Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:01 Okay, well, I will, uh, start to ping people in. Um, Jason, maybe you wanna recap what we talked about last time and, uh, tell us what's on your mind today.
Speaker 1 00:00:13 All right. So last week, um, I talked about why I thought meritocracy was a valid concept, not an Anticon. And I went through the stages of, um, explaining Rand's theory of egalitarianism and, um, showing how a truly meritocratic society in the moral sense, not in the PE sense that people have always thought of merit, meritocracy of political society in which a set of political elites are allocated favors and powers are dispensed among. Um, I think ran had this notion, um, in her letter, um, titled an on her article title and untitled letter in, um, in her I ran letters. And, um, so I went through the various stages of why we needed America, why meritocracy was very, very important, uh, in a culture of, of, of mediocrity. And that was bankrupt. And, um, what I'd like to do today is to show that in some sense, if we're going to have a proper meritocratic society in the moral sense that the logical concomitant of that is going to be a society with a select number or any number of elites, and that elite in the way that I'm taking it from both encyclopedia and from the dictionary in the moral sense is a proper concomitant of meritocratic society.
Speaker 1 00:01:50 So, um, just to recap a little bit, you know, Rand had wa railed against egalitarianism, um, as stating that it's really leveling down the leveling down of mankind to the common denominator of its these competent members because of two primary premises behind egalitarianism, it defied the law causality by demanding equal results from unequal causes, and it also demanded equal rewards from, or for unequal performance.
Speaker 1 00:02:28 Um, and throughout her life, it was her view. I think I mentioned it yesterday, um, in Richard's talk, it was, it was basically Rand's view that the culture was pretty pretty bankrupt. Um, she mentioned this in her talk on our cultural value deprivation and the subsequent article that was published, I think in the voice of reason. And in her article, the Fort hall forum, um, on a cultural update, she said the culture was not just militantly bankrupt. It was routinely bankrupt, I suppose, by that she gave reasons that, uh, the dominant pH pH philosophy or the dominant cultural ethos was one that presented the individual man as depraved, um, that there was an absence or a posity of unifying principles, integrated philosophical principles around which we could tie our values, the rising tide of collectivism and the assault against reason irrationality. So it was a chronic and all pervasive state.
Speaker 1 00:03:31 And I would add that personally, looking at the culture that our culture's not just militantly bans, also, uh, routinely vulgar course unrefined in almost every aesthetic sphere of life. It's it's, it's unspeakably, garish, and ugly. And even without, I would say the comedic dignity of, of even camp schlock or stick, um, kit rather to sort of buffer it. So, um, I'm not in agreement with William III, William, a Henrys II's defense of EISM in all of its, uh, um, guises, but he, he did, he did he cause one of the reasons I, I am not is because he never gives a proper defense of EISM. He just sort of takes it for granted, but he did write that he realized that the wrath directed at EISM had less to do with money than with populous egalitarian scoring for the very kinds of intellectual distinctions that he holds most dear respect, deference towards leadership and position, um, esteem for accomplishment, especially when achieved through long neighbor and rigorous education heritage, particularly in history, philosophy and culture, uh, commitment to rational and scientific investigation and importantly upholding of objective standards.
Speaker 1 00:05:00 Most important. The willingness to assert on yielding that one idea or contribution or attainment is better than another. So the definition of elitism that I'm working with is the idea that individuals who form and elite are select group of people perceived as having intrinsic or cultivated, really cultivated quality, high intellect, wealth, power Notability, special skills, um, and experience, and are more likely people who are elite in that moral sense because they're, they've cultivated, they've honed, their sensibilities are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole. And I'll say a bit more about why I'm using this appeal to society, because I think that is more conducive to the practice of individualism, but they're more constructive to society as a whole and, and therefore deserve, uh, influence and authority, greater influence and authority than others, um, in governing in having their sensibilities, um, their norms, their MAs, uh, govern society.
Speaker 1 00:06:12 Um, so the form abilities I'm really defending is the brand that distinguishes people based on merit. As I talked about last week, achievements, success, moral status, those who exhibit a very, very long track record of competence in, at the very demanding feel, um, who show extensive discipline, extensive history of dedication and effort in some service in service to some specific field and who have a high degree of accomplishment training or wisdom in a given field. Now, I would say that OS extensive definition of an elite society would be Gulf Goch in iron rands ATLA Shrock because there you have a set of specialized, highly rational people with specialized home sensibilities that are superior to other people. So one of the things I like I do like about indef defenses, elitism by William Henry. And I realized almost very little on this book to defend my sense of elitism, but, uh, because I think it's just very philosophical, inconsistent, but he does say that that the idea behind egalitarianism of which elite is an antidote is a belief that a truly just society would automatically produce equal success results across the lines of race, class, and gender.
Speaker 1 00:07:34 And that the common man is almost always right. Um, and that I would add the idea that all cultures are equal. This is something I'm going to defend here, that we can speak of elite cultures, elite civilizations, really I'm talking about as much as we can speak about elite cultures. And it is a, it is a, so I would say that we, I am defending a version of elite when it comes to civilizations and I'm, and, and defending a version of when it comes to individuals. So it is a common, I would say, can art among educated, cognizant that all cultures are equal. Um, and we can certainly look out at the world and see that some cultures are abysmally inferior and regressive based on their comprehensive philosophy and fundamental beliefs are lack thereof that guide or fail to protect the inable rights of citizens.
Speaker 1 00:08:39 So one can say that, you know, all persons, I, I think that all persons are indulge with equal intrinsic, moral worth as human beings, which they could corrupt by committing more legal to sex. But as individuals they're possessed of invaluable moral worth, which cultures are not, cuz are not ind Devis hold. But I would say at the United States as a civilization, it's not a culture, it's a civilization. It's not perfect, but as a rights bearing culture, in which the inalienability of rights are observed the country in which civil liberties, such as freedom of speech is still upheld. Uh, freedom of conscience and freedom of religious association is vastly superior to barbaric and primitive cultures that have yet to discover the individual and his or her VI invi, indig, uh, dignity. So America in the United States is a Republic devoted to the inability of those rights that are conducive to human flourishing and surviving and through its constitution, bill of rights.
Speaker 1 00:09:37 It is the first political system to discover the direct correlation between the rational nature of man, the individual as an individual and the exact political mil in which the nature that nature has to properly live and function. So we look at countries like Suan, Nigeria, Morita, Lial, Algeria, all countries would still practice and tolerate chat slavery by Arabs and black Muslims against other Christians and, and Muslims. And we, they're not the political or moral equals to the United States of America, Israel, great Britain, Britain, and even France. And, and those countries are vastly superior to Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea Gaza. If that, even that, that piece of plot of land even qualifies as, as, as, uh, a culture, uh, which do not permit religious reciprocity. And I would say that the cannibalistic anti civilization of the aspects could never, and would never be the cultural equal of any civilized and free society anywhere in the world today.
Speaker 1 00:10:37 So cultures that permit freedom of association, respect equality of all citizens and legal residents before the law that uphold, um, certain honest sale, but moral axioms, like E equal equality of all persons before the law, um, that allow individuals to cultivate their unique life plans. Um, I would, I would classify as elite as elite cultures, and I think it's a mark of sure what I would call cognitive malar to, to claim that all cultures are equal are equal. So just that some cultures are technologically more advanced than others. So some are politically more distinguished in their record on individual rights and the protection of private property and personal liberties. So
Speaker 2 00:11:24 May, may I raise my hand for a question, please?
Speaker 1 00:11:27 Not yet. I'm not finished. Just let me finish my, because I don't wanna, I'm on a trajectory here and I don't want to lose my, my train of thought. So just hold off onto, we get to the question answer, period. Um, so in a world where, for example, the distinction between high culture and low culture has not just been blurred, but Obi, um, how do we, how do we regain an aristocracy or a refinement qualitatively, speaking of sensibilities and standards when we have as is spreading through the K through 12 public school system, we're honest programs are being abolished on the premise that they are discrimative against slow learners, right? Where every country that is a political or economic sinkhole that drags down the regional value, um, economic politically, et cetera, in which it is ensconced is hailed as equal of the United States. How do we respond?
Speaker 1 00:12:34 And so, just as we must contend, I think with the fact that there are social ball in every society. So we must accept that there are countries that are ecological political balance. So an elite cadre of what I would call a United unit of moral nations, which I would include U United States of America, England, France, Israel stand as an antidote and inoculate against the ravages of value deprivation from which individuals of such nations suffer an image by default, they infect a society with their anti values. So I think what we actually need is a sort of stratification of refined talents, a stratification of refined sensibilities that can actually elevate human beings from, um, from the wretchedness and the, uh, and the drudgery of, of their lives and offer an aspirational ideal of, of, of what constitutes a truly elite individual and elite society, a society governed by principle of elite.
Speaker 1 00:13:43 So when, you know, when we have universities that are offering adult shares in hip hop and rap studies, a musical genre that is filled with expletives, a musical genre that is devoted exclusively to promoting thug and gang culture as a prescriptive idea, uh, where sexual acts are formed, both the pathos, the Bathos, and the only form of pity in the genre. I think there's no lower place to think in terms of aesthetic or moral the gravity. Um, and when we have a society that is fused through by means of the university with diversity equity and inclusion demands, which I spoke about last week is just lowering standards. And we have the woke mob, which, and their unbridled feelings that supersede those who are advocates of reason. We do need, I think, an elite Vanguard of social aesthetic and more elites as cultural, I would call them aristocrats to do the following, to function as comp competitors in the age of nihilism and mediocrity that I think we're living in, uh, to re socialize the sensibilities of lesser people who subject us to their weak and perverse moral agendas and their anti value agendas, uh, to raise the civilizational value of our culture so that individualism can thrive.
Speaker 1 00:15:14 Because I think when mediocrity and substandards are backed by law, like the DEI initiatives, uh, and entrenched institutional norms, it is only a sort of implacable and entre, a set of implacable and transient values of IR elite of deliberate value makers codified into something of a robust counterculture that can stop the conveyor belt of villain mediocrity and the subnormal and the kind of swamp of gutter trivia that constitute modern culture from taking root. And I would say that Objectivists are an elite Vanguard of intellectual activists and theorists, but, but, but activists as practitioners of Val being value creators in the world, um, and actually cultural relativists, the anti reason advocates, legality, and altruists, and those lacking any objective criteria to measure matters of taste. Those who ratify aesthetic forms of life by means of a sort of crude naturalistic mentality are profit excluded from this domain.
Speaker 1 00:16:21 So the evulsion to excellence in all spheres of life is not uniquely objectives is not a uniquely objective characteristic, I should say, but one can't be a proper objectives without aspiring to moral excellence and moral ambition. The precondition of which is an absolute and tenacious commitment to reason and a rejection of any kind of unity that coalesces around the non exceptional. So an explicit rejection of, of the common, the ordinary, the average is, is, is what is embodied in an EITA principle. And it is creative nations and creative peoples, the minority stock that have created history. So those who wish, I think to elevate their sophomore in high school opinions to the level of human knowledge, have a lot of social currency today. And that ethos certainly governs the academy and the educational premise of the K through 12 education. So the prism, I think of more elite in wrapping up governed by a sort of scrupulous commitment to reason is a buffer against the village I agency, which is a logical concomitant of this ruling ethos.
Speaker 1 00:17:33 Not everyone can get led into the future as is the naive promise of liberalism and hyper democracy and social balance. That is on thinking human beings who are responsible for the total Machi I've described have already ejected themselves from the domain of what I would call rational human intercourse. So I think Rand was right. The jungles are not approaching the cities. The cities have become our jungles and the barbarian are not at the gates. They are inside the city jungles and, uh, their voices result in a radical demoralization of humanity. And it is time in the name of, I think Jose take said, uh, who's very close in many respects to Iran's thinking would say that it's time for a more or aesthetic and cultural elites for those elites to push back and the board, their screams and their snarls and their unco demands in a spirit of iron ran in the name of the luminous potential of the greatest minority on earth, which is the individual. And I, I think I've stopped there. I have much, much, much more, but I'll stop there. Thank you,
Speaker 2 00:18:38 Jason. Can I respond?
Speaker 0 00:18:41 No, we're gonna go in order, sir. So, uh, I'll call on you when, when you're we're ready. Um, we are delighted to have our founder, uh, David Kelly, founder of the Atlas society here with us. David, did you wanna weigh in on, uh, what Jason just shared? David you'd have to unmute yourself.
Speaker 3 00:19:06 Uh, there are so many things that Jason's, uh, uh, uh, presentation that, uh, I could pick up on and, and, but at the same time I missed the, the first, uh, segment of this. So, um, lemme just add Jason, I'll do one question and then, uh, I wanna leave the over to others. The, um, one of the things that's puzzled me over the years is that in education is that the systems in France and, and in Europe and in, in England previously anyway, um, were very hierarchical. That that is they, they look for talent, they promoted talent. They had no embarrassment about, um, admitting, uh, only the best, best performing best talented students to their higher educational things even at, than America was, even though they are in it culturally more collectivist, um, more state oriented than, uh, America is. And that's kind of a paradox. And do you think my observation is correct? And if so you have a, any thoughts about it?
Speaker 1 00:20:22 I think your, I do think your observation is correct, David, and I just think it's one of the unique para paradoxes of, of, of the educational systems in, it's not just, it's not just, um, France and England, and it's also the Netherlands and Sweden in Finland. They have very, very high standards while having, you know, this kind of collective as welfare state. Um, my sense is, um, having lived Germany for a year and, um, having taught in, in Hungary for six months and, and lectured, you know, throughout Europe is, um, that there is going back to the idea of PO Jose Degas's idea of what the university is supposed to do. Um, he had, I think three, four mission statements of the university. One was the teaching of the learn professions. Um, I'm, I'm taking this from his book on the idea of the university, the fostering of scientific research, the training for political leadership and the fourth one for GSET was the creation of cultured persons with the ability to make intellectual interpretations of the world.
Speaker 1 00:21:33 So I think going back to the most archaic and the most, um, primitive idea of the university as it originated in, in, in Western Europe, uh, there were, there were pristine standards of excellence that were fixed to both the, the, the philosoph idea of a university. And the pedagogical means by which knowledge, uh, was dispensed. That was just constitutive of the idea of the university itself. And that stood at odds with, with of course the collectivist, um, premise premises that, that rule society. So I think they're just, these are just two, you know, there, these are just two paradoxes that we have to reckon with that the idea of the university, as it originated in Europe, um, had these built in missions that were devoted to cultivating excellence, going even going back to Aristotles Padera, uh, and Plato school. We see when, when I'm more interested in Aristotles in Aristotles Padera, the cultivation of virtue through habituation, and, but not just habituation through irrational understanding eventually why one is doing what one is doing.
Speaker 1 00:22:47 Um, so I, I do think your observation is right. I don't, I'm not an anthropologist. I don't have an explanation for why the paradox, um, exist, except I can only point to the mission and the pH mission, the philosophical idea of a university as it originates in Europe was intrinsically intrinsically cultivated to something like elitism, the creation of cultured persons with an ability to make intellectual interpretations of the world. And out of that arose of course, a scientific method, uh, where one has to be precise and, and, and, and rigorous in, in one's thinking in order to have given birth to something like modern science as we know it today.
Speaker 0 00:23:31 All right. Thanks. And folks, I wanted to also just let you know, um, in addition to being a senior scholar at the Atlas society, um, professor Jason Hill teaches philosophy at DePaul university and he's the author of several books. Um, and I will be cycling those, uh, in and out the pin, uh, section of the site, if you're enjoying this conversation, um, please go ahead and share it on clubhouse and share it on your social media platforms. Scott,
Speaker 4 00:24:06 Thank you. Uh, good topic. Um, I just had a quick comment. I think I understand, uh, what you're talking about with elites and, uh, you know, kind of that cultural refinement that, that we need, but I just think it's important to make a distinction between that and the kind of corrupt elites running, all of these kind of woke institutions these days. And that's what a lot of people are bristling at when, when they hear about elite, or I just wanted your thoughts on that.
Speaker 1 00:24:38 Well, that's why I said the, the form EISM that I'm defending is a kind of moralism and, and I, and I spent a lot of time talking about the kind of refinement of sensibilities refinement of a, of a skillset, a skillset that one can leverage in the world in a efficacious manner that yields certain results that are beneficial to human survival, to the, to the wellbeing of the individual. There isn't anything that those parasitic, uh, contemptuous political elites that call themselves politicians are doing. They have no skillset, they have no set of refined sensibilities. They have, uh, I mean, one of cassettes, um, missions, uh, of the university was, I'm not sure I agree with this, but was training individual for political leadership. This goes against the idea of, of what the founding fathers had for America, where the ordinary common man could aspire to the presidency.
Speaker 1 00:25:32 Um, so yeah, I, I, I think that distinction has to be made. I did make it and, and, and I don't even think that those people could, should be called political elites. I think they should. They should be, there are tribe. There are, there are, there are a, a, a cauldron of, of mediocrities and display, none of the characteristics that we would associate with elites in the proper sense of the term. I think it's just a colloquial understanding. That's and it's a, a misconception of the understanding of what elite really is all about that, that people like Tucker Carlson and people usually on the, on the right conservatives van boat to describe those people in Washington.
Speaker 4 00:26:13 I, I was a couple minutes late.
Speaker 1 00:26:17 Okay.
Speaker 0 00:26:18 Okay. Uh, us a you're on.
Speaker 2 00:26:21 Thank you. I, I would just like to say that as a young child, I was brought up as an objectiveist, both. My parents were adherence of I Rand. And, uh, I remember reading the, at Atlas shrugged and the fountain head very from a very early age in the essays. Um, one of which stuck with me was on lifeboat ethics. Do you do, do you remember, uh, Rand's essay about lifeboat ethics, the ethics of emergencies? Because the reason I ask is because in that essay, she admitted that there was a flaw in the pure selfish act. And I have tried to, um, uh, describe this flaw by posting into the group chat channel and ential comics.com comic number 234, which has to do with desert island ethics. That is to say that imagine that you and 10 other people wash up on the store, uh, the shore from a, a wreck, a, a ship wreck.
Speaker 2 00:27:29 And, uh, there's one doctor among the 11 people who are on that island. And the doctor has very important skills that are very much in demand, but everybody else has ordinary skills. They can go out and they can spear fish, um, food. They can climb to harvest coconuts. Well, what might ordinarily happen under such a situation with unfettered free trade is that the doctor obtains a natural monopoly based on his advanced skills and iron Rand normally would say that this is the normal course of action that should be encouraged. However, we know from the science of economics, that when a monopoly occurs, you get a market failure. And we are seeing that right now because supply chain constrictions have caused inflation. Um, you know, the, uh, shock from, uh, Russia invading Ukraine, uh, caused a huge increase in the cost of oil. And that has caused, uh, all kinds of increases in prices, in food and, um, medicine and, uh, ordinary consumer goods.
Speaker 0 00:28:46 I'm gonna let, um, Jason, uh, very interesting stuff, but I, I, especially since we have also David Kelly here,
Speaker 2 00:28:55 Well, I do, I do have one specific question I'd like to ask of Jason. Um, okay. Ask it please. So meritocracy is important, but it has at eternal odds with egalitarianism. That is to say, if you only promote people based on their merit, then you necessarily demote people who are otherwise on an equal footing. And that can lead to a situation in which you get an elite, um, an entrenched elite, which might be, might have a tendency towards nepotism and the nepotism if allowed to continue, will lead to end breeding. So what do you think iron Rand might suggest to oppose the tendency towards nepotism?
Speaker 1 00:29:47 I just don't see a natural con nepotism is the, is a, is the idea that you, you dispense or you allocate favors political economic, or otherwise to relatives, to relatives? I don't see any connection between an elite Vanguard of people with super talents that iron Rand most certainly would defend. I mean, that's what gold school just is filled with and the necessary connection that you would give dispense favors to, to your family members. I think as someone Rand was totally against the idea of family really extended family.
Speaker 2 00:30:18 Okay. Okay. Understood. Let
Speaker 1 00:30:20 Me, lemme, let me finish my answer that, let me finish my answer because you asked, and I wanna answer as thoroughly, I'm a philosophy and answer as thoroughly as possible. Rand would say that the rational person would give the job or dispense the resource or whatever it is that one is the Val the value that one's allocating to the most qualified person, not to some distant third cousin, not even to one's parents or one's siblings, but one would give it to the person who was most qualified in reason that reality with the final arbiter and that there's no necessary connection, no logical connection between nepotism and am meritocratic society at all. There's no reason that I let's just take this say, I let's say I had a particular talent, or I had a particular skill that I developed and I started a company, uh, there's nothing illogical or in reality that would suggest I would give it to a mediocre. I would employ a mediocre relative, knowing that that would bring down the value of my business. I would want the sharpest smartest person, whether he, or she's from Harvard or from a small, or, or maybe not even college, just the smartest person. There's no logical connection between nepotism and the meritocratic society.
Speaker 2 00:31:32 Could I ask you a question relative to history? Um, we, we have a lot of evidence towards history that people who believe that they have been,
Speaker 0 00:31:41 Sorry, we're going to keep moving along.
Speaker 2 00:31:44 Excuse me. Could I, could I just answer one follow up question? We're trying to give everyone a chance.
Speaker 0 00:31:53 Uh, alright. Uh, Roger.
Speaker 5 00:31:58 Hi. Thanks. Um, Jason, my, my question, uh, I, I totally agree with you that, um, there are some things that are better that others, uh, it is an objective thing and not, you know, a subjective thing. Um, the, the problem I always have when trying to make that point is that it seems like I'm just appealing to one set of virtues, such as individualism or private property or something like that. While the other side is appealing to another set of virtues, diversity, equity inclusion among them. Um, and I I've tended to think that, uh, you might need a theory of value to be able to, uh, you know, convince the other side. Uh, and so the question is, do you think what you presented constitutes a theory of value or are you comfortable with, as I heard you saying appealing to a set of a set of virtues, um, it juxtapose if you juxtapose the other side's positions to decides that there isn't seem anything structurally different, unless there's a theory that you can pass the contents through. Okay, I'm done
Speaker 1 00:33:03 Well, I don't see a dichotomy or chasm between the two. I would go back to that fabulous ES essay by IRA and in the virtue, the voice of reason called who was the final authority in ethics, which he thought was a, was a nonsensical question. And she said that ultimately in matters of knowledge, um, uh, no one is no one is a like, no one is a final authority. Reality is a final is a final, uh, arbiter that, um, that human beings, in some sense, nature does not decide. It is the individual who decides in issues of knowledge that he or she observes that, which is, and so I would say to someone that, um, my theory of elitism is, is based in reality, that is, it's not just based on a personal whim or a person aesthetic desire that is, there are standards, there are philosoph meaning tests that I can ostensibly point to, uh, that correspond to reality.
Speaker 1 00:34:05 For example, I mean, I don't like my doctor because he compliments me or he's a nice person, or I don't, if I were having heart surgery, I wouldn't just like someone because she's beautiful or he's handsome or whatever. I would want that proven that this person is the most competent person available to me and make my decisions based on that person's skillset invoking a sort of elitist principle here that corresponds to reality. So, uh, I think Roger, I'm not seeing the distinction between, um, a value and a virtue that the, both of them have to go hand in hand because both of them, in some sense must correspond to an objective reality. And David, I don't know if you want to, if you wanna jump in here and
Speaker 3 00:34:52 Yes, I do, uh, briefly anyway, if, uh, Ja if it's okay. I, uh, first of all, at one point, I think it's essential to make here is that, um, the previous question or raised a question of a desert island and the life vote situation, rans ethics of emergencies. The point of that essay of ran is that, uh, an ethical system has to deal with the normal context of a human life. There are emergencies, and when you're in an emergency, um, the context that is the foundation of ethics, uh, in particular, the, the fact that normal in normal life, the harmony, we have a harmony of interest between people. I don't, I don't, I don't someone else's success does, does not take anything away from me and vice versa in a life, but situation, there are conflicts of interest, and that's why we, um, it's important to get out of them as soon as possible, but that's not a standard graphics.
Speaker 3 00:35:54 The thing is to Roger's question, there is a basis for a value set. The whole objectives, ethics is based on a rational, um, derivation of where the concept of value comes from and what it means, um, in regard to human life. Uh, I, I don't, I don't want to run through it. It would, it would be a whole separate lecture, but, uh, or, and many, many lectures and just, you know, this is as, as well as I do, but, um, the, um, there are values are not subjective. Someone else's alternative at other set of values doesn't mean that it's equally valid. We're not relativists. The values are objective. We can argue about what the, what the objective basis is, but if you start with the assumption that it's is relative, or that all values are subjective or group based or whatever, um, you're, you're off the you're, you're off the playing field in a sense.
Speaker 0 00:37:02 All right. Uh, Roger, hopefully that helps if not stick around and we'll come back to you, Jordan. It's great to see you again.
Speaker 6 00:37:11 Great to see you, uh, good to see you, Dr. Jason, as well, and Jennifer and David and all, um, I, I may see it sound a bit hypocritical, but this kind of movement of anti credentialism, which it can be found readily on, uh, this platform, I think is kind of interesting. I don't necessarily think of myself as an expert, but, but diminishing expertise, uh, in favor of kind of, uh, as may, and maybe you alluded to, um, uh, uh, social capital and, and, and social currencies, um, uh, it, it, it really, I think is dangerous. And, um, I, I wonder if maybe you could speak to that a, a little more,
Speaker 1 00:37:58 Uh, who's doing that. I mean, you mean as something that's being done in our society in general, like yeah. I mean, although,
Speaker 6 00:38:04 Although it has been done, for example, on this platform where, um, physicians have been disregarded, um, or, or, or their, their commentary has been dismissed by someone who, uh, has access to certain information and, and they, they, they weaponize the information without consideration of, of the person with the credential, for exam as an example. Right.
Speaker 1 00:38:30 Okay. I see what you're saying. Well, I, I mean, I think Rand really addressed this quite properly when she talked about the primacy of consciousness over existence, and going back to the Cartesian method that is once you, once you adhere to the idea that there is not an objective reality out there, which consciousness discovers, uh, but that consciousness itself creates reality. Uh, you let in all kinds of forms of subjectivism, and then you let in cultural and ethical relativism, and you dispense with any kind of independent arbiter that can adjudicate, uh, among truth claims. That is reason, um, as the tool and logic as the means, uh, of adjudicating among feeding truth claims. So that I think that this kind of, um, uh, ridiculing or, or downplaying of expertise is a direct result from a culture that increasingly going back to postmodernism, going back to the critical school, going back to the Frankfort school.
Speaker 1 00:39:32 I mean, this could be a, I might, I might invite one of the other scholars to do a session on this, but the critical theory school, the Frankfort school, um, you know, going back to the whole assault on objective reality against reason attacking on reason, or we have the primacy of consciousness that consciousness precedes existence as words, the opposite is, is really the philosophical route. I think of this notion of, um, dispensing with the credibility of expertise who expertise is not based on someone's opinions or someone's likes or dislikes, but is rooted in reality. It is, it is, it passes all just speaking in terms of scientist, there's verifiability, there's verification methods, there's predictability all the sorts of meaning tests, scientific, meaning tests that have to be passed for something to go from a hypothesis, to a theory, to something that is factual to stated fact and knowledge and same thing.
Speaker 1 00:40:27 In philosophy, we have philosophical meaning tests where we just don't spout nonsense, uh, they're subjected to meaning tests. So I, I do think that it is what Rand would call the primacy of consciousness over existence, uh, that has led to radical subjectivism, uh, of radical attack on the I, David has done a marvelous job in his talks on this very platform of discussing what constitutes objectivity. I think we're in a culture where people think that objectivity is every single, um, shallow thought or wish or fantasy that they hold. Um, and I wanted to be brief here, but that, that, but that, that to me seems to be the root of the problem.
Speaker 0 00:41:12 Thank you, Scott, can you gimme a hand here? Cause, uh, looks like what's showing up for me, um, in terms of who's on the stage may not be, uh, accurate.
Speaker 4 00:41:24 Yeah. I show RO next.
Speaker 7 00:41:30 Yeah. Can you hear me?
Speaker 0 00:41:32 We can hear you. I can't see you, but, uh,
Speaker 7 00:41:35 <laugh>, I'm the invisible man. All right. I thank you for the opportunity. Thanks for catching that. Uh, Scott, um, I really, uh, um, thrilled to talk to Dr. Uh, professor, I have, uh, listened to the, uh, first step episode at least three or four times, just to understand the, some of the, uh, words, uh, to get the cons I'm really interested in this is like pro, like Jennifer said, it's a provoking subject, uh, across the world, in my opinion, um, this whole meritocracy, you know, I, I'm kind of thinking from a MOS mass man perspective, uh, meritocracy seems like, uh, is like a utopian idea or, you know, it, it is not something that's achievable in my opinion. And second meritocracy is more like a pseudo meritocracy and the same goes for even, uh, you know, like with respect to achieving it, even the moral eliteness, uh, uh, is it even possible?
Speaker 7 00:42:31 It's an idea that's work talking about, uh, you know, it might bring about a change in the minds of elite, but I'm wondering, uh, you know, in today's system is developed in, in a, in, in a way I'm thinking, you know, it's by, uh, elites. And so it's kind of benefiting the elites more than, uh, become mass men. And there is an inherent ego that comes with merit meritocracy, as well as, uh, thinking that, you know, the, the best ideas are coming from people who are judged by today's standard as who, you know, merit, merit standards. Um, what I'm thinking is that the, the merit meritocracy today gives importance to, uh, people with, uh, good memory and good comprehension. And then, uh, they have the drive, uh, for, you know, succeeding due to greed. And that's what is, you know, creating this pool of, uh, you know, elite people who seem to come up with the commonly attributes that looks down upon the mass men.
Speaker 7 00:43:36 That's how I, I perceive it. I may be entirely wrong, but that's how, uh, it seems to be coming and naturally in the political system, it gives way for both elite assholes, mass men, mass men are more interested in elites than elites because mass men is coming from the, uh, from the pain point of view, or even from the point of, uh, doing some social justice. So when they come up, obviously they will bring about, uh, things to kind of de leveling the word that, uh, uh, professor Jason used and, uh, sort of, you know, adjust it or balance it, uh, in, in a way I'm thinking meritocracy will only give rise to the sectarian politics and then kind of go against the humanity. So my question to you is, uh, isn't like, and ran, I just read this one, uh, thing that the five letters that the end of the meritocracy is what is, you know, is what is the right way to look at?
Speaker 7 00:44:33 It is what letter, uh, mentioned. So I was like thrilled. There are several words that comes with that. And, you know, I wanted to think about it a little bit more, but don't you think meritocracy is just an idea that will never be able to be achieved, uh, in, you know, the today system. And what if the system has changed to say that, okay, Hey, greed is not the driving factor here. It is. The, uh, you know, like clarity is what the driving factor will, what will be the, what will be the meritocracy system and, you know, wouldn't it drive a better, uh, merit. So in a way, I also agree that the eliteness and meritocracy is important, but today's system is not conducive. And I think the system has to be changed. So I'm kind of putting a lot of things in here. If you have any perspective, let me know. But you know, the main idea is that I'm going with this, that meritocracy is not good for humanity as of it is today. And then second is that meritocracy only creates people with, you know, the eliteness that will just highlight ego breed and some of these negative attributes, then the positive and mass men are also contributors and the major contributors in today's world to come up, you know, to a state that we are in today. Thank you.
Speaker 1 00:45:45 All right. Thank you for that. Um, I, I would say that yes, mass men are contr con contributors. We're all contributors, but we're not all equal contributors. So the person who developed the steam engine, the person who developed the plow, um, the person who developed the typewriter, the person who, you know, will develop the cure for the, in the set of individuals who developed the antiviral drug for, uh, for HIV, that one doesn't have to die. One is, has HIV and the person who the set of scientists who quickly developed, well, it wasn't quickly, but developed vaccines against COVID one doesn't have to die from getting the disease note, um, are not equal to, you know, other, other contributors. So that's the first point I want to make that. Yes, we're all, we all contribute in some sense, but we're, we, we don't contribute equally.
Speaker 1 00:46:35 And in the pyramid of ability and the hierarchy of value creators, not everyone is equal. That's a hard thing for people to stomach. It's just the truth. And I would say that meritocracy does exist to the extent that we can ostensibly point to the codification of actions that are, the result are the result of a life lived by the principle of reason, excellence and results that, um, I think Jennifer and Damien used this term last week, working smart, that working, not just working hard, but working smart in a way that produces results that are efficacious and successful vis Avi, the goals, uh, to which they're being put the hard work is being put in service. So I don't know that meritocracy is a high in the pie sky, in the, you know, dream or utopian fantasy. I think we see smidget of it in our society to the extent that we can point ostensibly to the codification of actions that are meritorious, that are efficacious, that are, that are, that are the results of, of excellence.
Speaker 1 00:47:45 And that are results of refined and well honed skills and intelligence, right? Let's talk about intelligence here. We're not all equal intelligent <laugh> so, uh, you know, mass man, whoever Jose said made of him, the common man, however, ETT made of him and NHA made of such people, individuals, uh, are not, not all people are possessed of equal intelligence and the disparity among individuals Vivi their intelligence will produce different results. So if although mess men sort of went on strike, um, well, if not all the mass men went on strike, if a significant number of the mass men went on strike. Um, we wouldn't mean such just regardless stroke. We wouldn't be in such dire straits as we would be if the human beings, the individuals of ability, because they're more rep they're more irreplaceable because of the scarcity of their skill set, which relies on genius or human ability, which is a much more rare commodity than is just brute raw physical labor, which everyone possesses.
Speaker 1 00:49:00 So I, I would have to say that, uh, third, just to be brief to wrap up here, cuz we do have other people, um, I, I greed, um, I'm very skeptical of this term greed, um, because I think it's banded about, uh, in a way that just speaks to individuals applying their intelligence to the problem of human survival, which is what, uh, production is reason is it's applied reason to the problem of human survival and reaping the benefits of their applied intelligence, uh, and getting as much money I say as much money as you can get, get it and get some more, uh, while you're growing your mind and applying your values in a tangible form that people will ratify through their purchasing power. Um, so I'm very suspicious of the way that greed is used in the world because it's just, it it's what Rand would I think called placing a moratorium on the brains and I'll stop there.
Speaker 0 00:50:01 All right. Thank you. Um, Damien and then miles.
Speaker 8 00:50:07 Hello? Can you hear me? I know I had trouble last.
Speaker 0 00:50:11 Yeah. To have you back.
Speaker 8 00:50:12 Uh, thank you. Um, I came in a few minutes, so apologize if I missed this, but I'm still having a bit of a issue trying to understand. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept here because I'm kind of, it's hard for me to find a reason to even, you know, try to defend, I guess, elitism, because I can't disassociate, I can't disassociate, I guess, whatever would be the opposite of meritocracy with like slavery, you know? Um, because I guess I look at it as if, you know, I can't consume more than I produce and if I do that, then I'm taking from someone else. If they're willing to do that for me, that's one thing. But then if I say that they owe that to me, then that's another thing. So I immediately just like associate that with some sort of a slavery claim. So, oh, or a master claim, I don't know what you would call it.
Speaker 8 00:51:06 But, um, so for me that, I guess I look at it as whereas, okay, how is it that somebody would want me to make a case for my own freedom or for me, why do I have to defend my right to keep the things that I have, you know, produced? And so, and, and the other thing that I would say with that is that the other mechanism mechanism that I guess we have is the price mechanism. Whereas if I produce something, whatever I charge for it and except for it, that's what I, I accept for it. So even if I am, you know, providing a surplus to, to other people, what I'm doing is more valuable than what I'm charging for. So what I'm satisfied with the, the income or, you know, the return that I received. So I dunno if that was the actual question, but that's, that's kind what my thoughts are.
Speaker 1 00:52:00 All right. So I will say, um, <laugh>, maybe we should add Alexander Cortez and the socialist in this country, why you would need to defend that, which you earn because there are looters and there are MOS and there are social balance and there are nonproductive people who think that they have a fair right to your income or to some fair share of what you earn and by what right. I would ask. So there are people who on the economic front they're called socialists, and the more evil of them are, I think are communists, who take it as their right to appropriate by some unknown means a substantial portion of the wealth or the income that you have earned and allocated among people who are non-producers. So that's the first answer on the economic front. The second answer on the social front is that there are a bunch of just vulgar crafts, mediocre people who, uh, want to obliterate all standards who want obliterate, all kinds of meaning tests that we use to judge merit and excellence and just enslave and Glu glut the world with vulgarity mediocrity.
Speaker 1 00:53:11 Uh, I spoke about maybe before you came in, uh, Damien about a movement going on in the K through 12 system where they are attempting Anasan, who has taught in the honors department at DePaul, I've taught gift gifted students for 12, 12 years. I've taught kids from members of the KU Klux Klan and kids in city, kids from east St. Louis in my early career. But as the honest programs in many of the K through 12 systems are being abolished on the premise that they discriminate against slow learners. That's one reason why I would think the gifted children ought to be rising up and marching in the street because what's happening is that their, a moratorium is being placed on their brains, on their, on their intelligence war is being declared on their intelligence, in the name of those with less her ability. And while there can be schools for slow learners, I'm not, I would not be against schools cultivated for slow learners, but you cannot have a situation for example, where gifted children, uh, have their programs abolished and education, be demoted level down to the common denominator of its least competent members who are the slow learners in that class.
Speaker 1 00:54:29 So I would say those gifted children, and as I say, you, Damon are one of those gifted children would have every right to rise up and defend your brain against the levelers. Those who would seek to place a moratorium on your brain, in the name of those who are less competent than you are.
Speaker 8 00:54:49 And one quick follow up question. Um, do you find that that could be taken as an active aggression when people lay claim or try to give claim to rights of, of, I mean, from the things that you produce, can that be taken as an active aggression?
Speaker 1 00:55:07 It is, it, it is more than an aggression. It is. It is, it is, it is an aggression and it is more than that. It's a, it's, it's, it's a sort of pseudo murder. It's, it's a nationalization of your, of your brain. Um, uh, under the guise of, of, of speaking on behalf of the common good. It is an act of aggression because your mind has ran said, it's your basic tool of survival. And your mind is the faculty that produces the income on whatever level you find your PO you find yourself possessing in the intelligence that you have on whatever level it is, the faculty that produces the income, uh, the property, whatever means you use to survive. And so any appropriation of that is an active of, of aggression against you. Yes, most certainly.
Speaker 8 00:55:55 Thank you. All
Speaker 0 00:55:55 Right. We've got, uh, just a few more minutes. Um, it's really great to see miles, uh, <inaudible> here in the room miles. I'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 9 00:56:05 Yeah. Hopefully you guys can hear me. All right. I'm in a warehouse. Um, professor, thank you. Um, it's been an interesting conversation. I missed the first part. I have a bit of a broad question. Um, I, I appreciated you talking on what's going on in K through 12 school systems. Um, you know, having graduated from Tulane last year, I, I certainly sense that there's a level of elite, um, that students get simply from just graduating with a certain degree, um, without having, you know, actually developed any practical skills at all. Um, and I see that as being a problem and fundamentally our university system seems broken. Uh, this is a big question, but given that you're in the heart of it as a professor, what work has to be done to sort of reverse, reverse where we're at now with universities, um, specifically in college, uh, churning out what I would say, students who have this entitlement, um, you know, when, when really they haven't developed very many skills at all, depending on what they're studying. I'm sorry if that's broad, but hopefully, hopefully there's, uh, a question somewhere in there.
Speaker 1 00:57:18 Well, thanks. Thanks a lot miles, you know, it's just, it's just a false sense of elitism where you're sort of stamped within IM premature of a pedigree from Harvard or Yale. And, um, that is associated in the minds of other people as you're coming with a, a sort of skills again, you know, reality is the final Arture you go into the workplace and if you really don't have that skill set that you can leverage in the workplace in a very, very efficacious manner that produces results, um, that are consonant with the goals and the aspirations or the mission statements or whatever it is of the company or the corporation that one is working with, then, you know, you'll be tossed. You're part of the, be part of the dust spin of history. You'll be tossed aside. Um, so that's, that's just one, that's just one.
Speaker 1 00:58:09 And I see it happening at my universe. Also, people think that you have a degree from DePaul. I tell 'em, you're being trained to be a floor manager at Kmart. So at Walmart. So, you know, don't let it get to your head really because, um, your degree is actually no better than the degree from Harvard. You, people at Harvard just have better connections on the ski slopes than you do. Absolutely. The second thing, the second thing I would say miles is that we just probably need to get rid of the department of education and abolish public education completely, um, and abolish any connection between education and, and the government. Um, one of the reasons that some of these institutions can keep their mythologies afloat is because they are funded partially by, by the federal government, including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, all of which are recipients of public funding. I think Hillsdale college is probably one of the only universities in this country that don't refuse is federal funding. So I would call for the complete defunding and complete eradication of the connection between, um, education and the state in, in this country. Thanks.
Speaker 0 00:59:09 Yeah. Thank you. I think that I might add to that another place to start, um, from a, uh, from a donor class perspective would be to withdraw the sanction of the victim. Um, so many of people who have, uh, gone to these, uh, universities are, um, funding them out of a sense of, uh, you know, just loyalty, um, maybe a misplaced, uh, admiration, um, for a place that they went to, which in, in some cases, no, no longer exists, um, or to help to preserve, you know, the legacy for the children. But, uh, until the, the, those donors wake up and say, you know, um, I'm really upset with, with what you're promoting. And I'd like to see contained
Speaker 9 01:00:02 On, on that point. Sorry to interrupt. On that point, what's concerned me is the AB advocation of, of good donors doesn't necessarily mean they won't find other donors. And my concern and what I've seen is the other donors, certain universities, and I'll exclude names have turned to have been promoting ideas, um, that, you know, aren't beneficial. And so it's almost like a catch 22. You want to pull back and get out, but at the same time, pulling back and getting out, isn't always the best solution. So it's tricky maybe.
Speaker 0 01:00:35 Yeah, no, I, I, I agree. That's the perennial tension. Do you try to work for change within the system or, uh, without the system, obviously one solution would be to try to fund a particular, um, department or a center, uh, within a university. Uh, but, but the other thing I would point to, I did an interview recently with Isaac Morehouse of Praxis. And, um, no, you can see so many of, um, these young people are now deciding to forgo the entire college, uh, process itself and, and go and pursue apprenticeships. Um, because in many cases, the, the college degree just signals. I'm no worse than anybody else that has the same piece of paper, uh, whereas, uh, individuals deciding at a young age to credential themselves and find ways to gain, um, experience and create, uh, signaling of that experience to prospective employers is, is a very exciting place to, to watch.
Speaker 0 01:01:38 So, all right, well that brings us one minute over. Uh, this was a really lively conversation. I wanna thank, um, professor Jason Hill. Thank our founder, David Kelly. Uh, we are going to have a similarly lively, uh, week next week. We've got three clubhouse scheduled. Um, and we've got two ask me any things one on Tuesday with Rob Tru Sinski and then, uh, with professor Steven Hicks on Wednesday, and then, um, on Thursday, uh, Richard Salzman will be taking on why stakeholder capitalism is fascistic. So that, that should be very interesting. Uh, I'll also be having an interview on Wednesday afternoon with Spencer, Jacob to talk about game, uh, stop, stop, and, um, and that whole, uh, struggle between, um, and, and institutions. So thanks everyone. Thank you, Jason. And, uh, hope to see you guys next week. Thank you. Bye bye.
