get you to do what it was. But also free from your neighbor, cozy. And the only role of the state in a system of rights, the only role of the state, is to protect you from your neighbor's attempt to cozy.  Those are the things to stay disposed to intervene to stop. Or if you enter hall and you want to speak and people show up and try to stop you by force, the state's job is to stop them from doing it. That's it. So individual rights as a concept is, I would argue, doesn't come from any way in a sense, it comes from an understanding of human nature, it comes from an idea that in order for us to live and flourish and be successful as human beings, in order for us as individuals to be able to pursue our own happiness, we need to be free.  It's not a grant that the government gives us, it's not a favor anybody does us. It's not something we should beg and ask for.  And it's a requirement for human closure. Indeed, without freedom, what's the life without freedom? Do we know what life is like without freedom? Well, in some terms. For 10? In some point, yes. Because, yeah, we have some rules and we have to follow them even though we want it or not. So it means that we are not free, like fully free. Well, I'd say in the West today, we're not fully free, truly, but we're relatively free. Certainly, relatively to history and relative to other parts of the world, to another part of the world. What was life like before we had a concept of freedom, before we had a concept of freedom rights, including this right to speak and this right to... What was life like, animals? What's that, animals? Well, I mean, 300 years ago, we were going to animals. We were going free, right? You were all, I don't know, the Austrian-Hungarian empire, the emperor. And how did you decide 300 years ago? How did you figure out what your career was going to be? What kind of profession you were going to go into? How did you decide? What your parents did? Yeah, you didn't decide, right? If you were a man, you did what your father did. You joined the guild that he was part of.  That's the law, isn't it? You started to get a job. There was no freedom. How did you decide who you would marry? Your parents decided. Who decided who would govern you, who would be in the government? The king was born a king. You had no say, zero. In other words, 300 years ago, we basically had no freedom. And it's very, very rare, very, very rare in human history to actually have a little bit of freedom. It's unusual. And what is the condition of humanity, typically, in history? What does life mean like? I mean, decisions were all made for us, and how wealthy were you? What was the state of life? How long did we live? Anybody know what life expectancy was 300 years ago? 40. 39, 40 in the best parts of Europe. In the rest of the world, it was under, it was closer to 30. So closer to 40, probably here in western Europe, probably under 40 if you go east, or if you go south, or any other part of the world. What was income like? Have you ever seen, have you seen the graph of income or wealth per capita? I don't know if you can see it online, I think you can. This is time. This is time. This is wealth or income could be the one of them. And it's 10,000 years ago. It doesn't really matter where you start. You start whatever you want. And it basically looks like this. This is us now. And this is us about 250, 300 years ago. If you look at human history, there was no wealth, no income. There was nothing happening. I mean, you got some periods with Rome and Greece, but then they faded. And even then, they weren't anywhere near as rich as we are. They got a little rich, and then they lost it all. But generally, there was no progress, no changes for 300 years. And there was no, couldn't your life belong to you in this period of time? You? No, because you didn't get to make any decisions for yourself.  Basically, through this entire period, your life was all buying and trying to gain the country, the state, whatever. Yeah. I was at the museum. There is Ixamigra. And the percentage of the poverty really comes out. Sorry, through hesitation now. Although people are demolishing poverty, I would say, through this period. In history, 200 years ago, 70% was in poverty, and now it's 10%. Yeah. So extreme poverty, which the United Nations defines as $2 a day or less. What was the percentage of the population that was extremely poor during this period? It was more than 70%. It was closer to 90%. And then a few people were not extremely poor, but how rich were they? Not rich at all. They were just a little bit better. Think about it. 250 years ago, the richest person in the world had no running water, no toilets, no internet, no electricity, no automobile, no trainees, no airplanes. I mean, he couldn't do anything with it. So it was with us. It's not, you know, money is only valuable in exchange for other things. But an aristocrat over here might have had a lot of gold, and he had a beautiful palace, and he had all these things. And he was much richer than this person. But he's a lot poorer than you. For sure. But I mean, they had, like, people who had water and toilets. Oh, yeah. He had a lot of people under him, and lots of people working for him in the end, servants, and all of that. And getting his life was much more difficult than yours. All I'm saying is the richest person even 100 years ago is poorer than you are today, in terms of what he has, in terms of his day-to-day life, in terms of what he actually does. And I don't think we appreciate how rich we are today, because, you know, you guys, you guys take this for granted. You were born with this. Like in the cradle, you already had one of these. So you think this is just part of nature. But this is, this changes the world in a way that people back here, even here, could see well, and makes your life so much, have so much more potential, so much more upside than anybody back then had. You could do things with this that people couldn't imagine for the first time. This makes you richer than any human being that's ever lived on the planet. That's, say, 15 years ago and earlier than that. Even though they have a goal, they're more people working for them. You know how many people I have working for me right here? I mean, the entire staff of Apple, lots of people in Google are working for me. I ask a question, I get a response like that. I can search the entire knowledge base of humanity like that. You know, you couldn't do that 50 years ago with all the people in the world working for you. You couldn't do it. I can figure out how to get a circle from my hotel without putting on a map or without having guides and people. I mean, this is a truly stunning thing. Modern life is truly stunning. We take it for granted. Okay. What made this possible? I mean, I think there was an interesting question in the humanities and social sciences. The most important question in the social sciences is what happened here? All of this is boring because human life didn't get any better. Suddenly, something happened and human life got really, really good. And that's even worse. Yeah, but the question really is why the Industrial Revolution happened here and it didn't happen here or here or any other time? What made it possible for the Industrial Revolution? What is it, characteristic of the Industrial Revolution that required it in a sense to be here or not in any other point in human history? Technology. Yeah, I mean, you've got technology. But where does technology come from? Entrepreneurs. So from entrepreneurs, why were there entrepreneurs over here? Because there was no free trade. I mean, free trade, that's true. But go one step below free trade. There was no what? Freedom. Freedom. I mean, the difference between this and this is or any other point of the graph is if you had an idea in the past and you wanted to go and execute on that idea, you'd have to ask permission. The authorities would evaluate. They would say, oh, I don't know.  And so we're not allowing. The point of all of this history is this is a history of a commissioned society. You had to get permission for everything. You had permission to marry, you had to get a permission to switch jobs, you had to get permission to everything that you did, to move towns, everything that you did required permission. Something happened here that basically changed that and said, you don't have to ask permission anymore. You can go do stuff because you want to do it. And as long as you're not voting other people, you can do whatever you want to do. This and this is freedom. This is what happens to humanity when they're free. This is what happens when you're not free. And this happens in every place that accepts some freedom.   But the closer we get to freedom, more entrepreneurs they are, more trade you risk because even trade, right? What is, what is, when we talk about free trade, it means that I get to choose who I exchange goods with. And it could be with somebody in the Czech Republic. It could be somebody in Britain. It could be somebody in China. It could be somebody in Malaysia. I have the freedom to choose who I trade with. So the core concept is freedom. Once you have freedom, one of the things you do with that freedom is trade. So the primary is not free trade. The primary is freedom itself.  Do you know Leonardo da Vinci? Do you know Leonardo da Vinci?  He was a painter. He was an architecture. He was an engineer. He built, he tried to build flying machines. He did a million different things. He was a Renaissance man, right? We call that Renaissance man. So he does lots of different things. How come Leonardo da Vinci got to do all these things? Why didn't he join his dad's guild? You know what his dad and father did? We don't even know. His father was a nodal leader. You know, some of you witnessed the signature. Why didn't Leonardo da Vinci become a nodal leader and be lost to history? How come he got to make choices? What do you know? Was he discovered by... No, the fact is that Leonardo da Vinci got to do what he wanted was because he was a bastard. He was the illegitimate son of his father and because he was illegitimate, that is his father had with his mistress, because he was illegitimate, he couldn't join the guild. So he just needed to do whatever he wanted. That's the kind of thinking you have the illegitimate to be, have a little bit of freedom. We live in a world today where we think that's ridiculous, right? Because we just take that freedom from grandmother, or of course if I want to be the illegitimate, who's going to tell me not to be the illegitimate? That's not the world in which we live, most of human history, most of human history. And I don't think we can appreciate where we are today without appreciating that history. So these ideas come out of about 250 years ago, anybody know what period this is? When were these ideas starting to be floated around? We're going to start thinking about these things. 18th century, what do we call that period in human history? The age of enlightenment, the age of reason, sometimes the age of science, they all go together. This is a period where I think it starts with Newton, the physicists, John Locke, the philosopher, who kind of ends with the French Revolution. But it's a period in history in which really two ideas come to the forefront, two ideas that then shape the world to this day. And the two ideas are one, how do we know the world? How do we know what we know? How do we discover truth? What's the mechanism for discovering what's truth? Curiosity. Curiosity guided by what? So science is a particular method of discovering certain truths, but what is even free science in the sense of what makes science possible for individual human beings? What faculty do we have that makes it possible? Rationality. Yeah, rationality. We have reason. We have a mind that can discover truth. Now again, this seems obvious, of course. But know that at the time that wasn't the view, where did truth come from? What's that? Faith, for God. Or from old books. So when Galileo says, hey, I figured out that the earth goes around the sun, not the sun goes around the earth, the Catholic Church says, whoa, but the book says something different. And the book is truth because it's divine. And therefore you can't say that, you can't say that the earth goes around, but Galileo says, look, you have a fact. Reason, right? Science. Evidence. Proof. And that's the conflict during this period that gets resolved. Do we get truth from revelation? From communicating with the world beyond us? And it's not just religion, it's not just faith. But if you study Plato, I don't know if you guys have studied Plato. But Plato believes that there's a world of forms. There's another dimension. And the philosopher is the only one who can communicate with that world. And he just knows what is truth. We can never discover truth. We only listen to the philosopher who tells us what is truth. Now what kind of world is it where we can't discover truth, only the philosopher can? What kind of political system do you think that leads to? Yeah, at least the authoritarianism. But he knows everything. I know nothing. So I'm dependent on him. So I have to do what he says, because he knows I don't. If you've ever studied Plato's myth of the cave, but according to Plato, we can still, like, anybody could be a philosopher, right? Well, are you ready? But it's very, very few people actually become philosophers. Think about your public. How many philosophers are there? Right, but it's very select few, but it's not based on your birth, right? It's just based on the disciplines. And absolutely, it's not based on your birth. There are only a few philosophers. They're the only ones connected to the truth. And they reveal that truth to the rest of us. And the rest of us are the dwellers of the cave. Oh, we see shadows. So we have to believe the philosophers, though what they're telling us is true. And therefore, our minds don't matter, as individuals, once we're not philosophers. Though we think that matters. This is why in the Republic, the philosophers tell you what profession they have, and how to live, and what your values should be, and what your morality should be, and it's very top-down. And to this day, we have politicians, and we have certain philosophers and capers who would like to believe that they know what's good for you, and they should want your life.  But the idea is that all knowledge comes from a few people. And then most people don't know anything. And if you think about it, most of our history is exactly that, right? There's a king he knows it all. We are just peasants. There is the grads or something in between. And all knowledge comes from them. We do our work. We get up, we get paid, whatever.  They're very short. Most kids don't make it at age 10. We've never perpetuated wealth. We never can do anything with our lives. We don't choose our profession. We don't choose who to marry. We just live. And the powers to be, the authorities, tell us what we can and cannot do. That's a platonic outcome. What's the alternative to that? Well, the alternative to that is the idea, wait a minute. Anybody can discover truth. Truth is available to anybody. I can teach you Newton's laws of motion. It's not that hard. Most people can understand it. People don't live in the gate. People are outside in the sunshine. No, that doesn't mean everybody's equally intelligent with different intelligence levels, but everybody has access to the other. Everybody has access to the truth. Everybody has access to their own values for what they want. And therefore, if that's true, then science should be our guide to what is actually open. And if the other lives right, not the church. And once the culture shifts towards the other some people say, wait a minute. If an individual can discover these truths, and if all of us have the classic reason to know reality, to know truth, then why can't I value my own life? Why do I have to join a guild? Just because everybody else has. Why do somebody else choose who my wife should be? Why do I, you know, why can't I have a say in how I govern? And suddenly people in this period start waking up to their own values individuals. They start thinking, I have a mind I can live my own life. I don't need authorities to tell me anything. But how do you define science? Do you mean the methodology of like getting or what do you mean by science? Well, that's a methodology of observing reality, coming to conclusions about reality, certain ideas about the cause of relationships in reality, and then testing that. Western methodology of science or like? There is only one methodology of science, Western, Eastern, and Thomas. Oh, it comes from the West for sure. A lot of the concepts from the West doesn't make them not universal. And it doesn't mean that the Chinese weren't using the scientific method, even though they didn't define it as a scientific method a thousand years ago, because the things that they were inventing, the technology that they invented were quite a method, and the semiological method to achieve what they achieved. They used basically the same method with the West that defined, Western thinkers, defined as a scientific method. But there's only one way human beings discover truth about the world. There's not many ways. There's only one. And that is by using our senses and our mind, by learning from what we observe, learning from what happens out there in the world, and then testing. We have a hypothesis of why it behaves this way. We go out and test it, and we check it. So whether they recognized it as science and gave it a name, whether they recognized it as a scientific method and gave it that name and had a formal process, that's what they were doing. That's what every human invention entails. Pribid and man, even back here, how do human beings survive? Ten thousand years ago, how do we survive? How do human beings survive? Yeah, we have to struggle a little bit. Well, what's the essential mechanism of how we assume we can survive? If I drop you into the middle of the Amazon, I assume none of you have ever been to the Amazon, so I drop you into the middle of the Amazon. How are you going to survive? What are the things you're going to have to do when you know this is food and water? Yeah, but how are you going to… What are…maybe it's semi-easy to find, maybe not, right? But how do you get food? It's Amazon. You've never seen the plants, and you've never been there. You have no clue. How are you going to figure out how are you going to find food? To imitate animals. What's that? To imitate animals. You might not say that. Of course, we have a different biology than animals. Do you take that into account? How are you going to do it? And there's only one way for human beings to do it. We're going to have to think, figure stuff out, maybe build a bone animal, and then go hunt some animals, maybe figure out, maybe take some animals and test the food out and see if it's not poisonous to the animal, hope it's not poisonous to you. Do experiments. You're going to have to apply the scientific method in a very simplistic way to your existence. None of us, the difference between us and animals is that we don't have the gene that tells us how to live. We don't have it in our DNA to tell us how to hunt. Like when a cheetah is born, a lion is born, it knows how to hunt. It's in the DNA. It's programmed. It's like AI. It's got an official intelligence. It's got an algorithm inside that tells us this is how you do, this is how you hunt. A human being doesn't know how to do that. There's no clue how to hunt. So what do we have to do? We have to figure out. We observe the animals. We observe nature. We figure out, oh, I can build a bone animal. I shoot a bone animal. This is the architects. Sometimes I get, sometimes I don't. This is the changes I have to make. I can build traps, but I don't have gene for building a trap. I have to figure it out. That's thinking, that's using your reason. The only way human beings survive is by using their reason. So reason is our means of survival. And for a long time, any human beings forgot that and ascribed survival to some orthology that told them how to do things, told them what to do, and kept them just barely alive and you get stagnation. What happens here is people suddenly liberate, they're all mine. And they say, I need to put myself, I can start a business, I can invent this, I can discover that, I can become a scientist. I can do all these things. Now we can change up the DNA. You use technology to change up the DNA. That's how sophisticated we have become. We can change our own nature. That's because we liberated the mind and recognize that the mind is the source of knowledge, not revelation, not ancient books. And the second thing we discovered is that the real value lies not in the group, not in the clan, not in the tribe, not in the nation. The real value lies with in the individual's life, that each individual's life is what matters. So two ideas that come out of this period of change, of real change, of stagnation, through real growth, are individualism, the idea of a significant individual and reason. Reason is man's means of knowledge and therefore man's means of survival. You can't survive without thinking. You can't survive in Amazon, but the reality is you can't survive right here in an advanced world without thinking. Maybe you can survive, you can't thrive, you can't do well. So if you're free, you should be free to think, to explore different ideas. And yet what comes out of this period is the notion of you can think whatever you want, you can explore whatever ideas you want, the only limitation is you can't use physical force against other people because other people have a way to their lives just like you have a way to use.  So what we can have is physical force, people using physical force against one another. But otherwise people have a way to live their lives as they see fit, even if it turns out that the way they see fit, I don't know, it is harmful, bad to themselves. Nobody has a way, nobody should have the ability to force you to do something you don't want to do. We live in a world where they can, but they shouldn't be able to. Now how does free speech fit into this? Well if we have a right act in the struggle of values and the only thing we can't do is use physical force against others, then we have a right to think whatever thoughts we have, therefore we have a right to express ourselves. And again as long as we're not voting somebody else, physically the words that we say are not interfering with you, not interfering with anybody else, you don't like what I say, turn around and walk away, you can disengage. But my words are not punching the face, my words are not coercion, they're not force, they're not filing your rights even though they might upset you. You might not be, you know, the Muslims in the classroom and so the Ameen-e-Muammar, might have been truly upset, but no right to violate it, because no force has been used. Force is the one enemy of the human body, force, coercion, authority that dictates truth, that's the enemy of science, that's the enemy of the mind, that's the enemy of progress, that's the enemy of liberty and freedom. So when it comes to politics, the role of governance is to protect our liberty, to protect our freedom, to protect our rights, and then to protect us from people trying to silence us, if they're trying to use forcing or retribution.  So the government's job is to protect that liberty, yeah, so it's an improvement speech, a negative right, but it's probably American context, meaning that it's not necessarily like, what's the government's role in making sure that somebody doesn't protect you because Twitter doesn't get their own rules. So I'll get to that. So first I don't like the terminology of negative rights and positive rights, they're all rights and positive, and sense that all rights serve a positive purpose, the positive purpose is to allow you to live your life, that's the purpose of yours, but they do that, they do that by protecting your freedom to act. So in the context of speech, for example, I'll give you an example, right, in 1989, I think it was 1989, the Iranian government, I told it for me, put out a fire on Solomon Bushi, Solomon Bushi is an author who wrote a book, but you know in the book there's criticism with Islam, in the book there's criticism, it's called satanic, something satanic, I can't remember the exact name of that book, and I told it for many reasons, he said, anybody who kills Solomon Bushi gets a million bucks. Now Solomon Bushi, at the time he was living in England, his book was being published in the United States, and Khomeini also said, if you publish the book, we're going to attack him, we're going to use violence against him, what is the job of going in that circumstance, it's to protect his ability to express himself, free of somebody coming in and shooting him, by the way, what was it, three, four months ago, as a result of a fight, it was issued in 1989, so they did attack Solomon Bushi at a university in the United States, stabbed him, he now has lost sight in one eye, and has difficulty using his arm, so somebody actually lived up, actually escaping, what is the government's job, the government is to stop that guy from stabbing, so it's not an example of, it's not a free speech law that, it's just, you know, the right to not be attacked, somebody can't use force against you, so for example Twitter can have their own free speech or misinformation rules, and as much as, well, I don't like them, they can still have this as a private entity, right, because the first amendment is that it's saying, the government shot, I agree with you, but the shot on a bridge has two components, one is, the government itself can't tell you, don't say that, or you're going to jail, will use force against you, but the government is also not responsible for protecting you, from him trying to silence you, not sign a few through contracts, through a voluntary means, which is what Twitter is, but through violence, the only place the government exceeds is when there's the threat or the possibility of violence, so I agree with you, Twitter has every right to cancel it, or me, right, every right to cancel it, if they don't, because it's a private platform, it's their property, it's like me kicking you out of my house, could you spot communist ideas, how do you vote, I don't tolerate communists, I don't tolerate not, same category, both of those in my, in my role, right, don't tolerate them, I kick them out of my house, right, but in Twitter, it's their house, I am a guest, they like what I say, I can say, they don't like what I say, they can kick me out tomorrow, I'm thankful for the opportunity used in Twitter, my views, I'm thankful for the opportunity to use Twitter to get the word out of all my ideas, but if they decide they don't want me anymore, they might be like to do it, it's their house, that's what private property means, but what they can do is that government can't go to Twitter and say, we don't like Iran, we think this idea is subversive, so please, silence Iran, or we will regulate you, control you, tax you, shut you down, that is the violation of the First Amendment, and actually whose First Amendment is being violated when the government comes in, whose right to speak is being violated, when the government comes to Twitter and says, don't let X speak, probably Twitter, it's Twitter's speech, because part of your free speeches, part of your right is the way not actually the speech expressed on your past, on your body, so what they're doing is they're violating Twitter's rights and they're threatening violence on Twitter, so the political right, not right to left political or political right of free speech, is that the government can't censor you, and the government must protect you from those who threaten you in an attempted censor, and the best example of that I think is the song I wish the example, because there's no force saying the government didn't do that, so one of the reasons this is a good example is that the government in the U.S. said, this is George Bush senior, and if you remember the Danish cartoons, I don't know if you remember the Danish cartoons, you guys are too young, have you ever heard of the Danish cartoons? Didn't you hear of the Danish cartoons? I'd say 2005, I think it was 2005, this is four years after 9-11, a magazine in Copenhagen put out an issue where they had cartoons of Muhammad, and this is in Charlie Hebdo, you might have heard of Charlie Hebdo in Paris, but this is in Copenhagen, put out these cartoons of Muhammad, and the reason he didn't was not upset, the reason he did it was to say there is censorship in you, not censorship in terms of the government, people self-censored because they're afraid, so it was a period where the museum were taking away all the different people from it, it was a period where people were not saying things that they really believed because they were afraid they would be attacked, so they said we're going to show you that this is a real problem in you, so they put out these cartoons, they were riots all over the world, all over the world, countries, the Middle East, Pakistan, the Uriahs, they broke down, they attacked the embassies, they killed people, in Europe there were demonstrations all over Europe, and then there were death threats and attempts to kill the cartoonists, they had to go to hiding. Now that's a situation where the government should step forward and say cartoonists have every right to print whatever they want, and we will defend that right, that is we will protect them from violence, we will protect their ability to print whatever they want, you don't have to buy it, you don't have to look at it, but they have a right to print it, and the government stood through that, George Bush in the United States came out and said his father did this result in Rishdie and then his son did it with the day to finish, and they said look, probably not a good idea to defend religion, shouldn't talk badly about Islam, you know, yeah I wouldn't do it if I would, nothing about defending the right of free speech, so to me free speech is tied up with, the government detecting free speech is tied up with this idea that government needs to defend your ability to express yourself free of violence, free of threats. Charlie Hebdo is another example of Charlie Hebdo, 2015, you know again, most of these examples in form of Islam because, you know, they get offended more than the rest of us, right, you can draw cartoons of Jesus all day long, you can draw cartoons of Jesus doing horrible things, right, doing the most disgusting things, nobody can explain, but when it comes to Islam people do care, so Charlie Hebdo, they had cartoons, but what was interesting with Charlie Hebdo, is that the French government was suing Charlie Hebdo, they wanted Charlie Hebdo silence because they were too critical of different things, they gun was doing different things, they were offensive, they were hate speech, and then they were attacked in January 2015 and the cartoonists in the office were all killed, and then people kind of woke up, so free speech means proactive, it doesn't just mean we won't do it, it's just like the government protects your life, right, if you have a way to life, the government can't take your life, can't imprison you, it can't use violence against you, that's the idea at least, they do it all the time, but the idea is they can't do that, unless you commit a crime, but it's also their job, right, to protect your criminals, that's what we have a police duty, and to protect you from invasion before we have an army, so it's not just we won't use force against you, it's also going to protect you from those who would use force, and the attitude of these people is well, it's proactive and sensitive to protect you, speaking from those who use violence against you, now you can include that just to say, well the government protects you from violence, but free speech is the point here, that speech, so if I come at you with a fist or with a knife, and you punch me out, then the government's going to say you're okay because you defended yourself, some people don't, if I insult you, then it's okay for you to punch me, and what they're here for these speeches, it's not, right, you have a right to insult, you have a right to say hateful things, and I don't have a right to punch you or shoot you because you said something they'll beat, and the government needs to stop you from shooting or the punch, or if they don't stop, put you in jail for it, it's not self-defense, I actually have the idea of when you're in my house, I can decide whether or what I want to be said in my house, yeah, but in the streets, I think it's more difficult, and you mentioned the fact that the knife, the other sister, the speech, I think that there is something, a continuity between, I mean, it's all acting, acting by speaking, acting by moving, acting by doing things, and I was wondering if you would tolerate, for instance, someone dealing with streets, horrible things with a new speaker, just because it's street speech, and you become a team in my opinion, and I think it's less about using the street, what you can tolerate or not then, so I agree, so the challenge with the street is that nobody owns it, so it's a challenge because it's co-public, and it's also true that we recognize the fact that, for example, noise is a, you know, a sense of physical violence, so for example, we have rules, legitimate ones, that say that you can't crank up a music in your home, never mind yelling, at 10 p.m. and disturb my sleep, right, you're not allowed to do that, right, I can sue you, there are legal actions that can be taken, and it's tricky sometimes, because I think there is like, I think it's speech, and there is like, I think it's action, and I do think there are borderline cases where speech becomes action, where speech becomes something actionable, on obvious cases, inciting providers, if I incite you, if I say, go kill him, you know, he's a bad guy, you should kill him, you know, he'll give you the knife, but then clearly I'm responsible for what's going on, at least maybe not as responsible as you are if you kill it, but I'm certainly responsible for inciting you, and you have to dance that as a crime, and that's absolutely true, but if I'm just saying to you, that guy is a bad guy, I don't like him, I hate him, and you do something about him, you don't touch him, it's all on you, it's not on me, and that's the fine line of inciting versus not, and I think that's absolutely right, I think that is the line, that is you can have an opinion about this, but once you say, go do acts, that's when it becomes an action, but as long as it's just, I don't like him, I don't like this, I have opinions about him, so as long as I'm just speaking, I'm not suggesting or encouraging particular actions, then I should be free to say whatever I want, again, not in a way that somebody needs a private property, I need loud music, but and again, the street is difficult, but what if I stand in my yard, in my home, and I say to the things, you really can't be much about it, unless I clearly, you know, so loud that I'm discerning you in the house next door, but I have a way to say whatever I want to say on my product. Yeah, it's totally up for me to say it, but how about propaganda in public schools and the brainwashing happens in public schools, how is it related to? Well, I think public schools are a real problem, because public schools are run by home, by the state, and the state that shouldn't have opinions about stuff, the state is there to protect our rights, it's not there to indoctrinate us, it's not there to tell us what is true and what is not in history, or true and what is not in science, that's not the job of the state, so I think the problem with the indoctrination of private and public schools is public schools, I think as soon as you have government ownership of schools, government running of schools, government terminating curriculum in schools, you're going to have problems, and you always have problems, first of all, the quality goes down, but also it becomes a vehicle for propaganda, you don't get multiple opinions, or you don't get the parents opinion about what is being taught, and the parents are responsible for the children, not the state, so my view is they shouldn't be public schools, the state should have no involvement in the school, the school should be up to parents. What is the solution because people will not be a majority to be able to afford private schools, so I think almost everybody can afford private schools, everyone walks, so I mean there's a really good book if you're interested in education called A Beautiful Tree, a beautiful tree by terrible names, they don't come, he's a British author, and what he did was he went to the poorest places in the world, he went to Calcutta, and he went to some of the slums in Nigeria, and the story was that in these slums poor kids were getting no education, because there were public schools, government schools, just outside the slums that the government had built, and nobody was showing up, kids would never come, and so the assumption was these kids are not getting education, so he actually went into the slums, and what he discovered in the slums were hundreds of little private schools, and parents wanted the ability to choose who taught their kids, they don't understand that some big monstrous public school outside of the slum, they didn't want to control over what their kids education was going to be, and they could afford a school inside the slum, why? Well because it was inside the slums, so the people were teaching, they were also living in the slum, so it was relatively cheap, and the kids, they compared task scores on standard, I said the kids were getting just as good an education in their private schools in the slum, said their public schools outside of the slum, but and this is the poorest people in the world, so if you really had competition in education in private schools, if you had lots of private schools competing to try to get your kids to come, what do you think would happen to the quality and what would happen to the price? Yeah, lower? Yeah, so the quality would go up, I mean every private market, every private market we try to use, that's exactly what happens, and yet the two of the most important markets, we don't do this, the one is education, what's the other one, we don't do this, we don't use the private sector for this. In the US? In here more than in the US, health care, we don't use the health care, those are the two markets, maybe the most important markets, and those are the two markets we're okay for government to think for plans, and yet you know they're both disasters, here and in the US for Friday freezers, because we don't rely on markets, every other thing, you know what would happen if this was designed by the government, by government committee, what would this look like? Everybody laughs, every audience, everywhere they walk and ask them, what would this look like if the government decided everybody laughs, so you wouldn't give your iPhone to the government to design, but it's okay for them to design curriculum for your kids, it's okay for them to decide what health care treatment you should get, much more complicated than this. Yeah, I mean the markets work in education, markets work in health care, we just don't give them opportunity, because we've decided, for lots of kids, that the central planners know much better about how to educate our kids, why, who invented public education and who invented public education? Because I mean how many kids, how many kids got an education back here, nobody, you know maybe there was a few kids who got an education, nobody else got an education, so when did public education become a thing? 19th, 19th century, do you know what country, what country? The first public schools were here in the Czech Republic, not the first, but in Czech Republic, the Marjela Teresa was the first created to apply for schools here. Okay, but in the world, you know, in Europe, you know where the first country to adopt public education, the government-run educational system was, it was Germany, and the reason they applied it was they wanted to train you to be a good employee, a good worker in the factory, they wanted, they had schools for in a sense manual labor, then they had schools for the managers, and they had different schools for the classes they wanted, all central plan, all from the top down, it was very prussian, it was very regimented, and to this day, our school systems are very German in that way, they're very regimented, very authoritarian, and the whole idea there was, some people know best, and we don't want competition, we don't want to discover the truth, we know what the truth is, we're going to cram it down your throat, right, we're going to teach you, we're going to tell you, and that's how we got on education, in American schools, public education was adopted primarily under the influence of those German ideas, and public schools in America were structured very much in the same way, so I'm a huge believer in private education, and if you take all the tax money, all the tax money, that you pay in Europe, and we pay in America for public education, and you give it back to people, or you give it back to people, what's that? They would say better, that's good. Yes, that's the subject, how to use the money, you know, Chicago, and I know my examples of yours in Chicago, if you did one kid in the public schools in Chicago, cost over $15,000 a year for one child, that's on a state page, to educate one kid. In Chicago, there are private schools right by the Catholic Church, and to send your kid to that school costs $7,500 a year, state neighborhood, a great poor neighborhood in Chicago, private schools are much better than the public schools. So what do you do? All you have to do is give those poor parents $7,500 and they can afford to send their kids to the private school, and the state saves $7,500 because it does make $15,000 for the kid, and only pays the parents to send it. So there are ways in which the state puts the funding into education to make sure that the poor parents had enough money to send their kids, but that the parent made the choice I used that one for education. Same thing with healthcare. If you're afraid that poor people can't afford to buy insurance, you could subsidize it, give the people a voucher to buy the healthcare, but then you create a private market for healthcare where quality goes up and price goes down. That's what markets do, they're very, very good at, and there's nothing about healthcare education that makes them any different than any other market that's basically the same. So back to free speech. What you want is a culture in which people are willing to tolerate a lot of ideas, willing to listen, willing to engage, and then decide for themselves, I don't like that idea, I'm going to walk away.  I think play-doh is a very negative influence on history, very negative influence on history, but important. I need to study it, to understand the influence of the past, modern times, and on the history of certainly the west of the world. I just mentioned we don't have time. I wanted to ask you a question.  But then, and we were also talking about the keys in Twitter and how the United States government made this more interfered. Then I was using that same analogy of your house.  Twitter is your son now. Is my wife. Your son. Yes, son. Yeah. And then he goes around other houses since you are neighbors, and so he starts making friends, and then he comes back, and since he has friends, of course he's influenced, and do a certain thing. He starts saying that. Yeah, saying ideas that you don't like.  So then, right, I think yours supersedes your son's. Well, as long as he's in my house. Exactly. As long as he's in my house, he plays by my rules, because it's my house, right. But that applies to Twitter as well. But it doesn't. So you cannot take private property, a house, and conflate it with the government. A country is not a house. The government is you. The country is the, is the house. You cannot conflate a house in the country.  The country is owned by anybody. No, the government doesn't own. If the government owns the country, the government should own, it doesn't. The government is your servant, it's not your owner. So we as citizens of a particular area, we each own a house. We have lots of houses, we each own. We choose to elect a person to manage certain of our activities. But he is our servant. He's not our owner. He doesn't own my land. He doesn't own my house. He's not an overseer. He is doing a service that I've hired him to do. Instead of a god that's coming in and mowing my lawn, I have the government coming in and making sure criminals don't break into my house. Then can I move forward to the next question. So now, from your perspective, the government don't own you. And since you elect them, you have your sphere of understanding of the government. But then you come across the communist countries like China. Russia was the best thing. Now the whole situation. I could, but that's why I say China is an immoral, illegitimate government. Russia is an immoral and illegitimate government. So your solution to this will be the, but my solution is, my solution to that is that government shouldn't exist. Exactly. But that would take the world to a very different situation. It depends how they disappear, right? I'm not, I'm not arguing that we, any particular person has a duty to store them. I don't think we do and I don't think we should, but they are not legitimate. So I hope that what happens in China and what happens in Russia is that people in China do Russia say, wait a minute, you're trying to break into my house. You're the government. You're supposed to be my servant.  You're telling me what to do.  That's called the revolution. That's what I work for Russia. That's what I work for China. And that's what I, that's what I work for. That's what I speak for. I want individuals to gain their confidence of their rights, their self-ownership, their right to their own life and to their own property so that they fight the authorities and tell them to go to hell, right? And live their lives and that ultimately, if you have enough people like that, that will be a revolution. But that's what I'm hoping for. That's what I'm looking for is, is better. You know, I have no problem saying that the government of China, the government of Russia, lots of governments in the world are illegitimate governments. And I hope that people overthrow them. I'm not going to. But I hope that people do it. And I go to these countries and I say that. You know, I'm not going to go to Russia for a while because I've said that about Putin. And I'm not going to go to China anymore because I used to be able to go to China and say, your government is bad. Who should replace them?  They'll put you in prison. But that's sad. That's why I have no fish meat, right? If I go to China, I have no fish meat.  And they'll put me in jail.  And I'll say, who cares? That's, that's a fundamental difference. One recognizes my weight, my life, and therefore my speech. And one doesn't recognize it. If my country violates my right to my life, it violates my right to my speech. And what makes a government legitimate is the protection of rights. What makes it illegitimate is the violation of rights. A government violates individual rights as an illegitimate right. It's politically incorrect, I know. Reality is politically incorrect. Truth is politically incorrect. I think, I think we're done. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, just one more question. Well, how about the bullying that happens in social media? For example, it's also their right to hate them. Absolutely. I don't, I don't think there should be any laws against bullying. What is the protection to the person who is bullied? As long as I'm not losing physical force against you, your protection is you can turn around and go away, walk away. And what is the, what if it's the way up on the streets? If it's physical, once it's physical, then the government needs to stop. Then the police come and they stop you. But, but they only, the police can only get involved when it's physical. If somebody in the street starts swearing at you and saying, your eyes are fascist, does that, I mean, people do this, right? I've lectured what people say this. They have every right to, to, to, to, I, they have every right to swear at me. But then what if the bullying leads a person to a physical action? Like, is the person who leads so much for physical action as he wants to go? Unless, and I know this is the technicality, but unless you're being- That was the case, I think, I don't remember somebody who took your gun.  So there is such a technical term as inciting. There's a legal standard that says what is inciting. But if I incite you to commit violence then I am responsible for that. But it has to be, it has to be really inciting for violence.  That's not inciting. But if I say, again, go steal that or go get that person, and here's why and so on, then I am partially responsible for the crime that you commit. And that's in the laws today, that's not, that's part of the legal theory today. But just the insulting would just be offending you does not constitute- I haven't committed a crime.  Advocating for liberty is offensive to a lot of people. Thank you, thank you.