 Yes, I have a question to Dr. Dominik. You said that the limited state is full of contradictions. Would you be ready to accept the limited state as a step towards gaining the anarcho-capitalistic society, or would you say that there is another way to achieve anarcho-capitalism? OK, thank you for that question. I think it will just cool us down a bit, because we have this format of the debate, and we're supposed to argue for the opposite positions. But I think that should be stated that we both come from libertarian, although you're not willing to use the word, we both come. So maybe let me change the word. So we both come from the respect for individual rights. And we want to analyze the possible systems, the political systems or social systems that can consistently and to the high extent, I guess, also that would be important consideration, provide protection for these rights. So although there is some disagreement between us, as you can imagine, I guess, this agreement is really insignificant in comparison to how many things we share and how many ideas we share and in how many concepts and the rights and liberties we believe in. So, well, let's say, outside the format of the debate, I would, of course, say that limited government is highly desirable. Let me maybe quote a friend of mine, Walter Block. He has this really funny joke when a person asks an economist, how's your wife? The answer is, compared to what? So how is limited government compared to what? Limited government, of course, compared to what we have currently, is an amazing solution. So I would say, well, I would absolutely welcome that. I would even welcome a limited government as not leading anywhere else. But as far as principles are concerned, I think that the right is on the side of anarcho-capitalist position. The right is on the side of full respect to individual rights. But this is comparatively insignificant in comparison to how many things we share, I guess. So I'm going to disagree. I think it's a big deal. I think the disagreement is a big deal. It's one of the reasons I won't call myself a libertarian. And I think, at the end of the day, we haven't talked about this, but it probably results in the fact that we don't define individual rights correctly the same way. And that we don't apply individual rights the same way. And that they are much deeper philosophical issues at bay where we disagree on. Because I don't think you can come to the anarcho-capitalist position, or the anarchist position, without, I think, making deep philosophical errors. For example, in the role of violence in human life and what individual rights actually mean. I mean, since you mentioned Walter Block, I will ask the question, is it OK? Is it rights-violating to have sex with a five-year-old child? Now, I would argue, absolutely it's rights-violating. It's a horrific rights-violation, and that person should spend a big chunk of their life in jail, if not forever. But they are libertarians. They are anarchists who say, well, why? It's consensual. The child might have said yes, but that's meaningless, right? And there might be a protection agency that will protect your right, in quotes, to have sex with that five-year-old child. Now, what does one do if there is a protection agency? Let's say I'm offering services to pedophiles. I am a right to protection agency that protects the rights of men to have, or women, it doesn't matter, women are taught it, but to have sex with a five-year-old child. What do you do with that? How do we solve this issue? How do we combat it? How do we get rid of this agency? People voluntarily are signing up. People voluntarily are willing to participate. Maybe even parents are voluntarily willing to have their kids participate. It's all voluntary. How do we deal with it? Well, I mean, I've got creepy crawlers down my spine just thinking about that, right? Because they are sick parents, and they are sick people who want to have sex with five-year-olds, and anarchism would legitimize that completely. Now, that means there's no such thing as individual rights. That means the negation of individual rights and the negation of what even means to be voluntary. How can a five-year-old be voluntary or anything? And how can a parent abuse a child and get away with it? So these are complex issues that anarchism defaults on and ultimately has to lead to massive injustices of these individual rights that supposedly we agree upon. But I'm not sure we do agree on them. And I certainly don't think we see them as coming from the same source and applying in the same way. So I think, and this is my resistance to saying we agree on a lot of things, I'm not sure we do if once you start peeling away the rhetoric into what it actually means. Okay, so I have a question to Dr. Brug. So what's your last comment based on this taste? Would you be equally moved? Sorry. What's your last comment based on, I don't know, moral distaste or repugnance? Would you be equally moved? I don't know, if I just come back home now and enjoying my property and all my liberties, I masturbate, watching pornography. I don't know, would you call it unjust or, I don't know, are you against effectively principle of voluntariness? I don't know, does your position imply that if- I mean, your masturbation is not violating anybody's rights. I don't care if you masturbate, why would I care? Yeah, because I'm trying to test your approach, like is it based on distaste, repugnance? So let's assume that- I mean, my point is this, my point is that application of individual rights is complicated. And applying it, for example, to children is very complex. But children have rights. And those rights are held in trust by parents. But somebody has to supervise their parents to make sure they don't abuse that trust. And that, for example, is one of the roles of government, to protect the rights of the child from, often, his own parents. And there is no way to- I just gave that example as a way in which Anarchy cannot deal with that. And indeed, Anarchy would encourage the creation of societies, of pedophiles, with parents who want to abuse their kids to join together. Now, I consider pedophilia a capital offense. It's as close to getting, you know, shot as I can think of. Now, you masturbating, I mean, good for you. I mean, I'm actually very much pro-masturbation. I think masturbation is wonderful. You should all do it if you're not doing it and do it often. What does that have to do with molesting children? It doesn't have any relationship to the two. So what about gays then? What about what? What about gays having consensual sex? It's consensual, right? They're adults. They get to make their own decisions. Again, a child is not an adult. And there has to be differentiation between children and adults. Which again, my argument is Anarchy cannot embed. You have to have a government that protects children. Okay, let me just push you out a bit more. There was this anecdote by Walter Block, like just to follow Dr. Mignac's style. Like, he used this anecdote. Like, there was a conference. There were two neo-Nazis in the audience. And he was like peculiarly keen on sort of converting them to libertarianism. He said, you'll have a really good deal with us with libertarians, you Nazis. You would have your goose marches. You would sing your Nazi songs in your properties. Like, what's more, you could get some juice to the gas if they willing, if they volunteer. That's disgusting. That is absolutely disgusting. But that's voluntary. No, you don't, it's not, if you want to commit suicide, that's fine. You cannot volunteer. That's exactly a source to suicide. This is exactly the point where you guys don't understand what individual rights mean. You cannot voluntarily assign yourself into slavery. There is no such thing as a contract. Contract means something. It is a legal document that assigns certain rights and certain responsibilities. You cannot assign yourself into slavery. If you want to commit suicide, you have every right to do that. You can commit suicide. You cannot have a right to contractually assign some Jews to come and get gassed. You can goose march. You can do all the paraphernalia of Nazism. You have every right to do that. You can exclude from your property anybody who is not blue eyed and blonde. But the idea that you can voluntary gas people is sick and disgusting. And this is why, I mean, I'm disgusted by Walter Block and why I find him an enemy of liberty. Not a friend of liberty, but an enemy of liberty and on the side of the Nazis and the communists. And that's why I view gang warfare on that side. I don't view that as being consistent with freedom. Contracts mean something. That's not whatever you want. It's not whatever you whim. This is exactly what individual rights are trying to get away from. It's to get away from the idea that whim is primary. Whatever you feel like is primary. By the way, those Nazis, even if all they do is good steps, I'm still gonna call them evil. I still think there are, you know, I'm still gonna watch them because I think they're a threat. And I still think they're evil, morally evil, for holding those ideas. So there is such a thing as... I'm not masturbating, but I'll be moved by now. Because I don't think you masturbating is illegal. Sorry, is immoral. I think you masturbating is moral. I think, I mean, it depends why you masturbate and how you masturbate and all that. Maybe it is immoral. But generally masturbation, I think, is a moral activity. I think that holding certain ideas, holding certain ideas like Nazism, holding certain ideas like Communism is immoral. Do I violate anybody by holding ideas? Morality is not about whether you violate rights or not. Morality is about how you live your life. This is exactly what I argued before. We don't agree on a lot. We disagree fundamentally. Most anarchists are moral subjectivists. Most anarchists don't believe in individual rights. Most anarchists don't believe in an objective morality. We disagree on the most fundamental questions about human engagement. And this is why I don't think, oh, we agree on most stuff, we disagree on just this final outcome. No, for most, and not everybody, there's some anarchists who I think we do agree on a lot of stuff. But for most anarchists, we disagree on a whole slew of philosophical questions. And that disagreement is reflected in the fact that we also disagree in this political issue. If I can jump in for a second. So, well, I think that was quite important what you said, because I agree that this is what distinguishes us, or what divides us. Because libertarianism and, well, anarcho-capitalism as a form of libertarianism is a view that can be called a thin philosophical view. So we don't really try to impose on people any so-called objective morality. You just pick and choose. This time you picked and choose. Masturbation is actually okay. And marching Nazis is not okay. We're not doing this. What we're doing is we try to distribute spheres of freedom between individuals and provide that they don't violate each other's rights, each other's domains, borders of jurisdictions. They can do whatever they want. So we are respectful of freedom. Whereas you've just shown, in my opinion, that there are some limits to freedom for you. The limits being that there is some particular, so-called objective. I can't see why it's objective. It's just particular morality. You pick and choose some things and you call them unethical. I'm not, as a libertarian, as a libertarian, not as a human being, but as a libertarian. We basically are not judgmental. We don't try to impose on people any particular morality. And we see the distinction between right and morality very, very clearly. And to this point, I'm actually referring to the problem with children that we refer to. I guess, as a libertarian, we can't say anything about morality of having sexual acts with children. But I guess, as a human being, of course we would condemn it. But as libertarians, we would basically point out to the difference, the difference between rights as a protection of interests and different sorts of protections of interest. There are different sorts of protection of interest. There is morality that you mentioned. There is ethics that you mentioned. There is repugnance that was mentioned by one person in the audience. And of course, we would refer to these elements as human beings as protecting children against these kind of abuses. So basically, I can't see the problem here. I think that there is, of course, some disagreement between us about what rights, in this case, we would like to assign to children. I guess there are some rights you wouldn't like to assign to children. For instance, you wouldn't assign a right to a child to sell a real estate. You wouldn't like to assign a right to a child to perform any other legal actions. The only right you would be willing to assign to a child, I guess, would be a right to be protected against physical violence by other people. As far as I'm concerned, I think libertarianism has resources to do exactly the same. Although we wouldn't go further. We wouldn't go into thick theory. We wouldn't tell people what to do if they don't want to. We wouldn't pick and choose this and that as moral or immoral and refer to so-called objective morality. No, this is good, because this is exactly why I do not call myself libertarian. I find much of that repugnant. And the fact is that I don't want to impose my morality, but I do think there is a true morality. I do think there's a right morality. And that morality... What if I disagree? Then you can live your life, as long as you don't violate other people's rights, do whatever the hell you want. But don't claim them. Don't claim that we agree on individual rights because we do not. And this is why this idea that libertarians believe in individual rights, we just think this is how we arbitrate them. You don't agree on individual rights. That is, individual rights are not random. Individual rights are a particular moral perspective. Individual rights are a moral concept. They're not even a political concept. They're a moral concept. The concept that bridges morality with politics. So let's be philosophical, right? We want to be philosophical. The whole idea was a moral defense of anarchism. Well, if morality is completely subjective, if morality is whatever you want it to be, then there is no moral defense of anything. It's whatever you happen to agree with. Whatever you feel like. There is no truth. There is no one moral truth, right? It's random. It's whimsical. It's whatever, right? So I believe that there is a moral truth. I believe that some systems are moral and some systems are immoral. But you say, you can't say it's immoral. It depends. Some people might like it. No, there is an objective truth here. So the concept of individual rights and how we come to it and how we apply it and how where it applies depends on having a proper conception of morality. And if we do not have a proper conception of morality, as I think most libertarians do not, then the concept of individual rights is flawed. And therefore their security agencies are all going to be flawed because they're trying to protect the wrong thing. The whole thing, the whole agenda is logically false and logically cannot stand because you won't accept the existence of an objective morality on which to base your moral case for X. Well, just one word if I can because that's really interesting. Well, I said that we share many things. I said that we share belief in individual rights. Yet I agree with you that in some respects, our definitions of individual rights are different. One of this respect, of course, that I identified during my speech is that you think that there is no right not to be expropriated by the state. There's no right, individual right. So what I said and you know that. There's no right with the protection service on a given territory if there is a compulsory monopolistic agency called the state. The second thing is that, well, libertarianism is really respectful of the fact which is usually called moral pluralism that people can reasonably differ as far as the moral doctrines are concerned. We have Christians, we have Catholics, we have Jews, we have various reasonable moral doctrines that differ and because we have this moral pluralism, exactly because of this reason, libertarianism is a preferable way of distributing between people domains of freedom to decide for themselves which moral doctrine they want to follow and not impose on them so-called objective morality that they can disagree with, basically. So one quick comment. Most moral doctrines, most moral doctrines. Most, I agree. Almost all moral doctrines think that using force on other people in order to make right is a good thing. Most moral doctrines do not recognize individual rights. Certainly the Judeo-Christian Islamic moral tradition has no respect for individual rights and believes explicitly that it's okay to use force on other people in order to straighten them out. So I think moral pluralism, great, right? But as long as the morality of individualism is not the dominant morality, then you will not have freedom. And as long as you advocate for moral pluralism, you will never have freedom. Moral pluralism is the way to go down in flames to the status, to the Christian status, the Jewish status, the Islamic status and all, and the secular status to use their moral code in order to justify their rule. It is a way to fail if you believe in liberty. Okay, thank you, Jen. What is the difference between objective and non-objective law and what are the consequences in society of each? That is one of the most important questions today. And objective law is a law which defines objectively what constitutes a crime or what is forbidden and the kind of penalties that a man would incur if he performs the forbidden action. Objective means definable, graspable by irrational consciousness. Therefore, an objective law would be a law which a man can understand and apply so that every man ahead of committing an action would be able to tell what is the crime forbidden, what penalty would he incur if he commits it and can make a decision accordingly. To be a law-abiding citizen, he should be able to understand the law and apply it as guidance to his own social actions. Now, a non-objective law is one which cannot be defined. It means a law without specific definition which may have as many different interpretations as there are men. Under a non-objective law, a citizen cannot tell what is permitted or forbidden. He cannot tell what action is socially accepted, what action will be punished and what will be the nature of the punishment. A non-objective law is left strictly at the interpretation of the authorities. Usually the judges under dictatorships, it would be the commissars, but in any case a non-objective law is one which a man cannot interpret himself, a law that is not defined and is in fact undefinable. The best example of it is, of course, anti-trust legislation, where a man cannot tell actually what is permitted to him or what is forbidden and make a legal crime without knowing that he's doing it. This ran a very popular legal doctrine, holds that law is actually what judges say it is and that legislative enactments are only sources of the law which the judges use to derive what they believe the law is. Do you believe this is a primary cause of the present state of non-objective law? It's not the primary cause, it's one of the manifestations. I believe if I'm not mistaken, it was Justice Holmes, Oliver Wendell Holmes who originated that doctrine. He was the worst philosophical influence on American law. That is a statement of pure non-objectivities. It's the formula for tyranny because if the laws are whatever the judges interpret, I don't see the purpose of having any laws at all. It would simply means that whatever the judges or the authorities decide at any given moment will determine what happens to the citizens of a country. It is not a formulation of law, it's the destruction, the negation of the concept of law.