 your next speaker at Liberty Conjura, the Aaron Broke. The Aaron Broke is the host of the next incident in the Aaron Broke Show, a renowned best-selling author. Broke's radical capitalist series to be heard weekly on the Blade radio, and his living objectivism series to be heard on the Aaron Broke Show at the Law Fung Radio on YouTube. Broke was the executive director of the Iron Rans for 17 years, from 2000 to 2017. He remains chairman of the board of ARI, and his primary source. Broke, an internationally sought speaker, crowds extensive including Iron Man, and her philosophy of objectivism, capitalism, political, and economic freedom. Please put your hands together and welcome, Aaron Broke. Yeah! I'm actually in a grave. He's gonna be back. Oh my God, I can't see anyone. Is anybody out there? I don't want to fall asleep on you. You're usually in a cell, and I start yelling and wheezing out, but I can't see anybody for any time. Oh wait, this is not good. Okay. Anybody seen the video of me being shut down by Antifa, the King's College, used to be. Boo, it's great. 15 minutes into a talk I was given with Saba Al-Qaeda, Antifa storms in, the rest of the lab. Stones onto the stage and shuts it down. This is becoming more and more prevalent. This is something that's happening more and more at American universities, and I guess now at European universities, at least in the UK. The idea of free speech, the idea that we have a right to express ourselves, to talk, to be controversial, is to say things that might affect people, to say things that might be unusual, that might be out of the ordinary. The idea that that is a right, the idea that that is a freedom that must be protected, that fear is disappeared from Western countries. Now, to some extent, here in Europe, we've never really embraced this idea. Do you guys feel like a couple? Yes, man. Is it about you? To some extent, in Europe, we never really believed in free speech. I mean, at least not in our era. After World War II, what was the first restriction on free speech in Europe? It was the idea that Holocaust now was so offensive, so ugly, so disgusting, that no one should be allowed to do it. Can't you understand? Lower the volume. Anybody? Lower the volume. One, two, three. Lower, lower, please, please. All right, yeah, I'm still there. Very interesting. Um, I mean, you are, I know, but I don't feel realistic to look at the volume. Um, so the idea is clearly false. The idea is clearly discussed. The idea that now you're just in a Holocaust is truly super evil, horrible, horrific. In Germany, and then in the rest of Europe, it's demand, you can now go to jail for writing a book, or for writing an article, or speaking at the dining hall. That's a briefly idea, that's a good idea. If free speech should be allowed, then there's no limit. What about saying some things about some other groups? What about the dining industry? What about the man I hate the most? And what you're seeing in Europe is that it's slowly slow. People say that it exists, but it always exists. That once you violate a right, once you give an exception, once you use force to cite those people, even though people are truly disgusting, then that use of force to cite those people is going to expand and expand and expand into any idea that offends somebody out there. So not only did I keep up, shut down my event against college a few weeks ago, but keep colleges announced since then that they are having no more controversial events on campus this semester, because they don't offend, I guess the students, they don't want to offend those who show up. So they even canceled an event by a peace college professor who was going to give a talk about free speech. It was canceled against college. Once you accept that science and people is okay, freedom, freedom is finished. Free speech is maybe the most important way we have that we must fight for, because without it, no other right will exist. Why is it so crucial, so important? Why is it, in many respects, the basis for everything else that we want to do? Is there a way we're here to try to change the world? And how are we going to change the world? There's no answer. We're going to change the world. We're going to have to use our voices, our ideas. We're going to have to use reason and logic in order to do it. We're going to have to convince people. We're going to have to argue and debate and discuss with people. And our ideas are the mainstream. Our ideas are controversial. Our ideas offend some people, socialists that are very offended by my talks. Anybody who's a collector, anybody who's a state is offended by ideas, literally, emotionally. They're distressed when they leave one of my lectures. If we ban that, we ban our needs, of convincing, of changing, of debating, of discussing. We lose our weapon in the battle for ideas, which is ideas, which is the ability to speak, to write, do videos, to present alternative ideas into the culture. If you really want to change the world, if you really have a vision for a world that is different, that is clear for the individual, then there's no right more important to defend right now, today. Given the attacks on it in the US and starting down in Europe, then there were what then and through through. This is an important challenge of our time. If we are silent, silence, we lose. There are any dominating the discussion, there are any dominating the media, the state is doing. We're challenging all that. We are the ones who are decided first. So, if you're going to dedicate yourself to the battle for liberty, to the battle for capitalism, to the battle for freedom, then I think first and foremost, right now, the most urgent issue is this issue of free speech. It's not just that we need to be able to speak to project our ideas. What is speech represent? What is an attack which speaks really represent? It represents fundamentally an attack of a human mind. It represents fundamentally an attack on human thinking, on reason, on our ability to think, think outside the box, think new ideas, think in an unconventional way. Because expression is an expression of what, of our thoughts. If we are banned from speaking, we are ultimately banned from thinking. Think about Galileo and how luxurious, right? He's just made the discovery and announced to the world the radical idea that the bullet goes around the sun, not the sun, about the earth. And it's offensive, it's offensive to the Catholic Church, to the authority, to the people in power, to what are they, you hear? They put in a house arrest. She's an house arrest. Do you think that a house arrest Galileo is thinking of new discoveries? It's doing new science? It's testing the boundaries of human knowledge? He can never write it down. He can never express it. He can't go out into the world and advocate for it. It's shut down, force, coercion, authority. Shut down the mind. It shuts down reason. It shuts down thinking. It shuts down the tool that is uniquely human, the tool that we human beings need in order to survive in one of the five. Reason is what makes it possible for us to live. What makes it possible for us to innovate, makes it possible for us to thrive and flourish as human beings. By shutting down speech, we shut down the stool. By shutting down the stool, we shut down new impoverished and human success. So again, nothing more important than fighting for the idea of free speech, the idea that we should be able to save anything offensive that might be on our problem, on our time, on our stage, we have that work. Now note these days, there's a right in America is demanding, is demanding not just to be able to speak from your own stage, but is demanding to force people who own stages to let them speak on those stages. Think about what's going on with YouTube and Twitter and social media. A lot of people are very upset that it's actually YouTube and Facebook and Twitter are technically stuck off of demonetizing content. They demonetize my content all the time. Anytime there's something in the title that has sex or anything that they deem controversial, which is a lot of stuff, right? They demonetize it, I can't make any money on it. My content is that, yeah, it's kind of right. But, you know, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not so dangerous, but I'll maybe end. But they're demonetizing it and people upset. But some people, I don't know if you know, they're just pretty good in the United States, it's actually suing YouTube to demand that they monetize its content. Monetization means there's ads in the content. He's saying, you and your private business have to have my content. What does freedom speech actually relate to? It relates to government action, not to private action. Freedom speech is the right not to be silenced on your stage. It doesn't mean every radio station has to give you a microphone, that it's easy as it has to interview you, that every internet platform has to carry your video. It means that the government can't use force against you to silence you, or that if you have a stage, the government should be protecting you from thugs and boots like a thief. The right to use force against a YouTube or Facebook demand their microphone, demand their platform. I mean, YouTube's come on and they decide we don't like what you mean, we're taking you all off. We don't like objectives, we're taking you all off the platform. It's their platform. I have a right, I should have a right, and my business, right, when I run an objective speech conference, only objective speaking conference, or at least I decide who speaks and who doesn't. It's not an open platform that everybody can speak on. So the danger would not understand it properly. Free speech is that when the air or the science is affecting everybody to give us a platform. No, if people won't give us a platform, we're a creole. We're a fundraiser to create those platforms. But it is not your right to force somebody else to put your content on. This is to be a lot of confusion that you've taken out of the service about this issue. There's a huge movement in the US today on conservatives to regulate Facebook, and Twitter, and YouTube, and the force to include so far conservative content on with anything else. So to wonder if we fight for something we know what we're fighting for. We're fighting against the use of force in silencing us. The prevention of us using our own private property to convey ideas. If we use force against others by selling YouTube, we acknowledge that the use of force is okay. We acknowledge that force, that violence, that coercion is fine. Because that's what you're trying to use to save, to force YouTube to accept this content. YouTube should be free to do whatever they want. Instead of just not us, you want a YouTube, stop one. You want a platform, create one, and build one for yourself. Invite whoever you want onto that platform. We're going to fight against these things. So we need to understand what it is. And we need to understand what the positive is. And as I said, the positive is ability to think, ability to reason, ability to act freely in the world, think freely and act based on this thought speech. It's just one manifestation of that act. The idea that each one of us has the capacity to reason. When each one of us has the capacity to think for oneself, to live for oneself, to take care of oneself. Is really at the heart of the idea of living. At the heart of the idea of political freedom. It's so accurate that political liberty comes out of enlightenment, that the idea of freedom is a product of the age of, what's another name for the age of reason? Reason. It is the recognition the truth does not come from revelation. The truth is not, is not the preview of the philosophy of kings. The truth is accessible to every single individual. The thinking is possible for every individual. The reason is possible for every individual. They for every individual can take care of themselves. When Newton presents his laws of physics to the world, in relation to Newton and liberty. When Newton presents his ideas of physics to the world, people suddenly realize, okay, we can understand the way objects move. Based on several logical laws, on principles that have failed to every human being, we can all understand Newton's physics. If you didn't do physics class, you could have got a bad teacher. They're not that hard. Each one of us has the capacity to do that before we're told that in order to understand how anything works in the world, we have access to some ancient book, or we have some kind of way in which to get truth from the world of spirits. But no, it turns out that we all have the capacity to know the real world. And if we have the capacity to know the real world in physics, then wow, maybe I can make decisions for myself about what profession I should have, who I get to marry, who should govern me, how I should live my life. This tool I have, this reason tool is a tool that makes everything possible for me as an individual to live my life. I'm not dependent on authority. I'm not dependent on the philosophy of kings. I can live my life for myself. I can make decisions for myself. It's not an accident that that leads to rebellion against the libertarianism, that that leads to a rebellion against the oppressive state and ultimately leads the declaration of the panace and to everything that comes out of the individualism, a focus on the individual, and the idea of individual, whether you may be a individual free. So reason, the idea that we all have to reason, the idea that we should all be able to express ourselves, is core to the idea of the label freedom. The fact is that we all truly do live and play those games. We all truly do not know what's out there in reality is like. If none of us have access to the truth, if only all of us as a king should have access to the truth, then we need them. We need them to tell us how we live, what guys should pursue, who should be our leaders, our leader leaders. We need authority. This choice between reason and other spiritual, your means of knowledge, which is at the core of liberty. The idea that we all possess reason, that we don't depend on authority, that we don't depend on others, is the truth. And you very well, that ideas inside your head have to be expressed, and that they must have the freedom to express those ideas. They were all under attack, whether it was John Locke who was the failure of a Catholic king, or Voltaire who was the failure of the religious and fanciful time and had to escape the house. They all will. If you have to be able to express ideas, even ideas that are offensive. And at the end of the day, all truth is offensive, right? It's just offensive to somebody who held another belief before. I'm sure people, we know people who offended by the idea that it's new and anything that's true. And if we accept a fence, put feelings as the standard of what's acceptable or what's not acceptable, there is no free market, right? Even in economics, that people get offended by new stuff. Everything new is offensive to somebody. Everything new destroys something. Like you should say, they're calling it a greener destruction. There's always somebody who's been laid off. There's always somebody who's shutting down. There's always somebody going bankrupt. And they're offended. Might you ever use some of that? If we accept a fence as the standard of right, if we accept a fence as the standard by which we are okay to use force, not only is peace gone, but all liberty is gone and all freedom is gone. Indeed, if we accept emotion as the standard for truth, as the standard by which we should hate, then liberty and freedom and dialogue and discussion and logic are all out of the book. These are, I mean, emotions are great. I mean, I have pretty emotional back. I have emotional cognition. We don't know what is true or what is not based on emotions. We know something about ourselves, but it doesn't tell us about the world out there. People are taught that they think they are today. Now, schools in America get a little better in Europe. But in America, kids are put around their tables and circles and ask what they think or what they feel about everything. They're not taught. Everything is a discussion. It needs to be usually about emotions and about self-esteem. And what we're teaching our kids today is that emotions are the most important thing. We need to, man, we don't want to trust that too much. When people think that emotions are the tools for living, what's going to be the result? When they fail in living, they become afraid. And then we become afraid that other people will light them, people who can guide them, people who can help them. Fear is a very, very dangerous emotion, particularly politically. People then huddle and try. They huddle in groups. They secure the people who look like them and think like them. Okay, reflect back to them, their own fears. And what do tries mean in order to know what to do? How does a try know what it should do? It needs enough authoritarian to tell everybody what to do. Once we elevate emotions about reason, we are asking for the philosophy of kings to come down. We are asking for authoritarian leaders. We are asking for people, authorities to guide us. We are, once we abandon reason, we abandon individual liberty, we abandon individual freedom. Once we abandon reason, we abandon any kind of individualistic future. So in the fight for free speech, in the fight for freedom and liberty, we must fight for the idea of reason, for the idea, for the age of reason, of the consciousness of the human arm, of our ability as individuals to know the truth. And the final idea can know the values that are important to that individual. Only you can live for you. Ladies and gentlemen, they identified in the enlightenment is that the annual reason they have thought is false, coercion, authority. And if you want to live for freedom, that is what must be extracted from society. That must be eliminated from all society. And in this sense, I may be in opposition with some of you here. I believe you have to have governments. You have to have a monopoly over the use of Italian force. You have to have an element that extracts force from society so that we can all live free, think free, and see free. So, as you go back to your home countries, to stand for the ideas of freedom and liberty and project a positive image out there, the positive ideas of a defense of the individual, a defense of reason. Use your voice, use your voice. Speak up, fight against them, fight against them. Fight against them, teethers and the silent serfs of the world out there. If we lose our voice, if we lose our ability to speak, we ultimately lose our ability to live. We ultimately will lose the future. If we have to win, we must speak, speak, speak, and we must fight for everybody's rights to speak, speak, speak. To go out there and fight for free speech. Thank you all. Thank you. And as you can guess today, if we're going to speak to the audience, all you need to do is to speak back to me and as this question is completed, I will make sure that we can ask them our guests. Does everybody like some? I don't know since there's nothing. See, I don't need a mic, you can give me a mic. One, two, three. One, two, three, well, here we go. There we go. I'm going to try to find the first question that comes in, this is for you, Jarn. And the question is, when a private company's platform like Facebook or YouTube becomes the dynamic, the government is not going to offer information, do they have a responsibility to maintain access and that we don't have access to that or that? Well, first I have a general idea of what they have with monopoly. In a marketplace, there are no barriers, real barriers that are particularly not in technology today. You don't know what the next innovation is going to be. We don't know what the next platform is going to be. Facebook didn't exist just a few years ago. YouTube is brand new, all these things, and you guys need to be around the world and try to get that play with anything that exists at all. So, I reject the idea of monopolies and technology is still relatively a free market. It's not a pure free market, it's relatively a free market. So innovators and entrepreneurs, you know, playstakes as big players fairly quickly, I believe, even in the monopolies, even the dominant players in the space. Do they have a responsibility? I guess in some sense, they have a responsibility to have, you know, to let most people publish. I can see them not wanting sort of point of view among their platform. If they Islamists and the Nazis want to dominate a platform, I can see them maybe not wanting those. But then they, these are private platforms. This is private property. We believe in private property. What private property means is you get to decide who uses it and who doesn't. My private property, I get to decide who to invite to my house and who not to. They have every right to discriminate. They have every right to decide who to have on that platform and who not to have on that platform. It might not make business sense or it might make business sense. I don't know what their population is financially. But at the end of the day, their obligation, their obligation to see outside of Facebook is to maximize the shareholder wealth. And if people need to, they're excluding my video through his platform, maximize the shareholder wealth, it's every right to do that, even if I don't. Even if I don't like it, right? Even if I'm fiddling with it. If we believe in anything, I think, we believe in private property and there are ways of users to use that private property as they see it. Yeah, can you just add to this? And I'm just going to give you, but I just want to make it clear that, that doesn't mean that there can be absolute intervention and harsh criticism and calling upon, you might think it's a stupid response to the big discussion and I've been in a hard way across chapters and yesterday and users, they stand as one huge response and we can call them out. And you can make a comment and that, what's the purpose of position, I've got this on another line, I was trying to say it's all right, and we're never going to state push up and down. But this is when we have to be silent and not go silent. Yeah, absolutely. So my next question, I should just do that next step. The new face criticism from within your pressure of community, in regards to your views, how do you deal with the backlash from those in your space that criticize you as totally for the way you see the world? Well, I'd say from the normal spectrum, it's not a due relation to top of the bait. There's the handle of taboos and they really, people go, run around and go at home and they just sort of make it, you know, just classify you and all of them and then falls away and I think that's, and it's the notion of charge is really, really upset. And I think that's really, really, you have to be like, I was fixing a little bus and call for that to move that meta argument about the structure and the poles of these issues and so on. And I think it's very important, I didn't make this meta, I just should do this meta, level, it's like, I'm really tolerant of facing it. I mean, I can't see everything. If there's a slight chance, we don't really like it, there's a little idea that we're bad. We often have to do this to be mad and look at this, stewing mad or mocking, as change, these people become their difference because I think there's also some people in that there's a false currency of the cultural patterns they need to come back to a level and no act of content itself. And I think we need to, in the public domain, to give you some of your credibility to what people are saying, though of doing this project through demonstration. Yeah, and so actually the next question that you asked for both of you is originally from Patrick, so the question is that you spoke in openly about more and more local building in a more interconnected world. What does this mean for privacy and how much should we be caring about that? And we can't generally go away in any other terms. The importance of privacy. Open up. Yes, and there's a few generations that maybe are just totally not sharing or being open, great, I mean, I think it's a castle area. And if you want to go back, I think it's also, I mean, if you can't show that we're going to be large, they don't have to have to zoom in your face because they're big. I think that it's kind of close to another one or you have overlooking. So if you're a little bit of a liar, you're a frosted leader, you can go maybe, you know, and it's also, these things that get really loud and we need to discover and think about that. One of the various subcultures which privacy regimes in their mind prefer and how do we do this? I don't believe that everything's on the market because you're saying, I need to be in discourse, in public discourse. There's another layer. To do the exchange, if this is privatized, there's more than just influence of the things like this. Not for the club, with the forces that are out there, and I believe that in that circle, we should share it. We should try to converge, something that everybody's own, a little bit, little bit, so it's like, yeah, it's a force. But you want to just have a very few kind of suit in their superstitions that are self-destructive patterns, no. We should kind of help each other, and this has to be the most approachable idea that I think we're almost talking about people that are important and that are the most powerful people, but at the same time, I still believe that we should, I say that we should have a lot of enemies whatsoever because that's always something that actually you actually yourself, like after three days working, you almost believe it, aren't we? So we just continuous feedback and confirmation and jibbing and communication, I think. And that's just the other thing that's why I think we need to have an open side for the rest of the day. Just remember how long, I can kind of find the ideas of horrendous, and I want to reach out to you, to rid yourself of this kind of horrendous, and stuff, and stuff. Right? That's what we are. In terms of the work that you do, obviously people, know your viewpoint on markets and capitalists, but maybe that's not the way for us to use your perception of those privacy questions. It's important. I mean, I think privacy is crucial. I think part of what makes us civilized is that we have a whole space that we own, what we share and what we don't share. And if you look at some of the features, you know, Hunter Gathers live in community, everything's shared. You know, they want to insert each other, they want each other to have a sex, everything is already open. And I think it's certainly a civilizing process when we have private property, when we have an idea of what is ours, and what is our space. And I think that we see that in architecture, we see that in the idea of single-family homes, we see that in private yards. And I think it's a forced economy to present that opposite communication, opposite sharing information. Of course, you know, the ritualism of the idea of reason is not different in the case of Ireland. Nobody wants to live in the case of Ireland. We need other people. We need a, you know, circuit. I was at a presentation the other day and somebody said, you know, when I get up in the morning, I use all the stuff that I don't know how to make myself, right? You know, all the equipment in my home, the electricity, everything, my iPhone, I don't know how to really go skidding. Of course I need other people. Other people to trade with. I can trade my stuff for their skills. I can, in large, in my space. But I think it's important, particularly in the area of Facebook and everything. Then we find a legal mechanism that we own our data, we own what information. We can give it to other people, and contractually let them use it as they want, and not, we'll restrict it. But in America today, you know, the privacy is gone. Once you share your information with Facebook, the government can access it. Once you give it to Facebook, the government assumes that you have no ownership over it, and you know how they can take it and use it anywhere they want. Now, if the government can do that, it's not surprising to me that Facebook feels like they can do it as well. So we need a new legal regime which defines our information as our own private property. And that we can then contract in a certain terms to give it. You know, some people might want to share everything. Some people might want to share a little bit. Some people may just want to share things as a job. It's a good day for breakfast. It's a good day for breakfast, yes. I don't necessarily think that people want to all be the rulers of men to contract their forces on standards that they can't directly take part of every piece of the sentence. So once you're a standard, you've got some kind of beautiful extension, which means the protection of the individual rights. You shouldn't have a legal regime that violates the legal rights of a child. I think that's a good idea. I don't know about you on reason and individuality and the idea of a promise, but I think two of the signs would be a routine accountability in the Bible and a real disability, understanding of arguments and the pressure to do this for the access to this is what sets up knowledge against un-knowledge and false knowledge. So the sentence would be that we're depending on whether we're on a regular process and even to understand, for instance, our own set of principles of process practice and in social relations, and the knowledge of the recent relationships which we need, which would be helped to define our complete interests, how long it will be which we can create it. So that challenge with this kind of real life, that you need to approach individuality, so that you need to understand the social process and the knowledge of the social process, that doesn't challenge... I mean, I don't think that's easy, but it puts it to the nuance. I don't agree with that. And I certainly don't think that's scientific. I mean, it's true, the most of us, with these knowledge, I believe, but Newton didn't discover as well as the people of other scientists. The great geniuses, certainly they stand in the giant geniuses before them, but it's not a social interaction of this knowledge, of this knowledge, it's hard work, the use of reason and absurd reality and the genius of being able to integrate it in new creative ways. And if you think it kind of the isolation of the Darwin put himself under, also because he didn't want to be a scholar, it must take kind of work, it's, this is very much a new knowledge, real genius discoveries, isn't the individual process, very much the individual process, and it rests on, again, the foundation of other people's knowledge, so we need that interaction. But it's not a collective, it's not a collective in there, in essence, so. Yeah, so the last one we'll close with, which you could both take a stab at, is there ever an instance in your eyes where for the betterment of the greater good, that art can hold sway over the basis of you? Are there instances where you find that art can be persuasive, or is that philosophy just not gonna fit with your perception of the world? There's no such thing. What the hell is the way to do it? Right? What's good for us in kind of, what value is common to it in some, where is this greater, where is this collective in the betterment, right? I mean, there's, even in the capitalism, in the complete freedom of certain people that particularly are better off, if your wife being drunk, socialism is better. But it's good that you suffer, because you deserve to suffer, so, under freedom, you will be worse off, and that's justice. So I don't believe the greater good, I think utilitarianism is just an excuse to find the betterment of minority for the sake of majority. I think it's a process, a model regime, that's been refuted over and over again, so you know what I'm gonna try now. I believe that the only good is the individual good. Now, again, let's not think that the individual good is being an island, it's not being an island, the individual good is interacting with other people, and creating community, and training, and interacting, and learning, and exchanging ideas. But at the end of the day, the measure of model good is only the individual. There is no such thing as collective good in that sense, so if you have to define what's good for the collective, it's whatever's good for the individual's within. So why are you a model of a collective in that sense? Why are you a model of society? Let's just talk about what's good for individuals, and what's good for individuals, it's their protection of their rights, and what's good for individuals is their freedom to use their nature to pursue the values that they deem necessary for their thriving and flourishing. That's good, everything else is an excuse to address some of these for the sake of some of the others. So what do you mean? Well, the only good in this name, the whole point of the debate is the people that there should be as an economic aspect to the military policy, should be believed that this elicits some whole of the challenge of society that was to the material. Well, an average, a standard of living, you know, the perfect, and if you look back, now I can take an outbreak to Australia, and sit back and watch the millions of some nice soup, and then they're about to relax, and that's something which you have to compare to other people, as you can say, the individual activities, but there's something which is all, you argue for your politics, there's never a little bit you can't refer back to, I like this, I am this. Personally, you must appear to something which is some kind of, for most of us, that is not all, on general, on average, in terms of all the dynamics of progress, there's something you should want to be part of. You can't argue, in this instance, some kind of notion of the way that you're doing is a million, however, a prior of any kind of debate, otherwise, not on this issue. All you can say is, yeah, this is the other field of fact, it's an a prior of this sort as well. So all you can say is, that if you leave the individual's screen, those who pursue the right values will do well, and those who pursue bad values will do poorly. That's what you can say, yes, the average is better than most of us who pursue good values. Most of us pursue the values that enhance future learning, so the average who are all better off. But some people are going to screw their lives when they're through it, and that's okay with me, right? So, you know, it's a boundary, it's about the individuals that build the league. Again, to use their mind, and the result is, most of us, because most of us are going to use our minds well, but they're not going to laugh, but to make a statement of all, or to make a statement of what makes it good is an average, well, what if, whatever I can show you as, and maybe this is an appeal of what I did not, that by sacrificing some, the average goes up, then it's okay, and I say it's never okay to sacrifice a minority for the sake of the majority, it's never okay to sacrifice an individual for the sake of the average. Individuals must be free, the beautiful result of leaving individual's screen which can happen at a good time. Good. So, give me a few years. So, look, I'm an actor character, so I think I have a good role here, right? You're like the force. Zero, these two have that. Yeah, I understand that I'm peeling it, tossing it at you, but I'm having an impenetrable look, and also rejecting it, because I turn out to be kind of a great example of sight. So, the thing that, it's interesting that the way I'm discussing that's a very popular discourse, but the result of this moment for us is absolutely true. Yeah. Well, behind us is our well-made co-op, and we've been coming to have you both here, individually and on the same stage together, sharing your thoughts upstairs, a real honor and a pleasure for us. So, if you wouldn't mind, please give our reaction.