I actually have two questions, one from Professor Stone. When you started speaking about the beginning of World War II, it looks like it was only Hitler who started the war. What do you think about actually the role of Stalin and Soviet Union in this? Because it looked like they both agreed that the peace agreement and then simply Hitler broke it afterwards, but the beginning was like a common endeavor of two states. And then I would like to ask Professor Hoppe when you have this argumentative ethics, it's very, very big improvement into ethical ethics in what we know now, but you always look to restrict it very strictly to human beings, while in fact, some people when exploring life of animals, even they so that they send some signals and do reflexive to those signals and have something similar to a very primitive ownership and then the primitive property. So how do you comment on this? Thank you. I think you were asking about Russia in the Second World War. Well, I mean, I said Hitler really profited from the strange gap between illusion and reality which was universal in the between the wars. And that was never more so than in the case of Stalin's Russia. He was supposed to be a revolutionary regime and it's offering just tyranny and starvation on an enormous level. The curious thing is that Stalin himself seems to have known that he was very close, the country was very close to collapse and so he came to terms with that they're expecting France to stay alive, afloat, that the war would last in the West as the First World War had done. Therefore he could easily make terms with Hitler in order to stop him attacking Russia. I think Stalin's policy only makes sense in terms of realizing that the Soviet Union was a colossal failure and in a way it was Adolf Hitler who created the Soviet Union. If it hadn't been for galvanizing the thing in the Second World War, wouldn't have fallen apart. So the Soviet Union is yet another of these, well, rubbish heaps, like the League of Nations. Sorry, I'm overstating it, but usually what I mean. No, with regards to animals, I think it was perfectly clear. Obviously they cannot argue with each other. So whatever I said does not apply to them. That we sometimes think that the talk coordinate the actions by signals and so forth is all a human interpretation of their behavior. And helpful interpretation sometimes allows us to predict what they will do and so forth. But recall my initial point was my initial point was what makes humans, humans, and what makes them different from every other entity in the world is precisely that we can do one thing with each other that we cannot do with any other entity that lives in the world. I would like to ask Professor von Storn about the role of two prominent figures at that time. One is the impact of Ludwig Wittgenstein on the personal history of Adolf Hitler. There's a theory about him affecting Hitler's becoming of anti-Semites and I'm not sure. I want to ask about what you think about it. And the other question is about Keynes appraiser or he praised the economic success of the Nazi program around the 1930s, what do you think about it? Thank you. I'm not sure Keynes exactly praised what Hitler was doing. We're obviously the public spending side of it. But Keynes was a man who was very careful. And I don't remember anywhere where he actually talked about it. See at that time, most people thought that the Nazi economic recovery or employment recovery was something going to our minds. There was a book by a Keynesian, a follower of Keynes, it's called Claude Gillebaugh, who was a very straightforward Cambridge economist. Very, very respected man and he wrote a book called The Economic Recovery of Germany in 1938 I think. Now there's a curious side to this because in 1940, in the invasion scare, the British picked up a lot of people who they suspected of being pro-fascists. Claude Gillebaugh had said that the Nazi economy would not collapse because of blockade. It was far stronger than that. And because of this and his argument that Hitler had solved the employment problem simply by Keynesian, or we would call them now, Keynesian public works. Because of that, he was quite seriously considered as a pro-fascist and he was nearly picked up by an interned. H.A.P. Taylor was a wonderful footnote on it that he was nearly put on trial for this recognition of the truth. Now, look, Wittgenstein and Hitler, apparently they did spend a year together at the high school in Lentz. And I can't imagine they would have anything to say to each other. Wittgenstein, the son of a vastly rich family. He didn't know you know, he was Jewish. He, I think his sister told him, much later on, you realize we're Jewish pure son because what had happened was that in the 1840s, an awful lot of Jews in Austria-Hungary converted because they couldn't convert Catholicism because that was even more bizarre than traditional Judaism they didn't want to go along with. So they converted to Lutheranism, which was vaguely, I mean, it was vaguely second grade and you, and they were technically Lutherans, apparently Wittgenstein didn't know that they were Jewish until much later on. Now, the final point on this is, you know, I don't think we read anything into Wittgenstein and Hitler. One, the odd thing is that Wittgenstein seems to have been one of the recruiters of the Cambridge spies in the 1930s. Now, there we're onto something because he did vanish off to Norway at odd points and he did of course know all these burgesses and the clans as well as having the essential ingredient in the whole thing, namely homosexuality. And that was, I mean, I was a fellow of Trinity in Cambridge for a bit and Stephen Ronserman was the most terrible gossip and up to here in MI6, he always said it was Wittgenstein was the fifth, was the recruiter, maybe a legend. Just a little thing on, Keynes did write a preface to the German edition of the general theory which came out the same year as the English edition and he did emphasize in the preface that he thought a regime like Nazi Germany would be a far more appropriate place to implement his policies than the liberal Western democracies. So in this sense, I'd say he did at that time have some sympathy for the German regime. Only in this sense, I do not know enough about Keynes or to say more. As far as the Nazi economic recovery is concerned, years ago I give a speech I think that is also on the internet somehow available on comparing whose wealth's policy to how to get out of the Great Depression with Hitler's policy, how to come out of the Great Depression and I pointed out that those made huge mistakes from the point of view of Austrian economics but Hitler did less than Roosevelt and the economic recovery of Germany was far quicker and far more drastic than the recovery in the United States which actually did not happen at all until the end of World War II. Stefan, from a libertarian perspective, I think one of the major criticisms of corporations has been their symbiotic relationship with what has come to be known as the corporate state and this derives I think from the role that concentrated economic interests have in directing governmental policy over those with diffused economic interests and it seems to me that the statists, whether they are of a left or right persuasion, really don't want to criticize the role of the state in directing the society or particularly in its economic aspects. So in the corporate state system it seems to be easier for them to condemn just the corporation or just the motivations of the corporation and leaving the state safe, so to speak. Do you comment on that? Well, I would say I agree with that completely and they don't criticize the worst and biggest corporation of all, which is the state, which has corporate status. Of course, that's what the modern state is, it's a corporation. It exists even though it's members and it's administrators come and go. So I agree with that and I agree that the left and the critics of corporatism, as they call it, do focus on corporations instead of on the fundamental issue. Of course, I would be in favor of state stopping its corporation laws and just let the free market operate. I would be even more in favor of the state abolishing itself altogether. So my only point is that in a free society, I don't think that being a shareholder per se should make you causally responsible for the actions of employees of a company that you have some kind of interest in. But that doesn't mean in some cases they couldn't be. But in any case, I don't believe that someone becoming a shareholder or the lack of shareholders being fully responsible is a contributory cause of the state's power. It is the corporate state alliance. But it's not because of limited liability, in my view. My question goes to Professor Lin. Since you explained how intelligence differences are to be observed between different races, I was wondering if there is any testable hypothesis or hints with respect to what the physiological cause for this could be. The question concerns how these differences in race, differences in intelligence have appeared. The generally accepted theory to explain this is that the human species evolved in Africa, of course, about 150,000 years ago. In equatorial Africa, in the region of contemporary Kenya and Uganda. And some of these, some of this population migrated northwards first of all into the Middle East and then into Europe and Asia. And those groups that migrated northwards encountered a more demanding environment. In particular, the problem of survival over the cold winters. In equatorial Africa, there are plant and insect foods available throughout the year. Whereas as our ancestors moved northwards, there are no plants or insect foods throughout much of the winter and spring. So our ancestors therefore became reliant on hunting large animals for food. And that is more intellectually demanding. They would be hunt animals like horses and deer. These animals run fast. So in order to capture them and kill them, it was necessary for men to go out in groups to devise group hunting strategies. One of which, for example, was to drive a number of these animals into the loop of a river. So the animals were forced across the river to escape. The men would have some comrades on the other side of the river and would club them down as they came out on the other side.  And then there were other intellectually demanding problems for survival in the cold climates like making clothes and shelters and making flowers and keeping them going. All these things were intellectually demanding and required a higher intelligence than was necessary in equatorial Africa. So you get a gradient. The most severe climatic conditions were northeast Asia, which is why the northeast Asian developed the highest IQ after that Europe and then after that, North Africa and Southern Asia. That's the generally accepted explanation today of those of us who work in this area. If I might add a point, I believe you all. I had a question as to what were the physiological correlates with the group differences in intelligence. Well, it turns out the brain is probably, well, it's by far the most complex organ in the human body and there's some estimates that perhaps even half of the genome is involved in the formulation of the brain.  And there are definite differences, well established now through all kinds of scientific means of brain sizes by race, even when you control the body size. And so the North Asians do have a brain that is proportionately large in that of Caucasians and blacks and then I believe it's Australian aborigines at the smallest brain, is that correct? That's right. So this is a, again, this is a very gross surface level physiological correlate for intelligence, but it is something that differentiates intelligence within races, within families, and also between races. Stefan, I'd like to thank you for such a clear overview of the dispute over corporations and for such a fair exposition of the views of those who do not agree with you. However, I am not convinced by your analogy with the sale of the gun.  It breaks the nexus between my initial possession of the gun or my manufacturer of the gun and the criminal act. It is an entirely different matter, however, if I as a sole proprietor, so let's leave aside corporations for a moment, it is an entirely different matter if I as the sole proprietor of a company employ a van driver to make deliveries for me and the van driver has an accident and injures somebody or destroys some valuable property. The van driver himself may well be without assets, but the van driver is acting on my instructions in my time. He is in small matters over the decision whether to turn left or right to stop and put the handbrake on, et cetera. He is in small matters, closed with my authority and if he has an accident and even leave aside whether I have been negligent in my employment of the man, in my training of the man and in my choice and maintenance of the van, forget, leave aside those matters for a moment. If he does cause an accident, I must surely be held partly responsible for his actions. Now, I do agree that the doctrine of vicarious liability has been carried too far, certainly in England and probably in America, we can both think of the cases, but I do think it, nor, I think it just plain common sense that if someone is acting in my time about my business, closed with my authority and he commits a tort for which he cannot through his own assets compensate a victim, then I should be held responsible. And if that is the case for me as a sole procreator, then it is surely the case for me and for my fellows as a shareholder. I find it very difficult to believe otherwise than that. Your claim that ownership does not imply responsibility strikes me as perverse, but I put back to you, I could say more, but this is a question, not a reply. Okay, well, first of all, Joe Becker did call to my attention. I did make a mistake with the Smith and Wesson example. I gave examples of a rental car where the ownership is retained and a stolen knife where the ownership is retained. The gun example should have been the theft or the lending of a gun. I was trying to show cases where I think we would agree that mere ownership by itself doesn't imply responsibility, which is a type of strict liability theory which you're sort of adopting here. I might be persuaded in the sole proprietorship case, but the reason you initially gave that the sole proprietor is responsible wasn't because of ownership. It had nothing to do with ownership. It was because he was directing and controlling the actions of the employee, right? So you say these phrases, he's going about my business or he's cloaked with authority, which is, I don't know if that's question begging or circular or metaphorical, but we have to ask the question, do we have a clear theory of causality that means that just because you're a shareholder. So the part I would disagree with you on is going from the argument that if the supervisor of the employee is liable and surely the shareholder is. I don't, because the only surely there, the only reason to make that statement surely is because the shareholder is the owner. And again, if we, in the classic case of ownership, we're talking about what we're used to every day. I own a car, I have the right to control it. A shareholder really is called an owner by the state, but that's just a legal classification. As I said, the shareholder can't use these objects directly. They don't have the right to supervise the employees. So my reason is that a shareholder, by virtue of merely being a shareholder, I mean, we could make up another word for it. Instead of calling a shareholder or owner, we could say this guy is someone who has the right to elect directors and the right to receive dividends. That's really all he has, the right to elect shareholders and the right to receive dividends. He doesn't have the right or the authority or the power to control the actions of the corporation, to even choose its policy or direction or especially to select and hire employees. I mean, by your theory, a manager who supervises an employee wouldn't be liable because he's not an owner. So if you're gonna link it with ownership, then that's really all that matters. And then we get to the point where instead of a classic form of ownership where you own your home or a car or a gun, now we're letting the state or some lawyer or some legal theorist arbitrarily analogize and say, well, the guy that invested money in this company and has the right to elect directors, we're gonna call him an owner. So now he's going to be responsible like an owner would. I think the theory of causation has to go back to actions performed by the person and how he is acting in concert with somehow the person who committed the tort. So I would say a manager of the corporation who directs the actions would be liable under your theory and I would agree with that. If whether he's the owner of the corporation or not, the direct supervisor of the negligent employee, he could be liable. Maybe the board of directors could because they set policies and they hire the officers. But the reason they're all liable is because of their actions and their supervision of the employees. I don't see that shareholders have that right to supervise. They're passive. So that's my reason that I don't agree with your last step. Who owns British Petroleum? I think ownership for the libertarian simply means the legally recognized right to control the scarce resource. So to the extent that has normative implications, then we're talking about really sort of a legal factual situation, not what the state classifies things as, not how the common law rules have evolved to distinguish between a leaseholder and a fee holder and whatever. So for example, I would say under libertarian principles, if I own a house and let's say I rent it to you for a week, now you have a contractual type of property right for that week, I don't have the right to come in and kick you out. So at that moment in time for that week, you are under libertarian theory, the owner of the home, not me. Now I'm going to retain my ownership at the end of the week. Now lawyers have complicated classification schemes for other purposes, but then that's kind of hijacked and the state's classification scheme is hijacked for other purposes. It's like a type of equivocation in a way, really. So I think ownership just means the legally recognized right to control. There are gradations of it in the law that's useful, but it's not useful for, I think, this causal responsibility analysis. I have a question for Professor Haber. How has 9-11 and the government's reaction to 9-11 and especially the people of the West, the masses, their reaction to the government taking away their liberties, how has that affected your opinion on the prospect for libertarian social revolution? I didn't understand the end of your question. So how did that affect what? I will rephrase the question. On my way over here I listened to one of your old lectures called How America Can Be Saved? And it's, I think it was before 9-11, that lecture, and you sounded very optimistic about the prospect for a social revolution, a libertarian social revolution. So the question is, did 9-11 and the things that has happened after 9-11 affect that? I think when I gave that speech, I think there was a speech before donors. If you have speeches before donors, you tend to be always a little bit more optimistic than you are. No. For obvious reasons. So I think I was then not all that optimistic and I have become less optimistic since. Yeah, I want to ask Jared Taylor what he thinks of libertarian anarchism in the Rothbardian-Hopian tradition. What I think of libertarian anarchy in what tradition? Rothbardian. In the Rothbardian tradition. Well, I think that the founding of the United States was based on a deep suspicion of centralized government. And I share that deep suspicion. I live close to Washington DC, as I often say, so that I can keep the enemy in my crosshairs at all time. I think that I am fundamentally a libertarian, but the one aspect of doctrinaire libertarianism that I do not and cannot support is the notion that borders should be abolished. I think that privatization of most things, perhaps all things is a desirable thing. I think that charity should be voluntary and not obligatory. I think all of the aspects of the welfare state have contributed to all sorts of degeneracy. But again, where I part company with those who are libertarian across the board, is that I do believe that borders are necessary to preserve a kind of functioning homogeneity without which a society can descend into a kind of chaos. To me, the immigration question is, of course, under dispute among libertarians themselves. So I do not take this open border position that some libertarians do take. Let me explain why. The reason why there exists, so to speak, borders of the United States, borders of Germany, and so forth, is the fact that the state in Germany, the state in the United States, has of course forced people to contribute taxes to building roads, building facilities here and there. So we can say, yes, Americans own America in the sense that American taxpayer money has been used to build all facilities in the United States. And it is their genuine property and those people, of course, do have a right to determine who comes in and who doesn't come in. The current regime is very imperfect because the state assumes this type of control. But of course, private individuals owning private roads, owning private facilities and so forth, they would do exactly the same. They would also control who has access to what type of resources. And the question that we always have to ask, this is, I think, the mistake of those people who are in favor of open borders among libertarians, that they think public property, so to speak, is unknown property. But it is not unknown property. It is property that has been financed by certain people in the United States. Not all people in the United States have financed them. Obviously, state employees themselves have not financed them. Obviously welfare recipients have not financed them. But there exist, of course, massive amounts of people who have actually financed them and they do have the right to stop people if they don't like them to come. So public property is not unknown property that stands open to be occupied, homesteaded, and so forth by foreigners. And that there is a difference between the United States citizens and foreign citizens can be simply seen in. Have Indians, for instance, contributed to American streets being built? And the answer is no, they haven't. So certainly they do not have the right to travel on American roads unless they are invited by Americans. Have Germans contributed whatever roads in China? There might be some Germans who have contributed taxes. Again, via taxes and so forth. And them I would grant a right to access those places that they have actually financed. But by and large, it is the Chinese that have done that. By and large, it is the Germans that have created things in Germany and it's Americans who have created America. So yes, they have the right to discriminate against foreigners and let certain people in and exclude others. How about the German financed roads in Greece and Spain? They shouldn't walk? Yes, then of course the Germans have the right to access those roads. I have a very fundamental question to Hans but also for the other members here. It goes on human nature and I remember a lot of discussions we had on natural law and human nature years before and I agree more than ever what you said today. But it leads, we have to argue and to argument to find arguments for arguments. And but it leads back to the fundamental question which one position is taken by Rousseau on one side that the man is born free and good by nature. And on the other side we have the story of the Old Testament that the man is corrupted by original sin. I don't like the term but I like the act that Eve took the apple and that after eating the apple and sharing it with her husband. Thank you. Mankind is able to find out the difference between good and evil. And this is the starting point to this side. And what is more important than the decision to bear the consequences. So I think Eve by taking and eating and sharing the apple is the mother of liberty. And we should be grateful for that but it's the opposite position than Rousseau. So what's your preference, more Rousseau or more Eve? If you put it this way, of course that we were expelled from the Garden of Eden then implied that we have to live in a world of scarcity. And only in a world of scarcity do we develop ideas to try to become intelligent because only intelligence will guarantee a success in a world of scarcity. In a world of super abundance in the Garden of Eden we wouldn't even have to do much thinking if anything at all. All we would have to do is just grab apples and shove them into our mouths. So in this sense I'm on the side of Eve as having initiated the cognitive development of men and part of the cognitive development of men is of course also the idea of freedom and of justice and good and bad and so forth. Let me just emphasize, I did not, my lecture did not imply that men is good or bad. What it implied was that we can distinguish between good and bad, between right and wrong. Whether we always do it is something, the matter that is completely different. When I criticized corpse by saying, look people who say that one man is another man's wolf, I did not imply by that that men are not sometimes wolf-like, that they beat other people, kill other people and so forth, but you cannot say that men is only a wolf because that is contradicted by the very fact that you formulate that in a sentence that you present that as an argument and that indicates that you are also something else, different, entirely different from a wolf. By the way, the translation of Eve is life. I have a question for Jared Taylor. For me the pivotal point of your presentation was your observation which is obviously correct that starting somewhere in the 1950s there's been a sea change in racial perceptions. What before this change, before this watershed was perceived as acceptable discourse, would now be dismissed as outrageous racial slurs. It seems to me however that there is a non-sequit or some kind of implicit assumption in the implications that you draw from this sea change that the present situation is a degenerative one in that the natural state as shown by our history of racial relations is either strife and oppression or segregation and this is how things must be and any attempt to negate this reality is going to result in tragedy. Perhaps I can use a thought experiment to get my point across. We can imagine Jared Taylor living in the late 18th century, the early 20th century, late 18th or early 19th century.  What they're saying, the Americans, is that there can be cooperation amongst competing religious groups. The whole history of religious difference is a history of murder and oppression. And what the Americans are saying is that in fact different religious groupings can live together and horror of horrors perhaps even respect each other. Surely the message, why can't you see this sea change as a positive development? As one more instance where America has been a beacon of light to show that what has undoubtedly been bad in the past can be overcome and we can come to a new era in which we can overcome these religions. If your point is that as a matter of historical fact, we are a bigoted and murderous species, I would have some sympathy with that view. If however your point is that this is how we ought to be or this is how we naturally are, I would question you. Ah, very interesting question. It reminds me of the great vogue of course that Marxism had for a very, very long time. The idea of the classless society, the idea of a society that would abolish selfishness and one in which we would live from each according to his ability, each according to his need. I think that was an extremely seductive one, one that attracted people for many years but the result of course we all know, result was all kinds of catastrophe. I believe that Marxism essentially failed because it was a misreading of human nature. It might be better if we lived in a world where there was no selfishness, where we really could create Marx's new man but I just don't think in our fallen state that is something that's possible. The United States today, and I think most European nations, has embarked on this notion of building a nation in which race can be made not to matter. And I think that the civil rights bargain of the United States of the 1960s was very much the idea that we whites who have been dominant, we will dismantle our racial consciousness. We will dismantle any attempt to think in terms of our group interests with the expectation that every other group would do likewise. The trouble is no other group has done so. And so in the United States it is only whites who are not allowed to defend their racial interests whereas every other racial group does so. And it is one thing to be an optimist in an entire society of optimists or to share idealism with others who are equally idealistic but this experiment of unilateral disarmament, if you will, is one that I think sufficient data have come in to show that so far, and I see no reason to see this change, it is only whites who have approached the racial question with this kind of goodwill and expectation of reciprocity. And given the situation we have today, one in which, as you say, whites are trying to build this world that will transcend race, but no one else is doing so. And unless whites realize that this fallen nature of man, just like the selfishness that Marxism tried to abolish, this is part of our nature. I think it is always better to build a society on a correct understanding of human nature rather than an illusion. The American politician Adelaide Stevenson once said that, given a choice between disagreeable fact and agreeable fantasy, Americans will go for the fantasy every time. Well, I think the idea of building a race in which race can be made not to matter is a very agreeable fantasy that has captured the imagination of large numbers of people. But I think the data are in that this must require the same thinking in all groups and we are not at that point and I don't believe we ever will be. I beg your pardon? Yes, it is one important story. Ah, we had the historical example of religious hatred which can be overcome. Yes, yes. And it was not overcome because all religions said, oh no, we will not tolerate everybody. It was overcome because of libertarian principles which are at the founding of the American state. I would agree with you that the abandonment of these libertarian principles and I'm not a Marxist incidentally by and I would agree with everything you said about Marx except the idea that Marxism would lead in a, it has a fantasy of a better world. Marxism is a vicious ideology in its own right. The respect of other races just like the respect of other religions is not beyond human achievement. Perhaps it might prove to be because we are fallible species but to suggest that it ought to be is to me pretty outrageous. I'm not necessarily saying that it ought to be. I think there are differences between men and women. Should these differences be ignored? Should they be, should we try to minimize these differences? I think again, we have to accept things as they are. As for this thought experiment, oh, I would certainly agree that our species has made all kinds of progress in terms of setting aside sources of conflict, organizing society in ways that are more fair, ways that are more productive. It's just that I brought up the question of Marxism because I think simple idealism is not the solution. Idealism can bring us into new vistas, it's true, but idealism that is misdirected can lead us to catastrophe. And in the case of the whole racial situation today, I fear that ultimately in the long term, whites not just in the United States but in Europe as well are being displaced by others. And for the first time in history, a majority population is not merely permitting itself to be displaced by others but has convinced itself that to resist this displacement is somehow evil. That to me is contrary to human nature. And unless this revolt against human nature, this revolt against a sense of community is somehow brought to an end, in the long term, our race will disappear. And I think of that as, as I said in my concluding remarks, a real tragedy. Okay, I need a signal from Hans now. We've got six more people on the list. Okay. Stefan, I agree with your assessment a lot. And you made two points that, one was the latter point with respect to liability, tort. The first one was in the attack, the assault on the corporation, as you called it, which I find it more frightening. This quote that the corporations are basically instruments of the state because they've been licensed by the state. But I like to challenge you in one thing though, in that there needs to be some ethical and moral components into this because primarily this issue is an American one. To some extent it's British. He asked you, who owns British Battalion? The answer is every pension fund in Britain. They're very same people that they expect some equity, but the problem is strictly American because American law has become really an instrument of extortion. This does not, this is not true in other parts of the world. Even in France or a lot of other places, the liability of the corporation can be easily met through insurance policies. There's no tort in the sense that the large of the corporation, the large of the damage, some jury of peers, goes after it with envy, et cetera. These things don't exist. So the corporation is not under attack, say in Europe that I'm very familiar with in any sense. It is in the sense of taxation and regulation as it is in the US. But I would like to suggest to you that the issue of corporate ownership, the reason corporations are rather less is because there's no essence of ownership any longer. In fact, in America, they call them stakeholders now. It's the lieu of stockholders or owners. And when you abrogate the element of ownership, you abrogate a sense of responsibility. And without responsibility, you have an amorphous entity that is rather less. And then the system, a legalistic system tends to attack it and destroy it. There are no strong owners anymore. There are renters. So I think a lot of it is possibly Guido Hildesman referred to it as a symptom of the age of credit, the age of credit, the access to credit, the ease to which with credit and with borrowings you can actually try to acquire wealth, so to speak, or capital or grow. Has contributed to this effect, this whole idea of the relationship between the state and the corporations as with the idea of corporatism. Others have suggested. So I think it's a symptom of a money issue. This legalism and this legal extortion is taking place. And I was wondering if you ever thought about that ethical and moral antecedents to this problem rather than just looking at it from a corporation which is truly only American, thank you. Well, I think I agree with, I'm glad you asked this because I wanted to follow up on Sean's because I did fail to complete my answer about BP. I agree with most of what you say. Corporations in America, especially the large ones, especially the big pharmaceutical industry, Hollywood, the movie industry, the music industry, some parts of the software industry heavily lobbied the state, for example, to foist our fascist patent and copyright laws on the rest of the world. So they're implicated in the state but that's only because of the state's existence, of course, and a big pig trough is gonna draw pigs. On the other hand, corporations are craven and gutless, partly because the state has so much power over them. If you just look at the regulations on public corporations with Sarbanes, Oxley, and these rules, the extortion, the taxes, and just the very fact that the state claims the right to give them life and grant their charter and then claims the right to regulate them in response and has created this notion of stakeholders, which for people who don't know, is this amorphous, new leftist doctrine that it's not only the legally classified owners, the stockholders that have the right to control the corporation, but it's everyone who has a stake in the corporation, which would be the local community, et cetera. So you have all these environmental activists and people like this that the corporations are kissing their rear ends by trying to appease them and not doing anything too bold because they don't wanna lose their charter or be sanctioned by the state or be penalized or fined. So it does lead to corporatism. And I agree that to the extent that state intervention and even corporate intervention with the state and getting in bed with the state, to the extent it has led to a distorted business field or distorted economy, I think we should abolish the corporation to get rid of these distortions. And maybe we would have a different corporate structure, a different corporate scene. My focus here, of course, was on whether or not the grant of limited liability is really a cause of all this. And I don't, yeah, I agree with you on that. I don't disagree that that is probably a much bigger effect in the first place to the way corporations act is the financial interventions that the state basically causes. I don't disagree with that. On the question of ownership, maybe a little libertarian in the weeds, but the reason I focused on ownership is because if you, so Shawn asked who owns BP and I gave the example of a house. The question for the libertarian is simply, as I said, the legally, who owns the right to control a resource? So in the case of BP, at any moment in time, there are certain managers in place and the board members who have the right to direct the actions of the employees, who have the right to allow access to the tangible equipment and capital that the corporation owns. So in a sense, those are the shareholders at a given moment in time. I'm sorry, those are the owners, okay? So if we want to determine ownership, the question is who has the right to control this resource? And by agreement of the shareholders, they do. But if you're going to say, because the state calls the shareholders' owners, then they're the true owners and we've already determined that ownership, because it means the right to control something, the right to direct the control of something implies liability, now we're sort of equivocating because we're shifting to the state just saying these guys are owners. But really, let's just look at what they are. They have the right to receive dividends, they have the right to elect directors. All that means is a very vague, small effect on who the directors are. It just means the right to receive a financial benefit from the corporation. Lots of people do this. Quite often bondholders, quite often creditors have agreements with the corporation on who's going to be on the board of directors. So are we going to establish a rule that anyone who has any influence whatsoever on who the board members are, what corporate policy is, anyone who gets a financial benefit from a corporation like a customer, we could call them owners too, but because they have some of the same characteristics that shareholders have. So that is why I brought this point up. I mean, imagine a restrictive covenant, which is an example I gave.  Who's the owner of my house in such a neighborhood? Well, I'm the 99% owner and my neighbors own 1% in a sense. They have a partial right of control. They have the right to tell me not to use it for a certain purpose, not to build a pig form on my property. I have the rest of the right. It's divided by contract. Now, there are perils of dividing by contract as people point out. You have more amorphous responsibility, but usually in a contract, you're going to have at any moment in time, just like the rules for private property and a free society, this is the entire purpose of political theorizing is to come up with a set of rules that answer the question at any moment in time, not in the future, who has the right to control this scarce resource right now? And the first political question, the libertarian principles that Professor Hoppe talked about determines what person or group of people have the right over this resource. And then internally to that group of people, they have a web of contracts that specify who among them has the right. And that's what you have in a corporation and that's what you have in a restrictive covenant. That's what you have in a partnership. That's what you have when two people buy a car together or buy a condo and aspen together and they agree that you can use it on these weeks and I can use it on these weeks. So ownership is relevant when we want to determine that question. How we get people to act morally and ethically in such a situation is beyond my pay grade but I don't think the state should encourage it by interfering with corporations or even with chartering them. So I agree that they should abolish that but let the free market operate. I would like to ask Mr. Stone what he thinks about two historical works on Second World War in case that you've studied them. The first is which was published about a year ago by Herbert Hoover Freedom Betrayed which puts forth this thesis that the intervention of the United States in the Second World into Europe prolonged the Second World War and if they wouldn't have intervened Soviet Union and the national socialists would have destroyed each other and it would have been favorable to the United States of course and also to the outcome of the Second World War and the second work is by Anthony Sutton. It's called Wall Street and Hitler and in case you know it, what you're hearing is these two works. Thank you. Let me take the second question first. I read about the book rather than read it. You know there were, it goes back a long way to say that capitalism caused Hitler. It had obvious origins in Germany where people would say that the capitalist went along with Hitler. Well you know, I mean it's in a sense true but it was investigated quite a long time ago by my called Henry Allen Turner. Who looked into all this and the capitalist had to hedge their bets in Germany. You know they preferred the national liberal party with people's party as they called it. Hedged their bets with the Catholics and only really came along to start supporting Hitler when he was already winning. And Titian wrote his memoirs about that before and no fleeing. I mean after all, you know, capitalism's, capitalists have to protect their positions and everybody else did. You know, I'm never terribly impressed by these American conspiracy theories that Gore-Vidal came up with one which was quite well documented that somehow Roosevelt was prodding Hitler into war.  And you know, somehow there's a strain of American thought which I never understand quite that somehow this was Roosevelt's fault, not Hitler's for actually attacking. Now, Harold Herbert Hoover is an exceedingly interesting man. One of these very characteristic American figures of the 1920s, he did a huge amount of good in Belgium who's saving it from starvation, repeated that feat in the Soviet Union. And when he spent a huge amount of money saving the Soviet, saving Russian peasants from starving in 1922, 1923. But it's, you know, to that we owe the Hoover Library and Stanford, which was a fabulous institution because he said, you know, the way to pay me back is give me czarist government documents. So it was for a long time the leading institution for the Soviet archives started opening. It was to the Hoover Institution that he went for books and papers. I owe it a lot, right? As I wrote about Russia in the First World War. Now, he's that kind of can do mentality, but he emerged from all of that with a hatred of the Soviet Union. You know, I think the statutes of the Hoover Library are that this money is given to demonstrate the falsity of the doctrines of Karl Marx. I'm literally quoting, I think that's the foundation of it. He went in with Hansen, and Hansen's the great Norwegian and Hansen's assistant in that case was a certain major quizzling who was the, you know, who was the Nazi collaborator in Norway during the war and was executed for it. Again, out of hatred of the Soviet Union. Now, you see, when Hitler and when Roosevelt ended up in the alliance with Stalin, somebody like Hoover, so talkily unnatural, but why can't we just stay out of it and let them bash each other to bits? Well, the answer is that somebody would have won.   But Hoover himself must have known that the tax rises he made in 1932, and his policy of closing down after all, closing down 6,000 banks in the middle of a slump is crazy, and putting up taxes is also crazy. But he must have realized that his policies had something to do with the depth of the depression, which Roosevelt, when he ate it, was very successful in overcoming.  It's a great pity, because, you know, the world owes him a lot, but it just went wrong. You have the last question. Okay, so my question is for Stefan Kinsella and maybe Professor Hoppe, if he would like to add something on this. I was a little bit confused after your presentation and after your answers to the questions, I'm confused more about the subject. When you said that ownership is only for scarce resources, I'd like to ask how a corporation is a scarce resource and is it really possible to own a corporation? And in fact, if you challenge your definition of shareholder ownership, in fact, it fits to the copyright owner exactly and how is it possible that shareholders own a corporation which does not physically exist and is it possible to own a shareholder or they're just in contractual obligation with the pound or whatever it is? Sure, well, I was actually kind of disputing the common notion, the state classification that shareholders are owners of the corporation and it's considered in the law to be an owned thing because it has a legal personality and the state treats that as a type of ownable thing. From my point of view and from the point of view of libertarians, when you talk about who's the owner of the corporation, the question really is who's the owner of the scarce resources that the corporation owns? So 10 people come together, put their money together and by a contract between them, they agree what's going to be done with it. That money is going to have an administrator, a manager, it's going to be used to purchase certain real assets which are scarce resources, building capital goods and then it makes money. It's just a convenient legal fiction. It really would have no owner. I would agree in a free market that the corporation doesn't even exist as a legal entity. That's why I disagree with the entity theory. So it's just a way of conveniently saying who owns these resources? Like let's say you have the McDonald's building. So then the question is who owns that building? Well, it's really 17 co-owners if 17 people came together to form a corporation. They just own it through the mechanism of what they call a corporation and they adopt the common name just like a trade name just to deal with the public and to make it easy for people to know who they're dealing with. But really, you're right. Corporations do not have a scarce, they're not a scarce resource. It's just the means by which real people own scarce resources, which are the physical assets owned by the corporation including the money that it makes, the profits that it makes, the products that it generates. So we're really talking about ownership of the scarce resources including the trucks and the things that are used. These are scarce means used by actual employees to commit torts. So we're always talking about scarce means. So that's what the whole dispute is about. And then the question Sean asked about ownership. What I'm pointing out is there's a distributed form of ownership. Some shareholders have a claim, some bondholders have a certain claim and a certain influence. Board of directors have a certain claim all by virtue of the structure set forth in a contract between a number of people. So we're talking about ownership of the scarce resources owned by the corporation. If it has no resources, it's worth nothing. So really that's the ultimate question.


Good morning world, welcome back to our circumnavigation around the globe by motorcycle. We're here in the town of Kharkhorin in Mongolia. Last night I went to bed feeling not too great. Yesterday I started taking antibiotics for a chest infection but after a cozy night in the gear I woke up this morning feeling already a lot better. So yeah let me show you guys where we're heading today. Okay so we are here and today we're gonna start by visiting a few spots around this area before taking this road up past Cesar Lake and continuing northwest up to finish the day at Turkin Sagan Lake also known as White Lake. So the lake where we aiming to camp tonight is about four hours from here it's already 10 30 and we still have to pick up everything so better hit the road let's go. The weather is not looking very good this morning I think we're gonna get very wet today. I'll just ride out of this area so you could jump just after. This is kind of exactly where the horn is so every time I do full lock this way it's like gonna beep. Oh there's a hole. There's a bit of a hole. Wait a second. Yeah I'm out I'm out. It's okay. Wait. Yeah I'm trying to turn as fast as possible. Wait a second. Whee! The front wheel went in a hole. I did not see that. Stick to the paths Ollie stick to the paths. Thank you. Very nice thank you. Thank you. Tire's good. Still there. Bye bye bye. Beautiful. Yeah that was a really cozy night hey. So so nice. So this is Khakhorin in front of us. It's sort of a very big place. Population is only 14 000 people but it is really really important historically for two main reasons. The first is that this was the site of the ancient city of Karakoram. It was actually the capital of the Mongol Empire between 1236 and 1260. So back then this place was booming. But not only that but Khakhorin is also home to the oldest surviving Buddhist monastery in Mongolia which is called Erdenzul Monastery and quite conveniently it's right in front of us. And this is our first stop for the day is to go and visit the oldest monastery in Mongolia. We just asked the lady as well if she has any places to recommend at the White Lake what we're going to sleep tonight and she said there are many many gears. So we were probably sleeping a little gear tonight. Yeah that would actually be really nice. I think it's such a good way to spend the night inside there it's just so cozy and like yeah I had a really good night. Yeah me too. Okay beautiful. We're here in Erdenzul Monastery. Erdenzul Monastery began construction in 1585. The ruler of the Kalkat Mongols Abtai Sayin Khan ordered the construction of this monastery after meeting with the Third Dalai Lama. This is the oldest surviving Buddhist monastery in Mongolia. It's pretty awesome. It's really nice the souvenir shop is inside a gear and this gear has beautiful painted patterns on the wooden slats. So nice. Camels. So now we are going to visit the Karakorum Museum which is actually not very far away it's just like point one of a mile in that direction. The sun is out. Kind of. 50-50 at the moment. We've put our rain gear on now as well but here it is the Karakorum Museum. It's actually quite a modern building. Looks really nice actually. Is it a good thing? Yeah. Ready to go. Hello. Hi. One hour later. So we're just having our lunch and we're hiding under this pagoda which is part of the museum grounds. It started raining like crazy. To be honest I'm kind of scared to hit the road. We haven't even got anywhere yet. It's already like one o'clock. It doesn't look very inviting today. No. No. So let's just enjoy an egg and cheese sandwich. Yes. And see if the weather improves. I just waterproof my boots. They have a lot of holes now. Olga and Sergey they gave me actually plastic bags and some tape because it gets quite cold here as well. That's a professional job right there. All right we had a break in the rain. Bye bye. So we are going to hit the road. Yeah actually it's looking a little bit blue skies over there isn't it? I think it's crossed it stays dry. So we weren't allowed to film inside the museum so we were just like oh it's okay we'll make some notes and I'll tell you guys what we learned on the inside. So we learned that Karakorum was declared the capital of the Mongol Empire by Genghis Khan in 1220 and this was a pretty crazy city at the time. 10 to 15,000 people living here. The city had 12 Buddhist temples, two mosques and a Christian church. So it was a totally like multi-religious place but not only multi-religious but also multi-ethnic. Apparently at the time there were people from Mongolia, Tibet, China, India, even Europeans living here in the 1200s. What happened after is that the grandson of Genghis Khan, the famous Kublai Khan, he actually moved the capital of the Mongol Empire from here from Karakorum to Beijing because they took over China and they even renamed the Great Mongol Empire the Great Yuan Dynasty. But then it all fell to pieces. In 1388 the Great Yuan Dynasty was overthrown by the Min dynasty of China and they basically came to Mongolia and completely destroyed the city and that was the end of Karakorum. That's crazy though. You would never imagine now looking at this small town which exists on this site it was at one time the great center of the Great Mongol Empire. But what's really interesting is that the population of the town is 14,500 people which is actually nearly the same population that it was at that time. The amount of people here hasn't really changed in like a thousand years. So that was a really cool museum. It was 10,000 entry to the monastery and to the museum per person which is about £2.50 per person. So in total we've paid out only £10 this morning for all of those amazing things that we saw. Just hoping that this road is okay but it seems all right. So we have one more site to visit here before we hit the road properly and that is just up here on the hill and that is the monument for the Mongol states and apparently you get a really nice view of this whole area. This entire area which is called the Orchon Valley is actually a UNESCO World Heritage Site because of the natural beauty of this valley but also the historical significance. Oh hold on where am I going? Gotta go down here. I can see the monument up on the hill actually. It's just up there. Let's see how the road is to actually get up the hill though. See if it's all right for us to ride. Yeah. Anyway a really good point when we drop the bike we can quick relief our Moscow motorpanias so it would be easier to pick up the bike. But anyway we haven't dropped bumblebee in a long time now. Oh no don't say that. Oh my god. Now you've said that I can feel everything is going wobbly. I'm kidding I'm kidding. Is this the road? No this is not the road. Maybe there is no road. Okay this is like here like a roundabout. Okay wait one second just trying to figure out what to do. Okay I mean there was a road over there but no no. Ah yeah he's pointing to go round. Okay we just try and walk it through this bit. Yeah okay yep I'm good good good. Oh my god. Yeah this looks more like it. I think we might get there. Oh my god is this really the parking place? What is going on here? Okay at least this bit is concreted. Oh my god. Oh my god. That was a bit dodgy but hey look there it is. Wow. The town of Harkhorin. Beautiful. The colourful roofs. Yeah really really cool. Really cool. Wow yeah you can see here the map of Asia and the gold part is representing the fullest extent of the Mongol Empire under Kublai Khan. Hey look at that eh. He nearly got the whole world. Yay that's a lot of territory. Wow and the blue part is Mongolia. Cool. Yeah it's like this typical Buddhism sculptures we see along the road as well they're always putting like rocks on top of each other. Yeah but this is a big one look at this. Yeah okay let me just have a look here what's going on. Holy moly.  So that was the great Mongol monument and that is it for our sightseeing in Harkhorin but it's been actually a very very very cool town to explore. So many cool things to see. So much history here it's just an amazing place but now it is time for us to get a move on and try and make some distance today. So far we've clocked up a total of 3.7 miles. Oh my god look at this I think I didn't take this road last time did I? No I don't think that you did.  Oh sliding a little bit. So it is time to make some progress now. So we're aiming to make it four hours now down the road and finish the day at a lake called White Lake. Wow look at this dog. Is it a bear? Is it a wolf? No it's a Mongolian sheepdog look at them. Wow. Oh they are impressive. Beautiful. We've got to try to get back to the tarmac. Yeah. It all looks just as bad as each other. All right I'll go this way then. Yeah yeah I think that's a good choice. Yeah. So now we just have to somehow get up there. Oh here to the left. Yes there we go back to tarmac. Okay so this road definitely has its challenges. Look at the amount of potholes in this road it's absolutely crazy. I mean it's like potholes but then they've actually been cut out into squares like they're kind of ready to be filled in but then there's just no one filling them in. If we go into that at 60 miles an hour that's our rear shock gone again. It will be quite painful for Bambili for sure. I just can't believe how many there are you know. Yeah quite a lot of obstacles in Mongolia that's for sure. Yeah. Oh that's nice. Oh it looks so cozy. It does. She's like marking the horse I think. No way. Yes I think they drink horse mug. Yeah I guess they do yeah because like if you're a horse herder you have to get everything that you need to survive from the horse right. True.  Just one massive grassy valley after the next day. Yeah endless. The world's largest petting zoo. Guys we just had to stop here because either these are some really hairy cows or this is our first yak herd. I'm pretty sure it's our first yak herd but I want to go check out this fella because he's got some big horns. Cool. Oh and he's doing this with his legs. Okay I'm gonna not go too close. That means we've now seen herds of cows, goats, sheep, horses, camels and yaks. And humans. Herds of traffic. This traffic just is barely moving.  Hey what a country. That's amazing. So we just stopped here in the town of Cecelech and look at the mountains in the background of this town. It's a spectacular view. Yes definitely. Anyway I was super thirsty so I thought we'd stop off at the mini market and get ourselves a nice juice or something. And also I can show you guys what it looks like on the inside of a Mongolian convenience store in the middle of the mountains. Hello. Hello. This is what they got going on. Oh what's this? Some little short breads. Those look pretty good to be honest. Okay I'll see how much they are. Look they've got all the regular stuff. They've got Oreos. They look a ton of different chocolate bars. They even got Milka. Milka, Nestle, Haribo. It's pretty cool. What was I going to get? Oh yeah juice. Juice juice juice.  All vodka here. All vodka. In fact this is all vodka all the way to here. That's like a whole massive corner dedicated to vodka. Look it's like a brown vodka with like pine in it. What I would like is a nice pineapple juice. Hello. How are you? Good? Good? This one five thousand five hundred. Yes okay and this one. Perfect eight thousand five hundred. Thank you. I'm from England. Yes thank you thank you. I got some good old pineapple juice and I got like a whole thing of something. It looked really tasty. Okay so I thought I thought I'd just go for it. And the whole thing came to eight thousand five hundred which is like two pounds. They're good. Very tasty.  Yeah super cool here. Yeah there's a toll booth here but I think I think it's probably ah it's free. Cool. Well here we go. We're going up into the mountains now that's cool. Oh some bottles here. Hello. Hello. Oh with a baby. Oh that's a big one. Yeah it's a little bit slalom here. Yeah not too easy.   Oh yeah back on tarmac back on the open roads. Look at this hairy fella running across the road.   That's nice. That's like the modern way to hurt hey. Just driving the car behind the hurt try to push them in one direction. There we go. Oh we're gonna get a close yak encounter now. Oh they're all running. Sorry guys. Where are you going? Oh hey. Oh I love yaks look at them they're so they're so fluffy. Yeah they look cool. They're so cool. Hello. They're a bit like Highland Cougs. Yeah. Yeah look at this guy. Hello. Amazing. Yeah as we're getting a bit further north into the mountain region definitely seeing a lot more yaks. Yeah wow beautiful animals. An upgraded cuter fluffier version of a cow. Anyway we're bouncing along here. The road is not very good anymore. No no we've got some sections of road missing. Some parts they thought no this is just too many potholes we're just going to take away the entire road. Anyway we've got 26 miles more until we reach the lake. GPS tells us it should take us about 40 minutes. We've arrived. We're here. We're going to be looking to cap basically any of these gear caps. So maybe we should just check out these guys here. Oh Jesus do you think I can get down here? I don't know. Can you? No why not. Give it a go eh? Yeah. Give it a go. Hello. Hello. Do you speak English? A little bit. A little bit okay. Do you have space for two people? Yeah okay. Okay. Yes around there yeah. The last one. Thank you okay. Okay all right. Perfect. I think she met this one. So so cool right next to the lake. Unbelievable. I'm so excited. Cool. That looks nice. Hey it looks cozy. Yes and we will really enjoy tonight here. Yeah this is going to be really really really nice. I'll bring the bike over and then we can unload. Okay. Okay so we just want to show you guys how convenient and amazing these Moscow Moto Panyas are. So we want to bring our stuff into the gear.  Could you do yours? You can do it. You got it. Yes and then boom the entire panya. We can just bring it in. Look at that. It's so quick. And then the box and then the tank bag and that's it. So we went from like seven different items to bring in to just like five easy clip-on items. That's so good hey.  That is putting out some kind of heat I can tell you. It's so cozy because we were getting cold already and then the owner here she brought in a lot of firewood and we were like jackpot. But then I tried lighting it with some paper and it was like absolutely not happening. So then we went and asked her and she brought over like this gas canister with like a blowtorch end on it.  So it's a cozy end to a super interesting morning and a spectacular ride. Yeah I can't believe how beautiful Mongolia is. I'm so super surprised. It's really one of the top countries I think we have visited so far on our trip because it's just so different. The way how the people living here so far away from our reality that it feels so alien but at the same time we are totally in love like we were talking about already getting a gear for ourselves you know because it's so cozy and nice I love it. So we really can't wait to go back on the bike tomorrow and explore more and see more about this beautiful country and that's it from us today. We hope you enjoyed the video. If so please give us a thumbs up subscribe to the channel share the video with your friends and family comment below and when you really really really like our videos you can join us on patreon. The link is in the description below. We will see you next time.


It's a lovely ball to pick out Henderson Hall aerially, but he's been caught in possession and now Tullock can turn off the afterburners and thread it through for Smith. Smith, one-on-one now. Here's his chance! And he creeps it under the goalkeeper and he gets his first Bradford City outfield goal and the celebration alone tells you just how much of a relief that is for Tullock. He broke through the Manchester City defence, he was assisted by Tullock with an inch-perfect ball and he was first to it to just slip it under the goalkeeper Murray Jones and it rolls into the back of the net and Bradford City have the lead after 14 minutes, one-nil. What a good strike from Tyler Smith, very very composed, just got it in front of his man and just toe-poked it past the goal underneath the goalkeeper but it was Rayan Tullock who did all the hard work, saw the run of Tyler Smith and just played the ball nicely into his path, wrong-sided defender in on goal, great little slot for your first goal, or should I say for the first goal of the evening. That's a clever ball from Wally Goken, it's for Elise Smith who's in behind now, he could get a second! Yes! Ah and it's gone through the goalkeeper and it's a brace for Tyler Smith, George Murray-Jones down to his right, he's got a palm on it but on this skinny surface Tyler Smith gets his second of the game and Bradford City lead Manchester City under 21s by two goals to nil after 35 minutes, what an evening for Tyler Smith. What an evening but what a ball from Daniel Ayagoke, it was a wonderful pass into space, even if it looked round Tyler Smith he knew that ball was for him and the minute he got onto it there was only one thing he could do and that was get it out of his feet and hit the target and that's what he certainly did, bit fortunate that he went over underneath the goalkeeper's arm but it squirmed into the net and you make your own lock in this game and Tyler Smith certainly did that with the run, you know he's making good runs off the back of defenders and that's where his value is and all credit to Daniel Ayagoke for seeing the run and placing the ball exactly where it needed to be. They're so close there Tyler Smith, Chapman then with this corner it's whipped in with the pace and it's into the back of the net and it's Tyler Smith, well he does get his hat trick, it's a reactive shot it's an instinctive shot really, from all of two yards out the corner was whipped in, it went over the goalkeeper Murray Jones who attacked it with his hands he completely missed it and it just landed at the feet of Smith who buried it from close range and Tyler Smith has a first half hat trick here at Volley Parade, a brilliant return from him Bradford City 3 Manchester City's under 21s nil. Yeah it's definitely an opportunity score wasn't it, you know back in the day they talked about the name was Johnny on the spot well he certainly was Johnny on the spot Tyler Smith there as a ball came across from the corner it just fell at his feet from the flick on and he just side-footed it into them to go.


Mae cyfnodau i gael i'r ffiii yw I-258 yn y mae George Adam, oherwydd i'r Pwyllgor, yn gweithio i'r ffiii yw'r busnes a'r gyfnodau i'r ffiii yw, rydyn ni'n meddwl i'r ffiii yw yw i'r gweithio i'i gael i'r mfiii yw i'r rydyn ni'n meddwl i'r gweithio i'r bwnt yn nhw. Rydyn ni'n meddwl i'r gweithio i'r ffiii yw i'r gweithio i'r mfiii yw i'r bwnt. Nodd yn ddigwydd diwrnod o'r llei ddatblygu, mewn ddigwydd, ond mae'n ddigwydd o'r llei ddatblygu, ond mae'n ddigwydd o'r llei ddatblygu. Ond mae'n ddigwydd o'r llei ddatblygu. Rwy'n gweithio'r llei ddatblygu eich parolamentaeth yn ni o'r llei ddatblygu, a oedd yn gyffinodd yn cydnig i ddeifrodi Hendyddol Trustiau. George Adam to move the motion. No member has asked to speak on the motion and the question is that motion 1231 be agreed, are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The next item of business is consideration of 10 parliamentary bureau motions and I asked George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau to move motions 1232 to 1239 on approval of SSIs, 1240 on parliamentary recess dates and 1242 on suspension and variation of standing orders. The question on those motions will be put at decision time and there are eight questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Michael Matheson is agreed, then the other amendments will fall and if the amendment in the name of Monica Lennon is agreed, then the amendment in the name of Liam McArthur will fall. The first question is the amendment 1193.3 in the name of Michael Matheson, which seeks to amend motion 1193 in the name of Liam Kerr on the future of North Sea oil and gas be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and there will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system. Can I remind members that if the amendment in the name of Michael Matheson is agreed, then the other amendments will fall? The question is that amendment 1193 in the name of Michael Matheson, which seeks to amend motion 1193 in the name of Liam Kerr on the future of North Sea oil and gas be agreed and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 1193.3 is yes, 68, no 55, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed, the other amendments are therefore preempted. The next question is that motion 1193 in the name of Liam Kerr as amended on the future of North Sea oil and gas be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on motion 1193 in the name of Liam Kerr as amended is yes, 68, no 55, there were no abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 127.2 in the name of Humza Yousaf, which seeks to amend motion 127 in the name of Annie Wells on the return to normal GP service be agreed. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 1217.2 in the name of Humza Yousaf is yes, 67, no 56, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore agreed. The next question is that amendment 127.1 in the name of Jackie Baillie, which seeks to amend motion 127 in the name of Annie Wells on the return to normal GP services be agreed. Are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. The result of the vote on amendment 1217.1 in the name of Jackie Baillie is yes, 56, no 65, there were no abstentions, the amendment is therefore not agreed. The next question is that motion 127 in the name of Annie Wells, as amended, on the return to normal GP services be agreed. Are we all agreed? Thank you. The Parliament is not agreed, therefore we will move to a vote and members should cast their votes now. The vote is now closed. I call Angela Constance for a point of order. My phone lost connection during that vote and unable to vote, but I would have voted for the motion as amended by Humza Yousaf, so that would have been a yes. Thank you, Ms Constance. We will ensure that that is recorded. I call Collette Stevenson for a point of order. With apologies to the member, I regret that at the moment we are unable to connect to Collette Stevenson. The result of the vote on motion 127 in the name of Annie Wells, as amended, is yes, 89, no, 30, there were no abstentions, the motion as amended is therefore agreed. Colleagues, I would like to—oh, I am afraid, Ms Baillie, that the vote has been called. With regard to the earlier vote in the name of Liam Kerr on motion 1193, my apologies, I was passed the wrong information on the vote on that motion. The result of the vote on motion 1193 in the name of Liam Kerr as amended is yes, 66, no, 55, there were no abstentions, but nonetheless the motion as amended is agreed. I propose to ask a single question on 10 parliamentary bureau motions. Does any member object? The final question is that motions 1232 to 1240 and 1242 in the name of George Adam on behalf of the parliamentary bureau be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time. We will now move on to members' business, and I ask members to leave the chamber quietly.


Hello everyone, I'm Patty Gunnell, Vice President of Strategic Accounts, ReelUS. Today we're here to talk to Vinny Senescale from Firehouse Productions who is living currently in the NBA bubble. We thought we'd spend some time with Vinny today talking about how, what he's done there and for several months lived within the bubble and then of course he had the challenge of designing the entire communications and belero system for the NBA network and so I think today we'd like to spend some time with him to ask him how he did what he did. Vinny, how are you today? Hi Patty, doing very well thank you. Good. You're on site presently in the arena for we're going to be starting game four of the finals this evening so came in a little early take you guys through what we've been doing here and how the process came about several months ago. We started work back in well I'm going to say back in March when the NBA reached out to Firehouse I mean we've had a long-standing relationship there and normally we do their more special events not their typical day-to-day you know we've done the NBA all-star on the draft and overseas games for them things that are not just their standard season but when the NBA wanted to restart the 2020 season it was a special event because it was not taking place in any of their standard arenas they chose the worldwide sports down in Orlando at Disney and basically needed three courts to be built from scratch with you know the added need to have PA for the court it originally started out as one location then grew to two then grew to three and then once they had all that finalized the challenge was okay how are we linking this now for communication so we started in preliminary talks that said back in like March April and May came around and we started to bring the team together brought on Luis Espanel also a Firehouse employee who heads up a lot of our large projects for wireless and communications and we went obviously right to artists and the initial concept was that we were going to have just a few frames in one venue and then when they added more venues we were just going to treat them all as independent projects but as we got closer and closer to coming on site which we came on site July 1st so once we got into June and they realized it was going to be two networks it's going to be Turner and ESPN so now we're talking about six broadcast trucks across three venues and then you know they wanted as minimal staff as possible which meant that the venues were no longer going to be independent that everything was going to be tied together so we had to rethink you know the network from from being three separate shows to being one large show and that was really where we began and that was that was when we set about looking at the hardware and you know frame count and panel count fiber infrastructure which all the fiber infrastructure is provided through the NBA to a third party so we're really just looking at locations where we have hardware and then telling them our fiber needs and then they're providing fiber infrastructure joint effort to bring network this this large up online that's intense now now how long did it take you to kind of start from beginning to end of putting that on all down on paper so to speak initially it was myself and Louise and then we brought in Scott Hoskins who also handled all of our internal communication infrastructure so we sat down and put it out on paper and over the course of probably two to three weeks came up with the initial system design and then we we came into the shop probably about two weeks prior to coming on site put it all together you know gave it a dry run make sure that it was all going to work and then we brought it down to Orlando where we had two weeks to do the install got it all up and and running ready for the for the first set of scrimmages now were there's challenge what were the I guess what were the obvious all right not so much obvious but the challenges that came along that kind of three-year curve that maybe readle was able to help you out with or just that you're able to overcome and so just getting over the initial design phase of like okay it's going to be one network that's going to link all three venues together and all six broadcast trucks but then in addition to that the staff that was here with the nba and with the broadcast companies they needed to maintain social distance so it began series of routing efforts to try and make it so that the the statisticians and the people at the scores table the coaches could all communicate with each other and with the referees who were on the court where typically referees would just be running and be relaying information saying hey that was three points or that was that was a foul now there's a large piece of plexi that fits in front of the scores table and so they cannot hear so what we ended up doing was putting microphones on the ref and giving comms to the coaches and now there's discrete logic functions built in so that the coaches can communicate specifically either to broadcast or to just the statisticians or to just the game caller and the coaches likewise can communicate to just the people that they need to speak to so and that came that came after the fact when people started to think about well you know how are we going to be able to effectively communicate with all the social distancing measures that are in place so yeah the you know the and then of course there's the redundancy of the of the artist ring and the logic functions all sort of came together to make it possible and then of course integrating bolero meant that you know we've got a there was at one point there was 116 users on bolero so that made it really the only option for wireless communication as well the environment really became seamless let's say naturally but you know just in design it was there to expand would you say you use more logic on this job than normal or is this about oh yeah absolutely no there's there's far more logic built into this than than project that i've been into i can jump into the file and show you and so yeah you can see here in the left is the tree so it's uh i believe it's a total of 12 frames and you can see that it's basically uh four in the arena three in the uh in the hp center three in the visa center and two out in the truck compound the two out in the truck compound one of which is a 128 and 64 and that's where we're interfacing all of uh all of the six broadcast trucks and then if you go to the logic function you can see there's literally 100 sources in destination some of some of the more killer ones are as i said um uh the the rest mic for example let me just get to that so you can see here's what this is just this is from the v so v signifies the visa so there's there's a logic here so that when the rest uh you know when the rest talk it'll go it'll go from there it'll go to the faustex so we have faustex speakers at the tourist table inside so that certain members can hear what the what the reps are saying and that's across each venue you'll find um a logic of that nature so when you see when i search by ref you can see the the there's one here for each and now ref mics one ref mic two the arena ref the hp ref so and the visa ref so there's uh also another logic here uh so it doesn't look like you you were going to be able to do a lot of this like pre-planned you had to do most of this and sort all this out mostly when you got on the job site didn't you it this is all something that kind of yeah it is um and so you know you can you can see here we have a status this is something that's checking the status of the ref mic so that if for whatever reason the circuit for the ref mic doesn't doesn't go open it's updating with the clock of every one second so we're checking on status as well as where as well as routing the mic so that's a big part of the of the logic some a lot of these other logic functions that are in here are um it's it's so if any one of these panels goes offline it will automatically signal a beacon back at our home base to let the operator know that if you're there hey this panel is offline or if you were away when you came back it will still flash um so that's that's what the the infinite loop function is so and then I got there's a little bit more detail here in the um this is the layout of the frames as it goes logically so the solid lines are the primary fiber loop dotted lines are the redundant loop um and as you can see it it all starts here at the truck and then from there it it's branching out and I've got a uh photo here so this is the actual physical photo of the 128 and the 64 out in the truck compound this is where the fiber patch is made here to make the entire diagram and then this down here is going moving on that would be the bolero which primary in a backup spoken hub uh network for the bolero here you see we've got third party ferro fish that we're using the interface so we're tying entirely analog into these two artist frames but as you can see if I zoom in a little bit more here you can see that we're you know Dante to the three Espen trucks and then this is a spare then we're matty to the three of the Turner trucks and then nba tv we were interfacing Dante so and then here we've got media converters for the various some people were multi mode some people were single mode so that's what's going on there internally though we've got it's all cat five coming analog out of these ferro fish into the two artist frames moving back you can see there's a significant number of of bolero users but they're all distributed throughout the as67 cards are distributed throughout the network so it's not it's not centralized decentralized and and and the clock is set so there's there's there's no master at the floating it's a floating master on the bolero side this takes us into the bolero and you can see again the primary network solid line and the redundant network dotted line so here's a hub and then there's three spokes and a hub and three spokes uh will you be our links features on the luminex to have the network and standby over here so that if any one of these branches goes down one of these branches will pick right up did you guys use primarily only bolero or were there other other manufacturers intercoms function at the same time as far as wireless hundred percent bolero between us and turner and espn okay so uh now i guess was there any specific obstacle that you had to overcome from a technology standpoint with riddle or the things that you had to even we had to stretch a little bit there to accomplish or in the com system as a whole or was it just a pretty much just go um there's there's some there's there's some there's some routing that's going on in and out of the the artist matrix i mean we've got some external cont mixing console uh to do some of the routing functions that we needed to for the ref mics and and things of that nature even outside the logic functions but for the most part uh it was all handled you know internally in the in the artist the artist has enough versatility between the the pre-programmed functions and then when you add on top of that the logic functions it was really just a matter of of sitting down and talking it out and drawing it out and and programming it now do you have a process of what you choose to use on a particular job and i i just you just know what you want to use or just i don't know in your case do you just always choose to be real or do you have other other systems that you you know uh there i mean of course there are other options there are other manufacturers you know i i usually start by getting involved with the producers and they talk about their vision of what they're going to do i get an idea of how many departments you know how many how many players are going to be involved and take notes and and and look at look at really port counts is where i start and uh you know if we're talking about just you know 10 20 30 users you can kind of make that work in a lot of different ways but when you start to get above that number uh then i start to to lean into to saying okay we should go with with reedle products i mean most of the time people don't really question it because they're coming to us they're looking for us to design what gets done um so you know there's there's there's a little bit of level of both with the relationship we have with the nba now they know that we're going to be coming using reedle systems and that and that's sort of expected so yeah i won't say that i design solely with reedle in mind but uh i i'm very familiar with the product so i i know where i'm going uh with that in mind let's just put it that way but we interface you know the the trucks have a lot of rts and adam still that's still legacy product so we're interfacing that you know via matty which as i pointed out we're using third party uh products to interface matty but you know in the coming years with 1024 it will interface directly you know to artists um so it's just another reason that we would be leaning on uh on reedle products and particularly the the artist environment with 1024 is going to make it that much more flexible i mean the artist is powerful system but i think i think it was around 1996 or so that it came out so using aes3 technology of course it's amazing how robust it's been for this long you know and now integrated aes67 and then of course uh fully integrate integration of aes67 with 1024 will be something that we're looking forward to that's it it's you know we're definitely becoming a very diverse ecosystem for communication that's for sure well you know i suspect we probably better let you get back to work we could probably talk all about your projects and all the work that you do and i certainly appreciate your time vinyan thank you so much for your uh you know your respect of the product or use of the product and pushing the envelope with it i'm sure every day and i can't say thank you enough on behalf of reedle and from a corporate level i know that uh you are very valuable to us so thank you patty it's nice talking with you and uh i hope that we talk again soon all right well thank you so much and you have a great time and and hopefully you get to go home soon so thanks patty okay thanks a lot viny bye bye bye


Hi, my name is Ron Langley. I'm with the Department of Labor and Industries here in Washington State. I'm sitting here in the Tacoma Dome, the world's largest freestanding wooden structure, to help you visualize what might otherwise be a dry statistic. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, enough people in the United States suffer eye injuries at work each and every month of the year to fill this entire arena past its seating capacity. And if that's a depressing statistic, here's a related one. 90% of those injuries would have been prevented just by the use of proper eyewear. There are dozens of things in every workplace that pose hazards to our eyes, those most fragile exposed parts of our bodies, sparks, chemicals, flying particles, and a significant number of trips to the emergency room every year are caused by splinters in the eye. The effect of those hazards can be demonstrated by a common tool, and one that's a common source of injuries, the stapler. An injury like that would probably have been prevented just by wearing ordinary glasses. However, ordinary eye glasses aren't really an effective form of eye protection, as this person discovered while operating a powered lawn edger. Nail guns, for example, are causing more and more workplace injuries with every passing year. Regular eyeglasses simply aren't designed to protect eyes from sharp, high-impact objects. To demonstrate, we put a pair of regular eyeglasses on our friend Yorick. Not only did the glasses fail to protect his eyes, the lenses themselves created their own hazard when they shattered. It's also common to see people depending on sunglasses for eye protection. Again, not only inadequate as protection, but adding to the hazard when hit with an object. And even some of those things we think are safety glasses don't protect our eyes like they should. A pretty high price to pay for some company's decision to sell shoddy imitations. To put it simply, if they don't have the ANSI ANSI Z87 stamp on them, don't gamble your precious eyesight on them. Sometimes you have to look closely to see it, but it's worth your effort to find the stamp. It's also important to note that these have side shields. Many injuries to people wearing regular glasses came from the side. So let's see how well ANSI rated safety glasses hold up to a nail gun. Note off to the right, the muzzle of the nail gun. It's at point blank range. Quite an impact, but not an eye injury. And with a different pair of ANSI rated glasses. See that dimple? What a difference from regular glasses or from the so-called safety glasses that weren't ANSI rated. And a third pair of ANSI rated glasses. And a third success. It's pretty impressive. But what's even more impressive? Some of these glasses cost less than 7 bucks. Not much more than most of us can find in the cushions of our living room furniture. Seems like a pretty simple choice, doesn't it? 7 bucks for something that will protect our eyes from a 16-penny nail fired at close range. Compare that to others. Regular glasses won't protect you. Neither will sun glasses or the fake safety glasses that only give you a false sense of protection. It really is an easy choice when you know what to look for. But I was curious. Just how good are these safety glasses? So I asked John Crossman, shooting coach, instructor with the National Rifle Association to help me out. Ouch! That was quite an impact. And poor Yorick. At first it didn't look like the bullet went through the glasses. What happened was the lens material closed back up as soon as the bullet went through it. The important lesson, of course, is that a pair of safety glasses, by themselves, won't protect against all the hazards in the workplace. It's important to choose the right kind of eye protection. Handling chemicals, using a grinder or a lathe, welding. You'll want more appropriate eye protection. But for the majority of workplace situations, just a simple pair of ANSI-approved safety glasses will keep your very precious and very vulnerable eyesight protected. And it's important to remember that there is no substitute for practicing safety at all times. Let me return to that statistic. 90% of workplace eye injuries would have been prevented simply by wearing proper eye protection. That would have emptied all of these seats in the Tacoma Dome and still left 2,000 to 3,000 more in these seats over here. Again, each and every month of the year. But it's worth asking, would we still have that many eye injuries if, just by the act of putting on eye protection, people were more aware of eye hazards and unsafe practices where they work? Then, maybe we could, month after month, keep these seats just as empty as they are now. Because eye injuries are about more than some temporary pain, medical bills, and some days off from work, they're about people losing part or all of their ability to enjoy the beauty we're surrounded by and often take for granted every day. It's about being unable to fully enjoy those things that used to make our lives so enjoyable.