 Okay. Well, if you disagree with Locke about this, why? On what grounds? What's the consequence of disagreeing with Locke about being able to retaliate with lethal violence? Well, you might say this is like, look, nobody's life is worth the TV. It's like, okay, yeah, you know, I get that. Nobody's life is worth a car. All right. I get that. I get that reasoning. But the question then is, okay, but if you disagree with Locke about this, you're disagreeing that you have sovereignty over your own possessions. You don't really get to decide how they're used. If you say you can't retaliate with lethal violence, you no longer make the decisions about that property. Something else or some other ideal does, I suppose. Maybe some other person, that person gets to make the decisions about your property. You've given up sovereignty over. It's really only yours in the sense that you're using it, I suppose. But now somebody else is using it because they've made off with it. So at the very least, you've given up sovereignty over your own possessions. But there's kind of a further point. I think Locke would make this further point. He pushed you a little bit. He said, well, look, you already said that you get to retaliate with lethal violence when it comes to death, when it comes to slavery. What's the difference between theft and slavery? What's the real difference there? You might say that slavery, somebody is forcing you to work and forcing you to work, and then they get to take your possessions. Like, okay, well, with theft, I mean, you're working anyway. But the force comes in when they say, here's the force. You worked for this, and now I'm forcing it away from you. They're still taking that property away from you. You're still working for somebody else. That time you spent on that property is gone. Gone. They have taken away a part of your life, a part of how you've chosen to spend your life, and it's gone now. That's gone. I think Locke would push the point and say, look, the only real difference between slavery and theft is that with theft, you didn't know you were a slave until they took your property away, right? I mean, even if it's, you know, suppose somebody comes up and says, you know, with the slavery case, they come up and say, I'm not going to slave you for five years. Yeah, you probably still say you get to retaliate with lethal violence. I mean, that's your life. That's five years that you're going to spend working for somebody else. How long does it take to pay off a car? You know, quite a while. You know, computers may be not, you know, five years, but there's still a fair amount of time to pay off like a $2,000 computer. That's a fair amount of time working for that. You know, it's graduation day. Somebody comes up and says, I'm taking away your degree. Your degree is going to be in my name. You'd be at least a little ticked off, right? Now, you put in a lot of time for this degree. You know, I think Locke said, look, the only difference, again, to push this point, the only difference between slavery and theft is that, you know, with, you know, stealing, you didn't know you were a slave until the property was gone. You were working for somebody else that whole time. They decided to take your, you know, your work, your time away from you. So, you know, if you disagree with Locke, at the very least, you've given up sovereignty over your possessions, and you're probably under the burden of explaining, if you don't want to give up sovereignty over your possessions, you know, these are mine. You've got to explain the difference between slavery and theft.