 What is the Cicero Institute's approach to homelessness, and how is it different and more effective than what you encountered in California? Yeah, so that's, you know, we're looking for areas where there's, again, where there's giant gaps in the world between how things should work and how they work today. Thanks to bad policy, and the homelessness stuff is a really good example of that. Our general policy is that, is that basically it's common sense, the way things are done now in California is totally insane. You have a billion dollars being given out, not based on data or metrics, but based on political favors to very powerful, very corrupt nonprofit groups whose incentives are completely misaligned. So these cities and these nonprofit groups get more money for doing the wrong things. So what are the, and I know you're a big critic and I think this is capturing everybody in the field of the housing first policy, that like the first thing you do to address homelessness is somehow either build more housing or give more housing to people. Why is that wrong? 75% of these people in these cities are on drugs who are homeless and 75% of them are mentally ill, it's overlapped. And if you give someone who's on drugs and mentally ill, a house, I think in San Francisco they have more people who died in these homes than who moved on to being self-sufficient. I mean, this is a total mess. And then by the way, who gets the homes? It's a lot of people who are working in the nonprofit groups get the homes and people are close to them, of course. We try to make it so we had to give the homes to the people who are the most vulnerable, which sounds good on paper. It's that idea around equity. And there's a vulnerability index they created which is used by most homeless groups now in most cities. Most of the cities around the country are using it in progressive groups. And the index says you get more points towards a home if you're on drugs. You get more points towards a home if you've committed to the crime. It's more points of the violent crime. You get more points if you're not in a drug recovery program because you need it more. And you get more points if your kids are truant and taken away from you. So you go through this and if you're on the very far left and you see everything as just being you're a victim or not and things are just happening to you. They say, oh, these things happen to you. You should get more points. If you understand the world like a person who understands logic and reason is you realize, wow, these are creating incentives, right? And so we actually go into, we follow our nonprofit will follow and try to help people working with the homeless industrial complex. Even here in Austin, they walk into this thing that's been set up by its progressive groups and they say, you serve or deserve a home. Here's how you can get a tent. And he said, I don't really need a tent. I'm sleeping on someone's couch. He says, I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that because if you're more likely to get a home if you're in the tent and here's how you set it up. And then he comes back two months later and he said, and she says, oh, you're not quite there for a home yet. The Republicans haven't given us enough funding. And he says, I hear I would have maybe qualified for home by now if I was on drugs. And she says, well, that might've given you enough points but we don't like to think of it that way. Like this is literally the conversation. It is more, I think a lot of people don't realize our country is like more insane on these things than they assume it's like something more logical than it is, it's not. Do you, the Cicero Institute has model legislation, right? For how to deal with homelessness. We have eight different points, you know, Governor. What are the big ones? Well, the big ones is you want to redirect money away from housing first towards mental health, treatment and drug treatment. You want to redirect things towards temporary shelter, not towards, you know, not towards just giving away homes. It's much more efficient and scalable. You want to rely on the incentives. So cities, the band's street sleeping and put people into the shelters and they don't get more money for bringing more homeless people in. You want to basically, you want to basically realign things where the dollars given out to the nonprofit groups are given out based on metrics and goals. So you have accountability, you audit them, you say, here's your goals and you get the money not based on being politically connected, but based on what you're hitting. And by the way, one of the big ones we really like is what is basically called diversion courts. And so you want a court that could actually force treatment for people. So if someone in San Francisco, forgive me, has pooped on the street for like a fifth time in a row, rather than say, oh, we can't do anything about it. Just go out there and do it a sixth time, which is disgusting and bad for everyone. You say, I'm sorry, we're not going to put you in prison because we're not jerks, but we're going to put you here on forced treatment, which is kind of like the obvious solution. Which is also kind of like prison, right? And it is. So technically they do deserve to go to prison for having broken the law, but that's really mean. Let's send them to somewhere else instead and forced treatment. Because you can't just let people keep pooping on the street. It's like having an adult in the room. It's like these are children in charge. So you can't just let a person keep doing that. You know, we have many reasons as a house with many mansions. So we have lots of differences of opinions. Of course. And I'm, you know, within that, I agree. I mean, I think if you're constantly defecating on the street, like there should be real ramifications. You're breaking the law and you're hurting society. But how, in general, with a lot of policies like this, how do you make sure that you are not just creating another power structure that can be used arbitrarily by the state or by whoever is in power to punish people that for whatever reason you don't like? No, 100%. And I think this is like where a lot of our government is broken today is you have to have separation of powers. You have to have checks and balances. You have to have a separate legislative judicial and executive. It's one of the key things we get wrong with our administrative state today. And so, you know, but you do need rules about this you create and you do need a court system that enforces those rules and you do need a way to appeal to another thing outside of that court system if it's doing something wrong, you know?