 Thanks, Hans, for the introduction, thanks for the invitation, and to you all for this, for this, you know, you can't. Well, or maybe you can turn it off, one, two, three. Is that fine? I try. Did you hear that I thanked Hans to introduce me so friendly and thanks for the invitation? And what I then wanted to say when you came in was that I thank you all very much for your friendly acceptance and this really beautiful atmosphere we have here at this conference. As it was said, I'm practicing lawyer, I'm lawyer actually, and this alone is something very particular and special within this subject. You know, there are many philosophers, economists and so on that say you have to privatize everything. We know that. In the meantime, of course, privatize everything, but then come the lawyers and say, not quite. There is some subject you cannot privatize. If it's about the law, then unfortunately perhaps, but then necessarily you have to have the state. Who else makes the law? I mean, who else helps people to protect their property against some aggressors? So definitely say the lawyers you have to have the state. Now, I am one of the very rare within this species, which says no, even for the law you do not have to have the state. It's not necessary to have the state. I would even say it's not good to have the state for the law. And then I would even go one step further and say, and this is what I said last year already. This was this sentence that it's even required by law to abolish the state because the law is an unlawful institution. Per definition, I will come to that of course, but this is what I said last year. Then I said so consequentially it would be logical to, you know, go to this problem with legal proceedings. So not only or maybe instead of political proceedings, why not to do it in a legal way, in a procedural legal way? And then I just really beside I thought why not to start with a state I know quite well. This is the one where I come from. And there we have a lot of states in Switzerland, actually 27. 26 are the local states, the so-called cantons. And there is one central state, the Swiss confederation. And I thought to start with we could attack this one. And then I said I will, if I'm invited again, report to you next year. What about this case that happened in the meantime? Unfortunately, I must disappoint you. I cannot now report this case, you know, is at the court. We are waiting for the judgment maybe next week and we have good chances. Unfortunately not. But nevertheless, I can say some things to you that have more to do with the basics. Maybe sometimes the philosophical or theoretical basis, because once you really want to go to this project, some very special questions come up, of course. And I want to give an overview of what kind of questions and how in very rough lines such a lawsuit could go away and how the proceedings of such a lawsuit could be. This is what I want to show you today. And again, I do have some slides. Last year I like to draw slides and things. So, of course, to sue the state for what, actually? And just to begin with, on a practical level, we got within this conference as well some examples. For instance, for forcing people to go to school. Typically to schools operated by the state itself. So why shall he force me? So that could be a subject to sue him for. Or for forcing people, we also had an example from Switzerland, Daniel, forcing people to annually pay a part of their income and wealth to the state just because they have it. Not because they gave some special reason for it. Not because they used any utilities from this organization just because they have an income and they have some wealth, they have to pay a part of it. Or forcing a young man in Switzerland, that is still the case, to render personal services during many months, so-called military service, which is very traditional in Switzerland. By the way, I was in that organization in the end of my career colonel in Swiss Army. But during that time, I changed a bit my mind. I look at this organization in a different way. But nevertheless, it was very interesting to get some ideas about how such organizations function. But that could be a reason why to sue the state. Or for impeding people from doing certain businesses and activities they want to, regulation, things like that. And now, what is I think very specific for the state, there are perhaps other organizations that force people for similar things, maybe for good reasons. I mean, forcing people to pay something of their income if they signed a declaration, for instance, to become a member of that church where they have taxes. Then why not? So the fact as such that the state forces people to do this is not yet the real problem. The real problem is that he makes it without the people having consented or given other causes for such restrictions or interferences that they maybe they damaged something and then maybe it's right that they have to pay it. But all these aspects people are forced for without having given such justification. And this now means that to be more particular, more specific, actually to sue the state for forcing people to compulsory membership, membership in quotation marks, of course, you can also say unconditional submission, without having signed the court ratio or whatever. This is what actually we should sue the state for. Also, we can say once he really makes this, it's more like a gang, an aggressive gang, an organization very intruded onto people for things. Also other gangs, maybe there are many gangs, organization, maybe aggressive enterprises or whatever. But also these other gangs are submitted to this upper, to this first gang. We can call it first gang. That's a notion for the state. Let's call it now within this lawsuit. It's the first gang. And this is for this, for being first gang that we are going to sue the state. Or again, we are going to sue the state for being the state. That is the subject of this lawsuit as a general introduction. Now, this is just the beginning, of course, of other points. Once I have raised these accusations, then one could say, if we are now here in the courthouse, now the word is with the defendant, what will you first gang say to these blames we now listed before? And of course they will give answers. Maybe the answers you already know because you know that you read that every day in the newspaper or in political connections. First he will say, these interferences, these attacks are justified as such. Or as I objectively recall this rule of law. We have very intelligent specialists in state law at our state universities and they will explain to you what the rule of law is. This is an old, good principle which says that everything within this country, including for the state, everything is under the same rules. So that has nothing to do with arbitrariness or so. So what is implemented by the state is nothing but the law, which is all right with this justice and so on. Okay, this is what the defendant says first. We will then come to that to examine whether it's true. Now the second argument would be what this abuse of power is concerned. For this we have an organization to prevent it from being abused. We call that and then come again these state law specialists and say this is separation of power. Also this is a very high principle of our organization and we have it implemented. The third answer is people did consent to all this. It's not true that this justification is missing. It is there. We call that democracy. Democracy means that the people did consent to these laws. Okay, let's look at it. So these are the arguments they will bring. It will bring the first gang and then of course he will say finally and therefore we strongly protest against being named the first gang we are the state, please. So give us respect for this important organization we are. But he is now on trial and maybe he has to be ready to discuss these arguments. Now let's look at these three arguments, rule of law. This is a fine thing indeed. There was an interesting book in the Scottish Enlightenment called Lex Rex by a writer Sutherford who really was interested in how society, in how world and in how society functions. The nature how it functions and the political structures how they function. The king of course, what about him and his, you know, sometimes arbitrariness and things like that. And then he said there are some laws, maybe something like he still thought about laws by God. He was a priest but a politically interested priest. So he said many things about the source of this law from God but also from nature. And then he applied it to the king. And so finally his recommendation was, you know, these notions are quite, it's a good slogan. He said first Lex and then Rex, not as it used to be Rex. Lex, the king who says what happens in the country but Lex, Lex. The Lex, the Rex is under the Lex. But now today if we apply it to it, okay, of course the state is under the law. There are a lot of statutes and laws regulating the state itself. But who makes this law? It's a joke, you know, who makes the law? The state of course, who else? So he is under the law but he makes this law. Now he would say, of course this is true but we are very careful in doing these laws. We never will, you know, distinguish between normal people and us. But then I would say are you really sure that this happens? Once you look at these laws then it's really astonishing how bluntly there are different laws between what is applicable for normal people and for the state. This begins with the distinction between private law and a so-called, again in quotation mark, a so-called public law. This is a very important distinction we have in our and in many other laws. In the first lesson of a law study you learn there is private law and public law. Private law, this is contracts towards family law, inheritance law, things like that. And company law. And public law, this is administrative law. Namely, you know, when there is a tax bill you're not agree with that then you have to make an appeal against it, how this functions, tax law as such of course, construction permits, things like that. This is typical for public law. Okay, but now let's look at these different kinds of law and then you will realize that within this so-called public law there are interesting privileges of the state, privileges that you would never get as a private according to private law. For instance, if you take money from others just because they have it, of course it's theft and you must, besides criminal consequences, you have to pay it back. In the public law it's called taxes and it's okay and it's lawful and it is enforceable. Or in private law, private criminal law you would say four things, others to render some services like the so-called military service is a sort, it's duress, it's not allowed, it's unlawful according to public law. It's military service. Or generally to force other people maybe to force them with physical force to abstain from projects, from businesses they want to do would not be allowed in private law but public regulation in financing, in the health business wherever it is, it's lawful according to public law. So a lot of extreme contradictions like that, what is unlawful competition for private is no problem if it's a state monopoly, there are many state monopolies, things that the private would never be allowed to do. Of course the official money is nothing but fraud if it's judged by private law standards or private criminal law standards. These are all these examples you know. And now ordinance and decree, this is something very interesting in public law. A private person if they want to make something against the neighbor, he wants to build a big house right before him and he wants to forbid it saying that my property right is challenged or things like that. Then it might be possible but then you have to go to a third instance to the court and submit your standpoint and they will judge the situation and perhaps if you have good arguments they will hinder this neighbor to build that high, maybe they will say not that high, only that high, things like that. But the one who wants to influence the other has to go to the court, has the whole effort to do. And now the opposite is the case in public law. If the state wants to do something for instance to prohibit him to build this house, he said you are not allowed to build the house, you can say that. But then they make the title of this paper called ordinance or decree or whatever the name is and then it's already enforced. Just ordinance, some stamp maybe and some signature of an official authority and then it's enforceable. Of course the addressee might then still have a certain possibility within for instance 30 days to introduce some remedy, some objection, some appeal, whatever the procedure says. But really in 30 days, if it's in 31 days it's over. They are quite precise in that point and namely he has to make the effort suddenly. So the victim so to speak has to make the effort to defend itself. If it's after 31 days then he has lost the case. If he managed to meet this delay the case will be handled but not within 30 days. You can be sure it will months maybe years be with these authorities. So this is one of these obvious contradictions between private law and public law. Separation of power I would defend and said before. And here I would say let's again take this case with the house, one to build it, then okay he makes this objection and maybe this was an objection also at the address of some public authority and of course they refuse this objection and then he has the right to go to a judge. This is also separation of principle of separation of power. Then I would have the administrative branch of government and we have the judicial branch of government so he has the right to go to the judicial branch and so there unfortunately are simply bribed judges. They are on the payroll of your adversary. The state forbids you to build the house and then you say okay, we go together to the court and who is at the court, the state. They are paid by one of the parties, these judges. I mean this is strange, you cannot say this is a separation of power. This is the same enterprise. If you would say the same in a private arbitration case, you are in a conflict with a big company, with a bank and the bank says oh we are very client and customer minded, you have the possibility to go to an independent judge. By the way, he is an employee of us. And then, like you, you would laugh but then they are not at the end yet, they say oh listen, we have something like a principle of separation of power. This department, the judgement department is in the basement of the building while and so on. It's really a joke but it's serious. All state law professors will tell you this without laughing. It's remarkable. Then the enforcement of judgements of course also will be by the state. Now compare it again with private law. This is a good check by the way always to look what would the situation be if now your addressee is not the state but some private person or enterprise. The enforcement also, there is a judgement let's say nevertheless, astonishingly you won this appeal against the state and then really to enforce it, who in case that should not function the state itself. There are cases where actually they should do something, of course they do not say we refuse to follow this judgement but they quite often have possibilities to extend it and things like that. And whatever the outcome is, just a principle that whenever you have really to give pressure in order to enforce it that you cannot go to anybody but to the state itself again. This is a not really convincing principle and therefore I would say this doesn't help with the argument of separation of power. And the same of course what the rules as such is concerned. All these rules applicable they are as we said before, legs, legs are nothing but the product of this very same state. So why do you speak about separation of power? This is a concentration of power. So this argument is the way also. Now we had a third one, democracy. And here of course you will now expect that namely for Switzerland it won't be that bad for our defendant the state because Switzerland as you know is the democracy. There is no other country in the world with such a perfect democracy. As you probably know we really have votes on specific statutes. Maybe some very unimportant things but people go quite regularly for voting not only do not only elect the parliament they have votes on statutes, on constitutional amendments but also on minor statutes and things like that. Quite often this is true five times six times a year or so. So this is really a modal democracy. Now let's look at it a bit closer. Democracy means according to the principle of the French Revolution people are governed not by other people anymore but by laws they made themselves. This is the idea. And therefore it's justified to enforce some law against you because you ultimately have consented to it so it's legitimate that I force you if you do not comply with it. So this would mean theoretically of course that a hundred percent democracy we have it if all subjects all eight million people in Switzerland consented to all statutes and regulations we have. This is not realistic, we agree. We want to remain realistic nevertheless. We certainly will not have a hundred percent democracy. Is it mine? It sounds like mine. If only half of the statutes and ordinances for Ordnung in German if only half are accepted by this eight million then we have a 50 percent democracy. If this half is only consented approved by half of the population we have 25 percent democracy. This is the formula I'm going to apply now. What would be your guess? In the end at the right side down the last figure approximately? Zero comma. Zero comma? Are you that pessimistic? Are some more optimistic? One percent? I thought you say 51 percent or so. It should be a majority. Okay, let's see. I make a distinction, level of democracy. I say first direct democracy. This is not much yet. Don't be too much disappointed. It's only the first line. It can be better at the end of course. Let's look at the first line. Direct democracy is really those statutes that people go to vote on the paper. Yes or no and so where we have really an original democracy on the federal level and unfortunately there are not many of these laws that are subject to the people. It is 0.8 percent. Now the rate of approval is not 51 percent as you probably thought but only 11.35 percent. This is that low because not all of these 8 million people are entitled to go to vote. Foreigners are not and miners are not. Miners? Miners? They are not allowed. I do not know why. I mean why not that the parents go for them but it's not allowed. So this reduces all to two-thirds about. And then not all go there. They prefer to sleep out on Sunday or whatever the reason is. So this reduces again and of course those quite few that participate. Not all of course. There it must be more than 50 percent of course maybe. The average is between 50 and 55 percent something like that but if you multiply all these quotes then you come to this 11.35 percent. So in total 0.09 percent what the direct democracy is concerned. So let's hope for the indirect one. And this is, these are those many statutes produced by the parliament. Indirect because you elect your representatives, your agents so to speak. You are the principal, the sovereign people is the principal and the parliamentaries are the agents. You give them power of attorney to go there and to vote for you. Of course there too we have big reductions because these representatives are again not elected by 100 percent. There are many, many candidates that are not elected and many people that do not participate. So this reduces all maybe to somewhere like the direct democracy but then you see it is very far behind the coma. And this is because of another effect. They are your agents. You give them power of attorney. I said what is such a relation of representation? What is it in fact? My agent is my agent and the principal so I can give him instructions what to do. Our constitution forbids instructions to parliamentaries. They have to vote without instruction. So this is a strange principal agent relation but then if that would be an agent I can revoke it and say no I'm not satisfied with you. I go myself directly but this is not possible of course. There is not that much space in the parliamentary building that all can go there. And then what is I think the crucial point, you share this agent with 30,000 other principles. 30,000 principles have one agent. So I think you really have to have the manifier to look at it where a trace of agency principal relation is left. Or if you would be generous you could say a 130,000th of representation is in there. And of course by this this figure goes far away after the coma. I think the quote where you can say in this indirect democracy it's a representation of the people and the laws they produced are laws that ultimately they produced. This statement is true only in this very, very, very small extent. And then what is interesting that 74% of legislation is delegated to the executive branch. It's not the parliament and certainly not the people but it's the administration who makes it. And there of course you have a similar quote of democratic legitimation. All the details I can show you of course and of course all details behind the coma is also a bit for joke reasons. But the principle statement that it's almost nothing is true. So now we can sum it up and then you will get the impressive figure of 0.09%. So the fact that we have a democracy that people have consented to all these restrictions is true in the extent of about a per mil. And it is untrue in the extent of about 99.9%. This is the democracy in Switzerland. Then they are not yet at the end those people of the plaintiff's side. They replicando, they bring other justifications, not very impressive. They said there is implied consent. Suddenly they are not that precise anymore like in these votes and elections. And say well generally and a lot of people now defending these structures say it's more a general consentment. But I think it's really a big contradiction to sometimes quite formal things in this connection. People do not revolt. They seem to be happy. So this also is a sort of democratic legitimation. But I would say this is in the best case a threat with democracy and not democracy. A third justification replicando, this often you hear that and it's really silly. They say, les absents ont toujours tort. The absentees are always wrong. You have these democratic rights. It's your fault when you do not participate in the elections and in the votes. But it's really strange. So it says because so few only participate in the vote, its result binds the many absentees. This is a tremendous logic, isn't it? And this is an argument you quite often hear. We have not yet abolished, but we have put the state in a defensive corner. And now comes the question, what law will be applicable now to judge this lawsuit? Because the law the state gives, we have said is not legitimized. This is not that law, but what law else? Who shall make the law if not the state? This is what one heard in the beginning. This is as silly as the famous question we always hear, who shall build the street if not the state? And of course there our standard answer is, and who shall bump the streets if not the state? And analogously, you can put it now also for the law. Who shall make the law if not the state? And then I say, and who shall pervert the law if not the state if you think at situations like that? This kind of perversion of law was done by nobody but by the state. And when you hear this argument, who else shall make the law? I think of Chante-Claire. This is a comedy written in 1910 for the theatre. Chante-Claire, a cock, a proud, popious cock. And he is that proud and important and significant because it's him with his crying in the morning gives the order that the sun rises. And so it's because of him that we have lights and warmth during daytime and that's why he is very important. This is Chante-Claire and this comes always to my mind if they say, we have to have the state that law is there. There are some nice pictures, this drawing of a performance and you see the importance of this king when he makes the sun come up. Once, of course, in this theatre play he did not get up in the morning. I think that was a beautiful love night and he didn't get up in the morning and what happened, you know, the sun nevertheless came up and that caused then some problems. But it's a bit like Le Roi Soleil, the sun king like Louis Gâteau a little bit me and this importance, you know, this is the attitude of the state who is there to bring the light and the law and justice and justice and everything in this world. Now, this is ridiculous, of course, as ridiculous as with the sun and Chante-Claire and this is, we can put it that way, has again to do with the rule of law. Another kind of rule of law as a scientific principle, as an experience also from modern society which says that the world does not function by independent willfulness, for instance, of God as it used to be considered in earlier times and not just by accident but by rules. However, these rules are sometimes quite difficult to find them, but the world functions according to rules. There is no arbitrariness and no accident in the world. For instance, the law of gravity. For instance, the law of action equals reactions of physical laws and I would say in a similar way, whoops, in a similar way, whoops. I'm sorry, I must do it that way. These are the rules, the natural rules, the natural laws and then I would say there is also something and this is what I'm going to explain more in detail, the law of action out of reaction. A phenomenon quite simple of experience. If a tree falls down and touches another tree, something happens. They are damaged here. We have action and reaction. Both trees feel something. One can say a forceful interference of one body with another one creates an opposite force of the same size as a physical fact. For instance, what I just said there, this acting three and victim three, so to speak. And now you can say if this is not a tree who gets hit by a tree by the man. Here also you have a certain experience. You can say that there is action and of course a reaction which means that the tree also might be damaged, the man of course, even more perhaps. And then comes I think really as a law, as a natural law, as a spontaneous reaction that something else happens as well. It is that out of this pain he feels comes a reaction, not this physical reaction to action, but a sort of counter action. He pushes this bloody tree away and maybe he kicks it and he blames it even though it's just a tree. So there is this, I think this law of a counter action out of physical assault, so to speak, by anything. Must not be by another man. And then he tries to push it away unpleasant situation where he has to get out. Now the master of this reactive action is the subjectivity created by this pain. This is what leads to his kicking back this bloody tree and this again is accompanied maybe by some rationality and this is this rationality who says away this bloody tree. So there is a certain subjectivity coming out of this conflict. And now it's not a tree at the man, but a man at the man. We have also this action, maybe the fist here and we have this counter action, maybe a kick at the food. But actually what this green side is concerned may be comparable, natural phenomenon. Here I have this again, this phenomenon of experience. Again this master of this counter action which is this subjectivity created by the pain. This again now we have not the tree coming on him but another man is accompanied by rationality and this time he doesn't say this bloody tree. He thinks or he says it is wrong. Now it's a blame, wrong is something like the opposite of right. And in a more developed rationality he comes to say it's the violation of right. And in an even more developed rationality along with arguments, I think that could have to do with the arguments of Hans Hoppe this morning. I'm not quite sure. He is not that lucky with two natural things but maybe there is a, we will see that afterwards. I can't imagine what Hans would object against this but perhaps not. But at least we have different phenomenons and among them in such a situation arguments take place as well. And out of this for instance then comes the wording and the idea for instance of property of his own body. But what I want to underline is that this isn't not the beginning to draw certain conclusions out of it but it's sort of the result of a spontaneous reaction on such an attack. And then for instance out of this comes the non-aggression principle but again as a result and not as the beginning. And all this again to underline that because we are looking for a law that is there without the state having implemented it. And if you look at it like that we have the source of this law. It is the conflict as such who gives the law to solve the conflict. Also this therefore as a phenomenon of experience as a natural view so to speak not ordered by anybody especially not by the state just being there. So we say laws you do not need law makers legislation it's as stupid as somebody who says we have to have gravity it's absurd. And the same absurdness is if you say you have to have this law because without my order it wouldn't be there the law is there. And that what is interesting the same applies if the object of attack is not the person as such but some object an activity of him a project he has so not physically. There too first instance we have the same natural situation but then we have something quite interesting a sort of compassion. So this green man at the right side has a compassion he shares the pain with the box whatever it is or with the intention he had at which is now hindered he feels this as painful even though it's not a physical pain and the reason for this compassion can be that he created this object with his own efforts or that the mere fact that he is already in possession of it things like that. So that there is a special relation of compassion one could say which then creates this counteraction to defend or to reject this assault. This is what I have then here described and here again now we have the whole chain now a bit abbreviated this counteraction and within that we have this subjectivity again out of this the rationality and out of this then analogous to what we said before the outcome is then that one can say in a rationalized way we have here an unlawful violation of the victim's property right not in his own body but in some other assets and his right of freedom if it's about activities or so but these two first as a result of this conflict and its rationalization and again as a natural rule or a phenomenon which is not ordered by anybody but which is there this is my main point that all these answers those answers we know with property rights and things like that property right, right of freedom, PFS all this is actually you can develop it out of the conflict as such and now the same applies I have five minutes this is enough I hope the same applies now by for bystanders this compassion this is an interesting phenomenon that not only from the object to the owner but this conflict also to bystanders if something happens one wants to break the other's property then bystanders they look at it and they have a certain tendency to intervene if it's really a brutal assault they shout for help things like that because we have this same phenomenon of compassion in a way within the head of those that look at it with again then this reaction and this too as a natural phenomenon of experience we can say the outcome of it is that third parties naturally are involved into this this general rule of counter-action to aggression they are the third parties they are interested I put it this way interested because I want to underline that into essay they are sort of in between this conflict in a way of course in a less immediate way because they are just the bystanders maybe they have a less immediate knowledge of what happened maybe firstly they are motivated to learn the facts they are perhaps less less emotional than the parties the primary parties and therefore they are ready to carefully organize an influential counter-action so the outcome of this is that something like legal procedures arise and are developed in order to undo this violation of the victims rights and this too now as a natural rule as a phenomenon out of these facts so not only the law comes out of the conflict but also the way how to handle this problem and how to build up maybe a whole system of justice and judiciary and now we can apply it this is our case to the first gang we have here again this situation we saw it in the beginning this gang this red group and the group of the victims with a lot of pain created here against the people itself, against their fortune against their plans and everything so this is this conflict and now we can say here we have the defendant we have here the victims which are the plaintiffs we have bystanders we have this compassion phenomenon here and a certain readiness of those to make a concerted and organized counter-action in order to influence here that these interferences are stopped and now to coming back to the trial and how salad function in detail one can say now what came up out of the conflict as such is nothing but a legal proceeding in order to undo these unjustties the details of course that could be another error more errors but just to say that the fact that one debates it, that one discusses it that one accuses all this is a sort of part of a legal and natural legal proceeding that of course then can be cultivated, developed organized and so on but I think the basis for the lawsuit as such is also already there this is maybe then to come back to the claims in detail they are not allowed to interfere anymore in the future they are not allowed to force them to membership there will be a deterioralization so a separation of their membership from the territory this is maybe then something we have to discuss later so one can say the firstness of this gang shall be finished one point I always want to underline for those who want to have it they shall nevertheless have the right to be member of that first gang of course then he won't be the first gang anymore then it's just a gang or an organization I skip this because of time you know damages, taxes, all things like that maybe in advance one would declare the withdrawal out of this membership and then to offer negotiations and things like that but this only this is still a sketch so the outcome is that on the federal level there will be if it's successful no first gang anymore and now what is this no first gang anymore is this a new republic or how shall we call it it's quite clear how we should call it so just from the bird you know without the first gang and in Greek as you know first gang beginning the first this is Arche without this A with this N binding it and of course you know what it's going for this scheme we have here is this one or if you put it together this is Anarchy according to my definition thanks very much we won the case may I add one minute you clapped a little bit too early maybe you can do it again after it let's see because we have a rest here remaining important what shall we do with him now look at this not the first anymore what shall we do with him he has hard times he is maybe still there he is not the first gang anymore now he must be friendly to keep his members to keep customers and so on in Switzerland we then have beside that 26 more states that could you know at least get in some more efficient competition but we still have this poor proud bit old short declare what shall we do with him I would have an idea because there are hard times for him I almost think you know in this competition he won't survive this poor cock I have an idea what to do with him enjoy your meal