Paternalism, Infantilism & the Welfare State

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Hello everyone, welcome to morals and markets. Glad to see everyone here. Just a reminder, before we get started, please keep yourself muted while Doctor Salzman is giving his opening remarks so we don't have any background noise. Also, you can utilize the chat at the bottom of the screen to make comments or ask questions about specific parts of Doctor Salzman's talk. You can also utilize the reactions button on the bottom right hand of your Zoom screen in order to click the raise hand symbol if you'd like to get in line for the Q and A. And last but not least, I've posted or I'm going to post the abstract for tonight's meeting in the chat, including the sources and supplementary readings that Richard had put together. That being said, tonight we'll be discussing paternalism, infantilism and the welfare state. And thanks so much for doing this topic. [00:00:54] Speaker B: Richard. [00:00:55] Speaker C: Thank you Scott, and thanks everyone for joining the topic. Tonight. As I typically do, I'll speak for about 2025 minutes. I think that's usually set aside podcast for people audio, but here we're doing video and the format is for those who haven't joined before I speak, introduce the topic, make some points for about 2025 minutes. We have 90 minutes in total, so then I'll have to take open it up to conversation, criticism, elaboration to the listeners. Now, the other thing I typically do is I read the abstract. So when this is announced initially I write a little summary abstract. So I like to read that just to get all the points in. So here's what I wrote for paternalism, infantilism and the welfare state. And then after that, I'll give you a context of why I brought this up at all. So I'm quoting here. Now, a free society depends not only on rational philosophy, capitalist economics and rights respecting politics, but a psychology of mental health that's rooted in self esteem and its corollaries, self confidence, self responsibility and self reliance. Many people are anxious, angry and even phobic about living in a free, vibrant, dynamic culture, preferring security to liberty. They end up losing both. And the result, the welfare state, is as much in demand as it is supplied by pandering politicians. Paternalism is a type of collectivism which conceives the nation as a family, and hence politicians as parents and hence citizens as children. And tragically, however, this family suffers much domestic abuse. Unquote. Now, something about the origin of this that might interest you. I teach, I think I've done this now six years in a row, a seminar at Duke for freshmen called capitalism for and against and when I first put this together six years ago, I had, as you can imagine, the usual sections on the politics, economics and aspects of capitalism and philosophy of it. And it wasn't until I think about the third year, based largely on the kind of questions that came up from students and elsewhere, that psychology seemed to be really important. And I knew enough psychology and its relationship to capitalism to glimpse that this might be an issue. And I started putting in a separate section called. I initially called it the spirit of capitalism, but it really meant the psychology of capitalism. And since the readings were pro and con, they were pro and con on the psychology of capitalism. Too many, many critics of capitalism, of course, going all the way back to Marx, will accuse it of spawning, what? Expropriation, exploitation, psychologically. Now alienation. The other terminology, coming from the Marxist, is commodification. You know, everything gets a price, everything is made. Money, money, money. And also books like by Barry Schwartz and others, the tyranny of choice. I think that's the title of his book, that capitalism is psychologically harmful because it offers us too much choice anyway, those kind of things. There's another book students get a kick out of this, called affluenza, not influenza, affluenza. That there's a certain sickness and disease associated with affluence. Too much wealth and consumerism, the keeping up with the Joneses. We've all heard this kind of stuff. But then there's arguments for, thankfully, there are arguments for a proper psychology, capitalism promoting and fostering and counting on, as I introduced here, a proper psychology. All notice self interest based self esteem, self responsibility, self reliance, self confidence. Notice that those are all self oriented character traits. And so it's interesting because in psychology, those are usually the signposts of mental health, not mental illness, mental health. And yet in ethics, anything self oriented is considered vile. Self interest, egoism, selfishness, as you know, is conveyed ethically, as vices, as bad things. So there's a disconnect there, isn't there? I think that's very interesting. Anyway, that was the origins of me wanting to discuss it here today. Because the welfare state is completely out of control. We often talk about the dangers of authoritarianism, especially as liberty lovers, from where we are on the spectrum, the growing authoritarianism, the growing autocratic nature of government. But the welfare state is seen as kind of soft and cuddly, and it's a safety net. It's a social safety net. And it's. What did someone call it? Was it Bismarck or someone called it the cradle to grave support, universal basic income. All the phrases associated with the welfare state are not seen as demeaning in any way, not seen as vile or vicious in any way. And I contend that they are. They're every bit as bad as the warfare state. The welfare state is as bad as the warfare state. A couple of sections also. I want to pick them up and they'll cook them. That has to be muted. Scott, I think someone's also in the recent booklet I did for the Atlas Society, I decided to include a short chapter called Capitalism's Psychology. So that's in pocket guide to capitalism, which you can get online or at the TAS website. I just want to cite a couple of sections from that quote. Some people feel comfortable, alivened and even ennobled by living in a free society and a dynamic capitalist system. But others, in contrast, feel anxious or dispirited by this system. They finding it too challenging, too risky, fundamentally unfair. How can a social system elicit such conflicting emotions? Such feelings also affect the system's status because to the extent people vote emotionally and dislike capitalism, they'll vote against it. And again, capitalism here is seen as more than just economics. Very, it's very common among people. If you ask them what capitalism is, they'll just name the economics of it. But here I'm trying to stress there's a psychology of it, too. Further on down in this chapter, quote, the psychology, spirit, or ethos of capitalism is one of benevolence and self confidence, of optimism and happiness, counting on rationality, egoism, and individualism in the context of politically protected liberties. The system also cultivates these features in its commercial, financial, economic realms, but also in its intellectual, cultural, and artistic realms. Of course, some people will be irrational, self sacrificing, and group obsessed, but they're the exception under capitalism, where a large majority is motivated to live well and serve as exemplars for the weak. Now, another key aspect here in the objectivist philosophy is the concept of free will versus determinism versus being determined. And in the three main schools of psychology, if you know, there is a cognitive school, cognitive psychologies is the more rational approach, which suggests that our emotions and our mental health is associated with our thinking, with our basic premises and the extent to which they conform to reality or not. But you know that prior to the rise of the cognitive school in the fifties and sixties, the dominant ones which still have a lasting influence are freudian and behavioral, or came from Skinner, both of which are deterministic. Freud we're determined by perverse inner instincts. Skinner we're determined by our social setting. We're socially constructed by forces beyond our control, buffeting us from without. Well, that definitely relates to capitalism. If you have a deterministic psychology, you're not going to like the capitalist system, which requires you to make choices, which requires you to be independent, which requires you to exercise your, your free will. For a couple more sections from this chapter. Capitalism being the issue of envy, which is an emotion when you think about it, an emotion, an important emotion, in the desire for an egalitarian redistribution of wealth. Capitalism, being liberal, creative, and prosperous, it necessarily yields unequal results. Necessarily, I say, far from being nefarious, this is innocuous. Unequal outcomes aren't a bug, but a feature of the system, a natural result of human diversity. But egalitarians despise diversity. They hope to defy the law of causality by demanding equal results from unequal causes or equal rewards for unequal performance. Now, of psychological significance is how egalitarian is fed by envy of success and resentment of achievement. Success necessarily implies failure, but egalitarians want neither. And I finish up this chapter with the following concepts. Whereas capitalism is intended for mature adults, the welfare state is paternalistic, as rulers play parent while citizens play child. Yet domestic abuse prevails. Human dignity and capacity wither. State schools indoctrinate more than they educate. They spawn illiterates. They spawn dependents and criminals. Chaos and decay flow alike from public ownership of the means of production and public ownership of the means of instruction. If capitalism is to flourish, it isn't sufficient that ethics, politics, and economics be sound. It's also necessary that psychology be sound. Capitalism is buttressed by citizens with genuine self esteem, and it's undermined by those who lack it. The latter condone or even applaud the sacrifice of self while demanding that politicians impose sacrifice. Broadly, it's a combination indispensable to predatory systems such as feudalism, fascism, and socialism. Two more things, one on just touting various other sources. Now, some of them are in the readings I provided, but I really want to give a hat tip to something from years ago going on now, 40 years from the early eighties, from objectivist psychologist Edith Packard, who in 1984 wrote an essay based on a speech called the psychological requirements of a free society. This is a fabulous essay, not easy to find, but it's in a book of her speeches that have been republished. She names five main character traits and attributes that a person will need to want to live in a free society, and she very interestingly said it, said nothing to do with someone's iq or their talent level or ability. So, in other words, people at all levels of ability could succeed and be happy and not just survive, but flourish under a free society. If they had these traits. And they're interesting, I'll name them briefly. They're interesting also from the stand. And I give this essay to students, by the way, and with various reactions that might surprise you. And the interesting thing about these traits is if, upon hearing them, if you flip them, if you flip the traits and look at their opposites, you almost have a recipe for the welfare state. In other words, if these attributes are missing, or if these attributes are perverted in some way, you will actually stoke a demand for the welfare state. So here's the five things she cited, and by the way, a hat tip also to earlier, the real work on self esteem was done by objectivist law psychologist Nathaniel Brandon in the late sixties. The famous book the Psychology of Self Esteem, I think that's from 1968. But Packer, Edith Packer in 1984, spoke of the idea that you feel worthy of being happy. Not just that you want to pursue happiness, but you feel that you're worthy of it, that you're. That you have a kind of self identity and a self respect that says, I not only should pursue happiness, but I'm not going to feel guilty about it, either the pursuit or the achievement of it. That's no small thing. In psychology, a lot of people do not think themselves worthy, and that's a real demotivator in terms of pursuing values in life. Number two, this one's more epistemological. Reality is comprehensible. The idea that reality is knowable, comprehensible, not that the world is the opposite, would be incomprehensible. Right? Again, a very big motivator. If you think the world is indecipherable, incomprehensible, you have no idea what's going on. If you've been lobotomized in some way by public schools or by post modernism or whatever, think of how anxious and psychologically impaired you would be because you have this thing that Ayn Rand called the means of survival, the main means of survival. Aristotle, Rand, and others. What is it? Reason, our faculty of reason, our main instrument. If we're told that this instrument is flawed, if we're told that this instrument can't work, that is a huge, even if you can't identify it that way, that is a huge demotivator in terms of taking on life and being mentally healthy. So reality being comprehensible, the third one, very interestingly, not much promoted under objectivism, except by people like David Kelly, founder of Tos. Her third one is benevolent attitude toward others. A benevolent attitude toward others, put negatively, not expecting others to be out to get you. Not expecting others to be your enemies. Not. I'm putting words in her mouth a little bit here for Edith. Not expecting everything. It might be some zero sum game that if I gain, somebody else loses, or if somebody else loses, I gain. I must exploit others. I must eat or be eaten. No, the benevolent approach would be assume the best in others unless they prove otherwise. Give them what's called the benefit of the doubt, an extended hand. You're not a fist. That's a really critical one. Beneficial attitude toward others. Number four, and this comes from the terminology and psychology, internal locus of control. I'll repeat that, internal locus of control. This has to do really with free will. Mental health experts. This isn't unique to Packer, but she does emphasize it here and puts it in. A mental health specialist will say that if you have an internal locus of control, namely you feel like you have self efficacy, that you can have control over what you do with your life, the choices you make, that you're not being unrealistic about your goals and things like that, versus the idea of an external locus of control, which is the idea that it's unimportant what my views are. I'm going to be buffeted by forces beyond my control. So that's back to that issue of being determined versus having free will. Very important to have an internal locus of control. Imagine now here, psychologically, you wouldn't be needy upon others, right? You wouldn't be looking toward others. It's not like you're living on a deserted island. It's not like you're a hermit. But the idea of internal locus of control is really idea of independence, not being dependent or needy upon others. And the last, which I won't elaborate much on, but acceptance of one's uniqueness, self identity is big in Packer and I. Upon rereading her recently, I thought, we have this phrase today called identity politics, don't we? And it's interesting because it's not personal, individualized identity, is it? It's group identity. And I have to wonder, I haven't thought about this much, but I wonder sometimes whether the lack of a conception of personal efficacy and personal identity leads people to identify with the group. In other words, they have no internal sense of identity, and yet they feel this need to have some identity. So they go the stupid, kind of crude route of, well, I'm black and other people are black, or I'm white and other people are white, or I'm this gender or this ethnicity or this nationality. And therefore I get my self esteem. It's not really self esteem, is it? I get my efficacy by being in a group and I'm in a gang, and I don't know, maybe my gang is bigger than your gang. That kind of thing also contributes to an inclination to be okay with an autocratic gang and a welfare state. Lastly, I'll just end with a cute thing. Scott and I were talking offline about this previously, but I came across, over the years, I came across a great quote from a president of the United States from 140 years ago. Now, 140 years ago, it was 1893, and it's Grover Cleveland, and it's his second inaugural address. And it's a fascinating. It's an excerpt from the address. It's really fascinating to me because historically, if you know, 1893 in America is like the apogee of the capitalist period, the 50 year period between the Civil War. In World War one, there was no welfare state. We had a gold standard. There was no central banking. There was no income tax. There was relatively free trade. The labor market, of course, had been freed because slavery had been abolished. There were no, none of the Alphabet regulatory agencies. We still had the rule of law. It was the income to constitution. And he was a big fan of the constitution, following strictly the constitution. In that context, when you realize this quote, it becomes all the more remarkable, but also quite representative. Now here he is actually warning against what he detected to be a growing kind of desire for a paternalism. Here's the quote. There is a danger in the prevalence of a popular disposition to expect from the operation of the government special and direct individual advantages. Your representatives have a duty to expose and destroy the brood of kindred evils which are the unwholesome progeny of paternalism. This is the bane of republican institutions, and it's the constant peril of our government by the people. It degrades the plan of the founding fathers, which they established and bequeathed to us as an object of our love and veneration. It perverts the patriotic sentiments of our countrymen and tempts them to pitiful calculation of the sordid gains to be derived from lobbying government for their maintenance. It undermines it. Now he's referring to paternalism. It undermines the self reliance of our people and substitutes in its place, dependence upon governmental favoritism. It stifles the spirit of true americanism and stupefies every ennobling trait of american citizenship. The lessons of paternalism ought to be unlearned, and the better lesson taught that while the people should patriotically and cheerfully support their government and its functions, its function does not include supporting the people. The acceptance of this principle leads to a refusal of subsidies which burden the labor and thrift of a portion of our citizens to aid ill advised or languishing enterprises in which they have no concern. It leads also to a challenge award, wild and reckless expenditures which overleaps the bounds of grateful recognition of patriotic service and prostitutes to vicious uses the people's prompt and generous impulse to aid those disabled in their country's defense. He's talking about veterans there, unquote. This is absolutely, as you know, incomprehensible that any president would even come close to saying such a thing. Today, amidst today's welfare state, today, every state of the union addressed is dedicated to promoting still further extensions of paternalisms, further dependence, and therefore further decay of the kind of trade. But notice, here's a president, first of all, that that would be in a state of the. That would be in an inaugural address that was his second term. It's very philosophical, connecting psychology and psychological traits to the function and purpose of government, even connecting it to fiscal issues like how much spending there is, but connecting it to the rule of law, connecting it to constitutionalism. I wanted to put that in there, one, because it's a positive thing. But also it's a kind of a shocker to look back and think how great America must have been if a Democrat president, he was a Democrat, not a Republican, would say such a thing. It was a wonderful time, and we, of course, lost that. So I'll stop there. I've said what I wanted to say. I think this is, to me at least, this is a fascinating issue and one much neglected by many advocates of liberty. So many of them lean toward economics. Economics. Economics. As if the only reason we don't have capitalism is people aren't familiar with supply, demand curves and price theory, and maybe their second most focused. The thing is politics, okay? Politics. Limited government. Constitutionally limited government. Yes, yes, everybody knows those arguments. But I'm beginning to wonder whether those go just right over people's heads and in one ear and out the other, because psychologically they don't want to hear it. They may know full well that a free market system produces wealth, but if it produces so much wealth that they're envious of the inequalities of it, you see the problem? They're not complaining that it produces wealth. They're complaining that it produces angst. Why do they have angst over this inequality thing? Why do they see everything as oppressor and oppressed? So you can argue all you want about the beauties of political liberty and the wonders of economic prosperity, but we have to include this element of psychology that unless we come up with and promote rational psychology and self interested, when you think about it, really self interested psychology, very related to Adam Smith's argument about self interest, to Ayn Rand's even better argument for self interest. Self esteem, self interest, self responsibility. These are all self oriented traits that integrate nicely. They're not in conflict, they're not contradictory. I'll leave it there. Thanks, Scott. And let's open it up to discussion and questions. [00:24:42] Speaker A: Great. Great opening. I've got questions of my own, but we've already got Dave with his hand raised, so we'll go to Dave. [00:24:51] Speaker D: Thank you, Richard. It was a pleasure. Your brief speech. I haven't seen you since you visited here in Denver years ago. [00:24:59] Speaker C: Oh, good to see you again, Dave. [00:25:00] Speaker D: I remember you. I try to make the case, particularly to my more left leaning friends, that if the battle between capitalism and all the other isms was about productive efficacy and human well being, the battle would have been won centuries ago. The battle is actually a moral one. And, of course, psychology is deeply enmeshed in the moral issues. As you understand, I'm not religious. I'm an atheist. But I point out to my religious friends that we share a fundamental tenet in which we are in complete agreement, and that is moral agency. We have the responsibility to exercise our reasoned faculty and choose those values that we believe are the right and correct ones. Now, of course, morality differs vastly after that initial agreement, but I've often thought that responsibility should lead the issue of rights and not rights leading responsibility. Because once you do that, once you accept the idea that you are responsible for your life, the right to exercise that responsibility flows therefrom. And I've made a lot of headway with my religious friends with that tenet. Anyway, yes. Let me ask you a question, and stop running my mouth. There's plenty of other people here can run theirs better than me. I'm sure, in the coming election, this issue that you point out will be as far removed from the issues as you might imagine. And the result of the election, if it comes off, half the country will be rejoicing that the end is near, or lamenting that the end is near and the other half will be cheering on the end of what has existed. What are your thoughts on the outcome of this coming display of cultural wisdom? [00:27:36] Speaker C: Well, let me take your last one first and then your first point, I think. Very interesting. I will address second, because I want to ask you about the difference between speaking to left wing versus, say, religious friends. Now, the election, it's interesting to me, right after Trump won in 2016, I was addressing students I taught the very next day, and there was much angst and hand wringing and, well, this is going on all over the place on campuses, right? And I think they had the safe rooms and puppy dogs and blankets to. To assuage the fears of those who saw Donald Trump as the coming of Mussolinis. And the funny thing is, I said to them, you don't remember that four years ago, or whatever it was eight years ago, when Obama won, the other half of the country was equally nervous and worried. And I said, there's something wrong with a political system that no matter who gets elected, half the country is scared. We might want it. We might want to prefer a political system where neither party, neither leader poses a threat, whether real or imagined. But the point to what? To freedom of choice. What, in abortion, okay, that's one side. Freedom of choice and whatever, whether to mask up or not. Okay, that's the other side, freedom of choice in business. And so the issue is a growing illiberalism, a growing authoritarianism coming from paternalism. We forget that paternalism isn't, you know, or maternalism, by the way, isn't just this issue of, I'm taking care of you, it's also the discipline. Right? You're misbehaving. You need to be punished, or you're going to make mistakes, and we're going to preempt your mistakes. I've argued that the whole regulatory state is based on a premise which is totally un american, which is presumption of guilt ahead of time. The civil. The civil court system says, you know, wait till a tort has been committed before there's restitution. But the regulatory state says, no, I assume you're going to do harm and do bad. So I'm going to pass a regulation telling you how to behave. Very. That alone is very paternalistic. So if your point is about, um, the kind of psychological reaction, Dave, is that what you're talking about? To election results? Yeah, if that's what you're noticing. I do notice it on both sides. I don't know if you do as well. And of course. And the other thing is, people stoking fears. The other thing I'm noticing is you notice how you increasingly see this is a psychological issue, is that, see reference to phobias. So it's either used rhetorically as a smashing tool. You know, you're homophobic or you're islamophobic, or you're this and that. And it's very interesting, because if you look up phobia, a phobia is not just a fear. A phobia is an irrational fear. So fear, of course, it could be legitimate. You know, some axe murderer is coming at me, I fear, or a lightning bolt is coming, you know, I fear. But a phobia is kind of a fabricated manufacturer. Crazy fear, maybe due to conspiracy theories. And so the, that is a very common thing today, that you can either be accused of that or you can actually feel it. But notice how that totally relates to philosophy. You don't want to have irrational anything. You want everything to be reality based. So the proliferation of phobias, and I believe that was true, by the way, during COVID among Fauci and others, the ones who feared irrationally the spread of a virus that led to the mass shutdown of civil and other liberties based on a phobia. Based on. What did they call. What was the favorite phrase all the time? An abundance of caution. Okay, well, we should be cautious. We shouldn't be reckless, but an abundance. Why? Everyone, everyone equally risk profiled. There's something else they called. If you look it up, very clear, flatten the curve. Right. The other one was the precautionary principle. Look it up. The precautionary principle. So if you look it up, it hasn't. It isn't just enjoin us to be cautious, it enjoins us to be precautious. It's like super resistant. Another phrase that's come up in a critique form, which is very good. Safety ism. Safety ism. Not just, hey, I want to be safe here. And not reckless, but an irrational, hermetically sealed view of safetyism. I'm riffing here a little bit, Dave, but I will come back. I wanted to say one more thing before I forget. Those of you who are parents and I have been a parent, if you are aware of the complete breakdown of parenting philosophy, psychology technique. I don't want to sound like an old man here talking about, you know, in the old days, we knew how to raise kids, and they were. But there is a real problem with parenting. Sometimes it's dismissed as, you know, the helicopter parenting, keeping kids away from failure, keeping kids away from success so that they're not resilient. They're not, they can't persevere because you have so protected them from the downside, and you're constantly pumping them with praise that's unwarranted. You're not creating in that parenting model. You're not creating an independent being ready to literally not topple out of the nest, but fly like an eagle out of the nest at age 18. And some parents are so sick as to almost want their kids to remain in the basement. That's a whole different psychology. But, you know, the healthy desire of a parent to be creating an independent child who can truly make it on their own and be happy on their own, I think, is being lost. Now, if so, if I'm right about this, quite apart from the idea of the breakup of the family, which has its own problems, it's going to create a bunch of large infants. It's going to create a bunch of large people walking around who look like adults, but actually psychologically, existentially, economically and otherwise are infants. And so we, in that regard, we should not be all that surprised that the welfare state is burgeoning. Now, Dave, back to your original point. When you bring up agency, which I love, when you argue, do you find a different take coming from, say, left leaning marxist types versus religious people? Because typically the Marxists will say, everything's determined, and some religious people will say, we have free will. I don't know if that's how you experience this, but. [00:34:40] Speaker D: Well, my experience, Richard, and I've got probably, I would guess, a dozen examples to recall. [00:34:50] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:34:51] Speaker D: Generally, the religious people are very receptive to understanding that, by some measure, yes. And taking the responsibility that that entails and dictates. [00:35:04] Speaker C: Right. [00:35:05] Speaker D: Whereas the left, much as you point out, and I don't know that many on the left, probably two or three people that I routinely associate with in a limited fashion, I would say that those people probably unite around the idea that they do not have free choice, that they're products of their environment and their genetic makeup or class. I always reply, and I try to be as creative in my reply as I can, I always reply that if that is true, then you have to believe the way you believe because you were determined to believe it. [00:35:51] Speaker C: Right? [00:35:52] Speaker D: And so, yes, that I would say I have had far more success, Richard, with the religious right. [00:36:00] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:36:01] Speaker D: Then I have the secular left. I will say yes, because bottom line. [00:36:10] Speaker C: On that issue, namely. [00:36:14] Speaker D: Now depending on my behavior, that issue spreads. And I, and I am, I am constantly at the throat of objectivists who do not understand that. I mean, Kelly understood it. He understood it a long time ago. And generally speaking, tas that. I applaud that I no longer contribute to Ari simply because I have found the objectivist presence at Ari exhibits some of the attributes that I never thought I'd see. [00:36:54] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:36:54] Speaker D: From objectivists. Anyway, that's another issue. But yes. Does that answer your question? [00:36:58] Speaker C: It does. I've had the same experience. Anyone who, from whatever perspective, believes in moral agency or free will, I think it's easier to connect to them and argue about the self responsible life now, whether it's guided by scripture or guided by the seven objectivist virtues, at least they're in the realm of. [00:37:17] Speaker D: Yes. Yes, they are. A brother seeking truth. [00:37:21] Speaker C: Yeah, agreed that, though just to be on the record, the then the reason I stress moral agency and free will here, Dave, there is an aspect of the religious part which is well known to objectivism that will still fuel the welfare state. And I'll just leave. I'll just leave for this purpose, I'll just leave a reference in a chapter of my latest book on where have all the capitalists gone? There's a chapter called Holy Scripture on the welfare state. And holy scripture in the welfare state, as you can imagine, is me chapter and verse quoting from the Bible. Whether love of money is the root of all evil, or surrender all your wealth to the poor, or the meek shall inherit the earth, there is, unfortunately, a real fueling of a demand for the welfare state that comes from scripture. Even though many religionists will say, I don't want the government doing that. I want it to be voluntary private charity. And I'm all for voluntary private charity as well. But that essay was written at a time when Paul Ryan, who was a Catholic who also loved objectivism, Ayn Rand's books, was being lambasted by Nancy Pelosi and other Catholics for cutting the budget. And they said, ryan, you're being unchristian by cutting the budget. And it undermined him. It undermines any argument from conservatives that the welfare state should be reined in. The argument will be, well, the Bible and scripture mandates it. So that's just another angle, since we are on the welfare state and all this issue of the psychology of it. But now, I like your points, Dave. That's very helpful. You mentioned David Kelly, so I think I should just mention there are three things he wrote which are very good on this topic tonight. And one of my favorites, a very brief one, a booklet from the Atlas Society, is called the Seven Habits of highly objective people. There was a famous book prior to that called the Seven Habits of highly effective people, I think. But so David wrote this very clever pamphlet called the seven Habits of highly objective people. But when you look at it, it's not only advice on how to be objective, but how to be truly a really independent, self responsible person. So that's relevant. But he also wrote something called a life of one's own in the late nineties, which was about the welfare state. And that one has some very interesting. And that was at a time when it looked like the welfare state would be shrunk. Bill Clinton was saying, we need to end welfare as we know it. And both parties were coming to the view. And of course, this is the end of the decade where we're getting rid of the Soviet Union and Reagan and Thatcher. Those ideas are prominent. And the welfare state was being shrunk to some degree. It's not that this can't happen if the right ideas come along. That's a book worth reading too. David's a life of one's own. The subtitle was individual rights in the welfare state. [00:40:17] Speaker A: Great. [00:40:18] Speaker C: Thanks, David. [00:40:19] Speaker A: Great. Well, let's go to Jason. Jason, thanks. Can unmute yourself. [00:40:30] Speaker E: Silly details. Hey, Doctor Salzman, good to see you after a while. [00:40:33] Speaker C: Hi, Jason. Good to see you again. [00:40:35] Speaker E: Yeah. I'm curious because we've kind of. My question is about four paragraphs back in your discussion tonight. Okay. You said something earlier, I forget exactly what, tweaked it, but it was, there was a time when it wasn't that long ago, so not that old, to the left or the right. We sat at the same dinner table, had a civil discourse and a discussion, and we left with some sense of accomplishing something. There was a mutual respect. There was disagreement. But, you know, this is, I'm talking like Reagan era time. You know, obviously reaganomics is not popular with everybody, but why the polarization has gotten to the level that it has? The point, like you said earlier, where everyone's mind is closed off to the other, that's. I think that's probably the last 20 years. I don't recall seeing that back then, unless I was just naive as a young man. It seems to be a recent development. And I'm wondering, that's. I noticed, like, I watched, I hate to. I gotta watch some news, but the news, everything, everything, everything I see is really focused on emotion. They're more geared towards triggering emotional response to everything. Like, you watch news reports of tornadoes in the Midwest, and they show all these horrible, devastating stories. And they really play into emotions. Looking at what this awful devastation like, it's springtime in Oklahoma. There are tornadoes every year and have been, I know I was a climatologist. It's not abnormal at all. But they, they play into this, this constant narrative to get people scared, and that's increased, you know, this, there's this continuous drive. Whatever happened to free thinking on your own and independent thought, I guess, is my question. [00:42:00] Speaker C: It's a really good point, and I've given this a lot of thought, and it also comes up in the political science teaching. I do polarization, a couple things. Polarization obviously means complete opposite. So you think of north and South Pole from a certain perspective. And this has been documented to some degree empirically in political science, you know, just taking surveys and attitudes of conservatives versus liberals or Democrats versus Republicans, and it seems to be, you know, both including their attitudes toward each other. There seems to be movement out on the tail, so to speak, of the normal distribution. And there's less centrism and more, you know, get all that. Now, from one perspective, especially from this audience, who would know? But if this was a marxist audience, they would hear the same thing from me. There's no polarization from a certain perspective. There couldn't be more agreement from Democrats and Republicans. I'll just take them for a moment on the welfare state or, frankly, on the warfare state. They do not disagree almost at all on the extent and the gargantuan nature of both of those things. So from a certain perspective, it's kind of silly that anyone even talks of polarization. So from that, marxist would say the same thing. Marxists would say they think we're all capitalists just quibbling over aspects of capitalism. And from my perspective, I look at them as the two parties, as statists, quibbling over the extent of statism and the warfare state. Shall government spending be 55% of GDP or 51? I mean, come on. Should the, should the top tax rate be 80% or, you know, 55? It's so horrendous what they're doing that those are minor differences to a libertarian objectivist and to a Marxist, those will be seen as nothing, as inconsequential, not a dime's worth of difference between the two, as they used to say. Now, the point you make, Jason, I think, is a really good one about emotions. I think what we're seeing is if reason is out and reason is distrusted, and you can make up anything, and that's what the postmodernist approach is, right then anything goes, then emotions are going to be elevated. And so there's a lot of emotionalism and emotivism, in other words, appealing to emotions. And another thing you notice, which is very old fashioned, is fallacies all over the place. It's almost as if not only is logic not taught anymore, but the counterpart to sound logic and sound logical reasoning is the fallacies. Aristotle identified, like 27 different fallacies, including appeal to emotion and appeal to popular, appeal to authority, ad hominem. These are all latin terms. People don't even know what they mean anymore. So people aren't really equipped with detecting, philosophically detecting that kind of thing either. That lowers the debate to the crudity. I think there's another very odd phenomenon of, I'm going to sound elitist about this. Everyone thinks they're an expert. I don't know what to make. I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but, and I'm not saying only experts should be consulted, but if you've noticed whether this is due to podcasting or. I don't really, I don't really know. But there's a view that's been instilled in a democratic, heavily democratic, with a small d society, that the popular will is everything. And the populists must. Populists must know more than the experts. And I think this comes from both right and left. There's populism on the left, which is anti big business, and then there's populism on the right, you know, which is like anti establishment, anti big government. And so that kind of thing also, I think, lowers the debate level to the point of, you know, hey, I have my opinion. I don't need facts. I actually do like the phrase that came up. It's not always followed strictly, but if you remember, during COVID there were certain people who would say, follow the science. And I have an essay in my book called yes, follow the science in every field. And so I went through not only epidemiology, but psychology and economics and politics, showing that during the COVID debacle, every scientific principle was thrown out the window. So it's not that we should be rejecting the idea of going by facts and fact checking. I like the idea of fact checkers if they're objective, fact checking and going by the science. And where's your evidence for this? That's our game. That's our strength. We should be promoting that kind of thing. But, yeah, I don't know if that answers your question, Jason, but you and I are seeing the same thing. And it's disturbing because we are old enough, I think, to remember that even when there were political differences, the level of debate seemed to be more civil, less crude, more erudite. But we're going to sound like old men, aren't we? Get off my lawn. And you know, these young whippersnappers don't know what they're talking about. [00:47:05] Speaker E: I never thought I would actually have to agree with that because I, yeah, I feel like some old geezer because I'm like, this wasn't that long ago. We're talking literally 20 years. What, one generation? That's not that. I mean, so, I mean, you probably have kids that age, I guess. Yeah. So I, you know, it's just shocking that I was proud to see my alma mater rip Nancy Pelosi apart part for trying and basically calling her out to be what she was. She was the real threat to democracy. I don't know if you saw the. She was in front of the student union at Oxford last month. [00:47:34] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:47:34] Speaker E: And they handed, I was, I was like, thank God. So somebody didn't lose it yet. But the, Nick actually told me when I was applying for admission a couple years back, they were one of the last holdouts for that and not been trying to cave into consumerism, but they're heading in that direction, sadly, but neither here nor there. [00:47:52] Speaker C: Now what do you think, Jason? Have you heard this argument? I've been resisting it, but I'm not very effectively. Have you heard this argument that from Jonathan Haidt, who's a New York University social psychologist who has written about coddling of the american mind and coddling. [00:48:09] Speaker E: I recall the book. [00:48:09] Speaker C: Yeah, really good stuff, actually. But he has this view that the introduction of the iPhone and actually going further back, the Internet has reduced intention spans and has increased anxiety levels among the young. And it is easy to find evidence of growing anxiety, suicide rates and depression rates among the young. I'm reluctant to, like as a Luddite, start beating up on technology for doing this. But have you heard this or do you think there's anything to it? [00:48:44] Speaker E: I haven't. I would say absolutely it has. Or at least it's done it to me. I grew up, I was a computer nerd. We had a computer at home. If you've ever seen the movie war games, the TRS 80, that's what I had. That's what I grew up with. So, and I mean, I dialed up a 300 baud rate to connect to what was then Compuserve. And that's in the eighties, before, before Al Gore invented the Internet. We were on it. And, I mean, I could type faster than that now, but the rate at which I would say that what it's that. That instant access to information, I'm dealing it now with this great tsunami where you get these young kids out of college that are engineers and have an engineering degree, but they can't. The Fortran era engineers and the. The Apollo era engineers are retiring en masse and droves, and these young ones that come in are going onto their smartphone to look up stuff that they actually, sadly, they're going to be completely dependent on AI to do the things that they don't understand because it was there before them. [00:49:29] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:49:30] Speaker E: And I would have to say that's a lot of stuff happening behind the scenes. You don't know, comprehend or understand. Of course, that makes anxiety. I mean, I grew up with a dictionary, the one that you held in your hand, and I looked up stuff. Now I even now going through things. Okay, well, and actually, it's funny, while you were talking, I never under heard the word or the definition of the word egalitarianism. And I've got a funk. And Wagner's, that was my father's in college. And I've also got my Oxford English dictionary, two volume set. Egalitarianism is not in there. Yeah, that was kind of interesting. I was like, okay, well, but that's it. Because I wanted a solid definition that I would trust, and one that's 40 years old, I would believe more so than when I google and find on Wikipedia. But that. [00:50:06] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:50:07] Speaker E: The rate at which, just as you were. As you were lecturing earlier, I can see why you're. I do have a fear of missing out some key, a bit of information and not being able to keep up with it fast enough. Thank God I can write in cursive. And I'm able to. I know how to read my own cursive, too, which is something that's another lost art. [00:50:21] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:50:21] Speaker E: But then I can go back and look it up later. But, yeah, I have to agree with him. Absolutely. Because, I mean, these. What's. What's more scary, they think of, like, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, if you ask a 20 year old kid, well, they weren't as smart as we are. And I'm like, I beg to differ. They were way smarter than you are. They had to. So Ben Franklin had to go all the way to Philadelphia or to Paris or the library, read what he wanted to read and remember it, maybe write some notes, but he did not. You couldn't take the book home, you couldn't google it. They had to keep that stuff in their head and they had to think proactively on their own. A lot more thought was inside the brain. [00:50:52] Speaker C: Yeah. I've often thought of technology, whether it's fire or the wheel or television or the Internet, an enormous opportunity to access information. Everybody has a library at their fingertips now. It's amazing. So it's an issue of how they use the technology. The fact that they're using it to watch 13 2nd TikTok videos is their choice. But they could also spend that 15, they could also spend 15 minutes looking up and easily finding cheaply an online book or an online source and learning things. So there's something else. There's something else other than impugning technology I don't think is the solution. Scott, did you want to go to others? [00:51:32] Speaker A: Yes. Thank you, Michael. Thank you for your patience. If you can unmute. [00:51:39] Speaker F: Yeah, sure thing. [00:51:40] Speaker C: Hey, Michael, I'm glad you could join. [00:51:43] Speaker F: Yeah, thanks for the invitation. Doctor Sullivan. Yeah, good to see you. Yeah. So I'm pretty curious about kind of the fundamental psychological cause or source of these different emotional problems that are repeating and recycling. So, you know, you were talking about, you've got all the folks that get fear, anxiety, regardless of which political party gets the chief executive office. And then I was thinking also about how you had the recent pandemic, or you have many instances in history of. So what I wanted to tie kind of that paternalism to is I was just speaking with this guy from Thailey's college and he's helping put together like this. He's trying to talk to these other professors about what should be in the western canon. Like if you have students and all you know about them is that they've read the western canon, what should be in it? He said, everybody always agrees you should have Dante's Inferno. And what do you have from Dante's Inferno? You've got at the very bottom is pride. And so I'm wondering, well, you have this anxiety and you have this paternalism. It's the fundamental cause of these pride. And because it doesn't seem to matter when, when a party, when there's some kind of suboptimal reaction from government, whether it's a conservative being over regulatory, in whatever realm you want to pick, the conservatives are over regulatory. And I know, you know, you got business transactions that they're over regulating, or you've got all the Democrats coming in the pandemic and they're saying, we know so much about the human body that we can tell you that this medicine is definitely good and this medicine is so bad, we have to censor it out of society. It's like, okay, this just seems like you're both ignorant of Hayek's knowledge problem. You don't know. Like, yeah. You're unaware of what you don't know. [00:53:57] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:53:57] Speaker F: Like, you're just so prideful that you know all these things and it's like a dunning Kruger effect on steroids or something. [00:54:03] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah. [00:54:04] Speaker F: So I'm curious about that. And then, and then in addition, just real quick, I want to just slip in that with the angst that you're talking about and the paternalisms. I know, like India, you know, Modi puts his face on everything like he is the father of that country. And what they've been and what's been happening is he keeps getting more aggressive towards the hindus. And I'm like wondering, is there like just a natural demand for anxiety that needs to be supplied? And it's like, you know, it's either going to be hating minorities or it's going to be just naturally hating your competitor, party or whatever it is. And so it's like, have you seen a paternalism? Have you seen a society implement paternalism? Well, and have you seen, and more importantly, have you seen a society that allows for that drastic inequality from, like, radical liberalism and then the angst doesn't emerge from that inequality of outcome that along with, you know, the pride and everything I went into over there. [00:55:09] Speaker C: Yeah, well, there's a lot there, a lot of good material there, Michael, I love it. I've been jotting down notes here. My first thought is, it's very interesting to me that the first governance we know is of the family. I mean, you could argue that it's also the first collective that we know. And if in the free society that individualism is important and collectivism is dangerous, it's not that we don't do things collectively. The dangers of collectivism with any ism, it's the idea of sacrificing the individual to the group. We don't want that. That's not the free society. But it is interesting that all of us know what a family is because we were all born into it. Now, there are dysfunctional and functional families. I've indicated earlier that the better families and parents produce independent children who become self confident, self responsible adults. But that alone is kind of interesting because pater means father. So paternalism is fatherism. And when it's transferred to the political realm, in a way, it's understandable why people would say, well, the only kind of governance I know is mommy and daddy telling me what to do. And so now the president's telling me what to do, or Anthony Fauci is telling me what to do. And of course, there's always this issue of experts. You know, you're going to rely on the doctor or the car mechanic because you don't know, so that you still want to make independent judgments about the, you know, the qualifying capabilities of those advising. So that's always an issue, too, especially in a more complex, more advanced civilization. You're going to have more and more experts. Experts. So I set that aside. But I think it is interesting, and also, when you go to the early forms of governance, monarchy, whether it's a queen or a king who has subjects without parliamentary check, when you think about it, that is a personification of the paternalistic model as well. So the fact that the Enlightenment questioned the idea of monarchs and of any kind and substituted representative itself was a mature, enlightened, pro reason approach that gave us representative government. Now, I think we've lost this for various reasons. We're unenlightened now. So the welfare state reflects a return to paternalism and maternalism. But I just wanted to throw those in there because I think they're part of what you're talking about. But I also picked up on something. Now, pride. I have heard this argument before. It's interesting that in Ayn Rand's philosophy, pride is one of the seven virtues. It's not a vice. And in the seven deadly sins of Christianity, it's one of the deadly sins. So that alone is very interesting, that pride in one set of philosophy is considered a deadly sin and vice, and ein's a virtue. I won't elaborate on that much. But the counterpart to pride is humility. And humility is considered a virtue in Christianity. Right. Ayn Rand's view kind of was, is, this will be very, this will sound very quick, but unless we're proud, rightfully so, of our own achievements, we're not going to have the kind of self esteem that says, listen, I have rights and I have a right to be free. It kind of gives you and ennobles and emboldens you to defend yourself, and you're less likely to be a servant, a serf, whereas the humility part will make you more serf like. So I know what you're saying, Michael, about, well, isn't it pride? The argument used here is usually that autocracy and authoritarianism comes from the pride of leaders who are in here. Pride is described as they think they know it all. They're what Hayek called the fatal conceit. His last book, the Fatal Conceit, the Errors of Socialism, was the subtitle. And what did Hayek mean by the fatal conceit? I think he made a major mistake here. He thought illiberalism came from leaders who had a fatal conceit and belief in the power of reason. Now, from my philosophy, the better, more liberal governments over the ages have occurred where we've had more reason, the voice of reason, not the voice of the divine, not the divine right of kings, not even the voice of the people, because the people can be stupid and vicious. But the enlightenment, for 100 years, was the voice of reason. So reasoned to me. Reasoned, rational, reasoned government is the kind of government that would give us liberality. But I think there is a plausibility, and I see why it's, and I think this is what you're referring to, that it is convincing to people to think, if we only had more humble leaders, if we only had people like Fauci, who was, I don't really know, one way or another, live and let live, do whatever you want. What it looks like is they're imposing themselves on us because they're so sure of themselves. So we think the solution is to make them less sure of themselves. I'm not sure that's the solution, but I'm definitely sure that that's not the solution. But I think that's definitely going on. The Dunning Kruger effect. I'm glad you brought that up. Isn't that the view that you know just enough that you have overconfidence in what you know? And isn't it something like that? Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, it is a psychological, it's a psychological thing, isn't it? [01:01:00] Speaker F: That's exactly what it is, yeah. [01:01:03] Speaker C: So now, the other thing is, this might interest you as well. Narcissism. We had a session on this a couple months back, and narcissism, often associated with pride to me, is kind of like a fake sense of self confidence, so that people are so self absorbed and so into themselves and oblivious to others. And those can be very dangerous people. But those are, that is often associated with self interest, which I think is unfair, because rational self interest does not necessitate and require or justify narcissism. So that's another thing that comes up a lot of times, too. You mentioned also you didn't use the word, but I think you were referring to something amounted to scapegoating. That is very common where someone is trying to deflect guilt or criticism by scapegoating. I mean, Hitler did this with the Jews. I think in our system, it's done with big, big business. Big business. What was it when inflation was high? Biden said it's due to big meat. I didn't even know there was a big meat conglomerate or monopoly. The trust busting thing that in our system, the scapegoating seems to be. Well, now, increasingly, white old men like me were responsible for all the ills of America. But historically in America, it's been big business, what Ayn Rand called America's persecuted minority. Who would ever call big business persecuted minority? But that's been the case, too. Also, when statists fail and they don't want to take responsibility for their failures, they blame others and try to ostracize and demonize others. Another group, Jews in finance, finance itself, inexplicable to most people, is an often the fat cats on wall street. The financial crises caused by government intervention in the economy and the manipulation of money and credit is often attributed to predatory lending and the big, bad Wall street and what Keynes called the casino, Wall street, the speculators, he wanted to euthanize the lenders, the bondholders. So the demonization of finance exists as well. So, yeah, I don't know if you think scapegoating is part of the psychology of this, Michael. Is that what you're referring to? [01:03:33] Speaker F: Well, yeah. Well, I mean, I'm sorry, I wanted to correct myself. I think I said that Modi and his government, they're scapegoating the Hindus. I think they're scapegoating the Muslims, which they weren't doing for a while. But apparently the economist had an article on this. Apparently this is kind of cyclical, that he does this when it's almost election time. Yeah, no, I was. Well, I mean, what I was wondering is if, is if society, if society have, like, a natural demand for anxiety, like they need to have a collective anxiety, and it needs to be targeted onto something, obviously, scapegoating, I think, could supply that. [01:04:14] Speaker C: I would be disinclined to say that that's true, but I can't elaborate on it right now. It does remind me, and I should have mentioned, there's one of the readings I gave which I thought was very clever, by James Buchanan. And you'll know him, Michael. You know Buchanan, the Nobel Prize, 1986, I think he wrote this great thing on afraid to be free, afraid to be free, I think it was 2005 or something. And he talks about paternalism in the way that we would today, you know, but he called it like a top down, supplied by pandering politician. He hated it, of course, for the free society. But he also introduced a term which I think is very clever called parentalism. Now, whether that's the right word or not, he was looking for a word other than paternalism that sounded like paternalism. But parentalism he defined as, and this is close to what you're talking about, Michael, as the demand for the welfare state. So his view was at that time, people were only looking at politicians as guilty of playing Santa Claus, providing goodies and buying votes, in effect, with other people's money. But he said, we're forgetting that there's a demand for this stuff, too, that politicians would not be doing that unless there was a demand for it. So they're just, quote, meeting the demand. So that gets them off the hook a little bit. But it does open up the idea of why are people demanding it? You know? And so then he didn't go deeply into the psychology of it, but afraid to be free. Afraid means fear. And Eric Frome had talked about this, not a really great psychologist, but Eric Frome, I think, 1930s or so, was writing about fear of freedom. And his view was, it was a justified fear, therefore we should have the welfare state. But it conjures up the same problem, the same issue. Namely, if you have such a fear, there's going to be a demand side by voters and others to lobby for this. And by the way, it isn't just, say, poor people or those who worried about falling under the social safety net. Business people fearing competition, a small business people fearing big bad business, running to the justice department to trust bust arrival. That happens all the time. So that they're equally, you find in today's culture, businessmen resentful for failing and trying to blame it on others and trying to sic the government on their better rivals. That happens as well. [01:06:55] Speaker F: Well, yeah, and I, and I just, I was, I have a group, um, we've been reading through Plato's works. And so I just read the gorgeous the other day. And in it, uh, it's where he describes how he basically just demonstrates that courage fundamentally is the. Have the wisdom of what one ought to fear. So, I mean, it just seems, it seems really evident that all. I mean, any of these issues where it's like, like somebody is in particular running to the government for paternalism, it's out of ignorance. It's always out of ignorance. And I did actually, I wanted to tangent a bit onto another thought that crossed my mind with when you have a parent, because you had mentioned risk profiles, I think of a parent and fundamentally what they're doing is they are exerting a risk profile onto the child regardless of whatever the child's risk profile would naturally be. And that seems, I mean, again, that brought my mind back to pride again, because it's thinking that if it's the government shutting things down or if it's republicans making cannabis illegal, or if it's a government saying that a certain immigration policy or whatever, with all of these things, it just always seems to be exerting a risk profile onto the constituents or the children. [01:08:39] Speaker C: But it sounds like you're saying interestingly in a uniform way, like assuming that everyone must have the same risk profile. Is that what you mean? That whereas obviously people are risk averse to varying degrees, so live and let live. You'd have a more diverse society if the welfare state is such that it's taking the lowest common denominator, it's taking the person most fearful, most, you know, cringing about life and applying that as the standard. But that means anybody above that risk profile is going to be hemmed in accordingly. [01:09:14] Speaker F: Well, I think a lot of this has to do with the idea of having a negative government where it's reactive. [01:09:20] Speaker C: Yeah. [01:09:21] Speaker F: And I mean, yeah, like, yeah, you have like a speed limit. It's like, well, you know, the worst drivers can't handle anything above 60 mph. So that's. Everybody does. It's like put it higher and then send it to the courts if there's a real issue. [01:09:33] Speaker C: Yeah. [01:09:34] Speaker F: You have actuaries, right? I mean you don't need, you don't need a committee doing this. We know committees don't work. Just look at, look at the mid 20th century, which again, all seems, it's like it's a committee or parent putting a risk profile onto its ten children. One parent putting this on ten children. [01:09:51] Speaker C: Right, right. Yeah. [01:09:53] Speaker F: Have you read Nasi Nicholas Taliban anti fragile? [01:09:56] Speaker C: That's a good point. Okay, Scott, you got great stuff. Michael, thank you. Good stuff. [01:10:00] Speaker F: Thanks doctor. [01:10:01] Speaker A: Yeah, it was very good. Thank you, Clark. Thanks for your patience. [01:10:06] Speaker B: Sure, yeah. Thank you, Scott. Thank you Richard, for doing this. Very interesting as always. [01:10:12] Speaker C: Thanks, Clark. [01:10:14] Speaker B: I would just like to ask, I guess picking up on the COVID lockdowns, I couldn't help but notice. Now I know nothing about science or epidemiology, but during COVID I'm here in Austin, Texas, which is very liberal and blue but it's completely surrounded by, you know, country that's completely, you know, red Trump MAGA country. And I noticed when, when Covid hit there was this phenomenon and it's, I didn't know what to make of it. It's like at first if somebody seemed liberal, you know, they would wear a mask. Covid. And then the conservatives who, you know, are rightly skeptical of big government, it's almost as if they didn't want to invoke reason. It was like, well, these are just liberals telling us this. You know, they, that can't have much, much import because they don't mean, you know, they don't care much of us conservatives or people right of center. And it's almost like there's kind of an anti intellectualism, anti reason. It's like, well, you know, Trump, Trump will save us. He's, he's our guy. So, you know, I guess there's obviously some, you know, obviously you mentioned this before about, you know, this, this nonsense about following the science as if the science is somehow set in stone never changes. Well, we know that's wrong, but it just seems as if, you know, both sides today. Well, there's more than both sides. Two sides, of course. But I just, I just noticed just so many conservatives who, you know, I want to make common cause in some ways with them, but there's just an anti intellectualism and anti reason. And it's like, well, you know, we need our guy, you know, whether it's Trump or some other people. And, you know, there's this kind of anti, almost anti elitism. And I know that other people, I think Jason Hill had a, had a great presentation a few years back about this kind of anti elitism. But, but I just can't help but notice it's like, you know, you could almost tell in Austin a few years ago who was wearing by, who was wearing a mask, you know, where they were on the political spectrum. And I wonder if you could comment some on this about this, Richard. [01:12:29] Speaker C: Yeah, thanks a lot, Clark. But my observation of all that was that the first thing I noticed, and I noticed this also in any debate over what's taught in the public schools, which seems completely unrelated. But the first point is everything is politicized. So the COVID example, right. Suppose the government just came out and said there seems to be this virus. You might want to look into it. We're counting on your self interest not to. Just as if you had the flu, you wouldn't show up at work and spread it. You'd stay home. And here's some websites you can join. It might even be the FDA. It might even be that to say any of this, I don't want, and just inform yourself and make your decisions. Goodbye. That's not what happened. The reason it became important to people is everything's politicized. There's going to be a rule, there's going to be mandates, there's going to be shutdowns, there's going to be social distancing. There's going to be this and that. Now everyone is agitated about it and everyone wants to get in on the opinion and in on the influence because there's coercion and there's going to be a singular answer and there's going to be a singular philosophy applied to it. You know, even the debates among, well, what's happening in California versus Michigan versus Florida, people arguing for, well, there shouldn't be 50 different standards. This should be a uniform standard. You find this in public school debates as well, right? Should the evolution or creationism be taught if there weren't coercion, if there weren't public schools, if there weren't a singular curriculum, you know, being imposed, it would be a debate. It would be a debate between people. It would be a friendly, non coercive, persuasive debate. And let the best man win. You know, let the best argument win and let the best school win and let's see what happens. But I find this, you could say the same thing about monetary, it seems unrelated, but monetary policy. Why do economists talk about the Fed should do this, the Fed should do that. It should be on the golf side, should be on the interesting because there's a monopoly on money. Why is the Federal Reserve monopolizing money now once it does, here's the coercion, here's the singular plan. People are going to argue and debate about what to tell the central planners and commissars to do. So I find this all over the place, and I think it's true of COVID as well. So I think that's part of it. The animosity, the anger, the ostracizing and the demonizing. Clark that occurred. I think part of it is this issue of a mandate's coming down. And the question is who's in charge and who's going to be victimized and who's not going to be victimized. But I think the other thing that happens is the stereotypes. Now, what are the two stereotypes? And each side thinks the other is this stereotype, the quote unquote, liberals love to portray themselves as we're for science and we're for the facts and we're the ones who are in the universities. You conservatives aren't. We're the ones who dominate the universities. So we're the intellectuals and the conservatives admit it. They're like, yeah, you guys totally control the universities and media and Hollywood. And then on the other hand, they're total statists. That side wants government, complete control. Total control. Right. So you could see the pushback would be, well, you don't want to push back against science, but you, if they were doing that, but you certainly do want to push back against statism. Now, how do they stereotype the other side, the conservatives? They'll say the conservatives are laissez faire. They would have government do nothing. We know that's not true. That's maybe more libertarian than conservative. But the other stereotype is you guys are faith based, you guys are religious, you guys are Bible thumpers, you guys are rubes. You guys live in the middle of the country, in the farmland and stuff. You don't have any. You're anti intellectual. So no one wants to be anti intellectual. See, so it's so sad because both sides have some good and bad to them. So the good side of the left, if you want to call it that, or the liberals is, you know, to the extent they're extolling science and facts, and that's good, but they should also be extolling free government, you know, free society and liberal and true liberalism, true liberty. And they don't. So it's a very, it's sad, Clark, I don't know if you've noticed it. It's a very, like, sad, false alternative. When you see these two groups from a, we're looking at them from afar because we're for liberty and science and we're looking at these two groups and they're bifurcated. And when you look at one criticizing the other, you say, well, yeah, you have a good point there because you're wrong. You both are wrong. A pox on both your houses, as Shakespeare put it. Is that, is that sound, does that ring true at all, Clark, as to what we're observing? I don't know. You tell me. [01:17:14] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I guess, you know, if a modern day Paul Revere came running through town, it's like, I don't know. I guess if he was wearing a mask, all the conservatives would just sell. That's just fake news. The British aren't really coming, but I mean, it's just so anti intellectual either I mean, who knows? [01:17:33] Speaker C: Maybe. [01:17:33] Speaker B: Maybe it was fake news or, you know, in the case of COVID possibly. [01:17:37] Speaker C: But. [01:17:38] Speaker B: But I just. It's just not very intellectual. It's not very pro reason just to go, oh, well, it's this guy, he's wearing a mask. [01:17:45] Speaker C: He's a liberal. [01:17:46] Speaker B: He means me. You know, and you, you pointed out the coercion aspect. Of course. It's like this guy, whoever he is, he's wearing a mask. He, he doesn't mean me. Well, so, you know, I'm not going to believe him. It's just fake news. And I just find that just really troubling and, you know, as the last four years has shown. [01:18:05] Speaker C: Yeah. Well, I guess another way of looking at this, if you get a really anti intellectual, kind of superficial, emotionalist setting, if that's what we have, then symbolism and what's it called? Virtue signaling. Why do they call it virtue signaling? Because the person doesn't really mean it. They're just blathering on about how they're the humanitarians and they care about the poor and they care about this or that, but they're signaling. Notice the idea. Signaling. I'm just trying to convey an image to other people. It's not real. It's just an image. It's a signaling. Same thing with the mask. And I don't really believe this mask shit, but I'm going to wear the mask because that makes me, you know, look as caring toward other. Of course, if you're, if you're antifa and you wear a mask, you know, the signal you're sending is get out of my way or I'm going to cut your throat. So there are various signals here. The masking means to different things, but I think a lot of it is okay. If we're not going to deal with the substance of things, then we'll do the superficial symbolism of it. The bumper sticker approach. What do I see? Versus what am I hearing and arguing? Maybe that's what's happening as well. [01:19:15] Speaker D: Great. [01:19:16] Speaker A: Thanks for that. I think we should have time to go to Peter. Thanks for your patience. You'll have to unmute. [01:19:26] Speaker G: Hello, everybody. [01:19:28] Speaker A: I was going to give Peter a quick chance. He had his hand up, but maybe we can still get to you. Nancy, can you hear me? [01:19:34] Speaker C: I can, Peter. Yes. Thanks. [01:19:35] Speaker G: Oh, hi, Richard. Hi, everyone. [01:19:38] Speaker C: Hi. [01:19:38] Speaker G: Yeah, thank you. This is a very interesting topic, and I think an important one. And I love the packer. I'm going to go reread Edith Packer and the Grover Cleveland also. What a magnificent address. So, you've prompted me to read that as well. I'd like to propose an amendment to the second point that Packer had. [01:20:02] Speaker C: Okay. [01:20:03] Speaker G: If I got this right, it was that reality is comprehensible. [01:20:07] Speaker C: Yes. That was our number two. Yeah. [01:20:09] Speaker G: So, one of the psychological requirements for living in a free society. [01:20:13] Speaker C: Right. [01:20:14] Speaker G: Yeah. So I went back, you know, Ayn Rand defined psychology. Just paraphrasing, but the task of evaluating the processes of man's subconscious from, you know, to determine whether they're healthy or not using a standard of cognitive competence. So, of reality. [01:20:37] Speaker C: Yeah. [01:20:37] Speaker G: And this reminded me, you know, she wrote in the art of nonfiction, she has an article or a point. She's talking about applying philosophy without preaching it. She talks about being an aristotelian all the way down. And she said, to do that, and this is a quote here, you must grasp that only concrete events, concrete relationships, concrete problems exist. And so she goes on, if you don't do that, it's not a moral crime, but it's certainly going to give you trouble. And she talks about a lot of the abstractions that we use, the different examples. People talk about man versus the state. So we could talk about that. But, of course, she says, just about every society in history has had that issue. So we need, in order to address this psychologically, if we're going to be healthy, we need to look at the specific concretes. Well, which state are we talking about? Russia under the tsars or the US today? The progression since Grover Cleveland, whatever. But we need to get our concretes firm. And then she says. She says, until men become fully aristotelian, they cannot apply their philosophical principles to their own lives and actions. So, on the one hand, they may have a complex ivory tower philosophy, and on the other, nevertheless, act like savages. [01:22:11] Speaker C: Yeah. [01:22:11] Speaker G: So I would posit that that's what we're seeing today. I agree with that. All of your points, and particularly about self identity and the idea of having, you know, confidence and one is worthy of happiness, but I think that the root aspect of cognition, it's not just saying that reality is comprehensible, but really that reality is concrete. It's what I can observe. It starts there, and so I need to be an aristotelian all the way down. So maybe I'm picking at straws. And it's been a long time since I read her article, but I think there's really. We're talking more about a stance toward reality than just saying, I can know it. [01:23:01] Speaker C: Yeah. Well. Well, in the same essay, I'll just elaborate briefly on her point there about comprehending, she says, attitude toward reality. A person has to be convinced that reality is comprehensible, that his mind can understand it, that life is not something to be feared and avoided, but rather something to be explored, understood, conquered. This is a, quote, sense of life attitude, one which views the world as a place for adventure. Back to Michael's earlier point about the idea of risk aversion versus risk taking. Adventuresome optimism, say, call it that. You know, Peter, you and I know how important this is to entrepreneurialism. You know, the business person who ventured literally as an adventurer, adventures out into the world is, you know, not going to be a dependent on the state, not going to be looking for handouts or trust busting, but, and, and will persevere and will be resilient enough to take failure and pick himself up and start a new business later on. She says, elaborating on this, selecting values, is that your choice be based on a realistic assessment of yourself and your abilities. So sometimes people are not comprehending, they're not tied to reality in the sense of, hey, I think I'm going to play for the Chicago bulls. I'm really optimistic. Okay, you're optimistic, but you're not realistic. That doesn't work either. So. No, that's a good point, Peter. Thank you for that. And Aristotle you cited, she cited as well, she's an Aristotelian, was famous for saying, we're not here just to survive, but to thrive, to flourish. Eudaimonia, capturing that idea of flourishing, not just happiness, not just the pursuit of happiness. And so that much more grand view and the grand vision of what human life should be is totally aristotelian and totally Ayn Rand. So thanks for that, Peter. [01:25:06] Speaker A: Yeah, thank you, Dave. I know you've got your hand up. Nancy, did you want to say something? Were you trying to get in here before? Do you want to? [01:25:17] Speaker G: No, that was just a mistake on my part. I'm sorry. But as long as I have the floor, I just want to thank you. [01:25:24] Speaker A: And Richard and the Atlas Society for sponsoring programs like this. I don't have a comment, but I. [01:25:32] Speaker G: Enjoy listening to hear people discuss ideas. [01:25:38] Speaker A: Glad to hear it. [01:25:39] Speaker E: Thank you. [01:25:40] Speaker C: You're very welcome. Thank you. Thank you very much. [01:25:44] Speaker A: We will try to squeeze Dave in with one more. [01:25:49] Speaker D: Yeah. Richard, before I go on, give my regards to Jennifer and Anna, please, when you get back. [01:25:56] Speaker C: I sure will. And Dave, I know you mentioned earlier, and I didn't mention it. Thank you so much for supporting the Atlas Society. If you know my history, I've worked with all three. [01:26:08] Speaker D: Yes, I know it. I know it's Richard, I was really pleased to hear when you, having worked. [01:26:14] Speaker C: With all three groups, I can't tell you how it's been now three or four years now working with Jennifer David, Stephen Hicks, Roger Zinsky and others. I just love it. They're very good to me. Scott's wonderful. The whole team at Ta and Anna. Yeah, the whole team is just fabulous. We're going to have that gala in a conference in Washington late July. So those of you listening who don't know, check out the Atlas Society website because I'll be speaking there, David Kelly and others. And we're going to have a fun time. We're going to have a party as well. The gala, we have it every year. And it's usually in California, it's usually near Laguna beach, but this time it's going to be in Washington, DC. So we're going to have a blast. It's trying to join us there. I think that. What's the date, Scott? They're July 2728. 24 through the 24th of 27. Yeah. Thanks. [01:27:05] Speaker D: Date. [01:27:05] Speaker A: A lot of fun. I was thinking maybe you and I could do a duet at karaoke or something. [01:27:09] Speaker C: Yeah, we've done the, we've done the karaoke before. Yeah. Yeah. [01:27:14] Speaker D: I don't know how much time you got, but Richard, I think that the issue always comes down to what Rand and Brandon called their psycho epistemology. [01:27:27] Speaker C: Yeah. [01:27:29] Speaker D: I've got a brief story. If you have time. I don't know how much time you have. [01:27:34] Speaker C: And I think we have two minutes. We have three to three minutes. [01:27:38] Speaker D: I was hired by IBM in 1968. My opinion is that we are on a flight from reason. Reason brought us here, and now we've boarded a flight that's leaving. And when I was hired in 68 by IBM, shortly after being hired, the branch office called a meeting, branch manager. And it was a meeting taking place in every branch office throughout IBM, which at that time was something like 400,000 people across the country and world. And the subject of the meeting was affirmative action slash equal opportunity. And they had a corporate representative at each meeting, and they would give a presentation on IBM's embrace of this new concept, and then it would describe tenets of what they termed affirmative action equal opportunity. Now, at the end, there were time for questions and there was a somber silence as a, if I remember right. And the meeting adjourned and I went up to my brand new branch manager, and being naive at that age. I said to him, I said, bud, is IBM serious about this? Oh, yes. This is worldwide, and every, IBM has every intention, and we will be measured on how effective we do this. Why do you ask? And I said, well, what it amounts to, to me, bud, is IBM has decided they are going to embrace the virtue of racial discrimination to end the evil of racial discrimination. And his response to me, quote, well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. And even though I was naive, I had enough sense to not say anything further. But my contention, Richard, is that this flight from reason is characterized by all of the rational things we take for granted, logical contradictions, reversal of cause and effect, dismissal of the law of identity. I mean, in economics, you have learned economics professors teaching that we can consume our way to prosperity. In Aristotle's law of identity, Rand's summation a is a. We have the idea that sex is fungible. Not only fungible, but there's many variations of it. [01:30:29] Speaker A: You're bringing up some great points, but it just. I know I'm running out of time. [01:30:35] Speaker D: Thank you much, everyone. Thank you. Say hi to Jennifer and Anna. I enjoyed it. Thank you. [01:30:41] Speaker C: All right, David, I just. [01:30:43] Speaker A: Richard, I want to say thank you so much for doing this. And just if you're looking for other ways to get involved with our work, please check out atlaseshighty.org events. You know, if you'd like to make sure we continue all we do here at TAS, please consider giving a tax deductible donation at atlas society.org. donate. Thanks to everyone who participated, and we look forward to seeing you at the next one. Take care, everybody. [01:31:11] Speaker C: Thank you, everybody. Thanks again, Scott. Thanks, Dave, everyone.