 So remember to check out edneathen.com for latest updates and email feedback at edneathen.com to tell us exactly what we're doing right and how fantastic our panelists were. And yeah, we'll do that. So this is Ed and Ethan. You are still with Ed and Ethan. Believe it or not, you're still here. It's incredible. Are you not amazed with the content so far? I am. I definitely am. Okay, Ed is. Ed, I mean, there's just counting on the listeners now because, yeah, okay, you're a little bit biased. Of course. Check out worldlibertynews.com where we recently have been syndicated. And also lrn.fm, we've been added to their podcast lineup. Indeed, yes. So thanks to Ian Freeman for that. We have, so we've been mentioning the interview again and again because we are obviously exceptionally excited about it. Coming to us now from Houston, Texas is Stefan Kinsella. Stefan Kinsella is an attorney in Houston, director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom and Editor of Libertarian Papers at LibertarianPapers.org. Commonly featured on mesus.com or mesus.org, I'm sorry, .org. So, Stefan, thank you very much for joining us on the line today. How does the day find you? Oh, it's a wonderful day here in Houston. I'm really glad to be here and excited to have a discussion with you guys. Fantastic. So now, Stefan, we're going to talk to you about IP, intellectual property, and all of the various... I get there are a lot of angles to this discussion that we can take. But why don't you tell us just a little bit about yourself first. I've given you an intro, but what is your role in the world of intellectual property? What do you do? Well, I've been a practicing attorney for about 20 years, mostly here in Houston, a little bit in Philadelphia for a while. And most of that time, I've been a patent attorney, which is a type of IP attorney or intellectual property attorney. I've also done trademark and copyright type work, but I'm heavily specialized in a very narrow field of patents, which is related to electrical engineering type technology, primarily lasers and computer technology, things like that. So I'm heavily specialized, which is how this field works. Patent attorneys, IP attorneys are very, very narrow and specialized in their fields because their work is highly technical. But for about the same amount of time, maybe a little bit longer. I've also been heavily involved in the libertarian movement, primarily from the theory kind of point of view. I've written a lot of academic scholarly type articles on rights theory, legal theory, economics and the law. And I've been for a long time a pretty devout, Rothbardian, Austrian, anarcho-capitalist type libertarian. So now, how do you find being an IP lawyer? Well, I guess, actually, let's get you to elucidate just a little bit on what it is your vision of intellectual property is. Do you think it's a kind of a valid claim that the labor of one's brain is... Yeah, well, let's maybe understand from a status perspective of what IP is and how statuses see it or the government sees it, I guess. Let me tell you how I approached it from my own development. I mean, when I became a budding libertarian in college and then in law school, I assumed that intellectual property was a legitimate subset or type of property right because many libertarians like Ayn Rand and others held that view. But I was always uncomfortable with it because something about it seemed a little bit different than there are other arguments because these arguments had more of a utilitarian or arbitrary strain because you're saying that you should have these rights for 17 years or 70 years or whatever, but not forever and not for zero, but somewhere in between. And it just didn't seem like the regular arguments that libertarians made about natural rights that lasted forever and when I started practicing IP law because of just the way my career developed, I of course thought more and more about it, like, is this type of thing I'm doing really... Is this the way it would be in a free market, in a free society? And eventually it came to my current view, it's probably 1993 or so, about 20 years ago. I finally gave up the ghost and realized, no, this is just a big mistake. It was too hard to deny now. Yeah, it's sort of like when you become an anarchist, you kind of realize, oh, finally I can give up the belief in the state. So it was like that. So my view now, which is clear because I've thought about it for the last 20 years, is that really we've made a huge mistake in Western law. We adopted these IP rights, patent and copyright primarily, like in the US Constitution in 1789. We adopted them for sort of utilitarian reasons, and we thought we would encourage innovation by doing this. And this is, of course, not really a libertarian approach to law, but you determine what laws are just by deciding what's going to encourage, what you want to encourage. That's more of a Chicago or wealth maximization or utilitarian approach. Well, let's actually approach that specifically because you say one of the reasons that we go after IP is because we want to encourage innovation. One of the things that artists see or innovators see is that when they innovate, they create a unique product, a unique idea. They want to protect that idea so that first off, they can profit from it as anybody should be able to profit from a product in the market. And second, so that they're able to make enough profit that they're able to continue innovating. This is the argument. It sounds very legitimate on a surface. Why is that a flawed argument? Well, okay, so I think it's flawed for several reasons. Number one, this is not how you decide what law should be. Law should be doing justice. And ultimately that comes down to protecting property rights. And property rights, the entire purpose of property rights is to assign an exclusive owner to a given scarce resource that otherwise would have potential conflict over its use so that people can use these things peacefully. So we libertarians tend to gravitate towards a roughly Lockean idea that basically the entire idea of law and justice and rights is to say, let's come up with a set of rules that allocates ownership of scarce resources so that people can use them peacefully in a way that generates prosperity so they don't have to have conflict. So anything other than that makes no sense and is not the purpose of property rights. You don't say, we need to think about what's going to generate enough novels. I mean, when you're designing a society, you don't say, we all know that we need 17,000 novels written per year per state. And if we don't have that number, we need to come up with a system to tweak it to make there be enough novels. Now, if you believe that novels and innovation and invention and scientific research is important, which I do, and if you thought that in a free society there would be zero artistic creativity, zero paintings, zero novels, then I suppose you would say there's something wrong with this system. And that is the claim of some hyperbolic proponents of IP. They'll say, without IP, you would have no innovation. You would have no creativity. But that is clearly absurd. I mean, some of the greatest artistic works and scientific achievements of humanity were done in a pre-copyright, pre-patent age of the wars of Shakespeare. Go ahead. I'd just like to bring up the example of the airplane with the Wright brothers. Yes. Do you want to expand on that? Oh, yeah. Well, so that example, look, it's hard to argue that we would not have an airplane today in 2012 if not for the patent system in the early 1900s. And in fact, of course, there were multiple simultaneous innovations going on in this whole field. The Wright brothers used the patent system to slow down the entire development. What a patent does is it gives you a right to stop people from competing with you. So that's what the Wright brothers did. They exploited the patent system. They went to the patent office first, and they got these monopoly government, monopoly enforced rights that allowed them to stop people from competing with them. Well, so for 10, 17, 20 years, you're going to have people, they're going to just sit back and wait because they can't compete with you. And your incentive to innovate is diminished as well because you can rest upon your monopoly for 17 or so years. And that's what happened. And when World War I struck, the US was actually unprepared. Now, my understanding is in Europe, because the patent didn't reach that far, there was more development at the time. But basically the entire field of patents and the Wright brothers' patents slowed down and heavily distorted the entire field of aviation innovation for about a generation. And this example is multiplied over and over and over. And I mean, my previous point is that no one can with a straight face argue that we would have no innovation or creativity, absent patent and copyright law. Everyone knows that there would be some. So the only argument they have is that there's not enough. But this is not the libertarian type of argument. I mean, the libertarian doesn't look at society and say the price of milk is $1.20. It should be $1.07. We don't say that. And we don't say that there's 17,000 novels written last year in Texas. There needed to be 17,800. And the only way you could criticize the existing free market order that doesn't have patent and copyright for not producing enough innovation is that if you know what the right amount should be. Further, and if you believe that the government can intervene and actually make it better. And it doesn't. My view is that the founders were well-intentioned. The U.S. founders, they thought that maybe the government ought to have this policy tool and its arsenal of tools. And maybe it can stimulate some innovation with some reasonable utilitarian stimulations to inventors by giving them a little limited monopoly. But they had no empirical evidence to back this up. And the interesting thing is that in the 200-plus years since, there has never been a single conclusive study even from an empirical or utilitarian perspective that shows that it does. In fact, all of the studies that have been done keep concluding over and over and over again. Either we can't figure this out and no one really knows. Or it seems to us that probably patents and copyrights are heavily distorting the market and reducing the overall amount of innovation. At the very least, they've got to be distorting the market. That's at the very least a given because this is so great a sort of regulation. It's so huge. The impact is almost immeasurable. At least it sounds like it is anyway. I think it's immeasurable for Austrian reasons alone because a value is subjective and not interpersonally comparable. But even if you go with the Chicago kind of approach and you try to measure everything in terms of dollars or some kind of a crude approach like that, all the studies show that there's tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of cost imposed upon the economy every year by, say, patent law. And in terms of copyright law, the entire field of artistic creation is distorted and civil liberties are threatened. In other words, the U.S. and the Canadian and other governments are using copyright rights, which are fake rights, as an excuse to police the freedom of expression on the internet. So basically, copyrights are giving the government an excuse to increase the police state and to reduce internet freedom. Even if the internet is one of the greatest bulwarks of freedom of all time, which I do, you do not want to give the government any excuse to regulate it. And of course they will use pornography, porn, terrorism, online gambling and counterfeiting and piracy and intellectual property violations as an excuse to come and regulate this tool, which is the biggest threat to their existence and their hegemony over mankind. 100% agreement. We were talking about the distortion of the market and I want to kind of get into Samsung and Apple's patent disputes going on because it seems like there is a whole bunch of money and a whole bunch of time and effort that is being battled out for in the court system. Yes, yes. And yeah, I guess let's just talk about... Give us your perspective on that mess. So you asked earlier how someone like me was square being a patent lawyer with my views and in a way it's hard or in a way it's distasteful or in another way it's just recognizing the fact that sometimes the institutional framework gives rise to certain needs. So for example, in a free society there would be no tax attorneys, right? Because there would be no tax law. There would be no defense attorneys defending people against being thrown in a cage for selling marijuana. But given that these laws exist there is a need for people emerged that serve these needs. So you have defense attorneys, you have tax attorneys and in today's world if you are a medium-sized or large-sized company and you do not have a patent portfolio you're basically defenseless. It would be like the Soviet Union just giving up all their nukes unilaterally during the Cold War. Now maybe they should do that morally. I don't know, I'm not an ethical expert. But if they had done it then the United States would have had complete domination over them. But as it was they had a stalemate. They had mad, mutually assured destruction. And this is what we have now. We have these companies, medium and large-sized companies they have to acquire patents if only to defend themselves. In other words, if Samsung, let's say if Apple is going to sue Samsung for violating some of its patents on its devices for competing with it basically for copying what it's done. Which is what the market process is about, right? In other words the entire patent process simply says we don't want to have unbridled competition. We don't want to have people competing too hard with each other. It's really unfair for me to notice that you have come up with a way to satisfy consumers and for me to try to chip away at your profit. You have some kind of property right in your customers and in the profit. You have a property right in this. It's basically the old idea of mercantilism and protectionism. So if Samsung could just be sued by Apple they would just lose. So Samsung acquires thousands of patents on its own and if they are sued by Apple they can hunt through their stack of patents try to find one that Apple might violate and they can counter sue. And so what happens is you have large companies acquire I mean they spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars on patent attorney salaries and filing fees and engineer wasted activity to acquire these big arsenals of patents and the primary purpose is to threaten small companies who have no defense. So they basically kill small competition and to have a bargain with the other big guys. So what happens is Samsung and Apple and Motorola and Google and these few small players they're going to end up having a settlement with each other. I don't know which one's going to who's going to pay each other a license at the end. It really doesn't matter because they'll just pass the cost on to the consumer. They'll rest upon their patentized oligopolistic monopoly. So you have two or three or four or five big players and no one else can compete with them because no one else has an arsenal of patents that they can use as a bargaining chip so they will just be sued out of existence. So if you have some small company of ten engineers who have a great idea, they're screwed. They cannot compete. It's like an unintended cartelization of the market because we can look at instances where cartels have been flatly and plainly endorsed by a government. But this is like a very unintended sort of cartel, isn't it? Well, I don't know. Unintended by whom? I mean, the big players are perfectly happy with this system. They really don't care. You know, it's like the United States. If the United States loses a war like Vietnam or if the United States loses a war like Iraq, it doesn't hurt the United States government. It just gives them more power. They can use this as an excuse of why they're more needed than ever and why they need to raise taxes. They kill soldiers, they kill civilians, but it doesn't hurt the government. And likewise, these companies like Apple and Samsung, they're sitting pretty because they have a greatly reduced competition. They only have to fight against each other and they can make some kind of behind-the-scenes deal and pay each other a $5 phone license or whatever, and they go on about their business. Meanwhile, it creates this walled garden where they have a cartel, you're right, or an oligopoly. So this is why I think we have actually less innovation and we have less competition and higher prices than we otherwise would have absent the patent system. So what does, if we look at things like trademarks, this is another area of intellectual property, right? Do you think that trademarks are as much of a threat as patents are to innovation? How would you categorize this? No, the biggest threats are patent and copyright. And I would actually say copyright is a bigger threat because the term is so long and because it is giving the state an excuse to come in and regulate the internet. Patents are just about a $200 billion a year drag on the United States economy. So it's like a tax, I would say. It's a huge tax on innovation and distorts, but it's just a tax. It's an unfortunate frictional cost. Copyright is more of a civil liberties type thing and I think that's actually worse. Trademark and trade secret and both hold designs and database rights and moral rights and semiconductor, mass work protection, all these other weird IP rights that they keep coming up with, they're a much more smaller fry. In my early days, I would have said trademark is roughly libertarian because its basic purpose is to prevent fraud. But the more I look at it, the more I understand it. I think if that's really true, then we just need fraud law. We could just get rid of trademark. Trademark has become horrible. It's used to censor. It's used to stop competition. So I would abolish trademark law as well, although it's not nearly as bad as copyright. But trademark, the idea is that if you deceive a customer about the nature of the product you're selling them, then there's something wrong with that and we would all agree with that, I believe. The problem is that there's three fundamental problems with trademark law. Number one, it's statutory. It's legislative. And any genuine right doesn't need to be legislated. It could be developed in a decentralized kind of common law court process. You don't need legislation. Number two, the cause of action is on behalf of the company that quote owns unquote the trademark. In other words, if Louis Vuitton, the high-end fashion purse seller, sees some bootlegger who's making fake Louis Vuitton purses and selling them for $17 at the dock in Turkey, they can actually sue and get the government agents to go and seize all these fake purses and burn them on the altar of the state. Even though, number one, if there's allegedly fraud, it's being done upon customers, not Louis Vuitton. And number two, there is no fraud because when you buy a fake Rolex watch or a fake purse for $20, you know that you're getting a fake. So there is no fraud whatsoever. So if you could remove from trademark law, number one, the fact that the trademark holder is the plaintiff, it should be the customer. Number two, it should only be when there's actual fraud, not when the customer himself is intentionally buying a fake purse or a fake watch. Then you basically are left with nothing but fraud law, which leads me back to my original observation that we only need fraud law for this. And even trade secret law, I have a problem with. Trade secret law says that you have the right to keep things secret. Well, you don't really need IPA law to say that. But what trade secret law does is it gives you the right to go to court and ask a government court to issue an injunction against third parties, not even your employees or your former employees, that tells them you may not use the information that you just obtained from this former employee of the plaintiff. And to my mind, that itself is illegitimate because there is no contract between the trade secret holder and the competitor. So even trade secret law is problematic, although it's much less un-libertarian than patent and copyright. We're speaking with Stefan Kinsella here, talking about IP. Now, Stefan, let's kind of get to the bare bones of what a free market, what a free society, how a free society would really deal with, you know, patent copyright. I know you kind of are putting it in there. Like to break in real quick and mention, you know what, I would bet, and I would theorize that the largest, because we mentioned Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Gucchi, whatever. I would bet that they probably use those guys who are selling it at the docks in Turkey. I would bet they use those guys for market research, because if they're selling a bunch of Gucci stuff, that probably means people really want Gucci stuff, right? Well, not only that, think about it this way. People always say that the problem with works that are heavily dependent upon the pattern of the work. In other words, you know, if you're making ships or airplanes, I can't just go copy those that easily, but if you're selling DVDs or music files, I can easily copy it or place clothes fashion, clothing fashion. So the idea is that if it's too easy for people to compete with you, then they can compete with you really quickly and you have no incentive to go into the business at the first place, because you think you're facing too much competition. But the problem with that idea is that the entire way that this works is that there are billions and billions of innovations and products introduced every day. And let's say you're an unscrupulous pirater. Who do you know who to copy to emulate? You have to sit back and wait and see which of the billions of new products and ideas is going to be popular, because you don't want to copy someone who's going to have no traction. So you see a new clothing design is popular. It takes a while to notice that it's popular because it's not popular until it's popular for a while. So let's say three, four, five months down the road, you see that this new design by Oscar de la Rente is popular or the new purse by Louis Vuitton or whatever. Well, at that point in time, you might start making a knockoff. But by that point in time, the reason that you were knocking it off is because it's already popular. If it's already popular, that means that the original manufacturer has already sold a good deal of the product. Yeah, and most likely that the price is really heavily inflated because they have that monopoly on it and you're undercutting them with this so-called fake-looking bag. Well, not only that, it actually helps them because the high-fashion designers, they love the fact that there's high churn in the industry because their designs get outmoded every season. First, they're introduced on the runway, then they go to the high-dollar shops, and then Walmart and JC Penney stores having knockoffs. So all these high-dollar purchasers, they want the latest and greatest thing. So they're going to want the next design from Oscar de la Rente, right? And so this gives actually more value to the next iteration of the design from the people that come up with the designs. It's a completely symbiotic relationship. There's nothing wrong with it whatsoever. This is competition, and yet we have people right now arguing that we should modify copyright law to include database rights. Okay, but what about... Well, actually, this brings to mind something else. Let's bring up, because we're talking aesthetic design. What about utilitarian design? So let's say somebody has come up with the jet engine for the very first time and somebody else decides to copy it. What about that? Is the original jet engine designer not then placed at a disadvantage if we look at this from a free market perspective? Well, in a way, yes. Of course, the free market puts everyone at a disadvantage that's trying to compete in the market. I mean, there are winners and losers. There are winners and losers, so that's the nature of the game. So you're talking about the field of patents. We talked about the Wright brothers earlier. In the field of patents, look, in the field of novels and things, I would admit that it's very unlikely that anyone else would have written Atlas Shrug like Ayn Rand did, for example, or any other novel. Not that that's that morally relevant, but still, that's a distinction. In terms of patents, it covers innovations which are technological achievements, and basically, no technological achievement can come about until its time has come. In other words, until the field of the background theory and science has arrived at a certain point where these guys could have come up with the idea. And almost always, this means that you're not the only guy that's going to come up with it. In other words, encryption or nuclear technology or lasers or CDs or holographs, whatever. At a certain point in time, the background technologies progress to a point where people's natural interest in selling new products, coming up with new ideas. This new idea becomes possible. So almost in every case, the guy that is the first one to reach the patent office isn't the only guy who's come up with the idea, and the idea would have come about anyway. So there's no reason to believe that without patents, certain innovations would not have occurred. So I guess what I'm getting here is just we get rid of the patent system, the theory of innovation takes place. Yeah, in my view, if we got rid of the patent system, several things would happen. Number one, patent lawyers like me would be out of work. I mean, we would be hired for 20 years to clean up the transition. But yeah, I think we would see two, $300 billion a year in the US alone, let's say freed up. You would see less distortion and you would see more innovation and more competition, lower prices, more rapid innovation because you would have to always be innovating to keep your consumer satisfied. So everything would be better, except for the portfolios of companies that are very large and dependent upon IP protection like Apple and Microsoft and maybe Samsung to some degree. So all the big players, they go to the government and say, give us this special rights. So how do we, how do we get, is there a practical way we can do this? How do we get out of this giant trench that we've duck ourselves into? So I would say 15 years ago, patent rights were bad and copyrights were bad, but they were like on the top 30 horrible things the government does to us. But in my view today, because of the pace of technology and the internet, I would say IP rights are the number six horrible thing the government does to us. The others would be war, the drug war, taxes, the Federal Reserve and central banking and things like that. But basically it's one of the top five or six or seven things the government does to us. So it has become an extremely crucial and important thing. Of course the problem is that the companies that have an interest in maintaining their IP hegemony, their IP monopoly position are the ones that have the concentrated money to bribe Congress and the legislators and the Parliaments and the harm is diffuse and spread across the country as a whole. So the opposition is weak. And not only that, the government has succeeded in this propaganda campaign. Look, originally these rights were not called property rights. They were called what they are. The original basis for the patent system is in England in 1723, I want to say, called the Statute of Monopolies. They admitted that it was monopoly. Copyright was the Statute of Anne and its purpose was to censor Protestant speech. The origins of the things were clear but in the 1800s where there was a debate most of the economists realized that this is completely contrary to the free market. This is anti-competitive. The entire purpose is to reduce competition and so they were debating this issue and so the proponents of it started saying, well, it's just a natural property right. So they started calling it property as propaganda. So I believe that one thing we can do is to try to keep telling people this is not a natural property right. This is the government giving special privileges in response to the special interest groups and we just have to keep saying this is not a property right. So Stephen, see I had a conversation last night and I had a couple of friends just chilling and we were talking about Apple and Samsung and my one buddy was like, it's a total copy. What do I say to that? I tried to explain like a coffee table maker makes the design of a coffee table so then they sue each other because this basic design of this copy, this table. Burger King in and out, it's time to go at it. So I would say that they're buying into the propaganda which has got everyone to believe that it's okay to compete as long as you don't compete too much or it's okay to do something as long as... In other words, what if you said you can do whatever you want to do in your life? You can use your body, you can use your property as long as everything you do is a new way of doing something as long as you never learn anything from anyone else you never copy anyone else. I mean where does that even come from? I mean the implicit idea is that there's something wrong with competing with people. There's something wrong with emulating but if you believe that then you believe there's something wrong with the entire field of human knowledge and the idea that we have a culture and a body of economic and scientific and cultural knowledge that is passed down from one generation to the next and that grows with every generation. Actually this is the glory of human civilization is that every generation we advance. I'm not a proponent of the weak theory of history but there's something to it. The idea that every generation we have a greater body of knowledge to draw upon. We all are beneficiaries of that. No one who innovates in art or in science or whatever is on their own. They're all standing on the shoulders of giants and that's a good thing. It's not a bad thing. So the idea that there's something wrong with doing something that's copying someone else is just wrong. There is nothing wrong with copying. I think what we may need to do is tell people you have to stop equating the idea of copying with stealing. So what they do is they'll say that you stole my secret. I'm like well I stole your girlfriend too. Did you own your girlfriend? I stole your customers by competing. Did you own your customers? That is the assertion though isn't it? It is because I lost a sale because of you. So that's the ultimate claim. This goes back to the purpose of property rights is to protect ownership and control of scarce resources. Even potential. It's the potential. You're saying that if you copy this and you're competing with me, I'm losing out on a potential revenue that I would normally have. Yes and I actually like that answer because that's an honest answer and they're actually answering the question. So when you say well what exactly did I steal from you when I copied you? They'll say well you kept me from making as much money as I could have. And I'm like well wait a minute where is that money going to come from? It was going to come from your customers but you don't own those customers. You don't own their decisions and if they choose your customers. I mean you could make the same argument about competition in general. This is exactly why the protectionism in say England and Europe and you know 400 years ago the king or the crown was granting his favors. You get to be the only guy who can make playing cards. Right and the king's agents would actually go into the stores of competitors and say when you're playing cards they don't have the seal of approval of the monarch we're going to throw you in jail. So we have the police state being used to enforce monopoly privileges which is exactly what we have now because there's really no difference. The only difference is it's more institutionalized. It's democratized. So in a way it's more dangerous because back in 400 years ago I'm pretty sure that the average person if they could be aware of what was going on would have seen a distinction between the state and its cronies and the people that are being put in jail. But nowadays it's all a democratized process. It's a regular process. You go to the government agencies and you get this kind of right. Those damn public schools man. Well Stefan I'll tell you what believe me I'd love to keep going but we need to preserve time but I really appreciate you taking the time today. You've given me a lot to think about. A lot of really fantastic stuff. I'm definitely going to have to listen back to this again. So Stefan thank you very much for your time. I really appreciate you coming on the show today. Thank you guys I really enjoyed it. Stefan Kinsella an attorney in Houston and with LibertarianPapers.org an IP lawyer. Another great interview to wrap up another awesome feature show. I love this stuff. I love this show. I love Liberty. I hope I love our listeners. I love our listeners especially our listeners. Very cool. We managed to bring them. You know this was a really good interview. I learned a few things. I actually didn't expect a few of these answers because you know sometimes you wait into an interview and you're thinking yeah I know what's going to go on right? Yeah well that's a thing. You can read about this stuff but when you have someone who knows what's going on really knows what's going on the ins and outs of all the technical crap and you can ask them questions live you know that's you just learn so much. Oh yeah awesome. I'm really happy about this. Of course this closes out our show for today our feature show but stick around depending on what platform you're on and how it's delivered stick around for our B-List or find it in our it's always in our YouTube channel youtube.com slash Ed and Ethan. But yeah so the B-List is for stuff that we couldn't fit into the main show some of the other stuff that we'd like to get to. Of course check out ed and Ethan.com for our latest updates and also feedback at ed and Ethan.com is where you can send your suggestions your praise your condemnation whatever you'd like to send and also I will not hesitate to pick something to read on the air. Once we get one thing be the first. Who's going to be the first? Are you going to be the first? Feel free to send some correspondence something you'd like read on the air be a part of the conversation I'd be happy to include you. Of course also thanks again to LRN.FM the folks at Liberty Radio Network Ian Freeman and the gang it's always it is a pleasure to be on their podcasting roles and also World Liberty News at WorldLibertyNews.com I think I covered everything good night. I think so. Ho ho that might be a phrase where I actually managed to get everything awesome. Good job Ethan. Alright so for November 18th 2012 this is Ed and Ethan.