Welcome back everyone. We've just started the recording of this second lecture today. We are going to start with Romans chapter 3 now. So let's just read Romans chapter 3 verses 1 to 8. Romans 3, 1 to 8. Let's say Aaron, can you read that for us? Romans 3, 1 to 8, please. Have the Jewish then any advantage over the Gentiles? Or is there any value in being circumcised? Much indeed in every way. In the first place, God trusted his message to the Jewish, but what if some of them were not faithful? Does this mean that God will not be faithful? Certainly not.  As the scripture says, you must be shown to be right when you speak. You must be when your case, when you are being tried. But what if our doing wrong serve to show up more clearly? God's doing right. Can we say that God does wrong when he punishes? This would be the natural question to ask. By no means if God is not just how can we judge the world. But what if my untrue serve, God's glory by making, is true, true stand out more clearly? Why should I still be contaminated? As a sinner, why not say then, let us do evil so that good may come. Some people did have insulted me by accusing me of saying this very thing. This will be contaminated as they should be. Alright, so in this first part of chapter three, Paul is asking some questions and answering those questions himself in relation to God's judgment. So he has established that, hey, everyone's going to be judged. And Jews, you really don't stand a chance in God's judgment because you're not keeping the law. And of course, Gentiles, they will be judged according to their conscience. It's written there so they have no excuse that we didn't know what's right and wrong, everybody. But we're all going to be judged according to the gospel. Now, about God himself as judge and how God judges, he's answering some, he asks some questions and answers that. So we call them rhetorical questions because his intent in asking the questions is to get people to think. His intent in asking the questions is to address some things that they're asking, not to get an answer from them because he himself is going to answer those questions. So this questioning is more of, okay, I'm addressing some things that you are thinking about. I'll ask the question and I will give you the answer. So these are rhetorical questions in these eight verses. So you can just follow his thinking here or how he's unfolding this truth. Now remember, the truth is coming from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is saying, okay, I need to give this to God, to the church, but it is being written for us in the skill, in the language and with the context of the writer. That means in this case, it's the Apostle Paul. He's going to be using his language. He's going to be putting in his words, his thoughts. But the truth is coming inspired by the Holy Spirit. You need to address this for the church, right? But Paul is a very logical thinker and he's expressing the truth in this manner for us. So he starts about asking a question which obviously a Jew would ask, so does that mean be Jews out of no use? And circumcision of no use? You know, until now we were saying that we are the chosen people of God and through us all the nations are going to be blessed and all that. But now you're saying Paul, we're all sinners.  So he's asking that question. And then he answers the question first too. Of course not. You know, the Jew has the advantage. What is it? To them were committed to the oracles of God.   I'm not really discrediting it. Discrediting it, you know, hey, God chose these people and through them he has revealed, given the revelation, the oracles of God. He answers that question. Then next question, which most likely, you know, his audience and the people that would have asked was, hey, so That's was three. So if we don't believe this, how does that affect all of this? We don't believe, you know, if we don't believe. Will it change anything about God? So the law is given, the word is given, but we don't believe. He says, well, even if you don't believe, it doesn't change who God is. God is still faithful.  So you, somebody not receiving the word. Somebody not believing does not in any way change who God is. So not affect who God is. God is still faithful. God is still true. Right. So that's the second question. The answer is quite obvious. But the, for the sake of his audience is asking these questions and answering them. So basically saying, look, if you don't believe, it doesn't change God one bit. He's still faithful. He's still true. Who God is, doesn't change. Then versus five through eight. It's actually a series of questions. All about the same thing. The question is, Hey, if my unrighteousness that is my doing wrong is just showing how righteous God is, the one who's judging. So I'm doing wrong. It's showing that God is a righteous church. Then is God unjust? This is worth fine. Isn't his God being unjust by punishing me because I am doing wrong. It is putting God in a good light, showing that he's the God who judges sin. Then why is he punishing me. Or the same thing can be presented like this. If I'm telling a lie. And it's showing that God is true. I'm making God look good. These are God of truth. This is worth seven. Then why am I being judged a sinner because my life is making God look good. Or, you know, in the notes I've just shared, you know, we could think of Judas Iscariot making an argument like this. You know, Jesus, Judas can argue. God. If I had not betrayed Jesus. Jesus would not have been crucified. People would not have been said. So why are you judging me for betraying Christ? Because my betrayal, my, I did something wrong. I betrayed. But what I did fulfilled, you know, it, it, it, all these things happen. Christ was crucified. People were saved. So why am I being judged? So this is an argument. What are the Jews arguing here? They're saying our unrighteousness is revealing the righteousness of God. Our lying is revealing the truthfulness of God. That means the wrong we are doing is showing how good God is, how great God is. So, you know, so why are we being judged for the wrong we are doing? So, and then Paul is saying or say that actually some people are falsely accusing Paul that he's teaching people. Let us do evil that could make up. So, you know, so you can imagine Paul as an apostle. Even in those days, I had to deal with false reports about him, about his ministry, about what he was teaching. And so here's one case in verse eight, where Paul is opening up and saying, Hey, some people are falsely accusing me that I am teaching. Let us do evil. So good may come. Let's let's do sin. Let's sin. So that, you know, God can be glorified or things like that. So that's a false report. But you see, you know, how Paul, even in this ministry had to deal with these kinds of things. That was obviously not what he was teaching, but he is slanderously being reported. That means it's a false report that he's supposedly teaching that. But Paul's response to that is verse six.  Did God wants, does God want us to speak lies so he can look as the God of truth?  His answer there was certainly not. Certainly not. God is not an unjust God. And God is going to judge the world. So he's judging our deeds. So God's response to Judas would be Judas. I'll judge you for three things. I'll judge you for your deeds. I'll judge you for your desires. I'll judge you for your drives, your motivations. The deed was betrayal. Your desire was study pieces of silver. Your drive, what motivated you was, you know, just to get favor with, to please the Jews, the religious leaders, to make them happy. So I'll judge you for your deeds, your desire and your drive, your motivation. So God will still judge the world. So even though God brings something good out of our wrong as a classic case, this classic example is that of Judas. Yeah, he did something wrong, but something, you know, God's purpose was carried out. So even though God does something good out of the wrong we've done, we are going to be judged. We're not going to be condoned because of that, but we're still going to be judged on these three things that he has already spoken of. Our deeds, desires and our drives. So God will still judge the world or judge us for these things. He's not going to overlook the wrong we've done just because he was able to bring something good out of it. Okay, so he's asked a set of questions in verses one to eight. First is, what is the usefulness of being a Jew and being circumcised? He says, hey, God gave to you the law, so to you the revelation, so you are important. Second, if we believe, I mean, if you don't believe, well, if you don't believe, it doesn't change who God is. God is still God of truth and faithful. Third, doesn't our unrighteousness make God look righteous, so shouldn't we just continue doing unrighteous? No, he's going to judge our unrighteousness for what it is. He's going to judge that. Everyone follow me till verse eight? Any questions? So he's kind of addressed some questions that are going on in the minds of his audience, people, the Jews. And then he says, okay, having done that, here's what I want to drive home. That is verse nine through verse 20. Romans chapter three, verse nine to 20, let us read that passage for us. Okay, Kiran, can you read that for us? Romans three, nine to 20, please. Are we better than they? Not all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under the sin. As it is written, there is unrighteousness, not one. There is one who understands that there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside. They have together become unprofitable. There is none who does not want. Their throat is an open thumb. With their tongues, they have practiced deceit. The poison of a sp is under their lips.  Their feet are swept and seed blood destruction and mercy are in their ways. And the way of peace, they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that whatever the law says, it says those who are under the law that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight. For by the law is the knowledge of sin. So verses 9 through 20. This is the next point that he really is getting his audience to say, okay, so are the Jews better than the Gentiles? No. What is the conclusion then? Both Jews and Greeks, the Gentiles, are all under sin. So Jews, you are special to God. God has given you the oracles. And if you don't believe, it doesn't change what God is. And even the God uses our God in spite of our unrighteousness. He carries out his purposes. So the conclusion is this. All are under sin. And then he quotes from the Old Testament. There is none righteous, not even one. There's no one who's seeking after God, Psalm 14. This is nobody who's seeking after God. There's nobody who's righteous. And then he's quoting from the Psalms. You know, the people are speaking evil. They are practicing evil. They are going after destruction. And they don't know there's no fear of God.  There's nobody who's righteous. We're all actually sinful in what we think and do. We are sinful. No one is righteous. And verse 19 and 20. So if you have the law, you'll be judged by the law. And ultimately, all the world who stands guilty before God. So that's the point Paul is telling.  It doesn't matter. All of us are standing guilty before God. And even the Jews, by the deeds of the law, you can never be justified because the law is actually exposing our sin. Because we have done all these things. There's nobody's righteous. We have spoken evil. We have all these things. We have cursing. We have shed blood. There's destruction. There's misery. All this.  But the law is only showing us that we are sinners. So all that he's written so far through chapter two, and he's answered some questions early part of chapter three, he's brought his people. Now he's writing to Jews and Gentiles now. He's addressing both equally. Okay.  There is no one who's righteous, not even one. And through the law, he cannot be justified. The law is only showing us we are sinners. So that's where he's brought his people to. And he's helping. Now remember, he's writing to the church. So the church also needs to understand this is very basic. Today, you know, we very easily say all absent and come short of the glory because we easily say that. But sometimes, you know, we need to help people understand. And this is true. This is how we are before God without Christ. Then he starts presenting the solution. Okay. We're all sinners. We're all guilty before God. We've all broken the law, but this is God's solution. And in giving this solution, Paul is maintaining something. He's maintaining that God is being righteous. Because remember, some of them are thinking, hey, if my evil is bringing something good, then I should just continue doing evil. He said, no, God has actually provided a solution. And in doing this, God is maintaining his righteous. God isn't just, but he's providing a solution for us in our predicament where we are all sinners. Okay. Let's just read that from verse 21 through to the 26. And we will look at this presenting solution. Romans chapter three, verse 21 to 26. Roshan, maybe you can read it. Okay, Prince Yareed, go ahead. But now the righteousness of God, apart from the law, is revealed. Being witnessed by the law and the prophets. Even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all and all who believed. For there is no difference. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. God set forth as a proposition by his blood through faith to demonstrate his righteousness. Because in his forbearance, God had passed over the sin that were previously committed to demonstrate at the present time his righteousness that he might be just and justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Okay. Thank you. So he says, okay, let's give the solution. He says, now God's righteousness. Now remember the word righteous. To be righteous means to be blameless. To be just. To have nothing against you. To be righteous means to be blameless. So the blamelessness of God. The faultlessness of God. That is righteousness of God. God is blameless. God is faultless. Nobody can find any fault with him. Anything. The righteousness of God. Now, from our perspective, for us to be faultless before God, for us to be able to stand blameless before God. So that is from our perspective. And we say righteous.  That means we're saying God is blameless. God is faultless. Let me say we have been made righteous before God. You're saying we have been given this position of being blameless and faultless in God's eyes. So we are being made righteous. So he says, verse 21, this righteousness of God. Which is outside of the law. I mean, it doesn't come through the law. This ability to be blameless in God's eyes. This ability to be faultless in God's eyes, which is outside of the law. But the prophets had spoken about it. Being witnessed by the law and the prophets. And it's therefore told God would do this. Okay. Even the righteousness of God, which comes through faith in Jesus Christ, to all in honor who believe for there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by the great, by his grace for the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. What is Paul saying? Okay. Look, the whole world is guilty before God. He's brought us to that conclusion in verse 19. And no one can be justified by law. I mean, no one can be justified in his sight. That is the righteousness before God. No one can be righteous in God's eyes.  Nobody can do that. But there is a righteousness that God is giving to everybody without any difference, differentiation. He's giving to the Jews and to the Gentiles. He's giving it to everybody. And this righteousness, he says, it is the righteousness of God. That means it is God's own righteousness. It's the righteousness that comes from God. And it is the righteousness that is given to all who believe through all our faith in Jesus Christ. So this righteousness is a righteousness that is from God. It is given to us. So what Paul is saying is this, you know, we're all the whole world is standing guilty before God. And we cannot be justified in his sight through the law, but there is God's own righteousness, which is being made available through faith in Jesus Christ. And this is verse 22.  Everyone is sinned.  And then verse 24 says this just being justified or this being made righteous is freely by his grace. So he said through faith, now he's saying it's freely by his grace. And he says it is through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, through the redemption. That word redemption is, you know, in the Jewish mind, it has the idea of buying something back and restoring it to a place, buying something back with a price. It has the idea of buying a slave out of a slave market or it has the idea of paying a ransom to get somebody's freedom. So redemption, it is buying something back with a price and restoring it to its original state of freedom, et cetera. So he says through this whole act of redemption in Jesus Christ, God is giving his righteousness freely by grace to everyone who believes. So this is how we can be made righteous. So he's built up this understanding that clearly we cannot be made righteous through the law. None of us are keeping the law, whether it's written law or the law in our conscience. None of us are able to do that. There is no one who's righteous. We are all sinned and we are all standing guilty before God, but God has done something. He's giving us righteousness. He's giving us this ability to be justified in his sight, to be blameless and faultless in his sight. He's giving it to us and this is how he's giving it to us. All who believe, to all our faith in Jesus Christ, is giving it to us freely by his grace and he's giving it to us on the basis of the redemption that is in Jesus Christ, on the basis of what Christ did by giving the price, the ransom price and buying us out and purchasing us and buying us out and restoring us to where God wants us to be. That's what he's saying. And he continues, verse 25, about Jesus he says, God has made him our propitiation. That word there in the Greek actually should be translated mercy steed. In English they've just translated as propitiation, which is an attempt to capture what would happen at the mercy seat, but the Greek literally means mercy seat. So he says in verse 25, God has set Christ as our mercy seat. Now mercy seat is going back into the Tabernacle of Moses and they had the outer court, the inner court and the most holy place or the holiest of holies. And in the holiest of holies, there was the Ark of the Covenant, which was basically a wooden box covered with gold. Inside which were kept the Ten Commandments and Aaron's rod and so it is kept. So it was a symbol of God's presence, the box, the Ark of the Covenant. And on top of the Ark of the Covenant was a golden mercy seat. It was a seat like a chair made of gold, a gold mercy seat. And it was a symbol of that's where God said, I will meet with you. My presence, my glory will be there and I will meet with you. I will speak to you. And that is where the high priest went and he sprinkled the blood of the atonement. He sprinkled the blood. So when he sprinkled the blood, atonement was made and God said, that's where I will meet with you. Basically it's in the sign of man being reconciled to God and God, man being able to meet with God because of the blood of the atonement. So the word propitiation is an attempt to capture, you know, that whole picture of atonement at the mercy seat, man being reconciled to God, man being able to speak to God. So what Paul is saying is Jesus has become our mercy seat. Jesus has become the place where atonement was made, where man has been reconciled to God. Man is able to meet with God. Now man is able to be blameless, faultless, justified righteous with God.  This Christ gave his blood through faith. That's what God asks of us, have faith. And he says, this whole thing demonstrates God's righteousness and his God himself is being righteous in doing this. Because, you know, in the past, God overlooked sin. That means he didn't pour out all the judgment on sin. Right then, he reserved it to be poured out here at the cross. And in doing so, God has been righteous. Verse 26, that he is righteous because sin has been judged. And therefore, he's not only righteous and just, because sin has been judged. But he's also the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. That means God is saying, I have judged sin, so I'm a just God. I'm a righteous God. I've judged sin. But I'm also able to justify those who have sinned because their sins have been judged in the redemption that's in Christ. So Paul is basically saying, you know, God can both be the judge, the one who condemns sin and the one who forgives the sinner because of the cross. Because of Christ being made our mercy seat because of the redemption as in Jesus. God is just. God is righteous. He's also the one who makes us righteous, the one who makes us justified. He's doing both. He's judging sin, but he is acquitting the sinner. He's able to do it because of the cross. But with me there till verse 26. Any questions? Right. Okay. Thank you. Everyone's following. So Paul has come to this, helped his audience. See this. Now we are all sinners. God is the righteous God. He's judged sin. That means he's being a just God. But he's justifying the sinner. He's being a merciful God. He's giving us his goodness. Right. So what is the conclusion? What do I really want you to know? This is in the last few verses, verses 27 to 31. Verses 27 to 31. Who has to read? Sorry. Conant. Conant didn't read. 27 to 31 please. Anyone. Can I read it, sir? Go ahead. Where then is bursting? It is exploded on what principle on that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintained that a man is justified by faith. fight by faith apart from observing the not the God observing the law is God the God of Zeus only it is not the God of Gentiles to yes offer Gentiles to since there is only one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised to throw that same fact do we then nullify the law by this fact not at all rather we uphold the law so verse 27 through verse 31 thank you right so it says okay so what's the conclusion says you know where can be boasts where is boasting it is excluded it's nobody can boast no one can you know take any credit for themselves how is boasting excluded because of the law of faith where is boasting it's nobody can boast it is excluded why is it excluded because of the law of faith this verse 28 this is the conclusion man is justified by faith or man is made righteous by faith he's put in a right standing that God he's made faultless and blameless before God by faith outside of the deeds of the law that means it's not dependent on the deeds of the law we're doing things of the law so he says look this is a conclusion I want to bring all of us to understand Jews and Gentiles he's writing to these believers he's saying you know you see how he's developed the whole thing Jews we can't talk too much I know you have the law but you've all broken it Gentiles there's a conscience God can hold you accountable for but the fact is all of us have sinned and God has given is giving us the solution through Jesus Christ so none of us can boast and we're all justified by faith so verse 29 is the verse 29 is the God of the Jews Gentiles yeah he's God over everybody right he's God of the Jews he's got the Gentiles and both Jews and Gentiles are going to be justified the same way which is through faith that's verse 30 whether you're circumcised as whether you're Jewish the uncircumstance Gentiles it is going to be through faith that we are going to be justified so that's the main thing he's getting to and he says well then what's the use of the law well he's saying we are not getting you know we're not making white the law though saying the law has been useless no it has served the purpose that we make the laws void through faith no we established the law how do we establish the law because we have stated nobody can keep the law all of us are sinners and the law serves that purpose the law has exposed and we're all sinned that all Jew and Gentiles are standing built guilty before God and God has been just in condemning the sin the same sin which the law condemns God has condemned is he has judged it in the person of Christ and through that he can justify people of faith in Christ so faith in effect has established the law because faith has brought everybody to this because everybody has come to this place where you have to have faith in Christ because on to the law we've been our weaknesses been exposed our sin has been exposed so faith in effect establishes what the law has always been telling us that we have fallen short of God's glory so that's what he concludes now at the end of verse chapter 3 right that we are justified by faith but they are Jew or Gentile we're all justified by faith God is God of the Jews and also of the Gentiles and this type of faith is just you know is establishing or affirming what the law has been saying we are saying that we cannot keep the law when we come by faith we are saying we cannot keep the law therefore we have faith in the person of Christ so we are establishing we are affirming the law saying yeah we can't keep it we are sinners everyone with me so far okay so that brings us to the end of chapter 3 next week we'll get into chapter 4 where he tells us more about the importance of faith right so till now he says look so right now the conclusion is faith in Jesus Christ that's the only way we can have we can be justified we can become blameless before God and then chapter 4 he emphasizes faith right so we will pick that up next week can we close in prayer please I would thank you for listening and somebody could close in prayer and be able to dismiss after that thank you for the good for the good we just come before you're shown for the good once again for the good thanking you for the good for your your bird and in the subject for the good for the good thanking you for the good to bless us father God thank you for you wisdom and knowledge for the good that we be understood for the good the nicely the subject for the good the Roman book and a father God for the good thanking you for the good understood that we justify justified by faith for the good thanking you for the good help us to stay for the good to help us to walk by faith for the good to every step and every movement for the good for the good just give you more revelation and your blessing and your wisdom knowledge for the good thanking you coming time I'm just submitting to your hand for the good everyone does and all the student father come just submitting to your hand you just take care of everything for the good thanking you almighty Jesus name I pray amen amen thank you everyone thank you for being in the class today enjoy the rest of your day let's see you shortly by now thank you thank you thank you so thank you thank you


In a world of Democrats there will be time for them to make profits now is not that time and Republicans have abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. You need a voice of Liberty Look no further. You found it. Tom Woods Beware citizen you are now departing from the world of unlawable opinion the Tom Woods show Welcome to the Tom Woods show episode 370 hold on to your hats for this episode my friends what I love about doing this show is that here we are at episode 370 and we're still covering brand new topics and This topic is gonna blow your mind I would be willing to bet that maybe even 90% of my listeners are Unfamiliar with what we're gonna cover today and those of you who are familiar with it I bet could stand to have a refresher. So it's really the ideal topic I myself could stand to have a refresher on this topic. What is the topic? The topic is something called argumentation ethics advanced by Hans-Hermann Hoppe as a defense of libertarianism and it is a bold defense You'll notice that the title of this episode is equally bold saying that it is impossible To argue against libertarian principles without engaging in a contradiction Very very bold that claim and we're going to try to defend it with Stefan Kinsella Who is a great theorist on this subject in his own right again a great explicator of Hans's views Stefan has many credentials. I'll just note that he is the founding and executive editor of Libertarian papers you should check that out. We'll link to it at tomwoods.com slash 370 a series of scholarly papers in the libertarian tradition He's the director of the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom and the author among other books of Against intellectual property It's 2015 as I record this April 9th I'm going to be at American University and April 11th at the University of Cincinnati I hope to see some of you guys at those events get the details on those at tomwoods.com Slash events and now my conversation with Stefan Kinsella get ready everybody Stefan welcome back Hey, Tom glad to be back Other than Hans Hoppe himself who generally does not do audio interviews So for everybody saying why don't you get Hans on the show? Let me take care of that one right now I have asked him to back when I was hosting the Peter Schiff show from time to time I asked him to be a guest and he politely declined not because we're not friends or anything, but he just doesn't Want to do audio interviews anymore And he says plus, you know, sometimes I say things and I get into trouble and I'd rather just write out my answers So that's another matter But there's really nobody else I'd like to talk to on this more than you as and you've you've written an awful lot About the subject that we're talking about today, which is argumentation ethics now It is highly fashionable in libertarian circles Well, let's say it's fashionable in fashionable libertarian circles to discount this all together and to make fun of Hans and to make fun Of people who believe in it, but the arguments for it If I may say so are actually very intriguing and to my mind quite strong What the claim that Hans is making is an incredibly bold one I mean it took Murray Rothbard's breath away. It was so bold in effect He's saying that it is impossible to argue against the basic libertarian principles the first user Principle homesteading principle private property. It's basically impossible to argue against these things without engaging in a Contradiction without contradicting yourself because there are principles that are pre-argumentation that are taken for granted that are presupposed by the very fact of arguing a very fact of engaging in argumentation the very action of doing that that Can't be denied without engaging in in contradiction. It's it's a it's a strong claim and yet to my mind It really works. So is that have I correctly described Hans's aim? I Think you have and yeah, I think you could you could I would proudly call myself of Hoppe's libertarian consigliere if you want like the libertarian Lawyer advocate for a lot of Hoppe's views because I've learned and you've learned a lot from Hans I view Hans Hoppe is the greatest living libertarian theorist and Austrian economist in the world so there's a lot to learn from him and one of the first things that he burst onto the scene with in If I have the timeline, right, I think he came to the u.s. Around nineteen 86 80 80 yeah 85 86 and he was with Rockford for about a decade until Rockford died and Around 86 87 he started promoting this argumentation ethics idea, which is just one of his many breakthroughs in Austrian and libertarian thought and It was very Provocative and controversial when it came onto the scene and around I think the first time it was really noticed by a lot of people Was in this Liberty magazine symposium in 1988 And he introduced his argumentation ethics, which was a kind of a new defense of libertarian rights Which Rothbard loved and went crazy about So yeah, that's how it came about and that with the origin of it You are a libertarian legal theorist in your own right. So why don't you just explain very simply? What are these libertarian principles that we're eventually going to arrive at just so that we can see the goal that this is all taking us toward? Well, and and actually this argument helps us to see what the libertarian principles should be and that's a dispute in itself Or right a debatable topic, but libertarian principles, you know, you could call it Voluntaryism you could call it peace. You call it prosperity I think if you distill it down to its core what libertarian principles are is that We're trying to come up with a set of rules that people can live together among each other Right in a world of scarcity and where there's a possibility of conflict and these rules are what are called property rights And the property rights are usually assigned or delegated in a certain traditional way You know the first person who gets a thing gets to own it if you Sell it to someone by contract then they're the new owner These basically simple rules are the core of the Western legal tradition and of all human society The project for libertarians is to be more consistent about it and to enumerate like what the justification Could be and up up until I'd say hopeless time There have been two or three main ways of trying to justify the legal system that we see and These have been what the typical Means that we're familiar with I mean for example, then you're talking about the natural rights tradition Yeah, I'd say so the two main ways would be the natural rights or what some people call the ontological or principled approach And there's many there's many variations of that and then the sort of consequentialist or utilitarian approach You could say there are others like Intuitionist religionist And there's a there's a libertarian anarchist named Jan Lester JC Lester Who thinks there's a third version which he calls this kind of Karl Popper verse based critical rationalism which is that you just you you come up with conjectures and You just try to deep to rebut them What you know like Rothbard is mostly in the natural law natural rights tradition What Hoppe argued was that there are problems with the two main approaches to justifying norms or rules or ethics or laws or rights and that is that the one approach utilitarianism of course is Completely incompatible with what we understand about economics given Mises's understanding of The fact that values are subjective and values can't be quantified. We can't compare values. So we could never come up with a rule that That would allow us to maximize some kind of value parameter in society so this kind of strict utilitarian idea is is Economically unworkable and it's also unethical because even if you could take money from let's say Bill Gates and give it to some poor person and make them better off that doesn't Automatically show that the theft is justified. So utilitarianism is is is is criticized And natural law theory natural rights theory is heavily bound up with the Catholic Church and with the religious views and There are two principle Criticisms that are that are that are set forth against the natural rights view Number one It's the humane idea that you can't derive an ought from an is that is you can't make a factual statement and Then derive from that what should be the case or what laws should be the case You can't just say here's what human nature is and therefore This is what the rule should be because you have to introduce a normative statement And you have to have some kind of independent justification for that normative statement So that's one problem the other problem that people like Hans and others have identified with the natural law Argument is that human nature is a very vague and diffuse and very general So even if you agree that human nature gives rise to a set of prescriptions and laws They would be very general and vague. They wouldn't be specific at all So what Hoppe did was Hans was a leftist Initially a German leftist and he studied under one of the most brilliant Philosophers of the modern time in Europe Jurgen Habermas Who's a leftist but he Habermas and his his his colleague Carl Otto appell And these two German philosophers had come up with this thing called Discourse ethics and the idea is that if you want to try to find out what ethics What normative rules and society could be justified you have to look back to the source of any kind of method of Proving these things in the first place, which is always a discussion between two intelligent beings like you and I're having right now Okay, that's good and I'm gonna ask you why is argumentation central to the whole thing This is why Yeah, and so what Hans says and this is a hard to recognize until you think about it But what he says is that human action itself is not the source of these things but human communication is and the reason is that when you have humans come together in a community in the society and They have an interaction like a discourse the discourse Has certain Presuppositions what he calls them moral or normative presuppositions in other words you could not have a discourse about What rules are good or bad? Unless everyone agreed to put their their swords down in the first place and sit down together and treat each other with Respect and dignity and treat each other like each one is is is the owner of themselves Otherwise you couldn't have a communication with someone So what he points out and what Habermas and what Appel pointed out is that? there are normative presuppositions of argumentation and The fact that the only way you could ever come to a decision about what rules are good or bad is through argumentation Means that whatever these normative presuppositions of argument are They matter they just matter to what you could argue for in the argument itself So as a simple example you could never say Hey, Tom lets you and I get together and let's let's debate whether we should ever have human society Let's debate whether we should ever be able to talk to each other By by having a conversation We're sort of both agreeing that having a conversation is a good thing having interaction or social intercourse is a good thing So there are certain things you could argue you could say that would be incompatible With the presuppositions of the very endeavor that has to be there to justify any norm ever at all So that's sort of the general background framework And then there are other Feature I mean now now we should unpack what other presuppositions exist in in this whole package of argumentation and of course that in Effect when you're engaged in rational argument you are if you know if I may give the punchline away a bit You are being a libertarian what whether you realize it or not when you engage in argument What are you doing? you are inviting someone to consider your arguments on the basis of a standard that is common to you both namely reason and if you if you engage in argument and you're you're You're advancing your claims you are implicitly saying that you prefer I mean you've got potentially a dispute with another person as you try to justify your position But you prefer a peaceful resolution. That's why you're engaging in argument So are the very fact of of embarking upon argumentation already presupposes a preference for Nonviolent resolutions of conflict so that that's also very important and then also since arguments are not just floating in the air But they're made by human beings There are also Presuppositions that come out of that the fact that I have to stand somewhere to make the argument and so on and on so spin these out for us if you would right, so yeah, so So what Hoppe is pointing out is and actually Hans Hans characterizes his argument as sort of a hybrid between a consequentialist and a Sort of natural law view it's natural in that it relies upon human nature The nature of humans as being a communicative language bearing being that has that we have to communicate with each other And we have to discourse with each other to establish Truth, okay, so it's natural in that sense, but it's more much more narrow than the traditional natural law approach So so the particulars of this argument is that Hans argues and I agree with this and he basically abstracted away all the social democratic gloss that Habermas and Appel put on to their version of it because they have this bizarre philosophy where there's world one and world two World three and to get truth. You have to have social democracy and then there's welfare rights introduced. I Think Hans's view is that basically Habermas and probably Appel Had a crucial insight Okay, but they they perverted it towards their their socialist European ends, okay He took the crucial insight stripped them away of all the clutter and combined it with what Mises saw right? Which is the idea that we have we have to live in a world of scarce means we live we live among each other Rationality means something right so basically what he said is when you have a discussion about what norms could be justified I mean, look, this is the basic bottom line of the argumentation ethics approach The bottom line is that it's like a filter. It's like any ethic that you could ever propose would have to be Discussable and arguable in discourse among humans And if it contradicts the presupply the normative presuppositions of the debate that everyone has It has to be rejected. So libertarianism emerges because of a filtering mechanism. That is every Unlibertarian ethic is rejected and every libertarian ethic can survive the filter So it's it's not like a positive argument It's an argument by a filtering mechanism and the argument is twofold It's that as you said when two or more people are engaged in a discourse They're engaged in cooperation and a peaceful activity Okay, but the second recognition which he did get from from Habermas Is that argumentation is also a practical activity? This is an activity engaged engaged in by living human beings with physical bodies in the physical world of physical scarcity and they had to get there somehow They had to survive somehow to be able to argue. They have to survive during the argument Which means there's a recognition of the significance of the ability to control and use scarce resources in the world You have to use water food Land resources you had to get there somehow Which means no one in in a real argumentation could deny the value of The ability of someone to pluck an unowned resource out of the wilderness and start using it Otherwise the human race never would have survived and we never could have this conversation in the first place So when you combine all these things together What you get is sort of a Transcendental some people some people call it a transcendental approach To what is really common sense right the common sense approach to libertarianism is sort of the Mises Consequentialist approach, which is that if you value life if you value human society if you value your neighbors and yourself and if you have a degree of modesty and honesty and Economic literacy Then you would have to support a free market system because you know, that's what's going to get you what everyone really wants Right the consequentialist case for libertarianism according to Mises I think is perfectly sensible, but it depends upon this hypothetical if if if thing if you value life But the fact is that most people do and everyone does pretty much and the people that don't we have to Regard them as enemies and dangers and just regard them as part of the external world So what hoppa is trying to do is to show that not only is this approach Practical not only is it reasonable and intuitive But that there is no way to argue against it What he's trying to show is that if you argue for any kind of crime or Socialism you could never sustain that argument in a real way because you would have to do it in a setting In which you're respecting other people's rights in what you're being a libertarian as you say All right, I want to go through a couple of Principles that the filter either weeds out or causes us to realize we need In any ethic that is going to pass muster So the first one would have to be It has to be if we come up with some norm for establishing property rights for example It has to be one that's conflict avoiding because we've already indicated our preference for for conflict avoidance in the very act of argumentation so when we look at different possible Systems, let's suppose we had a system where verbal declaration was sufficient to claim ownership of property That's obviously not conflict avoiding because I could shout that I have ownership of something and you could shout that you Have ownership of it and then we would we would fight over it So that would that couldn't possibly work So eventually you get to the idea the idea of the modified idea of lock Modified by Hans that the only possible system would be the first user type of system the first person who uses a previously unowned good is the owner of that good if we if we had a system where the 12th the user Were the owner of the good then what would the first 11 users do stand around and starve to death because only the owner is Allowed to exercise control over the thing. So that's that's that's something conflict avoiding But also the one I want you to talk about is Universalizability that any norm that we might propose has to be Universalizable what does universalizable mean and why does argumentation require that these norms be universalizable? Right. Yeah, and these these are I mean look to be honest everyone knows me as Mr IP and to be you and you and I both know this is not my favorite topic in the world. It's just one narrow topic that's Got an interest, but I love this kind of stuff.  I Just and I still think this this whole approach to rights is electrifying and and is amazing Look, it's not about It's so so the let's take universalizability, okay The idea is that when you give a reason You're giving a reason in other words. We really have a distinction between Violent conflict and people trying to solve problems together when you try to solve a problem And you try to have a discussion with people. Let's work out a solution to the problem Okay, and there's already a problem Because we wouldn't be having a discussion otherwise and the nature of the problem Usually helps to define the scope of the property rights at issue. In other words, what people disagree about? Defines the boundaries of the property right itself Okay universalizability is the idea the Kantian idea, which is why a lot of the randian types I think reject this idea and I don't know if we have time to get to this but we could talk about why Papa's idea Which is still around and still popular, but it was rejected by a lot of the prominent libertarians at the time Yeah, I wouldn't I think that's an interest. Yeah, but yeah, let's do this. Yeah. Yeah, so the universalizability thing to my mind universalizability Let me let me just kind of define it without being too philosophical if the idea that if you Propose a rule or a norm in a conversation that should be the rule governing in a given context That that rule could be universalized that it could be applied to everyone And so it's it's like another filter test if you propose a rule that could not be universalized like here's my rule All redheads should be killed Well, that rule is actually universalizable, but it's arbitrary So you have different filters to reject these rules, right? I Think the ultimate reason for the universalizability rule, which is that if you propose a norm You need to give a rule that is grounded in the nature of things Instead of being a mere arbitrary or verbal decree as you mentioned earlier Because otherwise it could not serve the purpose That is that it's destined for which is to solve conflicts If you have a conflict That means there are at least two people that both seek to use a given scarce means in human action Okay, and unless they want to physically fight with each other then they would prefer to have a system Which allocates an owner of that resource and then we need to determine well Then what's the rule that determines who the owner is? right, so if we had a rule like Whoever says loudest I can own this resource that would not solve to reduce Conflict because anyone could say I own the entire continent of the US. I planted a flag on this state and whatever So the traditional rule the Lockean rule was always you have to physically transform The resource now. I think there are some problems with Locke's original approach He he's too religious and he also Mixes in this labor idea too much which led to intellectual property by the way But he was responding to Filmer and he was trying to come up with a way to justify a natural system. I Think a more sophisticated modern version of the Lockean approach the the Hans Hoppian neo Lockean approach Would be recognizing that the the importance is on Inbordering Hans called this in bordering that is setting up a system of borders or public Boundaries that people can recognize In a sense, I think the term private property is is is a little bit perverse because Property is really public in the sense that the purpose of property rights is to set up a border That other people can observe so they can know this person has a claim to that resource I can respect their property by avoiding the invasion of that boundary So property has to be public, but for this to work These links there has to be a visible publicly accessible connection between a person and a resource Okay, and that cannot be a verbal claim because anyone could make the verbal claim and then you could have another Million people claiming to own this resource. That's why it can't be a mere verbal decree That's why Hoppe emphasizes the importance and so does Locke and intuitively right of having a physical connection to a thing a historical connection. You're the first person he used it and In a sense, this has gotten Less appreciation than I think it should have but I think one of Hoppe's greatest insights was the Extreme importance of what he calls the prior later distinction, which is that someone who comes first has By default a better connection a better claim to the resource than someone who comes later If you didn't have that assumption You would not have property rights and you wouldn't have the ability to homestead property in the first place No one could ever do anything with anything If you see an unowned resource in the wilderness if you don't have the right to go use it Right. No one could ever the human race could not have prospered and survived So there has to be a right to be the first person to take the thing and Then if you don't have the right to keep it that means there's no property rights So this all feeds together and it implies that anyone engaging in any civilized societal activity Any discussion with each other? We all recognize the importance of the prior later distinction The importance of being the first one to use a thing the importance of being a contractual owner of a thing after someone else gave it to you and All these things if you combine them together Result in the libertarian Vision which we have which is that we should have a voluntary society where people basically live in that live Co-operate and respect each other's things Let me say one word about universalizability, and then I want to raise a couple of common objections I think another way universalizability Plays a role in argumentation ethics is that every proposition that I advance in argument has to be at least conceivably acceptable To the people I'm talking to or otherwise it would defeat the whole purpose of an argument It has to be at least the plausible chance that what I'm saying could then be accepted by my listeners and if I say For example, I can hit you, but you can't hit me. There is no conceivable way This norm would ever be accepted in argument now. It's it's that's not to say by the way that I couldn't have a rule Authorized personnel only in in this room that that seems like it's not universalizable But it is I mean if you happen to be authorized personnel, you can go in there, but this is for your safety We don't want you to get blown up by the the equipment that's back there But there at least there there's we can see what the reason is for the restriction But if I simply say as a socialist would I can hit you but you can't hit me There is just there's no chance that that could ever be universally accepted in the court in in discourse And so therefore it's ruled out. I mean am I also on the right track there? I think a hundred percent. You're on the right track I think that The entire point and I got off track earlier on the universalizability The entire point is that you have to give a reason and the reason you have to give a reason It's because we are talking together and we're trying to persuade each other as Hoppe calls on the force of reason alone instead of like saying I want you to agree with me that Star Wars is the best movie ever and if you don't I'm gonna shoot you right then. That's not a real Discourse or argument in a real discourse where we're trying to find the true Nature of things we're trying to find a legitimate rule that we should all agree to That we have to appeal to things that are objective and this is the you know This is the really think that's why he says you have to be grounded in the nature of things So if you can point to a reason to distinguish you can I mean look ultimate logic of libertarianism and of human freedom and of Hoppe's argumentation ethics is that you and I are talking to each other and We know we're similar in most respects and I'm claiming rights to my own body and my life because I don't want you to kill me and There's just no rational reason to say that you don't have the same rights because for whatever reason I have these rights Whether it's religious whether it's intuitive whether it's consequentialist whatever whatever reasons I have the rights to my life I cannot deny that you don't have similar rights to your life because you're similarly situated to me Now if I can show that you just shot my wife or you shot my My dad or you just did something horrible to me Now I have a reason I can point to to treat you differently than the normal case But in the normal case They're just no good reason to treat people differently and when people claim rights for themselves They have to admit that other people who are similarly situated have different rights This is why the Greeks and why the early Americans maybe Made the made racialist arguments, right? Like you know Certain people are barbarians. They're not the same so they were trying to appeal to a natural reason to say Some people don't have full rights. They're not like Greeks or white people or whatever Right the argument is wrong. We know that now But you understand they were at least trying to find a distinction to justify treating people differently All right, I want to shift gears and ask you a couple of raise a couple of objections that I have seen raised Here we are talking about argumentation as a filter we're talking about Principles that are presupposed in argumentation. So we've talked about conflict avoidance universalizability There's also respect as we've said for the other person's bodily integrity because if you don't have that respect You're not engaging in argument. We're not even doing what what you're supposed to be doing in argument So we have respect for bodily integrity. I to have a body at all. I need to nourish myself I need standing room.  Let me see if you can answer these two things first Couldn't it be the case that you would need this? respect for your bodily integrity only during the process of argumentation, but once the argument is over then I can Tax you at the level of a social democracy and do whatever I want But well while you're arguing I have to stand there and treat you nicely and then secondly You could say as you have that we need food and nourishment to keep us going for any argument to be possible Okay, but couldn't you have just enough to argue and then I could take some of it and give it to the poor? So how would you answer those? Yeah, so Actually, I think those are actually the two strongest kind of arguments against it But the strange thing is especially in the first case they're made by libertarians usually so let's think about this here we have Libertarians and the the bases of libertarian thinking is varied Some of them have really no argument for libertarianism. They just are libertarians for some reason they just prefer The Liberty values that underpin our view some say they're consequentialist or utilitarian some think they're natural all types But the point is Among our fellow libertarians they agree with us they agree They agree that there's a good reason not to have a rule Well, there's they agree. There's a good reason to have a rule that prohibits aggression. Let's say Now whatever their reason is they think that an argument that Permits socialism basically which is the invasion of other people's property borders. They think that's bad and The people that oppose the argumentation ethics approach. So they're saying that the argumentation ethics approach is wrong When it says that we you can't have an Argument for socialism even though they agree with it themselves. So I'm always be fuddled I'm I'm not it's be fuddled by socialists and outsiders, but my fellow libertarians that oppose the argumentation ethics approach I'm never quite clear what their objection is. Do they really think that it's possible to make a consistent argument in favor of socialism? I don't think so So if they don't think it's possible to make a consistent argument of socialism They're leaning in the direction of the argumentation ethics approach You know in the first place Alright, so how about the couldn't we give you just enough food to be able to argue and then after you've done that Then we can tax you all we want Right so the way I think about it is this You have to have a context of how we're having this argument in the first place What what is it a dispute about and and as I said to you earlier? Most people that disagree with this are libertarians and they actually don't believe that the food should be taken away from you They don't believe in your subsistence subsistence rights or whatever. So their objection is odd I think it's probably a combination of They don't like holes being poked into their natural law theories or their utilitarianism By a newcomer like hoppa. It's not a newcomer anymore, but whatever As for the subsistence idea about the food Once you so hoppa starts with this he says that let's talk about the human body We all have a bot. We are identified as individual people with a body You know, he's not taking a religious stance about whether you As CS Lewis said whether you're a soul that has a body or whether you're a body that has a soul or rights It doesn't really matter for libertarian theory that there is a definite identity between an individual and their body Okay, and there's a definite direct control between a person and his body And that is the fundamental reason hoppa argues and one of his one of his articles one of the arguments that People have the the primary right to control their bodies because they have the direct link to their bodies They have the best control the best demonstration of the link to their bodies Okay, and then he argues by analogy that let's take the human body as a prototype As a prototypical example of a scarce resource Whatever rules we agree upon for the human body Naturally, we would assume they would apply to other types of things that are similar which are other scarce resources in the world So the argument hoppa would advance in which I agree with is that the same reason that you have the right to control your body extends to scarce resources in the world and So you couldn't just artificially limit the argument and say it only applies to the narrow set of conditions needed To sustain the argument. That's just an example of exactly what people have to agree to for those cases However Any dispute in human nature over any resource? Let's say let's take let's take a resource It's not necessary for survival and for the argument to happen some kind of a some resource out there Still that resource could be the subject of dispute and the only time we could ever Determine who's going to have the rightful control of the resource would be when we engage in visit an actual argumentation so in other words even the dispute over these Luxury resources you might call them What has to occur during argumentation and during the argumentation the people have to advance Universalizable reason they have to give a reason they're trying to say I should have the right to control this thing instead of you They're not just hitting each other over the head with bats. They're not being cavemen They actually have entered into the realm of discourse to find a reasonable solution to this problem And when you do that you say we all agree we would be better off if we agree to a rule That assigns an owner to any disputable resource even the luxury resources Okay, and when you agree to that then you have to agree that we have to advance reasons for these rules Which is why universalizability enters into the picture Okay, and that reason has to be analogous to the original prototypical examples, which is the body and the resources needed for basic survival There's no reason to treat them differently There's no reason that you say if there's a dispute over a diamond Which is just a luxury object That someone should get it because of verbal decree Instead of the person who actually mined it out of the ground and or contractually purchased it from someone else There is just no argument that you can come up with That would give it to someone else that would support a socialist connotation of the world order That could survive scrutiny under a reasonable dialogical process Let me read a short passage from an article I will link to on the show notes page We're gonna link to a lot of stuff on this Tom Woods comm slash 370 370 we're gonna link to a lot of stuff on this material because it's great interesting very important This is an article that you published over at libertarian papers by Frank Van Dunne And he's referring to an argument by David Friedman who's been on this show a couple of times He says that David Friedman argued in this famous symposium in Liberty magazine that you referred to about Hapa's Argument about argumentation ethics David Friedman argued that Hapa must be wrong when he claims that self-ownership is a prerequisite to debate Because countless slaves have engaged in successful argumentation However, Hapa did not make the empirical and absurd claim that a person is incapable of arguing merely because the powers that be Legally classify him as a slave or that being the legally recognized Quote-unquote owner of one's body is a necessary condition for being capable of engaging in argumentation His argument was that such legal Classifications and the actions they sanction or legitimize Cannot be justified in an argumentation with the slaves or indeed in any Argumentation that takes the presuppositions of argumentation seriously, and of course, there's no argument being made here that argumentation is An amulet or it's some species of magic. It's not well This can't be this person argued and he's still, you know enslaved or whatever it the point is that you can't Make the types of arguments that are ruled out by argumentation ethics without engaging in Self-contradiction and presumably people want to avoid engaging in self-contradiction if they have respect for reason He notes in a footnote by the way To this point that David Friedman tried to make that that countless slaves have engaged in successful argumentation He says note the ambiguity of the word successful here. How many slaves have successfully argued their way to freedom? You know, well, okay, so here's here's Here's my thought on that first of all. I really admire Friedman. I've learned a lot from David Friedman Me too, but he isn't he is an inheritor of his father's positivism and his monism and Look hoppa in my view is a pioneer and I do believe in my I wrote an article in a law review in 1994 About hoppa's book and I I mentioned that he was a little bit unclear conflating Positive power with rights and But I want to just make clear for everybody the book is the theory of socialism and capitalism No, it was a second book. Oh the economics ethics of private property Yeah, so that's what I reviewed. Okay. Yeah, and so I mean I thought it was an amazing book I think it's an amazing book. I think yeah Hans is a pioneer in this area He was basically reaching new territory and I think he he could have clarified his terminology in a couple of areas But where his critics seized upon him and said this means his whole thing can be rejected I think I think you could easily correct it and clarify. It's not a big not not really a big problem The slave example for example Um, first of all here, we have David Friedman who's an anarchist who presumably Opposes slavery just like I and you and Hans and every good person does I don't know what so what's the disagreement really is Hans Hans's argument if you formulate it as I try to do in my many attempts to explicate it and defend it It's rooted in this universalizability principle, which is that you cannot treat someone differently without a good reason Okay, but what that means is that two people trying to get together to solve a problem or a community trying to solve a problem We all presume that we're in similar that we are similarly situated. We all have rationality. We are humans We all are dealing with the world's scarce resources. We all want to live together in society Then we have to formulate rules that take this into account This does not mean that you can't take into account the fact that sometimes things are different So for example if I wanted to enslave you I Couldn't have a good reason for that because I am claiming freedom for myself But I'm saying that you don't deserve freedom even though we're similarly situated Okay, the only difference would be what the opposite of universalizability is called particularizability Like everyone says it's just me like I can hit you but you can't hit me and everyone knows that would never be an argument They could work that could help or achieve any kind of Consensus that could help us all live together Okay, however, if you have a reason to treat someone differently that's grounded in the nature of things Then you could appeal to that. That's objective. That's what the Confian's called intersubjectively You know ascertainable the ascertainable right, okay, so If someone has actually committed an act of aggression against me You know, let's say some guy attacks your farm and he's going on a rampage shooting your animals shooting your people You might imprison the guy for a little while to just keep him under control So he might be in a jail cell in your house Until you call the local Legal system, I don't know and you might have a conversation with the guy and He might say how can you justify keeping me imprisoned when you're free and The answer would be because you just attacked my family. In other words, there's a reason and So the point is that the fact that slaves can factually argue with people And even sometimes in a just situation doesn't imply That Hoppe is wrong. He might have overstated when he said that you can't argue unless you're free It's possible for a slave owner a master to own a slave and to have an argument with him It is true. It is true, but he could not justify the enslavement of the slave unless he had a good reason If they're equally situated he could not come up with a reason that he's just a piece. He's keeping the guy enslaved You know, that's the main argument Well, and then he goes on to say van done consider on the one hand a master who enjoys debating the justifiability of slavery with His slaves after dinner and then sends them back to their cage no matter what the outcome of the discussion may be Consider on the other hand a master who frees his slaves after being exposed to the argument that slavery is not justifiable Which of the two takes argumentation? Seriously, which of the two acts as a rational being you know, so that So anyway, he's got this is a this paper really needs to be read to He he says no one should take this type of argumentation seriously because it's not a genuine argumentation But anyway, we've gone on quite some time and I want to let people digest some of this And I want anybody who is intrigued by this who thinks okay. I think there's something here There's a core of something here that I want to know more about I want to refer them to Tom woods comm slash 370 because there you'll see quite a number of links to what Stefan has done on this subject We'll also take you to the original writings by Hans himself and some other material So this will be your one-stop shop for learning more about this subject If you do you have any parting words for a Stefan as people go out and venture to learn more about this No, the only parting word I would say is that the the essence of libertarianism is to be Honest to be for liberty to be to be in favor of your fellow man's well-being To be consistent to have a little bit of economic literacy and all those things are the Really the basis of any consistent libertarian persons view of the world and that's completely compatible with and complimentary to Hoplitz approach to argumentation ethics. So I would suggest people just consider a little bit philosophical approach to undergirding their basic intuitions about liberty Well, Stefan, I appreciate your time helping us to understand this When I first read Hans on this as a I don't know a college student I confess I didn't understand it at all and then I read your explanations of it Such that when I went to go give a talk on this in Philadelphia. I gave a talk on rights various rights theories Ten minutes before I went on stage. I was on my cell phone Desperately calling you saying all right wait wait. Have I got it now? Really got it. You were the member. I remember. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. That was about I remember. Thank you That was about I think that was 2009 you can dig that up I think it's a series of videos on where do rights come from and then I talk about argumentation ethics in one of the lessons over at Ron Paul homeschool.com in my course on Government so I have you to thank for helping me to understand this and for spending time with us today. Thanks again Thank you. All right, everybody on the show notes page Tom Woods comm slash 370 Not only will you find many resources related to the subject we covered today, but I'm also linking to the free ebook I keep telling you guys about called 14 hard questions for libertarians answered It's a good meaty ebook It'll give you a lot of good arguments to help you in debates and you can get it for free in a Kindle Edition in EPUB and as a PDF whatever you prefer So please check that out on the show notes page Tom Woods comm slash 370. Thanks for listening everybody We'll see you tomorrow The Tom Woods show You


the dynamic range and the amount of the regulators and illustrators. They're ways that we control to an extent conversation. There's lots of those in there. She's trying to control it. Lots of illustrators, lots of ways that she's very dynamically, again, more extremely trying to show us the story to the extent of jumping up and miming it out for us. So there, huge dynamic range because they're going from sitting to standing again and it doesn't elongate for a very long time. She doesn't keep it for a very long time. So what does that tell me? That tells me that underneath what might seem very controlled and to an extent, calm, bubbling underneath that is something quite extreme. There's a child missing. Why is the focus not there or certainly controlling the conversation to drive towards let's find the missing child if that's the story that's being asked about?


I want to talk about cookies. Most people, when they think of cookies, think of the forum cut. And when we look at that from a breeding aspect, what I tend to see in it is purple Urkel and OG Kush. And the reason that I tend to see this is because out of doing myself, having made several different OG Kush and purple Urkel hybrids and OG Kush GDP, having run a bunch. And what I had seen was this constant, right around the cookie's expression showing up, these small, yielding, cushy looking purple things, slightly gassy, sometimes more grape. Honestly, a lot of times when I'd see something that looked more close to cookies, it would be more grapey. But finding one that looked like that with gas was really, really unique. But to me, for a long time, that's what I thought the recipe was, that was it. That's all you ever needed. But I do think Mendo perps comes into play,


I am Silvia and I am co-ordinating Campo Altiplano. We are in one of the main areas we've been working on with refurbishment efforts to rewild the whole landscape. We are in the south of Spain in a very dry and extreme weather area. So what we've been doing on this whole field for the past four or five years, it's been mainly working with the reforestation of native species. You can see some of the pines popping up that are the fastest growing trees down here. We've been planting on this hill, on the one next to us, on the other side last year. So in the next year we're going to expand to other areas in the farm of La Junquera and in the surroundings to reforest areas that have been overgrazed and wood-blocked, basically destroyed by human action. So we want to get back to the reference ecosystem, which we can find also in parts of the farm close by. And we're aiming at bringing back biodiversity with species that are going to restore the soil with water harvesting, with creating space for biodiversity, and keeping the soil in place. And basically bringing back the ecosystem to its healthy state so it can also adapt to all the changes that will come in the future.


Hi kids, our lesson for today is about addition problems. Addition work problems arise in any situation where there is a gain or an increase of something as a result of combining two or more numbers. It is very important to know the given number facts in the problem so that we can figure out the addends in the number sentence. And when we add the addends, then we find the sum. Then we can say that we have already solved the addition problem. Now let's try to solve addition problems in your book. There are three roses and five daisies in a flower vase. How many flowers in all are there in the vase? The given number facts are three and five. Three plus five equals eight. So there are eight flowers in the vase. Jack eats two big buns and three small buns. How many buns in all does Jack eat? The given number facts are two and three. Two plus three equals five. Jack eats five buns. In a birthday party, there were four blue balloons and six red balloons. How many balloons in all were there? The given number facts are four and six. Four plus six equals ten. There were ten balloons. Now can you ring the correct addition sentence for the story problem? Mary has three old pencils. Her father gives her two new pencils. How many pencils does Mary have in all? Which is the correct addition sentence for this story problem? Right. Three plus two equals five. A cop helped one woman and seven children cross the street. How many people in all did the good cop help? What is the correct addition sentence for the story problem? Right. One plus seven equals eight. Two boys are in a race. Four more boys came to join them. How many boys in all joined the race? What is the correct addition sentence for the story problem? Right. Two plus four equals six. Good job kids. Thank you for listening well. You may now answer the drills in your book in identifying the addition sentence for a story problem or even making the addition sentence for the story problem. Make sure to always look at the given number of facts.