 So do people have a right to basic education? Yaron? No. So education cannot be a right. You cannot have a right to somebody else's product, to somebody else's stuff. If I have a right to an education, that means people have to provide it to me. At whose expense? What gives me a right to somebody else's things, to somebody else's money, to somebody else's time, to somebody else's resources. So rights are freedoms. Rights are a declaration or really a way to specify the fact that each one of us is free to pursue our own life, free to act, free to pursue happiness, to pursue the values necessary for our survival and our own thriving. It can't be, you can't have a right to things. You can't have a right to services. You can't have a right to, again, somebody else's product. You can only have a right to go out there and pursue it. So you have a right to, in my view, to choose what kind of education product you think is right for your own kids or for yourself. You have a right to go out there and pursue that educational product and pay for it by any means that you can. You can't have a right to the final product itself. Paul, do you think we have a right to basic education? Well, not surprisingly. There might be a bit of a disagreement between your own and me on that. I start with the notion of what is it to be a citizen and what does it mean in terms of the rights and the obligations that go with the individual, but also the Commonwealth. Our history, the history of this country as early as it goes back, even before our Constitution today, was about providing for the basis of public education and particularly public education available to all. I think that we decide as a matter of policy and polity what are the rights for things like life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Part of that we've decided as a matter is a right to some basic education. That is one of the things that we think it goes with that citizenship. It's as old as the Republic itself. So, Riron, how might you respond to the fact that having education provides so many benefits? So, let's start with this idea that it's the government's job to provide us with the things that are necessary for our life. Look, there's a question. Education is unbelievably important. So is food. But we don't expect the government to provide us with food. And I don't think food is a right. We have a right to go farm. We have a right to go work. We have a right to go act in order to pursue, in order to get the food, to get the resources to be able to provide for our food. We have a right to go out and pursue an education by whatever means we can produce whatever means we can create in order to get that education or by appeal to other people to help us out through charity or through other means if in cases where we really can't produce and it can't create enough for education. So, government's job is not to provide us the things that will make our life better. That's not the world of government, not based on the way this country was founded. Government's job is to protect us from those who would harm us, from those who would prevent our pursuit of these values. So in my view, government's job is to protect us from criminals, from fraudsters, from found invaders and so on. Then, otherwise, stay out of our way and need the founders. When you read the founders and you read the Federalist Papers, the founders recognize that the biggest violators of our rights in all of human history was government trying to impose its view of what's good for us on all of us. Now, there are lots of problems with government-provided education that are practical that go beyond the issue of rights. One is, when government provides education, it provides what it views as the correct education. It provides a particular vision of what that education is and it imposes those standards. You can see that with the discussion today about Common Core or discussion under the Bush administration of all the testing requirements and everything. It's one vision, it's one approach, it's a cookie cutter for everybody, which I think is a disaster for education. What you lose is the competition, the innovation, the creativity that is possible in a true private market. So I think if we value education, if we think of education as really, really, really important, which I do, the last thing I want is the government to impose. I mean, I'd like to give the example, I really like my iPhone. I like it so much that I would never want the government to be producing it, right? If the government produced, designed, created a phone, it wouldn't look like the iPhone 6. We value it so much that we want the government out of it and we leave it to Apple to compete with Samsung and that competition drives a phenomenal product. I want education to be the same. I want to see the innovation, the excitement, the competition, the technology that is today unique to kind of phones for some bizarre reason, right? In the area where we've left, I think the economy free, I'd like that to apply to education. And I think to do that, what you need is the profit motive. To do that, what you need is independence and freedom from a centralized bureaucracy. What you need for that is the privatization of educational system and for the government to get out of the way so entrepreneurs can enter the space and really create and innovate. So I value education too much to leave it to government. Paul, how might you answer the question that precisely because you are a citizen of a society where education is valued, that it should be left to privatized education for this product, this very critical and valuable product? Well, I think it's an important question and I go back to the Constitution and the government just as your own does and I looked at that preamble that begins and how we form a more perfect union. And one of those various obligations is to provide for the common defense where I think Geron and I would agree that there's a role for government in doing just that, getting the bad guys, whether they're internal or not. But if we go a little bit further, I think we need to go about four or five words to get to promote the social welfare. And what that means is we as citizens, we as a polity come together to decide how that's done. And in my own view, we have a very vigorous marketplace going on of different approaches to how we promote the social welfare with regard to education, both public and private, both basic and secondary and tertiary into universities, both lifelong learning, and that to me is exciting. The marketplace has a number of different players, private players to be sure. Many of us here today are the products of some private education, whether that be at the basic level or at the secondary level or in the university. Many of us are a product of the public educational system, I have self going through K through 12 and the public education, then to a private school, then to a public school, then to a private. I don't know where I am on this type of thing. That's the kind of competition that I want to see. Charter schools, public schools, centrally run, locally run, state run, privately run, run with the support of corporations, with the support of citizens. What's important about this is this is choice, and this is a choice that we make as a matter of a community, not as a matter of some kind of invisible market. Markets which, by the way, are supported by the very political decisions we make about how we enforce things with national security, with courts and the like. I think education is no different. The marketplace is all the players, including government.