From San Francisco, it's theCUBE, covering OSISoft, PyWorld 2018. Brought to you by OSISoft. Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're at the OSISoft PI World 2018, about 3,000 executives here, Downtown San Francisco, talking about operational technology. We talk a lot about IT on theCUBE and the merger of IT and OT, but these guys are really coming at it from an OT point of view first, and they've been at it for 40 years, so we're excited to be here, talk to some of the partners, practitioners, and really get insight into what's going on into this industrial IoT, because a lot of it's happening here. And our next guest is Todd Nadey, he's a global VP of energy programs for Nokia. Todd, great to see you. Thank you very much, Jeff. And we're also joined by Michael Konellius, the IoT analyst from OSISoft. Michael, great to see you. Thank you very much. Absolutely. So first off, Nokia. You all know Nokia phones, we all have the flip, it's still everybody's favorite. What are you doing in the energy business? Well, believe it or not, we have been in the energy business for many, many decades, and we work on the OT side of the house in the mission critical environment, which is why we're not often seen, but very mission critical. We work across both energy companies that are in the mining oil gas, as well as the electric utility sector, encompassing distributed energy resources, generation, transmission, distribution, and the like. Right. So I know what GE does in those spaces, they make the turbines, they make the trains. What do you guys do? Where do you play in that ecosystem? We provide the pervasive connectivity for all of the mission critical communications that allow them to run efficiently. Today, the world has changed for most of our energy companies because their business models are under attack, and so they are forced to transform. And what we do is we are allowing them the ability to have a technology platform off which they can pivot, not only to be able to respond to the threats to the market, but also the opportunities in a very quick fashion. Right. So it's a digital transformation in energy. So we think obviously of renewables, right? Is growing like crazy, and the wind turbines are all over the place. What are some of the other ways that they're really kind of under fire? Is it, you know, mission standards that are getting tougher? What are some of the things that they're telling you they need help with? Yeah.  You have changing of regulation that takes place so they need to accommodate that in very short notice, but you also have a very interactive environment where it used to be one way, we're now two way, and now you have communication coming from all of its participants in the market. So these participants are not only their customers, these participants are also third parties that are now come to play in their market, which used to be a captive market. Right. So for them, it is an environment that is two way and a large volume of data and information transacting and they need to be able to make sense of that data and be able to act on that data. And what we do is we provide that pervasive connectivity so that they can have that communication. And they're also looking for new revenue and business models. I mean, if you think of utility, everyone's getting more efficient. So actually the sale of electrons actually going down in a lot of areas, but they just can't go to the next city over. Right. So they're doing things like doing consulting services or doing like even selling their own software to just new ways to develop, you know, take that know-how they have and see if they can get revenue that way. Right. So we talk, we had a lot of IT shows, not as many OT shows and obviously cloud data centers is a big topic. And if we've all seen pictures of the beautiful colored pipes inside of a Google data center or an Amazon data center that they share every now and then, it's not quite the same in the industrial IoT space, right? These machines, you talk about environment, it's like literally environment. It's rain and storms and hail, bad weather, no connectivity. So I imagine you guys, I think you said before we turn on the cameras, you guys are offering private LTE and all sorts of solutions to help get that connectivity out of the data center and really out to the edge and these big devices on the edge like locomotives and turbines. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, yeah. So what we've found is there's been a confluence of many things in the market. We've seen the price of technology has gone down significantly. You have a scenario where the cost of technology and the feature functionality. So the cost of technology has gone down but the feature functionality has gone up and we see a disruption in the market with regard to how their business models for our customers are coming to play. So they're adding and subtracting assets. The key right now for our customers is they got to get a volume of data. They got to get the volume of data in so they can process it. We are involved not only in the cores of the network but on the edge with machine edge computing. We have the visualization of data that has become very much important to our customers so they can make decisions. This is not only with regard to current assets but then you also have your DER assets that can take many forms. Those DER assets can be around from. What's a DER asset? A DER asset, wind, PV, solar. Okay. Distributed. It can be a micro nuclear facility. It can be a combined heat and cycle plant for example, a gas plant. So these are more distributed and they're more voluminous and they need to be able to communicate with those entities and those assets not only for their health but also to be able to manage the grid for which they're responsible. Right. It's really interesting things. We've heard a number of times, we always hear and more today about preventative bayonets. It's still unplanned downtime. It's still a big giant issue and still costs more, probably costs more than it ever has because of the efficiency you lose something don't quite have as much backup and redundancy as used to have back in the day. So it's amazing that that's still such a big business use case to get out ahead of the curve on these assets. Wind is like the poster child for that and you think of a big wind turbine. There's like thousands of moving parts inside there, right? Any of those could break. Right.  So if you can do it in advance without doing major heart surgery on it, that's fantastic. The other thing is just adding more sophistication into the generation and into the consumption based on the broader demand so that you can take advantage of cheaper rates at night or pump back into the grid when the rates are high. So it's the amount of technology out to the edge to start to control these devices to pump that energy back into the grid. It's got to have changed significantly over the last couple of years. Yeah, absolutely. And it's disrupting, it's not only disrupting the energy companies themselves, it's disrupting the client because you got to remember the energy companies, they don't want to be caught without enough power. So they have to buy that power. They have to manage many more varied assets. Again, it's two way. And then you also have the customer experience where customers are demanding specific types of energy. So you may have customers that want clean energy, they may want the cheapest, they may want hydro. So that interaction real time is the world that we are in right now. It's not a future world, it's the world that we're in right now. So the retention of my customers as an energy company is very, very important because they're the ones that pay the bill. That environment is where we are living today, highly interactive environment, highly autonomous environment and providing that connectivity, the pervasive connectivity to enable that, whether it's machine to machine, whether it is client to customer and vice versa, it's really an any to any environment and that's what we set up. Right. It's costing too, just to add on that, like the energy storage battery system, if you have a lot of data that can actually install a smaller battery system and then take a little tinier sip so it actually lasts longer, so actually your return on investment can still massively weigh up if you're actually using the data correctly. Well, the funny thing when you said clean energy, I thought you meant clean, like clean for the machines to be able to execute their operation well, like they get in a data center, right? Which is very different than out on the edge in a field, in an energy field or on the edge of a turbine where you don't have all that control like you have in a beautiful pristine data center. So it's a very different world out on the edge. So Todd, last question, what are you doing here at PyWorld? What's kind of the vibe? What do you hope to accomplish? What have you seen and heard in the hallways that has Nokia here at PyWorld? Yeah, PyWorld's very interesting for us and the reason it is is because the conversation here is different. When we're dealing with clients here at PyWorld, it is about solving something, right? It is about the use cases, it is about their business, it's about their balance sheet and less about what you manufacture or sell. And so these conversations are driving what it is we do. We are very much engaged with OSIsoft when it comes to the visualization of data and in the enablement of our customers to be able to access their data, share their data anywhere, any time to any asset, whether it's human or physical asset in order for them to not only thrive in this market but be able to adapt their business models. So for us, it's very exciting and much, much appreciated. No, it's great. Thank you. All right, well, Michael, thanks for spending a few minutes with us, sharing the story. Thank you, Jeff. All right, I'm Jeff Frick. We are at OSIsoft, PyWorld 2018, downtown San Francisco. Thanks for watching.


Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the main event. This morning we have a debate between two of our summer fellows. The debate topic is, is the non-aggression principle enough to sustain a free society? And we have a disciple and student of Walter Block, Anthony Cesario debating one side, and Conor Mortel, who's from Florida, debating the other side. So join me in welcoming our debate participants. First, we have Anthony Rasputin Cesario. And taking the negative, we have Conor the bass-dist-papest Mortel. As I said, the debate topic is, is the non-aggression principle enough to sustain a free society? This debate has been going on for weeks now over in the hallowed chairs and corners of Rothbard Village. So they've already settled on some of the definitions since we have sort of a constrained time here. But they're each going to have five minutes to make some introductory remarks, and then they will have some informal back and forth for 15 minutes, and then they'll conclude. Before Conor, excuse me, before Anthony gets started with his introductory remarks, please make sure that you take the pre-debate survey. So there are two cards out on your seats. Some say pre-debate and the other ones say post-debate. Be sure to scan the QR code for the pre-debate survey and make your selection. It's either yes, undecided, or no. Okay, we'll leave that open for just a few more moments. Go ahead and help me welcome our first debate participant, Anthony Cesario. All right. Thank you guys very much for coming, listening to this amazing debate. First, I wanted to thank the Mises Institute for all their hard work, making this an absolutely amazing place, making this a great place for scholars and every one of us. I do want to mention when I first accepted this invitation, I was under the impression that it was going to be a facial hair competition, and I was going to sweep him under the rug. Debate is going to be a little bit more challenging, so I'm going to see what I can do. To be honest, I'm very happy to share a stage with Conor. He's been a great friend over these past couple of years. As Jonathan or Dr. Newman has mentioned, we've had amazing conversations at Rothbard Village talking about all kinds of crazy topics under the sun. What I love about Conor the most is there's tons of things that I don't know a lot about, and I find that he consistently knows a lot about them way more than I do. So I absolutely love being able to share, bounce back those ideas, and it's just an honor to share the stage with him, and I look forward to attending Texas Tech with him. It's going to be a lot of fun. Now, with that said, enough nice things about Conor. I'm going to tell you why he's wrong and why non-aggression is enough to sustain a free society. The way that I'm going to kind of approach this is by giving it a little bit of a brief overview of what non-aggression is. Non-aggression is really one side of a coin. The other side of that coin is private property. I have, as a visual aid, a coin that you guys could see. It's a real silver dollar coin at the Mises Institute. Really cool. Makes noise. But these two sides of this coin really have three implications for a free society, and they come into three different realms of society. The first realm is on civil liberties or personal liberties, and it has an emphasis on free association. The second realm that non-aggression really focuses on is on economic liberties, so having to do with an emphasis on free enterprise and non-intervention in a lot of these affairs. And then the third realm of free society, or at least of non-aggression implication, would be that of foreign policy, foreign intervention, and it would be one of non-intervention. So an emphasis on non-intervention. My argument is that these principles are pretty much all that is necessary are really the sufficient grounds for a free society, and it does it in two ways. First, by having the emphasis on non-aggression, what you do is you increase the costs of coercion relative to that of cooperation. So this helps thwart and withstand any type of bad actors who may want to take advantage of other people or who may want to kind of implement their own views on others. The second way that non-aggression in a free society is really beneficial in creating a strong system is through free association. One of the things that it does is if you have any of these, what people would think of are socially harmful views or socially harmful ideas, free association allows these individual communities to kind of be separate and removed from other types of communities that may have different values, different views, different social ideas. And because of this, if there's any socially harmful view, the result isn't going to be that it's going to tear down a free society but instead it's going to be selected out for. That little community itself isn't going to be able to sustain and might get selected out for and as a result, you're still going to have this free society, you're still going to have a system of non-aggression of private property rights even if these types of things fail. So in other words, a group having these bad values in a free society doesn't mean it will collapse, it just means that they'll be selected out for. The communities that remain, however, they don't need to necessarily have any shared values, any shared principles. They could be a pluralistic, eclectic group of different views, different ideas, and it wouldn't necessarily show or demonstrate that there's a particular value or group, ideals that are necessary in order to sustain the society. So as a result, a free society is not only going to be able to sustain itself from bad actors but it's also going to be able to sustain itself from socially harmful behavior through these principles of free association, non-aggression, and non-intervention. Thank you so much. Alright, I'm going to begin differently from Anthony in two ways. The first is that I'm not going to thank us for an absolutely amazing week. I'd like to thank the faculty and staff and fellows for an absolutely fantastic week. Secondly, I won't be wasting my time complimenting my opponent who is ontologically evil. Now, I've been thinking along and hard for weeks. Honestly Anthony, I have been going back on this for years about why the NAP is insufficient to sustain a free society and while I believe there are multiple reasons it may fall short, I don't have enough time to get into all of them so I want to address the one most important one and that is simply that with the NAP alone, there is not a person in this room who could figure out how to build the roads.  I'm out.  It's a weak argument that is often presented to us when we argue for the NAP and it's not what I seek to prove today. I'm not trying to argue that we need an exogenous force in forcing the ideals beyond the NAP but rather that if a free society is to survive, which Anthony and I have agreed in our Rothbard Village discussions which as Dr. Newman has claimed are canon, that our definition and our benchmark for failure is within three generations it does not revert to a state or collapse altogether and if it is to do so, however it is that we arrived at the NAP, we must also arrive at further key values also implemented in the minds of the people. And I am far from alone in this belief. In fact, I'm standing on the shoulders of not just giants, but libertarian, Massessian giants. The great Lou Rockwell said himself that in order to maintain a free society, it is essential that the traditional family be preserved. Furthermore, Murray Rothbard has stated that libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations. Logically one can be, and indeed most libertarians in fact are, hedonist, libertines, immoralist, militant enemies of religion and indeed Christianity in particular, and these people can still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. As all too many libertarians turn out to be, strictly logically, one can do all of these things. But psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply does not work that way. Why does it not work that way? There are two reasons that are in line with our two conditions for failure and it's that without these two things, society will either collapse or regress to a state. As for regressing to a state, there were very few things that Ludwig von Mises and Karl Marx agreed on. However, this was one of them. Karl Marx stated that the influence of communism will make marriage solely about the partners, not about the children, and that part of the reason for this was that the foundations of capitalism are from the family as the division of labor. He attacked the family because he believed that without it as a fundamental value, capitalism and the free society as such would not last. Mises agreed with this premise stating that these attacks on the family go hand in hand with plans for the socialization and means of production, and that marriage would disappear with the disappearance of private property, and as you attack the proliferation of children, you further attack private property in the non-aggression principle. The family, and most importantly, as I said, the proliferation of children within the family, must be firmly upheld if we are to avoid the ideology that stands against everything we support. As for the collapse of society as a whole, it's a slightly stronger case to have to make. However, great philosopher Peter Craft once wrote that if you want to destroy a society, all you have to do is advocate one simple thing. Tell that society to have less children. We've learned this week about the values of the division of labor and the way that the proliferation of society can grow into further specialization. It's only logical that actively pursuing a shrinking in that population would also hurt the division of labor. And Peter Craft pointed this out saying that it was the greatest tool of civilization, was that division of labor, and for a society to flourish, you have to call for the proliferation of children and the protection of the family supporting these children.  Now, the one thing that Anthony Murray Rothbard and myself agree on is that the nap and libertarianism in general do not in any way forbid things like abortion that would lead to less children and certainly do not actively encourage the proliferation of children. In fact, Murray Rothbard even argued that we should abandon Roe v. Wade because the decentralization and libertarianization of abortion would lead to more abortions. I think that would immediately lead to the family being weakened, the lessening of children and the worsening of the division of labor, and as such it would lead to a downfall of our free society. And while Rothbard didn't quite get this, the absolutely fantastic Lou Rockwell said himself, unless we can pass our heritage to our children, we are doomed. So to conclude, I'll quote Rothbard once more where he was right about this issue, that this is a battle between the corrupt rotten new culture versus the glorious life-affirming old. This is our culture war. Thank you all very much. Okay, so now we'll move into the section of our debate where there'll just be some back and forth. This will be pretty informal. If I sense that there's too much interruption or somebody's not getting enough time, then I'll try to intervene in that sense. Anthony, why don't you go ahead and start off with some responses to Connor? Yeah, so Connor, if I'm understanding your argument correctly, what it sounds like you're saying is in addition to the non-aggression principle and in addition to having kind of a free society with private property rights, one of the core fundamental necessary features that we would also need would be a focus on family values and the proliferation of children. Would that be accurate? That'd be accurate, and I'd add in the fact that I don't necessarily agree with in your introduction you had said groups will sort themselves out and will work their ways out. I tend more towards Rothbard that the decentralization would lead to less of that as opposed to more of it. So I do agree that's my point, and I think the nap alone wouldn't lead to that. Can you just clarify that real quick? It wouldn't lead to what specifically? Well, it was the quote I had that when he called for Roe v. Wade to be overturned so that we could have more abortion, and Anthony and I's canon arguments. I think we've come to a conclusion on this that we agree the decentralization of abortion would lead to more abortion. And I use that as an example because it's a big strong hot button topic. But I think generally speaking, family values being the decentralization would lead to things such as abortion that don't strengthen the proliferation of children and the strength of families. Okay, I'm following that. The one thing that I don't understand would be when it comes to this decentralization, this having fewer children, having maybe a weaker family structure. If you have it within the context of free association where you have these different communities who are able to kind of branch off and do this own thing and maybe have lower birth rates, how would that fundamentally undermine the system or the structure itself where you would have these other communities that might be having more kids or different rates of kids? So as for how it would undermine the structure, realistically the downfall of civilization argument in three generations is a little too far. I think it's coming more to the we deviate back from the nap and refer back to a state. And I think over enough time I'd be right that society would collapse as we started not proliferating children enough. I think as far as returning back to the nap, it goes back to the Lou Rocco quote I stated, if we cannot pass our ideas to our children, our society is doomed. Obviously we can, but I'm presuming that the nap is taking our anti-egalitarian stances into condition. And in reality, there are going to be people who are more pro-nap and there are going to be people who are less pro-nap. And I think in the society where we are allowed to flourish with less pro-family rights, I think those such people will be more likely to get their ideas through. They will be perhaps more pro-nap. I don't know what you would call it. There will still be disagreements within this society. And I think the people with the less pro-family rights will have more success. I think it will lead to less than birth rates. And in such, there will be like there is today. I mean, I'm calling out the wonderful Felicia who has three amazing children and her children are going to lead society one day. However, her children are in the minority and I imagine that in Auburn, Alabama, we don't have our ideas of the nap being passed on to the children very well. I think it will be very safe to assume that within three generations, there's a tight window and I'll give that. But I think over time, as family rights started to dissipate, that pushing forward of the ideas that matter, the people with bad ideas sell really well. They sell really well. And if we don't have strong families, there's no way to protect our good ideas because like Misa said, you protect the ideas of private property through having strong families. Maybe a question for Anthony is what sort of mechanism do you envision might arise with just the non-aggression principle in place that would allow for that value or that norm to carry on. So Connor is saying that the institution of the family will do that. Do you think that maybe we don't need such an institution or it'll just happen on its own? So when it comes to a type of mechanism that would keep or sustain these notions of non-aggression or these ideas of non-aggression, I look at it a lot in some ways from an economic perspective where if you have this system, you have a basis of non-aggression, you have an environment where pushing against that is going to come with a lot of increased costs. You're going to have to be fighting a lot more people.  You're going to have to have increased costs in terms of taking on additional risk and uncertainty when it comes to trying to take advantage or pillage or force your ideas on others. So I think there's a strong economic case that would help curtail a lot of these deviations of aggression if you wanted to try to take advantage of someone. I think there's going to be a lot more costs involved in that. And I think the other part would be through voluntary association and free association, if you wanted to have these other ideas of social values or other types of ideological values, you'd still have that opportunity to do that. And if you have this basis of non-intervention, it seems like you'd have a much stronger bore kind of against that. I've got, I think, two responses to that. My first is that I, obviously I'm an Australian economist, I entirely agree that the free market would lead to the most flourishing of the subjective wants of the people. I don't necessarily think that from that economic standpoint we get to what's good for civilization because I don't think the subjective wants of the people are always what's best for civilization. And then if there's an economic incentive to go back to this and it would protect that civilization, then I just struggle with how we got here in the first place if the economic incentive was to remain free. Well, one of the things that I think about you mentioned a lot about flourishing, a free society flourishing, and I think that's a little bit different than sustaining. And I think even you would agree that in a whole bunch of different aspects people make trade-offs in terms of, okay, maybe I don't want the most economically efficient decision because there's other things that I value maybe a little bit more highly that I'd rather go ahead and pursue that and kind of have that trade-off. So I think in these cases, even if you had a situation where a free society would maybe not be as advanced and flourishing as it could be because the birth rate is around one instead of three, you would still, it would seem have that society be able to sustain itself and have those people make that trade-off of saying, these are my preferences for how I kind of want to live and exist with other people. Okay, so I may have phrased that poorly. You're right that I said flourishing and it should have been unsustainable. However, I'll take it, I agree there are trade-offs and I agree people are going to pick the things. I'm not saying economically like they'll pick what's best for their finances. I'm even saying that they will pick X, Y, and Z because it's good for their values and they think that over this and as a result they push for the values. And I'm saying their values can very well be things that are bad for civilization and that giving, I mean I come from it from obviously a Christian perspective where I believe we're a fallen race. But even from a non-Christian perspective, I think it's easy to look around the room and say we are a deeply flawed group of people. Except for me, I'm very charming and handsome. But I think if you gave this deeply flawed group of people simply don't aggress against each other and pursue your highest-ordered mean, I don't think that their highest-ordered means would be things that protect the non-aggression. I think many people would take on things that would lead to... I mean like this is an example and it's not really what I would say would be downfall, but I am a big oil guy for those who have read my summer research. And as much as I'd love to believe that in a world if we just suddenly didn't have a government tomorrow, people would throw the windmills out the window. I think that the education's already been done as such where... Or even not already been done as such. There are people smarter than me who would make arguments against that. And I don't think just because that... Let's say for the sake of argument that my opinion is right. I know it's...  But for the sake of argument, my take on energy is right. And that's going to be the best for society. There will still be these people in the non-aggression principle pushing for other energy sources for whatever their highest order... They think it's good for the environment. They think it's good for financial reasons. And at the end of the day, they will pick things that will be the downfall of civilization. I for the sake of this debate say that it's opposing strong family values. But I don't think the fact that they have the opportunity to pick things they value more means they will pick things that will not lead against civilization. Just to kind of build on that a little bit. You mentioned that the society is kind of with these harmful social values or ideas in particular when it comes to child rearing. And it seems like you're talking about these societies having fewer children and still being able to promote and pursue and push these ideas on others. But one of the things I'm curious about is if you have these other communities where they have a higher children proliferation rate and they have these more socially beneficial values that you would think of a family traditions and everything like that. What mechanism or how do you see the communities with higher birth rates and higher children being subsumed by these communities with fewer children and fewer family values? How do you see them as coming in some type of a position or some type of a way of threatening a free society? I'd look a lot at today. I think the people who have good values are passing them on to their children better than most. Better than all. I'll say better than all. However, at the same time, I'd say that they're losing. They're losing that across the board. And it's that things like schools will still exist and no matter what the free society is, your kindergarten teacher will have more influence or at least as much influence on your kid as you do. Luckily, there are very wise kindergarten teachers of the world like Mr. Mortell. However, at the end of the day, there will still be people without the strength of a family being the integral to society who are the kids are with their kindergarten teacher eight hours a day being influenced towards things that are not inherently anti-NAP but like Mises said, things like the destruction of the family that go hand in hand with the later destruction of the NAP. So when it comes to the kindergarten teacher who's teaching the kids and the family, one of the things that I think about in a free society would once again be free association. And it would seem like one of the problems that we have today is a lack of free association. There's a lot of government involvement, a lot of intervention in these public schools that I think lead to these types of outcomes where you have this kindergarten teacher telling your kids all kinds of stuff that you don't want them to know. But I think in a free society, if you're able to have those levels of free association, the kindergarteners who you seek out are going to be much more in line with those values. And if you're seeking out kindergarten teachers who are more pro-family, pro-value, and you're having more kids, it seems like you could, in a lot of ways, have a strong kind of barrier against maybe those other schools who aren't teaching their kids that and who are having fewer kids. I actually don't totally disagree with you there. But where I'd go a little different is I don't think the NAP alone will lead to the schools teaching those values. And I think at the end of the day, I loved with all my heart being a kindergarten teacher. It was the best experience of my life. But if I had a family of my own, I simply wouldn't be doing it. That's an unfortunate reality.  So I don't know why we would expect the teachers to be good just because we had free association. We could expect some things that would be good for homeschool options. We could expect better than we have today. In fact, I firmly believe that if either Anthony or I were correct, we'd be in a significantly better world than we are today. So I do think we would see better things. But I don't see why we would expect the schools to teach values like that. And part of our debate is that we agree that these teachers are teaching the non-aggression principle. I don't want to pretend I'm picking someone of today arguing. It's a teacher who has accepted the non-aggression principle. But I don't know why we would expect them not to teach certain things like, again, referring back to my Mises argument, that would inevitably lead to questioning and taking away from the non-aggression principle. I don't know why we should expect them to teach these things just because of the freedom of association. Yeah, I'm not necessarily sure I'm just kind of de facto expecting them to pursue the right kinds of teaching. I guess one of the ways that I kind of approach it or look at it is one of pluralism, where you have a lot of different people with a lot of different ideas on family, on religion, on how to bring up children. And the way that I kind of see it is within this framework, if you have non-aggression, these people who have all of these different ideas are able to branch off and kind of raise and live in their kind of ways the way that they would want. And I think there's a little bit of a self-selection process where the people who want the correct or the types of values that they think are correct for a kindergarten or a teacher are going to be seeking out and moving to those communities and remaining in those communities. So it seems like it's not so much that they will just happen to be teaching these things, but that it's going to be a little bit more of a selection process. I know you're not a hoppa guy, but with this pluralism you're talking about, look somewhat like covenant communities, I'm trying to understand what you're going at here, totally. It probably would be a little bit similar, I guess one of the things that I think about is that voluntary association aspect where you can have a variety of different views, even if you wanted to have a type of communal ownership within a framework of property rights. I think you can have a lot of these views and a lot of these ideas kind of isolated and you can maintain them and even have them flourish within these communities while still allowing other people to kind of go and associate elsewhere. What we can agree on just before I get this question is there are ideas that would cripple society like communism. So I'm going to say there's free association. What would you think the standard of failure in these communities for where, what do you think? I'm trying to think how to phrase this. As communities outright failed, what would that actually look like? Would it just be people moving away or would we see these communities in this pluralist society straight up just collapse? What do you expect in that? I'm open to either. I could see them as people moving away voluntarily and kind of selecting for other values but I could also see it as these little communities in and of themselves completely disintegrating or collapsing or everyone dies in these particular areas but the failure of these little communities would be in a context of a variety of other communities where you have not necessarily all communities with family values but you can have other types of values, other types of views within this kind of framework. So I see it as... I could kind of see it a little bit as both. With that we'll go to the concluding remarks. Oh, sorry. Whatever you're going to say, you can save it for the conclusion. So we'll have Anthony go first. Since he spoke first, we'll allow the second person to also have the final word. All right, so thank you again, Connor, for this amazing exchange, this amazing conversation. I love it. It's great to be able to kind of present some of our late night after our Rothbard Village discussions to everyone else. It's going to get a little bit of taste for some of the things that we talk about. Also, once again, I want to thank the Mises Institute. They're an absolutely amazing organization for students like us. They've done a great thing keeping this institute an amazing museum, a collection of books and there's really a great opportunity for young scholars and other scholars who are well within their work. So I really, really appreciate them. To conclude, I really just want to reiterate that non-aggression principle or non-aggression in general is sufficient to sustain a free society. The two main reasons why are because it offers protection from bad actors through this mechanism of increased cost of coercion relative to cooperation. And it also protects society from social harmful behaviors through this process of free association of being able to kind of let people self-select, do their own thing. And if that in particular little community or even a big community falls or fails or undermines, you still have this framework of non-aggression and property where other communities and other people are living with a potentially wide variety of views not necessarily limited to something like family values or religious outlook or a progressive social outlook or something like that. To wrap up, I really just kind of want to go through a couple of quotes. I love Connors' use of quotes. I think they're really, really great. There's a couple of quotes from Lou Rockwell that I also really like. He obviously is a little bit more, I think, on Connors' side, so I don't want to be taking him out of context. But he does make some really good criticisms of a lot of the left libertarians who want to kind of argue a lot of these ideas as well and kind of say non-aggression is not enough. We need more socially progressive ideas, socially progressive values. And I think a lot of Lou's criticisms or I think his response is relevant and applicable to this debate in this context where we're talking about whether or not more is needed to sustain this free society. So one of the first things he says is that he just mentions there's various schools of thought that culminate in the principle of non-aggression. So there's a wide variety of different ways that different people can arrive and reach at this principle of non-aggression. One of the things that he mentions is he says libertarians are unsuited to the thought-control business. I'm not accusing Conor of that but relative to just in the context of the quote, I think it's nice. He says it's difficult enough to try to persuade people to adopt views dramatically opposed to what they've been taught throughout their lives. If we can persuade people of non-aggression, we should be delighted. There is no need to complicate things by arbitrarily imposing a slate of regime-approved opinions to the core teaching of our philosophy. And once again, I'm not saying Conor is giving regime-approved. If anything, he's giving the opposite of regime-approved. But still, I think that applies where, really, the focus, the emphasis is just on non-aggression. If we can get people to accept that, that really should be the main emphasis that we should be focused and working on. And lastly, the libertarian position is not merely the state, that the state is a moral evil, but that human liberty is a tremendous moral good. Human beings ought to interact with each other as a basis of reason, their distinguishing characteristic, rather than with hangman and with guns, which Conor and I both agree. And when they do so, the results by a welcome happenstance are rising living standards, an explosion in creativity and technological advance and peace, even in the world's partially capitalist societies, hundreds of millions if not billions of people have been liberated from miserable, soul-crushing conditions of hand-to-mouth existence in exchange for a far more meaningful, fulfilling life. So I really believe that these foundations of non-aggression, private property rights will really be enough to sustain this free society. And one last thing I do kind of want to mention is, of course, I love Walter Block. He's one of my favorite libertarian scholars, economists out there. And one of the things that he just kind of briefly mentions in touching on topics related to this is he says, suppose, for the sake of argument, that Conor is right, what are these specific values, like family values, that are very important? What does that mean? Are there any logical implications that follow from this? Does this mean that we should associate specifically with some people and push out and remove ourselves from other people? Does this mean we should open ourselves up to particular types of ideas or we should reject other ideas for the sake of this? And I would argue, and I think he argues as well, that none of this logically follows, that we had these particular values or ideas that were necessary and important to sustain the society. It doesn't really tell us what we should do, how we should treat other people today, or how we should kind of carry on our lives in the moment. Thank you very much. All right, well, I have nothing left to say. I was told that I can't just get up and beat Anthony with a copy of For a New Liberty and ask, where's the nap to save you now? That's all I had written down for my conclusion. But I'll get inside and thank Anthony. Anthony and I have been having this debate since Mises U 2021. All you guys have been sitting around at the hotel arguing until four in the morning about various things. I mean, that's how Anthony and I met. We've become best friends through this very argument. So thank you very much for a fantastic, an absolutely fantastic debate. With that, I also like the approach that Anthony took of taking someone who generally agrees with him and taking him out of context. So I would like to turn to a man that Anthony has spoken quite fondly of named Walter Block. For those of you who don't know Walter Block, Walter Block is quite a proponent of thin libertarianism, of nap-only libertarianism. Now, Walter Block has claimed positive mention of free enterprise, capitalism, profits, et cetera, will be severely punished by law in the free society in some places. He doesn't claim it will happen. However, he says it's most likely that there will be places where such beliefs are actively punished by the local law. My last question I wanted to get in was of Anthony's, if these societies literally die, is that not really an incentive for other people to turn from it, but I didn't get my questions fine. But with Block claiming that it's likely that such places would have people outright proliferating the ideas opposed to everything we believe in in the free society, Hans Hermann Habba has retorted with a all-too-well-known quote that such people should be physically removed, so to speak. Block's response to this is that he fully agrees with Habba that the views of the Democrats, the Communists, the queer study theorists, et cetera, are, quote, very harmful for civilization. But he goes on to say that physically removing some people from society, if one is to maintain a libertarian order, is erroneous from the perspective of correct libertarian theory. He's right, because herein lies the problem. He leaves us with two options. Either we accept this is true, and we are going to have to take an erroneous libertarian, or let's take an action that is erroneous in libertarian theory, or we have to accept the ideas that destroy libertarian theory. Like you said, ideas of vanishing by law, free enterprise, capitalism, and profits, and even talk of such things. However, luckily I have a solution. And that is that we don't turn necessarily to the government, but that in the same way we push for the non-aggression principle, we push for ideas that protect the non-aggression principle in this society, and that we have these strong virtues that support them. So I'm going to turn the block one more time, because Walter Block also likes to say that every libertarian gets one exception. So I want you to take one moment and really think about what your one exception to libertarian law is. And I don't mean the joke, I have too slow in the left lane should be shot. I mean, really what your one exception would be. Perhaps you agree with me, and it'd be something that I'd have said. Perhaps you think I'm genuinely evil for everything I've set up here, and people like me will lead to the downfall of the free society. But whatever your one exception is, take a minute and think about it, it's presumably the proliferation of some virtue, or the banishment of some vice. Ask yourself whatever this virtue or vice you're thinking of, what would be the result of this in a society only led by the nap? Would this virtue really proliferate, and would this vice really be abandoned? Now many of you are probably thinking of things that we have great answers to, that these things would be abandoned by. But at the end of the day, the reason you're thinking to yourself, whatever it is you've thought of, is your libertarian exception is because you don't wholly believe that whatever this one exception is would be found in the nap.  I'm not saying we need to have a state come and force whatever virtue you believe in or that I believe in. I'm saying that there are virtues that the nap cannot sustain without. I'm not calling for the nap minus and saying we shouldn't celebrate people turning to liberty. I'm calling for the nap plus, saying we need the nonaggression principle to call for this libertarian society, but we can't stop there because we need to call for further virtue beyond that. Thank you all very much and have an absolutely fantastic day. Okay, so please scan the QR code for the post-debate poll. We'll use the difference in responses from the pre-debate to the post-debate poll to decide on a winner. And also, we will pass around a microphone for some questions from the audience. So while you're taking the post-debate poll, we'll have a microphone ready for people to ask questions for our debate participants. While you're taking the post-debate poll, remember I have free chocolate chips in my apartment. Howdy. So I have a question mostly for Anthony. We really use like Robinson Caruso style situations to kind of describe how a free society or like how an economy would naturally grow, right? Well, if that was accurate, then why did we create the state in the first place? If the incentives of nonaggression are that great, then why did we create a state in the first place and why would this free society not fall victim to those same incentives and just create a state all over again? Yeah, I think that's a really good question. Oh, okay. I'd probably have to think about that a little bit more, but... Can I give Anthony a lifeline? Oh, sure, please. I'm hoping you've already voted. I do agree with David's point. The one caveat I'd say just to be fair in this debate is we did assume these people have been taught the nonaggression principle, whereas previously these people had not been taught the nonaggression principle. I think the incentives that led to the state the first time would lead all over again, but I also, to be fair to Anthony, because I don't actually hate him, I wanted to throw in that. Yeah, I do think that starting from a basis of nonaggression I think is an important difference, and I think there's a lot of other... I'm not an expert on a lot of the history or anything like that, so I can't give perfect answers of how particular situations these states arose, but I do think that the fundamental framework and the ideas and the understanding of whether or not certain individuals have rights or whether or not certain forms of aggression are justified, I think we're absent in a lot of those beginning stages. This question is primarily for O'Connor, so when thinking about this question, it seemed like you could almost make an analytical or a definitional case that Anthony's position is right. If you define, for example, a free society as one in which you have resistance against the aggression, then if everyone obeys nonaggression, then you're necessarily free, right? So how would you respond to that case? If you want to vote against me for semantics, go for it, but at the end of the day, I think Anthony, we're pretty fair to each other on this that we're generally assuming people begin with the nap and I'm claiming that from accepting the nap people would deviate away from it with time. So my question is for Anthony. Anthony, let's say you have a society, right, and your society is allowing evictions in the first trimester, and O'Connor and I see this and we take our papal army and we come conquer you because you're actually committing aggression, right? We believe you to be committing aggression. One of your points was that your free society would be avoiding conflict in this regard, but it seems like there's these kind of moral gray areas on serious issues that would lead to more conflict and maybe even like a state, right, where O'Connor and I's papal army is enforcing these kinds of ideas, right? Yeah, I think that's a great question. I think there's a couple of different ways that I look at it. One of the first ways is by accepting nonaggression from the offset, from the start, one of the implications of that is non-intervention and foreign policy. And so I think there's a lot of situations where people look around the world, look at other communities, and say what they're doing is wrong, what they're doing is evil, what they're doing shouldn't be allowed, but from that libertarian perspective, or at least a perspective of nonaggression, we recognize limitations in intervening and getting involved in a lot of those conflicts and a lot of those issues. I also think in those ways, the costs of coercion I think would come into play as well. I definitely think there could be different groups, different bandit groups, or moral crusader type groups who want to take it upon themselves to try and go and liberate people or do these different types of things.  This could be a trade-off that you might want to make, but I think that in the long run, these costs are going to be greater than the costs of everyone else who's trying to cooperate who are saying, look, I disagree with you on evictionism. I think that's an immoral evil thing, but I'm not going to intervene. Maybe I'll trade with you from afar or I'm not going to trade with you at all, but I think those interactions, those exchanges, are going to win over those exchanges of the ones who want to impose violence by that. I also just, since I shut down a question against me for being semantic, I do want to say, Anthony and I in our canon RV discussions did accept, I'm not calling for a papal army to attack Anthony, except in Minecraft. Join me in applauding our debate participants one last time. And the winner of the debate based on survey results is the affirmative, Anthony Cesario. It's rigged, votes came in overnight. He has won one of the Rothbard Silver Rounds. Thanks everyone.


Okay, for top secret we're going to play two videos and then we're going to show off some of your latest designs. See you on the other side of the videos. Hi, Jepler here. You've caught me playing with my latest project for Adafruit called the Infinite Text Adventure with CircuitPython and OpenAI. With this project, which is running on PyPortal with a lovely case by the Ruiz brothers, at every step you get presented with four choices and you touch the screen in one of the quadrants to decide what you do. And I think before we go any further, we need a flashlight. The guide, I'm in the process of writing. The code is already up on our GitHub. So if you're enterprising, you can check it out now, but otherwise look for this project soon and create your own adventure using CircuitPython and OpenAI. Alright, I think we need to check the pile of papers. I can't wait to see what happens next. Hey lady, what's this? Hey, I'm going to do a live demo where we program this ESP32-S2 over USB from BitBang USB host on a Pico. This is very exciting. So let's plug it in, replace the tester, you gotta be careful not to get in the way the plug goes. Make sure the board is on and press the button. So this is kind of neat because I'm using USB host to connect the ESP tool to the built-in ROM bootloader. I'm programming it with a GZipped test firmware, so it's actually stored in the flash memory not on a USB... Yeah, it doesn't use microSD. It takes only 12 seconds to fully program and test this Metro ESP32-S2 and I don't need to use a Raspberry Pi. I love Raspberry Pies, but this is really fast in solid state so don't have to work about any SD cards. So this revision is coming to the store real soon with this new faster test. All right, and then here's the weather report. Okay, so more Pi Cowbells. So since I was doing a lot of CAN bus stuff, I thought it would be fun to maybe whip up a CAN bus Pico bell. So it goes on a Raspberry Pi Pico or Pico W and adds CAN bus using the MCP 2515 and a TGA 1051 transceiver and a little Bible booster. You know, I think there's no native CAN peripheral on the RP2040. I know that's just people who kind of like BitBang CAN, but I think, you know, a MCP 2515 isn't too expensive. I don't mind, you know, going with a chip. So you have like a well-known chip and has buffers and is no, you know, it'll handle and make interrupts for you and you aren't bit banging it because I think this is a good solution. So we're going to fab that. We also made an all-in-one since I was already there and like doing the stuff made a feather RP2040 with a CAN bus chip also on it. So it's all in one. If you want to use a feather for battery powered tech projects. And also the USB host feather, which I think is kind of the most interesting because it uses our BitBang USB host implementation in teeny USB. Thanks to, if you've ever forgotten my name, I think it's Ginnock, the person who originally did the code to run USB host on RP2040 using a core and like almost all the PIOs attacked an amazing job adding it to teeny USB. I've been using it in that tester. You saw that was using the BitBang USB host mass storage work, CDC works, so this adds a little boost converter up there to give you a nice five volts, 500 milliamps from either the battery or whatever your power supply is to power your peripheral. So it can be interesting for like, you know, some ideas I came up with was logging to a USB key because if you just pull it out, stick it into whatever and the data is there ready to go. A little more convenient than having to carry around a micro SD card, which like always pops off and flies across the room. That's what they do best. And then also a HID remapper, which I thought was neat and some accessibility that's a good idea where you can plug in something that is not HID or he's a weird driver, make it an accessible and then it makes it or remaps it and moves it around. It turns into a modern device because modern HID, you know, works with iOS and Android and Kermos, but so older devices are like kind of weird.  Yeah, modernizing. This could be really neat. So I'm kind of I'm kind of like psyched about this. I think it's kind of the weirdest of the bunch. But I think has the most potential to be really cool. Wait, I need a fruit. I need a fruit. I need a fruit. The weirdest of the bunch. So tagline. OK, that's not a secret.


ended up ended down. I know y'all are like Vivian, why don't you? Because y'all, I ain't got nothing to do with that. So I'm going to be setting my hair with Blue Magic. This is a video coming up and we're just going to jump into this fullery y'all. This, this has been a trying year. But baby we made it. It was at the end of the year. Thanksgiving is coming up. It's Halloween this year. This week I'm about over it y'all. I asked Christina. I said, Christina, you handing out candy? Christina said, I don't have time for other people's kids. She doesn't have any kids. Christina's my friend and co-worker. So I asked today, I said, are you handing out candy? She said, no.  I said, girl, me neither.  And I'm going to let JB know that this would be our last year with this fullery. We didn't even start celebrating Halloween until three years ago quite as it kept. And I'm over it. I am over it. We're going to go into any details but we're going to be having our own day. The lights will be off in 2020. And so I've been building my baby up. I'm like, you okay? He said, oh yeah, as long as I give him a kiss. I said, yes, the next day you're going to get your candy. It's going to be 50% off. Hell, some of it will be 75% off. We'll be okay. Y'all, we almost got in what we did get in trouble because JB doesn't believe in Santa Claus. And have I told y'all this? He doesn't even like, yeah, he'll take pictures with Santa but he know. He told me the other day and I'll get back to why we got in trouble. Let me just say that now. We were over my neighbor's house. And girl, let me do my hair. Y'all know me? Hell, we were over my neighbor's house and he was like, yeah. And there ain't such thing as Santa Claus. And they started clutching the pearls and like, oh my God, because he said it in front of a three year old but the three year old didn't hear him because the three year old didn't even blink a eye. He didn't hear him right. She's like, well, because he said, no, she's such thing as Santa Claus. I said, oh yeah, we don't do Santa Claus. And it's not even that I haven't told JB there's no such thing. It's just that I haven't made. Oh, Santa's coming to town.  I had made some cookies, bitten to the cookie and put it there. And JB was like, why are you eating cookies? JB was like, why are you eating cookies at night? I said, Santa did it. He said, mama, Santa can't even fit now. I said, child, I'm not even gonna try to uphold that myth. And I ain't got time. That's too much energy, especially with JB. He has too many questions. Shit. So I have told JB though, like most children do believe in Santa Claus. So please don't spoil it for other children. But child, not that day. JB's like, I'm canceling Santa for all y'all. So yesterday he was like, Santa ain't got time to be coming over here. Yeah, this is him talking to himself because he's so young. He still talks to himself right. He says, Santa ain't got time to be coming over here.  What you gonna do, mama? You gonna be tired. This is my child talking. What you gonna do, mama? You gonna be tired.  I'm gonna get up. I'm gonna open them. And y'all, you just gonna be tired, rapper. I said, this boy. So no, we're gonna be canceling a lot next year. We've already started. But even with that being said, he's like, mama, you gonna buy me a new show for me to take a picture with Santa? I said, JB, I thought you we don't do Santa. He's like, yeah, but I just need the picture. I'm like, you know what? Don't say anything we're waiting in line. Don't be talking about nothing. Just sit there and pretend like everyone else. He is, JB is a mess child. Let's jump into these YouTube streets. I've been looking at a little bit more TV than YouTube, but we gonna talk about it all. Y'all, YouTube, YouTube, YouTube. So I've been watching Tony Daly from Tony and the Guy and her husband, first of all, they're Canadians. They're up in Canada. Now, are they both Canadians or because I've never been sure about that. Now, they have a two, it's two channels. She has her blogging channel and then there was Tony and the Guy, which was their login channel as a couple. We know by now, those of you follow them, that he, y'all hold on a stretch. This man is bold as hell. When I tell you the only other person that I have seen, at least on this YouTube platform that personally I follow, that has been this bold is Daddy Tang, who I follow Instagram. Daddy Tang is the ex-husband of mommy Tang, the vegan mukbanger. They went through a divorce. It was real quiet though, but I still got the tea. That's going to be in my log, girl. Anyway, back to Tony Daly and the Guy. It has been horrible to see her go through this breakup. And what she has been doing is sharing it as it's been unraveling. So it's been a couple of months now. What we've been seeing occurred back in February, March. But y'all, let me tell you something with someone as women, we love to miss those red flags, don't we? And I think a part of that is because we want to try to hold on to that, especially when it's as long as they've been together. I think it's what 22, 23 years, you want to hold on to that. And you just can't wake up one morning and say, I don't love this person. One day you may, you know, one moment in that moment, you may, but then later on in the day or the week, there'll be something that remind you of that person and you're have those feelings come up again. Okay. So it's devastating to see what happens. So most of a short girl, he left her, left the country, went to Brazil for the other woman. So I was like, what? And they have businesses together. They have a house together.  Now thank God they don't have me children. And someone wrote, which was really, I'm not going to say what I really think, but this doesn't make any sense. Someone wrote, I saw on another vlog that was basically like, what's really interesting is why they didn't have any children after 20 odd years. That's just doesn't make any sense. You know, I'm paraphrasing like that's really odd. I'm like, girl, you do know that some people don't want children at all. That is very possible. Or maybe she has fertility issues. You know what I mean? So don't just assume because they don't have any children that that could be part of the issue. Anyway, so yeah, he left Brazil, but that's not even all of it, right? She was tore up. I mean, she's the vlogs are still up there. They're actually trending, right? He recently has decided to come back to Canada. Why? Wait, wait, wait, before he came back to Canada, he sent to a message talking about, can I get the Netflix password? Child couldn't be me. Could not be me. Can I get the Netflix password? Then that turned into I'm in town. Can I come over to do my laundry? And technically he can because that's his house. His name is on. That's his own, his home, right? So I guess at this point he is in, he's back in the country and you know, that area he's in and out of that house. I think other people stay there. Then there is this little bit of interesting chemistry slash going on with her best friend who is a lesbian. She's a stud. You know, she's an all-out stud girl. Half. Half has been that friend. Let me tell you something. This girl has been right or not. So if Tony's not careful, she can end up jumping into a relationship that she's, this is my opinion. My opinion. Not anyone else's. She's not careful. She can end up jumping into a relationship when she's not ready yet and end up not only hurting herself, but more importantly, the other person. Okay. I feel that, you know, she has, she was with this man and they're going through the separation. She was with him. Most of her adult life, girl, be by yourself. I'm not saying this is it. You done be by, you have to learn how to be by yourself for a while and maybe she's already done that. But I'm telling y'all when I separated from my husband those six months, I was cool by myself for a while. If that was going to be it for me for a while, I was okay with that. Granted, yeah, the relationship didn't end on that type of drama, but you have to learn how to be by yourself. Learn how to love yourself before you can jump into a relationship and love someone else because that's where I think a lot of issues tend to come from. Plus she has to get through whatever she's going through right now. So I know a couple of people have left those types of comments on her video and I really do hope that she takes that to heart, you know, little child. So I think that the other couple, Nikki and Jamie, I believe she posted recently, she's actually posted twice and it's been a while. It's been a while.  It is hard work. You putting in time for a relationship, you know what I mean for the workout and you both got to want it, you know, it's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. But yeah, that's what I've been looking at on YouTube. What else has been going on? Yeah, I haven't been really been following any of this other drama channels or anything like that. Been looking at a couple of crafting things because this is I am a crafty helpful. I'm looking at my notes y'all. I was watching Valencia. I like her a.k.a. product junkie. I was looking at some of her videos. She's going through some a tough time right now, but I really do like her. She could be crazy to y'all. I like Valencia. I haven't heard anything else from other people. There are some other folks who haven't posted and oh wow, y'all what is that baby's name? What is her name? The one that had that issue. She has waist long hair, poor C and she had that issue a year and a half ago where her hair started to really matte after putting an ecostylogel. She hasn't posted in a very long time. It's been like a year. I'm concerned like I hope she's okay. You know, I get people take breaks, you know. Yeah, it's been a long time since she's posted. A very long time.  I get it. Life happens. I almost want to take a break here again soon. I know I just came back though, but it just sometimes irks me when I see some of my favorite YouTubers come back and they're like, I'm back. I'm back. Girl, three months later, they post again. I'm back. I'm back. I know border hammer was doing that, but I know she has a lot going on. She has to have a lot going on at home. So yeah, yeah. Okay, y'all TV.  Like I've been watching so much thing on TV and I've been binge watching stuff. I know a part of it, a part of it, I'm clocking my own tea is that I'm avoiding doing stuff around that I need to do. So recently, I binge watch on Netflix, a series called Daybreakers or Daybreak. And it's about these teenagers who's her vibe. This post the POP Deliptical. Yeah, no, I can't pronounce it in the world stuff. I like it, but this is the thing. It was, I don't know me, me and my semi conservative self. The kids were cursing a lot. Like, and I get it that Tina, but I'm gonna do Tina just really cursed like that.  F, the F word was done a lot. They're very crass and how they're talking. I'm like, oh my gosh, like, I this is too much, but it was good. It was really good. I look, I'm so, so naive. I'm like, do they have like an audio setting to where you can bleep out the curse words? Can you know, like if you bleep it over? I'm like, isn't that some Heisen, bouquet type of stuff? No. Look, I curse, but I don't want to hear babies cursing. You know what I mean? I don't want to hear young kids like that cursing. I really don't. But it was good. If you get past the language, it was good. Finished up, why women kill. I liked it. And the season finale was like almost two weeks ago. I ended up really liking the show, y'all. I really did. And kind of find out the black actress is actually, um, is she from the UK? Yeah. But it ended up being really good. Back to watching also how to get away with murder. I'm not liking the season. First of all, Frank is getting beat up. This is a spoiler. Frank got beat up looking for Laurel. You know, y'all Frank, let's have this conversation real quick. Those of you who watch how to get away with murder. Do y'all think Frank is a psychopath or sociopath? I know these are real life discussions, right?  He fine. Frank is crazy. I think Frank may be a psychopath. And I know there's this misconception that psychopaths don't have feelings, short feelings. I think they do, but it's self-serving. Um, Frank lacks empathy, but Frank pretends puts on this facade that he cares, but really he doesn't. It's for himself.  Frank has killed more people than anybody. He has killed more people on this show combined than anyone on his other show, um, Fear of the Walking Dead. So yeah, back to watching, Fear of the Walking Dead ain't going to reveal that one because I'm a little bit upset over that. Also, back to watching the Walking Dead. Let me tell you something. That entire whisper clan needs to take a good bath. They need to take some dawn soap. Every time I see those, those people, and this is a group on the Walking Dead, they're called the whisperers.  I mean, because you walking around with zombies, but they take it a step further. They mask themselves by wearing the actual skin from death. But they are, they're always dirty.  I know y'all can find an old abandoned doll and train, get you some of that sun soap or whatever. You know, it's just, but I like it. Good acting. Show that I just started watching and I am here for it. I have no idea why it took me so long to watch this show y'all. I love me some true crime. I love me some ID, true detective starting Matthew McConaughey. Y'all know I have a hate love relationship with old man. Matthew McConaughey and what is his name? No, Woody Harrelson. You need to look this up. I don't know why it's not on Netflix. It's very similar, I guess, to Mindhunter. They, it basically tracks the serial killer over, over her 17-year span, but it goes into detail about the detective's background and their personal lives. So, it's really, really interesting. I love the layers of this show. It's basically, it's basically Louisiana. Sometimes when I'm listening to the people, I'm like, oh, that's the good Louisiana accent. And no, no, no, you don't, you don't sound like that at all. But both Woody and Matthew are from Texas, I believe. Woody Harrelson is from Midland and of course Matthew's from East Texas. So it's just, I just love it. It's giving me, it's a little weird. It's a little violent, not a lot. Okay, it's not extremely violent, like the wire. You remember the wire? It's not that violent, violent, excuse me. Not breaking bad violent, but there are some scenes where you're like, wow, that just came out of nowhere. Great acting, really, really good acting. So, yeah, I'm in the middle of that right now. Ciao. Speaking of psychopaths, I just finished watching Killing Eve second season.  The first two episodes were a bit slow, but then I was like, wow, that man, that villain, what is her name? I think her name is even Valenia, Valenia, whatever her name was.   I could not stop laughing whereas she was head to toe. First of all, the fashions are impeccable. Whoever is the fashion costume designer on this show, thumbs up because her outfits be insane. So she's having tear coffee. This is the villain, right? The psychopath. She's having tear coffee or something. Big gold earrings, huge purple bottom, this green off the shoulder sage. Just beautiful, right?  Can I take a picture of you for my Instagram?    You need to break off whatever you have for Eve because you're getting soft. And she's looking at him like, I'm getting soft. So a woman, at that moment, a woman walks behind them and she purposely trips her.  And I'm here for it crazy. So I finished that because I had stopped watching. It's been a while. Season two has been done for a while, but I had stopped watching it because I was watching something else. But you know what? I need to know what is going on with these other shows. Now I have a long laundry list of shows that I binge watched like two years ago. Within like the last year, I need the shows to come back. Westworld. Where are you? Old Zork is coming back. I'm assuming at the end of this year. Love the Old Zork. Love that show. Happy Valley Broadchurch. I'm looking for dark. I'm looking for Middle Jonas with his fine self. You know, a lot of these shows, I'm like, what is going on? I need some to come back. There's another show that is French based. It was weird, but it was good. But it was a little weird. I finished watching that this year too. Um, yeah, y'all went back and watched one more episode of since eight. And I was like, okay, I'm still not gonna, yeah, but okay. All right, since eight. I get it. But yeah, I looked at it. Yeah, I looked at it. So yeah, real quick. Yeah. Your favorite crazy cousin Kanye West. I shouldn't say that because Kanye really doesn't. This is me being serious. I realized that Kanye does have bipolar disorder. And we really need to be careful when we label people as crazy too when they're going through stuff. Kanye has not been the same since his mother died. Kanye West is still grieving the loss of his mother, which was unexpected. And she was the rock in the life for him. His eyes, you can tell if you are into it or into it. You could look at someone's eyes and tell when they're in pain and he is still in pain. There's certain glimpse of life going on there. I'm not trying to say the man is dead, but he's grieving still. So y'all heard him say recently that, child, Kanye, it's like, if you want to be working on this new album, you can be having pre-marital sex.  So child, folks went crazy.  They all, except for Kim, they all have had children out of wedlock. What are you? So this is my thing, y'all. I tend to be a person. I save my judgment. I sit back and look at things for a while before I jump in. The book of Matthew tells us, you guys, that I looked this up. Don't think that I know how to quote scriptures like that. I looked it up, but I am familiar with the verse of, basically, you will know who they are by the fruit that they bear. So someone can declare that they're a Christian all day long, all day from eight to five, but their actions have to outline up what they say. Okay. And unfortunately, there are some people to this day who proclaim to be a follower of Jesus Christ and how they behave doesn't, doesn't align. Now, let me say this, we all have our flaws, but if you're consistently showing us a different type of fruit, then something's wrong here. So yeah, before we are quick to say, he ain't no Christian. Sorry. Or you know what I mean? Our judgment is actions. Let's wait and see what he does. Let's see if he'll come through with it. You know what I mean? So I'm, I'm speculating, but I'm waiting to see before I, and I'm not going to judge anybody. Like, like again, we'd be so caught up in other people's like, and I get it, he's a public figure, but what Kanye does does not affect me at the end of the day. Anyway, just want to say that, y'all. Let me finish my hair. Y'all been holding me back on what I'm supposed to be doing. Anyway, y'all, that is that not much else coming up. Girl, the holidays are here.  So the other day, he was like, we're just going to be fat this year, mama. I said, have you been reading my diary? Yes. We all gonna be fat, but no, I am neat to get it together as far as working out better because when the holidays come up with child, I'd be like, no, we're hibernating in two weeks. Let's just eat everything. Can't be that way. So I don't think I will be doing a traditional Thanksgiving this year. Make my husbands their ethnic food. And for Christmas, I'll be a little bit more traditional, but yeah, not really concerned about that. But y'all, we got to get get it together before the new year. Let's not wait till January 1st to make these goals. Let's start now in preparation for the new year. This is how it always been. And so yeah, y'all. Anyway, I'm all over the place. When am I not? So thank y'all so much for watching. I think it was always. So I don't want to subscribe. Let's take care.