 I live in a native language, so that's not a big challenge. Go ahead, Danny. Okay. To start off, we'll ask in English, because I want to ask an important question. So one thing that you mentioned was that one of the, from the liberty, from the more liberal perspective that, you know, pretty much all of us agree with, that the goal would be to tell those who have a problem to, you know, immunocompromised or very old people to take care of themselves and let everyone else go about their business. If that is that equivalent to saying that I have a gun and it's legal to own a gun and it should be legal for me to own a gun and if I shoot out the window and there's a pot then I shouldn't know not to go to that park because they might be hit by a bullet I shot out the window. When we're talking about, you know, going around in the public space, you're saying I, you know, somebody might have a heart condition or AIDS or something, they shouldn't be allowed in the public space because your ability to walk in the public space carrying coronavirus might, might kill me. No, so I'm not, I'm not saying that. First of all, I don't think we should force them to stay home and not walk in the public space if they choose to take that risk. But I am, what I am saying is, well, would you go to a park if there was a guy who lived in a building? I don't think it's equivalent and let me tell you why. I do think it is the government's job if I'm shooting a gun out the window to take my gun away from me. And if I, if there's any suggestion that I might shoot, if there's a real suggestion I posted on Twitter that I'm going to shoot my gun out the window, then they should take the gun away from me, right? So any, if I pose a risk to others, but it's an objective risk, I know that you're posing a risk to others, then it should be taken away from me. The solution is the Korean solution. We should be testing everywhere. And if you have coronavirus, then the government has every right to lock you up. Now, I don't think it has to, right? It could tell you to self isolate and most people will, but it has the right to lock you up, right? If you have AIDS and you're not telling anybody having unprotected sex with people, you know, then you're criminal, you know, you're criminal, right? That's the shooting out the window, right? You know you have it. So step number one has to be massive amount of testing so that we can tell who's a threat and who's not a threat. Then the people who are threats isolate them. Now in the case of there are some people who don't know, we haven't tested them yet, then we don't know. Then you know it's, then be careful, then everybody should be careful, right? And yeah, you know, if, I mean, I can't use your analogy because it doesn't quite work, but you know, so first if we take out the people we know have it and then we tell people who have got sick and are 75 years or older, be careful because if you get it, it's really deadly and they can be careful. Then the risk that's remaining is very small, is very small and people will have to manage that risk. And again, the more you test and the more you make testing easily available to people, the less risk there is. That makes sense? Well, as we have another question from the audience, someone who wants to speak or should I take it away? You're muted. Any, you might want to, well, first of all, raise your hand or send a message if you like to ask. I'll ask Oz, if you like to ask the question, he suggested that when we talk before the event, so Oz, if you, if you up to it, I can open your mic. Let's see. Daniel, you had another question, right? You only want another one, one moment, Danny, you're unmuted now. Got it on chat, I can just read it from the chat. He says, did South Korea violate a lot of privacy right with their plan as well? And maybe they did. I don't know the specific details of South Korea, but I don't believe you have to violate privacy rights. First, you have the coronavirus. You are potential violator of rights. And as such, I think the government has every right and people around you have every right to know who you interacted with and taking your phone and figuring out where you were is not a violation of your rights. Then anonymously texting all those people to say, hey, you might have hung out with Danny and Danny turns out to have COVID come and get tested is not a violation of anybody's rights in my view. So I think there are ways to do this. And look, if you're going to violate rights, and I'm not for violating rights, but if you're going to violate rights, I think it's a much smaller violation, the privacy issue than it is to shut everybody down in their homes for weeks on top of weeks. I'm not advocating because I don't think it is a violation of rights. But if I had to choose between the two, I take to hell with privacy for a few weeks and I'm not going to lock myself at home. And I could refine for 5,000 bucks for jogging in the street right now. Well, I read that in South Korea, the latest outbreak right now, they have 29 new cases out of the 35 new cases are related to a bar district, the nightclub district in Seoul, which is very popular with the LGBTQ community. And now there's a backlash against this community in the country, but they are tracking people. They tested 2,500 people and they have 3,000 more to track and test. I want to ask you something about rent freeze and rent control because we keep hearing these voices in New York and also they have these protests now in California. In California, I saw that in New York, there will be a final vote in June on the matter. They're considering controlling rent for about one million rent-regulated apartments in the city. This bill just passed in a preliminary vote and there will be another one in June. I want to ask you for your thoughts about such measures. Why is it dangerous? There are very few topics in economics that have been studied more than the effects of rent control. And there is not a single sane economist in the world, and I emphasize sane because a lot of them are nuts, that believes that rent control benefits anybody. It is an unmitigated disaster. So let's say you rent a place and you rent it for 500 bucks, when in the market it should have been a thousand. First of all, the owner is making no money. They can't invest in the building. They can't improve the apartment. You're not going to invest in the apartment because you're renting, so to hell with that, you don't care. You're going to stay there forever. There's a huge incentive for you not to move because you locked in this amazing rent. I know people who have rent control departments, they never leave, which is psychologically in all kinds of ways, it's what it creates is a drastic deterioration in the quality of housing. And then there's another thing that happens. Landlords have no incentive to come and fix the plumbing or fix the electricity when it goes out. Indeed, the opposite. They want you out of there. They want you to leave because when you get a new renter, you can jack up the rent, right? So they want as much turnover as possible because the turnover allows them to jack the rent up. So the relationship between landlord and the person in the apartment is completely screwed up and no, it's a lose-lose. Everybody loses. Your apartment deteriorates, nobody takes care of it and but you can't give it up because the rent is so cheap and it's just and now that's just economics. It's a massive violation of individual rights or property rights. It's none of the government's business how much we decide that you should pay me for the apartment you're renting. That's a, you know, that's a decision the two of us can make. There's a marketplace. It's not like one side is even ignorant and one side is really knowledgeable. There's no even information asymmetry here. There's a complete marketplace. Government should just stay out of voluntary trades between individuals. So I think this is a disaster for New York. It's one more ways in which New York City is going to become less attractive as a place to live. And I think I think that they've been trying for years and years and years to make New York as unattractive as possible. This might be it that where actually people start a mass leaving New York City. I have a question here submitted directly to me. The reason for the I'm translating it from Hebrew or should I say it in Hebrew? I don't know. The reason for the existence of a state is an organized defense on on individual liberties facing enemies. Yes. For example, just outside or foreign enemies. Do you consider a pandemic to be, you know, an outside enemy and in the name of the of the war against it, is it legitimate to to restrict individual liberties? Or is there some some line that you shouldn't cross? Yes. But it's complicated. And this is why a lot of thought has to go into it. And why when you look around the world, nobody is giving it any thought, which is so shocking. So what a proper government would have is they would have a law that says, this is what we do when there's a pandemic. First of all, they would define pandemic. They would say a pandemic is when XYZ happens this amount of mortality, this amount of risk, because the common cold theoretically is a pandemic. The flu is theoretical pandemic. Lots of infectious diseases that we just accept, you know, are technically pandemics, but you you want to you want a clear definition based on the level of risk that is involved. And that's not simple. And different countries might have different definitions. That's why I'm not for one world government. It's nice to have competition between countries. Then what are the powers that the Congress can delegate to the executive branch when such an occurrence happens? So what can the government actually do? Can they lock everybody at home? I doubt it, right? I doubt that's ever right. But so so first you would have to have a whole set of laws that be limited and defined the enemy, right? What the enemy really is. Then when a pandemic hits, so I'll take the US system of government, but it's equivalent to what would happen in Israel. I think the Congress would have to go into session. It would have to declare an emergency, declare pandemic, just like it's supposed to declare wars, but we know they haven't declared a war. But they're supposed to declare a war, right? Then give the executive special powers. And those powers should be framed within the context of the nature of the pandemic. How bad is it? How is it transmitted? What is the mechanism? Where is it coming from? All of those issues. Is this biological warfare or is this just a natural pandemic? All of those things and the executive would have these powers. I think then once they vote on this, and maybe you even make a two-thirds majority to vote on this, once they give the executive those powers, I think it would have to be immediately challenged in front of the Supreme Court. So you want a non-political entity to review it and say, yes, this fits within the scope of the constitution. In other words, to give the president of the United States or governor, like the governor in New York, the ability to restrict people's movements should be the hardest thing in the world. It should be really difficult. They should have to make own incredibly strong case, and they would have to make it in front of the legislature, in front of the executive, and in front of the Supreme Court, all three benches of government should agree. And only then could the executive branch act. And even then the actions would depend on the type of pandemic. In most cases, certainly in this pandemic, you wouldn't have to restrict people's liberty because all you'd need to do is ramp up the production of testing. And most of that could be done by the private sector. You would just have to pay for it, ramp up the tracking and isolating, which is not a violation of anybody's liberty. None of that is a violation of rights, a violation of liberty. Okay, somebody's saying, you're on, you're missing the point. The question is not whether the federal government has the power to impose lockdowns. Health questions are determined by the states. The question is whether the federal government has the authority to override states which violate constitutional liberties. Okay, that's a completely different question. So I think the federal government should have that power in a case of a national emergency. And in the case of state power, the state should all should have the power by the same standard. The state legislature should pass it. The executive and the state Supreme Court should have to approve it. So I think it should be unbelievably difficult. Now, should the federal government be able to override state legislatures? In egregious cases, yes. And again, they would probably have to get the legislature and the Supreme Court to buy into this. But in egregious cases, yes, they could override. And the prime example, they have a slavery, right? When if a state institutes policies that are clearly unequivocally a violation of individual rights, then it is the absolute function of the federal government to stop them from doing that. Even to the extent of sending in troops. And that was the civil war. That's why the civil war happened. The South would not give up slavery. And as a consequence, a war broke out because and it was a just war because the federal government could not stay silent on the should not have stayed silent on the question of slavery. So it can only do it if it's an egregious violation of rights and all three branches of the government agree on that. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist roads. Using the super chat and I noticed yesterday, when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to Iranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribe star.com Iranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...