 Any other, oh, yeah. Thank you. I was just wondering, what would you say is the relevance of Ryan's Court in contemporary United States? I was just wondering, much of the conclusion you have drawn from Ryan's Court and probably yourself sounds quite familiar to me, probably because I have read Robert Nozick's book under the story of my professor who is also libertarian. Yeah. And I did understand that Ryan's Court does constitute major part of American people's philosophy. But I was wondering, what is the special art court in the 21st century, especially after the tariff court the president broke out? 50 after what? Tariff court. Oh, tariff court. The tariff court. Well, so first let me say, I think everything about her philosophy is still fresh. I don't think anybody represents her philosophy, including Nozick. Nozick rejects Einrann's ethics. And he rejects her formulation of individual rights the way she does. So I don't think Nozick accepted some of her ideas. And certainly, within the libertarian movement, many people were influenced by Einrann, some more than others. And she's had a profound impact on the libertarian movement in the United States. But that's her impact on them. And yet many libertarians don't accept her full philosophy. And I think it's their detriment. My view is that if you look at intellectual history of the last 100 years or 50, 60 years, if the key free market economists and thinkers of the 20th century had embraced Einrann, we would be living in a different world today. So I think the fact that Hayek and Friedman and Mises, and Mises was the closest Einrann, basically rejected her philosophy. I think has put the libertarian movement backwards 50 to 100 years. So I think it's still going to take a longer time for them to rediscover Einrann. But I don't believe you will have a free market slash capitalist movement in America or in the world without Einrann's ideas. I don't think it's sustainable, because nobody else in the libertarian movement is a real philosopher. Nobody else in the libertarian movement actually has a philosophical foundation for capitalism. You know, you have to be an advocate of egoism, and you have to be an advocate for reason. And those, I mean, most libertarian philosophers reject both of those assumptions. And therefore, I think we'll fail, have to fail. So you can't just start with politics and economics. Now in terms of the influence she has on the political world today, given tariffs, I mean, tariffs, I think, suggest that she has no influence or very little influence, because she would be horrified by, I think, the current administration of Donald Trump. I think she would reject almost everything about this administration. I mean, he's done a few things that are good and that she would maybe say positive things like cutting corporate taxes and reducing regulation. But there's no point in cutting taxes if you don't stop spending like crazy, which is something that the Japanese should learn from as well. If you run deficits and increase government debt, then you're sucking money out of the private economy. You're sucking money out of the hands of capitalists and giving it to the central planners to distribute. And therefore, you have an inefficient economy, and therefore growth rates are very low, which is true in Japan and true in the United States right now. So government spending is out of control in the United States. Levels of debt are going out of control in the United States, all of which you would be offended by. But you'd also object to the kind of cronyism that Donald Trump is institutionalizing in the United States, where he will tell CEOs where they can build plants and where they shouldn't build plants. And he told Ford, or somebody who was Ford, that they can't shut down a plant because they were going to close a plant in Ohio and he harassed them that they couldn't shut it down. And ultimately, they found a buyer for it to convert it to something else. But the president of the United States gets involved in decisions like that. I call him, I call Donald Trump on Twitter, what is it, central planner in chief. I mean, he really views himself as a central planner. He's running the economy like he would run a business. So all of that is very antagonistic to Einrann's view of the world. And certainly, this idea of raising tariffs. Tariffs are tax. They're a tax on your people. It's not a tool of diplomacy. It's not a tool of negotiation. It's a tax. And you don't raise taxes and pretend that you're a capitalist. You don't raise taxes and pretend that you're pro, that make America first. Or you're pro-American. It's an anti-American tax because who's it hurting? It's hurting your own citizens. The Chinese don't pay tariffs. Americans pay tariffs. So, and nobody's defending today free trade. I mean, and nobody's defending free markets. And the fact that we subsidize and regulate and control, all of that is antagonistic to Einrann's view of government. And the fact that there's an erosion in America today of the separation of powers, of the world of the presidency and versus the world of Congress, versus the roles of the courts, that the presidency is becoming bigger and bigger and bigger and more and more powerful, all things that she would object to as the founding fathers would object to. And there's no real movement. I mean, why is the president, why can the president of the United States impose tariffs unilaterally without Congress? That's, you know, that contradicts the spirit of the Constitution. It's because Congress doesn't want to have make those decisions. So it's basically written laws that say, we're not involved in tariffs, the president can do it. Or the president could do it for national security reasons without defining what national security is. So that now Trump is saying that importing automobiles is a national security threat to the United States. I mean, it's insane. So even though many people within Trump's administration have read Rand, Ayn Rand, will say they really love Ayn Rand, they don't govern that way. And that was true in the Reagan administration, that was true in the Bush administration, many people in the administration, read her, loved her, didn't matter. It wasn't actually applied in the way they ran government. They're all statists. They're all growing the size of government, growing the power of government, growing their interference in our lives. And as long as that's happening, she is not having the kind of influence I would like her to have. And while such a policy is reprehensible, there is something much more reprehensible. The policy of the so-called conservatives who believe in compromise and who are trying to defend freedom by stealth. If the liberals are afraid to identify as a program by its proper name, if they advocate every specific step, measure, policy and principle of statism, but squirm and twist themselves into semantic pretzels with such euphemisms as the welfare state, the new deal, the new frontier, they still preserve a semblance of logic if not of morality. It is the logic of a con man who cannot afford to let his victims discover his purpose. Besides, most liberals are afraid to let themselves discover that what they advocate is statism. They do not want to know or to admit that they are the champions of dictatorship and slavery. So they evade the issue for fear of discovering that their goal is evil. Immoral as this might be, what is one to think of men who evade the issue for fear of discovering that their goal is good? What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to know or to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the courage and the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, speaking at and apologizing for their own ideals? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, pull them into progress, found them into preserving their rights, and while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning? Such, unfortunately, are a great many of today's conservatives. Gentlemen, if you want to save capitalism, there is only one type of argument that you should adopt, the only one that has ever won in any moral issue, the argument from self-esteem. Check your premises, convince yourself of the rightness of your cause, then fight for capitalism with full moral certainty.