 Thank you also for my part, for the invitation. It's a pleasure for me to come here and hope it's a pleasure for you also to listen to me. I do my best for this. What the handout is concerned, thanks very much for the people who are hardworking to support all this. I must perhaps say that the role maybe is a bit confusing. I shall then tell you at what slide we are. I just made it given to you because I could imagine that the last row for you, maybe it's a bit too small the letters so you can check it on the respective slide. But the movie will be here. And the subject is private law, private law society, a scheme of private law answering some of the difficult questions. There are many difficult questions of course. I will concentrate actually on one or maybe two. How does private law, it is law without state, without status statutes and so on. How does private law cope with violence, with force, with physical force? And the second difficult question in this connection of course, what is the relation between this scheme of private law on the one side and state law on the other side? This will be at the point today. Now if we speak of private law, all statists, is this a word? Statist, a Tartisan, statists. Statists or also classical liberals will say, that's fine, you know, you're paradise where the lion lies beside the lamp in peace, you know. But this won't be your case, it will be the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest. Of course, law in quotation marks because it's not the law, it's just power. This will be your world. It will always shift to that wrong side over there, to unlawfulness. You won't succeed in pulling it on this side, on the lawful side. He will say, that outlaw over there, he will act aggressively. The best you can do, you can stand still when he comes. You can step aside, maybe you will fall down. But I would say that already a little bit decelerates perhaps his aggression. And now the victim will rise its voice against it. And maybe the other one will hesitate a bit. And the victim begins to argue, this is this ping-pong here, you know, of this aggression, how it works. Of course, the other one will argue back. He has the right. And he, the victim now will accuse him for now. He begins to speak, to shout, it's aggression. The other one maybe becomes a bit embarrassed. He will shout for others to help, for bystanders, for friends. The other one will now really slow his aggression. And maybe these thirds coming to help will, you know, threaten now, it becomes a bit red. I use these colors, peaceful situation is green. This is not a political illusion. While the aggressive part is red. So now these thirds come in and threat maybe with a certain firmness or even violence. So also on the side of the private law, you have force, of course. They are not just peaceful lamps on the private law side. And now the other maybe, now his top's aggression. Now on this side, you say, because it's just the provisional's top, now we have somebody to look at it, to judge it. They call for a judge, of course, not a pre-existing judge, but some independent person to be called for. Maybe the other one to come out of this situation agrees to it and out of this ping pong, out of this conflict, mainly by voice, by voice and not by force, this cools down and comes to this judgment before this judge stay again, exchange their arguments, there is the decision and now maybe it is very simple and let's say standardized case, you will be successful to pull it on this green side here. The features of this, you can say the law specific attitude is first talking, negotiating, arguing, and then, if necessary, acting. While on the unlawful side, you have the opposite first, they act, and then via this process, they are drawn in a way into talking, negotiating, arguing. You have on the one side here, maybe an increase in, I would say in firmness, maybe in violence, if necessary, but on the other side you have a decrease of violence. So this is a bit really in a nutshell and very much simplified, of course, a first pattern how private law works. But then our dialogue partner, our classical liberal or our status will say, again, this is very nice. We have now this judgment or maybe they did not even found the judgment, let's assume that also. The victim expects compliance by outlaw. Did you find it? So it's, well, first look at the right slide, which starts with judge decide or no judgment at all. This is now our second slide. And you still expect that now it works, but the outlaw, of course, says our dialogue partner will not comply. But then you have this sort of alliance, not only the victim, but the judge of before, his friends, maybe bystanders, they now are blaming this outlaw of outlawfulness. He gets a bad reputation, maybe he hesitates, maybe nevertheless he continues with his aggression, but if this is the case, we could imagine that this alliance on this side will also use force to resist to this. And on the other side, this again now slows the aggression, but let's remain pessimistic. Nevertheless, that could also be an escalation of violence, you know, on a higher level, so to speak. Maybe on the other side, they even bigger alliance who again maybe first accuses him of outlawfulness and maybe, if it's really necessary, force comes up on this side as well. If they are successful and if they succeed to defeat this outlaw, they will perhaps insist on an armistice. Maybe on the other side, he will say, no, not just an armistice, somebody else must again decide about this dispute. Maybe that again will lead to some judge who decides or some settlement proceedings and out of this again, my idea, it could be possible at least to hold it on this side with these patterns, typically law, first talking, then acting the other way round on this side. We have decrease of violence thanks to increase of firmness on the left side. Left side also know their political illusion. Now, we have still our interlocutor who is pessimistic and he says, this is wonderful. All these, you know, strong organizations that found a settlement, maybe they will comply in it, but I would not be surprised if at least internally now, this, you know, this brutal gang leader with his gang, he now will respect the other gangs or the other organizations, but maybe even more so internally, he will be aggressive because he is aggressive and if not externally, then he will use it internally. He is not just aggressive, maybe he is even intelligent. Now he invents crazy theories for his internal competence. He will say, you know, this mafia boss, he collects protection money, shoulds killed. This is protection money, you know, it's in your favor. I care for your security at this cost something, so please pay me 10% of your income or whatever and maybe some solid people begin to believe it and so he can make his unlegitimate influence without real legitimation. But of course they are not all that silly. Internally now, there will be counter theories. They will say, oh no, this is just illegitimate power. This protection money is not at you. Of course this will be suppressed from that side with force but this then could be, now we are in this internal pattern, you know, the beginning of the revolution and there will force and violence take place because they do not accept this attitude of this gang leader. Maybe this revolutionary attitude will switch over to other such organizations as well. So the question of how are they legitimate to act internally will be a common discussion or maybe a common conflict in red and maybe even in physical conflict. Maybe at the end all these players begin to say, actually we should, you know, find some negotiation, a settlement out of it and then again our pattern, not to repeat it on all details but even in such cases I think this general pattern has till the possibility to pull it on this side. And now he is still not at the end of our discussion. At the end of our discussion they say that's really wonderful. Now you have a settlement, you know, society-wide, all these strong players but also the revolutionaries and everybody and I wouldn't be surprised if just because they think they are more legitimate now these organizations they become again quite arrogant be it old gang leaders, be it revolution leaders that became gang leaders, whatever but certain arrogance could come up and of course that could be even, you know, the beginning of a big aggression internally and externally. And now our dialogue partner, our classical liberal will say look and now maybe it's not a big probability that this will happen after all these experiences but it's possible and I will now paint the devil at the wall, this is a saying in German in Toifl am die Wandmalen to paint the devil at the wall and once you do it he will come or as a warning, do you want this, do you want the devil? And in this matter he will say this aggressivity will then lead to the ultimate war between all these gangs, internally the ultimate repression so this is really the apocalyptic end of your private law paradise. Do you want this? He will say and of course I will say no, this is really not what I want. I would at least hope that's not very strong anymore but because the probability is not that big but even if it happens I would say some when this terrible fight is over and all will shout never again, we won't do it, never again, we made all the experiences now, now we really have to make a settlement which is more sophisticated, more fundamental settlement between all these losers, they are all losers after such an event of war and terrorism they will say no strong players anymore, small units, no monopolies of power, no compulsory memberships, things like that, that I would say now is still the possibility even in that hard case that could come to the effect that we have it on the good side, so to speak. But we are still not at the end of course, this discussion can go further and further and even though I say it is expected at least that this private law row will prevail in the end, the other side will say oh, I'm not that optimistic. Nevertheless, it could be possible that the really ultimate worst case could happen. It's maybe not very likely, he would say, a low risk that this happened but it can happen and it's that terrible, you know. You have then really the strongest of all who has won this battle and all others are the gangs, other subsidians, all are subject to him without any condition, without consent, they adjust his slaves, no other strong rivals are accepted, there will be suppression of critique by again, by crazy justifications or by physical force and our classical liberal and our status would say is this now your private law lawyers and what you want? You need the states to avoid this and of course my answer is clear, you have it already. The devil who paints it at the ball, this very ultimate worst case, that's the state. The devil, the state paints at the ball in order to justify his monopoly of law and order, you narrate now already, is himself. And so the choice is not paradise versus hell but I would say it's better to have early a certain probability, not a big one, but however to have a probability of this worst case is better than to have the worst case. The second point is out of a specifically legal point of view, the abolishment of state is not just a political program and not just an economic necessity but first of all required by law. And so a consistent way to work on the abolishment of the state is to initiate legal proceedings, arguing that its inherent characteristic are against the law. I will sketch in within two minutes, do I have this time? It's because we started a bit later, so okay, very good. It takes some time to abolish the state, of course. Maybe I won't really meet it anymore lifetime but the younger among you, I hope you will be under those who realize you see it. And therefore I will give you just a short check, sketch how such a proceeding could look like and I will then also give a short explanation why I think it's high time. Now this sketch of such a proceeding, why not, I'm from Switzerland. This is this small country up in the mountains there where they have direct democracy, they say. Actually I can tell you that's not the case. That is what they say but if you calculate it's just not the case. But that's another story in any way I'm from there and so why shouldn't we start there? Why not to introduce an action against organization there against that central state? Many plaintiffs, many victims of this Swiss central state. Now I can offer myself as an attorney if you want to have my card, my cards with me or many others, thousands, tens of thousands who are victim of this strange central state. Defendant is this strange organization called Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, which means Swiss Confederation. They have a number even. There is an official register of public and private entities. You know, Novartis has a number and I will often has a number and this Swiss Confederation has a number. Okay, this is the defendant. And the legal remedies I would request is granting the plaintiffs the right to withdraw their membership. Maybe one should first declare the withdrawal. These are details I have to work on it. It's not yet ready. As an alternative, the solution and liquidation of defendant, you would be the court for this. I have a majority, I think, of this court. In addition, compensation for damages suffered so far, taxes, you know, without consideration in return, taxes are owed unconditionally, as you know, without getting any, anything as in return. And or for profits inhibited, all these profits inhibited by regulation. Yesterday we talked about black economy, which is killed by regulation that any economy is killed by regulation, so this will cost something. Now the question, who is the competent court? Certainly not the Swiss Supreme Court, but we will have to find some. Maybe it's a sort of arbitration court, maybe the Prince of Liechtenstein, I thought. We will see, but there are a lot of things in this proceedings that are still open, but this is my point. It's a legal procedure, you know? It's a legal issue. It's not a political, not only a political issue. It's a legal issue. So let's go to it legally. Of course, as usual as a lawyer, I say before introducing, I offer negotiations about the modalities of all this. Perhaps we can find a settlement. For instance, the time period to organize this session, there are a lot of maybe technical questions, the conditions for the use of state infrastructure afterwards, you know, then you're not a taxpayer anymore, but you have still to use these monopoly things from the state. So what is the price for it? This must be discussed. Then the time period in the other, in the alternative case, the time period to organize this liquidation, not in three days. This is a long process. It must be in a professional way, 10 year, 20 years, something like that. The amount of compensation, of course, this will be a hard fight. The costs of these proceedings, the lawyers, they're always quite expensive. Accompanying, I would say we must have a certain publicity in the media, internet, and everything is quite open and should attract more plaintiffs. And I thought from an economic point of view, accompanying one could influence the rating agencies, you know, if you tell them that now the power of the state to collect taxes is legally challenged, I think they would not dare to maintain their triple A rating for Swiss confederation. And then the interests go up and so on. So this gives us more position in these negotiations. Now, as I said, it's high time. And this will be my final remark. Now, why it is high time to make it? You recall this chart here, it's one of those where we made this, the start was the settlement between the strong outlaw and these strong counterparts. And if you now put it from the scene we had before to the international or historic level, you find a lot of analogies or parallels. So this settlement is nothing but the Westphalian peace treaty of 1648, where all these strong players formed a certain structure. This crazy marketing, you find it in Hopes-Leviathan. The other theories are, for instance, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Contrat social. Of course, what then came was the French Revolution. Now this transferred to other countries, these were the Napoleonic Wars. And after that, this one thought final settlement, that was the Vienna Congress. And now the next slide, with these terrible scenarios, these arrogant, pseudo-legitimate organizations. This is the typical pattern of the national states, mainly created in the 19th century. Of course, what they did, you know, these two world wars, the Holocaust. And now let's remain on this global or international level. We have this absolute apocalyptic case, that then would be the one world state. We do not have it yet, but it's very, very close, as you see in the long time history. Our settlement, that would be this alternative, the Constitution of Anarchy, or however you call it. And when I said it's high time, then it's because we are here and it's really high time to see that it goes on this side and not on that side. Thanks very much.