 Very stimulating, very interesting, but I have a series of questions and challenges to Hans, I won't hop on this the way you Let's say in my view Trying to identify who is the the best audience the groups you rely on to build the movement and What you emphasize I would say to be a bit provocative I think there is it's not the kind of group I would rely on and let's say this kind of emphasis on neighborhoodness on on social cohesion and Community of values there is something there, but it's for me. It's makes too much like parochialism I'm a cosmopolitan living in London Working with with global clients and we are always we draw patterns from around the world Of course, we have a community of values. So I agree with this. I'm an anti Multiculturalist and I want to criticize all sorts of backward cultures Which still exists and as dysfunctional because a dysfunctional and non prosperity driving they can't sustain themselves I can't pay for themselves because I will subsidize that so we have these pockets of backward cultures They would disappear on themselves once the subsidies was drawn. I would believe on this But I'm not disturbed by the floor floor by the weather say hello. I never say hello to any of my neighbors I've never talked to single of my neighbors. I'm happy with this atomization of a world society global society and rely on private provision of of Insurance of health can I don't need necessarily even a family community? Families break down that we divorce after three four years every time is all okay with me. So I think I think That's a kind of different spirit. I'm also who would I not want to build on this kind of Suburban leftover in disenfranchised white Trump voters or or those people who run after the alt-right wouldn't be the primary audience. I wouldn't write off the elites bankers lawyers University professor sitting right here and for me actually the primary audience what I would build on is actually the Marxists those youth who have an a passion who believe in in intervening in society And that there's a science and economics and socially based a kind of appraisal of where society could move who want to think about the project of Humanity forward. I was a Marxist you were the Marxist I know so many who moved over to the libertarian movement So that would be a counter to a different worldview the kind of people I want to associate with the kind of people I want to build the movement with I also still believe that there is a Kind of political project and political party building a cater building and not only a parochial decentralization Project, I see the potential of taking over certain place the country let's say for me the vision is the next round of crises which are about to come and Something like a advanced country like a Scotland going into secession Then totally tanking into it is trying to kind of socialism and tanking deeply Being kind of bankrupt and have the people ready who's been predicting this to build up kind of group a party Who can lead the rollback and offer solutions on that scale not a kind of local scale I also love of course the titus is trying somewhere in in Middle America the small state a small adventure, but that takes a long time and will be marginal and far away So I think there should be a political project and if I to some I feel where as the next Rothbard where as the new Ron Paul somebody who's taking the large national stage a global political stage the activism at the cater building that Not only the theoretical building and not the the smallest project But but entering kind of political arena on on that level just throwing out a few points here So so that where I'm standing with a lot of you've been saying that from a wonderful conference But I just feel is it maybe misunderstanding you, but I I'm a cosmopolitan Who wants to connect up with with with with with various Libertarians and I wonder another thing what you're doing understand it But I know it from the left first of all this sociological identification of the groups you want to build I'm there's some truth in there But also have to be totally open who else whoever's coming the other thing I see the kind of aggressive Sectarianism nearly isn't it that when you say liberal alas free the fire I cook libertarians fake libertarians and you carve out Your root and and and I understand that there's a forum and a room and a point for this and But I'm also wondering if that's The best way forward to build the movement when we when we really have to we have to have an in-road I'm very impatient. I've I've been waiting. I want things. I want to kick us and move and and and make this happen That's my pitch and question as a challenge and question here I'm not quite sure what the question in in all of that was In a way, of course, I'm also a cosmopolitan in the sense that what I Explained what libertarianism is I'm missing that these are universal Values, but you have to recognize that some people adhere to them more closely and other people is here to them less closely You also have to Be clear about what world you are talking about when if you want to have some change and The world that we are currently inhabiting is obviously a world that has been taken over by insane people And this entire political correctness movement has been promoted by and large by Marxists by reformed Marxists by Grumsheite Marxists not of course a classical Marxist who believe in the nationalization of all industries That sort of thing is long gone, but the turn that the lefts have taken after the collapse of Soviet-style communism was of course this march through the institutions Trying to destroy what we would call the bourgeois Culture everything that was considered to be normal is nowadays Something that people just have to defend themselves You're almost you almost have to justify that you are what you are That you are white white male and are married and have children and all the rest of it You always must excuse yourself for this and my purpose was obviously then to Yeah, to tell people who are normal standard people that there is nothing wrong with being normal standard people and That this problem that we have Created in the recent years on a massive scale of Yeah by government fear Forcing people to live together who wish not to live together that this is a big problem that Leave leads to yeah to the destruction of everything that we and our Parents and our grandparents consider to be the standard way of life maybe just About this cosmopolitanism. Yes, I travel around too. I have seen lots of parts of part of the world But I would not want to live at any part of the world as a tourist that is something entirely different I'm also in favor of free trade As I made perfectly clear so I'm in favor of globalization in the sense of yes Of course, I'm I'm glad that the division of labor expands Throughout the entire world that we can benefit from things that people do in Faraway places and that we contribute something to their life by doing what we do at our place But the idea that people who are very different can live in peaceful Relationships next door to each other. I think it's an illusion unless You always close your door and don't care about your neighbors at all Can I come back one with one quick point on this? We have to look at the economics of a globalized world global companies like mine. We have 50 nationalities They come from all the world. They become very similar very quickly super quickly if they have to Fend for themselves and pay their lives for themselves Google these places. They have nationalities. We need the whole world talent pool and in London all these Various origins to live close together with each other and we move around we haven't origin We haven't a place. I might be living in New York. So that's the world we live in That's the world which empowers the prosperity potentials and not some kind of parochial Community which which wants to be homogeneous they can I'm not against it But that was not my point. Yeah, if if people want to have that type of community they are Welcome to have that type of community But people who don't want to have that type of community are currently forced to accept a type of community that they do not want I think shouldn't be any force But why also we make a prediction the kind of home craving for homogene homogenous local local This will not be viable these communities you which you vote for the For the trumps and for the for the ultra right. They're actually not self-sustaining They are the welfare recipients to and I don't predict them to be Prosperity engines So I think it's a it's a short-sighted craving for homogeneity traditionalism, which is not going to deliver the world next prosperity stage If you look at all the world The world and see where the major conflicts are Where people kill each other those are all multicultural societies If you look at Switzerland, how did Switzerland solve this problem by delegating most of the powers to the canton? They had a single canton. I think Yura or so that was Multi Mata linguistic they had terrorist acts there then they split the canton to create some sort of homogeneity Look at all countries of the world. You will see whenever you have very different cultures Some sort of civil war situation exists I Had a little add-on question. There are two Regions that both of us know quite well that this the Middle East and Austria-Hungary and both seem to be cases in point that Living together with different languages religions in the end doesn't work out But then at the same time it seems to be that it works out quite well In the cities and the harbors in the census like Vienna like is mere smirna before like by route and Wasn't it just nationalism and geopolitical interventionism that made all this powder cake explodes? Or do you think there are some conditions under which this kind of conviviality is possible in the wrong long run? Or do you think that it confirms your hypothesis that in the end? It'll fail and have to fail. No, what I think there will be of course places, especially big cities where you have More multiculturalism if you will and you have other areas where you will have less of it Even in the big cities, however There was some sort of physical separation between the different groups. You do have so Greek districts Turkish districts Czech districts or straight the German German speaking districts and so forth with some overlapping Territories, but there has always been a voluntary separation and of course you are right that Apollo politics has aggravated the differences between them has made it more difficult for these people to get along There's always a possibility that you Inside hatred against one group in order to loot their property and so forth Yes in different locations different arrangements are possible But even in multi cultural big cities You can see if you look on the micro level you can see there is some separation With some overlaps also countries where they speak two languages Both groups speak the other language, but some people don't learn the language of their neighboring group so It depends on this on the circumstances the only thing that we have to attack is the idea of forced integration And what we are suffering from is precisely forced integration There are people have told us force us You must accept these people and you must also Pay them and you must pay them more than you pay those people that are already living here longer to refer to Angela Merkel Okay hands people said many things about me, but I'm not aware that anyone's ever called me a flatterer or a sicker fan And so I hope you will take these words as completely honest I think the speech that we've just heard this afternoon is in its technical sense and in its clarity of utterance Probably the best speech I have ever heard from you you have spoken very clearly as the acknowledged head of our movement and I personally would hope to see that the words you uttered this afternoon Were spread very quickly throughout the entire libertarian movement and were put in front of anyone who is Honestly interested to know what is the difference between the libertarian movement and the alt-right? So thank you for having said what you said this afternoon Since that was not the question I agree with the gaps of course, but I have one question I absolutely agree with personal hope that American Libertarian Party consists of libertarians, Paralybertarians, pseudo-libertarians, sick libertarians and so on And also as righties they differentiated but there are two points on American Political map. One is a Patek Buchanan mentioned by you. I remember him from 30 years ago He was neither paleo-conservative nor libertarian perhaps he changed now. I don't know but the second point is The American Constitution Party It is worse American Constitution Party. There is such a party in the United States. It is one one percent of voices and so on It is very much in the American system system, and I think it's worse. Where's my mentioning? Let me just say this about Patek Buchanan. What I think is admirable about Patek Buchanan He has always been a non-interventionist in foreign policies. He was always of the opinion After communism fell apart. He was a cold warrior before But after communism fell apart. He said NATO should be dissolved The United States should withdraw all its troops from foreign countries and just care about itself this part given the fact that you have in America the so-called neo-conservatives whose Most cherished conviction is to make war all over the world Given The ascendance of the neo-conservatives Pat Buchanan was always a brave fighter against these tendencies So in terms of his foreign policy He is he is a great asset to the United States a brave man As far as his economics is concerned I indicated that I think he is a fool when it comes to his economics. I Have a question for Stefan Regarding contract and it's this You define contract as the encounter of Voluntary of the the two parties agreeing consent In in Roman law the definition of contract was Consent but also enforceability. So first question is what do you make of enforceability in your theory of contract? second Consent is often Very hard to define especially in modern contracts, which are the most interesting ones There are contracts where consent is implied for example I parked my car in a parking lot and I it is implied that I have to pay the fee But maybe I don't understand and then there's another very interesting part of theory of contracts Which is error which is To do if one of the parties Makes a mistake in the in the manifestation of its Voluntary, so how do you solve these hard issues in contract law? And how do you do you think is there a libertarian answer to these questions? Or should we just resort to the traditional theory of contracts Roman law common law and so on I? Think the latter is basically the answer I had in my slides enforcement, but I didn't have time to get there It's not really a doc a part of the doctrine of contract theory how you enforce them the idea is that Under the title transfer theory of contract It indicates who the owner of a resource is so if someone Oaks the debt and they actually have money, but they refuse to pay it then theoretically according to the contract The debtor is in possession of property now of the creditor But then that problem turns to the issue of how do you collect property? That's basically stolen or held by someone who refuses to return it. Okay, so then that's a separate libertarian question I imagine there would be a court system of judgment something like that as for the fine points of the doctrine of error Which is in the civil law. You're right and implicit consent Yeah, we can have some things to say about that But I believe that you know we can only go so so far with our libertarian reasoning from the armchair Right, so we can come basic principles root them in property theory, but any actual practicing practical legal system will evolve Will evolve from cases and context like the Roman law did like the civil law has like the common law has So I think basically we can we can resort to the developed bodies of law of the Roman law and civil law and the common law For a more practical fleshed-out system, but just keeping in mind are more refined and sort of slightly tuned version of the first principles I have no problem with some some libertarians rebelled against the idea of implicit contracts But I think it's unavoidable because a contract can never specify every conceivable Perceivable circumstance so it always has to have a mechanism either implied or presumed or built in to Have a procedure to decide what happens when the contract doesn't address something that happened So usually that's called suppletive su pp Leti v. E suppletive law or gap filler law and What you could say is that if parties live in a given jurisdiction or they sign up to a given legal system or given arbitral Procedure or a given insurance company procedure They are generally aware of the way courts address these issues when they arise And if they wanted to contract out of it They would have bargained to put something in the in the fine print to deal with that and if they don't They have little complaint if the court has to try to find a fair solution to this unexpected case In the case of you're going you go into a restaurant You don't make a contract Explicitly with the restaurant that you'll pay the prices Sometimes you don't even look at the prices because if you order a glass of wine You assume that it's within a certain range if they bring you a bill for $10,000 That's out of what everyone would have expected You know if it's $20 and you thought it was 10 you probably have to pay that so custom has to inform a lot of this actual Practice has to inform a lot of this Because we we live in a world where language has been corrupted and we live in a world of total conceptual confusion and and deliberate miss misrepresentation of people's points of view I think it's sometimes imperative to Stress the obvious When you say you are Against forced integration. It's important to also say you're also against forced segregation So I'm sure you don't agree with the white supremacist alt-right Which would want for example laws against what they would call miscegenation That is equally repulsive to the libertarian ideal. I'm sure you feel that way It's absolutely important to stress the obvious. No matter how obvious. Yeah, it's obvious I mean I think I did make clear where I agree disagree was At least parts of the alt-right. I mean they If you want to have a White national state national state. What do you do with people who live there right now who do not fall into that category? and as I emphasized that We have we have to blame first of all our White leaders for the evil that we are confronted with It is it is mrs. Merkel who bears most of the Responsibility for the immigration crisis that we have in Europe You can hardly blame those people coming if she says You come and we will feed you I would probably would come to and want to be fed if somebody Invites me at the expense of other people to come so most of the blame has to be put on on the White leaders in our countries who have caused this this entire mess and given that The position that some alt-right people take sounds ridiculous to me The idea of socialism Classical socialism was also an idea that was after all created by white males So my my emphasis was only Yes, we we have to have to see who Have these people chosen as the groups that they want to destroy in order to increase their own power It is white male so to speak who try to undermine The homogeneity of societies in order to gain more power through the classical policy of Divide the people as much as possible make them all dependent on the state In order to increase our own powers Stefan question for you regarding contract law I found very interesting and I agree with your idea that it's all based on property Do you see any? Implications of this. I mean it's intellectually very satisfying providing a solid foundation for a superstructure but is it more than just theoretically satisfying or do you see that using this base that You could kind of clean up and make logically more consistent to the body of law that we do have I mean we do have things like the American Law Institute restatements of the law and so on which kind of go in that direction because the law is not totally consistent between different countries different legal systems and so on and You also have things like the unidroit principles that have been going on since 1926 So there's some value in harmonization of the law. So do you see this foundation that you provided as Potentially helping in cleaning up practical law as well Not very much The reason is I think Contract law now is would roughly have the same results as the title transfer theory would have There's no debtors prison anymore as far as I know so that wouldn't be a big difference It does help to clarify the the foundations and I think it helps put the emphasis back on property rights, which is good it would have some implications for theories which in practices such as the I Think it's a Chicago school theory the efficient breach theory. So what they say is If you breach a contract there should be no punitive damages you should be able to breach a contract as long as you pay damages because You if the damages are less than the profit you can make from an alternative project Then everyone benefits because you can take your surplus and you can make a profit and take the take the rest And pay damages to the to the person you breached So they believe in the efficient breach theory Which I think a similar result would be reached if you just view these as Transfers of title to property right so in a sense under my theory. There's no such thing as a breach of contract It's impossible to breach contract because it's not a binding obligation There is eat there's simply the contract is used to help identify who the owner of property is that's that's all it is So in that understanding we would separate in our minds what a promise is promise could be a social custom And if someone breaks their promise, you know if a boy promises to pick a girl up for a date and doesn't show up He's gonna have a bad reputation. She's gonna be mad at him angry at him But promise would be separate from the idea of Of the legal contract so I just think it's more for conceptual clarification and to put the emphasis back on on Property as the fundamental right And also as I said, there is the danger of some of the thinking that underlies the Justifications given for the conventional theory of contract, which is the reliance idea There's some danger that this can lead to the property theory of value which can lead to intellectual property justifications So there are dangers that do arise from thinking about it in the wrong way that confuses the way people think about other aspects of law So I think it's important to get it right, but it is in a sense an academic thing, which is interesting to me What law generally is concerned from a libertarian point of view and For me, I always try When and confronted with things like that, you know, we have to look at certain problems certain conflicts then I Have all always the task To think about what what is the source of law where does law comes from? Namely once you do not accept anymore that the state gives the law You know when when I argue we do not need a state to have a law order Then the first question that comes is but who gives the laws or the law or the statute So however you call it and then I say we do not need any law giver No, let's just later because laws are there It's it's these are natural phenomena Phenomenons that there are law laws that there are rules of behavior of mutual behavior of of of men in society and and once you look at Conflict situations with these glasses then I think it's less important to discuss is this property-based approach or is this a consent-based approach, but you can See that in this or that situation some reaction comes some outrage some some Negative reactions that should not have been done. He maybe he promised something then he didn't hold it and this This Creates reactions against it. That's not right Or if somebody Injust the other or takes away things from him then this Creates reactions and what I always want to understand is what what are these reactions? this is a Interesting phenomenon Somebody attacks the others Certainly the whole group will look at it and some will try to intervene and and some some Holds perhaps the intervener who is too aggressive back again and things like that So things happen out of certain conflicts and it's interesting to look at these things and to try to understand them and the ultimate goal then for me as a Laws scientist also is Is it possible to come as close as possible to the Natural reactions to those reactions that are there The closer we come to them be it by this or that approach and The closer some judge Or some rule maker Comes to them to these very natural rules the less problems we have and I think also a lot of of Problems just like these very important immigration problems like that are also Accessible to this kind of approach that And once reactions that are very normal do not take place because some political authority hinders them then we have You know problems then these reactions go to other parts. They may be Become overreactions and things like that because the natural reactions are blocked so this is just a Maybe to make a link between contract law and immigration problem, but I think this this has to do with the question What is law? I have a question for Hans or the panel Do you guys have any strategic advice on the popularization of these ideas? No, no other Idea than to publish it That's it That's all I ever ever did All I will ever be able to do um, I have a question for Stefan or for Professor Hopper or Any member of the panel which who wants to talk about libertarianism and law? Are you familiar with the general direction that Frank van Dunne is taking he's He says he is building on libertarianism Placing it in a more medieval context. He's come to the view that for him libertarianism isn't a legal system and It's not a philosophy of rights, but a philosophy of law and It's he bases this on an idea of a common conscience I I'm not too well versed in it myself, but I wonder if anyone on the panel is familiar with it and has any thoughts I think I'm Roughly familiar with van dunne's work and I think we have Large this large extent we agree on these matters Especially because we are both committed to this Essex of argumentation which of course implies that there is a Conscience that this is that the people have the same knowledge. He emphasizes those Conscience in the sense not of the as a Protestants believe in a conscience, whatever your conscience tells you but as as a word in the Kent Conscience is something that is shared. It is shared knowledge And and people who are engaged in argumentation, of course Share a certain things. Otherwise, they would not even begin doing it Dunne's work is not completed yet. I see he still keeps Writing and I try to follow his work But by a large I think I'm In agreement with with his work so I'm gonna pick up the discussion of Legal theory and I want to challenge so professor do that you want to rely on people's reactions as guidance for Evolution of law and that's certainly a factor But that's just to deliver a kind of Umbrella of disconnected individual cases and reactions and that's not what a system of law can be built out I don't believe in law give us either and it's gonna be a convergence of Evolution but an illusion in which legal scholarship and discourse and discursive convergences of Jurisprudence literature has a lot to impact and to speak towards and I think with a Stephen The kind of withdrawal or this is just academic and its impact downstream into into that's various particular legal theorems and position is kind of And not to be expected. I would challenge that too. I know that you're not quite You would elaborate and you all can most we can turn the corner on this but but I think there is of course the value of integrating Under sort of principles all these judgments and have same principle applied the same cases. This is deeply important and that would and the more cleaning up kind of conceptualization and building and and Unifying and systematizing a system of laws very important value, which everyone has to kind of praise and value against The particular theorems one wants to kind of catch and derive from this but of course theorems themselves if the derives become Proven to be impractical and problematic one that would have to feed back and reverse engineer the system Structure the deductive system Quasi deductive system which I call an inference machine which needs to corroborate itself in a process of Delivering verdicts which feedback and one of the populist reaction is one But that can't be is only one of many factors. There isn't a root. There isn't a kind of found root foundation Here, but it's a series of factors when the praise and overall If there's a headline overall headline is a kind of pragmatism, but long-term Rule utilitels and pragmatism which has many factors to take on court one of which is Conceptual consistency as a value with pragmatic consequences And I think this meta reflection of what's the status of a legal theory needs to be understood otherwise when we comes kind of fetishistic investment in a kind of mythical think-through process as delivering justice these are all obviously unsound and unsophisticated in the contemporary world conceptions and That would be just my contribution to this conversation Again a short question and a short answer It I think it's it's a it's a very important point generally when you talk about or you think about law And namely if you try to take the approach I I sketched before I think that when I talk about action and reaction or things like that then This is not only true for a small situation like one neighbor Blaming the other or hurting the other and so on but it's also true for over individual Constellations it is also true for Problems and constellation that are over the time Bigger than just one Conflict so I think that even what theory of law and science of law and Discussions about concepts of law and things like that are concerned this too. I would say is a product of nature You could say of culture but What one could take an approach that culture is a part of nature? maybe you would not say so but This this is how I look at it and therefore I think even those Theoretical points that are very important mainly if it's it's an international level so so That even these points are Accessible to the approach to look at how it works and if you can see that there are some International discussions or tensions or things like that out of certain conflict situations then it's not by accident But because these are reactions out of this or if different Law systems in different countries collide With each other this too is a collision which leads to certain discussions as a reaction out of this and Of course then on that level It's very difficult to be aware that discussion Discussions once once on having here are not something separate from reality But part of reality and then so I think this this too you can choose this approach to get to these bigger questions and also perhaps a point this understanding is Not a State then It's a dynamic optic I do so lawyers need something not not something that is there and is defined And this is the right thing and must be applied, but it's how our reactions in something in move And the world and the history and society is permanently in move and and so also this law approach I Thought you know for a short question short answer and this is what Well, maybe one of the big Dangerous or risks in these things is that somebody some authorities then assume the competence To to administer these troops and this is the beginning of the end Yes now first of all I want to Support John gap's suggestion that this speech should be As widely spread as possible and and we surely will do what we can in Germany To spread it because I think it could have a major impact it is a real manifesto and I Hadn't expected it to be as realistic as it is because it also addresses the means to achieve something and In parts At least please correct me if I'm wrong in parts is it can also be used as a populist manifesto and we mustn't forget that a Major breakthrough of the last few years Has been the emergence of populist movements in the West Not just in England in America also in Germany now The election come in September we will for the first time have a few libertarian People in in German Parliament like Mr. Böhringer from Munich just to give one example It's This is something I think we can build on and And Just to add a few things from a German perspective to to cite Auto-construct Conflict between cosmopolitan and parochial attitudes Doesn't convince me for instance the top candidate of this new German populist party Has lived in China speaks fluently Mandarin has worked for Goldman Sachs. She's completely cosmopolitan The same way I am cosmopolitan, but she's against mass Migration and it's not true that it's mainly left out people for instance the Alternative for Deutschland in Germany who possibly will probably will come out as third strongest party I mean we have never had this before and they are The people who elect them are slightly above average regarding their income, yeah, and they Draw people from all Parts of society and was even more interesting If you look at their age Their their main support comes from People between 35 and 44 Because these are people who Think about their future the very old people are Being bribed by higher pensions and so on and the very young people don't Believe in but there's another point which Professor Hopper referred to this and this was I Haven't thought about it Up to 30 years a person can spend in state education Yeah, and this of course might explain why the ruling parties are too much more to much more extent elected by People coming from universities Yeah, so the populist movement and this is what I would like to ask you Isn't it an advantage and a possibility Because compared to populist parties Libertarians are a very very small force a small minority Isn't this important where to Start doing something and my last remark It is really I really noticed that Over the last one or two years You can speak more openly in Germany not completely but Discussion discussion has started to open up and ruling class and populism is nothing else but a movement Confronting the ruling class. That's the only sensible definition and the ruling class in Germany at least yeah Starks being afraid of them and they start being on the defensive So I think we really have new possibilities Nate I expect that this article will be translated into German and I'll get Spread around I hope it will inspire some some people I Should add something to your remark about The demographics Supporting the obtained alternative for Germany This applies by the way also to the Trump victory in the United States, of course in German papers. It is presented as if The dumb dumps and the deplorables all voted for Trump The opposite is the truth the average income of Trump supporters was significantly higher than the average income of the Democrats and The entire underclass in the United States of course votes traditionally for the Democrats So Hillary was elected by the deep would have been elected by the deplorables and Not so much Trump My reservations against Trump I have made quite clear. There must be a distinction made between The movement that brought Trump to power and Trump himself. I think Trump of course himself turned out a major major disappointment his foreign policy is a disaster and And And even when it comes to combating political correctness, which she did during his campaign Even that has has somewhat declined so a difference has to be made between the mood in the country that brought him to power and the actual policies that he that he now conducts but to Downgrade Those sections of the populace who brought him to power as being the dumb dumps and The intellectually handicapped people Seems to be clearly a misrepresentation of the truth So you think that within this Group I can collect my class plaintiffs Against the Swiss government class action plaintiffs so if you take not the political but the legal approach then that would be the plaintiffs You probably have to be a Swiss citizen in order to join the suit My concept be all those that are forced To to to obey to these Swiss regulations just because of the fact that they put their feet on Swiss ground Are entitled to this class action? so if you as a tourist in Switzerland are Under this problem or somebody who just lives in Switzerland, but without being a citizen Well, that's that's no but not just to because we are discussing about the Movement or about the group of the population that that is is is ready or that is Is interested and this at this libertarian approach then I think For for that concept that would be the plaintiffs for political movements. That would be maybe a party But maybe this is the part of the of the the society that is our support us That is the case I Think was this we will One last very short one. Very short. Dr. Daniels On on the on the topic of political correctness in medical journals or even medical policies In Hong Kong and in many other jurisdictions They have banned nicotine Liquids that fall for electronic cigarettes and in some jurisdictions they haven't banned it and in Hong Kong Basically the word nicotine they just ban it I went on radio to argue Against who I called the Taliban and subsequently got banned by the radio The anti smokers because they hear the word nicotine. They wouldn't ban too, but There are scientific evidence. I'm guess I'm guessing That these electronic cigarettes saves lives because it would be it would be a substitute to real cigarettes and They're 10,000 other substances pop in nicotine When does I mean are they are there areas in medicine that is especially? Political correctness have corrupted Such as the study of nicotine or cigarette smoking in which how can we fight back to have a more rational discussion? with the other people who doesn't believe in like libertarianism well certainly one Hobby horse of mine is opiate and opioid addiction, which seems to me there's a there's a A lot of political correctness or at least a suppression of I'm not saying that there's a direct that there's a conspiracy But there is suppression of argument about it And in fact really the whole of psychiatry has many such Many such Fields so that for example to just to take our whole system of psychiatric diagnosis is Is it almost a taboo subject? And it's interesting to for lawyers perhaps that Lawyers believe in our current system of classification as if it were a scientific rather than something that is more or less imposed by fiat of of various committees and they believe They believe in the validity of this classification With a kind of superstition that makes the average Latin American peasant going to have to pray at a miracle working virgin for the Preservation of his pig it makes it look completely rational so There is that and of course there There are there are really many fields where it's very difficult to get alternative views at Sport