 So, you know the rules kind of questions addressing the entire panel or individual members panelists can comment on each other and Wait until the microphone arrives at your place So my question is for mr. Jeffrey Tucker. Is there anything left to be said for Hayek? We're gonna start the civil war early here, right? Yeah So, well, yeah, I guess I'm sure first of all I should say that I thought Hans's paper is a brilliant inviscidation of this aspect of Hayek and Absolutely necessary and fabulous. So but yeah, there is and I'm sure everybody else would would and Hans too would say There's another Hayek and I've learned an enormous amount from From Hayek and the social theory in particular. I think Joselana would you know highlight his business cycle theory For me uses and knowledge in society is a brilliant paper It's a great expansion of Miss Ezzine idea and I and one thing that's really neat about Hayek to me Anyway, it's that he doesn't have this sort of Hobbesian Problem that that means this has you know me this always said all the time that The government was the most essential institution, you know, it's the one that we can't do without and you know He would go on like this But while Hayek, you know finds himself recommending vast vast government interventions His social theory presumes a kind of anarchism that you can read into it At least at least that's why I read hi can I think we would be impoverished if we just you know dispense with them all together I guess you could say so I Should make that clear Yes, I oh Hayek something. I did I did say that I think Hayek because he is as well known as he is is For many many people up to this day that is also refers also to Friedman It's the first step in in the right direction I also said I emphasize it again that I consider Hayek a very good economist But I did not talk about his Contributions to economics. I talked about those areas of his work That made him famous There are very few people who actually read the economic treatises of Hayek I'm sure that the pure theory of capital by Hayek has been read by no more than two dozen people alive and This is by and large also true for other books like prices and production remember Friedman saying it's some Some conference that he couldn't understand a word of prices and production so again my intention was not To outlaw Hayek so to speak My intention was just to show that as a political theorist. He is a disaster and he can only be useful in the sense of Opening the way for people who are on the search for something and they will encounter him long before they will encounter Rospart or Mises and In so far, of course, he is of great use I know many people who Experience the same thing that I experienced myself They read Hayek first and from then they marched on further and Encountered better people or at least better political theorists than Hayek Thank you Question for Mr. Tucker. How do you feel about the I must say no offense Benjamin, but to rather? Silly remarks we just heard earlier that we enjoy our own slavery and we enjoy the state oppression Just so we can talk about it and all of this is just intellectual masturbation Because to me it sounded your speech earlier sounded like a call for resistance at least on a very individual level. Thank you So do you ask you're asking a question to me? Is that right? Oh, so I love Menken He's just a delight, but he his His pessimism was also I'm not entirely sure how serious it was. I think it was also an attempt to delight the reader And I don't really share it in the sense that What one of the things I think think Benjamin's paper left out and also Menken left out is that Statism doesn't work. This is a big problem for the state because it promises glorious things and they don't arrive and And yet people have to live their lives, you know So so just just because of the nature of things there is a tendency for people to fly into resistance mode even if they're not, you know outright Rothbardians or you know adopting Locky and natural rights or whatever they just want to have their clothes get cleaned Whatever the thing may be. So yeah, there's always every every Intensification of the state gives rise to more of this breaking bad phenomenon of this rebelliousness of this of the of the pirate economy And to me, this is a great source of hope. I don't see Menken really having dealt with this at all I mean, even if you just walk down to the markets down the street here and walk through the central markets You can see the place is filled with pirate products everywhere, and it's just fantastic. I Mean it's glorious. I mean it encourages you because it makes you realize look I mean the US and but the evil Empire is Going all around the world trying to crack down on piracy and they can't do it They can't get away with it. So the more rebellion we have the more piracy We have a more breaking bad that takes place in the world And it's going to increase the larger the state intensifies its regulations as taxations and all the terrible things it does the more we are able to create a kind of You know sort of an underground civilization of Liberty that's more efficacious and lends itself to Human flourishing to a much greater extent than the official world and eventually I think we can we can see a future in which Which the statist apparatus is absolutely overwhelmed and Devoured by this world that we are creating as individuals and all of our little micro rebellions, I mean, I think there's a very on almost total overlap between breaking bad and shit story and and Just a point about menkins pessimism Mostly it's pretty rational looking at what's happened in the past and saying that will happen in the future so it's not saying that Things will become unbearably bad and that government will like Will they increase? Constantly saying, you know, they'll continue to be fight and tension But there's no reason to think that will make any progress And so it's pretty rational just saying look what's happened in the past that will happen in the future I mean Menken was more famous than like than many of us or all of us, you know, he was like the best known journalist in America Yet, you know, government kept on increasing, you know That's just that that's just the way it goes I must say I just want to say that there is quite a lot of fun to be derived from Government I used to make a small income from publishing in the new statesman, which is left wing magazine in England The circulars that I used to receive in my hospital. I would just publish them With very little commentary very little commentary was required and I've derived I've written quite a few articles on things and we received a in Hospital in which I worked We received a form saying that asking us for our race religion and sexual preferences in order that the personnel department could continue to pay us correctly and There were I think there were 17 races and 12 religions or I might have been the other way around I can't remember and and There were six sexual preferences So I wrote and sent them a little note saying Surely you've got a very restricted imagination if you think there are only six and So there is quite a lot of fun to be had from From the idiocy of government. I must admit I've had a great deal of fun from it I Perfectly agree with what Tony just said. I also watched the TV and on these debates One smart guy talking to another smart guy being asked by a smart woman. I think this is just like a comedy show I Also get great enjoyment out of just being able to predict what these guys will say And what the counterarguments will be and how the whole debate will end so yesterday Various people came and said are you an optimist or are you a pessimist? I think it doesn't really matter I Do what I like to do as long as they let me do it I Hope the people will listen to me If they don't listen to me then I discontinued talking to them and And I think I'm I'm happy with my life Regardless of what will Come in the future As long of course as they don't incarcerate me But I'm up in that regard. I'm optimistic that will likely that will likely not happen Hi, I have a question for Benjamin regarding Menken and his pessimism If I remember correctly, I think the page you created for men anger. Oh, sorry men get Menken Men can in for something like that that on that side the main picture is of Menken being very joyous after the end of prohibition So my question to you is is what was Menken's reflections on the ending of Prohibition which was obviously a great evil. So did he Felt pessimistic afterwards that or was he optimistic in his writings? Thank you He was very active During the calls for prohibition and during the introduction of prohibition I think I read somewhere like in the first 30 days of prohibition every day. He wrote an article against it and You know, he would openly say that is you know drinking bootleg whiskey or Whatever and definitely he was drinking all through prohibition So, you know, I think it was just He was happy that was a minor victory But, you know, like there was still taxes on alcohol and plenty more Prohibition Menken in his in his diaries, which is interesting during prohibition almost Almost every day. He writes something on alcohol. He doesn't write on that before and after prohibition But during that time period Everybody was obviously obsessed about Getting something to drink some some place and Informing each other where they would go where the good bars would be where you would get this whiskey or that whiskey None of that played any great role before or afterwards So I think this also applies probably to drug prohibition If it would be legalized these things hardly anybody would talk about it hardly anybody would notice that they had been Permitted but because of the fact that they are prohibited lots of people are simply obsessed by Getting drugs this type or that type or whatever it is. Yeah question for Hans. You this is very clear distinction Between illegitimate force being the initiation of violence against personal property and legitimate right of defense Under what circumstances are there any circumstances in which pre-emptive attack as a legitimate force of defense? Particularly if it's in response not to an overt but to a perceived threat as was the case in Iraq and seems to be about the case in Iran those are Those are cases. I think that have to be decided one by one Yes, things like that obviously Exists where there is an impending attack And and you might react to this impending attack But you obviously also realize immediately this that is a very dangerous Concept because you can always come up with some impending attack from From someone and that would open the door to constant to constant aggression and of course every Every war every major conflict that has broken out was fabricated in such a way that it looked like There was an impending attack or you even organized some small skirmish paid the guys To do the skirmish and then you had a reason to do the invasion So again, I think that requires very careful Scrutinizing of the individual cases in general. I tend to think The burden of proof is on On those who say there is an impending attack to show that that is really really is a case Maybe Stefan You want to make a comment on on this thing? I Agree with that that general observation of course in the case of states the burden should be even higher in a case of private defense Maybe not quite as high and then of course you could also argue that standing threats Which is a type of impending threat someone who's proven by their previous actions are just a complete menace to society Could be dealt with I suspect that in a free society that Standing threats or impending threats like that would be dealt with somewhat procedurally by ostracism or something like that But on occasion you're going to have some Someone who's going to take law into their own hands if they don't see some progress being made and they might Just take the guy out and then thereafter this guy might be viewed as sort of a little bit of a standing threat because he's not following The rules exactly but on occasion and egregious enough cases you can see something like that happening But I think by and large It would be pretty rare to do it because the burden proof would be high that you'd have to resort to Question for dr. Daniels if it's okay to go back and bring up a discussion from two days ago I would love to hear the opinion of a successful author who went with a standard publisher on sort of the Evolution of the publishing industry and and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each course? Well, I'm afraid your question is Based on a false premise that I'm successful I mean as somebody said the rare the rare editions of my books are the second editions and I Suppose that I've of course. I've always gone through publishers. I've had great difficulty actually getting published in England in Up till fairly recently Fortunately the costs of publication have come down and I had great difficulty in being published at all by any major publisher because I Think genuinely it must have been for reasons that they didn't like the content of what I wrote Because it was impossible that they would fail to make profit from my books So I had great difficulty I've always gone through them. I suppose In the modern world now they will act as some kind of filter or guarantee of some this is will be that their claim drill their their some kind of guarantee of Quality in my case of course I I I don't think I need that anymore because there would be people if I self-published I the 612 people who buy my books Would probably buy them and I would cut out the publisher I haven't really caught anything to say Other than I continue to go through publishers because of inertia mental laziness and inertia And of course when you sell 612 copies, it doesn't really matter how you're published Doesn't make much difference Will you tell us how many copies you really sell was not 613 Well, there have been books. I must admit that I've have so there are some there are a couple of books where I've sold 40,000 copies, but that's over a period of 10 years or something like that Or a book that's remaining There are wonderful things for a publisher for someone like me now that all the books that All the books that I've written which would never have been republished and now being republished as Kindle editions and presumably so long as the that continues I will my books which otherwise would have disappeared completely will go into the Will be available forever, but unfortunately that is true of every our analysis books Any other questions really have anything much to say on the subject Hi, can I ask her professor hopper about Hayek? Why do you think he was so unsound? He's his main teacher was Mises and yet he remains Unsound and is ripe for a plunder by social Democrats. What why was Hayek? So mistaken His teacher Mises Mises was his teacher only as far as his economics is concerned And I think That is the area in which he excelled His excursions into the area of political philosophy came much later in his life when he had been long separated from From Mises and probably fell under the influence of other people. I personally do not know Who those people might have been But he He has in the area of political philosophy He displays a fundamental anti-rationalism He He does not think that the reason can accomplish very much But that of course he tries to reason So I think even there in his anti-rationalism Constant talk against reasoning There is some sort of muddled mind at work because what is the purpose of Riding trying to persuade people of his arguments unless he does trust in reason as otherwise you should Not say anything But I have no I have no Answer to Why Mises did not have a greater influence on him also in the areas of political theory than Then he did They say he was very interested in John Stuart mill wasn't he and he edited the Letters of John Stuart mill to his wife. Yes Which might have turned his and John Stuart mill was also a very muddled sinker And his wife Harriet was an ardent socialist Tell me more Well, he was obviously a masochist and in the most literal sense and and And she was extremely nasty to him And he liked that he liked that. Yeah Maybe maybe a follow-up question to that isn't it to write that Hayek was converted by Mises's book socialism and Previous to that he was a socialist and Isn't it the case that? for many not for all but for many people who Convert from socialism to something else they retain some Some form of socialism the neoconservatives are extra skites And so it may have been the case with Hayek But then but then Mises was a lefty himself also. Yes, and I said he converted himself to something entirely different Yes, and not all Sorry Some of course made the whole transition like Mises But for a lot of people it is difficult they want to keep something that tells them I Was right in some way before they didn't want to Dismiss themselves. Is that that maybe I think we should not Engage in too much Psychologizing And we will I take Hayek at this word I mean this is what he writes and I attack that or find it good or whatever it is Why he did this or so? Tony would be more qualified. He is a psychiatrist. I I'm not a psychiatrist I don't I don't pretend to know what goes on in the minds of these people all I see is the output on paper Thank you. I have a question to you dr. Daniels You told us that you consider people in the Western world to have free lunch to live in a free lunch Society to have a free lunch syndrome if I quote you correctly and that many people are rent seekers You as a psychiatrist. Do you think that people are mentally ready for freedom and liberty now? well as that famous Quotation from Macaulay who said if you wait till people are ready to free for freedom before they're free They'll never be free There it's certainly true that a lot of people don't like freedom at least in our society and for example to give you an example About 30 about a third of the prisoners that I saw in prison preferred life in prison to life outside and and That must be so because in order to be caught by a British policeman. You must really make quite You really have to Bake him to arrest you and think so And I used to take them aside and say confidentially do you like you've been in prison several times before Do you like life in prison and they would say yes And the reason they were the reasons that they like prison Was that they wanted freedom actually from themselves. They didn't trust themselves. They also didn't want women It wasn't that they were homosexual, but their relations with women were so conflict ridden that it was a relief To be in prison where there were very few women So there are substantial numbers of people who don't want much in the way of freedom and Whether what that means for societies a whole I don't know But these are people who have grown up in a Generally speaking have grown up in a world without much structure Without much love and so on and so forth and they actually find more decency Imprisoned than outside. It's a terrible thing. It's a terrible indictment, but but that's how they are So I'm not sure what that means in a society of 60 million people in Britain But there are many people who don't want Freedom they definitely are many many do not want responsibility Because it's very difficult Responsibility is difficult. I have a question to Mr. Daniels The in the works of Yeah, okay in the works of sacrases and also haggard if you might know the the main feature which is Distinguishing human beings from animals is a timeless or team of the spelling is that they wish to be recognized and Respected and also for me. It means an opportunity of making a choice And this is something the democracy I would say is an idea or it's that is making an illusion Of being respected recognized and having a choice. So I would say that it's rather The the choice the illusory choice without Consequences and this is exactly where I see the weakest point of the whole construction where They the most enormous changes could be made I'm not quite sure what my question is Yeah, my question is that it is in the very nature of the human being to seek for being recognized and here and respected so I would say that there is a big chance of Pushing on that exactly point and change the attitude to the whole political system as well Well, I suppose it means it depends whether you mean one is self self-consciously looking for respect or Or whether It's a an inherent thing that you wanted the idea of Self-consciously looking for respect is disastrous because in my view it ends up in intimidation. You will give me respect Or otherwise, I mean that's what respect has come to mean in in the areas where I practiced for example Respect meant you will do what I do what I want or you will cringe before me because if you don't I Will be violent towards you. That's what respect meant That's what recognition meant for them and the other thing of I mean Self-esteem is another dreadful quality People would come to me and say I I have no self-esteem and I'd say well at least you've got one thing right And this And this great thing is instead of Becoming very angry they started laughing because because they knew the whole concept was bogus The there's a huge difference between self-esteem and self-respect and self-respect is what And self-respect is a very valuable quality because it's social quality and so on self-esteem is Actually saying I love myself whatever that actually means. I Well, I like myself Irrespective of what I actually am or what I do or what I mean to other people and Unfortunately that kind of thinking has Become very widespread Talking about self-esteem total. Are you familiar with? Nessaniel Brandon for whom self-esteem is the highest goal in life Oh, well, I pity him So hers one recently had an excellent lecture on exactly on the argument of the relationship between Mises and his nasty students So I would very much like that you give us a synthesis of what you said in your lecture in Prague I think it could be interesting for what they laid on Hayek and and Mises The lecture in the in Prague. Yeah The lecture concerned The role that Mises played in the Montpelerin society actually that was a talk that I gave here in the property and freedom society Six years ago and so a variant of this did this in practice do not publish That's what economics do if you don't have much time you just given the same talk or a variant there of a second time It's not a published so in that lecture I explained that Mises was very skeptical Concerning the future evolution of the Montpelerin society because it was infused with social Democrats in particular William Rupke, but maybe he also thought of Hayek Hayek had not yet published the constitution of liberty So he said well if we start from the outset we're discussing whether the income tax should be 25% or 30% And that cannot be the the point of a libertarian congregation So learning from this was precisely one of the reasons why Hans Hopper Took the initiative a few years back to in order to set up this society in which we would not spend our time on Skimming out the best way interventionist policies could be arranged, but set out Completely free from such constraints discussing all fundamental questions pertaining to Liberty and the unnecessary Necessary nature of the government and try to have fun doing this