efficiency? you might save costs. i have huge faith in the people of the united states because they actually their our brains operate in an entirely different way. people in the world have not been indock christian fated like people in this town. and there is an entire political economic model that is just waiting for us to use. how duactually fix it? and it's -- we have the second new deal model, you have the laws, all there. we can look at what they did. look at how the fit together, probably improve on them. ...

>> it is a real honor to be here of this great place of tradition but also future leaders. what i thought would make the most sense of like to start with a scene from iraq. imagine yourself alongside a road and what looks and to view seems like a piece of trash but that insurgent has it hid the brightest explosive device, the ied with great care. by 2006 there are more than 2600 of these attacks and they are the leading cause of casualties among both

americans will in the iraqi civilians. this team that is hunting for that ieds the oed the ordinance explosive disposal prototypical tour will go up on 600 calls per tour the fact that they put a recorded $50,000 bounty on the killing of the oed soldier burma unfortunately this would not end well by the time the soldier got close enough to see that piece of trash was really the i -- ied it exploded. depending on how much explosive is packed into one of these coming have to be as far away as 50 yards to escape injury or death from

the fragments. even if you are not hit this year forced -- forces can break your bones. that soldiers stood right on stop -- ride on top of that night the commander wrote a letter back to the u.s. and in that he apologized for not being able to bring that soldier home. he talked about out of that loss had been on the unit and how they lost their bravest soldier and what they thought has saved in the other's lives time and again. they then tried to talk up the silver lining they took away from it "has at least when a robot dies you don't have to write a letter to its mother. >> that may sound like science fiction but that was the actual battlefield reality broker you will see that soldier was a 42-pound

robot proposal letter that the unit commander road did not go back to a former out -- farmhouse in a iowa like the old war movies it went to a factory outside burlington massachusetts that says irobot a real world factory named after the fictional novel the not so great will smith movie in which robots start off by taking day-to-day chores and move on to carrying out life and death decisions. a little bit could not give a speech in any military solicit -- facility in the city power point is a you will see some slides. is there anything we can do about the feedback? and i will not time these to my exact taka will not go through ballpoints it is

simply to give you a sense of the reality of where this technology is that already everything you see in these images behind me our systems already active in iraq for afghanistan right now or already at the prototype stage for another thing you see in these systems is science-fiction are nothing is powered by balkan technology. nothing is hollywood magic or fantasy or power by wizard hormones like harry potter. these are systems already here today. to pull back there is something big going back in the history of warfare and navy humanity itself. the u.s. military went into iraq with a handful of unmanned aerial systems, the drones, pilotless planes, whatever you call it for use during the '03 invasion. now have over 7,000 in the u.s. military inventory.

the wind in two of battle with the zeroth vehicles we now have over 12,000 of the inventory. these predator drones are the model t ford the wright brothers flyer spur what is coming and the technology -- technology term killer application does not describe what they did to the music industry but take a whole new meaning with systems like this that is everything from machine guns, rockets, missiles, you name it. that is where we're not right now. one general describe very soon we will be using tens of thousands of these robots. that is his quote. in matters another way because not just the systems because one of the things we have with technology is

moore's law that about every two years you can pack more computing power into our microchip which is double. if you gave you're sweetheart i valentine's day card that opened up and played a song, the greeting card has a more computing power than the entire pentagon had in 1960. that milan accreting card. if moors law holds true doubling every two years incapacity because within 25 years hour computers, our robots, will be 1 billion times more powerful than today. i don't mean billion in the soft "austin powers" i mean literally take the power of your compared -- computer and a drum and multiplied it with a number one with nine zeros behind it. something important is happening the things we only

used to talk about like science fiction conventions that comic-con need to be talked about in the halls of power and the like us and the pentagon. we are living through a robot revolution. i need to be clear. i do not mean a robot revolution where the governor of california will show up at your door like "the terminator." a different revolution in war and history itself that every so often there is a technology that comes along there rewrites the rules of the game. that forces us to ask new questions not only what is possible, but also what is proper things like the printing press, the computer and atomic bomb. and it is an interesting thing all of the previous ones that happen about changing the house. it is a technology that had a drastically bigger boom like the atomic bomb that

can shoot drastically faster like the machine gun and allows you to shoot to drastically further like gunpowder. that is definitely happening with robotics but also not just infecting the howl of four but the who of four of its most fundamental level they are affecting warriors experience in the war years very identity. another way to phrase this humankind has a 5,000 year old monopoly and it is breaking down in our lifetime. i thought that was a big deal. so for the last several years and went around interviewing anyone that connected to robotics and war today so interviews with scientists to build the systems and the science fiction authors. what is it like to be a 19 year-old joan quiet flying a

system that is over iraq or afghanistan? what about the four-star general commanding those forces? what about the civilian politicians secretary of air force or army or navy making a decision when to send the forces out? the other side what to the insurgents think about our robots and us using these robots? what about news editors from lebanon or india or pakistan will report on them and create the ideas are people like the international red cross or jack officers will argue over the laws of for so tease "wired for war" is gathering the stories behind these people and what they're doing today but also shines a light on the ripple effects that robotics have on our war fighting and you name it. the rest of the time our like to give you a sense of the ripple effects planning

out with the robots in war today. first of a future report may involve more inform machines , and is not just american machines there is no such thing as a permanent first mover advantage that now may people in this classroom right now still use commodore computers? how many of you play atari video games? that may have been the dominant players when computers and video games first camel but not anymore. the same thing with war. the british and into the tank the germans figure out how to use a better. the u.s. is ahead but we're not the only player in town there are 43 other countries working on military robotics like britain, israel, france, rus britain, israel, france, russia three weeks ago actually we

shot down one of iranian drone flying over iraq. one thing we have to question is where is the state of american manufacturing today as well as the science of mathematics training take us in this revolution? what does it mean to send out were soldiers who software is written in india? but warfare just like software is going open source. that is the other ripple effect. they're not like an aircraft carrier they need a massive industrial structure to put them together. they're promotional or off the shelf. you saw the video of the raven drawn the most widely used you can build your own version $41,000. so that means we have a

flattening effect when it comes to war if not just the big boys can utilize the best technologies of the scandal and interesting directions one of the stories is of a group of college students that wanted to do something about genocide in darfur they held a fund-raiser and raised half a million dollars. upon which the college kids injured into negotiations with a private military company for the rental of a set of drums it would deploy to sudan how the negotiations with the private military company out of their dorm room. they have been between estate and a nine states actor by both sides flew drones against each other. hezbollah may not have a former military but still flew four drones back in israel but to have the trend

what does that mean for the realm of terrorism? there is to ripple effects. line is that it reinforces the power of small groups and individuals against the states. new-line is a scientist for the pentagon if you gave me $50,000 i could shut down manhattan right now. he came up with a scary scenario he could buy off the open market but the other is that it changes the effect of suicide bombing intakes for that defect that you don't have to be suicidal to have the impact which allows new actors into the game. looking at all excited 2.show but also the next version of the timothy mcveigh because you don't have to persuade a robot that it will be received by 70 virgins in heaven to blow itself up. let the ripple effects go out and other areas like our

own politics. by spoke with former assistant secretary of defense for ronald reagan "i like the systems because they save lives. but i also worry about more market is setian of four more shock and awe talked to defray discussion of the cost of war. people are more likely to support the use of force if they view it as cost less. >> i thought that was an interesting quote in terms of capturing the effects. the robotics may go to a final point* that you all know we do not have a draft any more. we don't declare war in a more. we don't buy war bonds are pay higher taxes anymore now we have a trend of taking more into harm's way to outsource that two machines. that may retaking lowering the bar and dropping them to

the ground. the way i think of this is right now i see this with the strikes into pakistan we have actually seen equalled over the last year the same amount of the opening round of the kosovo more but we don't talk about these unmanned strikes in our politics or hear about in the media the way we did with the kosovo war and the risks are not on our side but only on the other side. with the future of war will also be a huge two war that these technologies don't just remove the human from modjeska record everything they see so they just don't do link the republic but with its relationship there already several thousand of combat footage up online right now. you can download it and watch it.

this will be a good thing with the relationship between the war that never existed before. but we need to remember these technologies may be like science fiction but play out in our very real very human and very strange world. so for some people the ability to watch a clip of combat on there iphone is turning more into a form of entertainment for the soldiers have a name for it in the field called more porn. the typical example i got was an e-mail and the title line said watch this threat to we will get emails like that and it might be of a cool john bad day basketball game or some nerdy kid dancing. we get those. but in this case it was of a predator drone strike in drops and goes into the target and an explosion. bodies were tossed into the air.

it was set to music to the song i just want to fly. so we have this ability to watch more but experience less when it comes to our wars. it has a warping effect because it is very easy to forget when you watch these clips the violence is real and not everybody is fighting from afar and even more so it is just the clip with so imagine the difference of a basketball game watching that or on tv where the basketball players are tiny figures on the screen or somebody in person where what somebody 7-foot tall really does look like versus the experience of playing in that game yourself and knowing exactly what it is like to be dumped on by the lebron james park remember it is a clip show you're not watching the whole game procure watching

the highlight reels of the war and the espn sports version of the battle so all of the context of a strategy is a slam dunk. the irony is while it may be involving more machines all of the ripple effects about humans wars are still driven by the human failings and the ripple effects that come out are about human psychology and politics we have an example what are the robots impact of the very real and very human war of ideas refi to against radical groups? what is the message we think we're sending as we have more unmanned systems versus what is the message that is being received? again i went to around interviewing and one of the people i met with really well he was a senior bush and administration official

collect our undemanding of war for the thing that scares people is our technology. but what about when you speak with those people? this is what the leading news editor of lebanon had to say "he says as well there is a drone flying around him at that moment. this is just another sign of the cold hearted israelis and americans they are cowards because they send out machines to fight us they do not want to fight is like real men. they just have to kill a few of their soldiers to defeat them. >> is an absolute disconnect between message sent. as one analyst put of the optics of this look really freaking data makes us look like the evil empire and the other side look like the rebel alliance. but war is also evolving the new experience. think of the phrase going to

war. that has meant the same thing over the last 5,000 years if you talk about the ancient greeks against troy or my grandfather going to world were to against the japanese fleet. going to war whenever the point* meant going to a place where there was such danger you might never come home again prepare your family might never see you again if you went to war. compare that to the experience of a predator from pilot what it was like to fight insurgents in iraq "few are going to war for 12 hours shooting weapons at targets direct and kill on enemy combat since then you get in the car and drive home and try to visit to set the dinner table talking to your kids about their homework. this disconnect between being at war and at home is proving a really challenging. one of the surprising things

we find is combat stress on those units fighting remotely are actually higher than among many of the unit's physically deployed into iraq and afghanistan. but also changes the experience of combat and killing and what it was like to take out the enemy combat and. >> it is like a video game. interestingly the question is as you know, there may be certain things that you do in the video game world like grand theft data we would not do in the real world. we're also seeing ripple effects on the demographics. who can go to war? you'll like this story better than air force academy but one of the top zero pilots in u.s. military is a 19 year-old high-school dropout who joined the army wanting to be a helicopter mechanic, was not qualified because he failed

high-school english so he wanted to be a drug pilot instead. he turned out to be so good after service in iraq they promoted him to specialist and he is now an instructor training academy, 19 and listed instructor. to the air force audience that is not a cool story story -- of your ad in the fact is shown soldier has taken out more and targets and saved more than every single f-15 pilot combined. this is a change when it comes to who can fight also robotic staunchest happen outside us but within us. one of the calling cards of these itt's is how they see would've lose arms and legs. we have applied robotics to the problem for over 400 soldiers have lost arms or

legs and not only getting prosthetics that allowed them to the their lives before hundred who have returned to their combat program. they call it the liv sky9 walker effect. he has a robot hand and he is ready to go back with return of the genocide. that is not science fiction anymore. we have that in the real world. we also have unit cohesion one of the scenes is taking out an enemy mortar slide outside fallujah and two drones court in a. never once met face-to-face or talked over the radio or over the phone. the entire battle was carried out in that chapter. i remember asking one of them tell me about one of your buddies are who you worked with. mother goose. i don't know. that is all i know them as.

when he talks about the buddies he made in the war, it is like band of brothers and more like facebook friendships. much of a you are hearing is there are always two sides to a revolution. so while we have more inaction that does not mean we have gotten rid of murphy's law. have these incredible technologies and what they allow you to do but the fog is of being lifted the enemy has of most of what happens in mistake still play out where you have a science fiction capabilities you have most alumnus a you have to figure out the new 17 style workout with your robot that is what the vice president said the group's momentum fed does not work out.

but we're talking about a war when time they talked about the machine gun robot it went squarely during fed demonstration it started to spin in a circle and pointed a 50 caliber machine gun at the vips. there were not impressed and also glad there was no bullets. other times oops moment can be tragic last year in south africa there is a software glitch in instead of firing up words it leveled and fired in a circle and killed nine '08 -- soldiers program new categories of the situation is. unman the slaughter what happens when it accidentally killed the wrong person? the three times we thought we got osama bin laden with our drawn strike and we didn't. and was situation it was an

afghan civilian who was unlucky enough to look like bin laden through the predator drone footage. this is where we still have a human linked up to these systems. they're not completely a autonomous but don't believe that is not coming. i found over four different pentagon projects on autonomous systems and there is a whole new area so think about the issue of war crimes. on one hand you might think we have less for crimes with armed autonomous systems because robots are emotion the senate don't care of their body gets killed or don't commit a crime of rage or revenge. robots are you motionless they have no empathy. no sense of guilt. looking at the 80 year-old grandmother in her wheelchair the same way it looks at the tee 80 tank near both just zeros and ones in the programming language. we have the challenge better

so old right now who would qualify for medicare through the 21st century technologies' like three per drone that by the way are being used against 21st midcentury adversaries like the terrace to hides out in a hospital or uses the ambulance. it is a challenge on both sides. and ending, a lot of it sounds like i have been talking about the future of war but notice of every single one of those pitchers was already something that is here. notice of every single example i gave you except the very last one of the 80 year-old grandmother in a wheelchair, everyone is already happening. it forces us to ask the question will we let the fact that this looks like science fiction and sales like science fiction keep us in denial this is already the reality?

will we be like a previous generation that looks at another science-fiction technology that h. g. wells first point* called atomic bombs? he first came up with the name and came up with a concept. in the previous generation to us looked at atomic bombs and said this is not something we have to wrestle with the political moral ethical and legal dilemma is that come out after pandora's box is already open are we going to do the same? i could be wrong and one scientist told me i was wrong. he said there is no real epochal quote real or moral problems he could contemplate "from less the machine tools the wrong people repeatedly. then it is just a product recall issue. i will jump into science fiction in closing which is a couple years ago the

american film institute, a al-fayed gathered a list of the top 100 hollywood heroes and villains of every single character of every single hollywood movie ever made which characters represented humanity at its best and at its worst? there was only one character who made it on to both top 100 hero and villain list. it was "the terminator", the robot killing machine. it shows a couple things. is it shows the duality of our technology can be used for ago -- both good and evil but also the duality of the people and the men and women behind those technologies. think about our human creativity is what distinguishes us from all other species and it took her species to the moon and it builds his works of art and literature and express

our love now we use the human creativity to build these incredible new technologies that if you believe both science and science fiction, we may be creating an entirely new species, but bottom-line we're really only doing it because we cannot get past the age-old human need to destroy one another. the real question is, it is in our machine or us that is "wired for war"? thank you. [applause] i think we have some time left for questions and responses i look forward to engaging with you on it to think they have a microphone

one. >> late name is captain chen i remember 10 years ago when i was here for the project we talked about hooking up a machine gun the instructor's head that was another call when did this change go from the autonomous weapons now being of the coal to being okay? >> it is a great question because it is almost two parts. when did the added to change and then can it ever be ethical or is it door not? >> the magic moment essentially the air force

colonel is in 9/11 basically there is a before and after the their relationship and prior to 9/11, most companies could not even get their calls returned by the pentagon. after 9/11, one of the executives described how they were told "make them as fast as you can prepare you can see in the different specialties because robotics is a wild field from drones are unmanned platforms. within the duty community that defused bombs they have some small numbers of robots before 9/11 but would not use them because it was seen as not the courageous thing to do and within the community they have the effect that is a certain date and iraq we lost two oed soldiers who is both less name ended with the letters to 14.

the courage aspect of some battery have to start using the systems we're losing people to quickly. with packbot they describe the moment being buffeted applied experimental to the first forces who were trying to investigate the bunker complex and realize the technology to see if there were conductance still inside, the very same technology we were using back in world war ii or vietnam a guy with a flashlight or a pistol. mirage asking the afghan allies to go and first to check that out and is one of them put it cohmad we began to run out of afghans. that is when the attitude shifted part of a center of the experimental set the company knew there was a turn when they would not give the experimental robot back because they liked it so much.

so the harming aspect, one of the things the book wrestles with is what you asked is of baltimore to issue talking about harry potter parallels because there is some logic to take us down the pathway that we don't like to talk about. one is a personal savings issue the british royal air force said we will give more autonomy to their robots of a because we cannot have a situation was one guy controlling one robot it will not save money so we have to have one guy and five robots which means you have to give them more autonomy. also the enemy has a vote if you have a person and a system that connection between the two is the new vulnerability. then natural response is that you have to have thought system some autonomy because of the cuts communication i don't want

it to turn off and stand there is still has to carry it off. another rationale. another is that war is happening on a faster pace going quicker and quicker. they have the counter sniper devices using lasers to shoot the unit and immediately points at the unit and put say laser beam target on the snipers head of you don't react quicker enough he goes down and you have glossy opportunities a technically it is easy to put a laser on net why not begun as well? another logical pathways so to get each of these pathways to take you down this final frontier of farming them that leads to the other part of a question that what makes it up the call now? that is one of the parts of the debate to put out there that we really should debate if it is ethical and what are the circumstances that

make it up the call or not? that is not just allies of robotics but who should be able to control them? is a predator drone a military only technology? too late dhs has six of them. is it just something the federal government should have? local police departments? to make. lapd is purchasing its own set of drums. in atlanta one private citizen has his own ground robot that was formed. these are weird frontier questions but already upon us and that is the debate in need to have because you can now make moral machines. plurality is about the people. maybe you can program them but cannot make them themselves moral or ethical and it has to come from us. other questions? >> it is a continuation of

difficult question you talk about the fact lot of these soldiers to our employing the unmanned systems a reference them as video games. and we have heard there is obviously the ethical debate just of the video games currently used that they are too violent for children and young kids so it is dangerous with the overall society morality and perspectives but we talk about this as soldiers what did you find was the majority of the referencing? it was spread in other parts of society and for us as future leaders and officers the responsibility from what you found is to make these ethical questions are they the ones having to the the debate or is there more or a

greater audience addressing the issue altogether? >> a fantastic question and you cut to the heart that people are not talking about hard enough. how it is a different being a drone squadron versus a regular unit? i went around interviewing it is interesting to see the different experiences and a colonel who had led a predator drone squadrons so i have seen both sides it is more difficult by teeing from afar than the ones deployed and challenges you have the fact of people at war 24/7 two issue net was 90 point* together were the been together which had the

sense of team but also the decompression point* these three the intensity of combat and instead his unit was on a shift never wants in the same place and they go in and 20 minutes later they are at home and they have all of the demands. wives are mad because their labor soccer and then the kids are mad and his challenge of a unit leader he found people were burning the candle at both ends of the stick and that was a challenge representative of the responsibility put on them, they were at a peacetime basis so they had all of the administrative bureaucratic graph to deal with that someone deployed would not have to do even though the unit was 24/7 and needed to be on the combat edge and mrs. very challenging how you do this? they make it up along the

way he described how he wished they would go to the way sports teams do between playoff games that they might be at home but go live in a hotel together and family stuff pushed aside they helped they would do that but the problem is that would involve the approval and telling their families it is tougher for me to be around do. remember i was gone now i am home? nobody wanted to have that conversation. to the idea he described how it is a major challenge he wanted to make sure every men and women working for him to have to focus that this was not a video game and he would have to fight for information and feedback from forces in the field how to utilize our information? he tried to bring back people returning from the

field so they could have that communication. they wear uniforms flight suits even though they are not in the air for govett is a challenge it will get more difficult says uc more systems with videogames as a platform and a controller for the ground robotics are actually modeled after the exports and playstation controllers. the military is free writing off of the video game industry forswear reasons. sony, microsoft, and they spent tens of millions of dollars designing the perfect system to fit your hand so why not follow that design? the other aspect is they spent tens of millions of dollars training the use so right when you joined you can figure out how to use a very quickly.

the challenges they are finding when you use the same controller and see it through a video screen, the difference between a training exercise and real world is only in your head and how you interpret. it looks almost the same so it puts the burden on the and it leader a lot more and a final note whether the people live wrote with the was just back from but hunch from the top outside a guy and said anything that makes it easier to kill is not a good fit. i thought that was a good quote coming from one of the most lethal people in our entire force that it is a warning you do not want to make it too easy. >> sir.

one thing we discussed this morning was a military industrial complex in america had you think this contributes to that? >> gained eight question it is a big worry of mine as the reference in a global industry. clears a chapter that called robots that don't like apple pie howl my day repeat the experience of leader of technology and fell behind? it goes to ways. line is the doctrine for how we use the systems and is not how many of the system you had or how good it is but how you utilize it and it is the story of the tank. we have a challenge right now what is a doctor and one in the middle east said to me that is not that this is

better it is only give me more and we have gone from saying these unmanned systems to run them as much as possible if you look at the defense budget it is the one part that is going but we still have not figure out what is the best way to utilize them? is it a mother ship model of warfare with a system centrally controlled so it is command and control and firepower or is it a swarm model but convergent firepower these are two different models which is right or wrong? choose right you created the screen and choose from you have the national alliance but few other is the industrial complex what we build that can shape the doctrine that we use.

of the concern is a bigger mentality when it comes to what we build. the cover of the book is the unmanned jetfighter the size of a school bus it will cost around $80 million. are you going to use and $80 million system even if it doesn't have a pilot? we have a defense complex that specializes bigger is better there is only a few top countries or companies that dominate the field bigger is better with a price over run and in terms of how long it takes to build these systems. but the f-22 first conceived back in the late '70s and does not apply until 2007 if it was a computer it would be apple conceding the

macintosh in the '70s when not delivering the first macintosh until 2007. the question for all of us is the way war will be in the future? would if it is better to have a large number of really tiny cheap disposable systems what if it is better in terms to have innovative companies that work? what if they spend them out like the ipod? i worry we specialize bigger is better but we could enter the war where smaller is better. >> the example of the future combat system is a great illustration there were no small unmanned systems in the plant because it was run

by a large defense contractor and the company that made the small systems was not part of the traditional d.c. crowd but only bottom-up demand only the soldiers in the field as saying it is a small ones that we use every day not the large unmanned tanks. that is the only reason it was a change to include the smaller companies and robots. what is ironic that is the one part that is surviving the budget cutbacks because of the demand from the field level. >> we have seen a lot of these robots used in iraq and afghanistan but what do you think about them used in a conventional conflict as well as unconventional? >> that is the interesting question that cuts to what is the future of four? is there a difference from unconventional and conventional? i think we will see more

threads with fe has blocked than they engage in terrorist actions but it is also able to launch runs and cruise missiles. we have china of course, with the top conventional threats out there but 8,000 computer hackers working for it which is the asymmetric action it will create these stovepipes that we said to ourselves up for a fall. can we afford to have systems under only good for counterinsurgency and others of the only good for conventional? in the same with training and organization. i would argue the biggest bang for our buck in terms of defense dollars is finding the systems that a

useful for whatever the domain of conflict it is. what we may be surprised buy we may not be as much that makes the difference. i will use the example of how we got our colleague and a top al qaeda leader in iraq. we could not find him. it was the intelligence problem the jordanians got eight human tip that he was seeking the advice of a new religious leader. so they passed on that human intelligence two as we said this is an important tip. we will use this threat of a could not find stark always so they popped a set of drums over the religious leader who they could find. you could not have been followed 24/7 by troops on the ground so they followed

this guy around everywhere they went them when did they see them go out to a farmhouse to the middle of nowhere and that is where he was meeting with him. of the drum puts laser target on it and of 16 comes and that is how we get him. the question is this. what was the operation? wasn't the six men as the f-16 pilot flew in and dropped computer guided bombs were the whole back and robotic and human? which was the operation? second deprivation who is most likely to make the officer from that operation? said as a challenge. it would be the same if we talk a bow trying to find a chinese side. the challenge is not putting

this deal on the target of finding the target and that is the aspect we have to continue to wrestle with. >> unfortunately we're out of time. but i want to take this time in our time constrained environment often ask myself what does this mean to me or how will this impact me i think you have captured the book the issues and impacts whether a cadets or mid-level officer who will graduate in 25 days. you have done that and there will be implications for all of us. thank you on behalf of the department of social sciences as well as the united states military academy. thank you very much. [applause] >> again, i want to thank all of you not for listening but the service you are giving our nation.

thank you. >> dr. sr. will be at the bookstore between 1400 and 1602 sign books are chad about in the other things that may be on your mind. thank you.

>> host: rear west virginia university talking with ken -- daniel shapiro talking about his book "is the welfare state justified?" let's start at the end. is it? >> guest: probably not. but i should explain a little by what i mean by that. first, by the welfare state, i mean programs like national health insurance, social security, and government welfare. when i say probably not which side do in the book, i look at the values and principles of people who defend the welfare state. the reasons they give. i am in philosophy so there are various positions that support it. to skip technical terms i say barren is, provide a

sense of community or protect the poor. given their values if you compare those institutions with feasible more market based alternatives people supporting the welfare state should support the alternative is coming out looking better or at least as good can things their own values. >> host: what are the central principles hour values that drive the creation of welfare programs? >> guest: i will talk about perhaps the most one is the notion of fairness. probably if you ask people why do we need these programs they will say because they are fairer. if we let people try to have health insurance on their own or pension plans, it will not be fair for them. so i think those are the central values. do what we to talk about one of my arguments?

since health care is in a news let's talk about this. this came out in 2007 by cambridge university press. it is not completely current but basically if you look at the systems of national health insurance that exist in all the affluent democracies we don't have one. we have a cause i system medicare and medicaid. basically they involve massive subsidization of everybody. the government tries to subsidize everybody to keep the price below what they would pay in a market. what happens that is elementary if you subsidize something you get more of it and eventually the government has to put a cap. then you get to a government rationing and then you get lines. who goes to the

top-of-the-line? i will tell you and we know this. people with me -- like me that have connections, knowledgeable and gain the system. who goes to the bottom of the line? pour west virginians. you want to be fair this is not a fair system. to do this we would need to talk about a feasible alternative would a real market based system will look like. do want me to talk about back? okay. it is not fair just look at one system without looking at another so without real market health insurance but a system where not the insurance companies are in control but the consumer so imagine the system we have a little bit of that health savings accounts you have an account tax for you can use it to spend four predictable routine expenses federally innc