If you think for a moment, its obvious that there is a vast benefit to you in having a friend or a lover. You choose relationships with people who are important to you. You choose to give your affection to people who mean something to you. Now, if you heeded the altruists actually gave your love, or try to give your love indiscriminately, that would indeed be selfless to love a stranger or an inning is an act of self abrogation. But genuine love is not selfless. It is not dispensed as charity. I mean, just think about the absurdity of decluttering that you love someone not because of anything worthwhile in him or her, but purely as an act of charity. Now, its an absurdity because love is given not into the right in response to a persons value to you in some way. And as a result it offers you the opportunity for exquisite joy. To love your spouse, to love the person with which you want to spend your life, to embody the things you value most. That is an intensely personal, selfish choice. Its only the disgraceful misrepresentations by altruists that could make someone regard love or any positive human relationship as self sacrifici sacrificial. Now, maybe youre asking yourself at this point, okay, i see the value of selfinterest. I understand what rational selfinterest is. I understand altruism is back. Nonetheless, altruism is bad. Nonetheless, dont we sometimes have to prevent your private, your self interests from being implemented because it clashes with the Public Interest . Dont we sometimes have to sacrifice an individual selfinterest for the greater good . Thats the question, in effect a rhetorical question, that is accepted by almost everybody. And my answer to that is emphatically no, not only emphatically no, but i deny that the question is even valid. Because what actually is the Public Interest . Think about that for a second while i take some water. Its a deliberately vague term. Its not definable. The best that they can come up with this well, something is in the Public Interest if it benefits society as a whole. Okay, thats a nice bromide, but a bromide isnt an explanation. How do we actually identified with the Public Interest versus the private interest . For example, lets say the city takes over some land and builds a public park. Everybody says what a wonderful thing youre the Public Interest is being advanced. Were asked if the same piece of land are bought by some private developer and made into a parking garage or a shopping mall, people would say thats private, selfish interest. Or if the government sets up a national museum, thats in the Public Interest. If instead that same land is used for private parking garage, well, or movie theater, thats in the private interest. That isnt in the Public Interest yet people benefit from those things. People benefit from the garages into movie theaters and the shopping malls. They keep patronizing those things, so what is it that makes one category a Public Interest and another a private interest . You may say the answer is number. More people benefit from a Public Interest project under private interest and thats what defines it, but that isnt true either. Take Something LikeYellowstone Park. Youve heard of Yellowstone Park. Subsidized by the government, big Public Interesting served by. How many people do you think those of Yellowstone Park a year tracks sound like boy, are you a cynic. 3 million. How many people visit disney world a year . Which is private, right . 45 million your item making it now a rhetorical question. So you got many, many times more people visiting disney world and Yellowstone Park, yet yellowstone is Public Interest. Disney, selfish private interest. Or take television. Weve set up whole scheme, a whole network of Public Television, public broadcasting. So the average primetime audience of a Public Television is under 2 million households. The average primetime audience of commercial television is about 40 times, more than 40 times that number. And yet about television, Public Interest. Commercial television, nasty, private selfish interest. Why . What is the defining characteristic to distinguish one from another . Theres only one answer. The answer is a distinction is that between the earned and unearned. Its between trade and charity. Why do i say that . Look at what a Public Interest project always entails. Its never a commercial activity. Its not intended for users to cover the cost, even if theyre charged. If the user were to cover the cost it would become commercially viable. So youve got lets eat museums are skating rinks or whatever or amtrak, so people may pay a nominal fee to use them, but the cost is not intended to be borne by paying customers. It is intended to be subsidized by others. So in a private interest project like lets say disney world, the users are the ones paying for it. The users pay because they value it. They decide, each individual decides the cost is worth the value to me. I get the pleasure from it is worth what i have to pay. If you decide its not worth it to me, you dont paint and dignity, and no one makes you pay for it. So this no conflict. Everyone gets what he values and if you dont value it, you spend your money elsewhere. Were as any Public Interest project, the nonusers pay. The nonvaluers pay. So what you are left with is the bizarre situation in a Public Interest project of having the users benefiting without paying, and the nonusers pain without benefit. That is the hallmark and the central purpose of a Public Interest project. To give people something that they dont pay for. In other words, to give them something by means of a sacrifice. That is the whole idea of a Public Interest project. Now, remember when they say quote society as a whole is benefiting, there is no such thing as an undifferentiated mass that constitute society. Its not some single entity. It is the people, the individuals who make it up. So when they say that theres a clash between the Public Interest and the private interest, what that means is theres a clash between the interest of some individuals and the interest of other individuals. Theres a clash between individuals who are benefiting without paying, and those who are paying without benefiting. Who then is the quote public in these situations . Well, its all those people who demand to be given something that is not being provided to them voluntarily. They want a part and theres no private entrepreneur willing to build them apart and charge them for it. So they go to the government and say we have needs. We dont want to pay for it but we wont get without paying for it. And as along as if theres any group of people with this kind of need, the government declares a Public Interest exists, and we have to fulfill it. So there is no real validity to the whole term, to the concept of a Public Interest. Certainly not when it means something divorced from and opposed to the interests of actual individuals who make up the public. But there is such a thing as something the road is in the interest of the public to have. What is that . Well, we can define what an individual interest is a we can define it as to live not by leeching off of others but to produce the value life requires to be with other people, not by force but by cooperation voluntarily, so forth. So that interest, and thats in the interest of every individual, every adult in a society. Now, that interest is not advance when the government creates parks instead he rinks and railroads that these people are compared compelled to pay for. But would advance the interest of everybody . One thing, freedom. Individual liberty is the common denominator of all the individual interests in a society, which means not that the government creates these parks and museums, but that it recognizes the individuals right to choose whether to create or to patronize parks and museums and so forth. Freedom is the one thing that is in the interest of the public because, and only because, its in the interest of every individual who makes up the public. However, altruism has a very different respective on freedom. Altruism is incompatible with freedom. Freedom means, however you going to define the areas in which freedom is supposed to apply, whatever you say an individual is free to do means that he has a right to do without interference by the government. Freedom means the individual is regarded in some realm asking sovereign, as being in charge of his own life and his own decisions, and the government cant intervene. Now, altruism by contrast denies that the individual is an autonomous being. Quite the contrary. The individual has to serve other people. The individual is a servant to the needs of others, and needs of the collective. If so, a servant certainly has no rights. He has only duties. He has to obey what is sorry. He has to obey what his master tells him. And if this master tells him company for a public park or his master tells him he cant criticize the government because of the collective decide its not in the Public Interest, then you have to obey. There is no such a thing as freedom to an entity who is required to serve others. Think of a physical slave. Everybody understands thats wrong. A physical slave is somebody who works only for the benefit of others and not himself. And a physical slave has no autonomy. He has no rights that are recognized i the master, and that same thing applies to a moral slave under altruism. To altruism and freedom, altruism and rights are contradictory. Now, a doctrine of egotism leads to individualism and freedom and capitalism. Rights are something selfish, its a selfish value. Is a your life belongs to you. Under altruism your life is not an end in itself. Your life is a means to an end to others. So you must sacrifice. You must sacrifice your autonomy, your rights and freedom in order to serve society. And the culmination of the idea of selfsacrifice is an authoritarian, totalitarian state where the government removes all vestiges of selfishness from the citizen. There is no selfinterest, no private profit, no individual rights. There is only a duty to serve the collective, which means the government has as they represent of the collective has total control work over how your to live your life. That is ultimately what altruism leads to. Karl marx had a very astute statement of this when he said that under a system of communism, the guiding principle is from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. Thats a political candidate at emerald tenant. Is a tenet of altruism which underlies, which has to underline any totalitarian system. So to conclude, let me just say that selfishness, rational selfishness is good because the life of the individual is good. Your life should be precious to you. You should be able to pursue the values that make your life worth living without having to sacrifice that simply because others demanded of you. You should not be obligated to give up this precious thing which is your life and your ambitions and your goals. You should not be obligated to give it up to the wishes and demands and the needs of others. Not of your neighbor and not of your society. Your life is yours, and you have a complete moral right to live it. Thank you. [applause] thank you very much. We will take questions for a while, and i will ask first if there are any students in the audience want to ask questions. Before you do that, this annoys me to no end. When i moved away from the microphone doesnt this sound sound very bad for sound . [inaudible] just a little quirks how about if i hear . Does that sound different . Okay, we will have to rectify that. Next year we will rectify that. Are there any students in the audience want to ask a question . Yes, in the back. [inaudible] thaokay, im going to repeat questions because theres no microphone in the audience. The question is why do i set up a choice between two extremes of altruism and selfishness . Altruism, the question is, does not necessarily endorse the kind of extreme selfsacrifice that im talking about and would be happy to people just live their lives as they wish and what, occasionally give charity i guess . Well, thats how most people live their lives. In other words, most people live their lives somewhere in between. They are not a telethon, they are not mother theresa, they are not howard roark. So they lived some combination of those choices. Attila the hun. But that does not negate the fact that the choices that they are contradictorily choosing to live one day but not the next are mutually exclusive choices. And in any decision you make the question is, do you have a right to live for your own sake or not . Thats a yes or no answer. If the answer is yes, then thats fine. Then you dont have a duty to provide for others needs. You dont have to subsidize peoples mortgages. You dont have to pay for somebodys health care. You dont have to send foreign aid to bangladesh, but we do all that. Why . Because the premise is you dont have a right to live for your own sake. You most you must sacrifice it for the sake of others. Nobody can implement altruism. You would be dead. So there is an inconsistency in that people the yes, we believe in altruism but we dont want to take it too far. But my point is, any step that you take altruism is too far, and there is, in fact, a logical reason not to take it further. You have totalitarian if in the world. You got to say require the individual to to sacrifice everything to the demand of his state. Thats altruism. What youre saying is some people do not consistently act on altruism. Some people are more consistent, some people are less. Thats a problem in their lives. They are accepting a contradiction to some extent, and to whatever extent they practice altruism the they are undermining their own happiness. Happiness. My duty is to give a right to your happiness you shouldnt have to live only a half happy life. You should be able, morally entitled to live a full happy life and reject altruism entirely. Are there any other students with questions . If not we will take it from nonstudents. Are there any questions from anybody . All right, ill give you a minute to think. [inaudible] the question is what about the people who depend on the sacrifices that the majority . You mean people who are, lets say, paralyzed, cant move, in an iron lung, whatever, have no means of sustaining their own lives. Well, first of all their not dependent on the sacrifices of the majority, just dependent on somebodys sacrifice. And i would not even put it that way. I would say they are dependent on charity, and thats, that would be the case of a very small number of people in society who were simply physically or maybe even mentally incapable, incapable, no matter how much they want to try, they are incapable of supporting themselves, in which case you will have charities, private charities, which will sustain them. In a free society theres never been a shortage of private philanthropies. Even today whether government takes so much of our taxes away, we still have hundreds of billions of dollars, more probably, being spent on private charities. The important point is this. When charity is private, it means you decide whether your money is being well spent by helping someone who is in trouble. So you would want to make sure that the person is an innocent victim of his misfortune, that he is not responsible for it, not perpetuating it, is doing or has done whatever he they could to avoid the problems hes having. Then you decide okay, this person seems to warrant may help. I will help him and theres no problem. Its a tiny, tiny minority of people who will be in that category and there will be more than enough boiling charities to help them. Every Single Person, i dont think, but i mean every Single Person who raises the objection that who will help the poor, all of those people will be the ones helping the poor because no one will they will have more money in the pockets in addition from which to be charitable. But even under those conditions, in a free society, even people receiving charity will be sort of found by a certain understanding. Table understand that the donor does not have a duty to provide for him to, and they will understand that they have to cite thank you because they are not entitled as a debt to accept that money. And if those conditions prevailed i think there will be more than in a charities to help genuinely unfortunate. [inaudible] the question is, while i was writing my book did i gain any significantly new knowledge about this issue of altruism, ecotourism are some new knowledge about how to prevent the ideas more effectively . Yes, i did and i will be discussing some of them at the summer conference in charlotte in the beginning of july. But ill tell you one thing which im not going i dont know if actually i may be covering it. I dont want to give it away but one of those things, one of those issues is the understanding of what a concept means, means to altruism. Its a very different concept from what need means objectively. So thats my teaser to get you to come to the conference. Yes lex sat back. Standing up is a very good idea because i have trouble. [inaudible] [inaudible] well, yeah, it is certainly can be. Im sorry, repeat the question. Can i say why i think it would be in once interest to be charitable under certain conditions . And as i indicated in the talk, the fact that you value your life, thats the crucial thing. Because you value being a human being. Thats who you are. There is, therefore, some tangential value attached to all human beings because they, too, are what you are, and potentially they share basic values with you in less you know otherwise. So there is a value in knowing, gee, i felt another human being become in effect a more fulfilled human being ive helped. Ive enabled him to do human beings should do, which is not wallow in some emergency on the brink of death, but to live a normal life and pursuing values and be happy. That is a definite value. Its a marginal thing. Its not a central issue in ones life. You dont go around looking for people in misfortune like Mother Teresa and all these professional charity givers. That would be contract its funny, because its really the altruists, the hardcore altruists who find it hard to conceive of the idea that you would really willingly help somebody out. They think the government has to do because it has to put a gun to your head, which is what a Government Program means, you have to have, you have t to have again put your head in order to help out an orphan who is starting on history. No one would do that willingly. It has to be done by law. It makes sense that the altruists would think that because the altruists regard other people as threats to enter everybody is a potential threat in that anyone can come to you and say i have needs, it needs your money. Under altruism youre not dealing with equals. You are dealing with the relationship between servants and master, and there can be no benevolence between relationship of servant and master that can only be a benevolence of equal. When youre dealing with equals i think you can have a certain sympathy for others which makes it in your interest to want to help them in certain very limited situations. Any other questions . Yes. You didnt stand up but i saw you anyway. [inaudible] say that again. I missed that. [inaudible] can never what . Clash, okay. [inaudible] forests, okay, right. [inaudible] okay. Now, leave aside global and Climate Change because thats a subject for a whole other discussion. But why dont you just say force and plant life forests carbon dioxide, emitted oxygen and thats good for us. So the question is this, i wont restate your question. He is saying there can be a clash between private interests and Public Interest. For example, its in the private interest to cut down forests and its in the quote Public Interest to maintain those forests. Now, i think that thats a baseless claim. Its like saying, you know, there are fish in the ocean, right . We have private fishermen catching the fish. So the private interest is to catch the fish, yet the fish and the Public Interest that we need those fish. On the one hand, you have private people catching and killing those poor fish, and the public needs those fish alive. Thats exactly the same analogy to use the forest. Theres no clash between the Public Interest and private interest, excuse me, no clash between private and Public Interest on the one hand with fish because the reason people are catching fish is to sell it to other people who want to pay for it indeed can stay alive. Those people are as much of the public is anyone else but the same with trees. We cut down trees not for the sadistic pleasure out of sawing through it and hearing the tree scream in agony. We cut down trees because trees are a value to human beings. They are of greater value cut down than they are intact. Are in tact. If they were more about the impact they have a bigger market. People would be willing to pay not to cut the trees down. Yet people pay to have them cut down because theres a value. You need trees to build furniture and to make books and to build a million other things that are of value to human beings. There is no value leaving nature untouched. If there were no plant life on earth, then am i scientifically correct saying we couldnt survive cliques is that true . So, therefore, theres a value to having plant life. If we are cutting down too many trees so peoples lives are in danger, whats going to happen . Other people will start planting more trees. And, in fact, if you look at the statistics, im 99 sure, not 100 , you will find that today there are more trees and forests in existence than there were 100 years ago. [inaudible] okay. The reason is because if its a value to cut down trees, and people are actually rational and think more than five minutes into the future, somebody will have this brilliant idea. People say, i cut down my tree, privately owned, if i cut down the street now and i dont play any more trees, whats going to happen tomorrow . Im not going to have any trees. Maybe i should plant more trees. Thats a brilliant idea. All this stems from the fact that an objective value in these things are human beings, as against the idea that we had to leave nature untouched because the intrusion of human beings on Natural Resources is something innately bad. Thats a you that i reject. If you can identify some objective value to something, then people will do it. If there is no value, they will not do it because there will be no market for it unless you find some of these, some crazy person who wants to hear the trees scream when they are cut down. Any other questions . Yes. Stand up, please. [inaudible] [inaudible] thats a good question. The question is there seems theres some activities are some professions that entail a great amount of risk, such of military service or fighting diseases. Does this somehow mean these people are living altruistically because they are risking their lives in service to other people . No. I would say definitely not. And its true that there are professions that inherently more risky than others. I dont think it means that inherently people do for altruistic reasons. For example, the military. Lets take that to start with. The reason somebody would volunteer for military service, and i think it should only be voluntary, not mandatory, i dont believe in conscription, but the reason people would join the military in a situation where they will have to fight and risk their lives is if theres a threat to their country. And whether its a threat, people by the millions signed up. Has happened in world war ii. They signed up because they understand that theres a threat to their own freedom, to their way of life. Theres a threat to them and the people they love. So its not like they are saying, i have no interest in whether america remains free on a, but im going to help fight just out of purely selfish motivation. Its their values that are at stake, and to do it. Other professions Like Fighting disease or lets say firefighters, they risked their lives. They take every precaution that they can, and its like any legitimate profession. They are attracted to it. They like the activity of putting out fires, of saving people, the whole spectrum of values inherent in any profession is a there in these, too. Its not an irrational profession. Its not like, you know, Somebody Just irrationally jump off cliffs to impress his girlfriend. But theres a genuine value to it and a genuine need for professions like firefighters. And proportionally, yeah, its not like nine and 10 of them died. Very, very two of them died and to take whatever precautions they can in pursuit of a genuine value. I dont think a firefighter says this has no, this profession Means Nothing to me. I get nothing out of it. But because maybe someday i will rescue a baby from a burning building im going to risk my life. They look at it as a profession. In fact, ive heard this, havine had direct experience. When soldiers come back home and the politically correct approach is to say thank you for your service, which is okay, i dont have any terrible objection to that, but many of them say, they take offense at it. They dont want to be considered all tourists being like Mother Teresa going around the world. They have a job. You look at it as a job, a profession after performing it. They try not to get hurt, try not to get too. They know theres a risk but they want to be seen as performing something not in altruistic selfless service. Okay, any other questions . Yes. Okay, you really should stand up because eletter is whats preventing me from seeing you fully. Go ahead. [inaudible] because the glare is whats preventing me from seeing you fully. [inaudible] oh, yeah, theres a whole popculture with selfhelp and looking out for number one and think of yourself. All of these things are ways that sort of avoiding the central question, i shouldnt say avoiding. These are all ways of granting the basic philosophic premise that altruism is good and selfishness is bad. And saying nonetheless, if you do this you are really not being really selfish that you are doing something that is really going to help society. So if you become a better person, the people around you become better and everybody benefits. Its like people always say that selfishness is good because youve got, when youre in an airplane and the oxygen masks come down when theres a danger of the crash, you have to put on your mask first and then help somebody else out who cant do it for himself. So this is their way of saying selfishness has redeeming virtue because you should be allowed to put on your mask first because then you can help others. You should be allowed to live because if you are dead you cant help others. Thats not a justification are living. Thats conceding the altruistic claim. Those are not really logical or philosophical anyway. Its the way of incorporating altruism and finding some gimmick of saying you can still be quote selfish. [inaudible] all right, lets start with the second. When it comes to government, isnt there an inherent danger of corruption where government officials with engaging nepotism or other forms of favoritism, hiring people for giving out contracts and so forth. Well, to that id say there is that danger and thats why you have to have very strict oversight and government, you have to have a separation of power as much as possible. One of the genius acknowledgments of the Founding Fathers in setting up the political structure of the United States was in setting up systems where power is diluted as much as possible, so you have, for example, hours after the levels of government, local level, state level, you have courts with different levels. You have it set up so you cant have one person or one office or one particular government body able to exercise unlimited power. So theres no way to avoid the possibility of corruption, but what will happen in a free society is that the ramifications will become quickly clear. Let me say it differently. Thats not exactly what i mean. In a free society the opportunity for corruption are a million times less, because you dont have the government, with the power, the government cant say were taking over the Health Care System and we are going to give out a million different contracts to computer programmers and to Health Care Consultants and to blah, blah, blah, blah. All of these opportunities will not be there in a free society so theyll be compared to what it is now, a large amount of corruption. If it does happen, if you find that some is engaging in nepotism or other forms of favoritism, the kind of government that will exist in a free society will be much more open than it is now and to be much easier to discover that corruption. I think it will be much easier to get rid of the guy rather than the way it is nowhere they are so entrenched and you cant put anybody out because they got all of these political connections. You dont have to worry about those things. When we have a free society, you come to me if theres a problem with corruption. Now, your first question was about whether theres an inherent conflict in just setting up the structure of government so lets say you wanted to set up a police force. Some people will want a bigger police force, some want a small police force. Maybe some want him to wear blue uniforms. I was wanting to wear red uniforms. You will have these kinds of differences but its not an issue. Because you will set up a government. You will have various parts of the government in power to do certain things, and whichever part of the government is empowered to decide the, of the uniform, will decide to get into any people realize, you know, after a year of yellow uniforms are terrible, they need do is to didnt outright an accounting change his mind or he will be voted out of office in the next couple coming. But theres no way, i think youre looking for some magical solution to avoid any possibility of anything, a people doing something wrong. [inaudible] but what is coercive about having a red uniform rather than a yellow uniform . [inaudible] why it is not hiring who is being coerced . [inaudible] okay, but thats a much more substantive peace. I apologize for not understanding. Effect of some designers are not fulfilled is not coercive. If i want more people to be hired and the government doesnt agree with me, that is not coercive. Thats the governments prerogative, its not mine. If i can persuade enough people that the government is wrong, in the next election we will elect someone else. The important point is this. Coercion means somebody using force against you in an area where you have a right to act. So if you are dealing with your property and the government says were taking it away from you, or you owned a forest, private as far as you want to cut the trees down and the can says we will not let you come thats coercion. But if the government says we are entitled to establish a Police Department and we are only going to our 10 people and not 20, 15 people who havent been hired cant go around and say may decide is frustrated and thats coercion to you have no right. Use a coercion. [inaudible] taxes are a different issue. Forget about taxes. The question is, excuse me, let me talk. Your questions, our taxes course of . The question isnt whether its coercive simply because you have to pay for an extra. What you dont want to pay for any extra . My view is, once you have the government significantly change in terms of what its functions are which means it no longer does lets say 90 of what its doing now and its left with 2 of its proper function, once youve done that then you can address the question how should government defined. By nancy. In my ear should be voluntary and it would be financed voluntarily the people are rational enough to get t to the stage where theyre not allowing government to get involved in these 90 of things that shouldnt be. People will see that its in their interest to finance a police force, or whatever. Then if they are unhappy with the way that police force is being run, then the next time that the tax collection comes around, i call attacks even if its voluntary, they will not pay and stable work to higher, to elect a Different Police official who will have the support of other people and, you know, they will get the number of Police Officers that most people wont. The main point is that this. Im being very verbose. If taxes are voluntary then you are paying for the services you think are of value. If you know longer think they are of value, you will stop paying those taxes. Any other questions . Last question. Let me just, okay, we have to close shop at nine. Go ahead. [inaudible] thats a good question. Why do i try to rescue the term selfishness since it has negative connotations and application we should use another term, like do you have a suggestion . Okay, thats part of the problem. The more substantive answer is this. Words represent concepts and concepts are used identified certain sense of reality that need to be classified into a conceptual category. The way selfishness is used now in terms of its explicit means, referring to that is a term that is not appropriate. We have turned the editors are parasites. We have concepts of photos. What we dont have is a concept to name selfish behavior that is nonpredatory, and thats the concept is. The problem is that even the altruists, the people who keep pushing this false connotation of the term selfishness rely implicitly on the proper meaning of selfishness. In other words, selfishness is used today does not refer only to the predator. Because if it did then why would people think that, you know, steve jobs or bill gates or all the people who are nonpredatory selfish people, why would they think it is something that . They would say i never thought of what bill gates does. Let me think of a word for it. What happens is the term selfish now is a package deal and a package deal means theres an expletive meaning and an implicit meaning. The implicit meaning of nonpredator, of the bill gates and thomas edison. By packaging it together, the pushers of this view in effect are saying they point to the bill gates, excuse me, they point to the achille patella and say by selfishness i mean try to but im using it to describe bill gates and thats why people have a negative view of genuine selfishness. Its not explicitly identified but it becomes buried under this let me give you a quick analogy. I know we have to close. Take the concept in equality, okay . Thats another package if you. Peoples that inequality is bad. What do they mean . Explicitly, they say any quite as bad because unequal rights and people are on equal before the law. Thats a bad. So the they kept the idea bad ad then they say lets surreptitiously implicitly apply it to inequality of condition were some people are richer than others, even though each one gets what he deserves. So they are taking an explicit reference and subordinating the implicit reference in order to destroy that implicit reference. We have to say no. With selfishness lets rescue the implicit reference because we need a concept they refer to it, and we dont need a concept of selfishness to refer only to predators and parasites. We need t a concept and thats e empty rescue selfishness. Okay, i hope that answers your question. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming. [applause] the bookstore is closing any moment to anyone who wants to pick one up, peter will be staying on in signing the books for the next couple of minutes. Just in closing i want to thank you all for coming. Thank you to cuny for hosting these events. Thanks to cspan for filming, and thank you to the Ayn Rand Institute for putting on these events. At night. [applause] [inaudible conversations] booktv is on twitter and facebook. And we want to hear from you. Tweet us, twitter. Com booktv or post a comment on our facebook page, facebook. Com booktv. I wrote the book, my brother told you what i wrote, for america, to thank america. I was shocked that there was so many they didnt do it but i had to do it. Because 5 million of us are alive today. Not all of life. Some of them died but they were side they were saved by the americans. I knew the fact that roosevelt sent back 3 million jews to die. That was history to mean that i read about but it doesnt matter what roosevelt did been. That all matters to me what the soldiers did in america. And what they have to do all the day because the only things that work is strength. Strength. America is the strongest country in the world. You dont go about apologizing. You go around fighting for the rights of america because everybody wants to come here. [applause] everybody. We all want to come here because there is no place like it. You cant change it. And dont try. Nobody should try to change it. In my business the most important people out there, young people. Because youre the guys that dress. The older people like us, they need a wedding, funeral. You need, you are our future because you dress to become, enjoy the future. We are older, and you our future. Thats how i look at you and thats one, what i expect of you. Because you should all do not exactly what you have to do, but me, you were born here. If to be president , you work hard enough, you could become president. Made item smart enough to be president , but how could i become . I wasnt born here. I cannot do it. But you should not take taker so for granted because you are the luckiest people in the world. But if you dont do nothing with it, then you are wasting it. It. You can watch this and other programs online at booktv. Org. How did elon musk become elon musk . Guest well, you know, through a long series [laughter] of incredible events. He is, hes sort of lived the American Dream in a lot of ways. He came to the United States with nothing, about 100 in his pocket,