights. We have a fundamental human moral rights to, uh, acquire property by certain procedures and to use and dispose of it once it's acquired. So, um, of course the resources of the earth are limited. Um, but that's almost irrelevant because we keep getting more and more value out of them. Uh, my favorite example is, you know, until the internal combustion engine was embedded, uh, and oil became valuable. It was just a sticky nuisance that came to the surface sometimes in Saudi Arabia and other places, um, occasionally use for candle light or whatever, but not, not the commodity was now it's an important property, right? Uh, on the part of, you know, um, a company said own and, um, individuals that own that material.
Speaker 1 00:49:10 And plus all, everything that's been invented has vastly expanded the amount of wealth that's available and wealth as a real meaning of property. Um, so immigrants who come to this country, um, yes, they may come without any property, but they assuming that it's, we, you know, we respect their reasons for coming and their, uh, freedom to come. Then they can acquire it by purchasing, working, selling a lot of people, you know, don't have a whole lot of actual physical property, they have incomes. And of course those incomes, that income is in the form of money, which is creatable. Um, but mostly for food, which does a form of property that doesn't last beyond the grocery shopping and, um, other things, they, if they earn that, earn enough to acquire property from those who have something to sell, that's fine. The market is so huge. I mean, trillions and trillions of dollars, well, just in this country and across the world, I mean, think of all the expansion of wealth of the last two centuries, since the industrial revolution, there's, you know, many people live in, in very impoverished circumstances. And if you look at the, uh, annual incomes of people around the world, you, you know, you look at the annual income in, I dunno, uh, Congo and you think, oh my God, I spend that every day. But, um, they found ways of dealing with their environment. They can improve their lives, um, there, but they come to this state, the enterprising ones will, um, find ways to, to make a life here or they won't and they'll go back.
Speaker 1 00:51:22 So I'm not, I'm just, I'm worried about that.
Speaker 0 00:51:27 Well, that takes us to the top of the hour. Uh, first I wanna thank our founder, David Kelly for stepping up to the plate when we have a, an AWOL, uh, co-host here in Robert Cresinsky we hope he's okay. And we'll, we will find that out shortly, cause he's always, so punctual want to thank everyone for their great questions. I want to thank all of you for your patience as we muddled through and figured this out. Uh, I know that when we have professor Steven hats, he's going to be joining us actually tomorrow afternoon. We're doing another, ask me anything on, uh, on philosophy. And I know he will be on time. So, um, promise to, uh, to make up for our record then. And then also for those of you who are following us on any of the other platforms, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, uh, I'm going to be doing a live interview tomorrow with Kara Dansky. Who's an author who wrote the abolition of sex, uh, the transgender agenda and how it harms women and girls. So definitely a controversial topic. Um, one that I'm, I'm new to, but very eager to hear her perspective would love to get, um, your engagement on that. So hopefully we'll see you tomorrow for both that are out. So thanks everyone.
Speaker 1 00:53:05 Thanks everyone for the great questions.
