Speaker 1: Fundamental principles out of reedom, rational self interest, and individual rocks.
Speaker 1: This is the Uran Brook Show. Oh right, everybody walk
Speaker 1: up here on Brook Show and this, uh, what is it?
Speaker 2: It's Friday, Friday, No River fourth and you can see
Speaker 2: stolen the road.
Speaker 1: I am now in Denver, Colorado.
Speaker 2: I'm looking out the window here and there's construction right
Speaker 2: in front of my face. But if I can look
Speaker 2: just beyond the construction, there's downtown Denver on my right
Speaker 2: and the amazing, beautiful Rocky mountains right in front of me.
Speaker 1: So a beautiful site. Anyway.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Denver, when the sun is shining as it is
Speaker 2: today and the sky is blue as it is today,
Speaker 2: is a is a pretty special place, a pretty beautiful place.
Speaker 2: It's sadly, it's unusual for me to come to Denver
Speaker 2: and for the to be this good.
Speaker 1: But the weather is really nice right now.
Speaker 2: I I'm exhausted, you know, so you'll have to bear
Speaker 2: with me a little bit.
Speaker 1: Today. I want to give you a little bit of
Speaker 1: an update on kind of what's been going on.
Speaker 2: And I did yesterday. I did debates on capitalism versus Socialism.
Speaker 2: It should be up on the website of the Steamboat Institute.
Speaker 2: So if you search on YouTube Steamboat Institute, you'll.
Speaker 1: Be able to find a video.
Speaker 2: I think that they've got a debate series and this
Speaker 2: is the latest debate, so you can find it in
Speaker 2: the Steamboat Institute's YouTube YouTube channel.
Speaker 1: You know. I think it was an interesting debate.
Speaker 2: It's a guy I've debated in the past a few times,
Speaker 2: I think four times in twenty nineteen. He has become,
Speaker 2: my feeling is my sense, has become less of a socialist,
Speaker 2: much more respectful of markets over that time, and it
Speaker 2: was hard to get him to disagree with much of
Speaker 2: what I said. A few places here and they disagreed.
Speaker 2: But overall, I think it was a good debate.
Speaker 1: I think those they learned something benefited from it.
Speaker 2: But it wasn't quite as fiery as a debate as
Speaker 2: you'd expect with a socialist.
Speaker 1: Something crooked over here, I don't know.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's not cooked. You tell me if it appears
Speaker 2: crooked on your screen, but not play around with it
Speaker 2: too much.
Speaker 1: Anyway. That was yesterday. We had about two hundred people
Speaker 1: in the audience, a really good turnout. There was a
Speaker 1: lot of students, which is really good. It was at
Speaker 1: the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. It was dominated by
Speaker 1: you know, I'd say people on my side dominated the audience,
Speaker 1: which is surprising for an university campus, but maybe for
Speaker 1: not for Colorado Springs, which is a quite a conservative
Speaker 1: place in the audience prizing to me, I learned after
Speaker 1: the fact as he came up and said hello, introduced himself.
Speaker 1: We'd met before, but I don't think he remembered that
Speaker 1: it was Vernon Smith. I don't know if you guys
Speaker 1: know who Vernon Smith is, but Vernon Smith won the
Speaker 1: Nobel Prize in Economics in two thousand and two. He
Speaker 1: is a free market economist, one of the free market
Speaker 1: economists who won Nobel Prizes in the past. He is
Speaker 1: I believe over one hundred years old. I might be wrong,
Speaker 1: maybe he's ninety eight or ninety nine. But he was there.
Speaker 2: He came up, congratulated me, made a comment about one
Speaker 2: of the arguments, and.
Speaker 1: Still shop, still with it, and about one hundred years old.
Speaker 1: So that was fun.
Speaker 2: It was fun to Steephenes Smith. The last time I
Speaker 2: saw Vernon Smith, he was angry with me, and he
Speaker 2: was in the audience at an event probably twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2: I think it was ninety eight then. Anyway, he was
Speaker 2: in the audience in twenty nineteen at an event in Dallas.
Speaker 1: That I did where I argued that religion was incompatible
Speaker 1: with liberty and this is an a mon pellerin society meeting,
Speaker 1: and he got really upset.
Speaker 2: He had he used to be an atheist and become
Speaker 2: religious to later in life, very late in life, and argued,
Speaker 2: you know, pretty aggressively with me that no religious religion.
Speaker 1: Was necessary for liberty.
Speaker 2: So it was good that this time he thought I
Speaker 2: did well and didn't have anything to contradict me. So
Speaker 2: so that was you know, it was nice that they
Speaker 2: came out to an event like that. It was nice
Speaker 2: to see somebody at about one hundred maybe maybe but
Speaker 2: a little less, maybe a little more around one hundred
Speaker 2: years old, still as a shop and.
Speaker 1: Engaged as he is. So that was good.
Speaker 2: What else about yesterday's events? I mean, Steamboat always does
Speaker 2: a good job, so I congratulate them. Hopefully I'll be
Speaker 2: able to do more events with them.
Speaker 1: It was a It was a good event.
Speaker 2: It was well run, it was well managed, and as
Speaker 2: I said at the audience was really good in terms
Speaker 2: of numbers. I want to say something about the event
Speaker 2: I did on Wednesday night in San Francisco. I don't
Speaker 2: think I've talked about that event. I think I did
Speaker 2: a show just before that event, and so you know,
Speaker 2: I think the last show, or maybe the show before that,
Speaker 2: maybe it was last show. Somebody made in the super chat,
Speaker 2: somebody made a comment, aren't you on talking too much
Speaker 2: about Tecker Carlson And aren't you talking too much about
Speaker 2: these post libels about all this negative stuff, their negativity
Speaker 2: and so on? And I kind of almost agreed with
Speaker 2: that and suggested, yeah, maybe maybe there's too much of
Speaker 2: that and everything. Well, after Wednesday night, I am recommitted
Speaker 2: to know the problem is we don't talk about them enough,
Speaker 2: and it's really really, really really important that we talk
Speaker 2: about them more and we make arguments against them and we.
Speaker 1: Analyze what they say.
Speaker 2: And so I'm going to be doing more, not less
Speaker 2: of that, because what happened on Wednesday. Wednesday was a debate.
Speaker 2: It was a debate with me debating basically the audience.
Speaker 2: It's a kind of an interesting, weird format which I'll
Speaker 2: describe in a minute, but basically.
Speaker 1: The audience.
Speaker 2: The event was put on by the Hamilton society, which
Speaker 2: was kind of a group of young men.
Speaker 1: I think it's all.
Speaker 2: Men, but I think the Catholic, the religious, the conservatives,
Speaker 2: and they've created this kind of debating society in San Francisco.
Speaker 2: The members and the people who attend these events are
Speaker 2: all startup founders, the ambitious people within Silicon Valley. These
Speaker 2: are the entrepreneurs. These are the people creating technology. And
Speaker 2: you know, some of them were students, so I talked
Speaker 2: to some of them. Some of them were students, like
Speaker 2: computer science students at Stanford or at Bokley.
Speaker 1: So this is these are the people who came to
Speaker 1: the event. This is the kind of the future of
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley and in that sense, the future of the
Speaker 1: US economy.
Speaker 2: There were a lot of people there. There were over
Speaker 2: two hundred people in attendance at this thing. The event
Speaker 2: was a debate. The proposition was Christianity will destroy the West.
Speaker 2: I defended that proposition, so it was my argument to make.
Speaker 2: I made a speech for about fifteen minutes. I think
Speaker 2: I was supposed to talk for fifteen I think I
Speaker 2: talked for twenty and then a short Q and A
Speaker 2: and then other people could make speeches. The chairman kind
Speaker 2: of the person who runs the Hamilton Society made a
Speaker 2: speech and then he answered questions, and then other people
Speaker 2: in the audience could make speeches, so you can make
Speaker 2: a five minute speech.
Speaker 1: And then I made a speech, and at.
Speaker 2: The end there was something called a duel where me
Speaker 2: and the chairman of the Society went at it, you know,
Speaker 2: kind of debate style, but kind of really quick, back
Speaker 2: and forth debate style, which was a lot of fun.
Speaker 2: I really really enjoyed it, and I think everybody did it,
Speaker 2: you know, shockingly in spite of the fact that the
Speaker 2: audience and this is the surprise, right, so the audience entrepreneurs,
Speaker 2: computer science people, technology people, overwhelmingly religious, overwhelmingly religious.
Speaker 1: And I got a standing ovation at the end.
Speaker 2: So at the very end when he thanked me, I
Speaker 2: mean literally all these people stood up.
Speaker 1: I just argued that Christianity was a disaster, it was
Speaker 1: going to destroy the world.
Speaker 2: There was a horrible you know, the whole idea of
Speaker 2: religion and Christianity particularly horrible ideas and so on. And
Speaker 2: in spite of that, they gave me a standing ovation.
Speaker 2: So I was pretty blown away with that. I think
Speaker 2: I did a good job, and it was it was
Speaker 2: suddenly a lot of fun. I'll state that again, and
Speaker 2: I was in the quality of the audience was like,
Speaker 2: but here's the thing that really struck me and the
Speaker 2: reason why I'm going to be talking a lot more
Speaker 2: about these crazies on the right. At least I think
Speaker 2: there were two, but at least one explicitly one of
Speaker 2: the speeches.
Speaker 1: Don't want that many speeches. Given One of the speeches,
Speaker 1: try to make the argument.
Speaker 2: By a young guy, I'm sure really smart again from
Speaker 2: Tech made a speech basically arguing that Western civilization was
Speaker 2: fundamentally a civilization of Europeans and only Europeans, and it
Speaker 2: was not about ideas, It was not at all about ideas,
Speaker 2: that it was purely.
Speaker 1: An issue of blood, if you will.
Speaker 2: I mean, the guy who made it was a Spaniard,
Speaker 2: so I suggested he do a twenty three in meter
Speaker 2: and discover how European he really was. And I told
Speaker 2: him the Spanish, the Spanish, you know, empire probably had
Speaker 2: more to do, had had more, you know, probably was
Speaker 2: successful more because of the Islamic Empire that had been
Speaker 2: there before them, the Muslim empire that had been there
Speaker 2: before them, than anything European, you know, anyway, I rebucked
Speaker 2: what he said and everything, but the very notion that
Speaker 2: he would say Western civilization is about being white basically
Speaker 2: a European, and that was not He was not the
Speaker 2: only one who said that. One other speech was similar
Speaker 2: to that, slightly different spin. Okay, that was one speech.
Speaker 2: And then a number of people came up to me
Speaker 2: afterwards and we were talking, and one of them wanted
Speaker 2: to defend ideas of Kurdis Yovin. We'll talk more about
Speaker 2: Kurtis Yavin in future shows. Maybe we'll take a video
Speaker 2: or article of his and analyze it because I think
Speaker 2: it's worth doing. Or maybe we'll have Nicos on and
Speaker 2: Nicos has read a lot of Kurtis.
Speaker 1: Havn and we'll talk about We'll talk about that. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about that as well.
Speaker 2: I think it's important that he's a thinker, arguably and
Speaker 2: intellectual arguably behind much of what's going on in Solican
Speaker 2: value terms of a shift to the right. But he
Speaker 2: believes in in a monarchy. He believes in running out
Speaker 2: the country like a corporation. The country should be run
Speaker 2: by a CEO with authoritarian power. Anyway, so that came
Speaker 2: up and a number of people were like nodding ahead
Speaker 2: and supporting, and then another guy, you know, was kind
Speaker 2: of we were going back and forth. At some point
Speaker 2: he said, he looked at me with this puzzled look
Speaker 2: in his face, and he said, I mean, with the
Speaker 2: real puzzled looks.
Speaker 1: I think this was authentic.
Speaker 2: He said, shoe against white nationalism, and I got angry
Speaker 2: because that is such a white nationalist is a despicable
Speaker 2: idea that I really got angry. And he looked really
Speaker 2: puzzled and taken aback by the fact that I would
Speaker 2: get angry by this, that this would somehow be something
Speaker 2: I would really get upset about.
Speaker 1: That I thought that those were really bad.
Speaker 2: In other words, techa calls and the postal libbulls, that
Speaker 2: generally the kind of anti Western civilization nutcases.
Speaker 1: Are really having an impact out there. They really have
Speaker 1: an influence. And these are young people, by the way,
Speaker 1: A number of them came up to me and said
Speaker 1: a number of them came up to me and said,
Speaker 1: And many of the ones who came up to me
Speaker 1: and said this were these kind.
Speaker 2: Of white nationalists and were the kind of you know,
Speaker 2: Curtis you off in, and some of them quite religious.
Speaker 2: They came up to me and said, yeah, we listened
Speaker 2: to your podcast a lot. And the guy who actually
Speaker 2: said about Western civilizations, you and the Europeans, said he'd
Speaker 2: heard one of my podcasts, and I said, x y Z.
Speaker 2: So these people are listening to what I have to say,
Speaker 2: and it's really really important that we start making arguments
Speaker 2: against their position, and hopefully they hear them, and hopefully
Speaker 2: we have some I have some influence on young people
Speaker 2: and sway them away from these ideas before they latch
Speaker 2: onto them. You know, who knows if I can be successful,
Speaker 2: you know, but we have to try. And these are
Speaker 2: the kind of these exactly the kind of people, right,
Speaker 2: These are successful entrepreneurs, young, still searching for philosophy, uh,
Speaker 2: ambitious again, entrepreneurs tech overentited, science overented, so rational.
Speaker 1: That we can't afford to lose. And so I'm saying again.
Speaker 2: That it's time to it's time to double down and
Speaker 2: now and now taking on the right, taking on the
Speaker 2: bad elements within the right, uh and analyzing in I'm
Speaker 2: sorry it's so negative, and I'm sorry it's it's so
Speaker 2: ridiculous and absurd, and and maybe what I need to
Speaker 2: do is is is focusing on some of the more
Speaker 2: intellectuals on the right and try to analyze their positions,
Speaker 2: you know, focus, maybe even I do more shows about
Speaker 2: Christianity and and focus in on why Christianity is as
Speaker 2: bad as why I think it's as bad as it is,
Speaker 2: Focus on Kodis Yawn and Patrick Deneen and some o
Speaker 2: the other intellectuals, and really dig down, dig deep into
Speaker 2: into why these ideas are incredibly destructive and why I'm
Speaker 2: so opposed to it, and maybe even maybe even on
Speaker 2: the issue of racism, which I just have always taken
Speaker 2: as No, that's ridiculous. You know, that's evil. How could
Speaker 2: anybody support it? Maybe we need to maybe I need
Speaker 2: to come up with some other arguments with a Kim
Speaker 2: who has just on a sticker I thank you. Kim
Speaker 2: was at the event, so if you're interested in hook
Speaker 2: perspective on what happened that night, you can ask Kim. So, Kim,
Speaker 2: thank you for being there, and it was it was
Speaker 2: fun to meet up with Kim again. I've seen her
Speaker 2: before in uh at Okon, I guess, and in Silicon Valley,
Speaker 2: so we.
Speaker 1: Could do that.
Speaker 2: But uh yeah, I mean so I'm not going to
Speaker 2: back off as as maybe I suggested I would last time,
Speaker 2: and in so in this context, I wanted today to
Speaker 2: recognize at a Masoff, at a Masaf who's been on
Speaker 2: the show show in the past and is a friend
Speaker 2: and somebody have known within the objective's world going back
Speaker 2: to the mid nineteen nineties, so for a long time.
Speaker 2: But Adam, says Curtisyovvin, I've seen better arguments from middle schools. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but we need to rebuck them because it turns out
Speaker 2: that entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley buy into these arguments. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, I always think, yeah, this is stupid. I
Speaker 2: don't need to rebuc rebute this. Well, maybe we do.
Speaker 2: Maybe we should make the effort. Maybe we should not
Speaker 2: assume assume that everybody just gets it the.
Speaker 1: Way some of us do.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Adam, who have known since the nineties, been part
Speaker 2: of the objectivist kind of community for since then and
Speaker 2: has been on the show at least twice.
Speaker 1: Maybe more than that, maybe three, three times.
Speaker 2: Maybe Anyway, Adam just put out a letter, which I
Speaker 2: think is an important letter. It's a letter resignation from
Speaker 2: the heavy foundation he was. It turns out I didn't
Speaker 2: know this, but he was a visiting fellow at the
Speaker 2: Edward mess the Third Center for Legal and Judicial Studies
Speaker 2: at the Heritage Foundation, and he resigned, and so I
Speaker 2: want to read parts of the letter.
Speaker 1: Now. I did not get a copy of the letter,
Speaker 1: so but I assume it's okay that I'm reading it
Speaker 1: because Adam allowed the letter to be published on Twitter.
Speaker 2: It was published by Ilia Ilia, which Ilio one of
Speaker 2: the alias published at Ilia Shapiro. There's Ali Shapiro in
Speaker 2: the ISLI so many which are and I get them
Speaker 2: mixed up, and everybody gets them mixed up, which to
Speaker 2: the show again. Anyway, It's a powerful letter resignation, so I.
Speaker 1: Thought it would be worth reading it out. This is
Speaker 1: one more.
Speaker 2: Resignation in a series of people leaving Heritage Foundation and
Speaker 2: resigning over what it's happened over the last few weeks
Speaker 2: that we've covered here regarding Heritage. I think it's it's
Speaker 2: super important that good guys, that the good stand up
Speaker 2: against evil, and in this case, Heritage is representing evil,
Speaker 2: and stand up against it and quit, but also explain
Speaker 2: why they quit. I've seen some people resigning from Heritage
Speaker 2: without really saying why. So what I like about Adam,
Speaker 2: what I like about this is Adam published the letter
Speaker 2: and now it's made public and everybody can see exactly
Speaker 2: why Adam has left Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 1: And I think that is important because it's.
Speaker 2: A mall stand, it's an intellectual stand, it's a philosophical stand,
Speaker 2: and it is it is important.
Speaker 1: I'm going to read you from the letter.
Speaker 2: It basically is addressing all these things that we're talking
Speaker 2: about in terms of what is going on on the
Speaker 2: right and the evil in the evil on the right.
Speaker 2: Somebody wants to make the point that Adam back Trump. Yes,
Speaker 2: he did in spite of that. I mean he backed
Speaker 2: Trump because of Israel. Well, I think he was on
Speaker 2: my show and said that that the number one issue
Speaker 2: for him was anti Semitism in Israel, and he begged
Speaker 2: Trump because of that, and after October seventh, he didn't
Speaker 2: see a choice. I understand that, as I said, the
Speaker 2: fact that somebody voted for Trump, I get why some
Speaker 2: people voted for Trump. And so yeah, anyway, here's Adam.
Speaker 2: It is with heavy heart that I resigning my visiting
Speaker 2: fellow position in the Edwin Metes the Third Center for
Speaker 2: Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. My resignation
Speaker 2: is effective immediately I get a skip because it's a
Speaker 2: long letter. Unfortunately, October thirtieth video and your subsequent interviews, videos,
Speaker 2: and commentary have made it clear to me that Heritage
Speaker 2: is no longer the story think tank that I was
Speaker 2: proud to join in twenty nineteen. Adam and I might
Speaker 2: disagree about the story think tank, but that's not the point.
Speaker 1: He goes on.
Speaker 2: Y October thirtieth videos video indefensible. So were your purported
Speaker 2: explanations and backtracking in subsequent interviews and social media posts.
Speaker 2: The October thirtieth interview was worse than a poor choice
Speaker 2: of words or mere mistake. It was a profound moral
Speaker 2: inversion to use the language of ancient anti Semitic blood libel,
Speaker 2: such as globalist class and venomous coalition. It was especially
Speaker 2: lowsome to use this language to defend Tucker Calson. Tucker
Speaker 2: is quickly following Candide's own down the very dark path
Speaker 2: of Jewish conspiracy theories and defenses of Nazis. After a
Speaker 2: Candas explanation, Tucker is quickly following candiss own down there,
Speaker 2: oh sorry. After Candasa's explanation a couple of years ago
Speaker 2: of Kristolnach as burning of communist books and not in
Speaker 2: an attack on Jews.
Speaker 1: This was the final store for me, and my judgment
Speaker 1: has been.
Speaker 2: Repeatedly con firmed by her ensuing years by her in
Speaker 2: the ensuing years. Similar to canvases just asking questions strategy,
Speaker 2: Tucker's increasingly hosting friendly head nodding in agreement interviews with
Speaker 2: people who explicitly praise Nazis and are unrepentant in their
Speaker 2: anti Semitic slurs of Jews in Israel, such as his
Speaker 2: interview of Derelkoopa and Agapia the name I can't pronounce,
Speaker 2: Tucker's friendly, smiling interview with Nick Foentis and avowed Nazi
Speaker 2: who simply was simply then the deer of Tucker's increasing
Speaker 2: number of friendly interviews.
Speaker 1: With nihilists and anti Semites.
Speaker 2: In all of these interviews, Tucker's blankantly refused to challenge
Speaker 2: any of their calumnies, propaganda, and falsehoods, despite despite your
Speaker 2: subsequent claim in a follow on X statement on October
Speaker 2: thirty first, that we should quote challenge them head.
Speaker 1: On unquote and open debate.
Speaker 2: This bears emphasis emphasizing Taka has never challenged one of
Speaker 2: these evil guests on his show For example, in a
Speaker 2: two hour interview with Frantis, Teka never asked Fantis a
Speaker 2: single question about his Nazi views or even his Nazi
Speaker 2: slur of President of Vice President jd Vance as a
Speaker 2: race trader, given jd Vance's marriage to Usha, to Usha
Speaker 2: and they know Usha and their so called brown children,
Speaker 2: to quote four inters, this is neither. This is neither
Speaker 2: debate nor critical engagement with ideas with which we profoundly disagree.
Speaker 2: This is toleration and or agreement with evil ideologies and ideas.
Speaker 2: This is made even more clear by Taker's contrary treatment
Speaker 2: of anyone he deemed to be a quote Zionist. Unlike
Speaker 2: his interview with Frantis, Cooper and Agrapya and many others,
Speaker 2: Taka engages and skeptical interviews with pointed, hart hitting questions
Speaker 2: of Senator Ted Cruz and others about their Zionist of
Speaker 2: pro Israel positions. All this makes it absolutely clear that
Speaker 2: Taker gives credence. There's millions of viewers that evil ideologies, collectivism, nihilism,
Speaker 2: and anti Semitism are consistent with conservatism and America First Movement.
Speaker 2: Tucker's friendly and laughing conversation with fuantas signals there's millions
Speaker 2: of young viewers that it is permissible to give a
Speaker 2: pass to such evil, even in their best life possible.
Speaker 1: Tucker makes clear we at least, we at least should
Speaker 1: tolerate such evil because, as you said in your October
Speaker 1: thirtieth video, we should not be quote attacking our friends
Speaker 1: on the right.
Speaker 2: This is a massive moral inversion. This is the opposite
Speaker 2: of what Heritage Foundation you know, stood for over many
Speaker 2: decades in America political discourse. It stands in the opposite
Speaker 2: of the ideas of divining fathers in the Declaration of
Speaker 2: Independence and Constitution, a neededble, natural rights, limited government, rule
Speaker 2: of law, and free markets, and the flourishing society the results.
Speaker 1: In these ethical and political commitments.
Speaker 2: Although you told us in the town hall last Thursday
Speaker 2: that you made a mistake in your October thirtieth video,
Speaker 2: you have not retracted or withdrew on the video. It
Speaker 2: remains on x on your ex account with more than
Speaker 2: twenty four million views today. That's what it remains unclear
Speaker 2: precisely and specifically what you regard as your moral mistake
Speaker 2: and failure in leadership.
Speaker 1: This is compounded by the mixed messages that you have
Speaker 1: been giving to us in the world.
Speaker 2: About the lessons you have learned, you have con continually reiterated,
Speaker 2: for example, your claim in your October thirtieth video which
Speaker 2: should not cancel a friends and NATTACKA always will be
Speaker 2: a close friend of the Heritage Foundation.
Speaker 1: As far as I'm aware, you have not disavowed this claim.
Speaker 2: But you're falsely conflated here the struggle sessions and cancelation
Speaker 2: campaigns that the woke left inflict on their apostates and
Speaker 2: heretics with the proper, steadfast moral condemnation of nihilism, collectivism, Nazism,
Speaker 2: and you. Adrid Aristotle observed in a seminal treaty on
Speaker 2: ethics that in a choice between truth and friendship, it
Speaker 2: is the truth that we must always give our primary allegiance.
Speaker 2: Even with your missed messages mixed messages, one thing is
Speaker 2: clear by your words and actions. Heritage is wedded to
Speaker 2: Tucker and everything he has come to represent on the
Speaker 2: periphery of the groper movement created by Fuentas. Instead of
Speaker 2: the truth, you've chosen a false friend of the American
Speaker 2: ideas that Heritage was supposed to represent. This in abstract,
Speaker 2: this profound failing of truth and justice would give me
Speaker 2: serious pause and would still I would still ultimately resign.
Speaker 2: But it's even more pressing today to call out the
Speaker 2: small failing and to take a stand.
Speaker 1: It is still shocking to me that the day is
Speaker 1: the worst single day slaughter of Jews and the Holocaust.
Speaker 2: The invasion and attack of Israel in October seven, twenty
Speaker 2: twenty three, was unleashed its tsunami violent anti semitism.
Speaker 1: This swept Europe.
Speaker 2: In the US in the past two years, woke brownshirts
Speaker 2: have been screaming genocidal slogans in the streets on the
Speaker 2: university campuses. They have been doing much worse than merely
Speaker 2: screaming slogans like free Palestine and from the Rivers to
Speaker 2: the Sea. They've acted in harassing and assault and assaulting
Speaker 2: American Jews, fire bombing and vandalizing homes and businesses, and
Speaker 2: murdering American Jews in DC, Colorado, and California.
Speaker 1: This has never happened before in the US.
Speaker 2: The nihilists and collectivist bigotry has driven woke leftists into
Speaker 2: frenzied unseen, into frenzies unseen in the West since the
Speaker 2: original now Nazi brown Shirts terrorized Jews in Germany in
Speaker 2: the twenties and thirties and has now reared its ugly
Speaker 2: head in the American political rights. Now is the time
Speaker 2: to differentiate the right in the left, not to join
Speaker 2: the left and embracing this toxic fusion of collectivism and
Speaker 2: anti Semitism. He continues, You make clear your choice endorsement
Speaker 2: and toleration of false friends of freedom, rights, liberty, and
Speaker 2: the American ideals of defining father despite the awelliant claims
Speaker 2: to the contrary that they are advocates of America.
Speaker 1: First to represent conservatism.
Speaker 2: Worse than false friends, they have proven to be advocates
Speaker 2: of the evil ideologies that cheek to destroy these achievements
Speaker 2: of Western civilization as represented by the United.
Speaker 1: States of America. I cannot stand by in silence. It
Speaker 1: is time for choosing. I choose to resign, so.
Speaker 2: I think a powerful letter. I want to congratulate Adam
Speaker 2: for doing this. It's not easy, although you know, given
Speaker 2: given how bad things are, maybe it is easy. It's
Speaker 2: not easy to leave a post. It's not easy to
Speaker 2: stand up to your boss and to your peers. Uh,
Speaker 2: it's not easy to make make this public and take
Speaker 2: a moral stand in public in this way, Adam is is,
Speaker 2: you know, in this in that world of think tanks
Speaker 2: and and uh conservatives and small el libertarians we'll call it.
Speaker 1: Uh. Uh, you know, think tanks in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: He's part of that world. Uh.
Speaker 2: And and he's taken their courageous stand here. And I
Speaker 2: give him credit for that. Uh, I get him credit
Speaker 2: for that. And I and I think he's absolutely right,
Speaker 2: absolutely right in his diagnosis of heritage and coverent heritage
Speaker 2: and uh and and and where it is heading and
Speaker 2: uh and kind of the moral travesty of what Roberts did,
Speaker 2: as we talked about on the show. So if you'd like,
Speaker 2: if you'd like to read the letter, you can find
Speaker 2: it on Twitter against again, Elio Shapiro published it, So
Speaker 2: just look up earlier Shapiro.
Speaker 1: And you will find I think you will find the letter.
Speaker 2: It's worth reading if you know Adam, it's worth sending
Speaker 2: out Adam congratulations for for for resigning from Heritage, even
Speaker 2: though again I'm sure it was not an easy professional thing.
Speaker 2: Oh maybe it was easy. Again, given the stakes for Adam,
Speaker 2: it probably was easy, but again not not professionally not easy,
Speaker 2: I'm sure. Okay, So yeah, I mean, this battle will continue.
Speaker 2: It is great to having more people. It is important
Speaker 2: to have more people join the fight. It's important to
Speaker 2: call out the left and the right on on the
Speaker 2: on on these kind of issues. I have said for
Speaker 2: a long time, and and not everybody's gonna agree with
Speaker 2: me that I think the right is. It's a large
Speaker 2: extent the Lodger enemy, the enemy that I think warries me.
Speaker 1: More because.
Speaker 2: It is to some extent, you know, affiliated with where
Speaker 2: we are and what we represent. So again I'm glad
Speaker 2: to see I'm glad to see more people join this battle,
Speaker 2: and we would be talking much more about this in
Speaker 2: the weeks, months.
Speaker 1: And probably years to come. It's not going to get
Speaker 1: any easier. It's not going to get any better. As
Speaker 1: I say in Silicon Valley in San Francisco, it is spreading.
Speaker 1: It is spreading, by the way. I hope to return
Speaker 1: to that, to the to the Hamilton Society again, to
Speaker 1: do more debates.
Speaker 2: I'm hoping to engage with them because I think engagement engagement.
Speaker 1: Again. You know, some of those views are.
Speaker 2: Horrific and really horrible, but the people who run the
Speaker 2: Hamilton Society are not the people who actually presented those views.
Speaker 1: Those are some the people who attended to talk, and
Speaker 1: you know they're religious.
Speaker 2: We disagree, but we need to have this conversation and
Speaker 2: we need to be able to present rational ideas to
Speaker 2: people who might be open to still changing their minds
Speaker 2: about some of the really horrible positions that they have
Speaker 2: and the damage Tucker is doing in our world that
Speaker 2: Candice is doing, the Jdvans is doing that, Patrick Deneen
Speaker 2: is doing, the JD Vance is doing.
Speaker 1: It really is unimaginable. It really is unimaginable.
Speaker 2: Chandas says, Uran is the Devil, I don't think the
Speaker 2: devil is the right terminology. I think the terminology these
Speaker 2: days is Uran is the Antichrist. I think that is
Speaker 2: the terminology that Peter teel Is is spreading. It's the
Speaker 2: anti Christ. Okay, so that is That is Adam's letter
Speaker 2: to Heritage, which I thought was worth reading to everybody.
Speaker 2: I just want to add one thing it just because
Speaker 2: I came across this as I was preparing the show.
Speaker 2: Again from Techo Calson, just to keep you up to
Speaker 2: speed about Tackle Causon. It turns out that in this
Speaker 2: morning's newsletter, the tacko Colson published. He publishes I Guess,
Speaker 2: a weekly newsletter. Tucker finally found people who he believes
Speaker 2: are really, you know, really property call and compared to
Speaker 2: the Nazis, it's not for wins, it's not candas. It's
Speaker 2: actually Israelis, Israelis and Jews like Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin.
Speaker 2: He writes about them, These people are sick, you know.
Speaker 2: He makes the argument that in the Old Testament, you know,
Speaker 2: he makes an Old Testament argument about about the Jews, right,
Speaker 2: the Jews, uh and uh about the Jewish, supposedly the
Speaker 2: Jewish blood superiority.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: He says, there's no such thing as blood superiority. I agree,
Speaker 2: And then he says those who disagree, like the IDF's leaders,
Speaker 2: he is really Defense Forces leaders have more in common
Speaker 2: with ad of Eichmann than Jesus. So the idea of
Speaker 2: leaders he has decided believe in blood superiority. I don't
Speaker 2: know any idea fleetiers who believe that, he says, of
Speaker 2: more common with Adam of Eichmann than Jesus. It's y,
Speaker 2: you know, it's pretty sick. H Tucker CALLSI His is
Speaker 2: really evil, sick, bad, horrific. All of the above, don't
Speaker 2: have anything to do with him, and ideally.
Speaker 1: Don't subscribe, you know, don't have anything to do with him,
Speaker 1: sanction him.
Speaker 2: Oh by the way, Troy came in, Thank you Troy
Speaker 2: with five hundred austrolion dollars. Thank you, Thank you Troy.
Speaker 2: That is incredibly generous and very much appreciated. I know
Speaker 2: we had some other stickers from Kim.
Speaker 1: I said that earlier, and I think you know there
Speaker 1: was some there was ru downs, So thank you guys.
Speaker 1: All right, let's look a little bit about housing, a
Speaker 1: bunch of small stories about housing.
Speaker 2: But kind of that that struck me that there's a
Speaker 2: post going around. I think it was published like two
Speaker 2: or three days ago, yeah, November twelfth, so two days
Speaker 2: ago it was published a post. It has a beautiful picture.
Speaker 2: This is on Twitter. Beautiful picture of a house. It
Speaker 2: looks like a pretty big house. This particular house.
Speaker 1: I think it's about three five hundred and fifty square feet.
Speaker 1: It looks kind of.
Speaker 2: It's like what you considered a classic American two story.
Speaker 2: There's an attic. They might be a basement, but in
Speaker 2: a very lots of trees. Beautiful, beautiful house, right, I mean,
Speaker 2: not my style architecture, but a big, distinguished house. And
Speaker 2: the heading goes, an average working class man man could
Speaker 2: buy this house in the nineteen fifties support four kids
Speaker 2: and a state and a house and stay home wife. Today,
Speaker 2: a two income household can't even buy eggs without going
Speaker 2: into debt. What is what the eff is going on?
Speaker 2: Many people on Twitter have pointed out, and this is
Speaker 2: part of the dangers of Twitter, that this house in
Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties would have required, you know, an income
Speaker 2: that is probably in the top one percent. This is
Speaker 2: far far off from an average working class a salary
Speaker 2: could afford this house. An average working class salary in
Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties. And the average house in the nineteen
Speaker 2: fifties was about one thy twelve hundred square feet, so
Speaker 2: about a third a third of the size of this house.
Speaker 2: It was one story and pretty simple and pretty pretty bare,
Speaker 2: pretty bare, not in this kind of neighborhood and certainly
Speaker 2: not this kind of size and not kind of this prosperity.
Speaker 2: And people since then have been posting photos making fun
Speaker 2: of this.
Speaker 1: You know, somebody posted a photo of the white house,
Speaker 1: you know, and said, in the nineteen seventies, a peanut
Speaker 1: farmering to Jimmy Carter, you know, I could buy this house,
Speaker 1: you know, with folk kids and stay at home mom
Speaker 1: and everything.
Speaker 2: So a lot of people are making fun of this,
Speaker 2: but I think it's important to note that. And we've
Speaker 2: talked about this a lot on the show, and we'll
Speaker 2: keep talking about it because it keeps going back. This
Speaker 2: ridiculous nostalgia to some imagined nineteen fifties utopia is bizarre
Speaker 2: and wrong and deceiving and dishonest, fundamentally dishonest. There was no,
Speaker 2: you know, dream utopia in the nineteen fifties. The nineteen fifties,
Speaker 2: people did not live better lives. They were not wealthier.
Speaker 2: It's not true that you could afford all these wonderful
Speaker 2: things on one salary that you can't today.
Speaker 1: Our standard living, quality of life.
Speaker 2: Our homes are cause our technology, our washing machines and
Speaker 2: dryers and a conditioning and the million of the gadgets
Speaker 2: that we have at home that didn't exist back then.
Speaker 2: And just to share size of homes and plots of
Speaker 2: land and everything so outstrip anything that was happening in
Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties that it's just incomparable how much bad
Speaker 2: a life is today, and yet both the left and
Speaker 2: the right, for different reasons, harken back to the nineteen fifties,
Speaker 2: as if there's some ideal. So no, no, I mean
Speaker 2: this is this is a complete lie, and it's a
Speaker 2: lie being constantly repeated and perpetrated.
Speaker 1: Don't fall for it.
Speaker 2: And when you hear it, speak up against it, because
Speaker 2: it's it's part of this idea of going backwards. And
Speaker 2: I hope that one of the things I represent is
Speaker 2: an anti stagnation perspective.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: My perspective is if you don't grow, if you don't
Speaker 2: move forward, then you go backwards. And growing backwards means
Speaker 2: or going backwards doesn't make any sense. You stop going.
Speaker 2: You actually, if you stop going, you start shrinking, and
Speaker 2: shrinking means death. Shrinking means approaching death. So life requires growth,
Speaker 2: Life requires forward forward progress, Life requires ambition into the future.
Speaker 2: And UH and and these kind of pictures and memes
Speaker 2: and and ideas are destructive to that ambition and moving forward.
Speaker 2: This veneration of a past, UH is just pathetic and ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Talk about pathetic and ridiculous and housing A JD. Vans
Speaker 2: in an interview I think yesterday, UH said the following
Speaker 2: and and and we've talked about the fact that housing prices,
Speaker 2: particularly on the coast, I expended it. Housing prices have
Speaker 2: gone up significantly, although again the extent to which they've
Speaker 2: gone up, to the extent of which housing is unaffordable,
Speaker 2: to the extent of which young people can afford houses,
Speaker 2: is vastly and horrifically exaggerated by.
Speaker 1: Both left, Mom, Donnie, and right everybody in the right,
Speaker 1: you know, the the.
Speaker 2: The victim and grievance grievance mentality is now shared by
Speaker 2: left and right and both you know, aggressively pitching grievances.
Speaker 2: And one of the big grievances is housing. Anyway, jade
Speaker 2: Van's responding to that, says, said this, a lot of
Speaker 2: young people are saying housing is way too expensive.
Speaker 1: Why is that because we flooded the country with thirty
Speaker 1: million illegal immigrants who were taking.
Speaker 2: Houses they that ought that ought by right to go
Speaker 2: to American citizens.
Speaker 1: Now, there's so much wrong with this.
Speaker 2: I mean, again, this is straight out of the kind
Speaker 2: of leftist zero sum world perspective. Now, thirty million illegals,
Speaker 2: where do you get that number? That's a vastly exaggerated number.
Speaker 2: But this is the guy who talked about Haitian immigrants
Speaker 2: eating cats in Ohio or wherever it was.
Speaker 1: So he is not He lies strategically. He knows exactly
Speaker 1: what he's doing, and he knows exactly where to exaggerate,
Speaker 1: where to make up stuff and repeated, repeated, repeat it,
Speaker 1: and then people start believing it and just becomes part
Speaker 1: of our culture. So there were no thirty million illegal immigrants.
Speaker 1: And I thought these illegal immigrants were destitute. I thought
Speaker 1: they were coming here and sucking on the tits of
Speaker 1: the state. They were welfare recipients, they had nothing. How
Speaker 1: did these guys get loans? How did they get a mortgage?
Speaker 1: Or did they afford the incredibly high prices?
Speaker 2: A bogus And if homes are unaffordable to Americans I've
Speaker 2: lived in the United States and who have jobs and
Speaker 2: are llegal in the United States, how are these houses
Speaker 2: affordable to illegal immigrants? I don't understand that. You know,
Speaker 2: that makes absolutely no sense to me, right, that somehow
Speaker 2: these houses are.
Speaker 1: Affordable to illegal immigrants.
Speaker 2: But even if it was the case that we had
Speaker 2: a large immigration into the country, and let's assume that
Speaker 2: these immigrants are hard working, they're making money, so they can.
Speaker 1: Afford a house. Then the reason house prices are going
Speaker 1: up is not because of this massive immigration coming in.
Speaker 1: It's because we're not building homes fast enough in order
Speaker 1: to fulfill. Then you demand why isn't a response we
Speaker 1: should have built more houses? And what about this idea
Speaker 1: of taking houses that ought by right to go to
Speaker 1: American citizens? I mean, I know the left believes that.
Speaker 2: You have a right to basic income and a right
Speaker 2: to food, and right to healthcare, and right to education,
Speaker 2: and maybe even a right to housing. Now it turns
Speaker 2: out that Jadvans believes that Americans have a right to
Speaker 2: housing by right. Homes and our fixed pot that the
Speaker 2: government allocates by right to the deserving class, and the
Speaker 2: deserving class people who have I don't know, American ancestral blood.
Speaker 2: Maybe we should allocate houses based on how many generations
Speaker 2: have been in America. Maybe that's how we should allocate houses,
Speaker 2: not by price because they're expensive, but just by if
Speaker 2: you can, if your ancestors fought in the Civil War,
Speaker 2: get house. A War of Independence, you get two houses
Speaker 2: World War two, maybe half of ours.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 2: So the more ancient your bloodline, the bigger a house
Speaker 2: you get something like that. I mean Jdvans repeatedly engages
Speaker 2: in collectivistic, zero sum central planning thinking. And one of
Speaker 2: my goals over the next three years is going to
Speaker 2: be to do everything that I can to discredit JD
Speaker 2: events now so that he does not become the Republican
Speaker 2: nominee in twenty twenty eight. Now, I try to do
Speaker 2: that which Trump didn't work but postially because I thought
Speaker 2: that September that January sixth would finish Trump off and
Speaker 2: it didn't.
Speaker 1: But here we have a specific target, Jady Vance.
Speaker 2: I want to make sure that this guy is so discredited,
Speaker 2: at least by people who listen to my show, that
Speaker 2: he is not the nominee. And to do that, we'll
Speaker 2: talk about Jade Vance, We'll talk about Tacker, Calson and
Speaker 2: four Inches, because I think they're all related, and clearly
Speaker 2: he is the candidate of Taker, Calsa and the good Friends.
Speaker 2: But I don't think I have any influence, but to
Speaker 2: the extent that I have influenced, I'm hoping that we
Speaker 2: don't get to a position in twenty twenty eight where
Speaker 2: a bunch of you and a bunch of other objectives
Speaker 2: think that Jadvans is the best candidate out there, and
Speaker 2: that objectives should support him because by then, hopefully we
Speaker 2: have discredited enough shown how collectivistic, zero sum central planning
Speaker 2: he is and how culturally horrific he is in terms
Speaker 2: of views.
Speaker 1: That that won't even be an option.
Speaker 2: Right. Somebody says the nineteen fifties when aberration in American
Speaker 2: history and was never the norm. No, I don't think
Speaker 2: that nineteen fifties went aberration, but they weren't that great.
Speaker 2: I mean, people forget that in the early nineteen fifties,
Speaker 2: many many families had to double up in homes. You know,
Speaker 2: veterans came back from World War Two, and it took
Speaker 2: them a while to get up on their feet and
Speaker 2: to get good jobs and to you know, and the
Speaker 2: Gibo made it possible for them to go get an education.
Speaker 2: But then they had to start from somewhere, and they
Speaker 2: started from nothing. In the economy had to recover from
Speaker 2: the horrors of the Great Depression in the World War.
Speaker 2: So the nineteen fifties were a period of struggle and
Speaker 2: a period of much difficulty. And yes, the economy did very,
Speaker 2: very well because it was it had been deregulated in
Speaker 2: the late nineteen forties and the Federal Reserve did a
Speaker 2: decent job of not inflating the economy. And it did okay,
Speaker 2: it did well, but it wasn't like whoa nineteen fifties amazing, stunning,
Speaker 2: It wasn't.
Speaker 1: It wasn't that great. Okay.
Speaker 2: Finally a piece of good news also about housing, which
Speaker 2: is interesting, and that is that the Institute for Justice
Speaker 2: Interest for Justice, which is.
Speaker 1: A free market pro American you know.
Speaker 2: Firm, that legal firm that that basically sues the government
Speaker 2: over violations of individual rights, is now suing the government
Speaker 2: and hopes to take this case to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: It's suing the government aren't about rent control, So it
Speaker 2: is a lawsuit that that is, you know, suing this
Speaker 2: idea of rent control as a taking as a constitutional
Speaker 2: violation of the takings clause. Now they're only they're doing
Speaker 2: it on a limited basis. That is, they're not challenging all.
Speaker 1: Rent control schemes because they're not sure they could win that.
Speaker 1: They're hoping to win this one.
Speaker 2: Again, a lot of these legal institutions like Spacific Legal
Speaker 2: Foundation and IJ view this as incremental. You get good
Speaker 2: rulings that overturned bad laws and then you expand that
Speaker 2: here they're looking at apartments that are basically sitting vacant
Speaker 2: because rank control would allow them to charge rent that
Speaker 2: is so low, only charge rent that is so low
Speaker 2: that it doesn't make any sense for these people to
Speaker 2: actually rent the apartment out.
Speaker 1: Is an example. This is an apartment in Manhattan.
Speaker 2: It contains two bedrooms, and the legal rent is set
Speaker 2: at seven hundred dollars a month. Can you imagine that
Speaker 2: in Manhattan seven hundred dollars a month with two bedrooms.
Speaker 2: The apartment became vacant in twenty nineteen after a long
Speaker 2: term tenancy. The last tenant was in the apartment for
Speaker 2: over forty years, vacant ever since, because it simply doesn't
Speaker 2: make sense for this company who owns the apartment to
Speaker 2: rent department out for seven hundred dollars a month. According
Speaker 2: to the law, they have to renovate this apartment. They
Speaker 2: have to bring it up to code, they have to
Speaker 2: upgrade furnishings, and not to luxury, just at the basic
Speaker 2: level that the regulations demand. That would cost so much
Speaker 2: money that they would never recoup the investment for seven
Speaker 2: hundred dollars a month, So they would rather just let
Speaker 2: it sit there empty than make the investment to bring
Speaker 2: it up to code. Now, the argument is that by
Speaker 2: limiting their ability to rent it at a higher rate,
Speaker 2: the government is basically violating the taking clause of the Constitution. Now,
Speaker 2: supposedly Justice Thomas, at least in an opinion that he
Speaker 2: wrote a few years ago, gave an opening to challenging
Speaker 2: the whole idea of in control from a constitutional basis.
Speaker 2: And IJ is filing this lawsuit with the idea of
Speaker 2: taking it to the Supreme Court and hoping to at
Speaker 2: least overrule some aspects of rent.
Speaker 1: Control, which would be amazing.
Speaker 2: I mean, some of the best things happening in the
Speaker 2: world today are the things that Instant the organizations like
Speaker 2: IJ and Pacific lead the Foundation are doing. They are
Speaker 2: fighting in the courts for more freedom. They are being,
Speaker 2: you know, quite successful, and some of the best news
Speaker 2: that we have in terms of liberty and freedom comes
Speaker 2: from these lawsuits that they are bringing. So congratulations to
Speaker 2: IJ for being in this lawsuit, and we'll follow it
Speaker 2: and hope that they win in the Supreme Court and
Speaker 2: we get to over turn at least a portion of
Speaker 2: rent control, and that maybe will set up the stage
Speaker 2: for doing a word and control completely. Finally, that would
Speaker 2: be pretty amazing. All right, let's see where we want
Speaker 2: to talk about.
Speaker 1: That's housing. Oh yeah, more good news. This good news
Speaker 1: is on the tariff front.
Speaker 2: Donald Trump and his administration which have for months and
Speaker 2: months and months and months now told us over and
Speaker 2: over and over again, the towers do not raise prices.
Speaker 2: That indeed, tawots are being paid by foreign manufacturers. I've
Speaker 2: changed their minds, it turns out, according to them. Then,
Speaker 2: in spite of the fact that tariffs don't raise prices,
Speaker 2: if you eliminate tariffs, prices go down.
Speaker 1: That's miraculous. Hard to imagine, hort to understand how that works,
Speaker 1: but how to believe anyway.
Speaker 2: In an executive order this afternoon, this Friday, Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is slash towse slash towers on a number agricultural products.
Speaker 2: Impudding impart to say, these are all tariffs that he
Speaker 2: put in place, so he slashed his own tafts. These
Speaker 2: are not ancient tabs tariffs that he put He has
Speaker 2: slashed them in an effort, explosive effort to bring down
Speaker 2: the cost of grocery prices.
Speaker 1: Now, I know many of you complained that I did
Speaker 1: not believe in.
Speaker 2: The tariffs that tariffs were just aimed at at. They
Speaker 2: didn't raise prices because fawn has paid them. Even Donald
Speaker 2: Trump now understands that tarifts raised prices stunning So, uh yeah,
Speaker 2: if you want to buy oranges, or tomatoes, or bananas,
Speaker 2: or much more importantly, if you want to buy coffee
Speaker 2: or cocoa, chocolate and tea, prices are going to go
Speaker 2: down because tariffs have just been slashed on all those products.
Speaker 1: Also, beef inputs.
Speaker 2: Have been tariffs have been slashed, as well as spices
Speaker 2: and even some fertilizers.
Speaker 1: Wow, I mean, I know. This has a lot to
Speaker 1: do with poll numbers.
Speaker 2: That suggest that Americans are very upset about the cost
Speaker 2: of living, and the cost of living has gone up
Speaker 2: over the last year to large extent because of tariffs,
Speaker 2: which we I know, the economists, who can't predict anything,
Speaker 2: we have told you over and over and over again,
Speaker 2: will raise prices.
Speaker 1: They have to. They have, and even the Trump administration
Speaker 1: out recognizes that and to remedy that they're cutting tariffs.
Speaker 1: This is great news. I suggest that Trump go all in.
Speaker 1: This is his great opportunity to change his mind and
Speaker 1: to actually lower dramatically the cost of living in the
Speaker 1: United States. How about zero tariffs on everything?
Speaker 2: Be a revolutionary Trump, be a real radical none of
Speaker 2: us wishy washy stuff, not just on bananas. Cut tariffs
Speaker 2: on steel and aluminum and automobiles and everything everything.
Speaker 1: Make it zero. You want to make America great again,
Speaker 1: That's how you do it. Liberate us, move us towards freedom,
Speaker 1: that's how you do it. So yeah, good news. Prices
Speaker 1: are going to come down. Your coffee should cost less
Speaker 1: very very soon.
Speaker 2: So excited about the fact that the Trump administration is
Speaker 2: learning maybe a little lesson maybe the e stapolated more
Speaker 2: broadly about tariffs and actually.
Speaker 1: Coming to realize that this is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that even as of also Friday, the
Speaker 2: Trump reiversation also announced that those tariffs that they had
Speaker 2: on Switzerland. You remember they put like fifty percent tariffs
Speaker 2: on Switzerland on watchers and chocolate and stuff like that,
Speaker 2: it turns out that they are now easing easing. I
Speaker 2: don't know what easing means and how much they're easing,
Speaker 2: but the punishing levees on imports from Switzerland they're going
Speaker 2: to be dramatically lower. So yeah, it's it's getting to
Speaker 2: the point where.
Speaker 1: Maybe you know the tariff issue is slowly being the
Speaker 1: impact of it is slowly being reduced. I will say
Speaker 1: today I spoke at Leadishipport and the Rockies, which I
Speaker 1: speak at every year, and I and both the speaker
Speaker 1: before me and me both attacked Trump's tariffs in front
Speaker 1: of a group of that usually really resents challenging Trump
Speaker 1: on anything, and they have spoted pretty well. So I
Speaker 1: think the tide has.
Speaker 2: Shifted in terms of public opinion about tariffs, and maybe
Speaker 2: this is one battle where reason and rationality is winning
Speaker 2: at least a little bit. All right, let me let
Speaker 2: me just see what do we We're going to talk
Speaker 2: about those three items, Okay, one more lengthy one and
Speaker 2: one short ones. I want to talk a little bit
Speaker 2: about the Philibesta, which is being on really on people's
Speaker 2: minds with the with the government shutdown and the idea
Speaker 2: you needed sixty votes in order to pass this this
Speaker 2: continuing resolution. Why sixty why not just fifty one? Why
Speaker 2: do we need this special thing in the Philibusta? And
Speaker 2: some people claiming, oh, it's in the constitution, which.
Speaker 1: Is not so.
Speaker 2: I want to talk a little bit of a philibusta's
Speaker 2: arugument for it and arguments against it. Give you a
Speaker 2: little bit of history of where it comes from. Uh
Speaker 2: and and and give you a little sense of what
Speaker 2: this is about. So the philibesta was really born in
Speaker 2: eighteen oh six. It was in the early Senate, right
Speaker 2: at the beginning of the Republic. You know, a simple
Speaker 2: majority could cut off debate using a rule called previous
Speaker 2: question motion. It's a tool that the House has, and
Speaker 2: so at some point you're debating and debating and debating
Speaker 2: and debating.
Speaker 1: And okay, enough, we have to vote.
Speaker 2: In eighteen oh six, of the recommendation of Vice President
Speaker 2: Aaron Burr, the Senate removed this motion as part of
Speaker 2: a kind of cleaning up the rules. As unintended consequences,
Speaker 2: they created the filibuster. The filibuster at the time mean
Speaker 2: that people could continue debating the issue indefinitely and hold
Speaker 2: up a vote indefinitely, as long as you kept debating,
Speaker 2: as long as you kept speaking, and there was no
Speaker 2: formal mechanism to end debate. And indeed, the first filibusters
Speaker 2: started in the eighteen thirties and eighteen forties, and suddenly
Speaker 2: people realized, well, unlimited debate was possible, and we'll never
Speaker 2: get to vote on this if they keep talking. So
Speaker 2: the filibuster was born out of neglect, out of unintended
Speaker 2: consequences of a slight change of a rule.
Speaker 1: They didn't really know.
Speaker 2: What happened in philibuster is the idea that you could
Speaker 2: continue talking, you continue debating one or several senators, and
Speaker 2: you can continue doing this so the vote never comes
Speaker 2: to the floor, you know, And there were examples where
Speaker 2: this worked. In nineteen forty one, Henry Clay's attempt to
Speaker 2: create a national bank was blocked by philibuster. In the
Speaker 2: late eighteen hundreds, filibusters increased, often used around civil rights
Speaker 2: issues in patronage battles, but they were still rare. The
Speaker 2: Senate met less frequently. There wasn't a lot to vote on,
Speaker 2: and mostly they just voted, and you know, the people
Speaker 2: didn't filibuster that many issues. In nineteen during World War One,
Speaker 2: a group of Isolation senators filibuster the bill that would
Speaker 2: have armed merchant ships. President Wilson demanded reform. He thought
Speaker 2: this was unacceptable, and so they introduced what was called.
Speaker 1: The cloture rule. And this was a rule that said
Speaker 1: that you could cut off debate if two thirds of
Speaker 1: the Senate voted to cut the debate off. If two
Speaker 1: thirds voted, the debate was cut and they would the
Speaker 1: issue would go to a vote right. In the thirties through.
Speaker 2: The nineteen sixties, filibusters became associate with blocking civil rights legislation. Suddenly,
Speaker 2: Democrats used it to filibuster to prevent anti lynching bills,
Speaker 2: voting protections, and other civil rights measures. There was even
Speaker 2: the longest single individual filibuster of the period was Storm
Speaker 2: Thurman in nineteen fifty seven, where he spoke straight for
Speaker 2: twenty four hours eighteen minutes against the Civil Rights Act
Speaker 2: of nineteen fifty seven, and then in nineteen sixty four
Speaker 2: there was a sixty day filibuster where they tried to
Speaker 2: derail the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, but
Speaker 2: ultimately closure two thirds vote was invoked and enough Senators
Speaker 2: voted to actually go ahead and vote on a civil
Speaker 2: rights Act. In nineteen seventy five, there was a decision
Speaker 2: made that two thirds was too rigorous of standard, and
Speaker 2: it was lowered to sixty votes, two fifths of the
Speaker 2: full Senate. They also created a two track system where
Speaker 2: you could debate on one bill could continue even if
Speaker 2: it's being filibustered while the Senate moved on to other
Speaker 2: business right.
Speaker 1: And this is what the modern filibuster is. It no
Speaker 1: longer requires you to non stop talking.
Speaker 2: All you have to do really is to threaten a
Speaker 2: filibuster that if it comes to vote, you won't let
Speaker 2: it because you'll start talking, and that forces a closure vote.
Speaker 2: And unless you have sixty votes to force a vote,
Speaker 2: you don't even bring a bill to the floor to
Speaker 2: be voted on. And that's where we are today. Where
Speaker 2: we are today is that the philibuster does become a
Speaker 2: standard tool for the minority party to stop anything the
Speaker 2: majority wants to pass.
Speaker 1: All they have to do is threaten filibusta.
Speaker 2: Sometimes they do speeches, but mostly they just threaten it,
Speaker 2: and then you have to have sixty votes and that's it.
Speaker 1: That's just accepted normal. Now this has been eroded a
Speaker 1: little bit.
Speaker 2: In twenty thirteen, Democrats ended the filibuster for executive branch
Speaker 2: nominees and lower court federal judges, be the Supreme courts
Speaker 2: still required sixty votes. In twenty seventeen, Republicans ended the
Speaker 2: filibustera to the Supreme Court nominees, so it only needs
Speaker 2: fifty one vote, and they did that in order to
Speaker 2: get Neil Gosich elected.
Speaker 1: He wasn't going to get sixty.
Speaker 2: So now all presidential nominees only need fifty one, but
Speaker 2: almost all other legislation, with the exception of budget reconciliation
Speaker 2: we will leave that for another time, need sixty votes
Speaker 2: in order to basically pass. Again, not in the constitution,
Speaker 2: but a part of the way things run. Now here's
Speaker 2: the thing. What this does is it gives the minority
Speaker 2: party vita power if it can stick together. We show
Speaker 2: that it couldn't. The Democrats couldn't stick together with regard
Speaker 2: to the government shutdown. But if they can stick together,
Speaker 2: they can block. If they have if they have forty
Speaker 2: one votes, they can block what the majority wants to do.
Speaker 2: So it protects the minority rights in the Senate. That's
Speaker 2: part of the positive. It encourages an attempt for bipartisanship
Speaker 2: and it prevents big major swings in the law for
Speaker 2: good or for ill. I think the main thing that
Speaker 2: it does that I like is to slows things down.
Speaker 2: It forces thought, it forces consideration, forces their empt to
Speaker 2: try to get people from the other party to vote
Speaker 2: for it, and it doesn't allow for big ideological swings.
Speaker 1: But of course that's also a problem. You know, it
Speaker 1: gives the.
Speaker 2: Minority exaggerated power. We already have a system of checks
Speaker 2: and balances. This adds on to that another check and balance,
Speaker 2: and it gives the video policy you have to have
Speaker 2: sixty votes in the Senate to do anything. It paralyzes
Speaker 2: Congress in the end. At the Senate level, the House
Speaker 2: doesn't have anything like this. And it said vises good luck,
Speaker 2: which I'm for generally good luck and partisanship, you know,
Speaker 2: which I'm against tribalism. And this is the problem that
Speaker 2: when you want to do good things, it slows them
Speaker 2: down and stops them.
Speaker 1: It makes it impossible.
Speaker 2: So, for example, if today on energy for example, or
Speaker 2: environmental regulation, the administration would like to pass bills in
Speaker 2: the Senate they would actually dramatically reduce regulation of environment
Speaker 2: and actually liberalize economy and really make dramatic changes in
Speaker 2: the world in which we live. It can't do it
Speaker 2: without getting significant democratic vote votes, and we know the
Speaker 2: significant of democratic votes are not forthcoming. So change for
Speaker 2: the positive is basically halted.
Speaker 1: It stopped now. It also prevents a lot of bad
Speaker 1: stuff from happening. Who knows what this administration would like
Speaker 1: to pass in terms of voting, in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: election rules, in terms of immigration, in terms of a
Speaker 1: lot of other things that I think are dangerous and problematic.
Speaker 1: And what if the Democrats, as when they at Obama
Speaker 1: had the White House, the Senate, and the House, they
Speaker 1: could have passed all kinds of things socialized healthcare and
Speaker 1: Medicare for all with just fifty one votes. So I
Speaker 1: have to admit torn I'd like the good legislation to
Speaker 1: only require fifty one votes and the bad legislation require sixty.
Speaker 1: I'd like to slow down any negative bad legislation. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, people should get what they vote for,
Speaker 1: and if people vote for.
Speaker 2: For political power, for political party to have the House
Speaker 2: of Senate, to end the White House, maybe they should
Speaker 2: be allowed a free fall to pass whatever they can pass.
Speaker 2: So I'm tone, I'm not, you know, I don't fall
Speaker 2: clearly on one side of the other. It's frustrating when
Speaker 2: there's some good bills they never pass. For example, I
Speaker 2: think they're going to be some bills on the table
Speaker 2: which expand dramatically expand health saving accounts, which I think
Speaker 2: would be really good. I don't think it can pass
Speaker 2: the Senate because I'm not sure they can get the Democratic.
Speaker 1: Votes to get it passed. It would be great to
Speaker 1: pass that on fifty one votes. Environmental deregulations, some of
Speaker 1: the some of the energy regulations that we want to
Speaker 1: permanently get rid of, which would be really, really good.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Right now, I'm not sure certainly this administration cannot get
Speaker 2: Democratic votes for it. We're in a position where Democrats
Speaker 2: can't get Republicans to vote with them, and Republicans can't
Speaker 2: get Democrats to vote for them, you know, except when
Speaker 2: it's for expanding government and then and then the parties
Speaker 2: come together.
Speaker 1: But for shrinking government, you can't get the parties together.
Speaker 1: So it is, it is a quandary. I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't come down clearly on one side of the other.
Speaker 2: As I've always said, I like gridlock because I worry
Speaker 2: that almost every any administration, including this one, is going
Speaker 2: to pass more bad things and good things, more bad
Speaker 2: things and good things. And it's a shame that we
Speaker 2: don't get the good things, but it's good we don't
Speaker 2: get the bad things. So I'm mildly pro filibuster, but
Speaker 2: I'm also you know, people voted.
Speaker 1: For all this bad stuff. Let him have it, just
Speaker 1: like the tariffs. They got the tariffs. Now they're holding
Speaker 1: the back.
Speaker 2: You know, suffer the consequences of your actions. Voting matters,
Speaker 2: you know. The best way to prevent this is is
Speaker 2: a kind of divided government. But of course, if you
Speaker 2: have divided government, it's like a filibuster. You're never going
Speaker 2: to get the good legislation. So sadly, in the world
Speaker 2: in which we live, there's no way to get the
Speaker 2: good stuff without getting the bad stuff as well, and
Speaker 2: filibuster is an example of that.
Speaker 1: If you do away with it, you get both. If
Speaker 1: you don't do away with it, you don't get the
Speaker 1: good stuff. So I'm torn.
Speaker 2: It's not clear to me which side is better, but
Speaker 2: generally I tend towards, you know, divided governments and not
Speaker 2: getting a lot done, because I worry about the downside
Speaker 2: more than about losing out on the upside. In the
Speaker 2: case of politics. In every other aspect of life that's
Speaker 2: not the case. So I'm probably still for the filibuster
Speaker 2: in spite of the fact that a lot of things
Speaker 2: that I'd like to pass are not going to pass.
Speaker 2: All right, Two quick stories, and then I'll go to
Speaker 2: your questions. I know we've got a lot of questions,
Speaker 2: and I do have a hard stops. If because of
Speaker 2: the hard stop, I have to delay some questions the
Speaker 2: next show, I apologize, but I'll I'll do the questions
Speaker 2: in the next show. I answer all questions. I won't
Speaker 2: lose them. Don't worry all right quickly. Jeffrey Epstein Epstein,
Speaker 2: This is still ongoing right now. Congress is going to
Speaker 2: vote on releasing Jeffrey Epstein's content. There's a majority, I
Speaker 2: think it now's a representative for this to pass. There's
Speaker 2: probably a majority in the center for this to pass.
Speaker 2: The Democrats will vote for it, and a number of
Speaker 2: Tobeicans and actually a significant amou of Republicans will probably
Speaker 2: vote for it.
Speaker 1: Trump tried to stop it.
Speaker 2: He tried to convince law and Bob It, the congresswoman
Speaker 2: from Colorado, to vote against releasing the Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 1: It didn't go well. She insisted on voting for it.
Speaker 2: So there was a there was a procedural vote in
Speaker 2: the House to allow us to come to a vote.
Speaker 2: And it's going to come to a vote, and yeah,
Speaker 2: expect to see a lot of Jeffrey Epstein files hitting
Speaker 2: the news. Of course, some Epstein files have already been released.
Speaker 2: They raise even more suspicions about Trump's relationship with Epstein.
Speaker 2: Nothing is clear, nothing is obvious, but they just just
Speaker 2: the language of them and the way they're phrased. These
Speaker 2: emails that Jeffrey Epstein wrote about Trump suggest that maybe
Speaker 2: Trump was more involved in what Jeffy Epstein was doing
Speaker 2: with young girls than would be we would believe, we
Speaker 2: were led to believe. Also, Maga seems to be shifting
Speaker 2: in positions from pedophelia to well, maybe having sex with
Speaker 2: teenage girls is not pedophelia. Maybe that suggests that there's
Speaker 2: a lot more about what Trump was doing than anybody
Speaker 2: wants to admit. Anyway, Trump is responding to this by
Speaker 2: being very defensive, as he always is, and by going
Speaker 2: in the attack, which he always does. So Trump has
Speaker 2: basically told the Department of Justice to start probing the
Speaker 2: relationship between Epstein and Epstein and Bill Killington, so go
Speaker 2: after democrats. So basically, Trump's viewers, if Jeffrey Epstein is
Speaker 2: going to bring me down, he's going to bring down
Speaker 2: a bunch of Democrats as well.
Speaker 1: So I'm all for this.
Speaker 2: Let's get them all out. Let's get it all out
Speaker 2: in the open. Let's release everything. I don't understand what
Speaker 2: hasn't been released already. Let's release everything. Let's figure out
Speaker 2: who did what and when and if that means ending
Speaker 2: the political careers of a bunch of people, Democrats, Republicans, whatever, Fine,
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm all for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, let's get it out there. Let's get it all
Speaker 1: out there.
Speaker 2: It's sad that Trump is saying go after Clinton rather
Speaker 2: than just you don't go after anybody who deserves to
Speaker 2: go after given the facts.
Speaker 1: That's not how Trump operates.
Speaker 2: But we will get a lot more Jeffrey Epstein emails
Speaker 2: and stuff. And it does turn out, just by the
Speaker 2: emails that already be released, that a lot of the
Speaker 2: rich and powerful people who politicians and businessmen who were
Speaker 2: associated with Jeffrey Epstein did not count to what they say,
Speaker 2: did not disengage from him, even after the allegations about
Speaker 2: his activities his Peterphelly activities became public. So this continued,
Speaker 2: and uh, yeah, I mean, there's still a story there.
Speaker 2: And it does look like we'll know more because Congress
Speaker 2: is going to force the release of these files and
Speaker 2: if Trump is if it's a problem for Trump, It'll
Speaker 2: be interesting to see how Maga responses, because Maggot's pushing
Speaker 2: for the release of the files. But then if they
Speaker 2: come back as as Trump was did bad stuff, what
Speaker 2: are they gonna do?
Speaker 1: Are they gonna turn against Trump or not.
Speaker 2: Finally, just to just to point out that because I
Speaker 2: did say in a past show, I think that the
Speaker 2: gerald Ford aircraft carrier UH was was delayed in arriving
Speaker 2: at the Caribbean, and maybe Trump was backing off going
Speaker 2: to war with Venezuela and going to war with the cartels.
Speaker 2: It turns out that no, it's now in the southern Caribbean.
Speaker 2: It has joined the other forces in this in the Caribbean,
Speaker 2: it is off the shows of Venezuela. This is the
Speaker 2: largest if this is the largest aircraft carrier in the
Speaker 2: American fleet, the largest aircraft carrier in the world.
Speaker 1: I think, incredibly powerful war machine.
Speaker 2: I think this is just an increased pressure on Maduro
Speaker 2: and to try to get him out of Venezuela, to
Speaker 2: get regime changed without a war. But it is also
Speaker 2: an indication that America is willing to go I guess
Speaker 2: to violent action. The US is continuing to blow ships
Speaker 2: out of the water for who knows what reason, killing
Speaker 2: people without any trial, without jury, without any kind of
Speaker 2: legal framework to justify it, without a declaration of war,
Speaker 2: without anything.
Speaker 1: Really, it's truly astounding that.
Speaker 2: This is allowed to continue, that nobody is outraged by
Speaker 2: the fact that the United States is just killing people
Speaker 2: in the Caribbean Sea through the discretion of I guess
Speaker 2: military commanders.
Speaker 1: And you know.
Speaker 2: And now there are murmurs of we're going to launch
Speaker 2: at tax inside Mexico, We're going to go after cartels
Speaker 2: wherever they are, which I think is just just horrific.
Speaker 2: I mean, the solution of the drug war or the
Speaker 2: drugs is not war with the cartels. The solution of
Speaker 2: the drugs again is to legalize them and let local
Speaker 2: law enforcement take care of them. And if the United
Speaker 2: States can help local law enforcement contain the violence.
Speaker 1: Then so be it.
Speaker 2: But get rid of the violence in the United States.
Speaker 2: It is not through a war in Mexico and the
Speaker 2: rest of.
Speaker 1: The Latin America.
Speaker 2: That will be a topic we will be discussing more
Speaker 2: as developments in the Caribbean Sea. As things develop in
Speaker 2: the Caribbean Sea, all right, let's let's not send to
Speaker 2: your questions, you know, so we've got quite a few questions,
Speaker 2: so that is in use for fighting November fourteenth.
Speaker 1: Again, thank you for joining me. Thank you for all the.
Speaker 2: People who did stickers, primarily Troy who did five hundred
Speaker 2: Australian dollars.
Speaker 1: Think you think you?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Thanks so Jack for a sticker, and thank
Speaker 2: you John for the sticker, and thank you to all
Speaker 2: the other sticker providers that can think before.
Speaker 1: Normative randroid as well. I don't think I think that before,
Speaker 1: but especially as I said to Troy, we got a
Speaker 1: lot of twenty dollars questions, so we're going to start
Speaker 1: with those and then with over time we have left,
Speaker 1: we'll do the five to ten dollars questions and if
Speaker 1: there's anything left after that, I have a hard stop
Speaker 1: in forty five minutes.
Speaker 2: We will take them up on the next show, which
Speaker 2: will be on Sunday. We'll do a show on Sunday
Speaker 2: and we'll cover those all, right, nanjavij algithm. Psychopaths a
Speaker 2: very small and number in modern society. But during the
Speaker 2: Dark Ages, wasn't most everyone a psychopath? People slaughtered each
Speaker 2: other on the regular with no remorse zero Some thinking
Speaker 2: turns us into monsters. Yeah, I mean, I don't know
Speaker 2: what psychopaths exactly means. I mean, to be a psychopath,
Speaker 2: I think is a clinical psychological diagnosis. I don't think
Speaker 2: slaughtering and murdering people in the makes you a psychopath.
Speaker 2: But I don't know it's a psychological term. I'm not
Speaker 2: a psychologist. I don't like the diagnosed people with those
Speaker 2: kind of things. It is true that in modern times, killing, slaughtering, raping,
Speaker 2: pillaging is pretty much unaccepted in civilized society. Now, note
Speaker 2: that there are plenty of people at our universities who
Speaker 2: believe that killing, raping, burning people alive, torturing them is
Speaker 2: completely okay if you're the so called oppressed. If you're
Speaker 2: a Palestinian and the people you are killing are you know,
Speaker 2: Israeli is a Jews. So even in a civilized society,
Speaker 2: while people might not do it the things, they are
Speaker 2: willing to support them.
Speaker 1: Because of an ideology.
Speaker 2: Now, and note that these Palestinians, the Gazans who did
Speaker 2: this were behaving like Middle Ages Europeans. So the number
Speaker 2: of people engaging in slaughter, the number of people willing
Speaker 2: to engage in slaughter. The number of people capable of
Speaker 2: great pillage and slaughter is dependent on the state of civilization.
Speaker 1: The more civilized the place, the less the fewer people
Speaker 1: they are who are willing to kill, the more barbarica place.
Speaker 1: And and here barbarism and civilization has more to do
Speaker 1: with the ideas than anything else, the less slaughter there is.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's the book Better.
Speaker 2: Better, Angels of Our Nature about by Stephen Pinka about
Speaker 2: the level of violence and society over time, and he
Speaker 2: shows quite dramatically how over time violence has declined dramatically
Speaker 2: in the Western world as we became more civilized, which
Speaker 2: means as we gain more respect for reason and for
Speaker 2: individualism and for the sanctity of life. And that when
Speaker 2: we were mystics and collectivists and tribalists, violence was all
Speaker 2: the rage. I don't like labeling it a psychological issue
Speaker 2: rather than a philosophical one.
Speaker 1: Ideas shape human behavior at the end of the day.
Speaker 2: When we embrace barbaric ideas, we become barbarians. When we
Speaker 2: embrace civilized ideas, we become civilized. I mean, it's not
Speaker 2: quite that simple, but that's a principle. Ian great performance
Speaker 2: at the web debate and good for doctor web debate.
Speaker 1: That was my debate.
Speaker 2: That was a debate yesterday as human socialism and capitalism,
Speaker 2: and good for doctor Mossov. Do you know if doctor
Speaker 2: Marsov regrets his support for Trump in twenty twenty four election.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I haven't talked to him, but I
Speaker 1: don't think so.
Speaker 2: I think he still views he still views Kamala as
Speaker 2: a worst choice, particularly on the issue that swayed him,
Speaker 2: which was the issue of Israel, you know, and then
Speaker 2: maybe there are other issues in which also supported his
Speaker 2: support for Trump. But next time we have Adam on
Speaker 2: the show, we can certainly ask him about that, or
Speaker 2: you can ask him about that.
Speaker 1: But I don't think. I don't think he regrets it.
Speaker 1: And if that's not true, then he will come on
Speaker 1: the show and tell us otherwise.
Speaker 2: Peb says, I was honored to have m Thatcher, Margaret
Speaker 2: Thatcher speak at my nineteen ninety six commencement. Cool She
Speaker 2: spoke on China, the West and capitalism, saying it would
Speaker 2: bring democracy to China.
Speaker 1: By voting with dollars. She was right or was she right?
Speaker 1: And what was she missing? Well, what she was missing
Speaker 1: I think was the.
Speaker 2: Was the willingness of the Chinese regime to engage in
Speaker 2: self preservation, which I think was what happened with she
Speaker 2: in the mid twenty teens, where he clamped down on
Speaker 2: economic freedom in order to preserve the authoritary nature of
Speaker 2: the regime. She was one of the reasons he did
Speaker 2: that was because she was right, was because that the
Speaker 2: free markets were moving Chinese to demand more political freedom.
Speaker 2: You saw that in the post COVID era as well,
Speaker 2: with the demonstrations against the shutdowns, the lockdowns. I don't
Speaker 2: think she saw the willingness of Chinese government to continue that. Also,
Speaker 2: I think she overestimated the power of capital, of I
Speaker 2: don't know what you call it, of markets free of
Speaker 2: real philosophical ideas. To actually liberate liberate the people, the
Speaker 2: Chinese are going to have to fight for their freedom.
Speaker 2: They're going to have to fight for their liberty. I
Speaker 2: truly believe that one there will be another Tannerman Square
Speaker 2: and the Chinese people will have to fight back. And
Speaker 2: to do that, they're gonna have to believe in liberty
Speaker 2: and freedom.
Speaker 1: To do that, they're gonna have to be armed with
Speaker 1: real ideas, not just I want to make more money
Speaker 1: and not that that's bad. Right, wanted to make more
Speaker 1: money is good. They need to.
Speaker 2: Understand the relationship between political freedom and economic freedom, and
Speaker 2: they need to demand political freedom and they need to
Speaker 2: be willing to fight back for it. They want a
Speaker 2: Tennerman Square. I mean, they showed incredibly courage. Once the
Speaker 2: shooting started, they were gone. And partially of it is
Speaker 2: because of the overwhelming force. It has to be the
Speaker 2: case that elements within the military will stand up to
Speaker 2: the regime and support the protesters or whatever.
Speaker 1: So I think she will be right.
Speaker 2: In the very long term, or China will descend into poverty,
Speaker 2: into tlitarianism again.
Speaker 1: I think that the.
Speaker 2: Attempt to balance economic freedom with authoritarian regime is not.
Speaker 1: Sustainable even either move towards more freedom or towards significant
Speaker 1: less freedom. And right now we're moving towards less freedom.
Speaker 1: Whether that is the path or whether that is going
Speaker 1: to change.
Speaker 2: I mean, you know, a lot of people said, and
Speaker 2: I said, Tom, I show that there was a possibility
Speaker 2: that she was out and in October when the Communist
Speaker 2: Party meets, they might kick him out. That did not happen.
Speaker 2: She has only consolidated his power further. Does not bode well,
Speaker 2: for at least the short medium term for China Harper Campbell,
Speaker 2: while Ma'm donnie one on the same ballot, measures were
Speaker 2: passed deregulating housing development in New York City. Will the
Speaker 2: future of the mixed economy be greater deregulation while simultaneously
Speaker 2: growing welfare systems? Well, here's the thing that is not
Speaker 2: very much reported. Mam Donny supported the deregulation. That is,
Speaker 2: mum Donny supported leading housing. He ran on a platform
Speaker 2: that both encouraged rent control and at the same time
Speaker 2: encouraged deregulation the building of housing, so greater housing supply.
Speaker 2: He is, you know, supposedly part of the YIMBI, you know, yes,
Speaker 2: in my backyard, kind of the pro pro housing growth
Speaker 2: part of the left.
Speaker 1: But I do think that's true.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you look at the Danish model, the
Speaker 2: Nordic model that they admire so much that the left
Speaker 2: today thinks is the ultimate model, that model is basically
Speaker 2: a model of less regulation, significantly deregulation, and much more
Speaker 2: or much more efficient effective depending on you know, effective
Speaker 2: for the goal, right, not effective in a big scheme
Speaker 2: of things, but welfare state, So yes, I expect more
Speaker 2: redistribution and potentially less regulation. Particularly when it comes to housing.
Speaker 2: There seems to be a consensus building that housing needs
Speaker 2: to be deregulated, and even the left, even the socialist left.
Speaker 2: The guy I debated yesterday was very very pro deregulating housing,
Speaker 2: you know, and and and and some of the new
Speaker 2: housing should be built by the state, but some of
Speaker 2: it should be private industry. And but deregulation was the
Speaker 2: theme housing, not I don't know anything else, Andrew. Do
Speaker 2: you think Tuka has a massive inferiority complex. He's often
Speaker 2: concerned the Jews don't see themselves as better than him.
Speaker 1: Why does he care? Rand did imply that too, He's
Speaker 1: evil flowed from feeling of inferiority. Look, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't like to to be psychological motivations because I'm
Speaker 2: not a psychologist. I've said I've told you this many times, Andrew,
Speaker 2: So I don't know. I mean, Tucker comes from a
Speaker 2: wealthy family. He very much has a almost as acratic bearing,
Speaker 2: an aristocratic perspective.
Speaker 1: He really considers himself better than everybody else. I think
Speaker 1: that he is offended by the fact the Jews, of
Speaker 1: all people, are maybe in some cases, most successful, richer
Speaker 1: and have entered that part of society which they used
Speaker 1: to be banned.
Speaker 2: From in the early part of the twentieth century and
Speaker 2: nineteenth century. But I don't know what ultimately drives it.
Speaker 2: There's no question I think that much adoption of evil
Speaker 2: ideas is driven by lack of self esteem.
Speaker 1: But look, at the end of the day, it's lack
Speaker 1: of thinking. It is evasion.
Speaker 2: I don't know the psychological motivation for that, usually inferiority
Speaker 2: or lack of self esteem, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: It just could be a choice.
Speaker 2: It could be a certain tradition, it could be I
Speaker 2: don't know what he is adopting, but it's very well
Speaker 2: could be lack of self esteem. Adam says, I never
Speaker 2: heard you mention that the current state of US culture
Speaker 2: is a manifest consequence of the mass disminding of young
Speaker 2: Americans under the worst anti philosophy of education.
Speaker 1: Have I missed something now? I think I say it
Speaker 1: all the time, I talk about it all the time,
Speaker 1: that you know, the.
Speaker 2: State of American culture, the state of American youth is
Speaker 2: a consequence of the fact that they've been taught to
Speaker 2: emote and not to think. Now, that's disminding. That's exactly
Speaker 2: the essence of what disminding is. I don't use that term.
Speaker 2: Diminding is not a term in my vocabulary. It's in yours, Atam,
Speaker 2: and you brought it up many times on the show.
Speaker 1: But I do emphasize over and over and over again
Speaker 1: that what the American educational system, progressive education in particular,
Speaker 1: but generally the American educational system does is it emphasizes emotion,
Speaker 1: it emphasizes socialization, and de emphasizes thinking and thinking skills.
Speaker 1: And that is the consequence of that is the anti
Speaker 1: conceptual mentality that is dominant both the left and the
Speaker 1: right today, the unthinking ideologies and.
Speaker 2: Therefore the unthinking, mal educated people around us attracted to them.
Speaker 2: All Right, it looks like Lincoln has submitted a full
Speaker 2: part question, So let's read through this and see any
Speaker 2: advice on someone in undergraduate trying to go to the
Speaker 2: intellectual public policy academic route throughout career wise. I initially
Speaker 2: assumed I'd go into into finance, but fixing the garbage
Speaker 2: in that universe in the universities and think tanks is needed.
Speaker 1: For reference, I don't know what that means. Lincoln, of course,
Speaker 1: it's needed, But what has that to do with you? Right,
Speaker 1: So it's needed, does that mean you need to do it?
Speaker 1: We'll get to that in a minute.
Speaker 2: For reference, I'm currently in an honors student at the
Speaker 2: University of Arizona's Philosophy, Politics, and Economics program.
Speaker 1: That's a good program on the pre law track.
Speaker 2: I'm pretty smart top five percent sat Schoolles, who could
Speaker 2: probably get into any grad program.
Speaker 1: Or law program short of Yale or Harvard.
Speaker 2: I'd like to pursue economic and economics masters alongside my JD,
Speaker 2: and perhaps even an ECON PhD, but I'm not sure
Speaker 2: where's where to study. Most ECON program programs are anti
Speaker 2: market without with the exception of George Mason. Given I
Speaker 2: come from a comfortable family, Tuition costs, you know, the
Speaker 2: lower salaries compared to finance an issue. Since tuition costs
Speaker 2: well maybe a non an issue. Can't tell if there is.
Speaker 2: Since you've gone through both academia and AORI. What's your
Speaker 2: advice at entering this world. Well, first, I want to
Speaker 2: make sure that your motivation is right.
Speaker 1: You need to do what you what your values dictate,
Speaker 1: that is what you're gonna enjoy doing. This is gonna
Speaker 1: be your career. It's gonna we will spend most of
Speaker 1: your time. So don't go into I don't know, into
Speaker 1: ref into think tank world or the intellectual world because
Speaker 1: it's needed. Go into it because you're passionate about.
Speaker 2: It and you really want to do the work, and
Speaker 2: you think you'll really enjoy it, and you think this
Speaker 2: is where you will be happy spending most of your life.
Speaker 2: So if you've decided, you really decided you want to
Speaker 2: go into economics and you want to get to a
Speaker 2: law degree in economic degree, I do actually think Judge
Speaker 2: Mason is a is a great place to go.
Speaker 1: Now you're gonna struggle with the temptation. Judge Mason University
Speaker 1: is very good.
Speaker 2: The economics department is very good at convincing people that
Speaker 2: anarchy is the right political system.
Speaker 1: So you're gonna have to fight that.
Speaker 2: It's going to be difficult because their professors are very
Speaker 2: very smart and they make the best arguments possible for anarchy.
Speaker 2: And the more objectivism you know going into that program,
Speaker 2: the more you'll be able to resist the temptation to
Speaker 2: be absorbed by it. You could also go to Clemson,
Speaker 2: which has a decent econ department, I don't remember if
Speaker 2: they do a PhDs. Judge Mason, they do, and they
Speaker 2: have a decent law school where for example, Adam Mosov
Speaker 2: teaches in their law school. So they've got a decent
Speaker 2: law school in a good economics department. So it's a
Speaker 2: good place to go at that point.
Speaker 1: Once you are.
Speaker 2: Once you have the PhD in economics, then you can
Speaker 2: decide do I want to be an academic and go
Speaker 2: and teach and or do I want to come to
Speaker 2: the Ironman Institute. And maybe at that point in the
Speaker 2: iron Man University they'll be a demand for somebody to
Speaker 2: teach economics. I know today there is some demand for
Speaker 2: somebody to come in and teach economics and become a
Speaker 2: professor at the Iran Institute.
Speaker 1: So one thing I.
Speaker 2: Would encourage you to do, and I can't remember if
Speaker 2: you're already doing this or not. One thing I'd encourage
Speaker 2: you to do Lincoln is take as many classes as
Speaker 2: you can at the ARU from AARI, take as many
Speaker 2: classes as you can. Let them know that you want
Speaker 2: to become an intellectual, so that they give you kind
Speaker 2: of a put you on an accelerated track. You don't
Speaker 2: get involved with all of the undergraduate and graduate programs
Speaker 2: at the Iron Ran Institute. Why you're getting your PhD
Speaker 2: in economics, even if it slows you down, do not
Speaker 2: stop taking classes from the institute. Keep taking classes at
Speaker 2: the ARU, Keep stay.
Speaker 1: Involved with the I with ARU because it will it
Speaker 1: will give you an It will give you it will
Speaker 1: help you resist kind of many of the arguments and
Speaker 1: give you the tools to argue back against ag amount
Speaker 1: your professors will make. And it will give you an
Speaker 1: opening once you graduate with that PhD to come and
Speaker 1: work at AARU. But that's what we're looking for.
Speaker 2: We're looking for people who have PhDs in economics and
Speaker 2: really no economics to come and teach today?
Speaker 1: Are you? And and also no objectivism? Right importantly, no
Speaker 1: economics and no objectivism to come and teach today? Are you?
Speaker 1: So absolutely.
Speaker 2: You know, go and and I see no problem in
Speaker 2: pursuing that track if that's really what you want to
Speaker 2: do versus the finance career you seem to have wanted originally.
Speaker 2: So figure out what you really want to do it
Speaker 2: and go and do it, and the institute will create
Speaker 2: opportunities for you to become an intellectual within the objectivist world.
Speaker 1: Once you have a PhD.
Speaker 2: There won't be any problem if you're a PhD and
Speaker 2: an objectivist, They're going to be lots of opportunities for you.
Speaker 2: Lincoln continues your point on debunking the housing meme. Gave
Speaker 2: me an idea for you to make its own show.
Speaker 2: The idea that life was beat in the fifties eighties
Speaker 2: is very common, with wage stagnation since nineteen seventy one
Speaker 2: and affordable fifties housing being related. Yeah, I mean, I've
Speaker 2: talked about that many many times on the show. I
Speaker 2: could do a whole show just debunking that, you know, absolutely,
Speaker 2: But yeah, all right, nicokap, could you make a show
Speaker 2: about your favorite composers and their best pieces? Yeah, I'll
Speaker 2: probably do it as a member's only show. So I'm
Speaker 2: glad to see you a member. That's a good idea
Speaker 2: for the next member's only show. Thomas, where does the
Speaker 2: claim that logic leads to authoritarianism come from? Peacock raises
Speaker 2: this phnominous parallels too. How did logic get tied to apathy?
Speaker 2: I'm not sure why apathy.
Speaker 1: I assume you've seen How did logic get tied to authoritarianism?
Speaker 1: You know, I think it goes in a sense all.
Speaker 2: The way back to Plato, though Plato never used the
Speaker 2: term I don't think used the term logic in this context.
Speaker 2: But the idea is that, you know, logic, reason, rationality,
Speaker 2: only some people have access to that, or let's say,
Speaker 2: really really smart people can do that much better than
Speaker 2: the rest of us, and therefore those people should guide
Speaker 2: our lives.
Speaker 1: We are not very rational, we are weak, we are
Speaker 1: not that smart.
Speaker 2: We should let smart people make decisions for us because
Speaker 2: they'll make better decisions for us, because we can't sustain
Speaker 2: our lives. So that's I think where it comes from.
Speaker 2: It comes to this idea that logic, reason, rationality qualities
Speaker 2: that are associate with intelligence, and since most people are
Speaker 2: not intelligent enough to really to live up to that,
Speaker 2: you know, execute on logic and all of that, that
Speaker 2: we need. We need guides, We need authorities to tell
Speaker 2: us how to live and what to do. I think
Speaker 2: that's a connection. Jonathan, thank you Adam for quitting heritage
Speaker 2: great shows lately.
Speaker 1: You're on. Thank you, Jonathan appreciated.
Speaker 2: Jonathan continues, You're on Brook as the James Brown of philosophy,
Speaker 2: the hottest working man in show business.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you, thank you, Liam.
Speaker 2: Ironic when Bill O'Reilly is the only major Republican to
Speaker 2: come out and condemn Tucker and Candice Owen.
Speaker 1: Wow, Bill O'Reilly did that? All right?
Speaker 2: Bill O'Reilly my nemesis from the two thousands. It's gonna
Speaker 2: know he's still around, Harper Campbell. Since Goldwater? Did the
Speaker 2: Conservatives typically place the capitalism before the Christianity. Now it's
Speaker 2: the other way around. No, I mean, Conservatives never placed
Speaker 2: the capitalism before the Christianity. And indeed they've never been capitalist.
Speaker 2: And this is why conservatives, I mean, what government has
Speaker 2: been conservative since?
Speaker 1: What government has been po capitalist? Since Goldwater?
Speaker 2: I mean, maybe, arguably for short period of time Reagan
Speaker 2: you could argue, at least verbally and in terms of
Speaker 2: rate of growth of spending, non military spending was very.
Speaker 1: Low, and there was some deregulation.
Speaker 2: But overall Conservatives have not been stringent advocates for capitalism.
Speaker 2: It's always been weak. Now it's completely gone, that is
Speaker 2: the difference. Now it's completely gone.
Speaker 1: But they were never.
Speaker 2: Never placed a beg emphasis in capitalism and whatever capitalism
Speaker 2: there were, as Irvin Crystal would say, we'll give it
Speaker 2: two cheers, and Michael Novak one cheer, So even the
Speaker 2: most animate conservatives would only give capitalism to or even
Speaker 2: one cheer, whereas they give Christianity three cheers.
Speaker 1: You know, so yeah, it was always Christianity first, James.
Speaker 1: It is?
Speaker 2: Is it like the Supreme Court will throw out the
Speaker 2: tariffs before the end of the year. Well, the stock
Speaker 2: market boom. I think the Servian Court rule throughout the tariffs.
Speaker 2: I don't know about the timing. I haven't looked into it,
Speaker 2: but it's likely I think before the end of the year.
Speaker 2: Maybe I shouldn't say that because I'm not sure. Will
Speaker 2: the stock market boom? I don't know, because the stock
Speaker 2: market has so much positive already priced in, and it's
Speaker 2: already pricing I think a significant weakening of tariffs if
Speaker 2: nothing else. And also remember Trump won't give up on tariffs.
Speaker 2: He'll just use another statute to increase them. This is
Speaker 2: a cornerstone of his agenda. So I don't know if
Speaker 2: the stock market will boom. I don't like to make
Speaker 2: stock market predictions rue downs. I know from personal experience
Speaker 2: the new listeners find you by commenting about find you
Speaker 2: by commenting.
Speaker 1: On conservatives and leftists. They need to hear a new perspective.
Speaker 2: So it's my commenting on conservatives and leftists that causes
Speaker 2: them to find me. Yeah, I'm going to continue. I'm
Speaker 2: going to continue. And I agree they need to hear
Speaker 2: a new perspective. And they're out there and and and
Speaker 2: they're listening, and hopefully, hopefully we will sway some of them. Lincoln,
Speaker 2: thank you for the sticker. Stephen Harper, thank you for
Speaker 2: the sticker. Appreciate it. Michael, I think Alex Epstein should
Speaker 2: take advantage of the conpolitical climate and create an Epstein
Speaker 2: file that gets captured by Google searchers but directs people
Speaker 2: to his website.
Speaker 1: You know, I know that's meant to be funny and
Speaker 1: it's on, but but you have.
Speaker 2: To be really careful because people people like because of
Speaker 2: the similarities name you do not want to be lumped together,
Speaker 2: you know, particularly in the kind of environment that we live.
Speaker 1: Right now, not your average algorithm.
Speaker 2: Did you see Alun musk response to critics of his
Speaker 2: trillion dollar pay package. He was practically citing, yeah, reciting
Speaker 2: Golts Golts a speech. Yeah, I mean there was strong
Speaker 2: elements of iron Rand in that, and of course Elon
Speaker 2: Musk is red iron Rand. And is in the past
Speaker 2: quoted iron Rand and quoted out Shrugged. So it was
Speaker 2: pretty good. It was pretty good.
Speaker 1: And he's absolutely right and good fair Lawn.
Speaker 2: I mean, as I've said in the past, Elan is
Speaker 2: infuriating because you know, you love him one day and
Speaker 2: you hate him the next.
Speaker 1: And he's a complete he creates complete whiplash. Right.
Speaker 2: He says great stuff and you go, oh, this is fantastic,
Speaker 2: and he says awful stuff, and oh my god, what
Speaker 2: do you say? You know, so you know, he's he's
Speaker 2: all over the place, and he does not have a
Speaker 2: consistent base, a consistent ideology, a consistent frame of consistent principles.
Speaker 1: I wish he did. The world would be much much
Speaker 1: better if he did. Hawpa Campbell.
Speaker 2: Do you get the highest super Chat revenue of any
Speaker 2: podcast relative to the size of audience? I think what
Speaker 2: was I number two or something like that. I'm way
Speaker 2: up there relative to the size of audience Superjet. Yes,
Speaker 2: I don't know if at number one, but I'm close.
Speaker 2: Kim says Wednesday was great. Too many wacky Christian conservatives
Speaker 2: at the event, though, bummed you didn't debate the priests.
Speaker 1: Well, there were. It was interesting the priest.
Speaker 2: It was in an auditorium owned by a church, and
Speaker 2: the Catholic priest of the church was there in the audience.
Speaker 2: You're sitting in the back, but one of his seminary
Speaker 2: students was in the front wearing a collar.
Speaker 1: Right, he was there. And the fascinating thing about the
Speaker 1: seminary student is that he was.
Speaker 2: Constantly rolling his eyes and shaking his head when the
Speaker 2: people defending Christianity were speaking, because they were talking nonsense
Speaker 2: but historically in theologically.
Speaker 1: And he was, you know, doing this when I was speaking.
Speaker 2: And when the vote came at the end of whether
Speaker 2: you think the proposition is right or wrong Christianity will
Speaker 2: destroy the West, he abstained. And I don't think he
Speaker 2: abstained in the beginning. I think in the beginning he
Speaker 2: was clearly against the proposition. I think it's I think
Speaker 2: I made a good case that he acknowledged the truth,
Speaker 2: at least was historically true. And I think he was
Speaker 2: embarrassed to some extent by the people defending Christianity.
Speaker 1: And it was fascinating to watch his face as they
Speaker 1: were talking.
Speaker 2: So this is a seminary student, and he actually wanted
Speaker 2: to make a speech, And I wish they'd led him,
Speaker 2: but he wasn't one of the people they let give speeches.
Speaker 2: All right, Clark, Misery is always the goal of the envious,
Speaker 2: the momentary thrill they get from making you as miserable
Speaker 2: as they are.
Speaker 1: Yes, that is envy for you, Christian. Glad to see
Speaker 1: you in church Wednesday. Yes. Uh, if Christianity defines Western civilization,
Speaker 1: would those Christians consider countries like Armenia in Latin America
Speaker 1: to be Western? No? I well, it depends.
Speaker 2: Maybe some of them would, but many of them wouldn't
Speaker 2: because they associated with a certain type of Christianity affiliated
Speaker 2: with Europe, Europe and Europeans. But that would have been
Speaker 2: an interesting question to ask them.
Speaker 1: I I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't know if they would consider it er. They
Speaker 2: also would separate Armenia. For ex, Armenia, for example, is
Speaker 2: Orthodox Christianity. And I think they associate Western civilization with
Speaker 2: the with the Western Church, not with the Eastern Church,
Speaker 2: not with the Greek Orthodox or the Russian Orthodox Church.
Speaker 2: And that I think is how they separate out Western civilization.
Speaker 2: Uh so, maybe not with regards to Armenia, but yes
Speaker 2: with regards to Latin America. What about Africa? That is
Speaker 2: becoming more and more Christian.
Speaker 1: I doubt that they would consider Africa Western civilization even
Speaker 1: though they're Christian.
Speaker 2: I mean, the population of Africa Christianity's growing dramatically, particularly Catholicism,
Speaker 2: So I think at the end of the day they
Speaker 2: for them Western civilization is a combination of race and religion.
Speaker 1: Jamie.
Speaker 2: Golf courses use chemicals that have been shown to significantly
Speaker 2: increase risk of Parkinson's other neurologogical conditions. Does the public
Speaker 2: have the right to block private enterprise from building golf
Speaker 2: courses close to them?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean this is simple.
Speaker 2: People should sue the golf courses that have used those chemicals,
Speaker 2: and if they win the lawsuit and they get damages,
Speaker 2: then that'll raise dramatically raise the cost of building a
Speaker 2: golf course and make it impossible, you know, prevent them
Speaker 2: from using those.
Speaker 1: Kind of chemicals. Of course, if it's really proven, and
Speaker 1: I doubt that it's proven, I'm very very skeptical of.
Speaker 2: Of of the fact that of the idea that chemicals
Speaker 2: in golf courses create a responsible for parkins is very
Speaker 2: skeptical of that.
Speaker 1: But let's assume it's true. Uh, then and IF's unequivocal
Speaker 1: and it wins.
Speaker 2: In a court case, then yeah, the EPA or Congress
Speaker 2: has pass a law banning the use of those chemicals
Speaker 2: because they clearly cause harm.
Speaker 1: They're clearly a violation of individual rights. But you'd have
Speaker 1: to prove it, and I haven't seen.
Speaker 2: I mean, if that was true, I would expect there
Speaker 2: to be massive lawsuits in the works and uh and
Speaker 2: and a lot of pressure on the e p A
Speaker 2: to ban these chemicals. So I don't know that I've
Speaker 2: seen that. I'm not an expert. I haven't followed this,
Speaker 2: but I haven't seen it. Thomas, why debate politics if
Speaker 2: it's downstream of ethics and pistemology and metaphysics, why not
Speaker 2: debate a pistemology metaphysics instead, because nobody will debate and
Speaker 2: nobody will come to a debate where you talk about
Speaker 2: epistemology and ethic and metaphysics.
Speaker 1: Nobody's interested in that. If you debate politics, you bring
Speaker 1: up epistemological and ethical issues in the debate. The debate
Speaker 1: is filled with ethical issues. If you debate capitalism, you're
Speaker 1: talking about its morality. You're talking about where it's ethical,
Speaker 1: and therefore you have to define standards of ethics and
Speaker 1: but but by in the way that you debate, you model,
Speaker 1: you show a proper epistemology, you're showing your audience how
Speaker 1: to do with pistemology, how to think about the world.
Speaker 1: Epistemology is not just technical epistemology for most people. Most
Speaker 1: people will never uh you know, really examine and think
Speaker 1: through and fully accept measurement emission in concept formation. They won't.
Speaker 1: They won't get that. What you need to teach people
Speaker 1: is how to how to on a day to day
Speaker 1: basis think, how to use concepts, how to use their mind.
Speaker 2: And the best way to do that is not to
Speaker 2: teach epistemology or to teach metaphysics. The best way to
Speaker 2: do that is to model it. And one of the
Speaker 2: ways to model it is to debate politics. Hopefully on
Speaker 2: the show, I try to model good at pistemology and
Speaker 2: good metaphysics and reality oriented.
Speaker 1: I seek the truth. I want facts. You know, it's
Speaker 1: not about people's emotions, it's about reality. It's about facts.
Speaker 1: I look to integrate, I look to induce, to look
Speaker 1: at reality and facts and repeated patterns and what's going
Speaker 1: on and understanding causality.
Speaker 2: That is what people need to learn about epistemology and metaphysics.
Speaker 2: They don't what they you know, it's to elevate thinking.
Speaker 2: It's not the technicalities of metaphysics and epistemology that they
Speaker 2: need to learn and they need to get. And the
Speaker 2: reality is that if you actually did ethics of pistology
Speaker 2: or particularly metaphysics and personology as subjects, nobody would come.
Speaker 2: Nobody's interested in learning those things except for a few philosophers.
Speaker 2: What you need is to show how to do it,
Speaker 2: how to think, how to approach topics, and that's what
Speaker 2: you model when you debate political or cultural issues. Good question, though, Andrew,
Speaker 2: why do you think the self declared masters of negotiation,
Speaker 2: who is the self declared master of negotiation, who is
Speaker 2: our president, decided to sit on the sidelines during the
Speaker 2: government shutdown and not try to lead negotiations. He was
Speaker 2: utterly uninterested. Well, because he's utterly uninterested. He's not interested,
Speaker 2: you know from his perspective. You know, he was an
Speaker 2: opportunity to make the Democrats look bad. He thought that
Speaker 2: at least, and he has a certain nihilistic tendency to
Speaker 2: see things broken. He likes to break stuff, and this
Speaker 2: as an opportunity to break stuff.
Speaker 1: He fired a lot of people. He thought it's an Opportunityfy.
Speaker 1: Now he's being forced to hire them all back by
Speaker 1: the deal, you know, the negotiated deal to the end.
Speaker 2: So I just don't think. I think it was his
Speaker 2: way or the highway. That's what he told Democrats, and
Speaker 2: he wanted to break the Democrats. So he wasn't interested
Speaker 2: in negotiating. He's not interested in the mechanics of government.
Speaker 2: He's not interested in legislation generally. That doesn't interest him.
Speaker 2: He'll do it, but it's not what drives him. It's
Speaker 2: not what gets him. Andrew, do you think the standing
Speaker 2: ovation by the religionists was out of respect for your
Speaker 2: commitment to rational argument despite their disagreement, or were they
Speaker 2: converted to the content of your argument. No, it wasn't
Speaker 2: that they were converted, because we had a vote at
Speaker 2: the end and some changed their mind, but very few.
Speaker 2: It was respect for my ability to argue, respect for
Speaker 2: my passion.
Speaker 1: And for my skill in presenting my case.
Speaker 2: It was clearly that, and they got a lot of
Speaker 2: comments to that effect afterwards. It wasn't that they I mean,
Speaker 2: maybe some of them. It caused some cognitive dissonance and
Speaker 2: cause them to rethink their position, which I think is true.
Speaker 2: But again it's modeling the right approach, which I think
Speaker 2: has ultimately a long term impact of people changing their minds.
Speaker 2: They might not change their mind at the debate, but
Speaker 2: it might cause them to rethink some of the things
Speaker 2: they believe, which leads them into a whole sequence of rethinking.
Speaker 1: A lot of what they believe. Mars from Ours just
Speaker 1: thank you for doing what you do. I appreciated Mars
Speaker 1: from ours. Thank you, Jamie before.
Speaker 2: Taller in nineteen oh the law nineteen eighty six hospitals
Speaker 2: could turn away emergencies in a full private healthcare system.
Speaker 2: Would some people in emergencies get turned away?
Speaker 1: Yes? Yeah, I mean.
Speaker 2: I think most people would not because a they'd have insurance.
Speaker 2: Almost everybody would. Some people wouldn't have a chance, but
Speaker 2: they'd be a charity wing a charity fund of a hospital.
Speaker 2: But some hospitals might not have that fund and it
Speaker 2: might not might not have the capability of providing charitable services,
Speaker 2: and they would turn them away.
Speaker 1: Yep.
Speaker 2: I think it would be very very rare. It would
Speaker 2: be the exceptional case. And again incentive to get insurance,
Speaker 2: and you say, oh, you know people can't afford it. Well,
Speaker 2: it's an incentive to be able to afford it. And
Speaker 2: of course, if you privatize healthcare completely, then.
Speaker 1: People would be richer. If you made the world the
Speaker 1: free market, people would be rich and insurance.
Speaker 2: Would be easily affordable. That's what we should strive for.
Speaker 2: Jamie says. With privatized roads, would there be some traffic
Speaker 2: slowdowns due to toll stops? Would they be speed limits
Speaker 2: and would you be allowed to drink and drive? I
Speaker 2: don't think there would be slowdowns because of tolls because
Speaker 2: today tolls are electronic. It could be tracked by GPS.
Speaker 2: You wouldn't even need a machine. All it would do
Speaker 2: is you attract every way you drive, and it could
Speaker 2: bill you based on which road you drove on to
Speaker 2: which owners do you owe the money. It would be
Speaker 2: a pretty simple, straightforward process. There'd be companies that specialize
Speaker 2: in providing tolling services to owners of roads, and if
Speaker 2: you wanted to drive on those roads, you'd have to
Speaker 2: get a sticker with a GPS tracking and you'd buy
Speaker 2: a service from one of the service providers that made
Speaker 2: it possible for you to do that.
Speaker 1: So no, I don't think so.
Speaker 2: Would there be speed limits, Yes, speed limits determined buy
Speaker 2: the owner of the roads, and they would have a
Speaker 2: strong incentive to do that because they don't want accidents
Speaker 2: in the roads that make them less usable.
Speaker 1: They want to.
Speaker 2: Be able to of stores in the roads and pedestrians
Speaker 2: and so on which provide revenues. So all of that, Absolutely,
Speaker 2: there'd be speed limits. There might also be speed limits.
Speaker 2: It might also turn out the insurance companies own the roads,
Speaker 2: and they would have speed limits because they would want
Speaker 2: fewer accidents, and because they would have then they would
Speaker 2: have fewer claims to pay. Would you allow drink and drive? No,
Speaker 2: to drink and drive represents a real threat to other people.
Speaker 2: For the police would stop you for drinking and driving
Speaker 2: because of the threat you represent to others.
Speaker 1: So you know, if you are driving in a risky way,
Speaker 1: the police would have their authority to stop you and
Speaker 1: test you for alcohol. It is you exhibiting risky behavior
Speaker 1: that is a justification for stopping you. Stephen thoughts on
Speaker 1: the counter mount of Crystal, the novel themes, movie version,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 2: I mean, there are lots of movie versions. I generally
Speaker 2: like the countermount of Crystal. It's basically a revenge story.
Speaker 2: I like revenge stories. Injustice is done to this man,
Speaker 2: he spends time in prison, he escapes, and then he
Speaker 2: basically destroys his enemies.
Speaker 1: Cool. I love that destroying your enemies is a good thing.
Speaker 2: Somebody who committed a huge injustice against you should be destroyed,
Speaker 2: and so I like the theme of Monte Cristo Justice.
Speaker 2: Basically it's all about justice and bringing justice to the
Speaker 2: world after a massive, massive injustice. I don't remember any
Speaker 2: particular movie version of it that was good. I'm sure
Speaker 2: there's several, so I'd encourage people to look for it
Speaker 2: and definitely read the book.
Speaker 1: Read the book. It's a good book. Count to Monte Cristo. Jamie.
Speaker 2: Have you heard of the Ostrich call recently in British
Speaker 2: Columbia and what's your opinion on it? If so, Does
Speaker 2: the government have a right to kill private owned suspected
Speaker 2: to be sick with bird flu animals? I think only
Speaker 2: if they represent a risk to either human beings, and
Speaker 2: it has to be an objective verst to human beings
Speaker 2: or the property of other people, that is, other people's birds.
Speaker 1: So there has to be an objective risk and.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know the details about the British Columbia
Speaker 2: calling of the birds, but yes, if the risk rises
Speaker 2: to such a degree where if this bird infects and
Speaker 2: there's no way to isolate the birds, and if the
Speaker 2: birds infect somebody else's birds, they will all die and
Speaker 2: destroy that.
Speaker 1: Person's livelihood, that's a real legitimate risk.
Speaker 2: Or if this virus has the potential, a real potential,
Speaker 2: not just a small probability. And all of this is
Speaker 2: we worked out in law, and I don't have the
Speaker 2: answers in terms of the exact numbers. But if this
Speaker 2: has the potential to really jump to human beings and
Speaker 2: it's imminent and it's going to happen, yeah, I think
Speaker 2: some protections have to be put in place. Exactly how
Speaker 2: you do it and what you do, you'd have to
Speaker 2: be an expert to the terms in that, and I'm
Speaker 2: silly not an expert. But it's a real issue that
Speaker 2: needs to be solved. How you solved it exactly, that
Speaker 2: is up to philosophers of law and epidemiologists and property
Speaker 2: rights experts to have to figure out exactly. Lincoln Armenia
Speaker 2: is a perfect example of Christianity ruined the culture hyper
Speaker 2: smart people who are successful when secular in the US,
Speaker 2: But the Christian Middle East country is so impoverished. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think that's true everywhere. The more fundamentalist
Speaker 2: religious you are, the less as a culture, the less
Speaker 2: successful you're going to be. True of Christianity, true of Judaism,
Speaker 2: true of Islam, two of all of them. As I said,
Speaker 2: I'm reading this amazing book about the Islamic Central Asian
Speaker 2: They call it an Enlightenment, but Golden Age. It's truly
Speaker 2: stunning what they did and why they did, how they
Speaker 2: did it, and how it ended in dramatic fashion. And
Speaker 2: the Dark Ages of Islam have lasted eight hundred years,
Speaker 2: nine hundred years, eight hundred something years. Pretty amazing how
Speaker 2: long their Dark Ages have been. Michael consistently successful immigrants
Speaker 2: on non Christians, Indians, Chinese, Jews.
Speaker 1: Et cetera.
Speaker 2: Hispanics don't perform as well because they are could by Catholicism.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's an interesting explanation for I haven't thought
Speaker 2: about that for immigrant success.
Speaker 1: Probably true.
Speaker 2: Nigerians have succeed in America are Christians typically, so that
Speaker 2: might be an exception. But yeah, I have to I'd
Speaker 2: have to look into that and look at the stats
Speaker 2: and and and get a bit of clue on it.
Speaker 2: But yeah, that's that's that makes sense. All right, guys,
Speaker 2: I have to go. I didn't give credit to my
Speaker 2: sponsors today. I will make up for that on Sunday.
Speaker 2: You you can check out the sponsor is downe below.
Speaker 2: Actually add Defenders of Capitalism to our sponsor's list in
Speaker 2: the comments below. And yeah, thank you, thanks for super chatters.
Speaker 2: You did amazing today. You met our three hour goal
Speaker 2: as we as we approached the end of the second hour,
Speaker 2: So I very much appreciate that. A lot of that
Speaker 2: has to do with Troy, but also the rest of
Speaker 2: you chimed in lot. You know, lots of twenty dollars
Speaker 2: questions and some good stickers, but a lot of twenty
Speaker 2: dollars questions.
Speaker 1: It really got us to where we needed to be.
Speaker 1: A lot of ten dollars questions. So thank you.
Speaker 2: I will see you all on Saturday on Sunday, no
Speaker 2: show tomorrow, but I'm hoping for a show that will
Speaker 2: do a show on Sunday.
Speaker 1: See then bye, everybody.