0:08

Blair: Welcome to another episode of the Secular Foxhole podcast.

0:12

Today we have a great guest with us.

0:14

Anders Igmereson was born and raised in

0:17

Sweden. He immigrated to the United States in 1994 and

0:22

became a US. Citizen in 2002.

0:24

He has a BA in Economics, Finance and Administration from Stockholm School of

0:29

Economics and a Master of Education in Montessori pre K through K education from

0:35

Loyola College of Maryland. He's a graduate of the Freedom Focused

0:40

Leadership Program of the Rockies, which I've heard great things about.

0:43

Andres is a champion of individualism individual rights, limited government and

0:48

capitalism. He has his own substac, and there's Igmerson

0:54

substac.com. And he's written for the Federalist American

0:58

Spectator, town Hall, Heartland, Daily News, the Objective Standard, and a parody.

1:06

Miscellaneous media outlets.

1:08

Anders, how are you? Anders: I am doing well.

1:10

How are you? Blair: I'm doing very good, thank you.

1:13

Vic, I'm so rusty, I'm nervous.

1:18

Martin: That's okay, blair, you have a routine of this, and this is more interesting.

1:23

Blair: That's true. Martin: This will be episode 69.

1:28

You could directly from the Gecko plug your

1:31

website also because that will give a title of your book.

1:34

Anders: Yes, that's correct. So the website is thinkwright.com one word.

1:41

Blair: Yes, and that's why we're here today, to talk about his book of the same title,

1:45

Think Right or Wrong, not Left or Right.

1:48

And Andrews, what compelled you to write such

1:52

a book? Anders: Well, I perceived a gap, if you like, in the political discourse.

2:01

I think a lot of people are focusing on either more deeply philosophical matters.

2:08

And there is a gap in the sense that the disenchanted middle, as I call them, the

2:15

people who don't feel at home in any political party, we have a growing independent

2:20

constituency in this country. Yes.

2:23

And I think a lot of what they're disenchanted with is the fact that both the political left

2:30

and right, they don't feel represented by either of them.

2:33

And so with this book, I'm trying to kind of reframe the conversation in terms of morally

2:43

right to left instead of politically left or right.

2:50

Blair: Okay, you mean morally right or wrong.

2:53

Anders: Morally right or wrong. Exactly. Yeah.

2:58

Martin: I'm listening to the audiobook on Audible, and you have done updated version.

3:04

Also, how has the comments, feedback and input from that coming?

3:11

Anders: So the second version or the second edition that I published last summer, it was a

3:18

couple of new chapters that I added to it based on current events.

3:21

So, for instance, I hadn't covered inflation in the first edition.

3:25

So that was something I added and a couple of other minor things.

3:31

Then also, some of the examples, I updated them, tried to make them a little bit more

3:38

timeless. But overall, the book is not changed greatly.

3:44

But if you want to buy it, make sure that you get the second edition out there.

3:47

The first edition should not be available, but sometimes when you search out there, you land

3:52

on the old edition for some reason, but it's the second edition that is the latest.

4:00

Great. Blair: All right, Andrews, I'm glad you.

4:06

Anders: Gave. Blair: Us the synopsis of the book, but let's go into it a little deeper.

4:11

Now, I prefer Iran's definition of rights as a sanction of independent action, but today I

4:19

think rights are confused with entitlements.

4:23

What do you think of that? Anders: Yeah, I agree.

4:26

The concept of rights has been diluted to

4:29

basically represent anything that anybody feels they're entitled to, but they forget to

4:35

ask the question of whether their alleged right to whatever an education, health care, a

4:42

job, secure retirement, et cetera, whether that is violating the individual rights of

4:48

others, of their neighbor, if you like.

4:50

And I like the lithmus test for what is a true

4:54

right or not by asking yourself the question, is this supposed right of mine?

5:01

Does it violate the right of others because they have either to pay for it, like my

5:07

education, or their actions are limited by the regulations that are implemented to support my

5:13

alleged rights? And so if the answer is yes to that question,

5:18

then your alleged right is not a right.

5:21

And I just like to go back to the Declaration

5:24

of Independence, because I think that is one of the most or still the most succinct popular

5:33

definition of what individual rights are, the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of

5:39

happiness, possibly with the addition of the right to property for clarity.

5:44

But that's how I think about rights.

5:49

Blair: Yeah, very good. Now, today, you and I know that there's

5:56

basically two fundamental types of political philosophy individualism and collectivism.

6:03

Collectivism seems to have won out today, or it's certainly dominating today.

6:09

And in my view, that's why America is in decline.

6:12

Do you have a thought on that? Anders: Yeah, I mean, it certainly dominates.

6:17

I wouldn't say that it has won out yet.

6:19

I haven't given up. Blair: No, of course.

6:25

Anders: Exactly. But I think pretty much the entire history of the country of the US.

6:30

Has been a battle between individualism and collectivism.

6:33

And, yes, collectivism currently has the upper hand.

6:37

And I think guess you say that explains why America is in decline.

6:43

Blair: Well, it's three against the world then, so far.

6:49

Right. And collectivism has descended into tribalism,

6:54

I believe, both sides of the aisle, if you will.

6:57

Anders: Yeah, I mean, I see tribalism as one version, if you like, of collectivism.

7:04

But, yes, tribalism has certainly increased in importance in recent years.

7:13

Blair: Like me, you're a staunch advocate of capitalism, but today capitalism is blamed for

7:20

everything that actually is caused by state intervention.

7:24

That's my personal opinion, but I think the growth of government bears me out.

7:31

So how do you define capitalism, and is it the opposite of cronyism?

7:40

Anders: No, I wouldn't say that capitalism is the opposite of cronyism.

7:47

It's commonly viewed as a free market economic system, but as a social system, it is so much

7:55

more. Blair: Right. Anders: Yeah. So it's the only social system that recognizes that individual rights,

8:02

including property rights, are the only true rights, as we talked about before.

8:07

And under such a system, the only role of government is to protect those rights.

8:14

So that makes for a very limited government.

8:17

So for your listeners, the government under a

8:22

capitalist social system has only three functions.

8:25

It protects your individual rights from being violated by foreign aggressors, and that's why

8:31

we have a military and from domestic aggressors people committing fraud, theft,

8:37

murder, et cetera. And that's why we have law enforcement,

8:41

police, et cetera. Blair: Yes. Anders: And thirdly, it prosecutes offenders.

8:45

And that's why we have a court system. Cronism, on the other hand, is, I think, as I see it, is special interests that lobby for

8:58

favors from politicians and government bureaucrats and politicians and bureaucrats

9:03

encouraging this behavior. So it becomes like a cabal between not only

9:09

big business but big business NGOs, et cetera, and politicians and bureaucrats.

9:15

So if you contribute to my political campaign, I will represent your interest should I get

9:20

elected, or something like that. Now, that is a cronyism.

9:25

It's a consequence of too much government.

9:28

So if you think about it, if politicians and

9:31

governments bureaucrats weren't able to wield all this power companies and other interest

9:37

groups, they would neither have an opportunity to carry favors because there wouldn't really

9:41

be anybody to go. To to carry those favors.

9:44

Nor would they have a need to protect themselves from the force of government in

9:49

terms of when they implement non objective laws and regulations, et cetera.

9:53

Because there's a lot of good players out there, good companies, and they just feel that

9:58

they have to have a presence in Washington to defend themselves.

10:01

Right, but none of that would be there under a capitalist social system because there would

10:07

be so little left for politicians to decide upon that basically most people, most

10:18

companies, most other organizations would have very little interest or reason to go to

10:23

Washington. Martin: The phrase like from a novel, that if you want to comment on that or expand it's,

10:32

our man in Washington. Right?

10:34

Anders: Yeah, exactly. So there wouldn't really be a need for a man

10:37

in Washington. Martin: From. Blair: A long time, I've just thought, well, they have to go to Washington to pay bribe

10:48

money. That's to keep from being railroaded.

10:55

Anders: Yeah. In a way you could look upon it as a legalized racket if you like.

11:05

Legalized in the terms of immoral loss.

11:08

That shouldn't really be there. Blair: I agree.

11:14

Now, capitalism is sometimes criticized as

11:20

creating monopolies. But what is wrong with Apple, say Apple having

11:27

70% of the market or Microsoft being the dominant operating system in the world?

11:34

Anders: Yes. Here you really have to differentiate whether their quote unquote

11:41

monopolist position has been achieved through share competence in a free market or whether

11:48

it has been done through carrying government favors or getting some protection.

11:53

So in a society where individual rights are respected and where the government is limited.

12:02

A company can only reach a high market share, whether it's 70, 80, 9100 percent through

12:09

sheer competence. And that should be celebrated because it's a

12:14

marvelous it's a fantastic achievement.

12:16

Blair: Yes, it is. Anders: But to maintain it, the company will constantly have to innovate to improve quality

12:24

and to reduce prices in order to stay ahead of the competition.

12:28

And we see that today, even in our mixed economy, that companies that achieve a

12:36

position like that through sheer competence, which does happen even in our mixed economy,

12:45

they don't maintain that position for very long.

12:49

It's maybe a couple of decades or something, but the competition is relentless and trying

12:54

to take a piece of the cake. And if you look at who were the big companies

13:01

1020, 30, 40, 50 years ago, compare that to today, it's a constant change of who is on the

13:10

top. So the accusation of that capitalism is

13:15

creating monopolies is entirely wrong.

13:18

Now, the only immoral monopolistic situations

13:22

are those that are created and protected by government, whether that is through

13:27

legislation, regulations, tariffs or subsidies, but anything that prevents others

13:34

from competing on equal terms.

13:36

So take the US. Postal service as an example.

13:40

They have a monopoly of mail delivery on mail

13:43

delivery, by law, it's actually in the Constitution.

13:46

It shouldn't be there, but it's nobody else is allowed to deliver mail to your mailbox.

13:53

So you cannot contract with a different provider to get your mail, et cetera, et

13:57

cetera. So that's a government created monopoly, which

14:01

is immoral because it infringes on your right to contract, basically.

14:06

But then you can also look at the Postal Service.

14:09

It's kind of interesting because it's also a good example of how even in this mixed economy

14:16

and even with these government protections, how difficult it is to maintain a monopolistic

14:21

position in the long run. Because take package delivery, for instance.

14:25

So the US Postal Service, they used to deliver all the packages in the country as well, but

14:32

they don't have a monopoly, a government sanctioned monopoly on package delivery.

14:36

So you saw the ups coming, FedEx and most lately Amazon, and they are just running

14:42

circles around the postal services. I mean, the Postal services is still

14:46

delivering packages to some extent, but they're a distant fourth, I think, in terms of

14:51

volume. And they do it at a loss all the time.

14:56

So that's a good example of how it's hard to maintain that position.

15:01

Now, the second example, there is technological innovation.

15:05

So even in the area of mail delivery, where they supposedly have a monopoly, well, what

15:10

has happened? Everything has gone electronic.

15:13

So you get email, you pay your bills online, you bank online, et cetera, et cetera.

15:19

So the amount of mail, of real mail, not just the crap that you get in your mailbox, the

15:26

amount of real mail that you get today, I don't know if it's like 10% of what it was 20

15:32

years ago, or something like that, but it's going to go down dramatically.

15:36

And the only reason why the postal service is still in existence is because we subsidize it

15:42

massively with tax money every year.

15:44

Blair: Right now, while you were talking, I was thinking of another injustice towards the

15:53

free market, as in labor laws like the minimum wage and so on and so forth.

15:59

I consider the minimum wage, again, unconstitutionally, immoral.

16:05

It's a barrier to let to keep people out of the market instead of at a certain level,

16:13

certainly at a beginning level. What do you think of that?

16:16

Anders: Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, if you talk about having a concern,

16:21

for instance, the least fortunate in society, if you want to turn that way, or the low wage

16:33

earners or people who need to get into the labor market somehow they're priced out often.

16:39

Because if you don't have the skills to, for instance, meet a minimum wage of $15, nobody

16:46

will hire you. But maybe you have the skill to be paid $4 an

16:51

hour. And that's a starting point, right?

16:54

Yeah. No, it isn't much money. You won't survive on it, but it's a starting point.

16:58

You gain experience and it won't take long before you move up the ladder and make more

17:04

money. But today, yeah, no, there is not even a way

17:10

of getting into the market for a lot of people.

17:12

And I think that explains quite a bit of the unemployment.

17:16

Martin: We see people like Joe Biden tried to rally against the gig economy and the

17:27

freelancers and so on talking about this, that they wanted to stop different ways of earning

17:36

money and doing side gigs and several jobs at the same time.

17:45

Blair: Certainly in California there was a movement to do that.

17:48

Anders: California even even implemented a law, I think.

17:54

Blair: But I forget if that was under Trump or Biden.

17:57

But anyway, six and one half dozen or the other.

18:02

Another thing that bothers me again, certainly the left for decades was in bed, if you will,

18:12

with the labor unions and you see the right to work laws being rolled back in states now

18:21

which protects nonunion labor.

18:25

So that's another injustice.

18:29

I think that it should be corrected. But in your book, though, in the Green, you

18:37

mentioned that you added a chapter on inflation.

18:41

What is inflation? Anders: Yeah, so inflation, there's a lot of misconceptions about inflation.

18:47

People look at increasing prices and they say, oh, that's inflation.

18:52

But really the only source of inflation is government printing money out of thin air to

18:59

finance the welfare state as they can't raise enough taxes to pay for all the obligations.

19:06

And when I say printing money in the old days, they really printed money.

19:12

Today it's electronical, they print them electronically.

19:15

So it's gotten even easier, unfortunately.

19:19

And increasing prices that people normally see

19:22

as inflation is just an effect of inflation.

19:25

It's not the cost. Blair: Right, yeah.

19:29

Anders: If we're talking about a capitalist social system the system that I advocate in

19:35

the book, the government doesn't have the power to print money physically or

19:40

electronically. So there wouldn't be any inflation.

19:44

There wouldn't be a Federal Reserve that controlled interest rates, that would be set

19:48

by the markets and certainly they wouldn't have any unemployment goals that would just be

19:55

also market based and money itself, that would be managed by the private market, by banks.

20:05

Currencies would compete freely based on how sound they were.

20:10

I suspect most of them would be gold based.

20:12

And over time you would probably, just like in

20:15

any other industry, you would see a consolidation of currencies and we'd be left

20:19

with a few broadly accepted ones, whether that is dollar or Swiss franc or something

20:24

completely new, who knows? Blair: Right.

20:27

I remember as a boy, you go to the grocery

20:30

store, a loaf of bread is a nickel, a gallon of milk is $0.15.

20:35

Now, of course, as you said earlier, a loaf of bread is $4 and a gallon of milk is $7.

20:45

That's just, again, runaway money printing and flooding the market with worthless paper, if

20:53

you will. Anders: And it's interesting if we look back before this latest rapid increase in inflation

21:04

and the government has this goal of keeping it at 2% and had for the longest time and they

21:13

managed to keep it around that number one, 2% is totally arbitrary.

21:19

Blair: Yes. Anders: And number two, 2% is hiding even keeping it at 2% is hiding a lot of inflation

21:30

in the sense that the government money printing is going on and that it is what

21:36

brought us to 2%. And a lot of it's actually spilled over in the

21:39

stock market and the housing market, which is not part of the inflation calculations.

21:45

But in a free market, in a capitalist social system, we would continuously see prices go

21:53

down and you would get more value for your money because human beings constantly look to

22:02

get more for less and companies try to improve efficiency and use less raw materials and

22:09

anything to increase their profits. Right?

22:12

And over time, you would just see prices going down.

22:15

Without the government printing money, in this period where we managed to stay around 2%, we

22:21

would have seen decreasing prices and all of us would have gotten more out of our money

22:29

year after year. That's what capitalism does.

22:35

Blair: That's right. Now, the Left keeps harping on inequality.

22:40

I think it's our view, yours and mine and Martin's, that in a truly capitalist society,

22:47

inequality is not even remotely important.

22:52

What do you think? Anders: Well, so you have to differentiate, I think, political and economic inequality.

23:00

So in a capitalist social system, there will be in a way, inequality is really not a good

23:08

term, but yeah, there will be people who will make a lot of money and people who will make

23:13

less money. Sure, but what's the expression?

23:19

The tide lifts all boats.

23:21

So with the productivity, with the increased

23:24

wealth all around, everybody will get richer in a capitalist society, which we see that to

23:31

the extent that we have been capitalists in our mixed economy over the last 100, 200

23:37

years, everybody has gotten richer.

23:40

And that's okay. Economic inequality is not a threat to you as a person.

23:46

Yeah, no, it's not. However, if we're talking political

23:49

inequality, that's a different thing.

23:51

And in a capitalist social system, political

23:55

inequality is also a non issue.

23:58

I mean, it's truly a non issue because with a

24:02

limited government that we talked about, limited to those three functions that are

24:07

listed initially, there isn't that much to vote on.

24:15

So if you take an example, saving for retirement, today, most of us are trapped in a

24:20

government run system called Social Security, and some 12% of your pay is deducted every

24:26

month. You only see 6% of that deduction on your

24:29

paycheck. The other six, your employer is paying.

24:32

And this is not going to a dedicated account for your retirement that you can look up every

24:37

month and see what the status is. No, this goes to pay the Social Security for

24:41

current retirees. So you are basically subsidizing your parents

24:45

and your grandparents. So when your turn comes to collect, you'll be

24:49

dependent on future salary and wage earners to continue to fund the system.

24:54

Martin: But Ponzi scheme. Anders: Yeah, well, it's a Ponzi scheme.

24:58

Yeah. So imagine, for instance, that we saw a revolt among young people.

25:03

I would love if that happened, but I don't see it.

25:06

But let's say, just for the sake of discussion, that young people revolted and

25:10

said that we are fed up with this, we don't want to pay into this system any longer, and

25:15

that this was put to a vote. Now, if you're on the collecting end of this,

25:19

this would be a huge threat to your retirement and your welfare, right?

25:23

So in that sense, your vote would be important.

25:28

Right. You would need to vote to make sure that you

25:30

can keep your retirement benefits and not be put out in the street or whatever.

25:36

Now, your vote, though, doesn't count for much.

25:40

So in that sense and there will probably be pressure groups on both sides who kind of

25:46

wielded their power. And in the grand scheme of things, your vote

25:52

would be worth very little. And in that sense, you would be politically

25:56

unequal because you can't really compete with those pressure groups who have their

26:03

connections in Washington and elsewhere. Blair: Okay?

26:06

Anders: Now, if you imagine instead a system where you were in control of your saving for

26:11

retirement from the day you started working, you would be able to put the money in a

26:16

dedicated account that you were in charge of.

26:19

You would shop around for the institution you

26:21

think would manage your money the best. If you're not happy, you change bank or other

26:26

financial institution, not unlike what you do with the money that you may be able to save on

26:31

top of your Social Security today, like 401K, like IRAs or something like that.

26:36

But in this system, politics would never enter into the equation, and the question of

26:42

political equality becomes moot because retirement is totally outside of politics.

26:47

It's just something that is taken care of in the market, and you can apply this reasoning

26:53

to all areas of society, whether it's health care, education, food, insurance, and so on

26:57

and so forth. If you were in control, if the government

27:00

wasn't involved, your vote would be of no importance in those areas.

27:05

So, for instance, today, if Apple comes out with a new smartphone and you don't like it,

27:16

you don't have the gut reaction that you have to go to your politicians, hopefully not to

27:21

carry a favor, right? You just move on and buy an Android phone or

27:25

something or whatever. And that's how the market is working.

27:28

We vote with our feet and our wallets, not with our votes.

27:36

In a capitalist social system, your vote would be of very little importance and political

27:44

inequality wouldn't be an issue.

27:48

Blair: And do you think the politicians stoke that issue because of the mixed economy?

27:54

They that's like a club.

27:59

They beat over the head of the capitalist

28:03

private sector, if you will. Does that make any sense?

28:11

Anders: Yeah, they stoke envy. Certainly they do.

28:14

I don't know how self aware they are of and actually scheming for power here.

28:21

I really couldn't say. Or if they're just products of the system and

28:25

take it for granted, it's hard to say, actually.

28:29

Blair: Yeah, all right, well, don't touch on envy again, though, because whenever I was

28:36

raised, when I see an achievement, to praise that praise that person who did achieve that,

28:44

whether it's they bought a new car or they bought a house.

28:48

So envy, I think, is terrible.

28:52

I won't say disease, but certainly what's the

28:56

mental term I want? Perhaps. Martin: You probably know about that in Sweden, but it's originally from Denmark.

29:05

Jante. Anders: Yeah, no, I think envy is an interesting phenomenon.

29:15

A psychologist once explained to me, which I thought was very clarifying, that envy itself

29:22

is just an emotion. It isn't inherently good or bad.

29:27

It just tells you that someone else has something that you value, but you currently

29:33

don't have it. If that is a nice car, a successful career, a

29:38

terrific spouse, or whatever. But it's the action you take when you

29:42

experience envy that can be good or bad.

29:46

Blair: Okay, certainly. Anders: So, for example, if you feel envy when you read about a successful entrepreneur or

29:53

something, you can either decide to pursue something similar in life, go out there and

29:58

try to replicate or find your own thing that will make you money and to attain the value

30:07

that you're currently missing. So that's a good response to the emotion of

30:10

envy in that sense. Envy actually, it's a signal sometimes it's

30:15

good to experience that. We say, oh, wow, I didn't even realize that I

30:18

wanted that in my life, and now I do.

30:21

So let's go out and get it. Or you can decide that since you're not a successful entrepreneur, you don't want this

30:29

other person to succeed either.

30:31

So you vote for a regulation that will harm

30:34

his business or higher taxes that will reduce his wealth or something like that.

30:38

And that's where I think when you say that politicians stoke envy, it's the bad side of

30:47

envy because they appeal to the worst in us, if you like, and they know that that is a very

30:52

powerful tool for them while to get elected and so on and so forth.

30:59

So you have to be really careful there when you have the gut reaction maybe that we should

31:07

tax the rich or whatever, the fact that it's immoral, you're going to check your emotions

31:16

and see that, okay, do I think we should tax the rich?

31:19

Because I'm envious of them. And if that is the case, try to take one of

31:25

those good actions instead based on your envy and try to achieve something similar in your

31:30

life. Martin: That was a question cut down with tall poppies in Australia.

31:35

Yeah, but the problem is when we're rich that are really rich, like Warren Buffett and

31:40

others, and Bill Gates saying, yeah, please tax us, and others also.

31:45

Anders: Right? Yeah. That's really disgraceful that they do

31:49

that. You'd think that if they're so eager to give

31:57

up their wealth, just give it away, they don't need to go to the politicians and ask

32:02

everybody else to have to do the same thing.

32:06

Martin: So instead of buying a rope, as Karlmarks was saying, and hanging himself,

32:10

they need to get your book. Fernanders yes, exactly.

32:15

Blair: Absolutely. I was going to toss in the abolished

32:21

billionaire movement as part of that.

32:23

Anders: Yeah, I mean, it's in the same category now.

32:28

Blair: Whenever I'm challenged about my advocacy of capitalism, I get questions like,

32:35

well, what about the poor? What about orphans?

32:37

What happens to them? Anders: Yeah, this is where a capitalist social system is particularly great.

32:46

Blair: Yes. Anders: So if you start with the poor, poverty is basically eradicated because capitalism

32:54

unleashes what I call in the book, the unimagined.

32:58

And that are all the inventions and improvements that we can't even imagine.

33:03

That happens when people are free to act on their visions and ideas.

33:08

So when individuals are free to pursue that without the interference of government

33:14

regulations and with minimal, if any, taxation, we'll see an explosion of new

33:20

products and services that we cannot even conceive of today.

33:24

And as we talked about earlier, those products and services, over time, they will get less

33:30

expensive, they will get better quality.

33:33

And meaning that you get more and more value

33:35

for your money with each year passing.

33:38

And then secondly, also under capitalism,

33:41

we'll see more and higher paying jobs because of increased productivity.

33:45

So in a way, the individual is king in the labor market because human capital will always

33:51

be, in short, supply. It may be hard to imagine this, but you can

33:56

see it in certain industries today, tech industry for instance, they're constantly

34:00

short of qualified people and that would be the norm throughout society in a capitalist

34:06

social system. So basically nobody who wants to work will be

34:10

poor. So poverty is basically not an issue.

34:15

Now, there may be a few people who are poor because of circumstances outside of their

34:19

control. Blair: Sure. Anders: And that's where charity comes in.

34:26

And in a capitalist social system where people

34:28

make more money than ever, people will yeah, they will spend some of their money on

34:35

material things and travel and personal things.

34:38

But pretty soon you start to look around and say, you know, getting that fourth car really

34:45

doesn't give me that much additional value in life.

34:47

Right. Or third house or whatever it is.

34:51

And they look at it and they start to incorporate more immaterial values in their

34:58

value hierarchy and that can often includes charitable exploits.

35:04

And there will be plenty of people who are interested in helping out the people who are

35:09

poor without any fault of their own, perhaps.

35:14

Yes. And then this doesn't only apply to wealthy individuals.

35:18

Blair: I mean, all of us, we all have our causes.

35:20

Anders: Yeah, we all have our causes. Exactly right.

35:23

And we will have more money than ever. So we will set aside more money for those

35:29

causes. And that means that I would suspect that there

35:32

will be competition in helping the poor.

35:35

There won't be enough poor to help for the

35:41

money that is available. Now, if you talk about you mentioned orphans

35:45

as well, is that what you do? Blair: Yes. Anders: Okay, so taking care of orphans, I mean, the same thing.

35:50

It will be a charitable sector that will basically compete for taking care of orphans,

35:56

because I think that will be an area that will be particularly of interest to a lot of

36:02

individuals, but also in a capitalist social system.

36:07

The charitable sector is also subject to market forces.

36:10

Right. So you will see a lot of different solutions

36:13

probably in terms of placing orphans in new homes, how to treat potential mental issues,

36:20

et cetera. So over time, being an orphan, if you like,

36:24

will probably be less traumatic than what it is today when kids are moved from foster home

36:31

to foster home and you hear about these really tragic cases where you spend years and years

36:38

in ten different foster homes and things like that and no wonder people have problems.

36:44

I think that in that competing market, market, competing for ideas, there will be different

36:50

models tested and over time orphans will be helped a lot better than what they are today.

36:58

Martin: I will put in here a short thing then about Value for Value and the Podcasting 2.0

37:03

initiative based on this model that you could then send support to Nation but also adding

37:10

your positive feedback feedback loop.

37:13

For example, when they listen to this conversation.

37:16

And then they could send a digital telegram

37:19

with satushis that's a partial of a bitcoin, and that will go directly to the content

37:25

creators without any special fees and in a secure and safe way.

37:31

So we will see more of this in the future, how you could support and help and also value

37:38

things that you decide, was it for a value for me?

37:42

And I then send a donation or a hat tip or whatever.

37:47

So I'm very positive in the future.

37:51

Anders: Yeah. No, and I think that's a good example of something that just a few years

37:55

ago, we wouldn't even have imagined that that would be an option right now.

38:01

We see it and who knows what will come in the future in terms of not only in the markets for

38:07

products and services, but also in the market for helping people and different other

38:14

charitable pursuits.

38:16

Yeah. Blair: One more thing I want to bring up here when we're talking about the poor and orphans

38:22

and so on. In the early days of America, there used to be

38:24

mutual aid societies and they flourished.

38:29

But as socialism grew in America, they saw

38:34

them as unnecessary competition.

38:37

So the government people, I guess, were

38:40

bamboozled in letting the government take those over.

38:44

Anders: Yeah, I think that a lot of that happened in conjunction with the

38:49

implementation of Social Security, because that killed off most of the mutual aid

38:54

societies. We were basically insurance and people could

38:57

say for retirement. And they filled different functions.

39:00

And I read in a book, I don't remember which one, you may be familiar with it, but it gave

39:06

the example of Chicago in the second half of the 19th centuries.

39:13

At one point, the city officials, they were concerned because there were what they thought

39:20

too many charitable organizations available and they thought it put a bad reputation on

39:26

the city. We really don't need all these charitable

39:30

organizations. Blair: Wow.

39:33

Anders: Yeah. You can see a glimpse of what it would potentially look like when I say that

39:41

there will be more money than there will be causes to support.

39:46

Martin: That's an interesting example that you mentioned, Chicago, because that was one

39:50

organization when I was a member of in the past called Vossa Order of America in Swedish,

39:58

but it's a similar name in English.

40:00

And that was like an insurance company because

40:04

at one time, Chicago was the second largest city in Sweden because it.

40:10

Anders: Was immigration, because of all the immigrants. Martin: Yeah. And then they started up this lodge system so you could have a link to your

40:19

former country and have support if something would happen in the new country and vice

40:24

versa. So that was like one part of that lodge system

40:30

was with insurance, that you could get help and connections and links back and forth.

40:37

And that could work today also to set up with oh, absolutely.

40:43

Private insurance companies. And it's direct exchange voluntarily.

40:48

Anders: Yes. All these government programs that we have, whether that's in retirement,

40:52

like Social Security or in health care and such, they're crowding out all these different

41:02

options that would exist under a capitalist social system and that we had a lot of it

41:11

before the welfare state grew to the proportions it has grown to today.

41:17

Blair: True enough, true enough. Now, another issue I think that politicians

41:23

stoke is immigration. I favor immigration the way it used to be,

41:29

where you would come to, say, Ellis Island, you would be processed through and if they

41:38

would give you a physical exam for your health and then you would present whatever papers

41:44

that I guess you brought with you to prove who you are.

41:48

And then you would be let in, so to speak.

41:51

But now just the open border, let everything

41:55

and anyone in is not my cup of tea.

42:00

What do you think? Anders: Well, first you mentioned Ellis Island, and I must say that visit to Ellis

42:05

Island for anybody who has immigrated, it's one of the most moving experience you can

42:11

have. It's a really powerful experience.

42:16

So if you haven't been definitely put that on your list for a vacation.

42:23

I actually also visited while I was in Sweden here in May, Marie and I, we visited in the

42:29

town of Beckhu, an immigrant museum called The Immigrant House, which is focusing on the

42:38

Swedish immigration to North America.

42:41

And it was very interesting, actually.

42:44

I wrote a blog post here not long ago on my substac about it.

42:50

And so if anybody's interested, they can check it out there.

42:56

But anyhow, back to the subject.

42:59

Well, fundamentally, and this is now we're

43:02

talking about a vision, a shining city on a hill.

43:05

Sure, immigration is free.

43:08

It's open because the freedom of movement is

43:12

really an individual right and nobody should have the right to prevent you from moving

43:17

wherever you want as long as you're not violating the individual rights or property

43:21

rights of others. Now, I realize obviously that we're a long,

43:26

long way away from that, but our immigration system is a disgrace totally.

43:34

And there is no interest, it seems, neither on the political left or right today to address

43:39

it. They're just putting Band AIDS on it all the

43:42

time. I don't know why it's so hard to do that.

43:45

Because I think just drastically increasing the number of work visas, for instance, per

43:51

year, and establish a waiting list so that potential immigrants could at least be able to

43:57

plan for their future, I think that would go a long way towards solving the problems that we

44:05

have at our borders today. But yeah, I don't know why it's I mean,

44:10

historically it has always been a contentious issue, it seems, in this country and in other

44:16

countries. But I think it's fundamentally it's based in a

44:21

fear of the unknown or something. And in this country, people are afraid of

44:25

immigrants taking their jobs or lower their salaries and wages or take advantage of our

44:31

social safety net or increasing the amount of drugs in the country or diluting American

44:36

culture, whatever that means. I mean, none of which is true, but it's part

44:43

of what we're dealing with right now.

44:48

Martin: I see it as an American inspirator.

44:51

United States of America. It's a melting pot.

44:55

And I think Harry Bins, when he wrote a great

44:58

essay about that because this issue is even so called dividing or debating between

45:04

objectivist also and so called objectivist and others on principle.

45:10

I agree with you, Anders, and then I'm realist also understand the situation.

45:15

And we have a clearer example of that here in Scandinavian Sweden and rest of Europe.

45:23

And Blair and I, we had the honor to be on a guest, being guests on a show where talking

45:29

about these kind of issues about integration, about races, collectivists and crime and so

45:35

on. And that was interesting to hear questions

45:38

from an American perspective and view and also having discussion, international discussion

45:43

about that. Anders: Just to bring this back a little bit to the vision and this shining city on a hill

45:55

under a capitalist social system, a lot of these concerns that people have today, they

45:59

would go away because there wouldn't be a social safety net to take advantage of, for

46:05

instance. And as we talked about earlier, there will be

46:11

more jobs in a capitalist social system than there are people.

46:15

So you wouldn't really have to feel threatened or fear losing your job without finding

46:22

another one. That fear would be very limited.

46:26

But obviously, how to convey that to people, that is a marketing challenge that we

46:35

certainly have to figure out how to do.

46:39

It's really tough now just to mention a story.

46:42

You mentioned American in Spirit once I was told a story by someone.

46:49

I think it was about a Hungarian man who had fled during the Hungarian uprising in 1956

47:00

with his parents. And he was just a little boy, and at some

47:06

point or another he didn't hesitate.

47:09

He loved his dad. And he didn't question at that age what his dad was deciding, but he was curious.

47:16

He asked the question because they left Hungary.

47:20

He got to Austria and then continued to America.

47:23

And he asked, So why do we want to go to America?

47:26

He asked his dad, and his dad said, Son, we've always been Americans.

47:31

We were just born in the wrong country. Which kind of addresses the spirit that you

47:38

mentioned, that being American is not limited to being born to or living in America.

47:46

It's a spirit. It's a commitment to individual rights,

47:49

whether you know how to express that commitment or not, but wanting to live your

47:54

life free and respect others right to do the same.

48:01

Blair: Well said. Well said. I have a few more questions, Andrews, if you have some time still.

48:10

Anders: Sure. Blair: All right, let's tackle environmentalism.

48:16

They claim that capitalism destroys the planet, and I firmly disagree because if you

48:24

want to actually preserve something, let's say like Warehouser or Georgia Pacific.

48:31

They're paper producers. Well, they have millions of acres of forest

48:37

land. Well, they're not just going to cut all that

48:41

down and not replant. They have to think, 100 years ahead of time,

48:47

let's grab what we can and screw the, you know, screw the pooch.

48:51

So again, I I disagree that capitalism is the cause of any environmental damage, although

49:01

I'm certain some aspect of it has occurred.

49:05

What do you think? Martin: But player, isn't it also that the word about environment, that every surrounding

49:12

around us is our environment and we do have a moral right to change that or improve that

49:20

environment? Blair: That's what I think.

49:23

Yes, I'm profoundly pro human, but that

49:30

doesn't mean that I exclude what happens to my environment around me.

49:36

Do we lose Anders? Anders: No, I'm still there.

49:39

I'm listening. Yeah, I think you kind of answered your own question there.

49:45

But yeah, I agree that as humans, what we're doing where we're adjusting nature to us, not

49:56

adjusting us to nature, but so as it pertains to capitalism in the long run, a capitalist

50:04

social system preserves nature not as a goal, but as a consequence.

50:10

Basically, this goes back as I see it, when I mentioned that as human beings, we always try

50:18

to do more with less, and companies and individuals try to become more efficient, more

50:24

productive. And in a company setting, you want to increase

50:29

your profits. So you want to use less raw materials if you

50:32

can. And you can see this, especially in the last

50:35

2030 years with the information technology and digital economy, a lot of development and a

50:42

lot of what we're doing, the products and services that we use, they're not even based

50:46

on raw materials. It's bits, zeros and ones.

50:53

They're not really physical. Yeah, they reside on a computer and we're a

50:57

blade in a service center or something. But the amount of resources that goes into

51:02

that is minuscule for the power and the productivity that they contribute.

51:09

So over time, we'll be using less raw materials, but get more productivity and more

51:20

use of the products that we're creating.

51:24

And that's just a consequence of a capitalist

51:27

social system that allows human nature to basically function as it's supposed to.

51:34

So we can see some of this already today.

51:38

So if you take Europe, for instance, has more

51:40

forests today than it has had since the Middle Ages, because we don't need all that land for

51:47

agriculture any longer. Now, if they didn't subsidize agriculture to

51:53

the extent that they do, there would be a lot more unprofitable farms that went out of

51:59

business and even more cultivated land would have been returned to nature, so to speak.

52:04

So you can probably look up TV programs about wildernesses in Europe that have basically

52:12

returned to where there were hundreds and hundreds of years ago and new species and old

52:16

species have come back and all that stuff.

52:20

So under capitalism. We would see more and more of that.

52:27

We would have more pristine nature, if you

52:29

like, not as a goal, but as an effect of the fact that we're becoming more efficient in our

52:37

resource use. Now, contrary to what these environmentalists

52:42

say, it's actually the more authoritarian, authoritarian social systems that the ones

52:48

that don't respect or respect less property rights that have a more negative impact on

52:54

nature. If you take old Communist Soviet Union or

52:57

Eastern Europe, they were environmental cesspools because they didn't have well

53:03

defined property rights. So nobody back to your Georgia Pacific

53:07

example, nobody takes an interest in the long range value of the land that a property owner

53:13

does under capitalism. So they were just cutting down forest and

53:18

spewing out waste and whatever, and they've created all these environmental catastrophes.

53:24

You see the same today in Communist China and in Russia and many other countries that have

53:30

similar social systems. I would say that a country in general, there

53:34

is a direct correlation between your social system.

53:38

You will have more pollution and more environmental issues.

53:42

The more authoritarian you are, the less you protect and respect property rights.

53:48

Blair: Now, that's excellent, Andrews.

53:50

Thank you for that. And let's continue harping on the left, because the latest outrage, in my personal

54:00

view, is that they claim that racism is a fundamental aspect of the capitalist system,

54:06

and it's obviously the exact opposite, again, in my humble opinion, because of the discovery

54:15

of individual rights. What do you think?

54:17

Anders: Yeah. No, I agree. I mean, racism is a form of collectivism.

54:22

It's the most crude form of collectivism.

54:25

The fact that the idea that the color of your

54:28

skin entitles you to certain rights, I mean, that should have been a dead concept by now.

54:36

So without this collectivist notion, the idea that your group entitles you to something,

54:42

that you have rights based on your group, the group you belong to, without that, racism

54:50

would be a very marginal issue. And as I said in the book, in a capitalist

54:55

social system, there is a marketplace of ideas in addition to a marketplace for products and

55:02

services. And over time, good ideas win out over the bad

55:06

ideas, just like good products and services went out over bad products and services.

55:10

Now, a person may still be a racist under a capitalist social system, but in order to

55:17

survive or thrive, those ideas would be largely unacceptable, and you would keep them

55:23

private. So I give the example in the book of a

55:26

restaurant owner. Let's say that he's a racist and he opens a

55:32

restaurant for black only or white only or Jews only or whatever.

55:38

Now, in a society where that is not socially acceptable, and in a capitalist society, there

55:46

wouldn't have to be any laws and regulations preventing him from opening a restaurant with

55:51

those rules as long as he owned the building.

55:53

But if he rented the building, his landlord

55:57

will probably have something to say about that and may not want a restaurant owner like that

56:02

and his suppliers. Someone may put pressure on the suppliers and

56:06

say, you know what, you really shouldn't supply this guy.

56:10

Someone who happens to be a racist or have such inklings, they would probably keep it

56:19

very private if they want to survive in society and reach a certain level of

56:27

acceptance. And over time, it would be pushed to the

56:31

fringes even more. And the free market of ideas that the

56:38

capitalist social system provides where you don't have government regulation that today

56:44

actually is cementing and making worse a lot of these racist tendencies with affirmative

56:51

action and you name it, is certainly making it a lot worse.

56:56

Blair: All right. Andrews in my view, with the nomination and

57:00

election of Trump, the GOP has basically jettisoned the free market wing, so to speak,

57:09

of that party. Why aren't conservatives friends of capitalism

57:14

and freedom? Anders: Yeah, I agree with you that the GOP seems to have been hijacked by the worst

57:22

elements of conservatism. I still think there are conservatives out

57:25

there who are decent a lot, sure.

57:28

But they're awfully quiet right now.

57:33

I subscribe to a few newsletters like the Dispatch and the Free Press.

57:39

Free Press is Barry Weiss.

57:45

There's a lot of good stuff out there and a lot of people pushing back.

57:48

And I think we will see a breakthrough sooner

57:51

or later. But right now it looks pretty dark.

57:53

I agree. And so why is this?

57:57

Well, I think well, conservatives are conflicted.

58:02

On the one hand, they see the benefits of capitalism, of the marketplace and things like

58:08

that, but they're overriding morality.

58:11

And this is painting with broad brushstrokes.

58:14

Sure, conservatives are often religious, most of them are.

58:18

And they subscribe to a morality that tells them that sacrifice is the moral ideal and

58:25

which fundamentally is in opposition to the selfish pursuits of profit that capitalism

58:34

represents. So when push comes to shove, morality trumps

58:39

politics. And if the two are in conflict, they will

58:47

revert to their moral position. And that means that if there is a conflict and

58:52

they see something like in the marketplace now, when you take the social media stuff and

59:00

the alleged notion that they are stoking the woke movement, et cetera, and therefore have

59:08

to be regulated, as the many conservatives argue, that is an example of that, I think,

59:15

where their morality trumps the marketplace.

59:19

Martin: So is it any room for, as you call it, disgruntled middle or squeeze between this,

59:26

any independence or is it too early, too late?

59:31

Anders: Yeah, I definitely think there is a lot of I think there's a vacuum in the middle

59:37

and someone will fill that vacuum and hopefully my book will help fill part of it.

59:48

But there is certainly a risk that it will be filled with more authoritarian tendencies and

59:55

we're moving even further in the wrong direction.

59:58

But, yeah, I think if you look at the abortion issue, for instance.

1:00:02

We haven't talked about that much, but I think it's to the detriment of conservatives,

1:00:07

definitely their position right now on that, and because the broader American public,

1:00:15

they're in favor of some limits, but not banning abortion.

1:00:22

And I think a lot of the homelessness in terms of party is a lot of people it's the abortion

1:00:30

issue, and there are other issues as well.

1:00:32

Now, I think even though people don't feel at

1:00:37

home in a specific party, I suspect that I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are still

1:00:44

supporters of the welfare system as we have it today.

1:00:49

So it's not as easy as just putting my book in their hands.

1:00:54

And yeah, that may give them food for thought, hopefully, but very few people are ready to

1:01:02

fundamentally question Social Security, question Medicare, question public education.

1:01:13

Those are the three big ones. When the day comes when people in earnest

1:01:21

question those systems, then I think we're on the right way.

1:01:26

Blair: Well, let me throw this in, though.

1:01:28

I think education, because of COVID parents,

1:01:34

were awakened to see the horrors that the teachers unions have inflicted and

1:01:43

homeschooling has grown by leaps and bounds all across the ideological spectrum, if you

1:01:50

will. I mean, religious, non religious, I think

1:01:54

before COVID there was like 8% of children are being homeschooled.

1:02:00

Now it's like 20% to 25% in just that short of time.

1:02:05

So I'm hoping that the education, government education will be slashed.

1:02:16

That'd be one of the first things to go.

1:02:19

Anders: Yeah, I'm definitely with you on that.

1:02:22

I just think that it's so deeply ingrained in

1:02:27

the American psyche that if you go out there and talk, if you talk to parents about I hope

1:02:38

you're right, but it will be a long and arduous process.

1:02:43

Blair: Oh, sure. Anders: And given that, I think a first step, if we could get the federal government out of

1:02:49

education, that would be a good first step.

1:02:53

And then you start to use the states and local

1:02:58

authorities as labs for this.

1:03:02

I mean, we'll have public schools for a long,

1:03:04

long time, or government schools.

1:03:07

But hopefully individual states will take

1:03:11

action and you'll see movements in the right direction, and other states will then learn

1:03:19

from that and get inspired, and people, individuals will be but, yeah, hopefully COVID

1:03:28

may have been the igniter, if you like, but it's a long struggle.

1:03:35

I believe it when I see it.

1:03:38

Yeah. Don't want to sound pessimistic, but no.

1:03:42

Government education is definitely, probably

1:03:45

the hardest nut to crack of them all, but still the most important nut to crack.

1:03:50

Martin: And Blair, we have talked about this topic in a couple of episodes, and we'll keep

1:03:57

talking about it on these topics.

1:03:59

So that's great to see.

1:04:03

Blair: Yeah. I have one more question to throw out here.

1:04:08

Intellectuals on both the left and the right are attacking America's founding, and frankly,

1:04:15

I think most of the populace has either forgotten or never learned of the roots of

1:04:23

America's founding or from the Enlightenment.

1:04:25

So how do we get ourselves through this self

1:04:33

flagellation, if you will? Anders: Yeah.

1:04:38

Blair: Rediscover an admiration for our founding fathers.

1:04:42

Anders: I think partly it goes back to the education issue and the fact that

1:04:47

homeschooling is growing leaps and bounds. I think that is providing one inroad to teach

1:04:55

these values again. But there is not an easy answer.

1:04:59

Actually, one of the most worrying aspects right now, as I see it, is the fact the

1:05:05

explicit rejection of the Enlightenment values by many conservatives, conservative

1:05:12

intellectuals actually. So you have Adrian Vermul and sora Bamari and

1:05:21

I forget his last name, but there is definitely a movement towards more

1:05:28

authoritarianism on the right.

1:05:31

But back to your question how we can defeat

1:05:35

the orgy of self flaggulation.

1:05:41

We just have to keep at it.

1:05:45

And I think the objectivist organizations are doing a decent job of it.

1:05:53

There are a lot of people out there who are concerned and who are working on who are doing

1:06:00

good work on this. I don't know if did I mention the Dispatch

1:06:06

news outlet that I think is doing good work here?

1:06:13

And obviously the Iron Institute is, I think, an outlet like the Free Press that I mentioned

1:06:20

where people on the left who are considering themselves more classical liberals and who are

1:06:25

disrespected with the outpouring of wokism and cancel culture and such, there are people on

1:06:33

the left who are waking up to this as well. So that's good.

1:06:36

And I think in terms of for those of us who get it and know what the solutions are, I

1:06:49

think one of the things that we have where we can do better is that there has been a lot of

1:06:55

focus on defending capitalism, but we really should stop playing defense.

1:07:03

And that's why I don't even like the term defending capitalism.

1:07:08

I use championing capitalism to put a more positive spin of it because it's really the

1:07:13

other guys who should play defense. They have 2000 years of collectivist dismal

1:07:21

track record. I mean, it can go back to the start of

1:07:25

humanity if you like to, but let's take 2000 years since.

1:07:29

Blair: The ancient Greeks and so on.

1:07:32

Anders: Yeah, exactly. And we really have to put them on the defense

1:07:36

and say that you gosh you have tried this over and over in different shapes and forms for

1:07:41

2000 years and it doesn't work. It's time to try something different and we

1:07:45

have the solution. So stop playing defense.

1:07:48

That's what I would tell the advocates of capitalism and go on the offense.

1:07:56

Blair: Wonderfully said. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we've been

1:07:59

talking to Anders Igmerson, author of Think Right or Wrong, not Left or Right.

1:08:06

Anders, it was great having you today and thanks for manning the Foxhole with us.

1:08:10

Anders: Well, thank you. It's been my pleasure.

1:08:13

Martin: Thanks Anders.