tv John Tamny When Politicians Panicked CSPAN October 11, 2021 3:45pm-4:31pm EDT
scientific work. i don't think either approach is optimal. >> don't you have something in an interview or a book that a couple of people in cdc have now left because they are being pushed around by the politicals? is that what you think is happening? >> i don't know the exact reason. it was senior officials. i don't know the exact reason they left. i think there were mull approximate reasons why they left. i think the cdc director is attempting to reform the agency. it's very hard to do. it's very hard to self-organize in a setting of a crisis. it's hard for her to come in and sort of point out all the criticism and flaws and try to reform them. >> okay. it's been a great conversation.
thank you. i hope you all enjoyed it. thank you very much scott for all you have done. thank you. [ applause ] now on book tv, more television for serious readers. >> our keynote speaker this afternoon for our event is john tamny. he's executive director of freedom work center for economic freedom. i think for our purposes i consider him maybe the best fj journalist in the united states today. he knows his economics. he's well read which is rare in his profession. he's written several books, including one at 2016 which is interesting on the fed.
his most recent book is called "when politicians panic." it's important of what's happened politically over the last 16, 18 months. it's a very important book. i had the opportunity to read it a couple of months ago and interview john about it. i recommend all of you. john tamny. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, jeff. let me first say what a treat it is to be here today. i'd like to point out a few people. joe woodford is in the audience. joe turned me onto henry haslet many years ago and it was transformative. he keeps doing this for people around the country. thank you very much.
thank you also to bill brennan for putting on this event and sponsoring it. what an excellent event. thanks to all of you for being here and supporting such an important organization. if you came to my office or came by where i live, you would see books by me everywhere. what's important about this is they are not there for show. if you pick them up and you looked in the opening pages, all the blank pages are full of tiny notes and very often i had to add blank pages to the front of the book to add all that i wanted to take down. to read a book by me is to see numerous direct references, quotes. to see that he's had a major influence on me. what treat to get to speak at an
event and what a treat to know so many of you in attendance who is involved with such an essential organization. it's a big deal for me to get to follow ryan mcmacon and jeff dice. they have been good to me and so open to my ideas. even when they disagreed with me which further speaks very well of the mises institute. thank you for this opportunity. i'm here to discussion my new book, "when politicians panicked: the new coronavirus reason in a pandemic" it causes you to tell a friend to talk to other people. not just necessarily about my book but to have this discussion. it's essential that we win this argument. it's essential that we influence the narrative because if we don't, if we stay quiet, history
books will indicate that a virus caused a global economic contraction. the virus had been spreading for months and people had been responding for months. what happened was that politicians panicked. and in panicking, they substituted themselves narrow, very limited knowledge for the knowledge of the market place as in the knowledge of people and they did so in disastrous fashion which is what happens every time politicians start biting their nails and put themselves in front of the great market place that is humanity. so we must once again win this argument, we must discuss it, we must talk to people. because we don't want history to tell something that is false and what would be false is that the virus was the source of so much global economic carnage, that the virus was the source of
easily the biggest human rights tragedy of the 21st century. and so in talking about this, i think it is important to begin with some of the excuses, some of the justifications used in march of 2020 to explain why the lockdowns were necessary. easily the worst arguments made for the lockdowns were made in march of 2020. many of you remember them. many of you remember the argument made that we have to take away your freedom, we have to take away your right to work, your right to run your business because if we don't, you, the people, will act so irresponsibly that you'll get very sick and overwhelm hospitals that are not ready for you. we must stop the spread to protect hospitals. have you ever heard of a more
absurd line of reasoning? if politicians don't tell you what to do, you will engage in behavior that will cause you to be hospitalized. that you have no incentive as individuals to protect yourself that you need to be led around. it is quite the insult, but it was passed around by very respectable people. i think we know people in our world who said, well it was sort of justified at first. when brings us to what has to be an even more dense argument that they made. well, you know, the imperial college in england predicted deaths of 2.3 million. they had to take away our freedom. don't you get it? that has to be, if possible, an even more fool hearty argument. the notion that without politicians hand holding we would just go out and engage in behavior that lead us to die.
if the deaths piled up, any force would have been superfluous because we would have avoided the virus and avoiding getting sick that politicians could never come up with. what if they said 30 million are going to die? what that would signal is that any political force would have made no sense at all. the more threatening something is, the more superfluous is political force. because we're going to engage in behavior that politicians could never dream of to protect ourselves. we love our lives so much but see politicians said back in 2020, that we didn't, that they needed to save us from it. no, it is usually politicians that get us into worse. politicians engage in behavior that cause death but they have the arrogance to say they needed to save us from behavior that would cause death. and so the very excuses defied basic common sense. but it became dumber and dumber. because the lockdowns happened and then they had to justify the
carnage. so they point to the chinese. well see, the chinese covered up the virus, they covered up a spreading virus. if they had just let us know, we could have acted sooner and contained it. oh, my gosh. they must think voters are intensely stupid. wait, the chinese covered it up? how could you possibly cover something up? now think about this in economic terms because while most people rely on emotion in making decisions, most here follow market signals as they should. and so i understand that there are deferring views about china in the audience. but what you cannot deny is that china is the second largest market in the world for the most valuable companies in the world, those would be american companies. and so apple sells a fifth of his iphones in china, gm sells more cars in china than it does
in north america. starbucks has 4100 stores in china on the way to tens of thousands, there are mcdonald's in china, the second largest box office and the second largest box office for nike. the lists on and on. if the virus had been an indiscriminate killer of chinese people, a cause of sickness, we would have known this months before march of 2020 and we would have because u.s. share prices would have been in stupendous decline. it would have been the mother of all stock market crashes, to reflect the loss of the greatest market in the world, not the united states. yet u.s. shares continued to hit all-time highs. those companies i described for the most part did. if you go to march 18th, 2020, that is when brett bear of fox news interviewed fed smith, the founder of fedex. this is important because he asked him about the spreading virus. this is right as the lockdowns were beginning.
and fred smith had a very important perspective on this because wuhan is a very major economic city in china. and fedex has a big presence there. 907 employees. so they said wiest tested all of the employees at this junction sure, and two are false positive but what is important is that all employees are in good health. this truth would also explain why elon musk was always a skeptic. he a big operation in china and so he knew from his employees that the virus was spreading but it wasn't something that -- it wasn't an indiscriminate killer. fred smith and elon musk couldn't lie about these things as public companies you have to report material information like this. and so we knew from the markets that the virus was many things. it was real. it is foolish to deny its reality. but we knew from china that none of them were terribly lethal. because if it had been, we would have known that months before.
look at the smartphones that fit in our possibility. china is one of the smartphone dense countries in the world. we saw a few weeks ago that even out of an economically primitive company like cuba, that footage of the protests traveling via the internet made it around the world. does anyone seriously that i this the chinese government could have hidden in a smartphone dense country like that massive evidence of people dying and getting sick? good luck. not to mention that we have intelligence services around the world, does anyone think a spreading virus would have somehow not been noticed? again, the cover-up is an -- the blame of china as the cover-up is a loser excuse that ignores the fact that china was our surest evidence that the virus was real. but again it wasn't a major killer and it certainly wasn't a major cause of sickness. so we knew long before the lockdowns there was no
justification for them. furthermore, if it had been lethal in the china, the more lethal it is, the less justification is there is for faking away freedom. and the basis for that is economic growth is easily the biggest enemy that death and disease have ever known. whereas jeff alluded to earlier, poverty was the worst state of mind for people. poverty is the biggest killer mankind has ever known. and just to give you an idea of the health meaning of this, it is worthwhile to travel back in time to the 19th century in the united states. in the 19th century if you broke your femur, you had one in three odds of dying. but if you lived, you're only option was amputation. and let's be clear that painkillers back then weren't as advanced as they are today. let's just leave it at that.
if you broke your hip in the 20th century, you were going to die. when you were born in the 20th century, you had as good of a chance of dying as you did living. if you got cancer, forget about it. you were going to die. but see most people never got to cancer. that would have represented health care progress and they didn't because tuberculosis and pneumonia, that was the captain of man's death, it killed you off much sooner than cancer could get to you. if you travel forward to even the early part of the 20th century, 1910, cancer was still a distant eighth among american killers and it was because once again tuberculosis, pneumonia, yellow fever, it was the terror of civilization. world war i more people died of gunshots and bombs than just routine disease. and so what changed? well what changed was economic
growth. in the 19th century johns hopkins made a fortune from the baltimore and ohio railroad and directed 7 million of it to what became johns hopkins university. it is the largeef donation ever it its kind. johns hopkins could start the first medical school. it was a nice school, trade school concept about saving lives. it was about protecting people. easing them into their death. well so johns hopkins would be the first place they would study how do we cure what kills us, doctors and scientists matched with precious capital born of wealth creation. which brings us to john d. rockefeller, the richest man that ever live. in his lifetime he gave away $530 million. and 450 million was directed toward health care studies. matching doctors and scientists with capital so they could find
cures to that which used to readily kill us. and all of a sudden, people who used to die once were living. people were suddenly able to die once, die twice, three times, by that i mean what used to kill them no longer was killed them because they had access to advanced born of economic growth. even in 1950, the biggest line item on hospital budgets was bed linens. and it was because they didn't have answers. whereas more and more could easily kill us, we could come up with answers for. and this is important in consideration of where the debate went. and let me stress in writing when politicians panicked, i made sure to read "the new york times" every single day. and i did because i wanted to check against my passion from day one against the lockdowns. i wanted the other point of view to moderate mine. and what you find is that when you read deeply into the "new york times," they report
excellent information. my book would be a fraction of itself without the times. so you read deeper into the headlines and they reported something that was interested in what one of the columnists said. it is a stain on the nation and embarrassment. and the newspaper kept reporting that of those who have died with the virus, over 40% of them, those deaths were associated with very sick people in nursing homes. that is not to minimize very old and sick people but it is a way of saying, if anything, the virus showed the immense progress of health care in the united states. people are dying of old age. does anyone realize what a modern rich country concept that is? people never lived in old age. and now we do. and it is because economic growth has been matched with doctors and scientists on the way to curing things that used
to kill us. so when we needed economic growth most, because politicians said the virus is the big threat to our health and ability to live, they quite literally chose economic contraction. historians will marvel at their abject stupidity. which brings us to anthony fauci. that is not fair to laugh. it was not meant to be a laugh line. it was not. from the looks of everyone in the room, most of you remember the aids scare, and it was a very real scare. anthony fauci first came to prominent back in the 1980s and he very famously as i point out in the book wrote a paper in 1983 saying that aids was a communical disease that could be passed around households, just from people being around each other. it turned out he was wrong. but it is not about doubt and learning from presumptions that don't turn out to be true.
whattin indicted dr. fauci is that he didn't recognize the limits of knowledge. that knowledge rarely ages well. that we want to learn. and to be fair it wasn't just fauci. england's national health service, they put up signs in great britain in the 1980s saying that one in five brits will get aids for which there was no cure. many of you remember the television show "dynasty" and rock hudson made out with linda evans. he died soon after and there was a great scare among people that linda evans had gotten aids. rock hudson went to his death worrying that he had given her aids. how little we knew, which is the point. it is why free people aren't just essential because freedom is a virtue and they produce the economic growth that creates cures for that which used to kill us, free people are
arguably most important when a virus is spreading because they produce crucial information. as jeff said earlier, you wanted 330 million kind of competing with different ideas. i come from the libertarian world yet i know some that didn't go to a restaurant over a year. i know libertarian types that never left their houses. well you need people like that. you need people testing that who are avoiding all human contact altogether to see if that works. we from new york in may of 2020 that doesn't work because two-thirds of those hospitalized in new york had been sheltered in place. but you need the people taking full precautions. you also need people like my only occasionally exasperating wife who in her defense she had delivered a child in march 1st, 2020, and to suddenly we'd be walking down the street and someone would be walking past us on the sidewalk and she would jump off the sidewalk.
my rage was endless for a brief time. but you need people -- you need people like that taking big precautions. whenever i would come home, she would say have you washed your hands and she would make my wash my hands. she was nervous and you need people like that, too. you need people taking immense precautions to find out what you get from that. and you need people like me. for me, the highlight of the day was going to the grocery store. i loved being around people so much that i would purposely forget things at the grocery store so i could go back. well you need people like me. you need people who are just very skeptical of what is happening. you need people like my science denying parents in southern california. 78 and 80. who had grown up with polio and a lot of things that they thought were truly scary and they said we are not going to stop living our lives because of expert opinion. we are going to continue. they've figured they were reasonably healthy and they were
going to continue living as they did to the extent that they could and so did their friends. you need people like that. and most of all you need young people. you need those young people hitting every bar and every party and making out with every girl and guy they can, they're the most important producers of information of all precisely because they reject expert opinion. and that is not because experts are always wrong. but you need people -- you need a control group. you need a group that says we're going to do the exact opposite of what the experts because then you find out what really causes the virus to spread. what is the behavior most associated with getting sick? with dying? yet when we needed this information the most, politicians locked us down and in doing so blinded us. same with businesses. it is not unreasonable to speculate that a company like disney with very good access to
capital markets might have locked down its parks any way. just because brand risk associated with becoming a super spreader. they had the access to capital to do something like that. whereas small businesses didn't necessarily have that kind of a bill to go to the market and basically pay for a shutdown. well good, you wanted businesses trying all sorts of different things. you wanted some restaurants to say, you know, we're going to charge surge pricing at 6:30 and charge half price at 4:00, half price at 10:00, you wanted others to say we're not going to have any limits because people will respond to a crowd by maybe avoiding a crowd. you wanted businesses that are a miracle on their own for succeeding to come up with myriad ways to meet the needs of a customer base that had clearly changed. but instead, we had the very people that gave us the dmv and
the post office deciding what businesses could do. make it an even more incomprehensible. think about this. politicians and experts said that the very humans who had driven all economic and personal and cultural progress were suddenly a lethal menace to one another. so they wanted to separate us from one another. and so their solution was, we will pick and choose the businesses you could go into. we'll basically shoe horn you through a limited number of businesses rather than allow come one, come all. so it didn't make sense based on the arguments that we should be separated from one another, but also when you lockdown businesses, when you limit their ability to innovate, you blind them and most of all you blind the most important businesses, your largest ones to how to reopen. again, historians will marvel at the abject stupidity, but this is what you get when you
substitute narrow knowledge for that of the market place. this brings us back to fauci. as all political types do and let's call him that, because that is what he is, fauci is a baseball fan. it is baseball. he loves the nationals. so imagine fauci goes to a national game next year, full crowd and 40,000 people and many won't believe that fauci was the smartest individual in the stadium. that may well be true. but let's also agree that fauci's knowledge would be a microscopic fraction of the combined knowledge of the stadium. what i've just described for you is the free market place. markets work and they work brilliantly precisely because they combine the decentralized knowledge of everyone. it is not that the soviet union didn't have experts, they had brilliant people in power. and it is not that north korea and cuba don't have experts now. but whenever you substitute the
knowledge of the few for the market place, you get crisis. and so this is what we get. politicians and experts said unless we take away your freedom, unless we lock you down, there is going to be a crisis. and what they did not see given their scare illy limited knowledge is what they were describing is the crisis they're about to create for us. because any time you substitute political knowledge narrow for the market place, crisis is the inreceivitiable result. and you think about what this meant not just for the u.s. but think about the rest of the world. never again allow yourself to be told by someone on the left that we care more about poor people. this had to be the biggest injustice to the world's poor that we've ever seen. at least in modern times. because as the u.s. took a break from simple economic reality and said we're just going to shut
things down and run from the virus as though it is going to curl up and fall asleep. the rest of the world, according to "the new york times," 285 million people around the world were rushing towards starvation as rich people in the developed world decided they were going to take a break from work for a time. in countries like el salvador they put up white flags on their shacks and huts. and what that means in el salvador, that is a signal there is starvation going on here. that is what we did. when we stopped working in the united states, when we put tens of millions out of work, suddenly remissions around the world dry up. and people around the world starve. not to mention the hundreds of millions around the world who were rushed back to poverty because when americans stopped producing, when they stop working, jobs around the world start to vanish. which brings us to the job loss
in the united states. people know the numbers, the tens of millions of jobs lost, where politicians said some of you are no longer essential. some of you businesses, some of you businessman who have spent your lives building this, it is no longer essential. it is not convenient for us. imagine that. in my case, i'm a writer. so luckily my work was not taken from me. i can't imagine what i would do without my work. but i got to continue doing it. and i think of the people around the u.s. for whom work is the animating feature in their life, what gives them dignity and pride, suddenly they were told, you can't do that any more. you're a lethal menace if you continue have a job that gasp is a destination and so we're going to give you $1,200 for your trouble. have you ever heard of something more insulting. you have heard of something more insulting by what they told businessman. don't worry about that, we have to shut you down for a time. as though market share which is so hard won could so easily be
regained, let's give you a check for your troubles. which brings us to the basic truth this could never happen again. and how we have to make sure that it never happens again is an argument that many of you probably won't agree with. but i think it is very dangerous that we make statistical arguments against the lockdowns. even though the statistics may support our skepticism. once we make statistical arguments about the cdc said that 90% pluses of deaths were associated with the old people and once you do that, what you're saying, what you're implying is that there is a rate of death that allows politicians to take away our freedom. no, no, they should never take away our freedom and furthermore we should never allow them to. never, ever again, give up your freedom so cheaply as we did
this time. and in making statistical arguments, we're setting the stage for future lockdowns. because one thing we know is that pathogens are a part of life and because they are, that there will be more viruses. and if we make statistical arguments we're setting it up whereby experts go to easily gull politicians to say this time is different. this virus is going to hit young people. well, again, the more threatening of a virus, the more essential freedom is. never give your freedom up ever again. see what it did. let's win this argument now so that we never have to ever again. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> mr. tamny has agreed to take some questions and answers. we have a couple of mics which are sick lated and raise your
hand and wait for the mic so we could get the audio with short pithy questions of mr. tamny. so for hands for anyone who has a question. >> you're all convinced, aren't you? no need. >> i agree pathogens will always be around. but what about the implications of bio war wear, what do you think -- what would be your takeaway on that subject from this current crisis? >> it is a good question to be clear i don't presume to know much about the bio warfare angle but it interested me, my dad has always said to me that if it is so easy to spread something that could kill lots of people, wouldn't they have already done it. so i kind of feel like, there is all sorts of scary things out there. all sorts of scary scenarios that we could imagine. but i think it is easier said than done.
and my concern always is there is always someone really terrifying scenario that politicians use to take away our freedom. and so one of my favorite ones was, well we're going to have to shut down flights because the virus is spreading. for once can it be that something might be out there that potentially threatens us that does not aggrandize government. why does government get to grow in response to alleged threats to us, as though we're too stupid to take precautions on our own. so no doubt there is bio warfare and all sorts of potential scares out there. but i think as humans, we're pretty wise and i would rather leave it up to us. >> i guess this is the question table. the fifth amendment prohibits the taking of private property
for public use without the payment -- without due process and without just compensation. that seems to have been the first casualty of the coronavirus. what do you recommend in terms of protecting those rights? given that we walk away from them at the slightest threat of a crisis or of some public harm? >> it is a great question. and i actually, jeff and i were talking about this last night, because chapter 17 of "when politicians panicked", i talk about are there constitutional implications and i feel as you do, that there was a taking. i talk to business owners who basically said i woke up one day and my business was no longer mine to run. yet i've had lawyers tell me, it is not a taking thing. and then i've had other lawyers, libertarians say well states have police power and everything. i don't know the answer to this.
but i feel like there was a property, all sorts of property rights violations at work. furthermore, i would add, and yes, what i'm going to add is easier said than done, at some point we just have to resist. i take you out to carlsbad, california. early january of this year, finally the business owners out there put up signs, we're in peaceful protest. and they realized either we could go out of business or start serving our customers again and they gave a big middle finger to the political class. and i think that we have to -- yeah, that is right. we have to get -- take energy from this and recognize that they can't arrest us all. and we need to support the businesses that want to stay open. we need to stand guard around them. whatever it takes, we need to embarrass political types who
would take away the right for someone to run a business. and so i bring you also to california. you look at last july 4th, it is a beautiful thing. remember on july 4th of 2020, no fireworks shows. and so the people, state basically put on their own big fireworks show and we could see it on the international and that net neutrality would cause toish. americans are the wrong people to take to lockdown. we are truly the wrong people. never forget who we are. we zee send from the crazies from the people who loved liberty so much that they crossed oceans and borders to get a taste of this. and so we're the wrong people to do this to. and i hope -- but we've got to remind politicians that -- [ applause ] >> i think you made such an excellent point about not making statistical arguments but how do you talk to individuals who
value supposed security over freedom, freedom is not one of their objectives? >> look, it is a great question. all of you, probably speaking to a group that maybe at some time had someone say put your mask on or how selfish that you're not wearing a mask. as jeff said earlier, we're kind of the minority, aren't we? well my reaction has always been, wait a second, i'm not being the selfish one. if you are really fearful of me being out in the world, spreading a virus, then go home. don't foist your fears on me. the selfish people are the ones who basically wanted to take away the fre dom of others so they could feel secure. so we need to feel secure in making that basic argument. i don't thinkin here is saying that virus didn't exist. and i don't think anyone here, i would disagree heartily who said
people shouldn't be allowed to lockdown. what we're against is force. where everyone had to go with the one size fits all solution. and that would be my one disagreement with jeff. agree with you on state's rights, everything. i love your optimism about more states rights, that there were different responses. but i've got a slight tweak to that. what if donald trump had remains app strepperous, impossible to get along with donald trump? and this is important from a state's rights perspective. what if trump had reacted, had stuck to his guns of wait a second, the virus is no big deal, but oh, by the way, those states that think it is a big deal, they have the right to lockdown but, guess what? any governor so foolish as to take away businesses and jobs and mitigation strategy is going
to have me in his or her state every day of the month right up to election day. i'm going to embarrass you for doing something to abjectly foolish. well so imagine if trump acts like trump and does that. he's still president today. but what is more important about this is this would have kept him from doing what was so damaging which was signing the $2.9 trillion c.a.r.e.s. act. i reject the notion that there were states rights. if there is no federal response, if trump said what does the federal government have to do with this, the only answer to this is not to lockdown and in states that lockdown could face the consequences for doing so. once you do that, california's lockdowns and in march of 2020, florida realistically never gets to lockdown because they didn't do this until april 1st. texas was march 31st. the federal response subsidized
immense cruelty from governors and mayors. so there were different state reacts, but what we didn't see were city and state reactions if the federal government stays out of the way. >> what do you do about corporations and educational institutions that are insisting on vaccination as a condition of employment? >> it is a great question. um, look, a long time supporter, hall mcadams ran a successful banking company and he told me when you get a call from the federal government or from a regulator, you really are in a tough spot. because if you disagree, you'll
get a call the following day saying we don't like the looks of your balance sheet and we're going to do something about it. and so there is the argument that businesses feel forced to force vaccinations because they're afraid of the federal response. no doubt that is true. okay. but broadly, i would much prefer if corporations were the ones mandating or non-mandating vaccination. if my employer said that is a condition of your employment, fine. they're making an economic decision. i may disagree with it but i have the right to move it. but when politicians forces a size fits all, while i would like to think that corporations wouldn't force this on us, i think that is a much better place for there to be discussions about vaccines. let a thousand flowers bloom, let different corporations try different things. schools, kind of the same idea.
if a private school, if that is the condition of going there, i suppose that would be certainly a better answer than governors and national politicians. >> i think we have time for one more. >> yeah, would you say that your optimistic about the near future or more pessimistic? is there a silver lining to this in your view or should we brace ourselves for more of the same? >> no, i'm very optimistic. i'm optimistic based on what jeff said today. while i think there was less states rights at work than perhaps he does, i love his point that america saw up close different reactions in cities and states across the country. and so maybe you could see that. so that is a source of optimism. i'm also optimistic because i saw americans start to revolt.
so that makes me optimistic for sure. after which i can't not be optimistic about the united states. never, ever bet against the united states. because anything that you think is bad today, oh, come on, it was worse in the past, show me the time in life in which you would like to return to, the 1970s when it was illegal to own a phone, you had to rent it from the government's preferred monopoly and the airline routes were planned and the 60s, and the vietnam war was that a great time. the 30s, 40s. the only constant in american life is progress. so i can't not be optimistic. and even more so, when you consider capitalism is getting quicker and quicker and outrunning politicians in ways that they can't begin to imagine. so i refuse to not think that -- be jealous of the young people in the room. what i would give to be your
age, because what you're going to enjoy, the living standards you're going to witness will make some of us older people in the audience, if we're around to see it, be staggered by its grandeur. so never, never bet against the united states. we're full of the most remarkable people on earth. and that doesn't change with these lockdowns. [ applause ] >> john, what do you make of the incredible censorship that we're seeing from facebook, youtube and players of the like, especially in medical narratives that are not part of the mainstream propaganda? >> um, my reaction is i refuse to be a victim. you know, our side has always been against affirmative action. so facebook wants to limit what is on its site. that is his property and if twitter wants to do the same thing. as we've always felt, i believe,
if they discriminate against you, they're creating an opportunity. they're creating a market opportunity. what does jeff bezos say, your margin is my opportunity. if you're going to discriminate against a certain slice of the market place, you're creating an opportunity for someone to fulfill that unmet need. what did rupert murdoch do? he doesn't act like a victim and he started fox. so no whine, or complaining that facebook doesn't allow my point of view. personally i think facebook was essential. without it, and twitter, think about how limited our access to information would have been. i have a better access thanks to it. but that gives us a reason to start something new. [ applause ] >> thanks. thanks a million john tamny and
we appreciate you coming out and taking time to spend your saturday with us. go to meets.org/events and stay in touch and we'll hopefully see you a lot of you in st. petersburg, florida. so thanks for coming. bye now. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more. including spark light. >> the greatest town on earth is the place you call home. at spark light, it is our home too. and right now we're all facing our greatest challenge. that is why spark light is working around the clock to keep you connected. we're doing our part so it is a little easier to do yours. >> spak light supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front-row seat to democracy. book tv continues now. television