 First question. I understand there are different views about whether fraction reserve banking would emerge naturally or whether it's beneficial. How does the faculty differ on this issue from say George Selgen, Lawrence White? Not on ethics but on economics. Okay well I think so the issue is for those who don't know the question is just about everybody who's Austrian and certainly libertarian is against central banking and then the question is in a free market economy where there's no government intervention the banking sector would commercial banks keep 100% reserves for demand deposits or you know checking accounts or would they be allowed as long as the customers knew what the rules were there was no fraud you know no deception involved could it be that you could think you had a hundred ounces of gold on the deposit but really they lent out some of that to somebody else as long as the bank thought and any given day they'd be okay. So those are the the issues and I personally my prediction would be that in a market there would be varying grades of types of assets and there really would be 100% reserve demand deposits that some people would want that and then there would be other things that would be legally classified as very short-term loans that you thought in practice you could probably you know get your money back but contractually they wouldn't have to give it to you upon demand if they didn't have the ability to that's kind of my prediction so in practice it might look like the world that Seljan and White are calling fraction reserve banking but strictly speaking it wouldn't be so that's the way I try to keep everybody happy. And now Walter's gonna throw some bombs. Can I? I don't know if the person who wrote the question was this morning at my lecture. If not I recommend to watch it because it was taped because it responds to the question and I cannot go into so much detail here and the main one of the main points is of course that not every voluntarily agreed upon contract is a valid contract in a free society. I made the example of if I contract someone it was actually you to kill another person and then I paid one thousand dollars and it's totally voluntarily agreed upon. We both agree I pay the one thousand dollars but then he does not deliver I go to court and say hey but we agreed on the contract court could you please enforce the contract. I would say in a free society the court would not enforce the contract even though it's voluntarily agreed upon or the other example is another example is one of selling as a squared circle. You are paying me for delivering a squared circle one thousand dollars I think I will be able to come up with one then at some point I find out no it's I won't be able to do that so you do go to court and you say court you ask the court please enforce this contract. Will the court enforce this contract? It's impossible to enforce the contract so we have to think that there are contracts that are voluntarily agreed upon and that they are impossible to fulfill or they are incompatible with the motivations of the parties entering in the contract and so with the Fraction Reserve Banking contract there are several options to classify them one is plain fraud which is historically probably this was also the question I think historically how Fraction Reserve Banking evolved. One is that actually the person thinks that the money is in the bank which maybe my grandmother does the money is actually there then it's also an invalid contract because one party thinks the money is there and the other party thinks it's alone and the bank can do whatever it wants with the money so there's no meeting of the mind so so it's not a valid contract in a free society either and the most favorable inter actually there are some the captain's center did some how do you say questionaries surveys asking people yeah questionnaire and I think 15% of people actually think the money is physical in the bank so for all of them it should be clear that this is not a valid contract but many people know that the money is used no today however they think the money is available to them so the motivation for for them is to have the money available and if I and if you do purchase something on the internet you have in mind not only how much money you have in your pocket in your pocket but also how much money you have on your bank account and you think it's available okay if you think and want full availability of your money this is incompatible with the bank using the money so it's also invalid contract and also impossible to fulfill because not two persons at the same time simultaneously can use one monetary unit so that was very fast and the other question was on the economics I think here the main as I explained this morning the main point is that credit expansion does not mean that there is that there are more real savings available and the fractional reserve banking system that state and right envision allow for credit expansion for several reasons one can be that there is more base money deposited in a bank there's been gold production in a gold fraction reserve gold standard this allows for a gold product credit expansion even though there's not more real savings not more real resources to sustain additional factors of production the other reason is that the demand for money increases and there may be also coordinated credit expansion in all these cases there's credit expansion by the fractional reserve banking system without an increase in real savings and this leads to discordination to business cycle I wanted to add to that I certainly agree with what he just said there really three issues one predicting what will happen secondly asking if it's legal and third asking will it start the business cycle Bob Murphy talked about predicting and he might well be right but I would maintain that in the free society would be illegal and also that it would create the business cycle suppose Manish deposits a hundred dollars with me I'm the fraction reserve banker and I have a 10% reserve so I keep $10 and I lend $90 out to Tom well right now and I give him a checkbook and he can has a demand deposit for that 90 and I give him a checkbook or right now there's 190 where they used to be just a hundred and both of them can't own the money at the same time unless you're in what was that movie the producers where they had 10,000% of the play that was obviously fraud but the point is that Manish owns a hundred and Tom owns 90 and I've only got 10 if they both come in at the same time you know it's shown the fraud is shown or the fact that two different people own a hundred and ninety percent of something and then on the other question well it lowers the interest rate and if it lowers the interest rate because there's more money now people engage in longer roundabout methods of production which are unsustainable because there's no more saving than there was before so it should be illegal libertarian issue and the Austrian issue is yes it creates the business cycle okay it seems like a good amount if not all of the libertarian ethical theory is based on the non-aggression principle I'm interested in hearing what specifically is the moral grounding for the sanctity of volunteerism over coercion what about coercion is intrinsically wrong and what about acting voluntarily is intrinsically right the way I see this question picture in Indian TP I hope it's not politically incorrect to mention this it might be micro aggression for I know but I'm gonna mention it anyway and in Indian TP all the sticks cross at around 20 feet high and above where they cross there's another three or four feet and below to the ground where they cross is the non-aggression principle and the sticks above are why do we how do we justify the non-aggression principle and the sticks below would be the implications of the non-aggression principle for example you know can have a market in body parts or should we legalize drugs or what have you there are various explanations as to why the non-aggression principle is justified Murray Rothbard used to have the one about natural rights it's sort of a natural right not to be aggressed against there's the utilitarian justification that if we aggress against each other will be unhappier there's the iron ran view which it all stems from a is a you don't ask me how she gets there but it all comes from a is a my favorite well I have two favorite answers to that is one is if you want to get in the political economy have to start with that and it's sort of like if you want to get in the logic you have to start with the law of non-contradiction and if you doubt the law of non-contradiction you can't even talk so that's one answer that I like and I think I came up with that one but a much more famous one is Hans Hoppe's one argument from argument suppose I say well I'm against private property I think you know we can have invasion and what Hans is saying is well you'd you're you're in saying that you're relying on private property namely you're standing somewhere on someone's property and you're using your lungs which is private property so if you really believe in it the implication is shut up you can't speak well any theory that you can't speak it is got a logical problems with it so to me it's more interesting the implications of it rather than the justification of it but I think there are many justifications religious justification in the Bible the ten commandments is pretty compatible with that so there there are a lot of little sticks above where they all meet and that would be my answer to that questions from the audience yes sir Murray coined the term I think around 1971 and it was first in print form I believe in a book by Michael Oliver which was written in 1972 but only recently published yeah as far as the question of marketability where I mean in general I shy away from like picking marketing terms for that because it will continually change you know it's not like if we called it you know respect for everyone's integrity that all of a sudden you know John Stuart would say oh I guess I am an Anarcho-capitalist I didn't realize you know you guys why didn't you weren't you clear that that it wouldn't happen so I but I give it you know I don't lead off you know when I meet someone I'm like hey I'm Bob and I'm an Anarchist how are you I don't I don't do that now if it a libertarian type comfort like if I'm in Vegas at Freedom Festival and someone comes up and says are you an Anarchist I will say yes because I know what the person means the person means as opposed to a Minarchist or it but you know in general I don't even think of myself is that I mean for one thing I'm Christian and so I kind of think that some people think Anarchist means I don't believe in anyone ruling over me and if you're you know have theological views that's that's not really exactly accurate either so to answer your question I understand what you mean and I do in certain settings with certain people I will say you know I really am in favor of voluntary relationships and trying to put you know push the logic of consent and that kind of stuff you know what that with certain groups that way but in general I don't think it's true to say all the reason people don't endorse our views is because we're using the wrong labels I think it's because most people say those people are crazy the word capitalist was a sneer at us from the Marxist and we adopted it much in the same way that black people some black people adopted the n-word which was a slur against them and then they use it as an honorific so I I like that I believe as an Austrian in subjectivism there's no one right way it's very subjective I ask who were the two most successful people in converting masses of people to libertarianism it wasn't Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises they converted a lot of intellectuals but I'm talking about mass conversions and the the two that are head and shoulders above everyone else or iron ran and Ron Paul and yet the two of them are very different I mean Ron Paul is a sweetie pie whereas if whereas whereas if you call iron ran a sweetie pie she'll bite your head off you know so you know they're they're almost the opposite of each other so I don't think there's any one right way to go one of the arguments against my book defending the undefendable and this was in one of the reviews is that you need to cast iron stomach to tolerate that stuff and they move was too harsh well it probably is too harsh for a lot of people but then other people like it and then there's a softy softy gently libertarian book that some people would like and other people said was too softy so I don't think there's one right way now the word anarchism the prefix a and a n means against so we're against archism well what is archism archism is unjustified rule of one person over another for example slavery the slave master unjustifiably rules over the slave or rape the rapist unjustifiably rules over the victim so we oppose unjustified rule now obviously a lot of people use the word anarchy as a synonym for chaos and you know bombing although you know who's doing the bombing it's it's it's archists not anarchists mainly so I think you know some people if you're comfortable saying anarchists say I'm Bob I'm an anarchist how are you and other people if you if you're asked that you could try to say well if you know sort of get out of it well if you mean by anarchist chaos I'm not an anarchist you know be a way of getting around that one so I don't think there's one right way to do it to promote it we should all do it we feel comfortable at question James Madison flip flop on no location in the 1830s over South Carolina or is there a proper context making sense of this constitutional stance or is there what was the second part of that or is there a proper context making sense of this constitutional stance so that's another history question you know James James Madison wrote something called the to fill in everybody who's not knowledgeable like you are he wrote something called the Virginia resolve of 1798 it was almost identical to something that Thomas Jefferson wrote called the Kentucky resolve of 1798 and they enunciated the principle of nullification which had already been in practice during the American colon colonial period so they weren't invented out of thin air by Jefferson and Madison this is something that colonists had practice against the king of England you know prior even before the American Revolution but the but these were the most articulate enunciations of these principles and so like the first line of Jeffersons said that you know we are not committed to unlimited obedience to the central government that is something along those lines of the very first opening of it in this in and basically said that if we the people of Virginia or Kentucky think that a federal law is unconstitutional we won't enforce it and and other American states did that Connecticut Ohio during the the Andrew Jackson bank crisis where they they essentially nullified the existence of the Bank of the United States and then and Madison being a politician the second part the part of your question about him flip flopping on this is that while he was a politician wasn't he and so you know why why wouldn't you expect him to be to take one one stand at one moment another stand another moment if he thought it was in his political self-interest to do so and and that's what he did I can remember an old old article that Robert Tolson and William Anderson William Anderson different Anderson Gary Anderson wrote I think it was in a JPE a long time ago called Adam Smith in the customs house that Adam Smith after the Adam Smith after he left his life in academe became a tariff collector you know and so yeah so he's in a different setting to put food on the table that apparently the only job available to him was collecting tariffs and so it's sort of similar so if you if you look at it from a public choice perspective put James Madison in a position where he's a politician well yeah he's gonna flip flop that's what politicians do but when he had the luxury of just writing about it he could he could speak his mind and be true to his own principles they're all like that even Jefferson was like that they put put him in the setting of being a politician he behaves like a politician because he wants to succeed as a politician you get him out of that and he'll behave differently the only exception of course Tom would agree is Ron Paul and I would just say you can't buy a politician you can only rent one question so what are some of the arguments that Mises had for minarchism and how do you all take issue with them sure so in human action and presumably elsewhere Mises does explicitly criticize anarchism but if you if you look at that he what he's talking about is the lack of law enforcement you know he's saying the anarchists think that people will just without you know course of institutions will naturally just respect each other and that's too idealistic and we need there needs to be some agency to beat them into submission or he uses pretty strong language so that by itself would not affect like Rothbard Rothbard's vision of anarcho capitalism so you know there's so there's no contradiction there now having said that it's it would not be true to say therefore Mises actually was a Rothbard and he wasn't but in terms of and me you guys can chime in I never saw Mises you know directly grapple with the sort of vision that Rothbard presented on the other hand I think he did favor government opera houses or something like that but on the other other hand he favored secession down to the individual level so which is a version of anarchism and also Ron Paul has been asked this many times and are you an anarchist and his answers aren't really really clear he doesn't say absolutely not or absolutely yes maybe both of them were a little conflicted on this I'm not sure we don't know if Mises were alive today that he would not be an anarchist you know I know a lot of people in our business this started they got involved in the conservative movement or the libertarian movement and they'd be their constitutionalists you know they believe in minimal government and then they face reality and decided that's decided that's a stupid childish infantile viewpoint namely they grow in office I mean the only given that Mises didn't ascribe to the natural rights framework the only reason he would agree or disagree with Rothbard would be about whether it would work so the way he would approach it would be the means and stream work he would say you know so I don't know did Mises write extensive public goods I don't you know he wasn't very clear about that because that literature I don't think was that relevant then when he wrote his stuff but yeah that's that's probably how he would approach the problem he would say is it a public good what is a public good but Tina Graves who is Mises's private secretary gave a speech after Mises died where she does sort of call Rothbard to task but you know she's also somebody who loves the Mises Institute and has contributed greatly to our mission here so things do change over time question I'm not an expert on slavery I don't know if it's aimed at me or not but if you read the book how the West grew rich in the in the begin the first chapter of it you know they take on this issue that the the Marxist left are always argues that the only reason the United States became prosperous was on the backs of the slaves and in Rosenberg and Birdsall the authors of this book and but they point out that all the all the real economic development occurred after slavery was ended that's when the real industrial revolution occurred when we had free labor for the most part and after that in slavery slave labor of course is inherently less efficient than free labor for obvious reasons a slave has no incentive to acquire more skills because there's nothing in it for him if he did all he wants to do is escape whereas in free labor you know the more skilled you are the more pay that you'll get the more money and more opportunities for you and so so slavery when it to the extent that he existed for from the beginning from beginning when the British came here until 1866 was a huge drag on on on the economy it's a phenomenon is that it benefited the slave owners because they're the ones who expropriated the fruits of the labor of the slaves but it came at the expense of dragging down everybody else economically because the whole society was poorer as a result of slavery not just the United States but anywhere else where slave labor existed especially the British Empire because of the inherent inefficiency of slave labor compared to free labor that that issue of the inefficiency of slave labor the only reason that that can continue because it sounds irrational the only reason that that can continue is with government intervention propping up slavery and and so all of the slave states of the south and really this is a global phenomenon they had slave codes and so everybody had to participate in the policing of the slave system so you were drafted into a system where you would go out on nightly patrols looking for runaway slaves you weren't allowed to teach your slaves how to read or write because that might help them escape you weren't allowed to free your slaves manumission laws so there was all sorts of things that was interjected by the state to prop up what otherwise is a very inefficient form of labor the reason I gave it to Tom when the question was raised is one he knows about this stuff he's a historian as well as an eminent economist the other is I'm afraid the New York Times sort of looking over my shoulder whenever I mentioned slavery what happened is I was trying to explain libertarianism to them and I said the key problem with slavery was that it was coercive and I said imagine an imaginary slavery or a situation where people pick cotton and eat a gruel and live in a cabin that wouldn't be so bad and they interpreted that as saying well block favors actual slavery which is highly problematic yeah just I have had written on this and I quote this is Mises says all the study that's where I learned that this this idea like the house slave labor is inefficient whatever so the clear a lot of people would have you believe that there's a there's a trade of the guess we know it's morally repugnant but you know it's actually it's beneficial and a lot of people would argue that capitalism the very nature of it you know rich people earning off the especially if you were more of a Marxist you would think capitalism and slavery are two sides of the same coin and it's that's totally wrong and like I say I I learned that from Mises he's got passages in human action elsewhere talking about that so if you Google like Robert Murphy slave labor inefficient or something it'll it'll you'll probably find that way if you want to see but long passages from Mises you know saying very eloquently the stuff that we're talking about here so this is right right from Mises explaining you know this this notion and it was mainstream economists who don't support this notion Vogel and Engerman became very famous writing a book called time on the cross yeah time on the cross where they said slavery is really efficient it's really productive it's never gonna go away on its own and that's why we had to have the war and kill hundreds of thousands of people yes I think here is a question do you think of violence according to hike do you think of violence and enforcement and government is also part of the spontaneous order so if you from this perspective maybe we should not sport media articles I mean just and Smith said we should get someone to enforce a law to be get enforced it's like if there is no government how how to make the know for example I chambers ill probably rise who we are enforces to get me punished so so the question was could even a Hayekian frame where could you view violence as a spontaneous order and then perhaps more generally can't we view the states the historical existence of states just sort of like it's humans response to the needs for law enforcement or military defense things like that so my so my quick answer and that is this is just in general whatever the situation is so if you're a Rothbard II it's not that you're saying like 10 guys who have some shotguns could have fended off Nazi Germany right that's not the position what you're saying though is given any group of people any level of technological proficiency in their armaments and what have you they can organize their defense better if they rely on voluntary mechanisms as opposed to just saying us a subset of them will now be the state and then get to call the shots and tax people and not respect property rights just like if you say is it if a meteor is coming it's gonna hit earth whether we're all Rothbard II or not we might all die you know it's not that we're guaranteed to be immune from anything bad in this universe but the point is having state institutions and monopolies hampers our ability to solve problems and so making one group of people a monopoly and saying you punish all the bad guys you have all the nuclear weapons that doesn't make us safer question here recently everything is still socialized the government owns everything they own the railways they probably see pride property whenever they want you know it doesn't really feel like this country so the question was about whether in India right now property rights are secure or more secure than when they were they have to go to be like the US right okay so the point I was making in my lecture was really about the form of socialism in India post-war or to post-independence and because often you know in the literature people will look at India and say oh they were private businessmen you know starting a company or expanding a business or whatever and say aha therefore if there wasn't it was a mixed economy you know the way it is today and the reason I raised that point the lecture is to say that today India today is different from India in the past because today for example if you want to let's say you know produce a new car you can do that you can take that decision more or less by yourself but in in under central planning you basically had to have licenses for every little production decision you made about what you can produce how much you can produce where you can produce etc now understand that I understand your point that of course India's is not great today either it's far behind let's say the United States today it's much harder to start a business today in India than it is in I think most places in the world the number of steps involved a greater but there is no centralized kind of decision-making power where licenses are being given out largely in in order to get these XYZ goods produced versus those goods and that was the point I was making so yes of course even today property rights might not be secure and here I think with India specifically you do need to talk about different regions because different regions are developing very differently after reform and liberalization but I do think that the economy itself it's like comparing a wartime economy to a non-war time economy so yes even in a non-war time your private property properties are amazing you know may not be completely secure but it's not like you live in wartime back in the green I don't know I'm not an expert on the evolution of the police state and or slave patrols I wrote a book critical of Lincoln but that didn't make me an expert on slavery I don't know why anyone would think so but and even though I call Lincoln's first inaugural address his slavery forever speech because that's where that's have you ever read it that's where it's where it's where he gives his undying support to the institution of slavery and pledges his support of a constitutional amendment known as the Corwin amendment that would have enshrined slavery explicitly in the United States Constitution he did that and you can read his first inaugural address and see that but I'm not an expert on on any of this the slave patrol was more like the militia and was more or less completely separated from the development of the police which occurred much later in the north it's more like a militia although it would look like the KKK during slave days and you sir so with the amount of debt that the average American is and whether it's students or mortgage or whatever many would argue that's inflationary policy is is better for them because it helps to pay off the debt so what would you argue against that well if you're the debtor then individually yes it is better if you I'm not sure I would argue against that that maybe I'm not understanding your question but you know of course more broadly this is bad because it does produce produce a tendency toward overall inflation and the more people you have who would be net beneficiaries of this inflation the more likely you're going to get it reminds me of the the election of 1896 which really centered on this one issue monetary debate William Jennings Bryan on the kind of pro inflation side and then William McKinley on the less inflation side and Bryan had had assembled a group of what would later become kind of progressives who were in favor of inflation wanted to monetize more silver have maintained a silver and gold standard instead of the gold standard only and that would that would generate the kind of inflation that group wanted a lot of these were farmers who had indebted themselves and and we're happy to vote for somebody who would relieve them of their debts let me give you the answer you were looking for I so yeah obviously in any narrow one-shot event certainly you had a big debt and it gets inflated a way that's good but then I think you know what one thing is to say well how long could you keep doing that and eventually creditors are going to respond to that so I think most people in the long run would be better off even if they start out initially with high dollars and I'm a debt if all of a sudden for some reason the Federal Reserve committed itself to the long term stability of the dollar you know that all the business cycles and the uncertainty of just having ramp varying rates of price inflation that's bad in general so I think most people right now if we could lock in forever going forward a sound currency everybody would just about everyone would be better off in pecuniary terms even people right now with large debts but he's certainly right if it's a question just now it's going to be volatile we have no idea and right now do you want to be pretty high next year or not yeah that that makes them better off if you inflate that away yeah let me emphasize this like Mises talks always about the well-understood long-term interest I don't know if this is the words he uses but he would answer your question it's not in the well-understood long-term interest to have the debt inflated away because the inflation will lead to a business cycle to a malinvestment of resources it will benefit the biggest debt done the economy that is the government the government will suck up more resources your liberty will be reduced there will be a tendency for centralization more power for the government so it the monetary system may actually collapse if it gets out of out of control lead to total chaos so he would say it's not in the well-understood long-term interest of course it may be for the individual it may be that the benefits short-term benefits over way the long term costs depends on time preference also I mean the only point I would add to that is that from the social point of view if resources are allocated you know because someone goes into debt and then you have to inflate away the debt and that basically means resources have been misallocated and keep doing that that's not going to help any of us in the long run either well it will help some people it'll help the people working for the Fed and it'll help economists I mean there was some study about how many people who do macroeconomics are either in the pay of the Fed or work for the Fed or get junk at Larry White did a very excellent article and economists have more than most people to say about these things disproportionately which might explain why we have it because it really benefits most economists or at least the macroeconomists if you're if you're unlucky enough to graduate from college at the bus in the bus period of the boom and bus cycle then saving a few bucks on your student loans is not going to do any good is it because you can't find a job question right there would you guys classify credit derivatives as a form of fiduciary media there's estimating like the world value of credit derivatives it's like one hundred million dollars like some people have estimated that and it seems like a pretty big risk would you guys classify can we go back to talking about slavery I get it would it would depend on exactly what it was so Patrick Byrne for example I think I'm pretty sure elsewhere so my quick answer is that certainly in a free market I think there would be what we call financial derivatives you know put options call options and more exotic things and they would not need to be fiduciary media that would be clear what they were they wouldn't be fraudulent or anything and they would help allocate risk and so on but the way it's practiced right now the stuff that Patrick Byrne was getting at in his Skype interview there if you want to go if you Google like the term naked shorts all right it's not nearly as exciting as it sounds right don't do a Google image search that probably would be good but do just like the content and you'll see it I think he's written on that I think it brought me on his website but it was a called deep something yeah deep capture you'll see that that kind of discussion and so there the idea is people are allowed to short sell stocks they don't own and that's kind of weird like how can I sell something I don't possess so there is you know he even alluded to the fraction reserve banking he was calling I think that that's what he was getting at that people are allowed to drive down share prices like in a can attack a company I think they were even doing it to overstock which is why it was particularly relevant to him you know near and dear to his heart that if speculars wanted to drive it down they didn't need to own in the same thing I'm not saying these theories are right or wrong but people who are really into gold and stuff you know have explanation cheese gold really should be up today with all the stuff in Greece and yet it's down and they can say well there's these major Wall Street firms that are shorting it you know selling futures contracts that they can't deliver they physically could not fulfill these contracts and so that's those are financial derivatives and they would be you could say yes they're kind of like fiduciary media yes sir George Washington truly a hero I've been reading hearing alternative interpretations and judge he called him out for his fourth the docks European style battling and Rothbard he tends to favor Charles Lee so I was wondering what your thoughts were he was also an alien I read that means you mean an alien from outer space he met an alien in a forest and then he was replaced I saw that same movie David Gordon on the the Mises Institute book reassessing the presidency David Gordon has a chapter on George Washington it's not very flattering so you might want to read that he was a politician after all and he was a federalist it was his party one one good thing you know give you one example one good thing from our perspective that George Washington did is that even though he he hired Alexander Hamilton as his Treasury Secretary because that's who Robert Morris wanted as Treasury Secretary because he was his political protege but there was a tax revolt in Western Pennsylvania and Hamilton as Treasury Secretary convinced George Washington to get the governors of the states on the Eastern seaboard to draft 15,000 men to go up to Western Pennsylvania and apprehend the tax protesters so they had an army of 15,000 conscripts the officers in the army were all bondholders government bondholders who are worried that if they didn't pay all these taxes on whiskey was a whiskey tax that they wouldn't the Treasury would not have enough money to pay off their principal and interest on their bonds so they had wealthy New Englanders and New Yorkers writing herd on 15,000 conscripts going into Western Pennsylvania and they apprehended a couple of dozen of the leaders and made them walk across the state of Pennsylvania and they're bare feet in the snow and then they put them on trial with Alexander Hamilton being the judge and he wanted to hang them all and George Washington let them all live free and because in George Washington left he went he rode with Hamilton up there but he left because he had some real estate business to attend to and I think David Gordon once told me that he thinks the main reason George Washington went on this expedition is that he was a big-time real estate speculator and he had purchased a lot of land in Pennsylvania he wanted to sell it to some of these rich guys who were accompanying his army to Pennsylvania so it was surely sort of a real estate showing from the perspective of George Washington look at my beautiful land wouldn't you like to buy some of this for the fertile farmland in Pennsylvania and so when I read that I thought well he's not so bad after all they even know he's a politician that he didn't let Hamilton hang the tax protesters the historians mostly lie about this Murray Rothbard wrote an article in the Free Market many many years ago straightening this out because the history the historians claim that this established the right to tax about on a part of the federal government but it didn't because they didn't they didn't enforce the tax law the whiskey tax they didn't they didn't hang the tax protesters that let them go and then Jefferson became president and abolished the whiskey tax so it didn't succeed in apprehending them and punishing them but so Murray set that straight and so have some other people but read David Gordon's article question I'm sort of a Rand Paul fan the economist was asked how is your wife and the answer was compared to what look I favored my man Barack Obama against McCain in 2008 because I thought McCain would actually nuclear bomb people and I I thought McCain Obama was more better on foreign policy doesn't mean I love Obama or I think he's great it's a matter of comparison so you know a lot of libertarians are saying Rand is no Ron and and Rand is deviating here there and everywhere and it's true but compared to what compared to the Jeb Bush compared to Cruz I mean you know he stands head and shoulders above them which isn't saying much it's a pretty low barrier to stand head and shoulders over them but but he is look the example I offer is suppose there was a slave master who said we slaves could vote for overseer goodie or overseer baddie overseer goodie will beat the crap out of us once a month and overseer baddie will beat the crap out of us every hour on the hour and we all vote for overseer goodie does that mean we like overseer goodie no it just means you know he was the least bad that's what politics is we're offered a choice between them and and we pick the least bad so I don't see that this is a realm of purism that you know since look even Ron Paul in my view wasn't perfect I only gave him a 98 on my libertarian meter it was a little weak on this or that I think he's pro life and he was also a little weak on immigration but what the heck Ron Paul was magnificent so if Ron supports his son does that mean I'm not gonna like Ron I mean you know I have a son too I support him and it's just natural thank you very much