StephanKinsella.com

welcome to the rational egoist I’m your host Michael libowitz and with us today

is Stephan canella he is a retired patent attorney attorney a prominent

libertarian author and he also writes uh for a substack I believe he’s written

numerous books and we’re here to debate three propositions Stefan welcome to the show

or welcome back to the show and to the live stream for the first time thank you U you should say prominent objectivist

but that depends of on our uh our definition of objectivism well then we’re going to have to debate about that

for an hour and we don’t want we don’t that we’ll save that for another another time but I do find it interesting that

you you would say that I bet you there’s many people that are surprised to to to hear you uh make the claim so the the

first proposition that we’re going to debate is that there is nothing wrong

with Ludwig vanon mis’s is subjective view of values you are going to be

taking the affirmative in that and I will be taking the negative and I will

let you go first why is there nothing wrong with mises’s subjective view of

value okay so I think that there is something wrong with ames’s defense of

Rights um I don’t think he really has one and he doesn’t pretend to um I think

he’s more what we would call consequentialist some people s that call it utilitarian and again the word utilitarian and the

word subjectivist have different meanings in different context so um most

people by consequentialist they think of someone who’s utilitarian and by that they mean someone who believes you should measure um uh the value of

actions by their by its utility net utility for society and and and usually

in Cardinal terms and mises would oppose that because his subjective understanding of economic

um is that value is um subjective to the person and that is not measurable it’s

not quantifiable so he would opposed utilitarianism in that sense but I do

think he’s more of a consequentialist in the sense of he basically says if you

understand economics and the way economics works that if you favor prosperity and um Harmony among men then

a a private property system is the way to achieve that so it’s consequential in the sense of if you want to achieve

prosperity and peace then you should favor private property rights um and I do think that’s actually compatible with

a principled approach of objectivism or or My sort of hoppan uh argumentation

ethics um approach I think that uh as even Rand said um um um the moral is the

Practical I don’t think we can expect there to be any Divergence or any dichotomy between things that make sense

and work and things that are Justified on principle they kind of they converge so it’s not surprising me as his his

basic overall libertarian or liberal political views um would coincide with a

more principled approach even though he doesn’t have a whole theory of it um so that’s number one um on utilitarianism

on subjectivism I think Rand uses the word subjective and by the way I agree with rand’s criticism of what she means by

subjectivism okay so I take that to be a criticism of the of the the

non-objectivity of values and the um and the inability to know nature uh which is

her interpretation of sort of a her interpretation of K and kism I don’t

know that her interpretation of Kant himself is correct um I do think that might be

her her attacking or her criticism of a modern version of Kant uh pop

in America among American philosophers and to the extent that she’s describing that right I agree with her criticism I

do think that they’re wrong to say that we can’t know reality that’s her that’s

skepticism and idealism and I think um she’s right to favor objective ethics in

in the sense that she means okay so when she attacks subjectivism I think she uses that word to attack those things um

I don’t know if that’s the right word to use to be honest because the word sub subjective has another connotation in

economics which is what mises uses so when mises uses the word subjective he doesn’t mean that values are relative he

doesn’t mean we can’t know the Universe um so he’s not being a content in the sense that ran criticizes all he’s

saying is that when we describe what Human Action is and econom therefore

econom uh economics economics is an attempt to systematically describe the

consequences of Human Action which is the attempt by humans to achieve ends

goals in a world of scarcity so we applo we employ means using our reason and our

knowledge uh to to achieve our ends so that’s just a structure of action and that’s not a normative or a prescriptive

or an ethical description of it it doesn’t say that it’s good it just says that’s what it is and so in that

perspective he simp he’s simply saying that uh the value that you’re seeking to achieve is

demonstrated by your actions so it’s subjective to you subjective to the subject that’s all it means and I don’t

really think that’s incompatible with Ran’s focus on with Ran’s understanding of Economics

itself um Rand herself talks about values as something that one acts to gain and or keep and that is very

similar to The misesian View that uh we demonstrate our values or our

preferences in action like you whatever you’re seeking to achieve the end or

goal of Your Action you demonstrate that you value it more than the things you chose not to pursue right um by the fact

that you did it uh so that’s very similar to rand’s view so when Rand attacks mises’s subjectivism she’s just

attacking the the same word but it’s it’s used to denote something different than what Rand is criticizing when she

criticized subjectivism and I think it would be clearer if Rand simply says I’m attacking um the non-objectivity of

Rights and I’m attacking the the inefficacy of reason of this version of

K that she has in mind um instead of saying I I’m attacking subjectivism um

just like if you attack relativism even that word has different meanings there’s relativity in physics there’s moral

relativism uh there’s just the relational idea that things are relative to each other some of those are

innocuous some of those are loaded some of those are bad some of those are neutral some of those are good um so

again it’s not relativism and objectivism she’s criticizing its

non-objectivity of values and um and uh the and the inability to know

the world so she she’s she’s defending a version of realism in her skep in her empir in her epistemology and she’s

defending um rational objective values rooted in the nature of man both of

which I agree with by the way in stated in general terms like that um so that would be my disagreement with her with

her criticism or some of her followers criticisms of mises and by the way she

couldn’t have been too critical of mises because she really had a strong soft spot for Mees as compared to hyek okay

um and I agree with most of her criticisms of Hayek by the way I’m I’m not an admir of H Hayek to be honest at

all um at all unlike my fellow misit the two people for some reason they include

him up there with rothbart and with with with mises and haa um Hayek to me is a

totally different character even mil Freedman to my mind is better than than hyek in many ways better as a

Libertarian anyway okay so that’s that’s what I would say in defense of mises’s

um subjectivism okay thank you Stefan so

first let me just say that I have a soft spot for misus as well misus is my favorite Economist uh I’ve read

virtually everything he’s written I find his Arguments for the most part very

strong and I I would agree with you that that when IR Rand is attacking

subjectivity when it comes to values she’s arguing that no values in fact are

objective I.E values are real that you can discover correct

values um I think there is a problem with Ran’s definition of value I’ve

addressed that in my book and I’ve addressed it in interviews because her definition of value is that which you

seek to gain and or keep is not consistent with her overall theory of value and in other words her definition

of value implies subjectivism because if anything I seek to gain or keep has

value then it’s by in necessity subjective but her overall structure of

how she argues for the objectivity of values I believe to be correct and is inconsistent with a subjective view now

I happen to think that mises’s point where where he gets it right is that it’s the subjective

evaluations of consumers and producers on a Market that leads to market prices

that leads to the market structure yes it it the the objectivity of values is

completely irrelevant there it’s what people want if people want things that’s bad the prices of those things are going

to go up those are going to be the things that are going to be produced but it’s simply not true that misus only

regards economic values as subjective and I’ll was just share a thing a few

quotes with you with regards to them values there cannot be any question of Truth or falsity that’s from Theory and

history what the theorem of subjectivity evaluation means is that there is no standard available which would enable us

to reject any ultimate Val Judgment of value is wrong false or erroneous in the

way we can reject an ex existential proposition is manifestly false

furthermore there is no such thing as a normative science a science of what ought to be normative of course

referring to ethics morality then he says ethical ideas of Duty and conscience demand nothing less than the

blindest faith that is from socialism David Gordon has written at least two

essays for The misus Institute where he addresses uh how misus is not a moral

realist how he does not believe there can be an objective morality uh Murray rothbard mises’s student in an article

for The misus Institute says misus while a praxiological or epistemological

absolutist is unfortunately an ethical relativist so mises’s concept of

subjective value goes far beyond mere economics he ultimately was an a

moralist who didn’t believe there can be a morality even his utilitarianism is phrased in a way that

if these are the ends that you want and given that most people want specific ends then the free market of free

society would be the way to achieve them he never says this is what people ought to want only if they want it if they

want peace if they want Prosperity this is the way to get it so ultimately

mises’s concept of subjective value is totally inconsistent with Ran’s idea of

objective value okay uh first of all I think I would

agree with some of your criticisms of mises there it’s just that I don’t so here’s why mises is revered and useful

to us okay as people like us that are I would say we fellow liberals in the in

the general sense right we believe in human Freedom Liberty property rights uh justice Prosperity that kind of stuff um

number one his his really solid understanding of Economics itself okay

so let’s just talk about economics economics per se and mis’s understanding of it now he happened to be a liberal

too and I think that was because he was a decent person and he did want peace and prosperity and he had a rough

understanding that the way to achieve that is a free market economic system so to that extent I think he’s right I

don’t know if even you would disagree with that so far okay so um the reason

he’s useful is because he he he gives us a good foundation of economic understanding which we can use to

improve our understanding of the of the of the of the um of the argument for Liberty and rights um and to understand

you know how to advocate for that and how to deepen our understanding of it

so so far there’s nothing wrong with that and and when he talks about economics so you mentioned Rand I find

interesting that you okay so I like how you’re willing to disagree with Rand okay although I’m a little surprised

because I thought you were against the okay against the uh open objectivism

thing in the David Kelly group and yet you are willing yourself to say I don’t like her word selfishness I prefer

egoism and you you think there’s something slightly wrong with her um want me to explain real quickly go ahead

go what I mean is when I’m against the open objectivists is if they find something

that they believe to be wrong or if they find something to be new it doesn’t mean that they’re wrong in their finding

they’re wrong and that it would then be objectivism so while I can critique IR Ran’s definition of value I don’t then

substitute my own and say this is part of objectivism and this is what you can you should accept it’s not open in that

sense I just think that she was wrong about that but I don’t think her definition undercuts her broader theory

of values any more than I think that her idea that government gains its Authority

by means of consent which I disagree that government requires consent uh to

have jurisdiction I don’t think that undercuts her theory of Rights you understand so there are areas I disagree

understand but to be to be Technical and precise and maybe pantic so you would maybe call someone like David Kelly a

Neo objectivist right or or Tor MCC I personally would be with that that terminology yes but you but then you are

too you’re also a Neo objectivist you’re both types NE objectivist to be honest with you Stephan there was a time when I

wouldn’t even call myself an objectivist because I disagreed with her on some instances I was convinced to do so by a

friend of mine um he talked me into it who is a prominent objectivist he said that my disagreements with her aren’t so

much as to un fundamentals to disqualify me as being an objectivist and I finally

I finally just uh said okay you know that’s cool I ultimately don’t really care about the title to be perfectly

honest with you I don’t understand but it does allow for somebody to get a basic understanding of My Views if I say

an objetive just like yeah just like I say libertarian even though there’s Anarchist and minarchist Libertarians it’s enough to get the conversation

going and even though some people have rejected the word libertarian because they don’t want to be Associated like Jeff Tucker with those people anymore

I’m too stubborn to give it up yet um I gave it up also because I used to call myself a libertarian

well I don’t think there’s a the only better term I’ve come up with is consensualist or cooperati um

voluntarist is not good um Anarchist is not good it has too many connotations uh

in any case um uh I’m just saying that technically speaking you you agree with

most of Rand but you have some differences David Kelly agrees with most of Rand he has some differences I agree

with most of Rand but I have some differences now you might have a difference of degree or different judgment as to whether one’s close or

different enough to be included in the definition but still we’re all based on Rand but with some differences and then

the one other question might be whether you can still call yourself that like you might say well David Kelly is no you

know they differ too much to you call they shouldn’t call themselves that but but whatever that’s I agree that’s just

terminology and truth and advertising so to speak um my point though is

Ran’s definition of value the way you just explained it if you’re right and I haven’t studied it just now really

closely again um I think I would agree with her and not with you and by her definition it’s even more close to Mees

because she’s just defining what what value is I think she would in other cases say something like a rational Man

by because of his nature and because of his choice to live as a man um ought to

pursue values appropriate to his nature something like that um but it doesn’t mean that if you pursue the wrong values

that they’re not values I mean would you say that someone pursuing a totally evil

irrational end based upon values we would condemn

as evil is they’re not really values how would you here here’s the problem words

many of them have different meanings sometimes words have contrary meanings like for instance the word sanction the

word sanction can be used both to mean approve and punish I agree right so the

word value there there’s multiple senses in which it can be used one of them is a

verb and there’s a noun number one there’s yeah there’s there’s that which I value yeah and then there’s that which

has value now in ethics the two ought to align it doesn’t mean they will

unfortunately with Ran’s definition she defines it in such a way as to as to

make it subjective but that’s not consistent with her idea of measuring it

against a standard with life as the standard and then then coming to conclusion about what you should do the

virtues and so on and so on and Leonard peof actually gives a lecture on this very thing I came to this determination

in prison after studying Rand and misus for years and driving myself virtually

nuts as to who was correct and and how to resolve it but Leonard peof actually

gives a lecture explaining this Harry Binswanger in in an episode where I

interviewed him and he asked me where I disagreed with her and I said here he said well that isn’t actually her

definition he said that’s just a preliminary statement which I thought was a little you know a little odd and

and kind of I don’t want to say cop out but I just didn’t I didn’t agree with it I didn’t find it convincing well that’s

that’s a little bit like a u the way that the the Orthodox randians treat

rand’s kind of comments about a woman president uh you know they don’t really agree with her and they they but they

say well that wasn’t essential to objectivism what she said that was just her personal so they they found a way to

not have to disagree with her well I I got to I disagree with you there and here’s why because she has said that her

philosophy is put forth in her novels and non-fiction books she also endorsed Leonard pof’s lecture as being the only

definitive um statement of her philosophy earlier she endorsed

Nathaniel Brandon’s yes I know lectures on on objectivism she she never withdrew

that did she her her endorsement um not that not that I know of of him as a person yes um so but my point only is

that nowhere in any of that is there anything about a woman President right

they’re philosophical fundamentals that are put for wait a minut you you just said her nonfiction I mean that would her non-fiction books she doesn’t she

wrote an article where she talked about against the woman president but that’s a little pedantic that’s like saying well

because she chose not to put it down in print it doesn’t count I mean well I’m saying that it’s not a part of of her

philosophy I’m not saying it doesn’t count as her belief I’m just saying it’s not Phil philosophy necessarily deals

with fundamentals and She lays out the fundamentals that it deals with in her um she you know the the one foot thing

but at any rate we’re we’re kind of getting far a field but this does show what what the next subject is going

going to be about in my opinion about epistemology because in epistemology a

definition has to be the the fundamental characteristic of the thing which you’re

defining so when it comes to objective value the fundamental thing isn’t that

you have to pursue it the fundamental part of objective value is that it’s

good for you so if you look and I’ve did massive amounts of research on on the

word value and the definition of value is actually in the sense with which ran

uses it any object or quality desirable okay a means or end in itself okay

before we before we get to that are you are you going to topic to now or no no no no I’m I’m going back to you just to

address your question about about the word value so I by by the way I agree

with everything you said about misus in your second goar around I find misus extremely useful I disagree I think that

morality leaves the best argument for capitalism and for freedom however I

think it needs to be buttressed by a consequentialist account which I think mises provides my only disagreement well

I have others mostly with the his idea of the a priority but that’s Nei here nor there for this but his subjective

concept of value is specifically what I’m I’m criticizing because it extends

Beyond economics and into the field of ethics and he specifically has made numerous comments on that and like I

said David Gordon uh Murray rothbart have also commented on it that’s why I say it’s inconsistent with an objective

concept of value I agree with you I just think that that that is his his economics I think his economics and the

way he employees subjective value to describe in a purely descriptive sense the consequences of Human Action is not

inconsistent with objectivism I agree with you on the criticism of his statements that um it’s impossible to

have a science of ethics and all this kind of stuff but no one relies upon that and that’s not part of his

economics it’s not part of his Reliance upon subjective value in economics and

and in fact hop who’s you know hoppan and even rothar to an extent but certainly haa would disagree because haa

thinks you can have a science of Ethics which he’s done using a a form of prology which misus wouldn’t have agreed

with so it’s just that I just think misus didn’t hold himself self out to be a deep expert on that topic he didn’t

talk about it a lot and people don’t rely on it and I and not only that I mean it’s it’s just like uh what did you

say it was a harmless error for someone else a randan or someone to uh I forgot I didn’t but I didn’t but

your your uh your knowledge of law is coming into play with that term I don’t

mean harmless ER Harless error yeah you meant but it was something I forgot who you talking about earlier but um um I

think M’s mistake there doesn’t taint his economic analysis and it doesn’t T I don’t think so either agist case for for

for the free market and and for society um but I think he’s just wrong but like

if but I don’t think but but I think he actually was an atheist he just didn’t want to say it he had a clever argument

against God which he you know he said that you know God could never act because he would never have uneasiness

which means he can exist yes you know but he didn’t go he didn’t pursue that

because that wasn’t his interest and likewise he didn’t try to come up at least he didn’t try to come up with a theory of Ethics um uh neither did

Milton Freedman for you know Milton Freedman thought we can’t know what the right way to live is and therefore

because we’re ignorant of the right way to live therefore we should be tolerant and not force people to live the good

life so his case for Liberty was unfortunately we can’t we can’t be totalitarians and force people because

we don’t know the right way it wasn’t the best defense of Liberty but no again he didn’t focus on that in his writing

um no and by the way contrary to many objectivists and Libertarians I find Great Value in fredman’s economics I do

too I think he has problems but but I do have I I I do find Value in it okay so

resolved M was wrong that there can’t be an objective ethics but his economics still has incredible

value can we agree on that yes but I wanted to one thing you said yeah I agree with all that what you said you

said that value the way you’re defining it and the way you think it’s defining in the dictionary and all this um is U

is something something now you I notice you I think you use the word thing like an object that has value the the the

problem is the the structure of Human Action is that it’s in basically the structure of

Human Action is not to acquire things of value the the whole structure of Human

Action is to attempt to change the future because we we have some awareness

of the past we have an awareness of our present and the world around us and we have an awareness of our values and our

goals and we have an awareness of cause and effect laws of cause and effect and we have some idea of what is coming in

the future future if we do not intervene and take an action and we have an

awareness that we have possibly the chance to change that so every action is an attempt to attempt to divert the

course of Affairs to achieve a future that is different than the one that’s coming if we don’t intervene so in a

sense that’s the general structure of action is an attempt to achieve an end and by end we mean an end state in the

future different than what would otherwise happen that inst state is just what we prefer for whatever reason and

we we therefore value that happening so that’s how I would use the word value there we subjectively value it and if

we’re rational then we we’re basing that rationally on the values that a rational ought to have but what we’re trying to

achieve is not the attainment of a thing it’s the achievement of a different state of affairs now that could just be

I want to see the Northern Lights from from um from Iceland and so I I I do

what I need to do to get there at the right time and see the Northern lights and if I do that I’ve achieved what meus

would call a profit or psychic profit because I’ve had a successful action and I satisfied my the thing that I I

desired that I valued which was having this experience but I didn’t get

ownership of anything I didn’t acquire anything except the satisfaction and the knowledge and the memory of that

experience only a small subset of actions have the goal of attaining

ownership or acquisition or possession of an actual object that’s only I would

say 1% of all actions are you know if you wanted to quantify it Stephen I got to interrupt because you the definition

that I employed was any object or quality desirable as a means or end in

itself so you’re talking about not just objects but you’re talking about experiences and by the way like love for instance love is a tremendous value but

it doesn’t impart ownership but it’s not not it’s not a thing love is not a thing is it no it’s a it’s it’s well it’s an

exist I don’t know what you mean by thing it’s not it’s not some concrete that I can go out and grab no but it

nonetheless is something that I can value and I can and that not only I can value but that has value if the object

that I’m loving that you know the woman that I love is a value to me and not you know some kind of Fatal Attraction that

would that would be not a good thing the way I would word that is because I think we’re in rough agreement but I’m trying

to avoid wording things in a way that gives rise to the mistake of intellectual property okay that’s

ultimately no no no I and that’s I I know but the problem there with with

that is I don’t want to now we’re going to get intellectual property and go sick but ultimately words have reference in

reality words mean right so we we can’t address the words that we use based on

an end argument we’re trying to make no I’m not no I’m not I’ve just I’ve seen the mistake before I’ve seen the

confusion I’ve seen what what what imp Precision in terms gives rise to mistake in conclusions so I’m just trying to be

careful that’s all I’m saying and so the way I would word it is I would say that um uh like love you to be precise if I’m

being correct you said every word has a reference I mean I think speaking every concept has a reference word is a it

denotes a concept and the concept has a reference if it’s a valid concept I mean

some Concepts have no reference yeah I’m speaking of valid concept ghost does there’s nothing in reality that

corresponds to to ghost or uh Santa or God for instance just to offend whatever

people here are watching that are religious and I think it’s a stretch to say that you know if my goal is to make

my niece um Smile by performing a magic trip for her that that what I attain is

some quality that just seems to be a stretch it’s like you attained um an end a state of affairs that you preferred

and you valued it now I wouldn’t say it has value I would say that it’s it’s it’s rational

to have that as something that you value um if if my goal is to kill

Humanity I would say in descriptive terms that’s I’m that’s the value are

pursuing but it’s it’s based upon evil um you know evil values or preferences

that’s because there’s two senses in which the word value at least two can be used in that sense destruction and death

is what you value but but what you value doesn’t actually have value correct so

that’s why I agree that’s why I think that the criticism of Misa is not Misa when he says okay when he says Human

Action is you demonstrate what you value by acting to achieve it that’s just saying what you

value that’s true but he didn’t just say that he went on to say that nothing can

have value and that’s I would agree with you that that I would even then I might agree with him nothing has value but but

nothing I would say nothing some things ought not to have value that’s the way I would put it like there’s a normative

criticism you can say if this guy values the death of the human race that’s his value but it I guess you could say it

doesn’t have objective value which is but misus would not criticize him misus would not say he was unethical and

that’s where misus is wrong well he’s he doesn’t have a theory that he he just

doesn’t I agree he’s wrong but he doesn’t have a he doesn’t try to advance a theory that but then he should say but

then he should say as you and I discussed earlier there’s it’s okay to not know things right you just say I don’t know but misus made definitive

statements about this topic yeah I AG so that in in there he’s he’s wrong now but

there there was something you said when you quoted him I wish I could remember but it was a little a little fledge he

put in there which might save kind of what he said because he says something I think what he was thinking to to try to

defend him what he might have been thinking was in the praxiological methods of

Economics right we can’t use those methods to know

to have an objective ethical science and that’s not part of Economics so he might have been just trying to distance

economics to make sure people understand that it’s value free or ver fry and just an economic descriptive discipline

um but yeah he probably shouldn’t have said it’s impossible to have a whole another moral theory of

values I agree with you okay now the next uh subject we’re going to discuss

is I recently had a debate with Jack Lloyd That was supposed to be objectivism against his libertarian

volunteerism he calls it right and it devolved into a debate on epistemology

now you said and I know that you might want to clean up the language a little bit here but that that epistemology is

irrel an to ethics and politics so you told me that’s not exactly what you mean

so what exactly do you mean and why is it the case right well in that particular discussion so first of all it

it kept you from getting to your actual debate which was which which was really what which

one is the best uh how did you word your debate it was it which one objectivism or or libertarianism which one gives the

best case for free market or something like that yes for capitalism yes yeah and what you meant there believe as you

elaborated was um so you were saying that the objectivist case is stronger

because we have it has an appeal to other deeper values that we have it

appeals to philosophy it appeals to morality and ethics and she gives stories that a you know it’s not just

this bloodless thing about producing more stuff and stuff like that right so

and I agree with you there’s a reason that Rand is the first libertarian and her her novels Garner to following she

appealed is something inside of us we’re more than just um you know producing

efficiency machines we actually have values that’s the reason we do things and the integration of the stories and

and the uh you know her condemnation of of of evil people and horrible things it

all for me it’s part of the case it’s part of the way you persuade people it’s part of the way you get them hooked and the way you get them interested and also

if you do if you are dealing with people that are totally Skeptics and nihilist

then her her realist case for for for metaphysics and epistemology is is the right counter I

believe okay and I think if if you came across a complete altruist who basically is is a um uh is

a misanthrope someone who doesn’t want Humanity some people want Humanity to you know the the people that the vem the

the voluntary human extinction movement who I know one of these people you know they’re pretty malevolent and they’re

pretty nihilistic um either you don’t have a conversation with these people because you treat them

as like someone you don’t want in your house or you know or you have to go down to

deeper levels of philosophy and epistemology and ethics with them I would agree with that and for those

people and even for the average person you’re trying to attract them to the ca the moral case for capitalism not just

the economic case the morals are useful so in a sense I think

that the randan case in a general sense can be stronger uh for making the case for freedom and

for and for liberalism so I don’t disagree with you on that um but I don’t think that’s a criticism of

libertarianism per se uh because you could be a Libertarian

and you can agree with all that like I do or you could be a Libertarian and you could think that’s unnecessary in which case I would disagree with them the

point is you didn’t even get to that point about why object objectivism is stronger because you got admired in this

debate about whether Jack could know things or not and if Jack had been

acting really as a nihilist or as a radical skeptic in his in his claims and

using that as a reason to criticize objectivism or the liberalism

you were supporting I would have agreed that you would have to go there and say listen you either have a confused

understanding of epistemology or you have the wrong epistemology or something like that I just think you were it

was so the reason I say epistemology is not necessary to bring up is because

you start on the highest level of of agreement with your with with the other person because otherwise you have to go

back down to the there’s no stopping point to where you go back you know you could build you could start from

elementary number Theory and logic and then go to you know definitions and

epistemology and metaphysics and and all you could go all the way up and you wouldn’t be able to do that in an hour

anyway right but if you already agree on the on certain things

your common ground you build on the common ground you see where you disagree see where you diverge and I don’t think

that Lloyd disagrees in Practical terms with

your with your and my Baseline understanding of the way of what nature in reality is um he can’t really defend

it using the way he was defending it in the discussion with you but I mean like this why I mentioned on Twitter I mean

do you really think that someone 500 years ago who thought that they knew

that there was a sun and an earth and that grass would die if you you know did

this to it and uh you know if you cut your arm you would bleed I mean I would

think that they had they actually had knowledge and they had a right to believe they they knew these things even though they couldn’t explain they had no

theory of epistemology they couldn’t articulate why I mean you can have knowledge without having the ability to

articulate the theory of epistemology oh I I don’t disagree and the thing is is as you know

when you go to court right you stipulate certain things for the record so then you don’t have to argue about them yes

so I relistened to my discussion with Jack this morning and what happened was I didn’t know it was going to go that

route because the things I were saying I didn’t think were controversial I wanted to get him to stipulate things for the record to avoid arguing about him when

we got to the idea and this is why you can’t and my dogs are going crazy but here’s why you can’t avoid

epistemology often because he said that he didn’t agree

with the objectivity of values he didn’t think you could have objective values and from there it went on to him saying

that you can’t have objective knowledge so now the conversation switches from what we’re talking about to epistemology

and years ago I read a book by Stephen Hicks where Steph Hicks talks about that very thing it was in uh explaining postm

ISM or postmodernism explained I can’t really remember what the title is but he talks about this and I’ve always been

keenly aware of when this happens he says note when you’re in a discussion with somebody and you have them on the ropes they will turn and say well nobody

can really know anything it’s a matter of opinion he said now notice what happens here is the subject gets

switched from whatever you’re talking about yes to epistemology and that’s what happened with Jack and once you get

to the point where somebody says in a conversation no there’s no objective ethics and there’s no objective

knowledge well now he’s opening he’s closing a door on discussion because anything I say he can say is wrong but

he also had a very interesting trick in that he was claiming objective knowledge

and claiming an objective ethics while at the same time denying them when they were coming from me and so now if you

look at let’s just take three schools for instance of of epistemology right T

say subjectivism intrinsic ISM and objectivism if somebody has an what what

intrinsic ISM subjectivism and OB an objectivism right intrinsic ISM means that things exist that Concepts adhere

in objects they exist independent of us they also say that it morality right and

wrong is intrinsic it exists independent of our judgment independent of our goals so if somebody has an

intrinsic idea of epistemology they then go to an intrinsic idea of eth eics

their ethics is conditioned and determined by the epistemology they hold similarly if somebody is a subjectivist

in epistemology and they say you can’t know anything well if I can’t know anything then I can’t know moral right

and wrong so they end up with a subjective ethics now with the objectivist epistemology there’s two

factors right there’s the human mind and there’s the external and and internal realities that that we have and concept

formation is a relationship between the mind and that reality similarly ethics

is a relationship between the human being and the reality that confronts him it’s his life or her life that operates

as the standard but his mind his mind has to judge these things through

rationality as you said to be of value to him and that’s what makes him objective so the three different

epistemological approaches lead to very different approaches on ethics and given

that politics is derived from ethics you’re the political system that you Advocate and why you Advocate It

ultimately stems from your epistemology and that’s why it’s relevant and so I would rather avoid it I don’t like

getting into big epistemological discussions when discussing ethics and politics but it it’s just if somebody is

an intrin assist or if somebody is a subjectivist it’s it’s just unavoidable and for the record had I known that he

was an epistemological subjectivist I wouldn’t even had the discussion I just didn’t know that yeah those are all fair

points let me let me put it this way um so if you’re going to have a discussion about epistemology with someone then

that’s fine but invite them on there knowing that and they should be prepared and they should sure claim to have some

informed opinions about it um and number two um

so me mises himself as we just discussed mises apparently had these comments that

you cannot know an objective ethics and all that now I don’t think he rested that view upon a radical skepticism he

he didn’t rest that view upon the the comment that the he didn’t he didn’t say that because we can’t know anything we

can’t have IR rational ethics he just thought it was outside the scope of science or something like that so sure

likewise even if you disagree with Lloyd on on a rational ethics or or or or or

whether values are subjective or or relative or or whatever the right term is you that doesn’t necessarily have to

rest upon a deeper epistemological argument that oh and that’s because I’m a skeptic and we can’t know anything I

mean so you might have just said well what’s your basis for rights if you

don’t think we can know what man’s what man ought to be valuing according to his nature something like that but um I’m

just simply saying he and but on the other hand he did claim at least in the Twitter afterwards that he’s an expert

on this um uh I just I I just think it was I want to say it was unfair

sandbagging because I don’t think you meant to do it it just kept you from getting to your point and I do think you

maybe there was a way in that debate where you could have said can we can we agree like the stipulation can we agree

on the following things but as you say maybe you couldn’t get him to stipulate

and maybe that was the problem he wouldn’t and not only that the problem was is he claimed he had a way to validate ethics while saying at the same

time there could be no objective ethics he claimed knowledge while then claiming you can’t have knowledge for instance he

said we can he said you can’t know anything but then he said we have to all we can do is go by evidence but how

would we know that there’s evidence me it was just you know I like I said to him on Twitter it was like trying to

nail Jello to a tree right like there was just and I’ve had those

discussions but in believe me in prison that’s part for the course yeah of course right well I I think on Twitter I

I quoted a Misa quote which is you know mis’s and haa both have a very I think

to me it’s a it’s a is is a really good criticism of of of empiricism which is

the The Logical positivism of popper which is the view that the only thing that’s uh the only source of knowledge

is evidence and the only thing that’s scientific is is basically um a a a

falsifiable hypothesis like that’s it uh like everything else is just um Def

definitional and doesn’t give you information it’s toal logical um you know or it’s just uh empty empty

assertions but the pro the problem with that as me is pointed out is what’s the status of that proposition itself if you

say that the only thing we can know is something that is eviden from our senses

that can be tested well then what about the status of that assertion there that’s like in a sense an AR prior thing

that’s at the base of all so in a sense philosophy or or the the things we assume are true or the base of physics

and the empirical Sciences they’re in a sense subsidiary and less important than philosophy itself and those things can’t

be test now I know Rand would have a different view she she would she would have the view where you have a Unity of

reason and empirical knowledge and I don’t strongly disagree with that but even Ran’s arguments are her her

theories are based upon there are certain things we know she called them axiomatic some things we know for

certain right we don’t know the law of non-contradiction and the law of identity and and the idea that there’s

such a thing as Consciousness and a distinction between the Observer and the outside world we don’t know that by um

doing doing a falsifiable experiment any falsifiable experiment you could do has

to presuppose those things are true already so you could never do an experiment that would disprove the law

of identity right yeah well she says that those that the the oxums are self-evident from observation but that

not that they’re here and this kind of goes to your point about misus earlier where you said well misus wasn’t a

subjectivist well in some ways he was he was a conent he writes about the categories he believes that categories

are conditioning uh the human thought he believed that the category of action conditions you know all all our thinking

is one of the categories that conditions are thinking he actually says well if these categories make us think the way

that we do then how can they explain how we can act correctly and he says well

per he says perhaps Evolution has produced them so in essence he says like

K that our brains and our minds are cut off from external reality and are conditioned

by these categories so in that sense he is a subjectivist although he does have some aristan ideas rothbart on the other

hand is pure Arista tilian correct but if and I so if you I would just people listening if they’re interested in this

I would say read hoa’s economic science and the Austrian method where haa basically says so he takes an also

realist contan approach like mises kind of arguably did but it’s even more

explicit and stronger and haa says look this our theory is completely realist and the reason is because action itself

is the ground between the human categories in the mind and reality so you might not agree with that argument

but he definitely is a realist he think there is a tie between Human Action haa

haa I I haven’t read hoa’s epistemology you recommended it to me and I’m I I

want to I’ve just got a lot of other stuff to read but I definitely am interested I’ve only read ho haa on

ethics his argumentation ethics I want to say here real quick somebody in the comments who says Ran’s axioms are

derived from inductions I’m sorry Chris that’s false um Leonard peof makes the case explicitly that axioms are the base

of induction and cannot you cannot induce them because they’re necessary in order to induce to begin with there’s

self-evident is what he says he even corrected himself earlier he said that the law of causality was arrived that by

induction but later on peof corrected that and said no causality is actually necessary I totally agree for induction

he says or say they’re a priority yeah well the well the difference is is that he holds objectivism that there

self-evident from experience whereas misus holds that they’re a logical

structure of the human mind that are conditioning our thinking there are two different things but there in one we can

know reality for what it is in the other we can’t well whatever Merit your criticism of misus has if you read haa

it’s a whole different he makes an attempt to root it in actual ual realist connection between our our senses and

and and and and the concepts and the percepts and the concepts we have in our mind um so I believe H I’m I’m totally

realist and I’m I I agree with Ran’s basically ran Ran’s basic approach here and also that of David Kelly um and I

think I I see no incompatibility with between that and between hoa’s interpretation of mises’s interpretation

of the European version of Kant okay that so I’m I’ve got to I’m going to have to

check out what uh what what haa says but by the way um my disagreements with

David Kelly notwithstanding I I his book evidence of the senses I think is phenomenal I agree as a work on

epistemology nothing to criticize there no pun intended oh because I said

phenomenal nice I I got to tell you Stephan you’re not exactly known for

your sense of humor and that’s one thing that coming to know you from from engaging and doing these interviews is

you do have a great sense of humor you’re known for being prickly but not for having a sense of humor but I don’t mind the prickliness it’s okay as Han

say even I don’t know why people think I’m a nice guy I’m a cuddly little fuzzy bear fuzzy fuzzy little cdy cuddly

cuddly teddy bear um okay well so I do agree with the importance of

epistemology I just think if you talk to your average person okay or your average intelligent person who basically is a

liberal in the sense of of they like Western Society they like Civilization they’re not hostile to their fellow man

they might have rational self-interest in the sense of they prefer their own well-being to that of others they still

want everyone to have good lives if they can they want to live in PE peace and prosperity among each other they have

some rough knowledge of supply and of the laws of Economics I think those people they’re

not going to say well the reason we need to have a a welfare state is because uh

we can’t know anything no listen I think most people are realists when it comes

to epistemology right they don’t need to be explained to them that my microphone is actually here they don’t think the

microphone I’m experienced a phenomenal as opposed to the new middle World none of that but nonetheless when you’re

having discussions and and debates then it becomes relevant the average person

had I said to him will you stipulate for the record that these are uh you know the that that ethics is such and such

that we can know it they would just say yeah you wouldn’t end up with a a big he he quibbled but I think he in the end in

his kind of fumbling way did because he kept saying he he was inarticulate in

explaining like he tried to Fumble around and say well it’s kind of the assumption that we both make and and you

kept saying well then but he said well I know you exist because I’m assuming you exist because you just said this you said how do you how do you know I just

said it yeah because you have to have knowledge but I think

basically he he he thought he had to have a sophisticated defense of just saying look it seems obvious to me that

we both know that we have bodies we live on Earth in the year 2025 the Earth is spherical we we’re Mortals with a finite

lifespan and we live in you know I I think if you would have just conceded that stipulated it if you will then he

would have taken the the gas out of your like you wouldn’t have been you you couldn’t have then said well but you

really don’t have a good def a good criticism of of a good defense of of realism do you it’s like yeah but that

wasn’t what the debate was supposed to be no if he would have just said yes I I think we can have knowledge I would have

said okay and he if he said but I don’t really know how to defend that would have been fine that would have been fine

with me now I would have used that fact as an attack on his Downstream theories

fine that’s that I would have done but we would have gotten to those theories you know what I mean then you could have

pointed out uh a contradiction you said well you’ve already conceed that we know this but now you’re resting this

argument upon we don’t know anything exactly then you could have you said you have to choose are you really not

nihilist are you are you really a skeptic or are you essentially a realist

even if you can’t yeah you have to choose um yeah I I would agree with you on that and I would also agree with you

that the reason object objectivists that they’re kind of right

in viewing philosophy as a unit as as a as a comprehensive whole although why

they only pick four branches and they leave as Aesthetics out in the cold I’m not sure how they why they have Aesthetics Aesthetics is the fifth

Branch yeah but again it’s the fifth it’s not essential what well then well

that we could say the fourth isn’t essential well I’m saying objectiv is don’t regard it as essential I don’t know I don’t know who they are I maybe

me to be honest I’ve never I’ve never I haven’t heard many objectivists say that you you can’t have a a I’ve never heard

them criticize Libertarians they criticize Libertarians because we we only have one of the four

branches is we have politics and we we’ve left out the other three I’ve

never heard them say and you also left out our view of Aesthetics I mean I don’t you know well Aesthetics don’t

condition politics my problem let let me let me just speak let me just speak let me just speak for myself in that a big

problem I have with Libertarians isn’t so much that they lack an ethical Theory

it’s that they introduce ethical Concepts floating in Midstream without

validating those ethical concept take some things for granted but on the other hand sometimes they’re doing that because they know that everyone they’re

talking to already agrees with them um even even some some so I don’t think you need to defend the the virtue of

honesty uh if you agree with it and if you’re David fredman attacked me on it the other day when we had a

debate well so and not just honesty but he has what he calls The Prudent Predator now when I I’m going to debate

Dr fredman on Monday and I’m sure he’s going to raise that as an objection so he would say on a selfin ethic that

honesty is not I think yeah he’s more like me or he’s more like his dad you know his dad his dad’s argument for

Liberty is that because we we have we lack knowledge of the right way to live so we

we don’t have the right to force people to live the right way like it’s such a horrible argument I mean I’ll take it but it’s not the best argument for

Liberty right uh as long as you’re willing to not commit Force against

people I kind of happy with that but if your basis is because we don’t know anything thing you know it’s kind of a

weak way to argue because someone’s going to come along and say well I do know so now I can use the state uh to

force people to live that’s problematic and I think David frean is so wrapped up in logical positivism of his dad and um

and and the Chicago way of looking at what again what true science is science is only testable empirical things I mean

David Freeman and I argued in person at at Liberty libertopia about 12 years ago

uh and he was he said you know my case against he’s not like he’s against intellectual property kind of but not

completely because he doesn’t have any principles about it he says well it depends and he goes because it depends on how the utility works out and I said

well you can’t measure utility it’s a subjective thing in terms of quantities right and it’s interpersonally

incomparable and it’s not a quantity he goes oh no uh Von noyman proved he

showed that you can I mean this to me sounds like the the the Socialists in the 30s who argued against mises’s U uh

uh the CC cul proof that that socialism can’t calculate and they then they came they

said well if we have the right kind of computers we could Tre we been saying well we you and I don’t know exactly

what everyone’s subjective utility u tools are but if you have the right computers and and there because one

noyman showed you can have these equations I mean he sounds a little autistic when he talks like that it’s just not it’s not right uh but it’s

because he’s mired in positivism he thinks that’s the only thing that’s me measurable things anyway that’s that’s

off track but my point is when you talk to him he’s got another paper which you would probably hate um I think there’s a

way to steal man it a little bit but it’s it’s it’s this idea of the optimal amount of not the not only the optimal amount

of punishment but the optimal amount of crime prevention so he basically argues

that um the optimal amount so you and I would say the optimum amount of crime is

zero right the optimal amount of crime in society would be have zero rights violations and he’s got this paper using

these stupid equations where he says and you might want to look this up so you can challenge him on this he says that

no the optim you got to put these equations in and the optimal amount is somewhere between zero and 100 because

and basically the argument is that it would cost too much to stop every crime

so but he’s sort of going back and forth between ethical domains and and economic

descriptive domains that’s funny you said that because in Reading reading Machinery of Freedom over again so you

know some of the sections because I read it years ago and you know when you read something years ago you don’t remember anything but the he it it’s got terms

like rights self- ownership that sort of thing and it drives me crazy when if

you’re going to speak in utility terms stick to it and that that this is so now you know if you have that discussion

with them you end up bouncing back and forth this is what you said I agree but

here’s the interesting question we’re not going to have time to get to the other uh point we wanted to debate we could do it another time but I wanted to

ask you about this there was quite the debate on um X the other day about

whether what the first one was whether David fredman is actually an anarchist

right which to me is he’s an anarchist yeah the next one was his idea that law

could arise on a market that was challenged and he said well how would he know it it it arise on the

market and now you’re you’re a lawyer so you’re familiar with these distinctions

so the claim was made that natural law theorists say there’s

no such thing as man-made law if it’s contrary to natural law that it’s not

law now my understanding of natural law has always been that the idea is you

want your man-made laws in order to be valid to represent the natural law yeah

it’s like the malamin say malam prohibitum distinction what are your thoughts on this first on fredman being

an anarchist seems like so by the way I like David Freeman

I admire and respect him um and David So Milton Freeman is one of

the first books I read which helped make me a Libertarian so even though I disagree with his methodology now and

some of his libertarianism um it was kind of helped me make me a capitalism freedom and free to choose especially

capitalism and freedom were are awesome or were at the time I probably would find more fault with them now but they open my eyes to lots of basic economic

stuff like so so did Henry haslett’s economics one listen and then when I was first an anarchist well first an

objectivist then more like a Libertarian and then um and then an anarchist because of the work of the Tanana Hills

and rothbard and Bruce Benson and also David freedman’s Machinery Freedom now is David free if I read them now I am

much more um uh I mean they open my eyes to lots of things about the possibilities of a free society and

self-organizing groups and things like that but is he an an I mean look I thought nosic was an anarchist at first

because I read his book in law school and I the title is anarchy state in Utopia and he’s supposed to be a Libertarian I thought he was arguing for

Anarchy until I got I don’t know halfway through the book and I realized holy this guy’s arguing for um basically

an Ultram minimal or even worse State um and rothbard of course is eviscerated

that book um but I’m not sure if Freeman’s an anarchist I don’t want to

say that he’s wrong if he self- claims to be but he doesn’t really have a theory of rights at all that I can tell

or he doesn’t even admit that rights exist like you say he uses the term rights so in the law there’s a

descriptive sense of Rights um or like what the law is that’s the positive law

yes um but I would and so I would distinguish and I’ll get to your question about um about natural law uh

and because it’s something I think no one has written yet a case that I think is satisfactory

I have my own views on it but I haven’t articulated them in detail anywhere I’ll tell you what I think about all this um

I think both sides are confused just like both sides are confused about the Free Will debate um um and just like

both sides are confused about the God debate except the randians have the best correct case um and George Smith did too

but even they have some problems but um um Love George Smith by the way I love I

loved him too um or part of his writing he as a as a person he he was well I didn’t know him personally I just mean

that book the case against God I’m talking some other things I’m I’m I I had encountered with with respect to

that but um uh I forgot where I was going with this but um where was I going

with this um natural law uh

um I think I I mess going but anyway on the natural law thing so uh oh no where

David Freeman use these terms so I would distinguish between what we

might call natural law although you can use a better term for this and by that I just mean law that’s

Justified legal law legal principles and and law that’s Justified according to uh

objective and and justifiable ethics okay something you and I would agree with like yeah a law basically law that

that that enforces the property rights that we all agree come from a rational ethics based upon man’s nature okay how

I think of it too so that’s what law is and then and you’re thinking of it the precise way that I try to think of it

and so I think that’s really good like you’re basically being right you’re saying there’s there’s existing positive law positive law is whatever the state’s

enforcing and that is law whether I agree with it or not that’s D so you and I disagree with the natural law guys

because they don’t want to concede that because they put too much emphasis on the power of labels and words they’re

afraid that if you grant some some existing statute let’s call it a statute

is law that you’re conceding that’s legitimate and that’s because they don’t have an objective ethics outside they

basically still either wrap their their theory of authority either in the

state or in God what and God’s a better one to wrap it in but even that is

pushing it back a l you’re still looking for some outside authority to tell you to decree what the basis of all this is

right so um I would distinguish between possess possession and between ownership okay

possession is a factual descriptive term it’s What man does when he acts he possesses and uses means even cruso on

his Island possesses things that has no normative connotations and I wouldn’t

say has no moral connotations to be honest because I I don’t agree with people that ethics is only about

inpersonal relations even cruso on his Island because I’m an objectivist in a sense I would say that things cruso

could do on his Island would be immoral because they don’t further his his his life as a man right uh he wouldn’t be

hurting anyone except himself but it would still be immoral okay but still when he possesses something that’s

purely descriptive action it’s possession when we come in society there’s a possibility of other people

interfering with our possession so we have property rights or legal system that’s supposed to protect our

possession that’s called ownership or property rights Okay so one is a

descriptive term that’s economic and one is a normative or juristic or legal term

and the problem is and then within that you have positive law that’s actually

enforced and then you have the natural law the natural law by definition is just the positive law is unjust to the

extent it doesn’t comport with the I’m sorry the positive law is is inconsist is is unjust if it if it deviates from

what the natural law ideal or standard is that’s how I look at it okay so that’s how I view these things the

problem is the legal positivist like um like HLA Hart he’s a famous One his book

is called the concept of law which is the kind of classic Treatise on This brilliant brilliant work and then his

Nemesis his foil was law Fuller a natural law guy the problem is in my view as a Libertarian and as an

objectivist they’re all in a sense positivist because they all believe there’s a higher authority we have to

resort to uh outside like it’s not like an imminent an IM imminent like there’s

not like a a natural law that you and I would resort to to show here’s why this is wrong here this is right because n

nature says this um the natural law guys so they would say that a a bad law is

not a law at all in fact you can find quotes historical quotes like that law an unjust law is no law at all but to me

that’s just denying but that was just but that was just Augustine right like

when I was I did a lot of research on natural law natural rights and I I they

would say it’s an invalid law meaning it it doesn’t comport with

the natural law but I’m not but they they also say it’s no law at all but when they say it’s no law at all that’s their way of saying it’s an invalid law

but to deny that it’s a law is just silly I mean it it is a it is against

the law in America right now to to sell cocaine or to evade income taxes it

simply is the law yeah although we both disagree with it right well I well I I

don’t disagree that it’s the law I no I mean it’s not just it’s not just it shouldn’t be so that’s how I distinguish

it and a lot of these natural law types they don’t want to admit it’s just like the inal property thing a lot of people say hey Stefan I agree with you that

intellectual property is not property and I like I said my argument is not that it’s not property it’s not about

the word property my argument is that that law is an unjust law because it invades property rights you know it

seems like a a nitpicking distinction but you have to be clear about these things um so in the legal positivism

debate I would say I agree with the legal positivist and like Oliver wend Holmes he’s got this famous legal

positivist it’s called the prediction theory of law or the bad man theory of law it’s like if you want to know what

the law is in society and by law he means what the enforced law by the authorities is doesn’t necessarily mean

it’s just it’s just what the law happen if you want to know what that law is is you have to think like a Badman would

would act would think and he the bad man’s thinking what are the consequences to me if I violate this law so if the

government said it’s illegal not to pay your taxes but there’s zero penalty for doing it I would say it’s not really a

law it’s just a Hort it’s just a recommendation that you’re free to ignore because there’s no penalty it’s

really there’s a word for that isn’t there a legal term for that when that happens when a law doesn’t uh is never

enforced I can’t remember what dude maybe well there’s duuude if you talk the word there’s a word duuude but that

simply means a law that’s like um uh there’s another word for it but it’s a word that’s it’s a law that’s been so

long out of force that we don’t consider it to be because no one enforces it anymore and it’s it’s so old that we

wouldn’t even view it as legitimate law anymore but it’s not because they don’t enforce it it so if we if you had a law

that had no penalty explicitly I would just say that’s not a law you’re just misdescribed it’s not a law but the

point is the legal positives are right in in in in saying that we can identify

something as a law based upon whether the the legal system in a given Society

treats it like it’s illegal right and that could be whether it’s a common law rule or a statute a legislated statutory

rule either one the if the courts will enforce it then it’s effectively a law

right um and I I disagree with the natural law guys who says that that is giving that’s

giving a sort of a power to the law by admitting that it’s and because I don’t think it admits that it’s legitimate

because I have distinct a distinct standard that’s outside of that it’s outside of the state it’s by my human

reason and my human my objective human values that’s how I judge what the law is I again I come up with a set of

principles which are compatible with human nature in the world we live in and that’s basically self-interest and the

non-aggression principle and the right to pursue our values by using things in the world rearranging them appropriating

them and so on which leads to the core values that or principles that you build

a legal system on or that you should build it on now I do think that in the world there is a lot of leeway in in the

details of Any Given legal system I think you could have a hundred different C countries or communities in the world

with different customs and traditions and language and legal systems that that

that evolve in a different way but they’re all are basically implementing the core principles we all agree with

don’t murder people they have a property right to their stuff like but there’s details on how you implement it and I I don’t think I

would call that system illegitimate if system a does it does it differently than system B which by the way a lot of

these OCD Libertarians don’t like because they and a lot of rans don’t like it which is why I think a lot of

randians want there to be objective law by which they mean a final solution that

is uniform across like they some objectivists would almost prefer a a final answer in one supreme

court that rules the whole world even though they’re even if they’re wrong rather than a 100 jurisdictions that

have different results it’s like this obsession with with uh with with a final

single authority to decide things which to my mind is not it’s not it’s not U

you don’t need to believe that to believe in objective rights okay now we didn’t get to get to

uh our value cre debate and I promise you if you’re willing to come back on and discuss it we definitely will

Stephan thank you so much uh it’s always a pleasure to debate discuss and just

talk with you it’s always excellent I I really appreciate it where can uh people that are watching where can they find

you uh Stefan conell.com and it’s NS consella on

Twitter all right thank you so much and for now this is the rational eal with signing out I’m Michael elowitz till

next time [Music] all right I thought that was nice