Is there a problem with the libertarian world or with the libertarian worldview? And there is one. There’s one weakness of libertarianism that I can see<\/strong>. And I hope that you guys can set me straight or some of the listening audience can do so. I really don’t like torturing animals.<\/p>\nI’m not talking about dog fights. I’m talking about taking a cat and pouring oil and then lighting them on fire. I regard that as pretty damn despicable. And I wish there were a way in libertarianism to put them in jail for that because I think it’s despicable. On the other hand, I don’t see it. This is a weakness I see in libertarianism. I wish there were a way where I could get that guy.<\/p>\n
Because I just regard that as despicable, taking a cat or a dog or some helpless animal and torturing [it] to death, burning [it] o death, or sticking pins in [it] or whatever. So, that’s a weakness. Now, my mentor in this area is a guy named Stephan Kinsella, who is also a great libertarian theoretician. And he says that there’s no such thing as intellectual property. OK, so what’s going on here?<\/p>\n
What’s going on here is, Vinay, if I steal your bicycle, you no longer have your bicycle. I have it. But now you come up with the Pythagorean theorem. By the way, it’s the Vinay theorem, it’s not the Pythagorean theorem. You came up with it, but I look over your shoulder, or somehow, I’ve got binoculars, and I see you playing with the Vinay theorem, and I copy it. Do you still have it? Yes. You still have it. So how can I be said to have stolen it from you?<\/p>\n
And if I can’t be said to have stolen it from you, how can it be property? Then there’s this issue of you’re supposed to have your patent for 20, 30, 50 years, whatever, it varies how many years. Look, I own this pen. I can give this pen to my [son]. He can give it to his children, my grandchildren. We own this forever. What’s this nonsense about owning property for 90 years or 70 years? There’s something wrong with the idea of owning ideas because if they’re stolen, you still have them. Girl A puts her hair up in a ponytail. She’s the first one that ever put her hair up in a ponytail. Girl B sees this and says, hey, that’s a great idea. Keep the hair out of my face. I’ll get a rubber band. I’ll put my hair in a ponytail. And then girl A comes up to her, slaps her in the face, and takes away the rubber band and says, you can’t have a ponytail because I started it, I own the idea of ponytails. That’s preposterous. That’s violation of libertarian theory. Okay, now the objection, a pragmatic objection is that if we don’t have patents or copyrights or anything like that, then intellectual…progress will come to a halt. This is a pragmatic or an empirical claim, but it’s a false empirical claim because look, if I invent something, it will take a year or two for you to reverse engineer it. I now invent the cure for cancer, and I’m making a fortune, and you buy the pill or whatever it is, and it will take you a little while, and nobody will trust your pill because my pill worked.<\/p>\n
It’s true after two or three years or whatever the time period is, I’ll no longer have a monopoly. It’s not really a monopoly. I’ll no longer be the single seller of this cure. But I’ll have a big incentive to create the cure for cancer. Not only will I make a lot of money, I’ll be famous and, you know, everyone will thank me. And then we have a lot of empirical evidence. I think it was not Beethoven, but oh, that other guy. He had 104 symphonies. I forget his name. And there were no patents in those days. Mozart, I don’t know how many symphonies he created, or Beethoven, Schubert\u2026one of those guys. They were creating symphonies all over the place and they couldn’t patent them. And yet they kept producing them and they made money off of them. So, the pragmatic argument against this is false. Now, if it came to a choice between libertarian principle and pragmatism, I would go with the libertarian principle. But here I don’t have to make that choice because the argument that without patents and intellectual property innovation would come to a halt is just false.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Vinay Kolhatkar<\/strong><\/p>\nI posed it not as an empirical claim, but as a hypothetical. Would you revise libertarian theory if the hypothetical stared you in your face?<\/p>\n
Okay, we’ll move on, but I posed it not as an empirical claim, but as a hypothetical. Would you revise libertarian theory if the hypothetical stared you in your face? [By the way] in my head, you can grant animals limited rights<\/strong>, all living organisms [can] have a limited right to not be tortured<\/strong>.<\/p>\nYou might be able to hunt them, eat them, but to not be tortured for no reason is a limited right that can be granted by human society. Coming back to this question, it’s if the empiricism stares you in your face, so you’ve got to revise the theory or ignore the empirics. Which one [will it be]?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nMarco, can’t we kick him out? No, obviously, you know, I’m just…<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marco den Ouden<\/strong><\/p>\nNo. (Lots of laughter)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nNo\u2026I’m just kidding.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marco den Ouden<\/strong><\/p>\nIf I might interject here, Walter, your argument is actually very similar to Frederick Bastiat’s. He argues that for the originator of an idea, his advantage lasts for as long as it takes for his competitors to catch up with him. So, he does have an initial advantage because he’s the first on the block with this new idea, but he doesn’t have it forever. [Until] others start copying him. And I think Bastiat actually gave Gutenberg as an example of this. And I think that’s what you’re arguing for as well, that the advantage is very limited<\/strong>. It’s limited to the time period it takes for potential competitors to catch up.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nWell, look, obviously I was just kidding about canceling Vinay. I’m just being silly. But this question is a very good question. And you could even improve it. You could say, look, suppose we adhere to libertarianism and everyone dies. We all die. Don’t ask me why, but we all die. Well, then I’m not that radical a libertarian. I would say we have to give up libertarianism. You can come up with hypotheticals like this. But you see, you could do that with any theory. You could go to the socialists and say, look, suppose we have socialism and everyone dies. Or suppose we have the X system. So, in a sense, it’s almost unfair to come up with hypotheticals like that. You have to have some sort of reason. Why would everyone die just because we have economic freedom?<\/p>\n
Or why would there be no more innovation just because there wasn’t a monopoly for it? You have to come up with some sort of reason. But, you know, if you want to play the hypothetical game, it’s a very powerful tool, and it can undermine libertarianism, but it could undermine any system. I could pull one on you and say, look, suppose we do have patents and no inventions occur. Would you give up your support for patents and copyrights?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Vinay Kolhatkar<\/strong><\/p>\nAlmost definitely I would reexamine it, yes. I would have to.<\/strong> You can’t be averse to reality<\/strong>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Marco den Ouden<\/strong><\/p>\nYes. There’s also the argument, just very briefly, that a lot of big companies buy up patents to suppress competition. So, that’s another problem<\/strong> that needs to be put into the mix.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nYes, there’s a whole literature on this that patents slow down innovation because without patents, you just go ahead and you start inventing. With patents, you have to make sure you don’t violate this guy’s patent and that guy’s patent, and you can’t do this and you can’t do that. So, there’s a very powerful argument saying that a patent system slows down innovation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marco den Ouden<\/strong><\/p>\nOkay, well, let’s move on now. Walter Block, I loved your first notable book, Defending the Undefendable<\/em>. It was quite an entertaining read many years ago, and I knew you had been planning to write a sequel, and I recently discovered when we were planning this interview, I looked it up and saw that you actually had completed a sequel now, Defending the Undefendable II<\/em>, and a very entertaining book.<\/p>\nI haven’t read it all, but I’ve browsed through it. And the first entry that you have intrigued me particularly, it’s called the \u201cMultinational Enterpriser.\u201d And I see this essay as a defense of globalism, which so many despise in conservative as well as leftist circles. Can you elaborate on your take on globalism?<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nBefore I do it, just give me 10 seconds. Let me see if I can find Defending III because there are actually two subsequent books. Yes, here I got it. This is Defending III (shows book cover). And I’m now working on Defending IV. On the multinational, I favor free trade. Free trade is mutually beneficial, necessarily beneficial in the ex-ante sense. I bought this shirt for $10. When I bought it, what value did I place on the shirt? More than $10, otherwise, if it was less than $10, I wouldn’t have bought it. And if it was equal to $10, why should I disturb myself? There’s nothing in it for me. There’s no benefit for me. And the guy who sold me the shirt, valued it at less than $10, maybe at $2 because he had plenty of them, wanted to get rid of them. And he made an $8 profit. So, all trade, buying, selling, renting, lending, employment, whatever, is mutually beneficial in the ex ante sense. Ex post, you know, maybe I regret that I bought it, it’s out of style and not that I care much about style, but I could regret buying it, although usually you don’t regret buying the shirt. And it doesn’t matter whether I bought it from a domestic producer or I bought it from a foreign producer. Donald Trump wants to have a 10% tax on imports in order to save jobs in the US or increase benefits. But if you extrapolate from this and reduce trade, I mean, the reason we’re so rich is we have specialization in the division of labor. Imagine if we had a tariff, not from the US, but a tariff just from my home state now of Louisiana. We tax, I don’t know, wine from California and meat from Montana. And now you could say, well, I live in New Orleans.<\/p>\n
Maybe we shouldn’t buy anything from Baton Rouge up the river. And now you keep going smaller and smaller and eventually we have to produce everything for ourselves and we all die because 99% of us owe our very lives to the fact that we could trade. And Donald Trump is on the side of killing people by interfering with trade. So, the multinational enterprise is a company that has branches in this country, a branch in that country, main office in the third country, wherever that is. And somehow this is bad. I just don’t see that.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Vinay Kolhatkar<\/strong><\/p>\nOkay, I’m going to another hypothetical question, apologies. I just want to make a couple of observations first. You know you’ve been brave. Hans Hermann Hoppe has put you on the guillotine block (pun intended) of libertarianism for defending a country which we’re not going to visit today. Jeffrey Tucker\u2019s sore at you for defending the lockdowns but now we have a different reality staring us in our face. At least I think it is different. Looking back, with the benefit of hindsight<\/strong>, we have evidence of Sweden that probably, you know, we didn’t need to have lockdowns. We have evidence that there were other remedies, Methylene Blue, maybe other remedies that are unmentionable here that may have worked, and maybe the vaccines didn’t work as well, and so on and so forth. We also have some evidence that the elites may be planning another disease X and lockdowns. Now with that reality behind us<\/strong>, we have an actual empirical claim about both the efficacy of the vaccines and what the lockdowns were actually used for. Maybe there was a real lab leak. Would you still support the lockdowns<\/strong>?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nOkay, good. Look, there was this woman called, what was her name? Typhoid Mary. Typhoid Mary had typhoid. And she was working in a restaurant and she was giving people typhoid, which is a horrible disease. Now she wasn’t doing it purposefully. She didn’t realize that she had typhoid. But what should we do? We the police, whether it’s anarchist police or government police, what should they do with Typhoid Mary? Well, they got to get her out of circulation. She’s creating typhoid. which is a dread disease for other people. At the beginning, we didn’t know that COVID was nonsense. We didn’t realize that it only affected people who were 75 and older, or very, very few people who were under 75 were impacted by it at all.<\/p>\n
And with Monday morning quarterbacking, with the benefit of hindsight, what we should have said is, look, 75- year-old people and older, be careful. If you get it, it’s going to really impact you heavily. Wear a mask, don’t go out, be cautious, and that’s all we should have done. But we didn’t know. We just didn’t know. And I thought that as a libertarian, there’s nothing wrong with forcing Typhoid Mary not into a jail, but into a hotel or into her house. And then, you know, I’m against welfare. But…<\/p>\n
We have to feed her. We have to make sure she has electricity so she can watch TV or whatever. We have to treat her gently. She is a public danger, and we have to protect the public against her. But she’s not a prisoner, but she’s sort of in house-arrest or in hotel-arrest. So to me, when COVID was first mentioned, it was unclear. And yet, virtually every libertarian said, no, no, no, you can’t do this. It’s against libertarianism. No, it’s not against libertarian principles because Typhoid Mary or COVID Mary was infecting other people. And when you infect other people with a deadly disease, we now learn it’s not a deadly disease, but we didn’t know then. Well, you’re not a murderer, but you’re killing innocent people. We got to stop you. So, what I said, is look: Libertarians, we economists believe in specialization and in the division of labor. As libertarians, we don’t know anything about COVID. So, shut up. Here’s the Ayn Rand in me, shut up. Be a little cautious about what you’re saying. Don’t go out on a limb and say that this is a violation of rights. It is a violation of rights if COVID is now the way we see it.<\/p>\n
Many libertarians are philosophers, or bus drivers. What do they know about communicable diseases?<\/p>\n
But at the very beginning, the first month or two, all sorts of libertarians were pontificating about that which they knew nothing. They weren’t epidemiologists or biologists or specialists in transmittable diseases. And they were pontificating. And I was saying, let’s be a little cautious here. And when the next COVID comes up, I will again come out in favor of caution.<\/p>\n
Realizing that the powers that be don’t like freedom and would like nothing better than to do COVID II. But we have to be careful about this, and we have to be cautious about that in which we have no expertise. I’m an economist. Many libertarians are philosophers, or I don’t know, bus drivers. What do they know about communicable diseases? Why are they so cocksure about themselves? So, when Jeff Tucker, who is a good libertarian in many ways, takes umbrage with me, I respectfully disagree.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marco den Ouden<\/strong><\/p>\nLet’s move on to the lighter side a bit here. A few years ago, there was a movement afoot at Loyola University in New Orleans where you teach to have you fired<\/strong>. And then one of your supporters launched a counter petition to have Loyola give you a raise. How did that all work out, Walter?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nWell, the way it started was this\u2026 In 2014, when Rand Paul was a viable candidate for the 2016 election, and unbeknownst to me at the time, the New York Times<\/em> wanted to do a hit on Rand Paul. And the thesis of the hit was Rand Paul is a maniac because he hangs around with maniacs. And I was one of the 12 maniacs that they were going to mention as crazies and in league with Rand Paul. So, the New York Times<\/em> called me up, [and asked\u2026] Can they interview me about libertarianism? And I said, sure, I’ll talk to anyone about libertarianism. I’ll talk to the Nazi periodical. I’ll talk to the Commie periodical. I’ll talk to the New York Times<\/em>. And I was giving them the usual libertarian non-aggression principle, private property rights based on homesteading. The non-aggression principle doesn’t mean that you can\u2019t have boxing as long as both agree to box. And I was giving them the usual, what is libertarianism thing. And either they weren’t getting it, which I don’t believe because I think they were bright, or they wanted a gotcha moment. I gave them the voluntary slavery argument.<\/p>\nWhat’s the voluntary slavery argument? Voluntary slavery argument is\u2026suppose my son, God forbid, had a horrible disease and it would cost $50 million to save his life. I don’t have 50 million. Vinay has long wanted me to be his slave. So, I make a deal with Vinay. Vinay, give my son’s doctors 50 million, let them cure him, and I will now come to your plantation, and I’ll be your slave. And I’ll give you economics lessons, I’ll pick cotton, I’ll do whatever you want. And, by the way, you can kill me. You can treat me just like a chicken or a horse or a pig or whatever. I’m your property.<\/p>\n
Is this a valid contract? And I said libertarians are divided on this. Murray Rothbard says no. Robert Nozick says yes. And I said, yes, it’s a valid contract.<\/p>\n
Every trade is mutually beneficial. How did I gain? Because I value my son’s life more than my freedom. How did Vinay gain? He valued my servitude more than 50 million. He’s [in this hypothetical] very, very rich.<\/p>\n
Do you know what these rascals did? They came out and said that I favored actual slavery.<\/p>\n
Do you know what these rascals did? They came out and said that I favored actual slavery. That was in paragraph three. In paragraph 18, I don’t know the exact number of the paragraphs, they clarified this a little bit. And what happened? I tell you, if I were the president of the university and, Marco, you were quoted in the New York Times<\/em> as favoring actual slavery, I’d call you into my office, I’d say, please tell me you were misquoted. He didn’t do that. What he did is he wrote an article in the student newspaper saying, well, we’re against slavery. Walter Block favors slavery, he’s no good. So, 500 students got up a petition saying that they ought to fire me because I favored slavery. No, I don’t favor slavery. I wrote to the New York Times,<\/em> and I said, look, I was misquoted. And I said, I have a long paper trail of supporting reparations to present-day blacks for the slavery that their grandparents suffered 150 years ago. So, how can I favor slavery? And could you please print the correction?” And they said, no. They were very polite. At least they responded. So, then I sued them. I sued them and we settled on grounds that were very favorable to me. Then what happened is a former student of mine, got up another petition saying Walter Block is great, give him a raise. And I got 5,000 signatures on that. So, it’s 5,000 versus 500. But I’m not a real big fan of the New York Times<\/em>. I mean, they said I favored actual slavery as a libertarian. That’s preposterous, that’s an abomination. So, that’s my story on that.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Vinay Kolhatkar<\/strong><\/p>\nInteresting. Actually that leads me to the last question of the day. Did I hear you right? You said New York Times<\/em> refused to apologize, but they settled with you<\/strong>. Did they offer you monetary compensation or something?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nYeah, I got monetary compensation, and I got a few other things of value.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Vinay Kolhatkar<\/strong><\/p>\nVery, very good. I mean, I wouldn’t put it past them that they didn’t make an error, that [it] was deliberate. It’s entirely possible knowing how they operate. Now, going back to Loyola and our hypotheticals, remember the great Ayn Rand dictum, at least the one I love is: \u201cReality is the ultimate arbiter.\u201d And you almost answered this hypothetical question by saying, yes, you settled for compensation [in a libel law case]. I have this very ugly hypothetical: Your detractors have hatched a plan to abuse your legacy. You have a great legacy at the moment, one you can be proud of. A student falsely accuses you of sexual harassment and then two more female students elevate the sexual harassment to sexual assault. The university, like you said, they don’t ask you \u201cDid this happen?\u201d They just fire you.<\/p>\n
There goes your livelihood. Your reputation is in ruins. Hoppe still has you on the guillotine block for a very different reason. And even your marriage is strained. And some lawyer comes along and says, listen, I can get you millions or a very hefty compensation under libel law. And now as an anti-libel law libertarian, would you proceed? To mount a [libel] case against these people.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nWell, it’s not that much of a hypothetical because I did sue the New York Times<\/em> on the basis of libel.<\/p>\nWell, it’s not that much of a hypothetical because I did sue the New York Times<\/em> on the basis of libel.<\/p>\nAnd I also, as a libertarian, oppose libel law. Why do I oppose libel law? Because you don’t own your reputation. Your reputation consists of what other people think about you, and you don’t own their thoughts. So, these five young women besmirch my reputation by saying I engaged in sexual abuse against them. And now my wife leaves me, and my employer fires me, and all of my friends leave me. Did they violate any of my rights? Did they steal anything from me that I own? And the answer is no, they didn\u2019t because I don\u2019t own my reputation, paradoxically. Because my reputation doesn’t consist of what I think about myself. My reputation consists of what everybody else thinks about me.<\/p>\n
And I don’t own their thoughts. So, these five young women who accuse me of all sorts of things, they ruined my reputation. Why would I not sue them, but I would sue the New York Times<\/em>? And on what basis did I justify suing the New York Times<\/em> for ruining my reputation? Here I relied upon libertarian class analysis. Now Marxists have a class analysis that the bourgeois are bad, and the proletariat are good. That’s the economic Marxists. The cultural Marxists have this view that straight white males are evil and everyone else is good. Class analysis. We libertarians also have class analysis. It’s got nothing to do with Marxism. It’s rather that statists and people who initiate violence against other people are the bad guys and everyone else [are] the good guys. And the government is a bad guy. And what is the relationship of the New York Times<\/em> with the government? It’s the mouthpiece of the government. It’s a big supporter of the government. Salzberger is donating all sorts of money to the government that he didn’t have to do based on law. So, you know, there was this interesting case with Robert Nozick who sued his landlord. And then everyone made fun of him, and they started calling it anarchy, state and rent control. His book is Anarchy, State and Utopia<\/em>, but they wrote \u201cAnarcho<\/em>, State, and Rent Control\u201d<\/em> because he sued his landlord.<\/p>\nAnd I was wondering, is there any justification to sue your landlord even though you’re against rent control? And I came up with the idea, well, suppose his landlord punched him in the nose, and his landlord is bigger than him, and there are no witnesses, and the only way that Robert Nozick could get back at his landlord, and I’m not saying this is true, you’re not the only one with hypotheticals, would Robert Nozick be entitled to sue the landlord under rent control laws? And I say, yes, if that’s the only way you can get back at him.<\/p>\n
Well, the only way I could get back at the New York Times<\/em>, who was part of the ruling class, was to sue [them]. I’m able to sue [them]. Now, these five young girls, they’re not part of the ruling class. Whether Loyola is or not is a gray area. I might be able to sue Loyola on this ground. But I certainly can’t sue these five young women who lied about my proclivities, not my proclivities, but my actual behavior. And, you know, I sometimes wonder what’s wrong with Loyola? If they really wanted to get me, that’s what they should do. They should get five young women who I’ve never met, and they all swear up and down. Yes, yes, Block did this, Block did that. But I guess they don’t want to get rid of me that much. Or maybe they’re afraid that one of these young women will turn on them. And can you imagine what would happen to the Loyola reputation\u2014talk about reputation! If it came out that Loyola told these five young girls (or young women) to lie about me in this way and, if just one of them broke and would take lie detector tests and obviously they would fail lie detector tests, and obviously I would pass any lie detector test and I would take lie detector tests all over the place. It’s not that good a technique to get me. But, to get back to your point, I would not sue them because I don’t consider them part of the ruling class.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Vinay Kolhatkar<\/strong><\/p>\nGreat. Well, thank you for that. And I’m very, very glad that these three, whether three or five girls, it’s entirely a hypothetical. We very much hope nothing like that ever happens to you. And thank you very much for being here. And thank you to my cohost, Marco. I will let the viewers know that Walter Block will be back with his co-author Alan Futerman, to defend himself against allegations <\/strong>from his former, not former\u2026I hope current friend, Hans Hermann Hoppe, about Israel and that will be sometime in April<\/strong> hosted by Marco and my other co-host, Roger Bissell.<\/p>\nGood night and good luck. Thank you for being here, Walter and Marco.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Marco den Ouden<\/strong><\/p>\n[It] was good to speak to Walter again.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
Walter Block<\/strong><\/p>\nIt was a pleasure. I greatly enjoyed it. It was a lot of fun. Thank you.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Walter Block interviewed by Marco den Ouden and Vinay Kolhatkar.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":82,"featured_media":9891,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,9],"tags":[40,464,463,154],"class_list":["post-9892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commerce","category-politics","tag-ayn-rand","tag-classical-liberalism","tag-libertarianism","tag-liberty"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9892","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/82"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9892"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9897,"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9892\/revisions\/9897"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9891"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesavvystreet.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}