 yn bhlynydd o'r ddraid iawn hwn o'r ddraith. Mae hwn o'r hanfyd ar y tanrhau gofodd am y gorfod, o ddod yn cyflawni'r ddraith ar yr edrych, o'r perluniaeth wedi'u altru. Mae hyn yn cnyddol gallu gweld i'r gennym deall ac mae hynna bod gyda'r empire. Gweld eich cysyllt i gael gwyfodol yn mynd, a wneud ddim yn syniadau i'r berthynas meddwl i wneud i'r fferoedd hynny, ac yn ffraith o'r meddwl yng ngyfynol yma, bod hynny'n gydag yng nghylch ar gwybod ym mwyaf i'r parlygeddau, a hynny'n ddechrau'r parlygeddau plant tynniad i'n credu analog, ti'n ffordd ond rwy'n gweithio'r bwysig yma i'r bwysig hwnnw i'r rhan o bwysig yma i'r ysgrifennu ar gyfer y bwysig yma i'r uned o'r corffon iawn i'r rhan o'r cyffredinol yn y bwysig yma i'r ein bod yn lle, i'r bwysig yma i'r bwysig yma i'r bwysig eich bod yn ei dweud yw ymddangos ar gyfer y bwysig yma i'r bwysig yn ei dweud ymwysig yma, Mae'n gwneud am gwaith gyda'r eistedd, ac mae'n meddwl y ffordd o'r colystio ac mae'n meddwl y ffordd o'r gofynu ar y cyfle cwbl yn rhan o'r meddwl, mae'n meddwl ddod o'r colystio a'r colystio yn ymddangosol, ond mae'n meddwl gweithio i'r colystio, ac mae hwnnw i gyd, dyma'r ffordd o'r cyflasio a'r cyflosio, gyda'r llwyddiol a'r llwyddiol wedi'u llwyddiol wedi'u llwyddiol a'r llwyddiol? Mae'r cwestiynau i fynd i'r llwyddiol. Rwy'n cael ei wneud o'r ysgrifennu yma yw'r llwyddiol yw'r llwyddiol? Mae'r llwyddiol yw'r llwyddiol yw'r llwyddiol? Rwy'n cael ei ddechrau a rwy'n cymaint a ni i rwy'n cyfnod gyfnod. Rwy'n cael ei ddechrau i'r llwyddiol, roedd chi'r llwyddiol wedi bod anhygiadu i ddweud o hoffong. Rwy'n cael ei ddechrau i ddweud o hoffong, a rwy'n cael ei ddweud ti'n ôl? I think it's because, from the left again, the left have a goal. They have a goal and that is why they are always winning where against the non-left who have not got a goal as such as the utopian goal, something to strive for. So, what makes the other people resistant is probably that they have a different goal. I understand that. I agree that the left has a goal. The right is, or the non-left, is divided. They have not the same ideology except insofar as they become part of the left, which I think is a secret of the conservative, because they are part of the left. They share the ideology. I think that the right simply represents the true right and simply the ineffective force of resistance. Now, what exactly makes the left acceptable? I think there are several things, one of which is their ability to draw on a Christian world view, which in some sense, they denature, they distort, but the things of universalism and equality are, at least to some degree, inherent in Christianity, and they are a successor to Christianity. Who are not going back to pain is as historically impossible. What they are doing is they are sort of butchering Christianity, taking certain ideas that are usable and still have purchased people with a set, and they are recycling them. But they were ready to something that could be recognized, and they are seen as the neck-size of Christianity, and they are strongly supported by little Christians throughout the West. And even the conservative Christians have the second thoughts about what the left is doing. The other thing is that the modern welfare state is so powerful. Controls, culture, education is such a degree that everybody is raised with the system of the modern state. I was very interested in Professor Manello pointing out to us that the accounting sociologist emphasized politics. It was also libertarians that was being the most important aspect of power relations in the modern world, and it's absolutely correct. It's not economics, it's the state. And the state is able to influence people in a way that it could not centuries ago. There's no such thing as the state throughout history of the state as a modern invention, and democracy has made it much stronger than it was before. And the state out of the state has necessarily left this, or has been necessarily left this, since the fall of fascism. And since the failure of the United States of some kind of a capital welfare state in Europe, that the only model of the state you had is a leftist model of the state. And as long as the state becomes powerful, any kind of traditional society will become weaker, and the left will move from one prime to the next. Y Llywodraeth Cymru now, we had a supreme court which would have four predictable votes on one side of many domestic issues, four predictable votes on the other side, and one kind of swing vote, kind of wishy washy vote. And this was true back in the days of Sonic and Connor, and it's true today with Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote. And the issues might be, that's for private use, we could have race preferences in public institutions. It always ends up five to four, whether it be the current court or the court 15 years ago. We can imagine cases coming up in which the vote would be the same white light. We could have a vote on birthright citizenship, maybe in the next five years. We could have a vote on whether states can independently of the national government implement measures which are second best to actually enforcing their own borders with Mexico. The left to four, we don't know which way it will go, and there's a whole series of decisions like this expected in the future in which we've had in the recent past. And I was wondering, and I'm particularly not sure Paul and Tony will speak to this, but I'm actually interested in what Yuri would say, do we have really on the supreme court a traditional differentiation on domestic issues, between right and left? There's no way that, what I'm claiming here is, no, the left has not taken over the right. You can see it, they actually made references to the commerce clause, delegation of powers, separation of powers. So you have these traditional issues that define it from an egalitarian point of view in state intervention, right versus left. Do you see it there, right? The question for me, also Paul. Right, well the supreme court is a mixed baggage, it's really unpredictable. They did some good job, I think in the last three years, some of them, she didn't know what to say again. I think that's what they would do, they would nationalize everything for ending the main. And that's another threat, it's not the problem of a big movement. So they have some, I was just listening, at the University of Chicago listening to Judge Thomas, who I respected, they turned out as being a very nice stand up judge. He was a kind of a stand up Canadian, I love the great sense of humor, I was the surprise. But yes, it's unpredictable, I think that the future is unpredictable like past this. I would say something that is gloomier because I suppose that's my known colleague personality. But it seems to me that at some point you can identify liberal judges, liberal in the American context, not the European context. Obama probably will win re-election given the stupidity and ineptitude of the opponent party. And what he does will be able to name at least one more judge. The media will applaud whatever he does. And by then the state and the media will have managed to construct a new majority opinion on whatever they're going to have to vote on. So I do think that in the end the liberals will probably, or the left will be able to defend their majority on the Supreme Court. But you do can see there is the traditional left-right, it's very clear which is which on the Supreme Court. Yes, I would say what you have is a party resistance that does not want to go any further, which is what the right is. It is simply an obstacle to force a resistance to leftist agendas. And any of those in the left who want more social engineering, who want more alternative lifestyles, be forced on the state of course. And leave less and freedom of property or rights of property. And I think that side is probably going to gain ground in the next four years. If I could break in, I must say that as a foreigner looking in on their affairs, I find the right naive faith in their constitution increasingly tiresome. I can accept that if you have a rival constitution and it seems to make certain clear guarantees of restraints of power, then it should be used perhaps for the purposes of giving the people on the side. But I don't think America has reached a point where the real constitution is why which the authorities can do anything they like when they like it. So long as it does not bring on armed rebellion and so long as they can persuade a number of very expensive lawyers to argue that black is white in front of a reasonably sympathetic panel of judges also appointed by the American Green class. And when people on the right of America jump and say this is Amos' use of a commerce clause white, it's very clearly here in the constitution that A is A. Well that may be so, but it doesn't mean anything. And perhaps the right would stop losing if it began to argue on the substantive use of state, rather than simply relying on a constitutional paper shield. Another question for Sean. Your choice of words seem to suggest that the American insurgence being reactionary as opposed to progressive should be considered a flaw. I was reminded of Peter Drucker's interpretation of the American Revolution, which he does not see as a progressive revolt against tyranny, but as actually a conservative counter-revolution against the rationalism of environment. So I'm wondering if you identify any actually reactionary sentiments among the American revolutionaries which may be considered praiseworthy as such. The American Revolution was, in turn, a conservative revolution, but there is no doubt of that. I think everything I have to say is, most of the American Revolutionaries, is that look that from an English point of view, these people were looking through the raw end of the telescope that they just didn't understand the situation in England. And indeed, in some of the claims they made about short-term ministers, they appeared to be very close to barking mad. I think women British hotspots, who wrote an essay about the paranoid strain of American politics, I do see it on many of the Americans who resisted the British in the 1760s and 1770s. They persistently misunderstood everything that was coming out of London. And although we thought the fact that the British government was probably stupid to press on the best taxes when it didn't need them, the promise and sermons were highly peculiar. Actually, like some of the rest of this point in the past, I wish more of a more respected framers of the Constitution. I think the people arguing in favour of the revolution sounded like lunatics very often. Obviously there was hysteria particularly in England when George III graciously granted religious freedom and political rights to the Catholics in the back because this was the first step so one might gather from Englanders to establish the Catholic Axis Monarchy in England and then send it over to the American colonies. This is not unusual rhetoric among the people who made the revolution, so one can be grateful that it turned out as well as it did. The other point is there seems to be a hatred of monarchy for a long time on people who view themselves as American patriots. I find this stupid and distasteful. It most recently manifested, by the way, many of the Americans who petition the English government, petition the king, they support the king against parliament. They are aware that the king will come to their aid, the light of your aid, and they are appealing to his executive power against the parliament, which they know full well at the time they were just standing back, which is responsible for what they consider to be grievance, but afterwards anti-monarchical sentiment takes over and I found it was the perigest expression this is doing so in the New York Post in which somebody named Michael Walsh was presented as the voice of conservatism that the United States is going to defeat the tyrant in Libya the way we defeated Hitler's Stalin and George III. And you look at it and wonder what kind of universe this person is of, what kind of sort of knowledge this person has. It also was a kind of hysteria whipped up mostly by Republicans when Obama always had in front of the Emperor of Japan because this was considered anti-Republican and denied American exceptionalism. And this to me is part of a bitter application, might say, of the anti-monarchical sentiment which plays a role in the American Revolution. First century. Instead you are going to... Economists on the 70s and 70s would cycle back later. Well, that's a difficult one to answer. You know that about 20% of the American population during the Revolutionary War were lawyers of one kind or another. All right, my answer is that I seem to be emotionally drawn to the most extreme expression of opinions around and so I would probably be jumping up and down insisting that insisting that George III or the reincarnation of James Cohn and that we didn't have independence yesterday. But it doesn't mean that I'll be involved. This question is for anyone who wants to answer, but particularly for Paul. Paul, you gave a strong case for decadence and ineffectiveness of American conservatives. And although I'm not as pessimistic as you, nonetheless I can see that you would make it a good case, but this is a conference serving classical liberals and libertarians. And wouldn't you have to say at the moment that libertarianism is also undergoing a drift leftwards and ratifying many of the ideas of the liberal left? I wonder, first of all, would you agree, certainly if you would, why is this happening? And thirdly, what can be done about it? I'm thinking particularly of questions like natural sovereignty and immigration. In fact, I fully agree with John on this point as on others. I do think libertarians in the United States are the hope of resistance to the left. I think what we've seen perhaps for the last 30 years is a conservative movement very much shaped by the neo-conservatives who have been able to control with its right, actually by feeding them science, and, you know, said that in the fight for Israel and so forth. And occasionally sort of holding out the idea that they're going to stop abortion or something, they've been very effective to Republicans, and this has been mostly an electoral kind of a gimmick. Nonetheless, the libertarians are serious and the neo-conservatives ran all over the right, you know, not the right, the traditional conservative right, I was on that. We would soil the marginalized right. They cannot do this with the libertarians who seem to have a kind of sustained power and are gaining ground. And I suspect that people who allow Ron Paul and Rand Paul and others on the Fox News are lining their teeth when they do this because they don't like it any better than paleo-conservatives, who'd be neo-conservatives destroyed years ago, joined them, and they cannot do this with the libertarians. And part of the appeal, I'm writing an essay in the American Conservatives that I've been thinking this over, but part of the appeal in it of the libertarians is they don't have to address social issues, having this effect, and which Republicans are really just exploring. They really don't do very much with them. What libertarians can focus on are things like bad monetary policy, overreach by the federal bureaucracy, the need for decentralisation of power, and a critique of what is basically the neo-conservative foreign policy. And they can be very effective, and I think that if there's any hope, and I don't know if there would be an American right, or if there's just a left now that we would join, that it will have to come from the libertarian side. I have this shooting pain going up my heart, British Health Service, who was, as far as I know, the first one to point out that socialised health care had the potential to consume the entire national economy, if not unchecked. And it looks as if that's what's happening in the United States and other advanced countries. I wonder if, from your own experience with socialised health care in Britain, I wonder if you could tell us whether you think there's any solution to the problem of rising demand for health care outside the framework of massive state intervention. Is there a libertarian solution? And most particularly, meaning health care in general, but most particularly in health care near the end of life, which consumes a quite disproportionate amount of our health care resources. Is there actually a libertarian free market solution to this, in your opinion? Well, that's your first question about the show. I'll see me afterwards. To be honest, I'm quite sure. With regards to the National Health Service, when it was an institute, it was thought actually that the cost of it would go down because the health of the population would increase so rapidly that the actual expense of the system would go down. As far as I'm aware, there is no country in the world where there are no problems with the health system. The one which is said to be the most satisfactory is France and it's the only country really where I think people are actually satisfied with it but the government is trying to rein in cost of it. And it's a much more audio network that has much more freedom than the National Health Service or the British Health Service. I think one scheme that I think that you have in America is health accounts, isn't it, where people are able to save? And that has the potential, I think, for providing a solution but that's a very long-term solution. There will always have to be an insurance element in it because while it is true that most health care costs arise at the end of life, unless they do arise at other times and they can arise at other times and they can be catastrophic for expenses so there has to be some insurance element. So I think that is a possible way of dealing with it. The problem to the completely free health care system sorry, completely free market system is and I think we live in, we actually do live in a world in which the first time somebody is refused health care on the grounds that he hasn't saved any money, that he hasn't paid what he should have, he hasn't put anything aside. So that's going to be an outcry in Britain, they are highly sentimental. So the moment we try to reform any part of the health service or any part of the social security system, hard cases are immediately put out before the public and everyone retires, horrified and then does nothing. And I think that is going to be one of the obstacles. Financially I think everything is actually more safe and then people are paying as and when. But I don't see it happening, I don't see it really happening anywhere in the world, frankly. I mean, I had a little bit of, it was the wonderful article by Hans-Leven Hoppe about health care in 1993, free market. He would, I think four points what should be done on health care. And the program is so good that I borrowed it for my article of American Journal of Physicians and Surgeons. That's an interesting group and I think all of us as the battalions conservatives should go with them. It's a wonderful battalion group of physicians and surgeons in the United States. Since 1943, Lloro Co was managing editor of the magazine for a mile and they have a wonderful program now what should be done in US medicine. They have plan A, plan B, plan A is way more radical and plan B is mostly privatization, privatization, privatization. That's a given government now because that's the source of all the problems as there's an answer in the reality. People were in the United States, I don't get my name out here and they do a lot of work. It's very interesting that today is, I think, it's not only about health care, it's about the whole government as the government wants to take over the most important field in human life and control us with that. Paul and Yuri, I'm very interested in what Rowan, you will have to say all of this. And if we think of the role to serve them, progressively leading to violence, as you said. Do you see the future in the United States? That some time, some state or some community will say no more to the government or some position will arise and violence might be brought. And the second part of the question is, what do you think the army will do if it's called back to suppress internal population? All right. It's a very good question there. In an early start of the book is, I was going back, I was just asking this book and I was saying we were crazy, we decided, but don't criticize the book because, but the book is a little long, you will look at it, right? It has a lot of compromises, a lot of big government propaganda I would say. But in the United States, I happen to be several times at a conference on secession, I think it's called every real institute in Charleston, South Carolina. It's wonderful, wonderful. Everything is amazing that it's more to that than right. For example, they would have, they would have all confederates there, they would have people who represent some people as they are, which is second in the Republic of Vermont, which are very little wing. And so people are thinking that this secession or not is, I think that it was kind of like a little bit of a setback for this whole discussion because of the elections of last year, the Tea Party movement. Because Tea Party is trying to get the whole country back. So people are not kind of trying to, I'm speaking here before a lot of Tea Parties because it's very a wonderful thing. It's not a good thing, it's not a good thing, it's a lot of people sitting in the promopos, a few promopos. And I think that we should, as the Qatarians are, we should address them because they are desperately looking for solutions. I think this is very important for them. So I see that it is, while others are trying, also trying to seize that movement, there is plenty of fights over its future. Yeah, I perhaps, having expressed some exhilaration in response to John's question, I should point out that at the end of the day, I don't think that the insurance will prevail. Certainly not within the Tea Party system that we have in the United States. The Neal Conservatives and the Republicans have a functional compatibility. The Republican Party is a big government party which claims that the government is on their back, but by now that's an empty, it's just an utterly empty phrase, but they win votes by saying that anyhow. They have run a very large mainstream system like the other party. And any concrete ideas for abolishing departments of government through doing anything that would push us towards decentralisation, they will gallantly resist. And of course the Democratic Party will resist even more. So that I am not quite as optimistic as Yuri, I think this session is representing a kind of intellectual fringe right now. I do think though libertarians can slow things down in terms of the growing power on the left, particularly by attacking public sector unions which they do now and also for calling for various paths toward decentralisation power. What does depress me a great deal is a by-election an American by-election replacing upstate New York a few days in the western part of the state which was a fairly conservative region and conservative voters did not come out in both conservative and conservative frightened that the objection to Obamacare and the support for some long range what I think a very moderate cost and a necessary cost or proposed by Congressman Ryan in Wisconsin might endanger Medicare and unfortunately if you scratch beneath the surface of many of our tea party demonstrators they are people of my age were not much longer concerned about their Medicare benefits and are afraid that Obamacare is going to destroy other government titles and this indicates to me exactly that many of the people were out in the streets wearing ridiculous wigs and claiming to be tea party revolutionaries were simply protesting with the excesses of the democratic administration and I'm afraid that the revolt may not go as far as we might like to see it go. I think I tend to be a little more optimistic I don't think the United States can sink into the dark depths of socialism for the very simple reason that too many people own guns as far as whether the army can act as an agent against the local populist if I remember the news correctly during Hurricane Katrina the army was used to to restrict movements in ways that were detrimental to many people forcing them to stay in one region or preventing them from moving to another however reports did emerge to confiscate guns from private citizens and that gives me great hope and I just know from personal experience that soldiers are generally the hunters and the gun enthusiasts of America I had one friend who was a full load of Texas pride and I told him that if Texas ever breaks from the union I'm going to move there and he told me you better come right away because as soon as we leave the first thing will be I think the worst the worst oppressions we've seen in terms of like violence against the US population came during the G20 protests but that was done I don't even know by whom was it local police I don't know where they got all those police but they weren't the army that's not to say there aren't other agencies that might act that way I mean I should speak because I became a Texan painter a Texan legislature just passed a law which allows people to carry guns on university campuses so I am a professor and I'm going to be a gun and they can come on the tension and divide the tension on my students so that's amazing students can also say something new I think guns society is a polite society that's the text of every standard who just said I think the possibilities for violence in Europe are very, very considerable probably much greater in the United States because we can already see a increase in some kind of constant low level violence and it's hardly begun yet and as we know in France it's quite capable of erupting into violence and I think any serious attempt at reform is going to evoke violence because what has been done is to set so larger proportion of the population against so large another so I think the possibilities in Europe are very, very important including in Britain first of all thank you for the youth and inspiring talk and my question is do not rely for a sacred cause but a cause becomes sacred because men have died for it and I I mean for instance the objection if you say that you are against democracy people will tell you that how can you be against democracy because so many martyrs have died for it so you are entrapped by their graves do you see a future where no cause will be sacred that will be valued over other things I'm sorry but no cause will be sacred etymology of sacred that will require a sacrifice but it will be simply something that will be valued over other alternatives that you express that very beautifully about causes becoming sacred because people have died for it I think that's perfect expression of reality I've been living in Ukraine for the past eight months and there I'm always shocked to see statues of Lenin and neighborhoods and cities called the Dershinsky neighborhood and they also it's also the same impulse people who know nothing about their own history just know that people fought under this flag and died with these icons above them and that's what makes them holy and there's a lot of tension for example in Kiev some nationalists blew up the face of the statue of Lenin now the Communist Party has a little tent there in regards to 24-7 so I think this situation can be diffused and I think this speaks to your question as well just by letting those expressions be voluntary let history be interpreted on a voluntary basis it's only for example whether it was this cause holy or was that cause holy but I think there's gambling in the free market for people to to revere whatever they want to revere the only time that people fall into tension when the government becomes the arbor I have a question Professor Hopar on the paper I call on Gwylas and Malaysia what is your personal experience what is the best way to fight an army what is your experience the best way to fight an army that's a difficult problem there's a lot written about the real warfare I feel a little unprepared for the question because the volume of literature on this subject is vast but there are many historic examples of partisans being more effective than regular armies there's one story and I forget this name but this whole thesis is that the south lost the war of succession because they insisted on fighting as mass armies whereas it was on their own turf and they had all the advantages that Gwylas usually enjoyed so I do think that's the approach but it's hard to imagine also and the last essay in the book Myth of National Security by Guido Holtzman makes this point very well it's hard to imagine a government being able to rationalize the invasion above the libertarian area these are foreign governments it's more easy to imagine like the ones you're trying to see from will invade you but a foreign invader would really have little reason to go into a libertarian area although that's more of an American perspective than a European one they're not the way they are they're not the way they are and that may not be their entire legal act my understanding is that it is that a guerrilla resistance only works when the invading army is unsure of its mission or when there are divided houses at home I'm not sure that insurrections any of the guerrilla insurrections in or quite Europe during the Second World War were particularly successful the Germans held down the UK and Greece without a serious disability I don't think the French resistance was more than occasional use the Germans meant business they had a firm leadership at the top and they were not greatly inconvenient by these guerrilla uprisings why the Americans and British wanted to be in Iran it is not necessarily because of suicidal teenagers blowing themselves up at checkpoints I think it is that plus the fact that so many people in the other countries were against or in the first place and I suspect I was there but I suspect many of the soldiers in Iran were also wondering why are we here and when you have that sort of uncertainty that of course armed resistance by the civilian population can have a big effect but if you have an invader who knows who he wants and he means business then I don't think there's much that you can learn from Is there a quote from Mal that says if India had been a French colony Gandhi never would have been a little man and that's the disappointment it's just a form of basic argument it's basically how willing is that people in that moment willing to slaughter you that determines the effect of this if you go back about a half century Enid Gopal was somewhat of a classical moral anti-imparation and if you go I guess it's about five or ten years ago when Fortun was assassinated Fortun was I think pretty liberal in the European sense anti-imparation not understand that the national front passing the baton to the daughter of the leader has become not the humanitarian sense but outright status so you have this this unfortunate mixture of anti-imparation is a very popular position back in the thirties and my question is is that this is just a few instances that I gave you is that a general drift maybe Nikola has answers is there a general trend integration party so that's an anti-immigration party it's going to be actually within the political spectrum of this country more status on other issues regardless of what you consider anti-immigration or immigration where you are on that on other issues is that party going to be more socialist or less socialist than the rest of the spectrum my response is depends on how far they want working class votes if you want a working class to vote for you and you have to basically appeal to the working class the way the socialist used to appeal to them before the socialist became a part of the party and that is exactly what the National Fund has done I think at some point that's what may have to do with this I think it's inevitable sort of giving the composition the voting composition of these countries and the impossibility in some cases of winning elections and becoming a power becoming a majority power for the largest party within a plurality fund or something like this I always hear people saying I would never vote for the National Democrats in Germany or I would never vote for the National Front in England because they are socialist parties they may not be very nice parties but there are anti-immigration parties that oppose the left on many social issues but which want a working class base and therefore try to appeal to welfare state ideas the same kind of ideas that the party can appeal to writing what their 60-day closing note is and he took what I call the ridiculous positions and John criticizes to our attentionism but this was done in order to make his candid supply on a working class he was unsuccessful but on the other hand if Home National is in France is successful it might become the second party within the electoral system and the only way that they can raise their numbers is by appealing to this kind of working class I agree with what Paul just said in the Italian perspective the party which opposes most to immigration is leg alone which used to be a free market movement at the very beginning and an anti-statist party not only for the reason that they supported a secession of the northern region of the country but for the fact that they were really free market years now the fact that the entire aggression issues rose when they abandoned the free market attitudes so now the status party and the entire aggression entire aggression party more questions