back to indexNationalism Debate: Yaron Brook and Yoram Hazony | Lex Fridman Podcast #256
link |
The following is a conversation with Yoram Brook and Yoram Hazoni.
link |
This is Yoram's third time on this podcast and Yoram's first time.
link |
Yoram Brook is an Objectivist Philosopher, Chairman of the Ayn Rand Institute, host of
link |
the Yoram Brook Show, and the coauthor of Free Market Revolution and Equal is Unfair.
link |
Yoram Hazoni is a National Conservatism thinker, Chairman of the Edmund Burke Foundation that
link |
hosted the National Conservatism Conference.
link |
He is also the host of the NatCon Talk and author of The Virtue of Nationalism and an
link |
upcoming book called Conservatism, A Rediscovery.
link |
Allow me to say a few words about each part of the two word title of this episode, Nationalism
link |
First Debate, I would like to have a few conversations this year that are a kind of debate with two
link |
or three people that hold differing views on a particular topic but come to the table
link |
with respect for each other and a desire to learn and discover something interesting together
link |
through the empathetic exploration of the tension between their ideas.
link |
This is not strictly a debate, it is simply a conversation.
link |
There is no structure, there is no winners, except of course just a bit of trash talking
link |
Some of these topics will be very difficult and I hope you can keep an open mind and have
link |
patience with me as the kind of moderator who tries to bring out the best in each person
link |
and the ideas discussed.
link |
Okay that's my comment on the word Debate.
link |
Now onto the word Nationalism.
link |
This debate could have been called Nationalism versus Individualism or National Conservatism
link |
versus Individualism or just Conservatism versus Individualism.
link |
As we discussed in this episode, these words have slightly different meanings depending
link |
This is especially true, I think, for any word that ends in "-ism".
link |
I personally enjoy the discussion of the meaning of such philosophical words.
link |
I don't think it's possible to arrive at a perfect definition that everybody agrees with,
link |
but the process of trying to do so for a bit is interesting and productive, at least to
link |
As long as we don't get stuck there, as some folks sometimes do in these conversations.
link |
This is the Lex Readman Podcast, to support it please check out our sponsors in the description
link |
and now here's my conversation with Yoram Brooke and Yoram Hosoni.
link |
I attended the excellent debate between the two of you yesterday at UT Austin.
link |
The debate was between ideas of Conservatism, represented by Yoram Hosoni, and ideas of
link |
Individualism, represented by Yoram Brooke.
link |
Let's start with the topics of the debate.
link |
Yoram, how do you define Conservatism, maybe in the way you were thinking about it yesterday?
link |
What to you are some principles of Conservatism?
link |
Let me define it and then we can get into principles if you want.
link |
When I talk about political Conservatism, I'm talking about a political standpoint that
link |
regards the recovery, elaboration, and restoration of tradition as the key to maintaining a nation
link |
and strengthening it through time.
link |
This is something that if you have time to talk about it like we do on the show, it's
link |
worth emphasizing that Conservatism is not like Liberalism or Marxism.
link |
Liberalism and Marxism are both kind of universal theories and they claim to be able to tell
link |
you what's good for human beings at all times in all places.
link |
And Conservatism is a little bit different because it's going to carry different values
link |
in every nation, in every tribe.
link |
Even every family, you can say, has somewhat different values and these loyalty groups,
link |
they compete with one another.
link |
That's the way human beings work.
link |
So it's deeply rooted in history of that particular area of land.
link |
Well, I wouldn't necessarily say land, you're right that many forms of Conservatism are
link |
tied to a particular place.
link |
So how does the implementation of Conservatism to you differ from the ideal of Conservatism,
link |
the implementations you've seen of political Conservatism in the United States and the
link |
rest of the world?
link |
Just to give some context, because it's a loaded term, like most political terms.
link |
So when people think about conservative in the United States, they think about the Republican
link |
Party, what, can you kind of disambiguate some of this, what are we supposed to think
link |
Yeah, that's a really important question.
link |
Usually the word conservative is associated with Edmund Burke and with the English common
link |
Going back centuries and centuries, there's kind of a classical English conservative tradition
link |
that goes Fortescue, Hooker, Coke, Seldon, Hale, Burke, Blackstone before Burke.
link |
If you take that kind of as a benchmark and you compare it, then you can compare it to
link |
things like the American Federalist Party at the time of the American founding is in
link |
many respects very much in keeping with that tradition.
link |
As you go forward, there's an increasing mix of liberalism into conservatism.
link |
I think by the time you get to the 1960s with William Buckley and Frank Meyer, the jargon
link |
term is fusionism.
link |
By the time you get there, it's arguable that their conservatism isn't very conservative
link |
anymore, that it's kind of a public liberalism mixed with a private conservatism.
link |
So a lot of the debate that we have today about what does the word conservatism actually
link |
mean, a lot of the confusion comes from that, comes from the fact that on the one hand,
link |
we have people who use the term, I think properly historically to refer to this common law tradition
link |
of which Burke was a spokesman, but there are lots of other people who when they say
link |
conservative, they just mean liberal.
link |
I think that's a big problem.
link |
It's a problem just to have an intelligent debate is difficult when people are using
link |
the word almost too antithetical.
link |
What would you say the essential idea of conservatism is time?
link |
You mentioned your father's a physicist.
link |
So a lot of physicists when they form models of the universe, they don't consider time.
link |
So everything is dealt with instantaneously.
link |
A particle is represented fully by its current state, velocity and position.
link |
You're saying, so you're arguing with all of physics and your father, as we always do,
link |
that their time matters in conservatism.
link |
That's the fundamental element is the full history matters and you cannot separate the
link |
individual from the history, from the roots that they come from.
link |
The parallel in political theory is what's called rationalism.
link |
I guess we'll probably talk about that some.
link |
Rationalism is kind of an instantaneous, timeless thing.
link |
Before I mentioned that liberalism and various enlightenment theories, they don't include
link |
Their goal is to say, look, there's such a thing as universal human reason.
link |
All human beings, if they reason properly, will come to the same conclusions.
link |
If that's true, then it removes the time consideration.
link |
It removes tradition and context because everywhere where you are at any time, you ought to be
link |
able to use reason and come to the same conclusions about politics or morals.
link |
So that's a theory like Immanuel Kant or John Locke is an example, Hobbes is an example.
link |
That kind of political theorizing really does say at a given instant, we can know pretty
link |
much everything that we need to know, at least the big things.
link |
And conservatism is the opposite.
link |
It's a traditionalist view, exactly as you say, that says that history is crucial.
link |
So you're on, you say that history is interesting, but perhaps not crucial if in the context
link |
No, I mean, I think there's a false dichotomy he presented here, and that is that one view
link |
holds that you can derive anything from a particular historical path and kind of an
link |
And if we know the history, we know where we should be tomorrow.
link |
We know where we should stand today.
link |
And the other path is we ignore history, we ignore facts, we ignore what's going on.
link |
We can derive from some a priori axioms, we can derive a truth right now.
link |
And both are false.
link |
Both of those views, in my view, are false.
link |
And you know, Ayn Rand and I reject both of those views.
link |
And I think the better thinkers of the Enlightenment did as well, although they sometimes fall
link |
into the trap of appearing like rationalists.
link |
And Jorm and I agree on one thing, and that is that Kant is one of, you know, we've talked
link |
about this in the past, Alex, but we both hate Kant.
link |
We both think Kant is, I at least think Kant is probably the most destructive philosopher
link |
since Plato, who was pretty destructive himself.
link |
And part of the problem is that Kant divorces reason from reality.
link |
That is, he divorces reason from history.
link |
He divorces reason from experience, because we don't have direct experience of reality
link |
according to Kant, right?
link |
We're removed from that direct experience.
link |
But I view Kant as the anti Enlightenment, that is, I view Kant as the destroyer of good
link |
Enlightenment thinking.
link |
And I acknowledge a lot of history of philosophy, people who do history of philosophy view Kant
link |
as the embodiment of the Enlightenment, that is the ultimate.
link |
But I think that's a mistake.
link |
I think both Rousseau and Kant are fundamentally the goal, the mission in life is to destroy
link |
the Enlightenment.
link |
So my view is neither of those options are the right option.
link |
That is, the true reason based, reason is not divorced from reality.
link |
It's quite the opposite.
link |
It's a faculty of identifying and integrating what?
link |
It's identifying and integrating the facts of reality as we know them through sense perception
link |
or through the study of history, through what actually happened.
link |
So it's the integration of those facts.
link |
It's the knowledge of that history.
link |
And then what we do is we abstract away principles based on what's worked in the past, what hasn't
link |
worked in the past, the consequences of different ideas, different past, different actions.
link |
We abstract away principles that then can be universal.
link |
We make mistakes, right?
link |
We can come up with a universal principle, it turns out it's not.
link |
But if we have the whole scope of human history, we can derive principles as we do in life,
link |
as individuals, we derive principles that are then truths that we can live by, but you
link |
don't do that by ignoring history.
link |
You do that by learning history, by understanding history, by understanding in a sense tradition
link |
and where it leads to, and then trying to do better.
link |
And I think good thinkers are constantly trying to do better based on what they know about
link |
the past and what they know about the present.
link |
What's the difference between studying history on a journey of reason and tradition?
link |
So you mentioned that Burke understood that reason begins with an inherited tradition
link |
So what's the difference between studying history, but then being free to go any way
link |
you want and tradition where it feels more, I don't want to say a negative term like burden,
link |
but there's more of a momentum that forces you to go the same way as your ancestors.
link |
It's the recognition that people are wrong, often are wrong.
link |
Including parents?
link |
Including your parents, including your teachers, including everybody.
link |
Everybody is potentially wrong, and that you can't accept anybody just because they happen
link |
to come before you.
link |
That is, you have to evaluate and judge, and you have to have a standard by which to evaluate
link |
and judge the actions of those who came before you, whether they are your parents, whether
link |
they are the state in which you happen to be born, whether they are somebody on the
link |
other side of planet Earth.
link |
You can judge them if you have a standard.
link |
And my standard, and I think the right standard, is human well being.
link |
That which is good for human beings, qua human beings, is the standard by which we judge.
link |
I can say that certain periods of history were bad.
link |
It's important to study them.
link |
It's important to understand what they did that made them bad so we cannot do that again.
link |
And I can say certain cultures, certain periods in time were good.
link |
Because they promoted human well being and human flourishing.
link |
That's the standard.
link |
To derive from that, okay, what is it that made a particular culture good?
link |
What is it that made that particular culture positive in terms of human well being and
link |
human flourishing?
link |
What made this bad?
link |
And hopefully from that, I can derive a principle.
link |
Okay, if I want human flourishing and human well being in the future, I want to be more
link |
like these guys and less like those guys.
link |
I want to derive what is the principle that will guide me in the future.
link |
That's I think how human knowledge ultimately develops.
link |
I think people often make a mistake, I'm not saying your own, but lots of people don't
link |
actually read the original sources and so what happens is people will attack conservatives
link |
assuming that conservatives think that whatever comes from the past is right.
link |
And actually, it's very difficult to find a thinker who actually says something like
link |
Seldon or Burke, the big conservative theorists hooker, they're all people who understand
link |
that the tradition carries with it mistakes that were made in the past.
link |
And this is actually I think an important part of their empiricism is that they see
link |
the search for truth as something a society does by trial and error.
link |
And what that means is that in any given moment, you have to be aware of the possibility that
link |
things that you've inherited are actually false.
link |
And the job of the political thinker or the jurist or the philosopher is not to dig in
link |
and say whatever it is that we've inherited is right.
link |
The job is to look at the society as a whole and say, look, we have this job of first of
link |
all conservation, just making sure that we don't lose good things that we've had.
link |
And second, seeing if we can repair things in order to improve them where it's necessary
link |
or where it's possible.
link |
And that process is actually a creative process.
link |
This is a way in which I think it is similar to Jeroen's philosophy that you take the
link |
inherited tradition and you look for a way that you can shape it in order to make it
link |
something better than it was.
link |
That's a baseline for what we call conservatism.
link |
So the trial and error, the errors is, you're proud of the errors.
link |
It's a feature, not a bug.
link |
So you mentioned trial and error a few times yesterday, it's a really interesting kind
link |
It's basically accepting that the journey is going to have flaws as opposed to saying,
link |
I mean, the conclusion there is the current system is flawed and it will always be flawed
link |
and you try to improve it.
link |
When you listen to your on talk, there's much more of an optimism for the system being perfect
link |
now or potentially soon, or it could be perfect.
link |
And to me, the way I heard it is almost like accepting that the system is flawed and through
link |
trial and error will improve and Jeroen says, no, we can have a perfection now.
link |
That's the way it sounds to me.
link |
And I think that's right.
link |
I think the difference is that at some point, just like in science, I think one can stop
link |
the trial and error and say, I can now see a pattern here.
link |
I can see that certain actions lead to bad consequences, certain actions lead to good
link |
Let me try to abstract away what is it that is good and what is it that is bad and build
link |
a system around what is good and reject what is bad.
link |
I think ultimately, if you read the founding fathers and whether we call them conservatives
link |
or individuals, what the founding fathers actually did, all of them, I think, is study
link |
They all talk about history.
link |
They all talk about examples of other cultures, whether they go back to the Republic in Venice
link |
or back to the ancient Greeks.
link |
They studied these.
link |
They learned lessons from them.
link |
They try to figure out what has worked in the past and what hasn't and try to derive
link |
They got pretty close to what I would consider kind of an ideal, but they didn't get it
link |
Here we sit 200 and something years after the Declaration and after the Constitution.
link |
I think we can look back and say, okay, well, what did they get right?
link |
What did they get wrong based on how is it done and where are the flaws and we can improve
link |
I think we can get closer to perfection based on those kind of observations, based on that
link |
kind of abstraction, that kind of discovery of what is true.
link |
Just like at some point, you do the experiments, you do the trial and error, and now you come
link |
up with a scientific principle.
link |
It is true that 100 years later, you might discover that, hey, I missed something, there's
link |
something, but to not take the full lesson, to insist on incrementalism, to insist on
link |
we're just going to tinker with the system instead of saying, no, there's something really
link |
wrong with having a king, there's something really wrong with not having any representation,
link |
whatever the standard needs to be in the name of we don't want to move too fast, I think
link |
The problem with trial and error in politics is that we're talking about human life, right?
link |
So there was a big trial around communism, and 100 million people paid the price for
link |
I could have told them in advance, as did many people, that it would not work.
link |
There are principles of human nature, principles that we can study from history, principles
link |
about economics and other aspects.
link |
Well, we know it's not going to work.
link |
You don't need to try it again.
link |
We've had communal arrangements throughout history.
link |
There was an experiment with fascism, and there have been experiments with all kinds
link |
of political systems.
link |
Okay, we've done them.
link |
Sad that we did them, because many of us knew they wouldn't work.
link |
We should learn the lesson, and I think that all of history now converges on one lesson,
link |
and that is what we need to do is build systems that protect individual freedom.
link |
That's what ultimately leads to human flourishing and human success and human achievement, and
link |
to the extent that we place anything above that individual, whether it's the state, whether
link |
it's the ethnicity, whether it's the race, whether it's the bourgeois, whatever it happens
link |
to be, class or whatever, whenever we place something above the individual, the consequence
link |
That's one of these principles that I think we can derive from studying 3,000 years of
link |
It's tragic, I think, because we're going to keep experimenting, sadly.
link |
I'm not winning this battle.
link |
I'm losing the battle.
link |
We're going to keep experimenting with different forms of collectivism, and we're going to
link |
keep paying the price in human life and in missed opportunities for human flourishing
link |
and human success and human wealth and prosperity.
link |
Let's take communism as a good example.
link |
None of the major conservative thinkers would say, you know what's a good idea?
link |
A good idea would be to experiment by raising everything that we've inherited and starting
link |
I mean, that's the conservative complaint or accusation against rationalists as opposed
link |
I mean, using rationalism, let's take Descartes kind of as a benchmark.
link |
Can you also maybe define rationalism?
link |
These are two terms that are in philosophy, especially in epistemology.
link |
They're often compared to one another.
link |
Jeroen said that it's a false dichotomy, and maybe it is a bit exaggerated, but that doesn't
link |
mean it's not useful for conceptualizing the domain.
link |
So a rationalist is somebody like Descartes who says, I'm going to set aside, I'm going
link |
to try to set aside everything I know, everything I've inherited, I'm going to start from scratch.
link |
And he explicitly says, in evaluating the inheritance of the past, he explicitly says,
link |
you take a look at the histories that we have, they're not reliable.
link |
You take a look at the moral and the scientific writings that we receive, they're not very
link |
His baseline is to look very critically at the past and say, look, I'm evaluating it.
link |
I think all in all, it's just not worth very much.
link |
And so whatever I do, beginning from scratch, is going to be better as long as, and here's
link |
his caveat, as long as I'm proceeding from self evident assumptions, from self evident
link |
premises, things that you can't argue against.
link |
I think, therefore, I am.
link |
And then from there, deducing what he calls infallible conclusions.
link |
So that model of self evident premises to infallible conclusions, I'm calling that rationalism,
link |
I think that's kind of a standard academic jargon term.
link |
And it's opposed to empiricism, which is a thinker, I think in universities, usually
link |
the empiricist is David Hume.
link |
And David Hume will say, we can't learn anything the way that Descartes said.
link |
There is nothing that's that self evident and that infallible.
link |
So Hume proposes, based on Newton and Boyle and the new physical sciences.
link |
So Hume proposes a science of man.
link |
And the science of man sounds an awful lot like what Yaron just said, which is we're
link |
going to take a look at human nature, at the nature of societies.
link |
Human nature, we're going to try to abstract towards fixed principles for describing it.
link |
Human societies, we're going to try to do the same thing.
link |
And from there, we get, for example, contemporary economics.
link |
But we also get sociology and anthropology, which cut in a different direction.
link |
So that's rationalism versus empiricism.
link |
Yeah, go ahead, please.
link |
Yeah, I agree with that.
link |
I think empiricism, the one thing I disagree is I think empiricism rarely comes to these
link |
I mean, they want more facts.
link |
It's always about collecting more evidence.
link |
But this is where I think Ayn Rand is so unusual and where I think there's something new here.
link |
And that's a bold statement given the history of philosophy.
link |
But I think Ayn Rand is something new.
link |
And so she says, yes, we agree about rationalism and that it's inherently wrong.
link |
Empiricism has the problem of, OK, where does it lead?
link |
You never come to a conclusion.
link |
You're just accumulating evidence.
link |
There's something in addition.
link |
There's a third alternative, which she is positing, which is using empirical evidence,
link |
not denying empirical evidence, recognizing that there are some axioms, there are some
link |
axioms that we all, at the base of all of our knowledge, that are starting points.
link |
We're not rejecting axiomatic knowledge.
link |
And integrating those two and identifying the fact that based on these axioms and based
link |
on these empirical evidence, we can come to truths.
link |
Just again, like we do in science, we have certain axioms, scientific axioms, we have
link |
certain experiments that we run, and then we can come to some identification of a truth.
link |
And that truth is always going to be challenged by new information, by new knowledge.
link |
But as long as that's what we know, that is what truth is.
link |
So truth is contextual in the sense that it's contextual, it's based on that knowledge that
link |
It's always available to change if you get new facts.
link |
It's always available to change if the facts that you get, and they really are, I mean,
link |
the burden of changing what you've come to a conclusion of truth is high, so you'd have
link |
to have real evidence that it's not true, but that happens all the time.
link |
So it happens in science, right?
link |
We discovered that what we thought was true is not true, and it can happen in politics
link |
and ethics even more so than in science because they're much messier fields.
link |
But the idea is that you can come to a truth, but it's not just deductive.
link |
Most truths are inductive.
link |
We learn from observing reality and, again, coming to principles about what works and
link |
And here I think this is—Ayn Rand is different.
link |
She doesn't fall into the—and she's different in her politics, and she's different in
link |
She doesn't fall into the conventional view.
link |
She's an opponent of Hume, and she's an opponent of Descartes, and she's certainly
link |
an opponent of Kant.
link |
And I think she's right, right?
link |
If it's okay, can we walk back to criticism of communism?
link |
You're both critics of communism and socialism.
link |
Why did communism fail?
link |
You started to say that conservatives criticize it on the basis of rationalism, that you're
link |
throwing away the past.
link |
You're starting from scratch.
link |
Is that the fundamental description of why communism failed?
link |
I think the fundamental difference between rationalists and empiricists is the question
link |
of whether you're throwing away the past.
link |
That's the argument.
link |
And it cashes out as a distinction between abstract, universal, rationalist political
link |
theories and empirical political theories.
link |
Artificial political theories, they're always going to say something like, look, there are
link |
many different societies.
link |
We can say that some are better and some are worse, but the problem is that there are many
link |
different ways in which a society can be better or worse.
link |
There's an ongoing competition, and we're learning on an ongoing basis what are the
link |
ways in which societies can be better and worse.
link |
That creates a kind of, I'd say, a mild skepticism, a moderate skepticism among conservatives.
link |
I don't think too many conservatives have a problem looking at the Soviet Union, which
link |
is brutal and murderous, ineffective in its economics, totally ineffective spiritually,
link |
and then collapsed.
link |
So I think it's easier for us to look at a system like that and say, what on earth?
link |
What should we learn from that?
link |
But the main conservative tradition is pretty tolerant of a diversity of different kinds
link |
of society and is slow to insist that France is so tyrannical, it just needs a revolution
link |
because what's going to come after the revolution is going to be much better.
link |
The assumption is that there's lots of things that are good about most societies and that
link |
a clean slate leads you to throw out all of the inherited things that you don't even know
link |
how to notice until they're gone.
link |
Could I actually play devil's advocate here and address something you also said?
link |
Can we, as opposed to knowing the empirical data of the 20th century that communism presented,
link |
can we go back to the beginning of the 20th century?
link |
Can you empathize or steel man or put yourself in a place of the Soviet Union where the workers
link |
are being disrespected?
link |
And can you not see that the conservatives could be pro communism?
link |
Communism is such a strongly negative word in modern day political discourse that you
link |
have to put yourself in the mind of people who like red colors, it's all about the branding,
link |
I think, but also like the ideas of solidarity, of nation, of togetherness, of respect for
link |
I mean, all of these things that communism represents, can you not see that this idea
link |
is actually going along with conservatism?
link |
It is in some ways respecting the deep ideals of the past, but proposing a new way to raise
link |
those ideals, implement those ideals in the system.
link |
Yes, I'm going to try to do what you're suggesting, but historically we actually have a more
link |
useful option, I think, for both of our positions.
link |
Instead of pretending that we like the actual communists, we have conservative statesmen
link |
like Disraeli and Bismarck who initiated social legislation.
link |
The first step towards saying, look, we're one nation, we're undergoing industrialization,
link |
that industrialization is important and positive, but it's also doing a lot of damage to a lot
link |
And in particular, it's doing damage not just to individuals and families, but it's doing
link |
damage to the social fabric, the capacity of Britain or German to remain cohesive societies
link |
And so it's these two conservative statesmen, Disraeli and Bismarck, who actually take the
link |
first steps in order to legislate for what today we would consider to be minimal social
link |
programs, pensions and disability insurance and those kinds of things.
link |
So for sure, conservatives do look at industrialization as a rapid change and they say, we do have
link |
to care about the nation as a whole and we have to care about it as a unit.
link |
And I assume that your own will say, look, that's the first step towards the catastrophe
link |
But before your own drives that nail into the coffin, let me try to make a distinction
link |
because when you read Marx, you're reading an intellectual descendant of Descartes.
link |
You're reading somebody who says, look, every society consists of oppressors and oppressed.
link |
And that's an improvement in some ways over liberal thinking because at least he's seeing
link |
groups as a real social phenomenon.
link |
But he says, every society has an oppressor class and oppressed class.
link |
They're different classes, they're different groups, and whenever one is stronger, it exploits
link |
the ones that are weaker.
link |
That is the foundation of a revolutionary political theory.
link |
Because the moment that you say that the only relationship between the stronger and the
link |
weaker is exploitation.
link |
The moment that you say that, then you're pushed into the position and Marx and Engels
link |
say this explicitly, you're pushed into the position.
link |
We're saying, when will the exploitation end?
link |
Never until there's a revolution.
link |
What happens when there's a revolution?
link |
You eliminate the oppressor class.
link |
It's annihilationist.
link |
I mean, you can immediately when you read it, see why it's different from Descartes
link |
or Bismarck because they're trying to keep everybody somehow at peace with one another.
link |
And Marx is saying, there is no peace.
link |
That oppressor class has to be annihilated.
link |
And then they go ahead and do it, and they kill 100 million people.
link |
So I do think that despite the fact your question is good and right, there are certain similarities
link |
and concern, but still I think you can tell the difference.
link |
That extra step of revolution to you is where the problem comes.
link |
That extra step of let's kill all the oppressors, that's the problem.
link |
And then to you, the whole step one is the problem.
link |
Well, it's all a problem.
link |
First I don't view communism as something that radical in a sense that I think it comes
link |
from a tradition of collectivism.
link |
I think it comes from a tradition of looking at groups and measuring things in terms of
link |
It comes from tradition where you expect some people to be sacrificed for the greater good
link |
I think it comes from a tradition where mysticism or revelation as the source of truth is accepted.
link |
I view Marx as in some sense very Christian.
link |
I don't think he's this radical rejecting, I think he's just reformatting Christianity
link |
In a sense he's replacing God with the proletarian.
link |
Knowledge you have to get knowledge from somewhere, so you need the dictatorship of the proletarian,
link |
you need somebody, the Stalin, the Lenin who somehow communes with the spirit, the spirit
link |
of the proletarian.
link |
There's no rationality, not rationalism, there's no rationality in Marx.
link |
There is a lot of mysticism and there is a lot of hand waving and there's a lot of sacrifice
link |
and a lot of original sin in the way he views humanity.
link |
So I view Marx as one more collectivist in a whole string of collectivists.
link |
And I think the Bismarckian response, I know less about Disraeli so I'll focus on Bismarck,
link |
and Bismarck is really responding to political pressures from the left and he's responding
link |
to the rise of communism, socialism, but what Bismarck is doing, he's putting something
link |
alternative, he's presenting an alternative to the proletarian as the standard by which
link |
we should measure the good.
link |
And what he's replacing it as the state, he's replacing the proletarian with the state,
link |
and that has exactly the same problems.
link |
That is first it requires sacrificing some to others, which is what the welfare state
link |
basically legitimizes.
link |
It places the state above all, so the state now becomes I think the biggest evil of Bismarck
link |
and I definitely view him as a negative force in history, is public education.
link |
I mean the Germans really dig in on public education, really develop it, and really the
link |
American model of public education is copying the German, the Prussian Bismarckian public
link |
Can you speak to that real quick, why the public education is such a root of moral evil
link |
Well because it now says that there's one standard and that standard is determined by
link |
government, by a bureaucracy, by whatever the government deems is in the national interest,
link |
and Bismarck is very explicit about this.
link |
He's training the workers of the future, they need to catch up with England and other places
link |
and they need to train the workers and he's going to train some people to be the managerial
link |
classes, he's going to train other people to be – and he decides, right, the government,
link |
the bureaucracy is going to decide who's who and where they go.
link |
There's no individual choice, there's no individual showing an ability to break out of what the
link |
government has decided is their little box, there's very little freedom, there's very
link |
little – you know, ultimately there's very little competition, there's very little
link |
innovation, and this is the problem we have today in American education, which we can
link |
get to, is there's no competition and no innovation.
link |
We have one standard, fit all, and then we have conflicts about what should be taught,
link |
and the conflicts now are not pedagogical, they're not about what works and what doesn't.
link |
Nobody cares about that.
link |
It's about political agendas, right, it's about what my group wants to be taught and
link |
what that group wants to be taught, rather than actually discovering how do we get kids
link |
I mean, we all know how to get kids to read, but there's a political agenda around not
link |
teaching phonics, for example.
link |
So a lot of schools don't teach phonics, even though the kids will never learn how
link |
So it becomes politics, and I don't believe politics belongs in education.
link |
I think education is a product, it's a service, and we know how to deliver products and services
link |
really, really efficiently at a really, really low price at a really, really high quality,
link |
and that's leaving it to the market to do.
link |
But your fundamental criticism is that the state can use education to further its authoritarian
link |
Well, or whatever the aims – I mean, think about the conservative today critique of American
link |
educational system, right, it's dominated by the left.
link |
Yeah, what did you expect, right?
link |
If you leave it up to the state to fund, they're going to fund the things that promote state
link |
growth and state intervention, and the left is better at that.
link |
It has been better at that than the right, and they now dominate our educational institutions.
link |
But look, if we go back to Bismarck, my problem is placing the state above the individual.
link |
So if communism places the class above the individual, what matters is class, individuals,
link |
and nothing, they're cogs in a machine.
link |
Bismarck, certainly the German tradition much more than the British tradition or the American
link |
tradition, the German tradition is to place the state above the individual.
link |
I think that's equally evil, and the outcome is fascism, and the outcome is the same.
link |
The outcome is the deaths of tens of millions of people when taken to its ultimate conclusion.
link |
Just like socialism, the ultimate conclusion of it is communism, you know, nationalism
link |
in that form, kind of the Bismarckian form, the ultimate conclusion is Nazism or some
link |
Because you don't care about the individual, the individual doesn't matter.
link |
I think this is one of the differences in the Anglo, you know, Anglo American tradition
link |
where the Anglo American tradition, even the conservatives, have always acknowledged and
link |
it goes back to...
link |
Especially the conservatives.
link |
The conservatives were there first.
link |
They acknowledged.
link |
Well, you've defined conservatives to include all the good thinkers of the distant past,
link |
and they're all good thinkers.
link |
I'm defining conservatism the way that Burke does.
link |
Look, this is a very simple observation.
link |
Burke thinks, when you open Burke and you actually read him, he starts naming all of
link |
these people who he's defending.
link |
And it's bizarre, I'm sorry, it's just intellectual sloppiness for people to be publishing books
link |
called Burke, The First Conservative, The Founding Conservative, The Found...
link |
I mean, this is nonstop, it's a view that says Burke reacts to the French Revolution,
link |
so conservatism has no prior tradition, it's just reacting to the French Revolution.
link |
I mean, this is just absurd.
link |
Can I ask a quick question on conservatism?
link |
Are there any conservatives that are embracing of revolutions?
link |
So are they ultimately against the concept of revolution?
link |
Yes, Burke himself embraces the Polish Revolution, which takes place almost exactly at the same
link |
time as the French Revolution.
link |
And the argument is really interesting because there's a common mistake is assuming that
link |
Burke and conservative thinkers are always in favor of slow change.
link |
I think that's also just factually mistaken.
link |
Burke is against the French Revolution because he thinks that there are actually tried and
link |
true things that work, things that work for human flourishing and freedom included as
link |
a very important part of human flourishing.
link |
He like many others takes the English constitution to be a model of something that works.
link |
So it has a king, it has various other things that maybe your own will say, well, that's
link |
a mistake, but still for centuries, it's the leader in many things that I think we can
link |
easily agree are human flourishing.
link |
And Burke says, look, what's wrong with the French Revolution?
link |
What's wrong with the French Revolution is that they have a system that has all sorts
link |
of problems, but they could be repairing it.
link |
And instead what they're doing by overthrowing everything is they're moving away from what
link |
we know is good for human beings.
link |
Then he looks at the Polish Revolution and he says, the Poles do the opposite.
link |
The Poles have a nonfunctioning traditional constitution.
link |
It's too democratic.
link |
It's impossible to raise armies and to defend the country because of the fact that every
link |
nobleman has a veto.
link |
So the Polish Revolution moves in the direction of the British constitution.
link |
They repair their constitution through a quick, a rapid revolution.
link |
They install a king along the model that looks a lot like Britain and Burke supports it.
link |
He says, this is a good revolution.
link |
So it's not the need to quickly make a change in order to save yourself.
link |
That's not what conservatives are objecting to.
link |
What they're objecting to is instead of looking at experience in order to try to make a slow
link |
or quick improvement, a measured improvement to achieve a particular goal, instead of doing
link |
that, you say, look, the whole thing has just been wrong.
link |
And what we've really got to do is annihilate a certain part of the population and then
link |
make completely new laws and a completely new theory.
link |
That's what he's objecting to.
link |
That's the French Revolution.
link |
And that then becomes the model for communist revolutions.
link |
And for me, I mean, the French Revolution is clearly a real evil and wrong, but it's
link |
not that it was a revolution and it's not that it tried to change everything.
link |
I mean, let's remember what was going on in France at the time and people were starving
link |
and the monarchy in particular was completely detached, completely detached from the suffering
link |
of the people and something needed to change.
link |
The unfortunate thing is that the change was motivated by an egalitarian philosophy, not
link |
egalitarian in the sense that I think the Fauny Fathers talked about, but egalitarian
link |
in the sense of real equality, equality of outcome, motivated by a philosophy, by Rousseau's
link |
philosophy, and inevitably led, you could tell that the ideas were going to lead to
link |
this, to massive destruction and death and the annihilation of a class.
link |
You can't, annihilation is never an option.
link |
That is, it's not true that a good revolution never leads to mass death of just whole groups
link |
of people because a good revolution is about the sanctity of the individual.
link |
It's about preservation, liberty of the individual.
link |
And again, that goes back to, and the French Revolution denies and Rousseau denies really
link |
that in civilization there is a value in a thing called the individual.
link |
I think this is a good place to have this discussion.
link |
The Fauny Fathers of the United States, are they individualists or are they conservatives?
link |
So in this particular revolution that founded this country, at the core of which are some
link |
fascinating, some powerful ideas, were those founding fathers, were those ideas coming
link |
from a place of conservatism or did they put primary value into the freedom and the power
link |
of the individual?
link |
What do you think?
link |
I mean, this is something that's a little bit difficult sometimes for Americans, I mean,
link |
very educated Americans, they talk about the founding fathers as though it's kind of like
link |
this collective entity with a single brain and a single value system.
link |
But I think at the time that's not the way any of them saw it.
link |
So roughly there's two camps and they map onto the rationalist versus traditionalist
link |
empiricist dichotomy that I proposed earlier.
link |
So on the one hand, you have real revolutionaries like Jefferson and Paine.
link |
These are the people who Burke was writing against.
link |
These are the people who supported the French Revolution.
link |
So when you say real, so when you say Paine, you're referring to revolutionaries in a bad
link |
way, like this is a problem.
link |
These are people who will say history up until now has been, with Descartes, but applied
link |
History up until now has been just a story of ugliness, foolishness, stupidity, and evil.
link |
And if you apply reason, we'll all come to the same conclusions.
link |
Paine writes a book called The Age of Reason, and The Age of Reason is a manifesto for here
link |
is the answer to political and moral problems throughout history.
link |
We have the answers.
link |
And it's in the same school as Rousseau's The Social Continent.
link |
You don't like that?
link |
Well, I thought it was the opposite.
link |
I think they're the opposite.
link |
Okay, so let me...
link |
Just to throw in a quick question on Jefferson and Paine, do you think America would exist
link |
without those two figures?
link |
So like how important is spice in the flavor of the dish you're making?
link |
I don't want to try to run the counterfactual, I don't have confidence that I know the answer
link |
But it's so much fun.
link |
I'm going to offer something that I think is more fun.
link |
More fun than the counterfactual is America had two revolutions, not one, okay?
link |
At first, there is a revolution that is strongly spiced with this kind of rationalism.
link |
And then there's a 10 year period after the Declaration of Independence.
link |
There's a 10 year period under which America has a constitution.
link |
This first constitution, which today they call the Articles of the Confederation, but
link |
there's a constitution from 1777.
link |
And that constitution is based on, in a lot of ways, on the hottest new ideas.
link |
It has, instead of the traditional British system with a division of powers between an
link |
executive and a bicameral legislature, instead of that traditional English model, which most
link |
of the states had as their governments, instead of that, they say, no, we're going to have
link |
one elected body, okay, and that body, that Congress, it's going to be the executive,
link |
it's going to be the legislative, it's going to be everything, and it's going to run as
link |
These are the ideas of the French Revolution.
link |
You get to actually see them implemented in Pennsylvania, in the Pennsylvania Constitution,
link |
and then later in the National Assembly in France.
link |
The thing doesn't work.
link |
It's completely made up.
link |
It's neither based on historical experience, nor is it based on historical custom, on what
link |
people are used to.
link |
And what they succeed in creating with this first constitution is it's wonderfully rational,
link |
but it's a complete disaster.
link |
It doesn't allow the raising of taxes.
link |
It doesn't allow the mustering of troops.
link |
It doesn't allow giving orders to soldiers to fight a war.
link |
And if that had continued, if that had continued to be the American Constitution, America never
link |
would have been an independent country.
link |
There I'm willing to do that counterfactual.
link |
What happens during those years where Washington and Jay and Knox and Hamilton and Morris,
link |
there's like this group of conservatives, they're mostly soldiers and lawyers.
link |
This is in Washington, most of them are from northern cities.
link |
And this group is much more conservative than the Tom Paine and Jefferson School.
link |
Some historians call them the Nationalist Party.
link |
Historically, they give up the word nationalism and they call themselves the Federalists,
link |
but they're basically the Nationalist Party.
link |
What does that mean?
link |
It means on the one hand that their goal is to create an independent nation, independent
link |
But on the other hand, they believe that they already have national legal traditions, the
link |
common law, the forms of government that have been imported from Britain, and of course
link |
Christianity, which they consider to be part of their inheritance.
link |
This Federalist Party is the conservative party.
link |
These are people who are extremely close in ideas to Burke.
link |
And these are people who wrote the Constitution of the United States, the second constitution,
link |
the second revolution in 1787, when Washington leads the establishment of a new constitution,
link |
which maybe technically legally, it wasn't even legal under the old constitution, but
link |
it was democratic.
link |
And what it did is it said, we're going to take what we know about English government,
link |
what we've learned by applying English government in the states, we're going to create a national
link |
government, a unified national government, that's going to muster power in its hands,
link |
enough power to be able to do things like fighting wars to defend a unified people.
link |
Those are conservatives.
link |
Now it's reasonable to say, well, look, there was no king, so how conservative could they
link |
But I think that's a reasonable question.
link |
But don't forget that the American colonies, the English colonies in America by that point
link |
had been around for 150 years.
link |
They had written constitutions, they had already adapted for an entire century, adapted the
link |
English constitution to local conditions where there's no aristocracy and there's no king.
link |
I think you can see that as a positive thing.
link |
On the other hand, they have slavery, that's an innovation, that's not English.
link |
So it's a little bit different from the English constitution, but those men are conservatives.
link |
They make the minimum changes that they need to the English constitution and they largely
link |
replicate it, which is why the Jeffersonians hated them so much.
link |
They call them apostates.
link |
They say they've betrayed equality and liberty and fraternity by adopting an English style
link |
So I would imagine, Yaron, you would put emphasis of the success of the key ideas at the founding
link |
of this country elsewhere, at the freedom of the individual as opposed to the tradition
link |
of the British empire.
link |
The one thing I agree with, Yaron, is the fact that yes, the founding fathers were not
link |
They argued, they debated, they disagreed, they wrote against each other.
link |
Jefferson and Adams for decades didn't even speak to each other, though they did make
link |
up and had a fascinating relationship after.
link |
You and I are making up too.
link |
It's like the founding fathers.
link |
You know, there's this massive debate and discussion, but I don't agree with the characterization
link |
of Paine and Jefferson.
link |
I don't think it's just to call them rationalists because I don't think they're rationalists.
link |
People who've looked at history, at the problems in history, and remember this is the 18th
link |
century and they were coming out of a hundred years earlier, some of the bloodiest wars
link |
in all of human history were happening in Europe, many of them over religion.
link |
You know, they had seen what was going on in France and other countries where people
link |
were starving and where kings were frolicking in palaces in spite of that.
link |
They were very aware of the relative freedom that the British tradition had given Englishmen.
link |
I think they knew that, they understood that, and I think they were building on that.
link |
They were taking the observation of the past and trying to come up with a more perfect
link |
system, and I think they did.
link |
In that sense, I'm a huge fan of Jefferson.
link |
You know, there are two things that I think are unfortunate about Jefferson.
link |
One is that he continued to hold slaves, which is very unfortunate.
link |
The second is early support for the French Revolution, which I think is a massive mistake
link |
and I wouldn't be surprised if he regretted it later in life, given the consequences.
link |
But they were trying to derive principles by which they could establish a new state,
link |
and yes, there was pushback by some and there was disagreement, and the Constitution in
link |
the end is to some extent a form of compromise, it's still one of the great documents of
link |
all of human history, political documents, the Constitution, although I think it's
link |
inferior to the Declaration.
link |
I'm a huge fan of the Declaration and I think one of the mistakes the conservatives makes,
link |
one of the mistakes the Supreme Court makes and American judiciary makes is assuming the
link |
two documents are separate.
link |
I think Lincoln is absolutely right, you can't understand the Constitution without understanding
link |
the Declaration, the Declaration of what set the context and what sets everything up for
link |
Individual rights are the key concept there, and one of the challenges was that some of
link |
the compromises, and compromise is not necessarily between groups, but compromises that even
link |
Jefferson made and others made regarding individual rights, set America on a path that we're
link |
suffering from today.
link |
I mentioned three last night, one was slavery, obviously that was a horrific compromise,
link |
one that America not just paid for with the Civil War, 600,000 young men died because
link |
of it, but the suffering of black slaves for all those years.
link |
But then the whole issue of racial tensions in this country for a century and to this
link |
day really is a consequence of that initial compromise, who knows what the counterfactual
link |
is in America if there's a Civil War right at the founding, because there would have
link |
been a war no matter what, but if it had happened in the late 18th century, early 19th century,
link |
rather than waiting till 1860s, but then second was Jefferson's embrace of public education,
link |
his founding of the University of Virginia, which I think is a great tragedy, which nobody
link |
agrees with me on, so that's one of the areas where I'm pretty radical.
link |
And then they embrace, both by Jefferson and by Hamilton, for different reasons, but an
link |
embrace by both of them of government role in the economy.
link |
And I do finance, so I know a little bit about finance, and the debate between Jefferson
link |
and Hamilton about banking is fascinating, but at the end of the day, both wanted a role
link |
for government in banking, they both didn't trust, Jefferson didn't trust big financial
link |
interests, Hamilton wanted to capture some of those financial interests for the state,
link |
and as a consequence, we set America on a path where, in my view, regulation always
link |
leads to more regulation, there's never a case where regulation decreases, and we started
link |
out with a certain regulatory body around banks, and a recognition that it was okay
link |
to regulate the economy, so once we get into the late 19th century, it's fine to regulate
link |
the railroads, it's fine to pass antitrust laws, it's fine to then continue on the path
link |
of where we are today, which is heavy, heavy, heavy, massive involvement of government in
link |
every aspect of our economy, and really in every aspect of our life, because of education.
link |
So I think the country was founded on certain mistakes, and we haven't been willing to
link |
question those mistakes, and in a sense that we've only moved in the opposite direction,
link |
and now America's become, whereas I think it was founded on the idea of the primacy
link |
of the individual, the sanctity of the individual, at least as an idea, even if not fully implemented,
link |
I think now that's completely lost, I don't think anybody really is an advocate out there
link |
for individualism in politics, or for true freedom in politics.
link |
We'll get to individualism, but let me ask the Beatles and the Rolling Stones question
link |
about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
link |
Well, because it's like which document, Beatles or Rolling Stones, which document is more
link |
It's obviously the Beatles, right?
link |
Is there a question here?
link |
Is there even a question?
link |
But let me then even zoom in further and ask you to pick your favorite song.
link |
So what ideas in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence do you think are the most
link |
important to the success of the United States of America?
link |
I'll answer the question, but before answering the question, I want to register a dissent
link |
Is it the public education?
link |
Actually, look, we're not so far apart on public education.
link |
I'm actually kind of surprised that you're so anti Bismarck because his public school
link |
system, his national public school system was created in order to stick it to the church.
link |
It was the church that ran the schools before then, and so that's a different...
link |
I'm all for sticking it to the church, any opportunity, but not when the alternative
link |
I'd rather see a free educational system where freedom is in education.
link |
So I want to register a dissent about Lincoln.
link |
Look, Lincoln is an important figure and a great man, and he was presiding over a country,
link |
which at that point was pretty Jeffersonian in terms of its self perception.
link |
He said what he needed to say.
link |
I'm not going to criticize him, but I don't accept the idea that the Declaration of Independence,
link |
which starts one revolution, is of a piece with the second constitution, the constitution
link |
of 1787, the nationalist constitution, which is effectively a counter revolution.
link |
What happens is there is a revolution.
link |
It's based on certain principles.
link |
There are a lot...
link |
Not exactly, but in many ways resembles the later ideas of the French Revolution.
link |
And what the Federalist Party does, the Nationalist Conservative Party does, is a counter revolution
link |
to reinstate the Old English Constitution.
link |
So these documents are, if you're willing to accept the evidence of history, they are
link |
in many respects contrary to one another.
link |
And so if I'm asked what's the most important values that are handed down by these documents,
link |
I don't have an objection to life, liberty, and property, all of which are really important
link |
I do have an objection to the pompous overreach of these are self evident, which is absurd.
link |
They can't be self evident.
link |
If they were self evident, then somebody would have come up with them like 2,000 years before.
link |
It's not self evident.
link |
So that's damaging.
link |
I like the conservative preamble of the constitution, which describes the purposes of the national
link |
government that's being established.
link |
There are seven purposes, a more perfect union, which is the principle of cohesion, justice,
link |
domestic peace, common defense, the general welfare, which is the welfare of the public
link |
as a thing that's not only individuals, but there is such a thing as a general welfare,
link |
liberty, which we agree is absolutely crucial, and posterity, the idea that the purpose of
link |
the government is to be able to sustain and grow this independent nation, and not only
link |
to guarantee rights no matter what happens.
link |
You don't like the, we hold these truths to be self evident, so you're definitely a Beatles
link |
You don't want the pompous, you don't need that revolutionary strength.
link |
Look, I think that that expression, self evident truths, it does tremendous damage because instead
link |
of a moderate skepticism, which says, look, we may not know everything, it says, look,
link |
we know everything.
link |
Here's what we know.
link |
Here's what we think.
link |
So, you know, I'll agree with you all.
link |
I don't like self evident.
link |
I don't like self evident because he's absolutely right.
link |
It's not self evident.
link |
These are massive achievements.
link |
These are massive achievements of enlightened thinking, of studying history, of understanding
link |
human nature, of deriving a truth from 3,000 years of historical knowledge and a better
link |
understanding of human nature and a capacity.
link |
It's using reason in some ways better than any human beings have.
link |
I mean, the founding fathers are giants historically, in my view, because they came up with these
link |
I do think they're truths, but they're certainly not self evident.
link |
I mean, if they were, your arm is right.
link |
They would have discovered them thousands of years earlier or everybody would accept
link |
I mean, how many people today think that those, what they state in that document is true?
link |
Pretty much, you know, five people.
link |
It's very, it's very, your criticism of modern society, yes, we'll get there.
link |
It's very, very few people recognize that if they were self evident, bam, everybody
link |
would have become, you know, would have accepted the American Revolution as truth and that
link |
A lot of work has to go into understanding and describing and convincing people about
link |
But I completely disagree with your arm about this idea or I'll voice my dissent, as we
link |
I disagree with your official dissent.
link |
About A, that this being two different revolutions and B, that the American Revolution had any
link |
similarity to the French Revolution.
link |
You know that Jefferson and Payne, they were in France running a different revolution.
link |
I know, but they were waiting constantly.
link |
I mean, they were in communication with Madison, there was a lot of input going on.
link |
I know, and Jefferson's sitting there in Paris pulling his hair out because Madison has come
link |
under the influence of these nationalists and he can't believe it.
link |
The reality is that the difference between the French Revolution and the American Revolution
link |
is vast and it is a deep philosophical difference and it's a difference that expressed, I think,
link |
between the differences.
link |
You know, Joram, in his writings, lumps Rousseau with Locke and with Voltaire and with others
link |
and I think that's wrong.
link |
I think Rousseau is very different than the others.
link |
I think, again, Rousseau is an anti enlightenment figure, Rousseau is in many respects hearkening
link |
back to a past, an ancient past and I think a completely distorted view of human nature,
link |
He rejects reason.
link |
I mean, Rousseau is on the premise that reason is the end of humanity, reason is the destruction
link |
of humanity, reason is how we get civilization and civilization is awful because –
link |
We're only talking about different texts.
link |
When I say Rousseau, I'm just talking about the social contract.
link |
Yeah, but the social contract, there's similarity between others, but he takes it in a completely
link |
different direction and we agree social contract is a bad idea, but you can't have a contract
link |
that you don't actually voluntarily accept, but Rousseau is the French Revolution.
link |
Rousseau is about destruction and mayhem and chaos and anarchy.
link |
He is the spirit behind the French Revolution.
link |
I think the American Revolution is a complete rejection of Rousseau.
link |
I think Jefferson is a complete rejection of Rousseau.
link |
I don't think Jefferson is a fan of Rousseau.
link |
He is of Voltaire and he certainly is of Montesquieu.
link |
If you look at the Federalist Papers, the intellectual most cited in the Federalist
link |
Papers I think in terms of just the number of times it's cited is Montesquieu.
link |
So I think that the American Revolution is an individualistic revolution.
link |
It is a revolution about the rights of the individual.
link |
The French Revolution is a negation of the rights of the individual.
link |
It's a collectivistic revolution.
link |
It's not quite the Marxist revolution of the proletarian, but it's defining people in classes
link |
and it's a rebellion against a certain class and yeah, kill them all, right?
link |
Off with their heads.
link |
It's about egalitarianism in the sense of equality of outcome, not in a sense of equality
link |
before the law or equality of rights, which is the Jeffersonian sense.
link |
I think it's wrong to lump Jefferson in to the fraternity egalitarian notion of the French,
link |
which is far more similar to what ultimately became socialism and Marxism and that tradition.
link |
It's anti individualistic, the French Revolution is, whereas the American Revolution, the first
link |
one, is individualistic.
link |
It's all about individual rights and while there's certain phrases in the Declaration
link |
of Independence that I don't agree with, it's beautifully written and it's a magnificent
link |
document, so it's hard for me to say I don't agree, but who am I?
link |
These were giants, self evident is one of them.
link |
I'm not particularly crazy about Endowed by the Creator, but I like the fact that it's
link |
creator and not God or not a specific creator, but just a more general thing.
link |
But putting those two ashes aside, it's the greatest political document in all of human
link |
history in my view by far.
link |
Nothing comes close.
link |
It is a document that identifies the core principles of political truism, of truth.
link |
That is, the role of government is to preserve and to protect these rights, these inalienable
link |
rights and that is so crucial that these rights are inalienable.
link |
That is, a majority can't vote them out, a revelation can't vote them out.
link |
This is what is required for human liberty and human freedom, the right that is the sanction,
link |
the freedom to act on your own behalf, to act based on your own judgment and as long
link |
as you're not interfering with other people's rights, you are free to do so.
link |
That is such a profound truth and that to me is the essence of political philosophy.
link |
That's the beginning and it's based on, just not to fall into, Yolam's going to say it's
link |
a rationalist, it's based on a whole history of what happens when we negate that.
link |
It's based on looking at England and seeing to the extent that they practiced a respect
link |
for individual liberty, of property, of freedom, good things happened.
link |
So let's take that all the way.
link |
Let's not compromise on that.
link |
Let's be consistent with the good and reject the bad and when England goes away, distance
link |
itself from the rights of man, from the idea of a right to property and so on, bad things
link |
happen and when they go to it, let's go all in and I'm all in on the right to life, liberty,
link |
property and the pursuit of happiness.
link |
And I think the idea of pursuit of happiness is profound because it's a moral statement.
link |
It's a statement that says that sanctions and says that ultimately people should be
link |
allowed to make their own judgments and live their lives as they see fit based on how they
link |
They might be right, they might be wrong, but we're not going to dictate what happiness
link |
entails and dictate to people how they should live their lives.
link |
We're going to let them figure that out.
link |
So it has this self interested moral code kind of embedded in it.
link |
So I think it's a beautiful statement.
link |
So I think the declaration is key and I think there was an experiment.
link |
An experiment was proposed in that period before the Constitution where the experiment
link |
was let's let the states, let's have a kind of a loose confederation, let's let the states
link |
experiment with setting up their own constitutions and rule of government and we won't have any
link |
And I think what they realized, and I think even Jefferson realized, is that that was
link |
not workable because many of the states were starting to significantly violate rights.
link |
There was nothing to unify, there was nothing to really protect the vision of the declaration.
link |
You needed to establish a nation, which is what the Constitution does, it establishes
link |
But the purpose of that was to put everybody under one set of laws that protected rights.
link |
The focus was still on the protection of rights and I agree with six of the seven of the principles.
link |
Which did this group?
link |
The common welfare, the general welfare, which I'm worried about, right?
link |
I think in the way the founders understood it, I think I probably agreed with it.
link |
But it's such an ambiguous—
link |
I'm sure you don't agree.
link |
Can you state the general welfare principle?
link |
Well the idea that part of the role of government is to secure the general welfare is something—
link |
This is something we didn't get to in the debate, we really should have, is the question
link |
of whether there is such a thing as a common good or a public interest or a national interest
link |
or a general welfare, do these words, do these terms mean anything other than the good of
link |
all of the individuals in the country?
link |
That's an important—
link |
Yeah, so that's right, so that's why I object to it because I think it's too easy
link |
to interpret it as.
link |
So I interpret it as, well, what's good for a general, a group, a common people, it's
link |
a good collection of individuals, so what's good for the individual is good for the common
link |
welfare, but I understand that that's something that is hard for people to grasp and not the
link |
common understanding.
link |
So I would have skipped the general welfare in order to avoid the fact that now the general
link |
welfare includes the government telling you what gender you should be assigned, so I would
link |
have wanted to have skipped that completely.
link |
So I think the Constitution is completely consistent with the Declaration with a few
link |
exceptions of general welfare, but perfection is a difficult thing to find, particularly
link |
for me politically, but it's a magnificent document, the Constitution.
link |
It doesn't quite rise to the level, I think, of the Declaration, but it's a magnificent
link |
document because—and this is the difference, I think, between the English Constitution.
link |
Here's what I see as the difference.
link |
The difference is that the Constitution is written in the context of why do we have a
link |
separation of powers, for example?
link |
We have a separation of powers in order to make sure that the government only does what
link |
the government is supposed to do, and what is the government supposed to do?
link |
Well, fundamentally, it's supposed to protect rights.
link |
I mean, all of those seven, or at least six of the seven, are about protecting rights.
link |
They're about protecting us from foreign invaders.
link |
They're about protecting peace within the country.
link |
They're about preserving this protection of rights, and why do we have this separation
link |
so that we make sure that no one of those entities, the executive or the legislature,
link |
the judicial, can violate rights because there's always somebody looking over their shoulder.
link |
There's always somebody who can veto their power, but there's a purpose to it, and that
link |
purpose is clearly signified and characterized, and that's why I think the Bill of Rights
link |
was written, in order to add to the clarification of what exactly we mean.
link |
What is the purpose?
link |
The purpose is to preserve rights, and that's why we need to elaborate what those rights
link |
And Madison's objection to the Bill of Rights was to say not that he objected to having
link |
protection of rights, but to listing them because he was worried that other rights that
link |
were not listed would not be, and his worry was completely justified because it's exactly
link |
It's like, the only reason we have free speech in America is because we've got it in writing
link |
as a First Amendment.
link |
If we didn't have it in writing, it would have been gone a long time ago, and the reason
link |
we don't have, for example, the freedom to negotiate a contract, you know, independent
link |
government regulation, that was not listed as a right in the Bill, even though I think
link |
it's clearly covered under the Constitution and certainly under the Declaration.
link |
So there was a massive mistake done in the Bill of Rights.
link |
They tried to cover it with the Ninth Amendment, but it never really stuck, this idea that
link |
nonenumerated rights that are still in place.
link |
So I don't see it as a second revolution.
link |
I think it's a fix to a flaw that happened.
link |
It's a fix that allowed the expansion of the protection of rights to all states by creating
link |
a national entity to protect those rights, and that's what ultimately led to slavery
link |
You know, under the initial agreement, slavery would have been there in perpetuity because
link |
states were sovereign in a way that under the new Constitution they were not, and in
link |
a sense, the Constitution sets in motion, the Declaration and then the Constitution
link |
set in motion, the Civil War.
link |
The Civil War has to happen because at the end of the day, you cannot have some states
link |
with a massive violation of rights, what's more of a violation of rights than slavery,
link |
and some states that recognize it's not, it inevitably leads to the Civil War.
link |
Yaron was just saying that, you know, other than the general welfare, these principles
link |
are about individual liberties.
link |
I just don't think you can read it that way.
link |
The first stated purpose of the Constitution of 1787 is in order to form a more perfect
link |
A more perfect union, it's describing a characteristic of the whole, it is not a characteristic of
link |
If you look at how the individuals are doing, you don't know whether their union is more
link |
So what they're doing is they're looking at the condition in which in order to be able
link |
to fight the battle of Yorktown, somebody has to write a personal check in order to
link |
be able to move armies.
link |
A more perfect union is a more cohesive union, it's the ability to get all of these different
link |
individuals to do one focused thing when it's necessary to do it.
link |
Well it's more than that, right, so I agree with that, but for what purpose?
link |
That is, and this is why, you know, this is why it's so hard with these historical documents
link |
because there's a context and there's a thinking that they can't write everything down, right,
link |
which is sad because I wish they had.
link |
What's the purpose of a more perfect union?
link |
The purpose of the more perfect union is to preserve the liberty of the individuals within
link |
Well how do you know?
link |
Because if you look, what's the rest?
link |
So what is the common defense?
link |
The common defense is to protect us from foreign invaders who would now disrupt what the rest
link |
of the Constitution is all about.
link |
All of the Constitution is written in a way as to preserve, find ways to limit the ability
link |
of government to violate the rights of individuals.
link |
The beauty of this Constitution, and again, it's connection to the Declaration and tradition,
link |
What came before it?
link |
What came before it was a document, which they all respected, which was the Declaration,
link |
which set the context for this.
link |
And now the union is there in order to provide for the common defense, great, because we
link |
know that foreign invaders can violate our rights, that's what war is about.
link |
To protect us from peace, to establish peace and justice within the country, that's based
link |
on law, the rule of law, and again, individual liberty.
link |
So to me, when you read the Founders, when you read the Federalist Papers, when you read
link |
what they wrote, what they're trying to do is figure out the right kind of political
link |
system, the right kind of structure to be able to preserve these liberties, and not
link |
all of them had, from my perspective, a perfect understanding of what those liberties entailed,
link |
but they were all, even the conservatives that you call conservatives, were all in generally
link |
in agreement about the importance of individual liberty and the importance of individual liberty.
link |
Of course, because almost all of these rights are traditional English rights, they exist
link |
in the English Bill of Rights, in the English Petition of Rights, they exist in force.
link |
All of these are traditional.
link |
And what they're trying to do is perfect that.
link |
They're trying to take the British system and perfect it.
link |
But you keep leaving out that they want to be like England in that they want to have
link |
an independent nation.
link |
An independent nation is not a collection of individual liberties.
link |
An independent nation, the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence is the
link |
declaration that there is a collective right, that we as a people are breaking the bonds
link |
with another people, and we're going to take our place, our equal station, among the nations
link |
But for what purpose?
link |
The purpose is to protect individual rights.
link |
And there's no collective right.
link |
Your argument is completely circular.
link |
You're not allowing the possibility that there could be great and decent men that you and
link |
I both admire who wanted the independence of their nation, not because that would give
link |
individuals liberty, but because the independence of their nation was itself a great good.
link |
So we clearly disagree on this, because I don't think the independence of the nation
link |
is a good in and of itself, because it's –
link |
But did they think it was?
link |
I don't think they did.
link |
And this is why they tried so hard not to break from England, and why many of them struggled,
link |
really, really struggled with having a revolution, because England was pretty good, right?
link |
England was the best.
link |
And this is where we should get to the universality of these things, because I do think England
link |
was the best, and universally and absolutely was the best system out there.
link |
And they struggled to break from England, because they didn't view the value of having
link |
a nation as the primary.
link |
But what they identified in England is certain flaws in the system that created situations
link |
in which their rights were being violated.
link |
So they figured the only option in order to secure these rights is to break away from
link |
England and secure a nation.
link |
Now, I am not an anarchist, as Michael Malice is, because we've discussed it.
link |
I believe you need nations.
link |
You need nations to secure those rights.
link |
That is, the rights are not – you can't secure those rights without having a nation.
link |
But the nation is just a means to an end.
link |
The end is the rights, and I think that's how the founders understood it, and that's
link |
why they created this kind of country.
link |
I think this is a good place to ask about common welfare and cohesion.
link |
Let me say what John Donne wrote that, quote, no man is an island entire of itself.
link |
Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.
link |
He went on, any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore
link |
never sent to know for whom the bell tolls.
link |
It tolls for thee.
link |
So let's talk about individualism and cohesion, not just at the political level, but at a
link |
philosophical level for the human condition.
link |
What is the role of other humans in our lives?
link |
What's the importance of cohesion?
link |
This is something you've talked about.
link |
So Aaron said that the beauty of the founding documents is that they create a cohesive union
link |
that protects the individual freedoms, but you have spoken about the value of the union,
link |
the common welfare, the cohesion in itself.
link |
So can you maybe elaborate on what is the role of cohesion and the collective, not to
link |
use that term, but multiple humans together connected in the human condition?
link |
Sure, I keep getting the feeling that Yaron and I are actually having a disagreement about
link |
empirical reality, because I think that enlightenment rationalist political thought features the
link |
individual, it features the state.
link |
There isn't really a nation other than the nation, the people as a collective is created
link |
by the state, and when the state disappears, then the collective disappears.
link |
Now, I think that when conservatives of all stripes look at this kind of thinking, that
link |
there's the individuals and then there's the state, and there really isn't anything else.
link |
When they look at that, they say, even before you get to consequences, it's a terrible theory
link |
because when we try to understand any field of inquiry, any domain, any subject area,
link |
when you try to understand it, we try to come up with a small number of concepts and of
link |
relations among the concepts, which is supposed to be able to explain, to illuminate as much
link |
as possible the important things that are taking place in the domain.
link |
And conservatives look at this, individuals and the state, and they say, you're missing
link |
most of what's going on in politics, also in personal human relations as well.
link |
But it just doesn't look like a description of human beings, it looks like a completely
link |
And then conservatives say, well, look, once you adopt this artificial thing, then the
link |
consequences are horrific because you're not describing reality.
link |
So a conservative reality begins with an empirical view of what are human beings like, and the
link |
first thing you notice about human beings, or at least the first thing I think conservatives
link |
notice is that they're sticky, is that they clump, they turn into groups.
link |
And you take any arbitrary collection of human beings and set them to a task, or even just
link |
leave them alone, and they quickly form into groups and those groups are always structured
link |
This is this competition within the hierarchy, who's going to be the leader, who's going
link |
But everywhere you look in human societies, universally, there are groups, the groups
link |
compete and they're structured internally as hierarchies, and then there are internal
link |
competitions for who leads the different groups.
link |
And when we think about scientific explanation, we allow that there are different levels of
link |
explanation that a macroscopic object like a table, it doesn't have properties that can
link |
be directly derived from the properties of the atoms or the molecules or the microfibers
link |
that make up the table.
link |
And that's understood, that there's what academic philosophers call emergent properties,
link |
that when you get up to the level of the table, it has properties like that you can't put
link |
your fist through it, which you can't necessarily know just by looking at the atoms alone.
link |
And I think conservatives say the same thing is true for political theory, for social theory,
link |
that looking at an individual human being and thinking about what does that individual
link |
human being need, which Jeroen does very eloquently in his writings.
link |
But that doesn't tell you what the characteristics are of this hierarchically structured group.
link |
As soon as you have that, it has its own qualities.
link |
So an example, the question of what holds these groups together, and we need to answer
link |
I try to answer it by saying there's such a thing as mutual loyalty.
link |
Mutual loyalty is shorthand for human beings, individuals have the capacity to include another
link |
individual within their self, within their conception of their self.
link |
When two people do it, it creates a bond, like a bond between two atoms creates a molecule.
link |
That doesn't mean that they lose their individuality.
link |
Within the group, they may still continue competing with one another.
link |
But that doesn't mean that there isn't, in reality, a bond, and that real bond is the
link |
stuff of which political events and political history are made, is the coming together,
link |
the cohesion and the dissolution of these bonded loyalty groups.
link |
That's the reality of politics.
link |
And so when I hear these discussions about individuals in the state, I feel like we're
link |
missing most of the reality, and in order to understand the political reality, we need
link |
to understand what makes human beings coherent to groups, what makes them dissolve, what
link |
makes the groups come apart and end up creating civil wars and that kind of thing.
link |
I think we also need to know, in practice, rival groups do come together and bond.
link |
I mean, basically, when we think about democratic society, we're talking about different groups,
link |
we can call them tribes, or you can come up with a different name, but different tribal
link |
groupings with different views, they come together to form a nation, and they're able
link |
to do that, even though often they hate each other, like we were talking about the American
link |
Revolution, and often they hate each other, and nevertheless, they're able to come together.
link |
And that leads us into questions like, how does honor, the giving of honor by one group
link |
to another, how does that increase the mutual loyalty between groups that are still competing
link |
All of these questions, I think we have to answer them in order to be able to talk about
link |
And I think the reason, the first reason why one should approach politics as a conservative
link |
rather than as an individualist is because it gives us these theoretical tools to be
link |
able to talk about reality, which we don't have as long as we keep within the individualist
link |
As we're talking, the metaphor that's popping up into my mind, and this is also something
link |
that bothers me with theoretical physics, the metaphor is there's some sense in which
link |
this thing's called theories of everything, where you try to describe the basic laws of
link |
physics, how they interact together, and once you do, you have a sense that you understand
link |
In a sense, you do.
link |
And that to me, that to me is understanding the individual, like how the individual behaves
link |
But then you're saying that they're, hey, hey, you're also forgetting chemistry, biology,
link |
how all of that actually comes together, the stickiness, the stickiness of molecules and
link |
how they build different systems and they, some systems can kill each other, some systems
link |
can flourish, some can make pancakes and bananas and some can make poison and all those kinds
link |
of things that we need to be able to, we need to consider the full stack of things that
link |
are constructed from the fundamental basics.
link |
And I guess, Yaron, you're saying that, no, you're just like the theoretical physicist,
link |
it all starts at the bottom, like if you need to preserve the fundamentals of reality, which
link |
is the individual, like the basic atom of human society is the individual, do you?
link |
So yes, so the basic unit, the basic moral unit, the basic ethical unit in society is
link |
And yeah, of course we form groups and you can't understand history unless you understand
link |
group formation and group motivation and I have a view about what kind of groups should
link |
be formed and politically, from a political perspective, voluntary ones, ones in which
link |
we join when we want to join and we can leave when we want to leave and ones that help us
link |
and clearly groups help us pursue whatever it is a goal is ultimately.
link |
So in the pursuit of happiness, there are lots of groups that one wants to form, whether
link |
it's marriage, whether it's businesses, whether it's sports teams, there are lots of different
link |
groups one wants to form, but the question is what is the standard of well being?
link |
Is it the standard of well being some algorithm that maximizes the well being of a group,
link |
some utilitarian function?
link |
Is it something that's inherent in the group that we can measure as goodness and to help
link |
with individuals within as long as we can get the group to function well, we don't really
link |
care about where the individuals are.
link |
So to me, the goal of creating groups is the well being of the individual and that's why
link |
it needs to be voluntary and that's why there has to be a way out of those.
link |
Sometimes it's costly, it's not a cheap out, that's why you should really think about what
link |
groups you and this on an issue that's very controversial, maybe we can discuss, maybe
link |
To me, immigration is so important, open immigration or free immigration is because that's another
link |
group that I would like people to be able to voluntarily choose both in and out and
link |
I'd like to see people be able to go and join that group that they believe will allow for
link |
the pursuit of happiness.
link |
But let me say that that's a description of an ideal, what I'm just saying.
link |
I recognize that that's not the reality in which we live.
link |
I recognize that that's not the reality in which history.
link |
Recognizing that the individual exists in a sense, philosophically, is a massive achievement.
link |
Human beings, however they evolved, clearly we started out in a tribal context in which
link |
the individual didn't matter.
link |
We followed the leader, the competition was for power, power over the group and dictates
link |
how the group should work.
link |
The history of human beings is a history of gaining knowledge and part of the knowledge
link |
is the value of an individual.
link |
You can see that in religion, you can see that in philosophy, you can see that through
link |
We evolved from tribes into nations and then empires and conflicts between nations and
link |
conflicts between empires.
link |
We tried a lot of different things, if you will.
link |
I don't think we always did it on purpose, but different philosophies, different sets
link |
of ideas drove us towards different collectives, different groupings, and different ways in
link |
which to structure.
link |
After 3,000 years of known history, there's history before that, but we don't know much
link |
about it, 3,000 years of known history, you can sit back and evaluate.
link |
I think that's what is done in the Enlightenment.
link |
You sit back, and certainly we can do it today, we can sit back and evaluate.
link |
What promotes human flourishing and what doesn't?
link |
What do we mean by human flourishing?
link |
Who's flourishing?
link |
Well, individual human beings.
link |
Now, since I don't believe in a zero sum world, and the world is not zero sum, we can see
link |
that, it's empirically possible to show that the world is not a zero sum game, my flourishing
link |
doesn't come at your expense, so I can show that a system that promotes my flourishing
link |
probably promotes your flourishing as well and promotes the general welfare in that sense
link |
because it promotes individuals flourishing, and we can look at all these examples of how
link |
we evolved and what leads to bloodshed and what doesn't and what promotes this ability
link |
to flourish as an individual, again, an achievement, the idea of individual flourishing, and then
link |
we can think about how to create a political system around that, a political system that
link |
recognizes and allows for the formation of groups, but just under the principle of voluntary.
link |
You can't be forced to join a group, you can't be coerced into forming a group other than
link |
the fact that you're born in a particular place, in a particular, you know, that in
link |
a sense, but that's not forced, there's a difference between metaphysics and between
link |
So this is something that came up in the debate that Yoram said that not all human relations
link |
are voluntary, and you kind of emphasized that a lot of where we are is not voluntary.
link |
We're grounded, we're connected in so much.
link |
So how can a human be free in the way you're describing, individual be free if some part
link |
of who we are is not voluntary, some part of who we are is other people?
link |
Well because what do we mean by freedom?
link |
Freedom doesn't mean the negation of the laws of physics, right?
link |
Freedom doesn't mean ignoring, freedom means the ability within the scope of what's available
link |
for you to choose, being able to choose those things.
link |
So in a political context, freedom means, you know, the absence of coercion.
link |
So once you're an adult, you know, Yoram says you're born into a particular religious
link |
context, absolutely, but once you're an adult, I think it's incumbent on you to evaluate
link |
that religious context and look at different religions or nonreligion or whatever and choose
link |
your philosophy of life, choose your values, choose how you want to live your life.
link |
That's the freedom.
link |
The freedom is, one system says you're either coerced by the state or coerced by the group
link |
or coerced by society around you to follow a particular path, or the expectation is,
link |
the demand is, the pressure is to conform to a particular path, and my view is, no,
link |
you should be in a position to be able to choose your path, and that choice means you
link |
look around, you evaluate, you evaluate based on history, based on knowledge, based on all
link |
of these things, and you choose what that path would be.
link |
That's fundamentally what freedom means.
link |
Yes, you cannot choose your parents, but of course not.
link |
Nobody would claim that that's within the scope of what is possible.
link |
I think the coercion freedom dichotomy, these are too few concepts, coercion and freedom.
link |
It's too simplistic to be able to describe what we're actually dealing with.
link |
The traditional Anglo conservative view is that society has to be, it has to be ordered,
link |
it has to be disciplined, and there are two choices for how it can be ordered.
link |
One is that a people is, by its own traditions, you would say voluntarily, but these are mostly
link |
inherited traditions, by its own traditions, it is ordered.
link |
For example, people just in general will not go into somebody else's yard, because that's
link |
the custom here, is we don't go into somebody else's yard without their permission.
link |
Fortescue, we're talking about 500 years ago already, Fortescue says that the genius of
link |
the English people is that our government can be mild and apply very little coercion,
link |
because the people are so disciplined.
link |
When he says the people are so disciplined, what he's saying is that our nation, our tribes,
link |
we have strong traditions which channel people through tools of being honored and dishonored.
link |
That's a reality that exists in every society, and it's not captured by your distinction
link |
between coercion and lack of coercion.
link |
When I'm going to be dishonored if I don't care for my aging mother, I'm not being coerced
link |
like the state comes and puts a gun to my head, but I am being pressured and given guidelines.
link |
I'm saying that's wrong, and I'm saying that's dangerous, because that could easily be used
link |
for bad traditions.
link |
No, of course it is.
link |
What's the standard by which we evaluate what a good tradition is and what a bad tradition
link |
You're getting to the standard too fast.
link |
You're getting to the standard too fast.
link |
But first I want to know, factually, is it true that all societies work like this?
link |
Because if it's true that all societies work like this, then saying we should be free from
link |
it is just a fantasy.
link |
A, I don't think all societies work like this.
link |
I think much of what happened in America post founding in the 19th century didn't work like
link |
I think that's the genius of America, and I think what happened during the 19th century
link |
in the Industrial Revolution, what happened in the 19th century to some extent globally
link |
but certainly in the United States didn't work that way.
link |
It broke tradition.
link |
I think all innovation breaks tradition, and I think that's what the genius of this country
link |
is and the post enlightenment world is.
link |
I think pre that tradition, they work that way.
link |
And then the question is, do people understand why they do what they do?
link |
That is, I don't want people doing what I think is right just because I think it's right
link |
and I've created a society in which somebody founded this country in a particular way,
link |
so we're just going to follow.
link |
I want people to understand what they're doing.
link |
So I want people to have a respect for property, not because it's a tradition, but because
link |
they understand the value of a respect for property.
link |
I want people not to murder one another, not because there's a commandment, thou shall
link |
not murder, but because they have an understanding of why murdering is bad and wrong and bad
link |
for them and bad for the kind of world that they want to live in.
link |
And I think that's what we achieve through enlightenment, through education, and where
link |
we don't treat people just as a blob, a tribe that just follows orders, but we now treat
link |
individuals as capable of thinking for themselves, capable for discovering truth, capable of
link |
figuring out their own values, and that's the big break between.
link |
And this is the break, I think, that the Declaration represents, the break between society that
link |
is based on tradition, following commandments, following rules, because they are the rules,
link |
because they are the commandments, and a society where individuals understand those rules,
link |
Yes, it's now become a tradition, let's say, to respect individual rights, to respect
link |
property rights, but they're not following it because it's a tradition.
link |
They're following it because they understand what it is about it that makes it good.
link |
So that's the world, I think, that we were on the process of evolving towards, and that
link |
is what got destroyed in the 20th century and has certainly disappeared today.
link |
And I think that's the great tragedy, is that we're evolving to a place where people understood
link |
the values that represent it.
link |
Of course, the danger with tradition is, I mean, we'll agree, right?
link |
Yeah, it's okay to kill the Jew, right?
link |
Or it's okay to steal people's property if they're of a certain color, or it's okay to
link |
Those are all traditions.
link |
And yet, once you stop and say, but what are they based on?
link |
Is this just, based on some moral law?
link |
There's something wrong here.
link |
We can't achieve happiness and success if we follow these rules.
link |
You're talking about reason and tradition, but I think I would love to sort of linger
link |
on the stickiness of humans that you describe.
link |
So you kind of said this primary, the individuals, is primary and that was a great invention.
link |
But to me, it's not at all obvious that somehow, that the invention that humans have been practicing
link |
for a very long time of the stickiness of community, of family, of love, that's not
link |
obvious to me, that's not also fundamental to human flourishing and should be celebrated
link |
Now, I suppose the argument you're making is when you start to let the state define
link |
what the stickiness, how the stickiness looks between humans, so you're really like the
link |
But I just want to sort of, the observation is, humans seem to be pretty happy when they
link |
form communities, however you define that.
link |
So romantic partnership, family.
link |
People are miserable in other communities.
link |
So the nature of the community matters, right?
link |
We know that some bondings are not healthy and not good for the individuals involved
link |
and they don't thrive.
link |
So I absolutely, I mean, I'm a lover, not a fighter, right?
link |
I'm a huge believer in love.
link |
The whole philosophy I think is a love based philosophy.
link |
I fight in order to love, right?
link |
So love is at the core of all of this and it's a love of life.
link |
It's a love of the world out there and it's a love of other people because they represent
link |
So the stickiness is there, it's, you know, my point is A, it should be chosen.
link |
It should be consciously chosen and this is, put aside the state.
link |
Forget the state for a minute.
link |
What I would encourage individuals to do, and this is where, you know, I'm not primarily
link |
a political, you know, interested in politics, although I tend to talk most about that.
link |
I'm primarily interested in human beings and how they live in a sense in morality.
link |
And what I would urge individuals to do is to think about their relationships, to choose
link |
the best relationships possible, but to seek out great relationships because other human
link |
beings are an immense value to us.
link |
And you know, when I write, you know, maybe you won't quote this or not, but when I write
link |
that, you know, about the trade of principle and trading, you know, it's easy and obvious
link |
to think of it as a materialistic kind of thing.
link |
You know, I get, you know, I do the chores this day and my wife does the chores the other
link |
day and we're trading.
link |
But trading is much more subtle than that and much more, can be much more spiritual
link |
It's about the trading in emotions.
link |
It's about the way one sees each other, it's what one gets from one another.
link |
I think friendship is a form of trade.
link |
Now I know that that seems to make it material, but I don't think of trade as a material
link |
Friendship is incredibly important in life.
link |
Love is incredibly important in life.
link |
You know, having a group of friends is incredibly important in life.
link |
All of these are sticky and important.
link |
How can I try to be eloquent on this?
link |
So if you give people freedom, if you give people, well, not politics, relations, relationships.
link |
So this is interesting because we have an interesting dynamic going on here in terms
link |
of beliefs, they're differing and there was interesting overlaps, but there's a worry.
link |
If you look at human history and you study the lessons of history and you look at modern
link |
society, if you give people freedom in terms of stickiness and human relations and so on
link |
full, like if you not give people freedom, emphasize freedom as the highest ideal.
link |
You start getting more tender online dating, the stickiness dissolves just like in chemistry.
link |
You start to have a gas versus a liquid, right?
link |
So you have to study what actually happens.
link |
If you emphasize that the stickiness, the bonds of humans is holding you back, the exercise
link |
of voluntary choice is the highest ideal, the danger of that is for that to be implemented
link |
or interpreted in certain kinds of ways by us flawed humans that are not, I mean, you
link |
could say we're perfectly reasonable and rational, we can think through all of our decisions,
link |
but really, I mean, especially you're young, you get horny, you make decisions that are
link |
suboptimal perhaps.
link |
So the point is you have to look at reality of when you emphasize different things.
link |
So when you talk about what is the ideal life, what is the ideal relations, you have to also
link |
think like, what are you emphasizing?
link |
I think you both agree on what's important, that community can be important, that freedom
link |
is important, but what are you emphasizing and you're really emphasizing the individual
link |
and you're emphasizing, Yoram, you're emphasizing more of the community, of the family, of the
link |
stickiness of the nation.
link |
Well, look, I don't want to deny the place of the individual.
link |
I think that there really is a very great change in civilization when the books of Moses
link |
announce that the individual is created in the image of God.
link |
That's a step that's, as far as we know, without precedent before that in history, and to a
link |
very large degree, I mean, one of the kind of unspoken things going on is that Yoram
link |
and I really do agree on all sorts of things, I think in part because we're both Jewish.
link |
You did say Yoram is basically Moses, yes sir.
link |
No, I said he was channeling Moses, but that's still, in my book, that's still pretty impressive.
link |
No, that's a compliment, I took it as one.
link |
For me, that's a compliment.
link |
And we'll talk about this a little bit just for the listeners, just so they know, Yoram,
link |
amongst many things, we'll talk about the virtue of nationalism, but you're also a religious
link |
scholar of sorts, or at least leverage the Bible for much, not much, but some of the
link |
wisdom in your life.
link |
Look, the way that Yoram looks at enlightenment, or maybe at Ayn Rand, that's the way that
link |
I see the Hebrew scripture and the tradition that comes from it.
link |
It has the same kind of place in my life, and I just, I don't know how much we want
link |
to explore it, but I think that the agreement that we do have about the positive value of
link |
the creative individual, the positive value of the individual's desire to improve the
link |
world, and in my book that means including his or her desire to improve his family, his
link |
tribe, his congregation, his nation, but it still comes from this kind of, what Yoram
link |
calls selfishness, the desire to make things better for yourself.
link |
In Hebrew Bible and in Judaism, that just is a positive thing.
link |
Of course, it can be taken too far, but it just is positive, and it doesn't carry these
link |
kinds of, you should turn the other cheek, you should give away your cloak, you should
link |
love your enemy, these kinds of Christian tropes do not exist in Judaism, and so it
link |
just, I like listening to Yoram, I do feel like he goes too far on various things, but
link |
I also hear underneath it, I can sort of hear the Jewish current and the resistance to things
link |
about Christianity that Jews often find.
link |
Okay, I'll ask you a question there.
link |
Can you make an argument for turn the other cheek?
link |
I tend to, I guess you would equate that with altruism.
link |
It's unjust to turn the other cheek.
link |
You don't love yourself if you're turning the other cheek, it's a lack of love, lack
link |
Well, let me push back on that, because I like turn the other cheek, especially on Twitter.
link |
So I like block the offender on Twitter.
link |
No, so Twitter aside is more like you're investing in the long term version of yourself versus
link |
So that's the way I think about it, is like the energy you put onto the world.
link |
The turn the other cheek philosophy allows you to walk through the fire gracefully.
link |
I mean, perhaps you would reframe that as not, then that's not being altruistic or whatever,
link |
but there is something pragmatic about that kind of approach to life.
link |
Disciplining yourself so that you become a better version of yourself.
link |
I mean, not only do we agree, but I think every religious and philosophical tradition
link |
probably has a version of that, even Kant, who we joined together in finding to be terrible.
link |
Even Kant makes that distinction between the short term interest and the long term interest.
link |
So I think that's universal.
link |
I don't know of anybody who's really disagreeing about that.
link |
The thing that we were talking about a couple of minutes ago before we got onto this tangent
link |
is the relationship between the individual who is in the image of God and is of value
link |
Nevertheless, there's this question about what is good for that person and also what
link |
I'm not sure that those are exactly the same things, but they're both certainly relevant
link |
And I feel like, I mean, I think we're beginning to uncover this empirical disagreement about
link |
what it is that's good for the individual and what it is that makes them happy.
link |
And I'll go back to something I raised in the debate, which is this theory of Durkheim
link |
that now has been popularized by Jordan Peterson.
link |
Durkheim argues that he's writing a book on suicide, he's trying to understand what
link |
brings individuals to suicide, and he coins this term, anomie, lack of law.
link |
And the argument is that individuals basically are healthy and happy when they find their
link |
place in a hierarchy.
link |
Within a loyalty group in a certain place in a hierarchy, they compete and struggle
link |
in order to rise in the hierarchy, but they know where they are.
link |
They know who they are.
link |
The kids today like to say they know what their identity is because they associate themselves.
link |
Their self expands to take on the leadership, the different layers, the past and the future
link |
of this particular hierarchy.
link |
And I completely agree with you, Ron, that some of these hierarchies are pernicious and
link |
oppressive and terrible, and some of them are better.
link |
What we might disagree about is that you can find human beings who are capable of becoming
link |
healthy and happy off by themselves without participating in this kind of structure.
link |
The minute that you accept, if you accept, that this is empirical reality about human
link |
beings, it's an iron law, you can't do anything.
link |
You can tell human beings that they can be free of all constraints, all you want, and
link |
you can get them to do things that, as you say, they can have contempt for hierarchies.
link |
They can say, I'm not going to serve the man, I'm just going to burn them all down.
link |
You can get kids to say all of these things.
link |
You can get them either to be Marxists who are actively trying to overthrow and destroy
link |
the existing hierarchies, or you can make them some kind of liberal where they basically
link |
pretend the hierarchies don't exist, they just act like they're not there.
link |
In both cases, and it's not a coincidence that that's what universities teach is your
link |
choice is either Marxist revolution or liberal ignoring of the hierarchies.
link |
In both cases, what you've done is you've eliminated the possibility that the young
link |
person will be able to find his or her place in a way that allows them to grow and exercise
link |
their love, their drive, their creativity in order to advance something constructive.
link |
You've eliminated it and you've put the burden on them, a kind of a Nietzschean burden, to
link |
just be the fountain of all values yourself, which maybe some people can do it, but almost
link |
And I think that's empirically true.
link |
And so I think by telling them about their freedom rather than telling them about the
link |
need to join into some traditionalist hierarchy that can be good and healthy for them, I think
link |
we're destroying them.
link |
I think we're destroying this generation and the last one and the next.
link |
Yaron, is the burden of freedom destroying mankind?
link |
I mean, how many people are indeed free?
link |
Look, the problem is that we're caught up on political concepts and we're moving into
link |
And I don't think it's right to tell people, you're free, go do whatever the hell you want.
link |
Just use your emotions.
link |
Just go where you want to go in the spur of the moment.
link |
Don't think long term.
link |
Well, don't think.
link |
One has to provide moral guidance and morality here is crucial and crucially important.
link |
And part of taking responsibility for your own life is establishing a moral framework
link |
And what does it mean to live a good life?
link |
I mean, that's much more important in a sense of a question.
link |
And it is my belief that people can do that.
link |
They can find and choose the values necessary to achieve a good life, but they need guidance.
link |
They need guidance.
link |
This is why religion evolved in my view, because people need guidance.
link |
So I had called religion a primitive form of philosophy.
link |
It was the original philosophy that provided people with some guidance about what to do
link |
and what not to do.
link |
And secular philosophy is supposed to do the same.
link |
And the problem is that I think religion and 99% of secular philosophy give people bad
link |
advice about what to do, and therefore they do bad stuff.
link |
And sometimes because when they do good stuff, it gets reinforced, we survive in spite of
link |
But ideas like Kant and Hegel and Marx and so on give young people awful advice about
link |
how to live and what to do, and as a consequence, really bad stuff happens.
link |
And the world in which we exist today, which we agree there are a lot of pathologies to
link |
it, a lot of bad stuff going on, in my view is going the wrong way.
link |
In my view, a product of a set of ideas, on the one hand I think Christian ideas, on the
link |
other hand I think secular philosophical ideas that have driven this country and the world
link |
more generally in a really, really bad direction.
link |
And this is why I do what I do, because I think at the core of it, the only way to change
link |
it is not to impose a new set of ideas from the top, because I worry about who's going
link |
to be doing the imposition.
link |
Plus, I don't believe you can force people to be good.
link |
It's to challenge the ideas, it's to question the ideas, it's to present an alternative
link |
view of morality, an alternative set of moral principles, ultimately an alternative view
link |
of political principles.
link |
But it has to start with morality.
link |
If you don't – and my morality is centered on the individual and what the individual
link |
should do with his life in order to attain a good life, I believe that leads to happiness,
link |
the good life, that's why it's good, right?
link |
The goal is survival and thriving and flourishing and happiness, ultimately.
link |
But politics is a servant of that in the end.
link |
It's not an end in itself.
link |
So the real issue is, you know, you asked before what is the value of relationship.
link |
There's an enormous value in relationship because we get values from other people.
link |
We don't produce all our values.
link |
We don't produce all our spiritual values, and we don't produce all our material values.
link |
Other people are a massive benefit to us because they produce values we can't – there's
link |
a massive division of labor in terms of values, not just in economics, but also in philosophy
link |
It's why we have teachers.
link |
It's why we have moral teachers.
link |
Moral teachers are important to help guide us towards a good life.
link |
Not all of us are philosophers.
link |
But what I do demand, if you all are individuals – this is where I put a burden on people,
link |
Understand what you're doing, right?
link |
You know, don't embrace a moral teaching because it was tradition.
link |
Don't embrace a moral teaching because your parents embraced it.
link |
Don't embrace a moral teaching just because your teachers are teaching it.
link |
Embrace it because you – embrace it.
link |
You might be wrong.
link |
You might embrace the wrong one, but take moral responsibility.
link |
Take responsibility over your life by evaluating, testing, challenging what you have received
link |
and choosing what you're going to pursue.
link |
And I acknowledge empirically that most people don't do that, and this is why intellectual
link |
leadership is so important.
link |
This is why you want to get – you want the voices in a culture to be good voices so that
link |
those people who don't think for themselves end up being followers, but they end up being
link |
followers of somebody good versus followers of somebody bad.
link |
But for the thinkers in the world out there, who I think are the people who count, who
link |
are the people who shape society –
link |
Not count in a sense that you can dismiss the lives of others and, you know, because
link |
I'm – you know, obviously I'm anti coercion and anti violence, but –
link |
They sound like Plato.
link |
I don't want to sound like Plato.
link |
But in a sense that they're the ones who shape – who end up shaping the world.
link |
They're the ones who end up shaping how the world is.
link |
I want those people to make choices about their values and not to just accept them based
link |
on tradition or based on the commandment or based on where they happen to grow up.
link |
And in that sense, again, you know, I do – and this is an interesting point where we disagree,
link |
but I'm not exactly sure what Jerome's position is.
link |
I do believe in universal values.
link |
That is, there are things that are good, and there are things that are evil.
link |
And I think we'd agree on that.
link |
When there are systems, we agree that communism and fascism are evil.
link |
Well, I think we should be able to agree that some things – some political systems are
link |
And maybe there's this middle ground where we both think that they're not particularly
link |
bad but not particularly good, and you all might think they're better than I think
link |
But if we can agree on this is good and this is evil, right, then the systems that tend
link |
towards the good are good, and the systems that tend towards the evil are evil.
link |
But that's universal, right?
link |
You know, I look at places like South Korea, Japan, Asia – you know, cultures that are
link |
very, very different in many respects in the West.
link |
And yet when they adopt certain Western ideas about freedom, about liberty, about individualism
link |
– I mean, the Japanese Constitution, because MacArthur forced it in there, has the pursuit
link |
of happiness in the Constitution, not because they chose it because he put it in there.
link |
But they, to some extent, adopted that, and they're successful places today.
link |
Those societies in Asia that didn't adopt these values are not successful societies
link |
Yaron, Japan has a birth rate of, what is it, 1.1, 1.2 children per woman?
link |
I mean, look, there are some things – there are some places where you give people freedom
link |
– this is also biblical, right?
link |
The idea that everyone did what's right in his own eyes, okay?
link |
This is a refrain in the Book of Judges.
link |
And the Bible is not an anti–freedom book.
link |
I mean, there's many, many – look, I –
link |
Well, let's talk –
link |
No, we're not – fine.
link |
Oh, we'll get there.
link |
Oh, he's going to guide us.
link |
Okay, look, just as an asterisk, I'm not asking you because the Bible is such a great
link |
authoritarian book – it's not that at all.
link |
In my view, if you want to know where this – what you call the sanctity of property,
link |
where does the sanctity of property comes from?
link |
It comes from the Ten Commandments.
link |
It comes from Moses saying, I haven't taken anything from anyone.
link |
It comes from Samuel saying, I haven't taken anything from anyone.
link |
It's the condemnation of Ahab, of the unjust kings who steal the property of their subjects.
link |
So, property and freedom, I think there's a great basis for it in the Bible.
link |
But right now, I'm focusing on this other question, which is what happens when everyone
link |
does what's right in his own eyes?
link |
That's the Book of Judges, and that's this civil war, moral corruption, theft, idolatry,
link |
murder, rape – I mean, that's what happens when everyone does whatever is right in his
link |
Well, no, that's what it says in the text.
link |
Okay, so when I look at – you're right, there are things that I think are objectively
link |
I think it's really hard to get people to agree to them, almost impossible.
link |
But when I look at a country which is approaching one birth per woman – in other words, half
link |
of the minimum necessary for replacement – you can say whatever you want.
link |
Whatever you want about immigration, we can have that discussion.
link |
But the point is that when your values are such that you're not even capable of doing
link |
the most basic techniques that human beings need in order to be able to propagate themselves
link |
and their values and the way they see things, then I – look, you're finished.
link |
You can't say that –
link |
So if I implied that Japan is an ideal society, I take that back.
link |
But let's think about Japan for a minute.
link |
I just think we're in trouble, and we're in trouble –
link |
All right, all right.
link |
I'll hold you to that.
link |
It's being a tutorial.
link |
It's his show, man.
link |
We enter into his hierarchy and that's it.
link |
We should talk about hierarchy.
link |
Just to clarify, how do you explain the situation in Japan?
link |
Is it the decrease in value in family, like some of the – just expand on that.
link |
How do you explain that situation?
link |
You're saying that that society is in trouble in a certain way.
link |
Can you kind of describe the nature of that trouble?
link |
I'm saying that when the individual is part of a social group – this can be a family,
link |
a congregation, a community, a tribe, a nation – when the individual feels that the things
link |
that are happening to the society are things that are happening to him or to her.
link |
And I want to emphasize, this is not the standard view of collectivism that Mussolini will say,
link |
the glory of the individual is in totally immersing himself in the organic whole.
link |
That's not what I'm saying.
link |
I'm saying that human beings have and are both.
link |
They enter into a society to which they are loyal and they compete with one another in
link |
the terms that that society allows competition, but also sometimes by bending the rules and
link |
by shaping them and by changing them.
link |
What you see in many societies, certainly throughout the liberal West, but also in countries
link |
that have been affected by the liberal West, by industrialization and ideas of individualism,
link |
what you see is a collapse of a willingness of the individual to look at what is needed
link |
by the whole and to make choices that are, as Jorn would call them, selfish because the
link |
purpose of them is self expression, competition, self assertion, moving up in the hierarchy,
link |
achieving honor or wealth in order to do those things.
link |
But when you stop being able to look at the framework of a particular society and identify
link |
with it, you cease to understand what it is that you need to do, not every single person,
link |
but I'm talking about society wide.
link |
So there are a few individuals who are just going to have a fantastic time and live the
link |
kind of life that Jorn is describing, and the great majority, they stop being willing
link |
They stop being willing to get married.
link |
They stop being willing to have children.
link |
They stop being willing to start companies.
link |
They stop being willing to put themselves out to do great things because the guide rails
link |
that told them what kinds of things and the social feedback that honored them when they
link |
did things like getting married and having children, they've been crushed.
link |
And what have they been crushed by?
link |
They've been crushed by the false view that if you tell the individual, be free, make
link |
all your own decisions, that they will then be free and make all their own decisions.
link |
They stop being human.
link |
So do you want to respond to that?
link |
So I don't think anybody should have children.
link |
If the goal, there's a good tweet clip that you can make.
link |
I don't think anybody should have children for the goal of perpetuating their nation
link |
or expanding their society or for some, I think they'd make horrible parents if that
link |
was the goal, the purpose of doing it.
link |
I think people should have children because they want to embrace that challenge, that
link |
beauty, that experience, that amazing, very, very hard, very, very difficult experience
link |
And it's about being able to project a long term, but also being able to enjoy and love
link |
the creation of another human being, that process of creation.
link |
It is a beautiful, self interested thing.
link |
And by the way, not everybody should have children.
link |
I think way too many people have children.
link |
There's some awful parents out there that I wish would stop.
link |
I mean, there are.
link |
Life is precious and life of suffering is sad.
link |
It's sad to see people suffer and a lot of people are born into situations and are born
link |
into parents that destroy their capacity to ever live a good life.
link |
And that's a tragic and sad thing.
link |
So I don't measure the health of a society in how many children they're having or health
link |
of a couple of whether they have children or not.
link |
Those are individual choices.
link |
Some people make a choice not to have children, which is completely rational and consistent
link |
with their values.
link |
Now when you look at a society overall, I do think having children and not having children
link |
is a reflection of something.
link |
I think it's a reflection of a certain optimism about the future.
link |
I think it's a reflection of thinking long term versus short term.
link |
I think a short term society doesn't have children.
link |
People don't have children there because children are a long term investment.
link |
They require real planning and real effort and real thinking about the long term.
link |
But those are moral issues.
link |
And again, we're confusing or mixing.
link |
When I say Japan, look how well Japan has done.
link |
I don't mean the specific Japanese people and how many kids they're having and what
link |
kind of life they're having in terms of these kind of particulars.
link |
But think about the alternatives Japan faces if you look around the options that they face.
link |
They tried empire.
link |
They tried nationalistic empire.
link |
It didn't turn out too well for them or anybody who they interacted with.
link |
They could have become North Korea.
link |
We know how that turned out.
link |
We know what that is.
link |
We've seen Cambodia, if you've ever been to Cambodia and seen the kind of poverty.
link |
And yes, maybe Cambodians have lots of children, but God, I'd rather be in Japan any day than
link |
have children in the kind of poverty and horrific circumstances they have.
link |
But in the context of the available regimes that were possible post World War II for the
link |
Japanese to embrace, they embraced one that generally led to prosperity, to freedom, to
link |
individuals pursuing values, not perfectly because they didn't implement the philosophical
link |
foundation, the moral foundation that I would like them to have.
link |
They're still being impacted by Kantian, Hegelian, whatever philosophy that's out there in the
link |
West that's destroying the better part.
link |
So you give people freedom, now what do they do with it?
link |
And if they have a bad philosophy, they're going to do bad things with that freedom.
link |
You tell people to do whatever they choose to do.
link |
But if they have bad ideas, they will choose to do bad things.
link |
So it is true that the primacy of morality and the primacy of philosophy has to be recognized.
link |
It's not the primacy of politics.
link |
And indeed, you don't get free societies unless you have some elements of decent philosophy.
link |
But you can get free societies with a rotten philosophy, but they don't stay free for very
link |
So how can it be a decent philosophy if it doesn't care about posterity?
link |
If you're willing to say, I'm offering guidance, I think you should live as a traitor, all
link |
relationships should be voluntary, those are interesting things.
link |
But the moment that it comes to posterity, to the future, to there being a future, let's
link |
say that there were a society that lived the way, in general, according to your view.
link |
Let's say there was such a society.
link |
How can you not care whether that society is capable of passing it on to the next generation
link |
But the way to pass it on to the next generation is through ideas and not through having children.
link |
Having children is an individual choice that some people are going to make and some people
link |
are not, but the fundamental that preserves the good life.
link |
What does that even mean?
link |
If every generation from now on, your society that was good at a certain point has half
link |
as many people in it, it's going to very quickly, it's just going to be overrun.
link |
What do you mean overrun by whom?
link |
Are we just totally ahistorical?
link |
If you're the Spartans and you have all of these warrior values, but you stop having
link |
children, you get overrun, you get defeated.
link |
Well, in the case of Sparta, that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
link |
That's not my point.
link |
You have to have the ability to have enough children to create enough wealth and enough
link |
power, enough strength.
link |
Who makes these kind of conclusions, the decisions about how many you make it as an individual
link |
and you decide that in order to...
link |
No, we're not talking about...
link |
We're talking about what kind of intellectual, cultural, religious inheritance you give your
link |
And those are the ideas that I give my children and those ideas are going to perpetuate because
link |
they're good ideas.
link |
If they're bad ideas...
link |
No, they're not going to perpetuate.
link |
They can't be good ideas if they don't produce future generations.
link |
What are you talking about?
link |
Why would they not produce future generations?
link |
Because look at every liberal society on earth is in democratic collapse.
link |
There's not a single liberal society on earth today that I'm willing to defend.
link |
Because they're not living by my philosophy, they've not accepted my ideas.
link |
They have a semblance, they have a semblance of a political system that is a little bit
link |
like what I would like, far from what I would ideal, but they certainly don't have a moral
link |
I believe that people who have the right moral foundation, most of them, not all of them,
link |
but most of them will have children, most of them will continue into the future, most
link |
of them will fight for a future, but not because they care what happens in 200 years, but because
link |
they care about their lifetime and part of having fun and enjoying one's lifetime is
link |
having kids, is projecting into the future.
link |
Are you really going to tell me that people have children because it's fun?
link |
They're fun when they're four years old.
link |
They're not fun when they're 15.
link |
When they're 15, they're not fun.
link |
I agree with that.
link |
No, they're just not fun.
link |
Look, you don't do this.
link |
I'm learning so much today.
link |
You don't do this for fun.
link |
Marriage also you don't do for fun.
link |
There are times that are fun and there are times that are not fun.
link |
Fun is not exactly the right word, but you certainly do it for happiness.
link |
You do it for fulfillment.
link |
You do it as a challenge.
link |
You do it for making your life better, for making your life interesting, for making your
link |
life challenging, for embracing.
link |
Part of it is fun, part of it is hard work, but you do it because it makes your life a
link |
It's very interesting, empirically speaking, if you dissolve the cultural backbone where
link |
everybody comes up, like the background, the moral ideas that everybody is raised with,
link |
if you dissolve that and if you truly emphasize the individual, I think Yoram is saying it's
link |
going to naturally lead to the dissolution of marriage and all of these concepts.
link |
So basically saying you're not going to choose some of these things.
link |
You're going to more and more choose the short term optimization versus the long term optimization
link |
beyond your own life, like posterity.
link |
So I don't think about posterity.
link |
I don't know what posterity means.
link |
I can project into my children's life.
link |
Maybe when I have grandchildren, it's the grandchildren's life, but it ends there.
link |
I can't project 300 years into the future.
link |
It's ridiculous to try to think about 300 years into the future.
link |
Things change so much.
link |
But that's the founding fathers.
link |
That's the conservative founding fathers.
link |
Well, no, I don't think.
link |
I think they set up a system.
link |
I think the whole idea was to set up a system that was self perpetuating that would if people
link |
lived up to it, right?
link |
Would perpetuate itself into 300 years.
link |
No systems are self perpetuating.
link |
Things rise and fall and it's the...
link |
They don't necessarily rise and fall.
link |
I don't believe in that.
link |
Let me speak to your heart for a second.
link |
The great individuals in societies are the people who have seen the decline, understood
link |
it and provided resources in order to redirect and bring it back up.
link |
You can't agree to that?
link |
I don't see it that way at all.
link |
Yes, I want people out there to rebel against conventional morality.
link |
I think conventional morality is destructive to their own lives and broadly to posterity
link |
because I think it's unsustainable, it's not good and this goes to...
link |
I think conventional morality is Christian morality.
link |
It's a morality that's been secularized through Christian lens and I think it's destructive,
link |
but I don't want them to dump that and not replace it with something.
link |
I want and I think it's necessary and essential for people to have a moral code and to have
link |
Morality is a set of guidelines to live your life.
link |
It is a set of values to guide you, to help you identify what is good for you and what
link |
Let me argue against it.
link |
You're saying central to this morality that people should have is reason.
link |
You're not saying other things.
link |
You're basically saying reason will arrive a lot of things.
link |
Why are you so sure that reason is so important?
link |
There's nothing else.
link |
But it seems like obvious to you.
link |
So first of all, humans have limited cognitive capacity.
link |
So even to assume the reason could actually function that well from an artificial intelligence
link |
researcher perspective.
link |
The whole discussion about whether there is such a thing as artificial intelligence, whether
link |
that is what it is.
link |
But see, here's the thing.
link |
I mean, you're very confident about this particular thing, but not about other aspects of human
link |
nature that seems to be obviously present.
link |
So yes, human relations, love, connection between us.
link |
So it's very possible to argue that all of the accomplishments of reason would not exist
link |
without the connection of other humans.
link |
But of course that's true.
link |
It's not obvious though.
link |
It's possible that reason is a property of the collective of multiple people interacting
link |
When you look at the greatest inventions of human history, some people tell that story
link |
by individual inventors.
link |
You could argue that's true.
link |
Some people say that it's a bunch of people in a room together.
link |
The idea is bubbling.
link |
And if you're saying individual is primary and they have the full power and the capacity
link |
to make choices, I don't know if that's necessarily obviously true.
link |
So there's a straw manning going on here of my position, right?
link |
My favorite thing to do.
link |
You don't do it and you do it more politely than anybody else I know when you do it.
link |
Of course we all stand on the shoulders of giants.
link |
Of course, invention and science is collaborative.
link |
Not always, not a hundred percent.
link |
Newton stood on the shoulders of giants.
link |
I don't know how collaborative he was.
link |
He wasn't exactly known as a bubbling up and testing ideas out with other people.
link |
But this is a metaphysical fact.
link |
You can't eat for me.
link |
There's no collective stomach.
link |
You can't eat for me.
link |
You know, you can provide me with food, but I need to do the eating.
link |
You can't think for me.
link |
You can help stimulate my thought.
link |
You can challenge my thinking.
link |
You can add to it.
link |
But in the end of the day, only I can either do my thinking or not do my thinking, but
link |
But you can think all by yourself alone.
link |
What does that mean?
link |
Can I think on a desert island?
link |
Yes, I can think on a desert island.
link |
Can I think as big and as broad and as deep as I can in Aristotle's Lyceum?
link |
I'm a much better thinker in Aristotle's Lyceum or in any kind of situation like this
link |
where you're going to challenge me and I have to come back and I have to think deeply about
link |
what it is you said and why I'm not communicating very effectively and why you're not understanding
link |
Of course, now you're causing me to think much more deeply and to challenge me.
link |
But it's still true that I have to think.
link |
And if I don't think for myself, who's going to think for me?
link |
So this is why I'm not a philosopher.
link |
I'm certainly not an original thinker in that sense.
link |
I recognize the fact that there are geniuses that are much smarter than me, whether it's
link |
Aristotle or Ayn Rand or people that inspire me.
link |
I study their work.
link |
I try to understand it to the best of my ability.
link |
But I don't take it as gospel.
link |
I take it as this is something I need to figure out.
link |
I need to learn it.
link |
I need to understand it because it's good for my life.
link |
It's important to me.
link |
But I have to do the thinking.
link |
It'll be Ayn Rand's.
link |
But it won't be mine unless I've done the thinking to integrate it into my soul, into
link |
my consciousness, into my mind.
link |
But it's still true that I have to think for myself, not on a desert island.
link |
I now regret ever using a desert island in the book as an example, because …
link |
We've achieved something.
link |
There is progress.
link |
Progress towards truth is taking place.
link |
Because clearly, it was misunderstood.
link |
I didn't make myself clear.
link |
I didn't make myself clear enough in the book in terms of what I meant.
link |
But I do not advocate for thinking alone in a dark room, not engaging with reality, not
link |
studying history, not knowing about the world, or on a desert island, not interacting with
link |
So you're a collectivist?
link |
So I enjoy what we're doing right now because you're challenging me.
link |
You make me a better thinker.
link |
The fact that a lot of people are going to watch this plays into it as well.
link |
But I would probably enjoy engaging with you in conversation.
link |
It's not even recording, so …
link |
I would enjoy engaging with you in conversation even if it wasn't being recorded, and even
link |
if it was because that kind of conversation makes me a better … There are some people
link |
There are some people who make it worse, that you walk away from the conversation because
link |
they're harmful to you.
link |
And this is where choice comes in.
link |
I want to be able to choose who I engage with.
link |
I don't always have that choice because, as a public intellectual, you go in front
link |
You don't always choose who it is, but you want to choose who you engage with and who
link |
You want to choose the forum in which you engage and how you engage.
link |
And the standard for me is reason.
link |
There is no other standard.
link |
So you asked a deep question to start off.
link |
Because that's where the values come from.
link |
That's the only tool we have to discover truth.
link |
Yes, you know, reason is something that it doesn't guarantee truth.
link |
It doesn't guarantee the world is right, it's fallible.
link |
But it's all we have.
link |
It's the tool in which we evaluate the world around us and we come to conclusions about
link |
There just isn't other tools.
link |
Emotions are not tools of cognition.
link |
Consciousness is a tool.
link |
Emotion like love, all of these things are ways to experience the world to say that reason
link |
But there's a difference between experiencing the world and evaluating the world in terms
link |
of what is truth or what is not.
link |
As a scientist, I appreciate the value of reason.
link |
And emotions and love are consequences.
link |
They're not primary.
link |
Emotions are consequences of conclusions you've come to.
link |
Your emotions will change very quickly, relatively speaking, when your evaluations of a situation
link |
Different people can see exactly the same scene and have completely different emotions
link |
because they're bringing different value systems and they're bringing different thoughts to
link |
Maybe love is primary.
link |
Love is the same thing.
link |
You can fall out of love with somebody.
link |
Because you learn something new.
link |
Because you've discovered something new about the person.
link |
Now you don't love them anymore.
link |
This is the wrong podcast to bring up love.
link |
We'll talk forever about it.
link |
So, Yoram, you wrote the book, The Virtue of Nationalism, contrasting nation states with
link |
empires and with global governance like United Nations and so on.
link |
So you argue that nationalism uniquely provides the, quote, the collective right of a free
link |
people to rule themselves.
link |
So continuing our conversation, why is this particular collection of humans we call a
link |
nation a uniquely powerful way to preserve the freedom of a people, to have people rule
link |
Before I say anything on the subject, I should emphasize that I'm not a rationalist.
link |
I'm an empiricist and I'm offering what I think is a valid observation of human history.
link |
I don't have some kind of deductive framework for proving that the nation is the best.
link |
And empirically, we know something about the way systems of national states work and about
link |
the way empires work and the way tribal societies work.
link |
What we don't know is, you know, is it possible to invent something else?
link |
I mean, there's a lot of things we don't know here.
link |
So with the caveat that I'm making an empirical observation, the basic argument is human beings
link |
form collectives naturally, loyalty groups, and for most of human history and prehistory,
link |
as far as we know, human beings lived in tribal societies.
link |
Tribal societies are societies in which there's constant friction and constant warfare among
link |
very small groups, among families and clans.
link |
And we reach a turning point in human history with the invention of large scale agriculture,
link |
which allows the creation of vast wealth.
link |
It allows the establishment of standing armies instead of militias.
link |
You know, Sargon of Akkad says, I can pay 5,000 men to do nothing other than to drill
link |
in the arts of war and then I'm gonna send them out to conquer the neighboring city states
link |
and there you have empire.
link |
The Bible, which is the source of our image, our conception of a world of independent nations
link |
that are not constantly trying to conquer one another, the source of that is the Bible.
link |
And the biblical world is one in which Israel and various other small nations are trying
link |
to fight for their independence against world empires, against empires Babylonian, Assyrian,
link |
Persian, Egyptian, which aspire to rule the world.
link |
My claim is fundamentally twofold, it's moral that whenever you conquer a foreign nation,
link |
you're murdering and you're stealing, you're destroying.
link |
As your own would say, you're using force to cause people to submit.
link |
So there is something in the prophets that rebels against this ongoing atrocity and carnage
link |
of trying to take over the whole world.
link |
And there's a prudential practical argument, which is that the world is governed best when
link |
there are multiple nations, when they're free to experiment and chart their own courses.
link |
That means they have their own route to God, they have their own moralities, they have
link |
their own forms of economy and government.
link |
And what tends to happen in history is that when something is successful, when something
link |
looks like, when a different nation looks at it and say, well, those people are flourishing,
link |
they're succeeding, then it's imitated in the way that the Dutch invented the stock
link |
market and the English said, look, that makes them powerful, so we'll adopt it.
link |
So there's endless examples of that.
link |
So that's the argument for it.
link |
The argument is since we don't know a priori deductively from self evident principles what
link |
is best, it's best to have a world in which people are trying different things.
link |
So quick question, because the word nationalism sometimes is presented in negative light in
link |
connection to the nationalism of Nazi Germany, for example.
link |
So you're looking empirically at a world of nations that respect each other.
link |
I use the word nationalism the way that I inherited it in my tradition, which is it's
link |
a principled standpoint that says that the world is governed best when many nations are
link |
able to be independent and chart their own course.
link |
That's nationalism.
link |
As far as the Nazis, Hitler's an imperialist.
link |
He hated nation states.
link |
His whole theory, if you pick up, I don't recommend doing this, but if you do...
link |
I'm actually reading it right now, Mein Kampf?
link |
If you do read Mein Kampf, then you'll see that he says explicitly that the goal is for
link |
Germany to be the lord of the earth and mistress of the globe, and he detests the idea of the
link |
independent nation state because he sees it as weak and defeat.
link |
He might as well have said it's Jewish.
link |
So let me ask from the individual perspective, for nationalism, what do you make of the value
link |
of the love of country?
link |
The reason I connect that... So I personally, what would you say, a patriot?
link |
I love the love of country.
link |
Or I am susceptible... Or how should... In a Randian way, I enjoy... I in a self interest
link |
Don't run away from it.
link |
Well, I love a lot of things, but I'm saying this particular love is a little bit contentious,
link |
which is loving your country.
link |
That's an interesting love that some people are a little uncomfortable with, especially
link |
when that love... I grew up in the Soviet Union to say you just love the country.
link |
It represents a certain thing to you, and you don't think philosophically like I was
link |
marching around with marks under my arm or something like that.
link |
It's just loving community at the level of nation.
link |
It's very interesting.
link |
I don't know if that's an artifact of the past that we're going to have to strip away.
link |
I don't know if I was just raised in that kind of community, but I appreciate that.
link |
I guess the thing I'm torn about is that love of country that I have in my heart that I
link |
now love America and I consider myself an American, that would have easily, if I was
link |
born earlier, been used by Stalin, and I would have proudly died on the battlefield.
link |
I would have proudly died if I was in Nazi Germany as a German, and I would proudly die
link |
Are you sure about these things?
link |
That's interesting.
link |
I think about this a lot.
link |
It's interesting to run a radical counterfactual and be sure of the answer.
link |
I think about this a lot because, obviously, I'm really interested in history.
link |
This is the way I think about most situations is I empathize.
link |
I really try to do hard work of placing myself in that moment and thinking through it.
link |
I'm just... Okay, I just know myself psychologically.
link |
What I'm susceptible to, that's a negative way to phrase it, but what I would love doing.
link |
I'm just saying, my question is, is the love of nation a useful or a powerful moral, from
link |
a moral philosophy perspective, a good thing?
link |
I think it is a good thing, but before we ask whether it's a good thing, I think it's
link |
worth asking whether there's any way to live without it.
link |
The idea of national independence of a world or a continent which politically is governed
link |
by multiple independent national states, that is a political theory.
link |
Somebody came up with that in the Bible or elsewhere.
link |
Someone came up with this idea and sold it, and a lot of people like it, but the nation
link |
is not an invention.
link |
Every place in human history that we have any record of, there are nations.
link |
The fact of people creating families, families creating an alliance of clans, clans creating
link |
alliances of tribes, tribes creating an alliance that becomes the nation, we see that everywhere
link |
in human history, everywhere we look.
link |
The love of a group of tribes that have come together in order to fight opponents that
link |
are trying to destroy your way of life and steal your land and harm your women and children,
link |
the love of the leadership that brings it together.
link |
This is a George Washington type figure or an Alfred the Great type figure or Saul, the
link |
biblical Saul, somebody who has the wisdom, the daring to unite the tribes, overcome their
link |
internal, mutual hatreds and grievances and rally them around a set of ideas, a language,
link |
a tradition, an identity as people say today.
link |
That love is irradicable from human beings.
link |
Maybe we'll have a brave new world, people will take drugs in order to get rid of it.
link |
The problem is that could be leveraged by authoritarian regimes.
link |
Yes, but that's true of everything.
link |
It's like saying you can have children and you can teach them to be evil.
link |
You can make a lot of money, you can use it for evil.
link |
You can have a gun for self defense, but you can use it for evil.
link |
Come on, that's human.
link |
That's being human.
link |
You guys are making love this primary, which I don't think it is.
link |
How dare you, your honor.
link |
There are lots of people in the world out there who don't love their nation because
link |
the nation is not worth loving.
link |
That is love is conditional.
link |
It's not unconditional.
link |
Love is conditioned on the value that's presented to you.
link |
I lived through this experience in my own life.
link |
I grew up in Israel at a time of everything was geared towards patriotism and the state.
link |
I would say I was trained to, when I saw a grenade, to jump on it because that was every
link |
song and every story and everything was about the state is everything and you should sacrifice.
link |
When the flag went up, I got teary eyed.
link |
I bought into it completely and at some point, I rejected that and I changed and I changed
link |
my alliance and I rejected my love of Israel.
link |
It's not that I don't love it anymore, but it's certainly not my top love and I'm certainly
link |
not looking for the grenade to jump on and I'm not volunteering to go fight the war there.
link |
I fell in love from a distance with the idea of America.
link |
I love the idea of America more than I love America.
link |
I could see myself falling out of love with America given where it's heading.
link |
It's not automatic.
link |
It's conditioned on what it is that it represents and what value it represents for me.
link |
I think that's always the case with love.
link |
It's not true that children have to love their parents.
link |
That's the ideal and hopefully most children love their parents, but some children fall
link |
out of love with their parents because their parents don't deserve their love.
link |
The same with the other way around.
link |
I think parents are capable of not loving their children.
link |
Love is a conditional thing.
link |
It's not automatic.
link |
Let me point out an agreement.
link |
Let me say something about an agreement.
link |
You're trying to bribe me with an agreement.
link |
To soften the blow, mostly I like to talk to Yaron about his ideas and I don't want
link |
to talk about Ayn Rand, but I want to say something.
link |
Just one thing about Ayn Rand.
link |
All my kids read Ayn Rand's books.
link |
My father read The Fountainhead.
link |
I'll tell you it is incredibly difficult reading for me.
link |
It's painful to read.
link |
Why is it painful?
link |
Not because I disagree with the view of trading and business and the creativity of it and
link |
That stuff moves me and I do admire it, but to read a book that's a thousand pages long
link |
in which nobody is having children, nobody is having a stable marriage, no one is running
link |
an admirable government that's fighting for a just cause, anywhere, anywhere.
link |
I feel like it's focusing on one aspect of what it is to be human and to flourish and
link |
that everything else is just erased and thrown out as though it's just not part of reality
link |
I'm scared of what happens to teenagers who hormonally are in any case.
link |
They're programmed to pull away from their parents and experiment with things.
link |
They're biologically programmed to do that and you give them a book which says, look,
link |
you don't have to have a family.
link |
You don't have to raise children.
link |
You don't have to have a country.
link |
You don't have to fight for anything.
link |
All you have to do is assert yourself and trade.
link |
I think it's destructive because it's not realistic.
link |
It's just not real.
link |
But I got none of that from Ayn Rand.
link |
I got none of that from Ayn Rand.
link |
The books were not about a family.
link |
You could write a book in Ayn Rand style where people have a family, but the goal, the purpose,
link |
It's a novel which is delimited with a particular story.
link |
There's one family in Gulch Gulch and there's a little passage about raising children and
link |
the value of that because it's not core to what she is writing about, but that doesn't
link |
When I read Ayn Rand, I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 16, and I read it over the years
link |
several times more.
link |
It never occurred to me, oh, Ayn Rand's anti family, I shouldn't have a family.
link |
That thought never came into my mind.
link |
I always wanted to have children.
link |
I continue to want to have children.
link |
I thought of it a little differently.
link |
I thought of how I would find a partner a little bit differently.
link |
I thought about what I would look for in a partner differently, but not that I wouldn't
link |
want to get married.
link |
One question I have is what effect it has on society, so outside of you.
link |
So for example, you mentioned love should be conditional.
link |
Whether you like it or not, it is.
link |
You might pretend that it isn't, but it's always conditional.
link |
Well, let me try to say something and see if it makes any sense.
link |
So could there be things that are true, like love is conditional, is always conditional,
link |
but if you say it often, it has a negative effect on society.
link |
So for example, I mean, so maybe I'm just a romantic, but good luck saying love is conditional
link |
to a romantic partner.
link |
I mean, you could, I would argue, en masse, that would deteriorate the quality of relationships.
link |
If you remind the partner of that truth that is universal, like you have to, I mean, okay,
link |
maybe it's just me.
link |
I'll just speak to myself.
link |
It's like there is a certain romantic notion of unconditional love.
link |
It's part of why you have so many destructive marriages.
link |
It's part of why...
link |
So you would say that's a problem.
link |
Yes, it's a real problem because, yes, there is a, you talked about honoring your spouse
link |
and there's a real truth there and I respect that.
link |
Yes, you have to do certain things.
link |
Love is not, you marry somebody and there's a real attitude out there in the culture.
link |
You marry somebody and okay, now we're going to, we're just going to cruise.
link |
That's the Hollywood marriage.
link |
You know, marriage is work.
link |
Like all values, it's work.
link |
It's something you have to reignite every day.
link |
You have to, the challenges, the real disagreements, the things you fight about, you disagree
link |
about and there's real, if it's a value, you work it out, you struggle through it.
link |
And sometimes you struggle through it and you come to a conclusion, no, this is not
link |
going to work and you dissolve a marriage and I'm all for dissolving after really, really
link |
fighting for it because if it's an important value and if you fell in love with this person
link |
for a reason, then that's something worth fighting for.
link |
I have a feeling that Hollywood goes the other way, but it's not this cruising along and
link |
everything is easy, no human relationship is like that.
link |
Not friendship, not love, not raising children, not being a child.
link |
You know, they require work and they require thinking and they require creating the conditions
link |
to thrive and that's the sense in which it's conditional.
link |
You have to work at it and it's very easy not to do the work and it's very easy to drift
link |
away and I think most people don't do the work, most people take it and generally in
link |
The only place people seem to work is at work and then they take the rest of their life
link |
as I'm going to cruise and yet every aspect of your life, the art you choose, the friends
link |
you choose, the lovers you choose, all require real thinking and real work to be successful
link |
None of them are just there because there is no such thing as just the intrinsic.
link |
Right, I agree with all of that.
link |
I was going to say before that the rabbis have this sort of shocking expression, tzargidul
link |
banim, the pain of raising children.
link |
And I find when I speak to audiences about relationships, I find that in general and
link |
this is cross cultural, it's different countries, different religious backgrounds, that in general
link |
young people do not know that the only way to make a marriage work is through a lot of
link |
pain and overcoming.
link |
They don't know that raising children involves a great deal of pain.
link |
They don't know that caring for and helping your parents approach the end of their lives
link |
causes a great deal of pain and everything is kind of this sketchy, very sketchy, glimpsy
link |
kind of, and I mentioned Hollywood just because everything is made to look easy except there's
link |
kind of a funny breakdown of something but then maybe there's a divorce, they shoot
link |
one another so then they should get divorced.
link |
But the reality of how hard it is to do and how heroic it is to do it and then overcome
link |
and then actually in the end achieve something, create something that was really, it's almost
link |
not discussed and so to me it's just not surprising that if there's no parallel to
link |
Ayn Rand about the heroic saving of a marriage that was on the rocks, how does it actually
link |
So it's a good point you're making but something just came to me that I've never
link |
thought of before so that's always good.
link |
This is where conversation is good.
link |
Look, take the Talmud and I can't remember how many years after the Bible the Talmud
link |
is written, over how long of a period it's written, how many people participating in
link |
Ayn Rand was one individual.
link |
She wrote a series of books on philosophy which I think are true but they're the beginning.
link |
There is a lot of work to be done to apply this.
link |
So hopefully there will be one of her students who writes a book on relationships and there'll
link |
be somebody who writes a book on developing a political theory in greater detail and develop
link |
She's got a few writings on ethics and it's in the novels but there's a lot of work
link |
to be done, fleshing it out, what does it mean, how do you…
link |
So to say Ayn Rand didn't do everything is a truism.
link |
She didn't do everything.
link |
But she laid this amazing philosophical foundation that allows us to take those principles and
link |
to apply them to all these realms of human life and she does it on a scope that few philosophers
link |
in human history have done because she goes from metaphysics all the way to aesthetics,
link |
hitting the key, and she's an original thinker on each one of those things.
link |
And she might be right, she might be wrong on certain aspects of it, always happy to
link |
have a debate about where she's wrong or where she's not, but there's a lot of
link |
work to be done, right?
link |
It's not like – and if there were objectivists out there who present it as, okay, human knowledge
link |
is over because Ayn Rand wrote these books, that's absurd, right?
link |
This huge amount of work to be done in applying these particular ideas just like there was
link |
for any philosophy, take these ideas and now apply them to all these realms in human experience
link |
that flesh it out and make it – and one of the reasons I don't think objectivism
link |
is taken off is because there's all this work still to be done that allows it to be
link |
relatable to people in every aspect of them.
link |
Let me ask a hard question here.
link |
Can I say what I agreed with you, Omar?
link |
This will be a good transition.
link |
Here, this is the clip.
link |
I agree about nations.
link |
So I don't like the term nationalism because I fear what happens when you put an ism at
link |
the end of any word.
link |
But the nation is a good thing.
link |
And having a diversity of nations in a sense is a good thing.
link |
And in this sense, I don't think one can come up – so look, I said and I hold that
link |
the ideal nation is a nation that protects individual rights.
link |
How do you do that?
link |
What are the details?
link |
How do we define property rights exactly in an internet world?
link |
There's going to be disagreement, rational, reasonable disagreement.
link |
They're going to be – in my future, in the 300 years from now, in my ideas of one
link |
finally, right, there will be multiple nations trying to apply the principle of applying
link |
individual rights, and they'll do it differently.
link |
One of the benefits of federalism is that while you have a national government, there
link |
are certain issues that you relegate to states, and they can try different things and learn
link |
because there is a huge value in empirical knowledge comes there.
link |
You can't just deduce it all and figure it all out.
link |
You have to experiment.
link |
So I do – I hate the idea of a one world government because experimentation is gone,
link |
and if you make a mistake, everybody suffers.
link |
I like the idea, and then I like the idea of people being able to choose where they
link |
But this notion of experimentation I think is crucial, but you need a principle.
link |
So I don't like the idea of nations if all the nations are going to be bad, right?
link |
If all the nations are going to be horrible, then I don't like it.
link |
What I like is a variety of nations all practicing basically good ideas, and then we try to
link |
figure out, okay, what works better than other things, and what is sustainable and what is
link |
Given how many difficult aspects of history and society we talked about, let me ask a
link |
hard question of both of you.
link |
I'm going to breeze up until now.
link |
What gives you hope about the future?
link |
So we've been describing reasons to maybe not have hope.
link |
What gives you hope?
link |
When you look at the world, what gives you hope that in 200 years, in 300 years, in 500
link |
years, like the founders look into the future, that human civilization will be all right,
link |
and more than that, it will flourish?
link |
Two things for me.
link |
So in the very long run, good ideas win out.
link |
I think in the very long run, you can go through a dark ages, but you come out of a dark ages.
link |
The good and the just does win in the end, even if it is bloody and difficult and hard
link |
So while I am quite pessimistic, unfortunately, about the short run, I'm ultimately optimistic
link |
that in the long run, good ideas win and they're justified.
link |
And I think the fundamental behind that is I think is that I'm fundamentally positive
link |
about human nature.
link |
I think human beings can think, they're capable of reasoning, they're capable of figuring
link |
out the truth, they're capable of learning from experience.
link |
They don't always do it.
link |
It's an achievement to do it, but over time, they do.
link |
If you create the right circumstances, they will, and when things get bad enough, they
link |
look for a way out.
link |
They look maybe at history, if the history is available to them, maybe at just learning
link |
from what's around them to find better ways of doing things, and that reinforces itself.
link |
But human beings are an amazing creature.
link |
We're just amazing in our capacity to be creative, in our capacity to think, in our capacity
link |
to love, in our capacity to change our environment to fit our needs and to fit our requirements
link |
for survival and to learn and to grow and to progress.
link |
So again, long term, I think all that wins out.
link |
Short term, in any point in history, short term, right now, it doesn't look too good.
link |
What about you, Yaron?
link |
The source for Yaron's hope is the book of Exodus, which is the first place in human
link |
history where we are presented with the possibility that an enslaved people that's being persecuted
link |
and murdered and living under the worst possible regime can free itself and have a shot at
link |
a life of independence and worth, and it's another inherited Jewish idea in the tradition.
link |
The way that we express this is by saying that there is a God who judges.
link |
The Israelis in Egypt were enslaved for hundreds of years, according to the Exodus story, hundreds
link |
of years before God wakes up and hears them.
link |
And he doesn't do anything until Moses kills the oppressor and goes out into the desert.
link |
So I think it's pretty realistic that there is a God that God judges and acts, but probably
link |
often not for a very, very long time and not until there's a human being who gets up and
link |
I know that today people don't want to read the Bible.
link |
They don't like reading the Bible.
link |
But I always hear in my ear this cry of the prophet Jeremiah who saw his nation destroyed
link |
and his people exiled.
link |
And he says, in God's name, he says, he's not my word like fire, like the hammer that
link |
shatters rock, a petition, a petzela.
link |
My word is like fire, like the hammer that shatters rock.
link |
And this is actually the traditional way of saying something like what Yaron is saying
link |
that it may take a long, long time, but there is a truth and it has its own strength and
link |
it will, in the end, shatter the things that are opposing it.
link |
That's our traditional hope.
link |
We grow up like that.
link |
So I do have hope.
link |
The trends are terrible right now and it's frightening and it's hard, but we are terrible
link |
at seeing the future.
link |
And it is very possible that an unexpected turn of events is going to appear maybe soon,
link |
maybe much later, and the possibility of a redemption is there.
link |
Let me ask, given that long arc of history, given that you do study the Bible, what is
link |
the meaning of this whole thing?
link |
What's the meaning of life?
link |
Wow, that's beautiful.
link |
I think that the meaning of life is in part what Yaron touches on when he says that productive
link |
work, labor, creativity is at the heart of what it is to be human.
link |
I just think that there are some more arenas and maybe we even agree on a lot of them.
link |
To be human is to inherit a world which is imperfect, terribly imperfect, imperfect in
link |
And God created it that way.
link |
He created a world which is terribly lacking and he created us with the ability to stand
link |
up and to say, I can change the direction of this.
link |
I can do something to change the direction of this.
link |
I can take the time and the abilities that are given to me to be a partner with God in
link |
creating the world.
link |
It's not going to stay the way it was before me.
link |
It'll be something different, maybe a little bit, maybe a lot.
link |
But that is the heart.
link |
That is the meaningful life is to be a partner with God in creating the world so that it
link |
is moving that much more in the right direction rather than the way we found it.
link |
So nudge, even if a little bit, the direction of the world.
link |
Well, Yaron, you've actually been talking in your program about life quite a bit.
link |
So let me ask the same question and I never tire you of asking this question.
link |
What do you think is the meaning of this whole thing?
link |
Well, I mean, I don't believe in God, so God doesn't play a role in my view of the meaning
link |
I think the meaning of life is to live.
link |
I like to say to live with a capital L. It's to embrace it and I agree with you on in a
link |
sense we're born into a world and as human beings, one of the things that makes us very
link |
different than other animals is our capacity to change that world.
link |
We can actually go out there and change the world around us.
link |
We can change it materially through production and through, we can change it spiritually
link |
through changing the ideas of people.
link |
We can change the direction to which humanity works.
link |
We can create a little universe.
link |
I think part of the joy of creating a family is to create a little universe.
link |
We're creating a little world around us that's part of the joy.
link |
And there is joy in family, let's not make it all about difficulty and hard work.
link |
Part of the idea of getting married is to create a little world in which you and your
link |
spouse are creating something that didn't exist before and building something, building
link |
But it's really to live.
link |
And one of the things that I see and it saddens me is wasted lives, is people who just cruise
link |
They get born in a particular place, they never challenge it, they never question.
link |
They just, you know, they live, die and nothing really happened.
link |
Nothing really changed.
link |
They didn't produce, they didn't make anything of their life.
link |
And produce here, again, in the largest sense.
link |
So to me it's, in every aspect of life, as you know because you've listened to my show,
link |
I love art, I love aesthetics, I love the experience of great art.
link |
I love relationships, I love producing, I like business, I like that aspect of it.
link |
And I think people are shallow in so many parts of their lives, which saddens me.
link |
If you had eight billion people on this planet, even if it never grew, even if we just stayed
link |
at eight billion, but the eight billion all lived fully, wow.
link |
I mean, what an amazing place this would be, what an amazing experience we would have.
link |
So to me that is, the meaning is just make the most that you have a short period of time
link |
And live it, experience it fully and challenge yourself and push yourself.
link |
And let me just say something about optimism.
link |
One source of hope for me in the world in which we live right now is that there are
link |
people who do that, at least in certain realms of their lives.
link |
And I'm inspired, and I know a lot of people don't like me for this, but I'm inspired for
link |
example by Silicon Valley, in spite of all the political disagreements I have with them
link |
I'm inspired by people inventing new technologies and building, I'm inspired by the people you
link |
talk to about artificial intelligence and about new ideas and about pushing the boundaries
link |
Those things are exciting and it's terrific to see a world that I think generally is in
link |
Yet there are these pockets in which people are still creating new ventures and new ideas
link |
That inspires me and it gives me hope that that is not dead, that in spite of the decay
link |
that's in our culture, there's still pockets where that spirit of being human is still
link |
Yeah, they inspire me as well.
link |
Yeah, and they truly live with a capital L, and maybe I can do a star, maybe you can also
link |
put a little bit of love with a capital L out there as well.
link |
Yaron, you knew I would end it that way, wouldn't you?
link |
Yaron, thank you so much, this is a huge honor.
link |
I really enjoyed the debate yesterday, I really enjoyed the conversation today that you spent
link |
your valuable time with me, it just means a lot.
link |
Thank you so much, this was amazing.
link |
Thanks for listening to this conversation with Yaron Brook and Yaron Hosoni.
link |
To support this podcast, please check out our sponsors in the description.
link |
And now, let me leave you with some words from Edmund Burke.
link |
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
link |
Thank you for listening, and hope to see you next time.