will evaporate. it will be revealed for what it is. >> ? host: twenty do shoe to you to professor walter block whose most recent book-- book, but this is not your only book correct professor? guest: i believe it's the 25th book, but who's counting. >> you writ-- wrote a new series. guest: this is the third in a series of three. i have 22 other books, but the series here is privatization and my idea is it moves privatize it. everything in their moves or doesn't privatize everything. the only alternative is government ownership or not ownership. non- ownership you have the tragedy of comments

like that's why we are running out of wales because no one owns them. that's why we almost ran out of buffalo because we were not allowed to own them. non- ownership is not good and government ownership i'm not sure which is worse. government as far as i'm concerned government is highly problematic institution, which is based on coercion. so, i'm sort of against private-- public ownership, government ownership and non- ownership which leads to private ownership. i say private ownership for just about everything. host: professor block on this is the third in the series. what was the first about guest: why we should privatize roads, streets and highways and my main impetus was that-- first about, do you realize how me people than the government roads , almost 40000 a year for the last 20 or 25 years.

i mean, that's a lot of people being killed and to put that in perspective for me people died in 911? just 3000, how me diving kachina? 1900 and that's a one-shot deal. this is 35, 38000 every year. sensate like death and taxes, it's inevitable. i say it's not inevitable. if you own a highway and i own a highway and we were competing in up-- one of the way is-- the point is right now a move to the highway is made for everyone. for example, most a code 10 or i-5 or any highways the minimum speed is 40 and maximum speed 70 and that is it. wouldn't it be better if the right lane was 50 on the left lane had to do 65 and the left lane had to do 80? i don't know the problem

is we will never know. if you tried that and it didn't work we would lose customers and maybe i would gain customers, we would have a laboratory experiment of 50 states or not even 50 states or as many laboratories of private roads, so that's one impetus for it. i went to reduce deaths and there's probably no listening right now who doesn't know someone who was killed in a motor vehicle accident and now i'm not talking even about serious injuries because those-- my second impetus for the book was congestion. i used it to live in new york city and the fastest way to get around this by bicycle, not car. the reason for that is we don't have-- we are right now and in the hotel during the busy season and the price goes up.

we don't have that on highways or roads or streets. if we did and we would with private enterprise: that would solve that problem. privatizing roads and streets and highways. the second one was privatizing oceans, rivers and lakes. that sounds even weirder to most people. you can privatize a river, that's crazy. someone should own the mississippi river? that's crazy. i say no, no it's not an purse, why should we do it? one reason is we are running out of fish, wales. no one holds it, but secondly we had katrina, katrina this doesn't hit 40 miles east. a b fell. that was right. who was responsible for the levy? army corps of engineers, government enterprise. the four, 1900 people

died. for me the whore is that they are still in business. imagine it to burger king killed 1900 people. they wouldn't be in business anymore, but they are still in business. if the someone owned the mississippi river and they did that they would pass it to more competent hands, so how can we have the hudson river or atlantic ocean owned? well, the same way we get land owned by the homesteading principle. he who mixes his labor with the land or water or whatever gets to be the owner. so, the people that put the ships up and down the mississippi river, the people who own land on the side of the mississippi river so now you have 100,000 people with a hundred thousand shares and that the mississippi river corporation. again, sounds a weird for the non- weirdos, but i think it could

save lives and it would deal with running out of resources like fish resources and things like that. guest: finally, to the book now let me wave it in front of the camera. host: we will put it out. guest: the book just came out like yesterday or that they before. host: space capitalism it is called. guest: now, we are flying the same of private property rights view, only now roads, rivers lakes, but to space and there are two aspects no space. one, land on the moon and land on mars, who should own them? again, i resort to john locke and their views on homesteading. you mix your labor with the land and you just own it. you don't own the whole planet, but maybe a couple square miles of

it and at the same with mars when we get to mars my main impetus is on the humanists. i'm afraid we will blow ourselves up on this planet and it would be nice to have people on mars or the moon in case the earth ended for human kind. i'm really pro- human and this is sort of like insurance policy, so i would like to see some colonies on mars or the moon and then the question is how do we conduct business? hopefully with the less government possible. that's one aspect or the other aspect is how do we get there with spaceships. so far in what was it 1969 when the first man arrived on moon? it was a government employee. my hope is we do private enterprise, why can, it's more efficient. it's also more ethical because the government demands patents whereas if someone has a private rocketship and he does it on his own account his own money, so those

would be my two ways of dealing with it, mainly the trip and what to do with the land there and that this for it is to plants of human beings elsewhere so god forbid if we blow ourselves up at least there would be some human beings. i'm sort of a weirdo that way. host: walter block, the budget for an asset is about $19 billion over the years about 600 million or so expense on nasa programs. in beer-- in your view house events that? guest: not wisely and mean that money should have come back to the taxpayers and then the taxpayers would have more money and then someone would go to set up a stock exchange and set up a company and get some more money than would otherwise be available.

a lot of times people give the government credit. the government got people on the moon. you can't deny that, but with the money have been better spent if that is going to the moon and 69 on it research and rocketry and protection of people on these planets? i think so. just because the government did it and it was a success-- she applauded it. i did not applaud that. i was against that because it was premature. the markets not only has facial allocation we should grow in florida and not in maine, but also time allocation mainly a right time to do things and if you do something premature, it's at the cost of a more rational time elements. host: haven't we learned a bit

able to adapt from our spending at nasa and have experiments and products? guest: it would be amazing if you spent 90 billion-- 19 billion? host: over the years. guest: and not one shred of benefit occurred. if we take enough money the government will do something, i mean, we do have roads. we do have i don't know museums. we do have central park with government money, so it would be amazing if they did no good with it appeared to the point is if they take money and take 19 billion and get 5 billion worth they lost 14 billion whereas in the market you get more value typically. you have a note-- lovely tight that cost 30 bucks. valued it at 50 otherwise you wouldn't have bought it if you valued at more than 30. with the government-- my

mentor used to say what we ought to do is have seat plus i consumption plus investment to catholic gdp because it would be closer-- not that it would just be a rough approximation. every penny that goes to government is a negative although sometimes it is. it's through coercion where as in market like with your tie or my wristwatch there's a benefit, every market transaction is mutually beneficial otherwise it wouldn't occur where's with the government you don't get that. host: professor block, when it comes to space capitalism we are moving in that direction are we? elon musk, space x etc. guest: we have a whole chapter devoted not just to elon musk and maybe six or seven other space businessmen who like him

are building rockets and with give him credit i mean with the government they shoot up a rocket and it's gone. with elon musk they shoot up a rocket and they can reuse it. imagine if every time you took a cart ship you had to jump the car? that wouldn't be a good way to go. we have to give him credit for that jerk on the other hand he takes a lot of money from the government's. a lot of money from the government took most of his money is from the government, which is problematic. it's more like sony capitalism than real capitalism in other words his money came from you and me on a voluntary basis would be one thing, but if it comes from you and me through taxes the government gives to him it's another. in this chapter we do say it there's nothing wrong from taking money from the government because we regard the government as a thief because they do a course of late and if you take money from a thief you are good guy.

again, we have a bit of a paradox here, but the government acts on the basis like a gang and if you take money away from a gang you are on the side of the angel, so the question is i mean look at warren paul i think he refused to take matching funds because he didn't want money from the government and i wrote an essay saying take the money. better that you have it that the government. i don't think he did that. no one ever listens to me. the point is it was ron paul who was running a space thing and he took money from the government and used it for this purpose i would say right on ron because you are a good guy so the question comes is elon musk a good guy or a bad guy? if he's a good guy he would be justified in taking money from the government, but if he's a bad guy and he is just hand in hand with the government. week over a whole bunch of elon musk's public

statements and unfortunately he doesn't pass the smell test. he's not a good guy. he's not a libertarian and recently a book written he came out as a devout socialist which is not a good idea, not a credit on his life. we do have a chapter devoted to these people and we say if they are taking money from the government are they on the good side or the bad side. host: do you deal with should there be any regulation of space travel at all? guest: my view is not only shouldn't there be government ownership of anything, there should not be government regulation of anything. government is a bad institution, again, based on coercion. one of the courses i teach is regulation. should we have antitrust regulation, minimum wage, gun control, this kind of regulation that kind of regulation?

the market is the best regulator. of the reason we have good quality from mcdonald's is because the government regulates them because if we did not have good quality they would be out of business in a blank. eisai regulation and laws laws against murder, rape, whatever, but government regulation is entirely different. i would oppose government regulation. what is donald trump now going for, a fourth branch of the military? host: space force. guest: in addition to the army, navy and marines now, we want space cadets out there. i believe we should have a demilitarized zone especially government on the second amendment so we should have gun control. we should have gun control of guns, not gun control of the people. here he is going in opposite direction saying we should have this fourth division of the military out in space.

that is the exact wrong way to go as far as i'm concerned. host: giving your views on economics, what are some success stories over the years? guest: well, your tie, my wristwatch, this hotel. host: let's go to roads and things like that i mean there are some private roads. guest: there aren't any private roads. what they are called, contracted out roads. let's take sanitation. rarely is there sanitation when the sanitation directly deals with you. sometimes they would miss about the hires a sanitation company, tax issue and pays them. that's contracting out. we have some of that. in brazil that roads like that. the government is in control, builds it, exercise eminent domain and that's one of the things i do. could we build roads without eminent domain meaning if you have a

holdout we are now las vegas and we want a road from las vegas to new orleans, how may people of land between here? there will be holdout somewhere in this holdout will say you can't go through my land and then you have a special chapter on that one where we say you can go under him or over him because we don't believe you own all the way down to the core of the earth or to the heavens, so i claim that was single ownership. we don't need eminent domain there, so there are no real creases of private road ownership. it's contracting out which is sort of economic fascism where your cooperation of public and private which i would oppose. there might be 1 million to 1% some farmer has a road somewhere, but it's very very small and this is a horrible thing

people don't talk about that. a little girl gets lost in a well and these boys-- host: thailand. guest: ten boys got stuck under a cave and we said nothing about anything else other than those boys. what about the road fatality's? thirty-five, 38000 people die every year on government roads and no one says why. that's horrible. i wish there were some private cases and then we could compare. in that book what i do is compare sanitation, how much does it cost to remove sanitation private and public and how much does it cost to mail a letter private and public some trying to extrapolate. look, there are 40000 people dying on the roads. in private enterprise would there be zero? no. there would still be fatalities. i extrapolate from the

ratio of costs in sanitation and anywhere else or government and private work together-- compete or are both in operation and it's usually three or four five to one enterprise is better, some estimate is if we privatize all roads and we still have something like 10000 deaths per 10000 is better than 40000, so unfortunately i cannot say look over here it's a private road and zero deaths wherewith here government roads people are dying like flies. unfortunately, i cannot do that. with lakes, there are some private lakes, very few, but i don't have the evidence to save these private lakes are better in some way. i don't have that in that book. host: professor block, why did you open space capitalism talking about knowing bernie sanders and protesting?

guest: what happened was that the publisher said you have to put some personalized stuff in there. had nothing to do with the book. it's more like what belongs on the back cover of the book, you know this is professor jones and he did this and he has a wife and kids so i gave my personal story. the publisher asked and when the publisher asked -- host: it tilts the store of your economic views and how they have changed over the years a. guest: when i went to high school, i went with bernie sanders. we were on the track team together and my views were roughly his views. i was a socialist like him and then i met i ran and then i went to her house and nathaniel branden's house and they converted me with two

books. the other was economic in one lesson, which also profoundly affected me and got me out of philosophy and into economics, so these personal stories were just sort of i guess humanize the authors. had nothing to do with the book. it was added on after the book was written. host: the third and walter block's theory on privatization is called "space capitalism how humans will colonize planets, moons and asteroids" thank you for joining us on book tv. guest: thank you for having me. it was a pleasure. >> yours look at books being published this week. fox news political analyst offers a critical examination of the trump administration's record on civil rights. msnbc host explores a generator and equality and equal pay and the workplace.

in american life actress and political activists america ferrera shares a collection of stories about growing up in america with more than one cultural identity. sports commentator clay travis offers thoughts on social justice movements in republicans buy sneakers to. in beautiful country burning can best selling author recounts the year leading up to the 2016 presidential election. our look at this week's new releases continue with mit journalism program director deborah blum's recount of help-- food production was devoid of safety regulations at the end of the 19th century. to melting pot or civil war executive editor of national review gives his take on america's current immigration policy. in this is the way the world ends just executive director of climate nexus offers his thoughts on the dangers to the earth as a result of climate change.

look for these titles and bookstores this week and watch for many of the authors in the near future on book tv on c-span to. >> i sat there and i was tweeting during the election and i decided once it was clear donald trump would be our next president i began to look at some of the twitter feeds and twitter posts, tweets if you will of some of the so-called evangelical leaders that had supported trump or the gop ticket in the election and i saw things like praise the lord donald trump has one. god has delivered donald trump to the presidency. think god all the christians cannot do the right thing and voted for this man. on and on and on and as someone who identifies as an evangelical christian myself i was angry. i felt betrayed by what

happens and then later on i learned later in the week i learned roughly eight out of 10 white image of close had actually voted for donald trump, but at that moment emotions took over, passions took over and i rode out a tweet myself in the tweet went something like this, if this is american evangelicalism, i'm out. now, the next day or the day after the religion writer jonathan merhige wrote a piece in the atlantic in which he quoted or embedded my tweets in the piece in the next thing you know my e-mail box started filling up with all of my progressive friends saying good job, way to go. it's about time that you got out of that sort of, you know, backwards form of religion or whatever your glad you are resigning from evangelicalism. i think it was the evangelical history professor ron wells--

i'm guessing most of you won't know him, but he made a wonderful comment about resigning from evangelicalism. you can't resign because there's no place to send a letter. [laughter] to whom do you send a letter? then of course my mailbox was filled with evangelical friends of saying don't abandon us, stick with it, evangelical is from the greek word meaning gospel or good news and it has a transformative power for so many people. so, just back-and-forth and then i wrote a few things about it, blogged about it, but then after about a week or two the passion died down. i don't think they waned much but at least i was able to see clearly and i remembered-- interesting enough that i was a american historian as well and rather than sort of getting caught up in the emotions of the events and election of trump i thought why is it that

eight out of 10 white evangelicals voted for this man, is there some kind of-- something within the history of american evangelicalism that made this a perfectly normal decision? what was it about evangelicals and i soon realized and i sort of, you know, kicked myself in a sense i should've seen this this coming. i had studied and devoted portion of my career to this point in thinking about the history of american evangelicalism. this seems perfectly logical that 81% would vote for donald trump in light of the things i had studied and it's at that point i decided i want to think about this as a historian and also eat human joke of myself and also a historian to try to think about the historical forces that led so many white evangelicals to vote for donald trump, so i just want to set this up and

read a very brief passage of believe me and then try to suggest what i've concluded to be those forces that led all these white human joke is to vote for trump. when donald trump speaks to his followers in the mass rallies that have become a fixture of his populist brand he loves to use the phrase believe me. the internet is filled with a video montage of trump using the signature test phrase, perhaps more frequently than make america great again. now, i encourage you to look for those. they are pretty entertaining. they are also very sad. believe me, folks, we are building the wall. believe me. believe me out we are building the wall. i love women. believe me, i love women. i love women and you know what else i have great respect for women.

believe me. i am the least least recent person you've ever matter believe me. the world is in trouble, but we will straighten it out. that's what i do. i fix things. we are going to straighten it out. believe me. most important for the subject of my book, so let me state this right up front and in trump administration are christian heritage will be defended, chairs like you've never seen before, believe me. this is the story of why some evangelicals believe in donald trump. i think you can think about all kinds of particular reasons, abortion, religious liberty as defined at least by white evangelicals, immigration or do you can come up with all kinds of issues, very particular issues that led american evangelicals to back donald trump, but i think most of the

particular issues fall under three larger sort of umbrella categories. what i've concluded is that american evangelicals voted for donald trump in such large numbers because they have privileged certain things over other things. abbé have privileged fear over hope. they have privileged political power over humility. and they have privileged nostalgia over history. >> you can watch this and other programs on my netbook tv.org. tonight on afterwards former secretary of state john kerry discusses his book every day and interviewed by former congresswoman and president and ceo of the wilson center jane harman. >> john and i were flying to quit on an airplane. we didn't know each other well, but were

seated opposite each other by seniority. seniority here worked because it brought us together. we had a conversation into the night talking about annapolis, his father and grandparents, his family, his own service and time as a prisoner and he wanted to learn more about what happened to us and how we thought it was it was like and so forth and we pledge to each other right then that the country was still too divided over the war, that we thought we needed to try to find a way to not just make peace, but make peace at home. >> watch afterwards tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2 book tv. >> good morning, everyone.