Live from Atlanta, Georgia, it's theCUBE, covering Citrix Synergy Atlanta 2019. Brought to you by Citrix. Hi, welcome back to theCUBE. Lisa Martin with Keith Townsend. We're coming to you live from the show floor of Citrix Synergy 2019 in Atlanta, Georgia, and we're welcoming to theCUBE for the first time Adam Jones, the Chief Revenue Officer of the Miami Marlins. Adam, it's great to have you on theCUBE. Pleasure to join you both today. So baseball fans, White Sox, San Francisco Giants, Miami Marlins, always cool to talk sports and technology when we can bring those two things together. I think the San Francisco Giants and the Miami Marlins might have something in common right now, but regardless of the standings, everybody wants to go to a game. You have to deliver, as Chief Revenue Officer, a great fan experience. You got to make sure all the vendors are there to deliver what those fans want, regardless of the standings. People still want to go to the games. Talk to us a little bit about your role as the CRO of the Miami Marlins, how long you've been doing it, and then we'll get into what you're doing with Citrix. Sure, so join the Marlins 18 months ago as part of new ownership and the new leadership team brought in to reset the standard for what the Miami Marlins organization could be. We want to be a world-class sport entertainment enterprise. That means we're going to evolve beyond a traditional baseball team and ballpark, 26 years into the history of the franchise, eight years into the operating rights of a ballpark, and there's a lot of work to be done around those two assets, but as we take the organization forward, we want to continue to broaden that enterprise to focus on more sport and entertainment offerings. So Chief Revenue Officer, we don't get many Chief Revenue Officers at a technology conference. Hope, make the connection.  What made you take time out of your schedule to come to Citrix synergy? Well, I think it's indicative of the culture we're building with an organization that we're putting data at the very center of our culture. We're going to make informed and timely decisions and we need our technology to enable that culture. And so when it came to where we were going to align our IT group and it's a group that has built out a very robust on-prem infrastructure over the past seven years, following the opening of Marlins Park, the alignment under strategy, which was my initial title coming in and now Chief Revenue Officer, as I took on more responsibility for the business side of the organization, was a strategic decision to make sure that the infrastructure was meeting the requirements of the organization as we rapidly evolve what our priorities are and what we need in order to deliver on their very aggressive and lofty expectations for the organization. So this morning during the keynote, we heard a lot about the digital workplace, the experience, the employee experience being really critical for any type of organization's digital transformation. I just thought it was a really interesting viewpoint because we go to a lot of tech shows here at theCUBE all over the world and we don't often talk about employee experience or even culture as a leading edge indicator of how successful a digital transformation is going to be, but employee experience is really critical to any business because whether those employees are interacting with seven to 10 apps a day based on their job or they're interacting with your other end users, in your case, Marlins fans, making sure those employees are productive, have what they need in a personalized way is critical. Talk to us about what the employee experience means for the Marlins and also as an indicator on the revenue side. Absolutely, so we have an evolving workforce. It's very young across a very diverse enterprise of activities. What we've been able to do in partnership with Citrix since day one of the ballpark where we went from an organization of roughly 100, 150 employees around the team to 300 plus across the team in the ballpark is build out an infrastructure that was very light in terms of hardware, focused very much on the digital workspace, keeps us very nimble, allows us to deploy capital in areas that we see tremendous value back in terms of application and utility. So as we continue to make our workforce more mobile, ask them to deliver and work at a higher rate of speed, we need to arm them with the tools that allow them to perform those roles in the office, out of the office, engage beyond more just than an 81-date transactional relationship across Marlins baseball, but how across 12 months out of the year in creating that 365-day touch point, they still have tools and access in order to create those memories, those engagements that we want with the market. So talking about customer experience, Marlin baseball is more than just the 300 employees. It is your partners, it's all of your contractors. When I go to a ballpark, I don't see, you know, Mark the hot dog vendor, I see Mark the guy that works for the Marlins. And my user experience, my customer experience needs to be excellent across that. As CRIO, that's part of your responsibility ensuring that the whole Marlin family is presented as one unity. Talk to us about from not just a user experience perspective, but also security expectations of how you need to make that real for your customer. Sure, on the experience side, what we're doing is resetting the standard not only for Marlins and for South Florida, but the industry as a whole. We've brought on a lot of great talent to the organization from across the industry that knows what's worked, what hasn't across our peers. We're applying that, we're challenging conventional practice, trying to get out in front of the curve as to what is going to be the future of a game day experience, what is a sport entertainment enterprise more holistically. And so as a result, we have to arm our employees with those tools that will allow them to engage consistently across all the touchpoints with our fans, with our partners. Try not to centralize data to the point where only a select few have and feel informed and empowered to make decisions and take action, but disseminate that information, empower everyone to deliver consistently across all of those touchpoints. On the security side, being a public interest entity, we're vulnerable, we're a target, there's plenty of precedent around the type of activity that these types of organizations can be prone to try to have to address. And so security is a number one priority of ours to make sure that the IP we're creating maintains and stays ours, as well as all of the information that we're collecting around our customers, around our players, stays within that secure environment as well. So if I think about going to a baseball game, which I love, there's so many sellable moments there. Whether I'm in the stands and I want to go buy food and beverage or I want a new hat or some sort of merchandise from my nephew or something, you have a CRO, you've got all these different sellable moments, not just in the ballpark, in the physical experience, but even online. So having this kind of cohesive opportunity to sell not just tickets, but food and beverage, merchandise, in person, on mobile, on a desktop, it's got to be a critical part of your strategy. Talk about the alignment with yourself and you said a lot of your IT guys have phone calls as you're here, but I imagine that those experiences are essential, that you have the right foundation and technological foundation to deliver sellable moments that deliver. That's right, so the ecosystem of sport is a fairly diverse one from the ticketing transaction to all of the in ballpark touch points. To what we're trying to create is that 12 month relationship with a fan. So that goes into creating a lot of content and how we distribute that content in order to continue to earn that engagement well beyond 81 plus states of baseball. And the technology behind there in terms of our storage and our accessibility is what allows us to begin to personalize and tailor not only those core traditional transactions in touch points of sport, but how we've begun transition into more of that broader entertainment enterprise and making sure that we can deliver those as personalized and tailored as we can. So there was another Chicago team that showed the age of baseball. It was over a hundred years before they won a- Another Chicago team. Yeah, another Chicago team that won a championship. So baseball has a lot of tradition. You're in a unique opportunity that you're coming into a new ownership, but still baseball has traditions that are hard to compete against. So let's talk about what are some of the cultural changes and opportunities that you see that baseball needs to engage in where technology can help? Sure. Well, I think an interesting thought around baseball and where it's been scrutinized as whether it be pace of play or number of games of not keeping up with the times, not being as snackable, short form consumption as other sporting content, as everything tracks that way, baseball starts to differentiate itself in terms of the ability to create a very distinct and differentiated experience to a millennial, to a family, to an older consumer who has grown up with the traditions of baseball. And so while baseball needs to continue to innovate and modernize, there's actually this interesting equilibrium as to how much it continues to challenge those traditions that differentiate it from many of other points of contact and where it should continue to preserve those elements to hold what has been generational type engagement. You know, a great example of that is mlb.com and being able to watch a game anywhere. Baseball does an amazing job of embracing digital transformation at least in baseball. One of the things that we talked about or that David talked about on stage today is the $7 trillion opportunity. That's big, even in baseball numbers. Like baseball, there's no bigger sporting numbers than baseball, but $7 trillion is opportunity. What are you excited about coming out of this show when you look at some of the potential gained efficiencies from some of the automation announcements that were made today? For our organization while there has been significant investment in infrastructure, great collaboration with Citrix up until this point. The exciting transformation us is our migration into more of a hybrid cloud environment which is going to allow us to onboard a number of new applications, tools for our sales team, our service team, our game presentation groups to continue to innovate and challenge how they've gone to market in the past. And having Citrix as a partner that has that environment for us to step into, one gives us a ton of assurance in taking that next step and having someone that continues to bring us new tools within that environment as well, so our ability to collaborate across the organization. I'd say we've only just skimmed the surface as to the true capability and power of a lot of the tools we've had in place and very excited about unlocking the true power and potential of that environment moving forward. So this is your second season with the Merlins. You spent 15 years at PWC and before we went live, I thought, that must have been a pretty big change going from PWC to Major League Baseball, but you actually have quite a history in sports. Tell us a little bit about that and maybe some of the similarities between Major League Baseball as an industry to other industries that kind of surprised you. Sure, organizations couldn't be different, more different in terms of profile and setup. What I did day to day, advising across sport and entertainment, leading the sports practice at PWC positioned me for this incredible opportunity or challenge that is the Miami Marlins and what we're building in this aggressive vision we've set as to how we're going to reset the standard and become world-class as an enterprise. PWC and the history with the firm and professional services gave me a unique perspective as to how to take on many of the challenges we have, had the opportunity working across sport to really understand what works, what doesn't, so that we can avoid some of those missteps that others who have taken on this road map ahead of us have encountered. The breadth of infrastructure that a firm of PWC size also gives me a little bit more of a lens as to what the power and scale of a large organization can deliver in more of a small mid-size business form and not accept size or employee base as a constraint as to the types of tools and the sophistication of our technology that we can deploy within a sports organization. Well, Adam, thank you so much for joining Keith and me on theCUBE this afternoon talking about how you are helping to make big positive impacts for the Miami Marlins. We appreciate your time. I enjoyed it, thank you. Go MLB. All right, for Keith Townsend, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE live from our first day of coverage of Citrix Synergy 2019. Thanks for watching.


Live from Las Vegas, it's theCUBE, covering UiPath Forward America's 2019. Brought to you by UiPath. Welcome back everyone to theCUBE's live coverage of UiPath Forward here at the Bellagio in Las Vegas, Nevada. I'm your host, Rebecca Knight, co-hosting alongside of Dave Vellante. We're joined by Kathy Tornbaum. She is the Distinguished VP Analyst at Gartner. Thank you so much for coming on theCUBE. Very welcome, nice to be here. And Guy Kirkwood, he is the Chief Evangelist at UiPath. Thank you so much. Thanks, Rebecca. So we're hearing so much, these mantras, these catchphrases of UiPath, automation first, a robot for every person, we're rebooting work. This is the themes that Guy was howling up on the main stage, Kathy. Beyond that, I'd like to hear from you a little bit about what you're seeing in the RPA space at the moment. What are the trends and the themes that you think are most salient? I think the most fascinating thing about RPA right now is that it's really highlighting the problems that organizations have. All their accidents of history are really being brought up by RPA. And then you've got these digital darlings that they're trying to compete with, the Greenfield site kind of people. And some of those don't have beautiful back offices, but let's not go there for a minute. So RPA is an opportunity for companies to link their digital dreams with their existing legacy nightmares. And those legacy nightmares include all of the things that Guy was talking about today, the drudgery, the dreariness, those mundane tasks that take up so much of our time. Absolutely. I mean, if you think about it in organizations, typically less than 15% of the applications that they're using have got some sort of application programming interface. So if you don't have a way of linking them, you end up with this long tail of applications that aren't linked together with people literally being swivel chair integration between the applications.  Well, in fact, there's a guy called Ian Barkin who works for Symphony, one of the organizations that was set up to create automations for organizations. So one of the services businesses since been acquired by Sykes. And he describes it as process sediments and it builds up in businesses in the same way that sedimentary rock builds up over millions of years. And digging through that so that you can actually become more efficient is very difficult to do. So doing it on an API level means you've got to join up all those things individually. Whereas using RPA, if system A has a user interface and system B has a user interface, you can just use RPA. So, Cathy, you've been following process automation as a category for a number of years. Why RPA? Why is it so hot? Why now? We've heard that it's the number one software category. Fastest growing, yeah. Fastest growing. We've seen spending data that confirms that. Why now? Is the digital competition that companies are facing and the recognition that they cannot continue to be quite as bad at some of the things that they are bad at. So it's really that business transformation story back again, business process re-engineering. The same story that we had with BPO like 10 years ago but now with robots instead. Yeah, it's interesting. I was on a show last weekend and it was the CEO of SUSE. SUSE, how do you say it? Anyway, SUSE, she said to me, well, digital transformation is really about business transformation. And you kind of said the same thing. Any thoughts on that? I mean, you look at the start of the outsourcing market, the BPO market 20 years ago, the very first deals were actually IT outsourcing deals that then transformed the business using IT as the enabler. So the first deal that I got involved with ever in the outsourcing market was Perot Systems with a British energy company. And then we were putting in business process re-engineering consultants who actually transformed the business using IT as enabler for that. There is no difference now. In fact, one of the partners here, one of our original customers, actually put together a plan where we did the implementation, soup to nuts, so that we could find out how we fit into that whole transformation piece. And our team put together a whole package on all the learnings that we got out of that. And I had to laugh because they were exactly the same things that every transformation program has had for the last 30 years. You know, if you look at kind of the history of certain segments, and I wonder if Cathy, if you see RPA is one of them. Like if you could have figured out who was implementing ERP the best, you didn't know SAP was going to become the leader. But if you could have figured out who was adopting ERP, you could have made a lot of money in the stock market because those companies had a huge productivity boost. Kind of the same thing with big data. Nobody really made any money in big data, so-called big data, right, a dupe. But the guys who applied it probably did pretty well. You see RPA is similar where the practitioners are going to actually be the ones that add more value to the industry than the new limited billionaires. It's almost the opposite. So the more RPA a company needs, it means the worse they did it, managing their ERP in the first place. So they're kind of a mess. They need to be cleaned up. Yes, if you've got 124 ERPs that don't talk to each other and you want to close your books in any kind of reasonable timeframe, you're going to be a massive adopter of RPA, which basically means the more rubbish you are and activity, the more opportunity there is to automate more of that. So what are the metrics that matter when you talk to your clients? Well, what I try and encourage clients to do is to really focus on business outcomes. So much as Guy probably doesn't want me to say this, I don't really care how many scripts, aka robots you've built or how many run times you've deployed. What I care about is the business impact that you've managed to achieve. So whatever KPIs are important to you. So are you managing to collect more revenue?  So anything that you're doing that actually improves the good old business metrics is just going to be fantastic. So those are sort of metrics that really companies should be focusing on, not how many scripts they've built. That's absolutely pointless. I mean, are they focusing on that? I mean, when you talk to them? Yeah, lots of people, yeah. Yeah, in terms of ROI, I mean, we hear from customers that it has made them more accurate and more efficient. They're at their cost saving on human hours of the mundane tasks. But when you were up on the main stage talking about how we're rebooting work, we're changing this moment, is it sparking the creativity, the imagination, the time spent on strategy and the more higher level things? I mean, is that, I mean, that seems like that's the goal of return on investment. It is within those organizations that are the most mature. So what we're seeing is a bifurcation really of the market between those organizations that are just starting and scaling up what they can internal centers of excellence. Those organizations that are using the partners behind us, those organizations that are using external parties to help them develop that. So Deloitte, for instance, they are something from managed service business. And instead of using people, they use automation. So Deloitte Fly Accident has a BPA business in Spain, but they're now turning that into an automation heavy business and then providing that managed service. And then the smartest customers, including SMBC, who we heard from yesterday, are actually turning their back office cost operations into a front office revenue generator. Now that is radically different from what we've seen per the past. So Kat, they're going to ask you on the plane out here, somebody texted me a picture of the latest hype cycle. And they said, they knew I was going to UiPath. They said, RPA has entered the trough of disillusionment. I said, oh, awesome.  I can ask her about that. What's your take on that? I think as Guy says, some people have already sailed through the trough. They've already gone through the challenges, or some of the challenges, and they've already found these fantastic productive things. I mean, we're estimating that people will like save close to a million dollars for a large company. We're just not having to do rework of getting it wrong first time with re-keying that data. So where there's some fantastic savings available, you know, some of the ones have gone through the trough and done that. A lot of the other ones are kind of, they don't understand the limitations of RPA and all those other partner tools that they need to put with it. So don't understand it can't handle unstructured data by itself. It needs a sister tool. So what Gartner's talking about right now is this concept of hyper-automation where you look across all the different activities that you would need to sort of replace a person. So the people that are heading into the trough is sort of this second wave of adopters that Guy talked about that will really struggle because they didn't understand the limitations in the first place.  People, you know, they see them, Gartner's very clever with the way it works things, but so how should we think about that hype cycle? I mean, it's actually, in a way, it's progress, isn't it? For an industry where they start catching that trough? What Gartner says is all industries have to go through that type of growing pains. And I think that, you know, we're seeing that. UIPath expanded massively, you know, and that's always a challenge for companies as they grow very rapidly. And as companies try and, as I say, you know, take these wrong metrics. So I think things like UIPath buying process gold is fantastic. It's a really, really good move for them. And I expect to see a lot of other process mining companies acquired, brought into the RPA fold, because there's four reasons why companies are going to go into this disillusionment, right? These are the main challenges with companies trying to use that RPA properly. One is they don't know what the processes are. So process gold will give you a really good indication. They don't know about the microscopic level and they don't know about the macro level. So things like digital twins will be something else that we would expect to see very closely partnered with companies like UIPath. And they don't know how to orchestrate their resources. So other companies like Innate that can help you figure out how to do that will become, so it's kind of like we're sort of breaking down a lot of what happened in other software categories and rebuilding them all up in the way that the business can actually adopt them, hence the AI fabric sort of idea. So they don't know the processes, politics. People will lie to you about what they do all day, right? So you can sabotage your process. And there's a lot of silos within organizations that hate each other and throw things over the wall. So that all needs streamlining and the more you can do across silos, the more successful any automation project would be. Then you've got when you take a person out of a process, you take their eyes, their ears, their mouth, the nose, how are you going to replace that when you're trying to take them out because you've got the keyboard fingers thing with the RP-80. You need all these other activities replaced, replicated, supported. And then you've got the economics of production. So actually making sure that the scripts that you've built are actually worthwhile and are going to be cost effective. That's something that we're studying at the moment. So you've got all these different barriers from all these different angles that are really going to push this thing into the trough for a little bit. And that's why it's great that RPA companies are looking at ways to mitigate that for their customers. I mean, we see it as the understandings. So RPA is really good at dealing with structured data, rules-based activities, deterministic things. That's why in regulatory, highly regulated environments, it's very effective and the regulators love this sort of stuff because it's deterministic. When you look at AI, then we look at it in four ways. So you've got process understanding, which is the process gold acquisition. You look at conversational understanding because ultimately robots are going to be controlled by voice. So you have to understand, the system has to understand that, let's say you're sitting in a bank and the robot doesn't understand something. You say, okay, robot's sticking that in the Wells account. It has to understand that Wells in this case means Wells Fargo. It doesn't mean a hole in the ground in the water at the bottom or a town in Somerset in the UK because they're all Wells. So getting those ontologies correct is so important. So that's conversational understanding, document understanding, because as Cathy said, companies are still wading around in paper. So understanding what those different documents are and how to action them is going to be really important. And finally, you're looking at visual understanding. So understanding and viewing things on the screen is exactly the same as humans do. So it's getting that combination right. So for RPA to live up to the hype, there's a lot of hype and it's a good thing. It's fun to track. It's got to go presumably beyond cleaning up the crime scene if you will to this new vision so that you and guy just laid out. What is the distance between, I don't know, sometimes I say paving the cow path, which gives you a nice hit. But as you say, it's just companies got messed up to this vision of this, actually the guy from Pepsi today talked about it, this fabric of automation across the organization. How big of a gap is that? It's very different by every different company on the planet really in terms of their accidents of history, what their IT application landscape looks like and what their business landscape looks like. And when you try and put the two things together, that's where you find the opportunities for any type of automation. Oh, come on, that's such an, it depends answer. At the macro, in your expert opinion, will RPA live up to the hype? So many trends haven't, you know, enterprise data warehousing, big data, do all that stuff. You think RPA has the potential to crack through that? You mentioned a very good point. I think the most successful companies are the ones that actually will take the person that's managing the data and analytics of how their process is performing and doing that with their automation strategy. And there are very few companies that have actually worked that out. They've still got totally two walls and they just meet up here at the CEO. So unless companies actually take a more active business outcomes approach and look at their end-to-end processes of order to cash and source to pay, these problems will carry on for some time. Well, that's a great point. I mean, so it's data, it's machine intelligence, I guess cloud for scale. You guys made a SaaS announcement today. It's automation first to use your buzzword. You need it all to come together. And it's really developing those best practices in your role as Chief Evangelist in helping understand what the most successful companies do and then making sure that's implemented. Well, that's why I spend more of my time listening than I do talking. Because the very nature of being a Chief Evangelist is the best job and the worst job total in the world. It's the best job because I spend my entire time talking to people like Cathy who know about what's happening within the market and then feeding it back into our organization so we can make the right bets. So we can make the right acquisitions, develop the right things. The bad thing about the job is that I keep getting in an order number of people on LinkedIn saying so pleased that Jesus has entered your life. And not that popular. I'm just kidding. It's in the title. There's always this age old debate in the industry of best of breed versus kind of sweet approach. You know, you see an SAP, for instance, acquired an RPA company in four talks about it. And then you get the specialist, UiPath. How do you see that shaking out as the industry gets kind of more consolidated? How do you see a company like UiPath thriving, continuing to thrive? Gartler is going to predict, coming in on new predictions series, that roughly 20 to 30% of enterprise adoption of AI, machine learning activities for process based activities will go through the RPA market. So, and with the IBPMS market sort of combined together the process management because RPA has managed cleverly to capture the imagination of the business person. So actually there's a lot of IT departments that are talking to us about how do we enshrine this activity for shadow IT that's happening in the business and make it successful, put governance plans in place so it will actually be successful in the way that it's actually now dealing with its own crime scene to use on its own rubbish in a much better way. And I think that responsibility of business to understand how it can automate things and how it can manage things will really help a lot. So I think the RPA players are well-placed to either be acquired into that bigger set of the established large, you know, BMOS software providers, or to kind of, you know, kind of keep blazing a trail for independence of the business. I'm not so sure about this idea that everybody should be programming their own scripts. I think that's a challenge. And I think the new interfaces will help mitigate some of the problems that we've seen with that approach. That hasn't been, that hasn't been very well done. Historically, that's another area that'll probably be a bit trough of disillusionment. But actually well-managed RPA projects have actually got a really good chance of delivering back very interesting benefits for businesses. Yeah, as a discreet innovation category. It does kind of feel that way. Oftentimes those markets are winner take most. You know, the winner makes a ton of dough. Number two makes a little bit of money. Number three kind of breaks even and everybody else gets consolidated or goes out of business.  That's kind of- Well, that's one of my- I'm sure. Tomorrow morning I'm doing my predictions for next year. And one of them is that the challenger RPA vendors and indeed the service organizations that are small are going to continue to consolidate and get acquired next year. So that's a 2020 prediction for us. Great. Well, Guy and Kathy, thank you both so much for coming on theCUBE. It was a great conversation. Thank you very much indeed. Thanks for coming. Thanks you guys. I'm Rebecca Knight for Dave Vellante. Stay tuned for more of theCUBE's live coverage of UiPath.


So you want to make a true false conditional statement in Unreal 5, not a problem. Let's say you have a button and if you click it and the widget index is greater than zero, it means we're deep in the menu and you want the button to say back. But if we're in the beginning of the menu, then that means we're in the front and we want the menu to say quit instead, which will allow the player to exit the game. So we have a widget index and when it's equal to zero, we want to set the back button text to quit. Otherwise, if it's not zero, we want to set the text to back. Well, whenever you have an A or B type scenario, drag out and type equals equals greater or less than you can also do greater and equals or less than equals really just depends on what you need. We want to know when the index is exactly zero and when it's not. So we're going to do equals equals and type zero, then drag that out into a branch node and under true drag out and set the text to quit and or false do the same thing and change the text to back. And last for now, we're just going to make the game check this every frame. So we'll just drag the event tick, but you could definitely optimize this if you want later. So it's not calling every frame. We'll have a completely separate series about optimization later for now. This tutorial is just demonstrating how branch nodes work. Hope that helps. And as always, hope you have a fantastic day and I'll see you around.


Hello friends, welcome to SSUnited. My name is Susheel Singh and this is SQL Server Interview Quiz Part 1 Test Yourself. So in this series we have a list of questions. Each question has 4 options and you will get 20 seconds to select the correct option. So let's start with our first question. So this is our question and your time starts now. So time up. So option D because our subquery doesn't contain the column name. So let's move to another question. So this is our question and your time starts now. So time up. So option B is true. Let's move to another question. So this is your question and your time starts now. So time up. Option B is true. So let's move to another question. So this is your question and your time starts now. Time up. so option B is true so let's move to another question this is your question and your time starts now option A is true let's move to another question so this is your question and your time starts now so time up option D is true because we cannot select the character values without using single quotes so let's move to another question so this is your question and your time starts now time up so option A is true let's move to another question so this is your question and your time starts now so time up so option A is true let's move to another question so this is your question and your time starts now option D is true because we cannot concatenate between string values to integer values. Let's move to another question. So this is your question and your time starts now. Time up. Option A is true. Let's move to another question. So this is your question and your time starts now. Time up. Option A is true. So let's move to another question. So this is your question and your time starts now. So option B will be true. So let's move to another question. So this is your question and your time starts now. Option B is true. So let's move to another question. So this is your question and your time starts now. So time up. So option D is true. let's move to another question and this is your last question and your time starts now often be is true for this question so thank you so much for watching this video if you like this video please subscribe our channel to get many more videos like this thank you so much for watching


Go ahead. Yes, Jesse. It's quite interesting sometimes. Put it that way. I was – anyway, let's stay here. Let me just check with Danny. Okay. Everybody is far from the 24-minute delay. So let's get started now, and I will go longer if I need to, although there may be a lecture coming after. So I will try to hurry. I'll be glad to make this up later if necessary. So let's just get going. Okay, so let's continue with where we left off last time. And just to confirm everyone here and see, okay, see the slides here, okay? Okay, very good. Okay, so last time we left off with this slide here, we're talking about a common sort of confusion, which is the distinction between state and government. And the way this arises is usually libertarians that are opposed to what the state does, or even anarchist libertarians who are opposed to the state per se, will sometimes use the word government or the government as a synonym for the word state, a synonym. So they'll say libertarians are against the government, or they're against the state, or at least anarchists. And then you'll have an anarchist libertarian come along. They say, no, we're in favor of government. Government just means a regulated way of administering justice and rights and services that we need. And so we're not against government. So if they change the definition on us, then even anarchist libertarians are not against government. But this is only because they're changing the meaning of the word government to not mean the same as state. So let's go back and let's think of some definitions. The state is the primary thing that libertarians, as political theorists, are concerned with, whether we're a menarchist or anarchist. The state is an agency that has at least one of two characteristics. Number one, they can insist that they're the ultimate decision-maker of disputes in a given region. Or number two, they can tax. Now, if you think about it, either one implies the other because let's suppose you didn't claim a monopoly over dispute resolution in a given region, but you had the power to tax. Well, then you could obviously outcompete your competitors because you could tax your citizens and you could subsidize your services that way, and you could outcompete your competitors in the same way that government schools, what are euphemistically called public schools, can outcompete private schools, say in the U.S., okay? Or if you had no power to tax but you had the power to outlaw competitors, then you could simply charge a monopoly price for the service of justice because you're the only provider in a given area. So that would allow you to charge a monopoly price, which is the same thing as a tax. So the tax power leads to a monopoly, and the monopoly power over justice leads to tax power. So they're really equivalent. And in practice, the governments always have both, or the states always have both. The problem is when libertarians who are not anarchists try to say, well, we're against anarchy because we're against chaos. We're for the orderly regulation of human affairs. We're for the agencies that could administer justice, which they call government. Well, they define it that way, and even the anarchists are not against that. They just say that that could be provided privately. So there's sort of an equivocation going on here, and you'll see this. We'll get to more examples later in the course, but this is a common tactic. Sometimes it's unintentional, but someone will get you to agree to one meaning of a word, and then they will say that you've agreed with the other meaning of the word. That's equivocation. So they'll say, well, you agree that we need government? Yes. Well, then how can you be anti-state? Well, because when I agree to government, it's the word government used in the non-state since. It's just some kind of institutions or agencies in a society that provide justice or law or whatever. But then you can say, well, then you agree with the state. Well, no, now you're making the switch. You're equating the state with government, and you're trying to get me to, if I agree that we need some kind of regular procedure of justice, then I agree that we need the state. Well, that's a non-sequitur. So this is sort of a dishonest tactic taken by status sometimes, or men are conceiving. So let's look at what is a coherent definition of what the state is. And I think Hans German Hoppe's definition is very good. He said basically, like I said before, it's the power to compel all disputes be brought to that person. And crucially, even conflicts with the dispute resolution person himself has to be brought before him. So basically the state is the ultimate judge. And as Hoppe said, that does imply the power to tax to determine the price that you're going to charge for this service. So that's what the state is. The state is an agency that has the compulsory jurisdiction over a given area. And he can decide even disputes with himself and people. And predictably, of course, this will lead to decisions in favor of the state's legitimacy and authority. And the state will win in conflicts between itself and its citizens because they're hearing themselves before the state's courts. Okay? And the second slide here on page three elaborates on what I've mentioned already, that the power to have monopoly jurisdiction over a territory implies the power to tax. Okay? So as I mentioned before, menarchists, which are people that believe in a minimal state. These are libertarians who are not anarchists. They believe we need some government or some state, as they call it, or some government, sometimes they'll say. But then they will equivocate on the use of the word government, just like I've mentioned already. Okay? So this is an example where you have to be very careful of the word of equivocations when people use words in different senses. They'll get you to agree in one sense of the word. For example, as a simple example, some regular political person might say, do you agree that there should be justice? Do you agree that people should be fair? And as a general matter, sure, I can agree people should be fair. And then they'll say, well, do you think it's fair to pay someone $4 an hour for a $10 an hour job? So they sneak in this concept of political fairness to try to get you to where you have no way to disagree with it, because you've already said, well, I agree with fairness, but that was when it was defined in general terms. So be very careful of equivocations. We're going to see later on in this course that that is a problem that arises constantly. Okay? Turning to slide five now. Here's another thing you hear a lot.   No government is unlimited. Even a totalitarian regime has some limits. So they don't quite mean what they say when they say we're in favor of limited government, because no government is really unlimited. All governments have natural limits. Even kings in the monarchical times, even in Soviet Russia, even in red China, there are limits to what the leaders can do. They're limited by the people and the structure of the government itself. They're limited by the possibility of revolution, et cetera. So all government is limited. No government can be completely unlimited. And in fact, if you are aware of Mises' argument in the socialism debate, in the 1920s, Mises sparked an argument by putting forth an argument that socialism is impossible. And what he meant by that was if you had complete government control and no private property markets whatsoever, then it would be impossible to calculate. And the entire economic system would break down and we would all starve to death. Now, some people have said, well, in Soviet Russia, they had some productivity. They competed with the U.S. for a good 50 years, so they had some economic output. Mises would argue that, well, that's because they weren't completely socialist. They were socialist to some extent, but not completely. And in fact, they copied the prices of the West and they copied what the West was doing, what the warm capital systems were doing. So even under the most totalitarian regime, they're not completely totalitarian but not completely unlimited. To the extent that people survived and there was some economic prosperity, they had some degree of the division of labor and market action. So the idea is that no government is unlimited and all government is limited to some degree. So when we say we're in favor of limited government, that's like saying we're in favor of property rights. I mean, there's lots of property rights. As I mentioned in the last lecture, there are property rights in any political system. It's just a question of who they are assigned to. So the question is, if you're in favor of limited government, the question is not that it's limited. The question is what limits are you in favor of, right? So when we say we're in favor of limited government, what we really mean is strictly limited or a lot of limits so that the government's powers are very narrow compared to some ideal or some traditional conception. Now what's interesting about this model is that this is usually used to describe the United States or the American system as defined by the Constitution. But the American system is not representative at all because it's unique in the entire world because it is, number one, the world's most powerful state. And yet it's also unlike all the other states that it's in competition with, at least technically on paper, according to the Constitution, the state is not a normal state. It doesn't have complete powers that normal states have. Normal states are thought to have under international law sovereignty, and that is the ability to legislate or to act in general to protect whatever the government thinks they need to protect. So in other words, normal states, you have roughly 180, 200 states in the world. Every one of them, except for the United States that I'm aware of, has what's called plenary or complete police power or legislative power. And in fact, the United States, individual states are held to have that as well, except to the extent they've given up some of their jurisdiction to the federal government. So the federal government of the United States only has enumerated powers in the Constitution. So for example, most states in the world, almost no one would say that they don't have the right to outlaw murder. That's the law saying murder is illegal. It's a crime. But the United States government cannot do this, actually. They can't make murder a statutory crime. At least they couldn't do it constitutionally. Because there is no enumerated power in the Constitution to permit the federal government to do that. So we hear you have the contradiction of the world's most powerful government or the most powerful state, even though it is one of not plenary powers, one of limited powers, one of enumerated powers, unlike all the other governments of the world. In any case, the point here is that when you talk about governments or states as a libertarian, when you say you're in favor of limited government, you have to specify what you mean. And we don't have to necessarily mean it has to be the United States model of being enumerated where the state doesn't even have the power to outlaw crime. What we mean is the overall state in charge of a given jurisdiction only has the power to outlaw aggression as defined by libertarianism. So that's what limited means. But it's not apparent from the surface that that's what it means from the word limited government. So keep that in mind that when people say, I'm in favor of the limited government, they're really not saying very much necessarily because all governments are limited. And by the way, one thing I can mention here is that we libertarian, because the movement has been so America-centered, we have focused on the American-centric idea of the original American scheme, which is based upon a written constitution. So we've come to think of a constitution as some written document that limits what the government can do and says what its powers are and what its limits are. But the problem with this is, number one, a written constitution is just like a statute. It's just something that some bureaucrats sat down in a room and wrote. Could be right, could be wrong. And in fact, parts of the original American constitution are clearly un-libertarian, like the patent and copyright clause, like the validation of slavery by counting the votes of slaves as three-fifths of that of a white person, the power set up banks, the post office clause, any number of clauses in the constitution, the power to tax, the power to conscript, the power to seize property for public purposes, etc. Okay, so you have to stop giving so much credence to this idea of some written documents being a limit. And second of all, this has been a paper limit that has not limited the government very much at all, in any case. The English constitution, which may be a little bit not intuitive to those used to the American model, the English constitution is not written. It's just a series of institutions that have worked to limit the power of the British government. So a constitution doesn't need to be written. Okay, let's go on to slide five. By the way, any questions at this point? Tom asks, don't some left libertarians like Chomsky, well, I don't think he's a left libertarian. But anyway, don't they believe that property is only private and is being occupied or improved? Yes, some left libertarians, especially mutualists, do believe something like that. I'm not sure the relevance to the current discussion, but I think we did talk about this last time. The mutualist idea, as I understand it, and to be honest, I have trouble wrapping my libertarian Rothbardian head around it. Well, there's two parts. You say if it's occupied or improved, okay? Now, improved, I sort of agree with, because the idea of lock-in Rothbardian homesteading is that you have to somehow transform the property so that you put up border lines that serve as notice to people that you've now owned this property, you've appropriated it from the wilderness. So if it's totally unimproved, no one's really done anything with it. And I think they have in mind here all the vast wilderness in the United States. And I think there's like 25%, 30% of the United States territory, which is already vast, is effectively claimed by the United States government under the various park services, et cetera. So if we had a libertarian revolution tomorrow, I would say a large bulk of what is called federal lands now is actually unowned because it's not improved. It's not homesteaded, and it will be subject to homesteading right away. Now, but the other part is being occupied. Now, the mutualists and some libertarians, what they say is there's two things. Number one, you can't have absentee or distant ownership, okay? I mean, that's their main claim. Now, I agree that if you abandon a piece of land and you don't work to keep people's squatters off of it and you don't make a claim to it, you don't keep it up, then you could argue that you have abandoned it. Or if you have never done anything to improve it, that you never did appropriate or homestead it in the first place. But the occupation claim I think is more controversial because the argument there is that if – let's take an example. I homestead a piece of land. I kill it. I put up fences. I transform it. I improve it. I build a large building on it. And eventually I decide to sell it to someone or rent it to someone. So let's say I make it into a hotel. I'm running a hotel. Now, where does it matter where I'm living, where I control it from? I might not want to live in the hotel, but I allow people to live in my hotel, which is my house or my property. And I extract rent. I say, listen, you can stay there if you pay rent. Now, all the tenants of this building are just living in my property with my permission. They're paying rent. I might have a manager on the premises. As I understand the mutualist view, then the tenants could just take over the land because I'm distant and I'm not there. I don't think that's libertarian. I don't see why I lose property. It's not abandoned. It's not unknown. The claim of ownership is not unclear. The border is not unclear. The relationship between me and my contractual tenants is not unclear. So in that case, I would say that the landlord should stay the owner. Likewise, let's say I build a factory and I'm making widgets there. And I sell it or I hire a manager to manage it for me. I have a lot of employees making airplanes or whatever. And I move to another state and I collect my profits from this. Well, why should I lose my property rights in my factory? Just because I'm not present. I would say it's not abandoned because I have a contractual relationship with the employees and the manager to keep it occupied on my behalf. So to me, it's all about private contract. The only way you can overcome the landlord-tenant relationship or the employer-employee relationship is to just abrogate freedom of contract and say contract doesn't matter. And that's where I think libertarians disagree with the mutualists. Okay. So let's see what someone else asked here. So let's say, what would I say Chomsky is? I think we've actually discussed Chomsky in this room. I think he's sort of an anarcho-socialist. And as I've said earlier, I don't think socialists are genuine anarchists, so I think he's a confused socialist. Lee Cate says, in the 1950s, United Fruit owned vast lands in Guatemala that weren't used by them. If they bought it from prior despots that ran Guatemalan government, would they still have the property right claim? I think that's a harder claim to maintain. I think that if your only claim is just some piece of paper from a previous government that actually has never even homesteaded the lands or didn't take the title from previous homesteaders, that someone else could have a better claim to that. Or you could say it's just really unowned and that the first person to homestead it or parts of it would have a better claim than United Fruit. I don't remember the details, but I think arguably you could argue that, yes. Jackson says, possession seems a better way to allocate property rights. It prevents someone from owning property and perpetuity, and prevents one person or corporation from owning all the land, thereby turning the rest of us into tenants. Well, I would say that number one, we have to be careful not to develop legal principles based upon goals like that, because that's what law and economics facts do. That's what utilitarian and consequentials do. They say, what rules should we adopt to encourage the right kind of behavior? Number two, I think that the idea that everyone's going to be turning the tenant of some overlords that are private is similar to the fear that you would have giant monopolies arising in a free market without the government stopping them. And of course, there's a natural limit to this control. In the sense of land, like I said, the Rothbardian principle would say that you could abandon land, and if you have land and you don't really transform it, or maintain it. And you have such a vast tract of land that you claim, but it's so vast that you're not really controlling that people start squatting on it. Over time, you're going to lose your land. So there's a limit to how far you can extend yourself. Tony Cape, not to pull us into a tangent, but the anti-development homesteader that most says, oh, you're talking about unspoiled land. Let's not deal with that right now. That will be too much of a tangent at the present time. My basic answer would be take a look at Rothbard's article on pollution in the Cato Journal from years ago in the 1980s. I think there are just limits to how much you can homestead. And I don't think it's possible to homestead the entire continent of a pristine North America to keep it as pristine so you can wake up every morning and see a clean air state with no airplanes passing over, no development, just to think you're in a pristine environment. There's just no way to do it that I can think of. Okay. Tyron says, consider the Louisiana Purchase. Did Napoleon own it? Could he transfer a title? It depends. I don't think he owned it. But I think if the government blesses that it recognizes actual use by a private person, then if you had some revolution, then that should be recognized. That's my basic view. But the other stuff, no, I think you just ignore it. Okay, so let's go on. This is more on the confusion of what limited government means. This shows the danger of not realizing, as I said before, that limited government means the government is restricted to enforcing individual rights in accordance with the libertarian principle of non-aggression and property rights. That's what you have to mean by limited government, because here I have a quote by an objectivist who is a sort of old friend of mine who said that a small government, he said the objectivist, which is the type of libertarian, are not really for small government. Or they said if you're for limited government, it's in a certain context. What they say is, any government that you need to enforce or to defend individual rights is what we mean by limited government. That's what they mean by it. It's not what I mean by it. Or it's what I mean by it, but it's by different conception of individual rights. Because, as this guy said, I think this is Roger Donway, who's a David Kelley type of objectivist. He said, small government means a government that absorbs a small percentage of the GNP. Well, if a country's been invaded, the government might absorb 50% or more of the GNP to mount the defense, but it's still a limited government in the relevant sense. So you can see that if you're not careful with these metaphors and these kind of vague terms, they spin out of control. And you literally have here someone objectivist claim to be in favor of minimal government, saying that you could have a government spend or absorb, as he calls it. They gloss over how the government gets the money, which is my taxation, of course, but absorb 50% of the GNP and still be limited. Now, that's not what any libertarian, I know, would think of. It's limited. Okay, let's switch to another topic here, a little bit related, but slightly different topic. Many of you may know that Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who is a leading Misesi and Rothbardian economist and libertarian theorist, has come up with a lot of arguments that, number one, democracy is much more problematic than it is previously. They've been recognized by libertarians, and that monarchy is less relatively problematic. Now, Hoppe argues that he's an anarchist, so he thinks that it is impossible to have a limited government. That's the logic of government or the state, no matter what size, no matter what configuration, whether it's monarchy, whether it's democracy, whether it's even a monarchy. The logic is for the government's powers to creep and to grow, in order to become totalitarian. In a way, this is similar to Hayek's argument in the Roe de Cerf, where he said that any mixed economy is going to tend towards totalitarianism. Now, Hoppe is often accused of being a monarchist for making his argument, but he is not a monarchist, and I just want to set that straight. I'm going to have a quote here from him. Despite the comparatively favorable portrait presented of monarchy, I am not a monarchist, and this is not a defensive monarchy. So, what Hoppe's argument is is simply this, that a monarchy, in some systematic respects, has incentives to be more like what you could expect a private society to be than a democracy. His argument is that most libertarians have assumed that over history, it's what's called the WIG, W-H-I-G, theory of history. The idea that history always improves. This theory says that when we moved from monarchy to democracy, yes, democracy is not quite a libertarian paradise yet, but it's a step closer to it. In other words, that was progress. Moving from monarchy to democracy was progress. That's the conventional view, and as Hoppe argues, even Rothbard and Mises bought into this a little bit, or to some extent. So Hoppe's idea is that his purpose here is to argue that there are unappreciated problems with democracy, and there are unappreciated relative advantages to monarchy with respect to democracy. So his whole argument here is that compared to democracy, monarchy is actually better in a lot of ways. He gives lots of examples and lots of economic arguments why the monarch has an incentive to preserve the value of the country that he, in effect, owns, is overrored. So he has an incentive not to adopt policies that are very short run oriented or that would over time diminish the value of his country, his estate, basically. Whereas in democracy, you have short-sighted leaders who come in for four years at a time, two years, six years at a time, and they will waste the value of the country for current benefit to the harm of the future, which is what we see, of course, in the West. So this is an interesting thing. So when you hear Hans-Hermann Hoppe call it a monarchist, I mean, he's explicitly disavowed it, and he's not in favor of it. We'll get to this shortly, but this relates to Hoppe's views on immigration. Now, Hans-Hermann Hoppe has been a little bit notorious in the libertarian circles because he's had some comments about immigration. And what he's argued is, based upon this line of reasoning, like what he says is, if a monarchy is closer to an anarchy than democracy is, then the policies that a monarch would adopt, the immigration policies he would adopt, if they're different from those that a democracy would adopt, then those policies are probably closer to what would be enforced in a private society. And if, and to the extent we have a democracy, we'd probably be better if the rules they selected were closer to those the monarch would select than the policies, excuse me, that a democracy would select. So that's his basic argument. It's like a second or third best case that if you had a free society, there really wouldn't be no succinct as immigration. There wouldn't even be a concept. It would just be private owners extending invitations to whoever they want to come to their property. But when you have a state, you have to have some rules about who's coming into the public property because there's always public property in a state. And his only point is that the rules of immigration that a democracy would select are worse in many respects than those that a wise monarch would select. Tyrone asks, is it public property oxymoronic? I don't think it's oxymoronic because it's not a contradiction. Public property just means property owned by the state, really. Whatever is claimed by the state. So the roads are public property. Yeah, of course it's propaganda. It's not really public property. It's better to call it government property, which is why, for example, I never call public schools public schools. I always call them government schools when I talk to outsiders to emphasize that it's a school run by the government. The agency that controls thought, the agency that kills people, it's not a public school, it's a government school. So yeah, sure. It'd be better to call it government or state property than public property. Okay, let's go to slide eight. Here's another one. And remember earlier we talked about the equivocation some menarchists and conservatives engage in when they try to trap you by confusing – they're using two different senses of the word government. So they'll use it to mean whatever agencies have to do with justice and defense and law. And if you agree to that because they're against chaos and anarchy in that sense, then they'll say, well, then you can't disagree with the state because the government means the state. So they suddenly change the meaning of government or they sneak in an unproved assertion that government necessarily implies or means or requires the state. Well, you see something else like that, especially in America where, as I mentioned, the federal government, the central state and the U.S. is unique in that it has only enumerated powers according to the Constitution. So we have a federal system where power is supposed to be separated not only horizontally, that is, the tripartite division of powers, the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch, but a vertical separation of powers between the central state and the states. And that's why the states are assumed to have plenary legislative powers. They can make laws against murder and rape and theft. And the federal government doesn't have those general legislative powers. They have other powers to legislate granted in the Constitution, but they're circumscribed and limited. So that's why the United States federal government is supposed to be unique. But what you hear is quite often you'll hear this distinction between the federal government and the states being blurred even by libertarians. And they do it by using the word, the phrase, the government. So they'll say, for example, the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on free speech, or they'll say the Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion. Well, the problem is that's actually not true because when they say the government, they mean the entire Unitary American government, which is really a blend of the federal and the states. So they use this language. They use the Constitution's language in the Bill of Rights as a limitation on the states. So if you say, for example, it is not unconstitutional for Massachusetts to establish a state religion, then they will say, well, then you're crazy. The Constitution doesn't allow the government to do that. Well, they don't understand that the Constitution is what created the federal government. The Constitution is what gives the federal government its powers, and it only gives it limited powers. And the Bill of Rights only clarifies what powers were given them in the first place. Tyron Price quotes language from the First Amendment, Congress will make no law, and you're right about that. It was only – so here's a way, in my view, to look at this. The states were the original – the 13 original states were states under international law. They came together with a treaty or a compact called the Constitution, and they created the federal government, which has certain powers. This is a new agency, but it only has enumerated powers, only those according to its treaty, the Constitution. And the Bill of Rights just put extra limits on what the federal government could do to make it more clear. So there is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to outlaw murder, or to outlaw rape, or to outlaw marijuana, or to outlaw free speech. Now, the Bill of Rights has the First Amendment, for example, that says Congress shall make no law, respecting infringing on free speech, or respecting the establishment of a religion. Now, that's just for extra caution. Even without the First Amendment, the federal government still doesn't have an enumerated power in the Constitution to make such a law in the first place. So such a law would be unconstitutional for several reasons. Number one, a law against murder would be unconstitutional because there's no power enumerated for the federal government to do that. The state makes murder illegal. That's not unconstitutional because states are like regular states under international law and they have plenary or complete police power or legislative power. They can make any law they want unless there's a limit in their own Constitution. But the point is the Bill of Rights was added just as extra security to make sure that everyone understood this new federal government, this new central state that we're creating, only has certain enumerated, limited rights. Can't do anything it wants. Only certain enumerated rights. And we really mean it. That's what the Bill of Rights was. But what modern libertarian centralists have done, they want the federal courts to be able to reach into the states and to review state laws that they don't like and that we don't like, that I don't like, and to overturn them based upon the Constitution. But the whole point of the Constitution was to limit the feds, to keep them from being too powerful, to keep them from being tyrannical. So to take the Bill of Rights, which was meant as a limit on state power, and to turn it into a grant of state power to the feds, that is, you're granting them the power to regulate the states now, flips the whole thing on its head. The whole point was to limit federal power. But now it's been turned into a grant of power to oversee the actions of the states. And we see this in the abortion case, Roe v. Wade. We see it in the homosexual case from 10, 15 years ago, the Lawrence v. Texas case, where the federal government, the federal court say, you know, a given state law violates a given provision of the Bill of Rights. Which makes no sense, because the Bill of Rights was meant to limit the feds. Now, Tony Cape says the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to incorporate superseded state laws. So what happened was, until the 14th Amendment, so the Bill of Rights, let me just, for those who are not versed in this history, or who aren't Americans, excuse me, the Constitution was ratified in 1789. On that day, the federal government was limited. They had no powers for those that were enumerated. And they had no power to, let's say, restrict free speech, because there was no power. But two years later, 1791, the Bill of Rights, which is the first 10 amendments, was passed, was ratified. And they provided extra precautions. But they were still limits on what the federal government could do. And they were understood this way. For example, in 1791, on the year that the Bill of Rights was enacted, several states, two or three or four states, including Massachusetts, had a state religion. It's called congregationalism. It's a Protestant religion. So there actually was, there actually was, there were state religions in the states in 1791 that would nowadays, no way they would be upheld by the First Amendment. And that was because the First Amendment was universally understood not to apply to the states, nor were the rest of the Bill of Rights. I mean, how could the Ninth Amendment apply to the states? The Ninth Amendment basically implies that the government is one of enumerated and limited powers, but states are not enumerated in limited powers. They have plenary police power, which the Supreme Court has recognized and which international law recognizes. The Tenth Amendment makes no sense whatsoever to apply to the states. The Tenth Amendment implies federalism. Well, that limits the federal government, not the states. The First Amendment says Congress will make no law. Well, the states don't have Congress. They have their own legislatures. So the Bill of Rights was never understood to apply to the states. It was a limit on the federal government until after the Civil War, 18, I want to say, 68, 71, when the, I think, 68. Yeah, it was started, but I think the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, if I'm not mistaken. So the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. And the Fourteenth Amendment, well, number one, it was unconstitutionally ratified. You study the history of this. Look for some articles by Gene Healy, H-E-A-L-Y, on newrockwell.com. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, well, actually it was never ratified. What happened was they had a minimal number of ratifications, but when one of the states that had ratified saw the coercion the federal government was applying to the conquered southern states, the CSA states, that state, I think it was Maryland. It withdrew its ratification. And Congress refused to allow them to withdraw their ratification and just passed a law saying, we hereby recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment has now been ratified. So basically the Congress just declared it to be enforced even though it wasn't legally ratified. In any case, the Fourteenth Amendment did impose, assuming it was ratified properly, and now that's de facto law. The Fourteenth Amendment did impose some obligations on the states. It said states, it basically has three parts to it. Number one, it says states have to give due process rights to people. Number two, it has to provide equal protection of the laws, which means it can't discriminate between black and white. And number three, it has to protect the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. Now, due process just means you have to have an actual trial or a procedure. You can't just take away some of the rights willy-nilly. Equal protection meant discrimination, but that wasn't that broad apparently because we needed two more amendments later to give blacks and women the right to vote, right? So obviously the equal protection clause didn't mean too much because it still permitted the governments to prevent blacks and women from voting. So it didn't really provide equal protection. It didn't really mean to. And finally, libertarians argue that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States should be read broadly to read into it most of the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights. The problem with this is that the word rights is not used. Number one, another problem is if you look at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1865, I believe, that this amendment was modeled on, it really meant a narrow set of rights like the right to travel between states, the right to have contracts enforced. It did not mean the Bill of Rights. Otherwise, why wouldn't it have just said rights or the Bill of Rights? Another thing is if the privileges and immunities clause of the Bill of Rights, I'm sorry, the 14th Amendment really was meant to incorporate the fundamental rights of the Bill of Rights, well, wouldn't that have included due process, which was in the Fifth Amendment already? In other words, people that argue for incorporation say that the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause was supposed to incorporate the fundamental rights in the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Third, all the way to the Eighth, I guess, because the ninth and tenth make no sense when applied to the state. So let's say we're talking about the First Eight Amendments. But what about the Fifth? The Fifth Amendment says there are due process rights. So the privileges and immunities clause in the 14th Amendment would have automatically included a due process right if it was an incorporation, incorporation, this type of vision. Well, if that's the case, why did the 14th Amendment specify due process next to the privileges and immunities clause? I mean, it makes no sense. This is a little bit of a legalistic argument, but the point is it's ridiculous, in my view, to believe that the privileges and immunities clause really was meant and was understood around the country at the time by the ratifiers and the people voting at the time to incorporate the entire Bill of Rights. It's theological. It makes no sense. What about these award rights? What about the new process clause? What about the word Congress and the First Amendment? What about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? In fact, what about the original First and Second Amendments? The original Bill of Rights had 12 amendments. The first two were never passed originally, so the Third Amendment on pre-speech became the First Amendment. The First and Second Amendments, I forgot what the Second had to do with, but the First one had to do with not raising the salary of congressmen during a session. And that, unlike later proposed amendments to the Constitution, which had a period of time where they could be ratified, had no closure for the period of time for ratification. Because this is early on in the process and the raptures of the Constitution weren't as sophisticated back then. So they said, look, as soon as three-fourths of the states ratified this, it becomes part of the Constitution. Well, about 15 years ago, the final state finally ratified that First Amendment, which became the 27th Amendment. Now, if that had been ratified originally, then the very first amendment to the Constitution would have been one about congressional salaries. Now, if the incorporation view is correct, then the 14th Amendment would either somehow incorporate the natural right to not have your state legislators have their salaries raised while in session, even though the original provision applied to Congress, or you'd have to say, well, that's not a fundamental right. So now the 14th Amendment's P&I Clause applies to not the First Amendment, not the original Second Amendment, but the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth amendments, but not the 11th and not the 12th Amendment. I mean, it's obviously a completely incoherent theory. Okay. By the way, I highly recommend for anyone interested in this topic at all to look at this great book by James T. Patrick called The Sovereign States and also Felix Morley's Freedom in Federalism. These are two great books on the original American federal scheme. And of course, Tom Wood's book on nullification is very good on this as well. Okay. It's 15 past the hour. And again, I'm sorry for starting late. Why don't we take just a quick five-minute break and resume, and I will be happy to go over as long as I can in the remaining time. Okay. Let's get back on this. All right. Everyone here, any questions at this point? Otherwise, we'll go to the next slide. Test, test, test. There's a microphone on. Thanks, Brian. Okay. Slide nine. Oh, I've already talked about all this. Slide 10, I've talked about. Okay. Let's turn to a different topic now. We've already touched on this earlier because these things tend to be entangled, and it came up already. But let me just talk about it in general. No. This is sort of my view on this. I don't think it's incompatible with Rothbard and Hoppe and even Mises. How I think about it. I think about the issue of restitution versus retribution or punishment. Which one is the right way to go? I think that the general category is aggression that is initiated for us and force that's in response to that initiated force, which I call responsive force. Force that's in response to aggression, I call responsive force. And libertarians are opposed to aggression, the initiation of force. We're not opposed on a rights level to forceful responses to aggression or to initiated force. And so responsive force can include defensive force, restitution, forces to get restitution, to incapacitate or stop a dangerous person, to deter them from committing further crimes, or even to rehabilitate them. Okay. So how you characterize the responsive force that you're using depends upon your motive. That is the motive or purpose of the victim. But that's just characterizing it. That's not justifying it. So my mind as a libertarian, as long as the force is proportionate in response to initiated force is justified, then what you want to do with it is up to you. Okay. Now that's a theoretical matter. That doesn't mean that there's no difference between them. It's still the case that punishment, for example, is much more costly and risky and less productive as a type of responsive force than other types of responsive force. And therefore we can expect, as I've mentioned before, in a free society, restitution to be the dominant mode of justice, maybe even ostracism. We don't know ostracism. So there are lots of reasons for this, which I've gone over before. I won't belabor them at this point in time. But it's important to recognize that, in a way, the most fundamental right is the right to retaliate. Okay. So let's say someone is victimized in a severe aggressive way. They're the victim of a big beating, assault and battery. This victim is entitled by the logic of what the aggressor has done. They're entitled to respond in kind to the aggressor. They're entitled to respond in kind during the commission of the crime. In fact, they're entitled to use lethal force during the crime, right?  But after the fact, if someone has administered a severe beating to you, then they really can't complain if you catch them and administer a beating to them to punish them, if that's what you want to do. But you could use this right to punish for other purposes. You could use it to teach them a lesson. You could use it to exchange or to negotiate some payment of money, which you can call restitution or ransom. You could use it as a threat to make them undergo counseling or enter into some institution that will make them rehabilitate it. I mean, there's lots of ways you can use this right to punish, but the point is it provides an anchor, a proportionality anchor for the level of restitution itself, which is why I mentioned the millionaire example earlier. Okay, Jesse says, what about a bystander? Can a witness be justified in defending a victim unable to request aid without prior arrangement? Well, that's a good question because your last two or three words gets at the heart of the matter. Where are you located? Usually, in a free society, you'd be located on some piece of property that's owned by someone. Now, either it's your property or it's the aggressor's property or it's the victim's property or it's maybe some public facility, but not public in today's sense, but public in that it's, let's say, you know, it's in the gallery. It's in a mall or it's on a street owned by a street company. Almost everywhere you could imagine these encounters taking place, it's on someone's property, and the owner has some ability to set down default presumptions and rules about what's going to happen there, who's entitled to act if they see what appears to be a crime happening, et cetera. So the first question is, what are the rules of the property owner the relevant property owner? And presumably, if it's still on a public street or the victim's property, then the rule would be a third party is entitled to rescue someone who is apparently the victim of a violent crime because it's too late to rescue them later, so time is of the essence, right? Now, if it happens to be on the aggressor's property, well, either the aggressor has reasonable property rules like this or they don't. If they do, then again, the same presumption applies. If they do, if they don't have reasonable rules, well, then in a way you took the risk by entering onto the property of such a person's property. It could be like entering into Walter Block's mythical murder park, for example, where you're entering into a theater where everyone can shoot each other and hunt each other in a sport. That's nothing more than an extreme burden of a football game or a boxing rink, right, where people are consenting to violence against each other, so it's not murder there either. So I would say that's the first question is whose rules apply, and that would be the rules of the property owner. But if you ask a default question, we assume we don't know who the owner is or maybe it's done on some unknown property or maybe the property owner wants to use the default rules of the territory. My view and I think the typical libertarian view is that a third party can take in the reasonable context of what they're seeing and act accordingly.  That's the basic thing.  I think I have some slides on this later which we'll get to later and I've got some blog posts about this, but my general view is that libertarianism prohibits the initiation of force against someone's property or body. But that includes threats. Now why does it include threats? It includes threats because by the logic of interpersonal interaction and by the logic of the way that norms are justified, if person A is threatening person B, what is he really doing to B? He's doing one of two things. And this is defined in the civil law. That is the law of the continental countries like France, Germany, Spain, and then Louisiana and America and Quebec and Canada and Mexico, et cetera, in Switzerland, Greece, Italy. That's really assault. And assault means one of two things. Number one, it means attempting to commit a battery. A battery is the physical beating of someone. So it's attempting to commit a battery. Or it's putting someone in reasonable fear of receiving a battery. Okay?   And if I swing and act like you, and I really am not trying to hurt you, but I make you think that I am, that's also assault because you're in reasonable fear of receiving a battery. In either case, the victim is entitled by the logic of norms to do the same thing to the aggressor or to the threatener that was done to him. Now what was done to the victim? What was done was that he had a chance of receiving a battery. In other words, someone tried to commit a crime or he was put in fear of receiving one. So if you're entitled to do that back to the aggressor, then that really means you have the right to actually commit aggression on him because this is an institutional setting. This is a planned retaliation. This is a recognized retaliation. The only way that you really have the right to attempt to hurt someone is if you have the right to carry it through. And the only way that you have the right to really put someone in fear of receiving a battery is if they believe it. And the only way they can believe it in an institutional setting is if you have the right to carry it through. So this is why, in my opinion, threats are a species of aggression. So that's a general understanding and justification, in my view, of why a threat is a type of aggression. It's a type of aggression because the response by force is not aggression. So what the force is responding to has to be aggression, which is a threat. So then the question is, what type of threat counts as aggression? And I think it has to be the type of threat that's either a serious, causally efficacious attempt to commit the battery, or it's a serious way of causally putting the victim in fear of receiving the battery. So that's why I believe that even stalking of certain types approaches the line and can be classified as a type of threat. And so, for example, some lady dates a guy once or twice, and he turns out to be a weirdo, and he starts calling her repeatedly, leaving strange, ominous, threatening messages, making her afraid to step out of her house. At that point in time, I believe that guy has basically opened himself up to physical retaliation. If this female victim of his stalking were to get a tough uncle to beat the hell out of this guy, or even to eliminate this guy, I'm not so sure that that is ought to be considered a crime because he's basically put her in fear of receiving the battery, and she's defending herself. So I think that it has to rise to a certain level, has to be immediate, has to be serious, has to be causally efficacious, can't be an idle boast, but at a certain point you do cross a line where if you wipe this guy out and defend yourself, then civilized society is not going to provide any serious sanction to you for doing that. Before I go on, let me ask if Annie's around. Please alert me when I have to get off because I think you might have another class coming in 27 minutes, so we probably have to clear out over too long. So let's keep going until I get a warning. Brian says, Brian Mooney, does increasing risk of harm to others like drunk driving equate a threat? Again, these questions at first seem difficult, but if you just ask whose rules are applying? Because in a private society there wouldn't be public roads, right? There would be private roads.  So the question is what's a market rule? What's the rule that would be adopted? Some libertarians have argued that drunk driving per se is not a crime, and I tend to agree because it's such an artificial state criteria, but I could imagine that private road owners wanting to attract customers would have reasonable rules of the road. They would say there are speed limits or regulations on how you drive, you drive on the right side of the road, on the left side or whatever. We have certain stop sign and yield sign conventions and caution light and red light conventions, et cetera.  I'd rather get on the competing road where they have reasonable rules. So the question, first of all, is what are the rules set by the owner? And I think that can basically handle all the problems. Private property rights solve these issues. Lee Cape asks, who would protect children from child abuse, neglect, et cetera? Well, okay, let me just be honest. Who protects them right now? I mean, if you're walking in the mall, who protects you from being jostled too roughly by strangers? Or if you're driving in a parking lot or being bashed in by someone else just being malicious? I mean, most people want to abide by social norms and they want to avoid big conflict like this. Most parents won't protect their children. So the same thing that protects children now, despite an ineffective state and an ineffective child protection service agency, will protect them in a free society. Just the natural community relations, the vigilance of relatives and friends, et cetera.  There's just no law.  But I believe that a variety of social artifacts, insurance costs, social norms, social shunning, ostracism, social stigma, would arise. And in extreme cases, you would have relatives or even friends of the family coming in to violently rescue the child. And they would probably be vindicated and recognized by society as the new parents of the child, and they get severe enough. So I think just you could ask the same question about who's going to give money, who's going to give food to poor people in a free society. Well, people that care about other people and they don't want them to starve. You wouldn't have much starvation or poverty, but to the extent you did, people would have a lot of resources to deal with it. And people are kind, and they would have charitable organizations that would deal with this. And if child abuse was a significant problem, you could see different charitable groups arising, maybe vigilante type groups arising as their mission in life to vindicate the rights of unrepresented children. They would solicit funds or use their own funds. They would use the legal system or ostracism or actual raids and rescues to save children that are being abused. So I don't think it would be any worse, certainly be much better. Lee says, could parents ever lose a child? Who would decide if the parents are horrible and the kids are neglecting them? Yeah, I think parents could lose a child. Sure. If you have a severe enough case of abuse, then certainly they could lose a child. I mean, let's take an extreme example. Let's say you have two parents that are totally neglecting their child. They're abusing the child, et cetera. It arises to the level where the child wants to leave, and everyone in society recognizes that this is something that is far beyond what the parent is supposed to be doing, so that the child is not presumed anymore to be consenting to these people being his representatives. Right? Then if a relative stepped in and said, I'm taking this child, then society would say, look, these seconds that are volunteer parents are better than the first by far. And we would support their rights to protect the child and to act on the child's behalf because it's more reasonable to presume that the child would want these loving parents to guard the child than the original abusive parents. Sure, I think that could happen. Tony Cape asks, libertarian standard on the subject of legal standing. Can any concerned eight individual hire the agency? I mean, I think the more you ask these kind of questions, the more we're getting out to the question of predicting exactly how the legal contours of a free society would look like. So you get a more and more spotty ground because really it's far different from what we have now. I think you would have a hierarchy of presumptive representatives, just like you have right now, a hierarchy of presumptive heirs. If someone dies in test state without a will, then we presume that your state goes to your spouse and then to your children. And if you don't have children, then it's your parents. You don't have parents, then it's your siblings. You don't have siblings, then it's your uncles and aunts. You don't have them, then it's your cousins. If you don't have them, then it's your distant cousins. And at a certain point, it's called a sheet. It goes to the state. Now, in a private law society, you wouldn't have the state as a residual claimant, but you'd have – just at some point – look, if you're totally – you don't know anyone or you're totally out of heirs, then your property's abandoned and anyone can homestead it. So it's the same idea with legal standing for these kinds of things. I think that you'd have a presumption of representatives of the child. It'd be the parents first until they do something that demonstrates that they're not the presumed guardians of the child anymore. They will be, I don't know, maybe a sister or brother, maybe an uncle, maybe a grandparent, maybe a neighbor, maybe a close friend, maybe a church group that they're associated with, maybe the PDA that they signed up to, the private defense agency, would have rules about these kinds of things. Alex Busman, does this give an incentive to eliminate heirs? You can clarify, but I'm not sure this is referring to, but I believe that any type of rule that would give such an incentive would tend to be disfavored for obvious reasons. And I don't think the rules I've sort of dashed off here give an incentive to eliminate heirs. It's not realistic.  It's not really realistic to eliminate them all, so I'm not sure about that question. Victor Nunez, what about crimes that are based on arbitrary parameters like pedophilia? Because that's based upon the 18-year age. What would define this arbitrary age in a world of private rules? My view is that a lot of those rules would tend to be more context-based, less numerical. I mean, I tend to think people would be considered adults a lot earlier and even earlier still in certain cases.  I can imagine situations like that. Could there be arbitrary rules, maybe, because you would have the influence of the regional agreements from private-disciplined PDAs? So maybe 18 or 21 would arise. I tend to think that if numerical rules arose, there would be presumptions and not hard-to-fast rules. And number two, there would be lower than what we have now because we'd be less paternalistic than we are now. Tom asked if Samali, throwing a ball from left field here, if Samali is anarchist, shouldn't it flourish more than the surrounding states? How do anarchists reconcile these two things? Well, the type of anarchism we libertarians favor is a system of strong private property rights. So I don't know if Samali is anarchist in that sense.


The initiative is referred to as the performance-based finance mechanism and is a major part of St Lucia's Health System Strengthening Project. Performance-based finance coordinator of the St Lucia Health System Strengthening Project, Neyam Jabatis explains, this system provides incentives or benefits to both the providers and receivers of healthcare. First of all we want to reduce mortality from communicable diseases. In our case we are focusing on diabetes and hypertension. So this would be the overall goal, to reduce mortality and also if you want consequences of diabetes and hypertension. Jabatis notes the aim of the initiative is to improve healthcare in St Lucia, to produce positive outcomes to patients and to encourage people to utilize the health services. So there are two sets of people receiving incentives. One would be the, let's look at the most important persons, the clients. So the clients would receive free, for now, for now they would receive free laboratory testing. The persons who provide the service, what they would do, they would be receiving additional funds which they could use under agreed conditions based on their performance. So if, for example, we set a target and then they have achieved the target or surpassed the target, we're going to reward them or provide them incentives so that they can use that service to enhance the services, maybe to train their staff or to do other things. Performance-based finance programs are prevalent in many low and middle income countries but the system will be new to St Lucia. Reporting from the Communications Unit of the Ministry of Health and Wellness, I am Fenel Neptune.