Hey everyone glad to have you again one update off the bat the organization website is now launched Voluntary theocracy.org so there's not an easier way to access some show notes and helpful links There's one for this show already up, which I hope you'll find handy with things that we referenced today There's a donation page also. I asked for $1 a month I've had several people asked to give one time Bitcoin or cash donations before so now there is a simple way to support the show If you can't do a donation, please share an episode with someone who might find it helpful I've gotten a couple reviews on iTunes so far. So thank you slimzac and Joshua for helping more people find the show Now some of you know that I have a background in media production And I've gotten royalty checks and benefited from a copyright tradition I don't call it law tradition on multiple occasions and I have family who've had their entire livelihood Supported by royalty checks copyright things like that So how can I say in the title that copyrights are unlawful? Wouldn't that be hurtful for me? So Stefan Kinsella is my guest today I found him through Tom Woods's podcast years back and I've run into his talks at Mises University Online several times. He's a patent attorney who's helped me think through these issues practically Relating to intellectual property and why it doesn't actually exist I believe there's a Bible verse that I can point to as well in Exodus, but we will get to that We get into some less than settled issues that are fun to talk about as well. Let's go Deuteronomy 4 5 through 8 see I have taught you statutes and rules as the Lord my God commanded me That you should do them in the land that you are entering to take possession of it Keep them and do them for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples Who when they hear all these statutes will say surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people For what great nation is there that has a God so near to it as the Lord our God is to us whenever we call upon him And what great nation is there that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? My name is Adam Terrell and I'm here to encourage you to obey the law and think about it and speak about it constantly. I Broke the law Christ paid my debt by sacrificing himself so that I can be clean to offer myself as a living sacrifice back to God The entire mosaic law is obligatory for everyone Keeping some of the laws look different today because the light of further revelation supersedes shadows in the old law The temple sacrifices are an example where we have something better Note that we must still obey the mosaic laws for sacrifices There is still a temple and priests are still required to offer sacrifices It's just that the priests the sacrifices and the temple are all better now God will show grace to those who apply the law to themselves to those who have hidden the law in their hearts And he will judge those who disobey accordingly I must apply it to myself and then those around me will see its fruit and be drawn to its goodness Theocracy grows by the sword of the spirit God's word and self sacrifice The law's purpose is to give a path to restoration Christ has restored me so I must seek to restore others by sacrificing myself Thanks for listening. My goal with each conversation is to edify and bring the law and wisdom to bear on each person's current situation in life Hey, this is Stefan Cancella. I'm talking to you from Houston, Texas where I live I'm a patent attorney by profession and the libertarian writer and speaker And I've been a libertarian since high school and from Louisiana originally And I would consider myself to be the type of libertarian, an anarchist libertarian Influenced heavily by the Austrian School of Economics and Murray Rothbard And other thinkers such as Ein Rand who was not an anarchist and Mises and Hansurman Hoppe and many others So that's basically where I'm coming from In my life and approach to political philosophy So how did you become a libertarian? What would that have been? What year would that have been? Probably 82 when I was like 81 or 82 when I was a sophomore or a junior in high school And I was sort of apolitical didn't know anything about it was just interested in science and philosophy And all that stuff and a librarian recommended that I read The Fountainhead by Ein Rand So I read it and that got me down the Ein Rand path at first But then that finally led to Austrian economics and anarcho-capitalism So that would have been before I know a lot of people recently have been Brought into it by Ron Paul or had their attention drawn to it by other sources No, no, I was way before Ron Paul I've always liked Ron Paul, but I've never really learned anything from him. I think he's just someone who has said here to certain ideas I was at I went to Louisiana State University LSU and I was there from 83 to 80 Like to 1991 Eight years and when I was there Ron Paul actually ran for president in I think 88 it was And I was a libertarian, but I was still skeptical of liberty I was I was randian I was you know, so I was their politics is libertarian, but they she hated libertarian So I thought she was right in condemning them I thought there was something wrong with them right that they were not Identical to us, but I kept seeing their pamphlets around school and listening to and everything they said sounded similar to Ein Rand's politics What did Ein Rand hate about libertarians? Well, I think it was it was number one.  Do you think they took her? I guess her philosophy too far or her ideas too far So she had a long I mean, they they still reject libertarianism. Um But I think that's basically the reasons but I thought she was right at first until I kept seeing you know evidence to the contrary Yeah, that is interesting I've heard I did hear walter block say something similar about if you would disagree with her with something She would basically kick you out and wouldn't have anything to do With you anymore would cut off all contact so to speak Yeah, you had to buy her whole philosophy. Um And that she thinks so she thinks libertarians have no I mean, it's almost like the the the thick or or religious perspective on liberty where you anchor your your political views in a broader Philosophy, you know, um that encompasses like a worldview or everything Yeah, so like that like some some religious people would say you can't really have a solid Political philosophy or ethics if it's not grounded in a deeper moral law That kind of thing and ran had a similar view, but it was more secular, you know So she thought the foundations were shaky and that they were arbitrary like if you just happened to like liberty for no Articulable reason then you weren't really a reliable ally and all that Um, so it's sort of that kind of view So how did you go from there to being more libertarian and then into the anarchy side of things? What were some were there certain people you encountered or arguments that clinched it for you? Well, I guess, you know, I bought into her, you know, she has I think The two fundamental flaws that she made were on intellectual property Because she bases her whole philosophy of property rights on this idea that things you create of values Or things you have property rights in and that works to a degree when you talk about land and other resources, but Things you can hold in your hand Yeah, but but then she thought it meant well if you create an idea like then you also own that So that was the root of her whole philosophy. I think that's wrong as we we can get into Um, and then her other is, you know, the idea that you need government is usually bad if it's too big But you need limited government Because without without government, there's anarchy and anarchy Anarchy is necessarily lawlessness because You could have competing governments basically or agencies that could have wars with each other But of course She herself did not favor one world government, which she rationed. She logically should have Following her own reasoning right because we have 200 governments nation state governments in the world today And unless you have one supreme government overall to ensure uniformity of laws and to ensure that they don't fight each other Then we still have anarchy with respect to each other So logically the objectivists should want there to be a one world state and some of them admit that that ideally that is the Ideal solution, but that in today's world it would be too It would be too problematic So they sort of hedged their bets on that Yeah, what's that meme that's going around where it's, you know, we can't have anarchy Wouldn't warlords take over and then it has a picture of uh Different united states presidents and flatter me or putin and all these different people. Yeah. Yeah They've already taken over. I think there was uh, probably the key book that made me start thinking hard about it was The tana hills morris and linda tana hill wrote a classic book in the 70s. I think called the market for liberty Um, which is lays out the extent sort of the randian menarchists views to to an anarchist First rothbard and david treatment people like that, but it was really the tana hills I think that that made me finally admit that you just can't Once you believe in individual rights like rand did Um, and that it's always wrong to initiate force against people then you have to say well You can't tax them and you can't You can't use force against them to prevent them from using their own security providers As long as they're not committing aggression And that's what the government has to do the state has to do one of those two things to exist It has to either tax or it has to outlaw competition And both of those actions require the use of force against innocent people who have not committed aggression Which is what's prohibited by the non-aggression principle that's key to iron rand's political philosophy and libertarianism So it's just by logic. The state is inherently criminal Or aggressive and therefore it's unjust That's the basic argument for anarchy So did you become a patent attorney while you were still randian It seems very interesting that a patent attorney would write a book on against intellectual intellectual property I don't know if you can elaborate on that in a way. It's a coincidence because the one thing in college and in law school That always bothered me was iron rand's argument for patent and copyright because it's unlike her other arguments. She She comes up with this artificial argument for why it makes sense to have These so-called natural property rights that expire after a certain finite time Like copyrights expire after roughly 100 or so years and patents expire after about 17 years Whereas other property rights never expire So if there are natural property rights, why do they expire? And why was iron rand in favor of that and the argument just seemed arbitrary and also The number of years seemed arbitrary. What's the right number of years? Why would why not just 16 years instead of 17 or at least with property taxes? It's dependent on your ability to continue paying. Yeah, there's some articulable principle, but for patents, there's no There's no principle whatsoever. It's just totally arbitrary and that didn't seem right So I always thought that there was some better argument for patent and copyright Like I assumed they were in ultra property because it's called that and I assumed as part of capitalism in the free market because It's in the u.s constitution, which is I think what I think that's why iron rand believed in it because she Moved here from russia and she Worship the u.s because it was so much better than russia in communism So she assumed that everything in the constitution was basically capitalist, right? But I think she was just wrong So she came up with a sort of tortured argument trying to justify it, but she never succeeded So I always thought there was something wrong with the argument Um, and I started writing more and more on libertarian theory myself like on rights theory and then later on different different things some legal theory And in my law practice, I first did oil and gas law, but then I decided to switch to patent law right around 1993 or 94 And at the same time, I started turning my attention towards trying to come up with an argument A better argument that iron rand and others had given for patent law and copyright law Um, and since I knew more and more about the law itself since I was practicing I started reading, you know, all my reading on the area helped me study it But finally I gave up I gave up trying to prove it because I realized I was failing because I was doing trying to do the impossible. I was trying to justify something that's unjustifiable So as part of my attempt to justify it, I realized That it's unjustifiable and that it's it's totally contrary to property rights and to the free market and capitalism Is that the topic that you find you get the most resonance with? I know that's most of your talks at least that means is you are on intellectual property um Yeah, it means is you know in the beginning days. I started going right after I met Rothbard once in November of 94 right before he died in two months later and Then I started attending the austrian scholars conferences and I would give talks on a variety of topics rights theory contract theory causation legislation Um and then an ultra property So it was just like one subset of what I would speak on and it wasn't my main interest and it's still not really um But because I'm sort of one of the few people who really understands the law and austrian economics and libertarian theory um You're more of a much more of an authority on it They're just hardly anyone else And so I I wrote on it because I thought I had to kind of get out of my system and put the issue to bed And then I was going to move on to other things and I have But yeah, most people know me for that because that idea kind of arose at the right time Well, it's really the other way around. I mean one reason I turned my attention to it In part My own personal timing in my life like practicing law and becoming a a budding libertarian scholar But also that was around right around the time, you know 94 95. That's when the internet basically started and at that point in time all the Problems caused by copyright and patent in the previous centuries Were mostly unseen by the average person They they were they were always there and they plagued businesses And they they slowed down innovation and they distorted free speech But it wasn't so obvious until the digital revolution in the internet, right? When then you started having piracy and then you started having copyright crackdowns so that's when libertarians started having sort of a um A cognitive dissonance because most of them were in favor of ip But they saw it being so-called abused by Copyright holders and by the state and restricting internet freedom Now it's affecting your daily person's life In tangible ways. Yeah, so they started turning their attention to it and trying to wonder about it Like is it really a good idea? And then the people that were defending it started doubling down their defenses and being On the rear guard like dirt being putting put on the defensive and um, and so in the middle of all this I kind of came up with Like I'll say definitive, but like an authoritative approach grounded in solid libertarian principles, but also um With with total awareness of the way the law works so Like a lot of a lot of people that write on on ip or like political philosophers or philosophers or economists and they don't really Understand the actual patent and copyright law itself like they have a general understanding, but it's so arcane that You know, I'll read it and I cringe sometimes because they they'll confuse trademark and copyright or patent and trademark or trade secret in this or they'll They'll confuse plagiarism with copyright or they'll call it fraud or contract breach They just get all these things all tangled up. So you have to kind of go back to basics in your libertarian and economics to kind of To revisit like why do we believe in rights and what are rights? What are property rights and how does economics interrelate to it? You have to kind of sort those things out in a more clear fashion to kind of solve the ip puzzle So the ip puzzle is pretty easy once you see everything in a clear way But you have to first see everything in a clear way to you know to get there Well, I'm it seemed I was watching a uh I guess there's a mini documentary about the invention of the of the screw and like phillips versus the flat head and Alan keys and all that stuff the guy that invented the phillips He had a patent on it and the only reason it's so ubiquitous is I think it was either a car Manufacture it was Henry Ford or somebody like that offered to buy him out of the patent and all these things And it was like the only reason that that took off is because That it became standardized Was because somebody bought the patent for it But then a whole bunch of people started infringing on it and just adopting it faster than anybody could catch Something like that. Well, and eventually it would expire eventually anyway But but if it takes 17 years it could slow things down. I mean, right, you know, like the u.s in world war one When it started our airplane industry even though the airplane really started here um in the u.s Uh our industry had been slowed down and plagued by patent wars between people claiming various patents on it So when world war one started we were rarely underdeveloped in the airplane industry so I think we had to All the countries had to go to france and things like that. So, you know, it retarded the development of the airline industry Um, there's lots of we're so used to these systems that we take it for granted Like the copyright system we take it for granted that you can't sing happy birthday in a restaurant without permission Finally expired, but yeah well now it didn't expire but There's a lawsuit that finally showed that it was public domain all along but Of course for 40 years or something Someone had been collecting millions of dollars of royalties from everyone and it's too late to get that back, you know So it did its damage But the point is patent and copyright heavily distort culture and And industry and we don't even notice it. Um So it leads to artificial like all kinds of artificial things that we take for granted now like for example Like all the laser printers you buy they're not compatible with each other Which is kind of stupid right because most things you want to make them compatible so that you can have competition Consumers prefer compatibility, but they all have these patents on these circuits. They they just make these circuits Like a mating circuit they make so like half the circuit is in the printer and halves and the cartridge So they have to each have the circuit to work So that if anyone makes a Generic cartridge they have to put that circuit in there And that's infringing on a patent on the circuit, which is useless, but it's just I mean all kinds of things like that, right? So Yeah, people people frown on things like I know In the camera world sony has their own proprietary memory card called a memory stick and it only works in Sony things because sony's trying to get adoption because they're the only people that make that Style of memory card and they don't license it to anybody But in the technology world because things move so fast and there's so many different ways to make a memory card You know, it's the ones that have basically become open source and most widely used that become adopted not you know SD cards are Are definitely the standard and it's because they they tried to work and be compatible with everything That was interesting to watch. I remember I had the sony, uh, I think they call it magic magic stick or something like that And it was a little mp3 type system But it was heavily copy protected. I think you had to have the cd in your computer To play a song. I mean, it was so ridiculous, you know And then apple came out and they and steve jobs I think made these deals with itunes and the music industry to start having just mp3 files, which are Which are have no drm And so that changed the industry and sony lost out I mean, remember they used to be the leaders with walkmans and they could have had this digital walkman But they insisted on copy protection Probably to satisfy the content providers it really can't even blame them But you can see how all these things lead to distortion I mean, you have people self-censoring all the time like when you post a youtube video You got to be careful not to sing a song or have it in the background because you'll get struck down Because of the because of the because of the the digital millennium copyright system Which forces youtube to do that to avoid liability under copyright law so Our entire society is heavily distorted because of all this And I have heard and you can correct me if this is wrong I have heard that there were more music sales when things like napster and other different pirating so-called Avenues started to come up With the increase of pirate of music piracy and copyright piracy The sales Will actually go up because now people are being introduced to more things and then they decide to buy the full quality copy Or a cd or an album. Is that true? Do you know anything about that? I think there's something to that at least in certain phases of of where we are in the cycle I think it's true with books too like There's so many there's so much creative work now in the world Which is another argument against copyright. They say it's necessary for creativity And yet copyright law is largely unenforceable now because of encryption and torrenting and the internet and digital Stuff so basically copyright is is a dead letter now for most people And yet they're still an outpouring of creative music. So the danger most creators artists or novelists or whatever Or musicians the danger they face is obscurity, right? So they want to get their notice so they can sell tickets to their movies or to their to their concerts or or whatever I I do think that There was that that the age of sales it may be over But it's not because of copyright or piracy It's just because technology permits streaming now and people just prefer streaming And the royalties on streaming are a lot lower Partly because piracy is out there But also just they have people have so many options of different artists with all unique songs But now you only have so much time in the day to listen to different artists Well, yeah, if you remember, uh, yeah, so now curation is the service people really want. They want someone to pick it for them Um In there was a brief period of time where people that sold Final records could make a lot of money and then for a while it was Audiotapes and things like that and then it was cd the cd generation what maybe 30 years it lasted Yeah, people like mcdonough and people like that making tens of millions of dollars And those days are pretty much gone except for the hyper hyper superstars and even they don't sell and then you had people A ripping remember if you used to rip things and they would have these little they would trade these thumb drives Or these hard drives full of music and movies to no one I don't think many people do that anymore Maybe in the third world they do but it's just too much. There's too much stuff coming out Your your little collection is going to be outdated. You don't have to manage that So then people started buying music from iTunes, but they didn't really buy it. They just had a license And now they don't even do that anymore. They just they just have they just can stream, you know, which is the nicest, um solution But if those do make it harder to make money using the old business models But that's just because technology has made the industry change and when the industry changes You have to adapt your business models to make money you know, just like when the When the automobile came about it put the buggy whip manufacturers out of business and the candle makers suffered when the light bulb came about Um things change when technology and business models change Yeah, I don't hear anybody uh be moaning the loss of the blubber industry and wailing right Well, and it's the same sort of thing with uh the film industry with copyright you originally just had It would it was a theatrical release. There wasn't a home video. There was no television. There was nothing It was just a film And so that's where you made money on making a film and showing a film and then some of the concessions And now there's basically no money in any of that anymore Except for some of the huge blockbusters and now like you said it's in curation So you've got netflix and all these different services which Tell it what movies you like and it will try to guess what other movies that you would like to watch Just because there's so much to go through you don't have time to well The way I think about it. I think covet covet, of course distorted everything But in non covet times, I still think going to the movie theater is going to be popular So if you think about it, yeah in the old days big blockbusters and movies Uh on large scales given, you know taking inflation Into account they were possible based purely on ticket sales at the box office, right? And then after that there all these secondary and tertiary income streams got added on like going to cable like hbo and then movie hotel rooms and then airplanes and then Rebroke asking on television networks later and then later video video sales video rentals and video sales on vhs tapes And by the way, that was almost killed by a supreme court decision The sony case in the 80s. I believe it was where there was a question about whether When consumers use their own video recorders their vhs recorders to record like a television show that was broadcast on the airwaves Whether they were violating copyright, okay, and that case was decided five to four So by one vote the the the whole video taping industry was rescued it could have been lost because of copyright and The movie industry of course fought it But of course they were benefited from it because it opened up this whole, you know, blockbuster rentals and all this And they could sell movies on and then dvds later and blu rays and all that So it basically helped them so quite often they fight things that would help them Um But that's just that's the way it goes with the interest and people would know they have no Incentive to be creative in their thinking because they can rest on their monopoly they're easy monopoly to make to rake money And they don't want to have to adapt Um, they want and in other sense they want to have their cake and eat it too If if they if copyright really existed and they were so concerned with people stealing things from them Why wouldn't why would they ever sell things on home video? Why not just go to the just do theater? And Where you can monitor and make sure that people aren't recording and making second hand copies Because they want the secondary and tertiary income streams. Yeah, they want the extra income streams But they don't want the benefits that people get So it's like, you know pick one. Well, and this is the this is kind of the principle the simple argument against ip it's that um There's a distinction and this is what people have a hard time wrapping their heads around this because they're used to The idea of this and um, but This is where I bring human Austrian economics into it But you know, there's a simple concept It sounds complicated because the word is praxeology It's this kind of crazy latin term or greek term that visas came up with It just means the logic of human action. It just means how we analyze What it means for us to do things in the world to act and and it's a simple thing that We human beings see the future coming. We we have an idea of what it is and we don't like something about it So we want to change it so we look around us in the world and we use some tools or means To change things, right? So all human action is always an attempt to achieve some different state of the world in the future By interfering in the course of events. That's what human action is So it's the use of a means or a scarce resource or a tool It's the use of something your body or the dirt or you know to affect the future outcome And and but it's guided by knowledge So you can't do anything if you don't know anything you have to know something about the way cause and effect work You have to know that to catch a fish I can put a line in the water with a hook on it And I can cook it over a fire and eat it and it will give me nursery You have to know these things and you have to have the availability You have to have arms that work and you have to have a tool You have to have a string and a rod, you know And you have a fish and a stream nearby you have to have these so you have to have knowledge To guide your action and the action has to use scarce means so both these things are critical to any human action And the the things that we use They're the type of things people can have a fight over or conflict Because only one person can use this fish at a time or this or this or this fishing pole at a time Or my body so we have property rights to specify who gets to use these things That's the whole point of property rights It's to solve conflicts among things that you can have a conflict over But it does not apply to knowledge because knowledge can be spread freely Like when someone learns a better way to plant crops Or a better way to build a house like using log cabins logs instead of mud or maybe You know building a log building a log house instead of living in a cave When people learn or using fire to cook things or putting animal skin on you for clothing Or using a wheel on a cart to help it roll instead of dragging it You know when people come up with these ways of doing things that makes their action more efficient other people learn That's how society progresses So the body of knowledge that we can use dip into to to to decide what to do in the world Always expands This is why we're richer than the past generations because the body of knowledge keeps getting bigger and bigger Where property rights never apply to knowledge because it's not a scarce thing You can't have conflict over it like you and I can't use the same tractor at the same time So one of us has to own it but we can both rely on two plus two equals four at the same time Yeah, we can both use the same tilling method or the same farm planting technique or the same way of rationing fertilizer on the crops We can all do the same or we can all use the same recipe to bake a cake in our own homes using our own ingredients And our own bowls and our own ovens But but we can't use the same old bowls and ovens So property rights apply to one but not the other it's very simple And it's actually a healthy thing when people start to copy each other It's very good. I was talking with somebody who was in trailer manufacturing and all the trailer manufacturers by each other's trailers And they copy what works and it's just all freely exchanged information There's no patents on how to weld things together. It's of course. What's the best way to do it? And we all benefit from it and that's why that's our society advances and that's our technology advances Um, that's what learning is really and and that's what free market competition is by the way When you see someone who comes up with a new business idea That succeeds what it means to succeed is they make a lot of money They make a lot of money by selling a lot of services or products to consumers by satisfying the consumers They saw a demand that no one was meeting and they satisfied it with a new idea But when you do that you make a profit, which is a very high profit at first because you don't have any competition So other people notice this so that's what spurs innovation Of course and it's it spurs competition on the free market. So people see someone making a profit You know delivering pizza, right? Oh This guy you don't have to go to the pizza store. You can you can have home delivery So I don't know who was the first one to start out at dominoes or pizza hut or whoever Or fast food, you know, someone's making fast food hamburgers So now you have Burger King and Wendy's competing with McDonald's and and you have You know Papa John's and pizza in all competing with pizza hut or whatever however works, you know So And when competitors start doing what you're doing, they steal some of your customers But you don't really own your customers. That's just a word we use But and it reduces your profits because now you have competition and that makes everyone better off except for the first guy Who has to keep innovating and pleasing the consumers. That's why the free market works. So um the patent and copyright system basically Give give someone who comes up with an idea first they give him a monopoly over it So what where what I was going to get with with your analogy is the the simple idea of against IP is that um If you want the benefits of giving information out to the public Then one of the costs of that is that you're giving information out to the public So if you have a secret technique for making Candles better you can do that in your own factory and you maybe can make them at a better price because you have this better Technique and if you keep a secret you can use that forever. That's called a trade secret But if you sell a product where the there's an improved design and it's going to become apparent to people But you have to tell the secret to sell it like if you have a better mousetrap You're going to tell people hey buy my mousetrap because it's better because it has these features So you're going to publicize the improvement that you came up with but but you have to publicize it to sell them But that means you're going to tell people how to do it and soon you're going to draw competition That's just the balance that is faced by any entrepreneur You have to know that you're if you succeed you're going to face competition People are going to emulate what you do in better or worse ways or similar ways And you're going to have to come up with a business model that lets you make a profit even though you're facing competition And then there's also the the kfc way of doing things where you have a secret recipe And that's what you sell people on you don't have to tell them what's in it And if they knew the secret recipe they could make chicken just like kfc does but they've just decided never to sell that Yeah, and and the same thing with coca-cola although people say that the the secret's really out there and it's You know even if you knew exactly coca-cola's formula, you know It's going to be hard to replicate it with a big factory and to compete with their name and all this So it's not so easy to just jump in and compete with people I mean the pharmaceutical industry says that they spend so much money billions of dollars developing a drug So they need a monopoly on it for 17 years with a patent To stop competition so they can sell it at a monopoly price to recoup their cost of investment, right? That's the argument but First of all The cost of development is so high because of the FDA Like so the government imposes all these regulations That you have to jump through to sell a drug on the market And that makes the cost really high and then they complain about the cost So then the government gives them a patent like so the government FDA system requires the government to come up with the patent system So why don't we just get rid of both and just let the free market operate? um You know in the first place an interesting related part to that and i'm not sure It's probably not any different, but um the way that people will Put research into the like to the genetics of apple trees because apples are so heterozygous If you plan a seed from a gala apple tree, it won't the apples won't be anything like A gala apple and so what they've done Every tree that produces gala apples or red delicious or whatever your favorite kind is for example Those are all literally the same living organism that they've cut and like Re replanted right and so they can say that oh the reason that you can't um take one of our Plants and start making your own selling your own apples from it is because we developed We did all the genetic research to put that now that actually has some merit to it because Now you're talking about somebody who bred a certain type of tree And they're not willing to sell any part of that tree to somebody else So the only way you got it was if you stole it from them now. We're talking about a physical item Yeah, except uh, except they often do get patents on it and in the patent they have to reveal how they did it Um, so theoretically someone could read it and duplicate their effort. Um after at least the patent is expired um, but what what typically happens in those cases you have a um a patent on um On the seeds or even on genetically modified seed or something like that and so You'll have one farmer buys these expensive seeds. They're expensive because there's a monopoly price on them because only The original guy can sell the seeds Plant his crops with it and then the wind will carry some of them to a neighbor's Crop so then they start growing on this guy's crop now And so then the monsanto or whoever they'll bust in with the government And they'll raid his farm and they'll take his crops from him because he's growing patented crops Is this is true? Is this really? Oh, yeah. Yeah, I can send you some links. This is it's insane and everyone says oh so If you point this stuff out to a defender of patents They'll either say well, you're exaggerating which I'm not I can send you some links or they'll say well That's an anomaly which it's not or they'll say that well, that's just an abuse of the system And we don't support that And of course this happens all the time I can I can I can just there's thousands and thousands of Obvious and I would I wouldn't call them an abuse because they're all using the law as the law is intended I would call them Examples of of outrageous consequences right but the law They're outrageous and obviously unjust consequences because the law itself is unjust and unnatural When you have an unnatural unjust law, you're going to have unnatural consequences. So for example if you oppose the welfare system Because it tends to steal well it steals money from people that earned it so it's theft And it also encourages bad habits in the people that you're subsidizing, right? But now we start Criticizing people that that take welfare because they're lazy or whatever.  That's the goal of it That's what businesses have is their goal. How do I make the most money with the least effort? Yeah, so if so if you see people using welfare and if you criticize them For abusing the system, they're not they're doing exactly what the system wanted If if if you could have a welfare system and no one ever took a dime of it Then we wouldn't complain about the welfare system because it wouldn't have any effect But of course we complain about these laws because they're real laws And they have a real effect. So the problem patent copyright law is not that there's abuses is that there are Natural consequences that were intended by the system. They're just unjust People say things like well the problem with patents is that there's bad patent quality because the examiners aren't paid enough And they don't do a good search Or that patent trolls that don't even make the product They sue you and they that shouldn't be or that the award was by the jury in this case was just too high So that every time you point an obviously unjust result, they will say well, that's not the system that I'm defending But basically there's nothing left after you point to all these abuses and you say well Well, everything I point out about the system the way it works You agree with me that you're not in favor of that like libertarians at least they'll say well I'm in favor of the patent system, but no, I'm not in favor of that.  I'm not a patent lawyer How would I know it's like so And not to get not to get religious, but this is you know, I am not religious and so this is one of my Are this is one of my frustrations with some religious people they argue for god, but they won't define it Or they define it differently than other theists and so you can't it's like nailing jello to the wall You can't pin them down and then they won't they won't accept any of the the crusades or or whatever bad fruit You want to point to Yeah, if you say well, I don't believe that a guy with a big white beard up in the sky They say well, we don't believe in that. It's like, well, what do you believe? Well, what god's undefinable? It's like, well, then what am I supposed to you know, you know In fact, I came to my religious views similar to the way I came about patent use I was a young catholic very hardcore But I was dissatisfied with some of the arguments So I tried to come up with my own and I finally Was unable to do it. So I concluded that yeah, there's a reason I'm unable to prove this to Not to get religious on you No, this is a religious podcast. So that's I think People enjoy talking about that not to offend your audience. I should say that. No, it's fine. I had walter block on and he was a Very polite very very fun to talk to I did want to touch on this one thing it's And I'm not still not even sure the implications of it, but I did find a bible verse actually That I feel would preclude the existence of intellectual property It talks about for every breach of trust whether it's for an ox donkey sheep cloak or for any kind of lost thing of which one says This is it or here it is The case of both parties shall come before god the one who god condemned shall pay double to his neighbor So it seems like that verse would kind of preclude the existence of immaterial Property or being able to sue somebody for theft For something that you can't like literally hold in your hand and say look here it is or this is it Oh, that's interesting. I'll have to look that up. I think I've heard of some other Verses in the bible. Some people have told me It's or similar, but I I've forgotten what they were By the way, there was crude forms of intellectual property even before the bible like I think as far back as 500 BC or so in the greek city-state of siberus There was a culinary competition So they would have a competition to see who came up with the best dish that year and whoever won Whatever the equivalent of the king was would in that city-state Would give the winner the exclusive right to make that dish for a year So this this way of thinking has been around for a long time the idea that if you know, you'll hear little girls do this too Or young people like one girl will wear her hair in a certain way to school one day And other if it's popular other girls start copying her and she says they stole my haircut or something You know, it's just it's childish right? It literally is childish But that's infected even what the way adults think about about ideas now So you mentioned that uh, you're sort of you were sort of begrudgingly dubbed the Austrian expert in terms of intellectual property It is that what what other subjects have you moved on to or or you find more interesting these days I wouldn't say begrudgingly. I don't I don't mind at all I I am a libertarian and I like to make a contribution or it wasn't it wouldn't have been your first choice in other words Well, it's not my main interest my my main interest Even still to a degree is rights theory like trying to explain what rights are and and how to justify Our rights and how to justify the libertarian conception of rights and the non-aggression principle But the more I thought about the IP issue I realized that that's so strongly tied up with property like with property rights because all so all rights are human rights like Rocks don't have rights and mosquitoes don't have rights um and all human rights or property rights because rights are the exclusive right to control A scarce means of action or scarce resource and you can see this if you think about the The concept of rights is bound up with enforceability Like a rightist thought of as being enforceable But the word force right there is a physical thing right physical force means how we apply physical control over what physical things I mean, you can't use force on an idea, right? so all rights are enforceable and they're all applicable to the scarce resources that we can as human actors that we can control so And I've written a lot on contract theory, which I think is related to property theory And on various legal topics that are sort of consequences or applications of that Like legislation and and how legislation is not law Where law is really sort of a concrete principle that's developed over time in an attempt to find a just result in a case of a conflict over a scarce resource And uh causality to like causation theory like how do you know who's responsible for a harm? Is it just the person or what about collective action like two or more people acting in concert perform harm or or a boss compared to an underling Like there's always the issue of you know when Assuming that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were were basically unlibertarian unjust war crimes Who's responsible? Is it the guy that built the bomb? Is it the guy that flew the plane? Is it the bomber who opened the hatch or is it Truman who ordered the order to be dropped? Some libertarians have this sort of Rationalistic legalistic view, which I think is not contextual which says that basically Truman is not responsible But unless he's coercing someone to do it I think Walter block has this view and he and I have disagreed on this and debated on this I think it's a more contextual holistic thing. I think of course Truman is guilty And so is the bomber and I think Truman is actually more guilty, right? I think it's a it's a hierarchical system that has an effect in the real world um I mean, there's a there's a joke among some libertarians. It's like, uh Um Hitler was put on trial after world war two for the for war crimes and the prosecutor said, you know You've called you've caused the deaths of millions of people and all this destruction and human death and misery and suffering What do you have to say for yourself? And he says I don't I just gave orders You know, but of course that's a joke because we see that as absurd but that would be the implication of some of these libertarian views that Like only the direct actor is liable I think that they think that because they have a mistaken understanding of the concept of joint and several liability because they're not lawyers and they don't understand Uh creative ways that the law has handled situations like that. So I think that they're afraid that if like the mafia Boss who gives an order to a hit man To kill someone if the boss is held responsible for giving an order Then there's like a hundred percent responsibility and you're allocating it to him and there's none left over for the hit man So they're worried that like if you if you hold the the boss who gives an order Responsible that you can't hold the the guy lower down the pole Responsible, but of course the answer is they're both responsible. You can have joint and several liability just like if two guys beat you up They're both 100 percent responsible for all the damage that you suffered if two people Two people collaborate to blow up a building and kill a bunch of people They're both 100 liable each for the murder for the murders of those people This is easily handled in the law by this concept concept of Joint and several liability. So I've written on things like that and in fact, I have a book coming out soon called law in the libertarian world which collects a lot of my edited essays and articles on intellectual property and these topics so IP would just be like one I don't know one tenth of kind of the The scope of the things that I've covered in my in my writing Well, and it also seems like Just in terms of the way that the economics work out any if let's say Well, like the consequences of you know, exterminating six million people Sort of falls back on to the entire german people or the entire german nation you have The loss of all of those lives now you've got this many less workers And that's going to have economic and monetary penalties and now you're not going to now Things goods or certain goods are going to cost more based on how many of those people were farmers And it just ripples out into the entire economy affects the price And ease of doing anything and everything Yeah, there's consequential damages. I mean in an IP this comes up when people say well, how can you say that? There's no property right and ideas because ideas make things more valuable. So for example, if I have a blank sheet of paper and someone a blank a blank notebook and someone steals it It doesn't harm me as much as if they steal my notebook with my novel on it, which is unpublished. Let's say so they say well that proves because The one with the words on it is more valuable that proves that the words have value and therefore you have a property right now See that's sort of their argument But again, this can be handled simply with with just well developed established principles of law Which is that when you commit a tort Which is an offense or trespass That's the crime, but then you measure the amount of damages that is done by the consequences to the person So if I steal your Rembrandt painting It hurts you more than if I steal your poster even though they're both materially, you know piece of paper with with ink on them, right? That's just common sense You know, if I if I steal your grandfather's Watch from World War one It's worse than if I steal a watch that you just bought for the same price Would that bleed over into things like wireless frequencies For tv bands like if somebody's making money off of subscribers that depend on clear airwaves And then somebody comes along and disrupts that and somebody knows exactly who they did and They had to pay so much in damages to angry customers and things like that. How would that relate? I think you've hit on so you've hit on one of the few difficult areas of libertarianism that I would say is not yet settled I think the ip issue is settled in other words It's such a clear case like to my mind of all the issues of libertarianism The drug war and intellectual property are the two easiest It may be hard to see the ip but once you see it, it's just there is no good argument for ip and there's no good argument for the drug war You could have an argument for taxation Or for war even right? I don't agree with them, but you can understand the arguments for them It's not those are not as easy Or even for public schooling or even for a central bank But there's just no argument for drug war or ip Now as far as what you're talking about is spectrum rights. So the question there is how do we apply standard private law principles of Original appropriation or homesteading is what we call it Which obviously and easily applies to tangible material things like land Or your own body or things like that. How do we apply it to? Um to airwaves basically or the spectrum the electromagnetic spectrum Um, because on the one hand you could make an argument that like intellectual property Uh, it's immaterial and so there's no property right in it, but you could make the other argument which I think you're getting at um I lean towards and I've written on this in a tentative way. I lean towards the idea That you can homestead a radio spectrum Analogously to the way that you can homestead shipping lanes on the ocean Or airways in in the sky like if you have an airline that regularly flies over an area Um, you've homesteaded certain things about that like you keep flying over there And if someone like if you have an airport someone builds near you Then they can't complain that the noise from the airplane is taking off and the risk is a nuisance Because you were already there and you're making money and serving customers You're coming to the nuisance which is another way of saying that By building there and by doing this activity first they've sort of homesteaded a property right which is not a It's not a the standard type of property right like in land, which you could think of as full or a low deal Property you can think of it as an easement. It's a right of way Um, anyway, so property can be complex and the law can handle it The more esoteric against the more difficult it is and it takes longer for the legal system to develop and Find solutions that eventually we do So I think that in the case of radio waves you can look at it as um, so for example, if i'm broadcasting a signal I what i'm doing is i'm perturbing the electromagnetic spectrum for an infinite distance around but it peters out exponentially over time But you know i'm perturbing the em spectrum So in a in a sense you could argue in a trivial way I'm committing trespassing against everyone because like i'm shaking the electrons in your body when I do that But we would say it's not trespass because it's not interfering with your ability to control your body, right? It's not causing harm or damages of any kind Well, but if I shoot a laser into your body, I am right, but if it's just a radio signal It's it passes through people harmlessly. So that's not a trespass On the other hand, if you were to set up a receiver in your house and receive these radios like let's suppose I'm using a walkie talk and i'm sending a signal What I want it to be a private communication to you But it passes through my neighbor's property and he picks up an antenna and he picks it up Under copyright ideas, that's a violation of my copyright because I own that information or something So I think we can abolish copyright say that's not the issue So I don't think that receiving a signal someone sends is a violation of their rights However, if I broadcast a competing signal on the same wave wave band Which which impedes their ability to transmit this signal. So let's say i'm sending a I have a radio station On I don't know I forgot the for the wavelength the wave bands are for am I have to listen so long like 1980 Megahertz or whatever it is and that that narrow wave band that I'm sending that for 10 miles around and everyone's listening You could you could view that as analogous to The shipping lanes or the way airplanes go and I've homesteaded that right to to use this empty sort of Air air wave space to send signals people could listen in if they want I can't blame them for that But if they generate their own signal on the same one it interferes with mine You could say that's a type of trespass. I don't think that's 100 percent settled. That's the way I would lean that's the way the common law was going before the The federal government interfered and shortcut it with the FCC in the 1930s So they they they they short circuited the the natural development of the common law to apply to this new new situation And I think it would have developed along those lines There are a couple of ip pests that argue that if you accept that you could have A right to broadcast over a spectrum. This also implies in ultra property rights. I don't think they're correct I think you can have one without the other But even if they're correct, all that means is you can have spectrum rights because ip is clearly wrong It seems like it would be an analogy and I've heard people talk about this before and like different Talks I've heard about how to do interpersonal arbitration between neighbors about noise levels and things like that I think that would handle I think that would handle the nuisance case, but I don't know how easy it would be to handle the The right to broadcast on a frequency for a long space to serve customers or listeners Right. Yeah, because in the example that I'm thinking of it was about a dog barking And it was like, oh, well, it's it's bothering me. Uh, so I guess in this in Let's say you had somebody who was listening to a local broadcast But then you had somebody move in And start broadcasting and now all of a sudden vital information That was valued to both of this person is now being lost by somebody that comes in Afterwards or maybe they were both there all along and then this person just decides to start using it Um, but yeah, I was I'll have to think about that in terms of like a dog barking in in your case, I would tend to think that That uh, it's the right of the transmitter or the broadcaster that's being infringed not the right of the listener. The listener has no right to receive anything um It's it's just really the right of the broadcaster, which is almost the same thing What if they were paying to for a certain service? Like paying for satellite radio and then somebody else comes in and i'm Uh satellite radio might not be a great example But they're paying for some other kind of radio service and then Well, yeah, you could you could you could have an encrypted a digitally encrypted television signal, let's say And and you can receive that signal and then they give you the key to unlock it So you can watch it and you're paying a fee for that But still I think that that that fee you're paying is just a private contract between you and the broadcaster The broadcaster himself is the one that has the right to the to the airway because he's the one using it by transmitting over He's the one actively using it. Well, I'm saying what if then somebody comes in and starts interfering So I guess their offense would be more against the the person broadcasting the receiver I think that's how I would look at it Okay, well that that uh, that time went by pretty quick. We're over an hour already So if you want to um plug your stuff, what's your website and you have a podcast as well Where can people go to read your books or listen to more? um, my libertarian stuff is at stephanconcello.com and my I have all my ip related stuff on c4 sif.org just center The letter for c4 sif.org which stands for center for the study of innovative freedom And my podcast is really just a collection of when I do other people's podcasts like this one So it's just this is a fee to assemble all those. That's mostly what it is. But that's on my website stephanconcello.com And how could people how could somebody reach out to you? Uh, there are I'm on twitter and facebook at ns concella ns. Cancel is my handle on twitter and facebook Thank you so much stefan. Let's do it again sometime be happy to thanks adam


I don't know People say that Narcissist those with MPD They're not really gonna think about their actions or feel any regrets But in this video we are gonna dive a little bit deeper into that To reveal to you exactly what goes on in a narcissist mind because you got to look at it like this They are shame based people who are doing everything they can to avoid reflecting on their shame And that is why they deflected on to you You just got to look at their behaviors to see exactly what is going on in their minds to understand the process They deflect in their shame on to you because it's too painful for them to deal with And they also don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions And not only that but they're in denial And you got to think why are they in denial? It's because at some level they do understand what they've done and how it is wrong They understand the effects that it is having on you Yes, they recognize that and that's why they're in denial I'm not saying that the narcissist will have any remorse for you Or that they'll feel any desire to correct the wrong that they have done because narcissists most certain and certainly Will not think in that way especially those with MPD Maybe those with narcissistic traits Yes, they may actually feel remorse and at some point they may even feel the desire to correct The wrong that they did But when we're talking about people with full-blown MPD That is never going to happen They may feel some type of regret But even then those feelings are for themselves They may think that they've missed out on something and of course That is why they will often hoover their victims That doesn't mean that they're feeling any remorse for you Or that they have any feelings towards you It's all about them Their feelings are for themselves All they care about is narcissistic supply Anything else is far beyond the realm of their perception They view you as an object a tool To make themselves feel better And it never goes any deeper than that They're superficial they lack depth It's only within the realm of How it affects their feelings The supply that they get from it And of course if you look at the behaviors and how they treated you That will reveal that to you Because what did they do They came in they treated you in the way that they did They left you high and dry And you've got to think what kind of person can do that to you What kind of person can leave you in that condition Knowing that they were the ones who caused it And not feel any need to come back to correct it What type of person can do that And of course it's someone who is completely self-absorbed And lacks empathy for you They have an inability to share your feelings and experience They're only thinking about What do I want to feel in this moment What can I get from this person And of course they then set out To accomplish that To use you as a mirror to reflect back to themselves How they want to see themselves and how they want to feel about themselves And I can tell you it doesn't get any deeper than that That's really all that it was That's really all that it is But they will regret what they did to you You have to remember that for them to engage in these types of behaviors They are operating from a very low level of consciousness and awareness A very low level of intelligence And you've just got to think a person with such a low level of consciousness awareness and intelligence You really think that's going to get them very far These actions and behaviors And not only that but the shame Being a shame-based person That shame will dictate That every thought feeling action and behavior from that point on Because as we know they do not self-reflect They try to deflect their shame onto their victim They disown these parts of themselves that they don't like and assign them to you Instead of taking accountability, which of course that would be the right thing to do By doing that they are just Stripping themselves of their own power The power to validate themselves and direct the course of events And you may not see it straight away But in time you will notice that it begins to affect them You will begin to heal and things will get better for you But they will go down I don't know if they sound like I'm just telling you what you want to hear I'm trying to make you feel better after what they did to you And while yes of course in some ways I am trying to do that But not only that I am trying to give you the truth And this is the truth They will go down in time And in fact if you look at it A happy person Who's at peace and harmony with themselves Could never have done what they did to you They could never have done that It's because they're in a deep state of depression They're miserable And they project that misery and pain onto you So when you look at it They're already getting their karma And the way I see it I look at them And I think Your karma Your karma Is really just you being you Being the horrible Miserable destructive person that you are Because I honestly myself I could not imagine Going through a life And treating people in that way And not feeling anything Not feeling bad Not feeling any remorse And just still being able to sleep at night And not thinking anything about it But they managed to do that through the denial Through blame shifting Deflecting their shame Of course When the shame is too strong Or even their victim May not go along with their forced narrative And you continue to confront them You don't back down Then of course they've got to create this forced reality Start a spear campaign And then force their flying monkeys To sustain this forced narrative Because that shame is still eating them alive And they can't bury it They can't suppress it And normally it's enough just to keep you down To get you to go along with a forced narrative As long as you don't confront them You don't fight it But if you don't submit to their False narrative That's when they realise that they've got to start the spear campaign To really try to keep you down But even then it's just all about this reflection That they're getting From doing that to you And also from their flying monkeys as well It's all about how they want to see themselves And how they want to feel about themselves It really has very little to do with you as a person If anything It's really all about them They are completely self-absorbed And when you realise that It makes it that much easier To take your attention and focus away from it But recognising that yes You are just an appliance, a tool, an object But in their minds exists To meet their needs and to make them feel better about themselves Other than that you serve no purpose And even all of the enablers and flying monkeys Are really just pawns on a chessboard They're just people that they move around to produce their desired effect Or to produce this feeling within themselves As you can see I started to get quite noisy here The rooms are out And it is getting quite late it's about 11pm here But I hope that this was enough for this message Because I know a lot of you are going through this You feel like the narcissists have just ran off They're living their best lives without you After they did all of these things to you But I want to be the voice For you tonight To let you know that that's really not the case They make it look that way But it's really not like that at all Just remember when they first targeted you They manipulated you They loved on you They sold you a dream About dream never became a reality And just like when they're going off And they're painting this picture of you The rats are like they cause all of this chaos from you For you And yet they've moved on and they're living their best lives They're happy It's just another dream It's not their reality And they will experience the effects of that energy that they put out They will get their karma and in fact again right now A happy person could never do the things that they do It really reveals just how much pain they are in And just the amount of devastation that they are going through And have been going through That's all that it really reveals So yeah I hope that this message has comforted you And brought you the support that you need And you can also show your support by giving this video a thumbs up down below Helps the YouTube algorithm to get this message out there And let me know your thoughts in the comment section Hit subscribe and click all notifications To be notified when I upload a new video And you can also donate by leaving a super chat To a super thanks in the comment section Or by going to my PayPal It is paypal.me.narchsurviver And if you would like to book a well-on coaching session with me You can go to my website It is narchsurviver.co.uk And also check out my Instagram You can follow me on there It is narchsurvivey YouTube I've got new pictures and videos My travels which I upload to my stories Every day on there for you to see All right I just like to thank you all For joining me on another narchsurvivey live video Again I do appreciate your supports And I look forward to speaking with you in another live video very soon


Welcome back everyone. This is Brian and we're going to talk about multiple inheritance. We've covered classes. We've covered inheriting from another class. What if you have multiple classes you want to inherit from? That's exactly what we're going to do. Something which is don't even allow this because it gets so complex. Let's dive in and take a look. Let's go ahead and make a class here. So we're going to make a vehicle class. Let's say class vehicle. And if you remember from the last video, I definitely love to make sure that the instances of the variables are actually created so we don't get that nasty not defined error. I'm going to go ahead and say drive. Notice how we're not putting in a knit here. We simply don't need it. We're going to leave the default constructor. And I want to say self comma, and then speed. We're going to keep this just super ridiculously simple. I'm going to say drive. We're going to set the speed. We're going to just copy and paste this and I want another function called stop. We're going to set the speed to zero. We don't need that parameter there. Now let's go ahead and make another function called display. And this is where things are going to get a little bit interesting. Take special note of this function because we're going to do this function again in another class. I'm going to say print. And we're just going to simply say driving at whatever the speed is speed. Very simple little self contained class here. Let's go ahead and make another very, very simple class. I'm just going to make a freezer class. And this thing exists solely to well freeze food. There's a freezer. And let's go ahead and make a variable. Let's call it temp equals zero. So we're just going to set the temperature to zero by default here. Now I'm going to say def freeze. So we're going to be able to freeze some food at a specific temperature. I'm going to say self that temp equals whatever temperature we just handed it. And let's go ahead print out freezing. Just so we know that the freezer is actually going to shockingly freeze the food. Now I'm going to actually grab this right here from the vehicle class. Def display self. And we're going to modify this, but we're going to put it in our freezer class. You don't have to copy and paste it just as long as the name is the same. What we're going to do is intentionally create a naming collision between these two classes. So both the vehicle and the freezer have a display function. I must say freezing at self.temp because there is no speed in the freezer class. Very, very simple, very easy to understand. So what we can do is call these independently and call display and see exactly what's going on in the hood. Now let's see what happens if we use multiple inheritance and smash these two together. Okay, let's go ahead and combine these two together. We're going to make a freezer truck class and say class freezer truck. And we want a freezer and a vehicle. We're going to smash those into one giant class and initially I'm just going to say pass. So we're just declaring the class and it does nothing else. That's what past does in Python. And we're going to go ahead and create it. I'm going to say t equals the freezer truck. t.drive. And we want to go at 50 miles per hour. I'm here in the States. That's actually relatively fast. And then we're going to say t.freeze. I'm going to put this at negative 30. Because whatever we're carrying, we don't want it to, you know, thaw out on the way to the store. Then I'm just going to go ahead and print. And we are going to print out some dashes here just to kind of separate. Now we want to say t display and pop quiz. We have multiple displays. We have the freezer class display and the vehicle display. Which one of these is going to be displayed? So we're either going to see freezing at or driving at which one is going to happen here. Let's find out, save, run, freezing at negative 30. And we don't get the speed. We don't see that driving at. So now we've got multiple problems. We want to be able to see both of those. But what we've defined, whether we realize it or not, is a new concept called the method resolution order or the MRO. And you'll hear this time and time again, you'll see people in forums asking why you access or why this is happening. So the order is very simple. It's first come, first serve. So we defined freezer first. Therefore it's going to display the freezer. And if we just switch these around, we're still doing the same thing. We're still inheriting both of these. But watch what happens down here. Driving at 50 speed. So that is the method resolution order. It's first come, first serve. That is frustrating. So how do we get past this now? Let's say def display itself. And let's go ahead and let's print these out. Let's say print f. I want to show you a little trick here. I want to make sure these are actually subclasses. I want to say is a freezer. I want to say is subclass. I want freezer truck. So basically we're giving it the current class we're saying. So it's freezer truck, a freezer. And we're just going to say is a vehicle. And grab that. Good on here. Bang. Watch what happens when we call display now. Is a freezer true? Is a vehicle true? So now we are calling our own function and we can actually determine whether or not it's inheriting a specific class. The class you want to check is always first. The class you want to check against is second. So now let's go ahead and see how we would get around this. I'm going to say super. So we're going to call the parent. The problem is we have two parents now. So let's try calling them independently. Say freezer. I must sell display. And I'm going to take the same thing, but we're going to use the vehicle. So we're saying super, call the vehicle, super, call the freezer using the self object, the current object and call display directly and see, let's just see what happens here. Uh-oh. We had a bad time. So let's look at this in depth here. So on line 42, T display. So this guy down here and then it's jumping up to line 36, which is this guy right here. Super as super object has no attribute display. Now wait just a minute, we do. So if we look at freezer, it's right there. What is going on here? Well, again, method resolution order is popping in and saying, nope, can't do that. So just to prove it, let's comment up freezer as vehicles first. Let's run this again. Everything magically works. That is super frustrating. All right. So let's go ahead and just comment these out. This is not what I considered the correct way to do it, but I'm going to put some comments in here just in case somebody grabs the source code here. So what's the best way or the correct way of doing this? Well, we're going to call that class directly and there are other ways, probably even better ways, but this is what we're going to do with our limited knowledge set of Python at this moment. We're going to say freezer dot display. Remember what I said when we inherit an object, Python's creating it. So it knows that the freezer truck has a freezer in it. So we're going to call freezer display. We're going to call vehicle display. And let's watch this work. Now we can see we are freezing and we are driving. Oh my gosh, super confusing. So the major takeaways from this video is Python does allow a multiple inheritance, but it has some gotchas, mainly naming collisions. For example, we saw that the vehicle and the freezer have a display function. But once we inherit both of them, MRO steps in and says we're only going to use the first one. So if we want to use multiple, we have to independently call them. Super challenging. But once we wrap our head around it, it's also very elegant. I hope you enjoyed this video. You can find the source code out on github.com. If you need additional help, myself and thousands of other developers are hanging out in the Voidrealms Facebook group. This is a large group with lots of developers and we talk about everything technology related, not just the technology that you just watched. And if you want official training, I do develop courses out on udemy.com. This is official classroom style training. If you go out there and the course you're looking for is just simply not there. You can drop me a note. I'm either working on it or I will actually develop it. I will put a link down below for all three of those. And as always, help me help you smash that like and subscribe button. The more popular these videos become, the more I'll create and publish out on YouTube. Thank you for watching.


I'm a local journalist and anti-war activist. I'm here with the Answer Coalition. It stands for act now to stop war and end racism. And we're, you know, we've been a part of demanding freedom from Julian Assange since, you know, long before he was arrested, when he was de facto arrested inside the Ecuadorian embassy and detained there for many years. So I want to talk today, you know, as an anti-war activist about why Julian Assange has been so essential to the movement for peace and against war that is led, of course, by the US Empire globally and has its lackeys like the British to help them out. And I was reminded of a quote this morning as I was thinking about what to say today by, I thought of a lines from the poet Rook Dalton. And he was, of course, a Salvadoran revolutionary, revolutionary poet who was fighting the US-backed Salvadoran government in the 1960s. And there's this great line that said, todos juntos tenemos más muerte que ellos, pero todos juntos tenemos más vida que ellos. Altogether they have more death than we, but altogether we have more life than they. And I think about this in the context of the way that the US wages were around the world, that it is the foremost purveyor of violence in the world, right? Dr. Martin Luther King noted that many decades ago, and Julian Assange played such a pivotal role in exposing the dirty tricks of the US war machine and its crimes. Collateral murder that was mentioned earlier is just one example. There were so many other crimes that he's also exposed and the dirty dealings with talking behind the back of the government's manipulating and all of that. All of that is part of the same. It sounds silly to say, but it is really a quest to dominate and rule the world. And we know that the US Empire poses a permanent danger to the world because of this constant warmongering. And the war in Ukraine is the most prominent example of that in many decades. We know that the US has provoked the war in Ukraine by advancing the NATO Alliance eastward, by insisting on arming the Ukrainian government, insisting on pushing them into war, saying, no, you don't have to negotiate, no, you don't have to take other countries, you know, secure realistic security concerns into consideration. And I saw something the other day because the Vladimir Putin said something about nuclear weapons and whatever. And of course, every time he mentions them, the US media just loses its mind about, he's threatening nuclear war and whatever and stuff. And of course, that isn't what he said. He was talking about the reality that this is a very bad military situation for Russia and NATO because Russia feels that it is fighting all of NATO. And they're kind of hard as a proxy war that NATO is waging there. But the issue of it, it reminded me of something that I saw recently called the escalation ladder. Has anybody ever seen this before, the escalation ladder? The escalation ladder is a concept that is used to describe the slow descent from normal relations between countries into nuclear war. And the reality of what's happening in Ukraine is that this has brought the world closer to nuclear war than we have been in a very long time. And there's a key part of that escalation ladder. I appreciate this concept because I always thought it was just like, we'll push the button one day and all the missiles fly and that's the end of it. But that's actually not how it happens. Usually the way that people think about how it might happen is it's a very slow descent from two nations to have a quarrel all the way down to the point where cities are being annihilated without second thought. And there's a key turning point in that kind of slow decline where the implicit assumption by people that nuclear weapons are not about to be used and will not be used disappears. And I want to think back a year ago, before the war began and all of that, and was there any thought in anybody's minds that nuclear weapons could be used tomorrow? Was anybody actually even discussing that? Like that was not in anybody's minds. And now we've clearly crossed that barrier because while nobody's talking about using nuclear weapons, they now have to come out and say, we're not going to use nuclear weapons. We're not talking about it. And a year ago, nobody had to say that, you know. And so we're descending down this ladder of escalation. And that's really scary. And that's why it's so important that we demand that our government stop supporting this war, that the US force pressure everywhere they can, that the Ukrainians to come to the negotiating table and the Russians to come to the negotiating table and end the conflict before this spirals goes too far down the drain into a situation where that the use of nuclear weapons is a serious consideration that people are considering. And we have to understand that the US has provoked this war as a proxy war because it, as I said, it wants to militarily dominate the world. It wants to be the unipolar power. It can't stomach the idea of treating Russia or China or any other nation as equals. They all have to be subjugated. And I think that the prosecution and arrest of Julian Assange is really emblematic of the same idea because you have an Australian journalist who was arrested in the United Kingdom for breaking a US law. And the presumption that US law applies to everybody on the planet, that the US can have anybody arrested and extradited for why is Julian Assange subjected to US law? He didn't do any of that on US soil. And so it's, this is like the height of imperial presumption, right? The attitude that they can do this. And so when we fight for Julian Assange, when we fight for peace, when we fight to limit the power of the US empire, we are, that's what we're fighting for. We are fighting for, it's, it's, we have to understand this as an anti-imperialist project, an anti-war project. And so that's, that's really what, what we have to do. And, and why it's so important that we're all out here because, as people said before me, we achieve this through struggle, right?  And, and so we need to fight forward to free all political prisoners. I actually love this banter too. I want to give this banner a second shout out because I was going to mention Leonard Peltier and Miao Jumol in my speech anyway. So I'm glad that it's on other people's minds too. Thank you so much. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Jacqueline Lukman and I am a member of the Black Alliance for Peace. I am the co-coordinator of the Mid-Atlantic Region for the Black Alliance for Peace and I am the co-host of, by any means necessary, on Radio Sputnik here in Washington D.C. with my comrade and friend Sean Blackman. It's interesting that, you know, I am here representing two organizations or two entities that have faced repression from the U.S. government. Sputnik News that has been the subject of U.S. government attempts to shut it down since 2016 when Russia gate proliferated all over the country because the Democrats lost the election that they didn't want to admit that they lost for their own foolishness and the Black Alliance for Peace, one of many Black radical organizations that are always underscrewed by the U.S. government, the State Department, the FBI, particularly our comrades in the African People's Socialist Party that were raided a few months ago. These realities of how we exist and operate in the alleged land of the free are always near in our consciousness. We always understand that there are those of us in this country who are not free. We are not free to speak our minds. We are not free to print whatever we choose, especially if what we print is the truth about the crimes this government commits. And, of course, this brings me to why we are here today, and that is Julian Assange. Julian Assange is imprisoned not because he committed a crime, not because he spied against the United States, not because he violated the ex-espionage act. Julian Assange is imprisoned because the United States government, right along with their friends, the British government, are punishing him because he printed the truth about the crimes this government was committing in other countries. So, this is why you don't hear Julian Assange's name mentioned at all on corporate media, because if they talk about Julian Assange, they have to talk about why he's imprisoned. If they talk about why he's in prison, they have to talk about that collateral damage video. They have to talk about WikiLeaks in general and how nothing that has been published by WikiLeaks was false. Every bit of it was true, and every bit of it implicates the corrupt people and the very corrupt institutions that make up this government and its allies, like these folks, the British, who are colluding with the United States to deny Julian Assange his freedom as a member of the press to attack him mentally, to wear him down physically. But this is par for the course, you see, for how the United States government and its allies treats political prisoners. I'm so glad this sign is here. Free all political prisoners, Mameda Abu Jamal, Julian Assange, Leonard Peltier, see, you have to understand that this is how the U.S. government deals with all of its political prisoners. They deny you health care. They create conditions in these institutions, prisons, these U.S. and British penal colonies.  The United States carceral state is a penal colony. The Department of Corrections is the U.S. Gulag, the political institution that controls all the prisons. Let's stop slinging around these ridiculous words, accusing Russia or any other country of being less democratic than the country with 5% of the population of the world, but 25% of all incarcerated people on the planet. So the way Julian Assange is treated is being treated. His health is declining. His mental capacity is declining. This is the way the United States treats all political prisoners. And for those of us who have been in the struggle to free political prisoners, those of us who have been in the struggle to get Mameda Abu Jamal off death row successfully, and we're continuing to struggle for his freedom, those of us who have struggled to free Dr. Matulu Shakur, those of us who struggle to free Brother Jamil Amuntakim and others and all these other political prisoners we're fighting for. We understand that what is happening to Julian Assange is what this country has always done. This is how it treats political prisoners. They want to throw our people behind the wall, throw away the key, and they hope that we forget about them while they rot away in 40 years of solitary confinement and die. Never being thought of again, but that cannot happen. Not with Julian Assange and not with all the other political prisoners behind the wall. They can be free. We can free Julian Assange and other political prisoners. We can free Leonard Peltier. We can free all of these other political prisoners. We just have to fight for their freedom because as we are fighting for their freedom, we're fighting for ours. So whatever you do, do not forget that it is possible a better world is possible for political prisoners. Their freedom is possible and a better world for us is possible. We just have to fight for it. I'm Jackie Luquan with the Black Alliance for Peace. Washington D.C. Code Pink, in my case since 2006. And primarily what's important to me today is to see all of you here and to know that being here and showing your faces is the most important thing that you can do right now for Julian Assange and for the First Amendment rights. And my experience has been as an activist and probably you can echo the same thing, that when you see a bit of progress on any issue that you care about, any bit of progress helps you sleep at night and just showing up reduces your stress level. So that's sort of bottom line. But when you see progress like we've seen in the past week or so with finally the New York Times and Guardian and LeMond and so we're finally showing what they should have been showing for quite a while. We do thank them for finally having a backbone of stating that Julian Assange is not a criminal, that he's a publisher and that he is needs to be released and sent wherever he wants to go and probably into a hospital because he is in a failing condition given what he's been through. We can't even imagine what that would be like. My experience has been as an activist as been inspired primarily by Medea Benjamin who day after day after day has risked her physical being and her mental being and somehow or another thinking of one action after the other that brings light to her issues, our issues. Our coping has grown professionally over the past few years with increased staff and this is an example of what one organization and a few strong leaders this morning. The staff person in charge of China had a really good article and I hope you're on the line to get this but laying out the difference between the United States and China and our different war like quote war like positions. So looking at the armaments and the amount of personnel military personnel distributed around the globe. It was a quite detailed kind of thing to save your hard drive because you'll need it for your articles. So without going on too much longer I just want to thank you for being here and for continuing to be here and for whatever articles you can write whatever details you can add on your emails or your Facebook or your Twitter or to bring a friend along the next time or if you're just in a social group to speak out for a song and to let people know what the details are what the truth is break the myths because I have people in sewing group and book club and whatever who are in some cases wives as CIA agents oddly enough who bring up myths. I mean there's just so much disinformation that we must continue to belie. So thank you so much for continuing to do what you're doing and for speaking out and know that it is having an effect maybe taking a while but it is having an effect it just isn't always so apparent. Power to the people it always comes down to that doesn't it power to the people and one of the slogans that came out of our struggle which I think is a really important um is it okay? One of the struggles is that the people always win. The people always win. The people always win. The people always win. Sometimes even if they don't organize sometimes even if they don't organize but the people have to be very clear where the power really lies and so I am here representing the Bethesda African Cemetery Coalition. We are at an organization of organizers. Everyone in our coalition is an organizer and we have been fighting now for seven years against fraud, waste and abuse in Montgomery County. Montgomery County is determined that they are going to erase black people from the face of the earth they thought they've tried it for at least the last 300 years. First there were major plantations on River Road. If you ever go to the Whole Foods Market on River Road in Bethesda that was a site of a mass killing ground right there. The entire area in fact was basically a mass burial ground and so we have been fighting to bring forth this history. Of course Mark Elridge and the rest of the criminals in Montgomery County have been fighting us every step of the way but we are winning. We're winning and maybe some of you saw the FMSNBC reporting on us yesterday. Next week is going to be some other major news outlets but the truth is somehow getting through because you cannot hide the truth and that's what Julian Sodge is all about. I'm also a whistleblower. I'm an EPA whistleblower. I blow the whistle on Union Carbides practices in South Africa. At the dawn of the Nelson Mandela government I was succumbed to the White House to work with the Mandela government in order to basically reorganize their environmental programs and I found out that Union Carbide was operating a vanadium mine in South Africa and everything that you see around you has vanadium. The cameras, the street lights, anything that has steel in it has vanadium in it which means that vanadium is more important to the U.S. economy than gold. It's in all the cars, trucks, airplanes, everything that you use and we found out that the vanadium mine workers were being murdered by a multinational corporation and when I went to Al Gore and arrested these guys and told them what was happening they told me to let them die and I was in the same position that most whistleblowers are in. I had to make a decision whether I was going to keep working with the White House, keep you know promoting my career doing whatever I was going to do to protect my family of whether I was going to blow the whistle and like Julian Assange I decided to blow the whistle. And that started basically a 10-year fight with the United States government in which also I was the target of death threats. My daughter was almost kidnapped. It's a very long story that I wrote a book about called No Fear because we eventually got a law pass which turned out to be the first civil rights whistleblower law of the 21st century called No Fear which is the notification of federal employees anti-discrimination and retaliation act of 2002. A better world is possible but we have to fight for it. I wanted also just to really give a shout out to Daniel Ellsberg today because Daniel is still lighting the way he really is the godfather of this movement in so many ways and he recently revealed that he had all the possessions of the Chelsea Manning information before it was sent out to the press and so what he is now doing is challenging the U.S. government to arrest him under the Espionage Act.  I mean this is incredible courage and it's going to take all of us now to defend Daniel Ellsberg. All of us we all have to step up to the plate now because he's putting it all on the line for us just like Julian Assange and just like all the whistleblowers throughout this country. So I'm going to end with a quote from my friend and my colleague Nam Chomsky and I did this before but to me Nam really speaks to this issue better than anyone else. He says Julian has been subjected to years of torture, false charges, now the threat of extradition in which he will face possible lifetime of imprisonment and the press is not coming to his defense. Do you see the Washington Post here? Do you see the New York Times here? The press is not coming to his defense. It's those voices in the streets which can end this tragedy of the Assange torture and persecution. We are the answer. We are the answer and that's the reason why we say the people always win. Thank you very much. Thank you. Assange go France. I guess we have to say that since we're here to tell the British that they are complicit in a crime. The persecution of Julian Assange and an attack on the free press you know something when we as the United States fought for our independence from the British one thing we fought for was the First Amendment and the free press. A concept they don't even really have in the UK and so it is our responsibility I think as US citizens to show that we actually believe in this here in the United States. We believe in a free press and we are going to fight to say the UK should not extradite Julian Assange. He has no chance at facing a fair trial in the United States and the precedent that the UK has already set by essentially kidnapping him is horrible for people like me who work due journalism to expose the crimes of the transatlantic evil empire and our greatest partner in that transatlantic evil empire is the United Kingdom. That's right and you know one of the best things that I have experience in my life lately is getting to raise my daughter and I think I just my heart breaks for Julian Assange who's been robbed of that right to spend time with his children and his children have been robbed of their father and just on that personal level I hope that one day we we get to see Julian reunited with his children we've all heard the horrible stories of what his boys had had to go through to meet him in prison very invasive searching of young young children who are just trying to visit their father who's been taken away from them and that's all being done by the UK government you guys not much to be proud of there I mean we're standing here to tell you that you should be ashamed shame shame shame on you shame shame on the UK the last thing I'll say is that tomorrow I'll be going to Miami to cover a case a trial of someone else who was kidnapped by the United States that's Alex Sop the Venezuelan diplomat who was fighting against the same transatlantic evil empire defending Venezuela against the sanctions not only levied by the United States but by the UK government and this government has also stolen billions of dollars worth of Venezuelan gold they use the coup the cover of Juan Guaido to basically just make sure that gold that Venezuela was trying to repatriate and bring back to its country is forever in the coffers of the central bank of England so there is just so much criminality coming out of the government that these people in this building work for and so we're going to keep showing up and tell you you can't watch your world cup game in peace shame on you shame on you we will not stop until Julian Assange is free and I you know the rest of the world it feels like sometimes has moved on or forgotten and so I'm so happy to see that there are people that haven't forgotten and that will always show up and say nothing I would usually want to for France really but hey in this on this day when we're all here for us on go France