Auberon Herbert, Capitalism, Self-Sacrificing Businessmen, Capitalism, and More!

Hinzugefügt: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]You open this door with the key of reason. Beyond it is another dimension, a dimension of truth, a dimension of freedom, a dimension of joy. You're moving into the land of both the ideal and the real, of the possible and the actual. You've just crossed over into the capitalist corner, where reason meets reality. Welcome to the capitalist corner.

[00:00:28]Welcome to the Capitalist Corner, folks.

[00:00:29]I am your host, Mark Pelgrino, and also the chairman of the American Capitalist Party, along with my co-host and vice chair, Michael Lieitz, who is also mainly the host for pretty much everything on the Rational Alternative, the great channel that we have here, the flagship channel that hosts all of these shows, especially Capitalist Corner. But what else, Michael? I know you got a lot of irons and fire. Tell us about it.

[00:00:50]Well, there's a great episode out right now of The Rational Egoist with Nikos Satocapopoulos and Andy Bernstein. We reviewed the book Shane. We discussed heroism. Whole lot of good stuff going on there. I highly, highly recommend this episode. Far more than just a review of a novel. And of course, today 2:30 p.m. Eastern time, Everyday Ethics.

[00:01:14]Tomorrow 12:00 noon Eastern time, Capitalist Corner Weekends. We got Megan Ribbons coming on again. do some more education talk, all kinds of great stuff. And of course, we have the one and only Mark Pelgro here. U you know, he pops up every now and again when he's not out making his billions and it works out.

[00:01:31]>> I wish it was billions, my friends. I I would love to be one of those persecuted minority billionaires out there. Uh but alas, I am not. I'm uh broadcasting to you live from the dark continent, man.

[00:01:43]In the middle of the dark continent, Paris, France. Um, so wait, I was going to say something, Michael, and then I got to Oh, wait. We have to talk about what this is streaming live on. Isn't it on Twitch?

[00:01:54]And uh what else is >> Well, it's not on Twitch because I don't have Pphanie. What it's on is uh It looks like I forgot to send you some stuff now that I'm looking down at my thing here. Did I?

[00:02:06]>> I don't know. I had copious amounts of >> Oh, no. No, I didn't. I got it. I got it. I got everything. Um, so yeah, we got uh What the hell was I thinking? I lost everything now. Oh, not Twitch. No, we're on X. We're on YouTube. We also have our shows are on Spotify. Check them out. Uh I hope Mark shared this uh from X and from YouTube.

[00:02:27]>> Yep.

[00:02:27]>> Uh and other than that, man, I'm ready to rock and roll, dude.

[00:02:30]>> Yeah, it's it's Q&A Friday if I'm not mistaken, man. So, make sure you bring your questions and we'll try to bring some answers. Uh hopefully they're fun questions. Uh, I mean, you know, we're inundated here, Michael, so often because we do the news with crap news and it makes us feel makes me feel like the world is going to hell in a hand basket. I'd like to hear some some positive questions out there that get us focused on something positive. The first thing uh uh Oh, you did you want to talk about Aberon Herbert first? Is that >> I do. So, let me tell you, I thought I'd read all the Liberty stuff, but up until I got out of prison, I never even heard of this guy. I first learned of him when uh doing an interview. I don't know if it was on the air or it was after the interview, but anyway, I first learned of him from Harry Binswanger. And then I woke up this morning and on Facebook, my buddy uh Sheldon Richmond has a great uh great essay uh on TGIF. He says the most important question facing humanity and it's all about Aubber on Herbert. And I got to tell you, um I I found some great quotes in here. I just want to go with some quotes before we talk about who who Herbert was, just listen to these quotes.

[00:03:40]If you really think that for some purposes we may rightly compel men and for other purposes we may not, you are bound to arrange your perceptions on the subject and discover what is the dividing line between the may and may not. It is unworthy not to take your true position in this great matter. That of a human being whose reason can put all the facts of this world in order in subjection to itself can become their intelligent regulator by strenuously and resolutely seeking out the principle or law which underlies them and simply to wait as a slave instead of a master to be swept in whatever direction the forces that are around you may happen to take. Um he says here this is this was actually the quote that I wanted to get to. I just I don't know. I read that for the hell of it. I guess I was mistaken.

[00:04:25]>> There's a warm-up quote, Michael.

[00:04:27]>> A warm-up quote. Okay. He says, "No man is acting consciously and with distinct self-guidance. No man possesses a fixed goal and purpose in life until he has brought the facts of his daily existence under the arrangement of general principles." Wow.

[00:04:42]>> Love that.

[00:04:43]>> Talking about just learning from principles. Um you know talking about this guy. So he ultimately he was a you know a Brit a Brit. He started off as a conservative changed to liberal. He was a politician uh highly influenced by Herbert Spencer.

[00:05:01]He called himself a volunteerist.

[00:05:03]Disavowed the term anarchist and rightly so. Believed in government um but did not believe in compulsory taxation.

[00:05:12]believed in individual rights, um, self ownership, you know, the lock in rights, life, liberty, property, all around.

[00:05:19]Man, this is a great guy and this was a great article and I know there's people, you know, we always are going to run into this. Well, you know, he kind of bordered on anarchy and not really objectivist. Listen, this guy was in the 1800s and he was uh arguing for stuff that is generally good. Perfect. No. But anybody in the 1800s advocating for thinking on principle, using reason to guide yourself, individual rights, great stuff.

[00:05:51]>> Yeah, indeed, Michael. I mean, he was a he was a self-made man. I mean, not that he didn't come from wealth. He didn't come from money or inheritance. He had those things, but his thoughts were entirely his, man. and he broke with his family who were conservatives, as a matter of fact, to to stake his own claim in classical liberalism and to make his own unique uh mark in the in all of the thinking and literature of classical liberalism. I I agree with you. I think this guy's a powerhouse and I think that that quote is fantastic and it should be something that people put on their profile page. Uh >> sure.

[00:06:27]>> Go ahead.

[00:06:28]>> Go ahead. No, you >> Well, then he goes on to say, "For strange as it may sound in some ears, these are the only two rival forces, the only two rival creeds that exist in the world. And whichever it is, liberty or force that is to emerge as conqueror from the great struggle. By that one will the minds of men, their hopes, their fears, their pleasures, their pains, their beliefs, and their systems be molded and shaped." Phenomenal. Yeah, that's that's like my my thoughts about the the moral landscape, Michael. You could either be a collectivist and endorse force or an individualist and endorse persuasion and reason. Ann says it may have been slightly more common then in the late 1800s, mid to late 1800s, Michael, than now for somebody to think like that. I'm I I sort of I mean he was in England, but I mean with respect to America that might be the case. I don't know about with respect to England. um in in a sense I mean people certainly talk more I think in the language of individual rights but to do so with the clarity of you know basing it on reason on principles um I think was not like he wasn't arguing for consequentialism um he wasn't making an economic argument he was making a a moral argument imperfectly as it may have been I think it was great I I've posted the article by the way from Sheldon Richmond. I posted it to my Facebook page. I posted it to my ex page. Uh check it out.

[00:07:56]Really good stuff. And uh you know, Sheldon says at the end of the article here that this may not be the last. This won't be the last we hear from Aubberon Herbert. So, I'm guessing Sheldon's going to do some more writing about him.

[00:08:09]Check it out. Wonderful.

[00:08:10]>> I also took some of Herbert quotes and uh featured them on my ex account. So, if you want to go there and look at a great quote from him, uh check it out.

[00:08:18]It'll be inspiring because Michael, we're surrounded by collectivists.

[00:08:22]Altruism rules the day. So all we hear about is emotionalism, impulsiveness.

[00:08:29]That's all we are a witness to in the national stage and international stage.

[00:08:33]It's really great to see a principled uh person whose base is reason writing in the world. We need to see that it's possible.

[00:08:42]>> Yeah. Now, just, you know, I uh I actually asked, you know, there's a few articles uh I think Pphanie is still going to be posting them, but um I wanted to know because the article said that both his critics and some of his uh allies basically said that he was an anarchist. Benjamin Tucker said he was an anarchist.

[00:09:04]>> So, you know, but the article said no, he really wasn't. So, I asked Grock, you know, what what about Aubberon Herbert?

[00:09:09]Is he an anarchist? And he says no. Uh Auburn Herbert was not an anarchist. He was a radical individualist and the main proponent of voluntarianism uh sometimes called volunteerism in late 19th century Britain. Um he advocated for complete individual liberty and self ownership. The non-aggression principle force only for defense of rights.

[00:09:30]Voluntary cooperation in all social and economic matters. A minimal voluntary state limited to protecting lock in Spencerian rights, life, liberty, and property funded entirely uh by voluntary contributions rather than compulsory taxation. Uh good stuff. Good good stuff.

[00:09:48]>> Yeah. Kira says by that logic, objectivists are anarchists, too. And that's why some of some folks out there, Michael, who aren't familiar with objectivism Iran, kind of put us in the anarchist camp, even though even though we're not. Um, you you said it says up here capitalism, self-sacrificing business, and you want to deal with that stuff before we deal with the Trump uh memorandums and all that stuff coming out of the Middle East.

[00:10:13]>> Sure. Uh, it seems that I actually put capitalism in the uh in the title twice.

[00:10:18]So I'm I'm put Auburn Herbert capitalism self-sacrificing businessmen.

[00:10:23]Capitalism. Okay.

[00:10:25]>> I thought you just wanted to talk about it extra extra bad today.

[00:10:28]>> No. Um what actually uh there there was a bunch of things that got me thinking about this. Um inflation uh on the rise. Uh that that's out there today. That's you know that's happening. The what the hell was it? the the the computer uh consumer uh product expenditures or something.

[00:10:48]You know, they're they're spending consumers are paying more for products uh than they previously were and uh you know, that's not good. We've got, of course, a lot of things, tariffs, you know, the the threatening media companies, uh you know, a lot of different things messing with the economy. But there was this article in Reason magazine um that's it talked about should you be allowed to sell a kidney um economist explains uh repugnant markets and I don't have any issue with if you want to sell a kidney if you want to sell your arm I don't really care uh you know that's your business it's yours do what you want with it um it's it's a matter to me of individual rights that you should be able to do this of course you know there's also uh you know there's arguments about more lives saved uh reduction of black markets. People are getting paid for their their uh you know for for what they're giving up. Uh it'll probably lower the costs overall for these things because there'd be more on the market. Uh and that's all true. I think that uh but primarily to me it's an individual rights issue. It's ultimately a capitalist issue. Um, now there's these arguments against it. Uh, it's going to exploit the poor. To me, it's not exploiting the poor, it's benefiting the poor. It's giving the poor an additional opportunity to make money off of their resources, right? Um, this thing commodification of the human body, I don't care about that. Like that sounds just, you know, the inequality and access is another one that they say.

[00:12:28]There's always going to be inequality and access to anything out there and you don't have a right I don't have a right to somebody else's production, to somebody else's intelligence, to somebody else's effort, you know, but people think um that they do. And then this I really loved it says there's a possible erosion of altruistic donations. Yeah, [ __ ] altruistic donations. That's what I think about this. But Mark, what do you what's your take on this? We got a few articles that are going to go in this uh you know we're gonna talk different aspects of capitalism but in maybe that's why I put it toward >> when when you're talking about repugnant economies Michael you're talking about subjects that are really ugly for most people and uh when people talk about the commodification of the human body um I'm perfectly fine with that if if that's what somebody wishes to do with their own body. I mean, we believe in full body autonomy and uh I I think the article was basically correct in pointing out that there isn't a shortage of kidneys. There's a scarcity in the market that's caused by um the way in which this, you know, people are not allowed to commodify their resources.

[00:13:37]They're not allowed to do that. Um, now it it sounds sketchy and ugly, Michael, to say that you're for a poor person to sell their kidney if they if they need the money, but um there's there's ultimately nothing morally wrong with it. If anything, um the lottery system that keeps people waiting uh and uh for a kidney and and keeping keeps them suffering for months upon months upon months on end when that suffering could be alleviated immediately is far more dis despicable than the ugliness of a rep the repugnance, you know, economy that would, you know, uh monetize this stuff. So, um, yeah, I mean, I I think it's perfectly legitimate provided somebody's a consenting adult to to yeah, do what they choose.

[00:14:29]>> Well, yeah, I'm with you. Uh, another capitalism thing, and I I try to bring things together on principle so that we can sort of uh tie them together. So, we, you know, we start off today with the advocacy of individual rights by a guy like Aubberon Herbert. Um, and then we can see an issue where rights would apply as they do in the uh, you know, selling your organ stuff. And then there was this article, Mark, the bitter lessons of sugar control in World War I.

[00:14:58]This is in the, uh, daily economy.

[00:15:01]>> Uh, and Herbert Hoover's wartime sugar program generated shortages that led to expanding rationing systems and increasingly centralized control over the allocation of sugar. Uh Hoover was commissioner as food administrator of the United States on August 10, 1917. He was a successful mining engineer and humanitarian and you know he decided to that they needed to uh you know put put controls on sugar. What now to me again this is a you're you're have you're barking dog. No, you are uh in having the government initiate force against people telling them that they can't sell their property for a given price, right?

[00:15:44]So, right off the bat, you have the violation of rights. So, the the harm immediately is done to everybody who this force or threat of force is used against. But it doesn't stop there.

[00:15:57]There's economic effects as well. You want to talk about those?

[00:16:02]>> Yeah. Look, I mean, in World War I, a lot of those supply chain disruptions were because there was submarine warfare and there it was just being disrupted by war and they had to uh what they thought they had to do was funnel a lot of product to the allies and as a result they they were encouraging people back at home to ration and they also forced prices down because of course, Michael, when you're forcing products into one direction uh and and the and the demand increas piees in another the the prices are going to rise. That would be the the uh the effect of a mar a true market in which case people would fill that that market. Entrepreneurs would fill that market, satisfy that need and prices would gradually come down again. But rising prices are unpopular for politicians. It doesn't look good to constituents. And so they attempted to also slap price controls and a regulatory commission on on sugar which created shortages throughout the states.

[00:17:01]Michael, it's like every time they try price controls, every time they try to regulate something or command control it from the center uh like this, even with Hoover, who isn't a Stanford educated engineer, um he couldn't figure it out.

[00:17:14]And uh and you you can't get any single human being to uh to uh figure out how to answer needs in a in a complex industrialsiz uh economy.

[00:17:29]It just can't happen. prices are a necessary bit of information for the people who are in those fields to to answer the need and they're not allowed.

[00:17:38]So, it caused shortages around the state uh in order to keep the prices low. They tried to ration. They had voluntary of course um they requested that the citizens do it voluntarily, but that's how they tried to keep the prices low, Michael, when they should have risen.

[00:17:53]And I think one of the main executives of of the sugar industry at the time said they should have let prices rise and then there would have been no shortages anywhere.

[00:18:02]>> So uh again this is the rational alternative channel. The show is the capitalist corner. I'm Michael Liuit.

[00:18:08]It's Mark Pelgrino bringing you current events, economics, philosophy, everything we can. Uh remember we really appreciate the uh super chats, super stickers uh as well. So the article goes on to say uh but and this is true of course but artificially low prices did exactly what economics textbooks predict. They encouraged consumption while discouraging production. Pre-war per capita consumption stood at roughly 85 pounds annually. Much of it in candy, soft drinks, condensed milk, canned goods, ice cream, and ketchup. Even at the beginning of the program, administrators acknowledged the predictable difficulties of holding prices low by urging consumers to limit consumption in the face of increased demand. By midocctober, a sugar famine was already causing sugar using factories to shut down. And Hoover was then forced to order cuts in candy production. Yes, controls, folks, breed controls. You end up having to put more and more regulations. they cause more and more harm and you end up screwed.

[00:19:13]>> Yeah. So controls create dislocation, supply chain disruptions and then those problems necessitate more controls which then in turn create more supply chain disruptions and issues. Um the solution Michael is of course not to uh interfere with the economy at all and to let prices do their work because they are information and necessary information for everybody to make their choices with. Thank you, Greg.

[00:19:39]>> Thank you, Greg, for the $1.99 super sticker. Greatly, greatly appreciated.

[00:19:45]So, uh, there was this article, Mark, and I got to go find it. It's called the pitchforks are here was the name of the article. Uh, I believe it was, yes, from Axios, and it says, "AI billionaires brace for the pitchforks." Of course, this uh refers to mobs who want to go get the rich, eat the rich, kill the rich, you know, all that sort of thing.

[00:20:10]So, let me just tell you, uh Jeff Jeff Bezos, the world's fourth richest man, said on CNBC last week that the bottom 50% of earners should pay zero federal income tax. Uh I agree with that. I don't have an issue with it. I think his motivation uh may be a little skewed. Uh Sam Alman is uh uh the CEO of OpenAI.

[00:20:32]He's a longtime proponent of universal basic income. He now favors uh universal basic compute. Giving people access what are you doing?

[00:20:44]>> Nothing.

[00:20:45]>> You're making all kinds of racket. Uh giving people >> giving people >> You know what it might You know what it might be? Because I have a microphone on my chest here. So it might be Is that what's making the noise? You hear that?

[00:20:56]>> I don't know what it is. I just know it's giving this Darth Vaderesque sound.

[00:21:00]Uh anyway, uh he wants to give this universal basic compute giving people access to AI's productive power instead of a fixed cash payment. Elon Musk, uh he has called for universal highincome checks from the federal government.

[00:21:18]Uh Elon Musk, I thought this was the great libertarian, the uh you know, big advocate for capitalism.

[00:21:25]highinccome checks from the federal government. Uh in a January essay, anthropic CEO Darl Dario Amodi uh made what he called the pragmatic argument for billionaires to support higher taxes on AI wealth.

[00:21:42]So, I mean, and of course, we have the politicians, Elizabeth uh Warren, Zoran the Socialist, but what I find just uh we also Okay, so look here, Tommy Styer, another he's running for governor as a progressive.

[00:21:57]Um he's a hedge former hedge fund manager. He's calling for more uh you know, government stuff. This is [ __ ] gross.

[00:22:08]It's also proof, Michael, that intelligence doesn't necessarily transfer from one narrow field to another field. So, a lot of these guys are >> Yeah. Well, you think it's a matter of intelligence. See, I don't I don't think that's the problem.

[00:22:22]>> You think it's a matter of trying to sway the public that is seriously against them right now to get them on their side? It's a PR It's a PR stunt.

[00:22:31]>> Yeah. I think they're basically cowards.

[00:22:34]I I think um and they're they're maybe ashamed of their wealth. Uh maybe they're afraid. Maybe they're just altruists. But whatever the the case may be, it's >> Well, this is this is true, Michael. I agree with you. But there's also a here's where I say intelligence doesn't necessarily transfer because there's they're claiming many of these guys that in the next year 20% of the workforce is going to be unemployed mostly middle management white white collar jobs on the lower rungs of the white collar jobs are going to be unemployed by AI that's why some of them are promoting this stuff called this UBI stuff because they really feel that over over time within the next decade a huge percentage of uh of employable people are going to be un unemployed by AI that the wealth that AI creates is going to have to be uh you know uh given to them as a means of support since they will have no means of support. Now I just say they they they lack imagination. Nobody knows what kind of markets are going to come out of AI.

[00:23:36]Nobody can possibly anticipate the number of jobs that it's actually going to create as most new technologies do or in fact all new technologies that have ever come down the pike have. And so, you know, they may be hedging their bets because they're afraid of popular outcry against them, which is already hating on them. And when this projection comes out that 20% of the workforce is going to be unemployed in the next year and a half, they are trying to they're trying to hedge their bets and, you know, trying to appease, you know, the populist mob right now, Michael, because that's what politics is now. Uh, you know, or they're just really bad at at uh diagnosticians, you know, I I don't think they really I don't re you know what I meant. I don't think they could really I don't think they could really diagnose the problem, Michael, because they don't put as much thought into economics, politics, philosophy, and ethics as they do their their narrow fields of expertise.

[00:24:31]>> So, uh, Megan Ribbon says, "Have either of you read Bert Folsam's New Deal or Raw Deal, resemblance between FDR and Trump is uncanny." I have not read that.

[00:24:40]I did read his The Myth of the Robber Barons, which I thought was a really good book, and I'd recommend that.

[00:24:45]>> I did read The New Deal or Raw Deal. I definitely think uh both are megalamaniacs. Both are malignant nar malignant narcissists. I think the only difference between the two is uh uh Roosevelt drank a lot and smoked a lot.

[00:25:00]Uh and that this president uh eats McDonald's.

[00:25:05]Otherwise, they suck.

[00:25:07]>> Yeah. I don't I don't know, Mark, that I necessarily disagree with you. I agree that just because a you're a person's successful businessman doesn't translate to economics. that that I agree with.

[00:25:19]But I do think that there's moral corruption going on either through moral ignorance or through just a desire to pander. One or one or the other. But however you cut it, I think it's gross.

[00:25:34]Yeah. I remembered, you know, ran talking about this. So I I looked up a few things. This is Let me just read to you the summary uh from Gemini. uh Einran strongly condemned the idea of businessmen plating the mob. She argued that attempts to appease critics or apologize for wealth or self-destructed.

[00:25:52]Instead, she urged producers to fight intellectually, reject unearned guilt, and demand moral recognition for their achievement. Uh she argued that by apologizing, compromising or seeking to justify their profit by serving othersmen, others, businessmen hand their use the moral weapons used to destroy them. I couldn't agree. Uh I couldn't agree more with that. I think that people, you know, I I remember I was in prison with a guy who was a really good artist and the guy put in a lot of work into into that and also into learning. He read a lot of books, you know, generally smart guy. And I was talking to him once and he said basically to he said, "Look, I'm not going to apologize to people for my intelligence.

[00:26:34]you know, it was earned. But there's people out there that feel the need to say, "Oh, no, no, that's not me. That's not me. I I don't, you know, I'm I'm I'm favored. I've got white privilege." Or, "I couldn't have done it without you."

[00:26:52]You know, that's the big thing. Without you, I'd be nothing. You know, you know about that from being in acting. They Well, without my fans, I would be nothing. I would you know just this attempt and then you know the idea that you have to give back all [ __ ] right >> absolutely >> and and it's gross and what really you know if you if we go back and we think about you know Aubberon Herbert talked about thinking in principles acting in principles vital and I'm going to be talking about principles by the way today on everyday ethics uh if Mark would join me there that'd be great but no pressure but either way um and you think about so you you you have a connection. So he talked about thinking in principle, talked about individual rights.

[00:27:37]Yes. When you think in reason, when you live by principle, when you adopt an objective morality, you never fall for dumb stuff like this.

[00:27:51]>> Yeah. Amen. And Michael, one of the things that you've been especially uh attacked for by objectivists uh I hate to bring this up, it's a sore spot in a way, but maybe not. Um is for sticking to principle respecting constitutionally restrained government. Um both of us have been called dogmatists in a way uh because I agree I agree with you with respect to you know the conduct of the war the way it should have been uh conducted from the very start. uh a and and we've been called dogmatism. People confuse principle with um with dogma. We should talk about the difference between the two.

[00:28:31]>> Well, that's great. So, now you've preempted my discussion that I was going to have on everyday ethics, but okay.

[00:28:36]So, uh yeah, the the idea that that some people have is ultimately that principle is just blind rule following. So when I when we say things like, "Oh, we have to uphold the Constitution," it's, "Oh, you're just going to blindly follow rules." But of course, that uh negates the u monumental amount of principles first that went into the United States Constitution. It negates the idea that to have any semblance of a free society requires adherence to written law.

[00:29:14]uh it it negates the things like the Bill of Rights. It negates the character of the person who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and then doesn't um you know it it it negates how you know when you don't follow the Constitution and don't go to Congress there's no debates on the subject so the American people don't understand. I mean, so maybe it behooves us a little bit to explain that the United States, the Constitution was not some arbitrary document where they just said, you know, threw it threw it together as if in a blender and said, "Here." This was rooted in enlightenment philosophy.

[00:29:52]Perfect philosophy, no, of course not.

[00:29:55]Good philosophy, yes. Better philosophy than it ever been, well, aside from Aristotle, probably. especially in the political realm. I I would argue, right? So they were basing it on the idea that human beings had individual rights, right?

[00:30:13]That among these were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that it was the job of the government to protect them.

[00:30:19]So then they ask, well, what is the best way to do this to protect rights? They had the articles of confederation, which was a loose confederation. States were tariffing each other. They had no real uh you know sense for national defense where they attacked. So they they debated okay well what can we do? They looked through history to all the preceding republics what works what doesn't. They studied the concrete of history. Venice, Rome, they read the great thinkers, Mchaveli, Montescu, uh, uh, John Lockach. They learned from all these things. They debated what would be appropriate and they came together and said this would be the best way to do this. All principle-based, all empirical, all debated and all embodied in that to have the rule of law. which is why by the way Ein Rand for instance talks about you have to adhere to the constitution. So you we're we're not saying that it's just the blind allegiance to any law that anybody happens to pass at any time. What we're saying is that the fundamentals of the United States of America what this country is supposed to be about the ideas are embedded in the United States Constitution. And the the alternative to following the uh constitution is to be governed by whim. In this particular case, it's the whim of a guy that many of these people had just been criticized, criticizing, calling him, amongst other things, Hitler, saying he's running the Gustapo. They they critiqued his whim worship. They cheered when the Supreme Court shot down his tariffs because they violated the Constitution. But then when it came now, now we're dogmatic for wanting to uphold the Constitution.

[00:32:07]Again, it's not based on dogma. It's based on a monumental amount of information and it's clearly principled.

[00:32:16]You have the Constitution or you have the whims of Trump. Those are your two choices.

[00:32:24]I'll take the Constitution. Thank you very much, Michael. I couldn't say it any better myself.

[00:32:29]Um, Michael Lee Woods for president.

[00:32:33]>> Who said that?

[00:32:34]>> I did. I just did.

[00:32:35]>> Oh, I thought you were I thought you read it.

[00:32:37]>> No, no. Somebody somebody in Lithuania just recently said Mark Pellegrino for president. They stood up in the middle of one of my uh one of my Q&As and said they wanted me for president. Doesn't make any difference there in Lithuania, but I refused the job, just so you know.

[00:32:55]Thank you, Robert, for your $5. Uh, I'm so sick of all you impractical idealists.

[00:33:02]Iron Rand, take that all you Trump haters. Uh, wait. The quotes one of her villains.

[00:33:08]>> Yes. The importance of principle. And this is why I really want to talk about it then. Every everyday ethics. It can't be overstated because that's really your choice in in life is governed by principle or governed by whim.

[00:33:23]thinking in terms of of long-term effects, the everything that's involved, the complete context, or judging everything based on the concrete and what you want in the in in the immediate uh case. My girlfriend is here saying, "Imagine she just starts trolling." I Well, although I love you, I'd block you if you did that, just so you know. Uh but that's neither here nor there, I suppose. But Robert, thank you so much for the $5. So, yeah. I mean, and we've got some news.

[00:33:54]By the way, as Mark said, here uh on the Capitalist Corner on the Rational Alternative Channel, we want your questions. So, if anybody has any, feel free, uh to ask. Uh that's what we're looking for. But but so we have some news today um about the you know we got the tentative 60-day agreement that they're coming in uh uh with and it seems that we are going to agree to this uh the le the you know I I sent you a lot of stuff this morning but the absolute latest news right before we came on the air from Al Jazzer says United States President Donald Trump says the naval blockade of the straight of Hermuz will be lifted and that he would meet in in the White House situation room on Friday to make a final decision on a deal with Iran. Um, you know, the straight of her moves was opened before the war. Um, you know, so treating that like it's some kind of a big victory is silly. Uh, so what have you got to that's what I want to know for everybody who thought that the United States should violate the Constitution that it was okay to do so because taking out the regime in Iran was that important knowing the character of Trump going in? I mean, are you happy with what you've got? Are you happy to violate the constitution? The war powers resolution and what you get is the straight of remuse opened which it was to begin with. Regiment intact, no freedom, you know. Um so, uh Nicole Hingel says, "Have you ever read God SAD's book suicidal empathy?" I have not read his book, but I have to tell you I'm not a fan of the guy. Um he may be a good writer but I follow him on X and some of the things that he says are just absolutely >> I I'm I'm friends with Gad and when he was writing the book suicidal empathy I had issues with deontological ethics which he actually says are the ethics that we should follow and as I told him that I thought this was the wrong way to go. He's an academic, you know, he's a he's a he's an evolutionary psychologist uh at big big university. He wasn't so happy with me. just, you know, a a normal guy and an actor, Michael. Um, contradicting a a a academic who's now got, you know, tons and tons and tons of followers on uh on social media in in part because of me, because I helped him rise, but also because he he went complete conservative, complete rightwing, and now uh has the ear of lots of sympathetic MAG of folks. And I don't think suicidal empathy will tell us anything very good. But I think since he embraces deontological ethics, I think in the end it's it's all going to amount to nothing anyway, unfortunately.

[00:36:45]But yeah, this is this this Iran deal is is worse, Michael, than than what we had before because the world has now seen that America has doesn't have the will one to complete the mission and two, we've now allow Oman and uh who has no army by the way and no navy and Iran to dictate who goes through this massive economic choke point in the world. And um that's a loss as far as I'm concerned. Um, that's that's worse than the condition was before as far as the world economic situation. Now, being in the palm of the IRCG's hands is uh is not a very reliable hand to to be in there, Michael. So, I think it's worse.

[00:37:31]Um, you the president never articulated his his message to the American people and he should have the what it should have been regime change because nothing else will do. uh since it's not that uh any deal that he makes is an American loss. Any deal he makes is looked at from the Russians and the Chinese perspective as a a deep deep deep American witness and fail weakness and failure to commit um to winning any any battle. They they they are now seeing what the formula is to defeat America, which will be superior militarily to all of them, just lacking the moral principle, fortitude, and philosophy to carry through something to its logical conclusion.

[00:38:19]>> Well said. Want to pivot to a new topic?

[00:38:22]>> Let's do it.

[00:38:23]>> Uh what so you haven't been following the crackup uh within libertarianism that that's currently taking place. I I haven't, but I love hearing about it.

[00:38:33]>> But, you know, I don't know when it was, but Rothbart basically said, "We need to form all these coalitions on given issues when we disagree with people, whatever." Uh, but we're seeing the result of that. I think you've got what they're calling left and right libertarians. Of course, each group argues the other group aren't the real libertarians, which is why I posted this morning that libertarianism is basically um an undefinable term. It tries to subsume way too many concretes. It's far too eclectic. You really don't have a a strong definition for the word. Which is why I get on people when they say, "Well, libertarianism is just anarchy."

[00:39:13]It it really isn't. I mean, anarchists are a faction within it, but that's not the fundamental faction. That's not fundamental to libertarianism. It really is just bad eclectics.

[00:39:25]But um you know they in I think 2022 they had what they called the Reno reset where reset where the Mises caucus and the Dave Smith faction took over. Um you know they wanted to go go right you know the paleo libertarians the the rightwing stuff fight woke. Um that faction ultimately nominated a Nazi uh you know I shouldn't say Nazi he maybe not because he might not actually be a Nazi.

[00:39:50]He is a Jew Jew hater though. Um that's for sure. Sure. uh a guy who was a Marxist like five years ago, a full-blown Marxist professor and they nominated him for president. Dave Smith endorsed him. Uh I debated him about uh religion and then he I actually with Rectenwald he made these claims about the deep state and this globalist running the world and this and that and he said if you want to know my thoughts on it just read my book. I said okay. So I went bought his book, read it and I came back to him because I was ready to debate and he had blocked me by then. Um there but so now uh you know with the nomination of Chase Oliver for president in 2004, I know Chase, by the way, very nice guy. I don't agree with him, you know, I agree with him on domestic politics a lot.

[00:40:40]Very pacifistic on foreign policy, but really nice guy. Um so he got the nomination. He's he's gay. Uh, so the Paleol libertarians didn't like that he was gay, whether they had admit that or not. They, you know, gay, gay, gay, whatever. Um, so there was more arguing there. And then, uh, so a lot of them ended up endorsing Trump, including the head of the Mises Caucus. She claimed went so far as to claim that Trump is basically a libertarian president and that Robert F. Kennedy is a libert libertarian in the cabinet because he happens to belong to the party. Uh so you know there was that and then there's this disgusting um Libertarian uh party of New Hampshire with Jeremy Kaufman, another guy that I debated and I think that I um I really cracked him. I think I I don't I you should check it out. It was on Larry Sharp. Larry Sharp moderated the debate between Jeremy and me. Uh Jeremy claimed that there's no such thing as objective values all the while making value judgments. Uh and then and then he said, "Well, that's his strategy to, you know, be basically being a um dick on social media is a strategy to bring people to libertarianism." All kinds of weird [ __ ] Opposes immigration. But anyway, so he uh Jeremy um was running to be the head of the Libertarian Party National uh committee.

[00:42:07]He lost his bid and the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire was disaffiliated from the National uh party. Good on them. But now uh evidently it's a gay guy that's the head of it. So they're all calling him [ __ ] and you know things like that uh on you know on social media because they're ultimately repugnant human beings. So then there was sort of a a sub u argument amongst these folks um with liquid Zulu uh evidently um sided with Kaufman in the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. Uh it's not clear to me why he says well they're the most radical faction. and that's why you side with them. Uh as if being radical in any direction means that that's who you side with. Um that seems silly to me. Uh then he was upset because the LPNH, it's looking like they're going to go after I mean the Libertarian National Committee is going, it looks like they might, I don't know if they've actually said it, is go they're going to u go after the LPNH for using libertarian uh you know a trademark violation. So, Zulu thinks that that's vindication of him because he opposes IP. Uh, it's all just a big mess with that party and it's sort of uh what happens ultimately when you lack principles, when your principles are all over the place. It's just it's it's not a good good thing. It's not a good look for them. And look, there's many people that have called themselves libertarians that I like. Gene Epste, Sheldon Richmond are just two of them.

[00:43:46]Uh David Bato I think is a really nice guy. I've interviewed him. Uh what's the guy that I just met? Chase Oliver really nice guy. Uh Jacob Hornberger is another one. But ultimately the movement and the party are a disaster. And that you know I don't want to get into that. Go ahead Mark. What are your thoughts?

[00:44:05]I think all of those people u should uh who are disaffected from the Libertarian Party's shenanigans should come over to the American Capitalist Party at americanist party.org and be a part of principled government.

[00:44:19]be a be a part of changing the the landscape so that the American people don't have a choice between whim worshipping collectivists on one side and whim worshipping uh uh well you can't call them individualists but the nichian individualists on the other side come with the rational egoists the rational egoists who understand that government is a necessary good it's just it's dangerous it needs to be contained by a constitution that people understand and respect >> I hate that saying >> but it's True. It's true. It needs to be treated the way according to its nature.

[00:44:53]>> No. No. I don't I don't disagree that government can be a necessary good. It just sounds like such a forced saying to me. I've heard it. I'd never heard it in my life until like two years ago and now I've heard it like a thousand times.

[00:45:05]It's true that we do need government is a necessary good if you plan to have a free society. I don't disagree with it.

[00:45:12]It's just one of those things like the saying has always been government at its best is a necessary evil. That's the way the founders of the country looked at it. What they were identifying is the the principle that you don't want to grant government too much power. Um, but yeah, I don't mean to pick on you, Mark.

[00:45:28]I'm sorry.

[00:45:28]>> No, it's it's a gun and and guns need to be used in very specific ways. That's it. You just have to have rules with respect to when you use the gun. And for the for me, the libertarians say the gun is evil and they throw it out. The collectivists use it on anybody to achieve social ends. the capitalists use the gun to protect innocent people against bad guys. That's that's what it's for.

[00:45:50]>> Well, that's a great point.

[00:45:52]>> Yeah, >> that's a great point. Um but yeah, so you know, the the Libertarians are are a mess. The American Capitalist Party is where it's at. Um, you know, and this is not to say that when you know that objectivism, the that the movement uh the people that I uh you know, uh the philosophy that I'm adherent to, uh objectivism, it's not to say that that movement isn't without its own problems, right? I'm not just trying to pick on libertarians. I critique the objectivist folks plenty. Um, but I one at least in objectivism you have a sound philosophy to always go back to, right?

[00:46:34]There's a true north that we can look to.

[00:46:37]>> True. And and Michael, I think you have to work really hard to [ __ ] up objectivism. I You have to work really hard. It's possible and people do it all the time. As long as there's free will, people are going to screw up the best things, but you have to work super hard because the principles are are pretty freaking clear. All right, so we've got Ian Gilmore said, "Mark has clearly seen Glengarry, Glenn Ross always be closing." Uh, Mr. Deagle says, "Ran correctly identified what's wrong with libertarianism. Their lack of philosophy led them to what they are now." Uh, Akira Felix says that he won't follow Charles too, so he already knew Zulu would f things up. These self-described objectivist philosophers are philosopher kings. Ed Chambers says sort of like war is war is not good per se but it's not without purpose and Greg Lewis jokes even if you haven't read Rothbart that's because of a post I put out there and Akira Felix says the good faction of objectivist movement is going to lose itself too though I disagree um I think that I think that good can win out so Greg Lewis um says even if you haven't read Rothbart so I asked a question on Facebook uh have you read Rothbart the reason I asked asked that is because far too many people that I've come across seem comfortable critiquing authors and theorists that they've never read. And there's a lot of people that just say, you know, they they repeat slogans about Rothbart. And this isn't because I'm a great fan of Rothbart. I think his politics are awful. I think his economics are great.

[00:48:13]Um, but his politics are ridiculous. his philosophy, the way he tries to ground it, I think is all bad. But I've read him. I've read much of his stuff. U so I can say that just like I've read Emanuel Khan's to critique of pure reason. I've read his groundwork of the metaphysics of morals so I can critique him. You don't have to read Kant and you don't have to read Rothbart. I just think that if you're going to spend your time critiquing folks, then you should read them.

[00:48:43]>> I agree.

[00:48:45]What is that? The wife?

[00:48:48]>> Yeah, I think she's talking to the dog.

[00:48:50]>> She's giving the dog a good talking to.

[00:48:52]Uh uh Megan Marabins says, "I'm annoyed that Charles 2 has more Patreon patrons than I do." To be clear, I don't think women are useless. Yes, that's because uh that's something that Charles 2 said.

[00:49:05]He's a dope, that dude.

[00:49:07]>> He said something along those lines.

[00:49:09]Yeah, we talked about it on Everyday Ethics.

[00:49:11]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:49:14]Is is this guy friends with what's his name? That uh that paleoconservative uh jerkoff that you debated.

[00:49:22]Uh is it Andrew something?

[00:49:24]>> Yeah, I don't think they're friends. No.

[00:49:27]>> Okay.

[00:49:28]Because that sounds like something that guy would say, too.

[00:49:32]>> Yes. It includes view from a cage, Greg.

[00:49:34]If you're going to critique that, you should read it first.

[00:49:38]>> Yeah. And you should read it. I read it.

[00:49:39]It took me a long time to get to it, but I was shamed into it. And you know what?

[00:49:44]It's actually a really good read, so check it out. Um, it's especially clarifying respecting objectivism.

[00:49:50]>> So, uh, Ian Gilmore says, "Not sure Charles too is friends with anyone." And Akira Felix says, "Charles has no friends, >> and he's likely a virgin, which is why he's also a misogynist, probably."

[00:50:05]Michael. Um, so, uh, did we go through all the topics that quickly?

[00:50:09]>> We We've gone through all the topics.

[00:50:11]We've gone through extra topics. We're waiting for questions. You know, I've been blaming being alone for why I go through things so quickly. I guess I didn't send enough today.

[00:50:21]>> Oh, you said you sent plenty.

[00:50:24]>> Well, I don't know. Uh maybe not. But I will say this again. Um you know, this is the rational alternative channel.

[00:50:32]We've got multiple shows on it. Um, if you like what you see here, or if you're interested in ethics, you're interested in um if you're Hold on one second. If you're interested in uh criminal justice, we've got a lot of great stuff on our channel.

[00:50:49]Check it out. In 2:30 p.m. Eastern time, I'm doing Everyday Ethics. Um, you said there's not a lot of fiction books on my list. Uh, Mr. Deagle. Uh, I don't know if that's I I think there's about uh 70 classics on there, fiction classics on my list. I generally don't just read fiction to to read it. Um, I've read a lot of the classics and if somebody tells me there's a specific fiction book I need to read or I ought to read, I will check it out. But, uh, you know, time is limited and you don't get to just, you know, you can't just read, uh, an infinite amount of books. So I focus mostly on educating myself. Yeah. The vast majority of books I read are non-fiction. That's true.

[00:51:34]>> Go ahead.

[00:51:35]>> Do you have any do you have any you have any great recommends a classic fiction that uh you as a top top five? Let's say >> you want to hear my top five fiction books. Um I'm not going to include anything from objectivism because that's just too you know too obvious. Um, I would I would recommend, let me think, uh, Lay Miser Rob.

[00:51:58]>> Great great book.

[00:51:59]>> Great book.

[00:52:00]>> Um, Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin.

[00:52:03]>> Great book.

[00:52:04]>> Um, Withering Heights by uh, Emily Brontes.

[00:52:09]>> Been years since I've read that one.

[00:52:12]>> Um, let me think if I could think of another one. Uh, Countmani Cristo. No.

[00:52:18]>> Yes. No. No. You can't forget that.

[00:52:20]>> No. I I am going to forget it because I want to throw in two from dostoyfski. I want to throw in both uh crime and punishment and the brothers kurasimoff.

[00:52:33]If you want me to if you want me to include countmani Christo and >> you must you must.

[00:52:37]>> Okay, I'll give it an honorable mention.

[00:52:41]>> Or I would like it better than brothers.

[00:52:43]>> Or I'll I'll let it replace Withering Heights.

[00:52:47]>> Let it replace Withering Heights.

[00:52:48]>> Okay. It can replace Withering Heights.

[00:52:50]>> Although Although I took three cracks at the Brothers Caravazoff and never got through it as a young man.

[00:52:57]>> Well, hold on, dude. You're doing then what I just said not to do >> as a young man. Well, I read a I read 200 pages of it, my friend. So, that's that's getting quite a bit through it.

[00:53:07]And I didn't have that same problem with The Count of Monte Cristo. So, I can say in my view, The Count of Monte Cristo is better >> than The Brothers Karamaza.

[00:53:15]>> No. Did you >> from my perspective?

[00:53:17]>> Did you make it to the Grand Inquisitor section of Brothers Kuramazoff?

[00:53:26]>> It's been it's been 20 years, so I don't remember.

[00:53:29]>> So, we're going to say no, he didn't.

[00:53:30]So, Mark is um committing the the uh what's the word here? The cardinal sin.

[00:53:35]>> Hey, but I read Crime and Punishment three times. I enjoyed that book quite a bit.

[00:53:39]>> That is a phenomenal book. And for for 20th century books, um, if we're going to stick to that, Sometimes a Great Notion by Ken Keezy was really good. Uh, Kiterunner was another really good book.

[00:53:52]>> Um, Book Thief, I think, was a good book.

[00:53:54]>> Good one.

[00:53:55]>> Um, so yeah, I've read some some of those.

[00:53:58]>> Yeah. And you're not a you're not a fan of Heinland, right?

[00:54:01]>> Um, I've only tried to read The Moon is a harsh mistress, but here's the thing.

[00:54:06]you know, sometimes a a book doesn't um it doesn't resonate because of what you're currently doing. Like I like I have to uh you know, every day I'm reading massive amounts of articles, right? So then I have to like I'm I'm interviewing this guy next week on uh his book, Wrong Numbers, I think it's called. So now I have to read that. Um I want to interview Andy Bernstein on his book on determinism. So he sends me that. Uh I want to debate Mike Huer on uh his theory of ethical intuitionism.

[00:54:40]So I had to read a few things like that.

[00:54:41]So I don't really have time to just read for leisure and that's what I was trying to do with Moon is a Harsh mistress. So I don't know if that affected uh my interpretation of the book. It's possible.

[00:54:54]>> Yes. And Greg Lewis Book Thief was made into a movie I think with Kate Winslett.

[00:54:58]>> It was. I have not seen it though.

[00:55:01]>> Um good movie.

[00:55:02]>> Oh, we're up to 859 subscribers. Please subscribe, please.

[00:55:06]>> Yes, please like and subscribe this uh to this channel, folks. The algorithm likes it. Michael, you want to do the capitalist thought for the day?

[00:55:14]>> We're not there yet.

[00:55:15]>> Yeah, we are.

[00:55:16]>> No, we're not.

[00:55:17]>> Well, because the the subjects have quite naturally run out, so we might as well just sign out.

[00:55:22]>> No, we we have to ask questions. We have to go on the we have to answer the questions or read their answers to yesterday.

[00:55:30]>> Okay.

[00:55:30]>> So, doc Dr. Strange Love. So, the one doctor who did the autopsy was wrong.

[00:55:34]How do we know that that he was I think that's sarcasm in relation to the George Floyd thing? Uh, Sardo, >> what was what was the question again?

[00:55:44]>> The the question was had nothing to do with the answers. I asked what topics we should cover that we haven't been. Um, the other guy, Zardois, says I'm wrong and I'm okay.

[00:55:55]Uh, because it's he says it's okay to be wrong on things. Okay. So, you um give your uh capitalist thought of the day because it's your turn and then I'll do uh what I I'll ask the questions.

[00:56:13]>> All right. Well, yes, folks. I think what distinguishes uh capitalist uh cap the capitalist party particularly from every other party out there in the world. So this is going to be my capitalist thought Michael is our is our basis in principles and not floating abstractions not principles that somebody deduced you know in their own heads but principles that are grounded in reality from inductive reasoning. So every every principle that we ascribe to can be reduced to perceptual reality.

[00:56:43]That makes it a very very strong uh principle uh principled party folks. Uh and I think it's the only alternative that exists out there for us. So uh please go to americanist party.org and check it out. And I'm hearing a massive echo in my in my headphones.

[00:57:02]>> Uh sorry to hear that.

[00:57:06]I've got on echo cancellation for you, but I guess it's not working. So, my question is going to be before Mark takes us out, uh, is what is your and go to YouTube and answer the question. Do not answer it here. Go to YouTube and answer the question. What is your favorite fiction book? You can even list your top five if you'd like. Okay, now you go ahead, Mark. Do your little thing where you take us out. Yeah, folks. You have the whole weekend now to check your premises. And then Monday, we're going to be back here. Same uh bat time, same bat channel. Um and uh I don't even I don't even remember the time, Michael, since it's out here. It's it's it's uh 6:00 p. p.m. Paris time to 700 p.m.

[00:57:47]Paris time. Is it noon out there for you? Is it noon Eastern?

[00:57:51]>> It's noon Eastern.

[00:57:53]>> Noon Eastern. Yeah. And 9 9:00 a.m.

[00:57:55]Pacific for you guys out there. So, uh stay tuned. and check it out on Monday.

[00:58:00]We'll see you then. Just check your premises.

[00:58:04]>> Peace. And don't forget to tune in 2:30 p.m. today for Everyday Ethics.