Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Pinging some people into the room. Welcome everyone. Uh, this is a clubhouse with our senior scholar, Richard Salzman. He's a professor of political economy at duke. Uh, this is going to be an ask me anything about objectiveism, but if you have other questions about economics or what have you, um, then, uh, feel free to raise your hand and we will get you up on stage. Um, so, uh, we can have a great conversation. I'd also like to ask everyone who's here to please share the room, share it, uh, using that share button on clubhouse and your other social media platforms. So, um, excellent. So we'd love to get audience questions. Uh, if not, we've got about 65 followers on Instagram. Um, many of whom have asked questions on, uh, relate, relating to objectiveism. So, uh, Richard, maybe I can just pick from one of those, if you're ready to go.
Speaker 1 00:01:12 Sure. Let's go.
Speaker 0 00:01:14 All right. Okay. Well, uh, one question that has come up is what would be objectiveism, uh, stance on second amendment, um, and the right of self defense?
Speaker 1 00:01:31 Well, self defense is part of, uh, you could argue a, a rational egoistic ethic. And, um, so in terms of individual rights to life, Liberty, uh, property, the pursuit of happiness, this is a means of defending your life. Now, I don't wanna be just defensive about it. I mean, it's, it also encompasses things like hunting and fishing and things like that. But, but, and, and also I would expand it beyond what people normally think of, which is defending themselves against common criminals. It's much more controversial to say of possibly defending yourself against a criminal government. And I think because Locke and then the founders who loved Locke believed in a right to revolt against governments that violate your rights, it's encompassed there as well. I do think issues of size of weapons can quantity of weapons, magnitude of weapons is something for philosophy of law.
Speaker 1 00:02:32 And, and so it's a, in that regard as specialty, I would, I, I'm not sure I would go so far as the president who said recently, the, uh, second amendment is not an absolute, right. I mean, when objectives speak of absolutes, uh, they speak of, uh, you know, no conditions that would dilute the right in any way, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here. The same thing in the first amendment, there can be conditions associated with things like, well, yeah, other than liable, slander defamation, things like that, same thing I think with the right to bear arms. But I think it's a, uh, I wouldn't call it a fundamental, right. It's a right that derives from the, uh, right to, um, uh, one's life and therefore the right to defend it. And I would say by the way, the fact that today you see a dilution of this, right, uh, that is very prominent in America today, where more and more you get in trouble by wielding a weapon, not in an, an aggressive way, but in self-defense and often you get in trouble for that. And, and I think it's part and parcel of an overall kind of dilution and attack on anything, self interested. So self, so self-defense which most Americans think of as a common sensical right. Itself as being eroded. Um, so I hope that helps.
Speaker 0 00:03:48 Great. Thanks, Richard and Steven, so great to see you here.
Speaker 2 00:03:52 Hey there,
Speaker 1 00:03:55 Jennifer, I just something quickly because it's a topical, I think the mass shooting, Steven Hicks' has head holds, um, discussions of this in the past. So look for those on Atlas as well, but I believe the, the mass shootings, uh, the pandemic of those in America, uh, in recent DEC is in part due to abrogating the second amendment. So gun free zones laws were passed first in 1995, and mostly by Republicans. Um, the, if it, it amounts to a suspension of that, right. In particular areas. And that would in my view invite, and I think gun scholars have shown this something like 95% of the mass shootings have occurred in gun free zones. So there's a practical kind of headline example of what happens when the right is suspended. That's effectively suspended in those zones.
Speaker 0 00:04:52 Great. Steven.
Speaker 2 00:04:55 All right. Hey, Hey, there, uh, just kind of an esoteric question. I just saw this, uh, this pop up here. So I thought I would just join in and ask you if it's an ask me anything. Um, I've been a long time, uh, Liber objective is adjacent. And, uh, if you remember, I Rand argued that an immortal robot could not have values. Okay. And her argument was that, um, it didn't face the prospect of death. So, um, so nothing, it did really mattered. Something like that. Yes. So, okay. But say, take your typical Christian. Who's actually sincere. They actually do believe they're immortal, but they seem to have values. So how would you square that?
Speaker 1 00:05:37 Oh, <laugh>, that's, that's very clever questions that Steven, uh, if you're saying, uh, I mean, it sounds a little, uh, logic chopping a bit to me, a little rationalistic, but I mean, I think there's no doubt about Iran's point that, um, values derive from the conditional nature of life. Okay. So let's just stipulate that now moving to the Christian view, they may think they have eternal life and immortal life. Uh, it's not true. I think by saying sincere. I think, I think what you're saying is the Christian is saying since I sincerely believe that, you know, show, show, according to Iran that I'm, I'm not a robot. Um, I think the way they get away with this is they have an intrinsic dogmatic code to live by, you know, it's called the sermon on the Mount or the 10 commandments. So, um, I, if I, if I get your question correctly, you're asking, well, why would they have values? Why would they, um, you know, act morally? I think they themselves would say, because someone gave me this preset, uh, code of values and virtues to follow.
Speaker 2 00:06:45 Right. I guess what I'm really getting at is, yeah. I mean, I understand she's using this as a fantastic example to illustrate her BA basic point, which I think is sound, but I wonder if it's actually true. And I think what she misses here in her simple example is, yeah, it's not what, it's not that you're immortal it's that you believe you're immortal because if you had an immortal robot who didn't know he was immortal, and so he thought he faced the prospect of death, then he presumably would have values. Yes. So it's really not your immortality, it's your knowledge. And like I said, I just, I actually, and I don't see why a robot couldn't have pre-programmed intrinsic values by his creator or whatever, even if he's immortal and have values like the Christian could. Um, um, I guess it's really, it comes down more to, um, um, the fact that as even Rand would say, we don't value mere survival. We, we value survival as a man, right. Or according to your right. So, so even if you're immortal, you still might be living a miserable existence cuz you're frustrated and the purpose is appropriate to your type of being right.
Speaker 1 00:07:47 Well,
Speaker 2 00:07:47 Right. Yeah. So anyway,
Speaker 1 00:07:49 Yeah. She says not just survive, thrive, uh, yeah, that, that's a good point. And the, the other thing to remember is I, I mean even a sincere Christian, I think they might say what survives is the soul in some way, even they would not admit that the body does. So if we have mind body integration, then it gets back to her point. You have, well, that is conditional. And most Christians admit that their physical body goes out of existence. Uh, but what they're thinking is eternal and immortal is the soul. So you're so, so they're bifurcated the minute they die though, this is not the concept I Rand's talking about. She's talking about the fully integrated human, but it's a good, it's a good question, Steven. Thank you.
Speaker 4 00:08:29 Could I jump in, uh, Richard for a second?
Speaker 1 00:08:31 Sure. Of, of course David David, on any of these topics, feel free, feel, feel free to jump in.
Speaker 4 00:08:38 Uh, there's another angle on this that, um, might be worth mentioning, uh, in the, in the logic of I Rand's ethics, um, the, uh, she says life or death and ethic depends on, on, um, facing an ultimate alternative. Well for secular people like Objectivists, uh, that means life or death than which there is nothing, um, more fundamental, but for Christian, uh, a true believer, the fundamental alternative is not life or death in this life. It is E uh, salvation or damnation and you can just, the same logic applies to that, uh, to be saved, you need to follow certain rules and, uh, pursue values, faith, you know, faith hope and charity. Uh, and uh, if you don't, uh, you end up in hell. Uh, so it's, um, the structure, the logic of her argument is fundamentally sound across any ethical view. It's just that, um, you know, I, we, we also have a metaphysics. It says, as you were saying, mind and body go together life. Uh, there's no right after death, the super program, et cetera.
Speaker 1 00:09:58 I've always, yeah, go ahead,
Speaker 2 00:10:00 David. I just wanted to, Hey David, nice to hear you, by the way. Um, uh, just to be literal, do you think she was right then? Like if you actually had a robot who was intelligent and believed he was immortal, do you think he really could not have values? Like not that it matters too much, but do you think that's actually accurate?
Speaker 4 00:10:18 Well, it's kind of ambiguous because, uh, mortality means two things. It means you can die, uh, and that you will die. So, uh, that is you have a finite that lifespan, so you're going to die, but, um, along the way you can now, um, if, if the robot is indestructible, um, then I don't think anything can matter to it. Um, you can, I, but it's kind of a sensible example anyway. I'm not sure this was the best example for her to use because robots, they don't have consciousness there. Yeah. They only have the goals that are programmed into them. So we come back to human beings in the end.
Speaker 1 00:11:06 Um, the other thing I've, I I've noticed on this topic is a more common objection to her example of her. The approach is, well, you don't, it's not life or death in the sense of you, you know, tip over tomorrow. If you're a drunkard, you know, it takes time, takes a long time. You can live a long time, you know, in a, in a vice <laugh> ridden life. True enough, but that's the nature of human life as well. It has this longevity to it and you, yes, you don't immediately expire, uh, due to one vice, unless it's a really bad one murder or something. Anyway. Thanks Steven. Thanks, David.
Speaker 0 00:11:44 Robert welcome. Do you have a question for,
Speaker 5 00:11:50 Uh, yes. Um, I I'd like to ask Richard, um, his assessment of a certain proposition, uh, while keeping in mind something John gold said, he said, quote, your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind. And the proposition that it like your opinion of is the following. Using the mind to choose action harmful to yourself is the product of the mind holding the false epistemological premise that man's mind is not his basic means of survival.
Speaker 1 00:12:37 Um, the broadness of the way you conceived of the last one. So, so repeat that again, using the mind in, so a person is choosing destructive path, you're saying, and you're wondering what the premise might be.
Speaker 5 00:12:49 Uh, yes,
Speaker 1 00:12:51 I would think the premise would be not. Um, I'm destroying myself cuz I don't think reason is valid the way you put it. At least they're using reason to undermine themselves. I mean the underlying premises would be that you have either disvalue or no values. Um, so I'm thinking of the suicidal person who is not so much terminally ill, but depressed and has psychological problems associated with that. They don't have a value system, they don't have desires or emotions. You know, we think of these very kind of robotic people who come to the end of their tether, so to speak. But, um, premises also that are malevolent. I I'm not a psychologist, but I would also think that the proposition you're talking about would be valid if someone said, um, you know, my values are not achievable. Uh, so malevolence toward whether values are, are achievable one.
Speaker 1 00:13:48 And also whether you're efficacious, even if you had values, if you didn't think you could achieve them, or if you didn't think you were worthy, that's a moral assessment of yourself. I'm unworthy of pursuing these values. And then also you can have malevolence toward other people. I mean, to the extent we live in a society where achievement of your values does require some cooperation with others, a truly, you know, malevolent view, an antagonistic view, a paranoia view toward others, uh, would also, um, would be the kind of premises that would be self-destructive I would think, uh, David, you want to jump in here? I mean, she did say that these are, you know, character actions, desires, emotions, yes. The products of your premises and she, she was famous for saying check your premises. But, um, the basic premises that would cause self-destructive behavior or attitude.
Speaker 4 00:14:43 Well, I think there are many of them, uh, including the ones you mentioned there's uh, short term, uh, focus on short term values, pleasures, uh, versus the long term consequences. Um, there is, uh, people who value, uh, uh, fame and uh, like Peter Keating or power, like, you know, one in, in the mountain head, um, when they, when they have those, the pre underlying premises in matter of fact that they go wrong and, um, defeat their defeat themselves, uh, in, in many there's so many ways of going wrong. <laugh> um, that it, uh, again, I'm, I'm, I'm not a psychologist either, so I, I wouldn't dream of trying catalog them, but, um, I think usually there's some substantive premise that, I mean, this is what psychologist are for therapist. Anyway, what are the premises that are leading self behavior? You knows, in some cases I think it like, as Robert was saying, um, it, it can be distrust of your own reason or failing to, to, you know, use reason adequately. Ultimately that's probably at some level involved in anything. But, um,
Speaker 1 00:16:10 Yeah. So if this basic means of survival, if this faculty, you know, is either not trust your own faculty, if it's either not trusted or you don't quite know how to use it, you know, you don't know the laws of logic or, or, or worse. I think today, the idea that people think that the, the mind shouldn't be operative. And so people resort to whatever their feelings are. And well, if I can't persuade others, then I'll resort to violence or, or the crudity of what we see in social affairs these days. But that would certainly be self-destructive, but it's because of what Robert's saying, it's this abandonment of the faculty, so to speak or the inability to cultivate properly. I do. I do think that's relevant too.
Speaker 4 00:16:55 Yeah, me too.
Speaker 5 00:16:56 Well, among, among the premises of the people that you're talking about, uh, is one of them, the mind is his basic means of survival or his mind is not his basic means of survival or is that not included in his premises at all?
Speaker 1 00:17:16 I wonder, Dave, I don't know what your viewed is on this David that, but I wonder actually how many people hold that premise explicitly?
Speaker 5 00:17:24 Well, I could mean implicitly or explicitly.
Speaker 1 00:17:28 Right. But well, well, but okay. Yeah. Implicitly and explicitly, but also to the, uh, intensity of caring that they really truly use it. Mm-hmm <affirmative>, you know where, whereas if you, you know, maybe if you ask most people, they would say something. Yeah. I gotta use my mind sometimes, but I also, I also go by my feelings and I'm kind of buffeted by, you know, know what my friends and others say. So it's, it's, apropo like compared to an objectiveist who would, who was so used to hearing this, that my mind is crucial. I remember when I first read Iran, I, I noticed internally by introspection an elevated view of my mind. Uh, she taught me that, Hey, this is an important faculty. You need to work on this, you need to cultivate it. You need to exercise it. You need to learn things it, and so I, and I was a fairly decent person before that. I didn't feel on myself like a mindless, uh, bodily person running around. So I, I think the premise itself can make you, uh, want to cultivate your mind more. If you, once you are convinced of the importance of its efficacy, we put it that way, I think.
Speaker 0 00:18:37 Great here. Yeah.
Speaker 1 00:18:41 Thank you, Robert.
Speaker 6 00:18:44 Yes. Thanks for hosting again. I haven't, I have a couple of economics questions, uh, if I could. Um, okay. The first involves, um, the first involves the fed, um, you know, a lot of people think we should audit and then end the fed and, um, I'm kind of persuaded to that view. In other words, uh, I think just sound money, you know, we could make it without any kind of a governmental national central bank. So I'm curious about that first, uh, you know, your views on, on the fed and basically even if you wanna expand on fractional reserve banking, I'd love to hear that too. The second question related, um, there's a lot of people, as I'm sure you're aware, obviously you're aware on the libertarian, right? Who seem to believe that, uh, loose money, you know, a very low interest rate policy, uh, benefits to deep state.
Speaker 6 00:19:40 And so there's a, you know, there's some deep state people who are somehow wildly profiting from our basically zero interest rate policy that we've had for, you know, for, for as long as I can remember. I mean, uh, for a long time, but I've, I, I kind of reject that view because it seems as if, you know, if we have a deep recession, everybody, you know, loses, I mean, maybe some people obviously lose more than others, but, but, you know, so I guess if you could address that too, just the whole idea that the only reason we have loose money is that there's just some, a few elite, you know, bankers who were raking in and somehow, you know, somehow I guess they're not gonna be, you know, they're not gonna lose when the whole thing comes, crashing down.
Speaker 1 00:20:31 Yeah. Good question. I, uh, um, I've written on this. I want to dig deeper, uh, cuz I'm gonna give a fairly pro Al answer here 1990. I wrote a book called breaking the banks' central banking problems and free banking solutions. So it was roughly, uh, 30 years ago that I first made the case against central banking. You mentioned the fed in particular, that's just the us central bank, but um, there have been long stretches of history without central banks and economies did quite well. They were on the gold standard on a, on a system called free banking where the banks themselves issued currency convertible into gold. So, um, also, and from 1995 gold and Liberty. So if you go to American Institute for economic research, you can get those actually online more recently at the centenary of the fed founding, uh, in 2013. So it was founded in 1913, in 2013, I wrote a two part essay called the end of central banking.
Speaker 1 00:21:29 So you might wanna look for that. It was the objective standard. And I used the end in two ways, one, um, the end as in the purpose of central banking. And the second part, the end is I gave a plan for dismantling, uh, the federal reserve and going back to the gold standard in free banking. So you might wanna look at those, um, as to your other, as to your other questions. Um, I have learned over the years that the, uh, standard explanation for central banking is wrong and the standard explanation is markets themselves fail to provide sound money and stable banking. And therefore it was argued. Governments have to provide money and re regulation of banking, uh, basically because of less AFA fails. And that is not what the history shows at all. As I said before, free free market systems were wonderfully in the past.
Speaker 1 00:22:22 Now this gets to the issue of then why, if the central banks are not there to preserve sound money and their track record has been bad on that, or say banking or other things we hear like fighting inflation or smoothing the business cycle or, uh, being a lender of last resort during crises. The bottom line purpose I have discovered is to finance propagate government. That's it? Um, they've often been started during wars when um, financing was needed on non-tax based. So I, I would succinctly put it as the purpose of central banking is to provide a financing funding mechanism for propagate governments and by pro at governments. I mean, those who spend so much for whatever purpose, they can't possibly tax people enough to support it. And if you know anything about public finance, if government spending exceeds what the tax revenues are, the only alternative is to borrow.
Speaker 1 00:23:19 So the government borrows, which we still don't have a central bank yet it borrows, but then if it borrows too much, the central bank is used as the vehicle for buying the government debt. That's called monetization of debt. It's called what we call today, QE quantitative easing. But the policy you mentioned also are bringing interest rates down very, very low sometimes to zero, sometimes to negative. That's part of the same purpose. Namely not only do we want to help government finance itself, but as cheaply as possible. So notice none of this has anything to do with the economy. And in many ways undermines the economy by dickering around with interest rates. So, so, um, just to sum it up as central banking is improper, it's basically central planning applied to money and banking. So it's an instance of central planning and it's, uh, no part of a free market economy.
Speaker 1 00:24:11 Another thing you might wanna look at, because this sounds very idyllic when someone says, well, just dismantle the fed and what would be left as an intermediate solution. I have said at Cato journal publish this a couple years ago, you could have the central bank on a gold price rule. It's a kind of version of the gold standard that makes the fed and other central banks behave better than they do now. So it would give them some kind of, uh, yardstick or objective measurement. It's not quite the gold standard on free banking, but it's also not central banking doing whatever it wants as it's doing today. So, uh, that's called, uh, real and pseudo gold price rules. Uh, if you wanna look it up, that's uh, at the Cato journal 2020, the FRA Al fractional reserve banking, I argue in my books is perfectly legitimate along as the depositors and everyone knows. And, and, and those libertarians and Austrians and rocks and others who say that it's inherently fraudulent is wrong. It's, it's not inherently fraudulent. A fractional reserve banking is simply banking that has takes deposits and lends them. And if you don't do that, you just have a, basically a safe deposit box
Speaker 6 00:25:25 That's I guess.
Speaker 6 00:25:27 Yeah. Yeah. I guess just to, to clarify then, so it sounds like then we have inflation and lose money and, you know, artificially low interest rates, basically because the American people want something for nothing and the politicians, I mean, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but the politicians basically don't have the backbone to say, well, <laugh> American people. You can't really have something for nothing, but we're gonna try to fool you into thinking you can by basically monetizing the debt. And so I guess what, what I'm getting at is in some weird way, the recession that we're almost certainly gonna have within the next 12 months in a way that's something that we've all, all I say, all we, maybe not us in the room here, but the American people, because they, they don't wanna live within their means. At least they don't want the government to, they want the government to keep providing, you know, more money than we're I guess, sending together, you know, sending into Washington, uh, in a way this, this inflation rate of whatever, I think it's eight, 9%, whatever it's at now, this is kind of the price we're paying.
Speaker 6 00:26:39 It's kinda like maybe we're, you know, the punch bowl is, have to be, be taken away the proverbial punch bowl. And now, you know, there has to be a hangover and, and it basically, it it's, it's gonna affect all of us, not just some kind of super rich, deep state elite,
Speaker 1 00:26:55 The essence of what you said, which I totally endorse is it is the pursuit of something for nothing. Yes. When people demand that the government provide, uh, you know, 5 trillion in spending, but then there's only 3 trillion in taxing. There's a 2 trillion gap and there's only three ways to finance a government taxes, borrowing and, and money printing. And the last two are not noticeably painful to anybody. And so it, it, isn't, uh, surprising that politicians would figure out what is the least painful way we can extract money from the economy without getting, uh, thrown out of office or facing a tax revolt answer, borrow and print money. And it's it's so it's yeah,
Speaker 6 00:27:42 Wait, it's not painful until the recession is, and then,
Speaker 1 00:27:46 Well, it becomes, um, temporarily it's not painful because it takes a while for prices, you know, inflation to pick up and interest rates to rise then the, and the real, um, puzzle for most people in the last decade or so was how could they have printed so much money and issued so many bonds without interest rates going up and inflation going up? Well, of course, both of them are going up now. So you can't con the law of supply and demand. Eventually it come back to hit you. The, the question I have today is whether people realize that the higher interest rates in higher inflation are due to demanding the government spending that, um, is taxed. I don't think that's widely understood. So there's always a danger of blaming the bankers who set interest rates or the, um, you know, business people who set prices and blame them for the inflation and the higher interest rates. Thank you. That's a good questions, Clark. Thank you.
Speaker 0 00:28:40 Great. Um, I wanna also recognize that we have another senior scholar professor Steven Hicks, who's in the room and, uh, actually we haven't yet another professor Jason Hill also in the room. So, um, great to see you guys here. And Tom, uh, looks like you're new to clubhouse and, uh, welcome. Do you have a question, professor?
Speaker 7 00:29:05 Uh, thank you. And this question, uh, is more to David. Hi, David. Um, oh, by the way, the, uh, if I go back to a little bit to what, uh, Richard just said, um, I do remember reman said that it's, uh, what kind of money that is, uh, going to be fractional, whether it is demand deposit versus saving. So that's a crucial item to, to keep in mind. But now to the question that I have, um, uh, it is, um, based on yesterday's, uh, uh, discussion on open versus closed system. And, um, David, you said that, uh, two characteristics for, uh, a system is, is it complete? And the other one is, is it integrated? And if it is integrated and a closed system, then a change in, uh, one of the underlying, uh, integrated premises will change the identity of the, um, of the system. So I wonder if, um, uh, given, um, uh, our position here of an open system that perhaps you have identified, I have, I have in mind one, but, but perhaps you have, you have identified, um, something in, uh, objectiveism that may, um, cascade and, and alter a little bit of, uh, of the system.
Speaker 4 00:30:41 Oh, well, that's a thank you, Tom. That's a highly theoretical question. Um, my, my argument a against the idea that, uh, the, the philosophy of objectiveism, um, has to be closed because any change would ripple through the system and, and affect everything else is I, I think a rationalist, uh, idea, I don't think objectiveism in particular, um, is anywhere near, as brittle as that brittle. Um, because most of the points are based on induction individually on this is not a deductive system, like, uh, you putting a geometry or, um, other branches of mathematics where you change one of the axioms and everything, you know, everything, all the thes change objectiveism is a philosophy that is based on observation and induction. And every point has inductive support as long with fitting into a system that can be, you know, thought of as systematic. Um, and I don't wanna go too much in this, uh, will Thomas and I wrote a, um, have a book online logical structure, objective makes many of these points very clear, but anyway, um,
Speaker 7 00:32:06 That, that's the reason why I'm asking, uh, it's, it's so rare to, uh, to have, uh, technical discussion. And, and that's why I'm looking for this opportunity to get some clarity and especially in L O LSO that I'm trying to locate and perhaps one point, uh, that that may be something that is, uh, different, uh, from, um, I Rand's writing. And that is in one of the, the point that you made about the Cardinal values. Um, um, and that is a reason, uh, a purpose and instead of self esteem, you said self. So yes, that change of self esteem to self, um, is, does not, does that cascade into all the other areas?
Speaker 4 00:33:03 Um, I don't think so. I mean, I, I take your point. We did, uh, change that. And, uh, it's because self-esteem seemed too narrow for the kind of part value at unre said, almost nothing about the nature of Cardinal values. Um, and what you find in the logical structure book is, are mainly my, uh, analysis of what they mean and why they are so fundamental. And so I can't go into all that now, and I don't wanna take time away from Richard, but, um, in the case of self-esteem versus self, as a garden of value self-esteem is a psychological, uh, value hugely important, but underlying it, and I, uh, used to argue about this with Nathaniel, Brandon, but, um, under even, even he would say the, the idea of acting for your own life starts with a, a basic conception of self. You have to be a self before you get through self-esteem.
Speaker 4 00:34:06 And I, I think that only strengthens, um, the, uh, the system across a number of counts, for example, it makes, you know, make makes more sense of egoism self-interest because, you know, ultimately our interest has to do Withing itself. Well, what is this self? And, uh, self-esteem of course, hugely important as a psychological asset. Um, but there are many ways in which we, um, can be aware or failed to be aware, uh, can advance or fail to advance our, our, our lives as individual selves that, um, I go beyond the, this psychological crate. So I think in this case, uh, your example, I would say this strengthens the system, um, you know, I say that modestly, but, um, <laugh>, uh, the there's I just mentioned one other thing that might be an, an example of larger ripples. And I mentioned yesterday, one of the UN issue that's been not very well developed in objectiveism is the ethics families.
Speaker 4 00:35:25 And, um, one of the things about families is that they involve involuntary relationships. You don't choose your parents, you don't choose your siblings and yet, um, so you can't model all of that. Uh, all of those relationships on the model of voluntary, um, friendship, um, we can try see how far we can go with that and we have, but I'm not sure that it, that that's a full answer. So that may, um, that may have a larger, um, a larger, uh, implication on, for example, the principle of, of the trader principle, that all relationships should be a, a matter of trade, um, based on voluntary exchange of values. I, I don't wanna go too much farther because I, I don't, I, I would not give up that broader principle. Um, and, uh, but I do think families are important and to a lot of people and, uh, understanding how and why, and how to those relationships as an objective, you know, I'd like to fit that in somehow. Um,
Speaker 0 00:36:39 I'd love to get,
Speaker 1 00:36:40 Yeah, David or David, let me just add quickly that the, the, the, the distinction Tom made between is it complete and is it integrated? And then the idea is if you kick out any of the bricks and the integration, does it collapse things like not well developed? I agree with you on the family, that is an issue of incompleteness, right? And I, I have, unless I'm getting it wrong, I have interpreted most of what you've argued on open versus closed as the real issue is extension. In other words, the completeness part, not, I have found some brick in the foundation, which needs to be yanked out and the whole thing crumbles. And, and I, I agree with you. I don't think that's true when you go for, when you do reason, purpose and self. I, I agree with you. That's a, I noticed the same thing in LSO. I thought that was a strengthening of the foundation, not a changing of it, but even your principle on benevolence, you're not saying, you know, we need to substitute benevolence and take out justice, you know, and put in benevolence, it's a it's, it was in addition to right. And that, that is not challenging the structure of it, but extending it, making it more consistent. I feel the same way that you're not rejecting the trader principle. You're saying, Hey, it also applies to family or should. So, yeah, that's just my 2 cents word.
Speaker 0 00:37:57 Thank you. Uh, Jason Hill in, I know he's thought a lot about this as well. It's great to see you, Jason, did you have some reflections on what's just been shared?
Speaker 8 00:38:07 Uh, I, I do, but I wanted to ask another question, um, of, of Richard, um, which is a more academic question since I'm an academic philosopher, who's taught iron Rand for 25 years in the university. Yeah. Um, so Richard, I, I wanted to ask you this question. So I've been teaching Rand since I was a graduate student and, and much of the chagrin of my then 25 years ago, 30 years ago. Um, superiors and no, as a full professor, I still teach her. And one of the, one, one of the, one of the, as a scholar, no, of, of ideas. One of the, uh, annoyances I have with brand is the ease with which, um, she has dismissed philosophers and have quite often misinterpreted important figures in history of philosophy. I mean, calling Emmanuel K the most evil man in history or the most evil philosophers is, is, seems quite ridiculous to me.
Speaker 8 00:39:09 Um, for many reasons it, it, it implies intentionality. Yeah. And I'm not sure that Emmanuel can't intend to inflict evil on the world. Yeah. Her, her dismissal of, of, of her charact characterization of Plato is who's one of the, probably the greatest philosopher in the world, aside from Aristotle. Yeah. Um, there's a, there's a toss up there is, is ludicrous. Yeah. And, um, and her refusal to also acknowledge the extent to which, and I think iron Rand is quite original, but that they're also, I mean, I've read the extent literature on, on, on, uh, on lock, on, on mill and, um, much of what there are four runners to the thought of iron Rand that existed in lock, um, existed in John Stewart mill. And, um, it's, she wasn't a scholar. She was, you know, she was the creator of, of, of a philosoph system. But I wonder if you could say something about her reluctance to, um, to admit to the extent to which, um, she need not have said that she was influenced by these people, but the extent to which remnants of her ideas were to have been found already existing in previous philosophers, I'm not sure that would've made a difference to how well she might have been accepted in the academy, cuz I think the academics were just out to get her from the get go.
Speaker 8 00:40:38 But, um, it might have made a difference to how other independent scholars might have taken her seriously. Uh, if you could just, if you had thoughts on that,
Speaker 1 00:40:50 I do have thoughts on that cuz I've, I've taught her as well and gotten reactions, uh, good and bad to her as well. I've noticed the same thing. I interpreted it this way. First of all, the bulk of her early career was as a novelist, not as a philosopher. And she herself tells us that she, you know, thought about and read about philosophy more later than earlier versus the scholars we see today, Jason, that from, you know, age 24, that's all, they're doing 0.1 0.2. I think she was so original that her method was not let me read a shelf full of books and then think what I think. I, I, and I think that meant that she wasn't always clear about, well who said what before I said it and you know, it's over the top now, but you know that the standard view today is you, you open up any academic book.
Speaker 1 00:41:44 I hate this on the acknowledgements page. There's, you know, 75 people that are thanked for <laugh> for helping the author, uh, get this 200 page book done. Or the other thing they do is, uh, the literature review, right? You cannot get through grad school, you cannot get through any journal article without, uh, the literature review. And those who don't know what that means is you have to survey what everyone else ever said on the topic before you open your mouth and say your own thing. So she certainly did not do that. Uh, on the other hand, uh, the peak off and others have said they know what her library looked like and what she read. And the margin Alia book is very interesting because you see her reading human action and making margin comments and other things she read, she had the works of Aristotle in her library and stuff.
Speaker 1 00:42:29 But, but I agree with you. I think when you read, especially the introduction in, uh, the new intellectual, that kind of survey, that kind of very superficial survey of the history of philosophy. I think that thumbnail sketches of things like logical positivism and other things are accurate, but to a scholarly ear they're seen as very superficial and very juvenile. And, uh, but I, and I, I chalk up this somewhat to, yes, she wasn't a scholar and, and, and a teacher, she used to say, I'm not a very good teacher at all. And she used to say P ops a great teacher. So she's, she's an originator. And I think just by the nature of it, the originators are not all that consumed with consuming. Everything said prior to them, and as a result, they're gonna make some sweeping comments about, you know, nobody has, you know, really recognized X and such until I did.
Speaker 1 00:43:22 I think there is a bit of that in her. I will say something about, I, uh, I know she's sometimes compared with NTIA, I wanna say something about NCHE separately. Sometimes she's dismissed in academia. Jason, you know, they'll say that she's being one, a novelist and to no rigorous, you know, treat us on this or that. Although the introduction to objective is epistemology is technical. I think at the level we're talking about, but it's not, it's not an impediment in nature being taught Anitha himself is known as being an aphoristic, uh, philosopher, you know, or writer. And there are NCHE courses all over the place in academia. So I, I will often bring up NCHE as an example of, well, if NCHE can be taught and he doesn't have rigorous, uh, you know, treatises on things. Um, and she's better than that. She's got much more philosophy than he does. Um, but I've noticed that. And if you're asking, do I think that's one of the reasons she's not accepted in academic philosophy? I think that is one of the reasons, and I'm not saying they're all honest when these people are rejecting her it's, but it's easy to go there and say, look how sloppy she is on, you know, summarizing cont or this or that. Um, um, so I don't know if that helps.
Speaker 8 00:44:36 It does. Thank you so much, Richard. Thank you,
Speaker 0 00:44:40 David, did you, uh, wanna share any reflections on that or otherwise I'll go to Roger, so good to see you
Speaker 4 00:44:49 Just a quick, I wanna, I want to, um, get to Roger, but, um, I'll just, I, I agree with, uh, the observations of both Jason and, uh, Richard and from my time in academic life, um, I, I have seen the same thing. I'd just say, uh, that having lived in the academic world and being in intellectual for, um, my entire working life, someone once said that, um, gave one of these, you know, uh, people are either a, a or B and, uh, which most of which are, uh, oversimplified, but someone once said that scholars are either fountain heads or sisters fountain heads who create new knowledge and sisters who collect knowledge. Yeah. And that always resonated with me. Um, I think I ran was a fountain head. Um, not a sister. They're both valuable, but if the sisters are, you know, yeah. They're the multi page literature reviews that I've seen. Um, always, always make me laugh because you, yeah.
Speaker 1 00:46:01 Yeah.
Speaker 4 00:46:02 Most of that stuff is, is wound resting anyway. So that's all I
Speaker 1 00:46:07 Remember. She just move on. Remember she also said, David, you know, many people just start their theories with, well, what did the last, uh, ethicist ethicist say? And I'll start from there. So that that's like a glimpse of what she thought of, you know, how much do you really have to delve into the history? I I've also, this might help Jason. I've also said to people, students sometimes I'll say, you know, she wasn't the first atheist and she wasn't the first one to try to rec uh, defend reason there's arisal right. Or individualism or rights or free markets, or even romantic art. But, you know, you can get an atheist who ends up being a Marxist, right. And you can get someone for reason and they don't quite get induction correctly. I think what's unique about her is she's got all these things in one system fully integrated and mutually reinforcing. That's rare that has, that's not been done, but you, but, but when they pick her off by saying, Hey, she's not the first one to come up with as that's true. And she's not the first one to defend individual. That that's true. But when you put the whole thing together and tell these people well, yeah, but she has the whole package and saw it all together. What do you think of that? Um, that's sometimes an approach I'd take.
Speaker 0 00:47:22 All right, Roger. So good to see you. My friend been a while. Likewise,
Speaker 4 00:47:27 Likewise.
Speaker 3 00:47:28 Uh,
Speaker 9 00:47:28 I hope you guys enjoyed it. Uh, freedom Fest and, uh, I see that, uh, Y the Y revolution conference is next for you. So, uh, I hope, uh, hope you have fun there too.
Speaker 0 00:47:39 Will you be there?
Speaker 9 00:47:41 Um, I, uh, I might, I like my travel schedule has been, uh, impeded by family life. So I may not be able to, but I do have a question for Richard here and, uh, I'll back sham you on, on the travel stuff. Um, but Richard, what do you think the best way to introduce people to Rand is I've experimented with here, start with a small novel, and, you know, I'll, I'll give 'em a copy of Anthem, uh, and, and, and see if they could, uh, start with something small to chew on. Then I've, uh, experimented with not giving a novel at all. And, uh, you know, moving right into, uh, uh, philosophy. And I, I don't know if I figured out the best way in conversation, it works better where, you know, I I've run into people that are critical of Rand that don't even really, they, they, they acknowledge that they've never really read any of her work, but they're critical because of what they've heard of her, which is always a big red flag when anybody does that.
Speaker 9 00:48:43 Uh, and, and so my opening when I'm talking to people is I tell people, well, do you believe that happiness is important? And, and then if they acknowledge that because you have to be very narcissistic to not, uh, think that happiness is an important thing. Uh, and then I talk about, uh, you know, uh, the emphasis, she places on, uh, happiness. And, and I explain that no, no place other than Aristotle, can you go to really learn the importance of why being happy is such an important virtue, but I, I'm curious from your perspective, if you are taking somebody, maybe not critical, cuz I don't, I, I don't know if I have the patience to bring critics into the fold, but for people that are open minded, what would be the, what, where would you point them to, uh, to get their, uh, you know, to, to, to get them interested in Rand in the beginning,
Speaker 0 00:49:38 Richard,
Speaker 1 00:49:42 Can you hear me? Can you hear me? My, my criteria has been, uh, look at the age, the intelligence and the interest of the person who's asking or you're thinking of approaching. So, so a 17 year old who's like adult and not very intelligent, uh, is different than say a 25 year old who's intelligent and, and suppose their interest is capitalism. Um, she has such a body of work that is pretty easy, quickly to gauge the interest of the person you're talking about. I would never start with just like one book and say whoever they are at whatever age, whatever intelligence, you know, read Anthem, I would gauge, as I said, their age, their intelligence and their interest and go from there. And, um, and there's a number of books, you and stuff you could give them. Now, if they do the critical thing, the way I handled the critical thing is they'll say something like, well, what, what have you heard?
Speaker 1 00:50:30 And they might say something like, well, she thought you could, uh, do whatever you want. Uh, and, and, and, and then you would say, well, you really, really need to read the virtue of selfishness because there, she argues that it's rational, legalism, not, uh, hedonism say, or if they heard that well, no, she's, uh, she's an anarchist who believes in less fair, then you'd point them to capitalism the unknown ideal. So my, my method is not to start with a book that I have in mind that these people must read, but it doesn't take long to gauge their age, their intelligence and their interest. And then it's our job to just name one thing they should start with. Uh, that's how I would do it. And of course the obvious one is if they're interested in a good story, you go with the novels. So that's been my approach. It's, it's worked over the years. My, my weakness is I tend not to, uh, approach people and proselytize. I kind of wait for them to come to me and ask, and then I'm guide them. So that's, I think that's the best way to do it. Roger. Start with their values.
Speaker 10 00:51:29 I love it. Thank you.
Speaker 1 00:51:31 You're welcome, Roger. Thank
Speaker 0 00:51:33 Scott. You've been awfully, uh, quiet. Um, I'm sure you taking it all in. I dunno if you have any reflections or a question for Richard.
Speaker 10 00:51:43 Yeah. I mean, I great topic. Uh, some of the stuff was touched on even by Tom a little bit, just somewhat along those lines. I just, um, you know what you were just saying when bringing people in, let's say they're, you know, religious, I mean, do you just try to, you know, start with the idea of just something you can agree on, like economics, or do you think it's important to say, oh, you, you know, you have to, uh, disregard your, your religious beliefs to be an objectiveist.
Speaker 1 00:52:17 No, that's a good one. That's a good one, Scott. And, you know, by, uh, tabling by now, these are the questions we get when the students come by or anybody comes by at these conferences, no, on something like religion, I look for a bridge. So I'll say someone will say something like the student will come up and they'll say, I, I really love iron Rand. I've heard some great stuff about her. I'm a capitalist. I love America constitution, but, but I'm religious. And, uh, how do I take this? My approach has been something like, you know, iron Rand thought religion was important <laugh>, which is a very generic answer, but, and they would look at me like what? And I would say, you know, she called it a primitive form of philosophy and she was a big advocate of having a philosophy of life. And she says, religion does offer a kind of view of existence and a code of values and sometimes even political advice, but she thought it should be enlightened philosophy. And that's the problem. We shouldn't be living in a modern world, relying on a medieval approach to ethics. So it's a, it's a way to bridge it. And, and, and instead of being what she called a militant atheist, um, you go with, um, the reason this person might be religious and yet also be edging toward iron Rand. So the bridge there to me is, we're both, we're both apparently philosophical to some extent. Now let's see if we can get a rational, scientific ethic and rejecting these ideas that without God, you know, anything.
Speaker 1 00:53:44 Um, so that, that would be an approach in reli. No, I wouldn't bring economics when it comes to religion, I would go straight. If that was their objection, or if that was their uncomfortableness, I would go right at that, but not in an, in an antagonistic way. Um, there's plenty of stuff she has said about religion, which is very interesting. And not that combative, that's a way to, to bridge it. Great stuff. Thank you. You're welcome.
Speaker 0 00:54:10 All right, well, we've got, uh, about six more minutes so that if there's anybody in the audience that has been lurking and, uh, would like to ask a question now, is the time raise your hand and we will bring you up on stage.
Speaker 1 00:54:27 Well, yeah, we especially welcome those who are lurking like that. <laugh>, <laugh>
Speaker 0 00:54:39 Great. Otherwise I'll, I'll grab, uh, another question from, um, from our Instagram pantry. And one of those, uh, Richard was asking whether or not iron Rand was, um, more similar in terms of her beliefs to, uh, classical liberalism or libertarianism.
Speaker 1 00:54:59 Ah, that's a good question. Libertarianism is I think a more recent term and classical liberalism with retrospect was usually assigned to those in the 17th and 18th century. And the distinction there was liberals took the word liberalism, I don't know, starting, I think in the early 20th century. So looking in retrospect, people had to go back and say, no, I mean, classical, liberal, not liberal in the sense of status today, but I would put it this way to the extent, uh, and this is disputable, but to the extent libertarianism today is associated and in by today, I mean the last 50 years or so is associated with subjectivism and E eclecticism, namely, you know, any foundations we'll do any kind of ethic we'll do as long as you're for Liberty, but then also an anarchy on all those levels. She was a big critic. So, um, and of course she went out of her way to say, I'm not a libertarian, I don't know whether she's ever actually used the word classical liberal or was asked that way.
Speaker 1 00:56:05 But when I think of the enlightenment thinkers, the founding fathers, uh, or people like John Locke or bacon or Newton, th uh, if, if you said to her isn't that you or, and of course they were constitutionalists, right? They weren't anarchists, although some of them were anarchists, but the founding fathers were definitely of the view that government should be constitutionally limited to protecting individual rights. I think for all those reasons in including by the way, Adam Smith and others tentative early defenses of self-interest, um, we sometimes weak and inconsistent defenses, but the fact that Smith and others were even attempting to defend self-interest and, and of course the founders capturing it in the pursuit of happiness. I think for all those reasons, she is not just much closer, but she she's classical liberal in the way. And definitely not a libertarian it's it's weird today because libertarians will say we are the modern day classical liberals, but they're really not in the sense that they embrace, uh, subjectivism eclecticism and anarchism. My experience by the way, has been those libertarians who do care more about the objectivity of underlying pillars. And believe in constitutionally limited government are friendlier iron ran. There is a pattern there.
Speaker 1 00:57:37 Oh, that was a question from I, yeah.
Speaker 0 00:57:39 John, we've got two minutes. So it,
Speaker 12 00:57:44 You, I'm just wondering if we could have commentary on natural law and the interface or the interaction between the science of human nature and the philosophy of objectiveism.
Speaker 1 00:57:59 Well, I think John natural law unfortunately, has been associated with supernatural law. So the natural law theor. So the enlightenment period, uh, we're saying that basically God endow, the founders had some of this, the God endowed us with certain things, including rights. And the, and I rans view of course, is there's one there's no God endowing on the other. On the other hand, the importance of starting with what we know, namely human nature and what is human nature. And that ethics should be based on that, on the actual requirements of human life. Um, it's NA that's the true now I would put that. That is the true natural, because she's not, uh, invoking any kind of supernatural explanation. Um, so I don't think, I, I don't think we have time for much bigger answer than that, but to be, be aware of this phrase, natural law, because to an objective. Yes, it sounds good. Cause it's yeah,
Speaker 12 00:58:55 I I'm, my, my question was really biased more towards the scientific side of it and the, the interaction of science and philosophy and how objectiveism integrates with the science of human nature.
Speaker 1 00:59:10 Yeah. I would just say briefly that Iran believed that ethics could be scientific, but they, but it had to be by basing it on human nature. Um, and that the essence of human nature was the rational faculty as, as Aristotle pointed out. So I think that's all. Oh, thank you. Uh, John,
Speaker 10 00:59:30 Thank you. Uh, this was a great topic. Um, just wanted to, uh, touch briefly. We've got more great events going on, uh, next week. Uh, we're gonna be having our happy hour Tuesday at 4:00 PM Eastern on clubhouse, uh, on whether I, Rand is the best answer to woke. Uh, then at 7:00 PM that night we'll be having, uh, Rob truss on clubhouse, uh, the lessons of Sri Lanka and then, uh, Wednesday of next week, the Atlas society asks Jeremy Adams at 5:00 PM Eastern. Uh, that should be good. And then we've got, um, Richard Salzman, uh, back here on Thursday with an ask me anything just generally. That's great that you're willing to do that. And, uh, so lots of good activities and we look forward to seeing you for those.
Speaker 0 01:00:24 Thanks, Scott. And thank you, Richard. Thank you, David. Thank you, Jason. Uh, Roger also great to see you, John Clark. Uh, this was fantastic. Um, and I will see you guys next week.
Speaker 1 01:00:37 Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you all.
