 Hello, unmute yourself. Turn on your video if you can. Is that better? I hear you. Awesome. Who's this Tommy? Yeah, this is Tommy. All right. What's going on? Well, yeah, so just generally wondering about so IP thing. And just trying to understand it practically, whether or how it would apply and say my life. Are you are you a libertarian? No, I guess. I definitely like the philosophy. But to me, it's more like Christianity and sense of like it's a good rule to follow but I'm just trying to get. So do you are you do you favor property rights and free markets and capitalism, basically the general thing. Yeah, yeah, definitely, definitely and but within that trying to understand. Yeah, I'm just trying to I'm just trying to see what you what you believe so I can go from those shared shared ideas. So if you're in favor of so I guess as a normal person and as a Western or you're in favor of. Daddy. Hello. You're in favor of innovation, prosperity, freedom, free markets, competition, capitalism. All that right. Yes. So, hold on a second. All right. So the idea, the idea is that what you want is you want to have a system where private property rights are are are defined and respected widely in society. So everyone gets to keep and use their property, right, and that includes their body, which is self ownership and other things in the world. Okay, and the other things in the world are all these scarce resources out there that we need to use to live, like land and food and, and other resources right. Yes, sir. So you have that property. That's not me. I don't know what's going on there. So you have to. You have to. So you have property rights is what defines who owns these resources. Okay. So every every political system out there has an answer to the question, who owns a given resource that's in dispute right like a factory or your car, or your house, or your body. So if your body is in question, the answer is you own your body. Okay, so that's who we don't believe in slavery. So for other things, we have basically two. Okay, I'm going to ban this guy. He left. Okay, so you have two basic simple rules. One is homesteading, which is the first person who uses something that's unowned in the world is the owner of it. Okay. And then the second rule is contract like if you if an owner of that thing gives it to someone else, then now they're the owner. So that's basically all of private law can be worked out from those principles. So whenever there's a dispute over resource you simply ask, who had it first, and did you get it from someone who owned it by contract. Okay. You with me. Yeah, I'm with you there so far, but I can see how my question of IP kind of falls into that first part though, as far as homesteading and the work you put into something. No, it's not about work. It's not about work and it's not about. It's about scarce resources that's things in the world that we can have a conflict over because the whole purpose of property rights is to let you have security and using a resource without someone taking it from you. And they can only take it by physical force, and you need to use physical control over it to use it. I don't necessarily agree with that though. Again in the premise that I kind of put out up there on Twitter as far as you know, whether you still the welder out of the back of my truck or the plan for cold fusion out of the my safe that I spent 10 years and my resources and savings on to come up with that to me I don't see a practical difference in the damage you're doing to me. There's, there's not, there's not that's why that's why you can't steal, you can't go into someone's house and steal something from their safe, but that's not intellectual property that's just property rights. You are safe you own the paper people people don't have the right to come into your house and use it. Do you need for the price of the paper that you stole or for the information and the profits, you're able to generate off that information for the for the latter for the greater number. That's how the law works and that's how the law should work. But that's okay. Okay, well then maybe I'm just ignorant on IP then, which I could be like, so I don't, I don't know if you read through the back and forth I was having the list the other guy on Twitter toad or something. I saw some of it. I saw some of it. Look, I think what he said was there's no right to a profit and he's right about that. But that's not my point, like, just because there's no guarantee to profit doesn't mean there can't be damages. Correct. Like, I'm not guaranteed, but if I could show that you damaged me in a way, correct, you know, one doesn't get the other. Yeah, your instincts are right, your instincts are right but the reason you brought the question up. The reason you brought the question up in a discussion about IP is because there's a natural assumption. There's a natural argument people make where if you admit that you get damages for the value of what's written on the paper, then you're conceding the case for intellectual property because you're saying well information is valuable therefore it's property. But that's the that's the false step and you're not necessarily making this step but that's why I'm quick to say. There's a property right in the paper, and you can have a right to claim damages based upon what was on the paper. If someone stole it from your house, because that's how consequential damages work in a lawsuit. So we're just arguing about semantics at this point, whether it's not semantics, I just want to be clear that granting that you can have damages for a tort based upon the value of the thing that implies intellectual property so it's not semantics is saying that you still can't have patent or copyright law, but you can have property law how would you how would you classify the information on that piece of paper that was stolen for me. If not by just saying IP. Why would you classify that to to claim judgment on someone you wouldn't you don't have to classify it all you have to do is you have to say that in the real world, the reason people don't want their property taken is because it has value to them. It has value to them because of its unique properties. So, you know, suppose I have a paperback book, which is only worth, you know, only costs $10, but my grandmother gave it to me, and she's dead. And so I value that book a lot. So I subjectively value that book I don't want someone to steal it from me so I have it in my house, protected from thieves for that reason so someone breaks into my house and takes it from me. I've taken a book that I value for my own personal reasons. So they've harmed me more than if they just took another book, which was just a cheap book you can replace easily from the supermarket. Yeah, but that value is subjective versus correct. But that's like my business. Right. Well, no. No, in Austrian economics, in Austrian economics, all value is subjective. It's a subjective value. But if someone becomes a criminal. Explain that a little more. I have a hard time understanding the different. Oh, I'm sorry. Objective versus when like I can prove say, hey, I was making X profit. They stole this information and my profit dropped by half that it seems objective to me. But maybe I'm just misunderstanding your. You're right. You're right in sensing, but you're sensing a problem and the problem is that value is subjective. But the other problem is that when there's an act of crime or a tort. Someone's rights have violated and it's literally impossible to make them to undo the crime. You can't undo the offense that you committed against them. So all you can do is an imperfect remedy to try to make them whole as best you can. Right. So like if someone murders your, your wife. If they pay you $5 million that doesn't make you whole. But what else can they do. They can't bring her back to life. So all you can do in those situations because the criminal has put you in a position where you have a set of imperfect remedies in front of you. So if someone harms someone in your family or harms you, you can't undo what they did to you. But what you can do is you can do something. So you could punish them. You could forgive them. You could enslave them and make them work it off. You could make them do something to get forgiveness. You can make them pay you money. There's lots of things you could do. And in my view, the law should give utter, should give maximum flexibility to the victim to craft the remedy that he thinks best satisfies him. Knowing that none of those, yeah, the victim should be able to choose whether the victim wants to forgive the guy or, or punish the guy or have the guy pay him money. But if you ask for money, it's got to be according to some reasonable standard. It can't just be totally open ended. So all we can do is say, okay, fair market value, which is an imperfect standard, but there's nothing else you can do. So, so the paper if someone steals your secret from your safe, if it's a blank piece of paper they've only harmed you a tiny amount because you're, you can easily go replace that paper with $10 or $1 right. But if they take paper with a secret formula and they broadcast it to the world and that harms the business opportunities you would have had by keeping it secret. Then they cause you millions of dollars of damage and then they owe you a higher amount because the consequences of their tort was greater to you. So they have to do as best they can to make you whole. So that's why the damages will be higher in the case where they, when they took something. Yeah, I understand. Yeah, I understand that. I'm still kind of just lost on why the classification of the theft of paper with information on it wouldn't be classified as IP versus just you're saying just like we would want to practically look at damages. Because, because, because IP means that IP means. Maybe I misunderstand IP and that's IP. I think in the case you're giving you probably copy, you probably be copyright. Okay, so. So in the case of copyright, if you own the formula on that paper. If someone copies it, even if you make it public, you can stop them from copying it, but they haven't committed. They haven't broken into your house and done anything wrong. So the question of damages only comes up when someone has done something wrong to you. If they copy information you gave them, they're not doing anything wrong. And when you publish a book, you're giving information to the world you're making it public. Right, you can keep you can keep something secret but if you make it public you can't complain that people learn from it and use it. Right, let me give you another example suppose you come up with, if you come up with a better mouse trap. Well, you can keep it secret, and you can make a mouse trap for yourself and catch mice better than other people. But if you want to make money from it, you need to sell it so you're going to make, you're going to make 10,000 copies of it you're going to sell it on the free market. And when you sell it people are going to see what you did and they're going to learn from that. And you might have competitors start implementing your innovative designs in their mouse traps, because you told them how to do it. Yeah, for sure, but that's that's different than likely the scenario that I laid out as far as like a secret scenario. It is. It is different. Yeah, yeah. That's why the scenario you laid out can be handled by regular contract and property principles, but you don't need intellectual property to handle that and that's that's why it doesn't imply that. See a lot of people try to say that well, if you deny intellectual property you're saying the value is not worth that information is not worth anything. But you just admitted information is worth something because you say the damages are greater in the case case of theft. Does that does that help clear it up a little. That clears it up a lot actually. Thank you. Hey, is that Orlando or Tommy? That wasn't me. Yeah, it wasn't me. Okay, that's Orlando. It's funny, I guess I'm learning something you don't let people in if they're going to. Yeah, I'm actually going to learn though I'm actually going to learn the smart asses. I mean, I'm kind of a smart, you know, like, but it's, I mean, it's fine like what big. All right. Are you still there sir. I'm still here, go ahead. If anyone else, if you have more questions go ahead or if anyone else has questions, go ahead. I guess I just need to read up on my understanding, get a better understanding of IP that because it seems like we both are in agreement that there's damages. And the disagreement is whether the damages come about from IP versus just I don't know how to classify the other way they might be but stolen information. The reason the guy said the reason I said responded you said you don't have a right to a profit is because So let's suppose you start a pizza restaurant and you're expecting profit from the customers and if someone else starts competing with you. If someone starts competing with you, you're going to make less profit than you expected. Yeah, but that doesn't apply to my the scenario that I laid out and that profits are guaranteed but this is main damages can occur. This was my reply to him. Yeah. So, I'm glad that we both agree that in that scenario that damages have occurred because to me he was trying to argue that there were no damages because IP or whatever you want to call it didn't exist and he might be concerned that if you say that if you say that there's damages for what's on the paper this would this could be used by intellectual property advocates to say well there's right to a profit or there's a right to the information. So, yeah, they're afraid they're afraid of where people are going to take that concession, but that's why I try to make a lot of careful distinction so that you can distinguish one case from the other. Fair enough. And so that article that you link to not the commie inside one but the your personal article that kind of go more into detail. That's not that's not commie inside that's just a graphic that was come from it if you click on it. There's an article about why harm. Like, like harm itself is not the standard for a tort. The standard for a tort has to be physical invasion. That is the physical violating the physical integrity of someone's property, but once you do that. Then they have to pay you some kind of restitution or damages, and the only way to figure that out is to ask, Well, what are the consequences to the victim of what I did. And that can, that can, that can differ depending upon the nature of the thing done to them. So if I take a blank piece of paper from you. It only hurts you so much if I take, you know, your private notebook with your secret formula in it. That hurts you in a different way. So you can take the nature of the of the tort into account when you formulate the damages that are owed. But yeah, but the article of yours that you said you written in 1996 or something like that. Oh, that that one's about that one's about about what our rights are and what rights we have to respond to to an aggressor when they can when they violate your rights. In that article I try to explain that the victim has the right to choose between as many possible options as he can to make him whole because value subjective. So one person. I mean let's let's say a woman is sexually assaulted. You know, she might want to rape the have the guy raped back. She might want vindictive she may want retribution. But she also might want to have nothing to do with something like that she might want to have the guy punished in jail, or she might want the guy to just pay her money, or she might want the guy to issue a public apology. So whatever she wants the best satisfies her is what she should be able to get within the bounds of proportionality. So that's what I argue in that paper. Okay. Yeah. Anyone else want to want to talk Nolan or Ed. Do you have questions for you. Why don't you go first Nolan, and then, if you have a question, you hear me okay. You're a little muddy, but try to make it out. So, I was reading your article earlier I think it was from like 2007 this doesn't, is it okay do you want to stay on topic of intellectual property can I ask you something else. I don't care anything's fine. So you're talking about the blocky and proviso or proviso or however you pronounce that but with his whole for stalling thing. I don't think that I don't I'm not really a big fan of his whole for stalling thing I don't think it makes a kind of sense is do you have any ethical justification as to why you know, the buying out a bunch of land around somebody, some abandoned land within it is wrong or do you just think that I think that wouldn't happen just for economical issues like that doesn't make any sense why and I would see like contract to make that not the case. Yeah, you're so you're silenting a little but I think I got you talking about Walter block or Frank van done I think it's Walter block right. Yeah, Walter block with the donut problem. Yeah, I've got a whole article or blog post disagreeing with Walter on that point so I go into in detail into why disagree with one that but yeah I agree with you first of all economically it's not a practically it's not a problem. For the same reason that it's not a problem to have one monopolies buy up the whole world, or to have someone you know on the whole country. Those just aren't, they're not going to realistically arise. And. Yeah, I think Walter's reasoning is just not, it just doesn't follow I think he has some kind of idea that just as nature abhors a vacuum libertarian theory abhors unknown property or something like that. I don't know what kind of argument that's supposed to be it's argument from metaphors like libertarian is not based upon what the theory abhors, I mean it's just not an argument. So, if you if you own a donut shaped ring of property and people are not able to get to the inside and homestead it. That's not a crime against libertarian theory only crimes can only be committed against other people number one. So, the only person you could be committing a crime against of that center part of the donut is the owner of it. By definition, by definition, there's no owner so there's no one that you could be committing a crime against. And what I would say actually is that if you have some kind of hermetically sealed situation like that where the interior of this donut, you've totally encircled it so no so that no one else can ever reach it. Then you've effectively homestead it yourself you are the owner of it. That's what I would say, because ownership is actually setting up borders, or in bordering something, or boundaries. And that's what you've done you've encircled something you put a fence around it basically. So, I think the hypothetical just weird. There is no, there's no, there's no, now, if you're not using it someone can helicopter over it and go there and get it, then they can homestead it that way, which is why it's not really even a problem. There's no owner a that owns the donut hole, and then some owner be, you know, bought all around that whole say and above it and below it and they physically can't get out. Do you see any ethical issue with that. Sure. And in fact I put in the in my response I went to the civil law articles in the in the civil law codes. And I think the common law deals with this too there are practical solutions that have already been worked out and that they're roughly libertarian, compatible as far as I can tell so what, like what the civil law says is that if you own a plot of land, and you allow it, you allow yourself to be encircled by people so so let's say that you, you're, you're totally enclosed except for one, one driveway that lets you get out. And then you sell that land to someone else. Well you've done it to yourself. So you can't complain now I need a right of way to get out. But the law says that if, if other people in totally encircle you. I think there's some provision where you have to be given the most convenient or easiest right of way to get to the next road or something like that so. No, I don't know if it's in all states but I'm just saying as an example of what the law says law is what you're referring to. Yeah, and we have it but yeah. Well, we see I'm from Louisiana so I was going with the Louisiana Civil Code I know I know how they deal with it, and their solution seems roughly reasonable to me. But I think in practice, it would be like, it's the same argument the Walter block is good on this like he's good on on road should not be public, and you don't need him a domain to make roads. You can have private roads and people say well how am I going to get to the store. And the answer is well, if someone's going to build a store they're going to make sure people can get to you. So there's an incentive for for businesses to make sure by buying up rights of where whatever they have to do. People want to want to want to want to want to move around they want to commute. I get the practical argument of it that of course this isn't going to happen people are going to contract that you know you're not surrounded by stuff all around you that doesn't make any sense. But the question was more so. Yeah, I get was what you were saying that the contracts that you could potentially sign up for sign with follow in theory or is it that the axioms produced by Libertarian theory lead you to some certain that that would be wrong like Walter block he tries to say that you can't prevent somebody from getting somebody else because you know, based on some driven derision from property rights, do you have that same thing some other reasoning or no. No, in fact I think that I think it's confused, because, you know if you look at the earth as a spherical surface. You know if you draw a ring on it, then there's an inside there's an outside but really there's no difference between the inside and the outside I mean, you could say that that if I have a doughnut I'm preventing people in the outside from getting to that side of it, you know, or really with the arguments getting at is the is the kind of leftist left Libertarian concern with with property right in land, and there's some concerns they have that are not completely wrong. So, and like Hans Hermann Hoppe who's in who's a very strict kind of right Libertarian. He argues and I agree with them that property rights can be formed number one in groups, and they can be formed in less than full ownership of a resource so for example, if you have a group of people in a town. And they they have a regular path they used to get down to the river, then they homestead a right of way a bright of passage over that over that path. And so, if you were to put up a wall and prevent them from using that path, then you're violating the property right that they've gathered over time. So, what you could argue is that the enclosure movement in England, where you had peasants and farmers who could roam the land and hunt. Okay, but then people also had a house there, and then all of a sudden they put up walls, preventing people from crossing violates the property rights of these farmers and I'm sorry the hunters, because they previously had a right of a land for that purpose and I believe in some countries like Italy, they explicitly recognize that that like, even if you have a house and you own the land, you can't stop hunters from using it from pre pre existing usage rights. So this way rights can write your own. I believe is what you're trying to. I think it's something like that is right to roam and also the right to hunt. In fact, there's something like this in the everyone talks about the Magna Carta but there was a previous agreement that kind of goes along with it called the forest charter, which, which recognize the rights of these hunters to hunt in the woods. And like if the Kingsman came they had to blow a horn to warn everyone they're there. So they sort of recognize this so there is something to the fact that establishing rigid property rights in land, all of a sudden, can can eject people from their homes and roaming rights. And that should be respected of course, but that's because of property rights. Homesteaded that property, and then the other people who we say built a wall or, you know infringing on that home, it would basically be their property sense right is that the argument. It's just, it's just not, it's not complete property over the land but the right to use it in certain ways, which is called an easement or use a fruct or right of way in the law. Another example would be the issue of pollution. If I go into the wilderness and start a factory, and I'm polluting. Well I own the land that my factories on, but I also have homesteaded a right to pollute for a given region around there. So if someone then moves next to me they can't complain that I'm polluting on their land because they, they came to it. So they started owning their land subject to my easement to pollute over their land. But on the other hand, if we're neighbors and you start polluting. Now you are violating my rights because you're polluting onto my land because I, I was there before. So it depends on who had it first. Yeah, it's the same as the report. Right. It's roughly compatible for what was brought forward argues in his air pollution article and Kato 1982. I've got a couple more questions but if somebody else wants to ask something. I wouldn't mind jumping back to the original topic real quick, just go ahead. I kind of agree that damages occurred by scenario laid out. Is it a misunderstanding on my part of IP, or is a misunderstanding on libertarian theory and how you would classify that scenario that I need to look more into. I'm not sure you have a misunderstanding I think you're correct that if someone steals a valuable informational document from you that they owe you some kind of damages based upon the nature of that document. My first gut reaction would be because of IP, but you're saying that's not IP so is it my misunderstanding of the definition of IP versus. Yeah, I like libertarian theory that I just ignore it on. Yes, sure. It's your misunderstanding by P because, because, I mean, let's suppose there's no, there's no copyright, and there's no copyright law at all. Okay, so that's where I was kind of, because we're me and the other guy we're talking about in Capstan right like maybe there might be some copyright law or whatever but like I was just thinking about like a man that put his work and savings into something. And then some other man stole it from me like to tell me that I don't have. I think your right to react is absurd. What you're what you're doing is you're assuming that that's in that case of IP because you've heard so many times that IP rights or intellectual property is simply a property right in the value of information. So all you see is in this case, well he stole something that information on it was valuable to me and I got an award at the end just so that's a case of IP, but it's not because because that the example you gave and that I agree with you on would apply even if I don't think such thing is copyright because if you broke into my house and you stole my paper, then I could get damages from you just because of the physical act of of of trespass. It wouldn't have anything to do with IP. And IP would apply to people that copy the information, even when they don't trespass to do it. So if you make it public by publishing a novel, and someone copies it, they're not breaking into your house to take your book. They're reading the book that you gave them to read. Fair enough. Yeah, I give the difference. So it like if you tell your priest or your accountant or your lawyer, a secret, they're supposed to keep it private because of the confidential nature of the information and your relationship with them and if they divulge it. You can sue them for breach of contract right because they breach the relationship between you. But if you make the information public to the world, who are you going to sue for using it because you told them is no longer private information. Yeah, I understand that smear for sure. You know, like if you if you tell, if you tell your priest that you're that you're gay. And he, and no one knows it and he reveals it to the world, it could injure you like let's say you're a famous actor or something and you're your Tom Cruise or something, you know, and you know you can't act anymore. So you can sue him for consumer damages. But if you, if you get drunk at a bar one night and you start telling all the guys in the room, the truth. If the word spreads that you're gay, then it's not private information. So, so, so just my misunderstanding as a definition of IPA, because of the law you have what the law is and how copyright and pet work is just because it is hard to understand so yeah it's just your misunderstanding what those laws are. But it's also partly the fault of the intellectual property advocates because they're dishonest. So what they do is they run around misdescribing the way it works, and they misdescribe, and they dishonestly portray my arguments people like me. And so it confuses people like you so what they say is, well if you're against intellectual property you must be for plagiarism, or if you're against an ultra property you must be for fraud, or if you're against an ultra property, then there's no difference between stealing a blank piece of paper and stealing my secret notebook. See, and they're wrong, they're wrong about all these things, but it clouds the water and so people like you who are just trying to figure it out get confused which is totally understandable. Try to just sum this all up the scenario laid out like we don't classify as IP, you just classify that as what type of theft. Well, so necessarily this is a theft not to be defined just the damages need to be defined in that scenario. Yeah, yeah and so when someone breaks into your home and steal something from your computer or you're safe. They are not committing an active copyright infringement and they're not committing an active patent infringement. In fact, they can't be committing a patent infringement because patents are public so this is presumably private information. So they're not committing copyright infringement they're committing, they're committing trespass or conversion or theft. So it's just not so it all. But the information itself, you wouldn't classify as IP. It just. So, this is not a term for it I guess with them. This is the problem with people that are sloppy with language so for example, people say that with that. No, I'm not I'm not blaming you for it I'm saying that when people aren't precise with terms it leads to confusion and equivocation. So for example people say they own Bitcoin. But what they really mean is they, they have the right ability to control it, but ownership and control or possession or distinct distinct concepts in the law and in political theory. And likewise, intellectual property refers to laws like patent and copyright law that try to protect people from the effects of other people copying or using their information. So intellectual property refers to a law, but people use it in a sloppy way to refer to information. They'll say they'll say something like, like, if I have my understanding was an idea versus. Yeah, so they will stand in their guests. They're using, they're using the word IP, which should refer to the law or to the legal right they're using to refer to the thing that the legal right tries to protect. So they'll say that they'll say that you'll even hear people say like, I have a business and like someone wanting to invest in it say well what's your IP you say well my IP is how I make lasers. When they use IP, they just mean their their secret information, or the other way they do things. There's special sauce they call it sometimes, but IP really means legal rights the patent and copyright laws. But even like the person that made lasers they could have their employees sign a NDA or some sort of NDA would be the correct term but something to it. Yeah. Well, and that's actually implied by the by the employment agreement even if you don't sign an employment agreement or non disclosure agreement. There's an there's an implied obligation of confidentiality just like if you confess something to your priest or your doctor. They're supposed to keep that private, but usually they have an explicit written agreement preventing them from doing that and that has to do with trade secrets and contract law not with patent or copyright law. And that's confusing, but that's because IP law is confusing. Okay. And that's why the proponents of it get away with their arguments because they just. Oh, someone puts the screen share hold on a second. All right who's Chris. What Chris wants to share something Chris can you unmute for a second, because I'm afraid you want to share something as a prank. Yeah, he left. He asked me 10 times please give me permission I want to show something. Yeah, I have an idea what he wanted to show. And people bother we do the same thing with the word property. Like you'll say that car is my property, but technically speaking the car is not your property. But technically speaking you have a property right in the car. The car is an object that you have an ownership right in or a property right in, but over time people get sloppy and they'll say the car is my property. But technically speaking that's not correct the car is is a resource that you own. No Chris wants back in our. Does that make sense. Yeah, definitely. You're just jumping into as far as property versus an object that you have a property claim on. That's definitely deeper than I, my ignorance had known about before but it makes sense. Yeah. And I can see how people have used the term IP to kind of misca-chew it to. Typically because we have IP we have an ultra property law and so in today's economy and today's society, if you have a business and you have valuable. Your business model is based upon say publishing books or selling software or artwork or movies or audio, or you have if you have inventions which could be patented. Typically you would, you would cover the artistic works with copyright and you would cover the inventions with patents. And so these, these, these, these, these creative aspects of your business would be covered with IP so people tend to start referring to them as what's your IP. But like in a libertarian society, you can still have a version of IP and they've already decided to sell books within a market. They weren't, they all decided they weren't. Well, you could do that but it wouldn't be IP if that would just be contracts between certain people. I'm sorry, but Steven can sell his live right now on zoom. Yeah. Hey guys. Anyone can talk as long as you're not a prankster. I'm sorry I forgot what I was saying. You guys can turn your videos on if you want my videos on no one's got their video on. Yeah. I don't care. I'm just in the middle of the night. That's fine. I'm going to Florida. All right. What you were talking about was the difference it wouldn't be IP or it should be contract or as far as correct so so when you say IP. It's a property and property rights in the law was called in REM, which means, as opposed to in person REM means a real thing arrest a real thing. That's why we say real for real property, which means it's a right good against the world. So for example, if you own a car or a house, you don't have to have a contract with everyone in the world for it to be for it to be illegal for them to break into your house. It's a property right good against everyone, even if they don't agree. So it's an in REM right or a property right is it's a right that you have against everyone against the whole world, but a contract right is only between people that have the contract. So it's just between a and B. So it was a bind C. Excuse my ignorance here but like you're explaining the term of real. Is that why it's called real estate versus. Yep, exactly. Yeah, because the Latin word Latin word rest or yes is in there which means a real thing, or it means, it means an object or physical thing. So rest arrest is a thing and the word re goes into real like realtor someone who sells property real proper land is a real Yeah, realty we have realty and personality. Cool. And in the civil law that would be called corporeal corporeal having a body like corp corpus like KBS corpus or like a corpse, like a corpse. So it's called corporeal. And then things that are not real are intangible or incorporeal incorporeal. In libertarian law there's no such thing as rights in the corporeal because all rights are enforceable by physical force and physical force can only be applied to real physical things. I wouldn't say that's why. Okay, what do you think because you need to apply the force to the person who's physical I'll say because it's intangible then it is not real. You have more than one right like the thing is the property rights over things because they are, they're scribbled right like I'm going to have the same thing as you have the same time. It is tangible, but if it is not, then we can. So that's why we need property rights over tangible things or scarce resources. Yeah, but all these, all these, yeah all these things have to apply force to me, not a thing. So it doesn't matter if you're going to apply force to the thing. Yeah, ultimately you're right it's about people's bodies but, but when we when we act in the real world, we're human actors and we have our bodies which we control and we use those bodies to intervene in the state of affairs in the world by employing what needs is called scarce means. Okay, so a scarce means is something that can help you intervene causally in the world and because the world causally is the world of physical things. These are all basically tools or resources that we grapple with and we control physically. And those are the things that you can have conflict over you can have a group. Yeah, I agree with that. I'm just saying, I didn't think that's why I'll say it's because you need the resources to be scarce. What I'm getting at is that it's literally impossible to have a property right in information. Yeah, it's not it's not that the law is unjust is that the law is impossible. Because every all rights are property rights and all property rights are rights to control scarce resources that are physical material things. Okay, which means that when you have an intellectual property law, it's not really the ways described is as a right over ideas or information, but that's actually not true that's not what the law really is. Okay, it's sort of like when people say, we have wars fought over religion. We really have wars fought over religion. What they mean is that religion is the reason that people fight, but when they fight they fight over scarce things, like when they fight they physically kill each other's bodies and try to take each other's cattle and land and animals and women, you know, it's always physical things. But the reason they do it is because of religion because of a disagreement. So they're confusing the motive for doing something with what the with what the action is. And likewise in the law, when there is a right when there's a and there's always a right that's a correlative of any law. The law is always aimed at assigning an owner some person is the owner of some resource that can be could be there could be conflict over. So in intellectual property law, it's not really assigning property rights and ideas. It's assigning property rights in scarce resources. So copyright basically gives a property right in someone else over my printing press. And the excuses that they're taking my ideas, but that's just the motivation for the law or the justification for the law, but the law actually is a reassignment of property rights in scarce resources. And that's why all IP is theft because it takes people's property from the natural owner and gives it to someone else who didn't contract for it. Hey, Stephen. I'm gonna have to jump out. I did definitely want to thank you for your time. You're welcome. If you're still on here in a minute. Thank you. Sure. Sure. So I have a question for you. Have you ever thought of making a guess against IP from recommendation ethics. Some saying, oh, you're going to argue against the free flow of ideas because they'll be conflicting yourself. Oh, that's interesting. By the way, I messaged you because I'm working on a paper with Professor Bagus with Philip. Okay. Yeah, so I'm developing this idea on the paper. It is contrary to go against the free flow of ideas while you're arguing because you're making an argument against acting upon what you've learned before. I have to think about it. I'm sympathetic to it. I'm just not sure if you could make that rigorously. I mean, I'm trying. I mean, I do think that a presupposition of argumentation would be the natural assignment of property rights in scarce resources, which would be homesteading and contract. And IP violates that rule. So that'd be the more direct route I would take. But there is something. At least hypocritical about using ideas freely and then saying people can't use them freely. And you could also make a similar argument. You could say that everyone necessarily uses information that others have come up with without their permission. Because you can't even communicate without without language. Exactly. You didn't invent the language. And if you have clothes and you ate food that sustained you to get there. You're using techniques of cooking and clothes making that other people came up with just to survive and to have the argument in the first place. And so, yeah, it'd be like saying up until today when I'm having this argument, there was no IP but starting now there's going to be IP. Yeah, it's hypocritical. Yeah, yeah. That's what I think too. Because I don't know. You never made that argument for. I think you're right. The thing is, the thing is, an ultra property is a flawed and wrong argument. So there's, I guess there's theoretically an infinite number of ways to disprove it. Because that's exactly what we're doing on the paper. We have the natural law case against IP, the argumentation ethic case and then the intelligence case. There's like, there's no way to end this thing. I just try to be careful in rigorously extending argumentation ethics because some people are too fast and loose with it like even Frank van Dunne who I like and admire who defended it very well. He, he makes some arguments that I think take it too far. Like I think you could use a version of argumentation ethics to make some ethical or moral arguments but they're not really about political norms anymore. So you could, you could make you could use argumentation ethics to make a case for the virtue of honesty, for example, because the goal of argumentation is to pursue truth, right, which is related to honesty. You could you could make an argument that you can't make a sincere argument for dishonesty because it's contrary to the, to the endeavor or the goal of argument which is to get at the truth. So, you know, so, but that's not really about political norms and forth that's just about ethical. So Frank van Dunne tries to argue that you can't, you can't, you can't fire. You can't say you can't fire your opponent's son if he works for your, for your company, because you can't say you better accept my argument, otherwise I'll fire your son from working for my company, because you're coercing him into accepting your argument from something other than the force of reason. So what's that supposed to prove that there are employment rights that you can't be fired. I mean so you got to be careful not to go too far with the argumentation or anything. I try to keep it strictly to the non aggression principle and property right stuff. But I think your, your, your extension to IP, like the ways we just discussed, could have some merit, if you're careful about it. I like it. Well, happy to do. I think I might have discussed you with with Philip. I think we talked briefly, a couple times by email in the last few months. Yeah. Yeah, he told me about it. He told me last night she meant to go. I don't remember when I missed you again, but I think you missed that. Because Philip told me to to show you the drive version of what we had. In case you wanted to also take part in it. I don't remember that but try to send it again I had. I had a big backlog of was it by email. Yeah. I had a I had a I had a big backlog of emails, and about every year or two on accident I archive my inbox instead of one of the other tabs, and then I've lost all my, all the email that was in my inbox, which I'm using as reminder so I that might be what happened I lost about 50 emails the other day. I didn't lose them but I archived them so I don't know what was waiting for me to get to so feel free to send it again. And it's can sell. Yeah. Yeah, can you hear me okay or worse out here. Hey Nolan, I can hear you. Okay. Hi. So I had another question not to do with intellectual property but just a quick thing. I've heard you argue about property rights to different angles for being you know the consequence list like we have property rights because it's the best way to, you know, or the public pretty much instead of you know everybody fighting over resources that they can't allocate. And then there's the also the argument of, I control myself. Therefore, I have the best claim to it because I control myself and nobody else controls me and then there's Rothbard's like okay all of these other possibilities don't exist and can't exist so they're the only possibility left is that you own yourself is there. First of all, what's the best argument that you use to convince other people. And then are all of these do you think perfectly valid or do you think one is better than another. I think they're to the extent of their sound they're all trying to get at the same insight. I think sometimes we have false false alternatives given to us with is it consequentialist or is it the ontological. I think those ways of framing it can be confusing. And even saying, we have rights that sort of thinking of them some kind of moral fact that is exists. I tend to think of rights as normative principles or normative rules that can be justified. You know, how do we justify them. I agree with the human idea that you cannot derive logically a normative or an odd statement from a pure descriptive or factory is statement. But you can derive them from from other odd statements or other norms or values that that either the community of people you're addressing all agree with or take for granted. That are undeniable, which is why I like argumentation ethics argumentation ethics shows you which base level values are basically unassailable and undeniable because everyone has to presuppose them by virtue of engaging in peaceful discourse. And so you proceed from those. So the way I think of property rights is is is the answer to a question. We all have a group of people that are engaged in discourse trying to find a set of rules to allow them to live together. Right. And then they're necessarily trying to find rules that can be justified with reason, and it could be accepted, potentially by everyone in the argument as fair, which means they have to be universalizable they can't be particularizable. It can be just, I get to hit you and you can't hit me. That's just not that's basically, if you fail to try to universalize, you're just not even engaging in argument you're just, you're just resorting you going back to my makes right and you're not trying to solve the problem of conflict. So property rights are just the practical answer to the problem of conflict how do we avoid conflict. So here we have property rights, what property rights do we have. Well they have to be property rights that are based upon some, some rule that that can be demonstrated as fair in a, in a discussion among the participants that the rule affects. And if you just go through the logic of it, especially because peace and mutual respect of each other's bodies is a presupposition of that argument. Then the only rules that can come out of that are the libertarian rules because everything else is a socialistic rule, which is incompatible with that. So the only rule you could, the only rule you could adopt would be number one self ownership because both people that are discussing presuppose control of their own bodies. And so they, neither one wants to give up control of his body. So if they, if they concede or they granted, or they claim that they have a right in their own body in a discussion with another person who's put, who's who's theoretically equal to them right that's where you're having a discussion because they're, they're intellectually and equal they're another actor, like you are. So you must believe that you have rights in your body for some reason, whatever that reason is, and unless you can point to it to a difference in the other person's nature. You have to concede that for whatever basis that you have the right to your body, they have to have it to. So if you grant property rights in yourself, which you must in an argument. You can't deny that the other person has rights in their body. So that's why self ownership comes out of that. For example, if I say that well slavery is natural, I get to own you and you don't get to own me. Well, never one that's particularistic but also, when I say I own you, I'm presupposing I own my own body because I have to be a self owner to own a slave. But if I'm a self owner, I'm a self owner for some reason. And all we know in abstract about me is that I'm a human actor. But the other guys are human actor too. So it doesn't make sense for me to say I have rights in my body because I'm a human actor. And then you don't have rights because you you're a human actor too so you should. So it's to me it's just a practical working out of all these concerns. And then you can go next to property rights, not really so much as an extension of the self ownership although hop up puts it that way, and his, in his book the theory of socialism capitalism. In chapter seven. He calls the body a prototype of property rights, which we can use to apply to external resources. But it's more that when you're having an argument someone as hop up recognizes it's a practical affair requiring survival of the people. And because we're not ghosts and we're not immortal robots. That means we need to act, we need to move around the world we need to employ resources. And you can engage in an argument which is a practical affair without conceding that we have to employ scarce resources because everyone is using scarce resources every moment that they're alive. So you have to concede that people have to be able to use scarce resources. If you're, if you're participating in argument, which means that you have to recognize that there has to be a first use of an unknown resource, which means we have to. The first use of something that's not being used has to be permissible. But if it's permissible, and if you oppose might makes right and possession as the is the primary thing, then, then the first user has to have a better claim than other people. Because if you didn't have a better claim than other people you wouldn't have property rights at all. Because property rights imply what Hoppe calls the prior later distinction it implies something special about having earlier use of something then someone coming later. Right that's what the entire search for property rights implies. The only thing that he opposes that prior is better than later, because the property right establishes who has it now and gets to keep it until he gives it to someone else by consent. So when you kind of put all these things together which are all basically undeniable in the context of a practical argumentation. The only thing that can pass that test that series of filters is the libertarian ethic, because everything else is incompatible with all those presuppositions and those presupposed ideas. Anyway, that's how I see it. So, oh yeah sure go ahead. As far as a libertarian ethic or goes. Can you recommend any authors will kind of put this in a blue collar way, because I've tried reading a few of them and it just from my upbringing of poverty. The, the issue I have with reading these guys is the act that only natural all I've ever witnessed or seen is force. And so libertarian philosophy sounds good and it's like it's something to live by. Yeah, that's actually like I said, that's a good question. I just can't to me like these guys I read like it's a hard time of it seems like there are libraries the whole life and never there. There are some I that I can I'll mention in a second. To get real precise on the terms like I'm talking now you would have to read like hoppa, and some of my stuff and some of Rothbard stuff. So get the basic gist and what gets you aiming in that direction I would say maybe the best thing would be reading a very short book written in 1850 I think by Frederick Bostia it's called the law. You're gonna say no treason. No, no, I definitely would not say I'm not a fan of sooner, to be honest. Like again like I get what he's getting at like that's halfway through and like dude. Now that's first of all that's very legalistic he's going with positive law of contract and all this stuff. I think he's kind of right in that thing but that's not about. No, I would read the law by Bastiat start with the law by Bastiat. Okay, it's online for free everywhere the law. All right, yeah, that's a really that's a really good place to start. It's common sense. It's, it's very readable. There's some others, but I would start with that. Cool, yeah. Definitely take your recommendation. Sorry, I had to cut in but the other guy. Yeah. No, it's not. So that just actually I can't bring the next question. That's why, why is might is right wrong. Because it can't be because it because it can't be argumentatively justified. See you can't argumentatively justify might makes right because to mount an argument you have to do it in a peaceful context of discourse of rational discourse. So you're already presupposing that might is not right because when you have a peaceful stance towards the other person you're respecting his property right in his body. So, you have to choose whether you're like if you're trying to persuade someone of your of your of your proposed norm or your claims to truth by giving evidence and reason and arguments. Are you willing to agree to disagree and let him walk away if he doesn't agree or are you coercing him. Like are you saying holding up a baseball bat and saying, Okay, here's what I'm saying admit that I'm right or I'm going to kill you. Okay, you can do that. But that's not genuine argument. You're not really trying to justify anything you're just trying to course someone does malding words, which you do. So it's just not possible. How do we obtain all this though. obtain what Libertarian society. Oh, that's a whole different that's a whole different question. Yeah. I'm sorry I don't want to deter. I always get to read about different, different libertarians have different answers. Some people say you have to spread the word and hope you can persuade enough people to become aware of libertarian principles. Some people think by having a libertarian party. Some people think by moving to New Hampshire. My answer is one that most libertarians don't like and that's wait to be a it wait. That's how you achieve it. Just because I'll prevail. Well, if it prevails, it will have to prevail on its own force and naturally it's not going to prevail because of the exhortations of a point point 3% of the population. And so it will, it will, it will come about on its own so all we can do is wait, maybe we can speed it up a little, but I doubt it. And then there's two answers one is wait and the other is by your own freedom. So if you're I mean to put it crudely if you're very wealthy and successful in a Western economy country you have a lot of freedom I mean what's the purpose of freedom is to let you do what you want in your life. Right. If imagine you're a billionaire, you can pretty much do what you want in your life right. So, you know it's like would you rather be a billionaire in 2021 in a semi free world, or would you rather be, you know, a poor guy on a desert island where you're totally free. You know, you can basically buy your freedom but to buy your freedom means you have to give up the activism and focus on a career, follow the rules of the status and do what they say. And a lot of libertarians are pretty much libertines or anti authoritarians and contrarians and stuff. I've heard that term and I'm just not to play with the space to know kind of heatness they care about partying and doing pot all the time and oh so legalize the drugs is what they care about kind of thing. Well we all believe we all believe in that but I'm just definitely definitely but that's where they come to I'm just saying that they they're what we call lifestyle libertarians so they they're they're impatient to get liberty now. Right, it's mine too. But I'm just saying I think the only high time preference libertarians. No, I don't blame them for being I don't blame them for being frustrated with not having liberty now they're right that's just that's just observing injustice and being rightly offended by it. I think what the problem is they're, they're self delusional they're they're they're not willing to be realistic. They don't want to grant that there's little we can do. Libertarian party types are really like this because they believe in democracy and all this stuff and if you say, I don't vote because you know what those if you say I don't vote because it doesn't make a difference. You know what they'll say they'll say the brainwash answer all the school kids have learned and from school house rock commercials, you know they'll say, well if everyone said that, you know, they just repeat these things they've heard over and over again because they don't want to. They don't want to admit that there's nothing you can do. But there is something you can do. You can, you can make your own life better despite the state, you can you can treat the state. Look, we live in a world where life is precarious and dangerous right there's there's disease there's shortages there's hunger. There's war, there's there's wild animals. And so we treat those as challenges that we have to overcome life is a struggle. So I just say it's better to classify the state as like a wild animal that is another thing you have to overcome in life. And if they tax you 50% of your income. Well, just make twice as much. So that you're still the same as you would have been without the taxes, you know, it's not fair that excuse me. You know, the Dave Smith and a couple people were just having a feud on, I think in our money is guys name. And I think they said something like just make more money. When they were arguing against taxes I didn't know if you were like purposefully referencing that. I know, I know, I know, I know Vin and Dave Smith I did. I'm not aware of this. Which side said what if you do. I think it was then our money and then a couple of other guys were talking about how horrible Dave Smith was or something like that. How, you know, in this super I know you went on like the little thing but then said something about how you should just make more money. And then Matt Erickson from that was yes. Yeah. Have discussion with Clint from Liberty Lockdown. That's what all kind of came about. But yeah, they're two sizes basically make more money than I don't mean to straw man either of them but was the idea of basically like a pro Christianity route to Liberty ism and then Matt is made more money until you can become king. Well, I'm not talking. I'm not talking some need some Nietzschean thing I don't know what that is but I don't yeah you're speaking about me there but and then Dave's point was hey I've made the money. You know, he makes good money and this is what I decided to do is my time to try to afford Liberty. Yeah, and I do the same thing I mean I've been successful and I use the money to to subsidize my, my application of trying to develop libertarian spread the word to, but, but all I'm saying is that the one reason we want Liberty is that it makes our lives better and it gives us options. And all I'm saying is if the more successful you are in a given society, then the more of those options that you have so one way for you to personally get if you're impatient and you want Liberty. Well then buy your Liberty I mean that that is one thing you can do I'm not I'm not criticizing activism or diminishing it. I'm simply saying there is a way to achieve Liberty in your life which is to, to be careful about not be don't get sent to prison. You know, observe the rules, you know, you know, I don't think that drug laws are right but I wouldn't run around selling cocaine, even though I have the perfect right to under libertarian law because I don't want to go to prison. I'm just curious about that sorry could I stop you real fast. Sure. About going to a prison. It's like you were drafted or somebody was drafted I know you probably probably can't legally advise people to like avoid the draft. Do you think there's an argument that can be made there well. Obviously there's an argument but like does that does that make sense like obviously you shouldn't go run around selling heroin even though that would be what should be right but what about you know like draft dodging. Well, well, that's why I said today society in the West I mean we right now we don't have that problem so we're kind of lucky that if you just carefully skirt the rules and you can, you can, you can succeed if you if you have a little bit of fortune, and you can, but if you're faced with things like that sometimes you can't, which is horrible. I have I, I say there is no moral. I will say moral but there's no there's no obligation. There's no libertarian obligation to obey positive law. I think you have a right to evade and to violate any state law that is unjust, like the draft, but whether it's prudent is a different question. That's a question. It's hard to decide sometimes. I think I would, you know, if my son were to be drafted I would move to Canada to escape it or something like that sure bribe the draft board, I don't know, you know, if they if they put you in a situation where you're facing two different types of horrible penalties like one is going to war and dying maybe and the other is risking going to prison by evading law I mean what are you going to do. You got to try to do it again. But again, if you if you were a billionaire you could probably buy your way out of it. You know, you know, we might have a jump in real quick. Go ahead. As far as evading that the drugs and get caught up and all that and try to make more money. So that's very personal to me in the sense that I've had drug charges. I don't know what kind of reach you have as far as people listen to your podcast but anybody in that scenario gets your CDL. I have drug charges and I'm on track to make about 180 this year. So, what's the CDL commercial driver's license. What's it got to do with. Oh, it's like a trucking thing. I was just trying to throw out a tip to anybody out there with a drug charge thinks their life is hopeless. Okay, I see what you mean. Yeah, that's good point. Yeah, get your CDL. There's a good life for as far as I don't know about life but good income. And by the way, it's not just getting rich it's the opposite to you can live very frugally like a lot of these nomad type libertarians do. And so that you don't have much to lose I mean or so that you don't, you know, you can live 30 40 50,000 a year. Well, if you live extremely frugally and you're kind of self sufficient that's another way to go to. Oh yeah, for sure. It just when you're talking about drug charges that I got my heart strings that's something I've dealt with and, and I've been able to, I guess turn my life around in the sense of getting a blue collar job but still provides very well for my family and just wanted to. I actually, in my whole life, I've never voted Democrat, except about two years ago there was a mayoral election in Houston and I met this guy named Dwight something black guy running for mayor Democrat. He ran he came in fourth or fifth, but when I met him we were talking and one of his big things was he was his goal was to try to get the city government to basically give opportunities to release felons. And I thought that was the best thing in the world because I really feel for all these people that their lives are basically ruined by a bullshit. You know, conviction by the state. So anything we can do to undo the harm that's done to these guys you know they're unemployable quite often right. Yeah, so I actually voted for the guy for that so just because I was like, you know that's one solid issue I can get behind. Of course he lost appreciate. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, started during the conversation but one of the further out there. But the reason I said wait is I actually do think Liberty's coming. I think as we get richer, and we get more cosmopolitan and as technology gets better and better and better like the internet cell phones and now Bitcoin. I think this the state's just going to slowly become more and more relevant. So we'll kill it by attrition, it'll basically truncate to be what the British monarchy is you know it's still there but it's just like a showpiece. So you're creating the government for a technocracy. At this point. No, I'm imagining or decentralized thing where everyone like you know if you might have a robot doctor at your basement and your robot, your robot 3D printer can print yourself on and build you a car. And you can, you can build your little robots that have gone build your house and you'll have a little nuclear machine in the backyard that makes your power. You know, and so everyone's going to be so rich and self sufficient in this post scarcity kind of society or the super abundant society. Crime will crime will just dissipate, you won't need welfare people will be rich. So all the things that the government claims to do for us the problems they claim to solve will cease to become problems that this is my utopian sort of hope. But all if that's going to happen all we can do is wait, that's why I said wait. It might take 100 years, but I think it's coming. That's what I'm. That's what I'm curious about because like in Hapa and you know, democracy the guy that pale he's talking about moving from monarchy to democracy is a regression not a progression. And then you're moving to more, you know, public forms of government getting worse. Why wouldn't that be the case I mean if people's time preferences say are so altered that, you know, every a lot more people have higher time preferences, especially in a public governance. Why wouldn't they set up a more totalitarian version of that. Social democracy collapses. Because they because they because they, I think there's two reasons that this is my this my own, this is my own little cranky theory on this. They'll be less able they'll be less able to because people will become more and more powerful with their own technology and their own wealth. They'll just mean like the minority. Just everyone everyone's decided will become more powerful it'll be, you know, it's like it's sort of like if everyone, if everyone had their own Uzi, then it might be hard for the government to go to everyone's houses and take their gold, you know, it's just as a practical matter as a as a crude example. And, and the second reason is the state does exist on on propaganda to some degree and the propaganda is that the state is necessary, because without the state, we're going to have chaos. So we won't have roads, people will die of insufficient health care, you won't be able to have any money for your retirement. You won't be able to have protection from criminals and bad guys overseas. But if those things all recede naturally because we're just a wealthier, more technologically powerful people, then the government's message will start becoming more and more hollow. The government says we need to take half of your income to defend you from criminals and you're like well I have like an impregnable impregnable fortress with nano robot swarms, monitoring it all the time and lasers ready to zap anyone across my border what I need you know, and health care is like $5 a year now because we have post scarcity, you know, and we have AI and robots and, and all this plentifulness. Then what's the government going to say well we you need us to have government schools, like well there's the internet there's there's there's all there's all these private solutions people are using which are fine they're cheap. It's just the excuses the government's excuses are going to run thin. I mean, anyway, that's my kind of hope, because I don't see the other solutions where I don't think the Libertarian Party is going to elect President for us for freedom in the world. I don't think us libertarians handing out pamphlets to to uncles at Thanksgiving is going to change the world. Fair enough. So if that's not going to work, then we're screwed. So I can only hope that it's going to come about naturally and inevitably. Well, I mean I got I got a question about economics. Everybody else doesn't have anything else to ask. Sure, go ahead and then I got to go in about five or 10 minutes but go ahead. All right, but I'm guessing you read man economy and state. Yeah. Okay, so in, you know, chapter 10 he's talking about monopoly and competition and goes into this long thing about you know him about, you know, setting up the monopoly price now that whole thing is illusory and everything. Correct. You know cartels they tend to break apart and everything I get all that and then all that makes total sense. And the issue that I have then as he goes and talks about labor unions, and he's talking about how they're harmful. And that's, and I mean I don't want to like labor unions, but he's talking about how, you know, they they artificially set a price higher than what would be otherwise the equilibrium if it were, you know, between individual competitors. And that you know that would drive other laborers out of the market who wouldn't have otherwise been there. And my question and why is that different from what a cartel could potentially do by setting up a quote unquote monopoly price, like why is that labor union price concrete to him, but not on like the monopoly price which is goes back and forth. I haven't read that lately, but I'm pretty I think I remember I think I have the right answer to that question. It's a good question. And I think the answer is, if he was talking about labor unions on a free market you would be right he'd be he would be making an argument that's inconsistent with his claims that cartels can't can arise on a free market. Yeah, no I get that. Yeah, he's talking about labor unions that have the benefit of state force so the basically saying that the state lets them basically use coercion or violence against the scabs or against or the law basically forces employers to negotiate in good faith with the labor union. That's the reason why it causes a distortion is because the law is behind them. So if they if they were just negotiating freely on the like if it was pure free market and the government did not force employers to negotiate with labor unions. And if they weren't given legal, basically immunity for for hurting people to cross picket lines, then whatever they negotiated with the employer would be a free market result and it would not be driving costs artificially up or anything. Okay, so that's I get that part because he does say in there that he's not advocating for force and any means against the people who are voluntarily deciding to join a labor union or the people who are deciding not to break the law. But he still asserts that it's wrong to form labor unions and that it is inefficient, even when I reckon that it's voluntary. I'd have. I don't, I don't think he says that I'd have to read it. Oh he doesn't. I think he's talking about labor unions that are formed with the support with the help of state law. I think that's what he's referring to. That's what I would think because that I think makes a lot of sense as far as that goes, especially what he said but it's just right afterwards he says, he says explicitly, I'm not for using force you know because of that would be wrong I'm not talking about, I'm not talking about his, I'm not talking about his, his saying that he wouldn't use force against him. I'm talking about his claim that the intervention of labor unions artificially drive up prices and cause inefficiency. He must there only be referring to labor unions that have a I know what you're saying an artificial role because of the existence of state law. No, I give what you're saying but the problem is after he talks about that you know explosive force thing he says it's, we see he talks about how there's like a social stigma with not breaking strikes and that you know that that that's harmful. I would disagree with that then, but I don't remember him saying that. Yeah, I would grab the book but I've got a whole bunch of people sleeping inside this condo but I'm pretty sure he has a quote in there specifically that says that. Why don't you look it up and see what we'll take. I'm going to grab it right now. Hey Stephen why is doing that. You might have reminded me that book. The law, the law by Bastiat B A S T I A T. The law. Thank you sir. It's probably free on visas.org and my SES.org. It's free on. Bastiat Bastiat.org too I think. Sweet. Yeah, I got it on Google right now. I just wanted to save it. I forgot. Go ahead. I sent an email to Bob Murphy too but he has not gotten back to me. Well, yeah, he's, he's busy. I'm guessing. Yeah, no, I get that it. I'm not expecting any. But I'm going to, I'm going to open it up to here while we're talking. Yes. Yeah, because I'm curious now, because I'm pretty sure I see he's one of the few people that's really good on monopoly theory and hoppa hoppa I think chapter 10 of hoppa's book also is a really good discussion of monopoly. Okay, I'm looking at man economy state now. Okay, I've got the quote, I think it's chapter 10. It's chapter 10 it would be section. I don't know I mean it's section a of, I think like seven or something. Section four section I'm looking at me find it in my section for labor unions okay yeah labor unions okay. Yeah, section four of chapter 10 okay. On my book it's page 712. But basically he says, the economist co economist can have no quarrel with a man who voluntarily comes to the conclusion that it's more important to preserve union solidarity than to have a good job. But there is one thing an economist can do. You can point out to the worker the consequences of his voluntary decision. And undoubtedly countless numbers of workers who do not realize that they're refusal to cross a picket line, they're sticking to the union may result in their losing their jobs, maybe employed. Oh yeah, I think that's true. I think I think I 100% yeah I think what he's pointing out is that there are consequences of even forming a free market union. It's risky, and you know you have to pay dues to the union if nothing else so there's a cost there. Exactly. I think I might be conflating it with what he said earlier. Yeah, is the thing I think it's because I don't know if he's trying to say look, even when people do it voluntarily it's still a an artificially high price. I guess it's he could he couldn't be right I mean there's no way that that would you might be you might be sensing there a sort of a sort of hostility toward Rothbard towards unions. Yeah, that's exactly it. Which I guess I would disagree with like whatever would arise on a free market would have to be fine. But in today's society, like we have this art of sort of like COVID it's like, yeah, employers are requiring people to be vaccinated. I would say that's private, and it is but but would they be doing that if there wasn't this massive government propaganda campaign kind of forcing them to do it. Yeah, but I mean growth isn't so much claiming that the government is the thing that's propagandizing people he's claiming that the labor unions themselves are getting people to think in a certain way and I know he says that explicitly. He doesn't say that the state is doing yet his hostility towards them might be because he's he's just picturing the ones that exist now which are all kind of distorted and propped up by the state probably kind of left his labor theory of value rhetoric and and also this this failure to appreciate the role of the capitalist in actually providing jobs and money for the laborers and maybe thinks they're going too far but I think that's probably deviating from his role as an economist if he does that maybe maybe he goes too far there I don't have to reread that part. All right, awesome I appreciate it that sold a lot. The read hop hop read hop I don't know if hop it talks about labor unions but hop is short chapter on monopoly is also really good and think it's in theory socialism capital or maybe the second second book I think it's in that one though. I'll go to the list I've got too many to read at the moment. Hop is hop is way shorter than. If you want some suggestions I'll tell you what I think I wouldn't read man economy state or even human action like. First, you know I'm page 780. Well it's so good to power market is even better I think that the second. So that's in part. That's in the on the bus edition but it's the second book sometimes but what I would read would be hop is two books, which are both very short. The theory of socialism capitalism the second the second one economics and ethics private property. And as far as visas, I, my favorite book by his is his last book, the ultimate foundation of economic science is short and it's really about, it's about methodology which is the distinguishing feature in the best part, the most interesting part of Austrian economics. I've never heard anybody say that that was their favorite pieces, but I'll check it out. Do you have any, do you prefer. Would you say to read bomb or minor, if you had to pick one. I guess I don't know I wouldn't pick. But I love, I mean manger for the kind of the economics and the foundations of Austrian. But bomb over has some great stuff, blending economic with sort of like legal analysis like he's got this thing called. What's the bomber book it's a. It's a collection of essays here. Anyway, there's a, there's a chapter in there about how you classify goods. Let me see if I did. Oh it's called shorter classics shorter classics by bomber it's hard to find online. I pirated it somewhere, but it's it's the essay. Hold a second. Share my screen. I'll just read the whole thing. It's just I have to read I'm reading this and then it's going to be the ethics of liberty and anarchist handbook and then I'll follow it. It's not let me share my screen home. Okay, but it's chapter. Well I'm just telling you if you want to know I think for bomb over. I love this book shorter classics, and it's the second chapter whether legal rights and relationships are economic goods that's fascinating. And I actually want to extend I want to extend that bill on Sunday because that's a something needs to be used. The manger I actually haven't read a lot of manger from what I understand about what he's written like, I want to go back myself and study more of his money, his monetary stuff. Although I think it's been sort of surpassed by some of the later writers, they built on it. But I understand a lot of what he wrote is becoming having renewed relevance for for the way we're trying to understand Bitcoin. I have a one more quick question for you, because Tom was posted this big long thing about how high it wasn't worth reading you believe in you agree with him. Tom said that Tom yeah Tom and his me we grew up yeah he said some of he he wrote a big long thing about how high it was really not worth reading there was one book of it. That's he recommended only kind of but only after you read a bunch of other stuff. I didn't, I didn't realize he had those views that's similar to my own. I'm not a big hike fan. Yeah, I know how but isn't but. Well, just because other authors go in better detail on those subjects, but hi. Well, so my take on high it gives. Again, he's really good on capital theory, like as a pure economic contribution but I've never read that so other than capital theory. My take on hike is this first of all he's not a libertarian everyone assumes he's libertarian he's not. Walter block is detailed that and so is hop I think. And he's also a bit of a dilettante so he's like he kind of shifts from one thing to another over his career. He's right behind you. He's systematic. And he is not a praxeologist that one reason I recommended the Mises book is because I love his praxeology and that's what I like is not. I got some good critiques of scientism, but his business cycle theory which is mostly sound is just representing what Mises did so I think hop and others have said to the extent hike is good he's it's because he's just he's just restating what he said, and to the extent he's original he's wrong. And I think he goes off base with his explanation of socialist calculus socialist calculation problems. I think me, you know, Joe Salerno and others have the homogenize they've they've done this thing called the homogenization they've shown that we should stop assuming hike and Mises are kind of to do two sides of the same coin. They're just have a different approach and hike is basically misguided wrong. I wouldn't say don't read them. I think the road to serve them can be bracing for someone who is not that libertarian yet. But his longer books like the Constitution of Liberty and law legislation liberty, like are all over the map, and I wouldn't put a hike anywhere anywhere on my top list of books to recommend. But a lot of a lot of a lot of my friends are a gas that I would say that. Well I mean a man economy and state I swear Robert is like only criticizing hi and I mean he pulls out like one thing of his that he likes but I don't know I found it kind of. I wasn't expecting the criticism of hi and like I swear every other chapter. I think he was bad on methodology. And although he was good on critic criticizing scientism, but his own methodology, I don't know what it is, but it's not parxiology and, and, and I think he's bad on this knowledge paradigm stuff I think that's. That's, it's a missed. It's the wrong path to have gone down. And he's got a lot of libertarian things he says. I think the best thing to read by him would be the road to serfdom and also, if you want to be aware like as a scholar aware of the whole bees is the, the, the, the economic calculation problem, read his take on it and his knowledge stuff. I think it's, I think he, I think it's kind of wrong, but it's important to know it if you want to be kind of an intellectual scholarly educated libertarian. So that's my take on it, but is everything's idiosyncratic. That's just my personal take. I'll say his best writings or price and production that was before moving to the LSE and London in praxeology. So that's pretty good. Yeah, could be and probably that's a lot of. He was, he moved to the London School of Economics and met car popper. And then, I don't know, he, he, and then praxeology he even criticized it in multiple times. Right. But before there is writing to really good. I lose felt like them. Yeah, you could be right. I focus more on the, on the, on the law because I was a law student and I was, I read the law, they say liberty constitutional liberty. Oh, there he sucks. He's really bad, but he's economic writing, specifically those before 1935 for really good. I really recommend them. Okay. Well, that's a vote for that. What's what other than your own book or what books would you recommend what's your top three books if you had to pick three. I've got to go after this but I've got an article I wrote it's like the greatest libertarian books and so I have my own list and I also link in there to a couple of bibliographies that have good suggestions ones by hopper and or capitalism bibliography. If you go to my website stuff you can sell you'll see just go to my LLW page look for the greatest libertarian books or something like that. So, of course there's some iron Rand, but that's more entree or inspirational. Economics one lesson. The free market reader, built in freedom is capitalism freedom. Hoppers to first two books in English. Rothbard, the ethics of liberty. Mises ultimate foundation of economic science and also theory and history, and also socialism. Like I would read those three, instead of or before human action. Economic calculation socialist commonwealth is that something you think is. Oh yeah yeah but that but that's in that's in socialism that's in the book that's expanded. Oh okay. So he wrote that essay 1920 or 21 and then he wrote the book socialism and like 1929 or something, which was a whole treatment of that and other aspects of socialism. Of course the law by Bastiat or the market for liberty by the 10 hills, David Friedman's the machinery freedom. The structure of liberty by Randy Barnett. Bruce Benson's. Bruce Benson's them. Forgetting the title now, his, his, his books on free markets and law or something like that. I just did a blog. What's it called the enterprise of law, the enterprise of law that's it yeah the enterprise of law. There was I just if you go to my site. Just Google Michael malice because you know malice just had this nice little handbook. The anarchist handbook. Yeah, I'm reading that. Yeah it's a nice collection and I when I was reading I thought oh he left out ABC and be like, or he left out the following things I would include. So I did a blog post saying here's the here's here's like supplemental readings for that. So that includes a lot of interesting anarchist related works that could be in a companion volume to his book. Or libertarian and a right anarchist more so than they are left. Your recommendations. Almost all yeah. Okay, except maybe for malinari which I can't remember if he was left or right but malinari. But, you know also like Sam conkin who I guess was a left anarchist of a sort, who I would put on the list. But there was some there's some left ones I would include but malice already included them like Benjamin Tucker and people like that I would not have included Emma Goldman and those types but that's just not my cup of tea or that's not my that's not my path. I know you got to go but cast a quick question. Yeah, as far as left versus right anarchism. I'm obviously not well read and any of all this but to me anarchism is without rulers. How can they be left or right. Like what's the distinction there, like to me it just personal choice is basically the coming down of anarchism to two words. Like how can there be a left versus right. Well, I mean, there's like too long winded. There's like five or six types of anarchy to I mean, I mean in one sense like if you read Alfred Cousins great classic essay. Do we ever really get out of anarchy is in the early, maybe the first issue of the journal libertarian studies, which would be on my list by the way it's on my list. He points out that, you know, we already have anarchy in the world because we have anarchy between states already. Yeah. And even within a given state it's in a state of anarchy itself because no one person can tell everyone else what to do, like, so it is left right anarchy versus like the thing or how states interact versus personal. Okay, because like I define anarchy as an impartial. I think, I think, I think left means it's a combination of what they would like to evolve develop on a private free market. And what they predict would evolve so like the left anarchists would say that okay, some of the some of the good left anarchists like Roger along and these guys who are solid libertarian anarchists. And the private property rights respected in a, in a, in a government free in a state free society, but they predict and would prefer that there be fewer employee employee employer relationships in less capitalism, whereas the right anarchists want and predict that if you let the free market run wild, you would have capitalism in the sense of large industries dominated by concentrated. So it's just a prediction of where it goes to it's not a prescription on personal rights. Well, they're not always they're not always as clear as I'm trying to be I, I think the best way to understand it is a prediction and a personal preference, like, but if it's personal but not prescription. Well, sometimes they do that to like, but, but the right would allow left the left would allow right kind of thing. Correct, except for the good the good left guys would would not use force to stop a right anarchist on clay from arising, but some of these left anarchists will flat out say that it's a violation of property rights to to have profit yet to have profit off of your employees or to have employees or to be an absentee owner of a factory, or, or, you know, an apartment complex, you know where you have tenants. So they would actually. So I think they're actually advocating socialism because they don't respect property rights they actually think that that in a free market, you should not respect certain types of property rights. So it has to do with an issue of priorities that if you prioritize this, the state being abolished over you know, capitalism being abolished to probably a good anarchist but if it were the other way around you wouldn't be. Yeah, and the left some of the left guys can't help but thinking of capitalism is inextricably intertwined with the state like they think there would not be capitalism in a, in an anarchy, and therefore because we do have capitalism. It's just a creature of the state so it's not natural so they would never call for anarcho capitalism because they think that you can't have capitalism without state support. Like the court the privileges of corporate incorporation like limited liability that kind of stuff. All right guys I need to run but appreciate your time sir. I appreciate you guys jumping in asking intelligence. Before you have time to take that out. Feel free to. Thanks guys. Bye.