at the independent regulatory agencies and respect their knowledge. they respect their technical abilities, so they often will defer to the agency if there is litigation. guest: host: your appointment runs out -- host: your appointment runs out in october. what happened after that? guest: by statute, we can stay on for a year, and then the president, and addition to announcer: we will take you live now to the national conservative conference in downtown washington dc. we will be hearing from ben shapiro about freedom of speech. >> we were founded in 1960 at the family home of william f buckley junior, and we reach over 2000 campuses today with conservative ideas of free enterprise, limited government, traditional values and a strong, national defense. young america's foundation also

saved president reagan's ranch, where you too can walk in president reagan's footsteps. you can learn more about young america's foundation at www.yaf .org. to havee are honored the number one requested speaker in america, then schapiro -- ben schapiro. [applause] [cheers] even amazon says -- alexis says he is one of her favorite pundits. and it is for good reason. he packs lecture halls, hosts one of our nation's leading podcasts, and is a new york times best selling author. since the fall of 2015, young america's foundation has sent

ben to more than 40 campuses across the country, bringing facts don't care about your feelings message to students to the chagrin of helicopter and ministers. in fact, i hosted him at my on the modicum of university of michigan. he came in 2016 and triggered the leftist snowflakes on campus with two words, the same two words that triggered those of students that when these words were talked on sidewalks all across the country, those two words were -- trump 2016. [laughter] [applause] >> he proved the point that the left is so unhinged, that they are even afraid of talk -- chalk. across the country, administrators are desperate to undermine his events. when he tried to speak at

depaul, they tried to arrest him. at uc berkeley, leftists tirelessly tried to derail his event and the even had threats of violence against him. however, his a speech was a resounding success, reaching more than tell million euros -- 10 million viewers online as well. at the university of minnesota, the school regulated his speech to a campus seven miles away. even so, we filled the room to capacity and now yaf is suing the school. [applause] [cheers] the left unhinged fear of ben shapiro is evidence of his effectiveness of bringing true diversity to the university. ben entered ucla at the age of 16 and graduated summa cum laude with a degree in political science. he also graduated cum laude

from harvard law school. he was hired at the age of 17 to become the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the united states. he wrote several best-selling books, including "rain washed -- brainwashed" and "bullies: how the left's culture of fear and intimidation silences america. he is host of the ben schapiro show. i am honored to be his partner in a tour this year where we received 13 inquiries declares to-- 1300 have him speak at only 12 spots. i almost forgot. his wife is a doctor. clean welcome ben shapiro. [applause]

[cheers] usa, usa, usa, usa. ben: thank you. i appreciate it. chants -- how you know you are not at berkeley. at baseball games it is communism. [laughter] so today i wanted to do something a bit of a different. i have talked about themes that you see on college campuses and in our politics, we have talked about white privilege and how i think it is nonsense, and we have talked about sugar warnings, so if you want to see those speeches you can watch them. but today i want to talk about the rising tide of democratic socialism in our country. i want to talk about all the myths being purveyed by the

democratic party and media regarding one of the worst systems of thought ever purveyed against the human race. let's talk about a woman named alexandria cortez. [boos] obviously.tarling, [laughter] she is the younger, my charismatic diverse version of bernie sanders, who of course loves the socialism. and she has lost a wave of enthusiasm among members of the democratic party. perez says it she is the new face of the party and it she is receiving an outside share of attention for a lady who has one only 11,000 votes in a primary. there are more people watching this live right now than who voted for her. [applause] we keep hearing that she is extraordinarily exciting, very exciting. and she is excited because she can say stupid things with a

straight face and wild enthusiasm in her eyes and she radiates sincerity. so did my two children, but i would not put them in charge of the nation's economic policy. today, i want to talk about the mccart socialism and the claims it has made. i want to talk about seven particular plans, all of them are wrong and i think it is necessary for us to know why they are wrong, so we can fight what is going to be the wave of the democratic party in the future. it has decided it wants to run on intersection audi with regards to race, on identity politics, and a democratic socialism with regards to economics. the first when they make is is not the same as socialism. they can never explain why. cortez was asked on national to become a what is the difference between democratic socialism and socialism and she had no answer. bernie sanders has been asked the same thing. hillary clinton has been asked the same thing. there is no difference. democratic socialism is a socialism with a nice word in front of it. right? it is like how if you added the

words in which to turd, it is still a terror to sandwich. if you add the mechanics of socialism, it is still socialism. let's define socialism. it is important to define the term so we know what we are talking about. the baseline definition is the old, ridiculous -- to each according to his ability, to each according to his need. socialist programs redistribute, socialist economies nationalize industry in order to override profit incentives that drive the market. it is aboard organize the difference between these two things. just because a country has socialist programs, does not make it a socialist country. canada has socialized medicine, but it is not a socialist country. it is a capitalist country with a socialist medicine. it is important to separate them, because otherwise what you get is, look at canada, a socialist paradise where everybody has high income and everything is great. or the nordic countries where everything is great and they have nationalized health care. great, that is the socialist

party and the high income is the nonsocialist part. the part of the living standard that is actually really good is the part that is not socialist, and in important to distinguish these two things, because we conflate them you are doing something and accurate. it requires abolition of the -- and alexandria cortez, who is endorsed by the social democrats and considers herself a member of the group, they have openly stated that they wish to abolish that incentive that is driving the greatest increase in wealth in the history of mankind. second, focus on the democratic socialists. they claim that socialism is not forced, because it is democratic. now it is a democracy. just like the republic of north korea is a republic and it does not use force anymore. as long as you say things are not what they are, then they become those things. if you say a man is a woman, he becomes a woman. if a number of public becomes a republic, that is the way it works. if you say democratic socialism, then the fact summit is pointing

a gun at your head to rob you, that is not force anymore, now it is democracy. according to jerry abbott of the democratic socialists of america, he says socialism is about democratizing the family to get rid of patriarchal relations. good luck with that. democratizing the political sphere to get participatory democracy. challenging the hierarchal relationships within the teachers of a school, that is the stupid this idea in the world. we are generally handing over education to seven-year-olds to democratize the classroom, so that seems dumb. socialism is the democratization of all areas of life, including but not limited to the economy. voting for the use of force is still the use of force. if two thirds of is a vote to arrive at gunpoint the other third of the people in this room, that is still force. that is tyranny. the thought is recognized this, that is why they built a system of checks and balances. they created a constitutional system to prevent exactly this,

to prevent the idea that, you said it is democratic, so that means it is ok if we decide to impress a minority with regard to race. that applies to economics too. if you have some people voting to take away other people's money, it does not make a democratic warfare. the third claim socialist make, socialism is better than capitalism. it is a more moral system. bernie sanders is up there and says things like, it is so irritating, his entire shtick, he says things that. are wrong with the world and offers no solution the because they are wrong with the world, people think he is a smart. bernie sanders is not a smart human. when he stands up and says, it is completely unfair that 1% of the people, and 99 -- have 99% of the wealth, and then the solution is the pie in the sky evolution of everything on earth, you think, it is not fair that people have three houses and some people have no house at all.

wouldn't it be better if everybody had 1.5 houses? we look at that third house down the middle, there will not be a wall that protects us, but at least it will be fair. socialism is not fair, it is deeply unfair, because fairness actually rests on the premise that there are consequences for actions. this is how we feel, how every human being feels, including on the left. everybody in newly feels if somebody get something they do not deserve, then that is unfair. if you did not earn it, it feels unfair. the reason it feels unfair, because basically it is unfair, yearning must be connected with what you get out of it. socialism seeks to destroy this system of action and consequences. people make up charity in socialism, it is based on the printable that we should help people in need. i agree, we ought to help people in need, that is why give in my religious committee, that is why conservatives give, more money to charity ban people on the left that is why red states give more. people in blue states think they did their job when they pay taxes, people in red states feel

like they have a religious obligation to give to the needy. and charity is about what i owe to you, because i -- the money does not belong to make a man belongs to god. that is what religious people think. it is saying something about my job. socialism says, if i need something that creates a right in me. charity is not my duty to you, socialism is about your rights from me. what is weird is those rights only accrue the less successful you become economically. by now, i do not have a right to take your money, but if i lose all of my money in the stock market crash, i have the right to steal your wallet. i fail to see how my economic status impacts my right to take your stuff. exactly -- i am exactly the same person, so why should my rights change based on whether i am poor or rich? it is like the biblical system that says judges cannot discriminate in favor of the rich or poor. socialism says the opposite, we

are supposed to discriminate in favor of people who have been less successful financially. this isn't just unfair, this is the essence of jealousy and grade. i have less, therefore i take your things. socialism violates three of the 10 commandments. idolatry, you're not supposed to worship government. it violates the prescription against theft. and and it violent the prescription against jealousy. you are not supposed to envy your neighbor. you are not supposed to cover their property. that is what socialism is about. that is why people are possibly talking about equality. why should you care whether the guy next-door is rich? if you are doing great, why do you care? if you're living in the second nicest house on bill gates' block, you are doing fine. the income inequality is massive, but are you suffering? no. the question is not whether somebody is more any cash is earning more than you, the question is if you are poor. if you want to make a statement that we should get on board to fight poverty, i am with you. if you say, we should fight

income inequality, i am not with you. i do not think the rich guys stole from the port that. poor people do not have money. [laughter] the fourth argument made by proponents of democratic socialism is that it has never really been tried. you hear it a lot. ussr was not socialist, venezuela was not socialist, cuba was not socialist, none of them have been socialist. the minute they start blowing away dissidents, they are not socialists anymore. it is what we call the no true scotsman fallacy, the idea it has never been tried. if you try to perfectly, it would totally work this time, which i have to say would not be a successful strategy. if like, you are out there and you are trying to get a girl to date you and she knew that you used to dine and a ditch your last girlfriend repeatedly at restaurants, and then you are

like, but that was not the real me. the real me is the guy who takes you to really nice steakhouses, and the real guy picks you up in the car that i own and i will never ever do that to you, because i have changed. i have changed. ok, if you date that guy you are an idiot. ok, socialist do this all the time. ussr, it only ended in tens of millions of people dead and millions in prisons and tremendous suffering for nearly a century. other than that, it was great. venezuela was not really trying it. the full-scale nationalization of the oil industry and the decisions to nationalize other key industries, with cronies of the political party in power, and then to inflate the currency to insane number is and lift tariffs in order to -- none of that was real socialism. real socialism is unicorns and rainbows. it is gumdrops. real socialism has. never been tried if you believe it, you are a full. cuba said it was not socialist.

a knows it is socialist, they say they are socialist. but it is so funny. the same people who will say that a country that declares itself democratic is therefore democratic imola not admit a country that self identifies as socialist is a socialist. if you are a country that solidifies as socialist, we will determine whether or not you are socialist depending on whether your country sucks or not. the message was, you will hear this most often, it is not venezuela, cuba or the ussr, it is norway. no way is their favorite. it was denmark, then they had an economic collapse and elected a right-wing government. but now it is norway. norway is awesome. even the prime minister of denmark started objecting to this. bernie sanders was going around talking about how denmark was the best place ever. place he that was in wanted to move to and have a commune, but got kicked out. said, i-- of denmark

know that some in the u.s. associate the socialist model with denmark. denmark is a market economy, which is true. if you look at a heritage foundation ranking of economic freedom, what you'll find is the u.s. is ranked 18th and ranked above the denmark, according to the heritage foundation, ranked above them denmark is 12th, switzerland is fourth, and the netherlands is a 17th. all the nordic country that the left likes to claim our socialist are actually capitalist, meaning they have low regulation, free trade, and they are great places to invest money. all these places are prosperous because of capitalism and the economic problems they have had is at your bootable to the giant wealth that they built on the back of capitalism. the trouble of using socialist systems on top of capitalism, is capitalism creates strength and socialism freezes things in place, which inevitably tends to

suck the strength out of the system. you have a growing system that is bursting at the seams with potential and then people say, we are rich enough, let's redistribute the gains. so they do that and it turns out people do not have as much of an inset of to work anymore and this is why you see that there has been some experiments, one that shut down today in canada, in ontario, they had universal basic income experiment and they shut it down today because it turned out when you give people money to stay home and do nothing, they stay home and do nothing. the truth is come all these countries became what the long before they started using socialist methodologies. they became wealthy because they are pretty good cultures. high social cohesion and a lot of these nordic cultures, including a focus on work ethic. culture makes a difference in all across the world and how people act. and nordic preparations transplanted the united states, they do better here than they did in their home countries, so if it was the system in norway,

why is it when norwegians come to the united states they earn more? when swedish americans become swedish american, they actually earn more on average than if they had stayed home in sweden. sweden, which is a suppose it socialist paradise, it grew because of capitalism and according to an economic scholar from norway, between 1830 and 1986 it enjoyed a high growth afterbut the growth rate that was only 13 out of 28 industrialized nations. and that is because they started implementing what they called third way socialism, which was a complete fail, and they had to elect right-wing governments to walk it back. it is a real question of how much of these socialist programs can you put on top of the capitalist superstructure -- the answer is some, but not an eternal amount. you cannot pile it on. and hope it holds. that is not how it works. it is also important to note

that even if you believe in the socialist programs, if they work in places like norway, if you like the education system for example, the idea you can extrapolate from norway to the united states is one of the weirdest ideas of people who make public policy. the total publisher is 5.2 3 million people, i live in los angeles county and los angeles county is 10.2 million people. it is twice the size of norway. you cannot actually take something that is somewhat working in a culturally homogenous area, which by the way is actually breaking down, because you see the socialist economies creating welfare states that are not sustainable with the preparations they have and it has caused them to bring in low-wage immigration from a ball -- from abroad and is creating -- the unappointed rate in the u.s. is higher than in norway it is creating also is of cultural conflict in places like norway, and is waiting, which is why you see the immigrant sentiment in these socialistic. they created social estates,

they brought in immigrants, and they did not assimilate any of those people, now we have cultural conflict. that is happening because of this. the sixth claim made by a lot of these democratic socialists advocates is that socialism works in medicine. the system of health care in america sucks and, if you go to some of these socialized medicine states even if he did not claim that candidate is a socialist country, they have a socialized medicine system and it works better than our system. first of all, it is important note that the american system of medicine is not a free market system, it is deeply, deeply regulated. heavily regulated. my wife works in this industry, as some of you may know. [applause] government programs have exacerbated this problem. medicare has low rates of reimbursement, high levels of paperwork, more doctors opting out of it, so they are of charging. -- they are of

charging. room couldhis probably get a straight answer if you walk into your doctor's office and ask him much and x-ray is. you cannot get a straight answer. they have to run through insurance. the doctor cannot actually give you a straight answer. that is not a market system. you go to the grocery store and you know how much a can of beans cost. a free market system is you know the price in order to decide if you want to that product. theydicine, you go in and prescribe the something and then you have to figure that out. it is because of overregulation. it is also a system of employer insurance. it was created specifically because of government intervention in the first place. wagee 1950's, there was control and employers decided in order to avoid wage control, they wanted to give the employees raises, so they would provide insurance instead. they could not give raises in

monetary form, so instead they bought the health insurance for them. what is stupid, if you move your job you lose your health insurance. no other country has it like this. switzerland, which probably has the best government involved health care system. it essentially has an individual mandate, but no employers, employers are not responsible party you buy the insurance and it is your job to pay for it and the government penalizes you if you do not buy the insurance. system, nothe best the system of the u.k. or canada. but there is no reason that we even have to do that, because it is true that the united states is not a free market system in the first place, so when people say socialized medicine works, because we'll come america is failing, the answer is not a free market system. america is still the place to go if you have money. if you haven't, that is why they come for surgery, you do not have to wait in line, the vast majority of actual innovation is

done in the united states, 44% of new molecular entities, drugs, are created in the u.s. commanded the fact is that virtually all medical innovation truly is driven by the united dates because they are not a government that bargains with drug companies. we do not bargain with the surgeon. so that means we pay a premium. we are paying the free market price for medicare and all the other socialized medicine countries are jumping on the back of what we pay. we are paying more, so other countries can pay less, basically, because we do not collectively bargain at against the medical innovators. so it is a little more complicated then they want to make it out to be. macaque socialist claim that capitalism is a failure. make about how capitalism is evil, terrible, and to believe this you must have been dropped repeatedly on your head as a child from a very high heights. you fell off the stupid tree and you hit every branch on the way down. [laughter] capitalism is the greatest

success story in the history of humanity. people living on a dollar a day or less fell from 27% of the global population in 1970, to 5.4% in 2006, 80% decline. in 2011 wasdwide only 17%. mortality rates for kids under five declined. virtually no american lives in poverty by global standards. poor people in america are rich people everyplace else. capitalism is the greatest single force for lifting people out of extraordinary suffering that his ever been devised. it is not close. you can look at life expectancy, tables of survival at birth, you can look at wealth tables, basically most of human history looks like a flat line, then you hit 1820 and things move up and you hit the 20th century, silly things skyrocket. if you took something from the 17th century, take them from

1910, and you drop them here right now, that person would think that they died and went to heaven. they would. because my babies can expect to live 80 decades. nobody lives eight decades. i can right now pull out my phone and get any piece of information i want and order a pizza. [laughter] you can literally do anything now. things that people thought -- the greatest luxury people had in 1920 was a plush toilet -- flush toilet. the really rich guy had air conditioning. everybody has air-conditioning. nobody had a microwave, nobody had a cell phone. the middle class, the person who is poor today has a microwave, car, and the two tv's. that is a demonstration of how successful capitalism is. socialism is people living in abject poverty. wealth is not created by socialism. suffering is. so with all of that said, the best way to fight back against all of these myths with regard

to democrat socialism is the moral argument. it is not just capitalism is more effective, it is a fairer, better way of life. it is based on a few certain concepts that are found in judeo-christian tradition, going all the way back to the bible. we are made in god's image, we have creative capacity and we own the fruits of our labors. these things are not self-evident. you have to make those assumptions to get to a culture that is driven by free market to have the ability to trade my labor for your labor. my labor is worth something. i am connected with my labor and i am worth something. an individual trumps the community. these are thing inherent in western civilization and they have been rejected by the left and it has led to immorality, perverse incentives, and increasing poverty. so when you have people like alexandria cortez pretending that she is a moral voice, growing up in the richest country of the world, and being free to speak however she wants, thanks to free market capitalism

and classical liberalism, you can say to yourself, alexandra, maybe it is not that what you are preaching is moral, maybe you were born on third base and you think you hit a triple. the fact is, bernie sanders gets to preach socialism from his lake house. it is easy to be a socialist in a capitalistic country, it is difficult to be a prosperous prison in a socialist country and that is why we should fight for the freedom and liberty's our founders created the country to preserve. thank you very much. [applause] [cheers]

now for the fun part. i love you, too. not as much as my wife and children. >> i am from orange coast college. what is the conservative approach about how to prevent sexual assault and how we can protect victims? mr. shapiro: a couple things we can do. one is we need to create a culture where when something terrible happens to a woman she feels comfortable going to the police and reporting it. i understand it is difficult for women to do this. we need to find ways to make it easier for women to do that because people who sexually --se women -- i would say beat in the hell out of, but that is not a legal term.

rapistse said before, should be castrated or killed. [applause] of shapiro: but in terms what the culture can do, we need to train men -- when women say trainmen not to rape, there is not a decent man in the world whose father said to their son, do not rate. when -- rape. you are training a child not to be a bad person. you do not train not to be a bad person. i expect some things. men are created for creation or destruction. men work.ue for how either train men to be , whose job on planet earth is to protect vulnerable people, it is their job to protect women from which requires special protection from

other men because they are most likely to be preyed upon from other men, that men's job is to stand up and do something when they cease of it like this. that is a -- when they see something like this. sexism, theyight want to say that patriarchal is him has created -- patriarchalism has created a sense of superiority. a real man protects women. a real man does not hurt women. >> thank you. i study at the college of new jersey. i wanted to know what you think about the advocates of fair education. who do notation provide secular education.

mr. shapiro: i do not know about the lawsuit. organizationm=s a former has civics you and he is going after schools that do not provide secular education to their students. do not read.s they do not have reading comp ranjit. it is a lawsuit against the schools. mr. shapiro: i want to see what the standards are if the standard is you do not learn anything -- i think secular education in a civil society is a necessity. that holds to regardless of their religious affiliation. if you are going to have a school, you should teach your kids enough that they could function in society, a basic predicate. --ntity rather libertarian that being said, identity rather libertarian, and i would have to

know more about the case, or we are telling what parents must teach children. i could see a slippery slope argument with the left declares it is the job of religious schools to teach certain social values. we are going to get that in california. as a lawyer, i cannot comment on cases i have not examined. child endangerment if you are not teaching children anything at all, and i want to make sure we're not invading parental rights. >> thank you. >> james from the university. that i would say agree on is entitlement. when i tried to talk about this i am told i am not compassionate and do not care about people. which is not true. what would be your best approach to starting a conversation and a productive one about entitlement

reform. -- reform? when people say people do not care about people, i do not care. [applause] what is weirdut about this argument is the idea you do not care about people if you suggest we reformed entitlements -- reform entitlements. i do not like the verbiage of entitlement programs because i do not think you are entitled to virtually anything in life except opportunity. you have rights that are enshrined in the constitution. other than that, you are not entitled anybody else's money or a program where you get 50 bucks 50 years ago. we have made promises to a lot of older folks and we should keep those promises the question is what do we do with everybody as we age the population? what do we do to fix these entitlement programs or overly from them?

what we will need is a transitional program that raises the retirement age, lowers benefits on a sliding scale, and let every single person often out of social treaty. everybody in this room should be able to take their money and put it where you want. [applause] that the government will take my money and put it in a locked walks and spend it on somebody else, then i will return that money. i am not a child. it is my money. need my money to be your piggy bank. you want to preserve these programs, the left is in sacred when paul ryan says he wants to preserve these programs, the left goes crazy because the window of available political wind is very short. reality is both parties will kick this thing down record i

like a lot -- down the road. they are easy political wins telling people you are going to give them money that will never materialize. social security is going to be tank dropped -- bankrupt in the next 15 years. the idea that we can continue along this path and had a massive tax increase or an increase in the retirement age is insanity. it is your job to say these things have and if you are elected -- [indiscernible] >> thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. i'm from the united kingdom. -- one of the things i have seen in the british left and the american right is they

both equate universality in health care. i like the part of your speech where he said switzerland has a more market-based health care system. why don't more conservatives argue for that position? mr. shapiro: that was originally what romneycare was people in the united states have a general view of health care is it is not my job to pay for your health care because health care is not a public good. i agree with this because health care -- in order for something to be a public good, it has to be non-excludable. your use of the military does not diminish my use of the military. that is not true for medicine. it is an individual concern. forcing people to pay for a level of insurance seems to

yrannical. t car insurance you can say, he cannot drive that car insurance him but he cannot live about health insurance you have to buy it. i had a problem with that which is ok because our answer is it is your responsibility to do that. if you do not do that, you bear the cost for that. it depends on which question you are trying to answer. the market-basis is the best. the same way they did with lasik eye surgery where it used to be $20,000 and i -- an eye.

people have gone into ophthalmology and have reduced the cost. free markets worth -- working health care. people are asking questions about universality. markets guarantee access but not universality. you need government to mandate it. if you do not care about it, care more about quality, you want a free market system. any health-care systems, you're looking for three qualities, but you can only have two. universality, affordability, and quality. you cannot have all three. you have quality and universality, and that will be expensive, or you can have quality and affordability, which will the a market-based system but not universal. the question is which system do you care most about because i

believe people should bear the responsibility of their actions and we should have social safety nets created by communities. >> thank you. [applause] hi. high point university. dean --een asked since 16 times. mr. shapiro: we can pretend and you will have lots of fun. >> pc-tel people -- you should tell people you're related to him. my question is more lighthearted. video -- of the [indiscernible] >> exactly. [indiscernible] thatestion is going off of and her sentiment, even a more

eloquent fashion, do you think that the leftist ideals that have infiltrated and been pushed by hollywood and popular media for however long do you think that is changing, that we are seeing a shift? because she is -- she lives the life she lives, she does not know how to identify any other way. do you think that is going to happen? mr. shapiro: i think a lot of political areas are breaking got. i am not -- breaking down. i am not a rap fan. west did was brave. when he said you can do whatever you think of good for kanye w

est. [indiscernible] there is a new generation in hollywood who feel they did not get there by accident him and when it look at their tax bill, they go, wait a second, why should i feel guilty about making a lot of money and i worked my tail off and now the government will take 50% of my cash? there is a rebellion happening against some of this summer. some of the test cases for the left and hallways -- hollywood have dissipated. ife years the big thing was you are against same-sex marriage could not work in hollywood. gfell, there is not much you can do. i have been against same-sex marriage is a cannot because i do not think that government has a place in this sphere because

at government sucks everything and when i married my wife i did not do it or a tax discount. it's that has been alleviated, there is a libertarian rise in hollywood folks that is astounding. i have been shocked the number of major stars whose name you would know and who have visited our offices under the cover of darkness, and they follow me on twitter now been did you see the thing that happened a couple weeks ago, where a new director came into our office, asked questions about gun control, and he tweeted out shapiro is a nice guy. he deleted a tweet and apologized. gunn got involved,

and ended up being fired from which confirms my series that i am basically -- [indiscernible] [applause] and that almost sitting there and snapping my fingers i can have to -- make half of that -- disappear. the loved one towards is as it was in hollywood, but there are people who feel adrift do not feel at home at the democrat or republicanan party because they do not like president trump very much. there is political realignments underway. >> thank you. from marysville university in st. louis. onen misery is going to vote right to work, i want to know your stance. if you can get

people to voluntarily join a union without knee capping folks, that is fine. nothing anti-market about that. what i post is the state taking wages from workers and paid to a union, the most corrupt crack i , with ar heard of them simple majority vote of people within a particular government-approved industry. i do not understand how that works. why is it that i work in a teaching industry and do not want to join a union and have to pay union dues to work in a state or the union can bargain on my behalf. i cannot bargain individually my school. -- i find all of -- right to work as a great thing. i have no problem with labor

unions. i have a problem with anybody using compulsion in any way. [applause] good afternoon. jeremy, i am- i am from outside chicago -- my --stion -- i like mentioned education because i am a future teacher. ,y question to use is regarding that sooner or later seven-year-olds are going to start getting our educational andcies, the labor unions, that is something i fear because i do not think our policy should be determined by seven-year-old sprint it should be determined by state, local governments as well as the labor union should not be dictating, because what have they done. in illinois, we just had the governor overturn a large union.

what advice can you give me and mayto the future, be going against the usual status quo, which is if you are a teacher, you support the unions -- mr. shapiro: the same advice i give students in college, if you are -- you can push as far as you can push and push no further. this is a personal decision you will have to make. you have to determine what you are willing to lose your job over, simply be hated over, and what you do not want to be bothered over. i cannot make this decision for you, where you can do most good, so i have said whether actors or teachers or students, your use of your skill set is what is important, and getting fired may not be the most productive use

of your skill set if you can help inculcate values to students versus getting fired. you have to calculate these things. think about where you can do most good, and i cannot make a decision for you. nobody should. >> thank you so much. [applause] i am from missouri baptist university could with the welfare state the horrible and doing the exact opposite of what it was intended to do or what the democrats thought it was intended to, what are your thoughts on replacing where fair -- welfare with a negative income tax for the bottom 20% to give them a way to work up out of poverty? mr. shapiro: milton friedman proposes this. it is a better argument than the welfare state. the negative income tax would be a superior proposal to the welfare state. i'm concerned any government subsidy is bound to move in the

wrong direction, blow it up, and use it for class warfare if you're able to set the policy, then that is the best form of the policy, but being that politicians get a hold of this stuff and will use it for political gain. if you want to have a way of fighting poverty, that will not happen at the federal level, state level, it will happen at the local and family level. grow --nment programs decreases. it happens with social security used to be the expectation that you will take care of your parents. now the expectation is society will do it. in my community there are impoverished people, and when there are people who are in power first him you go to their rabbi and the community helps in. kinship withels a people they are taking the money

from and they feel a sense of i do not want to take people have to live with, i'm going to do something. an orientation that is giving you money is a perverse incentive. if i had to rank these him it would be the welfare state at the bottom, then negative income tax, then private charity. the private charity would be better for the ever and the end recipient. >> thank you. >> my question is many atheists argue that -- exists independent of religion. how would you counter that? mr. shapiro: they are a great you can be -- they are wrong. you cannot build a system of objective morality on a belief in materialist atheism. you cannot -- [indiscernible]

i think the most important sentence ever written is in genesis where it says man was made in god's image, the most up on sense written in the history a few the come because that is the basic principle that underlines individual rights. i keep pitching this book i am writing. topic, andbout this there is western civilization was built on two poles, jerusalem, and athens come and these two have been in constant interplay until the beginning of america, and you destroy both of those. you have destroyed judeo-christian values and greek reasoning. you cannot build a system of objective rally on a visa because the atheists'

argument is that we are balls of meat wandering around the universe. culturesot to say that that are atheist do not have laws against murder. they do, and that is for purposes i would think of self-defense and order. it is not a moral argument. you could create a utilitarian morality, but what hierarchy of values are utilitarian? and that people have health care? it depends. there is no guaranteed objective moral standard in any of that. to build a system of rights, you have to think that individuals have a unique value. that cannot be achieved by making a lead from balls of meat that firing neurons that are evolutionarily beneficial.

i do not know how you get from apes to morals with nothing in between. >> thank you. >> i am from raleigh, north carolina, and i am a fan of your podcast. i have a question concerning people being influential, and you are very influential in the conservative movement. name the number one person -- no.shapiro: you are tempting me. i will speak in general terms. people follow personalities over principles are leading people astray.

i think people who pitch victim would mentalities are leading people astray. people who think reaction to the left is more important than speaking actual eternal principles are leading people astray. i love punching people. i do it for a living. -- that youoing to have to own them, not least them. people are now doing is they are leasing -- they are doing things just to piss people off on the left because it is fun to piss people off on the left. they are angry people. doing that may drive them further to the left by convincing them to be part of the team. i love publicly humiliating that

argument because i'm not talking to the people. i'm talking to the audience. there is a tendency -- about treasure insults over argumentation. a lot of folks on the left had whaterception of me, that i do is i just called people jack athens -- jackasses. on the other side runs of things is a. -- thatgender transgender video is pretty polite. you can own the day by winning the arm in a polite fashion them and you convince people not by calling people names, it is emotionally satisfying, but not convincing. -- again comewith if you treasure -- if you a follow a person not a principle, i trust this person to play

16-degree underwater hungry, ofgry hippos, at every part what this person does is part of a master plan, then i think you're being foolish. principle matters more than persons. if you are solely reacting to things on the left, rather than promulgating an agenda that promote virtue and liberty, then -- >> thank you. >> hi. los angeles. i want to bring up a topic of nationalism because it has been a big thing on the right. you spoke on the right of socialism on america's left him and i wanted to ask about the rise in defense of nationalism by those on the right and other conservatives. can you talk about the between patriotism and nationalism and the dangers that can come from that. mr. shapiro: pure form

nationalism and patriotism that is patriot nationalism. they are not the same. this argument has been raging over in "the national review between individuals. patriotism is that america is about that declaration of independence. life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. anyone can become an american. it is about principles that you espouse a person who is living abroad in japan could be more of american that a person born in ohio who espouses pretzels that are contrary to the constitution. i think that is a more trouble, better form of defense of the country. i think patriotism is about values, not defending familial bonds. if you read "the federalist papers" that tribal affinity is

not -- people can join the family. ofbal affinity in exclusion -- there is us in the room, we're the good guys, and the reason conservatives are so great is we acknowledge that if you become a conservative your part of our team. ,ut there are those nationalists in europe who are beingue germanness is ethnically german. you cannot be a half a frenchman. their people in the united states who's just you're not a true american unless you have certain roots in america even though some of these people are -- there are mystical words that struck in all of us when we see the flag, strike in us when we watch the fourth of july parade,

and that's nationalism, and there is nothing wrong with that. that is good. you're not doing your job as a parent or citizenship when you see the flag or the fourth of july parade all you think of is other americans at a baseball game as opposed to thinking of what was this country founded on and why do we need to continually focus on that in fy.er to revivi america great again, you have to understand what made america great in the first place. thank you very much. i really appreciated it. >> all right.

we have some time to do a few quick photos. if you want to head to the photo lineup we have -- orderly, please. >> later, the annual net roots nation conference. we will hear from senator cory booker as well as democratic donor tom steyer. 6:00 p.m., you will be able to watch it live on c-span. trump discussed workforce issues. you can see her conversation tonight on c-span at 9:15 eastern.

at 9:15 to watch our w,terview with larry kudlo senior economic adviser to president trump. kudlow: ilow -- mr. have been a believer under that right policy, we can grow the american economy at least at its historic rate, which, since world war ii, for more or less 1950 to 2000 and we grew at 3 1/2% a year after inflation, and i do not see why we cannot replicate that. >> friday at 9:15 eastern on c-span, www.c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. earlier today a group of her public and senators spoke in the capit