Private Law Society
Answering some of the «Difficult» Questions
David Dürr
Practising Lawyer and Law Professor in Switzerland
www.swisslegal.ch
www.staatsoper.ch
PFS-Conference Bodrum / 9-13-2015
Lawful
Unlawful
«Law» of the Jungle
«Law» of the Strongest
Private Law Society
Outlaw acts agressively
Stands still / steps aside
or falls down
Acting
Hesitating
Argues
Argues back
Accuses of aggression
Becomes embarassed
Shouts for others to help
Slows Aggression
Thirds start thereatening
Stops Aggression
Shouts for third to judge
Agrees to judgment by third
Agreement about judge
Arguing before the judge
Arguing before the judge
Judge decides
Former Outlaw now complies
With judgment
Decrease of violence
before
Increase of firmness
Talking
Negotiating
Arguing
Decelarates aggression
Raises the voice
Acting
before
Talking
Negotiating
Arguing
Lawful
Unlawful
Judge decides (or no judgment at all)
Expects compliance by outlaw
Outlaw does not comply
Acting
Hesitating
Nevertheless continuing
Counterforce organized
by victim, judge, community
Slows Aggression
Even bigger Alliance, along with
other strong players blame
Outlaw, accuses of aggression
Nevertheless escalation
of violence
attacks and defeats him
Insists on armistice
Insists on judgement
Judge decides or Settlement
Strong parties and the former
Outlaw comply mutually
Decrease of violence
before
Increase of firmness
Talking
Negotiating
Arguing
Alliance of resistence:
- Victim
- Judge
- Third bystanders
Blaming Outlaw, bad reputation
Acting
before
Talking
Negotiating
Arguing
Lawful
Unlawful
Settlement between the strong
Outlaw and the strong Counterparts
Strong parties and the former
Outlaw comply mutually
Acting
Crazy marketing, e.g.
«Protection Money»
Intellectual resistence against
illegitimate power
Internal Revolution against
totalitarian leader
Suppression of those
«destructive» theories
Transfer of Revolution to other
strong players
all insist on negotiations
Settlement between strong
players and revolutionaries
about a legitamte order
Former Outlaw(s) now comply
with legitimate order
Decrease of violence
before
Increase of firmness
Talking
Negotiating
Arguing
Strong Outlaw becomes
even more aggressive internally
Acting
before
Talking
Negotiating
Arguing
Lawful
Unlawful
Settlement between strong
players and revolutionaries
about a legitimate order
«legitimate» organisations
become arrogant
ultimate internal repression
«Never Again» Reaction
Settlement between all theses
losers of war and terrorism
- no strong players any more
- small units
- No monopolies of power
- No compulsary memberships
ultimate external war
Nevertheless
Worst case not excluded
The strongest of all wins
All others are subject to him without condition
No other strong rivals accepted
Suppression of critique by crazy justifications
and by force
Low risk that this happens
Private Law is expected to prevail
and more aggressive
internally und externally
Lawful
Unlawful
Settlement between strong
players and revolutionaries
about a legitimate order
Private Law is expected to prevail
and more aggressive
internally und externally
ultimate internal repression
«Never Again» Reaction
Settlement between all theses
losers of war and terrorism
- no strong players any more
- small units
- No monopolies of power
ultimate external war
The State
Low risk that Outlaw prevails
«legitimate» organisations
become arrogant
The devil the state paints at the wall in order to
justify his monopoly of law and order
is himself!
Abolishment of the state is not just a political program
And not just an economic necessity
But 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, CHE114.587.210)
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
Westphalian
Peace Treaty
1648
Unlawful
Settlement between the strong
Outlaw and the strong Counterparts
Strong parties and the former
Outlaw comply mutually
Rousseau
«Contrat social»
1762
French Revolution 1789 ff.
Strong Outlaw becomes
even more aggressive internally
Crazy marketing, e.g.
«Protection Money»
Intellectual resistence against
illegitimate power
Internal Revolution against
totalitarian leader
Suppression of those
«destructive» theories
Transfer of Revolution to other
strong players
Napoleonic
wars
all insist on negotiations
Vienna Congress 1815
Settlement between strong
players and revolutionaries
about a legitamte order
Former Outlaw(s) now comply
with legitimate order
Hobbes
«Leviathan»
1651
Lawful
Unlawful
Settlement between strong
players and revolutionaries
about a legitimate order
«legitimate» organisations
become arrogant
and more aggressive
internally und externally
ultimate internal repression
«Never Again» Reaction
ultimate external war
Nationalism
19th Cent.
World Wars
I and II
Holocaust
Today
Settlement between all theses
losers of war and terrorism
Constitution - no strong players any more
of Anarchy - small units
- No monopolies of power
- No compulsary memberships
Nevertheless
Worst case not excluded
One
World State
The strongest of all wins
All others are subject to him without condition
No other strong rivals accepted
Suppression of critique by crazy justifications
and by force