Columbia, Houston, two minutes to a Tiedra cell O.S., we'll pick you back up at 12 hours 21 minutes. Just a minute, see you then. Roger, I'm Berto, and if you would tell Scott, we have an answer for his CPA readings whenever he'd like to hear it. Go ahead, Columbia. Congratulations to the appointing folks. They got that B vector almost perfect. Okay, we'll pass that on. We suspect they'll be back shortly. Yeah, we'll make here be a little better here too. Don't forget to get down, son. Okay, we'll go take care of that if you say so. In Columbia, Houston, two minutes to a Tiedra cell O.S., we'll pick you back up on the west at 13 hours 56 minutes. And on the other side, you'll be talking to the Orbit 4 folks with Story and John at the helm. Real pleasure, and thanks to all the folks down there. It's been real smooth. And we look forward to talking to someone who does do outside windows. Thanks. They're in the flight plan at 18 hours even. You have a goal for the satellite battery heater activation. We have a goal for satellite battery heater activation. Thank you. The process of reconfiguring for KCA Ops, we're going to be uplinking the DDS, DDCS timeline files for your one day late deploy. And I've got a procedure to read to someone. One minute, Orbit, you get ready. Gain is plenty in time. Columbia, Houston, you are go to un-latch the satellite. Okay, Dave, welcome aboard and go to un-latch. Bye, Muritio. Columbia, you are go for satellite attitude verification, 3-14. Go ahead, Muritio. Houston, we're going to go ahead and begin black as a disregard. Copy, and Andy, confirm you are. Go for three alpha. Got TV now. That's just 10. Looking good. That's just spectacular. It's better in the middle. Columbia, there are no updates to the flyaway timing window. Columbia, Jeff, Chuck says he likes this image of the satellite and the earth much better than on 46. We'll see if we can keep it that way, okay? It is just a spectacular view. We're hoping that the view will be the most spectacular and exciting part of all this, at least for a while, until the science starts coming in. Houston, we're standing by at the clusters on it a minute and a half. Concur? We have motion, flyaway looks nominal. Turn the inline one off, we're putting the satellite in your hold. There's a slight drift towards the orbiter starboard, and Andy's controlling it. See it, Concur. Great view of the tether in the satellite, just coming through very clearly. There's a small burrow in the tether, and that kind of started when the inlines went off, and it's just a little bit of low tension there, but it's still working pretty stable.


Upon our bed the worn bride linen lies, I have put the death money upon your eyes, so that you should not wake up in the night. I have bound your face with white. I have washed you, yes, with water and not with tears. Those arms wherein I have slept so many years, those feet that hastened when they came to me and all your body that belonged to me. I have smoothed your dear dull hair and there is nothing left to say for you and nothing left to fear or pray for you, and I have got the rest of life to bear. Thank God it is you, not I, who are lying there.  If one must bear it, thank God it was I who had to live and bear to see you die, who have to live and bear to see you dead.  So soft in the grave you will not miss my breast, but I, but I, your pillow and your place and only the darkness laid against my face and only my anguish pressed against my side. Thank God, thank God that it was you who died, Chloe. Night wind sighing through the poplar leaves, trembling of the aspen, shivering of the willow, every leafy voice of all the nighttime grieves, mourning, weeping over Chloe's pillow. Chloe, fresher than the breeze of dawn, fairer than the larches in their young spring glory, brighter than the glowworms on the dewy lawn. Hear the dirge the green trees sing to end your story. Chloe lived and Chloe loved, she brought new gladness, hope and life and all things good to all who met her, only dying wept to know the lifelong sadness, willed against her will to those who can't forget her. Invocation Come tonight in a dream tonight, come as you used to do. Come in the gown, in the gown of white, come in the ribbon of blue. Come in the virgins' colors you wear, come through the dark in the dew. Come with the scent of the night in your hair, come as you used to do. Blue and white of your eyes and your face, white of your gown and blue, will you not come from the happy place, come as you used to do. Tears so many, so many tears, where there were one so few, can they not wash the gray of the years from the white of your gown and blue? The last betrayal, and I shall lie alone at last, clear of the stream that ran so fast, and feel the flower roots in my hair and in my hands the roots of trees, myself frapped in the ungrudging peace that leaves no pain uncovered anywhere. What! This hope left, this way not barred. This last best treasure without guard. This heaven free, no prayers to pay. Fool, are the rulers of men asleep, thou knowest what tears they bade thee weep. But when peace comes, tis thou wilt sleep, not they. A prayer for the king's majesty. 22nd January 1901 The queen is dead, God save the king. In this his hour of grief, when sorrow gathers memories in a sheaf to lay them on his shoulders as he stands, inheriting her glories and her lands. First gain of his at which his mother's voice has not been first to bless and to rejoice. A man set lonely between gain and loss. O words of love the heart remembereth, almighty loss outweighing every gain.  O God, who seeest the tears thy children weep. O God, who countest each sad heartbeat, see how our king needs the grace we ask of thee. Thou knowest how little and how vain a thing is empire when the heart is sick with pain. God save the king. The queen is dead. The splendor of her days, the sorrow of them both alike merge now in the new Oreo that lights her brow. The clamour of her people's voice and praise must hush itself to the still voice that prays in the holy chamber of death.  Her people's heart wears black. The black bells toll unceasing in their ear and on the gold sun's track the great world round like a black ring the voice of mourning goes to leave in our ancient foes with eyes downbent and brotherly bared head keep mourning watch with us. This is the hour when love lends all his power to speed grief's arrows from the bow of death when sighs are idle breath when tears are fountain's vein she will not wake again not now not here oh great and good and infinitely dear oh mother of your people sleep is sweet no more life's thorny ways will wound your feet oh mother dear sleep sound when you shall wake your brows freed from the crown that made them ache so many a time and where the heavenly crown then then you will look down on us who love you and remembering the love of earth will breathe with us our prayer our prayer prayed here join to your prayer prayed there who knows what radiant answer it may bring God save the king the queen is dead God save the king from all ill thought and deed from heartless service and from selfish sway from treason and the vain imagining of evil counselors and the noisome breed of flatterers who eat the soul away God save the king from loss and pain and tears such as her many years brought her from battle and strife and the inmost hurt of life the wounds that no crown can heal no urban robes conceal God save the king God by our memories of his mother's face by the love that makes our heart her dwelling place grant to our sorrow this desired grace God save the king the queen is dead God save the king this is no hour when joy has leave to sing only admit our tears we are bold to pray more boldly and that we pray sorrowing in this most sorrowful day God who was of a mortal mother born who driest the tears with which thy children mourn God save the king look down on him whose crown is wet with tears in which its splendor fades and disappears his tears our tears tears out of all her lands the queen is dead God strengthen the king's hands God save the king true love and new love over the meadow and down the lane to the gate by the twisted thorn your feet should know each turn of the way you tried so many many a day before the old love was put out of its pain before the new love was born kiss her hold her and fold her close tell her the old true tale you ought to know each turn of the phrase learn them all in the poor old days before the birth of the new red rose before the old rose grew pale and do not fear I shall creep tonight to make a third at your trist my ghost if it walked would only wait to scare the others away from the gate where you teach your new love the old delight with the lips that your old love kissed death never again no child shall stir the inmost heart of her and teach your heaven by that first faint stir no little lip shall lie against her breast save the cold lips that now lie there at rest no little voice shall rouse her from her sleep and bid her wake to pain her sleep is calm and deep call not refrain close in her arm as though even death drew back before the face of motherhood in this white stilly place together bud lies waxen white and cold as ever a flower in your winter gardens hold she bore the pain she never wore the crown she worked the bitter charm but all she won thereby is here laid down renounced for good or harm dream feature soul with dreams while we must starve our hearts on clay dream of a glorious white winged sun crowned day when you shall see her once more face to face besides Christ mother in the blessed place but while you dream they carry her from here the black bells toll and toll oh god if only she cannot see your here not hear those ghoul like bells that crowd so near not see that cold clay hole in memory of Soretta deacon who died on October 25 1899 there was a day a horrible autumn day when from her home the home she made for hours and that day made a nightmare of white flowers and folk in black who whispered pitying Lee they carried her away and left our hearts all cold and empty yet was such a store to hold a sudden grief the slow drop still ooze out and falling on all fair things they wither these tears came with time but not with time went by and still we wander desolate about the poor changed house the garden and the croft warm kitchen sunny parlor with the soft intolerable pervading memories of her whose face and voice made melodies sweet unforgotten songs of mother love dear songs of all the little joys that were we see the sun and have no joy thereof because she gathered in her dying hands and carried with her to the fair Farlands the flower of all our joy because she went out of the garden where her days were spent and took the very sun away with her the cross stands at her head over her breast that loving mother breast close buds of pansies purple and white are pressed it seems a place for rest for happy folded sleep but not there not there not there our hardest tears are shed but in the house made empty for her sake here in the night intolerable wake the hungry passionate pangs of love still strong to fight with death the bitter slow night long then the rich price that poor love has to pay is paid slow drop by drop till the new day with thin cold fingers pushes back night's wings and drags us out to common cruel things that sting and barb their stings with memory oh love and is the price too hard to give thine is the splendor of all things that live and this thy pain the price of life to thee the sacrament that binds to the beloved the chain that holds though mountains be removed the portent of thine immortality so in the house of pain imprisoned we endure our bondage and work out our time nor seek from out our dungeon walls to climb bondsmen who would not if we could be free thank God our hands still hold loves cord and she do not her hands still clasp the cord we hold drawing a sneer coiling bright fold unfold till the far day when it shall draw a sneer to the sight of her her living hands her dear tired face grown weary of watching for our face and we shall hold her in the happy place and hear her voice the old same voice we knew our children I am tired of wanting you or in some world more beautiful and dear than any she ever even dreamed of here where time has changed does she await the day she longed for and so little a while away when all the love we watered with our tears shall bloom transplanted by the kindle years dreaming through her new garden does she go remembering the old garden long ago tending new flowers more fair than those that grow in this sad garden where such sad flowers blow and fondly touching bud and leaf and shoot training her flowers to perfect branch and root does she sometimes entreat some darling flower to wait a little for its opening hour can you not hear her voice I'm not today while my dear flowers my own are far away be patient bud tomorrow soon will come ah blossom when my little girl comes home but now but here the empty house the always empty place the black remembrance that no night blots out the memories white unbearable and dear that no white sunlight makes less cruel and clear the resistless riotous route of cruel conquering thoughts the night the day love is immortal this the price to pay worse than all pain it would be to forget on love's brave brow the crown of thorns is set love is no niggered though the price be high into God's market love goes forth to buy with royal mead God's greatest gifts and gain love offers up his whole rich store of pain and buys of God's loves immortality for Dorothy 18th August 1900 a party I will not wake you dear no tears shall creep to chill the still bed where you lie asleep no cry no word shall break the sanctity of the great silence where God lets you lie I will not tease your grave with flower or stone you are tired my heart you shall be left alone and even the kisses that my lips must lay upon the mold of the triumphant clay shall be so soft like those a mother lays upon her sleeping babies little face you will not feel my kisses will not hear you are tired sleep on I will not wake you dear but when the good day comes you will hear me cry I'll make a little place where I can lie and have awakened you will feel me creep into the folds of your familiar sleep and draw them round us with a tender moon how could you let me sleep so long alone end of chapter 9 recording by Anna Lisa Bodker end of the rainbow and the rose by Enes bit


Guys, welcome to another episode of Basley the Quick One. Today I will be breaking down a song for you, More Than Anything by Lamar Campbell. This song has helped a lot of bass players, a lot of musicians. It has helped a lot of musicians generally when it comes to creating passing notes, when it comes to creating licks, when it comes to syncopation, intro and everything. This song has really, and it has helped bass players a lot. Okay, I'm one of them. This song has helped me, this song helped me when I was trying to still learn how to score song or follow progression or creating passing notes and things like that. This song helped me back then. Okay, so and I'm grateful to them. Okay, so I'm going to be showing you everything I did on the song. Okay, I'm going to spell out the chord progression for you. You know, there are two chord, basic chord progression there on the song. There are two chord progression. The progression on the verse started from the one chord. Why the progression on the chorus started from the four chord. And that's just it. Now I'm going to break everything for you. Okay, so the key of the song is on A-flats. Okay, which is also known as my G-sharp. Okay, so every of the chord progression are found on this A-flat major scale. Okay, now I'm going to start with the verse. I'm going to spell out the progressions for you. So this is the progression I will be using number to call them out. Okay, and the next chord progression I'm going to C-x, then flat five, four, that is it. Then four, then seven, seven, six. That is it. Okay, so I'm going to play this song. Like I said, it opens your eyes to things.  So if I'm going to my three, I can do this. One. You see, I'm playing there. Then six, then I'm going to three, then flat five, four, because of you, three, four, then that is it.  Right? That is it. Now you say, I love you, Jesus. I worship you. Then seven, one. That is it. That is it. That is the chorus. These are the basic progression of the chorus. So I can do something like this. You know, sometimes just release yourself. You know, enjoy the song, enjoy what you're doing.  Won't need to be free.  Yeah, that's it. So enjoy yourself when you play two songs. Enjoy every bit of what you're doing. So that was it there. That was just the progression. Four, then six. These are the basic progression. Seven, then one. I'm going back to four. You see, the two basically I want to share with you that I did. Let me score the note out. Remember the key we are playing the song on. A flat. Now this is it. This is your A flat again. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, one. So I started from the six I did. Six, one, three, six, seven, eight. Six, seven, nine, nine, six, seven. Hammer on and pull off on the seven. Then I climbed back to six. Six, seven, three, one, seven, six. That is what happened there. The second movement I did, I did something from the two. This is my one. This is my two. I did leading me to my four. With the ghost note. Five, six, two, six, two, five, two, five, one. The second movement I did, I did something one, four, one, right. Five, one, five, four. That is it. That's the pattern. Look at the finger. Now this is my one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. The second that is what happened there that was the movement I did leading me to my four chord okay so there's another movement I did again leading me to my four chord so let me show you that one. This is it watch it that movement I did there was the leading mode this is my four one two three four four and the harmonize the four that is what happened there four three two one seven six five four. Let me take all the move again that is it okay so enjoy have fun okay I hope you got one or two things today if you new to this channel please do not forget to hit that subscribe button looking at you man hit that subscribe button looking at you and turn on the notification bell click on all okay so that you will be getting every of the video I upload okay and if you need private lessons from me every information is right there on the screen or right there in the description below okay chat me by WhatsApp send me an email indicating you want to join my zone private lesson yeah that is it and that's all for today I will see you in my next video bye


But in any case, for non-business bad debt, all other bad debts or non-business bad debts are deductible as short-term capital losses on Form 8, 9, 4, 9, Schedule D Form 1040. So you can look there for more detail, but we're focused here on, of course, the business bad debt. If it was a business bad debt, you would think the debt arose from some type of business activity, possibly through providing goods and services. So business bad debt, a business bad debt is a loss from the worthlessness of a debt that was either of the following. One, created or acquired in your business, or two, closely related to your business when it became partly or totally worthless. So a debt is closely related to your business if your primary motive for incurring the debt is a business reason. So why did you take, why did the debt happen? Business, business reason happened. That's why the debt happened. So for example, you might have done work and so they owed you money and there is it is. So business bad debt, bad debts are mainly the result of credit sales to customers. A credit sale meaning not necessarily that they paid you with a credit card. Debt and paying for credit card debt with worse credit card. Card, right? It means that you did work and instead of them paying you at the point in time that you did the work, they're going to pay you in the future. It's an accounts payable kind of transaction. You did work on credit. You've got the bar tab going. You gave them a tab of credit in the future. You sent them for example and invoice. We did the work. Here's the invoice. We expect payment in 30 days or whatever. So they can also be the result of loans to suppliers, clients, employees or distributors. The goods and services. So now we've got a loan that's gonna be a business kind of related to loan to suppliers, clients, employees, distributors. Goods and services that customers have not paid for are shown in your books as either accounts receivable or as notes receivable. So from an accounting standpoint, this would be an accrual thing because if you make sales on account, that means that you're not getting paid at the point you do the sale. So it's not like a restaurant situation. You're not getting paid at the point you do the sale, but rather you have to do the work first like a law firm, accounting firm. You do the work, invoice to client. Then you have to track whether or not they're gonna pay you, which means you usually track that in accounts receivable which by its very nature is an accrual type of thing.  You've recorded the revenue when you did the work, but you hadn't yet received the money. And then of course the question is what if they don't pay you the money in the future? Then you've recorded revenue already and you got to account for the fact that you've recorded revenue in the past, which might be an expense in the future. So if you are unable to collect any part of these accounts or notes receivable, the uncollectible part is a business bad debt caution. You can take a bad debt deduction for these accounts and notes receivable only if the amount you were owed was included in your gross income either for the year the deduction is claimed or for a prior year. That's the point because in an accrual accounting system, you would have recorded the income like if you use QuickBooks or something, when you make an invoice, billing a client or a customer for work done in the past, that's when it records revenue. The revenue is what you're being taxed on. Revenue is bad for taxes. So if in the future they don't pay you the accounts receivable, then you have overstated in essence your revenue in the past paying taxes on it. So that's when you would then be able to possibly get a bad debt expense to compensate for that in the current time period. If you didn't record revenue in the prior period because even though you're tracking accounts receivable, you're still doing a cash based system for some reason somehow, then you wouldn't get an expense to negate the revenue you recorded in the past because you didn't really record the expense because you didn't record the revenue until the point in time that you're gonna receive the cash. Okay, so accrual method. If you use an accrual method of accounting, you normally report income as you earn it. You can take a bad debt deduction for an uncollectable receivable if you have included the uncollectable amount in income. That's what we just talked about. Cash method, however, if you use the cash method of accounting, you normally report income when you receive it. You cannot take a bad debt deduction for amounts owed to you that you have not received and cannot collect if you never included those amounts in income. So again, that would be unusual in a business. Business is business. Where you invoice clients and have to track the accounts receivable, you would most likely be using an accrual method in that case. But if for whatever reason you were using a cash method, even though you're invoicing the client, you would never have recorded the revenue and therefore shouldn't have an expense to negate the revenue because you didn't record the revenue because you never got the cash in the first place. So more information. For more information about business bad debts, you could see chapter 10 of publication 535 if you wanna dive into that in more detail. Notice that the reporting of accounts receivable can be a little bit complex if you just think about it in terms of like accounting methods to report accounts receivable. Small businesses oftentimes will simply be reporting the accounts receivable as the invoice clients. And that's when they'll be reporting revenue and then as the bad debts become due, then you may be able to write them off as bad debt expense when they happen in the future. That's called a direct write-off method from an accounting standpoint. You may also have heard of an allowance method just from an accounting standpoint. And that's a system in which you all have a balance sheet. If you look at the balance sheet, for example, you've got accounts receivable on the balance sheet and you know that some of those accounts receivables aren't gonna be collectible. You don't know which ones aren't, but you can estimate based on prior history that some of them are gonna be bad debt expenses. So you might then think that you should, to properly report your books, come up with some kind of estimate to determine how much of the accounts receivable are uncollectible and how much of the sales that were made in the current timeframe aren't really sales because you're not gonna be able to collect on them and try to record the estimate for the uncollectible portion. And then if you do that method, then you've got an issue that you've gotta say, okay, is there a difference between what I have to do for taxes versus financial reporting? That might be a generally accepted accounting principle thing to do if you are a publicly traded company, for example, and then you gotta think about what you have to do for taxes in that event as well. But for most small businesses, you're gonna be, they enter things for accounts receivable. If they use QuickBooks, for example, when they invoice someone, you record accounts receivable and income is recorded at that point in time. If they're never gonna get paid, if you determine that a receivable is not going to be paid, then the thing to do is typically to write it off to bad debt and that's a direct write-off type of method. So non-business bad debt. All other bad debts or non-business bad debts are deductible as short-term capital losses on form 8, 9, 4, 9, Schedule D. So if you had a bad debt, other than that's not business related to it, then you can take a look at the rules for the Schedule D. So for more information on non-business bad debt, you can see publication 550.


Hello and welcome to another edition of let's talk ETC. I'm your host Christian Severino and today I have a special guest with me Steven Kinzella. Did I pronounce your name correctly? No, it's Stefan Kinzella but that's close enough. Okay, Stefan Kinzella and so I think you'll agree he's a will be an interesting guest for us. He is, let me read his part of his Wikipedia page. So Stefan Kinzella is an American intellectual property lawyer, author and deontological anarcho capitalist. He attended Louisiana State University where he earned a bachelor of science and master of science in electrical engineering. So he does have knowledge definitely of technical aspects and a jurist doctor from the Paul M. Hebert Law Center and he also obtained an LLM at the University of London. He was formerly an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Meisius Institute, faculty member of the Meisius Academy and he also co-founded the Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom, C4SIF, of which he is currently the director. So wow, welcome and congrats on that very impressive resume. Thank you very much. So the reason I thought it would be interesting to have you on the show and and and I think the audience would agree. So a lot of people get into blockchain technology and Ethereum Classic, which is one of the main focuses of the show because they have libertarian leanings. That's not a requirement but I do notice it attracts a lot of those people and they were all or most of us are technically minded and so a lot of times people will say things and I'll wonder us well you know is that is what you're saying really backed up by do people that know about the law and economy more than developers would they agree with the things people are saying and so that's why I think you're a very helpful guest because you bring that that side of things. We don't usually discuss things with with lawyers and people that know so much about the economy so why don't we why don't you why don't we start with why don't you describe from your website what a deontological libertarian is now on when I search for that on Wikipedia it came up that it was a the same thing as a natural rights libertarian. So can you kind of talk about that? Sure well keep in mind that I didn't write that page so that's someone else's description. I don't strongly disagree with it but I think what the person writing that was trying to get at was there are there's considered to be two basic types now there are some people that think there are three or more but two basic types of approaches towards say ethics okay and to simplify their empirical slash utilitarian and natural rights slash deontological okay so the so the first would be kind of a consequentialist approach which is basically we're in favor of rules in society and laws that lead to the greatest benefit for society in general right yeah and that's sometimes called utilitarianism it's an empirical approach that a lot of economists favor like they try to say should we adjust the tax code this way should we have this kind of law who's going to benefit who's gonna hurt and we sum this up and we try to do the overall best good for society okay all right and then the deontological approach and by the way people that are familiar with the philosophical idea of ontology which is the philosophical study of the types of things that exist the words sound similar but they're actually have nothing to do with each other to deontology and ontology have like literally nothing to do with each other okay deontological just means a an approach that is more rule or principled based and that's why it's more geared towards the natural law so the idea is that we're in favor of rules that are right no matter what the consequences okay so that's the kind of classical division now someone like me I wouldn't really I don't actually think there's a division I think that the rules that are right and good sort of blend with and and compliment the rules that lead to the best results for society on average so I wouldn't really distinguish between the two I think people call me a deontological anarchist and libertarian because I've written I've written in the tradition of on Rand who's sort of an Aristotelian natural rights theorist and Rothbard who was in the natural rights tradition but I myself have been more influenced by Mises Ludwig von Mises in economics who's an Austrian economist and by Hans Hermann Hoppe who is a German Austrian economist who has been influenced by Rothbard and Mises but his his theory of rights is sort of a blend of consequentialism and and the natural rights approach so we can get into that if it's interesting but basically I I prefer to view my approach as logical and consistent and principled so we you talk to other human beings that we live with the ones that share similar values basic values like peace prosperity cooperation and we say listen if you apply the rules of economics and logic and consistency and honesty and and evidence to these things what would what would that lead you to conclude so if we all are in favor of each other prosper prospering and you know everyone doing better in life and we have some awareness of the laws of economics the basic laws of economics then what what kind of like laws would we be in favor of what kind of legal policies would be would we be in favor of okay so you want me to answer that so okay so two general classes of answers that I that I hear to your question is there's the camp that says that we give everybody we respect that everyone's freedom and we leave people alone that's what I think of when I think of libertarianism I I'm a simple guy only I think in simple definitions that's how I would your your definition was obviously much more sophisticated than mine but I that's like a broad category and then I I other people seem to want to focus on taking care of people what yes what we would call the socialistic approach perhaps and those are kind of the two big answers that I see and they're always okay in conflict maybe not all the time but but they those are the kind of the biggest two divisions that I see would you agree with that I see I think I think from the perspective that that I come from we don't we don't agree with all these bifurcations exactly because we see that there are loaded presuppositions in the way that these things are framed and and so it depends upon who works which audience we're speaking to right but if if yeah if I'm talking to someone that just is like dabbling in this or has an experience the libertarian perspective on things then that perspective that you just put out so we would say that's a false dichotomy that that first of all there's no conflict between rights and there's no conflict between the desire to help people and the desire to protect people's individual property rights we think that those things go together but there is a conflict between the idea of having a legal right say a legal right to be taken care of and a legal right to your property they do they do run in conflict with each other because and this this goes into what libertarians sometimes emphasize the distinction between negative and positive rights so basically libertarians tend to say that we believe in negative rights and and and the corresponding negative obligations which means that um you have a right to do whatever you want within your own territory basically and your own property your own body as long as you don't invade someone else's rights which is sort of what you stated earlier as the kind of rule of thumb way of looking at it right and that could be viewed as a negative right because the only obligation or duty that it imposes upon your neighbors is for them not to do something all they have to do is not invade your property they have to not hurt you they have to not you know steal from you they have to not invade your property so the only burden you impose upon them is to just not do something to refrain from doing something I see but if if you believe in positive rights which is the right to be educated the right to a house the right to food okay right these kinds of things that requires that someone else has to have an obligation or a duty to provide you with it so if you have a right to an income that means other people have the obligation to give that to you but that means that you have a right to their property right so so there's always a conflict between the right that you have to your property and other people's rights to try to get a piece of it okay positive welfare rights okay so if I if I understood you correctly you two of the points that you made were that you don't like these these some of these words that get banded about because they they come with baggage and so we wanted you sound like you're obviously very precise on the language that you use which is good and then also you said that the conflict between the two major camps comes whether we're obligated to do something or simply simply have a right to be protected from doing something but that it's the duty if we the whether how much duty we have is the difference would that be a correct way to summarize well or it's the type of duty is it is it the duty or the obligation to refrain from doing something or is it the duty to provide someone with something right so it's it's easy to just mind your own business and stay within the borders of your own property and if you want to cross the boundaries of someone else's property basically and use their property you need to get their permission you can't do it without their consent right so all you have to just refrain refrain from crossing their property borders without their permission and if you think of it in the simplest in the most basic case of human bodies right human bodies are a type of scarce resource and the basic libertarian axiom would be self ownership so every person owns their body okay right which means the opposite of slavery because slavery means someone gets to own someone else's body or in the case of say sexual relations can a man have sex with that woman's body whose decision is it is it the woman's decision or is it the man's decision right and so the the locus of control has to be with the actor himself that controls that body and then libertarianism is just an extension of that basic idea the idea that we are self owners that we own our own bodies that slavery is impermissible extending that to other things in the world that we control and use as extensions of our self so basically people have a natural intuition intuitive opposition to slavery they have a natural intuitive belief in self ownership by and large people that don't want to dominate each other people that think that it's wrong to stab someone or kill them or mug them or attack them without their consent we just extend that consistently to other scarce resources in the universe right now um now to be honest i so i don't have an economics degree so i when i listen to the libertarian arguments they sound the most compelling to me personally and this this isn't an argument in support of socialism but i do see on tv that there are people that have pretty impressive credentials that disagree with libertarianism and so you would think that they would know better if they're if indeed they're wrong and so let me ask you this have you heard any good arguments on the other side arguing against libertarianism because there are some smart people i think you would agree that yes so it's it's not just you know a bunch of knuckleheads that so what would you say to to that well so i believe there's there are some positions that there are really no good arguments against so for example um the drug war or intellectual property for example which are two of my libertarian positions so i believe that all patent and copyright law should be abolished and all sort of drug war is completely illegitimate and so is to say constriction the draft for for for war i don't think there are really any good arguments for that but for the state itself for like a minimal state that does some functions instead of an anarchist position which is what i hold yes i think there are some honest arguments for that and there are some decent arguments for that i think they're flawed but i don't think they're they're crazy so for example you know you could argue that if we live in a world as we do today where there are states like china and russia and other states if the u.s were to become anarchist what would happen if china were to threaten us with nuclear annihilation what would happen to this anarchist regime maybe they couldn't defend themselves right so that's a difficulty that anarchist theory has to has to grapple with and there are other arguments like that so i don't i don't deny that there are some honest disagreements about the basics um but the farther you get away from a minimal state say the argument that robert nozick argued for like instead of having anarchy we should have a minimal state or an ultra minimal state or what some libertarians call the night watchman state the farther you get away from that and the more you get into the modern democratic welfare state which has broader and broader powers and unlimited taxing power right to conscript people for war the right to throw people in jail for smoking marijuana the farther you get away from the core functions that you could argue for as a public function the the more indefensible those arguments become i believe okay that makes sense um um now i'm glad you brought up the term i think you said anarchist or anarcho capitalist because that was yes yes so they're different types of anarchists and i'm an anarcho capitalist or an anarcho libertarian now i yeah i i i i printed that wikipedia page so let me just for the benefit of the listeners let me say what the wikipedia page said because i've heard this term and i really want to make sure to get it right and then you tell me if you agree or if you want to add to it so an anarcho capitalist advocates the elimination of the state in favor of self ownership private property and free markets and they believe that in the absence of law by centralized decrees and legislation that society tends to contractually self-regulate and civilized through the discipline of a free market and what surprised me the most or what it was shocking to me was that they they believe that courts of law will be operated privately so yes yes and and then um and then then they talked about the history murray roth bard was the first person to use the term but the question that came to my mind which i'd love you to elaborate on is if the free market sets up a court system and somebody says well i don't care what you say i'm still going to do what i want anyway how do you who who has that final authority to so how so can you kind of elaborate on on that kind of confusion that some people might have absolutely and to be honest i i do a lot of interviews and i i kind of didn't realize i was doing i didn't realize this was not a libertarian show which is fine with me it's kind of a pleasure so uh okay reorientation let me just maybe explain a couple of basics just to make sure the people are listening because if you were shocked by the private courts idea i i just dropped a while ago the idea of private you know the idea of having no military and things like that um i mean i'm open to to i i just never heard that before right no no right so let me explain let me explain the the territory is this there you had these old oh the history is vast okay brian darti's book about about the origins libertarianism is good but basically had the old right you had the you had the they had the old liberals you had all these strains of politics from the last two three hundred years okay and i say in the in the in the fifties and sixties iran and milton freedman and these radical free market types emerged and they sort of allied to some degree with the conservatives for various tactical reasons and they're seen as allied with them now but in a way they're very leftist and very progressive because they're very pro-civil liberties anti-drug war anti-war things like this so they're really not categorized into the left-right spectrum yeah they don't they don't fit so nicely they don't fit in those those categories too well right right so we've come up with our own spectrum which you can look up the nolan chart david nolan one of the early libertarians came up with a two-dimensional chart which has two axes one axis is personal freedom and one axis is economic freedom and libertarians believe in the maximum amount of both okay whereas we would we would simplify and say liberals or leftists believe in maybe a lot of personal freedoms like free speech and things like that but not a lot of economic freedoms and conservatives would be the opposite they would believe in like low taxes but regulating abortion and religion things like that whereas we believe in high freedoms in both and the original guys sort of hark hark back to the original founding fathers of the us and they view the original founding constitution that era as more proto-libertarian because it was kind of a more minimalist government they can only regulate a little bit when these guys are what we now call menarchists which means they believe in a very minimal state that watchman state but there's emerged a more radical strain of anarchists who believe in like the government should not just be minimal but zero or the state i should say the state not the government because we distinguish between those two okay um and but there is a tradition of anarchists that has long before the 50s and long before libertarians like the left anarchists the syndicalists the socialists the communist anarchists and they all say they don't believe in the state so you basically have different types of anarchists even today and they all disagree with each other so like the libertarian anarchists of which i am apart and we call ourselves anarcho-capitalists because we believe there should not be a state and there should be a private property order okay and i'll get to the court thing in a second okay but we think that the socialist anarchists or the left anarchist are not true anarchists because the only way you could have socialism in a private system would be to have a state emerge to enforce those rules right they sort of think the opposite about us right so they think you could only have capitalism with the state to protect the right the rights of the capitalist classes against the workers etc okay so that's sort of the landscape okay now um so the idea is the idea i'll put it simply as it's possible and by the way because i'm a so-called deontological anarchist my perspective on this is not quite the same as the other type of libertarians who are more pragmatic minded so they would just say uh the state doesn't work therefore it's bad okay so and i kind of agree with that but my view is more principled and i would say that we have certain rights as human beings we have a right to private property you have a right to do whatever you want with your body and with the things that you homestead or acquire by contract peacefully without hurting anyone and anything you want to do within that sphere is fine as long as you don't invade the equal rights of other people that's basically the the core idea of anarcho libertarians okay right and if you have that framework then you basically oppose what we call aggression and aggression means the the use of someone else's property including their body without their consent okay basically means hitting someone or walking on their property without their permission right okay so we basically favor peace and voluntarism and consent and if you have that basic principle then you apply it consistently then as Bastiat the great um a french thinker um who wrote the law in the 1850s as he explained just because if something is impermissible for one person to do it doesn't become permissible when a larger number of people vote vote in favor of it so if it's wrong for me to come confiscate property right if it's wrong for me to steal from you it's still wrong if a hundred of my neighbors get together when we pass a law saying we can steal from you and give it to the poor which is like welfare right so we we think that you can't make something right just by majority vote okay and therefore the state by its nature has to tax which means take property by theft from people and it has to outlaw competing agencies okay so it has to be the monopolistic provider of law and justice and force in a given community and those two things combined and actually either one of them uh implies the other that's far afield but those two things are both acts of aggression they're basically acts of violence against innocent people who have done nothing wrong and as libertarians we say it's wrong so we say the state is inherently aggressive and criminal that's why we're anarchist because we think the state is illegitimate okay now then then the practical issue is people say well what would society look like if we abolish the state right you're right how you're gonna protect from invasion and and yes bad actors okay yeah and the pragmatic and consequentialist minded libertarians they sort of start from that area they say that well we would be better off if the government provide if the private companies provided the roads and education instead of the government and so therefore we use your favorite but from my point of view it's the other way around we say it's wrong for the government to take money from me to build a road it's wrong for the government to steal my house to make a road it's wrong for the government to force my kid to go to school it's wrong for the government to tax me and to to pay for public education so that's a that's the more deontological approach it's a principled approach it's like it's just wrong and then the question would be secondary to us of well then what would society look like in the absence of that and from our point of view this question would be similar to the abolition question of slavery during the antebellum south where if you said we have to abolish slavery not because it's inefficient right not because it's an inefficient use of resources we have to abolish slavery because it's wrong because you're violating the rights of black slaves right and if you said i am in favor of abolition of slavery because it is a violation of human rights it's wrong and if someone said in opposition but who would pick the cotton okay you see so to us that wouldn't be an opposite that wouldn't be a valid argument yes yes they said if they said who would pick the cotton if it's a genuine question we can ask we can we can we can we can say okay well we can look into that we can say well maybe but if you ask the question rhetorically into the abolition of slavery if you say like basically listen i know you want to abolish slavery but i don't understand who would pick the cotton and we have to have the cotton picked and the slaves are picking it now and so therefore until you prove to me that the cotton will be picked as well and as efficiently after slavery then as before until that point in time we're not going to abolish it the burden of proof is on you right you see we don't think that way we think that the burden of proof is on them to justify slavery and of course they can't and then if the question is okay we have to abolish slavery and who's going to pick the cotton i don't know we have to wait and see and figure it out we're okay with that answer so that's the first kind of response now of course common sense will tell you who would pick the cotton it would be you pay some labor that machines or whatever so in the case of the court system it shouldn't be that shocking to you because there have been private court systems for all of history and in fact the the entire day well yeah i mean first of all arbitration is is private yeah okay i've heard of arbitration and i never had to go through it but i uh i okay yeah i understand what you're saying and and contracts are private because they're agreements negotiated between people and they're like little legal systems between between the people that are parties of the contract and not only that the entire western legal system that we're used to now that the private law that we rely upon was developed in two great legal systems in the world one was the roman law okay and from say minus so 500 bc to 580 roughly that thousand year period and the other was the the the english common law which started maybe seven 800 years later for about a thousand years to until today and they were both basically decentralized systems they were not completely private but they were not controlled by legislation and governments as we think of today they basically were they resulted from two human beings who had a dispute and they needed this dispute resolved and they knew that fighting each other would result in social ostracism or penalties and so they had an incentive to go to some some arbiter some arbitrator who would decide the case a judge basically okay and they put their they put their dispute before them and the judge tried to find the just result or the right result and looked at precedent and tradition and expectations of the parties and natural law and common sense and made a decision and made an award you get to own this not you whatever and over time these principles developed into the body of private law that we still rely upon today right private contract law property law okay court law things like that um so the idea is that this would this is what would happen in a private law society and let me mention one more thing and then um and that is that even in today's society we have roughly 200 governments in the world so in a sense we have anarchy right now between countries now they do have treaties between each other but that's analogous to private contracts okay there's no there's no overlord government that makes all the countries abide by the treaties and we have transnational commerce you'll have a french company doing business with a tent in a belgian company or whatever right and the contracts happen to be enforced they find a way to do it through contract and through arbitration and through cooperation between the government's legal systems so it's clearly possible to have anarchy in a sense and one more thing there's a great article from the early journal of libertarian studies by alfred couson who is not a libertarian but it's a great article it's called how do we ever really get out of anarchy and he points out that within a government within a state there's no overlord enforcer that makes them comply with the rules of the government itself so even within a government you have a type of anarchy because like say the u.s. government you have the supreme court issue of verdict and richard nixon complies with it he steps down because the supreme court said you have to turn over the tapes okay right there's no pistols being pointed at him there's just an interlocking series of understandings and social traditions and understand and agreements that result in a web of law that binds the people within the government itself i mean you see this playing out right now with all these um the things with trump and the and the and the Mueller and the democrats they're all playing this dance but they're abiding by a certain set of rules that they respect okay not that these rules are valid or just or natural but that it's possible to have a set of rules that do that do bind actors within a system and we think that that's possible within society at large we just think that they should be just instead of arbitrary and based upon force okay now um if now when let me let me tell you a little bit about my simple introduction to libertarianism and then you so i i i mainly read Milton Friedman um specifically his great book free to choose which i've read twice and gone through with my well not the book but i went through the series tv series with my daughter and i watched that twice it's on youtube i highly recommend it i think he's one of the greatest intellectuals in history um but um um would you say that that is a good starting point for somebody that kind of wants to jump into and learn more about this whole discussion because he to me seems like one of the most amazing teachers i've ever heard i think he was great um my personal sort of a pantheon of a list of works i i i think is his book capitalism and freedom is really the pinnacle of what he wrote in terms of libertarianism free to choose is really good too um now he is more of a consequentialist and minarchist libertarian but yes he's fantastic and up there along with him would be henry haslett in his book economics in one lesson i think if you read one of the milton freedman books free to choose or the series or his capitalism freedom and and and um and henry haslett economics in one lesson and the very short book by frederick bastia that had mentioned earlier called the law which is like 1850 or something those three things will give you a very solid foundation mostly in consistency and economic thinking right and based upon kind of some simple principles of justice but yes i totally agree with you milton freedman is great he's not quite an anarchist but he's uh he's great okay now i'm going to put you on the spot because or here's i didn't have an answer to my own question that i thought of after i saw the free to choose series which was wow his this guy's arguments are so amazing um you could i you could almost see somebody believing you know everything he says so then it occurred to me that i should probably see the flip side and then i was trying to think is there some uh communist marxian economist that maybe did a youtube series as well that is equally particulate to just kind of get a balanced uh viewpoint or the other side so can you think of i couldn't think of anybody that was the equal of milton freedman on the other opposing side can you think of somebody just a no and and i hate these kind of questions i mean i don't blame you for asking the problem is if you don't have an answer it sounds like you're you're not being objective but um like i'm like well known to be anti i'm a patent lawyer okay and i'm against the patent system and i do lots of talks and debates and i'll get asked all the time hey cancella we want to do would you i'd like to do a debate instead of an interview could you recommend to me the top two or three people on the other side okay and unfortunately i think there are like literally no good arguments for ip so i i'm always stumbling it's not i'm not trying to sandbag it i just can't find anyone and on the question you asked as i said earlier i think there are some respectable arguments for um for for some kind of minimal state and some kinds of interventions uh not in the truce of state but if you want to go say communism or totalitarianism right against against some form of western liberalism some form of of minimal or a limited state that we have now i i think there are just no good arguments because just the empirical evidence alone there's hundreds of millions of people killed um and just impoverishment you know in the last century alone by communism and forms of socialism and i just don't i mean i think that in 1991 you know or 90 when when communism fell they they basically lost their argument in an empirical sense now in a more moderate in a more moderate form like if you argue for the welfare state yeah let's let's let's do that that's i think that probably the best arguments would be something like say francis fuki yama i don't know if you've heard of him but he had this provocative article which turned into a book in the night i think around 1991 the end of history yes the end of history and the last man okay and they sort of argue that it's sort of a neoliberal view that uh uh modern what a liberal democracy is the ultimate pinnacle of humanism and you have to have a balance between the desires of the masses but you have to have capitalism in some form as the engine from you know that provides growth and prosperity but then you have to have a state that redistributes it to it a bit so i would say and then john rawls of course is the famous political philosopher um and i'm blanking on the name of his book we had a famous book in 1970 or something uh i think it's called a theory of justice and that's and that's the book that robert knows that the famous libertarian philosopher argued against in his book anarchy state newtopia so those sort of books are the antipodes of the two views but they're all rooted in the liberal tradition in the sense that say john rawls and these welfareists believe in some form of redistributionism right but they don't believe in ultimate communism i mean you could look at hillary clinton and and and barock obama and these guys they don't really oppose the free market and capitalism they understand that you can't have communism you can't have central command of the economy they may go a little bit too far but they understand that the essential essence of the western liberal system is commerce trade private property rights free markets they just think it has to be heavily regulated by other values right the way the way i would pitch it is that like a libertarian like me i think that you should not commit aggression against someone you shouldn't steal from them you shouldn't invade their body without their permission i wouldn't say it's an absolute but it's it's basically my principle i think it's just wrong right whereas if you put it that way to the the typical social democratic type thinking person which is what most people are nowadays they would say well i think that aggression is wrong but there are other values and we have to balance and weigh and juggle these things against each other right so like equality is also important and the in some kids starving in africa give being given food is also important right i think that a lot of those concerns would be would disappear if they had a better understanding of economics like if they understood the incentive systems that governments have to come with and basically the whole field of public choice economics which explains why a lot of the grand schemes and projects that these idealistic utopian progressive dreamers want to accomplish they just cannot be accomplished because once you set a program in motion it has its own inertia and the people inside that program want to benefit themselves right right well see now you you see that's a okay so just uh if i can try to uh reiterate some of what you said so you believe in what you believe because you think it's right and but at the at towards the end of your comment you are also saying that not only do i believe it's right but it also provides the most benefit yes and that's why that's why i said earlier i don't think there's a conflict between consequentialism and between deontological or principled approaches i think they they they dovetail together but yes yeah okay so in the in the the last part of our show why don't we move into um the talking a little bit about um blockchains and uh like bitcoin so a lot of people involved with this technology i think have visions that it's going to help promote a lot of the um political and economic viewpoints that you share um and a lot of people don't know if the government's going to eventually just figure out a way to kill it and that's going to be the end of it but yeah yeah what are your what's your experience with this technology and kind of what are your thoughts on vigilante little activists well first of all i'll say that so i'm i'm of the austrian which is austrian economics which is like a hard money pro gold anti federal reserve anti inflationary money tradition and libertarian and suspicious of the government controlling money in the fed and so just from that point of view there's aspects of of just any kind of private money that attracts us right and there are some austrians who think that bitcoin is impossible because they think that money has to arise from a physical commodity i've never believed that i've always thought that this is i think that bitcoin is a new phenomenon in the world i think the the idea of the blockchain and aspects of that it built upon nick zabo's idea or are complete genius and if we knew who who satoshi was i mean he probably should get the Nobel prize someday just for the this new phenomenon and we're reaching a new stage of human evolution there's lots of things happening i think we can't predict what what's going to happen artificial intelligence 3d printing you know encryption right what doug casey calls files people ph y l e s people associated with each other not based upon their their ethnicity or their regions but upon other affinities and i think bitcoin could be extremely disruptive look i'll i'll say that i was i was i was never skeptical of it in an economic sense like some of my fellow austrians were but i was skeptical that i thought that i thought it might be a threat to the government if it ever became successful and i thought the government would shut it down i actually lost the bet against one of my friends in 2013 and i learned my lesson i paid him a hundred dollars in bitcoin which is now worth about fifty thousand dollars okay so i lost a fifty thousand dollar bet wow but i i wised up and i bought some in 2014 and so now i'm just watching what happens um and i think my hope and my my my somewhat prediction is that it's going to be something like uber like uber is something that got popular so fast that by the time it got popular enough to raise the ire of the protected industries the cab companies etc it was and who were going to lobby the government to shut it down it was too late right and i think uber has escaped the the clutches of the government because the government is slow and stupid which is one thing we have in our favor and i'm hoping that that happens with bitcoin by the time the government wakes up and tries tries to outlaw bitcoin it will be too late and also is distributed again around the world right so even if one or two or ten governments outlaw it they're just going to be left in the dust by the countries that don't and there are lots of countries that don't have the dominant world money basically everyone except for the us right smaller countries that don't they don't care if their currency is is outmoded by bitcoin so it's going to just prosper there my my guess is that bitcoin could if it emerges and gets more and more dominant it could if it if it replaces say gold and then starts it starts becoming a haven for people to resort to instead of the inflationary currencies like the dollar and the euro and others that it's going to severely limit the power of the government number one to to inflate and that's what funds government wars so it could have a direct effect on the ability of governments to wage war it could also impact the government's ability to tax people and to regulate the economy to have currency currency limitations exchanges and all that so i think it could severely it could end up being the thing that's the silver bullet or the stake in the you know stake in the in the vampire which is the state it could kill a state now this is an ambitious and utopian goal but i'm hopeful and i do think that there's huge potential for bitcoin my personal view is i'm leaning more towards the bitcoiners the ones that believe that there can only there should probably only be one in the long run it's probably going to be bitcoin because of its network effects and that uh that uh that you know i think it's going very very high in the future or i'm hoping that it will so that's kind of my thoughts on bitcoin although i admit that i'm a i'm an amateur in the uh right no that's good no that's really good what if i could just add one other supporting um uh data point to your your optimistic uh hope that this technology will get popular so fast that nobody can shut it down one when i when people when people when i get in discussions about this very thing one one thing i will remind people of is that think about hollywood and how powerful hollywood was and how hard they tried to basically re-engineer the internet to stop piracy right yes and they couldn't do it and even today they're still rampant massive file sharing and so freedom yes one out and so i use that to try to encourage people to remain optimistic that it is true that a technology can take off go ahead go ahead and not yeah so and so that's a the key point there is that all these things are basically based on technology so as i mentioned i'm a patent attorney and i'm a libertarian but i'm i think copyright and patent law are two of the worst laws that we have and should be totally abolished but i do but thankfully the advent of the internet and and and encryption and torrenting has basically made copyright almost obsolete so even if you have strict laws against it copying is going on at a rapid pace now and as i think a quarry doctor appointed out that you know the internet is a perfect copying machine and right at this point in history copying will never get harder than it is now it's it's only going to get easier so so basically technology has made copyright obsolete and i think the same thing is going to happen with patents because of 3d printing so when you have 3d printing become more uh more sophisticated and i think it might take 30 or 40 years but when you have people have a copying thing in their basement or down the block and they can get an encrypted file of a pattern for an object they can make whatever the hell they want they don't need someone's permission right right so that's going to kind of help circumvent patent law which is a good thing i believe it's also gun control as well yes it's going to circumvent gun control and lots of things it's going to cause some problems too okay but that's freedom freedom emerging and i think that bitcoin could do something similar with with money um there's a great article by one of my favorite philosophers my favorite Hans Hermann Hoppe and he's got this article called banking nation states and well i forgot the rest of the title but it's in his it's one of his books it's on his website uh hanshoppe.com and he points out that there's a systematic way that the state over time takes control of society so like it takes control of transportation so like the romans build the roads right it takes control of of the courts and law right which are kind of quasi-private and it takes control of education all the kids have to go to government schools so it is it's like an insidious way that it puts itself into society to get its tentacles of control and finally it gets control of of money in banking like like you know how the government go over money and then they cut the tide of gold and they had the federal reserve so it has these ways of warming its way to control over society right and and but to my mind that means that if you break the government's ability to control money that's going to be a key turning point i personally think that we you know we're not going to have a libertarian or anarchist revolution and when i got people marching in the streets we're not going to have a victory by means of my fellow libertarians running around handing out pamphlets to tell people to change their minds because we're always going to be a small intellectual geeky minority that's not how you do things but i think we're going to win for the same reason that communism collapsed it's just collapsed of its own weight and just because freedom is just more efficient people are just not going to need the state the state's going to the state will wither away as march predicted but not not in the way he predicted it's going to wither away in favor of freedom and capitalism as people just have so much wealth and technology they'll have little robot nano armies around them and the printers and and and and encryption and billions of dollars in bitcoin and the government will just become increasingly irrelevant that's my kind of my utopian dream and hope right right um i wonder if we can close with this if you could say something encouraging to people like me so i'm a nerd who focuses on technology and i i don't know as much about law and economics as you do but it seems to me that with with this technology people that believe in freedom um agree with a lot of your program we we can almost use technology to make the same or even a more effective change in society than than somebody that's say a politician you see what i'm saying that this is like one of the first times like i've seen that technology somebody that's involved with technology could really make big political changes it what can you what do you think about that well i i i hate to be a polyana and but i am no be feel free be honest be honest go ahead yeah like it is optimistic and and i don't like to be naive into it to say the state doesn't exist and that there aren't right setbacks but um yeah i so i agree i agree with that i think that technology is the key to the future and i think wealth is the key to the future and and we're we're at a cusp on the industrial revolution curve right so you think about human society had about the same standard of living for like 5 000 years until about 250 years ago right and then we started on this industrial revolution curve which is an exponential curve and we're we're accelerating even that now with the with potential ai with 3d printing with nano technology right with the internet with mobile technology technology we're going to have telepathy pretty soon effectively right with little things in our heads and we can and with with with this kind of money and the power of the state is going to go away and i think technology is the key to the future um i i don't want to say it's it's a given we we could have gray goo and stuff ourselves out with religious ideology and with war and with bio terrorism okay nuclear war it's possible and i i think even if we have nuclear war it'll be horrible but it'll just set back humanity for 300 years and then we'll finally re-emerge or maybe maybe 50 years so it'll be bad for us but in the long run maybe we'll survive so um i'm hopeful my only concern is that we you know what's the is it freeman dyson or someone who said or the physicists who said well where are they it's not dyson it's someone else but you know it's like we don't hear any signals from outer space so that implies that life is either very rare or it snuffs itself out i'm hopeful that it's very rare and that's why we don't hear from them but um no i'm very optimistic about i think things are getting better we're richer we're healthier we're uh and and uh uh technology is is going to enable us we're we're at the cusp of great things uh we're we're we're young gods i think i hope and our our grandchildren will be gods okay interesting interesting thought well um thank you thank you stefan for sharing your thoughts you're obviously very educated very talented person and uh yeah thank you and maybe we'll have you on the show again sometime in the future be happy to do it all right did any other last closing thoughts or comments you want to make i would just say one thing i would say that um you you mentioned you know like i sound like i'm educated on law and economics and um i would say this i i think that uh specialist you don't have to be a specialist to understand enough to understand a lot about the world right if you understand technology that's a key thing and all the rest that you need is a little bit of honesty and sincerity and consistency in your thinking and uh just a little bit of economic literacy and like i said if you just read economics in one lesson by henry haslett if you understand the law of supply and demand and a few basic laws of economics that can help inform your thinking about higher level political norms you don't need to be go to have an economics degree in fact that might might be a detriment right with the way that makes our teaching in school so it's not that hard to self educate yourself on a few basic things about economics and the basics of law you don't have to go to law school you don't have to be an economist to know enough to have an educated opinion about these matters and then the the technology is is what i would say is key the technological information immerse yourself in technology and uh i think try to take advantage of it and buy some bitcoin i would say yes all right and with that well why don't we go ahead and so we'll stop there so thank you again and uh uh best wishes to you this holiday season you too all right bye


Welcome. Our speaker today hails from North Carolina. Years ago his grandfather flew PBY's and when Eric was about 12 years old his grandfather took him to the airport where Eric met a gentleman who was building his own plane. From 12 years on Eric was lost. Eric was going to be in aviation. He graduated from his technical college and was immediately picked up by General Electric who had him on certifying new engines. Eric loves to fly and his favorite is flying aerobatics and flying antique aircraft. He has a very good, strong technical background and still his passion for flying. So today please welcome Eric Minnis. Thank you Kathleen. Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Eric Minnis. I'm with the FAA's safety team and I'm the data analyst. I also am addicted to flying as was previously mentioned and would like to talk to you a little bit today about experimental aircraft accidents, some of the causal information, how they compare to certificated aircraft and some things that you can do to minimize your risk. So let's get started. There's several generic reasons that aircraft crash. We have C-Fit, medical issues, pilot air, maintenance issues, mechanical failures, weather and none of these issues are unique to experimental aircraft. They apply to all aircraft. The main difference between standard and certificated aircraft is of course the builder. Certificated aircraft goes through a rigorous FAA certification standard and we as home builders have the leeway to experiment. We are amateurs. We're amateur builders and we make mistakes. Every one of the centers don't apply to experimental aircraft but they are a good starting point. They are an excellent starting point whenever you begin the construction of your aircraft and especially as you progress and get ready to fly the aircraft. So this next slide, whoever took this photo was thinking about me. It could be that the purpose of my life is to serve as a warning to others. That's very true.  So anyway, this is my slide. And here's another one. This is not funny, I'm going to tell you. It's not funny. So nobody laugh. Maybe it's a little bit funny. At least the guy's got a good sense of humor and he's kind of hanging out next to his airplane. That by the way was not an accident. The float simply filled with water so we can laugh a little bit. Okay, does anyone want to take a stab at guessing what these four photos are showing? Anybody? Any volunteers? I'm sorry? First fatal accident. That's exactly right. This picture is of a crash that occurred when Wilbur Wright took a gentleman, Thomas Selfridge, for a flight and they simply held on to the wing struts. And Wilbur did an investigation after the event and they deemed that the crash may have been caused by broken propeller blade. In those days they called accidents like this acts of God, as they did many auto accidents as well. However, who would have thought everyone was so amazed to be flying in those days that you would need something as simple as a safety harness or a safety belt? We really do learn from accidents and we try to pass along what we learn. Accidents are usually what generate many regulations. And again, I can totally relate to this. Whenever I'm flying I'm so into the fact that I'm actually in the air and the houses get smaller and sometimes it's easy to forget about the important stuff. In the early days 20% of all accidents were caused by pilots and 80% were caused by mechanical failures. Engine failures, airframe failures, the aircraft were not very reliable. The engines weren't very reliable. And we've made a fundamental shift now. Today less than 20% of all accidents are caused by mechanical failures. We as pilots are the source or the cause of the majority of all airplane accidents. We reached a sort of technological floor where our designs and what we know about flight, we've gotten pretty smart and we're having a hard time breaking through that technological floor. I want to share a quote. This is from Igor Sikorsky. I think most everybody's heard of Igor Sikorsky. I think he built a few helicopters. But Igor said that in the early days of aviation, the designers were also the test pilots. This had the effect of weeding out the bad designs. I like Igor. Okay, EAA. How many EAA members do we have? All right, great. Okay, this is what EAA has to say about homebuilt aircraft accident initiators. And if you look, we have the overall accident, the test period in the first flight. And we see that there's a lot of accidents happening in the first flight due to pilot miscontrol or builder maintenance error. So EAA does an awesome job of monitoring the pulse of what goes on in experimental aviation. And this is one of their charts that actually borrowed from one of their magazines. This chart shows our five year, actually six year, NTSB hit accident history for experimental aircraft only. And you can see that we have our injury codes. The blue is fatal. The maroon is serious. The beige is minor and then the light blue is no injury. You see that it's relatively flat. Each year we average about 225 experimental aircraft accidents. And about one fourth of those slightly higher are fatal accidents. As far as what causes experimental accidents, we have several different cause factors. And again, we have the fatality index that you'll see on the right side of the screen. Loss of directional control, loss of aircraft control, failure to maintain airspeed, reason for occurrence undetermined. This one really bothers me. There's a lot of events that occur that we never can figure out exactly what happened. Clarence, that's clearance with objects, clearance with trees or ground. And we have some few exhaustion accidents as well. Now, if we compare experimental accident data with certificated accident data, we do see a difference. This next chart is our certificated counterpart. And we see that they do have some directional control issues. However, very rarely are they fatal. The fatality rate is also a little bit lower. You'll notice that. If we look at phase of flight for experimental aircraft, we have a very high rate of initial takeoff and maneuvering accidents. I'm sorry. You have a question? I'm sorry. Can someone get him on my mic, please? Accidents on the ground versus in the air? Not intending to fly? The airplanes on the ground. Okay. Are they separated by the airplane beyond the ground taxi and versus flying? Accident is we use the NTSB's definition of an accident. Right. So if it falls within that based on the amount of damage to the aircraft, then it would be classified as an accident. Yeah. Okay. So if we look at this phase of flight, look at maneuvering, cruise, takeoff and initial climb. If an accident occurs in any of those phases of flight, it's highly likely it may be fatal. And that makes sense. You're carrying a lot of energy, usually some airspeed and you're away from the ground. You know, they say that landing is the only optional part of a flight, or is the only mandatory part of a flight, everything else is optional. For experimental, there's not not as many landing accidents, because the majority of the accidents happen in other than the landing configuration. Here's certificated same same data set. Most certificated aircraft accidents occurred during the landing portion of the flight. They have a very, very low fatality rate as well. Landing landing flare, landing roll, those three columns account for probably 50% of all phases of flight that accidents occur for certificated aircraft. Now, I was mentioning fatality index. Let's take a look at this chart and really study it closely. This is certificated aircraft. And essentially, if you're involved in an accident and a certificated aircraft, this this says you're 58% likely to not be injured. This is what our history shows. In 2006, 58% of all certificated aircraft accidents, no injury resulted. 19% were fatal, 14 minor and 9% were serious. For certificated aircraft, we have a 27% fatality rate if an accident does occur. So we are a little bit more likely to get hurt in experimental aircraft, the main reason being the phase of flight that the accident occurs. And we're going to talk about a lot of this, we're going to review a few case studies. And I'm going to give you some examples of things that we can do to minimize our risk. Let's let's talk a little bit about experimental accidents. Before I move from this slide. You know, I'm also flew model airplanes for a long time remote control airplanes. That's how I got started. And we had a joke that we would often say if you want to see a good model airplane crash go to a scale model builders meet because the guys spend all their time building and no time flying. Well, I suffer from that a little bit whenever I spend a lot of time building and don't fly and I go up I'm a little bit rusty. So we have that factor going for us with our experiment experimental aircraft. And experimental means just that we have the leeway to try different things. And it's a wonderful, wonderful liberty that we share in the United States that not many countries have performance of experimental aircraft. And walking the flight line this week. There's airplanes that people build in their garage that will go 300 miles per hour. That's impressive. The average cruise speed of an experimental airplane is far faster than the average cruise speed of the certificated aircraft. So things happen a little bit faster. And experimental aircraft tend to focus on all field type, grass strip type activities and aerobatics. I'm a huge fan of aerobatics. I participate in that activity and absolutely love it. However, it carries additional risk. Okay, has everyone seen this warning? This aircraft is amateur built and does not comply with federal safety regulations for standard aircraft. And had a fella recently say it far exceeds them. In some cases, it may, it may. But in some cases, it may not. And we'll show you some examples where it may not. I do like to think that everything that I've built exceeded the standards. However, I've had had a technical counselors come in and really humble me by their knowledge and my lack of knowledge. It's humbling to have someone with that level of experience and expertise critique your work. Workmanship here, walking the flight line again is often higher than anything certificated because people take so much time and pride in what they do. However, there are a few areas that we can get in trouble. Yeah, so who needs standards anyway? I love this picture, especially like his saddle on the turtle deck. That's pretty nice. And I'm not sure if that's an oxygen mask or something to prevent him from built from breathing fumes, but but I love the photo. So who does need standards anyway? You I know what this is. And he guesses fuel filter, I heard that that's right. They're important to keep our fuel clean before we get to it before it gets to the carburetor of the fuel injection system. But this one was a little bit difficult to get to it was actually located beneath the floorboards of an aircraft. There's no bypass for the filter. There's no way to drain the sediment from from this inline filter. And it got dirty. And after it got dirty, the engine quit. And the gentleman was forced to make an emergency landing and any damages airplane. So this is an example of where using the regulations as a starting point to check your designer, your build or using a technical advisor from EA to identify risk like this can can help you. Okay, this is the lead end slide to a few slides. I'm going to show you and this is a this is a case is kind of like a case study of an accident. I want you guys to stop and ask any questions. But this is what can happen whenever whenever we make a mistake. So basically, this was in the news. An aircraft designer says that he wants a new law to increase inspections on people that build their own airplanes on the inspections. Because there was a structural failure. So just keep this slide in mind. This is kind of what can happen to us as a whole to aviation as a whole when bad things happen. So this little airplane, let me get my information. I want to make sure I get everything exactly right. Kind of a cute airplane, actually. But this was one of several designs constructed by the builder. He had a few accidents in his previous designs, but he was really perfecting what he was building. He was figuring it out. Of his previously built aircraft, a couple have been sold and they have been involved in accidents as well. This aircraft in the in the photo made almost six flights. On the fifth flight, the builder experienced a hard landing. The fuel started leaking, and he didn't have any inspection panels. So so we climbed out of the aircraft and decided he needed to figure out why it was leaking. So he takes the airplane and he puts it on saw horses, and he jumps up and down and it's trying to simulate loading and unloading of the wing. He has no way to inspect the structure around where the fuel tanks exist. So he jumps up, up and down, attempting to figure out what's causing the fuel leak. And apparently he chose he couldn't find anything wrong with it. And he chose to fly the airplane again. And turning base to final his wings separated. This was witnessed by several people at the airport. And it suffered an in flight breakup, which which of course was fatal. And we won't dwell on too many of these pictures here. Let's talk a little bit about the design and what we see. And some of the pictures you can't really see this, but I want to point out something on this one. Anyone that knows anything about woodworking would know that you would want your spar to be one piece. And this one actually stops at each rib and the rib passes through this far. So you have two cap strips. And let me get my mouse back here.  It's not consistent. I have some artwork here that will help show this. It was made of three millimeter Luanne plywood from Home Depot. This is the section the ribs were actually constructed of pink foam, which is an insulation material. Foam is a common building material for experimental airplanes. It's okay, it just has to use be used properly. The right type of foam has to be used as well. Okay, here's my diagram. The yellow portion this all let yellow line represents the length the spar actually protruded into the wing. So the wing panel was 12 feet and four feet of that actually encompassed a spar. The rest was without a spar. It had five or six ribs in it. And the blue area was actually an extension that had been added to the airplane at a later point simply screwed to the tip of the wing. Now, anybody tell me what that is? Everyone knows what a g force is, right? We're all experiencing about one g right now. Well, that's the formula that we used to determine that this wing would fail at about 1.28 g. So in a 20 degree bank, the wing should have folded. And it did. So back to our airworthiness standards, FAR part 23 is what we use the agency uses to certificate or to define the certification requirements and safety requirements for aircraft. It does not apply to experimental airplanes by rule or by law. However, most of the requirements, there are excellent things to keep in mind whenever you construct your aircraft, things like seat belt circuit protection, master switches, carburetor heat lights, all those go into making your aircraft safer. I'm going to show you a few examples of some publications that are available, both FAA publications and stuff that's from the EAA from other industry support groups that is extremely useful. And the reason I urge everyone to really pay attention to this is because although our certification requirements do not apply to experimental aircraft, the laws of physics still do. And a lot of the stuff will help keep you out of trouble. So AC 4313-1B and see it and CAM-18 are some great places for general workmanship type things. This is an example that I really wish that builder of that previous aircraft would have seen. And this is a table that talks about selection of properties of aircraft wood. It's an example. It shows you the different species of wood and its strength when compared to spruce, to aircraft spruce. And so maybe if that gentleman would have known about this or seen this, he may have chosen not to use some of the materials that he used. This is an example of other information that's included in 4313. And it simply shows how to safety wire properly and how to safety objects that if they fail could endanger the safety of the flight. It shows where to look for typical bolt cracks and cracks and defects in rod end bearings. Rod end bearings are commonly used for control actuation. And they do, if constructed improperly or the improper material, they have a tendency to fail. I've actually investigated two accidents where control system failure was involved. And they also talk about repair techniques for older type aircraft. This is a really helpful resource for anyone choosing to or thinking about building an aircraft. I want to spend a little bit of time with EA's with this EA technical counselor slide and also want to mention the flight advisors. I don't know of a better program in existence to abate risk encountered by home builders than the technical counselor program and flight advisor program. And in preparing for this presentation, I was walking around. And you EA members should receive this magazine. This is April Sport Aviation. And I want to point out a couple of things. First, I want to give kudos to Brian Meyer. He's a technical counselor and a EA member and he wrote an article about minimizing risk and the timing is perfect. If you've not read this article, please read it. I'll share with you a couple of interesting statistics here. 25% of all home-built accidents happened during the first few flights. So one in four. 18% of fatal accidents involving home-built happened within the first five flight hours. Risk comes from aircraft design, construction, flight testing, normal flying and performing maintenance on your aircraft. Those are things that influence or increase or decrease the risk. And here's one. I've actually lived through this one a little bit trying to fly a new airplane that's severely out of trim and multiple axes with a rough running engine that's losing oil pressure with a scratchy radio.  And that's there's a lot of truth to that. The first flight of of any new airplane is probably the most critical that you have your ducks in a row. And the flight advisor and technical advisor programs really help you do that they help you identify your high risk areas and put in place abatement plans. It may be that you, you're not the right person to fly the airplane the first time and a test pilot should be selected. This is directly from EA's webpage. And this is from the FAA. We have specifically recognized EA's home-built programs as a major factor leading to the reduced home-built accident rate. These programs include technical counselors and flight advisors as well as the home-built aircraft council and ABDARs or amateur built designated airworthiness inspectors or representatives. This is a huge peer influenced program. And that's one of the most important things to take from this from this slide is that peer influence is much better than being afraid of the FAA your peers are more likely to be there with you more. If you wait until an FAA inspector comes to certify your airplane, there's a lot of things that we simply cannot see whenever we do that. So please involve the EAA and their home their technical counselor and flight advisor program. Poor donkey. All right, we have an AC that talks about weight and balance as well. I think that donkey would be glad if his driver would have gotten the FAA's weight and balance handbook. Weight and balance is another thing that can get you in trouble as well. And this is a good source to properly figure weight and balance for your for your home-built aircraft. We have a flight testing handbook as well. These are all excellent sources of information. This is just a collage of many industry groups. aircraft spruce is on there. I think EA that is their Sky Ranch. Several books. There's a lot of stuff available. This is actually an excerpt from EA's web page. And so is that some more design type topics. There's a lot of help available. Any questions? No questions. All right. Well, I want to thank everyone for being here. I really enjoyed having the opportunity to talk with you and share a little bit about accident. Accidents involving experimental aircraft. And I hope that you enjoy the rest of sun and fun. Thank you.


And in entertainment, singer Browner Boy has gifted 1 million Naira to celebrate his friend Pato Rankin who turned 31 last Thursday. On Sunday, Pato Rankin shared the video of Browner Boy celebrating with him at Nightclub. In the video, the Grammy award-winning singer was seen gifting Pato Rankin a world of cash after which they hugged and the former whispered into the latter's ear. Hello! Hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.