Okay, first impressions of SMU. Beautiful, friendly, diverse, and hot. Like really, really hot. But on the bright side, it's as beautiful, as diverse and as friendly as it is hot. So I think you're gonna love this one. One of the things I love already by SMU is that these buildings look beautiful and they have this amazing exterior, but you would kind of think that they're a little older, maybe they're not as modern. Go inside, it's totally different, right? So these are some of the most modernized buildings I've ever seen. In fact, a lot of these buildings have lead certifications, which means that they're certified to be sustainable. Lead buildings use less energy, less water, and therefore are better for the planet. And it shows that SMU has a lot of commitment to keeping their campus up to date. This right here, this is what I'm talking about. This is a perfect example of old building, modern interior. We're literally in Dallas Hall, one of the first buildings ever constructed at this university. And I'm in the Playhouse, which today looks like an awesome modern cinema complete with high definition projectors, fantastic seats, and yet still retains that old style of the building itself. It's that fusion of old and new that makes me love SMU. I haven't even talked about the name yet, because you'll notice that everybody refers to it as SMU, myself included, but the whole name is Southern Methodist University. SMU truly has no religious affiliation today. So now that you've had a chance to check out the SMU campus, it's time that we talk programs and admissions. I sat down with Jeremy Brown in international missions to learn a little bit more about the programs here at SMU and how you can get admitted. Hello, my name is Jeremy Brown, and I am the director of international admission here at SMU in Dallas, Texas. SMU has five undergraduate colleges, a business school, a school of engineering, school of the arts, school of humanities and sciences, and school of education and human development. Our most popular majors, business, it's ranked in the top for business programs. Dallas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other city in the US other than New York City. AT&T, ExxonMobil, Toyota has their North American headquarters, Texas Instruments Calculators, our computer science programs. We actually own our own supercomputer. Cybersecurity, video game design and development. Engineering program actually is proud to boast one of the largest percentages of female undergraduate engineering students in the country. I'm gonna get back to Jeremy in a minute, but I gotta tell you guys about the food in Dallas because it is delicious, all right? Like one of my favorite Southern things is hot chicken. Like they just make really, really spicy fried chicken sandwiches. They're so good. That's why they got that Chick-fil-A on campus here, and you got this place called Lucky's that makes hot chicken. Like I might go in there and get some hot chicken right now. It's hot and it's chicken, like what more do you want? It's literally like two of my favorite things. Look, you got a ton of different cultures here in Dallas, so you've got Thai food, you got Chinese, you got Mexican, you got the most authentic stuff from all over the world because Dallas is an extremely diverse city. 60% of the students who attend SMU come to SMU from outside of the state of Texas. 8% of those students coming from nearly 100 countries around the world. The university's common curriculum is so flexible that it allows students to almost unknowingly pick up a second major. Students who are really ambitious and potentially bring in some additional credit, whether it be from IB or AP programs are able to then potentially even explore triple majoring. Traditionally, the majority of students who are admitted to the university fall into the top 20% of their class, so typically obtaining more of an A, B average. If you graduate outside of the US, you are not required to submit an SAT or an ACT. The middle 50% for the SAT is a 1360 to 1500 and the middle 50% for the ACT is a 31 to a 33. Jeremy didn't brag about the theater program but I feel I should tell you about it because in one of my student interviews with Monse, she told me all about her love for the theater program here at SMU and I got to go into the arts building. Unfortunately, a lot of it's still under construction because they're doing massive renovations. Again, old exteriors, new interiors. If you wanna see the video with the student interviews, then you should subscribe to the channel because next week, that's coming out. I'm gonna take you guys to the Meadows Museum right now. The Meadows Museum is a museum on campus. It contains a ton of Spanish art pieces. So I'm gonna show you guys what's going on at this awesome museum. You've seen the buildings, you know. I said friendly. Look, everywhere I go, every building I enter, there's some random person who stops to talk to me and asks me what I'm doing, not like because they're afraid that I'm doing something illegal, but because they genuinely wanna help me out. I go into the library and I see these awesome archives and they say, hey, you wanna have a look and Terry comes and walks me through the archives and shows me all these amazing old texts and different rooms that they have for video and for books and magazines and pamphlets and everything else. And it's just that kind of hospitality that you don't get everywhere else. Jeremy Brown is not the only person who sat down to talk to me today. Claudia Sotomayor, a Peruvian who came to SMU, graduated, did a master's, graduated again, and then became a US citizen, is here to tell us about her experience. She works with international students all the time in her office and she does a ton of stuff to help them get comfortable here in Dallas. So I'm gonna let her tell you a little bit more about what she does and how she can make your time at SMU even better. Hello, my name is Claudia Sotomayor Hart. I'm the director of the international office here at SMU. Very early on in the process, once you're admitted to the institution, my office comes in to provide help and assistance and answer any questions that you have about the visa application process. Being new in a different country can be overwhelming. So my office makes sure that we have programs that are gonna help you transition to life in the US and of course in life at SMU, orientation, social events, work visas. Many of you are investing a lot of money to come to the US and while you may have every intention to going back home and starting businesses or working in companies, you wanna have that option of maybe staying in the US. So my office helps you with that while of course we cannot guarantee that you're gonna get a work visa, we take pride in educating you on what your options might be. What is going to get you ready so that you can become the best candidate for companies that are working on sponsoring employees for a work visa. So the biggest thing that I always tell parents and I tell families is that when you come to SMU, you're going to have that one-on-one support from our team, from myself directly and of course I love to talk about I've done it. That was my journey. I came to the US as an international student, then went through the whole immigration process. I'm a US citizen and while I'm Peruvian and that's my heritage, I have now been in the US longer than I was in Peru. So I'm very much your normal Texan girl with a heavy accent which I'm proud of. But that creates a unique opportunity for me to connect with families that have questions. So when you come to SMU, you're going to receive that special attention from a team of experts, not only to talk to you about law and what's required of you as a student, but also a team of experts in understanding your background, your unique needs and how we can make you successful in all these areas. One of the things I really appreciate is how much Claudia and her team try to help students find jobs after college, which is essential if you're an international student and you want to stay in the United States. If you're thinking about coming here to study and you also want to have the rest of your life in the US, you need that kind of support. You need to get a job after you graduate. You need to take advantage of your OPT and you need to perform well so that you're ready for the working world and that those employers want to keep hiring you. And that's exactly what that team does. Claudia will prepare you for interviews, help you build your CV and make it so that you can get a quality job in the United States, one that could help you stay here. She's proved, she's done it. And that's just one example of the kind of personal attention you can get at SMU. I mean, there's an 11 to one student to faculty ratio here as well, so your classes are gonna be very personalized.  That's something that the students I talked to told me about here and it's something that I think all students would benefit from. All right, leave the way. When you apply to the university, you are automatically considered for all academic scholarships. Financial aid is available to US citizens and permanent residents. The overall cost of SMU, tuition, room and board is about $70,000 range. Don't let the sticker price scare you, even though SMU might look a little bit expensive and it is compared to other universities, it's offering a lot for the money and they have a lot of ways to help you bring down that cost of attendance. Departmental scholarships, specifically there is a STEM scholarship that is available for students who are majoring in science, technology, engineering or the mathematic areas. With the IB scholarship, if you obtain the IB diploma, you will automatically be awarded that $30,000 scholarship that will be paid over four years. Students who are excelling academically, there are a lot of scholarships that can help bring down the cost of attendance quite a bit. We love to reward academic excellence and one of my favorite examples of kind of managing the cost of attendance and the expectations is one of my students from Latin America, her father had said that she could only consider state institutions because the price tag was much lower. She had fallen in love with SMU and she discovered that she really wanted to apply and thankfully her father allowed her to and in the end SMU ended up being the most competitive offer that she received for admission and the price tag was comparable to that of the other institutions that she was considering. So don't be intimidated by the price tag. If you're excelling academically and doing well, you'll be considered for these scholarships and you'll find out what your price tag will be after you've been admitted to then be able to determine if SMU is an option for you. SMU basically does two rounds of early action, early decision, one in November 1st and one on January 15th and after that, it's gonna be really, really hard for you to get admitted here because most of the class fills up by the end of the year. So if you don't get it together, you're not gonna get in. Applying to SMU is super easy. You have three different choices. You can use the Common App, the Coalition App or Apply Texas. So basically they're on every platform. All you gotta do is make sure that you apply early so that you have a good chance of getting in. Well, we really would love to see your application here at SMU. If you have the opportunity to visit, we would love to welcome you to campus to show you how beautiful our campus is, how wonderful the city of Dallas is and how friendly our students are here on campus. If you have questions, please go onto our website and type in the words meet my admission counselor so that you can learn who your admission counselor is and reach out to them with questions, schedule a one-on-one appointment virtually with them and or learn how to schedule a visit if you do have the opportunity to come to visit Dallas while you're visiting the US. So like Jeremy said, find your admissions counselor and reach out to them if you have questions or just go to smu.edu to look them up or if you need some help preparing your application to SMU, hit us up with purposecore.com. We can help you guys out, help you get your application together. So that is gonna be it for me at SMU. I just wanna say again, I thank you so much, Jeremy, Claudia, everybody else here at SMU who's shown me a good time. I've gotten so much access to so many cool places and it's really just made my trip special. So appreciate you, thank you so much and thank you guys for watching this video. If you're still here with me, I really appreciate it, means the world to me. I'll see you next week.


Welcome to Open Geology. This is a project to share geology with everybody. This was created by a group of Salt Lake Community College instructors and partially funded by Salt Lake Community College, though these videos do not reflect the views of the college. This is a Creative Commons video. Today we'll be talking about metamorphism and metamorphic rocks. This is chapter 6 of the OpenGeology.org textbook. Metamorphic rocks are one of the three major rock groups, sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic. Metamorphic rocks are derived from the addition of heat, pressure, or fluids to change a rock from its original state into a different rock. And so that brings us to this question, what does metamorphism mean and what would cause metamorphism in rocks? So let's kind of talk about each one of these. Metamorphism is essentially a way of saying change, change from one rock into another. It's a word you may have heard used for butterflies when they change from a caterpillar to a chrysalis to a butterfly. You can change one rock into another with heat, pressure, or fluids. And a rock is generally happy in certain conditions. What I mean by that is a mineral with its crystalline structure and elements in it are generally in equilibrium with the environment that it's in. And if you change that environment, you offset that equilibrium. And those minerals have to readjust to be in equilibrium again with the new environment. And so what you'll get if you apply these heat, pressure, or fluids is you'll get new and very interesting minerals. And the cool thing about metamorphic rocks is they tell you a story of the changing forces of that area. And it's all embedded in the mineralogy of these metamorphic rocks. So let's talk about the protolith. Protolith is the before protolith rock, the first rock. This is the rock that existed before metamorphism occurred. And it could be an igneous, sedimentary, or a different type of metamorphic rock. And then heat and pressure was applied to one of these rocks and you get the metamorphic rock. Let's look at an example. Here you have a photo micrograph of some beautiful quartz grains. Once a certain amount of heat and maybe pressure is applied, all of the quartz grains no longer have pores between them. They're fused together, they've been recrystallized, and now you have this beautiful quartzite. So how does the metamorphic rock differ from the protolith? What do you think? Do you think the chemistry of the rock is different? Unless chemicals have been added or taken away from the rock, the chemistry of the rock should be the same. You're just reorganizing the atoms in the rock to make different minerals. So minerals will or can be different but the elements are the same. With the exception of the case of fluids as a way to change a rock, metamorphosa rock, fluids typically involve the addition or subtraction of elements from that rock which can in turn change the chemistry. Like I said earlier, the minerals in the rock will determine, can tell you what kind of metamorphosing agent, be it pressure or fluids or heat, caused the change and how much of that was applied to create that change and that in turn will tell us the story of the metamorphic rock. So next we'll talk about where metamorphism generally happens. Thank you.


Happy St. Patrick's Day, happy St. Patrick's Day to everybody. It's another beautiful day, a little cooler than usual, right? So, I wrote something on the board here I wanted you guys to think about. If I hadn't came to class today, I would have blank, right? So, I wanted you to try to fill this blank. So what would you be doing if you had not came to class today? Go to the beach. Go to the beach? Shopping. Oh, work out. Where do you work out? L.A. Fitness? Anyone else to L.A. Fitness? Not L.A. Fitness. That's still a lot of money. Did they tell you it's free? Oh, it's free, it's free. Oh, come on, it's free. Not as good as L.A., right? So, if she can go, I have no excuse, right? What is my excuse? She came with a walker. So, if I hadn't came to class today, anything else to gym? I think I heard the beach. I did not have lunch before. So, you would be eating, you said? Oh, five o'clock? Oh, okay. Oh, wow. Five in the morning. Oh, man. Were you with him? Oh, yeah. He's like... This one is different. This one is different. Do you know what this one talks about? Exactly. So, this is the third one. The first one talks about the future. This one talks about the past. So, here, talking about the past. If I hadn't came to class today, so that's in the past. If I had not, the beach, right? So that is a hypothetical or imaginary situation, right? So that's what this is. That's what this is. So, exactly what you had said, right? So, if the past participle, right? So, like you said, if... I will give you a situation and a result. The situation here is if I hadn't came to class today. That's the situation.  That's really very similar. Yeah. If I hadn't got up late yesterday, right? That would be the situation. That would be... I would give you a result. So, if I yesterday I got up late, right? And if I hadn't got up... situation, if I hadn't got up late or if I hadn't gotten up late, I would say got, even the participle. The participle is the yesterday I got up late. If I hadn't got up late yesterday, I wouldn't... I'll give you another example. If I had known about it, right? Past experiences. That's have or has plus the past participle, work, scene, et cetera. So, that's what we are using here. So, I've been to Miami, but I haven't been to Tampa. We haven't. And we can talk more about that after class. I can just do that too. So, if I would have gone to the meeting, is the situation, and the result is if I would have known about it. Known as past. Yeah, that's the past. So, now what this did is this actually is the reverse of the first one. This is actually the reverse of the first one, right? So, this is the reverse. So, instead of the situation and result, we actually have the result first, and then the situation. So, it can go either way. No, this is if I had known about it. You would not say had. You would not say had. You would just say if I knew about it. So, we have had. So, we're doing past perfect. Yeah, because I put this had here. Had known. Yeah, that's what I have. If I hadn't got. Yeah, then that's exactly what the book has as well, right? So, got is say I got. We use got in the past as well. So, we say I got a dog yesterday. We use that for past and instead of gotten to. Yeah, it's one of those words. It's one of those words. Yeah, because, yeah, you could say I drank last night and got a headache before I went to sleep. So, it's one of those words. Yeah, yeah. Sometimes the book uses these examples where they use the tricky words. Here I would say if I had known because I have the had. So, we're doing the past perfect, right? Something that happened in the past. So, here this is actually reversed. This is actually putting the result first. I would have gone to the meeting if I had known about it. So, now the result is that you would have gone to the meeting, right? That's what you, that's the result what you would have done. The situation is if I had known about it. So, you can do situation result or you can do result situation. It does not matter the order. It just matters that you have those two things. If plus past participle and would have plus past participle. If plus past perfect and would have plus past participle. So, it just matters that you have both. You can do situation result. You can do result situation like I just showed you, right? On this little chart that we're doing here, right? So, right? Now, I think Vince, you had asked me in the beginning about something, right? If we could use a different word other than would. Might or could, right? And what does that show? What is the difference between that and would? It's the same? Well, there is a difference. What is the difference? What's the difference between would and could or might? Does anyone know? It is very close. What is, no one knows the difference? No, no, not at all. No, no. If she'd. So, what is she'd when we put the apostrophe D? What does that, what does that mean? It could mean she had or she would. It could mean both. So, this apostrophe D here, guys. That could mean that she, if I say she'd. She'd just like this. That could mean she had or she would. So, it could mean if she had worked or if she would worked, right? But here it's if she had worked. So, if she had worked harder, that's the situation. And the result is she might have received a raise. Might and could is less certain than would. So, that is the difference. Might and could, she might have received a raise. That means she may have or she may not have. Her boss might have said, oh, you're working harder. Here, you deserve a raise. Or they might have said, oh, thank you for working harder. But not giving her a raise. So, it's less certain. Would means it would have definitely happened. It's definitive. Here, no, no, no. So, if she'd worked harder. Because you're talking about a hypothetical or imaginary situation. So, you are displaying, oh, this would have happened. This might have happened. This could have happened, right? In this particular, if you speak, then yeah. In conversation, yeah. If she worked harder, she should have received a raise. That's more of an opinion and not a hypothetical, imaginary situation, right? So, that's basically the third conditional there. So, I brought in something, but we will just do A right now. There's just six questions. So, they give you the first one there. So, you will be doing five. They give you the words, but not in order. So, it says would, scored, the, they have one game. You need to put them in order to make a complete sentence in the third conditional. So, they changed it to if he'd scored, comma, they would have won the game. So, if he'd scored is the situation, that hypothetical, imaginary, and then what would, the result of that is he would have won, they would have won the game. So, they lost the game, but the imaginary result would have been that they, they won the game if the action that it needed was he scored. So, maybe they lost by one point, right? So, does everyone understand what they're doing there? So, what would you be doing here, right? What would you be doing? What are you going to be doing with these? You want to do, you can do it in pairs, but I can give you each one if you would like. Yeah, no exam, no exam. No stress. So, what will you be doing here? What are you guys doing? Abdul, what are we doing? What, what did, what were the directions? Yes. And put them in a, perfect, perfect. So, there's just the first, so you can do two to, you can do two to six right now, let's see. Yes, and you can work in, in groups, like I said, I just, I gave you each one so you have a copy. So, we will go over it in like a minute or two. I think everyone's hearing me. Number two there. So, we wouldn't have missed the movie if you had been here. You had been here if I knew. Okay, what's about two? What did you have to do? Or three, sorry. Right. If they had offered you the job, you would, but this is a, this is a, is a question. So, you would say would you have taken it, right? Yes, of course. If they had offered you the job, would you have taken it? All right, what about the next one, Abdul? Right. So, Ella would have finished the race if she hadn't fallen. So, she did not finish the race because she fell, but she would have finished the race if she hadn't, if she had not fallen. What's about five? No, okay. Did you have five? Okay. Did anyone have five? Anyone? This is a tough one, right? Told me. So, does anyone want to try to help him? Ah, very good.  So, have you ever had someone come up, and you're like, you're looking the other way? If you would have told me you were taking a picture, I would have smiled.  So, you say, and you can see in the picture here, right? Look, she looks angry in the picture. She did not know that they were taking the picture, so they took a horrible picture of her. So, if you would have told me, if you would have told me you were taking a picture, I would have smiled. If you would have told me you were taking a picture, I would have smiled. If you would have told me you were taking a picture, I would have smiled, right? Very good. If you would have told me you were taking a picture, I would have smiled. All right, what about the next one there? The last one. If you had... If you'd told me you were taking a picture, I'd have smiled. I'd have smiled, or I would have smiled. Would have smiled I would have smiled you can say I'd which means I would Right if you had told me you were taking a picture. I would have smiled, right? I might have twisted my tongue there. I'm sorry if you had told me you were taking a picture I would have smiled Yep, if you had told me you were taking a picture I would have smiled and the last one there did you guys get six yet or no six okay so that one was a hard one did anyone try six okay what do you think you wouldn't have eaten that if you had if you if you'd known what was in it if you had known what was in it right so that is never what you want to hear after you eat something right so you wouldn't have eaten that if you had known what was in it if you so you wouldn't have eaten that if you had known what was in it of course yes yes so you wouldn't eaten that if you had known what was in it okay so before we leave I just wanted to show you guys something here the last part of the class has anyone heard of the butterfly effect I'll show you a very quick a very quick clip of the butterfly effect it was a movie that came out about someone who was able to change his past and so different things happen in his life and it leads him to different it changes his whole life it leads him to do different things so if I would have done this then this would have happened they say the wind from a butterfly's wing could change your whole entire life so I will show you it says some people want to forget the past other people want to change it it says he goes back in time so he did something different he ended up in jail he keeps doing different things so in that life his he changed his whole girlfriend she was a drug addict there hey everything can change by by just you know certain things changing what if I had done this it's a movie I would suggest it the butterfly effect yeah it's very good the butterfly effect I will write it on the board this came out a few years ago yeah so what I wanted to just ask you before right before we leave here is to think of just one thing if so this man he changes one thing and you could see his girlfriend was a was a drug addict and once she was beautiful and a sorority in another life and they say they call the butterfly effect because one thing can change your whole life so before we leave I just wanted to ask you can you think of one thing that you could change if I had done this then I would have this can we think of just one thing what have you ever looked back on one thing in your life if I had gone to school here if I had not gone to school here if I had stayed with this girl if I had anything anything that you could have possibly done so can you give me an example of that yeah very good so that was a great demo it was a very great example there right so just so now just a few seconds can a few minutes if you need can you think of can you think of anything else guys I give you a minute or two to think about it but you say well you could say I wouldn't have traveled so much yeah so your job enabled you to travel ah because you were okay very good so that was very quick if you need a minute you can take it but you have another okay so they would not have given you a job without the degree very good that is a very good example perfect example is anyone else right I would say if I if I hadn't applied to this school I would not be teaching you guys right now right I would not be with I would not be in the same classroom as you guys right now right can we think of another one oven you wouldn't have ridden along all right and you did the ride along with a sheriff well have you heard you we heard about that right very good do you have one you don't have to share but if you can think of one mm-hmm okay so I wouldn't have I wouldn't have such a good physique or something like that right right if I hadn't gone right and then you gave us the the school one right so sometimes people look back on those and do you regret these things or no or do you feel that that everything in life needs to happen to bring us to where we need to be what do you guys think of those things that you said are they regrets like I wish I would have or are you happy because everything in life happens for a reason and what do you think happy mm-hmm does everyone believe that so that's actually what the butterfly effect is about what you just said one little thing the wind from a butterfly's wings can change the whole life of someone which is why you saw him in a paternity in her in a sorority and then he went back and she was a drug addict and everything can change that's why they call it the butterfly effect all right all right guys so thank you guys so much it was a great class I think we got a lot in today I want you guys to all have a beautiful great weekend and enjoy st patrick's day okay


Joining us is our resident film critic Michael Snyder. These are the movies he'll be talking about. Pablo Neruda, tell me about the movie Pablo Neruda. It's not the title, it's called Neruda. And this is, again, another biopic from the Chilean director Pablo Lorraine. And it's not going to get the justifiable attention that he's getting for Jackie, but it's a fine piece of movie making that should get attention in the foreign film category when award season hits its height. It's about the politically charged hunt for this Nobel prize winning Chilean poet and politician Pablo Neruda in the 40s when he was a fugitive in his own country, Chile, because of his membership in the Communist Party and also his rabble rousing. It's not faithful to the facts like Jackie where Lorraine used the transcripts and the recreations at one point in Jackie. He actually reshoots the Jacqueline Kennedy's CBS broadcast tour of the White House, which had never been done before in any medium. And here he's talking about Neruda through a mixture of biographical notes and fictional contrivance from the point of view of an investigator who's leading the search to find and maybe censor in jail Neruda despite the poet's popularity. The investigator is kind of conflicted because he admires Neruda's art and skill and he's played by maybe the only familiar face in this cast who would be the marvelous Mexican leading man Gael Garcia-Bernal who is best known as the star of Amazon's Mozart in the Jungle and streaming TV, a show I can't recommend high enough and also many renowned Spanish language movies including Lorraine's feature No. It's a pretty wonderful film and very unconventional in how it tells its story about Neruda. Again, I think this guy, Lorraine, is one hell of a director, a fantastic director. And great stuff. I think you might be able to see this on Netflix sooner or later, but no matter what I think Neruda and Jackie show the director Pablo Lorraine to be a force in filmmaking. The David Feldman radio program is made possible by listeners like you.


This study found that the majority of policy instruments recommended by the World Health Organization, WHO, for national NCD prevention policy are regulatory or economic-slash-fiscal in nature. These instruments include laws, regulations, standards, taxes, prices, campaigns, recommendations, partnerships and coordination. Soft instruments, such as education and awareness raising, are also commonly used. Tobacco and alcohol policy tend to rely heavily on regulatory and economic-slash-fiscal instruments, while nutrition and physical activity policy tend to rely more heavily on soft instruments. This article was authored by Peter Gilius, Sven Messing, Antoninus Symbol and others.


This is stock number 11233. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. You're new and Used Ram and heavy-duty truck headquarters today. We are checking out this super clean 2018 Ram 2500 crew cab short box This truck has a 6.4 liter v8 hemi motor. It has been fully safety and Inspected by our service shop has a fresh oil and filter change all the fluids have been checked and topped off and This truck is 100% ready to go bright white is the color We shoot all of our videos in 1080p 60 frames per second So if you have HD capabilities on your computer tablet or smartphone device turn them on right now because it is definitely Your best way to check out the quality and condition of the vehicle before we're seeing it in person And if you'd like to check out all the photos on this truck in the upper right hand part of your screen is a link to our website Click that and check us out there. This one comes with the 20 inch painted alloy rims It has nitto Ridge grappler LT 295 65 R20 tires And they got right around half the tread left on them. This is a sport package. So you get the Bilstein shocks On it front fenders in excellent shape didn't see any denser dings on their projector lamp headlamps LED running lights and The painted front bumper is in excellent shape I didn't see any major denser dings than that and it does have front bumper parking sensors The hood is in excellent shape as well No denser dings on there and you get the painted ram stamped grill Passengers side front fender Excellent shape as well. No denser dings on there in the passengers side rim. No scuffs or scrapes as As you go down this side of the truck take note of how clean the body is how reflective and mirror like that paint is And we take these HD videos So if you are far away or even if you're close by and you just cannot make a trip down But you're still interested in purchasing the vehicle You can see the truck hear the truck and of confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at before you even get here So that when you do get here, there's absolutely no surprises And that is why we offer the summit auto fast-pass option in the upper right hand part of your screen a link right to our website Where you can apply for financing get pre-approved see a payment quote even appraise a trade all from the comfort of your own home So when you get here, all you got to do is drive the truck. Love it. You'll be all set to go Back tires have just about as much tread as the front tires You can see that the frame and under body on this truck is an excellent shape and is like that all the way underneath Has all the remaining factory exhaust as well And I really do like those painted black step bars one more look down that box looks really good has an American Tonneau soft tonneau cover. I didn't see any rips or tears on that The rear bumper is in really nice shape. No major dents or dings on there And it does have the backup parking sensors the sport package gives you the blacked-out Ram logo and 4x4 logo Has the shock down assist tailgate very nice spring and bed liner, and it does have fifth wheel bed rails in it and Then it does have seven pin wiring back here as well, and it has LED bed lighting and in 2018 They added the button back here so you can turn those lights on That shuts nice and solidly as you go down the driver's side just as clean as that passenger side no denser dings on the driver's side box and For full disclosure this back rim is in excellent shape as well. No scuffs or scrapes Down the rest of the side of the truck looks really good No denser dings on the doors has the heated fold-out tow mirrors. They have built-in directional signals on them as well Inside the Laramie package gives you the black leather interior There are no rips. There are no tears on those seats. They're in excellent shape Memory driver seat lumbar factory all-weather floor mats power windows power locks power mirrors, and these mirrors do power fold in Like so And they power fold up you get auto headlamps as well. We'll hop inside and take a look at The instrument cluster here. You can see that this one has 30,598 miles You get these seven inch LCD display digital speedometer compass outside temp and you can change those corners to read whatever you'd like You get the heated leather wrap steering wheel cruise controls on the right Bluetooth and information center controls on the left And it does have the audio controls on the back of the steering wheel You get these six speed automatic transmission with the optional tap shift. This one is the 8.4 4c radio which gives you a MFM and Sirius XM radio capabilities. It also gives you the factory navigation You'll get the heated seats and cooled seat buttons there, and you can also check out your backup camera at just about any time You also get the apps on here including projection manager where you can project your cell phone to the screen via Android Auto or Apple CarPlay so if you have those features on your phone You can project it to the screen if you got a different navigation system on your phone You can project on that navigation to the screen there So if you got like ways or Google Maps you can project it there and use a different navigation system We actually did a demo on Android Auto if you want to check that on the upper right hand part of your screen You can click that turned out four-wheel drive dual climate control has the factory brake controller You can do your more tactile buttons for your heating cooled seat buttons right down there stability control tow hall And then those front and rear parking sensors you can Change those turn those off as well 115 volt 150 watt plug-in and that does have the alpine premium sound system up here At least the badge Passing your size seat is an excellent shape as well. No rips or tears smells very clean inside this truck I don't think it's ever been smoked in you get those speakers in the ceiling part of that alpine sound system Map lights power slide rear window and your home link buttons for your garage door security systems and lane systems assist and SOS buttons in the rear view mirror and Very nice and clean in here. We'll take a look at the back seats and then check out under the hood The back seats are just as clean as the front seats no rips or tears back here Does have the latch child safety system Power sliding rear window with the built-in rear defrost Seats are in excellent shape. I don't think they've ever been saddened honestly. They look super clean Has the load floor back here, which is nice if you got pets put both sides down They get a nice flat place a lit lay or if you got muddy boots or tools put them in here Put them on there and you're not going to wreck those nice leather seats These seats fold up for extra storage you get storage into there and this does have the receiver hitch reducer Factory all-weather floor map back here. You get two in-floor storage bins on each side You can remove those ice and drinks in there and they come out for easy cleaning These back seats are heated on the outboard side as well. You got your heated teeth buttons right there and a 12 volt power point and Behind underneath the passenger side is the factory subwoofer And you do get child safety locks on the back doors as well Bottoms of the doors all look really good And we'll start it up and take a quick look under the hood I would personally like thank you for checking out the video today and hopefully from this HD video You will have been able to tell just how clean this truck is all the way around inside note under the hood We have the 6.4 liter V8 Hemi motor and today's very clean runs very smooth This truck has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop has a fresh oil and filter change All the fluids have been checked and topped off and this vehicle is 100% ready to go I would highly recommend this one from a quality and condition standpoint and to see more pictures of this truck One of our other 450 new and used cars trucks SUVs mini vans Wranglers half tons to quarter tons one tons You name it. We got it go to our website www.summitauto.com full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle from two locations all at summit auto.com And if you'd like to check out more HD videos you can go to youtube.com slash summit auto Remember to like subscribe and share on this video and all the videos that you see there In fact in a second you will see link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left a link to more ram 2500 truck videos like this one on your right if you have not been to our website on the bottom link to this vehicle On our website click those checks out and we really look forward to helping with this super clean 2018 ram 2500 crew cab short box Laramie sport in bright white clear coat. Thanks again for checking out the video


We're live All right. How you guys doing? This is a Harrison Fishburg I'm here with Stefan Cancella and just some general questions. I want to post him regarding IP copyright general misconstruction, you know confusions within libertarianism and Anarchy so Stefan the first thing I have is I play guitar and I know that you and I are fans of Pink Floyd and Superb music so the question I have is For instance, when I go in I listen to a song that he wants me to listen to it so they can get They can you make profit or they can get to go on tour and all that stuff So when they play the song it goes down to the public domain so to speak You know, it's not really public. My question is when I go and look at these chords online I found a bunch of websites that have the the chords are taken down because the artist I guess is claimed That it's violating their copyright to know exactly what the chord structure is they're playing so basically My question is what they're really claiming ownership of is vibration of the strings and the rhythm That they're playing that certain song Now that that's the extreme that IP goes to in this sense because a Chord is simply just a certain number of keys being played in in a harmony together and that's just vibration of strings So how can they go to a website and say take this down? You're not allowed to have it because it's stealing away You know the profits from our artists and that's essentially what we're doing Yeah, so it's it's a it's a it's a muddy and complicated issue in today's age for a variety of reasons It takes a while to untangle this you have to have clear concepts clear understanding of the definitions and what what what justice and what Fairness and what property rights are all about It's taking me a while to untangle it So I'll just it's hard to go through the chronological history of how I think you could arrive at Conclusions similar to mine, but let me just kind of put them out there and explain what they are First of all, I think that Well, the the bear fact of the reason why they're able to do this is because there exists in our country in the US and in most other countries some kind of legislated Intellectual property rights laws patent and copyright primarily primarily copyright in this case So the reason they can get things taken down is because they can claim a so-called Property right in these patterns of information as you as you just summarized it To my mind, that's not what literally is going on. What's literally going on is that way of putting it is just the justification given for these laws but what but what the reality is of these laws is that These laws give to certain people the Legal right to stop other people from using their their own property rights as they see fit Okay, so The copyright idea the idea that you own the notes is just a justification for it So let me take a more stark example Let's suppose you believe in slavery as an Aristotle's day you think there are certain natural classes among people and Normally we have to treat each other with respect and you can't invade each other's property borders of their bodies You can't attack someone without a good reason So that's a presumption of self ownership or body ownership But they make an exception in the case of slaves Okay, so they have to have a reason for that exception and there's various reasons given barbarians have a different property mentality They're inferior to Greeks or whatever But that is just a reason or rationale or justification For the rule that they're actually supporting which they they don't want to make explicit because the more explicit you make it the more Obviously unjust it appears But the rule is I get to control my body and you don't get to control your body Or I get to control my body and I get to control your body or parts of your body or your life If you put it that starkly, which is what intellectual property ultimately is It would become transparently An unjust rule that no one would no one would agree to so in the case of intellectual property What we have is the government the state the federal government in the US case the United States federal government Gives creators of certain innovative works or creative works Like patterns of guitar, you know notes or whatever gives them the right to Go to the court and get an injunction or an award of monetary damages against someone who's using their own property in a certain way and this If you put it this way it starts to seem a little fuzzy to libertarians because it sounds contrary to libertarian principles Which it is contrary to libertarian principles the way it's normally couched is Hey, we all believe in property rights, right? Well intellectual property is a type of property, right? Copyrights a type of IP or intellectual property So there's a first argument by propaganda or semantics just kind of labeling something that's a state-granted monopoly privilege as a property right and then persuading people to accept it because they're already naturally in favor of property rights as they should be and Then there's the incentive argument You know people understand that there's a natural effect of having nice regulated property rules among landowners and property owners that It also gives people the right incentives to use their property in the most efficient way It avoids the the problem of the commons, you know the tragedy of the commons It in it fosters economic calculation these kinds of things so they naturally assume because the experts and the You know the institutional officials tell us this that IP is just another example of that Well, if if property rights in land give you an incentive to take care of your land then It makes sense for there to be an incentive structure that flows from Intellectual property rights in your creative works like you have an incentive to create works, etc So they sort of go along with it for good motivations. I think I think they're deceived And they're manipulated by the propaganda of the special interest But that's why most normal people go along with it. They are basically in favor of economic incentives economic coordination and Property rights and coordinate a cooperation among people and they sort of go along with the idea of copyright and patent because they assume That this is part and parcel Of this kind of property rights scheme But they're wrong in fact the origin and genesis of copyright is in state censorship in church control of heretical information and trying to prevent people from printing books They won't they don't want to print that the authorities don't want printed and ideas They don't want disseminated and the origin of patent lies in state and guild and monopolistic and cartelized control of industries Where there's no free competition and where some people have granted official government monopolies over certain practices and trades and Then this sort of over time Became our modern copyright and patent system now we get used to this because again It's been integrated into the capitalist Substructure of the basic structure of law private Western law that the government has co-opted and monopolized So they've added on to it all these other ideas which people Largely go along with But if you step back and think as a fresh perspective as a libertarian We are in favor of competition. We are in favor of the transmission of knowledge. We're in favor of learning Right and and there's nothing wrong when you can when you compete with someone who has a new product You're emulating what they're doing you might improve on it you might make a duplicate you might make a shoddier product That's cheaper You might make a worse product and then you go out of business You might make a better product and you succeed and you replace them As this happened infinite number of times in the history of mankind so the basic presumption is that the free market and competition Would permit people to emulate and learn from what others are doing and if you as a producer or a creator of some innovative work Choose to reveal private information that's in your head or in your studio to the world for whatever reason you want to do that It's just absurd to expect that people won't learn from it be influenced by it In fact, that's a good thing for most people for most creators and even compete with you and emulate you and maybe vary on what you've done and then Instead of running to the state to get a legislated law that protects you from these people doing that Which is the natural consequence of your revealing information to the world The better solution would be to have a totally free market where People can compete and learn from each other. I mean even as you just said though very quickly Musicians they're creative. I don't I think it's like the only statistic you could say for 100% back Every musician had a prior person that they were influenced by and they actually learned from and they're like wow that song has a great chorus to it or it has a Great chord structure, whatever there's a certain flow to the song that they like and that's why they picked up the guitar For the thing in the first place and sort of even learning so I mean by you and I even talking the act of talking and communication is sharing But again the main point I was getting at was if you were to say to someone, you know downloading a movie online They would say well, you know, you're taking away from the producers rights or the Actors money or whatever they would say but the but the thing with music that I found interesting or just even more asinine is that The only thing that the musicians doing is putting chords that are openly available to anyone who has the strings and They can manage to take those and say, you know, these ones are specifically mine and therefore have ownership over them. It's like I You know, you have the cameras and stuff the movies But a guitar is a vibration of a string and in fact they can somehow It just it just seems like it's very It's very simple that people would obviously recognize that operate ownership of chords doesn't make too much sense Well, I don't I agree with you. I don't think they do make I don't think they think it makes much sense Even the advocates of it don't think it makes sense. They just don't care I think most of them are They're not either they're either very not very reflective. They don't understand the system Or they're just totally for their self-interest. So like Certain software companies Hollywood certain patent lawyers these groups have a vested interest in Simply keeping the system going that keeps their monopolistic position going. So they'll they'll use whatever arguments they have to I think they're completely Almost completely intellectually dishonest and and just shields for their own self-interest Which I can almost admire in a shark-like, you know amoralistic sense at least they're just trying to Keep their peace of this pie with government help. It's you know A couple things you mentioned make Spur a spur a couple of comments number one You know, there's this comment saying that like immigrants want to come here and they're happy that we have Relatively open immigration, but as soon as they get here, they want to shut the gates, you know So they want to get into heaven and shut the gates to heaven's door There's something like that for artists because I don't know of any artists or inventors or creators Who would honestly and sincerely deny that they are They're benefited by and they build on and they're influenced by the work that human society and culture has produced So far Almost no one will deny that And yet they want to have it both ways. They want to benefit from the accumulated genius of previous People who've released their work into the public domain by one way or the other and yet they want to protect their own So it's sort of like these immigrants who come in and they they want they want to be let in but they want to shut the doors behind them You know, we all Everyone in this that we're standing on the shoulders of giants. I don't think anyone denies that The problem is these guys are just not sincere argumenters if you tell them well, you were benefited by Progress to date you built upon that and if you have a monopoly on what you do progress would stop and You know, you'd be like the last one standing. It's like a Ponzi scheme almost they really just don't care They'll change the subject or something like that now as for downloading you talked about downloading the complaint is often that if you download my music you're taking away Something from me now they're kind of vague about this but if you press them if you say if they'll say well you took my song and If you if you point out the very common sense observation that well I didn't take your song because taking something means I remove it from your control and you don't have it anymore and You still have a copy of your song. You can do what you want with it. You can perform it. You can Do variations of it you can build on it whatever so I haven't taken anything from you I've learned from you and I'm competing with you perhaps, but I haven't taken anything from you Well, then they'll switch subject and they'll say well, but you're taking for me the money I could have earned and That's where the rubber hits the road. That's what their real dispute is They really think they have a property right in the future potential money They could have earned if the government had granted them a monopolistic control Over this pattern of information Which is money that would come from consumers or customers, right? so their argument basically saying they have a property right in the Future dollars in the wallets or bank accounts of future potentially non-existent customers now I Don't know this is maybe a crazy idea for a libertarian and free market advocate But it seems to me that if you have a customer out there They own their money You know and and they have the right to decide whether to give it or use it for a purchase Or not So there is no property rights claim whatsoever on a future income or royalty stream by an author Because that would mean you have a property right in the future property of customers that you don't even have a contract with yet Which is absurd and makes no sense whatsoever so So when artists complain that they're being stolen from they're really saying that you're taking from them money that other people own Which they don't have a right to which is basically some kind of bizarre welfare scheme, which is what the IP system in fact is Even even more so you could you could even hypothetically buy the CD So the artist gets her his her royalties But the second you hear the music and if you know how to play the song and you can pick up what chords they're playing You could hypothetically never listen to the album again and go around playing the song and just know the lyrics Of course they would be left out. So I mean, it's like again It's the thing that it comes to the this is what's going to be my next question It comes out into the market and once it's out there, that's how they get their recognition They want people to see it so in order to see it that they put it out there and once it's out there There's no claim anymore. It's gone. I Mean they can do stuff like touring and people want to see the legitimate artists. They don't want to see cover bands They want to go see the real pink void Or the real Led Zeppelin or whatever so they have the name claimed or the you know trademark in a Authenticity but well good well what I was going to say is I Think your first point is is correct. I mean look my mom a simple country woman Used to sing the song hey Jude to me the Beatles song now. I don't think she ever bought a Beatles album ever How does she know the song hey Jude because she heard it on the radio she heard people singing it she was singing now So she learned that song by cultural osmosis There's no possibility of an argument that you could have a contract which the reason I'm getting to this This is the fallback argument of the IP advocates. They say well if you sell a CD, which is another example You gave which by the way is 2014 which so this is getting a little bit anachronistic at this point, correct? I mean I Don't know anyone who buys songs through CDs anymore No, but physical media is going away and that is a sort of brief Temporary mechanism we used which you could argue There's a contractual connection between the seller of this medium and the buyer Although I think that's a ridiculous argument as well And it would only bind the actual buyers not all these third parties So even that contractual argument for IP would make no sense whatsoever But even that's going away people get music by streaming or by hearing it or by downloading an ephemeral mp3 file Off of some random website on the internet. There's no contractual aspect to this whatsoever So you couldn't pin an IP claim on contract anymore Anyway Now but what you're getting at with this talk about how art of musicians might make money from Performances etc That's just one case of the question Which often arises? Listen, if you want to change the way we're doing things right now in society like if you want to get rid of copyright law, which purportedly is an incentive structure and lets artists make money and patent law which apparently are supported purportedly induces innovation Technological research and development etc. If you want to get rid of these things the burden proof is on you to show us Why that would be justified? Now I actually don't agree with that I think the burden proof is on anyone supporting a state measure and patent copywriter clearly state measures I mean there's the patent act and there's the copyright act. These are United States Congress legislative statutes I don't know. I don't know why libertarians think that you could have a private Somalacrum or version of this Especially when the contract argument fails so miserably So I think the burden is on them, but even and then not only that their argument is the implicitly utilitarian one they're assuming that Here's how we justify what the law should be we have a panel of experts distinguished law professors and scholars and politicians and They decide in their infinite wisdom How we can adjust the rules that Congress can legislate that covers 300 million people To tweak incentive structures to get the results we want So right away, that's something that should be a red flag We don't agree with that way of making law law should be about justice and property rights and cooperation and how we get along with each other Second of all if that's the real argument they need to have a they need to have evidence if you're gonna say we're going to Provide this company a temporary monopoly over their new drug for 17 years, or we're gonna provide this artist a monopoly over their Movie or their novel for a hundred and thirteen years Because we think that that will overall incentivize innovation creation in society the value of which is much greater than the The the undeniable cost of such a such a federal legislated bureaucratic scheme Then they need to show us what the numbers are and they never ever do they don't even try and the economists that have tried over the last hundred or so years Pretty much universally conclude that this is all nonsense. I mean, there is just no evidence that the IP scheme Actually does increase innovation So I'd say the burden proof is on them and they failed it and even if the burden proof is on us We can produce a hundred studies to their one or to their zero That show that it the system just doesn't create overall wealth gains for society in an innovative fashion And it's common sense as well if you just think about all the distortions first of all the government's inefficient It's incompetent and it's corrupt and the laws are manipulated by special interest groups And the borders of the statutory Schemes are unobjective and they don't conform to justice And they're not consistent even with each other or even internally. They're almost completely arbitrary vague ambiguous Statutes that have nothing to do with justice. They are almost admitted to be deviations from natural property rights They're legislated at the behest of special interests. They distort and skew the culture creativity research and development they Hinder research they penalize people they give the government an excuse to Regulate the internet and to invade Kim comms home in New Zealand with American police state officials it is just an an unending relentless trail of misery and Devastation and a huge drag on freedom of speech internet freedom and innovation and growth and even the free market Ever since and especially has been exacerbated since 1995 or 1998 or so since the advent of the internet It's getting worse and worse. It is one of the worst things the state does in my opinion It is completely anathema to the free market private property and libertarianism And we need to stop falling for the state propaganda and the propaganda of the special interest groups Sorry, that was a run-on reply, but I think I didn't leave anything out So what I mean by that is I've seen many podcasts with you and especially Jeffrey Tucker Where they talk about you guys talk about the wonders of the marketplace and Jeffrey talk always talks about You know McDonald's and how it's providing all these goods and services at such low prices and You know look back just two or three hundred years ago the average person The average king was you know our poor person now or whatever You know the standard of living has gone exponential and there really is a lot of I Mean look what we're doing right now. You've never met Rothbard in person. Am I correct? No, I did I did November 1994 at the John Randolph Club meeting About three months before he died. I did. I had a great talk with him and it was it was a I'm glad I did So you met him once but I mean just the fact that I am I Can meet up with you now and do Skype and you and I can do these conversations. Yes, I mean This is like an unbelievable thing for Education but for just general networking and general You know the human experience of just being able to meet people that you look up to and have these conversations This is going big time with it. But the question I have is There's a lot of the standard of living is rising in certain aspects And I wouldn't want to be alive at any other time But the thing that I'm coming to is a lot of the times when you get into discussions with people and you start bringing in The moral arguments the ethical arguments economic arguments We're very open in terms of libertarian ideals of being like live and let live what people do what they got to do without But then it somehow manages to get pushed back that Seems like there's always a negative connotation that comes that somehow you're co-op you're helping special interests or you're only a corporate person or You only care about people making money and you're evil. You know, you don't understand. I mean it somehow goes from Actually our general love for humanity and what it can bring To the table and people will somehow skew it to being like you're just a profit-seeking Parasite or something like that. I don't see how those two they always seem to complete. I don't know if you see that No, I think I know what you mean. I think There's a tension or a murkiness in discussions among Liberty-minded people about tactics and strategy and personal life choices versus Truth and substance and they get intermingled and I think it's okay to mix these things up because we're complicated people.  I'm sort of skeptical of this the coherence of this thick this thick idea this thick libertarian idea and the thick Then debate, but I think I see why it's being driven And of course I acknowledge that and everyone knows that we're not just we're not just libertarians We're people who live in the real world And some of us are more interested in different things. We have division of labor. We have different interests, etc So I think one thing that happens is you have different levels of people that are just new into libertarianism they come in through say Ron Paul or politics and so they may be more into strategy and tactics and some of these people are hard to talk to because if you say something like I Don't think the income tax is going to be meaningfully reduced in the next 30 years in my life Then they'll just throw their hands up and say well, then what's the point? well Because they're fixated on making change now and when you're fixated on making change now usually through politics Then you're gonna get disillusioned really quickly if that's your goal Then you're gonna give up on the whole movement pretty quickly. I've seen this happen many times If that's not your goal and you're more realistic about it, then it may be harder to motivate yourself But then you have to step back and think I mean this is part of the Socrates called it the examined life in my opinion Look, I see no personal obligation for people to be obsessed over politics or economics I think there's nothing wrong with just living your life and just being a decent person. I Think there's some value at least to some people of being reflective and getting interested in this stuff to my mind what I Think is valuable about it and is valuable not just for me, but for lots of people is just the general Sense of being part of being on the right side of history You're part of the struggle for liberty against evil or good against evil For me, that's enough for some people.  As for the time this better to live in I Think I've heard people say they'd rather live in the 50s in the US, but I don't know if you'd want to be a Prosperous young black male today living in the 50s as opposed to now So everyone's situation is different all the although the other hand the black families have been decimated Repeatedly over the generations in the US by various artifacts and fallouts of slavery and state control of Systems and you know artificial racist laws and things like that So I think some people are better off now Some people would have been better off a hundred years ago or 50 years ago Overall, I think things are getting better, but some things are getting worse. I mean as technology improves We have a better chance and this is one reason of why I'm so fervent about IP is because I do think the advent of the internet is one of the Unexpected tools that's emerged that is a huge Tool in our arsenal that we have against state control and the state started starting to glimpse this and It's almost too late for them to shut it down. I believe they probably would have shut it down if they'd realized this in 1995 but they haven't so But now they're using copyright as one of the excuses to start regulating internet freedom So this is one reason I'm in favor of or opposed to IP controls and IP extensions is because I'm so much in favor of technology as a tool of freedom and I think the tools of freedom the tools of technology Sorry, the tools of technology help the state as well as us, but they help us disproportionately I hope I think I'm trying not to be polyanna. I want to I want to recognize there's a possibility of disaster coming You know the gray goo syndrome or whatever You know the idea that there's a reason we haven't Detected life and outer space and that's because every society gets to a certain level of intelligence destroys itself by one way or the other Probably because of some kind of state So I'm hopeful that that's not the case. So I mean Jeff Jeff for example, so back on the optimism thing Jeff Tucker Who's a good buddy of mine? It's very optimistic. He's very cheerful. That's his strategy. That's his demeanor And to me that goes a little bit more to the tactic strategy side of things and that's his approach and that's fine I try to be a little more cautious and a little bit more aloof. I Am hopeful and I want to push for the things I think have some hope even if I ultimately lose And I just want to be on the right side of things when if things go bad But I do think that there's a chance for the market and technology to finally Overcome the I mean look, I think what's what's there a greater chance of? If we're gonna have some kind of radical advance in liberty and freedom in the future, let's say in the next 2030-50 100 years is it that we persuade the masses by Mises's books and lectures to Gradually increase their economic literacy and to persuade the legislators to start voting for libertarian policies Or is it something else? I don't think the first is very likely. I don't think it's a waste to try it But I think that something else has got to happen for us to start achieving more liberty And I think that's going to be more prosperity because of the market despite the state's interventions It's going to be a greater technology that allows us to fight the state at an ever Greater rate than the state can surveil us Um So I'm hopeful that To me, it's like a tipping point kind of thing. We have to or it's more like a What do you call it when you escape the gravity well of the earth when you get into orbit? You have to you have to reach a certain Escape velocity we have to reach a certain escape velocity in society and I am cautiously optimistic that Technology plus three markets can can do that Um There's gonna be a lot of tragedy between now and then a lot of wasted lives a lot of Stunted lives because of the state But that's just a numbers game, I don't know what else we can do about that so that's kind of my overall You asked something about McDonald's and corporate, I don't know if that's really relevant now I think that this is an example of what your strategic focus is you're trying to point out the Examples of Beneficial effects of the relatively free aspects of the market like how McDonald's can serve so many people and give them nutrition Yes, not ideal the paleo diet people might not like it The the the car sonans the left libertarians might point out that McDonald's benefits from corporate subsidies or tax breaks or government roads Or the corporate structure itself and I don't disagree with all that but to me At a certain point this bleeds into predictionism Like we're all trying to predict an alternative You know an alternate history or counterfactual history What would the world look like if x wouldn't have happened or what should it look like or what do we predict? It will look like in the future. These are all speculative. I believe you can have your opinions You can have your preferences. You could prefer a world of more self-sufficient smaller Family businesses and less employment less bosses You could prefer a more efficient world of even bigger corporations or think that's going to happen in the absence of the state But the fundamental thing is we're opposed to the state and we want whatever the free society produces To happen so I'm willing to take the experiment and see I'd be happy to Release the shackles in the economy and see where there's going to look like the left libertarian world or the Kind of right libertarian capitalist industrialized society vision to me these are just interesting Predictive differences. I might predict this you predict that And we can talk about that and they're interesting But I don't know if it proves anything in the fundamental sense So Uh, this kind of links up in a way like this is off topic But to what you're speaking on in terms of McDonald's thing and if it's a corporate structure or the the federal road that obviously plays a huge part The fact of the matter is though is that humans act towards, you know, rational ends And regardless of what the structure is in place people are going to do what benefits them best So I mean is there really that's the things like the stock market The 2007 crash with the real estate bubble in the last jazz The reality was is that these people on wall street were really just taking what was The mark what was you know, they were taking what the environment has given them and they ran with it And they caused a lot of haps and there was not there was not a need for it in a sense But it's like if you were to find a lottery ticket on the ground, I guess Would you take it or if you were to be given, you know Unlimited funds at a casino or if you you know went bankrupt they would they refill your your coffers I mean humans act towards those rational goals or those ends So I mean there is a aspect of regardless of where the society goes Well, okay, so so that's that's a good set of Of launching points Well, first I would say that this is one reason why libertarians tend to oppose a large state And the radical libertarians among us including me oppose the state at all But the idea is that the larger the state becomes and its control of things the greater is the incentive to gear your life towards Being part of the state manipulating the state doing things that are inefficient You know, I've heard a common observation that you know, if the income tax was 1 instead of Roughly 30 40 percent on average Then you know companies wouldn't spend as much time trying to avoid it that would just pay it It'd be a fairly trivial fee. It wouldn't distort the structure of the economy as much. It wouldn't lead to as much corruption It's much bribery as much Inefficient government programs as we have now So that's one reason just to oppose the size of the state You know as for things like, you know The roads that serve companies I mean by and large the state is is a minority group of people that that are Parasitical off of the productive economy And the only way that arrangement can survive is if they're relatively small compared to the productive class And if the productive class Goes along with it because they're bigger, right? So they have to voluntarily go along with it The smaller group can't easily by force enslave or control the productive class So the way they do it is by propaganda and other institutional state measures And those largely have to cater to Some common sense ideas and needs. I mean everyone knows that roads are in general Unnecessary and good thing So the government co-ops or education public education Or even having social security at the end of your life people kind of vaguely sense These are things that they might want in a private way or that are necessary And so the state co-ops these things so the things the state tends to do often Are just Inefficient or corrupt simulations of what would happen on a free market You would have ways of ways of dealing with criminals. You would have ways of Defending yourself from an invading army You would have some kind of a medical insurance or medical protective system Um, so the government co-ops, you know, you know people would want to mail letters to each other So it's not outrageous or crazy that the government has a post office. We understand why You know if the government tried to establish a bureau of administering poison to people on a daily basis It wouldn't fly with the voters, you know So these things tend to approximately draw on the common sentiments So that's one reason why these things I think survive as well because you know libraries are not an inherently bad thing So if you make it public then people might accept it Etc Um as for things that and I already mentioned the benefit the benefit part I think that people do well, let me let me mention one other thing There's a common expression and I think we should distinguish here between the austrian and sort of the The the classic the the mainstream economic point of view A homo economicus the idea that we're all economical actors Um in the mizizi in sense, I think it's true. I think that in in a sense, which is almost trivial Okay, because it's almost tautologically true Every action you perform is in your self-interest In the sort of standard economic model all we care about is monetary profit now I think they think that's an approximation But that's obviously not true if all you cared about was money Let me just give one simple observation.  I would never buy a can of coke coca-cola for my dollar because I value the dollars more than anything in the world. Well, obviously every time there's an exchange a monetary exchange The person that's the purchaser is valuing something more than money So people all the time value things more than money So that's the first insight. So we're not always homo economicus And we don't always value material goods more than other types of goods Now the mizizi in point of view the austrian economic point of view I think handles this easily because miziz just says that humans act in a framework of the ends and means Basically every time you act you are trying to achieve some kind of goal some kind of end in the world And you use means Including your human action and your body and your labor and your effort and your thought And other things that you own or you can possess other tools To achieve that end. So that's the structure of human action You're always trying to change the course of events To make the future be different than what you expect it to be To be what you would prefer it to be Okay, so the ultimate end of action for for austrians is not a thing Is not the ownership of some scarce resource necessarily it could be but that's just one example of the end um The ends of human action are almost never an ownable things It's just a state of affairs that's different than you would otherwise choose So it's not this materialistic It could be spiritual. It could be mental. It could be psychological. It could be Undefinable. I don't know but it's whatever your goal of your action or whatever you want to achieve As long as it's rational and for miziz rational means The means you select to achieve the end Um, you have a reason to believe that they are causally efficacious That it means there's they can help cause They will help you achieve your end, you know, if you want to live 15 years longer and you have cancer and you choose arsenic as your drug That's irrational You know, unless you know unless you somehow believe the arsenic will cure cancer in which case is just a failure Okay, but that that's the structure of human action so I don't think we need to think of people as only benefiting themselves and so the reason I say this is because I don't think that everyone values only money or political influence Okay, so even if we have a system like we have now where there's more massive opportunity for people to Use their special interests or use influence or bribe legislators In a legal way, maybe but bribe them nonetheless I don't think everyone votes according to their narrow Self-interest as the classical economists would call it They do as caught as Mises would say but those interests might be spiritual So you have people quite often. I mean, I think uh, David Koch I'm sorry, Charles Koch wrote a great op-ed a couple days ago Where he explained that Koch Industries Has lobbied against certain federal government regulations and measures that in the short term or narrow Self-interest of that company would have benefited it because they really have a deeper value Which is the free market and freedom And a free economy and free competition So they have pushed for things that in the homo economicist point of view would be against their self-interest Why do they do that and they do so people do this all the time? Um, they sacrifice for their children. They save up. They will they will vote What what they think is morally right even if it it wouldn't Narrowly benefit them. I mean, there's a reason the republican party Is popular among joe six pack even though if you think about it Um, joe six pack, you know, the union worker kind of guy is kind of a lower middle class blue collar worker Who's narrow interests you would think were aligned with the democrat party, right because they are going to get minimum wage protections and Various redistributive measures that control interests, but why do they vote republican now? I'm not saying they're right to be republicans, but I'm just saying that people do things all the time That are against their narrow monetary Self-interest because they have values other than just money Again, which is demonstrated by the simple fact that people sometimes spend money so I sent you in The I know you haven't read it, but uh, you see Alan Moore, you know who Alan Moore is the author for V for vendetta. He did the oh, yeah, sure Called watchmen. Yes. Yeah, I've read watchman. So he's got this quote about anarchy and I will just uh paraphrase the last part he says Um, I believe that all other political states are in fact variations or outgrowths of a basic state of anarchy After all when you mention the idea of anarchy the most people they will tell you it's a bad idea Because the biggest gang would just take over he then goes on to say This is pretty much how I see contemporary society We live in a badly developed anarchist situation in which the biggest gang is taken over and declared it to be an anarchist And declare that it is not an anarchist situation that it's either capitalist or converse But I tend to think that anarchy is the most natural form of politics for a human being to actually practice So what he's essentially saying is that Anarchy so to speak is the soil of the human the human world and these outgrowths that we see really are just You know poison soil or you know, they're they're they're it's bad soil that has just grown these these bad trees But do you have any take on that because I do see and this relates to let me just jump into this one real quick This relates to the idea of the market and I've brought this up with you before When Stefan Mahon knew or some other characters say something along the lines of like In the 1950s the market was more free I don't see that as the case because to me The Rothbard statement, which is that the market is simply the social array of the voluntary exchange of goods and services That means the market's always there regardless In the sense that you can have a you can have a uh, a holocaust camp There's technically a market within the camp. There's individuals interacting and trading with each other and trying to Better their situation for tomorrow So it's like it's a very general widespread open view But is it really all anarchy in the sense that Even if someone's imposing on you saying don't do this you still have the choice to do so There's gonna be consequences that you may not like What we're seeing is If you get the gist I think but I think that um, this is an example of why It's important to have precise Terminology Because you can throw these terms all around and then you can start getting into confusion, um Not you and I don't know about Alan Moore. I I had a vague impression. He was um Some kind of quasi I want to say status, but he wasn't like really with us in the true anarcho libertarian sense Um, despite the despite some of the themes in watchman, um In in some trivial senses, so there's a famous essay in the jail journal libertarian studies by, um kuzan al alfred Alfred or albert kuzan Called do we ever really get out of anarchy? Um, and so in I'm not saying a trivial sense But in in a trivial sense We are always in anarchy number one in the world today We have 200 roughly nation states which are roughly in anarchy with each other. There's no overlord state and yet They get along with each other if you really believe that anarchy was unstable or that Um, you need a monopolistic control of law and order Then you would have to be in favor of a one-world government Which is one of my arguments against some of the objectivists and they've kind of admitted this But they sort of brush it off and they say well in today's culture That would be a disastrous mistake. I don't I don't know what they mean by that um, but what kuzan argues is that Within a within a government or a state you could call it like the united states government There's no central overlord power that forces them to comply with all these internal rules that govern the structure of the state In fact, I've been more and more impressed with The sort of overall perspective on the state by creveled martin van creveled Who views the state in its modern sense as a modern entity? like he doesn't think that the roman empire was a state in the modern sense because In the last roughly two three hundred years We've had the modern state arise which which he views as as an institution or like a corporation With a life of its own in a sense whose identity doesn't depend upon the particular People who populate its bureaucratic roles or it's it's actually political roles So he would view the state in the u.s. As this central kind of Leviathan that exists in a way independent of say barack obama, which is just the current administration Which in a way shows the the futility of politics. I mean The current politicians that are elected come and go um And so the idea that we can vote the right ones in is futile because they're not even the ones that control things I don't think barack obama can come into the government. I don't think rand paul can come into the government as president And just have an edict on day one and bring about a quasi libertarian society You would have rebellion by these various institutions lots of viscosity lots of friction Lots of pressure to stop it and I think it would be stopped Um, so I think the state is sort of like a problem unto itself Anyway, what kuzan points out is that within this government. There's no overlord that oversees them It's just an interlocking set of rules So his point in a way is that we always have anarchy because there's no god above us At least one that is interfering Like an overlord who who makes us comply with some kind of constitutional scheme or some kind of rules It's an interlocking set of rules. There's a complex interplay of different layers of of checks and balances and Powers against powers and things like that So his point is that the question is what flavor of anarchy do we want or what type of anarchy do we want? And that sounds to me a little bit like what um, allen moore is saying And that's fine as far as it goes, but I think it's a little trivial because it it doesn't kind of get us to the the nub of the issue um Well, what's the nub of the issue then because what he's saying essentially is this that again, it's just it's just the state of You know the human beings go away tomorrow the globe's still floating doing whatever it's doing We come back. We're just going to impose whatever values or ideals we have But that just comes naturally if people want to be aggressive And impose their will upon people and there's a apparatus so to speak of the state They're going to go there and just do it anyway. It's not like Well, that's so that leads to another so okay. Give me a second So what I would say is an analogy I'm thinking of is is is is uh, the question of property rights So libertarians quite often say Well, what we believe in is private property rights and everyone else believes in communism or something like that um, I think that's The better way to look at it is that Every political system almost every person has some perspective on what property rights are appropriate Because a property right is just illegally recognized, which means a widespread institutionalized Systematized way of recognizing what's going to happen. What rules will be enforced It's a way of deciding who should have the right the legally the right to control a given scarce resource So in that sense every system recognizes property rights So then if you step back and say well, then what makes libertarians different than others because they all we we all believe in property rights um And the difference the difference is we believe in assigning property rights in a particular way Which is basically locky and first homesteading rules combined with contract In order to achieve social peace cooperation and society that is what our goal is Informed informed by economic analysis. That is we understand the role of property rights We understand scarcity. We understand basic at least basic economics And all these insights come together to inform Our vision of what the property rights allocation rules should be Every other group from the libertarian. It's almost like atheist versus Religionist from the atheist point of view Not to say every libertarians and atheists, but from the atheist point of view you're either a theist or you're not a theist that's why atheist and From the atheist point of view it's There's a difference between jews and muslims and christians and buddhists, but it's not An important difference. It's just a flavor. They're basically all theists of a certain type Likewise from the libertarian point of view Um, we are the only one that believes strongly in a consistent principled Self-ownership, which means we're the only political philosophy or political theory that opposes slavery Basically every other political theory you can come across Will end up endorsing one form of slavery whether partial or complete whether temporary or permanent Over full self ownership Now they give different justifications for it. The conservatives will say Well, we believe in liberty, but it's not our only value Now whenever you hear that hold on to your wallet because they're coming after your wallet You know or they're coming after your body because they're going to say well, we believe in liberty But we also believe in stopping pornography. So Our drugs, um, so we need to have a balance, you know, they all say this kind of thing So they're all basically advocates of slavery in one form or the other So to me the fundamental difference Now let's go back to anarchy. So the fundamental difference of anarchy is the reason we call ourselves anarchists Is not because we hate authority It's not because we bristle at the nature of social reality and the fact that people are different or not egalitarian It's simply that we prefer interpersonal peace Social cooperation. We have some empathy for each other We want a society where everyone gets along and can use resources peacefully And therefore we prefer these rules that the Lockeans and the libertarians Suggest and therefore we oppose aggression And therefore we oppose the state because we recognize that the state Necessarily employs aggression. So for us, we oppose the state just because it's a species of aggression Which is a species of um invasion of the property rights That are necessary for flourishing and cooperation and prosperity and human society and peace So for us, it's not a rebellion against authority. It is it is a consequence of our Our pro society pro cooperation Values and I think if you are in favor of just general civility And cooperation and human prosperity and you have a little bit of empathy for your fellow man And you have a little bit of economic literacy You're going to tend to start being more and more of a radical libertarian and a radical libertarian anarchist in the end Yeah, I mean just in terms of authority. I'm giving up, you know, I'm not giving up But I this is a this is a position of you giving information to me. I'm a subject I'm a student of you I'm more than happy to be under an authority in a sense of Enlighten me with your knowledge and I'll compare it to how I see reality, etc I speak to other so I mean Yeah, again, that's that comes back to the misconstruing of that we're against all authority and then that's what they throw it at It's just a very odd dynamic that ends up breaking down. Are you have time or you need to run? Um, I gotta go shortly, but we can talk, uh, maybe five or ten more minutes if you like Okay, let me see. Um So And I don't mind having a part two if you want to that might be better anyway to break it up for people So If we have more stuff because it always takes longer to cover these things then Then you think you can never do it in 25 minutes Because you have three three things to take 45 minutes It's just the way it works because it because I'm long-winded and it takes a long time to explain these things No, this was great. Uh, yeah, we did it. We did a whole hour. So I will um, I'll clean up some of my questions and At least we got a few of them out of the way And again, I'd like to do another discussion. So I appreciate your time and all the knowledge Yeah, let's do that. Why don't we do this? Um, well, let me say goodbye and then we'll talk for a second so, um, I appreciate this I enjoyed it and um and For listeners, we'll probably have a part two coming up. Okay, great


Hey, Mahesh here from Khan Academy India Science content team and I wanted to give you some update on our talents that we ran last year and on our next phase of hiring. So for the talent search, the 2021 talent search, we got about 250 entries, submissions, and we got to speak to some incredibly amazing folks and out of which we were able to make an offer to three people. That's right. Science team has expanded and expect more content to come out on our website. Remember, our content doesn't just means videos that you see on YouTube, but besides that, if you go to our website, we also create a lot of practice questions for you. These questions help you recall all the nuances of the concepts. They help you with your misconceptions and eventually help you master your concepts. So yeah, expect a lot of them to come out soon. On to the next phase of hiring. We are still looking for more passionate science educators to join us and help us build our science essentials course. You see, when I was a kid and I'm learning about science, I thought science was super cool. But when I went to school, it didn't feel like that. Most of the stuff that I was learning in the school felt boring and pretty abstract to me. And I couldn't motivate myself to actually learn those things, mainly because I did not find an intrinsic value in it. The only reason I was studying them was because it was there in the curriculum and my teachers had asked me to study it. And I think, at least in my teaching experience, I've seen the same thing happening year by year. A lot of learners just feel that it's abstract and boring and that's why they can't motivate themselves to actually learn more about it and master the concepts. That's why in our science essentials course, besides giving you science content, we also want to ignite a fire in the learner's heart. We want to show them that no, science is truly incredible and you can relate it to the outside world. One of the ways we are doing that is by challenging ourselves. For example, one of the questions we are asking ourselves is, what if there were no exams? What would we be teaching and why? This and many such other questions that we keep asking ourselves is forcing us to think about our curricula from first principles. So as an educator, if you resonate with this idea and are excited to build content without thinking too much about the syllabus, but by deeply thinking about what should students be learning? What can we teach them that they can relate to their outside life? And how can we ensure that they truly master these few fundamental critical concepts? Then please join us either as a video creator or as a content writer. To apply, please click on the link below and submit all your details. Remember, the last date for submission is February 25th. That's when we're going to close this hiring phase. Lastly, a few pointers for your application. So if you are a passionate science educator and we want to join us, then we truly want to talk to you. But before we do that, we like to gauge the content creation expertise. And for that, we ask you to submit an assignment in the application itself. So please make sure to submit relevant content that adheres to all the guidelines that are mentioned. If the content does not edit the guidelines, we will not be able to gauge the role fit and we will not be able to continue with your candidacy. So please make sure that you submit the relevant content that really sticks to all the guidelines and do that before February 25th. See you.


This study found that congenital CMV is a common condition among pediatricians, but there is no uniform protocol for diagnosis and treatment. Physicians surveyed agreed that infants should be tested for CMV if they have any signs or symptoms of the virus, but there was disagreement about whether to use head ultrasounds or brain MRIs for diagnosing CMV. Additionally, physicians did not agree on when to start antiviral medication for infants who show signs of hearing loss. This article was authored by Keco Hokey, Michelle White, Megan H. Pesh and others.