 Yes. We've got to look for 20 more answers. Two more questions? I give long answers, I guess. Yeah. Two quick questions. I find anarcho-capitalist and libertarians always add odds, and I know you're a libertarian as far as I know. So how would you keep a government that's small that way? Because when government's small, economy grows, economy grows, government swells. Question two, if America collapses even worse soon, which a lot of people are saying, how is that going to affect Canada? How badly is that going to affect Canada? Because I heard that we don't even have gold reserves, we just have American dollar reserves. So let me start. I'm not a libertarian, just so we're clear. I'm an objectivist, which is I'm man's philosophy. I don't agree with libertarians on lots of things, including anarcho-capitalism. A lot of libertarians in the United States are anarcho-capitalism. So how do you keep government small by having the right ideas around small government? How do you keep anarchy? I mean, I don't believe anarchy is, it's possible to have anarchy, because what will happen under anarchy? The guys with the biggest guns will take over everybody else and establish a state, right? They'll establish a government. That's what government means. It's the guys with the guns. So I believe in a small state, the only way to preserve it is to have the right ideas, is to be vigilant about it. It's to protect it. It's up here. You cannot, you will never have capitalism if people don't believe in capitalism. You will never have anything unless, even the founding fathers, right? Why don't we have the founding fathers principle because people stop believing in them? So it's education, education, education. You have to have the philosophical structure and people have to believe in that philosophy. Otherwise it goes away. Nothing is metaphysically given when it comes to people's free will. What was the second question? Oh, when America goes, look, let me just be clear. I don't think America's going anywhere anytime soon. I don't think collapse is imminent. I'm not Peter Schiff, if you know Peter Schiff. I don't think it's gonna happen instantly in the world. And I said, but I think if it ever happens, Canada's screwed, everybody in the world is screwed. The fact is that whether we like it or not, America is not only the economic center of the world today, but it is the, it is the, it's still perceived, particularly in Asia, as the shiny sitting on the hill. It's the model. It's what everybody tries to emulate. And if it goes, there's nothing to emulate. And all those cultures will revert to what they've always reverted to, which is authoritarianism, central planning and disaster. The only thing that keeps Asian countries moving towards more free markets is the model of America. And when that disappears, that vision disappears. Canada will have a hard time. I don't think Canada will collapse, but Canada will have a very hard time with it if America's gone, because we're the number one trading partner of most Canadians. Traders win-win. If one side of the trade dies, right, disappears, you're not, you know, are not winning anymore. You don't have the benefits of that trade. This is why free trade is such a wonderful thing. That's why we should have much more free trade between Canada and the US, because we would all benefit enormously from that. Trade is always a win-win. So we want more of it, not less of it. When one country collapses, everybody loses. Could you please address the question you alluded to earlier, when you mentioned that the Canadian banking system so much better than US banking system? Yeah, the US banking system was crippled at its very early stages, going back to the founding of America really, the early part of the 19th century. It was always perceived, banking was always perceived as something negative in America, and as a consequence, banks were limited in size and in scope. So way before Saban's Glass-Steagall, anything like that, banks, for example, in the United States, were not a lot of branch out of their state. And in some places, in many places in the United States, you couldn't branch out of your county or your city. So what you got in the United States is lots of banks, hundreds and thousands. So for example, in the 1970s, there were 21,000 depository institutions in the US. Canada never had that aversion to banking, that idea that banks are somehow evil and we have to keep them small and tidy. And as a consequence, you saw massive consolidation in the early days and you got five banks, not because the government decided there would be five banks, not today it is, because they regulate capital concerns, you can't start, it's very hard to start a bank in Canada. But in those days, because they allowed mergers and consolidations and they allowed Canadian banks with universal banks. There was no Glass-Steagall, they could do depository, they could do investment banking. The United States even that was separated out in the 1930s against, because we didn't trust bankers. So there's always been an aversion to banking in the US. It's only in 1994 was on a federal level, banks allowed to branch across states. Interstate banking law was passed in 1994. Before that, some states had the ability to go across states. You had to create a different holding company. It was a mess, right? And since 1994, the number, and because of the SNL crisis and lots of other things, the number of depository institutions has gone down from 21,000 in the 70s to 7,000 today. 7,000, right? I mean, we're bigger than Canada, but do we really need 7,000 banks? No, it's an artifact of all that regulation and controls that again, go back into the capitalist era of the 19th century, even back then. And in that sense, Canada Bank, Canadian banks because they could diversify geographically because they could diversify in terms of their scope, in terms of the functions, were much healthier than American banks that were either, they were very limited geographically and were very limited in their scope. They could do either commercial banking but couldn't do both. And indeed, the reason Glass-Steagall went away was because American banks couldn't compete with European banks and other banks that were universal banks. They could do all of these different aspects. So the whole story about Glass-Steagall's. Okay, so this is gonna be the last question that we're gonna have to wrap up. Well, then it has to be a good one. Yes. I have a question here. Pressure's on. Selling your woman's book? Yes, and I'll be signing my book if anybody wants my signature. Hi, Aaron. Really enjoy everything that you've spoke on tonight. What I'm still questioning is with full anarchy. You say that they're gonna get the power and have all the guns. But I mean, doesn't the government already have all the guns? And by going back to limited government, we just be resetting the clock back to 1789 and this whole thing would just happen again. Don't you think it would be interesting to just turn off that light switch and try full anarchy? No, I mean, I think that's a disaster. I would rather have all we have today than full anarchy any day. I would rather have the status today than full anarchy because I think my life is safer today than under full anarchy. But let me say, first of all, switching on to 1789, I'm taking it right now, right? Even if we deteriorate afterwards. But this is the difference. You have to ask the question of why did the founding fathers fail long-term? Why is it that 200-something years after the founding of America has that vision of limited government disappeared? And Ayn Rand's answer, and I agree with her on this, is that there was no philosophical foundation for what the founding fathers were trying to do. They established a government under the principle of individual rights without a philosophical understanding of what individual rights meant, which required a morality of self-interest, an ethical code based on self-interest, which required an understanding of human reason and what that demanded. What reason is, how it works, and therefore why rational self-interest is the right ethical code. So what they built is they built a house on quicksand. The politics are great, right? The political system is good, but everything underneath politics, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics are rotten to the core. And as the 19th century evolves, those ethical beliefs rise up and they start destroying the politics and all the rest of the foundation. And when in the 19th century, late 19th century, the progressives come and they say, wait a minute, your life, you're supposed to be morally responsible for your neighbor. What is this self-interest? What is this capitalism? This is immoral. The capitalist had nothing to say because they didn't have an ethical code to challenge them. And they capitulated at the end of the day. Rand is the first philosopher, the first philosopher, at least since Aristotle, to actually present us with a moral code that start building that foundation on which this good political system lays. So if you reverse the clock back to 1789, but with objectivism, with the moral code of rational self-interest, with reason as man's basic means of survival, with a metaphysics of reality, A is A, then it doesn't deteriorate because now you can defend it. Now you can defend it against the progressives, now you can defend it against the socialists, the Kantians, the whole gamut of European philosophies. And now it's a house that can stand and it won't. So I have complete belief that if you could establish this country but with the right philosophy, then limited government will persevere. Anarchy is a rejection of philosophy. There are no philosophical principles. Just do whatever the hell you wanna do. It's a complete rejection of philosophy and ethics and morality and any kind of standard, objective standard out there. And as a consequence, it is doomed to failure. It cannot survive. There is no standard. There is no truth, there's no right or wrong. And I know you wanna argue with me. And I know, and I, you know, every, it's a shame that an Alka capitalism has to be the last question, but it is wrong in a deep, deep sense. It is wrong philosophically. It is based on a philosophy of subjectivism. It is based on a philosophy of relativism. It is a complete repudiation of rejection of objectivism at every single step. Last question then. How about founding a new country that's based on these principles? And then it's more depressing. You can't found a new country. Look, it doesn't, it can't happen. Look at all the attempts because libertarians have tried this all over the world. They go and they inhabit an atoll in the Fiji islands. And what happens? The king of Fiji sends the troops and kicks them out. They just try to start these independent cities in Honduras. The Hondurans changed their constitution, which allowed for the establishment of these independent cities. And of course, Supreme Court of Honduras then says, no, that's illegitimate. You know, Patrick Friedman, Milton Friedman's grandson, is trying to start floating islands where you'll have your own. It ain't gonna work, guys. There is no place on the planet where you can start a new government. Nobody's gonna give it to you. If you're successful, they'll shut it down. There's only one way to do it. I figured it out, right? There's a way to establish a new country, right? You know, like a floating island, what? Facebook? You can't establish a country. You need a nuke. You need a nuclear bomb and it needs to be targeted to DC. And then you need to be able to say in a way that everybody believes you, leave us alone or you're dead. And then maybe you have a chance. Okay. Maybe. But other than that, the fact is that if people see you succeed, they will shut you down. Imagine you started a free city, Honduras, and you had true freedom, individual rights, the founding principles, everything. You had the right philosophy and everything. And you had banks then, the banks are truly free banks, so they respected privacy. How long do you think that would last? I give it like an hour. Performer of the Queens of Bay and they're shutting you down in the name of, I don't know, money laundering, drug trade, or a thousand other things that the American government would claim that you're doing that violates the American government. I mean, there's no way they're gonna let you get away with it. This is not some practical problem that we just need to find the right geography. This is a philosophical problem. And if you don't change the culture, you lose. If you don't change the culture, you lose. And changing the culture is hard. And it takes a lot of time and it takes a lot of effort and it's all about education. It's education, education, education. There are no quick fixes, there are no shortcuts. There's no magic bullet, isn't it? It's about fighting, speaking, writing, talking, and more and more and more of that. That's it. Thank you all. Thank you.