 I'm very pleased to introduce the the final memorial lecture of the conference This is the Murray and Rothbard Memorial Lecture sponsored by Don Prince who is present here for the weekend The speaker professor David Dure is a Swiss citizen and a law professor for emeritus for private law and theory of law at the University of Zurich He's also a practicing lawyer mainly in business oriented matters in 1971 Professor Dure began law studies at the universities of Basel and Geneva and then went on to receive his doctorate and bar admission in Switzerland He completed his studies with a master of laws at Harvard Law School in 1979 Later he wrote his habilitation thesis at the University of Zurich where he then served as a professor of law for around 25 years Besides his doctoral thesis in private law and his habilitation thesis in theory of law Dr. Dure wrote Scientific commentaries and private law matters and numerous articles on private law methodology Jurisprudence and philosophy of law including libertarian subjects such as law without a state He gives regular lectures and speeches With libertarian organizations such as Mises Institute Germany Hayek clubs in Switzerland Austria and Germany and the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum among others Professor Dure will address us now on the inescapability of law and of Mises Rothbard and Hapa Thanks very much Joe for this introduction and first of all, thanks very much for the Honoring invitation to have this lecture here and namely the Murray-Rodewald lecture Which was really a Pleasure for me when you asked me whether I could have this lecture here this Murray-Rodewald lecture When you invited me In your friendly letter you said perhaps the conference could be interest Interested to hear something On how you came to develop your novel Anarchistic arguments against the classical liberal and social democratic conceptions of the state Which parallel but are not based on The views of Mary-Rodewald and Hans-Hermann Hoppe This is in a way astonishing perhaps indeed I am not a Long-time participant of this conference or of these organizations It's relatively late that I that I got in contact with You and you where you're thinking but in a moment when I realized there is a group There is a movement that is precisely or let's say that very close to what I thought also So I I am invited to tell you about how I came to this conclusion The short answer would be because it's inescapable I Give you now an answer a bit more extensive how I came to this inescapable result Actually at the beginning there was not something like it's wrong with the state or so or property rights should be more supported At the beginning was a completely different question that that interested me very much. It is what is law? quite simple when I Began to study law. I chose that subject I do not know why precisely but I was was interested to learn what it is What is law the first answers in the basic studies were quite disappointing. I Did not hear something about what law is What I heard is what is in this statute or in that statute or in that precedent but not what is law? I mean if you choose medicine then it's much easier to imagine something but law is something quite abstract So no answers at this very first stage no importance of this question when I Made my professional exams bar exam for instance there, too You just learned you your hand work so to speak but but not what is this phenomenon? Maybe at that time you do not have enough Possibility to have or opportunities to have experience with it Then I came a bit closer to that question with interesting Comparisons between our continental system of codified law on the one hand and Your tradition so to speak the US and English tradition of the common law And an opportunity I had to compare these two systems when I spent the year at Harvard Law School My habilitation sees this then some years later Brought me even more close to this question. I wanted to know what about sources of law Beyond state-made statutes in our traditions the statutes the State-made statutes are the most prominent source of law But what about cases maybe generally? Debated conflicts that have no answer in the statutes Um What where do you get answers from if you want to decide such over individual conflicts? This is what I was interested in What does the law says if there is no state legislation or maybe according to your system if there are no specific Presidents typically in such over individual conflicts that brought me even Nearer to that question of what is law. I still was not a anarchist at that time Now if you look at such conflicts very general conflicts conflicts you have no precedents for it no statutory answer then I You are somehow You have not very much help At the very least you can say law is Something that comes up as a relevant subject in case of a conflict taking place So what is law and this is something some phenomenon Phenomenon that that appears on the certain situation. It's not something which is just there as some Absolute entity some norm but something some questions some need that comes up if there is a conflict Law that that's another aspect of this is sort of a side effect of a Movement of of a change. It's a function of of something which is happening It's a dynamic Phenomenon it's it's not static. It's a correction of what happens or what happened and Not a correction of what is and Furthermore law depends on being articulated on being articulated within a conflict of interest that Become incompatible. It is law is something that comes up loud in a way It's not This belongs to the dynamic of this aspect It comes up and is articulated. There are arguments. There is there is may crying whatever of conflict There are subjects behind that formulates them. These are elements Not yet very much helpful may But but but nevertheless that that could Could help to to go further Now within this context parties Relevant only as far as they collide with each other This this is sort of entry to what you all know and what also in our tradition There's well-known of this aspect of equality before the law And if if you have just a conflict you have just a part is that collide with each other They collide mutually there is a identical reciprocity and This says that the two parties there is no party that is of more value than the other they Just collide and only as far as they they collide with each other You have the relevant Criterions to deal with that case Which is something like equality before the law Then only as far as their collision is in contrast to their subjectivity You have to deal with law. So this means that This has to do with that articulation I mentioned before And this Gives you the criterion in Latin, you know, this this Roman Parami Valentino and Fittin Julia the one who wants something does not It's not injured or the principle of consent As long as There is a content between the conflicting party. There is no need for the law to influence the case and Something that can also be drawn out of this pure conflict elements that Pre-existing positions are stronger than the later ones Maybe this then could lead to the aspect of property what you already have your body your Belongings is first to you to use subjectivity and there's and only then come It's the other one. So this gives a priority of priority of property rights and this supports also the non-negression principle So just out of this conflict We come of these conflicts of the ground anatomy of a conflict you come to Criterions that are quite There where you know in the traditions them of our legal Systems all these principles are developed out of the conflicts themselves Historically also one could say that quite a lot or almost all of our legal tradition our common legal tradition not just a European one the American one as well Come out of court cases primarily The ancient Roman law as you know is primarily a court made law even the famous corpus. You resist in the army Was not or the main part of it was not state legislation. It was a collection of Long-term traditions of court decisions private law in general Even in our continental system where we have this codification The principle and they are too at least until mid 19th century That was was court made law and The codes by the way the codes made in the 19th or beginning 20th century Were a kind of restatements as you call as you you know it restatements of the law developed In in practical court cases This is interesting now if you develop these principles these generally Well-known principles just out of the conflicts. So I Developed these ideas Not or I found these answers not in in Specific precedents not not in in in statutory provisions Not in other External sources, but just in the conflict itself the conflict itself gave answers how to solve To solve it Oh, that's interesting. So in order to solve Conflicts you do not need a state legislator So the law or what what I describe as law is already there. It comes out of the conflict So this is nice and now this this brought me already a bit in the neighborhood of anarchism State is not needed. I Did not say yet the state is illegitimate that comes later But at first it's not needed it's it's already something at least for our continental tradition It's already something because we the first we do is To to to take the text that the law book the statutes in the collection It's not just one book. Unfortunately, it's a whole shelf of books And then you look what what did the state say to this question? But that that was an interesting Notice that it's not necessary To have it but nevertheless at that stage, maybe it's still useful to have it Maybe it's useful to have some strong instance that that's you know Regulates this Regulates these norms that are there we admit that but somebody should look for it and As long as this state Does himself respect these Rules we just draw drew out of the conflicts themselves as long as as he respects it Then it's okay But that that led then to the next question. Does he respect these principles these principles we we found before equality before the law consent things like that So, let's have a look at it Equality of the law rule of the law Does the state that that was my next question does the state respect or follow these principles? In theory it does we have this Lex X So I say slogan Formulated in the enlightenment and some will rather ford Developed interesting Way of thinking that monarchy is not blamed as such is not Criticized as such but the the king should follow the law It's it's okay to have a king It's it's even justified to have a king, but he has to follow the law He must be under the law. So not any more Rex legs, but the other way around legs Rex to say this Was very dangerous at that time for rather Ford it brought him a accusation of Of of high treason and He escaped death penalty only by the fact that he died of old age But the king did not agree with that of course, but but the theory was was quite Became quite well known and I think this the slogan is is quite good legs Rex. This is really you can keep that So this theory and this of course is the theory of of of the rule of law That the state even the state with his power and with everything with his right to enforce His his judgments his decisions even the state is under the law. He has to follow the law Now comes up becomes something very Estonishing it's the state himself as source of law who makes the law. I Mean, this is a joke actually If you say the state now or the king they say just this this monopolistic authority Must be since enlightenment must be under the law. Okay, that's a good principle who makes the law the king This this is a joke actually, but but but it's reality. It's a unfortunately It's it's not only a joke. It's a joke, but it's reality too And and this is what what we have in everyday life of our state It's the very state who makes the laws to control him now Not surprisingly what he Then makes with these laws with these statutes with these decrees whatever When it's about that this principle of equality before the law What he makes this is very very Very obvious in our system. Maybe in the common law system. It's it's not yet that clear But in our system at the least he makes now through his legislation through his statutes to completely Categorically different areas of law There is the private law on the one hand and the public law on the other hand Private law. This is for normal people like you and me or like like like private enterprises and Public law this is for whom for the state for himself and this public law you learn that In the law courses in our tradition you learn that in the very first lessons Lesson, you know, there are two kinds of law We have private law and we have public law and all students learn that and It's a first category, but actually it's it's a scandal. It's it's the institutionalized Offense against this principle of equality before the law a breach of this principle by the very fundamental structure of our system of law With a lot of examples I can give you there and then a next Element of the rule of law and separation of power this belongs to this to the to these these items of The rule of law separation of power. This is something strange really this also You can call it a joke Separation of power means there are separate powers Traditionally you distinguish between the legislative power the executive power and the Judicial power So separation means separation that these are three Three organizations, maybe you can imagine 20 organizations, but let's be happy with three Three organizations now And are there three organizations there is one The notion branch of government, there are three branches of government Three branches of the very same tree. So there is one tree Actually It's not separation of power. It's concentration of power. This is reality All all you learn about constitutional structures, maybe in your country. It's it's it's traditionally More separated that I could imagine You shake the head Actually in our tradition, this is that they have they are at the same Telephone And you know central they all have the same telephone numbers The first not the extension here and maybe maybe some some coffee some coffee break rooms are for both Switzerland is all very very very small, you know But this problem of concentration of power instead of separation of power you have that and very in a very very clear sense, so We do not have time to go in in all details, but but this test When we are now trying to find out whether this organization is legitimate To play a certain role in the system of law then one must say this test is not fulfilled Now what about the next principle? The principle of consent we developed right before out of the conflict This direct the concept which which is closely linked with the principle of democracy We heard a lot already about democracy in these speeches and lectures now in this conference about this ideology of democracy things like that and Now from a really legal point of view that the question I had This organization Does this function according to the will of all people in this country You can check that you can make a chart and then say okay now. Let's see What is a perfect democracy a perfect democracy according to the notion is Demo's Karthi It's it's the the people who governs Itself So the perfect democracy of course that would not be realistic the perfect is all Legislation all norms are accepted by all people That would be perfect. Of course not realistic. Let's be generous and say maybe Maybe it's a bit less. Maybe it's 51% or something like that But now how is it is it really and how is it really in Switzerland because? one of the Estonished questions sometime I I hear is but you come from Switzerland. What do you have against the state? And and you criticize Switzerland as well. I mean Switzerland. This is the paradise of democracy They they come together all time these people and they vote, you know, and they they not just elect their representatives they vote on material subjects and This is some time true. You certainly saw some pictures of a lot of people and plays and they have the hand and so This folkloristic events, but now and Let's look at the federal level Of course in Switzerland, we have the cantonal level the communal level But now just the federal level and on the other level levels is not it's not completely different There in Switzerland now as a proud direct Democracy there are Certain part of The the statutes that are indeed accepted by the people Not quite all This is the first line Not quite all just point eight percent That are accepted directly by the people that were Accepted on a vote and not just by the parliament So this is symbolic maybe at least symbolic and there are sometimes arguments that this some symbolic Rituals can also have some have some influence, but but it's not very much actually now Comes the rate of approval and this gives a whole chart I distributed the details of that you have it and the chair You can take it with you and tell the world how the direct democracy in Switzerland functions It's good to have that water for for this for these difficult calculations So it's just really a small part and point eight percent the rate of approval these eleven point three five percent this comes and this is According to the consent principle how many people in that vote or in the votes and in the average Consented to these statutes then Not all people went to the vote So the the participation in the vote is Somewhere you have that the details here 43 percent Of course, there are many that did not accept That the no voters So this this reduces again the rate of approval is of course above 50 percent You in the average 55 percent Only Swiss citizens can vote by the way, but these legislation is is applicable also for foreigners Only citizens of full age can vote but It's also applicable for young people or For those that become older later even though and at that time they were not able to Vote and then is something like I call it a fading out rate You know just this this this aspect that and a lot of people that they die with the time and newborn In this population, but the new born did not vote for these statutes They are in force during their lifetime. So did they inherit this? Obligation in private law. This is an interesting aspect inheritance law is quite developed, but not in public law So so that's why it's just eleven point three five. So this gives that these point Zero point zero nine then then comes the indirect democracy. This is the parliamentary system There it's about twenty five percent of all statutes that come from that body and now comes a very very small The UDC eleven point three five percent No, this is point zero zero zero one three percent Why is this that small and it's it's an Idea behind it and that was mentioned in some of the speeches, right? in the speech before I attended one of these group and also when we hear something about this ideology of democracy and that that it's the fiction that those those parliament members have a mandate from their voters so that They are representatives they are something like a proxy of of those people but If you try to to to give them a weight What What is representation representation is I I give you my my power of attorney You can go there and vote for me. I can give you instructions I can also say oh no, no, I will go there myself But this is representation. This is a power of attorney and now we have the fiction that Here we have also something like a power of attorney, but that's just not the case So it's it's a case in a very very small extent because by the way I mean by the way that these people do not listen to your instructions You have to share One representative over there in Bern in Switzerland or you in Washington I think it's about the same ratio with 30,000 other Principles, you know, there are 30,000 principle with one representative with one agent and this is not representation, this is may be something like a a guardianship or a tutorship of of those representatives, but but it's not representation and Therefore, I think when when you wait that then it's one 30,000 Part of it that this gives this very very small Figure and then comes not the delegated legislation actually there are quite a lot of the most part of all statutes 74% that are not Made by the parliament, but by the executive branch and there these figures are much much lower So in Switzerland this paradise of direct democracy We have one but it's true in the extent of point zero nine percent So I think this second Principle the second fundamental law principle the principle of consent is not met neither By the state so the state does not pass these tests of law its noble principles such as the rule of law or or democracy Now to look at it really with a realistic eye These noble principles turn out to be helpless excuses of a criminal gang Caught in unlawful actions such as taxation mandatory regulations, etc But the reason why He it elaborates this principle this principle of rule of law of democracy these are This is because he he makes all these Invasions these attacks these aggressions in case he would not do so there would be no need to justify And it's action, but once he does it he has to have Excuses and once you look precisely at these excuses you you can see that They are not true just not true So at that time then I came an anarchist just by by by Searching for the question or trying to understand what law is Now out of this state case some additional lessons Could be learned about the law law emerges in case of need and disappears Not when justice is established, but when unlawfulness is eliminated We we we had this concept equality before the law Consent things like that and then we asked the question. Ah, there is somebody this state coming in Let's check these criterions on him. So that was the The opportunity to make this test Just because of this because somebody comes in some aggressor some trespasser comes in now we have to To apply these norms on it one could say this sounds perhaps a bit a Bit strange law is the absence of unlawfulness This is the specific negative aspect of law We for instance Always see also in the question. What is a property light right? We discussed that recently Is this a mere negative aspect or are there positive aspects as well? But I think on a very fundamental basis law is negative It's just it sounds a bit a bit awkward It's the absence of unlawfulness such as for instance the unlawfulness of the state That was for me an interesting aspect That it's something negative. It's something that Gives not the basis to implement some positive idea, but it gives the basis to defend yourself against attacks Now the next question is what then is the force of law? How how does the law now as a reaction to unlawfulness Have effects Results influences the facts and I think this aspect of this this negative element of law says that the force of law comes out of the Unlawfulness it destroys or you can say comes out of the action of which it is the reaction This is The force of law and the consequence is that law does not need to be put into force It's also a myth that You always hear that law. This is fine. You can define it somehow, but then you need some very strong Instance that helps to enforce it of course the state But this is not true the force of law comes out of the law Of course, it's useful to respect the law, but it would be absurd to order it Because it's there the law is there or you can say the law is what comes anyway You cannot escape the law. Law is essentially inescapable The law is what no one can escape escape from not you not me not the Sun actually it's a it's a The rule of law is a term used also by natural sciences So no pun no one can escape them Not the universe and of course not the state or I then came to the conclusion My question what is law? Maybe that will change again, but at least for the time being I would say law is Inescapability that this is the essence of law And just in passing by the way I became a anarchist So that was The longer version of the answer how I came to this conclusion That was the inescapability now I have to add or I'm glad to add also something about the subtitle and About the inescapability of Mises of Rothbard and of Hoppe Now what the inescapability is capability of Mises is concerned Mises was For me for these fine things not too important. I read them books of him Before those of Rothbard's that were much more Effectful for me, but it was it was interesting to read Mises and namely what this Inescapability of law or of certain laws is concerned That that was very interesting with with Mises for instance just to give you Small examples the market in and it's in escapable law are supreme to any political programs That's a short quote out of gem ein wirtschaft. I read that first in German Gem ein wirtschaft, which was later than in English came out as socialism and Then some interesting Quotes Mises the discovery of the inescapable Interdependence of market phenomena over through the opinion of an ideal state interestingly this Quotation comes right after the one you made in your first lecture yesterday morning when you When what was about the other system of an ideal state? We have to good to have good princes and You you exemplified that with the two candidates of your last presidential elections and then comes sort of the answer that The discovery of the inescapable interdependence These are kind of laws of market phenomena over through that old that other traditional attitude This is Mises and then in the cause cause of social events there prevails a regularity of Phenomenon to which man must adjust his action if he wishes to succeed So you have to respect these these laws these regularities You you won't have to give them to order them they are there But it's recommandable to respect them to use them. Otherwise you would be you can't Get through and then a very interesting Sentence One must study the laws of human action and social cooperation as the physicists studies the laws of nature That that's I think that's a remarkable sentence. It's maybe not too typical for Mises in later books as such as maybe what was that the latest History and theory perhaps he was I thought very reluctant to to follow this this sentence but but for me it was quite consistent to To all these other Aspects to and and and for me it was very interesting to Read as a lawyer, you know this kind of law that it's not an imposed law, but that there are regularities that that happened They are there That's that was was sort of Inescapability of Mises and now what the inescapability of Mary road part is concerned When I first wrote the small article article by him Society without the state. It's of 1975. It's very small five or six pages very Precisely written as always by Rothbard and And there I read things like this the basic point however is that the legal state is not needed To arrive at legal principles. Yes, that that's precisely what I thought when I when I saw that the conflict And produces its own Solutions that that's precisely the reason why the state is not needed and of course when you read more about road part then You find more details namely also what the law is concerned and here to that All these legal traditions they come out of the conflicts of of court Decisions and then what is interesting? Derived either from custom or reason so road mark still has some source where he takes it from Here he wouldn't say it comes out of the conflict itself But from other sources custom reason is quite close to the conflict itself But then and in principle there are sources where he takes the answers from Here again that therefore this idea that the state is needed He says it's not as much a myth as that the state is needed to supply postal or police services And then of course these very clear and nice Sentences the state by its very nature must violate the generally accepted more rules to which most people adhere So this is now not anymore that the state is not needed But that he is illegitimate that he doesn't meet these tests we looked at before and Then something we are very close to do what I thought before That it's just a coercive criminal organization he he said and Which gets away with it by engineering the support of the majority? By the way, it's never a majority is always a very very small minority as you see out of my job that was the in as capability of Mary road mark that now comes the in as capability of Hans Hoppe and Here is that interesting link from From roadsparks to Hans Hoppe that remarkably and extra ordinarily Hans Hoppe has proven me wrong He has done it He has deduced now. We are again at the subject of where does these norms come from? He has reduced an anarcho-lockean right ethic from self-evident axioms they do not come anymore by customs or things like that, but Out of the conflict in a way and that I think was then very close to my to my thoughts if you Imagine a small chart. This is the last one if you have this sort of fundamental Philosophical duality you have always you have the facts and you have rationality or you have theory and history or You have the general and the specific And here now in our case you have the facts. This is the conflict this is the The occasion to talk about law the incompatibility Ultimately, it's always a physically incompatibility sometimes threat of it, but ultimately it's also always about physical incompatibility on the one side and then Dealing with a conflict or with incompatibility on the other side. We have this rationality and now What Hans Hoppe's principle of argumentation is concerned I would Make that in this charge here with a arrow that comes down here that Now you link rationality with these facts with your principle of argumentation You do not get the source from somewhere outside, but you argue about the conflict This is not abstract rationality, but rationality dealing with this very conflict The the quality of the arguments is that there are no that they do not have contradictions or Only as far as there are no contradictions. They are valid and Now what my approach is concerned? I think this fits quite good in this picture But here the arrows goes bottom up and I Think that the conflict as a reaction to these actions in the conflict Creates things creates Reactions from the victim from bystanders from from a certain part of society which which Which then deals with this conflict which develops procedures things like that with Develops a whole system of law and of procedure and maybe of courts and whatever as a Natural consequence as an inescapable consequence of the conflict itself and within this conflict Do you see my So part of this reaction of this complex reaction is also argumentation is also an argumentation that focuses precisely on the conflict as such and therefore I think this This is the world so to speak out of which the conflicts are solved we Whatever the difference is maybe There are but what what what we certainly agree is that the state is not needed We do not have to catch some help over there He is not needed. This is what what we heard before from my road part also And if you look here when you apply these arguments, he is illegitimate Hans Hoppe's approach is rather up there. I could imagine mine is down here We Debated that sometimes already, but he became very good friends in escapably Many thanks This question is a bit speculative. Are you in any way influenced by the writings of Immanuel Kant? By the way by the writings of Immanuel Kant Manuel Kant Maybe everybody in the West is influenced by Immanuel Kant But I wouldn't say too much Maybe maybe there is a Interface so to speak a link I think to his categorical imperative and and this is actually The same idea as this kind of equality before the law, you know or of Argument that are not contradictory If if you if you find arguments if you find thoughts that you can apply In the conflict to both sides Without getting in a conflict then then I could imagine yes, it's it's in that In that tradition so to speak In another way, I would say at least my part So this left part the left is not in the political sense This this left part That comes bottom up This is not Kantian. I think Kantian is At least prominently top-down But only prominently I here's here's More differentiated than just to say what bottom up top down So in part yes, and in other parts no Another lawyer Hello, I wonder if the quote you had from Rothbard about how the the arbitrators or judges would Solve a conflict by resort to custom and reason I'm not so sure he was assuming an outside source in that sense that he was explaining How the judges make their decision, but they are still making a decision about Resolving the conflict. Maybe he didn't emphasize that so much, but I don't think it's incompatible with with with the idea that law does emerge from the from the Solution of conflicts over time Well, maybe it's about is it about the The role of argumentation of reasoning within these reactions out of a conflict and I think it's it's a it's a a very important part of How the reactions are out of a conflict and I could imagine in the world without the state Next year or so That the legal system is at least, you know What you see of it if you look at it is not fundamentally different There there would be kinds of reasoning. There would be bookshelves. There would be Educated people in this matter. There would be procedures. There would be judges. There would be reasonings like that arbitrators And Ultimately the only difference is that none of all these players has a monopoly Or you can put it in another way Like in or the same way that you can say It's not forbidden to kill somebody because it's forbidden in the penal code It's in the penal court because it's forbidden the same way you can say all these procedures That people shout around that they they they call for advocates That they go to some third authority that the third authority Take some colleagues with him and thinks about the case all this does not happen because it's it's a defined like that in some procedural code or in some law precedence But because it's the way it happens if there is a conflict of Homo sapiens members So has it to do with your question this answer How are the Reactions to you in Switzerland when you talk about your ideas My yeah class action in Switzerland. Yeah, so that would be the next lecture, you know And then you want to go to the celebration of funds, but nevertheless I I Can make some remarks very gladly and the idea and I had the idea already that instead of you know, just Make all these theories, but one should do something. This is what Karl Marx also once said One should do something now, but what shall I do and shall I shall I make a new party and then to try to get Influenced in this this political system. No, certainly not. I do not want to become the member of this this this gang organization and And Namely, I I came to the conclusion that was what I showed you that it's not a political problem Of course, it is also a political that it's not only an economic problem, but that it's very Importantly a legal problem It's it's and therefore the consequence would be to file a class action against Swiss confederation To collect many plaintiffs that file an action against this confederation not not demanding the dissolution But asking or pretending being Befreit Liberated From this mandatory mental membership That's that's the idea and Beginning to organize something like that. I do not know precisely whether it's really then a hardcore Legal case or it's more something like a campaign to to talk about these questions But but we are I'm preparing something like that in any event because it's not An action that asks for the solution. This is important because as a Anarchist, I do not want to Hinder anybody to become the member of such an organization if somebody wants to be there And even if this is 90% of the population, okay, they shall have their state and They will become happy perhaps perhaps But the other 10% they should be free to organize themselves or not to be organized at all This is the idea of this class action Which is not very much developed yet. It takes time and Okay, I hear they are waiting for you to publish in English. Yes. Yes does that some I should do that because yes German is not that Broadly read and and some some very small things I did already and maybe one can one can Translate some but but that's I know that yes, and I'm working on it And to learn English of course