 I want to start with a kind of a broader view of property and property rights. Where are the, I mean, Rand has a particular view of why property rights are so crucial and why, in a sense, of the essential right to life and the right to life. But historically, where does the right to property intellectually, where does it come from? I mean, who are the key figures? And then how is it conceptualized kind of in, let's say, in the founding era? It's a great question, excuse me. And yeah, so in the modern era, in the modern era, I've got to count from the approximately the 17th century up to today, the people, if you said, who is the primary intellectual source for our own share of property today, I think people would rightly identify John Locke. At John Locke, he moved beyond a lot of the initial errors of the founders of natural rights philosophy, the modern theory of natural rights philosophy, Hugo Grosius and Samuel Poofendorf, and really situated the right to property within an understanding of why government needs to protect it and why government needs to be limited just to the protection of the rights to life, liberty, and property. And he conceptualized it properly as a result of that he saw it was fitting within this trinity of life, liberty, and property. So how did he connect it to life? I mean, did he see kind of the Rand's view that we have to produce in order to survive and therefore make that connection to life? Unfortunately, no, at least not explicitly. So I mean, there's inklings of it because he was on the right track and he was very reality oriented and he was very, he's really an incredible philosopher and very ahead of his time. But he was still shackled by his commitment to religion and they could not bridge the Isaacat. They did not know how to get it started. So what did it mean that you had a right to life? And so from that perspective, they really just thought that, well, just God basically says you have a right to life. And that's what starts it all. And Hugh Grosius also has this kind of notion as well, it's kind of implicit that you do have to kind of produce and act in order. This is why you have a right to liberty because you have a right to life. And so you act in order to sustain your life and in acting, you make things and you make those things. You know, Locke's famous phrase, you mix your labor, which was his metaphor for productive activities. And that's what then creates the right to those things or right to property. And you can see it's kind of implicitly running throughout. And this is one of Rand's great insights and contributions of her many and many of them, is that she actually recognized the key issue that they all missed, which is that it's man's rational mind that is really guiding everything and that it is the rational mind and the values that man identifies through the use of his reason that actually is the basis of property as serving one's life. So is the fact that they didn't realize this, did that result in a kind of a sense of materialistic view of property? Somewhat, I don't know if it's materialistic or intrinsic. And the two are similar in some ways, but they're still distinct from each other. And this comes out of the initial inability to objectively identify and ground this concept. And so natural rights has the sense of that it's natural in the sense that it's intrinsic in you as a person. And this is where you get all these people who struggle with what does it mean then when you delegate your rights and how do you lose your rights if it's intrinsic in you and things of this sort. And this is Rand's incredible achievements also in epistemology that she recognized. I know these are concepts, these are principles that serve our life. And so, but because they had this intrinsic view of rights being instantiated in you in some way, shape, or form as part of your metaphysical essence, so to speak, as a rational being, it did orient them ultimately toward kind of a more physicalist conception of rights at times. But then again, Locke also had in his theories in clings of, well, no, it applies broader than that. Property can be extended to this. Even in the second treatise, he talks about how well even the, when he's describing his theory of property in his chapter called property, chapter five, he's giving examples of property and he even says that grass that is bit by the horse of my servant is my property. And that's a really, really incredible insightful insight that you can alienate and transfer down through these rights and that you can have moral claims and legal claims that extend out beyond you to things that you've entered into agreements with people over. And so he was, so they were slowly kind of gravitating toward it, but it really took Rand's theory of objectivity and her real key insight about reason as man's basic means of survival is kind of breaking the Gordian knot that they had all been struggling with for so long and fully justifying and explaining what is property. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran book show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching, show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran book show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe, press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.