 Welcome to the Knuckleheads of Liberty. We're trying to add this sort of a new segment where we call it Libertarian Corner. And it's just to really dig into an issue. And so we started digging into an issue and realized we didn't have enough time to get through the whole issue. And so we decided on our second shows now where we're gonna try and run this issue so we can go long if need be. We can open up an overtime session after the normal half hour of the show. So, but anyways, the issue was- In the words of Tonto, what do you mean we white man? Tim is sort of trying to foreshadow or illustrate that at that last episode, he wasn't on the good end of the argument. I can probably argue a few points on your side too, but the issue was we were talking about the Uighurs in China and the idea that Joe Biden had signed some restrictions I guess on trade to acknowledge the slave conditions that some of those people are being put into and some of the abuse that they are being put into and to say, hey look, any product from that area of China are going to have restrictions on them. And so the question really becomes from a libertarian point, do we really need or want government to step in and regulate trade? Is there situations that should require that? Because for most libertarians, it's laissez-faire. You make the decision yourself whether or not to trade with somebody else. But what about in the case of some country and they've got all their people in chains and they're making products and they're selling to you at a bargain and what appears to be a bargain, but at the cost of slave labor overseas? Is that okay then and should a government put up restrictions against trade with that type of a place? And maybe we could pull the article up too as well just so people can see this was from the Wall Street Journal and it says Walmart sparks public outcry in China over projects from the Xinjiang province. And so I guess that's where a lot of this abuse is happening and it's kind of weird because there's people in China who are upset in the other direction that they don't have opportunities to get products in these Walmart stores that are in China from that area of the country because they're trying to follow Biden's prescriptions for stuff in the U.S. And Jason, this is here in the United States, I mean in our history that is most of the cotton that was being used in the United States was done in the South true slave labor. So it's germanean, it's a relevant question. Okay, so I thought about it Leon. Okay. Are you ready? I'm ready. Jason, are you ready? Yeah. Gloria, are you ready? Okay, so what happened was, you know, Leon slyly asked, so you don't think there's any exceptions to the government getting involved in restricting trade of some sort. And so I fell right into his trap and said, no, no, no, no exceptions whatsoever. So then Mr. Professor Leon said, well, what about slavery? And then I basically tried to find a hole to crawl down into and hide and a blanket to cover myself up with. So, but I think I've thought of something, okay, if the whole premise was universal and governments did not get involved in trade, then it would be highly unlikely that a private enterprise could compete because their government would basically be allowing them to interfere in the trade of a slave and their labor and being able to trade their labor for compensation. So therefore, if you had the whole premise that government never gets involved in restricting trade, that would have to apply also governments cannot allow slavery because that's restricting trade. That's restricting the restriction of trade, right? So if that were not allowed, there would be no such thing as slavery because I'll tell you what, slavery didn't just stop because, you know, slavery was just the best economic condition you could put people under. Slavery stopped in large part because it's morally reprehensible, but also because it's economically reprehensible, it goes against sound economics. You have to have the interaction of buyers and sellers in all facets to lift all boats up equal. That's how it works economically and I think there's plenty of evidence out there. I just saw a recent article about this whole thing explaining the way the economic stupidity of slavery. So therefore, I think you may be able to have a more, of course, you're not going to include slavery because the act of slavery itself is interference in the free market. Should I leave? That's a good answer. That's a good answer. That's a good answer. That's a good answer. That's a good answer. That's a good answer. Even though you long waited and twisted yourself, I thought I wanted to help you out out of your own, out of the quandaries that you have made for yourself, but I would say I twisted myself into oppressor. You surely did, yeah, but I would say that if you look in one of our founding documents, which is the Declaration of Independence, it clearly said that we are entitled as human beings, as creatures of God, we are all entitled to that concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the rights, these are our naturally given rights, the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to pursue happiness. And anything that violates those principles, those God-given rights, those God-given principles, anything that violates it, should not be allowed. So take slavery for instance, okay? Slavery clearly violates the principle of liberty. It clearly does, okay? Not like, but certainly violates the principle of liberty. So in that sense, I think government intervention will be justified in stopping such an action. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness always and forever.