 I really do agree with the concept of, that the concept of responsibility is necessary in individual happiness, but when you see like economic studies that point to such as the gap in wealth leads to a higher primary in suburban cities, can we not argue that policies such as redistribution would indirectly make the rich happier because it would lead to a, it would not lead to a higher primary in suburban cities. Well, the studies are wrong. Start out with, right? The studies are just wrong. I've got a book called Equals Unfair that take on the whole inequality debate. There's just no correlation and there's no causality between these kind of features. So, for example, inequality in the United States has increased over the last 40 years, right? It's dramatically increased. Everybody says this, okay, let's assume that's all true. I'm even skeptical of that, but let's assume that that's true. Inequality has increased in the United States over the last 30 to 40 years. What has happened to crime rates in the United States during that period? They've shrugged. They haven't gone up. Inequality in Great Britain has expanded. Crime rates have gone down. I mean, crime rates were the highest in the 70s and 80s. And actually, the 70s and 80s had, according to genie coefficients, were much lower. So inequality was much lower than they were in today. So the correlation between crime and inequality is a myth. It's myth. Now, what happens is they do these studies where they include really, really, really high crime countries which have very high inequality and they assume causality. But there is no causality. I think the whole, the whole debate, the whole discussion of the last, I'd say, 8 years, 10 years about inequality is empty. It's silly. It's detached from any reality. There is no economic theory, for example, none, zero, that links inequality to things like economic growth or to economic problems. And yet, when you run certain regressions, you can find correlations. But correlation is not causation and you have to think about inequalities high in the United States and inequality is high in Zimbabwe. But there are big differences between the two countries, right, that have nothing to do with inequality, that are maybe generating the actual problems that people are observing in a place like Zimbabwe. So, and you really have to dig into the people who talk about inequality. You have to dig into what they're actually doing. And I don't trust mainstream economists because I think they have a philosophical, political agenda and they shape their economics to adapt it. And Thomas Piketty, the guy who really made inequality the big thing when he came out with his book in about, what was it, 6, 7 years ago, is a great example of that. The data is often wrong. His interpretation is completely misleading. It's a completely bogus book, but he is treated like a king today. I mean, everywhere he goes in the world, he gets rid, carpet treatment. It's just unbelievable to me, but it's bad economics. He'll probably get a Nobel Prize for it, but it's bad economics and it's bad data. But let's say it was true. Just for the sake of argument. Let's say what you argue is true. That is redistribution of lowest crime. Well, if that were true, right, and if that were the real causal mechanism, and you would argue that the rich then are better off because crime against them is lower because there's redistribution, then they would do it voluntarily. They'd have an incentive to do it voluntarily. But there's never, and this is, I think, very much thought in principles. And I think it's really important to think in principles. And unfortunately, we're not taught to think in principles. We're very much taught to be so-called pragmatic. Whatever works, whatever. You never use force against another human being unless you're acting in self-defense. So even though you think, you philosopher king think, oh, if I take money from you and give it to him, you will be better off. No. The only thing you can do is argue, is convince so you can go to rich people and say, if you take a bunch of money and you give it to poor people, you'll be better off. And some will agree, and some won't, and some will do it, and some won't. But it's their individual personal choice. And it's not like in a free society, a complete capitalist society, there wouldn't be some redistribution. It just wouldn't be cursed. It would be charity. It would be voluntary. Right? So you can never in an, in Ayn Rand's world, you can never use coercion, even when you think it's good for somebody else. Right? So force is out. It's not a means for interaction between human beings. The only means to interact between human beings is reason. It's rational argument. It's debate. It's this is why free speech is so important. Right? Crucial to the foundation of civilization is our ability to reason with one another, to debate one another, to convince one another. Because when we can't do that, what do we resort to? You know, a gun. You know, when I filled with wonder, when I look at skyscrapers, at the manmade, at what men were able to achieve on their own, unedited, so-called mind, without the help of face, desires or any sort of... You know what you see in those skyscrapers? What? Lonely people with in-baskets and out-baskets, and dead-end jobs, and no creative challenge, and bosses who don't appreciate what they're doing, and underpaid exploitation on the part of many, many people who go in like cattle, filing into these ecological disasters that let too much heat in the summer time. You're an ecologist? All right, let me ask you, would any human being, even a basket case, be better off in Iran or in Soviet Russia? Oh, well, no, of course not, but maybe... But wait, but the people who made... What I see when I see the skyscrapers is the men who devised them, the Howard Dork in the fountainhead, the people who had the ability to bring us that far away from primitive jungles. Now that's the achievement and observe in this country that the poorest, most handicapped person is better off than a fully-abled man almost everywhere else in the world.