So radical fundamental principles of freedom, rational self interest and individual rights. This is the Iran book show. Hello, everybody, welcome to one book show on this Saturday. We can ready for. Hey, and in the contributor panel. I don't have seven people, seven people always repeat to participate and Adams the only one who showed up so not sure what's going on at him you can have a, you hope you have a lot of questions because we've got it we've got We'll see if they show up late, but so far. This is it. All right. As you know, you can ask anything so please for a fee to use the the super chat. Oh, so Ian Ian always repeat and he was supposed to. Yes, he says he has no questions. That's why he didn't show up. I guess other people didn't have questions either. We're running out of questions. I've answered everything about everything in the known universe. I guess so everybody's just run out of stuff to ask me. Catherine, thank you for getting us started on the super chat anyway, you can of course anybody listening live can get in on the on the asking questions. You can use the super chat to do so. And you can ask, as I said, pretty much about about anything. And all right, let's let's start with Adam and and you guys have have an opportunity there to answer questions also babysitting. All right, so he's babysitting something I don't think it's a baby that he's babysitting but he's babysitting something. Alright, Adam, Adam always has creative questions for me so go for it. Okay, the first one is in response to the announcement. And of course, Ellen mask, whom I greatly respect as an innovator has taken control of Twitter, but his most recent change is that channels controlled by foreign governments will no longer be identified as such. I sent you an email with a lecture on the use of hybrid warfare, including influencing foreign electorates, which is what the Russian government is doing and an unprecedented scale. And essentially, my first question is, if you owned Twitter, how much identification of channels, would you put on and what channels, would you deny access. To some identification I would definitely try to identify government channels. I think that's important to do, not just for foreign entities but also for other entities I mean you you've got a challenge of you have to find things like the BBC and PR as as somewhat government channels as well because clearly they get funding from the government that I wouldn't want to be in a position where I differentiated between which is propaganda and which one is in some sense, not by the government but otherwise functions normally. So I would, I would definitely want to flag any entity that I thought was being funded by government or at least getting some of its funding from government. You know, I also think that this whole issue of propaganda is warfare. I mean this is not new. This is of course been going on forever, but certainly been going on since we've had radio and being able to transmit into any territory. Although before that, you know, there were propagandists who would go and distribute flyers on behalf of the other side and during different wars. So so propaganda has always been a tool of warfare nothing's new here, except the scale and the and the ability to infiltrate other countries network so easily. I don't think you can ban propaganda. I don't think you can. You can stop it remember the US used to broadcast radio into the Soviet Union through was it radio free America or something like that. And so radio free Europe and the voice of America and the Russians were jamming it. And I always had to tune very precisely because they used to drift their frequencies to escape Russian jamming, and the Russians would try to follow. And if I was quicker than the Russian jammer, I could actually listen to American jazz. Cool. That's cool. So, so you know so I don't think there should be any limits on propaganda. I think this whole Russian influence in the election. All it was was was providing false information. That's on Americans in voters need to educate themselves. It's part of the responsibility of voting. You need to be able to separate propaganda from reality. And so I don't think I don't think we should be stopping that I think again that is a very dangerous place where where the government starts deciding what information is okay and what information is not. You know if we're confident in our own values confident in our own abilities confident in our own system of government why are we afraid of the Chinese coming in and telling some lies about America, we need to tell the truth and we need to do more. You know we need to stand up for that so I will not ban that I would definitely identify channels that I knew a government channels as government channels. My guess is that the Chinese and the Russians are so sophisticated that they can probably find ways to broadcast without Twitter knowing that it's a government channel. Facebook keeps blocking me from advertising political stuff because they don't really believe I live in Puerto Rico they think I'm a Russian bot or something I don't know. So they keep blocking me and I keep having to prove I live in Puerto Rico I think it's also because I travel so much and I often log on Facebook from other countries and they go. This guy can't be real so every time I prove it it lasts for like six months a year and then they block me again so it's a very complicated process but I just think we need to get over. We need to recognize this propaganda this propaganda internally. You know, Fox and MSNBC are clearly propaganda channels, to some extent a particular political parties, and we need instead of that to focus on educating people to to figure out how to discover truth. You know, I think Elon Musk is overall doing a pretty good job at Twitter it's hard to tell. I think the blue checkmark charging eight bucks makes sense, but I am a little worried the fact that when I bought my blue checkmark, which I couldn't get before from the previous thing so they wouldn't verify me. But here I bought if eight bucks and nobody verified me so anybody could have started a your own book Twitter feed and got verified by paying $8 maybe my credit card was on my name maybe that's verification, but they did very little and it would be good for people who are at risk of being of their identity being used if Twitter did more verification of that identity. But I do have a blue checkmark now so I never used to have it I bought it. Thank you Adam Andrew has joined us so he had Andrew. You'd be the worst Russian bot ever. I'm a terrible Russian bot. I should, I should, I should do some Russian bot stuff and see what happens right. Russian is the greatest he's so cool. Last three seconds, but yeah, so I should buy. They obviously haven't heard a thing you've said about Russia. No, no. So, let me ask you. Why do you think that so many people are afraid of Donald Trump. Why do I think so many people are like what do you think that says it like, like I don't think enough people are afraid of Donald Trump. Everybody should be afraid of Donald Trump. I think well the people who fear him, you know, on the Republican side or feel paralyzed by him in a sense you know that's that's kind of the sense that I get from somebody they don't know how to oppose him in that sense. Yeah, I think they, I think they, I think it's two things, at least two things but one is, look, he's captured the base of the Republican Party he has them he has them in his graphs.  They are completely personality worship his personality they worship him. You know, it was stunning and I remember being stunned at the time when he said it, when he said he could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, and it wouldn't affect his campaign. I thought this is nuts nobody can take this seriously and he's right. He could have shot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue, and he still would have been elected in in 2016 and he'd still be the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party right now. So I think one is that he, in whatever way he has, there is a longing among certain Americans for a leader who just smash a stuff that they're angry they're upset that they're unhappy with everything with the way politics has been done forever. They're unhappy with America than happy with the direction, and they want somebody to lead them and part of that leading is somebody with authoritarian tendencies and part of that leading is to smash stuff and he said, and other Republicans are just afraid to alienate those alienate those people. They're just scared of them because it's, I don't know, I think it's a half of the Republican Party is that way or maybe, maybe it's 40%, but it's, it is a significant portion and you probably can't win the nominee nation. If you completely alienate them and it's interesting that the Santas strategy is to double up on those people that is to double up on the issues that the he thinks attract them to Donald Trump that is the cultural issues and the go against the left at all costs kind of issues and building up on those to try to attract them to him. I actually think that strategy is going to backfire because it's not that it's actually Trump's personality, it's actually his disregard for everything and his kind of his kind of nihilistic personality. That's actually what attracts them to him and the Santas taking on Trump's policies is, you know, as a failure I actually got contacted today by somebody who's meeting the Santas next week, right, and he said okay you're on. What are your beefs with the Santas what can I say to him. And I said look, it's basically it's just start with how much time do you have.  And he basically said if I wrote something up you would hand it to the Santas. You know so basically he's I, let me see if I can find the text, but basically what I said was, you know they are there are three things that three things that I think three things that I think you need to communicate to the Santas where is this. In one, that he's spending way too much time and energy and cultural issues, and sadly using the power of the state to address them, which I think is damaging actually four issues. Second is, I see no free market Liberty vision coming from him. Third is, is alienating people who who who you will need in order to win a general election, primarily women and independence is alienating them completely by for example signing a six week ban on abortion which he didn't need to do. He's already a 13 or 14 week ban in Florida. So he'd already established his anti abortion credentials. He didn't need that I don't think to win the nomination and the added to that, that what that what's really missing in American politics today. And this is true in the Americans and on the Republican side, although I think Nikki Haley has a little bit of this and Rama Swami the the Indian businessman has a little bit of this. And that is what's really missing is a positive inspiring Reagan like vision for the country. And he basically wrote back and he said he agrees with all of that. But he said there's one more thing which is implicit in what I wrote but that he would add that he's going to go after the Santas for, and that's his tyranny over corporations, which again was something that Trump did, if you remember calling up businessmen telling him not to move their factories to Mexico and stuff. But the Santas is doubling up on it and so he's doubling up on everything that Trump is and I think I think I think that's a losing strategy for him. I think what this field needs is a articulate Republican with name recognition which unfortunately right now I think the Santas is the only one, maybe your young kids in Virginia can do this, or camp from Georgia, who actually articulates a positive vision kind of a shining city on the hill vision of America, which can get the base somehow distracted from Trump, and it can get independence and others voting for him. So what was your question I can't remember the question I've rambled on Why the fate of Trump so one is that the base is just enamored with him the base just loves him. And the second is, you know the Trump, well, the Trump is brutal. I mean he's brutal.  He has zero problem. More than any other human being I know he has zero problem lying. That is to him lying is just it doesn't matter it's it's a he's a he's a pure sample of pragmatism right whatever it takes to get to the end result. That's okay the means absolutely justify the end justifies the means. Yeah. So he's willing to lie so if you go up against him, and you have anything in your closet or even if you don't I don't know if you saw yesterday. I read some of the stuff that Trump is putting out about the Santas. It's just, it's just ludicrous but it's it's over the top in terms of how pathetic the Santas is in running Florida. This is a guy just one reelection by a massive margin and it doesn't matter Trump will lie.  And he has that down to an odds of people are afraid to piss him off they're afraid of, of making him angry and then the third. You, you said, my third point. My third point is they don't have a positive strategy. That is you have to have an alternative Trump you have to have something you can say something you can stand up to him about something you can put him down on and you can descend to his level by attacking him personally, but that's not going to win you he's probably better at it than anybody else. The New York he knows how to do that. So you have to have something to, to, to, to bounce to distract from the negativity. And I don't think these candidates know how to do that or know what that content would be. That's why I said you need somebody with an absolutely positive perspective and somebody who has the attitude of and really projects this attitude.  Why anybody would vote for him. You know, I understand why you would vote for him over Biden, but now you have a real option.  So we don't need this but here's my positive vision here's here's the good stuff and it doesn't that he ignores Trump, but he shows contempt for Trump, while, you know, showing some modicum of respect for the people other than Trump and the Santas instead of doing that is doubling up on Trump's agenda with I think is a huge mistake. I mean, even if he could be Trump in a primary camp, I'm not sure he can win in a general election because of what he's done. I mean, really most of Americans want a president who obsesses about Disney. Really? I hate that. I mean, Disney's the place we all take our kids to. I mean, really, I mean. It would serve him right if Disney, and I know they can't really do this, but if Disney had any ability to move out of that space. Yeah, exactly. And look, and most Americans, even most Republicans don't care that much about Disney's position on gays. So they have a pride parade in California. So don't go that day. But are you going to give up Mickey Mouse because you upset because Disney did a pride parade?  It's also it's also so vile that I mean, didn't he threaten to put some very prison only thing around the prison prison. But think of the the ire towards such a positive American, you know, stalwart corporation.  I mean, if somebody went in and shot up Disney, I'm sure some of these people would support it, because Disney's woke and therefore it's okay to beat them up and destroy them and do This is the mentality of so many people now that that, you know, everything's fair game. Everything's fair game in the cultural battle. Okay, so you would go after him. It both. Okay, so you're saying to laugh at him, I would make fun of him. I chose to offer the positive vision both mean if I would dissent us now I'd say, really, I mean, far does this bad state I mean, look at our record look at what we've done. I want to bring this to the whole America. I want to liberate the economy. I want to make the economy number one in the economic freedom index. I want to make this a robust dynamic exciting economy like America's always been. Donald Trump didn't achieve that in four years and then he lost.  Let's forget about them. Let's focus on winning and being successful in the future. Can I offer one other thing. I think it does reveal something brittle about the psyche of a lot of Americans that all he has to do is like, give you a negative moniker. Yeah, and people all of a sudden are like, Oh, I can't support that person because they're there. That's embarrassing. And it's like, this is so sure, you know, this is why I'm scared of Trump. Now I'm not scared of Trump. I'm scared of what Trump has shown us about the American people. And what Trump has shown us about the American people is that they are ready for an authoritarian that it's just a matter of combining the right elements but they're ready to just accept anything that some guy says that they'll jump on his bandwagon. They'll like, they'll embrace him. They'll support him. Nothing matters. And they are they are willing to personality. You know this this idea personality worship they jump on that bandwagon and they're willing in the name of hate. In this case, hates a woke hate of the left to abandon all their previous express values and jump and support a guy no matter what and that's scary. You know, if I'm not suggesting a parallel between Trump and Hitler, but if you want to see that the progression of how people become from Liberty loving. Look at the tea party Liberty loving limited government all that to whatever he says is true. He could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and I'll still support him authoritarian attitude of a well, you're seeing it.  We're seeing it. And, and my fear is not now but as this mentality gets worse, that there is a Hitler down the road for America you know some kind of equivalent to that down the road, who, who could could could jump in here. Alright, Adam had his hand up so I'll go to Adam and then we'll go to Ian. I wouldn't even mention Hitler, but Trump, I think, is the American pudding. He'd like to be, I think he'd definitely like to be he'd like to be a Putin or bond.  That is, that is where we're heading unfortunately. Yes, I do think he'd like to be like, maybe like an Orban who who still pretenses pro democracy, but his control over the media no media has can oppose him. And he basically gets elected forever for life because not because he cheats on the election, but because he's rigged the media and everything else to keep his message at the forefront, and he just can't lose so And of course that's where we come with the Santies in Disney Disney is the biggest media outlet in Florida and Santa the Santies is trying to exert complete government control over it. Yep. Good for Disney for an alternative to Trump. Yeah, I agree with you. I agree. I was hoping he would be, he's turned out not to be at all. But Ian. Hey, glad, glad I could actually join I debug the issue with my washing machine. So let's see if that stays fixed. I'm thinking about something a point that you've raised a number of times about how businessmen don't want to harm their customers, and you've used for example the elevator example like why do we need to expect elevators or why do we need to have governments inspect elevators because, you know, elevator, people build elevators are not building them to kill people. Yep. You know or people who build buildings are not building them so they'll collapse. I haven't heard I've actually heard Dave Rubin use your argument on when he was on Joe Rogan. I 99% chance that he got it from you. Yeah, and Rogan came back hard at that that claim. And I think one of the, one of the arguments I think you will eventually get in response is that what we're not what we're worried about isn't the true business man. What we're worried about is the guy who is a crook from the beginning. Yeah, set something up. You know hey it looks like the elevator is good. Here's my money. Bye bye. And then the elevator collapses and he's got a different name a different business. And Joe Rogan's point was, you know, his father is in the construction trade and they will sheet every chance they get. So, I guess my thought is just that I think if this ever comes up I think you need to be ready with the alternative which is people like Rogan only see it as two sided which is government inspection or no inspection, whereas private inspection is a way to do this, like in the construction industry if I buy a house I want to see that it's been signed off by somebody and then a builder will say well I got to get somebody to sign off on this otherwise. My tradesmen aren't going to you know I'm going to fail my inspection and stuff like that and it's just an interesting argument but you know we just really need to be clear that okay there are crooks, because they will do crooked things. I mean, absolutely there's no question. I'm just laughing because somebody wrote. And this is typical like this is this is the mentality that that that Trump has built skyscrapers, I ran revealed skyscrapers and by implication by by logic, Trump would I ran would review Trump. I want to yell when I hear stuff like that just drives me crazy.  So absolutely look, my argument is never that there would be no inspectors. My argument is that if there is reason why they should be inspectors, then there is a there's a profit opportunity for entrepreneurs to inspect. It's just like I don't believe that if you get rid of the FDA drug companies every drug company every pretend drug company could just sell whatever they wanted with any label they wanted and, and just get out there maybe they could. But as consumers we wouldn't buy it unless it had some seal of approval by somebody and for example, I would argue that pharmacies wouldn't carry drugs that didn't have a seal of approval of some private lab. And that it checked these and maybe two private labs maybe three private labs right. Who knows how the competitive environment actually develop and how, and maybe the pharmacies themselves would develop the private labs themselves because they might be liable. They sell me a drug and it turns out that drug is is harms me. They, you know, it could, the law could develop in ways that would place liability on the drug on the pharmacy unless the pharmacy did something to make sure that their drugs were safe. The same with the building imagine if you build a condo building and now it is part expected that when you buy a condo in a condo building you want to see one of the things you want to see is the inspection of the private inspection company that says that the condo building is safe and now we as consumers have developed this habit of demanding that inspection or when you go and ensure your condo right. Most of us when we buy a house or condo we also with it purchase insurance and indeed if you, if you get a mortgage the mortgage company demands that you get insurance. Well the insurance company would say, okay, I'm happy to ensure you but how do we know this building is safe. Should we send an inspector as an inspector been there before. Can we see the inspection documents that show the inspection. So, my argument is that the market is a beautiful mechanism that would create all these ways in which to indeed confirm that products are good that products are reliable that products are you know I remember. I remember I was I was a construction manager a long long time ago so I was in that business. And I was a I was hired my company I was a junior person but my company was hired basically by Intel to build its headquarters in Israel and we basically built the first, the first clean room in Israel and we represented Intel, and the, the contractor got the contract and contract to build the building and we would inspect what they were doing. And like the contract would say, we put in a five inch wall and we would go. No, it's four and a half inches. I want you to knock this down and build it again, or the concrete again, because it's supposed to be five inches and I was representing the building right, the owner and certainly this was the first clean room in Israel, I know the clean rooms rooms where they build chips and they have to be unbelievably clean. Because any little spec can get on one of those microprocessors so this the first clean room in Israel, nobody never built clean room before. So this there was a lot of this no this is not to spec tear it down, build it again. And that's your job and for most contractors there's always somebody on the other side doing that. And if again if a contractor will want to sell a building sell if he wants then he better have the elevator inspected by somebody, probably an insurance company probably the inspected hired by an insurance company. Most contractors. I think all contractors by insurance to cover the building under construction while it's being constructed just in case there's an earthquake or something like that. That insurance company would send inspectors because they don't want to ensure building is being poorly designed and built. So there are multiple ways in which you can do this and again I think this is true even if you get power plants. The way we built into the way we do things is is a strong incentive by certain people involved in the project and make sure it's safe. Not everybody has the same incentives with somebody has an incentive around safety insurance companies, banks, bond holders, mortgages, users, end users, or have an incentive that this is safe. These great mechanisms would come around to provide them with assurances for the safety of the product otherwise no economic activity would actually happen we'd get stuck. An interesting example of that in the real world is underwriter laboratories, I don't know if you're aware of that which came about in the 1890s due to risks of electrical fires, because electricity was completely unregulated and was killing and it was unreliable and different standards and so this is a product and it's a completely it's still a private company to this day, but a lot of electric goods in the US if you buy it it's got a stamp on it. No it regulates all electronic products it and it's it's private and the government is there's no involvement as far as I know in regulating and and if you look at the number of people dying from electrocution. Over the last hundred years. It's an amazing graph because you know it's steep downwards. It was a lot of people died from electrocution. I know you know my parents generation, people were dying of electrocution today almost nobody dies of electrocution so it's it's a constant improvement caused by an industry and a private regulator that are interested in continuous improvements and can you see making things safer. And so yes, I was going to say one other thing I want to say, and that is that when you think about the bad guy the crook right the guy who was setting up the company is going to run away afterwards and all of that, and is going to build the elevator and run away. What I find interesting is that there's almost no doubt that that crook is much more likely to get away bribing a government inspector than he is a private inspector, because the government inspector bears no liability. If the government inspector gets something wrong. So what, nothing will happen to him. If the private inspector would lose his job loses business loses, you know whatever credit he had he would be wiped out a government inspectors not it. It reminds me of, you know, in California, I, when I listen ampere other used to do these shows on food I used to go and interview farmers and every time they'd be like an E coli outbreak or something like that. And it was very clear from when you talk to the, from what the farmers were saying in these interviews that they were far more worried about the inspectors coming to them from the groceries chains, who were buying massive quantities from them, then the inspectors coming from the FDA. The inspectors from the private groceries chains were much tougher and much more rigorous and much scarier in a sense, than the government inspectors and doesn't surprise me one has something to lose if they get it wrong. They really lose business they create liability they really have a challenge and the others don't have anything to lose a government job that has that will they'll never be. They'll never be fired from certainly not because they got one issue wrong. They should really came out in Turkey right with the earthquake, or it seems to be clear that, you know, they had in a lot of places very stringent earthquake regulations and the builders bribed their way around it. Yes. And a lot of people died cultures that have less respect for the law less respect for the government less respect for the rule of law are going to you're going to see more bribing, you're going to see more of this and cultures in America. You're going to see a lot less bribing there's still bribing going on there's no question about that, but you're going to see a lot less bribing, just because we just have a culture that has respect for the law and respect for for government officials so you know but but but absolutely that somebody will take care of this, and but and I trust that somebody if they're private 1000 times more because they're self interested because they have a dollars at stake they have what is what is what is he called it something in the game. Skin and skin in the game that's that's telep telepter. 11 I agree with telep completely you want to create, you want to create contacts in which people have skin in the game. If they make if the decision makers and you want to align incentives and the best way to align incentives by having skin in the game. Thank you and good question. Right, let's take a couple of $50 super chats Thank you guys for being so generous. Thanks for the right Trump gone as these huge rallies like Hitler did. He's just a watered down version of a racial nationalist bad philosophy works at assembling massive numbers and I'm wavering follows the one man. How did Plato figure out how to get people to do this. You know again I don't like the palace with Hitler, I think Hitler was a lot smarter and a lot more evil that is Hitler knew exactly what he wanted knew exactly he had evil goals he had an agenda Trump doesn't have an agenda. Trump is is all about Trump and his agenda is to win an election but he doesn't have an agenda for America. He doesn't want to turn America into a particular kind of country. He doesn't care what I order. He wants to please people he wants to be liked by the people that he wants to like him it's it's so I think there's a huge difference which makes Trump less dangerous than if somebody with with that kind of characteristics who people rally around who has a clear agenda knows exactly what they want and, and it's an evil agenda that is that is super dangerous and that we don't yet have in America. So, so in that sense I don't like the analysis but how did Plato figure out how to get people to do this was simply by by convincing people or by making what seemed to be convincing philosophical arguments that people don't have access to truth they don't have access to reality they don't have access to to to what is good and what is bad what is right or what is wrong what is even what is good for them that they can't even make decisions about what is good for them and they need to channel revelation to them to channel the world of forms to channel the truth to them and to tell them what to do and how to behave and how to run and America won't be great until we have somebody who challenge channels the greatness of America and establishes it for them and they can do it themselves they can make America great by their own behavior so it's the real danger and this is played on cons these are this is their this is their big contribution to philosophy and the big contribution to authoritarianism is once you separate the mind from reality once you separate the individual human being from knowledge of reality of truth and false sort of right and wrong. And when should separate running wrong from reason. Then you setting yourself up for an authoritarian to come around and provide all the answers for them. And that's what Plato does that's that's why Plato's popularity is so dangerous. I just watched the Leonard Peacuff video released by a right in it Dr Peacuff said, we are more than halfway towards Hitler and Lenin. I think he's right until Rans answers to Kant are more widely known, we, we will have to drift towards hell. When was this video released and when was that which one of these Leonard Peacuff talks. Did he say this and so we halfway towards it Lenin as of 1985 as of 95. I just listened to it as well. It's 1998. Yeah, I mean, look, I think I think that's right. And I don't know that we were halfway back then and I don't know that we're halfway now I don't know exactly how to measure these things. We're clearly heading in that direction we're coming towards an direction of authoritarianism, and I don't think a Trump like figure is the end result, because Trump is too disintegrated to fragmented to, you know, uncommitted to a particular ideology I think I think it's where we go from here onward and how long that takes and exactly who arises and what it looks like. I don't know, I don't know but it, we're not heading in a good direction waiting in a bad direction, and left and right about both both responsible for this that pushing us in that direction in various ways and to various degrees and there's a scary thing the real scary thing is there's no opposition. There's just no opposition party to say wait hold on. This isn't America this isn't the right direction or here's an alternative that is basically authoritarians of both sides. I have a quick comment. Yes, there are exceptions. I've watched some foreign appearances of Kamala Harris. And if she speaks to an authoritarian, especially a dictator. She speaks the same way she spoke as a district attorney, speaking to a criminal. That's very, that's a very positive sign. That's good, although she has her own authoritarian tendencies that have to do with with left authoritarianism but yes, that's good. I haven't seen that. I haven't seen those video clips but that is, that is interesting. But the pattern seems to be that now the left is tougher on authoritarians overseas than the writers, whereas it used to be the other way around that the right was much tougher on authoritarians overseas now it looks like the left. Biden is much tougher on on Putin than most Republicans are today, which is really sad. But Jennifer asked, sometimes a person will plead guilty to a lesser charge, because they're afraid of losing a trial. I don't think I could plead guilty to anything. If I were totally innocent. I mean I don't think I could either. On the other hand, if I thought, if I thought, you know that there was corruption or if I thought things were read against me or if I thought there was something going on. Where the only way for me to save my skin or to get out of there or to have a life was to plead guilty I would do it. I think. And this is true, particularly in a, as a criminal justice system gets more corrupt. Right. I mean, if it's an honest criminal justice system you never want to do that. But you can imagine a criminal justice system being corrupted to the point where you would have to do that that there's no other way to live you just have to you have to find ways to survive. Like Bradley says your life is protected by individual rights. Is this the first principle to integrate for gaining the courage for independence, not grasping this is what leads to irrational animalistic fear and static seeing agreed. You know, I don't really think so because because I think that places too much emphasis on politics and I think it also places too much too much emphasis on other people for you to grasp to have courage and independence. I think to have courage and independence what you need to grasp first and foremost is the efficaciousness of your own mind and the fact that your life is worth living so so the two aspects have to be one. Life is worth living for me and I have the tool to live that life that is, I deserve life I deserve happiness, and I can achieve life and I can achieve happiness. That is what is required for you to avoid the irrational animalistic fear. Once you have those two then you say okay, and when I interact with other people I expect them to respect my rights. And I want I want to form a government in order to in order to make that happen. And in the absence of the government, I will defend my rights myself, but individual rights don't protect you, per se, they only protect you if they're recognized. If the government is recognizing them. I mean, indeed, we live in a world right now where the government is often violating your individual rights. And yet that shouldn't affect your self esteem. It shouldn't affect your rationality shouldn't affect your standing as a human being standing as a human being basically your self esteem is is grounded in in morality and and reality is is grounded in epistemology so the two foundational principles of reason and egoism reason and egoism was what make you a not have fear and not be status seeking status seeking is recognition of your dependence on other people. Fear is a is a is a recognition that you cannot know reality. That you're dependent on your emotions, and reason overcomes fear, egoism overcomes status seeking, seeking an individual rights is just that way in which I want to live with other people. They have to recognize my rights and I will recognize their rights that's that's the principle by which we will live together and trade and engage with one another. Hey, your own. Yeah, I think it's implied by by by what you just said about reason but I would put in terms of like one of the first principles that one needs to grasp the primacy of existence. I mean, of course, I find, yeah, I think it's implied in reason. And it's, you know, it's too. I don't know. I don't know what it's to it. But I think. Yeah, but it's yes it's implied in reason and and it's, it's, of course, facts of fact reality is reality, it is what it is. It should be implied in reason, even though, of course, if you have a content view of reason, it's not. Gail says how vulnerable in your opinion is Canada to invasion from any evil dictator for any purpose at all. Or is Canada security entirely in the hands of the Americans, American stealth, if there is any left. Well, I mean, I would say two things. One is nobody's going to invade Canada. Really, I mean, who would invade Canada. It's too. It's too cold. Nobody wants to actually live in Canada.  But nobody is going to invade Canada because difficulty invade Canada I mean it's it requires crossing an ocean. It requires dealing with very extreme weather. It's a very, very large country. I mean, what are the country in the world could even think about occupying a country the size of Canada that has basis that has basically a front on the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean. It's just not doable.  The more they get to the Canadian shore. It's just from every practical perspective, Canada is one of the best the only country that you should fear as a Canadian occupying them and you might actually view this as a as a plus not a negative. And that is the United States the United States of America is indeed the only country in the world who could and arguably should occupy Canada right and and I'm kidding about the should but occupy Canada. So nobody else could, but beyond that. Yes, I think Canada, no question that Canada benefits from a implicit if not explicit guarantee of the United States. I think it should. I think it's vital for the United States to assure that a hostile nation does not invade the Canada Mexico. I think as I said, I think the United States should leave NATO and let Europeans handle NATO and and the United States Canada Mexico should form a strategic alliance to protect North America, maybe bring in ultimately countries like the American creator NATO like over, over the Americas. And I think, and I think ultimately, you could imagine a world in which Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, and maybe India created a kind of a NATO for Asia, which protected the United States from Russia and China. So, so I think these regional alliances are the right approach to self defense rather than alliances with countries far away that don't really pose a threat there is, you know, the only the the the Russia is not a threat to the United States. And China is only because it can dramatically disrupt the shipping lanes to the US. It's not a threat to invade the United States, nobody's going to invade America. If there are movies about invading America. I just, you know, it's it's it's absurd and science fiction if you understand anything about logistics and military logistics. Nobody's invading the United States nobody's invading Canada. That's not the problem that the problem is the biggest problem the United States has is the United States, and the biggest problem Canada has is Canada. And of course, we all have a problem with nukes, right we all have nuclear bombs and then we have a problem securing the shipping lanes. And I think one of the key responsibilities of the United States military, as long as we are superpower and as long as we are what we are is the protection of shipping lanes around the world I think I ran viewed it that way. The main job of foreign policy is to secure trade. And, and I think, I think that's what US Navy is for and and it's way on demand and understaffed in order to actually fulfill that responsibility. Okay, Adam, there you go. A question about the extent of loaning ammunition to Ukraine. Now, obviously Ukraine can't pay for the ammunition they need right now. To what extent is it legitimate for the government to loan money and goods to a country that we have a strategic interest in supporting because Russia has become dangerous to the shipping lanes and to the stability of our trade in many places that are way too close to Russia at this point. I think the rationale is how far to go. I think the rationality is broader the rationale is whether I like it or not the United States is a member of NATO, and Russia's war on Ukraine is a clear unmitigated threat to NATO, and as part of our responsibilities as a NATO member. If you leave an alliance like NATO in the middle of a crisis, you leave in a position of strength, you strengthen NATO and then you leave. The United States I think should do what it can to support Ukraine in its effort to defeat Russia. There are two ways in which this could be done. One is you could say, look, we're just going to give them the weapons, because the reality is that we are the direct beneficiaries of this. The more Ukraine fights, the longer it fights, and if it is able to beat the Russians, it basically eliminates a threat to the United States and a threat to NATO almost immediately. That is, it will set back any Russian attempts to disrupt NATO, to disrupt the shipping lanes, to disrupt communication. I don't know if there's a story out this weekend, which is not surprising at all. I've actually seen this early in the war. This was a story and it's surfaced again. The Russian spy ships are very busy off the coasts of the UK primarily in Ireland, mapping out in great detail. All the under sea and under ocean, telecommunication cables, fiber optics, and of course gas and electricity. So they want to be able to disrupt not only internet access across the entire world, but they want to be able to disrupt energy access from mainland Europe into the UK and electricity into the UK and back into Europe. Russia is a real threat. And to the extent that America gives ammunition and equipment to Ukraine, just gives it to them. That could certainly be part of a defense budget, where the rationale is we're spending this on the Ukrainians so we don't have to spend it later on in a direct confrontation with Russia. I don't think that's outrageous. I mean, a commander in chief would have to make that case and would have to make it to the American people and there should be a vote in Congress and you should vote on that. And then second is kind of a lease agreement, which is what we have today, which is we're making loans to them with the expectation that one day they will pay it back. And I think that's completely legit again, as long as America has a real interest in it. And if it never gets paid back, okay, but we, we still had an interest in Ukraine winning. But, but, you know, this is what we do with, we did with the UK and World War Two. We didn't want to enter the war but we also didn't want to see the Nazis win. We had a strategic alliance with the UK and we had a long term relationship there so we provided loans to the UK. I mean, one of the great travesties of World War Two is we did the same thing with the Soviet Union. We provided, you know, huge amounts of weapons systems to the Soviet Union during World War Two to fight an enemy, but of course, by giving by doing that we perpetuated the evil empire that was the Soviet Union. So I think it's absolutely legitimate to do it, but you have to make the case right I mean it would be incumbent on an American president to make the case to American people to make the case to Congress and I think I don't know that Biden has made a case I think he's afraid to make the case I think most politicians are afraid to call Russia what they really are. So they kind of tiptoe around it, but it. Yes, absolutely. The same reason why it was okay for in 1973 for the United States to airlift massive amounts of weapons into Israel during the Yom Kippur war. I'm not sure it was it was not it didn't turn out very good for Israel because it made Israel dependent on the US and therefore had a cut a cut a ceasefire deal that you as demanded of it. But it's, it was essential, it was essential for Israel to be able to defend itself and actually go on the offensive. It was completely within the interests of the United States and made sense for the United States to do it. And my guess is that that was also a lease kind of agreement that Israel ultimately paid for, but over time and it good, and I'm sure good interest rates to follow up as I read the Constitution. It's up to the Senate to ratify the Budapest memorandum. If the Senate ratified the Budapest memorandum, the president would be legally obliged to help Ukraine. Yes, but the question is if that's the way you want to do it. I think on the other hand Congress could just say, this is, you know, this is a, this is within the interests of the United States were allocating funds in order to pursue this national interest. And, and, you know, they'd have to convince the president and, and Congress and I guess in a completely rational world, maybe the Supreme Court would have to sign off on it but certainly this the Congress and executive branch would both have to agree that this was a war was supporting a country was supporting in a particular war. All right, Ian. Can you give me a second unmute. So, I know this probably isn't your favorite topic but one thing I saw in the chat last week that annoyed me was this whole closed versus open objectivism. And to me, the willful ignorance of some people about what that even means. I would agree that to us closed objectivism just means that objectivism is the philosophy of Iran that she came up with, including ideas even if she got them from other people that she evaluated and put them in for example, I ran didn't come up with a law of identity right that goes back to Aristotle and other people but that could legitimately be called part of objectivism. I mean, absolutely. It's a thing she identified as part of objectivism who writing some affiliated writers some of Lenard's writing some of even Brandon's writing I mean the stuff that's in the virtue of selfishness capitalism not no deal is Alan Greenspan essay there doesn't mean everything Alan Greenspan ever writes as objectivism God forbid, but, but, but that stuff is is within the scope of objectivism. That's all it means and she was right about everything it doesn't mean it's close to truth. It just means that that's the name of the thing that she came up with she discovered, but it's hers. She gets the name it. You don't get to you don't get a shifted around so you know that is. It's a simple issue I mean there's this debate going on. There's no debate here it's it's either you accept her naming and her property right, or you don't, and either you expect or you don't respect it that's the that's all it is. There's nothing else because there's no philosophical issue here. The fundamental philosophical issue is, you know the important philosophical point to make is the philosophy is not closed well of course not. Nobody argues that nobody in his right mind says no Iron Man has discovered the truth, and no new truths will ever be discovered, and everything she ever wrote is true and will never be challenged. And they also conflated with the idea of control of the evaluation of what is part of objectivism or not, which is up to each of us to decide okay did I know to write this, you know, what did you mean did to be part of the philosophy it's not. I mean, there's no body and AI has never claimed to be the body that makes that decision right it's just weird. You might have an opinion about that. Yeah. But, you know, for example, in fact and value, you know, when when Kelly wrote what he wrote over over tolerance. Let him pick up says this is not part of objectivism this contradicts what I ran wrote Kelly said no no no it doesn't contradict what I ran you get to the site. You know that I'm interested has a position on that. But you don't have to agree with the energy you can do whatever you want to do. No, nobody's nobody's dictating to anybody but the I'm interested has to have a position about these things, because we are philosophical organization responsible, you know, responsible for promoting I man's ideas who have to know what I man's ideas are or have an opinion about that and we might be wrong. So, you know that that is the, that is important and in that sense, if you get some big things wrong about I ran about what is objectivism, then you shouldn't be affiliated with an organization trying to promote objectivism if you're wrong about big issues. And therefore it doesn't it didn't make sense in 1989 or whatever it was 1991 I can't remember for for David Kelly to stay connected to an institute because I managed to he got stuff, significantly wrong about objectivism, and therefore couldn't be a spokesman for an institute anymore you can still do his own thing nobody, nobody says the government should borrow him from from doing stuff it's just that not that I managed to because our interpretation of objectivism I view of objectivism is dramatically different. Go do your own thing. And again, over all these things people make, you know they build mountains over these things and they create as if there's some. There's some big conspiracy theory behind all this. So yes, it's very frustrating, not my favorite topic, but that's okay. It's it keeps rising up because they don't go, they won't go away and then I, my, my view is that ultimately the whole Craig Biddle and the Atlas Society will will merge or something, you know, it kind of makes sense to be the anti AI. So there has to be an anti AI so, but we'll see. Maybe it won't happen, but that would be where I think things are heading. So it'll keep it'll stay around for a long time. And then they'll have a lot of and then they'll be there'll be another third organization. And I've said this in the past. If we're successful, there'll be dozens of them, and they won't agree. And it'll be up to individuals to decide what they believe and what they hold there'll be all kinds of people interpreting I ran in all kinds of ways. It's just the nature of things the more popular she becomes the more misrepresentations they will be the more people will read her and misinterpret her and and get passionate about something and there were more disagreements there will be. So for those of you thinking, we're all going to be one big happy tense and we're all going to an objective is world in the future is a world in which everybody agrees about everything that would be bizarre and ridiculous even about there'll be a group in 100 in 200 years when the world is dominated by objective there'll be deep disagreements about philosophical about what I wrote and what what's the meaning of this particular paragraph of I ran and some people do right and some people wrong. It's never that this agreement is going to go away when it does human thinking is gone away. The mind has gone away so yeah that that is a seductive position in a sense so like every time I go to Ocon or I was just at the math and you go in expecting oh you know I'm going to like everybody I meet and agree with them and no that's not the case I met plenty of people are like yeah that's not the way I think about things that I don't really want to talk to that person anymore. Absolutely and it's going to be like that when the objective is far more dominant in the culture in some ways even more so, because there'll be more people exposed and they for more opportunities for disagreement and distortion and and interpretation. Andrew. I was struck by something ran wrote in the letters book, where she said that the relationship between wine and gal wine and and Howard Rourke was is the strongest. You know the friendship is the strongest relationship in the book. In the fountain it in the fountain it. It's interesting because gal placates them up. And Howard does the opposite. Where do you see like how did that nexus form how did that bond form so strongly given that they came at it from such opposite points. I think it forms around. Whoops. Yeah, I missed that final choices were made oppositely. But they're both. They're both in some sense seeking their own well being, even though wine and of course defines it wrongly, and ultimately it destroys him and so all his actions actually not achieving his well being but he believes it is. He's motivated by that he's motivated by some sense of selfishness even though he doesn't define selfishness. He's, he's a man of immense ability, and who drives to get his way in a way that I think work does as well in that that kind of bonds them. They have this immense confidence and you call itself esteem. And they both have an immense purpose, even though one of them has a flawed purpose and a flawed self esteem, right they both they both have it and embrace it and a driven by it that they're not they're not doing halfway stuff they go all the way. And they become fully committed. Sadly, you know, the relationship can be complete because even though it's a strong relationship because wine and can live up to work and he knows it so he's the weak link. And, and work and it's the same with that with Dominique right, but Dominique can rise up to to work and for women it's too late. For her it's not partially because of the way I read views from an entity I think but but for her it's not too late she can she can still weighs up and and and reach works level so. It's complicated and ran has a very distinct view of psychology and a very distinct view of what appeals and ran was so non dogmatic about objectivism rate and so non dogmatic about human relationships. It wasn't like, yeah, you know, so many objectives I know who if you if you think of yourself as a hard work. That's a problem to begin with but if you think of yourself hard work, you're immediately looking for Dagny, right you're looking immediately for Dagny, and how to look is loves Dominique and and I don't think I don't think 99% of objectives could handle Dominique, I don't think they would know what to do with Dominique what would they, and then they would they would poo poo wine and they would completely. Well, he sold out he's second handed, you know, how can I have anything to do with the man who second handed. And there's this attitude towards I don't know. Steve Jobs about Gates, Jeff Bezos, even it's like, well he's not perfect so I can't even admire him for fun ever be best friends with him. You think about I ran and you think about the characters and how flawed they are, and how much respect she has for flawed character like gain whiner and a Dominique, or read and at the beginning of the novel, and how much he loves these characters and how much admiration she has them for them. And then, if you try to bring that into your life and you and you look at people in your, your weight, you're completely negating them because you discovered some flaw in them or because they, they said something that they spoke to you, then you're not getting it you're not getting you know you're not getting in our first handed way and you're not getting what it's about to live this. And what it means to be a value or which is the essence it's not about following the prescription of a philosophy it's about being a value it's about loving life and loving values and, and to see somebody who is the value or who might not be not agree with you and a lot of things, but who is a value is creating and building and making and changing the world. And to disdain that person, as so many objectives disdain CEOs who they disagree with and politics. Something very wrong, something very wrong in, and I think I read would reject that. It reminds me of in the voices book I forgot the exact title. But there's, there's a person who got interviewed who was like her editor or something like that, and said, they talked about politics and this person was a died in the world liberal. And I said, I don't really care about your politics as long as you're going to represent the book, the way that I want the book represented. Exactly. Exactly. And think about how many people in my chat would like a leftist. I can't deal with a leftist. I can't even talk to leftist.  You know, granted leftist or worse today than we're back then but you know, it's not everybody. It's not everybody. So, very interesting. Yeah, absolutely. And it takes a while if I think it's going to take it takes a few generations of this philosophy for people to get it right and to get it right psychologically in terms of applying them into their lives and to the value systems, not just intellectually. Practice. All right, let's do some super chats. We are, whoa, we're still about $400 short of our super chat goal so and we have no $20 questions right now so if you're going to ask a question from now on make it a $20 question and yeah I encourage encourage you know $20 $20 questions that would be good. That would be a good number. All right, let's start with Michael 100 years from now. Cut. How does America look. Michael USC is impossible questions. What am I supposed to do with this. How economically free are you and what is our attitude towards altruism and how many Alex Epstein's do we have at least 30. I think by then we've already cloned Alex right because we have the technology so we literally have 30 Alex Epstein's it's not it's not just people like Alex that we have. I don't know. I have no idea. So many things can happen in the next 100 years. I mean so many things. A few years ago I didn't predict what happened in the next 10 years. I certainly couldn't predict 100 years from now I mean I hope, and I have some reason to think that objectivism will be one of the dominant philosophies in the world maybe the dominant secular philosophy in the world people be debating it and articulating it openly. There will be a need in that sense for 30 Alex Epstein's. There will have been more than 30 people doing what Alex Epstein has done to get us to where we are 100 years from now. We will be moving towards economic freedom and economic liberty we will have more freedom than we have today, I think 100 years from now. And this will be these philosophical issues will be top of mind among intellectuals and be debated and discussed and argued about and. Yeah, I mean, that's the best I can do and what is that worth. Almost nothing, because who knows what will happen between now and 100 years. And given that I'm not going to be around. And what happens in the next 30 years, because I'm going to be around during these 30 years and I think the next 30 years are going to be rough, rough for everybody. And it is this, you know this is a whole show to do with this is this interesting confluence. And you guys can think about what this means but there's this fascinating confluence of the next 30 years are going to involve some of the most dramatic change, technological changes in all of human history. This is one of the most powerful technological tools we have ever seen in all of human history, both in bio and in tech. And yet, the real deterioration in respect for liberty freedom individualism and reason, and how that's never happened in all of human history. And how that resolved you can imagine that leading to the human beings wiping themselves out wiping humanity out, or you could believe that that is going to lead to technology allowing us to grow and be successful and become rich. And beyond our any belief and and that, you know, some way will ultimately accelerate a philosophical revolution. Who knows, but I do think this is what's going to happen over the next 20 30 years is really really unique in human history. We've never had this. And it's not just about having nukes that you can blow up the whole it's, it's having tools that reduce the need for human labor, dramatically. But then do we have the freedom to create new jobs, and what kind of social upheaval does that create it does involve having the technology to cure maybe most diseases and to allow people to live very very long lives. So we have to pay them so security and we and we treat them as little children throughout their lives. There's people are people going to want that up. What is that result in how to how does society adapt to that. People have children anymore. It is so much interesting this going to happen in the next few decades. I'm fascinated by it and this is why I like to watch technology because I think that's where that's where the the disruption is happening. It's happening on the technology front that that's going to completely disrupt human life in ways that I don't know how we handle. All right, a friend opposite forgot this and may was today so I have a silly question. How many clones of you would it take to fight a full grown lion and when no weapons, no weapons. I don't know. I mean, 1015 I have no idea. I have no idea.  How would you approach it? How would you even approach fighting a lion with your hands. Anyway, bizarre question friend hopper. Thanks for the entertainment. All right, hopper Campbell is the reason Objectivism isn't resonating with people because most people today are anti intellectual savages. And particularly in the context to what I just said. No, it's not that they're anti intellectual savages that lots of people out there who's super smart and produce and creed and build and make and, and no more stuff than any of us do about particularly But they are they are embedded with altruism and they're embedded with mysticism. And so I think that the reason it doesn't resonate is because of how prevalent and how entrenched ideas about altruism and mysticism are and they're not. They're not so entrenched that they're causing a class of civilization because altruism and mysticism don't lead to technology, but they're there.  It's not going to help your life it's not going to lead to. I don't think happiness and success and prosperity. There are lots of people who you're going to find you cannot convince of Objectivism, who are super basically decent good people who you can have a relationship with and should maybe even vote for Liam says we only resonate with people who haven't suppressed their feelings. I know people. I know lots of people who suppress their feelings, and they have other people who resonate with them. I don't, I don't know that I can tell you. I don't know that I can tell you that that is a principle of who resonates with you. I just don't think that that doesn't strike me as right. Ian dropped off thanks Ian. Let's see we're going to go through a few of these super chat questions and then we'll go back to the panel to Andrew and Adam quickly and we'll call it a day. All right, Michael says, would a second Biden term be so terrible, it would probably bias more time while making the Republican Party better. Why do you think we can make the Republican Party better what is it about the last nine years that suggests to you that the Republican Party is open to becoming better and that has any better elements in it. I don't know. And by a second Biden term is a disaster. It's already a disaster what he's doing. It's so many ways.  She is so disastrous and she's applying things that will have long term bad consequences. And imagine another four years of con at the FTC. Just that is is a nightmare not to mention everybody and all the other disaster things that Biden is doing and all the other people that he's putting in powerful places that will have horrific consequences over the long run. So Louis Philip know Liberty advocates past too many time past too many time to react. If we want to win we must go on the offense and propose to advance our goal propose an agenda. Yeah, I agree. Go for it. We should all do it. I have an agenda I keep proposing it even did a state of the Union address as if I was president with my agenda for my next four to eight years so I am all in to proposing agendas. Nobody listens to my agenda. You know, it's, it's useless to propose an agenda. Nobody listens to Michael says why did Bush try to privatize Social Security and not Reagan Bush seemed like more of a consistent altruist and Reagan Bush didn't try to privatize Social Security God. He tried to pseudo privatize a tiny fraction of Social Security, and he did it because you know the people around him convinced him the Social Security was was was going bankrupt, and he had an opportunity to create a legacy by saving it. But the whole point was to save Social Security by privatizing a fraction of it. And, and so judge Bush was no saints and Ronald Reagan was terrible not Ronald Reagan nominated committee to investigate how to save Social Security. And you know who the head of that committee was anybody know who the head of that committee was good old buddy of ours Alan Greenspan Alan Greenspan headed that committee. He was an opportunity for an objective is to say, we should privatize it and ultimately do away with it and here's some options and how to do it. And, and here's some ways and keep you know all kinds he could have. Wow, the number of things he could have done and written a an amazing document that even if it was not taken seriously would have now been a model for future commissions that looked at Social Security. He would have set a framework. What Alan Greenspan recommend instead, raise Social Security taxes and and make the retirement age later, and they actually did that the Reagan administration actually that was the Social Security reform.  But that's what he wrote. That's what happens when objectives get people who consider themselves objective is get into governments and sell themselves to the devil. So what Greenspan did Steven, thank you really appreciate the support. It's still 260 bucks to go. Okay, three more questions and we'll get to our panelists Frank says, I just saw why F lecture by Andy puts the yeah he was the see over food company I forget which one. It's not a small case for free market capitalism, but he also defended tariffs and fair trade. That's free trade. No that's not free market that's the problem with these guys. He's hugely influenced by a grand he says, and yet he comes out for tariffs and and and fair trade so you know it's it's it's it's better not to have defenders of the mall case for capitalism, who don't understand it. If you have no conception of it, then just not to have defenders. So but that that's who he is used to be a huge Iron Man fan. What's the helper says what's the difference between being dogmatic and absolute dogmatic is is is anti reason dogmatic is believing something because that's what the dog must says you should believe. It's it's it's it's believing something in spite of the evidence in spite of whether you actually know it or not because that's what you're supposed to hold absolute just means this is the way it is. It's it's it's knowing that there was such a thing as certainty. Okay, Justin says I will support Trump no matter what I'm loyal. That is, that is the lemus statement ever, and that is authoritarianism that is fundamentally the epistemology and the nature of authoritarianism. And for confirming my bleak view of the current state of America, Americans, Americans. Justin just confirmed it. Thank you Justin. All right, quickly, Adam. Yes, you've mentioned Carly Fiorina in relatively positive contacts.  She destroyed Bell Labs. She ran the swindle that she invented that essentially forced loosened technologies into something very near bankruptcy. And I don't think inventing a new swindle is something meritorious. So how much do you know about her. And do you have any positive reasons for mentioning her favorably. So I obviously don't know enough about her because I never associated who with the, with the death of Lucent actually just listened to a book that talks about the death of Bell Labs and Lucent and didn't mention Carly Fiorina so I'll have to. I'll have to research the connection between Carly Fiorina and Bell Labs and Lucent. But certainly if she had a hand in that, that would condemn her to a 911 of hell, just that by itself, because Bell Labs and and it's, it was spun off into a company called Lucent was one one of the great great great institutions of American institutions. And it's it clearly floundered it clearly lost and ultimately was sold to the French company, I think it was sold to Alcatel, which eventually was sold to the Finnish company Nokia, which eventually became a subsidiary of Microsoft, which is where I get my pen. But here only only part of Nokia became a subsidy of Microsoft, not that part, not the Lucent part. The part that became a subsidy of Microsoft is just a handset, which now doesn't exist. The, the, the, the, the switching equipment, which is what, which is what was important the telecommunication equipment manufacturing is still a Nokia Nokia still the big alternative to the Chinese in terms of them and Ericsson are the two companies that still represent an alternative to Chinese telecommunication. And thank you for correcting that. I obviously don't know that much about her. You know, I think she got a bad rap at HP. When she ran HP, you know, and went through the consolidation with compact. I think that was under her watch. Ben, I think the consolidation with compact was several years before her watch. So I'll have to go research site. Maybe I shouldn't talk because I don't remember it well enough. But, and then I thought at the time she turned out to be a lot worse than I thought she was. There was a period in which I thought she was quite good on capitalism as a presidential candidate. And, and because she came from California, not that religious but then it turned out when she went for the Senate in California, that she was not religious and she made abortion, like the number the anti abortion position the number one position of a plaque, and she ran on that even though that was a no, she couldn't win in California and that so it was stupid above all else. So my respect for declined. I have, I mentioned her because sometimes because Trump was so brutal towards her, not towards her positions, but just, you know, calling her ugly and just just just on a, on a childish level was brutal towards her and so she comes up in that context. So Trump is always childish in the bad sense. Yes. In other words, his mental maturity is about the level of a toddler. Yeah, I think that's true of most people who have low self esteem, which is, I know people don't believe me but Trump has very low self esteem. Okay, thank you, Adam Andrew. Going back to the fountain head, and you brought up the similarities between Dominique and wine and they both had a malevolent universe premise, and they seem to have dealt with it differently. Is there a way that they dealt with it differently such that Dominique was able to reclimate herself and Gale was not. Yeah, I mean, I think, I think primarily it was because Gale's whole purpose in life, i.e. his career, his productive endeavors were organized around that malevolent universe premise and when for a little bit he tried to fight that right when he's trying to defend work in the trial. He just goes against him and he capitulates, he doesn't have the strength to overcome it. I think for Dagny it's not as integrated. At that point, right? He has Tui on the payroll at that point, right? He has Tui on the payroll way before that and he's had Tui for a long time and he's a facilitator of Tui and part of what I think makes it so difficult for him is he comes to acknowledge the fact that he's facilitated Tui and how evil Tui is. Because Dagny, Dominique has never, she's cynical towards Tui, she's never facilitated Tui.   But she does strategize.  So I think it's as integrated into her being and, you know, and this is what I think Rand's view of femininity masculinity comes in. I think Dominique is still on the feminine premise of looking for a hero, looking for somebody to look up to. And so she can overcome a lot of baggage because he can help raise her up to where he is because she has a relationship of a hero worshipper with work. Blaine it is not an opposition because he's, he can't quite have that relationship with with with work so that's a more psychological sort of point that I cannot elaborate on somebody else would have to do that. But I get a sense that it's right, even though I can't really prove that it's right. That's true. There's something about a female male relationship that can never be completely replicated among heterosexuals between two men in terms of just the way they relate to one another. All right, so we have one more final super chat question it appears that it's final we'll see. What can make a great against supporters strike me as not only mindless but proudly mindless I think that's right. They value their devotion above anything else, including facts, like a medieval priest, someone should write an article on it. Yes, I think that's absolutely right it's why somebody like Justin can come out and say, I'm loyal I will support Trump to the end that is loyalty as a virtue which I ran would cringe at the idea that loyalty is a virtue. And this kind of loyalty this kind of blind loyalty to something mindless loyalty, but that's that's what we are today, we definitely have. And this is authoritarianism this is the psychology and mentality of a people ready for an authoritarian to come around and rally them around some kind of flag some kind of cause some kind of mystical thing that they could get excited about so. All right, thanks everybody I really appreciate our panelists and the support that they provide on a monthly basis I really appreciate all the super chat is thank you. If you'd like to support the show and become a panelist you can do so at $25 or more on any one of the platforms, a Patreon or your own book show that comes last support primarily. And if you would like, you know, or you could just become a monthly donut whatever level you would like on those platforms let's let's try to. Some of you who have never supported the show who don't do it to the super chat and don't do it on a monthly basis, please become monthly supporters. You know, it really will help us stabilize the show and make it possible for me to bug you less about the super chat. Super chat right now is super super important in terms of funding this show. If we had more monthly contributors, we would actually could. I could loosen up on the super chat and not bug you as much because the money coming in from it would be less important. All right everybody. Thank you. I appreciate it. I will see you all tomorrow we're actually going to do a show tomorrow. I don't know what the topic is going to be I will let you know but tomorrow 8pm East Coast time. We will have a show and then there'll be new shows on Monday and Tuesday, maybe a show Monday night. We'll see if I can squeeze that in and then I'm off for like three and a half weeks and we'll have to figure out when the shows are between my travel but we will see you soon. Bye everybody. Thank you.


Live from Austin, Texas, it's theCUBE. Covering DockerCon 2017, brought to you by Docker and support from its ecosystem partners. Hi, I'm Stu Miniman joined with Jim Kobielus. Happy to have at the end of our two days of live coverage here with DockerCon 2017 on theCUBE, we've got a practitioner. And also was one that did a great presentation in the keynote this morning. Happy to welcome Swami Kosher Lakota, who is the global head of infrastructure and operations with Visa. So, Swami, welcome in what's in your wallet. Yes. I all have Visa cards in the wallet, right. It's in your container, you're in DockerCon. That's a good one, Jim, I like that. So, we were really impressed. I tell you, social media was lighting up, going through your case study, talking about how kind of the before, very much a virtualized environment looks like many data centers I went through that digital transformation, if you will, as to what you're doing. Before we get into kind of your case studies, tell us just a little bit about you, your role, how much you're flying around the world with the infrastructure and ops. Right, so I'm responsible for Visa Inc's operations and infrastructure. So, my responsibility is to kind of run everything that's inside Visa that does the payment processing. So, that's my responsibility. I travel a lot, we have a global team, Visa is a global company. So, I'm on the road a lot. Yeah, so, I love the case study you did today because it's always what we want to do as analysts. But, let's talk about the pain points, let's paint the before, you know, how did everything go through and point the after. So, we want to encapsulate a little bit of that. As I said, highly virtualized environment. What was the pain point? What was the objective? You know, I don't think any executive came down and said, hey, containers are awesome, let's just do stuff because it sounds cool. What was the real business driver for what you were doing? Right, so like I mentioned in the keynote, the number one priority that we have for my organization is to make developers productive. You know, we take this as a challenge where any employee, a developer who joins Visa, we want them to be able to write code and publish code into production on the same day. That's what we're aspiring to go. That was the driver. So, we're looking at every minute of what it takes to get the provisioning and we're trying to streamline it so that we can deliver that vision quickly.  Right, so when I talk about provisioning or in general managing operations for a large organization or large enterprise, I look at it from two dimensions. One, the one-time provisioning, but then most of the challenges and the opportunities are in the life cycle, right? Yes, virtualization solves the one-time provisioning, but we haven't really solved the managing the life cycle. Right, you know, it still takes, even if it takes one day to two days to provision the virtual image, the pre-provisioning task, post-provisioning task, and care and feeding of it, whether it's patching and maintenance, doing tech refresh, it's still very intrusive and very painful. So when we looked at the whole problem, we wanted to solve all of them at once, and that's when the containerization and microservices attracted us. Swami, when this rolled out, I mean, is this 100% your environment in this new one, or have you been doing a phased approach, you know, how does it look today? I wish it's 100%, but we are in the early stages, you know, we have one application. It is now a Tower of Success, and we have about five other application teams that are looking into it, and then we build more towers of success, and then this becomes kind of like the part of the standard offering. So the initial implementation was a pilot, a showcase of the technology, or explain where the idea for this initial implementation came from, was it driven from the business level or from the technical level? It's a partnership between the application team and the infrastructure teams. The boundaries between the two teams are kind of blurring, and at Visa, one of the great things that we have is that we collaborate very well internally. So when we wanted to have this mission of making developers product here on the same day, when an application team is going through the refactoring process, we basically said, hey, maybe we can join forces, and we have a good collaboration, and we said, let's do it together. So there was a refactoring project already underway, and then containers and Docker came in to the overall equation, essentially, or that project. They both came at the same time. It's a perfect marriage at the time. The timing of when we want to do refactoring, and the timing of when containers came at the same time. So you say it was a success, and essentially it was proved out internally within your development organization, and tell us, what other areas of Visa are likely to become containerized fairly soon in terms of the core applications? There are about five other groups that we're looking at that still is work in progress. The next use case that I'm excited about is the kind of like the batch use case, right? That's about as much as I can say about the rest of the five work those, right? Swamy, there's a certain set of data services that you get when you have a virtualized environment. Can you talk to us a little bit about that difference going to containers as to how much was seamless? How much did you have to plan? I think about things like high availability, security that I'm sure are important to you guys. Right, see with the way we have done the implementation is to kind of preserve the same high standards that we have with availability and security as well. In fact, I would argue that availability is higher because now we have instrumented those microservices in a way where we know exactly when we need the help of another service, right? And then we can create this. So from an availability perspective, it's better than what we have today, which is already good, right? Because we can scale up and down. We know when the system needs more resources. And from a security perspective, even before the implementation, we made sure that the area is rock solid and it has the right controls for us. One of the slides we liked that you did in the presentation this morning was talking about utilization. We know that most companies are not utilizing most of it. First of all, forecasting what you're going to use, when you're going to use it is really tough either. Overdo it, you'll underdo it. You've got way too much gear sitting there. You're really transforming yourself to be an internal service provider. Do you have any key metrics as to how much greater utilization, what that means to the business to total cost that you need to be concerned with? See, the absolute numbers of how we'd like to see our infrastructure be 90% utilized, 80% utilized, these kind of old school in my mind. That's audacious. That's what you like to do. That's your goal. Say that again. That's your target utilization. Well, I don't have a target utilization. That's what I'm saying is that using a particular watermark as your target utilization is old school. It should be elastic. Because sometimes when we do campaigns, we don't know what type of a workload we would get. We just are focusing on just run enough and then only grow when you need. This is why we call it as just in time infrastructure. That way it is only provision when you need it. When you're done with it, we'll do provision. With the microservices and how fast we can get the containers, you could do that. Okay, how about the operational impact to what you're doing? How much retraining did you do with your professional services you need to have come in? Was it changing roles or was there any changing headcount? I know it's just the one application you've done so far, but where is it today? What do you see as you roll this out further? From an operational perspective, the skill set mix will change. Instead of having eyes on glass when you have an operational issue, you are working in a predictive environment where you can proactively say that a particular outage can occur. The skill set may change, but in terms of the size and scale of the operation at least in the early stages that we are in, we don't see a whole lot of shifts there. Were there any surprises when you rolled this out or anything that you look back that you say, okay, well, now when I go to the next five groups, I'll be able to say, oh, we'll do this faster. You need to plan this a little bit differently. What lessons learned can you share? So there are four lessons learned that I mentioned. One is very important to have the right granularity for your service. When you take a monolithic service and then divide it into 10, 12 microservices, you got to make sure that the granularity is right. That's number one. And you don't want it to be overly granular. You don't want to keep it monolithic. And the second thing is you are reducing that to microservices. However, from a memory perspective, you have to make sure that you're not asking for a whole lot of memory as well. You cannot have the same heap size as that of a big monolithic service. Microservices needs to have smaller footprints so that you can run more and get the more utilization of your hardware. Because everything is memory bound. Even in your virtual environment, it's not a CPU, it's all memory bound. All right, Swami, you've been interacting with a lot of people. What did you take of the show so far? Interaction with your peers. Are you able to find a lot of other companies that have similar challenges that you can share experiences with? So a couple of things that I liked about the announcement that Docker has made. One, the enhancements that they're making on the security are very valuable. And then the whole notion about secure supply chain is very relevant. And the second thing that I liked is how easy it is now to take a virtual workload and then putting them in the container. So I think the announcement that they have made was attractive. As far as the explore floor is concerned, we're not putting our workloads in public clouds anytime soon. We're still building private clouds and then hosting it inside there. There's a lot of people on the expo where they're offering services for the cloud. For example, DataDog and stuff like that. I wish we had seen more on how to manage large container deployments from an operations perspective and any innovation there. But I also haven't had a chance to completely sweep through the floor also. You know, in the keynote I heard it was, containers are everywhere you want to be. Did they take the tagline from Visa everywhere you want to be, you know? Maybe, maybe, I did not notice it, but yeah. All right, Swamy, I want to give you the final word. As you look out, you know, things you're excited about in the ecosystem or anything, the feedback that you'd give to be able to make your job easier, you know, help you move this forward even more into your environment. You know, I think the one thing that I would say is that in order to be able to transform enterprise IT and take the innovation as rapidly as we would like to have, every enterprise, the infrastructure and application teams have to partner. And the barriers between them should be collapsed and they should, you know, innovate together, collaborate together, that I would say is number one. And number two, the ecosystem is becoming complex, right? It's difficult to navigate, you know, what should be, because for every single member and partner of the ecosystem, you have more than one choice. So picking at the right stack is very important as well. Swamy, really appreciate you joining us, sharing online and, you know, the really great kind of encapsulation notes. I had said, you know, early on in this wave of Docker, it was like, oh, maybe Docker can help free us from the infrastructure, but of course, we know there's relationships they need to go together. And, you know, as we're maturing, that complexity is getting better. Thank you so much for joining us and sharing with this community and ours. Jim and I will be back with our wrap up here from the two days of live coverage. Thanks for watching theCUBE.