Episode 79: Conflicting Rights: The Individual vs. the Group
Watch EpisodeWelcome to Wisdom from the Aerial View,
the podcast for those who wish to crush
their anxiety and find meaning and
purpose in their lives. Hi, Dr. Klein.
How you doing today?
>> Hello. I'm doing great. You look great.
>> I feel great. You know, we um have been
doing this podcast for quite some time
now. And one of the things we do is I
usually surprise you with a topic. Uh
but in this case and I think it's
happened a couple of times. You said to
me why don't we do something on
individual rights versus collective
rights. I thought okay that's an
interesting topic. So let me start by
asking a question well a couple of
questions. Why this topic? But also are
the rights of a group more valuable than
the rights of individuals? And and how
do we balance the needs of the group
with the rights of the individual? So,
first first things first, why this topic
and then how do we do that? How do you
balance rights?
>> Well, you did surprise me because when I
mentioned this to you the other day, you
said, "I don't want to talk about that."
>> There you go.
>> So, I assumed we weren't talking about
that. In fact, my wife asked me before
we uh thought of recording this morning
what the topic was. Oh, you don't know
cuz she's didn't tell. She's not going
to tell you. I said, "That's right. I
have no idea." So, I had no idea that
we're talking about this. So, yes, this
remains a surprise. because you've done
it again. Well done.
>> Yeah. Well, I mean obviously it was
something you were thinking about
>> and Yes.
>> Go ahead.
>> Well, what I was think what I was So,
let's get back to your first question,
right? And that is the rights of the
individual versus the rights of the
group.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, like most things in life, it's
not that simple. No.
>> Right. So,
>> and it's that it's that that's that
pendulum that goes one way and then it
goes a little too far and it goes back a
little too far. So yeah, it's tricky and
but it's it's a particularly good
question now because uh we've just
recently completed some elections
whereas the democratic socialists
otherwise known as you know I think
they're pretty much communists have uh
have carried the day and that's really
more about the collective than the
individual. So it's very timely. I think
there's a great danger to usurping the
rights of the individual.
uh and there is great there is also
danger or not danger but it's it you you
can uh end up with an undesirable result
if you overemphasize individual rights
versus the what's best for the
community. So it is a tricky little
thing to handle
>> and I think our founding fathers here we
are on the verge of our 250th
anniversary
>> and our founding fathers you know
struggle with this also because that's
exactly what was going on right a lot of
it I mean here was states rights versus
federal rights but it was also they were
very much into the rights of the
individual and one of the problems with
the constitution
>> was that um there was no bill of rights
initially.
>> Yes. Right. Now that was added on pretty
rapidly afterwards but the reason that
was added on because some of the
founding fathers were very concerned
about protecting the rights of the
individual also you so so the short
answer is it's not so easy it's not so
clear uh but on the other hand uh it's
like that famous saying goes um you know
it's like pornography you know it when
you see it right so you kind of know you
kind of get a feeling when the
pendulum's going in the wrong direction
So I think if you had to heir one way or
the other, you'd be better off airing on
the rights of the individual because
that would that has some protective
value for the rights of everybody of the
group. So you know, one of the problems,
one of the things I did want to talk
about today, it's a little variation of
what we just said is not so much the
rights of the individual versus rights
of the group, but what's okay and what's
not okay. because we've sort of come to
a society where everything's okay and I
think we can agree that it's not working
out so great in many ways. Would you
would you agree with that?
>> Yeah, and I think that you brought up
the the election particularly in New
York City about where where that is. I
think it's because people are almost
confused about my individual rights
versus the rights of the whole community
and what do we do? We want to change and
so sometimes the pendulum swings too far
one way or the other. And I think with
that may be what's happening now, but I
don't think that it's reflective of the
whole country. I think if we pin that to
thinking that everything's changed in
New York, well, it didn't really change
that much in Utah. So, but it is a
question of individual versus collect. I
mean, I don't know. And I I think that
we are we as a society are struggling
with the notion of you look at um I was
wrote some notes, free speech versus
public order. What's what do we do
there? um religious freedom versus
anti-discrimination laws, you know,
where where does the pendulum go and
what where are we in all of this, you
know?
>> Yes. You think you bring up some
excellent points. Those are very good
examples. Um well, let's start with you
for a change. What do you think about?
Let's stick with one of those, you know,
either the free speech, the first one
you mentioned.
>> I I don't know. I mean, I'm I'm stuck,
too. I don't know. I mean, I think that
if it's if it doesn't hurt
uh that many people, then it's a good
thing. I mean I I don't know. I'm
perplexed by it. I feel that um uh you
you take even we had talked in I don't
know several podcasts ago about the
issue of abortion and that's to me
that's individual rights versus maybe
collective philosophy. I don't know. I
know where I stand on that issue. But,
uh, these are the things that we as a
society have to grapple with and I don't
know how it comes down and I don't know
I know for me my individual rights are
are very very important. Um, but never
to the detriment of the collective. So,
but that's just me.
>> Well, I think that's a very good rule of
thumb. That's really pretty much right
on. you know, the rights and the are
important as long as they don't hurt
anybody else. But
>> but I would say let's go back a little
bit to if I were to say to you
>> Mhm.
>> Ena, you're in charge and you get to
construct a society. So tell me as you
construct a society, what do you think?
>> Give me your top three, four, five
things, whatever you want, that need to
be in place for society to function, for
individuals to have those individual
rights to pursue their their goals,
their aspirations. You know, if you had
a what are the fundamentals of a society
that you would say we have to have
these?
>> I guess my the other issue I'm thinking
about is the the whole notion of what's
my right.
>> Well, go back for a second.
>> I'm I'm I'm just gave you a job. You are
now the queen. You
>> said I'm the boss. I'm the boss. So,
shut up. Here's the
No, I I really do. What What's my right
versus what's my What am I entitled to?
And I guess I'm thinking about and I do
this on a daily basis. I'm thinking
about, as I do all the time, about
hunger and about malnutrition, those
kinds of things. And I'm thinking about
SNAP. SNAP is a supplemental nutrition
assistance program, which is we we used
to refer to it as food stamps. We should
still call it that. So, what is what is
the individual right versus um what is
the collective philosophy here? I think
that when we're talking about um the
health and well-being of a person, is
that they're right? are they entitled to
that? On the other hand, if we was
putting all this money into that,
something else on the other side's going
to suffer. So my philosophy would be now
first I have to think about the
individual, in this case, those people
who who are in need of food. Um, and I
think that cutting any cuts to this that
are gargantuan is crazy to me. That's
individual versus collective and the
individuals are losing. So if I'm
running the country, I have to think
about that in those terms and I can't be
a bully. But it's a difficult pro. It's
difficult because you've got so much to
think about with a very limited
resource. So I I you know I'm skirting
your question but I'm the boss so I can
>> you can skirt. Yes, you may skirt. I I
was thinking more rather than running
the country I it was to build a society.
>> So you're building a society. So in
order for people to get together and
live successfully in a group,
>> okay,
>> and it could be a large large large
group like 350 million people, whatever,
but any any group, what what has to be
in place for that society to have the
maximum opportunity for success on every
level.
>> So equal opportunity and that to me 350
million people and we are we don't have
equal opportunity. Now, if we were
living in a utopia, we would all have
equal opportunity. But we don't live in
utopia. So, I'm going to construct it,
then I would say equal opportunity.
However, I don't know how to do that. I
wouldn't even know how to implement
that.
>> Okay. Well, rather than for me trying to
force you into a into a discussion that
that you may not want to go into, let me
let me be more fair and tell you what I
think.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> All right.
So, so for instance, I think if for
groups to live together successfully,
the first thing I would say would be or
one of the top things I don't, you know,
I don't want to be too dogmatic here is
safety and security. So, if you can't go
out of your cave or out of your shack or
a thatched hut or your apartment or your
house without the fear of being uh
assaulted, injured, in some other way
hurt, then you can't have a functioning
society. People can't go to work. Are
you talking about physically or are you
talking about
>> Let's start with Let Yeah, let's start
with physically. We'll start with that
one. Okay. Okay. Right.
>> All right. Because there is there's
another aspect. Okay.
>> Yeah, there is. There is. Yeah. I'm just
picking one. I just picked one. Okay.
I'm thinking, okay, what do we need? So,
what comes to mind for me first is if
you can't leave your home to go to work,
to go socialize, to do other things,
whatever, to hunt and gather, whatever
it is you're doing in a time period. And
by the way, we are going to invoke the
aerial view in a few minutes because I
think that is tremendously helpful in
this question. But anyway, um, if you
can't do that, well then you can't have
a successful society. You can't have an
economy. You can't exchange goods and
services. You can't educate. You can't
do you can't there's hardly it's hard to
do anything successfully. So I would say
that's mandatory. So I look now at our
so let's look let's take that first one
and say okay how are we doing you know
in in our let's take our society our
communities and you would say well most
communities is probably good right you
can people don't wake up in the morning
I'm not going to the supermarket because
I'm afraid I'm going to get shot in
other places they probably get up and go
uh I don't know if I'm going to the
supermarket because I don't want to get
shot right
>> so there are different jurisdictions
that have that but I think I think uh as
a as when when we're forming societies
and therefore we have governments and
rules. Uh, that's a big one. So, the
reason I bring that up is because
everything we've gotten to a point on
site where too much is okay. And I give
you an example and you I know you and I
agree on this. So, Luigi Manion decides
he's going to shoot this guy in the
back, the head of United Healthcare for
the greater good. I don't exactly know
any idea why he thought that was going
to be a greater good, but he did. And
there are lots of people who have given
money for his defense, who have
supported him, who think the United
Healthcare Executive had it coming. I
mean, okay, well, today it's your your
team is killing the other guy, but
tomorrow the other team is going to kill
your guy. So then nobody leaves the
house. Then there's no exchange of goods
and services. Then there's no economy.
There's there's nothing. So I think we
can agree that this is a fundamental of
a society. You can't have that. Would
you agree with that?
>> Absolutely. Certainly.
>> Well, of course. But but you say of
course, but there's a lot of people out
there who go, "Oh, no, no, no. It's
totally justified, right?
>> Well, again, but that's, you know, I
mean, how do we separate that? How do we
say to someone uh how do I change their
mind? Let's talk about that. How do you
change one's mind if that's the way they
think? They think it's perfectly okay to
send money to this madman who killed
somebody in cold blood. How do we get
them to the aerial view where they think
maybe maybe that's not the right
decision?
>> Well, that's a long haul. It's a long
pull. uh that's obviously the goal in
the end, but in the in the in the
beginning it has to be clear that that's
not tolerated. So my point is that that
that we live we live in these uh ivory
tower university theoreticals
you know and when it comes right down to
it if you can't go about your business
safely if you can't live your life
reason with reasonable confidence that
somebody is not going to shoot you in
the back as you walk out of a building
then you cannot have a society like that
you cannot go on so so my the premise of
this is to say there are certain things
that are not we can't allow to opinion
because we can't function without them
you know so we just we started with one
safety and security so
>> can I throw can I throw something into
this though okay because I agree with
you obviously we all want to be safe
>> then let's talk about the notion of gun
rights
>> okay
>> okay it's an individual right there I
mean I am very much opposed to this kind
of thing but if we want safety to be a
priority why then on the other hand are
we saying you can have guns you walk
into in certain states like Texas, they
have the right to carry laws and all
these you
>> not just Texas, you could do it in DC. I
mean, you know, so
>> Okay. So, so are we then saying on the
one hand we want to be safe on the other
hand, but if you're not so safe, carry a
gun. How do you reconcile the two?
>> Right. That's a very good question. So,
I have, you know, this is what this is
one of the problems of living a lot in
the aerial view. You sort of kind of get
stuck looking at both sides of of an
issue. So, so if you would ask me five
years ago how I felt about gun rights,
>> I would say, well, I don't like guns.
Uh, I wish there were no guns. Uh, and
we should have all these gun laws and so
on and so forth. Uh, I still don't like
guns because they hurt people. That's
it. But I understand why two things. I
understand why people want them because
you can get shot going to, you know,
depending on what city or jurisdiction
you live in, you are at risk, right?
That's number one. So, I get that. But
here's another one. So, right now, we're
in the middle of a conflict with Iran,
right?
>> Uh, and let's not talk, we don't have to
talk about the underlying how you feel
about it one way or the other
politically, but let's just talk about
Iran. If Iran had a second amendment,
meaning if the people in Iran had the
right to bear arms, this uh regime would
have been gone a long time ago, or at
least they would have been under siege a
long time ago. And certainly, they
wouldn't have been able to kill 40,000
people in one fell swoop a couple of
months, six months ago. So, when our
founding fathers wrote that second
amendment, they knew exactly what they
were doing. They said, "hm, if the
government has all the guns and the
people don't, that is a a recipe for
potential tyranny, and we've already
been through this and we don't want to
do it again." So, the people have a
right to protect themselves, to own a
gun, to to make sure the government
doesn't take over. I mean, that this was
clearly in their mind. They knew what
they were doing right now. They may not
have me had an idea of AR-15s and people
porting them around and what goes on
now, but the idea hasn't changed. If
Iran had a second amendment, it would
look different, right? So you to be
intellectually honest, even though I
don't like guns, right? And I don't
like, you know, how I feel about
violence. I abhore violence. I look at
this and I go, okay, I get it. It's a
trade-off, right? So how now that's not
to say we're going to live with the
consequences. What the other thing you
get from the aerial view is to say,
okay, if everybody owned a gun, but
nobody had the desire or inclination to
hurt somebody,
we wouldn't then they could own bazookas
and it wouldn't matter, right? It
there's still that second element. If I
want to use this weapon to hurt
somebody, look, there's stabbings. There
are people you've seen, right? You see
people stab people on the subways and
other places. They don't have guns. They
have knives and they kill people. So
just eliminating the guns doesn't
eliminate the underlying threat of
whatever is causing these people whether
it be mental illness or supreme anger or
whatever you want to whatever the list
of things is. It doesn't solve the
problem to solve the problem of
violence. You have to change people's
attitudes and understand purpose. And
that's of course what we talk about all
the time. So from the aerial view when
you see what your purpose is here on
earth you realize okay well the I is
this there's a line in one of my books
when in my novel actually Franklin Rock
where the protagonist of Franklin Rock
actually says he's talking to somebody
he's actually working for the police at
the time helping them solve problem
solve cases and uh some there's a
violent act that occurs and Frank Lorac
says you know I don't understand
violence there's absolutely no long-term
gain in it meaning That's the aerial
view perspective. You're missing the
point. You're never going to get to
where you need to get to in your life if
violence is a part of it. So you talk
about utopia, that's a utopian attitude
in a sense that it's never happened in
the history of the world. We can
mitigate it. We can improve it and we
should try. And the more we do so, then
it becomes less important whether people
have a gun, a knife or a bazooka uh if
they don't have that urge to hurt other
people.
>> But then again, let's let me throw this
out. Then why are we constantly
loosening gun laws? I mean, it it seems
to me that uh if you're carrying a gun
or you have a gun for safety, you don't
need an AR-15 or whatever they're
called. And yet, we loosen the law. We
loosen those laws and we get back to the
individual versus collective.
>> Okay, let me get let's I don't want to
get into a political conversation about
gun laws because we you know, I've
already stipulated I don't like guns and
you know how I feel about violence. So,
let's look at that at that law. So,
nowadays nowadays you can buy a gun that
is not quoted an automatic weapon, but
it has exchangeable cartridges. So, if
you're fast enough, you can't shoot as
fast as an AR-15, but you can shoot
pretty fast by just flipping another
cartridge. So, it doesn't really It's
kind of cheating on the question. The
issue isn't like is it an AR-15 or a gun
they can change that you're so you have
a belt with 15 um magazines of of of 20
bullets each and you can throw them in
super fast. Is it really that much of a
difference between an AR-15 and it's not
the it's not the m the the style of the
gun that's the problem. It's what's it's
what's motivating people to want to hurt
other people that's the problem. That's
really I don't agree with you on this
because I think it's the motivation of
the politicians who keep allowing this
to happen. But let's go on to but this
is important. I would say that that
>> it's the motivation. It's the desire to
hurt other people that's the problem.
Now I agree with you again. I would say
in my world there wouldn't be any guns.
But I recognize that other people feel
differently. People want to hunt. They
want to do things. They want to protect
their families. You live in Chicago for
instance where there's 75 people getting
shot every weekend. I could see people
wanting to have a gun. I get it. Right.
>> Get shot.
>> Look, I'm not for this. You understand?
I'm just saying I understand it. I mean,
it's not my speed, but I I trying to
respect other people's points of view
and where they're coming from is the
same way I look at that where I've
changed about the Second Amendment. I
recognize that my my dislike of guns and
violence is a is is is a myopic view
because if in societies where there was
if citizenry had no right to own a
weapon, then they are potentially can
come under a tyrannical rule. And we see
it in countries like today like in Iran.
So there's two sides. There's always two
sides or more than two sides, but the
underlying thing is if you get rid of
the desire to harm and to hurt and to
injure, then it doesn't matter what the
weapon is, right? So, I'm not pro guns
in I don't like guns, but I but we got
to get to the deeper problem. So, that
guy that I remember there was when that
guy stabbed that young woman, that
Ukrainian woman on the train a couple
years ago, right? And and we see that it
happens. It happens all over the world.
People getting stabbed, you know,
attacked. uh even societies that don't
have gun that where there aren't a lot
of guns, people people use other means
to injure large number of people. I was
in I was in Boulder, Colorado the day
that that that march that pro Israel
march silent march of mostly older
people going through the town was
attacked by the Egyptian guy with the
flamethrower killed the woman injured
many others. He didn't have a gun,
right? He uh was very creative in
creating this this flamethrower and
burned people to death, you know. So,
okay, no guns in Boulder, Colorado, but
he managed to kill these people. So,
>> such a mental illness, but you know,
>> you see my point, okay, but I don't want
to get into the discussion of guns and
gun violence. The point is, but I do
think I I want to just get circle back
for a second to what this what I
>> Yeah.
>> the the idea that not everything is
okay. And when you live in a society
where everything's okay, you're going to
pay a huge price. So when you think that
some violence is okay, some crime is
okay, this is not that big a deal, you
know, I'm a big proponent of the broken
windows theory. My father used to say to
me, if you give somebody a finger,
they'll take a hand. Well, I think it
means if you give the wrong people a
finger, they'll take the hand. Most
people will just say, "Thank you for the
finger." Right? But but you get the
idea. And so
>> a broken window
>> that that if you don't address the
smaller crimes, you're going to end up
with larger crimes. It was the Rudy
Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, that whole
period of 20 years in New York where
crime plummeted and everybody's living,
you know, most people, a lot of people
living in much more secure environment.
I won't say happily ever after because
clearly there's always a have and the
have nots, but generally it was a much
safer place. You and I grew up there. We
know what it's like. Mhm.
>> So, so the idea is that when you leave
when you if you let like people jump
over the turn styles in the subway,
right, or break windows or or put
graffiti all over your subway trains or
things like that, you go, "That's not
that big a deal." Then that's sort of
creates a leu. This is the theory that
that creates more crime. And it's true.
It does. I mean, you don't have to be a
G. You don't have to be a criminologist
to understand that that's what happens.
So, this is the problem with the
society. Society there have to be
certain rules that we agree upon. So the
reason I want to bring this up, it gets
back to the aerial view. In order for um
for societies to work, we have to have
an agreed upon set of rules and
regulations, right? Those rules and
regulations come from a shared idea of
what this is all about, why we're here,
right? And that comes from a generalized
shared purpose. So if we lack a shared
purpose, it's going to cascade down to
affect everything else. we won't agree
on the rules and regulations by which we
need to live. If we don't agree on
those, what follows is maybe not chaos
but a very unstable uh society which
people who have any kind of brain power
realize we don't want. You need a stable
society where people can go out about
their business. They don't worry about
getting shot. They don't worry about
getting robbed. you you know there there
are lots of third world countries where
those who have live behind uh big fences
and they have armed guards and so on. We
don't want that. A society can't
function well. You can't have the easy
transfer of goods and services. An
economy can never flourish. If economy
doesn't flourish the people the people
who suffer the most are the people with
the least. That's the irony of all this,
right? It's the people who are going to
suffer the people with the least. The
rich people find a way around it, right?
But the the poorer people will not. So,
so it all begins with a shared purpose.
It all begins with a shared concept of
why we're here. This is why the aerial
view is so valuable. It delivers that.
We look and see the history of the
world. We look at all time existing
contemporaneous. We see the es and flows
of history. And they always say the same
thing. This is why getting back to that
thing about socialism. uh this lack of
education we have in our country has
proven to be if not critical if not
deadly certainly critical because
there's no place in the world where
socialism works because it flies in the
face of how human beings uh operate what
are in how we respond to incentives it
will never work it's never worked we
have gobs of history about it but if you
don't educate the the young people about
it they all of a sudden think oh this
sounds great let's try this well it
leads to scarcity and unemployment and a
lower standard of living for everybody
every single time. This shouldn't be so
hard. Anyway, so we started this by by
talking about um you know some
fundamentals of what's of what we can
agree on as society, what societies have
to agree on, what what's acceptable,
what's not. But it all comes down to me
to this fundamental agreement on
purpose. If we don't agree on purpose,
if you don't have a shared purpose, we
will we will not get to a shared we not
agree on a set of rules and regulations
by which we want to live. And then you
end up with societies that are very
unstable, very uh perilous. And I look
at our society, I go, it's getting a
little too close to for comfort for me
in what I see.
>> Are you talking about rules? And can the
rules ever change?
>> Sure.
>> Well, fundamental rules can change.
>> Walking for a society if the rules in
fact do change.
>> Well, that's the problem. I'll give you
another example. So, we grew up where,
you know, boys and girls are different.
Now, this is biological. This is not I
don't want to tell anybody. I don't care
what people's sexual preferences are.
They should live and be well and do what
they want as long as they're not hurting
anybody. I'm fine with it. Doesn't
matter. But when you say things that
clearly are not true, that boys and
girls are the same biologically.
Uh then if then you then now you're
changing rule, fundamental rules that
cannot be changed. They're immutable.
Right? Certain other rules. You can't
change the rule that now it's okay to
kill somebody. You can't change that
rule. If you change the rule, you're
going down a drain for sure. The
societyy's going to hell in hand basket
for sure. I mean, you don't have to take
my word for it. Get into the aerial
view. Look at history. It's gonna tell
you this, you know, a hundred times out
of a hundred times. So, certain rules
can change, but fundamental rules cannot
change. When you start to change
fundamental rules, you are in for a
rocky ride and a and a undesirable
outcome until they change again, which
they will. So, as dark as things get,
they will always get light again. Now
most of us will not be around for that
probably but it will happen. I mean it's
not permanent
>> but you always make the case that
history will repeat itself
>> 100% repeat itself.
>> It's always happened. It's all happened
before.
>> It has and it's going to happen again.
>> So then in the aerial view if knowing
that it's all going to happen again
because it already happened.
How do you change your own mindset to
say okay it was not a good thing. How do
I make it a good thing? How do I change
the purpose or do I change my purpose?
>> No, the purpose doesn't change. But but
the only reason we bo we we bother
talking about these things is because
just because something has never
happened doesn't mean it can't. It
doesn't mean society can't not cannot
reach an epiphany and make the leap so
that it doesn't repeat again. It is
possible. It may be one. It may take a
trillion years. I don't know how many
years it will take, but it is possible.
In a quantum world, everything is
possible. There is never zero
probability. So when I say whatever
happened before is going to happen
again. Yes. But there's always that
teeny teeny tiny chance that we can fix
it. And that's why we strive. That's why
we do this. That's why we talk about it.
That's why we make make an effort to
help as many people as we can to try and
improve the world and fix the world
eventually. And just because it hasn't
happened doesn't mean it won't. So
that's why I do this and that's why we
talk about these things.
>> You know, I I found a quote that I
thought was fascinating from Lewis
Brandeise. He said, "The makers of our
constitution conferred,
this is interesting, as against the
government, the right to be left alone,
the most comprehensive of rights and the
right most valued by civilized men. The
right to be left alone." Interesting.
>> Well, yes, unless you're But unless
you're hurting other people, you
interesting that you say that. I wrote
myself a note saying unless you're
hurting other people.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Right. then you can't be
left alone.
So I would say that the rights of the
individual are paramount because when
you start usurping the rights of
individual this will also will be a dark
ending right so you don't want to do
that but do not change the fundamental
rules of nature do not fun change the
fundamental rules of society right there
are certain things that are required you
talked about you the right to be to have
food right
>> so what I would say is we have no we
don't have the right to have food
>> right nobody's so in the days of the
hunter gatherer if you just hung around
in your little cave
and you waited for somebody to bring you
food, you were likely not going to hang
around too long. You had to go out and
and find it. Whether you were hunting uh
animals or gathering berries, you had to
get it. But a society in which we all
want to live should be anx should be
eager to feed those in need to help each
other, right? So we don't need we don't
need a regulation for that, right? We
have to have we need humanity for that.
That those of us who have should help
others and we see it and we talk about
this all the time. What's our purpose?
To help as many people as we can. And
you've been Look, what have you spent
your life doing? Helping people not be
hungry. I mean, come on. You're a
perfect example of this, right?
>> Like me, but okay.
>> Well, well, I I would say I would say
nobody has the right to eat. And I go
back.
>> You and I No, but I'll tell you why I
say that. And you we're entitled to
disagree. I want everybody to eat. I
will share. I will give you We've heard
me say, I'll give you the last piece of
cake every single time, right? I'm happy
to do what I can to help to feed and
help as many people as I can. But you
know, if you go back, if just get in the
aerial view and you go back to the
hunter gatherers, there was no right to
food. Who was giving these
huntergatherers food? Nobody. They had
to go get it. They had to go find it.
They had to go earn it. But a but a a uh
a society with a heart, right? An
empathetic, kind society does what it
can to make sure that when there's
plenty of food, nobody should go hungry.
And we live in a society where nobody
should go hungry. And so it's our
responsibility to help each other in any
way we can. Whether it's being through
through companies, through organizations
like yours or whether the government, we
want to we want to feed people. We don't
want people to be to be hungry if and uh
when it's not necessary and it's not
necessary,
>> right? That's their right. Okay. I'm
going to end with a you and I agree. I'm
going to end with a quote by Ronald
Reagan and he said, "Protecting the
rights of even the least individual
among us is basically the only excuse
the government has for even existing."
I like that.
>> Yeah, I agree with that. I we we we need
to protect the rights. That's correct.
But if we're only protecting rights,
it's not enough. We have to we have to
we have to have that humanity where we
care about each other, take care about
each other,
>> respect each other, help each other as
much as we can. Without that, the
government's useless. We don't have
that. We got nothing. That's why I'm so
worried now. Be not so worried. That's
why when we stop agreeing on things like
don't hurt people, don't shoot somebody
in the back because you don't agree with
them. When there are people who think
that's okay,
>> you got a problem. It's not a government
problem, right? It's a more fundamental.
We've changed a fundamental a
fundamental rule. And when you do that,
>> I am worried about society. I I am
worried. It it just it worries me
anyway.
>> All right. Well, we're out of time. I'll
give you the last word as I always do.
You're always right and I appreciate
that.
>> I like that too. I thank you. Thank you.
Thank you for this good conversation. We
look forward to next time.
>> Yeah. See you all next time. Thank you
all for listening.
>> Peace.