I made that sheep rescue video the morning after the rescue So people I'm gonna address some of these comments from experts because everyone thinks they're an expert in these situations It's tough situation Me and Tarin very upset about it Um But everyone wants to rub salt in the wound in the morning on the video acting like they know what they're talking about now I want to I'll just literally woke up grab my phone and I'm get I'm in the car still see see this See this is the car that we rescued joey and This is what what's in the car. There was actually more stuff. I've taken some stuff out We were driving to go do activism basically and that's when We seen the sheep on her side Everyone's saying to me. Oh joey.  Okay They said why don't you bring her in the car? Why didn't why didn't you put why didn't you put that?  I don't want you following my work anymore. You you can You can get out of it. I can't believe you would be so ignorant like This is the car. Okay One this is the car we used to All right Tarin weighs about 40 kilos She's only little okay people say what the cameraman help What was what was what was tarion supposed to do? Like the sheep couldn't even stand up. There was a barbed wire fence. Okay. Was I supposed to Drive over the fence knock it down You know Like I wouldn't have been there was a big ditch between the fence and the car anyway Like the car would have got bogged and we would have been stuck there So getting the sheep in the car wasn't an option. Okay, that wasn't an option. I called Freedom Hill immediately and said what do I do? What do I do? I was in a horrible position now Why didn't us now now so what I did what I did is I called Freedom Hill They said you have to save the baby. We have to save the baby now So what I did is I called animal emergency immediately now We called animal emergency. We had the baby in the car Now people saying are you why don't you stay there with the mother? What what do you think would have happened to the baby? What they would have called the the animal abusing farmer Do you think I'm going to wait there? Right and ask and see if the animal abusing farmer will let me take the baby No, I just made a decision Right to take the baby and you think I'm going to wait Like you you people like wake up. Do you know how many more dead and dying sheep? They are there are in fields.  Do you think he's going to have compassion be like oh Yeah, actually yeah, you can take the baby to safety and this and that we would have lost the baby We'd have lost both of them So sorry that I'm A bit upset here, but I'm I'm just like I'm just frustrated that people are so like That they become they become experts. I was talking to experts Okay, they told me exactly what to do and we made a decision Now I used an anonymous name to report the the sheep in the field They said to me they assured me they're treating it as an emergency They'll mark it as critical and get down there immediately now. I Now what what I assume would happen is a vet would come down there and euthanize the sheep The sheep was very very sick Okay Now what what happened we called him an animal emergency I You know was very passionate on the phone. I said you have to get down here now I gave the exact coordinates of where the sheep was And I used an anonymous name and took this the the lamb to safety Okay, but people still like oh, I can't believe you I can't believe you did that you What would you have done in my position waited there for the farmer and the vet and then lost the baby and You know then what?  What was I supposed to do? There's no way I would have gotten that sheep over the barbed wire fence There's no way that there is no way and I'm pretty strong, but that sheep weighed about two of me Okay, and we had tarry and who's own little you know and um I called the animal emergency immediately after getting in the car Immediately that was the first thing I did Okay, and we were freaking out Tarion was crying Okay, and we had a little baby Who was freezing and we were putting the heaters on immediately to to warm the baby up so the baby didn't die and We drove for three hours To get to the nearest sanctuary because we're in the middle of the outback Where no one was around like Do you honestly think that I was in the suburbs where like there was just a vet around the corner You know, hey, I could have just walked to the vet's house. There was nothing out there. There was nothing out there and um There were fields and fields and fields of sheep You know and lands thousands of them Okay, and I just so happened to spot uh this mother on her side and You know I just uh It just baffles me. I was on someone else's property. I took The the baby the best thing the only the best thing I could do You know to help that baby the baby is fine now in good hands at freedom hill Thank god for kim Uh, because I wouldn't have really known what to do if I if I if I left it up to my own devices I probably would have just stayed there with the The sheep and maybe the farmer would have came and said like you're not taking our lamb get stuffed Because I'm a heartless animal abuser who leaves sheep to die in my field You know, I don't know I really don't know but uh Yeah, it's tough situation, but uh like all of you people All of you experts here who think you know, what were you doing this situation?  You know, uh, I feel a lot worse when people go. Oh my god.  No, I don't Um Yeah, I just feel like that's So ignorant man. Hey like so ignorant and it's sad, but I I understand that you're upset So I'll just leave it as that you're upset. You've seen the video. I was upset too.  These are tough situations and I can guarantee you if you if you drive out there into sheep fields where I was like In the countryside In the middle of nowhere where there's just sheep and no farmers to look after them I don't know where the farmers are. I don't know how often they check you'll find Dead dying lambs and sheep everywhere Okay, that's just the reality of it. So I don't know how you How you're gonna fix that problem. I didn't create that problem okay I did my best to deal with a bad situation and um thank god, there's angels like Kim and freedom hill out there because We probably would have lost them both Because I would have freaked out and just stayed there and waited and we would have lost the baby lamb as well you know it started bucketing down with rain after that and we know that the The animal emergency took it seriously. She said we've got a market as critical and we're going to get down there as soon as possible and I just think that the vet would have helped the the mother pass That's that's what would have happened um, so again Just think before you start leaving Comments just based on your emotion. There's a lot more to it than you know Then I cut that video down to five minutes. It was a We didn't get to bed till 2 a.m that uh That night was Well, it was yesterday now and uh, still haven't even Unloaded the equipment from the car because it was uh, it was an ordeal but anyways, I'm just gonna leave that there and uh Yeah, just you just you just stopped setting me even more like, you know Like I Like what did you what did you expect me to do in that situation? Like I'm sure yeah if you were there it would have Worked out better. Hey, I'm sure if you were there like it would have been You would have saved all the sheep with one hand and put them all on the top of the roof of your car and You know this farmer would have had a compassion and liberated all the sheep for you obviously not so Sorry, this is an emotional video. I'm going to upload it because I need to Explain certain things and um Yeah, there's a bunch of comments on all the videos just People who are claiming to be experts, but I just don't know what they would have done in that situation. You tell me, you know, you know, just Walking away with a baby lamb and you know Just wanted to get that lamp my main priority at that point was just to get that lamb to safety So we didn't lose the baby as well And now the baby is safe with a bunch of other lambs who are just like him And it's incredibly sad that situation and what happened to the mum. Okay, but did my best in a bad situation


The Tom Woods Show, episode 547. Prepare to set fire to the index card of allowable opinion. Your daily dose of liberty education starts here, The Tom Woods Show. Hey everybody, Christmas is coming and chances are you're going to be doing a lot of online shopping. Well, why not get cash back at virtually all the retailers you're going to be using anyway? Sign up for Ebates and you'll get just that. Check it out through tomwoods.com. Hey everybody, welcome to another episode of The Tom Woods Show. We're joined once again by Stefan Kinsella because today we're talking about foundational issues related to libertarianism and I can think of no one better to help us clarify our thinking on questions like this than Stefan. And ordinarily, as I would do in these episodes and as I've done in the past with Stefan, I would launch into a biographical discussion of the guest, but instead I'm going to turn things over to Stefan and say, Stefan, what do you think people should know about you? Well, I was born in a little town in Louisiana. I knew I shouldn't have done this. I'm a libertarian patent attorney in Houston. How about that? Oh, but you've done so much more. I want to know about your writings. Okay, so I am a practicing attorney, but I've written a lot on libertarian legal theory for the journal Libertarian Studies and then I founded sort of a successor journal called Libertarian Papers, which is still ongoing, which I'm the managing editor of. And yeah, I've written some books and I've written on intellectual property, both the legal side and the libertarian theory side. I am going to be linking to everything that we talk about today in terms of articles that you've written and stuff like that. I'll link to it at tomwoods.com slash 547. I spent last night actually reading some of your stuff that I hadn't read before, and then all the way up to the moment I called you today, I was reading your stuff. So I am very much in a cancella frame of mind right now. And I have to say, I want to get to this later. I was really struck by, I guess I hadn't read, gosh, I've read so much Rothbard, but I haven't read it in the past week and sometimes I forget what was in it. And some of the insights are so interesting because they apply to current debates. I was interested to see that Rothbard, I guess, deals with the question of how do we confront problems in, let's say, well, let's just say this, sometimes we don't have what we might call a clean capitalism.  But the difficulty is how can we know that today? We can't always. And so does that mean that everybody holds his property only precariously or it's all questionable? These are the sorts of complaints that left libertarians have made. And Rothbard addresses this as if he's living in 2015 debating the same people I debate. Just exactly right. So I want to get to that later. But right now I want to talk about the issue of contract is so important for libertarianism. And I guess, frankly, even up until today, this very day when I read your discussion of the Evers Rothbard title transfer theory of contract, I guess I just assumed that our view of contract was not all that different from the mainstream view. And I guess you learn something every day. Well, first of all, what's a contract and how does the mainstream try to justify basically forcing somebody to live up to his side of a contract? Right. Actually, I think this is one of Rothbard's sort of seminal contributions to political theory or legal theory. And it's relatively unappreciated. Yeah, you can say that again. I've been praising the guy for decades and I didn't appreciate it. I think it's in the final chapter of the ethics of liberty, if I'm not mistaken, which is I think 82 was first published, which fascinated me when I read it. And then it's based upon a 1977 article by Williamson Evers in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, which Rothbard was the founder and editor of and which was the very first article. It was volume one, number one. So this was the first article ever published in the JLS, the article by Evers on contract theory. I later discovered, after I wrote a long article about this in 2003, I later discovered that in 74 Rothbard had sort of had the germs of this idea in one of his earlier articles, the one you were alluding to, which is fascinating. The standard understanding of contract, which I think most libertarians actually share in a sort of kind of crude way, is that a contract is a binding promise, right? Now, legally speaking, if you get more precise, you can distinguish three things. You can distinguish consent from agreement and from contract. They're all different things. Consent just means the person has the right to give permission or to deny permission gives permission, right? That's consent. We determine who can do this by deciding what property rights there are. So it's a really a properitarian kind of issue. The owner of a certain thing, their body or something else, has the right to permit or to deny others from using that thing. That's just consent. A contract is what we call in the law a binding agreement. So an agreement is just when people come to an agreement, they say things that they're going to do something, and if they satisfy certain requirements in the law, then it's called a contract, which means it's a binding agreement or it's a binding obligation. So the standard view of contract is that it's basically a promise of a certain type that is binding. And most libertarians think of this too. They'll say that you have to keep your contracts. They view it as something you promise to do that has certain formalities, like consideration or whatever that makes it legally enforceable. So the standard view of contract is it's a legally enforceable promise or agreement. And this is not Rothbard's understanding. Well, if a promise then is not really what's at the heart of what makes a contract binding, so to speak, what is the correct way to think about it? So Rothbard's view, which again, I think he came up with this in 74, and he was thinking from a Misesian point of view about the nature of property and a libertarian view about the nature of property rights. And then Evers elaborated on this, and then Rothbard built upon that. So it was really a collaboration between the two. And by the way, I have an interview with Evers on my podcast, which I finally was able to, after trying for years to reach him, finally last year he spoke with me about this. Wow, I didn't realize. I figured I really thought he basically was unreachable at this point. I tried for years, and finally he consented. I was able to do it, and it was fun to do it. It was great. I think it was important to do it. He confirmed my understanding of the chronology of this, of the idea. In any case, so Rothbard's rooted in thinking of human action as the use of resources, right? And libertarianism is the property rights in resources. And what it means to have ownership of a resource is you can grant permission to others, or you can get rid of that resource, like you can give it or sell it to another person by consent. So he basically says that promises by themselves are not enforceable. It's almost like a free speech issue. Say, I promise to do this to you or for you. That's not in itself enforceable because it's just a statement about your intention. You're not committing aggression, so the other person has no right to use aggression against you to make you do what you said you were going to do. But he said that if you own a resource, you do have the ability and the power to transfer it to someone else. And that really is what contracts are all about. And if you think about, if you understand the way the legal philosophers classify and understand contracts and the way the legal system treats contracts right now, the outcome is actually very similar. So, for example, in the civil law system, which is one of the two major systems in the world and the common law is the other, contracts are called agreements that give rise to obligations. And then there are two types of obligation. An obligation to do something or an obligation to give. Now Rothbard would, I say, I believe that contracts are really only to give. So the contract is just the exercise of power over the resource to transfer it to someone else. And in the law, if there's an obligation to do something like to make a performance, to sing a song at a wedding, and if you don't do it, guess what the remedy is? It's almost never what we call specific performance. The judge would never compel someone to sing a song at a wedding for various practical reasons. Instead, they would say, well, you've reached a contract, so you have to pay monetary damages. So even in the case of an obligation to do something in the current legal system, it really boils down to a transfer of property, which is money in that case. So you could have reformulated the entire contract as just a transfer of titles to property, which is why I believe Evers called his article toward a reformulation of the law of contract. It's a different way of viewing what contracts are. Now I want to raise a case or a doctrine that's used in the mainstream, because a lot of times there are things that libertarians believe that make perfect sense to us and are perfectly in line with our basic principles, but that when they're told to people who don't have the foundation in our principles, they just sound crazy. Like if we talk about slander or libel or blackmail or whatever the way Walter Block does, and you don't have a foundation in libertarianism, you think this is just crazy. And likewise, there is this doctrine of detrimental reliance that we hear in the mainstream. I think would seem like an equitable solution and a just foundation for obligation. If, for example, you make a promise to me and I organize my life on the basis that you'll keep that promise and you don't, then it seems that there would be cases when that promise could be enforceable as a contract. For example, I think you get the example of a grandfather who promises that he'll pay the college tuition for his granddaughter. She goes ahead and arranges her life according to that expectation. And then if he suddenly decides to stop paying, well, has he breached a contract? Well, the way they might look at it is that this was a case of detrimental reliance.  And yet she is very much inconvenienced, so it seems like that's just kind of a shame for her and maybe the mainstream is more humane than the tough as nails libertarian alternative. How would you think about this kind of situation? Well, yeah, so I think this is basically the result of a, I won't say a status legal system necessarily, but a system that is not perfect and that did develop in the government courts. And so you have this doctrine of, you know, there's an ancient principle, Tom, in international law. It's called pacta sunt servanda. So pacta sunt servanda is a Latin term used to describe the old doctrine that agreements are to be respected. In international law, for example, which is why treaties between nations are considered to be legal and create international obligations under international law. So there's an intuitive practice among humans that when you make a promise, when you make an agreement, it's supposed to be have effect. And the law generally does this, but then legal theorists struggle to explain why. Why should it have effect? And there's different theories about why it should have effect. I actually think the promise to pay for tuition for a granddaughter could be enforceable, but under the title transfer theory of contract, basically you would view it as if you made the correct transfer and you may have the right contract, the grandfather is giving his future money to the girl. So she's the owner of that money at the appointed time. So there's nothing wrong. There's no inability to enforce the contract. The standard legal justification, one of them is a doctrine of equity called detrimental reliance, which you mentioned, which is similar by the way to the legal doctrine of a stop-all, which I've used in some of my rights theory, this idea of a stop-all. The idea is that if you perform an action that other people rely upon to their detriment, in other words, they would be worse off. They've made some decision, it makes them worse off if you don't follow through with your promise. Then it should be binding. But as people have pointed out, like Randy Barnett, by the way, who's probably the other major libertarian legal theorist on the contract theory, he's written on his own theory called a consent theory of contract. A lot of interesting stuff is different than Rothbard's. But he points out, and other people have pointed out, the problem with the idea of detrimental reliance is that it's circular because there's always a reasonable requirement. Like, if you reasonably relied upon someone else's promise, then it can be enforceable. However, if the legal system never enforced promises, then everyone should know that, and it wouldn't be reasonable to rely upon someone's promise. So it's really a circular doctrine, and that's not the best way to defend the standard theory of contracts being binding promises. What's interesting about this, Tom, is I think it basically fits into the basic theory understanding of what libertarian principles are. Libertarian, and I think you mentioned this on one of your other shows the other day, I heard you talking about this. You mentioned two of the three things I'm going to mention that libertarianism basically can be defined by three principles. The first is original appropriation, right? That is someone who homesteads an unused resource in the world. It has a better claim to it than anyone else. And the second is contract. That is, you can contractually transfer that resource to someone else, and then they're the better owner of it. And the third would be rectification or restitution. If you harm someone, you violate their rights, that might give them a claim to some of your resources to compensate them for the harm you did to them. But using those three principles, you can basically identify in principle the ownership of any disputed scarce resource in the world. But this focus is a focus based upon scarce resources, and that's why it's different than if you view contract as binding promises, you have all kinds of people saying, well, you know, someone can't quit the army if they join the army, right? They made a promise after all, right? So you have this inalienability question that is easier to solve if you understand contracts as transfers of title to alienable property. Let's think then of the example of an actor who signs on with a movie company and he agrees he's going to do five movies with them over the next seven years. And if he were not to deliver on this, the company would suffer. He probably wouldn't get paid, but the company would suffer. So what I want to know is, I want to know in the two cases, let's say we've got just a regular American judge looking at a case like this where the guy made two movies and then he just stopped showing up and they couldn't find him. How would they conceive of that contract? What would make that a contract and what would make his failure to live up to it actionable? And how would we look at a contract like that? Right. So in today's sort of mainstream situation, the contract would be viewed as a legally enforceable obligation if it satisfies certain formalities. For example, if there had been consideration. That's an old doctrine of the common law, which actually the civil law rejects and which I think we would reject as libertarians. Like you don't need to have consideration. The idea of consideration is that you have to have an exchange for the contract to be binding. Each side has to give the other something in return, otherwise it's not binding. Even if they're not equal, that's why they say even a mere peppercorn could be satisfied as consideration. This is why you see in contracts quite often a fictional, I give you a dollar in exchange for this or $10. And actually that's never transferred. It's just there as a relic of this idea of consideration. So if you have consideration and valid cause and there's no fraud and the parties are of age and these kinds of things, then the contract is a legally enforceable obligation. And if the actor doesn't perform in the next movie, he's in breach of the contract. And then the question is what's going to be done about it? And as I said, courts almost never would order specific performance. That means the court wouldn't order the actor to perform under penalty of contempt of court, which would be going to jail. Instead, they would just say, well, you're in breach of contract, so now you owe some damages. Okay, and quite often these sophisticated contracts have damages caused or they specify what the damages would be. And the court will enforce that if it's not called a punitive damage. So the court will only enforce it if it's reasonable damage. And if there's no damage clause, then the court would come up with a damage. They would say, well, how much did the breach of the contract cost the movie studio? And then so they would end up ordering the actor to pay some money to the studio. Under our theory, it would be almost the same result. You accept the contract would simply say it would be a set of conditional clauses. It would say movie studio hereby transfers or agrees to transfer this much money to the actor in the future for appearing in a series of three movies or whatever. And the actor hereby agrees to pay the following amount of money to the studio if he doesn't perform. So it would just be, it would cut right to the chase. It would just specify what the payments would be. I want to jump to something that surprised me when I read it. This is in another one of your articles and it has to do with the phenomenon of fine print, which more and more people have to deal with now because online, we're always clicking our agreement to terms and conditions. And sometimes they gray out the click box until you've scrolled through the whole thing so that they can say, look, you did actually look at it and you've consented to it. But everybody knows, including the institution that's asking you to consent to it, that nobody's reading that. Basically nobody is reading any of that. And you seem to suggest that that means that if somebody, because they could sneak in some crazy thing. Let's say they snuck in, oh, and by the way, if you use our site, we get half your income. Nobody would think that that was enforceable. So then how could any of it be enforceable if nobody's reading it? Is it based on a reasonable expectation of what's likely in there? Right. So in standard legal theory, well, there's a doctrine in the common law called meeting of the minds, which is the idea that when both parties have a common agreement as to what the terms are, there's a meeting of the minds and therefore there's an enforceable contract. That doctrine gets a little problematic with these fine print because there's really not a meeting of the minds if no one's reading and everyone knows this. In the beginning, you asked me to define contract. A contract, notice, I didn't say it's a written document. Libertarians tend to, and a lot of people tend to conflate a piece of paper with words on it as being the contract. It's not. I think of that as just evidence of what the contract is because you can have an oral contract, right? People call it verbal. That's actually a common mistake, by the way, calling it a contract of distinguishing verbal from written. All contracts are verbal, right? They have words. Oral is the contract that you don't have written down on paper. In any case, a contract can be oral, right? So then the question is, what are the terms? And that means what did the parties really agree to? My only point is that in these click wrap agreements, and some of them, by the way, are like the shrink wrap agreements where you would open a piece of a box with software. There was terms on the inside. You were held to have agreed to the terms on the inside of the box as soon as you tore open the plastic wrapper on the outside, even though you hadn't read it. So if we stop thinking so mechanistically about what contracts are, you wouldn't equate it with this piece of writing. So let's just imagine that in a contract buried near the end, there is a clause saying, you know, the person using my website hereby agrees to pay me $1,000 a month for the rest of their life. Now, if you have a mechanistic view of contract, you would have to say that's enforceable. But of course, that's absurd. And one way you can say it's absurd is you can say that no contract can ever, no written contract can ever specify everything because there's always some condition that could arise. So then you have to go back to what's reasonable or what the parties would have agreed to. So in other words, there's default conditions. There are gap fillers. And I would say that one condition of a contract is a presumption of good faith on both parties and a presumption of good faith in enacting the basic terms and purposes of both parties. So it would not be good faith to sneak in a clause like that in a contract that has nothing to do with that kind of lifetime annuity payment, right? So that would be in direct violation or contradictory to the presumed good faith term that governs the contract that both parties would agree to. Like if you agree, if you're negotiating with someone and you said, do you agree that we should negotiate in good faith? No one would say, no, I'm not negotiating a good faith. So that's a fair thing to assume that it's one condition of the agreement. So my point is that we shouldn't assume automatically that fine print that is snuck into the shrink wrap and click wrap agreements is necessarily enforceable because it's not really agreed to by both sides. All right, I found that interesting. And then another thing is the subject of debtors prison. Yes, it's obviously a theoretical issue at this point. There's no chance debtors prison is coming back and we're not saying that it should, but I want to know on what grounds would we say that it shouldn't if somebody owes me a debt and just can't pay it? Well, you could see a certain logic by which, well, you got to do something until you can pay it back because in effect you have stolen from me. Right, and this is where I disagree with Walter Block. I think we have a podcast on this too where we discuss this issue too. And even Rothbard, even in that article, he I think slightly missteps on the debtors prison issue. What he says is that you would view a loan, for example, as two title transfers. Like, I give you $1,000 now and you give me $1,100 in a year, like 1,000 plus 10% interest, let's say. So those are two title transfers. One is immediate and the other is set a year in the future. If the debtor doesn't have the money in a year, then Rothbard says, well, theoretically he could be put in prison for stealing from the creditor, but then Rothbard says, but that wouldn't be just because that would be disproportionate. So he says that theoretically debtors prison would be justified, but it would be disproportionate punishment so it can't be justified. I think he doesn't even realize that his own theory shows another way that we can say debtors prison is wrong and that is that there's no theft because if I'm a penniless, look, if I have $1,100, then the ownership of that money automatically transfers by operation of the contract to the creditor. And then if I don't turn it over, I'm actually basically kidnapping his property, right? I'm trespassing on his property. That would be a type of theft. But if I'm penniless, there is no money to steal. And sometimes Rothbard and Walter, I believe, it's not clear which money they think of as being stolen. Sometimes they'll say the original $1,000 was stolen because it was only given conditionally on the condition of being repaid later. And if it's not repaid. Yeah, that seems right to me. The problem with that is first of all, there are two separate title transfers. The $1,000 transfer from the creditor to the debtor has to be unconditional because the purpose of it is to give it to the debtor so he can spend it. I mean, the whole purpose of the loan is to give money to someone so they can use it for some project. And for them to spend the money, they have to own it. They have to own it unconditionally. So the $1,000 is transferred 100% unconditionally. The $1,100 being transferred back is a future title transfer which means it's inherently uncertain. And there's a risk there that it might not exist. If it doesn't exist, it can't be stolen. So the $1,100 can't be stolen if it doesn't exist. And the $1,000 was not stolen. It was given with permission of the owner to the borrower. Well, I mean, maybe I'm supposed to accept that theoretically, but I find that very hard. So that's what makes it different from I'm going to let you use my apartment for a couple of months. And if you... I guess in that case, you could pay in advance and that would solve that problem. But is the idea that the apartment still exists? There's no way I could spend the apartment and then claim I have no apartment to give back to you. Correct. Yeah, the apartment still exists and has an owner, right? And actually, I would say the apartment theoretically under libertarian-properitarian theory, in a sense, the apartment has two owners for a while. It's basically co-owned by the original owner and by the tenant. It's just that the tenant has limited ownership rights, limited in scope and limited in time. So at a certain time, the full ownership reverts back to the landlord. Say something about this controversy involving the basic guaranteed income, only because we don't have to talk about the income aspect of it, but one of the foundational arguments in justification for it is that because we can't know for sure that the property titles that are in existence right now are just if that the property, if we trace it back in history, was always acquired and transferred justly. There was no theft involved. There was no government subsidy or whatever. It's hard to know today if people really are justly holders of their property. So we suddenly become agnostic about this and this therefore means that we more or less assume everything is screwed up. So that means we have to have redistribution of some kind. I mean, I'm not characterizing the argument. People can listen to, well, I'll go back and look at what number it is. I'll put it at tomwoods.com. 547, a link to the episode where I basically debated Matt Zwolinski on this. I'm sure you're familiar with all this stuff. We don't have to talk about the income aspect, but how do you deal with the objection that probably is well founded, that there's a lot of property out there, that when you look through its history, it's a fairly grim history. And so therefore we should question the legitimacy of existing titles. I would deal with it the way Rothbard did in that 1974 article, which is again an amazing piece, the one where he lays out sort of the germ of this contract theory idea. And I noticed this when I was reading through it. It was published in two versions in 1974. In the first version, it touched a little bit on the issue you just brought up. But in the second version, he published in a different book later of the same year, he added a whole new paragraph where he explicitly deals with that issue. And I think he did it because someone must have called to his attention this problem. He could detect some of these left libertarians who are making this argument, which I call sort of the original sin argument. It's the idea that if there's a... They're basically trying to say that the 1% or the rich west, their ownership of property traces back to some kind of problem in the past, some kind of theft, some kind of oppression, some kind of hierarchical exploitation. And therefore, they don't really have a good claim to their property or can't really complain if it's taken away from them to compensate the poor or to engage in redistribution. So basically, they're just trying to find a flaw in your title to your property so that they can justify taking it from you. Rothbard points out that, look, well, it's in a sense, harking back to the possession as the 9th tenth of the law dictum of the common law, right? We have a system right now where there are resources being currently possessed and used by people. Unless you can show you have a better claim to that resource than they do, then you need to let them own it. Unless they're a criminal, like the state, right? Or unless they actually use the state's imminent domain maybe to get their resources, they have a better claim to that resource than anyone else. And they should remain undisturbed. Even if you could find that five generations before, you know, one of their, what we call it in the law an ancestor and title, someone further up back in the chain of ownership, one of them stole the property from someone else unless you can show who really owns it, then the current person should maintain ownership of the property. So I agree totally with Rothbard on that. And it's a very important insight. And it does deflate a lot of these claims. And by the way, the contract theory also helps to highlight the absurdity of a lot of these implied contract arguments, right? The social contract theory arguments. Sometimes libertarians will say that, well, even if everyone in the country agreed to be bound by the state after a certain amount of time, next generations didn't agree to that. But even that original assumption granting that a group of people could agree to be bound by the state is not really right. Because if contracts are just transfers of title to property, then they're agreeing to be bound by a state doesn't mean that they can't change their minds later. So the contract theory plays into inalienability theory also. If you basically think of a contract is the exercise of dominion over a resource by its owner, then you understand there are two types of resources. There are bodies and there are other things that are acquired. And our bodies are not something we can sell because we didn't acquire our bodies like we acquire other scarce resources in the world. That's a whole different argument, but it does play into that. But it does imply that, you know, a soldier who's in the army has the right to quit. Just like someone working for a company has the right to quit. I want to you have so many things going on. You know, you've got libertarian papers, you've got your website, you have a podcast. I want to know where people should go if they want unvarnished cancella. They want to read more about what you're doing. What's the central location you send them to? SteffenCancella.com Okay, and if you type in Stephen Cancella, Steffen's going to come through the internet somehow and slap you in the face. I answered anything now, Tom. All right, well, fair enough. Well, SteffenCancella.com of course will also be linked at TomWoods.com slash 547. All right, this is great stuff. And I have to think I haven't yet thought of the title for this well, so to speak, the title for this episode. It's, I have to get people to listen to it. And if I say it's on contract theory, they won't, but they need to. And at the end, they'll say, I'm glad I listened to this episode. It's one of these things I've got to somehow trick them into listening. Like there are books that you know, people need to read and they don't, they won't realize it until they've already read them. This is an episode like that. They needed to hear this. So I don't know, I got to figure out some way to scan my listeners into clicking play. Let's call Ann Coulter. Let her come up with the title. She's good at Yeah, she could probably come up with a pretty good, pretty good Yeah, they'd click. All right. But maybe the last time they'd click. All right, Steffen, thanks a lot for doing this for us. We appreciate it. Thanks a lot, Tom. All right, that's SteffenCancella. Today is my debate with Michael Malus in New York City about Alexander Hamilton. It's taking place at the General Society Library West 44th Street. Doors open at 7 p.m. I won't be able to report back to you tomorrow on how things went because I've already recorded tomorrow's episode in advance because I'm going to be out of town doing this debate, you see. So you'll find out on Monday unless you are on my mailing list. And how fun it is to be on my mailing list. The best way to get on it is to get your free e-book Bernie Sanders Is Wrong over at bernieiswrong.com I'm going to automatically put you on that list so that I'll be notifying you about future free books and future things that I'm up to and also what happened at the debate. So that's all I have to say for now. Tomorrow, if all goes well, Walter Block will be on the show talking about how do we privatize rivers, lakes, waterways of various kinds, even oceans. Leave it to Walter. See you then. Become a Smarter Libertarian in just 30 minutes a day. Visit TomWoods.com to subscribe to the show for free and we'll see you next time.


Hi, my name is Marvin and it's been a really real honor to be here at ITU It's been great both interacting with all the other young innovators and meeting the delegates representatives and everyone from around the world. The project I'm working on is called Unplugged and it's an initiative to try to create a better internet and it's actually part of a bigger project called EdgeNet and the problem we're trying to solve here is just general connectivity and the connectivity we have today fails us in a few different ways. It can either be in kind of silly situations like when you're in your house and the Wi-Fi just doesn't seem to reach that one edge of your bed or the kitchen to maybe crowded spaces and conferences where the internet gets overwhelmed and you can't connect to more serious examples like after disasters when central infrastructure gets knocked down and loved ones can't communicate when they need it the most and often when we talk about connectivity we just totally overlook the over four billion people in the world without a reliable internet connection and all these problems come down to centralization. Our connectivity fails us when the means we use to connect are too far too overloaded too damaged or too expensive to use. So what Unplugged is doing and this larger EdgeNet community is developing a way for people to communicate by leveraging the connectivity of those nearby and allowing people to send messages person to person until they reach their final destination in order to encourage the network to grow and try to help promote equality and in our societies what we do is create financial incentives where the money you pay to use the system gets divided amongst all the intermediaries used to send the message from A to B. We're really excited to be working on this but we can't do it without your help because Unplugged and EdgeNet are networks based off of people. We need you So join up and go Unplugged. Thanks a lot


The touch line here on Y254, fan zone, we have been making a lot of noise knowing that we are taking a lot of our time for the fan zone here today, but we have to talk about some of the matches that will be coming your way this afternoon. The early kick of being Sheffield United going against Manchester City. Remember, they have not won any match this season and these are teams that last season were way up on the top half of the table. Was it a fluke or not? Geningazia, as usual, is also saving me luck after a very long time. I have not seen him here on the touch line on Y254. Who have you been man? COVID, what do you do now? Konda, who now? No one has been. You have been containing. You have been containing. Now I'm back. You are back. The baby has brought me back. Baby, I hope your baby is a safe one. But let's go ahead with your sportswear now. Big one there. Sheffield United versus Manchester City this afternoon. It seems Sheffield lied to us last season because this season they are not performing at all. It's really taking a tail of them and then this is the reason of the corona now. Immediately after the corona, the games came up fast and quick. There was no precision for most of the teams. Now if you didn't have a very big squad, you are now in a very tough condition. That's how you can see the Sheffield team, a very small team. They do not have the biggest squad now to rotate themselves. They do not have the budget to buy players. So it's taking a tail of them. And then when you look at this season, if you cannot do a two game win or a three or a four win, there's no way you're going to survive. So that's why it's taking a tail in Sheffield. Five games on a loss, there's no way they can come back. Eric, you have played football and then Sheffield dependable main fielder John Rundstrom has refused to sign a new contract with the team. He's one of the dependable players from last season coming on to this season. What does that do to the team? It affects the morale of the team because if you have one of the people you depend on who has not come up and said that I'm here for the long haul, that in itself is a problem. And eventually the morale of the team goes down. And the morale of the team will eventually affect or impact on the results because what signing a new contract ties down that player inspires confidence in them. And they have to sit down with him and agree. And maybe he's thinking of, OK, I want to move on to bigger things. Or holding out for more money. And now, big one for Man City now, that Manchester City is coming on this side without Sergio Aguero, Fernandinho and Benjamin Mende. And also Nadanyal Ake and Gabriel Jesus are also 50-50 on to this game. We have seen the way Manchester City has been performing this season. They had a draw against Western. If Sheffield go head to head against them, can they also shock Man City this afternoon? The Manchester City team we have today is not one that I expect is going to get a surprise defeat by Sheffield in spite that they are away. You realize that one of the key players that has been missing from Manchester City is KDB Kevin De Bruyne. Given that he might pass a late fitness test to again come into the team, I expect this to be a clean sweep for Manchester City. So anybody who wants to defend on my prediction can give it a straight win for Manchester City. Let's go quickly, Eric, to another big game that will be coming later on to the night today. Liverpool, Western. Western, this season, early stages of this season have really shocked people. Had a draw against Man City last weekend with Antonio Scone, a very good goal. And David Moyes is going against Liverpool. Can it be a shock result? Difficult game for Liverpool, bearing in mind that Liverpool, they don't have a good centre-back right now with Van Dijk out. They are leaky. They are leaky and they have been playing for Benio. They have been playing for Benio there. He got a knock. Matip is also injured. So I am sure, if you look at David Moyes the way he sets up his team, he sets up his team for those long balls. I am sure David Moyes, all the balls will go there. And then they have Antonio. Antonio is a bully, a bully in form of a striker who comes in and does a lot. And David Moyes has a thing for the middle table teams. He works wonders with middle. Look at what he did for Everton before he came to Manchester United. Today it will be a tricky afternoon for Liverpool, but I am expecting, however tricky it will be, Liverpool will stay individual brilliance. I was waiting for someone to punch you because you have time. Because Michael Antonio is out injured. He got an injury when they played against Manchester City. Also you can expect that that is one player that is out of the way. And you realise West Ham without Michael Antonio. The three games he missed, they lost two. So I think that is also now going to be a problem for David Moyes. The only problem I have with Liverpool is that all their senior centre-backs are out injured. Van Dijk probably out for the season with Anandriyak, Cretia Tligament injury, Anissa Jere, Joel Matipi is also out. So they played Milchiv, Fabinho, Zasu injured. Can that be a question for him? How do you feel that you are injured? Yes, I agree. West Ham is a strong team. I think as a Gumbler, West Ham are really missing my money this season. They are playing a game, they miss my money, they miss the city game, they really miss it. So they are really strong mentally. But tactically, Liverpool will win the game. And we have played with Mascherano as a centre-back in Liverpool. And also Mascherano played in Barcelona as a centre-back. So Enderzone is going to become our new Mascherano. Yes, we are going to convert Enderzone to be our centre-back. He has played there before. What about Fabinho? Fabinho is out injured. Alcantra is always a good defensive midfielder, playing in front, attacking. But they are also not fit with the navigator. But West Ham also did not have Antonio, who has banged all the goals for... Let me ask you a question. Are you not scared that you won the league? If I am in the wrong place, correct me. You won the league, courtesy of Van Dijk being the final piece on that chessboard of the Liverpool machinery. Now, it is not there. Fabinho is not there. My tip is... You said Van Dijk, you said... No, no, we are just asking. We want to say that we will be worried once we see a different team playing a run of games, winning games. But so far, we are the same with everyone. We lose one, we win two, same with other teams. So we are not seeing any consistent team being our opponents. I would like to bust his bubble, because last season, they had a run of... By now, they were clear-cut runners-up. They had gone. This season, they are with the others. And without Van Dijk there this season, Liverpool will struggle against teams and big teams. Also the top 10 teams. Yes, they will struggle. They will struggle. And that's why it makes the Premier League to be very open, because as you said, Van Dijk was consistent. He brings calm to the Liverpool defence. And that is actually what we have already seen in the season, the few games that we have played. When they were playing Everton and Van Dijk got the nasty injury from Pickford, you realise that they could not catch up with Everton and they ended up actually conceding the equaliser. So from there on, they bring Fabinho in the centre-back away. They play Diak, I think. And during that game, Fabinho gets out injured. And the only result they could get was a youngster of the bench. I think it was Reyes Williams. Now it brings them to the reality of the Premier League, that if you are consistent with your defence, again we saw Adrian is done, who was stepping in for Alisson. Now Alisson was out injured. How many goals have you conceded with Adrian? So many. Now it is a question of, Alisson is back. I expect Alisson to start playing today. But who are you going to fill there? You have options. You could make it up. Or you have... Please tell them in the next two sentences how they are going to suffer this season. They are going to be extremely affected. They cannot get Alisson in the centre-back, given that Alisson can hardly keep himself fit. What other options do you have? You have Milner. How many games does Milner get in a season? Robotson plays as a centre-back for Scotland. You can still play Robotson then.  We are still unbeaten at home. We've never lost at home. You've never said that to this conversation. Sorry, if Manchester United is beaten by Tottenham, Arsenal is not making any consistent. Chelsea is beaten. Why are you saying you are not going to win the league now? You are not going to win the league. Who is going to win? You are not going to win the league because we are saying that... I did an option who is going to win the league. Manchester United is there. We are up. We are in there. Let's finish that conversation. Let's finish that conversation because we have got five minutes to go. Let's start with... I am actually now going to throw my running order out. Ask the question. Let's start with you, Eric. Tomorrow, what do you expect between United and Arsenal? Arsenal will lose tomorrow because United have become unpredictable. For them, I have not said this. United have become unpredictable. We don't really know what shape they will come tomorrow. I hope they come with the diamonds. In the midfield. We don't know who starts. And if I listen to the game against Sevilla, he lost last time in the semis. He looked at the bench and nobody could bring up to change the game. This time round against... He looked at the bench and he saw options. Cavani, Bruno, Rashford. So that is what he is going to make. I am still trying to look at the Arsenal team and trying to see who will be able to stop at the pace, at the forward pace of Manchester United tomorrow. Yes. In the centre-back. That's the question I have been told to ask. Yes. I put it to you. How will the Arsenal defence deal with the United forward line? More so, Marcus Rashford. They will not be able to deal with us. Look at Marcus. What did he do? Comes off the bench, gets a hard trick. By the time Marcus Rashford was announcing his name on the football pitch, which club was he playing against? Arsenal. I expect that to be the pitch tomorrow.  Marcus Rashford MBE will turn up. I just want to say that Man United and Chelsea are the teams that are playing that did not have any philosophy. They do not know what they are doing. We do not know what Alley is playing. She is saying that we hope that he plays the diamond. Because Alley really gets that game of the Arbil Asperger. With the diamond and it worked. But what are you saying? We must have given that. What are you saying, Silvia? That's Alley has a philosophy. Attacking philosophy. The problem with the Ghana. When it comes to big games, philosophy, formations, form just flows out of the window. You cannot predict. You could look at a match tactically and say, this is a game, bang, 4-4-2. Then Arsenal does 4-3-3. Manchester United will start with 4-3-3. But then it ends up doing a 5-4-5-1. But we must agree, as a United fan, you do not know what you are going to play tomorrow. We know what you are going to play. We are going to play attacking football tomorrow. The thing we are not sure about who will start and who will be on the bench. We have a variety of players who can start and who can be obeyed, especially from the midfield upwards. Tomorrow you are likely to win. We will win. Only because Abu Mahing is not on fire, Abu Mahing is really a late down. That is a problem in English Premier giving players big contracts. Sometimes they just become a late down. So they might win because they are on form. But United are gazing, Chelsea are gazing. You see when you have very many new players, say we are coming in, the coach will have to experiment with the line-ups for him to get the right crop of players. I will take you back to Klopp. Since Klopp came in, he has signed 24 players. 24 players. You have only played well in the Champions League. Before he settled on the front three, there was some time that he had to take. He had to take some good ones. So it will take time. But a soldier, whether it is fluke or tactics, he has a way of coming up. In the big games. We have been added five minutes and we want to talk about tomorrow's games. Let me just quickly, United as soon as what will be your score? Manchester United three as in all ones. Erik? Three-nil. Three-nil for Manchester United. Because Mustafa is on defense, they win. Okay, let's go ahead and talk about it. There is one game that will be happening tomorrow and that is Newcastle versus Everton. Everton started very well, but they got a shock against Southampton. And now they are going against another trouble, mid-table team in Newcastle. Can they maintain or can they bounce back? What I am worried about Everton is that against Newcastle, they had a player sent off. Lucas Dinho was sent off. They have another player serving suspension. Against Southampton. Yeah, Rich Alson is out. Yes. For Red Card. We have another player out. Hermes Rodriguez is also out with an injury. Carlo Ancelotti said that he is not going to play against Newcastle. So what they have depended on mostly is Lucas Dinho and also Seamus Coleman is out. They have a host of injuries. Yes. So I am worried about the person who is going to supply the long balls to Calvert Leuwin to hit them in or to score their goals. So I am not sure of how they are going to come up and I am again worried about the discipline because if you have a player, each player getting a Red Card, each and every game, then it also tells you that these players need some sort of over-discipline check. So with all those injuries, Hermes has been getting assists, has been getting goals, has been getting the secondary assists. So I am not certain that Everton will get a win against Steve Bruce's men. So I am going to give that to Newcastle. Eric. Yes. I want to put you on the spot here. It's a bit of an ambiguous question but I want to put you on the spot here because this time round of today it will be March the 7th. You look at that top table it is only Liverpool with the traditional top four team there. You have Everton who has made a comeback onto that side. Then you have got teams that are really trying to make it onto the top six and can they disrupt the traditional top four because teams like Leeds United are really playing very well. Aston Villa this season has started very well. Is it a time when you might see a team like Manchester City finishing number six in the table? No. After 10, 15 games the boys will be separated from the men and the reason being they score depth because the games will come in so many. Yes. They score depth and when the games become so many the small teams have a tendency beginning to gain points in the first 10 games for them to secure relegation. They come out of the relegation. After that they start getting whipped. I am getting a scenario whereby I am seeing Aston Villa up there they will not be up there on March the 15th. I am seeing Everton maybe they may be on the top six but we will see the Manchester United the Manchester City the Liverpool coming back to their places. Chelsea, when they get it right they will compete for the top six. Maybe a surprise, maybe one team. Wolves. Wolves, maybe. Xavier, now. I will try them as such because when you see these teams they really made some good signings. Newcastle, if you see Aston Villa. Newcastle I heard they signed a break layer from Australia to be one of the second. But to talk about Everton they are really a good site. They only have an issue with their goalkeeper Bigford. I think they really need to go and look for a goalkeeper. Bigford is a joke and if England wants to win the World Cup they cannot win the World Cup. One of the best goalkeepers in the Premier League. Wilvia has a personal issue with Bigford but he is the one who sent Van Dijk out. Bigford is a joke. That is where we finish the show here on the Saturday and today. It was fun having this gentleman here and lady here in the studio today on behalf of everybody who made the touchline a success and our new cameraman. It was a chill, it was fun. Say good afternoon.


I just feel like they are time-consuming and I honestly think that I could get the same results with smaller two string twists, but this is something different, right? So first thing first, I rushed through my wash day. I'm pretty sure that I still have shampoo in my hair and my hair dried Thus making my hair Dry and crunchy. Okay. I did not use enough leave-in product Now I know a couple of you for everything in but you use the twist and define cream by tji in that styler in my opinion is not Suitable as a leave-in. Yes, you can use it, but the tji and twist and define cream is a sticky product I should have used more of the styler or another leave-in. I had on hand So yeah with the shampoo still being left in my hair and not a lot you guys, but it doesn't take a lot Okay with the shampoo still be in my hair not using enough leave-in. My hair is gonna be very very frizzy once I sort of unravel Third thing I did not thoroughly detangle my hair I know I've been kind of skimming through this when you have for category hair for tight hair ABC hair You cannot get lazy when it comes to detangling your hair. Maybe one or two washes But basically you can't make it a habit now you can see there at my root and you're gonna Definitely see here the next day what it's gonna look like. I know that I like I said I've been a little lazy when it comes to detangling my hair rushing through it I'm detangling it, but I'm rushing through it. Okay. I'm finger detangling and using the comb But I'm getting through it in an hour That is not thoroughly detangling my hair two to three hours is normal for me So yeah, it's not not properly detangling and starting off with basically hair that wasn't right So another way you could tell you see how my roots here are puffy I Ended up adding perm watch you guys the morning But my roots are puffy because my roots are not detangled The middle of my shop you see that the middle of the shaft and the ends are thoroughly detangled Because I'm detangling that part. So yes, you guys it is what it is. I wanted to go ahead and Load up this video anyway, you know natural hair is not perfect. We all know that girl by now You're gonna have your days where your styles are not gonna come out right, but you can work with a style You can always work with it. All right, so I hope you guys enjoy the rest of this video. Take care. Bye


टेटा मानेज्बिन पूलिसी सब भीस आगस्ट को सरकार नहीं ज़ाफ लीज किया है कुनसल्टेष्टेष्ट्टेष्ट्चट्ट के लिए. बागत से पहले ही पन्दा अगस को प्राँमिनिस्टर नहीं नेश्टन्ल जिटिल लग्ट मिशें अनाउन्च् किया था.  ये जो पलोज्ँे ये ये लिए फ़ेंद हैंद वेलकुल At our residents in this country, किसला रहासे वो प्रभबईत करेंगे किसला वो नका है? How will they influence, वो वह थादज्यस क्या हैंगे या अप रहाने सवाते नदा है? How dangerous is it. यो धियो येड़ढार आईद्या है, यी एक याईदिया आरान, जिजिटलाईशेश आप हर्च्ट्रिकोल्गs. आप जब अस्पताल, सब से फ़हले तो जब एक पेशिन्ट अस्चपताल जाता है, तो it says, दिजिटलाईशेशन आप KlinicAll, Klinically relevant encounters. अप की जियो दिजाच टिकिट्स हैं, अप की एक स्वेर लिए एक से आप परची करती है, उंसब को दिजिटलाईशेशन का ये एक प्रोँसेः है, ये पहला चीश.  लिए � гारगा प़जी कि मक्रहित ही दिलतए carra pap treat ci k però aur ze k co saat it mixed with elsewhere. अरी socks karayak tozone, अरी को इस ग Elekt्द, ये सीझ भो कि मी जनी, गली।ег,। अब यह था इस दोकिमन्ख दे पाद के मुड़े है.... यह तुरा यह देटा माएज़ुन पुलेषी है, यस की अठारेटी है वो नैश्नल एड़ थाठारेटी को दे रकी है। आई वो वो नाश्याल हपात्याद़ी, दो वो लोगता, इस दखा हददा थी. यह यह यह यह टेईंपे प्यणज एग भाए बना एग रोगे गे नहीं, यहदेता वो खरेटा, आप्द उनके तो एसकिज़े थ सब आप श्द्च में पिज्गने. मीटी है, मिनिस्ट्टी अप अपन्प्मश्यन टेकनोलगी, अईना सेंस माजनेलाईस देंवो से लेगुलेट्टरी अवर्सीं करी हैं, अन एन एचे एक लाज़र इंप्लिम्टेशन रोल ले रही हैं। तो ये एक पहला मुद्डा है, जो की आम सब को आम सब को आम सब को प्रशने करने की ज़ोरत है, सचे तो जाने की ज़ोरत हैं। तो हमारी दिमान यही रही हैं कि अगर आप नाश्नल अठ़ोड़ी से इसका इंप्लिमेंटेशन करवारे है, तो it should be backed by a legislative framework. आब बिल should be passed in the parliament for that one. Second is the inconsistencies in these two things are very closely related. NDHM and HDMP and HDMP refer to NDHM. The policy refers to National Digital Health Mission. But there are many inconsistencies in it. तो यह ज़े से में बता की जहापे NDHM में फिर भी अगर आब भेखे तो health ministry का फिर भी a better role. जादा रोल है. तुस्रा उस में आप की अपकी अंpowered committees हैं, steering committees हैं, जिस में अलगल अब ministries involved हैं। ती के you have NTIO, you have health authority, etc. But you have different ministry, WCD, social justice and empowerment, health ministry, etc. उन सब का मेंजिन कही भी हैं देटा मानिज्मन पूलिसी में कही भी नहीं हैं। जो की which is a matter of concern. पड़ा सवाल तिस में फिर नीजिता पर भी आजा तो data collection हो रहा हैं और हमारे अगर अगर अगर आप हमें बता हैं। जब आप when you read the policy it's all about collecting patient data आप आप ये नहीं ही बता रहें कि आप फिर मतलप क्या इसका eventually its public health role क्या है Is it collecting data for collection sake or is it what is the eventual how are you eventually planning to use this data what is the larger public health purpose of such kind of collection one second, it feels that the whole focus is on individual case management this person this person and we all know that the insurance company will favor it more or will favor the practices of such telemedicine so what is the role of this data collection in the larger public health systems that is a matter of concern second, the role of public health informatics is not talking about health policy the big question is what is the need of an additional ID we already have half of it which is a big surveillance and data collection exercise so what is the role of public health informatics and how do you reflect on it so this policy says that the first step towards the implementation of this policy and also the entire digital health mission is the creation of a digital health ID so the idea is that you have a separate ID digital health ID which will be linked either to adhaar and which will either link to adhaar or you know adhaar so adhaar is one option that has been given in this policy it can be your phone number, email, other ID cards so you are absolutely right that concern is more about creation of this digital health ID and putting all your records at one place it's like a repository of all the patient health records and even though this policy is saying that patient is the eventual data owner and you know eventual final rights lies with the data but we have had bad experiences with adhaar and aroge setu like apps where at one time by saying non-mandatory what kind of executive orders were made by adhaar and aroge setu so it's very difficult to trust this health ID despite the assurance in the policies it is very difficult for us to believe that this health ID will not be hurdle in patients access to health services so this is what our past experiences have told especially when it's very easy to pass executive orders when it is being implemented by national health authority so that is one the other is about consent again it's about the patient so despite again all the insurance consent we all know how much information is asymmetry if you and I go to the middle class private hospitals we have seen the stories of how much people are forced to go despite being well literate we are not able to negotiate with private hospitals even if it's simply asking to give us our papers imagine in this kind of situation the non-literate person will have a real consent second especially in something like health where you are forced where you are always in a vulnerability position you go to a vulnerability facility so these are all the questions apart from very weak grievance redressal in the policy no provision for penalty where you suspend the doctor in the name of penalty or if my data is leaked whose responsibility was to the hospital or to the doctor then what suspension is enough I remember once in 36 houses there was this case where women were being removed without consent from them just to make a lot of money through insurance cards even though they didn't need it so at best these practitioners got one week suspension and the hospital was opened again so your larger grievance redressal system accountability system if it's not already then how are you expecting to be able to deal with such issues through this policy so all those concerns are still there and of course as you said in the beginning surveillance and authoritarianism as I said earlier data seems to be the end of it is data collection it seems like the end of it is data collection the entire project so what is it and in recent times having such a large data repository on a central level how safe it is and how it won't be used against citizens are the other concerns that there are questions on this policy if you want to give a message on how we should get rid of these policies and what kind of campaign we should have how to get rid of these questions if you tell us about it and then we will finish it I think first of all there are already different stakeholders who are getting resistance so our privacy activists here Jan Swa Stabyan is planning a campaign about it so before getting engaged we are questioning the consultation processes after that we will get engaged in a question I think all the health movements plus all the other civil society organizations also the privacy activists and the legal community need to critically look at these two bills and in tandem with each other we are already planning to start a campaign to tell the consequences because see what is the eventual objective of such a policy is this the first priority that the health system is facing today is it in today's days patient's problem is he doesn't want to get a bed in the nearest hospital or he doesn't have money or already they don't have internet or communication technology they have so do you think that this is a digital health project a priority rather than investing more rather than putting more budgets on your these are not the substitutes for your traditional health care system so rather than putting more money on your health systems rather than recruiting more health workers in rural areas if there is a substitute for recruiting health workers then we do not agree with that it might not be a very valid solution things like that so it is very important to raise questions about the priority or the mission mode the project is being started especially when our foundations of public health systems in our country are very deep this is a very insightful thing there are so many questions and a health crisis and what is the need of this policy without any consultation process so with these questions we will leave the viewers how they think about the policies of the government what are our priorities what are the priorities of the government so to watch this interview thanks to the viewers thanks to Deepika for joining us


Hi, welcome back. Mr. G here with another lesson planned for you. And again, this is Mr. G's Wrap Sessions, which is based off of recycled art projects. And this session is session number one, and it is Words to Live By. Today, we are going to talk about collage. And collage is building up a bunch of different items to make a single picture. And today, we're going to make a collage of words and words that you identify with, words that are important to you. And we are going to add a component of a visual graphic with it, too, or a picture. Okay, so I started out and have gotten this far so far with my collage. And I picked some words like game changers, because I'm a visual art teacher. I see some pretty dynamic students on a daily basis. They're the game changers. I'm just the person trying to help them along. So now we're going to start to build up our piece. When you're building up your piece, you might want to sit there and go, Oh, I might want to play something here or Oh, I might want to play sit there. Today, I'm going to place it here because I am the artist. And that's where I chose for it to be wherever you guys decide that you want to put your pieces. That's great. Okay. And again, a pronter, if you are cutting out of a magazine, a book or a newspaper, please ask somebody to do so before you start. I don't want you to get in trouble for accidentally cutting out something that somebody might have wanted to keep. So thanks. And now I'm just taking pieces that I've already cut out that I think describe me. I'm taking a heartbeat now because I feel like I have a heartbeat and I'm pretty vibrant and I'm pinning it on there. And again, you are going to pin where you want to. I'm going to take the word charity because I believe that we give to people that are less fortunate than us. And I know that it's been done for me in the past. So and we're going to glue on a couple more. You guys can put on as many or as few pieces as you can. Do start to think about the words that you're putting on your piece and how they are special to you. And if you get a chance, please talk it over with your friends, your parents, anybody that finds your work interesting. This can be done. This project can be done by any age unit that feels like it can do this project. And it might be a good thing for parents to sit down and talk over with their kids to find out some things about their kids that they might like. So I'm going to add on the few last pieces. And again, rule of thumb, please ask if you can cut things out. I know that I'm stressing on that. But again, I don't want you to cut something out that somebody might have wanted. And I don't want you to get in trouble for cutting something out that you shouldn't. Okay, so this is where I've gotten to so far. And just briefly, I'm going to review some of the words that I picked. I picked the word real because I always try to be real and truthful to myself. My truth. I picked the word time because time is super important to me, giving time to young people, spending time with people that want to grow and learning from people. And I also use the word kids because I really enjoy working with kids. Again, I hope that you guys had a great time building a collage based off of the words that you identify with. Thanks again for going on this journey with me. See you.


Internal revenue service IRS tax news IRS Kentucky Storm flooding victims now eligible for tax relief October 17th deadline. Other dates extended to November 15th. What? Kentucky's got a storm? That's horrible. Just don't lose the whiskey for the love of God. This is one area where the government needs to help out. I was skeptical about the whole COVID thing, but I think we could all agree saving the whiskeys a priority worth declaring a crisis for. But first an attempt at a joke. They say I'm getting picky about the economy. So a couple of guys don't rinse out their socks. Picky, picky, picky.  Deep breath. Deep breath. Deep breath. Somebody needs to start getting picky. Try this. I can't eat that. Picky, picky, picky. This economy can't breathe and rather than being picky. The current administration is clearly just one huge booger. It's a huge, huge, huge, huge. Which means we the people are the ones. They traded liberty for safety and us that need to start getting picky round here. We the people ended up losing both. And that giant booger should be the first thing we start picking on.  That's how we get things done in America. That's how it's done. Just one thing at a time. I'm doing something. One thing at a time. Or put more poetically, we get things done picking just one booger at a time. I think he's up to something. One thing at a time, Bart. We'll clear the nose that is the economy. Where's the nose? The nose! Slow and steady. A handkerchief is coming, beloveds. Let us pray the Almighty. Just one booger at a time. We'll exhale a breath of compassion on us all. Don't get ahead of yourself, people. We lift our noses, club and unblown, in reverence to you. Then we can flick that booger out the wall saying... Send a handkerchief of blessed ones so that it may wipe us clean. Bye bye, Biden booger. Bless you. IR2022-145, August 2nd, 2022, Washington. Storm victims in parts of Kentucky now have until November 15, 2022 to file various individual and business tax returns and make tax payments. The Internal Revenue Service announced today. The IRS is offering relief to any area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, otherwise known as FEMA, F-E-M-A. There's a link to FEMA here as qualifying for individual or public assistance. There are currently individuals and households that reside or have a business in. I'm going to butcher some of these names, but we'll give it a best shot hit. Brethit, Clay, Floyd, Johnson, Knot, Leslie, Letcher, Magethon, Magethon, Magethon, Martin, Osley, Perry, Pike and Wolfe counties in Kentucky qualify for tax relief. The same relief will be available to any other locality added later by FEMA. The current list of eligible localities is always available on the Disaster Relief page. There's a link to that here on irs.gov, irs.gov, irs.gov. The tax relief postpones various tax filing and payment deadlines that occurred starting on July 26, 2022. As a result, affected individuals and businesses will have until November 15, 2022 to file returns and pay any taxes that were originally due during this period. This means individuals who have a valid extension to file their 2021 return due to run out on October 17, so that's coming up 2022, will now have until November 15, 2022. So that's been extended October 17 to November 15. Just noted, however, that because tax payments related to these 2021 returns were due on April 18, 2022, those payments are not eligible for this relief. So remember, there's a difference between the filing requirement and the payment requirement, and we're trying to avoid penalties and interest by being in compliance here. So if you filed an extension to file, then you have until October 17 to file. If you owe taxes, that extension doesn't mean that you have an extension on owing the taxes. The IRS will still be tacking on penalties and interest most likely on the taxes owed. So if you think you owe any money, then you probably want to make your estimated payments or make the estimate to make the payment, even if you're filing at a later point in time, so that you can reduce the amount of penalties and interest and then file the tax return whenever you have the capacity to do so by November 15 that this is applicable to you. So the November 15 deadline 2022 deadline also applies to quarterly estimated income tax payments due on September 15 for 2022, and the quarterly payroll and excise tax returns normally due August 1 and August 31, 2022. So when we're thinking about businesses like sole proprietorships, for example, or pass-through entities possibly, then you might be making estimated tax payments as opposed to if you're a W-2 employee, then those withholdings are taken out of your wages as you go. So if you're in the category of making estimated tax payments, you might have an extension related to that, the same with the payroll taxes. If you're processing then the payroll, then you might have some relief in terms of the payroll. So businesses with an original or extended due date also have the additional time including, among others, calendar your partnerships and S corporations whose 2021 extensions run out on September 15, 2022 and calendar your corporations whose 2021 extensions run out on October 17, 2022. There's a similar process here with the extensions for the S corporations and the partnerships. I'm sorry, the S corporations and the C corporations are the things that we were mentioning here, I believe. So in addition, penalties on payroll and excise tax deposits due on or after July 26 and before August 10 will be abated as long as the deposits are made by August 10, 2022. The disaster assistance and emergency relief for individuals and businesses page, there's a link to that page here, has details on other returns, payments and tax related actions qualified for the additional time. The IRS automatically provides filing and penalty relief to any taxpayer with an IRS address of record located in the disaster area. Therefore, taxpayers do not need to contact the agency to get this relief. They should be able to determine where you are at, apply the relief automatically, and you should be able to file whenever the new deadlines are and so on and act in accordance with the new rules and they should be knowing that on their end, you shouldn't get penalties or interest on it. However, if an affected taxpayer receives a late filing, late payment penalty notice from the IRS that has an original or extended filing payment or deposit due date falling within the postponement period, the taxpayer should call the number on the notice to have the penalty abated. So if you do get action taken, penalties that you don't think should have happened, given the fact that you have this relief, then you could take action at that point in time. So hopefully you don't need to, but if you do get that letter or some penalties applied, something like that, then you want to contact them and address it. So in addition, the IRS will work with any taxpayer who lives outside the disaster area but whose records necessary to meet a deadline occurring during the postponement period are located in the affected area. So now your address of record is outside so it wouldn't be an automatic application in that case because the IRS would do so based on your address, but you are affected by it because your work is inside, you might have to take action in that case. You can't just assume that the IRS will be taking the action in that case because your address is outside the location. Taxpayers qualified for relief who live outside the disaster area need to contact the IRS at<PHONE_NUMBER>. I won't repeat that multiple times, but there will be a link to this in the description so you can check it out here. This also includes workers assisting the relief activities who are affiliated with a recognized government or philanthropic organization. Individuals in businesses in a federally declared disaster area who suffered uninsured or unreimbursed disaster related losses can choose to claim them on either the return for the year the loss occurred in this instance of 2022 return normally filed next year. So that would mean you'd get your kind of tax relief benefit on it next year or return for the prior year 2021 in this case. You kind of have the option of possibly choosing whichever would be the best outcome, possibly choosing the best outcome in terms of your taxes in general or when you can get the relief sooner. And note that obviously in the year that the problem happened, it might have stifled your income you would think at that point in time so your tax implications might be lower. So for some people it might not be as beneficial to take like a tax deduction or something like that in the year when your income is lower because you're going to be paying less taxes in any case possibly. So that's one thing to consider when you're looking at this. If you have the other year, you might have made more money and if you were working the full year when the disaster didn't happen and also if you claim 2021 in this case, then you might be able to file if you haven't filed yet with an extension. If you filed for an extension, then maybe it would be easiest to, you could still claim it in 2021 without a problem. Otherwise you might have to do an amended return if you had already filed 2021 possibly. So be sure to write the FEMA declaration number. That's DR4663KY, which you can, I'll have a link to this. So you can find that in the link so I won't repeat it five times. So on any return claiming a loss, you might want to put that on the return so they know that that loss, what it applies to the publication 547 for details. There's a link to that here. The tax relief is part of a coordinated federal response to the damage caused by these storms and is based on local damage assessments by FEMA for information on disaster recovery. You can visit disaster assistance.gov. There's a link to that here. There'll be a link to all the stuff here and you can get the information for the FEMA code and the numbers to call and whatnot in the link to this as well, which will be in the description.