 There are many, many different approaches to the subject of ethics foundations. I have listed the most important here. Of course, well, don't be afraid because they all more or less lead to the same set of basic values. And I am going to use the last being a scientific myself. I am going to use the last one. The last one which is very close to the objectivist approach. The main difference being that even more care is given to precise statement of the premises and a step by step derivation of the conclusions. The basic premise of our approach is about the maintenance of life. All functions of all living organisms have but one objective, to maintain the life of the organism. So no wonder that an organism's life is its standard of value. That which furthers its life is the good and that which threatens the life is the evil. Applied to man, which is a particular very evolved organism, these statements are the very foundation of ethics. Said Einrand 30 years ago, I let you read it, note that 150 years ago the great French libertarian Frédéric Bastia was already saying almost the same thing. Well, it is interesting to note that Einrand was a pure atheist while from the very first sentence here, Frédéric Bastia is making a reference to God. So it is fortunate that those two different approaches, the religious or the parareligious one and the atheist one, are leading to the same conclusions. So any living organism must react to external signals, get food and propagate through various actions. In plants and in inferior organisms, those actions are purely automatic like the temperature control in your apartment. Let me buzzer you a few minutes with a feedback control loop because it's going to serve our purpose later on. So this is a symbolic drawing of a control loop. For example, the temperature control in your apartment. What is a controller? You are setting a variable. For example, you want to set the temperature of your room at a certain point and you have an instrument, a thermometer, that reads the actual temperature in your room. And this device here, this black box, a controller, compares the control variable, which is the temperature of the room, and the point, the temperature that you have set on a dial. And if there is a difference between the two, a signal is sent and amplified and actions, an actuator here, most likely in this case, perhaps a martyr is going to open more, the door to open a valve to admit more fuel into your furnace. And this action is going to increase the temperature, to increase the control variable, up to a point where this variable here and the set point will be equal. So that's a feedback control mechanism. Now, in animals, those actions are instinctive. They are governed by a control process that is similar to that one, but that I am calling Algedonic after the British cybernetician Stafford Beer. Why Algedonic? Algen is derived from the Greek pleasure, pain and hedon, it is the Greek for pleasure. So we have a loop here that would apply to animals. We have replaced the notion of set point by the notion of threshold, and there is a mechanism here called the brain or the spinal cord that compares incoming signals of pain or pleasure to the threshold. And some action is taken if, for example, the pain exceeds the threshold. For example, if you put your hand on a hot plate, if there is too much of it, if you feel that pain and if it is greater than the threshold, there is a signal that is going to be sent to the muscle and you are going to withdraw the hand. Now, that kind of a feedback control does exist in men, but it is far more complex, as you imagine, in particular because actions and their consequences can be memorized, allowing learning and allowing improvement of a time. Let us lean on that slide for a minute. It shows that men as a brain, it is not always obvious, allowing him to analyze all his perceptions and feelings, to initiate actions, to remember the outcome of the actions. Here, memory. And to analyze these outcomes and to draw conclusions on how to improve on them. This is the attribute of men called reason. Now, men being conscious of what he is doing, the notion of pain as a signal in the previous slide that we saw extends here to the notion of suffering, psychic as well as physical suffering, and similarly, the notion of pleasure extends to that of satisfaction, happiness, fulfillment. To avoid suffering and to look for fulfillment, a man must make efforts to produce goods that he will consume, exchange or save. And the more he will make efforts, the more he will use his reason, the better the results. Now, let us examine what are the conditions for that kind of elaborate feedback control to work properly. Well, for it to work properly, the human being, first of all, must be free to try. If he's not free to try, he's not going to learn. So we have the first attribute here, freedom. Now, he must assume the consequences of his acts. Clearly, the learning process is going to work only if man is left assuming the consequences of his acts. And that is called responsibility. Responsibility is the art of assuming the consequences of one's acts. He should be able to compare his results with those of other people and accept them to be different and draw rational conclusions from it, which means that he should avoid envy. If someone is more successful than you, the thing to do is not to hope that next time the other guy is going to be less successful, and draw lessons to be more successful oneself. He should get the results of his efforts clearly for this look to work and not be stolen from the fruit of his efforts by other people. And he should be free to use them as he pleases. And in particular, he should be free to exchange them without constraints. And so this idea, this attribute, is of course the attribute of property. Now, he should be free to exchange his property with others, and for these exchanges to be efficient, they should exclude the lies. So for all practical purposes, here are the moral values that one can deduce from this primary concept of life maintenance. And note that no particular individual was singularized in my derivation. If these principles apply to me, they must also apply to you, which means that I must not achieve my own fulfillment at the expense of yours. One can use others only with their consent, usually through an exchange, and nothing should be obtained without their consent. Nothing should be obtained from another individual through coercion. Now, I hope that you have found this approach appealing. Yet, I told you that all approaches to ethics were leading to essentially the same basic rules of conduct, almost as if these rules were in fact contained in our very genes. And all approaches were nothing more than aposteriorized justifications. And to make the point, I shall compare the rules derived from my approach, this approach, to those derived from the first approach, which was on my list a moment ago, the Divino one. The Divino one, of course, is summarized in the Ten Commandments. And what do the Ten Commandments say? Well, we will leave aside the four first ones, because they relate to the relationships between men and God. And this is not the purpose of our topic, of course. The purpose of our topic is relationship with men, with other men. And there we have the six following commandments. And clearly, the three firsts, I'm not going to elaborate on them, but clearly, the three firsts are related to the maintenance of life, directly here or through the raising of the children. And then you have, of course, the issue of property, the issue of authenticity, the one of... And, of course, the issue of envy. Okay, show me your Bible. Let me go back a minute into that one here. Well, now that we are armed with universally accepted moral values, we are in a position to evaluate the different political-economic systems from the standpoint of their relationship to those values. On this slide here, I would like to emphasize two of the rules of conduct, because they are also identified as rights, human rights, freedom and property. And to characterize the different political-economic system, I am going to use these two criteria here of respect of rights, basically of freedom and private property. So here is a classification of the political-economic systems along two axes here. At any point on this ax, we present a degree of private property. So here, all the property is private and here everything is owned by the states. Similarly, on that scale here, you have the amount of rights detained by the individuals. Here, the individual has all the rights and governments have no purpose in protecting the individual rights, while here, of course, the state has all the rights and any rights that you can have are granted by the state. So if you use that scale here, you find that you can divide the political-economic system into four types. Here, you have liberal capitalism. It's important to distinguish capitalism and liberal capitalism, because fascism accepts private property. But in fascism, the state has all the rights and you have about to know. So capitalism, in my talk, obviously, whenever I use the concept of capitalism, I am referring to liberal capitalism and I urge you not to forget that for the rest of the talk, but there exists a non-liberal capitalism again. And in this quadrant here, we have democratic socialism and in this one, communism. Now, where do we stand in Western Europe? We stand somewhere around here, which is not very good. The United States is very little better than the United States today. I would put it here. And the only country which is really advanced from the standpoint of true liberalism is Switzerland. God protects her from going down that scale. Well, from this slide, I don't think that you can find... On this slide, I don't think that you cannot plot any country in the world that would be truly liberal, that would be here. We almost got that once in the history of humanity. It almost existed in the United States for a century when state and federal governments did not yet dare to violate the Declaration of Independence, which I remind for you here, at least the essential paragraph. This is very important. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. We are very far from that today, unfortunately. Now, liberal capitalism is nothing more than a practical application of the virtues that I have just described. In such a system, fulfillment is possible for whoever makes efforts, uses his reason, exchanges freely, and associates himself freely with others, in particular to designate a government whose sole purpose is to enforce the protection of individual rights. In all of the systems, a central power dominates and spoliates to some extent the individual. This is why I know and could say that truly liberal capitalism was the only moral system that had ever existed. And in the next part of our talk, we are going to illustrate the main characteristic of liberal capitalism. For the sake of simplicity, I shall use, as I say, the word capitalism as a short for liberal capitalism. Now, what are the moral attributes of liberal capitalism? I'll say a few words about each of them in turn. The first one is voluntary exchange, exchange without coercion. In the capitalist system, transfer of goods or services from an individual to another is not forced by law, expropriation, theft, loot, or rulers' favor, but achieved through voluntary exchange. Contrary to ancient kings or warlords, contrary to modern dictators and even to our government representatives, an enterprise obtained nothing by force. It serves people. It is bound to satisfy its customers, and it loses all power, even General Motors uses all power if it is not able to ensure a better service than its competitors. And the biggest cooperation in the world loses all power and influence as soon as it loses its customer. Now, the next attribute is a just reward of effort and reason. The one who produces and exchanges earns what he has. He doesn't give nor take what is not earned. He does not expect to be paid for his good face, his tears, or a passive expression of his needs, but for what he has accomplished. This has been perhaps best expressed by Hank Reardon during his trial in Atlas Shrugged, the novel by Ein Rand. I work for nothing but my own profit, which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for the benefit at the expense of mine and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs. I do not sacrifice my interest to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me. We deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with. The voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worse to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at the loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it and do it well. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people, the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbors and more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologize for my ability. I refuse to apologize for my success. I refuse to apologize for my money. Next is equality of rights and prosperity. Well, most people would more or less agree with the idea that capitalism rewards the ones that are most diligent and do the best with their reason. They might even accept that this is just. Yet, what they find unjust is the resulting inequalities because they feel people are not equally gifted at birth and should therefore help out the ones that are less gifted. What can be answered to that? This is a difficult point, really. Well, first, contrary to all other systems, capitalism does not accept the only unjust inequality, inequality before the in front of the law. It has completely eliminated slavery, caste, nobility, privileges. Conversely, would it not be unfair to reward equally the lazy one and the one who is trying hard, the one who acts thoughtlessly and the one who thinks? Besides, it is precisely that reward to effort and reason that makes this algorithmic control that I spoke about a moment ago so efficient. In a market economy, the wealth of the rich is not the poverty of the poor. The wealth of the rich makes the poor richer, not poorer. The rich provides capital and tools necessary to increase the production of the poor and the value of its work. And such is the story of technical progress and the extraordinary prosperity brought along by capitalism at all levels. All arguments in favor of redistribution of revenues assume implicitly that such a redistribution would not affect the average wealth. This assumption is contrary to every bit of existing experience. Forced equalization and equalization can be obtained only by force would immediately generate a dramatic fall of production as the Soviets have bitterly experienced. And finally, capitalism induces solidarity. It maximizes the incentives for people to look for mutually profitable exchanges and voluntary associations with other people. In the long run, because it develops the feeling of mutual dependence, it fosters the only solidarity that has hidden moral value, the voluntary one. A self-fulfillment. In the capitalist system, everyone is free to choose the work he prefers, to specialize in it, and to go as far to its success as his will and talents allow. Such success is determined by the objective value of one's work for others. When men are free to exchange, when no one can force production or consumption on anyone else, the best products are available in all areas of human action. Reason triumph and progress escalation. The physical work consumes roughly the equivalent of the value he produces. The one who produces a useful idea and invention receives only an infinitesimal part of the value added to human wealth, of which an unlimited number of people will benefit. Now, why is that a tribute to capitalism? Because in this system, creation is free, and there is always someone available to put in an idea to work using his own money or credit if necessary. In a controlled economy, on the other hand, creation disturbs, and the means necessary to materialize individual ideas are usually not available. Truth. Well, truth is a requisite for business efficiency. A company could not work, simply could not work, if the flow of information, technical, financial, etc., within the company, was not reliable. And vis-a-vis the customers, lying is simply too dangerous. It can be used only once. As an illustration of what I am saying, let me read you Exxon Corporation Ethics Policy. When I worked for Exxon, this document was, and still is, for what I know, distributed to all employees around the world under a cover letter signed by the chief executive of the company. I am reading only the most significant paragraphs. The policy of this corporation is one of strict observance of all those applicable to its business. Our policy does not stop there. Even where the law is permissive, Exxon chooses the course of the highest integrity. Local customs, traditions, and morals differ from place to place, and this must be recognized. But honesty is not subject to criticism in any culture. Shades of dishonesty simply invite demoralizing and reprehensible judgments. A well-founded reputation for scrupulous dealing is itself a priceless company asset. An overly ambitious employee might have the mistaken idea that we do not care how results are obtained as long as you get results. We do care how we get results. We expect compliance with our standard of integrity throughout the organization. We will not tolerate an employee who achieves results at the cost of violation of laws or unscrupulous dealing. By the same token, we will support and we expect you to support an employee who passes up an opportunity or advantage which can only be secured at the sacrifice of principle. Equally important, we expect candor from managers at all levels and compliance with accounting rules and controls. We don't want liars for managers, whether they are lying in a mistaken effort to protect us or to make themselves look good. One of the kinds of harm which results when a manager conceals information from higher management is that subordinates within his organization think they are given the signal that company policies and rules can be ignored whenever unconvenient. This can result in corruption and demoralization of an organization. Our system of management will not work without honesty, including honest bookkeeping, honest budget proposals and honest economic evaluation of projects. This is the last one. Free men have little incentive to destroy and much to lose in an armed conflict. Factories do not produce under bombs and markets cannot be held on battlefields. Yet industrialists and merchants are always looted and ransomed by warriors. And yet in schools, in history manuals, merchants are always represented as selfish exploiters and warriors as heroes. All this is not to say, all this is what I have been saying here, is not to say that there does not exist immoral behaviors in the capitalist system. But only, and I hope I have been able to prove that, that such a system tends to generate moral behaviors and allows each individual to protect himself from immoral behavior of others, providing of course that the government is established only to protect such rights. Now similarly, it can exist moral behaviors in a socialist system, individual moral behaviors in a socialist system. But such a system does generate immoral behaviors all the more so that the degree of state control is more pronounced. And this is what we are going to show now. On this last slide, when we go from this point here, true liberalism to this one, complete statism, the inducement of immoral behavior increases. And in that order, it brings irresponsibility, theft, corruption, organized lies, massive murder. Now, since you might be tired of formal derivations, I shall illustrate each point to an example. Irresponsibility. I'm going to take a few of my examples in France. A few years ago, a law was enacted in France to help relieve poor, over-indepted people. And in each area of the country, a commission was created in order to examine incoming files for over-indepted people. They were about six to ten thousand a month. Now, an impressive percentage of the files have been filled by people who up to then were able to respect their commitments. So perhaps one-third of the files were filled by people who up to then had been able to respect their commitments. So that is a perfect example of a law inducing irresponsibility in the people. Seft. Seft as a most common example, of course, is the creation of money without counterparts by the states generating inflation. And this, of course, is amounts to steal money from every citizen. It's too obvious for me to elaborate more on this. Corruption. For example, in France, supposedly to protect the small stores, it is required to get permission to open a supermarket. Permission is granted by a local state-controlled commission. And such a scheme invites corruption. If you are an efficient businessman and you think that a supermarket at a given place is a thing to do, then you will want to know from each member of the commission what it takes to get his voice. It is rare, but that happens, that it takes a mere amount of money to buy him. But more often, you watch some form of a benign, mild extortion, for example, a buyer who is asking you to make a parking in front of the city hall. Organize the lies. Every totalitarian government announces glorious achievements for the years to come. And when the years do come and nothing is glorious, the government must recourse to systematic laying in order to justify its actions. Then, government to stay in power must eliminate all those who denounce the lies. Then all those who are likely to denounce the lies on day and so on and so forth. And it brings this murder on a large scale that we have been watching in all totalitarian government. Examples are so numerous and present to your mind that I guess it is not necessary to give any. Now, to conclude this talk, I can do no better than to quote Ein Rand for the third time in this speech. Terminals are a small minority in any age or country. And the harm they have done to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors, the bloodshed, the wars, the persecutions, the confiscations, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destructions perpetrated by mankind's governments. Potentially, a government is a most dangerous country to man's rights. It holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally-designed victims. When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is man's deadliest enemy. It is not as protection against private actions but against governmental actions that the Bill of Rights was written. Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one queuing up here. It seems to me that there's some class of people in the world that start out with the question not of what are people's rights. But they start out with the question of what are people's obligations to other people? It seems to me that those people, those philosophies do not generally lead to the conclusions that you said all the different bases of ethics lead to. Do you think that that's true? That there are people like that and there are philosophies like that? And if so, how do you reconcile that with your discussion? Well, as Bumper Holmberger said this morning, and he did touch the subject that you are raising, I think the key is voluntary as opposed to non-voluntary solidarity. Nothing in the theory that I have developed this morning prevents you from helping the people you like and even the people you don't like if you nothing prevents a libertarian to have pity for a suffering neighbor. The problem with the people who think that they should help others is that most of the time they think they should help others through redistribution. Which means that, in fact, they are not going to imply themselves in the solidarity move, but they are going to use the government to force other people to give money to the other. I understand I have not answered your question properly. My point was it seems that usually people that start out with that question what are people's obligations rather than what are people's rights? They tend to come to the conclusion that initiating force is okay. I'm not... Well, that's my point, is a lot of people do come to conclusions the exact opposite of libertarianism, but you're suggesting that all of the different bases of ethics do lead to libertarianism. So I'm saying lots of people don't obviously come to the conclusion of libertarianism. Yeah, and you're absolutely right. Otherwise, this room won't be able to contain a libertarian Congress. We are a minority, no question about that. We are a small minority. If I'm trying to be practical to answer your question, what can we do about that? I think one of the things we can do is not to put forward... For people that are not used to our vocabulary, our concept and so forth, I think it's a big mistake to deliver some of the most provocative iron-run messages, not the one that I have given, which is good enough, for example, I think that it is useful for libertarians to show that they care about people, but that they care on an individual basis. And this is a mistake that we do most of the time. In fact, we insist on the fact that... It was okay because it was among us, but this is precisely what Hohenberger did this morning. He said, I don't care if someone is poor or miserable. I don't know. No, that's not what he said. I don't care. I give to anyone the right not to care. That's what he said. Well, this is good between us, but I think we should avoid the message of selfishness. We care, but we consider caring as an individual matter, not as a matter that should be made compulsory by a state. Thanks. I really liked your use of the Ten Commandments in your talk. There's a phrase in the Old Testament. I think it's from Numbers that talks about restitution, restoring what's been harmed and adding one-fifth of the value that you might also find useful. But I did want to mention that, at least in the Catholic version of the Bible, the commandments are different. So I thought I'd point that out because if you talk to Catholics, they'll probably think that, you know, they should see their version up there. Pardon me? Reduction? Well, no, in the Catholic school for 11 years, so I can rattle them off. But the first three are the ones for God in the Catholic version. Fourth is honor thy father and thy mother. Fifth is thou shalt not kill. Six is thou shalt not commit adultery. Seven is thou shalt not steal. Eight is thou shalt not bear false witness. Nine is thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. And ten is thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. So just so that you know what the Catholic version is, it'd be good to have that one on hand. I don't know enough about the Protestant Christians to know if that's the same or not. I knew that someday I was going to be caught on that. Well, here it's good because, you know, you can take your message to Christians and not get caught on that. The problem is that I have screened a number of Bibles, Catholic as well as Protestants. And in most cases, the commandments are not numbered. And it is very difficult. It's a tough task, really, to make ten out of the few sentences that are supposed to be the ten commandments. It's not like in the film of Cecil Bidamel, about the ten commandments, where they are all well listed in number in big stone in the Bible. At twice, at two places in the Bible are the ten commandments listed. And they are not listed in exactly the same words in the Exodus and in the other part, which is, yeah, exactly. So, what happened in reality is that my first attempt at this talk was made in France, in French, and I used the Catholic Bible. But then, in order to be sure that I was translating properly, not my translation, but what God said actually to worries in English I called a Jewish friend in London, and I asked her to read me the ten commandments as they were written in her Bible. So there is a problem here. That's the Catholic version. If you talk to Catholics, that's one to use. Thank you for your comment. I want to make two comments on the previous two comments, and then I'll have my own comment. On the first comment, I recall somebody having written, and I think it may have been in an ISIL publication that says, we believe in privatizing charity, and I really liked that expression. The second comment regarding the commandments, I'm, among other things, a lifelong student of the Bible, and apparently what happens is between the Catholic and the Protestant versions of the Catholic on the one hand and the Jewish and Protestant on the other hand is that the Catholic version excludes commandments against graven images because, of course, Catholic churches are full of graven images. So that's why what they did was they excluded that commandment and then they split the last one into two so they come out with ten. Okay, my own comment concerns the problem that I see emerging constantly in publications that I receive from Hungary, and that is the problem of unjustly acquired property and what to do about it. We libertarians, of course, believe in property rights and so forth, and we don't believe in redistribution and so on, but what do you do with property that has been acquired through the coercive process of the Communist Party and to go back and look at the problem in our own situation? What do you do with property that has been acquired through the financing of our government in the United States from money that was coercively acquired from the people? That is probably most of the large property holdings in the United States through the large corporations, the military industrial complex, etc. And I would like to be able to maybe go on to Hungary, which is what I'm planning to do, and talk to some people and have some answers regarding this and then discuss the same issues back home in New Mexico. Thank you. Well, certainly the problem of restitution of badly acquired property is a very tough one and I do not have an answer to that one and I believe that this is one of the subjects that we are going to handle later on in this congress. There is something in the subject. So I have no pretense to be able to solve that one. More generally, I think that the problem of the just or unjust origin of property is one of those that we libertarians are still searching on and we do not have, we have the obvious answer of primary occupant, for example, but it is not entirely satisfactory. So this is certainly one of the few problems that we have not yet completely resolved and I wish we do someday because what I find myself fascinating in libertarianism and worth fighting for it is the intellectual, the logical coherence of all aspects of the libertarian theory. There are many, many books on, if you take the catalogue of Le Céfaire book or the catalogue at the end of our Eziel publication, you would find hundreds of books on very different subjects from environment to how to raise your child, your children and so forth and what I found marvelous is extraordinary intellectual coherence between all these approaches but there are still a very few areas where we do not have a solidly grounded theory. One other example is when do the children become free? Have to be treated as free person. Okay, there is another issue on abortion too but I'm not going to go into this one. Two questions, I think. Two more? Fine. Okay, I'd just like to make a couple brief comments. First, regarding the commandments, I think a good solution would be not to number them. Just put the ones up that you want to use without numbers and regarding government property, first I would say it should be in those cases where the prior owner is obvious and you can prove that, then it should go to that prior owner and beyond that, I would say that the government property would be distributed among, you know, to the masses of the people divided up equally perhaps through shares. I would go a step further to say that there should be actually more there because the government bureaucrats and politicians have taken a large amount and in fact they should be held liable for the damage that they had caused. I doubt we'll ever achieve that but that should be our goal. Thank you. Just a brief comment on you and you. David Friedman in the machinery of freedom does tackle the subject of property, origin of property and he's concluding that we libertarians make perhaps too much of an issue about it. Which is certainly true of the western countries, perhaps not of the eastern countries. But he said that we are making too much of an issue about it because after all he says something like 80% of the existing property in the United States change hands in the last 10 or 15 years. I don't remember the number. So fine, it's perhaps too bad that some centuries ago some kings have stolen unduly property. But let's leave today. I recognize that the problem is more crucial in the eastern countries. I have another question which is maybe too large to treat here. I saw in your adapted version of your Nolan chart you didn't mention conservatives because it's an important debate and I think for a Frenchman it's very important it's the relation between conservatives and libertarians. You spoke about abortion, it was a specific case but I think it's a more general case. It's to know what you do with your liberty and what you are obliged to accept that others are doing with their liberty. Because I think there are two approaches. You can have a socialist libertarian approach stating that freedom and you spoke about the freedom to experience was something like an absolute right and then a more conservative approach that maybe government should not interfere with what individuals are doing but let's say that other individuals could interfere. Let's say even we force but let's say if you have private streets then let's say the owners of that street could say well in our street there should not come, I don't know, a mosque I don't know who to translate it or a Buddhist temple or anything like that. This is a form of coercion but it looks totally in line with capitalism. You could have the country indeed. My question is didn't you omit a whole aspect when you just spoke about the moral foundation the moral foundations of capitalism by just trying to say well they are in line without saying that freedom allows let's say people with religious beliefs to impose their beliefs on other people and so to extend their personality on other people. I think it's an important point and it should be stressed also that to be free is also to have the freedom to impose your belief on other people and I think this is something that libertarian conservatives can say but it's not the traditional let's say speech of libertarians and I would like, I don't know if my question is very clear maybe I should need half an hour to explain it but if you understand it could you just elaborate on it? Most of your question is very clear. The only aspect that I didn't quite get was the allusion to the French that it was too difficult to understand for a French or something. I missed the point that you were trying to make there. Well I mean in all French men are very candid to centralize the decision so everything is either black or white. I don't think that there is any point in my so to speak derivation my demonstration that is in contradiction with what you have said so let us consider what you have said as an addition and not a contradiction but I'll admit on a little more general ground that there is a weak point in my demonstration and the weak point is that I take it for granted that there can exist such a thing as a state, as a government actually protecting individual rights and this is a subject of eternal at least unfinished debate between a part of the libertarian movement like Murray Rothbard for example and another part like Ein Rand Ein Rand thought that it was impossible to live without some form of a government and she was hoping that it was possible to devise a government committed only to protecting individual rights while some other libertarians like Rothbard and probably David Friedman considered that there is no chance at all of ever getting such a government so the devised scheme to avoid it and for my money those schemes are not much more realistic than the one that they are trying to combat but this is too wide a discussion for going on on the subject so thank you for your attention