 You talked about how people pursue achievement and achievement gives them a notion of self-worth or confidence and that happiness. Would you define happiness another way, or is it in line with that sequence? No, I think happiness is the sense you get about life that comes from achieving your goals, achieving your values. As long as those values are rational, right? I don't think somebody who has irrational values can be happy. So if your value is to bring about socialism, you're not going to be happy. You're going to be miserable because the existential reality of those values is going to be detrimental to your life. So the values have to be rational pro-life values. Happiness comes from achieving those values. I ran to find happiness as a state of non-contradictory joy. It's when you just have this positive sense about the world. Nothing is contradicting it, nothing is fighting it. The world is good. It doesn't mean you don't have problems. It doesn't mean you can't be sad. It doesn't mean tragedies don't happen to you and you could be depressed for a while. But overall, your attitude towards your life, your standing order in terms of life, life is good. Hey, I achieve stuff. I can make my goals. I can achieve my values and that's what happiness is. So I think people sitting at home, for example, I think one of the great tragedies of the welfare state is that it basically prevents people who receive welfare from ever being happy. It robs them, it robs them of the opportunity. Robs them of opportunity to be happy because without work, at whatever level you are capable of, without the challenge, without building, creating, making something, at whatever level you can do it, I don't think you can be happy. You have to be able to achieve values and if you're sitting home playing video games and collecting a welfare check, that's out the window for you and to me the welfare state is a model to a large extent because of that. I thought about that a lot and I thought about just with people and what they achieve and oftentimes that comes as a result of hardship and error or mistakes in certain areas and their ability to overcome that and learn and achieve because of it. I don't think there's anything that can replace that and I look at a free society and how that allows for those opportunities and as you said it really does allow people to understand what they're capable of and I'm not sure if there's another way to do that. I don't think there is. Well, it's at the end of the day you go down to freedom. You have to have the freedom to try. You have to have the freedom to experiment. You have to have the freedom to fail but you also have to have the freedom to succeed and to benefit from that success so that everything else is motivated and that's what capitalism provides. Capitalism is just again the system that leaves you free to do all those things and that's how you get great innovation. People try stuff out. They come up with crazy ideas. Everybody around them I'm sure said that's nuts. You're insane. Nobody can do that and then they go do it and sometimes those crazy ideas turn out to be crazy and they fail but sometimes and maybe less frequently they turn out to be brilliant and they turn out to be what changes the world and socialism you don't have that and socialism or under any political system, any political system where the state is involved you basically have to get permission in order to innovate. You have to get permission and if you take any great idea in human history and you put it in front of a committee it's going to fail. Is the world, is earth going around the sun or is the sun going around the earth? The committee of the Catholic Church decided no, no, no, it's the sun goes around the earth Galileo you're all wrong right and of course they shut him up and they imprison him or they put him in house arrest so he could not articulate this fallacy. In a free society Galileo would be out there, hey I just made this incredible discovery and the speed of which science would have developed after that would have means so much faster. We would be so much richer today but no everything got slowed down because the committee couldn't decide if this was a good idea or a bad idea and I think if imagine I always ask my audience is imagine if this was designed by a government committee what would this look like? You know you don't need to even get the answer you know what's going on inside of people's heads they can see someone's monstrous machine that's too big and doesn't work and is a disaster and but nobody Steve Jobs didn't need to get permission he didn't ask anybody he just did it.