Jan. 24, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:13
3185 Do Emotions Trump Facts? Thomas Sowell on Donald Trump - Rebutted!
"Socrates, my master, is my friend but a greater friend is truth." - PlatoFree Market Economist Thomas Sowell recently joined other National Review contributors in criticizing Donald Trump and his candidacy for President of the United States. Stefan Molyneux responds to the writing of one of his intellectual heroes - and illustrates the flawed reasoning contained within Dr. Sowell's "Do Emotions Trump Facts?" article. Do Emotions Trump Facts? by Thomas Sowellhttp://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/01/22/do-emotions-trump-facts-n2108178/page/fullFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedom Main Radio.
I bring to you, yay verily my friends, my intellectual heartbreak, regarding one, Dr.
T. Sowell.
Now, I've talked about Thomas Sowell a lot in this show, and I've been a huge fan of his for years, consumed a lot of his books, a lot of his interviews.
And as Aristotle said about Plato in the discussion of the forms, we love our friends, but we must love the truth even more.
And there are two little snippets that Tom Sowell, Dr. Sowell, has written about Donald Trump that I think are kind of textbook examples of thinking gone awry.
And I would like to sort of point them out.
Now, for those of you who don't know, Tom Sowell was a Marxist in his 20s, has been teaching in academia and working in think tanks for the last 50 years or so, and is considered to be one of the leading proponents of the Chicago School of Free Market Economist and so on.
So let's get started with these articles.
And I think you'll see why I have a tiny bit of disappointment in me today, more than a tiny bit.
So, the first article is called, Do Emotions Trump Fact?
Boy, just off the bat, you never get tired, ever, ever, ever, of people putting sort of funny twists on the word Trump, or, he's got funny hair.
Well, we'll get to that when we get to the national reviews, but Tom Sowell, Dr.
Sowell, starts off like this.
Those of us who like to believe that human beings are rational can sometimes have a hard time trying to explain what is going on in politics.
Okay, this is a way of priming you.
You could say programming, but let's just say priming you that a lofty and superior intellect is baffled, baffled, I tell you, by the actions of those little ant-like crazy people I see from my ivory tower.
I like to think that people are rational.
I just have no idea what's going on with these people down there who are just bumping into things, unable to tie their shoes, and keep putting toothpaste in their butt and thinking it's some sort of suppository.
So, that's...
Just annoying because I like it when people have a disagreement with someone.
Perfectly fair.
You can criticize someone morally.
You can call them a nasty person and all that.
Start with the proof and end with the conclusion.
Start with the proof and end with the conclusion.
If you start by telling me...
How superior you are, how irrational everyone else is, and you haven't actually made any proof yet, you're being a sophist.
You are manipulating the living hell out of people.
I just wanted to say that.
When I first started reading this, I'm like, oh no!
Oh no!
Come on, you're a hero!
Please don't do it!
But of course, I put out videos on Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
and Marx and all that, saying, listen, you can't hold people in such high esteem that you can't see their peccadilloes, let's say.
So, you know, I'm doing that as well.
Dr.
Sowell goes on to say, it is still a puzzle to me how millions of patriotic Americans could have voted in 2008 for a man who for 20 years, 20 years, all caps, was a follower of a preacher who poured out his hatred for America in the most gross gutter term.
So he's referring to Jeremiah Wright, the pastor at the church that Barack Obama claims to have sat in.
He goes on to say, today's big puzzle is how so many otherwise rational people have become enamored of Donald Trump.
All right, again, no criticism and no specifics, nothing that is a rebuttal to anything Donald Trump has said or any argument that he's made.
It's a big puzzle.
So many otherwise rational people, in other words, they love Donald Trump, automatically makes them irrational.
Now, he doesn't say supporters of or accept Donald Trump's arguments.
He says have become enamored of Donald Trump.
Now, enamored is sort of irrational, romantic fixation, and it's one of these words that you use when you're talking about people who follow someone who you disagree with.
They're enamored of him.
You know, it's like saying fanboys or all that kind of thing.
So, how many otherwise rational people become enamored of Donald Trump, projecting onto him virtues and principles that he clearly does not have, and ignoring gross defects that are all too blatant?
Okay, so Donald Trump doesn't have virtues and principles, and there are gross defects that are all too blatant.
Okay, so he's telling me how bad and wrong and inconsistent and immoral and irrational and illogical Donald Trump and his supporters are, Now I'm waiting for an example.
You can come on strong, but you've got to follow up with a lot of facts and evidence if you're going to come on that strong.
Otherwise, softest alert is going round like a red siren in my brain.
Dr.
Sowell goes on to say, there was a time when someone who publicly mocked a handicapped man would have told us all we needed to know about his character and his political fling would have been over.
But that was before we became a society where common decency is optional.
So, anything to do with Donald Trump's policies?
Anything to do with his politics?
Anything to do with his arguments?
No.
And for those who don't know, I've got a presentation on this channel called The Untruth About Donald Trump.
Basically...
A guy made false accusations about Donald Trump, a reporter, and then he had to sort of walk back his accusations, and then Donald Trump was making fun of him, and it turns out that the guy has a physical handicap.
Donald Trump says he didn't know that and never met the guy, and, you know, is there any reason, is that proof that he ever met the guy?
Do you have video?
Even if he did meet them 10 or 20 years ago or whatever, would he have remembered all of this?
Of course not.
He was just making fun of someone who's backtracking, and suddenly it becomes making fun of a handicapped man.
And the fact that Dr.
Saul would sort of glom onto this easily fact-checked attack on Donald Trump is significant.
It's an ad hominem, which, of course, he would know is not a valid way to rebut someone's arguments.
Donald Trump, if he said two and two make four, and if he did make fun of somebody who was handicapped, it wouldn't mean that two and two doesn't make four.
That's logic 101.
All right.
Dr.
Sowell goes on to say, yet there are even a few people with strong conservative principles who have lined up with this man whose history has demonstrated no principles at all other than an ability to make self-serving deals.
Alright.
If you accuse another man of having no principles at all, that is an incredibly damning Indictment.
And, you know, if you're gonna go to extremes, if you're gonna go to extremes, You've really got to make a stronger case.
Like if I say somebody is 20% corrupt, a couple of examples should suffice.
If I say they're 50% corrupt, I need a lot more.
If I say they're 98% corrupt, I've got to pile up a whole mess of evidence.
If I say 100% waking, sleeping, breathing, pooping, screwing, napping, hang gliding, they're 100% corrupt, then one counterexample, one counterexample, Repudiates the whole argument.
And Donald Trump is a non-spanker.
And, you know, some woman in the 80s, I think, some woman was about to lose her farm and he got a whole bunch of money together to buy it out, invited her whole family out for Christmas dinner with the Trumps, did nice stuff and all that.
No principles at all.
Donald Trump says, I wasn't the best father, but I tried to be there every night for my kids.
His kids work with him.
They seem to respect him.
No principles at all.
Not even any principle of keeping his word in business or having any integrity.
Zero.
And when you see that kind of hyper-exaggerated principle, I see a Trump door and I want to paint it black.
Then you just know that somebody is off the rails, not thinking.
And that's, you know, that can happen to all of us.
It happens to me.
But I have people in my life who say, whoa, dude, who pissed on your conflicts regarding this guy?
Pull it back a little.
Stop getting all hysterical.
But that's the least important part of the sentence.
Sorry, didn't mean to waste your time with unimportant stuff.
So he says that Donald Trump has no ability, no principles other than an ability to make self-serving deals.
Self-serving deals.
Three words, one hyphen, and Tom Sowell...
Has just undone his entire life's work.
That sounds like a dramatic example.
Let me explain what I mean.
So as a free market economist, Tom Sowell has made the argument repeatedly, and it's very common among the Austrians, among the Chicagoans, among the Friedmanites, this is the basic principle of free market economics, that all voluntary transactions are win-win.
Praxeologically, by definition, you can't get around it.
So the old example is, I have a dollar.
You have a pen.
And we voluntarily exchange.
Nobody forces us to.
We voluntarily exchange.
I give you the dollar for the pen.
What that means is, and you can't deny this in any way, shape, or form, you want my dollar more than you want your pen.
Why?
Because you want to trade it.
I want your pen more than I want my dollar, which means everything else I could buy with that dollar because I'm trading it for your pen.
Now, I may have biased remorse.
You may say, oh man, I really need a pen because I'm being attacked by a media vampire.
But in the moment of exchange, it is by definition a win-win interaction.
Now, the moment you bring force into it, coercion, government unions, or even private unions, if they're supported by government power, if, say, you have some deal supported and protected by the government, like, I don't know, university tenure for almost half a century, That's a different matter.
Assuming a free market, voluntary transactions, it is win-win, right?
This is the only thing in free market economics that is one of the most fundamental things in free market economics.
If there's no force involved, it is a win-win transaction no matter what.
Now, the moment force comes in, it's win-lose and so on, right?
So, voluntary transactions, win-win.
In forced transactions, win-lose.
But Tom Sowell here has created another category.
It's door number three, which has never existed to my knowledge before in his writing.
And again, I've read a lot, but I'm no expert.
There's something, it's not win-win, voluntary.
It's not win-lose, which is coercive.
It is self-serving.
What does a self-serving deal mean?
Does a self-serving deal mean that Donald Trump expects to benefit out of that deal?
Well, of course he does!
That's free market economics in a nutshell.
You benefit from something you do voluntarily.
Does it mean that Donald Trump benefited in a voluntary trade and somebody else lost?
In other words, was there no win-win in a voluntary trade?
If you're creating another category called self-serving, then you are denying that voluntary trades in a free market are win-win, which is the foundational, foundational moral defense of the free market.
So, Tom Sowell, in this...
I don't know.
Calm, foaming at the mouth thing has completely undone his life work by introducing a third category into free market transactions called self-serving, whatever that is.
But it's bad.
It's voluntary, but it's bad.
And the whole point of the free market is voluntary is good and win-win.
Terrible.
Terrible.
It's like a book burning of his entire history.
So he says, Donald Trump has shown what Flawston Veblum once called a versatility of convictions.
And again, a bunch of ad homonyms.
Where's the proof?
Where's the proof?
He's just one discredited story about him making fun of a handicapped guy, which never even happened.
Dr.
Stoll goes on to say, quote, Okay, don't know what this is.
It'll make sense into that.
Former Senator Bob Dole, this is the guy who did erection pill ads, former Senator Bob Dole, an establishment Republican, if ever there was one, has joined the attacks on Ted Cruz on grounds that Senator Cruz is disliked by other politicians.
When Senator Dole was active, he was liked by both Democrats and Republicans.
He joined the long list of likable Republican candidates for president that the Republican establishment chose and that the voters roundly rejected.
Again, this has nothing to do with Trump that I can see.
Let's keep going.
With both establishment Republicans and anti-establishment Republicans now taking sides with Donald Trump, it is hard to see what principle, if any, is behind his support.
Okay, Tom, I get it.
You don't like the guy.
You think he made fun of a handicapped guy, which you could have spent 30 seconds to Google and find out it's a false accusation.
You really don't like the guy.
Do you feel like bringing any proof whatsoever?
Any proof whatsoever to this?
Let's find out.
I don't know what that whole thing is about Bob Dole, but anyway.
He goes on to say, Some may see Trump's success in business as a sign that he can manage the economy.
But the great economist David Ricardo, two centuries ago, pointed out that business success did not mean that someone understands economic issues facing a nation.
Okay.
Well, certainly better.
I'd rather have somebody who's been in business than somebody who's spent their whole life In the public sector, or in the, to put it charitably, quasi-public sector, i.e.
Thomas Sowell has spent his whole life studiously avoiding the market.
He praises so much.
He praises so much.
He has studiously avoided spending a lot of time in the free market, rather praising it from afar in an ivory tower where he can't be fired, where he gets four months off in the summer, where he get paid a fortune for doing very little work, and he can have sabbaticals and go on cool conferences, or...
Protected by state power!
And this guy feeding off state power, Dr.
Thomas Sowell feeding off state power, is really criticizing somebody who's been working in what's left of the free market in America for decades, and having enormous success.
So, the argument goes something like this.
Success in business does not mean you know how to First of all, Donald Trump, as a conservative, is not supposed to run the economy of the country.
I don't know if Dr.
Sol has forgotten what conservatism in America means, or at least used to mean, prior to Paul Ryan.
What it means is that the government should get out of the marketplace and let people voluntarily, through win-win negotiations, assuming we can just throw aside the brain fart of self-serving transactions, whatever that is, the government should get out of the way and let people trade and Do business with whoever they want, however they like, as long as they accord with the law.
So the fact that a conservative is good at business and hates political intervention in the business, you know, because people say, well, Trump donated to Clinton.
And he's addressed this repeatedly.
Trump has said, of course I donated to Clinton.
I needed favors from government.
Isn't it horrible to have to go hat in hand and bribe people in the government in order to beg them to give you a permit or to give you some permission to do something that you should be able to do because it's in the free market anyway?
So the fact that he's had to bribe people to get things done is part of why he got into politics, because he hates that entire system.
So, people, just because they know business doesn't mean they know how to run an economy.
That only matters if two conditions are met.
Number one, the person wants to run the economy, which is not what...
Donald Trump is fundamentally about.
I mean, he's going to negotiate trade deals and so on.
Basically, he wants to get out of running the economy as a conservative, like he wants to let Healthcare insurance providers compete across state lines and all that kind of stuff.
I'm going to reduce government intervention and lower the taxes and get rid of the incredibly complicated tax code and so on, and so get out of the way of people being able to make money.
So, first of all, he doesn't want to manage the economy.
And secondly, just because...
So you say, just because someone's been in business doesn't mean they know how to run the economy, but it doesn't mean they don't know how to run the economy either.
Right?
And there's a huge, I mean, the density of logical problems in this argument is really intense, and it's worth unpacking.
I appreciate your patience with this, but you've got to learn how to do this kind of stuff.
So let's say that I have spent some time in business, and I have.
I've been an entrepreneur for about 20 years.
Do I know something about economics?
Yeah, I think I know a little bit about economics.
I have some pretty good debates with people who know their stuff when it comes to economics, and I think I come off fairly well.
So the fact that I've been an entrepreneur doesn't mean that I know anything about economics.
However, if I've been an entrepreneur and studied a lot of economics, then it does mean that I know something about economics.
It just doesn't come from the fact that I've been an entrepreneur.
It comes from the fact that I've studied economics.
So for Tom Sowell to make this Rejection of Trump.
So he's entirely, completely and totally wrong to make this argument.
And again, Tom Sowell, a very, very smart guy, which only shows you when you have a prejudice against someone, it's really, really easy to get irrational and not even know it and not have anyone around you who also understands that.
Crazy, crazy stuff.
So, he goes on to say, Trump boasts that he can make deals among his many other boasts, Now, Trump boasts.
Okay.
If I boast that I run a philosophy show, it's not a boast.
It's a fact.
It's a fact.
Now, when you say someone claims or someone boasts, what you're saying is that it's not true.
It's not true.
Boasts means that you're exaggerating your claims.
So Trump boasts that he can make deals.
Among his many other boasts, he's just a blowhard, bloviating blowhardiness.
Is it a boast that Trump can make deals?
No.
He has spent his entire life making deals.
He has also written the number one best-selling book on deals called The Art of the Deal.
He's a recognized world expert in deal-making.
A successful author and businessman who's made billions of dollars selling deals, making deals, writing about deals.
And also helping people to learn how to make deals in his television show, The Apprentice.
If Trump can't say that he's excellent at making deals, no one can.
No one can.
So it's not a boast that he can make deals.
It's actually a fact.
You know?
Oh, Sting just boasts that he wrote a lot of top hit singles.
Oh, Lennon and McCartney, they just boasted that they wrote a lot of songs.
It's like, no, actually they did, and he did.
Anyway.
Trump, sorry, Saul goes on to say, but it is a dealmaker.
But is a dealmaker what this country needs at this crucial time?
Is not one of the biggest criticisms of today's congressional Republicans that they have made all too many deals with Democrats, betraying the principles on which they ran for office?
All right.
Sorry, it's just, it literally is like, my eyes propped open, like...
All right.
So, Trump makes deals.
Some deals that past Republicans have made have been bad.
Therefore, Trump will make bad deals?
All right.
What are you supposed to say?
What even remote sense does that make?
Sorry.
First of all, he's very much against existing congressional Republicans.
So, Trump is very good at making deals.
Congressional Republicans made bad deals.
Therefore, we shouldn't have a dealmaker in the country.
Running the country.
Sorry.
I mean...
I explained this to my daughter, she had no problem understanding how not rational that is.
And this is a guy who starts off his entire article loftily informing, I just don't, I don't know, why, how, so irrational, other people are being, dude, dude, come on.
The syllogism, so and so is good at making deals.
People who are bad at making deals have made bad deals, therefore we shouldn't have a dealmaker around.
This chef is a really great chef.
These chefs were terrible and peed into the consomme.
Therefore, we should not hire a good chef, because we've had bad chefs in the past.
Yeah, excellent logic.
I'm sorry.
Heartbreaking.
So, he goes on to write, Bipartisan deals so beloved by media pundits have produced some of the greatest disasters in American history.
Okay, has Donald Trump ever made a bipartisan deal before?
Does Donald Trump criticize bipartisan deals?
Of course he does!
Of course he does!
And most of what Donald Trump talks about in my experience, and again, I'm not an expert, but most of what I've seen Donald Trump talk about is, I want to make a deal with the Chinese.
I want to make a deal, the TPP. I want to rewrite it.
I want to make better deals with Iran.
I want to make better deals with Mexico.
I want to make deals with these countries, better deals with Japan.
Okay, this is what Donald Trump has been talking about in terms of him making deals.
Now, I don't mean to shock either Dr.
Sowell or perhaps yourself, but you cannot make a bipartisan deal with Mexico because Mexico is not in the United States!
You cannot make a bipartisan deal with China because it's a little wet between America and China.
They're not in Congress.
They buy congressmen, but they're not in Congress.
So, this is the logic.
Donald Trump is good at making deals.
He wants to make deals with other countries.
But Republicans have made bad deals with Democrats, and therefore we don't need Donald Trump.
I'm sorry.
You know, Jack the Ripper used a knife, and therefore you can't cut your bread because people used knives badly in the past.
All right.
So he goes on to say The Republican president made a bipartisan deal that produced the Smoot-Horley tariffs.
Within six months unemployment hit double digits and stayed in double digits throughout the entire decade of the 1930s.
Um, okay, it certainly is true that bad deals have been made in the past.
Now, deals are going to have to be made in politics.
You can't run American politics without making deals, because there are still some vestiges of the division of powers.
The president is not, as yet, a dictator.
Ray Spader in chief, yes, dictator, not quite.
And so Donald Trump is going to have to make deals.
So do you want somebody good at making deals?
Or do you want someone bad at making deals?
Because what Dr.
Sowell is saying here is that Republican politicians who've come through the Republican Party and are approved of by the Republican establishment are really terrible at making deals.
Yeah, I agree with that.
Donald Trump agrees with that.
And Republicans agree with that.
The National Review just produced a whole series of incomprehensible hit pieces, which we'll get to in later shows, on Donald Trump.
Now, the National Review, as a magazine, endorsed Paul Ryan.
92-93% of Republicans really, really dislike vehemently opposed Paul Ryan on immigration, pretty much the number one issue among Republicans at the moment.
So, yes, Republicans who go through the party machine make terrible deals with Democrats.
You want an infinite budget?
Okay.
No problem.
That's fine.
No impeachment?
Okay.
I don't want to be called racist.
So yeah, I don't know.
So basically Tom Saul is saying Republicans who go through the Republican Party machinery make terrible deals with Democrats.
Yeah, that's the point.
That's why there's Donald Trump.
So he's saying exactly why Donald Trump is so important to people, while saying he has no idea why Donald Trump is so important to people.
But wait!
The article gets worse.
He goes on to say, You want deals?
There was never a more politically successful deal than that which Neville Chamberlain made in Munich in 1938.
Hitler!
Squirrel!
Hitler!
He was hailed as a hero, not only by his own party, but even by opposition parties, when he returned with a deal that Chamberlain said meant peace for our time.
But just one year later, the biggest, bloodiest, and most ghastly war in history began.
Okay?
So, a...
Neville Chamberlain was an establishment politician who basically, other than, I think, managing some sugarcane plantations in Jamaica, spent his entire life mostly in politics.
And Neville Chamberlain, as a career politician, made a really bad deal with Hitler.
Okay, got it.
So, people who've spent their entire life in politics make really, really bad deals.
So Trump has not spent his entire life in politics, and so at least he's not fulfilling that category of what is required to be in the category of making really bad deals.
So, apparently, if you like somebody who's good at making deals, and you dislike people who are really bad at making deals, they're the same people.
Good is bad.
Up is down.
Black is white.
Oh no!
I'm in a sophist head.
Alright.
He goes on to say...
If deal-making is your standard, didn't Barack Obama just make a deal with Iran, one that may have bigger and worse consequences than Chamberlain's deal?
Yeah, he did.
And Donald Trump has vociferously eviscerated it as a terrible deal.
He goes on to say, what kind of deals would Donald Trump make?
He has already praised the Supreme Court's decision in Kilo v.
City of New London, which said that the government can seize private property and turn it over to another private party.
Yeah, absolutely.
We'll get to eminent domain, right?
There's this, oh, he took this old lady's house to build whatever, but he didn't end up taking the old lady's house.
And eminent domain, I've got to tell you, I mean, let's just talk about existing political structures rather than my own particular perspective on things.
But among existing political structures, question, just, you know, general question.
Where do you think eminent domain fits in the average Republican American voter's list of imminent disasters to the planet?
I don't think it would be even in the top 20.
Is it a problem?
So, yeah, illegal immigrants take welfare about three times the rate of the native population.
So, yeah, that's kind of a big deal.
I would say massive national debts, the unfunded liabilities running close to $200 trillion in a country that can only manage to crank out $15 trillion of mostly state-subsidized economic output every single year.
I don't think that people are particularly worried.
That the government is going to come and take their property to build some sort of helicopter landing pad for the new world order.
I think they're pretty terrified of mass third world immigration and other things like incomprehensibly punitive income taxes that nobody can conform to and which take billions of hours a year to even remotely subscribe to.
I don't know, say national debts, the wholesale turning of their children's body parts into fine paste to be consumed by Chinese banks just in the future.
I think those things are kind of important.
So picking on this thing, it's a problem.
I agree it's a problem.
Relative to most of the problems, it's like, I'm having a heart attack.
Yeah, but that hangnail, it's really, really what we're going to focus all of our medical efforts on.
He goes on to say, that kind of decision is good for an operator like Donald Trump.
Doubtless other decisions that he would make as president would also be good for Donald Trump, even if for nobody else.
Now, the eminent domain stuff is mostly used for things like roads.
Sometimes it's used for some private development.
The government uses it a lot for roads and stuff like that.
The population as a whole tends to use roads, and so its eminent domain is not always used for private profit and so on.
And that's it.
So, Neville Chamberlain, something about Ted Cruz and Bob Dole, something about him making fun of a disabled reporter, which never even happened, and eminent domain.
That's it.
That's it.
And what does any of this mean?
Well, lobbying is a government union right now.
It's called K Street.
Massive billions of dollars being spent on lobbying the government.
And Donald Trump is privatizing all of that because he's self-funding his own campaign, other than taking a few bits of change from people which isn't going to have any hold over him.
And so, this idea that somehow, somehow, there's no conflict of interest between people who work for think tanks, right?
Think tanks produce material that is often consumed by lobbyists in pursuit of government.
Tom Sowell works for a think tank, and Donald Trump...
How many think tanks do you think Donald Trump is going to rely on if he becomes president?
I really can't think it's that much.
And I've got to tell you, you know...
I try to have patience with this stuff.
I really, really do.
I put the call out to free market academics basically saying, look, let me give you the John Galt speech, which is you've got to detach yourself from academia and join me in the free market of bringing productive and enjoyable and liberty-minded ideas to the general population.
You know, like I'm doing 7 million downloads and views about every single month, getting information out.
And people can't say, well, I reach more people than academics.
No, you don't.
You write a bunch of shit that's reviewed by nobody at all and then stuffed in a library or on a CD-ROM or on some hard drive somewhere and people barely ever access it again.
You notice that the people who are actually free market facing, people like Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly and so on, they're pro-Trump.
The people who are academics who won't have anything to do with the free market that they so roundly praise, Oh, the free market brings efficiency.
It's very positive.
It is win-win negotiation.
I'm going to crawl up the ass of the government and hide out in the ivory tower protected by state privilege and power and violence because I just love the free market so much that I wouldn't want to sully it with my actual presence by going out and dismally YouTubing to people because, by heavens, they might just not click on my stuff and I'd have to really work hard to keep their attention and do funny voices.
So, I mean, I made this John Galt speech saying you all got to quit academia and join the free market that you love.
I could understand in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, you kind of had to hide out in the academic world.
But now you've got YouTube, you've got podcasting, you've got iTunes, number one on iTunes once.
So...
Come out into the free market and come and live the values that he's espoused for so many years.
And so it seems a little bit precious, and it's not just Dr.
Sowell who's doing this, but it seems a little bit precious for me for academics who are hiding out in the highly fortified predatory biosphere of state power to bitch at Donald Trump, who's been out there in the free market for most of his life, about his lack of adherence to free market principles.
Why don't you all put your damn money where your mouth is, quit your think tanks, which all serve politics and state power, quit your academic positions, and come join me and other people out here in the free market.
