“If you go to court today, it’s usually a battle with one winner and one loser… But I would like to explain to people that that’s not always necessary and that there are situations where you can both be better off.”


This week on the Free Cities Podcast we continue our series of interviews recorded in Prague and my next guest is Přemysl Bosák.


Přemysl is the founder of a new dispute resolution platform called Disputio which has an obvious attraction for someone like myself who would prefer to bear the responsibility of resolving my own disputes.

In this conversation we discuss the platform and how it works as well as a little about the history and evolution of law including bottom up solutions to legal problems. Přemysl is an anarcho-capitalist so we discuss anarchy and voluntarism as well as transhumanism, epistemology and the resurgence of personal responsibility in contemporary culture.

This is my 5th interview from Prague.  Coming up will be 3 more touching on subjects from worldschooling to libertarian art and I talk to one family who, amongst other things, have just purchased a property in a free city in Honduras.

Thanks for listening to these conversations. It’s heartening to see the number of subscribers going up steadily each week which makes me happy that our movement is gaining momentum. Please don’t forget to subscribe and leave us a review and thanks in advance for both.

Enjoy the conversation…

Automatically Generated  Transcript

Timothy Allen 0:00
Before we get on to Disputio, which is the platform you’ve invented, which is a dispute resolution platform, that’s correct, a private dispute resolution platform,

Přemysl Bosák 0:11
I would say maybe peer to peer.

Timothy Allen 0:13
Okay. So theoretically, then, I’m going to, I’m going to think out loud here. I just private, a dispute resolution platform is about a way of replacing the state courts with a resolution platform is that, loosely speaking, what it is,

Přemysl Bosák 0:29
I would rather say that it’s complimentary at the moment because we cannot replace the state court system. But there are loads of people who are not served with this current state, judicial system, because the state judicial system is very complicated, and the way how the laws are created, it’s from the top down, it’s not from the bottom up. So they are not usually related to the practical problems people deal with. So there are loads of people who are simply not served, and they are people who just rather decide to, you know, break up the relationships and the company, you know, move from their troubling neighbour, rather than try to find some resolution through the court. Because it can take ages, it can be really expensive. And also, I think that there are situations for example, I dealt with one of those, when we can cooperate with the standard judicial system, for example we were selling one half of the company, and i t took us like, six, nine months to reach an agreement, you know, how we will do it, and it was quite painful. And I think for this, and then we then we went to the to the lawyer, who then you know, prepared all the necessary documentation for this. So I think, for example, this is the phase where you can use Disputio, you know, to come to an agreement on the main point, and then, you know, once you prepare those, you can then move to the lawyer who can then create an document, which,

Timothy Allen 2:16
I mean, look thinking long term, though, before we before we go into the nuts and bolts of how a dispute platform works, which is also obviously very relevant to the free city model, because the free city model you have, it’s a private, private ownership of the city, so you’re looking to employ different different organisations to deal with all these different things. Is the is the long term idea that it might replace the state judicial system completely,

Přemysl Bosák 2:48
I’d be like, a really, really long time. Because, you know, it’s, it’s like the same as you know, Bitcoin, for example, can it replace fiat system? You know, I don’t know, maybe. But it’s like really long term, it’s like this, basically, everything you would like to replace the state services with some private ones, I think it’s better is, I think better thing is to look at it this way, you know, be able to opt out, you know, not to replace them, but to, to be able to use them and to be recognised, you know, you can use Fiat and you can use Bitcoin as well. And then you can use your state, judicial system and dispute you as well. Do,

Timothy Allen 3:31
I’m probably jumping way ahead of myself here. I’m thinking all these things now already, like, I agree opting in would be good, right. But what about if you decided to go to a private dispute platform to solve a problem that the state thinks they should solve? Is that something that can can happen?

Přemysl Bosák 3:50
No, I guess so. But you are, on the weaker side, much, much weaker. So it’s always a state who prevails and who’s stronger? So you know, it’s it’s it’s the battle you shouldn’t be in? I think,

Timothy Allen 4:06
right. So you’re what dispute here represents at the moment is an alternative to deal with a certain section of dispute resolution, and and you’ve got to start somewhere, so why not start with the things that people can actually use it for currently.

Přemysl Bosák 4:24
So the idea was to introduce to people something that it’s quick, cheap, effective, and then that that actually can bring results that are better than the results from the standard UDL process. Because if you go to the court today, you know, it’s usually the battle and then there is one winning and one losing, like mobile, the vast majority of those cases would end men lose. But I would like to introduce and explain to people that that’s not always necessary and that there are situations where you can both be better off or at least, you know, you can both agree that this resolution is acceptable for both of you. And this type of resolution this type of decision does not prevent you from continuing in your relationships for example, if you battle with your business partner and then you end up and then lose the the further continuation in cooperation is probably not possible, but if you go through this system, and then you find something that is acceptable for both of you, your business is not threatened, you know, you can continue or you can continue with your you know, private relationships, you can live next to your neighbour and not be you know, not threatening each other, each other. So, I think that this, this approach is better for the long term relationship, and then can, it can even strengthen the relationship because if you are in a troubling situation, and you found out the way out of it, with your own help, and you you know, how to structure the argument how to structure the process, it it’s a prevention for for the future disputes, and you know, that okay, if something similar happens in the future, we know how to deal with it.

Timothy Allen 6:17
Why do you think the, like the current system we have then tends to result in a win lose? Why do you think is that is that something that has happened naturally, incentives have caused people to arrive at this system where there should be a winner and a loser?

Přemysl Bosák 6:34
I think it has very long historical roots, I studied some history of law and judicial systems. One of the best books I’ve ever read on this was Bruce Benson, the enterprise of law. And it’s very nicely explained how it actually how this happened. That, you know, there are various systems in the history, which were like, called customary law systems, when the rules basically what are the laws for they are to prevent for us to some disputes and to help you to resolve them. And originally, those, those laws were not induced from some, you know, powerful minority like today’s but they were created from bottom up by the people, you know, they just they had a dispute, they found the solution. So they said, Okay, let’s write it down. And we can use it as a rule. It’s called natural law, natural law system. And in those, you know, periods of time, the people not only, you know, created or participated in those, creating those laws or rules, but they also enforce them and the most, the most Mighty, the most powerful way how to, you know, enforce them was ostracism, not like, today’s violence, you know, policeman comes to you and force you to, to obey, but people simply refuse to cooperate if you didn’t follow the rules they they designed. So and it was so powerful that it worked. It worked nicely, for example, merchant law system in mediaeval Europe was like, just flawless and, and it was very effective. It was quick, and people use it voluntarily. And, you know, you wouldn’t use something voluntarily if you don’t think it’s fair. So, it was fair.

Timothy Allen 8:29
So, you begin with an opt in system of rules. Sorry, you begin with an opt in system, which creates a rules which from the bottom up, but then they are enforced from the top down. And that’s when it moves towards a win lose situation,

Přemysl Bosák 8:46
I think that the I forgot next step next step was that when powerful that times recognise that you know, to resolve disputes is very good business and they grabbed the power and you know, Dukes, kings and all the powerful then you know, they simply move to this system under their wings. And they said okay, from now on, we are the only you know, powerful minority who will who will decide, I did step by step moved towards the, you know, authoritarian law systems, we are now living in basically all around the world. And, and since this was authoritarian, then you know, the loss were created by the, you know, Parliament and or or kings then and they, those laws were not created as a working solution, but they were created usually by some influence through the influence of some powerful companies, you know, some powerful people then, you know, some nobility or something, and it it lost the connection to the practicality of the of the situation And it was no longer a voluntary,

Timothy Allen 10:03
but it’s okay. If it was inherent in that system. Have you ever wondered whether in a new platform like your, like dispute, yeah, that that would evolve the same way? And Is that Is that likely?

Přemysl Bosák 10:17
Oh, I cannot. I cannot see probably that long term to the, to the future. But yes, it’s possible. But I can remind people that the, you know, the, the system can work differently. And that there are times when it worked. And, but I think that it must be practical, so for the people to use it. So if they see that it works for them, and it’s better and it’s can really prevent curing of the of the Otieno wrong doings, and it can really help them to live a better life, they will see it as a practical solution. But yes, the thing is that I tried to really focus on the that if you come to an agreement, it’s up to you to fulfil it, and you will fulfil it only if you find it, good for you, if you find it, helpful for you. So I think if you’re really focused on this voluntary approach, then it can stay like that. But I cannot imagine, for example, at the moment, you know, replacing criminal law system because, yeah, it’s, it’s completely different. You know, I can imagine in SS voluntaryist, I can imagine how it can work in the free society, but I can imagine how to introduce it now. Now, we can only focus on the civil disputes where both but actually an only civil disputes when both parties agree to come to an agreement, because there are lots of civil disputes when like, say one party feels, you know, wronged and one party feels okay, nothing happened, then. So that’s, that’s difficult to bring those to the table. But I can, in those in those situations, I can imagine, you know, you can find motivations for the, for the one who wronged him for for the one who ran the other party to bring him to the table, but not in a criminal.

Timothy Allen 12:22
Okay, I What I’d like to do is give you an example of a dispute. And I’d like you to tell me how the platform would work before we do, though. Just out of interest. Do you believe that everything could be replaced by the private sector? Is that your own personal belief?

Přemysl Bosák 12:41
Yeah, I’m a narco capitalist. So I believe that everything can be voluntary,

Timothy Allen 12:46
again. So really, you know, obviously, if you’re, if you’re still alive in the future of this platform, your your hope is that it does become a resolution platform for for all things in Yes. It could be it would be it would be great. It will be interesting. I mean, I mean, I haven’t this is the first time I’ve ever thought about it. But it will be interesting to imagine how like you say, the criminal side of things? Would its basic, would it be like an algorithm would be judging?

Přemysl Bosák 13:22
I don’t think algorithm can can make a lot of help here. Because you need, you need a problem in dealing with people it’s like, you cannot replace psychologists or therapists to is this algorithm. It’s just basically same here. You know, you’re dealing with people with spill overs people’s emotion, you need to show them that you understand them, you accept them. And it’s it’s not something you can you can code

Timothy Allen 13:49
really even even 100 years of AI.

Přemysl Bosák 13:54
I absolutely don’t don’t think it can happen.

Timothy Allen 13:56
It was good. Interesting. I’m in I don’t know, but I, I would, I would posit that it would have to be true that in 500 years, AI would be able to mimic, like the weather with access to the information of what humans have done for so long. It would be able to predict what was right and wrong. I don’t know. I can’t say for sure. But it would make sense to me if it did.

Přemysl Bosák 14:23
I think it can decide even know what’s right and wrong. But it’s not enough. You know, you have to communicate with people, you know, you have to show them empathy. You know, you have to lead them you know, you have to become aligned, and that’s the things that I think cannot be offloaded to AI. Right and wrong is quite simple, actually. So, there are objectives, objective, philosophical approaches, where you can decide whether it’s something correct, right and wrong. But yeah, Unfortunately, it’s not. Not. So

Timothy Allen 15:03
let’s, let’s let me try an example. Then I use the example we were just talking about a breakfast, I live in a flat, and I have insurance on my flat, obviously, some water starts dripping down from above, somebody somewhere above me is got a problem. And I decide to take the issue to dispute you. The first thing is, and you know, we spoke about this briefly already. If I first have to go to my neighbour and say, Would you sign up for this platform? That’s already a kind of a barrier to entry for me?

Přemysl Bosák 15:51
How does that is? Because no one knows about this video, right? Yeah, so the first thing for us to build the build the brand, so people recognise us, and they know, okay, there is something like this, there is this possibility, for now, you know, you would need to give them and explain what the platform is about. So that it’s voluntary, you know, and then, you know, before you first, we would need to tell him, you know, I would like to, you know, deal with this, you know, I don’t want to just leave it to some third party, because, you know, we are neighbours, I would like to get along with you well, in the future. And I think that important that if something like this happen, we are able to solve it on our own or with some little help, but not, but we will be the the one who will create the agreement, not someone else. And then tell him, you know, there is something like dispute here where we can both voluntarily can come and there is someone who Haydn’s? No, because it’s everything is anonymous, the both of us will be anonymous there. And we don’t, we can’t at the moment, choose who will help us a really some anonymous guide mediator, who will work through and He will help us find some common ground, how to resolve this. And I think if we managed to come to some agreement, it will help us in the future to be good neighbours.

Timothy Allen 17:11
Right. So as part of this system, is there a way of verifying the trustworthiness of dispute? Do you know, like, how do I say, I mean, let’s imagine this is a real case. I mean, the other thing I just thought about was probably obviously, I will try and negotiate with my neighbour myself, for sure. It’s always the first step say hello. You know, can you but but then if we’re taking it to a dispute resolution, we’re already there’s probably already a bit of a problem is there’s some

Přemysl Bosák 17:47
emotions involved, you know? And yeah, sure.

Timothy Allen 17:51
Right. So. So is there any system like part of the system to rate the trustworthiness of disputes do I mean, presumably, if there were a number of choices, I could say, right, here are the resolution platforms? Which one should I choose? There’ll be aggregators that will, that will say, right, here are the most trustworthy ones. Yeah, are there any others at the moment,

Přemysl Bosák 18:11
I didn’t know about him. And I think you have to build the brand. And we have to build the reputation. That’s like every other service in the world. And now we are running on the first layer of the of the application where everything is for free, and the people on the receiving end those who will help you, they do it just voluntarily for free to get the expertise, you need to get training, some of them are professionals, some of them are just starting the mediation thing. And in the future, we will introduce a paid version where you can, you know, choose the concrete mediator or guide, we call them guides. And that will be a repetition, you know, how many cases they were involved in, you know, how many of those cases they brought to an agreement. So you can then and then for example, what are they focusing at if it’s family or business related disputes, and then you can, you know, see there, of course, there is reputation from those they helped. So, you can see, you know, how many stars they have, you know, how many cases they have, and then you can decide which one you would like to use to help.

Timothy Allen 19:25
Okay, so, so I’ve managed to persuade my, my neighbour to sign up. What happens now like literally, like, what is the website look like? What is it is an app or a website?

Přemysl Bosák 19:37
It’s an Android app and the website so the procedure is like that. Okay. You agreed. So here you will, you already have his you either already have his email address or you He will give you and you will send invitation very, in this invitation. You can describe what’s going on and that you would like to A search help from this video and in this invitation there is already described with the application about, then it’s voluntary, and then you know, that they will, the mediator will not decide for you, it’s up to you, you are the active participant who will create the final resolution. And then he will receive the invitation in email, he will click on it, it will create an account for him and he will immediately be in a chatroom. Then this, if you both agree to use dispute here, then this case will appear to our guides. And they will also receive an email, okay, there is a new case for you waiting, and they look at it and say, Okay, I would like to I would like to help. So they say, Okay, look at this mine. And now you will receive an hour, an email, where it said, you know, this guy is your guide, is your mediator, and he will help you walk you through the whole process. And everything is Chet only that. I haven’t mentioned it, I think. So it allows us the anonymity. So everyone is under the digital handle. And it’s text only, and it allows us to talk asynchronously. So you know, whenever you have time, you can you can write down in a chat, you can, you can agree to meet at some, you know, agreed time to be all in so you can react on each other’s messages. Or you can, you know, think through usually, up until now our experience is that people in those cases, usually time to think through those posts. So it’s not like, like instant messaging, it’s just like it, it’s usually longer posts with which people think through synchronicity, I think this is a good thing. So you, even for the guides, you know, you can use your time effectively when you have when you have time, once so then, you know, the guide, we created manual or curriculum of is the help of visit the help of professionals, that divides the process of dispute resolution in several phases. Every guide has this curriculum at hand when dealing with disputants. And he can anytime peep there and see, okay, I’m this face, the goal in this face is this, you know, I need to do, you know, find the interests or hidden interests, and then match those interests, which one of those are competing interests? And then there are several phases, and then he will walk you through this whole process and help you to really get to the to the root

Timothy Allen 22:52
cause in the in the mediators, is there any algorithmic part or or technological part or other mediators, just people who are trained in a specific set of ways?

Přemysl Bosák 23:06
Yes, they these are just just people No, no algorithm there. The only technological thing we bring is that secure chat and, and, and we try to offer the guides that, that. So,

Timothy Allen 23:24
so interesting. What’s the like, one thing that occurred to me was, if I was trying to resolve a dispute using chat, it would necessarily remove much of the emotional part from it. Because face to face, even with the media, even with a mediator, people get heated, which is obviously a good thing. Because I’m trying to work out why would I not just go to a mediator and sit in an office, I know, it’s, it’s less convenient, you have to be there.

Přemysl Bosák 23:56
That’s another thing. We are one click away. It’s free. You don’t need to search, you know, whether mediator is you know, to arrange the meeting, you just click there and you are immediately there, you can immediately start. You don’t need to arrange meetings, you can you can, you know, be there when you want. That’s, that’s one thing. Also the text version of helps people to Yeah, to calm down and doing not. And some people are afraid, actually to face to face to come to face to face. And then that’s one of the burdens that prevents them from, you know, dealing this. And I think that the text approach also can help them to overcome this, this burden.

Timothy Allen 24:37
I think also, texting would necessarily bring out a much harsher element of truth. I mean, you know, look at how people are online versus how they are in real life. They’re more cutting, they’re more you know, and I think, certainly if you can sit and digest what someone has said to you, so they’re like, they’re just dripping on my head and dogs running around barking and lower. If they were in front of you, you’d get quite upset about that. But if you read it through, you can read it, go away, come back, read it again, go away. And then you

Přemysl Bosák 25:13
should help you we know when when accepting the emotions, you know, that, okay, then he doesn’t need to agree with this, but he needs to accept them. And it helps you really to calm down. And okay, there is a reason why I feel like this. It doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. But there is a reason. Okay, we actually

Timothy Allen 25:32
came up with your training strategy, then for mediators,

Přemysl Bosák 25:36
I created everything so but I asked for to help the from the professional guy who has like 30 years in practice in mediation, and who helped me with creating the manual and organising the training, and he trained first batch of mediators. But as I mentioned, later, professional, even professional mediators came to me and they registered within the system. So they would like to have some feed of the cases, because they are not that many of this,

Timothy Allen 26:07
and I’m assuming the whole system is pretty decentralised. mediators can be anywhere, anytime,

Přemysl Bosák 26:12
anywhere, anytime, and anyone basically can became a medic, I don’t ask for any education or anything, just if you are willing to help. And if you are willing to study the necessary, you know, theory, then you can become, then you can become a Marine,

Timothy Allen 26:30
and how do you know if they’re good enough, though? Do you test them?

Přemysl Bosák 26:33
People will tell? Oh, you mean, the rating system? Yeah. If they get, like some bad reputation, and people come complain about them, then, you know, we can talk together, you know, what the problem is? And then and sorted out, but,

Timothy Allen 26:50
I mean, presumably, you’d have some kind of vetting process in the first instance, of the mediators. I mean, I can

Přemysl Bosák 26:56
kick you off the platform. Yeah, of course. Yeah. So but it’s the last thing I would like to do is, I would first talk to them, you know, is there any problem? You know, why are you doing this? Why are those complaints there? And

Timothy Allen 27:10
so do you think the mediation role is relatively simple to do? Or?

Přemysl Bosák 27:15
It’s yeah, it’s very simple. Your mind in the application? Yeah. Well,

Timothy Allen 27:18
as a mediator, I mean, like, if I had no experience of mediation, and I came onto that platform, could I learn to be a mediator pretty easy.

Přemysl Bosák 27:28
At the moment, I do it manually on my own. So we will call we will have a meeting, online meeting or live meeting and I will explain to you what the application is about, I will show you the curriculum, I will ask you to go through the curriculum. And then if anything is unclear, we can do the training for you. I can show you some examples. And of course, you can, you can cooperate with one guy who is providing mediation online courses, so you can you can go there. So it’s, it’s, it’s up to you. But yeah, it’s quite simple.

Timothy Allen 28:11
It’s, I mean, I’m understanding it now. It’s it’s the kind of Uber method of mediation, isn’t it? Yeah, it is. Yeah. But I mean, you you are you, you can choose to both sides of the of the equation are coming voluntarily. And I mean, if it’s, it’d be brilliant. And I mean, I know a lot of people that really enjoy mediation, like who aren’t mediators in the process of mediating. There are certain people with certain temperaments for whom that would be a very rewarding experience, I’m sure,

Přemysl Bosák 28:44
I think so. But it’s like, the only tiny fraction of of civil disputes. Come to mediators nowadays, for example, I saw some statistics here in the Czech Republic, and there is 400,000 civil disputes in front of the course, a year, roughly, and 3000 of those end up in mediation, you know, but it’s like, I mean, they are sent to the mediator by the by the judge, of course, there are some mediation cases, which nothing goes through the judicial system. So we can maybe double it, but it’s still like tiny fraction of the disputes ended up in in the mediation. So I think that there’s a big potential to to introduce this possibility to people because I think that the problem is that loads of people simply doesn’t know what the mediation is about that there is something like this because we were mostly raised by thinking authoritarian weighing, you know, just look at how many people still hit their kids. And that’s, that’s what’s in our roots and we You are used to just if you have a problem, okay, ask someone else to decide, you know, first it was, it was parents then you know, teacher, then the manager at work, you know, just you know, I don’t want to be in it, it’s unpleasant for me to deal with him, just please decide and say, Well, who is wrong? Who is who is good. And that’s, again, it’s what we talked about at the beginning. That’s also a very important part that we are not taught how to structure an argument, how to negotiate. And that’s, that’s missing. So that’s, again, the reason why people just rely on the third person to

Timothy Allen 30:44
say, I’m sure you very much think of this platform as a as one that would empower the individual. It’s, it’s certainly, yeah, that’s interesting, because

Přemysl Bosák 30:54
what you need to do, I’m sorry, what I was good, what

Timothy Allen 30:57
was gonna say was listening to you talk about that 400,000. Civil, and hardly any of them going to the dispute resolution. I got two questions. There is number Well, firstly, do you happen to know what the main civil dispute is? Do you know what the most common thing is?

Přemysl Bosák 31:16
Ice? Let me remember. Yeah. There was a breakdown of this. I think they divorces divorces. Yeah. That’s divorces and contract. disputes. Yeah.

Timothy Allen 31:31
So on your actual platform, which is running and working now, right? Yeah. Have you had some divorces on your?

Přemysl Bosák 31:38
Yes, most of the cases we had, we had only a few we started in the autumn last year. And we haven’t done much marketing yet. So it only had only relationship related cases. Yeah, some of them very divorced.

Timothy Allen 31:55
Okay. And the other thing, which we I forgot to ask earlier in the process of the dripping water coming through my roof is when I reach a resolution with my neighbour, how is it enforced? Or is it up to us to just enforce it ourselves?

Přemysl Bosák 32:12
Since you are the one who will create the agreement? You and your neighbour, you are the one and you both have to agree to this agreement?

Timothy Allen 32:21
is a legal document, though, am I creating?

Přemysl Bosák 32:24
It’s not about you can, since you both agree to follow this, you can somehow bring it to the court, I’m not absolutely 100% sure how it works. But I read somewhere that it’s to some degree, it can be used as a legal document, but I don’t see it that way. You know, since you both agreed, and you you found this solution acceptable for both of you, then you are voluntarily, you know, going through it, because it’s better for you. So the aim is to find something that is better for both of you than okay, why would I use something else, then if we found a solution that is better for us? So that’s the aim that we would like to, you know, go we would like to I met

Timothy Allen 33:08
so and then the My second question from earlier about the 400,000 You’re saying that the reason why so few of those. So few of those cases actually go to dispute resolution is simply the culture in which we live. We are taught from a young age to offset our responsibility of those things on someone else.

Přemysl Bosák 33:29
And that’s what I think it’s we mentioned the history and, and this is I think, one of the root causes. Five people are offsetting it. Yeah, I mean, people don’t know about this. So that’s why we now trying to focus on educational marketing we shot the video about the video is basically some practical problem in in a family and then we show how the mediator can intervene. So then we explain people you know, they have this this concrete practical problem, and this is how it will be solved. And that’s what I would like to focus now on you know, to explain people why is it good what what is it for? Why is it better and why they, you know, can

Timothy Allen 34:17
this issue read last week? This is me thinking out loud again, but it when it monetizes when the platform monetizes, will there be a free market for mediators? As in some of them are more expensive than others

Přemysl Bosák 34:33
I think so. Yeah. Definitely the one who was you know, longer experience which was this better you know, reputation they can they can ask for higher prices like in every other you know, business

Timothy Allen 34:48
you’re definitely your free market maximalist.

Přemysl Bosák 34:52
So, did I forget to mention also that we also tried to bring to the A system that the old natural Erol principle that every time the agreement is reached, we asked the guide to create something we called moral case. So, he then creates anonymized example, that it must be like really anonymized that you cannot refer to any individual that, you know, this is chaotically This is the problem be dealt with, this is how I approached it, and this is how we reached the agreement, and then he will save it in our database for the other guides. So, then when they, you know, meet some problem that is this in the same way, then they can look at their and you can say, okay, they approach this way, I might use this one, we also have a forum, when they can discuss together their problems and and their solutions. And we have a experienced mediator who is working there as a supervisor, who can they ask for help. And through this shared knowledge, we would like to create some like body of rules or body of best practices that people can use in preventing our or solving their

Timothy Allen 36:18
problems. I’ll go back to my original observation, then what you’re describing there isn’t that the beginning of top down rules, which end up with the system we have? Now, remember what you were saying about historically? Originally, this kind of dispute resolution was a bottom up, which is what’s happening with you now, it’s bottom up, it’s people coming together deciding to resolve disputes. But the more that test cases become the law, if you see what I mean, like, well look, 5050 Times a couple came together with this problem and in a relationship dispute, and they ended up solving it this way. So this is the way to do it.

Přemysl Bosák 37:03
No, no, the you know, the top down is that someone sit together and out of their head, they create a room automap is that you know, you have the real, real problem. You solved it somehow. And then you create this solution. So that’s the that’s the difference. So we are still following the bottom up approach. And the most important distinguish is that it’s voluntary. So if you find this rule helpful, if you find this rule are working, okay, you use it if you don’t, just don’t. And if you’ve if you think that you can propose a better alternative, just okay. But only guides can do this. You can you can come there and you say, Okay, let’s upgrade this, you know, do this, you can change this, change this rule different way, you know, because I think that this is better, and then people can discuss, okay, is it really better or not? And then you can create a better, better solution. So we are still, you know, following the bottom up?

Timothy Allen 38:07
Yeah, I think I was just, my mind was travelling once again, 500 years into the future, which is, well, I mean, you know, I’m, I’m here to understand this. And I’m interested in that theory of the historical evolution of law. And it makes total sense to me, but it just seems like I often wonder that this is the same with Free Cities, I often wonder whether, you know, the free city model is phenomenal. I really, really liked the idea of the Free Cities monitor. But But 500 years in the future, how do we know that the Free Cities don’t become states? You know, this is Is this normal, natural ebb and flow of cultural, you know, like existence, or

Přemysl Bosák 38:54
I don’t think so. I think there are certain ratchets that you don’t fall back behind again, look, look at slavery, you know, once it was abolished, now, no one can you can imagine someone proposing, you know, let’s bring back slavery. So I think that once people understand that voluntary organisation of society is not only better, but the most importantly moral. And then I think there is no way back.

Timothy Allen 39:32
I would argue, I think you could argue that slavery has become more esoteric. Now. There as in is somebody working out of for a very small wage in China, creating an iPhone? Is it still a form of slavery or not? Like, it’s not, you know, they’re they’re under the under. They’re forced in a way they’re forced to be there because they need to make a living. Someone is dead. dictating their working conditions, and they’re not very good.

Přemysl Bosák 40:03
But you know, you can say that, you know, the necessity of us eating is slavery because we need to do to, you know, to raise the to grow food, I don’t think is like that, you know, I think even in China, you can decide whether to go to the to work or not, you can you can stop yourself just, you know, you can decide, and everyone here needs to go to work. Of course, in more and more developed countries, you know, the working conditions are brighter, but I think if you have ability to feed yourself, it’s, it’s, it’s more important. And on the basic level, you know, you need to have the ability to find work for us. Because without that you would starve to death without being able to find any, any work. So, yeah, but yeah, depends how you define the slavery now, you know, I used to be an employee, and my effective tax burden was like, 70% something. So is it slavery?

Timothy Allen 41:06
Well, I, like I say, I think, you know, in the old days, or the olden days, you could, you could dominate by force, that was very common way of asserting your power. Powers become a lot more abstract these days. And people respond very directly to situations like that. Whereas when you when you control people through slightly more esoteric means, and

Přemysl Bosák 41:37
revelations taxations, you know, they control us, of course, lead because before you start business, you know, you have to go through hundreds of pages of regulations, you have to fulfil that form. And that form, you know, we have to report to this agency and that agency. Yeah, that’s, of course, it’s part of the how the state controls us. And that’s why arkesden

Timothy Allen 42:02
Do you? Well, first of all, before we go on to anarchism, which sounds fascinating, and it is fascinating. Have you thought about doing this in a free jurisdiction of any of the free jurisdictions around the world? Is that something that’s on your mind?

Přemysl Bosák 42:20
Yeah, sure. I think that can be used anywhere. But this business, of course, the place where I think it can start more flawlessly, and that the people would better understand what I am aiming at. And what we would like to achieve and people bear would probably be would be more willing to take on the responsibility in those places. So yes, that’s I think it’s natural that I guess in those places, too, it can be easier.

Timothy Allen 42:54
Well, it’s certainly something that more liberty minded people are likely to choose anything where they can take responsibility themselves for the resolution in as much way as possible. Yeah, exactly. And obviously, you revolve in those kinds of circles anyway, I

Přemysl Bosák 43:08
presume? Yeah. Yeah, of course, I know,

Timothy Allen 43:10
I know, to talk to me about anarchism, then or what? How did you describe yourself? Your beliefs earlier?

Přemysl Bosák 43:18
And voluntary? voluntaryist? anarcho. capitalist. Yeah.

Timothy Allen 43:22
Can you break down a narco capitalism for me? Yeah, that’s,

Přemysl Bosák 43:26
that’s a philosophy, I would say. Which says that. All the it’s very simple, basically, that it’s only says that all interactions between people should be voluntary. That’s it. You know. So that’s also that you can say it that it’s freedom from coercion, because freedom, per se doesn’t say anything. But freedom from coercion. That’s the most important thing.

Timothy Allen 43:54
Why? Why do you think so many people think the word anarchy means the whole system is going to fall apart then? Like, is it because they’ve thought it through? I mean, you’re obviously your belief is if people are left to their own devices, things will work better?

Přemysl Bosák 44:10
I think that look at the human body. Who, who, who was in charge of the process, creating the human body. You know, that’s, that’s, that’s spontaneous order. That’s the highest level of order in the universe, that spontaneous order. And that’s, that’s the anarchy. That’s the spontaneous order. And anytime we try to intervene, we just ruin it. That’s the central planning. We had. We all we have. I think all people had the opportunity to see about the central planning leads. And so the anarchy basically, you can look at the melodically at the word, you know, it’s, it’s from Greek, and it says without a rulers, and it’s very often confused without rules, and which is not true. Of course, it will be there will be rules, but those rules will be those bottom up rules, and voluntarily and voluntarily created voluntarily used and enforced through ostracism. So,

Timothy Allen 45:14
just using your analogy of the body has been the ultimate chaotic formation, which I agree with, yes. But nevertheless, if we cut ourselves, often, we will stop an infection with a plaster on our own body or we will fix a problem we have. So there are there are, there are good examples of intervention, even in this chaotic system, would you? Would you agree or not? I mean,

Přemysl Bosák 45:44
the whole process of creating the body was spontaneous order, of course, we there are problems, so, we are fixing them. And I’m not saying that the free society will be without problems, of course, there will be problems, but they will be solved in in a voluntary way.

Timothy Allen 46:01
What’s your opinion then on technology and the human body coming together then

Přemysl Bosák 46:06
that there will be some point after that, will technology become like a human?

Timothy Allen 46:12
Oh, maybe mainly the incorporation of technology in the in the human being, it’s top down creation of humans, like we’re doing it at the moment with phones, phones are now an extension of our brain. I, you know, as long as I’m holding a phone in my hand, I have, I have I can, I can know anything pretty much as long as I’m good at searching on the internet. Whereas, you know, 50 years ago, I had to really struggle to find out, you know, most things, and the theory, of course, is that in the future, that technology will literally be absorbed into our bodies in certain shapes or forms.

Přemysl Bosák 46:55
I mean, help us you know, in healthcare, but you, you wouldn’t be able to speak foreign language or play piano, you know, without, you know, spending hundreds of or 1000s of hours training and exercising and learning.

Timothy Allen 47:11
Well, no, I don’t think I don’t think that’s true. Because already, I’ll give you an example, I, I used to work a lot in the Middle East, with people from all around the world. And one year, I had a Russian guy come to spend 10 days with me, he didn’t speak a word of English. And I interacted with him the whole time through Google Translate. And most of the time, it didn’t work perfectly, but most of the time, I just had my phone on. And it was in real time. As long as he spoke slowly, and you know, there was quiet in the background, getting real time it was telling me what he was saying, like as a neural link. Elon Musk’s neural link is one such thing, which is where you’re pretty much plugging in matrix, yeah, you’re plugging work as I’m going to processes into your brain, and therefore your communication changes, you could communicate, I could communicate with you, presumably over Wi Fi, or whatever it would be at that point, you know, etc, etc. I mean, I don’t know where I’m going with this, I just realised that, that that would probably be a danger in your eyes, because it’s top down planning of something that you described as the ultimate chaotic manifestation of anarchy, which is the body, which I agree is like, nobody spent. But let me go back to that, then let me go back to your example of the body. It’s true that over millions of years of chaos, this incredible body formed, okay. But also, the chaos had huge volatility. And that’s what I think he says, isn’t right, it’s necessary, but how do you convince people that things like that are necessary? Because the, that’s one of the when you look at interventions at all levels, economics, you know, what it’s all about limiting the volatility is all about, it’s all about trying to, I think, possibly coming from a good place is always trying to make things better for those times when the volatility is working against you.

Přemysl Bosák 49:10
But relative to what, like, what was the alternative? Well, relative

Timothy Allen 49:14
to the to the state of not being volatile?

Přemysl Bosák 49:17
Or, you know, do you know the term demo site? No, in demo site is the action of violence against from the state against their own citizens, you know, not included? Wars in 20th century? I think there is an estimate of 200 million people killed. You know, is this alternative to volatility, I guess, if it’s an alternative either go for volatility.

Timothy Allen 49:45
Yeah. So a plague happening. You know, I mean, so,

Přemysl Bosák 49:53
aside with the HEPA the plague happens, but I think that you asked me about the technology. I think that is the Most important thing is that people understand what’s moral and what’s immoral. And if we understand that there is an objective philosophical approach, how we can distinguish between bad and wrong between between moral and immoral, then, you know, basically, we can go from there anywhere,

Timothy Allen 50:19
how do we do that, then there is an approach.

Přemysl Bosák 50:24
You know, there is the people when they acquired knowledge, the philosophers created something called epistemology, which is the theory of how we acquire knowledge. And if we apply this theory to the realm of moral philosophy, then we can come to those to those rules, basically, every, every rule you propose must be universal. So, it must be valid for me, for you, for the guy on the other part of the globe, it must be valid now, in the future in the past. So, the time the place, the person doesn’t matter, it must be universal. It, you can, you can try it now, you can try later, it must be still valid, you know, it, you can replicate the situation later, and it must still be valid. So, there’s, there’s the first necessary condition. So, if you propose a moral rule, it must be universal. And the second test is internal consistency. So, if I say, in, you know, predefined terms, one plus one is three, then you can say, oh, it’s incorrect there is if you have like theory, and this, this false power on this internal consistency, you can immediately reject it because it’s invalid. So, the proposal must be internally consistent. That’s the second necessary condition. The third is, you know, you can it must be applicable in practice. So, if you propose a rule, which is just you know, not not usable, then you cannot use it. So, the practical, the practicality is the last part. So, for example, if you propose that, let’s say, theft is moral. Yeah. So, imagine two people in a room, you know, they both want to be moral, they you need to steal from each other. And, but if you want to, if you want to be stealing from that, it’s not to say that it’s not stealing it’s, it’s a gift. So basically, those two people cannot be moral beings. So you have to enable morality, you have to prevent morality to enable it. So that’s in like, internal inconsistent, so it means that like the proposal that theft if moral is not it’s not valid,

Timothy Allen 52:54
but that doesn’t that negate all rules? Like Tell me a rule that’s that fits all those things? That’s universal that’s consistent across time. And that

Přemysl Bosák 53:06
logical theft is immoral. Murder is immoral. Rape is immoral. attack other person is immoral. You can two people can sit in a room and they don’t steal from each other and they are both mortal they want to be moral so they don’t steal so that’s that’s that’s just a perfect

Timothy Allen 53:26
okay, attacking another person is immoral. What if that person had previously be brutally raped your child? Is it still immoral to attack that person?

Přemysl Bosák 53:41
Yeah, you said so revenge? Of course.

Timothy Allen 53:44
I know it I don’t know, I’m trying to work out whether you could everything everything every rule

Přemysl Bosák 53:49
or lose of grey. The violence is more only in self defence in general, in general terms. But, of course, we are humans. And they are loads of exceptions and lifeboat scenarios, you know, if you are, you know, falling from the, you know, from window, and can you can you can you can, you know, I mean? Like can you broke someone else’s window to save yourself, you know, to I mean to break into his property? Oh, I see what you mean. And there are loads of these, but I think that let’s, I think that if he focus, just, you know, let’s make it simple and plain and focus on those simple and plain things and then maybe can play in those with those difficult scenarios. We will be like, infinitely better off. Look at those simple things like taxation. People say okay, it’s necessary, you know, who will build the roads, there’s obvious you know, criticisms and that if you say, okay, taxation per definition is fat. The vast majority people would say, okay, and sound science, you know, you We are walking on the street and I will say, okay, so if I rob you, and I take your money and then give it to charity, is it still a theft? Of course, if I buy you for something, let’s say I rob you, I decide what to buy, what I will buy you for the price, I decide, I will give it to you and the rest I will give to charity. Okay, is it still set, of course, it’s still set. It’s simple as that. And so let’s focus on the taxation of theft. And if he started out, we can, we can, we can create imaginary scenarios like with those, you know, trim and switcher, and you have to decide whether you will switch to one prison or it will kill three prison. This nonsensical, you know, scenarios doesn’t it prevents people from using the true morality in the real life. Because it just diverts you to this, you know, nonsensical scenarios, which never happens in the real life,

Timothy Allen 55:58
just out of interest. Do you know what the most compelling argument against the notion that taxation is theft is, because when you break it down, if you are compelled to pay tax, if you don’t pay it, you’ll either be locked up in a box. So obviously, it’s, there’s something, there’s something I would

Přemysl Bosák 56:20
never advise anyone to not pay taxes. Because, you know, you would end up in jail, of course, I also I pay taxes, and, and I would never advise anyone not to do that. But the thing is, talk about the morality of the thing, I think that it’s important to talk, especially with kids, explain them the Okay, this is how we how they teach it at school, and it’s necessary, you know, I just saw this presidential candidate giving speech to two people about how the taxation is necessary, and that the hospitals will wouldn’t exist without taxation. That’s nonsense. And that, let’s talk about this nonsense, first. Explain it to people. So they they can, you know, the freedom cannot be imposed on people, they have to decide to be free. And so the necessary thing is education, explaining and focus on focus on kids.

Timothy Allen 57:19
Do you have as a sort of anarcho capitalist, are there some historical examples of that system that show a flourishing?

Přemysl Bosák 57:30
Yeah, there are some there are some places but they are the pure Conoco capitals never exist, like the ima in pure sense. There were there were some. It’s like, you know, as you know, the slavery was here for 4000 years, everyone now understand that it’s immoral to own a person. Why why took us like 4000 years or more to get rid of slavery, you know, so it takes time people we are progressing forward. And there are a lot of motivations to keep it like this, because there are a lot of powerful people who want it to stay like this, who are, you know, gaining value from the current system? So, yeah, there were some, as I mentioned, like that merchant law system, it wasn’t like a place where, which was an acapella, but it was within within this group of people who were international traders. On the boats, it worked perfectly, you know, that was private system of, of courts, you know, private judges, the rules they created on their own, you know, they enforce it on their own, you know, and then if you decided not to follow the court ruling, you know, your, your low, your boat wouldn’t be offloaded, okay. So do it, you know, or you wouldn’t be able to come to the port, you know, and how can you make trade without this? So, the ostracism worked perfectly then.

Timothy Allen 59:08
So, so you’re, you’re of the belief then that anarcho capitalism is something that people just don’t get yet. It’s not that it’s been tried and tested? Yeah. I mean, let’s, let’s not forget people, I hear that about socialism too. I hear that socialism has never been implemented properly, therefore, and I like so I have I have to be a little bit No cognizant of that. Well, I mean, but they

Přemysl Bosák 59:34
are, you know, we can debate like on a practical level, is it is the socialist impossible. Can we principle plan production in socialism without prices, you know, price, the price mechanism is the most important information system we have in the world. It’s much more important than the internet, you know, that is everything in the price of a good if it’s not, you know, intervened by the by the government Of course, by taxes or regulations, but that is everything that is, you know, you know, that famous article about eyepencil. You know, you see how many people you need to produce something simple as pencil, there are basically millions, people cooperating. And, and you and you all those information from those millions of people, you have indeed price in the price of this one pencil. That’s the that’s the spontaneous order I talked about previously.

Timothy Allen 1:00:29
So going back to price, then the price mechanism being the most important aspect of, of human interaction, would you say?

Přemysl Bosák 1:00:38
Oh, yeah, that’s the most important important information system. Yeah.

Timothy Allen 1:00:42
So I presume you’re not a fan of the current financial system being sending out well, it’s necessarily sending out wrong signals, isn’t it? Yeah, sure. It’s,

Přemysl Bosák 1:00:52
yeah, of course. And it means that the whole economy is not working. It’s working far below its potential because all those price signals are intervened by the or distracted by the government by the central bank. I mean, by the government. I mean, the whole system, like the central bank is part of the part of the government. So yeah, that’s, yeah, the most important price is the interest rate. On the on the money and then set by the by the central banks, by the central banks. And that’s the reason why we have booms, those boom, huge booms and a huge busts. And, you know, it’s look at now, the central banks, they are tightening, they’re, they’re tightening, then monetary policies, and they are waiting for the economy to crash. How can anyone you know, be fine with you know, okay, we need to repair what we have done previously, by crushing people’s lives. It’s just, it’s so insane that people read it and say, okay, that’s fine. It’s, are we on

Timothy Allen 1:02:01
a good trajectory, then in the world? Are we on a trajectory where the top down? System is, is changing or not? According to you?

Přemysl Bosák 1:02:12
It’s it’s mixed. But in the long term, I’m absolutely sure that it cannot be otherwise that we will come to the more voluntary or even free society at the end. But yeah, you know, what? Slavery took us 1000s of years. I know. Now we have, you know, yeah, we have technology. We have internet. It might be quicker. But yeah, I’m absolutely convinced that in the long term, we are going to ride away by this a lot of hiccups?

Timothy Allen 1:02:45
Well, of course, I mean, short term, there seems to be a lot of volatility. I mean, and what timescale? Is that, are you looking at the world and saying, we’re heading in a good direction?

Přemysl Bosák 1:02:59
You know, just, you know, see the progress, you know, the, we, we, we became freer, I think, and more efficient. And despite all the, you know, bad things happening, now, we are living in a very nice time and place, and we have all, you know, most people have in developed world have placed where to go to sleep, you know, they have heating, they have water, of course, they are part of the world, is that part of the world that that’s struggling, but, you know, the level of poverty in last 100 years decline dramatically. So, that’s, I think we can the, that’s the number we can look at.

Timothy Allen 1:03:53
Yeah, I don’t, I don’t disagree with that. I think my issue is with the trajectory that we’re on. I think some of that in as much as even though the standard of living is getting better, which it is. The these technological advancements that are leading to that are are also empowering authoritarians. I mean, immensely, I mean, we’ve never seen the ability to control at this scale. And it’s the beginning, obviously, it’s new, it’s obvious, it’s

Přemysl Bosák 1:04:34
the game and mobile phones then they gave us huge freedom and then of course, it can be served as a spying system, all of those and but on the other hand, they are, you know, cypherpunks who brought us encryption, and who brought us the, probably one of the best things in the history of Bitcoin. So yeah, they are, you know, competing forces and technology can be used in both direction? But I think like if you simply if you look at the Bitcoin and ingenuity of it, it’s just incredible. It’s almost like divine. Thank

Timothy Allen 1:05:18
you. Thank you. It wouldn’t have evolved unless it had to. I mean, it wouldn’t have appeared. Unless it was a push back against. I mean, that’s what I noticed about in something like Bitcoin it, it came at a very opportune time. I know, the evolution of it needed the internet, it needed systems it needed. But it naturally then appeared as the antidote to centralization. I think that will always happen that in any situation, any top down situation will have its inherent bottom up, push back. Yeah,

Přemysl Bosák 1:05:58
it was a reaction definitely to. I read, actually, the Bitcoin started in 1980s, when the people saw the potential of the internet to spy on people. And they said, Okay, I think that it’s important that we talk about privacy. So they show home leverage home, I think he introduced that encryption system, and then those signature blind signatures and everything. So the whole the whole Bitcoin was 40 years into, into working before it was introduced. So I think yeah, it was it was it was a reaction on to those government forces.

Timothy Allen 1:06:41
And I suppose you see dispute here is a reaction to top down.

Přemysl Bosák 1:06:46
Yes, it is. Just his reaction is I see something ground and I see a place where I can help. And that was the motivation, why I why I created this.

Timothy Allen 1:06:57
Can you give me the most interesting example of a resolution that was come to? I know you’ve already been, haven’t been going very long. But do you have? Can you share an example of something, which is, is

Přemysl Bosák 1:07:12
that you have already helped? We have already had like, a few cases? And yeah, that’s not enough. And I was approached by some psychology magazine that they would like to some Kabbalistic. Research? I mean, like, yeah, the, the research on the on the on the cases. So not Not, not enough, not, not long enough in the end operation.

Timothy Allen 1:07:38
But your your theoretically, that’s because of no one really knows about it. I mean, I didn’t know about it. It’s a very small niche market, I would say at the moment, it is, and it’s amongst libertarian free sort of those kinds of people. No,

Přemysl Bosák 1:07:54
I don’t think so. No, no, I would like to show people that it’s practical. It’s you don’t need to be libertarian, to use to use it. It just you just need to see the practicality and it’s, it’s useful. Yeah, I need to design something that is useful. And we are still, you know, looking at feedbacks and coding, and redesigning, and iterating. That’s, that’s constant process. And I try to be better and better. And we will see whether whether people will appreciate it or not, of course, it’s a risk. It’s a business. And we can end it in a few years that without succeeding.

Timothy Allen 1:08:40
Well, it, I think, what it relies upon people’s propensity to take responsibility,

Přemysl Bosák 1:08:46
you know, but yeah, that’s, that’s true. But I imagine like 20 years ago, there were pretty much no gyms here in the Czech Republic are only few. And now it’s quite a thing. And you have to it’s not very, almost pleasant thing to go to the gym and to run on the, you know, to the treadmill. And but people still the people are doing it because they find out it’s better for the health, you know, in long term, it brings you happiness. And that’s, that’s the same path in front of me, I think to explain people that in the long term, it’s good for you to use this approach rather than relying on some other people. I

Timothy Allen 1:09:29
also think and I think the example you just given might be also fit with this theory, but I think personal responsibility is having a renaissance it recently, maybe in the Czech Republic, I don’t know. But certainly, once again, as a response to the collectivism of the rising collectivism, personal responsibility then also has it and I’ll give you an example someone like Jordan Peterson, you know, Jordan. Yeah. I don’t think Jordan Peterson would be had become as popular in another time. Because personal responses are needed now. Right? Exactly. Yeah. And you could argue gyms, that’s a result of personal responsibility. Who knows? I mean, actually going and working out and making yourself look good. It’s something you decide yourself to do. But certainly dispute resolution would be much further on along the spectrum of personal responsibility than that. And yes, easy to see that any service that allows the individual which powers the individual to take control of something should see a rise in popularity in the in the coming year.

Přemysl Bosák 1:10:37
I hope. So. I think that one of the important messages Jordan Peterson was saying was that if you want to be happy as a man, you need to take as big burden as possible. Yeah. And to deal with it.

Timothy Allen 1:10:53
Responsibility. Yes.

Přemysl Bosák 1:10:55
Yeah. Yeah.

Timothy Allen 1:10:56
I, I think it’s actually, I mean, I’m 52 I think that I don’t know how old you are. But that 45, right. That’s not a new idea. To me. That was something I grew up, my parents probably instilled that in me. Anyway. And I, I’ve always thought that something a lot of people were missing out on was the burden of responsibility actually, infuse your life with meaning and meaning is the key to have a contented life. And that basically, I think, boiled down. That’s what he’s kind of saying again, and I think he’s speaking to a younger generation, but it’s still nice to see because personal responsibility had really gone out of fashion, for sure. For a number of years. It was very uncool to take responsibility, it was the opposite. It was like You only live once. You know, let’s just do it, you know, do what you want. And so I’m glad it’s back. I’ll be honest with you, I am much longer term thinking. Yeah. Anyway, we’re over time here. So I’m going to wind it up now. But I just want to finish with one one question that we ask everyone on the podcast. And that is to imagine you have a sabbatical away from your life. It doesn’t even have to be away from your business. But you get to choose in that year. You have enough money to fund whatever you want. You can do whatever you want, but you only have one year to do it. And what would you do during that year?

Přemysl Bosák 1:12:26
I am doing what I want to do, actually, and I’m self funded. And I left a very well paid job in a bank. So I am living my sabbatical now. And I am focusing on the studio.

Timothy Allen 1:12:40
Good answer. I think we get about I don’t know 20% answers coming in like that. And for me, that’s the perfect answer. I mean, I I’m,

Přemysl Bosák 1:12:50
I’m happy that I’m able to do it. Yeah.

Timothy Allen 1:12:53
Great. Well, fantastic. Good luck with the project. I think it’s a great idea. I think it’s a great fit with three cities as well because you know what, it’s just a great fit with three cities and I wish you all the best. Thanks for Thank you very much. No problem.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai