 Thank you all. Your speeches today were fabulous, but just a quick question for Patrick. A flown-through Beijing airport is the most amazing thing, you know, that my wife and I have ever seen, I think. How do you reconcile talking to the Chinese government or any of the other governments, like I imagine the Arab states as well, you do a lot of work there, about free private spaces in really what are kind of authoritarian, totalitarian type of governments? That was just an overview of what we're doing. And so in China, most of our projects, huge projects, are for private clients who have nothing to do with the government. And the real estate entrepreneurs in China are stars and they have huge following, and they're really very much freer to present product. So this is a kind of company called Soho China, small home office. And there, for instance, they deliver a product which is totally open in the building throughout, whether this be the purchased units will become a retail unit, a residence on office sprinkled throughout the tower. Things like this, radical things like this, they had to in the real time climb down on this and they got, because the Chinese start to import more regulations and less entrepreneurial. But we've done four huge projects with this company. And the last one is this kind of mega-atrium. I didn't show that image, but a similar one to what I've showed under construction to be completed. So there's a lot of opportunity. And we have a few other private clients, conglomerates and entrepreneurs who found us and we're doing very much into corporate environments. And there you need a lot of that complexity and freedom and total flexibility. And yeah, we do also government projects, but I was just giving an overview. There it is a little bit different, of course, but also something like Beijing Airport there. These companies, even though the government holds them, they also have entrepreneurial leaders and there's kind of quasi- entrepreneurship operating there as well to some extent. And the Middle East also main projects are private clients. In Dubai, for instance, and we established one kind of developer and we created a big product which has retail, hotel, apartment, service departments, offices, food and beverage in one complex building. And this has also, through its planning, changed already several times. There is also more freedom in the environment there. These buildings wouldn't be possible in Europe. I have a question to Titus Gabel in terms of private cities. Do you think that even countries like North Korea might be interested in establishing private cities on the territory to solve the extreme economical inefficiency? Well, North Korea might be a place, no, I don't think so, because there's a reason why, especially it comes like North Korea has problems that is because the rulers are completely paranoid when it comes to giving up power. So I think this is too extreme, but you have a level below North Korea, say an African country where a dictator is that he might be willing to give up some power because he hopes that there will be more income for the state. And he might even ask, okay, you pay me 10% of your taxes or fees, in our case, right, to make it happen. I think it's, in principle, a trade off between the willingness to give up some influence for the rulers against monetary compensation and maybe more fame to them, because then there's more development. I do not see that happen in North Korea at the moment. Okay, I didn't know that, but you have to have a closer look at that. Many people confront me with, you can just buy a Creek Island, right? The problem with this and all the great communities thing is you're still subject to the state's sovereignty. So if you run something privately, but are still subject to all the rules of the state, that is not my, that I'm not interested in that. It, my product can only be successful if we have a certain autonomy to make our own rules. And I doubt that, I mean, I would try to attract North Korean workers, right? And I would say, okay, you have certain rights in my area, for example, free speech. I had to probably to give up a lot of things to make it possible in North Korea. And then I probably didn't want to do that. Yes, of course. I mean, that I wouldn't say that, I mean, all land has sooner or later was confiscated by one party, right? I mean, that is, that is the question you would have, you would have to make in a single case. But our normal case is that we would acquire land from landowners. And theoretically, it's not even necessary, right? Because you can say we only need to establish this legal framework. And the owners stay as they are. But in practice, it is our main source of income is real estate development, because we are buying properties before it was a free private city regime. And then by doing that, increasing the value alone, that will probably be the main income source in practice. Because then you can because for the fees that that paying for security and some some cordial arbitration system, you cannot make much profit. As long as you have, say, not more than 100,000 people, then you would probably not make profit out of that. I don't know anything about North Korea, because I don't count what the journalists write about North Korea. But one cannot convince majority, but perhaps somebody convince Mr. Kim, you know, in the dictatorship, the law can be changed from the day on. So perhaps something has changed. As a day, there's certainly a truth to what you say that is if you have to convince one person or say an oligarchy of five to 10 persons, it is much easier than to convince the majority of parties. Because most countries in the world probably have to change the constitution to make something like a free private city happen, not all of them. And then it's a political issue that could can take years, right? And so far, you're right. But on the other hand, I have also to take care of my reputation, right? And so far, going to certain countries, it's maybe not the best idea. So, this is a question for Janusz. What do you believe is the strategic thinking behind the EU's pro migration policy? I'm sorry, please, a bit louder. What do you believe is the strategic thinking behind the EU's migration policy? Migration. Well, the problem is, the problem is that I don't know what was the reasons behind the decision of Mrs. Merkel. I don't know. Perhaps the entrepreneurs wanted to have more workforce. Perhaps she wanted to destroy the system. Quite possible. I don't know the reasons. Anyway, she is now withdrawing from her decision. And the problem, if immigration is not in immigration. All the America, the United States, I mean, has been built by the immigrants. But there was no socialism. Those immigrants knew they will have no social benefits, no gratis school, no gratis medicine. If they work, they get money. They knew it. So only those who wanted to work hard went to the United States. In Europe, it's exactly opposite. If somebody comes to Europe and wants to work, he's expelled because he's taking a replace from European. And if he wants social benefits, he's accepted. It is an absolute situation. It's exactly opposite as in normal countries, as I told you. I have a question for Titus. Let's assume you sign the contract and you have a successful free city. How do you protect yourself against breach of contract by the other side? They decide to expropriate you. Yeah, that is certainly one of the core questions of the concept. The answer is by investor protection agreements. And fortunately, most countries are a party of one or more investor protection agreements. So it works like that. You are in a certain country that has investor protection agreements with, say, the US or with an area. And then you form your company as a US company. And you make all your investments there. And then if they withdraw the law, it's expropriation. It's like expropriation. You would then go through the arbitration tribunal and say, we want basically a judgment on that, a decision on that. And then you have your title and then you can cease their property like hedge funds did with Argentinian planes, right? And if they are disregarding this tribunal decision, they will be kicked out of their free trade association or they cannot afford that, right? So this is our main protection, is the investor protections agreements that are in existence worldwide. And you have to legally structure your operating entity as such that they are protected by such an agreement. Ideally, you can have an extra investor protection clause in an agreement that you make with the country, which is the best way, right? And if they disregard this, you cease their property in foreign lands. Yeah, I do. But this is only in the beginning. Well, look at Singapore, right? I mean, they have submarines, they have more combat tanks than Germany. They can't be attacked any longer. They could be attacked in the first two or three years, if you have a look at his book. For the moment, this is the only thing we can do. There's no, there's no other possibility. But over time, and also if you look at the successful medieval states, city states, like Genoa, or Venice, or even the the Hanseatic League, they could with this economic power comes military power. And then they could resist the Hanseatic League could resist the big powers of that time, like Denmark, right? They fought a war against Denmark. So if you have enough cities that are willing to support each other, I think then you don't have to rely on investor protection agreements any longer. But that is the reality at the moment. And it is, I'm very happy that this this possibility is existing at all. Also a question for Titus Gabel. We live in a world where, you know, things change faster and faster. So there's more and more innovation. So one cannot rely on things being the same for the next few decades or generations. So a proprietary community, like what you are doing, faces the same thing. And so if one looks at a community, one of the key problems is the coordination problem. How do you solve the coordination problem? And one element of that is that if the property is divided, and this is the argument that Spencer McCallum makes and his grandfather Spencer Heath, that if the property is divided, then it's it creates it presents a fundamental challenge to the coordination problem because there's no integrated way to solve that. So then one has to resort to things like what is it when the when the state intervenes eminent domain and similar things. But so the model that he presents is that there's integrated ownership. So the entire area is owned by a single entity, the management company, which would be in this case your company. And then it it rents the property, but the property doesn't belong to individual owners. The entire thing belongs to the owner. And that way, you can solve the coordination problem, because let's say a road needs to be built. Then the entity can decide to build a road. Whereas if it's subdivided property, then you have holdouts that say no, you're not going to build the road across my property, which then holds back innovation. So I'm curious in your model, which of those two directions you take? Yeah, I mean, I've had all those discussions and I'm in contact with Spencer and all that. Look, I'm not a big fan of that. I mean, this is the property in freedom society for a reason. Property is turning sent into gold and at least can ruin a garden. Why? Because the incentive of being an owner is so strong and to work for yourself and and your family and your kids that I think that is much more sought after if I if I offer the opportunity to acquire property. But you can solve that problem by just imposing a kind of a covenant on the property. Like I say, okay, you have to follow the rules of the city, for example, right? If the new owner is not signing a contract, then this property transaction is considered invalid. So I don't see the big difference and so forth. But you can be a property owner for the planning thing. We do not want to have eminent domain indeed. So you have to foresee in the beginning certain areas and then free free market urban order, right? That is not a perfect solution. And I'm not against trying out different things. I think Johan, the first three private cities will look different from the third and will look different from the 10th. We will have to try out different models and see what works and what doesn't. But just because you have a coordination problem to forbid people to acquire property is not the way I'm going to follow. Yeah, I know the model, but again, I mean, I would rather own my own house and garden than having a share of a, that is my view and other people might seek differently. I don't know how it is now in the United States. I've been there in 1986. And at least in some states, there were situations where some building glow, I don't know, rather technical. And there were the settlement acts. Every settlement or not every, but the settlement could have its own law, for example, law, that you cannot sell the house to anybody who sells it to Jew, to Negro, or to anybody who didn't sign the same, the same clausule. And it was legal, clausule, and very often, very often used. So it is a private, private settlement and, and it's new. How much time did you spend studying medieval city constitutions? For example, the constitution of the city of Dortmund, the city of Zost, which were hundredfold replicated in Northern Europe? I did some studies, especially regarding the Hanseatic League. They were a copy, especially legal system of Magdeburg and Lübeck, which were the predominant cities that time. At the end, and when it's also very complicated structure, at the end, I think that is not feasible for us. We have certain elements in medieval cities, especially when it's coming to crime and punishment, that you, that you can adopt. And the, in so far, they are a handful of things where I think it's not a bad idea how they did it. But copying look over time, what happened is, first there was a group of people who were setting the rules, mostly owners, and then the, the, the group of people who had a say was always growing. And, and often you had people who misused their power and then were basically thrown out of the city. And you had often the time that there was a constitution, but it wasn't followed and, and, and things like that. So I'm, I'm not a big fan of constitutions, because if you look what happened in the last 200 years, it's on paper, yes, but it's not followed any longer. Or in, in, in countries like Germany, they can change the constitution, or they did change, since World War II, or since the Grundgesetz was, was there in 49, they changed it, I think 60 times, 60. So what I did is probably, I didn't really thoroughly enough to study, but what I found is some elements that I think are really reasonable. For example, not punishing the citizenship a second time by putting people for a long time in prison and feeding them and paying them. And there, the whole criminal system was more, you have to, you, you have to show yourself in shame, right? And, or you, you get, even like in Singapore, you get, you get beaten, right? So that, all those things, and so you can say, okay, maybe it's a better idea to let people pay something for their crime, and if they cannot pay work instead of putting them in prison, and we have to pay for that. That is an idea I got from the medieval times, and, but the, and the, the constitutions are basically, every, every city is a little bit different, but mostly it's like in, in, in Greece, there's a group of people that have, have a say, and over time this, this group was growing, and other groups were saying, we also want to have a say, and, and, and so on. That was something that is not so much different from our current system, in my view, but maybe I have not studied that thoroughly enough. The first thing is, what I like about it initially, it comes as an offer when you say there's a multiple of political sensibilities, ideas, you try out one and libertarianism is just one, and agro-capitalism is kind of one kind of model, and there could be other models, and what I foresee and, and you could be more strict and regulated versus more free, and of course you have apostles that this is the model which would flourish, this is the model which is, which has productivity gains and attractiveness, and you can invent and imagine lots of models, for instance be more restrictive, ethnically, homogenous, highly regulated, but, or religious you said, and I think these, all these models, that's our theory would fail, and I guess, but at the same time we have to try and we have to be pragmatic about which models and details, whether it's leasehold or property, would be happening, and I wanted to add one more thing to this, is that if there is a differentiation of models, they might tie in with the World Division of Labor that an industrial manufacturing kind of place will have a different constitution sensibility rules and ethos, at place, in the end of a tech industry versus also rather provisions, so there might be a kind of economic base kind of thinking, a differentiation of various types of cities, the resort cities, the retirement cities, and so on, and they might have different products and rules, so it's not going to be one fit all, but they're huge constraints, and that's an evolutionary process filtering out which, which are the contemporary flourishing models, and I have the similar sensibility to you that, that this would be a kind of the libertarian version would be, would be highly productive. Sorry, I got a question for, for Taddis as well, a couple of things, because your idea was, you know, just made a lot of ideas come out my head, you've talked about how your relationship is going to be with the host country, right, and being from Hong Kong, I think one of the most important things is once your city-state is created, how does it seem credible to the other governments? For example, if a trade embargo was placed on your host country, would you be able, sort of like Hong Kong, be seen as to be so different that you will be exempt from it, and also the relationship in international banking as well, would these, would, would swift be able to do business with the banks set up in your jurisdiction, I mean, you know, I mean, yes, we will be libertarians and we'll be like whatever currency rules, then let them, let them use the currency, but you'll, you know, I mean, in Hong Kong, for example, we, our financial secretaries, we, we, has this complaint about how 30 percent of the entire budget and bureaucracy now is dedicated in enforcing factor, fact car, sorry, that car, right, and so how would you be able to avoid having this particular, so by, by, intervene by foreign governments, and more, a more prosaic point, would these citizens in your city, city be, be allowed to carry guns around? Okay, starting from, from, from the last one, yes they would, but probably I'm, I'm open to, I can imagine as an, as an entrepreneur, I'm offering certain different products, right, and one product would be, you can bear arms and another one would be, you can own arms, but you shouldn't bear it in the inner city, because we don't want that, and the third would be no arms allowed, I'm completely open to that, I, I have no problem with owning you arms, right, so it would be allowed, and it will be allowed in our upcoming project, but probably I will say that, that in the inner city you should not bear arms openly, okay, so this is, again, there's no, there's no, because this is not an ideological question, it's basically a question of taste, right, and you can, you can say, okay, I don't like that, you're, no, your choice, you go to another place where it's allowed, right, if you, you probably, nobody here in this room will probably like 100% of my decisions that I make in this city, right, but you might like 85%, and this is compared to your current state where you like 10% of the decisions, the government, it's a big improvement, and then I would encourage you to start your own free private city, and we may be set aside, if we have a large territory, an experimental field, I call it the freak zone, right, where maybe the anarcho-capitalist can prove that security works, but if I go to people, for example, and say a family is asking me, what about security, I say, well, you can, you can bring your own security, and you can choose your own law, will this be attractive for families and investors? Probably not, right, so, but if you can over time develop this insurance model maybe, at the moment, for example, I'm also hearing that, yeah, insurance companies will take care of that, no they won't, because they are not used to that model, they will maybe take care of that in 20 years from now, and I'm happy to help develop this industry, but at the moment, the best solution is the same as a cruise ship, or Disneyland does, they have their own private securities, they have not multiple securities, so the other questions will be when, if the host nation has a problem, isn't that also affecting us? Certainly, this is a risk, what we will do from the beginning is to have ties with the respective institutions from the first world, be it the World Bank or all that, so that we don't get into troubles that we, for example, offering financial products, which are forbidden everywhere else, so we have to make concessions in so far, I would keep them to a minimum, but our idea is to appear as a first world entity, and if we have contacts to the respective institutions and embassies, etc, then it's easier for us to show that we are not part of this banana republic, which is breaking all the international agreements they have signed, no, no, that, look, yeah, look, eventually yes, but it's privately financed, I don't know if people would really spend money on that, but the point is, it would be threatening if we say we will have an own flag and an own Olympic team in the beginning, so we are starting at the special economics on plus, under the sovereignty of the host nation, and our best sportsmen will be part of their Olympic team, over time that might develop into a Hong Kong, and over time that might develop into a Singapore, complete sovereignty, okay? Now from the ideological point of view, because not everybody understands the situation in Hong Kong, the free market in Hong Kong was introduced during, when Hong Kong was a British colony, in absolutely no democratic way, it was the governor of the Hong Kong who has done it. Now, just before returning of Hong Kong to China, the governor of Hong Kong tried to introduce democracy in Hong Kong, just to make troubles to China. China protested against turning Hong Kong a democracy, and now, and now there are the movements in Hong Kong who want more democracy, and what do they want? They want to have government-controlled prices, they want just a socialist, and China wants to stop democracy in Hong Kong, China wants to keep capitalism in Hong Kong, and this movement of umbrellas and so on, they want socialism. It's a strange situation, but it is as it is. Yeah, I have another anecdote that was in 1997, when there were already these negotiations about, or it was a little bit before, right? Negotiations about the turning over Hong Kong to China, and a couple of years earlier, the British governor wanted to introduce the British-based or British-style social security, and the Chinese communist said, you are not going to implement euro-socialism here and destroy Hong Kong. Because they want to have a more than a more than a capital city. Okay, my question is to Raheem. The initiative Taitis tells us about is a commercial approach to social change. It's a commercial entrepreneurial venture, and the Anzatic League and those sort of organizations also had, you could say it was commercially interest-driven, but entrepreneurship in the sense of facing uncertainty, being heroic in the sense at risk, might also be non-commercial. And I was interested in your thoughts about possible the merits of commercial adventures notwithstanding the merits of non-commercial entrepreneurship. Is this something worth thinking about? Yes, of course a lot of ventures, maybe not commercially oriented, but the problem with them is always that you're lacking the market part, and the market part is the disciplining part. It's weeding out the ventures that lead to structures which are not in the interest of other people. Now you could start a venture, a cultural scientific venture, which is only in your soul interest or in the interest of the generations afterwards, but then you should bear the cost in general for that. And of course it might still be a venture. I don't think you can overextend the idea of the non-commercial venture to the political sphere, as Schumpeter has talked about, the political entrepreneur. He's very much focused that the entrepreneurs could be political entrepreneurs, but I think it's much better to put it in more succinct terms, like Professor Hoppe would call them crooks, and I think that's usually what they are, because they might be fabulous ventures and great ideas, but if you make other people pay for those things, I wouldn't really call it a venture. The problem is, and you can only tell afterwards if something is of merit. In the beginning, every even commercial ventures are indistinguishable from foolish endeavors, because you don't know. And the things that look very foolish at the moment might turn out to be commercially viable, might turn out to be create advances for science, for art, and so on. So I think it needs some kind of discipline, and it's either the discipline by having skin in the game yourself, or it's a discipline of the market that corrects the kind of narcissistic materialization of your own ideas, but potentially at the expense of others, and it always means that there are a whole lot of potential ventures that cannot be realized, because you control the means that are lacking elsewhere, and that you won't ever see. So of course there can be great results of political entrepreneurship, but I think economics tells us that there's a whole lot of things that we don't see, all those ventures that could be there, but are not, because there's this great huge venture, which might have something positive to it, but we don't see the whole cost and the true cost of that. I'm afraid it's not connected to Hungary, but seeing as the conversation is basically about free cities at the moment, and about decentralization, I wondered if, as the premier historian here, Professor Stone would say whether he thinks that decentralization was an important part in what's been called the European miracle. Oh it's a good one. I've got my doubts about small city states, because if you look at what happened to them in Italy, there's a sort of pattern that, first of all, the people who are excluded, including a lot of migrants into these rich places, Florence, start causing a lot of trouble. So you have internal strife and then Montagues and Montecutes and Capulets fighting among themselves over Verona, and then they are not terribly defensible. I mean Venice was defensible because of Marshes, and Genoa to a large extent as well, but the others are not terribly defensible, and after a bit there's a noise from the nearest Alp, and it's Swiss mountaineers in a bad mood with knives, who will more or less wipe out these city states. This is a big problem with things like Magdeburg or Echt, you referred to. So I'm not as hopeful as all that. On the other hand it's certainly true that small in Europe was very beautiful. I mean if you look at the way in which England, France, Germany, each district is different, it's got different accents, different cooking. It is certainly very healthy to have that kind of thing, provided you can protect it. Thank you Professor Stone. This is certainly one of the other issues, the defensibility, and Prince Hans Adam of Liechtenstein has pointed out in his book The State in the Third Millennium that it is the military technology that is also one of the reasons why those medieval cities flourished, because you were capable of defending yourself behind big walls, even against larger armies, and it was not always successful, but it led to many of the, especially if the German independent city states to remain over a very long period of time. Maybe we will have another technological invention that is bringing now back the balance towards the defender versus the attacker. I don't know, but in any case I think Venice remained for 1100 years, right? So it's, I mean I'm not targeting 1100 years, but I would be happy if the idea would survive for 100 years, and I see for example Singapore is only capable of keeping their situation, at least it's what Lee Kuan Yew thinks, because they have a big army, and what happened, I think we need to address this point. When we're looking for free private cities, we are looking geographically, and we would prefer areas that can be defended more easily. That is very true. On the other hand you have cities like Monaco, which are basically impossible to defend because of their geographical situation, and they're still existing because they have diplomatically managed to go through all that. So I have hope that despite this is a problem, that if we can ally with bigger forces, like Raguza did, they paid tribute to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, so they were left alone, then and they had an ally in them, and then you had the Hanseatic League, they tried to and the southern German city association, Süddeutsche Städtebund, they allied amongst each other. So I think there are answers to that question, that they are giving some hope. The issue of violence and defense and so on is a big topic and I feel, if you look historically, there's something which is disappearing, I would argue, and will be totally gone, particularly within let's say within the advanced arenas of world civilization and in places like Europe, Liechtenstein doesn't need an army, I'm sorry to say, and of course there is this kind of world of very uneven development and massive amount of backwardness, a lot to do with the tragedy of the colonies becoming independent under kind of socialist hegemony and they all start on the wrong foot and remain backward and couldn't develop and I think in terms of advanced civilization, also within a country, let's say this defense, I think development would make that more and more unnecessary to defense and I'm not sure if Singapore now needs a big army, I would question these notions and also in terms of police force, prisons and physical, monopoly of violence or establishing you, you know, you talked before that you, in terms of criminal justice and prisons and punishment and flogging and so on, I think this is outlandish to me in a civilized world, we still have a lot of violence in the Western societies but where is it coming from and I think this will wash out and in a free market society wouldn't exist, is unimaginable for any of us, we all live longer, we treasure our health, we would never consider physical violence as an option where we have our teeth kicked in or our legs broken, it's totally outlandish and it would be very soft ways of freezing your account or and the violence which is still in American cities and in the Western is purely the subsidizing of backwardness, it's 100% in my view is the welfare state which generates this violence where everybody else's violence is disappearing and on grow is disappearing and the strange thing is that the these kind of ghettos and a brutality of ganglands and ghettos and crime and violence is all a kind of post-60s, 70s, 80s kind of condition and was on the way out through the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s so that would be something which is totally to disappear and I think on the on the world development level as well so I'm not sure if we have if that's an eternal condition part of the human condition kind of physical violence as a factor we would all be disciplined quickly enough by maybe by having our Google account frozen for a day brings us in line most of us with anything we'd ever want and we'll never resort to violence I mean that's why I find it a little bit kind of I'm maybe an optimist but on an historical perspective in non-issue anybody on this? Yeah, yeah Well I I think what's interesting is that the Germans indeed and the German and Austrian pretty close to that they show very low levels of violence and readiness for violence but on the other side they're very easy to rule and I think that's both parts of the same picture so I would not expect violence to disappear I think it's hidden to a large extent because it's so easy to extort money and to construct basically coercive systems without the need for violence which is not always a good sign so when of course migrants from from the Middle East are coming I don't think that they're inherently more evil people it's just a certain extent they are maybe far less easy to rule and does might might react and the counter reacting and we're seeing that that they react to the police force and you can't just call them out and stop and they just resist and so you need to be ready to increase the count of violence to cope with that so I'd rather predict that open or visible violence might increase a bit and I don't see it necessarily as a bad symptom just the kind of correction of an unsustainably low level of violence and I still hope for culture and I think large part of this is culturally the cultural evolution I think on the basis positive it's a very positive kind of evolution but I think the point where it's used for positive productivity has been surpassed and it's basically used to control a docile population which is domesticated and really easy to rule and does a lot of the protest the most productive people nowadays are captured inside these totalitarian system which extract a lot of the energy and intelligence for uses which are I think distortive and consumptive and destructive Well this is depending where you are Patrick I think if you are on a seastead with the selected crowd of libertarians yes probably no need to build a big force but pirates real pirates right so the one thing is true and it remains true in my view is the easiest way to increase your living standard is take away things from other people that's the easiest way right and if if you can use force and the other people are not really unwitting to use force it's even easier because you don't have to apply force you just threat make a threat and in so far I cannot afford as a as an entrepreneur that is offering security or guaranteeing security that I rely on that people will behave the right way right so I have to because especially if we are in a backwarded environment I mean and we will be successful and wealthy I mean we are number one target for people who just will come to steal and in so far we have to be prepared like you show a friendly face and carry a big stick and we are going to do that and over time we will see I mean eventually maybe the world will be so civilized that we don't need it but I'm not seeing that now it may happen I just got one more question for Titus you said that the majority of the income is going to be relied on setting land either freehold or leasehold what currency would the payment be settled in and what currency would your civil servant be paid in? Yeah, good question basically there won't be any currency that is mandatory for the residents to use but we have to define a currency in which the payments are made the fees are paid or the civil servants are paid so we would probably use a regional currency or one of the big currencies for that but I have thought about a clause that we could also switch to payment in gold right because if we say that there's a freehold currency that we are accepting payments in I mean this currency can basically be devaluated over a couple of months and then you have only this claim so a fallback would be inflation adjustment by any kind of formula or by by a provision that we can demand the payment in gold instead in practice I would say it would be one of the big currencies for example US dollar and but you can do amongst yourself whatever you want if there's a cryptocurrency coming up that is established all over the world I'm happy to switch to that but for you what you as residents would do it's free banking use whatever currency you want example of Zanzibar Zanzibar was independent for several years and was trying to build socialist and began to print money because it is swallowed by Tanganica that is Tanzania and the population began to use the silver talars edited by Maria Teresa in Austria but they used the Zanzibarian currency only for one aim to pay taxes to the government yeah that's in a way also the case here right I just a point I may be wrong but I heard the IMF does not allow members to use gold as currency and you mentioned applying to you know first world organizations like the World Bank and would you then not apply to the IMF or no we wouldn't be a member right we would basically ride on the back of our host nation but we since we have the right this is a special zone I mean if they're making problems to us we will see but I would say this is only back up because but I'm relatively sure we can figure out a way around that so just a question for Patrick so how do you envision the transition to de-statizing or privatizing public spaces the way all the privatizations have been happening whether it's a postal service or television it's you put out tenders and you look at bits and you go by the economic most viable bit and I think it will be fascinating to and if they're overbid and somebody else picks up and I'm it was add to something this and I think transformations which some of the cities should go through would be much accelerated I'm working at the moment on something I called Walkable London and a kind of heavy pedestrianization project and individually I've talked to various entrepreneurs and the counselors and people there they would love a lot of the streets would love that and the and those people who live on the streets would be happy to do to see that and that ties and beautifully I think with this it would be a tendering process yeah I have a question to the to the Eastern European countries and their situation Hungary or Poland concerning migration issues and their force to stay independent can we elaborate on this in a way predicting the future about the tensions within the EU and and can we there or can somebody of you dare a prognosis of how these tensions might end up sovereignty which is a strong defendable issue still for quite freely or newly independent countries and their tension within the European unity well it is very difficult to see the future when there are different complots made by by different groups of groups of people there is no natural processes here and well I I hate the present present Polish government they are there are the Democrats who are against the rule of laws I prefer to be protected by by the laws and by the majority but but now they have seen what they have done signing the Treaty of Lisbon and and they're now realizing my recipe I five years ago six years ago when I was asked what to do when to get out the European Union I said we don't have to get out we should behave in such a way that they should start to kick us off of the European Union and they are doing exactly exactly what I was doing but there is today today Mr. Aselrod the Prime Minister of Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg I told you Luxembourg Belgium and Germany they are the most and and he said that if Poland will behave this way so the Poland should be out of European Union but there's a problem the Treaty of Lisbon doesn't have any any way to to get rid of of the countries impossible theoretically theoretically so I don't know what will they do with this because because it is formally impossible so Polish government should ask for it by surely they don't want to because I must tell you the Poles are the nation which is more the most pro-European from all the all the countries so if if our this part of the opening that they want to get out of European Union they would lose the power so they cannot say it they only say we demand our national rights and so on and so on and so on and they wait for European Union to kick to kick the Poland Poland off which is impossible so I cannot predict what will happen situation is absurd and everything is possible for example there was there was a law if European Union that European Union cannot punish a country to punish a country they will have the no no Liberum veto only one country can veto such a decision so there was sure that Hungary because Poland and Hungary are always friends the Hungary will veto it and there will be nothing so they have invented that they have they assume both Poland and Hungary and then both will be excluded for the voting and no veto which of course it is against against the letter of law but everything is possible in European Union because all the laws are incomprehensives they are they are complicated and and nobody understands anything so they will say that it is okay and that's all I cannot tell you what will happen I am sorry it is easier to see what will be done in 200 years with with the climate but I cannot tell what will be with the weather tomorrow and with with the European Union after after two weeks just as a follow-up to that previous inquiry what do you see in terms of the Visigrad group as acting as a a counter block within the EU either for security or as defense against the the EU and its overtures it is the the question is not properly posed we cannot act against EU because we are the part of EU so you cannot pose a question this way it is like like say the the Cornways acted against United Kingdom it is impossible so Polish Polish government is not united there are different factions in the ruling party and there is very attack of the ruling person in party with Mr Kaczynski who is only member of parliament he is neither minister nor prime minister or anything not a president and they say it is an absolute situation I said no during communist time there was a first secretary was only member of of parliament he was neither prime minister nor not the prime minister he was ruling and exactly the same is Mr Kaczynski who is who is who is the president of the ruling party and he is just a a simple so I cannot cannot tell I cannot answer answer that question I really don't know the golden rule in Poland is just try to do what you think it is rational now and don't think about the future because I cannot tell you I'm sorry