July 10, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:02:41
4140 The Hard Truth About Socialism
While the Merriam-Webster dictionary may define Socialism as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" - the practical reality is much different. Stefan Molyneux outlines the basic logical flaws in socialist theory which dooms its implementation. Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hope you're doing well. So, yeah, I read something interesting.
Wanted to unpack it just a little bit for you.
Nearly 45% of millennials polled said that they would prefer to live in a socialist country compared to the 42% who said they preferred a capitalist one.
Another 7% said that they preferred living in a communist society.
Above all, the findings show that the percentage of millennials who prefer socialism over capitalism is a full 10 points higher than than that of the general population.
By comparison, over half of baby boomers polled favor capitalism compared to 26% who support a socialist system.
The report also found that one in five Americans in their 20s consider former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin a hero, despite his genocide of Ukrainians and Orthodox priests.
Over a quarter of millennials polled also thought the same for Vladimir Lenin, And Kim Jong Un.
One of the most troubling findings of the report is that over 40% of Americans believe that there should be restrictions placed on the First Amendment and free speech to ensure that anything being said is not offensive.
See? Apparently, being a communist dictator who murders millions is pretty good.
But saying stuff that other people find offensive?
Well, we can't have that now, can we?
Now, I'm not going to bag on millennials.
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the propaganda that you have been exposed to, and I know I'm begging the question by saying that it's propaganda, but let me sort of step you through a couple of things.
I promise you the time we spend together will leave your mind blown, your future illuminated, and your choices clear.
So let's get into it.
So I myself was a socialist up until about the age of 16, and why?
Well, because of the basic reasons that Socialism was nice.
Socialism helped the poor.
Socialism ensured that those who were ill would get the medicines they needed to live.
Socialism made sure that education was egalitarian, that the children of the poor would be educated in a similar way to the children of the rich, thus equalizing the opportunities for all.
Socialism was friendly.
Socialism was caring.
Socialism, what do they call it?
Obamacare. You care.
Don't you care? Now, on the other hand, as it was portrayed to me growing up, capitalism was selfish and evil and greedy.
You know, like, so socialists wanted to help the poor, and capitalists wanted to keep the poor poor and sell them Liquor and weaves and cigarettes in order to profit from their misery.
And socialism aimed to equalize things in society without destroying everyone's freedom, not full communism, but, you know, you've got your valleys and you've got your peaks and we take a little bit from the mountains and we fill in the valleys just to make things a little bit more even in society.
Whereas the capitalist system, at least to me, maybe to you too, probably to you, It was portrayed as, you know, the mountains get higher, the valleys get deeper, and the whole thing falls apart.
And so, even the word, redistribution, right?
So, redistribution.
Like, if you have five kids, right?
Like, if you have five kids, and you have a whole bunch of candy bars, and you give one candy bar to four kids, and you give ten candy bars to the last kid, what's going to happen?
Well, everyone's going to go mental. And they're going to say, well, that's not fair!
That's not at all. You've distributed these things unfairly.
It's time to redistribute them and give an equal amount to the kids as a whole, right?
So redistribution implies that something was somehow mysteriously distributed beforehand, but then it gets redistributed in the second hand.
Now, I'm going to tell you all about socialism and capitalism.
I'm not going to use jargon.
I'm not going to use ideological terms.
I'm just going to tell you the facts about these systems.
You obviously should make as informed a choice as humanly possible, and I have always tried to be as scrupulously fair to systems as possible, because ideology is the enemy of philosophy.
It's just a form of sophistry as opposed to reasoning, so I'm going to tell you All about it so that you can make your decisions accordingly.
So here's the way that it generally worked in the past.
It's changed a little bit now. But socialism was...
Public or government control over the means of production.
Wait, I know. I know.
It sounds horribly dull.
But it's not too, too complicated when it's clearly explained.
So the means of production is like factories.
You know, all the stuff that business invests in in order to make stuff for the consumer market.
So the factory that makes toothbrushes is the means of production.
And the production is toothbrushes.
And the consumption is the customers who go in and buy toothbrushes.
The toothbrushes, right? You don't understand how this works.
So there's the means of production, which is the factories.
There's the production, which is what the factories produce, and the consumers who consume the production.
So you got your car factory, you got your car, and you got your guy driving around.
So that's kind of the way that it works.
Government control over the means of production doesn't mean that the government owns your toothbrush.
It means that the government owns the factory.
And the idea behind that is that the capitalist, the guy who...
I mean, fundamentally, everyone's a capitalist, but we'll get into that later.
But the guy who owns the factory, what he wants to make, you know, wants to rub his twirly little evil mustache.
He wants to make as much money as humanly possible from the workers who have very little choice.
And so he wants to drive down wages You see, in pursuit of profit.
So when I was a kid, I was told, like, a can of Coke costs like 2 or 3 cents to produce.
But then you would pay 30 cents.
This is back in the day. You pay 30 cents for it.
And so that very incomplete information gives you the idea that somehow someone's making 25 or 27 cents on every can of Coke.
Now, of course, if that's true, then why doesn't somebody else just make 23 cents or 22 cents and it would bid the price back down?
And it was, that's kind of how it was portrayed to me.
So the capitalist, the factory owner, wants to make a whole bunch of money.
So what he does is he grinds down the wages of the workers because he's in pursuit of profit, because he wants to make as much money as possible and so on.
And so he grinds down the wages of the workers.
And That pursuit of profit at the expense of the workers' income is terrible.
And this is one of the things that Marx and others predicted back in the 19th century, that because the pursuit of profit and the power that the factory owner had and the relative helplessness of the proletariat or the workers, factory workers, that they were going to get poorer.
And the factory owner was going to get richer and richer and richer.
The middle class would disintegrate or fall apart or fail to form in the first place, and things would be just terrible.
And, of course, that's pretty terrible, right?
I mean, I get that.
That's horrible. Where you have this, you know, underclass of shuffling along zombie workers with no choice being paid a pittance while the capitalist, you know, rubs his big fat belly in his ever-expanding Mr.
Creosote-style tuxedo and...
Bathes in gold and has all of this extra wonderful stuff.
You know, this Hunger Games kind of scenario.
And that is terrible.
And so the idea is, well, let's not have...
The greedy, profit-seeking capitalists run the factory.
Let's have the government run the factory.
Why? Because the government, you see, is not focused on profit.
The government is answerable to the workers in the form of, you could say, democratic socialism or whatever.
So the government should take over the factory so that it doesn't grind down the wages of the workers.
It can pay them a decent living And then that creates more stability in society because you've shaved down the peaks of the wealth and you've raised up the chasms, the valleys of the poor.
You have more middle class and there's actually answerability, so to speak, to the people through democratic socialism rather than the factory worker.
So I understand all of that.
I understand all of that.
Like the factory worker doesn't want to give health care insurance to his workers because that costs him money.
And, you know, in this formulation, there's this infinite pile of pawns, right, the sort of replaceable humanoid bipeds that you can just plug in.
Someone quits out of outrage, yeah, just throw them out on the street, they starve to death, and then...
You get someone new in who's going to be, okay, well, I won't take healthcare insurance.
I'll just hope that I don't get sick kind of thing.
And so this control over the means of production is the idea, you know, you've heard this in socialist circles, the problem with capitalism, it puts people before profits.
We'll get into that and all of that, but that's the general idea.
And it's kind of compelling.
But... But.
There's always a but.
That's like a Brazilian carnival parade.
There's always a but. So, the but is this.
Wealth is created in a free market environment.
I'm going to use free market rather than capitalism because the problem with capitalism is fundamentally not...
I don't really like the term that much.
It's not really about capital.
It's about freedom. And also the word capitalism implies that you're talking about a very small section of people who are the owners of the means of production in a free market called the capitalist.
I'm just going to say free market because it's actually more accurate.
But here's the issue.
Well, first of all, the factory doesn't come out of nowhere.
The factory is built.
And the person who builds the factory has money, which he has chosen not to spend on himself, but rather to spend on something that creates wealth, that creates jobs, right?
So, I don't know, I mean, rather than spend something...
Like, if you spend your money on, I don't know, ornate clothing or whatever it is, I mean, I guess you give...
You give money to the tailors and the people who've come up with the fabric, but you're not really creating something that generates more stuff, right?
Like if you go and invest in a car factory, then you have something which is now producing cars.
If you invest in just really ornate clothing for yourself, I touch my shirt like I ever wear ornate clothing, but if you invest in ornate clothing for yourself, that's kind of the end of the line.
It's not like your investment then creates a whole bunch of new and repeatedly new clothes.
But if you invest in a car factory, then you end up producing a lot of cars in a sustainable way.
So who's the last person to buy?
Like if you buy an expensive shirt, you're the last person to buy it.
That's the end of the road. If you buy or create a car factory, then the consumers who buy the cars, they're the last people to buy.
So it sort of goes somewhere else.
These things don't pop out of nowhere.
When I was a teenager, I worked as a waiter in a variety of restaurants.
The restaurants didn't just pop out of nowhere.
Somebody had to build it, to invest in it, to, you know, if they had a franchise, to get trained and have the right to use the franchise logo and advertising and all of that.
So it didn't really pop out of nowhere.
And so once the means of production have been created, they're owned by someone.
And I'm going to assume a largely free market here.
Like you can say, well...
What if the profits were, you know, unjust based upon your relationship to the Federal Reserve?
I mean, I understand. We're just talking about a free market here.
And so the restaurant is from somewhere, right?
So it doesn't come out of nowhere.
Like, I mean, I used to think when I was younger, so, you know, you get a restaurant and you carry your food around, right?
And you take it from the kitchen, you give it to the customers.
And then you end up with money.
But if you try just carrying stuff around in the woods, you don't end up with any money because there's no restaurant around you.
So where does the restaurant come from?
It comes from somebody investing and taking the risk.
Spending his or her money on creating a restaurant rather than simply consuming it as an end consumer themselves.
So rather than buying stuff that only they themselves are going to use.
Like, you know, and you invest in a yacht factory and you end up with something that makes more yachts.
You just buy a yacht. That's the end of the line as far as that goes.
It's not bad or anything. This is different, right?
So stuff is created.
Right? Wealth is created fundamentally.
This idea that there's a fixed amount of wealth in the world and if one group is wealthier only because they've stolen from another group or cheated another group or something like that is not true.
It's not true. There are ways to create more wealth, to create more value.
In society.
And certainly some of it happens because people steal or cheese or lie.
That definitely happens.
And because human beings are corruptible, the free market is very important.
Because human beings are so corruptible and want stuff for nothing, those same people will be inhabiting the government you give this awesome power to.
So the more you say that capitalists are corrupt, the more danger you have when government takes things over.
Because foundationally, a capitalist cannot force you To interact with him.
He cannot force you to interact with him.
And the government, of course, can and does.
All that's really the very nature of the government.
The government has some program or wants to start some war.
You have to fund it.
You have to pay for it. Or you at least have to be the collateral against which they borrow in order to fund that war.
So the capitalist can't force you to buy his product.
The capitalist can't force you to go to the mall.
The capitalist can't force you to work for him.
Because, you know, there's this kind of weird thing that happens in these discussions where it's like one capitalist, one factory, and workers.
As if there aren't a million other capitalists out there who also have factories, who also want to hire workers, right?
It's kind of weird when you think about it.
It's this like tiny little slice.
You know, like people stay in abusive relationships, I guess, because they don't really think that anyone else is out there who could be better for them, right?
So this kind of like, well, you're the only one.
I guess I'm stuck with you. It's kind of how it works in these socialist explanations of the market, because if you don't like the employment conditions of your employer, of your work environment, you can just quit and go somewhere else.
You can go across the street, you can go across town, you can go across the state, you can go to other states, you can go anywhere you want in order to Get another job.
And it's that very mobility of labor that limits the power of the capitalist to crush wages.
Because if people don't like working for you, guess what?
They won't work for you.
They'll go for someplace better, they'll go for someplace different.
And these days now in particular, you know, if you've got something to say, you can just grab a webcam or fire up your phone even really and just talk to the world and ask for donations.
But lots of things that you can do.
To get the word out, to compete with people, to try something different.
You can learn web design.
Lots of different things. You can just work at home.
You can write. You can have a blog.
There's tons of things that you can do other than go and operate a machine lathe for 7.75 hours a day.
So yeah, if they won't let you go to the washroom, then you can just go work somewhere else.
And the mobility of labor is what limits the power of the capitalist to impose his will upon people.
And that's never really discussed.
There's always one capitalist in these formulations.
There's always one capitalist, one factory, 100 workers or 200 workers.
And that's it. That's the end of the universe.
That's it. There's this tiny little slice of the economy.
Wealth is created in the same way you can think of it in terms of music, right?
So music, if I write a song, it's an original song, I haven't taken that song from somewhere else or someone else.
There is now a new song in the world because of my labor.
If I write a book... If I... I don't know, whatever it is.
Like, you create something new if you write a term paper, if you write an exam.
Well, that's something new that's in the world.
You didn't steal it from anyone else.
There was no song or book there before.
Now there is a song or a book.
So the song, the book, the wealth, is created.
It is not stolen in the free market.
So, first of all, it's not distributed, right?
It's not distributed. It is...
And if it's created, then the only way to transfer ownership of it in the socialist situation is to take it by force, right?
So if you, let's say that in a socialist environment you create some song and it makes you some good coin, it's a great song, it's very, very catchy, you know, like uptown funk kind of stuff.
And then the government comes along and takes a song from you and you say, well, no, I don't want, you can't take my song.
It's my song. I have rights over it.
I have whatever I... And they say, no, for the good of the collective, we have to take your song.
Well, what do you do? Well, you can't fight them.
They're the government, right? And the government is an agency of force.
It's very, very important to remember that the government is an agency of force.
And what do you do? So let's say that you work for years, you invest your money, you work night and day, you build up some convenience store or some little restaurant or whatever, and then the government comes along and says, well, no, we're going to take it from you and we're going to redistribute it.
It's like, what do you mean redistribute it?
I made this. You know, I invested in this.
This is my sweat equity. This is my, what is it?
This money was made from my father's blood.
That old Raisin in the Sun play I read when I was in school.
So it's yours. And the only way to take it and transfer it to the state or the collective or some committee or whatever it is, is to threaten you with force if you don't leave, right?
So the transfer of the ownership, if you continue to stay there and pretend that it's yours, you're now trespassing on someone else's property and the police can come along with guns and remove you and take you away from that.
So given that stuff is created, the only way to transfer it to public ownership is to use force and to transfer it using the power of the state.
Now, of course, there are some people who say, well, good riddance to the capitalist.
It's only fair. He stole everything to begin with.
But the problem with that is we really do have to have a rational definition of theft, right?
I mean, it doesn't really make much sense to say everything that's created is stolen.
It's appropriated. I mean, then you really have no definition of theft.
So, That is a big problem.
Wealth is created. The only way to transfer the means of production is using force, and that's bad.
Now, there are sort of basic moral considerations.
So the basic moral consideration is the initiation of the use of force is immoral, right?
So you can't go around just clubbing people on the head out of nowhere, right?
That's the initiation of the use of force.
Now, if someone's coming at you with a knife, well, you can, you know, I guess hit that guy with a chair or something, try and run away or whatever.
You can use self-defense.
That's not the initiation.
That's the response to the initiation of the use of force.
So the initiation of the use of force is immoral.
And socialism relies upon the government being able to Initiate the use of force against people who've created their own property, who've created their own value.
You know, like if you go build a house in the woods, you've owned the land, right?
You homestead the land, you go build a house in the woods, well, it's your house.
You've brought it out of nothing through your labor, you own it.
You own the effects of your actions, whether it's property or virtue or honesty or reputation or crime or whatever it is, you own the effects of your actions because you're the source of what you do.
And if someone comes along and just says, well, that house is now mine, Well, and if they use force against it, then they're stealing from you.
And it doesn't matter if it's some guy in the woods or some government with your factory.
It's the same principle applies.
The initiation of the use of force is wrong.
And property rights, well, property rights are absolute.
And property rights fundamentally don't have anything to do with stuff.
They have to do with your body.
You own yourself.
And you should not be forced against your will.
Slavery was a violation of free will and the assertion of ownership over another human being.
Rape, of course, is using somebody else's body without their permission and stabbing someone as an invasion of their body.
Property rights are founded upon the sanctity of your body.
And of course, because you own your body, you own the effects of your actions, then you own what you create.
And other people using force to transfer what you have created is wrong.
It's really, really wrong, and it's really, really immoral.
So there are some real moral issues when it comes to socialism, which...
You know, theftism wouldn't sound quite as good, right?
Violent overthrow of legitimate property rightsism, not quite as catchy, doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well.
So there are definitely moral issues.
You are using force to take what people have created.
Let's talk to some of the practical aspects of it, though, because as you can see, Venezuela's got like 34,000% inflation now or something like that.
The Soviet Union collapsed.
Cuba is an economic hellhole.
Cambodia collapsed.
North Korea, which started as a communist country, is the world's largest open-air country.
I mean, it's horrifying.
And so the question is, why does it always fail in a practical sense and in a practical way?
And there's very good reasons for all of that.
And we'll just touch on those because we want to help the poor.
Listen, I mean, I would love it if the poor had more resources and more access to healthcare and good housing and all of these wonderful...
I want the environment to be clean.
I want the poor to be taken care of.
I want the ill... And the unwell to be able to get the medicines that they need.
Like, I want all of these things.
And you just have to be really, really careful about how you say they're going to be achieved, right?
That's important. Because if you want to help people, but you set up a system wherein people get harmed, well, that's on you, right?
I mean, the people who advocated for Venezuelan socialism and so on, the fact that Venezuelans have lost like, you know, 20 pounds each.
The fact that they are running through, like roaming through garbage, running their hands through garbage, trying to find food.
The fact that women have crossed the border to Colombia to basically give blowjobs for a sandwich because they're so hungry.
The fact that there's no medicine left in the country.
The fact that people are hunting rats in the sewers and trying to club a seagull in order to get some food.
Like if you've advocated for that stuff, that...
You know, I don't want to use that overused Lady Macbeth phrase, you have blood on your hands, but it's on you, right?
I mean, because if you advocate a system out of good intentions, but you haven't been critical of that system, and the system ends up producing bad things, well, that's like driving drunk, right?
I mean, you chose to advocate for a system without examining its negative history and negative consequences.
So I'm not trying to back on you, I'm just sort of saying you don't want that on your conscience, right?
You don't. Nobody wants to live with that, because even if you ignore it, it kind of eats away deep, deep down, base of the tooth style.
So there's a reason why, well, a couple of reasons why it always fails.
Now, there's this idea on the left, and it goes something like this.
Everyone's basically the same.
And the only reason some people become rich is because they inherited money, or because they were lucky, or because they've cheated, or because they've exploited people, or because they're cold-hearted.
It's always accident or evil is the cause for wealth.
And I can kind of understand that.
I can kind of understand, if you have that perspective, that we're all these kind of interchangeable pawns.
So the only reason that someone does better than someone else is because they're bad or they're cheating or whatever, right?
It's not true. Like, it's not true.
It's not true. There is a human bell curve distribution of abilities.
You can think of it like singing voices.
You know, some people open their mouths and can just sing amazingly.
You know, a little bit of training certainly helps in all of that, but they have sort of the physical voice and they can just sing amazingly.
And other people, they could take singing lessons their whole life and still end up sounding like a cat fiend being fed by a sack with through a blender.
So, there's a distribution of singing ability.
There's a distribution of height.
Height is a genetic distribution.
Some people are very tall. There's a genetic distribution of hair.
There's a genetic distribution.
You name it, right? And these, to a small degree, could be environmental.
You know, like, I mean, if you have...
Twins separated at birth and one of them grows up in North Korea and one of them grows up in America.
Well, the one in North Korea may not get enough food, may end up kind of stunted, not tall enough and all that, and the other one may end up reaching the natural genetic height.
So there certainly can be influences on end human abilities from the environment, but most of those influences have been eliminated in the West.
Are very rarely short because they were malnourished as children.
Quite the opposite these days, it seems.
If you're not doing well, malnourishment is...
Like, if you're not doing well economically, malnourishment seems to be not the problem that you're actually facing.
So... The equality of opportunity in the West, the food in the West and so on, is of such quality and egalitarianism that...
All but genetic differences have been largely eliminated.
So the disparities that we see have a lot to do with genetics.
Some people are smarter, some people are not as smart, and nobody really knows how to move that needle.
You know, teachers have very little effect.
The quality of teachers, the quality of education, none of that seems to have any particular effect on outcome.
And raw intelligence is by far the biggest single predictor of figuring out how someone's going to end up in life.
If they're going to do well, Or they're going to do badly.
That has to do with raw intelligence.
And raw intelligence is largely genetic, right?
I mean, by the time you're 18, 80% of your intelligence is genetic.
And nobody knows how to change it any more than we know how to talk people into becoming taller or shorter.
So I do think that there are considerations of...
Thought patterns, intellect.
I mean, I run the world's biggest philosophy show because I believe that everybody can benefit enormously from philosophy.
And the less intelligent you are, natively, the more you can benefit from philosophy.
And that's one of the reasons why I talk not at an academic sort of abstract polysyllable, like I've got more morphemes coming out of my mouth than if I'm half-chewed, a bunch of baby squid.
Because I want people to be able to understand philosophy.
The essence of what it is that I'm talking about, because no matter where you are on the intelligence spectrum, philosophy is going to be enormously helpful to you.
Clear thinking is very, very important.
And I've had people on the show to talk about this, how in particular it benefits children.
So you could say what is distributed is not money, but ability.
Now, it's not distributed like there's some guy with a white beard up on a cloud handing out unfair levels of Poker hands to people.
It's just, in the random play of genetics and evolution, some people get more abilities, some people get fewer abilities, and so on.
You know, is that fair?
I don't even know what that question is.
Is it fair that some people are better looking than others?
I mean, I don't know, because it's compared to what, right?
It's a basic question of philosophy, right?
Compared to what? There is no compared to what, because there is just this randomized, to some degree, distribution of abilities.
And so, given that there are some people who are just super smart, some people who aren't so smart, some people really good looking, great singers, some people not so good looking, not good singers, it's just the way things work.
And given that basic reality, if you look at any reasonably competitive system where free play of ability is at work, you get what's called the Pareto Principle.
And the Pareto Principle says that the square root of workers in an environment produce half the value.
So if you've got 10,000 people in a company, 100 of those people are producing half the value.
And that's an astounding sum when you think about it.
You've got 10,000 people in the company.
100 of those people are producing half the value.
And that's really quite astounding when you think about it.
Now, That's the way it works, not just in human beings, but in nature, and it works in just about every field.
If you look at the entertainment industry, then 95% of the money, as it said, goes to 5% of the people.
If you look at all the people who want to make it in pro sports, from being kids onwards, very, very few people will end up making massive profits.
Salaries in pro sports, if you look at all of the singers and songwriters, very few of them end up with enduring fame.
If you look at writers and screenwriters and movie makers, very few of them end up making it big.
And that's just a basic reality.
You can't change that.
Nobody knows how to change that.
Maybe at some point in the future.
I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm very, very big on environment.
I advocate for peaceful parenting, reasoning with children, no spanking, breastfeeding as long as possible, eye contact, skin contact, all the stuff that is great for kids and really helps them to grow and to flourish.
I think that stuff is essential.
But The reality, certainly as it stands, in the future, hopefully we can improve things, but right now as it stands, this is the way things are.
There's a just big old distribution of abilities, and that's the problem.
That's the big problem when it comes to the free market.
The only way...
This is going to bother you, and I get that.
I appreciate your time.
Just give me like a few minutes to explain this, because it's going to bother you what I say.
The only way...
To have wealth is to accept an unequal distribution of wealth.
That's the only way to have wealth.
Let me explain it. Have you ever been to karaoke?
Sorry, I love to sing, so please excuse me for all the singing reference.
You've been to karaoke, and someone comes up and you're just like, ooh, I wonder how it's going to be, and then they go into some bone-scraping, bottom-of-the-base-mouth rendition of Born to be Wild, and you're like, ooh, okay, well, I can see why the Steppenwolf singer got some extra cash.
If you had a music industry that said, we will publish everyone, there would be no music industry, you understand.
If there was no way for customers to sort by the songs and the singers that they preferred, there would be no music industry.
If you had the NFL or the NBA or whatever, if you had a sports franchise that said, we're going to let everyone play, nobody would come to the games, really, and there would be no sports industry.
I mean, some friends of mine, their kids were in dance, and you had to pay to go and see these kids dance, but that was just parents.
And as they get better, the kids get better, then people may end up paying to go and see them, but it's not really like, come and see a bunch of kids dance who are still learning.
Well, that's the parents who go and do it, right?
So if you have everybody who wants a recording contract gets a recording contract, you have no music industry.
You have no MBA if everybody who wants to play basketball gets to play basketball.
You have to sort out the people who aren't as good in order to have that industry.
So the only way to have an MBA is to filter 99.99999% of the people who want to play for the MBA out.
The only way you get a music industry is to filter out all the people who aren't as good, who aren't going to make as much money.
And Egalitarianism destroys wealth.
Because, I mean, look at somebody like Steve Jobs.
I mean, Steve Jobs, a little crazy, but it's the kind of crazy that's cool, right?
I mean, this reality distortion field and so on.
That one guy created, with Steve Wozniak, created a company worth untold hundreds of billions of dollars.
Look at Jeff Bezos and so on.
There are people who are stone geniuses of productivity.
Now, don't get me wrong.
You can look at someone like Jeff Bezos and say, well, you know, He's, uh, Amazon has a contract for $600 million with the CIA, and he owns the Washington Post, and can they be objective?
Don't get me wrong, there's ragged edges to all of this stuff, but the CIA is not really part of the free market, unless there's a government agency.
So you can look at the ragged edges, and you can say, well, some of this is, but come on, the guy is a productivity genius, like Bill Gates, like, I mean, these guys are just productivity geniuses.
Henry Ford, yeah, he had some pretty unsavory aspects of his character, but as far as Changing the model of production to the assembly line, right, rather than have all these people swarm around trying to create a car, having a car chassis go through and everyone doing a bit along the way.
Crazy productive.
And he raised workers' salaries in America just with that one innovation.
And this works across all fields.
All fields. Oh, who is the name?
Well, here's a nice non-lobster segue.
All fields, including farmers' fields.
When it comes to productivity of the land, some farmers can get 10 to 20 times the productivity out of their land.
And you can say, well, why?
It's like, why was Apple so successful and other companies weren't so successful?
Why is it Apple not Atari?
What happened to the Commodore 64?
I must forever know. So let's just say it's magic.
I mean, it's not evil.
It's not exploitation. They're just really, really good at producing things.
Just really great at producing things.
You know, I wrote a couple of songs in my teens, was in a garage band for a little while, and let's just say I ain't no Paul McCartney, and where does it come from?
Nobody knows. Nobody knows.
Where does a song like Yesterday come from?
He dreamt it. I mean, of course, he'd put in his 10,000 hours and all that, played in Hamburg.
But Paul McCartney woke up with this tune going through his head and he went around playing it to everyone saying, do you know this song?
Do you know this song? And he actually wrote down some goofy lyrics like scrambled eggs.
Oh, my dear, you have got lovely legs.
That was his, you know, I guess his bookmark for the eventual lyrics of yesterday.
He just dreamt it. Is that fair?
Is that right? I don't know.
It doesn't matter. It's just what is.
It's just what is. It's like saying, is it unfair that human beings don't get to live for a thousand years?
It's just what is. Freddie Mercury came up with the song for a crazy little thing called Love, sitting in a bubble bath in Hamburg.
It just popped into his head, and he's like, I should write this down.
Of course, he'd been working in the music industry for decades, and so he was primed for it, but is it fair that it comes to him and not...
You know, Roger Taylor came up with Radio Gaga because his little boy was imitating something on the radio.
That's Radio Bye-Bye, Dad.
Is it fair? It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter. The fact that Shakespeare wrote those plays, sonnets, poems, is it fair?
Is it right? It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter. It's just the way things are.
There's just this amazing distribution of skills and abilities.
And very, very few people create most of what we have.
I mean, it's just the reality.
Very, very few people create what we have.
I mean, just look at this microphone and this monitor and this little camera and so on.
I didn't create that stuff.
I think I'm doing pretty good work in philosophy.
I didn't create that stuff. Very, very few people create most of what we have.
Now, socialism says, well, basically, we're going to take away resources from the most productive people and give them to the least productive people.
Now, the least productive people or less productive people, they want those resources in the here and now, for sure.
But it burns up their future.
It burns up their future.
It's like we only have just enough food to get through the winter, like, you know, early Middle Ages or something when you couldn't...
You couldn't dial up some food delivery.
Say, ah, we've only got just enough food to get through the winter.
And people are like, well, I'm hungry.
I want a big giant meal right now and tomorrow and the day after because I love to eat.
And it's like, you know, come February, everybody's looking for barn owls to rip apart, right, for food.
I mean, it's like everybody looks at each other and sees big rotating rotisseries of chicken where somebody's head should be.
You know, they're hungry. And so, sure, people want the wealth of the productive people in the here and now.
Partly because they're just greedy in the moment.
And also just partly because they've just been lied to and they said, well, that guy's rich because you're poor.
No. The people who make the equipment that I have in my studio are richer than me, right?
But they haven't taken from me.
They've actually given me the equipment by which I can have these conversations.
And if you find them helpful and useful, please go to freedomainradio.com slash donate to help me out and to do this kind of stuff.
So then... They're not taking from me, they're giving me the opportunity to have these great conversations with the world.
And, you know, the fact that I have more than half a billion views and downloads, the fact that my books are downloaded enormously and spread like wildfire, this is because of other people making a lot of money selling me stuff, giving me the opportunity to create a little means of production here called a studio that reproduces philosophy around the world.
So, is it unfair that some people are enormously productive and thus become enormously wealthy?
It doesn't matter. It's like saying, is it unfair that people are born pretty?
What do you do? Throw acid on the people who are pretty and give free plastic surgery to the non-pretty people?
That's all pretty violent.
You understand, right? It's pretty nasty.
You just have to accept that there's differences among us.
And, you know, vive la différence, right?
I mean, just enjoy the fact that there are differences and recognize that the fact that Steve Jobs is this mad creative genius...
Gives you an iPhone, gives you an iPad, gives you an iPod Touch, gives you a MacBook Pro, gives you iCloud, gives you like all of these cool things.
Is that bad for you? No.
Because this is the thing, when the socialists say they put profits before people, That is such a fundamental misreading of the free market.
I almost don't know where to begin.
And I look at that stuff, to be honest, kind of suspiciously, because it seems more, like it's so wrong, it can't even be accidental.
You know, it's sort of like you're some evil guy, and you're practicing archery, and you just happen to hit the guy behind you who's your greatest enemy, and you say, oops!
It's like, come on, that's such a mishit, that can't be accidental, that can't be.
What does it mean to put profits before people?
So just think of you, And an iPad.
Anyone forcing you to buy it?
No. Does Apple profit when you buy the iPad?
Sure. Do you profit when you buy the iPad?
Yes. Absolutely.
No question. That's fact.
That's a fact by definition.
All voluntary transaction in a free market are win-win.
All voluntary transactions in the free market are win-win.
Now, again, I'm just taking out the fraud and kind of stuff, but just all voluntary transactions, right?
So you walk in to an Apple store, you have 500 bucks or whatever it costs these days, I don't know, 500 bucks, and you want an iPad.
Now, Apple would rather have your 500 bucks than have another iPad because they're there to sell it, right?
So they want your 500 bucks more than they want to keep onto that iPad.
Now, you, if you voluntarily hand that money over the counter, ignoring the condescending orbiting stares of the genius bar people, but you hand over your 500 bucks, they give you the iPad, well, it's a voluntary transaction.
Nobody forced you to do it. Nobody's cheating anyone.
Nobody's stealing from anyone.
Nobody's kidnapped anyone to make the transaction happen.
It's just a voluntary transaction. You want the iPad more than you want your $500.
And they want your $500 more than they want the iPad.
That's the only way the transaction can happen.
Because if you go in and you say, I'll offer you $5 for that iPad, they'll say no.
Because they don't want your $5 more than they want their iPad.
Because their iPad costs them a lot more than that to me.
So it is, you understand, it's not...
Maybe it's not...
It's by definition. The only way a voluntary transaction can happen is if both people expect to be better off as the result of that transaction.
You don't want the 500 bucks.
You want the iPad. They don't want the iPad.
They want the 500 bucks. Boom.
Done. You're both better off.
There's no possibility that can happen.
Now, you could say, well, what if later you change your mind and the iPad doesn't do what you want and you take it back?
Okay, well, you can undo the transaction for sure.
And then both parties want the transaction to be undone.
And therefore, the undoing of the transaction...
Both parties expect to be better off.
So if you buy the iPad, it doesn't do what you want.
You take the iPad back, then you say, I want my 500 bucks more than I want the iPad.
And Apple says, I want the iPad back more than I want your 500 bucks.
Why? Because if there's no return policy, then people would be less likely to buy their iPad, so they're selling more iPads by taking a few back.
So, You both expect a profit, you understand?
Profit is not just ka-ching with the evil capitalist cash register.
You expect a profit from the iPad.
Now, you may not go make any money with the iPad.
You may just enjoy playing games or you, I don't know, whatever, right?
You may just use it for emails or whatever, right?
Watch movies. But if you look at profit as something you prefer, Which is, you know, as Satan said to Jesus, as Jesus said, what does it profit a man to win the whole world if he loses his soul?
Just looking at that word, profit means better off.
So yeah, they profit in a ka-ching accounting way, but let's just say you buy the iPad for fun and consumption.
You would rather watch movies and play games than have 500 bucks sitting in your bank account.
So you profit from that.
They profit, you profit. So what does it mean to say you put profits before people?
Because, you see, if you went in and said, well, I'm not going to pay $500 for this iPad, I'm going to pay $5,000 for this iPad, well, that would, I mean, assuming that transaction could occur, well, then Apple will have a chance to pay out a little more to its shareholders, pay its employees a little bit more, so you'd be helping them out.
But why don't you? Why don't you pay more than the price?
Are you not putting your profit before the people who work at Apple?
You understand? Putting profit before people in a free market makes no sense at all.
It's completely irrational. It's not even irrational.
It's anti-rational. You got a buck.
I got a pen. I want to buy a soda.
You want to sign a document.
So we trade. So I get a buck to buy a soda, and you get a pen to sign your document.
We're both better off. You want the pen more than you want a buck.
I want a buck more than I want a pen.
Who have we exploited?
What does it mean? We both profited from the interaction.
Have we put profits before people?
It doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't make any sense.
And of course, if you're going to say that human beings innately want to profit from other people's misery, those same human beings are going to be running the government, except they're going to have an army and a police force and a court system and a prison system and all that kind of stuff, none of which Apple has.
So the worse you portray the capitalists, the worse your system is going to be.
So I really want to point this as profits before people.
You can't make profits without pleasing people.
If the iPad doesn't please you, you won't buy it.
You can't make money in a free market without pleasing people and without being ridiculously efficient.
Now, let's look at something called the calculation problem.
This is very, very important and very interesting.
Very interesting indeed.
In a free market, we know this basic thing, right?
As demand goes up, assuming all other constants, as demand goes up, the price will increase.
So if more and more people want gold, then the price of gold will go up.
You know this goes up and down with oil and so on, right?
Again, assuming a free market, not massive government cartels and nationalized crap stolen from the West and the Middle East and stuff like that.
But supply and demand, right?
All other things being equal, if demand remains constant but supply increases, then the price is Going to go down.
I understand that, right? So, price in the free market is an...
You understand, price is the original internet.
Price is the original internet because price tells you so much about resources.
It tells you so much about supply and demand and you don't have to pay for price, right?
So, let's say you've got a bunch of Scrap metal in your basement.
Let's just say whatever.
You got a bunch of scrap metal. It was there when you moved in, when you got a bunch of scrap metal in your basement.
All right. And then the price of scrap metal goes up.
Now, originally, let's say it cost you $300 to get your scrap metal from your basement to the recycling depot, right?
But it's only worth $100.
But let's say the price goes up crazy and now it's worth $1,000.
Well, now you're going to do it. Now you're probably going to pay the $300 to have someone come and take your scrap metal to the recycling depot because then you can clear $700.
You just made $700. So price has told you everything about the economic efficiency of getting stuff done.
You didn't have to pay to get that amazing information.
It just showed up in the form of price.
That's an amazing thing when you think about it.
How much information is embedded in the free flow of price?
Price tells you an enormous amount about, well, not objective value, because there really is no such thing, but, I mean, in values, in philosophy, but not in price, right?
It tells you about demand. It tells you about people's willingness to voluntarily part with their money to get your good, right?
And so price is an incredibly complicated piece of information that transmits an astounding amount of data throughout the market for free.
For free.
And that's amazing.
Now, in a centrally planned and centrally controlled economy, You no have the price.
You don't have price. You don't have price.
And without price, you cannot conceivably, possibly, in any way, shape, or form, efficiently allocate resources.
You can't. And so when you get rid of the free market, you get rid of the amazing instantaneous free internet metric of supply and demand.
You get rid of that, and therefore you can't officially allocate resources.
You can't. You don't know how much to build of this, you don't know how much to build of that, you don't know any of that.
Like, should a mall be built in some particular location?
Well, if you're the real estate developer, you'll do all the market research, you'll try and figure things out, you'll plot and plan everything, and then you'll figure out if it works.
And it probably will, because those people are pretty good at figuring out where people want malls.
In a centrally planned economy, should you build a mall there or not?
I don't know. Nobody knows.
You can't possibly know. So you build stuff, you don't build stuff, it ends up, you have to make decisions.
And if the market is not giving you signals in the form of price, you know, if you want to build a mall somewhere, you have to sign up a bunch of stores before you build the mall.
They have to sign so that you have the money to build the mall and you know that, right?
But if you want to build a mall and nobody's willing to sign up to your mall, then you know that the mall isn't going to work.
Now, you could create some abstract platonic demand, but the reality is there's no real demand in the market, right?
So price...
I'm going to charge this much for my mall.
People are going to expect to make more money than they pay you in rent from renting from you by selling to the consumers.
If nobody's willing to do that, it means nobody believes that your mall is going to attract enough consumers to cover their rent and make them any money.
You see, the mall then isn't built, saving all of those resources.
I mean, if you look at the housing crash...
The government said to the banks, you have to lend money to people who are unqualified.
So they did. And then the market crashed when the interest rates went up.
Oh, interest rates, that's another one.
It's not just about the now. If a whole bunch of people are saving money, Then the amount of money available to lend out is huge.
And therefore, since there's a huge amount of supply, the price of lending out money, which is interest, goes down, which is great.
Because that stimulates people to spend in the here and now.
So if you're saving a whole bunch of money, the price of interest goes down.
If everyone's saving a whole bunch of money, the price of interest goes down.
Next thing you know, Bob's your uncle.
People are spending money. Now, when people spend a bunch of money, the price of interest goes up.
The price of money goes up.
Interest rates go up, which means people are going to save more.
So whether you should spend, whether you should save, that's really important.
If there's a whole bunch of pent-up demand, that's a great sign for capitalists, for factory owners and so on, to invest in making more stuff from there.
Like, I'm going to upgrade my factory because this pent-up demand, the dam's going to break, people are going to buy.
Now, the government, of course, governments throughout the West, control interest rates.
You've got price controls on interest rates, which means that the mechanism by which people get information about future demand is really, really messed up.
And this is why you see all of this bad investment.
This is why, after the housing crash in America, 10% of housing stock was empty, because people got the wrong signals, because the government was controlling everything.
That's a big problem. If you get rid of price, there's no way to efficiently allocate resources in the market.
It's like if you're deaf and blind, how do you know who is the best singer, songwriter, performer to promote?
You don't. You don't have the information because you're deaf and you're blind.
So you can't possibly figure out who's good.
It's the same thing. It takes away the feedback mechanism in society to have centrally planned stuff.
So this is why it fails.
I mean, it's one of many reasons why it fails.
Price controls are terrible.
Because people say, oh, you know, there's a typical example that when there's some natural disaster...
Let's say there's huge flooding and people can't get a hold of water.
It's like, oh, people are paddling in and they're selling their water for 10 bucks.
That's price gouging. That's profiteering and so on.
Well, first of all, the disasters are usually because the government's been really inefficient because, you know, government doesn't face any negative consequences if, I mean, you could say elections in the long run, but the vast majority of government is not elected.
It's just there, protected by a union, appointed, unable to be fired, and just squatting on your opportunities from here to eternity, it feels like.
But it's important for people to get water.
You know, they're thirsty. The water won't be there otherwise.
So it's always 10 bucks for a bottle of water.
It's like, yeah, because it's 10 bucks for no water.
And so when the government says, well, you can't charge more than a buck for a bottle of water, well, then people won't take the risk of going into these dangerous areas with water.
I mean, then people will die of thirst.
Oh, look, excellent.
People have now died of thirst.
Or they get so thirsty that they end up drinking the half sewage water floating around their house and then get sick Diarrhea, dysentery, you name it.
They could die, get mortally sick from that.
Who knows, right? But look, we made sure there was no price gouging.
It's like, well, yeah, and you killed a bunch of people in the process, right?
This is the weird thing. It's the same thing with minimum wage.
Minimum wage. Well, minimum wage is this vast attempt to cover up just how terrible government schools are.
The fact that after 12 years of being in government schools, you're not even worth 10 bucks an hour is pitiful to just how terrible government schools are.
But you get paid for what you produce.
You get paid for what you produce.
It's not some arbitrary thing.
If you're some movie star and people will...
If you're responsible for $50 million of the movie's ticket sales, then you're going to be paid a lot for that.
If you're some extra in the background that barely makes a difference and is easily replaceable, you're going to be paid less.
The more unique and valued your skills are, the more you're going to get paid.
That's just the way things work.
So the way that you increase your wage is you increase your value.
You learn new skills. You become better at something.
You have a better attitude.
You are more punctual. You are more reliable.
You are more honest. You're whatever.
Let's see you raise your... Make some government force people to pay you more.
It just means that fewer people with low skills get jobs.
And that's terrible. And it also gives a message that it's unfair to be paid what you actually get in the free market.
I mean, can you imagine having a program called Minimum Dates?
That all men must have at least four dates a month.
Well, you get the dates you ask for.
You get the dates you earn. You want to work out.
You want to do your skincare. You want to keep your teeth clean.
You want to be charming.
You want to, like, you get the dates.
And if you don't do those things, you don't ask the people out, you're not attractive, you're unappealing, you've got bad breath, well, you don't get the dates.
But is it immoral for women not to go out on dates with you if they don't like you?
No. Is it immoral for people to hire you at the salary that you want if you're not worth it to them?
No. No. It's called freedom, baby.
And the way to fix it is to fix the government schools.
So let me just end with that, because, you know, it's been a lot to digest.
But here's the problem, you know.
Education is run on socialistic lines.
I mean, the ultimate means of production are human beings, right?
I mean, the ultimate means of production is not the apples.
Not the factories that Apple uses to make its goods.
Well, originally it was Steve Jobs, then Tim Cook, then other people and so on.
But the ultimate means of production is human beings.
Control over the means of production means control over human beings.
And the government runs...
The education of human beings along socialist principles, right?
Which is that it's run by force.
You're forced to pay for it even if you don't have kids.
You're usually forced to be there.
And even if you're not there, you're still forced to pay.
Like if you homeschool, you're private school, you still have to pay the taxes for government schools.
Government controls the means of production called human beings.
So it's pretty tough to say, you know, this is why I have great sympathy.
The millennials are saying, well, wait a minute.
How can society tell me that socialism is bad when my entire education as a child was run on socialist principles?
I mean, well, how can the boomers tell me I don't like socialism, but you better pay for my Ponzi scheme social security retirement benefits or you go to jail?
A little tough. So we have this contradiction in our societies, which is we run the Quote, education of children along socialist lines, but then we somehow expect them to not be socialists when they grow up.
Well, of course they will, because it's really, really tough to look at your society and say, well, wait a minute.
You're telling me socialism is bad, but my entire education was predicated on socialist organizational principles?
So socialism is great for kids, but bad for adults?
Socialism is terrible, and that's why we use socialism to educate our children?
Socialism is destructive, and that's why we allow it to indoctrinate our kids for...
Thousands and thousands of hours.
You understand? This is tough.
It's like that problem when I worked in a hardware store as a teenager.
I could see all the workers out there, you know, cutting keys, mixing paint, cutting glass, and all that kind of stuff.
And then we had this boss named Tony who had this tiny little cubby office, and he would just be up there.
He could see us, like he could see the whole floor.
He could see us, we couldn't see him, what he did, right?
So it's kind of easy to say, well, I see a lot of people working here, but I don't see Tony working.
And it's like, well, yeah, because the boss can see the work the workers do, but the workers can't see the work that the mosque does.
He was up there running taxes, he was up there running payroll, he was up there running benefits, he was up there...
He was ordering new stuff.
He was up there dealing with supply issues and customer problems.
He was up there working. We couldn't see it, but he could see us.
So it's kind of tough. Oh, that boss, what does he do in there all day?
You know, I'm the real worker here because I'm moving stuff.
It's like, yeah, but you only have stuff to move because more mental work is being done by the boss.
And if you want, you know, if you want the world to be a better place for the, quote, workers, and again, that's a very, very prejudiced statement because bosses generally, I've been an entrepreneur for like 24 years now I've been an entrepreneur.
Bosses work the hardest.
I'm sorry, especially when you're starting a company.
I co-founded a software company and grew it to a pretty significant size.
I was chief technical officer and did a lot of sales and marketing, a lot of travel.
It's a lot of work. It's crazy work.
And risk and exposure.
I remember being dirt broke.
Well, not dirt broke, but not having a lot of assets, let's just say, and signing Big guarantees to make payroll while we waited for a sale to come in.
It's a lot of risk. It could have really torched years of my life if that stuff hadn't worked out.
A lot of risk, a lot of work. So calling the bosses not workers is prejudicial in and of itself.
Let's say the employees, right?
Because, I mean, fundamentally everyone's employed by the customer and the market, but the employees of the boss...
If you want employees to do better, rather than going around nagging the government to basically point its guns at people in the free market and have them do what you think they should do, go out and start a company.
The best way to improve conditions for workers is to create a company and hire them.
Because by hiring 10, 20, 30 people, you raise the demand for workers.
If you raise the demand for workers, it means they have more options, more choices, and other people have to bid more to get them.
Raises the wages of everyone else, maybe infinitesimally, maybe over time and so on, but the net effect is huge.
If you want workers to do better, go hire some people because that raises the wages for everyone in the economy because then workers have more options and they can ask for more.
And that's how you become wealthy.
That's how you become wealthy as a society.
So yeah, in the free market, the square root of the workers produces half the wealth.
And the square root of that So the square root of that produces half the wealth as well.
I mean, it's really, really astounding when you think about it.
So in 10,000 people, just a couple of people are producing half the wealth.
Sorry, a quarter of the wealth, right?
So in 10,000 people, 100 of them are producing half the wealth.
And of that, the square root of 100, just a few people are producing half the wealth.
A quarter of the wealth. Now, should those people not reap the rewards?
You can say no, but then they don't produce.
You understand? Then they don't produce, you understand?
So in an economy, look at 35 million people working.
70 or 80 of them are producing 25% of the entire wealth.
You understand? You say, well, those people shouldn't become rich.
Okay, then they just won't produce that 25% of the wealth and you're National wealth just dropped by 25%.
Boom! That's terrible.
It's terrible for the workers. Because those people aren't producing that much wealth, or any wealth, if they just choose to retire.
Remember, rich people who are very creative and productive, they got tons of options.
If they don't want to work, they don't have to work.
They can go and, you know, float around on a yacht, DiCaprio style.
Well, he lectures everyone about global warming, but, topic for another time.
You can say, well, I don't want these people to be that wealthy.
We're just going to tax them. Okay, well, then they just will stop producing and your wealth collapses.
Now, when your wealth collapses, demand for workers collapses.
When demand for workers collapses, working conditions deteriorate because they have fewer options and wages go down.
So the way to bring the wages up of the workers is to allow for massive concentrations of wealth This is how things work in the real world, not in what your semi-mustachio social studies teacher told you in grade 9.
This is... How things work in the real world, in the world where things actually get made.
People have choices and options and you actually have to get things done.
So I hope this has given you.
Let me know what you think in the comments below.
I literally can talk about this stuff forever.
I find it fascinating. I hope you do as well.
So I sympathize, you know, that the people who want a free market are the people who I think have really, really studied.
This is an annoying thing to say.
I'll say it anyway. The people who want protection for the environment, who want help for the poor, who want medicine for the sick and so on, I mean, people like myself, we advocate for the free market because that's how you get things to people in a sustainable way.
You know, how do you become happy?
Well, you pursue excellence, you pursue virtue, and you do good, and you're honest, or you can just take cocaine.
Well, cocaine will make you happy in the short run, but in the long run, you're kind of running out of nasal cavities, right?
And it's the same thing. So it is a little tough to transition to the free market.
It can be very tough, but the free market is the way that we make sure that people make the most money.
The free market is the way that we make sure the environment is the most protected, because when you have wealth, you can afford environmental controls and environmental protections.
It's a luxury that comes out of access.
So I hope that this helps at least for you to understand some of the major challenges with the socialist position.
You know, if you want to debate, you know, I'll look at the comments below.
Let me know what you think. I'm happy to talk more.
There's a lot more to talk about in this topic, but I want to see what your level of interest is at the moment.
So thanks everyone so much for watching and for listening, as I guess somebody who...
Has the means of production in his house.
If you could help me out, I really, really appreciate it.
This is the result of like 35 years of, 36 years of study now, so if you could help me out, freedomainradio.com slash donate.
