 Before you answer that, one of the interesting things that happened though was that Chief Justice Roberts asked a very interesting question to which he did not get a very good answer. Ron Klein, who is the Chief of Staff for Biden, the White House Chief of Staff, he wrote a tweet which said, this regulation is ideal, walk around. Roberts wanted to know what it is that Klein was talking about in terms of walking around. What was he trying to walk around? Liberty. How about, or maybe, yeah, liberty by way of the Constitution? Yes. Isn't that the whole thing that's being analyzed by the Supreme Court? We're just to be clear, because I've been up since 4.30 this morning and I'm a little bit yawning and tired, but just to be clear, we're talking about the vaccine mandate, correct? Yes, the vaccine mandates that were issued by the federal government, by the administration, that companies with employees greater than 100 shall be subject to the regulations and companies below 100 shall not be, as if COVID would know the difference. Yeah, okay, so if you splash some caustic material into your eyes in the middle of your work and you go to the OSHA mandated eye cleansing station with the two little fountains that go shooting up into your eyes, okay? That was mandated to hopefully try to fix some damage being done on the job site. But with the vaccine mandate, it's something entirely different. I mean, there you're putting something into your body and if you have an issue with that, I don't have an issue with it, but if you do, you have a right not to put something in your body that you feel you don't want. And that's a different thing than something that's a danger to a workplace. I don't think the analogy that they're trying to draw there where it's an OSHA workaround is a workaround. I don't think I don't see it. And so we'll see what the Supreme Court says. Anything that we do in life, almost anything involves some level of risk. Even me sitting right here speaking with you guys involves risk. Who knows, you know, a plane might crash into my home and kill me, God forbid. But it couldn't happen. But there's risk in everything that you're doing, okay? We've had two of them, one killed a UPS driver and the other one narrowly missed houses, both of them narrowly missed houses just recently, two plans. There you go. So there's risk in everything that we do. So the question then becomes, I think if an employer and its employees have done some sort of risk assessment, whether it's something detailed or whether it's something just in their heads, if they have both done the risk assessment and decided that they want to take the risk of being together in a work site and working to produce whatever goods and services they're producing, why should the government then feel it necessary to intervene in such a case? Why? Jason, go ahead with what you're about to say. I think there's a couple of things going on here. One is questions about what you seem to be raising about OSHA in general, but I think specifically to this case, the idea that OSHA is really designed to specifically be looking at dangers of particular workplaces, not just the dangers of life in general. So I mean, is OSHA going to start a program for colds and flus every year in every place? Is OSHA going to start a program for improper nutrition that might lead you to not function properly in the workplace? I mean, this is crazy. And it gets right down to almost what you guys were saying, hey, a plane could hit the building that you're working in. Well, OSHA better have some rules for what happens if the plane hits the building. It's crazy, right? So I think that's clearly the workaround that they're looking for, which is an abuse of liberty for both employers and employees. But then OSHA in general, yeah, I mean, from a libertarian perspective, as long as the risks are known, I think that people should be able to engage as they want to in a workplace. If I know that a job is dangerous, why shouldn't I have the right to take that job as long as I'm kind of aware of the risks? We certainly have people who scale bridges and build dams. How many people died building the Hoover Dam and working on things like the Golden Gate Bridge and such? So, you know, these things are dangerous. You can't remove all of that. So in the end, you know, as long as a worker has a choice to take that job or not, you know, to me, that's what it's all about. Like the job of a high-tension or electrical wire crew that does that kind of work off a helicopter. I mean, it's one of the most dangerous jobs there is, and it used to kill tons of people. Well, guess what? They figured out how to do it much more safely. It still gets a lot of people. It's still considered dangerous. And, you know, my job as a pilot, you know, it's not without its riskiness. Even though probably the drive from the airport to the house is the most dangerous part of the whole thing, my whole day. But that, you know, that's just statistics. And anyway, yeah, we take these things on. And it's just beyond the OSHA realm, in my opinion, this whole thing. Knucklehead. Totally agree. Totally agree. We can't live in this risk-free society that everybody seems to think that we must live in. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness always. Thank you for listening to the Knuckleheads of Liberty podcast. Find us on Facebook, Rumble, YouTube, your favorite podcast network, and at knuckleheadsofliberty.com.