Sorry, I'm late.
I had to stop by the Wax Museum again and give the finger to FDR.
We know Al-Qaeda, Zawahiri, is supporting the opposition in Syria.
Are we supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?
It's a proud day for America.
And by God, we've kicked Vietnam syndrome once and for all.
Thank you very, very much.
I say it, I say it again.
You've been hacked.
You've been took.
You've been hoodwinked.
These witnesses are trying to simply deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact.
He came, he saw us, he died.
We ain't killing their army, but we killing them.
We be on CNN like Say Our Name been saying, say it three times.
The meeting of the largest armies in the history of the world.
Then there's going to be an invasion.
All right, you guys, introducing our friend Sheldon Richman, because it's Friday morning and that's when we interview Sheldon.
Hey, Sheldon.
Good morning.
How are you doing?
I'm doing great.
How are you?
I'm doing all right.
It's actually 1203.
What the hell am I talking about?
Well, I slept in a little bit.
Hey, you wrote a thing about Spinoza.
Benedict de Spinoza, 1632 through 1677.
That's interesting.
That was a little while ago.
But my point is that that doesn't matter.
He's extremely relevant for today.
And while he's making a comeback in philosophy and other disciplines, actually, even even neuroscience, but some other things, evolutionary psychology is a great interest in him.
Linguistics, I think.
His political philosophy is entirely relevant to us and we ought to be hearing about him.
So that's what I tried to do.
I don't expect everybody to run out and start buying his books.
Not that they're hard to read.
The English translations are very good.
He wrote in Latin.
Obviously, I didn't read the original.
But for people who aren't going to go out and read them, I thought I'd give them a capsule, a capsule version of what he thought about politics.
I go a little bit into his more fundamental philosophy from there, but most of it's spent on his political theory.
Cool.
All right.
So who's this guy?
Where's he from?
What's the deal anyway?
Well, he may maybe he's the first radical liberal.
He was born in Amsterdam, but his family was Jewish Portuguese.
But in 1497, I believe, the the Portuguese threw the Jews out.
That was like five years after Ferdinand and Isabella threw the Jews out of Spain.
So they were gone from the Iberian Peninsula and a substantial community in Amsterdam emerged as a result.
And it was a that was probably the most liberal place on Earth.
The Dutch Republic and Amsterdam in particular was a pretty open and tolerant place.
Obviously, the Jews wouldn't have been settling there if it weren't tolerant, wasn't totally free.
And the Jewish community was a little nervous about risking its status.
So they tried to, you know, police their own members to keep them kind of from being too, oh, too much maverick or, you know, or intellectual rebels.
And that's why I think Spinoza ran into trouble, because at the age of a young age of what, 23, in 1656, he got excommunicated from the Jewish from his congregation, which means the entire Jewish community.
They have they had a process which was called harem, which was which was like a Amish style shunning.
They condemned him for abominable heresies.
This is a quote and monstrous deeds.
That sounds pretty serious.
And they basically said, you'll be cursed for all your days when you go to sleep at night, when you wake up in the morning, you know, blah, blah, blah.
They could have just said it in a few words.
Your name is Mark.
And now you say in here that history doesn't record what it is that he wrote.
But do you know that it was something he wrote rather than something he did or, you know, he didn't specify.
They didn't get any more specific than abominable heresies and monstrous deeds.
Now, he hadn't written anything, much less published anything by 1850, 1656, according to all the Spinoza scholars that I've consulted.
So I guess I meant to say you saying it must have been something he said, but no one was saying that he stole or anything like that.
Oh, no, no, no.
The only other possible theory, which I don't think works, is that when his father died, his father was a businessman.
So his debts fell on Spinoza, the son who's known as Baruch at that point.
And so he goes to court.
He goes to the civil court of Holland, you know, the Dutch Republic, to ask that he be relieved of those debts.
They weren't saying they weren't his debts.
Now, the theory is that was a no-no in the Jewish community.
You're supposed to handle those kinds of things within the community.
And he didn't do that.
So, you know, maybe that would be considered monstrous deeds, but that wouldn't be an abominable heresy.
So I don't think that theory is the widely believed theory.
I think the view is, given what he later wrote and even published, although anonymously in his lifetime, he must have been talking to friends and was either overheard or somebody ratted him out.
And he was saying some of the radical things that he would end up putting in print.
Like I said at first, anonymously and always in Latin.
He wrote only in Latin, not in the vernacular, you know, Dutch language or something that the average person could could access.
Now, what is it he wrote?
If you look at what he writes, you can understand why the Jewish community is.
Don't forget it.
There was only Orthodox Jews in those days.
Right.
There was no reform and there was no conservative movement, which kind of is an American thing that situated itself between the Orthodox and the reform.
So no such thing as only Orthodox.
And given the nervousness, you know, they always, you know, understandably, the Jewish community and the leaders probably thought they were always sort of walking on eggshells, even though Amsterdam was welcoming and open and they could practice their religion.
You know, they didn't want to alienate the larger community for fear that maybe that could change or could be withdrawn, that tolerance.
So so you can kind of understand their nerve, their nervousness.
And it may explain that may.
I think that means it's the best theory is his philosophy.
It got around.
He this was his you know, they had this philosophy in the works.
And just to do that very quickly, not the political philosophy so much, but his basic metaphysics, really, and epistemology and just things related to what other people believe.
He essentially rejected religion as we think of it, although he kind of redefined religion in a more natural naturalistic way.
But he said, number one, the soul is not immortal.
When you die, you die.
The Bible is not the word of God.
It was written by people.
It was one of, I think, the original, you know, skeptical scholar about about the Bible.
And he goes into great detail in his book on ethics, the ethics.
He goes into great detail about this, that, you know, it's not the word of God.
It was written by a series of people over, you know, a couple hundred years after the events and then wasn't edited and put together until later on by some other people.
So he he, you know, he gives evidence to cast doubt that it's, you know, the word of God were in any way an accurate history book.
Although he thinks it's a valuable book because he thinks it contains valuable moral lessons.
He doesn't bash it on those grounds.
And then he also claims that argued and he would say prove.
He does this in ethica in ethics, the ethics that that God is and he keeps the he's using the word God, which is a thing people debate about.
But for him, God is nothing more or less than nature, just existence, the whole universe, the whole shebang.
There's nothing outside of nature.
There's nothing outside of logic.
And therefore, there's not a person, you know, there's not an anthropomorphic God that can hear you, that can listen to you, that can grant requests that you can pray to, that can condemn you or can, you know, reward you.
So he said, you know, you can love God, but don't expect him to love you back.
And so true religion for him was studying, facing the universe with a desire to understand and being good to your neighbor.
In other words, being good to other people.
That to him was piety.
That was the entire thing for him.
That was that was piety, understanding, living by reason and being good to other people, which he connected those two things he thought to be rational means.
He showed how being rational means being good to your neighbors and treating them always through reason, not through force, not through trickery.
And he condemned religious superstition.
So you can see why this would offend the authorities.
Yeah, I guess I could.
That's going to get you in trouble even now.
I'm thinking, you know, probably a lot of people listening to this don't like it to this day.
But anyway, so you write in here that he was between Hobbes and Locke.
What's the significance of that?
Well, I want to place him just in intellectual history.
Hobbes had already written Leviathan, which he had read and was influenced by.
And I talk about how in some ways he was a Hobbesian, but not all the way.
He was better than Hobbes.
So and then he wrote before Locke published his two treatises of government.
So I just wanted to place him.
I don't know.
I am not enough of a Locke student to know whether he cites Spinoza at all.
That's an interesting question.
And I point out in particular the differences over between Spinoza and Locke over the idea of toleration, because Locke famously wrote a letter concerning toleration where he called for religious toleration, except he doesn't extend it to atheists and Catholics.
Spinoza extends it to everybody.
So this is where we now get into the political philosophy.
He was a great believer in total freedom of conscience.
Anybody should be free.
By the way, he favored a democratic republic.
He may be the earliest person to endorse the idea of democracy, but his whole philosophy, of course, is about how government ought to be limited to only one thing, namely securing people's safety so that they can then live the rational life safely, you know, not threatened by criminals or foreign invaders and stuff like that.
So his point was anybody should be able to think whatever he wants and say whatever he thinks.
And that's very close to a verbatim quotation.
Hey, so now back to those freedoms in just a second.
But I'm interested when you talk about his, you know, very minarchist kind of conception there.
Does he talk about kind of the economics of power and how, you know, the control of resources, basically, and how that's tied up with politics and that's the problem or anything along those lines?
You know, he's not an economist, and so he doesn't, to my knowledge, he doesn't get into that.
I mean, maybe he mentions it somewhere, but I'm not aware of that.
I mean, I haven't read all of Spinoza, but I've also listened to a lot of lectures from Spinoza scholars on YouTube and I've read stuff by the libertarian philosopher Douglas Denial of Liberty Funds has two books on Spinoza.
He's a Spinoza scholar, and I don't see that coming up.
So I think it's more, yeah, the political side.
But one thing he does point out, which I think is interesting because it maybe shows what he would have thought about economics, is that he sounds like Bastian.
He says we are social animals, you know, in the way the Greeks said we're social animals.
And he said the great benefits of living among other people is number one, just safety, security.
Number two is, you know, it gives you the space to develop your power of understanding, which makes you freer and more rational.
And the third thing is you profit from other people through the division of labor.
And he doesn't use that phrase, but he specifically says we're limited beings and our access to the comforts of life and, you know, goods and services are far limited if we live alone, if we live by ourselves or in very tiny groups.
So he understood that.
That's a big point.
And, of course, Bastian makes a huge point of that in all his writings, particularly Economic Harmonies, about how important the division of labor is to a good life.
The good life meaning, you know, life as a rational being.
We need other people.
But so did he really say, like, here's why you don't want your government to do more than provide the most basic security kind of situation?
Well, he thought it couldn't do that because of the very, you know, he disagreed.
Here's where he disagrees with the Greeks.
I mean, in many ways, he's sort of in the Greek tradition.
He's a virtue.
He's an advocate of virtue ethics, which is the ethics of, you know, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.
And so he's in that tradition.
But where the Greeks saw the state as needing to be engaged in soul craft, in other words, promoting virtue, right?
Making virtuous people, making people into virtuous beings.
He didn't think, Spinoza didn't think the state can make people into virtuous beings.
That's an internal process for Spinoza.
All the state can do, and he says the only thing it can do, is create the security.
Then leaving, basically leaving people alone then to internally make themselves excellent, you know, virtuous, rational beings.
So that's why he wants to limit it.
He says if it tries to do more than that, it will only just end up destroying the civil peace that the state was supposed to create in the first place.
So if it tried to control what people thought, it really can't control what people thought.
It can't reach into your mind.
So people will just think things secretly, but then that kind of drives it underground and then you get, you know, covert activity.
And that all threatens the peace of the society, which then interferes with people's ability to live, rationalize and become virtuous.
So he just shows that he can't do it.
All right, you guys, here's how to support the show.
First of all, subscribe to the RSS feeds, iTunes, Stitcher and all of that.
All the feeds are available at ScottHorton.org and also at LibertarianInstitute.org.
You can also follow me on YouTube.com slash ScottHortonShow and sign up for Patreon.
If you do, anybody who signs up for a dollar per interview gets two free books from Listen and Think Audio.
And also you'll get keys to the new Reddit page, reddit.com slash ScottHortonShow.
And then if you go to ScottHorton.org slash donate, 20 bucks will get you the audiobook of Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
50 bucks will get you a signed copy of the paperback there.
And a $100 donation will get you either a QR code, commodity disc or a lifetime subscription to Listen and Think Libertarian audiobooks.
That's all at ScottHorton.org slash donate.
And also anybody donating $5 or more per month there, if you already are or if you sign up now, you'll get keys to that new Reddit group as well.
Already got about 50 people in there and it's turning out pretty good.
Again, that's reddit.com slash ScottHortonShow.
If you're already donating or you're a new donor, just email me, Scott, at ScottHorton.org and I'll get you the keys there.
And hey, do me a favor, give me a good review on iTunes or Stitcher or if you liked the book on Amazon.com and the audiobook is also on iTunes and I sure would appreciate that.
And listen, if you want to submit articles to the Libertarian Institute, please do and they don't have to be about foreign policy.
My email address is Scott at ScottHorton.org.
Right.
And then so when they restricted his political speech is I guess when he became a free speech radical.
And I guess really, historically speaking, really led the cutting edge on free speech as a vital principle, right?
Well, that's right.
He's really like a father of that explicitly.
And he had two friends who were oppressed by the state.
And again, this was the most liberal place still.
But they were one of his friends was writing sort of Spinoza type stuff on about religion and, you know, died in prison either from medical neglect or maybe something more active on the part of the authorities.
And I believe another friend of his had been had been executed.
So as free as Amsterdam was and as the Dutch Republic was, it was not completely free.
And so he had to be careful.
And, you know, he writes in, like I said, he published the only book published in his lifetime.
He published a book on Descartes, but that wasn't considered very controversial.
But but his book on the theological political treatise, which was condemned, damned as a book forged in hell.
That's the phrase that was used.
He that he didn't put his name on that.
And it was, like I said, published in Latin.
Now, it became known under, you know, sort of became an open secret that he'd actually written it.
But since nobody could prove it, they never they couldn't move against him.
And then, you know, he died.
Oh, seven years after the book was published.
And then his stuff was still sort of passed around, almost like the old Soviet samizdat method with the only of the initial BDS on it.
And people, I don't know why the authorities didn't seem to know this.
Maybe they did, but they couldn't do anything.
But everyone else knew that meant, you know, Benedict de Spinoza.
By the way, when he got kicked out of the Jewish community, he changed his name Baruch, which is the Hebrew meaning a form of the word blessed to Benedictus, shortened to Benedict, which is the Latin, the Latin word for blessed.
Very clever.
Interesting, especially since every other time I interview you, we're talking about BDS.
But anyway, yes, I know I drew the connection myself.
So now change the subject to the part where you say he grew up in the shadow of war.
Well, yeah, things big things were going on, you know, in his time.
And, you know, of course, philosophers are always affected by the things going on around them.
Or just before to understand a philosopher, you really need to see his place in history and not just try to judge the philosophy in a vacuum.
And the 30 Years War, which was, you know, terrible war in Europe that tore tore the continent apart, ended in what did I say?
1648, 1648, 30 Years War.
That's a long time.
That's that's longer than we've been in Afghanistan.
Right.
Almost.
And now it's longer.
And the English.
I mean, if you count 79.
The English.
You're right.
The English Civil War went on from 1642 to 1651.
So, you know, in his lifetime.
So he sees this strife going on and he wants to.
You know, that's not good.
I mean, violence is not good for living the rational life or the good life of the virtuous life.
These are where these words are all synonymous, these terms.
And so he was looking for a way to assure the peace.
And, you know, religion was certainly part of the 30 Years War.
I don't believe these were purely religious wars.
I think the book by William Cavanaugh, Cavanaugh with a C, by the way, not a K like the guy who's up for the Supreme Court.
You know, the myth of religious violence is a very important book because it shows that those what we think of as the religious wars, you know, in the early modern period.
We're not purely religious wars because religion in those days was completely tied up with culture and politics, you know, and other things.
So you can't just pull out one strand and say, aha, it was a religious war.
So I didn't want to leave.
I just didn't want to leave the impression that it was purely a religious war.
But he was concerned about these wars going on and he was searching for a way that would encourage the peaceful conditions in which people can live as real as people, as rational persons.
And that's what his mission was about.
And now, so when it came to the founding generation or the revolutionary generation, I guess, in America, did they cite this guy very much the way they did Locke and Montesquieu and whoever else?
You know, I don't know how much aware they were of Spinoza.
Jefferson, I'm sure, was.
I think I maybe even seen references to Jefferson's knowledge of him.
But I don't I don't think it was a name we saw mentioned a lot like Montesquieu.
And the influence of Locke on Jefferson is very clear just because of phrases you find in Locke.
That's an interesting question, which I'd like to look into more.
So I can't really give a definitive answer.
So he preceded Locke and was more radical than him, but probably had less influence here.
Maybe that was just because he was in the Netherlands, not England.
Well, that's part of it.
That's right.
That's part of it.
We were so anglophile and didn't have to translate Locke today.
So that could be part of the reason.
But but but Jefferson was reading French philosophers.
He was a big fan of the great radical French liberal and laissez-faire advocate, Destut de Trussy.
And he had his book.
He oversaw the translation of that book as the principles of economics or whatever.
Whatever you call it, I forget.
So and he was a pretty worldly guy.
He was a man of the Enlightenment.
So he surely knew.
And I don't even know if Jefferson could read Latin.
I mean, I'm really kind of out of my area here.
So but they surely these were these were men who were interested in the ancients and then the and then the middle age thinkers and then the early modern thinkers.
So they must have known about him.
I mean, I think that's a safe guess.
I see.
Yeah.
You know, I forget about that, too, but I'd be willing to bet that Jefferson knew Latin.
And Jefferson, of course, pretty smart for a politician.
What?
Jefferson was Jefferson was a deist, of course.
Right.
He wasn't a Christian.
It seems to me he would have been intrigued.
He rewrote the Bible and took all the magic out.
Right.
Right.
And he would have been very courageous.
I'll do some research on this.
You know, there was a phrase, you know, there's a phrase in the Declaration of Independence, which has always intrigued me.
And it's not exactly Spinoza, but you remember where Jefferson says, nature and nature's God.
He subordinates God to nature.
No one else does that, do they?
Maybe back then they did.
But that's kind of odd.
It's not God's nature.
It's nature's God.
And that's not quite Spinoza because, right, Spinoza doesn't have God sort of create nature, creating God or owning God or whatever.
I know you could interpret that the other way, too, that it just means the God of nature.
In that, you know, maybe.
Yeah.
Someone must have written about us somewhere.
I'll have to look it up.
But yeah, no.
So you have, as you say here, you have a great quote, even where he goes off the rails a little bit.
And, you know, in his presumptions of the necessity of the state and its laws and all of that.
You can talk about that if you want.
You want to talk about that for a second?
We've still got a minute.
Yeah.
He, you know, like a lot of writers, you can find some conflicts in various statements in different places.
He seems to clearly distinguish thinking and expression of thinking.
In other words, speech or writing from action.
So he says, as far as thoughts and expression of thoughts, complete freedom.
It's only where action, you know, threatening actions.
And this is sort of like John Stuart Mill and libertarians in general.
You can do what you want, except you can't harm other people defined as violating the rights and, you know, using violence and stuff like that.
He seems to introduce some vagueness when he says if some speech implicitly incites rebellion, then the state can step in again, kind of for Hobbesian reasons.
Right.
In order to protect the civil peace, that's always the reason to protect the civil peace.
So, you know, there it's Stephen Nadler.
And I give the link here has an online YouTube lecture about where he seems to where Spinoza seems to have compromised.
And he says this is yeah, this is troubling to civil libertarians.
He doesn't quite go all the way.
He leaves this vague idea.
Sedition, which he tries to define, but it's still kind of vague.
You know, what's sedition?
So you can't say seditious things or say things that are implicitly sedition, according to Spinoza.
In other words, the state can do something about that.
So it's yeah, it's not perfect, but it's pretty darn good.
Yeah.
And then, as you say here, he ends his treatise on a high note about freedom of religion.
And as you say, not bad for 1670.
And so, yeah, that really was, you know, a relatively new advent in Western civilization that people would, you know, quit killing each other over that kind of thing and just do business instead.
Right, right.
He's in, he's in that.
I mean, I guess they might have peace, but he's, you know, making it a principle, I guess, is more the point.
Well, exactly right.
That's exactly what he's doing.
And again, he ends on this high note where he does distinguish actions, threatening actions and actual violent actions from mere speech and expression, thoughts and expression of thoughts.
You know, there's some just very, very clear statements where he says people ought to be free to think what they want and say what they think.
I mean, that's, like I said, pretty much a direct quote from him.
So on the whole, a good guy.
And it wouldn't hurt if, you know, more people knew about him.
Well, that's the thing, too, right, is as you and your piece to ruin it for everyone.
Don't bother reading this article because now, you know, all you need to know about it.
I'm blowing the ending for you here.
We could really use this kind of advice right now in this day and age in this country, when so many people hate each other so badly over a lot of stupid things that they probably shouldn't in the first place.
But boy, if we stop respecting each other's freedom of religion, start identifying ourselves more by religious faction than other things.
And we have a lot to fight about.
So we should really not do that, as this guy says.
Right.
And as important as his particular words is the spirit of it.
The spirit of it is humanistic.
You know, it's, you know, be good to the people around you, not only because it's just a nice thing to do, it's good for you, too, because it makes for a good society in which we can flourish.
You know, there's its feedback.
You know, what goes around comes around.
So if you're rational and nice to other people, and it's not only because they're going to be rational and nice to you, it's just better for all of us, including yourself, to live in a in a rational, benevolent society.
And so we ought to practice it in order to get about individually.
Right.
Yeah.
I mean, that's, I hope something that people still agree is what's great about America.
And even from the beginning, you know, obviously, notwithstanding Indians and black slaves and all this other stuff.
But when the society was all the proverbial, you know, white patriarchy or whatever, there were already like 15 different major sects of Protestants in the different colonies.
Right.
And so they really had to have religious freedom among themselves as a first principle.
Otherwise, they would have had way too much to fight about between, you know, I don't know, Quakers and Lutherans and Catholics and whatever other different factions were already here.
Lots of different kinds of Protestants that were already here and disagreed with each other about all kinds of things.
You know, the Constitution doesn't mention religion.
Of course, the First Amendment comes afterwards.
This Bill of Rights is something that's appended later.
But there's nothing about religion in the Constitution, totally silent.
In fact, it doesn't even mention God.
And somebody, somebody after the convention asked Hamilton why God's not mentioned in the Constitution.
And he said, I believe this is according to Gordon Wood, major philosopher, historian of this area.
Hamilton says, we forgot.
So it wasn't on their minds, because they had at least they had a totally secular society.
Well, that sounds kind of tongue in cheek, right?
I mean, the idea was that the government was contracted by the people, that it wasn't bestowed by God on to the people.
It was the people creating it as their own security force, which you and I know is mythology, you know, all this popular sovereignty, whatever, but makes for a nicer premise.
But they didn't even appeal.
Yeah, but they didn't even make any appeal to it.
I think that's interesting, because they were in a secular frame of mind.
Well, and it's interesting.
I mean, in 2018, our Attorney General said that government is bestowed upon the people by God.
That's where it comes from.
And all of its legitimacy.
And that's why you have to obey all its laws, says so in Romans and all of this, notwithstanding the fact that as you say, the contract that creates the government, the US Constitution does not say that at all.
And then of course, the First Amendment, when it brings up religion, it's only to forbid the government from trying to twist it that way.
The interesting thing is in the, I forget what year this is, the first couple decades of the 19th century, when the US entered the treaty to end the Barbary Wars, it says explicitly at the very top, the United States is not a Christian nation.
You can look it up, as Yogi Berra would say.
You can look it up.
And that created, though, controversy, right?
They didn't get letters to the editor saying, what do you mean the US government says we're not a Christian nation?
At least people saw themselves as purely secular and religion was a private matter.
Now Spinoza, to mention one more lapse in Spinoza, again, in order to preserve the public peace, this is his view.
I'm not saying I agree with it.
He thought that public displays of religion, of piety, of religious rights, could be kept within limits by the state.
Now, the state was going to be purely under civil authority, even though it was elected, but it wouldn't be electing clergymen and stuff like that.
I mean, clergymen wouldn't be separate powers of having, they would have no political power, the clergy.
And so he still wanted, he still thought the state could regulate public practice of religion because it's an action.
You can think whatever you want, but what you do, if it clashed with, you know, I guess the majority, then we are risking the public, you know, the public peace.
And obviously, we would attack that view in Spinoza, it's one of his imperfections.
But again, he was, don't forget, he was driven by this idea that we have to preserve the public peace in all ways.
And in this way, he's very much like Ludwig von Mises, because if you read Mises' work in Human Action and other places, for Mises, the standard is, Mises was not a rights theorist, rights advocate.
For him, what counted was, does it undermine social cooperation, or does it, you know, encourage social cooperation, or, you know, leave social cooperation alone.
And that for Mises was the test.
If something tended to undermine social cooperation, he was against it.
Oh, that's interesting.
All right.
Well, and as you say, all this is still really good for the mid 17th century.
So one of these days, time is going to stop and give me a year off to catch up on a bunch of reading.
And I'm going to read my Spinoza then.
But until then, at least I have you.
So that's good.
He's fun reading.
Well, I'll look and see what Jefferson knew about him.
I think that'll make a good article if I can find some.
There you go, everybody.
The great Sheldon Richman, our modern day Spinoza, only even better.
I was never kicked out of the synagogue.
Well, she left anyway, so.
All right.
A man for our troubled times.
Spinoza.
That's at the Libertarian Institute, libertarianinstitute.org, where Sheldon is the executive editor.
All right.
Thanks, man.
Anytime.
Thanks, Scott.
All right, y'all.
Thanks.
Find me at libertarianinstitute.org, at scotthorton.org, antiwar.com and reddit.com slash Scott Horton Show.
Oh, yeah.
And read my book, Fool's Errand, Timed and the War in Afghanistan at foolserrand.us.
