Private Law SocietyAnswering some of the «Difficult» Questions

David DürrPractising Lawyer and Law Professor in Switzerlandwww.swisslegal.chwww.staatsoper.ch

PFS-Conference Bodrum / 9-13-2015

Private Law Society

Lawful

«Law» of the Jungle«Law» of the Strongest

Unlawful

Stands still / steps asideor falls down

Raises the voiceDecelarates aggression

Outlaw acts agressively

HesitatingArgues

Argues backAccuses of aggression

Becomes embarassedShouts for others to help

Slows Aggression

Decrease of violence

Increase of firmness

Thirds start thereateningStops Aggression

Shouts for third to judgeAgrees to judgment by third

Agreement about judge

Arguing before the judge Arguing before the judge

Judge decides

TalkingNegotiating

Arguing

before

Acting

Acting

before

TalkingNegotiating

Arguing

Former Outlaw now compliesWith judgment

Lawful Unlawful

Outlaw does not comply

Hesitating

Decrease of violence

Increase of firmness

Judge decides (or no judgment at all)

TalkingNegotiating

Arguing

before

Acting

Acting

before

TalkingNegotiating

Arguing

Alliance of resistence:- Victim- Judge- Third bystandersBlaming Outlaw, bad reputation

Counterforce organizedby victim, judge, community

Nevertheless continuing

Slows Aggression

Nevertheless escalationof violenceEven bigger Alliance, along with

other strong players blame Outlaw, accuses of aggression

attacks and defeats him

Insists on judgement

Judge decides or Settlement

Insists on armistice

Expects compliance by outlaw

Strong parties and the former Outlaw comply mutually

Lawful Unlawful

Settlement between the strong Outlaw and the strong Counterparts

Strong parties and the former Outlaw comply mutually

Strong Outlaw becomeseven more aggressive internally

Intellectual resistence againstillegitimate power

Crazy marketing, e.g. «Protection Money»

Suppression of those «destructive» theoriesInternal Revolution against

totalitarian leader

Transfer of Revolution to other strong players

Former Outlaw(s) now complywith legitimate order

all insist on negotiations

Settlement between strong players and revolutionaries

about a legitamte order

Decrease of violence

Increase of firmness

TalkingNegotiating

Arguing

before

Acting

Acting

before

TalkingNegotiating

Arguing

Lawful Unlawful

«legitimate» organisationsbecome arrogant

Settlement between strong players and revolutionaries

about a legitimate order

and more aggressiveinternally und externally

ultimate internal repression

ultimate external war«Never Again» Reaction

Settlement between all theseslosers of war and terrorism- no strong players any more- small units- No monopolies of power- No compulsary memberships

NeverthelessWorst case not excludedThe strongest of all winsAll others are subject to him without conditionNo other strong rivals acceptedSuppression of critique by crazy justificationsand by force

Low risk that this happens

Private Law is expected to prevail

Lawful Unlawful

«legitimate» organisationsbecome arrogant

Settlement between strong players and revolutionaries

about a legitimate order

and more aggressiveinternally und externally

ultimate internal repression

ultimate external war«Never Again» Reaction

Settlement between all theseslosers of war and terrorism- no strong players any more- small units- No monopolies of power

Low risk that O

utlaw prevails

Private Law is expected to prevail

The State

The devil the state paints at the wall in order tojustify his monopoly of law and orderis himself!

Abolishment of the state is not just a political programAnd not just an economic necessityBut first of all required by law.

A consistent way to work on the abolishment of the state is to initiate legal procedings arguing that its inherent characteristics are against the law.

And it is high time.

To start with

Plaintiffs: many victims of the swiss central state

Defendant: An organisation called «Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft» (Swiss Confederation, CHE-114.587.210)

Legal remedies requested:• Granting plaintiffs the right to witdraw their

membership• Or dissolution and liquidation of defendant• Compensation for damages suffered (taxes without

consideration in return) and/or profits inhibited (by regulation)

Competent Court: to be agreed upon by the parties

Offer to enter into negotiations

• Modalities

• Time period to organize secession of plaintiffs

Conditions for the use of state infrastructure etc.after end of membership

• Or time period to organize the liquidiation

• Amount of compensation

• Costs of the proceedings

Accompanying Publicity

Accompanying Influence on Rating Agencies

• AAA-Rating not justified any more

Lawful Unlawful

Settlement between the strong Outlaw and the strong Counterparts

Strong parties and the former Outlaw comply mutually

Strong Outlaw becomeseven more aggressive internally

Intellectual resistence againstillegitimate power

Crazy marketing, e.g. «Protection Money»

Suppression of those «destructive» theoriesInternal Revolution against

totalitarian leader

Transfer of Revolution to other strong players

Former Outlaw(s) now complywith legitimate order

all insist on negotiations

Settlement between strong players and revolutionaries

about a legitamte order

Westphalian Peace Treaty

1648

Hobbes«Leviathan»

1651Rousseau

«Contrat social»1762

French Revo-lution 1789 ff.

Napoleonicwars

Vienna Con-gress 1815

Lawful Unlawful

«legitimate» organisationsbecome arrogant

Settlement between strong players and revolutionaries

about a legitimate order

and more aggressiveinternally und externally

ultimate internal repression

ultimate external war«Never Again» Reaction

NeverthelessWorst case not excludedThe strongest of all winsAll others are subject to him without conditionNo other strong rivals acceptedSuppression of critique by crazy justificationsand by force

World WarsI and II

Holocaust

Nationalism19th Cent.

OneWorld State

Settlement between all theseslosers of war and terrorism- no strong players any more- small units- No monopolies of power- No compulsary memberships

Today

Constitutionof Anarchy