KOL465: Sheldon Richman on Corporations, Limited Liability, Price Controls, Thickism, Abortion, Pipes

yeah I was recording to the cloud I mean to the computer I want to record to the cloud Um yeah I just I thought we’d

record this in case uh one of us probably you says something brilliant Uh yeah we were going to talk about

corporations previously but then I just saw your post on um u on Facebook about

uh Trump’s uh price controls Um Oh yeah That’s one too I mean let let me mention

that first Um if if it’s a price control then I I I

well I’m not sure I oppose it unless it’s a typical price control I

mean I think you and I would agree on the typical reasons we oppose price controls I mean their their effects are

obvious Yeah Yeah I mean they call shortages because you have a you presume there’s a free market price and then the

shortage just makes it unprofitable to manufacture at the at at the at the

prevailing price But if if the prices are auto are inflated by patents

then I don’t know if the government granting a monopoly that allows you to charge a monopoly price and then the

government preventing you from using that monopoly is really that bad or is

the same thing as a price control I mean I think you left something out Okay The FDA imposes tremendous costs on the uh

on the drug on the pharmaceutical companies Now I’m not defending patents but they could be seen as some attempt

to do some offset We’re going to impose these massive costs on you testing and all this stuff which has been criticized

by by libertarians course of course and then they’ll say but we’ll also give you x number of years I I agree But you got

to be fair I I agree with that However but but let’s first of all I do think that the um the that’s the reason for

patents is not because of the of the FDA system Um no no but in reality though well in reality and number two um I

think that the costs of the FDA system are exaggerated Like I don’t I don’t think that when when um uh the

pharmaceutical companies sell these drugs in Canada and in India and in Europe at

say you know 25% or even more of the price here I don’t think they’re selling

at a loss No they’re charging the probably the marginal price Well I think they’re

charging above the marginal price Not the average price but the marginal price but they’re charging at at a profit A

little above the marginal price Yeah And I assume you als you also I assume would would agree I mean you know that the KO

some of the KO guys like uh Bandau and uh Krauss and Richard Epstein years ago

they were opposing reimpportation of drugs because it was a way to undercut the monopoly price the pharmaceutical

companies are charging here I assume you would you would be in favor of free trade and abolishing the ban on

reimpportation Yeah me m me m me m me m me m me m me m me m me m me m me is that guy what’s his name connor O’Keefe does uh printed but also video little

articles No he’s got a good piece I just watched today so it’s very fresh about No here here’s how to bring the prices

down Re free trade reimpportation right companies compete with themselves Yeah

but that undercuts your argument that they have to charge these high prices to to recoup their FDA imposed costs

because if there was free trade then they then we could just go buy drugs in Canada Yeah but he went he went after

patents too Keefe Yeah he touched on it Uh yeah he said they ought to uh maybe

reform it He said he didn’t go far enough because his main thing was about allow there to be look I’m I’m for

getting rid of all you know going after all that stuff but I don’t think it helps to put another layer Trump’s

executive order which doesn’t have a lot of detail of course well that’s my point I’m not sure that I’m just saying if it’s a price control I agree with you

except if it’s a price control that reduces a monopoly price to

something that’s not so much of a monopoly price it’s not the same thing as a normal price control but no well

it’s No it’s not Okay I can agree with you It’s not the same thing but it’s

intervention and you have to look Allah Bastion and Hllet You have to look at the secondary tertiary beyond

consequences Of course if the companies have to approach equalizing the price

right with the with the lowest price that’s being charged abroad So they’ll raise the price abroad so they don’t

have to lower the price as much Correct They’re going to lose

revenue for all this which is a bad thing because that goes into uh uh R&D

and the future we’re going to get fewer Yeah but if we have free trade is the same thing And by the way his his

executive order also indicates that the the the um whichever regulatory agency

is that that is it FTC that governs trade should look at reimpportation Um

so to me that you say that that’s good Yeah So if you have reation that should have been the main thing but it would

still be the same effect If you have reimpportation it would it would lower prices But see why can’t Trump do

anything via the market he’s got to do it Look he’s like salesman all over the world for arms and stuff Don’t those

companies have sales forces for the same reason that Canada Canada has a patent system but then they so they they also

allow these pharmaceutical companies to charge monopoly prices but then they impose some kind of price control I

actually don’t know if Canada imposes a price control by law or if they just their their socialized medical system

says we’re only going to pay this much I assume that’s it I don’t Well I don’t know And I don’t know what Trump I don’t

know what Trump is doing either Like maybe Trump is just saying Medicare Medicaid Trump has said to the companies

no this is outside of Medicaid and Medicare Trump has said to the companies you know adopt my most favored

nation rule now or else I will sick on you uh FTC Justice Department uh FDA In

other words he’s he’s he’s a protection racket Do what I want Yeah Make me happy or else sick It’s messy Yeah it’s messy

You’re right And it’s not clear what he would do but you know I don’t know if he has the power to change the law to to go

after them And and and and by the way the way I look at the the FTC and the antitrust laws is that exists already So

I look at the the grant of these monopolies to these companies in the form of patents as sort of coupled with

the restrictions on that because the antitrust law says you cannot abuse a patent monopoly That’s that’s a

violation of antitrust law So Mhm Um you know one way to not be in trouble with the FTC under antitrust law is to charge

a fair market price and not a monopoly price See I’m getting worried This is sound starting to sound like and you’ll

forgive me for saying this Kevin Carson Kevin Carson says “Well given the

privileges then there’s nothing wrong with the government putting restrictions on to somewhat reign in,” he calls those

secondary regulations to reign in the privilege And don’t get rid of the regulation until you’ve gotten rid of

the privilege You know Sheldon I thought we were friends and that that I know it’s an [ __ ] That hurt That hurts I

mean I read your Kevin Carson article the other day It was fantastic You like I love every word of it Um Well I think

in general I would agree if it’s a price control it’s it’s not the way to do it I mean like you said I mean Mises said

this controls breed controls So if the government gives you a monopoly and they also impose costs by the FDA and they

give you a monopoly in the form of a patent that’s going to lead to problems which is what we’re seeing now and the

solution is not to impose a price control The solution is to get rid of the the cause of the problem in the first place I we got we got to get

what’s his name david Lavine and Miklli Buldrren to reissue their book and come

out about how or reissue us just the chapter on the pharmaceuticals about we don’t need well you’ve written about it

too don’t need IP on pharmaceutical Yeah they they have and they they they they did have a couple focused pieces which I

used in my debate with Epstein and so and also um but the problem with Buler

and Lavine is they say these things like yeah we should just even a few cases where patents might be justified It’s

just too dangerous We should get rid of them and replace it with other things like government funding of research I

mean they they can’t go all the way either They’re not you know they’re not really libertarians They just Well right

And it was a purely economic case They were not trying to make a moral case or property rights case like like you do

Well but even their utilitarian case I mean they they concede that in some cases you there might be an empirical

case for patents but it’s just too fraught with with with with risk of you

know of of applying it the wrong way So we should just have a blanket rule None of the patents none no patents And if if

you need to fix a problem fix it with like government subsidies of research or something But anyway um I agree that

they should they should uh redo their case But I think they got a little after their book in I think 2008 they had this

paper about 10 years later which is even more radical in their conclusions about patents So um definitely definitely

moving in the right direction But um what you and I were talking about I I forgot what it was about corporations So

you and I were talking about corporations and I think you had or someone had mentioned u a review by who

was a review by uh one of these economists from about 15 years ago a review of the Hess or maybe 20 years ago

Henry Manny Henry Manny reviewed it in 79 when it came out correct that’s right

um yeah we we agreed that I wish he had said more I mean he slightly criticized

Hessen over the on the tort issue in in only one paragraph uh and said something like well he’s

over he’s given this too much thought anyway it’s not very important I wish he had said more and to my mind that’s the

most important thing because that’s the one issue like you can fairly easily persuade a a a an intelligent

libertarian uh that there’s nothing wrong with the the main aspects of corporations like

having them be able to be sued under one name or having perpetual duration those are easy to understand how that could

emerge from from purely contracts and even limited liability for for debts

because you could just say that’s that’s a condition of the of of the of the loan is that it’s a non-reourse loan or it’s

a recourse against the corporation’s assets only All those are pretty easy to

understand Um but the one final thing sticking point I hear with libertarians

is well what about um tors committed by employees of the corporation

and and Hessen’s answer and that of Roger Palon and Brian Rothbart too the

only ones I’ve seen that really dig into this is basically to reject the assumption of respond superior or to

limit its scope right well to people who actually are responsible wants to narrow the people

that actually are you know had supervisory you know you can’t just say well the whole corporation or all the

stockholders are superior so therefore they’re all they must all respond That’s not Hess’s position Correct But I think

that I think implicit in Hessen’s view and probably Rothbart and um maybe Palon

is the idea that yeah the shareholders are not directly liable but the cor all

the corporations assets are are are fair game But I’m not even sure if that’s right I mean yeah maybe the manager who

directed the guy is liable but why are all the corporation’s assets even liable

to satisfy a judgment um um unless you take unless you adopt some

some form of respond superior Yeah I don’t know the answer to that And

you know I don’t know the history well enough

Uh I guess I guess the theory would be un unless the guy did something you know

the the tortaser did something totally unauthorized uh that he

is acting under the authority of the corporation So their assets if if the

damage he causes exceed what he can pay then the the wrong person the harm

person should be able to turn to the corporation his basically the his boss

right and the boss knowing he might have that liability might have his own insurance and or the corporation might

extend the DNO insurance which my understanding is most corporations because there’s corporate liability

because of the assumption of respondiat superior which doesn’t apply to shareholders but applies to the

corporation because it’s seen as a person Um most corporations they have they have capitalization requirements

They have to have enough money and they have to have insurance Yeah So that you can’t just have a shell corporation that

that is a is a Yeah And which implies that the corporate veil is is is

relatively easy to pierce or else why would you buy that insurance correct But the law what the law says is

if the key sentence in Hessen in this section to me is these are my words

mostly He says in effect look it’s a moot point great corporations have huge

assets Correct First of all that’s what we mean by great corporation We don’t have great

corporations that have really meager assets That’s a contradiction Plus they have ample liability insurance So he’s

saying it’s a moot point What are you worried about this for so I Manny may maybe didn’t give him enough credit but

I wish Manny had said more anyway Yeah And so there’s a couple things I’ve focused on and and one

is Yeah So all these people that think shareholders should be liable like they think that would make a

difference but I don’t see why it would make a difference in most cases because you know it’s not usually going

to bankrupt the corporation anyway I it’s it’s it’s right But you know in in

some cases it would and and and and the causal analysis which is what’s

underlies Hess’s view that yeah the man the managers and maybe the board of directors who come up with the let’s say

the board of directors says okay to save money we’re not going to we’re not going to uh keep have maintenance on our

trucks and then the truck causes the driver to hurt someone then in that case

it’s not just the driver maybe the driver is not even negligent in Maybe maybe it’s maybe it’s the board of directors or the managers or the

supervisors who make those decisions And I do think causally you can trace the harm done to the victim to someone made

a decision which caused the harm Yeah Yeah And the point I tried to make to

these these libertarians attack who attack the corporate forum per se the

point I’ve tried to make to to them is the liability or negligence or you know

responsibility would has to be specifically shown Yes In in regard to a

particular individual if it’s a director or a manager anyway you you’d have to say you know here’s my case for why this

person is really responsible They want to make all shareholders and they think somehow it’s going to shut down the

corporation I agree with you It’s not They want to make everybody by by virtue not of anything they’ve done but but

just their relationship to the to the uh corporation by the fact that they own

you know one or 100 or a thousand shares That fact alone that they say counts for

responsibility not specific responsibility Right And to me that’s that’s the interesting issue is that

assumption there The assumption is this The assumption there’s a couple of assumptions libertarians make who are

critics of the corporation and limited liability One assumption is that shareholders are are

owners and number two that owners are responsible So I think both of those assumptions are just are not really

right because just because the government or the state labels a

shareholder an owner doesn’t mean that they’re an owner I mean what does it mean to be an owner it means to have the

right to use something right i mean you Well it’s a It seems to me I You own something and the something is spelled

out in the contract Correct You have a claim to dividends Yes Maybe a vote if

you’re a voting me uh shareholder Yes You have a you have a ownership in the

sense that you can sell the share You don’t need anybody’s permission You can just But yeah but do you have ownership

of the corporate assets you like if you’re a Google shareholder you can’t use the Google headquarters to throw

your son’s birthday Oh absolutely No absolutely right So you So but there’s still there it seems to me through

contract people can uh divide up ownership or rights of course in a

million different ways unlimited Yeah But but once you recognize that it it emphasizes that ownership is the right to control

u or or ownership is some kind of right So the the right of a shareholder is the

right to receive dividends if the company if the if the if the board decides to pay them and and and if if

the company is sold or or or liquidated then to receive a prorit or share of whatever’s left That’s that’s basically

the only rights of a shareholder But you know if if if you’re a creditor of the

corporation you also have the right to receive money from them to pay off you’ll be in line ahead of the shareholders Correct And so and so and

and if you’re a supplier of the corporation and you know you sold beef to McDonald’s then McDonald’s owes you

money to pay you for the beef Yeah Somebody argued a a good guy somebody on our side argued that there’s not really

a big difference between being a shareholder and a creditor That’s my point But that’s just it’s a forget who

argue but it was before I read your stuff So it wasn’t from you that I got this but I’m not you sounding the same

thing I agree Well I mean I wrote it for like 20 years so I don’t it probably wasn’t me I read something recently who

it was Rothbart Maybe it was in man economy and state even I don’t I forget Well but the the point is

that is that the right to receive money from an entity doesn’t mean that

you are responsible for what the company in other words to me it’s the fact that

the state labels someone as a shareholder is not determinative of the

reality I mean the reality is who’s the controller of the resource that causes things to happen to people So it’s the

it’s the managers and the supervisors and the board of directors Um and then

the second assumption is this assumption that ownership is the source of responsibility But ownership is not a

source of responsibility Ownership is a source of the right to control something It’s not

a source of responsibility The source of responsibility is your actions Right So

it’s it’s what you do Yeah And I and I I took that point in your in your uh your posts I agree with

that in your articles I mean if somebody steals your car I think this is your example Somebody steals of course if if

you left the keys in and left it on the street maybe you have to show it right but there’s there’s a negligence here

But but but the but in if someone steals my gun for example and they could use that to commit a crime the person that

commits the the the the crime is still liable even though they don’t own the resource you know it’s it’s it’s because

they’re actions And I’m not liable for what he did unless you can show that I

should be liable vicariously or secondarily with what he did And I might be if I was li if I was negligent for

example Yeah But it has to be shown Not just you got you have to show it It can’t just be it’s not because I’m the

owner It’s because I did something that contributed to the harm done to the

other person Agree It has to be so so specific responsibility not the fact that you are the owner of the gun And so

that’s my whole point is that if the state labels or classification I mean look the state why is why is a FedEx driver look

what what if McDonald’s uh I mean what if FedEx um instead of

delivering packages by having employees who drive their trucks what if they contract with another company like

Amazon and they they just pay Amazon a fee to deliver their packages for them i think

it happens vice versa actually Amazon Yeah but it could happen both It could happen there It could happen both ways But the point is

just because the law calls one person an employee and the other one a contractor it’s just a legal classification It’s

not it’s not a libertarian one or even an economic one Yeah Um I agree with

that But you know because you know in California Uber drivers are employees

because of a state ruling I think and but in other states I think they exempted Uber and less Okay But but the

point is it’s just it’s just an arbitrary distinction by the state and in other states they’re independent contractors So

I don’t think there’s a real problem here Some left libertarians are making it a problem And because for some reason

they they culturally cannot accept Look remember how I started this whole thing off it was so long ago you might well

forget I I’ve been putting up on social media and and other places saying

libertarians or actually I been saying it to everybody but especially libertarians stop using the word

corporate as a porative Yes Whatever crimes or sins the media the old media

is is committing it’s not because they’re corporations Rand would call that definition by non-essentials In

other words ABC or the New York Times yeah there’s plenty to criticize them

about but the but the root of the problem is not that they’re organized as a corporation That gets push back

unbelievably gets push back Well because I don’t know if people are lazy or they just don’t understand business law

because there are different types of business organization There’s sole proprietorships there’s partnerships there’s limited liability partnerships

and there’s other things too There’s joint ventures and then there’s there’s other bizarre legal legal forms of

organization in other countries that are not corporations So why would you focus

on one and it’s become it’s become a bad word The the left began it I mean Glenn

Greenwald uses it all the time All those guys use it and then libertarians have picked it up Dave Smith uses it I Bob

Murphy was using it but I Bob Murphy and I did a show on it because I wrote to him and said don’t use corporate as a

pjorative that’s aiding you know as I put on on on Facebook a few weeks ago uh

using corporate as a pjorative is not ancap it’s anti-ap

capitalist it’s it’s aiding and abetting the people that hate markets so as best I could tell there’s there’s two reasons

these people oppose corporations one is they just hate bigness Right They hate they hate big they hate the idea of

employment and that way that capitalist’s way of doing things Yes That’s and they and they hate uh large

largeness Yeah Um and number two is because they think there’s some kind of privilege associated Right And I and

I’ve said over and over again somebody identify for me right the privilege without which the corp a corporation the

corporate form not any particular corporation but the corporate form could not endure That’s that’s the basic

question Nobody has answered me Tell me the privilege In other words there’s no

inherent privilege Tell me the privilege without which the corporate form could not survive There’s no They think the

privilege is that shareholders are owners and therefore they should be responsible and they’re not responsible So they have a privilege It comes down

to tort liability But sometimes people don’t even know the distinction between tort and contract and they just say

limited liability Correct They even think that means in debt terms of debt Correct Yeah Um and see even Rodrik Long

has fallen for this It’s a real shame Did you see the other day he put up a a story about a VPN company which and I’m

not questioning the story it may well be true is not recognizing that some of their subscribers have signed up you

know lifetime subscriptions right yeah I think it’s So he puts that up and says and he was referring to you too because

he named you and me he puts up there I was just reading the other day that libertarians say the corporate form

encourages or fosters accountability right well you put up one misbehaving

company and that’s a reputation of our point that the corporate form is legitimate as long as it doesn’t get

government favors How what kind of answer is that he’s smarter than that Well I mean there’s such a thing as

breach of contract I mean people can breach contracts and corporations can breach contracts He doesn’t indict the corporate form though But he’s the law

the law should have a remedy He finds one First of all libertarians forever have argued that markets foster

accountability Correct I would argue that the corporate form does too because you have stock watchers who sell their

advice to people They’re watching companies all the time and advising people on what’s the prospect for future

return So it does foster accountability That doesn’t mean nobody ever cheats

That’s never been the promise It tends to So why doesn’t Rodri know that he does know He knows it He’s just trolling

now Yeah And uh trolling you and me Let’s not get into the thickism thing because we I think we disagree a little

bit on that but I think it’s because I don’t mind the thickism I mind I I I’ve I’ve renounced the leftism Yeah You know

I was once kind of part of that group I mean I was always uneasy about Carson He’s no pro market guy and he’s But but

Long was always solid But I I liked it because I don’t want to

be known as a right-winger right i I thought okay I’m going to adopt left libertarian I like some of what they’re

saying reminding people there is a lot of favoritism in this in the you know government favoritism Uh but I never

liked the predictions I never bought the predictions that you know under Lazy Fair you know there won’t be hierarchy

anymore Everything would be flat or either very flat or totally flat Um there rent would disappear interest

would disappear profits would disappear That was bull I knew that was bull and and Gary Chararda would talk on the we

talk on the phone all the time saying I don’t think that’s going to happen Lots of people will want to rent rather than

buy They’re early in the career They don’t know whether want to be employees be employees Want to be employees They

want to own their own companies That’s a pain in the neck and and companies fail a lot You know most and he agreed with

me We never bought the Carson uh predictions I think Carson Carson one

time said something like it’s almost impossible in a freed market a free market a freed market for anyone

to make more than $250,000 a year and anyone who does is is almost certainly

getting it because of some government privilege or something In other words but it’s just ridiculous I mean you

could think of lots of people that I mean JK Rowling could become a billionaire without copyright in a free

market I mean and especially in in these days of both the internet and a global market and you know who writes about

this Tyler Cowan in his love letter to big business which has a lot of good stuff in it has some bad stuff too but has a lot of good stuff these days where

you’re marketing worldwide and so much of it is internet the web a CEO has to

know much so much more than he needed to know say 50 years ago before the globalism was as big and also as

electronic and you know cyber makes a very good case for why They earn their money You know Carson’s idea is no they

just they’re all on each other’s boards of directors It’s just a big club They’re putting each other in in CEO

positions paying each you know each other all this money Well you had the thing about what is it free floating

capital not owned by anybody What the hell he’s a rationalist That’s pure rationalism in the worst sense right

detached It’s reason kind of detached from reality Are you familiar with Sean Gab at all i

know that name and I I used to have contact with him I’m not sure where now but he’s he’s a friend of mine He’s a

he’s a English libertarian He’s he’s kind he’s anti-

anti-corporation too We we’ve we’ve discussed this before in print and in person And his argument is basically

again it’s it’s this idea that if you’re the shareholder you’re the owner and they should be responsible But it’s this sort of sense they have this hostility

towards the corporate big business thing but they sort of think that if you divide responsibility from the owners

then you get uh irresponsible behavior So I I think that they think that

shareholders if they’re not on the hook they will vote for policies or for

irresponsible board members who will cut corners to maximize shareholder value at

at the expense of harming other people And so I think they sort of think that

if you disconnect ownership so they just don’t like they think that in a free market where every shareholder is

responsible every owner you just wouldn’t be able to have these large these large corporations because it

would be just too risky to be a member of it That that’s just and that’s again getting into the prediction game right

yeah But we do we do have big corporations and it’s not be I don’t see a case for it’s

because of the thing he’s saying First of all the corporate veil can be pierced

and there individuals who do are responsible can be on the hook So I’m I’m not again this seems like

rationalism right it’s it’s working it out in your head without any reference to the real world Well I think it’s

because a lot of these guys they just don’t work in corporate America or you know they don’t work in they’re not they don’t really understand how they how

it’s not the picture that they present of of big business We do it a priority Some things can be done a priority like

misasseconomics economics but some things can’t be a a priori which is the same as rationalism right you work it

out up here I don’t need to look My my eyes are unnecessary Just the bumblebee

can’t fly Oh but look out the window Well I go with my ideas not with what’s out the

window That’s you know I mean in in a in a sense it’s true that like a big state

like the US government which spends trillions of dollars by paying people to

do things a lot of the companies that they pay to do things are going to be large corporations like you know the

defense you know the military contractors Um but

they also you know the federal government employs millions of individual human beings as their

employees that are the workers that do all these bad things It’s impossible for this fictional entity called the US

government to do anything without dealing with human beings It’s just the

way it operates Yeah Yeah And you can criticize you know military contractors

You can criticize particular companies for things you think are are bad But it’s not because they’re corporations

that’s the problem right it’s not the corporate form They want these these left libertarians want to pin on the

corporate form per se that in under anarchism and and full property rights

in their view there would be no corporate form and they don’t make the they’ve not made their case and Van

doesn’t do it either that article in the Freeman which came from a larger journal article published somewhere he he makes

the case that the state is the is the uh you know

the the perfect not that it’s perfect in the sense of good but I mean the complete fictitious person and

corporations are sort of lesser fictitious person so if the state’s bad these have have to be bad it’s a

platonic thing right that’s the form of the fictitious person but it’s bad And these are only the

imperfect reflections of it but they’re bad too It’s the fictitiousness of it that he doesn’t like So he sees the similarity is in the fictitiousness of

it But to my mind it’s just concepts are just the way we organize the data we have to understand things in in

hierarchy hierarchical ways And by the way you’re talking about Frank Van Dunn right um Frank Van Dunn Yeah Yeah Yeah

He’s written a lot in in the journal libertarian studies Yeah

Um yeah I and I know and like Frank but I think he’s also a little I won’t say he’s actually like an interesting

arisatilian anarchist thinker but he is very legal

positivist in the way he thinks a lot of the time because he’s just so used to the the state legal system way

of you know like for example I think Frank and I he he he thinks there should be trademark law Um yeah he’s he and he

doesn’t like he’s in favor of defamation law and blackmail I think because the

law has always treated them as offenses So he just incorpor and and wants to say you are

really harming a person even but he doesn’t get into well you can’t own your

reputation It doesn’t get into that It’s more like this is another way to really harm a person And when it’s and on the

surface it certainly makes sense If I spread around town word that the local

rabbi is a child molester falsely knowingly falsely too Yeah I could destroy the guy and there’s something

wrong with that It is But but the libertarians distinguish harm from from Well I know But it’s a trespass But no

but the point is it’s terrible thing to do to somebody who’s of course it is But but again if you’re if you’re an

Arisatilian and you think in terms of natural law and natural rights and all this you’re going to mix these things together because if it’s immoral at a

certain point it becomes illegal Um and in fact Frank wrote a piece for Hapa’s festrift um uh where he he says “Look if

something like if you have to choose between freedom between freedom and and

and property rights you have to choose freedom.” like they think that there’s a

tension between property rights and liberty and freedom You know who’s talking like that these days randy

Barnett Yes I know I know And and Randy I read his recent book and he he he he

suggests and he wrote he has this article where he’s proposing what he might cover in his um in his new book on

liberty libertarianism where he’s going to say “Well yes.” Uh yeah So yeah you

have to maybe in other words it’s not just aggression per se or aggression committed by the state Also corporations

have a lot of power Yeah And so but the problem and he’s very and he’s very proTrump you know Yeah He was

interviewed by Reason He seemed awful upbeat about what Trump’s doing On the corporation itself I like Hess’s point

that and maybe you can correct me on this because you know you know the law and the history of law I’m getting it

from Hessen so I don’t have it anyway firsthand but he says there there was never any reason it’s a sh it’s a it’s

sad that the the courts in I get and he’s primarily talking about America but maybe it’s true of England too thought

thought of the corporation as an entity and and did a lot of interpretation of it as an entity he said so he says

number one they shouldn’t have done it and number two they didn’t need to do it I totally agree with them and not only that he tops what what he calls and

maybe this is a standard term the inherit theory it’s all the result of contract and voluntary association but

the courts often thought of it no it’s a fictitious person as far as I know that that’s his theory which I think is is

basically correct but but again it goes back to so the way I would look at it is when people say that shareholders have a

privilege because of limited liability they’re assuming that they should be liable under any any legitimate legal or

tort system but because they’re just making the assumption that they’re the owners because the state calls them

owners owners and they should have responsibility But the way I would look at it is it’s not a privilege because they shouldn’t be responsible in the

first place for the tors of the truck driver unless you can show a causal connection which I think you and I are

both saying look there’s lots of people that might be causally vicariously responsible for what he did Managers

supervisors maybe decisions by the board but it’s but it’s not necessarily shareholders because all they did was

buy a share And by the way they might call a shareholder not They might not

even have bought it from the company Like most shareholders they buy it from the from the company when it starts and

they give the company money That’s how the company raises money But if I buy it on the secondary market I’m buying it

from an existing shareholder I’m not giving the corporation a dime No it’s derivative You’re you’re you’re buying

the thing from the one who did give the corporation Correct And so and and you know you you talk about ownership

Obviously there’s got to be ownership because this thing has a market price and it trades It trades among

individuals Well right It has a value because it has certain rights You could

like But again you could if you have a debt you could sell the debt as well because a debt’s a potential future re

revenue stream Yeah But you’re not going to get dividends if the company views dividends right no but not every shareholder gets

dividends either I mean you know uh necessarily Yeah But he’s a potential dividend recipient a bond holder I guess

isn’t correct But yeah but but the point is

you you could you can think of lots of people that that give aid and support

you know aiding well taken in your piece the employees the creditors the suppliers the customers they’re all

giving McDonald’s money or FedEx money Yeah Yeah the guy on Fox said that uh by

since we’re Amazon customers we’re paying for Jeff Bezos very expensive wedding

But I tried to answer him and say no we’re not But that’s the end result of the thinking is that if there’s any if

you if you’re a they’re viewing the corporation as basically a criminal organization and anyone who helps it is aiding in abetting If I took my salary

from my employee my employer and I go out and buy a gun and hold up a bank my employer gave me the money to let me buy

the gun But but but that’s my point is that if you if you don’t have a a careful causal reason to hold a second

person liable for the tors of a first person then there’s no end to this And then we couldn’t do anything as society

because we’re all helping each other live in this capitalist world and we’re all and then guess what that the result

of that is you know taxpayer funded insurance of everything Yeah No no we

need that’s why we need to sna smash this this view and this this this view

that’s coming from libertarian Every time I post something about corporation it’s libertarians who push back Now a

few non-libertarians chime in but I’m mainly getting flat from libertarians saying that’s not a libertarian position

Is is Hessen still alive or is he No he died a few years ago Yeah Um he was not a young he was not a young man Well

maybe maybe uh Richmond and Consully need to write um um in defense of the corporation part two I remember that

book came out I was in working in my first Washington DC libertarian job The Council for a Competitive Economy and we

got the book in from Hoover Institution published it and uh it’s not a very

thick book Doesn’t take long to read and as as Manny points out it’s mainly an attack on NATO So some of it it’s a lot

of it’s dated because NATO was going for national charting chartering with a lot of obligations imposed in return for the

charter So much of it was really aimed at Nater So a new a new revision of the

book would have to you know you could push that stuff aside That’s history Nater is not talking about this anymore

He hasn’t talked about it in a while And go go just for the stuff that’s

specifically on the corporation I think we could do this in five minutes All we do is I I I I put this on Google I get

it on on YouTube and I get a transcript and I give it to Grock and I say “Grock here here’s Hess’s book Here here’s a

couple articles we wrote and here’s our transcript of our conversation Write a new definitive chapter on this topic

Then it’s done Can we put is does Grock get a by line yeah we Yeah because you and I believe

in giving credit even though the copyright law doesn’t require it I feel a little funny having Grock share the by

line That would be funny though No I feel funny not having Croc share the by Yeah Yeah why not look fake

No the good thing is that way if if there’s a mistake we can blame it on Grock later

But uh yeah I just don’t it’s it’s just it’s kind of funny that I get all this flack It’s one thing to get it from non-

libertarians but from pro market you know the other thing is this is as I think Hessen maybe implicitly points out

or points out the corporate form makes it easier for victims to to because they

know who to sue right yeah that’s right I mean it makes it easier for them to file a lawsuit if there is if there’s a

harm the the quote entity status right what’s your goat you have a go-to

tobacco Well I’ve been trying some different ones I find it hard to get a cherry

flavored which I like Oh cherry Yeah I just I just got this one in the mail just the other day Oh yeah I like their

regular Oh I I haven’t smoked that in quite a while So this just came so I’m trying it right now and it’s it’s okay

Um and I tried this apricot one the other day because they didn’t have um and blackberry I like when I can find it

but this place I go to in Houston only has one blackberry and it’s okay So yeah

Do you have What is your go-to well I got a few I have a vanilla custard from Sliff the companyy’s going out of

business because McBaron owns them and now McBaron has been bought by the

Scandinavian Tobacco Group and they’re going to do away with a whole lot of the blends because they have like a thousand

different blends And I can’t believe with smoking being so unpopular in the world today that those blends are really

making any kind of profit So a lot of them are going away But so I I I bought 4 ounces of their uh what oh it’s cold

notes over there It’s called um vanilla custard So it’s a nice kind of sweet thing But I also like uh you know

unflavored like like an English blend Latakia Oriental Periq So this is a corn

C cornell and deal which is a very good company American company called Bazanthium I like that And you get it by

mail or in person or in mail by mail i got it in the mail Mad Fiddler Flake is another one I like that’s kind of quirky

Do you get it from independent companies or is there like a good a good website that has all those there’s two places I

order tobacco from Smokingpipes.com Okay that’s who I get this from Yeah that’s very they’re very good And I I kind of

by email know the guy that runs the whole company Sykes Wilford his name is and they they own the Peter they bought

the Peterson pipe company I mean they’re very active company And then um pipescigars.com is also very good I

always get very good service I uh I go for the lowest price I’m not really an expert I I did I’ve been trying

different pipes I got one pipe that’s a huge one with an interesting shape But what I and I also have some Miran pipes

I bought in Turkey Mam are cool I have a few small mirum I don’t have any large mir Here’s another tobacco I like Used

to be called Dunhill’s white capus Now Dunh Hill decided he didn’t want to have his name on tobacco

anymore So Peterson took it over And uh this is this is again Latia English You

know speaking of big pipes this is one of my father’s pipes I love this Smokes beautifully It’s a it’s called Senade

Got beautiful grain Look at the grain on that thing But the ones I really I tend to like these flat ones that have a flat

bottom so you can set them down Yeah With without having to have a stand That’s my my favorite And uh that’s a

nice pipe Who made that pipe this is um um Savanelli Oh yeah I got because they

have that filter system with these little these little triangular balsa wood uh filters And I know a lot a lot

of purists don’t like those because I know they throw them out the moment they get the pipe But that’s to me I’m not a

cigarette smoker I don’t I like to I So these little things here Yeah I got them I got seven I got I probably have I

don’t know three or four maybe even five seven L So I like the filter system because it sort of cleans it up a little

But um yeah whatever the point is pleasure Whatever gives you the most pleasure Well it’s like uh someone said

about wine you know all these people that are wine snobs and they’ll say “Oh you can only drink red wine with uh meat

and uh you can only have white wine with fish right?” And this guy guy said uh uh

uh and I don’t drink anymore by the way I think it’s all it’s all [ __ ] All the all the all all the all the wine

snob stuff It’s complete [ __ ] But but some guy said you know the wine is

for you You’re not for the wine So if you want to drink red wine with fish or white wine with the steak just [ __ ]

do it You know you don’t need permissions No Abs Absolutely And I heard that that rule’s kind of gone p

anyway But um you know there are tobacco snobs who would say uh you’re smoking an

aromatic you know fl something flavored like I vanilla you have cherry Yeah They would say I would never touch that or

borham riff That’s a drugstore blend Although drugstores don’t carry this stuff anymore They used to Um here’s one

of my mir It’s a little one That’s nice Plenty of color on it Look at all that color How do you What kind of stand do

you use for that uh I keep it in this Yeah But when you set it down you don’t have a stand Oh no I don’t set it down

It’s so small It’s a very small bowl so it’s not going to take that long to smoke it anyway Uh no I don’t You can’t

set I have some that you can’t set down Well the weird thing is and I used to smoke cigars but it’s almost impossible

to find a flavored cigar except for the real cheap ones But at least for tobac for for pipe tobacos for tobacco pipes

you can find good good tobacco that has flavoring Yeah definitely Yeah Whatever

you enjoy And uh look I grew up my father was a pipe smoker I can remember a couple of the

brands He gave me a pipe and and and Cherry Blend Middleton It was that was

actually the name of of a blend Cherry Blend by Middleton And I don’t know it must have been 15 or 16 because he

didn’t want me to experiment with cigarettes So he said “I’m gonna give you a pipe.” And of course I was kind of

young I wasn’t gonna go walking on the street smoking a pipe but I had but it got me started And uh well I don’t do I

I I’ve never smoked cigarettes and I can’t smoke I go crazy But um a lot whenever I know someone who used to be a

smoker and they a cigarette smoker and they if they try a cigar or or a pipe

they just inhale the whole thing and they start coughing and they inhale When

I was a kid with well you know a young teenager with with friends who did like

did take up smoking and but in those days you know you could buy it in a machine for 35 cents Yeah You didn’t

have to even be you know 18 or 21 I couldn’t inhale I cough like crazy And

I wasn’t going to teach myself to inhale So I never I can’t either But but I find that cigarette smokers they they’re

unable to usually unable to withdraw to to to avoid the impulse to inhale Yeah

Um and I keep telling them don’t don’t inhale the pipe And they just like a reflex They’re like well then what’s the

point i’m like yeah well you don’t need it right with cigars or pipes

Oh I would never try to inhale pipe smoke and it’s superfluous anyway In

fact I don’t even I don’t like getting a nicotine hit from tobacco from pipe tobacco Some people do and some maybe

when I’m getting since I’m getting older maybe I’m getting more tolerant but smoking blends that had say peri in it I

could sometimes my head would spin my stomach was queasy my legs were rubbery What is that what is peri periq is a uh

a leaf that’s processed in in one parish in Louisiana St James Parish I believe

it is I mean it’s amazing The soil for some reason it’s like one place on earth

and it’s in blame blends Uh it’s very popular Nobody you don’t smoke it straight It’s a kind of a peppery spicy

thing And it often gets added to Virginiaas V So V So they call them

vapors right v VA va and then perr for peri So they

call them you hear the word vapor VA p That means a Virginia peri blend Now

it’s added to other things too This has peri in it but has no Virginia So well

I’m g have to try it U just because Louis Louisiana is my home state you know and Oh well you Yeah you’re

definitely going to try that It’s just like uh you know Tabasco which is famously from New Iberia Um you know

they have this special pepper that grows there and I don’t know if it really makes a difference but that’s what that’s what their claim to fame is Be

peppery It can be kind of raisiny like dark fruit Uh it you know this is very

subjective stuff Your palette is I always tell people I’m I’m blessed with an unrefined palette I can like a lot of

tobacos There are per there are perfectionists who you know they have a certain couple of blends and no I can’t

eat I can’t try anything else I only like these Uh I like almost any tobacco Well I’m impressed Make my head spin I’m

impressed you called it St James Parish You know you know the Louisiana distinction there Most people get confused Right Right Well I knew that I

did know that And uh because there have been lens that had the name St James in it too to because it because the per was

coming from there you know some of the best I don’t know if you have ever had any lataka blends but it’s it’s one of the main ones of what’s called an

English blend or one of the main leaves And most of it comes from

Cyprus but for some very good uh lataka comes from Syria but with the civil war

it wiped out everything So there’s not been cereal lataka now for years And it’s it’s really delicious And it gets

mixed You don’t drink you don’t again you don’t smoke it straight It gets mixed in Have Have you ever tried a hookah

i think when I was in the Austria once I tried a hookah at a at a like a tea bar or a tea place I’m going to I’ve tried

it in the past and when I go to Turkey and I’m going to when I go back to uh Bow Drum this this September for Haplas

conference I’m going to because they’re hook they’re hook bars and uh and I think it’s the same thing as similar to

a pipe It’s like you don’t inhale it It’s a water it’s a water pipe right it’s like a water bong type thing with a vapor thing but it’s you’re smoking I

forgot I’m not sure what they burn I’m going to investigate Put oriental tobacos in there Some kind of tobacco or

something It must be tobacco I mean I’m sure it’s not hashish No no it’s not it’s not um it’s not it’s not a drug

like u it’s more like tobacco It’ll be oriental or Turkish and oriental almost used interchangeably for tobacco Uh and

and lataka from Cyprus Um that’s probably what’s There’s a whole bunch of

different oriental tobacos or Turkish So do are Trump’s tariffs hurting the

import of your tobacos well I haven’t noticed it yet Uh because the FDA has

been down on you know tobacco for years although one of you know they cleared out a whole lot of people from the FDA

once Trump came in And I I was informed by a guy a pipe guy who’s really involved in the pipe industry let me

know that one of the people who got fired on Mas from the FDA was the guy who was having all these controls on

tobacco and nicotine He’s the guy that wanted to outlaw um menthol cigarettes

which offended a lot of black people because most menthol are purchased by blacks But also they want to reduce the

amount of nicotine progressively in cigarettes to like close to zero I guess that guy’s gone So that’s good

Yeah Yeah That that couldn’t have any unintended uh consequences could it um well it’s sort of like these vape pins

that got popular in the last several years I think haven’t they outloaded a lot of the flavors that are like marketed to kids like I don’t know

orange or grape or something they’ve done it in some states where they’ve done it nationally I’m not sure but they

want to do it They think they think that’s an attraction to kids First of all adults like the flavored Yeah Now I

had you know I don’t smoke inside because of my agreement with my landlord but I do vape And I have a couple of

these little things not real expensive ones I mainly This is a vape Oh they What what but what is it i thought most

people that vape were trying to get rid of smoke They’re trying to become non-smokers So I assume they inhaled

Well you this I can inhale It’s not the same as inhaling smoke First of all this is this is a tobacco flavored but zero

nicotine So it’s like a little capsule with liquid in it and then it it gets vaporized Well you you you take a uh you

have a little squeeze bottle with the stuff in it the eju it’s called And then you take this top off and then you

squeeze some in You know that goes up to the you go up to the line right there And then you put this thing back in

which makes it all go all the way up to the top And then it lasts Well it depends on how much you vape I don’t

vape that much But when I’m inside and it’s too or it’s too hot to go outside to smoke or it’s raining or it’s too

cold then I get some tobacco flavor But I have another one that has uh like

nicotine Tobacco flavored but with nicotine But adults like flavors regular

flavors too I’ve bought in in the past I bought flavors like again But you inhale that or you just smoke it like a pipe

this I do inhale because it’s not as heavy as pipe or cigar smoke I can do that without like going into a coughing

fit I couldn’t even inhale a cigarette without going into a crazy coughing fit I’m just not used to that I could teach

myself but I never wanted to This I can inhale with no problem You don’t need to because there’s no

nicotine So I’m just getting the flavor in the mouth So what’s a good brand like that one looks like a Is it battery

powered you recharge it yeah you recharge it This is called Aspire Breeze I think there’s probably more

popular ones now I’ve had this for I don’t know five years or so This and this is another model of Aspire called

the Sprite And they have you just put a liquid in with water in it or is it like a No

water You just put it right from the You buy the bottle They have little bottles or big bottles and you just you know

it’s got a squeeze you know it’s got like a dropper top or kind of a little top on it You take this this this top

off and so you open up this chamber This doesn’t come out This is all Okay So there’s a reservoir in there that holds

it Yeah there’s a reservoir in there You just like I said you squeeze the stuff in and you go up to this line because when you put the the coil and and the

mouthpiece back in it’s going to raise the limit Otherwise you don’t want to overflow it Yeah There And this wasn’t

very This is like I don’t know what this cost $30 I don’t know what it is today but I haven’t been to a vape shop in a

long time But it’s a pleasant taste if I can’t go out and smoke I don’t think it’s nearly as satisfying as smoking the

pipe No way First of all you don’t get as much smoke The cloud’s smaller No you can buy

more serious vape that are you know kind of bigger more power more controls on it

I don’t I never got into it My son has one that’s more like that And there you can get they even have contests for how

big a cloud you can you can blow They have contests

The things we humans will do to uh enjoy our uh our capitalist wealth

Exactly right But smoking courses been popular for a very long time Yeah I have this little uh Elizabeth and in the days

when tobacco was so expensive that you people could only afford a pinch This is

a clay pipe Elizabeth and clay pipe Look how small the bowl is Oh interesting But it’s you know it’s like it probably take

you less time to smoke that bowl than a cigarette Yeah But I I was a bit of a collector I don’t

have a a huge collection and I never spent a lot of money on a pipe I never spent more than about 120 bucks on on a

pipe and and that was that was very rare that that I got to that level Most of mine are 60 70 you know 7’s are very

moderately priced nicely made pipes You go wrong 7L

and there’s all right well I guess we agree Yeah we don’t have any debate over pipes

Uh no I mean pretty much agree on corporations and uh we’ll save left libert not left libertarian We agree on

left libertarianism We we’ll we’ll we’ll uh go to thick libertarianism another

time But you know the Randians are thick libertarians right that’s not synonymous with left libertarian I know I know And

and my problem with that is more of a meta problem It’s like they try to take credit for

something that is is is obvious I mean what’s obvious is that there are many disciplines that relate to each other I

mean you can’t be a good libertarian if you don’t know something about economics and history for example But they’re not

the same thing And and you wouldn’t care about being consistent and being just if

you didn’t have values other than libertarian values but they’re not the same thing So no when Rodri tries to in

these these thickers they try to say that there’s a host of I forgot what

word they use um uh there’s a host of values or comm

commitments commitments that you have by virtue of being a libertarian that als yeah that also imply that so like if

you’re against aggression you should also be against bossing people around or

push but to me those are Which again is why Van Dunn and these others say that well we’re really for

liberty and freedom and if that conflicts with property rights we have to choose liberty first or something like that or or freedom as if they can

conflict Well I look I can see the point that if you’re a libertarian and you’re

committed to individuals you know making their own decisions because you know I want to make my own decisions I and and

I also benefit when people make their own decisions right stuff like that It seems to me there there’s a relation I

won’t say you know he won’t say it’s logically entailed or that libertarianism demands it but he would

say let’s say you’re you’re exhibiting you’re you’re watching somebody bullying someone else He’s not using any force

Yes He’s just you know and real bullying not a borderline case You’re going to be

revolted by that scene Yes But as a person as a person But he would also say

that your commitment to individual liberty also will make you Yeah But you could also say your commitment to your

your commitment to uh your empathy for the weak and your and your and your and your and your empathy for other people

Well you can have more than one reason But my point is your your your values of just being a decent person is why you’re

a libertarian I mean they go it goes both ways Yeah But he but he he can he’s just giving an additional reason I mean

look we can concede that somebody can be a libertarian and a racist Yes And an or

an anti-semite or anti-atholic or you know anti- anything anti-gay whatever

and still you know never initiated force Uh but if you’re an

individualist something about racism ought to make you recoil I agree But it’s because you’re even though that

person’s not using any force he’s not Yeah But it’s it’s because you’re an individualist Not because I mean yeah

but his individualism is at the base of his libertarianism That’s I agree with that too I I’m arguing kind of what

Roderick would argue and no but there just distinct things Yeah I buy this point of part of it No but it is seems

to be it’s linked is they are linked but it’s linked to the libertarianism Yeah

But you could say that mathematics and economics and and philosophy and logic commitment to the free market

maybe is I don’t see about mathematics Well because because that’s not libertarian

Well if you don’t understand anything about math then it’s going to hamper your ability to make a good case It’s

not just understanding I mean you know a libertarian is is an individualist

Well well let’s talk about that And methodologically right well method methodology Well meth methodologically

it means that the fundamental actors that we’re analyzing are individuals Okay that’s true You don’t want to you

don’t want to see You don’t really want to not that you have the right to use force to stop it

because force isn’t being used by the other person but you don’t in a way you don’t want you’d prefer not to see

uh existential violations of individualism through you know racism or

anti-semitism Maybe Megan got at it once I don’t I forget where I read this many

years ago so I don’t know where I saw it but Megan was Megan once wrote “I don’t like slavery because I don’t like

slaves.” I think that’s getting at it Yeah And you know I mean even Nichi

talks about slave morality and things like that but but it seems to me the left who hate you

know say they hate slavery because they they like a different kind of slavery but they wouldn’t like the Mean Line

they would say that’s not a reason not to like slavery You know they’d have some other reason because they

mistakenly think slavery is bound up with racism which it isn’t of course Right Right

Um I think it’s just common sense that uh of course we’re libertarians Our only

value is not liberty but it’s one of our values as a human If you’re a decent human and one of the reasons to be

libertarian is because you you have decent values I mean if if you’re a complete narcissist and hedonist and

have no empathy for others it’s very unlikely you’re going to even pursue the line of reasoning that’s going to make

you passionate about the defense of liberty Yeah I mean you could theoretically it’s possible but it’s

just unlikely right yeah And it’s also unlikely that you’re there have been people kind of quote on the right who it

seems from things they’ve said on social media are were attracted to libertarianism because somehow it would

protect their racism because hey if we have full property rights then I can sure I never associate with black black

people or something like that So that makes me nervous Yeah And but I think that there are I mean you might like the

free market because you could be rich enough to buy a big a big piece of land and and keep keep the blacks away I mean

that might be your particular motivation Yeah Um but so what but I think the

Rodrik point is you know it it violates the spirit of libertarianism not the letter These are

my turns now The spirit not the letter Yeah And and I guess I would agree in general uh as a as a decent human and

someone who is a libertarian because I value other things than liberty and they all go together They complement each other But I would just disagree with his

particulars Like my thick values that complement my libertarianism don’t lead

me to have a a revulsion towards the idea of having a job you know or employment I don’t I don’t see

employment and hierarchies as bossing people around in a more in an immoral way

No I agree with you totally Um um yeah I don’t like this idea that wage labor is

and this is the way Chsky puts it although he’s he’s no well he would say he is a libertarian that we stole the

word but he’s no market guy He thinks that wage labor is simply a step renting

a person is just a step away from owning a person That’s what Chsky says But you know who’s a left libertarian who

wouldn’t use the term in recent years lou Rockwell And somebody dug up an article he wrote some years ago back

when this was like a big debate going on thick versus thin and left versus non-left Rockwell had an article about

how bourgeoa values are inextricably linked to libertarianism He once he once

said that he didn’t like the Marx Brothers movies because it made fun of bourgeoa values and bourgeoa culture So

he’s a thick that was a thick libertarian almost defending him but that’s a thick libertarian position

I don’t I mean if you could make an argument that boogeoa values

um uh are almost necessary to make you a good libertarian theorist or thinker I I

don’t know I I what’s what would the argu what’s the what’s the booge i can’t remember I

don’t I haven’t seen that in years but somebody found it on you know the Rockwell report or the Rockwell.com when

all this was you know when when Carson was the subject of you know a whole issue of the journal Yeah but I thought

you said I thought you said Lou was kind of a left libertarian How’s it not a left libertarian i said thick libertarian Oh thick I thought you said

okay He was saying the thickness is in the bajgeois values So it’s not just I believe in non-coercion That’s all

Sometimes Block says this right he says libertarians only about one thing non-co in fact I had a debate with him once and

it was unclear whether which what we were debating left libertarians or thick libertarian because he kept switching and I kept saying tell me what you want

to debate I’ll debate either one but tell me which because he kept slip and they’re not the same thing he said libertarianism is not about

individualism it’s only about one thing non-coercion well at its core how can libertarians spend all this time writing

about free markets that’s thick then right I think

it’s right I I I think it’s it’s

because you could you could shore up the case for liberty and and and rights by appealing to related values

But you know and and the reason that we’re in favor of it is because it shores up our other values I mean if

you’re just a if you’re just an empathetic person and you care about yourself but you also care about other people because you’re social and you’re

not a sociopath then if you just understand the basic nature of the state and the nature of violence the nature of

human action the the need for property rights then that’s one reason you would be in favor of of rights right but I do

think the cases are distin or they’re just distinct things That’s that’s my point is that they’re

When you say libertarian is only about I mean this I have a problem when people like Walter when people say it’s only

about this or or when thickers say it’s about this too I mean to me that’s a

sloppy way of talking about it because it’s not a novel that has a plot It’s not about anything You know what I mean it’s it’s like it’s what is it

mathematics is a distinct thing Economics is a distinct thing Yeah I don’t think Rhetoric would say it’s about he would just say the commitments

that are involved in libertarianism also suggest that you should be

committed to these other things like finding racism distasteful because

you’re an individualist libertarian I mean I mean I’ve kind of written before that like just analyzing myself and my

own history I think one reason I became a libertarian was because of my personal

history with bullying So I hated I I I so that was one reason I gravitated

towards the logic of libertarianism and of rights and of all that stuff So in a way my my

a-libertarian value of being against the injustice and unfairness and and

immorality of bullying is one reason I I I I I like libertarian values And you

could also say they reinforce each other It goes the other way around too Once you understand the the true nature of aggression then you then but yeah I

think but but if I say I’m against bullying it’s not because I’m a libertarian It might might make me a better

anti-bullyer but I just think they’re distinct They’re distinct things I don’t think there I would just say and I think

Ron would put it this way they’re not they’re not so distinct as to be

separate Well I don’t kind of association You know Block was insisting

that libertarianism is about one thing anti-coercion you know non-aggression And I said “No well it’s about li

individualism too.” He said “Oh so I guess you’re against orchestras and and sports teams right?” He said that to me

That’s online You can find it He said “I so I guess you’re against sports teams here If you’re an individualist huh?”

Yeah He’s the worst debater of the world by the way He goes crazy and he says things he

can’t possibly even when he’s right Like I You ever see that debate he did over abortion you know he has this eviction

theory Oh I’ve got a whole disagreement with his his entire way of approaching abortion is completely He says he’s been

evicted because you know it trespassed And when his opponent said “What do you mean trespassed?” Yeah Trespass involves

a border crossing No it doesn’t He says “No it doesn’t.” What the hell is he talking about trespass doesn’t involve a

border crossing No he’s he’s on the abortion issue I mean his whole abortion argument is first he he assumes that he

he assumes that the fetus has rights which to me is like not a justified assumption Um he does Um he says because

they’re human So like right away he’s so he’s he’s setting up a problem that then he has to solve The problem is

that a two-day old zygote inside of a woman not even a fetus I mean just just

an embryo just you know two days old has rights because it’s human which I think that’s not the source of rights but okay

And but you can still kill it because it’s a trespasser And I’m like well it’s not a trespasser It’s been invited by

the woman’s actions by the mother So it’s not a trespasser at all It’s it’s invited And he says well it’s not

invited because you can’t have a contract with it because it it when you conceived it it didn’t exist yet So you

can’t It could have been invited because it didn’t exist to be invited Yeah that’s his argument And so then I came up with might have trespassed Correct It

could be rape We’re not talking about rape though No no we’re assuming normal normal invited fetus Um and I said well

again it’s aggression is responsibility comes from your actions And so the

example I gave him was suppose I plant um a a

landmine in the woods next to a tree that’s unowned because I’m hoping that someday some kid

will you know in 20 years will walk over it and blow get blown up I think I’m the

murderer even though when I did it the kid didn’t even exist yet Right

That’s a good one And and by the same token it’s my responsibility to the to

the to the baby or to the fetus if it has rights in the later stages of pregnancy let’s say is because I caused

it to be there It’s not because I have a contract with it Anyway I I I do think

his is the worst position of all you know you can come at it a different few different ways but he he’s trying to

preserve you know this rights theory and and work work with it but I don’t think

it doesn’t work You know it’s like when Rothbart I can understand why you wanted to do it but it didn’t work that you can

just you know you could have a baby bring the baby home We’re not talking about abortion now You know you know the story You can bring the baby home and

just never feed it and not tell anybody about it I thought he was he would say that’s the

baby’s your property Yeah because because there’s no positive rights and there’s no positive obligations But Block doesn’t agree with that You know

what Block says you have to do you have to let someone maybe on the church doorstep right at least put it in public

so someone else can come along and adopt it or something Uh I don’t know why Rothbart felt he had to say no you could

do that That would because he he didn’t want to admit that there’s positive obligations and and I think that’s been

a mistake libertarians have made for a long time Well but Right But then we get into the thing where the surgeon has

opened you up and then says “I don’t feel like finishing this operation.” Well that’s complicated Or a pilot takes

you up in the sky in a in a plane and then says “Hey you know what i’m bailing out.” Well I I I think that there are

positive obligations It’s just there are no unchosen positive obligations Right It’s been incurred Now the airplane

example I think there’s a couple ways you and this is another li this is libertarian dorm dorm room I know grad

school discussion [ __ ] And it’s and it and the danger of these things is is they’re they’re in the danger of

becoming rationalist because they’re usually a contextual you know like like the the classic Oh

I’ll I’ll give you Reiko’s story because um Russia because my son is due pretty

soon so I’m going to be getting a message saying he’s just pulled up All right three three minutes I’ll be done But um okay we were sitting around in

Auburn Reiko was there and you know the libertarian thing about if if someone falls off of a building and they on the

third on the 15th floor and they they land they land on a flag pole outside of your building Can you Papa came up with

that didn’t he oh no no I think actually David Freriedman came up with it Maybe But but but the typical propertian

absolutist libertarian say “Yeah you don’t have to let him in because it’s trespass.” And D and Ralph was listening

to us debate it He says “Are you guys [ __ ] nuts of course you got to let the guy in It’s you can’t kill the guy.” But the truth is in

reality there’s never an aextual situation like there might be an agreement among the owners of the condos

because the the building owner says you you got to let someone in if there in a case like that I mean it it so it just

depends upon the situation and not only that it’s like just let the guy in and that he can pay damages or or something but it’s you can’t kill the guy But ha I

believe Hapa says if you say to the guy let go which means he he dies to his

death you got to let go or he’s got a right to I don’t remember Hans ever saying that Um I I’d be surprised if he

said that Well I think that’s what Freriedman reports Maybe it’s not accurate My son’s just arrived All right

Well good talking to you at this hour every Saturday Okay Take care Yeah Have a great I had a great time We’ll do it

again soon Thanks Bye Bye