Welcome to Keith's night. Don't tread on anyone in the libertarian Institute. Danny. Duchamp returning, guest and champion of the show. Danny, thank you for your time. Thanks very much for having me. How did you first hear about Richard? See Eli. I don't recall if it was mold bug specifically but it was one of those near reactionaries
using him as evidence. That America is a communist country and they make their case by just showing Eli and people like him and the effect that they had on American politics. Yeah. And the, so the first my first introduction to him wasn't a flattering one.
Looking at his Wikipedia page, he lived from 1854 to 1943, was an American Economist allegedly, using that term loosely author and leader of the Progressive Movement, who called for more government intervention to reform, what they perceived as the injustices of capitalism, especially regarding factory, conditions compulsory education child, labor and labor unions.
He is best remembered as a founder and the first Secretary of the American economic Mike Association as a founder and Secretary of the Christian social Union, Thou shalt, not steal and as the author of a series of a widely read books on the organized labor movement, socialism and other social issues. So before we get into equality of opportunity, the section of his autobiography published in.
I believe it's 1938 the sections titled my belief in equality of opportunity before getting into that, why do You opposed equality of outcome. So yeah, equality of outcome is the normal thing to bashful modern, conservatives when they are talking about leftist attempts to Institute some major, in the name of equality, they say equality of opportunity is what we want. Not a quality of outcome and to be fair, they have some good points that I do agree with
equality of outcome. Is it does seem difficult just intuitively for anyone. One to support that. If you have two people who are both made worse off, right? They could become more equal. How could I see a moral ideal? That could result in everyone being worse off, be a decent moral ideal. That's, that's excellent.
I think it was me watching a speech of Barack Obama while he was president, and I'm sitting there wondering, he's talking all about equality and I go. This is like the least equal thing I can imagine. He has executive powers. He has like a 90% civilian hit rate in his drone program and he's really worried about some people in the voluntary sector making more than others. Is there anything? Being more unequal than the citizen to the state.
Like the police officer says, you have to obey my arbitrary commands or I get to kill you more or less and we get to K2 angle. That is the most unequal thing as bad as, you know, my boss and my parents and some jerk friends, nothing is more unequal than that. So it's so perfect that they will promote this thing that could never be achieved because the more legislation you have, the more unequal equal is and they're constantly pushing for
more legislation. So of course, one of my favorite means ever is communism leads to a quality. There's this giant statue of Chairman Mao, how many Chinese people have a statue in China as big as that one of Chairman Mao very right. Anything else on equality of outcome before we get into Eli's my belief in equality of opportunity. Yeah, yeah.
So obviously Eli's stick here is going to be talking about He'll talk about equality with an implication that what he's in favor of is some side being raised up, right?
If you're if you're actually in favor of equality and at all like of opportunity, outcome, any kind of equality then there must be some situation in which you would be willing to accept a lower overall standard of living for people in order to make it more equal, if not, then your standard see, Actually be that you're in favor of high living standards in general. Not that you're in favor of more equal living standards
excellent. Please read the first paragraph and we will analyze it with pleasure, okay. So my belief in equality of opportunity. My belief in the importance of equality of opportunity has never wavered or changed. The struggle for equality of opportunity is what made America great. From the point of view of social philosophy. This struggle runs through So our entire complex history like a red thread, giving it unity and explaining what is American as nothing else does in the 18th century.
It was based on the philosophy of natural equality later, this philosophy was modified by the recognition of the existence of natural inequalities today. We know that there are vast natural inequalities of naive of native ability among men upon this knowledge. It is based upon us. Knowledge is based the attitude which characterizes Erica at its best. The attitude expressed by the words, give him a chance, it's give him a chance, not give all
an equal chance. Because when you're thinking of him, you're thinking one person, I'd like to give a person a chance. But today, you'd be talking about 330 million people, but if it's a principle that has to apply to all 7 billion. So I'm guessing the UN would be behind this equality program and he says the struggle runs through our entire complex Story, so he's giving progressives a narrative to build on.
So, it's saying not only do you have this belief but your ancestors had this strong belief and now it's resulted in you. So you need to carry the Baton forward. So so manipulative and it just goes to show how important historical narratives are when it comes to convincing people of something. That if they already think there are part of it, well they'll continue to promote it. Any thoughts on the first paragraph? I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.
The I think that a lot of early I shouldn't say early but this era of socialists in America. What they tended to do was they wrap socialism in the red white and blue, right? They would tend to try to find some way that they can relate to their relatively foreign ideas to Liberal principles what that America was based on and try to work them in. So that any push towards socialism Let's just just us carrying on the Proud tradition of our forefathers.
It's and I think that if you really talk to him, or if there was someone who he thought was an ally talking to him, I don't for a second. Believe that Eli would say that that America was founded on sort of, socialist principles. I think it's quite cynical that he's trying to weave that narrative in there. It's, I think it's intentionally trying to mislead chapter goes on He says some years ago, mr. Vaughn bethmann-hollweg, son of the old chancellor, who was
famous for his remark. That the treaty with Belgium was, merely a scrap of paper. Visited me in my office. In Chicago, we talked about many things and At Last, I said to him, you have been in this country, three months, you have traveled extensively, you are a keen Observer, your impressions are vivid. Tell me what it is that characterizes America above all other countries. He replied quickly that what characterized America above all other countries, could be summed up in the phrase.
Give him a chance. He did not speak about the speed of our life, our acceleration. He did not refer to America as a land of unlimited possibilities. The four little words, give him a chance, expressed his outstanding impression. So let's try and take their own move and use it against him. I believe in the concept of give him a chance. Why should I advocate the principles of
anarcho-capitalism? If I believe such a thing, Yeah, so giving someone a chance in the lingo that he's using here, seems to essentially mean provide him with material resources at the expense of someone who does not consent. We have a word for that, it's called stealing. There's there's General reasons that giving someone a chance or
giving someone anything. Without the consent of the person who previously owned it, there's a general reason why that will tend to result in were social outcomes. So, I get the value of the thing that I stole from you, you lose that value. However, there's also the fact that now you're less incentivized to work because, you know, the stuff could be stolen from you at any moment.
Why build up your capital goods and your resources to try to make a better life for yourself of good or be taken away? So it reduces the incentive to produce. And it means that you're going to try to spend money on security restrict the amount that could be stolen from you. So that mountains lost. So, when something stolen, it's not a straight transfer from one person to another. It's a friends for with a significant loss in the process.
So just from a utilitarian standpoint, you would want the resources to be taken to be given freely right? Between people. Yeah, under anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism volunteerism. Whatever you want to call it, you would want to give people chances, but the reason you'd want to give them a chance is because that person who you're giving a chance to you believe is going to do something good
with that chance, right? You're going to invest and his projects or you're going to give them a job or something like that because you think that there's something of Merit to what he's doing or to what he can do. And that's kind of giving him a chance to giving him a chance where it's rather than, you know, taking involuntarily from one person and giving to another. But instead, Voluntarily giving to someone on the basis that he
will be able to produce. That's something that tends to raise the standard of living for everyone rather than leave us in a race to the bottom. Yeah, the word give is extremely manipulative because people will sometimes say, it's important, we give these people X, whatever X is in, in the topic Social Services, access to education, access to healthcare.
I like, giving people things, as a matter of fact, you can purchase Purchase the volunteers handbook on Amazon or get it for free on Odyssey.com. I love the Catholic essays in their idea of brilliant people. All Danny wrote an excellent article, the utilitarian case for voluntourism, it's in there along with some other great Heavy Hitters.
But when you say give it assumes that one person's kindly giving, what they really mean is, I'm going to put obligations on total strangers to do something and to Bear a very Large cost. When it comes to government it to the tune of what it's estate, get like 45 trillion dollars every year. So it's not like you're asking them to help you lift the groceries. It's like, you're asking them to work a third of their time for someone else, and it always seems like they're talking about people.
They already like, like, if they say, well, I really want to give people a chance, by the way, half the country as a bunch of racist, bigots homophobes, who want women to be. Tied to the handmaid's tale. Well, you want yourself to be forced to fund those people. That is extremely rough. Ridiculous. I mean, they spend all their time vilifying them and they want to help them out
coercively. Also, the word chance is a bit of a lie because if I give someone a chance and let's say, they screw it up, I've screwed up jobs in the past and it assumes I can stop giving them a chance. That means that Point in the future it can stop. You know what we're going to fire. You actually you're not allowed to fire someone unless you meet the following OSHA criteria and so therein lies the Ridiculousness. Two of the four words are
completely manipulative. They couldn't even give us four words. That's why I didn't read this whole book, but I get you told me that I probably should anything else on give him a chance. No, I think we've done that to death. Plus we're about to get into the Crux of Of it, which is where he moves on from give them a chance and tries to relate that to his equality of opportunity, attitude. Very nice, let us hear it. Okay, so on its positive side, this struggle for equality of opportunity.
Expresses itself in a multitude of ways, which aim at giving every individual a chance to develop all his powers, whatever? They may be to the fullest extent, we want every American to have an effective right to be provided with Real goods for physical growth to maintain his health and strength in a favorable environment public school system. Cannot be explained.
Otherwise, even now in publicly supported colleges and universities, the struggle is going on to give those who are qualified to benefit by at the opportunity for research and scientific investigation. Every step forward in the history of public education has met with obstacles and those which have not been overcome gradually yielding. To the irresistible pressure for equality of opportunity. However there still lingers on in our Public School System.
The idea that all men are born essentially equal that they should all have the same kind of training. This is fallacious and socially in Juris. Generally, speaking and academic high school education is desirable, but there are many who cannot profit by it. It has been said that there is no greater inequality than equal treatment of unequals. George Washington did not believe in equality of powers. He thought that each should have an equal chance to develop what powers he had.
So that our government might function as the makers of the Constitution intended, it should in his farewell address. He said, promotes then, as an object of primary importance institutions, for the general diffusion of knowledge in proportion as the structure of a government gives forced to public opinion. It is essential that public opinion, should be enlightened. The makers of our constitution expressed their belief in equality of opportunity.
When they safeguarded to all the like, the fundamental rights which are stated in the first ten amendments, no agency of the government May abrogate these rights. Good. So so again, we have him
invoking. The founders telling people, this is already part of their tradition and specifically George Washington. So if you want to be like someone like George Washington Advocate equality of opportunity, notice give him a chance opportunity is not necessarily meaning that all chances should be equal because it's so undefinable and so unachievable. Even at the time whether you're in Arizona or New York or what if your neighbors who are raised by different parents?
This equality of opportunity is completely the or rather the concept of equality has nothing to do with whether or not people have opportunities. The fact that you would want to make those equal, I'm not sure that it's even desirable at that point. What were your takeaways from that paragraph? Yeah, so the first thing is what you had on to that again. He's trying to weave that into the American narrative. He's Not trying to be honest about it and say, okay, I have these different ideas.
I think we should take a left turn here, he's trying to weave it into the general thrust of American History. If that was in fact what the founders intended then why? Now do you have to set up these programs and institutions? If this is what they meant, then why did they not set them up? I think I think that that tells you that that is not at all. What their intentions were nevertheless his whole thing. About equality of opportunity. When he's talking about giving
people a chance, right? He's talking about having a public school system so that everyone gets some kind of education, it should be noted that there's a mismatch between the policy prescription, even if it works. And the, the ideal like the words that he's using. So if everyone goes to a public school, a government school that isn't necessarily going to give her everyone the same opportunities, right? Because people still have Some
families, right? They'll be in different areas which were in poor areas which will have different quality schools. There's going to be as he mentions different inherent characteristics. That will be able to take advantage of you're not you're not actually going to get to a quality with the measures that he's advocating. So I think that that's kind of a foot in the door thing. I will propose it. Let me draw an analogy to the current gun control movement.
That's so the current gun control movement. They'll say, look at all these shootings in America, we need to ban AR-15s. I have 15 the know what used to shoot most people in America. That's not what most shootings are caused by. They know this. The point is that they will propose some method of solving the problem that won't actually resolve the problem. But we'll start taking away rights so that in a few years when has failed, they can Advocate to take away more of
your rights. And I think the same is true here like that equality of opportunity is an absurd goal, right there is there is no way that everyone is going to To have the same opportunities and I did an article a while back
called against equality. And one of the things that you can find animal in the sun scientific literature, is that reading to your child, whether or not you read bedtime stories to a child actually, has a larger effect on the outcomes then sending them to a private school which is pretty significant, like, so your read your kids, by the way, guys, that's a additional thing here, but That's something that is going to create a large inequality of opportunity
because the kids who didn't get rid to as a child, they don't have that opportunity. We really going to say that you can't read to your kids because that gives them an unfair opportunity, right? Or they will. All the point is that there's always going to be something that you're never going to get rid of all of it.
And so, it justifies an Ever larger and larger state to solve this unsolvable problem, and the end of the day, Day, the things he's relying on in order to justify his equality of opportunity, aren't equality of opportunity, right? He's not actually proposing. Equality of opportunity, hear what he's saying is give people a chance, giving someone a chance, doesn't mean that everyone has exactly the same
chance, right? Someone who already has a chance, it's still good to give him another chance, right? If you if there's something you think you can do well, even if he's screwed up before, give him another chance, right? Even if another person doesn't doesn't have one more and better, For people, that's a good thing, more, equal chances for people, it's morally irrelevant.
Yeah and certainly, if you want more opportunities you'd want to make sure there's not one group of people coercively intervening in voluntary exchanges. It's like, well hey, give this man a chance. I know he doesn't have your license. I know he doesn't have your certification and frankly we don't respect that. Anyways give this man a chance for Christ's sake. Stop halting his Progressive future to make a better life for him and his family so you can just use this same argument.
If you Advocate it it doesn't justify the state at all as David Friedman. Does an excellent job pointing out. So much of the greatest inequalities are the result of things provided by governments. He uses the case of education is everyone equally educated. I mean, surely we got 12 years that people spend in their younger and younger portion of their life under State schooling. Certainly everyone should basically everyone knows the same amount of stuff.
No, not true. Watch, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, even the smartest people. There's a wide range of intellectual diversity there. He also uses the court system, so someone who has no money and gets a public defender versus, I don't know, o.j. Simpson, or Jeffrey, Epstein in 2005, not in his recent non suicide, but I mean he gets Alan dershowitz to give him like the total sweetheart deal like that you would get if you like probably stole a Snickers bar or something.
So there is no equality when it comes to government. So his entire thesis has rendered. I think ridiculous. Let's go on to this next one on the negative side. This struggle for equality of opportunity. Expresses itself in the determination to render adequate service for material Goods that
we receive. We are determined that men in our country shall no longer receive something for nothing because if they do, so they abstain tracked from the wealth produced that, which should go for service. Sorry that was hard for me to read through Stock Exchange manipulation through dishonest. Manipulation of real estate through. Unfair, practices in merchandising millions are given to those who have taken
something from nothing. We are trying to reduce this amount to a minimum property, which is inherited by passing from generation to generation, includes vast.
Of surplus value in 1891. I made the following plea for reform of the laws of inheritance quote, excessive wealth discourages exertion, but a suitable reform of the laws of inheritance will remove us. Many Idol persons, who consumed annually, immense, quantities of wealth, but contribute, nothing to support to the support of the race and who leading Idol lives, cultivate bad ideas. And disseminate social poison for the sake of the sons of the rich, as well.
For the sons of the poor, we need a reform of the laws of inheritance. A reform of the laws of property will help us to approach that ideal condition, in which the man who does not work, shall not eat. And it will also tend to the equalization of opportunities.
So as to give all a fairer start in life, allowing each one to make use of such opportunities as Capacity and diligence permit, and thus rendering inequalities economic and social less arduous, and in Juris, injurious more stipulating and helpful. Lord have mercy, what? A pile of nothing. What are your first thoughts? I don't know where to start reform. Okay, so the probably the wealth transfer The Inheritance reform. And that he's that he's advocating here is probably the
place to start. There's I think the for the first part it's based on kind of a myth that most wealth in Western societies is based on inheritance, right? That all the rich just tend to inherit all their. Well, there are a couple of ways of showing that this is ridiculous. Like Thomas Soul often points out that. I think it's one in five Americans will be in the top 20% at some point in their lives.
Looks like four out of five will be the top 20% at some point in their lives, but I think that the clearest way to point this out is point out. Look at the way that wealth increases, especially during the time when he's writing, right? You, you've just gone through the one of the longest periods of biggest periods of wealth creation in the history of humanity and we are talking about inheritance, right? Right? If all of that wealth is created, it clearly was not inherited.
Right? Is all of that wealth has come new into the world. Someone went out, did some work and produced it. Now, he talks about a bunch of a bunch of professions, a bunch of different things you can do and tries to basically throw mud on them, right? There's something about Stock Exchange investing in the stock exchange and investing in property and things like that. And you just write that off as though those people are doing.
Just nothing productive. It's just ridiculous and nothing but All of those things are entirely useful, right? So, investing I think, hopefully, most people know why investing is useful, but basically, the reason is time preference, I've worked and saved up a lot of money. You have a great business idea, you could wait, and save up a whole lot of money to put that into practice, but then would lose out on the world would lose out on that.
Well, that you could have created if you just started the business now. But I lend you the money and therefore you Go out and do that business. That's the same if it's during the progress of a company. It's a similar sort of thing for real estate investment, all of these sorts of things, the things where he's talking about someone getting something for nothing, that just simply aren't the cases. He's just riding off a whole
bunch of productive tasks. There are situations in which there are Market manipulation tactics that don't produce for people. Right? Where it really is getting something for nothing and that would be, for example, a politician getting involved in the market and using their position. As a politician in order to control stop movements, right? That arguably would be the case, but that's I don't think what
he's talking about. He's not talking about government officials, he's talking about business people, that's who's trying to go after is, so yeah, the whole thing, he tears down so many Different professions that are entirely useful. Oh, he also talks about and so wealth transfer from parent to a child, right? That's actually a particularly useful thing. If I am working, right, someone might say that.
Oh, well, if I can keep all of my own wealth while I'm alive, but then once I'm dead, then it will go revert to the state or some portion of it'll revert to the The state that can't possibly change my incentives, right? That can't possibly change my theme for some make me want to work less, but of course, what could be a larger incentives than leaving? Something to my children. I don't know if you realize but people actually care about their
children, but lat that's a yeah. It's confiscating. Someone's wealth after they die. Does not change the kind of Billet area social effects that it has when you confiscate, well, Yeah, tell me there was probably more than that. Yeah well that's that's the gift Gallup, where they throw 50 false things that you that you just say, well there's got to be
something that's right about. This Thomas Souls book, basic economics, he talks about a study by the University of Michigan and the IRS and he says, well certainly you can see the top one percent wealth increases what you're not looking at. Are the different human beings that Then occupy that 1% the analogy that I like to use is there's a guy who gets a 50 million dollar Grant by the Paul Krugman foundation and he goes and he looks at a high school
and says, all right, 25% of people are seniors. 25% are freshmen. Here's the top and the bottom guy comes back. 20 years later. And wouldn't, you know, it? Still 25 percent of seniors are 25% of students or seniors in 25% of freshmen. So these groups haven't moved They're still seniors and they're still freshman. Well, the obvious response is, those are different human beings than the ones you study 20 years ago.
So what you could actually do was look at individual incomes and see if those increase over time and of course they do as a result of competition and capital investment. So I mean there's really nothing to what to this argument at all. And of course, you know, bashing Investments, as if initial public offerings that give so many.
As the startup Capital to employ people, to invest, in research development, to write that off as useless, a guy advocating, government schooling is worried that an institution might be useless. What, what's going on? He must have worked in the Wilson Administration. Let's get on to read the next chapter for us. Many objected so many objected to my proposal to reform inheritance tax laws. They said you are proposing measures which a the rights of private property.
This is not a valid objection. The right of inheritance is one right and the right of private property is another and distinct, right? The right of property means an exclusive right of control over thing. The right of inheritance The transfer of this, right? The state or local political unit must be recognized as Co are entitled to share in all inheritance. Has a man is made what he is by Family town or local political Circle, which surrounds them and by the state in which he lives.
And by the nation, a tax on inheritance is the means whereby the claims of the town State and Nation May secure recognition. No wise man wants to abolish The Inheritance Of property but a great deal is being done and war is going to be done to bring under control. The passage of property from generation to generation and thus to cut down very gratefully, the receipt of something for nothing. So yes, there was something that I really wanted to hit on there. Okay. Well how about this?
The state or local political unit must be recognized as Co are entitled to share In all inheritance has so, okay, that's basically Barack Obama's, you didn't build that, does it. Do you remember that? Hopefully, people do. But Barack Obama had the speech where he talks about, you know, how your business requires roads and stuff in order to function. You didn't build that. And therefore, you know, the state is entitled to some share of what you have and so are all
the other people in the country. And so really, really Yo, no man is an island that kind of thing. The problem is, is that there are two ways that a business acquires things in order to function. One is on the open market, right? We purchase certain things and then transform those things. So, you could also argue the Third Way where you create yourself but good start to purchase a resources. So two ways you purchase them on
the open market. In that situation, you have paid, you have already paid for the things that you're using. So the you didn't build that there for you over some of it. No I paid what I own it is already done. The other way is the taxes, right? So you are going to use some Services, the government provides like roads or maybe the workers you use used Public
Schools or things like that. The current taxes were supposed to pay for that but apparently they're not enough apparently, some dilapidated roads and shitty public. Schools is not, it's not enough to cover that. That's the government gets the trillions of dollars that are currently does, apparently insufficient we, it needs more
now, it's ridiculous. Clearly, the amount of taxes that people pay have massively outstripped, any of the things that are actually useful in their lives, right there the amount of money that it would actually cost just to run some schools and Roads, right? If it was any other entity doing, it would be a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the
current Us government's budget. So, yeah, that whole thing about how if you create a business or you earn a living or you produce something that you really ho Society in general, no Society has already you've already paid Society, voluntarily purchase the things you use. You have more than paid enough taxes to cover the government provided parts of it. So that that's just as honest and it's honestly, the still
going today. A with, or at least not so long ago with Barack Obama. Well, look at the bait and switch, they bring you in with something real. No one got where they are by the fruits of their own labor.
Of course, you are raised by parents and you probably weren't that productive at this time until 14 16, 18 lot of 30 year olds, I know would even put fall under this condition so he takes something that no one does it all by themselves and of course, when you're born into a There are a number of things you
benefit from. It's also a number of costs imposed on you, but he then takes this reality and says therefore this group government becomes the co are not Walmart or I don't know who was big in the 1830s A&P Grocers, or I don't know if Sears was going on back then, but it's the total non sequitur of, this is a reality in which people live, you are able to reap benefits from the work of others.
As you mentioned, We pay for things, and that's how we can compensate them, but it doesn't follow that. Therefore, only this group. Now, maybe if he was a real believer in a quality, anyone at any time can take anything from anyone else? Because, I mean, they didn't build it, they basically got that they drove on roads that other people paid for. So theft isn't really a thing. But by that metric, well, government doesn't have the right to own four trillion dollars every year.
Anyone can just go into the Take whatever they want. They can go into the Pentagon because they didn't build that. I mean they only got that because other people did stuff so we can go into the Pentagon and take all of belongings that the Department of Defense has and then other people can take it from us and all you have is this circle of theft unless you recognize self ownership and voluntary exchanges anything on the need to question property titles and inheritance?
Well yeah so jumping back to the first part of the paragraph. That I just read where he says, they said you're opposing measures, which impaired rights of private property, but he says it's not a valid objection because the right of private property is the right to control something. And the right of inheritance is the ability to transfer the right to transfer that. Right? And those are distinct things. No they're not like one is a
subset of the other, right? My right to transfer this property to someone else is part of my control of it. If I can. Transfer this property to another person in to some degree. I do not control it, it's so it's it's I don't know. It's just an elementary logical mistake. He's just saying these two things are just different inserts. Not a valid objection. No one is a subset of the other and so it is it makes me wonder kind of how much he can believe it himself right to what extent
does. He he doesn't strike me as an idiot. It's an elementary logical mistake that you know, if You handled that in to your philosophy? Professor? You didn't F, right? This is just one of the subset of the other. No, go try again, right? That shouldn't be something that mistake that he would make. That makes me think that he's not actually making these
arguments in good faith. He's just trying to find excuses right that he thinks the reader will buy for increasing state power, which is what ultimately he wants to do. That's it, that's his job. He sells justifications. State power. Final paragraph says, in these ways we are trying to carry out the philosophy of equality of opportunity, expressed in our constitution.
We must not run all the people through the small Mill educational or otherwise, we must give each one in opportunity for educational spiritual and religious training in accordance with the character and makeup of the individual. We provide opportunities and give Each his chance that is America. It's too boring for me to say it a third time, but I will, again, he's trying to build on the historical narrative. This is why understanding history as well as philosophy is.
So, vitally important anything on that last paragraph or the section in general. Yeah, yeah. So running all the people through the same Mill, we know, it's not run, all the people through the same Mill. I thought he was in favor of equality, that that Literally is what? Yeah, would be required. You're going to have to put everyone in the same. Same position. Ultimately, I think that there's just Falls to all of the same problems that any equality.
Argument Falls to when someone's trying to sell a quality to you, whether it's opportunity, outcome, whatever it is. What they will do is they will paint a picture and in which one person has less of something than the other. Them and then they will say, well, wouldn't it be better if they both had a lot? Notice that in such a situation? What they're doing is they are imagining one person rising up to meet the other person. The reason that that seems good.
The reason that intuitively go. Yeah. That seems like a great thing I guess. I do favorite body. The reason it seemed good was just because the overall benefit to everyone was increasing, right? One guy was becoming better off and the other guy wasn't getting worse off. Like The concept of equality should be distinguished from the
what's concept of improvement. The only way you can say that actually, no, I do favor equality rather than just Improvement in general, is to say that there might be some situation where I don't even want someone to get worse off so that they can all be the same or even that both people get worse off but they are but they're all the same and the telling thing is that that is kind of what all of these advocating for is going to result in. So giving government control
over education, stopping people from passing their wealth on to their children. Which thereby reduces their incentive to produce in the first place. All of this sort of thing is going to reduce the overall production of Humanity's. Reduces our ability to produce better schools for entrepreneurship. It reduces the ability or an incentive to produce things for our children. All of that is just going to be a slow degradation And of humanity.
And even if that resulted in more equality which as you pointed out from solid gold, masks statues, it does not. But even if it did result in more equality, who cares? I want things to be better, not more equal. Excellent points. Yeah, there's a great article called is equality. A worthy goal by Bradley, Thomas. It's in the book, free pdf,
Adonis, e.com. Anyone with the faintest acquaintance with reality, however, realizes that the human species and kind is uniquely characterized by a high variety diversity. Differentiation in short. Any quality included in these human inequalities and differences are traits like intelligence, Ambition, work, ethic skill sets, ability, Etc. So, this is the ultimate Fool's errand, to think that we can make people equal in Opportunity or in equality of outcome. Danny do Trump.
Where is the best place to find your work? Just Danny to show.com Da in. And why do you see aham p.com? It's pretty basic website, but it has links to all of the places you can find me my subset. My YouTube. My Odyssey. My float. Put a all that kind of good stuff. Thanks for everyone for watching. Keith Knight Don't Tread On Any libertarian Institute. They need you top. Thank you for your time.