Hello, my friends, and welcome to the 93rd episode of Patterson in Pursuit, talking about a difficult but important topic this week, which is abortion and natural rights. My guest is Dr. Walter Block, who has carved out a really interesting position on abortion. Usually we only hear one side of the argument, either the loud pro-life side or the loud pro-choice side that are very angry with one another. There's not a lot of middle ground positions, but actually Dr. Block has created a position called evictionism, which I think takes the best arguments from both sides, and I personally find very persuasive. Dr. Block has been a well-known libertarian for many a decade now. He's written more than a dozen books, more than 500 scholarly journal entries. He's written thousands of articles online, and I was really pleased to have him on the show. He also mentioned at the end of our conversation that he's always looking for new students. So if you want to talk to Dr. Block, you want to study under him, or find out some more information about his ideas, you can check him out at walterblock.com. Also, before we start, if you guys could do me a favor, and if you've been enjoying this show for a while, or you're a new listener, or you like this episode, please head over to iTunes or Stitcher and leave a rating and or a review for Patterson in Pursuit. It really goes a long way. All right, thanks, guys. I hope you enjoy my conversation with Dr. Walter Block. Dr. Walter Block, thank you very much for coming on Patterson Pursuit. It's great to see you. My pleasure. Thanks for having me on your show. I'm really looking forward to talking to you about an idea that is unique because it splits, it finds middle ground between two camps that often don't see eye to eye. And it's the hardest issue for practically any political philosophy is dealing with children and dealing with kids and especially the topic of abortion. So this is a really sticky situation that you have two angry camps of people who argue with each other, don't see eye to eye, and you have put forward a position called evictionism, which finds a very reasonable middle ground between the two. So I want to, I'm really excited to be able to talk to you about it. Well, you're very kind. Thank you. I just want to correct you. They don't argue with each other. They yell at each other. Fair enough. Okay. So before we talk about evictionism, the one step prior to talking about abortion is talking about rights because an essential part of your argument and lots of people's arguments really on both sides deals with the nature of rights. So when you use that term, when you talk about natural rights, let's say the rights of the fetus to live, the rights of the mother to do with her body what she wants. What are you, what are you talking about when you talk about rights? Well, I'm a libertarian. And for libertarians, the be all and end all are really two things. The non-aggression principle and private property rights. I see them as sort of opposite sides of the same coin. So the non-aggression principle means I can't punch you. Or if I do, I should have severe penalties placed on me. And I shouldn't take your car. That's the non-aggression principle. But now we need private property rights because that car that you're driving, I claim you stole it from me yesterday. And now we have to have a little theory as to, well, whose car is it?  So I think we start from the individual and I'm a fan of John Locke here and Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe and Stefan Kinsella who've done great work on this sort of a thing. And I think we start you own that body. The one that you're inhabiting now, I own this body. And why? Why do I own this body? You own that body because you homesteaded it. I now have grandchildren age three and I can see them homesteading their bodies when they were one month old.  But as you get older, you start controlling, you realize this is your hand, you can move it, you can pull your ear, whatever. You sort of homestead your body and you own it. And don't ask me why it is that your parents don't own it, given that every bit of your body comes from them. There was a sperm, there was an egg, and then there was food. And here you popped up. That's a very intractable question. And I don't want to get into it because I don't really know the answer. But I've written about it just because I don't know anything about it. Doesn't mean I can't write about it. And other people have written about it. But that's a very tough one. We're going to start, you own you and I own me. Okay. So I, I like it's a very sensible starting point to develop any political theory. However, there's a, there seems to be a big schism, even in the natural rights camp, trying to answer the question, well, what actually are rights? When you say you own you or you have a right to your body, what is that actually saying?  And when you are in possession of it, it, it means something. Or is it just like convention? Are we just saying, Hey, you and I live in the same world. We got to try to get along. So let's act as if there are these things called rights, and it'll make our engagement more streamlined. Well, I like the first a lot better than the second. I wouldn't reject the second.  And we want to know who's going to be able to drive your car.  I can wear this shirt and we don't want to fuss. So the practicality of the pragmatism is in there too. But I think more deep, more deeply is that you own yourself.  So what it means is that, uh, we libertarians believe in negative rights. You have no positive rights, namely, uh, you don't have a right to a car or to, or to food or clothing or anything like that. You only have a negative right. And the negative right is that no one should molest you or if they do, then they're criminals and they should be made to pay a penalty. Okay. But we need more than just you own you and I own me because we have to have cars, we have to have food and we have to have other things if we're going to live. And now John Locke says that how do you get to own non persons or, you know, the physical reality and the way you get to own physical reality is by mixing your labor with it. So I go out to virgin territory and they've been touched before. I clear the rocks away. I knocked down a tree. I plant some corn. I own the corn and I own the land. Now there's disputes as well. How intensively do I have to homestead it for how many years? Uh, that's a complication, but let's just forget about that for the moment. Now what you do is you go out and you domesticate a cow or two. And now you own the milk. Why? Because you mixed your labor with the, the virgin territory cow and I mixed my labor with the virgin territory land and I now have corn and you have now have milk. And now the libertarian says, uh, uh, Robert Nozick says, uh, these are legitimate title transfers. I say, Hey, I'll trade you some corn for some milk. And now I have some milk, even though I didn't produce it, you have some corn, even though you didn't produce that, but we can trace it back to a legitimate title transfer, namely barter, uh, or gifts or, uh, selling or whatever. And we can trace that back to the original homesteading of the land and the cow, and we can trace that back to I own myself. So I can now mix my body with the land. You can mix your body with the cow, so to speak, milk it, whatever the domesticate it. And that pretty much is libertarian theory of property rights.  And if I grab that car or your shirt, I'm a criminal and vice versa with my car or my shirt. Okay. So this sort of establishes the ground, the ground rules or the basic premises, uh, uh, before we get into the abortion issue. And then one more question before we, we get into the abortion issue that again, that strikes me as eminently practical. But it does seem like there's a distinction between ownership and maybe control of a resource. So when you say, we start from the premise that you own your body. Well, where do you get the concept of ownership? There are some people who say, well, nobody really owns anything in a minute, in a cosmic sense, you may control your body, maybe able to move your fingers, but that doesn't get you to this concept of property ownership. So how do you make that next step? That's a vicious question. I'm hanging up on you. That was not exactly a softball. Well, ownership means, uh, control is, uh, what's the word in economics? We have this thing called positive economics and normative economics. Positive economics is just the, what causes what? And yes, I can control my fingers. You can control your fingers, but then we have normative economics or ethics. And when I say I own my body, that means it would be wrong of you to interfere with, with my body, uh, to, uh, engage in a salt and battery, unless you have my permission. For example, if you're a masochist, I'm a sadist and, and, uh, our relationship as I whip you, well, you agree, you're an adult, or we get into a boxing match. And, and now you punch me in the nose. I can't say, oh, assault and battery, because I've agreed to be hit above the belt. Uh, if you hit me below the belt, I can complain, but so it's a right space thing. So when we say we own something, it, that means it would be wrong. It would be a criminal act for you to interfere with the ownership of the shirt or the body or the car. Okay. But isn't there a difference between it would be wrong and it would be criminal? It does seem like you're, so there's, we're getting kind of at the distinction between ethics, like and morality. Are you saying that your conception of rights is that it is like wrong in a cosmic sense, like in the big, it is objectively wrong for somebody to punch somebody else in the nose, whether out of the permission, or are you saying it is actually criminal, but it's not, we don't get to the cosmic principles of justice here. Well, I'm saying both, but as a libertarian, I can only say the one, because libertarianism is a theory of what the law should be. And what the law should be is you keep your midst yourself. I'll keep my midst myself unless we have permission. But as an individual, as a non libertarian, I think would be wrong for, you know, somebody to steal somebody's shirt or shoes or whatever. And I also, as a libertarian, say it would be criminal because that's what the law is. The law is non aggression principle based predicated on private property rights. Okay, so we've got this conception of rights. I think it's beautiful. I think pretty much whatever your political identity, you can see the at least practicality in this idea of ownership and property rights. If you want a smooth functioning society, even if you don't want to talk about ethics, but it immediately gets us a sticky problem because there's this phenomena that happens in the world with human beings called conception, where we don't seem to have independent humans kind of voluntarily interacting anymore. We have women that suddenly grow new humans inside them. So now you have a, it seems like a conflict of rights. Well, you have the rights of the mother, but maybe you have the rights of the, the young human inside the mother. What if there's tension between the two? What if the mother doesn't want the human insider? So immediately you were presented with big, big problems here. So let me just kind of kind of present the both sides of the argument and then I'll let you resolve the tension. Okay. So the standard pro life side focuses, let's say on the rights of the unborn child. They say, well, abortion must everywhere and always be off the table because you're killing an innocent life and that's just murder. Therefore, murder is never justified kind of end of case. The pro choice side is saying, well, no, the focusing on the rights of the mother saying, no, the unborn fetus is part of the mother's body. The mother can do whatever she wants with her body and therefore if it's abortion or if it's getting rid of fetus, whatever it is, that's okay. It doesn't matter if the child dies or we kill the child, that's let's say that group of cells doesn't have any rights. There's no violation there. Okay. What is your third option here? You seem to disagree with both camps and agree with them in different ways. So what's your position? Well, first of all, I believe we have to ask when is a person become a human being.  For nine months, it's indistinguishable from the spleen or the appendix or the toe.   I disagree with that. Here I take the pro life side. I say that a birth is just a change of address. If you take a baby one minute before birth or one hour before birth, and then you look at the baby one hour or one minute after birth, it's the same baby. I mean, you and I have been talking now for 15, 20 minutes, we've changed subtly, but very little in 15 times. I'm growing older, I'm older than you, but even I haven't aged all that much in 10, 20 minutes. So if you look at the baby, this, this bunch of cells, five minutes before birth, and then you look at the baby, which everyone concedes is a baby five minutes after birth, it looks the same. So I say that the baby is just a, it's just a change of address when you get born. You're in distinguishable. Okay, they cut off the umbilical cord, but what the heck? I say that when, so when does life start and here you have the different, what do you call it? Views. In the Jewish tradition, and this is a joke, so you better laugh, the baby, the fetus is viable when it graduates medical school. Actually, the Jewish view is that it's viable when it has a heartbeat. That would be the official view. And I'm not, I'm not sure other views, but in my view, the fertilized egg is a human being. Why? Because the sperm alone will not become a human being. The egg alone will not become a human being, but the fertilized egg, namely when the sperm gets into the egg, it will become a human being if it's in the right environment. And you and I need the right environment. If they plunked us down on Mars without a space suit, we die. The baby would die if it didn't have this, that and the other. But if it does have the proper environment, that baby, that, that bunch of cells will become a baby or will become a human being. So here I'm on the pro life side. I say human beings start with the fertilized egg. One question before you continue. So are you saying that the fertilized egg is a human being because it will become a human being? No, it's a human being right then and there. It's a young human being. It doesn't look like it's going to look later on. But then again, how old are you? 28. I'm 76. When I was 28, I looked a lot different. When you become 76, you're going to look a lot different. Okay. So yes, the fertilized egg looks a little different than, than the fetus of six months or the fetus of eight months or the baby of one month or the baby of three years or the baby of 28 years.  Yeah, we take on different appearances. But there is a difference in the, there is a difference in the internal experience, the way I assume that the, the fertilized egg doesn't have like a consciousness or rationality where you and I, even with the age difference between us, we still both have the consciousness. No, no, no. Last night, when we were asleep, we had no consciousness, assuming we were not dreaming. I don't know what we were doing with last night when we were asleep, but I'm happy to, and if you look, I had an operation the other day. I just had knee replacement surgery. And when they put me out, I had, I was out. I had no consciousness and it was, I don't know, two or three hours of my operation. So I don't think consciousness is the key. I think when we're asleep or unconscious or getting back to the boxing match, you now knock me out and I'm out for a week because you gave me a real good punch and then happily I recover. Well, for a while, I have no consciousness. So I don't think consciousness is the key. I think the key is that that baby, that fertilized egg is a rights bearing creature. It has rights. And if you take a knife to it and break it up or take a hammer to it and smush it or something, it would be just as much a violation of rights as if I were to shoot you or you were to shoot me. That is a baby. And I don't care whether it has consciousness or not. I'm willing to concede that it doesn't. But I think that's irrelevant because, you know, sleeping in unconscious people don't have consciousness either. And yet they're human beings. OK, so that sounds like the pro life position. So now how do you nuance it? Well, the way I nuance this is. I say, first of all, I want to say that my compromise is a what's the word I'm looking for a principal compromise. If you say two plus two is four and I say two plus two is six, a compromise would be two plus two is five. But that wouldn't be a principal compromise because what's the justification of two plus two equals five, except that it's a compromise. But there's no justification for that other than it's a compromise. My claim is that evictionism is a principal compromise between pro life and pro choice. It's not just a plain old ordinary compromise, which has no other justification at all. OK, so now I ask who owns the house within which that baby or that fetus is now occupying? Who is the first owner of the womb? Who is the first owner of the woman's body? The woman, she's the owner. It's her hotel or her house or her factory or whatever it is. And the fetus, the unwanted fetus is a trespasser. Yes, it has rights, but it's a trespasser. Take a case of rape. The woman's walking along the street. She gets grabbed. She gets impregnated. And now there's something, not something, a human being growing in her. Well, it's as if you have a boat and you're two hundred miles away from the shore and all of a sudden you find me. I was unconscious. I was put on your boat. I'm an innocent trespasser. The fetus is innocent. I mean, the rapist, the father is a bad guy, but the product of the rape is not a bad guy. It's a little baby and it's innocent, but it's a trespasser. It's an innocent trespasser, just as I would be an innocent trespasser if I was in your boat.   And I said, well, you know, I can only swim two miles and I'm two hundred miles away.  Now it would be nice of you to say, OK, I'll keep you here. But remember, we libertarians believe in property rights. It's your boat. You have the right to expel me from it. Now, Murray Rothbard has this beautiful thing. Brilliant analysis. And he says, well, suppose that the two of us are we're in a boat and and all of a sudden the boat capsizes and we're swimming and we see a piece of wood and the piece of wood will only hold one of us. It can't hold both of us. If we both grab it, we'll both sink. Who is the rightful owner of that log or that piece of wood? The first homesteader. If I beat you to it by five seconds, I own it and it's tough on you. You beat me, vice versa, it's tough on me. So the key is who owns it and the mother owns it. So here I'm coming out a little pro-choice. The mother has a right. Again, we're in the case of rape.  We'll get to that in a minute. But here is a case of rape. The mother has got a human being growing in her and it would be nice. She'd be a good guy if she said, well, you know, a baby's innocent. I'll keep the baby around for nine months and then I'll give it up for adoption or maybe I'll love the baby. Who knows? But she doesn't have to because it's her property. She can evict, but she can't kill. Now, getting back to me. I'm a stowaway on your boat. I'm an innocent stowaway. I was stuck on your boat unconsciously. You can't shoot me.  So I say it's the same thing. The mother can evict the baby, but she can't kill it. Even if the eviction results in the person's death. That's a different issue. I don't care. Well, I mean, I care. I'm a human being.  But I'm speaking purely as a libertarian with just looking at the legal case and legal cases, she has a right to evict, but not to murder, not to kill. Whereas now we come up with the principle of compromise. The pro-life people say she has no right to evict and she has no right to kill. The pro-choice people say she has a right to evict and to kill. And I say she has a right to evict, but not to kill. So it's a pure compromise. It's a perfect compromise. It's two plus two equals five, but it's predicated on property rights, which as a good libertarian, I'm supposed to predicate everything on. I like this theory a lot. And in fact, the first time that I heard this, I don't know if I heard it or I read it from some of your articles, I was pretty much converted. I thought, wow, that actually makes quite a lot of sense. That is a reasonable compromise, but I want to play devil's advocate. So I want to take some questions from the pro-life side, some skeptical questions from the pro-choice side and see how this resolves them. So let's start with the pro-life objections. It sounds like there's a, this valuation of the property rights is at the expense of human lives. So if you're saying let's have intellectual consistency and logical rigor with regards to natural rights, that's more important than the actual effect of when the child is evicted at two months that the child is going to die. It seems like there's a problem there. If you got to give up one, give up the consistent natural rights theory to preserve the life of the child. How would you respond? Well, I'm not a utilitarian. I don't believe, look, there's a clash of rights here. If you take that position, namely it's the mother versus the baby, both can't win the mother. And then we're still in the case of rape. Yes, the baby will die, but otherwise the mother has to bear the product of her rape for nine months. That's a burden. Now you might say, well, life is more important than the inconvenience of nine months. But now you're getting into utilitarianism. You're having all sorts of, what is it, interpersonal comparisons of utility, which are invalid. The big problem with utilitarianism is you can't compare utility of you and me. And you have this thing called the utility monster. The utility monster is somebody who really enjoys cannibalism, killing people and eating them. He really enjoys it much more than we normal human beings disenjoy being eaten up alive. He really gets off on this.  So I'm not a utilitarian. I'm interested in rights. I'm interested in seeing what libertarianism have pushed to its logical extreme will yield us. So I admit that, yes, here, if you take an ordinary case of utilitarianism, the mother, it's only a nine month inconvenience. For the baby, it's life itself.  But utilitarianism is not a valid theory. It's not a valid theory of rights. It doesn't, because I can come up with all sorts of counter examples. For example, the utility monster. Or I can say, I'm bigger and stronger than you and I enjoy beating you to a pulp more than you disenjoy it. And how can we prove that wrong? That we, you know, we have measures of things. We have height, we have weight, we have speed. We have body temperature in 98.6. We do not have measures of happiness or utility.   But I enjoyed it a lot more than you disenjoyed it. How can you prove me wrong? I think that presupposes that it's a binary distinction between the natural rights theory and the utilitarianism. Maybe somebody can just be kind of a nihilist here and say, well, I don't subscribe to either, but it seems like you take these circumstances on a case-by-case basis. And we have, let's say an arbitrary valuing of life, not for its, not because of pleasurability or the utility of the psychological happiness it brings, but just as its own principle. And so when you have the juxtaposition, or not juxtaposition, the tension between somebody's significant inconvenience for nine months and life or death for a human being, in that case, you would err on the side of just defending the baby's life rather than making sure we protect this theory, this construct of rights in the first place. Where it's like, if you get out of the the philosophic framework and just look at what's happening in the world, it seems like you are valuing rights consistency more than life. Which kind of seems like it puts the cart before the horse. And the rights consistency about preserving life in the first place. Well, once you mention the word case-by-case basis, you've given up all principles. I mean, anyone can say anything. Well, in this case of pregnancy due to rape, we'll go one way. And on that case, we'll go the other way.  The mother says, I can't bear the ignomy of bearing that man's child for nine months.  And now I'm gonna kill, obviously, if I commit suicide, the baby dies too. So now it's a life versus a life. So whose life is more important?  So I'm not a real big fan of that. I'm rather, I'm a libertarian and I'm willing to tolerate the criticism. Well, I don't really care about people. I just care about disembodied philosophical rights. Yeah, I do care about disembodied philosophical rights because I think that's the best way we can get along with each other. Because if we don't, we're gonna have mass murder.  Well, just a little bit. Look, look, Hitler wanted to have an Aryan race 1,000 year rike. According to the utilitarians, maybe he was right. Look, those Aryans, they were pretty good, you know? They had virtues and they had benefits. Suppose they got more utility out of killing, I happen to be Jewish. Suppose they got more utility out of killing. We vermin, Jews, we're vermin and they're Aryans and maybe they were case by case basis. Maybe we should support them. Why should we be such anti-Nazis?  No, no, no, Nazism is the way to go. I hope nobody takes this out of context. I was gonna say, I know you had some issues before with media taking your words out of context. Yes, I favor slavery and now I'm favoring Nazism. But hopefully anyone listening to this will listen to the context. I'm really not pro-Nazi. But I'm just saying that if you go down that road of utilitarianism, we have no way of saying nay to the Nazis. The Nazis can say, look, we're Aryans. We're better than you people. You Jews are vermin and case by case basis. Let's give this one to the Nazis. The next one, we'll go the other way. So I'm not a big fan of that way of looking at it. And yes, I think that the best way, I think that libertarianism is utilitarian in the macro sense. Namely that if we adhere to libertarianism, we won't have any Nazis. We won't have any mass murder. We won't have any rape. We won't have any starvation. So I reject this dichotomy that you're putting before me. You're saying, well, it's either human life or bloodless rules. Well, I say these bloodless rules are the best way to promote human life. Yeah, I actually, I think I agree with that. I like the phrase that you use. It's utilitarian in the macro sense. I had an interview with Jeff Myron at Harvard about welfare. And he was talking about the libertarian principles as applied to welfare, that in some micro cases, you could say, reducing the amount of welfare would actually, in principle, harm individual people. It would be bad in those cases. But if you take the macro sense, and if you look at it from a rules perspective, that actually would be better for everybody in the long run, kind of the utilitarian approach, which I agree with.  I've got to blast away at him for not being as pure a libertarian as I would like him to be or as I try to be. But that's neither here nor there. But I think that in the overall sense, the libertarianism will lead to the most happiness for the most people. I'm not a utilitarian, but I make that utilitarian claim. So I reject the idea that I'm hard-hearted, cold-blooded, or I don't really care about people. I care about people. But I think the best way to promote human flourishing is to uphold property rights and the non-aggression principle. OK, so one more objection from the pro-life side, and then I'll do some pro-choice questions. This is half-ingest, but it actually is an interesting idea. So if you're talking about eviction in practice, like the legal concept of eviction, doesn't there have to be a 30-day notice?   So wouldn't you have to give some kind of developmental 30 or 60-day notice to the fetus prior to evicting? Well, maybe a nine-month notice. All right. Let's get back to this boat. I'm a still way on your boat. How much notice do you have to give me before you tell me to jump? Or I'm a still way on your plane. And you say, leave my plane. I say, do you have a parachute handy? And you say, no. Or I've got just as many parachutes as I need. I don't have an extra one, and I'm at 30,000 feet. How much notice do you have to give me? I don't think you have to give me any, well, maybe a second or two. I don't know. Look, just because in landlord-tenant law, you have to give your tenant 30-days notice, doesn't mean that that's libertarian law. That's not libertarian law. Libertarian law means you have a right to your property.  I now have that shirt and you're naked from the waist up. And I now have that shirt. How much notice do you have to give me before you get the shirt back? None. I should give you that shirt back immediately if I stole it from you. Is there a difference, though, between the ownership of a good and, I guess, in practice, the landlord-tenant relationship? So I guess what you're saying is in the libertarian legal system, landlords can evict on the spot. Well, on the spot, I mean, you can't do it in one second because they're entitled to take their clothes. And it's going to take an hour to get their clothes in a box or something like that. So they're practical things. Sometimes when people are fired, they're given one hour to clear out their desk and there's a campus cop or somebody who overlooks overseas this. So I'm not saying it's instantaneous because, look, I stole your shirt and I'm now 10 feet away from you. Even if I throw the shirt back at you, it's going to take three seconds for the shirt to get back to you. So there's a practical element. But if you want to push this, I have to give nine months notice. For the baby to get her things together, baby. That's it. Well, I reject this argument that you have to give more notice than reality requires. Reality requires some notice. Again, I took your shirt. It's going to take at least three seconds for me to get the shirt back to you because I'm now 10 feet away from you. But wouldn't it be, couldn't we say something like the principle you're drawing from when you say you have to give as much notice as reality requires? Couldn't you say reality would require the baby in this circumstance to be given enough notice to be viable to leave so that it doesn't die? Nice try. I appreciate the power of your argument. You're a good, what is it, negative? What were you saying? Devil's advocate. You're a good devil's advocate. I think that's a very powerful argument. But I think that the amount of notice that you'd have to give is you have to go to a doctor. And you might need a doctor's appointment might take a week. Or if the doctor is right there, he just can't evict the fetus right away. It's going to take him an hour. He's got to put the woman out. He's got to clean his forceps or whatever it is. So there's a certain amount of required time to evict the fetus. But it's not nine months. It might be nine minutes or more reasonably nine hours. All right, so I want to push this one step further because it just popped in my head. So let's say that you are a property owner. And on your tenant's land, he builds something like a nuclear power plant. And it just so happens that in the construction of that nuclear power plant, you can't disassemble it immediately. So he wants to take his power plant. He wants to disassemble it properly, then take it to another location and rebuild it. That might be a year-long process, right? So if in that circumstance, we'd say, well, you can't evict immediately. The person has this property that has to be disassembled. That's a long-term eviction. Couldn't we say the same about the baby? No, because the baby, let's look, you're talking something very practical. It's going to take a year to disassemble the nuclear power.  OK, well, then reality requires one year. But how much does reality require for the woman that wants to have an eviction or an abortion? It requires nine hours, maybe, or maybe nine minutes. Not nine months. Yeah, but you're looking at the practicality of the eviction from the property owner's standpoint and not the baby. So couldn't you say reality? How much time does reality require for the baby to get its stuff together? Right. It might not be nine months. It might be six months or something like that. Just like you can't say the property owner would only take a few minutes to repossess the land of the nuclear power plant tenant, you have to look at how long it would take for the tenant to disassemble the nuclear power plant. It seems like the tenant in the baby's case takes a few months to get their belongings together and then can leave. Where I disagree with you is that you see it bifurcation. You see the length of time could either be from this side or that side, either from the owner or the trespassers side. I don't see it that way. I see it much more objectively. How long will it take for me to get that shirt back to you? Three seconds. How long will it take to have an eviction or an abortion? A day. There are abortion centers where a woman can go in and she can't get it done in one minute. She's got to undress first. She's got to get on the operating table. You've got to get a doctor in there. But it's not you have to get a doctor in there for this side or for that side. It's an objective thing. How long will it take? Well, for an abortion or an eviction, it will take an hour or two, not nine months. Whereas the nuclear power, it'll take a year. But you can't transfer the year from the nuclear plant to the baby. And it's objective. How long will it take? And not how long will it take from this side or how long will it take from that side? It's how long will it take to evict? How long will it take for you to get me out of that boat or that plane? Oh, a minute. You have to open the door. If you want to kick me out of the plane, you've got to open the door. Well, it takes five minutes to open that door. How long will it take to get me off the boat? Well, if I'm downstairs in the boat and it's a big boat, it'll take a minute for me to be frog-matched upstairs and then kicked overboard. But it'll take from my side or from your side. It's how long will it take, period? I do think there are some more lines of attack on this particular idea that are there. But I do want to transition while we have time to skeptical arguments from the pro-choice side for evictionism. So I guess most fundamentally, maybe the biggest criticism or skepticism that somebody could have towards evictionism from the pro-choice side is the premise, the starting premise, that the group of sales is a human being. So when you were talking about this, there's a less popular philosophic position on the rights of, let's say, newborns. That shocks some people. But I forget, it's off the top of my head who holds this belief.  You don't even get necessarily when you're a year old. You're still completely dependent on the mother, and you don't have these certain properties which makes you a human being. So his position is you can have post-birth abortion. I don't know how long it is. It's something like a year or maybe longer than that. In those circumstances, those toddlers or babies aren't actually full human beings, so they don't have rights yet. Just like we would say a dog doesn't have rights or a lesser developed creature doesn't have rights, neither does a newborn. What do you think about that approach? I think the guy's name begins with an S. I've got it that's simply my tongue. I know you're speaking of. I think he's a menace. Look, the refutation of that is, last night, we were both asleep at three in the morning. So it would have been okay if somebody shot me while I was asleep? No. And yet when I was asleep, I was helpless and I wasn't coherent, I wasn't cogent. So I think the refutation of that is that the problem is with unconscious or sleeping people are just like newborns. They're helpless. They don't know what's going on. If there was a fire, I'd have to wake you. If you were a heavy sleeper and there was a fire, you'd just burn to death, right? So you're no better than a one year old when you were asleep, if you were a heavy sleeper. So we can kill heavy sleepers? I regard that as an utter and total refutation. Okay, in that though, I don't think the idea is as much the consciousness or like the nature of the existence of the internal experience if you're conscious or subconscious, it's this idea of personness.  And if I'm not mistaken, I really should know this guy's name. And I think it does start with an S. Anyway, they're saying even in cases like severely mentally handicapped people who cannot take care of themselves should be on the spectrum for abortion, a very late term abortion. So it's a mental development rather than the existence of consciousness. Well, you know, I'm 76, I'm almost senile. My critics say I'm already senile. So we can kill senile people. I regard that as grotesque. It's certainly against the libertarian view of non-murder and against the libertarian view of the non-aggression principle. You know, as I say, I'm 76. When I'm 86 or 96 or 106, I might be senile. And I think it would be murder if somebody just killed me. You know, they're old people's homes and I can go in with a machine gun and start shooting the senile people. That's grotesque, that's crazy. So I reject that.  In one second, we'll transition to that. One more, just to end that line. Go get them. So are you saying then you're kind of appealing to maybe a genetic argument that what is the distinction when the sperm and the egg actually meet? Well, you now have a genetic code that was not there before. Are you saying at that moment when the genetics are unified into one human being, that's what a human being is from the genetic standpoint?  And they're not human, but do they have rights? And what Murray said is if they can petition for their rights and respect our rights, then they are rights-bearing creatures. They're not human beings, but they're rights-bearing creatures. Well, I think that's right. I agree with Murray on that. I think Murray is a genius libertarian. He's missed the libertarian. And I think he's absolutely right here. By the way, Murray was pro-choice. Ron Paul was pro-life. Ron Paul is pro-life. And you can't get two more highly credentialed libertarians than those two. And they are 180 degrees off from each other, which gets back to your point very much at the beginning of the show that, you know, this is an intractable problem. And, but to get back to, so I think that obviously the fetus can't promise the respect rights and he can't petition for his rights, but he is not a potential human being. He's a human being right then and there because when he grows up, he will be. Just as, you know, I had this operation and while I was out and I was unconscious for a day or two, I couldn't petition for my rights then. I couldn't promise to respect anyone else's rights then. You couldn't do it when you're asleep, but you had that potential namely when you awoke or when I got out of my unconscious stage and when the fetus gets a little older and not one year old, but, you know, maybe 10 years old, 13 years old, 15 years old, that's when they become an adult, but we're not talking about that. So I think my view, which is pro-life that the human life starts at the fertilized egg, I think is much better than it starts when birth or it starts when the heart beats. Who cares about the heart beating? Who cares about a change of address? That's relatively unimportant. The key is that the fertilized egg has the potential to become, we were all fertilized eggs at one time and look at us now, we're coherent, we can respect rights. So I think that view of mine is very defensible. Okay, I think it's Peter Singer, by the way, isn't that the- That's it, that's it. So it's the, just to be specific, it is the potential for the future respecting of rights, which is what makes a creature a rights-bearing creature. Is that correct? Yeah, look, when you were asleep, you might have violated rights, be, you know, let's say you thrash around or something like that.  You might bump into someone and commit assault and battering on them. Now you wouldn't be responsible, it would be a tort, not a crime, right? But when you woke up, you would then be able to respect rights. But when you're a sleepwalker, you don't respect rights. Well, I know this is gonna get us into a whole nother thing that it would take many hours to talk about, but it makes me think, if what you're saying is true, then what do we do about animals? Because it might be the case that some particular animal might at a future date be capable of respecting rights. So how would you kind of prove or confidently conclude that a particular animal does not have the capacity to be a rights-bearing creature? Well, they say chimpanzees and dolphins and pigs are the three of the smartest animals. I'm not sure about pigs, but I think dolphins and chimpanzees and maybe pigs. Well, if there were one of them, then you've got a point. But so far, I don't know if any chimpanzee or any dolphin or any pig that can petition for his rights and respect other people's rights. And once we get one, it goes by the species. Well, how does one petition for rights? How does that, what does that process look like? Who do you call? Well, I'm assuming we have a translator or we have a God's eye view or something. Look, when we come up with these Martians that look half like a kangaroo and half like a snake, we're in theoretical a bill here. And so if I can invent that, I can invent a translator. And also I can determine, are they biting us? And if they're not biting us, well, then they haven't violated rights yet. Okay. Okay, so let's transition then. We were talking about the rape case, which is the hardest case for abortion. What are the other cases that you have analysis of? Well, the other case would be voluntary sexual intercourse. And now we have the claim on the part of the pro-choice people that you made a contract with the baby. Namely, you knew that intercourse could result in a baby and therefore there was a contract with the baby. And the contract, the implicit contract was nine months.   A host mother is a mother who is paid to have a baby and she should not be allowed to evict because that would violate her contract. But forget about the host mother, just take an ordinary couple or whether they're married or not, it really doesn't matter. You know, suppose they're using protection, a condom or birth control and it breaks. Well, it's hard to see how there was a contract. Secondly, a second refutation of this argument is at the time of sexual intercourse, there is no fertilized egg. It takes a little time for the sperm to get up through the, I think the fallopian tube or some tube or other to get to where the egg is. So at the time of intercourse, you see, if you wanna have a contract, you and I can have a contract because there are two people. Now, forget about the father and forget about host mother. At the time of intercourse, there aren't two people. There's not the mother and the fetus, there's just the mother. It takes a half hour or an hour or so, I'm not sure how long, a minute, doesn't matter for the sperm to get to the egg. Only then is there a contract but a contract implies two people. Now I'm willing to admit that the fetus is a contractual party. It's a little difficult but I'm willing to admit it because I'm bending over backwards against my own view. But there at least has to be the existence of another party.  So I reject this argument. Now I just wanted to make one more point. Sure. My heart is with the pro-life people. And I notice that right now we pro-lifers are losing in the United States. The law of the land is abortion, is legal. So we're losing. I notice also that right now a fetus is viable in the third trimester. So if you evict in the seventh, eighth, or ninth month, that fetus is viable. But as medical technology improves, the fetus will be viable in the sixth month and the fifth month and the fourth month and the third month. You know that in 5,000 years from now, taking a long view, the baby will be viable in the first minute outside of the womb because we'll have artificial wombs or whatever it is. So if we adopt, I now speak to my fellow pro-life people, if we adopt evictionism, we will win eventually thanks to medical technology. If we don't adopt evictionism, we're losing right now and I don't see how we're gonna win. So it's really profoundly a pro-life argument but I'm not taking the pro-life position because I think that the mother has the right to evict and right now with present medical technology, the fetus will die in the first two trimesters up to the sixth month. I think that's a very compelling point and I would add to that that there is a distinction in my book between the law and morality. So it's an entirely separate question of whether the mother who has a legal right to evict an unviable fetus is doing a moral good or a moral bad by evicting. And though it is tempting to say that morality and the law should be unified in all cases, I actually don't think that is a wise long-term approach. People disagree on their morality is if you're gonna live in the same society you gotta have some kind of rules that govern your behavior that aren't just moral rules. So I kind of like from the macro perspective, if it's the case that you're pro-life and you're living in a society where not everybody has the exact moral system that you have, then it makes sense, evictionism really does make sense as a reasonable middle ground where it's saying, yes, you do have the right, though you might be doing something that's not morally respectable, we're still going to respect your legal right to evict. Well, look, I think prostitution is immoral. Not good. I have a daughter, I wouldn't wanna be a prostitute. I mean, I'd rather she found some guy and got married, a nice guy. Prostitution, yuck. It doesn't pass the smell test, the moral test, but should we put them in jail for adult consensual behavior? Not according to libertarianism. So here you have a divergence between morality and what the law should be, similar with the heroin. I don't think taking heroin is moral. Well, morphine, if you're in the terminal cancer stages or something like that, I don't think is immoral. But recreational heroin, I think is immoral. And also getting drunk, I think is immoral. So should we? Really? So you're a Puritan, I didn't realize this. Yes, morality-wise, I'm a teetotaler, well, I have a little wine once in a while, but I don't think that it would be justified to bring back a prohibition of alcohol. I don't think the drug war is justified. So you're quite right, I think that there's a divergence between what is moral and what should be legal. And the libertarianism is only concerned about what the law should be. And we say only if you violate the non-aggression principle. And murdering a fetus is a violation of that, whereas evicting is not. Well, I think that's a great note to end on. Thanks very much for this conversation, it's been great. My pleasure, I really appreciated talking to you and I look forward to doing it again sometime. Thanks.


what's up guys happy fridays TGIF for some see what's going on in the market today we got Tesla down 3.3% for the day CCL CCL has been down lately a lot ever since that retail run up CCL has given back a lot of gains from 25 to 22s which kind of makes sense I mean cruise is not back or anything TSNs also given some back some gains today American airline as well a lot of the travel industry gave me back the gains that it got last week you know from Brookings.com doing really good so all the travel industry was like oh we gooch you know but it was not the case just because the middleman was doing good doesn't mean all the other guys are doing good so Delta Airlines while a lot of them coming back down pretty hard could have been good shorts in these days whoo NOC huge drop from the earnings last time Raythons coming back up I mean come back down Boeing lucky Martin crazy stuff Cardinal health actually moved back up today if you guys are dividend investors you know the stock huge dividend player master car moving back up PayPal looks like we could be finding that bottom at 200s off that psychological level yesterday looks some stuff look at interesting some of the big guys is starting to show reversal to the upside a little bit what's up Ian what's going on so you know we have Apple having a green clothes today we got Microsoft having a nice reversal to the upside alphabet Google up 2% for the day Amazon as well 1.5% Facebook aka the meta platforms you know up a lot today as well so Netflix to a lot of the things are doing really really good today yo Java this guy man this guy this guy what a beast if you guys got into GG the GG PI make sure to think this guy because he came on the platform he talked about it a little bit he was like yo check it out this looks pretty interesting we looked at it we were like yo why not you know why not no brainer especially around the $10 one but you know I was anticipating to sit on that for a while I was you know I was like sitting there I was like you know I can sit on this for a month I can send this for two months I could probably sit on this till February because the acquisition wasn't for a long time you know but yo is popping and we got in pretty early too I think we got in around like this 1050 range right super cheap man that was a good area to get in so thank you for stopping by and mentioning that's us man I like the company I see a lot of commercials for them and stuff so Roblox did go crazy today man what I tell you metaverse man I think Roblox also went crazy because Facebook went crazy and Facebook just I think they I'm pretty sure Facebook had the official official name changed today so it's like metaverse so like you know it bought more hype and and like everything metaverse related is going today like even the crypto let me show you crypto market all red right crypto market was like red red you know but look at the metaverse coins look at the metaverse coins and we just talked about this yesterday too that if you guys want to make some dumb money get rich crypto you know you we have mana coin which is decentralized decentralized as a metaverse coin went up almost 20% today sand coin had a nice recovery too as well you know coming off the bottom so very big moves today man big moves today the whole metaverse thing man with Facebook is caring it's caring these guys very very hard what's up SkySense shop could shop continue running after the dip and rip an all-time high breakout volume looks high it close over supply zone all-time high okay we check it out Spotify up 10% Ian says very nice what a monster move they move after hours I'm not seeing 10% move here Oh Shopify yeah SNDL sure we can definitely do that so let's let's add these to the list we got Shopify we got SNDL where else we got they all the tickers you guys want to check out see what market unbalance is today no data on that market imbalance imbalance was on close was 750 million to the sell side GGPI hitting $13 after hours a lot of big moves today huh spy was almost 1.1 billion to the sell side today but then we covered it a little bit at the end of the day so I guess like people are definitely taking profit man but but the market wanted to grind up higher Etsy had a big move today Etsy had a 7.8 percent 7.48 percent move today as well too so let's take a look at shop what a move so Shopify moved to move past the all-time high at was that 1646 where do we close that for Shopify close at 1669 oh my gosh that's a monster move man that's a big move oh yeah I don't know why but they said that Shopify is doing some apparently they're also doing some metaverse stuff too I don't know how though or what but I just see a little bit Kip sent me this this graph today I was talking about all the metaverse stocks from some some other person let me see if I can find that message they kept sending that message so kept sending this message today and these apparently like all the stocks there like you know if you want to invest in the metaverse investing these stocks and their meta port Google and VRS meta Microsoft and the DA and video you for unity Roblox or BLX and Shopify I don't know how Shopify is related though audio books so apparently those are all the stocks there like you know for like social media people to get into metafi and and you know all these stocks obviously ran big time because of it but I'm not seeing the news articles for it though I'm not seeing how like they're going to achieve that maybe they just threw Shopify there for fun and see where it goes but usually if there's anything I notice when these big tickers when they break all-time highs they usually break a little bit higher so we could have a possible pattern here you know it just broke that 1649 level or 1650 level to say right I could see as going next level be like 1752s depending on how long or what time frame we go to hit it but that could be interesting move to usually when there's enough momentum enough volume to take it it usually goes higher so kind of like over here we had huge momentum and volume that picked it up from the earning day and it just carried it up so that's gonna be interesting play 1650 right now damn I wish I was doing the stream to mark it open and we could have looked at some place for it you know we could have looked at some some fijian situations what's up cloud great question man very smart question it's all gonna be built it's all built into the formula and how I swing trains stuff like that so you know it's pretty close to the four hour but I have my own reasoning for it but once we released our script we're gonna release our trading a swing trading script really soon it's gonna come with the whole money flow and everything too as well so when all that stuff gets released it's gonna be very juicy we'll do some mentoring for them and I'll explain a bit more about how the time frames helped us in terms of swing trading day trading and how it helps you know understand these indicator as well so like this over here is kind of like the money flow indicator we've got this triangle pointing up kind of signaling the crossover over here you know this is just lighting up so anytime it lights up it's like yo money money is coming in like you know the market makers are coming in with their money and that's usually pretty bullish so like kind of like over here let's say you took that trade right here right where is that you see so let's point this up right so say you took that trade right there so that's when it first light up the triangle first light up right here so you see that triangle first and light up right here and Spotify was I mean Shopify was still pretty red right but you see like money makers coming in their money flow is coming in and stuff MMS and next day it shows a doji and the day after that blew up so that's why you know it's like it's very very interesting because a lot of times when you see the MM come in that's when the move happens so they like to get in the low and then they sell on the top it's gonna be interesting stuff but if we think Shopify is going to 1750 let me see let me see let me see if it's cheap enough to make a play for it what do you guys think it's gonna hit 1750 probably a week or two right two weeks maybe I would say 1750 oh kind of expensive man so if you do a bull call spread and you buy the 1740 to 1750 it will cost you like $355 and could potentially make 645 but realistically if we're just looking to target 1750 only gonna make like 189 unless we go short of time frame you see if you can build butterfly for this Spotify is a pretty good if you um if you get the timing correct so we're looking for 1750s right so I'm gonna make that middle range oh shoot so expensive man it costs you zero money to do it actually I don't even think we can play a butterfly on on Shopify because it just it's a liquidity is too bad it's one of those things that you just watch from the sideline man I mean you can trade shares but it's so hard to do options this this guy man tell me I'm muted this guy you're muted gonna mute you man somebody somebody mute this guy young bo come back here man but yeah that'd be pretty interesting I could see that move up what's a naked I mean you could play naked too but it's hell expensive too it's very tricky to play Shopify man any of these big ticker is very very hard to play so let's put that in here next one is SNDL whoa what a big move what the hell I didn't see this I actually was trying to I actually um had some shares of SNDL and I was trying to wheel them I was trying to sell some sell some calls against it so hopefully they fill today on this big move up I was trying to sell the dollar calls they were like literally worthless yesterday so I had to go like a few months out but oh T L ROI acquisition you know if they get acquired by till right man I would actually be very disappointed because I really have shares of Tilray I don't need any shares of SNDL and in addition to that if they acquired them I feel like I don't know I don't feel like they they would even make a lot of money because that this company is like more like a more like a penny stock more like a pump-and-dump kind of stock you know so like I don't think like they're they're fundamental and financials are as great as people want them to be for an acquisition but you know sometime news drive or a rumor drives that stock up check earnings yeah check earnings see I can't imagine it being really good though whoops oh so they had earnings today they said they reported their financial operational result Thursday for the third quarter and September 30 if you only net earnings of 11.3 million for the period I think this actually lost it's not even a gain because over here is parentheses in red in July the Calgary based company acquire they acquire another company they're also picking up some liquor company as well so net revenue was up 57% increase sequentially 12% year over year net revenue is declined though oh they're doing they're doing a stock buyback too so that's probably what's driving the price up a lot today the stock buyback is pretty bullish I mean the company's market cap is 1.48 billion they said they're doing like 100 mil in Canadian dollars buyback so that's like you know that's a reasonable percentage that's probably why I moved like pretty big today what's the options chain like I can't even find it the options chain might even be invalid at this point is it G GT TN Q now it's it's if it is it's probably invalid at this point let me see what else we have SNDL oh yeah that was SNDL let me see we have we have some yo this trend line actually almost almost heading perfectly a little bit here so we had a nice move up already I think it can move a little bit further to the dollar trend line it has done that quite a few times before there's some resistance dollar probably psychological level as well and then that could potentially be a resistance unless you can break over it last game LVS check that out damn some of you guys got scammed by by this company SNDL before having you so LVS kind of like the cruises the airlines that we just talked about right so last week last week was extremely extremely bullish week for the way opening sectors the travel sectors and stuff like that right so that that includes everything from airlines right like here like airlines we got AAL you know we got like CCL cruises we got hotels you know and then we got like what else we got in casinos right they all like they all like you know we opening plays and whatnot so a lot of the stuff ran last week because bookings.com had a really good earnings and you know as they share a lot of people bookings and things like that and and they just kind of drove the whole sector a little bit wild but they only had great earnings because they're the middle man you know they don't really don't get affected as hard and they benefit a lot when people are starting to travel more so people look that in like oh so foolish let's let me buy all the airlines let me buy all the cruise companies and stuff but it still doesn't change the fact that a lot of cruise company lost money a lot of them are still struggling and things like that so that's why there's some of them are coming back down like the ones that aren't doing that great they're coming back down a little bit so Las Vegas saying great rejection off that area right here and the moving average and coming back down so it was a nice little rejection there moving back down a little bit hard to say it could potentially come back to 36 could potentially come back to 36 around there or it could build a short-term support who knows but I would say I will say next level is probably 36.5 that's probably what we look for by the dip so if you guys are new check out the spreadsheet here oh snap it is you could you can start position I did consider starting this position before it's pretty cheap is that a reasonable area could start this position a goal a little bit further out to like January if you want to both reasonable risk maybe now maybe now I'll start like something a month out give us enough time you know 70 to 80 is pretty cheap by December 17 maybe they had a good earnings I like the earnings right let's check out right right it's been moving up it's hard to say on one hand you could say that you could say right it should be worth somewhere around here to here right like on one hand you could say they should be coming back to like these higher levels like 67 give or take because that that was the highs that I had in February so Bitcoin where's the all-time high the Bitcoin so all-time high for Bitcoin was like in March as you can see March February right and the Queen's already broke that so you would think that right would eventually come back to the area but I think right it's been struggling a little bit because they ready this year dilution there's other factors going into it and stuff so it you know they could eventually come back to that level but I feel like Bitcoin would have to get over 70k so right now Bitcoin is kind of bearish so I wouldn't be surprised if if if we see this come back down Monday maybe to like the $40 area that might be another areas to start a position if you're bullish and then you know if you think crypto will continue to run obviously you would be bullish in this you would think this would continue to run so I probably look for that look for that range if that happens that's great if doesn't happen damn you're gonna have to move on to something else but yeah right shit it should it should be hitting it should be hitting these levels 66 what's the mass appeal how you doing yes they did have to share the illusion though Anthony are you bullish on on riot you are you mean are you bullish on crypto I could look at it play for if you want so let's thank you for a second right let's assume crypto is extremely extremely extremely bullish and and we expect to see like crypto break to all-time highs right let's say Bitcoin 100k Bitcoin 100k right we want to see it hit all-time highs and where would the hat when would that happen when would that happen if it was me it feels me I probably say it would happen somewhere between now to like New Year's right because because like we were assumed a lot of people gonna get buttload of Christmas bonus like a lot of people are gonna get bonuses at the end of the year anytime between Christmas like February that's when like a lot of bonus to go out some people's bonus go on February if they're like corporate and and sometimes corporate delays the bonus a little bit but most of the time you know you assume like people get buttload of extra money around the Christmas time you know holiday season and stuff so if we had that run probably gonna expect something to happen by January 21st of 2022 so if Bitcoin were to make a move to 100k this would be the time this would be the time so that happens I could easily see right go from 40 you know let's say 45 dollars to 85 dollars 40 dollar move easy I could see that easy man if Bitcoin makes that big move up right so that that's true if the bubble doesn't if the bubble doesn't pop that that's very indeed very true and none of us are financial advisors right so if the bubble doesn't pop that can very well be true and if that happens you can see that move from 45 to 85 that's a $40 move if you want to make a bit on it it will cost you $595 and that could potentially net you $3400 if that move happens by January 22 so that's a pretty interesting play that I could I would you know I would say that's a way that you can play it another way you can play let me see let me see how the butterfly looks what is that we're looking for a move to like 66 easily right butterflies usually pretty cheap if you time it correctly so let's say dummy think you can move to that 60 65 66 range so here's another possible play you can do if Bitcoin moves you can open a butterfly costs 110 dollars a little bit cheaper than the other one but you can make a hundred percent on it pretty easily as well it moves from this range right now to 66 dollars you open this butterfly from 55 65 and 70 so you buy this 55 you buy the 70 and you sell the 65 right it's gonna cost you around 110 dollars if it makes that move anytime to 66 dollars between now to January you would double your position you would essentially easily double your money so another pretty interesting move there I'll put that there in case you guys want to check it out and then like I said before if you guys are new the access to the spreadsheet is over here that's possible man so it's interesting who knows crypto is so volatile right now nobody really know even today I was looking at Bitcoin it looks like it was breaking down and next thing you know broke back up right so it was like big gang big gang is looking hella bearish man and then they came back up so it's kind of weird very hard to predict sometimes but it is very very high on the RSI side though extremely extremely overbought what else are we looking at boys so then we got the signing on Monday for the infrastructure bill I'm curious to see how that plays out because that could be something that's very interesting to like some of the down industrial zone sector how in the big move today 140 to 147 all-time highs when is TSM going to make this move so a lot of things are seeing big recovery today man moving back very well but if the infrastructure bill pass I can see some pretty interesting things I could see like Caterpillar coming back to its new time highs and I could see like you know I could potentially see Caterpillar bouncing from here at 208 back to like 215 so even higher John Deere as well making a big move to possibly come back to all-time highs as well 390s 400s oh yeah Walmart man this stock Walmart I swear to God it's it's like one of the best it's just so good at disappointing you man it's one of the best stocks that that like that that fails to succeed man it's one of the best disappointments out there you can always count on them to like to fail you so the gap you are coming up I don't know man I know some people are bullish on it but it's kind of hard because they've been struggling to break this top for a while every time they get in this range it's been it's been rejected came back down pretty hard you know here as well came back down pretty hard had that good earnings here came back down had another good earnings here came back down every time they have earnings man came back down it's been freaking annoying yeah it's one of the only few stocks I have no clue why it did not want to go this year it's horrible I actually have some leaps on on Walmart because I thought that at some point or another this year they couldn't make that $30 move and goes to like 180 plus and and my leaps had essentially burn burn to the core man almost nothing left so if it does make a big move that'd be great if it doesn't oh well man I'm not looking forward to it anyways but on the daily chart I mean it looks like they kind of bottom but this is one of those company where just because they bottom here doesn't mean they can't create more bottoms so look at this man look at that look at that move down it's kind of annoying man what in the most disappointing stocks ever in my portfolio I hope I'm wrong I hope these arrows doesn't come true oh snap you too man you too you got rid of your Walmart as well I mean we were looking for Walmart plus to be successful I used it I liked it it's good but oh that's a while ago man did you did you get rid of at the top where was the summer oh baby you got rid of at the top over here very nice move man 150 what's up Mario oh we checked out GG PI very very strong move today man no worries I'm just gonna go through some tickers let's see what what else is going on today ten-year treasury is going down bonds came down a little bit and fix fix came down to hmm maybe market is bullish maybe that was the pullback that was indeed the pullback keep an eye out for yum see usually a pretty nice mover yep yeah we're very excited one of the other viewers Java had us looked at it last time and once I realized that they were gonna do a special merger with post-star I was like hell yeah man let's go you know through some dumb money at it just in case it does blow up because it's an interesting company but yeah it could be like Lucid LCID very good summary man thank you for that China at resistance again FXI coming back to this trendline resistance over here a lot of take a lot of the China stocks came back to resistance shake-shake big spike on earnings giving some back it's weird Starbucks going red too what's going on Nike is going red had a lot of companies going red oh yeah LCID earnings is probably gonna drop man oh yeah DKNG is coming to the bison I like it 40 50 it's good area start position but then again I said that before I said that before and we got burned I mean it depends on where you sell it honestly if you have gone in the I can't DKNG and you so and you start the right kind of position you be okay but if you start like cause you bike I burn they're notorious for that so I do a lot of bull spreads on on this and it worked out pretty well I might do like a calendar coming back to like the 45 dollar levels I feel like that could pay off what's up buzzer how you doing TTD oh banks finding support today so some of the banking tickers are gonna be pretty interesting I see Morgan Stanley finding a little support XOF has been chopping last few days finding support so it might be finally time for PayPal and visa and MasterCard that's gonna be some stuff for next week Zen is also having a nice reversal from the bottom as well thrown reversal signal because he moved back to 110s as well so a lot of interesting tickers every time I touch the candy I live man sorry to hear that that sucks but yo I gotta run today guys I gotta head out try to get a haircut today and I'll see you guys next time we'll be back on Monday we'll take a look at more earnings we'll do some more gambling and we'll try to make some more money for the holiday season hey guys thank you for stopping by today and have a good have a good night and have a good weekend take care


So we hear the ID Tech X and who are you? My name is Max Kuhl and I work for a VS Particle and we are... Yes, sorry? And you have a machine right here? Yes, yes. This is our nano aerosol generator. And so we... I think what we do, we do a lot what the people at the other side do, but they do it with inks and we do it with aerosols. So we get rid of the ink. No ink? No ink. Aerosol, what is that? Aerosol, aerosol is so... What we make, this machine is a nano aerosol generator. What it does, you have two electrodes. Metal can be any conductive material as long as it's solid. Between these two electrodes we put a high voltage and sparks form. These sparks will evaporate the top of the electrodes. At the same time we have a gas flowing past and it takes the atoms with it and they form nanoparticles in the gas. So we actually form a mist, a dust of nanoparticles. Sounds dangerous, but if you do it right you can do it really, really safe. So that's the first step. Gas. Gas with nanoparticles. It's like a little accelerator. No, no, no, no. It's not an accelerator. No, gas comes in. Is there anything that's used a lot in the industry? No, this is completely new technology. You're the only one who has something like that. Nobody has something like this. You're the only one. Yeah? So the next step, this gas comes out here and then we deposit it. So we can spray it onto substrates and then these nanoparticles will, they will deposit on the substrates and then you have a very, very pure layer. And one example, for example in here, this is a nanopore structure which we can print. And this, this is pure because we don't use any organic components. So it's really, the argon comes in. If you use gold electrodes, for example, you have a gold nanostructure. If you have nickel electrodes, you have a nickel nanostructure. So the whole process is material agnostic as long as the material is conductive. And it is solid. We can turn it into nanoparticles. You can turn it into a nano aerosol and you can deposit it on a substrate. Do you have some examples of the end result? Yeah, for example, so this is silicon chips. And here we wrote gold lines. These are copper lines. We also have silver lines. So this is not the smallest resolution we can do. This is a few millimeters wide. But we now are working on technology where we can go down to a 100 micron spot and write 100 micron wide lines. So this is a big deal or what? We think it's a big deal. Is it going to work? Is it working? It is working. But are you printing very intricate things or just lines for now? No, so the important thing is we print nano. Are you not printing? What are you not printing? Yeah, define printing. What is this? Is this printing? Printing, what we see is printing is the fact that it's local. So we can locally, as you see in here, we can locally write lines. But the material is nanostructured. So it has quantum mechanical properties dominated. And if you look, for example, as this porous material, it's extremely sensitive to chemicals, but also to heat. And what you can do, if you take, for example, nickel and you use oxygen as a gas, you can create nickel oxide and really print nickel oxide atmospheric sensors. So then you really use the nanostructured properties to make a novel material. Other things you can do is that this is heated. If you heat these lines, they melt really quickly, already at 200, 300 degrees Celsius. So you can really locally pattern these materials. And so this is the generator we have at this moment. What is done here, the box inside? It's all the software to control and the high voltage supply. No, this is high hardware. But there's a high voltage supply in there. So this is just the generator, which we sell commercially now and globally. But we were going bigger. We also want to do the deposition steps. We really want to be a nano aerosol company. And for example, this, this is a new product which we're going to launch in 2019. Is it the closed system? It's a closed system. So this is a nano porous material printer, where the generator here will be beneath here. And the only thing you have to do is add your substrate, choose the material you want, and the pattern, and then you can print. And you never see the nano part. So here you have the table of elements? Yes. And what do you do? You click, click. I want some aluminum or something. For example. And then... It shows the possibility. You need to have the electrodes, yes. But it shows that the process is material agnostic. Have you put the electrodes like liquid? Or what is it? No, solid. You just, you just turn them in. It will take you five minutes to replace the electrodes. It's as simple as that. But if you have the electrodes, this system can print with that material. Electrodes of gold. Boke metal. Gold, the canals be copper, can be iron, can be zinc, can be nickel, can be dope silicon, as long as it's conductive and a solid. But electrode is something that's tiny, right? But how do you just put it in? No, no, not necessarily. How do you put it in? Is it powder? No. No, just the bulk. Just bulk? Just bulk, yes. You fix it in. At this moment, there's just a screw. So you screw it in. But we're also now developing a new system where you can click them in. Wow. But that's engineering. That's not... How do you come up with this? Is it like an invention? Nobody has it? No, no, no. It's a spin-off from the University of Delft. So it's from Professor Schmitot and he has worked on it for 30 years now. Wow. About and a few... But now it's becoming a machine. Yeah, yeah. So the technology, it's the sparkablation technology. It's what? Sparkablation. That's the technology to turn the bulk material into nanoparticles. And it's widely used in the universities. But a few years ago, the professor had the idea, hey, maybe we should make a commercial company out of this and together with a PSD student and a master's student, they three founded this company and now we're three to four years old. And we have now our commercial nanoparticle generator and now we're taking the next step and also incorporating deposition into the whole leap, into turning into a full nano aerosol process technology company where we do the generation, the characterization and filtering and the deposition of nano aerosols and working with nano aerosols resulting in very pure layers and very interesting nanostructured layers which we can print in a wide range of materials. What's going to happen in the future then? It's going to be just like printing like full motherboards. Yeah. High-cooled deco. Yes. Very nano, nano scale. We're talking nano. You say nano many times. At this moment, spot size is 100 microns. We know we can go down to 10 microns but what you can also do, you can take the material because it's so sensitive to heat, you can pattern it. For example, take laser writing and you can locally pattern the material and it will melt locally. For example, for light, the resolution is about one micron, 600 nanometers. So you can make these structures and remove the other material and then you can make even smaller patterns but in an additive way, additive manufacturing way, we're now aiming with this system to 100 microns but we know there are techniques to go down to 10 microns. And 10 microns allows for what? Very advanced electronics? Well, the most advanced would be the upper distribution layers on CPUs but also for PCB boards would be already very, very interesting. Even the most advanced PCB board for like a smartphone? Or no? Not that big. That I'm not sure about the feature size there. Maybe, yes. Is it expensive to print your kind of thing? It's not necessarily expensive. It wouldn't beat the cheapest options but there are interesting niche markets where our material has a superior performance or it has a certain functionality which is better compared to other materials. But this system is also aimed at this moment also for research because it's really, really easy to replace the electrodes and the fact that the process material is agnostic. It's easy, so one day you use gold. A few hours later you want to use copper. And normally if you do a wet chemical synthesis of nanoparticles it takes weeks and weeks to find a new recipe to make these particles but here it takes five minutes to replace the electrodes and the system works again. What is this? It looks like a little window or something. It's a window. So when this system runs you can see the sparks happening in the window. Safely. Safely, exactly. But at this moment the system is not connected. How much does this cost and how much does that cost? This costs about around 60,000 euros. 60,000? So it's not cheap but it's also not very expensive. And this? And that system we still need to see what the price is going to be. This discussion, on the discussion you say. What do you say how much? No, we still need to see what the price is going to be. We need to figure it out, yeah. Cool. So is there a lot of demand for this? Yeah, so a lot of people are really enthusiastic. So the first most logical application is people that already know how to work with nano aerosols. So for example people looking at exhausts, at cars, they need to measure the particles of diesel cars, for example. And then such a system, outputs a predefined distribution of particles so they can check their machines, for example. So Volkswagen will buy a few. Ah, we don't know. Okay, I'm joking, yeah. Yeah. But what we found out in the last few years that people, they want also these particles on substrates because then you can make the porous layers or you can deposit single nanoparticles or a layer of single nanoparticles. And there, there is a really, really big question, demand. And that's why we're developing these systems for the deposition and want to do and a generation of deposition of nano aerosols. How soon is it ready? 2019. Soon. That's quite soon. But this summer we will bring out small modules where you can, if you have this system connected to that system and also do small-scale deposition experiments. But this is going to be the full-fledged system where you don't have to worry about anything anymore. So how was the IDTEC Act show? It was interesting. A lot of different people most were interested and they, they will take the idea to their company and think about it a bit more because that's one of the big problems. This is a fully new technology. Some people need to get used. However, there were a few people that really, within a few senses, exactly understood and they said, hey, then you can do this. And we said, yes. And then they were really, really enthusiastic. So hopefully that will turn into a sale quickly but we'll see. So it could be a big deal in the future. What are you doing? Yeah, well, we hope, we hope. That's why we're starting, we're running this company.


This thing right here is my desk and it could use a new chair But I think the world already is enough chairs. I don't need a new one I just need to tweak an old one. And you know which chairs I always really liked? Cars and they have a lot of them. The amount of chairs in this place is insane All these cars, they all still have chairs waiting for a new owner Found a good chair in this old course, huh? Let's take it out. No, I'd say that's a pretty good chair Now we're gonna make the framework and the wheels so we have a real desk chair First make sure the chair is all fixed up and ready to go Measure the bottom surface to make a little framework Then strip it down remove all the necessary clutter from this thing Use whatever way works Really? Okay, then it's time for the wheel work start by making a frame that fits underneath your chair Being able to turn around is definitely a plus Once it's ready connect the entire thing to the chair All good. Now step two we're gonna make the framework.  Just work on what you got Use some metal to build a frame. Don't be picky Connect the wheels to it. This will be the legs Some of them require a simple screw. Others are less easy Do not overheat them. We want them alive Get a metal tube any diameter up to three centimeter will work Attach all the wheels to it. No need to measure. Just go for it Now that looks ready. Do make sure it's strong real strong Finally clean up the metal and pick a color Curry and then we wash it up Wash it up real good Because you definitely want to get rid of that old man smell It smells like a tobacco factory more comfortable chair it works pretty good It has an adjustable backrest crate for thinking and it has an original retro fabric It even has an adjustable head rest, which is actually not that great So what's it like behind the desk? Pretty good It's easy to turn around and great to quickly move around But also to take care of the very important things So yeah, in case you wonder if I like it


It's 2024 and what better way to start the year than talking about Nintendo Switch 2.  Ha ha ha, what if it doesn't even come out this year and what if you're just gonna be made to look like a fool Mr. Nintendo Prime and look, you could absolutely be right. It's not like I work at Nintendo and get to make these sort of decisions. But today is not that day. Today is a day where I actually get backed up on my opinion that Nintendo Switch 2 is coming out this year and we should be really excited for it because some game developers are now publicly talking about Nintendo Switch 2 coming this year. Like really excited for this system to come out. This is like a real stories. I'm so, oh man, I'm so happy about this and we gotta give credit first to Mr. Andres Restart. He brought this to my attention yesterday actually. We talked on the phone about it but I was gonna let him do his research and do his video and see if it was worth talking about and it is because we got guys from Capcom and Koei Tecmo, Japanese developers, all but confirming that Nintendo Switch 2 is coming this year. So we gotta get into this because they are really, really excited about it and I'm really excited about what they had to say. So while I was giving credit to Andres Restart we also need to make sure we give credit to where this information came from and that is a fan of Andres Restart's channel called Something Else. He's got a Twitter account and this is where he got ahold of Andres in order to share some information. Now where do all these developer quotes come from? Well, two places. First we have Mitsu Magazine, right? It's this interviewer here. It was directly translated by the Google thing but that's not actually where the translations came from but that wasn't the only place. The other place is actually none other than forgamer.net and an interview on this website. So that is really, really awesome. Now the translations were all done through a piece of software known as DeepL. This is a very common translation software. It is considered widely considered one of the best in the world but we're actually gonna head on over to the thread that contains the information. So here we go. Something else, as I said here, this at Clean Green 23, got ahold of Andres. You can see he did it publicly here. And if you scroll down, let's just get to the actual translated part because he did this for Andres. Here are the four quotes from Flimit 2 slash forgamer. Capcom's Masakawada. Look, I'm just gonna go by the company's name because I'm really bad at pronouncing names. 2024 will also bring new consoles and more indie titles to look forward to. A person from Koei Tecmo said, this is pretty direct, Nintendo's new platform has been the focus of much attention. Koei Tecmo, another employee there said, we look forward to seeing what new gaming platforms and their titles will bring to the table. Then from Spike Chunsoft we see there are rumors of a new Switch and I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of machine it will be. Now, look, all these companies have dev kits and they are definitely under NDA. So they can't give us like exact details. They can't technically even confirm it's coming this year but they can comment on public rumors and public reports and that's what they're doing here. Tell them what they're excited for in 2024. Just to put this in perspective, all of this was all them talking about what they're excited for in 2024. And you have people from Koei Tecmo directly saying Nintendo's new platform has been the focus of much attention for them. You obviously have Capcom out there, 2024 brings new consoles and more indie titles look forward to it. Guys, they're clearly talking about Nintendo Switch 2. I mean, one comment is specifically talking about whatever this next generation Nintendo thing is called. This is so exciting because up until now we've been reliant on conversations around Switch 2 to come from insiders, right? We've had to listen to people like Nate the Hater and Andy Robinson and while these people are credible or pretty credible, especially Andy Robinson, the thing is we haven't been able to really put actual developers to task. We're like, where's this information coming from? This inside information. And now we have companies making public statements, actual employees about Nintendo's next platform. Yes, folks, it's coming. It's coming. If this isn't like the biggest sign that we're getting Nintendo Switch 2 this year, then I don't know what you're paying attention to.  I can't do anything about it. But now we have literally developers, public facing names saying things about the new system heading into 2024. Come on now, they're not doing that if this thing isn't coming out. These people would already have the dev kit. So I find that to be utterly fascinating. And look, we still don't know when this thing's coming out, right? We have no idea. There's a lot of speculation out there. Some people think it's gonna be teased even this month. We had a Zubitech rumor for that. But people just think in general, maybe if it's gonna be an early, like a first six month release, like it's gonna release by June, they would maybe do a tease right now, a blowout event in March or April, and then they'd release the name thing. Or it won't be revealed till summer because they're gonna do a more fall release like October, September, maybe even November. So it'll be interesting to see when Nintendo times this thing to come out. But man, developers are excited about this thing heading into next year.  Heading into this year, heading into 2024. These developers are stupidly excited. And so am I. I mean, I've been hyping irresponsibly for over a month now, and I am just ready, man. I'm so ready. Look, we got titles coming out the butt. We got possible launch games like 3D Mario or a Metroid Prime 4 or a Mario Kart. I have no idea. I don't know, Luigi's Metroid 4? Look, I don't know what Nintendo's bringing. I just know that I'm ready for it. And so are these developers. Now I wanna give you a prediction quick just on what I think is gonna happen. I do think Nintendo is going to tease the system this month. We're gonna get one of those October 2016 style teaser trailers, which is a reveal, right? That's revealing the system this month. Then I think in March, yeah, probably March, we're gonna have the blowout event, right? That's the January 2017 thing where they get people together in a room. They do this whole big giant presentation on it. It's like an hour long. Yes, I think that's happening this March. And then I think this damn thing's arriving in May. Look, I know that's still like five months from now.  It kind of clears out their first part of the year slate of games, right? They already know what these games are gonna be, like Princess Peach Showtime, and also lines them up with enough time to still throw a Nintendo Direct in there, where there's gonna be even more game analysis, both for Switch and Nintendo Switch 2. And we gotta remember, Nintendo's been clarifying over the last year with their Directs. If you look at the title of their Directs, they now say Nintendo Switch in the title of the Directs. Again, why is that? Well, probably because there's Directs this year that will be focused on Switch and or extra ones that are focused just on the next system or ones that do both. So now they gotta clarify and label the Directs. That is something, again, credit to Andrew Shree started that he noticed over the past year Nintendo started doing when they weren't doing this in the first six years of the Nintendo Switch's life. So I don't know, guys, this is pretty interesting to me. That's all I'm going to say. So guys, it's the first day of 2024 and we have the closest thing we're gonna get outside of Nintendo announcing it to direct confirmation that this is the year for Nintendo's next generation. All right, folks. I'm Nintendo RoboJazz from Nintendo Prime. I wanna thank you so much for being here. Catch you in the next video.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we are going to discuss the following question and the question says that a bike travels 180 miles in the same time that a bus travels 120 miles. If the bike's speed is 30 miles per hour more than the bus's speed, find the bike's speed and the bus's speed. Let us start with the solution of the given question. Now in this question we are given that time taken by bike is equal to time taken by the bus. Also we are given that distance travelled by the bike is given as 180 miles and distance travelled by the bus is given as 120 miles and it is given that bike's speed is 30 miles more than the bus's speed. Let bus's speed be x miles per hour. So according to the given condition, bike's speed will be x plus 30 miles per hour. Now we know that time taken is given by distance travelled upon speed. Now using this formula in this question, it is given that time taken by bike is equal to time taken by bus which implies that distance travelled by bike upon speed of bike will be equal to distance travelled by bus upon speed of bus. This implies distance travelled by bike that is 180 upon speed of bike that is x plus 30 is equal to distance travelled by bus that is 120 upon speed of bus that is x. Now this is a rational equation. Here least common denominator of the rational expressions will be x into x plus 30 the whole. To simplify this further, now we multiply both sides of the rational equation by least common denominator that is x into x plus 30 the whole. We get x into x plus 30 the whole into 180 upon x plus 30 the whole and this is equal to x into x plus 30 the whole into 120 upon x the whole. Now this implies that x plus 30 cancels with x plus 30 and we get x into 180 that is 180 x and this is equal to now here x cancels with x and we get 120 into x plus 30 the whole. This implies that now 180 x is equal to 120 into x that is 120 x plus 120 into 30 that is 3600. This implies that 180 x minus 120 x is equal to 3600 which implies 180 x minus 120 x is 60 x is equal to 3600. Now dividing both sides by 60 we get 60 x upon 60 is equal to 3600 upon 60 which implies that x is equal to 60. So we have got the value of x as 60 therefore speed of the bus that is equal to x is given by 60 miles per hour and speed of the bike which is given as x plus 30 will be equal to 60 plus 30 that is equal to 90 miles per hour. Thus we have got the speed of the bus as 60 miles per hour and speed of the bike as 90 miles per hour which is the required answer. This completes our session hope you enjoyed this session.