 Yes? How do you reconcile the based-on-objectivism with democracy? Maybe you need to place a mass of people in the majority of people. If you don't mind that. So I... Sure, so how do I reconcile objectivism with democracy? I don't. I'm against democracy. If democracy is understood as majority rule, that is, I'm against the Thenian style of democracy, where they don't like what Socrates has said. They all get together in the arena and they vote to execute. And of course Socrates takes the poison, because he believes in democracy too, and the people have spoken. And Plato's sophisticated escape plan goes to waste. So I'm against majority rule, and I think this is why defining the role of government is so crucial. If we define the role of government as protecting individual rights, then no majority should ever be allowed to violate somebody's rights. The fact that 51% of the people want me silenced gives them no way to actually do it. The fact that 51% of my neighbors want me to keep the trees, and I want to chop them down, gives them no way to do it. Of course, in the U.S. today, and I'm sure in many other countries, they can't. They can't decide what type. Whether I go down to my house, whether I chop down a tree or not, all of that is decided democratically in the United States. America's moved towards democracy. The whole idea of a right to property is an anti-democratic notion. It says that 51% of the people can't vote my property away from me, eminent domain, which is democracy's applied to property rights. The speed says 51% can't silence me. 99% of the people can't silence me. I'm a strong believer in constitutional republic, in the context and framework, like the founding fathers of the U.S. established it, where they are individual rights. Nobody can take them away from you. No majority, no democracy. The things people can vote on are very limited. They can vote on their representatives, and their representatives can do very few things. Things like a clearer definition of what property rights actually mean. Property rights are an evolving concept that challenges the property rights. Continuously, we need a legislature to continuously define and look at how do you define property rights over the internet? How do you define property rights over minerals? They went a long way in the 19th century, for example, with property rights, and at some point in the late 19th century, all new thinking about property rights basically stopped. And today, we don't have property rights. Today, it's just whatever the community wants. So, I think we need to get away from democracy, and towards protection of individual rights, and away from a majority rule, and towards people voting on very narrow things, only things that are not violations of other people's rights.