 Questions and answers are getting to give me your opinion. Since the treatment involves a panel or a panel as a whole with a panel, of course, we serve the right to make comments on each other's comments. So I'd like to raise a topic for our audience. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. To refer to the traveling out of private science by the government as industry, but I think what I'm going to do is much stronger the words than traveling out. And many aspects of government science are really self-referencing industries starting to tax their money through the motion of their points and political work in aggregate or fundamentally many scientific fraud. The whole boring industry is exhibit A. Last year, we had an easy presentation by David Reusberg, suggesting that the HIV research industry was another of those exhibits. You can also take the point of view of this massive misallocation of resources based on what would be popular the whole space program in America is from scientific point of view wasted vast amount of money versus the other alternatives for space research. And I suspect that the cancer research industry is a self-referencing, larger misdirected research field where tens of millions of dollars are being spent. So this is broad and massive misallocation of resources. I'd like to comment on that. OK, well, you could add eugenics to that. And then after a century, all scientists said that eugenics is really important. We had a lot of sterilizing and anti-infectants. It was all based on thoughts on the standard of the other. So that's the gene, which came on YouTube, of course. Yes, the thing about scientists is that it's a mistake to believe scientists believe in falsification. Scientists are advocates. They have points of view that they're trying to foster and to test their misguidance. But scientists have to report falsification. Because when you have the forethought of the knowledge, lots of facts come along if you don't understand it. If you've accepted them as having chosen by what you were doing, you wouldn't proceed. I couldn't talk at length, but then to say that scientists have to ignore the convenient data if they're going to do what they want to do. Because ultimately, the convenient data can be expended away if you're right. And if the incentives are wrong, then they are in science. If governments fund sites without any measurable outcome, just an assumption that somehow we're going to cross the economic road 10 years down the line, so they could never be gone to account, then scientists will indeed take as much money as they can to produce their own papers to refer to each other nicely to give each other prizes, to nirvana references. Scientists potentially have a very good activity next year. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to call Professor Ben Novan. And at Frank, I enjoyed your article and gave you a share of the observations about the nature of counterfeits and gave us a definition of crime and so on. But to me, it sounded a bit like foreplay. And it seemed that you stopped just at the moment when you actually became excited. There is what is the punishment that would fit the crime and would you sort of lean towards the drop-bar and double the spanielness or rally bombing and pure execution and so on. This is what I would have liked, reaching the title of your talk with this is what I would have liked to hear. Now, it's unfair to ask you to do a conference that you didn't do, but could you give us a strategy whether you are on one side or the other as today or maybe in the future? And of course the page was limited to 30 minutes and the idea, I disliked the idea to rush through to conclusion that is a lot evident from what has been said before. So I just laid out the groundwork for the arguments and hopefully those of you who are interested will develop from there and go to my conclusion. Now, as to your specific questions whether I am on this side or another side, I think I can claim to be a side of my own. I do not have to choose between two set downs. As I said, punishment to me is a compounded network for this no justification at all for punishment, although there could be, there can be reasons for it because we could say it is a good policy of deterrence or it is a good method for teaching kids discipline and so on, but as a response to the only proper response to Brian G's restitution. And when restitution falls short, when there is no full restitution and that means full, not just the harm done when the deep was done but also the consequences as well. But when full restitution and compensation falls short and there is no repentance on the part of the torched freedom of the criminal to make whole amounts or to make things over again, then I think the threat of punishment and the punishment, the inflection of punishment becomes justified but it is justified in the same way and for the same reason I'm talking as a philosopher so it probably doesn't make sense to anybody else but it is justifiable for the same reason that you have to use force and harsh measures to teach the least. If someone cops out of the process of doing justice and maintaining justice, so he refuses to go into the argument then of course when reason fails, you can only use force and in some cases that moment may come very rapidly and in other moments that in other cases that moment may be very remote so there's no particular thing. As to the harshness of the punishment, I think the punishment, first of all, the right of inflicting the punishment is with the victim. But one has also to consider that maybe the criminal or the force freezer or whatever you want to call it has obligations against other persons who are innocent of the crime and in inflicting punishment, I think that the basic limit or the essential limit is that you do not buy or punishment inflicting harm or damage or invade or harm or diminish the rights of other innocent persons. So with this, as I said, most crimes happen in contexts which are much more richer in content than the pure Bargain or around the Bargain or whatever context. So the ideas people have of what is effective and what is proper will of necessity be determined in the pure context. And they will not be influenced in any way by whatever may be said in a place such as this. A question from Professor Holten. The global warming recurrence is quite complicated. And really, if we get out of which taxes favor the structure of streets, the support of the extreme bill of opposition might suggest that if we want to buy a true account because it pays the same tax, it requires a microscopic title to every street within the respective nation state. It does it requires the right to free entry, which would make it very cheap. By all the way, would you set the limit and which role will residents play compared to the amount of money that you pay in taxes? To some extent, I can continue what Francois Nan said. I don't think it is too wise to try to be too precise in all of these matters. My friend Walter Block tends to be on the side that he seems that you can hammer out a priority solution to any type of legal complication that arises. My purpose was only to indicate the principles that are involved in all of this, to recognize that there can be such things as easements or no easements in the case of streets who typically do have easements. In all concrete situations, I would leave up to the profession of lawyers. The profession of lawyers is, of course, currently in a state of the environment blown up to huge proportions, but lawyers, judges, arbitrators and so forth will play a great role in any type of society. So all detailed decisions I would leave up to two boards of experts who would decide how to apply these principles that I laid down. I did not want to do more than just make obvious what major principles are involved. The application of principles is sometimes a tricky, difficult field I've tried to abstain from things like this unless I have a concrete situation in front of me and then I would consult with people and I believe that a reasonable application of principles can be found through the case in the same way as Frank basically emphasized too. There can be cultural context that may a certain crime be judged in this way, in this place, in the same type of deed would be treated slightly differently or somewhat differently in a different cultural context. I just say something a little bit about restitution. I mean, I have experience of a fair number of criminals, specifically the British criminals, but what I'd say with restitution is I push it back with that because I think the administration of restitution I agree that in most cases you will have either because of poverty or because of a simple lack of any struples on the part of the person. So I do not rule out punishment as I said, sometimes the moment of punishment is very close, sometimes it is very low. But I was not addressing specific cases and there are cases of fraud, for example, and thefts are not committed by the under the bars in which you specialize. So sometimes restitution is indeed a vice, I would say. In the case of Mr. Malfoy, if you need a sentence of longer than 150 years of restitution, I think in fact restitution, while I am not against restitution, of course, in fact it is a very small part of the administration of restitution. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Malfoy, half of the people in prison should be there and the other half should never be there. I am still afraid. I have a question for Mr. Malfoy. You are the accountant of what happens or you might need a bit of work after the new landings and the task was found, instead of dissolving last night, a task new task was found, like building a space shuttle and dabbing into climate science. Was this the case with the army after the Civil War? There was a war, an army without the task and the state newly in love with power and they found a task or this is more of a just a chance that it happened that way. I can get a little bit of a question is the private railroad or trans-continental railroad how long before would this happen, would it be established or were they in the process of building it at a time or were there other competitors who were just lazy and wanted to tell them if they would be able to revive that thing? I do address that in that whole chapter that I was summarizing in my talk that one of the motivations for what happened to the inflated vehicles was that the war was ending and even some of the most famous American generals were laid off were just sent home and so there was a new war a new possible war against the Indians it created career opportunities for the existing army and so of course the army became the lobbyists for the Indian wars as much as the enemy because it meant to continue to pay and all the rest that goes along with it and so I do mention that in the book chapter that I was talking about and they weren't part of it and just like any other government bureaucracy you know or not even government bureaucracies a lot of non-profit groups too the march of the Indians was created to cure health, cure polio and it's still around as far as I know it's sort of pretty natural on the transcontinentals the Great Northern Railroad that I mentioned was built in the late 1870s after it was after the Civil War of course and after the building of the government subsidized railroads and so in my other one I had to make a point that the free market did build the transcontinental railroad it just did it a few years later and so the case there was a market failure case was made for the subsidies transcontinental railroad saying capital markets would never be sufficient but James J. Hill proved that they were just a few years later and of course the ones that were built that were subsidized by the government were horribly efficient every politician in America went on a separate rail line to his district in return for his votes and so the rail line to the west coast looked like a cobweb as opposed to James J. Hill's straight line across the Rocky Mountains and so that's I guess I answered your question I have a question that people will receive from so long what are the general concerns that the intellectual property seems to be rolling along with gathering of strength as it goes copyright periods being extended penalties are being increased and of course the agency is popping up all over the world is there any good news on the anti-intellectual property front that you can tell us about? Well I think if the libertarian circles are increasing awareness that it's not the libertarian and I think the internet has basically made some types of IP enforcement almost impossible but I guess it does make you go along there are some movements among some groups software types people like this that they do advocate or reduce their protection but you know we have the actor coming up we do a copyright term so I don't think it's getting very much better security say you were to put your argument to the internet this one won't take any immediate commercial application nevertheless there may be long term advantages to this the researcher who makes the grant would employ a research assistant who will gain more knowledge this research assistant may and some will will of course produce a product which has a commercial application he would say we can't really quantify these effects but I'll have a chance that we can't do that do you think that's the kind of answer you would give him? I'm here to meet the minister that would be a software article that was an intelligent one but they're trying to say that sort of thing but let me explain why they would be wrong it might even be that the more and the better the scientists that are funded by the government the greater the damage to the economy imagine an economy where there is no government funding for science and all the best scientists who work in the industry really help the economy grow and then the government comes along to the President of the Science Foundation takes all the proof and then it is brilliant to organise really discriminative takes all the best scientists out of the industry put them a separate foundation which would be lots of money to produce lots of papers which by the way no one else by the way would feel would then read and the result is an impoverishing by growth by taking the best research out of the industry the travel years of government funding science simply seems only to cry about private funding public organisations a 19th century comedy welcome trust they're coming back again now but that's an independent perception of a shortage of funding the problem is that there is no evidence that the model that you fund scientists independently of the industry and somehow it trickles out to the industry and can be exploited that model seems to be false it's actually largely science within the industry industry is 7% more industrial of surgeons than pure science industrial of surgeons than pure science because it has subtle task implications so you have to sound that the Minister would say that and because of crowding out and because the model is wrong because you need scientists to actually illustrate itself he would actually be wrong but that's what he would say or she I was just curious of you have you any information the reason like in Germany the out-of-system was so prestigious was this precisely being the only the famous scientist and the best scientist together in a national system you don't you don't explain to everyone what the system is because not everyone understands well it is exactly the sort of system where at the government at one point when Germany became central state and the need for industrialization asserted itself states organized under the directorship of Mr. Altman a system where all the best forces in science and research were as it were brought together in a single system with specialized research institutes and so on which was funded by the state and which is often credited to the expansion of zero power in the world do you mean Kaiser Wilhelm institutes do you mean Kaiser Wilhelm institutes and then Latterley also known as the Max Max but these are the two very interesting things about the need for agriculture that they never tell you in 1850 Germany in terms of GDP the capital and level of industrialization was only 79% that of Britain's in 1850 100 years later in 1914 after Britain had been left there for 100 years and Germany highly eugies for the kind of the homes used for the rest of it for 100 years Germany still was only 75% of the level of GDP the capital and only 75% of the level of industrialization or Britain total failure to convert it's just a myth that Germany might essentially increase economic growth the Kaiser very famously said two or three months before the war broke out in 1914 that he had to go towards soon because certainly his potential in such as Russia were successfully converging on Britain and Germany was not in the right and the other really interesting thing about Germany is many of the great German discoveries are actually not funded by the state Germans are fed a false history of their own country in the motor car the whole business of four and the invention of the motor car had nothing to do with the state zeppelin, self-funded many of the great German discoveries were absolutely in the market and Germany is fed a false history of one economic success in the 19th century actually one of the reasons there are certainly German names in America is that the millions and the millions of Germans had to leave Germany in the 19th century for simple facts of poverty Germany did not do well economically relative to the leading countries and many of the advantages and discoveries were actually made independent of the state his example about government funded science diverts engineers from the private sector to the government sector well it did not divert engineers at all the money that would have been spent on government science would have been spent on anything else and we can't we don't know what it would be but it doesn't necessarily need to be private science and it will cause creativity and job creation and other parts of the economy in other words the opportunity cost the economic concept of opportunity cost should be considered here and it involves more than just an engineer not working for NASA but working for some corporation instead it's a little more global than that I have two questions one is for my question is my question is I think it's sort of about you to think about the names of the hands that are most of the American hands as being some of the people who are trying whatever you want and it all could have been resolved very personally I think they had a different idea of poverty which created a lot of problems and they were pretty well documented their violence against the American universe in the first place and I would argue that's reactive but I was then reacting to the presence of the American universe imposing themselves on the Indian's land and I would be able to find each other all the time anyway so I'm asking if taking to the question of conclusion would be my understanding that he's never shown a culture anymore not in the world I didn't say that I didn't say what you said in the first part of your thing when you referred to naive either that's not what I said in my talk so you sort of set up a straw man question there there always was some degree of conflict and there's been a lot of research on books written about this the catalog or history of conflict between Indians and European immigrants in America and the argument that I'm making is that it escalated exponentially during and after the American Civil War but there were a lot many instances of trade and cooperation that I mentioned in my talk I didn't say that the Indians were sort of these naive do-gooders who only wanted to welcome the Europeans to their country and sell them corn or anything like that as you sort of suggested in your question but I think there were many examples of guilt-turned I mentioned James J. Hill who cooperated with Indians trading with them for rights away across their land, livestock and things like that and in Canada Canada didn't do the same thing with the Americans as far as massacring the Indians to get away with the railroads so I don't deny that Indians you know engage in bad behavior I think it's ridiculous that we call the Indians savages when our own U.S. Army scalps women and children during the Indian wars who's the savages there as far as the type of behavior the savagery on both sides and I just made the argument that putting the standing army there was essentially a form of corporate welfare for the railroad corporations and I cite the words of General Sherman that he considered that to be his new job after the end of the Civil War to make way for the railroads so Europeans shouldn't come to the railroad why not my other question is from a professor I was just wondering what prevents the revolution from licensing in general and being able to develop a vision of the American economy that is a very good question because the British and the French and the Germans paid the license fees but because the American government Glenn Curtis, the Smithsonian all got together all the railroads and competitors got together to deny that the railroads were flown first to claim that the railroads were flown first they were constrained from getting licenses from the railroads because that would deny their own claims and they're not there first because they're trapped they come to claim them or they're felt that they're going to buy the licenses because they would be obliged to the railroads' patents and presence so by challenging the railroads of patents they removed themselves from the ability to get the licenses and so American aviation was simply inspired and the railroads themselves were being miserable and cynical they spent their whole time they stopped flying as well I'd also like to talk about a cultural example for Dr. Hallman I'd like you to talk about the case of aviation in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union I'm a complete amateur on this subject although I know that when it came to apartments it was fairly meaningless people like my parents basically bought it from the government things became more complicated when it came to the issue of land which the land is the last national resource so in cases of companies like I've been in all of the building but not the land on it which caused us all kinds of problems so I'd like you to talk about how that sort of thing should have been resolved thank you I do have a little chapter in my democracy that God that fails that deals was the question of how to desocialize previously socialistic countries in cases like East Germany for instance where you had property titles and recordings still in existence the original ownership which specifically should have been arrested should have received their property back in countries like Russia where many records had been destroyed that would obviously more difficult to do for those countries again there is no there is no a realistic COE how to use it that requires some wisdom but there are some some basic some basic rules those people currently work in various factories and there are also people who should be restored into this position the current factory workers should become the owners of it have shares that they can sell so almost as the stolen of the communists workers should build the factories the farmers should own the land and so forth except of course it must be a title that can be traded free in the market to make it possible that this again concentration of property in the hands of those that are newly better in all those hands of those who simply do not want to bear any risk but remain employees in welfare states the privatization is in a way easier because they also get all publicly owned goods have been produced with tax funds and there is tax record so to speak that would allow us to say how much did I pay in local taxes how much did I pay in state taxes how much did I pay in federal taxes because the extent that these records can be produced people would simply acquire a share according to their previous tax payments in these various public goods so we store ourselves a valid title to the property in those cases where there is no valid title or things get lost in history and we do not know who is who is the owner then we use some sort of similar ideas a homesteading idea the workers working in a factory have indeed so to speak homestead it and they get an equal share that can be sold I have a question for Mr. Kinsella my line is very simple then you can know about the law some people always do it else but how would that look I suppose there would be a law some people do it in private law private law society what is the line of argument for that that there would be probably no private law I don't understand the question under private law society property society where there is no law monopoly how would that society look concerning private law I think you described a society or libertarian principle we are the only way to reach private law society and of course property rights would be strongly protected so it would be seen that any type of proposal would be just an infringement so for example if there is a private property widely respected and protected by whatever legal system exists in private society if someone tries to for copy this idea let's say what he is asking the court to do is to force his neighbor to give him some of his property well for example he owns his property in terms of the money damages let's say or to get an injunction on a border telling this guy you can't use your money perhaps in a certain way and you can't use the XYZ so then the answer to the question the question is well who owns the property who owns the money the defendant owns the money perhaps you can justify that basically you've committed a crime or a contract in case you're taking some of the property away so basically sanctity of property rights rules out the ability to have property rights and ideas and patterns in fact it's basically it undercuts the homesteading rule it's sort of a new homesteading rule instead of saying the first person to use this property is a signing title beyond the line the best claim to this piece is the scarce resource to make a successful IP claim you would have to basically come up with a second rule which is if someone owns a resource it can be used in a certain way according to not the other one to come up with so like sitting in your house and coming up with ideas you start getting these claims partial ownership claims to property already homesteaded now and it undercuts the basis of property rights I just want to go back briefly to the question before one of the issues is you have land and let's say you have somebody who owned the land previously but in the meantime the structure has been directed on the land you cannot physically separate one from the other in this situation the old landowner and the new construction owner so to speak there is no other possibility that they have to bargain and obviously they have an interest in coming to a quick conclusion in this because after all one cannot really sell anything without the other but there is no other solution to bargain in this case what part of the ownership should go to the land or the part of the ownership should go the newly directed structure on the land that originally belonged to someone else there is no other solution but to bargain because they both have an interest in coming to a quick solution I think judges arbitrators in this case would come up very profite with mutually beneficial solutions to the problem I would like to challenge some statements about German economic development before the first world war basically because I found them very strange having many books German history over the last 40 years and from what I would gather although Germany may not close the industrial gap being very close to doing this by the first world war during the war the industrial output is later which is not surprising that Russia didn't keep up on us until the war before they really was concerned about the disproportion in military in military because the graph in France was much greater was more intensive than in Germany the catch rate in Germany was probably the lowest in Europe despite the fact that there were social programs under Kassel about 5.7% to be visible by Eberhaug Schraub who came up last year which deals with economic development in this period unfortunately not in French in English there also is a fact that many of those institutes who support the scientific research came from private sources they certainly were not entirely state funded one can of course complain about the taxation in Germany or in the United States in this period but there were private industrial benefactors primarily that gave money to the institutes that would do the scientific research in any case those are the critical points that I raised thank you for that it was on the 21st of June 1914 when the crisis was totaled by Max Barberg and he was contemplating an early war because Germany's economy was falling behind when it did his attention and he was losing his will over victory and he was absolutely right by the way about the growth and the basic and private funding for research in Germany which is not often talked about as much as it should be the key is this business of anecdotes the wonderful thing about Angus Madison's data is it's quantitative and anecdotal and you simply have to look at the data and Germany simply failed to converge on Britain it didn't even do a particularly good job on nearly converging Britain the French did a very good job paradoxically and I think that the difference between anecdotes and Angus Madison's constant data is I find very interesting Germany of course is a much bigger country so although it's lower in terms of GDP it's a larger population and so in total it becomes more powerful in Britain but relatively I think Madison's data is surprisingly interesting and it goes against so much of these anecdotes that's what I would say in reply but we should disagree we should look at the facts with nine of us having a front of us and Madison can prove human rights when we write I haven't got the facts in front of me but I'm pretty sure that's what he says but we don't have to argue more than anyone else can we agree to disagree on that? yes yes I have a question for Professor Keeley an actual link between the presentation and that of the U.S. legislature regarding the economic normal prices so what can you say about the destruction of human science by government funding? I very much regret it was my arms punished my hands to get lost but I was okay yesterday who would even bother giving me other prices I'm really delighted that I was so jealous that I couldn't get to the talk but I can't comment Saturday because I didn't get to the talk so I'm just sitting in another party but I wish I could come to the talk I have no other question but I'd like to hear from Professor Keeley just a commentary on what Professor Keeley said about bargaining for the U.S. legislation because this question emerges all the time regarding the American law regarding fuel basic fuel systems in assailants and in farms in general but of course with the same solution provided by because any modification that the descendants of the original owners from most areas of the land have done added to fuel means have to be subtracted from the implications of that the U.S. authorities and the Republican era that the Americans did again it's what we use very much for we use experts to ascertain how assets have anybody over time and who owns how much of a group can you just tell me briefly Mark the principle has to be that he who currently occupies something the presumption is of course in his favor that he is the owner unless somebody else can show that he is actually the original owner it is not sufficient to say the current owner somehow came into the possession that he has right now due to certain crimes that occurred in the distant past that is frankly the case for everything that we ever have any piece of land that is owned that was somehow acquired there was some crime occurred in the course of history but this does not show that some specific other individual has a claim to it so only if a specific individual can show that they have a better claim to this piece of property than the current possessor by showing records and so forth and detailing the crimes that have occurred in the past would we want to restore them so if the Indians say we want to claim that back was a role the Italians want to claim certain territories back that is not sufficient to establish any valid claim specific individuals must show that they are actually the right for the owner instead of the person who is current so this is despite these socialist countries we do face tremendous difficulties because sometimes we simply cannot trace that they are nothing to the past in order to establish who is the right for owner and then we must what do we do with property where no past rightful owner can be established how do we privatize that and then I would say those people who currently may use or have made currently use of the property have of course a better claim to it than somebody who lives 1000 miles away this is a comment on after Daniel's talk what drives me by light is the increasingly strong organization of public life because we do not like people smoking it is associated with bad life so we forbid but we like our football teams and therefore we promote our practices where children may be prosecuted for racist comments where we see servants dealing with minimize to seek to recycle property and where even if the government has to make us make money we prosecute them because people making that much money I was wondering if you wanted to comment on that what I would say is that that kind of moral not moralization moralisticization in public life is obviously going on at the same time there is demoralization of the private life so that there is this kind of paradox and of course as people become more demoralized so social pathology increases which kills the public more and more superficially more and more reason to interfere and they are constantly our public authorities are constantly chasing the consequences of the bad behavior of our people but I don't really have anything else to say of course one of the things another disaster has been that we have to employ large numbers of public administration because we insist on sending them to university and they can't really anything else and one way to employ them is to interfere in other people's lives this is sort of a forward question really so I I think for example without the the legitimate the european in the sense that the european all the land and they are necessarily in the european hands because it was more of a conflict and if anybody could just think about the conflict in the region with the israel with the origins of israel in the sense of the wealthy the cross-states for example the land in israel from the Ottoman to the the the nucleus of israel was the general the expansion of israel how do we grasp these how do we grasp these topics how do you cite what the general principles of the legitimate revolution well my talk had nothing to do with Israel's life I'm not sure what any good questions had to do with what I actually said my talk wasn't a general discussion of land ownership throughout the world the point I was making was the US government has false virtue in claiming that what it did during and after the war years was so exceptionally virtuous it gives an essentially a carte blanche to a rural world essentially and this was one chapter of this book that I was describing and so I didn't lay out the philosophical or legalistic case for land ownership I was just trying to describe the history of what happened I didn't make any moral or ethical judgment on who should own the land and who shouldn't I was just describing what happened as far as I'm not sure how useful it could be for me to speculate on these kind of questions I wouldn't say the Europeans should not own the Midwest because some of the land was acquired by purchase but in the 20th century it spent more than $800 billion on purchasing land including what is some of the Midwest so it wasn't all through conquest as far as that goes Again that is different from case to case and it depends very much on what time lag is involved who of the Indians even if they were harmed some land was stolen some land was acquired in any case who can prove now that they have a better title to the land than those who sit on the land the closer these events are to the present the easier it is to figure these disputes out in the case of Israel I'm sure there are many Palestinians who can show clear cut titles to land that was taken away from that if you go back 100 years to 100 years it is almost impossible that you can just show the necessary documents that establish you instead of somebody else as you know I can just take a small point the lady back there and I was like, should we the English ever have gone to North America and all I can say is I wrote a piece of the title three years ago which I quite like that the original English in the Mayfiles people who landed in Massachusetts and at the same time English landed in Virginia and they each landed on land owned by a tribe and what is extraordinary is that both sets of English colonists engaged in a genocide war against that very tribe and what is also extraordinary is they write back to their sponsors back in England full of pride in how they killed the energy they did terrible work they were raping and murdering with months of arriving in the North American continent and their sponsors back in England were shocked at the speed with which they had gone so you just put that money in times high in America's savagery and it is most of the sort the moment we arrived in England we went for the big nice English people the whole North Americans and all the whole Newspapers I was wondering was there a tendency when I was sitting in the press to say that parents did not think that their children should be prosecuted to have their children taken away from them like not to vaccinate a child and I was thinking do you think the Navy would take this even earlier to say that any parent that smokes in the house of a child because there is a proven model do you think the press would take this earlier to say that that should constitute a neglect and parents that smoke them around their kids especially since there is evidence that says that parents that smoke have children that are more likely to smoke themselves do you think that maybe that should constitute an abuse because they are pushing the boundaries of what constitutes abuse more and more and trying to set the family to take control of what should be the role of the parent I don't think that is a distinct possibility and of course since there is no evidence of a number of things that can be shown to do good or harm there is no any sort of potential of interference it is already the case that I believe that it is very difficult for parents to adopt a child smoking is one of the few things that will conclude anyone from being able to adopt but of course one of the things about this is that it will always be applied insistently according to a preconceived moral conception so I can well see it I mean there will be smoker arms in people's homes and social workers will come rushing and protect children from from smoke the smoke from there I think it is well moving about but the other thing I must say is that my experience is that satire is prophecy so if you think of a satirical idea it will be in about 10 years and it is actually a reality there is a whole question of property restitution years ago I co-published a paper about Pakistan and the restitution regarding all the socialist countries and this argument was as follows I want to restrict the restitution to the generation which suffered it because beginning it accepting the restitution for the next generation is not they didn't suffer but they received it as a windfall of profit for themselves so I don't think that there is anybody here who would support this argument because this I find impossible absolutely unethical but is there I think we should complicate this question of time limit isn't the time limit at such a limit the restitution or is the time limit only in the sense that it makes it much more difficult to define the property rights of the family of the rest of the world but there are also and there are two people in our case in the 19th century when a member of the Wallenschein family complained and they claimed the restitution of the property of the historical Wallenschein whose property was confiscated because of Mosfai's empire and they have all the neighbors because the family wasn't possessive all the neighbors didn't succeed in this on the other hand there are cases of restitution with time spans of more than 300 years for political decisions for instance the French Revolution which has the property of the landlords for obvious political reasons so I would like to give you an assessment of this time limit regarding the restitution it is not the time limit as such the time limit makes it practically more complicated otherwise the Wallenschein would be an attack on inheritance on inheritance rights since I think that can be justified quite well this is the right if he would be able to establish a period cut trace that goes back 300 years I would not be opposed to restoring the original owners even though these are the descendants of descendants of descendants so time makes the problem more complicated as a technical and practical affair but in principle of course it is unimportant unless somebody takes a right of inheritance is unjust which I think is a ridiculous position to take but again then people would have to take that position I am against the right of inheritance I should mention that also there exists also some things libertarians or people call themselves libertarian I think there should be no right of inheritance for instance this is a typical case also Patrick Buchanan has also come out against the right of inheritance I think Buchanan's case he has no children that would make sense as he can Jerry Buchanan's case he has also no children it also makes sense two more questions open questions to the panel the past three days we've heard sort of state of the union different areas about the way in which the state intermeets in people's lives we've heard about in banking the issue of credit controlling currencies the Swiss central banking or the puncher currency 20% in a matter of days work for fair back in the time Tom was talking about actually took a lot of in and a lot of bullets in the capital now I heard a drone and wiped out the village in a very efficient and bad way sense of the word in health in patient to be able to control people's lives through technology cameras I'm just driving on the highway and notice they don't bother pulling people over in large part they should take its in some areas now there's just a camera that auto clocks your speed auto photographs you in the front seat you're driving a car in a license plate you're going to take the mail no human capital required so I wanted to cure your speculations on where does this lead you know I mean people who are like mine in this room who track the rise in states destructive abilities and power and the way that technology can be promised for bad purposes where does it end what do you think the the trend is well my name is the state only exists I've been seen as legitimate by most people here so I think over time we're home across from us I mean I wouldn't move Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed it was a learning experience before that happened most people really had no idea about communism whether it was a good or bad except that people suffered but now there's sort of widespread knowledge among you see your average American that communism doesn't work it was a learning experience not just the intellectuals so my only hope is that over time as we move forward despite the state the decrease in the technology that people will just sort of gradually become more economically liberated and have more money to engage in so I think you cannot literacy is the only hope and you know it's being spread there are many more free market thinkers in Argentina so I think there's some hope but I don't think it's going to be quick so I would just say I think make fun of the government treat them as clowns that have been labeled before I actually I'm looking for somebody who is a comedian that could be invited for something like this I think we would have plenty of talent around here who could act as those drivers for these comedians so if you have some suggestion who might be a potential candidate for this sort of stuff I would be very happy because this is exactly what I see only if people in large masses certainly treat these people as jokes only then will we succeed in digitalizing that unfortunately we tend to be all serious scholarly types and are not all that successful because okay I told you any suggestions as well well that's I would agree completely about making fun of mocking these people not just them but the media lab dogs too who are popular we had a bit of a controversy in the U.S. several weeks ago with Ron Paul's son and he mentioned the Civil Rights Act in 1964 there was a damage to property rights in the media when Berserk over it there was a woman named Rachel Meddow who was on television as a news show and I blogged about her sort of dear Rachel letter and I said I understand you've got your panties in there and I know all the deep conservative is saying I shouldn't say things like that I don't want me to disagree and I was I think people will read this and they get a good chuckle and next time they see Rachel Meddow on TV I'll think of the panties in the mouth I wonder what's under that so that's the reason I do things I think it's important not just being fun being silly I think which is seriously I use more comedy in the American case of what's going on it's pretty kind of interesting because of the constitutionalism of it the constitution no longer for many years has any strength at all in the government the republicans use the constitution to try to stop what the democrats are doing once in a while and the democrats use the constitution to try to stop what the republicans are doing but neither party believes in using the constitution to live in government and at least when Bill Clinton was president he was at least worried about the effects of higher taxes where he wanted to raise taxes for social life medicine and his secretary said it was going to be devastating to the bond market and including famously he used a lot of customary inside of not to raise taxes but now all of Obama not anything derives he even helped the bond market he didn't care about the $20 a year deficit so there are no restraints whatsoever but what has that has led to is actually all kind of talk serious talk about secession and nullification there are something like 40 states maybe more than that now at least issued resolutions saying that they intended nullified laws that they think are unconstitutional like the socialized health care law that Obama just passed nothing may come of it but americans are at least waking up to their own history of how they used to do it they used to nullify laws that they thought were unconstitutional themselves they didn't wait for the supreme court isn't it a farce that we have a system where the government sets the limits on its own powers to the supreme court and of course they did not rule a single law to be unconstitutional on the US from 1937 to 1995 everything was just peachy keen for the supreme court but that seems to be turning around our friend Tom Woods has a book coming out on nullification at the end of this month and it will probably be a big seller and as our friend Gary North says you can't fight the city at all but you can and be on the steps and run away