I don't know if you are aware that 33,000 pages of regulations are added to Poland every year . We pay officials so that they can liquidate 8% of all Polish companies within a year and a half . Isn't it the tail that wags the dog? Has anyone there gotten the ordering mixed up at all? No one has ever counted how many regulations there are in force in Poland. It can be assumed that there are around 13 million of them. Good morning everyone. A parcel with shoes that could cost over 20,000 PLN in fines. Unclear regulations, complicated, completely unclear interpretations. Today I will be able to talk about the structure of the law, its interpretation, its application, and what the state, what each of us can do to simply navigate this thicket, this jungle, better. I am talking about a thicket of regulations, paragraphs, provisions and other legal intricacies. Today, my guest is a doctor of law from the Jagiellonian University, a professor at the Nicolaus Copernicus University, and the founder of the WIGEN law firm, the largest law firm providing transport services in Poland. Ladies and Gentlemen, Professor Mariusz Miąsko. Good morning, Professor. Good morning, sir. Hello everyone. Thank you very much for accepting the invitation and for the opportunity to talk about law. It is a great honor and pleasure for me to talk about law. This is my great passion. Well, for me too, because we are moving in these aspects. We just move. The law applies to us, one might say, every day, and sometimes even at night. And that's the first question to start with. Each of us feels the multitude of this law and the even greater multitude of legal interpretations. What would you say to a person from abroad who is not familiar with the application and general structure of the law in Poland? What does it look like in Poland today, August 26. What does the entire legal structure look like today , so that someone can understand for sure whether it is worth investing in Poland , whether it is worth living here, so that they can orient themselves. How would I tell you? Well, first I would put this answer into some mathematical framework. I don't know if you are aware that 33,000 pages of Polish regulations are added to the list of regulations every year in Poland, 33,000 pages on average every year. Well, the exception was last year when around 37,000 pages were added. Not 37,000 recipes, just pages of recipes. If we add EU regulations to this , we can assume that there are around 15,000 that apply to Poland. That's around 50,000 pages of new regulations per year, a vast majority of which, not to say the majority, are regulations addressed to entrepreneurs. Well, this in itself shows the scale of the increase in legal substance that entrepreneurs have to become familiar with every year. That is, please pay attention to how much time we need to take out of our business activity in order to devote to this particular business area in order to familiarize ourselves with the current regulations or not to familiarize ourselves with them and suffer the consequences of not familiarizing ourselves with these regulations. ask. We must ask ourselves whether a person, an average person or even an extraordinary person, even a lawyer, even a law professor, is capable of familiarizing themselves with such a gigantic number of regulations? Well, the answer is obvious. Well, there is no such person, there is no such computing capacity in the human brain. Even Einstein would n't be able to absorb such a gigantic substance every year. Well, this is an indirect answer to the question of what reality we live in. Is this a reality that fosters entrepreneurship or one that stifles and kills entrepreneurship? The answer is obvious. This is where the truth cannot be otherwise. But how many recipes do we have now? No one has ever counted how many regulations there are in force in Poland. We can assume that there are around 13 million of them, perhaps a little more. But if we look at the recipe itself, it is only an editorial unit. Since approximately the 1960s, thanks to outstanding Polish scholars of legal theory and doctrine, we have known that a provision is merely an editorial unit from which legal norms are created. These legal norms are created on the basis of such specific principles called directives. We'll come back to this in a moment . And now these regulations create standards. No one knows how many norms these 13 million regulations create. Because sometimes one provision is the source of several norms, and there may be a dozen or even several dozen in some extreme cases, and sometimes several provisions create one norm, and then these norms create something that I call supernorms. It is the theory of law and the doctrine of legal theory that does not call them so, but I call such combined norms supernorms. Nobody knows. There is no person who would be able to determine how many of these legal norms there are. We will explain in a moment why there is no mechanism, no objective mechanism for counting the number of these legal norms. This in itself must be cause for concern. Well, if we lawyers know at the university level that it is impossible to count the number of legal norms based on, say, 13 million regulations, but no one knows how many there are, then this also corresponds to the reality in which we operate. And then let's go even further. That is, these legal norms, even if we knew how many there are, we would have to determine whether they are coherent with each other, as we call them, or in other words, whether they are consistent in scope, whether they overlap or whether there are certain gaps, spaces between them, and in fact, almost no one examines this systematically. No one systematically examines this coherence in individual legal branches . It just so happens that in several branches of law, including labor law, I have been examining the coherence of these regulations, these legal norms for 16 years, and I find that the regulations at the level of my scientific research, that these regulations at the level of the scope of norms, are extremely divergent, right? So these norms are incoherent, or in other words, they do not talk to each other, as if they were talking in different languages. This means that the average Joe, in the best sense of the word, has no way to determine it in a deterministic way, as we say deterministic, meaning certain, binary. What will be the result after reading the result of the information, the result of the scope of information after reading a given provision? Well, someone might say, but if we put in so much effort, and as I mentioned a few sentences earlier, that there are special tools, instruments, that is, there are so-called first- and second-level directives that are used to transform the content of regulations, the scope of norms, then if we try so hard, and we have an enumerative catalogue, i.e. a full, exhaustive catalogue of these directives, then sooner or later, and after putting in a period of effort, we will be able to determine the scope of the meaning of the issued regulation. So it would seem. Well, this is not what may be shocking, but in Poland, but also in the European Union, in the European Union countries , interestingly, in most countries around the world, there has not been a single enumerative catalogue, a certain catalogue of first and second level directives specifying how to transform the content of the provisions of the scope of the standard. What is this? Ladies and gentlemen, what are these first and second level directives? These are the same rules as in mathematics. You may remember from about the eighth grade of primary school a rule about equations with parentheses. So if we have an equation with parentheses, the rule says that we first have to perform this mathematical operation within the parentheses, and only then outside the parentheses, because if we did exactly the opposite, the result will be some kind of result, but it will be incorrect, which can be empirically demonstrated. And these are precisely these types of rules. And now the question is, how many are there? It is accepted by part of the legal, scientific, judicial, doctrinal, prosecutorial, advocacy and legal counseling community. He assumes there are 32 of them. Others claim this value is different. Some say there are more, others say there are fewer. Aha, so if we don't have consistency, we don't have certainty at the level of the scientific community, the legal community, and I'm not talking about the average recipient of law, but at the level of, well, the legal elite in the best sense of the word , we don't have absolute certainty as to how many first- and second-level directives there are, then we can already see that the result cannot be deterministic, because if we apply a larger or smaller number of directives in relation to the need to decode a given provision, we will most likely obtain a different result. I mean, they are so simple, of course there are very simple sentence structures like ala makota, in which we can basically not use all the first or second degree directives, we will still be able to more or less determine what the scope of meaning of this sentence is. But if we have more complex legal structures, such as sentence-based legal structures at the level of regulations, we usually need to use all of them. And the question is how much is all of this? How many of these are there in all? Well, it cannot be that after hundreds or actually thousands of years of development of legal sciences, if we look at the history of humanity in general or, let's say, the last 100 years of development of Polish legal science, it cannot be that we are not absolutely sure how many first- and second-degree directives there are, because this is the building block for transforming the content of regulations, the scope of the norm. Now the second question, where did they come from ? We would have to ask ourselves these first and second level directives, that is, this basic transformative instrument, right? Well, ladies and gentlemen, if anyone thinks that they were created at universities, they are wrong. Well, they were not created at universities, some of them were not created. Some of them have been created, of course, but a significant part is the result of the jurisprudence of, for example, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, proposals presented by individual representatives of the doctrine, etc., etc. But there has never been a case where a strictly defined body gathered and said: "Listen, we only accept these 32 and no more, no less, in order to have any chance of obtaining a repeatable, i.e. deterministic result." Repeatable. Repeatable, because we have to answer the question, perhaps at the very beginning we should have asked ourselves: what is law? Law is order, because the only reason why we introduce this artificial creation into the world system, into the ontology of the world, is because of the need to achieve order, not lack of order. So we introduce laws not to create chaos, but, for example, to create less chaos, but to introduce order. This means that we need to have a fixed number of variables in the form of first- and second-level directives that we all accept in order to achieve order, i.e. to obtain a repeatable result, right? Okay. Well, this is the first very serious problem. The second, even more serious, problem arises from the fact that these first- and second-level directives have no formal status. This is a set of postulates. at the level of legal theory, but there is no statute, for example, there is no fundamental law that would specify that we decode the provisions of the regulations, i.e. the information scope of the regulations, i.e. we decode the legal norms from the regulations using and here are listed, for example, these 32, 34 or however many principles there should be . There is no such recipe. So we see the second fundamental problem, that is, it is a set of wishes and expectations. some powerful scientific achievements. Anyway, I don't want to offend anyone here, not in the sense that I only treat it with the utmost respect, but rather the achievements, but we haven't processed it, we haven't taken a step forward and we haven't changed these rules, we haven't given them a formal status. It is a set of simply such rules, such simply rules. And that's the second problem, but there's a third, even bigger problem. Well, even if we agreed for a moment that there are only 32 rules or X, but this is a constant value, and even if we started legislative work tomorrow and, let's say, in three months we gave them formal status to these rules, these rules still do not have a defined hierarchy among themselves. We call it a paradigm, i.e. no paradigm has been defined. Ladies and gentlemen, how important is it, how fundamental is the paradigm? This is understood by anyone who has boarded a plane for any trip and wanted to fly to a specific place in the world. When a pilot takes off and when a pilot lands, he has a checklist and it's not like the pilot extends the flaps in any order , reduces the speed by a certain value, opens the wheels when he sees fit, no, no, it doesn't happen like that. There is a precisely defined team list that determines the order of activities of this team of activities. The order of this set of activities is a paradigm. Why? Because it has been noticed that only repetitive behavior in a precisely defined paradigm gives a repeatable result in the form of a safe landing. And how is it that when we land a plane, carrying 200 people in the plane, we perform a paradigm and the pilots are ruthlessly held accountable for it, trained to achieve a repeatable result in the form of a safe landing. And when we have 13 million regulations in just one country, we don't know how to apply these rules and in what order . Let's assume that these 32 rules in what order should we apply them, because if we apply them in a different order, right, first- and second-level directives, the result will be different each time. Well, because it will be the same rule as on a chessboard, right? Number of possible solutions. In connection with the above , to honestly answer the question that you asked, which would seem to be fundamental, that is, how should entrepreneurs and citizens in general feel in the country, can they feel safe, can they run their businesses safely? Well, you have to understand what law is and you have to understand those foundations that are missing. These foundations are not there, they are not there. I don't want to offend anyone here from the scientific community, the theory of law, the philosophy of law, but especially the theory of law. No, I don't want to offend anyone with jurisprudence. This is great respect for Polish scientists whose Polish legal theory is at the absolute top in the world. In fact, most of the most important discoveries in the last hundred years regarding the relationship between the provision and the scope of the standard were made by Poles, and it is over the last 100 years that one could say that the key trends in this area have developed. Of course, Lajbnic was there before and so on and so forth. Witgenstein, who contributed a huge part to the legacy, but these are Poles, so I don't want to offend anyone here , so you understand correctly, because I'm sure some lawyers will watch this kind of topic, this kind of podcast, so I don't want to offend anyone. On the contrary, what we are doing is civilizational insofar as, as Professor Krokewicz says, we have been building this new legal system, the world's first deterministic legal system and semantic representation of law, for over 16 years together with Professor Krokewicz's team from the Wrocław University of Science and Technology, but we are also joined by scientists, a team of several dozen people, both Polish and international. Currently, we are trying to create the world's first deterministic system, i.e., repeatable, i.e., in precisely defined contexts, so that we have repeatable results. Well, imagine that you are an entrepreneur. You want to invest, for example, 40 million złoty in building a factory, and you read the regulations and you get the same result, and you start the investment, you put in the first 10 million złoty, and it gets to some permitting phase, and some village official, pimp wimp whatever, from any municipal office, comes and says that he read the same regulations and got the result y or any other result than x, and we get nervous, and very often there's a saying that where there are two lawyers, there are three opinions. I would say, why three? There can be an infinite number of opinions there, because if we do n't have a paradigm, if we don't first have a defined catalogue of directives that transform the provision into the scope of the norm, and then we don't have a paradigm, there can be an infinite number, right, of these opinions. And then there are the logical problems, because you also have to know that there is another layer. In general, we build this system in over 30 layers. These are 30 layers that need to be repaired and systematized at a purely engineering level, because our work is, in fact, engineering work. And not even de facto, but it is just that in some areas it is simply engineering. There are still errors in logical functions. For example, imagine, I made such a preliminary summary of key branches of law such as civil law, criminal law and it turns out that there are such errors as functional and and or, but not only those, because there are many more functional errors, but I am simplifying it. Imagine that some of them have been around for 10, 15, 20 years and the community knows about them perfectly well and no one is eliminating them. Nobody is eliminating them. It is difficult to understand why. Probably because no one has approached the issue from a purely engineering perspective and lawyers are simply not bothered by these multiple interpretations. And now you are an entrepreneur or you want to be the prime minister and you want to create ideal conditions for the development of entrepreneurship in Poland and you say: "I invite investors to Poland ." Or you say: "I know that entrepreneurs account for 90% of all state budget revenues. Therefore, I want to have not 3 million entrepreneurs or 3 million 200, but 6 million 400. Because if I had 6 million 400 Polish entrepreneurs, 100% of the Polish budget would be covered by the work of Polish entrepreneurs, because Polish budget revenues are around 600 billion and a half, the budget deficit is around 300 billion. Therefore, if I had twice as many small entrepreneurs, even twice as many, even small entrepreneurs, 100% of the budget would be made up of them. I wouldn't have to take out a loan, because 100% of this budget would be generated by Polish entrepreneurs. So you say: "I'm the Prime Minister, I want to create for you. Invest in Poland, develop here, I'm creating favorable conditions for you." So where should the Prime Minister start? Well, most Prime Ministers are historians, not to mention historians of history, because I really like history myself, but I also appreciate historians. But they don't understand the fundamental principle that the foundation of the state is this legal soup. As inelegant as it may sound, we live in such a legal soup. Everything. This microphone was created under strict legal conditions. This podcast is broadcast under strictly defined legal conditions. Our clothes, desk, everything. There is no such element. We even breathe under strictly defined legal conditions. Therefore, we all live in this legal soup. And now the Prime Minister needs, like oxygen, first and foremost, order at the level of legal regulations, so that entrepreneurs feel that the regulations they have invested money and time and life based on the regulations they have read are deterministic, that this result is deterministic, that it is impossible that they will not achieve two, Three, five, 10 results. One result, they read the regulation today in a specific context, and no official in the world, nor any court, will change this scope. This means that this investment is safe. You've seen, you've probably heard in the media, that Mr. Florek, president of the wonderful Polish global company, Fakro, had to leave Poland and build one of his leading production halls in the United States because he couldn't reach an agreement for months, even years, with officials who read the same regulations in a completely different way. It ended up that taxes will mostly flow to the United States instead of to the Republic of Poland. That's what I'm talking about. That's why fixing the law, fixing the law, is fundamental. That's why I called it a civilizational project. I mean, actually, I did n't even call it that, because Professor Krokewicz said that what we're working on is a civilizational project, not even fundamental for the state and the world, but merely civilizational. I'd get to that fix in a moment . How is that? Is n't this also utopian? Given the sheer number of repairs mentioned here, it seems like quite a task requiring at least decades. But we'll come back to that. However, I wanted to address very simple and poorly understood issues. If two lawyers disagree on a legal interpretation, it doesn't mean that one of them is right. They both can be wrong. Both. There are over 30,000 pages of regulations, not just regulations created annually. What does that mean? Because on the one hand, we have a situation where we can't catch up where new regulations actually need to appear, because technology is changing, because operational solutions are changing. And through various inventions, I don't know, something has appeared. We're trying to tame it somehow, although it may limit us more than it does anything good, and that's it. I understand that new legal issues are necessary here. However, if that were the case, we would be up to date with this law, which we aren't. Does this indicate the total incompetence of the people who create these regulations? Legal? Well, I understand that if there are so many pages year after year, it means we're improving our work. It's impossible to run a company this way, to make so many corrections every year . The company would be paralyzed. The state is a form of business, after all. And another thought that comes to mind. Well, I understand that if the law is created incorrectly, then these errors should be divided at least 50-50 in terms of interpretation, in favor of the taxpayer, in favor of the person who is to benefit from this right, or to their detriment. And yet, in such everyday functioning, it seems that the crushing issue of interpretation is nevertheless unfavorable for the citizen. How do you, Professor, perceive these two aspects of creating this law and its interpretation? Oh, de facto, those were five questions, but I'll answer this backwards. That's a very valid and wise suggestion that this responsibility shouldn't, in cases of interpretational doubts, be transferred to the applicant, for example, the applicant for the issuance of an administrative decision. I don't know, construction, environmental, whatever. And so it is, and this will probably surprise you, but for several years, the previous government introduced a revolution in the Code of Administrative Procedure, for example, by introducing Article 7a, which says exactly that . Meaning, if an official or a judge has doubts about the interpretation of the regulations in a certain way, they cannot interpret it to the detriment of the applicant. There is no prohibition against interpreting it to the detriment of the applicant. And you know what has happened over the past few years, when this provision is practically in force. That is, officials and judges routinely violate this provision or ignore it, so that the judge claims he has no doubts about the interpretation. He has no doubts. This interpretation is drastically different than the interpretation of, for example, other lawyers, other judges, other officials, or the applicant, but he has no doubts. Therefore, he will not apply this provision. This is a direct circumvention of this and this provision. Hence, for example, I have applied several times over the last few months for proceedings Disciplinary action against, for example, several judges of the Voivodeship Administrative Court, who are circumventing this regulation in precisely this way, but not only against them, because the same applies to several officials of the National Administrative Court (SKO), and to local government officials, where I have filed notices with prosecutors. Because it is a disrespect for our rights. It is a grave violation, because it is a violation of the right to our dignity. Because that is what it really comes down to. So, if there is a regulation, because a regulation is a social contract, which, as we have established, is the source of order, then it cannot be that someone comes along and says that in his majesty as a judge or official, he will interpret which regulations he will apply, or will use a catchphrase that will allow him to bypass this regulation, not apply it. So it may be shocking for the majority of you, that this very rightful postulate, which the editor articulated, has been in force in the Polish state for several years, only it is not applied in an overwhelming, overwhelming majority. It must be honestly said that There are very few judges and very few officials who actually comply with Article 7(7A), the Code of Administrative Procedure, but this is an absolute marginalization, and kudos to these wonderful people, but unfortunately, this is an absolute marginalization. Well, in my life, we have conducted, our law firm has conducted over 12,000 administrative proceedings. A gigantic number. We are constantly conducting more, and this is, among other areas, our specialization. Therefore, let's review how these courts and officials invoke this provision. Exactly in this way: they don't respect it, meaning they don't respect us. Because what does it mean that they don't apply the provisions? They don't respect us as a society. Because we, the society, elected our members of parliament and senators, and the president, and suggested to them as our representatives that we would like to have such a provision, and this provision, the members of parliament and senators, and the president, on our behalf, introduced into the Polish legal system. A vast majority of judges and a vast majority of officials do not comply with this, and that is why I am... There's a deeper problem. It's not that they don't apply, they violate our right to dignity. They violate our right to dignity, because that's why we introduced this regulation as a society. We, we the people, because judges and officials are just our employees. We employ them, because after all, we are entrepreneurs and wonderful employees of enterprises, generating 90% of the entire budget. We employ everyone else from the non- budgetary sphere. We respect them to ensure things are good, we employ and respect them as people, we respect and expect exactly the same. So, if we introduced certain regulations into the Polish legal system, we expect that they will be paid for our money, our money, because after all, they receive their salaries from our money. No public sector employee has ever earned a single złoty, because their entire salary and the tax on their salary originally comes from money that we, the entrepreneurs, had to earn and had to go to the budget, so that only through redistribution can they be transferred to any official from whom the state, ladies and gentlemen, didn't take the money in the turn. In other words, we employed these wonderful people, we created We created regulations, and now we expect them to adhere to these regulations, just as we, the people, have introduced them into the system we have created. Law is a purely artificial system. It is an absolutely artificial entity. If these officials, and judges are officials, do not adhere to the principles we, the citizens, and we, the entrepreneurs, have introduced into this system, it means they do not respect us, that is, they are depriving us of our right to dignity. The right to dignity is a fundamental right, because among the first-generation human rights, the right to dignity is at the very top. Only later do we have the right to life, the right to freedom, etc., but the right to dignity, because every person is born with the right to dignity. Now, this right to dignity is so fundamental to us , it is so fundamental to us that officials often think: "What the hell, I'll read the regulation differently, I won't issue this decision, and it reduces it to something very material, but in reality, it violates our right to dignity." Well, when we read this provision that is in this legal system, we expect a decision that is in accordance with the contract, in accordance with the social contract as it is today. If it is different, we will expect and have different expectations. And these judges and officials probably do not realize this when issuing these huge, gigantic scale administrative decisions or rulings. Of course not all of them, but a huge number, inconsistent with the content of the regulation. But here we come to where we started. What kind of consistency can we talk about if we live in a system of chaos, where, well, because I am examining, among other things, the entropy coefficient in the system of chaos of laws, in the system of chaos, laws of chaos system , because the legal system is a system of chaos. So far we have 33,000 new regulations and 13 million old ones. In addition, we do not have an established catalogue of legal interpretations. We also have no paradigm for interpreting the law, so it is a system of chaos. And this system can have an entropy coefficient, i.e. it is a coefficient that when someone hears it and has a precise mind, thermodynamics immediately comes to mind here, and very rightly so from physics. Carefully arrange the plant. Exactly. Me me exactly exactly . That's where I got this idea from. There is, of course, an idea, one could say not only Bolman's, the thermodynamic one, but there is also Szanon's, which refers to semantics, but there is a slightly different scope of understanding this entropy. So I use Bolman's, paradoxically, approach more, the one concerning thermodynamics, because contrary to appearances, it has a lot to do with understanding chaos itself, the source of chaos, obviously by analogy, to be precise here. And we are unfortunately closer to this, this, this coefficient, I would say one, than to this coefficient zero. So this system of chaos is, one could say, almost unlimited. there is almost such that you could say it's peaking to one. Here, some people who deal with cybernetics may have a different opinion on whether to give a one or a zero, because the approach is slightly different , the measurement is different, but generally we understand what we mean, that it is a system closer to complete chaos than to order. Why do we need this order? legal in order for the economic order to function. Well, now imagine that we are building a bridge or a viaduct or an airplane. There are also several hundred to several thousand, sometimes millions of parameters. For example, I once asked a question on Google, how many parts did a spaceship consist of, right? They say there are over 2 million parts. And all these parts are in order. There the entropy coefficient is closer to zero. That means there are very few variables that are unknowns, that give unknown results. And the coefficient of precisely these deterministic results is very large. That's why the world functions, that's why statistically every second viaduct doesn't collapse and statistically every second plane doesn't fall, but they're the only ones who fly. There are, of course, critical cases and this is what we fundamentally need in our country. And now, if we add to this the judges and officials consciously omit certain provisions, such as Article 7a, which you rightly pointed out should be there and it is there, but you, the editor, didn't even notice it, because most Poles didn't notice it, because officials don't apply it, they omit it. So if they add another element, that is, the evidence of the conscious elimination of regulations that favor citizens, in theory favor citizens and in theory, because in theory it is only in the opinion of officials and judges that they attack the system and they eliminate it, then they add another element, another variable that causes even greater instability of this system. It is impossible to live in such a country . That is why we issue quite a lot of disciplinary proceedings against these judges and officials . We even once had to file motions for disciplinary proceedings against three Supreme Court judges. And not because we do n't like these people. I do n't know these people. For me these are not even names or surnames. I don't even look at their exact names, because what good is it to me? I don't mean that I want to cause any kind of pain to any, I do n't know, official or judge. That's not what I mean. What I mean is that we're desperately trying to restore, uh, increase the repeatability, the determinism of this system, that is, reduce the probability that this system will collapse, and it's basically on the verge of collapse. In principle, if this process of collapse has certainly begun, but it is difficult to say how long people will accept at the level of their perception a system of total chaos, that is, a state in which the number of regulations increases dramatically. It's not even possible anymore, there's no point in reading on all these websites that some regulation has changed, because you'd have to do nothing for the whole day to read that the road has changed here, and this one has changed there, and these speed cameras will be different from now on, and this one is different, and this one is different, and this one is different, and this one is different, and this one is different , because it's supposed to be different. I don't read it. I would have to devote the entire day solely to reading what has changed in some one area. And yet there are, as we have already established, millions of these areas, and when it comes to the ranges of standards, we don't even know how many. We don't even know how much. It may be several dozen million, or it may even be as much as 100 million. Well, it's hard to say how many ranges there are between relationships, between norms. So is it possible to live in such an overregulated system? Well, we're alive. But do we feel happy? Well, no. Don't we feel like we're game animals? Well, I have this feeling. I clearly feel like I'm prey. I'm going from Krakow to Warsaw, there are these sectional measurements. You're driving calmly, you set the cruise control, suddenly it's 110, wait a minute, nothing, then it's 90 and the 90 is maintained for 1.5 km, then it's 110. Why did they suddenly introduce 90 on the same section ? Well, to catch these people. And to talk later about how safety is taken care of. Well, how can it be that year after year the sum of fines that the Polish state has plundered from us, the Polish state officials, because we are the Polish state officials whom we pay, has increased from 650 billion million to 300 billion, probably even 60 billion. How can it be that the value of fines has increased by 100%? Well, precisely in this way, we are being robbed with regulations that human perception no longer grasps, is unable to grasp. Why did you ask the question and why are these regulations being introduced and is it possible to function with them? Well, in the short term it is possible. Is it possible to be happy? Well, it can't be. Is it possible to build on this, on such an over-regulated country, is it possible to build entrepreneurship? The answer is mathematical. Well, if 260,000 companies have gone bankrupt over the last year and a half , and 110,000 go bankrupt in a quarter, 110 went bankrupt in one quarter, that is, to be completely precise, here we count those that went bankrupt, those that were suspended or are in bankruptcy liquidation. pop liquidation bankruptcies 260,000 within a year and a half and 110,000 within one quarter of a quarter. Well, let's ask ourselves now: how many companies are there in Poland? 3 million 200 3 million 200 there plus or minus wait a minute, we want to say that the Polish state liquidated 10, less than 10%, 8% of all Polish companies in a year and a half, which means that the Polish state liquidated 8% of companies in a year and a half, which means that to liquidate 100% it will take the Polish state only 11 years and it will no longer have a problem with us knowing that we bring in 90% of all revenues. Someone will say that it's not true, that it's 90, because they will say 80, when we count all the extras. Well, I add everything. I add the fractional part of the fines we pay. I pay, I count not only all the accumulated taxes, but also concessions, licenses, all the levies that we entrepreneurs pay. That means we give 90% of the entire budget to the state, and the officials we pay, we pay, we, we entrepreneurs and our wonderful employees employed in enterprises, we pay the officials so that they can liquidate 8% of all Polish companies in a year and a half. Is this or isn't this the tail that wags the dog? Has anyone there gotten the ordering mixed up at all? Only these people have no awareness. They have no, no knowledge, or only a rudimentary knowledge of economics, a rudimentary knowledge of law, a rudimentary knowledge of the functioning of the state, a rudimentary knowledge of where the money comes from, a rudimentary knowledge that for the Polish state to have more money, but not from loans, not from benefits, meaning not from 10-year bonds, for example, which currently amount to almost PLN 300 billion annually, we need to have strong enterprises in general. And among these strong ones there must be as many international ones as possible, which will export our services and products abroad. There will be partly taxes paid there, which will return to Poland, because what are enterprises? What are enterprises? There are such pumps. Please imagine that now a globe or a map of the world, now imagine Poland and where is this money supposed to come to Poland? Well, for example, they could come from the sale of raw materials. Well, we sell. KGHM sells copper all over the world. Then we could launch a program to sell other raw materials. Well, he 's blocked on different levels, right? We don't extract the gigantic droughts we have, so there's basically nothing to talk about. Well, of course we can. Yeah. Well, you see , this Polish communication port, this central communication port, is lagging behind. Well, everyone knows that if it were expanded, then the stream of redistributed products from all over the world would go to Central Europe through Poland, and this would of course generate revenue from customs duties. Well, we do n't have that. Well, for now, we entrepreneurs still constitute 90% of the revenues of the Polish state. Well, now it is important that when we see Poland on the world map, we can think about where else we can get this money? Well, we would have to abandon some pumps like that . He will throw in pumps like you throw pumps into a well. He will put in pumps that pump water. Only they will not pump water, only money to Poland. What are these pumps? These are large, global Polish enterprises. Large, medium, but global. These may be small, but global, because we also serve as a law firm employing only 50 lawyers, so we are not a large company, we are not even a medium-sized one . We also serve foreign companies, meaning we are a kind of micro-pump that pumps money into the Polish state, because our law firm's foreign clients pay money that enters the Polish system, meaning we collect money from around the world. Now the point is to have as many of these enterprises as possible, as many as possible of the global, large and medium-sized ones, as well as small and micro ones like us, but still pumps, and to have them scatter as many of these pumps as possible all over the world that will pump this money. Well, that's what the Germans do. That's why Germany prevented Porsche from going bankrupt twice. They preferred to illegally subsidize Porsche under the table , in violation of European Union regulations . They said that if Porsche is like SAP, it will only fail once. In Sweden it will only fail once, and if they are bailed out, they will survive and then for decades they will be the pump that will draw money from all over the world to Germany. And now we must respect entrepreneurs, because we are, we all have to respect ourselves as entrepreneurs, but officials must respect us, because money in Poland and prosperity do not come from loans, because loans have to be repaid, but from the work of entrepreneurs like us and our wonderful employees, where we fill these pumps and pump this stream, these hundreds, thousands of such pumps, larger than the Polish state of money. That's why we've become the 20th largest economy. Because we had the ability to pump a stream of money into Poland. We did it better and more effectively than other countries. Officials do not understand this and that is why officials must be held accountable, directly answering your question at the very beginning of this thread, they must be held criminally and individually, individually, personally, financially liable for acting in breach of the regulations, for omitting Article 7a, which you, Mr. Editor, very rightly pointed out, for clearly reading the regulations to the detriment of the applicant. they must bear. I even prepared such a petition to the government once, and I think over 3,200 entrepreneurs signed it. I have sent it and I will be requesting, within the framework of the entrepreneurs' association and the entrepreneurs' government that we are creating, that these regulations come into force. Officials must feel that they have to pay a financial penalty privately with their own money for an absolutely contra legegent action that is contrary to the content of the regulation and the scope of the regulation. Judges must also bear this responsibility and judges must also bear criminal responsibility for acting in accordance with case law contra legegen. I will explain in a moment what a counterclaim is, because if we do the right thing, both the officials and we must bear criminal responsibility. Obec What is a contraleg? Kontral is when the recipe says that this is a glass and we all see that based on the information that we have collected in the course of life and the entire ontology of the world, that this is a glass, that this is not, this is not a flower. And the official says: "No, it 's a flower, you won't get a permit for a glass because it's a flower and it's a contraband." Case law based on counterargument. Such case law based on inference by control is categorically prohibited. Not because I just say so. There are 14 Supreme Court rulings in this regard and two Constitutional Tribunal rulings and 100% of legal scholars, i.e. the most eminent lawyers over the last 100 years, have said that such reasoning is prohibited. Unless it would be to the applicant's advantage. If it is neutral or to the advantage, then of course it can be to the advantage of the applicant citizen, or if it is neutral for the citizen, then of course there can be control and even it should be if it is to the advantage, but it cannot be if it is to the disadvantage, then how is it that there is a gigantic number of administrative decisions, but you do not realize how huge and the rulings of provincial administrative courts, not only provincial administrative courts, the court in general is based on the basis of inference, leggiem control, i.e. something opposite to what results from the content of the provision and the scope of this provision. Because these officials don't respect us, they don't respect the system. In fact, they don't respect themselves. Because if someone comes and openly ignores the regulations, is a lawyer, is an official, then it basically starts with a lack of self-respect, right? And then, one by one, the consequence of this lack of self-respect is that he doesn't respect us, us entrepreneurs, us citizens, us people, right? us people just like that, the truth and it violates the right to dignity, that is, the most fundamental issues, so you see, it is very deep, it needs to be very deep. There are no simple answers in my opinion, I mean I could be wrong, but in my opinion it is impossible to heal the economy with just one element. Hence, you see, there is such a we create, we created it is registered, I invite such an association we entrepreneurs www. my entrepreneurs.org org this is very important as an organization org.org I invite you to enter and register and entrepreneurs and employees and officials of all and judges. After all, we do not divide, we unite, we respect everyone, and we expect respect in the other direction. And that's why we decided to build these three pillars, i.e. a strictly economic pillar, where we say we have to build so many enterprises based on the Lafer curve principle so that we cover 100% of budget expenditures, i.e. this nearly PLN 1 trillion 970 billion, so that we cover 100% ourselves. We'll cover it ourselves. We don't need foreign banks to force us to take another 150 billion in loans every year, which we have to pay for. You will pay, I will pay, we will all pay, as we are here, we do not need it. So what should we do, based on the principle of the Lafer curve, to put it simply , to build 50% more entrepreneurs, so that they are still strong enough to be pumps on the international market and pump money into Poland. This is the first pillar. The second pillar, without which nothing will happen, it is impossible. This is fixing the law. Fixing the law. And that is why we spend so much time simultaneously on fixing the law, on creating a new legal system that will allow us to be free people for the first time in history, that is, to read the law and say: "Aha, this cannot be changed." it can only be interpreted this way in this specific context and we have been devoting enormous work to this in a very large team for 16 years . Well, there is the third pillar. This is a social pillar. We have been very strongly divided so far. Entrepreneurs versus employees. This is a false division. our employees will experience horror, I am also an entrepreneur, because I have five companies and I am an employee at the same time and I have also been an employee for many many years . PR is a false division. After all, as entrepreneurs, our employees are closer to us than our family, because we spend more time with our employees than with our family. What's more, objectively I know that this is also unhealthy and it shouldn't be like that. Well, it shouldn't be like this that we work harder, but we spend more. Well, these are the people closest to us, there is no division. If we are doing well, our wonderful, wonderful employees are doing well, and the officials are doing well, and the judges are doing well, and everything is going to be fine, but there has to be a foundation, and that is us, we entrepreneurs. Until Poland discovers some astronomical reserves of gold and diamonds or crude oil , which it will sell on a gigantic scale, true, all over the world , for now the Polish state has us and we are this gold, this diamond, this luxury, the most wonderful good of the Polish state. By the way. We people, because we are all people. Therefore, on these three pillars, these three pillars must be built in parallel. Of course, a new tax system. We are trying to develop a revolution in the tax system. This is yet another component we are working on. But these elements must work together. This social element includes the fact that we founded such a social movement. We, people, also many years ago with Paweł Jochymek. Now he has been developing very well over the last year. We are people to connect people. We are people after all. We the people are me, the human being. Man, i.e. human rights or, at the top, how have we achieved human rights - dignity, but not in opposition, in connection, in symbiosis based on spirituality. No, I'm not talking about religion, because some people will be affected by religion, others by spirituality. Spirituality is something universal. That it is so wonderful in the Polish state, that we do not have attacks, that women are safe, that children are safe, that we go out in the evenings, that it is not like in Paris at 10 p.m. there are no women, and not even men in Paris. Everyone is panicking. This is only because there is a very high spiritual potential in Poles , which has remained there from, so to speak, old times, from our ancestors. And this is what made this Decalogue, if someone is not a Catholic, well, at least, right, from the third up to the 10th, it is universal, right, a catalogue of principles and rules. Therefore, we build on this, that is, this element, this social element, this is also a spiritual element. On this we are building a new state. There is no other way. There is no alternative to this. Someone told me that there is an alternative, so look at what other countries look like. Is there an alternative to what directions France, Great Britain, and Spain have chosen? first 300 years of colonialism, 299 years of French colonialism, not to mention the current quasi-colonialism. And on what? Is it not based on building strictly strong entrepreneurship from the beginning, but on colonialism? Well, this has now caused France to be at odds with its former colonies. These people come from these colonies and say that these are their tenement houses because they are dripping with the blood of their grandparents, and they are right, because that is how it is. Well, let's look at Spain, let's look at Portugal, let's look at Great Britain, where are they, because they didn't build on healthy entrepreneurship, they built on such brutal colonialism. They have lost religion. So again, when I say religion, I mean spirituality, not a specific religion. They said that the state can be evil and secular and these values, right, from the third to the tenth Decalogue, that they are not so transparent, transparent. So those who thought differently came to their country. They showed them that they were not transparent, they just introduced their rules in Belgium, the Netherlands, and France. Well, you can't live there. they came in, there is no vacuum, they didn't want their own rules, they didn't respect their own rules, so now they will respect other people's rules. And we must resist this in our own way. Not because we have, we do not respect people of a different skin color, but we demand respect in our country, because this is our country, our rules apply, which we did not develop at all. We are only a part. We are at the very finish line. This has been worked out for generations. Thank you for being with us until the end. That's the best compliment I can give this conversation. If it was worth your time, please subscribe to the channel, like and comment. Thanks to this, there will be more such meetings here . If you want to listen further, there is another part of this conversation waiting on the screen or another video from the Krzysztof Strobel Podcast channel. New episodes every week. We invite you to listen.