untuk ke kedua-duanya dari kedua-duanya ke kedua-duanya ke kedua-duanya ke kedua-duanya ke kompensi yang tersebar di bawah, tapi ini bukan apa yang berlaku di dalam perbincangan. Sebelumnya, kita membuat perbincangan. Jadi, aktiviti baru tidak memperkalkan sebaik-baik ujian di dalam perbincangan sebelumnya menuju kembali ke metode. Lain satu masalah yang terakhir adalah menuju kembali ke dalam masa sebagai sebuah kebiasaan belajar terutama tidak mungkin. Kenapa? Kerana untuk kembali kita kita melihat perangkatan perangkatan, tanpa membuat masa yang sering, perangkatan perlu terus menghidupi perangkatan perangkatan. Dalam perangkatan perangkatan, tetapi ini membutuhkan perangkatan yang dapat dilengar di atas. Ini bukan kekalkan, ia tidak dapat dilengar di atas. Selain perangkatan perangkatan, yang satu boleh menangis, perangkatan perangkatan mempunyai kekalkan dan mempelajari masa yang berlainan. Dan ia tidak dapat berhenti melakukan perangkatan perangkatan. Ada juga masalah yang penting pada kertas Lili Krab at House, kekalkan dan perangkatan perangkatan perangkatan perangkatan. Jadi mari kita melihat ini. Pertama, perangkatan perangkatan tidak mengubah perangkatan perangkatan. Jadi, kita memastikan kita menggunakan kekalkan untuk mengelakkan bagaimana perangkatan yang dikatakan. Kemudian kita menggunakan perangkatan perangkatan, dan kemudian kita menggunakan kekalkan. Lantuk kita sumberkan yang berbeda kita memiliki dari Also, feedback connections in the brain serve a number of functional roles. So, basically, top-down control through feedback connections has a very well established link with gain control. So, it's basically the enhancement or suppression of neural responses. So, for example, attention to a particular feature in your visual field, right? So, that's what feedback connections influence also. It also drives activity in the cortex rather than just modulate or enable it because backprop modulates or enable activity, neural responses. So, this is where Jeffrey Hinton comes in now. So, during neural information processing system 2022, right? He basically proposed this forward forward algorithm because the main problem is that backprop does not model the cortex well enough. It's very inaccurate. He wants to model something more like the cortex and also pipeline able to pipeline data. So, what is the forward forward algorithm? So, you can see, right? On the left-hand side over here, we have a default with backpropogation. That's the formal name for this learning procedure that we've always been using. So, we're comfortable with one forward pass in front, forward propagation and then backpropogation, right? However, the forward forward algorithm actually just has two forward passes, two forward propagation. That's how it works. But one of them is called the offline phase, formally named by Jeffrey Hinton. Offline phase and the online phase will come back to that later. Also, there's another difference between the two. On the left-hand side, the forward with backpropogation has only one cost function. We're all comfortable with that fact. It only has one cost function and it comes at the end evaluating how well the predicted value is in regards to the actual value. But forward forward doesn't have one cost function. It has multiple and it has a single cost function in every single layer. So, for the cost function, if you're wondering what the cost function is, it looks like this, right? The goodness function, formally given by Jeffrey Hinton, is basically just the summation of the square rectified linear neurons. So, the activated neurons are basically... So, that's the loss function. But basically, what you have to know, right? Because it will take two more. But basically, what this cost function does, the brief summary of it is that this goodness function gives us a goodness value for each layer. And we want the goodness value for each layer to be increased during the online phase. So, one of the forward passes will be called the online phase. During this phase, we want to increase the goodness value of every single layer as much as possible so that the model can differentiate real and fake data. And then for the offline phase, which is the other forward pass, it's going to decrease the goodness value for every single layer, so much so that the model can, again, differentiate real from fake data. So, this is the two different phases. So, online phase, let's get into online phase first. Okay, so it corresponds to win. And during the online phase, we only fit in real data. We'll come back to what real and fake data is later on. But you just have to know that online phase, we only fit in real data. We don't fit in fake data. And we want to, again, maximize activation in every single layer. And it is supplied. It can come from a data set or whatever. But you do have to modify it. We'll come back to that later on again. But the offline phase, basically, it corresponds to sneak, like our sneak face in our brain. And we fit in fake data during the offline phase. We never fit in real data. And then we also minimize activation, which is talked about just now or so. And we can get fake data by modifying real data or we use a generative model, basically. So this is the probability function for how the model differentiates real and fake data. So you can see, we minus off a threshold, which is a hyper parameter from the goodness value. Then we fit it into a logistic function which outputs the probability of the data being real. But what is real data? What is real data? I'm sure you're comfortable with the MNIS data set. Do you know the MNIS data set? Okay, the MNIS data set is a data set of images from zero to nine. It's all head-width. Oh, yeah, zero to nine. So this is an example of real data. So a normal image from this data set would be just a four, right? But notice something on the top left. It is a one-hot encoding label of this image based on the top left, the first 10 pixels of this image. This is real data. We basically merge both labels and features basically whatever we want to use to train the model together. We merge them together and then think data is the same thing again, but the one-hot encoding, aka the label or whatever you want to use as the label doesn't need to be one-hot encoding. It can be just a single number. Basically, that will be wrong. That's the only difference. That will be wrong. So that's called fake data. Yeah, this is the code for one-hot encoding label onto images. First 10 pixels again. Also for the forward or algorithm, right? So as I've talked about it before just now, we know that forward propagation is basically matrix-multipline the width with the inputs. Then we add bias. The width of sum of inputs. Then we feed the width of sum of inputs into an activation function to make it non-linear basically. But for forward forward, it's a bit different. So before we do all that matrix multiplication and then giving it into an activation function, we first normalize it. Why do we want to normalize it? Because if this previous layer feeds every single information into the next layer, basically the next layer can just look at this previous layer vector. This layer is a vector. We have to think of this previous layer as a vector. If we feed everything into the next layer, this next layer can just learn off the vector. It can look at the length of the vector. Again, goodness value is affected by basically the length of the vector. So if we feed the length of the vector in, it knows basically the goodness value already. So it can tell if it's fake or real data without learning at all. So this next layer basically just doesn't learn anything at all. So that's why we normalize it first. Then it becomes a unit vector. Then you have a length of one on the vector. So now you don't have any information. You're not feeding any information at all. So then the next layer will be able to learn stuff. So the MNIS data set, let's look at the fun part now. I've explained so much. Let's look at the fun part, the coding part. So this is a very simple model summary taken from TensorFlow for the MNIS data set. We're classifying. So this is how it performs up. So validation loss over training. Then validation accuracy over training. 97.5% accuracy in 21.1 second. It's pretty good. Pretty good performance. So let's look at forward-forward. First we put labels with images. Then we create negative data by randomly permutating the labels. So we are basically just gathering the labels around mixing them and then giving them to all of the images. So it's just randomly giving each image a random label. So this is training the model again. Goodness value we've talked about it before. Calculating the loss again, we've talked about it before. It makes the goodness of real data above the threshold so that the model can differentiate between real and fake data. And that makes the goodness of fake data below the threshold. Again, same purpose. Calculating derivatives. Predicting images is a bit different. It's a bit different from normal feedforward with back propagation because the way that you predict images with forward-forward is that let's let's look at Amnesty data set again. So it's handwritten digits from 0 to 9. So you have 10 labels, right? You have 10 labels 0 to 9 and basically you cycle through all of them. So 0, 1, 2, 2, 4, 5 and basically what you do with each of them is you feed them into an image. The image that you want to predict so you merge them together. You get the whole goodness value of basically that image with that label and then once you get the goodness value of all the labels along with the same image. Your prediction is just the label with the maximum amount of goodness. That's your prediction and then let's look at how it works. So same time 22.4 seconds not a big difference okay not a big difference train errors 0.09 test errors 0.09 it's not bad it's really not bad but let's look at another problem set we will be looking at two different problem set blood cell data set basically it contains all different images both those are white blood cells and this is a PyTorch CnN to classify them so it's nothing to advance or whatever it's just a normal convolutional layers pulling layers drop out layers and then feed forward layers so the loss is this not charging so we're the loss at okay the loss is 0.05 after like 1,396 seconds which is quite long and then this is the architecture for the forward forward algorithm so basically like this first one didn't work as well that it was clearly overfitting but this second architecture work better but still the train and test accuracy is not that good you can see 54% right it's really not that great however we so I tested this on the titanic data set as well and you can see that it works way better it's like 80% accuracy 80% test this is very good for something that's not using back propagation because it takes in all of the advantages from forward forward discuss all of the disadvantages from the feed forward with back propagation and it still produces quite a good accuracy on both train and essence so in the spirit of open source this is my gear hub for it and the can go for it so what are some of the advantages and disadvantages of forward forward so advantages include it can be used when precise details of forward computation is unknown because it doesn't have to perform back propagation also it can pipeline sequential data while learning this is one of the things that we learn in the context and it does not need to store neural activities or stop to propagate but obviously it has some disadvantages also right it has less generalisation power it's somewhat slower as well and it's unlikely to replace back propagation for situations where power is not an issue but if that being said there are very specific use cases for when this can be better than feed forward with back propagation that being model of learning in the context so a very good model of learning in the context and it's a way of making that's a way of making use of varying raw power and a lot of hardware without resulting read possibility this allows us to do that basically yeah and this is my github if you want to follow these are basically just two friends that helped me along very important yeah that's basically it yeah so my power is so low my battery is going to run out so basically you're saying that I can I'll need to run this I'll need to run one single support


Welcome to this lecture number 10, so we are continuing with the previous lecture, so wherein we derived an expression for the two dimensional general ground water flow equation for an isotropic aquifer, so which is of the form d square h by dx square plus d square h by dy square is equal to s by t into dh by dt where here h represents the head, x and y represents the flow directions, s is the storativity, t is the transmissivity and since there is an isotropic aquifer, the transmissivity in both the directions tx and ty are same equal to t and this dh represents the rate of change of head with time, the partial derivative of the rate of change of head with time. Suppose it is a three dimensional flow and the flow the aquifer is isotropic, so in this case there will be the third term also and so therefore this for an isotropic aquifer the general 3D ground water flow equation will be d square h by dx square plus d square h by dy square plus d square h by dz square is equal to s by t into dh by dt. So, this is the expression and obviously in this case the left hand side is denoted by del square h, so which is the combined notation for these 3 second order partial derivative terms in with respect to each of the directions and so this is when the flow is unsteady flow. So, this is of the form this is known as the diffusion equation and when the flow is steady then this dh by dt will become 0, so that the right hand side will be 0 and then this equation attains the form of the Laplace equation. So, when the flow the ground water flow is steady that case this dh by dt is equal to 0, so therefore d square h by dx square plus d square h by dy square plus d square z by I am sorry d square h by dz square is equal to 0. And obviously, so this is del square of h, so del square h which is equal to d square h by dx square plus d square h by dy square plus d square h by dz square which is equal to 0. So, this is the famous Laplace equation and so this is the general ground water flow equation, general 3D 3 dimensional ground water flow equation, here we can add one more reason 3D ground water steady flow equation for an isotropic aquifer. So, initially when the aquifer was anisotropic in that case it will be different this the terms will be different. So, for anisotropic aquifer the 3D ground water steady flow equation will be kx into d square h by dx square plus ky into d square h by dy square plus kz into d square h by dz square this is equal to 0. So, this is when the flow is steady and the aquifer is anisotropic and the flow is steady and 3 dimensional and so when the flow is anisotropic 3 dimensional through an anisotropic aquifer and the flow is unsteady. In that case the there will be the right hand term the right hand side will not be 0. So, here we can write on say for unsteady flow the 3D general ground water flow equation through an anisotropic aquifer will be this kx into b into d square h by dx square plus ky into b into d square h by dy square plus kz into b d square h by dz square. So, this is equal to s into dh by dt. So, this is the expression here the flow is unsteady and 3 dimensional and the aquifer is anisotropic. So, in that case this is the general form and when the flow becomes steady the right hand side term becomes 0 and the aquifer is isotropic in that case kx is equal to ky is equal to kz in that case it will be the Laplace equation. So, therefore, so this is how the general ground water flow equation it varies. Now, the same expression the for say in radial coordinates that is axis symmetric ground water flow. So, the axis symmetric ground water flow through an isotropic aquifer the equation will be the ground water flow equation will be d square h by dr square plus 1 by r dh by dr this is equal to s by t into dh by dt. So, this is the in the cylindrical coordinates one of the radial coordinates where r is the radial distance and h is the head and the radial coordinate and obviously, this s is the same storativity or storage coefficient t is a transmissivity. So, when the flow is unsteady. So, here ground water unsteady flow. So, and the axis symmetric ground water steady flow in the equation for axis symmetric ground water steady flow through an isotropic aquifer is d square h by dr square plus 1 by r dh by dr this is equal to 0 in this case the flow is steady. So, therefore, this dh by dt this term becomes 0. So, the right hand side becomes 0. So, this is the so, this is the obviously, the Laplace equation it is equivalent in the cylindrical coordinate system or the radial coordinate system. So, now let us consider say this is the confined ground water flow between two water bodies. So, here let us say this is the upstream water body. So, let this be x and this is x is equal to 0 and here we have the so, this is the water level at the upstream water body where the head is h 0 and of course, here we have the top and bottom confining layers that is the impervious layers of this confined aquifer having a thickness b and so, here this is the downstream water body where the head is h 1. So, this is the so, here this is the upstream water body. So, this is the downstream water body and the flow is taking place between and here let us say so, this is the general the ground between these two and obviously, so, this is how the ground water flow takes place and so, this is the hydraulic grade line and so, this is the downstream water body this is the upstream water body and so, in this case obviously, consider steady flow an isotropic aquifer and in this case this is the flow is one dimensional. So, therefore, the governing equation will be d square h by dx square is equal to 0 because the flow is only in the x direction. So, therefore, the this d square h by dy square as well as d square h by dz square. So, they will be 0. So, only we get this is d square h by dx square is equal to 0. So, this is the governing equation. So, on integration we get so, this is h which is equal to say c 1 x plus c 2 and now, we need to substitute the boundary conditions to evaluate this c 1 the constants of integration c 1 and c 2. So, the boundary conditions are at x is equal to 0 h is equal to h 0. So, therefore, h 0 is equal to c 2 the second boundary condition is at x is equal to l I am sorry here I just forgot to show this one. So, this is x is equal to l. So, this is the distance between the upstream water body and the downstream water body. So, here at x is equal to l then h is equal to h 1. So, this when c 2 is equal to h 0. So, therefore, we get the expression that is x is equal to I am sorry this h is equal to c 1 x plus h 0. Now, let us substitute the second boundary condition. So, this therefore, h 1 will be equal to c 1 into l plus h 0. Therefore, c 1 is equal to h 1 minus h 0 divided by l which we can also write this as minus of h 0 minus h 1 divided by l. Since, h 0 is bigger the head in the piezometric surface in the upstream water body. So, it is having this one. So, we can write that if we write that first. So, therefore, we get the expression after evaluating both the constants we get this h is equal to h 0 minus h 0 minus h 1 by l into x. So, this is the expression for head at any general section which is at a distance of x from the upstream water body. So, this is the here you can say this is the equation for. So, this is the equation for the hydraulic grade line h g l which is assumed to be linear. And let us also write down an expression for the discharge per unit width of the through the confined aquifer between two water bodies. So, the by Darcy's law discharge per unit width for ground water flow between for here you can say the confined ground water flow between two water bodies is given by this q is equal to minus the hydraulic conductivity k into d h by d x k into minus d h by d x where this minus d h by d x is the hydraulic gradient into the area since this is unit width. So, this will be 1 into b or simply b. So, in this case. So, this is minus k into b into the hydraulic gradient is minus of h 0 minus h 1 divided by l that is q is equal to k into b into h 0 minus h 1 divided by l. So, this is the expression for discharge per unit width for confined ground water flow between two water bodies. So, the discharge per unit width for confined ground water flow between two water bodies and obviously. So, here this we all start with this steady flow confined ground water steady flow between two water bodies. So, in this case the discharge per unit width is given by this k into b which we can also replace this by transmissivity t the transmissivity or transmissibility and h 0 and h 1 have the heads in the upstream and downstream water body and l is the distance along the flow direction between the two water bodies. So, if you know the either the transmissivity or the hydraulic conductivity and the thickness of the confined aquifer through which the flow takes place between the two water bodies the upstream water body having a head of h 0 in the downstream water body having a head of h 1 and with the distance of l separating them. So, then this q is given by k into b into h 0 minus h 1 divided by l. So, now let us come to the unconfined flow that means flow through an unconfined aquifer where in the Dupitz assumptions for unconfined ground water flow. So, in 1863 so, this Dupitz assumption Dupitz is in hydraulic engineer and in the year 1863 he proposed two assumptions for the unconfined ground water flow. The first assumption is the curvature of the free surface is very small. So, that the stream lines assume to be horizontal at all sections at all sections. So, this is the first assumption and as per this assumption even though there is slight inclination for the stream lines. So, that inclination is neglected and the stream lines are assumed to be horizontal at all sections and the second assumption is the slope of the hydraulic grade line that is h e l is equal to the free surface slope it does not vary with the depth. So, this is a second Dupitz assumption. The first assumption in which the stream lines are assumed to be horizontal in all directions. So, that whatever little inclination the stream lines is there that is neglected and the second assumption is the slope of the hydraulic grade line is equal to the free surface slope and it does not vary with the depth. So, these are the two Dupitz assumptions and which are applicable for ground water flow through unconfined aquifers. And now using these Dupitz assumptions let us determine the ground water flow through unconfined aquifer. So, here let us consider the ground water flow through unconfined aquifer. So, let us consider this is the z direction, this is the x direction and this is the y direction and here let us consider. So, this is the water table. So, this dimension along the y direction. So, this is delta y and this is the origin and this dimension. So, this is delta x and this head is h and here let us consider the ground water inflow. Let us consider the flow to be in the positive direction of x and y. So, let this be mx1 and the ground water outflow. The mass outflow let us take this to be mx2 in the x and y direction. Similarly, the ground water inflow in the y direction let us take this to be my1 and the ground water outflow through the other phase in the y direction. Let us take this to be my2 and this is the water table. Now, let us write down the expressions for the mass flux entering the element. So, this is given by mx1. So, this is rho into say vx which is the velocity ground water flow velocity in the x direction into h into delta y. h into delta y is the cross sectional area. So, this vx into the cross sectional area of flow that will be discharged into rho that will be the mass flux or the mass rate of flow mass rate of inflow. Similarly, mass flux leaving the element. So, this is mx2. So, this is given by rho vx h delta y plus let us add the mass rate of change term in the x direction that is d by dx of rho vx h delta y into this delta x. So, therefore, now let us write down this is a net mass flux in x direction. So, this is mx1 minus mx2. So, this will be given by minus d by dx of rho vx h delta y into delta x. Similarly, net mass flux in y direction. So, this is given by my1 minus my2. So, this will be given by minus d by of rho vy into h dx h delta x into delta y. Therefore, since there is neither inflow nor outflow in the z direction. So, the continuity equation gives obviously. So, here this mx1 minus mx2 is denoted by this is delta mx. Similarly, my1 minus my2 is denoted by delta my. So, therefore, this delta mx plus delta my plus delta my is equal to 0. Therefore, we get. So, after simplification we get d by dx of vx into h plus d by dy of vy into h is equal to 0. And obviously, so here this delta x delta y as well as rho. So, that can be cancelled. So, this is the expression we get. And we know that say by Darcy's law we get this vx is equal to minus k into dh by dx and this vy is equal to minus k into dh by dy. Therefore, if we call this equation 1. So, this equation 1 becomes d by dx of minus k dh by dx into h plus d by dy of minus k into dh by dy into h this is equal to 0. And again here we can take out this k outside the 1 can cancel out. So, therefore, we are left with this is d square by dx square of h square plus d square by dy square of h square is equal to 0. And this we can denote this as del square of h square. So, this is the governing equation for steady ground water flow unconfined aquifer. So, this unconfined aquifer for the steady flow this it satisfies Laplace equation in h square whereas, the confined aquifer will satisfy the Laplace equation in h. In case of unconfined aquifer it satisfies the Laplace equation in h square. So, now let us consider the unconfined aquifer that is the unconfined ground water steady flow with recharge. Suppose, there is some recharge in the z direction say when there is due to rainfall or precipitation. So, this the ground water is getting recharged. So, in that case what will be the expression let us say. And so here let us draw the basic figure with x, y and z directions. And so this is the water table and it is getting a recharge at the rate of r here. So, this is the origin and this is the dimension in the x direction and this is the dimension of this element in the y direction that is delta y and the variable head h and this case. So, let this the mass inflow through x direction let it be m x 1 and the mass inflow let this be m x 2. And similarly the mass inflow in the y direction let it be m y 1 and the mass inflow in the y direction mass outflow along the y direction be m y 2. And obviously, so this is the water table and this r is the recharge in the z direction. Now, in this case it is all similar to the previous case except that in this case. So, there will be an additional term that is mass efflux in the z direction that is the mass efflux in z direction that is delta m z is given by rho into r which is the rate of recharge into the area of flow perpendicular to the z direction that will be delta x into delta y. So, therefore, for steady incompressible flow the continuity equation becomes delta m x plus delta m y plus delta m z is equal to 0. So, that is we get minus d by dx of rho v x h delta x delta y minus d by dy of rho v y h delta x delta y. And the this recharge that is the net efflux in the z direction that is given by rho r delta x delta y this becomes 0. So, again let us substituting substitute v x is equal to minus k into d h by dx and v y is equal to minus k into d h by dy and simplify. So, here we get this is of course, here this is rho delta x delta y that can be taken out. And in this case we are left with that is d square by dx square of h square plus d square by dy square of h square this is equal to minus 2 r by k. So, here this term r is there. So, therefore, it will be h square by 2 and then so it will be minus 2 r by k. So, this is the general ground water steady flow equation through unconfined aquifer with recharge. So, the general ground water here this is the governing equation. So, in case of steady flow through an unconfined aquifer the it satisfies Laplace equation in h square whereas, when there is a recharge through the this one the unconfined aquifer at the rate of r along the z direction. The general governing equation for steady flow through unconfined aquifer will be given by this is d square by dx square of h square plus d square by dy square of h square. So, this is equal to minus 2 r by k. So, this is how the ground water governing flow equation it changes its form in case of an unconfined aquifer when there is no recharge as well as when there is recharge. Now, let us consider the one dimensional Dupitz flow with recharge between say 2 water bodies. So, let us say this is a 1 d ground water flow between 2 water bodies 1 d ground water unconfined flow with recharge. So, let us consider unconfined ground water flow and let this be the upstream water body and let this be the ground surface and let this be. So, this is the upstream water body where the head is h 0 and ground stream water body where the head is h 1 and there is a constant recharge. Here this is the constant recharge of rate r and in this case the water table will assume a shape like this there will be a peak somewhere in between and wherein the h is h m or the h max and this is the water table and. So, the aquifer permeability is hydraulic conductivity as k and in this case there is a obviously flow into the upstream water body as well as flow into the downstream water body this is q 0 this is q 1 and in the next lecture and obviously at this so at any general section h. So, here this is the general section h. So, this is x is equal to 0 x is equal to l and so obviously this is l and at general section h. So, this case this is q x. So, in the next lecture we will discuss this one. Thank you.


This is Mises Weekends with your host, Jeff Deist. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. Once again, it is Mises Weekends. I'm really happy to be joined by a young man I'm just getting to know, becoming a friend of the Mises Institute. His name is Trey Goff. He's a brilliant young guy just a year or two out of Mississippi State University. He has written and worked for some various libertarian organizations while he was in undergraduate. But more importantly, since graduating, he has started on a project of his own in the town of Jackson, Mississippi, where he has been busy working on the concept of a model draft constitution or a voluntaryist constitution, which a startup society or a breakaway society could adopt in whole or in part as a governing mechanism or at least as an aspirational mechanism for how they might organize themselves. Obviously, this is very fascinating to us as libertarians and ANCAPs. So with that, Trey Goff, welcome and thank you for joining us today. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Well, we ran your article on Mises Org earlier this week. We've linked to it here on the show. So I really recommend that people, if you have a chance, print out Trey's draft constitution and give it a read. It's really a fascinating document. So Trey, I'll start with the devil's advocate question. I think I posed to you a week or two ago. I said, well gee whiz, you know, you call it a constitution and that conjures up or brings up a lot of baggage about our own US constitution. And it doesn't sound like articles of incorporation or some kind of ownership document for a private society. So how and why did you choose to call this document a constitution as opposed to something else? So the reason we went with a constitution rather than articles of confederation or some other related term that means roughly the same thing is because constitution automatically conjures up mental images and connotations of the starting of a new society, which is exactly what I would hope that this document would be a model for. So the choice to use the term constitution was more of a strategic marketing move than it was anything else. When you hear the word constitution, you automatically think of the starting of something radical and new and exciting and something that is going to end up being prosperous and amazing because the first thing you think of, of course, is the American constitution. In firm agreeance with Lysander Spooner that our constitution is not effective and not valid, it was yet either authorized to the government we have now or was powerless to stop it. So in either way, it's unfit to exist. But I think the idea of a constitution, as in the idea of having a document that lays out, codifies and formalizes the rights that we believe we have in a polycentric legal order in a completely distributed common law legal order, will be useful for the creation of and the seem to the fruition of an actual free society at some point in the near future, hopefully. Well, talk about how you came to be involved. What are some of your influences for the document? As I read it, I'm thinking to myself, Locke Rothbard, Hoppe, would you consider yourself an ANCAP and what's your background and what are your influences? Yeah, so I'm definitely an ANCAP. Murray Rothbard actually was the deciding factor on that. When I read the Ethics of Liberty, it completely changed my life. In fact, the only time I've ever done this, but I finished the Ethics of Liberty, put it down for about five minutes and picked it back up and restarted it. That book completely changed my life and definitely influenced my thinking here. And it was actually a sum of Rothbard's writing that I quote in that article that influenced me into thinking about libertarian constitutions as a whole, because even Rothbard himself pointed out the need to have some sort of foundational legal order off of which the common law and archaic legal order could work. And so I thought to myself, after I saw that Rothbard had pointed out to the need for this, well surely someone of Rothbard's intellectual caliber or similar has written the Constitution before, and I started digging for one and immediately realized no one had, which was a glaring gap to me in the theory in this area and the thought in this area. So I said about it myself to try to see if I can take a shot at it. And then I was further influenced by Randy Barnett's structure of liberty, who I get the idea of a polycentric legal order of that term, although I think Rothbard originated the idea. Roth, I mean, Randy Barnett put that term on it. And he too calls explicitly in his work for a constitutional decentralized legal order of the kind that we as anarcho-capitalist advocate. So once I found that there had been several thinkers who were thinking along the same line of thought that we need a constitution for this to work properly. And when I realized further that none of these same thinkers had gone about making one, I thought, well, somebody needs to, and I combined that with a stumbling upon the free societies and the startup societies movement that's currently quite active. And I was like, well, if there were ever a time for someone to need a model document to look toward as projects like Liberland and a couple of others I'm involved with begin to take shape, they're gonna need something to look for and they're gonna need a model to build off of. So this is what I was hoping to do with this. So to make sure I understand you correctly, your position and also the position of Rothbard and Randy Barnett is that a common law society as opposed to a positive law society still needs some kind of foundational legal document or it's preferable anyway. Yeah, it's preferable. Now, of course it doesn't have it because as we know, these common law legal systems can work properly without a constitution as they discover law in an emergent and spontaneous fashion. However, I do think that it would, number one, for optics purposes alone be beneficial for in the real world today, a free society attempting to be founded based upon these precepts have a document to point toward that the rest of the world can see that when we say we're anarcho-capitalist we don't mean anarchism in the left wing burn it to the ground sense. We mean anarchism in the very structured way of thinking about governance without governments, without a monopoly on coercion. So it gives you something to point toward. But number two, I think it also really introduces this sense of formality and of structure into the anarchic legal order that would not otherwise be there. That sort of gives everyone a sense of regime stability so that they all know what the very foundational rules that we're all playing on, what those rules are. Well, Rothbard made a distinction when people would challenge him, the kind of voluntary or private society you're talking about, if it were to adopt rules or modes of governance as you, Trey, suggest here in this Constitution, what is the distinction between it and a government? Let's say a glorified homeowner's association began acting awfully like a government. And Rothbard says, well, as long as it doesn't have a monopoly on force for a region would you agree with that? And how do you account for this potential of human organizations to slide into something that starts to look but off a lot like government? Right, so this is something I put a lot of thought into. And first and foremost, I tried through several redundant mechanisms throughout the Constitution, from the rights, to the definitions, to the prohibitions, to prevent as much as I could anyone attempting to monopolize force or utilize force against someone else's property. So those two things alone should prevent a monopoly on coercion or monopoly on force from ever forming. But something else I attempted to do with this document if you'll notice, I haven't actually laid out any governance structure at all. So I've not stipulated a monarchy. I've not stipulated an aristocracy or a democracy or whatever. I've done that for a reason and on purpose because I fully believe that the only way we can truly discover what the most efficient and efficacious governance institutions to guide human interaction are is through allowing a system of competitive governance. So what this document is attempting to do is to say as we move into the future and as new societies are formed and older ones crumble and other things rise to take their place, that we have all of these new societies and governance institutions that are forming be predicated on these libertarian rules. So it's like fencing in the area around which they'll operate to say, you're free to make whatever voluntary associations you please, so long as it does not violate the property rights of others, which is a very, very short way of saying what I've said in long form in the constitution. Well, as I read too, you used the term coercion quite a bit. So the way I read it, in theory, a deeply progressive left society could operate under your model constitution provided the members didn't view the arrangements they were entering into as coercive. And provided so long as they have voluntarily entered into those arrangements, that's exactly right. This is actually one of the things that I've always found persuasive about anarchal capitalism versus any other radical form of governance organization. You're completely free to be a socialist or a communist in an anarcho-capitalist society so long as you're not forcing it on anyone else. Whereas in a communist or a socialist society, you are not at all free to be a capitalist. So yeah, that's exactly right. If you and a group of your friends want to form a communist collective commune, then by all means have at it. You and I can sit by in our anarcho-capitalist city and watch as your little commune crumbles. Right. And you touched earlier on the idea of Lysander Spooner and how the constitution didn't work for us. So there's a couple of things to discuss here. First of all, you and I would agree certainly that this isn't a contract per se and that contracts only bind people who sign them. How do you deal with the thornier issue of future generations? Because that always seems to come up. If we had a society, and let's not even talk about a society perhaps as private and as free as the one you might envision, let's talk about a one that was more private and more free than the one we've got. How would your document answer the question of future generations? I think under that situation, this is where the voluntary consent to this document becomes paramount. And the problem you run into there, and this is a problem that Rothbard grappled with as well, is determining the age at which people become viable adults, become able to voluntarily consent to contracts, be able to own property. At what point did they leave the temporary ownership of their parents, if you will, to become sovereign individuals capable of agency on their own? And I don't know that I certainly haven't been able to figure out an answer to that question specifically, as I know many other prolific thinkers are far more intelligent than I have than either. I think what you have to do in that situation is moving forward for future generations, require at some point, whatever that age of consent is, that those children or those future citizens of your society be presented with the Constitution in much the same way that their parents and grandparents were before them, so that they too can voluntarily consent to it. And it doesn't even have to be this physical document that you're literally signing. This is the beauty of blockchain technology moving into the future. You would be able to easily sign a document like this on the blockchanges using your own private key that is associated with your identification so long as it's an Ethereum-based blockchain contract. But the point is with a smart contract, the problem almost solves itself as soon as the person becomes of age and they decide that they do in fact want to stay in the society, well then they can easily sign the smart contract in 30 seconds over the internet and be done with it. And of course, all societies have to grapple with the question of children and agencies. Nobody ever asked us about a communist society. What about the kid who's born there? One thing I really like is the definition section because this has been a thorny problem for US constitutional law since the document was ratified, defining terms, and you lay out a very, I think, thoroughgoing and interesting definition of private property, one of the bullets you list talks about measuring property in physiochemical characteristics. So by that I assume we're eliminating intellectual property, so-called. Yes, and that was the exact objective of that. And in the spirit of full disclosure as well, I worked closely with Steffan Cancella on the development of the definition section specifically, which is why you see such a stringent admonition against intellectual property. But I think moving both philosophically and then consequentialist terms, I don't think there's an argument to be had that in a truly free society, you will have people being able to claim ownership over the ideas of themselves or another. That's tantamount to saying that you have ownership over the thoughts that occur inside of a man's head. So I think there's a variety of both from Steffan Cancella's work and from other work. Another great book on this called Against Intellectual Monopoly. I think the libertarian or otherwise case for intellectual property fails on all grounds. So we specifically strove in this definition section to keep intellectual property from ever propping up. Well, and look, if a society thinks otherwise on IP, I would disagree, but they're free to adopt or not adopt sections of this. It's a model code as you term it. And for those who are familiar with the term model, there's all kinds of model codes that organizations under the auspices of like the American Bar Association in the US create, like the model penal code or the model probate code that state legislatures are not necessarily equipped to draft themselves with their staffs. And so they just adopt in fuller and in part, a uniform code that someone else has written. And so that's where Trey's going here. Trey, article two deals with rights and it lays out nine different kind of bullet points about rights. What I love about this is you're codifying rights that you or we would deem important, but you're silent on the question of whether they're preexisting or natural or God-given or whether they're utilitarian. In other words, you don't have to come down on either side of the natural law question to understand and accept and abide by this section. That's exactly right. And my aim here was to do exactly that because to me personally, regardless of whether or not you approach it from a deontological perspective or a purely utilitarian perspective, I think we can all agree to some extent at least that these rights that I've listed out here, the right to self-ownership, the right against aggression, the right to voluntarily contract and the right to voluntarily trade goods and title to property are the cornerstones and the touchstones not only of human freedom and of human liberty, but of human prosperity as well. So you don't have to have a deep understanding of philosophy or you don't have to disagree with someone else regarding the foundations of their philosophy. This just simply states, look, these are the rights we would all agree would create the most harmonious liberty-filled, prosperous society that the world has ever seen. It doesn't matter where you arrive at those rights from, here they are, and this is why, again, I keep harkening back to this, but this is why it's important to me as well that you have to voluntarily consent to the code so that you can say regardless of how I came about my personal philosophy regarding natural rights, I agree with this, so I'm affirming it by signing it. When you talk in article two section on rights, when you talk about all parties of this constitution have an absolute right to self-defense, do you think the term parties is loaded? Does that conjure up a contractual document and rights flowing from a contract or did you use that particularly and knowingly? So I use that in lieu of being able to ascertain a better term. So this leads me to something else, which is that this is, as you probably saw, this is version 1.0. So I buy no means of proclaiming that this is the perfect model code at all and in fact, I invite any and all feedback on the document. So for instance, if someone could come up with a better term to use there than parties, buy all means, email me and let me know. I'll be happy to change it. I look forward to collaboration on this. Yeah, isn't that interesting? We sometimes, it seems like we forget that the whole point of being a libertarian is because we don't know. Because we don't know what's best for 7.5 billion people on earth. So this is really interesting. Now talk a little bit about that though, the utopian trap. When you get into talking about self-defense, you mentioned a concurrent and proportional response. We're always gonna debate what that means in any society. We're not utopianists. How do you fight back against the charge that that's precisely what this document is, some sort of utopian dreaming? So I pushed back on that on a couple of grounds. First off, I'm not at all attempting to say with this document or with any of my ideological claims more broadly that anarchal capitalism will create a perfect utopia. All I'm saying is that I will firmly believe this constitution predicated on these ideas will create a marginally better, more prosperous and freer society than the constitution that we have now in the United States or that any society has currently on the planet. So I'm not at all claiming this will create a veritable perfect utopia, merely that it will be a marginal improvement on the governance institutions that we currently find ourselves living under. But I think I would also push back on that claim by saying a lot of these little nitty gritty details like what you're talking about, how what level of force is exactly appropriate in any given specific example. I think that's the reason that this common law system, being a common law system is so important that this can be decided completely on a case by case basis such that you don't have to make a sweeping proclamation about exactly what proportional defense is or exactly what the correct amount of violence in a given situation is, that the justice of the matter can be decided on a case by case basis and the law in that area can be discovered as judges and juries continue to make decisions in the matter. Well, you have an interesting section, article four on justice. There's a lot of positive law crimes, malim prohibitim versus malim and say for people who are familiar with the legal term that we would say as libertarians ought not to be crimes. What I love about this section is it would really reduce the scope of criminal justice in society, right? Because we'd have fewer crimes. That's exactly right. The whole point of that justice section is I was trying and striving as hard as humanly possible to make it such that the only things that would even be considered a crime would be things that have a direct and obvious victim. So a victim is going to have to bring the suit forward for a crime to be tried at all. So this would massively reduce the amount of things that are considered criminal offenses in society, which I think it would end up with a more judicious and more just society overall. Give me or give us your thoughts on using tort law and civil court judgments as a regulator in society versus this terrible administrative regulatory state that we labor under in the West. Right. So tort law is going to be a better system overall for precisely the reasons that we've been discussing, which is that it is more decentralized in nature and it allows for a specific resolution to a specific problem predicated on the unique circumstances of that problem. And further than as the body of decisions is made and as stair to ceases continues, you end up with inevitably having a system that discovers the law as it emerges and discovers what the best resolution to a given dispute is as that problem continues to arise within your society. So you end up with again, a more just society overall and one in which people know what the rules of the game are, one in which people recognize what the institutional norms are for their behavior. So you end up with a higher degree of stability overall, which as you know is incredibly good for economic growth overall. You don't have this instability of not knowing whether or not the administrative state is going to persecute this supposed violation versus not that one. And you don't have the uncertainty of the administrative state that we have today. That increase in certainty of entrepreneurs is being able to predict what the institutional environment is going to be like is massively important for their developments of longer term projects. Talk a little bit about article five, which you've termed prohibitions and it talks about some things that are not permitted in a voluntary society like slavery, et cetera, and basically coercive relationships. Tell us your thinking in this section. So the objective of that section and in my opinion, the single most important few words in the document are actually the lead into that section, which says that these things are not to be permitted on other people's property who have not voluntarily and expressly consented to it beforehand. So I've made sure to try to leave out so we're not to not have that in there. This section would outlaw homeowners associations or anything like that, which is not what I was going for. Those are voluntary associations. The point of this is just that you cannot utilize coercion in any way, shape, or form unless the person has agreed to this nominal level of coercion beforehand as in a homeowners association where you've contractually agreed to keep your lawn clean and the association can find you or do something to you to get you to keep your lawn clean. Well, this is a similar thing I was trying to avoid here was just that short of someone voluntarily consenting to the abridgment of their property rights, it cannot be had. And the entire point of this entire section was I was thinking to myself basically, in how many ways can I attempt to prevent the possibility of a state ever forming? And this ended up being, I think it's either nine or 10 points of different ways in which each one of them taken alone should prevent a coercive state from forming. And even the last one, and I did this on purpose to try to leave the last word in the document also some of the most important to me, no one can institute a coercive monopoly on violence in the territory period. Meaning that it is literally impossible for a government to form. Even if you ignore or somehow misinterpret the entirety of the rest of the document that alone should let you say, oh, well, this is the uncrossable bridge, so to speak. Tre, I wanna wrap this up with one last question for you. Don't you find it interesting that almost every aspect of human life in the digital age is becoming radically decentralized? It's only governance that seems to be becoming national and federal and supranational and even international. Talk about this. Why are people so resistant to decentralized ways of organizing human society? I don't know that they're super resistant to the idea of decentralized society as an idea, as an esoteric idea. I think they're resistant to it almost purely for a number of psychological reasons, so the strength of confirmation bias and status quo bias among human beings is incredibly powerful. It's not that they're against the ideas of decentralization per se, they just don't want things to change and be anything other than the way that they are. But I think, unfortunately, they're gonna have to adjust to the change and pretty rapidly coming up. I mean, if you look at global population projections, over 85% of the world's population will live in urban areas by 2050, which is part of what spurred me to take on this project in the first place was, I firmly believe that around that time, or maybe after, maybe before, people will rapidly come to realize that the governance institutions of the nation state are horribly and irrevocably and irreparably broken and that we're going to have to move to a different system that doesn't rely so heavily on the coercive monopoly on force, a system that doesn't rely so heavily on these archaic notions of government. So moving forward, I hope that as those systems devolve and as those systems alter, we end up with a decentralized system of smaller jurisdictions throughout urban areas that have lower exit costs, meaning you have competition between governance institutions and that you end up with an overall freer, more prosperous society as hopefully, and again, this is the reason I put this together, we can kind of cut them off at the past, so to speak, and get ahead of this evolution to say, hey, any startup society or free society or new country project, I've got a document here for you that can help you out in the creation of your country or of your startup society that will make it freer, that will make it more prosperous and will prevent the takeover of a coercive state moving into the future so that we're using this and working with some of these projects, we can pave the way for real liberty moving into the future rather than being always behind the eight ball and trying to tear down the institutions that already exist, but rather forming new institutions in light of what we know about human liberty and human prosperity. Well, look, I applaud you for what you're doing. I think that this may be a much more fruitful path than libertarians trying to garner 51% of the electorate in whatever jurisdiction we're talking about. Trey, how can people find you and follow you on social media or otherwise? So I'm on Facebook, just my full name, Trey Goff. They can also find me on Twitter, app against the state. Shout out to Lou Rockwell for that. And those are the main two places that I'm active, Facebook and Twitter. Okay, we will post a link to the article Trey wrote for us this week, which includes the entirety of his voluntary as Congress constitution, which is far fewer words than the US constitution if I'm reading correctly. Hey, Trey, we really appreciate it. We thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen, have a great weekend. Subscribe to Mises Weekends via iTunes U, Stitcher and SoundCloud, or listen on Mises.org and YouTube.


went back to work to excel as an entrepreneur. I know it doesn't make sense but let me tell you all about how this book changed my life. Tyler Denigno and thank you for hanging out with me today.   Today we're talking all about the book.  This is a nonfiction book. It's all about money management, master the mindset of wealth. Okay? Wow. Wealth? Like I never even considered but Jinx and Ciro is always honest and that's why I was happy I picked up the book. Okay? So I've been a business owner for the last two years. Kind of three. Okay? Because I'm a podcaster and podcasting has an entrepreneurial spirit to it. Okay? Because you're creating something that didn't already exist. So that in itself has like an entrepreneurial feel. You know what I mean? But I have officially opened my business called KD Creative and I started editing podcasts for people, creating content, doing all this stuff. Well you need money to make money. That is 100% true. Okay? I want to run Facebook ads. I need money for that. I want to hire a virtual assistant. I need money for that. I want to schedule all these posts with something that I don't have to think about not just the free version of these expensive apps. I need money for that. So I went and got a job because I need to make money. So I knew the book was gonna be good and it has all these great journaling prompts and things that you should write. Like write a letter to money. Stop talking about money as saying that you're broke. Stop saying you never have enough money. You need to change the way that you talk about money the way that you interact with it. But chapter 10, listen. It's called and now a word for my accountant. But Jinx and Ciro says I would be remiss if I didn't tell you what my accountant would say. Right? Because the entire book, she's like go after what you want. Chase after it. I paid someone $70,000 to teach me how to get good with money. But she says if you don't have what you need, first of all, you do need to manifest it. Yes, you need to write it down. Yes, you need to change your mindset. But you got a hustle right now to get to what you want. If I didn't have the $70,000 to pay that money coach, I never would have got help. Right? That was one of her examples. So for me, okay, Kyla, you want to do all these things, you don't have the money for it, get a job. And that was very hard for me because I was laid off from a job December 2021. And since then, I've been hustling, I've been working, I edit manuscripts, I do this, I walk your dog, I do all this stuff, right? But what I want to do is just podcast our day, record YouTube videos, interact with people and talk to people. But there's a gap. This is what I want. This is what I have. How do we finance the middle? Well, you finance the middle with a job. So after reading this chapter, I was certain, yes, you have to get a job.  I'm gonna get a job where I can come to work. I can do my job. I can go home. Right? I need this income so that I can focus on my other stuff. Well, that didn't happen. I'm a tourist. I like to have jobs where I get involved and I get completely loyal to the company. So I'm doing that too. But let me tell you, Jen, since they are all tells us to make a list of what you want. My list look like this. I'm just gonna read it. I need to be able to pay $1,400 in daycare fees every month. I wrote down how much money I need to make. I wrote down the kind of people I wanted to work with. I wrote that I wanted to wear yoga pants every day to the office. I wrote down the skills I wanted to use, how it feels to go to work. I wanted to have free bagel Fridays. Instead, I got free pizza. Definitely better. And I also wrote down that I wanted to have the option to work from home. Listen, the job that I have is in office Tuesday through Thursday, work from home every Monday, Friday. I get to wear yoga pants, but I also could wear cargo pants or camo pants or just biker shorts. Like, I wrote down I was very, very specific. Money, I appreciate you. I need a job to handle some stuff. What do I need to do? This is what I would want. And I got it. Okay, so like manifesting mindset that has never been my thing. Because I was uneducated about it. Okay, so now I am working to make money to become a better entrepreneur. Okay, because as you watch my videos, you'll see I am obsessed with learning. I always want to know how can I improve? How can I increase my confidence? How can I do a better job? How can I be a better business owner? Including this book here, which is all about how five seconds can change your whole life. Okay, so go on and check this video out. It's a book by the author, Mel Robbins. You will absolutely love it. See you in the next video.


General Goldfiend talks about future conflict being wars of cognition. Your first priority as an airman, even your first priority as a joint leader is to be a good airman and to understand how we execute and how air power affects the other components and how air power fits into the entire joint force. I think it's important that from an education standpoint we teach leaders how to think. They learn to see the world from a different perspective. They learn to think differently about the problems in our air force along with the solutions, not just in the air force but in the department and in the world. Before we used to really only talk about education in terms of getting a degree or learning these management skills and tools and all that stuff was important too I just think it's important that we teach airmen, especially our senior leaders, how to think bigger, broader, differently about the world's issues. That's Air University.