Richard Salsman - Ask Me Anything - August 2022

Speaker 0 00:00:00 Thank you for joining us today. I'm Scott Schiff hosting the Atlas society, senior scholar, Richard Salzman, doing and ask me anything. Uh, Richard, thanks so much for doing this and, uh, we want these to be interactive. So please raise your hands, uh, to join us. I've got questions from Instagram users and I have a few myself. Uh, I didn't know if you wanted to start off a little bit with some comments of the day. I I'm proud to call you Facebook. So I saw a, of your posts about mansion. Do you, uh, Speaker 1 00:00:43 So the question is what, Speaker 0 00:00:45 You know, they're talking about doubling the number of IRS agents. Yeah, <laugh> Speaker 1 00:00:50 Right. Well, one of the points I made in the, uh, Facebook post was, yeah, this is, uh, a 10 year deal. Apparently you can never trust these numbers actually when they project. But the entire thing is proposed to me, something like 800 billion. So that's 80, at least 80 billion a year. But, uh, over the course of this time, uh, 80 or 85 billion is dedicated to increasing the number of IRS agents among other things. Now it actually includes a doubling, I, I don't know the actual number of agents, but a doubling is really something. And the point I made was, um, uh, that is obviously not a number necessary, you know, to go after so-called fat cats. Although even if it was that wouldn't be just to target, you know, it's to go after a mass number of people. And I've, I've often thought that, uh, a sign of a crook or wrecked fiscal system is the, is that you see enforcement go up in the face of tax avoidance and evasion tax avoidance and Sion occur because the tax burden, excessive, whatever the philosophy of people is, you know, whatever they consider fair government burdens to be, if they're evading and avoiding, avoiding is legal and evading is not, uh, it's a indicator of a problem, but the solution to that is not to get to sick more, uh, IRS pit bulls on people it's to lighten the burden. Speaker 1 00:02:17 Now, if you back into this, even today, the tax burden doesn't fully pay for the spending. One of the reasons the government borrows so much, one of the reasons it, uh, prints so much money is that those are alternatives to taxing. So, so already people vote for a level of government spending that they are not willing to pay for in taxation and politicians know this, of course, and they know that there can be tax revolts that have been in the past. So, um, that, that's just my take on that. This is, uh, obviously not the way to go. It's an unjust thing. The IRS itself only exists cuz there's an income tax, but the idea of making it more brutal and invasive and to weaponize it, everyone knows it's gonna be used selectively as well. Uh, years ago it was used to go after tea party groups. Speaker 1 00:03:07 So that is just one piece of the 800 billion. This is just, that's like one 10th of this monstrosity of mansion Schumer, bill, the tax sides. I just wanna name kind of the philosoph fiscal aspect of that, which is terrible. The, the other thing is it's partly green, new deal. I mean the green new deal was voted on and rejected a few years ago as the monstrosity it was, but this one has about a third of the spending is on green, new deal type stuff. So they're just, they're kind of doing what was done when Hillary and the early nineties tried to, to get what amounted to later to be out Obamacare and that wasn't passed, but they just did it incrementally. So I think it's a Testament to, if you have a principle in mind and you have a goal in mind as these, uh, anti capitalists do, uh, we can learn something from this because they name the principle and then they're, they're searching and looking for any opportunity to advance the ball down the field. Speaker 1 00:04:03 You know, they're not necessarily looking for a hail Mary pass into the end zone. They'd love that, but if they can't get that, they'll take 10 yards and set up the play again. So that's happening as well. Mansion is just a complete sellout. Why anyone with on the right would've thought that he'd be a reliable Democrat holding out against the craziness? Uh, he, he was basically bribed. He was, uh, bribed was something which I don't think will actually happen. He was bribed with the possibility of a natural gas pipeline out of West Virginia going into Virginia. And that requires regulatory approval. And I don't know why he believed Schumer could promise him that, but it's, it's clearly a fossil fuel type thing. And the whole point of the green new deal, the whole point of the Biden regime is to be against fossil fuel. So the whole thing is just a, a craziness and more reckless spending, uh, and, and notice amidst of recession. I mean the officially, technically in recession now, and this package not only includes still more reckless spending, but includes tax hikes on corporations. The last time I remember a president advocating tax hikes during a recession was Hoover, who did it during a, in the 1932 period and turned a recession into a depression. So that's just my take on mansion Schumer. I don't think it's been passed yet. So there's still some opportunity for people to oppose this. If you have any influence, try to oppose it. Speaker 0 00:05:30 Well, that's, uh, that was great commentary, a whole, uh, deep vein we could go down, but now I, I wanna, uh, allow for some other questions, Roger, thanks for joining us. Speaker 3 00:05:43 Hey, what's up Richard? What's up Scott? Hi, Roger. Um, so we had a room yesterday on clubhouse, uh, titled simply altruism and the room went on for 16 hours and I was really hoping that somewhere along the line, uh, some of the scholars would, uh, would awaken and join the room. Uh, so us lay folk were, uh, talking about this topic and I wanted to kind of throw out, uh, a, my position and then a question, uh, on altruism. So, uh, I, when it comes to the definition of altruism, um, I question whether it even exists because, uh, it, it, it, it's basically this idea that you're doing something selflessly for others. And, uh, I, I struggle to come up with an idea, uh, of something that you can do or that you would do that wouldn't have some benefit to yourself. And if it's, if it, if there is some benefit, then it's not selfless. Speaker 3 00:06:52 And, uh, and, and therefore, therefore it, it, it would be, uh, you know, it would negate the idea that there is altruism and I know Rand's, uh, take on it is that it's evil. And so, as we went through the conversation, we were kind of bouncing around a few different ideas. Uh, and I do have a question here, but I, I wanna throw this out there. Um, if, if altruism, egoism and utilitarianism are all under this umbrella of consequentialism, uh, which essentially is stating that, that, um, that it's the consequence that we're gonna measure to determine whether something that has, uh, you know, moral value. And then, uh, and then you have to look at, at, at a different ethical framework of deontological, uh, uh, ethics to say, if something is morally right, simply because of the behavior and not necessarily the result, I would argue that if somebody did something for someone else, because they thought it was the right thing to do, we're not measuring the outcome and it's, it, it, it still wouldn't be altruism because that would be, uh, you know, from a framework of deontological, uh, uh, uh, ethics. And so I guess my question, uh, after saying all of this is, what do you think Rand's, um, you know, uh, take of, of altruism being evil versus, uh, maybe a consensus that we arrived at after 16 hours of talking about this topic that we don't believe that ultraism exists. Um, do you, what do you think, uh, Rand would say to that? And what do you say to that? Speaker 1 00:08:28 Well, I don't wanna speak for her, but she's written volumes on this, but she did accurately convey the one, the, the view of it coined by the coiner of it, which is a ghost comp, C O Mt. E a Frenchman who a positive as Frenchman, who in 18, the early 1850s coined the term and, uh, altruism, meaning alt alter other it's literally other ism. And he was trying to counter egoism, and he was trying to come up with a secular, not a religious by the way, a secular ethic to counter egoism. So he himself conceived of it as an, as a, the opposite. I, I wouldn't say it's opposite in the sense of the NCHE and view as egoism is sacrifice others to self and comped was advocating sacrifice of self to others, but it, that is definitely what he said. And to the point where he said, uh, you know, if you serve others and get, uh, pleasure out of it, that doesn't count. Speaker 1 00:09:24 So altruism meant not only service to others, but service to others didn't mean anything to you. So it could be sure of any, this is a conent, as you can tell sure. Of any self-interest or desire, but then also a real test of it would be if you suffered from the act, then you could tell no happiness, or if it was an enemy, Christ said, turn the other cheek to the enemy. So, uh, that would be a test of it now, uh, it's true that over time, Roger, maybe what you're referring to, and maybe what came up in the room is over time, the connotation of altruism came down to benevolence charity, just being kindly toward others. But if you understand what self-sacrifice is, uh, I mean, people do engage in self-sacrifice, so you don't wanna get into the semantics here. You don't wanna just dismiss it as well. Speaker 1 00:10:10 I've never seen anyone, uh, you know, most people are benevolence, so let's just call it altruism. And let's Mer let's make the whole thing. Murky. I think terms matter this term is specifically easily anchored in the person who coined it. And I think iron Rand was right to hone in on it and denounce it as evil, evil from the standpoint at any kind of sacrifice is animalistic. It's not human. The idea of human sacrificing themselves or sacrificing others is fundamentally anti-human and, you know, a destruction of values, or at least a surrendering of values, but also destruction of values. But the idea that why not, if benevolence and charity as David Kelly and others have pointed out as perfectly rational, selfish motives should not be packaged dealed with self-sacrifice. And, uh, so that, I think that's part of it. It's it's worth distinguishing. I shouldn't have to name all the cases of self-sacrifice that the Germans sacrificing themselves to the Nazis, the Soviet sacrificing themselves. Speaker 1 00:11:10 I mean, even, even specific cases like Jim Jones cults and things like that, uh, happens all the time. Another way of looking at this would be to say, if you said, well, you know, not every, no one can be completely self-sacrificing cuz they would die in a minute. That's true. That's true. But that is one of the reasons altruism, main goal you could say, or the advocates of it is to instill guilt, uh, and to spread the concept of hypocrisy that a moral code can't be practiced consistently. And so then you have widespread guilt and widespread hypocrisy. That is no, that is, that is no way to live life. And it's certainly the source of evils as well. If you wanted to just make it in, in a physical form, suppose someone said, uh, human wellbeing benefits by food, but not by poison. And you could mix food in poison and still survive. Speaker 1 00:12:04 Well you, yes you could. And then if you said, well, but no one takes poisons straight out without food, but no, they do actually sometimes people poison others or take poison to engage in self sacrifice. So it's it's, it should be kept separate. Um, they are mixed that there's no doubt about it, but the fact that you can name a mix, I think means you can name the distinguishing feature. So I hope that's not too, too long an answer, but I think the worst kind of stuff that comes out of these kind of debates is if it's, if it's left with well, altruism just sounds like being nice to others. And even if it's self sacrificed, nobody does it all the time. So there's no problem here. I, I think that's a real problem. Speaker 0 00:12:46 Thanks Richard. Speaker 1 00:12:47 Thanks Roger. That's a good question. Speaker 0 00:12:49 Thank you. Uh, Lawrence. Speaker 4 00:12:52 Hello. Uh, so Richard, I had a question, uh, from your economic standpoint, you know, there's been talk of gas prices going down a little bit, and I know the Biden administration was quick to say it was, uh, their, uh, releasing of the strategic oil reserves that did it. And while I very much doubt that there has been a drop. So I'm curious, is this more of just the demand is starting to go down because people aren't willing to pay the high prices or if you had any sort of idea of why gas prices are starting to go down all of a sudden, Speaker 1 00:13:26 Well, that's a good question. You can never say all of a sudden why some specific thing happened, but if you resort always to the principle of supply and demand, this thing is important to recognize cuz it's not, it's not common among say non econ students. If you say, what are prices that determined by most people know it's supply and demand, but there's a counter loop. There's a feedback loop in the sense that prices themselves will determine supply and demand. And you just named one of them. Lawrence. If people see prices going up, they will conserve their, they will demand less in the economist, call it quantity, demand. It goes down, but likewise, a higher price brings more supply. So, uh, the, the running statement in economics is the cure for higher prices is higher prices name. You know what I'm saying? Namely, it brings down the demand and boosts the supply, which all else equal brings the price down. Speaker 1 00:14:19 So that's part of it. The overall reason for rising commodity prices, the more broad macro reason, not supply demand within the marketplace, but the broader one is inflation. That's why not just energy prices, but food prices, housing prices, and other prices have gone up broadly. And that, and the word inflation usually pertains to a broad rise in all prices and caused, um, by, uh, depreciation and the value of money by creating too much money. So, um, if you see prices coming down now, now it, it not only was not a Putin price hike. It wasn't a Putin price cut these or all of a sudden greed went away over the last month and the gas stations were no longer greedy, all the stupid, silly stuff that was said a month ago. Uh, if that were true, yes, you'd have to reverse all of them and come up with these, uh, goofy explanations, but higher prices do curb, uh, quantity demanded and invite quantity supply. Now the Biden administration is trying to stop and is successfully stopped as much as possible supply, but Russia and others are producing supply. Uh, I mean of oil and gas. So, uh, elsewhere in the world, of course is there's enormous motivation if there's no restrictions on producing oil and gas, as there is not in Russia and elsewhere, there's, there's a flood of oil and gas coming outta there. Notice OPEC is starting to produce more now. Yeah, cuz the price is so high. It's very profitable to produce. Speaker 4 00:15:52 Got it. Thanks. I was curious because yeah, here in Houston, I know a lot of the oil and gas companies are seeing the rise and they're trying to ramp up their production. I know a lot of the projects, at least locally here that they're think looking more 3, 4, 5 years down the line. So I was curious of the more change now and I think that's a good explanation. Thank Speaker 1 00:16:12 You. By the way, there's a parallel to this may say completely unrelated, but there's a parallel to gun control. Everyone knows that after there's a mass shooting and they start dickering with gun control that people rush out and buy guns, right? They rush out and buy guns in anticipation of having gun sales restricted and the gun controllers get the opposite of what they intended. Right? They get more guns out there, not fewer. And the same thing with these Greenies. They want to banish fossil fuels precisely to the extent they restrict it. They raise the price of these fossil fuels and it's true that people would curb their demand, but they forget that the suppliers of fossil fuels will, will wanna provide more of them. So, um, they defeat their own purpose in that regard. Speaker 0 00:16:58 Great. Thank you. Um, Iris, welcome to the stage. We also have TAs founder, David Kelly with us. Iris, go ahead. Speaker 5 00:17:07 Hi. Uh, good evening from Tel Aviv. Um, Richard, I wanted to talk to you a little bit about the gas that, uh, the gas situation and oil. Uh, we see since like the, the, the Russian Ukrainian war. We see a lot of, of countries, uh, trying to come up with alternative, uh, to, um, send gas to Europe. Uh I'm I'm from Israel. And one of the things I Don you probably, uh, heard about is the joint, uh, venture of Israel with Egypt and cut and cut through Qatar to get the gas to Europe. I, I, I wonder what your take is on, on that. Uh, we talked about it like a few weeks ago, but uh, how do you see it? Do you see those things happening? Do you see any, uh, complicated, uh, situation that will not, you know, make it happen? I just wonder, thank you so much. Speaker 1 00:18:10 Thank you, Iris. The, um, the European situation in terms of the green new deal, they, they have been per in Germany and elsewhere have been pursuing that, uh, policy mix for many years now, many decades now. And they have tried to increase the, uh, proportion of, uh, power generated by what they call renewables, what I and Alex Epstein and others called unreliables solar wind biomass. And, uh, at the end of the day, they're learning that they can't keep the lights on. They can't keep the air conditioning going. They can't keep the factories running. So, um, the, you, you brought up Russia, Ukraine instances like this highlight the problem of doing that. Um, and Europe is recoiling now with the idea of, they don't have enough oil and gas. They're, they're, they're being forced by NATO and others to repel import, you know, from Russia and elsewhere. Speaker 1 00:19:10 And, you know, push comes to shove. They just do not have the capacity to replace oil and gas with, uh, these other alternatives. So, um, you're seeing some of them starting to buckle on this, that Germany is starting to, uh, commission the reopening of certain fossil fuel plants. Um, France is a, is a case where they've relied on nuclear energy, which is smart, but as you know, the, the environmentalists are generally against nuclear energy as well. My pH, my, my theme, and for many years has been, they're trying to starve capital of the energy it needs. So if their concern is not really with emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, or climate change, cuz if that were true, they would be all for nuclear. They're not for nuclear they're they're anti-nuclear and anti fossils. So they're solely focused on and reliant on and wishing for a, what a pre-industrial energy mix. Speaker 1 00:20:03 That's what wind solar and biomass are. Those are the only energy sources we have today that still existed prior to, uh, the Renaissance. So, um, they are truly pre-modern and, uh, pre-industrial in that regard, I, I don't think this will last very long in the sense of, I, I don't think by last, I mean, I don't think Europe and others will all of a sudden come around to appreciating and fighting for fossil fuels. I think this is just a temporary thing. And when the price of fossil fuels comes down again, they'll, they'll revert to pushing green again, but it's very difficult to resist, uh, voters who see the lights go out. I, I think that's highly likely in the us soon if it isn't happening already, there are rolling blackouts and brownouts in the west. So it's when it's, when voters begin to see the actual practical, uh, results of the green new deal, that there's some political pushback, but there's no philosophical pushback or defense of fossil fuels, uh, other than a, a very small minority. Speaker 0 00:21:11 Great. Thank Speaker 5 00:21:12 You. Thank you so much for your answer. Speaker 0 00:21:15 Thank you, David. Thank you so much for joining us. Do you have a question for Richard? Speaker 6 00:21:24 I just wanted to jump into that conversation that Roger began about, um, equalism and altruism, which is, uh, an issue of philosophical ethics. I, it looks like Roger has, has left the room, so, uh, I'm not sure it's relevant and I don't want to interrupt, um, the economic, the flow of economic insight that Richard's, uh, providing. Um, let me just say, um, the issue of whether any action is truly altruistic, uh, is a thesis of what's often called psychological used everyone acts out of, um, for some something that they want. Um, but, but most philosophers, you know, not just direct, I mean, this is regarded as a non-starter as a, as an ethical view, because what it says is that every reaction is motivated. Well, yeah, that's a ology. The question is what's it motivated by? And, uh, it can be motivated by your goal of benefiting yourself or benefiting others. Speaker 6 00:22:35 That's the basic one, basic, distinct, not the most fundamental in ethics by day basic one. And, uh, you know, so the question is not, do you get something out of being altruist? Of course you do. In the sense of you have, if you're an altruist, you have a motive, you want to feel good about it. You want to do something that you think is right. We all, you know, self-esteem and, uh, sense of self worth is, um, one of our values. But the question is what, how do you define, what is your standard of self-worth? What is your standard of value and, uh, on, on that count altruism, um, Ingo, just opposing substantive views, um, you can't reduce it to, um, just this, the kind of simple, um, doctrine I fr we here, I I'm sure this must have come up in the 16 hour conversation he was describing, but I just wanna make that point. And then, um, we can get back to the, uh, to the economics stuff Speaker 1 00:23:44 Now. No, I'm glad you made that point, David, the I've often thought, I wonder, what, how would you interpret this? When I discuss a psychological egoism of people, it strikes me that that view is this true David in the philosophy department that, uh, that in effect says, takes it out of the realm of choice, but psychological legalism sounds to me like, you know, your heart pumps, regardless of whether you wanted to pump or not. And if, if so, then it isn't even a moral argument. Whereas ethical legalism says you should pursue yourself interest, but you have to choose to do so. You have to learn how to do so. And that's not really true with psychological egoism, right? So it, it strikes me as a contradiction in terms or oxymoronic in some way to hold that position, psychological egoism that we have this instinct for self preservation. Well, if so then you don't get any credit or demerit for doing it right. Is that accurate or not? Speaker 6 00:24:43 Um, I, it is accurate, uh, Richard, um, it's, uh, what we, 1, 1, 1 element of the problem is that you're defining self interest. You're defining what is in your interest. It in just, uh, terms of desire, subjective states, including, you know, your desire to feel good about yourself. Yeah. And, um, but the whole point of ethics is to help us understand, you know, what, what actually supports life, what actually is good. And to what extent should we include others in our lives? And that's why that's where the distinction between benevolence and altruism comes in. Um, so I'm glad you mentioned that, but, um, yeah, the, the, there's, there's a whole package of that assumptions, I think behind psychological conclusion, but one of them is that, well, if you say it's not an issue, um, then it's not it, then you're saying it. And the fact it's an automatic Speaker 1 00:25:51 Yeah. Uh, Speaker 6 00:25:52 Reflection. And that there's no, there's no choice involved. So that's another problem. Speaker 1 00:26:00 There's, uh, I know in the literature, the, in, on literature, on charity, on benevolence, on giving and things like that, there's a concept which doesn't sound so technical, but they actually call it the warm glow feeling. Speaker 1 00:26:12 <laugh> that people get, this is actually in social science literature, David, that they get from, uh, engaging in assume these are altruistic acts. Right. Well, even that sounds selfish. Right? What do you mean? You mean, you feel good about yourself? You feel a warm glow. Oh, I've given to the United way or something like that on a goose comped and Emanuel con's view, that's still selfish. But also the key is they're saying, well, I desire it. And as long as I have a good feeling, so feeling feelings come into the analysis, right. Who would no longer have a scientific ethic? Now we're just saying, well, everyone does whatever they desire to do as if desire is the legitimate legitimating, uh, factor, which we reject. Speaker 6 00:26:58 Exactly. Yeah. Speaker 1 00:26:59 I mean, as a kid, if you're a kid in school, you know what the right thing to do is, you know, not to shoplift, but your peers are shoplifting. You might feel an anxiety that I'm not part of the group. So you shoplift. Right. And to alleviate your anxiety, it's an unethical act, but you feel better as your part, you're still part of the gang, right. That no one would say that that's ethical. And yet, if you feel better, you feel better than if you were, uh, ostracized from the, from the gang. Anyway, thank you. Speaker 6 00:27:31 An even more extreme example, you know, sad apparently feel good in pain, out of people. Right, right. Yeah. Speaker 1 00:27:38 Right. Speaker 6 00:27:39 So anyway, uh, alright. Thanks, Richard. Speaker 1 00:27:42 Thank you, David. Helpful. Speaker 0 00:27:45 All right. Good. Well, um, I go ahead. I'm sorry. Did you have something to add? Speaker 1 00:27:51 Nope. Speaker 0 00:27:52 Okay. Well, we invite people to, uh, share the room also to raise your hands. If you want to get in on this and ask, uh, professor Salzman a question. Um, I've got a list here from Instagram. This one is, uh, kind of interesting. Why are, um, why is golden silver, less shield than cryptocurrency lately? Speaker 1 00:28:18 Why is it less? What Speaker 0 00:28:19 Shield Speaker 1 00:28:20 <laugh> what is it? Oh, you mean promoted, Speaker 0 00:28:23 Kinda sell it, you Speaker 1 00:28:24 Know? Oh, okay. So there's a negative connotation in there. I, I wouldn't know how to answer that. You know, people who sell or market these things, Bitcoin and crypto are definitely the, the new things. So they're exciting and interesting from that standpoint, people just trying to figure out what they are and what their prospects are. Of course, there's some downside Bitcoin in the cryptos of loss, something like 70% of their value, but that alone interests people from the standpoint of, well, is it a bubble, but popping now, or is it just another opportunity to buy I'm, I'm more optimistic about Bitcoin and crypto than, than that. But, um, you know, gold and silver have been around for a long time. Everybody knows their value in terms of preserving purchasing power. And I guess the only other thing I would say is their price action. And quote unquote in the last five years has been almost N actually one of the great beauties of gold and silver that they have this stable purchasing power. But if you just charted gold, silver versus not only the S and P those are equities and the cryptos, they've had a very steady value. And there's just from an investment standpoint, I suppose, there's just not as much interest in, in, uh, those two when they're not, you know, going up a thousand percent, uh, every day, every year, Speaker 0 00:29:47 There are, you know, conspiracy theorists that believe that, uh, any kind of potential inflation hedge is being, um, suppressed by central banks Speaker 1 00:29:57 To right. Yeah, yeah. Speaker 0 00:29:59 Stop them. And so, you know, I mean, it seems like neither gold nor Bitcoin has gone up as inflation has, has reared a 10, Speaker 1 00:30:10 Well, gold has gone up in the last decade. It doesn't go up or down with the S with the CPI. That's for sure. But over the long run, um, you can't get a long inflation without a big increase in the goal price. So the two tend to go over time. They can go up and down together. Um, so I just, if in, if people are interested in this, I think philosophically not marketing wise, but philosophically the most interesting debates I've seen going on in money is Bitcoin versus gold versus Fiat. I don't call it Fiat money. I call it fee Fiat tokens, the dollar, um, whether Bitcoin shares the properties of gold, uh, or not at all. And so in terms of the three types of money out there, the Fiat money is gold. And, uh, Bitcoin, there's an interesting debate because people in the Bitcoin community tend to lean libertarian, not all of them, but some of them tend to lean libertarian in terms of the philosoph case for it. And they wanna, but they wanna move beyond gold as a kind of fuddyduddy old, clunky system that no young person would dare defend anymore. Only PE only old people like me and <laugh> would defend the gold standard. So it's interesting from that standpoint, cuz there is some common talk between Bitcoin people and gold people like me, Speaker 0 00:31:31 So. Okay. That's fair, JP, welcome to the stage. Do you have a question? Speaker 7 00:31:40 Thank you, Scott. Thank you for having me. Yes. I have a question for Richard it's, uh, something that came up after a room that uh, somebody else did on altruism last night and uh, they were going on and on and, and they, they were not even really taking it from a philosophical perspective. And so I, I stopped and, and I just listened, but uh, it, it, it got me to thinking that altruism is, if, would you say that it's safe to say that altruism leads to collectivism and is it too daring to say that they're interchangeable? Speaker 1 00:32:19 Well, I wouldn't say they're interchangeable because altruism is the ethical code and collectivism is a bridge to the political, um, you know, collectivism versus individualism is the setup. And then the forms of collectivism would be, uh, stateism would be the political manifestation. And then there's various kinds of, of status regimes from fascist to communist to socialist. But um, definitely altruism BR uh, breeding collectivism, if you, if the high virtue and the noble virtue is to serve others. Well, who would those others be? Others in groups usually, or groups retain the power of saying, well, we, as a group have more power than the individual altruism basically says, the individual is nothing. The individuals is a servant of a master, right? The whole servant master set up is the servant is subor doesn't it right? So that, that alone there's many other factors here, but that alone might help you see why ultraism must necessarily lead to collectivism, which is the idea that the collective, uh, can subordinate should subordinate the individual to the group. Speaker 1 00:33:31 So that is one way of looking at it. The, the other way is looking at it is the collective, uh, collects the sacrifices. People forget that when they're self-sacrifice the other side of the ledger, if you will, is that someone's collecting the sacrifices. Iron ran. One said, how come the collectors of the sacrifices are never defined as selfishly greedily collecting the benefits that others are bestowing to them, but that's just as a hypocrisy argument against them. I, I should say also it might, it might add to the conversation we had before JP, it sounds like you're referring to the Roger RO where they went on for 16 hours about this. Yeah. Um, that ultraism is incompatible. Yeah. I shouldn't just say that it's connotation has now become benevolence charity kindliness toward others. Uh, Nathaniel brand many years ago wrote an essay called altruism versus benevolence. Very insightful essay showing that not only are they not inter shouldn't be seen as interchangeable, but that altruism makes benevolence and Goodwill among men impossible. It makes them distrust each other. It makes them expect either to eat or be eaten. And so it's incompatible with benevolence. So that makes it one that that's one of the weirdest things going on is that if, to the extent people think altruism means benevolence, what if, what if they were to learn that? No, it actually, uh, leads trust and Munce. Speaker 1 00:34:58 So I'll, I'll leave that there. Speaker 7 00:35:00 Thank you. That, that just opened my mind so much. And I wanna thank Scott and the ATLA society for, uh, recording these things, but because I have known to be, uh, replaying them to take notes. It's so much depth is, is transmitted here that I thank you for, for, for this, uh, opportunity. Speaker 1 00:35:19 Thanks, JP. Spread the work to tell people about the society. Thanks. Speaker 0 00:35:23 Glad to hear it. Yeah. Maybe, uh, some of that, uh, altruism leading to anger, uh, has a role in our, uh, polarization today, but, uh, price, thank you for joining us. Speaker 8 00:35:37 Uh, thank you. Um, actually I've got a question which to me has been, you know, I've turned around in my mind for decades. Um, it's basically like the environmental question. I mean, the, the thing, the thing that gets me is I just don't see how, to me, it seems like it's problematic, you know, what do they call it? The tragedy of the commons, right. If nobody owns it, then everybody dumps on it. But the flip side is you can never really have self-regulation. And so what comes to mind is like fracking, right? So in other words, I'm not trying to argue that there aren't issues of, um, regulatory capture or that there aren't issues of corruption within the state trying to regulate things. But the flip side is if, if I have a property up upstream or for that matter, just, um, you know, in a way that, that if I start fracking, uh, a hundred miles away and then it ends up leeching into some other person's, well, that is, uh, that a hundred miles away. What sort of, you know, how, how, how does the market deal with that without some sort of enforcement or regulatory mechanism? And is it, it seems to me that, that the downstream person's property rights and their, their ability to live is being infringed upon by the other person who's, Hey, I'm just fracking on my property. What are you talking about? Well, unfortunately, you know, we all know when it gets to the, the underground, there, there aren't any property lines that you can stop that sort of, um, damage. Speaker 1 00:37:01 Good question price. The, uh, examples you gave now, I notice in, uh, imply, uh, uh, assumed private property. So that's good. But the, the tragedy of the commons argument was that, and it is a tragedy that when property is commonly held, it's badly treated and dissipated and things like that. So that's well known that, but that's, uh, basically part of the reasons why communism fails utterly, but the examples you gave are handled, when you say, how does the market handle that capitalism, of course is not anarchy. It does have government. And one of the legitimate of the three government functions beyond defense and police is courts. And, but then the courts are not only criminal, but civil. And I think what you're talking about is civil remedies, but that's what torts are. I mean, tort a T R T a tort, not a dessert, but a, a wrong inflicted on another. Speaker 1 00:37:56 Uh, you go to court over these things. Now some of these things could be handled outside of court. Uh, if property rights are being violated, the property owners can, can deal with each other and try to accommodate each other. It's not necessary that everyone go to court, but that is the fundamentally answer to what you're asking is it's handled in civil courts. People go, uh, with evidence of a material harm. I'm using words that are lawyers will know is in the legal code. It can't just be any, a nit nitpick. It has to be material harm, demonstrable, that kind of thing. And if it isn't, then you don't have a, you don't have a settlement. I, but I would also stress that reg you mentioned regulation and regulatory capture. I'm going to be, I'm going to be doing a session. Uh, later this month on regulation, regulations are improper and at odds with the tort and commercial civil code system, because they presume guilt. Speaker 1 00:38:54 The, the regulatory agency approach of setting up, say the EPA or the FTC or the FDA, or the whole alphabet agencies when they write rules, uh, they are assuming someone will do harm and, and engaging what the Supreme court on first amendment cases has called prior restraint. And in first amendment cases, they've rejected prior restraint, uh, limits, you know, on the presumption that the New York times will libel or slander someone you can't do that. You have to wait until they libel or slander someone and then take them to court. So I say the same thing should happen in commercial realm. It has not happened for years. The regulatory state began in the thirties. And so has dis in that regard, displaced in some degree, the civil court system, but that in a pure capitalist system, the civil, uh, remedies would handle what you're talking about. Speaker 8 00:39:47 Okay. Could I ask the follow up then? So what happens if, okay, so this, this is my problem with that. That sounds good. But to me, it's the utopian scheme, because what happens when I'm the person down? What happens when I'm the person downstream? Yeah. And I Sue the guy at, you know, uh, Megacorp, fracking upstream, and then I Sue him for, let's say, oh, I don't know, 10 million, which I consider to be, you know, that you poison my groundwater, you screwed my farm over. Well, what happens when, when fracking international says, you know, something, Hey, we don't ha we're only a $1 million operation, sorry, buddy. We're out of business. And now, you know, we're back in Dubai or wherever and you can go screw yourself. Speaker 1 00:40:24 Uh, well, first of all, I would reject the idea that what I described is, is just sounds nice and is utopian because the civils court system has been going on for centuries. I mean, billions and billions and dollars of settlement have been handled in practical terms day to day through the common law and elsewhere. So it's not just some utopian dream. It happens every day. These settlements occur now in a case of what you're talking about. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you Sue someone and, and for a legitimate amount that they can't afford. Yeah. That's a pro that's obviously a problem. But then I don't think that invalidates the whole system, that seems like a, an exception to the case. And, and, and in the court systems, in the civil systems, you remind me actually that there's not just compensatory damages, but punitive. So judges and juries will look at the case and say, was this just an accident where this company spilled, uh, you know, affluent on somebody else's property or did they do it deliberately? So just as in criminal cases where they make distinctions in murder cases between first, second, third degree, based on intent and malice, a forethought in first amendment cases, that this is also true in tort cases. So that's the only answer I could give you price as to how that would be handled. I mean, if the company goes outta business, uh, that's the ultimate punishment, uh, whether it's a full remedy for the victim. Um, yeah. That's always gonna be a problem. Speaker 0 00:41:51 Good stuff. Thank you for that. Uh, John, thank you Speaker 9 00:41:55 For joining the stage. Yes. Thank you. Again, going to Price's comment. Um, the problem historically is issue of proof. That is your downstream of somebody upstream, who's dumping influence in a river, and it kills the fish that you're living off of or the shellfish or whatever it is you can't irrigate your crops. The problem in the past has been one of scientific proof, or indeed there was a time when courts did not accept expert witnesses and going back say a hundred years. And, um, so it's always been an issue of the expense of gathering the proof and the possibility of sufficient proof. And, uh, that was the opening for, and for the politicians to jump into the middle and tell the industry, the polluter, one thing I'll sell you protection. And, um, to tell the public another, oh, we'll protect you from the problem. I'll leave it at that. Speaker 1 00:43:04 Thank you, John. I would just quickly not to labor this too much, but I would just quickly say, I don't believe that is the, I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe that is the, from my history, knowing the history of the regulatory state, if you will, that that is not the origin of it. The origin is, was not, oh, the, these, uh, tort cases are so difficult to demonstrate a demonstrable harm. Therefore let's have, you know, the 1700, uh, alphabet agencies we have today. I think the regulatory state results from, uh, collect all the things that lead to the greater state overall, the welfare state included, um, altruism, collectivism issues of injustice issues of that's a monopoly company. Therefore they're inherently gonna harm me. Let's restrain them in advance. Uh, if I agree if the prob if the problem was what you mentioned that could have easily been handled in the court system, th think of all the, put it this way, compare murder cases say in 1900, versus now there's very many other complicated ways to murder people. Now that there didn't exist in 1900. Does that mean the court system can't handle murder cases? No. So complications arise. I would think it's even more, I would think today it's easier to demonstrate, but by better measurements and things like that, the harms people do to us, not the other way around. Speaker 9 00:44:33 Look, I, I agree with much of what you said. Uh, and of course there are other motivations and interactions that result in the regulatory state. Uh, but, um, speaking as an attorney, I can tell you that there's, there's no history of what was going on in the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s. When people went to an attorney and said, we wanna Sue the copper melter up river. And the said, well, yeah, everybody knows it, but I can't prove it. I can't, there's no such thing. If we've got an expert that would testify to that. Yeah. His testimony would not be allowed in the courts because that's the law at this moment in time, we don't allow expert testimony. So it has, Speaker 1 00:45:19 Yeah, they Speaker 9 00:45:20 There's, there's a history of the law involved also. Yeah. And then you also had the legislators getting involved for instance, when they wanted to regulate the railroads just bought off the politicians and Speaker 1 00:45:34 They created Speaker 9 00:45:34 The interstate commerce commission in order to get away from state court judgements. Speaker 1 00:45:40 So I think the taking a capital in a, a capitalist court, the fact that you're naming things like expert testimony, which does exist now, maybe it didn't fully exist or wasn't fully allowed previously, but it should have been, I mean, obviously expert testimony, as things get complicated as measurements get difficult, you have expert testimony in murder cases, um, you know, blood specialists and things like that. And, and also here's another one class action suits. I mean, the idea that, well, the singular individual cannot stand up against Exxon and no, there are class action suits if Exxon has, uh, in some way or harmed a, a broad swath of people, we have, uh, class action suits. So I'm, I'm not against class action suits, if that increases the, uh, opportunity for those wronged, uh, to get remedies Speaker 9 00:46:25 Class action. Speaker 0 00:46:26 John, I do wanna get, uh, for Sean in here a little bit, Speaker 9 00:46:29 Excuse me, a class actions are recent innovation. They're they're okay. They didn't exist. Speaker 1 00:46:35 They're consistent with Cal. Yeah. I'm just saying expert testimony, class action suits are right. You know, the question is, are these compatible with capitalism in handling Tor? I would say yes, they Speaker 9 00:46:46 Are. Of course. Agreed. Speaker 1 00:46:47 Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, John. Speaker 0 00:46:50 Great. Thank you. Uh, Shaun, thanks for joining us. Do you have a question for Richard or you have to unmute with, uh, the bottom right. Uh, microphone button, um, while we're, while PR is figuring that out. Uh, we have a question from an I about, uh, why is everyone so worried about, uh, global supply chain issues? Speaker 1 00:47:19 Well, uh, because they've been ruptured to, uh, a serious degree in places, uh, one of the things, uh, for those who don't know, global supply chain is simply the idea that just because something is manufactured say in India, if it's to be delivered to a home in, uh, lo JOA, there's a long chain of distribution from the factory to the recipient, and that's called the supply chain. And I think one of the, and, and it was largely disrupted by the, I wouldn't say by the Wuhan virus itself, but by the maniacal policy response to the Wuhan virus, which was shutting down whole economies, sending people home and writing them checks. So, um, but one of the good things that came out of this, I think is a recognition that there is such a thing <laugh> as a, as a global supply chain. I mean, people tend to think, uh, packages show up at their front porch and, you know, we're produced three days earlier, somewhere in the neighborhood. Speaker 1 00:48:23 Uh, the capitalist system, globalization generally is a intricate, complicated interacting system, um, Mon uh, coordinated by the price system and the profit motive, thankfully to things that people hate or intellectuals at least hate. And, uh, the more advanced that becomes the longer the chains are, we're not living literally hand to mouth. You like a cave dweller hand to mouth literally means I pick the berries off the fruit and put it in my mouth. When you get an advanced system like this, you get the banana you ate today was, you know, transported halfway across the world. How, how, and still affordable and still fresh and all that. It's amazing. And it's easily disrupt. It's easily disrupted by stupid political policies. And then people literally can't get baby formula or they can't get this or that. And they're shocked, shocked to find, you know, how come I can't get this anymore? Speaker 1 00:49:16 Is it due to capitalism? No, it's due to, to wrecking the supply chain. So the other thing I notice in, especially in energy going the other way denying, or, or invading the supply chain is these politicians who say, oh, oh, we have a shortage of coal now. So let's, uh, let's agree to open up this coal plant for six months, you know, and, and then we'll close it again. And then, uh, we'll open up the spigots in the Saudi Arabia and, and then we'll close them. They're they're. So in this central mode, they were so in the central planning mode of just being able to, with their whim saying, produce this or not, and give it to me in six months, they have, in that case, they have no idea about how long it takes to get the supply chains going and to get production going. Speaker 0 00:50:05 I mean, isn't that the real danger that they seem to be driven by this carbon is so evil. We're just gonna turn it on, on like a need to basis. And they're, they're looking for ways not to have to. Speaker 1 00:50:19 Yes. I mean, they're, apart from Wuhan, uh, breaking up, breaking and disrupting the supply chains there, the whole assault, the whole war on fossil fuels is an ongoing, constant assault on supply chains since energy supplies, every other sector. So, um, so it isn't just, you know, pandemic related that there's an underlying problem going on because of the assault on, uh, fossil fuels. But, you know, it's so complicated. People don't even think of this. There is you wouldn't think of supply chains in finance, there's massive supply chain disruption in finance because the federal reserve manipulates interest rates. Now, no one thinks of it that way, cuz they don't think of packages coming to their front door from Amazon. But the same thing is happening. I've noticed in finance finance, the, the wheels of finance are not moving as efficiently because governments are borrowing taxing and printing money and manipulating interest rates in ways that just isn't normal for a free functioning system. So the supply now this case, not of tangible goods, but of credit and lending and things like that is being disrupted all the time now. So it, it, isn't just in the tangible sectors. It's also in these less tangible ones, uh, like finance. Speaker 6 00:51:52 Can I just jump in for a second? Richard, can, can you guys hear me? Sure. Speaker 1 00:51:55 Yeah. Speaker 6 00:51:56 Um, the whole discussion about supply chains reminds me of, uh, that wonderful essay I pencil. Yeah. I know, you know, Richard that was written in the forties. Yeah. Um, even then there's no human being who could produce a pencil from scratch. Speaker 1 00:52:14 Yeah. You Speaker 6 00:52:15 Know, the, the elements, uh, of even such a simple thing came from all over the world. So anyway, just a reminder that this is, you know, supply chains are not a new phenomenon. Speaker 1 00:52:32 Right? Thank you. Speaker 0 00:52:34 Um, I have one from in nurse, she asks is the dollar going to lose its reserve currency status? Speaker 1 00:52:42 Uh, yes. And it already has eroded to some degree. Now this is somewhat a technical term, but the fastest way to explain it is if a currency has a reserve currency status globally, what that means is that it is so relatively trusted and believed in, in terms of its purchasing power that other central banks hold the currency themselves, as they issue their own currencies. In other words, they have reserves. That's why it's called a reserve currency. They themselves have reserves. It could be gold, it could be other currencies. And for the most part, they want to hold reserves that are reliable. So, um, the dollar does have that role and the way to measure it is you can measure, you could pull up all the central banks and ask 'em what they're holding. And today 60% of reserves are held in dollars. Now it used to be 90%. Speaker 1 00:53:46 So that's what I mean about erosion over time, that's been going down because the dollar is less and less trusted. It's being replaced by other currencies like the Euro and other things. But just to give you some historical perspective here at, at world war I 19 before world war I, 1913 or so, the reserve currency of the world was the British pound, not the dollar, the British, uh, had a reliable currency and therefore other central banks held it. And the dollar was rising in its reputation because the us was growing as an economy. And when Britain went into socialism and wars and things like that, they lost the pound, lost its reserve status and the dollar replacement. So this can happen over time. It takes a long time for it to happen, but that's how the dollar displaced the British pound. And when that happened, the British pound lost value. Speaker 1 00:54:43 It devalued many times the British empire shrunk, the um, uh, economic vitality of Britain went away. So it's all of a piece and that is what the us is going through. Now. It it's going through what Britain did, uh, a hundred and a hundred years ago. And, and what it will be replaced with hard to say. I mean, it could be China's currency. It could be Russia just went on the gold standard. So it could be the Rubal. Um, but what it ultimately means is, uh, you have a much higher chance of getting higher inflation. If you don't have reserve currency, cuz another cuz the reserve currency means other central banks are holding and demanding wanting your currency. And that elevates the value of your currency. All else equal. You print a lot of it, but it doesn't lose value cuz others are holding it. Speaker 1 00:55:34 So it's a supply demand thing, right? But now what suppose that goes away, suppose people say we don't wanna hold dollars. We don't trust dollars. Now the cascade of money printing is, is really problematic cuz there's less demand to hold dollars if there's less demand for dollars, but more supply of dollars, the value of dollars will go down, which is another way of saying the value of money will go down, which is another way of saying prices will go up, which is another way of saying inflation will go higher. So that the question's a good one. It's somewhat of a technical one, but it is relevant to whether the us can continue to print money seemingly without limit meaning without substantially higher price inflation. Speaker 0 00:56:17 My other Bitcoin, go ahead. What about Bitcoin? Do you Speaker 8 00:56:23 Believe that could be, I mean I'm a coiner, so obviously I'm biased, but my personal belief is that that's a social innovation that Satoshi came up with and that Bitcoin has a good chance of becoming the world reserve currency. Speaker 1 00:56:36 Yeah. Well it, it might, that would take a, I think that would take a long time, but it's possible. But remember that just as gold became that, uh, if it's in the financial, if it's in the political interest of governments to ban a viable money, a truly viable money, and I'm just gonna assume that Bitcoin might become that they can ban it. They ban gold. I mean you can own gold, but they band it as a reserve. So, um, it comes down to politics. Ultimately Bitcoin and gold themselves gold is certainly demonstrated its capacity to be a legitimate money. There's no question there Bitcoin's only 13 years old. It's not 1300 years old, but that, that I think is the main risk with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is, is algorithmically beautiful and really well designed. I'm a big fan of it in that regard, but I'm not naive to know that to the extent it became worthy. That's precisely why governments don't want it around or they'll, co-op it by issuing their own digital currencies they're they don't want a competing money that is legitimate, uh, at least in today's context of state of growing stateism. So, so I agree with you on the technicals of Bitcoin, but it, it runs a political risk of being banned or restricted at some point. Speaker 0 00:58:00 Yeah. I got worried when I saw they were coming out with a central bank, uh, cryptocurrency it's like once they have their own they're, you know, they may not want competition. Speaker 1 00:58:11 Yeah. Speaker 0 00:58:12 Um, well this has been a really good session, Richard. We appreciate it. Um, you are going to be in Orlando this weekend today through Saturday, uh, you and uh, Atlas society, CEO, Jennifer Grossman at Y L's Liberty revolution at the Gaylor palms in Orlando. Uh, you'll be defending the morality of capitalism. Hopefully we'll get some video clips too. Speaker 1 00:58:36 Great. I'll see you there. I'm heading down there now. Yes. 10:00 AM tomorrow morning. I speak on the, uh, the morality of capitalism before the group at young Americans for Liberty. So I'm looking forward to that'll be great. Speaker 0 00:58:49 Good, good. And then next week, Tuesday at 4:00 PM on clubhouse Lawrence and I will be back for a happy hour on, should you eat the bugs or whatever? The next big thing is by then. And uh, Tuesday at 7:00 PM Eastern R Tru Zinsky will be on clubhouse, discussing objectiveism and futurism, uh, very, uh, topic. That's probably gonna be coming up for a while. So, uh, thanks again to everyone who joined us and participated, especially professor Salzman and, uh, we will see everyone next week. Speaker 1 00:59:23 Thank you, Scott. Thank David. Thank Speaker 0 00:59:25 You. Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Bye-bye. Speaker 8 00:59:27 Thank you. Thank you. Bye everyone.