 Alright, so we're back in the after-show. We're good, Ruddo? We are excellent. Alright, excellent. And Stefan's still here with us? I am. Can you hear me? Yes, yes, we can. So this is, I guess, the segment of the show that we have optionally. It's just kind of a low-key discussion, not as formal. So if you thought we were silly before, you haven't seen us now. I will say I've seen Ruddo's name all over the Internet for years. So your name is familiar. Really? Oh yeah, yeah, I've seen you all over the Mises threads and things. Well, I've been around for a little while, a couple of years, maybe a decade or so, and now I feel embarrassed. I feel young for once. I didn't even know you were that ancient, Ruddo. Holy crap. Don't tell anyone I'm like a vampire. People think I'm younger. It's good. Well, I want to personally thank Mr. Kinsella for his work, because it was probably two or three years ago that, you know, you moved me even farther from the Objectivist camp that I had kind of gotten started in. You know, it was the intellectual property that was a big holdout for me in holding on to some of those ideas. And your book broke it to me. I mean, after that, there was no going back to I and Ran. Thanks. I've heard similar things from a lot of people. It is an interesting issue that it's like anarchy and IP or sort of really big log jam issues for a lot of people. But I mean, I feel a little bit embarrassed taking credit for a lot of this because, you know, I was searching myself in the early 90s and finally came across the same epiphanies that like, you probably had by reading, you know, Tom Palmer and Wendy McElroy and other people. So they just didn't really put it all together and they weren't focused on it that much because it was sort of a simmering issue in the background in the early 90s and late 80s and 70s, you know. Wendy McElroy was as a young lady, she debated, I think he was Tucker, right? No, no, Shulman. Shulman who was defending the ideas of what's this guy who was went in prison for competing with the Constitution of No Trees in the sky. Shulman was defending the ideas of, oh my God, I forgot his name. You mean Lysander Spooner? Yes, exactly. Oh, I never thought of Shulman being, hmm, well, yeah, Spooner had crazy IP ideas. I mean, that's actually the only thing Shulman was bad on that I can think of. But Shulman sort of had more of an unrandian type argument or neo-randian argument for it, but I never heard him reference Spooner but I wouldn't be surprised if he did. But yeah, he came out with his logo rights argument. He's actually more similar to Galambos. I think probably the craziest IP guys would be Galambos and Spooner and even Ayn Rand in a way, although she toned it down a little bit by putting artificial, you know, arbitrary terms on the stuff she favored. But Galambos and Shulman were kind of nuts. I mean, not Shulman, not Spooner. Shulman's stuff is out there too, but he's a good guy. He's like the guy, you know, he's just, what can you say? Yeah, he's a little bit mistaken. It's okay, you know, people come around, right? I myself was not yet a libertarian, much less an anarchist when I discovered Baldwin and Levi's book against Intellectual Monopoly which sort of made me into a copyright minimalist and patent minimalist. And then, well, then I discovered your book, right? And that's what actually paved the way because I instinctively knew anarchy would not be possible if these things, intellectual poverty had any, it could hold any water, right? It was sensible in any way that anarchy would just not be possible, would not be sensible because, you know, well, what state is going to enforce these things if there's no state, right? So I have to say again, thank you for writing the book that you wrote because that's essentially the thing that allowed me to just consider anarchy in full. Well, okay, you're welcome. I wanted to barge into this, like, the Kool-Aid guy through a wall. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I mentioned, we had a listener and friend who wanted to ask some questions in the regular show, that's by the name Lightning. Lightning, are you there to ask some questions now? Yes, I am. All right, all right, go far away. Sorry we couldn't fit you in the regular show hour. It was just so jam-packed full of good stuff, kind of like a nice cream filled donut or something. Okay, so my main question, I was interested particularly because you have a good understanding of the legal kind of how copyright works in that sense being a patent attorney, apparently. I'm addressing this to Mr. Consola. Yeah, that's right. So, Bitcoin, sure we go back on Bitcoin and IP, was released anonymously by a fellow apparently named Satoshi Nakamoto. And so, there was released under, I think what's called a permissive license. MIT license, I think. Yeah, basically, I'm not sure, but I think what that means is that you could include the source code in a proprietary program whereas a copy left license, you can't. I think that's a distinction. Correct, you're correct. Anyway, so my question was, if someone was to release something anonymously but they wanted to keep a non permissive license on it, how would they go about enforcing that without revealing their identity in a court law and what kind of strategies do you think? Are you saying today or in a copyright free world? Today is, yeah. Well, I guess they would do it like the Bitcoin guy did. Is that what you mean? Well, he hasn't ever actually enforced any claim in an illegal court of law because well, he doesn't want to, you know, what will happen to him if somebody finds out who he is, right? Bankers are not very happy with him. So assuming that you were his attorney but you wouldn't reveal his identity, how would you go about establishing a claim of copyright infringement on behalf of the guy? Well, so normally this issue comes up with, you know, software which they usually release under even open source software. They release not with what would be the equivalent of a, like a CC BY license but more like the equivalent of a CC essay, share a like, right? Or copy left, like you say, or the GNU, I think, right? And I think that does impose restrictions on its use in proprietary software, things like that. But my understanding is the only way it can be enforced would be some individual or corporation has to be the registered owner of the original copyright because a license is a grant of permission by someone who could otherwise stop you by using copyright. So in other words, the entire concept of a license only makes sense if we assume there's a copyright. And if we assume there's a copyright, we have to know what the work is and who the owner is. Correct. So the only way that the only way the license is going to be respected or enforced if there's an identifiable owner who is ready and willing to enforce it in government courts. Now, in the Bitcoin situation, to be honest, I've been trying to learn about this for a year now and I'm getting a better understanding of how it works technologically. I was not aware that they had any kind of copyright copy left type license on the code. I thought it was an open thing and it was just structured technologically so that it's almost impossible for someone to get into someone's Bitcoin account without their permission or without their key and all this kind of stuff. I actually don't understand the legal situation of the Bitcoin code. If it's copy lefted and if the guy intended to be anonymous and he was for a while, right? He's still anonymous. I don't know how he could enforce it. I don't even know what a copyright infringement would be. What could someone do that would be an infringement? Would they make a second Bitcoin system in the world, Bitcoin 2, and compete with Bitcoin? They can't modify the code without complying with the format. I don't understand how anyone can even violate the copyright. Imagine, for example, that the Bitcoin software, which is MIT, imagine it's not MIT software. It's not MIT license, which is a permissive license. Imagine it's a GNU license or just a proprietary license for the purposes of the thought experiment. Somebody repackages the software and does something with the software that is contrary to the license. For example, if the software was a GNU, then making it proprietary and distributing the source with the package would be an infringement of the license and then that would naturally lead to the revocation of the license plus whatever code action is necessary to get you to stop doing what you're doing, which is an infringement of the license. This would be an example. As of today, it's really just MIT software, so it will be very unlikely that Satoshi Nakamoto at some point will show up and say, you're infringing the license because... Wait, what did you say? It was MIT software? Yeah, it's MIT permissive license license. What does MIT mean? It's a license from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which essentially allows you to do whatever you want with the software. Even if it's mixing it with other software that is proprietary and compiling it and not distributing the source code, you're perfectly allowed to do anything. So it's not a share like... But the software, it's not from MIT. He designed it. You're just saying it's an MIT license. Exactly. Like a Creative Commons thing. I got it. It's confusing. I know. It's kind of confusing. No, no. I just want to make sure I understand that. So yeah, it would probably be an impossible situation for the person to even sue anyone, not to mention the fact that the license makes it extremely unlikely that there will be any copyright infringement action possible against anyone who's using the software in any way. It seems... I can't even imagine a case where you would actually do something that would hurt Bitcoin either because it's such a robot system, right? I mean, what can you do that would... I mean, it's not even against the rules to try to find someone's key. It's just too expensive to do it, right? That is correct. You don't even own Bitcoins. I was explaining to someone, it's like there's an airport with a trillion sort of private little lockers with unique numbers on each one, and someone gives you the identity and key to one of them, and no one else knows where that one is or what the key is. So even if you don't own it, you're the only one who practically can get to that locker and open it up and put something in it or take something out. If you hand that key to someone else, then they have the ability. So you don't really have ownership rights anyway. I agree. It's just a very complicated question because while you would think of owning a Bitcoin as something that is analogous to the real world, it is only really analogous to the real world because of certain mathematical difficulties artificially introduced to simulate scarcity, right? What there really is out there is nothing but a ledger, and you have a key in your computer that allows to unlock parts of this ledger and transfer some of the funds in your ledger to someone else, and it's a shared ledger. So there's really the concept of ownership doesn't apply except for the most symbolic or metaphorical of senses, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I think that's right. That's very good. So I don't know if I can answer this question because I don't think I understand it well enough, but I think my basic answer would be you just cannot, I mean, without copyright, you wouldn't have even the concept of a license, a permission, but you don't need permission if there's no copyright. You'd only have certain nondisclosure type agreements, but that's a very limited case. So if you're asking how can someone in a libertarian way enforce their copyright, I mean, you can't. You can only enforce copyright by enforcing copyright through the state's legal system, which is by and large illegitimate, I believe. So you mentioned the nondisclosure agreements and actually, Lightning, I were talking a bit about nondisclosure agreements before the show as well. Do you think that, you know, in the absence of copyrights and patents and all that, do you think nondisclosure agreements would emerge to kind of at least cover up, you know, take the place of maybe the good stuff that copyrights do if there is good stuff? No, actually, don't. Here's why. Number one, that makes more sense in the field of patents, not copyrights because patents have to do with sort of innovations that you could, in some cases, theoretically keep as what is called a trade secret. That is, you just keep your proprietary process secret. But even that's... Like a Coase. Yeah, but even that's, apparently, if you check on Snopes or whatever, apparently the formula for Coca-Cola has been known for decades. The secret recipe? Yeah, they're not really secret. They're not really secret. It's just that, you know, if you're starting a competing company like RC Cola or Pepsi, you don't want to be an identical product to Coca-Cola. You want to say, here's why we're different and why we're better, right? I mean, only these ultra-cheap fly-by-night knockoff artists are going to try to duplicate it. And then they're known to be knockoff and flimsy. So a legitimate big-scale competitor is going to want to slap their name on it and have their brand and their identity and say why they're different and why they're better. I think that the original argument for patents well, not the original one, but the one that's been given since they become statutory and widespread in the US and the western world is that without patents, companies have too much of an incentive to keep their stuff secret. Because if they reveal it to the public, then they're going to have competition and they're going to, you know, everyone's going to emulate what they're doing. So they're going to keep stuff secret. So to encourage companies to divulge to the world the secrets that they're using, we give them a 17-year monopoly or something like that. So the original purpose of patents in the statute is not to encourage innovation, is to encourage divulging information, right? But the problem is that what happens is companies still keep trade secrets on things that they can keep a trade secret on. But most products, you reveal the secret by selling it anyway, right? Like if I have a new mousetrap, I can't help but tell people what's different about it. In fact, that's how I sell it. I say, my new mousetrap has this new feature. It's better than everyone else's. So you're telling the entire world what's better about your mousetrap. So you might as well get a patent on it because you're already going to reveal to the world anyway. So the patent system doesn't really encourage people to publicize information that they wouldn't have had to publicize anyway just at the price of going public with a product, right? That makes sense. And I think what's going... Even today, though, when you approach a company or you discuss certain things with employees, you make them sign non-disclosure agreements. Half the time, that is just for complying with trade secret law. Trade secret law, which is another type of IP law which I think should be abolished, to be honest. It's not as bad as patent and copyright or trademark, but it should be abolished as well. Trade secret law says if you have a secret that is a confidential recipe or some information in your company or in your business that gives you a competitive advantage over other people if and to the extent that only you know it, okay? Then, if you have that kind of secret which, by the way, you don't need the law to keep a secret. You can just keep secrets. But what the law says is if you have that so-called trade secret, then if it's about to be revealed illegitimately, like let's say a former employee leaves and he's telling a competitor or whatever, then you can go to the court and if you can prove to the judge that number one, the secret hasn't gotten out to the whole public yet where it's still a secret, it's not a publicly known thing yet, then if you can prove that you made a diligent effort to keep it secret which means the use of non-disclosure agreements, then the judge will issue an injunction against not only your former employee but also against the person he's been talking to and they will tell them you cannot use or reveal this information under contempt of court penalties. So in other words the court threatens to put you in jail if you use information that you've received, even if you're not a former employee, even if you've never signed a contract right, even if you don't have a contractual relationship with a company, even if you didn't induce the employee to tell you he just was going to spill the beans and give you information, or he already did give it to you. So that's the problem with trade secret law. So it's binding to third parties? Yes, that's the whole problem with trade secret law, that's the whole reason. I didn't know that. If it didn't affect third parties then you wouldn't need a special law. It would just be you keep a secret if you want to if you don't want to don't, or you'd have a contract that you can enforce or whatever. So you'd still be sorry to interrupt but you'd still be cool with the idea of non-disclosure agreement simply between like the two parties, like an employee and a employer and yeah, but all that can do is basically say, you know, if you spill the beans and you owe me money you gotta pay me a penalty, right? You gotta pay me damages. So even there I think that they're not that useful. I think that the most useful thing is reputation. In other words if you get a reputation for being someone who can't be trusted, like a lawyer, I mean a lawyer or a doctor, you know, or a priest someone who's supposed to keep secrets right are people that confide in them. In some cases you can spill the beans but if you start doing that then you're not going to get customers you're not going to be trusted. So I think reputational effects are actually more important than NDAs but yeah, I think theoretically NDAs could have a limited use and would be enforceable. For restitution at least. Yeah, for restitution, right. But think about it, either the penalty in the NDA is going to be something trivial like, you know, $100 or it's going to be astronomical like a billion dollars. So if it's a billion dollars, who would sign such an agreement? I mean not many people, right? And if it's trivial you'll sign it but then there's not really much of an deterrent to getting you know, bribed to spill the beans by someone else. So to me it's sort of a contract that if it's enforceable and has an effect, no one will sign it and if people sign it then it's not that much of an deterrent. You can still hide trade secrets and proprietary knowledge even with the patent system, the way it's set up because the reviewers don't do the job, the judges are not experts in the field that they're ruling on. I was doing some research on inorganic polymer chemistry and there was a series of patents owned by a company in France. They were US patents and they were very detailed but you could not reproduce the formula based on what was given in the patent. The way they worded it was very, I won't say fuzzy, they were very clever in the way they worded it. They gave all the ingredients, all the proportions but you couldn't reproduce it based on the information you gave you. You know, they kept that as a trade secret but if you were able to reproduce that substance they could still sue you in violation of the patent but good luck trying to figure that out yourself. Well and this is a little bit inside baseball and it's boring to a lot of people but well first of all patent learners are very good and they're good at manipulating the system and there's tricks they play, usually within the rules whatever these rules are they're sometimes nebulous but so for example and this is actually one I don't disagree with completely it's not the same as what you're talking about but if you have certain words and some patent applications like let's say physical nuclear material right then it's going to catch certain flags by these government computers and it's going to be subject to a special defense department review and sometimes you'll get this notice back after you file a patent that well every time you file a patent you'll get a notice back after a few months saying you know this is okay to publish now and you guys can proceed with this it's just sort of formality but every now and then the government seizes it and says oh no no we've got to confiscate this patent it's too sensitive and then they'll compensate you or whatever this is rare but what you could do is let's say you have a patent for I don't know the reuse of depleted uranium in some kind of totally non-military application like I don't know an iPhone case that could have better battery life or withstand solar radiation because it's got depleted uranium fissile material in the shell it's a bad example but you get my idea you could write the patent application and you could just use chemical symbols or some kind of accurate but obscure way of describing you just don't use the word nuclear don't use the word fissile right and then it won't flag the computers so lawyers will do that kind of stuff to avoid getting these defense department things and they'll also do things like you're talking about because the patent law requires you to disclose remember I told you the original theory is not to encourage innovation is to encourage disclosure so what they call the patent bargain is that we're going to give you a monopoly if you tell us how this works and even though people can't use how it works for 17 years they can at least start learning about it and studying it and etc. what that means you've got to disclose one in a written description it's got to be what we call enabling which means it's got to be enough detail to enable someone else to make it without what they call undo experimentation and you have to disclose the best mode so it's like there's like 10 ways of doing it and there's one way that you know is the most efficient or the best and you describe five of them or nine of them and you leave the best one out and until recently that was actually grounds for invalidating the patent because there's three like I said three requirements enabling description or written description and the best mode has to be disclosed that doesn't mean you have to disclose every every little detail but you have to disclose it sufficient to where someone equally skilled in the art could make it and reproduce it without undo experimentation they say and it sounds like the examples you gave or cases where they didn't do that or at least according to your opinion right? it didn't even sound like a valid patent to me I mean if you can't reproduce it based on what's given I mean you can't hold secret information and still claim a patentable process and that's a whole other issue it should be a valid patent if it doesn't have utility which means it doesn't work that's a whole other requirement but anyway under Obama's patent reform law which has passed about a year and a half ago called the America Indents Act they eliminated the penalties for failing to disclose the best mode I mean for 50 or 90 or more years this has been one of the ways you could attack a patent if you could prove that the patent lawyer or the inventor who filed it intentionally withheld the best mode and they just disclose the worst modes right? they're keeping in essence a trade secret while they're still getting a monopoly on the idea right? which is not the bargain the bargain is you can keep it as a secret or you can disclose it and we'll give you a monopoly that's the bargain Obama's America Indents Act inexplicably removed all the penalties the law still says you have to disclose the best mode but there's no penalty if you don't do it the penalty used to be you'd lose your patent and you might get this barred or whatever now it's just well you shouldn't have done that I mean it's unbelievable I wouldn't say it's inexplicable it's perfectly explicable but then again if you explain it as what it is which is essentially another favor for people who are intellectual monopolists then people will say well you're saying that because you hate innovation and stuff right? you're against science because science requires patents everyone knows that it's empirical I have a question for you which has been floated in the chat for at least an hour and we couldn't actually field it and I'd like to share this question with you because the person asking the question is again my friend James Carlin who thinks that intellectual monopolies are feasible in a free society he's asking how can you defend the use of force, the use of violence in defense of property that which we understand to be tangibles that are owned right? can you hear me? alright so maybe my question didn't go through maybe my mouse needs to change batteries so the question is I heard you so I think I had a wifi stutter just repeat the last 10 seconds absolutely so how would you go about defending the use of violence to protect property and be a very very specific tangible things that are owned well I think that defending the use of violence for anything other than self defense is trickier I think it can be done but that's a different issue so let's just talk in the bare case of violence for self defense I mean so what's the alternative and what is the context in which this happens the context is that there is a scarce resource which is at least currently claimed or possessed and presumably originally possessed by the current claimant the defender right? yeah and by its nature it's a scarce resource which means it is something that's rivalrous, it's conflictable that is only one person can use it at a time and if two people try to use it they're going to have physical violence so the physical violence arises as a combination of number one the fact that the resource is scarce is that type of thing it's not like ideas or information and number two there are two people that are trying to actually physically use force to causally employ this thing at the same time presumably at least one of them without respecting the claims of the other person so the alternative to not using force to defend it would mean you just give in and let the other guy use it but he's the one using force then so to say that no one can use force in a sense in my view ends up justifying the use of force on the part of the latecomer so it's just like I've always thought that these extreme pacifists in a sense they're more egalitarian they basically put the aggressor and the victim on the same plane because they view the aggressor as use of defensive force to defend their bodies or their homesteads or their property they're saying they're just as bad as the guy that's invading because they're both doing something wrong and as a libertarian I actually believe that that is one of the fundamental things that we oppose we oppose treating the victim of crime and aggression the same on a moral status as the aggressor I think they're actually fundamentally different that's why we're against aggression but we're not against defensive force if we're not for defensive force we cannot be against aggression so to paraphrase if I'm getting this right you're basically saying that because things are scarce in rivalries violence is the default and property norms are there is a way to avoid violence and it's only when they're broken that we get to this situation where violence has to be used anyway exactly and I think yeah exactly I think that's right it's a default and when it's broken that's there's a problem and I think that we have I mean look if we try to envision an anarchotopia in the future you know I'm sure you guys get this or think about this question all the time how if we elect a bunch of Ron Pauls or whatever what's going to keep us from adopting a state just right again right away. Can I patent Ron Paul's DNA? Technically you can. Yeah he might he might not be able to argue against it since he's not against patents I believe constitutionalist but whatever so my thinking is that the only way we would ever as a practical matter achieve a fairly libertarian society is that if most people are libertarian and I actually think most people already are libertarian they're just somewhat libertarian so if you have enough people that are enough libertarian and if you ever got to that point it's going to have to be via transition from now to there so for some reason we're going to become more libertarian and if that ever happened for whatever reason then by the time you got to that point then most people are libertarian and so they wouldn't tolerate a little mini-state arising out of the remnants of the old you know withered away state system and then the second question is how could that ever happen could you think it could happen without being some kind of utopian or Marxist you know believing a new libertarian man or whatever and I simply think that the only hope and it's a possible hope is that humans will gradually become more economically enlightened just by empirical experience and just by the advent of prosperity and technology and the and the success of the free market despite the state's attempts to snuff it out so you know I always think that in you know 1990 1991 when communism collapsed it was a it was an educating moment for people not in a theoretical way most people are still kind of as stupid in economics as they used to be but most a lot more people now would be reluctant to endorse central state planning of the economy in an explicit way than they would before 1990 because of communism collapsed and provided a visible example that that just doesn't work and I kind of hope that the the internet and technology and the free market will eventually enlighten people as to the necessity of free markets and so they'll gradually become more economically literate just innately do you know what I mean and that will gradually make us more more libertarian and see the state is less and less necessary to where it doesn't have enough legitimacy to keep doing what it's doing anyway sorry that was a tangent it's good tangent though it's the time we like I would say to add to that the state is a temporary entity by I mean by the way it works it can't exist forever in its current incarnation it has to run out of money eventually so there's always the hope that in transitions when things get really bad that people are open to do they become more open less complacent yeah there was a good I just listened to Jeff Tucker's interview with Gerard Casey this Irish anarchist Rothbardian philosopher no relation to Doug Casey right no no he's actually a newcomer to this field he's probably more related to me can sell as Irish it was from about a year and a half ago and they were talking about like Rothbard's take on the state and all this stuff and he was talking about historically how the state as we conceive of it now the modern state really only arose in the 16 well the 17th century 1600s and before that it had totally different nature and relationship to the people and what I think is hopeful about that is that and then he pointed out the example he said that people get used to the way things are and they started thinking that the way things are now the way they must be and he the example he gave was like in Ireland I guess when he was younger if you wanted a telephone if you wanted a telephone you had can you guys hear me yeah sorry just a light for a little bit but we hear you if you want to telephone you got to call the government telephone agency and they had to wait eight weeks and they would come just deliver a black telephone and stick it in the hall somewhere you didn't get a choice about where it was what color it was and you know and people just assumed it had to be that way and now no one believes that because we have cell phones and land lines are almost dead and everything is totally different and I don't know it kind of gave me hope thinking that well likewise if the states only been around since 16 the mid 1600s then maybe it stays or it's not really a permanent fixture of life like we sort of pessimistically sometimes think it unfortunately might be well I certainly think with the advent of you know we just really love Bitcoin in the show but the advent of digital cryptocurrencies and 3d printing and a lot of like decentralized personalized stuff that can't be bucked with by centralized authorities yeah I think technology is kind of a bit of a salvation there hopefully I have hope for that in my mind technology provides something fundamental that mankind needs to overcome the state and that is protection of the individual against people seeking to do harm to them I have a theory as to what would happen if at some point we invented this personal protection shield device imaginary thing that I keep in my mind as a as an idea of what could be the final frontier of personal protection if you could wear something that will protect you from anything being stabbed from bullet wounds from anything that could just activate at will the very first thing that would happen is that device would be outlawed it has to be outlawed because the state cannot function if such a device becomes popular right the end of the state is what the device means this is what technology affords us incrementally until such device is invented that allows us to escape or protect ourselves from aggression that will be the default technology will continue to improve and improve and improve to protect ourselves better and better against aggression are you imagining that extended to property too or just to your body because if it's only your body then the government could still threaten or harm you by taking your land away or whatever I mean it's true but yeah I imagine that if such a device were to be invented it would probably be feasible to and of course with a little bit of more extra energy expenditure you would probably be feasible to do the same thing to generate this force field around physical property right yeah it's funny I used to have a fantasy which is probably due to my randy and sort of original upbringing of kind of the opposite of that which was like some kind of satellite up in the sky that would instantly just zap anyone getting aggression I mean just incinerate them like kind of like an omnipotent omniscient infallible artificial intelligent you know the sky net basically right now of course it's not technologically possible and it wouldn't be a good idea anyway for various reasons but just the fantasy idea of that anyone at any time on the earth who ever tried to commit a crime is just zapped especially expropriating property protectors yeah of course they'd be the first ones to go right overnight there's actually a comic about it called death note it's pretty interesting oh really death net death note N-O-T-E it's about a guy who's given a notebook by a god where if you write someone's name in it if you write someone's name in it the person dies and so he decides that he should kill all the evil people in the hopes that humanity becomes like this utopian society and it's basically the whole comic is about his like fight with this master detective what about what if he wrote god in that book what would happen I don't think he ever tried that sounds I gotta look this up this sounds cool it's a manga it's Japanese but it's really good it's probably the best manga there is I think that's why subjective taste there was a novel by Victor Coleman a libertarian sci-fi guy maybe 20 years ago 30 years ago called the Jehovah contract you heard of that one and some some guys he gets a contract to kill god and it's kind of a I think basically the idea is that god exists because people believe in him so he mounts an advertising campaign like on billboards like on July 29th god will die and you know as the days take down everyone starts freaking out and on that day I guess they believe it so he believe in god collapses so they can claim that god died or whatever something like that if I recall it's been a long time there's no god that's a very interesting premise if we could launch advertising campaign that would say there's no government and do the same thing imagine yeah yeah I know and the government's a lot easier in a way I think to you know to cast as a bad guy than god and to kill and get rid of so yeah I think I think we're winding down here I can feel the energy starting to dip a bit so wanna wanna wrap this up again Ron do we have an outro? I didn't expect to be this generous with this time this is great we'll be able to post this kind of after show content and I should have said in the intro that we own the property rights to all of it the full two hours very good yeah I actually when I get the MP3 I'll put it in my new podcast feed too so no I enjoyed it guys you guys are great this is a hot look up your show yeah please do it's been fantastic and if you wanna throw us on yours and we were I don't know if you've heard the song but the drop it like it's hop we were considering doing that for our outro sometimes we changed it up and we thought okay this could be good considering your own pretty cool I know the guy that wrote the lyrics Evan Isaac wrote the lyrics and one of his buddies did the music I believe so yeah it's pretty cool nice so I'll have to throw that on an after-processing I get to do but yeah as always when asked always declined to state thank you so much for coming on Stefan and I hope you have a great evening thanks guys enjoyed it thank you alright bye bye good night everyone good night you sexy people yeah it was fun thanks guys yeah oh god definitely not gonna do that great that sounds horrid that's awesome like it's hot but drop it like it's hot but drop it like it's hot yeah