Right. Well, welcome everybody. Good evening. You're welcome. Very, very welcome. A big welcome on behalf of the British Commission for Maritime History to this. The final Kings Maritime History seminar of 2021, organized as you know by the British Commission for Maritime History, but with the support of the Society for Nautical Research and Lloyds register and hosted by the Lawton Naval Summit here in the Department of War Studies and as part of the Sir Michael Howard Center for the History of War, all at Kings College London. Thank you all for joining and such numbers, again, on line with any luck with this new variants, we will be able to proceed as planned in the new year by meeting in a room, and with a glass of wine that I can share rather than just have to to myself. But I'm hoping also that when we do that will be able to take advantage continue to take advantage of the online format and one of the benefits of that is, of course, that we can have people from overseas join us and I'm really pleased to say that tonight. We have Alan Anderson with us. You might recognize him. He's spoken to us to this group before seems to me if memory serves correctly somebody had stolen one of the cables that connected the computer to the projector or something like that we couldn't see your slides if. We won't have that problem tonight because we met earlier with practice everything's ready to go. And Alan is a former PhD student and graduates of the Department of War, War Studies here at Kings works on the laws of naval warfare and strategy in Britain and 1899 to 1909. He makes most of his filthy looker. He pays for his private library, I think, as an attorney, but we can forgive that because he's also teaches military history at March University in the United States and today. We have a focus on 1909 the conference in London. The effect of that and the difficulties I think that it encountered so it's with the great thanks that I hand over to you Alan. Well, thank you Alan. You who have a glass of wine. I just have a bottle of water, which is kind of there and gone from my background but and as I told Alan my unfortunately my background is not my library. It's the library which Anyway, I am going to hopefully if this works well share my screen and give you my talk with the benefit of some slides PowerPoint slides. Today, if you have any questions along the way if you don't want to wait until the end. I'm going to raise your hand using the little function at the bottom of your screen, and we'll try to answer them. Otherwise, hopefully if I do the timing correctly there will be time at the end for some question and answers. So, without further ado, let me see if I can do this and share the screen. And there is that working. Alan. Yes, it is. Excellent. So, I am going to be talking about the London naval conference of 1909 and the last chance of regulating naval warfare. The 1909 London naval conference was the last of the three major international conferences. The first being the pre First World War, the first being the 1899 hate conference followed by the 1907 hate conference and then the London naval conference of 1909. All of them, in one form or another addressed questions relating to the law of naval warfare. And this was the very last one. So, I'm going to start sort of near the end, actually, and see if I can go there we go. So, June 24, 1914. Imperial Germany told England that it had accepted in essentials the new proposals of the British government relating to two phrases that had been an issue between the two governments, since the 1909 conference declaration had been signed. There was a lot of back and forth and give and take Imperial Germany said, Well, we've accepted it. So, Arthur, Arthur Zimmerman, the acting Secretary of State for foreign affairs asked England to confirm that it would now ratify the declaration. This was a significant diplomatic achievement for Britain. It had been trying for more than five years to obtain ratification of the declaration. The other signatories to the declaration had agreed to the terms except for these two phrases that were in dispute between Britain and Imperial Germany. England had asked and wanted the pronouncement on the agreed principles of international naval law, and it seemed like they had achieved it. So the question is, how did they get to this parent diplomatic breakthrough, why did it takes a long and what happened after that. And that's what I hope to explore very briefly today. And I will tell you that on a lot of the topics, you know, we can do a deep dive as we go along here because there's a lot of back stories and, and things like that that were involved. So this is a to a great extent a somewhat superficial review. And last question like that, you know, I'm certain that I would be that we could go on for hours and hours and hours and Alan would have to consume the entire bottle of wine that he has, in order to get to the end but, you know, that way, but that may not be the best thing for for Alan at least. So, where did the, going to start with how the 1909 London naval conference came about. And where rose, because Britain was unable to conclude an agreement at the 1907 hate conference on subjects of blockade and contraband. Those were critical issues for Britain and the Admiralty at the 1907 hate conference. There was an agreement identifying specific items as either absolute contraband. Those are items that clearly have military uses that are subject to be seized, whether at sea, they're being in ship, being shipped, or conditional contraband. There are other items that may or may not be of military value. And it was a real issue, because at the in the 1904 1905, Russia, Japanese war. Russia had declared as contraband items that for many, many years had been thought to be not absolute contraband raw materials such as cotton, which of course was a big thing for British industry. And so England wanted to have an agreement on specific items of absolute contraband, and it also had questions regarding the scope of a blockade, how, you know, far out from a port, could a blockade be conducted and be considered effective. That was a major issue and then lastly there was the doctrine of continuous voyage, which first came out of the 18th century, the doctrine basically that if you're a ship in your but you're carrying products to a neutral port, but then going to go from the neutral port is your first port of call to a an enemy port. And it's still subject to seizure because they're going to look at what's the continuous voyage. Now during the American Civil War that doctrine had been expanded in in US courts to include that even if you unloaded the products at a neutral port but then they were going to be trans shipped by land to the enemy. They would still be subject to seizure so they wanted to have a clear definition of the concept of continuous voyage. Britain as I said, indicate here they wanted to abolish conditional contraband, but at least get the agreed list of what was or was not contraband, because that was important to Britain's trade. If they were a neutral, and I should point out that Britain at this time thought that if there was any future European conflict, chances are they were going to be a neutral, as opposed to a belligerent. There's more historical background. This is the group picture at the 1899 hate conference, and having looked at this extensively, there's Jackie Fisher in the back. I'm quite confident of that. He was the British technical Royal Nate technical naval delegate. Interestingly, despite looking at this over and over again I have not been able to identify Alfred Thayer. I'm a hand, who was a corresponding technical counterpart, naval counterpart for the United States delegation, the US delegation, I don't know if you can see my pointer here but there are the other four members are right here in the front row, but not. Here is the group picture for the 1907 hate conference. I put these up in part because for the 1909 London naval conference I have not been able to find any group portrait or photograph that was taken during the conference, which kind of tells you, you know how little it was considered to be significant at the time, although I think it was much more significant. So anyway, during the 1907 hate conference in September 1907. And keep in mind that the hate conference had been ongoing since June so it had been going on a long time, much longer than it was anticipated. Admiral Otley, who was the British naval delegate told the Foreign Office that look, we can probably work out a deal with Imperial Germany, but it's going to be too late to get all the necessary questions everyone attending. And so he wanted approval to tell delegates from the principal naval powers that blockade and a couple of other topics, all relating just to naval issues would be discussed at a small conference in London in the spring of 1908. The reaction at the Foreign Office and this is a picture of Edward Gray was, you know, we're sick and tired of all these conferences and so we'd really like to work this out now. At the same time, you know they recognize that this was an important issue because this was important, you know how blockade would be described or defined or limited was it would otherwise be left for determination by the International Prize Court, a convention on which had been agreed previously at the 1907 hate conference. It was an important issue. And even though they were tired of conferences, you know, Gray was like okay, we can, you know, continue on later. At the conference in 1907 Germany had tied agreement on blockade and contraband to abolition of the doctrine of continuous voyage. It wanted it completely abolished. And the first reason for that is they realized that in any future continental war, where they were going to be able to continue to get have trade is through neutral ports in the Netherlands or Belgium. It also wanted to limit the area in which a merchant ship trying to avoid a blockade could be seized. And to, you know, say that basically if it's carrying contraband but heading for a neutral port next to a blockade report can't stop it. So they wanted they went to what they wanted at the conference, obviously very significant positions for Imperial Germany that would favor it in any future war. And finally the Admiralty, oh by the way, back here at this slide, that is Bill Helm, the second in the uniform of a Royal Navy Admiral the fleet. The monarchies in Europe at the time were very fond of giving each other honorary ranks and positions in their militaries and Bill Helm the second very much enjoyed dressing up in uniforms you can see him wearing the ribbon of the order of the garter there. Anyway, the Admiralty wanted to be able to seize a new ship carrying contraband anywhere within an area of 800 miles of blockaded port. That was and they view that as a real concession. In the Admiralty's view, international law at the time enabled them to capture a vessel, even at Yokohama it's in Japan. If the vessel was proceeding to a European blockaded port. So it didn't matter how far away they were they could seize a vessel halfway, almost the entire way around the world. And this is Reginald McKenna, who was the first Lord of the Admiralty at the time. However, Gray decided to defer further attempts to reach an agreement. Because he wanted an understanding on those subjects that would be clear because under Article seven of the International Prize Court Convention. If there wasn't an applicable treaty, then the prize court would apply rules of international law. And if there was no generally recognized rule in existence. There was a judgment according to general principles of justice and equity, and Britain did not want to leave this very important subject open for interpretation by some international prize court, they wanted a generally recognized rule. So they knew what the ground rules would be in any future war. So, having deferred discussion and agreement. These naval issues at the 1907 Hague Conference which finally adjourned in October of 1907. In February of 1908, Britain invited nine major sea powers to a conference in London. And the nine powers were Austria, Hungary, France, Germany. Great Britain, of course, Italy, Japan, Russia, Spain, and the United States. Now, later on, the Netherlands. They were invited to play in because they asked, hey, we should be invited. We've always been considered, we already consider ourselves a major sea power. The US said sure invite them so Britain said okay fine. So there were 10 countries then that attended the conference. The conference Britain asked all of them to send us a memorandum on what the correct rule of international law was in eight maritime warfare topics so it was more than just the two or three, plus blockade that oddly had first raised back in September of 1907. Those that eight topics were rules relating to contraband blockade, the doctrine of continuous voyage. The destruction of neutral vessels prior to condemnation by a prize court rules relating to neutral ships or persons rendering unneutral service. The nationality of converting merchant ships to warships, the transfer of merchant ships from a belligerent state to a neutral flag during or anticipation of hostilities, and whether the nationality or domicile of the owner of a vessel should be the the dominant the dominant factor in deciding whether property was enemy property subject to seizure. Germany responded but said, hey, we think we ought to work toward a treaty on a greed treaty in Germany asked the United States to agree to this approach. Now, I think they asked they assume that the US would agree because the US had worked very closely and had cooperated with Germany on a number of issues at the 1907 hey conference, such that great Britain viewed the US as increasingly allied with Imperial Germany. However, somewhat surprisingly, at least for Imperial Germany, the US said, yeah, we're not going to even respond on this to your request for our positions. See our naval war court of 1903, which had not been enforced since 1905. But that's all we're going to do. Every other country except for Spain sent in a memorandum of their positions ultimately. Russia also preferred creating treaties to establish laws but Great Britain insisted that what it wanted was a statement of here's what the recognized naval law is that everyone is in agreement with, even if we've got to make some modifications to those rules. That was the, you know, the ground, if you will, the foundation for calling the conference to start. So, December four 1908. The conference is opened in London with what was described as a rather colorless speech by gray. A week later it adjourns for the holiday period until 11 January, and then it starts up again and it finishes finally on February 26. Rear Admiral Edmund Slate, he is one of England's delegates. He thinks that the US is going to support England's views. But he thought that Germany was going to take a very uncompromising attitude, and would give Great Britain a great deal of trouble. He was wrong. He was wrong. This by the way is Slade here in the corner has a very interesting mustache I don't know if you can see but he's wax the ends out to points. It's a little bit different than your normal handlebar mustache they're not curled. They're just straight out. Anyway, the US delegation, which is rear Admiral Charles Stockton and George Wilson an international law professor. Go into the conference with no specific instructions on most issues. As a result, the US turns out to be the biggest impediment throughout the 1909 naval conference. They have to ask for directions back from the United States at every, every time something comes up. And sometimes that results in a change in position where they would have said in the conference well we believe that this is our position and so this is what we think. You know the couple of days later they say oops sorry, we have a different position. The US is very adamant that it's not going to give up the doctrine of continuous voyage, not going to give it up at all. This is also as we talked about as I mentioned an important issue for Britain, but for the US they are just absolute forget it. We're going to give up the doctrine of continuous voyage in any any way shape or form. Interestingly, Germany is willing to agree to England's proposed lists of absolute and contraband absolute conditional contraband, but it wants England to give up continuous voyage. And that obviously would be a significant concession for England, indeed Slade recognizes that that's going to, if we're belligerent in a future war. It's going to prevent us from stopping German trade by sea because it's going to continue through neutral Belgian and Dutch ports. But he concludes that you know the doctor really isn't that worth isn't worth that much to us because it really isn't going to impact the enemy that much. And second, in the South African war, Britain's experiences militated against it now during the South African war. Britain had taken a very aggressive stand or position on the doctrine of continuous voyage. Both of neutral ships were heading toward neutral ports around the edges of the Boer republics and they seized both American and German vessels under the doctrine of continuous voyage, and that resulted in a really significant diplomatic row between Britain and the United States. It got to the point where the US is basically saying, look, you either stop this or else. Germany was sending all sorts of very strongly worded diplomatic messages, ultimately Britain had to back off and stop their aggressive use of the doctrine of continuous voyage so, given that experience. They had to fight against it and by the same token in the Russian Japanese war. Among other things there had been a lot of consternation when Russia declared various products that had long thought to be not subject to seizure as contraband conditional contraband. They declared a lot of products, which the British economy depended on as contraband subject to seizure. And so Slade recognizes this and determines, you know, this isn't that significant of a benefit to us. And so Britain and Germany reach an understanding on what's contraband in terms of absolute and conditional, and they agree to eliminate the doctrine of continuous, continuous voyage should be except for absolute contraband. And that's, you know, seems a reasonable splitting of the baby if you will, it was conditional contraband there's no doctrine of continuous voyage but if it's absolute contraband, it's subject to seizure, even if it's only ultimately going to get to into the hands of the enemy. So it seems like they've got a deal. Everything's going to go through swimmingly, except for the US, the US refuses to agree. And they refuse to agree, even if it risks breaking up the entire conference. And they're warned, look, this is going to ruin the US reputation, if it maintains its position. And the American delegate, Admiral Stockton, who pleads with the Secretary of State to look except this contraband compromise because continuous voyage isn't that big of a deal for blockade. But conditional contraband is secondary and occasional, you know, the German British compromise is conditional contraband is not subject to the doctrine of continuous voyage. And he points out that hey, this is going to be a real value to the US in terms of its trade as a neutral in any future war, because that's where we're going to be as a neutral trading, and we want to be able to have our ships sending and trading at neutral ports, and so that's going to be important to us.  The US continues to nitpick on wording on various parts of the declaration. Slade writes in his diary, the Americans are impossible and there is a strong probability of the wrecking everything so there is no love loss between the US and Britain, as the conference seems to be grinding to a dissolution with nothing no agreement being reached. And there's various issues that are being nitpicked by the US. Finally, Gray meets with the US ambassador to the court of St. James in mid February 1909, and basically says look, make a deal here. You know, we can work through any other issues just between us, but let's get this deal done. And so finally, they signed the declaration concerning the laws of maritime war on February 26. This is a not a treaty, it is not a, here's what we think the laws of naval warfare are, or should be, or excuse me what they should what they should be. This is what everyone here, these 10 C major C powers have agreed that the rule the laws of maritime warfare are. It's a big deal. Internally in England the Admiralty views the results favorably and I should say that there has been a lot of research and a lot of things written suggesting that the Foreign Office and Gray hoodwink the Admiralty that the Admiralty really wasn't in favor of the declaration. And all sorts of things that there was all sorts of skull duggery and that the Foreign Office, you know sabotage the Admiralty's position on my research, I think that is simply incorrect. The Admiralty went in to the conference, eyes wide open, they understood what the issues were, they did a careful analysis of what the benefits were to various positions. At the end of the day, they realized that they had to balance much more than had been in previously the case they had to balance the role of Britain as a belligerent in warfare versus Britain as a neutral in warfare. And so, unlike even 10 years earlier at the 1899 paid conference, where the Admiralty's views were very much on the world called pro belligerent side of the, of the stadium. In 1909, after the South African war and the Russian Japanese war they realized that look we have to balance our, our views with what we would want if we're neutral, because again as I mentioned, they viewed it, the most like that they're that Britain's position in the next continental war would be as a neutral. So the Admiralty is favorite views the results favorably the director of naval intelligence views it as favorably the Admiralty secretary is very effusive. And he wrote that we gain as a neutral and as a belligerent we lose something. You know, we actually gain, because we've got a clear definition of what the, what our powers are under national law, and what we'll be able to do is against neutral trade with an enemy. Without having difficulties arise, which happened in South Africa that that those experiences are really out you know hang in there and they're quite quite a role in what they're determining. So, the Admiralty is very happy about this. The foreign secretary is very positive about it. He congratulates the delegation on what has been achieved. And, you know, on the critical issues, there was an agreed itemization of what absolute and conditional contraband is, you know, by product. In conditional contraband and in contraband that was not subject to seizure Britain had gotten basically everything at one in terms of raw materials not being subject to seizure food, not being subject to seizure. And that was a, that was important to Britain because of course most of the food is important. And they also have to keep on getting in the raw materials for British industry continuous voyage. And unless that is, you know, no longer or is abrogated, but it's still applicable to absolute contraband. So the worst, if you will materials products that are clearly of military value, still subject to seizure under continuous voyage doctor. So, in order to blockade the scope of an effective blockade is a very vague into, you know, I'm, I'm not good at French so I'm certain I'm going to mispronounce this the rayon Dachshund is basically the scope of an effective blockade which is it's just basically the reason their area of action it's elastic. It varies according to circumstances so unlike basically when the Admiralty thought if we agree to 800 miles as a limit. That's a big concession, they get a vague phrase, which is going to vary. And so it could be in some instances, you know, a couple hundred miles or it could be 1000 miles. You know, however, the, the blockade ships or the blockade line is running. And it means that you don't really have to have that many ships if you've got a naval vessel cruising back and forth, you know 900 miles outside of a potential port. That's going to be enough to, to if you run into a neutral vessel to be able to seize it and see what's going on. So, you know, on paper this seems to be a really good result for England. Other nations agree. The General Board of the Navy approves the declaration. The US Congress approve ratifies the International Prize Court Convention. They approve the declaration of London. But President Taft doesn't sign it because everybody's waiting to make sure that all of the other nations ratified as well. So it's kind of in limbo, at least in the United States as of 1912. In Britain, however, there's a lot of criticism. And this is my pitch for the Corbett 100 project that the department is doing. The critics claim that the declaration unduly restricts England's rights as a belligerent unreasonably limits neutral rights and expands belligerent rights to the detriment of Britain's ability to maintain its food supply during war. Now Corbett, pre the start of the 1907 Hague Conference had written an article that was published in a edited volume that Mahan edited basically arguing against any rules that would limit Britain's maritime warfare rights. The big, the primary criticism comes from Maurice Hankey, who writes a number of papers, suggesting that the 1909 declaration is bad. That results in the counter arguments by members of the British delegation who reviewed it. Desart says no, this isn't true. So there's a lot of back and forth. My own analysis is that Hankey was just trying to gain political points in the debate. Ultimately, however, ratification in Britain falls victim to the concert of House of Lords. There was a veto ratification and it occurred after passage of the Parliament Act of 1911, which removed their ability to veto money bills. But despite that, despite that occurring, England keeps trying to gain acceptance. The focus shifts to let's get agreement from Germany, because everybody else is basically fine with it. And they're not going to, you know, you know, object, if we get a kind of a, if we work out a deal with Germany on the two remaining areas of issue. There's no meaning of the scope and interpretation of the phrases and I'm not going to try it in French, but it's a fortified place in base in article 34 of the declaration that article presumes that conditional contraband is destined for use by the enemy, which would make it subject to the seizure if it's consigned to a fortified place belonging to the enemy or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy. And that is an issue for Great Britain, because so many of its naval bases are right next to ports, trading ports where there's a lot of neutral trade. And so they're concerned that unless they've got a clear understanding with Germany of what those two phrases mean. They're right under the declaration start seizing vessels that are, you know, heading for the neutral side of the port as opposed to the naval base side. And that's what goes back and forth. And I will tell you that over the years between 1911 and 1912 and then the late June of 1914. There is a lot of back and forth. There was a interpretation Germany comes back, Germany proposed an interpretation Britain says no and comes back, it is back and forth back and forth over the years. Until finally in on June 27. They reach a deal, they reach an agreement, and it is the agreement that Britain have or the interpretation that Britain has proposed. So Britain seems happy. Germany is now satisfied. It's like, great, this is now finally Britain is going to get or obtain what it set out to achieve in the 1909 London naval conference. A clear agreed statement by the major sea powers of here's the laws of naval warfare, as they exist. Not something that we need to have treaties about. That is, you know, basically generally accepted international law that will govern naval warfare. However, for those of you who were perceptive to pick up that the agreement was reached on June 27 of 1914. Very quickly overcome by events, the very next day, June 28, when Franz Ferdinand that air to the Austro Hungarian throne is assassinated in Sarajevo. A pitch for the Austrian military museum in Vienna. The photograph of the actual car he was writing in which miraculously survived both the first and second World War is on display in the Austrian military museum in Vienna. This is rarely visited. I have been fortunate enough to be there several times. And there's generally nobody around. And if you pretend you don't speak English very or speak German, you can take a lot of pictures. This is a photograph the actual car there's actually two bullet holes where bullets entered, as you can see, you can see one is there. Another one is right there in the door, but Franz Ferdinand is assassinated along with his wife.  In fact, the first story about it in the times of London is buried in the paper. To the extent there are new stories about it. Everyone's basically saying gee this is really too bad for the Archduke and his kids.  However, you know, they're starting things start to move. There are miscalculations and foolish decisions made pretty much everywhere in the capitals of Europe. By July 30, the Foreign Office realizes that hey this is getting to be really serious here and so it tells the Admiralty look, we need to get this thing. It's been enacted. It was going to be done through the Naval Prize Procedure Bill. We got to do this right away or else we're going to miss this opportunity, but unfortunately, it doesn't happen. The looming World War dooms further action and implementation of the Declaration of London. However, that's not the end of the story for the declaration. So three days after Great Britain declares war on Germany, the United States sends a diplomatic note to the main bligerence Austria, Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain and Russia and says hey, are you going to adhere to the rules of the Declaration of London during the war. I want to know, because the US now want some certainty is what the rules of the game are going to be. France immediately says much, much really to England surprise, sure. Austria, Hungary and Germany say, we'll adhere to it if everybody else adheres to it. So it seems like, yeah, it's still going to the Declaration of London is still going to have some vitality, despite the existence of the war. However, and this is what's, you know, interesting is, even though they had been working so hard for this declaration and for its, you know, implementation. They're like, geez, I don't know and they first put off the US and basically say we're thinking about it. There's a lot of debate about how they're going to what they're going to do. And finally, on August 19, they have a conference. Great foreign minister. Head of the Home Secretary Winston Churchill is First Lord of the Admiralty others from those departments and they discuss what they're going to do in terms of adhering or not adhering to the Declaration of London and they decide that well we'll adhere to it except we're going to make some changes on the issues of conditional contraband basically forget what we agreed that the doctrine of continuous voyage is gone for conditional contraband. And we're going to throw into the scope of conditional contraband products that we previously had wanted to be not contraband and not subject to seizure, and we're going to modify what a blockade is in terms of being enforceable. And so there is an announcement of the Crown and Council, and then Britain formally tells the US, well, we're going to, they try to put a good spin on it, we're going to generally adopt the rules of the Declaration of London. So big to certain modifications and additions which we think are indispensable to the efficient conduct of our naval operations to say that the US didn't appreciate the responses and understatement. There is a diplomatic note in the US archives, which is very strongly worded, even for diplomatic language object Germany objects, not surprisingly because, you know, they thought that they were in good shape under the declaration. So they object but England says nope, nope, we're going to have these modifications. What occurs over the next two years or nearly two years of the First World War is that when Germany starts to violate the laws of warfare on land. Britain retaliates by saying okay, we're going to change the rules of naval warfare. We're basically cutting back further on the declaration of London, and it is a tit for tat back and forth over the next two years into finally in July of 1916. England says, that's it, we're not going to follow any of the provisions of the Declaration of London at all. It's done. And that was the end of of it in terms of, you know, it's vitality in the First World War. Let me conclude from this very brief overview. I think first that the Declaration of London was a hard fought consensus on the laws of naval warfare as they existed at that time they provides a real picture of what the major sea powers at least thought the laws of maritime warfare were in 1909, and they were unanimously approved. They were approved for ratification despite internal political concerns because in the country, because there's really everyone for an office Admiralty, the government says this is going to be favorable for us in the long run. But ratification is overtaken by the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as Europe blunders into war. And even the first one war the US position on the declaration is much like its current position on the UN Convention on the law of the sea. It's not ratified but most of it is accepted as customary international law. Arguably, the US position is hey, this is customary international law that's been accepted because everyone's agreed to it. And they asked why they asked for everyone to say to confirm that they're going to comply with its terms, but it doesn't happen. So once war starts the declaration statements of generally accepted principles of naval warfare fail due to the inherent uncertainties and vicissitudes of war. No belligerent is willing to even appear to tie it all its Navy's hands in the conduct of naval warfare, certainly Britain backs away because they're concerned about what's going to happen in the war. So in this respect, I would say that the declaration is an underappreciated predictor of the eventual failure of the far more ambitious international naval conferences in London and in Washington in the interwar years which attempted even more more significant issues of disarmament. And the conclusion then is that it's easy to accept relatively easy to accept limitations in the conduct of war in the abstract. It's much more difficult when armed conflict looms on the horizon, or is actually a risen. Thank you. And wow, I think my timing is pretty well perfect. I'm pleased with that. So, I'm now going to stop screen sharing. I think your timing was impeccable. Yeah, and I've got a question I see. Yes, that's really in Stafford so what I'm going to do is give him permission to talk. Ian, you might want to ask your question you can even turn your camera on a few, if you like, should be on. Oh, there we are you're coming. Go ahead we see your name not your face but but we can hear you. Sorry, I would assume my camera would have come on automatically. I don't want to be too, too picky but I am intrigued as to what what the House Lords was voting on because, although you've used the term modification what happens in the houses of parliament is not ratification. To my knowledge, the Ponsonby rule which says the government does not normally proceed to ratification if the document laid before the House is voted down within so many days but that the doctrine came in in the 1920s so I'm rather slightly miffed whether it was just a resolution that the government decided not to proceed on, in which case the parliament tax would have been of relevance one way or the other. You are quite right and if my memory serves correctly what they were actually voting on was the naval prize bill. That embody the principles of the Declaration of London. And that's why later on, after there was agreement, there was the rush to try to get the naval prize bill enacted that I mentioned in 1914. But it was the, I mean interestingly the naval prize bill was that was what was being debated. The Admiralty had gone ahead and had created a new manual for naval prices for the Royal Navy. And then when the prize bill came up, it was the House of Lords that that was the problem that was the issue that seemed to kill it at the time but the government pressed on. That's your question. Yeah, and the other one was whether the treaty was meant to be only come into effect if everybody ratified. No, but very quickly, it was clear that, you know, no one was going to ratify it or put it into effect unless everybody put it into effect. And I say everybody, it was that everyone was looking at the real players here, Britain and England.  Because I think everyone realized that that was where this was really going to come into play for the US as I said, they were like great. And it was all ready it was just waiting for the president to sign off. Okay, and there's another question from Neil Datsun who I will give permission to speak if you'd like. Hello, can you hear me. Yes, sir. Unfortunately, my mind is very unstable I keep on losing. So I may have missed something. Can you hear me, I get the impression from the talk Alan that the principle of the, shall we say the British negotiating position from 1999 to 1914 was it anticipated being a neutral in any conflict. When it came up to the start line. They, you know, it was a kind of national backtracking thing. Oh well hang on we're not neutrals after all. We've really just got to work to our own advantage. Would you get your comments on that if, if you could hear me better than I can hear you. Sorry. I've got my volume turned up so can you can you hear me sir. Yeah, I just sometimes. Okay, unfortunately, blame it on the the ethers between England and the United States presently, maybe it's COVID related. Anyway, you know I can hear you, and I think that's a fair description or summary. You know, certainly there was a great deal of discussion. And it's out, you know, you know, from, from post, well, three 1907 hate conference, all the way through to the beginning of the war there was a great deal of discussion and analysis over what should the, you know, laws of maritime warfare be and what positions would be acceptable or not and it's very clear to me that what you what is happening is a growing recognition or realization that the Britain cannot just take the most pro belligerent stance because it will come back to haunt them. And the next conflict if as they believe they're just going to be a neutral. And I think it's true.  Is this what we really want, even though the analysis that had been done previously was very much hey this is all right for us as a belligerent even.  I think it's much better than 800 nautical miles, which is a you know bright line no one's going to spray paint a red line in the ocean. So, you know, it seems like Britain has come out ahead and the negotiation and then when the war comes it's like, hang on, do we really want to do this and you know I think it's interesting that Britain and Austria hungry have said said, we'll adhere to this if you adhere to it it's basically couple you know it's there for the for the taking for the offering. So instead it's like, yeah, just not so sure about this and that's where things, you know, go haywire. Hope that answers your question sir. Yeah, yeah, more or less, I think so thank you. And, you know, if there are further questions, you can stick your hand up and we'll invite you to speak and there are a couple of been typed typed in so Michael Keegan for example you've written a question and if you would, if you'd like to speak. And you may you may ask a question live if you prefer. Okay, great. Can you hear me now. Yes. Yeah, thank you Alan. I guess my question was, let's assume that this had been implemented this declaration for the 1914 18 war, what difference would have made, would it be right to think for example that the blockade of Germany which the Admiralty imposed on the outbreak of war would have been even more difficult to make stick. Then it was, or were there nuances in the declaration which would have actually assisted Britain in its blockade of Germany during the during the conflict. And obviously that's that's hypothetical.  And I think, ultimately, it's likely that ultimately Britain would have gotten to the same point in terms of, you know, what they were seizing and the scope of the blockade, but it may have taken longer been more difficult. It does work both ways once England starts to back away then Germany really is Imperial Germany is freedom okay fine we're going to start, you know, seizing neutral vessels bound for England, regardless of what they're transporting. So, but no I think that it would have made the, the ultimate effectiveness it would have probably delayed it I think ultimately, they would have gotten to the same point, simply because it was total war. But, you know, I think it would have gotten there. That's my own view anyway. Okay, and there's a question from Graham eldest spin, it's been written but you might wish to speak. Once I find your name on the list I will give you permission Graham okay. Okay, go ahead if you if you'd like. And thank you very much for, well, to both islands but thank you very much for your talk and I'm very much enjoyed reading your thesis as well. I query though whether it's appropriate to put the failure of the naval prize bill in 1911 in the House of Lords down to a grumpy bunch of Tories in the House of Lords voting it down. The Liberal government had 120 majority on paper in the Commons and they only ever managed 70 on the second reading and less than that on the third reading so it was already struggling in the Commons. And what the House of Lords did was simply vote to put it off for three months. The Liberal government could have pushed on if they wanted to, but they didn't. And they didn't because of the debate that had gone on principally about the setting up of an international prize called. And certainly there's an argument in the UK that it was the House of Lords that saved Britain when it came to war, because it had not allowed us to be bound by the declaration of London and an international prize. The House of Lords. And that's often used now as a reason for keeping with the House of Lords, which is our rather peculiar constitutional piece. But one of the things right now I'll trade you. But one of the things is often said about the House of Lords is that it saved Britain from failure in the First World War. You know, I know that the context is that but, you know, trying to look at it objectively, which is what I'm trying to do I mean the, the criticisms that were being raised against the declaration I think are were inaccurate and unfair. I think that, you know, given the, in my own view is the pronouncements or the, you know, here's the agreed principles I think they were just fine would have been just fine for England. I think that part of it what my own view is I think the House of Lords was reasserting a hey you can't just ignore us, even though you've now taken away our ability to veto money bills. You know, do I, yeah, I don't I don't I wouldn't agree that the House of Lords save England by not adopting the declaration in the First World War. I think that if the declaration had been fully ratified or adopted and put into a fort into force by all of the 10 signatories, which generally then I think would have resulted in everyone recognizing what it stated as generally accepted principles of international law. I think it would have been fine, in part because fact the matter is once the First World War becomes clearly total war, as we would now describe it once it's total war. All bets are off. I mean, as a practical matter.  It's my own view anyway. But I don't think that it would have. I think that at the beginning, it, you know, I said it might have lengthened the war. Ultimately, I think because once it was clear that this was a, you know, war to the demise of somebody, you know, one of the belligerents, once total war comes, they would have gotten there the same way. Okay, that's my view. Right. One sea shanties. That's Alan. Yeah, that's the one. Yeah, that's where we're headed to next. So Christopher Serge, I think he liked your attempts at French so much that maybe the sea shanties wanted to hear but there's also a serious question. So Christopher Serge, I've just given you permission to speak if you if you'd like. No attempt of sea shanting on my part, I swear. I had a question regarding the kind of future conferences that were taking place in the 1920s, enable conferences were there any effects of the 1909 conference that made their way into future conferences. The first I think is not much because those conferences were so focused on disarmament and reducing the size of certain classes of vessels and the number that that people could have, I will say this, that a lot of the principles, in the naval warfare, even from 1899 are still out there it's still in existence. The you the current manual of international law for naval officers in the United States. There are provisions that are word for word, virtually unchanged from 1903. It's, you know, and I haven't looked at the current recently at the current manual for the Royal Navy, but I suspect that there are a lot of provisions that are quite similar to the manuals that the Royal Navy put out and in particular the one that was in 19, in 1911 I think it was, which conformed to the declaration of London. So there is, you know, continuing dual vitality of the work that was done in between 1899 and 1909. I hope that answers your question. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Now, Neil Datsun, I, I think I never removed your permission to speak so I think you're, you're free to ask your question because I think you've got another one do and, and this is to everybody you know don't feel, feel free to turn your microphone or your, sorry, your cameras as well, if you like. But Neil Datsun again. Or did you not have a second question. You're muted. Did I mute it? No. There you go. Sorry. Alan, have you come back to me? Yes, I have. I'm afraid this crashes out so much at the moment. I see. Thank you. There's no, it's not your fault. It's just circumstance. It was really more of a kind of observation is that I believe in 1960 and Alan, Alan speaker Alan, you use the expression about total war. And of course, in 1916. I'm pretty confident to say that Lord Lorber who was the next Lord Chancellor argued that we shouldn't be blockading Germany at all. Because we weren't at war with German people but with the German government. Which is a kind of interesting thought about how men of that age thought about things. And the, shall we say the revolution in thought, there was it certainly in this country on account of the first world war and that the first world war experience. I wonder if that seems relevant to you and have you got any comment.  And they a lot of folks focus on the, you know, various statements of Jackie Fisher, you know about you know, boiling prisoners and oil and that sort of thing. Now I have my own, you know, from based on the research I think that a lot of that was after the fact statements that Fisher put into his, you know, autobiographies and stuff or later on. There's a whole discussion about that and particularly, you know what he did at the 1899 conference. But you know, these were, you know, you have to keep in mind in the, in the era, these are all gentlemen. And the word of a gentleman matters in international law matters, and nobody, I don't think in any country wanted to be seen as a scoff law of naval of international law. Germany didn't want that. I mean you can't go through this whole process, the way that all of these countries did without believing that it matters. And I think that it really did matter, and that that's why there was such a discussion and why they're what why Britain, you know spent so much time with internal analysis and discussion and why everybody was, you know, taking their time to try to come up with okay this is these are the rules of the game because they was a real thought that people would adhere to him because you know there was not a, you know, all of the previous law wars had been much more limited in scope, and you know, international law was a big issue in the South African War, nearly led to conflict between the US and Britain, it was a big issue in the Russian Japanese war. And those are the most recent experiences really and so they were taken this seriously and yeah I think that, I think the view was going in that, you know, they did hear to him, people would follow these generally. Yes. I've read somewhere that somebody's contemporaries didn't think the issue was exactly a gentleman. Sure is an interesting character there's no doubt about that. No doubt about that. But, but, you know, you want to see an interesting character or someone who really didn't think much of the laws of international law it's Alfred they are Mahat, who very nearly from my analysis very nearly led to the first aid conference, falling apart. Single handedly. I mean it was because of the efforts that because of his efforts the poison gas was not outlawed. No, so it wasn't because they passed the port the wrong way anyway. I'm sorry what. No it wasn't because he passed the port the wrong way. Yeah, yeah. I wonder if I can ask a follow on question they're not about the port but about, you know, international law and the importance of it and once word and so I actually pin you down to the moment when, when the 1909 agreement collapsed because you don't know about the, you know the British in 1914 saying, you know that they'll they'll accept it, but with amendments and obviously this was this unacceptable. But I just wonder where you will I wonder, you know, how significant those modifications were, and whether Britain was effectively just tearing it up and knew that they were tearing it up or whether there was actually even even a tiny bit of hope on Britain's side that their modifications would be would be recognized. I suspect I know the answer. Well I would say the latter that they did, they were hoping that these modifications would be recognized and that you know it would go along and I think the fact that it sort of continued in some form for nearly two years. You know, indicates that I mean it really was. If you look at the modifications that they were making in one respect it was quite a backtracking from what they had agreed to on blockade and conditional contraband and continuous voyage. But at the same time, it's, you know, it's kind of going back to what they what Britain thought the rules were before the 1909 conference although, interestingly and I didn't discuss this but in advance of the conference. They did a massive analysis of international law to try to determine, you know, did what they think the law what they thought the law was, was it really supported by, you know, customary international law and the fact that matter is most of the most extreme positions that they had thought were well established that they adhered to for a long time, there was basically no, it wasn't. They were standing alone. And they didn't go back to all to the extremes but I think they, they were hoping that some of the stuff because the things that they left in were favorable to them. Yeah, the things they left in were favorable and, you know, obviously, you've even got, you know, Germany to a great extent and hearing to international law because they didn't go to, you know, unrestricted submarine warfare.  Very good. Okay, thank you. Christopher has his hand up. Yes he does yeah. So go ahead. We talked a lot about sort of diplomatic and political interests. I had a question about the more capitalist and industrial side of it thinking of like JP Morgan owning the international mercantile marine company and these huge international shipping companies. How much of an influence or an impact or lobby at all in concern to this conference to get more favorable terms for their companies. The answer is that there that is yes. Well, certainly organizations various maritime organizations in England would submit, you know, position papers to the foreign office or to the home office or the colonial office about here's what they thought was favorable or not favorable. Or they would attack the parts of there were submissions post 1909 declaration saying, you know, saying this is bad for us as traders, traders, the RAD er s, you know, and for our maritime trade. So they, most of those positions though were just dismissed from what I can tell internally. You know, but they certainly made an effort to have to exert some influence all the way along throughout this entire process I mean pre 1907 hate conference. You know certainly pre 1909 post 1909 they're trying to put in there. They're trying to lobby. That's for sure. We'd have time for one more question and if one doesn't come up. I will ask you how sure you are that you identified Jackie Fisher in that picture from the 1907 picture and and how long it took you to do that. Okay. If I can, I wonder if I can zoom. Let me just see this I'm going to see if I can share my screen. These are the days of miracle and wonder I'm sure I'm sure you can. All right, so let's see. There you got my screen I think. Yeah, you're on the final slide. Yeah. Okay. Now, can I zoom. How can I zoom. I don't think I can zoom but I will tell you if you know, at least on my screen and I'm close I'm looking at this. And I don't know, can you see my pointer. Yeah. Okay, yes we can. Okay, so right there if that's not Fisher's face. I don't know what is. I mean, when I first got this photograph and was looking at it kind of zoomed in I'm just kind of going around it's like wait a minute, I stopped there it's like that's Fisher. And, you know, I'm quite so I'm fairly certain of it now if you want I'm happy to send you the picture and you can zoom in itself, but I'm sure I can identify here in the middle that's of the American delegation that's Andrew white. So, the guy from the Netherlands the US and best elements that's Friedrich calls there those four guys right there. And I'm pretty sure this is Fisher in the back with other technical delegates, because I think the German representative is two away from him, but I'm quite certain that's Fisher's face. It looks like him at the time. And I searched around them, having seen him to try to find Mahan and I can't find him in there, which makes sense given how he approached the conference so I'm fairly confident but I'll send it to you. I won't be in a position to argue with you. I was impressed. You've got to be on at least your third glass of wine by now right. So, you know, he probably will pop out. Very good. Well on that note, I think it's time to let you back to your life give you back your life and thank you for very interesting talk very interesting set of questions and so you know it's with it with the with the usual with the usual set of and promises for hospitality and wine when you're next in in London, and I'm sure that I speak for all 30 plus of us tonight in saying that this was a very interesting talk very informative talk, and we are very good. Well, thank you all very much and thank you Alan and I will certainly seek to collect. Next time I'm over on the wine. It's a deal. Other beverages.


All right, this is the portion of the program where you ask questions and we make up answers. So, who's going to be first? You, sir. Yeah, yeah. How would a loaning work in a hundred percent for a zero banking system? How would a loaning work in a hundred percent banking industry? You want to give that a, oh yeah, Walter can't wait. Murray Rothbard and several others of us favor a hundred percent banking, which means you don't have fraction reserve banking.  And now Ubert gives me a demand deposit for a hundred dollars and I can take that money whenever I want.  And now Roderick also has a demand deposit for ninety dollars. If Roderick and I both show up at the same time, Ubert can't possibly pay this money unless he's got the Fed behind him where he can print up more stuff. The point is that we have an over-determination of ownership. Roderick and I are each the full owners of ninety dollars, not the partial owners, but the full owners. And you can't really in the libertarian society have two people owning a hundred percent of anything. There was this wonderful movie, The Producers, where Cyril Mostel went around and sold a ten thousand percent of a play. This is fraud. There are people like Seljan and White, who I regard as renegade libertarians, at least on this issue. I don't think they're libertarian at all. And there is a debate among the Austro-libertarians on that, but I've just given you the one-minute version of why I think that fractional reserve banking is fraudulent. It creates the Austrian business cycle. It creates inflation. Whereas a hundred percent backed money is if I give Ubert the hundred dollars, he can't lend it out to anyone else. And if he were a greenery, he couldn't lend out greenery on a fractional reserve basis. The question was how would that work? If I might take a stab at it, because I understood the question a little differently. How would it work in a hundred percent reserves? I think you would have a banking split the way it should be. You'd have deposit banking and you'd have lending banking. So for those who would invest their money in a bank that lends money, they would know their money was at risk and they would know that they can't come and get it at any time. Whereas in fractional reserve bank as it is today, deposit banking combined with lending bank, that distinction isn't made. So bankers lend out money that people can come and get at any time, which is what Walter just described. But in a hundred percent banking, it can certainly take place, and I think it can especially take place in technology where borrowers and lenders should be able to be hooked up. The world over in a matter of seconds, capital here should be able to find people who need capital there and not just at the bank down the street and lend out fractional reserves. So I think that's how it will work. I don't think it will happen through legislation. I think it will happen through technology. Next. Oh, everybody. No, everybody understands fractional reserves. I'll take a quick stab at it. I have no idea, but I know that most bankers don't understand it. Anybody have anything to add? Not many people know what's going on. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Historical examples of anarcho-capitalist societies. Do we have any historians here? Iceland, perhaps? Okay. There's never been a society of exactly the kind that we advocate, but then there's never been a perfect example of a menarchist society either. But what you can do is you can look at historical cases where various different mechanisms that we talk about were in place. Maybe nobody had quite the whole package, but every part of it's been tried. So one example people talk about is medieval Iceland. Medieval Iceland may not have been absolutely pure energy, but it came pretty close. Basically, your protection agency was a local chieftain, but you could sign up with a different chieftain without having to change your geographical location. The chieftain was also your representative in the legislature, and seats in the legislature could be bought and sold. The problem was there was a legal limit on the upper number of seats in the legislature, so there's a legal limit on the number of seats. And that created a problem. It wasn't really free entry into the market. In terms of a market for rights protection, pretty much they had it. People talk about other cases. Medieval Ireland, the American Western frontier in many respects was stateless and had a competitive legal system. Other examples people want to talk about? There was an article, The Not-So-Wild Wild West, the Journal of Libertarian Studies of which Roderick was the editor, and it gave that as an example. Joe Piedin does stuff on Ancient Ireland. David Friedman did stuff on Ancient Iceland. I would crawl with the question. The import of the question is, you say you're in favor of full free enterprise and laissez-faire anarchism. Has there ever been an example of it? No, well then your claim is invalid. We also claim that we want a society with no murder and no rape. Has there ever been such a society with no murder and no rape? No. Therefore we have to retract our desire to have a society with no murder and no rape? No. So just because there's never been a perfect example, and we're on the wrong side of the Garden of Eden for perfection, just because there's never been an example doesn't undermine the claim that it's a good thing. There are many other examples, the law of the sea merchant in the 15th or the 17th century when somebody from Belgium was trading with somebody from England and they had a dispute, they had Admiralty Courts and the law merchant. The institution of kosher foods is an anarcho-capitalist kind of a thing because they certify foods without any government approval and people are free to accept it or not. We live not in a pure anarcho-libertarian state, of course, but there are vestiges of it. Whenever two people trade anything, whenever you go to the store and buy a newspaper for a buck, that's part of anarcho-capitalism. Sometimes you can see kind of seeds of that in completely unexpected places. I went to Republic of South Africa recently, which is almost a socialist state, but because of the failure of the state, there is private protection agencies to the point even that I took a picture of the headquarters of Cape Town Police Department, so huge building, high-rise Cape Town Police Department. There was a little plug there, it said, protected by ADT, we shoot without warning. You go to Disney World and it's very safe, there's no murders and no rapes there and they got ducks and geese and mice and if you act obstreperously, you're surrounded by them and they're all packing heat and they say, come with me. They've got cameras there, you're very safe there. You go to Audubon Park in New Orleans or Central Park in New York City or any of the big parks and it's like anarchy.  Because when people get murdered there, nobody loses money. There's no weeding out of inefficient management of public spaces, whereas in private spaces it's pretty safe.  If something happens in the streets of Chicago, the mayor of Chicago doesn't lose money, nor does the police department. So we have little vestiges of it all over if you look carefully for it. Just one quick last note. People often point to Somalia as an example of the horrors of anarchy. But the question is, what's the relevant comparison? And it's been interesting, some research done, there's an article by Ben Powell and some other people. I forget who the co-authors are, but you can find that online. Somalia after state collapse. And the point is that if you compare Somalia with its earlier state-ridden self and also you compare it with its neighbors of comparable economic and cultural and political development and so forth. It's safer and more orderly than those places. So what that suggests is that the market always does the best it can with the materials that it's got. So if you've got a very poor country with a horrible history of and stuff, then it can't do as well with it as it could do with another country. Any country will do better under a state than it will. Any country will do better without a state than it would do under a state. Question. Requiring a short answer. No, a long answer. Who cares? Where? Behind the pole. There's a pole? Oh, okay. I feel a lot of open borders as a solution to liberty. Open borders as a solution to liberty. So this is the old libertarian immigration versus closed border debate. This will do it for the...  I think most of us here are open borders up here, aren't we? We didn't have fair representation of the other side. So I'm for open borders, but I think others have written about it more so I might pass it to them. Yeah, I'm for open borders. And you know, you can say, well these people, you know, if we don't have open borders, people are going to come into our country and they're going to vote for more socialism, and that's why we can't let people in across our borders. But if you do that, you're punishing them for a crime before they've committed it, and a crime that many of them won't commit at all. So it seems to me under libertarianism, open borders, closed borders are just ruled right out.  And so it's just, sure, maybe we'd have more socialism if we have more immigration, but you can't take that speculation and then use that to deny people their rights. This is a very divisive issue within libertarian circles. Murray Rothbard changed his mind on that. I have an article where I say Rothbard 1 was correct and Rothbard 2 is incorrect because he switched to the anti-immigration border. Hans Hoppe, an eminent libertarian theoretician, I would go so far as to say the most eminent libertarian theoretician is wrong on this issue. Ron Paul is wrong on this issue. Whereas the four of us, I think, or the five of us are on the other side. To me, the question is, does coming into a country, per se, violate the non-aggression principle? And as Hubert said, obviously not. And if you want to take a reductioid absurdum of it, there is this country from which people immigrate. It's called Storkovia.  They come from a country called Storkovia. The stork brings them here. The point I'm trying to make in my ineffable way or my idiotic way is that they are immigrants from this country. And if we're really against immigrants and we want to be logically consistent, we have to stop all babies from being born.  So if you want to punish people for their future crimes, well, babies will commit crimes in the future, so we've got to stop all babies. Yeah, and I would add to that. I mean, okay. Okay, I'll finish my thought that I was going to say and then I'll address that one. Yeah, I mean, elaborating a little bit on Walter's point, if we're going to, so the anti-immigration people base their anti-immigration policies on the idea of what the people are likely to do. So based on where they come from, based on their national background. So think about if we started this with babies, as Walter was saying, well, you're from this demographic background, so we're going to abort you because we're not, you know, we're not confident that you're going to be supportive enough of libertarian policies. It's just totally untenable from a libertarian perspective. It's terrible. Yeah, well, I don't want to shoot people on the border. That would be consistent with this abortion principle. But from another hand, there's another point of view. I mean, I wouldn't say that we can decide this issue. This was for a very long time. Well, I think there's two major points of view, one of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, that if you have a freedom of association, you have a freedom of non-association as well. That means people in this country can decide whether they won't have more new people coming from somewhere else or not. So it's one, I think it's a pretty, I mean, pretty kind of reasonable argument, right? And other open borders, Hayek, for example, he used to say that today a lot of people are coming to the United States, not in search of American Dream, not in search of hard work, whatever, but just to go on welfare roles right away. His point was that's not the problem of these people, that's the problem of welfare system, the problem of welfare system. So we are sending these wrong signals and we are getting, and so that the kind of the best Misesian approach would be that to have open borders and then you have people immigrating and what not. So this is very, very important. But what I want to kind of, because I am an immigrant myself, I would again, I would like to reiterate this, I maybe will think I'm obsessed or focused on that, that please keep this country free because I'm already an old person and I don't want to shop for another defection destination again. I think we're talking about peaceful immigrants, we're not talking about invading armies, I think there's a relevant difference between an invading army which is intent on using violence against innocent people and immigrants who are not intent on doing that. If you really debate the issue, that's the saturation, how do you deal with the foreign military force in invading the country? If you could look at that, that's a really dangerous deal. But if you're dealing with a lot of these people who are a part of immigration, that they are, they don't like these people, they don't like those people, but they don't want the system of liberty that still hangs on by the threat in this country to destroy. So they are worried about foreign immigration by effectively a military. And they may be wrong, but that's the true moment. If you want to talk about borders, that is the true moment of Americans who are worried about immigration. If you remove the threat of foreign immigration by foreign military that wants to impose the humanitarian system, then that's a very different thing. That is the central issue. All the minds of Americans who are concerned about immigration, are you evading the issue? Well, I don't think I'm evading the issue. I think that we can make a clear and distinct difference between an invading army and by definition, an invasion is a violation of the non-aggression principle. I think most people are concerned with what Yuri talked about, the welfare or getting hospital care or getting free education or whatever. And the obvious answer to that is get rid of those things and you won't have that problem. I think that anyone invading anyone is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but when some people come peacefully and they're not going to invade, they just want to live here or live in a... I travel sometimes from Vancouver to New Orleans and I go right over the Rocky Mountains and I tell you, that place is empty. There's just no one there. Now suppose somebody from China or Mars came in there and started homesteading some land in the middle of, I don't know, Wyoming in the Rockies. Are they committing per se a crime against anyone? I don't see how they are. Now if they come with bazookas and guns and they start shooting people, well then they're an invading army and we should stop them. And I think Ron Paul is sometimes accused of not being in favor of defense. I think he's in favor of defense. He would like a very strong, what do you call it, coast guard. If I could put words in his mouth. He just doesn't want to have armies in every country. So you have to distinguish between peaceful immigration and invading army. Do you know the difference between a bathroom and a living room? Don't come to my house if you don't. Well, if you don't know the difference between an invasion and peaceful immigration and you don't know the difference between offense and defense, then I say stay out of political economy because those are crucial concepts. Next. Yes, sir. I hate to continue with that but there's a second side, another side to that issue. I had gone from post-orders to the libertarian open borders and I'm moving more back to the post-border police in New Clause and reading more of our western culture and Dr. Long's law, Austro-Athenian belief, kind of well. But finally the western culture, it doesn't matter do we care if the country is shifting. Wall Street Journal just said European guarantees people down about 10% last decade is down to 24%. Big issues of multiculturalism, non-assimilation of the cultures. Is that something that before you or Dr. Long care about is it, are we incrementally changing the nature of this country? Are we going, are we just a fraud boiling in the pot and there's not no doubt.  I've known the name of my blog was going to convert some of the closed borders I would have chosen a different name but if you think, if you look at the history of this country and it seems to me that the deterioration of commitment to ideals of liberty has come primarily from immigrants. It seems that it's come from right here in this country, right here from people of western European descent have been quite committed to undermining liberty. I don't think that that comes to liberty is something that's unique to western culture. What western culture ended up with is a certain set of institutions for complex historical reasons but you can find ideas of liberty in other cultures. Often they just didn't end up with the right institutions to go with them. I have an article online called Austro-libertarian themes in ancient Chinese thought, Confucian thought. So if you're going to stop people from coming into the country because they might move us in a more status direction that's a reason to kick out of the country everyone who is already moving us in a more status direction unfortunately that's the majority and our prospects of kicking the majority of native citizens out of the country I think are slim. Others on this? Yeah, I mean if you talk about our European traditions well Europe has had that. Before they had immigration what did they have in the 20th century? They had half a century of brutal war and half a century of socialism. Their European tradition didn't save them so I think it's us spreading the ideas that makes the biggest difference. Not what happened in the distant past. All right we got less than five minutes left and I would urge us to try another topic. Operating on trade and black markets, that's the way to bring about a free society. Views on working on the black market to essentially display our freedoms right, I guess? Is that, yeah, okay Yuri Maltsov should be an expert. Well I came from the black market kind of place and everything we could get was from black market there was nothing on the I don't know white market there was no white market was central plan in black market. The problem with black market is because property rights are blurred in the black market it's all the time source of violence people shoot each other. In the United States we shoot each other because of illegal drugs market for example and for example if you go south of here and you will buy something on the abandoned parking lot and you will try it and find out that it's crashed aspirin or chalk not what you wanted then you cannot return it back for fully funded 30 days you cannot call Illinois office of consumer protection cannot call your lawyer you can just take a machine gun and enforce property rights and contracts that's what our drug industry is producing 46% of crime in the United States at least 46% incarceration in socialist societies almost everything is prohibited not only illegal drugs everything entrepreneurship is illegal making market goods is illegal so everything went there and so it's the Soviet Union became a murder capital of the world so black market is from one hand it provides people with something it's better than no market at all but from another hand it's a source of violence in many cases and then the idea was for example reformers in Moscow just legalize a black market and we will have a market economy but it's very difficult because people operating entrepreneurs of the black market they kind of know how to shoot others or how to poison the competition but they don't know much about about initial public offerings or stock market or rule of law so that's why I think that the market should go hand in hand with the rule of law it can be private law one of the most despicable things that the government does is the FDA will not allow you if you're dying of cancer in your last legs and they've given you a week to live or a month to live they will not allow you to use an experimental drug because it's not yet approved by them and I think that's he and this and I think if you can get the experimental drug you should get it another very he and this government regulation that creates black markets is they don't allow markets and use body parts and people die and have to go on dialysis machines because they can't get a kidney if they would allow a market in this we'd be up to our armpits and kidneys to screw up a phrase we wouldn't have the shortage anymore we have the shortage because the price level is zero so if you need a kidney and you can't get it and you have to break the law to do it I think you're justified on libertarian grounds I mean the drug market is probably one of the most violent cases of a black market but it takes something that's a lot more benign take downloading songs now if like most of us up here you're against intellectual property there's nothing wrong with downloading songs now you could have there are two ways you could work to be able to get free songs one is you could lobby the government to try and get copyright laws changed the other is you could just go and bypass them and download stuff yourself and the second is the black market way it's the aggrist way and so I think you know as I understand aggrism it's a matter of building alternative institutions alternative practices of course it's risky sometimes more than others there are fairly low risk ways of doing some of these things but it's a matter of building institutions and practices we bypass the government get it so that more and more people come to find it natural and gradually the government loses support and eventually sort of social power shifts to these market institutions so I wouldn't advise people to go out and get involved in the drug market but there are other I think more promising ways in which we're bypassing the state anybody over here anybody you sir you are the last question of the day make it good and make it short yes okay we have the last question of the day is there a six year plan that anybody up here has and I only have one little thing I would do if I could do one thing I would stop withholding from people's paychecks that is the if I could do one small thing if people had to write a check on the 15th I think it would make all the difference in the world but I give it to the panel well I'm going to suggest an agriest approach trying to get the government to do something I've got no plan for that but working with the right on things like homeschooling working with the left on things like raw food various nonviolent things like the people in the homeschooling movement are shooting each other and the people in the raw food industry are shooting each other and of course the government is backing down more and more from regulating some of those things like homeschooling so building alternative institutions getting more and more people involved in seeking things through those institutions rather than through the state I think that's something we can start doing right now we can convince 51% of people to vote on something you can just get a smaller number of people voting to put together institutions right now very quickly I agree completely we can't get rid of the withholding tax because the withholding tax was offered initiated by Mr. Libertarian Milton Friedman and therefore it must be pro-liberty I'm kidding, I'm kidding although to be fair to Milton he did later recant and apologize for that you're not going to find Murray Rothbard or anyone like that coming up with that my suggestion I notice there's not one single solitary black person in this audience I've long had this initiative among the black community I've been on TV on this thing called Our Story trying to get them to see that the war on drugs is an anti-black law that young black men are killing each other like flies that the blacks are disproportionately in jail for victimless crimes and that this is something they should put on the top of their platform or the top of their agenda this would certainly be an opening to the left instead what you get when you hear Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams or any of these other black people who are free enterprises although they're a little weak on the war but what the heck, you can't get everything they say they're Oreo cookies they're white on the inside and black on the outside they're Uncle Tom's this is a horrible thing and perhaps if we had an initiative to the black community to get them to see the heanness of this now it disproportionately affects their community maybe we can make some progress in six years when I came to the United States the first thing I published was at that time they were discussing 500 day plan how to get out of communism and I wrote my own one day plan I don't really need six days even not six years because change should be going overnight otherwise the enemies of change would mobilize themselves and you cannot just you cannot gradual change should be stewed in favor of dramatic change overnight change look how Soviet Union collapsed it wasn't collapsing in 500 days it collapsed overnight and I would quote a famous conservative near conservative imperialist Margaret Thatcher but she had sometimes very good sense of humor she said that if for example gradual change it never works the United States would try to switch from our left hand driving to right hand driving and do it say in 100 days sending the first week only big trucks to the right so that would not that would not work I think that we should and speaking about plans yes the last kind of thing about Mr. Gorbachev can imagine he really believed that planning system works that didn't have a good plan can you imagine that central planning works and I see so many of my colleagues in American Academy saying exactly the same that central planning works which has never had a good plan and I think that in a decentralized society in the society of individual self-ownership we should promote what we believe in and try to make change as soon as it possibly can occur


This is a fundamental misunderstanding of successful people sometimes. If you look at anybody who's achieving great things, you will see that they've been able to enact what I'm about to tell you in their life. So if we're looking at a gym that's far across town, it is not a matter of laziness or not. It is a matter of pragmatism. Will I consistently go to this gym every single day if there's going to be traffic jams? It's going to take me a long time to get there. I have to get in my car and drive across town. And the answer is I'll probably get there the first week when I'm still excited about it and I'm committed. What will happen the second week when life gets busy? I'm going to start skipping days, maybe just one at first and then another. And pretty soon I'm not going to that gym at all anymore and I've just given up on my martial arts training. So this is what's called friction. The chances of me consistently doing something are so much lower. And so if we want to do something consistently over time, we want to remove all of that friction.


I am sorry. Weenus. What? What? No. Just wanted to say something that would be more on the level you were thinking of that moment. Josh! Come on in towards your direction, it's a Corbin. Have you touched your Weenus? Every five to seven hours. You can't touch it with your tongue, can you? Show us. It's right here, kids. It's your Weenus. Today we got a dirty Sebastian little set right here. Hey! Been a while. I think the Dosa is amazing. Alright. Stand-up comedy from 2017. Been a long time since we've seen Ken Sebastian. Love Kenny Sebastian. So, so funny. Very comedically humorous guy. Why did Siri think we were...  We're not talking to you. Big brother always listen. Well that... Of course. Here we go. Uh-huh. I could cook before but now I can cook a lot more. Okay? Through this process of self-discovery, I found a very fundamental element of life which teaches us that the most amazing things in the world are simple. They're not complex. Obviously, I'm talking about the Dosa. Hope you've got back the Dosa. He doesn't like a Dosa. If you find someone who doesn't like a Dosa, please kill them. They might be a future dictator. Dosa is amazing. It's a peace-loving food. It is beautiful. It is pristine. Like if you see a free Dosa counter in my wedding, it's just the lowest form of humanity there. Sorry, the lowest form of humanity is a free chaat counter. Because you don't even want chaat put in my wedding. I'm funny putting in one secret. Spread on the mark. But Dosa counter, you just see everybody patiently waiting. This is your Dosa. You have your Dosa. I'll have mine hot-hot. I'll have mine hot-hot. It's peaceful.  No? No.  They're like, They throw Dosa's and they're like, Hey, it's nice. It's crispy. This is a red chaati. I love red chaati. That white one I don't make so much. It's a peace. That's why it's what brought about peace in South India. It's the South Indian weed. It brings someone in the north with your friends. Your one South Indian friend in four days is going to crack. And one day be like, I need to have some Dosa right now. In four days. Scary withdrawal symptoms. Yeah, and Dosa is so amazingly simple. It's so nice. And there's a food that gets too much credit, which is the biryani. How many of you like the biryani? It's not that great also. The food in the audience? The full recipe of biryani. No one. You start at number one, which is like, Okay, you take the rice and soak it in water. Hey, I can do this. It's complicated. It's like, face the pot with the sun. Hey, what is this? I'll have it any place. One family bag. Yeah. No one finishes the recipe. It's complicated. Nobody. I've never tried it. So many layers. I've heard. Dosa is so simple. It has two ingredients. Urdal and love. Yeah. You take your Urdal back and stare at it. With love. You don't do the Dosa by yourself. Only the guys can't cook. Give me a chair. Yeah. If I give you Dosa by mistake on a stove, that's Dosa, bro. That's Dosa. A little more complicated. You really will put atmospheric pressure and makes it flat. The design of the Dosa is so pristine. You can put a Dosa in an apple commercial and you will know the difference.  Masala Dosa. Mysore Masala Dosa. Something for everybody. I want to eat the Dosa right now. I do too. Dosa is the only thing. Dosa also ironically is made by the dirtiest people. No offense. No offense.  Like the owner of the restaurant is like, okay, who hasn't taken bath in two weeks? You don't need to wear a shirt. It's fine. This is not wearing a shirt. This is a mundur. He takes the freaking broom and he wipes the stove.  I want the Dosa. That's why Dosa. Give it to me. Mama, I want it. Dosa is the only food that you could put the word plain in front of it and it's still appetizing. Plain biryani? No thanks. Plain Dosa? Yes, please. Always funny. He's always funny. And that was all true? Also, it's not that easy because I made Dosa on my shirt. Yeah, I was going to say, well, once you've flattened it out, maybe if you just like it flat, but if you want to do that little roll part, that's complicated. Yeah, because that's I imagined and to keep it nice and not collapse or break. Yeah. But if I could do it every morning like a filled Dosa for breakfast, forget it. That would be, if someone were to say, what's your favorite thing to have for breakfast? I have a lot of favorite things that I like for breakfast and some I passionately dislike. A breakfast Dosa is like glory. Remember when we had it in North India? Yeah. And I had it in Kolkata and we got burned both times for that. It was delicious. I had my very first, yeah, start writing in the comments, my very first breakfast Dosa and filtered coffee was at a South Indian restaurant in Kolkata. That's where you got to have it. Yeah. It was, hey, that's way better than having it in Los Angeles. Yeah. Come on. At least they did it in India. Yeah. Our first day, if you guys don't know this, you can go back and see our video for our trip when we did our OSR trip two years ago. Our first day in Delhi, stupid babies took us to this really nice restaurant and we made the heinous mistake of having South Indian food in Delhi. I think there was also just South Indians that were mad at North Indians that were telling us to eat it wrong as well. Yeah. And I understand because you're passionate about your stuff and we're coming to South India at some point. Nothing's planned. We're waiting. But yeah, when we go, you can show us the right way and I'm sure we will be ridiculing everybody in the North just like you. I'm not going to have it. But yeah, it's... Biryani's extremely comfortable. I've heard and I've seen and it takes a long time. But you've actually tried to make it. Oh, we've made it. It was delicious. And it's just, it's a lot of waiting and layering and waiting and layering. So you can't just like stick it in a packet and put it in the microwave for two minutes. No. Maybe there's some instant biryani. Oh, no, no. Well, you know who I've heard and you all are going to say, don't do this, but I've actually heard that some of the stuff that Trader Joe's makes is not bad. Yeah, that's what they say. Yeah, you've heard that, right? Yeah, I've heard that. Yeah. But yeah, always funny, man. Please let us know more Kenny Sebastian and then a while more stand-up comedians that we can react to. Please, please. Kenny, also, you should be our doestardie. Yeah, come on the channel, man. Come talk to us. Let us talk to you. Let us know down below.