 Do I get a comment to that, or to? I actually, I would like you to, first of all, I don't think others, there you go. I'd like you to first of all talk about how you think the tradition of capitalism, as you see it, would work for you, what we have right now, and then I'm gonna let you guys respond to each other's. Well, I think that trajectory towards capitalism is a hard one, much harder than I think the trajectory towards socialism, because I think the world, in spite of all my efforts, the world is moving more toward socialism than there's towards capitalism. The general agreement is that socialism is a good, that coercion is good, that force is good, that forcing people to behave in a particular way that you want them to behave is right. The idea that force, coercion, forcing somebody to do something they don't want is wrong morally and should never be exercised. That idea is not a popular idea. I think the only way to move us towards capitalism is a real educational campaign challenging the philosophical foundation of the existing system that we have, the existing system, the existing system of thought that we have, the idea, the moral idea that your purpose in life is to live towards others, the moral idea that the collective is more important than the individual, the moral idea that the state is above all, that we see on the democratic side and on the republican side, that we see in politics across the entire spectrum, those things have to be challenged until we're willing to challenge collectivism and moral altruism, until we're willing to embrace the morality of individualism and the political system of individualism, a political system that elevates the freedom of the individual, that builds around freedom for the individual. I don't see how capitalism comes about. I think you see in the West movements to move towards a little bit more free markets. But then as soon as they fix their things a little bit and the economy starts going again, people feel comfortable, they immediately bounce back towards socialism so that we're waiting in the bounce bag so that we're thatched in the bounce bag because neither are you in a thatcher, challenged with fundamental beliefs that are required in order to build the capitalist society and those are deeply rooted and they are philosophical and they require changes at university level and changing in young people's thinking. And I see that move towards capitalism, towards my vision, it's much harder, much more challenging and much more educational than political. I don't like political because politics is what? Politics is force. But think about that, that eats at you, that this guy is lazy and he's going home early, this is exactly what happened under Kibbutz and you work very hard and you start resenting him and you start hating him. Every time I see socialism, socialism what you see is malevolent towards other people, resentment, hatred because it creates envy, rivalry and hatred because it's a zero sum world. I don't get paid for what I produce. I get paid what was negotiated, what was voted on, what people agree. Not based on my productivity. And somebody else might get the exact same as I do even though they're a lot less productive, that's what collective action does and that's why unions are declined. Unions are declined because union members don't wanna be in unions because it doesn't make any sense to them particularly in the modern era where they can negotiate salaries to themselves. Unions are declined because manufacturing jobs, physical labor isn't declined because of technology, because of robots, because of computers and no software engineer, no software engineer who is an employee wants a union to represent them. Are they gonna be able to bounce around from company to company like they do in Silicon Valley? Beating themselves, they're saluting up every time they do it? No, not under socialism, you can't do any of that. So this conversation seems to be shaping up to be a lot about coercions. I wanna ask you both a question, respectively your preferred economic system about coercions. I'll start with you, Erin. One thing that I hear is a critique of capitalism is that if you pitch economic against each other that there is an incentive for businesses to get government on their side and use that coercion against their competition. And the question when we're talking about transitioning to a purely capital system from the banks that we have right now is do the really big companies already have the advantage that they could wield that power against smaller businesses and against entrepreneurs in a way that there's no future back from. So let me be clear, cronyism, which is what you're describing, is a feature of statism. It's a feature of systems like socialism. It's not a feature of capitalism. If you have a complete separation of state from economics, businesses don't lobby the state because the state has no power, no good use to give them. It's only because the state has power, has resources, has favors to give businesses. Do you get the lobby? Do you get the manipulation? Do you get the cronyism? And then it develops into protecting themselves from others. So, if we talked about the transition, my first, if I were president, God forbid, the first thing I would do is pass an anti-cronism law and it would be very simple. Zero subsidies, zero corporate taxes, which are stupid taxes, if you know anybody economics corporations don't pay taxes. You pay the taxes, all taxes are consumption taxes, all corporate taxes, consumption taxes or labor taxes say employees and consumers pay all corporate taxes. So, zero corporate taxes, so you can't give any loopholes and favors there. Zero subsidies and dramatic reduction in regulation across the board. So, every year I would eliminate 25% of the regulations on the book, on the books. And once the state is separated from economic power, there's a lot of me goes away and I can do one quick story about this. In the early 1990s, the largest corporation in the world based on market capitalization was Microsoft. How much money did Microsoft spend in those years lobbying Washington? Well, the exact figure is zero. The largest company in the world did no cronyism, no lobbying, no law firm, no building, nothing in DC. They had no presence in DC, nothing. And they came from Congress, invited them in, invited. Whenever Congress does, there's an invitation, right? There's a gun there saying, you better come. They came in and they sat in front of a Senate committee headed by a Republican, a young unhatched from Utah and unhatched stood up and he yelled at them. And he said, you better be here in Washington DC. You have to build buildings here. You have to hire lawyers. In other words, you have to bribe me. Now, you can't say that in America, so you couch it in other terms. I mean, you can find this, this is all well documented. And Microsoft said, you know what? You leave us alone. We leave you alone. We're not interested. And they went home and they continued to devote exactly zero dollars to lobbying. Six months later, several months later, knock on the door. We're here from the Justice Department. And you violated anti-trust laws and we're coming after you. You remember what the violation was? Anybody know what Microsoft did that is so evil that they had to be harassed for over 10 years by the Justice Department? Anybody know? They gave away something for free, a browser. I remember downloading Netscape for 70 bucks. You guys, can you believe, had to pay for a browser if you don't pay for anything. Everything's free in this economy. It's been amazing. And they gave it away for free. And now it's an anti-trust revolution. And they had it. Guess how much money Microsoft spends today on lobbying? 10s of millions of dollars. If you go downtown DC about equal distance in the White House, in Congress, they have a beautiful building. They've got massive numbers of lawyers. Because they realized that Washington won't leave them alone, so they better fight back. So you wanna get rid of colonialism? Get rid of government intervention. 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 the spare cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist. Broads. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped 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 uranbrookshow.com, slash support, or go to subscribestar.com, uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not sure when the next...