Live From London | Yaron Brook Show

How to have fun, anytime, anywhere.

Step one, go to chumbacacino.com.

Chumbacacino.com. Got it.

Step two, collect your welcome bonus.

Come to Papa, welcome bonus.

Step three, play hundreds of casino-style games for free.

That's a lot of games. All for free.

Step four, unleash your excitement.

Chumbacacino has been delivering thrills for over a decade,

so claim your free welcome bonus now and live the Chumbalife.

Visit chumbacacino.com.

No purchase necessary VGW group void for prohibited by law,

21 block terms and conditions apply.

We're going to start over.

The radical fundamental principles of freedom,

rational self-interest, and individual rights.

This is the Iran Brook Show.

Oh, right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brook Show on this Friday, February 27th.

Try number 23.

We're trying to make this work, not sure exactly what's going on.

It might be that the internet just drops once in a while,

here in the hotel, or the speed gets really slow,

or something is going on.

But it is really weird.

All right, Mr. Sloughwright, studio shows two errors.

Suggestion, the stream's current bitrate is higher than the recommended bitrate.

We recommend it to use the streamed bitrate of 2500,

and it's a 6276.

Mr. Slough, do you know where I changed the bitrate?

Where do I actually make that change?

6K is crazy for bitrate, but let me just check my settings.

Stream, output.

Yeah, there it is.

Apply.

Okay.

Mr. Slough, check to see if the bitrate is fixed.

I changed the bitrate to an OBS to 2500.

I don't know why it was set at 6,000.

I hadn't touched that.

Ever.

So, I have no idea it could all be a consequence of that.

God, there's all kinds of stuff here that who knows if we're doing this right.

All right, I'll have to investigate.

I have no idea where the bitrate was such.

Okay, thank you guys for joining.

I really, really appreciate it.

And I know this has been difficult.

It's I've been trying to do this now from yesterday and then again today.

I wonder if the kid that was on earlier from the school is still on.

Let's see, what was their handle?

Wildflower, wildflower, you still on?

Or have you dropped us there?

Wildflower is on.

She says, he says, is it a he or she?

I don't know.

Your talk was very engaging.

Usually the lecture is a less interesting,

but I was interested in hearing and opposing view,

point of view to what I usually hear.

That was great.

So, today I was at a grammar school, grammar schools,

government schools, the funded by the government,

but they are selective schools.

So, you have to pass a test to get into a grammar school.

There's a limited number of them in England and there's a political backlash against them.

Right now, labor doesn't like them obviously because they're selective.

So, they feel like they're discriminatory,

but grammar schools, the kids are really, really smart.

And today I give a talk in front of all of the basically what they call 12th year.

So, it's the year before last at high school.

So, these are 16 and 17 year olds.

So, wildflower is 16 or 17.

I'm guessing wildflower is a goal.

It is, the school itself is girls only through

eight year, I think, and then onwards, like high school, is mixed.

So, there were probably, I don't know, 300 kids at my talk.

The entire 12th year was there.

I gave a talk at the morality of free markets.

On why free markets are good.

As wildflower points out,

it was an opposite view of what most of the kids believed, which is not surprising.

That's true everywhere all over the world.

But it was terrific fun.

The kids were super engaged.

I don't think they were bored and asked a lot of questions, a lot of back and forth.

There was a real energy in the room, which was a lot of fun.

Then, after that, after the talk, I went to a classroom with about 35 students.

Politics students, students who are studying what are called A1.

This is like in the US would be like AP, AP politics.

And in AP politics in the UK, they read Iron Man.

So, in AP politics, Iron Man is in the curriculum.

She's considered a conservative thinker, and she would be rolling in a grave

being labeled a conservative thinker.

But actually read sections out of Iron Man in the politics class, which is great,

even if they do miscalculatory as a conservative.

I got to spend another hour.

My talk was about 40 minutes and then a Q&A with a big group.

And then I got to spend another hour with the smaller group, which was basically mostly Q&A,

I think, while Flower was in the second group as well.

It was really interesting, and again, a lot of fun.

The kids are smart.

They are mostly left-wing, which is typical of 16, 17-year-olds.

I think all over the world, everywhere in the world.

So, they haven't really engaged with ideas around free markets, ideas around capitalism,

what it is and how it functions, the principles behind it.

They have all the, I think, typical, regular, what I think misconceptions about markets, how they

work would cause the great depression, the necessity of regulations and controls,

because otherwise, businessmen would poison their clientele and everything would fall apart,

and they'd be no discipline.

It was really, yeah, it was all that fun.

I pitched them on reading the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

I hope some of the kids pick up the Fountainhead and actually read it.

If I just get one or two of them reading Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead,

I'd consider this a huge success.

So, that's what I spent this morning.

8.45 was the beginning of the targets.

It's in South London, way, way, way.

So, I'm in Central London.

It took about an hour, 20 minutes by Uber to get there,

and it wouldn't have been faster by the tube, because there's no direct train that goes there.

So, it's far.

And some of these kids commute to the school, because again, the school is special,

because it is a grammar school.

It is a school that you have to test into.

So, the kids make a real effort to come there, and some of them travel long distances in order to get there.

So, yeah, I enjoyed it.

I think the kids enjoyed it.

They, I don't think they agreed.

Most of them didn't agree.

Wildflowers certainly didn't.

But as she says,

you know, I was interested in hearing an opposite point of view to what I usually hear,

which is great.

I mean, that's exactly what you want.

So, it's exactly what education should be about, challenging you,

and introducing you to points of view and ideas that you wouldn't normally be.

Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing.

Victory Lane?

Yeah.

It's even better with Chamba by my side.

Race to ChambaCasino.com.

Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary.

VTW Group.

Voidware prohibited by law.

CTNC's.

21 Plus.

Sponsored by Chamba Casino.

Exposed to.

So, you know, happy, happy to have gone to the school and been part of it and participated.

And I'm glad, I'm glad the kids enjoyed it.

All right, tomorrow I am doing a seminar here in Central London.

You can still sign up if you're in London and you'd like to come.

You know, check out your on bookshow.com, your on bookshow.com, my website.

Scroll down to February 28th events.

And press the button for tickets and you'll get all the information about the event.

It's going to be on capitalism.

It's going to be four hours.

It's going to be a small group.

I think they are seven now.

If you still want to join, you can.

You can even show up and just being cash and pay me there.

So, feel free to come.

It'll be fun.

Sebastian asked, cost for a book review, do I have to pay for book?

No, you don't have to pay for the book unless I can't find it.

It's impossible to find.

But it depends on the length of the book.

So, tell me which book you want and I will tell you what it's going to cost.

But it's not going to be cheap.

Books, I think, they take a long time to read.

It's not like watching a movie.

So, I think the last book I did was 500 bucks.

The right detauga by Ebola.

So, that'll give you some sense of what's involved.

And that was not a very thick book.

All right, let's jump in to some news.

I'm not going to talk a lot about the news today because

with all the hassle of setting this up and figuring it out,

I don't want to do a long show today.

It's already late over here.

All right, let's, I think the main piece of news right now,

I think the most important piece of news out right now,

is just scanning the news.

God, we'll get to that story in a minute.

Oh yeah, here's the breaking story.

And we'll get to that topic in a minute.

That topic is a big news, I think of the day.

But let me get, let me, let me, let me do this.

I mean, again, there's, this is breaking news.

I, you know, who knows, verified.

This is going to Oman's fallen minister,

Barrel Busseidi, who supposedly told CBS today,

that an agreement between Iran and the United States is actually within reach.

That Iran has agreed to give up its stockpile of enriched material.

The one that supposedly was destroyed in June turns out it wasn't.

And to a life full verification of its nuclear program

by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

In addition, it says they're willing to stop enrichment.

That is zero accumulation of new uranium, no more enrichment.

That is again, according to Oman.

So if that is the case, and that's basically what Trump's been asking for,

Israel would like the ballistic missiles gone, Israel would like their support for

Khizmullah and for the who he's gone.

But I, you know, it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

We will now, we'll see if Trump decides to kind of deal.

Iran is giving him, if this is true, and I'm not sure it is true,

then Iran is playing Trump again.

If he believes this, he'll try to make a deal.

He'll claim this is a better deal than Obama's.

But, you know, who knows?

And there's no reason.

And of course, much of what was demanded is not going to be supplied.

So let's wait and see if this actually happens.

But that is, that is the latest and greatest in terms of news about Iran.

The anthropic news is interesting.

We talked about this, we talked about this the other day,

in this, and we talked about the fact that anthropic is basically told the defense

department, and the anthropic right now is the only AI program

integrated into the defense department.

And it's integrated primarily through Palantir,

but it's being used by the defense department actively.

It's used actively in, in the Pentagon, it was used in the raid on Madua.

Wildflower has a question.

Wildflower, I will, I will get your question in a bit.

Let me talk about the anthropic point.

And then I'll get to your question.

I see it.

Usually, I ask people to do a super chat, which is to pay me for the questions,

but given you, given you a high school student,

and given you just heard me today, and you weren't in the politics class,

and you're following me here, that's great.

Or you're at least listening here, that's great.

I will answer your question in a few minutes.

So if you remember,

anthropic is well integrated into defense department,

and but it has, the defense department has demanded

from anthropic that it allow its AI to be used

for all activities that defend this department,

deem appropriate.

That is, anthropic is asked to give total control over the AI

to the defense department.

The defense, the anthropic is saying, no,

there are two things we do not want our software to be used for.

One is domestic surveillance,

and two is in weapons that are autonomous,

that is weapons that make decisions to fire independent of a human being.

We do not want our AI in that kind of weapon.

I don't, we don't want our AI to make those kind of decisions, decisions to pull the trigger.

I think these are incredibly reasonable decisions that basically saying,

we completely support the defense department.

We can, yeah, I mean, let me read you from the statement,

are we doing the statement in a minute?

Anyway, hegs said this basically told them,

if you do not agree to all of our terms,

if you do not agree to let anthropic be used by the defense department,

its own discretion for whatever we deem right,

then not only we will not use anthropic anymore,

but we will deem you a risk to the supply chain

and make you persona on grata for anything related to defense,

which will make it even, make many other companies not be able to use anthropics.

So this is a huge potential blow to anthropic, which is the kind of the leading AI program.

This is kind of unprecedented for the Pentagon to basically try to blackmail a company into doing what

it wants. It's one thing to say, when I'm going to use you, it's another thing to say,

we're going to put you on a list that we only usually include Chinese companies and Iranian companies

on that list. Anyway, Hegs said it gave them a deadline until today, earlier today, to make a decision.

Hello, it is Ryan and I was on a flight the other day playing one of my favorite social spin

slot games on chumbacacino.com. I looked over the person sitting next to me,

and you know what they were doing, they were also playing chumbacacino. Everybody's loving having fun

with it. Chumbacacino is home to hundreds of casino style games that you can play for free anytime,

anywhere. So sign up now at chumbacacino.com to claim your free welcome bonus. It's chumbacacino.com

and live the chumbac. This is the statement from anthropics CEO.

I believe deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other

democracies and to defeat our autocratic adversaries and throughout because they've for worked

actively to deploy our models to the Department of War and the intelligence community. We were the

first frontier AI company to deploy our models in the US government's classified networks,

the first to deploy them at the national laboratories and the first to provide custom models

for national security customers. Claude is exclusively deployed across the Department of War

and other national security agencies for mission critical applications such as intelligence analysis,

modeling and simulation, operational planning, cyber operations and more.

And topic is also acted to defend America's lead in AI even when it is against the company's

short term interest. We chose to forego several hundred million dollars in revenue to cut off the

use of Claude by firms linked to the Chinese Communist Party, some of whom have been designated by

the Department of War as Chinese military companies. We've shut down CCP sponsored cyber attacks

that attempted to abuse Claude and have advocated for strong export controls on chips to ensure

democratic advantage. And topic understands the Department of War not private companies make military

decisions. We have never raised objections to particular military operations and not attempted

to limit use of our technology in an ad hoc manner. However, in a narrow set of cases, we believe

AI can undermine rather than defend democratic values. Some uses are also simply outside the bounds

of what today's technology can safely and reliably do. Two such use cases have never been

included in our contract with the Department of War and we believe they should not be included now.

First, mass domestic surveillance. We support the use of AI for lawful fallen intelligence

and county intelligence missions. But using these systems for mass, emphasis on mass, domestic

surveillance is incompatible with democratic values. AI-driven mass surveillance presents serious

novel risks to our foundational liberties. To the extent that such surveillance is currently legal,

this is only because the law has not yet caught up with the rapidly growing capabilities of AI.

For example, in the current law, the government can purchase detailed records of American's movement,

web browsing, and associations from public sources without obtaining a warrant.

It practice the intelligence community has acknowledged raises privacy concerns and that has

generated bipartisan opposition in Congress. Powerful AI makes it impossible to assemble this

scattered individual innocuous data into a comprehensive picture of any person's life,

automatically and at a massive scale. The second thing they object to is fully autonomous weapons.

Partially autonomous weapons, like those used today in Ukraine,

are vital to the defense of democracy. Even fully autonomous weapons, those that take humans

out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets may prove critical for our

national defense. But today, frontier AI systems are simply not reliable enough to power fully

autonomous weapons. We will not knowingly provide a product that puts America's wolf fighters and

civilians at risk. We have offered to work directly with the Department of War on R&D to

improve the reliability of these systems, but they have not accepted this offer. In addition,

without proper oversight, fully autonomous weapons cannot be relied upon to exercise the critical

judgment that our highly trained professional troops exhibit every day. They need to be deployed

with proper guardrails, which don't exist today. To our knowledge, these two exceptions

have not been a barrier to accelerating the adoption and use of our models within our armed forces

to date. The Department of War stated that they will only contract with AI companies who exceed

to any lawful use and remove safeguards in the case cases mentioned above. They have threatened

to remove us from these systems if we maintain these safeguards. They have also threatened to

designate us a supply chain risk, a label reserved for US adversaries, never before applied to an

American company, and to invoke the Defense Production Act to force the safeguards removal.

These latter two threats are inherently contradictory. One labels as a security risk,

the other labels clawed as essential to national security. Regardless, these threats do not change

opposition. We cannot, in good conscious, see to their request. It is the Department's

prerogative to select contractors most aligned with their vision. But given the substantial value

than athropics technology provides to armed forces, we hope that we consider our strong preferences

to continue to serve the Department of and our war fighters without two requested safeguards in

place. Should the Department choose to offboard anthropic, we will work to enable a smooth transition

to another provider, avoiding any disruptions, the ongoing military planning, operations,

and other critical missions. Our models will be available on the expensive terms we have proposed

for as long as required. We remain ready to continue our work to support the national security

and national security of the United States. That's a statement. I think it's an excellent statement

by anthropic. I think they're absolutely right. I think it's ridiculous that the government

is going to try to force them and to penalize them in this context.

I will note that I'm going to read this to you. I'm going to publish a short

piece. Actually, these remarks were delivered at MIT in March 1962. This is Iron Man. They were

addressed to the students who to be America's future scientists. Here's what you wrote.

We're living in an age when every social group is struggling frantically to destroy itself

and doing it faster than any of its rivals or enemies could hope for. When every man in his

own, it is his own most dangerous enemy and the whole of mankind is rolling at supersonic speed

back to the dark ages with a nuclear bomb in one hand and a rabbit's foot in the other.

The most terrible paradox of our age is the fact that the destruction of man's mind,

of reason, of logic, of knowledge, of civilization is being accomplished in a name and with the

sanction of science. It took centuries and volumes of writing to bring our culture

to its present state of bankruptcy and volumes would have to be written to expose,

counteract, and avert the disaster of a total intellectual collapse. But of all the deadly theories

by means of which you are now being destroyed, I would like to warn you about one of the deadliest

and most crucial, the alleged dichotomy of science and ethics. You have heard the theory so often

and from so many authorities that most of you not take it for granted as an action,

as the one absolute taught to you by those who proclaim that there are no absolutes.

It is the doctrine that man's science and ethics or his knowledge and values or his body and soul

are too separate antagonistic aspects of his existence and then man is caught between them as a

precarious permanent traitor to the conflicting demands. Science they tell you is the

province of reason but ethics they say is the province of a higher power which man's impotent,

fallible intellectual intellect must must not be so presumptuous as the challenge. What power?

Why feelings? Before you accept that doctrine, identify concretely and specifically what it means.

Remember that ethics has a code of values to guide man's choices and actions.

The choices and actions that determine the purpose and course of his life. It means that you,

a scientist, are competent to discover new knowledge but not competent to judge for what purpose

that knowledge is to be used. Your judgment is to be disqualified if when you become

if, when and because it is rational. While human purposes are to be determined by representatives

of non-reason, Hegseth. You are to create the means but they are to choose the ends.

You are to work and think and strain all the power, energy and ingenuity of your mind

to its utmost logical best and produce great achievements but those superior others will dispose

of your achievements by the grace and guidance of their feelings. Your mind is to be the tool

and servant of their whims. You are to create the age bomb but a blustering Russian

anthropoid will decide when he feels like dropping it on and on whom and on whom.

Yours is not to reason why yours is just to do and provide ammunition for others to die.

Oh, this is longer than I thought it was. That is pretty good. From Plato's Republic,

Onward, all status collectivists have looked longingly at the Ant Hill

as at a social ideal to be reached. An Ant Hill is a society of interdependent insects

with each particular kind or class is physiologically able to perform only one specific function.

Some are milch cowl, some are toilers, if you are rulers. Collectivist planners have dreamed

of a long time of creating an ideal society by means of eugenics, by bringing men into various

castes physiologically able to perform only one specific function. Your place in such a society

would be that of toiling milch brains of human computers who would produce anything on the man

and would be biological and capable of questioning the orders of the anthropoid who would throw

them their food rations. That is your self-esteem except such a prospect.

Right, I mean you get the point, right? Let me just see.

The point is that you are scientist, let me just see. If you are now starting in a Korean science,

you do not have to share the guilt of those men, but you do have to reclaim the field in

honor of science. There is only one way to do it. By accepting the moral principle that does not

surrender one's mind into blind, blind, servitude to thugs, and one does not accept the job of

munitions, maker, for atillers' conquest of the world. Not for any atillers, actual potential,

foreign or domestic. There is only one way to implement that principle throughout history with

only a few exceptions. Government have claimed the right to rule men by means of physical force.

That is by terror and destruction. When the potential of terror and destruction reaches today's

scale, it should convince every human being that if mankind is to survive atillers,

concept of government must be discarded, along with alleged right of any man to impose their ideas

of wishes on others by initiating the use of physical force. This means that men must establish

a free non-coarse of society, where the government is only a policeman protecting individual rights,

where forces used only in retaliation and self-defense, where no gang can seize the legalized power

to unleash the reign of terror. Such a society does not have to be invented. It had existed,

though not fully. Its name is capitalism. This connects to the talk I gave this morning.

Leaders needless to say, capitalism does not force individuals or nations into the collective

slave pen of a world government. The so-called one world is merely one neck ready for one leash.

Capitalism leaves men free for self-defense, but gives no one the political means to initiate

force or war. This, not physical, but political disarmament. The renunciation of legalized

brute forces away of life is the only means of saving the world from nuclear destruction.

I'd say, inthropy, because just taking them all stand,

taking them all stand, and said, you're not going to use the product of our mind.

You're not going to use the product of our mind.

In ways that we do not approve of. It's fine.

If you don't want to hire us, but you see the defensive part wants to force them.

It wants to use the Defense Production Act in order to force them

to supply the product.

So, good funthropic, andthropic is doing the right thing.

There was a, let me just see if I can find this. I thought there was some statement by Trump

about this to give you a sense of what Attila looks like. Yeah, here it is.

I mean, note the statement andthropic CEO and the quality of what he said.

Hey, it's Cole Swendell. After I give everything I've got to land a perfect vocal,

I usually take five before jumping into the next track. And I've learned exactly how to recharge

in that time. Some folks grab coffee. I hit a quick good lookspin. Next thing you know,

the break is just as fun as land down the track. A better break makes for a better take.

Need a break? Let's chumble. No purchase necessary. BGW Group void were prohibited by law.

21 plus TNC supply sponsored by Chamba Casino. Now, this is Donald Trump.

The United States of America will never allow a radical left woke company to dictate how our

great military fights and wins wars. That decision belongs to your command and chief

and the tremendous leaders I appoint to run our military. The left wing nut jobs at

Anthropic have made a disastrous mistake trying to strong arm the Department of War and force

them to obey their terms of service instead of our Constitution. As if he knows what the Constitution

says, their selfishness is putting American lives at risks, our troops in danger and our national

security in jeopardy. Therefore, I am directing every federal agency in the United States government

to immediately cease all use of Anthropics technology. We don't need it. We don't want it.

It will not do business with them again. There will be a six months phase out period for agencies

like the Department of War who are using Anthropics products at various levels and

Anthropics better get their act together and be hopeful during this phase out period.

Well, I will use the full power of the presidency to make them comply with major civil and criminal

consequences to follow. God, we will decide the fate of the country. Not some out of control,

radical left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real world is all about,

yet somehow they designed a the most sophisticated AI product in the marketplace.

Thank you for your attention for this matter. I mean, the guys are more on and an evil bastard

on top of that. It's, I mean, fine, they can cancel the contract, so be it. But the

ritual and the whole government is going to drop Anthropics and the penalizing and the, you know,

aggressiveness of this. It's just terrific. It's truly horrific. By the way, of course,

Elon Musk's XAI has already jumped in and said, oh, we'll provide you with AI and you can use it

for whatever you want. A lot of people in the defense department are like, I don't think XAI

is good enough for what we need it to do. What are we doing here? This is politically motivated.

This is not a bit product. Open AI might jump in to take Anthropics place.

Are the AI companies might agree to the defense department demands? But let me just

use this opportunity to congratulate Anthropic and to say good for them. They're taking them all

stand. You might agree with the details or disagree with the details, but it's a private company.

They get to decide how their product is used. They've taken a stand with the cigar

and good for them and shame. Shame on Donald Trump. Shame on this administration

for treating them as an enemy of the United States because they're exercising

they're right as an American company. We don't live in an authoritarian place where you have to

do what the government tells you to do. All right. That I think was the main story. I do recommend

you read this essay fully. Two young scientists. It is just being posted. It's in the voice of

reason, but it's just being posted for free on i9ran.org. You can find it on campus.inran.org.

Just search two young scientists. Inran and you'll find it. I highly recommend you read the whole

thing and you read it slowly, not fast like I did. Go for it and enjoy. All right. Let me quickly look

at Wildflower's question and see. Let me see if I can find it. I know some of you might have

been trying to answer that question already. If you have, I hope you've been polite and nice.

Remember, this is a high school student that is not familiar with i9ran's ideas is just being

introduced to them. Okay. Wildflower says I didn't get a chance to ask you a question actually as

I don't take politics. I do have a question though. When you talk about something having value,

okay, such as a product, do you think we should primarily focus on monetary value or is non-price

competitiveness or so a large factor? I noticed when you were talking about capitalism and its

benefits, you were primarily focused on the pricing aspects. So look, the thing about value,

let's take the pricing first, is different things have different values and different people.

I might value an iPhone at well over $1,000. Other people might say, no, I mean, my $1,000 is

more valuable in my pocket than an iPhone. The beauty of capitalism is that we don't force

our values and others. If people don't want to buy an iPhone, they don't have to. If people don't

like that particular shirt, if people don't like those particular shoes, they don't have to buy

them. They get to buy what they believe makes their life better. They get to buy what they think

will be a worthwhile trade. That is a trade that benefits them where what they're giving up is

less than what they're getting. Now, it is absolutely true that many trades in life, many values in

life, are not monetary values. You can think of, for example, moral values. The value of being

a good person, the value of pursuing the good, that can be measured in money. That is a value.

A value is that which one acts to gain or keep. The values are things that we, in a sense, want

and are willing to do stuff to get. For example, the trying to become a good person, doing the work

to become a good person, it's not something you put a monetary value on. It's, in a sense,

precedes any monetary value. But even there are other things that exist out there in the marketplace

that might not have a monetary value. You guys didn't pay for my lecture today. I gave a talk

and you see it's a founded interesting. You, the students, didn't pay. You got something for free.

If you enjoyed it, then it's a value to you. If you're watching the show right now,

hopefully you're getting some value out of it, that's a non-monitory value because you're not

paying me and I'm delivering it to you even though you haven't paid for it. So there are lots of

transactions, a lot of relationships, a lot of things that we do in life that are not monetary.

So some aspects of our life, like when we go to grocery store and buy the stuff that we need to

eat, that's a monetary transaction. And again, a monetary transaction, we all do differently,

because we all have different values. We all like different types of food. So the transaction

is going to be, we're all going to interact with the grocery store in a different way.

But there are plenty of non-monitory values out there. One of the uses I use for my phone is

to listen to music. The value I get from listening to music is a spiritual value. It's not a monetary

value. It's not something I put dollars to. But to create that music, somebody had to invest money.

To provide that music to me, somebody had to put money. So money is not an incidental to values.

Money is necessary for the creation of values. They're very few values that don't require

any kind of financing, any kind of money. Now I don't know, I'm not sure if I answered your question.

I'm happy to take a follow-up while I fly.

Hey, it's Cole Swindell. And when I spend 200 days a year rolling down the highway,

the bus can start to feel smaller than a guitar case. Everyone wonders how I stay chill while the

hours crawl by. Truth is, one good luck spent on Chamba, and suddenly the trip does a whole lot

shortage. Found in your space, even when there isn't much to spare. Need some chill? Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary. VGW Group Boyd were prohibited by law. 21 plus TNC supply.

Sponsored by Chamba Casino. So I say, take dua. People will buy a bag from

dua for 100, for hundreds of pounds. But it's not necessarily better quality. They just prefer it.

They just prefer it as it has the name. Yes. And they get to buy what they want. They, I mean,

my view is it's a waste of money. I don't value dua or I don't value labels. But some people do

for whatever reason, for whatever subjective reason they have. And therefore they will value that

thing much higher than I value it. And the beauty of a market place is I don't have to support

what I consider their irrational desire for a labeled good. I don't have to buy the labeled good.

I don't want my money taken from me and given to them so they can buy the labeled good.

In a free market, people who desire Chanel and dua and Louis Vuitton can go and buy them.

People who don't desire them don't buy them. The beauty of a marketplace is it provides the values

people want. If people stop buying Chanel because they don't they don't want to buy labels anymore,

Chanel will go out of business. As long as people buy it, it's a value to those people.

So one of the mistakes people have is they think that a value is something inherent in the

thing. It's intrinsic to the thing. But a value is not intrinsic. A value is personal. A value is

to whom for every value you have to ask to whom and for what? Who is the value for? That is who

is the value or and what do they value it for? And we all have different values and that's fine.

It's certainly fine in the marketplace and the marketplace is built for that.

When it comes to moral values, it would be better if there wasn't such a great divergence in

terms of what our values are. It would be better if those values were more similar, put it that way.

They'd be less conflict in the world if our values are more similar and want things like morality.

All right. Any wildflower, feel free to ask any follow-up questions. I know

other people have answered your questions. But if you'd like to follow up, I'm happy to answer them.

All right. So if people paying a high price, they're not necessarily paying higher quality. They're

paying for what they want. Maybe what they want is the label. I don't understand it. It doesn't mean

anything to me. But it might be fine for them. All right. Let me take some of your questions.

Oh, Ryan was funding wildflowers question. I didn't even notice that. So it says funding wildflowers

question. When you talk about something having values such as a product, do you think we should

primarily focus on monetary value or non-price competitiveness, also a large factor? I don't think it's

properly formulated because the following was around luxury products and labels and stuff like that.

I think what that represents is really the fact that we all value different things or different

reasons for different purposes. And I don't value labels. I don't value Chanel. I don't value

these things. I don't buy them. It's not a value for me. Chanel is not a value for me.

I'm not interested in them. For other people having the label is important to them.

For whatever reason it happens to be, I think most of the irrational reasons, but whatever reason

it happens to be, so they buy it. So again, there's no, you know, the beauty of capitalism is that it

provides this variety of goods at different price points, different quality points, different labels

for different people based on their particular values, what they value.

All right. Sebastian, I think I answered your question about the books.

Harrison, could I get a shout out for feed rate command on Spotify? Feed rate command on Spotify.

Which is when I'm putting all the music, currently over two hours worth of songs, I'd be making

with AI. Yeah, if you guys are interested in AI music that Harrison has been making, check out

feed rates. That's one word feed rate command on Spotify. And check it out. See if you like it. See if

you like, you know, what is AI is producing with Harrison's guidance. Harrison's guidance.

Ryan said, did you watch, did you get to watch the state of the union? I avoided it because you

were going to jump on the grenade and report back. Jumping the grenade is freaking right.

I read much of it. I didn't watch it. I can't watch him. He's just too awful. I read much of it.

It's, and then I was like, yeah, I'm glad I didn't listen to this. It was a complete show.

It was a complete waste of time. It lasted forever. It was the longest state of the union ever.

I predicted it would be. But it was a show with a hockey team coming out and

everybody giving a standing innovation and invading the Democrats to applaud something.

It wasn't even like a Bill Clinton state of the union, which is here the 35 different things

that I'm going to ask Congress to do. There was no legislative agenda. There was nothing of

meaning of value in the state of the union. It was complete hogwash. It was his lies about

the state of the world, how great it is. And a few things that he wants to do vis-a-vis economy,

banning private equity from buying homes, as if that will make any difference. It won't.

And a few other things. But it was basically content less. There was no content in it.

It was one long campaign speech rant. He played it perfectly. He baited the Democrats.

He fed his, you know, mega people, red meat. But, you know, it was a complete waste of time.

It was a complete waste of time. It was no value. Literally, you didn't learn anything about

what the President wants to do about what might happen about nothing. Michael, do people know

on some level altruism is impractical or unrealistic. But have to abide by it to some extent

or the alternative is a world of inhumane hotlessness.

I don't think people really engage in it that much. That is, you know, do they know it some level?

Sure, at some level they know. But what exactly do they know? What exactly do they know? There's a

sense that they have a sudden discomfort. They don't want to be altruistic. They don't want to

sacrifice themselves. And it is true that they are also fed this lie that in a world without

altruism, it would be doggy, dog, and everything would be horrific. So this is the best we have.

I think that was my attitude to altruism when I was a teenager. It was like, I don't quite get it.

Why should sacrifice my life other people? But I don't see what the alternative is. I don't see

how you get out of it. And this is why I think it's so important to get people to read Iron Man.

Well, it's so important to get them to read the books and encounter these ideas and engage with them.

So at least they have in their mind an alternative, particularly when they're young and they can still

change. After a certain age, it's very difficult for people to change.

It is Ryan C. Crest here. There was a recent social media trend, which consisted of flying on a

plane with no music, no movies, no entertainment. But a better trend would be going to chumbacacino.com.

It's like having a mini social casino in your pocket. Chumbacacino has over 100 online casino

style games, all absolutely free. It's the most fun you can have online and on a plane. So grab

your free welcome bonus now at chumbacacino.com sponsored by chumbacacino.

What flower has come back and says in a free market without regulation,

how do you correct the exploitation of consumers by monopoly power if that makes any sense?

Yes, but the real point is that in a true free market, monopolies, as we understand them,

don't exist because there's always competition. There's always somebody trying to beat you.

And there are plenty of historical examples of this, historical examples where companies have massive

market shares. And you'd expect them to exploit consumers by raising prices and lowering quality.

That's what they teach you in economics 101, they teach in college, they teach you everywhere

that what monopolists do is they raise prices and lower quality. But when you actually look at the

real world in places where they are even a little bit of free markets, what you find is that companies

don't do that. And the question is, why don't they? They've got monopoly power, supposedly,

they've got the market share, they could raise prices and lower quality. But they don't.

They literally, the empirical data shows they don't. So why? Well, because they know a good CEO,

a good business and knows that if he starts exploiting his customers, competitors will arise.

There's always somebody who is eager to take market share away from you. There's always somebody

willing to build a better master trap, willing to build a better product, offer it at a better price,

try to undercut you and take away some of your market share, always in any industry.

And even when they're barriers to entry, that is, it requires a lot of capital to invest in

order to build an alternative. Capitalists are eager to fund people who can beat monopolists

because that means they can take market share away from monopolists, they can grow.

There's a real business thing and the businesses are being proven by the so-called monopolist.

So business leaders just don't exploit their customers for that reason. They know competitors

will arise. Now there's another reason. And that is, or the other reasons, depending on the products,

but their products also. So for example, standard oil in 1870s in the United States had 93% of all

their refining capacity in the United States of oil. And yet they didn't raise prices. They didn't

lower quality, quite opposite. They lowered prices every single day and quality went up. Why?

Because they knew that if they lower prices and increased quality, adoption would increase.

More and more people would buy their oil. And then more and more uses for that oil will be discovered.

For example, oil got so cheap that when automobiles were being invented and people were looking at

different types of motors and how to fuel them and how to run them, oil was so cheap and so

well-made at that point that it was adopted as fuel for automobiles. They were competitors.

And so the market that Rockefeller had expanded dramatically because he kept prices low.

And in spite of that, there was still massive competition. So by the time he was broken up by

antitrust laws by the government, he only had 60-something percent of the market because competitors

had arisen and taken away much of his market share. So there's always competition. Google

control search, but now there's AI. And with AI, we've got a new incredibly powerful search engine

that is going to dethrone Google from the search so-called monopoly. So don't buy into the story

of monopolies. The more free market a market is, the fewer monopolies there will be.

The monopolies that are really damaging, that raise prices, lower quality, a government run monopolies,

or government-granted monopolies, monopolies that are protected by the government. Those are the

monopolies we need to get rid of. Those are the monopolies that do harm. In the private market,

with his real competition, monopolies don't exist.

A good question, a good question, well-flop. Thank you. Clock.

Ice is in retreat. Trump is extremely unpopular. Iran is on the verge of collapse. The

Lightman wins again. Well, you're pretty optimistic. Ice is in retreat in Minneapolis, but they're

still running up people all over the country, and still using pretty aggressive tactics.

In Minneapolis itself, a judge just put out a statement today saying that Ice, the Department of

Homeland Security, is ignoring the courts, is in violation of numerous court orders, and he is

about, it's a furious statement about ice. So, ice is not completely in retreat, but slowly,

maybe a little bit, and that's only because people stood up against it. Trump is extremely unpopular,

true, so the Democrats, by the way, but it's good that Trump is extremely unpopular.

Iran is on the verge of collapse. Maybe, I hope so. I hope so. Demonstrations continue,

but I still am not convinced that the United States is going to strike you on.

Iranians are playing the Americans in negotiations, they're playing them to give them a sense that

maybe something, maybe a deal is in the making, and Trump clearly prefers a deal. Trump is

angling for a deal, almost at any price. All right, guys, let me, let's see, let me thank the

sticker people. I so, selfish, selfish subscriber, thank you, Kim, thank you, Jacob, thank you,

West, $50, thank you, really appreciate that. Ryan, thank you for the sticker, in addition to

the questions, I appreciate it. All right, thank you guys, and you two can jump in with the sticker,

just to show your appreciation. It can be as low as $1, $2, anything. Of course, you can also ask a

question by asking a question. Contribute to the content of the show. I will answer all the

questions asked, so please consider doing that. Today's a short show because of all the mess with

internet connection. It's late over here. It's already 11 o'clock and late to get to sleep.

I'm doing my seminar on capitalism tomorrow. If you're in London and you'd like to participate,

you can show up. Wifi says, thank you so much. Have a nice rest of your time in UK. Thanks,

one last comment. Check out Iron Rand. Check out the fountain head or Atlas Shrugged. If you're a reader,

try those out, particularly the fountain head. The great novels. Put aside whether you agree with

the ideas, capitalism, all of that. Put that aside. Just read it for the novel, but I highly

encourage you to engage with a fountain head or Atlas Shrugged as books as novels. You can find them

in bookstores anywhere in the UK. One, of course, on Amazon.

All right, Liam. Part one. In regard to double jeopardy and the government not being allowed to

continue to prosecute someone after they've been acquitted, how does justice get brought to

someone like OJ? I understand the risks of letting the government continue to prosecute somebody

until they find a jury that will convict them, but with double jeopardy, some guilty men will

definitely go free. Yes, they will. That is a reality. Luckily for us, in a sense, reality will not

let them be free or will not let them go unpunished. Sorry, will not let them go unpunished.

And the reality is that OJ lived a miserable, pathetic life after the acquittal in his trial.

He landed up being in jail for something else that he did. He landed up

losing a civil lawsuit against him based on the murder. He landed up being a miserable,

pathetic human being for the rest of his life. So reality catches up to people like that. But yeah,

you know, I'd rather, generally, I think the principle is we'd rather let a guilty man go free

than prosecutor, innocent man, or give the government so much power that they might

harass an innocent man through ongoing continuous prosecution. So reality caught up to him.

There's a civil lawsuit you can sue. They did suing for damages, which he had to pay.

His children turned their backs on him. I mean, he lived a miserable life. And that's

true of all evil people. So reality is the ultimate punisher of bad people. They live in misery.

Yeah, I was going to say the seminar in capitalism, if you still want to come, you can bring cash

or sign up, I think you still sign up tonight. And it's at the W Hotel in London on the second floor

in the incentive of London 1 p.m. It'll be four hours. So yeah, you know, it's 300 pounds

for the four hours. So join us. It'll be a lot of fun.

All right, Tyler, my wife and I had a wonderful dinner at Bar Miller last week in New York City.

TJ and James were so welcoming. Yeah, they're fantastic. And a fun meetup with Jeff the

following day. Wow, that's great. Thanks so much for the accommodation and for all your content.

That's wonderful. I'm glad I'm glad you spent some time at Bar Miller. I'm glad you got to meet

Jeff, which reminds me, I need a right to Jeff that I'm going to be in New York. And

either Bar Miller, we should go out to dinner somewhere. And but yeah, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Absolutely. And everybody, if you're in New York, check out Bar Miller. They just had their

Michelin star renewed a few weeks ago. And the food is fantastic. And yeah, check them out.

Wesley, Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane. Yeah, it's even better with

Chumba by my side. Race to ChumbaCasino.com. Let's Chumba. No purchase necessary,

VTW Group, voidware prohibited by law, CTNCs, 21 plus sponsored by Chumba Casino.

Let's say you were in Trump shoes right now. Oh my god. What would you do with respect to Iran?

I, you know, I'd basically start bombing them yesterday. I would go after regime targets. I

would try to kill Hamini. I would go after the entire leadership of the regime, the Islamist

leadership. I would try to destroy as much of the Islamic Revolutionary God as I could.

I would not even focus on the, on the nuclear stuff. You know, unless I thought that we were

really close to a nuclear weapon, I would focus on regime change. I would focus on destroying

the regime's capacity to defend itself from its own people. I would destroy the

besiege that those units that go out and suppress the population, suppress the demonstrations.

They have headquarters in Tehran and other cities. I would destroy all of those. I would destroy

their missile capabilities. The only risk that they post America into Israel is the ballistic

missiles. I would, I would destroy using bunkabaster bombs. I would destroy the inventory of missiles.

And I would destroy the missiles and the launchers. I would basically decapitate the regime

and destroy the capacity to make war. And I would do it immediately. And the assets are all in

place. The USS Fort is off the coast of Haifa in Israel. It's there to defend the Israeli airspace.

The fighter jets are there. The bombing jets are there. The refuelers are there. All the assets

are there. There's absolutely zero reason to wait one day. And no deal are the Iranians going to

stick to. And why would you believe them? So all of this is for the Iranians to buy time.

All of this is trying to deceive Donald Trump and to manipulate him into doing a deal. They know

he's easy to manipulate. And that's what they do. So yeah, bomb them, bomb regime targets

into oblivion. Uh, Michael says confidence is quiet and security is loud. I think generally,

that's true. I think generally that's true.

Harrison. The last album published by Feed Rate Command was called Built Not Granted.

And every song ties into work from songs about different concrete kinds of jobs

to the work of colonizing the solar system. Sounds cool. Sounds cool. All done by AI.

Uh, but Harrison's guidance, right? So check it out. It's on, um, Spotify.

Clark, um, do you think Trump wants Israel to attack you on first?

I don't know. I don't quite understand that. Reasoning why he would want that. I think he wants

you want to attack first. I mean, I think he wouldn't mind if he wants to launch it at preemptive

attack against Israel because that will give Israel an excuse and then, you know, it says,

he can pack him up. But I don't understand the reasoning for wanting Israel to strike first,

maybe to test out their defense systems, but maybe, you know, I don't know. I read the news stories

about this. They don't make any sense to me. Um, I'm fine with that. Whatever. I mean, if Israel has

to strike first, so be it. The main thing is destroy this Iranian regime. How, you know, whatever it

takes. Hop a, hop a gamble. Thank you. Hop a hundred dollars. Wow. Really appreciate it.

What's the West's thoroughly demoralized from Kant in 1939? That's why Hitler was able to get

as far as he did despite operating on such a defective system. Western countries basically let him

do what he wanted in the beginning, even though they had the power to stop him. Yes, but you know,

I don't, I don't, you know, I think it's a mistake to demoralize by Kant. I think that's a mistake.

I think to try to attribute everything to Kant is not helpful and not useful and I think that

it's not cognitively valued. There's a sense in which it all goes back to Kant. Yes.

But it's not worthwhile to hold it that way. The West in 1939 was compromising. It had tried to

appease Hitler. It was driven by appeasement. Throughout the 1930s, as Hitler came to power

and started his aggressive, it led to the Munich agreement. And it also led Britain and the United

States, United States didn't even enter the war until late 1941. But European countries not to

arm themselves fully, even though Churchill kept saying we need to arm, we need to build a military.

The piezing, the people who wanted to believe in peace, wanted to believe that Hitler wouldn't

do what he said he would do, that, you know, peace would ultimately win out. Those people appeased

and compromised and refused to arm themselves. And as a consequence, the West was very weak.

And Hitler could get away with what he got away with. So that, so it's appeasement,

compromise and a lack of appreciation for how evil evil is and for the willingness of evil to

actually do evil things. And I think we still suffer from that. I mean, look how we treat,

particularly this president, how we treat Putin, how we, you know, Trump is going to go next month

to China is going to guava lollovichy. We still appease and compromise, dictate with dictators.

We still don't have kind of a backbone and stand up for own values and our own principles.

We're still, you know, not positioning ourselves to defeat the powers of evil or aid against us.

So yes, there's a sense in which it always goes back, goes back to Kant. But it goes to the heart of a

banning of not being willing to face reality and to place wishes above facts. And it goes back to

Christianity as much as it goes back to, to, to Emmanuel Kant. It goes to not wanting to be

assertive because that's selfish. It goes to thinking the best of people, even when they've shown

the capacity for evil. It's all of these ideas that, yeah, you could, you could link them to

Kantian ideas ultimately because it's a, it's an, an anti-recent epistemology and it's a metaphysics

of evading reality. But, but it's much more interesting to talk about the specifics of that

period of history, the specific ideas affecting the people at that time, the leftist, socialist

ideas that were affecting England, you know, and, and, and, and try to understand what it is that

those people were thinking that allowed them to evade reality, to ignore the facts and, and to

pretend that things were going to be different than what they turned out to, what they, what they

clearly were indicating they would be. And, and as a whole chain of ideas and it's an attitude

and it's a lack of courage and it's a lack of self-esteem, there's no accident that this is a time

where the British empires and decline, it's not an accident that this is post-World War One,

where the bits suffered massive casualties for war that were, they were never sure why they were

in and what they fought for, they were sick of war, they didn't want war. Those were also important

features about why they compromised with Hitler and, and in a sense, put themselves in a position

to be as weak as they were, you know, in the early part of the war. Hopefully that answers the

question. Thank you, Robert. Not you have a jago with them. Why didn't Trump almost getting

assassinated, change him, make him have an existential crisis in his respect, oftentimes near,

oftentimes near-death experiences make people re-evaluate, re-evaluate their narcissism and second

hand in this. I doubt that. I really, really doubt that near-death experiences makes people re-evaluate

their narcissism. Maybe in movies, I don't think in reality, I don't think that actually happens.

I would also say that Trump viewed their assassinations as just affirming his beliefs.

The evil of the left, they're out to get him. He is a victim. It just, it just conformed.

You know, the worst elements within him, it didn't change him. It confirmed everything he believed,

at least in his own mind. So no, but I don't think near-death experiences actually are that

meaningful in people's lives. So it's, yeah, the left hates me. I have to destroy the left.

Yeah, I've, I've been chosen by destiny to survive because it was such a fluke, whether he believes in

God or not, doesn't believe in God. He believes in something because, you know, there's no question

in my mind. There's an element of mysticism in him. And he believes he's been put in this earth.

He has some kind of purpose. He doesn't quite know what it is that this point of one of the

advantages, if he did, he'd be worse. Anyway, yeah. James, why does someone selfishly become

a social worker or start a charity in a free society? Well, why does somebody in a free society

become a doctor? In what fundamental way is being a doctor different than being a social worker?

You're helping people. You're helping people who are in trouble. A social worker helps people

that are struggling with poverty. The poverty might be accidental to them and might not be their

fault, or it might be their issues there. Tyler Reddick here from 2311 Racing. Victory Lane? Yeah,

it's even better with Chamba by my side. Race to ChambaCasino.com. Let's Chamba.

No purchase necessary. VTW Group. Void work prohibited by law. CTNCs. 21 plus. Sponsored by

ChambaCasino. At the social worker, it can help them resolve in order to gain and achieve something

in life. It's a challenge. It's interesting. How do you get people to do the right thing? How do you

get people to be productive? How do you get people out of poverty? How do you get people to behave like

human beings? It's a challenge. It can be interesting. People, they're people who like to work with

people. And you know, just like being a doctor is a challenge. It's interesting. You're helping people.

Psychologists, you're helping people. So I don't think being a social worker is any different.

Now, a charity, a charity, you know, people would start charities around

topics and issues that they care about. For example, charity that funds cancer research.

Because they want to see cancer cured. They might get cancer. They might get cancer. They

friends might get cancer. They'd like to see more research into cancer. They cure cancer. The

government is not funding cancer. So they start a research thing. Or they love babies.

You know, the potential in babies, the beauty in babies, the innocence of babies. They love children

and babies. So they start a charity to help children and babies who are poor. And you know,

the charity will provide them with an education or provide them with shoes or you know,

whatever it happens to be. So there won't be a lot of charities, I think, on the Las Vegas

capitalism because people will be relatively wealthy. But there'll be some. And there'll be those

that align with the values of the people setting them up and funding them.

But again, it's a challenge. It's interesting. How do you help children in a productive way?

All right. All right. Let's see.

All right. All right. Now you have a jug with them.

And it's so old and unpredictable. Which personalities people follow blindly?

Hitler and Trump don't strike me as particularly likable and charismatic. Yet these supporters

would fight and die for them. Yeah, but almost all dictators wouldn't strike you as

likable and charismatic. Peron in Latin America and Argentina was not particularly

likable or charismatic. The military dictators in Brazil were not particularly likable or

charismatic. Stalin, you wouldn't view as particularly likable or charismatic. But they are all

likable and charismatic to some people. They all hook into the mindlessness of the masses.

They all provide the masses, the unthinking, the missing links with some value, with something

they can latch onto. And that's who they need. They don't need you. You're never going to like

them. You're never going to follow them. But you're not the target audience. You think too much.

You're too independent. They're looking for people who are non-independent, who are not thinkers.

That's what they thrive on.

Rez, thank you. 50 Australian dollars really appreciate it. Just seen a video of an Australian

officer confiscating a sign from Palestinian protesters after they egged on a child to

stomp on the poster after the child approached them and said, free Palestine.

Or playing out in front of the officer. I'm not sure I understand. So these protesters

egged on a child to stomp on the poster after the child approached them and said, free Palestine.

Yeah. And the cop took it away. I've skated it.

Yeah, I mean, I don't know. What did the signs say? Why did they egg the child on to stomp

on the poster? What was the poster about? Was the poster pro-Israel poster? I guess I don't

quite understand the setup. Officer claimed he was confiscating as this would create division

and lead to violence at the protest. All comments under the video are supportive of the officers

action. Free speech be damned apparently. Oh, I see. So yeah, I mean, officers did not

be confiscating posters. Now, the whole idea of people protesting, the whole idea of people

engaging in counter protests in public and potentially violence against one another. You really

have to think about whether that is something that we should really be protecting and whether

that is something, you know, a value. But yes, once we allow protests, you can decide, you can't

say this or you can't write that or you can't do this or you can't do that. Once you allow

protests, it's a new realm of free speech. And the government has to protect free speech, even

speech they don't like, even speech they find offensive, even speech insulting.

Oh, the post, those are picture of Netanyahu, I see. Yeah. So yeah, the whole thing is, the whole

thing is ridiculous, you know, how the police decide and don't decide and what's offensive

and what's not offensive. Once you open the door to being able to limit hate speech,

you're in completely subjective territory and you're outside, you've already violated free speech.

And this is just an example, an example of that.

James was Jordan Belfort, an actual criminal or a scapegoat like Mike Melkin. I don't know.

I don't know the case well enough. I'd have to really do the research to figure it out and I

haven't. Liam, do you think the transition to objectives and will happen quite quickly?

Once we reach a critical mass, will it be gradual transition of removing regulations and taxes

over generations of centuries? I think it'll be gradual. I don't think it'll be all at once. I

think it'll be gradual and it won't be centuries, but it'll be over generations.

There's a lot of work to be done. Even once people are convinced of the truth of

objectivism, they have to understand it, they have to know how to apply it and then you have to

capture the political high ground, you have to know how to do in order to achieve your goals

once you achieve that political, you know, and winding the regulatory state is not easy.

So it could take a while. No, the government regulating the stock market,

so as to prevent fraud, is not the same as the government interference in the economy

by the Federal Reserve, etc. Right? You're on. Well, it depends. What does it mean to prevent fraud?

That is, if they're prosecuting fraud, then that's legit. But what does prevention of fraud mean?

Does that mean they force companies to make disclosures? That's wrong. That's as bad as

government interfering in the economy in other ways. You know, all the different ways in which they

control and regulate the stock market because they might be fraud. All of that is inappropriate

and all of that is destructive and all of that creates damage. Maybe not as much damage as

the Federal Reserve can do, true. The Federal Reserve is much more dangerous than they ever got.

But it's so wrong and it's still destructive. The government's job is to prosecute fraud. Not to

prevent fraud. How do you actually, you know, it's not to, it's just like, yeah, we're going to

prevent robbery by forcing you to have bulletproof glass and what he called them,

metal gating and, you know, thick doors and, you know, and now we're going to prevent burglary.

Well, no, it's not the government's job to prevent burglary. The government's job is to catch

the burglars and to put them in jail and to stop the burglary if they get there in time to be able

to stop it. But it's not to regulate people's lives in order to prevent it. Thank you, no.

Hoppa Campbell, do you find the younger generation have a lack of integrity? There's much more

betrayal and backstabbing with Gen Z than boomers. I don't know. I have no experience with that.

I just don't know. It might be true, but I don't find it one way or the other. You guys have more

experience dealing with Gen Z than I have, but I haven't seen it. Not you ever job with them.

I've been watching a lot of Matt Walsh's disgusting videos. He's been putting out lately. I get

the sense he wants to go full Nazi but is worried about losing his cushy job with Ben Shapiro.

Well, he wants to go full on religious authoritarian. I think that's true.

I think you're right. He would become an anti-Semite very quickly if not for the fact that he

works with Ben Shapiro and he's got a very cushy job then. I think that's right. He is really,

really bad. All right, guys. Thank you. We are $10 short of the $500 goal, but that is fantastic.

Thank you to all the superchadders. Thank you for just hanging in there in spite of all my

technical problems and spite of all the challenges of putting this show together.

It might do a show tomorrow after my seminar. I hope to do one tomorrow, but no guarantee.

Yeah, I have a great weekend and I look forward to seeing some of you at the seminar tomorrow.

Those of you from London and the rest of you. I'll either see tomorrow. I'll definitely do a

short Sunday. Again, the Wi-Fi or computer or whatever the problem was. God's permitting. There

will be a show. Thank you guys. See you soon. Have a great weekend. Bye, everybody.