 So my first, yeah, my question is to Torsten Polight and you were talking about the great reset and made a really good, like, assessment of where we're standing with, like, what the purpose is and, you know, why it's wrong and everything like that. And at the end, you gave a little bit of, you know, what we can do to stop that. But like something like what I didn't find convincing is that some of the suggestions that you make are mostly, oh, we need to, you know, make people aware. We need to convince them of libertarianism and so forth. But when, you know, reading a little bit of Hoppe, reading a little bit of more like pragmatic people, what I hear is often that like you should get local influence that you should like actually try to get some power so that you can like isolate yourself from the effects of the great reset and so forth. So do you think that we should have a clearer strategy on that where like we, you know, get local power so we can shield ourselves from that or what's your, what's your prescription so to speak on that? And, you know, I ended maybe, yeah, I ended with Emmanuel Kant, you know, who in 1784 wrote a very important article about Aufklärung, Enlightenment. And he said at the end of the day, things change when people's minds change. And you cannot run a revolution without the mindset of people having changed already. And so gradually I think we are moving there. And I see optimistic signs these days where like ESG criteria are getting refused by capital investors. The strategy of the World Economic Forum becomes increasingly public. And there are bits and pieces that show that the Enlightenment is gaining ground. Probably I could add, which is the same subject actually, these ideas not to believe anymore in things, you know, what I said in my speech that I think for schemes like a state or maybe such reset agendas and things like that, they, to a certain extent, they live from the fact that many people believe in it, that they think it's true, that it does exist, that there is something like a higher being in this society even though you don't see it, you know. I think that has to do with ideas, with realizing what is there. The question remains how can we influence it? It must be very strong this belief in such structures and the necessity of the state or things like that. It's really heavy to show that there's no basis to believe in it. Sometimes in my dreams, you know, I like to dream, to have daydreams, I'm thinking about the future of the state that maybe the state is not abolished or fight against or something like that but forgotten, that it happens maybe with the church, the traditional church, of course people say yes, there are churches, these beautiful buildings, but in the meantime they are empty, people do not go there anymore and there were times indeed when people went there every Sunday and they believed in that and they thought that what they preached there is mandatory for them, that's funny but these times are over and in this respect I think maybe the time comes when people say yes, that's true, they called it state house at the time, today it's a museum, nice building, but there were people that made legislations, they wrote rules and people obeyed to that. This has to do with ideas and thinking about the reality. My question is also on the Great Reset and it's addressed to Thorsten Polat but also the panel and what I observe in reality is that there are changes in the current world order and I think a catalyzing event is the Ukraine-Russian war and the bricks are realigning, they are intends to have a gold-backed currency, China is maybe the emerging superpower and they might replace the United States and that is one thing and on the other side I see that there's competition between states. So I think Austria announced it and Czech Republic already enforced it, they had a change in their constitution to have cash money always as an acceptable means of payment. So in the light of the changes in the world order that we live in and in the light of competition between the states are those not two factors that could also prevent the Great Reset in a way? We live in a world where you have many states or as Hans Hopper put it, many gangs competing against each other and you might have periods where they form a cartel or you have periods where they try to, well one state tries to overcome another state and I think the underlying trend is towards a world, a single world government. I think that is the underlying trend and at the moment it seems that the United States of America that has been at the forefront of taking this position is getting a strong competitor namely China and now we have a situation where you have Ukraine-Russia war against the West so to speak and but the underlying trend is that states try to become bigger and more powerful and the situation we have now that you have competing states is more favorable I would say than when you have a situation in which states form a cartel and coordinate their actions, reduce the competition in terms of taxation, legislation etc. So I think at the moment the growing conflicts between let's say the United States of America and China and Russia might stop this process a little bit towards a single world government but you still have the United Nations where these states sit together, try to coordinate their actions, these 193 states roughly and so I don't think that the competition among states is really solving the problem of the state, the state understood as a territorial monopolist of coercion and the right of taxation. The nature of the state is aggressive, it is aggressive internally in terms of higher taxation, more regulation, more laws and it is also aggressive outwardly. Look at the United States, if it's militarily strong it can do wars all over the world and that's what the Americans have done and so the solution of the state problem is really to get rid of the state as we know it today, namely why changing ideas, telling and educating people that the state rests on coercion and violence, it's not based on voluntary action and that could be I think a good argument where you can approach people and make clear the underlying problem of the state which is responsible for many many as you know for many many problems in this world. Perhaps I could add I think precisely out of these reasons I think it's dangerous once many states or all states have the same opinion. There are some topics where even the big enemies have the same meaning where it's about war on drugs for instance, that's more or less international consent of the states even Afghanistan now prohibited opium, agriculture and I think these are bad signs, of course we talk about the reduction of the evil of course but once they have a consent about drugs, about terrorism sometimes of course about tax evasion all these gangs are you know interested in helping each other to get their robbed goods but all I think it's good that they have differences, that they have conflicts of course that not yet the problem of the state as such but better having states in conflicts than the big cartel. It just springs to my mind I think a couple of years ago when especially Wall Street related interest groups were cheerleading the idea of bringing the United States of America and China closer together and the term they used was China America, China America. Terrible just imagine they these two powers would start getting closer together that would certainly be the biggest gang on the world on the planet and that would be of course terrifying because that that would be actually the world state and maybe in a couple of years time we find ourselves in a situation where Washington and Beijing come closer together overcoming certain problems you know we have to team up we have to create a unified government. So that's the underlying trend which is dangerous and it can be traced back to the existence of the state as we know it today. My question is for David Der. I enjoyed your presentation very much luring us with the great optimism of the decline and fall and you mentioned during it this idea of the state as a firm or a corporation and I think that's one of the modern indicators of states compared with the previous 10,000 years when they wouldn't pretend to be a firm. I live in Hong Kong and one of the interesting changes of language was that under the British the senior official is called a governor implying that all he's doing is a governance role and after the transition back to Chinese sovereignty the head official is called the chief executive. Now why do you call the head official the chief executive unless you think of the city as a corporation? All the citizens are employees and we just need to listen to the HR department of which part of the business we should be sent to. Anyway in a city like Hong Kong where you don't have foreign policy issues so much and if the citizens think of it as a corporation the legitimacy of the government is only impacted where the firm is seen to be incompetent and failing which in many parts of the world that's what's happening and I wondered coming back to Switzerland are there indications that the Swiss people feel that what the government does is now failing and they are incompetent or is it simply the issue of not liking the constitution as you described it? So these issues to come to your last point right now in Switzerland there are currently some movements more or less organized groups that they are outraged as I as I told that the state that they think by some top secret ways the state was privatized we didn't hear that officially but once you look at these indexes of firms you really find cantonal instances, cantonal authorities, agencies or even the Swiss confederation in some of these indexes. Of course these are administrative aspects where they enter their address because they deal with other actors but these movements this is not my approach it's just interesting to look at it these movements say that's a scandal you know that the state does not maintain his official functions that the state is not an economic player he is somebody who should you know care for law and order things like that so they are outraged about that and then I say I know that there are these registers but unfortunately this is not a sign for a privatization of the state unfortunately I would like that very much if if the state is privatized you should privatize everything also these so-called official functions law and order is a good that should be privatized it's much better organized once there is competition things like that I made that point only to say that people realize that official actors are just actors and I think that that could be you know the entrance to an approach where you say the typical state functions there are typical state functions of course like security things like that but there is no need that they are monopolized there is a need that they are there of course because if there is a demand there should be or there will be a supply but certainly not monopolized and for this kind of thinking I think it's it's useful it could be a sign for losing the faith again to say that the faith in that monopolized player maybe these other examples you said in other in Hong Kong or yeah and I could imagine that that there are that maybe they are fluent fluent situation is that the official function or is that a business function and things like that but maybe it's just the illustration of the fact that certain official functions do not have to be monopolized I doubt if many Hong Kong people think that any of the functions of the bureaucracy should be privatized it's not the way they think there's no um whiff of corruption people don't think the bureaucrats are corrupt um so there won't be any up swelling of opinion against them because of that the issue would not be should the government be running the health service or the education system the only issue would be if they do it really badly if you have an incompetent you have an incompetent bureaucracy that's what will get unpopular if the health service is not working the schools are producing kids with no education so it's nothing to do with corruption or power it's the bureaucracy is now taken so much control in the the city as a firm as a corporation but the bosses are incompetent and that is where I think there could be some discontent could come out from that from what you're saying in switzerland it's more to do with political issues not with the incompetence of the the country's bureaucracy to give you an example I think it's a better the era as a startup that you want to replace google that you compete with google and that's the same way I don't think privatization of state functions will happen that way uh that this function would just be overtaken it's the the way change really happens it thinks become irrelevant so you want to be there when things become irrelevant and I think it's also part of the reaction or losing trust in the population that has led to the the cash thing in austria that's not a big inside of politicians of course it's just they're realizing that there is mist distrust in the population austria is only that bit different from germany that it has only one big city and it's more rural so there's even less trust to the country on effect but also to the urban structures and so there's a reaction against the meme of the great reset which is basically I think it's mainly a meme it's this cloud swap thing where oh we are the experts we know it and oh I'm so misunderstood I never had a great plan but it's of course it's the inherent idea that there's a class of experts you can trust because otherwise they won't be at Davos if you can trust them I mean how should they have become a young global leader if no one trusted them and there's a mismatch so I don't see it going into a world government direction I don't see things being replaced because they don't work anymore I think things become irrelevant because they don't work anymore the mainstream media has not been there's there's no question but like privatizing it they are private entities they're just part of a flawed business model within a very distorted structure so they become irrelevant and then that opens up a vacuum that entrepreneurs can try to stay out living out of that or you can even have philanthropic projects or societal projects or things that have been around all along but weren't that considered that relevant and that important growing and importance so I think that's rather the way to expect these structures to become more and more irrelevant and then things emerging in their place but I share the optimism unless don't think that the way towards a multi-polar order and more competing political entities that will not feel very nice in particular not in Europe so usually these phases can of course lead to higher incidences of violence and we can only hope that it's rather irrelevant than a real active competition between power blocks because of course that mean some warring so hopefully the way from a to a multi-polar order is relative to the irrelevance of some geopolitical structures and the re-emerging of other alternative protocols and ways to interact yeah I'm not merely from Belgium I have a question for Dorsenpolet I want to start by saying that I really enjoyed all the German-speaking speakers today not only because we tried to speak English but not only because they were remarkably like hopeful messages but also because it's very much different like a very big basis of theoretical like theory and one of the things that you were saying was that you know with the world reset they tried to kind of change logic they have different you know different they think that there's multiple logical solutions and you can do that with people but you mentioned artificial intelligence and I think that's quite interesting because maybe another part of hope maybe artificial intelligence because of course artificial intelligence is dangerous because you know it's much easier to track down on taxation theft than I mean I mean the tax evasion and other types of ways to track down you know honest people but unlike humans who can be believed certain illogical things artificial intelligence is it works very badly with irrationality like for example jet jet GPT was was limited in in the way it responds to questions about wokeism because they it answered it very un politically correct you know they had to limit the way it responded to messages from general you know people so maybe artificial intelligence when the government wants to use it to the full extent it will see all the illogical things from what what the government wants to do they they will do this there and they want to do that there and in artificial robots will be saying well this is a great this is a complete contradiction we cannot you know error computer says error and they stop they maybe they stop just what what do you think about this the the term you refer to is polylogism so there's a variety of logics out there it's not just one logic and that stems from the debate Ludwig von Mises said in the early 1920s with communists or socialist thinkers they found themselves in a position where they couldn't go against the arguments coming from economics so they and as you know Ludwig von Mises reconstructed economics as a science of the logic of human action so he used logic to make his arguments and the socialists and communists couldn't come up with convincing arguments and so they decided to to to say that logic is different for different people if you if you think like in sound in terms of sound economics then you may be a bourgeois and you wouldn't understand the needs of the working class so we have to put you in prison or into the death camp that was the idea of polylogism to to support the socialist and communist theories you're absolutely right if I was just thinking what what happens if we as a people would lose our grip on logic that would be terrible I think that would be the end of humanity if we if we can if we if we don't if we don't have logic as as a guiding rod so to speak for our lives it would it would be terrible and I'm I'm not sure whether artificial intelligence could really make us believe in unlogical things and disrupt our capacity to to make logical decisions I don't know maybe but that would be dangerous I guess I maybe my question was maybe not true I thought maybe artificial intelligence will actually signal to government officials trying to program these robots this is a this is illogical and they will be on our side that's what I tried to say like maybe artificial intelligence while government will want to use them they will not be able to use them because they will signal to government you know desist a violation of that you know you know of rights and maybe they will be on our side that's why I mean as I try to point out in my my talk if people make use of logic start by thinking about the interactions among people there are two types voluntary action on one side and violence and coercion on the other side there's nothing in between I if people would increasingly take recourse to logical thinking and maybe artificial intelligence would use would be used for that purpose well yeah that could be a disruption of the status quo as we find it today I think this is this is precisely the aspect that it could be on our side actually I do not think know anything about these you know programs and things like that but let's assume that they are they are you know programmed by logic logical you know connections things like that we I think it was with alessandro yesterday night when we talked about the influence of this technique on the law and a lot of cases could be autumn handled automatically well well it's it's not the goal but let's assume things like that and it's these are good programs that follow the logic and then comes the state and wants to enforce a invoice for taxes and you resist against it and put that in the machine and maybe the outcome is tax taxation is theft you know and that would be yeah I disagree here completely that's not how the large language models work I think they are inductive pattern recognition based on machine learning so there's no logics really there they can see of course structures that seem logical but they are technology they are too like any tool and the main impact of tools is they change they reshuffle the cards in a society they are always abused by the centralizes the artists as you say and they're always employed by the anarchists who somehow withstand and sometimes it's very frustrating because the anarchists are losing and sometimes the whole battlefield changes through really profound technological changes usually it's technologies that look dangerous but somehow are equalizing the power in using them and I think there's a chance to be optimistic obviously the pattern recognition by machine learning is like a dreaming a dream as tool for totalitarians in control of something that's the main use how they'll be used but I think there's a chance and the hope in that that they'll equalize a little bit the field of military warfare it'll be more about like algorithms that are accessible to anyone who's able to hack and understand how machine learning works it's algorithms that you can pass on that you can copy that you can conceal that you can transmit around the planet and even totalitarian governments have not been that successful in controlling that flow of information of course there's a limited success to it but we've seen that that can be circumvented so I'd say that the internet was rather a change to the positive even though it's mainly employed by the centralizers and the anarchists but it has changed a little bit the battlefield for ideas and I think machine learning could point in the direction but for a while in the short term we see some pretty dystopian use of that pattern recognition thank you yes hello I have a question regarding also the the great reset and new world order kind of topic so I was I was I was thinking about COVID and the crisis that are always used as a good reason for state intervention and I was I was thinking about how it was said I think yesterday that that there are already like over goals by the US government of a world government creating a world government a world central bank and all of that but but how how if you could make a prediction how the great reset would look like in your personal opinion would it more be like a war between USA and Russia or USA and China that is that is not meant to be one but meant to be eternal in a in a kind of Orwellian way to create like a great crisis that is everlasting because if you really establish a world government it will be very simple for the population of the world to see like ah it's these people why are they doing it to us you can only create so many viruses and create so much climate change I mean people only live for 90 years but I mean even in the history books it will become very apparent that all these crises were not maybe not real you know so if you have a war you can and that is really believable isn't isn't that like a better tactic like what do you think is going to happen these people all go to the Davos and they all go to to Davos to to to cloud swaps events they all are young global leaders aren't they just cooking something up to make us believe that that there is actually a war going on and they maybe are fighting and maybe are sending troops and having people die what do you think it would look like as I said earlier the at the heart of the problem we discuss our ideas if people are convinced that socialism will bring prosperity and a better world they will they will try to to establish socialism if you convince people that this is a very bad idea then you can expect that for instance capitalism liberalism or whatever will be the desired object for for for the people it's at the end of the day it's about ideas it's very very important I think to to think about it it's ideas that make people act and you ask me for a prediction you know I don't know the future you know I'm I'm in the business of trying to change people's ideas to make them familiar with different ideas different from what they learn in school and learn in university read in the newspaper and I'm I'm optimistic that this is going to have an impact and so I would hope that the change in ideas will lead people to increasingly question the state the great reset agenda the the policies that are being imposed on them taxation etc and so I hope there will be a change and making your predictions very of course very difficult you know I mean if if we don't change the ideas let's assume we don't change the current set of ideas we're going to end up in a digital prison on a global scale but again I'm optimistic that this is not going to unfold that there will be a change for the better today I tried to in my in my talk to to reveal the underlying theories of the great reset to show that they are from the socialist and communist and even fascist theory books and I hope that is going to make an impression on people you listened we have a recording other people can watch it and I hope that we can change that but I cannot make a prediction you know I think the spectrum could be a very unfortunate development where you have state tyranny like never before and on the more optimistic note you will have what we have seen in the in the European Union secession where where where some states just seek the exit and and I'm if you ask me I'm optimistic if we continue with the work we do that we make a contribution for the better let me just disagree a little bit I prefer that so I don't see that all of the great reset like is this big idea coming from socialism I think it's a great idea as an idea because it's a rallying cry of people opposing this class that's what the great great reset is listen to schwaab read his book that he is really sorry that he messed up with that thing because it's such a great rallying cry and it's just a great slogan for understanding okay it's the great and the reset it's the top down mindset that you want to address but the thing about this Davos crowd is not that they are big in ideas they don't care about ideas their careerists claus schwaab has no interest in ideas whatsoever if you read his book it's boring as hell it's it's really just mainstream bullshit with but with the agenda in mind which is not a clear cut agenda it's just the agenda of oh yeah if just the experts are in charge because you can trust all the institutions and and who's a young global leader is really a young global leader which doesn't make any sense if you look at it and you can see it and you got a rather ridiculized these people as Hans is always proposing as I think is the best remedy and not take them so terribly seriously there is no character quality as with the Lenin's and Trotsky's of the past they are very different class of people and so I'm I see it rather the opposite way I think it's a sign of people not caring about ideas because they think that ideas don't matter and maybe it's the idea that's needed that the ideas matter in the long run and we should start caring about ideas again and and not just do the meme war a thing which I find slightly boring if it's not really killing and trolling which is great may I add something to the point that some of you now mentioned them can we should we be optimistic or pessimistic in this general questions you know in this general problems we have is there a tendency that we cannot stop towards a bold state via these cartel intermediary structures to a bold state but it's not going there the idea is ages old world state currency bank or it's not going the direction obviously it's going into a multi-power order there's no yeah there's no chance that the Klaus Schwab will have an Indian Chinese thing that he's the president of yes I I share this optimist this optimism but nevertheless I mean there are there are tendencies in that direction not because of mr. Schwab I mean that too that is something to which is boring I agree very much and to read but the question is in fact in what direction goes the tendency of of of humanity you know and and to predict in which direction it goes that's not easy of course that's impossible in course but there are signs maybe for this or that variant and you see signs for the positive variant in the sense that a multi-polar multi-center structure we we we thought we talked about ideas that the right ideas so to speak should should come in and and challenge these status structures and I I think a a good reason a good ground a good basis to be optimistic is that the state structure does not correspond to very fundamental structures of homo sapiens you know I think this individualism in built in each of us is a very strong element shows that structures can only hold on the long run if they are built in all individuals in each one or in in a group in an organized group that is based on the voluntary membership things like that the final basis should always always be the the single individual and if and it maybe it's less the question is this good or bad or efficient or inefficient things like that or right or wrong but is it the fact or not and I think it's reality that with this individualism and I think this is the most important basis to be optimistic yeah I would like to defend the proposition that we as human beings act according to ideas we have I think that is very very important and most people don't conceive new ideas most people routinely accept ideas that they hear in school and university from friends just a very few people come up with new ideas most people accept ideas that are floating around and most people do not even know in terms of the history of ideas where ideas come from and when I was thinking about the great reset at some point it occurred to me that the the fundament of the great reset as we can reconstruct it from from Klaus Schwab and others can be traced back as as I think to the socialist communist agenda and so I think it's it's very important to to change ideas I think that is and that that is something Ludwig von Mises pointed out in his work for instance in socialism 1922 that we have to change ideas and then we can change the way people act and avoid certain unwanted outcomes for instance I think that is very important to take into account it is about ideas I want to ask about something most relevant to professor holsman's presentation but really all of you have touched on it tangentially today and that is about a continuum problem that libertarians often argue about and perhaps something we can argue about tonight at dinner and that is first how do we identify individuals and organizations that are not the state itself but are accomplices of the state and second what does justice allow us to do with or to those accomplices so to motivate this a little I'll give the examples of Northrop Grumman Lockheed Martin the military divisions of GE Honeywell Boeing aren't they just accomplices of mass murder that deserve everything an accomplice of a criminal conspiracy deserves yeah thank you for your question and that's of course it is important to to to understand with whom you are dealing with whom you should support whom can you can trust right so history plays big role some intelligence into the personality it's difficult to set up a libertarian institution from one one day to to the other right there's something that needs to grow also in time so you gain trust to people in the course of time and you see what they've been doing how they're funding themselves where does the money come from it's an important question what are they doing are they doing good things are they promoting aggressive things and so on right so how should you oppose the evil institution the first the most important thing is always not to support right you turn off the television you don't pay anything that you are not it's not really literally squeezed out of you out of your bank account you don't support you don't applaud people who are talking nonsense you don't encourage others to not or to you ridicule people exercising power in such ways you spread ideas that's what you can do and we're living in very difficult times right there these several movements playing out at the same time in the west we have a movement of increasing centralization the show is increasingly run by the americans and what started off slowly in the 80s 90s accelerating at a breathtaking pace in front of our eyes and there's no resistance coming from europe at all this is it is as if you are in a big boat that's running onto the rock on the titanic right that's what we are but that's north america in western europe that's not the entire world i recently had a discussion with a student she was very enthusiastic about esg investing and so on so when we looked at the world map where esg investing is popular and it was only in north america and in europe and even here it's not it's very marginal right but that's really popular but people talk about it so it's only here in in in north america everywhere else nobody cares right so that's the good thing right we are unfortunately in the west we are sitting in this big boat the titanic that is going not steering or not a very good cause and we need to know this and there's not much we can do try to set up any organization that care brings about resistance you will be infiltrated in no time right and there's there's there's no way to to to build up any fundamental resistance of this so we just need to for for many years probably just focus on not doing any more harm just staying clear raise our families train ourselves spread information and so on for a very long time this is will be all that we can do in the west and then eventually the whole boat will sink one way or the other that's when we will have a chance so then we need to be ready i have a question for david dur i really liked your antagonism between the red things and the blue things it looked like there was a period where the state was getting stronger and you're looking forward to a period where the state is getting weaker so the way i think of it is is almost like if i throw a ball you know into the air it goes up there's an apex and then it goes down and you serve organize your presentation as if the apex was 2023 like today but is that what you really believe or where the other commentators believe could it the apex have been reached earlier maybe it's gonna be a bit later if you could time it and i'm not quite sure did you understand you correctly that you are asking concerning the time frame of such developments well when you when it peaks and that when when the turn comes so yeah yeah three thousand years that is five thousand years you know that is three thousand before christ so um i mean maybe this has to do with with something i mentioned already i think in that that other speech two years ago um all this all these structures political structures and so on are um also part of a cultural and behavioral evolution evolution as one knows is guided by trial and error trial with success or unsuccessful trial or error and they would say you know on this very broad view the status organization is an error of behavioral evolution and now there are smaller examples bigger examples there are the phenomenon as such that such structures are there actually looking at this out of this distance these five thousand years are not very long you know the evolution of homo sapiens itself is much longer so a bit like us there are different theories could be hundred thousand or two hundred thousand years um there are long periods of culture cultural developments it's not the case that with the state culture comes up with the state stone building comes up and that's why you find more traces to cultural phases you know um and then they think with the state culture comes up but um i think it has to do how long lasts such an error and maybe within within contexts that these developments are not that old maybe for the reason that it didn't fit into this cultural context like in Switzerland i would say these are tiny valleys you know tiny small groups um it's it's it's not by accident that it lasted that long until strong centralized structures came in while at other places they existed for a long time already and and that's why the the the possibility the yes the likelihood that in such cases it disappears earlier is there i think and in other in china i could imagine which has a very long tradition also not without disruptions china too this was not always a centralized big organization there were fights between different entities that then came together but nevertheless i think in i could imagine that there this point would come much later because there is a longer tradition below it's longer in built at the end i think also in china and in maybe other parts of this world it's against the nature of homo sapiens well that that would be the answer of to your question for switzerland in 25 years we might have reached yes that that maybe that was a bit a bit too maybe that was a bit too precise it's just funny you know just funny to celebrate the bicentennial you know in switzerland in 25 years i i disagree but in a positive sense i think it's overarching a thing from mesopotamia has already collapsed that's what the witfogel called the hydraulic societies and it's not just millions people being enslaved it's millions of people surviving so it's not just the dark side they solved the problem which has become irrelevant to the technology we don't need collectivist hydroponics anymore to make millions of people survive in the dense urban concentration which was the only way it happened that's why the mesopotamian egyptian model prevailed it was a solution for a problem and i'm not that palio as you are i'm always surprised that someone is more palio than me i i don't think the lifestyle in itself is is like the fullest flourishing of human potential i'm rather favor of catalectics or a catalectical cooperation which means lots of people in differentiated ways cooperating and not just small tribal structures but i think through technology we don't need politics to have that kind of dense cooperation anymore we can use technology and technology is not entirely to be politicized of course always a tool but that has been a very interesting race in a sense between the artist and the anarchist forces and it was not always obvious that the artist forces are prevailing there was a lot unfortunately a lot of anarchy in the middle ages and i think it's coming back and we're seeing that on the the international order and it comes back in other fields as well so yeah you're you're you're probably right fortunately yeah sure sure yeah i also wish to comment on David of course i liked your conclusion very much especially 2048 i just cannot believe anywhere to this i think the truth is that in any living body animal human bodies there are always lots of parasites lots of microbes some of these help us to carry our living some harmful and so on and so it is with a social body as well as soon as there's any sign of health and it develops and necessarily parasites i mean this is just so convenient such an easy lifestyle so the stronger society grows the greater is the incentive for parasites and other undesirables to find their place and they always find their place because they are always suckers as we have said before right and that's it will not change we will never get back to the glorious days of the middle ages and so on this was a strike of great luck because we were coming really out of nowhere it was complete collapse of the the roman empire that was conquest by all the savage tribes and so on which didn't have any significant economy and then the world we were lucky because there was some decentralization and there was still a cultural unity through the christian faith now okay so we're lucky and that's not our future so it looks i don't see that christianity is on the verge of making a big comeback so what indeed will preserve our our liberty in the world is decentralization of power it's not the disappearance of the parasites class they we need to combat them and it's just a life it's just the struggle that you find in any healthy body right as long as there's any health left while you fight the parasites you fight the microbes and so on and you carry on living there's no easy way out sorry