I want you rics, I.

S you want.

Hello.

Welcome back to the No Way Jose podcast.

This is your host Jose Galley.

Soon we are on part two of a live reading of Chaos Theory with my good friend Toad, my former co host on the now deceased Tower Gang.

Who knows, maybe it will be like a phoenix, you rise from the ashes every day that hope dies more and more, But who knows.

Maybe.

I think a lot of us are doing some cool things on our own though, So I think maybe Toad, with the twenty different niches he's feeling right now, maybe one of those will take off.

I have hope for you yet, but yeah, say maybe this will as well.

I'm enjoying these though, my little respite of hanging out with Toad and reading theory, keeping myself abreast, or keeping myself with one foot in the theory world.

But that's what I have you for, my friend, to keep the autism with me.

So it's a pleasure to have you here again.

We're on to part two of live reading of Chaos Theory Bob Murphy's Great Books.

This is a I don't think we actually gave any the lore of these intros.

I think we literally just put maybe I'm wrong, I mean, I don't remember if I really feel like we didn't.

So we just kind of cold opened with a karaoke of Bob Murphy, and I don't think we explained it, so people were like, what the hell, I'm not entirely sure if we even pointed out that was Bob Murphy.

I kind of want to go back to see if we do, just like just never even explained it.

For those aren't aware of those karaoke bits that we're playing a bit those at the beginning, those are Bob Murphy.

That's so I don't know, I know you were, I know, I know we're jokingly referring to this series as an endeavor to get Bob to unblock me.

Although like in all honesty, I've I've read Chaos Theory before and i've uh, I've listened to his podcast here and there.

But I actually did not come from the like Bob Murphy school.

That wasn't like where I was like, you know, created from if anything, I get, I guess I was more of the like Ben Shapiro to Dave Rubin to Joe Rogan to Dave Smith pipeline and then and then from there.

I kind of met the Tom Woods and the Bob Murphy's later on, but I think you were more in that nexus, so you're probably a little bit more in touch with some of this lore.

I was aware vaguely of the karaoke lore.

And then if for those the observant people, you may have noticed this, he had a face paint on today.

No, he wasn't wearing some sort of odd white slash black face panda facing it.

But he was supposed to be a zombie.

He was.

He was supposed to be a zombie because they actually had a fairly famous skit Bob Murphy and Tom Woods back the day, I believe.

So I'll pass it up to you if you want to go into any sort of the lore of Bob.

There's also even the first one, I guess, a little bit of lore of like what even these karaoke things were odes to and such.

So yeah, but I'll pass Yeah, I mean.

I don't know the specific the specifics of every single like karaoke performance are like where exactly it was, when it was or whatever, because.

Or just like why isn't it is this even a thing?

Like why is it like Bob Murphy, this is like associated with his name.

Yeah, well, I mean you asked about my My pipeline basically was like I was always kind of like republican ish, but like libertarian issue that I was into, like edgy comedy, like free speech, gun rights, you know, like the Fourth Amendment as well.

So like where the fuck was I don't know?

So I thought that made me a Republican, Like I read Adam Smith back in like tenth grade, and like that made a lot of sense to me.

And I'm like, oh, yeah, I'm a free market guy.

That probably means I'm a Republican.

Whatever.

Then I kind of just got a political for a while, Like I bought into the nine to eleven bullshit for a while, and I went off to college or a bunch of leftist basically, even though it was a tech school, but they basically convinced me that the post nine to eleven wars were wrong.

And then I'm like, all right, so I don't know where I am.

And I basically just was like I don't give a shit, and I was just not political for a while after that, and then around twenty sixteen I got back into it, basically because Trump came onto the scene and not because I liked Trump, but I had to figure out, like what the fuck was going on because I'm like, first of all, I thought Trump was a Democrat, which he was, but I'm like, wait a minute, he's running as a Republican.

That doesn't make any sense.

He's winning, which doesn't make any sense.

I'm like, how is he beating all these people?

So I had to like figure out what is going on.

I'm like, I have to understand what is this phenomenon?

Like what is going on in politics?

I already thought I was a libertarian, so I started looking into the libertarian shit, and I became a McAfee guy because I was like, oh, this guy is badass, Like he's doing cocaine off strippers and he's a software a guy like me.

So I'm like, this is the guy right here, man.

So I supported the McAfee twenty sixteen campaign.

The very high time preference option, the high time preference that lies to you.

Then it's hot low time preference.

Oh yeah, you'll be rich, like McAfee, just chase, just cake, Chase cocain horse.

Well, what he was saying like made a lot of sense, some extend and I mean that got me like pretty conspiratorial as well.

But I was like, well, I'm following like the libertarian stuff, so I had to look into like the libertarian literature I'd missed, like the Ron Paul shit.

I'm gonna try to make this not too long, by the way.

But yeah, I remind you the question was the lore of Karaoke Bob Murphy, but go.

On, right.

I read Ron Paul Revolution because I'd missed the Ron Paul two thousand and eight and twenty twelve stuff, like I was completely just not even paying attention to politics.

Then I'm like, oh, Ron Paul, He's considered to be like the one like libertarian guy who like really like ran and was up there.

So I'm like, I'm gonna read his book Revolution, you know, where he lays out like what he thinks.

And I read that and I was like, I agree with like everything that he's saying in this book, so like this is definitely what I am.

And then I started getting into like some of the podcasts.

I was into, uh Lines of Liberty back then, which that was one of the first podcasts I found that one before Tom Woods, even though Tom Woods came out around the same time.

Sorry Tom, I found Tom a little bit later, so I was actually like lines of liberty, Like I kind of liked the you know, like foolishness that those guys are bringing, because you know they were they're basically like college frat dudes like hanging out but also talking about liberty.

So I'm like, I like this.

I was listening to the Jason Stapleton Show back then all the time, so he was like my gateway, whereas you had like Ben Shapiro.

Mine was a little bit less bad Jason Stapleton, but you know, he was more like straight line the conservative ship.

And then I found Dave Smith somewhere at that point and basically did the typical like six months thing became like and cap and then I started getting into getting into like the economics shit, you know, listening to Tom Woods, Bob Murphy.

So that's kind of that's that was my uh.

Answer to the question.

Yeah, and now and and now I'm like a pee key known as like right wing dissident basically because I'm like libertarians are pretty much gazed.

So I don't know exactly the entire lore behind this, but Bob Murphy, I mean, there's not a lot to it.

He likes to do karaoke, and he's known to do karaoke after events that he does.

I don't know which event.

The on Me one was that we played at the intro for the last episode, but I know that that was specifically, Like the lyrics were changed in that one to be about him, uh like debate battling Paul Krugman, So they were different lyrics and they were about Krubman to the tune of take on Me.

I don't know what event he did that at, but I know he does them, like after Tom and Bob do like shows, or would do shows back in the day when they were actually together.

He did karaoke on like the Contra Cruise that they did for a few years for the Contra Krubman Show.

If you were aware of that, they did a cruise which I never went on, but it seemed like it was fun, but I'm not a.

Farm still does it?

He did one recently.

Clinton was on it.

I guess, Oh, Tom Woods does a cruise still.

Yeah.

I said he should call it the Tom Cruise.

That's actually not bad.

Well Tom Cruise might sue though, Nah, good, but no, he calls it the Tom Woods Cruise though, like this is a mysstart, I think that's what he calls it.

I'm like, this is a missed opportunity, man.

But yeah, So the one that we just played, so Bob was dressed as a zombie, which, as you said, that was from they did a video like way back in the day called Interview with a Zombie where Tom played the role of an interviewer and he basically was he was basically like asking like libertarian questions and making libertarian points, and Bob Murphy was a dressed as a zombie, and Bob Murphy was basically to represent like an NPC essentially all he was saying.

He would just point back at Tom and be like neo Confederate and you know, just just say like the.

You know, like Dean Files are Democratic oaks.

Yeah, like he would say like the dumb NPC lines basically and have no retort basically, So and Tom got like increasingly frustrated.

You can find that video, it's on YouTube.

And then so he was reprising his role as the zombie there at least he was dressed like the zombie in the video that we just played, which was later on that was after some Bob and Tom Live podcast of that.

I'm not sure which, but yeah about it?

Was it?

Ever the they should have gone by the Bob and Tom Show.

They never called it that, did they?

No, Although I feel like that would have been good.

It's Bob and Tom was a different I feel like there was some duo names.

It just sounds like a radio It sounds like a prolific radio show.

Anyways, Well, they.

Did the Contra Krugman podcast was the one that they did together.

So yeah, that just doesn't flow off the Yeah, the whole time Bob and Tom show, that flows so much better.

But anyways, I guess maybe it's.

Taken mainstream economists New York Times economists, by the way, a lot to make fun of with that guy.

Yes, it gets everything wrong in the realm of economics.

They made it a point to prove that.

All right, let's go ahead and get into our reading for today.

We'll probably finish this first essay.

I think we addressed this in the last episode.

This is essentially broken up into two two smaller essays or two essays.

Well we had private was the private was we're on right now?

Private something and private defenses like a.

Defense, private adjudication, private laws.

With private law private law, private law, and private defense.

So we're going to finish up private law right now, we're in part four Doubts.

I'll go ahead and read the first three pages toe just to make it easy, so we roll right to the next one.

Although superficially coherent and workable, the proposed system of market law will certainly engender skepticism.

In the interest of brevity, I will deal with some common and valid concerns.

So what about someone who has no insurance?

If an individual didn't carry insurance, other people would have no guaranteed recourse should the individual damage or steal their property.

Such an individual would therefore be viewed with suspicion, and people will be rect People will be reluctant to deal with him except for single transitions include involving small sums.

He would probably transactions for except for did I jump where did the hell did I actually jump?

Line?

Or something?

He would probably he would probably be it felt like I jumped a line.

He would probably be unable to get a full time job, a bank loan, or a credit card.

Many residential and commercial areas would probably require that all visitors carried falid policies before allowing them to even enter, so we we want to say something.

No, I mean, I was just gonna say even before we start, I was just going to say, like, just to remind people.

I don't know if they are going to jump into this episode without watching the first one.

Probably they shouldn't.

But we were talking to a weird move.

We were talking about how insurance companies, just like HAPA talked about Bob is talking about how insurance companies would fill that role in a private law society of providing adjudication essentially and providing restitution to damage priorities essentially.

Yep.

This is where a lot of libertarian theory goes to fill in the gaps insurance companies, and it makes sense.

So we see that those of that insurance would have their options, including their freedom of movement, greatly restricted.

At the same time, the premi for basic contract insurance, at least for people without a criminal history, would be quite low, so there wouldn't be very many people walking around without this type of insurance.

It's true some people would still commit crimes would have no insurance company to pay damages, but such cases are going to occur under any legal system.

Furthermore, once someone without insurance had committed a serious crime, he would still be chased by detectives just as he would be under the government system.

And if these far more efficient private detectives found him at any time on a normal piece of property, they would have the full right to arrest him.

Right, So, I mean, he's talking about how like even this system obviously would not be perfect.

Humans are not perfect.

There would be some people without insurance, but he's saying that that would be kept to a minimum by the incentives.

Like basically, like people would be incentivized to have insurance because if you're like a citizen, like a good citizen, I guess if you're a person that doesn't damn people's proper, you're gonna pay less to get your insurance and have your property insured.

So you'd be incentivized to be that way.

There would be some people that wouldn't be and that just wouldn't buy insurance.

And then if those people were to commit a crime, he's basically saying that there would be some other like private detective agency that is working or like private police essentially that is working with the insurance agency, that would still be able to track that guy down, and that person like they wouldn't be you wouldn't be able to force them to pay the restitution because they don't have the money.

So the insurance would really probably have to cover that in some way with the money that they have.

But he is saying that that person would probably be arrested.

I think kind of the point is that if somebody keeps exhibiting a behavior like that, they're gonna wind up being like a societal outcast.

Yeah, and they wouldn't be able to perform transactions with anybody, which he kind of said in that other paragraph that you just read as well.

So somebody that behaves like that basically wouldn't be able to participate in a large part of the market essentially, yep.

And then even if they were going on other properties, they would be getting removed off them because in this situation we no longer have the tragedy of the commons, and so everything would be essentially if he's committed a you likely would probably have contracts to where with insurance agencies, it would probably be sweeping contracts.

It certainly'd be certain people that if we're known to commit certain crimes, you essentially gave away your ability to house certain people.

I guess.

So, if someone's known to have committed certain crimes, by the contract of agreeing to this insurance company, you are essentially saying, hey, certain individuals that have been identified by the insurance company aren't allowed on your residence and they would be probably one of those no goes.

That would totally make sense to me as an insurance policy because it would protect both both companies because it's like, you don't want violent criminals on your property, right, so would you would like to have a provision in here.

We're watching out for violent criminals and if there are violent criminals that are out there that haven't paid whatever due needs to be paid to you know, recompense, then yeah, we're gonna put them on a list.

And if they show up on any of our properties, and even then we'd probably talk to other neighboring, probably talk to other agencies, and then you know, then let them know as well, and we would essentially make their life hell and if they entered any property basically whatsoever.

Amongst any of these groups have agreed with us, you are a dangerous individual.

You're going to you're danger danger Yeah, you're gonna be.

That's actually a bad reference because if they haven't watched the other playlist that's the hot.

But yeah, point being is it's like, the more you think about it is like it sounds ridiculous, but it is like that would be taken care of because they have every incentive.

It'd almost be an unthinking thing.

You'd probably have incentives to have, you know, uh, security cameras or even maybe local watches they pay for, and so they'd be keeping an eye out for these people and they'd be taking care of these problems for you.

So yeah, yeah, he already said in this book and the part that we covered last week, I'm pretty sure he talked about how there would be like a contractual agreement between the insurance agencies or they're like police or whatever, and the and like a store or even a private property order.

The would be to say, I agree to allow you to come in and arrest some criminal that's on my property.

Basically, yeah, all right.

Warring agencies critics often dismiss private law by alleging the disputes between enforcement agencies agencies would lead to combat, even though this happens between governments all the time.

In truth, the incentives for peaceful resolution of disputes would be far greater in market anarchy than the present system.

Combat is very expensive, and private companies take much better care of their assets than government officials take care of their subjects lives and property.

In any event, those engaging in warfare and a free society would be treated as any other murderers.

Unlike government soldiers.

Private mercenaries would receive no special privilege to engage in condone violence.

Those agencies interpreting the law would not be the same as the firms enforcing it.

There is no intrinsic reason to worry about battles between private enforcement agencies any more than battles between the government army and navy.

Yeah.

So again he's saying about yeah, situations where there would be insurance agencies essentially that would be competing with each other.

Well, like, wouldn't they go to war with each other?

Essentially, he's basically saying that they would be disincentivized to do that because it would be like, they're disincentivised to do that because if they go to war with each other, they're gonna be risking their own property losses they obviously don't want.

So that's a disincentive there, And I think sort of because like if one of them starts going to war with the other, like it's I think it's gonna be more obvious which one of them is the aggressor, and then yeah, they'd probably be treated as such by like society.

No one's gonna want to employ a protection agency that is a committing want and violent, like I mean, maybe if they had some sort of way to coerce this, you know, kind of like a shakedown like a mob.

But then now you're just talking about a garment developing, but in a free market system where they've all sorts of competition, and these are armed individuals that would be able to prevent any other, you know, agency from being able to probably take any sort of crazy share of the market to where they can take over.

Essentially, this really is kind of the concept of monopolies.

It's the idea that there would be some sort of monopoly on violence in a free market is a little bit ridiculous once you kind of have already have these things in place, because I mean it's like we've seen so many times, you know, the in an economic pass where we get these tales of some monopoly and then the monopoly gets broken up later on.

I mean, not necessarily always by garment action, although they do that, although they usually make the prompt worth but usually because that's not how things work.

You can't really keep a monopoly if you try to get to this.

They there's these times where these certain entities think, oh, we have monopoly, so now we're just gonna raise prices, and they're like, well, somebody's gonna undercut you.

So like this idea that you're gonna be able to exist is the only one in some sort of economic system without coercion is a little bit ridiculous.

So yeah, the only way this works is with the illusion that they have the right to do it, which is kind of what they're driving out here.

They would receive no special privileges that people employing these people's services wouldn't give them any sort of special benefit of the doubt, because these are people that you are employing.

These are human beings.

They have no special privileges amongst you know, that are distinguishable from another citizen.

Right, And he is also basically saying that the enforcement agencies are actually different from the insurance agencies and they're working together, or he's saying the enforcement agencies are different from the like adjudication agencies, which I guess it might even be a different agency entirely, the ones that's basically determining like, well, this is a property violation, and they're all kind of working together in a way.

But the incentives line up such that basically the enforcement arm here because there's no monopoly on force here, they're not government, that they wouldn't be seen as like being able to legitimately just you know, go to war with anybody basically, you know, like like they wouldn't be able to wantonly do that, if that makes sense, right, Like, they'd only pretty much be able to get away with what they're supposed to do, which is enforcing these property enforcing against the property violations.

Basically, if that makes.

Sense, won't the mafia take over?

It is paradoxical that the fear of rule by organized crime families causes people to support the state, which is the most organized in criminal association in human history.

Even if it were true the under market anarchy, people had to pay protection money and occasionally get whacked, this would be a drop in the bucket compared to the taxation and wartime desk caused by governments.

But even this concedes too much for the mob derives its strength from government, not the free market.

All of the businesses traditionally associated with organized crime, gambling, prostitution, loan sharking, drug dealing, are prohibited or heavily regulated by the state.

In market anarchy, true professionals would drive out such unscrupulous competitors.

I think it's a particularly good point too there because, uh, the stuff he brought up, there were a lot of like what week, you could see as unseemly actions, but those were all voluntary actions.

But the thing that you know, I cover on my show a lot, a lot into conspiracy is the dark side of a lot of this organized crime.

That isn't just oh, the gambling, the prostitution, somebody in the rocks off, somebody doing illegal gambling, somebody getting some drugs, while we're talking about slinging children, destroying lives, killing people, toppling governments, like all sorts of crazy stuff.

But if you, uh, I mean, if in this theoretical system, this market anarchy we speak of, if someone behaved in this way, for one, all of the like you said, all of these other things, would you know, be taken over by I guess semi reputable or non reputable.

But even then that would be divvied up by you know, this whole insurance hee see scheme we've talked about essentially to where it's like, okay, whatever, that's that's shitty land over there.

I mean, that's a that's not where, that's not where you want to be.

They're not thriving, but I know, disappoint being is that if you eliminate that, then if those people still behaving in uh, I guess what you want to call organized crime real crime, at that point, they're doing real fucked up shit.

That point it becomes really obvious who who's doing what.

Whereas now we're in this weird situation where they're in this like gray area where they kind of do these semi legal stuff, but they also are a lot of times some of these large organized crime they as as a condition as a side effect of kind of the realm they reside in, they end up doing lots of messed up things, and ironically a lot of times it actually is in league with the government.

So uh yeah, yeah, So I mean the like the general yeah question, yeah, basically as well, if you have this private society, because the mafia is seen by most people like normalis as being private, Yeah, like some sort of private institution, And it's like, what wouldn't something like that take over?

And I like how he also makes the point that that that would still be better.

Even if that were the case, that would still be better, because we've made that point too on the show.

I think when we were talking about the Hoppa stuff, I think I made the point.

W Yeah, when you when you when you're having a local person shaking you down saying you need protection, they better fucking offer some protection.

If some other person comes in there and tries to shake you down and say, well, I'm gonna give you protected, well, well, Joey down the streets already telling me he's gonna give me protection, So he's gonna come over here and break your fucking legs, right.

The mafia generally, yeah, even though they are violent, they're doing that, they will generally like they do actually provide you, like protection if they're doing that shakedown the extortion thing that they do.

But he's saying that, well, even like you know, I'll say that that's better, but this would be even better than that, Like this wouldn't even happen basically in this private set up here again basically because like, well, the incentives would be against it, but also like people would essentially see, like what's going on.

You're like, yeah, the criminals wouldn't be able to get away with enough to even get to that point.

Yes, And it's kind of to my points earlier.

When you take away the gamble, the prostitution, the loan sharking, the drug dealing, and if there is still something that's sort of whatever, this is what people consider them.

What you're left with is murder and like child trafficking and stuff, And it becomes very much more obvious and much easier for people to unite against it because you will actually be able to get the gamblers, the prostitutes, the johns, the loan sharkers, the drug dealers, the drug users, a lot of them will be on your side to go screw those people at that point in time, once you flake out all that other stuff that you're like, hey, whatever, if that's what you want to do, whatever.

I think even to most of those people that we may even consider those degenerate behaviors, a lot most of those people, I'd say probably well over fifty percent of them probably go, yeah, I'm not cool with like organized murder and child trafficking or whatever, you know, very obviously bad things.

So once you flush away that other stuff.

Yeah, And he makes the point here that like in this current set up, like the government is still they have a heavy hand and everything.

He's talking about how they regulate the stuff that the mob is doing.

They regulate you know, gambling, prostitution, whatever.

But I think maybe even a better point is that the government kind of like worked in tandem with the mafia to a lot of an extent, even though I know the FBI came in and the whole Rico thing, you know, when the mafia got out of control in New York and whatever with the five families and whatever, But the government like for a large portion of that time they basically ignored what was going on because.

I think it was almost like they were almost like the crime world relationship.

The crime world's almost like this bizarro mirror of like the corporate world, in the sense that the larger corporate entities flourish as a result of their relationship to the government, and the same thing applies in the crime underworld.

These large cartels and such that flourish like they do.

Is generally speaking of function.

I mean, while they may not say it is such, it's let's be real, it's the same thing where you see, Hey, where's the richest area in the world.

It's like the fucking DC area code.

So yeah, I don't know, I think that there's something to that.

So yeah, that and outside of New York where it's all the people that are connected to Wall Street and stuff, which is yeah, the big banks essentially.

Yeah, But anyway, point being is that they kind of force out the little guys, they kind of I know, then you know, essentially then help out the big guys.

All right.

Anyways, your insurance companies would become the states.

On the contrary, the private companies providing legal services would have far less power under market anarchy than the government currently possesses.

Most obvious, there would be no power to tax or to monopolize service.

If a particular insurance company were reluctant to pay legitimate claims, this would become quickly known, and people would take this into account when dealing with clients of this discreputable firm.

The fear that under market anarchy, private individuals should replace politicians overlooks the true causes of state mischief.

Unlike feudal monarchs, democratic rulers don't actually own the resource, including human that they control.

Furthermore, the duration of their rule and hence control of these resources, is very uncertain.

For these reasons, politicians and other government employees do not exercise much care in maintaining the market value of their property in their jurisdiction.

Shareholders of a private company, however, have every interest in choosing personnel and policies to maximize their profitability of the firm.

All the horrors of the state, onerous taxation, police brutality, total war are not only monstrous, but they're also grossly inefficient.

It would never be profitable for anarchist insurance and legal firms to mimic the policies set by governments.

Yeah, there's kind of a lot to take in on that, although it's sort of like that's almost sort of that generic like anti anarchy argument there.

It's like basically like, well, whatever you set up will become the state again.

But even the retort to that, like isn't even what Bob is saying here.

He's saying like that won't happen.

But I think the retort is even if that does.

Happen, it's better.

Well, like why not try it because that's what we already have now, So.

Yeah, exactly, you're like, okay, so like we start over a better spot.

Is that what you're saying?

Okay, Like he's.

Saying that the incentives would line up such that, like these agencies would have to adhere a profit motive if they were doing something disreputable, people would know that.

So basically the insurance agencies would lose customers and stuff like that, and I wouldn't be able to survive that way.

Yeah, I mean basically, like none of them have like the state apparatus backing them, so they basically can't behave that way.

They literally I was reading today on the Morning Dump.

They they came up with essentially a financial marker for what a goauzen is worth essentially because this future plan of what they're talking about doing with Gaza, and they mentioned that I think it was twenty three thousand dollars I think is what they estimated the value was to get a Palestinian out of there to essentially, because they're planning on bulldozing the entire place, and so the savings they essentially try to make an estimation of the savings of getting one each Palestinian out is twenty three thousands.

So because they have this whole scheme of how they're gonna get them out, give them these weird fucking crypto scam tokens or whatever.

It's pretty scary dystopian stuff.

But anyways, they quantified twenty three thousand dollars for each you know, savings for each Palestinian that they're able to convince to leave or whatever.

But the flip side of that, the kind of dark flip side, is that that also means twenty three thousand dollars for is the cost of a gozzen essentially in that in essence, because it's like or twenty three thousand, because that's the savings if you kill a Gozen is twenty three thousand dollars.

But in another way to look at that too, is that that means it costs twenty three thousand dollars for every one of those gods that they've essentially done this too.

I mean, obviously that's not exact.

You know, I don't know what fucking math they're using here.

This is their estimations because they were trying to break it down into economic terms of like you know, to get them out, the savings that comes in, and why it makes sense for us to spend x amount of money for this and that to get them out.

And that's the estimation.

So I just just kind of on the point of like war being expensive, they're kind of in a certain sense, you know, thousands of dollars in a certain sense is what they're looking at it.

Obviously, once again, I don't mean the math, but at the very least, I mean, if you've been paying attention to the genocide over there, that's I mean, how many billions have we shipped over to Israel?

So it's really not that crazy.

It sounds expensive to go twenty three thousand dollars for each one that they're just callously destroying and tossing aside over there.

And then when you break it down of the bombs and how much they spent and all that, I don't know, maybe there's a lot a lot of money, a lot of money.

Yeah, yeah, Bob.

Also, the hopiing point in that section, just back to that section for one second.

There basically that the government they're like temporary caretakers and they don't like legitimately own the property that they're dealing with.

So they don't have the provident incentive that lines up there, Like, they don't have the incentive to like maintain that property essentially, right, Like, they just have the incentive to take as much from it as possible.

So he made that point as well.

Didn't contrast it a monarchy really like Hopa did, but he made that point.

He's basically saying that in the private scenario, the like the owners of the company property would be people that all have the profitability of the of the company as their incentive.

So it's like the shareholders essentially because they all want to make money together.

If that makes sense, it does.

But it's your turn.

That's what the possible is there?

All right?

Children, One of the best topics for libertarians to talk about.

The question of children is one of the most difficult.

Oh no, we're getting a rough terrictory.

At least this wasn't written by one of those leftist.

Freaks to skip over the age of consent.

As a first pass.

Let us note that obviously concerned parents would only patronize those schools and live in those apartments or housing complexes where the protection of their children was of paramount importance to the staff.

Beyond this, the basic prohibitions on parental child abuse and neglect could be stipulated in the marriage contract in addition to whatever romance may be entailed.

A marriage is ultimately a partnership between two people, and prudent couples will officially spell out this arrangement with all of its benefits and obligations.

For example, before abandoning her career to raise a man's children, a woman may require a financial pledge in case of divorce, i e.

Dissolving the partnership.

In the same way, a standard clause in marriage contracts could fine and specify penalties for the improper treatment of children.

I mean, I know we've been kind of doing whole portions, but I do think that's interesting, the the just the because then there's probably we're probably gonna go over a lot in this little portion.

But just just even looking at marriages that way, if you could, I mean, me and my wife just talked before just about kind of like this and that, and you know, and you're like all the specific situations in marriage and then how unfair it is at the end.

And it's like if you did have like a kind of ahead of time, you're like, hey, if this then that, I mean, because everyone's marriage is different, you know, depending on who works when and what.

So, I mean the idea that we kind of just have this, oh to die, I get a marriage thing and I go sign at the courthouse and it's not specific to each marriage is I know, it doesn't make sense to me.

It's kind of weird to have a one size fits all and uh that's kind of an issue when the government gets involved.

But anyways, we get back to it.

I just wanted to highlight that it even just a just one little thing.

I didn't really think about just a marriage.

So right, Yeah, so that's yeah something you probably not a whole lot of people think about it.

I mean, the first point that he made seems like kind of obvious, just basically a similar point to when he made throughout this book already, is that, well, the incentives will line up such that as far as schools are concerned, whatever, maybe daycare, where you're living, whatever, Like people would be incentivized to live in places where their children are going to be protected.

So like, if it's your neighborhood, you might have like a good protection agency like covering that or whatever, and schools whatever, you're only gonna want to because they're gonna be private.

You're gonna pay money to send your kid to some school or something, and you want to make sure that school is one that is protecting children and not like the public school system right now, which is not doing that at all.

So those incentives line up.

But yeah, then the marriage stuff is again something that not a lot of people think about at all.

But he's basically saying that it may it might be a stipulation of a marriage contract, and he's just saying this, this is the way that it might work.

Basically that you're gonna agree that you both are gonna treat the child well, protect the child, et cetera.

And then if somebody doesn't abide by that, it's gonna basically break that that contract that you were that you had signed.

And you know, I think maybe there would even be I don't know if there would be like protection agencies even getting involved in that case too.

Potentially these private protection agencies would have to come in and you know, take like an abusive parents out of the situation or something like that, you know what I mean, hm, or something, you know, something along those lines.

Who knows, but something like that, Yeah, and then yeah, you talked about like the financial agreements being part of it as well.

We kind of have similar stuff to that already, right, like prenups and stuff.

But m but in those cases the state is involved in those.

So in this case you would not have state getting involved in marriage.

So the libertarians who were like, you know, oh, well, the state shouldn't be involved in marriage and that means that marriage shouldn't exist at all.

Well, Bob, is Mason calling those people wrong.

He's saying that there would be private marriage contracts.

Yes, all right.

Another point to consider is the enhanced role of adoption in a free society.

Much as it shocks modern sensibilities, there would be a fully functioning baby market, oh shit, in which parental privileges were sold to the highest.

Brings it back together.

In the next paragraph, it would go.

On, I'm about to say something, and I'm still probably gonna say it.

Although seemingly crass, such a market would surely reduce child abuse.

After all, abusive or negligent parents are probably the ones most likely to offer their children for adoption when loving couples are allowed to pay them handsomely for it.

Yeah, so let's just finish off and then we'll just finish off the abortion.

Well yeah, well, I mean, may as well just finish off the abortion, I think.

But because I think he kind of brings it back together a little bit where you're like, he kind of alludes to an idea that would make this a little bit less, a little bit less dicey for some people that I know, A guard probably immediately went up already, But I think the second paragraph might get you to go, Okay, there's a different way you think about this a little bit, but go.

On, Yeah, the controversial issue of abortion, just as other conflicts in a private laws system, would be handled by competing firms setting policies to best match the desires of their customers.

Those people sufficiently horrified by the practice could establish a gated community in which all residents agreed to refrain from abortion and to report anyone caught performing one.

Now I know that's not okay.

Maybe I didn't get what I was getting at isn't it perfect?

But I think kind of what I was driving at here and kind of the idea of there'd be certain accepted practices and such.

And I know this kind of starts off with like, oh, because the just highest bidder adoptions.

But I think kind of what he's getting on also kind of the abortion thing is that there would be conditions and there likely would be practices that would be adopted over time.

So I don't know.

For example, I don't know.

I know the contention is people like a lot of times with like two gay men or whatever, they'll see you know, all these they'll they'll be, you know, renting babies, and people like, oh, renting baby wombs or this or that.

So I think perhaps in a true free society, perhaps there would be I mean, we went deep into happa how it affects cultural sensibilities and such.

Perhaps I feel like we'd be in a very different cultural landscape in a in market anarchy, and I think perhaps maybe they'd be studies and such out there that maybe certain people go, oh, these certain communities have higher predilections to do x, Y and z or.

And I'm not saying all people of any demographics do anything.

I just think people might have an elevated view of things, and perhaps certain things might be looked down upon.

Certain practices may not be accepted in the way that they are now, So maybe it might be a very polite way of putting it so I think, I don't know, we would have we'd be less concerned about hurting people's feelings perhaps and more concerned about I don't know, safety of children as a society, I think.

Right, So that's a very very nice way to put things, I think.

Yeah.

I mean, when he's talking about abortion here, you get like all the like sort of the left libertarians basically sort of say that something similar would be happening ago, they'd be this baby market.

But then Bob kind of twists it to say, well, like these like these left libertarians are He's not saying this specifically that I am like, so Bob is saying, well, the incentives would again line up such that adoption agencies or whatever would be likely to only be actually giving children away or babies a way to like couples that are known to be like couples that are gonna like be raising the children correctly, non abusive couples.

And he's basically saying the incentives would line up such that abusive couples would be the ones that would be putting their children up for adoption, because it would probably be couples that like don't want those kids.

But basically the left libertarians are gonna come out and you know, say, I'm going to tie it into what we've seen you know, recently modern times here, the current events, Like all these leftists are basically like totally fine with like all these gay adoptions and stuff like that.

But if you're seeing a trend like we are where gay men are basically buying other mothers children to essentially to sexually abuse of those children, which is why they always only get boys like guys like that, they're not going to be able to adopt in a system like this because it's gonna be known.

Well, yeah, you guys are like probably like potential abusers, and probably worse than that, like people that were doing that would probably be outcast from society entirely, so they wouldn't even be able to participate in a market like this at all.

Yeah, if you were even like to put it in a certain sense, because like as I was trying to drive it as like not everyone of certain draymographics does certain things, I'm sure perhaps you could construe ways in which these couples that we're alluding to maybe could have you know, and there'd be situations where it's a better off situation than them going to nobody, I guess you could say.

And they're also as they're going to treat them well, they're not going to abuse them.

But my point kind of getting at is, I think society would recognize that certain maybe certain demographics have a higher tendency for certain things, and as such, while it's no fault of the individual person, they're gonna put up certain safeguards and perhaps maybe have a higher screening process for certain demographics and you know, things like that.

So the point being is that you would have a much stricter process to go through if you were perhaps certain people of certain demographics or have certain histories of doing certain things.

So it may not even be even just by demographic, depending on what given thing we're talking about, it might even just be on your history.

So I'm think obviously, obviously h child molester is probably not gonna be adopt people in this society, just as they shouldn't be able to.

I hope they're not able to in this society, is right, Yeah, Yeah, I.

Mean I think the other thing is because I kind of have a problem, like I somewhat have an issue with adoption in general to some extent where like I think it's still is best like for the baby to be with like the biological parents, especially the mother.

And I think that that, like adoption as a whole, I think would actually be reduced in a society like this, just the incentives I think would line up such that there would be way less adoption in general because you had more couples that are actually couples that are gonna be behaving like the right way essentially.

Oh no, I'm a horrible right winger again.

And then yeah, he talked about abortion as well, which he was talking about how to be like anti abortion communities that basically just because Bob by the way I mean that makes it sound like he's kind of like so so un abortion.

I'm pretty sure that Bob is anti abortional.

I'm not a hundred per cent sure about that, but yeah, but he's basically saying, well, you'd have communities that would have rules set up, like rules in place that would basically be you can't do that in this society, or you'll be outcast from it.

But I would even take it further, like I would think that maybe you just even have protection firms that are basically like they're considered, like hopefully that they would actually be considering abortion to be murder.

You'd be like this, it'd be like the situation we started.

It's like the situation we started the beginning of the show.

It'd be like you'd be precluded from like, hey, you want to murder some babies.

You want to murder your baby inside you?

Okay, You're gonna live a rough fucking life when you're like basically not able to do anything until you pay the price as side as society feels like you have to pay for what you did, Like, yeah, you might be able to still exist, but you're gonna be not able to go on any property of anyone who has any insurance company of any repute.

So have fun with that existence.

So and living with that shame.

And it's you you have to know, Oh, I can't go over there?

Why can't you go over to where they're reasons?

You know, what did you do?

Like, uh, I killed the baby?

So all right, let's uh, let's get into the next part title registry in market anarchy, who would define property rights?

If someone hands over the money to purchase the house, what guarantee does he have?

This is a complex issue, and I won't be able to give specifics, since the actual mark solution would depend on the circumstances of the case, withdraw on the legal expertise far greater than mine of the entire community.

I can, however, offer some general marks, whatever, if any, the abstract or metaphysical nature or property law, the purpose of public titles is quite utilitarian.

They are necessary to allow individuals to effectively plan and coordinate their interactions with each other.

Specialized firmsAs perhaps distinct from arbitration agencies, would keep records on their property titles of either for a specific area or group of individuals.

Titled registry would probably be accomplished through a complex hierarchical web of such firms.

The fear of rogue agencies unilaterally declaring themselves owner of everything is completely unfounded.

In market anarchy, the company's publicizing property rights would not be the same as the company's enforcing those rights.

More important, competition between firms would provide true checks and balances.

If one firm began flouting the community norms established and codified in the market, it would go out of business, just as surely as a manufacturing manufacturer of dictionaries would go broke if it's books contained improper definitions.

And this one's pretty simple.

I mean, titles are just you know, signify ownership.

And then they're like, well, hey, you know, how would we deal with that?

You're like, well, kind of the same way we already do, would just be separate agencies.

One agency is the one that keeps track of the title registries, has some sort of registry out there of like, hey, this person has this, this, and this is there important large, large items that we feel the need to have some sort of registry of ownerships.

That way, in case they get stolen, you have proof that like hey this and you know, well they will.

Why wouldn't they just go, well, guess what, haha, it's mine.

I put it in the registry.

It's mine now, because then well then they they're not the ones enforcing these things.

So they just can't because people just stop using them.

People stop using them as the reputable uh you know registry or title registry.

Right.

I mean, a good example is that in all so like a good example of a modern way this could be handled too, is the NFTs.

That's what they've been used on.

They found a way to make those individual to the person.

I'm not making an example.

I'm not making a case for frigging the stupid like memes and stuff, But that was what they were.

I mean, that's kind of what they got watered down to.

But they were supposed to be able to provide a specific individual code that you could attach to specific things, so that way you could say, hey, this thing is essentially proof, this is ownership.

You could track ownership of things with it.

It kind of got bastardized into the stupid little memes or whatever the hell they are were became.

But yeah, point being is that that would be an example of it.

Like that's a hell you don't even need an agency in there.

So like that's why pop Bob was even like kind of a hesitant to even give examples of how it would be done, but it kind of give a base kind of the basics of why it wouldn't work, because like, even if this was another agency, like an NFT example, it's kind of its own thing, its own self running thing that you just kind of have an NFT, it's not even really an agent.

See, But even if it was an agency, it's like, well then they just have real no way to do this because it just would be stupid for them to do that.

If we start realizing that this is not an accurate representation of who really owns things, then yeah, we're gonna stop using it.

So yeah, and he.

Did also say that there would be like a separate agency again that is, like the enforcement agency of this.

Like, so if somebody like refuses to move out of their house or whatever after they sell it to somebody else, there'd be some agency that would come in and enforce that as well, probably working with that other agency that is providing the details about who owns what.

Oh, this guy owns this now and this guy still lives there, and said, well, we're gonna go in and kick him out, basically that type of thing.

Yeah, and then you gotta get you gotta get another separate person who's also operating in a free market to be willing to do untowards behavior at that point to destroy their reputation as well.

So it's a it's a harder game there.

Infinite regress, a sophisticated critic may charge, and my proposal rest upon a circular argument.

How can people use contracts to define property rights when a system of property rights is necessary to determine which contracts are valid.

After all, Smith can't sell Jones a car for a certain sum of money unless it is established beforehand that Smith is the just owner of the car and Jones the owner of the sum of money.

To see the solution, we must break the problem as due parts.

First, we should ask could the free market provide a foundation for social interaction?

I believe the previous sections had demonstrated this.

That is, I have shown above that if we had a system of property titles recognized by competing firms, then the contractual system governing the exchange of those titles would form a stable basis for private law.

Now is an entirely different question, ask how are these titles initially defined and allocated?

This is a broad topic and will be addressed in the next section.

But to deal with the issue as it relates to the alleged infinite regress, let us consider a contract law.

Do you want to do?

You want anything before we move on?

I figured i'd finished this section and they'll pass it off to you for the how do we get there?

But do you want to throw any commentary here?

Because there's a lot Well, so, I.

Think we're probably gonna have to fight a stopping point at some point here, because I don't think we're gonna be able to finish his entire.

Hmmm, saying this is a five part thing.

Hm, it might be well, screw.

It, let's have more karaoke videos.

Well, then I screw it.

Let's break this this this say into three, I'll finish out, I'll finish well, actually we'll end here at the after we're done with this portion of infinite regress.

All right, Yeah, I mean it is fair.

It is kind of a like summation of what he's talked about.

It's fairly heavy.

But what he's talking about so far is basically, well, how do you establish who owns something in the first place?

He is basically saying, of course, you would have this agency that has a list of like who owns what already, which I think that makes sense for like huge pieces of property land, you know, houses maybe like that, but it probably doesn't make sense for every piece of property, like who gives a fuck that I own this pencil?

You know what?

Yeah, I mean it's some things are just assumed like they're in your they're in your possession.

I don't care to question the the the the authenticity of your ownership, but it is what it is because I mean he's using example and at one point this of like the money in your hand, how do you prove it?

I mean to some extent, we just kind of assume.

I mean, I guess if you know that it was stolen, because then the idea then becomes, it's gonna be a hassle for you later if you're if you're because even then per and understanding of property law, you have to return it.

I mean, know it sucks, but it's not your property.

It's somebody else's that you know, exchange multiple hands.

So now you might want to find the person who did that to you and find be like, hey, you screwed me over because now you owe me money.

But it's not the original owner's fault.

So there is some level of like you do want to make sure you're probably interacting with just to save yourself the trouble of dealing with these situations, dealing with honorable people.

But even still, yeah, there are certain things that are just like because a shit, it's five bucks, right, yeah, exactly.

But if we're talking about my fucking house, yeah I want some fucking proof I own this thing somewhere.

Yeah, and he's about to talk about I think, like how ownership is initially established.

I'm guessing I don't know if he's gonna get into I forget if he gets into anything like homesteading or whatever the fuck, but I forget.

Yeah, all right, let's continue.

Contract law.

Contract law is a specific branch of law, much as tort law or constitutional law.

It is used, for example, to determine whether a contract between two parties is legally binding.

Now, surely contract law can't be established in an anarchist system of contractual law.

For wouldn't this beg the question.

No, the contractual pledges made by individuals would contain provisions for all the contingencies handled by today's contract law.

For example, the insurance insurance company backing up a customer would be promising, we will make good on any debts that are client fails to pay, so long as the obligations have been spelled out in a valid contract according to the terms described in the standard contract Law pamphlet published by the Ace Legal Firm.

This pamphlet would perhaps require signatures in black ink, notarized oversight for large sums, and that the owners to a contract where of sufficient age and sobriety were not under durest when the contract was made.

As with all elements of private law, the precise rules governing contract interpretation would be determined by the possibly conflicting desires of everyone through the profit and lost tests.

Finally, keep in mind that the ultimate judge in a given case is the judge.

No matter how voluminous the law books or how obvious the precedents, every case will ultimately depend on the subjective interpretation of an arbiter or judge who must deliver the ruling.

We must never forget that written statutes as such are powerless unless used by competent and in equitable and das vigils.

Only in a competitive voluntary system is there any hope for judicial excellence.

Which that's an interesting point to end it on, essentially the point making that not only could we do private law, it is better in the idea that the the we see a decaying decrepit.

I mean, we we've been railing a lot about the Epstein stuff and previous readings.

I mean just look, I mean look about us.

We're just still dealing.

The Epstein files are probably about to become the new JFK, and we're sitting here debating in a Robert Murphy book, if if it's even possible to do private law, and it's like they're literally not they're literally they're they're they're systematizing screwing your kids, So.

Right, I think yeah, I mean he's basically saying here, I mean, that was a long ish section compared to some of the other ones in the book, But I think he's essentially just saying he's only talking about like transfer of property.

I think here not what I was thinking, like initial position of property.

Right, He's basically saying that when this property transfer happens, whatever, there'd be some intermediate intermediary whatever arbitration agency that would come in and make sure everything is fine.

Like both parties are, you know, of sound mind and sober and whatever.

They're both agreeing to exchange this land or this house or whatever, and they're both gonna sign it so that you know, we have proof this property transfer is happening, you know what I mean.

So it would all be agreed upon by all the parties that oversight, you know, party made sure that everything was fine, like nobody's getting screwed here, whatever, things of that nature.

I think that was basically it.

I mean it's it's fairly straightforward.

Really, yeah, it's a pretty simple book.

But whatever, just excuse to hang out with the homie, uh toad.

And then also yeah, to keep just to keep keep ourselves abreast of this sort of stuff because we love breasts, uh toad, I do we do?

We have to find a we have to find another uh because we're we're kind of telling a story with our karaoke songs in order.

Yeah, so I gotta find when it goes.

In the Yeah, that's true.

We were kind of a It's funny we were talking before that I should in every episode like bring up Bob's account to be like did he block me?

And then I really, does he still have me block?

Like I actually have it lined up right?

Really look the block?

Does he still have you block?

Yep, he still has me blocked?

And I realized it's not gonna work unless although he's it's not gonna work too well because I have the paywall system for this show because like, so this is like weeks behind, so I don't know what this come.

So we could like have the whole series done already and like be dropping them and they're like I already unblocked you.

I already unblocked you.

I already unblocked you.

You know, assuming that there are Bob Murphy's that I don't think I'll tag them in it, You guys out there, feel free to tag him in these.

I think you'll love him just I mean, it would be pretty funny if every time I put out a promo for these, it just gets it like one hundred, Like it's like ten plus people like unblock os a unblock os.

I'll go to his house.

He doesn't live that far.

I will hunt him down.

He lives a couple hours away from me, I think, I don't know exactly where.

But yeah, but we had a four we already had in our mind, a four part arc of karaoke songs that kind of painted a narrative of our wooing of Robert Murphy to unblock me.

And now that we've accident and now that we accidentally extend to another episode, we have to find a way to cohesively make this romantic arc.

Uh So we're gonna find a nice little middle middle point.

So, uh yeah, I don't have to figure that out.

We have had too much lore at the beginning of the show.

That was my fault.

Yeah, too much lore.

It's okay, It's okay.

I was just looking through it as we were talking.

It was like, actually, I think this might work out better to break up into five because the next part anyway, So I'm not gonna go to the logistics.

But nobody wants to know why we're breaking up into whatever different parts.

Maybe they Yeah, I guess if you're if you're listening to it.

Actually, yeah, I guess you do if you're listening to part two, A live reading a Chaos Theory with jose Galley soon in Toad that, yeah, you might actually be semi interest in the logistics of how I break down these episodes.

Do you want me to get page numbers?

Too?

All right, guys, Toad, where can people find you?

We'll do another one that you soon enough, and I'm sure we'll find another book to cover after this.

I don't know what else we got.

I mean no, no, I don't think I've ever did a live reading of Anatomy.

Anatomy in the State.

Yeah, I mean I've done I've done like breakdowns of it, but I don't think I've ever done a live reading.

That's a good one.

That's a banger.

I don't know, we'll have to think of other ones.

That one short yeah, well short is yeah.

Yeah, it's got a lot, it's got a lot of great I that'd be a lot of good commentary.

Honestly, I haven't read it for a while.

I read it a couple of times probably, I don't know.

Last time I wrote it was sometime during the lockdowns.

I read it.

Maybe should go back to anatime.

I remember going to the brewery that I used to go to a lot.

I basically lived there and I remember reading it there as well.

Go back to like what is that you're reading anatomy of the state?

Yeah, go back to my roots.

That was like, that was the book that red pilled me, that made me that kind of like did it?

That was like holy shit, that was a nami of state so be and that was also so far as my podcasting career, that was my first breakout, like real breakout podcast.

I had Dave Smith on and we covered it.

It's still I like my most viewed.

I think it's almost No, I don't think it's my most viewed.

I think the Austin Pearson Dave Smith debate actually broke it, but it was if you go to my YouTube, it's the most viewed.

That's just because they don't for some reason show the live live streams first.

I don't know why, but it's so that was like a video that we put out later or whatever.

Anyways, Uh, yeah, that was did somewhere around twenty k on that one.

So and then yeah, so point being in that was my first time having Dave on That was covering nine the State with Dave.

Dave's who convinced me to what read it?

So and it now we could come full circle and do live reading with Toad.

So yeah, in a weird way, it's kind of poetic.

Yeah, and I have I do have some more.

I have a story that involves anatomy of the State, Dave Smith, and a violent guy.

All right, it's quite the cliffhanger, Toad.

Where can people find you?

Yeah?

Learned to Toad?

I almost said tower game Toad again.

Learn to Toad on Twitter and on Instagram where I post short form betting content.

Had a really lucky winner with my only bet that I gave out today.

I'm gonna say I was right the whole time.

Better off dead B T T O R S.

I have that on YouTube and the audio platforms.

That's my betting content.

I hope to pump that up.

And then I've covered in you.

As you said, I'm a man of many, Yeah, I'm a I'm a jackass of all trades and.

A and of many dark corners and holes.

Right, I'm a jack off of all trades and a masturbator of non is what I should say.

Covered in you because my ukulelei channel on YouTube and I have a Patreon, Patreon, dot com, slash, learn to toad.

The bonus stuff is all ukulele related.

Or if you just want to support me with some money, that would be cool.

Yeah, go give the homie money and then if you have any leftover, give it to me.

But if you don't have money and you want to support this show, there are ways you can support it without giving any money.

You can lave a like, a share, a subscribe, comment, leave a five star of you on iTunes or Spotify.

You can also follow me on Twitter at tarwerget he give me some support there, help boost up my stuff, promos, this that hey, these are all things to help the grow is a show grow.

You can also if you do want to support the show in the best way you really can though, that's with money, as we mentioned before.

And uh, I mean, if you've only left over after you give toed money, consider giving it to me.

I do try to give you your value back.

You know.

The lowest level is two bucks.

This is patroon dot com slash no Way Jose twenty twenty.

At the two dollars level, you get access to early episodes, so I do about one to two of those a week, just like this one right here, usually keep up four of those buying the payball any given time, so it's weeks of payball content.

You're also gonna add free RSS feed.

You get access to the ad, to the advert, but to the telegram.

You also access to or get a priority for the Collins and Axis or no access to the pre show and priority for the Collins.

I me and Austin's weekly live Collins show Already Dad, which was on Tuesdays at nine thirty pm Eastern.

I think we can read a change back over to the old the old format, but whatever, But if you also to give a big shout out to my sponsors, it was the highest level on my patren I get.

I give him a shout out is a big thank you for everything they do and have done for this show every episode.

I have who with me today?

I am my former co host.

I'm tagging at Learned to Toad, also at Abrogate, D's at z o v r c k at Underscan Zeal, Tim Tuttle at Geelian Clube, Bold Guy, I'm tot tongue tied, Will Bell RABBITI Wine and then big fan of the show torn me at Wayne Taculus not masad.

Oh that's actually supposed to be Uh dang, I screwed that up.

I needed to change that in my notes.

What did he say?

I'm supposed to be catching the rye?

That's what I am?

Or who's supporting me the catching the Rye?

Yeah?

Yeah, because you know, No, No, that is a super glowy book.

That's a sketchy That's that's I have.

I have a sponsor who likes a fed back at me, so he keeps changing it to different things that like fed jacket me.

It make me seem like a fat with them.

Yeah, I mean so we know.

So he does like not masaude.

I've been reading for a while and now he's doing uh And now he's doing Catching the Ride because like there's all these like mk altar of victims that we're have these weird catching the right things.

So he's just whatever.

I support it.

I think it's funny.

Keep going.

Uh.

I mean he'll probably be like Jeffrey Epstein, like fucking next month or something.

Uh.

Then, also, Andrew Jacob is a completely involuntary jew.

That's how he wanted me to read that.

Uh.

And he's new.

He did cross Man debscribed to watch.

He loves you, Yeah, he does.

He really loves you.

I don't know why.

I'm kind of an asshole sometimes.

I think that's why he loves you.

But U with that though, we're gonna get out of here.

I appreciate it.

Brother.

Uh.

We will do another one of these very soon.

I mean we've been doing about dang here once a week.

I gotta find a reason to hang out with you.

He gets lonely.

It gets lonely.

We don't want lonely friends.

I live alone.

I don't have any friends.

So yeah, alright, guys, if you're if you live in the Boston area, keep an eye out for Toad, especially if you're a young, beautiful lady looking to breed a lot of comedy.

Hey dude, he loves to go to events and he always has a plus one and no one to go with him.

So well, I'm about to hit the end of the run with like the tickets that I bought before I got fired, Like I'm only go up to like the next couple of months.

And then we weren't supposed to say that, Toad, I just sold you as like the ultimate date to like everything.

Well he still is all right, guys.

With that, we're out of here.

I love you all, We'll see you soon.

Bye bye Peace.