tv National Conservative Student Conference - Ben Shapiro CSPAN August 3, 2018 2:35am-3:36am EDT
friday night at 9:15 eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. students from around the country were in washington, d.c. this week, attending the national conservative student conference. earlier today, they heard from the editor in chief from "the daily wire" ben shapiro. together, they spoke for about two and a half hours. applause]d >> hello again, everyone. right? for those watching on c-span today, i am grand strobl. young americans for freedom is the chapter affiliate of young america's foundation. 1960 at theded in
home of willamette buckley junior. countries about 2000 -- campuses today with conservative ideas of free enterprise, limited government, traditional values, and a strong national defense. also americans foundation saved president reagan's ranch in california where you, too, can walk in president reagan's footsteps. you can learn more about you america's foundation at the website -- john america's foundation at the website. you can learn more about young america's foundation on the website. pleased to have been shapiro. [cheers and applause] thatamazon's alexis says been shapiro is one of her favorite conservatives.
is for good reason. -- it is for good reason. of ours -- he holds one nations leading podcasts. youngthe fall of 2015, america's foundation has sent ben schapiro to more than 40 campuses across the country, bringing facts don't care about your methods to students to the chagrin of helicopter administrators. at my almaen shapiro mater, the university of michigan. 2016 and triggered the snowflakes with two words on a chalkboard. trumptwo words were -- 2016. [laughter] [cheers and applause]
he proved the point that the left is so unhinged that they are even afraid of chalk. [laughter] across the country, administrators are desperate to undermine these events. went to speak at the paul university, they threaten to arrest him. they even had threats of violence against him at uc berkeley. however, he reached more than 10 million viewers online as well. recently at the university, the school relegated his speech to a campus seven miles away. even so, we filled the room to capacity and he is now suing the school. [cheers and applause] the left unhinged fear of
schapiro is evidence of his effectiveness, to bring true intellectual diversity to the university. ben schapiro entered ucla at the age of 16 and graduated summa cum laude in a degree in clinical science. he also -- in political science. he also graduated cum laude from harvard. greatest the nationally syndicated columnist in the united states. -- he wrote books several books. the editor iny chief of "the daily wire." to be theored exclusive partner with ben schapiro where we received 1300 inquiries to have him speak for only 12 spots.
i almost forgot. his wife is a doctor. please welcome ben schapiro. [cheers and applause. -- [cheers and applause] [chanting] >> usa! usa! usa! thank you very much. baseball games is communism. today, i wanted to do something a little different. i talked about various themes on college campuses and politics and white privilege and why it is nonsense and save spaces and
trigger warnings. today, i want to do something different. i want to talk about the rising tide of democratic socialism in the country and all the myths being pervaded by the democratic party, one of the worst systems pervaded among the human race. let's talk about alexandria ocasio-cortez. booing] she has launched a wave of enthusiasm among members of the democratic party. tom perez has said that she is the new face of the democratic party. there are more people watching this line -- this online right
now than voted for alexandria ocasio-cortez. [cheers and applause] we keep hearing that she is very exciting. she is exciting because she can say incredible he stupid things with a straight face and she radiates sincerity. so do my two children under the age of five and i would not put them in charge of the nation's economic policy. i want to talk about democratic socialism. i want to talk about seven particular claims. all of them are wrong. it is necessary for us to know why they are wrong so we can fight what will be the wave of the democratic party of the future. it wants to run on intersection alley with regard to race and identity politics with regard to economic socialism. economic socialism is not the same thing a socialism. they cannot claim why. she was asked nationally what is
the difference and she had no answer. bernie sanders has been asked the same thing. tom perez has been asked the same thing. hillary clinton has been asked the same thing. they have no answer because there is no difference. add the wordyou ]andwich to turn, -- to turd,m toured -- a turd. is eachline definition according to his need. socialist programs redistribute, abolish or property and nationalize industry to override profit incentives the drive the market. it is important to understand the difference between these two things. just because a country has some socialist programs, it does not make it a socialist country. canada is a capitalist country with socialist medicine.
it is important to separate these things out. otherwise, all you get is, look hasanada, where everybody high income and everything is great and they have nationalized health care. nationalized health care the socialist part. in high income is the nonsocialist part. the living standards is really good is the part that is not really good. when you conflate them, you're doing something inaccurate. socialism requires abolition of the profit incentive. -- they have openly stated that they want to abolish the profit incentive which has driven the greatest increase in wealth in the history of mankind. folks on the democratic socialist left, they use the were democratic. now it is democratic. just like the republic of north korea is actually a republic and
does not use force and you more -- anymore. say a man is a woman than he is a woman. if you say in honor public as a republic, then that is what it is. if someone is putting a gun to your head, they are not forcing you. socialism, he said, is about the mark rutte -- democratizing the family. democratizing the schools by challenging the hierarchical relationship between teachers at the school and the students at the school. that is perhaps the stupidest thing in the world. socialism is the democratization of all heirs of life, including but not limited to the economy. here is the problem. voting for the use of force is
still of the use of force. if we rob two thirds of the people, that is still force, that is still tyranny. that's why the founders built a system of checks and balances. they created a constitutional system to prevent exactly this, to prevent the idea you said its democratic and that means it's ok now if we decide to oppressed some discrete or insular minority with regard to race. that's true with regard to economics, too. voting to take other people's money does not make it democratic and it does not make it fair. the third claim is that socialism is fairer, more moral system than capitalism. you have bernie sanders saying -- it's so irritating -- his entire shtick. he says things are wrong in the world but offers no solution. but because they are wrong with the world, people think he is smart. bernie sanders is not a smart human. when he says it is completely
unfair that 1% of the people hold 99% of the wealth and then he suggests the solution is some pie-in-the-sky nationalization of everything on earth, you're right, it is not fair that some people have three houses and some people have no house at all. wouldn't it be better if everyone had one and a half houses? we can cut that one house down the middle and there will not be a wall that protects us from the elements but at least it will be fair. it rests on the premise that there are consequences for action. this is how every human being feels, even on people -- even people on the left. did people get something they don't deserve, that is unfair. you didn't earn it, but you got it, and it feels unfair. it feels unfair because it basically is unfair. socialism seeks to destroy the system of accident consequences. people mix up charity and socialism.
charity is there get it we ought to help people in need. i agree. . that's why i get inside a religious community. that's why conservatives give significantly more money to charity than people on the left. people in blue states think they did their job when they paid their taxes. people in red statesstill have a religious obligation to give to the needy in a community. charity is what i am to you because the money in the end .oes not belong to me it belongs to god. that is what religious people say about charity. but socialism says, if i need something, that creates an additional right in me. socialism is about your rights from me. what is weird about it is those rights only accrue the less successful you become economically. right now, i don't have the right to take your money. but if i lost all my money in a stock market crash, then i have the right to steal your wallet. i fail to see how my status economic impact, my right to
take your stuff. i'm exactly the same person. why should my rights change taste on whether i am poor or i am rich? toges are not allowed discriminate in favor of the rich or the poor. socialism is the opposite. we are supposed to discriminate on behalf of the people who are less successful financially. this is the act of jealousy and great. i have less, therefore i get to take her things. socialism. violates three of the 10 commandments. idolatry, the prescription against theft -- because socialism is indeed tapped -- theft -- and you're not supposed and be your neighbor, come at your neighbor's property. that is what socialism is about. that is why people are talking about income inequality. why should you care if the person next door is rich? if you're doing great, why do you care if the next person is rich? if you are living on the nice -- in the nicest house on bill gates's block, you're doing
fine. are you suffering? the question isn't whether someone is earning more than you. the question is whether your suffering, whether you are poor. if you want to make a statement that we all ought to get on board to fight poverty, i'm with you. if you say we have to fight income inequality, i'm not with you at all. because i don't think that the rich guy stole from the poor guide. rich people don't get -- from the poor guy? get rich fromn't stealing from poor people because poor people don't have money. [laughter] [applause] made byth argument proponents of democratic socialism is that it has never really been tried. not socialist, venezuela was not socialist, cuba wasn't socialist, none of these have ever been socialist. the minute they start sucking and blowing away dissidents, they are not socialist anymore. that is what we in the commentary business say this idea has never been tried.
if you tried it vertically, it would work this time. i've got to say, it would not be a successful dating strategy. to get a girling to date you and she knew that you used to nine and ditch -- dine and ditch your girlfriend repeatedly at restaurants, that wasn't the real me. the real me is the guy who takes you to really nice steak houses, picks you up in a nice car that i own, and i would never do that to you. i changed. i've changed. do you -- ladies, if you date that guy, you're an idiot. but socialists do this all the time. the ussr experiment and it up with tens of millions of april in dead and tremendous -- millions of people dead and -- endous of people
stack those key industries with cronies of the political party in power and to inflate the currency to insane numbers and lift tariffs -- none of that was real socialism. real socialism is unicorns and raindrops -- and rainbows. if you believe this, you are a fool. cuba says it is not socialist. cuba knows it is socialist. socialist countries know they are socialist because they are socialists. a country that declares itself believe a will not country that self identifies as socialist to be socialist. the fifth claim the democratic socialists make is that what real democratic socialism is not venezuela, not the ussr and it is norway. had an economic collapse and now it has a right-wing government. [laughter]
even the prime minister of ny work -- of denmark started protesting against this. the danish prime minister said "i know some people in the u.s. associate the nordic model with some server socialism. denmark is far from a socialist economy. denmark is a market economy." which is true. statesabove the united in economic freedom, denmark is 12. switzerland is fourth. the netherlands is 17th. so all the countries the democrats claim are socialists are actually capitalists. they are great places to invest your money. all of these places are
prosperous because of capitalism and the economic problems they to the giantly due welfare state they built on the back of capitalism. capitalism creates the strength and socialism freezes things in place and distributes everything which sucks the strength out of the system. you have a growing system that is bursting at the seams with potential. then people say we are rich enough. let's redistribute. then it turns out that people don't have much of an incentive to work anymore. this is why you see there have been experiments -- one shutdown literally today in canada, in ontario, a basic universal income. to stayive people money home and do nothing, they stay home and do nothing. all of these countries became wealthy long before they used these socialist mythologists -- methodologies. cultural have
homogeneity and focus on work ethic. culture makes a difference all across the world and how people acted differently. nordic populations transplanted to the united states do better in the united states than in their own countries. why is it when norwegian's come to the united states, they earn more? when swedish folks come to the united states, swedish americans earn more on average than if they stayed home in sweden? sweden, which is a suppose it socialist paradise, grew because of capitalism. sweden enjoyed the highest growth rate in the industrialized world. between 1936 and 2008, the growth rate was only 13% out of 20 industrialized nations. that is because they started implementing third way socialism which was a complete fail. and then they tried to walk all that back. the real question is how much of the socialist programs can you
place atop the capital superstructure? the answers some, but not an eternal amount. you cannot pile an infinite amount of socialism on capitalism and hope that capitalism will hold. even if you believe that some of the socialist programs work in place is like norway, even if you look -- like their education system, for example, the idea that you can extrapolate from norway to the united states, norway is a country whose population is 5.3 million people. i live in los angeles county, twice the size of norway. that ist take something somewhat working in a culturally homogenous area, which by the way's breaking down. what you see is that all of these socialist economies that create welfare states that are brings innable low-wage immigration from abroad and creates high levels of emmett -- unemployment.
the employment of immigrants in the united states is significant we higher than the immigrants in norway. and creates cultural conflict in places like norway and sweden, which is why see all this anti-immigrant sentiment. they brought a bunch of immigrants to fuel the socialist wave. claim made by a lot of these democratic socialist advocates is that socialism work. that the american system of health care sucks. even if you don't claim that canada is a socialist country, they have a socialized medicine system and works better than our system. the united states system of medicine is not a free market system. the american system of medicine is deeply, deeply regulated, heavily, heavily regulated. my wife works in this industry. [cheers and applause]
government programs have exacerbated this problem. medicare has low rates of reimbursement, high levels of paperwork, more and more doctors opting out, which means they are of charging other customers, raising prices. there is no transparency between your insurance company and you is a real problem. no one in this room can get a straight answer if you walk into your doctors office and said, i want and a tray, how much does it cost? he has to run through your employer's insurance and the insurance has to bargain with the doctor. the doctor can i give you a straight answer. that is not a market system -- cannot give you a straight answer. system.not a market if you go to the grocery store, you know how much a can of beans costs. in medicine, you go in, they prescribe you something and then you have to run around with the insurance companies and try to figure that out. that is because of overregulation and the system
of employer insurance that does not exist in any other system. there was wage control in the united states. employees decided, in order to avoid wage control, they wanted to give employees raises, they could give them insurance instead. they basically made in-kind contributions and by your health insurance for you. what a stupid about this, if you lose your job, you lose your health insurance. no other country has it like this. switzerland, which has the best government-involved health care system essentially has an individual mandate, but no employers. employers are not responsible. you buy yourself then it's your job to pay for it and the government utilizes you if you don't buy the insurance. if you are going to have a government-involved system, that is what it looks like as the best system, not the u.k. or canada. but the there is no reason that we even have to do that because it is true that the united states system is not a free market system. works,ople say socialism
america is not close to a free market system. it is still the best place to go in the world if you have money. that is why everyone comes here for surgery. the vast majority of actual mental innovation is done in the united states. 44% of all new malic keeler entities are created in the united states. the fact is that all medical innovation is driven by the united states because we are not a government that bargains with drug companies. we do not bargain with surgeons. what that means is that we pay a premium. we are actually paying the real free market price for health care and all of these a socialist countries are jumping on the back of what we pay. we pay more and other countries pay less because we don't collectively bargain against all of these medical innovators. health care is a little more complicated than they want to make it out to be. thatratic socialists say capitalism is a failure.
we talk about how it is evil and impoverishes. to believe that, you must have been dropped repeatedly on your head as a child. you fell off the tree and hit every branch on the way down to believe this. capitalism is the greatest success story in the history of humanity. people living on a dollar a day or less fell from 27% in the global population in 1970 25.4% in 2006. to 5.4%orldwide -- in 2006. mortality rates of four kids under five declined from 1990 two 2013.poor people in america are still reach people everywhere else. the greatest single force for lifting people out of extraordinary suffering. it is not close. you can look at tables of life expectancy, tables of survival
of birth, you can look at wealth tables. most of human history books like a flat line and then you had about 1820, and things look up, then you hit the 20th century and things skyrocket. if you took somebody from the 17th century, forget that, if you took somebody from 1910 and drop them here, that person would think they died and went to heaven. my babies can expect to live eight decades. i can right now pull out my phone and get any piece of information i want and order a pizza. you can literally do anything now. people that -- things that people thought -- the greatest luxury people had was a flush toilet. the really rich guy had air-conditioning. everyone has air-conditioning. nobody had a microwave or cell phone. the person who is poor today in the united states has a microwave, car 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 created by socialism. the best way to fight back against all of these myths, with regard to democratic socialism is a moral argument. it is not just the capitalism that is more affected. it is a fairer, better more moral way of life. capitalism is based on a few concepts based in judeo-christian. religion image, are made in god's we on the fruits of our labors. these are not self-evident. you have to make those assumptions to get to a culture driven by free market. i have the ability to trade my labor for your labor. that an individual trumps the community. these are things inherent in the history of western civilization and have been rejected by the marxist left.
it has led to immorality, perverse incentives and increasing property. when you have people pretending that they are a moral voice while growing up in the richest country in the history of the world and being free to speak however they want, thanks to the glory of the free market capitalism, you should say to yourself, maybe it is not that what you're preaching is moral, maybe it is that you were born on third base any think you hit a triple. the fact is that bernie sanders gets to preach socialism from his lighthouse. it is really easy to be a socialist in a capitalist country. it is difficult to be a prosperous person in a socialist country, which is why we should not let it come to that. thanks so much. [applause]
ben: now for the fun part. i love you, too. not as much as my wife and children. from orange coast college in california. age, what istoo the conservative approach in your opinion about how to prevent sexual assault and how we as a society can print -- protect sexual assault victims? ben: a couple of things we can do. one is that we need to create a culture 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 and it is very rough. we need to make it easier and find ways to make it easier for women to do that because people , i sexually abuse women would say should be beaten the hell out of, but that is not a real legal term. as i have said many times before, rapists, should be castrated or killed. in terms of what we as a culture really can do, we need to actually trainmen -- when feminists say thing like trainmen not to rape. there is not a decent men in the world his father says to him son, don't rape. you are actually traingin a child -- training a child to not be a bad person. you train them to say i expect certain things. building anded for
destruction. you either trainmen to be and that their job on planet earth is to protect more vulnerable people, it is their job to particularly protect women, because they're the most likely to be preyed upon by other men. man's job is to stand up and do something when they see something like this. obviously, that is a major factor. but the feminist movement is trying to do -- they want to say that patriarchal is him -- atria hasi -- patriarchalism men -- a real man protects women. a real man does not hurt women. >> thank you. my name is sarah.
i study in new jersey. i wanted to know what you think about the young advocates for fair education and this lawsuit in new york against jewish orthodox schools who don't provide any secular education. i wanted to know what you think about the lawsuit and the you think they will win? ben: i don't know enough to actually comment on it. >> basically, the founder of this organization is a former hesitate to and is going after schools that don't provide secular education to their students, and they come out to the world they don't know or have function in the world. they can't really read. it is a lawsuit against the schools in new york city. ben: again, i want to see exactly what the standards are. i think that secular education and a civil society is a necessity. that holds true regardless of religious affiliation. if you are going to have a school, you should teach your
kids enough that they can function in society. that seems like a basic predicate. with that said, i tend to be rather libertarian on those topics. i would want to know whether this is actually child endangerment or child abuse. i would have to know more about the case to know that, or whether we are ranging into the government telling parents with a must teach children and how far we are ranging. i could see a slippery slope argument for the left suddenly declares it is the result of religious schools to teach children. we're going to get that california pretty soon. i cannot, and cases i have not examined. of course, it is child endangerment if you're not teaching your children anything at all. on the same token, i want to make sure we're not invading parental rights. >> james from new york. one of the issues you say is most important and i would agree on, but that is not talked about
much is entitlement reform. oftentimes and i try to talk about this, i am told that i'm just and compassionate and i don't care about people. which is not true. what would be your best approach to starting a conversation? ben: when people accuse me of not caring about people, i don't care. [applause] ben: what is so weird about this particular argument is the idea that you don't care about people if you are simply suggesting that we reform entitlement so that it is there for people in the future. i'm not a big fan of entitlement programs in general. i don't like the verbiage of entitlement programs, because i don't think that you are entitled to anything except for opportunity. you have certain rights in the constitution. other than that, you're not entitled to anybody else's money in $50ram where you put
50 years ago and now you're taking out 300 -- $3000. we have made promises to older folks and we should keep his promises. the question is, what should we do with people as we age the population and stick to these entitlement programs are move away from them entirely. what we are going to need is a transitional program that raises the retirement age, that lowers the benefits on a sliding scale as we get to younger population, and that lets every single person in this room off that of social security. everyone should be able to take the money and put it where they want. [applause] ben: the idea the government is going to take my money away from , and then i'm going to be returned that money is a bunch of nonsense. it's my money. i don't need you treating my money like it is your piggy bank. if you want to preserve these
programs, this is the part where the left is just insane. of available political win is very short. the reality is both parties are going to keep kicking the thing down the road. i like a lot of stuff that president trump has done, but he declared that he was not going to touch entitlement. winds ineasy political telling people you are going to give them money that is never going to materialize, or that you can always hand off to your kids. social security is going to be bankrupt within the next 15 years. it is already running in the red today. the idea that we can continue down this path without any sort of massive tax increase our massive increase in the retirement age is just fantasy. once you are elected, it seems to me that it is your job to say these things. even if you are trying to get elected, being honest with the american people is a necessity. [applause]
i'm ryan from the united kingdom. one thing i've noticed is a similarity between the british left in american right is that they both conflate universal health care with socialized medicine. i like the part in the speech where you said about the fact that switzerland has a more market-based health care system yet still has been a personality -- universality. ben: that was originally what romney care was supposed to be. the problem is that people in the united states have a general view of health care, which is that it is not my job to pay for your health care because health care is not a public good. i generally agree with this point of view because in order for something to be a public good, it has to be something like the military where i can't
exclude a particular person and your use of the military does not diminish my use of the military. my use of medicine has nothing to do your it use of medicine. forcing people to pay for a level of insurance seems to wrinkle to a lot of americans is the fact that the government can youe you to pay anything -- can't drive without insurance, but they're basically saying that you can't live without health insurance or you have to buy it. a lot of conservatives have a problem with that, which is ok for them, because now we say your responsibility is to go do that. the problem is that a bunch of people don't do it in the may don't want to do a cost of it so what do you do? it depends which question you are trying to answer. if you are tying to answer had we get universality in health care with the highest quality of care? swiss health care model is probably best.
the markets always create better supply a better product. the same they did with lasik eye surgery, there has been tremendous advances. people have gone into ophthalmology and it has reduced the cost of lasik eye surgery. the big problem is that people are asking the question about universality. markets don't guarantee that. if you are answering universality, you need government to mandate it. if you care more about quality, you want a free market system. that is why one person said any health care system, you are looking for three qualities, but you can only have two. you can have a affordability and universality, you're not going to have quality. you can have quality and universality, but that is quite
expensive. or you can have quality and affordability, but it will not be universal. the question is which system do care most about. i believe people should bear the responsibilities of their action and we should have safety that is generally created by communities. [applause] >> high point university. times.been asked 16 ben: we can pretend and the new have lots of friends. >> you should tell people you are related to him. i think he knows who he is related to. my question is more lighthearted. .ased off of cardi b ben: my tax hero.
>> she should be everyone's tax hero. ben: if i'm ever president, she is my secretary of the treasury. is, going off of that and her sentiment, maybe in a little bit more eloquent --hion, do you think there do you think that the leftist ideals that have infiltrated and been pushed by hollywood and popular media for however long that is been happening for, do you think that is changing, that we are seeing a shift? doesn'tthink cardi b. realize she is a leftist when she says things like that. because she lives the life she lives, associated with the people she is associated with, she probably doesn't know how to identify in any other way. do you think that is going to happen? ben: i do think a lot of political barriers are breaking down. i'm not a rap fan.
[applause] ben: stop applause. [laughter] what kanye west did was quite brave. when he cannot and said you can think what you want to think, good for kanye west. he is still a nutcase, but good for him. there is a new generation of people in hollywood who don't feel like they got there by accident. they feeling they have worked very hard for their money, and when you look at their tax bill they are going, wait a second? why am i supposed to feel guilty about my money when i was working as a brewery stuff, and not the government is taking 50% of my cap? i think some of the cases for the left in hollywood have dissipated in terms of importance. five years ago, the big thing in hollywood was if you are against same-sex marriage, you could not work in hollywood.
fell, there'st not much anybody can do about the same-sex marriage. i been libertarian on it since 2012, because i don't think the government has placed in this sphere. i never thought the government had a place because the government sucks at everything. when i married my wife, i didn't do it for the tax discount. spoiler alert, there is no tax discount. since that has been alleviated, there is a libertarian rise in hollywood among young hollywood folks that is kind of astounding. i've been shocked of the number of relatively major stars who have actually visited our offices under cover of darkness, and whose names i will not mention, because they follow me on twitter now. did you see that thing a couple of weeks ago? he came into our office and hung out there for an hour and a half asking questions about them control. i was nice to him and then he
tweeted out, schapiro is a nice guy and the whole world said i was a racist, bigoted homophobe. unn got, james g involved in the and ended up being fired. which basically confirms my theory that i am basically thanos. [applause] by: in that almost literally standing there is nothing my fingers, i can make happy -- half the mcu disappear. the level of tolerance is the same as it ever was. but there is a group who feel like they are adrift. they don't feel at home in the republican or democratic party. i think that is creating some openings. there are political realignment under way. >> thank you. >> my name is sam from mary the
university in st. louis during -- st. louis. given misery is about to vote on right to work,. i want your stance ben: if you can get people to voluntarily join a labor union, that is fine. you can bargain exactly how you want to bargain. what i do oppose is the state either taking wages from workers to pay to a union, which is the most corrupt crack i have ever heard of, or this idea that unions can be great in status with a simple majority vote of a group of people within a particular government in industry. why is it that i work in a teaching industry and i don't want to join a union, and now i'm going to be forced to pay union dues in order to work in this particular state, or this union is going to bargain on my
behalf, so i can't bargain individually with a school. that seems a violation of my freedom to dispense of my labor to prices i choose. i find all of this -- right to thing. a great i have no problem with labor unions that are voluntary associations. i do have a problem with anybody using compulsion in any way whether governmental or informal. [applause] question, i am jeremy from benedictine university outside chicago. theke that you mentioned part about education because i'm a future teacher. regarding how you said that sooner or later seven-year-olds are going to start dictating our educational policies, the labor unions, that is something that i just because i don't think that our policy should be
determined by seven-year-olds. it should be determined by the aste, the local governments, well as the labor unions. it should not be dictating because what have they done? to my home state of illinois, we just had the governor overturn a large union. ben: i've been following that. >> what advice can you give me going in as a future teacher, and may be against the usual status quo which is if you are a teacher, you support the union? this is the same advice i give the 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're going to have to make. you have to determine what you are willing to lose her job over, what your willing to simply be hated over, and what you don't want to be bothered over. this is a decision i can't make for you.
dore do you think you can the most good? whether it is an actress in hollywood or students in college, your use of your own schools -- skill set is what is important. getting fired may not be the most productive use of your own skill set if you can help infiltrate values to hundreds of students, versus getting fired over taking a stand. you really have to calculate these things out. go where you think you can do the most good. i can make the decision for you, nobody should. >> thank you so much. [applause] my name is tyler. what is your thought on replacing welfare with a negative income tax for the bottom 20%, to give them a way to work about of poverty? ben: this is the basic melt and
freedom -- milton freeman argument. the negative income tax would be a superior proposal. i'm concerned that any government subsidy is down to moving the wrong direction as politicians get a hold of it, blow it up and use it for class warfare. if you're able to set the policy, and maybe that is the best form of the policy, but being that politicians inevitably get hold of the stuff and use it for political gain, i would suggest if you want a serious way of fighting poverty, it is not going to be done at the federal level. it is going to have to be done at the local and family level. as government programs grow, charity drops. as taxes increase, the social safety net provided by your neighbors and family decreases. this even happened to social security. it used to be that as her parents aged, the expectation was that you are going to take care of her parents. now the expectation is that society is going to take care of
your parents. when there are people who are impoverished, the rabbi makes an appeal to the community to help this person out. what is good about that is the person knows where the money is coming from. the person feels a kinship with the people they are taking the money from, and a feel a sense of i don't want to take money from people i have to live with. i want to get out and do something. even the name of the senseless organization giving you free money is a perverse sense. whatever we can do to incentivize private charity would be significantly better for the giver and recipient and any government program. [applause] luke from the university of cincinnati. many atheists argue that morality can resist independently of religion. how do you counter that? ben: they are wrong.
you can be a moral person and not be a religious person. i know many atheists who are think are really morrow people. -- moral people. you cannot build a system of subjective morality on a belief in materialist atheism. i think the most important sentence ever written is written in the book of genesis where it says that man was made in god's image. because that is the basic principle that underlies individual rights, individual freedoms, natural law. all of these things are based on this. i keep pitching this book i have been writing all about this specific topic. basically the theory was built on two polls, judaism and athens and that these two have been in constant interplay until the launch of america, and then, we destroyed both of them. we destroyed the judeo christian
value system and great reason in the name of subjectivity, and this has led to purposelessness for a lot of folks. you can't build a system of objective morality on atheism is that we argument are balls of meat in a meatless universe. a doesn't bother you when client each of zebra, why would it bother you when it person tells another person? that is not a say that cultures of atheists don't have laws against murder, because they do. it is not a moral argument, it is a utilitarian one. you have to decide what hierarchy of values are utilitarian. is it more important that people are free or have health care? it depends. you can make arguments either way. there is no guarantee of objective moral standard in any of that. in order to build a system of rights, you have to believe that individual human beings have an
innate ability regardless of capacity. that cannot be achieved by making a leap from material balls of meat that have randomly firing the that are evolutionary beneficial. i don't know how you get from age to morals with nothing in between. [applause] is rae from north carolina. i'm a big fan of your podcasts and shows and everything. i have a question concerning people being influential. you are very influential in the conservative movement. who would you say is leading people astray from what you are teaching and everything, if you have to name the number one person. ben: oh, no. [laughter] reagan's 11thllow commandment and not smack anybody or you like is generally on my side of the aisle.
you are tempting me. don't tempt me, frodo. terms.speak in general i think the people who follow personalities over principles are leading the movement of stray. [applause] ben: i think that people who pitch victims of mentality to people who happen to be the political allies are leading people astray. i think people who think that reaction to the left is more important than speaking actual eternal principles are leading people astray. to punch people, i love doing it. i do it for a living. but, as i have said before, if you are going to -- you ought to own them and not least them. what people are doing is leasing the left. they are essentially doing things just up his people off -- just to piss people off on the left. they are angry people. doing that, may actually drive
them further to the left. left isthat you own the by convincing them to be part of our team. [applause] ben: that doesn't mean you can publicly humiliate that arguments. i like publicly human leading that arguments because i'm not talking to the person i'm debating with, i'm talking to the audience. here -- there is a tendency -- a lot of folks on the left have this perception of me that i go out and call people jackasses. if you watch any of those videos, you're watching conversations where the person on the left runs out of things to say. one video is meeting pretty polite to somebody in the audience. you can on the day by winning the argument in a polite fashion.
what you do -- you do that by actually convincing people. it's satisfying to watch people being mean to other people, but it's not convincing. if you follow a person and not a principal, i tested this person to play 15 degree underwater upside down hungry hungry hippos, and everything this person does is part of a brilliant master plan that no one except this person can possibly figure out, i think you are being for which. i think the principal matters more than the person. if you are solely reacting to the left as opposed to promulgating an agenda that combines virtual liberty, you're doing it wrong. [applause] adam from loyola marymount university. right in your backyard. i wanted to bring up the topic of nationalism because it has been a big thing on the right.
you spoke on the right of socialism in america is left, i wanted to ask about the defense of nationalism by those on the right. can you discuss the difference between patriotism and nationalism? nationalism and then there's patriotism that is tinged with nationalism. they are not the same thing. .his argument has been raging the argument for patriotism is that america is a cradle country. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it is about the principle that -- a person living abroad in japan could be more of an american than a person born in ohio but happens to spout principles that are contrary to those that the constitution and
declaration of independence stand upon. think that is a better form of defense of the country. i think patriotism is about defending values, not familial bonds. i will say that if you read the federalist papers, i think there is something to this, tribal affinity is not necessarily a bad thing so long as it was tied to -- tribal affinity in exclusion of greed. there's us in the room, we are the good guys, no one else gets to join. the reason conservative groups are great is because we all the knowledge if you become a conservative, now you're part of our team. in europenationalists who basically argue that true germanness is being german. or true french nest is being born in the borders of the french. there are these people and the united states as well. they largely reside on the
alt-right. even know these people are two generations old like everybody else. there are mystic words that strike in all of us when we see the flag, when you watch a fourth of july parade. what i would argue, that is nationalism and there's nothing wrong with that. you're not doing your job as a parent or citizen if when you see the flag or fourth of july parade, if you think of other americans at a baseball game, as opposed to what was this country founded on and why do need to continuously focus on that? again, yourica great actually do have to understand what made america great in the first place. [applause] ben: thank you so much, i really appreciate it. [applause]