 Welcome to the Knuckleheads of Liberty. I was just going to add one more thing, Jason. I want to clear something out. You mentioned that our property rights came from government at the very beginning of your dissertation. Did you really want to say that our property rights do not come from God or nature or our human nature, but comes from the government? No, what I'm trying to say is that government has established, we've established a set of laws that allow the government to intervene to protect our private property, right? I mean, that's the whole point of having a government, right? Is to be able to protect your private property. What's the point of having a government? No, no, no, Jason, you're stating that incorrect. I'm sorry. The government is not intervening. We are making a choice to go to court where the government does act based upon the evidence we present. That's not the government intervening. That's not the same thing. Well, you're enacting the force of the government from on somebody else based upon the damage you think that they've caused you. So, I mean, you know, you are getting the evidence to prove that case. Yes. But that's, that's the point, right? So you're able to get government to intervene on your behalf, just like with property rights, where you show that somebody came in and crapped on your sheets, then therefore you can, you can bring in the government to say, Hey, this person violated my property rights, right? That's, that's a bad analogy in my opinion about this case. Here's the person broke a law. Amber Heard broke the law and defame somebody with a lie. That's, isn't that against the law, Leon? No, no. If you can prove that somebody has defamed somebody, I'm just saying from a libertarian perspective. There we go. Should it be. But no, but the difference is if we're not talking to say about the law, right? Because it was the law that all the Jews get on the train in Germany, right? And that doesn't mean it's correct. I mean, it's libertarian. You want to go outside the law. Okay. You want to go into the issue of whether it is moral or whether, whether in a libertarian world, this should be allowed or not. Is what you're saying, right? Yeah. I mean, exactly. Should this, should this be something that the government gets involved in or not? That's the issue. I think. And so, and I, you know, believe me, I'm really happy for debt. But I'm just trying to wonder about the implications on speech, right? If, if somebody can say something that can be interpreted by somebody else in their head to cause you damage at, at what point are you able to constrain their speech? Because I mean, that's really what we're talking about. Well, then let me ask, let me turn this around. Jason, let me ask you a question then. In the libertarian world, we are in the libertarian world now. Okay. What do I do if somebody is damaging my reputation to the point of damaging my ability to feed my family and to maintain my home? What, what, what records do I have? Yeah. And, and, you know, that's, you know, for, for some people who are hardcore libertarians, they'd say, well, you're hoping that the market will, will sort of regulate that in the sense that somebody who tells lies all the time, just nobody's going to believe them is what you're, you're hoping is going to happen. But I mean, we're seeing the same thing happen with written house. And this goes to exactly your guy's point where, you know, a lot of people in the press completely defamed written house and told outright lies about them. I mean, it was no question. It wasn't like they, they said some kid and you know, I mean, oh, they said Kyle written house, you know, and they called him a white supremacist and every other terrible thing in the book. And now he's had damages. So, you know, that occurred in his life. And so should he be able to, and it's certainly, I'm sympathetic to this. I'm just, you know, at what point do we want, I guess, government being the arbiter of speech. That's okay. You can pull my anarcho capitalist membership card, if you want. But yeah, the, to me, the courts are necessary for the figuring out these kinds of issues. And more, but they are the courts are the arbiter of the truth so that they find, you know, in situations like this where he said, she said, you're going to find out who said the truth and who lied. And that's what is a, you know, I'm okay with that as a libertarian. You know, I'm fine with that. Okay. So pull my anarcho capitalist card. I'm off the reservation in that regard. And I'm in favor of having a court system. Jury or within which we get to arbitrate these kinds of disputes one libertarian to another. Yeah, you go. But I want to make this point. Okay, Jason, and I don't know if this will clear up our little disagreement here. What we are talking about here, two private individuals, two private individuals have a dispute and they have chosen a forum where that dispute is will be arbitrated and adjudicated. That's all. And if two private individuals are making, have made a choice to allow the courts to do it, I cannot see how that varies any libertarian principle. I don't agree with you though. That's, that's not exactly what happened. If he sues her, if she doesn't answer, she automatically has to pay. So it's not like they both choose to go to court. You're making it sound like they both made an agreement to go to court here and adjudicate this, and it's not the case. He literally is suing her and the government will come and take her money away if she does not come and answer that. So she, she's forced to answer or she automatically has to give up the money. Now I'm not saying necessarily that that makes your case wrong or anything. I'm just saying that that, that point though is not true. Wait, wait, hold on. Jason, are you an American citizen? Are you saying that we are all under the contract of American law by virtue? Exactly. Exactly. We are under the contract. So you're a social contract person. We are choosing to be under that contract. And if we choose to be in a contract, we are choosing the courts to adjudicate our differences. Okay. So you're for the social contract just to have that on record? I am for the Constitution of the United States. Yes. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness always.