 Thank you gentlemen. Now we will skip to the final last question and after that you will have five minutes to sum up the whole discussion. So the last question. This will be the question for Jaron Broek and I want to ask you that why in this discussion you think that the force is the force is the needs of the people. Because when we are talking about the forces what I'm sorry I didn't understand the force is people need because when we are talking about the private agency which should protect people because force is not a need the true need is to be protected for the force yeah so the agency will not create the word to constant word war which each other yeah they rather want to stop the wars to stop the violence because that they people will pay them for that yeah so they works like a company not like a government government have got money in any way yeah it's good or bad government company can earn money achieve money and people only when it's good on their own way so that's a question there is a thanks for asking a question it's a good question the fun there's a fundamental difference between economic power and and force or what I call political power the difference is the one embodies a gun and the other one does not economic power is truly voluntary economic power is about the gaining of values and constant progress and constant competition and compass a constant improvement in win-win transactions and win-win relationships once you have once you bring in the gun once you bring in force protection you call it but protection is very naive it's very it's a very nice word right because what is my protection might be force against you I need to protect it against you you you're doing stuff economically that I don't like I want your stuff and my protection agency is now I've paid it a lot of money to go after you and go after your stuff and if my protection agent has a bigger gun than your protection agency then who do you think's gonna win that one it's all about guns it's all about the size of the weapons it's all about force it's not about value creation it's about guns it's about the bigger gun wins right so a political power the power of the gun is about coercion it is about force whether it's held by the government it's its power it's the same kind of power in government or it's held by private entities private entities that supposedly motivated by money but they still have a gun in their hand and a gun in their hand allows them to inflict their power over other people without it being voluntary and their whole purpose is not to be voluntary because they're protecting me they're not protecting you you didn't pay them so they're there to protect me so if I have a conflict with you they represent me and if they're gonna inflict their power on you they're not violating any voluntary agreement they had with me I say cool go after him now you ever protect an agency responsible protecting you and they have to negotiate or they have to war or they have to do whatever and what if their negotiations break down and this is why you know it was brought up that states functions like this yeah and and exactly what we get we get wars we get World War two we get even stupid or World War one or both are equally stupid I guess World War one we get we get because there's no final authority there's no way to arbitrary disputes and they have big guns and I can inflict you know I'm Germany I can inflict my bigger gun than on Poland I'm gonna take you over well the the protection agency is gonna do exactly the same thing and there's no way to stop them and the will of the people doesn't matter because the people unless the people are all armed and that's fine I mean the one solution I can imagine to all this is we're all armed we all carry we all have the machine gun ready and and we're all constantly all the time at war but nobody wants to live like that nobody wants to live like that nobody should want to live like that nobody should live like that again I can consider the anarchist position on the same in the same place as as authoritarianism because I think it leads the same state of mind the same kind of life which is a life of fear and oppression and and constant constant constant fear constant inability to use the one weapon the one tool we have to produce which is our mind if I can jump into this question also yes okay thank you so okay alright so first of all I would say maybe maybe that would be worth mentioning today something that we haven't mentioned yet the difference between the operation between the states and as what you mentioned in your question between private security agencies which by the way I think we can expect would be actually insurance companies working on a free market insurance companies provide service to people they they insure them against catastrophes these catastrophes can be natural catastrophes or social catastrophes social catastrophe is nothing else than being a victim of a crime being a victim of a mugger and and and therefore this this this kind of imbalance that you should suggest that that your your defense agency represents you against against another person and the only thing that the agency wants to do is basically to respect your rights is also that doubtful because in the case of insurance companies these interests are not so easily distributed because the insurance company considers a person who actually is a victim of a catastrophe a winner against the insurance company so the incentive structure wouldn't be so straightforward as you should suggesting but then another so that's the one thing and now we can compare these two models that we haven't yet was that it was the ultimate was was the crucial difference between these two organizations the crucial difference is that the state can externalize costs of its aggressive behavior on the taxpayers on the people that involuntarily have to hand over the money to the state because they are threatened with death and and and loss of the of the life liberty and property whereas organizations such as security agencies or in particular insurance companies operating on the free market they operate on a different basis they cannot externalize costs of the aggressive behavior on the customers because as you suggested and as you suggested rightly they are financed through a voluntary purchases of the service they provide to the customers the willing customers and therefore the incentive to start the wall to war to have a war between agencies is is a different sort of incentive and I claim is a is a smaller incentive than there is between the states we can ask ourselves this question imagine two organizations satirist paribas or other things being equal counterfactually or other things being equal organization a and organization b they equal except one thing organization a can't externalize costs of aggressive behavior on other people through taxation organization b can't do that and now ask yourself which of these two organizations will be more aggressive where will be the bigger incentive to start violence to initiate physical force against innocent people so in my last point about you know arming to teeth having guns next you know with you all the time machine guns and things like that well I I I basically as a free market here I believe in division of labor and I don't think that we would have to defend ourselves individually I think we would outsource it we could outsource it we could have a division of labor and professional agencies specializing in this service would basically protect us in particular that would be insurance companies as they protect us now before something happens to us not afterwards as it's the case with the police and actually that was also surprising for me when you mentioned that you're not afraid of the state taking into consideration how many violations are committed by the police in the United States it's really surprising we at least in Poland don't have this problem because our police is really not so strong and doesn't have such doesn't have such powers but it's surprising to hear it from someone from the United States where you really have a big problem of the police and the violence of the police so so yeah that would be that would be it on my part thank you very much well we are running out of time so would you like to say at last few words to sum up today's meeting well I'll just say just to correct us I if I said I'm not afraid of the state then I misspoke of course I'm afraid of the state in its current in its current manifestation of course I'm afraid of the direction in which states are going because they're only going in the direction of finging on individual rights more so what I'm not afraid is afraid of a state that protects individual rights I'm not afraid of a state that is structured around at the principle the principle which has to be well defined and clearly defined of individual rights and individual sovereignty I where I am really afraid is of the anarchist of the anarchist solution the anarchist world the deliverance of anarchy I think is I think it's scary I think it's I think it's destructive and I think that the that the arguments are inherently unsound and unreal and the the solutions to to the real issues are detached from all reality if you want anarchy Somalia is waiting for you you can go back to the Middle Ages and live in the Middle Ages and enjoy that that is anarchy it's not a distortion of anarchy it's anarchy it's exactly what anarchy is it's not that it has to be tried it's been tried many many many times and it's it's tried as I said in our inner cities among gangs the you know there is anarchy all over the world you can go find a place and go live there it's a horrific existence it is not an existence worthy of human beings and I think it does us at this service as defenders of liberty of those of us who want to defend freedom to advocate for a system that is so destructive to human life 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 the 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 would should be able to understand the law and apply it as guidance to his own social actions now and 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 and 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 antitrust legislation where a man cannot tell actually what is permitted to him or is forbidden and may commit a legal crime without knowing that he's doing it Mr. Ryan 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 with the judges used to derive what they believe the law is do you do you believe this is a primary cause of the presence a 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 doctor and he was the the worst philosophical influence on American law that is a statement of pure non-objectivities is the formula for tyranny because if the laws are whichever the judges interpret I don't see the purpose of having any laws at all it would simply means that whichever the judges or the authorities decide at any given moment and will determine what happens to the citizens of the country it is not a formulation of law it's the destruction the negation of the concept of law