those are obvious. he says do you know what? i have to build and build. like u mass and memphis. get to where we had a passionate fan base every step of the way? and there is a jumper drawing aplaus from the kentucky fans here at lsu. >> there is a part of the class has been highly-touted this year to get kentucky on the run. sometimes there is meet skpgz here is an opportunity smchl times you've got to turn two, three minutes into five, six minutes. there is a lay in leading to a timeout fchl you have iphone app just click on where is

coach cal. and this would tell you that he's going to be home. alabama and there is a lot about that with a long history between rit pitino. there is a going hard at each other in recruiting. you've got to be tough skinned but those are two of the best. there is alabama at home before going back on the road. there is two road games on the road so, a lot of this basketball left in the cats. >> there is sec news to note. florida football with an incredible job. just a stunning job by fla

football staff putting together that class. and last night lsu defeating alabama. there is a lsu with a big win in gymnastics as well, last night. >> and baseball beginning practice. and there is after cross street here from the center on the road now. there is now the final minute last. >> there it goes. make it strong to the rim. finish with authority.

this will be win number 2269 season so. going to seven and one in sec play. we came into this talking about 11 days ago went on the skprood lost to south carolina. won at home. now here they are again. paper it was a mismatch. kentucky showed up to play in smart to get a lead at the half to put this one away. >> there is this to coach in bunches. there is 25 before he can blink. >> there is a 22-0 run in that half. and there is 28-point lead at the break. kentucky gooding to win it at the break. there is what you lick the

fact they kept them competing. and this coaches have a lot of admiration for one another shake hands at mid court. 81-11. >> impressive win to go on the road. come back to do it in a dominating fashion is what this team needed from a mental standpoint welcome to "washington post live weekend." ahead, we will look back at some of the best moments over the past few months on the show, including breaking down the capital's unbelievable winning streak, the all time laker list and the structure of

professional sports. all that now, on "washington post live weekend." hello. and thanks for tuning into "washington post live weekend." in 2010t capital team record for most consecutive wins was 10, but that is history that season's team hit a groove at the start of the new year and racked up the wins quickly. check it out. >> they came in with the highest expectations and lived up to them. >> not easy to do. >> i was reading the washington post and they had a little section about alexander ovechkin aiding a steak, and he also got to lobster. he is the number one star in the town. i would argue you could never

had said that about a hockey player in the history of d. c. i still think they need to win a cup to talk about the red skin caps being top dog, but you have to be confident about what they are doing. >> can you feel the vibe? they are feeling good. >> yes. they have just the right mix of veterans and young mikes. mike knuble, the guy is keeping the team grounded, a perfect compliment for the first line. you have the skill of backstrom t fire of ovechkin and knuble is the big presence that will be in the crease and available the whole front line. the fire is second to none right now. >> and last call, giving him credit, sort of been the fans whipping boy. every time in the game people

boo him if he misses one goal. they pull him. but he is playing really well and kind of biding time until he gets in the mix. then they will have a decision to make but they are getting contributions everywhere. >> and you mentioned chemistry. i want to throw in the idea of the olympic break. does george mcgee find a big defenseman to roll with the buzzal during break. i want to come here and ask you this. >> when we do the chats, half are saying we need a big guy like need mire to -- need meijer to strengthen the blue line, and the way i look at it, if you sacrifice a player, like eric fair, game 7 in the fears, you are giving up a lot. they could be the best team by the end of the season.

right now they are the best team in the nhl. why disrupt the chemistry. that is how i look at it. >> the only person who will know is mcfee, because he will know what the being offered. >> what do you give up. >> we saw toronto giving up quite a bit for dion. he had a longer contract, probably off the books for these guys, so they need to go get someone. >> they better not mess with the chemistry they have going on right now. >> they have plenty oftality among the defensemen. one to have guys that really gives them fire in the locker room. so, they have shown they can do just fine with what they have right now. they are 10 points ahead of the next team in the conference. they are trying to set up goals

so far ahead of anything else ever accomplish. >> let's go to greg lockland. he is going a great job covering the games. thanks for joining us. >> i guess you need rating points. [ laughing ] >> we are not putting your picture up, so, notice -- no, seriously, you played on a team that played and won 10 in a row which is pretty hard to do. the competition is pretty amazing to watch. what stood out the most to you? >> i like their demean or, the way the team carries themselves on and off the ice. they come to the games ready and prepared, the coaches prepare them and they follow through with the coaches expectations. sometimes that is dick when you have star players, but right now they all buy in.

whether ovechkin is captain or not, i have seen changes in alex semin, change in the other guys, because now they are accountable to the best player in the world, alex, who plays every night like it is the last game in the world. so, i see a lot of positive things going on right now. >> and the olympic games coming up, would it be a part that says this would be good to have a break and pick it up again. is it better to say, no, i wish there wasn't a break. let's keep going? >> yes. i am not a big fan of a olympic break. they should do it in august and change it to summer olympics. this break can hurt some teams. teams struggling and have injury problems, and all this, it will help them in the stretch in the 20 or so games

left before the break, but for the caps, i would have liked to see them go all the way through, even though they are setting benchmarks for themselves, and i am sure they have goals and ideas of what they want to do over the next five games, but the break scares me. it is hard to go from the high they are at right now to rekindling it without practice, socialize and being together. so, i think there will have to be mental and physical things they will have to over come when they come back. >> and the greatest player ever to wear a jersey? we will talk about him next whenenenenenenenenenenenenenenen

[ gasp [ cer if ynk at, t a likejob sit - ey lryon owd ] soest stan helacom. emiusite for on0k+

welcome back.

we all know kobe bryant is the best in the nba, but we can d to see where kobe ranked. here is what we came up with. welcome back. i am ivan carter, dave mckenna. michael lee from the washington post and dan stein berg of the post. last night kobe pasted jerry west. he is a rookie in # 6 and never had to go to college, but it got me thinking, guys, where does he rank on the franchise all time list of great players, and there has been a lot of them. i compiled a list of them and it sparked a debate, but i could with magic, kareem, will and george mike. you may have forgotten that

name but he was alleged, and jerry west. thoughts. >> i feel like we are on the minnesota set. i mean -- >> this is a d. c. show. >> he is a d. c. guy. i debated. it is tough. >> is that based on what he did with the lakers, because he shouldn't be the top 5 based on what he did with the lakers. he didn't trump what shaq did with the lakers. >> he holds awill the of records. >> you could argue that shaq should be in there, too. george mike to me is a name from 8th grade basketball. i don't think i've ever seen footage of him -- i mean, do you think he would do the same thing in today's nba. >> and who would he have dominated right now. >> people are dominant within their era.

it is not fair though. >> he was the only tall guy that played during that era. >> that is not true. >> i am not trying to dismiss what george mike did. i just think if you have a top 5 laker, he cannot leave out elgin or barry west. >> and what do you think of kobe? >> i think he is great. jerry west, unfortunately he had to face the ball with the celtics his entire year, same with elgin bailor that never won a ring. it is amazing that kobe is 31 and been there 14 seasons. but i believe with you. magic is the best laker to ever play. when you reach 9 championships, you have to be number one. he is my favorite player. to reach 9 nba finals in an era of basketball he played, i don't think it will ever be match entered well, kobe still has a few years left.

>> what about kwame brown. >> how did you have miken doing against kwame brown. >> i would have ate him up. the thing about him, when the lakers would go to new york to play the nicks in the 50s, the marquee would say miken vs. the nix. that is what a he was. thyou would make an argument about kareem, as well. >> i had he move him to indianapolis? >> i think they bought him. >> it was a smart move. >> the only city in america where they have another sport where basketball is the dominant sport. >> not even close. >> the dodgers are great, but the lake arers are the --

lakers are with dominating game. >> but i don't sense the hatred of the yankees. >> in the celtics-lakers era, it was one or the other. >> some did think that. it was special. >> or you had to hate the celtics. >> i think the celtics would have been much easier to hate than the lakers. they are appealing and fun, the laker. >> and they had a likable face with magic johnson. >> i think it seems amazing to me -- you want to call it a scandal t problem he has had, kobe amazes me how he has come back around from that. he was accused of rape. >> mckenna spent a lot of time reading the trips. >> it is truement you read the police reports, i mean, with michael vick, he makes you

feel bad formumanhattan when you read what he did, but so, he should be hiring that crisis pr staff. >> i can tell you what has helped kobe more than anything, he has won games. winning is the best deodorant in sports. it doesn't matter what you do. ray lewis, they thought he was immuredder, but he was cleared and everyone forgave him and -- thought he was a murderer. but everyone forgave him and he moved on when he was cleared. everyone loved shaq, miami heat, look what they are doing without kobe, but now once kobe got them to a championship, now all of a sudden he is the greatest laker of all time. >> i didn't mean to compare the charges with gilbert to -- >> no. when you come back from a

horrible time, it is a totally different thing. kobe had it go away. he paid it to go away. he wasn't found anyone. >> they had the arena filled with lakers fans chanting could be you. >> he was accused of raping a woman. >> you think if he would have been accused of raping a man it would have been -- >> i don't know. it baffles me. it amazes me when they are that forgiving. >> it is the biggest year for football plans. is there a blueprint we can look to for the nfl structure? we will take a peyt goke ahere fhe o. freci hit uy, at g

[ nnou wir on ]tch tch fmalencerstar fth ws fu a boey-cn cr [ ] natie, in! ♪ nmore i-moashehow hat [ ] natie, hi seer ms o ines. thmore hai moforcustan. scr hel liiins, s togent , step and s. tterjustes. ft! sor ining rstd onti-m er fnmor floo. sears. life. well spent.

john fine stein, targo brashear. help me figure it out. >> we were probably looking at an uncapped year here. now there are restrictions in it, like baseball, the giants, going up and buying all bunch of players. but there is an labor issue looming for this league that

has been very successful, very popular, but the small markets have a good chance to see it as the big ones. i hope they don't screw it up. >> you have 32 owners who love money. the last contract was $17.2 billion, compared to basketball at $2.9 billion. the players are making much more money obtain owners are making much more money. >> they weren't making money, they would be opening all the books and not trying to hide most of the stuff. everyone is making money and now they want to take more of it. the fact that tv was willing to make that kind of money going forward, if they want to make that again in this tough economic time, they might not want to screw it up. >> i heard from damar smith, the head of the nlpa, a john

upshaw, he is ready to get in the trenches with the owner. he very specifically said t owners went outers hired a union busting lawyers, the same guy who led an nhl lockout five years ago, and i think we are beginning for a battle. we will have an uncapped year this year. fans don't care about those things. i understand all that. there is a question about the floor. is there still a floor for teams? can teams stop spending? that would also be an issue, but 2011 is the year they are worried about because you don't kill the golden goose. this is a golden goose. >> they played $75,000 to watch the pro-bowl last night. >> yes. a few years ago they were paying for hockey fans, but

they felt they had to do it. has it worked to help the sport in terms of labor issues? >> hockey, from an economical standpoint is a lot better than it was before the lockout. there is more parody before the conferences. there still is no television deal. i have direct tv and still haven't seen a vs. game all year. what tv would allow keeping it's prime time players off for an entire season. there are still issues. there are loophole in the current cba that will be closed the next time around but structure is in place. one of the loopholes, in particular, is the 13 and 14 year contracts that go up to $715,000 in the end.

you know marion and zetterberg are not playing until they are 41. and there are other. >> the lockout occurred for one reason t owners thought they had to have it. they gave up year to get the cap and they got it. that is certainly an plume. i just don't think they will have a major television contract. because nobody loves hockey more than i do. i can follow the puck and i get it, but most people won't watch hockey on television expect for the stanley cup finals and the outdoors on january 1st, so nobody will ever get a tv contract. >> there have been rumblings in rebate months that espn is started to look at bringing the nhl back for the second inspectwork or creating another network to fill some of the

programs -- the nhl network has come a long way. >> it has made huge strides, yes. >> nhl on the fliment that is fan that -- on the fly. that is fantastic. >> why don't they have your number? >> i don't know. >> what would i do -- >> you look at the football deal and you see this. they haven't had any type of strike since 1987. >> correct. >> and you are looking at 2010, and they will sitting and acting as if they aren't making any money. >> they use the economy, too as an excuse. >> tv says this is a good deal. to have the labor piece, they are moving along. now you get the owners looking at it -- well, not really the owners. two owners started the junk. the insider and jerry jones.

yes, they are the highest two money-making teams out there. but you have to realize, if you start cutting off the low market teams, it hurt it is whole league. when you look at the overall -- you know, roger goodell. he comes in and sheriff going to get you. every player he does something, but he doesn't do anything to to the owners of coach. >> he works for sure the owners. >> but david stern works for sure the owners but knocks everybody out. >> stay tuned. after the break we put the finishing touches on this edition of "washington post live weekend." come on back.

th't go be st a sea anectahers chil and adults pecially a e hu vi so ljoin tog ightlu. byng yu va proourself d he thad oflu.

fcinesafe d are moffecway prthe flu.

magazine as brash, bronzed and built like a greek -- greek statue. so gingrich pulls him on the stage, and he -- he makes this sort of not terribly articulate encomium to beach volleyball and he says, 'you know, 30 years ago nobody would've envisioned -- nobody played beach volleyball, and now people all around the world play and it's in the olympic games. and -- and no bureaucrat would have planned it, and

that's what freedom is all about.' and everybody went kind of, 'huh'? you know, i mean, the crowd cheered because, of course, it was an applause line and they cheered, but they didn't really know why. and the -- the sort of more liberal pundits, to use this to show how wacky newt was, and they called him weird, was the word that they kept using. and then the conservative pundits were even more horrified. and the weekly standard had this headline in its convention edition that said: no more beach volleyball, please. and what i argue is that, actually, this was a dynamist moment that he -- what he said was correct. that this was an example of how things rise -- and this is a reasonably good sized industry -- beach volleyball, actually -- they rise from unexpected places. and -- and no bureaucrat would plan them because who would think of it. no one would design a

beach volleyball in -- industry. and -- and that he was right, but -- but it didn't fit in with the political rhetoric. and then i also point out that this vision of play, as a positive good, and in some kind of -- somehow tied to the progress of the market economy, and tied to creativity, is something that is -- is not accepted in intellectual circles, and particularly in conservative circles. and that he was getting in trouble from that, too, and i have a chapter on play. c-span: rule number two: apply to simple generic units and allow them to combine in many different ways. >> guest: yeah. combinations are a real theme in where progress comes from. you know, when you combine things, you can get an enormous number of outcomes. and w -- the way i derived these rules was i looked at all different kinds of dynamic learning systems, and those could be market economies, they could be the scientific process, but they were also things like

-- there are certain kinds of computer programming techniques that people use where they essentially have the little programs that simulate evolution and -- and they get good outcomes and, you know, what did those have in common? what do adaptable buildings have in common? people writing about all different kinds of evolutionary learning systems -- what do they have in common? and i was struck over and over again by -- one of the things is that when you make rules, they're very generic and they don't restrict the kinds of combinations that people can make, whereas when we make different kinds of laws and regulations, we often make very static categories. so you can say, you know, there are homes and there are offices, and home and office never meet, and this is written into many zoning and building codes and -- and permitting codes. so what i'm arguing is that you need to have these -- you need to allow many different combinations because people will combine things in un -- unfamiliar and surprising ways.

c-span: rule number three: permit credible, understandable, enduring and enforceable commitments. >> guest: commitments. well, rule number two actually gives you the law of contracts -- i mean, the idea that you should be able to make different kinds of agreements. and when i talk about rule number two, i emphasize the ability to find like-minded people or -- rule number three is the other side of contract, which is commitment. it's not just about combinations. it's about keeping your commitments. and that one of the things you see, for example, in the former soviet union and in other places, sort of less-developed economies, is a difficulty in making durable, enforceable commitments. you don't know whether you can trust people, and this limits the -- the number of commitments people are likely to make. so in order to have a good market economy, you need to be

able to make deals with strangers. and what you find in places where people can't trust each other, because the legal system doesn't work, is that they will only make deals with family members or people that they've known for a long time, and that works to a point, but it doesn't work to give you w -- an extended order, a really advanced economy. c-span: by the way, who do you want to read this? >> guest: everybody. no. i -- i think people who have an interest in, as it says in the subtitle, creativity, enterprise and progress. if you have any sort of interest -- those words mean something important to you, you ought to take a look at it. and if you have an interest in the -- some of the peculiarities and changing shapes of our political of -- order, you -- you mi -- you might want to pick it up. and i think also that there are many people who are interested in business and entrepreneurship and

technological innovation who would find it very interesting and useful. c-span: how did you get tom peters to say, 'it's the best damn non-fiction i've read in years'? >> guest: well, i -- i sent him a copy of -- of the -- the manuscript, and i -- i had done an interview with him for a reason, and i actually quote some -- i -- i quote some parts of it in the book, some of the things he said about various things. and so i had met him, and i knew that his thinking -- that he would like the ideas in this book, so i sent it to him, and actually, the full quote was even longer and it said things like, 'my hands literally shook as i read every page and, you know, it was -- it was a liberating experience.' but -- but the publisher wanted to keep it, you know, short and to the point, so they used the sort of movie blurb. c-span: rule four of five of the dynamist rules that you've -- this is all your s -- your stuff. you invented all of this. >> guest: well, i -- i didn't invent it from whole cloth. i read a lot of other things, but i synthesized it. c-span: no, but, i mean... >> guest: yes. yes. c-span: ...this are all -- these words are your words. >> guest: right. that's right. c-span: how long did it take, by the way, to think all this through? >> guest: well, writing the book took about two and a half years,

and the rules chapter probably took the longest. it's the longest chapter and it was, in many ways, the most difficult to write. c-span: two and a half years of how much work? >> guest: how much work? that's hard to say. during part of that, my husband was visiting -- he was a visiting professor at the kellogg school at northwestern university, so he was in evanston, illinois, and i was in southern california, and what i would do is i would go for a week a month to see him and work on the book. and that's -- so that would be, you know, roughly a quarter of my time, but that wasn't for the full two and a half years. it was less at the beginning because there's a lot of wheel-spinning when you -- especially when you've never written a book before. you don't know how to do it. and so it wa -- i was working on it somewhat less at the beginning and then more a -- as time went on. i would say probably it was about a fourth of my time. c-span: and how much would you de -- talk about your -- like these -- these five rules that you've got here, who did you

bounce all those off of? a lot of people? >> guest: well, the actual rules, when i was writing them, i wa -- it was mainly talking to my husband, although w -- after i would write a chapter, then i would send it to -- i had a few people, including -- we talked about nick gillespie, my colleague -- i had a few friends that i would send the chapters to -- each chapter and say, you know, 'please give me comment.' lynn scarlett, who's the head of the reason public policy institute, which is the other half of the reason foundation, read a lot of it along the way, and -- and so i got this kind of immediate feedback and then i would revise the chapters later on, and then eventually my editor at the free press, paul gollub, read everything and gave me some good advice. c-span: is there a place we can go in southern california, it says 'reason' on the door? >> guest: yes, there is. we have an office on sepulveda boulevard in los angeles and -- right by the freeway. if you want a traffic report, you can give me a call.

and there is a -- but we are very -- as i mentioned, we do have people all over the country and -- and do a lot. we've used the new technologies -- here's an interesting example of combination -- we've used these new technologies of the internet, primarily, but to allow people to make accommodations to their personal lives and keep people on staff if their spouse has a job or needs to go to school in a faraway city, and then... c-span: how many people do you find there at the reason offices? and is the public policy institute right there? >> guest: the public policy institute is also there, although they also have some dispersal. they have one person here in washington, dc, for example, but most of their dispersed people are in the southern california area, just living far out and coming in maybe once or twice a week. but -- well, there -- how many people are actually in our offices, i guess, would be maybe 20, but there are about 35 people working -- now that's -- there must be about 25 people. c-span: rule number four:

protect criticism, competition and feedback. >> guest: yes. when i walk about progress coming through trial and error, experimentation and feedback, the feedback is a big part of that. and one thing that people sometimes don't get about my book is they think, 'oh, virginia's for change. she's just for change. every change is good.' and that's not at all what i'm saying. i am saying let people try things. that's the competition part. let them enter, let them try their new ideas, but let other people criticize them. and i -- i talk about two different forms of criticism. one is criticism by expression, which is criticism, it's, you know, 'well, this movie is lousy,' or, 'this -- this is a terrible product. you know, consumer reports tested it and found that it falls apart.' the other is criticism by example, which is competition, which is saying, 'i can do

better than those -- those -- th -- whoever is existing, and i'm gonna try.' so you need to protect both of those in order to have the learning process that makes progress possible. c-span: anybody associated with this organization politically involved with the republicans or the democrats? >> guest: directly, it -- it -- i guess it depends on what you mean by 'associated with.' no one on the reason magazine staff is. we're -- we're very much journalists and -- and not involved at that -- in that way. there are people who have been at reason foundation. for example, the director of the public policy institute's privatization center for many years, bill eggers, recently left and ran for the state assembly in california as a republican. and unfortunately, 'cause i think of -- highly of him, he lost and he's now gone to work for governor bush in texas and -- and in the -- the -- texas, working on some of those privatization issues. so we have had people like that, but it is not -- it is a non-partisan organization. and so if people are involved in

politics, they're involved -- either if they're gonna run for office, they have to leave their jobs, or they're involved as individuals and... c-span: where do you get your money? >> guest: we get th -- we get our mag -- money primarily from our readers and in -- from individuals, and now some of those individuals give us, you know, $25 a year and some of them give us $25,000 a year, but it's -- reason magazine is very fortunate that we have a very diverse funding base. and the advantage of that is it gives you a great in -- a lot -- a lot of independence. the disadvantage is if you hear that joe smith, who's this fantastic writer, is looking for a job, you don't have mr. money bags that you can go to and say, 'oh, you know, please give me some money to hire joe smith.' and -- and the reason foundation, as a whole, also gets money from some foundations and some corporations. c-span: there's a footnote in the back on page 252 i want to ask you about. it happens to be footnote 52.

actually, i don't know how this is wor -- let me make sure -- is that 52 on one chapter? >> guest: it's one chapter. yeah. c-span: yeah. it's -- it's the last chapter in the book. let me just make sure so that if somebody wanted to find this, chapter 8, on the verge. >> guest: right. c-span: did you get the verge from daniel boorstin? >> guest: daniel boorstin, yeah. c-span: oh. but here's the -- here's the footnote. 'hillary rodham clinton's speech at the annual meeting of the world economic forum in davos' -- or davos, i'm not sure how you pronounce it -- 'switzerland, february the 2nd, 1998' -- so it's not too long ago, about a year ago -- 'aside from the flaws in bell's argument' -- who's bell? >> guest: bell is daniel bell, and basically what hillary clinton is doing in that speech is repeating the argument that daniel bell made in the "cultural contradictions of capitalism." bell is a very prominent sociologist. and he was arguing there in -- in that book that over time, capitalism will destroy itself by undermining the puritan

ethic that he argues is at the basis of that. and in -- in the chapter on play, which is the preceding chapter, i sort of take issue with that. c-span: well, you say here that -- and -- and a -- 'aside from the flaws in bell's own argument discussed in chapter 7 and the utter lack of empirical evidence that capitalism is languishing, there is something unseemly about a wealthy and powerful woman and former wal-mart director lecturing a selection of the world's wealthiest people on the evils of consumer aspirations. intellectuals easily accept such ideas because they tend not to count their own pleasures, such as travel, books, art, gourmet food or tax-deductible conferences in switzerland as consumerist indulgences, and for those motivated primarily by power o -- or fame, of course, consumer products are trivial pleasures.' >> guest: right. c-span: did you have fun writing that footnote? >> guest: i guess. oh, yeah, this is sort of the style i use in a lot of reason editorials, which is the -- i kept under wraps a little bit in the book. but, yes, there is this -- i --

i get very angry sometimes when people who are like me -- i mean, these -- these people have similar desi -- i'm -- i'm not -- i mean, i like to have nice clothes, i'd like to have a nice house, like anybody else, but it's not my primary motivation. i'm not working to maximize my income. i could be doing things that would make me much richer. but when people who are intellectuals go and they rail about consumerism and it's so terrible, and what they mean is -- i mean, what they're really attacking is people's desire to have a -- an easier material life. and they tend to be attacking -- often, it's tied up with notions of taste and they're often attacking kind of the -- the middle-class notions of taste, and wal-mart being a big example. that's why i thought it was particularly ironic that hillary clinton, of course, had been on the board of wal-mart. and -- and there is this argument that the desire for better consumer goods undermines over time the virtues on which capitalism depends.

and what i argue in chapter 8 is that, first of all, this is an argument that we have to destroy dynamism in order to save it. the -- well, it's gonna destroy itself anyway, so we might as well destroy it now and somehow rein it in. but it's also -- it's a misunderstanding of where the problems come from. the problems that -- where the system gets blocked up rarely come from people wanting, you know, ni -- nintendo games or -- or something. they come from people try -- who work very hard -- most of them have a big work ethic -- but work to stop competition or -- or to in -- get some advantage for their industry or -- or for their interest group, that it's more of a political problem. c-span: rule number five, for dynamists, something you invented: establish a framework within which people can create nested, competing frameworks of more specific rules. >> guest: yes. this is the really

hard-to-explain one, but it is, in some ways, real -- it's something i kept coming up against again and again. c-span: let me read it again. >> guest: yes. c-span: ok? establish a framework within which people can create nested, competing frameworks of more specific rules. >> guest: right. let me start with an example. you can have a dynamic -- dynamist society with all this kind of competition and feedback and variety and innovation. but within that society, let's say you want to run a company that is very consistent. you want to run -- you have a mcdonald -- you want to have mcdonald's french fries be the same everywhere. you don't want to encourage people to -- your franchisees to have trial and error with the french fries. and so you have i -- within the broader dynamic system, where people are trying new things, you have these more specific rigid rules that are designed to meet some more specific goals and that incorporate your local

knowledge, getting back to the rule number one, of what those goals should be. so again and again, i came to this conclusion that nesting of rules is very important, and that within the -- you have simple rules at the sort of social level, at the -- the -- the system-wide level, but that within those rules, people can have other institutions that have more specific rules and that may -- may be very sort of like these rules. they may be oriented toward dynamic learning or they may be oriented towards something else, and then those rules can compete with each other, and then we can see, you know, which ones work best or -- and -- and it may be that they can co-exist, too, that -- that, you know, mcdonald's french fries are -- are good to have consistency, but you also want to have a restaurant with a gourmet chef who makes a different dish every night.

and -- and there's no reason that the restaurant industry can't accommodate both of those -- those kinds of models. c-span: ok. here's the list of reason foundation trustees. >> guest: ok. c-span: and i'll read it quickly and then, obviously, go back and ask you about a couple. >> guest: right. right. c-span: harry t -- harry teasley jr., the chairman. well, let's -- let me just stop there. who is he? >> guest: he is a retired coca-cola executive. he was a -- he -- at -- he was ceo of a number of their different divisions over a -- over his career, and he lives in tampa, florida. he has a great sort of dynamist understanding of the world, particularly in -- as it relates to resource use and -- and the relationship between business innovation and environmental issues. c-span: well, there are three names that pop right out, are well-known in this town. one of them is james glassman... >> guest: yes. yes. c-span: ...who is? >> guest: jim glassman is a columnist for "the washington post." he was the founder of -- of roll call. and he -- i -- he was f -- at one time, the publisher of the new republic. and it's actually -- jim is the most related to the book of

the people you might list because he became a trustee because of this book, essentially. when i wrote -- a few years after i wrote the 1990 "washington post" article, we had -- we opened a washington office here, and we had a party to celebrate the opening, and jim came to the party and he was praising this article, 'oh, you got that right, you know, dynamism vs. stasis. this is really how the world works.' so then when i started writing the book and i was doing research in 1995, i said, 'well, gee, i'd better go find some of these dynamists, you know. i -- it's like i know some technology people, but i need to find some people who are more -- at least involved in politics.' so i said, 'well, i'll interview jim glassman,' whom i -- you know, i knew slightly, but we were by no means friends. so i called him up and i said, 'you know, we're -- i want to do this interview,' and we -- we did the interview, and he -- he, at some point -- it might've

actually been earlier than that he had called me looking for the post piece and wanting to write a column about the idea. anyway, we got to be friends on the basis of these ideas, and he has a very good background in magazine publishing. so e -- eventually, i proposed that he would be a good board member, and -- and the -- the board agreed, and he joined our board. c-span: c. boyden gray. >> guest: boyden gray is a relatively recent addition to reason's board. he was, as you obviously know, a counsel to president bush. his brother, burton gray, was one of the -- it might have been one of the founding board members of reason, was a -- a bo -- a board member for many years and died very young, very tragically -- had a heart attack. and so the f -- the gray family has been involved with the reason foundation over many years and we actually have our -- reason magazine's summer internship is endowed in memory of -- of burton gray, and so boyden has taken an interest in us ... [unintelligible] c-span: walter e. williams.

>> guest: walter williams is a professor at george mason university and a syndicated columnist, very articulate spokesman for libertarian ideas and has, again, been involved with reason for many, many years. c-span: now thomas beach and william dunn and neal goldman steinahans -- is that... >> guest: steinahans. c-span: got that one wrong. manuel -- or manuel... >> guest: oh, he actually goes by manny klausner, yeah. c-span: ...klausner, david koch or koch? >> guest: koch. c-span: david koch. >> guest: david koch. c-span: missed that one, too. james lintott, robert poole, al st. clair, joel stern. any of those folks that you can explain to us and how they get there? i mean, wh -- what -- what's the central reason why somebody comes to the reason foundation? >> guest: well, i think they are excited about the ideas that we believe in and they are -- sometimes they've been involved with us on some particular policy issue. o -- often, they -- many of the people whose names you read are people who are essentially

magazine readers and are enthusiastic about the magazine, and then came to know about the pa -- public policy institute through that and -- and, you know, they believe in what we believe in. and at some point they, you know, want to get more involved. c-span: one of the names most mentioned in your book is friedrich von hayek. >> guest: yes. c-span: who was he? >> guest: friedrich hayek was, i say, the most important philosopher of dynamism. he was a -- an austrian-born economist and social philosopher who ventured even into issues of cognitive psychology and oth -- other real -- really renaissance man of ideas, who was a great defender and articulate -- well, not just a defender but an explorer of what it means to have a market economy and a -- and a free society. and many of the ideas in the book about knowledge come from him because he was one of the first people to articulate the

notion that what a market does is act as a telecommunications system for kno -- dispersed knowledge. he actually used that analogy, and he -- he was a nobel laureate. he died in, i believe, '92 or '93. this would be hi -- the 100th year of his birth. c-span: you have a quote in your book, 'why i am not a conservative,' and i want to read it. "as has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of new -- of the new as such, while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, and on a preparedness to let change run its course, even if we cannot predict what it will lead. conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. in looking forward, they lack the -- they lack the faith and the spontaneous forces of adjustment, which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he

does not know how the nec -- necessary ad -- adaptations will be brought about." could he write that today? >> guest: well, he could write it in the context in which he wrote it. a -- as i mentioned, he was austrian-born. he a -- after the nazis came to power, he went to england and he was at the london school of economics for many years, and eventually, he came to the united states and was at the university of chicago. but he had very much of a european perspective and the -- it -- his use of the word 'liberal' is in the classical sense. it is not in the american sense. and so in that sense, i think it is true, and one of the -- he struggled in that essay with what to call himself, and he came up with the not-very-catchy identification of old whig, but -- but he -- 'cause he didn't like libertarian because that was too clunky and too much of a neologism, and 'liberal' had

this problem of having been confused with sort of various kinds of planning or redistribution notions. but a -- what i would argue is this sense of open-endedness is very much what i'm getting at with the notion of dynamism, that -- that a society and individuals can venture into the unknown future and make adjustments and be much more resilient than they're often given credit for. c-span: would a d -- a dynamist then have "road to serfdom" on their -- a hayek book? >> guest: they might. i mean, the one that i particularly will -- use in this book is "the constitution of liberty," also -- which is -- but "road to serfdom" i -- was his best-selling book. c-span: ba -- based on what you said very early, would they have all of ayn rand's books up there on the shelf? >> guest: not necessarily. some -- s -- i -- i think -- many people who are -- who are very devoted to rand's works have been very -- they have responded very well to this book

because many people like rand, are -- are drawn to rand because of her celebration of the creative spirit, and particularly in her fiction and her way of showing how restrictions on market enterprise are just as restrictive of the creative spirit as restrictions on artistic enterprise. that said, rand's thought is a -- her -- her -- the other side of her thought w -- he -- the -- her -- her rationalistic philosophy can take different forms vis-a-vis these ideas. a -- depending on your personality, you may take it and say, 'oh, well, i love this open-ended notion,' but it might also be restrictive. c-span: is there any candidate that you know running for president of the united states as we speak who you would find would be most -- the most interested in a book like this, based on what you know? >> guest: the most interested, i -- i don't know.