Speaker 1: A lot of them of reado last cells and in
Speaker 1: the divisional loss. This is the show. Oh right, everybody
Speaker 1: walk up there one book show. And this Saturday, March eighth,
Speaker 1: I hope everybody is having a fantastic time, fantastic weekend,
Speaker 1: the beginning of a weekend, we are going to discuss
Speaker 1: America first s make America first again? America First. I
Speaker 1: found policy, not as Donald Trump or his various mouthpieces
Speaker 1: or mega think of it, but what would it really
Speaker 1: look like? I think America first was was even a
Speaker 1: term maybe I rand used, but it's definitely a uh,
Speaker 1: the right perspective for a phone policy for America. It
Speaker 1: shouldn't be the French phone policy. That should be French first.
Speaker 1: So we want to look at what that would entail.
Speaker 1: And today's show is sponsored by Troy Troy, Australian Troy
Speaker 1: who's who's been such phenomenal supporter of the Iron Book Show.
Speaker 1: And he's got a few questions just get me going,
Speaker 1: but basically he's left it up to me. But but
Speaker 1: he's asking what does it mean? How does one operationalize,
Speaker 1: if you will, a self interested a self interested phone policy.
Speaker 1: What does it imply in terms of the actions one
Speaker 1: must take in terms of other world governments and aid
Speaker 1: US AID, and particularly in the context of USAD. So
Speaker 1: we are going to look at all of that and
Speaker 1: I will I will tell you what I think and
Speaker 1: what I think the right kind of America first foreign
Speaker 1: policy should be and how it should be oriented for
Speaker 1: other countries. It's going to be slightly different. There's going
Speaker 1: to be a different emphasis, a different focus to a
Speaker 1: large extent, because there is a uniqueness to being a
Speaker 1: country with the as rich as the United States is
Speaker 1: and as powerful as the United States. We have the largest,
Speaker 1: most powerful military force in human history, and that means
Speaker 1: we can do things other countries can't, and that is significant.
Speaker 1: Other countries might not be able to stand up for
Speaker 1: their interests quite in quite the way that the United
Speaker 1: States can, but the principles are going to be the same,
Speaker 1: all right. So that is what we're going to be
Speaker 1: talking about today. As always, the super Chat is open,
Speaker 1: and I encourage you to ask questions only because that
Speaker 1: is a way to support the show, which is amazing,
Speaker 1: but also because it is a way for you to
Speaker 1: ask questions. And this is a big topic I think
Speaker 1: I'll be able to cover today, but a big topic
Speaker 1: with lots of concrete applications. So what I'm really interested
Speaker 1: in is a lot of questions around this topic or
Speaker 1: a lot of questions about the concrete applications, a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about what should we do with the X,
Speaker 1: what should we do with Y? How would you treat this?
Speaker 1: How would you treat that? Having you take all those questions,
Speaker 1: it will help make sure that I kind of do
Speaker 1: a thorough job in covering Eavy aspect of the topic.
Speaker 1: And as I said, it's a big topic, there's a lot,
Speaker 1: there's a lot to cover. And of course you can't
Speaker 1: ask me about Gavin Newsom if you want liam, but
Speaker 1: priority we'll be given to those who ask about the
Speaker 1: topic we are talking about. And if you are on
Speaker 1: a different platform like x or Twitter as it's called,
Speaker 1: you can come over to YouTube and ask questions over there,
Speaker 1: So feel free to do that. All right, let's jump in.
Speaker 1: So what does it mean to say that American's phon
Speaker 1: policy should be self interested? And that is my position
Speaker 1: and that is the objective's position. American's phone policy should
Speaker 1: be for self interested? But what does that mean? What
Speaker 1: constitutes this self interest of America as represented by its government.
Speaker 1: For that, we have to ask the question of what
Speaker 1: is the responsibility, what is the role, what is the
Speaker 1: purpose of government? That is, what is government instituted to do?
Speaker 1: And of course I think most of you know the
Speaker 1: objectives to answer to that. The role of the government
Speaker 1: is to protect the individual rights of Americans, of citizens
Speaker 1: and residents within America. And you know, maybe that's more
Speaker 1: expensive citizens, less expansive for residence, but generally is to
Speaker 1: protect their lives and property of the people who live
Speaker 1: in America. That is the job of government. That is
Speaker 1: what a self interested government means. That's what American interests are.
Speaker 1: From the perspective of the government. The government has no zero, zilch,
Speaker 1: no responsibility in any way to tell you what your
Speaker 1: interests are, to dictate to you what your interests are.
Speaker 1: It should in no way hamper your ability to pursue
Speaker 1: your values, as long as, of course, you are not
Speaker 1: infringing on other people's rights and other people's freedoms. So
Speaker 1: the job of them government is to secure freedom and
Speaker 1: in farm policy for Americans, and in farm policy, that
Speaker 1: is what the government is there to do to secure
Speaker 1: the freedom of Americans. In other words, to secure the
Speaker 1: ability of Americans to not have their rights violated, to
Speaker 1: to live, I eat, they shouldn't be killed, and their
Speaker 1: property should be protected. So what is that, you know,
Speaker 1: how do we how do we apply this principle? What
Speaker 1: does that actually mean? Notice, the US government's interests are
Speaker 1: not to secure the freedoms of other people unless the
Speaker 1: freedom of other people is necessary for the freedom of Americans.
Speaker 1: And we can think maybe they're scenarios in which that's true.
Speaker 1: The job of the government. US government is not to
Speaker 1: bring democracy to the world. It's not to be the
Speaker 1: world's policeman. It's not to cure every disease in the
Speaker 1: world out there, even if it can. The job of
Speaker 1: the US government is to protect the interests of the
Speaker 1: American people, which means to protect the lives and property
Speaker 1: of the American people. And that's what we have a
Speaker 1: military for. And that's what we have a phone policy for. Now,
Speaker 1: what does this imply, that is, what actions, what behaviors?
Speaker 1: How would we treat foreign governments, for example, if we
Speaker 1: took such a position, Well, I would say, and I've
Speaker 1: said this in the past. I've covered this in past programs,
Speaker 1: that the United States should have a strategy and a
Speaker 1: phone policy strategy. I don't think the United States has
Speaker 1: had a power phone policy strategy at least since World
Speaker 1: War Two, and I'm skeptical where it had one even
Speaker 1: before that. That's why it got kind of roped into
Speaker 1: World War two without expecting it got woped in the
Speaker 1: World War One without expecting it. It's like the US
Speaker 1: is reactive. It does not have an actual strategy. So
Speaker 1: the United States should have a strategy. It should define
Speaker 1: the threats to US lives and property. Is there anybody
Speaker 1: who is a threat to invade the United States? If so,
Speaker 1: who are they? Is there anybody who is likely to
Speaker 1: kill Americans? For example? You know that these could be regimes,
Speaker 1: It could be terrorists. Is anybody likely to in large
Speaker 1: scale steal Americans stuff pirates for example on the high seas?
Speaker 1: Are there regimes out there who are likely to support
Speaker 1: the pirates, the terrorists, the countries that might invade the
Speaker 1: United States? And of course invasion is not the only
Speaker 1: thing today. Are there any countries that might launch missiles
Speaker 1: into the United States, whether nuclear or regular? But are
Speaker 1: there any countries out there that have the capacity and
Speaker 1: are inclined to attack the United States physically? And you know,
Speaker 1: I think you need to do an assessment of the world,
Speaker 1: and you know, what is what is the likelihood that
Speaker 1: any particular government would do any of these things? And
Speaker 1: to do that, I would suggest basically thinking about the
Speaker 1: world in terms of categorizing every country in the world
Speaker 1: based on three, say three parameters or into three categories,
Speaker 1: categorizing everybody into three categories one the good guys, friends
Speaker 1: or potential friends. And here you would categorized countries as
Speaker 1: basically free countries. Countries that are basically have a respect
Speaker 1: for rights, property rights, and otherwise. Countries that are not
Speaker 1: do not you know, invade their neighbors, are not hostile
Speaker 1: to their neighbors, have not engaged in military adventurism call it,
Speaker 1: have not funded terrorist groups, have not funded pirates and
Speaker 1: organized criminals. Yeah, countries like as Jennifer points out, Canada
Speaker 1: or Western Europe, Israel, you know, in Australia, Thailand, I
Speaker 1: don't know. You could come up with different countries, India, potentially,
Speaker 1: you can come up with different countries around the world
Speaker 1: who basically exhibit those characteristics and they're all not They're
Speaker 1: not going to be perfect. We know that we're not perfect,
Speaker 1: but certainly many of these countries are not going to
Speaker 1: be perfect, but who are in the right direction, leaning
Speaker 1: moving presently in the direction of liberty. Then a second
Speaker 1: group of countries as a group of countries that is
Speaker 1: not free, clearly not free. They are unfree countries. And
Speaker 1: these countries that might have kings, or might have dictators,
Speaker 1: or might have all kinds of different authoritarian regimes, but
Speaker 1: they do not constitute a threat to the United States.
Speaker 1: This could because they're too small, it could be because
Speaker 1: you know, they're just not interested. They might constitute a
Speaker 1: threat to their neighbors in a particular region, but as
Speaker 1: of today, they have no ambitions towards the United States.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could think of this as, I don't know,
Speaker 1: Vietnam is an authoritarian that is not a threat to
Speaker 1: the United States. You know, they're probably a lot most
Speaker 1: of Africa or a lot of Africa authoritarian regimes, but
Speaker 1: don't pose a threat to the United States. And so
Speaker 1: these are not friends but not enemies. And then a
Speaker 1: third category is regimes that are not free and potential
Speaker 1: or real enemies of the United States. These are regimes
Speaker 1: that are aggressive, that have the inclination or the potential
Speaker 1: to attack the United States, or to disrupt ability of
Speaker 1: the United States to trade or the ability of the
Speaker 1: United States to pursue its interest in the world. You know,
Speaker 1: so certainly countries like right now, countries like Iran and Russia,
Speaker 1: North Korea, which keeps threatening the United States with its
Speaker 1: ballistic missiles, you'd have to think, and you'd have to
Speaker 1: figure out if China qualifies or not. But maybe China
Speaker 1: at least certainly potentially they have nukes and and and
Speaker 1: they can certainly reach the United States, and they have
Speaker 1: threatened interests of the United States. But whether they actually
Speaker 1: are a risked to the lives and property of Americans.
Speaker 1: That that's the kind of analysis you would have to do.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of thinking you'd have to do. From
Speaker 1: the perspective of a phone policy, you'd have to You know,
Speaker 1: the people in charge have a lot more information about
Speaker 1: Chinese's intention than I do. They are not a lot
Speaker 1: of countries like this, By the way, there might be others.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Yemen because they have the houties and
Speaker 1: the uties have obviously attacked US shipping. You've got terrorist
Speaker 1: organizations all over the world, and then you've got governments
Speaker 1: who support the terrorist organizations, so isis L Kaida and
Speaker 1: in many of their offshoots, and in that you'd have
Speaker 1: to say, well, is Qatar and the enemy of the
Speaker 1: United States, given that they support these groups, they house
Speaker 1: these groups fromases is housed in Qatar. You know Syria,
Speaker 1: Syria houses these groups, and Syria's in the midst of change.
Speaker 1: Is an enemy? Is a not enemy? Clearly, it's not
Speaker 1: a free country. You'd have to evaluate. You know, Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: you know Pakistan. Pakistan is an interesting case that you'd
Speaker 1: have to really think about. And it's a nuclear powers
Speaker 1: it has nukes and potentially could fall into the hands
Speaker 1: of Islamists, maybe already supports Islamists. Again, you'd have to
Speaker 1: do the intelligence and figure out who's who. And then
Speaker 1: generally I would say I would say this the first group,
Speaker 1: the group of friends, should be declared as such. I
Speaker 1: think that is a group that you have full diplomatic
Speaker 1: relations with, You cooperate on stuff, You have treaties. You
Speaker 1: might even have a u n of free countries, and
Speaker 1: you work together on issues that were late or maybe
Speaker 1: even have. You could even imagine a certain defense treaties
Speaker 1: or all kinds of other arrangements between free countries that
Speaker 1: would be pursuing america self interest to have those agreements,
Speaker 1: because there's an advantage of having you know, other people
Speaker 1: scanning the world for enemies and and helping us if
Speaker 1: we do get in trouble. The second group, you know,
Speaker 1: I do not believe that one should have diplomatic relations
Speaker 1: with UH. You know, it doesn't mean when it's hostile
Speaker 1: towards and suddenly in terms of trade, trade should be
Speaker 1: completely open with such countries and there should be no
Speaker 1: restrictions and trade or movement. But for example, American businesses
Speaker 1: should come to understand that if you do business in
Speaker 1: these countries, the American government cannot guarantee your safety and
Speaker 1: these regimes and not regimes that could be trusted, and
Speaker 1: your property could be confiscated, and depending on the circumstances,
Speaker 1: there is a real possibility the United States government will
Speaker 1: not come and protect it. Because you have been warned
Speaker 1: these are dangerous countries. Don't go in and work with them.
Speaker 1: They are not free. That means something that's a designation
Speaker 1: that has significance, and it has meaning, and you should
Speaker 1: expect from your own people and understanding of what that
Speaker 1: means and how that you know what that implies, and
Speaker 1: that they should behave accordingly, They should be careful when
Speaker 1: traveling and engaging and doing business with countries like that.
Speaker 1: When Freeman says, you are don't go to Russia. Not
Speaker 1: going to Russia, don't worry. But you know, I have
Speaker 1: been to Russia, which most of my critics cannot say.
Speaker 1: And I've been to Ukraine, which most of my critics
Speaker 1: cannot say. So that's the second category. The third category
Speaker 1: I think there it really depends. Let me just give
Speaker 1: you a couple of examples of the second category that
Speaker 1: I think is meaningful. So, for example, Cuba. Cuba, in
Speaker 1: my view, is in the second category. Cuban does not
Speaker 1: pose a threat to America. It is not going to
Speaker 1: invade Florida. I mean, it did during the Cuban missile crisis,
Speaker 1: but that's gone. And you know, there's some reason to
Speaker 1: believe that they're working with the Chinese, and you'd have
Speaker 1: to get intelligence on that and everything. But Cuba, quak Cuba,
Speaker 1: independent of China and Russia, is not a threat to
Speaker 1: the United States, and therefore, you know, we should not
Speaker 1: have an embargo on it. We should allow Americans to
Speaker 1: trade with Cuba, even though we should discoverage it, and
Speaker 1: we should again tell them you engage with Cuba at
Speaker 1: your own risk. The same thing is true of Venezuela.
Speaker 1: As much as I hate Venezuela and the regime there,
Speaker 1: and I mean don't hate Venezuela, I hate the regime
Speaker 1: of Venezuela, They're not a threat to the United States. Now, again,
Speaker 1: there's an argument to be made, and I'm open to it.
Speaker 1: And this is the kind of debate you would have
Speaker 1: in PHM policy. If Venezuela is being used by organizations
Speaker 1: like Risbela to train fighters who might one day then
Speaker 1: engage in a battle with the United States or be
Speaker 1: destroying US interests overseas, then maybe it may be of
Speaker 1: Venezuela because it is a base for such terror organizations.
Speaker 1: Becomes in the enemy of potential enemy category. So again,
Speaker 1: you have to really know the concretes, You have to
Speaker 1: know what's going on. You have to have proper intelligence
Speaker 1: and and really figure it out and have a policy. Now,
Speaker 1: what is the third category, the third category? I'd say
Speaker 1: you could even the third category you would divide into two.
Speaker 1: There are enemies, people who are in a sense at
Speaker 1: war with the United States, right now, you know, threatening
Speaker 1: to launch missiles killing Americans overseas, doing things like that,
Speaker 1: and I think that they are you know, probably three
Speaker 1: countries like that in the world you're on in North
Speaker 1: Korea and Russia that are clearly engaged in acts of violence.
Speaker 1: Now Russia, you know, Ukraine is not America. Russia is
Speaker 1: not directly engaged in violence against America, though it has
Speaker 1: taken a few Americans hostage and and so on. But
Speaker 1: you know, they shouldn't have been there to begin with,
Speaker 1: is my view at this point. So with the gout,
Speaker 1: Iran and North Korea, they are enemies. Now my view
Speaker 1: is enemies need to be destroyed. I think Affghanistan was
Speaker 1: in the same category. They need to be destroyed. They
Speaker 1: shouldn't be tolerated, they need to be defeated. So my
Speaker 1: view of Iran and certainly if it's possible that is
Speaker 1: they don't have nukes, and you know it's not that hard.
Speaker 1: Then you know, it's obvious that the United States should
Speaker 1: take out the North Koreans and the Iranians. Now, the
Speaker 1: North Koreans a little trickier because they have nukes, so
Speaker 1: you'd have to figure out how to do it without
Speaker 1: allowing them to launch those nukes. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's possible. I'm assuming it is. Take him up, take
Speaker 1: out that regime, unify the Korean peninsula, certainly take out Iran,
Speaker 1: replace that regime. That would be an American self interest.
Speaker 1: They are a threat to the lives and property of America,
Speaker 1: a real threat, not a hypothetical, not a potential. They've
Speaker 1: killed Americans, they say they will kill Americans. They're actively
Speaker 1: developing weapons to kill Americans. They need to be stopped.
Speaker 1: Stop cold. Russia is a potential enemy, but it has
Speaker 1: not attack the United States or its allies entreaty. But
Speaker 1: it has, through invading Ukraine, made clear their offensive imperialistic intentions,
Speaker 1: and therefore there's certainly a potential enemy, real potential enemy
Speaker 1: of the United States. I think, by the way, with
Speaker 1: the first two, at the very least before you stop them,
Speaker 1: at the very least, your self interest requires that you're
Speaker 1: not trade with them. So those are countries that should
Speaker 1: be involged completely. Russia is not a country you want
Speaker 1: to go to war with because they have nukes, and
Speaker 1: it is a country that poses a threat. So you
Speaker 1: have to figure out ways in which to deal with Russia,
Speaker 1: given the fact that it's a threat, but it is not.
Speaker 1: You're not You're not going to go directly to war
Speaker 1: with them. And I'd say the two things that should
Speaker 1: be done with Russia, given its you know, engaging in war.
Speaker 1: I think one is you should boycott it completely, no trade,
Speaker 1: one hundred percent cut off from all trade with the
Speaker 1: United States and its allies. And second, we should wholeheartedly
Speaker 1: support those who fight against them, because the potential enemy,
Speaker 1: to the extent that they can be weakened dramatically, they
Speaker 1: will become less of an enemy. We know what they want.
Speaker 1: They want to go after our allies. They want to
Speaker 1: go after people we have a defense treaty with. We
Speaker 1: must stop them. Now. You know, in a different world
Speaker 1: in which we were not members of NATO and which
Speaker 1: Europe was responsible with the security of Europe, maybe it
Speaker 1: would just be Europeans who would do this. But given
Speaker 1: the world in which we live, absolutely legitimate to fully
Speaker 1: arm the Ukrainians, not to put American troops on the ground,
Speaker 1: but fully on the Ukrainians to do whatever they can
Speaker 1: to degrade Russia's military capabilities. That is fully an America's interest.
Speaker 1: And the same is to a Israel. Asrael as fighting
Speaker 1: an enemy that the United States should be fighting, an
Speaker 1: enemy of the United States, that is Islamic totalitarianism, Islamic Islamism.
Speaker 1: And as such, we should support Israel in its military fights,
Speaker 1: in its ability to destroy our enemies. Now, in this case,
Speaker 1: given nine to eleven, given all the terrorism since nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, we should destroy them ourselves. And going after
Speaker 1: Iran would do a lot towards that. Going after Qatau
Speaker 1: would do a lot towards that, And it wouldn't cost
Speaker 1: that much, and it might be actually cheaper of for
Speaker 1: Americans to just get it done with that, to keep
Speaker 1: supporting Israel with ongoing endless wars. If America did it,
Speaker 1: it would end Ramas wouldn't Existsbellah wouldn't exist because they
Speaker 1: depend on support for places like you are in Qatar.
Speaker 1: And if that goes away, and if America asserts itself,
Speaker 1: there is no Ramas, there is no Risbela to worry about.
Speaker 1: So a real self interested phone policy would have America
Speaker 1: do it, annihilate its enemies, and then it wouldn't need
Speaker 1: to support Israel. I do not believe the United States
Speaker 1: should give one dollar to Israel other than to fight
Speaker 1: a common enemy. But if that fight is over, Israel
Speaker 1: gets zero zilch nada, so uh, and then you get China,
Speaker 1: which is as difficult to categorize. It is not engaged
Speaker 1: in military action against the United States. It is not
Speaker 1: yet engaged in military act against any of the United
Speaker 1: States allies. It is not yet invaded Taiwan, although it
Speaker 1: does threaten to do so. It has not invaded Japan
Speaker 1: and it doesn't threaten. It is not invaded South Korea.
Speaker 1: It's not stopped shipping from various countries of goods to
Speaker 1: the United States. It has not prevented US ships travel
Speaker 1: from the US to various places in Asia. So it
Speaker 1: is definitely a country in which I don't think we
Speaker 1: should have diplomatic relations. It's not a free country, but
Speaker 1: it's not a country I think we should embargo. It's
Speaker 1: a country we should watch carefully. We should continue to
Speaker 1: assess that when does it go from a potential enemy
Speaker 1: to an actual enemy, And if it goes and becomes
Speaker 1: an actual enemy, then it is completely appropriate to embargo
Speaker 1: their goods and to they trade with them and to
Speaker 1: start preparing for war. An invasion of Taiwan potentially could
Speaker 1: be something that moved them from one category to the next.
Speaker 1: So again, what is the standard America's interest? What America's
Speaker 1: interest the protection of American life and property, not American
Speaker 1: interest in the sense of we want American corporations to
Speaker 1: rule the world, and therefore we're going to hamper the
Speaker 1: ability of other countries to their businesses, to to trade,
Speaker 1: not beef a production, or have some vision of how
Speaker 1: the US economy should be structured in the future, and therefore,
Speaker 1: you know, and try to manipulate through trade policy what
Speaker 1: gets built in American what doesn't. Now, how do we
Speaker 1: protect the license property of Americans? Period? So uh, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the questions Toy asks is what should America
Speaker 1: do about really just horrendous regimes around the world, like
Speaker 1: iraqu Saddam Hussein. I don't know, like the genocide in
Speaker 1: maybe in that's going on right now in Sudan, or
Speaker 1: you know when the Hutis and the two D's slaughtered
Speaker 1: each other and two million people died. Should American intervene?
Speaker 1: Should it stop horrific regimes, the Kami rouge whatever from
Speaker 1: doing what they do to the people, to their neighbors.
Speaker 1: And my answer to that is no, As brutal as
Speaker 1: that might be, you cannot expect and you shouldn't expect.
Speaker 1: And we have no duty to sacrifice our lives and
Speaker 1: our treasure for the sake of somebody else's freedom. And again,
Speaker 1: the only reason I think we should support Ukraine is
Speaker 1: one it is tilting towards the West significantly, and two
Speaker 1: it faces a country that is a potential, real enemy
Speaker 1: of the United States. So uh I Iraq, you know,
Speaker 1: said almost have killed his own people left and right.
Speaker 1: He was in war for eight years with Iran. I
Speaker 1: think the United State should have stayed out of it completely.
Speaker 1: Iraq was not funding terrorism against the United States. Iran was,
Speaker 1: but Iraq wasn't. There was no self interested reason to
Speaker 1: go to Iraq. There was no self interested reason for
Speaker 1: the America sold yet to die. Any of our fighting
Speaker 1: for eyukis. If Iraq wants to be free, iraqis need
Speaker 1: to make it free. The job of the United States
Speaker 1: is to preserve the freedom of Americans, and Iraq was
Speaker 1: not impinging on that freedom. Now you could argue about
Speaker 1: the nineteen ninety one war, if the United States should
Speaker 1: have gone and liberated Quit. Did we have a strategic
Speaker 1: interest there? You know, we're American lives in danger because
Speaker 1: of the oil fields. Is oil a strategic value such
Speaker 1: that we should preserve it? You know, we have a
Speaker 1: defense treaty implicit I think, not explicitly implicit with Saudi Arabia?
Speaker 1: Should that really be? And I'm skeptical about whether we
Speaker 1: should have gone. I'm skeptical about it, whether we should
Speaker 1: be protecting the Saudis. But you know, those are the
Speaker 1: kind of line crises where you have to really you
Speaker 1: have to think it through. And I think because of
Speaker 1: the strategic polances of oil, particularly in those days when
Speaker 1: an American didn't quite pump as much. But how much
Speaker 1: worse would it be for America if Saddam Hussein I
Speaker 1: don't know conquered Quait and then conquered Saudi Arabia instead
Speaker 1: of the kings of Saudi Arabia? Does not really make
Speaker 1: a difference to the lives and property of Americans? Probably not,
Speaker 1: Probably not. It would be awful, a lot of people die,
Speaker 1: but probably not America's interest. So you go to war
Speaker 1: only when the lives of Americans are at stake, only
Speaker 1: in protecting. Just like everything else, violence can only be
Speaker 1: used in self defense. So somebody is a real legitimate threat.
Speaker 1: They're building nukes and they're saying they're gonna use it
Speaker 1: against you. That's a legitimate threat. Take them out. They've
Speaker 1: got nukes and they keep saying they're going to launch
Speaker 1: missiles into Canada, into California, that is North Korea. That's
Speaker 1: a legitimate threat. You've got a regime that has ambitions
Speaker 1: of empire over much of Europe and you have a
Speaker 1: treaty to defend that Europeans. That's a legitimate threat. You
Speaker 1: gotta deal with it. Wonderfulleman says, Iraq was useful. There's
Speaker 1: a launch pad for dealing with you on. No, it
Speaker 1: wasn't because we never launch padded into Yran. We did
Speaker 1: nothing with regard to Yon. So Iraq was just a
Speaker 1: waste of American lives. Nothing else, nothing else, nothing was achieved. Indeed,
Speaker 1: quite the opposite. Iraq became an Iranian satellite and allowed
Speaker 1: Ion to ex spanned its reach all the way to
Speaker 1: Leven and now Israel has taken that away and the
Speaker 1: change in Syria has taken that away. But it never
Speaker 1: was the intention of the Bush administration to go to Iran.
Speaker 1: Never ever was their intention to go to Iran. They
Speaker 1: really believed that they would build a democracy in Iraq
Speaker 1: and it would be a model for the Middle East
Speaker 1: and they would change the Middle East that way. That's nuts. No,
Speaker 1: then none of this is consistent with the way Trump
Speaker 1: views America first. There is no sense of individual rights none.
Speaker 1: There's no sense of protecting the lives and property of Americans.
Speaker 1: This simply is no categorizing foreign countries as free, are
Speaker 1: not free, friendly, are not friendly, Enemies are not in
Speaker 1: the enemies. Quite the contrary, Trump seems to be most
Speaker 1: friendly with Putin, least friendly with Europe and Canada. Of
Speaker 1: all people, freedom has no currency for Trump, means nothing
Speaker 1: for Trump. So there's absolutely no relevance to the fact
Speaker 1: that Europe is relatively free and Canada is relatively free,
Speaker 1: and no relevance the fact that Putin is really is
Speaker 1: a dictator. And this is across the boat. You know,
Speaker 1: there is no farm policy strategy, and there's no conception
Speaker 1: of America first, because there's no conception of what America is.
Speaker 1: There's no conception of what the world of government is.
Speaker 1: There's no conception of what it means to be America first.
Speaker 1: It's for Trump and Maga. America first is some chest thumping,
Speaker 1: you know, nationalistic, mindless patriotism. Mindless patriotism. That's all America
Speaker 1: First means to them. It's not a thought out, thoughtful
Speaker 1: strategy about the interest of American citizens. There is no
Speaker 1: America free independent of individual citizens. So what America First
Speaker 1: means is individual citizens first, they rights first, their freedoms first.
Speaker 1: And part of the chest thumping is territorial expansion. So
Speaker 1: because America is not an idea, Jdvans keeps reminding us
Speaker 1: of that. America is not an idea. What America is
Speaker 1: is territory, land, blood, and soil. So why not expand it?
Speaker 1: Make America great again? Is make America bigger? No wonder
Speaker 1: we want Greenland? Not a great free trade agreement with
Speaker 1: Greenland that would solve the problem. Imagine if we had
Speaker 1: a great free trade agreement with Greenland and American companies
Speaker 1: could go into Greenland and mine rare earth materials there
Speaker 1: and send it back to the United States. What do
Speaker 1: we need to actually occupy Greenland for that? All we
Speaker 1: need is free trade. Same with Canada, exactly the same thing,
Speaker 1: Canada becoming a fifty war first state. I mean, it
Speaker 1: keeps going on and on about this that's just blood
Speaker 1: and soil expansionism, nothing else. It's on America first, to
Speaker 1: America last. Okay. So that's how you deal with other governments.
Speaker 1: And look, if another government becomes a threat to the
Speaker 1: United States and you think that by changing the regime
Speaker 1: in that government, and it's an authoritarian government, you can
Speaker 1: eliminate the threats of the United States, then regime change
Speaker 1: is appropriate. I think this idea that we cannot assassinate
Speaker 1: falligen leaders is ridiculous. So America would take an active
Speaker 1: position if vis a vis authoritarians and saying, look, we
Speaker 1: want it to be but if you become a threat
Speaker 1: to us, we will crush you. There's a song in
Speaker 1: there we will we will crush you, something like that.
Speaker 1: And if there are horrific things happening in the world,
Speaker 1: it's sad. And in some cases, if the US government
Speaker 1: doesn't object, you can volunteer and go and fight for justice.
Speaker 1: You can go to Rwanda and to save the I
Speaker 1: can't try who is killing who? I think the hoodies?
Speaker 1: Who killing the two chees? Is that right? Well, the
Speaker 1: chu cheas, the hoodies whoever, you can go save them.
Speaker 1: But that is a personal thing, Okay. So let's talk
Speaker 1: about US aid and how US aid should be. US
Speaker 1: eight in a sense is like welfare. It just should
Speaker 1: not exist unless unless there is a clear American interest.
Speaker 1: That is, the US eight is necessary for the protection
Speaker 1: of American lives and property. So, for example, US aid
Speaker 1: to Ukraine and Israel fighting our enemies. Ukraine in particular,
Speaker 1: given that we won't fight the enemy directly because of
Speaker 1: a nuclear risk, let U Crane do it. We should
Speaker 1: be giving them a lot more aid than we have.
Speaker 1: USA to Israel, probably not necessary if America took care
Speaker 1: of business after nine to eleven, but it didn't, so
Speaker 1: it was stuck with a relatively inefficient way to defeat
Speaker 1: Islamism by using a proxy, which is Israel, but better
Speaker 1: than not fighting them at all. But what about all
Speaker 1: the other found aid. We give three billion to Egypt
Speaker 1: and a billion to Jordan, primarily because we bribed them
Speaker 1: to sign a peace deal with Israel. We shouldn't do that.
Speaker 1: Countries shouldn't need a bribe in order to sign a
Speaker 1: peace deal, and the United States shouldn't be doing the bribing.
Speaker 1: It should be in Egypt and Jordan's self interest to
Speaker 1: have a peace deal with Israel and if it's not,
Speaker 1: then they should suffer the consequences. We shouldn't as a government.
Speaker 1: As a government, we shouldn't be sending food aid, we
Speaker 1: shouldn't be sending military We send aid to one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty something countries. We also have troops in one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty countries, which is absurd and ridiculous. Now
Speaker 1: what about like USA that is basically preventing the spread
Speaker 1: a polio HIV malaria in different parts of the world. Well,
Speaker 1: here again you have to think of what is the
Speaker 1: life How you protecting the lives of Americans? Take HIV
Speaker 1: for example, HIV cannot be contracted easily. American interests are
Speaker 1: not being directly at the lives are not being threatened
Speaker 1: by HIV ravishing f So, while there's no question the
Speaker 1: USA D and its age program has saved maybe hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of lives, that is not the job of
Speaker 1: the US government. It could be a fantastic thing for
Speaker 1: private charities to do. And indeed, the US government can
Speaker 1: mention that this is happening in Africa and encourage private
Speaker 1: charities to do it, not not you know, with subsidies
Speaker 1: or anything like that, but just by saying so, but
Speaker 1: there was literally no threat to America of HIV spreading
Speaker 1: in Africa. I mean there's some marginal, small risk, but again,
Speaker 1: to get AIDS, it doesn't just require breathing. Malaria is
Speaker 1: the same way the SPA in Milary in Africa does
Speaker 1: not threaten Americans. And therefore the American government, hua government
Speaker 1: has no business funding malaria programs. I mean, Bill Gates
Speaker 1: funds a lot of malaria programs, and that is, you know,
Speaker 1: to his credit. You know, I guess if that's his values. Right,
Speaker 1: charity is fine. So to the extent that individuals want
Speaker 1: to engage in charity to help prevent diseases in different
Speaker 1: countries and save people's lives, fine, if they're doing it
Speaker 1: for the right reasons, good for them. And yet there's
Speaker 1: certainly value in saving people's lives. Now, I don't know
Speaker 1: much about enough about polio to know if polio qualifies
Speaker 1: or not. Again, a lot of the walk on polio
Speaker 1: is being done by people like Bill Gates, so I'm
Speaker 1: not I don't think the government money is necessary or needed. Now,
Speaker 1: if it's a easily communicable disease, travels easily, is easily,
Speaker 1: you can easily get affected and you can get on
Speaker 1: a plane and travel to the US and easily infect
Speaker 1: Americans with it. Then yeah, you could imagine that you
Speaker 1: could argue that there is a direct the CDC, a
Speaker 1: kind of the kind of the same entity that would
Speaker 1: deal with pandemics in the United States hasn't prevent an
Speaker 1: interesting going out there and preventing sudden diseases from developing
Speaker 1: and getting to the point where there were threats to
Speaker 1: the US. You could yeah, I mean, I think that's
Speaker 1: a legit argument. You would have to clearly identify what
Speaker 1: the diseases are and what the threat they post the
Speaker 1: United States is and how they're transmitted and all of this.
Speaker 1: You'd have to do the hard work like everything else,
Speaker 1: But that is it. Every single piece.
Speaker 2: Of aid should be directly related to getting rid of reducing,
Speaker 2: eliminating a direct threat to the life, to the lives
Speaker 2: of Americans.
Speaker 1: In America. We're not going to we're not trying to
Speaker 1: cure malarias, so Americans can go in safari, right, And
Speaker 1: of course you have vaccines for a lot of these things,
Speaker 1: so you know, if Americans got vaccinated, then they wouldn't
Speaker 1: be at risk for a lot of these diseases. So AID.
Speaker 1: I mean I would shut down USA D completely suddenly.
Speaker 1: The State Department or the Defense Department should have some
Speaker 1: pool of money to deal with specific situations in which,
Speaker 1: you know, spending money could prevent a war, or which
Speaker 1: the United States would have involved in, or spending money
Speaker 1: could prevent a disease from spending to the United States
Speaker 1: or spending money. They should have a pool to be
Speaker 1: able to do that, but it would have to be
Speaker 1: on an ad hoc basis related to real threats. All right.
Speaker 1: So again interests, interests are not Yeah, you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's our hemisphere, and we want everybody to be good
Speaker 1: guys in our hemis feed to like American that's not interest.
Speaker 1: The interests of the government related only to American citizens
Speaker 1: protecting their freedom, protecting their rights. So we have no
Speaker 1: direct interest in what regime is in Chile unless Chile
Speaker 1: is gonna align with China and put nuclear weapons in Chili.
Speaker 1: The threat in the US, I don't know. You can
Speaker 1: imagine a scenario where it becomes a threat, all right,
Speaker 1: Then it becomes a threat, and if we believe that
Speaker 1: they're going to do that, we could preempt it absolutely,
Speaker 1: But no, just going in and intervening in these countries
Speaker 1: and shooting up regimes and in the name of we
Speaker 1: want freedom, not America's job. Shouldn't get involved. That is
Speaker 1: way too broad a definition of interests, lives, and significant property.
Speaker 1: That's it. When Iran and Arab countries nationalized oil, strategic acid,
Speaker 1: a necessary strategic acid there was confiscated from American private
Speaker 1: companies by these governments. Should the America intervene, Yes, that
Speaker 1: was a direct interest. That was a direct attack on
Speaker 1: property owned by Americans and of strategic interest to American
Speaker 1: citizens that help preserve their freedom. But they're not a
Speaker 1: lot of those kind of things. Not a lot of
Speaker 1: those kind of things. The fact that American industry has
Speaker 1: sudden interests unless they are a strategic as oil, they
Speaker 1: should have never gone there. So American interests by by
Speaker 1: according to their pharm policy, realist is way too broad
Speaker 1: of a term. And according to that it's elationists, way
Speaker 1: too narrow over to and and I'm not saying I
Speaker 1: have all the answers. One has to really think about
Speaker 1: particular cases. What happens if for free country uh and
Speaker 1: which Americans have invested heavily in, suddenly becomes authoritarian and
Speaker 1: all the ascids that Americans invested in it when it
Speaker 1: was okay to invest in it because it was free,
Speaker 1: are now going to be confiscated. Does that constitute an
Speaker 1: American interested in protecting the property of Americans? Yeah, probably
Speaker 1: under the right circumstances. Yeah, it could. What kind of
Speaker 1: action does that necessitate? It would depend on the circumstances.
Speaker 1: So again, none of this is easy, straightforward. You can
Speaker 1: plug it into formula, it comes out. You have to
Speaker 1: think it through. This is the country have nuclear weapons?
Speaker 1: Could you know, could we put pressure on the country
Speaker 1: through sanctions to an embargo to get them to at
Speaker 1: least compensate American citizens for their property. What can we do?
Speaker 1: Do we have to invade? Probably not. Could we eliminate
Speaker 1: the regime at a low cost and return them to
Speaker 1: freedom in order to preserve the assets of the Americans. Maybe,
Speaker 1: and maybe it's justified in that case. So again, complicated,
Speaker 1: that's life. You have to be able to take principles
Speaker 1: which is what I've given you, and apply them to
Speaker 1: the various concretes in the world out there, which is
Speaker 1: not necessarily easy. All right, I hope that this gives
Speaker 1: you a little bit of an illustration the extent to
Speaker 1: which this is not the policy of America first today,
Speaker 1: of MAGA and Trump. By the way, one of the
Speaker 1: principles is one of the principles is you do not
Speaker 1: negotiate with an enemy. You do not negotiate with an enemy,
Speaker 1: not if you're strong. Now, if you're weak, you might
Speaker 1: not have any option but to negotiate. But if you're strong,
Speaker 1: you do not negotiate. You do not negotiate with evil.
Speaker 1: So you do not negotiate with Iran, you do not
Speaker 1: negotiate and suck up to North Korea. You do not
Speaker 1: negotiate with Putin. There's just no talking. There's no discussion,
Speaker 1: you know, unless you're on the verge of a nuclear war.
Speaker 1: And and and this is the only way to get
Speaker 1: everybody to calm down. So deals are not the standard.
Speaker 1: Deals are not good. Peace is not a good in
Speaker 1: and of itself. Peace with Whoman for what? And there
Speaker 1: is no such thing as some kind of amorphous American
Speaker 1: interest doesn't exist. And the CIA and America, the NSA,
Speaker 1: I mean, I challenged the NSA. You know, NSA said
Speaker 1: we listened to drug hotels in Mexico. Drug hotels are
Speaker 1: not a security threat. To the United States. NSA should
Speaker 1: not be listening to them. NSA also listens to the
Speaker 1: Old Company in Brazil because, you know, because they want
Speaker 1: to give an edge to American businesses in terms of
Speaker 1: up pricing. That is not in the interest of Americans.
Speaker 1: It's not protecting the lives and property of Americans. So
Speaker 1: American intelligence services in American military are used in a
Speaker 1: variety of different ways all over the world that have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the real the individual rights interests
Speaker 1: of Americans. The NSA is probably listening now. As I said,
Speaker 1: I've been to the NSA discussed this with them, so
Speaker 1: they know my views. So it's the problem when you
Speaker 1: have when you don't define interests, then everything is an
Speaker 1: American interest. That's how we intervene everywhere in the world.
Speaker 1: There's no limit to it. We sacrifice American troops, we
Speaker 1: sacrificed the American lives, we sacrifice a lot of treasure
Speaker 1: because it's an American quote interests. This is why interests
Speaker 1: need to be defined. I defined it as the lives
Speaker 1: and property property you know, of significance, lives and significant
Speaker 1: property of Americans. That's it, all right, So that is
Speaker 1: my view of American first strategy. You know, Iinrand was
Speaker 1: very clear. America should have never been in Vietnam. It
Speaker 1: had no interest in Vietnam. Vietnam was in northern Vietnam.
Speaker 1: Was never a threat to the United States. Its victory
Speaker 1: did not constitute a violation of rights of American citizens,
Speaker 1: not involved the confiscation of any substantial American property. We
Speaker 1: should have never been in Korea. As good as it
Speaker 1: might have turned out for the Koreans that we were,
Speaker 1: and the South Korea has blossoming, we should have never
Speaker 1: been there. Korea, the Chinese, the Russians taking over the
Speaker 1: entire Korean peninsula does not did not post a direct
Speaker 1: threat to the United States. A lot of we should
Speaker 1: never been in any rock. We should have never gone to
Speaker 1: the First World War. So we should have never got
Speaker 1: into the American Spanish War and taken the Philippines and
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico having out right now in Cuba. None of
Speaker 1: that should have happened. All of that was in the
Speaker 1: name of these ambiguous American interests. But in the eighteen
Speaker 1: nineties it was motivated by imperialism. Later on it was
Speaker 1: motivated by bringing peace to the world. Being the bulls
Speaker 1: policeman all kinds of motivations that have everything to do
Speaker 1: with America's interests. So those are some examples of things
Speaker 1: that should not have done and we should not be
Speaker 1: the welfare provider for the rest of the world. Even
Speaker 1: though I don't think USAD was the first thing you
Speaker 1: would shut down in the government. I think they are
Speaker 1: much more egregious horrible things that the government does than
Speaker 1: a USAD. It ultimately should have been shut down. Now
Speaker 1: if you want to, if you want to understand Iran's
Speaker 1: perspective on American interest and what Americanism is and what
Speaker 1: America first is, I mean this there essays where she
Speaker 1: talks about from policy in capitalism, not know an ideal
Speaker 1: in some of other essay books, but one important source
Speaker 1: is the Textbook on Americanism UH and and her essay
Speaker 1: on Americanism in that textbook, including other people's essays including mine,
Speaker 1: which you can find in at Amazon. That is uh
Speaker 1: That is a great textbook. Thank you Jonathan for editing it,
Speaker 1: Thank you for supporting the show. That is a great
Speaker 1: source to understand what Iran man when she talked about America,
Speaker 1: the value of America, the the the what Americanism as
Speaker 1: an ism actually means all right, So again, thank you
Speaker 1: Troy for the opportunity to talk about this, Thank you
Speaker 1: for sponsoring today's show. Let me know what you thought.
Speaker 1: What you think and if the additional questions. Happy to
Speaker 1: do another show on this where I answer particular questions
Speaker 1: that maybe I didn't cover up this time. All right,
Speaker 1: let's let's jump in. Reminder, we have goals even on
Speaker 1: Saturdays for the show. Right now, we're about fifty dollars
Speaker 1: short of our goal for the first hour, so you know,
Speaker 1: a couple of twenty dollars questions and a ten dollars
Speaker 1: question we'd cover that. We've got quite a few five
Speaker 1: and ten dollars questions. Well, we need now are twenty
Speaker 1: and fifty dollars questions to get us for the first hour,
Speaker 1: and then of course there was a second hour. So
Speaker 1: please consider consider supporting the show, consider jumping in with
Speaker 1: a question, and of course you can do a We've
Speaker 1: got a lot of people watching right now. If you're
Speaker 1: not a subscriber, please consider subscribing. And if you have
Speaker 1: never supported the show, please or have but would like
Speaker 1: to do some more, please consider doing a sticker like
Speaker 1: Catherine did. Captain Stiggert did. She did a small amount,
Speaker 1: but it's great. You know it's she did just over
Speaker 1: euro you can yeah, your euro's great, A dollar's great. Two,
Speaker 1: five ten, five hundred can do more than five hundred.
Speaker 1: Bet any amount. Please consider supporting the show and getting
Speaker 1: us to our targets so that the show, which is
Speaker 1: supported by listeners like you, made possible by listeners like you,
Speaker 1: can continue. All right, let's see, Yes, we've got a
Speaker 1: fifty dollars from Brazil. Q two Santos. Trump shift towards
Speaker 1: US isolation reduces growth by harming competitiveness, limits innovation by
Speaker 1: restricting global trade, weakens alliances by fueling conflict between free nations,
Speaker 1: empowers authoritarian regimes by enabling coosion. Yes, but that's just
Speaker 1: the beginning of it. I mean, the biggest problem where
Speaker 1: Trump's move towards US isolation is that it constitutes a
Speaker 1: massive violation of American individual rights. So it is an
Speaker 1: Americans that he is hurting more than anything else. He's
Speaker 1: hurting Americans buy, restricting their ability to buy whatever they
Speaker 1: want to buy by employing whoever they want to employ.
Speaker 1: He's restricting Americans' freedom by turning the world against America
Speaker 1: and making it such that Americans are not going to
Speaker 1: be welcomed in big chunks of the world. I'm making
Speaker 1: investment American, but even American tourism. And he is harming
Speaker 1: the US economy, which hurts Americans individually. I mean, we
Speaker 1: heard how what is it common, Secretary of Treasury secretary
Speaker 1: say yeah, Americans, it's not part of the American dream
Speaker 1: to buy cheap products. He wants to make products more
Speaker 1: expensive artificially, which is a violation of our rights. I
Speaker 1: should be able to buy products at whatever price the
Speaker 1: market will bear. None of your business, stay out of it,
Speaker 1: stop taxing it. So I agree with you completely. It's
Speaker 1: harms competitiveness, which harms producers and consumers. It limits innovation,
Speaker 1: and it hurts our allies, which again is a violation
Speaker 1: of the individual rights of Americans. Alliances are there to
Speaker 1: protect us. Weakend alliances mean we are less protected, which
Speaker 1: means our means are stronger and can hurt us more.
Speaker 1: Hurt us means hurt whom hurt individual Americans. And maybe
Speaker 1: most importantly, it empowers as you say, it empowers authoritarian
Speaker 1: energy is by enabling, by enabling them, legitimizing them, sanctioning them,
Speaker 1: and emboldening them, and that could have just horrific consequences
Speaker 1: in the United States. Trump is leading us to World
Speaker 1: War three faster than any other president. Trump is leading
Speaker 1: us to World War three faster than any other president
Speaker 1: by exuding weakness and and and by being so thoroughly unprincipled,
Speaker 1: and by sanctioning and uh supporting and uh promoting the
Speaker 1: worst authoritarian dictators in the world. People thought Biden was
Speaker 1: driving us towards World War three. Trump is that on
Speaker 1: steroids in space. All right, Michael Donald Trump will go
Speaker 1: down in history as the first American president to have
Speaker 1: willingly betrayed his own country, his own country in service
Speaker 1: of a foreign enemy. His active treason will be taught
Speaker 1: in history books by generations to come. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that's right. I mean, there have been no other really
Speaker 1: really bad presidents. Woodwar Wilson got us into World War
Speaker 1: One for no real reason. A lot of Americans died
Speaker 1: as a consequence of that, and did a lot of
Speaker 1: bad things domestically as well. So there mean others that
Speaker 1: have done horrific things. But yes, I think this is
Speaker 1: going to go down. Just the first forty days are
Speaker 1: going to go forty five days are going to go
Speaker 1: down as some of the worst in all of American
Speaker 1: history in terms of what the president has done. And
Speaker 1: he is up there now with some of the worst
Speaker 1: presidents ever. Normative randoid normative randoid. Wow, isn't should the
Speaker 1: president be able to deploy military without a declaration from
Speaker 1: Congress first? Additional thoughts on the war powers at No,
Speaker 1: he should not. Now you could imagine, given the speed
Speaker 1: at which things move in the world today, that American
Speaker 1: president would have to deploy some military force quickly and
Speaker 1: assertively in order to prevent a catastrophe without going to
Speaker 1: Congress first. But he should immediately get congressional authorization as
Speaker 1: quickly feasible. If there is an imminent threat and secrecy
Speaker 1: is not an issue, then he should convene Congress immediately
Speaker 1: to vote to authorize the use of force. If that
Speaker 1: is not possible, then you use the force to mitigate
Speaker 1: the immediate threat. But before you start acting, in order
Speaker 1: to eliminate the threat completely, you've got to get Congress's
Speaker 1: authorization to go to war. So the Constitution is pretty
Speaker 1: clear where the authority lies. The authority lies with Congress,
Speaker 1: not with the president. And we have seen just like
Speaker 1: with immigration, and with tariffs, we have seen Congress abligate
Speaker 1: it's responsibility. It started, I think with the Vietnam War
Speaker 1: and basically let the president get away with anything I
Speaker 1: think that is wrong, despicable and anyway, So that is
Speaker 1: that is I definitely do not like the idea that
Speaker 1: the president could just kill anybody of approval to do
Speaker 1: whatever he wants to do. And no counterbalance this indefinite
Speaker 1: declaration of war, even after nine to eleven, which allowed
Speaker 1: the US to you know, the US presidents to basically
Speaker 1: engaged in military activities without any limitation. But generally the
Speaker 1: US has not declared war in a long time, particularly
Speaker 1: before military action. All Right, Daniel came in with fifty
Speaker 1: Canadian dollars. There's still such a thing as Canadian dollars.
Speaker 1: There's still not the fifty first state, Daniel says, Canadian
Speaker 1: business owner here. Our number one supply is based in California.
Speaker 1: They make products using components from Europe. They get tariffed
Speaker 1: coming into the United States. Canada hits them again. Coming
Speaker 1: to me, None of these policies are targeted just rights violation,
Speaker 1: absolutely absolutely, And of course you know it's there's more
Speaker 1: and more and more of that all of the world
Speaker 1: because with such a I mean, it's a beautiful thing
Speaker 1: that the global economy is so well integrated. And ideally
Speaker 1: everybody just dropped Tavist to zero. It would be a
Speaker 1: lot if just America dropped Tavist to zero. But this
Speaker 1: is one of the why NAFTA is so good. At
Speaker 1: least for many goods. I don't know if your product,
Speaker 1: but for many goods, taists between Canada and the United
Speaker 1: States are indeed zero, and that's a beautiful thing. America
Speaker 1: has benefited from it, Canada's benefited from it, Mexico has
Speaker 1: benefited enormously from it. And this is what Trump is
Speaker 1: strying to undo, a system that's actually working. If anything,
Speaker 1: we should be insisting that more things have zero tariffs. Instead,
Speaker 1: Trump is leading the world towards a situation where there's
Speaker 1: more and more and more and more and more tariffs.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's hard to see how this ends
Speaker 1: because it, you know, it just goes. Nobody in politics
Speaker 1: at least have us an incentive to make it stop.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Daniel, really appreciate the support, and uh, yeah, sorry,
Speaker 1: you're good. I mean, imagine how many tariffs are embedded
Speaker 1: in the iPhone. How much cheaper this would be without
Speaker 1: all the different tariffs. I think the pieces of the
Speaker 1: iPhone are made of fifty different countries fifty five zero,
Speaker 1: and many times when they're crossing borders there's attacks as
Speaker 1: they move back and forth. Horrble a friend of Aristotle.
Speaker 1: My vision of a Commis department would be to make
Speaker 1: sure state laws are not impeded interstate trade and to
Speaker 1: advise foreign national nations on laws that do not impede
Speaker 1: international trade with the US. Thoughts. Yeah, although I don't
Speaker 1: think that's a full time job, So I don't think
Speaker 1: you need a Commas department. It could be an apartment
Speaker 1: within the Treasury that basically advise foreign nations and kept
Speaker 1: an eye on the states and make sure that their
Speaker 1: states are not doing anything anti competitive. I don't think
Speaker 1: you need. I would shut down the Commis Department. I mean, basically,
Speaker 1: what do you need. You need a defense department, you
Speaker 1: need adjustice apartment, and maybe and you need a Treasury department.
Speaker 1: That's it. All other government departments should be shut down,
Speaker 1: all of them, Health and human services, education, Commerce, God,
Speaker 1: I can't even care, you know, I don't know what
Speaker 1: else there is. There's a lot oh interior energy, all
Speaker 1: of those who shut down the interior. The only job
Speaker 1: of the Interior Department should be to sell off all
Speaker 1: government land and property out there. There's a lot of it.
Speaker 1: You could do a lot to reduce the debt by
Speaker 1: selling it. They could stop by selling the bitcoin that
Speaker 1: they own. Andrew, I want to believe that peaceful discourse
Speaker 1: can still will turn things around to freedom, but the
Speaker 1: bullies emerging don't respect reason. If not discourse, it will
Speaker 1: come down to physical fighting. Only a matter of when
Speaker 1: so be it. Yep, I mean that is certainly possible.
Speaker 1: Ultimately we could descend into authoritarianism and into physical controls.
Speaker 1: Ultimately we will rise on the ashes. Whether that will
Speaker 1: require revolution or whether that can happen peacefully hard to tell,
Speaker 1: but yes, I mean there is a real challenge. Given
Speaker 1: how mindless so many people are left and right, how
Speaker 1: yeah perceptual level mindlessness they are. It's very hard to
Speaker 1: see a path to convincing enough people to avoid what
Speaker 1: seems to be the inevitable descent into authoritarianism. Michael, in
Speaker 1: regard to these trade wars, why do they want us
Speaker 1: to be poor? Why don't they want us to be rational?
Speaker 1: Rich and happy. Well, they don't hold it as they
Speaker 1: want us to be poor. They hold it as they
Speaker 1: want us, they want to control us. They hold us
Speaker 1: as this isn't some collectivistic interests, This is an American interest.
Speaker 1: This is better for us, even though we don't know it.
Speaker 1: You don't know authoritarian actually says, no, I want you
Speaker 1: to be poor. I want you to all die. They
Speaker 1: all claim some mystical knowledge of what is good for America,
Speaker 1: what is right for America. So they don't. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: can't think of it as they want us to be poor,
Speaker 1: because that's not how they hold it. Not how they
Speaker 1: hold it. They believe they're being rational. They're not, of course,
Speaker 1: but they believe they are. Liam. Did you see the
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom interview with Charlie Cook. No, I can't stand
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom and I can't stand Charlie Cook, and it's
Speaker 1: a bad combination. But Gavin Newsom, from what I read,
Speaker 1: shifted dramatically to the rights on a lot of the
Speaker 1: social issues. And yeah, I mean he's running for president
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty eight, there's no question about it. So
Speaker 1: he realizes, as a lot of people in the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party realize that they have to move to the right
Speaker 1: on a lot of these issues, and I think they will.
Speaker 1: I don't know that Gavin Newsom can convince anybody he
Speaker 1: actually believes in that given his track record. I do
Speaker 1: think the Democrats are going to have to look for
Speaker 1: governors who don't have that kind of a track record,
Speaker 1: you know, Against Shapiro in Pennsylvania comes to mind. There's
Speaker 1: probably some other Democrats Democratic governors who don't have a woke,
Speaker 1: d you know, crazy left track record. I'm not sure
Speaker 1: who those are, but they're probably off you Otherwise they
Speaker 1: wouldn't get re elected. Likely. I don't think a New
Speaker 1: York governor of California governor, given given the track record,
Speaker 1: has a chance of really winning in the US. Happer
Speaker 1: I noticed in n never chose to live in a
Speaker 1: real American red state. She lived in the bluest of
Speaker 1: area Chicago, New York City. LA. Well, I mean Chicago
Speaker 1: was accidental. That's where her family was, and LA was.
Speaker 1: She didn't like La. La was where her career was.
Speaker 1: She had to be there for carea. The only place
Speaker 1: she actually chose, the only place she actually wanted to
Speaker 1: live in is New York City, and that's not because
Speaker 1: it's blue or red. It's because it was skyscrapers, and
Speaker 1: it was culture, and it was the energy, and it
Speaker 1: was the finance center. It was the economic sense of
Speaker 1: the United States. It was it was that. Now, why
Speaker 1: is all of that blue is a good question, right,
Speaker 1: but I you know, look, the reality is, no, she
Speaker 1: would never wanted to live in a in a red state.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just the culture is not her culture.
Speaker 1: And back then the South was racist and and uh
Speaker 1: and and there were racist laws in the book. I mean,
Speaker 1: she she just tested all of that and she would
Speaker 1: have never wanted to be associated with any of that.
Speaker 1: She was fully in most in Western civilization, and Western
Speaker 1: civilization is not at its best in the South, at
Speaker 1: least back then. Arguably there's some cities in the South
Speaker 1: today at all, but back then it certainly wasn't. Uh.
Speaker 1: The best of the West is indeed represented in California
Speaker 1: and New York, the most ambitious states, the most productive states,
Speaker 1: the most innovative states. Wait, most innovation happens not that
Speaker 1: the state of his innovatory. And that has a lot
Speaker 1: to do with the value of cities. It has a
Speaker 1: lot to do with the attitude, which is based on
Speaker 1: not the least religious states New York and California, also
Speaker 1: the least religious states at least New York City. That's important.
Speaker 1: I think it was very important to her. She couldn't
Speaker 1: have survived surrounded by people who took religion seriously and
Speaker 1: embedded it into their lives. I don't think she could
Speaker 1: have survived in that environment. Yeah, James, how do we
Speaker 1: show people that narcissism is in selfishness? I had a
Speaker 1: hard time differentiating the two when I first began to
Speaker 1: under STANDARDJA activism. Yeah. I mean it is hard because
Speaker 1: the ultruists have done a lot, spend a lot of time,
Speaker 1: put in a lot of effort to equate the two,
Speaker 1: to present the two it is the same. And what
Speaker 1: you need to do is unpack that. And to do
Speaker 1: that you have to explain what selfishness actually is and
Speaker 1: what it implies. And the first thing the selfishness really
Speaker 1: implies is rationality. Reason is a value, and you really
Speaker 1: have to hammer that home. Selfishness is to be rational.
Speaker 1: Selfishness is to elevate reason above all else. And then
Speaker 1: you can ask the question, are the narcissists do they
Speaker 1: do that? And I think then it's pretty straightforward. It's
Speaker 1: pretty clear. So from a just from a what is
Speaker 1: selfish people do? They think they act only based on thought,
Speaker 1: based on reason. Is that what narcissists do? No, So
Speaker 1: I think that's where you need to focus, Matt. Libertarians
Speaker 1: hate the West's intervention in the same way leftists hate
Speaker 1: how producers alter the environment. Both come from an anti
Speaker 1: life perspective. I agree completely completely. They you know they
Speaker 1: they in some Yeah, so you know, libertarians hate the
Speaker 1: idea that some states are good and some states are evil,
Speaker 1: and that the good should win and we should should
Speaker 1: be supported by other good people. So so, yes, libertarians
Speaker 1: because they hate the state. They hate the state. They
Speaker 1: hate more than anything else. Good states because good states,
Speaker 1: relatively good states, are a refutation are their entire anarchist ideology. James,
Speaker 1: We're living in a political climate that rewards narcissistic types
Speaker 1: who promise magic. Hopefully the business community isn't affected by
Speaker 1: this mentality. Well, we know it is. We can see
Speaker 1: it with all the support that Trump got this time
Speaker 1: from many within the business community. So it clearly is affected.
Speaker 1: Whether it stacks, whether they'll wake up from the spell,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but clearly this magical thinking is starting
Speaker 1: to dominate our culture, and of course it's the way
Speaker 1: all authoritarians come to power. It's always about magical thinking.
Speaker 1: And this is why religion religious areas. Religious people are
Speaker 1: the core the base of any authoritarian because they already
Speaker 1: have as part of their thinking and epistemology of an authoritarianism.
Speaker 1: Not do you have your algorithm? Do you think Democrats
Speaker 1: will win huge majorities in the House and Senate in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty six? Will there be good signed for the
Speaker 1: America sense of life? Do you think Trump will explicitly
Speaker 1: start ignoring Congress. I don't know, because a lot can
Speaker 1: happen between now and twenty twenty six. I do expect
Speaker 1: Democrats to win a significant majority in the House. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Republicans are bare. They have a majority in the
Speaker 1: House right now, and usually in midterms, the party in
Speaker 1: opposition wins. And given what's going on with Trump, yes,
Speaker 1: I think, and given how ineffective Republicans are in the House,
Speaker 1: I think the Democrats will win the House. The Senate
Speaker 1: harder to tell. I don't remember which senators are up
Speaker 1: in which states. Senator is harder. The country has definitely
Speaker 1: moved in a Republican direction in terms of the Senate,
Speaker 1: so many more states are red than blue. The blue
Speaker 1: states are the most populist, are some of the most
Speaker 1: populist populists large population states, but they're just most red states.
Speaker 1: And therefore, since every state gets two senators, you know,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter who's more populist dated than who. If
Speaker 1: you have just more states that are red, you're going
Speaker 1: to get more people than the Senate. The Senate is
Speaker 1: going to be hard for Democrats for a generation unless
Speaker 1: something really shifts, and it could, I mean, Trump could
Speaker 1: really piss off a lot of people. Clark, do you
Speaker 1: see Israel ever going to war with Iran on its own? Potentially?
Speaker 1: I don't. I wouldn't. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but
Speaker 1: you know, it keeps getting pushed into the future and
Speaker 1: it keeps getting more and more likely. And now it
Speaker 1: could be if Trump's negotiation with Iran fail, that he
Speaker 1: lets Israel deal with you on because he doesn't want
Speaker 1: to he doesn't want to go to war. You know,
Speaker 1: there a lot of scenarios there that could happen. But suddenly,
Speaker 1: if Trump negotiates a deal with you on, he will
Speaker 1: not let Israel attack Iran independent of that deal, right,
Speaker 1: he will, he will elevate the deal above all else.
Speaker 1: Jacob say, a country seizes Americans assets, a revolution happens
Speaker 1: a decade later, and a free goverment is installed. Does
Speaker 1: the new government owe reparations. I don't know that it
Speaker 1: owes reparations. No, but what it does. What it does
Speaker 1: is it should repatriate the assets that was stolen. So
Speaker 1: it doesn't oh above and beyond that a penalty, but
Speaker 1: it should repatriate the assets. Yes, so Nazi stole art
Speaker 1: all that ought should be returned to whoever owned it
Speaker 1: when they stole it. Andrew, what's the same conservatives who
Speaker 1: cheered when Trump withdrew from Obama's Iran deal cheer when
Speaker 1: Trump makes a deal with you on the same CONTEMPTI
Speaker 1: or pragmatic naiveta on display. Absolutely, but Trump's deal would
Speaker 1: be better. It would be the most magnificent, beautiful, amazing, stunning,
Speaker 1: phenomenal deal in all of human history. It'll be a
Speaker 1: clear victory and they'll have every reason to cheer. Right
Speaker 1: you believe that, Greg says, thanks Troy, Absolutely, I'll second that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Troy. A room YBS fans should swarm Destiny's
Speaker 1: livestream with five dollars super chats requesting an interview with you,
Speaker 1: Ron Brooke, I did this today. That would be great.
Speaker 1: Go for it. I mean, Destiny, who knows who I am?
Speaker 1: You know, I think he should interview me. It would
Speaker 1: be a good interaction. We will disagree, but it'll be
Speaker 1: healthy and it'll get you know, we'll gain massive exposure.
Speaker 1: So take a room's advice, go do it. Normative randoid
Speaker 1: all weapons fake games during war? Yeah, basically, I mean
Speaker 1: it has to be strategically and tactically thoughtful. You have
Speaker 1: to think about, you know, how you want to deploy them.
Speaker 1: What are the consequences of deploying them? What are the
Speaker 1: consequences to you? Again your self interest? Where's the wind blowing?
Speaker 1: If it's radioactivity? Do you really want to do chemical weapons?
Speaker 1: Biological it? Does it give you an advantage? What does
Speaker 1: it do to the morale of your own soldiers? Can
Speaker 1: it blow back on you? So a lot of things
Speaker 1: have to be thought out. The other is the enemy
Speaker 1: they're going to use these? But yes, there's no there's
Speaker 1: no uh. Moraley doesn't really say anything in war about
Speaker 1: how you kill the bad guy. What mechanism used to
Speaker 1: kill him. Jacob says invade the USSI after World War Two,
Speaker 1: Patterns suggested. I don't know that that was necessary. If they,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, the earlier they would have listened to
Speaker 1: pattern the earlier the war would have been over, and
Speaker 1: the easier it would have been to America to just
Speaker 1: take Eastern Europe from the Germans and then tell the Russians,
Speaker 1: this is you know, you don't get even though we
Speaker 1: promised you in multi eastern Europe, you're not going to
Speaker 1: get it. That's what should have been done. I've told
Speaker 1: the story about Patton could have taken Czechoslovakia way before
Speaker 1: the Russians ever got there. He should have. They should
Speaker 1: have allowed him to do that and should have told
Speaker 1: the Russians to go stuff it once they'd split Europe
Speaker 1: into two and there was an agreement. And I don't
Speaker 1: know that, Yes, I'm not sure at that point they
Speaker 1: should have invaded USSL What they should have done again,
Speaker 1: not go to war with Russia, but they should have
Speaker 1: sped up in the conquest of Western Europe, which they
Speaker 1: could have done if Paton was in charge. If Paton
Speaker 1: was left alone and being able to take most of
Speaker 1: Eastern Europe that landed up in the hands of the
Speaker 1: USSR could have been saved from being oppressed under the Communists,
Speaker 1: and they should have done that. But I don't think
Speaker 1: go neither war with the USSR. I mean again, the
Speaker 1: purpose of that would have been to save its Europeans
Speaker 1: as part of the war against Germany. They could have
Speaker 1: done it. Andrew, I heard that the comakers told Trump
Speaker 1: that cars were going to be twelve thousand more expensive
Speaker 1: the test went into effect this week. How is that
Speaker 1: going to change by April second?
Speaker 2: It's not.
Speaker 1: There's nothing they can do by April second that is
Speaker 1: going to change that. They can't change the supply chain
Speaker 1: in order to reduce that, maybe by small margins, but
Speaker 1: basically that's the case. I don't know if that's your
Speaker 1: numbers real or just a scare Trump, but yeah, it's
Speaker 1: everything's going to be more expensive and unbelievably stupid, because
Speaker 1: these auto companies have designed their supply chain to be
Speaker 1: as efficient and productive as possible under the belief that
Speaker 1: zero tariffs on car parts with Canada and Mexico was
Speaker 1: going to be with US forever. And changing that arbitrarily
Speaker 1: for no reason is a massive violation of the rights
Speaker 1: of the car manufacturers, a massive violation of America, of
Speaker 1: the rights of American business. Just unthinkable, just unthinkable. Normad Ever, Android,
Speaker 1: do you agree with Winchester versus Georgia when Justin Marshall
Speaker 1: made the Cherokee a sovereign nation within the United States?
Speaker 1: Was Jackson wrong to move the Cherokee reagnoring the decision?
Speaker 1: So I do not agree with Justice Marshall, and I
Speaker 1: do not agree with Jackson. I think they were all
Speaker 1: wrong in the way they dealt with Indians. The Indians
Speaker 1: should everything should have been done to encourage which the
Speaker 1: Indians to be integrated into American society. Everything should have
Speaker 1: been done to treat Indians as individuals and not as tribes.
Speaker 1: Everything should have been done to secure property rights for
Speaker 1: individual Indians. And that property should have been valuable property,
Speaker 1: not just take them to the most god forsaken place
Speaker 1: and drop there. But it should have been done. Whether
Speaker 1: they wanted to or not, it should have been. What
Speaker 1: they should have gotten is literal deeds on the land,
Speaker 1: and then what they if they decided to burn that
Speaker 1: and return to violence, then you have to kill them,
Speaker 1: you know, you have to deal with violence put them
Speaker 1: in jail, the equivalent of jail. But there was no attempt,
Speaker 1: particularly as we moved west, to deal with Indians, not
Speaker 1: as nations, not as collectives, but as individuals. And to
Speaker 1: this day, to this day, Indians do not have property
Speaker 1: rights within the reservations the nation. The Indian nation has
Speaker 1: property rights, whatever the hell that means. So Indians have
Speaker 1: no property rights whatever wealth there is in the land
Speaker 1: or whatever goes to the nation. And Indians are still
Speaker 1: treated as wars of the states. And the way that
Speaker 1: American treats the American Indians is an absolute, unmitigated disgrace.
Speaker 1: It is a violation of the very basic principles of
Speaker 1: this country. And it's horrific. It's horrific.
Speaker 2: Guy.
Speaker 1: They were treated in the nineteenth century, and it's even
Speaker 1: more horrific than in the twenty first century. We continue
Speaker 1: to treat them that way. The nations, the Indian nations,
Speaker 1: should be carved up. Every member of the Indian nations
Speaker 1: should be given a plot of land, and the nations
Speaker 1: should be dissolved, and they should become full citizens of
Speaker 1: the United States with property, property rights over secon parts
Speaker 1: of what is now Indian nation stuff. And they should
Speaker 1: they should get a deed for that property and figure
Speaker 1: out how to best utilize it. But that should have
Speaker 1: been done, you know, one hundred and fifty years ago Laban.
Speaker 1: When should the US annexed territory? Should we incorporate countries
Speaker 1: that want to join the US? Sure? I think we
Speaker 1: should be open to others joining. I think the only
Speaker 1: time to annex a two scenarios. One is somebody voluntarily
Speaker 1: wants to come in. And second a war in which
Speaker 1: I don't know. If we went to war with Mexico,
Speaker 1: war with Canada and UH and UH, we could you
Speaker 1: could imagine annexing the territory that we occupy, but we
Speaker 1: shouldn't go to war as an aggressive Imagine one of
Speaker 1: those countries attacked the United States. Hard to believe, then
Speaker 1: in fighting them, in protecting ourselves in self defense, we
Speaker 1: occupied territory. We will get a next that territory, which
Speaker 1: has basically happened in the American Mexico Wars was I'm
Speaker 1: not sure who started so I'm not going to say
Speaker 1: that they were legit, but I don't know who started them.
Speaker 1: As a Turk dichotomy here you on. Do you like cruises? No,
Speaker 1: not particularly I mean, I've only been on one, which
Speaker 1: was a small cruise, small cruise ship. It was a
Speaker 1: wind star with a big sale, small and really really nice, luxurious.
Speaker 1: But the idea of going on to one of those
Speaker 1: massive cruise ships with a thousand people, of several thousand
Speaker 1: people and buffets and lots of people and yeah, no
Speaker 1: appeal to me. Zero was zilch appeal. I mean, I
Speaker 1: can imagine a small cruise doing the Galopolis island if
Speaker 1: I did them again last time we were at a
Speaker 1: hotel and won of the islands and then did exclusions
Speaker 1: to others. I would actually prefer doing it on a cruise,
Speaker 1: on a small boat and every night sleeping off of
Speaker 1: a different island and then going and checking it out.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't mind doing the Greek islands again on a
Speaker 1: cruise ship, a small one, But that's about it. I'm
Speaker 1: just not Yeah. Plus I don't like getting seasick in
Speaker 1: a car. Follow up question, is there a connection how
Speaker 1: oversimplified process of manufacturing clothes offshore and oversimplified current style. No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I think the style drives the production.
Speaker 1: I think the fact that the fact that this is
Speaker 1: what we want. It's kind of what we get. It's
Speaker 1: also true that we don't want to spend a lot
Speaker 1: of money in clothes. I mean, it's very easy for
Speaker 1: Americans to allocate a little bit more money for clothes
Speaker 1: and get better fitting clothes if they wanted to, and
Speaker 1: then production would change to adapt our demand. But we
Speaker 1: don't want to spend a lot of money in clothes
Speaker 1: we don't want. We don't care that much about it.
Speaker 1: And I think as a consequence, production produces well in
Speaker 1: a sense what we want. So Brix and coal. Nationalism
Speaker 1: feels like a coping mechanism for the unskilled and unproductive.
Speaker 1: I think it's a coping mechanism for the unthinking, because
Speaker 1: there's some productive and skilled people who are nationalists. But
Speaker 1: I think it's to the people who are are basically unthinking,
Speaker 1: who don't want to take responsibility for their own lives,
Speaker 1: who don't understand what is necessary not to achieve their
Speaker 1: own values and their own goals, that too, who avotates
Speaker 1: I think ultimately to nationalism the unthinking. All right, last question,
Speaker 1: it looks like Jesspa from No Way. I've listened to
Speaker 1: every single show since twenty twenty three, Wow, and I
Speaker 1: would like to thank you for noticeably changing my thinking
Speaker 1: regardless from a student and objectivist in Bogen. No way,
Speaker 1: thank you. You should invite me to Bogen to speak
Speaker 1: at your university. I one year I got two invitations
Speaker 1: from Bergen and went to Bogen twice to give talks
Speaker 1: and actually did a talk. One of my favorite talks
Speaker 1: wasn't Bogen. It was at the student union at Bogen,
Speaker 1: and I gave a talk on the evils of the
Speaker 1: Scandinavian welfare state. But if you could get some student
Speaker 1: group in Bogen Nowe to invite me to give a talk,
Speaker 1: let's say, in the fall in October, that would be fantastic.
Speaker 1: Bogen is a beautiful, beautiful place. I don't mind visiting
Speaker 1: again September October. That would be great. Nomative Vanoid with
Speaker 1: respect to phone policy, do you have a favorite American president?
Speaker 1: What about historical figure? Oh, I don't know. Nobody in
Speaker 1: the twentieth century, literally nobody. I mean, at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, FDR did a pretty good job, but
Speaker 1: he certainly wouldn't be a favorite. God. Yeah, And I
Speaker 1: don't know enough about nineteenth century presidents to tell so
Speaker 1: I don't know enough. So no, I don't have one. Sorry,
Speaker 1: we'd have to ask an American history expert. I mean,
Speaker 1: Jefferson was good. He terminated the pirates, but he also
Speaker 1: spent a lot of taxpayer money on buying the Louisiana territory,
Speaker 1: which turned out to be an amazing deal. But was
Speaker 1: it the right? Was it appropriate in terms of the
Speaker 1: role of government? Difficult to say. Andrew Trega, how would
Speaker 1: you evaluate the state of the intellectuals of the freedom
Speaker 1: movement compared to earlier, this century or any time period
Speaker 1: you choose. Well, I don't think the freedom movement has
Speaker 1: the kind of giants that they had in the past.
Speaker 1: I mean, where is the Milton Friedman of today? Where's
Speaker 1: the Hyak the or the mess never mind dining rand.
Speaker 1: I just think it's it's of generally lower caliber and
Speaker 1: fewer who dramatically stand out. They're good people out there,
Speaker 1: they're good economists, they're good spokesman for various aspects of
Speaker 1: the freedom movement. But we don't have the giants that
Speaker 1: we had back then. It's larger today, so there are many,
Speaker 1: many more people involved, but fewer people a few people
Speaker 1: who stand out as exceptional. And maybe it's because the
Speaker 1: freedom movement is very fragmented, can't agree on anything. Maybe
Speaker 1: that's why so nobody core leesses a bunch of people
Speaker 1: around him and built up. Friedman had a big following
Speaker 1: even outside of what you call the liberty movement, in
Speaker 1: the freedom movement, in among conservatives. You know, he did
Speaker 1: a PBS TV show. I mean he he was a
Speaker 1: public intellectual of you know, I don't think anybody comes close.
Speaker 1: Maybe Tyler Cowen, but Tyler Cowen is not associated with
Speaker 1: freedom and liberty necessarily. He's a He's not as clear
Speaker 1: and sharp and unequivocal as freedom was on many issues. Yes,
Speaker 1: I think that's the best I can do. The more
Speaker 1: them fewer geniuses, fewer amazing public intellectuals who are who
Speaker 1: capture the imagination of the culture the way Friedman did,
Speaker 1: the way even Hayek and miss I don't think did
Speaker 1: in that sense. But he was such a giant. I mean,
Speaker 1: who's written books like mess Who's innovated in economics like
Speaker 1: Mesas and then taught and taught and taught generation after
Speaker 1: generation after generation of economists. So they're just not there.
Speaker 1: Alisa is just feeling good today. Fifty bucks. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Ali really appreciate it. I really appreciate the support. That
Speaker 1: is fantastic. Thank you guys, thanks for the support, Thanks
Speaker 1: to all the super chatters. And I will see you
Speaker 1: guys Monday. We'll have two shows usually as Monday and
Speaker 1: Monday evening is Greg Greg sold me Ry's back, So
Speaker 1: prepare all your philosophy questions. He has all to say
Speaker 1: about Trump as well, So prepare your Trump questions. Just
Speaker 1: prepare a bunch of questions. And you know, Greg is
Speaker 1: is amazing, He knows so much. He is so well spoken.
Speaker 1: He always has a great perspective. But yeah, all the
Speaker 1: questions you're not satisfied about how I answered them, bring
Speaker 1: them on to Greg Let's and particularly the philosophical ones.
Speaker 1: So I'm looking forward to that. That'll be a lot
Speaker 1: of fun. Greg is always fun, and we'll have a
Speaker 1: news show earlier in the day, so two shows. Remember,
Speaker 1: the clocks change. My clock doesn't change. So whereas right
Speaker 1: now I'm in our head of East Coast time, starting tomorrow,
Speaker 1: i am on East Coast time and that changes my
Speaker 1: schedule quite a bit. So I don't right now know
Speaker 1: exactly what time the shows are going to be. Are
Speaker 1: they going to be the same time? Puert A weekend time,
Speaker 1: which means an hour later for you, or will they
Speaker 1: be the same time East Coast time, which means an
Speaker 1: hour earlier for me. I have to work that out
Speaker 1: for the next week. The week after next I start
Speaker 1: my March travels and everything, everything, everything goes to the winds.
Speaker 1: So and I'll be in Europe and I'll be in Israel,
Speaker 1: and I'm traveling quite a bit. So we will see
Speaker 1: how things go in March April may travel heavy months,
Speaker 1: travel heavy months. All right, guys, I will see you
Speaker 1: on Monday. Have a great Sunday, great weekend. Yeah, see
Speaker 1: you Bye.