 I have a question for Professor Hoppe, but of course for the whole panel if someone wants to expand. I think the best example for a holler example of society was the old Roman society, which was a collection of families. And the relationship between the different father-familias of the different families were similar to international law. So each family was viewed as an independent kind of social cell. And this kind of society gave rise to probably the most important system of law which we'll still use today. So maybe this is a historical proof that holler was right in his analysis. Let me just say, I didn't get into some of his work and Tyler's work is very extensive. He does criticize Roman law. I think there are also certain mistakes that exist in Roman law, but I didn't investigate precisely his criticism of Roman law. He sees certain similarities, I must say, but maybe that would be a task for you because he is also translated into Italian as far as I know. He had also quite a few number of students in the 19th century in Spain. He wrote, for instance, a vehement attack on the institution of the Cortes in Spain. And he does have various sections where he explains what is wrong with Roman law. So maybe I assign you to this task for the next time. Right to this law connection, law subject. First of all, I look very much forward to read holler. I didn't know, at least not in detail, just the name and that that will certainly be interesting also for lawyers, I think. It reminded me of what you were telling us. Reminded me to another author, a contemporary author, also one of the old regimes, so to speak, but with a very truly liberal attitude. Savini, the famous founder of the historical school of law, who maybe more toward Roman law, but mainly he looked at law as a phenomenon that developed certain rule that came out of a decentralized order. It came up out of the conflicts that had to be solved by judges and so on. And then he described what was the law. He did not propose what should be the law. He described what is the law. So in a way, natural law, not in the technical sense, but a view that looks at reality and tries to understand what is there. Maybe it's comparable, at least, what holler said. I mean, since I'm not a lawyer and know very little about the history of law, my purpose was, in a way, to get lawyers interested in his work. And I see what you just said that I never really heard much about holler. Yeah, you have heard his name or something like that. No, the guy is considered to be an outcast nowadays. And I want to raise interest and appeal to people also speaking other languages to look at his work in the various translations. Not all of his works have been translated, but many of them have been translated. And I think there is a source of great wisdom that we libertarians can find in his work. My question is for David Durr. You spoke about the state as an evolutionary mishap, but I wonder that could it be that in a situation where humanity went to agriculture and you could have crop failures and that could result in famines, that an attitude would arise where a lot of people sacrifice themselves for the leader in order to get them through the bottleneck of the famine. So the leader survives the famine because they sacrifice their resources to the leader. Could that be an evolutionary explanation for the state? So if I understood your question correctly, I would say, or what seems at least plausible to me is that you had just external circumstances that the density, can you say that? So a certain population is more dense than it was before because more people in a certain territory, more cooperation, more separation of different functions of labor, so more sophisticated system, but still a species that essentially functions from the individual. And then what changed to structures which I call an error is that this self-related position that was developed in a long evolution and that proved to be successful and useful in everyday life that this became another object, so to speak, that at least certain people had then the attitude to decide for themselves but not only what their activity is concerned but also what other activities is concerned. And of course on the other side there were people that maybe accepted, maybe in a first instance to a certain extent they accepted it, but I would say not all at least, and maybe it switched from acceptance by individuals, by free will, to subordination. And I think that then led to the structure of these power concentrations. I would say parallel to that there were useful evolutions as well. For instance, out of these agricultural density it became necessary to define borders and to develop property, to articulate property and to say, look now it's not like in earlier times when they went around for new hunting and gathering places that now we are here so it's necessary to find useful borders which is nothing but property. So sometimes you hear that maybe in rather leftist theories that that was the fall of man's sedentaryness, that's where this evil property came up. And I would say property, that was a useful behavior, a useful aspect, maybe a useful correction of certain tensions while that other evolution, that power concentration, that was the bad side of it. Did I understand your question or was it an answer to your question? No, one thing is of course as soon as society has become sedentary and accumulate more goods, what comes into existence is systematic stealing also, which if people just simply roam around, they might kill each other or something like this, but systematic robbery requires of course accumulation of wealth and that only comes about once people become settled. But the problem of bad harvest or something like this that doesn't require a state, a private entrepreneur, the type of king or prince that I describe there can do that just as well and you attach yourself to those people because they are smarter, they know more, they accumulate things, they are more farsighted and because of this I try to be his friend. Nothing that the state has to follow from it, it can follow from it, but there is no necessity that out of these types of problems whatever high water or bad harvest would automatically lead to some sort of monopoly justice. Entrepreneurs nowadays also just deal with the problem of hurricanes and things like that and we know that they are usually better handling it than the state is doing it. Yes, maybe not exactly what I meant, because of course the state will deal with all these disasters very badly, but I was thinking more that if you have a famine and there's only food for, normally there's food for 100 people when you have 100 people and there's a famine, a crop failure and you have only food for 10 people to survive that an attitude would arise or a morality would arise where people start to sacrifice themselves to choose these 10 survivors. But it's difficult to explain, maybe I can do it later with a bit more words. My question goes to Professor Hoppe. First of all, thank you for this very interesting lecture and that you have introduced Hala to us. My question would be, did Hala directly discuss Hoppe's Jean Poder and other state theorists of the 60s, 60s and 70s century? Did he discuss Hoppe's and Jean Poder directly? He discussed all of them yet, but I did not, again I would have taken a few more hours to go over all of this. Yes, he discussed each of them and also many, many people that are nowadays almost unknown. But yes, he has some 10, 20 pages on Hoppe's, he has pages on Locke on Montesquieu. I can only give you the flavor of it by saying Montesquieu is a complete idiot in his view. Rousseau is a nut, Hugo Grosjeu is quite good and then from there everything goes down the drain. One gets worse than the other. He discusses all of them. Did Kynald Ledin quote him? Kynald Ledin only mentions him in a footnote. But I never, I don't remember that Kynald Ledin discussed him in any detail. He would count him among those people that he likes but he doesn't say exactly why and to what extent he agrees with him. He mentions him however. Oh, you know, Hoppe's, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu all in his view all nuts, all sophists and so forth. This is a question for Maudel. I would like to know of all the countries that you run your companies in, which one of those give you the least amount of bureaucratic hell and which one gives you the most amount of bureaucratic hell and especially I would like to know if Liechtenstein for example, does it have less red tape than for example Switzerland? Yes, we are active in six countries. So if I make a row, it's a bit difficult. Liechtenstein has given us the biggest relief in our personal life so to speak. So that such a thing exists where you can go to exile and feel better than coming from your home countries of course like a bias in a way because it can be the case for many people, you know, that the law is really ridiculous there. So for example if a German comes to Switzerland and we can in some cantons ask for a flat tax. So we know that Liechtenstein people leave Liechtenstein to live in Switzerland on the basis of a flat tax and of course with people go to Liechtenstein to have the same privilege as an exiled person, which is of course also a matter of humor that these exchanges actually give like Ricardo said mutual benefits. So the good is not exchange between the people, the people, the person itself is the good who changes the places. But basically Liechtenstein is of course a great place because the tax situation not only on the personal level is very positive but on the legal level, the legal entity, you must know that in Liechtenstein a so called Beteiligungsertrag, which in English would be something like a dividend out of participation, if then you paid out in the last instance to the natural person, this dividend is taxed zero, which in a way is only logic because the dividend of a participation already was taxed, otherwise it would not be a dividend. Now in Switzerland they really did a ridiculous thing. Again were of war, they declared holdings as privileged text entities. So that was just the wording and with this and this notion of equality, the political power could actually bring through that privileges are something bad and we have to abolish privileges. So in Switzerland starting from this year as far as I know holdings are taxed equally as normal companies, although holdings of course have their income from already taxed profits of participation. So you see Switzerland has fallen into that trap so certainly leaves behind Liechtenstein and Liechtenstein did not change the taxation of holding companies. So a very good place there. Then I would say Poland comes quite early after that. At the moment I have no knowledge of really basic, bad things happening in bureaucracy unless one thing they do not accept at the moment our fee that we are asking for our central services in Switzerland. So like for example the usage of a logo contains a lot of reputation of a company and this has a value and we say we have some marketing efforts and please give us 2% of sales. Poland at the moment is the strictest country who does not allow 2% of sales at the moment their suggestion is 0.5 which is ridiculous by the way. At the moment if you look to Europe in terms of such issues it's really nice that Europe is still alive because the diversity is huge. In every country, EU, yes or no you have different ways or level what they accept on tax questions. But Poland is in terms of labour law is quite amazing liberal. Then I would say comes the Czech Republic and Croatia. Czech Republic has a little bit of trade union issues which is strange in a way. We do not understand how it came into it. Then on the fourth position or last position at the moment is Germany in my country. My company which is my country, yes. Maybe a remark there is on purpose of course some countries lacking in our organisation and first of all I would mention still France. It is an absolute no go for us since 30 years to invest into France. Sorry to say like that. And I would still to France is a phenomenon there are people who are successful in France. For me it was always a wonder and most of them are French people and they know how to do it and I admire that and I have to respect that but certainly these are the limits of globalization. We are sorry to say not in Italy maybe you noticed my question to Alessandro yesterday that I would love to understand Italy because I don't and so it's very dangerous to invest into a country that you don't understand. France belongs to that and I can still select my favourite countries and this selection is exactly these fives I have chosen. So this is a bit of a complicated question because I'm formulating itself the question itself is tough but we probably should talk about that. We've seen an enormous amount of fear and terror that people have been subjected to over the past decades coming from things like climate change and you know inequality and now COVID and everything that are being used to ratchet up the level of oppression and to diminish and substantially just cancel at this point cancel basic human rights that would be understood as given just 30 years ago. Coming from international organizations like the World Trade Organization the World Economic Forum and these are all super national organizations that sadly some of them have they reside in Switzerland I'm still in shock at that. What should be done to make sure that their efforts at refutalizing the world are failures? What can we do? And this is a question just for the general panel because I'm actually interested in multiple perspectives on this. Thanks. Just to be clear the question the one sentence question is what can we do to make sure that the influence of these organizations and the campaign of terror used to take away our freedoms reduces. So to bring back freedom and prevent these organizations from continuing to take away people's freedoms rights and livelihoods. Say that I'm still not quite sure what the question is but if it is just simply how can we restore normality to society or something like that? I would say again we have to we have to increase competition between different regions in order to figure out which system works better and which doesn't and allow people to move from one place from those places that are less successful to those places that are more successful. So we have to you are right at the current moment there still exists some differences between Poland and the Czech Republic and Switzerland and Germany and France I agree with France has the most terrible labor laws that you can imagine you would never open a company because you can never get rid of your employees and in other places that is easier but the entire purpose of the European Union is of course to get rid of this they want to harmonize everything and of course harmonize it upward I mean there were the complaints about what was years ago that the Germans complained about Luxembourg which is also a member of the European Union charging lower taxes than Germany does and I thought that was unfair and nobody in the German press said I mean you are free to do it just like Luxembourg you can also lower your taxes and then there is no complaint anymore so the harmonization that is promoted by the EU is always upward harmonization if you have that tax and you have that tax then the European Union want that both countries have the same sort of tax this is one of the advantages still Switzerland and Liechtenstein that they are not part of the European Union and the European Union is of course exercising tremendous pressure on both of these places to also adhere to their own more ridiculous policies than they do in Switzerland and in Liechtenstein you can see if you follow the policies in Switzerland this is the same tendency of concentrating power more and more on the central government and taking power away from the cantons which currently are still competing to a certain extent with each other so the European Union has to be condemned that is just the most ridiculous institution that one can imagine and I will tell you always in Germany oh how much we gained from the European Union as if Germany became richer being member of the European Union the Germans were compared to other countries far wealthier and the difference between Germany and other in the poor countries has become smaller and smaller so competition is the only way to go into a normality but again maybe I didn't answer exactly what you wanted well in a way this question comes up every year I mean when the PFS happens and I would try to answer as practical as possible so do not fall into the trap of collectivism because your question is direct what could we do and the we is already a trap because look at this audience now we are coming from different places we are in different functions we have different obligations if everybody of us is going home tomorrow and everybody is doing in Italy what you are doing already as entrepreneur, as philosopher, as lawyer and try to be as natural as possible so not enforce something although I have a rebellious mind and now I am making a rebellion they all fail because you cannot master your temperament you have to master first of all yourself that's probably my first advice do not get lost out of all these heaps of criticism that we aggregate every time we have such conferences so master yourself and be a person, a decent person as we heard from Hans Hoppe and Mr. von Halle you are a father of a family you have educational tasks you have kids you can do a lot in your surrounding I am now, as you heard today in a position where I start to make opposition not because I like to make opposition but because the stupidity has come to a degree where you have to do it in order to protect yourself and your soul who is living in your body and who would oppose to you and give you probably illness if you would not oppose to that stupidity where healthy people have to prove themselves every other day and if not you are symptomless ill that was used healthy before now you are symptomless ill now you have to stop that stupidity to protect yourself and I think this is the best motivation to be moderate I liked this also this mentioning of this bourgeois virtues moderation is probably one of the most difficult things so stay moderate say this is the limit here you can come and not any further because I have to protect me and my health and my mental health so for example in my case I had to exclamate my state avalon not because of a revolutionary mood it was an intellectual necessity when I compared my company where I was trying to keep my head quarter low and you know I was growing and the state is not growing in the sense of inhabitants but is growing in the sense of bureaucracy I simply had to I had to take the conclusion I cannot continue with you guys because you are insane so I thought that was always a natural thing to do so please do natural thing listen to your body listen to your spirit and he will or it will tell you what you do but not your temperaments that was a good answer I could add some additional thoughts to that subject if I understand your question correctly what shall we do what can we do in order to get out of this crazy system state this system that was in a quarry your question I usually think of two aspects of this one is that I think the problem is that big that it's maybe too big in order to be subject of a specific political program we decide now to do this and then we implement it I think it's on a too fundamental and maybe high level in order to just make a project out of it and try to change it it has to do with these long term evolutions I showed in my presentation and I think the general attitude or a fitting attitude could be to look at everything in this respect as a phenomenon it's a astonishing phenomenon perhaps that we have these structures but once you take a little bit more distance so the Google Earth view on this thing also in terms of time arrow then I can really say that this statist structure is perhaps really something relatively new it's not an old tradition it's not something that corresponds to homo sapiens it's something strange in a way it's something that presumably will not survive very long if everybody says but look at society everybody wants a state you are some extremists 90% want a state then I would say and I would think okay it might be currently that's the case but which is also the case that some very few think differently this also is a phenomenon I mean the evolution of man of society also produces this kind of thinking we too are part of that evolution and there are some inbuilt corrections maybe that gave us hope that they will prevail on the long run that would be one answer to that maybe a bit abstract I admit but nevertheless and the second one is beside activities and it's really good to have activities precisely precise concrete activities beside that I think telling these things you know making speeches writing books and so on so speaking about that trying to convince other people I think that's a big part of it and what that is concerned I think what is very important that that's my view and the view of many here but maybe not of all what is very important is to be radical really radical in this respect and not to say we have to reduce the state of course we do have to reduce it but that's just a symptom to reduce the state I mean it's not possible I would say but even if with some you know efforts you can achieve some reduction you still did not touch the real problem you just made a symptom treatment but the cause of it is the state as such as long as you do have a state and be it a small state you did not yet take the problem in hands and I think in discussing in presenting aspects of this subject I would say it's very important to say that the state is the problem as long as you did not abolish or this institution you won't solve these problems so that would be my ideas to that question My question is for Stefan and David as my fellow colleagues and attorneys as well I think what we can take as a balance of the last 18-19 months is the failure of constitutions whatever rights are written in the constitutions the states ran roughshod on them so as an idea thinking that probably we won't do without states and without constitutions for a long time because it's unlikely that we will be joined by many people as much as we try I think the main issue in constitutions is that they don't have an opt-out clause you cannot opt-out of the state it's a structure which is there to remain and in order to make this more likely to be accepted they say yes but you have lots of rights and we have a whole catalog of rights you have I think we should go to private law as usual which is a very good example to solve problems and in any collective private law enterprise you usually have an opt-out clause you can opt-out of companies you can sell your shares or you can force the shareholders to buy them depending on how the contract is made up you can opt-out of home owners' associations at least in part for example you can refuse central heating and say I do my own heating I don't want to buy your heating this should be a model for future constitution not so much how they structure the state as you mentioned Stefan but how it is possible to get out of the state maybe on the lines of a soft succession not completely but at least part of the state and then be transformed instead of a citizen so part of the structure be transformed into a client of the state so the state can morph slowly into a service provider which would be the best solution for us so once the state is a service provider it could be in competition with other service providers and this could be a way out of this situation well I think I agree with all that I'm not so sure the constitution has failed you view the constitution as a purpose to support the power of the state so it's actually succeeded from our point of view yes it would be nice if the government would try to do these things to make life better for us but that's not the state's interest that's basically the problem I think constitutions are the problem we need to stop legitimizing the state well I'm also a bit embarrassed to give precise answers to that I think any approach again if I understand you correctly the acoustic is quite difficult but I think in general an approach to this problem by trying to influence this existing system this you could say the structures based on the constitution in force is as I said before always symptom treatment and I think the idea to influence to try to influence this monopolist to a better behavior is waste of time in a way you should keep in mind that this is not a serious state that's a gang that's a criminal gang that's institutionalized unlawfulness this is the state you can define it precisely what he declares in his statutes as illegal he commits the whole day from morning to night so he is a gangster a gangster organization and so try to influence a gangster to be more client oriented that's pretty difficult maybe there are examples other to compare it you mentioned already Lichtenstein or somebody mentioned the constitution of Lichtenstein did you mention it? I know that that was somebody else that there the communes the communities the part that they have the right to secede Jeff Dice mentioned it I think yesterday now I think in that case there is not a gangster at the top so this is somebody according to his book the state in the third millennium where he said the state should be a service provider who should try to have happy clients and if they are not happy they will leave if the price is too high for the service they will leave but this is a very untypical holder of this position if you find some of this kind then it's fine and they not per accident have this regime but I think all these conventional structures I just don't see it in a realistic way what was that your point I mean yeah I want to emphasize what David Durger said we have to be in what we say we do have to be radical that is of utmost importance it is clear that we don't get what we really want and we are happy for any reduction of government functions whatever we can get and one way of being radical is of course making state institutions and representatives of the state into a laughing stock to show how utterly ridiculous it is that a guy like Biden or whatever his name is orders 300 million people to adhere to certain rules that he comes up with a bunch of maybe 100 advisors or something like that how dare you who has no idea about local circumstances about individual circumstances order 300 million people to do this or not to do this ridiculous is that a woman like Merkel can order 80 million people to do this or not to do this these people are obviously megalomaniacs and you can apply that to other things of course as well like global climate how can you know what correct global climate is for all of mankind first of all the megalomaniac of people who think that people who cannot build an airport have never run a kiosk that they can have the knowledge to control the climate I mean I can clean my garden, my house and things like this is all under my control but anybody can believe they can change the global climate they should be asked how they explain for instance that the last ice age ended when there was no plane around no car driving around how big can the part of humanity be to influence the climate if these types of events happened and again even if we could the idea of one temperature is the right temperature for the entire world people in Greenland would like to have it warmer people in the Maldives might want to have it a little bit cooler I cannot even agree with my wife how cool and how how warm it should be in the bedroom I like it cooler, she likes it warmer the idea that there is one global temperature that is right I mean that would have to be left out of out of the hall and in general all of these people are by and large stupid people those are all people who have never accomplished anything in their life there is not a single individual in the political class that you would admire for some achievements that he has done outside of being some sort of dictator so laughing and also laughing at people who present us these types of audience that seems to be the best way to proceed as far as I am concerned and show in a way your radicalism in the most persuasive way