What's going on guys is rich from rich to be live and Thank you for joining me here on your Saturday. I Guess some places in the world. It's Sunday right now. I Want to talk to you guys about the? Cannabis stock sector It's been pretty crazy We've had a long long long time down and On Friday we hit the lowest level since 2017 On November 18 2019. I predicted we hit the bottom It was the bottom for 2019, but On Friday January 31st yesterday 2020 we hit the lowest level since we've seen in the Canadian cannabis sector since 2017 now my question to you guys is do you think we go lower than this or have we now Officially found the bottom Do we just continue to go lower from here? It's pretty crazy to believe that we could potentially go lower, but anything is possible, obviously So there's always a chance we could go lower. I Hope we don't but there's always a chance that we could so we have to look at the possibilities of everything, right and Historically We would come up from this, but It seems as though we're going through a different pattern right now in the cannabis sector where Stocks just keep going lower and there really is no end in sight So this is why I've been trying to bring you guys only the best because I've been seeing this trend and this trend is becoming very Disturbing and concerning This week we saw you know management Once again being replaced with med man with sundial and I believe this is going to continue, but I don't know if this is really going to change anything And I'd love to know your guys opinion on that but my opinion is that We're in a bear market in the cannabis sector and it's going to take a lot to turn this around It's not gonna just happen overnight. It's not gonna just be like something It's not going to be something like Magical that's just going to turn this around. I mean this entire sector needs It needs something It needs something big and it needs something soon Because it is definitely under attack the shorts are feasting off the cannabis sector right now clearly and There really is no end in sight I don't see any retail coming in to save the day and I think it's concerning as an investor Right now for the cannabis sector Can't find really an end in sight and we've just been finding lower lows and lower lows and lower lows You could not have bought these cannabis stocks lower than what we're getting them at now Since 2017 you could not have found these cannabis stocks lower than what they are now. There are some exceptions But companies that grow our cannabis are absolutely the lowest they've been since 2017 Africa the lowest we've since since 2017 so there's a lot of companies right now that are the lowest we have seen since 2017 some of them are lower than they've ever been Some are the lowest they've ever been so It's a pretty crazy time in the cannabis sector and I'd love to know your guys opinion. Do we go lower from here? Do we go up from here? What do you guys think? I've been diversifying and with my diversification has come a lot of success So I'm very excited about the fact that I'm looking at the entire market and taking advantage of moves everywhere You think it's going lower? Jessica says it's going up Well, I mean historically we should be going up where the lowest we've been since 2017. You could not be buying these stocks lower Since 2017 So from that perspective, I believe we're going to go up too, but the question is when and How and what is it going to take what's going to be the catalyst that's going to put us there that's going to propel us to these higher levels Maybe it's going to be this Trump impeachment Sales don't warrant it going higher. Well, I mean the sales are going higher Sales are going up everywhere. So I believe sales do warrant it going higher actually Do I think a crash could ruin the sector? Well, I think a crash could hurt everybody, you know, it's all dependent on this coronavirus. Do they find the cure? Does it get worse? Does it get better? Does it mutate? If they can get it under control, I think we go way higher. I believe the market meltup is an effect it has already gone up higher in January and I believe the market will continue to melt up Cannabis stocks right now are the lowest they've been since 2017. So in my opinion, they're gonna go up They're gonna go way up Not all of them, but the best I gave you guys 10 of the best today Those are the ones that I'm really focused on amongst other stocks Like Tesla like Apple like Microsoft like Amazon These are stocks that Have all been beating earning estimates and because of that they've been doing well So the market's performing the way it should if a stock does well if the company's beating earnings estimates stocks going up If companies are not beating earnings estimates, they're going down That's just the way the stock market is. I don't really think the stock market's doing anything Different than what we anticipated other than the fact that the cannabis stocks have been completely decimated And I believe that that's mainly due to the fact that the shorters are having their way because they can't really short everything else So they're gonna stick cannabis stocks Because it's the institutional support in the cash sector that there is everywhere else So the shorters are gonna go where there's going to be Low hanging fruit. The low hanging fruit right now is the cannabis sector That's why today I brought you ten companies that think can be streak busters They're the type Cannabis stocks that the shorters don't want to short Companies like GW pharma companies like Scott's Miracle grow companies like IIPR companies like canopy growth companies like Aphria companies like Valence companies like C companies like the HMM JETF Yeah, they've shorted them to this level, but I think it would be a mistake to continue to short these stocks And I think a lot of shorters know that they know it's But at the end of the day doesn't mean they're not gonna do it because greed Overcomes everything else in the markets So when you're short and I call them a one-trick pony because all they do is short You're gonna keep shorting Until the market turns around you're gonna continue to short Which you know up until now is not a bad idea because the market's been down for ten months straight But the reality is at some point that's going to turn just like the crypto currencies just like Bitcoin Bitcoin went down for 18 months Went down from 21,000 per Bitcoin all the way to 3,000 Today Bitcoin trades over 9,000 in the last year of bitcoins up over 200% equally GBTC, which is the biggest Stock you can buy which is like buying Bitcoin Is up 200% So at some point the cannabis sector will hit the bottom and it will explode Question is when and how long do we plan to wait? until that explosion or Do you plan to wait at all and are you going to diversify and take advantage of the moves in gold the moves in Bitcoin and the moves in the market meltup companies like Tesla Or are you just gonna park your money in cannabis stocks and just wait for a resurrection anyone got gummies? How about you rich? Yeah, man, everybody wants the gummies here in BC, man. They go quick man They go fast you think by two to five years for the cannabis stocks Yeah, that's a possibility. I mean, that's why I want to do these videos, right? I want to know your opinion What do you guys think? We're going higher going lower If we're higher how much higher if lower how much lower be specific? I want to know what you guys think a lot of people in the cannabis sector down, man Yeah, man, a lot of people are all in and a lot of people are down So I made it my goal in 2020 my modus operandi to diversify a lot of people have been diversifying with me And the results have been phenomenal We need to continue to diversify and what I mean by diversify is tech stocks gold stocks oil and gas stocks natural gas stocks aluminum stocks Palladium stocks Platinum stocks silver stocks banking stocks dividend stocks crypto stocks Versification man diversification diversify to multiply man. I'm looking for multiples in my account look for multiples in my portfolio If I'm investing in cannabis and it's not working if you do what you've always done You will get what you've always got if you're investing in cannabis and it ain't working You've got to try something else you can't just continue to invest in cannabis and just pray to the cannabis gods It's gonna get better That's not a good strategy for success when it comes to investing Diversify to multi diversify to multiply I'm not saying that you shouldn't invest in cannabis. I'm invested in cannabis I'm just saying that if you all if you're all in in cannabis You're probably down and if you want to win you should consider diversification Because the cannabis sector is in a bear market It's not the same can't change tomorrow could change on Monday. I hope it does For you and for me and for everybody that's watching But at the end of the day, I don't control that So until that decides to come back I'm diversifying and That's why I'm talking to you guys about players like Tesla. They just happen to be a 54% in the last month They just happen to be my number one peg So had you bought Tesla you could have made 54% of your money in one month It's not bad Cannabis shorts are definitely ruining the sector. I agree, but it's also an easy target I mean these cannabis companies are firing management running out of money diluting their stock Lot of these guys are just proving themselves to be completely incompetent and as long as they consistently prove to be incompetent They're going to be easy targets for the shorts, you know, and we got to look at how we're making our money And what we got to do to make money Tech companies are overvalued right now, but they're just gonna keep going higher because at the end of the day They keep making money Amazon's gonna keep making money Facebook's gonna keep making money Tesla's gonna keep making money Apple's gonna keep making money Microsoft's gonna keep making money Facebook's gonna keep making money. They all gonna keep making money So how do you expect it to stop? Thank you guys for your seven likes. I appreciate it What's my net worth? in my mind at least At least a few billion At least a few billion. Thank you guys for the ten likes. I appreciate you guys. Thank you guys for joining me here on Saturday Going for a drive Thinking about the cannabis stocks thinking about the cannabis stocks thinking about the cannabis sector And what it is What I thought it would be What it is right now What it's going to be I know it's going to be way bigger than where it is today. That's for sure The question is When is it going to start to really? Have a search Because the reality is Most people that have invested in cannabis over the last 12 months are down. Thank you guys for your 12 likes You got 43 people here. Thank you for joining me here on Saturday. I appreciate you guys Cannabis sector has been taking on the chin for 10 months Despite that I gave you guys 10 picks in January. I Was 10 for 10 before the last day Unfortunately the last day we had a lot of red so I didn't get a chance to take a look to see what I finished But probably at least eight for ten in the cannabis sector in January My number one pick overall was Tesla They were up 54% in January. They happened to be my number one pick and they were up 54% in January So that was a pretty good pick The question is where do the cannabis stocks go from here? Considering we're at the lowest level since we've seen since 2017 or I need something They need more than just good news right now They need something big. They need to make a splash because right now They've turned into a laughing stock and it's unfortunate Yo, what's up Jared? How you doing man? Well, we've seen the cannabis stocks explode before three years in a row We've seen cryptocurrency go up after going down for 18 months in a row The cannabis sector has been down now for 10 months in a row How low will it go? That's the million dollar question right now. I Don't have all the answers. I know at some point We will find the bottom and I believe it's Right here right now. I think Friday's probably the bottom But if you want to become successful, you need to diversify you need to invest I always invest real estate stocks crypto currencies precious metals Everything I do I invest I invest I invest everything goes into investments that way you always have money for a rainy day You always have a plan B You know selling properties Selling stocks That's selling assets. I mean it's just what I do. I've been doing it since I was 21 years old now. I'm 42 years old. I mean There's always investing that's the best advice I can give you invest Don't have bad habits spend less than what you make It's very simple life can be very simple, you know spend less than what you make invest in the best learn to cut your losses In everything in life invest in hyper growth opportunities Take risk take a lot of risk, but learn to manage your risk Don't take so much risk where you're out on the street and have fun to make money along the way, man Have kids if you don't have kids all that money What's it gonna be worth nothing can't take it when you're gone Have kids man build a legacy You can't have kids adopt you can't adopt then Try to get involved in the community make a difference be involved. We are all just this little shining light That's only gonna flicker for an average of 70 years What are you gonna do in those 70 years? Some of us don't even have 30 years 40 years 50 or some of us have a hundred. What are you gonna do in those 70 years? Kobe Bryant did more in 41 years than most people do in a hundred Zenibus and Zenibus was the biggest mistake I made in 2019 Everybody wants to talk about Zenibus. What's there to talk about Zenibus is just a huge disappointment.  Those days are long gone.  I Ain't making those mistakes again Those days are over No more investing in trash Why should I invest in trash when I could easily be investing in treasure? Liberty Health Sciences had good numbers Yeah, I think Liberty Health Sciences has a chance to be big But remember Market makers know all and there's a reason why that's a penny stock Just remember it's not by mistake Market makers know all Market makers are all knowing just remember that It's not by mistake. It's something's at 50 cents.  Ask yourself Why is this stock at 50 cents and would warm buff it by this stock? If the answer is no, don't buy it Invest in the best you deserve it Investing in the cannabis sector is like in investing in an abusive relationship You get abused you get abused you get abused, but you're addicted.  It's like an abusive relationship. I've seen the pattern Even within myself and I don't like it. I don't enjoy it and that's why I had to get out had to diversify Not to say that I won't always be invested in cannabis But it will never ever ever be a hundred percent of my portfolio. I promise you that it will never ever ever Be a hundred percent of my portfolio That was a mistake that I that I that I for a while I thought I could do that Those days are over man Those days are over I want to keep learning and I want to keep growing and I want to keep earning And I want to help you guys learn and I want to help you grow and I want to help you earn and 2019 was a huge learning experience for me never again will I be really focused on just one thing and I found myself making this mistake before too with gold. I got into a few years ago before the cannabis stocks I got into gold very heavily. I did very well and then the gold sector crashed and I lost a lot of money Then the cannabis sector came in. I did really really well in cannabis Really well and then the cannabis sector crashed and you know, here I am struggling because of it Watching my portfolio in the red like everybody else that owns cannabis So now in 2020 I really committed myself to diversification and I have I have been diversifying a lot even before 2020 I opened up a trading academy and I started investing in gold started investing more in crypto 4x and in other stocks Up and down like tesla apple facebook just to name a few microsoft I'm not going to physically be telling you guys publicly what i'm buying But um what I am going to tell you guys is diversification is the key to success especially If you want to win in the long term because in order to win you need to own some of the best companies And if you don't own some of the best companies in the world in your portfolio like the fang stocks facebook apple netflix google fang If you don't own the fang stocks, you're not giving yourself a chance to win But if you own the fang stocks, you could throw amazon in there There's a lot of companies you can add in there that I really really like If you don't own the best you're not really doing yourself a service For years, they've been saying they're going to go down and they just keep going higher That's a fact just look at the charts I've been talking to you guys about tesla since it was at $320 in november with invest the millennial who works at tesla The stock was at $320 today. It stands at 650 They're changing the world. They are the best electric vehicle car They are the best elite electric vehicle car company in the world That's why they're doing so well So at the end of the day if you want to win you need to invest in the best everybody's hung up on buying cheap stocks If you buy cheap stocks, you're gonna lose It's that simple Just don't do it buy the best buy the big ones Would worm buffet be buying these penny stocks ask yourself that question I think worm buffets very happy to buy amazon Very happy to buy apple at these prices Very happy very happy to buy all the best at these prices Just saying So if you got 10 grand instead of thinking I need to buy 10 000 shares of this stock at a buck Why not go and buy 20 shares of tesla I just think people need to think differently stop thinking that less is more because it's not true Because when you're buying a stock that's of lesser value, you are not protecting your money You're taking a risk with your money Invest in the best and you will be blessed if you do not invest in the best you always take a risk with your money Invest in the best forget the rest If you've invested in a stock And you didn't get the result you wanted Ask yourself what you could have done differently and what you got to do differently on the next trade Because the thing about trading that's so crazy is you can be poor one day and you can be rich the next That's how crazy the stock market is all it takes is one good trade and you can turn everything around And we really focus on finding that trade here Do I think you should drop your aphria? No, I think aphria is going to go higher I think aphria is going to go way higher. I think aphria is one of the best cannabis stocks there is And I believe that they're well priced. So I will not be surprised to see aphria double from these prices Which means you can make 100 on your money. The question is when I don't know. I don't have those answers. I wish I did Believe me. I wish I did but um, it's coming. It's definitely coming. I just don't know exactly when The mj stocks are the lowest they've been since 2017. They can't continue to go down forever I just want our community to win more than anything else. I want our community to win I don't care if you guys buy cannabis stocks or Home Depot stock or corona virus stocks or cisco systems or I don't care what you buy. I just want you to win And I really don't care what I buy. I just want to win. It doesn't have to be cannabis stocks It can be anything It can be bitcoin stocks, gold stocks, cannabis stocks, coronavirus stocks.  Just win Just win Follow your dreams and just win. That's the mamba mentality, man Losing is not an option Failure is not an option So We're gonna invest in the best That's how we're gonna win But just throwing our money into cannabis stocks and praying for The green gold resurrection one day. That's not a very good strategy for success when it comes to investing You know when real estate They always say location location location the cannabis sector location is all the cannabis stocks The entire sector is bare So it's like a bear market for real estate. So it doesn't matter where you park your money The market's bare. You're not going to make money quickly but That is the best time to buy In real estate when the market's bare, that's the best time to buy if you're willing to wait Five ten years. You have a chance to make a fortune Same thing goes with cannabis stocks. The question is how long you're willing to wait If you're not willing to wait for eight nine ten months or three months or five months or five years Then probably better just to buy amazon facebook netflix google microsoft apple i'm just saying man This is your boy rich from rich to be live reporting from my car in Vancouver, british, columbia, canada I'm in downtown Vancouver right now Been traveling and live streaming here for what half an hour with you guys Talking to you guys about the fact that the cannabis sector is the lowest we have seen since 2017 And just giving you my opinion on where I think it's going from here Yeah, if you guys have any picks you want me to look at just drop drop it in the comments And I'll definitely take a look. Thank you guys for your 22 likes. I appreciate you guys Thank you guys for joining me here on a saturday. It's actually a beautiful sunny day here in Vancouver We've had a lot of rain So it's nice to actually finally have some sunshine. Hopefully this will be a sign of what is to come in february Currently 90 degrees celsius Which is about what 50 degrees fahrenheit? So it is actually a beautiful sunny spring almost spring like day here In Vancouver, british, columbia, canada Thank you guys for your 26 likes. I appreciate you guys mj turn around soon. I think so. I hope so But I wouldn't be willing to bet everything on it I think it's important that we all diversify Especially because the markets are in An all-time high the markets are melting up. So why not take advantage of moves in gold? Why not take advantage of moves in bitcoin? Why not take advantage of moves in currencies like forex exchange? I'm doing all of it now Every single day taking advantage of moves in the market all kinds of different moves 24 hours a day seven days a week And i'm going to continue to and when the cannabis stocks are running i'll be there too Until then i'll be taking advantage of moves in the market right now. I'm really excited about companies like tesla clearly And i'm excited about coronavirus stocks aemd and nvc So many of them o n c y c o d x There's just four I talked about them on sunday They had a big week And I think that that momentum continues because the coronavirus still is All over the headlines So as long as coronavirus is going to be all over the headlines I'm expecting coronavirus stocks are going to do well Coronavirus stocks is a real term now the people are using everywhere coronavirus stocks It's like a term that everybody's using now like it's a real thing coronavirus stocks They're not coronavirus stocks, but these are stocks that are looking for viruses and vaccines so they're Somewhat affiliated in the world of coronavirus stocks So because of that people have been buying them and there's a lot of hype right now And there's a lot of momentum around it and there's money being poured into it But it's going to be very speculative it's going to be very risky and it's going to be a lot ups and down So you got to be very careful Just as quickly as these coronavirus stocks can go up they can just as quickly go down. So be very careful Remember cash is king and try to stay in a cash position Just go in and out of the markets take your money scout Stay in a cash position and just build your vault That's the best way to trade Protect your vault protect your equity Stay in cash and look for opportunities look for momentum when it presents itself I mean momentum is a very powerful thing look at tesla Went up 54 in one month Imagine making 54 percent one month on your money on a stock that I told you about Before the month started as my number one pick Could have all took advantage of it. I gave everybody the news I gave everybody the pick but everybody said it's too high rich Okay, well, let me ask you a question if you had a thousand bucks and you bought tesla at 420 when I told everyone was my number one pick And you had a thousand bucks you bought two shares Your thousand bucks would be worth now What 1400 So you would have made what 40 percent on your money Would you rather made 40 percent on your money or spend that thousand bucks and lose it on something else? I just don't understand this whole hang up on buying cheap stocks Buying penny stocks and wanting to get stocks at lower prices They're lower priced stocks because they suck And they're lower priced stocks because they're being heavily shorted and manipulated by market makers So do you really want your money to get shorted? Because when you're investing in those stocks you're investing in very risky highly volatile Very speculative stocks Which means you're putting your money at risk Or would you rather invest in the best like all the big boys are doing on wall street and just making money Just buy some tesla sleep well at night knowing you got a beast And every time elon musk puts out a tweet. There's always a chance that stock could run 10 percent The one thing I got from the tesla conference call was that They have For a company that's made 20 billion dollars in sales They've spent almost little to nothing in advertising That's impressive Those are the types of companies you want to own Those are the types of companies you want to hold while i'm speaking. There's a tesla in front of me and a tesla beside me I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding. There's a tesla in front of me and a tesla beside me while i'm talking about tesla You want to talk about tesla? Oh my goodness. There's one in front of me and one beside me Wow And they're both white two white teslas Interesting Interesting So if I got money teslas it no I gave you guys 10 picks tesla wasn't even one of my 10 picks this month Even though I like tesla. It wasn't one of my 10 picks this month Take a look at my top 10 I dropped a top 10 yesterday that are non cannabis And I dropped a top 10 today that are cannabis Just go on youtube and type rich tv live top 10 february 2020 And for my cannabis stocks, I did a top 10 green gold February 2020 because that green gold term was created by me What are my top 10 stocks not to buy? Um You know what I have to think about that. I can't just do that off the top of my head I would definitely put syneva on that list right now. That's for sure rich tv live top 10 Rich tv live top 10 just search that on youtube and Put in february 2020 Now I wouldn't say I'm going to necessarily put zenibus on the list of not to buy But I definitely not going to put zenibus on the list of to buy I'm not going to be recommending anybody to buy anything that goes down like that Yeah, I could definitely do a trend reversal. I hope it does but I'm not going to be recommending it to anybody rich tv live Top 10 stocks february 2020 rich tv live green gold stocks february 2020 I've done two videos one yesterday one today the one today is on my green gold, which is cannabis Which is a term that I'm created that I've created and The one I did on friday are top 10 that are non-cannabis And my host thing a superbowl party for subscribers tomorrow. I was thinking about it I was thinking about doing a superbowl party live stream actually My son has a soccer game it's kind of ruining my superbowl plans I appreciate it to him. I just want to bring you guys the best man I mean zenibus keeps going down. I don't know why you guys would even be interested in talking about that company It's just a joke every time they need money. They just dilute more shares I can't see how anybody could recommend zenibus to anyone. I feel sick to my stomach every time I think about zenibus I lost a lot of money on zenibus and a lot of other subscribers are down on zenibus and it's not right I don't feel good about it. So How could anybody recommend zenibus to anybody? I mean they're at 19 cents now. They're 14. They just keep going lower. So you want me to recommend that? No, man. They were clearly a huge mistake Lost me and a lot of other people money And I feel sickened by it.  You know what? I actually liked sundial a lot. I don't own it I was watching it very closely and I spoke to them at the conference and they had a very big presence at the conference But in light of everything that's happened this week management you know Resigning and management no longer there I think we need to be very careful You know like we can't put our money at risk And we're not going to put our money at risk So i'm not going to sit here and recommend anything that could potentially Lose money for our members. It's not going to happen. So we're going to invest in bigger companies better companies Safe for companies. That's how we're going to really grow this community and Yes, i'm still going to try to bring you guys information and use on companies of smaller ones But overall we need to be careful because they just It's not working It's not working We need to invest in companies that are bigger and better companies. So we win and I can't uh be excited about anything that goes down consistently I can only be excited about things that go up I can be excited about things that go up and I can be excited about things that go up and down But something that just goes down That's not the type of investment I want. It's not the type of investment I want my community to want and um over the last six months zenibus has turned into just a nightmare Complete nightmare. I still own all my shares. I haven't sold my shares Why would I even sell them? They're worth nothing now 44 grand worth like 3 g.  It's an embarrassment So I think zenibus has a long way to go to make shareholders whole again And it's sad and it's disturbing So I'm not going to sit here and talk all these great things about them because it really isn't much good to say Oxley doesn't have as much money in the bank as chronos group and oxy has a lot of shares issue not standing So those are the reasons Too many shares issue not standing They can't justify the market cap when they don't got the type of revenue to justify A billion billion dollar market cap.  Maybe they need to do a reverse Why does oxley have 628 million shares outstanding because They needed to dilute their stock to do what they had to do to get where they are at this point oxy's been trashed for years Lots of these companies have been struggling oxy's been trashed since 2017 They haven't done well for years This entire sector is about These companies They're insiders making money. They don't care about the shareholders Let's be honest. There's very few companies In the cannabis sector that care about their shareholders They dilutes They have no regard for the shareholders There's only a few that care about their shareholders And that's why I made that top 10 list because I think those are the 10 that care about the shareholders The rest don't care about their shareholders. They're gonna say whatever they got to say They're gonna put up press so that the stock keeps trading so they can liquidate shares and they can raise capital They can pay themselves these huge amounts of salaries And just keep diluting shareholders. They don't care about us. They only care about themselves And raping and pillaging the market for their own personal benefit. Let's be honest. That's a reality Not all of the companies but most And that's why the sector is where it is Africa is a very good company. They're one of my top 10 that I put out today Zina is definitely trash And I say that as a shareholder Because they have been trash for my portfolio. They've been trash for me and for anyone who's invested in them. So They are what they are. They're trash They are what they are man.  You're right.  So yeah, men men sucks Yeah, the ceo has a private jet and yet all the shareholders are dying This is what i'm trying to say Why are we going to consistently be in a abusive relationship?  We come back for more. We get abused. We come back for more We get abused. We come back for more. We get abused. We come back for more It's an abusive relationship And these ceos know it and they know that We're just going to keep buying the stock. So they're just going to keep selling paper They don't care what price they sell the paper at as long as they're pulling millions of dollars out of the market You guys have to understand it's a game and right now It's a very dirty ugly game Where legally these guys are making a ton of money at our expense Retail shareholders are getting worked Retail shareholders have been getting worked Lisa and you're saying you're telling people to buy Zenivis at 14 cents now Come on, bro They were just at 20 now. You're gonna tell people to buy a 14. Come on, bro Come on, bro They just did a financing at 15 cents. You're gonna tell people to buy at a 14. Come on, bro They're at six bucks January of 2019 Six bucks Now they're at 14 cents. You're gonna tell people to buy that stock.   It's gone from six dollars to 14 cents and you want to buy that Why? Why would anyone want to buy that? I would love to know why Just to lose Just to lose Because all they do is go down They absolutely suck Would I buy zenivis? No, I wouldn't buy zenivis zenivis is trash. I just told you guys this Why do you guys keep asking me the same question? It's a little bit disturbing Why would I buy zenivis? I'm already down 40 000 on zenivis It is a complete disaster And you're gonna go and tell people to buy it at 14 cents I was wrong at six bucks. I was wrong at two bucks. I was wrong at a dollar.  So yeah, lowering your cost is not advice I would give you on zenivis. That's the last thing I would tell you to do on zenivis You want to lower your cost on something and lower your cost on something real like a real business a real company Companies like apple companies like microsoft companies like tesla companies like facebook Lower your cost on those companies. Don't lower your cost on something that just keeps going lower And then every time they need to raise money. Oh, let's just print another 130 million shares Degenerates man.   They're a joke. They stole everybody's money Everybody in vancouver's disgusted with them. Trust me. I live in vancouver I know what the word on the street is and believe me zenivis doesn't have too many friends right now There's a lot of people that are very pissed off at zenivis. There's a lot of people that have lost millions of dollars Millions upon millions upon millions of dollars Hey, man, I'm a lot to rant on zenivis.      I'll focus on the I'll focus on the blessed and I'll focus on the winners If those videos don't get views and the videos with aurora cannabis get all the views that hey It is what it is, man. I guess I won't get any views, but you know what? At least we'll be making money All right, this is your boy rich and rich to be live if you're not winning You're not watching we bring your winners and we bring them to you first We've been doing it for years and we're going to continue to do it I'm disappointed with a lot of the cannabis sector I ain't going to be dropping my money into dead wood and I'm definitely not going to continue to do To do what I've always done And expect a different result If you do what you've always done You will get what you've always got If you want a different result try doing something different So in 2019 I invested a lot of money in zenibus. I will not be doing that in 2020 I promise you I will not be doing that in 2020 I promise you If you do what you've always done You will get what you've always got if you want a different result try doing something new That's my advice to you guys. Thank you guys for watching. If you're not winning You're not watching your boy rich and rich to be live and I'm out peace


Yesterday I was talking about the problem with what I was calling the single power principle. That is a principle that there must exist somewhere in society, a single institution, or a monopoly that is charged with authorizing the use of force or power, and that this monopoly must be kept in place by use of force or power. And as a shorthand for this I refer to this as the coercive monopoly of power. And I gave three problems that arise when you have a coercive monopoly of power, and they were the selection problem, who is to get the power, the capture problem, how do we keep evil people or the bad people in a sense for whom the power was created in order to fight them, how do we keep them from taking control of the power. Then there's the corruption problem that power itself has a corrupting influence on the people who have power. I should just remind you of the statement by Lord Acton that power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. No, it's power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He also had another phrase in the same letter for which that is taken, that's not nearly so well known, and that is that he said, great men are usually bad men. That almost is good, if not better than the other one. But I think it is a problem that's under-recognized even by libertarians, the extent to which power itself has an insidious effect on the character, on the very character of the people who have power for any period of time. Then the last problem which I think is the most serious of all the problems is the legitimacy problem that gives unwarranted legitimacy to the people who are in possession of this monopoly because people believe that the monopoly is so important. By virtue of that belief they give legitimacy, unearn legitimacy to the people who have the power and that allows additional advantage taking to take place that otherwise would in the absence of that legitimacy. There is a fifth problem that I didn't talk about and which I'm going to mention just briefly. It's a problem that libertarians place a lot of emphasis on, doesn't really accomplish much in argument and that is what I would call a conceptual problem. These other problems were practical problems. There is a conceptual problem with the power, the single power principle and that is it gives some people rights and powers that other people don't have. That's the whole idea of a monopoly. That's what a monopoly is. It gives some people rights and powers that other people don't have. Now we make a lot of that, libertarians make a lot of that issue because they think there is some kind of contradiction involved in doing it, some kind of logical contradiction. In the way around it that people who believe in the course of monopoly take is they simply define rights and powers so as to exclude the powers that power holders have from the kind of rights and powers other people have therefore there is no logical contradiction if you define rights this way. My problem with this is that a definitional approach doesn't handle the various problems I've already discussed and in fact essentially defining an exception which we have a lot of exceptions things. You can't use force but you can use it in self-defense. The idea of an exception itself is not a contradiction but defining an exception for purposes of the course of monopoly of power should be a warning at a very least that something's going on that might be dangerous, that might prove to be dangerous because if the general rights that are normally recognized as a part of justice that are necessary to solve the other problems of knowledge and interest that I talk about elsewhere in the book I'm writing about if those rights are necessary to solve those problems we should suspect that if there's an exception created to those rights then we might have difficulties with those very problems in this area and simply creating an exception creating a definitional exception doesn't in any way deal with the problems that the exception will then create and so I would argue to those who make this definitional exception that the burden is on them to show how in the absence of adhering to these rights in other words in the absence of holding people who have power to the same rights as everybody else they are going to solve the problems that these rights are normally necessary to solve for everybody else and that's a burden that they generally don't take on okay so let me just get caught up here for a second I have my notes a little bit out of order okay so that would be the last problem and now let me talk a little bit, I'm going to get back to that in a minute what I'm going to essentially propose is that people who hold power for purposes of enforcement and adjudication are held to the same principles as everybody else, the same principles of justice and I'm going to say what that entails in a minute but let me just talk for a minute about, as I said I was going to do yesterday about the constitutional constraints that have been devised primarily by classical liberals classical liberals may not have understood the problem of power better than the left or the right but they certainly have taken it more seriously in so far as over the centuries they have developed ways of trying to constrain or shackle power so as to protect the people from enforcement abuse as well as enforcement error and I want to talk about a few of the techniques that have been involved these are all perfectly familiar to you, I'm just reminding you of them because I think that each one of them, although imperfect, highly imperfect they were better than nothing and they represent fundamental principles that could be better put into effect than I think they have been the first technique that was used, or not the first in time but the first I'm going to discuss is what we might call decision making by balloting or voting decision making by balloting or voting and the idea here, the strategy here is that once you've created this privileged monopoly of power the real problem with it is that it has powers and rights that you're not allowed to have that regular people are not allowed to have what decision making by balloting or voting attempts to do is to establish some kind of reciprocity, some kind of reciprocal relationship between those who hold the power and those who are the subjects of the power something that otherwise you wouldn't have so in that sense it's a good move the problem with the course of monopoly of power is essentially is non-reciprocal those people have powers you don't have so we try to establish some notion of reciprocity by giving the people who are the subject of the power their own powers in some sense to control or to remove from power those people who hold power and it is a step in the right direction given the fact that it is a measure of reciprocity that otherwise would not exist but there are serious problems with it serious deficiencies with balloting or voting as a means of establishing reciprocity the first is what I would call a knowledge problem that is it assumes that voters can be sufficiently informed about matters of enforcement to have knowledgeable opinions as to how they should be used or how they in fact are being used it assumes that they know enough about candidates who run for office to make an intelligent choice among them it assumes they can monitor the performance of the rulers closely enough to hold them accountable for any enforcement abuse and finally the choices that are provided by an electoral system when you have to choose between you know Tweedledum and Tweedledumber are simply too general to enable knowledgeable expressions of opinion or genuine constraint that is you are given extremely wholesale choices between two different say parties maybe there'll be three but generally two different parties and each party represents a whole series of issues a very special combination no particular logical affinity from one to the other and you have to choose this whole range of positions versus this whole range of positions and you don't have an opportunity to knowledgeably say well I want this and I want this and in different pieces of it you're just not given that choice within the system those are knowledge problems that are associated with voting there is also an incentive problem associated with voting and that is that it gives the people a system of periodic elections which of course is what you want except I suppose we don't have that for judges but we have that for other kinds of rulers these obviously give rulers a very short run perspective that is it's in their interest to be re-elected their time horizon then is limited to the period of time between now and the next election any policies that they try to implement any actions they try to take have to pay off to be demonstrably successful simply in that short period of time any policy they might want to implement that would take longer than that period of time they're not going to get credit for so they're less likely to do it we then rely on altruism to have people who have this power do anything that would involve a long run perspective party systems by the way are one way to try to get around that because parties then get credit for long run perspectives and maybe other people get elected but they still have to get past the next election the other problem of interest that comes up with respect to voting is what you might call a problem of partiality it's what I call the problem of partiality not only do we have to worry about rulers acting in their own interest therefore abusing power we actually have to worry about voters doing it too just because people vote doesn't necessarily mean they vote consistent with the requirements of justice they vote oftentimes consistent simply with their own interest at the expense of the rights of other people the majority can be expected sooner or later to vote out of a corrupt or advantage taking purposes of their own it's exactly what interest group politics is all about defused interest makes it less rational for everyone except organized interest groups to vote in an organized fashion and this particular problem was a problem that was well recognized by the framers of the U.S. Constitution especially by James Madison and he called this problem this problem of the majority eventually voting out of interested motives he called this the problem of faction if you ever hear any discussion in the framing period about the problem of faction it is a specific problem of interest he's talking about and he's not just talking about the interest of rulers he's really talking about the interest as he put it the greater number of constituents that the problem is the rulers are going to reflect the interest of the greater number of the constituents as opposed to the lesser number of its constituents and here's how we define faction famously in Federalist 10 by a faction I'm gonna need a glass of water at some point this morning right great without gas please by a faction he said I understand a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest thanks adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interest of the community adverse to the permanent aggregate interest of the community and notice here how Madison sets up interest as adverse to the rights of other citizens so his interest is one thing and it could be a problem and the rights of citizens is something that could be violated as a result of interest alright so that's balloting as a means of establishing reciprocity reciprocity is the good thing balloting is a less than perfect way of implementing reciprocity or accomplishing reciprocity let me go on to the second technique the classical liberals have used to try to constrain the single monopoly of power or the coercive monopoly of power and that is the strategy of federalism or the practice of federalism and separation of powers here is the strategy is to create checks and balances on power so-called checks and balances on power after all the problem with the one of the problems with the single power principle is adherence to a monopoly or single supplier of power or coercion and that's what creates the opportunity for abuse so the federalist and separation of power strategies tries to control the monopoly the monopolistic aspect of the scheme by creating several competing institutions of power each of which can check and balance the power of the others now once again this is a good idea checks and balances are an excellent idea for constraining power however the way it's been implemented within this single power principle is less than ideal it still preserves the unearned legitimacy of power and the coercive barriers to entry however many power centers formal power centers are created they remain in control indefinitely that is short of a revolution they do and by virtue of remaining in control indefinitely although I should just say let me point out just one thing even a formal separation of powers that doesn't have any real obvious function can still be an important benefit as was shown in Eastern Europe and the fact that Lennon was unsuccessful in formally abolishing the subordinate or the individual countries within the Soviet Union even though all the power was taken away from these countries, these nations their very existence as a formal matter made it much easier to transition from the Soviet Union to what we have today had these areas had to be set up formally it would have been much more difficult simply to snap your fingers and that was the end of the Soviet Union which is what happened so even the maintenance of a formal separation is better than nothing as that shows and yet once you have a mere formal separation within amongst the holders of the monopoly the very fact that they are continuous that they go on and on together leads to a cooperation rather than a rivalry among them as game theory has tended to show iterated games that is games that go on going with the same players over and over again lead to cooperative outcomes this by large is a very beneficial thing for us that we get cooperation from repeat exposure to each other however when it's formal separations of governmental units that have repeat exposure to each other and they start cooperating that undermines the reason why you've created the formal separation in the first place when each side has the other by the throat metaphorically speaking no one is willing to squeeze too hard for fear they're going to get squeezed and so what ends up starting off as checks and balances ends up being a philosophy of you scratch my back I'll scratch your back and ultimately and if they don't think of it themselves interest groups will think of it for them and will provide the important lubrication of money and of communication between the various groups so that they end up coordinating their activities rather than checking it providing genuine checks on each other okay so that's the that would be the second the idea here is checks and balances imperfectly realized in the form of formal separations of powers but not necessarily actual or real separation of powers and once again as I say the legitimacy that's attached to these institutions is maintained a legitimacy that's quite dangerous in which we would be better off not having the third strategy or the third practice that liberals have hit upon and that is the practice of free emigration the idea here that you can leave a country if it becomes too abusive you can leave the monopoly jurisdiction if it becomes too abusive this is a strategy that represents an underlying principle which is extremely important and that is a principle involving what you might call the power of exit the power of exit and according to this strategy persons associations indeed whole geographical areas may freely succeed from the jurisdiction of the person monopoly of power and in this way if that's allowed those in charge of the monopoly being aware of the fact that they if they were to abuse their power people could just leave their jurisdiction are going to be deterred to some degree from exercising power in abusive manner if they are facing this this possible opposition the problem with it even though it's an extremely powerful mechanism for constraining power the problem is perhaps because it's so powerful that they are very weakly incorporated into modern monopolistic practices or monocentric legal systems for example it's really limited in most countries simply to the individual power to emigrate or the individual right to emigrate it does not for example include in virtually any country in the world what you might call a power of succession or a right to secede from the geographical area and I think there's a reason for that the right to emigrate or what sometimes is referred to as voting with your feet is a very important right it's a very important power we should be very strongly in favor of it we should be strongly in favor of the right to emigrate on the other hand it's an extremely costly right to exercise by the people who hold it because what it also means in most cases is you have to leave the area where you were born in the area where you were raised in the area where you have your education the area where you have all your friends in your social network likely even the area where you have a language that you have in common with other people to go to an area where you lack all of those things consequently people are very reluctant to exercise this power even if they have it unless things are really really bad and sometimes even when things are really really bad they won't do it I mean if you imagine all the Jews that stayed in Germany until it was too late to leave in the face of unbelievable oppression they still stayed anyway because I think the cost to them of exiting was so high that they just couldn't bring themselves to leave they would rationalize any imposition if that enabled them to stay and not give up what they would have to give up if they exited now because the power of exit is so costly if it's only exercised by means of simply emigrating there's another way of doing it that lowers the cost considerably and for that reason it's usually denied and that is a power of secession the reason why secession is a power of exit that has a much lower cost is you don't have to leave home to exercise it you basically take your home with you everybody around you goes and therefore you don't have to leave your language community you don't have to leave your physical area you don't have to leave your home you just leave the jurisdiction and because that's a much easier thing to do I think it's one of the reasons why that power or that right is not given to us or it's not generally recognized in fact the only place where it was formally recognized and I know this only because it was there's only one book on secession that I'm aware of it's a book that was by Alan Buchanan was published in the last few years and in that book he claimed that there was and it was written before I think it came out before the fall of the Soviet Union he said the only place in the world where the right of secession was formally recognized in any constitution was in the Soviet Union when the Baltic states maintained the constitution which was never granted but it was actually listed there no other jurisdiction according to Alan Buchanan has such a right to recognize and there are some reasons for it there are some costs of secession and that is that if a geographical area secedes there's going to be people within that geographical area who themselves may not want to secede and they're taking with the group even though they become a minority group they may have been a majority in the other group now they're a minority in this group they don't want to leave, they've got to go too and that's often used as an objection to secession and it's not when we should disregard lightly so the right to secede I think is the power of exit which is what I'm really talking about is the underlying principle is an extremely important constraint on the exercise of power but it's only been weakly put into effect in any system and if we were to have a better system it would be a system that would allow low cost exit without having the problem of group exits that would take people out of the system they otherwise are happy with because they don't want to leave and now they have to leave only because of where they happen to be relative to the other people that want to leave and how are we going to do that now what is the alternative to the single power principle and that's what the rest of my talk is going to be about the idea here what we want to do is we want to achieve reciprocity we want to achieve checks and balances and we want to achieve a power of exit within a not a monocentric regime which is what the course of monopoly of power represents monocentric means a single center but a polycentric regime that has many centers we want to do that and I submit that we will be able to do that if we simply make two small changes two tiny little insignificant changes in our current principles of justice or our current I refer to these as two itsy bitsy teeny weeny changes you just make these two little changes if everything that is that we exist right now is perfectly satisfactory if everybody is very happy with what we've got nothing will have to change but if it turns out what we have now is not the best of all possible worlds then these two very small insignificant changes might let us evolve into one that's better and these are basically two principles that we should recognize the first is what we might call the non-confiscation principle the non-confiscation principle would say law enforcement and adjudicative agencies and those by the way I will insist are not the same things law enforcement is what we what the what within our constitutional structure we refer to as the executive power the power to execute the laws whereas adjudicative agency is what we would call the judicial power the power to decide who should win and who should lose two different functions but the non-confiscation principle would say that law enforcement and adjudicative agencies should not be able to confiscate their income by force but should have to contract with the persons they serve it doesn't sound so terrible the the second principle that needs to be adopted is what you could call the competition principle that is law enforcement and adjudicative agencies should not be able to put their competitors out of business by force that's it that's the entire change that's all I'm proposing just these two changes and nothing has to be abolished nothing has to be ended you don't have to go and burn down any buildings or you know anything you just have to adopt these two principles the non-confiscation principle and the competition principle and if you do these things then once again if what we have now is optimal they will continue to be if it's not optimal then eventually by sticking with these principles other things will happen and now let's talk about those two principles let me just talk about first of all the non-confiscation principle how is it possible how might it be possible for law enforcement and adjudicative agencies to get money other than by confiscating it oh by the way I should just say one thing about these two principles adherence to these two principles these are not special case principles made up just for law enforcement and adjudication they are simply an application of the same principles of justice that apply to the rest of us in other words this ends the special status of these institutions and subjects them to the same principles of justice that we all are subjected to the non-confiscation principle is the idea that you can't take something from somebody without their consent is an aspect of freedom of contract which is called freedom from contract freedom from having transfers imposed upon you without your consent that's the same principle that in the rest of the book I say is absolutely necessary to solve problems that for everybody it's also necessary here the competition principle is another aspect of freedom of contract which is called freedom to contract the idea that when you consent to having a transfer that should be legally recognizable that should have a juridical effect and so all these two principles are specific applications of the general principles of justice that apply to everyone all the time are ought to only now they're going to apply to law enforcement agencies and adjudicative services as well so we're no longer going to make an exception for them they're going to have to be subject to the same principles of justice that the rest of us are subject to now let me talk about and then I seem to be missing the rest of my notes here for some reason I've kind of run out of my notes so I'm going to have to do it you just hold on a second well that's never happened before I'm just going to open up to the chapter of the book that I have included in the readings here so I have something to follow along on thanks oh really? okay alright well maybe I can keep it up alright let me talk about the first aspect first which is the decentralized constraints on power the idea that you're going to have non-coercive funding non-confiscation of income once again this is an application of what I call what has been called not just me freedom from contract consumers of law enforcement adjudicative services should not be compelled to transfer resources to another including to law enforcement without having their manifested consent to the transfer now the first thing that this will help us do is address what we call the knowledge what I call the knowledge problem the whole purpose for freedom not the whole purpose but one of the important purposes played by freedom of contract is it allows knowledgeable choices to be made and it allows the knowledge of some to be incorporated into the decisions of others by means of prices it's if we could have all kinds of prices I mean prices are not the problem but without freedom of contract prices won't reflect the knowledge of the people that people have that are dispersed by the society it's only because people can withhold their consent to a transfer that when they end up agreeing to a transfer at a particular price that price has meaning and then that meaning is transmitted through the economy through the society to other people so the price ends up being an encapsulator an encoded form of information and it's only informative because of the rights of freedom of contract that are recognized in the first instance for the very first transfer we lack all of that with respect to adjudicative services and enforcement agencies and where we do have the idea of freedom of contract extended to that area then we would have access to the information that that would bring about because they lack because we lack prices and we lack information if for no other reason even if they are good-hearted monopoly law enforcement and adjudication services are hopelessly unresponsive to consumer needs and to not desires for a minute the people that have to go there people who are consumers of these services have to go have to take off work to go down to the courthouse as opposed to having businesses in the evening the way other businesses have I mean it wouldn't even occur I mean they now actually in Chicago have drug court in the evening because they have so many drug cases that they need to have used the courtrooms all the time but they didn't think about doing that for the purposes of the ordinary consumer they only did that when they so one of the things that the provision of that the implementation of this freedom of contract idea here is it would be actually provide an incentive and information to the people who are providing these services to be responsive to consumer demand in the ways that they are in other areas it also addresses and this is more relevant to what I was talking about earlier the problem of interest the right to withhold one's patronage is one of the most effective means of disciplining any institution and including law enforcement it's essential to creating a relationship of reciprocity between the provider and the consumer of legal services if I don't have to do business with you then I have a power relative to you that you have to take into account when you decide what you're going to do and that's the kind of power that really is genuine reciprocity in a way that mere voting isn't particularly when money is at stake particularly when the flow of income has to be achieved voluntarily the fact that individuals and firms respond to these incentives in every other aspect of our life is well recognized human nature does not suddenly change when one gets a job providing law enforcement or adjudicative services such that you no longer need that discipline or incentive moreover in the system that I envision something I haven't talked about here yet and I won't dwell on it but in the system that I envision once again holding people who are in charge of law enforcement and adjudication to the same principles of justice as everyone else means that if they act unjustly they owe restitution or compensation to the victims of their injustice as well they are not protected by doctrines such as sovereign immunity that exists today that insulates people when I was a prosecutor I had sovereign immunity I could make all kinds of mistakes I could do things that might have abused my powers and I would not be personally civilly liable in damages for what I had done nor would the institution for which I worked cook county be civilly liable for these damages unless there are cases when it becomes so far so extreme so intentional that you might be civilly liable and you hear about civil judgments against government for those sorts of things it's very unusual a mere mistake a mere injustice would not be enough to hold me civilly liable whereas in this system law enforcement adjudication being subject to the same rules of justice as everyone else would be held civilly liable once again providing an important incentive to be careful and not to make mistakes as well as not to abuse your power okay the second principle of which is not the so that is the advantage of having the non coercive funding the non confiscation principle and when you think about how is it that money could be raised how is it the money could be raised it shouldn't be that much of an it shouldn't take that much imagination to figure it out I mean for one thing you could charge a price courts could charge fees for their services in fact there are private court systems today that charge fees for their services and in fact most commercial contracts in this country have what are known as arbitration clauses within them in which this is a consensual matter in which people choose to be governed by procedures rather than be governed by the government courts or the monopoly courts the monocentric courts we actually have more competition in this country today in this country we're not in this country we have a more competition in the world today than people commonly recognize they have an image in their mind a fiction in their mind that there is this vertical completely hierarchical legal system that goes up to the top and then you know because there's somebody at the top making sure everything works at the bottom everything's great it's an image that people have in their mind it isn't really what we really have what we really have is an extremely diverse set of institutions which I'll talk more about in a moment but it includes the idea of having private arbitration which as I say most commercial contracts have the reason why most commercial contracts have that today by being most commercial contracts I mean commercial contracts between big companies have stipulate private arbitration the reason they do is it's sometimes cheaper in private arbitration than to win your lawsuit in the government court system because it takes so long to win and you're never sure whether you're going to win or not going to win by the time you win it's too late arbitration is quick and even if you lose then you can go on you can move on you don't have to you're not tied up for six seven years you're tied up for six months you're tied up for less than six months you can go on and say okay fine I lost but let's move on something you're not able to do it's too late arbitration in the government court system and therefore I once read an interview with the then president of Sony who said it would be crazy for us to ever enter into a contract that didn't have private arbitration we would just be stuck in that other system there and since the 1940s there's been a statute in the United States that that allows this to happen and in fact prevents courts from interfering with it which is what the monopoly courts did for a long time That's why this right exists. It's a statutorily protected right, but it's a very important one. And what happens is, of course, is the arbitrators charged for their services, which is the reason I brought up the subject in the first place. I mean, these arbitrators are usually private lawyers or private judges, and sometimes they're companies, firms, and they simply charge a fee for the cost of their services. And, of course, the longer trials take, the more expensive it is, so people have an incentive to keep trials short to simplify things, to stipulate, to agree to all the evidence that they can agree about and only actually present evidence that's contested because they have to pay on an hourly rate for the use of the court system, and therefore they want to minimize the use of the court system, and that makes it easier for everybody to get into the court system that way. So it's certainly possible. I mean, there's a sort of a precept that you should live by when people question whether something is possible or not possible. And I know that when you're libertarians, people are always making that objection. They say, you might say, that which exists is possible. So if you can actually show that actually something actually happens now, then that should be at least some evidence that it's possible for it to happen. OK. All right, so now let me talk a bit about the competition principle, the idea that you can't put your competitors out of business by force. This is the part that I seem to have left my notes back in the room for. This is an application of the idea of freedom to contract. The idea that when you actually reach an agreement with somebody, then other people should not be able to put you out of business by force. I mean, just because Lysander Spooner was mentioned earlier, as many of you know, Lysander Spooner started a post office. It's one he's most well known for in his hometown of Athol, Massachusetts, and he was put out of business by prosecution because he violated the express mail statute that proclaimed to give the government postal system a monopoly. Something, by the way, that's not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. There is a postal power in the Constitution, but not a monopoly postal power. There was a monopoly postal power in the Articles of Confederation, but it wasn't put in the U.S. Constitution, and yet the government has always claimed a monopoly, and in that case he was put out of business by force, by prosecuting. Each act of delivering a letter was considered a separate offense, so he was prosecuted all over the place and was pleading with the government to consolidate this in some way so that it could be litigated. He could make a constitutional challenge that would go up and he never was able to, he ran out of money before that was possible. There's actually some reason to believe he would have been successful in that litigation based on the judicial outlook at the time, but it wasn't. This is the same principle operating here. Unless you have specific permission of the monopoly, like you do in private arbitration with that statute I was talking about, you will be put out of business if you compete with them, particularly if you try to provide exactly the same service they're providing, and that is a violation of the freedom of contract, the freedom to contract that people should have with each other. Now, this would mean that if this were implemented, it would mean that instead of having what we would call a monocentric legal order in which there is the image of one center that controls everything, we would have a polycentric legal order. The term polycentric means many centers. It's a term that was originated or devised by a man named Michael Polanyi, a famous philosopher of science, and it was adopted from Michael Polanyi by Friedrich Hayek on the one hand and also Lon Fuller, who was a famous jurisprudential thinker on the other. In fact, some of the reasons why Fuller's jurisprudence and Hayek's are so similar is because they both were influenced by Polanyi in important respects, both with respect to the idea of polycentricity as well as tacit knowledge, as another concept Polanyi emphasized, that both Fuller and Hayek picked up in their writings. A polycentric legal system, I mean the idea of polycentricism is not simply that there are many centers. It's not the first part of it, but also that these centers have to adjust to each other. There's an idea of a mutual adjustment that takes place, so that if a change happens in one place, change happens and coordination happens as a result of a mutual adjustment throughout the system. In fact, the image that Polanyi talks about is, imagine like you had a grid of points, like a net hanging down with each individual point. If you pulled at one of those points, connected by, let's say fibers or something, connected by yarn, if you pull at one of those points, you'll find all the other points gradually readjust. The points nearer will readjust the most the relationships, but as you get distant, they'll also be slightly affected by the pull at one place. That would be what he would think of as a polycentric order. And that would be what we would have in legal system instead of the monocentric order that we currently do. Now of course, this seems to be a problem for many people because they think law and enforcement must be provided in a monocentric way. Lon Fuller wrote when he was arguing in favor of what he called a horizontal or reciprocal concept of law, he said, a possible objection to the view of law taken here is that it permits the existence of more than one legal system governing the same population. The answer is of course, this is Fuller still writing, the answer is of course that such multiple legal systems do exist and have in history been more common than unitary systems. Once again, that which exists is possible. Until recently, the Western legal tradition was largely polycentric and competitive in nature and to a large degree still is. And this is a point that was extensively chronicled in a very important book by a man named Harold Berman. Harold Berman was also a Harvard Law School professor. I actually had him for legal history myself. I took a seminar from him. He's now a professor at Emory Law School after his retirement from Harvard and he wrote this very, very important book called Law and Revolution published by Harvard University Press. I think it was around 1983 it came out, but I'm not sure, maybe 1986. And in this very long book, he talks about the origin of the Western legal tradition and one of the aspects of the Western legal tradition that makes the West different than the rest of the world. And by West of course, he's speaking of Europe now because this all happened before there was anything in the United States, before there was anything in America. And one of the aspects that distinguishes the Western legal system is what he calls legal pluralism. And here's what he says about legal pluralism in his book, Law and Revolution. Legal pluralism originated in the differentiation of the ecclesiastical polity from the secular polities. Lehman, though governed generally by secular law, were subject to ecclesiastical law and to the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Ecclesiastical courts, ecclesiastical law means church-made law. It's the church courts. Like you would have over there we saw yesterday in that separate nation state we went to. What about local courts? In matters of... Okay, they would be subject to ecclesiastical law and the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in matters of marriage and family relations, inheritance, spiritual crimes, contract relations where faith was pledged, and a number of other matters as well. Conversely, the clergy, though governed by canon law, were subject to secular law and to the jurisdiction of secular courts with respect to certain types of actions, certain types of crimes, certain types of property disputes, and the like. Secular law itself was divided into various competing types, including royal law, feudal law, menorial law, urban law, and mercantil law, each one represented by different actual systems of adjudication. The same person might be subject to the ecclesiastical courts in one type of case, the king's courts in another, his lord's courts in a third, menorial courts in a fourth, a town court in a fifth, a merchant's court in a sixth. This all happened. This all was in existence for centuries. And as Berman also makes clear, a multiplicity of jurisdictions had a clear effect on the potential for enforcement abuse, which was the subject of this lecture. This is again Berman. The pluralism of western law has been, or once was, a source of freedom. A serf might run to the town court for protection against his master. A cleric might run to the king's courts for protection against his lord. A cleric might run to the ecclesiastical courts for protection against the king. And as I was already telling you, to some degree, we have that system already. We have a system of multiplicity of jurisdictions. And I'm just going to tell you a little bit about that, how we resolve conflicts today, and then I'll take some questions. And then I'll have about 10 or 15 minutes for questions. We now have, let's say we say we. In the world have many legal systems that are not governed by some super legal system on top of it. They're governed by some kind of mutual contractual relationships, what we call treaties that exist between legal systems. These are the legal systems of different nation states. So you already live in a world in which there are multiple legal systems. In addition, within, for example, the United States, we have 50 legal systems. 50 different legal systems. To some degree, in competition with each other. It's actually more diverse than you might imagine, because we have an image of hierarchical pyramid up to a Supreme Court that makes all the decisions. Well, in fact, Supreme Courts, generally speaking, do not take every appeal. In fact, an appeal is something you have a right to. You have no right, except in very exceptional circumstances, to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, or to the Supreme Court of your individual state. You have no right to appeal. What you have is a petition for certiary. You have a petition to ask them to accept your case. And they choose to accept it or not, and they only accept a handful of cases every year. What you have in the U.S. is a right to appeal to the next level up, which in the U.S. in the federal system is the Court of Appeals. You have a right to appeal once up. Of course, there are dozens and dozens of Courts of Appeals. And within each state, there are dozens and dozens of Courts of Appeals. You have one right of appeal, yes, to a final decision maker who is not a step up, but not a single decision maker. It's not the highest one, it's just another one. So we already have a diversity of jurisdictions. Well, how do we solve the two problems that must be solved if you have a diversity of jurisdiction? And what are those two problems? The first is, which court system hears the case when more than one court system might hear the case? How do you decide that problem? Well, we resolve that problem with a body of law that note that you've taken law school in your first year of law school during the Civil Procedure. And within the course called Civil Procedure, there's a concept called jurisdiction. And there are principles that have evolved to handle the problem by agreement, by convention, that under certain circumstances this court will hear it and other circumstances the other court will hear it. Some of the most obvious ones is the court in the location in which the incident happened is the court that would normally hear the case. But assuming you have a body, so we have a body of law, it's decided it would be counterproductive for them as well as for everybody else. They therefore resolve to have these decisions decided by these general principles. You have these decisions made. Once it's decided which court will hear the matter, that doesn't tell you which law will govern. That's the second question that must be decided. It isn't automatically the case that just because one court hears the matter its law will govern. You have another body of law that's been in existence for centuries called conflict of laws. In the conflict of laws course you will learn which law governs when more than one law might govern. Oftentimes this is done by contract. In the very famous case of Texaco vs. Penzoil, very famous multi-billion dollar dispute involving a tortuous interference with contracts claim, because it involved a contract, one of the pressure issues was whether there was a contract to interfere with and in order to decide whether or not there was a contract, Texas courts because that's where the case was brought although part of the case was actually in existence in Delaware at the same time believe it or not. There was part of the case in Delaware, part of the case was in Texas but Texas courts applied New York state contract law in Texas courts to figure out whether there was a contract. The reason it did so is because the contract stipulated that New York law would govern if there was ever a dispute so the courts followed that and applied New York law very poorly by the way but they still applied it in that case. The fact that the case exists is possible to exist and we currently have a problem we currently have the situation of competing jurisdictions and therefore they are handled in this way by competing rules and this is the very same way I think it would handle. Now the only change that would come about as a result of the adherence to the non-competition principle and non-confiscation principle is simply that the jurisdiction that you belong to would be a matter of choice rather than a matter of where you choose to live. Now you rent an apartment or you buy a house and you get the jurisdiction that goes along with it like you get the government schools that go along with it that's just a tying agreement the two goods come together there's no reason why that has to be the case there's no reason why there's not a particular advantage to that instead of saying you join one of these things you choose to join one in the very same way it used to be you would have a certain long distance carrier if you were lived in a certain place now you can pick your long distance carrier it hasn't been a terrible terrible thing and it seems quite feasible to do that so that's really the only difference which one you belong to will be based on which one you choose to belong to rather than where you happen to live and then all the same ways of resolving jurisdictional conflicts would exist in this system as exists now so I know that I've used up a lot of time getting to this point and I would like to have spent more time on the practicalities of it but I believe I have five minutes or so to take questions about how this system would work


Well, I would workers Paul crossing here at Small Workshop guy This is a delve square DEL ve a specific square with a lot of little measurements developed by a Woodworker in North Carolina by the name of Tom Del Vecchio. It's a speed square This is a speed square somewhat larger one. You're not going to carry this one in your apron or in your back pocket Here's a more normal size. I think it's six inch speed square That's even too large to carry in your apron Here's one from Veritas. It's a speed square or a roofing square and That they'll get lost in your apron So I'm not a real fan of that one. Not sure why I bought it just because it's from Veritas. I guess well these The delve squares are specifically designed with a lot of great features in them. What are those great features? This one is all aluminum. This one has some stainless steel This is three quarters of an inch wide precisely on both of these This is One quarter of an inch in depth here on this one This offset here is three eighths of an inch and this offset is One quarter of an inch And this is one eighth of an inch wide. Well, those are Measurements that you're using all the time and woodworking So having them all on one little device that also has Rulers on it on the outside edge engraved or laser cut with nice white So if you got better eyes and I do you can read it and this comes with a hole every eighth of an inch Along this edge and it comes with an internal ruler Inside of here if that's useful to you to mark off an inch or something So it's got a lot of different features built into it This one even has more in that it's got an offset here That's a quarter of an inch and then this full width is a half of an inch And then on the other side there's three eighths and thickness and then a half And so those are useful three quarters three eighths one quarter Just a lot of different measurements. I hope I hope I quoted all those right this one's all aluminum This one has some stainless steel on it This one could potentially get carved up over time if you're using a sharp marking knife And so if you're using a marking knife instead of a mechanical pencil, then you might want to have this model All right, if I had to do get one of these two I would get this one All right, let's let's talk about how it's useful The three eighths offset here Would be Good for marking the center of a three-quarter inch board So if I wanted to mark strike the center, I just put that three eighths offset there strike the center It should be perfect Normally you would strike it from the other side as well Because if your material is not exactly three quarters of an inch wide Then your center would be the middle of the two lines All right, so it's useful for marking the center of a three-quarter inch workpiece It's useful for marking out Like a tenon. Let's say you had a tenon and you wanted a three eighths inch Shoulder So put that up against there and Not having to measure anything. I already know it's three eighths and so There's my three eighths inch shoulder Now this is three quarters wide So I'd like to have a tenon be one third of that So one third for the cheek one third for the other cheek Well, where am I going to find a quarter right here? It's built in So if I want to mark that off And then I want to do a quarter from the other edge So now I got this tenon marked off I could run that over my table saw With a dado stack or whatever and and get that tenon or use a Tenon jig of some sort. Anyway, this shows you where to do your cuts And then if I wanted a mortise hold that down there and flush up against it three eighths measure the distance for the other one lay that out the cheek And the other cheek and that would give me my mortise All right now It can be used to mark Obviously mark or set something at 45 degrees. Here's a perfect 45 degrees So I can just put that up against there. They've designed it So this point is right at the edge of your workpiece And you can strike your 45 degree angle Maybe I want some other angle. So it's got angular marks on here You would Learn how to use it that way So let's say I wanted a Say I wanted to have An angle from here. So I put this apex point on there Rotate this down to the angle I want here would be 10 degrees Here would be 20 degrees. You can see I'm lining it up right there so Hold that down and strike my angle and that would be 20 degrees from this Straight line across the board in addition If I've got a mark like this, I can use it to carry that mark down. So put your pencil on the line Move up to it and you can mark down the other side All right, or you can do it this way put your pencil on the line mark up to it And then strike down you can carry that all the way around That it's just the perfect size And the perfect functionality. Oh, there's one thing I didn't discuss This hole right here that's been engraved in there is designed to give you the center Of a three-quarter inch stock It's a guide hole for for drilling So if you put yourself centering bit There and drill down you would get that right in the middle of that board And just keep moving along so perfect guide for getting holes drilled In the exact center of a three-quarter inch stock Be a great addition to your apron Pull it out learn to use it It'll save you a lot of time once you get through the education curve and you keep remembering That you've got it in your pocket So you don't need to go get some setup bars for a lot of the things that you might otherwise Want setup bars for that's the delve square highly recommend it available from wood pickers I'll put a link down below If it's available from amazon They're not inexpensive But you'll love it.