 I'm just going to stop this because I've got to stop it. I was really interested in the part where you said we should remove socialism time. I don't think that's a politically feasible thing to do. I think too many people are too invested in things like the National Health Service that you're never going to get political capital to make that happen. So is it worth divorcing the concept of social programs from socialism? Because the core premise for socialism is seizing the means of production. The NHS, I mean, I think you have to be quite generous to term it a means of production to service. And then I agree with Hayek when in the road to socialism he said that there's nothing anti-individualistic about something like universal health care. There's nothing that violates anyone's individual liberties in that regard. In fact, for a lot of people it's going to help them because they might be down on that. I personally have relied on it myself. So I'm definitely an individualist. So I can definitely appeal and the necessity to have one. And I think that if we can divorce the concepts of socialism and social programs, as long as, I mean, I don't see a problem with social programs, as long as they're not seizing someone's property. Like you say, you know, the farms in Venezuela is a perfect example. Like these people own those things. The government comes and takes them. That's unacceptable to me because it's not protected by the property rights. But if the government is to set up, say, the NHS, they're not seizing anyone's property. They're not violating anyone's individual rights. And it will be politically expedient for us to say, let's keep and support the NHS. And carry on. What do you think? So let's think about that, right? They're not seizing anybody's property. So I'm. Let's hypothetically suggest then. But that's impossible, right? Because A, if I'm a doctor, pretty much the only place I can work is for the government. I can set up. That's true. We have private practice. Yeah, but you can't compete with the government. I mean, they all think they're good for free. But it doesn't exist. You have a few. You have a few. Yes. There were a few doctors who were private doctors. And a few can exist. But you know, I didn't go to the best medical school. And I, you know, I still want to have a private practice. But I'm competing against a product that's been given zero. I would say they've seized my problem. They've annulled the value of my education. And indeed, when the NHS was created, they had to seize doctor's practices, because it was the only way in which they could create the NHS. Of course, they seized doctor's practices. But more than that, how does it fund it? It's funded by seizing people's money, not by people paying insurance, but by seizing people's money, not based on how sick you are, not based on what you will need in the future. It's not insurance. This is just pure seizure of people's money with the promise of providing with the service. This is pure socialism. The means of production doesn't just mean manufacture. It means anything that's a productive activity, a health care's a productive activity. And now, the idea that we can never do away with the NHS, that is the idea that I think is dramatically mistaken and has to be challenged. Because if we can't do away with the NHS, from my view, we've lost. Because it means that health care will only continue to deteriorate, which it will in the UK. You can tinker with it. You can improve it a little bit. And if the United States adopts, because you guys are free-riding off the United States. I mean, nobody tells you this. I tell it to every audience. I can't. But the whole world is free-riding over the fact that we still have some freedom in our health care system. So about 48% of American health care systems stop pregnant, which means 75% to 90% of all medical innovations happen in the United States. It means all experimentation, all the failed stuff that makes possible innovation happens in the United States, because we're so free to do it. It means that we pay, we're the only country in the world where consumers are actually paying enough for the drugs to make it possible for drug companies to do research and development. When America becomes socialized, I mean, you guys should be the biggest advocates for private health care in America. So you could continue to free ride off of us. Because we pay for all the R&D. It's our drug. Why do we have to pay the most in the world for drugs? Because you guys pay cost. Companies make a little bit off of you. So how are they going to pay for R&D? Well, somebody has to pay a lot. We pay a lot because the market can't pay for it. So my point- You're not saying what I'm saying in principle. In principle, if a government were to say, right, here's a new industry. We're going to create this using taxpayer money. And I'm assuming that nobody here is against the idea of paying taxes. I'm against the idea of cursing people to pay taxes, particularly for something that the market case can provide. So I'm willing to concede and willing to put to another time the argument about whether you should pay taxes or whether you should use gross of taxes for police, military, and judiciary. Because I think those have to be provided by the government. I don't think any other entity can provide them. But there is no other human activity. There's no other human activity. Primarily, and particularly, I mean, education, health care, and all the others, that the private sector cannot and will not provide a much better service, not even in the same universe as what the government provides. And why? To realize why one has to understand what the government is, the fundamental nature of government is a gun. What government is is force. It's a monopoly of force. It's a monopoly of force. There's no place for force in health care. So for example, that's what the NHS says, right? The NHS basically says these are the ways in which we treat your disease. These are the approved by the government ways in which we treat your disease. These are the tests we take, and this is how long you have to wait for those tests. And I don't care if you can pay for it and I don't pay for it, this is what happens. This is how you, that's force in health care and it destroys health care. The thing that needs to say, it's approved by government. But I mean like, private health companies are regulated. So they're also approved by government. Yes, they should be regulated. Yeah, absolutely. So I mean like, I always find the argument from, well this is force, I feel like they've done things. It's just like, well, yes, but you know, technically everything a government does is force. And we think a government is a necessary thing. So why the government only to do things with force is the only way to do the thing that they're going to do. So policing is force because every, because what is the, I said during the talk, what makes innovation and progress and success as a human being possible? And that's reason and thinking and force negates that. When I tell a doctor, these are the five things you're allowed to do. He's not gonna think about the six and seven and eight and nine things, because there's no point in it. Galileo, once he's in house arrest, it's not gonna publish new books. I mean, he doesn't wanna be burnt at the stake. There's no, it suppresses human thought. It suppresses innovation. It suppresses the application of the human mind through the problem at hand. So when the government controls education, education becomes standardized and stupid. When the government provides healthcare, it becomes standardized and stupid because it's negating the mind of the doctor, the mind of the educator. It takes away their freedom to think outside of the box and to do what they want because what is the penalty, force? Well, I mean, that seems to be jumping a few steps. I mean, like, nobody's forcing doctors to work anywhere. I mean, they can choose to not be doctors and do something else, no, they can choose to open a private practice. These are all things they have to do with it. But you're reversing the freedom, freedom which is my ability to do whatever I want as long as I can find people who voluntarily deal with me, right? And then somebody comes in and puts a gun to the back of my head and says, no, you can't deal with this person, you have to deal with that person. And you're saying, well, I can stop being a doctor if that was the case. But the evil was that somebody pointed a gun at me. Not that I walk away or don't walk away. Why can somebody come and tell me, you can't do this, you have to do that? Why does somebody else have authority over my life? If I want to be a doctor and if I want to treat people in a certain way, who is the guy, and people are willing to be treated by me. So I'm not forcing them to be treated by me. Why is anybody coming in and telling me, you cannot do that? How is that legitimate? But it doesn't not de-legitimize any kind of government regulation. Yes, absolutely. So, I mean, you don't think that should be anything. No, I think as long as you are not either posing as a risk, a viable risk where they can be proved to another human being or doing something clearly harmful to another human being, you should be left free of all government regulation, yes, absolutely. Well, yeah, there'd be no reason to regulate what you're doing if it's not posing any particular risks. But I mean, you could not... Oh, come on. 99% of regulations have nothing to do with this. I'm not like in favor of superfluous regulation, obviously. But it just strikes me that this is, I just find it a bit un-numance, I guess. Like, I don't agree that this is exactly as you're describing it. I guess I'll have to think about this. Well, it is. I mean, think about a teacher who, in a system, let's say in a system not like the UK where you have relatively quite a few choices, but a system like Sweden where all the schools are run by the government. And you have a teacher in Sweden and you want to start your own school. And you guys have kids who want to come to attend my school. And the state says, no. Well, no, I disagree. Yeah, okay, so where's the limit? So, you know, if you extrapolate from that, you'll agree with some of my extreme examples. But all of the NHS is exactly the same thing. NHS forces doctors to behave in ways that doctors do not want to do because the government has the ability through force to do that. In a private sector, if they didn't like what the hospital told them to do, they could leave and start their own practice. Here, they can't leave and start their own practice because the government has monopolized when it's a private sector, but here it's a real monopoly, not a private sector monopoly. You know, it's not actually not, but your contention was that, oh, you're offering a service free. It's going to be a cheaper service. But it's also like you just said, it's going to be an inferior service. You know, a doctor hosting a private practice, he's going to be more attentive to the patients. He's going to be better at his job. It's just like with the education. So well-known phenomena in economics that in spite of the fact that the government provides tends to be of inferior quality, it drives private capital out, it drives private capital out when it comes to building highways in Latin America, it drives capital out when it comes to schools, it drives capital out when it comes to, there's no economic and there's no moral legitimacy for the government to be involved in things that it doesn't have to be involved in. I agree with you, you need a government, but you need a government because of the things it has to do. And the only thing it has to do is military and police and judiciary. It doesn't have to do anything else and therefore it shouldn't do anything else because by doing it, it violates people's rights, it restricts other people's freedom. Using that gun that it got in order to do policing, it's now using that gun to restrict what I can do. I want to develop a new form of energy that nobody's heard of. Why do I need permission from the stupid EPA from a bunch of bureaucrats at the EPA in order to do it? It's none of their business. Okay, well, I think John may be out.