 I have a question about intellectual proxy, but I just wanted to comment on the war thing, just briefly. It seems to me that when you start talking about war, you've already denounced state's rights, but when you start talking about war all of a sudden, now you're writing state's rights, and the state's right to defend itself, and you've forgotten about the individual rights. Can I do a look back before you ask the question? No. What I've denied is states' rights in the context of the U.S. as states and the government. The government doesn't have any rights. Governments don't have rights. But governments have responsibilities. Governments have one function and one function only. And that function is to defend the individual rights of its citizens. That's it. Doesn't have any other responsibility. You have to provide health care, and not to provide for the poor, and not to provide for anything except to protect the individual rights. So if somebody comes jumping at me with a machine gun trying to shoot me, it's to go and start to jump in and shoot them before they get to me. And sometimes, when they're shooting the bad guys, some innocent vice-pandas might get shot and kill them. And that's sad, and that's unfortunate. But whose responsibility is that? It's the guy who is wielding a machine gun to begin with and try to kill me. It's his responsibility. So when I talk about going to war, I'm talking about going to war as my representative to defend my rights when somebody is trying to violate them. Somebody is running at me, you know, with a nuke or a machine gun or whatever it happens to be. And then it's my government's job to go out and kill them and do whatever is necessary to prevent them from ever coming at me again with a machine gun. And that is not an issue of government rights. It's an issue of individual rights, 300 million Americans. Individual rights should have demanded and didn't do it, but should have demanded that American government do whatever was necessary to stop al-Qaeda and, in my view, Islamic totalitarianism from ever striking America again. And that's the job of the American government. Now, then you get into questions, should we evade a new awkward in defending my rights? Should we go after Iraq or Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Iran? That was a technical, you know, military question on questions of rights anymore. Now it's a question in protecting my rights. Who do we bomb? You know, I have my ideas on who should be bombed and wasn't and what should be done and wasn't. But it's not an issue of the state having rights, it's an issue of me having rights as an American. I don't see that, but I just want to see the answer to that intellectual problem. I feel that the intellectual property position here is wrongly that Iran say there's absolute intellectual property rights available, or at least... Yes. But I had your response to that. I mean, to me that doesn't seem rational because if you have an idea, you know, you need the state to protect that idea on their intellectual property and this guy over here has the same idea and it doesn't prove that he didn't come up with that idea independently. Sure. I'm not going to say it looks a lot like my idea. So it's not, I mean, with intellectual property rights, it's not a question of, you know, just stealing stuff for a note piece of paper. It's a question of, you know, how do you... State absolutely protects your ideas. You can have whatever ideas you want. Nobody, nobody is going to take those ideas away from you. What the state is protecting is a physical manifestation of those ideas. That is the actual product. That is the consequence of those ideas. And that is a physical thing. That is, if you have an idea and, you know... It's an exclusive privilege. It's an exclusive privilege to produce, absolutely. The fact that you have an idea doesn't give you an automatic right to make something. If making that something violates the intellectual property of somebody else who had the idea before you and is producing that thing based on that idea. You need to still hold that idea in your head. You go in and zap it away, but you just can't act on it. The action is, now you're right for somebody else. It is bizarre to me that the most important creation that we're all engaged in, which is ideas, right? That is the most important creation. Every product out there ultimately started as an idea. Everything out there is about ultimately ideas. You know, I can't believe very much that the only power of creation is reason. Ideas, otherwise. That somehow we don't protect that under property rights. That is the one thing that we truly do create. And if somebody else got to the marketplace before you based on the idea that he had and made stuff, it's his. That patent, that idea that he registered is his. And therefore it's the will of government to protect that manifestation of that idea in reality. And I think it's a real mistake for libertarians to eject that. Because if you eject that, I think all property goes. Because all property ultimately is intellectual property.