 I've heard you say on the show is that there are podcasts and, you know, other people's platforms that you wouldn't go on and that there are people. Noam Chomsky comes to mind where you would not debate them in any forum. Yeah. Then on the other side, there are people presumably like Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, Weinstein, who implicitly or not have a no objectivist policy. So I'm wondering where and how does one draw the lines between you and the people and people and the ideas that you will not and maybe should not engage. And is it any different when you're inviting them into your own house onto this show as opposed to going to theirs or a neutral third party platform? Yeah. I mean, it's a great question and it's not an easy one to answer. So it's one that requires judgment and, you know, there's some principles, but very much on a case-by-case basis and different intellectuals are going to, are going to come to somewhat different conclusions. It's one of these things where I think we can disagree on. I think the principle is you do not want to sanction evil. You do not want to give the impression that evil is okay somehow, that evil is legitimate, that a certain points of view have currency, are worth debating. And it's particularly tricky when where you don't, so that's one thing you don't want to do. The other thing you don't want to do is you don't want to make people think that this other person's, your view is the same in some significant way than the other person's view if you think, you know, even if you argue against them because of some confusion, and this is the issue of libertarians, it's very tricky to engage with libertarians in debates, discussions, panels, things like that, because it's so easy for people to think you're one of them. And if you want to differentiate yourself from them, then you have to really make an effort when you're on the stage with them to make clear the differences between you, right? Nobody's going to confuse me with a liberal, with a leftist. They might confuse me with some types of conservatives. They might, you know, particularly when the media pushes that Donald Trump is an iron man character, they might confuse me with Donald Trump. That's why I spend a lot of time separating. They're probably not going to confuse me with a religious conservative. So one is you don't want to sanction evil. Second, you don't want to be, you don't want to sanction an idea that you don't agree with. So you have to be cautious to separate yourself, even if you get on stage with some people. So take, so let's start with evil. Norm Chomsky, you know, people who sanction the worst forms of totalitarianism, I will not get on stage with. I won't get on stage in anybody who's a self-professed Nazi. I won't get on stage as a self-professed white supremacist. I won't get on stage or who I think is, you know, a Nazi or self-professed white supremacist. I won't get on stage with a communist or an apologist for communism or in, which is Norm Chomsky, you know, somebody who is, who was an apologist for Paul Pot, the Cambodian, the Cambodian, you know, genocidal maniac. But then there are borderline cases, right? There's these cases where I debate socialists and you could argue the socialists are sanctioning communism, although they pretend not to and they want democratic socialism and they all pro-democracy and they'll pro-free speech and everything. But it's tricky and it's not, you know, I'm wary of debating socialists. I try to only debate socialists when they're young. Not too young but young so that, so that they are, you could still say there's some chance that they're mistaken and not pure evil. Like, Norm Chomsky is just evil, right? So that's one, I don't debate, so that's, so that's one category. The libertarian category primarily relates to anarchists. I typically don't debate anarchists, although again I've done so at least once because A, I don't want to give anybody the impression that we agree on stuff, but you know this politics stuff, we just disagree on that. No, we disagree on everything. We disagree on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics and they just, and people confused. Oh, they agree on everything. It's just that there's some disagreement about what the actual form of rights-protecting government has to be and they, one believes there should be no government and one believes they should. No, the whole philosophical foundation is different and if I think I can get to that and if I can think I can make that clear, then the debate might be worthwhile. If I can't, then it's not. It's much more dangerous and it's much more polluting for anarchists, for people to think objectivism is somehow aligned with anarchism. I consider anarchism as a really, really bad set of ideas. I also think it's not really that serious. I think it discredits the liberty movement and I'm reluctant to participate in a debate with them. And then, as you said, it makes a difference. I wouldn't invite any of those people on my show. I wouldn't invite a socialist on my show. I prefer if I'm going to do a debate like that to do it in neutral ground. And I might, depending on the person, I might go on their show but I will not do it on my show. And again, all of that is nuanced and it depends on the person and so on. But the key is not to sanction evil and then the application, I'll just say, is hard and we at the institute, the Invent Institute, we would spend a lot of time figuring out who do we debate, who we willing to talk to, what conferences do we go to, what panels do we participate in, what organizations do we work with, what do we don't. It's not easy. It's not easy to make those calls. So that's the thinking. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes. That should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up. There you go. Start liking it. I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at your Unbookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals. And show your support for all, for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe. Because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified. So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.