Why Freedom Matters: Tom Palmer on Authoritarianism and January 6th

Why does freedom matter? How can we defend it in an age of rising authoritarianism? In this episode, I sit down with Tom Palmer to explore the ideas, virtues, and strategies that keep liberty alive.
We cover:
· The rise of authoritarian movements and global threats to liberty
· The morality of freedom: how to know what to fight for and when
· January 6th as a failure of duty, and what true constitutional leadership requires
· Trump, responsibility in office, and the role of virtue in political life
· How persuasion, clarity, and even humor (à la Bastiat) can advance freedom
Palmer draws on decades of experience—from supporting dissidents in the USSR before the Berlin Wall fell to working in Ukraine’s struggle against Russia today, and fighting for self-defense rights, marriage equality, and freedom from conscription in the U.S.
The through line is clear: defending freedom takes more than theory—it requires virtue, duty, and clarity of purpose to make liberty resilient and worth fighting for.
Want to explore more?
Want to explore more?
- Dig into Palmer's favorite, Frederic Bastiat, in Economic Sophisms.
- Mike Pence on our Constitutional Moment, a Future of Liberty podcast.
- The Dissident Project: Firsthand Stories of Life Without Freedom, a Great Antidote podcast.
- James Marriott on Reading, an EconTalk podcast.
- Maryann Keating, Adam Smith on Fostering Civility and Self-Control, at AdamSmithWorks.
Read the transcript.
Juliette Sellgren
Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. Hi, I'm Juliette Sellgren and this is my podcast, the Great Antidote named for Adam Smith, brought to you by Liberty Fund. To learn more, visit www.AdamSmithWorks.org. Welcome back. Today on August 19th, 2025. I'm excited to welcome Tom Palmer to the podcast. He is a global freedom fighter. He's been all over the world. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, he spent a lot of time over there helping people out who were looking for an alternative to what life is like in the Soviet Union under communism. And since then he's been all over. He spent time in the Arab world, in China. Currently he's helping the fight in Ukraine. This guy has been fighting for freedom his whole career and it's really inspiring and I'm excited to be talking about this today because we're in a really weird moment for freedom. There are a lot of people who don't like it or don't see its value or don't think about it at all, and that's a little worrying. And so we're going to figure out what works, what doesn't, when we're fighting for it and why it's important. So with that, welcome to the podcast.
Tom Palmer
Well, thank you Juliette. It's a pleasure to be with you today.
Juliette Sellgren (1:37)
I have a question for you before we jump in, and it might be related, but maybe not. What is the most important thing that young people my age or younger should know that we don't?
Tom Palmer
Well, I'm going to cheat a little bit and say there are two things.
Juliette Sellgren
Awesome.
Tom Palmer (1:55)
And they both have to do with thinking about the long term. And it's something that's harder to do when you're younger because you don't think about what's going to happen in 25 years, but 25 years passes faster than you think. So the first thing in my opinion is especially for your generation and younger, is to save money and to do it wisely. Don't put it in a stock because it's a depreciating asset and you inflate away the value of it, but put it into stocks, not stocks and bonds at your age, but stocks and save. And it means that when you get a pay raise, don't just consume a hundred percent of it, consume 70% of it, put the rest of it into savings and don't think about it so that when you are old and gray or when you have a really rainy day, you've got a whole bunch of money stored up.
And that means that when you're old, you'll be rich and being rich is a lot better than being poor. So that's one thing to think about. And getting yourself used to it, not spending all the money and stretching yourself and going out all the time, buying every meal outside and paying expensive prices for fancy coffees, make coffee at home and save that money. I wish I had done more of that when I was younger. I started thinking about it when I was much older than you are.
The second thing is related to that is that everybody is going to die and older people are more likely to die long before you do. And it's important to say goodbye to them if you have the opportunity. So I can think of people whom I was so grateful that when I knew that they were ill or failing, I was able to go and spend time with those people. That meant a lot. There are three people where I had scheduled, I said, oh, I'll put it off. And I had visits scheduled, but it was too late and I didn't get to say the things I wanted to say. So remember, everybody is going to die and don't just consider it a downer, although it's not a happy thought, but it means you should schedule the time to be able to go and say goodbye to them,
Juliette Sellgren (4:23)
Man. Yeah. Wow. That kind of got me a little bit. Yeah, I do need to do that. We all need to do that, which that's such a good piece of advice.
Tom Palmer
I tried to think more carefully about it. As I said, there are three cases of people whom I said, okay, I'll do that, but a little bit later and I'll make time for it. And that it was too late. And if someone says, “I'm very ill,” it really means something.
It means you need to get there. Now, of course there are hypochondriacs amongst us, but these were not cases like that. And there are cases in which I did not take it seriously enough, and I deeply, deeply regret not having said, okay, I'll be there next weekend.
Juliette Sellgren
Yeah, well, and if it's a hypochondriac, arguably these types of people that you do want to say goodbye to, you should know them well enough to know if that's what's driving or not.
Tom Palmer
Yes, exactly.
Juliette Sellgren (5:31)
Thank you for sharing that, and I think we're getting into it. Now, your first piece of advice actually is part of the reason why we've had this turn towards kind of illiberal anti-free philosophies and political attitudes. Because people are not only spending a hundred percent their paychecks, young people in particular, but they're actually spending above that, right? They're dipping into the pool of credit and overextending themselves. And it's visible, at least here. I know so many people who it is a little coffee out every morning and we go out every weekend and nope, there's something about that where you actually can't afford to do something like that and then you do, it must infuriate people who I don't know. I mean you were saying before we got on the call that a lot of this is happening from the right now and instead of from the left. And I think it's kind of this, it starts in part, and this is not the entire narrative, but it feels as though it starts in part from whatever that symptom is that people are overextending themselves past. They're not thinking about the future, and then you leave those who care about marriage and children and they want women to work or to stay in the home and have this set of beliefs that want to send us back to the 1950s. And that's why in part, I think, I don't know,
Tom Palmer (7:23)
I'm not so sure there's such a clear line in that regard. I think that there are two features of governmental policy that are having very negative consequences. One is something I don't think most people are aware of, but they should be. And that is the unfunded liabilities that governments all around the world are running up. That's sounds like such a boring accounting term. What it means is government expenditures that are expected to be made, but there's no corresponding revenue source. There's no revenue corresponding to it. And very few governments take that into account of their national accounting. So in the United States, there is so-called national debt. People focus on that. That's debt held by the public from government bonds. But there's the unfunded liabilities which is not accounted for officially Australia does. Australia has a much better national accounting system for government. They put that on the books and say, this is the money we're obligated to pay for which we have no revenue.
And it's led to somewhat better budgetary policies than in the us, but the size of that unfunded liability is staggering. And it's primarily a middle income transfers in the form of Medicare and Social Security. Those are the two huge elements. And they're considered the golden rail, in not the golden rail, I apologize, the electric.
That you don't touch. And so no one is willing to talk about those, but they're gigantic. And it means that when you are old, hard as it is for you to imagine that, but there, if you're lucky, will come a day when your hair is turned gray and all of that, and there won't be any money in the kitty for your state pension. You will have paid all your life for parents and grandparents, but what you'll get is a lot of nothing because it's organized as a Ponzi scheme or a pyramid scheme or a chain letter. There are various ways of describing this current money that goes in is spent and they say, oh, it's invested. Don't worry. It goes into the Social Security trust fund. That's just a big IOU. It just says, we will pay you money. That's it. All the money it's put in is spent immediately and already they're dipping into the so-called IOU or the so-called trust fund, which is funded out of general government revenues.
So there's nothing there, there unlike, and that's why I encourage actually saving your own money in stocks. You own something, you own shares of companies. And a very wise person told me when I started doing this, he said, Tom, you're not informed enough and you're not smart enough to be a stock picker because only pick particular stocks if you know something about them that other people don't know otherwise, the information is already factored into the price. It's already priced in. So buy the whole stock market, buy index funds that are every company that's publicly traded, you own the whole economy. That, and over time those are likely to go up though sometimes they dip, but usually for short periods of time and over time you end up with something more and more and more valuable. So that's where people should be investing because you shouldn't be counting on Social Security. It's basically going to be gone by the time you are qualified to dip into it.
The other thing that is visible, however, and that is grotesque and has generated a certain sense that I think young people feel that the game is rigged is what's happened to housing prices. So virtually every price in real terms is falling except for two things. One is labor. That's a good thing because that's what you and I do. We have our labor. Neither one of us was born at a great family with landed estates and some like futile holdings. We work and we get paid for our work. So we're laborers and the price of labor has gone up, which is why rich people longer have servants. They have washing machines and vacuum cleaners instead of people beating their carpets and washing their dishes and so on. Used to be just go back a hundred years ago, wealthy people had servants living in their houses. Not anymore. Richest people in the world don't have live in servants.
They might have a gardener or a maid who comes in twice a week or something like that. It's totally different because labor has gone up in price. Everything else has gone down in price except one thing. And that's in recent years. And that's housing. Why? Well, it's NIMBYism, it's supply and demand. If you restrict the supply, prices are going to go up. Demand is increasing. We have bigger population. People want their own houses. And so younger people look out and they say, my parents were able to afford an apartment or a condo or a house or something, and my grandparents had a house and I can't afford it. I have to work for many more years to accumulate the down payment. And the question was why is that? What's because governments in all of the major metropolitan areas and wealthy countries around the world, whether it's Australia or United Kingdom or Western Europe or US or Canada or wherever, have restricted supply.
And that means it's harder to get that first house, the starter house and to be able to have equity in it. And that means we need to remove the restrictions on housing supply. In my opinion, it is one of the features that has driven a lot of the illiberalism because of this feeling that the game is rigged. In fact, real incomes, what you can consume has gone up dramatically in every other dimension except housing, which is one that really focuses young people as they're entering the labor market and saying, where am I going to live?
Juliette Sellgren (13:59)
Yeah, it's like the one thing you can't really avoid- that and food, but if food prices are decreasing, it's like the other need.
Tom Palmer (14:11)
That's right. And by the way, we're talking about in real terms. So the nominal price of something may be rising, but if incomes are rising faster, it means the real price has falling or the real purchasing power of your wages are going up. And they have been, there's no question about that, that people generally are so much better off than they were 30 years ago, 50 years ago, 70 years ago. And I don't consider myself particularly aged, although I'm 68, so I'm not a kid. I certainly remember we didn't have air conditioning, we didn't fly in airplanes, we didn't. And then the obvious things, mobile telephony and computers and so on, but rich people did have air conditioning. I didn't have it growing up. And now very poor people have air conditioning. It's considered like a necessity now, especially in America. Well, lots of places.
So those things are now just taken for granted. The fact is it means that incomes have gone up dramatically. But again, this housing issue because of what's called NIMBYism, not in my backyard, people say, oh, we're in favor of more housing for poor people someplace else, more dense housing some other place, but we don't want to change the character of our neighborhood, which is to say we don't want anyone to be able to build in this neighborhood. And that's having a terrible, terrible consequence.
Juliette Sellgren (15:51)
So as we begin continuing this conversation, but talking about how you actually fight for freedom daily, I want to start with asking why and not just why is freedom important, but why is it important to fight for freedom not only in your home country, but everywhere you've been all over the world? Why is that for you such an important thing to do? Why freedom? Why globally?
Tom Palmer (16:30)
I think it's important for everyone, but it doesn't follow. Everyone is likely to throw themselves into it or make it their passion. Think about what happened 9/11 when the twin towers were destroyed and collapsed. Most people were running away, but watch the video footage. There were firemen and policemen running toward it,
And they didn't do it because they were told to what they were ordered to do. So it was because their rescue workers, it's what they do when they see someone in danger of being burned or having a building collapse in, they run into it. Now, they're not stupid. They have protection and so on, but they do that. And I think we need people who have that attitude towards freedom versus totalitarianism and coercion and slavery as well. There are some people who run to danger. It doesn't mean that they're crazy or foolish. If you think about Aristotle's definition of courage, it's not fool hardiness. It's not doing brash crazy things, but it's also not being cowardly. It's having the right response. And to be courageous is not the same as being crazy or foolhardy. So we need courage to fight for freedom. And every freedom that we enjoy today is because someone risked torture and death to secure it for us.
Think about John Lilburn, John Peter Zenger and the right to trial by jury. For example, all the people who fought for freedom of religion, and by the way, most of them were very religious people. It's not the case that we owe freedom of religion to atheists. It was people who believed deeply as a matter of conscience that God gave all of us free will and we were willing to fight for that. People like Sebastian Castellio, a great hero of the struggle for religious freedom or The Levellers in England who were very deeply devout Christians as well. I was struck by this in Brazil quite a few years ago. I went to and saw a statue of a great hero of freedom, a man named Jo Buko. He dedicated his life to abolishing slavery in Brazil. Brazil was the last country in the hemisphere to abolish slavery in 1888, and he started at the age of 18 as a very young man in law school in he defended a runaway slave who was going to be executed, murdered for stealing himself.
And he's found this outrageous, and he went to court as a very young man and defended him. He did not win his freedom, which is what he wanted, but he stopped him. His murder, the courts didn't allow that to proceed. And then he dedicated his whole life, he started a magazine called The Liberal Tribune. He became a very important figure. And in his book on abolitionism, which came out shortly before abolition, excuse me, shortly before slavery was ended where it was abolished, it was a great track against it. He lasered all the arguments why Brazilians should be ashamed of this institution, why it was begged for everyone. It was a crime against the enslaved people, and it was a terrible mark of poor character and harmful to everyone else who was free as well, that they allowed this to continue. And he said something so powerful that I think exemplified what it means to be a fighter for freedom.
He said, you should educate yourselves and educate your children and the love for the freedom of other people, for only when you love the freedom of other people, will you truly appreciate your own freedom and not take it as just a gratuitous gift from, in other words, at that time some people said, no, I'm free and they're slaves. Wow, I'm lucky. That's cool. And he said, if you really want to appreciate your own freedom, you should love their freedom as well. And I think that was a statement of I think the philosophy that has liberated the world. We can't expect everyone to uphold that, but everyone should have some spark of love for freedom of others. I don't have to be a member of a religious minority to oppose their persecution. I don't have to be a member of a racial minority to oppose their persecution. I just have to be a fellow human being.
Juliette Sellgren
I love that. I've actually never heard it stated that way either. And it's beautiful.
Tom Palmer
That's what old people are for, Juliette.
Juliette Sellgren (21:45)
I mean, the way that you just explained it actually I think responds to a lot of the kind of worries that people have about freedom that I hear voiced by my peers, for example. And I think it is, it's a very human thing to love one's neighbor is effectively what you're doing. You're realizing, if I was in that position, that would be awful. No one should be in that position. It's very logical, but it's also emotional, it's not just totally rational. It requires sentiments.
Tom Palmer (22:29)
It means that you can risk something, but it's also surprising how powerful it is to be the person who speaks up says, this isn't right. Many people are afraid of that because they look around, there's a big crowd, they think, well, I don't want to be the weirdo or the one who speaks out and other people attack me. But it turns out when people say, that's not right, we're opposed to that. Other people will step forward as well. They're waiting for someone with the courage to be the first one, the first mover. And that was true with abolitionist slavery.
It's true of a great many injustices. Think about the persecution of gay people who suffered being burned alive and tortured and all kinds of horrible punishments. And it was when finally people said, that's wrong. And of course the smart thing to do in that case is for people to come out as couples, husband and wife and so on. People say, oh, come on, we know about that. And to say, this is wrong. We don't believe in treating our neighbors that way. And then when more gay people came out and people said, oh wait, that's my daughter, that's my niece or my nephew or my son or my uncle. It's a little harder to hate them now or to turn away if they're being persecuted, if they're being arrested and thrown in prison and tortured. And let's just be frank, that's what they meant when people in imprisoned gay people, it meant that men were raped in prison and sometimes beaten to death.
And people thought, well, I don't have to worry about it happening over there. But when people started to say, that's just not right, this when it started to change and people had the courage to stand up and say that if only more people had done that in previous cases and taken that first step to say, this is not right. Frequently they find that there's more people who have that view, but were reticent that held back. And it takes the person with the courage to be the first one to say, this isn't right. I won't stay ahead for this.
Juliette Sellgren (24:47)
So now I'm going to ask you a question that seems to me to be a hard question, but you might not because this is what you do and this is what you spend your time thinking about. A lot of what I've seen growing up here, being grateful for all my freedom and looking around and realizing that a lot of my peers don't fully understand or appreciate the freedom that we have. They actually think that we live in a state of injustice. And in a way it's very self-centered. It's like, oh, this is a problem for me and my life and my neighborhood. Hence NIMBY type of stuff. They end up using protests and different methods of social media and speaking out and being the first person or piggybacking on some sort of injustice train for issues that aren't really important or for the thing that's not right or not actually unjust, unjust, not unjust. So then how do you know what's right? Because I look around and a lot of the people around me who speak up for the thing that's wrong, they're actually kind of overdoing it and not focused on the right issue or even the right moral. And so how do you know what's right and how do you kind of deal with people who are maybe not worried about the right thing?
Tom Palmer (26:34)
It's a very deep question. In many thinkers, far more intelligent and learned than I have pondered this. I think that Immanuel Kant address this a fairly good rule. It's not the answer to everything. I think it has less power than he thought it did, but it has some power, and that is the maximum by which an action is undertaken, subject to being expressed as a universal rule that it could be applicable to everybody. And that's a pretty good standard. There's also, the standard is related to that, that Hillel the elder and Confucius both articulate. There's a wonderful story where Hillel, there's a man who comes to another teacher and he says, can you teach me the Torah? Well, I'm standing on one foot, which means very quickly. And the man says, go away. It says, you're bothering me. And then he goes to Hillel and Hillel says, do not do to other people what you would not want them to do to you.
That is the entire Torah. All the rest is commentary. Now go and study. And Confucius also says that one of his disciples says, is there a principle that could be acted on to the end of one state, which is a consistent rule for life? He says, don't do to other people what you would not want them to do to you. This is sometimes called the silver rule as opposed to the golden rule, which is more stringent, I think, almost impossible to live by. But the silver rule is one that we could all live by. You don't want people to punch you in the nose, don't go around punching people in the nose. You don't want people to steal your stuff, don't take their things and so on. These are rough and ready guides to figuring things out. Now, many people, and by the way, both of those focus on human agency, the actions that people take, which can be just or unjust.
Sometimes people protest about a state of the world of the existence of a disease. Well, the disease is not very interested in my opinion of it. If we want to deal with diseases, we can't convince them to stop making us sick. We have to come up with some solution. And that's the same with poverty. Poverty is the lack of having resources. So the question is why is that? Adam Smith addressed that in his 1776 publication, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. He asked about the nature of the wealth of nations, which was not as it was prior to him, among mercantilist thinkers, the amount of gold in the king's treasury, that's the wealth of the nation. He said that the poor family cannot put gold on their table. It doesn't feed them the king's. Gold doesn't put bread on their table.
The well should be understood as what people can consume, what any person randomly chosen out of the population is able to consume. That's the wealth of the nation. And then what causes it? Why are some places like the Netherlands of his day, very rich and other places are very poor? What's the difference? And he said it was peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice. That is to say not being at war, that's a good thing. Easy taxes not being burdened by all this money sucked out of the population to go to the King's Treasury to get gold for the king and the tolerable administration of justice. He didn't say perfect justice, but tolerable that will transform a poor society into a wealthy society. And that's been our experience. That is what makes poor countries wealthy. It's not oil or gold or diamond mines or anything like that.
(30:35)
It's the rule of law. It's limited government. It's freedom of exchange, and it's equality for everyone before the law. So if one goes out and protests sweatshops to take a simple example, my God, sweatshops are terrible. I wouldn't want to work in one because I have air conditioning. Maybe they don't, but they don't ask themselves why are they poor? Well, there may be injustice that explains that at some point in the past, but we cannot go into the past and undo that. What we can do now is ask what will transfer them, transform their lives from poverty to wealth and it's creation of value that can be that exchange for others. So my grandparents worked in sweatshops. I wouldn't want to work on the conditions that my grandparents worked in when they were born in 1890. So that's an unimaginable amount of time In the past in one of the richest countries in the world, over one in four 29% of children died before the age of five.
Almost no one had indoor plumbing. No one had a telephone, no one had electricity. There were no cell phones at all. There was no TikTok, no X, no television, no radio, nothing. That society, which was a wealthy society at that time became far richer. So today, the people in the poorest societies of the world have longer lifespans than when my grandparents were born, was the case in the richest societies in the world. So the average lifespan, the anticipated lifespan in the poorest country in the world today, I think is 64. It was about 47 when my grandparents were born in wealthy countries. So this that's anticipated lifespan at birth. So this is a tremendous change, fantastic change. What caused that, and that's where I think we should be asking. Instead of saying we're protesting poverty, say, okay, I'm against poverty. How do you transform poor countries into wealthy countries? That's the interesting question. And indeed, there are injustices that explain perpetuation poverty. For instance, inequality before the law, lack of security for life and property. If you have a belief state that's stealing from people and killing people, and so people are not going to become better off. So we have to secure justice at that level. But what will change poverty into prosperity is people freely creating value.
Juliette Sellgren (33:22)
So you have to be willing to think about action. What can you do in the present? And to be honest about what actually works and what doesn't and why you have to ask the question.
Tom Palmer (33:40)
Exactly, right. Well, here's another way of putting it. You can't actually choose ends. You choose means that you hope will lead to the ends that you desire. So if someone says, I want to, I'm going to propose a law called “the end poverty in two years law.” Well, that sounds fabulous. I'd love to end the poverty forever in two years. But you don't get to do that. You can't just choose the outcome that you want. Even in simple acts of choice, I say, well, I want to buy this phone rather than that phone.
What I really want are the services that it will provide, and I might be disappointed. It might end up not being very good at the service. I take a medicine that I hope will make me well. I choose that medicine, but it doesn't work. What I really want is to be healthy. I can't choose health per se. I choose means things, processes, and so on. In the case of social life, it's processes that we choose, laws, rules, principles, and institutions. We should pick those that we have good reason to believe will lead to the outcomes that we want because we can't choose the outcomes directly. So another simple example, take world peace. I fervently want that, so I'm going to go pray and chant and dance of peace, dance and so on. Those things don't work. What does work is creating institutions that make war less likely.
They are democracy and freedom of trade. Free trade is such an important cause to me, not only because it makes people wealthier and it lifts poor countries into middle-class prosperity and beyond, but it also is robustly inversely correlated with violence. Countries where there's trade across the border are much less likely to go to war. And this has been known for a long time. The great liberals in Europe and France and Germany fervently worked for free trade between the countries because they wanted to reduce the likelihood of war. John Prince Smith, who is an economist and a member of the German parliament in the 19th century put it neatly. He said, “If only we could come to see every foreigner as a potential customer, we would be less likely to shoot them a very clear principle.” And now the contemporary political scientists have established the relationship very clearly.
So Eric Ky [?] from the University of California, San Diego and Patrick McDonald, gosh, I think that's the name, wrote a book on the free trade piece from Cambridge University Press. There's a very clear connection between freedom to trade and peace. If you want peace, support, free trade, merely going out and having a peace rally is not as good in the long run as supporting freedom of trade in the short run. Of course, if your government is engaging in warlike activities, you demonstrate to get them to stop. But over the longer term, if you want peace to be more likely, you have to be a radical free trade advocate.
Juliette Sellgren (37:03)
How do you apply this, these ideas and this understanding of actually what the causal relationships are when you are fighting for freedom? I mean, on a very practical level, how do you achieve that? What works doesn't? It's a big question.
Tom Palmer (37:27)
Well, I have a few books here. I just got 5,700 kilograms of books delivered to my library. So I've been shelving them a little bit. And here's another thing I would share with younger people that people have laughed at me and teased me about this for decades. I always carry books with me, always. I don't go out of my hotel room, apartment, house, tent, anything, if I don't have a book.
Juliette Sellgren
How many books? Like one book?
Tom Palmer (38:03)
At least one, one that I'm reading, sometimes I do carry a couple.
Now with Kindle you can carry hundreds of them, but I still like old-fashioned books because I write in them with pencil, not pen. I decided not to because years ago I wrote in pen and you write stupid things you're embarrassed about later. But I do write in books. I think it's very important. They're tools. They're not sacred things unless it's a 400 year old book, but you should write in them and make notes and identifying important things and compare page 62 with what was said on page 37 and so on. But you should always be learning. And so in the course of my life, I've read many hundreds more books because I always carry a book with me when I'm in the grocery line or waiting someplace or stuck because a flight is delayed. I have something to do, I read and I try to keep my mind active and to learn more.
The second thing though is to connect with people who are willing to work for freedom. And there are champions in every country, people who don't want to continue living under totalitarianism. So when I was in communist countries, I would make a point of going places and trying to meet people. I go to universities and just ask, have you heard about the ideas of these thinkers and about liberalism and Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek or Mary Wollstonecraft or whomever?
And then helping them to then articulate these ideas to their peers and initially underground and with illegal publications. But then now we have the internet and you could do websites and all kinds of things. And this is a very important way to spread the ideas so that they're on the shelf as something that people will have available to them when there's an opportunity for some kind of change.
So that's, I'll mention one of my favorite writers is a French writer, Frederic Bastiat. He is just a wonderful person. I wish I'd had a chance to meet him. He was so gentle and kind. He was humorous, but never mean to people. He used a lot of humor. He teased ideas, but again, not in a cruel way. And he got people to think things through clearly. He used quite rigorous and homely or homey at the same time. Logic to get people to think about how foolish restrictions on trade and restrictions on people's freedom really are. So bas works, what is seen and what is not seen.
(40:51)
His little essay of The Law, and very funny things like the petition of the Candlemakers, where the candlemakers have this urgent petition. We want to stop a foreign competition that's dumping in our market. And if we do this support the candle industry, there'll be more work for everyone. And it goes on about there'll be more jobs for the tallow makers and the wick makers, the people who transport the candles. And of course, this horrible competition that was dumping product illegally in the French market was the sun on. And he wanted them to have to board up all the windows in their houses so the sun wouldn't come in. It would create work for Candlemakers that'll be good for the economy. Well, he just pointed out what a dumb idea this is. And yet we hear those arguments all the time. The trade restrictions will make us better off.
We hear this from Donald Trump constantly. He's just stunningly uninformed, thoughtless and primitive when it comes to trade. And Bastiat explained these fallacies, but in such interesting, such easily accessible terms to one of my life missions has been to assist people in translating Bastiat into every language, every language that has a written form. So in Ukraine and Kiev, Swahili and Vietnamese and Ukrainian and Kurdish and Persian and so on, there are now Bastiat editions because I encourage people, I introduced them to Bastiat, and if they read Bastiat in English, we're in French. This is marvelous. How about getting it into your language as well, Turkish, and that helps people to understand the ideas of freedom in such simple accessible terms.
Juliette Sellgren (42:44)
I love that. Do you have a moment that you're proudest of in this lifelong fight? Is there a moment or a few that stand out in the advancement of freedom?
Tom Palmer
I can't think of anything. I try not to be a proud person as probably my parents, just being humble.
Juliette Sellgren
Is there something notable, maybe not that you're proud of, but that one might be proud?
Tom Palmer (43:33)
No, but I will mention something that makes me, I think different, many people, and it's an advantage that I have in this business. I'm not afraid of other people. And I realized that a long time ago, and many people are, and I don't blame them for it, I just have a different psychological makeup, but I'm just not afraid of them. And so I'm not foolish, but I go to places that most people would not go to- Afghanistan and Iraq and Ukraine and so on. And there are some people who go to those places like the firemen running into the building. It's not that they're stupid or foolish, it's that they have a different risk tolerance and a different attitude and that spread across the human population. So it's a good thing for us. There are some people who run into fires when they see them, but I don't think it'd be great if everybody was like that. So I don't blame people for having a different attitude, but just I realize that I'm don't fear other people in the way that most people I think do. I don't care about what they think about me.
And so I am able to do that. It's not something to be proud of. It's just a different psychological profile than most people. Let me mention one other thing because there are people whom I greatly admire who did not put themselves into physical danger, but showed courage of their convictions.
And sometimes these are people who work at a desk, they work on a computer and so on. But to have the courage to express their thoughts clearly and in a courageous way and to be unafraid and unafraid of consequences of offending powerful people. So it's not just a matter of risk to your person, but the courage of people who just speak out. And that can be sometimes someone who might be even physically unable to travel, so someone might be disabled for example, but has that voice, that courage. And I admire people who call it like it is. And I think that their models of what a good citizen is. There's another question that you have suggested we might want to talk about. Something that I've learned to appreciate more as I got older that I changed my opinion about.
And that is the importance of virtue, not only in the maintenance of a good life, but in a good society. And it used to be when I was very young, you heard about the American founders that talked about the virtue and republicanism, I didn't quite get it. I understood a constitutional order and checks and balances and trying to make the constitution like a machine. So these parts would check each other to keep anyone from getting too much power. And there's something to that, but it's not all the picture. And it's why Madison and Washington and others talk so much about virtue. And I've come to understand how important that is in the free society is to have the courage to do the right thing. And we saw that, let's take, when President Trump attempted a coup d’etat and the overthrow of the American constitution, he wanted to be a dictator.
(47:28)
This is his goal now. It's all he cares about is himself and his power and vain glory and domination. And he tried to steal the election in 2020. He sent rioters to attack and kill people. And one of them who is on video saying, “kill them, kill them,” is now a high official in the Department of Justice. These people have no virtue, but there were some who did. I don't agree with Vice President Mike Pence on everything by any means. But when it came down to it, he did the right thing and he did it because it was the right thing to do because he was required by the law to do that. And he knew it and he refused to go along with Trump's coup d’etat. I admire Mr. Pence for that. Secretary of State, Brad Ensberg from Georgia. Again politically we're somewhat different worlds, but I admire him, I respect him.
He had the virtue, the internal sense of what is right and what is wrong and the courage to do what is right. When President Trump threatened him that telephone call is like a mafia call. It's full of threats. And he said, all I'm saying is I'm asking you to find the votes for me as they falsify the election by which Mr. Trump should be in prison today. And Secretary of State Berger who supported Mr. Trump for president. He said, you lost, we counted, and we counted again, and we counted again, and you lost. He would not lie for him. That virtue saved our republic at least for a few years.
And you cannot have a free society if you do not have at least a sufficient number of people. With that civic virtue, the understanding of the law and the importance of the rule of law and not of men, not the rule of will, power, domination, violence, vain glory, which is what we're seeing on display right now, but the rule of law exemplified in the constitution of United States, the word for office, you hold office that's been corrupted into contemporary English. You would think it means power. It doesn't. It comes from the Latin word for duty to have a duty to hold offices, to hold a duty. And we need to reinvigorate this notion of the virtue of a citizen in a republic. And that is something I've come to appreciate more and more as a foundation for the ability to live together freely, is to embrace and internalize the virtues of a good person, but also politically the virtues of a good citizen.
Juliette Sellgren
Once again, I'd like to thank my guests for their time and insight. I'd also like to thank you for listening to the Great Antidote Podcast. It means a lot. The Great Antidote is sound engineered by Rich Goyette. If you have any questions, any guests or topic recommendations, please feel free to reach out to me at greatantidote@libertyfund.org. Thank you.