Let us summarize what we have learnt in the last lecture. So we have learnt how to, if there is a heterogeneous catalytic reaction, we have learnt how to deduce the rate law from experimental data, deduce the rate law. We have learnt the second step, how to find mechanism, how to find the mechanism behind a certain catalytic reaction and we have found the, for a particular example, we have found the rate parameters and then we initiated discussion on how to design a reactor. In particular, we considered the example of hydro demethylation of toluene on solid mineral catalyst containing a certain material called clenoptilolite and we looked at the experimental data for that particular reaction and then we tried to deduce the mechanism and tried to estimate the rate parameters. We found that for the toluene reacting with the hydrogen leading to benzene and methane formation, so for that reaction, we deduce that the rate of the reaction can be represented as the rate of consumption of the toluene can be written as some rate constant k multiplied by the partial pressure of hydrogen multiplied by the partial pressure of toluene divided by 1 plus the adsorption constant for toluene multiplied by the partial pressure of toluene plus the adsorption constant for benzene multiplied by the partial pressure of benzene. So then we use the experimental data in order to perform a linear regression analysis and estimate these parameters k, estimate the parameters k, estimate the parameter kT and also kB from experimental data. Then we initiated discussion on the design of a reactor using this rate law. So while designing the reactor, we wrote a mole balance and found what is the balance equation that represents the that captures the conversion in the reactor as a function of the weight of the catalyst and so that turned out to be dx by dw, x is the conversion and w is the weight of the catalyst in the reactor equal to minus RT prime divided by FT0 where minus RT prime is the rate at which toluene is actually being consumed in the reaction and also FT0 is the initial feed molar rate of toluene species which is participating in the reaction. We also found that the partial pressure of toluene can actually be expressed as the partial pressure of toluene at the inlet PT0 multiplied by 1 minus the conversion into y which is the mole fraction and similarly for the partial pressure of hydrogen which is expressed as PT0 into the feed ratio of hydrogen to toluene minus the conversion into the mole fraction and for benzene it will be PT0 into x into y. So we will continue from there today and so the first exercise is to find out what is this expression for what is y that is what is the mole fraction and that can be obtained what is the relationship of mole fraction and the other and the conversion inside the reactor and that can actually be found out using the differential form of Ergen equation differential form of Ergen equation and which is which can be written as dy by dw that is equal to minus alpha by 2y multiplied by 1 plus epsilon x into T by T0 where alpha is the pressure drop parameter alpha is the pressure drop parameter epsilon is the epsilon is the total fractional change in the number of moles and x is the conversion and T is the temperature at that location and T0 is the inlet temperature. If we assume that it is isothermal conditions then T by T0 is equal to 1 if we assume that it is a isothermal the reactor is actually reaction is conducted in isothermal conditions then the temperature in the reactor is same as the inlet temperature of the fluid stream and therefore T by T0 will be equal to 1 and for the chosen reaction the epsilon which is the total change in the number of moles because of the reaction is equal to 0 because the net stoichiometric coefficient is 0 and from here we can solve the differential Ergen equation and obtain the expression for y as a function of the other parameters which is P by P0 equal to 1 minus alpha times w to the power of half where alpha is the pressure drop parameter and w is the weight of the catalyst. So the mole fraction at any location in the reactor will now depend upon how much catalyst is present till that location and the corresponding pressure drop parameter. So now we can actually plug this into the model equation and then we can attempt to find out what is the conversion as a function of the weight of the catalyst. So therefore the partial pressure of toluene is now given by Pt0 which is the total partial pressure of toluene at the inlet multiplied by 1 minus x which is the conversion into 1 minus alpha w to the power of half and similarly that of partial pressure of hydrogen is given by Pt0 into 1 theta H2 which is the feed ratio of hydrogen versus toluene minus the conversion into 1 minus alpha w to the power of half and the partial pressure of benzene is given by Pt0 into conversion into 1 minus alpha w to the power of half. So now we have all the information that we need to solve the equation and so let us look at how to let us put them all together. So the model equation that relates the conversion with the weight of the catalyst is given by Ft0 multiplied by dx by dw that is equal to minus RT prime which is the rate of generation of toluene and we know from the rate mechanism that the rate of generation is given by K into partial pressure of hydrogen into partial pressure of toluene divided by 1 plus Kb into partial pressure of benzene plus Kt into partial pressure of toluene. So now what we need to know is what are the limits of the integration? We know what is we know the expressions for partial pressure of hydrogen in terms of conversion. We know the expression for partial pressure of toluene in terms of conversion and we know the expression for partial pressure of benzene in terms of conversion. Now once we know this in order to integrate the only piece of information that is required is what is the total weight of the catalyst in the reactor? Weight of the catalyst in the reactor. Now why we need this because we need to in order to integrate this expression here in order to integrate the expression which is present here we need to know what are the limits for the limits for W which is the weight of the catalyst. So of course at the inlet at the inlet the weight of the catalyst is 0 but at the outlet let us assume that there is W is given by some maximum weight of the catalyst. Now how do we find this maximum weight of the catalyst? So we know the expression for the mole fraction as a function of the weight of the catalyst. So what we can do is suppose if we assume that the reactor the fluid stream exits the reactor at atmospheric pressure. So suppose the pressure at which the fluid stream leaves the reactor is 1 atmosphere. Then we will be able to estimate what is the maximum weight because we know the relationship between the mole fraction y which is P by P0 that is equal to 1 minus alpha times W to the power of half. So from this expression we can now substitute the pressure at the exit of the reactor and find out what is the weight of the catalyst in terms of the other parameters. So therefore 1 by P0 equal to 1 minus alpha W max to the power of half. So this means that the maximum weight of the catalyst if the pressure at the outlet is 1 atmosphere that will be equal to 1 by alpha into 1 plus 1 by P0 whole square. So now we have all the required information in order to integrate the model equation. So let us look at let us put them all together. So we need to solve this equation F t0 into dx by dw equal to minus RT prime with the rate of the equation being rate of the generation of species toluene being K into partial pressure of hydrogen partial pressure of toluene divided by 1 plus the equilibrium constant for benzene multiplied by the partial pressure of benzene plus the equilibrium constant of toluene multiplied by the partial pressure of toluene. And we know that partial pressure of hydrogen is equal to Pt0 into theta h2 minus x into 1 minus alpha W to the power of half. And then the partial pressure of benzene is given by the inlet partial pressure of toluene multiplied by the conversion into 1 minus alpha W to the power of half and the partial pressure of toluene is given by Pt0 into 1 minus x into 1 minus alpha W to the power of half. And the maximum weight of the catalyst is given by 1 by alpha into 1 plus 1 by P0 to the power of 2. So this gives you the this captures the model equations and all the others necessary relationship between the partial pressures and the conversion in order to find the conversion as a function of the weight of the catalyst. So remember that the weight of the catalyst at the inlet of the reactor is 0 and at the outlet of the reactor is the maximum weight that can be packed maximum catalyst that can be packed inside the reactor. So let us look at how the solution is going to look like. So if we have the numbers and if we have the quantities all the required quantities then in principle we should be able to integrate this expression and find the profile of conversion as a function of weight of the catalyst. So let me just sketch here I will sketch the profile of the conversion as a function of weight of the catalyst. So suppose in the x-axis I have the weight of the catalyst going from 0 to the maximum weight. So remember that the maximum weight is given by 1 by alpha into 1 plus 1 by P0 the whole square. And if I plot x which is the conversion then the conversion as you go into the reactor as the fluid stream sees more catalyst you see that there is an increase in the conversion as a function of the weight of the catalyst. While if you look at the pressure drop inside the mole fraction inside the reactor the mole fraction y the overall mole fraction y actually goes down. So this is y equal to P by P0. So that actually goes down because the reaction is being conducted and the reaction is happening as the fluid stream goes through the reactor. We can actually get much more information than this. So we can actually look at how the partial pressure changes with the weight of the catalyst. So if I plot that is the maximum weight of the catalyst that is the exit of the reactor. So this is the inlet stream and this is the outlet stream that is the outside location of the reactor. And so if I plot the partial pressures of toluene partial pressure of hydrogen and partial pressure of benzene for typical set of parameters we will see that the partial pressure of hydrogen has a profile which looks like this. And then we have a toluene partial pressure which actually decreases because toluene is being consumed and then the benzene partial pressure this is the kind of profile that is observed. So the reason for so this is for this is the partial pressure for hydrogen partial pressure for toluene and the partial pressure of benzene. Now the reason why the partial pressure of benzene goes through a maxima is because we said that the outside pressure is the pressure of at which the stream leaves the reactor is one atmosphere and so there is clearly a pressure drop and the pressure drop actually causes the partial pressure of benzene to go through a maximum and then towards the exit of the reactor it starts falling down. So this sort of captures systematically the method for designing a reactor starting from experimental data. So let us look at what happens if we conduct the reaction in a fluidized CSTR. So suppose if we take a fluidized CSTR so CSTR is essentially a tank and there is a feed that goes into the CSTR and it is well mixed and there is a fixed volume and there is an outlet stream. Generally for a fluidized bed the inlet is at the bottom and exit at the top just for sake of convenience we assumed other way here. So the question is how much catalyst weight weight of the catalyst or how much catalyst that needs to be packed which directly correlates to the volume of the reactor. So how much catalyst has to be packed inside the CSTR in order to obtain the same conversion. So if FT0 is the molar flow rate of toluene at the inlet stream of the CSTR and FT is the molar flow rate at which the toluene leaves the reactor then a simple mass balance can be mole balance can be written in order to estimate the amount of catalyst which is required for obtaining the same conversion in a fluidized CSTR. So the simple mass by mole balance just that the rate at which the stream enters the reactor minus the rate at which things leave plus the generation should be equal to the accumulation. So now what the rate at which moles enter the CSTR is given by FT0 for toluene minus the rate at which it leaves is FT plus the rate at which it is generated is given by RT prime which is basically the moles of toluene consumed per gram of catalyst per unit time multiplied by the weight of the catalyst and that should be equal to 0 if it is a steady state. So we can now rewrite this equation and we can say that the weight of the catalyst is given by FT0 minus FT divided by minus RT prime. So from here we know that FT which is the rate molar rate at which the molar flow rate at which the species leaves the reactor is related to the conversion because FT is given by FT0 into 1 minus x. So therefore we can rewrite this expression as FT0 into x divided by minus RT prime. So if we know what is the conversion in the packed bed reactor then we should be able to use that conversion and if it is under the same condition that is the same molar flow rate at which the species enters the CSTR then we will be able to estimate what is the weight at which the same conversion can be obtained if you use a fluidized CSTR and this provides an important parameter in terms of designing the reactor. So let us next look at a specific case study. So we will look at the chemical vapor deposition process, we will take the example of chemical vapor deposition process which here after I will refer to as CVD. So chemical vapor deposition is actually an important process in the microelectronic fabrication and it actually plays a strong role in manufacturing the tandem or the multi-layer solar cells. So the chemical vapor deposition is essentially depositing a particular material on a given substrate. So it is very similar to the heterogeneous catalysis process and it has several applications in microelectronic fabrication and it has applications in manufacturing of tandem solar cells. So we will take a specific case of chemical vapor deposition which is applicable to micro electronic fabrication and see how it can be viewed as a heterogeneous catalytic system and how it can be modeled in order to obtain certain design parameters. An interesting example of that is growth of germanium epitaxial film. Germanium epitaxial film is actually an interesting example of, so while manufacturing in micro electronic fabrication, it is important to have different layers between the gallium arsenides and silicon and so germanium epitaxial film serves a very good purpose of acting as an interlayer between the silicon layer which is present and on top of it will be the gallium arsenide. It also acts as a good contact layer, so the growth of this epitaxial film is actually obtained by using this process called the chemical vapor deposition. So the mechanism that actually governs such a deposition process is actually very similar to that of the heterogeneous catalytic reaction. So if you look at the mechanism, it is very similar to that of the heterogeneous catalytic systems. So it involves the classical three processes.  In addition to this, there may be gas phase reactions, so it is the adsorption of reactants onto a substrate surface followed by a surface reaction and then followed by desorption depending upon the nature of the reaction. In some cases, there may not be a desorption and in some cases, there may be a desorption step. It is very similar to the heterogeneous catalytic processes that we have learned so far and so we will use those principles in order to model this epitaxial film growth process. So the mechanism involves three steps. The first step is actually four steps. First step is the gas phase dissociation, gas phase dissociation step. Now in the gas phase dissociation, what happens is that the germanium chloride GECL4 GECL4 in the gas phase. Now that reversibly gets converted into the germanium Cl2 in the gas phase plus Cl2 plus chlorine and the second step is the adsorption process where the germanium chloride GECL2 in the gas phase, it adsorbs onto the catalyst site and it is an equilibrium process. If Ka is the specific constant corresponding to that and GECL2.s which basically represents the adsorption of germanium chloride onto the catalytic site. Now here the germanium chloride actually reacts with the hydrogen and so in this particular case the hydrogen gas in the gas phase also gets adsorbed to the catalyst site. So it actually interacts with two catalysts, two vacant catalyst site and so if the specific constant for that particular forward step or adsorption step is kh then it leads to so one molecule of hydrogen actually binds to two sites, two vacant sites which is available. And so there are now three sites which are actually, so there are three catalytic sites are actually involved, three vacant sites are required, three vacant sites are required for this processes, this catalytic process and so then the next step is basically the surface reaction. So the next step is the surface reaction process where it is the surface reaction process where the germanium chloride which is now adsorbed to the catalyst site interacts with the hydrogen atoms which are actually adsorbed to two vacant sites, two sites leading to formation of germanium in the solid form which is actually deposited on the surface of the substrate plus two HCl plus two vacant sites. Now so basically this is the one which is deposited, the germanium which is formed because of this reaction is the one which is deposited on the substrate. After the reaction it may appear that there are only two vacant sites which are actually left out, it may appear that there are only two vacant sites. Now that is not true because the germanium which is deposited also becomes active and so subsequently the deposited germanium in its solid form also acts as an active site for binding of germanium chloride or the hydrogen atom itself. So therefore in addition to the two vacant sites which are created the germanium deposit also acts as an active site and so totally there are three vacant sites, three active sites that are actually created because of the reaction. So really there is no loss of active sites on the catalyst because of the reaction. So now if I assume that the surface reaction is the limiting reaction then I can write or I can find out what is the rate of deposition of germanium. So the surface reaction is GCl2 which is adsorbed to the surface plus the two hydrogen atoms which are adsorbed to the surface leads to deposition of germanium in the solid form plus 2 HCl plus two vacant sites. So now based on this reaction we can actually write a rate of deposition of germanium and so the rate of deposition of germanium must be a function of the total number of active sites which are actually present, total number of active sites on which the germanium chloride is adsorbed and also the total number of active sites on which the hydrogen atoms are adsorbed. So therefore we can write this reaction rate as R deposition is equal to the specific reaction rate multiplied by the fraction of sites which are occupied by the germanium chloride multiplied by the fraction of sites which are occupied by the hydrogen atom and the square of that. So the reason why there is a square here because for every reaction, every surface reaction which is assumed irreversible there are two catalytic sites are actually involved in the surface reaction, two catalytic sites containing adsorbed hydrogen atoms are actually involved in the reaction and therefore the rate of deposition has to be some constant specific reaction rate multiplied by the fraction of sites on which the germanium chloride is adsorbed and multiplied by the square of the fraction of sites on which the hydrogen atom is adsorbed and the units of the rate is actually nanometers per second. So that is the rate this can actually be converted into the molar units by multiplying the molar density and this is the specific reaction rate and the units are nanometers per second and this is the fraction of sites occupied by germanium chloride and this is the fraction of sites occupied by hydrogen atom, hydrogen atom. So this sort of captures the rate of deposition of germanium on the substrate. So now the exercise is to find out what is the fraction of germanium chloride which is adsorbed onto the surface and what is the fraction of the hydrogen atom which is adsorbed onto the surface. So this can be obtained by looking at the expression, looking at the adsorption process and so the adsorption steps, so let us look a little more deeply into the adsorption steps. There are two adsorption steps, one is the germanium chloride which adsorbs onto the vacant sites and the hydrogen adsorbs onto two vacant sites. So the first adsorption step is GeCl2 in the gas phase plus a particular vacant site, reversibly it is an equilibrium process and if Ka is the corresponding specific constant it gets adsorbed and leads to the adsorbed, germanium chloride adsorbed to the active site. So the rate of adsorption is given by Ka multiplied by the fraction of vacant sites Fe multiplied by the partial pressure of the germanium chloride in the gas phase minus the fraction of sites onto which the germanium chloride is adsorbed divided by the corresponding equilibrium constant. Now because we assume that the surface reaction is the limiting reaction, the rate of adsorption has to be approximately 0. So therefore the rate of adsorption divided by Ka is approximately 0 from which one can estimate that the fraction of sites on which the germanium chloride is adsorbed is given by Ka into fraction of the vacant sites multiplied by the partial pressure of the germanium chloride in the gas phase. Similarly, we can look at the other adsorption process which is the adsorption of hydrogen which is the adsorption of hydrogen and so this the reaction that corresponds to the adsorption desorption step is hydrogen plus two catalytic vacant sites, if Ka is the corresponding specific constant leads to two sites in which the hydrogen atoms are bound. So now the rate of adsorption of hydrogen is given by a specific constant K s multiplied by the, so it needs two vacant sites, so the rate will be given by Fe square multiplied by the partial pressure of hydrogen minus the fraction of sites that are actually occupied by the hydrogen atom F h square divided by the corresponding equilibrium constant. Because we assume that the surface reaction is a limiting reaction, we can actually say that the rate of adsorption of h2 divided by K s is approximately 0 and from here one can estimate that the fraction of sites to which the hydrogen atom is bound is given by the vacant sites Fe multiplied by square root of the equilibrium constant for hydrogen adsorption multiplied by the partial pressure in the gas phase of hydrogen in the gas phase. So now the total number of sites which is present in the catalyst is actually a constant because it is a conservation property, so therefore that can be written, the conservation property can be written as Fe which is the total fraction of vacant sites plus the sites on which the germanium chloride is bound plus the total, the fraction of sites on which the hydrogen atom is bound that should be equal to 1 because the total number of sites which is present in the catalyst is a constant and from here we can express that F v equal to, so we can find, we can substitute the fractional sites on which the germanium chloride is bound and the fractional sites on which the hydrogen is bound and from this conservation property we can estimate that the fraction of vacant sites which is present is given by 1 divided by 1 plus K a into partial pressure of germanium chloride in the gas phase plus square root of the equilibrium constant for hydrogen adsorption multiplied by the partial pressure of hydrogen in the gas phase. So now we can plug all these expressions into the rate of deposition, so the rate of deposition is now given by K s into F v into K a, F v is the vacant site number of vacant sites which is present multiplied by the equilibrium constant for adsorption of germanium chloride multiplied by the square of the number of vacant sites which is present multiplied by the partial pressure of hydrogen in the gas phase into the equilibrium constant for hydrogen. So now we know the, we know what is the relationship between the vacant sites which is available and the partial pressure of the germanium chloride in the gas phase and the partial pressure of hydrogen in the gas phase, so we can relate, we can plug in this expression in the reaction rate, deposition rate expression and so we can rewrite the, we can rewrite the deposition rate expression as our deposition is equal to K s, K a, K h multiplied by the partial pressure of germanium in the gas phase multiplied by the partial pressure of hydrogen in the gas phase divided by 1 plus K a partial pressure of germanium chloride in the gas phase plus square root of K h into P h 2 whole cube. So now we can plug in, we can actually collate these three constants, we can collate these three constants together and we can write it as 1 constant K prime, so that will be K prime into partial pressure of germanium chloride into partial pressure of hydrogen in the gas phase divided by 1 plus K a into partial pressure of germanium chloride whole cube. So now when we, the germanium chloride is actually in the form of G C l 4, C l 4 and not in G C l 2 which is the one which gets absorbed on to the surface. So now there is a gas phase reaction which actually is responsible for the conversion of or transformation of G C l 4 into the C l 2 form and so the gas phase reaction is given by G C l 4 in the gas phase C l 2 plus chlorine, so that is the gas phase reaction. Now one can write an expression relating the gas phase partial pressure of the germanium chloride G E C l 4 and the germanium chloride G E C l 2. So that can simply be written as because it is an equilibrium conditions we can write it as K p which is the corresponding equilibrium constant and that should be equal to partial pressure of G E C l 2 multiplied by partial pressure of chlorine divided by partial pressure of germanium C l 4. So from here we can find out what is the partial pressure of germanium G E C l 2 which is given by C l 4 divided by partial pressure of C l 2 multiplied by K p. So this is required to complete the problem because what is practically measurable quantity is actually the partial pressure of G E C l 4 and the partial pressure of chlorine. So therefore it is required to express the partial pressure of G E C l 2 in the gas phase in terms of the measurable quantities. So plugging in these expressions you can find that the net rate of deposition r d net deposition rate is actually given by K prime K p into partial pressure of germanium chloride G E C l 4 into partial pressure of hydrogen divided by partial pressure of C l 2 into 1 plus equilibrium constant K a multiplied by partial pressure of G E C l 2 plus square root of K h into partial pressure of hydrogen the whole cube. So we can easily rewrite this expression as with a little bit of algebra you can rewrite this expression as K which is basically K prime into K p. So we can club these two constants here into one constant K multiplied by the partial pressure of G E C l 4 multiplied by the partial pressure of H 2 into partial pressure of C l 2 square divided by the partial pressure of C l 2 plus constant K into partial pressure of G E C l 4 plus the square root of K h into partial pressure of H 2 divided by partial pressure of C l 2 cube the whole cube. So now suppose if the partial pressure of hydrogen in the K h into partial pressure of hydrogen is very small suppose if this quantity is very small then we can rewrite this expression as we can rewrite this expression as r deposition the deposition rate is given by K into partial pressure of germanium chloride 4 multiplied by partial pressure of hydrogen multiplied by partial pressure of chlorine square divided by partial pressure of chlorine plus modified constant K multiplied by the partial pressure of germanium chloride 4 in the gas phase whole cube and this is valid only when only square root of K h P h 2 is much smaller than 1. So let us stare at this equation so we will see that now we have expressed the rate of deposition as a function of the gas phase partial pressure of germanium chloride which is a measurable quantity and then the partial pressure of hydrogen which is again a measurable quantity and then partial pressure of chlorine which is again a measurable quantity. So from here we can find out what is the expression for the rate of deposition of germanium on the substrate. Now there is another process which can actually occur along with this the germanium which is deposited on to the surface because of this reaction can actually react with the germanium chloride in order to form 2 germanium Cl2. So this has actually been ignored in the current framework but in principle this can actually occur in reality. So let us summarize what we have learned today so what we have seen is we have we completed the reactor design that we initiated in the last lecture so we looked at the design of a packed bed reactor and then we looked at how the conversion can be expressed in terms of the weight of the catalyst which is packed inside the reactor and then we also looked at what should be the performance equation for a CSTR in case we want to find out what is the weight of the catalyst which is required to obtain the same conversion as that obtained in the packed bed reactor and then we went on to describe a case study of the germanium epitaxial film growth. So germanium epitaxial film growth so which also is can be modeled as a heterogeneous catalytic process and so with these 2 examples of hydro demethylation of toluene and the germanium epitaxial growth what we have learned is a systematic way to start from first principles by determining what is the mechanism of a particular catalytic reaction find out what is the surface react what is the limiting step in both these cases we assume that it is the surface reaction which is the limiting step and in principle the adsorption or desorption also can be a limiting step. So it is important to note that the only the 75% of the heterogeneous catalytic reactions are actually surface reaction limiting and so in principle the same procedure can be followed if the adsorption and the desorption step were to be the limiting step. So using these rate law for hydro demethylation of toluene we estimated the rate parameters and then we went ahead to design a simple packed bed reactor model to find the relationship between the conversion and the weight of the catalyst catalyst that is actually packed inside the reactor. Thank you.


In this final step where we're going to cover foliage, we're going to use the foliage tool to get some more rocks, some of these boulders around the scene. So let's get stuck straight into that. So I've got my foliage tool on. I need to make sure that I have no tick in the grass and no tick in the tree. Now I'm going to add my rock to the foliage tool. And then I'm going to select this to make sure that I can work with it. So what I've turned on is static meshes because I do want to be able to paint on top of. In fact, I'm going to turn on foliage because I want to be able to paint on top of other boulders if I want to. To kind of layer these up. Okay, and then what we need to do is just work on some of these settings. So the density is going to be set to 10 on this one. The radius can state zero because I want these to intersect. The scale we're going to set from 0.8 up to 2 to get some nice variation in the sizes. Okay, the Zoff set this time around, we're going to have going from minus 200 to minus 50. So I want these to intersect with the ground like I did with the rocks earlier. This time I do want to align to normal. That's quite important to me because I want it to kind of follow the slope of the terrain. I want a random yaw. I'm going to set a random pitch angle. So I want lots of random going on this. So we'll have a random pitch angle of up to 90. The random slope angle will also up to 90. That's all good. And then we're also going to make sure that we have collision turned on. We're going to put block all in there. Okay, so before I do anything else, I'm just going to go to save all because everything is still crashing on me. Okay, and then just for a bit of a test, we're going to put some rocks kind of behind the cabin somewhere. So about here, so I'm quite happy with my brush size as it is. So I'm just going to click once. Yeah, that's kind of nice, I think. So I've got a bit of variation going on. I could, if I wanted to, click there again. I'll click around there and it would start to layer them up. I don't really want that so I'll undo that. But now as I kind of go around, I can add. So I want to just add some rocks kind of here, maybe there. So I'm just going to place them certain places around the scene. I've got to be careful not to touch the trees though because I've got the ability to paint on foliage turners. So I could feasibly paint on top of the trees, which I don't want to do. So just a kind of regular sort of intervals. Wherever I like, oh, there we go, I hit a tree there. Wherever I like the look of putting these rocks, that's what I'm going to do. That's not very good aim there, Shane. There we go, so I'll put one there. Oh yeah, no, no, that one's gone through the tree. So you will have to be very careful with this. But it can just add a bit more variation to your level just placing these in and around. Let's put some up there. Oh nice, I'll have some there. I'm going to put a few up and around there I think because I kind of like that area. Yeah, we'll go around that bit as well. Let's just turn brush size down and put some in there, some there, we'll have some going up around there. So have some fun with this and don't be afraid to let these rocks intersect one another because it will kind of add a little bit more variety to your level. So I'm just going to leave that kind of there I think for now and I'll just have a check of this by playing it. First of all, I'm going to save all again just in case of any more crashes. Okay, so let's check this out. So now I've got a lot more kind of bouldery rocks in the scene and the collisions are on. I can jump on these if I want. I can run over the top of some of them so I might have to jump over. But that's added a lot more sort of visual interest I think to what was a really flat terrain. So I'm quite happy with that. I think I'll leave it as it is for now. So have a bit of fun with that. What you might want to do now is just clean up. So you might have some grass intersecting your rocks. That might look weird. So you might need to delete a few instances of grass. You might want to change the placement of some of your trees. You might want to delete some rocks. Put some more in. Get this looking so that you're really happy with it before moving on. In the next step, we're going to start looking at performance. So things that we can do in the editor to scale the performance up so make things look better, make them look worse, make things perform faster, make them slow, which is kind of good timing for me because I'm just crashing all over the place. But that's what we're going to do going forward. We need to kind of know how that works before we move on to lighting and effects. So this has been emotional. I'll see you in the next step where we make things run faster. Thanks for watching. If you really want to take your learning further than I can cover in this series, then I highly recommend checking out PluralSight. They have loads of really detailed video courses covering game art and game development using Unreal Engine 4. When I learned how to use Unreal a couple of years ago, this is where I went and I log in regularly to take a new course and improve my skills. I recommend checking out the introduction to Unreal Engine 4 course by Joshua Kinney. This is really good and offers a good overview of what you can do in Unreal. You can get a free 10-day trial by using my link in the video description and you get full access to all of their courses for that time. At the end of your 10 days, you can either subscribe for more or cancel, totally up to you. It's got to be worth a free trial though, right? I'd like to say a massive thank you to my patrons. Your support helps me to keep making videos like this one and I really appreciate each and every one of you. It really blows my mind that people will support my channel and my work by pledging their money through Patreon. So again, thank you all so, so much. If you aren't already a patron and you'd like to offer your support, then please go to patreon.com forward slash Shane Whittington.


good morning radiant family would you stand with me those who are in the room and those who are joining on our live stream when I welcome you to Friday morning prayer and man praise God we have been in the middle of an incredible outpouring of the Holy Spirit that has led many to salvation and each weekend at our locations as we give an altar call and share the the message of the gospel of peace many have responded and it's over a couple of hundred and now we're just giving a moment this morning to say thank you to God we come before him with Thanksgiving that even as he touches the earth that even as he pours out his spirit one of the activities of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world of sin and we see him doing that right now we see him drawing people in some don't even know why they're here some some haven't even been invited by another friend have just come drawn by the Lord drawn by the Lord in their heart to find God and this is the work of the Holy Spirit as he seeks to save that which is lost in our communities and ultimately in your community and your neighborhood and your city and all around the world and so what we see him doing right now is bringing people in and then piercing their heart with the gospel and then pouring out repentance and giving them the gift of repentance and and through tears and through repentance on their part finding Jesus Christ many for the first time and that's happening right now in the last couple of weeks we've just seen an uptick in this activity and so I want this morning for us to just give thanks to God and Psalm 92 verse 1 it says it is good to give thanks to the Lord to sing praises to your name almost high to declare your steadfast love in the morning and your faithfulness by night so would you join me and God we just thank you for your faithfulness God we thank you that as you are pouring out your spirit we are seeing genuine repentance at the throne at your altar God we're seeing genuine repentance Lord we're seeing those who have been far from you those who have not ever known you find you in this hour and we say God thank you Lord before we ask you for more Lord before we intercede for the things that are on your heart Lord we want to say thank you thank you for your loving kindness thank you for your faithfulness those that are repenting now there's somebody's son or daughter there's somebody's mom or dad there's somebody's grandparent a grandchild and God we just say thank you we say thank you for answering prayers prayers that have gone up perhaps for years and Lord in a moment of outpouring you're answering prayers as prodigals are coming home Lord we thank you that we're seeing prodigals come home to the house of God that they grew up in you know we know that more is coming but we say thank you God thank you for those that have returned home thank you for the souls that have found you for the first time God only you can do this work this is your work God this is your work God we can share the gospel we can invite we can preach but Lord only you can regenerate only you can change a heart and a lifestyle so God we say thank you thank you for doing what none of us could do thank you for choosing to pour out your spirit and to draw the lost into you to draw the prodigal back home Lord thank you that you are opening ears to hear your voice thank you the hearts that have been hardened are being softened in your presence God this is your work and we say thank you let's each of us just with our own voice begin to thank him again over these last few weeks perhaps you've experienced something as well perhaps you've seen a lost son our daughter or family member come into the kingdom or you know someone who has us give thanks to him right now Lord we we thank you for your miraculous power in our midst God just lift up our voices this morning thank you God but we say thank you this morning with fresh words of gratitude from our heart we say thank you God thank you for breaking through Lord thank you for breaking through hardness of heart Lord thank you for pouring out your gift of repentance God thank you for your kindness and your mercies that are new every day God thank you for the the prayer requests that right now are on our hearts Lord we know that you hear them and even the ones that haven't been answered yet Lord we say thank you God thank you that you are a God who is near that you are a God who listens that you are a God who is faithful friends I just I want to encourage us to not withhold thanksgiving because we haven't seen an answer yet but to trust him as our faithful God even as he would look around and see that this person maybe received Christ but your child has and are your family member has that's okay press into God keep holding them up to God right now let's turn this moment into gratitude and thankfulness even for the things that we haven't seen yet with our own eyes it's okay he's faithful he's in control he's got it I'm gonna invite you to just stand with me and let's release praise to God Lord we praise you Lord we say that you're faithful God we say that whether we've seen it or not with with our natural eye in this world Lord our eyes of our hearts see you and we know you God and you are faithful and you are worthy and you are holy God and you are able to do above and beyond what we can think and imagine and Lord we trust that our family members are safe in you God right now we trust that you have them we trust that you're working Lord we trust that no chains are going to be able to hold them back Lord we trust that their breakthrough is coming even as we see you giving breakthroughs to hundreds right now even Lord to thousands right now in this city Lord we say more breakthrough is coming and we praise you as if it's already happened God and we thank you as if it's already here because Lord you are the God of miracles and all power and glory the natural we believe God that you are able to do to able to turn every heart God thanks this morning let's exalt his name a bot of your mind Jesus into focus right now Jesus we put all eyes on you and we say you're worthy God but we see you with your eyes of fire burning with love burning with desire for outpouring but we lock eyes we say all eyes are on Jesus it's not about us not about our needs not about our prayers right now it's about you Jesus it's about the one who is worthy from the beginning from before we were here from before creation it's about you Jesus Lord may you be our consuming passion and nothing else not even the work of your hand but Lord may you the person Jesus be our consuming passion Lord we see you with eyes like fire Lord and it burns in our heart Lord our hearts burn for the living God oh when can we meet with you God our hearts burn for you Jesus nothing else matters Lord when we're in your presence nothing else matters we want to see you we want to see you rightly our gaze is on you and you alone Jesus have your way oh Jesus be exalted all glory and all honor are due unto you Jesus you are the only one you will not share your glory name is above every name and you will not share your glory angels and elders around your throne bow down they take off their crown they say worthy is the lamb holy is the lamb no one else is worthy of worship you stand alone you stand alone one who whose hair is white like wool and whose clothes and red majesty and righteousness you stand alone and your eyes pierce our heart you have to know the living God his life eternal that we would know you the only true God we fix our gaze on you friends there's just a holy invitation this morning to push through every distraction and to see him clearly this morning to let the eyes of your heart gaze on his beauty he's got everything else he's got the whole world in his hands just give him your gaze Lord we turn the eyes of our heart upon you above the cherubim be the one who has all power and all dominion we see you as the king of kings and the lord of lords we see you as the great i am it's glimpse yours and we say worthy jesus i just sent his passion for the lost in our attention as we gaze at him let's see what he sees he's is the lost he came to seek and to say that what would you join me and let's turn our prayers to what he sees and what the the fire it's not just for the church it's for the church but it's also very specifically over gen z and gen alpha our young ones those who are under 30 experience not only what is happening right now but so much more that god would receive for himself a whole army of the next generation not to set aside the current generations but to raise up and power people that know his voice that have seen the works of his hands that know the baptism in the holy spirit the gifts of the holy spirit that have seen miracles that they can't deny and ultimately have seen the lost in their classrooms and in their schools and on their sports teams come to jesus so god we partner with you lord we we see what you see lord as you look across the landscape of of our planet even across just the united states lord you see so many who are lost so many who are confused in their gender identity so many who are confused theologically and want to believe about god so many who are confused by the lies of our culture eyes are burning with the pure fire partner with you right now and we say lord have your way for every product will yet lord we ask can you pour out your salvation pour out your repentance lord even as we answer this cry who is the hearts of the lost who is the counter other students in their school so we say god that you see all around nation on this generation god we agree with what you're doing we say more god have your way jesus the city but in the cities wherever you're joining us from slipped up your city right now god we're asking you even for the young adults in our cities god we're choosing careers wrestling with the formation of their faith and how they're going to live their life lord we're asking you for a holy fire for a holy fire to invade their heart lord even as they're attending classes and just going about their way lord we're asking for a draw of the holy spirit lord for those who are at home right now trying to figure out next steps for those who are trying to understand what their plan is what your plan is for them lord we're asking for a holy fire lord i'm asking that all of the ministry schools would be filled with young adults who say i've made a choice and i'm just laying my life down to jesus and even i don't know what he has for me but i know he's called me and i'm just giving everything to him lord i'm asking for a holy fire in our young adults that they would choose you holy god absolutely with everything lord they would not turn away your voice but lord you would kindle the fire that you've started in their hearts lord we pray for kalamazoo callage for wmu god we ask you even for the local colleges god here lord that you're burning on the hearts of some students right now lord you're burning the hearts of some of the professors right now lord you're burning for more for your presence god passion for the lost lord let your holy fire burn within us until we see the work of your hand accomplished on our campuses and in this generation and in our city lord let us burn with holy fire for you jesus lord we're not content not content god you're not done so we're not done lord you're not done working so we're not done contending and lord from a heart of gratitude but lord from also a zeal of holy fire we ask you lord to pour out your spirit in our campuses and on our schools god break through every barrier and remove every boundary stone and god would you come in your holy fire your holy presence and lord there's going to be altars in auditoriums in our schools lord and i see the loss coming to altars not even in churches but in stadiums and in auditoriums gone fire they have to answer have to deal with it it's burning within them god it's you it's your spirit it's your presence it is god those life right now are struggling with their faith right now those who have turned away from you god lease your spirit that cannot be denied straight up within them it's you god burning in their heart their heavenly father sin that so easily entangled invite you fall on our prodigal and change their journey right now change their direction right now god prophetic word over this house is radiant church that it would be a place where prodigals find you where prodigals come home lord with that apostolic anointing eyes are burning and our hearts are burning we know that you have much to do many plans so god we join you in the tension of what we know you want to do and yet what we see we're not done yet god so we press into you saints we're gonna end our live stream here we're gonna invite you to pray back here at noon and at 6 30 then be at our weekend services portage right here downtown in the prayer room and at richland and then i also want to let you know as you've seen we have a special service plan richland 6 p.m another time to draw the church together and just press into god to hear testimonies and also just worship him and press in for what he's doing right now give him space so we'll see you very soon god bless you we love you guys


I'll do my best. I thought that the best thing to keep people awake after a long lunch on a Saturday would be a talk about John Locke 17th century philosopher. The title is, I've slightly changed it, Locke's Big Mistake, How the Labor Theory of Property Ruin Political Theory. And I'll try to explain why I think this is interesting and very relevant to our fight for liberty. Let me start with a question. Who is the most evil man of all history? Any guesses? There's no wrong answers. Well, there's some wrong answers. Mal. Mal. Who did Ein Rand think was the most evil man in all history?  Well, I mean, you might not agree with his idealism, some of his philosophy, but he was a pretty good classical liberal, so I don't know if I can agree with that. Ein Rand was known for rhetorical excesses. She also said patents are the heart and core of property rights. Now, even if you believe in intellectual property, that one's hard to swallow. But I'll give her some credit, too. She also has a rhetorical line that I love in her money speech, which was, run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leprous bell of the approaching looter. Love that line. I feel that way when people say they disagree with the idea of self-ownership. I'm like, well, I'm going to keep an eye on you. Well, I don't think Kant was the most evil man in all history. And I don't think Locke was either, but I do want to have a similar thesis to Ein Rand, is that it's identifying one big mistake in political theory and philosophy. I don't think Locke did this on purpose. I think he did a lot of good. And I'm going to try to identify what I think is good in Locke and what mistake he made. I won't even say he's evil, although he was a sort of racist defender of the slave trade, but that's ad hominem and we never do that here. But parts of his argument have caused a lot of serious problems in political theory in the meantime. Now why is this? Before I get into the details, in my view, I've been thinking about libertarianism for over 25 years, and I've come to the conclusion that one problem we face is overuse of metaphors and imprecise use of language and clear thinking. We can't abolish it completely, but we have to be wary of the dangers of using metaphors and imprecise language and unclear thinking. One of America's most famous Supreme Court justices before he was a justice, when he was a judge, said in 1926, metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched for starting as devices to liberate thought, they often end up enslaving it. He's right. I mean, you could ask, what's a metaphor? And in Louisiana, we might say, it's so to explain things better. But sometimes there's problems. Things like Bombaverk, Mises, Guido-Hosman, they've all written on all the dangers of using metaphorical language. For example, all these scientific metaphors are used to explain the economy, like friction or momentum, right? The economy has green shoots right now, or maybe doesn't have green shoots. Talk about prices communicating knowledge or coordinating behavior. And also mixing of labor, which I'm going to talk a little bit here. Let me ask you a question, just a show of hands to the audience. Who here believes that you own your body? Who here knows pretty much what your body is? It's hard to say you own your body if you don't know what it is. Now there's a difference though between whether you do own your body and whether you should own your body. Who thinks here that you own yourself? Who knows what their self really is? I don't know what my self really is. I mean, it's not as concrete of an idea as body ownership, right? So when we talk about self ownership and libertarianism, really I think we're talking about body ownership. So the question is always who owns your body? Me or someone else? Do you believe in your own control of yourself or your body, I should say, or slavery? That's the fundamental choice. And if you talk in clear language, these things become clearer. We also have to distinguish between factual questions or legal questions and normative questions. If I say do you own yourself, you're really thinking should I own myself, right? So the question is, should you own yourself and do you own yourself or separate questions? I would say you don't own yourself completely under today's legal system because the government maintains the right to draft you, throw you in jail for doing drugs, to take your money if you don't pay taxes, or to put you in jail if you don't pay taxes. So I think we're only partly self-owners in today's society. As Stephen Mullin, you mentioned earlier, a slave is someone who is a hundred percent tax victim, right? So we have to distinguish between should and facts. So there are some ideas, words and terms which I think we ought to try to avoid or at least be very careful of when we use them. Let me go through a few of those. One is conflating government with society and state, or conflating society with state or conflating government with state, or conflating country with state. The problem is, if you say you're against the government, people think you're against law and order because they think you're against the governing institutions of society when really we're against the state. So what libertarians are against is the state. The state currently monopolizes and runs the government, the governing organizations of society, law, justice, order. The state also runs the roads, but we don't say we're against roads, do we? We say we're against government roads, or state roads, we should say. Just like we say we're against state education. So we have to be careful when we say we're against government because you'll have menarchists or regular people think that you're for chaos and lawlessness, sort of anarchist, the idea of the anarchist with the bomb. So we have to say we're against the state if you want to be clear and precise. Another one is people say, well, I'm against coercion. I'm a libertarian, or I'm against violence. Well, no, we're not against violence, and we're not even against coercion. We're against aggression. Aggression is the initiated use of force, or the initiated violence, or initiated coercion. Coercion is just a type of force, right? It means to use force to compel someone to do something. Someone's breaking in my house, I'm going to coerce the guy, and it's rightful. So we're not against coercion, we're not against force, we're not against violence. We're against initiated force, coercion, and violence, or aggression. Another one, which I'll deal with in a few minutes, is labor versus action. People always talk about owning the fruits of your labor. People have a right to sell their labor, these kinds of things. They act like labor is some special thing. Now, I don't know about you, but to me, labor is just a type of action. Humans own their bodies, we act in certain ways. That's human action. Labor is just a type of action, maybe a subset of action. What kind of action is it? It's action that you, has disutility, some people say. It's not leisure, it's not fun. You do it to get some end, but it's just one type of action, okay? And then there's, of course, intellectual property, which begs the question just by saying it that way, right? Some of us don't think it should be property, so don't call it property to prove that it should be treated as property. It's better to call it an intellectual privilege, or just call it patent and copyright, what the government calls it. Finally, another one, which Jeff Tucker and I were talking about on the way up here this morning, is the idea of limited government. This one always bugs me, because every government that's ever existed is limited. There's never been an unlimited government. I mean, maybe it's Nazis, maybe the Russians at a certain point in time. But every government has limits, or every state, I should say, right? There's limits on what it can do, and almost everyone believes in some limits. So, the welfare liberals believe in a limited government. They just want the limits to be a lot less than we would like. So, what defines a conservative, I mean, an ultra-minimalist conservative, or a classical liberal, or a libertarian? It's not that we believe in limited government. It's what limits we believe there should be on the state, right? And the most consistent, most radical libertarians think that the limits should be complete. It means the state should have nothing it could do whatsoever. In other words, the state should die and not exist. But even a menarchist believes that the limits should be completely so tight that the state can only do a few minimal functions, defense, police, and courts, okay? So, when you say limited government, that doesn't really distinguish us from others, okay? So, in thinking about how to define the essence of libertarianism over the years, I think the best way to think of it is that we recognize that we are all people who live in society with each other. We all, at least, civilize people among us. We generally want our own lives to be good, and we also favor peace and prosperity. We want our neighbors to be good, and we like living in society with each other. And we all realize the following. We realize, now, this is Mises I'm going to go into here a little bit. Mises was, by my mind, the greatest Austrian economist, and he developed a theory called praxeology. That's the logic or the science of human action. So, what Mises says is just, and this is not, it sounds funny, it's a weird word. It took me a long time to understand it, like epistemology took 17 years before I finally started using the word, right? I'm still not there with ontology, but with epistemology and praxeology, I am. Mises says, look, it's common sense. Look at human action. What do human beings do in their lives? Every moment of their lives, they're taking an action.  You understand something about the world. You know that the future is coming, and you envision something about the future you think is going to happen that you're not satisfied with, or that you want to change. This is what human action is. We don't think of it like this, but this is what we do in every moment of our lives. And we also realize that we have the ability to affect that future. How? By using what Mises calls scarce means, these are things in the world that you can use to change the course of the future, including your body and including things that we find, tools, basically. And we have some understanding or some knowledge in our mind that we've accumulated from human civilization and from society in the past, from others, from learning, from emulation. We have some knowledge about what we think is coming, what we think might satisfy us better than what would come if we don't take an action, and what means are available and how they will causally change things. So that's what human action is. It's understanding, making a choice, grabbing some kind of means, and employing that means to change the future. This is how we have to understand human action. And within that framework, we can understand libertarianism is the idea that we understand that these means are scarce. Scarce means rivalrous. It means only one person can use this thing at a time. Otherwise, you'll have two or more people fighting over this thing, clashing over it, having conflict, violent disagreement. So an example would be, you know, baking a cake. Everyone, you need a recipe, which is the knowledge of how to make the cake, and you need the tools, the capital equipment, the ingredients, the raw materials. Only one person can use this egg at a time to make the cake, or this wooden spoon, or this bowl, or this oven, right? But any number of people could use their own eggs and their own ingredients all using the same recipe or the same knowledge at the same time. This is exactly why the intellectual property idea is so fallacious. Intellectual property seeks to grant property rights in the ideas as well as we do in the scarce means. It makes no sense because you don't need to put property rights in the ideas because they're not scarce. There's no... The entire purpose of property rights is to permit conflicts to be avoided in the use of the scarce means of action. So we can all go about our daily business and our plans, cooperating with each other, trading with each other, helping each other, selling to each other, using our own scarce resources with the legally recognized exclusive right to control it. That's what property rights are. That's what ownership is. Makes no sense to grant these rights in ideas. Now, I'm not going to go into that in detail. That's the entire intellectual property argument I've been making for a few years now. I just want to put it in the framework. This is what the libertarian idea is. Now, what does this have to do with Locke? Okay. So the way to reformulate this is to think that the essence of libertarianism is a very simple set of rules. As I mentioned earlier, we can't say we're for limited government because that doesn't distinguish us from other schools of thought. And you can't say we're for property rights because that doesn't distinguish us either. Why not? Because property rights are inherent in every human society and every political system that's ever existed. Communists believe in property rights. Socialists believe in property rights. Fascists believe in property rights. Environmentalists believe in property rights. Welfare liberals believe in property rights. We believe in property rights. What's the difference? How they're assigned? That's the difference. So we look at the world and we see scarce resources that need to be controlled by someone, by the legal system so that they can be used peacefully, productively. And our rule is simple. It's the Lockean rule. The Lockean rule basically says whoever can show the better claim to a resource gets it. And the better claim is defined as either the first person who transformed it, yes, with his labor, in a sense, or if you acquired it by contract from someone else. It's very simple. Contract plus first appropriation. Now, what's the reason for the first appropriation rule? Now, Locke spelled this out in his argument. If no one had the right to be the first one to use a resource, it could never be used. Someone has got to be the first one to use this unknown thing out there. And if he's got the right to use it, then he's got a right to keep it because otherwise the second guy can take it from him, which is not a property rights system. That's a system of violent clashing. So it's almost like the Misesian monetary regression theorem, right, when you trace back the origin of the value of gold-type money to its pure commodity non-monetary use. It's like that. You can see who's got a resource now, trace the title back to the first act of appropriation. This is what we say. Now, you could add one more rule. You could say that there's, if someone commits an act of aggression, some kind of tort, you harm someone else. You violate their rights. Because you perform that action, you have committed, you've incurred an obligation to compensate them, right? So they might get acclaimed to your property because of that. So we could modify the rules. The person who owns a resource is either the person who acquired it by contract from an owner or who first appropriated it or who acquired it because of some act of crime by the original owner, okay? Other than that, there's no other ways to own property. Now, what did Locke say? What Locke said, he basically said this, but he had some extra stuff in his argument. Locke said, God created the universe. God owns the universe. God created Adam and Eve. He owned them. But God in his benevolence, he's apparently a libertarian, granted dominion of all the unowned resources that he created to men. So within the human sphere, whether there's a God or not, whether you care that God's our slave owner or how you look at that, the point is that there's a system set up where the rule is that each man is a self-owner. That's what Locke called it. And remember, the danger of saying self-owner better to say he's a body owner because that's the resource in dispute, right?  So every person is a self-owner. And then here's what Locke said. And here's the problem, I think, with Locke's argument. Locke said, if you own yourself, then you own the labor you perform with your body or yourself. First off, I'm thinking right now, it's a critical libertarian legal theory, you know, legal theorists who wonders what words mean. Like, I'm kind of nagging. A nagging feeling is, what does that really mean to own your labor? But I'll go with that. And then Locke says, so you own this labor.  And so if it mixes with something unowned, well, I own the labor, so the only way I can keep ownership of that labor is to own the thing it's mixed with. Otherwise, you're taking my labor away from me, right? So this is his argument for why we can appropriate unowned resources. Now, David Hume, writing later, that Locke was in the 1600s, Hume was a little bit later, pointed out, and I agree with Hume, Hume pointed out that this argument of Locke's is overly figurative or metaphorical. We don't really own our labor. We own our bodies. If you own your body, that means you have the right to perform whatever actions you want with it. And you can use those to sell your services to someone. But think about it. If someone pays me to sing a song, they give me a dollar after I sing a song for them. The song pleases them. But do they own the song now? Are they in possession of a song? No, they're in possession of a memory. Can I say that I gave them a memory? I suppose, but I didn't really own a memory that I transferred to them. This is all completely imprecise metaphorical stuff. And you don't need it. It's unnecessary. As Hume pointed out, Locke's argument works if you simplify it and you take out this stuff. Locke's argument works because, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, the libertarian reason, when you have an object that is disputed or contested, a scarce resource, then there really can be no other answer than that the person has a better claim to it that was the first one to appropriate it. Because if you don't give him that right, then, as I said, no one could ever appropriate anything in the first place. Or they would appropriate it with violence and people squabbling over it, which again defeats the purpose of having a legal system that permits resources to be used in a conflict-free way. So this is the problem. Now, you might say, well, he could have worded it better, but what's the problem with this? The problem is this entire mentality, this entire approach has led to a deep, vast confusion that has contaminated and infected political theory ever since his day. Arguably, it also, at least partially contributed to the rise of a related doctrine called the labor theory of value, which is more of an economic idea, which is what contaminated Ricardo's and Adam Smith's and then Marx's thought. The labor theory of value has this mystical idea that the value of a product is based upon the labor that went into it. Now, there's several mistakes here. Number one, value is subjective. There's no value in things. So all right away, he's thinking in intrinsic value terms. Makes no sense whatsoever, as Manger and the Austrians have shown, right? And furthermore, you don't own labor. Labor's not a substance. And of course, the idea that you have two laborers who mix their labor with two objects, one's high quality, one's low quality. If this guy put 100 hours into it and this guy did it in 10, they're not gonna have the same value. So then you have to reverse engineer your theory and say, well, now we have to have a multiplier coefficient on this guy's labor. So then you just kind of have a contorted theory. Anyway, that's the labor theory value, which resulted in communism and hundreds of millions of deaths. So if Locke's to blame for that, I guess we could say he's a little bit negligent. But I won't blame Locke for that because you can trace these ideas back to Muslim thinkers back in the 1200s, I mean, a long time ago. But there's some evidence that this idea of labor as this thing people can own, this metaphorical approach, did lead to the Marxian labor theory value. But the problem with Locke is the labor theory of property. Again, the idea that you own things that you mix your labor with. This is obviously not true. For example, if I'm an employee of a company, which Marx would abolish, I guess, right? And I'm paid to mix my labor to build a chair out of the employer's wood and nails. Well, I mixed my labor with it. Why don't I own it? Well, because there's a contract and I never owned it in the first place. So the problem with the labor theory of property is it has led to this idea, libertarians will say this all the time, sort of casual thinking, not very precise. They'll say there are three sources of property ownership. Number one, if you find something, original appropriation or homesteading, right? Locke's idea, the libertarian idea. Number two, by contract, by contractual acquisition. They're right about that. If you want to mention a third, it should be, you know, some kind of aggression, which I mentioned can trigger a property title transfer, but that's a way of transferring title that exists already. So let's say finding something or by contract from a previous owner. And then they'll say the third way you can own something is by creation. See, what they're doing is they're going back to this labor idea. They're thinking, they're mixing things together. They're thinking humans are productive. We labor. Our labor, our intellect, our intellectual creativity, helps create things of value. And just as I labor in a field and make a valuable format of it, I must own that because I labored on it, which means I own anything that I create with my labor. You see how they go from one argument to the next? They never stop and ask the question, well, what's an ownable thing in the first place? You know, and then sometimes I'll argue by possessives. The most maddening thing. Like, well, if I don't own my labor, who does? Well, like the word, the word my means I have to own it.  Do I own those because there's a possessive? No, sloppy thinking. So another dangerous word that I wanted to get to is the word property. We have this tendency to refer to things that we own as property. Like, you know, this iPad is my property. Now, I think it would be better to say this scarce resource, I have a property right in this scarce resource or I own this scarce resource because when you start saying that's my property, look, think about why the word property was used in the first place. Locke said, you have a propriety in your things. What he's talking about is that when a human being acts in the world, right? We don't just use our bodies. We have standing room. We have other scarce resources that we employ to affect change, as I mentioned. All these things are sort of within the orbit of your control. They're a property of yourself in the sense that they're a feature of yourself. They're a characteristic of yourself. They're a way of describing part of your nature or your identity, okay? So what they're talking about is what's proper for a man to be able to rightfully control. So that's why the word property in property rights is used, now it's like a type of metonymy, if you know what that is, to refer to the thing itself. But if we think clearly, we never arrive at the question most intellectual property advocates do, for example, which is, well, the question is what is property? No, that's not the question. The question is who owns this resource always because nothing else can be fought over because resources are necessarily things that can be fought over or contested. So the question in all of political philosophy is always, always, if you can point to a given resource, something that more than one person desires to use and there's potentially conflict over who should rightfully be able to control it or own it or have a property right in. But don't call it property unless you're really careful about it. If you call it property, then you're gonna end up with intellectual property and things like this, okay? So the problem with the argument is that there are three sources of ownership or property is that it conflates the source of wealth with the source of property rights. So it is completely true that if I own some raw materials, let's say some paper and, or let's say some wood and some metal and I fashion these things into a chair, I have made an object that is more valuable, more valuable to who, to me, or maybe to a potential customer. Remember, there's no value in the chair. Value is not intrinsic. It's not objective. Value is the subjective relationship between valuing acting human beings. So anyway, I transform resources into a more valuable shape or we could say in economic terms, I have created wealth. Why have I created wealth? Because I've made something more valuable to me or someone else. In fact, if two people just trade their objects, two people trade an apple for an orange. They have created wealth by that transaction, right? It's not as classical kind of, say, a horizontal trade where the values are equal. In fact, the guy who buys the apple with his orange values the apple more than the orange and vice versa. That's why they engage in the trade. So each one is better off after the trade. So wealth is created just by pure trade. Wealth is also created by humans laboring on their property. Wealth can also be destroyed. If you make a mistake and you ruin your property in an attempt to make a machine or something, then you can lose wealth. But the property rights don't change, right? In fact, for me to make a chair, presupposes that I owned the raw materials. I already own these raw materials. How did I get them? One of the first two ways. I either bought them by contract from a previous owner or I homesteaded them from the state of nature. That's it. So this ownership starts already before the act of creation or the act of production. The act of production is an act of laboring using your labor. Sure. On materials that you already own or it could be on someone else's materials. If you're an employee working on someone else's materials and then you don't own it. So the key is always who owns the raw materials to go into productive labor. So creation labor is a source of wealth, but it's not a source of property rights. And if you realize that you'll never fall into the trap of wondering, well, who owns that labor? Who owns that poem? Well, naturally a poem doesn't spring out of nowhere. If you believe a poem is an ownable thing or a movie or a song or a pattern of information or a discovery or a fact or a database. Well, I agree with, you know, T-Boer McCann. The best candidate for owning that is the guy who created it. But this presupposes that these things are ownable. Not everything is ownable. My memories are not ownable. My love is not ownable. My past is not ownable. The Earth's rotation is not ownable. These are characteristics, ways of describing the universe. You could say as a practical matter that I own my actions or I own my memory because I can control them. But that's, if you say it like that, you make the mistake of double counting, right? Because you're saying, well, I own my body and they own my actions. Well, no, you have the ability to control what actions you perform because you own your body. It's a consequence. It's derivative. It's not a separate independent thing. So if we can clear up our thinking in this way, how are we doing on time, by the way? If we clear up these confusions, then a lot of confusions in thinking arise. So as I said, property, limited government state. Let me talk a little bit about one thing I touched on, which is an objection I hear a lot. This is about contracts. Now, I hear this all the time about this labor argument I give. They say, well, if you don't own your labor, how can you sell it, right? I hear this all the time. Now, this is because people don't usually have a sophisticated or deep understanding of contract law in general, much less what I think is the libertarian view, which is the Rothbardian Evers view, which he calls the title transfer theory of contract. I don't want to get too much into legal theory, but let me just tell you what I think is a simple way to look at the right way to look at contract. First of all, in today's legal system, the way contracts are viewed is binding obligations. And that's how most libertarians look at it. If I make a promise to you in a certain formality, with a certain formality in a certain way, then the law, even a private law in an anarchist society should enforce that promise. Your promises should be binding. However, even in today's legal system, which characterizes the contractual realm that way, it doesn't operate that way. So for example, if I promise to sing a song for you at your son's birthday party and I decide not to show up, then you can't go get the cops to drag me there and make me sing for several reasons. Number one, it wouldn't be a very good song, right? I'm being compelled. And that's a practical consideration the courts use. Courts generally don't enforce what's called specific performance, which means they don't actually treat contracts as binding promises. What they do is they make me pay $1,000 damages to the guy in a contract lawsuit, which means really what the contract is is just a transfer of title to property. It's as if I had said I'm predicting that I will sing at your son's birthday party tomorrow. I'm just making your prediction because I know myself pretty well. And I don't think I'll change very much between now and then. I can't buy myself because I might change my mind. But I tell you what, to give myself and my future self an inducement to sing, I will hereby transfer to you $1,000 in damage payments conditioned upon my not singing. Okay, that's fine. So that's what the contract is. It's really a transfer of title to property. And that's what Rothbard said. Rothbard said contracts are not, should not be viewed as binding obligations or promises. They should only be viewed as transfers of title to owned resources. I just said property. Say I made the mistake too. And if you think about it, this is perfectly consistent with an outcome of the two sources of property rights, the Lockean idea that I mentioned earlier, which is the idea that you own things because of first appropriation or by contract. So contract here means the owner of a resource has the ability to give up his ownership of it in favor of someone else to transfer it to them. That's what contracts are. That's how they need to be viewed. So how do we reconcile this with the idea that you can sell your labor like an employment contract or a service contract? The problem here is the person making the objection to my argument, the person arguing for IP in effect, the person trying to argue that labor is an ownable thing because you can have a contract regarding it. What they're doing is they're thinking in terms of the standard simple contract like the apple versus the orange. A typical contract would be two people exchanging titles, apple for orange. It's an exchange. It's a contract. But remember the definition of contract I mentioned doesn't talk about exchange. It just talks about transfer. So if I give my niece a thousand dollars gift to go to college, that's a contract. It's a transfer of title. It's not an exchange, not really. I mean, you could say I get pleasure out of it. But it's definitely not a bilateral exchange. It's a one-way exchange. And this is how we have to think of employment contracts or service contracts. The sale of labor is another dangerous, confusing metaphor. The sale of labor is not really a metaphor. It's not really what happens. It's not literally true. What's happening here is people are analogizing this labor contract to a regular exchange. And they're thinking, well, if there's something being sold, there must be an exchange of title. What's being sold, title to the labor? No. It's like the example I gave earlier about the singing. What's being done is the buyer of my services, you could say, knows that I own my body. He knows I have the power to decide not to sing or to sing or to pay an expense or not to pay an expense. He knows he's got to motivate me to do what he wants me to do. Just because this guy wants something, is willing to pay for it. Doesn't mean that thing is an ownable good. He might want it to rain tomorrow. He might want there to be peace in the world tomorrow. These are the ends of action, but they're not ownable things. Scarce means are what we use to accomplish ends. They are ownable things. The ends of action are often intangible. I mean, I might pursue a girl and buy her roses because I want her to go out with me. I want her to marry me and be my wife. But that end is getting a wife. It's got nothing to do with an ownable thing. We have to give up the idea that just because you pursue something and you pay money for it, means that the thing you paid for is an ownable thing. There's the same thing with a service contract. I want this guy to sing a song. So I know that he's going to refuse to sing it unless I compensate him. So I make a deal with him. I say, if you sing, I will transfer $1,000 to you. In other words, I hereby transfer $1,000 to you conditioned upon your singing this song. If he sings it, he triggers a condition the money transfers. Did he buy the song? No. Did he buy the singing? I guess at a metaphorical sense. As long as you keep in mind that no title was transferred back, it was an outcome that I wanted. Okay? So the argument goes, well, you have to own something to sell it. So I just think I showed why that's incorrect. So the fact that there's labor contracts doesn't show that labor is ownable. Okay? Now the opposite would be what Walter Block has argued with me before. He says, if you own something, you have to be able to sell it which goes towards voluntary slavery, right? So he says, Stefan, if you own your body, then surely you can sell it in a slavery contract. It should be enforceable. So his argument is that if you own something, you have to sell it. Now what's the assumption here? The assumption is that ownership implies the right to sell, but it doesn't. Ownership means the exclusive right to control something, right? You have to have something else to make something sellable. And in my view, this is a little bit of a tangent, but my view is there are two ways of acquiring two types of property. One is your body. We own our bodies not because we homestead the bodies. We don't acquire our bodies. We can't exist without our bodies, okay? That's part of our identity or our essence or our existence. There's another reason we own our bodies and that's because we have a close connection to our bodies. We have a unique direct control over those resources, okay? So it's not homesteading. Lock alludes to this a little bit with the idea that God gives everyone the propriety in himself. He doesn't talk about homesteading there, really, okay? And for things that were previously unowned out in the world, we own those because we have first appropriation or some contract after that, okay? So for all these things, the first idea is that ownership means you have the exclusive right to control it. Nothing in that implies the right to sell, not immediately, not directly, but then we recognize, well, this thing was unowned before. I'm the one who acquired it. I have the right to abandon this thing, right? I can unown it, so to speak. I can return it to the state of nature. And because of that power, which is an implication of the nature of these scarce resources and an implication of how we come to own these things, that gives you the practical ability to abandon it in favor of someone else. You know, I can take this apple and instead of throw it into the woods, I can hand it to you. Instead of loaning it to you, I could say I would now release my claims. Now I give it up my ownership. Now you're holding this unowned thing. You instantly be homesteaded. And this is why things that have been homesteaded can be sold. It's not because you own them. It's because of the way they were acquired. Things that can be acquired can be deacquired. But we don't acquire our bodies and our bodies were never unowned. From the moment you were a legal person or a philosophical person, you were identified and tightly bound up with a body. I'm not going to get into the metaphysical or religious idea of whether you have a soul and whether you are just your body or whether there's, so I don't care. It makes no difference. If you're just the body, then your body owns your body. Fine.  That means you think you're my owner or someone else's. So I'm going to keep an eye on you. Okay? How much time do I have for Q&A? Okay. Let me mention one thing for two more minutes. There are some libertarians like Adam Masov, Richard Epstein. They're trying to rehabilitate Locke. They're trying to show that Locke did believe that intellectual property was a natural right, which he didn't. It's wrong. Locke did believe in intellectual property, but just for prudential reasons, like the same reason the founders did. Locke, in fact, did not believe that his homesteading theory implied that intellectual property is the type of right, which means I think he realized that he was using an overly metaphorical description. So I think he would have taken my side on this. And number two, so what? I don't care what Locke believed. If Locke believed in intellectual property, he was dead. He was wrong just like he was wrong about slavery. So I'll stop here. Thank you very much.