significant is that this is really the first, the closest that somebody coming from a pentacostal background, sort of the wing of christianity has come to this kind of high office. and i think there are ramifications there that are interesting and that i explore in the book. >> did she assist in the book, or did she participate? >> no. no, it's independent. >> thank you very much. .. times" festival of books. ..

>> host: hello from the campus of u.s. be in los angeles where booktv has the los angeles festival of books. we are taking advantage of this beautiful location to do our monthly index program. our guest this month is tibor machan who is an ethicist and political philosopher and author of more than 30 books legal scholar papers and regular blotter. we will introduce him to you on our in-depth program for the next three hours. thank you for being here. let me start with people not familiar with your work. i described you as a political philosopher but tell us about your core philosophy. >> my area of specialization is political philosophy but also do ethics and general philosophy. like many classical philosophers i think you need a comprehensive approach to make a case for

various branches of philosophy. over the years i have come to believes that the classical liberal social political stance which associates with john locke, john stuart mill, thomas jefferson and so forth is the sound position to take on political issues. on ethics and a pathology and ascetics is another story. if you talk about politics which is what most ordinary folks are interested in from philosophers, what position do you hold on the first amendment, interstate commerce clause, whether one should be able to tell people how they behave right and wrong, all of that stuff. that is what they want to know

and there i can safely be called a libertarian or classical liberal. >> who in american politics today most closely aligns with your point of view? >> very few. there are some people whose views in general match mine and i would say that ron paul would be one of them. went parand paul would be one o. but on detailed issues, foreign policy issues you find differences and difficult to align yourself to anybody because some of us think those things through in great detail and others will never be happy to live with just basic principles. i am something of what i like to call defensiveist in foreign

affairs. military action should only be taken in defense of one's country rather than aggressing against anyone. though the complications arise immediately. what about when you have allies and they do something and you are signed up for if so to speak. in political matters generally i could be identified with those who think government should follow the exact specks of the declaration of independence. governments are instituted among stuffs to secure life liberal middle liberty and pursuit of happiness. >> it tibor machan will be with us for three hours. text in your telephone calls and message by e-mail at booktv@c-span.org. send us tweets by twitter@booktv. lots of ways to connect with a

sad lot of time to do it. we look forward to hearing from you and engaging in questions and comments and look at a number of his columns and books over our time together. it three our conversation about central ideas in american political philosophy on this beautiful sunday morning, the first of may. it is made a, labor day. what does that mean to you? >> guest: i was born in budapest, hungry living under the stalinist regime until 1953 when i was smuggled out by what time magazine referred to as a flesh peddlers. nasty comment. may 1st was a major holiday just like a holiday of the workers for about the world. it represented a form of a scary thing to many of us because

there was a lot of talk of the dictatorship of the proletariat. lot of talk about how the bourgeoisie were reactionary pigs and we shouldn't treat them nicely. >> host: you have written about your life, "the man without a hobby: adventures of a gregarious egoist". you tell us about the escape from hungry. the jury was quite arduous to the united states. >> i always explain it to people. remember those black-and-white b movies in the 50s starring danny at andrews, it was that kind of episode in my life.

very adventurous. adults look at children as being frightened of this and even in the bonet bombings of budapest, unless you get hit or blown up by a booby trap it is more an adventure. at least it was to me going down to the basement and meeting friends from the apartment houses and so on. to me this whole episode was it is about time i get out of this hell hole because i was going to speak up, just speaking my mind when i was told the most important principle is each according to his needs and i raised my hand and said what if i start with $5 and he starts with $5 and i buy a bunch of food and he built the table and i drink myself under his table? do i deserve the same

consideration? they call up my mother and call me -- basically send me to a technical school because they consider me reactionary bourgeoisie. this is one of iowa's 11 which is already a peculiar thing. so i was frightened but they couldn't keep me down because this didn't make any sense. when something doesn't make sense to me i tend to speak up. maybe it is genetic or something. it has been with me all my life. eventually my mother cooperating getting me out of hungary. give me two days during which i had to make up my mind but-my

mother gave that choice to the and did not order me al and didn't order me in. and i forever am going to be thankful to her. she just died march 15th of this year and she was an amazing woman. a brutal one too but a very sharp cookie. >> host: when did you connect with her after your departure? >> guest: in 69 when she was allowed to leave hungary for a visit to her brother. had booked one of those flights to europe and had to kill three weeks before i could see her. it with a private flight. there were so many other stories. my father and mother are lifelong enemies. being under my father's care meant i could not have a normal

relationship with my mother. i had to do a surreptitious thing, send letters to third parties and so on. it was an intriguing youth. >> host: i would like to consider when you decided to go into the academy. we have some callers already. we will come back to that. oklahoma, you are on the air with tibor machan. >> caller: i appreciate having tibor machan on today. he is a great classical liberal. i came to class of liberalism through the austrian economist rather than through john locke or aristotle. one of my problems is -- that tradition is far more rich in

classical liberalism than a philosophy of right. i have for real problem with the philosophy of right. you tend to expand. your approach ignores the spontaneous ordering of law. i don't see how you have a justification in the law for doctors with adverse possession. my problem is that you tend to overlook how great jurists such as sir matthew hale and sir edward coke did far more for the advancement of liberty and john locke who expou0 t mcivo cfosing sidãbunftat rd as a reasonable person and have fife good senses. five good senses. >> host: caller, we're going to end it at that point. the austrian economist route

versus the philosophy of rights and aristotle. >> guest: well, it's difficult not to touch on some intricate details as the caller already noticed. let's say, however, that i am perfectly compatible with hayek and even the current austrians at call but the austrian economist och >> guest: a i am compatible with those at auburn. when it comes to the raw in political system that we think a is appropriate for human life is the communities i don't think there's any major complex. of the deals of c how to arrivet them, have utilitarianism, i h christians, you name it, on locke and defending their philosophy. i happen to be one who is more on lock and aristotle but others

are far more sympathetic to kant and mills and anyone who takes t this stuff seriously will have l to get into studying it and to . see how to water it down for wrot political consumption. >> host:e back to your biograp. memoir this quote from your memoir, mye interest in politics can be mya traced to therl events of my eay life but i don't think my y particular political outlook is experiences, accounted for. if not for your early life anget experiences where did this come from? this will be a strange answer but one of my books, initiative human agency and society could explain it better than i could in four minutes but let me give you a a hungarian who is an avid, modern, liberal democrat, and i am from the same country,

roughly the same time having experienced a certain measure of nazi germany and a certain measure of soviet russia, and i ended up a pure libertarian whereas he department. he didn't. we come from same ha jihadi we come from the same background and different understandings of politics. human beings have to rely on their experiences and what they have learned. they also have a mind that builds up answers to questions. not simply takes others and applies them. i think a good deal of what i hold is a combination of all of these factors but cannot be reduced to just one. >> host: pennsylvania, good morning. you are on the air.

>> caller: good morning, professor. i was wondering what your attitude is toward the decline of humanity's education among our undergraduates and a recent book studies sociological studies indicating that our students -- undergraduates are not learning anything we traditionally value like critical thinking skills, communication skills especially writing. i was wondering what your comment is on the status of undergraduate education in this country. >> having been in the field for 40 some years i have some opinion on it. we have a problem with the fact that early high school,

elementary, secondary education is so oppressive and so boring to so many students, by the time they reach college, at least the first two years they are basically celebrating having gotten out of high school and barely attend classes, barely read their assignments. i am not talking about princeton and harvard and stanford. i am talking about the vast majority of people who now think they must have themselves a be a and maybe even an m a in order to get anywhere in life. but as far as their own motivation is concerned is rather poor. i don't happen to think there's a major problem with the humanities or social sciences or anything. they are always in fluctuation. for a little while they will take a back seat and eventually they strike again. right now the sciences after 40 years of everybody hoping they will solve everything in our

midst are still sorting but it is beginning to be very evident that having taken it -- technical know-how is not sufficient to solve the problems of human beings. i think the humanities are going to come back big-time. >> here's a fact about modern american politics i learned from your book. there was a law that offered free passage to the united states for all post 1962 escapees from communist countries. how long was that in effect? >> i don't have any idea. that was when i was only 15 years old. my parents, my father and my stepmother who told me about this, it was probably true and so i included it in this little story. like so many things from your

past there is always the qualifier provided resources were accurate. but i think that really is the case. under the sway of anti communism and support for people who manage to survive, and escape, they've made various political gestures that would favor such folks including myself. >> i would like you to read tell your impression of landing in the united states at the age of 15. >> that i remember very well. we pull into new york harbor at 1:00 a.m.. it was bright. the fdr was full of cars. it was unbelievable. are have been a few places. by that time i was in spain and switzerland and denmark and germany and hungary. nowhere have i seen as much robust life at that hour of the

day as in america and is fully supported a romantic view of the united states of america as being full of life, full of bothell, scary and everything. >> host: we are on the set of the campus of the university of southern health for new. we are here because of the los angeles times festival of books and all kinds of activity underway as they get ready to open the gates and allow people through. 150,000 people come to this festival over two days. join our three hours of conversation. you will see crowds coming through as part of the experience here in this beautiful morning in los angeles county. let's take the next call from henderson, nevada. you are on the air. >> caller:. my problem with libertarian is

and is it is reactionary in a world of state sponsored terrorism. and democratization meaning a small group can have a large effect. the bush administration came up with the 1% solution meaning if there was a 1% chance that a state could have an operation against the united states like 9/11 or the first world trade center attack, the question becomes how many people will die under 100% libertarian philosophy before we reacted? >> guest: i don't think libertarians are any less determined to defend themselves than anybody else is. they just insist that in the process of defending yourself you don't overstepped the limits of using force on others. this is like what we expect from

police officers. we do expect from them to be efficient, d. tournament, unyielding, but we don't expect them to abandon property offensive conduct and that goes for the military of a free society. the libertarian would insist if you take out all the stuff government shouldn't be doing and who left all the energy and resources devoted to the proper task of securing our rights as citizens from domestic criminals and foreign agents you would be in better shape than you are now. >> host: we are talking about practical application of follicle philosophy here is an

e-mail. it suggests some of my best friends are communists. they have said communism has not had a real trial and i agree. i have also thought it would be desirable if people segregate themselves in terms of how they want to live and i could have my own libertarian prejudice -- paradise. do you have thoughts on that? >> guest: you have to remember the going form of communism, the live auction that was initiated by karl marx and friedrich engels in their book the communist manifesto, that political philosophy requires that we achieve a form of humanity that is a brand-new. karl marx called it the new man. the idea is in order for communism to work you would have to have a human being with a

brand new nature, one who renounces all privacy, who renounces all intimacy, all special less about friends, family and so on and who looks on the entire human race as his or her brother or friend which is in my view totally impossible, a dangerous dream. it is as if you try to take a practicing jazz band just blowing at having a good time and blow it up into the world orchestra. it doesn't work. a lot of people are sympathetic because in certain very limited contexts like a convent were kibitz or commune or intimate fraternity or sorority these kinds of relations are at least partly manifest and very

enjoyable if you get the right crowd. if you don't have the right crowd like in the mafia you are not going to enjoy it that much. communism is favored by a lot of people as an impossible dream. anybody who has ever tried it, anyone who has come even your it will tell you it is much more likely north korea than canada. >> host: is it possible for libertarian to be an organizing structure for society with three hundred million people in it? >> guest: i don't have a ready-made answer. i believe countries should be smaller. this is too big especially if you have substantial democratic elements because a democracy without connections with your fellow citizens and your

political representatives is meaningless. we have a so-called democracy but in fact what we have is an autocracy with a bunch of people who rule with some measure of consent from some members of the government but that is about it. i think a country should be like luck to abort or liechtenstein or sweden or denmark but this is too huge. the too overwhelming for most people to cope with a specially if it is a bloated system where the state is assumed to do everything. everybody's private interests is impossible to fulfill. there will always be complaints.

smaller political arena is better. does it have to be as small as the cities of ancient greece? i don't know. this is where it is interesting. we are so embroiled in trying to figure out how it would be impossible when you run a huge country like that as a democracy that we are not paying enough attention in our government departments and political science departments to how we might have a better alternative. >> host: tibor machan our guest on in-depth. next call from seattle. >> caller: so glad to be here with you. i have your book individuals and their rights in open court press 1789. i was inspired. you give us a great exposition of john locke and thomas cubs. i am so sorry.

it is a wonderful book. >> guest: let's get it right. i wasn't alive then. >> caller: i have two questions. one is about political freedom. do you believe the current health care legislation is socialism? and two, my study of history came to the conclusion that capitalism has a tendency to exploitation and socialism has a tendency to oppression. i want to know what your thoughts are about that. >> guest: about the health care system. there are many gradations between political systems between socialism and capitalism. there is the welfare state. there is fascism and communitarian a them. if you really want to look into

the type of system that fits obamacare you get a very heavy-handed welfare state but not quite socialism because socialism basically means the nationalization, making public of all the major means of production. that also includes human labor. socialism really means controlling human beings's labor. that is not part of obamacare. obama has one element that doesn't sit well with the american political tradition and that is that people have to go out and buy themselves in insurance whether they want to or not. when you object to something like that, in the political rhetoric that you use, you throw around terms like socialism and communism and what not. if you want to be serious about

this, that is not accurate. >> host: this question comes by twitter. please explain the morality of freedom. >> host: classical liberalism is not a moral system. utilitarian and altruism, christian morality, those are principless of personal guidance. morality and ethics. if you want to know the answer to a moral question you go to the issue of what is the most important thing for me to live for. when it comes to politics question is how should we interact with our fellow members of society? what are the principles of human interaction that may be coat of fighting a system of law. those are different but obviously related.

one of the things a classical liberal would argue and my friends doug rasmussen and doug i do this in a book called norma of liberty, showed that considering the kind of society you want to live under with millions of others who may disagree with you on many issues, you have to champion one that respects basic rights, dignity, the willingness of everyone to undertake to live a life of his or her own. you cannot impose on others codes of conduct, ethics that they do not freely choose. freedom becomes a vital element of a good society because will leave in freedom is one able to choose the right thing rather than be made to do the right thing. >> host: >> host: massachusetts is our

next caller. >> caller: thank you for calling us miami the this is one of the last spot in the world where global warming is taking place. i want to ask the basic question of the circumstances given similar settings, question about the social system. isn't it basically a prisoner's paradox. mutually beautiful decisions where each of the viewpoints are taking care of? [inaudible] >> guest: i have to interrupt. i am sorry but somehow our connection is a very good one. the answer is completely lawful. the question is completely

lawful. i can barely hear one out of five words. >> host: the telephone connection wasn't very good. the best thing i can suggest is give us another call back. or send it by e-mail and we will take a stab at it. let's try miami next. >> caller: i like to think of myself as a progressive libertarian, whatever that is. i appreciate your taking my call. >> guest: why don't you tell us what a progressive libertarian means? >> guest: you are one. you should know. >> caller: you mention one of the few politicians you are more or less on the same payoff which -- on the same page with is rand

all. he has taken the position that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape or incest and it seems to me to be as anti liberal and anti libertarian as you can get. >> guest: his view on abortion is wrong. there is no human being until the twenty-seventh week of pregnancy. anything before that can't possibly be considered homicide. suppose there's such a thing as killing butterflies. what is it before a butterfly? caterpillars. when you kill a caterpillar you have not killed a butterfly. if you kill a zygote, if you kill a fetus in the early stage

you have not killed a human being. whatever rand paul says or wrong paul says, it may not be a visual the pleasant experience butron paul says, it may not be a visual the pleasant experience but that is the fact. kenna send someone to the gallows for killing a caterpillar or a fetus. >> caller: looking at your commentary, the code of ethics in libertarian society, i was wondering if you see morality in society as a social contract or something innate to human nature. >> guest: partly human nature. i don't think it's a social construct because you can even ask the question, what ought we to construct which would require prior morality before we have the construct. so i think morality is part and parcel of human life. the moment you reach any measure

of maturity the question of how art i act come their naturally and that is how morality kicks into our lives. >> host: you spend time teaching business ethics. what do you think of the 2008 financial meltdown? >> guest: i am prepared for this. the united states is what is called a mixed economy. it has socialists, capitalists, welfare state, humanitarian, anarchist elements. it is a smorgasbord in food. suppose you go on a swedish cruise and eat 8 smorgasbord and in three hours you get food poisoning. what caused thea smorgasbord and in three hours you get food poisoning. what caused the food full is in? the causes of this bill down

are in the air. the more coercion there is a system the more problems arise. that does not rely on detailed analysis of the crisis. >> host: what about grease? >> guest: no more than vanity or any of the human scenes tour of places that people are capable of. greed is one of the many vices we have. agreed is not something instrumentals in bringing anything about. people are greedy. >> host: if there were world war iii 1 wall street be on the side of democracy or child labor

camps? >> guest: since i am not collective i don't believe in wall street being like a person who i can ask where do you stand as i can ask my friend george or my sister. wall street is a bunch of human beings with different political convictions. there is no such thing as wall street doing this or that. people who are reasonably well off in life and who know that to do well they have to be reasonably decent human beings at home and in their neighborhoods, people who are reasonably well off are not going to champion slavery work serfdom or any sort of exploitation that involves subduing others against their will. >> host: next telephone call

from oregon. >> caller: i was curious about your views of libertarianism. i am not clear what that means. communism and socialism and democracy are choices. i am a registered libertarian and i'm not even sure what it means. >> guest: let me explain what it means. like the term suggests the crucial element is liberty and the kind of liberty involved is which i enjoy when others do not, hold me up or pick me up or kidnap me or intrude on my life. it is negative liberty as they say in political theory rather than positive liberty which is what entitlements are about. libertarianism maintain that-liberty should be the law of the land. all laws legitimate to the extent that they protect people

to do as they sit -- see fifth provided they did not aggressive put anyone. this is so ancient that in a discussion between the greek general and pericles recounted in a book called memorabilia there is a dialogue in which he defends this position on law that the only legitimate lot is defensive lot. that is essentially what the libertarians are after. >> host: next call from the hudson valley in new york. you are on with tibor machan. >> caller: you don't remember me but i took one of your classes in the 90s at harvard university. business ethics was the class. i was always troubled how you reconcile your general philosophy and general libertarian views with the fact you work that a tax supported university for so many years. you actually made the statement

once that taxation -- you believe taxation is immoral yet you didn't seem to have a problem working at a public school. not like there aren't a lot of really good private schools where you could have made your career. wondered if you could elaborate on that. >> guest: when you come down to it, taxation is a form of extortion. we inherit it from the feudal era and it is to serve them. it takes a long time to carry out a revolution that is as deep-seated as would be required to overthrow taxation for raising funds to administer a legal system appropriately, properly. let's get to your practical gotcha question. my view is when you are in a stated society depending on the

degree that is involved you should not work on committing suicide. you should work on trying to dodge and lived with the conditions that face you. i live under socialism, communism, under a bit of fascism and i now live with the welfare state. the welfare state has public roads, public education. it has a lot of things that are supported immorally and yet we live with it. the one thing i always felt, never ask for a raise from a state school and never promote giving people a race or increasing their budgets on the back of taxpayers'. at long as i adhere to that and make it clear in my work and my talking. not in my class rooms because i am not an advocate of these things in my classrooms. i sometimes discuss these issues but my role in the classroom is

not to defend some particular position or oppose another position. however as i human being who has specialized in a certain line of work i will use my work to make a case for what i think is right. >> host: you referenced various ways to write books -- >> guest: i have five ways. five ways of proving god's existence. i have five ways of defending free society. there is a letter to the editor. there is the magazine article. there is the scholarly paper. those are my ways. teaching is not advocacy. when you are hired as a teacher the analogy of a midwife comes to mind. you are supposed to explain

aristotle and karl marx and rand and everyone else to comes into the discussion. anyone who does is engaging in educational malpractice. you familiarize students with positions with the pros and cons and nuances of difficulties. you do not advocate. >> host: do you enjoy teaching? >> guest: i love teaching. >> host: what does it resonate? >> guest: i can't deny i am something of a showman. i volunteered to come here. i was not drafted. defect that people get excited about ideas that are important under your tutelage, that is a nice thing. way back in the case of

sovereignty, evened having an element of eros about them. more like some your spiritual fein but you get all involved after all these people go out and live their life in terms of some of the ideas you brought home to them. >> host: how many places have you taught over the years? >> guest: quite a few. cal state was my first. i got fired partly because i made a speech opposed to public education. this was a college that just started as a public education institution. i was not very prudent at the time. the next one was in new york in western new york. i was there for ten years. then i came to the west coast

and taught santa barbara. i also talked marxist economics and history of economic thought. i went from there to a place in san diego, a catholic university. i was a visiting professor. from there i went to switzerland where i taught in franklin college, switzerland with an interesting experience. almost all the students were from foreign countries and we had the most fascinating debates between people from israel, people from the arab countries. i was there exactly at the time america was bombing the libyan air force in 1985 or 1986 and was a fascinating experience. we had public debate and it was very animated. from there i went to auburn where i talk for ten years and

from auburn pair went to this place right here, chapman university in orange county which was a wonderful change. >> host: what do you think of the concept of tenure? >> guest: i don't like it. i left tenured positions twice in my career and never looked back. tenure is a debilitating, education leave debilitating aspects of higher education. it might have had at some .125 years ago in germany where it was invented to the best of my knowledge, i am not a historian of this but generally speaking, tenure can be achieved through contact. if you deserve to be kept on for a lifetime, then deal for this.

strike a good agreement with the university. don't make it a matter of public policy like a right. like an entitlement. i don't faint -- it could be part of some institutions. be 1-size-fits-all element disturbs me. >> host: alexandria, virginia, our next caller. are you there? we are going to move on to westlake village for tibor machan. >> caller: first of all, i am disappointed that the l.a. times forsake ucla ended basically stuck ucla and moved the book festival from ucla which supported it for many years. >> guest: i don't know why you're telling me that. i'd had nothing to do with that.

between the two i favor the second. >> caller: it is consistent with your philosophy. >> guest: rightfully consistent. i like to be consistent. >> caller: my question is do you think that the experience of socialism in eastern europe had any positive effect on those countries? >> guest: i cannot think of one. that is like asking me do i think that libya's president gadhafi has been helpful to libya's citizens? no. to me socialism is anti human. it is marching people down a line of existence of social

existence that may be appropriate for two or three% by this 1 size fits all regimentation of the entire population of a society is totally and our human. >> host: next call from dallas, new mexico. you are on the air. >> caller: i have a question about -- you explained you came from your home country because of what do you call it? -- >> guest: our you say i left my country because -- when i left hungary it was under stalinist soviet rule. only six months after stalin

himself died in march of 1953. i lived a very little period under the nazi influence. however, my father who i joined in 1953 and lived with until 1956 was an avowed supporter of anti-semitism. i have a taste what that means. >> host: you have a question? >> caller: i have a question. having to leave your country is there a correlation between your story and a native american -- native americans across the united states that were forced into a different situation because of the invading society of spain and others from britain? >> host: did you hear the

question? he is a native american. wants to know if you see comparisons -- >> guest: native americans were invaded. not all of them. some were completely agreeable to the situation. some were invaded. that was 300 or some years ago. we should learn from it and realized relationships between human beings whether they be native americans, europeans wore blacks or chinese makes no difference. in every case it is a source of deep trouble. >> host: you said it was generations ago, what do you think of preparation? >> guest: is a f ferris anyone available who can demonstrate that there were personal or

economic losses in the court system needs to address those issues. another libertarian who is unfortunately not dead but is author of anarchy state and utopia and he tended to agree that some form of preparations but foley that follows due process of law, not some loose, you guys are white so pay as, it won't work. it has to follow rules of law. >> host: tacoma, washington. hello. >> caller: i would address the fact that something about being a fetus, i want to let him know that at the very moment of conception it is a live person. >> guest: it is a live person but not a human being. it is a live be in. so is my nails live.

so is my hair live. my limbs are alive but they're not human beings. the question is does abortion kill a human being? not whether it kills something that is a live. there are lots of things we kill like chickens and beef and fish that are alive but we are not engaged in a homicide. homicide means killing a human being. murder means killing a human being wrongfully. that is the big issue and i don't think we are going to settle this issue but i did address the topic in a book of mine called the passion for liberty because a lot of people criticized because they didn't like my view of abortion. >> host: let's talk about these books you have done. when do you decide to write a book and what motivates you?

>> guest: generally i follow like almost all academicians do, what are the prominent issues in my discipline and whether i have enough to say, a lot of people have not said anything about it. generally i happened to have enough of a unique take on many of these issues so that i can easily convince myself that injecting my voice to the debate could enrich that debate. that doesn't mean i am a humanitarian when i write. i am a professional when i write. i like to lay out the case for a position that i hold but in a way that my fellow academicians can understand and argue about. >> host: when did you choose a life in the academy?

>> guest: that is an interesting question. i was in the united states air force serving at andrews air force base right by washington d.c.. i was at the time in eighth theater group that i helped to found called andrews players. we were acting. we were putting on plays and even had our little oscars. >> host: so you were a sham and even then. >> guest: i was a producer and an organizer. my english was so poor at the time that many roles like couldn't take those some of them i could because they called for someone with an accent. what happened there is that i realized that the members of the theater group who were officers

were more interesting-i wanted to know how you become somebody who gets into that kind of life and the answer was i had to go to college and get myself a degree. i was a late bloomer. i was 24 when i entered college but i realized immediately that this was stuff that i liked. this is where i want to be. then i realized many of the issues that had been simmering in my system though not coming out since i left hungary require a serious attention and knowledge of history or philosophy or sociology or psychology and it is very naturally drove me into the academy because that is where you deal with these issues. but the real critical deco was when i was already in college

and trying to figure out which subject i should major in, political science, psychology and so on and decided to take a philosophy course and almost the very first class, there was something that resonated between me and the subject. may be is more profound than i realized what was profound about philosophy was the philosophy class i took, conclusions weren't being taught. arguments were examined. we were always engage in debates and the professor never said this is the answer. i thought that is for me. i can get into the game without being wrong from the get go.

they will leave me to think things through. that meant a lot to me and ever since then i have major in philosophy. my master's degree as well as my ph.d.. >> host: staying in the subject in later parts of your book when you are ruminating about the impact of your career you know this fact that you have taught at the biggest name universities, you haven't been attacked by the largest game publishers so i wonder about the acceptance of your line of thinking among the biggest aspects of the profession you have chosen. >> host: it is no secret to anybody that it position that favors the classical liberal politics, small government, very small government, is not widely

embraced in the academic world and almost by would say about 70% of those who deal with these subjects, that excludes physicists or metallurgy or something like that, that would be left of center. i have felt this ever since i entered college. when i was an undergraduate all of my professors -- maybe i am exaggerating. almost all my professors were pushing the essential philosophy of these new deals, political philosophy of the new deal. kennedy was the rising political star. the whole idea of instituting legal principles that kept the

government to the role that the declaration of independence spells out, to protect our rights, was very ill received yet i held that early in my career. i held it -- i don't even remember when i didn't hold this view. i was never a conservative. i was always a classical liberal libertarian. and so i never experienced a great deal of enthusiasm from my professors or even from my fellow students for the content of my thinking. they liked me because i was usually pleasant and i argued reasonably well, but as far as elevating me to some position of influence, nothing. .. answer every book of mine, whether it was an edited book are another that was a struggle to get into print. this changed in 1973 or four

when a book was published by basic books from new york. it was the very first philosophy book from a major philosopher from harvard university, educated at princeton, that achieved some spend a part of >> and wrote with verve ando fascinating, you know, energyve and was very, very smart that v afterwards people started to, oh, this libertarian stuff, maybe there's something to it. , maybe there's something to it. after which publishing essays or papers and publishing books for those of us who thought that freedom really is the highest public goods became a little bit easier. but we never made it -- right now, consider for example, the stars who make it on pbs. someone like michael sandel from harvard university who is such a

big hit. he starts, he starts a series of lectures showing why libertarianism is wrong. now, that didn't happen before. but it still happening afterwards. >> host: next phone call from illinois. you are on call mac can you hear me? >> host: yes, we can come back i'm impressed by the speaker this morning and his english is fairly good. i am kind of a liberal arts person, political science. my question is,. [inaudible] >> host: does art fit anywhere into it? >> guest: that was a long time ago that i paid attention.

i thought existentialism for about two years at freedonia, and i always thought that the biggest shortcoming of this arc is that he announces that he is an ethical subjectivist but then makes very drastic ethical pronouncements about human beings. and i couldn't live without inconsistency very much. but i am, i'm in agreement that pressler the most important aspects of human nature, although he denounces the ideas of human essence still with the most important things about human beings is that they are free to choose, and that's something that i think sartre helped revive in 20th century philosophy. >> host: an e-mail from someone who ask what are your thoughts about the value and importance of the great book, liberal arts program offered in

santa fe, isn't it also important to avoid religious angle in order to keep students in the next american generation open-minded and progressive? >> guest: i agree. i think the great books is a very good idea. but like everything else, one size does not fit all. and there are people who really opt to stick to math. or to physics. and a little bit of history of science would help, maybe a little bit of intellectual history. but i don't think they should become experts on socrates, on cicerone and so on. however, for those of us who do want to do with the humanities and in a competent fashion the great books program is a good what. >> host: we are at the top of our second hour. we're spending three hours on a monthly "in depth" series with tibor machan, and we are here on the campus of unc where booktv is here this weekend because of

the "los angeles times" book festival. and we are taking advantage of that to doctor tibor machan who's based in california. do you think of yourself as a californian? >> guest: it's an interesting question. this is but a personal issue for me. i've had such a racket kind of confused history having lived in germany, in switzerland, traveled all over the world, become an american, intentionally. one of the reasons i speak reasonably good english is that i took a very, i mean, made a very determined effort to lose my accent because my model for a hungarian speaking english was zsa zsa gabor. that was disgusting. i had to get away from it. so even now i talk to friends of mine who think it's a very vital part of their identity, where they come from. i don't relate to it. i think a more cosmopolitan is

being what i like. it sort of like at home in most other places, not very much at home with is a lot of prejudice and sort of parochialism, and so, but i still think that most people will recognize that i have certain european tendencies about me. but i don't make a big deal. you know, identity politics, a friend of mine and also someone i admire, although i disagree with, wrote a book called reason before identity, for oxford university press, like a tiny book. it costs only five bucks. and i think it lays out the case or why it is much more important that human beings are thinking beings than where they come from. >> host: during the second hour we're going to work in a few other influences. we have video i want to show you along the way to talk about some

of people you write about that affected you. and will continue to take your telephone calls. you can this message is by twitter or e-mail us. we will work all that in. here's an e-mail that seems to fit nicely from the thought of american by choice. this is curtis who e-mails what your thoughts on the term american dream and the way it is used in american politics? >> guest: i think the american dream is a dream for every american to be able to find his or her dream and realize it. this is unique to america and many other places, you are made to march in lock with bunch of other people. you are supposed to embrace this tradition or this religion, and that is the exceptionalism that so many people decry about america, that in this country nobody makes you a member of

either the catholic group was a lutheran group or the atheist group or the secularist group or any group. you can forge a life for yourself, within reason. you have to be reasonably civilized. you have to speak some english, although that's sort of now pop say i think. -- pase i think. i don't think there's an american dream you can identify. a lot of people make reference as if the with the economic flourishing of every american citizen. i don't think so. art, if one is an american citizen and wants to devote oneself to being a great painter or musician or architect or surfer, it's all well and good by american. >> host: next call comes from dallas. you are on the air. >> caller: hello. as a fellow classical liberal and lowercase l. libertarian, i

am in complete agreement with your philosophy, but, unfortunately, -- >> guest: that's great. >> caller: ui people like us are in a small minority. it seems to me that these days, i'm 60 years old and i cannot remember a time when the country was more politically fragmented and polarized then we find ourselves right now. our founders set up a system that was supposed to be on a week central government with more autonomy granted to the states, where states, people could locate in a state that suited their individual clinical philosophies more closely. and we have moved away from that but there is a current model in our world that works busy right now. it is a swiss canton system where they are autonomous and there's a wide variety of

political philosophies that exist within those cantons. i guess where i'm going with this, i wonder what your thoughts are if there's every chance that we will see our country move back to a system like that will allow us to vote with our feet. >> guest: let me tell you that i live in switzerland for about two and half years, and i agree that there's some really, really nice advantages to having a canton system to work with. there are some disadvantages. if this was that a lot of anti-semites among them are people who were against blacks, this might mean something terrible for some of the cantons. so that kind of small case but pure democracy can become very dangerous. and so having a general countrywide constitution that

reference individual rights i think is a sound approach. and not to be too fragmented at that level. but, you know, there's other things. you say that we have not been so badly off for a long time, but, in fact, there were certain kinds of progress that libertarians ought to be very happy with. for example, gay-rights. women's rights. as a whole bunch of issues, mostly civil libertarian type issues, not economic libertarian issues, where progress has been made and should be very welcomed by those who love freedom. >> host: let's go because we have a person was asking this question for me by e-mail. it's about ayn rand. do you know ayn rand? did you know? if so, what was she like lex did you learn anything from her? you said in your memoir that she changed my life considerably.

how? >> guest: because she crystallized for me something that i had only had an emotional inkling of. and that is the importance of the human individual. i think rand's the fountainhead and even atlas shrugged really makes it very clear that what is the most important thing in your life issue. everything else is derivative and your children, even if you're me, your friends. if you don't value yourself, all that will be in vain. and by the way, this is not that original. after all, you should love thyself as passionate you should love your neighbor as thyself. that's not to be neglected in the christian tradition either. rand is very sharp, very didactic, or was. and i was very taken by her books. i was actually starred in a

little play that she wrote before i knew anything about her major works. night of gender 16th in this little theater group that i helped start at andrews air force base, and then later on i became familiar with her works. and i actually met her in 1962 in new york at the empire state building was she at her office. and had a nice 30 minute conversation with her. and then later on we had a breach because i sounded off a little bit harshly in a manner that i disagreed drama we have a noisy background. >> guest: interrupting my important talk. [laughter] so anyway, no, i benefited from rand in many ways. let me just say i wrote a book called ayn rand, published by the swiss publisher peter lane which was just translated into german last summer.

it was called ayn rand, her works. it discusses all of her books, her major points of her philosophy, a little bit about my history with her. so if you really are interested you want to look into that little book. probably take it from a library that you don't have to, you know, go bankrupt because of it. >> host: there's a great amount of ayn rand video on youtube as people are curious because of the movie out right now and would like to hear. we pulled one short clips of people could hear her. let's listen to and we can go back and talk more about it. >> private roads, private post office, private schools spent industry breaks demo don't and there is unemployment and mass unemployment. we should not be permitted to get unemployment insurance. social security, we do not need. will depend upon the

self-interest of these enlightened and dutch lists you so admire to take care of things when the economy needs a little lubrication and amounts of people. >> economics. the economy will not break down. they are caused by government interference. and the cure is always offered so far, more of the poison that causes it depression's are not the result of the economy. >> host: thought that was particular about it for the time dragged it is. and i find if grant had more time to discuss this she could have made a case more convincingly, but the fact is that all these supposed political remedies of economic difficulties are going to be administered by human beings, by the same type of beings whose responsible for the economic

problems. so why do people think that these people, when they collect themselves in washington or in sacramento or in albany, suddenly become angels, and why? as opposed to when they're out in the marketplace trying to strike a deal, trying to make a living, trying to be productive, trying to bring up their families, and amass the resources so they can do so, they are sloppy and irresponsible. i think the issue isn't, is the marketplace occasionally seen a difficulties of problems. it can be, although most of the problems that we are now experiencing can arguably be traced to too much in the economy, not too little. for example, that the government wants to monitor a system that the federal reserve bank has practically independent power

over the economy. all that is not free market economics. and anybody who is honest about this will recognize that to call this a capitalist system is a rank distortion. this is a mixed economy as a are ready mentioned to you when there are so many elements, that to ferret out exactly to the elements which are responsible for our problems, it's difficult. but let's assume that under capitalism, free market capitalism is what rand is talking about, you do have some problems. there are some supposed to submit suddenly all of a sudden people get so excited about a certain car that all the other cars lack of buyers. there's going to be unemployment in some of the car industry. okay? okay, so are people too stupid to cope with this? and if they are, why would the politicians come and aim to remedy this so smart? what, has there been a kind of a

genetic engineering that makes people who are in washington smarter or better than the rest of us? see, compared to what is the issue. compared to the meddling type of government is far superior. now, is a perfect? nothing is perfect like that. and anybody who wins for perfection doesn't deserve even -- the famous saying about perfect is the enemy of the good. i totally believe in it. people who run their political thinking by way of these dreamlike criteria are going to be misguided. and they're going to give rise to systems where the powerful will try to impose their solutions, and that is disastrous. >> host: i'm going to stay with ayn rand of it. someone wants to know did you see the movie?

>> guest: i saw part one of "atlas shrugged" and what did you think? >> guest: i thought it was well enough done, competently done, but i have to be very careful. i read the book in 1961 in one solid day. it was riveting. i thought it was classic, the train ride absolutely. now, in this movie there's no way to recapture that first expect. it's like a first love, you know. you can't just repeat that. let's have many me first loves. you can't do that. i think it's ever bit as good as any of oliver stone's movies like wall street, our the seventh day in may which is a very didactic political movie. is it as good as gone with the wind? maybe not as good. but then it didn't have clark

gable either. >> host: here's another, this will be very complicated. you can pass if you like. i'm going to ask our dash of hold on. this view by e-mail wants to know if you can compare ayn rand's political philosophy to jesus, which socialism embraced a more? >> guest: well, the problem is that i have a special bone to pick with jesus, that i don't have with ayn rand. if you remember, jesus is often referred to as the prince of peace. and yet, jesus became violent at one point. what was the point at which he became violent? >> host: i'm not answering questions. [laughter] >> guest: that was a rhetorical question. it's when merchants were doing deals outside of the church.

now, anybody who then holds up jesus asked the prince of peace, when a man loses his cool simply because there are traitors around doing deals from which they're going to support him their family and friends and their neighborhoods, is not my hero. rand has never sanctioned any form of force on innocent people who did not themselves engage in force against others. so i think red is preferable to me. in this respect. now, as far as rand temperament, she was a bellicose lady, sometimes rather disagreeable, very intemperate, very impatient your but listen, if you look at almost all of the major thinkers, whether it is against

94th segment for what in our era -- sigmund freud in our era, or rousseau or hugh, all of these people had major flaws. you know that david hume, the famous scottish philosopher manufactured a review of his book, praising it to high heaven because nobody else would review it. this is fraud. does anybody hold it against david hume? no. called popper left a whole bunch of his students fighting with each other over how to interpret it. liechtenstein once heard that someone else in his university dared to talk about his position in philosophy so he ran down to

the administration and demanded that the man be fired. these guys are sort of near prima donnas, near divas, including rand. they have their personal proclivities. some of them are not so pretty. so again, compared to what? >> host: you have been very patient, thanks for waiting. >> caller: hello. >> guest: hello. >> caller: hello. i just want you to elaborate or talk more about -- i was one if you tell me something about liberty and how that relates to the philosophy of teen. >> guest: all right, i will address that issue just now. as you probably know, in plato's republic, socrates outlines a

perfect political order. but he does so in the course of trying to illustrate what it is for human being to live right. and he then uses this model of the perfect social order to give a kind of large? of the small matter of running one's own life. it's a little bit like in chemistry, you don't actually look at the adams involved in a chemical compound that you study. you bring up these big huge possibles and that's how you've illustrated. that's what plato did with the republic. now, the republic could very well be misunderstood there's zillions of books written on this arguing about this, but it could very well be understood as an illustration of why politics is not the means to our human

good life. the good life has to be your own doing. you cannot deploy politics to achieve human goodness. it has to be an individual of accomplishment. are the things that are problematic about the republic? i think there are. it's built up an ideal which is literally in possible, and yet people are trying to or have been trying to implement it. and they went wrong. but the original idea was simply a little bit like when you would see a model on the cover of "vogue," and you say wow, does my wife have to be like this? my children? no, it is a mom. it is not a blueprint. the republic, politics is not a blueprint. it is something of a reminder of what is important to human life.

and the reminder is the most important thing in human life is thoughtfulness, mindfulness, rationality. >> host: next as a telephone call from tucson. welcome to our conversation. >> caller: yeah, you said earlier that you are against taxation. that's possible -- best possible political situation. what would you see as the governments -- how would the government raise the money to do the jobs that it needs to do as you see them? >> guest: okay. first of all, you have to remember that in a bona fide genuinely free society, the government would be a very small element. it's like the referees at a baseball game. or a football game. they are not putting the central

issue. they just get some money for keeping the rules going, each acting those who are failing to obey the rules. governments would be defenders of individual rights. okay, so the cost would be far less than what it is now. you could have a budget that is miniscule compared to the budgets of contemporary developed countries. to, you could have come and here i am speculating and i wish more public finance departments at universities would study this, but they're so busy talking about how to raise taxes that they don't even consider alternatives. how about a contract the? how about charging everyone who enters into a contract with a certain fee which would protect the integrity of the contracts that if somebody is accused of having violated it, you go to court and challenge?

this could take care of the courts, of the police, maybe even the military. if you think about the volume of contracts that is entered into daily, hourly in a country like ours, you can imagine that the money would be sufficient. however, it would not be coercive because you could just shake a hand even for a major union contract with detroit, but nobody would do that. it would be repeated to you wouldn't have the protection of the contract. but it would be possible. and that's the essence of free finance, noncoercive finance. is that the payment is not extracted to you at the point of a gun. right now what we have is you pay your taxes or you go to jail. this is kabul to a holed up in a back alley saying your money or your life.

that is not what a free society is about. now, do we understand why it still is like that? considering that major oppressive regimes have been in existence and still are in existence throughout the world in human history, that people used to have serfs, there used to be a people's that they came was believed to own the realm over which he ruled, that he owned the people in it. taxation was kind of written that you charge someone who's occupying an apartment in your apartment house. but once the king is demoted as the american revolution presumably demoted the english throne, you know longer have the rationale for taxation so you graduate have to move out of that system into something more conducive to free men and women.

>> host: westin, virginia. welcome to the conversation with tibor machan. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm not a libertarian. i suppose i'm kind of more left of center, nevertheless appreciate some of the ideas that come out of libertarianism. example, the notions on human reason. i've also been attracted to hikes ideas of spontaneous order. but it seems to me that some libertarians, confronted i don't put you, doctor, would not put you in that category, but it seems that sometimes they fail to remember the notion of the limits of human reasons with regard to their own positions. in fact, i think even he was guilty of at times. but, of course, they're not alone on this. you mention a nice contradiction with respect to ethics. for being inconsistent with the opposition isn't something unique to libertarians. nor do you see that coming also

see that same feeling with respect to our current political impasse is -- let me rephrase that with effect our current political impact. i think it's a commitment to dogmatism that makes it impossible for us, makes it difficult for us to talk to each other, come up with solutions. >> host: what about a question? >> guest: what is libertarianism physician or in relation to other philosophies, other political positions to extend and kind of the direction i'm interested in? .. let me try to address this. first of all, you can have all

kinds of competing positions already in the united states. you have experimental communities, communes, kibbutzes, religious communities, sometimes people who don't want to have sex and sometimes people who only want to haveav sex. they build their communities, and they live in peace with other communities based on very different principles.ed the only principle that isples banned is that we may use force on other people to have them comply with our ideals. comply with our ideals. this is why we do need a constitution in which it is made clear that you do not allow coercion to factor in to human relationships. but beyond that, that's just the negative. you can do all kinds of things positively that are very different from your neighbors. and i think the libertarians would agree that such a multicultural,

multiphilosophical, multireligious society is possible and desirable. but there are some things that would be foreboden in them, okay? as to human reason, you know, the paradox in what you say is that it seems to require a human reason to discover the limitations of human reason. there's nothing else that we can do. we have to rely on our season there is no other thing. we can't rely on our thumb. we can't rely on our nose alone. we can't rely on tradition alone. all of these things need to be examined critical. now, is reason flawless, infallible? certainly not. it's a human faculty. like all human faculty it can experience bumps in the road but it is the best way to go. and mises and hayek when they dislike reason they qualify

this. they dislike constructive reason. that is anything that gives rise to massive planned societies. >> host: we're at the halfway point of our three hours with us. to viewers we hope if you're interested we have information about the break about tibor machan and his writings and we'll be back in 5 or 6 minutes in our conversations and we'll see you then. ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

>> to have survived and made a life of herself, she almost >> host: otherwise she would have been personality; otherwise, she would would have been, you know, destroyed. ♪ >> rand was not treated very well in the late '50s, early

1960s. first of all, she was not an academic, second she was a capitalist which annoyed people on the left and she was an atheist which annoyed people on the right. she was a loner. she was also -- her harshness in her insistence that she had to beat the table every time she spoke didn't even endear her to people who might have listened a little bit more carefully had she been a little bit more pleasant. but her unpleasantness, i think, ultimately can be fully justified given the treatment she was given when she came out of the soviet union, told the

truth about that country and nobody paid attention to her. and she was terribly upset. she had been a fan of america through its symbols, through its art, through its movies, through it is atmospherics and then she finally ends up in the middle of the country and brings warning about this disastrous experiment and people dismiss her. well, she was just terribly upset and, you know, different personalities react differently to being upset by that. and rand's reaction was to become quite bellicose, you know, but that doesn't take very much away from the substance of her thought. it just makes her a difficult sell. it was a catharsis.

i was in the air force and i stayed up two nights sleepless, foodless and just read through it. i did cut out the speech and made a little book out of it and would later study, you know. but the train ride, for example, was riveting, the writing describing that train ride just sent me. the money talk was fabulous. the sex talk was okay. a little bit -- a bit old-fashioned, let me put at this way and quite believable i found rand and sex completely incompatible. [laughter] >> anyway, so atlas shrugged just had wonderful caricatures

of really hateful people you knew in your life, at least mine, having lived under the rule of a nazi father and under the rule of communist government -- i mean, these people were really like that. this is not a caricature. this is the depiction of these people. their mentality. their way of not really paying attention to another person's humanity. this is a characteristic of all of these entrenched bureaucrats and atlas demonstrates this very well. that these bad guys are bad because they violate humanity, not because they violate god, not because they violate some ideal out of this recalled but because they're not well grounded in the way of human life. john galt represents the human

capacity and willingness to take one's life and make the most of it. i think rand's great legacy is to have rescued this tradition from obscurity and giving it a passionate twist and captured it in fiction which excited a lot more people than some dry treatise would have. then, of course, to give capitalism this sort of backing where it is completely pro-life, prohuman beings, prohuman life and that to show that without freedom, one is usually much worse off than with it. there can be some rare, bizarre

exceptions but if you want to know the general truth of it, the free society is the superior alternative to anything else that has opinion thought up by human beings on the political fron front. >> you're looking at live pictures from los angeles, the campus of usc, university of southern california on this sunday may 1st. it is our site today for our monthly "in depth" conversation. we're joined on our set, on the usc campus by tibor machan, who's the author of more than 30 books. we've been spending an hour and a half with him and we have an hour and a half left to go and we're mixing in your calls and emails and tweets about his philosophies. and i want to some of his book jackets before we go any farther. passionate liberty. here's a collection of columns called neither left nor right. this one i got to get to this before our program finishes,

dr. machan. putting humans first: why we are nature's favorite and here's one we referred to earlier, a man without a hobby was -- is a memoir and we referenced that heavily in the first conversation. here's a recent title equality so badly misunderstood. and the one currently available in favorite booksellers right now, why is everyone else wrong: explorations of truths and reason. do you have a favorite among these? >> you don't actually have my favorites here. one of them is called capitalism and individualism that was published by sein-martin and another one was published in 1998. these are basic laying out and defending positions, and the

capitalism and individualism addresses the issue of what kind of individualism it is that the free market capitalist society rests on because there are so many people who claim that capitalism is atomistic and it has a narrow view of the individual and that it is narrowly selfish as if people are out there grabbing whatever they can. and these are such distortions about the nature of capitalism. anyone who knows anything about free men and women doing commerce realize that they have a much richer life than these doctrines allege so i'm very interested in having that book get out there. >> gettysburg, south dakota, our next caller on "in depth." you're on air. >> caller: hello? >> host: we can hear you.

>> caller: professor machan i'm a libertarian-type atheists. you were asked earlier if eastern european socialism had contributed to anything and you said no. didn't it make atheism generally respectable in western civilization. >> guest: first of all, atheism is a narrow position that i don't believe goth doesn't exist on that. you can't build anything on it. you can't do anything with that without refuse to accept faith as a basis. second, what the kind of central european socialism that did for atheism is give it a very, very bad reputation because it imposed it on schools, on families, on organizations and so on. and that is really not what

freedom is about. freedom has its risks. people can believe in stuff that are wrong, that is wrong. so i'm not very happy with the sort of imposed atheism or nonpolice chief -- nonbelief that you have had in socialist countries like north korea and castro's cuba and so on. >> caller: dr. machan, my question is something about you mentioned very early in the interview. you said pleasure peddlers who trying to get the people out of their hungary. what was their motives were political, monetary? were they hungarians and et cetera? and i have another question too, very briefly, what do you think of the conspiracy theory of the global government, that type of thing? thank you. >> guest: okay. the first one -- the flesh peddlers and as i said, this was a term that was used by "time"

magazine back in the 1980s in a very derogatory essay they wrote about these people who were of enormous help to thousands and thousands of d.p.'s, displaced people and so i was very angry with "time" demeaning the work that these people did. i suppose, that "time" magazine, like so many other organizations in the world, would have loved to have these people do something for nothing. you can't make a living if you do something for nothing. and they had to collect some fees from their clients and that's exactly what they did. i'm very happy that they did it because without some fees, they wouldn't exist. you wouldn't have barber's if they couldn't charge a price for cutting your hair. anyway, so that's one thing that i find about this flesh peddlers. i was very thankful that there were professional smugglers who were willing to take the risk of

bringing people like me out to the west away from the tyranny of soviet-style socialism. now, as to the conspiracy theory, you know, i find old conspiracy theories weird because if there's so much of a conspiracy, how come we know about it? it seems very odd. if everybody is worrying about things that are secret, in fact, that's what their great advantage is supposed to be, that nobody knows about them. but we all know about this stuff so there must be something bizarre going on here. i'm not sure what it is. >> host: next call is from bradenton, florida. you're on the air. >> caller: yes. some of the questions that i wanted to raise to dr. machan have already been answered, and i'm seeking knowledge not interested in saying what i

think. perhaps one of his books would be a brief outline on the ideal or perfect libertarian community or communities. i know the governments still exists on a smaller form. and the -- is it sort of an umbrella for small independent communities? i just want some more information on how it would work. >> well, first of all, i did actually write a book directly addressing your question called "libertarianism defended." it was published very recently. i think it was 2006 by a british publisher called ashgate. and it addresses many of these issues. number one, i consider libertarianism not an ideal. in fact, my latest book on

libertarianism, "the promise of liberty" is subtitled "a nonutopian vision" i don't think libertarianism should be thought of as an ideal but as a practical solution to people's community problems. and as such, it introduces and defends and elaborates the idea that people should relate to one another peacefully, even when they're in deep need, even if they're very angry. you do not resort to violence towards other people. so that's a very crucial element of libertarian. within the limits of that principle, a principle that would be upheld in the law, all kinds of things may be done. you can start an orchestra, a play group. you can have a farm. you can have sports. you can have any kind of human

activity. and one of the biggest reasons people don't readily support libertarianism is they forget that many of the things that they now count on the government to do would be done by people in the free society of their own initiative, not because they have to do it because it would be a good idea to do them. now, if you say, well, but we can't have any guarantees then, do you think that the government provides real guarantees? i think you should look at our current budgetary situation. >> well, here's a related question. john sends an email, i'm conflicted. i voted for ron paul in the last election and i'm an admirer of theodore roosevelt. he created over 300 parks, national parks, a libertarian we would not -- we would not have all these places referred for us. please comment. >> guest: well, once again, it exactly illustrates what i just

said. just because the government does not maintain public parks or natural conservation or whatever, i discuss this in my book "putting humans first" because i realize that a lot of people are very great champions of the wilds. i don't like to call it nature because i consider a bridge, i consider a television program very much part of nature. so what they are -- what they are for is the wilds. they want wild animals, wildflowers, wild trees, wild mountains and so forth. and i don't see why -- if the government has enough support in a democracy to fund these things, to uphold them, to maintain them, why in a free society that wouldn't be the case? i happen to think that there would be just as much room and call for these kinds of

undertakings amongst free men and women than there is right now among partly freed men and women. >> host: we have another caller. you're on. >> caller: well, this is a dream of mine to talk to you dr. machan. i'm a 26-year-old former philosophy undergraduate. i'm here at law school in ole miss. you're a hero of mine and it was my birthday yet and you're the best gift i received. i'm a former intern with "reason" magazine and i know you started with robert poole would you talk about when you started reason and what do you think the future for it is, and my second question, is i'm a young guy and i'm interested in the intellectual unit and you and robert are heroes and got me out of the studies i was in. what advice would you have for a young guy like me in law school to get involved in this rich intellectual tradition and to really make a difference.

so thank you, i love you, c-span. and your ring, dr. machan. i love your ripping. >> guest: well, thank you very much. here's the answer to your first question. back in 1969, we became aware of a small minimum graph publication with a great logo called reasoned and bob poole was out there at mit and he also got excited by lanny, eventually published both him and me in this little magazine. bob and i liked it so much that we decided that we're going to put it on a regular basis on a monthly basis. we know got together with manny, an attorney here in los angeles who's still an attorney here in los angeles. and the three of us, including our then wives or ex-wives, those are too many details i don't want to get into -- we put indeed this whole idea plan into

practice. one of our central gimmicks was to interview little known libertarian thinkers in the general culture or well enough known to many of us like thomas, nathaniel brandon, jim buchanan, bill -- all these people and we featured every month an interview. eventually we interviewed bill buckley and we interviewed -- oh, many others, milton friedman, f.a. hayek and that became a kind of centerpiece of "reason" magazine back then. since that time, "reason" has developed into a more popular, a bit more hip hop version of its former self where there's a lot of emphasis on looking good and being reasonably clear and accurate but not much in depth. the philosophical bent that was

very important to us in the publication earlier on is now hardly there. i mean, i've written like 40 books. they've reviewed maybe one maybe 20 years ago. they're not interested in this kind of approach to political issues anymore. and frankly they don't even publish anything that i send them even if it's a letter to the editor partly because they've changed their approach. they want to appeal to a mass audience and, frankly, philosophy has never been appealing to the mass audience. just look at when socrates was a philosopher. they pretty much killed him for it. >> host: william f. buckley is described as one of your great influencers. in what way? >> guest: well, what happened is back in 1961, that's roughly at the time when i ran across ayn

rand and there was a book why don't we complain and there's a nice essay if you don't complain eventually you build up hatred and you blow and that's how other countries have these violent revolutions; whereas, more or less democratic societies tend to move from one form of government to another rather peacefully. and i thought that's a great insight and as i'm woe to do and i took a pen and paper and wrote to buckley. and buckley was kind enough to respond to me even though i was this nobody reader, you know? and we started a correspondence .. i wasn't, so once i asked him why do you have to use these big words because i want to influence people who use big words.

that was his answer. anyway, buckley was also quite religious. he was a roman catholic. i was a roman catholic when i was growing up until i was about 20, so we had some arguments about that. and he wasn't so much of an influence on me as somebody who showed me that with some tenacity and perseverance and you can get your ideas out there and have them considered. >> host: from north dakota, next question. >> caller: earlier in the program the professor said taxes are immoral and you would raise funds by putting a fee on contracts. to raise money for national defense and highways and big projects, are you suggesting this is a form of value added

tax for that? >> let me answer in a more general political theoretical way. and this is it. try to deal with someone like a communist who is trying to bring about communism and ask him about these details. what would he do about this, about that, about the arts, about tennis? most of the people who are sketching, approach for political affairs, don't have answers to those questions. they will allow them to emerge but within the confines of basic principles. as far as how finance, various things in a free society the only answer a libertarian can give you is without coercion.

the rest of it needs to be discovered, explored. that is what think tanks are for. science and public finance departments are for. they are not something that you can lay out. you can hand at them, speculate about the details. >> host: we've got variations from a number of viewers. a libertarian how you feel about the patriot act? >> guest: i am not very enthusiastic about the patriot act. any act that needs such heavily loaded, biased named to let you have to look at with some suspicion. it is probably not really patriotic. my point of view is if the government could find itself to what it really ought to be doing it would not have to

propagandize its legitimate job. it could just do it and it would serve us well. >> host: next call from boise, idaho. >> caller: this is a real pleasure. a long time viewer, first-time caller. and baby boomer. recently i discovered the world of ideas and became interested in it. i was wondering if you could comment on the relationship between these three disciplines. have the hard sciences revealed physical fact, the soft sciences revealed statistics through clinical studies, then you have literature which seems to speak to human truth. i am interested in any comments you might have on how those might interplay with one another or feed into you as a philosopher and i will take your

comment off the air. >> guest: i will ask your help to translate some of that. >> host: the hard sciences, soft sciences and literature. >> guest: they are different things. literature is a creative process. the soft and hard sciences are a discovery process. there is a creative element to the hard and soft sciences and that would be technology. but on the whole, all of this world that some basic level the most important thing in all of them is that they remain internally consistent and do not degenerate into meaninglessness, into the construction --decon r --deconstructionism which are incoherent and champion

themselves as more sophisticated than simple good old thinking. as far as i am concerned the sciences and soft sciences and the rest of our concerns are all pretty much consistent, mutually reenforcing but not the same. >> host: tell me about this book. >> guest: cute is not enough is a little book i decided to write with my daughter who was at the time 5 years old and didn't want to write a new book. she was very cute and i knew with little girls who are very cute there is a danger they might grow up counting too much on their looks to get the buy in life. so i wanted to have this little memory for her to reminder that cute is wonderful. is great. being beautiful is a very

wonderful asset to have but it is not something that one should rely on to carry one through life. >> host: what does she think of it now? >> guest: she loves it. she is now 27. my 32-year-old older daughter is also a stunning. none of them ever try to capitalize on their looks. it might make the rich. i don't have to pay for so much. >> host: next call from california. >> caller: thanks for a dynamite, fought for discussion. it occurs to me. i am libertarian too. the flip side of big government is small citizen. an extreme but revealing example is north korea where you are the property of your leader. the other extreme, libertarians have the idea that you are fully capable of running and owning

your own life and the role of the state is to protect your rights, not to impose morality know how popular that morality might be. in the middle are the democrats and republican parties that view you as a public/private partnership wherein my view you are increasingly the junior partner. for them for role of state is to impose morality. >> guest: i agree with you. i don't know what we are going to argue about. let me say this. neither the north koreans nor a possible libertarians' society is going to have everyone conform to the theory that puts them into place. there are people in a relatively and full refreeze society who would be unlucky, will have impediments, who need help. i happen to think free men and women will provide them help

much more readily and efficiently than governments do. as far as north korea is concerned, i am sure there is a black market in north korea. i am sure there are men and women carved out of the sphere of freedom for themselves just like we did in hungary and just like people in cuba do and people doing in venezuela where the dictator gets full power. nothing is ever like a geometrical clean system. >> host: i want to play a clip from president obama. on april 13th, widely viewed the bristol his philosophical speech setting the groundwork for his next election campaign. here is one bit of it. you are going to listen. >> a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending $1 trillion on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. i don't think there's anything courageous about asking sacrifice from those who least afford it and have no clout on

capitol hill. that is not a vision of the america i know. the america i know is generous and compassionate. the land of opportunity and optimism. yes, we take responsibility for ourselves but we also take responsibility for each other. for the country we want and the future that we share. >> host: tibor machan. >> guest: if we take what the president said literally and we're talking about generosity and help toward our fellow citizens, i would have nothing against this except with the sacrifice bit. that is not a sacrifice. that is just reaching out. it is not generosity and help.

forcing people to provide for other people, whether they want to do so or not. it is not generosity. the virtue of generosity is exercised voluntarily not have the point of a gun. if you are not generous when president obama wants you to be generous, you go to jail. you might even get shot if you try to escape. this hole talk is empty rhetoric. whatever he does mean -- probably impossible because you cannot sustain the kind of welfare state he advocates by relying on the voluntary contributions of citizens. moreover, the rich are capable of spending their money productively.

they don't need president obama to take it from them and go out and spend it himself. if this is like saying the bank robber has a better idea what my money should be used for than i do. it is not true. the rich if they earn their wealth, if they came by their wealth without ripping anybody off, ought to have every right to allocate their resources, to redistribute the wealth if you want to put it that way, free of any government intervention. this is the myth of governor as a big brother, be all wise and all good entity. if they knew what our money ought to be spent on -- they don't. bureaucrats and politicians spend money according to their agenda. verrazzano such thing as the

public interest apart from the one that the american founders identified, and that is to protect our basic rights. that is the public interest and that is what governments are established for. >> host: a call from martinez, calif.. >> caller: good morning. i wonder about libertarian philosophy because it doesn't seem to make a lot of connection between power in the private sector and liberty. there is all kinds of things you can point to. alan greenspan got in front of congress and pretty much said i was wrong to give all this power to a few people and they tend to abuse it on their own -- for their own best interests. that would cross over into the

idea of transnational money which is power and speed the cleared by our supreme court. really influencing of america. i can see transnational as a patriotic institution. i am not sure what john locke would say but jefferson and many others don't agree. >> host: let's pick it up from there. >> guest: i am not sure what this caller is talking about. alan greenspan was the chairman of the federal reserve bank which is a completely anti libertarian institution society. in a genuinely free society, banks print money and back it up with wealth. it is not a federal issue. having federal reserve bank would be like having a federal for our bank for the

libertarian. it is not appropriate for the federal government to mess with our finances. it is supposed to mess with keeping the peace. among each other and in the country and other countries. this entire equivocation between libertarian -- libertarianism and some of the current posturing as free-market and capitalists has to be rethought and a careful finger will never find that he could location. >> host: were you surprised alan greenspan took that position? >> guest: people can't be held in a straightjacket all their lives. i could change and become communist. alan greenspan thought, i believe, was better to have him there than ralph nader in that position.

so he took it. it corrects people whether they like it or not. when you have that much power over other people's lives and economic affairs it is difficult to keep your hands clean. did he make any bad judgments? probably because he shouldn't have made any judgments. that is not his role in life. there is the same about alan greenspan maintaining that self-interest would drive the market toward good behavior. it would if the institutions surrounding the market weren't so -- everybody sees benefit from cozying up to the government and getting favors so under the circumstances the kind of assumptions that operate in a genuinely free market are not operating. >> host: an e-mail from a viewer, can you please discuss the split between beltway

libertarians such as "reason" and the cato institute with more radical libertarians like ron paul. >> guest: i have little interest in these disputes. at the bottom of them is truly a turf war. everybody would like to have the leadership position and even the smallest movement. look at any movement in the world where the communists or socialists or the harry krishna, these risks are ubiquitous. i don't think libertarians can escape these human proclivities' any more than any other people. >> host: 30 minutes left in this conversation on in depth with tibor machan. our next telephone call from lafayette, louisiana.

>> caller: i have had some great people in my life. my father, ronald reagan, big fan of william f. buckley and a man by the name of goldwater if you can remember him. and now are at your name to that list. very much have enjoyed your philosophy. i was fortunate enough after i made my second fortune, lost the first one, of going to your country, budapest, it within 72 and was on my way to the world congress in moscow and it was so hurtful to see no smiles, no happiness when everyone got off the train to go to work in their dull surroundings. thing god is not that way and that were bluffing called socialism is gone in that

country. >> host: i am sure you have been back? >> guest: i have. this caller reminds me of a took i -- a trip by took two years ago. i was at conference in budapest and my mother was living in austria. i decided to take a train to visit my mother. the train went through exactly where i went through when i escaped in 1953. nobody looked at my passport. no cops walked up to me. at that time is the beginning of this financial fiasco it in america and i wrote a column saying it could be much worse. and i compared the improvement of having finally gotten rid of soviet colonialists.

not created a full the free society in hungary. they have the same problems we have in most of the western welfare state. but compared to what they lived through from 1948 to 1989, it was heaven. you can see a lot of smiling citizens in budapest now. >> host: next call from edmonds, washington. >> caller: hello? >> host: we can hear you. >> caller: i need to find out, libertarianism has occurred to me. [inaudible] i need to know how libertarianism might deal with the mentally ill population. quite a bit down how dumb -- downtown where a work.

[inaudible] >> >> host: i think it was about how libertarians' feel about conservation. i think i got that right. >> guest: libertarians generally answer that we do not need the coercive state to achieve any of our values with museums, facilitation of wildlife, conservation, space exploration. free men and women do all of this much better than states do. this is a confidence that stems from an underlying philosophical conviction that the libertarian tends to share. libertarians are not all in the same philosophical bag. they are in the same political bag. but generally they think that human beings can be trusted to

solve their problem better without a gun in their hand and with a gun in their hand and the comparison is between a free society and a course of society. not a free society and one led by angel. >> host: next is albany, new york. welcome to the conversation. >> caller: i have a question about what process congress could use and here's what i mean by that. because of the greeks and the success of western civilization we use argumentation and advocacy in our court system but it seems we're using that in congress to make decisions so because of an adversarial decisionmaking process is very different form of reasoning and argumentation that would be more

productive and make congress able to get through significant problems we have. >> guest: there's a big difference between the role of the adversarial process and the law versus its role arriving at public policy conclusions in congress for bureaucracies and so on. there is a lot more to depend on when it comes to the forging of public policy than merely a hostile argument. in the courts, the courts start with hostilities out there. someone says you did it to me, i want some restitution or rectification. this needs to be heard out. so the onus of proof is on whoever accuses another who then can come back and challenge that

proved. this is all there is fundamentally to this adversarial process. and it is adversarial only because when people enter the court they are already on a different page about a certainty issue. >> host: so many people watching this program are in the process of writing. how do you right? >> guest: when i was 30 i was watching the brinkley report. you can tell i am not a young person anymore. and i noticed that some idea occurred to me while they were reporting the news. and i thought i will deal with it in a couple hours. and are stopped and i said no. i am going to turn off this tv and go to my typewriter and i am going to knock out a few paragraphs about this issue

before it becomes hazy. i have never departed from that approach. in the middle of the night if i wake up and some idea occurs to me, as much as i am tempted to turnaround and bury my head in my pillow i go to my computer and i will write something on it. over the years this has become second nature to me. that is one of the reasons i am so prolific. it is not because i am ambitious. it is because i think many of the ideas i hold our sound ones, are good ideas. let's get about there. >> host: are you sentimental that the last typewriter came off of the production line this month? >> guest: i am not a sentimental type. i figure computers are pretty good. laptops are pretty good. maybe even ipads are pretty good. instruments are instruments. what really counts is the

people. >> host: colorado springs, welcome to our program. >> caller: hello. in at less shrugged ayn rand said she was supposed to robin hood, a legendary character. when errol flynn played the definitive robin hood, he stole taxes that were -- [talking over each other] >> guest: rand is a victim of a false legend. she did not realize that robin hood was not stealing from the rich and giving. to the poor, but taking back what belongs to people that the tax takers have taken from them. you are dead right. >> host: >> host: next call from florida.

>> caller: can you hear me? >> host: we sure can. we can hear you. >> caller: what i am wondering is my friend mario in mark twain's rating is what i think is important, the adam and eve diaries. he gets a lot of insight into human nature. >> guest: i grew up on mark twain! when i was a kid i was 11 years old, and i read huckleberry finn, tom sawyer, in an area and translation. i became a fan. i continue reading all kinds of american fiction. i must have read 40 zane grey novels.

i read the old perry mason -- my nickname in budapest when i was 9 years old was harry --perry u mushon because i couldn't pronounce mason. my favorite novelist, somerset maugham who has written so much, i haven't caught up with him though i am still reading him regularly and loyally but i read all kinds of other authors. one of the most interesting things about fiction to me is half of these authors managed to put you in the minds of other people. things you would never be able to achieve by your relationship to other people unless you are extremely close to them. instead you have these wonderful novelists of all kinds.

i have favorite novelists who are commies. artists about penetrating human consciousness and looking out word from a new perspective. to me that is without doubt a major value in human life. >> host: an e-mail, the first half is how the mortgage crisis fits in with ayn rand. we talked about that. the second part is what is your solution for the $14 trillion problem the country has. >> guest: i don't have a solution. this is a problem. suppose somebody throws you out of 870 story building and you are on the 30th story and how the loss of this problem? sorry but it is too late. you can maybe have solved the problem before you got thrown

off. right now people only thing we can do is perhaps tighten our belts and make enough room and give enough incentives to people to work harder and invest more even though for a long time they are not going to reap the fruits of that investment and hard work. >> host: a good time to bring in this book. you wanted to be sure to talk about it and your co-author. >> guest: james thrasher is my best friend in the world. i have known him for many years. he was a fellow graduate student in sandra barbara. he teaches philosophy santa barbara city college. he and his wife are the ears of mine. they don't agree with everything i believe. vicki is more of a conservationist and environmentalist and i would be.

but jim and i decided to write this book because we blow for find it veit very annoying that people have a prejudice against wealth. even in america which is more hospitable toward commerce than anyone else around the world, nonetheless there is this animosity, whether it comes from envy or the historical experience of that for centuries and centuries it was indeed through pillaging and robbing and oppression that people got wealthy, but that is no longer necessary. it still happens around the world but now you get wealthy through trade, furrowing win/win situation and not a zero some

game. we travel around this and examine those forces of the hostility toward prosperity. >> host: next telephone call from pennsylvania. >> caller: how are you doing? >> host: -- >> guest: thank you. >> caller: i consider myself a conservative but more and more these last years i am becoming more libertarian. my biggest question about libertarian -- libertarianism and how to use it as a form of government would be the transition from what we have now to libertarianism. let me preface that with an example. if you were to transfer the government from what we have now to a libertarian form of government, if you have done it over a period of time, it will take too long and revert back to what it is now or if you did it

too fast it would be a disruption that would cause chaos. that is my question. >> guest: you can't get too kmart compared to the middle east right now. whatever you have here that moves in the direction of a genuinely free society would be more peaceful, somewhat upsetting to some people especially red takers who live off of other people, people in the entitlement mentality. this would be problematic for them. it has to be remembered that changes come slowly. try to get rid of a bad habit. tried to quit smoking. tried to stop scratching your head when you are not supposed to. it is very difficult. i think there's greater hope of

moving in the direction of freedom than in reverting in the direction of slavery. >> host: an e-mail question about anarchy. is anarchy a system that protects individual rights? >> guest: and are key means literally no foundation. like a the isn't means no god t personal no belief in god -- it is a negative. there are at artists who are socialists or communists who are pacifists who are libertarians and they maintain they have that solution. one of the most prominent solutions advanced by so-called

an article libertarian's or capitalists is what i like to call a mobile government. government that moves from one region to the other, takes on the task of settling disputes and move on. i don't think it is a workable system. i have written on it on and off. some of my riding is speculatively about this. i think that regional integrity is necessary. i don't see this red -- regional evident in my proposal by have seen going back to benjamin tucker and josiah ryan

and roderick along the chris dimarco editor of a book called "anarchisn: is government part of a free society," plea believe needs to be explored, not categorically rejected. it is an idea for political philosophers to shoot over. i don't have a ready-made answer but i am skeptical you can combine defense of human liberty with anarchism. >> host: next caller, welcome. >> caller: this is an interesting program. i have wondered about

libertarians, practical applications. what if there were 50,000 libertarians, giving them an ordinary plot of land, their community, they would want a school, how would that be funded? >> guest: you never heard of private schools? there are thousands of them in the united states despite the fact that you are made to pay for public schools. property taxes support public schools and yet a lot of parents decided is more important to have schools out and far away from the state so they support private education for their kids. the schooling example -- the more difficult when is roads. would roads the public or private? many libertarians think you

could sustain a private road system and it would be better for example environmentally. it would be better than a public road system. these are interesting issues. if you are really serious about liberty you would spend some time examining what solutions have been offered. that is what i do. >> host: eagle, colorado. your question for tibor machan. eagle peterson will colorado, second try. we will move on to texas. >> caller: we could all use a god bless at this point. >> host: i will move on. and go to an e-mail. we will get some calls lined up

that are connected. this is a viewer asking the framers of the constitution refer to the american government as the republican form in contrast to democracy which refers to the failed experiment of popular government. if it is correct when does the u.s. revert to democracy? >> guest: it never reverted to democracy because for example the first amendment to the u.s. constitution clearly bans any kind of vote establishing a national religion or coercing members of the press to behave in various ways. so these are off-limits to the democratic method. there are a lot of other things

which have become available for democratic decisionmaking and that is unfortunate. one reason democracy is so prominent and widely embraced, not all only here but a broad is for centuries on end, no ordinary human being had been recognized as having a right to make a difference in public policy. they were always ruled by cesars, monarchs, by pharaohs, and after centuries the idea came up that everybody being ruled should have a say on what is to be enforced. what is to be made part of the law of the land.

that became almost the substitute for a much more fundamental value and that is liberty. >> host: next telephone call from orange county, california not far from where we are in los angeles. >> caller: bravo! thank you for answering my question through the e-mail. this is my second question to you. dr. andrew altman from georgia state belong morality presents judgment at nuremberg as an account of his controversial trial. do you agree or disagree, not personally but on the merits of his trial as it pertains to following the rule of law? >> i think the nuremberg trials had some technical difficulties given the kind of systems of law we have around the world. but i do think you could have a

perfectly legitimate world court of the sort that that trial assumed was in operation and have people who committed war crimes and genocide put up serious criminal violations and examined the issue under the rule of law. i am not really that upset about nuremberg being not technically an exact manifestation of good legal process. >> host: next call from little rock, arkansas. >> caller: yes, i am here. can you hear me? >> host: yes, sir. >> caller: a question regarding disease. what do you think of partial

birth abortions, the birth process is over 23 weeks and a related question, what does he think the writings of dr. walter williams and, soul? >> guest: i do not agree with partial birth abortion is. by the time they tend to occur, there is indeed a little tiny infant human being in existence and such a being has a right to life and everybody knows such a being theowes such a being the respect of that right. the law should defend that right. that doesn't apply to zygotes and embryos but does apply to fetuses that are in bearer whatever, 40th week of

development. i do not believe partial birth abortions are conducive, consistent with individual liberty. >> host: back to this book. >> guest: there was a second part to the question and i don't remember what it was. i lost it. >> host: if it comes back to what we have 20 minutes. back to this book in our last bit of time. i am curious about. we talked about environmental aspects and conservation but animals's role in our society. why tackle this topic? >> guest: i have written a lot of our individual rights and human rights and the theory of rights and so on. in the early 90s or late 80s but even earlier there had been talk about animal rights. there was a particular philosopher named thomas reagan at n.c. state university and

another philosopher who is still very much active, peter center at princeton university who defended something like animal rights. singer defended animal interests and maintained all public policies and personal conduct must take into consideration its impact on the lives of animals. at least animals up to a point. they draw the line lower than i do with human beings. they have to go down on monkeys and zebras and something like that. i consider animal rights basically a category mistake. animals don't have rights. they couldn't have rights because right steep and upon human beings having to make moral choices free of other

people's intervention. there is a big argument about how can you say infants have rights? they're not making the big decisions that need this protection so i got into that and we have argued about it back and forth and i am writing some essays on the issue of animal rights and animal interests and how to tackle this but the book is a little more comprehensive and enters into the issue of wildlife preservation and a whole bunch of things. >> host: what do you think of our americans treat pets? >> guest: i have had a bunch of pets myself but never treat them like my kids. you treat pets -- most people treat pets as if they were invalids and that is an insult to pets. generally are don't think about everything all the time.

this is an area -- >> host: i do remember the viewer's question yesterday. we want to talk about thomas sold. >> guest: a brilliant academic thinker, economist, political economist, a fascinating columnist. unfortunately i don't faint he has done a very good public persona. he tends to be rather gruff and brusque. he is better riding but not appearing in public. whether i am right or wrong is not the issue. what do i think? i think he is over the top by saying no mental illness exists. i think there can be mental illness. it is totally reductionistic to

say all areas have to be physiological. on the other hand, the great champion of human liberty when he opposeds involuntary mental hospitalization. >> host: 15 minutes until the end of our conversation. thanks for being with us on the campus of u.s. c which is where the los angeles times's sixteenth annual festival is being held at we are taking advantage of that to talk to a california writer. next question is from uniontown, pennsylvania. >> caller: hello, c-span. i am glad for this opportunity. i agree with you. 27 weeks you said that a fetus has developed into a person. along those lines what do you think a corporation should be recognized as a legal person as it is?

thanks. >> guest: the technical aspect of the legal status of a corporation is really not my specialty. however i will tell you this. corporations are made up of human beings. the managers are human beings, the employees are human beings because the will be advertisers aren't human beings, h r people are human beings, customers are human beings. in that sense corp. are no different from teams or orchestra or choirs or universities which are all made up of human beings. in a derivative sense, corporations can have rights the same way universities can work los angeles philharmonic can have rights. obviously the exact nature of the rights and how to establish it are complicated matters. but i don't think this bad

mouthing of corporations has some super monstrous entity has any justification going for it. >> host: a related e-mail from new york. he says tibor machan is evading questions from the left. he refers only to the power of the government in taking away individual freedom. are there not powerful corporations that certain freedom from individuals the gregoire are -- why assume only government creates these? what is the evidence? do nonregulated markets always produce a world with the efficient market information and robust competition? he demonizes his critics by saying they are hostile to its prosperity. >> guest: tell me if the first sentence include the words eve made. >> host: evading questions from the left. >> guest: i have elated nothing in all of this interview. i have answered everything that was asked of me. some things weren't asked.

i don't have any responsibility of producing questions for myself. i do that in my books and in my scholarship. as far as corporations are concerned, whatever businesses do in the marketplace, they do not have the legal authority to invoke force and to dale people or to impacts -- impose involuntary fees in the form of taxation. you always have the exit option with a genuine free market corporation. you can leave. you can go from mcdonald's to burger chain. you can go from chevy to ford. you cannot do that with your government that holds a gun over your head. the government power back by lethal force is far more for

interesting and important for political theorist to worry about -- let's face it. there are many large people in the world. all you have to do is watch a basketball game. if you put a large person in a back alley you are at a disadvantage if you were to be hostile. we can always focus on free market examples of possible hostility but the likelihood of people in the free market actually exercising we full force against one another, they are out and out criminals and that is what the government is there to stop, much lower than the government doing it if it gets out of hand. >> host: colorado, you are on. >> caller: thank you for this

program. i was wondering as far as ayn rand is concerned, some time i think in 1927 a young man in texas killed and dismembered, of 12-year-old girl, and she spoke from time of admiration for him. i want some comments on that. >> guest: somebody brought this to my attention in another interview radio show i did three weeks ago and i have no idea what they're talking about. never heard of this and it is irrelevant as far as my interest in ayn rand is concerned because my interest in ayn rand is contained in her philosophical essays. i don't know her personal life enough to know whether she has done something grievously wrong or not. >> host: colorado springs, another colorado, you are on. >> caller: a number of years ago margaret brandon wrote the

passion of ayn rand after ayn rand's death and a year or so later her husband nathaniel brandon wrote a book i believe entitled my life with ayn rand. are you familiar all with james valium's book the passion of ayn rand's critics and if you are do you agree with his conclusion that the brand ands have slandered ayn rand and largely shaped a lot of the public impression of what ayn rand is like? >> guest: i have never taken an interest in any of this gossip stopped about ayn rand or against ayn rand or for ayn rand or barbara brandon. all of this is just a side show. i am interested in whether they are -- whether their thinking has any merit. >> host: let's talk about your most recent book widely available. how did you come up with this

title? >> guest: it is interesting to me what people tell themselves when they realized they are in disagreement with so many other people. just think the christians disagree with the hindus who disagree with the muslims who disagree with this or that, republicans, democrats, utilitarianism. the world is ripe with people thinking that other people are wrong. i was wondering what do they tell themselves, why they are wrong? how do they handle that? they walked, they eat, they sleep, they do what they do and yet they think they are wrong and those guys think they are wrong the. what do we make of this? how are they came up with title. [talking over each other] >> host: five minute left. next call from laredo, texas.

>> caller: logically there is no perfect system and no perfect people to participate in one. whar do we need a system anyway? >> host: about beating the system of government. i am not clear with the bad connections or will move to boise, idaho. good afternoon. >> caller: hello. >> host: you are on. your question. >> caller: my question is i read some ayn rand, listened to ron paul when he came to visit and are listen to this program and so far, all i get out of it is these people are shells for corporations. thank you. >> host: libertarians are shills for corporations. >> guest: i wish. i would be richer. obviously i am not a shill for a corporation. i don't even know too many

people in corporations. i work in a university. this is the bad mouthing and the searching and at hominem. you don't argue with someone about the merits of a system based on whether you have this fantastic idea that they are shills of anybody. come on! this is nonsense. let's just talk about if there's any validity to your argument or whether history supports you. not this bad mouthing and be smirking of your opponents. >> host: don in atlanta asks do you agree humans have a herding mentality and have a desire to restrict freedom in exchange for direction? >> guest: i don't. that may have interest at early stages of human development because people were so vulnerable alone. it is not so much an instinct but a good idea to get together

with others in order to fend off anyone who might attack you. and that still goes. there is strength in numbers. but intimate friendships, families are far more important than belonging to a union or a club or some other large group of human beings. i think the idea that human beings benefit from that, occasionally it is true about the true benefit is to have friends. to have relatives. to be known for who you are and to no other is for you are and that is only possible for a small number of people. >> host: last phone call from texas, corpus christi. go ahead. >> caller: is there a difference in intelligence? if so how does that impact --

>> host: is there a genetic difference in intelligence? >> guest: i don't think so but i am not an expert on this issue. my general idea is most human beings who have an intact brain are within the same range of intelligence. however it is really up to the. it and free will in my book called initiative and i still defend freedom of the will for human beings. i think that in order to make sense of the enormous differences between human beings including qualitative differences, good ones and bad ones and mediocre ones, you have to accept that most people give direction to their intelligence. their intelligence is an