 Hey everyone, welcome to Voluntary Virtues Network. I'm your host Mike Shanklin joined also with my co-host panelist I think in this case it would be better to call him a co-host Mike Dana. How you doing, Mike? Hey, not bad man. Thanks for having me on. Yeah, good to have you as many of you know already We have and ask me anything from a stiff and cancella and very famous Libertarian and or co-libertarian is I think the label that he likes to associate with which I really enjoy that term as well But he's an intellectual property attorney has is a staunchly anti IP for those who don't know staunchly and in fact one of the the best anti IP speeches I've ever seen online was from cancella himself does a really good job and has a lot of support in the Voluntary's community so always a pleasure to have you on the network again Hey, Mike's glad to be here Yeah, the plural so listen Let's let's just jump right into this for those of you who haven't seen our past interviews We've had cancella on over the years about four or five times at least so I'll throw up the videos You'll you'll see in the recorded version afterward the archived version all the different Annotation links to go to those other videos so you can get his intro where he came from etc We want to jump right into the tough topics tonight just like I did with Walter Block and Jeffrey Tucker and David Friedman the last few weeks So let's go right into immigration. I think we have a great question from Joe post of he wants me to ask you He first made a statement. He says once there was a man who came From Hillel the rabbi the Hillel and Hillel converted him saying that which is despicable to you Do not do to your fellow This is the whole Torah and the rest is commentary go and learn it We need this for those who wish to make the case for liberty and for those we wish to hear it sound bites Unfortunately are what people here today Can you suggest a clear concise and short argument on free immigration that is also persuasive the boiling point on this issue is so low He says it's hard to get you know Pass the very first base because most people kind of have it on the back burner So I want to hear what you have to say to people when they say when you hear somebody complain about immigration Maybe a voter maybe even somebody who considers himself a libertarian. How do you usually like to approach? immigration as a as a whole so it's a it's a topic that Always causes emotional Somewhat nationalistic instincts sometimes among people Most arguments against immigration I think are Either based in economic illiteracy, right? The idea that more competition is worse protectionism job protectionism Or some kind of racist tribalist nationalism, right? We don't want America to become a Spanish-speaking country that kind of thing or the idea that Americans are superior and everyone else is inferior and so if we let them come in and they get the right to vote They're gonna vote worse than we do which I don't see how it's possible So to me to my mind, that's not a good argument. There are some good arguments in the second best sort of case Of concern for immigration People who say that they're afraid that people are gonna come over here and vote Democrat is what I hear a lot of the times Right, they're gonna just vote Democrat I found that most people come from Puerto Rico or some Cuban region. They usually have more of an anti State position like they've escaped tyranny. So they've seen it firsthand not all of them But I've seen that pretty heavily or some of them who have been disassociated. Obviously, there's a Democrat law La Raza, etc. But that's the the general, you know Consensus I've seen on it. Do you agree with that or not? No, I do. I don't think I don't think immigrants are any better or worse as human beings than anyone else I think they come here. They want to shut the door, you know to the gates to paradise behind them But you know, I don't think that I don't think immigrants are any worse. Look most immigrants that come here have to have a little bit of fortitude a little bit of ingenuity a little bit of Cajones to come to a new country and try to make it. I think most people that come here now I'm talking about the US case. It could be different in some countries. Okay, but in the US case people are not coming here To get on welfare. They're coming here to have a better opportunity in life And I think that's kind of people that you in general in general want now Hanterman Hoppe and some of these sort of Paleo libertarians in the last couple of decades have pointed out something What they've tried to do is they try to say that so long as we have a state there are going to be Costs of a policy of immigration either a year one way or the other in other words If you open the borders, which I think we should do because you cannot as a libertarian or as an anarchist Support the federal government doing anything other than committing suicide and disbanding You really can't be in support of the federal government rounding up immigrants and things like that But on the other hand if the federal government is going to maintain a monopoly of territorial control over the United States And impose affirmative action laws and anti-discrimination laws and have a welfare state Then what you're doing is you are causing what Hoppe calls forced integration, and I think that's actually a real problem Of course is caused by the state not by the immigrants themselves but You can't just Blind yourself to the problems and say that well the obvious solution is for the state to Open the borders. Well, the obvious solution is for the state to get out of the way entirely Right but at the state opens the borders But maintains its security state and its affirmative action policies and its road network Etc. It's going to it will cause other problems and violations of people's rights And I think we need to recognize that and it's a problem of the state Yeah, you know, I guess my whole thing is because in a free society, honestly you and A hundred other people can who come together and want to start up a a galt sculpt I think is a perfect example, right if they don't want to have A certain person there. I don't know, you know have maybe if they hate men, right? So they don't want men there It's a group of women and they don't want any men there. Well, it's private property They have the right to exclude so I can see that under the hopping argument from a proper a private property perspective I just kind of hesitant to say, you know to attack one of the other sides Based upon an attendant from another characteristic Of course the real answer like you already stated was just to completely abolish the state altogether and allow free Enterprise and free exchange and free trade and property rights Mike, you know, did you have anything to add to the immigration thing before we move on to another topic? Yeah, the immigration The immigration issue I think I think you're thinking right Mike. I'm sorry step on a Lot of people they make the cliche arguments that you hear all the time well, you know, they don't speak the language Well, the quote Doug Stanhope well, then don't talk to him, you know, the guy who speaks the language Perfectly is next door and you've lived there for eight years. You haven't said two words to that guy and Well, they they they take up American jobs and they're burdening our tax systems They get into our healthcare and our education system Well, what the hell do you think you're doing to me when you're popping out a bunch of kids? Oh, yeah, we just let me get a bunch of a couple new jobs and yeah I'll pay for them. I'll wave American flag pull up the shades. Well, I'm sure but the real the real argument Those arguments are put in place for a real cliched arguments of that they're taking American jobs Well, if that guy comes across the border and he's all tatted up He's got no shoes. He doesn't speak the language Probably doesn't have any education if he just qualifies for your job as you are then you are a loser of Ethic proportions and I would be ashamed To have anyone find out that guy took my job and I think that's really the whole Cliche arguments why people don't want immigrants from Mexico coming over the border and the other hand I think it's an economic issue in this country if we had a better economy. I think people would admit that they would Probably need them and they'd be accepted but instead the federal and state governments made them into like a scapegoat and Unfortunately a lot of ones that come here and they work hard pretty much demonized by the whole of the country And it's not like they come here with five cars a house, you know on their back Right, they create demand as well. Just more so than a newborn baby. All right. Let's let's move on So, uh, do you know you have another question that you want to ask to console what we can move on? Yeah, sure Okay, so Robin Krueger just did a video About young people coming into the freedom movement and our kids and volunteers and They have a little trouble with Their parents not liking what they believe in What is your message to the newer members the younger members? that have taken on the belief of self-ownership self-responsibility and non-aggression Oh That's an interesting question Most most times I see the opposite where I have you know I see libertarians of my generation or maybe a little older a little younger and they're wondering How they can convert their kids into libertarians or whether they should or what the appropriate rules about that are right? So now you're talking about the opposite situation like if someone becomes libertarian or has a passionate interest in ideas of liberty and their family doesn't I think that The probably the best general advice is to just do what Leonard Reid and Albert J. Nock talked about which is to be a Good example In other words if you have excellence in your life if people know that you have character and integrity and honesty They know you're sincere. They know you actually listen when you talk to them Over time people will gravitate towards your message or at least toward listening to you. They'll come ask you for advice They'll say what do you think about this? So instead of pushing the message on people I think it's better just to live an exemplary life and by the power of attraction as I think Leonard Reid called it People will gravitate towards you Other than that, I think it's just you know, there's a reason why there's an expression of don't talk politics and religion in front of strangers Sometimes that goes with close friends and family you you gravitate towards people because of your common interest with them and Things you have in common with them, which is not always politics I Guess I would always stand if someone my personal approach is if someone asked me a question I always answer it. I never refused to answer a question But I don't always volunteer right if they're not asking for my opinion I mean, I'm not always the most important guy in the room, right? They don't always want to hear what I have to say You don't always have to weigh in on a every Particular topic that is going on at the dinner table and weigh in with your libertarian stuff If you do that too much you become a bore so I would just say be a decent person and be honest and open and Bring things up naturally and if people are interested fine Lots of people are never interested and I don't I haven't myself discovered a way that you can make someone interested in something That they're not naturally interested in so I just wouldn't push it. I would just be who you are Be honest and open and sincere be willing to answer questions, but You can't go around proselytizing all the time and beating people up. You just sort of come an annoyance Yeah, but I think the you know, that's a great point too. I agree. I completely agree with everything you're saying What we're really worried about is we have a person. Let's just take the scenario We have a person who's 13 14 15 wants to get into freedom and a volunteer ism But their parents won't let them do so or are very weary of it You know, you can imagine what it would sound like saying Hey, mom dad some guys on the internet want me to join this anarchy You know what I'm saying right if it's kind of like, you know, I'd be really freaky for a 14 year old 15 year old Parent a parent of a 15 or a 14 year old or whatever to hear that so but at the same time You would think that the kid as long as it's free speech and they're not allowing You know, they're not encouraging violence or some criminal actions outright You know hurting other people you would think that as a parent there would be some leeway in there Maybe some time for explanation if the kids good enough he can explain it But what would you say to the 14 15 year old who who wants to understand? Voluntary ism, but the parents are you know pernil controls any word with the word Voluntary ism is blocked from search engines, etc. How would you as a child be able to handle that? You know just a general question or is there no way to do a hide in the closet till you're 18 or This is fine, but we're straying I think totally from libertarian Theory and principles is how to live a life in a certain condition Which is how to be a developing child a developing adult really if you don't have parents that? Basically or really great parents. I mean they could be somewhat good parents, but In my own experience, I've seen that parents that are at least somewhat decent will respond to a repeated impassioned Sincere reasoned argument by their child they will follow their child's lead So I would say mom and dad listen. Here's my reason for this. I'm interested in this. I'm not gonna hurt anyone I'm not gonna hurt myself. I Ain't really unless you have an abusive parent. What's the question? Can is that is the parent not permitting the child to read what he wants to read within within bounds? I mean not pornography maybe or whatever, but you know read whatever he's interested in most parents would do that Right what about having friends or what does it mean to join a community? If you're on if you're online you can join whatever community you want, you know just by voluntary interaction So I guess I would say Yeah, if you have to wait until you're 18 That's one thing But if you're in that kind of situation, it's really not good I mean if you have the kind of parents where you have to wait until you're 18 to get your liberation your manumission so to speak I Doubt they're doing a good job raising the child in the first place and I don't know if we could even expect that the child will have educational opportunities and The socially well well developed enough that when he's 18 he can go out on his own and accomplish things anyway So there are tragedies out there, but for most people most parents Even if they're unaware, I think they're decent people and I think if the child just honestly talks to them Don't try to persuade the parent don't try to convert them. Just say let me pursue my own interest This is my current interest when I was three. I was in the dinosaurs, you know when I was seven I was into transformers now. I'm into political theory and justice and ethics and Let me pursue it. I don't see why a reasonable parent wouldn't agree to that That fair enough. Let's move on. Thank you for your honest answer We have a question from a person named Joe. They didn't want to give their last name So I guess anonymous Joe wants me to ask you what are your thoughts on libertarian legal order and the death penalty? Obviously you have stated before that it would exist you think in some regions But do you think it would actually be a plausible scenario that he says that in most cases? He sees it in too much of a threat Or a liability that you know future liability of putting somebody to death that might be innocent I can be proven later on There's just too many scenarios where the death penalty. He thinks would be abolished. He wants to know do you do you think? Plausibility wise the death penalty would actually be used in a libertarian legal order society outside of immediate self-defense Yes, so first of all, let's clarify a few what I think are kind of easy issues that kind of hymns in the problem First of all, I think if you have to kill someone in self-defense is totally justified I'm definitely not a pacifist in that kind of Sense I do believe there is a right to I'm not saying that pacifism is not a Good strategy or a personally ethically just a viable course But I do believe there is a right to use lethal force to defend yourself And it doesn't have to be exactly proportionate. I mean I must say you can shoot someone for a minor crime But you don't have to you know, if you're being threatened with a serious enough crime I think you can go all the way defend yourself to me. That's the bottom line of any kind of justice-based society I also think that as long as we have a state We should never be in favor of the state having the death penalty or even prison to be honest For several reasons number one the state can't be trusted. It's incompetent. It's corrupt It's evil. It's the biggest enemy out there and so to focus on private criminals Who many of which are very bad But to focus on them instead of the big enemy in the room, which is the public criminal state Is to have misplaced priorities? Right and also the state has many things that it calls crimes, which are not real crimes If the state was only executing actually guilty murderers You know, maybe you would say the state shouldn't be doing it, but it wouldn't be that big of a human tragedy and there's the other issue is the state is Not just a state, but we're all infallible. We're not infallible. We're fallible. There's a possibility of mistake The problem with the death penalty or capital punishment or really any punishment is the possibility of mistake So I'm totally opposed to any Existing state administering any kind of capital punishment including any punishment to be honest Now in a free society, what can we expect? I do believe that on occasion well first of all I think crime would be much more rare in a free society because we'd be richer More civilized etc crime would be a rare thing when it happens you would defend yourself and when you failed Then the question is what do you do with the the lawbreaker the outlaw? Well, one thing is you you I identify them and you outlaw them and you exclude them from society Unless they can somehow integrate themselves back into society by making some kind of restitution some kind of apology some kind of contrition I Do find it hard to believe that there would be in a free society institutionalized punishment at all Which means? incarceration or execution etc because the costs are so high and because it really accomplishes so little I Could see incapacitating people or even killing people that are standing threats I could see some people becoming outlaws if they refuse to try to reincorporate themselves into society but I do believe that just the cost involved in Retribution are so high and the benefits are so low that it's hard to imagine a free private Justice-seeking low crime society actually having a corporation whose job it is to capture people and to kill them I just don't see it happening on a widespread basis. I could imagine on occasion that the the the the relatives of the victim of a violent crime are so outraged and so dissatisfied with any restitution based award would just go take vigilante justice into their own hands and in those rare cases I think it would be ad hoc it wouldn't would not be institutionalized to be ad hoc Probably most people would just turn their eyes and let it go They wouldn't be convicted You might keep your eye on this guy because he's a little bit dangerous now because he's taken long to his own hands So it would be a marginal ad hoc occasional random issue But I don't see Capital punishment being used and on a widespread basis In any civilized society or torture or even imprisonment that that's sort of my normative predictive Perspective on this and I've written on this before Yeah, good stuff and just because you've written on it doesn't mean the viewers know that's why I drill you on this stuff So there's a lot of things I know that you've done and you've done great work So that's why I'm just saying I've got a blog put it. Oh, yeah Search my name and like Randy Barnett Restitution you'll find you'll find the post where I kind of go into this stuff perfect perfect One but we got them kind of move quickly. We've got a lot of questions here Let me see here Stephanie Crimson's I hope I said that right what's been asked you do believe labor unions would exist in a free society Obviously, you can make a voluntary union of workers But would they really have any power would they even form in the first place knowing they wouldn't have that real power like they do with the state unions today That's a good question Look I Have had a knee-jerk anti-union reaction being sort of conservative in my upbringing and in my libertarian understanding of how Modern labor unions have gotten extra market power because of state laws some of my left libertarian friends have Opened my eyes a little bit to this and they've maybe made me understand that Normal unions Had been corrupted by the state in other words the unions that we have now are not really what you would expect to see Now as a as a as a libertarian and as an Austrian economist. I don't really see attention between labor and Capital I'm not a Marxist. I'm not a Marxian. I really don't see attention I think there's a natural harmony of interest and the fact that I think every every person in the free market is A bit of a capitalist is a bit of a laborer is a bit of an investor is a bit of an entrepreneur It's a spectrum that's spread across all people I mean Michael Milken at the height of his career was making half a billion dollars a year salary as an employee But he was obviously the one in charge, right? I might have no boss and no employer and have my own shop selling something. I'm making legal services art prints Starbucks coffee, you know coffee, whatever my employers are basically all the people that pay me to produce all my customers all my Clients are they my bosses in a sense and in a sense. I'm their boss because it's a mutual relationship. So I Am very wary and leery of over reliance upon the way the state Classifies relationships between people the state will say you are the employer you are the employee and Then they say well if you're an employee as opposed to an independent contractor There are certain requirements. You can't accept a minimum. You can't accept a wage less than a minimum wage Etc. Etc. So the state Classifies people and categorizes people according to its arbitrary classifications, and then it regulates them It has to classify in order to regulate Because it's frustrating to the state and to regular people who want to control things that there are no Objective classifications and categorizations of people. We're all a mixture of Entrepreneur actor investor employee employer There's really no economic difference between an employee and someone who has a job as an independent consultant economically, there's really no difference We might group them this way for economic purposes to try to understand things like the nature of the firm Etc. But then the state comes in and imposes these categories and sets them into law and uses them to regulate and control and tax people So I don't see a natural conflict of interest between the labor and the employer in a free market I think they actually are harmonious and they support each other. It's a symbiotic Relationship so I suppose I could see some kind of free market union project emerging in a free market but I Find it hard to believe it would be a very big thing because number one we would all be so wealthy in a free market and Everyone is basically an owner of capital in some sense and an investor That there's just not an inherent classist conflict of interest This is part of the Marxian idea that separates society by classes We view people as being part of this class or that class if you really want to do class analysis You should look at what Hoppe has written Hans Hermann Hoppe and he says basically Marx had it right except Marx was wrong in his economics and separated people by whether they were exploiters on the basis of owning capital or Being the laborers what Hoppe said is well Real exploitation is committing aggression and that's the libertarian insight That's libertarian touchstone. So if you want to separate people by class, it's the state versus us and the state is the institutionalized use of aggression against innocent Private people so if we're going to really get into this kind of analysis we have to keep in mind that the state is the problem the state is the agency of institutionalized aggression and and If we're gonna have a union, I think we should have a union of the oppressed Opposing what the state does to us the you know the the servile class It's called voluntary is an integral libertarianism, right? Voluntary union. I guess there you go. You are a supporter of the voluntary virtues workers union. That's a joke That's a joke. All right. So let's move on Michael Dana wants to ask the next question girl for buddy Yeah, sure. So When you when someone gets arrested for whatever crime and they get charged and they get put in the prison They pretty much lose All their rights that they only allowed minimal amount of rights three cost meals and a shower When they serve their time for whatever Charge it they they had let's just assume it's a gun related crime When they get out of prison, they're no longer allowed to Get a gun in your opinion should They be considered that they serve their time and have that right to own a gun Return back to them I think it's a general matter. I would say yes Although I'm a little bit leery of buying into the state's logic of you you've you've you You've engaged in what we call a crime You've violated some social rule that we say you can't violate and there are known penalties for violating it and the way to Get out of this is to pay the time pay the you know pay the price which is a fixed time of Incarceration basically I Mean I could see in a free society that if there was to be some kind of punishment or retribution or incarceration Maybe it's not a fixed time. Maybe it's based upon some other criteria Maybe some people are have proved themselves to be such standing threats to society that they should be locked away forever Or cast out of society but in today's society as a general rule anything we can do to limit the state's Discretion and the extent and severity of the state's ability to punish people is a good thing Anything we can do to reduce the state's power to incarcerate and harm people is a good thing It is probably true that a large number of people in jail are really genuine criminals and dangerous people of course they've been made dangerous people because of the prison system itself and also because of the result of state laws like welfare and Unemployment caused by inflation and by the business cycle, which is called by the Fed There's any number of things you could point to where you could point to the root cause of criminality As as the state's fault Okay, so I don't deny there are bad people in jail But there are a lot of people in jail that are only bad because the government calls them bad right because they sold cocaine or marijuana So If I could open every prison door right now I would push the button if I could free every every criminal even if it meant freeing Some really bad guys I would do it because the state is the real enemy and there's lots of innocent people in jail People that have not violated anyone's rights What whatsoever so so I suppose I I suppose that that's that's sort of my answer I my main hostility is aimed at the biggest enemy in the room Which is the state and in our world is the United States government. I mean It's not Russia or Cuba or Iran It is the United States of America our federal government. It's not Louisiana or Texas It is the federal government of Louisiana. That's the real enemy. It's the most dangerous enemy We've ever faced in humanity. It's powerful. It's entrenched and It's not the only problem out there But I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and that is the big enemy that humanity faces right now All right. Well, let's talk about this for a second. What do you think of when people say, you know, obviously China is still more Communistic than the US is right. It's more fascistic. You would think you're even more communist has more centralized authority over the means of production So they even outlaw Facebook in some regions for goodness sakes, you know So people would look at America and say we have the freedom to go in and go to your soccer games and for the most part, you know, like you don't have to worry about having a Windowless van come up to your house and just kidnap you like you do in some other regions So why why is it? I agree with you the federal government is growing completely out of control And it's it's a wreck and to me, of course all tyranny is bad But yes, the federal system is really really really really really really bad But I want you to pinpoint some reasons why you would say that because there's some people I can already hear it You know the devil's advocates out there saying well, look why don't you just go to move to some other region? America's not that bad. Can you pinpoint why? Yeah, good No, I totally first of all, I do not agree that we live in a police state in the United States And I don't think it's getting worse in every respect I think it's getting worse in some respects and it's getting better in some respects I mean the overall tax burden and the level of spending of the federal government has not really changed Radically as a percentage of the overall economy 30 40 years What the US government does it does under the cover of law this is the problem this is why it's insidious I don't think the US is the worst government just because there's something special about the United States I think we're the worst because we're the richest Hans-Herman Hoppe has an article he points out that there's a sort of perverse relationship between Countries ruled by states that have Internally liberal Policies by which he means a free market and they become more imperialistic or war-like externally in other words if you have a better internal Domestic policy you tend to have a worse foreign policy and the reason for that is simple It's because the government that happens to be parasitically Funding itself off of the productive economy that it happens to be cleaning on to Is going to have more resources at its disposal. So the United States happens to be the largest free market economy Not only in the world, but in the history of the world So the government that is the tick that sucks the blood off of this beast Which is the United States federal government is going to be engorged in massive? I mean go to Washington DC. You'll see the riches. It's incredible. It's incredible but it's getting that because it's Parasitically sucking energy and resources from the free market economy Then it uses that to fund Boeing and McDonald Douglas and the military industrial complex and to Have a 400 500 billion dollar a year military, which you can use to bully Other nations and it will use it because the resources are there the government really doesn't pay for them They're there. They're there for the politicians and the planners own a grand isement It's natural to assume. They're gonna do it. I mean, what's Russia gonna do? What's Iran gonna do Iran is small Russia is medium-sized and poor China is large, but poor on a per capita basis So of course, we're gonna have the largest Military in the world and it's just naive to think that the government in control of that is not going to use it So we have a paradox the paradox is that the richer we are the better our internal policies are The more dangerous is any government that is in control Which is the reason why menarchists are completely out of their minds if they think we can never have a limited state or a limited government You cannot and in a sense the better the government's policies are the more dangerous that government is Which is why the only stable and peaceful solution is to have no state whatsoever If we had a free market here With no state we would be a hundred times as rich and Have no institution institutionalized war or peace We wouldn't be provoking the Arabs and the Muslims and the rest of the world We would just be a beacon a haven of freedom for the world We'd have open borders. We'd have dynamic trade. We have innovation out the wazoo We see that we see glimmers of that now we have that now to some degree But if we could unleash this free spirit of the kind of the country so basically the state is always the real enemy Anyway, I rambled but that's And I completely agree with you Yeah, it is a nice vision. I have it in my head all the time. That's that's the end goal You know, obviously I'll never be able to experience that at least not in my lifetime But hopefully I can help bring it sooner for people a thousand years down the road or etc Whatever it happens. Maybe even just a small region breaks away and I can help with that. Anyway Some more viewer questions here big James wants me to ask you big James over on YouTube wants me to ask you I have a question about IP I'm a musician and I always wondered about fair if fair use would apply for using a short sample like a line or two From a movie or a TV show in a song How do you define fair use because there seems to be some disagreement on that so Fair use is an exception to the copyright regime I think the entire copyright regime is an infringement of freedom of speech in the first place is a horrible idea So if there's exceptions to it, that's a good thing. Although one reason the government permits these exceptions is to smooth over the rough edges of the whole otherwise horrible consequences of the policies that they have So in a way it lets them get away with perpetuating the system just to have these exceptions But as a general matter, I'm in favor of the exceptions the exceptions are written very vaguely number one because they're written by in statute They're not like common law evolved. They're not a response to a dispute over real resources. They're not a justice type Response copyright law is an artificial system designed to promote a certain policy which is Do encourage artists to have more creative expression and the fair use exception is another policy It's to permit commentary Excuse me and nonprofit Use of these works that otherwise you wouldn't be able to use because there's copyright in the first place the way that the The legislators in Congress came up with fair use and it's called fair. There's other terms in other countries in the US is called fair use There's a list of factors So you're supposed to just apply these factors There's I think four main factors like the extent of the use the amount of the market's gonna hurt whether it's a transformative use etc The problem is that it's legislative and it's not it's not objective and The answer always comes down to what some court or jury ends up saying When there's a dispute that goes to court that's expensive enough to justify going to court in the first place and on top of this the Congress in 1998 enacted the digital Millennium Copyright Act Which a lot which what which does the following it it basically gives Undue power to copyright holders to have things taken down from the internet If they just alleged there's a copyright infringement, okay So if a takedown notice gets sent to YouTube saying this video that you just posted of your son at His birthday party Because someone in the background is playing a Beyonce video or maybe they're singing happy birthday If someone just makes an allegation I Claimed there's a copyright infringement you have to take this video down YouTube Google has to take it down because if they don't they lose the safe harbor Protection which is a protection that the DMCA says as long as you respond to these notices You're not liable for what other people do so this makes these content providers and these ISPs The channel providers makes them risk averse they will instantly just take things down and There is no fair use Judgment call there because no robot can do this no minimum wage worker can do this and There's no assertion by the There's no requirement that the complainant prove that There's a copyright infringement and there's no penalty if they get something taken down They shouldn't have been taken down in the first place Okay, so in practice what happens is because of the statutory nature of the copyright regime And because fair use is ambiguous and vague Fair use means almost nothing Right, so let's say I want to do a documentary and I'm walking down the street and I'm filming People I'm filming scenes for my documentary and there's some things in the background Someone could make an argument that oh there's something in there that's subject to trademark or copyright or whatever No, I'm like you record a Nike sign in the background Something like that or even someone's face which is a which is which is another IP type right the right of publicity Now let's say that Let's say you could hire a law professor to write a 17,000 word Argument arguing why everything you're doing is fair use. Okay. I guess you could do that But it's not definitive. It's not clear. It's not the call of a judge You know, it's not the definitive pronouncement of a judge and so anyone financing you it's going to be leery of liability They're not going to finance it. They're not going to let you sell it They're not gonna let you show the movie in their theater They're not going to let you distribute the movie and so this this encourages it either adds a lot of expense Or it causes self-censorship people censor themselves because they want to get the movie out there So they they have very anodyne Messages which are stripped of anything that's possibly Offending or copyright infringing Right. So fair use does almost no good It's a little bit more liberal in the US than in other countries but That's just on the on the areas that have been settled already anything that's cloudy or vague or beyond it Basically gets censored So one solution would be to get rid of copyright or to reduce the term But of course we could make copy we could expand the fair use Defense and of course we should we should make it more clear we should expand it But of course Hollywood and the music industry fights that tooth and nail every time we want to even clarify Fair use because they hate fair use. Right. Yeah, it makes perfect sense to I mean they have An economic incentive to make sure that they are pro-statism in that situation. All right, so let's let's move on I got a question of my own I kind of we'll get back to the future questions here in a second But I want to hear what your thoughts on the whole climate change Discussion that's going on, you know, do you believe that the earth is getting warmer? You know, what statistical evidence do you have? Go for it Well, I don't pretend to be an expert on on that issue my opinion is that I'm skeptical of The idea of even climate change And I'm also skeptical that it's a bad idea if it is happening and I'm skeptical that we're causing it if it's happening My my understanding is that we've had climate change For hundreds of millions of years and it's a natural part of the process If and to the extent human activity is causing it Then the only solution I can think of that is reasonable and consistent with liberty and property rights is Basically to internalize externalities which means to have better control of property rights, which means if you're if you're polluting and You're causing damage to other people's property and someone can show that that should be a cause of action But if that were the debate then we could have a real debate about it, but that's not the real debate the real debate is about Human overuse of energy and consumptionism and the West taking unfair advantage of the East or the South however, you want to call it so I I'm again, I'm more concerned about the state than about climate change The solution to climate change is supposed to be the state But the state is the biggest killer and destroyer in modern life The state is the biggest polluter the biggest destroyer the biggest murderer the biggest killer the biggest liar And so I would rather have free market economists or free market companies Come up with a way to build three-foot walls around the entire coastline of most most continents Then rely upon the state to solve a problem that the state is largely responsible for in the first place if it's even a problem Hey fair enough. Yeah, it's kind of like The the guy in a referee game who I guess it's different It's like somebody hitting somebody else and then saying they got hit by them But really they're the ones who hit first it's kind of like they're the ones who pollute all the time And then they say that free people are polluting which we're not even free. Anyway, so let's move on to the next viewer question This one is from YouTube handle kinshi kinji and they want me to ask you to say a question for console is My question is getting rid of government Through the shortest route possible They believe that this is encouraging a finding so financial collapse through peaceful means that means by voting for all the bad Laws and hopefully people will see that government's bad and people will go on a completely different course What do you think about some people who say well? We need the government to collapse For us to be able to bring about freedom quicker Well again, this is just my take and I could be wrong first of all, I'm literally the word government I try to use the word state One reason I do that is because pro Non-anarchist types will try to trap you with this argument if you say They'll try to say well, don't you think we need law and order? Yes. Well, that's the government so how can you be anti-government and Whatever so They always try to trap you with this equivocation So if government means the institutions of law and order then I'm in favor of government But I'm against the state the state is the monopolized control of territorial use of force in a given jurisdiction That's what the state is now what the state does is the state monopolizes certain institutional features of society like money and banking and roads and defense and Even government you could say and and over and law and over time people start equating these things with the state So we libertarians see that the state has taken over the government and the state controls the government So when we say we're anti-state we sometimes they were anti-government and that makes sense But the average person equates government with law and order. So if you say you're anti-government, they think you're anti Order they think you're for chaos. This is the eternal dilemma. So that's one thing I would be clear about So I'm against this the state now the question is so How do we How could we ever get to an anti-state to a non-state society? I mean I Heard someone say before about this argument that your caller has used They're arguing worse is better. Well, it seems to me pretty common sense that worse is worse, right? I Suppose it's possible to imagine going through a painful period in Which the Phoenix could rise from the ashes and we would have a libertarian society emerge at the other end and the price would have been worth paying I Think that's their argument The problem is first of all, you can't argue you can't say that Unambiguously you can't say that the death and destruction caused in the interim is worth the price Is worth paying because if it's a violation of rights is a violation of rights and second of all I think they have no reason to believe this I think if we had some kind of civil war or some kind of societal breakdown There's just no reason to expect a libertarian paradise to emerge. It would probably just be worse So I'm afraid that the only and so and he also talks about voting so voting for a B and C now He's talking about voting for the bad instead of the good for some strategic purpose But the underground underlying assumption is that voting is a is a is a moral And an efficacious way to get things done politically and I don't believe it's either one I think voting is usually useless on an individual basis and is always a moral Just to participate in the system Or almost always a moral I don't blame people for voting against the texts You know a bond increase in their local county or something, but basically if you're voting for a Republican instead of a Democrat or vice versa You're participating in a small evil way in the system. I believe Okay, so I don't think voting would be the way to do it. Anyway, and anyway, it's not going to happen The only way to achieve a free society I think is to have a majority libertarian population So the question is how do we get that? Can you engineer it? Is it possible? Can we hope for it? Do we just have to wait? Do we have to give up, you know, so these are the questions that are the fundamental questions and my view is that The only real solution is that we can hope that overtime the level of Technology and the level of free market interaction and the level of intercourse between people of different countries Increases so that people French people know English people etc and that Teaching events happen that gradually a consciousness emerges and we just become smarter as a people Right, we realize that centralized planning doesn't work We realize that freedom is good and free markets work And I think that's happening slowly if you think about the the the average commentary a typical person would have About the viability of say communism Russian-style communism in 1982 Compared to 2012 There's a big difference because in 1991 or 1990 whenever it was Communism collapsed and everyone they don't understand it like an Austrian economist might but there's a widespread Understanding that we have to have free markets and we have to have some Liberalism they call it. So these are big teaching moments in history And I think that's what we can hope for we can be there in the background as pushers as Libertarians as evangelists as advocates Trying to help do what we can to enlighten one or two or three or ten people that we know personally or that we can touch on the internet and We can help preserve a body of knowledge that's there It's like Albert J. Knox idea of the remnant right where the remnant of civilization Except I think in his time when he wrote it was a lot more bleak and desperate than it is now There are maybe a dozen or two people then now there are hundreds tens of hundreds of thousands of us You know that movie idiocracy. Yes, you know, well, you know, I think it's funny and all that but I think it's really Wrong from a historical perspective because if anything cognitive abilities are going up Whether you take IQ tests in quotient set that seriously or not The point is people do have a better cognitive Understanding today than years ago people are can't understand more. They might not be pushed as hard through the public school system, right? But that's a different story. I think the abilities humans evolve This is my point is that evolution happens in in everything I think and this is just another part of evolution throughout Hopefully I think throughout human history is as we gain more knowledge We understand that individualism is just the logical and rational perspectives start to make more sense or more tangible to us And when you can see them as real-life examples around you a gold sculpt that will be successful more people will think hey That's something I want to emulate, right? So I think Even if human intelligence is not increasing which I don't know if it is in fact I think there's an argument that human intelligence may be going down because of the welfare state and the perverse policies the government set in place but Just the existence of computers and cell phones and Wikipedia and Google and interconnectedness In a way is improving our intelligence as a species, right and as individuals even so yeah I think it's I'm kind of an optimist to be honest. I think that I View the the free market is like a big Mustang Okay, and the the state is like a bunch of Liliputian little demons with little ties and tethers holding it back And the question is can the Mustang get enough speed? to keep going and to outrun or at least live with all these little parasites suckerfish on it and I see the future of humanity possibly I don't want to be a Pollyanna But possibly as the Mustang springing free and to finally running free of these little parasitical creatures Becoming so big and muscular and powerful that they just don't matter that no one cares about them They're just little warts basically they're not They're not strong enough to to bring it down and to kill it because really that's what the battle is about the state really wants to survive But it's doing it by Trying to kill human society and human civilization so it's really a battle between death and life the state is death and The free market and individuals or freedom and life That that's our battle. Hey, we got a stop right there anyway. Hey Stefan go ahead and give out plugs for your website, etc And we can move on Just go to C4 Sif.org you can find everything you need to know about me there C4snaf.org and as everybody knows we do have stiff and can so every 4th Monday 3 to 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time here on the voluntary virtues network, which is taking off Exploding out the gate. I want to thank everybody. We've had a hand in making this successful Hundreds and hundreds of radio show hosts now added on to the Vivian Network We're trying to have a 24-7 network going forward for all humanity So hopefully this is a new project that will a new venture that'll push the message of freedom and anarcho libertarianism Into the future get that horse off You know, maybe it's an antibiotic for that horse on those parasites. Anyway, Stefan will have you back soon and thank you so much Once again, thanks enjoyed it. Yes, sir Make sure you guys check us out every every Monday 3 to 4 p.m. Eastern Standard Time the very first Monday We have Walter Block the second Monday 3 to 4 p.m. We have Jeffrey Tucker David Friedman the third Monday and Stefan Kinsella the fourth Monday so great lineup here on the voluntary virtues network We're gonna see you then hopefully next time on this next week. I will not have a show from the 3 to 4 session I'll be getting back from porkfest. So just deal with me. I will be launching the new Vivian Network I'll be doing a lot with white cloud security on my other job So lots of hard work coming for me just stick with me and here in June We're launching the full network of full launch really excited about that will be advertising etc So stick around on Vivian and we'll make sure you guys have some great stuff Great content to share with your friends family members people who you want to get in the discussion of an anarcho-libertarian society Michael Dano Thank you for being a panelist and a wonderful co-host with other great questions Hey view Mike the world. Yeah, awesome guys. I'll see you porkfest in a few days. All right All right guys and hope to see many of you at porkfest as well I will be there tomorrow around sometime this time tomorrow afternoon. So I until then thanks again from Vivian