 Interested in the point you raised about anarchy there, what do you make of anarcho-capitalism as a philosophical movement, as it was promulgated by people like Rothbard? Do you think that the idea of the stateless society driven by property rights markets that some libertarians in America would very much like to become reality still is simply implausible or more fundamentally undesirable in some way? It's fundamentally undesirable because they, but it's a mythology, it's pretense, it's a rationalistic construction that cannot exist, metaphysically cannot exist. Let's start with anarcho-capitalism. You can't have, those are contradictions in terms. Anarchism is the negation of capitalism. Anarchism is the negation of property rights. Property rights need an enforcement mechanism. You have to be able to enforce property rights, and that enforcement mechanism is government. If everybody is trying to enforce their own property rights, then ultimately there's no mechanism by which we obituate disputes. The mechanism that they present are private courts and private armies. Defaults to civil war, defaults to, because you've given different entities the ability to define property rights in different ways over the same territory, over the same property. How do they obitrate the dispute? They can go to court, but why bother if I have a bigger weapon than you? Why would I go to court? I'll just take you over and impose my view on you. So it is a system that devolves into a Hobbesian, everybody against everybody, all men against all men, and it revolves into violence. So capitalism requires, in order for capitalism to exist, what is required is the elimination of coercion from human interaction. And coercive action, whether it's private or whether it's by government, needs to be eliminated. Now there's no way to eliminate private coercion without establishing a monopoly over the use of retaliatory force. And that monopoly is government, and if they don't like the word government, call it something else. I don't care, but you need an institution, a human institution that actually excludes whose whole job is to make sure that people don't use force against one another. And if you don't do that, if you leave it so-called to competition, there is no competition because when force is allowed, in a sense, and now it's competed over, then the guy with the bigger gun wins just like the guy with the best product wins, right? In a marketplace, the way to solve problems is to out-compete your opponent. And if force is what we're competing about, then the way for me to out-compete my opponent is to have more force, to have better weapons, bigger weapons, and to impose my will. You cannot have a marketplace, a functioning marketplace. You cannot have the idea of property rights enforced without an institution that eliminates the use of force, and that is called government. So I think it's a fantasy, but really what it is, is it's a consequence of a philosophical subject of who, who is somebody else to decide when use of force should be is legitimate. That, you know, if you deny objectivity, if you deny objective law, if you deny objective truth, then it's all about my emotion, my feelings, and I want to be able to protect my property rights the way I want to protect it, when I want to protect it, and I want to be able to determine when you're violating my property rights to help with some objective court system, to help with some means of objectivity. You know, we don't have a marketplace in science. Science is not competitive in the sense of, in the same way as, as, you know, as product. There's a different type of way in which we resolve scientific disputes, primarily by through proof, through showing you in reality that it's true. And if, if, and that is the way in which science develops. We have a separate institution for science, you know, a lab at a university that is not necessarily guided, that research is not necessarily guided by the same principles as, I don't know, competition for smartphone. And the same is true of law. Law is a science. To define property rights correctly is not an issue of competition. It's an issue of proof. It's an issue of figuring out. It's an issue of experts figuring out. And the institution designed in order to do that is government. And, and unfortunately, we've never structured a government good enough. The experiment has always been flawed. But okay, that, that isn't a sign that we should give up. That's a sign that we need to continue to refine our ability and improve our ability to design good government. And to have good government, I ran and argued. You have to have a good philosophy. You have to have the right principles. And until we convince the world of our principles, this don't point too much in talking about government. The first thing is to get the principles right. What we need today, what I call the 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, wins 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 broads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. If you get at least 100 of you actually like the show, maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at urunbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.