The Gambela National Regional State is located in the southwestern part of Ethiopia, covering 3.4 million hectares of land. The region is rich in natural resources and it's estimated that only 14 people live per square kilometer. With an average annual temperature ranging from 17 to 28 degrees Celsius and average annual rainfall between 800 to 1200 millimeters, Gambela's climatological conditions are ideal for agricultural production. Its flood terrain, easily accessible water supply, climate and soil fertility allow for mechanized land scale farming. Due to these favorable conditions, substantial agricultural investment has happened in the region. During the past three years, GIZ, with collaboration of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, has implemented a project that aims to contribute to responsible governance of investment in land. This video discusses the difficulties the sector has faced as a result of irresponsible agricultural investment practices and highlights the efforts made by the responsible governance of investment in land, our JAL project, in cooperation with the government, local communities and investors to promote responsible practices for commercial agricultural investments, to enable social and economic development and avoid environmental degradation. In 2021, the RJAL project assessed the capacity needs of large-scale agricultural investments in the Gambela region and conducted that Gambela region has encountered a number of difficulties. Institutional weaknesses in land identification and transfer, as well as gaps in legal and policy frameworks and missing enforcements of existing regulations are among the challenges faced in large-scale agricultural investments. This has led to environmental damage, displacement and disputes between investors and the local communities. Development investors and local communities must work together in order to fully use Gambela's enormous potential in terms of agricultural production. To this end, the responsible governance of investment in land project has been working to contribute to increase agricultural productivity and development through strengthening the capacity of key stakeholders and improving the regulatory framework for investments. The project promotes participation of civil society organizations and the formulation and implementation of responsible land policies and sensitizes private enterprises investing into agriculture and forestry to follow internationally well-recognized principles for responsible investments. It also facilitated multi-stakeholder dialogue forums with local communities, government officials and investors to identify obstacles and to discuss about solutions to existing grievances. In addition, the project produced technical manuals and guides and conducted trainings for each stakeholder group. A policy brief specific to Gambela region outlines the steps and actions that needs to be taken in the area of capacity building and institutional improvement and filling legal gaps in the sector. Additionally, government, investor and local community representatives have proposed other potential remedies. With continued efforts and strong cooperation between all stakeholders at local, regional and national level, it will be possible to achieve the needed transformation that makes commercial agricultural investments in the Gambela region a mutually beneficial endeavor for all.


I'm pleased to be here as the Chief Executive Officer of the GIN, which in some cases will be an introduction and in other cases will be a reintroduction or update to many of you here. The GIN is fundamentally a field-building organization dedicated to increasing the scale and effectiveness of impact investing. In the three years since its launch, with crucial support from the Rockefeller Foundation, USAID, JPMorgan Chase, and Citi, among others, the field has really reached an important inflection point where slowly, and I do emphasize slowly, the practice of impact investing is catching up with its promise. Today, impact investors work in developed markets as well as emerging markets. They work to invest across many asset classes, from cash equivalents to fixed income to private equity, most notably. They invest across a spectrum of financial returns from below market to market rate. They work in a number of sectors, from affordable housing to education to healthcare to sustainable agriculture to renewable energy to green real estate to name a few. And they represent investor types, particularly institutional investor types, from banks to foundations to family offices, insurers, labor organizations, pension plans, governments, development financial institutions, and others. What unifies this diverse emerging practice is the centrality of investor intent to realize both positive social and environmental benefits while achieving a return of capital and the potential for earning a rate of return on capital. But investor intent is merely the starting point. What creates transparency and accountability around that intent is a commitment to ensure the measurement and reporting of the social benefits investors seek. In helping to build the feel, the Gen is committed to tackling systemic barriers to impact investing. By, for example, through its IRIS platform creating the common language that allows transparent and accountable consideration and communication of impact. Through the Investors Council, gathering many of the global leaders in impact investing into a platform for industry building, collaboration, and action. Today, 49 investor council members manage $10 trillion in assets of which 60 billion are impact assets, one measure of the potential growth opportunity. Through impact base, a searchable online database of nearly 300 impact investment opportunities that manifest every day to nearly 1,000 accredited investors, that impact investing is far more than a promise but a reality. And through practitioner focused actionable research, education, and outreach activity that collects and reports data, lifts up examples of success, candidly confronts disappointments, and contributes to a policy agenda which enables and strengthens our work. The breadth of impact investing is an indispensable strength and today we are pleased to announce the public launch of the Gen's network membership platform which extends the Gen's engagement with asset owners, asset managers, advisors, and service providers in the interest of creating an ever more robust community of practice and practitioners. We launched the platform today with 83 founding members from 15 countries and five continents from government agencies, from non-profits, consulting firms, investment advisors, and institutional endowments. We are thrilled to welcome this impressive group of founding members and hope that many of you will join us in the coming weeks and months. I trust that all of you will take advantage of the opportunities here at SoCAP to learn and to connect because in the final analysis what we are in the business of is creating opportunity and manifesting hope. And my friends in that cause, we don't have a moment to lose. I thank you and I thank you for your time and your commitment.


I'm Tony Bruno. I'm here with a legend of the Manusphere. He's an author of four books He's a professional dating coach in the United States and Internationally he's been long known in the Manusphere as the godfather of direct verbal game I'm talking about Alan Roger Curry the author of mode one Let women know what you're really thinking and he's with me today. How are you doing today, sir? I'm doing real well Tony. Thank you for having me Good good. I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're here now The first thing I wanted to talk to you about is I attended the 21 convention in 2018 as an attendee and I thought your speech was brilliant now My brother had put up a video of you and he had said it's the absolute best Dating advice book for men he had read so and that book is mode one so talk to me about mode one behavior and Why did you publish your first book? I? Published my first ebook edition of mode one let the women know what you're really thinking in May of 1999 and that the back quick backstory is it was a long time coming because I have an older brother named Steven. He's about two and a half years older than me and I start using what I now call mode one behavior way back when I was in college and it was actually starting with summer of 1984 and My brother saw some of the amazing results I got from it and way back in 1986 Was when he first it was summer of 86 when he first encouraged me To put it down on paper and at the time I kind of blew him off like man I'm not putting this on paper and literally he just kept being persistent and then finally in 1995 I'll kind of start putting all my thoughts on paper in the form like a like a pamphlet like a 25 30 page pamphlet and my brother gave it to some of guys who were working for him in San Diego and They start benefiting the advice I put in this like pamphlet start benefiting him Anyway, then I turned it into an ebook and made available on internet in May of 1999 Essentially mode one is just a simple cold word for confident upfront Specific straightforward honesty. Yeah Okay, cool. Now now Explain mode one in a little more detail. So there is mode one mode two mode three mode four Yeah, I have four modes. I call them the four Modes of verbal communication. That's what I highlight. That's what my first book is all about and basically I Just got to a point where I realized that when it came To how I verbally communicate things to women and the men who are friends and acquaintances of mine I found that I could just generally divide it in the four categories. So mode two Would be when your verbal communication style is very polite Well mannered Causes sometimes overly cautious Very flattering and entertaining and very vague and ambiguous So that would be the general care characteristics of a mode to verbal communication style of Mode three verbal communication style would be when you communicate you either number one Don't communicate at all.  So that would be mode three mode four is Almost I like to call more for the evil twin of mull one is similar to mull one in the sense that Europe about upfront Direct very verbally direct type honesty, but it has connotations of anger bitterness resentment Like a guy who would be more for be like a guy who say he had his heart broken by a number of women or Feels like he's been unfairly rejected by a number of women or gotten frequently manipulated by a lot of women So he kind of takes the negative Attitude of all you women are bitches all you women are scandalous whores and gold diggers and You could say his straight forward honesty is born of anger It's not coming from a place of safe confidence Encourages more so come from place of anger and bitterness and then again mull one is just when You just are Unapologetically honest with people about what you want from them What you want from them or why you want to interact with them? You don't try to mislead or bullshit people about Simply why you want to interact with so for example woman if you're in a company of a woman that you're attracted to and you know You want to have sex with her you wouldn't try to hide that you wouldn't try to lie about that You wouldn't try to bullshit about that and one way or another you would let her know that a the reason I'm talking to you Is because I want to have sex with you mm-hmm now When when it comes to the mode one mode two mode three mode four now like you said when you're Communicating with a woman and I think you touched on this in the 2018 speech at 21 was that There's different ways you can communicate that to a woman some women you can probably say be Extremely and I think you call that is that mode one hardcore Yeah, I actually have three versions Technically four but for the most part three versions variations of mull one that are my that basically depend on what language You want to use I'll start from most explicit to least explicit My most explicit version is what I call mull one hardcore I actually wrote an e-book called mull one hardcore and Speaking of that on a quick side note There's a lot of guys who tend to assume that mull one our core is the only Variation of mull one that I use of women and that's not true and I have to you know I'm gonna I'm gonna agree with you on that. I'm gonna agree with you on that Because I think when automatically Mode one because that was kind of my impression then when you said that there was different ways to Basically how to communicate with a woman and let her know that that's what you want So good.  How you doing? My name is Alan Roger Curry Pleasure to meet you Hey, let me just you know get to the point. I think you're attractive I think the very sexually appealing and I would love for you to share my company one-on-one At some point within the next say week or two. What's your thoughts on that and then you kind of Play off of her response to that initial approach So your first thing you would do With a regular or conventional mode one approach is you would invite a woman to share your company And I always like to emphasize that that specific phrase one-on-one Because sometimes I've you just say hey, would you like to share my company someone will suggest well And I'm like no no no no I don't do no group dates and group But so I always say one-on-one I say when would you like to share my company one-on-one? Or I would like for you to share my company one-on-one at some point in the near future And then usually one of two to three things gonna happen If a woman is not interested in you just flat out not interested in you what I call a rejecter She's just gonna simply say that she's gonna say something like oh, I'm sorry. I'm married or I'm sorry I'm engaged me or I have a long-term boyfriend or might be just simply I'm not interested You would just leave her alone When you can usually tell when a woman is interested if she's gonna make comments and or ask you questions Make comments and read so usually when I use that default approach a woman might say do you start all? Conversations with women like this. Is this how you approach all when the woman starts asking me questions like that I'll say myself. Okay.  I think you're where it is But in case you're not Tony, there's five archetypes of women.  So once you propose Casual sex to a wholesome pretender. She's gonna initially resist. She's not gonna reject first aid But she's gonna resist Because the main thing with her she's gonna want to find out are you a man who's private and confidential and discreet? Private confidential industry and are you a non-judgmental type guy?   You gotta buy me some materialistic gifts.   They're saying am I okay This one must not be interested because she's criticizing me and assault me. No, no, no, no.  She's still talking to me She hasn't ended the conversation She might be saying a bunch of negative comments towards me like, you know, you're an asshole and you're a jerk and all that kind of stuff But the fact of matter is she's still talking to me That's what I always say to myself when I know I'm in the company of a righty hypocrite I always just we say she's still talking to me and Then finally of the five is the manipulative time waster She's pretty much just the opposite of the wholesome pretender and the righty hypocrite the wholesome pretender and righty hypocrite deep down They are interested in sharing your company sexually But they want to kind of give you the misleading impression that they're not Whereas a manipulative time waster Mm-hmm is a woman who's not interested in sharing your company role in a romantic manner Or a strictly sexual manner, but she wants to give you the misleading impression that she is and the main reason why is because She wants to either do one of two things if not both she wants to either exploit you for your non sexual time attention and companionship your non sexual time attention and companionship and or she wants to exploit you for your financial resources and material possessions She wants to do one of those two if not both and then what happens if once she has Exploited you for one of those two things if not both for a number of days weeks of months Then she's just gonna discard you when she has no more used to you She says it's gonna discard you and this relates to one of reasons why I'm all one is because of the five archetypes I would identify Time wasters the quickest if I had a priority list of which of those five archetypes I want to identify the quickest it's the manipulative time waster because they can fool you with entertaining conversation Gotcha now your philosophy to it. I guess it was inspired by a porn movie from 1980 it was talk dirty to me I have never seen that move so tell me how that movie inspired you to Basically develop mode one Well, it's funny. I don't know if you can see all over my right shoulder But I actually have the poster from that movie on my wall but um, yeah, I actually just covered This in a couple of videos I did just this this week actually but yeah in the summer after I graduated from high school, which was night I graduated from high school in 1981 and And Couple months after I graduated was July of 1981 my brother and I were visiting some friends of the family and Matter of fact, he lives in Florida and his parents were real tight with my parents And we would go over to the house all the time And anyway, the parents had left to do something they left us there and this friend He loved to show porno movies and crack jokes about it, which is another story for another day You're not gonna be too many guys who want to do that, but he he always liked to find like comedy in Portal movies. So anyway, he put in his porn movie and this is when VHS was first coming around And he put in his VHS tape at his porn movie called talk dirty to me And it basically sent us around this this prolific womanizer named Jack played by this legendary porn actor named John Leslie and Jack he would just Go up to women basically in a national he was more one more specifically more one hardcore Got to add my third version more one, but I'll get to it. I told you about three very I stopped it too But I'll get to it. But anyway, John Leslie's character Jack was more one hardcore He would meet women and within the first three to five minutes.  And when I saw that movie, I was just like I Like because I never number one I never seen anybody in real life display that type of behavior and even other fictional characters and movies like at that time I want to say the most Small seductive male character. I've seen a movie would probably be Sean Connery as James Bond And he was fairly straightforward in his own way, but even Sean Connery is James Bond wasn't on Jack's level I mean Jack Again within the first two three four minutes of his conversation with women.   I kind of said, okay. Yeah, you probably right Then I end up seeing a sequel to it called talk to me part two in October of 1983 And then finally that next summer I had an experience that I chronicled in my book called who said again I Have six verbal seduction stories in there that I chronicle And the matter of fact the first time I was at the 21 convention in 2017 At least one third of my presentation was about verbal seduction story number one from who said again That was the very first time. I used more one behavior in real life.  I will take that on face by and be like, okay.  I must have said something You know rude and offensive But what I learned from talk dirty to me and talk dirty to me part two is that a lot of women put on façades They have their public façades Not to say that men don't a lot of us men. We have public façades But then we have our more private real selves And what I start realizing again first from watching those movies and then from our real life experiences Is that there's a lot of women I've had interactions with That initially had an adverse reaction To things I said to them that were real sexually provocative and sexually explicit only to later on End up in bed with me and they would admit like I would ask a lot of these women. I would say, okay You know, let's say I was in bed with a woman named Danielle. I would say hey, Danielle Why is it that you're laying in bed with me right now?  That's what our mothers tell us to do That's what our fathers tells us to do.  I think it was an old song that said a lady in the streets and a freak in the bedroom There you go Exactly that's how most women are The formal term for that is sexually duplicitous. That's what a sexually duplicitous woman is Now that's in your that is say it again your second book for anybody doesn't know it But who say it again is mastering the fine art verbal seduction and kinky erotic dirty talk So that's your second book if i'm correct. Yeah, yeah, I published that Well kind of yes and no Well as it is paperback wise I actually came out with a book called Upfront and straightforward Let the manipulative game players know what you're really thinking in 2009. So technically Upfront and straightforward is my Second book definitely my second paperback. But if you're already in terms of audiobooks Who said again is my third paperback But it's my second audiobook because for audiobook purposes what I did I combined Mode one and up front and straightforward like into one audiobook, which is bow one So not to be confusing. But yeah, but uh, yeah, I would say generally speaking. Yes. Who said again is my second my second book okay, and Critics say that it's kind of risky to actually In other words use kinky erotic dirty talk to a woman. So what do you got to say about that? Yeah, I hear that all the time Oh from general guy guys in the hemisphere as well as either rival dating coaches and conventional puas a lot of guys believe you just can't Use sexually provocative language or x-rated or triple x-ray explicit language of women And that's just simply not a hundred percent true. Now Is there some validity to it? Yeah Well, this will take me back to when you asked me about the different variations and I didn't finish. There's again mode one hardcore Regular mode one and then I have a third version. This was created by my brother called mode 1.5 And again a difference.  So number one clarification You don't have to use profanity Or sexually explicit language in order to be mode one. You don't have to Now it is highly effective with a lot of women. I'll be honest mode one hardcore can lead to some amazing seductions But you don't have to a lot of women Most of them that I've interacted with in my life They they got highly turned on when I was very So for these guys who say no all women will get turned off No It is an obvious thing If a woman is not attracted to you If a woman doesn't find you To one degree another physically attractive or sexually appealing Then honestly anything you say to her is going to be a potential turn off That has to do with sex And now that's another that's another word which which would be called from what I see is called like choosing signals So If you're getting those choosing signals, I guess it's kind of what you're saying But also too, there was a keyword that you said here just a minute ago was escalate and I think a lot of men will probably stop escalating if they get Any kind of but what you have said if they're still standing there You're really not getting rejected if they're still talking to you So how do you tell a guy to keep escalating if they're still talking to you? Yeah, you just what you want to do Say women I don't want to get too long went into academic and detail But one of the things I talk about in my book who said again Women are in heavily influenced by what I refer to as their social programming In their cultural conditioning Their social program and conductor cultural conditioning.  Let's say you're talking to a wholesome pretender in the right equipment And you said something really sexually explicit to her She'll have what I like to figure we call the angel on the right shoulder And her little devil on the left shoulder and the angel which represents her prudish good girl side will say hey lisa Don't you dare respond to tony?   I like this guy I want to give it to him. And so you say frequently speaking it becomes just battle It's like the good girl side is saying don't don't give in to tony and the naughty girl side is saying Give in to tony and how that plays out in real time Is that a woman will go off on you and say oh tony I can't believe you said that to me What do you think I am a whore a slut?   There you go I'm glad you said that don't go don't tell you because I just got into a debate with someone on youtube where he said Alan you've always prided yourself as being this non manipulative type dating coach But I think you know just the fact that you seduce women He says seduction is inherently manipulative.  I never do that. That would be probably the most General example of a man manipulating a woman. I don't mislead or manipulate women or lie to him I just as you put it I talked to I used my conversation skills In such a way that I want to resonate with a woman's naughty girl side rather than her prudish good girl side Yeah, yeah Yeah, I I totally understand that. I mean that that makes so much sense. There's no manipulation You're just speaking to the side of her. That is a biological Biological thing in all of us man or woman Exactly Yeah, yeah Now you have another book called the beta male revolution And these terms alpha and beta Heck alpha beta gamma What other archetypes are there? Yeah, I mean sigmas. I mean there's just you know so talk to me about that book and Basically what motivated you to write a book like that And that was the last very last book I published as a e-book um paperback and audio book and There was a few motivations. I'd say the most foremost motivation for writing that book was I was hearing a lot of guys complain about the modern day dating scene and along with that I don't know if you you've probably heard this concept about what's known as the 80 20 rule theory And so the combination of just guys complaining about the modern day dating scene And secondly guys talking about the 80 20 rule theory I wanted To write a book that in part Briefly explained How we got to this point and so what I start off the book doing is taking us back to the 1960 what I basically propose and assert in that book is that The reason why the modern day dating scene is so far different than say the 1930s 1940s 1950s is because prior to the 1960s All dating pretty much centered around finding your husband or finding your wife I was pretty much the essence of all dating Is you meet somebody who you're going to ultimately marry? And then what happened that period between roughly 1960 and 1974 Changed everything and without getting too long-winded in detail Essentially what happened was well, I give a few highlights of that period. The first thing that happened was the introduction of birth birth control pill Then you had what's known as the second wave of feminism Then you had was known as the free love movement slash sexual revolution and then the fourth major thing that happened was the legalization of abortion and the end result of those four primary factors Was that women became far more comfortable having sex with men both before marriage and just generally outside the context of marriage and what that ultimately led to Was kind of two things concurrently that happened among men You could say the delineation between men began to separate between alpha males and beta males At first you could say it was like this that then by the men in the late 70s it was like this When women and women were almost just the opposite When women before that period between 1960 1974 the delineation between the good girls And the promiscuous sluts was like this Then they're got closed And so Women start looking at they start being able to compartmentalize guys and then that shows what happened A lot of women starts basically saying Is I don't have to look for the total package anymore. I can look for one guy that's just really really good in bed I can look for another guy who just Has really good funny sense of humor and great conversation I can look for another guy who's just financially generous and go always be willing to help me with my bills and so on and so on And so that's kind of where the alpha beta dynamic basically in a nutshell how I define an alpha male Is a guy that has it going on with the combination of his looks his confidence and masculinity his sense of dominance to the point Or and and I would say if I had one more thing seductive charm That women are likely to sleep with him Even if he doesn't promise them commitment long-term commitment and even if he doesn't Offer to be you know super financially generous with them That's that's that's what I generally define as an alpha male whereas a beta male Is a guy who's lacking in one or more areas that I describe for the alpha male either He might be severely lacking in looks department in terms of the combination of confidence and masculinity. He's lacking In terms of seductive charm.    He doesn't have to Pay any of my bills I just think he's just this very charming seductive highly masculine man and I I'm naturally motivated to be feminine and submissive in his company and so You've had this major delineation again that started with the late 60s early 70s and what has happened one reason I wrote that book is because starting with the internet A lot of men became more cognizant of the fact that they were not the alpha male But they were more so in the beta male category It's like you had a lot of guys frustrated like well, I'm not getting the same attention as that guy over there You know that guy over there for example that guy over there He doesn't have to take women out on three four or five dates And he still was able to sleep with Cindy Just like within the top couple hours after he met her whereas with me I took Cindy out of four or five dates and I still didn't end up in bed with her What's the deal and what happened was guys start sharing information and making guys including myself That helped guys realize okay It's because the women I've been dealing with look at me as a beta male And so Where the revolution comes into play is that a lot of beta males start saying hey I'm not going to be a woman's second choice anymore Or I'm not going to be the guy that a woman just exploits for my financial resources And material possessions or exploits me just for my flattering and entertaining conversation I'm not willing to be that guy anymore I'm a demanded a If you're not going to give me the type of sex that you give the the chads of the world That fuck it.  I'ma go my own way Hit me tough. I'ma go my own way I want to ask you a question a specific question and I had asked this on a on a big cast I'm not sure. Are you familiar with this day? Are you familiar with vox at all by any chance vox is a kind of like a philosopher Well, I'd asked him this question. I've asked other people this question And specifically I want to ask you because I've got different opinions. Can a man call himself alpha Can a man call himself alpha? Yeah, well, there were can I say I'm tony. I'm an alpha I think this is my opinion. I think that it's the way other men perceive you or women perceive you I don't think that you can say I'm an alpha I think it's people will look at you an alpha. I don't think you can Do you understand what I'm saying? I'll tell you yourself.  And you know They're the ones who will ultimately decide if you have them as other guys and I'm probably more so in this second category Is all about what how women perceive you the women who you interact with how they perceive you And so there's kind of been this argument that yeah, I would say between the two I'm more so Well, I kind of say it depends on what aspect of life you're talking about like for example And I think if you remember my presentation In 2018 I kind of touched on this. I basically at one point in my presentation. I said You can be an alpha in one aspect of your life, but be beta like I said, I've known guys who were tall muscular Could had great hand-to-hand combat skills And if you were to ask most men Is this guy alpha? They would say yeah that guy's alpha But I've seen a lot of those same type of guys when they in the company of their wife, fiance or girlfriend that were totally hand-picked The woman would be like just dominating them and I'll be like no that ain't alpha to me If you're letting your wife fiance a long-term girlfriend Just talk down to you and kind of send to you and just generally brow beat you and dominate you Then when it comes to dealing with women, you're not alpha And in some way of trying to push back on it, but I'm like that's that's so Again, you can be alpha with men and certainly like in athletics or business But specifically as it relates to dealing with women I would lean towards that second category you presented which is is ultimately determined by how women perceive you and evaluate you Yeah, I kind of I I agree with you on that but to me In my opinion when a man looks at another man as an alpha He was he looks at him as a leader He looks them as a leader somebody you look up to somebody you want to inspire to be like You know, but I do agree with you. Yeah, and and I'll agree with you on like I have a construction business And I I can't tell you Yeah Whatever she wants happy happy life. I have for that a million times in my business I'm a remodeling contractor. So I look at those guys is like what you know, shouldn't you be running the show? You know, but that's just my opinion, you know, shouldn't the man be running the show and talking to me instead But that you know, that's I guess everybody kind of has their Their different takes on that as far as what's alpha what's beta and who perceives you as an alpha and a beta And speaking speaking of alphas Um, you recently got married and I believe you have a son on the way. Is that correct? This is correct. Yeah, I got married on friday july 17th and um And at the time I was married my wife was already pregnant and she's due to deliver In mid september approximately Roughly five weeks from now. She's due to deliver my first child and my first son. So I'm very excited about the prospect of becoming a father Oh, that's awesome. I'm congratulations and I'm happy for you. I think um, you know, I know, um Was it a big deal in the manisphere when you got married? Oh, is it a I mean to me?  Yeah. Yeah, it's funny. Well in the positive and I got a lot of congratulations from a lot of guys Particularly my followers and supporters But I had it's interesting. I had some guys though Related to the book we were just discussing the beta male revolution the subtitle of that book is It's called the beta male revolution why many men Are losing interest in marriage in today's society So a lot of guys I think based on that subtitle We're under the impression That that book was some way in some way form of fashion an anti marriage book But I've had it clarified by the guys. I said I never said I was anti marriage ever But yeah, when I first announced I was engaged a lot of guys were coming san alan I'm sorry, but you're you're contradicting yourself You wrote the beta male revolution that book is totally about Anti marriage and now you're getting acid. No, it's not What I do is I I present an objective view evaluation of the pros and cons of marriage But I never flat out in that book said I'm totally anti marriage But I do say in that book that for some guys There's some guys that plain simply should not Uh think about marriage particularly going back to the delineation between alpha males and beta males I feel like a lot of beta males Should not get married because they're going to a lot of times get exploited Particularly financially they're going to get financially exploited but For the most part there's exceptions here and there but for the most part I don't see the problem with any guy who's a genuine legitimate alpha male getting married because he's going to he's going to Lead the relationship He's gonna he's going to set the terms and conditions of that marriage and that His wife is going to follow his lead So I don't see the problem with it. Uh, the main reason I'll tell at least one reason I wouldn't lean towards marriage Is because I always wanted to have children And I told my followers after like the last 10 15 20 years I've always wanted children like even when I didn't see myself getting married I always wanted to have children but they kind of too were kind of interconnected because I never wanted Have a son or daughter and have the biological mother raising that child in a separate household So at minimum I knew if I had children at minimum I knew I wanted to cohabitate And even more so I felt like I'll you know, I would be open to the possibly getting married Because I've always wanted to raise children in a two-parent household. So In summation, I would say this I would say if there's guys in the man's sphere saying that all men should get married They're wrong And on the flip side if there's guys in the man's sphere saying no man should get married They're also wrong if you're on either extreme to mean You're wrong I think marriage benefits some men again, particularly men Who want to raise children raise a family? But for other men, they're probably better off remaining a confirmed bachelor Gotcha so But it's also great that that now This son you're going to raise is going to have a Which is now going to project into his family And I think that's what's missing in a lot of lot of families today So many single mothers and or single father households Because I be I believe a kid needs both, you know, and I'm of old school where I had both. I'm lucky You know, but I don't see that. I mean, you know, the the divorce rate is through the roof and Um, I think we're in a disposable society So anybody that does Go ahead and raise their child in a in a in a in a two person male and female Household, I think is going to get is going to be well better off for sure So I 1000% agree and again, that's that's one of the things that contributed to me wanting to get married I did not want to have There I said, I didn't want to have a baby mama, baby daddy scenario I just did not want to have you And um, I wanted again I wanted a I want my my children to be raised in a two-parent household like you I was raised in a two-parent household and I saw the benefits of having Both the masculine energy of my father and the feminine energy of my mother They both contributed to the man I am today I think if you took away one or the other Definitely if you took my father out of household, I would be a totally different dude than I am right now And to a slightly less extent if you took my mother's Feminine energy out of my upbringing, I would be a different dude I needed both of those in my life and my brother has said the same thing to his friends and acquaintances You I think children need both the masculine energy and the feminine energy in their household I agree Well, I'll tell you what let's wrap this up. I want you to give everybody The ways that they can they can get in contact with you now if anybody needs coaching, of course you have a patreon and A coaching he's a you're a professional dating coach So how can people how can people contact you and get a hold of you for coaching advice? Okay, I would give at least three or four content one email would be coaching at mode one net. That's m o d e o n e dot net coaching at mode one net and then number two all of my books on amazon dot com And specifically my four audio books are on the division of amazon called audible audible dot com My main website is called direct approach dating as one word direct approach dating Dot net No dot com. I'm sorry dot com direct approach dating dot com direct approach dating dot com and then finally I actually do some consultations for couples both married and unmarried couples who are interested in Incorporating elements of bdsm Which is erotic domination erotic submission as well as polyamory And that would be mode one dot net forward slash training mode one dot net forward slash training Okay, awesome. Awesome. Well good. Good. Sounds like you're doing well for yourself Again, congratulations on your marriage and your upcoming child. I'm happy for you And I did enjoy this conversation So I'm tony bruno and I'm going to leave links also for amazon links for your books in the description down below So Al awesome conversation. I appreciate your time. I appreciate your knowledge And hopefully Your son enters this world Thank you so much tony for having me. I want to just quickly say man I love you and your brother. You guys are both very classy gentlemen Very intelligent and articulate and I can tell you were raised by two quality parents because they produce two quality sons I appreciate this opportunity to talk to you Well, I appreciate that too. Thank you very much ARC. You have a good day and I'll talk to you soon Take care


Let us start with another example of a language which is not regular and we prove by pumping lemma that it is not regular language. The language we will consider is this one. Firstly this language is a unary language that means the alphabet for the language has only one symbol. So, therefore, language in this case is a set of strings each of which each string is just a bunch of ones and our language will satisfy this. L is all those strings over the alphabet just one such that x is of the form 1 to the power n square where n is greater than b. So, basically what we are saying is you can take n equal to 1, n equal to 2, n equal to 3 and so on. If n equal to 1 then the string that you get is 1 to the power n square which is 1. So, basically 1. So, this is in the language L when n equal to 2 then n square is 4. So, 1 to the power 4 which is of course, concatenation of 4 ones and this is also in the language L and n equal to 3 this is 9. So, therefore, this is 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. This string is also in the language and so on. On the other hand this string 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 just 5 ones is not in the language or language L because this is 1 power 5 and 5 is not a perfect square. So, you would like to show that this language is not regular and we will use the pumping lemma. You recall pumping lemma statement was this which we have gone through once and this is saying in order to use this lemma to prove this particular language is not regular. We need to first of all select we somebody will when this lemma says that there is a k. So, will our proof should be able to handle any k that might be given. So, we just keep it as an indeterminate and we say that let k be the. So, of course, first we will have to say that our proof we are proving proof that L is not regular and the proof is by contradiction. So, we start by saying suppose L is regular and now we can invoke the pumping lemma for this. So, we see because we have assumed L to be regular and then we derive the contradiction. So, we say let k be the pumping lemma constant for L. Now, we need to select a string in order to invoke non-trivial with this lemma some string in the language whose length is greater than k. So, in fact it will be convenient to consider 1 k square itself and clearly this string is in the language whatever be the k. So, the pumping lemma constant k we are considering the string 1 k to the power k square and now we invoke the pumping lemma.  So, suppose this is u this is v this is w and lemma is saying that length of u v is less than equal to k and from the lemma I get also. So, from here I am getting that length of v is less than equal to k, but of course length of v is strictly greater than 0 the other condition length of v is strictly greater than 0. So, v is a non empty set non empty string its length may be 1 or at most it can be k. So, now consider this string u v v w this particular string is also in the language that is what the lemma is asserting I have used i equal to 2. So, this is in the language l what can we say about the length of the string an upper bound on the length of the string is u v v w u v w is of course that length is k square plus we have added a v that length is at most k. So, this is bounded by k square plus k actually we have got a contradiction already because this the lemma is saying that some string whose length is k square plus k bounded by that and consisting only of one.  In other words it is saying that there is a string in the language whose length is greater than strictly greater than 1 to the power k square and that string's length is bounded by k square plus a can that be because you see what is that string which is in the language and whose length is which whose length is greater than the string the very next string after 1 to the power k square will be 1 to the power k plus 1 whole square and this is the next string this is the string in the language of course and the very next string greater than this particular string will have length therefore k square plus 2 k plus 1. On the other hand the lemma is saying that there is a string whose length is at most k square plus k. So, this is strictly less than a square plus 2 k plus 1 and therefore you have the contradiction. So, really speaking what the fact that we are exploiting in this proof that if there is a string in the language supposing this is the set of all strings over the alphabet 1. So, this is the all elements of 1 star if we have a string in the language then the next string comes after a long gap and this gap keeps increasing as we go down because what is the gap here 2 k plus 1 from k it is 2 k plus 1 next one will be even bigger and so on. However lemma says that the next string gap is at most k and that is the fact this particular fact is being contradicted by the implication of the lemma. We have seen couple of examples of how to use the pumping lemma to prove some language to be non regular. Now, let us prove the lemma which we have not done yet so far and the proof is fairly simple because the moment you say L is regular see pumping lemma starts by the from the assumption that L is regular. So, we say since L is regular there is a d f a m to accept n in other words L of m is the language L this is the d f a and let k be the number of states that means the cardinality of the set of states of m is k. Let x is in L and x length of x is greater than equal and the length of x is greater than equal. Now, consider first k symbol so let us see the first k symbol is this part of the string x to the length of this is exactly k and what do we know of x that x is a string in the language therefore if you start the machine m at its initial state q 0 then the machine finally will be some state which is in the final state of one of the final states of or accepting states of the machine m. So, I am using the old notation that m is the d f a m is 5 to the power q sigma delta q 0 f. So far what we have said is x is accepted by m in other words delta hat of q 0 is q f because we are saying that q f is the state it goes to which is an element of f. Now recall one thing that we noticed right in the beginning while discussing d f a suppose I have a string of symbols I do not mean 0 but let me just say these symbols and remember let me write it more carefully. So, this is one symbol this is the next symbol this is the next symbol this is the next symbol this is the next symbol and we consider the sequence of states the machine goes through as it reads this string. So, it reads this from state q 0 it goes to may be a state q i 1 then the next symbol it goes to q i 2 and the way I have written that this sequence has the sequence of states has is of length n plus 1 and what is the in this the length of the sequence of symbols it is n right because on one if the string had only one symbol then the sequence of states the machine goes through will have two states and so on you can see supposing it is 2 the string had only two symbols then the sequence will be 1 2 3 of length 3 and so on. So, if the string had n symbols then the sequence of states through which the machine goes that will have precisely n plus 1 the its length will be n plus 1 the sequence of strings sequence of states for an n length. So, let me write it clearly that for an n length string length of the sequence of states through the DFA goes through is n plus 1 now this part of the string we said is exactly of length k. Now what does it mean the sequence of states through which the machine will go on this part of the string which is of length k this sequence is of length k plus 1. From the fact that we have written now this is the most crucial observation that the sequence of states is of length k plus 1 and totally how many states are there k because that is what we have assumed let k be the number of states in n and the sequence as 1 more than the total number of states 1 more the length of the sequence is 1 more than the total number of states in the machine. Therefore, by pigeon hole principle they will be at least one state which will occur more than once in this sequence which is the sequence we are talking of the sequence of states the machine goes through on the first k symbols of the string x. So, in fact let me see it in picture some kind of picture that this is your string x and this is the sequence of states. Now we are talking of the first k symbols the string consists of string the first prefix of the string x of length k and here it is the sequence of states that we are talking of q 0 sorry some letters q here finally, of course it goes to q f. Now q 0 to some q this sequence of states there must be some state which is which repeats at least once you can see this is a very simple use of the pigeon hole principle that we learned in discrete math. Now again if you look at this you can see between two states even if they are adjacent there will be at least one symbol between two states in the sequence between any two states in the sequence there will be at least one symbol even if the two states are adjacent like in this case. So, what I can say is the following let me say let us focus on this picture and what two things that we already know that delta hat of q 0 x is q f which is in the one of the final states and let me call this to be this part the part of the string which brings me from q 0 brings the d f a from q 0 to p which is this first occurrence of the state which occurs more than once this part let me call and in state p from the very from the very next symbol to this part what is this part of the string doing it is taking the machine from the state p back to p. So, let me write it in this way that delta hat of this is remember this is delta hat delta hat of q 0 u what was u u u was the part of the string the initial part of the string which took the machine from the initial state to the state p which is going to occur once more delta hat to q 0 to u is this p and this part let me call v. So, delta hat of p to v is also p right because this v part is u part took the machine from q 0 to p v part is taking the machine from p to p right. And now we do not care about anything else, but let me call all the rest of the string after v whatever is left in x let me call it w. So, what can I say about w p w will take the machine from the state p q s right. Now we rest of the proof is the simple application of these facts now what will happen on the string u let us say v v w what can we say the behavior of the machine from q 0 to this string. Now let us look at this we will just use these facts. So, q 0 I mean it is easy to see what is going to happen q 0 this is we start from q 0 first we go to look at the part of the string which is u the prefix of the string which is u that takes the machine if this is your u then this is v. Now we have another copy of v and then finally we have said the machine takes the v part of the prefix machine goes from q 0 to p on u machine goes from p to p on v. Now another copy of v is there, but the machine cannot there is no reason for machine to behave differently because this is a deterministic machine which sees v. So, it goes again to p in other words you see this is also going to be q f because now from p on w it will go to q f you can write it like this way that I can say that this is what is this delta hat of q 0 u this is the state the machine goes to after seeing the first part u. Now it is sees v now again it sees. So, this is the state the machine will be after it sees u and v now it sees another copy of v this whole thing is one state and now it sees v. So, delta hat this is going to be the state the machine is going to be after seeing v u v v and then finally we have w we will put another delta hat this is what is this. So, I can I can argue it out using this facts delta hat of q 0 u was p. So, let me substitute p here then delta hat of p of p and v is p.  So, let me write it then delta hat of p of v is again p. So, you see this is let me write it clearly delta hat of delta hat of p w and this is delta hat of p of v is again p delta hat of p of v is p. So, this becomes p delta hat of p w is q f. So, this is what I had asserted earlier and this is now I have shown you the proof q f is of course an element of it. So, what does this mean that since u v v w takes the machine from q 0 to q f. Therefore, what I have is that u v v w is also in the language and this argument will be true if you have not just one extra copy, but if you put any number of v's. So, let us say I had u v v v w u is going to take q 0 the machine from the state q 0 to p according to this v is going to take the machine from p to p this v will also take the machine from p to p this p to p p to p and w will take the machine. So, therefore, this string is also in the language l we have proved for all i greater than equal to 1 what happens when i equal to 0 that means we are talking of the string u w when i equal to 0 that means we are talking of the string u v 0 w v 0 by definition v to the power of 0 by definition is if you recall in the beginning we talked of this is the empty string u epsilon which is u w. Now, let us look at u w the machine initially in the state q 0 q 0 starting from q 0 on u it will go to the state p p on w it will go to q f. So, again u w is in the language seen language l. So, therefore, for all i as the lemma states greater than equal to 0 the string u v to the power i w is in the language. If you want to be very formal you will redo this proof using induction on i and that is basically you will try to show that for all i you want to prove this use induction on i start by saying suppose i equal to 0 then we are talking of the string u w using this facts we know that u w will be in the language then assume in that induction proof it is going to be that suppose the statement is true for all i up to some n and then you would prove by induction by your induction step that u v to the power n plus 1 w also will be in the language. But, the idea of the proof is very clear this is how we will go about this. Now, several things we need to say about this lemma and we will say these things because sometimes we do not we do not fully understand the content of this lemma what it is saying exactly we make mistakes in applying. Now, let us look at the logic way of looking at this statement how what is this assertion you know it is saying first of all at the top level this lemma is of the form l regular implies certain things. So, let me call that all these things that it implies we are saying this statement goes like this let l be regular then so l is regular implies this whole thing then etcetera this part I am calling it a. Now, look at a now the statement a what is a saying a is basically the statement we start with this there is a constant k there is constant k which depends on the language. So, once you have fixed l this is a constant k there is a constant k then it is saying such that for all x for all x right x is in l and length of x is greater than k after that what you are saying now we are saying there exist u v w there exist u v w and now we are asserting certain things about the relationship between u v w and x and certain conditions on k and then we are saying certain other strings also will be there in the language. So, let us write it in the homilism of logic it is saying that the string x is u v w that is the first thing we said. Then we are saying let me use this notation and already used it here then we are saying that length of u v is less than equal to k and our next conjunct is length of v is greater than 0 finally we are saying for all i u v i w is also in the language for all i greater than equal to 0 right this is the formalism of logic I have just rewritten that the purpose for doing this is clearly tell you when you are giving a proof used to show a particular language to be not regular it is very very necessary to keep these things least intuitively in our mind. Suppose we used to show using this lemma that some language l is not regular what do we do we will first assume in our proof the structure of the proof is what I am trying to tell you we will first assume that let l be regular the moment you say l is regular then this statement is true and that statement says there is a key. Now in my example I prove can I say for example that k is 593 I cannot do that why because this is not in the hand of the prover there is this k therefore this k should be my proof should be ready to use any k which is given to me sometimes this kinds of proofs can be seen as a game. Between two people one is an adversary his goal is to prove you wrong and your goal is to prove l is not regular so what you are going to do you will your adversary is going to give you a k then you will pick up an x right so the so in that game if you the adversary moves are adversary starts with this is the initial quantifier move so he picks any k so you should be ready in your proof to use any k whichever may whatever might be given but then it is your turn in the game you will take some language it is because this part is saying for all x therefore we have complete freedom to choose any x so long that x is in the language and its length is greater than equal to x right. So the discovery part of the proof is to come up with some proper x to given any k right. Any k right we choose an x which is which will satisfy this now what is our goal is to come up with finally on pumping a string which is not in the language by now you have seen the kind of proofs that we have seen it make making use of the pumping lemma so we choose x now these existential quantifiers so sometimes beginners they choose an x and then they say let u be this v be this w be this that will be wrong that proof is wrong what you have to now be prepared to carry out your argument for any break up of u v w of course which will be given by the adversary but adversary has to obey these that u v w together is the string x and length of u v is less than equal to k and the length of v is greater than 0 so once you have chosen x then what is the next part of the proof so this is your x then for any break up of u v w of the string x which which obeys the constraints these two constraints the total length of u v is less than equal to k and v is non empty you should be able to find an i the adversary gives u v v and w so we choose an x now given any u v w satisfying constraints I have already defined constraints you see now it is in my hand to choose an i we find an i and derive the contradiction such that this i should be such that u v i w is not in the language and then therefore I win the game so in the in that model of adversary versus the prover game adversary chooses k the prover chooses some appropriate x in the language now once that x is chosen adversary gives a break up of u v the x in terms of u v w satisfying these constraints then prover chooses an i and he manages to in the game if he finds a u v i w which is not in the language because you got a contradiction because u v i w according to the lemma it has to be in the language but by definition our i is such that you have seen this example that on pumping I am getting a string which the definition of the language tells me could not be in the language so therefore I get a contradiction and therefore the supposition l is regular brings me to a contradiction and therefore I conclude that l is not regular so this is the overall structure of the proof I want to emphasize again in these proofs when we use pumping lemma I should be able to use given any k then I choose an appropriate x then for any break up of u v i w then u v w of that x I should be able to find out an i such that u v i w is not in the language which I would like to show is not regular that is the first thing I said wanted to make the point the structure of the proof making use of the pumping lemma the second thing comes from here just the top state the pumping lemma says that if l is regular then certain conditions will be true the natural question is is the converse so what is the converse if l satisfies a is remember this part of the proof of the lemma then what is the if l satisfies a then this is the converse actually it is not very difficult to see the converse is false and how do I show that con converse is false I actually given counter example in which the language a language will satisfy these conditions a and yet the converse is not regular so proof is by counter example and that counter example language l where l is defined to be a i b j c k first thing is i j a these are all greater than equal to 0 and now the interesting part the constraint is if i is equal to 1 then j is equal to 3 so for example the string a b b b c c c is in the language l why because the converse it is of the form some bunch of a's followed by a bunch of b's followed by a bunch of c's and since there is exactly 1 a right i equal to 1 then the number of b's is equal to the number of c's so this is in the language now on the other hand if I had a bunch of a's more than 1 a's then there is no really constraints on the lengths of b's and c's I could have had 1 b and maybe many c's this will be also in the language it is not too difficult to see what this language is and I would like to show this language satisfies all these which came in the you know remember we are looking at from the then part in fact let me say there is a constant it says there is a constant k let me just say the k is 3 and you take any string which is in the language whose length is 3 or more then what should be the u v w if I assert such that for all i u v i w is in the language and that rule is kind of simple also that if basically consider an x in the language and length of x is greater than equal to 3 and now if x has exactly 2 a's so a a then I have a number of b's according to since it is in the language l if you see that there is no constraints on how many b's how many c's should be there so we have a number of b's number of c's then what I do is in this case u is empty epsilon v is this part a and w is rest of x just let us verify that on pumping we are not going out of the language because if I pump down that means I will take out these both a's because v will be taken out then I have just a bunch of b's bunch of c's which is ok there is no relation on the lengths of b's and c's since i is not equal to 1 there need not be any relation on the other hand if you pump any number of times you will get more and more a's but again you will not get a single a which is when a constraint comes so it is easy to see if I choose v as this part both the a's then we can pump any amount of time and the resultant string still will be in the language if x has exactly 2 a's then this is the situation otherwise u as epsilon v as the first symbol of x and rest as you should be able to verify that this is that even in this case on pumping v which is just one symbol nothing is going to happen now do you see what was the point of here the problem would be let us see with a string like this I had 1 2 a's and here I had 3 b's and 2 c's this will be in the language l according to the definition this is in the language l and now if v was only 1 a for example then when I pump down I will have a 1 a but now I have the length of b's and c's do not match and therefore I will get a string which is not in the language and thereby the condition a will not be satisfied right so overall conclusion is for this language l the conclusion of pumping lemma holds however the language itself is not regular so the converse does not therefore hold here is the language l which satisfies all these things there is a constant k we took that k as 3 then we said take any string in the language whose length is 3 or more and then given such a string in the language we can break it up in u v w such that on pumping v we do not go out of the language therefore this conclusion of pumping lemma holds and yet the language l is not regular actually how do I show that this particular language is not regular I stated that this language l is not regular how do I show because now I know that I cannot use this pumping lemma to prove this particular language to be not regular because why because here is a k which is 3 in fact for which in the conclusion of the pumping lemma holds so we do not get into any contradiction now we can prove this to be not regular by using a slight generalization of this lemma let me state the lemma here is a language l which happens to be not regular but I cannot prove that it is not regular by using this pumping lemma and I just showed you that pumping lemma is not going to give me any contradiction but then how do we show this l is not regular we can show by means of a slight generalization of this lemma which we will consider next.


As of April 14, 2020, the World Health Organization reported a total of 1,844,863 confirmed cases of COVID-19 globally, with 117,021 deaths. There are now 644,986 confirmed cases in the region of the Americas. As of April 15, 2020, St. Lucia has a total of 15 confirmed cases of COVID-19. Today, Wednesday, April 15, 2020, St. Lucia continues on the partial shutdown and the 10-hour curfew from 7pm to 5am. St. Lucia is still at a very critical position in the staging of this COVID-19 threat. We need to be reminded that the threat of COVID-19 still exists. Some of the national protocols include stay at home as much as possible unless it is for food or medical purposes. Avoid mass crowd events and social gatherings. Practice physical distancing and good personal hygiene. The public is also advised against going to public places with flu-like symptoms including fever, cough and sneezing. When visiting the supermarket or public places, wear your homemade mask and refrain from touching items unless you intend to purchase them. Although hardware stores are open in an effort to facilitate household emergencies and increase water storage capacity, the public is reminded that we are still on national scale and only leave your house for essential goods. Observe the rules of physical distancing. We continue to observe persons gathered in groups talking. The Department of Health advises the public to boost your immune system by ensuring that you are eating healthy while at home. Ensure your diet includes fruits and vegetables and also get the necessary exercise at home and in your yard. Keeping a good immune system will reduce the possible chances of developing COVID-19 if you were in contact with someone who has it. The Department of Health and Wellness will continue providing regular updates on COVID-19.


Individualism, a Reader, edited by George H. Smith and Marilyn Moore, narrated by James Foster. 18. From the Religion of Nature Delineated, William Walliston. The Religion of Nature Delineated, Seventh Edition. London, J. and P. Napton, 1750. Pages 234 to 269. Spelling and punctuation have been modernized and most italics have been omitted. Walliston's footnotes, which cite various classical sources, are not included. Educated at Cambridge, William Walliston, 1660 to 1724, took holy orders in the Anglican Church and, after attaining financial security through an inheritance, devoted his life to scholarly pursuits. Although Walliston wrote a fair amount, he published very little. The Religion of Nature Delineated being his only major work. This book sold well going through eight editions by 1750 and selling more than 10,000 copies. The last edition appeared in 1759 and the work was not reprinted until 1974. During this gap of more than 200 years, Walliston's moral theory, as one commentator noted, was soon relegated to the Curiosity section of the Philosophical Museum. Most philosophers who did not ignore Walliston ridiculed him instead.  The English historian Leslie Stephen, after misrepresenting Walliston, concluded that he inevitably fails to extract any intelligible result from his fanciful form of an illusory theory. Some commentators have been kinder to Walliston. The great free-thought scholar J.M. Robertson characterized him as a vivid, interesting, thoughtful, and very learned writer. Ernest Mossner, a biographer of David Hume, called him a man of vast erudition. More recently, 1977, Stanley Twainman claimed that the available literature has not offered effective criticisms against his views, nor has it been shown that Walliston's book is without lasting significance. And philosopher Joel Feinberg corrected some common distortions of Walliston's ideas. Friend and foe alike, however, have focused on Walliston's ethical theory while neglecting his theory of property, which is based on the unique individuality of each human being. The following excerpt deals with that topic. 1. Every man has in himself a principle of individuation which distinguishes and separates him from all other men in such a manner as may render him and them capable of distinct properties and things, or distinct subjects of property. That is, B and C are so distinguished, or exist so distinctly, that if there be anything which B can call his, it will be for that reason not C's. And what is C's will for that reason not be B's. 2. There are some things to which, at least before the case is altered by voluntary subjection, compact or the like, every individual man has or may have such a natural and immediate relation that he only of all mankind can call them his. The life, limbs, etc. of B are as much his as B is himself. It is impossible for C or any other to see with the eyes of B. Therefore, they are eyes only to B, and when they cease to be his eyes, they cease to be eyes at all. He then has the sole property in them, it being impossible in nature that the eyes of B should ever be the eyes of C. Further, the labor of B cannot be the labor of C because it is the application of the organs and powers of B, not of C, to the effecting of something, and therefore the labor is as much B's as the limb and faculties made use of are his. Again, the effect or produce of the labor of B is not the effect of the labor of C, and therefore this effect or produce is B's, not C's, as much B's as the labor was B's and not C's. Because what the labor of B causes or produces, B produces by his labor, or it is the product of B by his labor. That is, it is B's product, not C's or any other, and if C should pretend to any property in that which B can only truly call his, he would act contrary to truth. Four. Whatever is either reasonable or unreasonable in B with respect to C would be just the same in C with respect to B if the case was inverted. Because reason is universal and respects cases, not persons, hence it follows that a good way to know what is right or wrong in relation to other men is to consider what we should take things to be were we in their circumstances. Five. In a state of nature men are equal in respect of dominion. I accept for the present the case of parents and their children and perhaps of some few other near relations. Here let me be understood to mean only those between whom there is no family relation or between whom all family relation is vanished. In a state where no laws of society make any subordination or distinction, men can only be considered as men or only as individuals of the same species and equally sharing in one common definition. And since by virtue of this same definition B is the same to C that C is to B, B has no more dominion over C than C reciprocally has over B, that is they are in this regard equal. Personal excellence or defects can make no difference here because one, who must judge on which side the advantage lies? To say B or D or anybody else has a right to judge to the disadvantage of C is to suppose what is in question, a dominion over him not to prove it. Two. Great natural or acquired endowments may be privileges to them who have them, but this does not deprive those who have less of their title to what they have or which is the same give anyone who has greater abilities a right to take it or the use of it from them. If B has better eyes than C it is well for him but it does not follow from this that C should not therefore see for himself and use his eyes as freely as B may his. C's eyes are accommodated by nature to his use and so are B's to his and each has the sole property in his own so their respective properties are equal. The case would be parallel to this if B should happen to have better intellectual faculties than C and further if B should be stronger than C he would not yet for that reason have any right to be his lord. For C's less degree of strength is as much his as B's greater is his. Therefore C has as much right to his and which is the natural consequence to use his as B has to use his that is C has as much right to resist as B has to impose or command by virtue of strength and where the right though not the power of resisting is equal to the right of commanding the right of commanding or dominion is nothing. Three, since strength and power are most apt to pretend a title to dominion it may be added further that power and right or a power of doing anything and a right to do it are quite different ideas and therefore they may be separated nor does one imply the other. Lastly if power quaw power gives a right to dominion it gives a right to everything that is obnoxious to it and then nothing can be done that is wrong for nobody can do anything which he has not the power to do but to assert this would be to advance a plain absurdity or contradiction rather for then to oppose the man who has this power as far as one can or which is the same as far as one has the power to do it would not be wrong and yet so it must be if he has a right to dominion or to be not opposed moreover that a man should have a right to anything merely because he has the power to take it is a doctrine indeed which may serve a few tyrants or some benditi and rogues but directly opposite to the peace and general good of mankind it is also what the powerful themselves could not allow if they would but imagine themselves to be in a state of the weak and more defenseless. Six, no man can have a right to begin to interrupt the happiness of another because in the first place this supposes a dominion over him and the most absolute two that can be in the next for B to begin to disturb the peace and happiness of C is what B would think unreasonable if he was in C's case in the last since it is supposed that C has never invaded the happiness of B nor taken anything from him nor at all meddled with him but the whole transaction begins originally from B for all this is couched in the word begin C can have nothing that is B's and therefore nothing to which C has not at least as good a title as B has or in other words nothing which C has not as much right to keep as B to claim these two rights being then at least equal and counter-poising each other no alteration in the present state of things can follow from any superiority of right in B and therefore it must of right remain as it is and what C has must for any right that B has to oppose this settlement remain with C in his undisturbed possession but the argument is still stronger on the side of C because he seems to have such a property in his own happiness that no other can have inserted from a previous section men's respective happiness or pleasures ought to be valued as they are to the persons themselves or according to the thoughts and sense which they have of them not according to the estimate put upon them by other people who have no authority to judge of them nor can know what they are may compute by different rules have less sense be in different circumstances or such as guilt has rendered partial to themselves every man's happiness is his happiness what it is to him and the loss of it is answerable to the degrees of his perception to his manner of taking things to his wants and circumstances though no man can have a right to begin to interrupt another man's happiness or to hurt him yet every man has a right to defend himself and his against violence to recover what is taken by force from him and even to make reprisals by all the means that truth and prudence permit great part of the general happiness of mankind depends upon those means by which the innocent may be saved from their cruel invaders among which the opportunities they have of defending themselves may be reckoned the chief therefore to debar men of the use of these opportunities and the right of defending themselves against injurious treatment and violence must be inconsistent with the laws of nature for if a man has no right to defend himself and what is his he can have no right to anything since that cannot be his right which he may not maintain to be his right he who begins is the true cause of all that follows and whatever falls upon him from the opposition made by the defending party is but the effect of his own act it is the violence of which he is the author reflected back upon himself it is as when a man spits at heaven and the spittle falls back upon his own face lastly since every man is obliged to consult his own happiness there can be no doubt but that he not only may but even ought to defend it in such a manner I mean as does not interfere with truth or his own design of being happy he ought indeed not to act rashly or do more than the end proposed requires that is he ought by a prudent carriage and wise forecast to shut up if he can the avenues by which he may be invaded and when that cannot be done to use arguments and persuasion or perhaps withdraw out of the way of harm but when these measures are ineffectual or impracticable he must take such other as he can and confront force with force by that same means that a man may defend what is his he may certainly endeavor to recover what has been by any kind of violence or villainy taken from him for it has been shown already that the power to take anything from another gives no right to it the right then to that which has been taken from its owner against his will remains still where it was he may still truly call it his and if it be his he may use it as his which if he who took it away or any other shall hinder him from doing that man is even here the aggressor and the owner does but defend himself and what is his then further if a man hath still a right to what is forcibly or without his consent taken from him he must have a right to the value of it for the thing is to him what it is in value to him and the right he has to it may be considered as a right to a thing of such value so that if the very thing which was taken be destroyed or cannot be retrieved the proprietor nevertheless retains his right to a thing of such a value to him and something must be had in lieu of it that is he has a right to make reprisals since everything is to every man what it is in value to him things of the same value to anyone may be reckoned as to him the same and to recover the equivalent is the same as to recover the thing itself for otherwise it is not an equivalent if the thing taken by way of reprisal should be to the man from whom it is taken of greater value than what he wrongfully took from the recoverer he must charge himself with that loss if injustice be done him it is done by himself to which add that as a man has a right to recover what is his or the equivalent from an invader so he seems for the same reasons to have a right to an equivalent for the expense he is at in recovering his own for the loss of time and quiet and for the trouble hazards and dangers undergone because all these are the effects of the invasion and therefore to be added to the invaders account 9. A title to many things may be transferred by compact or donation if B has the soul right in lands or goods nobody has any right to the disposal of them besides B and he has a right for disposing of them is but using them as his therefore the act of B in exchanging them for something else or bestowing them upon C interferes not with truth and so B does nothing that is wrong nor does C do anything against truth or what is wrong in taking them because he treats them as being what they are as things which come to him by the act of that person in whom is lodged the soul power of disposing them thus C gets the title innocently but in the case of compact the reason on which this transaction stands is more evident still for the contractors are supposed to receive each from the other the equivalent of that which they part with or at least what is equivalent to them respectively or perhaps by each party preferable thus neither of them is hurt perhaps both advantaged and so each of them treats the thing which he receives upon the innocent exchange as being what it is better for him and promoting his convenience and happiness indeed he who receives the value of anything and what he likes as well in effect has it still his property is not diminished the situation and matter of it is only altered mankind could not well subsist without bartering one thing for another therefore whatever tends to take away the benefit of this intercourse is inconsistent with the general good of mankind if a man could find the necessaries of life without it and by himself he must at least want many of the comforts of it 10 there is then such a thing as property founded in nature and truth or there are things which one man only can consistently with nature and truth call his 11 those things which only one man can truly and properly call his must remain his until he agrees to part with them if they are such as he may part with by compact or donation or which must be understood till they fail or death extinguishes him and his title together and he delivers the lamp to his next man 12 to have the property of anything and to have the soul right of using and disposing of it are the same thing they are equivalent expressions for when it is said that P has the property or that such a thing is proper to P it is not said that P and Q or P and others have the property proprim limits the thing to P only and when anything is said to be his it is not said that part of it is only his P has therefore the all or all hood of it and consequently all the use of it and then since the all of it to him or all that P can have of it is but the use and disposal of it he who has this has the thing itself and it is his 14 to usurp or invade the property of another man is injustice or more fully to take, detain, use, destroy, hurt or meddle with anything that is his without his allowance either by force or fraud or any other way or even to attempt any of these or assist them who do are acts of injustice the contrary to render and permit quietly to everyone what is his is justice this has been individualism a reader edited by George H. Smith and Marilyn Moore narrated by James Foster copyright 2015 by the Cato Institute production copyright 2015 by the Cato Institute


Before I start my talk, I want to cover a couple things. First of all, I want to give a really warm and heartfelt thank you to the organizers of OS Fields. I think that this is a very special conference. And when I look at the group of speakers, I feel super honored and humbled to be included. So thank you for having me. Also, looking out at the audience, I can't tell you how excited I am that this community exists, and that I get to be a part of it. You guys are my people. So thank you.  I'm going to be talking about prison today in my talk. I'm going to be asking you to think about your personal relationship to folks in prison and people in prison. And so I just want to give you the heads up that I'm going to be talking about that today. And third, I want to warn you, there is a 100% chance of curse words today.  And it's really difficult to talk about it without cursing just a little bit. I'm sorry. I'm not sorry. So back to me. Like a lot of you here in the room today, I work in tech. I work at a small software company called Energy Savvy. Some of you may have heard of it. Most of you probably haven't. But today's talk is not about that. You see, I work part-time at Energy Savvy. And the other part-time, I work at a nonprofit called Unloop, where I'm one of the co-founders. Now, in order to talk about Unloop, there's a few things I have to cover. Because today, I'm going to be talking to you about prison, about people in prison, about people in prison doing tech stuff. And yes, that exists. And most importantly, why that is so damn important for us to talk about here today in this room with this community. So to get started, I'm going to zoom out, and I'm going to get really high-level. And I'm going to talk to you guys about prison. You see, today in the US, we have roughly 2.3 million people behind bars. And to give you an understanding of what that number means and how you can kind of make sense of it in your head, that's roughly the population of North Dakota and South Dakota and Wyoming combined. Combined. Now, if you think about this in the terms of the whole world, the US only has 5% of the world's population. But we incarcerate over 25% of the world's prison population. And that's just the folks who are in prison right now today. To give you another frame of reference, we have about 68 million people who are outside prison and living with a criminal background or a rest record. 68 million people. That is more people than we have in the US today who have four-year bachelor degrees. And when we talk about the big picture of prison in our mass incarceration, you can't talk about it without talking about race, right? Because people of color are incarcerated at disproportionately higher rates than white folks in the US. Specifically, African-American men and women are incarcerated at a rate six times that of white folks. I'm a white woman, obviously. Super white. And the odds of me going to prison in my lifetime, one in 111. If I were a black dude, the odds of me going to prison would be one in three, all right? And as I continue, sometimes I feel like you could have 20 whole presentations about this. But as I continue my talk, I want you to continue to think about that because it impacts everything we talk about. Now, mass incarceration is a huge issue. And for the sake of my short talk, I'm going to cover a very specific problem that's part of it. And that problem is recidivism. And it's OK, I had to Google this at 1.2. Recidivism is when someone who has been released from prison returns to prison. And the big deal about that is that today in the US, one in two people who are released from prison will return within their lifetimes. One in two. And we have 650,000 people being released this year alone. What that means is that 325,000 of them, roughly, will go back within their lifetimes. And that comes at the high cost of, well, first of all, $34,000 a year of your taxpayer money, at the cost of 325,000 crimes committed in our communities. And most importantly, at the cost of 325,000 families torn apart by the impact of a family member on the inside. Now, here's the thing. And I already said it, I'm going to say it again later.  Prison is awful, it's traumatic.  So we have to ask ourselves, why is this happening? Incredibly high rates of recidivism, incredibly high rates of people who don't want to recidivate, right?  And just bear with me, if you close your eyes, that would be really cool. You can peek, don't really care.  Maybe that's you, maybe that's your family member, maybe it's a friend, maybe it's an acquaintance. And when we go through this next part, I want you to keep them in the back of your mind because we'll talk about stats and that's impersonal. But if you can't think of anyone, which I'm sure some of you can, I want you to think about that too, real close. Now, recidivism, why do we have such a high recidivism rate? Why are so many people going back to prison? Well, people return to prison because they commit crimes, but it's incredibly important to be aware of the demographics that we have in our prison system today.  On average, folks going to prison, average income level of $12,000 a year, average education level of 10th grade, average unemployment rate of 60%, and folks going to prison have significantly higher rates of addiction than past addiction. Now, that's going into prison. Then once you're in prison, things don't get any better because you have limited access to higher education. We got rid of university-level classes in prison in the 90s, and vocational education is limited to a year. Additionally, there is limited access to high-wage, high-growth job training and, very importantly, you are separated from your support networks and you build a new support network. And then, on top of that, you get out. And coming out of prison, you're faced with the stigma and the ostracism that come along with having criminal background. And this is Seattle, but even in this culturally progressive and empathetic city, it is incredibly difficult to get a job. And the majority of people who are released cannot find a job within the first year of their release. So you can see where this ends up, right? We have coming in, on average, high-risk circumstances, doesn't get any better, gets even worse. You see how this becomes a cycle, right? And that is a cycle of recidivism. And so, this is where the robots come in. And I know you guys are waiting for this part. It's good. But this is where the robots and tech as an industry come in. Because, first of all, we know that professional skills and education reduce recidivism. Folks who work in re-entry and anti-recidivism work, that is a fact. Second, is we have a ton of open jobs in tech today and a high demand for those skills. And third, and most importantly, tech programming. Programming is built on the foundation that it doesn't matter what you look like, where you're from, how you dress. If you can write good code, you can get a job. I mentioned this before, but I'm the co-founder of Unloop. And we are working today to enable people who have been in prison to succeed in careers in tech and break down that cycle of recidivism, right? Last year, I went to prison for the first time in my life as a visitor. And I visited a programming class that exists today at Clawland Bay. I met people who had built a first person 3D shooter video game from scratch, a file sharing app from scratch, all without internet, without Stack Overflow. I know. I know. A clause is not for me. I could not do that, right? I met folks who would take programming books back to their cells at night to pound before the next day. I cannot tell you, impress is not enough. I cannot tell you how impressed I was with that class and how motivated I was to give what resources I had to them. You see, and I thought about this a lot on the drive back because it's about four and a half hours. Prison is never anywhere close. And I thought about this a lot. A lot of thoughts and, of course, a lot of feels. And I thought about what I could do with that motivation because as brilliant as I found that class, they still faced so many barriers. First of all, they were limited to one year education under vocational education, which is what programming falls under, conveniently. Second of all, they were isolated from the tech industry. Besides having no internet, it's also very physically isolating. And because no one thinks about prison, folks don't visit. In the three years of having a class out there, we were the first folks to go out. David, my co-founder, right there. First person to go out and visit them. And you can imagine that writing code, you're sitting in a box. You're isolated. You have no idea what you're learning is the right thing. You have no idea if you're actually good at it.  You're being paid to be here. I don't know what you're telling me is the truth. And then you get folks to come from the outside and say, yes, it is. And third, even overcoming both of those obstacles and still learning to code and being awesome programmers, there are still this thing that exists, which I call a chasm. But basically, it's getting out and facing incredibly high obstacles to succeeding in tech. And lastly, outside of this class, it's kind of one of a kind. There are, I think, only a couple coding classes in prison in the US today. And so coming away from that class, it seemed very clear that the aptitude and the ability and the motivation and the desire is there. And what was needed was more resources and expansion of opportunity. So fast forward a little bit. I am back in prison.  And we taught introduction to programming with these robots. This student programmed her robot to follow a line, to avoid obstacles, to flash lights as obstacles approached.  Fast forward a little more. That workshop turned into a series of workshops at different prisons until today when we were running computer programming classes in prison right now, like literally right now they are in class building web apps. It's great, right? And I wish that they had internet in prison. I wish that all the time, but I wish it right now because I wish that they could Skype into this talk so they could hear me brag about it. Because it's one thing to see a problem, recidivism, and envision a solution, economic empowerment and personal empowerment through tech. And it's another thing completely to see someone sharp and motivated seize that opportunity and make the very most of it that they can. I'm constantly struck by this understanding I'm constantly struck by this untapped intellectual and creative potential that we have behind bars right now in Washington and in our country, right? And that potential often feels like it is without opportunity and set up for failure. Now, we're working today to provide that opportunity. I personally really don't think on the front end it's that difficult. We are working to set up further education programs both in prison and outside of prison. We are running a boot camp beginning of 2017. We're working to set up a dev shop on the inside so that folks can get the work experience and the skills they need to hit the ground running when they get out. And third and most importantly, we are building a model for ongoing community support. And when I say community, I'm looking at you guys, right? We are the community. And because in tech today, we talk about diversity all the time. Everyone's buzzword, swear to God, right? But what do we really mean when we talk about diversity? Because if what we're talking about is the inclusion of all peoples and all populations and the representation of all peoples and all populations, then we are leaving a group out of that conversation altogether.  Thank you. Right? Okay, cool. Shucks. And so going forward and leaving this room, I have a couple ways to ask you to be that community support. And when I say community support, I don't mean money, you can give us money, money's great, you're welcome to give us money if you want to. But what I'm really talking about is getting involved. And there are a number of different ways to do that. Volunteer, volunteer one of our classes and one of our workshops. You can volunteer as a mentor for one of our education programs. And most importantly, you can be a part of that community support. And that's what I mean by that is starting that conversation. If you are an employee, that's starting that conversation in your workplace. Do we hire folks with backgrounds? Why not? Have we talked about it? And if you're an employer, that's providing an opportunity. And when I say provide an opportunity, I'm not going to hand out a promised job. I'm talking about an interview and a fair shot. Right? What all of us want, right? So, and lastly, I invite you guys here who are listening to come to prison with me. I will take you inside, I'll take you back outside at the end of the day. Come meet our students. They are the best. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.