 Okay, Jennifer, why don't you get started with, if you have a question? Do you think the words radical and extremist mean somewhat the same thing, and why do you think they're usually used in the pejorative sense? Well, they're used in a pejorative sense because I think that any view that you're consistent with your ideas, that you're principled through and through, any indication of that is a negative. People, we live in a society that is dominantly pragmatist, where pragmatism really dominates every aspect of the culture. The idea of thinking in principle is really thought of as silly, is not practical, not connected to reality, really detached. So anything that smacks of I'm principled or I'm consistent is viewed negatively. Now, so Iman has a whole essay about extremism, right, because this is during the Goldwater campaign, and Goldwater was smeared as an extremist, and she said extremism is of course a package deal. It takes people who are consistent with their ideas, who are principles and live up to those principles, and basically nuts who are crazy, who want to blow our buildings, who want to do insane things, and it lumps them into the same concept, extreme. And she, you know, so she condemns, she says it's this package deal and we shouldn't really use it in that sense. And it's a way to undercut the people who are consistent, undercut principles, undercut the principle. I think radicals are a little different and the, in the sense that I think radical hasn't been used as much as a package deal. So I like using radical, I think radical, much more than extreme, because extreme of what right extreme definitive individual rights or extreme defender of Islam or extreme defender of nihilism or what is it, or just extremely, you know, radical or just radical suggests basic principles, it suggests some thought out set of ideas that is significantly different and challenging to the status quo. It doesn't have the same, I think, connotation as it's extreme, it's kind of wacky, it's out there. Radical just means different than the status quo and principle based on a different foundation than what exists in the world out there. So I use radical a lot. I, you know, Leonard, I think for years called himself a radical for capitalism, I think when he did his radio show, I'd use radical for capitalism or radical for. I ran herself called herself a radical. And when she did like with many of the things that she said I'm like, Okay, that's surprising, but that makes sense. I hadn't thought of it before. Somebody here in the super chat even says extremism is an anti concept. Because it doesn't really aggregate together anything that fits together. It's, it's, and it, it's meant to undercut it's meant to destroy it's meant to destroy the legitimate which in the legitimate is of course, the, the, the principle stand let's say or semi principle stand that somebody like Now, Goldwater did say in his famous speech at the Republican National Convention, he did say extremism in the defense of liberty in is no vice and and you know that's a great line for one liner for a speech. But I do think that extremism as used in the culture is is as I ran to find it an anti concept and and we shouldn't use it. It's, it's, it's, it's again meant to undercut what he's trying to what he's trying to say which is the fence of liberty. radical on the other hand, I think is a good concept relates to fundamental ideas and relates to different than the status quo different than the conventional, and that we certainly are. I don't know if it speaks in the language that left us like they like the word radical. Yeah. And, and that's right. When you say that society has no responsibility here. You, I think individuals have a responsibility to themselves. Is that it. I don't like the word responsibility involved here. All right, well what should we say that help me. What do I do what I wish to do. Is that your point that the more. Do what I rationally sing is right according to the right morality. And help others if you can but not as a primary obligation. And now in regard to society, there is no such thing as society, you know, it's all of us. Now, how can we have obligations which we didn't undertake. The parents of a child would have obligations for him up to a certain age since they brought brought him into the world, but they can do what is impossible to them. So it doesn't mean that they can at any moment throw the burden on the rest of us. We're a society. Everybody's society. We can't have unearned obligations and I'm chosen obligations. What in the iron rand civil context would be appropriate societal measures to accommodate the ungifted. They're all parents and a chance to give their parents to earn money. If however their parents are poor and cannot assume it's a big, heavy burden, then you can appeal to private charity as it was always done before welfare statism in this country. You want private charity as well for the gifted? It's necessary. They usually in a free society, they won't need it. They'll make the wrong way just so you don't stop them. But private charity cannot be done by means of tax collection, which means by force. Private charity is up to you and if it's a worthy cause, that is a subdominal child who certainly cannot help it. It's perfectly all right to help him, but not at the sacrifice of your own child. You probably like to get rid of HEW then? Oh, certainly. Much more than that. I'd like to get rid of it. A lot of the government, huh? Everything except the basic duties of the government, which is police, law courts, armed forces. You want less government. Well, everybody says that. It's a little hard to put that into effect when we've got a country that has such a maldistribution of wealth. You'll give me that, huh? Too few rich, too many poor. I will give you part of that because if there is a maldistribution, it's to those who have political pull. If some of your money is made with government help and government favoritism, then I grant you that is unfair and improper and unjust. But if you made it yourself in free competition, enough people want to pay you for your services or your product, then you should keep all of it. Why shouldn't you? You made it. All right. Okay. You also think if the Middle Eastern countries want to charge, hold us up for the oil at $5 a barrel or a gallon. Excuse me, $5. Well, that day would be bad. They ought to be able to do it. It's their oil. Is that your point? No. My point is we should not have permitted, altruistically, all those nations to nationalize what we build for them. The Super Chat. And I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you step 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 to go to www.uranbrookshow.com, slash support, or go to www.subscribestar.com, IranbrookShow, and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going.