I think that there are a lot of libertarians to start her pain starts. And am i libertarians them contains different things. Some forms of it are very burkey n. A hayeks kind of the least inorganic growth is the essence of works to you. But some forms that are very rationalistic and really believe that society by applying different roles, especially economic principles that are morally signed chafic can maximize freedom and therefore maximize happiness. What pain shows us in the course of his own thinking and in the evolution of his own thinking is how radical individualism leads to the desire to liberate the individual Firm Reliance on other people, which is i would say the essence of canes goal come out the to the creation of a kind of faceless provider and get there himself. He takes the steps and shows you the tendency among us american conservatives to think of the welfare state and sec before progressivism that alphas the german import. In a lot of ways it is. Our welfare state is not bismarcks welfare state. Its very different. The purpose of the is to enable the individual to have a kind of the illusion of independence, to enable people to meet their material needs without being dependent on people around them, were dependents and people around you is the human condition. There is no real way around that. Burke says society should be formed around the fact that these unchosen obligations to people immediately around us and especially in the family should be the core of society. Payne says in order to break back, we have to actually have a distant faceless provider of material benefit. That is what the american welfares date more or less looks like he had a dozen existing social democracy or humanitarianism and practice. Although a lot of the arguments on the left sound that way. It is and are very radek individualism. And the left is much radical. Were you find radical individualism on the right isnt libertarianism, in a sense that society should take above all. Libertarians are, in a kind of no mans land. They tend to end up on the right because they think the greatest threat is government access. I think thats true. Theyre not exactly conservatives as many of them would be the first to say. It used to be much more grounded and whenever people taught me libertarians have split up, not in the area which is conservative economic thinkers are libertarian economic anchors and they basically share the same a small cars. I think it is increase in libertarianism, a sense of society as this kind of unguided, organic thing that should be allowed to grow an experiment. Conservatives have different views about how the limits on that kind of experimentation should be set. The basic see how society is not a rational plan thing, but a growing organism is a view many libertarians share in common. Ive long argued that judges are utopias and most conservatives find one in the past. For modernday liberalism, it is the College Campus now. Instead of Classless Society come to you at kid, especially at elite colleges, food provided, shelter, and security. People clean up after them and get the most independent people. So very quickly because we are running out of time. The current political climate, particularly on the right, the tone of this prudential and a burkey and sense come and not it, but skeptical. I dont think im spoiling anybody you side with burke. Its very much out of tempo with the time. Particularly on the right he stays. Do you think the American Conservative Movement can move back to a more burkey and temperament . Guest yeah, or forward. I think that part of the reason for the book is to offer a different intellectual history of ourselves. Intellectual history is very important to conservatism. We define ourselves that way. I think too often when conservatives in america reached our intellectual history or philosophy, we reach for the most radical version of the story of the american founding. We reach for a jeffersonian tale of what america is and we then squeeze lincoln into that story and ourselves into that story ended into being too radical a story about ourselves. What burke offers is a different way to understand the liberal society, including our liberal society. Achievement, not a break from the past, but achievement of western civilization. I think americas greatest achievement was not achieved by throwing away what came before, by making them the best of it. And therefore as a society that improves and grows by gradual refinement of themselves, by becoming more like its bestseller. That is not a radical process and not a process that requires revolution. It is a process that requires conservatism. One of the lessons we could take from burke is in part the process involves an engagement of governing with policy, he thought you had to fix public problems before they get so big they invite radical solutions. For he was interested in the details. The reflection of the revolution is full of tables of economic statistics. I think conservatives should do more of that. The third of what i do in my day job and this is why. I think it is important for conservatives to be involved in government. I think it is also important for conservatives to approach our society from a disposition of gratitude and care rather than to begin from a place of anger at what is being lost. I am angry about what is being lost. Ii think the left today is destructive for the american ideal and has too much power and its those destroying the american ideal. The solution to that, the way to persuade the American People of a different path is to offer that different path in a concrete way to make a case that is friendly to the present into the future that does not seem like because it is not like a simple nostalgia. The ideal i have is not in the past. Its in a Better Future for america that looks more like the best of what we have and have had in this country. Conservatives thrown may be in the way suggested is that correct into that. Its the only thing i can do. The british exceptionalism and how basically the american is the british man laughed aloud or Something Like that. I was trying to get at this earlier, that so much of what accounts for american prince pauls come as conservatives arguing american way is really a cultural product. So the question i have and its fairly unfair to bring this up with two minutes left, but if thats true, and as you say that our liberties are more conceptual and a cultural product and they are necessarily from abstract right, what does that say about immigration . And can you have the protection of these rights is a cultural product if you lost the sort of cultural cohesion and consent to us that wants to them for granted . You know, what it means is america is an actual living being. And not just a set of ideas on paper is one way to think about that is really two of cultural continuity, so to start to come into the society. What it can mean is america is something that can transmit itself to a future generation, including immigrants. Im an ultra patriotic american. The reality of the country, which are one appeals to me in a powerful way. Thats been the way for generations and generations of immigrants to america. America is open to immigrants because it isnt simply britain. Our way of life doesnt require that your family can trace its continuously. But that is not because our way of life is defined by abstract and supposed to our way of life is defined by the actual living existence of an incredibly free and open society that allows people to experiment with different ideas and be constantly influenced and changed and improved, provided that these ideas in these changes are grounded in an american idea of a free society. What ever does want to the third is that, that reality. Not just the abstract i suppose. Not just what weve may defend in the present, but the combination that makes possible a free society and history of the world in the most open. I think we can still integrate immigrants if only we tried to. The problem is we dont really try to. We not try to teach ourselves and are to teach outsiders about what American Life is all about. I think we have a terrible failure of assimilation in our country. If we can address that, that we dont have to be any less of a nation of immigrants than theyve ever been. I dont know fatso burke wouldve thought, but thats it i think. Without thank you for doing this. I hope everyone goes out and get the great debate. Guest thank you very much. Otb site on Georgetown Law Center professor, david koplow to discuss his book, death by moderation. The book looks to develop weapons that are less lethal than the weapons they are replacing. This is about 20 minutes. Well, booktv is on location in the Georgetown School of law here in washington d. C. Where we are interviewing some professors who are also authors are joining us now is david koplow, who has written a book called aside six death by moderation the u. S. Militarys quest for useable weapons. First, give us your professional history. Guest im a professor of law here at the Georgetown School of law and ive been here since 1981 where my specialty has an International Law and within International Law, i teach and write in National Security. Within National Security, my subspecialty as arms control. Since ive been to georgetown, ive had two or three times where ive had a leave of absence for a couple of years to work in the government. Most recently the department of defense as a special counsel for arms control and prior to that, about 15 years ago, i was the deputy general counsel. Host how did you get involved with arms control . Guest its always been of interest for me. Ever since i was in college. In fact, i decided to come to law school mostly because i knew i wanted to work in the National Security community and it appeared to me that here in washington d. C. Commie just about need a law degree in order to get a taxi, let alone to get a job. I was hoping my law degree would give me an entree into the National Security community and his work. Host in your book death by moderation, you talk about a revolution in military affairs. What do you mean by that . A guest military technology does not improve sort of this new straightline curve. Instead, what often happens is there a sudden abrupt jumps were suddenly military Technology Changes relatively rapidly and there is a stark difference in the before and after. Depending on how you account them over the years that beginning with some pain where the military Technology Change because there is much greater range than i previously had. There is the Industrial Revolution in military technology in world war i and world war ii. Today, i think this guy several different kinds of revolutions in military Technology Going on continuously. Posters such as . Guest one has been the revolution towards weapons that are more usable. What i mean by that is weapons that can be wielded in combat with them are daft touch. Part of the problem with many kinds of weapons have been met or so big and so powerful that the user is they would cause more destruction, more damage. They take a look at a number of case studies, each one of bush as an illustration of where the United States has been deliberately develop weapons that are designed to be less powerful, less sadly, less destructive than the kinds of weapons they are designed to replace. Host what is one of those weapon systems today . Guest the first dose duration and easiest to grasp is the precision guided emissions. The oldest of the case studies as an illustration of where by making weapons much more accurate, much more accurate than theyve been previously run against the user a great deal of military advantages. You can be more precise. You can make sure you heard only the target theyre aiming at and they use fewer weapons to do less damages. That makes that more deaths, more precise, more useful in combat. Host was the neutron on going in that direction in a sense . And custodial illustration of the second of the case are these, which is Nuclear Weapons, but in particular low yield weapons in the arsenal of the superpowers over the years of the cold war have been so large, so distract the good its hard to imagine any situation in which you actually want to use them in combat and are more tolerable than any realistic task would have been fine. That means they cost much more Collateral Damage. So part of the effort in some areas has been to try to develop Nuclear Weapons such as the neutron bomb that are smaller, more discrete code attack certain kinds of targets without so much Collateral Damage. One illustration people up and talking about for the last two years has been what Nuclear Weapons would be small enough to be used to attack what is called a hard or deeply buried target in the number of countries of potential conservatives. They responded to the greater capability to use conventional weapon by putting their military headquarters deep underground. It is hard for conventional weapons to attack them. Some have thought if you could develop a small yield Nuclear Weapon and could take out for command occurs, it might do much less damage to the surrounding communities and have much more quality. Its that kind of more usable weapon. Host does country have low yield weapons . Guest one of the concerns has been a few imagine a scenario in which the united dates might want to attack a particular target for whatever reason existing conventional what might not suffice, then maybe what we need to do is develop an additional kind of smaller, more precise Nuclear Weapon that could usable. In the book chapter, i try to describe several of those alternative strategies and basically conclude that it would not work. Even the low yield weapons are likely to have so much Collateral Damage that they wouldnt satisfy the user in terms of being a usable military capability. Host david koplow, if the trend towards more precise smaller weapons a new trend . Or is this happen in our history . Guest in on