 All right, so everyone please welcome Stefan Kinsella. He is an IP lawyer, a NCAP and an author. Is there anything you'd like to say about yourself to anyone who is not familiar with you. I'm an attorney, I'm from Louisiana, I live in Texas, Houston. I'm a libertarian writer for a long time and Austrian anarchist and Rothbardian and also a patent attorney. Awesome. And so in two days, you're going on the Austrian economic server. Is that correct? And you're doing that event that they have going on over there with Jeff Dice. Yeah, correct. That's going to be a really good event. Guys, make sure you all tune into that. I think it's like on the 8th. So that's two days from now. And so, yeah, there's a link on my website under Stefan Kinsella.com slash media or events, something like that. And there's six or seven people from the Mises Institute like Patrick Newman and Dice and me and Peter Klein, I think some others. So it should be fun. Yeah, that's server. They're buddies with us. We kind of advertise to those events should be fun time. So we're going to get started with a layup question because I know your answer is going to be but we'll go ahead and give you an opportunity to explain which is better Austrian or Chicago school. Well, I happen to be interested in economics. So I prefer real economics to pseudoscience and superstition. Austrian is realistic and Austrian economics is the right way to approach it I believe and it's a solid foundation of it in today's means Misesian version as as further developed by Rothbard Hoppe and other scholars associated with the Mises Institute is the branch of economics which I think has most has best systematized and defined and improved in a more rigorous form sort of kind of the original insights of economics, which had sort of deductive reasoning and starting from some kind of common sense assumptions about the way the solution works. So yeah I think the problem is Chicago economics is primarily methodological so they're trying to ape the methods of the science of the natural sciences because they don't understand that we have two realms of phenomenon that that we seek to understand in the world and you need to understand those and one is the causal realm which is the study of laws of cause and effect. And the other is the teleological realm which is the study of the implications of human action which is humans that have means and goals and they choose different to achieve different ends that they choose to pursue. So there's totally different ways of analyzing this and when you try to make economics more quote scientific by aping the methods of the natural sciences. They're used you're just using the wrong tool for the problem. And then you start thinking of this idealized notion of the market is having perfect competition which is unrealistic and instant transfer communication of knowledge which is not realistic no transaction which is unrealistic. So then you look at the real world you say oh well there's market failure so even though the free markets generally good we need the government to step in and to fix these problems with interventions which really just make the problem worse. And the Chicago and the school and most of the other schools economics have fallacious views of value so they think that they basically have some version of labor theory of value which is wrong. And ultimately they don't understand that the individual is soul actor and economic value and action is driven by the subjective preferences of the individual. And that simply means that that preferences in utility is not a cardinal numerical measurable quantity that you can compare as between persons and then you can't sum it up and maximize it with utilitarianism, which is what all these other schools of students seek to do. So Austrian ism reviews understands that the value is subjective, and it's, it's, it's ordinal not cardinal, and it's not interpersonally comparable. So yeah, I think that. Yeah, Austrian ism I would choose over over anything else. Yeah, we just posted a debate about this with Walter block and David Friedman and it was really interesting. Yeah, I talked to David David Friedman. I talked to him at Libertopia back in 2010 I believe and you know he he's this. He was influential to me he helped me become an anarchist with his book the machinery freedom but you know his whole approach to economics is basically the Chicago stuff and his dad's approach, logical positivism, which is eviscerated by Mises and Rothbard and Hoppe by the way in their writings. You know Friedman is supposed to be some great anarchist thinker but he's not even, to my mind you can't be really a solid libertarian anarchist thinker if you're not good on the major issues I mean, let's say you're for taxation or the drug war, or legislation, you can't be an anarchist I mean, they think you require legislatures in the state and Friedman is ambivalent about intellectual property, and like you cannot be and the reason he is is because he's Chicago and he doesn't really this principled understanding of property rights. And he told me so I made some comment to him that well what one fallacy of the arguments for IP is this utilitarian thing that you can sum up utility. And Austrians have shown that you can he says well von Neumann you know von Neumann showed that you can actually so he's got this abstract thing where you some kind of academic says that there's a way you could sum up utility which I think is complete bullshit. This reminds me of the debate between Mises and Lang in the 30s about when Mises started showing that socialism is impossible you can have rational economic planning without real market prices in the means of production which requires a free market and and the response of the socialists as well we just need a committee or bureau to set prices, and they just need the right equations and if they had a supercomputer they could do it you know like all this nonsense which people still believe to this day. One day we'll have computers powerful enough to let us have centrally planning centrally planned to have a central plan essentially planned economy that is efficient. Yeah it's never going to work. Right. So. So our next the next guess we're gonna have one is Michael humor do you have any thoughts on him. He's an he's another anarchist libertarian who is not who's who's not made his mind up or solid about IP Jan Lester being another one. He's a pro IP for totally incoherent reasons in his book against Leviathan, because he has a bad foundation for libertarian theory he he opposes justification ism which basically is the principle way of looking at property rights, and he opposes utilitarianism to his credit so he comes up with the third thing which is this paparian idea of conjecturalism, and that leads him down this weird middle road path which leads him to think that the essential libertarian principle is not to be honest but don't impose whatever the hell that means, and he works that into this thing where if you, if you, if you copy what someone else did, then you're imposing on them or something so it's ridiculous. Michael humor is is solid as far as I can tell he's very smart. I think he's some kind of intuitionist with and I haven't read a lot of that. I think there may be some common ground there. I think that he's not interested in and hasn't come down like it should be obvious to any principled intelligent comprehensively thinking libertarian thinker that intellectual property is completely incompatible with justice and private property rights, especially if you're an anarchist because you understand anything about law, you understand that certain types of laws can only arise from legislation. You cannot and have not ever emerged in an organic form in a decentralized or common law system, which is the only type of law you could ever have in a, in a just libertarian society you can't have legislation because legislation requires a legislature and that's just a branch of the state, you can't have a state. So, for humor not to understand that that that intellectual property patent copyright specifically are purely creatures of legislation. You know, he's a, I would think he's opposed to legislation if he's an anarchist. So it should be obvious but it's not. I mean hopper hopper, for example, because hopper was so steeped in Austrian methodology and in Mises thinking about scarcity, and also the radical libertarian politics of Rothbard. Before he even met me or heard about intellectual property in back in 1988 now I didn't even start writing on this till 1993 or something. So in 88 he was on a panel with David Gordon and, and Leland Jager and Rothbard at the Mises Institute and someone asked him what about property rights and information and ideas and hopper instantly said well the information is what guides your action. So you have a property right and scarce resources that you control to achieve results of action, but you can't own information. Anyone can freely use information once they learn about it, and they can use it without a conflict with someone else. So because his whole political theory is grounded in Austrian economics, the emphasis on scarcity and the praxeological understanding of the means ends way that action works. So we saw this. So I would think any anarchist to understand that the state is illegitimate and therefore legislators can exist. Therefore you can have legislation. If they just understand that the patent of the Copyright Act or legislation. They would instantly condemn it so why humor doesn't, I don't know. Otherwise I like the guy just wish he would. And every principle serious influential libertarian thinker especially anarchists to come out against all the big harms of the state, which are war, the drug war, government school, the central bank welfare, which I think humor and all these guys oppose, but in ultra property is up there like in the top five or six or seven horrible things the government does so to be to be weak on that issue or wobbly on that issue is inexcusable in my opinion. It'd be a good example is like healthcare it's very hard to defend intellectual property when it comes to health care. So I feel like that that's kind of a softball thing so I agree with you so you think that not being an Austrian kind of sort of Yes, it's a line I'm thinking. There are solid libertarians who are not Austrian, but I really think that, and I'm not a thicker. So I don't think you have to be culturally conservative or an American or born in the certain year or speak English or, or, you know, be married, or be Christian or I don't think those things are essential, you know, libertarianism and economics are separate disciplines, but as a practical matter to really have a good grasp of political theory, you need to know something about history, you need to know something about economics and logic and reason. And, and I find that understanding the core Misesian understanding of praxeology and Austrian economics is crucial and essential to really getting a good grasp on political theory and libertarian theory. Right, so this is the question is, what do you think of natural law and I think another question is, do you prefer argumentation ethics to to natural law. Well, in one sense, yes. In another sense, I admire and feel like I'm allies with the natural law people because they're basically rooted in a more or less correct understanding of the naturalness of the system that we need for human prosperity to to be achieved. There are some logical problems and a few other problems with the natural law argument which Hoppe has identified. One would be the is odd gap that human identified which is that you can't logically deduce or reason from an assertion or an assertion of the state of affairs which is a factual or empirical matter in his statement to an odd or normative statement. You can't go from is to an odd. Every time you try to do that as you pointed out, you smuggle in a norm so when you say, because people are like this they should do this, whatever should you're saying you're really implicitly resting upon an earlier unstated norm. People make it explicit, and then either you just agree conventionally that everyone in this community agrees on this just arbitrarily or just because we're all similar enough to agree we have these shared values, which I call grand norms after Hans Kelsen the legal theorist basic norms norms at the bottom, or you point to certain basic norms that are so core to the argumentative enterprise the rational enterprise the discursive enterprise that they're basically practically undeniable. And that's what Hoppe does. So in the second problem with natural law is that, as some people point out, you know human nature is very amorphous and plastic and diverse and has changed, hasn't always changed over time but it varies from culture to culture for person to person. And so it's not, you can only get so many specificities or specific norms out of that, even if you ignore the is odd problem, like any norms you get out of human nature as a general thing or very, very broad, like, you know the Aristotelian idea that you should choose to flourish. Okay, that's fine. I agree with that. I don't think I don't think you can get around that with the by by assuming some some lower norms like once you've chosen to live then you've you've accepted a baseline norm of survival and if you're going to survive as a man you should live as a man and that means flourishing and that's kind of stuff, but it only gets you so far. I mean it's not, it's not going to get you to the, to the idea that no one should use a condom right which is what Robert Anton Wilson, a kind of a semi I think he was a libertarian anarchist kind of guy sci fi writer, he sort of parodied mocked the natural law ideology, unfairly to the extent because he equated it with the Catholic Church and I think his book was called natural law or don't put a rubber on your willy. He basically was making fun of the idea that natural law can give you specific things like you should not use birth control, which he's got a point that if you take natural law to, to uncritically, then you will, you know, you will start to take your, your particular religions mores and values and you will just say that they're natural law, but they're you really can't deduce from human nature to say that no one should use birth control. So there's a danger in relying too much on natural law because it tends to basically just congeal and support the customs people happen to have had. Like every a lot of cultures do this you know, whatever your culture happens to be you tend to think it's the best, but it's just the way you do it. There's lots of human diversity and and ways of doing things. I think a better, a more, a better comparison would be like if you compared objectivism to the state church. Because it's correct objective is do something similar you know they they take on your hands personal predilections and preferences, and they felt they felt compelled to elevate them to some kind of universal statement you know. A couple of times they pushed back like you know, after she died Peter peak off said well when she said that a woman should not be president because psychologically they're not fit to be a leader. He said that was just her personal as a woman that was her personal preference to have a man be the dominant one in a relationship she didn't just she didn't like to imagine a female as president because she didn't think they're psychological. So that's not part of objectivism, but they didn't do that all the time you know they rock modern office evil and bait and forgot who she liked but you know some music is evil and some is not, you know, African music is horrible and jazz is, I don't know. Cats are great dogs are horrible whatever their capes are good and smoking is good and so you got to be careful not to elevate your personal preferences into some kind of universal objective thing that everyone needs to follow. Yeah, kind of just a bit strange. So what do you think about trends transcendental idealism. You have to define that for me I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. I'm not sure either to be honest I'm gonna have to have them come back and I mean transcendental. There may be a certain subset of philosophy. Some philosophical idea I mean I know that the word transcendental is sometimes used for the type of argument hopper gives in his argumentation ethics, by which we mean an argument that basically, you can demonstrate that it's that it's a particularly true because to deny it would be some kind of contradiction. Okay, so it's a method of establishing some assertion is or proposition is being true, but I'm not sure if that's the same thing is transcendental idealism itself. If idealism as a philosophical epistemological matter I disagree with. I'm a realist along the lines of, of some of Rand's writing and David Kelly's writing. I'm certainly a realist. I'm not a content idealist. If that's what they're getting at. Now, as hopper has pointed out, Kant has been sort of unfairly criticized by Rand and others as being an idealist because they're hit. But he said on the other hand, the criticism is a little bit fair because cons writing is so murky that you can forgive people for getting it wrong and trying to guess what he actually meant. But hopper's point, I think has been that in America, the Kantian scholars in America tended to interpret him in an idealistic direction, which ran was right to criticize, I in my opinion. But in the continent in Europe, the interpretation of Kant is more realistic and I think that's what Mises does and hopper does. So they take a core of Kantian approach to the synthetic a priori and deductive reasoning and this kind of stuff. They use it in a very common sense of practical practical way, combining with practical logical insights of Mises to result in a realistic view of the world which I think is actually compatible with on Rand's realism and David Kelly's realism, just they use different terminology. Yeah, this guy says it's a it's shopping hours version of German idealism. Yeah, I don't know. I'm not more than what I've what I've said, I'm not a philosopher. My son is a student of philosophy maybe he can someday figure this out. Yeah, so this is oddly specific so I have no idea what's on what's on this page but he asked for your pay your thoughts on page 173 of democracy the God that fell. Do you have it in front of you. No, I have no idea I was like maybe that's a famous page or something I'm not. My guess is that some kind of quote about homosexuals or something coming in communities I don't know what he seems like an intelligent guy so probably ask him ask him to give a quote and you can read the quote and I can. Yeah, if you give a quote we can we can. What you come back to that if it writes. Yeah he seems intelligent so it's probably something good. So, do you have any upcoming books. Well, I am working something I've been working on for 14 years I'm I'm I'm determined to get out. That's my hopper ring tone. I'm determined to get a book out this year and I think I will in the next six months, or nine months, it'll be law in the libertarian world it'll be an edited selection of my kind of core libertarian legal theory contributions so and all the writing is already online it's on stuff and console.com slash LLW. And then after that I've got a few books I want to start working on in more. More seriously, for the next few years so I want to do a brand new book on intellectual property because the one I wrote before was like over 20 years ago and I've learned some things since then so I want to do a new one called copy this book. I want to do a couple of compilations of, like I want to do, maybe with another one or two other editors and edited selection of of libertarian oriented anti IP writing, because there's no book on that right now. And a couple things like a couple of anthologies things like that. One day I might do a short 100 120 page summary of hoppers political theory and social theory. I'm not sure that's that's that's on my bucket list. I would be that would be a good reason. And also, I am toying with the idea of doing a companion or a follow up to the Michael Malish wrote a book recently or edited a book called anarchist and anarchist handbook. I've come, I've come up with a list of other writings that he didn't include which which would be nice to include. So maybe like a volume two of that or follow. Yeah, there's a there's a lot of anthologies from the left anarchist perspective. It would be nice to have another one from their right anarchist perspective. Yeah, and Michael's is good it's not completely he does have some left stuff in there but it's not dominated by that. Mine would have almost none of that it would be all solid right or right stuff, maybe one or two, tinging left but not that much. So some things he left out there would be a good, a good follow up to that so that's a possibility to if I problem is honestly the problem with that one is copyright because you know, if you self publish a book like that. You need to go to Amazon you need to prove to them every chapter in there you have the copyright permission and if there's like 2030 chapters in there. You've got to chase down. No, maybe say one third of them are public domain because they're so old but there's a good half of them that are still under copyright. And so maybe half of those easily could find the author and get permission. But what if something's published in 1950 and you don't even know who the, who the heirs are anymore I was out of print I mean it's just again copyright is a huge problem. Publish it. Amazon won't publish it unless you can prove that you have cleared the copyright so that could be a barrier. That's why I prefer to write my own stuff and I don't need to clear it. And what's your book when your original book on intellectual property called a gangsta intellectual property. It was really a long month a long article for the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1998 or something like that and then the Mises Institute, republished it as a monograph, a short booklet in 2008. So it's called a gangsta intellectual property, and I stand by everything in it, more or less. I would tweak a few things but there's additional ways of arguing and additional evidence that I've come across in the in the 20 years since it came out. I'll be sure to link your website and then have that under as well. So yeah and all this is under my my IP devoted site which is C4 sif.org center for the study of innovative freedom. C4 as the number four C4 sif.org slash a, excuse me, a IP, which means against intellectual property. It's all there. Awesome. Who do you think is the most underrated Austrian economist. Probably Jeffrey Herbert. He is a genius. I'm sorry, Jeffrey Herbert. Yeah, Jeffrey Herbert. He was one of the co editors of the quarterly of the review Austrian economics he's a good friend of mine. And he's he's up there with the, I think of their, there's a few core Austrian thinkers who I think of as high Austrian because they're heavily practical logical. And by that I mean they're not just correct and good. Like Walter blocks a good example he's he's great, but there's a few that really really rely heavily in their analysis on praxeology, like they, they, they use Mises is that they go deep into practice they don't just give it lip service they actually use it in their reasoning. The more ones there would be well Rothbard was one to although Rothbard was heavily Aristotelian so the more Misesian ones like hop up, or even more into the praxeology and the, and the means in framework. And that would be see hop up Gido Holtzman, Joe Salerno, and Jeffrey Herbner. And there's a younger crop that are good to on this like Matt Mahai and some of these guys, but from the from the guys I really learned from that really, that really are not just like good fellow travelers and good supporters and good Austrians but like the ones that have developed and really rely upon praxeological theory. And so I think of all those people Herbner is the one that is a little quieter and he's not quite as well known as some of the others but maybe Herbner. Right. Do you think the current, or do you think the Austrian mythology is currently gaining or losing ground. I think Austrian economics is on better ground now that it's ever been as far as I can tell. It's not just some truncated thing that only five people know about like it was maybe 40 years ago 30 years ago. The Ron Paul revolution and the expanded number of libertarians. Look the Mises caucus and the libertarian party things like that more and more people are where the, the, the Mises to it is well known now. It's not dominant anymore because it was the only one on the internet, you know at a certain time but now there's lots of other groups but it's still well known and it's entrenched as as a main player. I think the one problem with it is that you have like to bring to essentially two branches of Austrian economics one is the Mises branch. That's the, the sort of manger then bomb of arc then Mises branch then hoppa and the and Rothbard and all these guys. The Mises Institute version, which is praxeology I think of it. Then the second branch is the softer more. These are Hayek, Kersner, George Mason University branch of Austrian economics, which I think is, is not, is not really. What I think, and I think that there's there's some flaws in that approach, because they've, they've, they've, they've veered from praxeology. They strayed from praxeology. So I think it's a different approach is more based upon the market process and knowledge problems and this kind of stuff. You think empiricism is useful. So I'm reluctant to speak to definitively on this stuff, but I tend to think not much because economic analysis has to proceed basically according to the way Mises lined it by analyzing the implications of human action in sort of a, a centivers parableist way with in a verbal manner. There are limitations to the empirical method because of the nature of value. So I think that empirical things can help illustrate, it can be helped, it can be useful pedagogically to help illustrate our propositions you know like if we if we claim that the reason there's unemployment is because of various government interventions like the minimum wage, because we know deductively what the minimum wage must do. So we can point to historical examples to illustrate that point to help people understand and grasp it but the what they're trying to grasp is really an a priori or deductive point. And so if you use in most people, a lot of people could conflate economics with finance and with entrepreneurship, you know they think oh it's the old it's the old complain if you're so smart why aren't you rich, I mean, economics is not about predicting the future. You can use it as a policy tool like you can say look, if you understand economics, then you know that if you favor human prosperity and freedom and peace and cooperation and all that. Then these policies are inimical to that because economics tells you this you know, you know, your, your minimum wage is not going to make people better off it's not going to help reports going to make them worse off economics tells you that. You can use to help guide policy to help criticize law when you have a bad law that's causing problems, economics can help you help you in a policy manner. But I don't think it's not going to help you get rich on the stock market really, except in general ways like if you understand that inflation is coming because the Fed isn't inflating the money supply. So, you know, you can, you can have some general things like that. But, but I don't think that. I mean, economics tells you that the reason entrepreneurs are successful because they are better at forecasting the future. How and why they're better is not an economic insight. No, I don't think anyone knows to be honest. I mean, Mises just called it an unteachable art, and he just he called it the understanding or verse to him in German. So, economic knowing economics won't make you have better forecasting ability as a pure entrepreneur. So, that'd be my answer to that. What do you, what do you think is the best way to counter the state, or is the best way to counter the state by subverting its means of establishing control through the political economy. I guess that's an aggregate. I think that's, I think that's an activism question like what, what can we do to achieve more liberty and limit the, the baleful effect of the state. I'm not sure we can do anything to be honest. The answer I have is just wait, but libertarians don't want to hear that, because I do think things will get better I think we're in the infancy infancy of the human race we're still primitive. We don't think we are because we have spaceships, but we are, we're still caveman and we act, we act like that. And we still have superstitions and we have stupid traditions and, and like democracy and religion. I think that the human race will improve. Now, the one thing I do think has happened like I don't I don't think past, you know, I don't think libertarian advocacy is really going to do it because there's only 1% of us are even less that are interested in this kind of stuff. So, people are never going to be interested in hearing our lectures on economics or political theory, they just they have other hobbies, you know. So I don't think that's what's going to do it. And even if you persuaded 15% of the population tomorrow then you know, it's going to be back to 1%, you know. So, but I do think Bitcoin has a chance of doing this because it Bitcoin does exceed the way some of us hope it will eventually supplant the fiat dollar fiat currencies, and that will ruin the that will end the ability of the state to deficit finance, which is how they rely upon their massive spending now right because they can't have to do it so they just, they just inflate to do it, but if they don't, if people don't use their money they can't do that. So I have a feeling that Bitcoin is going to put the government the state on a huge leash on a huge budget is going to restrain their ability to spend, and that will mean an immense increase in human freedom. The point itself is that probably the greatest single thing that's emerged in in in the modern times that can actually put a big damper on on on on the state's intrusion into our lives. I'm all in favor of education and trying to understand things but I do it more to understand and to just advanced theory just like someone who's a Jane Austin scholar, or Shakespeare scholar, you know, that's their, that's their application or their intellectual pursuit and they do it to understand into our physicists or a mathematician or a poet, whatever. So I think there's, there's a distinction between understanding political theory and coming up with justifications for what's right and wrong, but don't compute don't delude yourself that just figuring this out is going to change the world. You might change a few minds and you might advance the theory among that discipline of people interested in it. I don't think the Libertarian Party, which I'm a member of for a few years because of the Mises caucus people joining it. I don't think electoral politics is a way to achieve much. I don't think court challenges can do very much. I'm in favor of doing what you can. I don't think voting can do much because democracy is is is democracy systematically. It's designed for the power of the state to keep growing and for corruption to keep growing and for short term short short high time preference thinking to dominate and for corrupt politicians to be elected. So, I think that the best way to achieve liberty in your personal life is to is to look at the rules around you look at the constraints and to try to succeed and become as as rich as possible I don't mean in monetary terms number but basically have as much insulation and power from reputation and your social status and your money and whatever that you can basically, you know, get some immunity from the state's depredations. And also, I think that the advancement of technology over time and free trade international trade, eventually, hopefully the world will, you know, the human race will keep evolving, and we will outgrow the state. So, that's my hope. So, back to the topic of economics briefly. What do you think is the best thing you can take away from the Chicago School of Economics. Well, there, you know, they're common sense reasoning on basic issues is by and large good. I mean, one of the books that helped almost they convert me but helped open my eyes was Milton Friedman capitalism and freedom. And also his book free to choose. Probably I would have more disagreements with that now reading it because I would be more on on alert to the deviations from Austrian methodology and stuff like that. You know, I think in the beginning I was, I was, I was more enamored of his arguments cameras in that book or somewhere else but his arguments for for a voucher system and education and for a negative income tax. On the surface they make sense in a basic economic sense you can say, well, you know, the government's inefficient and everything they do. So, instead of having government run schools just give people a voucher. But politically that's a bad idea I think I'm totally opposed to the voucher system and educational choice now because it's basically I don't think the form of state welfare matters that much. And the voucher system would basically expand state welfare. So, you know, instead of subsidizing 80% of the students subsidize 100% of the students. That's not good. And by doing that you would also further, further weaken and erode the independence of the private schools because now they would effectively be public schools. So, I've totally opposed to the voucher system now, but economically it makes sense. His arguments economically they just ignore the political problems with it. Same thing with the negative income tax, but most of the stuff in there like the common sense reasoning just basics of, you know, if you just apply supply and demand reasoning in a consistent way to things like the minimum wage or pro union legislation or tariffs, or high taxes. And, you know, you understand the need for private property rights which Friedman does so I guess the best thing about Chicago school is their pro free market. The problem is they have this idealized view of it, which is not realistic. And so then they say that there's market failure, because the real the real world doesn't comply with their idealistic version of it. So the government is justified in, in, in having some interventions to fix it and to make it like antitrust law. And imminent domain to, you know, when there's hold out or free rider problems and initial property property. So that's the big problem with it. Like like Friedman's two of the worst things Milton Friedman wrote, I think, number one was his, his essay about the method of economics like his logical positivism. But that's not as far as I recall that's not in his basic capitalism freedom he's just talking about applying simple reasoning to two problems like supply and demand. And so his methodology doesn't permeate that that I can recall. And the second thing he, his Milton Friedman's argument for libertarianism was was horrible. I actually don't think he meant it but this is what all he can articulate. What he wrote was it was in Liberty magazine if I recall, he wrote that the reason we have to have like a libertarian society. The government can't shouldn't regulate our lives so much like the like the state is wanting them to do is because of a lack of knowledge. In other words, you can't know what the good life is for someone else, because of a lack of knowledge about that. Because you can't know what's the best way for them to live their life. So therefore it's wrong to force them to live the way you think life should be lived. The problem with that is, it implies that if you did know you could regulate what they would do. Right. And most people, most average people think they do know because they're very provincial and parochial right they, they have their own little way of doing things they think of course people, I don't do drugs other people shouldn't do drugs. So they don't have Milton Friedman's sober awareness of our of the limitations of our reason. I know that drugs are bad. Look at it and look at destroys lives. So okay Friedman, but we do know that drugs are bad. So we should outlaw drugs right so that's not a good defense of libertarianism. A real defense has to be more of a Randy and principle type like, even if drugs are bad for you. You have a right to do drugs, because you're not violating someone's rights it's sort of the principle non aggression principle approach to things right. As far as I ran argued like, you know, I think she argued this or some of her followers argued this, like any trust laws not justified, not just because the economic reasoning behind any trust laws flaws, like, I think a DC Armintomo and DT Armintano and Tom de Lorenzo both Austrian economists, they pointed out, hell even Robert work, others have pointed this out cartels are extremely hard to to maintain. So even if you allowed collusion on the free market, and you abolish the antitrust laws. It's really hard to do price fixing it's hard to have collusion the successful predatory price cutting really doesn't work. You know, so all the alleged harms of allowing people to do what they want just really don't exist in most cases. But that's to me the secondary argument. The Randy and argument the principle libertarian argument is that even if it does hurt consumer welfare for two businessmen to set price collude and set prices, they still have a right to do it because it doesn't violate anyone's rights. So to me that's the better approach. And the same thing with like discrimination like we point out like you don't need laws against saying you can employers can't discriminate based upon sex and race because any employer who discriminates based upon sex and is willing to suffer financially in the marketplace because say you're restricting your pool of customers or your pool of employees to a subset of the whole pool, and that's going to bid your cost up basically or reduce your sales. But some people are willing to pay that price because a racist. Okay, or they're bigoted. I still think there will be a tendency to erode that because it would be costly and over time people don't want to pay these costs. The real reason why these laws are unjust is not because they're not needed. It's because people have a right to discriminate. Right. Same thing with the minimum wage you could say that well, you can't pay someone a wage less than subsistence because they can't survive, or, or there's always a supply and demand between the employers and the employees in a free market and so they're going to tend to be able to bargain for their own wages anyway blah blah blah. The real reason you have a right to pay someone a wage less than the minimum wage is because it does not violate someone's rights to make them an offer. Like if the minimum wage is $10 and I offer you 50 cents to do this for me. I'm not violating your rights by making you that offer because you're free to turn it down. And the reason people say you're not free is because they have a non libertarian view of freedom. Freedom as being infringed and liberties being infringed only by acts of violence because your right is only the right to the physical integrity of your body and property that you own. So aggression is the only way to violate that force is the only way to violate rights. These guys have a looser concept and they think that there's such a thing as economic coercion right so you know, if I say well you don't have to take that job they'll say but you do have to take the job because you need to survive. But yeah but you don't have a right to survive you don't have a right to other people's money so it's still up to you whether to choose to take this offer from this employer. Anyway, so what is your. What do you think of the, the recently popular I saying cthulhu swims left. Second, the saying cthulhu swims left. Cthulhu is that monster from Lovecraft. I don't follow all this stuff. Okay so I don't I don't know the meme or the expression the meaning and I've heard Jeff dice say this before it's institutions that aren't specifically anti left wing, eventually become left wing or become woke, essentially. I think that's interesting. That's what I would say. I define left look kind of way hop it does. Leftism is an egalitarian view of human nature, and that's how they, that's how they, they gear their policies, and the right is essentially realistic like it understands it for a private human society, there's going to be natural hierarchies and natural authority, and natural segregation and natural discrimination things like that, whereas a left wants to ignore this reality. And hop it has an essentialist definition of socialism being not just the centralized ownership of the means of production, but in general it's the institutionalized interference with private property rights. So basically, the state is socialist and socialism implies the state they're kind of the same thing and crime is the same thing, except for private crime which is not institutionalized. So public crime, the state and socialism are all the same and I would say leftism in a sense is bound up with all that. So, really we're talking about statism. And in today's world that's basically the democracy. In the United States leftism. They do have a tendency to keep growing and getting worse and worse and making things worse, until it collapses and then who knows what comes out of that. As far as leftism itself may be in a more narrow sense, I do think that the left has has been winning the culture war for 50 or more years. And I think part of the reason is that the more culturally conservative if you want to call it that types have just been cowed into being on the defensive. And when they try to go on the offensive. Because there's a cost to be paid by bucking the, the dominant, you know, intellectual trends which are lefty. You tend to get people that are the losers because the people that have a lot to lose don't want to buck those trends first. So you tend to have people that don't have much to lose, or the first ones to buck the trends and come up with a positive counter offensive. And they tend to be the icky types that you know the ones you use the word cook and they're the alt right and they're kind of a little too chummy with these guys that want white European kind of family structures and, you know, there's a backlash against this, the implicitly anti white and anti male bigotry of the institutionalized laws and regulations that the left has gotten enacted so there's a backlash. But the backlash is spearheaded by a lot of unsavory characters quite often so, and that tarnishes us who want to fight to because then they, the left identifies without them and paints us with a broad brush and, you know, so it's messy. I think the only way to get out of that in a way is to put yourself in a position in society where you're unimpeachable and you're uncancellable, like, you know, if you have a lot of social standing a lot of money, your characters unimpeachable. You can just say what you want, you know, instead of being cowed by people that want to try to cancel you, like if you say I don't think that men can't be women. I don't believe that I'm sorry. Instead of being cowed if someone says oh you're a transphobic bigot, just say you're an asshole. Fuck off, walk away, you don't have to put up with it, but if you're weak, or if your job depends upon you know something and, and you're dependent upon your job because you don't have any savings, then you have to be careful what you say. The solution is to aspire to excellence right so that you can say what you want and you and so that you can't be canceled, and you can be don't have to join the icky guys and fighting against this stuff you can be part of a positive uprising against the left, I don't know if I think I'm diverting from the Cthulhu leans left but it is it is a symptom and it's a problem. That was really well said. So, I want to make sure we get to this this is you know the one year anniversary of the most tragic event in human history. Happy, happy January 6 day by the way. Yeah, happy January 6. So, what are your thoughts on how you know the reactions that I guess generally speaking, you know how the media has responded even how libertarians has responded to it. I don't know I haven't, I haven't noticed. I mean I, I don't know I have to have the beltway libertarians been kind of sucking up and the day of they definitely were. I think the somberly saying this is a horrible. I mean, this January 16 has become a litmus test where your mainstream person, they will sort of pose it to you like, if you don't answer the right way they're going to exclude you from polite society and again, I don't play these games and I've had a few of them do this to me and they'll say something like, what do you think about January 6 you know. And I'm like, well, let's think about it analytically. Who owned that building. You know, so I look at it from libertarian properterium point of view it's like, well I don't think that the guys that work there own it because there are a bunch of criminals. So, what, so what crime did the guys, people commit. Trust fast yeah but that that implies that they were using someone else's property without their permission. I would say if anything the taxpayers or the true owners of that property and they're not committing trespass by using it. I mean, I don't think these guys are some kind of libertarian heroes that went in there I think they were rabble and they were just conspiracy nuts and whatever. It was prudent to do that because it didn't do anything good it gave it an excuse the state to crack down, but I don't think it was like a dark day for democracy or some horrible thing I think was kind of funny to be honest. One of the best. The whole time. Yeah, one of the best things Trump did was to discredit the state to a degree you know. That's one reason they hate him because he's credited the state I mean he's made it more and more look like the laughing stock that it is and also the deep state just hypocritical, you know, power hungry cabal that it is. So, I don't think Trump did that intentionally but he helped do that so that's one good thing you did. So no I don't know I mean I most libertarians I know just look at January 6 as a big nothing burger. I haven't heard too many beltway types, joining with the establishment and condemning it but maybe they have. They definitely were the day of, I mean, you'd expect people like Justin Amash do that, you know, but like, there were probably some anarchist in there as well. So, this is a silly question but I'll ask you anyway because I'm sure you'll give a good answer. If I believe in argumentation ethics does that mean sleeping people or babies don't have rights because they can't argue their case. No, that's I don't think that's a, that's not a stupid question it's not an insincere question I think it's it's trying to understand how the theory would apply because the on its face the theory would seem to indicate that rights come from arguing. I don't think the theory doesn't imply that rights come from arguing the theory poses arguing as a as was like an as a thought experiment to illustrate why we have rights, but it doesn't mean that like, like, you're, you're, you're 22 years old and you've never, you've never participated in an argument so therefore you don't have rights yet it's not like a right of path, it's not like you have to argue someone and then you get rights. I think the whole purpose of argumentation ethics is to explain why any political ethic other than libertarianism cannot be coherently justified. So if you come up with an argument for we should have socialism. The argumentation I think shows that that argument is inherently contradictory therefore it can't be true. Because anyone arguing would have to presuppose peace and the kind of basic norms that are compatible only with libertarian higher norms. But the argument recognizes that the people that have rights or fellow humans that have the characteristics that that people that are participants argumentation could have, which is rationality and the ability to communicate. So then the question is, what kind of creatures have that right. Like, for example, someone sleeping, everyone. Everyone participating in argument is a human being which has a real biological body and sometimes needs to sleep. So when you're arguing about what or having a discourse about what norms are justified which ones we should adopt in society with each other. You're trying to come up with norms that are compatible with our nature because everyone there has a nature and have a roughly similar nature that is that we're human beings with bodies and living in a world of scarcity right. And we have rationality and we all have self preservation as our goal and we all need sustenance to survive and we all need to sleep to survive right. We're trying to come up with a rule that is the rule that will apply outside of the argument not just during the argument when you're awake. We're trying to come up with a rule that applies in general to human life, which means like, you know, a year later, when you have a dispute, a certain law will govern that dispute and the law itself has to be compatible with the political norms that you could justify in argumentation, but the law governs humans all the time, even when they're sleeping. So then the question is how would that extend to babies or people that are that are mentally defective or people that are comatose. And I don't know if argumentation ethics gets you exactly there then it becomes a practical thing, a practical case of judgment like saying, well, the essential nature of the people that rights apply to, or the types of people that could just get engaged in discourse that is humans that have rationality. So then the question is well, does that apply to babies because they have a capacity to develop into rational beings, but they can't do it yet. And I think most people in society would include them within the category of rational adults or rational humans that have rights, because they're going to develop into that. And furthermore, while they're doing that their parents are in essentially their caretakers and could decide for them and protect them, and they can assert their rights on behalf of the child. That's how I look at it and I think you could augment the argumentation ethics approach of Hoppe with some insights of Lauren Lemasky in his book persons rights in the moral community, where he tries to argue for I think it's more of a contractarian approach to rights, but he, he establishes in his argument rights for adult rational humans. And then he says well what about these defective people or these infants or these comatose people. And he has an argument he calls piggybacking like they, they, they contractually in a social contract kind of way they contract they piggyback on the rights of normal the normal case of humans the adult case of humans, by having the social community attribute these rights to them. You can think of it like a burden of proof thing like, like in the abortion argument. We're never going to solve scientifically, when a fetus gets rights, you know it's not going to be a three months in three days or something like that. But what we say is well we sort of know the end points we know that like an 18 year old kid has rights and we assume that a baby has rights. And therefore we assume that a nine month old fetus has rights because it's not that much different than the baby. But we don't assume that a one day old zygote right right after fertilization has rights because it's just got nothing in common with with it doesn't have any rationality it can't live on its own. So somewhere between fertilization and birth. We are going to attribute rights to this and to be on the side of caution to err on the side of caution. We want to move the line a little bit earlier so maybe late term abortions would be considered to be a type of type of wrong, although personally I don't think it should be outlawed because of other considerations like such a law would require too much a base of this into the personal sphere, I would look at I would my solution is to put the jurisdiction on the mother in the in the family. So, and so they're the ones that enforce the law and make up the law and interpret the law themselves they have the jurisdiction because you can't give it to the outside group. That's my solution to this but the point is, in a similar way we might attribute socially, like airing on the side of caution out of respect for human life and the capacity of human life to develop and for what the person once was if they have a coma or something like that. And how closely are to us like if they're if they're mentally retarded. We might on air on the side of caution and human decency and out of respect for human life, give them the same protections almost as a fiction. So, I think that's the only thing that could ever happen. That's, that's how it has to be, because you do have these kind of great area cases. Yeah, I feel like a lot of people on the server myself included a while back, you know, not understanding argumentation ethics is like, it's very, it's a very abstract concept, and it's like, if you hear about it, you're not going to really understand exactly what it means. But I think the question about babies is, I found page 173 by the way, I've got it called. I was about to read that to you. Yeah. Okay, I don't know what the quote is go ahead if you got it. Oh yeah, I'll go ahead and just read the quote from a member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person but falls instead the same moral category as an animal of the harmless sort to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good or to be enjoyed as a free good, or the wild and dangerous one to be fought as right. Oh, that's that's good I thought I thought he was going to go with something else. That's interesting. I'd have to read around this to get the full context but my guess is this is roughly compatible with hop is written before, which is where he talks about. I don't think he's talking there about babies and things like that I think what he's talking about is the choice of people to respect rights or not. So he I've got this post on my site, the stuff in the cell.com slash LLW it's it's called I think he called it treating aggressors as technical problems. So basically, when you envision the libertarian rights as being those that could be agreed upon by rational humans of good will in an actual peaceful discourse right. So they have to be compatible with peace and those presuppositions. It doesn't mean everyone's got to play the game, someone might refuse to play the game. So if someone refuses to mutually recognize your rights and to admit that you have rights just like they claim rights for themselves, then they're putting themselves in the position of being like like an animal would be to you like a pure threat, like a hurricane or disease or a storm or starvation or, or a drought. So in the world we face these technical problems which we have to deal with like that there are challenges to living, other than the danger posed by other humans, which we seek to reduce by laws that we all agree on that most people agree to respect. And the ones that don't are treated as outlaws and we have to deal with them like from our point of view they're no they're no different than a lion or tiger or an animal which is a danger to you so you treat them as a technical problem. So it's not a moral problems a technical problem. So how to deal with them is not a moral and because they're not, they're not amenable to reason they don't want to listen to reason, they're not willing to respect your rights. You're not going to persuade them because they don't want to hear it they won't step into the arena of discourse, which would require them to accept your, your, your equal moral status with them, right. So if they won't do that, then they're just they've been just from a technical problem, which is just the problem of criminal justice or law enforcement. What do you do with the 1% of people that are going to be outlaws and they're going to be. Treat them like they're animals they're crafty animals and we have to come up with a system to try to, to combat them and to defend ourselves you can use locks and you can use guns you can hire security forces you can have a justice system which catches them and punishes them and sends a message. You can ostracize them. You know, in the end, the real solution is the fact that these people tend to be poor, they have less resources means because they're not part of the division of labor society. So they lose out from that so they tend to be have less ability to do harm that we have the ability to defend ourselves, although unfortunately because of the way entropy works. It's easier to destroy than to create so they can do a disproportionate amount of damage. I suspect that's what he's getting at there but I have to read it more detail. Yeah, I remember pondering on that last time I read it. I'm certain he doesn't mean that it's don't have rights or something like that. No he doesn't mean I think I think you pretty much know that if I remember right. I think that was the context, but so. What is your opinion on moral error theory. I don't know what that is you'd have to familiarize me with it. Yeah, if you got if you get clarified then I'll come back to that. We are starting to run out of time but you know, I'll ask you last, last, you know, one or two questions. Sure. So, besides those of muses and Rothbard. What are some key works for understanding Austrian econ and libertarianism. Oh, that's a good question. I would refer to a couple of bibliographies and collections of recommended works that I and others have come up with so if you go to my website stephen gets all dashed slash LLW and look for the greatest libertarian books. I have a post there which links to an article on Lee Rockwell and plus some some other stuff with some some suggestions and it also links to a couple of bibliographies by Hoppe on anarcho capitalist writing, and David Gordon and a couple on I think anarchist or market market anarchist writing something like that. Some of the key books. Say repeat the question again. What are some key works besides those of muses and Rothbard for understanding Austrian economics. I can have one lesson and another good one to for understanding. Yeah, well hoppa would hoppa's hoppa's a theory of socialism and capitalism and his next book, the economics and ethics of private property are essential. Plus his kind of monograph pamphlet. So hoppa plus some of the other Austrians I mentioned earlier Salerno and Herbner and I've got a couple of good posts on my website which collect some of the writings of these guys and their, their opponents on the Hayekian side on a couple of issues one was on free banking, and one was on the de homogenization debate which was separating me as an Hayek. And so I've got two posts there once called the great fractal reserve debate once called the great de homogenization debate something like that so you can look up there. As for other writings. Well I think actually Basti out the law is really good. Sort of proto Austrian book economics and one lesson is good. There's another really good short collection, which is sort of unknown now which was really helpful to me when I was younger. It's called the free market reader, and it's by Rothbard and Rockwell it's a collection of an edited collection of selection of some of their essays from the old free market reader newsletter that the Mises Institute used to publish. And the free market reader two is not bad too but number one is really good you can find that it's a really nice collection of kind of short articles kind of like Freeman Freeman magazine style articles but written by Rothbard and Rockwell mostly minimum wage things like that. So I'm trying to think what else on Austrian economics itself. I mean, I like a lot of the adjacent stuff I like the stuff that goes into its effect on law so like Bomba work has some interesting stuff on legal theory and his things go for for classic essay something like that it's hard to find but I found it on pdf form. The legal stuff like Bruno Leone has a really great book called freedom and the law, which is influenced a lot by Hayek stuff but not, you know, some of the good the good means the good Austrian stuff except for the knowledge stuff too much, but freedom and law is really good. There's another game Giovanni Sartori another Italian legal theorist who's got a book at these called Liberty and Law or something like that it's really interesting. So, I don't know. I would look at look at my other list that I mentioned of the greatest libertarian books and I've got lots of recommendations that Randy Barnett spoke the structure of liberties got some good stuff in it. The Tana Hills the market for liberty this is more political theory and legal theory, but a lot of it draws upon some Austrian insights. Yeah, for sure your links definitely going to be definitely post that in the video and on our server. So, the last question will do. What do you think of rhetoric of Roderick longs critique of argumentation ethics. I'd have to revisit that I think I know that when Hoppe came out with this argumentation ethics in 19. Well, he wrote a couple things on it in the in the Austrian economics newsletter I think, like an 8586. But like the first kind of full presentation in print, I think was in 1988 and Liberty magazine. And there was about a dozen or 1812 or 18 responses 12 or 15 responses to hoppers argument by various notable libertarians at the time like David Gordon Roger long. Rasmussen and denial, or one of them Rothbard keeper McCann. Most of them were either ambivalent or critical of the of the theory except for Rothbard who gave it full, full, you know, full endorsement. Roderick, I think his hit, he wasn't completely critical but he criticized he nitpicked some parts of it. The thing is, Roderick long, who's brilliant, and he's a friend of mine. He has come up with an argument that I think is very similar to hoppers, or aspects of it. So, in response to the criticism of natural law that that human hoppa make which is that you can't go from is to an odd. Which basically is the Kantian idea that you can have hypothetical imperatives or categorical imperatives right hypothetical is an if then. But the problem is so you can say if you want to achieve peace and prosperity for humans. Economic reasoning and our knowledge of human nature tells us we should have these kinds of laws, right, which is more of a consequentialist argument for libertarianism which is perfectly fine. But the natural law guys, they don't like the if then they want to say you should do this like as an absolute thing. So they want to make a categorical assertion, but they don't want to use content reasoning to do that. They want to use natural law reasoning so they want to go from is to an odd to make a categorical assertion, which is a problem. I mean, Roderick tries to get around this with this sort of in between approach, a hybrid approach which he calls. I'm not doing a hypothetical imperative. I'm not doing categorical I'm doing an acertoric. And by acertoric you mean just not an if then, because an if then is not absolute, because what if the if doesn't cold wait what if you don't favor prosperity. He says it's a sense then. So he says that since you favor human prosperity, then you should favor libertarian norms. Okay, which is exactly what Hoppe's argumentation ethics does in different language because Hoppe saying, since you obviously favor peace and prosperity by virtue of participating in argument to discuss this very issue. Therefore you should favor libertarian norms. So I think since then statements. So I think Roderick is probably wrong in thinking that his approach is really incompatible with Hoppe's. A lot of the Aristotelians and natural law types like the Randians. I like the idea of, of making comparisons between their approach and a Kantian approach because they like ran things of Kant as a skeptic, and this idealist, and an enemy of reason and all this stuff because she took the American interpretation of Kant. But really the structure of the way ha, caught, or at least caught in the realistic tradition of Mises and Hoppe, the way he reasons is very similar to the way ran, like ran justified and defended some of her so called axioms, by which she meant undeniably true to the conditions like existence exists. There is consciousness where aware of something is a the law of non contradiction these kinds of axiomatic truths. She took them to be undeniably true because to challenge them would get you involved in a contradiction, and that's what Mises argues like, you can't deny that human that humans act because denying it will be an act right and hoppe argues for various categories of human action and his ethical, his ethical theories also the same way saying that you can't argue for socialism because at the same time that you're supporting peace by engaging in discourse so you're, you're engaged in a practical contradiction. So the method of argument is the same. And for Roderick, I think that he likes the Aristotelian terminology and concept and that sort of approach as a philosopher. I have a coherent explanation of why they're really not compatible but from my simplistic point of view, they're compatible because they're both a way of arguing to show that that the higher level political norms that we all favor as libertarians like the libertarian norms Roderick favors, libertarian norms hoppe favors and that I favor and Rothbard favors and even I ran to an extent favors. They're based upon lower level norms and Roderick just says well they're sense norms that their norms that you, you, you obviously do favor. Yeah, that's what hoppe says you obviously favor them because you can only reach this question in discourse which is nor, which has normative presuppositions. That's my personal approach that they can all be made compatible. They're just different languages. Look if you imagine we ran into another species from outer space that got here on a spaceship they figured out physics to. They're not going to have the same language or the same concepts are not going to have arrived at the concepts of relativity or physics the same way we did, but they're talking about the same reality. So, I'm, you know, I'm looking at the tail of the elephant you're looking at the nose, someone else looking at the trunk of the elephant, we're all describing the same reality. So I think it's no, it's no mist, it's no, it's no surprise that different approaches that are basically common sense and reasonable. They tend to the same conclusions so if you're a consequentialist, you're going to tend to be a libertarian, if you understand economics, right and if you're, if you're, if you're a deontological type principle libertarian, you come up with the same conclusions because we're all talking about the same and is Rand admitted and believed in which I believe the, the, the practical is the moral is the practical there's so there's no. I don't think it's a conflict between consequentialism and a principled approach to libertarianism I think they dovetail. Now utilitarianism is a different matter, the way I view it is the way Randy Barnett outlines in the introduction to his book the structure of liberty which is not online unfortunately is related to B dash okay dot CC, or the Z library. He, what we're Randy lays out is he says look consequentialism, which is his approach. I think it's perfectly compatible with a geontological approach because the practical is the moral and vice versa. In libertarianism, I view that as a subset of consequentialism and it's a flawed one because it rests upon methodologically flawed. Like if you think you can sum up utility right that's just wrong, but consequentialism broadly stated there's nothing wrong with that because we're in favor of rights because they lead to good consequences for us right and the reason we oppose unjust or bad laws is because they have some effect. I wouldn't mind the tax law or the drug war, if the government never enforced it and it had zero effect on my life. The only reason we oppose these bad laws is because they have consequences. So the reason we favor good laws is because they allow good consequences which is that we can operate within our sphere, you know our sphere of life, and we can take free action and live our lives as we see fit. So I think it's natural to see that consequentialism dovetails and likewise so I think that this this the approach of even Rasmussen, who thinks he disagrees with Hoppe and Roger long. I had a similar conversation back in the day with another libertarian Roger Pallon who's with Cato, who's, I think a semi anarchist, but he said definitely libertarian, but he studied under Alan go worth, who has a theory of rights. He's a he's a democratic socialist but but Pallon Pallon took his argument. It's called a principle of generic consistency. And he, he reapplies it using economic insights that free market people have. And he concluded that only libertarian norms can be justified according to this. Now there are some problems with that general approach but it's getting at the right thing and it's a it's a close cousin to the way Hoppe argues, and yet Pallon criticized Hoppe. Even though Hoppe took Habermas's argumentation ethics which is also Democrat socialist, and he reworked it into a libertarian direction. So in a sense, Pallon and Hoppe are close cousins they both took a kind of transcendental type argument that Democrat socialist PhD advisors came up with to justify socialism, and they said no no no if you apply it correctly you get libertarianism. So they should be allies not. They should be so dismissive of each other Oh I think Hoppe's criticism of Gaworth is correct, but as I wrote my, one of my articles, new rationalist directions libertarian rights theory. You can, you can fix the mistake and Gaworth and Pallon by moving in a slightly hoppy and direction and then it works so it's another they buttress each other really. Anyway, that's a little bit of a digression but it's a long wind of the way of saying I think Roger belongs. Assertor hypothetical is complimentary to Hoppe's and. So I think some of his criticism of Hopper misplaced. Right, that was a lot of fun. I really enjoyed that this was one of the more, the more I guess intellectual am a so we've done. I'll send you the recording to this. I'll email that to you. This should go up on our YouTube within a day. And is there anything that you want to link to beside your website. So people that are interested in this may may be interested in a recent podcast feed I got started for the property and freedom society which is the, the paleo libertarian or Austrian libertarian group that Hoppe founded back at 06 in Turkey. We have annual meetings and we have speeches and we've collect we've saved most of them and I've just started releasing them on a podcast feed so go to property and freedom.org. And we find some of the talks there of interest. I'll link that as well and make Stefan will be on the Austrian economic server in today's so make sure you guys see that as well. What are you speaking on there. I think on decentralized versus centralized law, so legislation versus common law that kind of thing. There are a lot of different kinds of speakers on the eighth and the ninth so be sure to be there. Thank you so much for joining us. That was a lot of fun. Anything you want to anything else you want to plug. Nope, thanks. Thanks a lot. Happy new year and thanks everyone for tuning in. Yeah, happy new year happy one six. Thank you for coming. All right streams in. Thank you for doing this appreciate it. No problem. Have a good man. You too.