And it comes from John chapter 8 verse 32 and it says the following You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free If it's true that Satan's main attack is our mind As Ephesians chapter 6 tells us that we have to put on the armor of God to stand on the day evil day To withstand the fiery darts of the devil The fiery darts of the devil are the thoughts he sends in our mind Because if he can demolish your mind your life will fall apart If the Bible is true when it says As a man tinketh in his heart so is he Meaning it doesn't say as you are so you think Meaning your thoughts are result of your life It says the opposite your life is a result of your thoughts That means as you think so you are Not as you are so you think See most of us are bought into this lie The reason I think the way I think was my life is hard Well if you would have lived with my wife you wouldn't have any different mind than me You know if you would have had my boss as your boss you would be depressed too Well if you would have been in a challenging situation as I am in You know what you would understand why I'm always depressed But the Bible says your life is a result of your mind not the other way around Which tells me that Satan will not attack your life He will attack through your life and really his target is not your life His target is your mind Because if he demolishes your mind your life will fall apart As a man as a man thinks his life will fall Where the mind goes man follows Say this with me Where the mind goes man follows Where your mind goes your life will follow Your thoughts create feelings Your feelings affect your behavior Your behavior creates habits Habits determines life And life creates a legacy for your children Everything starts with here Your subconscious mind can process 30 million bits of information per second While our conscious mind can only process 40 bits of information per second Our subconscious mind makes 88% of our brain capacity You control your mind Your mindset controls you Have you ever sent an email to someone who is out of the office And before even they read the email you already got the response Out of the office response They're saying I am out of the office from this day to that day And it's called automatic response Your mindset Your subconscious This is where the strongholds are at This is where things are built with time over time They become part of automatic response to a situation And most of you if you just pay attention tomorrow at work How you speak to the family, how you speak to the coworkers How you kind of live through what you do You will realize that so much of automatic response comes out quickly And that comes out because Your mind you can control Your mindset you cannot You can only feel your mind And once it spills to the capacity It spills and becomes the mindset But listen, not in one day Because it didn't take one day to develop the very mindset You are trying to change today I want to give you just three simple truths, lessons, tips And how to break down mental strongholds What you feed your mind with With time becomes your mindset So right down point number one What I feed my mind with becomes my mindset Your mindset is a result Of what your mind is filled with Consistently to the capacity If you fill your mind with something occasionally It will not have enough capacity to slip into a mindset If you fill your mind something If you would feed your body the way you feed your mind Your body wouldn't bring you here today Point number two When you feed your mind you liberate your life When you feed your mind you liberate your life We read today that it says You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free God gives us the truth But God doesn't shove it into our mouth The Bible says God feeds the birds of the earth But how many of you have ever seen God throwing food into the birds mouth That never happens God makes the food available and it is up to the bird To go and find that food and put that food from the ground Food into its mouth Same thing with the truth God makes the truth God makes the right knowledge available But it is my and your job to take that knowledge from the pages of the Bible And print it into the thought patterns of my mind It is my job to make the knowledge God makes available And to know that knowledge Scripture doesn't say the truth sets you free The Scripture says when you know the truth That's what sets you free The presence of truth won't do any difference to you You can have a truckload of soap in your garage And stink like a skunk Why? Because having soap in your garage doesn't make you clean Amen? It's taking the soap out of the garage And going into your shower And having it in your shower still doesn't make you clean Applying it on your life makes you clean Somebody say amen When you take the truth from God's word When you take the truth about relationships About marriage, about finances When you take the truth about business When you take God's truth about life When you take God's truth about your health And you begin to not just have it here and say I bought the book, I went to the conference But I read the book, I memorized this And I begin to apply Then you begin to see you are clean Point number three Knowledge is the key That unlocks what's already yours Knowledge is the key That unlocks already yours When you know the truth The truth will set you free You know, not everything that is true Is the truth My eyes will tell me That there is no music, there is no sound in this room And that is true But the truth is My ears will tell me There is a sound in this room It's a crazy white boy preaching That's the sound But my eyes will say There is no sound, I cannot see the sound And my eyes are true But my ears saying the truth See what this woman was saying It was true She had the epileptic attack But the truth was By his stripes she was healed See it is true You are poor But it's the truth That God is your provider What is true can change What is the truth can never change Because it has God behind him As his divine power has given to us All things that pertain to life and godliness Through the knowledge of him Now, watch this The Bible says God's power has given Given is past tense Given means you already have it Somebody say I have it And to the other neighbor says I don't see it So what did God give you already? All, somebody say all All things That pertain means that relay to life Life includes for you Me Means school Family The crazy kids The crazy boss Or the crazy employees Life means finances Life means college Life means your marriage Life means everything Car, house, insurance Retirement fund God says I have given you everything All things that are pertaining to life And on the top of that God throws a cherry And he says and godliness Godliness means godlikeness This includes your home group This includes your righteousness This includes your purity This includes healing other people Through the power of Christ Everything So in here what it looks like to me Is that you already have everything that you need The question rises up Was Peter high? Or I'm crazy Because whatever he's saying here I don't see it in my life But we miss the point Through, somebody say through The knowledge What God has Everything he has for you He put it in the locker Locker is knowledge In Proverbs chapter 1 I want you to read Proverbs chapter 1 And you will see The Bible says wisdom went on the streets And screamed hey come to me And people said we don't want you We're too busy We don't have time for you We don't like you, you're boring You're old fashioned We're cool and we like other stuff And the wisdom says come I will give you wealth I will help you I'm not here to make your life not cool I'm actually redefining your cool I will make your life in style I'll give you class about your life I'll raise your marriage up I'll raise your life and people said We don't want it And then the wisdom said When you have calamity I will laugh And then the wisdom says When you call When you get in trouble and you will To be a person Who values knowledge I was born and raised in a huge city Moscow, Russia I'm a 4th generation Christian My mother and father they were pastors Back in Moscow Because I grew up in a Christian family I was experiencing A huge rejection from society From teachers and friends The reason why is because In Russia if you're not orthodox Or if you're not atheist It considers to be very weird Something that does not belong there I was mocked, I was talked about Even sometimes I would come to class And I know that my teacher just talked To the students about me or my family I wouldn't have any friends I considered as Being a very weird person I was seeking for acceptance I wanted to have friends I didn't have any Christian friends either And being influenced by the streets Growing up at the age of 16 That's when the first time I tried Smoking weed And I liked it That's when everything started going down the hill I started skipping school My grades went down The only reason they did not kick me out Of the school and let me graduate Is the fact that I held The art medal for the school And the school's reputation Might be in jeopardy From there on I started to Be involved with clubs And ethnic music And I kept smoking and just partying And having those friends But at the end of the day I was not satisfied I would come home and be so depressed And lonely And feel that hole inside of me That nothing would feel it And one time I smoked so much That my face became pale And I had to sit down And I started to hear my heart Slowing down And that's when my friend took me home And that moment I just prayed And I said, Jesus, please help me If you don't help me right now, I'm over My heart started beating fine And I started feeling good But after that I did not Change anything I would still go to church just for my parents Because they were pastors And one time before We moved to United States I remember myself standing in church And I was thinking to myself Why do they pray? Why do they come to church? I don't see anything in it And in a couple of moments The presence of God hit me so much And I felt it physically And the only thing that I could do is Cry and thinking to myself Again, oh my God You're real Oh my God, you're real And that was my first encounter with God When I moved to United States After about two months I gave my life to Jesus Christ completely God touched me and I Surrendered everything Six years after I gave my life to Jesus Christ I got married About one year into our marriage I started to experience Something very strange upon my life Experience feelings Of loneliness, rejection And that I was worthless I would think such horrible thoughts about myself And I would go into depression Isolation The feelings of hatred towards people Started to overtake me I started experiencing severe nightmares I'm talking about nightmares When I woke up in a sweat And actually In my dreams I would cry and scream And my husband would have to wake me up And I would experience those Torments about every other night And that took a really, really big toll On my life And I struggled with my job I could not be satisfied with my job I could not enjoy it ever And I remember wanting my sister To move into the town Just so I can have somebody Here to talk to As my situation got worse and worse We started seeking spiritual Solution and we got introduced To the ministry of Prophet Tabijash We went there and once he prophesied To me about spirit of loneliness And after that He prayed for me After I came home I realized That I'm actually battling Not just myself Not just my past or whatever it was I'm battling a curse that was On my family tree And I looked back and I realized That my grandma She was struggling with loneliness She would have insomnia She could not fall asleep unless She drinks pills And so then I looked at my mother She would have exactly similar things And at particular time of my life This curse was activated To experience those things as well Before my deliverance I was not able To fight those thoughts off Fight those feelings off But after I received that prayer And prophecy I was able To actually fight for myself And pray against that spirit And I started to pray against the generational curse And I believe right now I received my full freedom I no longer get feelings of worthlessness Feelings of hatred towards people Feelings of I'm nobody I'm no good for nothing I have a complete victory in this area I no longer experience nightmares No more torments at night No more waking up in a sweat With screaming and crying God placed a dream inside of my heart And I actually dare to believe it I have my own home group Where I minister to girls Not only God set me free But the funny part is The sister that told me I could never move into Tri-Cities Actually moved in here And married my husband's brother I love the journey I am on Right now and I know that This is just the beginning for me My name is Lana Savchuk And this is my testimony


The Jell-O program coming to you from Hollywood, California, starring Jack Benny with Mary Livingston, Phil Harris, Dennis Day, and yours truly, Don Wilson. The orchestra opens a program with Let's Have Another One. Whenever you wake up in the sun, shiny May morning, and get a sudden attack of wonderlust, you want to lock the car, pile the kids into the car, and drive off for a carefree day in the country. But there's supper time to think of. Well, here's one swell time-saving idea. Jell-O for dessert. For Jell-O is magically quick and easy to prepare. It dissolves instantly, sets quickly, and there's nothing to go wrong. Why you can get it ready before you leave in the morning? Pop it into the refrigerator, and there's a grand, colorful, delicious dessert waiting for you when you get home. But best of all, Jell-O looks so lovely and tastes so good that it dresses up the simplest meal. All six colors glow with beauty, from the deep rose red that reminds you of fresh strawberries, to the pale, shimmering gold of lemon. And all six flavors bring you delightful refreshments.  So ask your grocer tomorrow for Jell-O. Look for the big red letters on the box. They spell Jell-O. It happens to be visiting the coast. So without further ado, we take you to Jack Benny's home in Beverly Hills, where Jack is giving a dinner party in Mr. Mortimer's honor. Here we go. I look at you, and what do I do? We should watch what you're doing. I want this finished before Mr. Charles G. Mortimer gets here. I'm doing the best I can, boys. The best you can. You started to give me this haircut 40 minutes ago. You haven't even got the sides done. Well, when I get to Death Valley on top, I'll go faster. Oh, my hair isn't so thin. I may have one little ball spot up there about the size of a quarter. Take a look in this mirror, boys. Inflation is set in. Rochester, that tickles. What are you doing back there? Your collar's frayed. I'm trimming that, too. Never mind the collar. Just shave my neck and get this over with. That's probably Miss Livingston. Come in. Oh, hello, Mary. Well, what in the world is going on here? Rochester's giving me a haircut. Sit down and read that police gazette. I'll be with you in a minute. Mr.  You're certainly putting on the dog for our sponsor. Flowers all over the house, the guards on every table. Well... I can't understand why you're so worried about your option. You'll probably renew it. Mary, I'm not worried about my option. I do as much for any guest. Well, I'll be darned.  What about it? It used to be September Morn, and now it's Mr. Mortimer. Now, wait a minute. That picture above my fireplace wasn't September Morn. It was Napoleon at Waterloo. Well, he had a gorgeous figure. Oh, stop. Rochester, be careful of that razor. Okay, where's the iodine, boys? Iodine? Did you cut me again? Rochester, did you cut me again? I'll just tighten your neck tight. I'll stop it. Never mind that. Put a bandaid on it. Hurry up. Gee, I hope Mr. Mortimer will find the house all right. How can he miss it? You've got a welcome mat that covers the whole front lawn. Well, I think the occasion warrants it. There you are. I'm all through. Now, wait a minute, Rochester. Don't cheat.  Not today, boss. Rochester, do as I tell you. Well, if I use the bay rum, what are we going to have for the cocktails? Have you been putting bay rum in my cocktails? Boss, rum is rum, no matter what's in front of it. I want those kind of cocktails today. Mary? Mary, how do I look? Let me see. Gee whiz, look how Rochester trimmed your sideburns. What's the matter with them? You look like Caesar Romero on one side and Waukegan Joe on the other. Oh, yeah? Well, Rochester, take that razor and make them both Waukegan. Okay. Heavens, I hope that isn't Mr. Mortimer already. Come in. Oh, hello, Don. Hello, Jack. How are you, Mary? Hello, Don. Have a seat, Mr. Wilson. There's nobody ahead of you. Now, cut that out. And listen, Rochester, after the party starts, if I catch you running around with your shoe-shining outfit, you're fired. But there's a payment due on my yacht. I don't care if there is. The idea of buying a yacht at $2 a week. That'll be 40 years before you own it. 43?  I don't care what you're putting on.  Gee, I wish Don and the rest of the gang would get here. Don's right here. You just said hello to him. Oh, yes. Sit down, Don.  He is sitting down. Oh, that's right. My goodness, Jack, but you're nervous today. I wouldn't worry about that option if I were you. Who's worried? Mr. Mortimer will sign you up. Don, that's not the reason I invited him over here. Who cares about my job? There are other things besides radio. Sure. With that haircut, you could bring back Waterville. No, stop with my haircut. Yeah, I hope Mr. Mortimer likes the dinner tonight. Oh, he'll like it, Jack. Don't worry. Yeah, I wish Don would get here. I'm here, Jack! Oh, oh, yeah, yeah. Say, Don, I want to be sure that Mr. Mortimer has a good time tonight. So after the party gets rolling, I wish you'd ask me to do my imitation of a trained seal. People scream whenever I do it at parties, you know? Oh, Jack, you're not going to bore your sponsor with that silly thing, are you? Silly? Well, that's the funniest bit I've done since I used to put a lampshade on my head and pretend I was drunk. Remember?  No, that kind of stuff is dated. I'll do my seal. Now, don't forget, Don, when I say... Pardon me, Mr. Benny. May I see you for a minute?  This is my new cook, Mary, and a very good one, too. Now, what's on your mind, Mr. Nichols? I need some butter. Can I have the key for the icebox? Bad luck on your icebox. Mary, I have $48 worth of caviar in there. Oh, answer the phone, Mary. Okay. Come on, Mr. Nichols, I'll open the icebox for you. Hello? Yes? Oh, Mr. Mortimer? Mr. Mortimer, give me that phone. Hello? Hello, Mr. Mortimer? This is Jack Benny. What? Oh, yes. Is it later tomorrow or the next night? I've invited a whole gang that'll be awfully disappointed. What about my butter? Wait, we may not need it. Mr. Mortimer, we're all waiting for you, so do come over. You will? Mortimer, see you soon. You're always welcome at the Chateau Benny. Come on, Mr. Nichols. Gee, I wish Don would get here. What's in this great big kettle over here, Mr. Nichols? That's my laundry. Imagine doing her laundry and preparing dinner at the same time. Well, it's your own fault for getting a cook from Central Casting. I guess you're right. Well, come on, Mary. You forgot to lock the icebox. Oh, yes, thanks. That must be Phil. Answer the door, Rochester. I'm shaving Mr. Wilson. Never mind that. Answer the door. OK. Now, Mrs. Nichols, I'm leaving the dinner entirely in your hand, so do a good job. You could depend on me, kid. Oh, that's fine. Come along, Mary. Sure you don't want a shampoo, Mr. Wilson? Rochester. Cut out that stuff and set the table. What do you think this is, a barber shop? That ain't the North Pole in the front yard.  I warned you about that before. Oh, hello, Dennis. Hello, Zeke. Where'd you get the haircut? I'm certainly surprised at you. Well, gee, you look funny. Oh, I do, eh? Just for that, young man, you're not going to get one bit of caviar tonight. Remember that. Oh, leave the kid alone, Jack.  Because he has nothing else to do. Oh, boss, come now. Oh, you don't work so hard. Instead of standing around here, go out in the kitchen and make a tray of hors d'oeuvres. Hors d'oeuvres? What do you mean? Make a ham sandwich and cut it in 40 pieces. Now get going. Okay. Barber, butler, chauffeur, gardener, and now I'm an hors d'oeuvres. Guy's always complaining when people are around. Throw his hair. Come in. Hiya, Jackson. Where's the punch bowl? Right over there and take it easy. Hey, what happened to your head? Nothing happened to my head. I just got a haircut. Well, that's one thing a man can't do himself. You ought to get a barber. Barber, but he didn't have his heart in it. Now, Phil, when our sponsor gets here, I want you to behave yourself and start pulling any of those corny cracks of yours. He won't like them. Can I tell the one about the old maid that set the bear trap? No. It's not a bit funny besides it has no point to it. Just keep quiet and we'll all be happy.  Yipe! Attention, everybody.  I mean, answer the door, Rochester. Yes, sir. Now, remember what I told you, fellas. Now, smile, everybody. Pardon me. Does Jack Benny live here? Yes, sir. Ready? One, two. Four, he's a jolly good pal. Hey, Mr. Mortimer, come right in.  Did you hear that, fellas? That was quite a reception we gave him. You know everybody here, don't you, Mr. Mortimer? Oh, of course, of course. Glad to see you all. Oh, I'm glad to have you with us, Mr. Mortimer. Follow me to come, yeah. Well, this is great having you with us, Mr. Mortimer. I'm sorry I spoiled your evening at the theater. Well, that's all right, Jack. I'd much rather be here with you folks. After all, it's important that we get together once in a while. Don't you think? Oh, I think. I mean, I think so, Jack. Well, come into the living room, Mr. Mortimer. Thank you. Say, this is a lovely home you have here, Jack. I'm glad you like it. It's nearly paid for, too. About another year ought to do it. Thanks, Mr. Mortimer. No thanks. I never drink. That's not going to help any. I'll say. I mean, Mary, please. Jack, I can't get over what a lovely place you have here. Oh, it's simple, but it's homey. Well, I see you have my picture right above the fireplace. Yes, sir. Tomorrow it'll be in it. Well, not. You know, Mr. Mortimer, Mary always has to be the comedian. She never lets up.   Well, thank you, Mr. Mortimer. And I'd like to wish you the best of luck on your presidential campaign. Oh, fine. Look, you're thinking of Gracie Allen, aren't you? Oh, yes. I'm terribly sorry, Miss Livingston. That's all right. Forget it. Anyone can make a mistake. I always say. Come, Mary.  Yes, sir. Hey, Charlie, come on over here and have some punch. Charlie. Thanks, Phil, but I never touch it. It's good stuff, Charlie. This is what you call Virginia punch. One drink, and you're real. Oh, Mr. Mortimer, he's very corny. No, on the contrary. I think Phil has a great sense of humor. Oh, he has. He has. And he's so sophisticated.  I can imagine. Hey, Charlie, did you hear the one about the old maid that put a bear trap under her bed and caught a bear?   He certainly is. Say, Jack. What? It's a boss like that kind of stuff you've got nothing to worry about.  Nobody's looking at you.  We've been one happy little family for six years. I mean, five years. I was thinking of next year. That's right, Mr. Mortimer. We do good. Have a good time together and really enjoy our work. Well, you always sound like it, too.  Thank you, Mr. Mortimer. I realize their importance and how much they mean to our listeners. Oh, I don't know what we do without dear old Don.  I'd like to tell you how good I think your shows have been this year. Oh, that's very kind of you. Of course, they could have been much funnier. Then why weren't they? I mean... I mean... I mean he mind him all. Mary. Will you have a cigar, Mr. Mortimer? No, thanks. I never smoke cigars. Well, then take one home for your wife. I mean... I mean... She doesn't smoke her meals. I know she doesn't. I'm a little mixed up, that's all. Well, I'd like to have a cigarette, though. Cigarette? Cigarette? Cigarette? Hi, Mr. Mortimer. Oh, Dennis. Yes, please. He's such a polite kid. Dennis, before we sit down at dinner, how about singing a song for Mr. Mortimer? Well, there's a party. I don't want to work. Now, Dennis... Oh, Jack, he doesn't have to sing if he doesn't want to. But he wants to. Well, Dennis, what's it gonna be? I'm gonna sing... Dennis! If that's not a picture of the same name, you're gonna get a good coffee.  Have you a match, Jack? Match? Match? Match? Match? Oh, here's a box. Here's a... I like this cigarette for you. Just a second. Just a second. Stop shaking for heaven's sake. I'm not shaking. Here you are, Mr. Mortimer. There. Sing, Dennis. Sit right here, Mr. Mortimer. Oh, Don, come here a minute. Yes, Jack. Don't forget to ask me to do my plain seal later. Yes. I've been thinking it's so silly of you to stay at a hotel while you're in town. I have an extra room and you could just as well stay here at the house with me. Hey, Mary? Why not? He can afford it. I wouldn't think of charging Mr. Mortimer after all. He's my boss, and I hope he will be for a long time. Now, I think we ought to have a little more entertainment. Hey, Don? Hey, Don? A limitation of a train. A train? Yes. Get the deal. Get the ball, Rochester. That's the top to my... I'm going to do my seal act. Oh, well, don't bother about it, Jack. Some other time. Well, I ought to do something to entertain. Excuse me a minute. Of course. You know, Mr. Mortimer, Jack always tries to be a good host and entertain his guests. Yes, I noticed that, but he seems so nervous tonight. Oh, he's always that way. Oh, Mr. Mortimer! Make him off like I was drunk. Mr. Billingsley, our border. Good evening, Mr. Billingsley. Ah, good evening, Mr. Benny. Entertaining again, I see. Yes. Have you had dinner, Mr. Billingsley? No, thanks. I'm on the wagon. Dick! Good night! My handshade looks good. It does at that.  Oh, Mr. Mortimer, the dining room's over here to your left. Yes, I see the boys digging in already. You know, Mr. Mortimer, I have something I want to talk over with you, but I feel that the home is no place to discuss business. I definitely agree with you. Oh. Dead end. Well, here we are. You sit right there at the head of the table, Mr. Mortimer. Yes, that's it. Oh, Rochester! Yes, boss? You set the table beautifully, but this is a special occasion. Where's the hand-painted china? You fired him! I don't mean our old cook. Oh, do have some caviar, Mr. Mortimer. Don, pass him that big bowl of caviar, will you? Surely. Here you are, sir. I thank you, but I never eat it. Oh. Well, take it away, don't, Mr. Mortimer finds it offensive. Oh, I don't find it offensive, Jack. I just don't eat it. All right. I eat hardy, everybody. I hope you like pheasant, Mr. Mortimer. Oh, that's one of my favorite dishes. Gee, it's hot in here. Well, Dennis, take your elbow out of Mary's soup. Now come on, everybody, dig in. Eat, drink, and be merry.  Pass me the asparagus, Don. Here you are. See, Jack, is everything going to be straightened out about next season? Not yet, Don. This is strictly a social gathering. Well, elucin your belts, everybody. There's still plenty to eat. Will you have some more option, Mr. Mortimer? I need some more asparagus. Help yourself. No, thanks, Dick. I have plenty right here. Pretty good food, eh, Morty? Morty. Morty folks is right here for us. Mr. Betty, would you please pass me the mashed potatoes? Why, yes, I'll... Mrs. Nick, this is in the kitchen. What if you are, and I'll get back there? I'll go with it.  I'm sorry, Mr. Mortimer, but our cook is new here, and I had to straighten her out. My name is your Jeffrey today, Jack. I've never seen you act this way before. Well, I... I haven't been feeling very well. Now, here's the whole thing, Charlie. Jack's worried about Nick. Phil, I'll handle it. You just mind your own business. Oh, yes, that reminds me. Say, Jack... Yes, please? I mean, what is it? What is it, Mr. Mortimer? There is something I want to discuss with you, as soon as we get through eating. There is? Good, eh? I mean, good. Well, first, we'll have our dessert, and then we'll go into the other room. O'Rochet to bring in the coffee and the apple pie. Okay, boss. Apple pie. What's the matter? Apple pie for dessert. Why, what's the...? It's not for anybody. But I can understand it, Mr. Mortimer. We always serve America's favorite jellyfish dessert in this household. Why, there isn't a dampening and economical jello in one of its six delicious flavors. And believe me, Mr. Mortimer, I've letters on the box. Well, I'm glad to hear you say that, Jack, because it's nice to know that I'll be working for me again next year. Next year? Well, thanks, Mr. Mortimer. But wait a minute. How do you know I'm available? If you'd like to add to your reputation as a clever dessert maker, here's something you ought to know about. It's a perfectly swell maytime dessert, cheerful as sunshine, delicious as fresh, cool spring water. It's a jello dessert, layered cherries and bananas made with jello in any of its three red colors. It's easy to make, and here's what you do. Dissolve one package of your red jello in one pint of hot water. Then seed and cut into halves one cup of canned white cherries. Arrange them on the bottom of a mold and pour the shimmering red jello over the cherries. Slice one banana over the top and chill until firm, and there's a real prize-winning dessert.  So tomorrow, ask your grocer for jello in one of those bright red colors, then try this swell new dessert. Layered cherries and bananas made with jello. The last number of the 34th program in the current jello series, and we'll be with you again next Sunday night at the same time. See, Mary, wasn't it nice of Mr. Mortimer to sign us up for next season? Yes, why don't you celebrate and put the lampshade on again? I think I will. Oh, Mr. Mortimer! Yippee! Good night, folks. The part of Mr. Charles G. Mortimer was played tonight by Russell Higgs. He showed a listen to the Allridge family heard in most communities every Tuesday night. And talk to your local newspaper or radio guide for the day and exact time of the Allridge family. This is the National Broadcasting Company.


Somebody approached me with a wish or a question if email addresses would like to be shared and I did not want to do anything without the people's permission. So there will be a list at the front desk where you can maybe the name list of all the participants or you can either write your email address in there or not if you prefer not to make your email address known to others. So whoever is interested, please take advantage of the opportunity. And David still wanted to make a brief announcement too. Could you have the microphone? Maybe first concerning also the email address I was asked by some of you whether I could send you these slides of this morning. So you could look at it closer, you know, with all the writings. So my email address to just give it to you is D-U-E-R, swiss legal in one word, swiss legal. This is the name of our law group, dot C-H. And then may I write at this, some people asked me whether what I gave in the speech is also somewhere written in an article or so, there are not long and thick books of me yet on this matter. I do have two books here that you're not as sophisticated and scientific as the one of Hans. And namely they are not so English, they are German. One is Staatsoper Schweiz, which means state opera. Switzerland, you know, the state has a big opera. It's the state house actually as opera house. And the subtitle is few stars, many startists. So this is one, I just have one copy of each. If you want to look at it, those who read the show, if you wanna buy it or order it, so it's here. And the second one is I have a regular column in a newspaper in Switzerland. And these are sort of anarchist columns. And the collection of this is in another book. They are always on Fridays in that newspaper service. Das Wort zum Freitag, the word to the Friday, not to the Sunday, as usual, to the Friday. So this is the second book. Thank you. Which newspaper is it? It's called Basler Zeitung. It's a, people say it's a right-wing newspaper. They are very open and then they have, through all parties, columnists. But I like the newspaper as such, but I'm very independent. I had one column once when I compared IS or EZS with US, I said, well, actually it's about the same thing. US is just, U.S. is just bigger. And that gave huge protests from the newspaper itself. And then this gave me opportunity just to put one on the top because right afterwards these CIA reports came up about torture practices. That was a wonderful example to insist on it anymore. My question is for Stefan Kinsella. It's a question, not an argument. What is the case for private photos and pictures shared over the internet on Facebook and someone else is using it? What is the argumental basis on that? From the IP perspective. What's the justification for using someone else? Using or do they need our permission without permission? What is the case for? Do you mean under current law or under libertarian? Under both. Well, under current law, copyrights, photographs are owned by the photographer. And if you put it online, you still own the copyright, but you're giving a license for people to use it for limited purposes, like viewing it on their browser. If you use it beyond that, unless there's a creative common license attached to it, you could be sued. And the perverse aspect of copyright, let's suppose you're on vacation and you hand your iPhone to a stranger and he takes a picture of your family. He owns the copyright, but you don't know who he is. So you have this great picture, you may be infringing his copyright when you put it on your Apple TV. And there's other perverse aspects of copyright. There are cases where there's someone takes a photograph, they have a copyright in the photograph, and it becomes a best-selling print or something like that. And someone else will go to the same location and recreate the photo by taking their own photograph, and they can be sued by the owner of the first copyright for taking a photograph in that location. Under libertarian law, there would be no property rights, whatsoever, and information at all. Information is not an ownable thing. Information is the impatterning of an owned thing, a physical material resource. Information is never free-floating. It's always the impatterning of a substrate, your brain, electromagnetic waves, a CD-ROM, a USB drive, a hard drive on a computer, and those things are already owned by someone according to the principles Professor Hoppe referred to earlier. The owner of the thing, I own this physical object. It's structured in a certain way, which is the information. I don't own the information and the phone. I own the phone and it has certain features. This phone has a weight, it has an age. Doesn't mean I own the age of the phone. If I did own the age of the phone, I would own lots of other phones in the world that were made on the same day, you see? So the problem with owning an aspect of a thing that you own is it's a universal that applies to any number of instances in the world, and to own that universal feature of the thing would instantly give you ownership claims over other material resources in the world that other people have claims to. This is the very problem with IP. So if you put a photograph online in a free society, then you have to take the risk that other people might actually look at it and use it. On intellectual property rights, there's a funny movement you reported about it on your website where people, some alleged Austrians from Vienna, Mrs. what's her name? From the Hayek Institute. Barbara Coyne. She wants to defend physical and intellectual property rights at the same time. It never occurred to her that that is an absolute impossibility. To give you an example, I whistle a song, you hear this song and you copy it, you whistle the same melody. If intellectual property rights exist, of course I will be able to then sue you for having whistled the same song without having received my permission, but that means that I thereby acquire property rights over your own body. I am then an owner of your vocal chords and whatever it is, and that shows quite clearly that either physical property rights exist or intellectual property rights exist, but both of these things cannot exist simultaneously. It is simply a contradiction. And an actual illustration of that is the happy birthday song, which is in litigation right now. This is literally true. Waiters in restaurants in the US sing a different song because they may be sued for singing the one that's in the movies, which movie studios have to pay licensing fees for. It's another way IP would help movie studios or costs would go down. And I want to read something Hans said in 1988. On a panel with Rockbard and David Gordon and Leland Jager and this ADA at the Mises Institute, I assume, and an audience member said, I have a question for Professor Habba. Does the idea of personal sovereignty extend to knowledge? Am I sovereign over my own thoughts, ideas and theories? And Hans said, in order to have a thought, you must have property rights over your body that doesn't imply that you own your thoughts. The thoughts can be used by anybody who is capable of understanding them. So, Hans understood this with pure proxy ology 30, almost 30 years ago. Then I was still young, yeah. He was a younger. Thiora Dahlrimpel. First of all, I wanted to thank you for a remarkably funny talk on homicide. And I wanted to tell Professor Habba that it was extremely refreshing to hear what should be done with politicians. Now, having said that, don't you think that when you say that a few people have asked you who is the best person you've known and several, and many people have asked you who is the worst person you've known? In a way, echoes the fact that the best person you may know involves a value judgment, whereas what we consider evil echoes of a natural sense of law such that what we libertarians call the non-aggression principle can be naturally recognized by people throughout cultures and times. No, I don't think that's true. I think, I'm afraid, I think people are just salatiously interested in evil in a way that they're not salatiously interested in good. And evil entertains them in a way that good doesn't. And actually, for writers of fiction in particular, I think it's far easier for them to create villains than it is for them to create good people who are interesting. And those who can produce good characters in fiction who are good are actually relatively rare. What you remember is the bad person. So I think there's more to it than that. You shortly discussed it at lunch. When I asked whether that was a good idea to make this speech into this law day, yesterday we had the economic day, today the law day, so was that because this has to do with legal criminal cases? And no, it's just to entertain you, you said. And nevertheless, I think that there is an interesting connection between, for instance, these questions you asked, is anybody bored by this subject? No, certainly not, this is something interesting. And I could imagine that there are connections, for instance, that if things like that, terrible things like that happen, I say terrible things because they are, according to our way of thinking, terrible. What are the reactions of bystanders, of people who read it in the newspaper or hear it? And there are reactions. And if these are horrible things, they are intensive reactions. And there are things going up, they're going up, yeah. That are realities, interesting realities. I think these are realities, also my discipline, the law, should look at much more closer because that's sort of, that's natural law, in a way. Reactions, spontaneous reactions out of certain events, maybe very same reactions, if bad things happen in different cultural connections on different times in the long historical run. There may be other reactions that are very dependent on the circumstances of this culture, of that time. But in any event, these are very interesting questions about out of what, out of what stuff is it made? Is it made? I mean, is it, these are natural laws, it's like gravity, but it's not gravity, other laws, but how are there structures, things like that? I could imagine that it's a very interesting broad field of research that is not used anymore since the national legislatures made these books, you know, where everything is written in and this is enforced just because the state legislatures gave it and not because it's law. Therefore, also therefore, beside other thoughts and other things, I find it was a very interesting part also to this subject. Here's another question for Dr. Delrinble, for Dr. Daniels, excuse me. Are you sure there aren't some more, more specific lessons to be learned from the murders you knew as respect to ethnicity, intelligence and conscientiousness? I don't think there's anything to be learned for about ethnicity. It's true on the whole that the majority of murderers that I saw were not of very high intellectual standards. Well, there is of course a lot of, there's a hidden, there's a hidden homicide, but I actually don't think there's much to be learned from what I said except that I mean, I don't envisage a world in which I would never be able to repeat these stories. I don't think there's a society in which you couldn't find stories like this. There can be more or fewer of them, but I'm afraid I think we are dealing with a very deep, something deeply entrenched in human beings. As I said, as I was saying to somebody, the rate of murder in different societies goes up and down and it varies between societies, it varies within societies. You can examine, you can examine, try and find what you think are the reasons for it, but ultimately, I think I'm not at all religious, but I think ultimately you're dealing with original sin and we will not actually get rid of the original sin. Sorry, I've got a question for Stephen as well. Thank you for liberating my mind. I walked into this room this morning in support of intellectual property protection to a limited degree, of course, it's out now. Thank you for liberating my mind, thinking that J.K. Rowling is the owner of a slave ship. Draw the parallel, but I do have two questions. The first question is there was some pictures stolen and then distributed on discussion forums around the world of various actresses. I think it'll be easier to argue whether the person who stole it can or cannot steal it, but once someone saw it on a forum and then distributed there on, are they completely guilt-free? I mean, according to the principles. And the second question is, and you see this in places where intellectual property rights currently is not really enforced. If I were to make a movie or based on a book written by J.K. Rowling without intellectual property and in the world without intellectual property protection and then use a picture and then use her signature to create the image that she is endorsing this movie, J.K. Rowling is gonna be pretty angry about this.  And then if someone else was to approach her for the same endorsement, wouldn't that endorsement then be of less value? Yeah, so the first question, in a case where a photograph is private and not widely known, presumably the owner of the material substrate that the photograph is on, you know, their camera, their computer, a piece of paper in their home, it's hard to imagine how someone is going to get access to that without committing some act of trespass, but against her owned property, right? If you hack into someone's computer, you're using their computer without their permission. If you break into their home and find the photograph on their desk, that's another act of trespass. So some kind of tort or crime is usually committed or a contract breach in the case of an employee taking photographs from the employer that he shouldn't do according to the contract. So there's some kind of tort, some kind of wrong, and it should be a crime or an offense. But if he publishes the data online, then everyone who views that photograph and copies it is not committing any offense because information again can't be owned. Now, if it's only limited circulation so far, I might say there's a moral obligation not to participate in making it worse, but once it becomes widely distributed, the cat's out the bag. Same thing with just pure facts. Let's suppose, I don't know, let's say there's a famous actor who's really secretly gay, but he keeps the fact hidden.   Now, are people supposed to forget that fact? It's just information about the world, right? They know it now. If a movie studio refuses to hire him for a certain role now because he's got this image and he loses money financially, could he sue the movie studio for not hiring him? I don't think so. He does have an obligation. That would go to the damages. He is owed by the trespasser who did the original act. And what was the second question? About taking J.P. Rolls extra clean. Oh, yeah. So in such a case, in general, taking her, using her photograph and her signature would be permissible because it shows information. Unless it's used to give the impression that she did endorse it, which is a lie. So that could be an act of fraud, but it would be a fraud committed on the customers of the person making the movie. So if you go see the movie, assuming J.K. Rowling had endorsed it, then you would have a contract breach or a fraud claim maybe to get a refund of your ticket or something like that. So, and Rowling, all she had to do is just announce this guy that was lying. I didn't endorse it. So her real endorsement of another movie would still have value because people would be able to tell the difference. It's just a matter of fact that they could be discovered. And before I wanted to back on the photograph question, this is a picture of, has anyone seen this monkey picture, the macaque? So this is a case where some photographer's camera was taken by this monkey and he took some selfies and they were good pictures. And now a copyright lawyer's around the world are confused about the copyright status because this is, they're puzzling their heads over this, which shows that this is not natural law because the author of a photograph is the copyright holder, but monkeys don't have rights. So most people, I think there is no copyright in the photograph. It's just public domain, even though 120 years haven't passed yet. So it's a strange case. And this issue comes up also in increasingly, increasingly with technological automated pictures like security cameras or maybe the Google car driving around town or this little device you throw the camera up and it hovers and takes pictures. Who's really taking the picture? It's an, it's a computer doing it. So does Google own the copyright to the images in their street view that their car is taken? It's hard to say. So, which just shows the absurdity of this legislative system and the unnaturalness of it. Can I just ask you a question? What constitutes a trespass so that supposing someone is legally in my house is it a trespass if he takes a photograph of something in my house that maybe I wouldn't want photographed? Would that be a trespass? It would. I think so. I think in libertarian terms, the general view of trespass would generally be the use of someone's resources, their property without their consent. And when you enter someone's home, you could say there's an implicit set of rules set down by the owner or there's a contract and you are not permitted to use their house in this way. Just like if you loan someone your car, they're permitted to drive it around town maybe for the day but they're not permitted to paint it another color or do something else with it. So in general, I would view that as an act of trespass, yes. What is the law currently about? I, taking a photograph from someone's house, I actually don't know if the law would regard that as a trespass. Do you have any thoughts on that? No, I don't know what the law would regard it. I don't think the law has a strict concept of property and trespasses we would have, so I'm not sure. We have another lawyer? Oh, David, do you know? I would say, but very, you know, just to think aloud, trespassing is trespassing against, as we call it, absolute rights in contrast to relative rights. Relative rights are those between persons and absolute rights are rights on something, on a picture, on a book or the things like that and also on his own privacy. And in this sense, it's an absolute right, so once you touch it or you get in conflict with it, it's trespassing. I think that it's not my specialty. I think that, like in Europe or Switzerland, one would look at it. Well, another maybe related thing would be if you confide some information to a priest or a doctor or a lawyer, and then that person reveals that information to the world. It's not a trespass, it's too late for it to be a trespass, it's just some kind of contract breach. So there's an implicit contract between the two or an explicit contract. So it's a breach of contract and damages could be owed for the harm that is a consequence of that breach of contract. Yeah, if I may, a short comment on this discussion. If you listen to the examples given, most of them are simply trivial and would never come before a court because it's just things that happen. But when you get a very legalistic mindset, such as has developed in the United States you have more lawyers than economic bubbles, I think. I don't know what the standard is for many lawyers, but you have these small, very small things get blown up into legal arguments and they are crossing unfortunately the world. You mentioned the Happy Birthday song in the rest songs. Well, in the Netherlands, for example, and some people from the Netherlands are here, we used to have the Netherlands and Flemish people to St. Nicholas. Who's a child-friendly saint. He brings presents to the children and the presents that are carried in a big bag by a moor, so a black-faced person. And of course we have a scandal about this because this is racism for some reason and colonialism and racism. So things which are never a subject of litigation suddenly become translated into legal categories and they are exploited and now it's big business for newspapers and for lawyers. So when you have these examples of intellectual property rights concerning photographs and things like that, I think it is important to stress the scale of the damage people should be able to argue the degree to which they have damaged. I do not follow you saying here is a line and whatever goes on that side is not the business of a court of law and whatever is on the other side is certainly the business of the, I think some judgment and moderation is in order. On a couple of more recent trivial examples or not so trivial, but recently you might have heard what is the song, the Pharrell song that's similar to the Marvin Gaye song allegedly? Anyone know? Robin Thicke song in Pharrell, Blurred Lines. So they lost a copyright suit from the state of Marvin Gaye recently because the songs have some similar looking feel or something, cowbells or something used in it. And the minute work song down under has this flute riff in it, which is like 12 notes of it that are similar to this old children's song Cuckoo Burr sits in the old gum tree and they were sued and lost. And I think the floutest or one of the members got so depressed about that, I think he committed suicide later. It's terrible. I have two questions related to the definition of property. How does it figure into reputation and free speech? In other words, defamation, libel and so on, like where are the boundaries? And the second question is we, it's usually assumed that property started with human beings. In other words, property is a human invention and it's attacked for the same reason. But there's a book published in the 1960s by Robert Ardrey, the territorial imperative. And the subtitle is the animal origins of property and nations. Very interesting book. And of course animals have territories, they mark their territories. And it even has biological effects. So it seems that animals are wired to know when they are trespassing. For example, a smaller animal on its own territory will defeat a larger animal that's trespassing on its territory because of hormonal changes and so on. So it's very interesting. Kind of like an animal version of the home field advantage in sports. So I'm curious about any comments related to the continuity or difference between animal primitive property and human property? I think that should not be overemphasized, these analogies. Because so far nobody came up with the idea that we should try animals for things that they have done. As soon as we start that then we might want to think a little bit more seriously about it. But I'm waiting for the day when the dog will be put in front of a court of justice or some mosquito will be tried. In order to have rights as Murray Walsh bought. But historically, trials of animals were very frequent in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. And there's a wonderful book about the trials of animals. And they used to try insects. And there were lawyers appointed, this is perhaps they could bring this into America actually, give more employment for lawyers. But pigs and so on were tried for eating the things in the grain silos and things. But obviously to not avail, right? Well, they were often executed. But sometimes they were acquitted. Lawyers, too? Well, of course now animals are executed without due process all the time in slaughterhouses. They're just declared to be illegal. On the animal issue, I agree with Hans about not making too many analogies. However, you can distinguish and property is the legal institution of the right to control a resource. Crusoe alone on his island would have no property rights, but he would still have the need to employ scarce means as part of action. And animals as well do this because they also live in the physical world. So that is probably the reason animals would have no property rights. So that is probably the reason animals, you know, a dog can recognize his dog bowl and he has a certain territoriality over it. But I will say that birds don't try to copyright their songs. On the first question about reputation rights. So typically intellectual property is regarded as a patent which covers inventions, trademark which is naming or marking which is actually a type of reputation right. Copyright which is creative works and trade secrets which is the right to not reveal secrets. Defamation law which covers libel and slander. Libel is the written form of defamation. Slander is the oral form of defamation. Defamation is a right to reputation and objectivists for example believe in that. Rothbard has a great chapter in the ethics of liberty called on knowledge true and false where he just eviscerates the entire case. And actually I believe defamation law should be regarded as a type of IP because it's very similar in the rationales given to it and it's invalid for the same reasons. As Rothbard recognized although he didn't think of it as a type of IP as he pointed out to have a right to reputation effectively means you own other people's brains because you're controlling what they think about you. I don't believe there's a reputation right. I don't think people own their reputations whatsoever. If I would own my reputation I could sue almost the entire world for saying something that I feel hurts my reputation. Yes except the courts would rule you have no reputation to lose. Coming back to the animal thing I'm very actually keen that we shouldn't use analogies from the animal world because in the animal world it's so extensive that you can find an analogy for absolutely anything really. And if you look at the preface to Dawkins his first book The Selfish Gene there's a man called Triverse who's a very clever biologist but he actually says in that preface that work on the social bees, wasps and ants demonstrates that there is no difference between the status of male and female. Now we can argue you can say what you like about the relations between men and women but it can't possibly be based on what the bees and the ants and the wasps do. So I think actually this kind of reasoning is completely false and once human consciousness and self reflection comes in it changes things absolutely and makes a categorical difference between man and the animals. Let me say one more thing on reputation because there is defamation law now I think it makes the public more gullible and more credulous because if someone tells an outrageous story about someone which is a lie people are more likely to believe it because they figure well if it wasn't true then they would have been sued for defamation. So in a world where there were no defamation laws people would take these things with a grain of salt because they know people are free to lie basically. But then you try to say something for half an hour already but may I add just the strong thing to this issue of animals I'm not that skeptical against these analogies of course I would also say that there is a categorical difference between bees and human beings but I think for instance human beings and chimpanzees are much closer together than chimpanzees to the bees and bluntly said I would say apes have law they have law structures and you can observe it look at it you can make experiments or look how they behave in their group and there are situations at least just to look at maybe that not answers the whole question but there are situations where there are conflicts a bit what I showed this morning here there are conflicts one goes to the other takes something away he shouts others come in and then there is something like a court there is a third one maybe some with authority in the group and both sit before this third independent person and he shouts at them and makes something and then this conflict is solved so this happens of course there is a lot to interpret again of it but I think just when you try to find the natural law somehow out of the nature then at least it's very interesting to look at people that are close to us in brain capacity and everything but are not us because once we look at us we are always biased in a way but we look at colleagues of us that are quite close but not the same maybe we are more objective I know this won't be a role? and that would be a whole discussion but I would rather tend to such this is just our description of things using human categories to describe entities of which we simply do not know if these categories apply to them we describe it like this and I find these descriptions also very instructive, interesting and so forth I read these things too but all of these things say there is an independent party and they have a fight and so forth this is all using our knowledge that we have about humans and then metaphorically projecting it to animals as well there is absolutely no way of ever proving that these metaphorical descriptions are actually accurate descriptions in order to use human categories you must be able to somehow speak you must be able to somehow explain yourself and so forth and none of that can ever be observed but we happen to disagree on this there are a few things even the two of us we are always at these panels we are the two anarchists close together and so it's fine that we have some scope we beat it out tonight can I comment? can we settle this democratically? out of the conflict comes the sohushi okay my vote counts for five could I comment on one thing? there is a tendency to look at children as they're growing up and even Mises says that children sometimes act as savages and they come to some conclusions from children even once a person who's originally from Cuba he told me look children when they have something they immediately say mine so he's saying that that's their nature or that's the nature of humans and I think a lot of conclusions people reach about how humans evolved they are from observations of children yes of course babies can't act they learn how to act the first things are just motions we learn how to act babies can't speak they learn how to speak and of course we can observe that at some point this transition occurs yes from the study of children we can learn a lot we can also learn if you look at Jean Piaget's studies for instance on when children are capable of performing mathematical operations when they develop some sort of consciousness when they develop the idea of you did something right you did something wrong all of this proceeds in certain stages which are relatively stable stages but not all people go through all the stages at the equal speed but they all go through them in the same order and some never reach the highest stages of human capabilities that other people can perform if I can just make a quick comment on private property and human action before I ask the questions it seems to me that private property is an unavoidable consequence of any human action even in the Garden of Eden where there's no scarcity at all out of an infinity of apples the minute that I stretch my hand to pick an apple that particular apple is mine by the very fact that I have acted on it and then if I proceed and peel the apple or cut into slices that makes it even more mine if there's no property there will be no motivation for human action there would be no human purpose for human action in the Garden of Eden there would be only goods means things that I recognize as means in order to achieve certain ends but it only makes sense to talk of property if conflicts arise and we have to define what is mine once I pick that apple this particular apple is mine if you were to take it there would be conflict but in the Garden of Eden that question would never arise well if I peel the apple if I'm the only one on the island the question never arises I simply do it that's it two questions one for Stefan Kinsella the question of IP has been fairly controversial even within libertarian circles although I think the consensus is probably moving in your direction Rothbard for example thought there is a case for copyright as opposed to patent a case in contract law for copyright what is the state of play among libertarian thinkers now and in particular have you had this discussion say Einrand of aficionados Einrand was almost paranoid on the question of intellectual property in favor of intellectual property and the other question is for Tony Daniels with your contact personal contact with a number of murderers has that affected in any way and in what way you're thinking of the death penalty alright I know some objectivists who are now against intellectual property and I know a few anarchist objectivists so not all objectivists here even to this I've actually got a web post where I list the few objectivists I know who have come around on IP my impression is that most libertarians never thought about IP very much until it became a big issue after the internet in 1995 Einrand was in favor of it I think because it was in the constitution and because she was a novelist so she was self-interested and she revered the constitution 100 years ago so there was a big debate in Liberty magazine between like TAC-CAC and Benjamin Tucker about IP there was a big debate about it in the 1800s between free market economists who opposed to it because they saw it as intruding into the market and Lysander Spooner even was insane insanely bad on IP even though he was good on so many other things he like like Galambos who is probably the craziest ever on IP believed in perpetual copyrights and patents so they would last forever so we would be paying royalties now for the use of fire to cook food it would just be we would die as a race because no one could move you'd have to get permission from everyone and we would just die off my impression is as libertarians started looking at this issue by and large they're opposed to it there's a few empiricists utilitarian minded and menarchist types and constitutionalists who are still in favor so my impression is virtually all anarchists left anarchists and the anarcho-capitalists pretty much all against it most Austrian libertarians are against it left libertarians seem to be against it radical libertarians seem to be against it by and large there is still some debate but honestly I get asked all the time hey would you do a debate on IP who would you suggest on the other side that's any good I literally don't know anyone who has a good argument for IP not even one that's plausible Richard Epstein mouths off about it but he doesn't he doesn't produce any empirical evidence to back up his empirical case there's an objective named Adam Massoff who keeps threatening to unbuzz them onto the world the true objective is argument for IP that Rand had never really gave and we're still waiting to see something that makes sense but their argument basically is that rights come from the creation of what they call values and you own the values you create they don't have a proper understanding of theory of value that we don't own values we demonstrate that we value things by acting to to achieve them but value is not a substance or a thing out there in the world that you own you could call an object that you produced a value but you own it because it's an object that you produce it's got nothing to do with the ownership of values so I think that's the current state of play Mahlup was against it, Hayek was against it, Mises was against it and the Austrian tradition almost all economists were against intellectual yeah and Rothbard's argument on copyright is confused I don't think he, when he used the word copyright he clearly did not have in mind what the word copyright means copyright, because his argument included a mousetrap which is an invention which was what patent law covers and his argument looks like it's a contractual argument I think it's a little bit confused but I think the best way to understand it was he was envisioning a web of contracts that people would make they would put limitations of use on objects they sold and he thought that somehow could bind third parties but I think he lost sight of the fact that the information is separable from the underlying own thing and he should have seen that because of his good argument on defamation if he would have applied his defamation argument to the IP case he would have I think cleared up his mind on the copyright issue Donny Well being a doctor in prison did affect me in the sense that the doctor had to attend an execution and in fact he had to make the person fit for execution which is an interesting concept I mean part of the fitness was the person was in his right mind but it couldn't be so that he learned from experience so it was all very odd and I didn't think I personally could have participated in an execution and I couldn't really and it wasn't just an aesthetic objection and I don't think I could have advocated or else did something that I thought I couldn't do for ethical reasons which is not to say that you didn't meet people who were so terrible that you thought that they deserved to die but that's a different thing entirely and as Hamlet said treat each man after his dessert and who should skate whipping so I'm against the death penalty but it wasn't really actually meeting the murderers that put me off the death penalty okay can I ask a question yes my question is of a strategic nature Dr. Hoppe you spoke about a counter culture in my knowledge that is actually a Marxist term by which through injecting confusion in the public debate and especially the hollowing out of terms you make possible allies to be enemies as you have said how can in your view the libertarian movement in the next 20 years regain the paradigm because this is a very interesting meeting but it is a very isolated phenomenon and I'm very interested to learn how we can reconquer the culture or maybe it's not possible I don't know I indicated what I think can be done you can all go home and try to do the same that I did and thereby create a wider audience being perceived by the outside world ridiculing the present dominant culture I don't see any other ways to do it I do think that I have had some effect with what I have done and I think that can be imitated I would want it to be imitated but as I said it is not an easy thing to do slow process and of course David Durr has of course indicated how by assembling people of like-minded people how they can possibly proceed by initiating legal procedures and creating enough publicity for instance you need also people like the people here who are useful in order to create the publicity to have newspapers reported all sorts of blogs and internet sites reporting about the legal proceedings that we will start against the Schweizer Eidgenossenschaft well that's to take this on that could be an example besides many other examples maybe what is also important to have in mind to such questions is it's really a fundamental change in a way and it's that fundamental that it's almost impossible just that the group comes in and says now we want to change the world and then it's done actually in the aftermath I think one can only say oh the history the big stream of history I showed this morning in the end it took a better turn than one was afraid there are many signs that go in a very bad direction to this one world state when it's about tax collection and fight against terrorism then even USA and Russia and China work together so these are horror scenarios so there is a strong stream in that direction and in a way we can in one way we can just hope that it won't go definitely in that direction that the cause will change before and under this you then it's worthwhile very much worthwhile to try to to strengthen those tendencies that goes in that direction so only if there are tendencies in that direction and I think one can find it in groups like that and in other discussions that there are tendencies that there are ways of thinking in that direction then it's very useful to enforce them to strengthen them to discuss with people about them and to try to find fields of specific actions such as for instance this lawsuit or other possibilities okay I think we have reached our time limit so ask the other questions privately afterwards thank you for coming I'll see you tonight a little bit later


Essential oils have become one of my favorite DIYs to make at home myself. I've made a couple before such as lavender and grapefruit, but I wanted to experiment with making a homemade version of peppermint oil. The reason this came about was because it's been summer up here on the Gold Coast and with this warmer weather has come a lot of bugs and insects. We've recently had a few cockroaches, spiders and ants get into our home so I've started looking for some natural ways to help deter them without using chemical sprays. And one of these ways was using peppermint oil. Rodents and insects don't like the strong smell of peppermint thanks to the compounds terpene, alcohol and menthol. A few ways to use peppermint oil around the home to deter insects include mixing a few drops of peppermint oil with some hot water and then pouring that into a spray bottle and spraying down countertops, furniture, curtains, blinds and any areas where insects are present. You can also add about five to ten drops of peppermint oil onto some cotton balls and place them around the house and just refresh the cotton balls at least once a month. In my blog post, which I'll link in the description below, I do share a few more ways on how to deter insects using peppermint oil and I also share the recipe on that blog post for this peppermint oil as well. I collected some organic mint from my local farmers market and olive oil from my local bulk food store to make this peppermint oil. So everything was plastic free. I then reused an old essential oils tincture bottle that I had at home to store my homemade peppermint oil in. Now for warning, this method won't produce what is technically a true essential oil as steam distilling is required. To make an authentic essential oil, you'd have to distil the peppermint leaves, capture the steam and condense that steam into a liquid. This process requires heat, pressure and certain equipment to make true essential oils, so you'll need the proper equipment to make it. But for those of us whose kitchens aren't filled with essential oil or distilling equipment, you can use this process to create a herb infused oil. Now keep in mind that this oil will not be as concentrated as a true essential oil, but it does still contain many of the benefits. So to make this peppermint oil today, you'll need about half a cup of organic fresh peppermint leaves and about half a cup of a carrier oil like olive oil or coconut oil. So to make it, you want to wash the peppermint leaves well, even organic leaves, throw the mint leaves into a strainer or colander and thoroughly rinse with some water. Lay the mint leaves spread out on some paper towels to dry completely before moving on to the next step. So next you'll use your hands, a spoon, knife or mortar and pestle to crush up the leaves to release the oil within. Then add the crushed leaves to your glass jar and pack them in well. Then take your carrier oil and completely cover all the leaves. Now don't fill up the whole jar, otherwise the extract will be too diluted. Then tightly seal the jar and let it sit for 24 hours to 3 days. The longer it sits, the stronger the potency. Let the oil steep on a sunny window seal and check the glass every 12 hours or so. Then using a strainer, cheese cloth or nut milk bag, strain out the mint leaves. You can strain it into a separate bowl or cup or right back into the jar. Then compost the leaves. Repeat the first few steps again to repair more leaves to add to the jar. Then add a little more carrier oil and seal and allow it to steep for another 24 hours to 3 days and repeat the process again. Strain out the oil and store in a small dark colored bottle. Dark bottles protect the properties within the oil much better, preventing deterioration. Then seal with a lid and store in a cool dry place. Don't refrigerate it though and you can keep it for up to 6 months. And that's how you make this DIY peppermint oil. I hope you guys enjoyed today's video. Do let me know if you tried it out yourself or if you've made other oils and herb infused oils like that before in the past. I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise thank you again for watching. I really hope you enjoyed today's video and I hope to see you again soon in my next video. Bye!


Okay, this will be my final video on instructing how to graph. This is graphing vertical and horizontal lines. This is actually as simple as the equations look. This is actually pretty tricky to remember how to graph vertical and horizontal lines. Okay, now, what am I talking about? If you look down here, y equals negative 3 and x equals 1 half, 1.5. Okay, those are the equations. That's it. That's all there is to them. Now, as simple as those look, yes, those can be kind of deceiving to whether they're vertical or horizontal lines. So we're going to go over which is horizontal, which is vertical, and all that kind of good stuff. Now, traditionally, when you see an equation, you'll see something to the effect of negative 3x plus y equals 5. That's a linear equation that you could graph. You could also see y equals 5x minus 12. That is also another equation that you could graph. This equation is in standard form, and then this equation down here is in slope-intercept form. You can graph either one of those, but that's what we're used to seeing for graphing equations. These over here are too simple. This one only has a y, this one only has an x, and so it's sometimes a little bit confusing which ones are horizontal, which ones are vertical, and if you could even graph them as lines. But there's a little bit of contrast between the two. What you're used to seeing, and then what we're going to see in this video. To get started, reading directions. We are graphing vertical and horizontal lines. First thing, we're determined if each line is vertical or horizontal, and then we are supposed to graph it. Vertical lines, vertical go up and down. So vertical go up and down and horizontal, horizontal horizon goes left and goes right. Vertical and horizontal, that's kind of what they look like just to go over the vocabulary real quick. What we want to do is identify which one is which, are they horizontal, are they vertical, and then we want to put them on the x, y coordinate grid over here. First thing, first one is y is equal to negative three. Some students make the mistake of thinking that that's just a point. No, it's not necessarily a point if we are asked to make it a line, if we're asked to make it a line. Then we have to think of it as a line, we can't think of it as just a single point anymore. But if you think of it as a single point, that can actually help you out a little bit. That can actually help you out a little bit. So actually what I'm going to do first is I'm not going to determine if it's horizontal or vertical. I'm not going to kind of do that first. What I'm actually going to do is I'm going to go to the grid first. So I'm going to identify where this is at, y equals negative three. Y equals negative three. So I'm going to go to the y-axis since it's y equals negative three and I'm going to go to exactly that point on the axis, y equals negative three. So right about here. That right there, that gives you a starting point. It gives you a starting point of where I'm going to start to create my line. All the other videos that I've done for graphing lines is that you have to have one starting point and then from there you can either create more points or you can create a line or something to that effect. We're always going to have a starting point. So for this line, I'm going to start at this point all the way over here. Now we need to determine, that's a starting point. Now we need to determine if it's going to be horizontal or if it's going to be vertical. Now you can either just memorize which one's a horizontal, which one's a vertical, or if you're like me, I couldn't memorize it so I had to just logically think about it. Now I want to create a line, I want to create a line that's y equals negative three. Now what does that actually mean, y equals negative three? Well if we look at the grid, if we look at the y axis, the y axis is your up and your down, up and down. So I want to create a line that always has an up and down of three. It always has the height, excuse me, of negative three. So I can look at my different lines, so I can look at my vertical, I can look at my horizontal. So let's go to the vertical first since this is the first on my list. So let's go to vertical. It's kind of hard to see since it's right on the y axis, but there we go. Now let's look at that, I'm not guaranteeing to say that's right, but let's just look at it. Let's think about it. That right there, does that line y equals negative three, does that always have a height of negative three? Hmm, let's think about this. Well as I go up and down this line, I'm going to hit a y of negative four. I'm going to hit a y of negative two, negative one, zero, one, two. I'm going to go up and down forever and ever and ever. But the point is I'm going to be hitting different heights. If I go up and I go down, I'm going to be at different heights. Which doesn't make sense logically with the premise that I want this y equals negative three. I always want a height, I always want a height of negative three. If I keep going up and down on my line, the height is going to change all the time. That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. That's right here, that's logically, doesn't make sense. That's not going to work. A vertical line here is not going to work. Instead, I'm going to make a horizontal line. Here we go. There's my horizontal line. Now again, let's think about this. Will that line always have a height of negative three? As I go left and as I go right, I don't go up or down or anything like that. My y is always going to stay negative three. Logically that's it. That's what you have to think about when you're thinking about graphing a line of this sort. So this here, y equals negative three is a horizontal line, horizontal line, horizontal line. So I kind of did that in reverse. I actually graphed it first. Negative logically went through the reasoning, whether it made sense to do a horizontal or vertical line. But in this case, it made more sense logically to make a horizontal line. So when you have an equation, y equals negative three, that's a horizontal line and it's a horizontal line that goes through the point negative three on the y axis. All right, so that's the first one. That's logically how I kind of go through these. When I was going through this, when I was going through this in high school, I could not remember even being a math guy as I was. I could not remember the difference between the y's and the x's. So every time I came across a problem like this, I had to just logically think about it. Take my time and think about it. Now you might be a little bit smarter than me. You can just memorize this. That would be a good tactic to use. So all right, let's get to the second one. Now process of elimination, you can probably figure out what the next one is going to be. X equals negative, or excuse me, X equals 1.5. This is going to be a vertical line. That's not being around the bush here. Vertical line, we know that, so let's go ahead and make that point. So 1.5, so again, we want to think I want an x of 1.5. Now I can't say, in this case I can't say a height, so I'm going to say left and right. X's go left and right, so I want a left or right of 1.5. So in this case, that's going to be a right of 1.5. So the line that I create, now remember here's one here, here's two here, so 1.5 is right in the middle. I want to create a line that is always going to go have a right of 1.5. If I create a horizontal line, that doesn't make sense because my lefts and my rights are all over the place. I don't have a constant right of 1.5. So instead of having a horizontal line, I'm going to make a vertical line here and here. This vertical line always has a right of 1.5, always has a right of 1.5. So that's how you can logically go through the difference between a horizontal and a vertical line. But there we go. So actually let me label these real quick. This one is x equals 1.5 and then change my colors down here. This red line is y equals negative 3. Again, that way when you look back in your notes, when you look back at this, you know which one is horizontal, which one is vertical. Okay, that is graphing vertical and horizontal lines. Hopefully this helps and thank you for watching.


Helloooo.  Vibrato from Corbin Miles?  What's vibrato? When the note has a small tremor in it.  Hey, welcome back to our YouTube interaction with Corbin. I'm Rick. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, forward, cheesy content. I think I do some Patreon, follow us on Twitter, count and scroll like that. That was the best single note you've ever sung in the history of the channel right there. No. It was. How about that one? I don't like it. Ah, okay. Today, what are we doing, Rick? I don't know, but I'm still impressed by the vibrato you put on the note. How was that? That sounded like a... Good.   That's quite the image. Today, what are we doing, Rick? We're gonna react to something. Yeah, it's a Malayalam song. Hey! This is right here. The song, out of the key, is from the movie, Ambili, where Subin plays the lead. It's a lovely song that you guys will enjoy for sure. Well, thank you, thank you. Oh, if it's Subin. I love Subin. Is Ringo there? Ringo? Yeah, because there's John Paul George. That was terrible. According to who? Oh, he's so cute. Look how cute he is. I wanna see a movie that stars Subin and Yogi Babu. They should do the odd couple. Edit. It's all matching the voices. What movie is this from? Have I mentioned how much I love Subin? It's from Ambili. That was lovely. He has such a sweet face. Yeah, he does. But he can also be. He's very similar to Pankaj. His face, on his normal face, is just the sweetest thing. He can also be very menacing. That song was beautiful. The arrangement was gorgeous. That was an incredible arrangement. Vishnu Vijay is the... Harp at the beginning, and then the full chords later on. And I really loved that moment where they made the choices that the editing would match the voices. So that when he was singing, it was his face. And when she was singing, it was her face. And they got together and it was both of them. That was a really nice, subtle. That was lovely. Thank you for that. It was from 2019. That's why the channels went around. Yeah. And he looks... Clearly, he looks like he's a very simple guy.  Ambili is beloved by everyone in his village. The story traces Ambili's outlook towards life. And of challenges others surrounding him that face him on an everyday basis. Great, great description. Yeah, let us know how it is. I will watch anything Subin is in. Yeah, for sure. I love him. One, he's a great actor. Yes. I think he's also per capita in more Malayalam films than any other actor in history. He just sings a show up in every film, right? Yep, he's just there. And everything we've seen him in, we've liked. This is a big one that we haven't seen yet. Sudani from Nigeria. That's a big one that a lot of people have... Kumbalanji Nights was our first exposure to him, wasn't it? That was our first Malayalam film. What a great way to jump into Malayalam cinema. Good grief. That was where we started? Yeah, it's great when to start. Still... Yeah, that was our first exposure to him, that was our first exposure to Fafa. I mean, that's just a great introduction to Malayalam cinema. But yeah, I'm really intrigued by the film and that was a beautiful song. And I'm sure the lyrics, if we understood that, would add just all the more beauty to it. Absolutely. Let us know what other Malayalam songs we should react to. I know we don't get to as many. From what I've noticed, actually, whoever owns the copyrights for a lot of Malayalam songs are pretty stringent in Malayalam industry. But you let us know. Obviously, in Watch, Bear, and Next Malayalam film, Watch, Bear, and Next Subin film, we'd love to see everything he's ever done because... Everything's ever done. I think he's that talented of an actor. And I would love to talk to him. It's hard to get a hold of people in the Malayalam industry. I've tried. We got LGP somehow. Right. Don't know how. And there are folks that we communicate with that's been ongoing for years that you all don't know about. But when the timing's right, when the timing's right, these things fall into place. I've been talking to big people in Malayalam. Hindi. Hindi, specifically. Hindi, definitely. Multiple. Yep. Tamil. Tamil. Yep. Everybody in Telugu. I don't know if Telugu, but I do know I know somebody who knows a very big person, like the manager of a very big person. Yep. In Telugu industry. All in good time. Bengali? No. I don't have anybody. I don't know such a thing. Right. I haven't been talking to them. Stupid. Assamese. Yes. Yeah. Early. Early. And then Punjabi. Canada. Wait. Yeah. No. I did. Yeah. Most industries. I'm trying to think of... Oh, no. Punjabi, if you count... Oh, yeah. Yeah. I've co-hurst with Dala Mindi. Yeah. Before. Yeah. Not anything like for an interview, but like a message from on Twitter. Yeah. He replies. He knows of us. And then there's always the ever-present Shahrukh Khan who's always sitting in the chair back there but just doesn't ever want to make himself known. Someday we'll course him maybe with bits of meat to just get him to come on the channel. Speculate wildly on who you think it is. Who you think I'm talking about. Yeah. I won't tell you. Nope. Until you see the interviews. Hopefully one day. Anyways, let us know what the next Mali Am film we should watch is down below.