 Welcome back once again to Misa's weekends. I'm your host Jeff Deist and we're continuing our series Featuring some of the young scholars here at the Misa Institute acting as summer fellows and this weekend We're talking to Lukasz Dominjak, who is an adjunct scholar at Copernicus University in Poland And this summer as he studies and researches with us He's focusing on the works of Hans Hermann Hoppe and some of the cultural aspects of a libertarian legal system Lukasz and I also discussed the tension between liberty and free immigration in supposedly democratic states Where we have arbitrary national borders instead of hoppy and private property boundaries and as a result This clouds the issue of immigration for libertarians And we wrap up our conversation talking about Hoppe's concept of private defense where protection against invaders Would be more a function of collective agreements and insurance arrangements than armies So if you're interested in Hoppe private law and the role of culture in libertarian theory stay tuned for a great interview with Lukasz Dominjak Lukasz Dominjak welcome to Misa's weekends. Thank you for having me So more importantly welcome to the Misa's Institute We're very happy and pleased and grateful that you chose to spend your summer with us For starters, why don't you tell us a little bit about how you came to be Interested in Austrian economics and the Misa's Institute Right. So actually I think the interesting thing is that my background is not economics is political philosophy so I somehow come from political philosophy and I'm still within the remit of political philosophy more than economics and I Think I basically starting political philosophy. You just get acquainted with libertarianism This is one of the most important contemporary political philosophies and But I would say like within this mainstream political philosophy you usually encounter Robert Nozick Libertarianism particularly his book Anarchy, State and Utopia. We just know how different from What we have within the Rothbardian Hoppean Libertarianism, I think this is this are two different approaches towards problem of liberty and and private property so basically I Got acquainted with Robert Nozick quite early in my career as a political philosopher and I wasn't really at that time Captivated by his approach. I was working within classical tradition. I would say like I was taught to Aquinas and contemporary representatives of this tradition and so basically My PhD was about communitarianism. This is Mainly anglophone Philosophy concerned with the concept of community and how individual operates within different Communities and but later on I read Hobbesburg democracy they've got that failed and he really captivated me. I think like his arguments are really strong arguments against statism and I found particularly interesting arguments against democracy and my boss at university is a monarchist So I had some like natural inclination towards anti-democratic political views and Yeah, it somehow found Interesting expressions were in the hoppers. So what is your particular line of research that you're working on this summer? Yeah, this summer. I'm working on a project that In one sense out I would call it a connection between anarcho-capitalism on a political and economic level with cultural conservatism, but I think that To understand this project we should look a little bit into background of it So I think that libertarianism particularly in this Rothbardian Hopiian tradition is a quite narrow or thin political philosophy It means that libertarianism is concerned mainly with with one question what are justified and unjustified ways of using violence and because it starts from two main axioms as a political philosophy, which is axiom of self-ownership and Principle of non-aggression it answers these questions in the following way. So anything that is Against these two principles anything that violates these two principles is considered unjustified use of violence and anything that Defends these two principles is considered justified use of violence and there's a third, I think part in this understanding of libertarianism that anything that does not follow into This two categories is left for individual choice So in this sense libertarianism is a thin political philosophy because other political philosophies usually Consider the question of a good life as a political matter so for example How people should behave morally is also considered a question for state power legal Issues law legislation and so on so forth libertarianism in this sense is a thin philosophy But it raises a question I believe because libertarianism is somehow mute on these problems which which can be called moral or cultural and the question is what would be the Cultural tissue of an aquacaptive society what would be the moral code of such a society and Basically, I'm trying to tackle this question and my answer at least tentatively is that this moral code and cultural Tissue would be conservative. So if we accept the view that political libertarianism is a thin Philosophy, it's just a philosophy on what the state should not do It sounds like what you're saying is the culture that arises in this political arrangement is one that stands or falls on its own merits It's not state directed. Yeah, that's true. I and I believe that there are many arguments that can show why libertarian Society would be a conservative society. So of course, there are reasons that we can say Direct that show that society would be conservatives. So for example, we know that libertarianism is Political philosophy that is in favor of private property and we know that what we consider as a conservative moral code we don't have time probably to define conservatism here, but More or less, we can say that Christian morality is what is meant by conservative morality Usually and if we take for example, the seventh commandment that that say as our shot shout not steal Then we know that libertarianism is of course directly in favor of this Moral commandment and that statism is say is against it that taxation in any kind of form for example state created legislation or state created Inflation is stealing basically so that there's a like there are some direct ways in which libertarianism promotes Conservatism, but there are also other ways for example, I believe that a lot of moral turmoil that we experienced these days is caused by somehow elevating to the rank of public problems behaviors and issues that have been with us from the dawn of time but Always confined to the private sphere and now they somehow elevated the rank of public problems and because Such institutions as mainly state Public health service and social security Even marriages they would be privatized then all these problems as public issues would disappear immediately In an aquacouple of society, but I believe also that as a most more sophisticated arguments that show that Libertarianism would be conducive to cultural conservatism One of these arguments that I'm working on is a argument that is based on so-called frequency theory of probability Developed by Yiddishad von Mises and then refined by Ludwig von Mises his brother and this theory basically says that For a probability of a given event This particular event has to be a part of a class of events in such a way that we don't know anything about this event Except that is a part of the class of this event So basically for insurance company to estimate probability and therefore to calculate premiums insurance premiums Particular risk or particular event has to be of this sort which is an event of a particular class of events and Obviously as far as human human actions are concerned. We know that human actions Some intentional behaviors are not this kind of events Because at least a human actor knows something more about particular Action of his then this action is a member of a class of actions of this type He knows that this action is actually a matter of his decision. He's free choice. So in a word basically, it's impossible to ensure yourself against your own actions and It would be impossible for insurance companies if they wanted to ensure this kind of Intentional behaviors to calculate proper insurance premiums it means that plethora of behaviors that These days are Insured against through state wouldn't be insurable behaviors insurable risks and if costs rise then Probably the occurrence of a particular behavior would decrease. Well, it's interesting Because it sounds to me like Your thesis is that Libertinism would actually be less common in a libertarian society because the individual would bear more the direct cost of his or her lifestyle choices Yeah, absolutely. I agree with with this and I think that would be the case We know historically that libertarianism was connected or was interpreted as promoting nihilism or Libertinism, but I believe it's not the case. It's exactly the opposite. It's like libertarianism is a political philosophy Political economic order that promotes conservative Order, well, you've studied hopper at length could you give us a Recently concise definition of what hopper would conceive of as a as a private law society what that might look like I think that private law society Would be based on Obviously on the concept of private property and the concept of contract. So any kind of contracts that freely acting individuals would Would make would be valid and any value Violation of this contract and a violation of private property rights would be punished in a private law society private law society as far as I understand it is also a Society in which everyone is governed by the same law and we know that it's not the case these days That in Western democracies, we are governed by two different laws private law and public law and that these two different laws and Make us unequal before the law so in a private law society would have a situation which people would be equal before the one law and This law wouldn't be considered a matter of legislation that would be considered a rather Moral a legal code that exists And it's probably developed only in an evolutionary way That couldn't be enacted by some body like parliament or any any other this kind of political entity, of course and I believe That's private society when we switch our focus from this legal question about private property and How how would it work and and how would contracts work? Into the question of culture that private law society would be a society in which We would have much less voice these days called tolerance and much more voice these days called and The readers as discrimination So talking about culture and talking about hoppa Here's the irony that I would suggest is that in both a libertarian or private law model and in a socialist or status model both of these tend to work better in socially cohesive high-trust societies, but it seems like that the project in Europe is going in completely the opposite direction It's a centralized status system under the euro, which is based on multiculturalism So what what would a more hoppy in Europe look like for example? I agree with what you said about the current European project that it's a multicultural and somehow based on forced integration political project and I think that Hoppy in Europe would look like more like actually that this is what he says in in in many places that at least this let's say transitory a stage of coming from status society to Purely private law society should look like a Europe of ten thousand Liechtenstein's Which is small political entities That would be by the very fact of being small forced to be liberal it's a free trade with each other and that would be under constant pressure of their citizens voting with their feet so that would provide this natural pressure for this entities to be to be liberal and the process of Succeeding from from a bigger entity to smaller entity would continue up to the level of particular communities So hoppy and vision of Europe would be exactly the opposite What is going on these days in Europe as far as European Union is concerned because as you said European Union is a project of centralized government where power is Taken even from the level of nation-states Taken from the level of nation-states and given to the central European Union bureaucrats As far as the second problem mentioned by his concern, which is a problem of multiculturalism. I believe that private law society and the very concept of private property presupposes discrimination or presupposes power to discriminate because to be a Owner of private property means that I'm the exclusive owner I'm the I'm the only person that can decide how this property can be used and no one is Allowed to interfere with my decision. So basically, I think it means that first of all all these pressures that exist these days in Western world and European in particular, I believe that force people to use their private property In a way that I'm not willing to use of course would disappear in a private law society Let's talk about immigration very touchy subject for libertarians on the one hand We believe in self-determination We want individuals to travel and live their lives as they see fit and most of us don't want national borders state Derived national borders to begin with but there's a very strong hoppy and a private property element Involved in the movement of individuals from point A to point B So what might immigration look like in a more hoppy and society first of all? I think that we believe that political borders are arbitrary and that borders of private property are objective and Natural so as far as Immigration is concerned as far as immigration is a matter of political decision. There is always a problem of trust trespassing natural borders at the same time trust passing of natural borders is Interpreted in the political language as a free immigration. It's free immigration as far as national political borders are concerned but as far as national and political borders are natural borders arbitrary borders They're always somehow in conflict with Private property borders. So I believe that does the problem of of so-called free immigration There was I think quite good argument given by hopper was the difference between free trade and free immigration So free trade is a situation which good No travel But for a good to travel this good has to be invited that there has to be some purchaser I would like to purchase a good otherwise this good will not travel over borders with free so-called free immigration Is different because usually free immigration is not a matter of invitation It's a matter of political decision. So in a way people are invited to a country Defined by the political borders, but they don't they don't have to Necessarily be invited at the same time to the natural borders of private property So so yeah, this is as far as diagnosis of a current situation goes. I think like in a hopin society immigration would be immigration on Invitation invitation would be would be the Crucial thing in a private law society if you invite it then you can travel if you're not invited Then any traveling would be actually a trespassing would be invasion of private property So invitation would be necessary condition and I think that people would invite other people if they can contribute some something to their lives and their Prosperity in their culture knowledge and so on so forth So no discussion of hoppa would be complete without talking about so-called national defense if we had a series of smaller Independent private law society's 10,000 lichtensteins as you put it earlier throughout Europe. How would they collectively? Defend themselves against let's say other states that were not private Like the much wanted threat from Russia How would in a hopping society? Poland in the Baltic states and the Scandinavian states for example Provide themselves with some kind of defense against aggressors Right. So so maybe before answering this main question some remark about this haunted fear of Russia. I think that This is interesting because my view but the mainstream view. Yeah, that's the mainstream view It's not necessarily the case if you look at add a problem of a conflict in the Ukraine It's it's more complicated. I and I think that European Union had a Some role in starting this this conflict as well not only Russia but We're coming back to them to the main question I believe that it's it's not so easy actually to invade our foreign country for say I don't know for Russia for some some other state a first of all even Authoritarian or totalitarian regimes they depend domestically on the opinion of the subjects So basically there must be some way of persuading people that give this Legitimacy to a political power that particular invasion is justified So first of all there must be some way of justification of invasion, which is not always so easy And I think it's particularly not easy if invasion is an invasion Against free society so free society is not a society in which we have dictatorship in which we have Genocide in which we have some other reasons that could that could justify invasion So that would be the first barrier. I believe the first problem that would Dictator would encounter if he wanted to invade free society and the second problem I believe he would he would face would be basically problem with Somehow fighting with insurance agencies insurance company because in a free society Private protection would be provided by probably provided by insurance companies insurance companies are usually international companies multinational companies really powerful economically and They are not so easy To fight against them and they wouldn't be so easy to fight a fight against in a free society in which they would provide also protection and defense for Private property owners, so that would be the second problem believe that this dictator or Statist that would like to invade the free society would have to face and I believe that would be the third problem as well Free society would be Generally armed society people that are armed Difficult to fight against because Contemporary war is a war when two armies fight against each other on the one hand It's true that this distinction between combatants and non combatants is blurred these days because of because of the democracy and welfare standards of also so on so forth, but still this Invader this army invading free society would have to fight with each particular Property owner, so we could say that every citizen of free society would be a threat For an army invading so again We know from history that it's not so easy to fight against a society. That is Utterly against the invader so we know about Vietnam. We know about Afghanistan It's really difficult to win against this entity Well as a Japanese general was purported to have said during World War two about America a rifle behind every blade of grass And with that Lucas Dominic. Thank you so much for a fascinating interview and ladies gentlemen. Have a great weekend