[inaudible conversations] >> good evening everyone. myic name is emile doak i'm the executive director of americans and conserved and like to welcome all of you in washington and washington c-span on the much discussed book "tyranny, inc.". tonight's gathering is organized by the organization founded last year. it seeks to advance appreciation for roman law greek philosophy and judeo-christian religion a triple foundation of western civilization.

this is by promoting scholarship offering educational programs for students and young professionals and offering comforts is like tonight'son event. this event is sponsored by minor concession the american conservative. the american conservative exist to address a main street vision for conservatism but they pursue our mission primarily through a. magazine and on line journalism as well is conferences and events like the one you are attending here tonight. we are founded in 2002 over 20 years ago now to reignite conversations about how conservatives have been for far too long. her magazine was a a rare voicen the iraq war during the early days of the conflict to come into a policy of constraint continues animator pulsates it but it was broader than that one issue. want to return to faith and family the civilizational foundationss at the center for political discourse and they felt they were too often paid lip service and were ignored in

policymaking. perhaps most most pertinent of nice especially want to recalibrate the conversation around political rights but we wanted to advance the interest of american workers and goods goods and increase the globalized free trade magazine -- or should that protect corporate process over the real economy. if you read "tyranny, inc." which i believe the washington coast -- the "washington post" called a novel -- a compliment. if he read it like the "washington post" did you find many stories of these real workers as they navigated economic order that's often stacked against them and it echoes the disposition that animated magazine pages for 21 years. healthy skepticism of forms and a for main street over wall street. we also welcome honest disagreement debate about the best ways to a dance this best interests so i hope will be able to get into somebody'sth discussions and some of sohrab's

provocative inscriptions. we have a great lineup of speakers to do just that. before we started want to introduce them before handing it over to the author of the book. first sohrab ahmari's account editor of contact magazine contributing editor of publication and a contributing writer. previously shews nearly a decae corp. is an editor and columnist for "the wall street journal" in new york and london in the op-ed editor of "the new york post." his latest book which we are here to discuss is "tyranny, inc." just out from penguin. if you haven't got a copy of please do. center rubio the author of the decade of decadence powers for the police an americas inheritance of liberty and

prosperity published earlier this year. matt stoller is author of goliath the 100 year war between monopoly power and democracy published by simon & schuster in 2019. he has served as a policy adviser to the senate budget committee in his letter. and a.b. crowder is an author and bradley devlin is her staff reporter doing excellent work and if you read bradley's work you may think he's older than his years, he's he's actually agree on one of those gen-z'ers with no real memory of that terrible day 22 years ago since yesterday and it can give us the perspective of conservatives that come of age during the height ofig the tyranny in the book. a quick couple of notes how tonight's event will precede. sohrab will start us off with

opening remarks drying arguments for 10 or 15 minutes and after that we will hear for march and senator bob rubio for 10 or 15 minutes and afterward i won't buy the full panel too join usn the stage iv discussion. there's time and as you can see her schedules tightly packed that it be a time will take one or two questions from the audience. eithery y way we will close probably at 7:45 p.m. so folks can move onto their own dinner plans and i would ask you remain in your seats after the panel to allow the speakers to leave first. with that please join me in welcoming sohrab ahmari. [applause] my friends thank you all for beingg here. i should start by saying that i'm grateful to the foundation and the americann conservative for cosponsoringng this gatheri. thanks especially to emile for his steadfast support for my

work and the other panelists and senator who was shown genuine every leadership in pushing my party to its political dogmas and kind enough to endorse this book and to take time out at the busy legislative scheduled to appear at this event. to begin it like to out to a global picture. for years now defenders of freedom have been warning of a democratic recession. beginning in the 1970s and then especially after the collapse of the soviet union, dozens of societies delbanco version gateway to one built on consent. more recently however it's maybe depressing comeback with many backsliding into hateocracy authoritarianism and dictatorship. to see the severity of its

consider a single news story from china with the democratic horizon opened up by early market reform have been shuttered by xi jinping's regime. it was in the spring of 2020 at the height of the pandemic when john mink and meatpacker at a massive slaughterhouse had had enough. the state of firms subjected its workers to a digital pen off the comp tracking their every move communist party bosses make no bones aboutt the purpose of ths all pervasive surveillance. it's dystopic culture of fear, reminding workers that the government is continuing to monitor them and its failure to meet quotas or stay put at wasting peoples time resulted in docked pay. at the outset of the pandemic chinese authorities identified slaughterhouses as essential enterprises. management orders employees to put an ever longer ships with

ant regard for the viral contagion that the moment when kopech and its mitigation were poorly understood. that cavalier attitude prompted the protagonist to act. one day in april he led a walkout with his colleagues. their demand was reasonable. they called simply for the complex to be temporarily closed and more stringently sanitized. he was terminated that very day. framing the walkout was a violation of cope with rules the firm's general council denounced his actions as, unacceptable and arguably illegal in internal memos. voicing dissent at a state-owned firm of the peoples republic never easy could be termed as a sanitary threat. he remains ines place and china fiercely resist efforts to organize them.

actually i sort of. none of these things took place in the middle kingdom but i borrowed the language of my all too real news story almost surveyed him from reporting about events that transpired right here in the united states. it is in the government on chinese slaughterhouse that was was the panoptic was the pen opticon to survey with its workers even minor lapses and it wasn't the chinese slaughterhouse that terminated the worker for leaving the walkout over the employer's careless attitude from the novel coronavirus. that would be the usd conglomerates founded by jeff bezos. his real name is christian smalls and x worker at amazon warehouse facility on staten island. at the height of the pandemic he became alarmed as his colleagues became sick for the human resources department dismissed

his concerns towing another worker to keep her onus on the download according to "the new yorkrk times." then he led his walkout to act for which amazon fired him. amazon's lawyer described smalls who was african-american as quote not smart articulate according to internal memos obtained by vice magazine. this from the same company that if you months later would elbow its way to the forefront of corporate america's black lives matter activism in the wake of george floyd's murder in minneapolis. since then smalls bought to organize the 8000 workers despite ferocious antiunion activity typical of the firm, including confiscating pro during an pass slips and surveilling where workers congregated on the sidewalks according to therd times. we are used to thinking of coercion is something that happens over there by a tyrannical systemsms that checks

and balances balances like their own those regimes are spars their state system goes far more coercive than ours. we stopped thinkingt about thins in purely geographic terms and on who is making atde the core course and we reah an unsettling understanding. coercion is all too common in noncoercive societies like ours, provided we pay attention to private power and admit the hostility of private tyranny. a reigning economic ideology tells us in theha private-sector knowing can force us to do anything. competition ensures that we are always free to find a better deal elsewhere. the arch laissez-faire work sample tailed quote competition has only method by which our cavities can be adjusted to each other with each other without coercive authority end quote. milton friedman like said the

central feature of market society is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of activities end quote. this is utopian thinking. in some ways is idealistic and dangerous and other modern utopias they came to legitimate world world oppression. market utopianism has yielded a society shot through with private torsion. coercion that we can contest at thee ballot box in the court system by other democratic give-and-take precisely because it's labeled private. take the fact that a third of the 25 million americans employed in food service and retail receive less than a weeks notice of their schedules. according to university of california sociologistio daniel snyder and kristin hartman the time schedule that is intended to shift the downside associated

with. >> of low demands on employees in addition to wage parity because you can never be sure if you have enough wages and financial instability that results from that workers treated this way airport sleeping poorly and suffering mentally as a result. and their children are more likely to show signs of anxiety and act out and misbehave in school and it doesn't take a rocket. scientist to connect the causal thoughts. it's a result of the apparent inability to spend a great deal of time with them. then there are today's lopsided ememployment agreements. these days when you sign on the dotted line for a new job you agree to a near totalal surveillance of your life including the confiscation of personal devices, the use of key logger software to monitor your communications and even the recording of o your employees fr commercial licensing. no longer sit just about using your picture. consider commercial arbitration process originally intended for

resolving disputes between merchants of relatively equal bargaining powers. thanks mostly to supreme court can servicere i must say practically rewriting the 1925 federaltr arbitration act the share of nonunion firms subjected their workers to mandatory arbitration agreements has exploded to 54% in 2017, up from 2% in 1982 according to legal scholars cast catherine stoneman alexander coleman. the m. place -- is 21% which is 59% as often as in federal courts in only 38% is offered in the state courts. corporations meanwhile enjoy what scholarsep call rate. player advantage. thee more often the firm appears before a private arbitrator the less likely its employees are to prevail. arbitration frequently bars employees from joining forces to vindicate rights they otherwisee

would enjoy under statutory law. even when going it alone would be manifestly unjust not toen mention. in one notorious case a low-level employee called accounting giant ernst & young would if she had to shell out a figure not disputed by ernst & young to recover 4000-dollar for wage underpayment under the fair labor standards act for justice gorsuch riding for a narrow high kerik -- high car energy healthy and play had briefly contactedit to arbitrate pin that ernst & young presented in an e-mail long after his employees steven morris is his name hadad been hired and the consent of the condition of continued employment and afterwards he was told if you show up to work the next day going forward you agree to submit your dispute to arbitration and according to a certainin kind of classical economic theory that's very popular among the judiciary to

completely discarded from real life at that point morris had the ability to renegotiate his agreement or press for a better term but in reality as most of you know what he really had to do was to show up to work the next day because he had to pay a mortgage and pay for elder care and childcare. those so things don't have the bee this way. a better model would admit the course is inevitable in all human affairs and not just in market activity. it would recognize unchecked private coercion leads to mockery of her democratic ideals and would insist that such coercion be ameliorated by a more robust compile a local give-and-take between the asset rich view and the asset less money. this is the promise of what i call political exchange capitalism. it was the philosophy that underpins the new deal. generating the mass prosperity that defined three decades after

world war ii and crucially it's formed a bipartisan consensus winning the allegiance not just of progressive split in earlier generations of conservatives from eisenhower to nixon. these men weren't starry were starry-eyed socialist. hard-nosed realists whom experience alerted toer the dangers of unchecked market power. political exchange capitalism describes the world as it really is, not the preindustrial arcadia of yeoman farmers and independent artisans, the premise for much market utopian ideology but the machines of an economy characterized by his viewco colossal firms dominating most industries. his chief aspect as economist john kenneth galbraith noted is the absence of real price competition. that is the one thing supposedly useful under practicalth economc theory to prevent private coercion. that pattern had emerged by the late 19th century and his sense.

big tech ad markets would bring years of embarrassment to the monoclecl vies the gilded age tycoons are galbraith what if their only handful of firms in the industry it follows that privately exercised economic power is less the exception than the rule. instead of waving competition against coercion political exchange capitalism strengthens the hands of those subjugated bb private power especially in the labor market. thus the new dealers were sold to make it easier for workers to mount with galbraith called countervailing power after decades in which government had hindered them from doing so sometimes through violence. countervailing powers similar to competition only here to counter pressure is exerted not on the sameot side of the market and nt between producers or between employees and so on but on the other side of the market not with competitors but with customers and suppliers

galbraith explained it in this way private economic power iser held in check by the countervailing power of those who are subjugated to it. the first begets the second and just as competition sometimes requires antitrust action, something even laws a fair types admit so does it require government backing to offset the asymmetry that's otherwise created by employees going up against if you employers. otherwise most employees rationally choose to put up with the bully boss for supper precariousd offers at -- hours and low wages are than to take the risks associated with collective action but but this a election but in 1930 by labor relations -- national labor relations act which soughto to encourage collective bargaining and the fair labor standards act which created federal minimum wage protection. the result union membership peaked in 1945 at 33%, up from

2.7% at the turn of the 20th century and remains high throughout the 1950s and 60s. under new deal commissions the asset winds along to survive or pitch intense battles against bosses that threatens social stability. post the deal they could channel the demands they recognized unions and mass political parties. this model made explicit with ordinary people what they knew that economic life involves coercion but also gave them a measure of power to negotiate the coercion to what they had been subjected. restoring political exchange capitalism then foremost requires boosting union density thebe share of the labor force belonging to labor organizations. today that figure has sunk to 6% of the private economy along a long decline that began as you know in the 1970s. apologists from the current state of affairs claim just because unions have lost their luster among employees or

because automation and globalization shifted manufacturing under the united states. organized laborr supposedly is the light by recent polling showing that units are more popular now than they have been in a half-century. the desire to be representative as increased among nonunion workers since the19 1970s with one m.i.t. study finding the nonlabor unit force would vote to join a union if given a choice leaning that roughly 58 million americans are currently underrepresented. but what about the robots of china explanation text that too is overstated. as labor economist lawrence mitchell and his co-authors noted that 2020 study manufacturing union coverage the share of workers who are either union members or otherwise covered by collective bargaining agreements fell by 74% from 1977

to 2019. in nonmanufacturing coverage fell by comfortable 60% over the same period. you can perhaps explain that manufacturing top by pointing to robots in china but you struggle to explain the comparable drop in nonmanufacturing sectors. statisticalys analysis shows overall union coverage only marginally changestr if you transpose today's industrialized conditions to 1970 night economy or put another way saving manufacturing wouldn't have necessarily saved unions. as american workers want to unionize and the loss of manufacturing isn't the main obstacle than what accounts for labor's current doldrums collects the answer is the same sort of privateiv course in that characterizes other dimensions of our economy all made possible by political choices that can be reverse.e. in 90 years since the passage of the wagner act lawmakers in an

often gop dominated labor force have nullified large chunks of the original law from creating a free-speech right for employees to campaign as of the two sides to enjoy symmetrical power in the workplace to begin with to effectively abolishing card checks to barring union representative workers themselves from seeking the cap give audience to terrify employees big business and political and media allies under find a purpose of the wagner act to encourage union organizing and bargaining. despiteob these obstacles union action is sweeping the labor market. starbucks baristas, delta flight , attendant catalogues and railroad hands dockworkers screenwriters actors and many other groups have organized to unionize her to winnd better contracts for existing agreements with april 2022 to come the tears kristin small to termination the majority of jfk

would have to to have his independence and was again andth represent them in collective bargaining. america finally isn't china. our political tradition cherishes human dignity and popular counterpressure against elite power. while the united states has always been a market society the country has given rise to many honorable traditions that have sought to bring the market system under humane democratic control from the jacksonians to progressive farmersto to populae from teddy roosevelt to franklin roosevelt and nixon and eisenhower. these traditions played a decisive role in forging the first t version of exchange capitalism in this previous entry in once more with up to american workers to drag our leaders into a new competitor. their vigilance our vigilance is a prosperity and checks against private tyranny without which

there can be no wind at their free. thank you very much and i'm delighted to welcome senator rubio. [applause] [applause] c thank you. i apologize. i will tell you what i was doing. i was tech screening at my son center getting a parking ticket atin school. the kids are watching at the university of florida. anyway first off all all thank you for writing this and the work you've done in thisis fiel. maybe i'll come from my perspective. i had a videoconference with state legislators from georgia and they asked about tech companies and what the federal gogovernment could do and it struck me and i said what i said

to the other people. i think this is true in all the countries there is generally one power company no matter where you live. and the utilities and they are allowed to and basically a monopoly space guaranteed a profit but their profits are limited. the way it works as you go to the public service commission say this is how much it costs to generate power and this is how how much of how to charge people to make my statutory profit but they control how you -- how much money you make. imagine if your company decides i'm not going to provide electricity for people who are in this line of work or people in this line of business. it would be pretty dramatic if they were but to do that maybe i shouldn't speak about this in the public square because maybe tomorrow someone will get a brightht idea about what utilits elect a about what utility selector covers should be doing. we are that far off in many spaces. it strikes me tomorrow they will

be artificial intelligence meeting in the senate where apparently many of these -- and so is elon musk so we may have a fight as well coordinated. it struck me if you think about it and this is nothing personal about him but i would argue in a room with up to one heck united states senate and in the two most powerful people in the room will not be members selected by the public but two important companies one in particular is meta. it's not because of wealth. it's because they control what is in essence a utility in the 21st century. if amazon google apple meta and x all get together. let's say the first four or five get together and decide you know what we are going to do? we are going to destroy so-and-so. business or individual.

could they not really do that and could they not deny anybody a space in the public square destroy your business and refuse to provide you services. it can be used for what people presumed to be noble reasons and so forth they can also also be used under tremendous public pressure to target political opponents and those who fought the plan to target those they may not agree with. and it can be used to threaten. how many people out there today are not afraid to openly express their views on the topic or take a public position on either side of the debate and it seems to be disproportionately on one side because they are afraid of the impact it could have on them not just reputation with it many ways economically. i think that's what you touch upon. we are not built to think of the private companies holding that

amount of power for individuals but that's how consolidated those industries have become. and where that leads is an area that i've most of my time and you touched on some of the things you've written on and talk about today. primarily what is this a product of and tracks well with my adult life. i graduated high school and was a graduated i was not a good student and i started borrowing for it. then i started caring more about school. i graduated high school in 89 from the university of florida 93's of the world change between 8993 quite dramatically. i grew up in an era i vividly recall growing up remember the movie the day after where the world was supposed to end and matthew broderick taps into the pentagon to start a war game that almost world. i grew up in the world and

united states versus the soviet union good versus evil reagan versus the and it all fell apart literally like the berlin wall collapses. it was not like the predominant thing on my mind at that time. i was aware of it and then it was a big deal and i thought about it. we emerge from that with two things. first of all the feeling that we won. free enterprise democracy have one and communism and marxism didn't and naturally the war was over and everyone would become a free enterprise and everyone would become a free market. you may save yourself that was a noble endeavor and something we shouldng aspire to but we made decisions on the presumption a couple of assumptions for the first is now somehow a global economy and global economic commerce would replace the

nation. it was a thing and i don't know who was attributed to. i heard at the time in manyve years later -- never to countries that are and have gone to war with each other. thats off -- off this sounds but i'm sure it was said because i've heard it. there you go. i don't know what to attribute .it to. the point being this idea that commerce between nations or between people would replace nationstates. no longer would it matter the national interest is no longer relevant because you can fight each and it would be worked out that way in the second assumption that was made that the world it was at this utopia that we reach not only with a the global commerce replace nationstates inn the national interest as a result but in fact we were nothing more at this point not citizens of a country are members of the community we

were now all investors and/or consumers in the global marketplace. the third assumption that was made is as a result of all this thel national order should be that the market outcomes will deliver the most efficient outcomes. the marketers love to work it will deliver the most efficient outcome and that would drive investment. who cares if the factory in your town or the employer that had been the anchor of the community for years closes down because it's cheaper to do with these to be somewhere else. whoor cares? is going to go over there and that means lower prices and will pay less for whatever it is they made their even those made halfway round the world and have it shipped back too you but here's a great news, better jobs are coming. it will replace the job was wiped out the will pay you more. and that was another assumption that was made. we all know that's not how it worked out on what wet have

learned and i say this to you by the wayay someone basically raid and grew up in the ranks of the free enterprise orthodoxy of the republican party on the right and one of the reasons why is the people in the other side of this debate were either socialist or a combination -- or communists or a combination. that was thehe only office that was the first of these assumptions were tied to public policies and some way to build a consensus. that's why in 2000 when china joined the world tradede organization. they are going to and yes they will steal. they'll get rich when they get rich they'll become just like us. a gamble that was the notion. why were these things were? the assumptions were wrong for a couple of reasons. the nation-state will only matter. human nature will never change.

5500 years of purported history proves it not for history repeats itself. we translated that contrasts and we change all kinds of things the human nature. one of the core elements of nature is -- people want to join something. it's a natural thing in and one of those things in the modern era and the last three or four years is place and belonging matters. that's thefi first thing. the idea that we have that would no longer matter we are citizens of the world and it wouldn't matter anymore that was a fantasy that people adopted who could afford to adopt it to have passports and they travel all over the world. but for most people it was not true especially for the leaders of china and russia and other countries they said no we will stay with the nation-state thank you very much.

we will focus on the nation-state to the other error that was made a mistake that was made was the belief that jobs were simply like a place to provide you a paycheck. jobs are a lot more than a paycheck. paycheck grounders. job is nothe just a job for ther their jobs in the mirror stage often their jobs and there are reliable jobs. and jobs they could raise a family on. our economic numbers don't mention that. i always think to myself every time i hear the monthly report 100,000 new jobs creative but they don't tell you what kindarf jobs. are these jobs going to be around in six months and did they pay 40 or $50,000 at a minimum and you can afford to raise a family and be a member of the community? can you land that job three or four years am now where you can become a member of the community? is the first thing theyte don't tell you in the second thing they don't tell you is under employment.

35% of people have a degree and can't findt a job in the degree they gottenbu a part money from the degree and now they can't find ath job. the other point is when you jobs away from people you drawn their dignity and their purpose and it has a effects on family or mission. if you think about a community the anchor of a community is the stable reliable jobs jobs. must have stable reliable jobs you don't have coaches for little league don't have presents for the pta and organizations that hold the country together. one of the notions that was lost in this era was that america is not an economy. america is not a government. america is a nation and the glue the fiber of the nation is not the government. the government is what what creates loss and protects us amid all sorts of things but it's not a country and it's not an economy. we need an economy but our country the fiber in and the basic elements of a country our family and community the two

most important institutions in society not care how wealthy you are and how much your gdp growth and how influential your government may be if you don't have family and community and the strong your country will not be strong. it will be and divided and those are the economic implications that it has. the struggle now the realization i don't think there's anything wrong with learning and adopting what you learned what's important. beginning in 2014 and 2015 and 2016 part of that happens to be on the presidential trail. if america is doing so well why is everybody so mad? and it was shocking to me because i'm a product of the american dream and my mom was a stock clerk at kmart. my dad was a banquet bartender in the own the home. in a retire with dignity.

i work in this place for 30 years and one day first i cut my pay and now what do i duplex i can't find a job that replaces that one. what you learn how to code and move to san francisco? first of all i don't live in san francisco. that doesn't work for me. and so it's disconnected from community and family and all the things that make life worth living and all the implications it has for the challenge became a think socialism is failing. you look at the southern port of unitedop states many people come from socialist countries like venezuela and nicaragua. do you know why believe in the market?on a believing that market because it's the one model capable of

creating not just prosperity that widespread prosperity that allows you to build societies anchored in family. not everyone will be a millionaire oror billionaire. it will create good-paying jobs for as many people as possible but only ifon you make that a priority does it become a part of the equation and public policy. when you make public policy decisions under thecy assumption will this policy generate economic growth and that's important. you can't have good-paying jobs without wealth creation at the corporate level. you need that but you can't just have that alone. it has today that kind of growth that welcomes prosperity but also creates good-paying jobs for as many as possible. that's the perspective that was lost. didn't matter whether wealth was being created or concentrated matter if the wealth was up product of job creation

somewhere else. when the bell rang at the end of the day that was a perspective and here's the other point very the market and i believe in the market and it's a tool and exists as a national interests not as a national interests and not our people deserveop the market and where it gets complicated is when the most efficientt algorithm is not good for your country and their people that will argue with you to this day that'se impossible and that has never happened. it certainly does. the market says it's more efficient by 80% of the active agreement of our pharmaceuticals in china. you can subsidize it whatever it may be innocent and our national interest to depend on a foreign competitor for 80% of our

pharmaceuticals? 80% of the rarest mammals on earth are other investor capabilities aware that during covide we couldn't make mass but all this that was going on for the first time we came face-to-face with industrialization of the national interest component it's easy to talk about industrialization but when it be great if we had more factories? i'm not talking about going back to the 50s. i'm saying is that lack of investor capacity has a component to it economic security but also job security. i published a report a week ago that talked about the workplace and i was focused on men were without college degrees. why are men without college degrees struggling with jobs that supported them when they were industrial type jobs? we can go on and on but the

point is to come to a point where industrialization -- let the government takeover production and every endeavor that has an american flag on it. those are the two choices. to return to and which understand the proper role of the market that serves the nation that requires us to re-embraced the concept of the national interests. at every level. that does not make you a nationalist nuke which is a term that's thrown around these days. i don't only care about america. itna doesn't put a good at the p behind any decision.

who is supposed to put the interest first? if you want to think about theth corporate setting you could argue my job is to protect my shareholders which happened to be the man in the women of united statesic of america. i don't think there's anything wrong with saying number one would need to make the national interestbe number one objective number one criteria we apply to any public policy at the federal level and number two it's in the national interest to have an economy that empowers workers to have dignified and stable relationships and extend their engagements around the world. they are a lot of terrible things that happen in the world if we get the push of a number one to forward decide how we get involved and how much we get get involved what is the core national interest of the united states? are no longer the n world's sole power. we have the luxury in every

conflict are' everything that's going on around the world. if you t care about all of them you can try to help where we can by and large we do up to pick our fights more thanre ever. as great and powerful as his country is a does not have unlimited power for limited resources and we have prepared this and in a mutual political era. i'll close with one last observation and i talked about the ai thing. it's interesting because i'm ang firm believer that basically cannot hold back technological advance meant no matter how long -- no matter how hard you try. i'm speaking about artificial intelligence in their couple points that i have. artificial intelligence will become something and nobody knows the answer but is it going to be technology that makes human -- humans do what they do better faster morere accurately? is it going to be automation that allows one worker to do the work of five orzoco into the

something that takes the human element of completely? we don't know the answer to that but what strikes me about it is theirs and lot more freaking out going on about ai right now which is not yet on top of this in the level that could be much more than there was. with automation. people said automation will be good the workers will make more money but don't worry about the industrial initiation deindustrialization but now those people are freaking, out. for the first time that the massive disruptive technological atadvance that threatens not the blue-collar worker not the 40,000-dollar year worker but it threatens the people making a lot of money and realizing they may not need me anymore. what one of the cornerstones of the hollywood strike his screenwriters don't want to be replaced replace by machine actors don'tt want to be replace by an avatar. now we are seeing at disruption the impacts higher educated or standard of living workersin and

all of a sudden they are freaked out about revolutionary change going on. that and should not exist when it came to the american worker and whether was that of malice and greed or when we decided we were no longer a country that to make things and create jobs that can employ as many americans as possible we did damaged to the national fiber the country and the reason i know this is because it's not just happening to us. virtually every industrialized country in the world and the west is going through similar domestic upheavals whether immigration or the state the ste economy for policies on climatei and the like and they are all feeling the exact same thing. the decisions and assumptions that have led this world and our countrynd for 30 years now we he to confront that. it's my personal hope although i think you are more pessimistic than i and the republican party will be the home but it won't be

easy. there are a lot of deep roots that go into everything from the intellectual world of public policy to the traditional center right institutions. we havee made a lot of progress in four or five years and we have a lot work to do. thank you for the invitation talk about because ius do think what you discuss about tyranny is a byproduct of economic decisions that empower this decentralization by vertical integration of certain interest areas that have extraordinary power at a time when they said don't worry about because there will be a competitor. there is no competitor for amazon in ais competitor there really isn't so anyway for the chance to talk to you about all this and i look forward to your questions. [applause]

>> thank you senator rubio. i want to invite t our panelists now to join us up here on the stage. theus audience will bear bear wh this chip are sickp and we will get a microphone appearing go straight to our panel discussion. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> we are ready to go. i want to start our panel discussion here tonight really where senator rubio left off which is the question of where this book fits on the political spectrum. some of you are of the right in the american conservative and a long time commentator. the book is that mod criticism from the right. it does want to start on that note. there's a point in your book where you that narrative damage in your remarks about the political economic history of this country especially in the post depression era and there's one that stuck to me that said part of what drove prosperity that we saw in the past century

with a commitmentnt to women and that's something that's been the theme of a lot of things that i've been riding about from a conservative perspective but i want to give you this opportunity to answer your critics how are you not a full socialist? >> a great question. the smartest reviews of this book have come from marxist and they have argued that this book, what it puts forward is a fundamentally conservative project whereas often when i'm dealing with center riders centerleft pod casters are refused they will say what seems like you are bringing to light -- right bremer comes to abortion but a left-wing mentality when it comes to the economy and how do you reconcile those two and a commitment to a market that exists within the limits of the common good arises from the same place. informed by my catholic

teachings in the post recognized unhindered markets for created with power and wealth in the way to combat that one of the ways is a boeing workers encouraging them to organize to bargain collectively and other places to ensure you wouldn't have catastrophic situations of market failure. it's not as if i shut down the conservative rain when i become a writer on the political economy in turn it back on when i turned to cultural issues. it comes from the same place and it's very important to note the new deal project of the new deal order and what preceded it herbert hoover laid down many of the frameworks are given greater scale by fdr and the idea of

what is seen as the conservative thing to do in the face of market disruptions and in the case of social unrest with workers to afford the goods that we are producing. thisss model of what i call clas compromise is not class antagonism.. recognizes the class antagonism is real but it reconciles the fact that rather than take antagonism into the evolution of one class by the other. there's nothing contradictory about being conservative and supporting the socially managed capitalist decision. >> one quick follow-up for senator rubio before he bring the rest of the panel you touched on this at the end of your remarks that you are perhaps more optimistic about remaking the gop as a tyworking-class party. i'm wondering if you could expand on that and what do you

think are some of the main barriers to achieving that political realignment >> first of all that's where the party writ large is. it's one ofof the things that start with the present. i campaign somewhere to hear napain and the economy these people are sending our jobs overseas and you go somewhere where they live different lives and have different experiences andea you realize the donor base and its voter base much of anything else the trump campaign exposed that because he challenged all sorts of conservative orthodoxies. his campaign rebuild hey but the donors tell you is really a good idea? a think that's unfair. generally speaking where the tradition of the party was and where the voters were. someone is going to be the voice of that group and one of the things that challenges from my

perspective is that traditional political spectrum as we have identified it for 25 or 30 years and we think somehow 150 years agoo this center right and left them poker parties were different. there was an area in this country where there were conservative democrats and liberal republicans. we have had multiple realignment and you mention how the parties aligned and so forth. polarization hase driven people into two camps of where is the home of the americans is look i don't want the government controlling needs a production that i do want to be a government employee. i do want public policy they care about creating an economy where not just people can get rich but people can find good stable paint jobs and there's a market for that. .. national first and foremost and, how we react around the world and even here domestically, there's a market for that. that market is going to be met

by some political movement. it won't be easy because, as i said, there's a tremendous amount of infrastructure. over 25 or 30 years that's been built on this traditional paradigm. but but but i think it's an inevitable evolution. and i think the republican party is right now the only place that can be the home of it, because the social radicalized portion of the democratic party m >> makes it impossible for it to bes a hostile environment to the working crass voter and their economic needs

>> the compact magazine signe of thee emphasis in the new journal and i'm curious of senator rubio's optimism on the gop the cooperation in my line. >> i look at the problem as sort of the both parties are in the race. who's going to find the voice that speaks to that angry frustrated person out there who justwh sees howdies connected te political elites really are.

the moral reform of rejecting and the language of efficiency and modern economics and modern of moral formittty taking over both parties, corporate world, think tank world, world and there's no power and ewe taupen world, which is aal trap. all of the sudden the possibility ofso building a society opens up.

we have to choose to do it. the party that decides to do that first is the party that is going to be dominant over other a differentak generation. >> a lot of older generations that have panned this and if you're looking for price from the right, it's younger generation andnd wondering it yu can speak to why that is and based on your experience and young conservatives. the corporate tax cuts and four years of republican

administration pursuing that. some statistics that are in the book that most everyone in the audience probably knows wages stagnant since 1973 and productivity of labor going up and 75% from the same year and reel wage haves gone up only 9%. then if you look at p how do you get there? education. education has increased 200% over that same time period and goods that we consider necessary of free formation and health department care.me

delaying and getting married. is and old guard made and eeducated and actually get into the wrongs of wage labor and the games and sincing up or continuing that neoliberal structure that he so eloquently aligned out in the book.

the politicians and not senator rubio going to talk about wallets, wallet, wallets, paychecks, paychecks, paychecks. and real estating there's an incorrect anthropology that undergirds a lot of this and pushes family to the side, pushing nations to the side >> it's false and they're

pursuing over forms of conservative and harper lanes cans back to the time is gold water years. the number one issue for republicansf, was the general tariff. it leads to prosperity and goodwill to all men or something like that. >> out of the problems and neoliberal consensus of leftist's way.

>> there's manytist icks on this and show that af lot of worker dos want to join juneons. union is toxic and union dues and corruption and way down the at number nine was fear of retaliation. staying in the political economy and how we can get over that and

encounselor them more. >> the nra or democratic socialist of america or somethingr like that. the labor organization at their workplace and so for those cases. have reason not to join the

union's political involvement is toxic. >> the labor movement now. if you see the conservative at same level and exact same way. there's room in it for all kinds

of people thatt want to join together and and having something that's very important that he touches on in the book and that is not being an affluent employee and sitz on what senator rubio was talking about of having stability in your job and being table count on it and reliability and stability that you can't be dismissed for no reason or for any reason that's not illegal. >> the lead r of the alcio and pin tweet was something like, you know, well for the

paraphrasing and stand for maximal reproductive freedom. >> one thing, one major reason for that is over the past two generations and it's been shifting to the democrats by political necessity and workers come together republican party as voters, nay don't have an organized vote within the republican party in the same way that organized labor is an organized part of the democratic coalition. if we hadad a republican party that was more friendly to labor

organizations then you could, i think you would see labor becoming more independent because it's not so dependent on one party knowing that the other one will be hostile at every stage, it's national relations boards will be made up of union busters. and so on. >> i want to turn to the audience and time f for one, mae two questions. if you have a question, please raise your hand and we'll do what we can. yes, right over here. pushing neoliberal dogma and tax cuts and everything else and

more i read the post and teachings >> they seem tenable but so, you know,jowski that's kind of attitude for respect for limits is i think at the heart of my political economic

thinking. >> can i add one thing onto here, one thing i find interesting about theev o the book that were critical and quote john lock, got california you. >> it's back to liberal schism it's that choice oriented consent oriented crafting oriented mindset that is completely foreign wernicke 15th, 16th century and for me my face rediscovered that sense of quality and freedom and human

dignity. those are the types offeree freedom and dignity we're talking about. >> what you fulfilled dignity acquisition the public

policy obligation and foster an creates that work. that's two sides of the same coin. it largely was the argument that cap rich is a tool we use to a-- capitalism is a tool to achieve the common good and theof definition of the common good is what politics are about and for those we're expecting to work and they're fleurishing and like family formation and woe don't have an answer for that for young americans.

what is the guarantee to americans.re not the guarantee you're going to be wealthy but if you're willing to do x, you'll at least find a job that pays you enough o so you don't have to stay up at night worried and get laid off at any moment. we don't have an answer. i said we're on the verge of becoming the first american that leave the next generation better off and we're living in it. from personal experience, anecdotal and proud of the numbers that back it up, members

of my family are at least ten years behind where i was economically and socially. in terms of home ownership careerat and achievement and the like. when id was 340, i was ten years -- 30, event titles ten year as ahead of where they are. >> briefly, matt. >> yeah, it's important to realize that neoliberalism is based on space. there's a meta physical rage lake how dare you saying this stuff isn't working and they're like how dare you? it's a criticism of their religion. >> right. >> that's i think important.

faith works in both ways. >> like whistled increase the child tax credit, how dare you. >> we're on a really tight time line and we need to leave it there for today and a few closing notes tomter first of all, if you've not already gone and bought tierney inc, please do. it's a important and provocative book. secondly, keep up with everything that sohrab is doing in terms of contact magazine and weekly column at american conservatives and check us out as well. last housekeeping note, stay in your seats till the speakers have had a chance to leave the room. thank you furur all the paneliss and join me in thanking all the panelists. well, joining us now v

is northwestern university professor andrew koppelman and he's also an author this his eighth book burning down the house how libertarian