 And I find it very interesting as well that Objectivism advocates classical liberalism as an economic system. And from what you've described, it fits perfectly with Adam Smith's Baker. You know, he serves you out of his own self-interest, and there's nothing immoral about that. Well, it's not clear that that's what Adam Smith really believes, right? So if you read Theory of Miles sentiments, Adam Smith is very conventional when it comes to morality. So at the end of the day, true morality for Adam Smith is about sacrifice, it's about selflessness. So what he does is he does this, and I think, I actually think Adam Smith in some ways is responsible for undermining the economic system he presents in the wealth of nations, because he presents the system that works, capitalism, freedom, for the most part. He compromises here and there, but for the most part. But he presents a Miles system that's an antagonistic to capitalism, and he knows it. So what he says in the wealth of nations is, yeah, what the Baker's doing is not noble. It's okay, but it's not noble. And what all these participants in the Malcolm Place are doing is not noble, it's not moral, it's not good, because good is never self-interest. But when you aggregate it all up, it turns out that it's good for society. And that's the standard. The standard is still what's good for society. And since it's good for society, they're willing to forgive them their vices. I didn't mean to, I wasn't speaking to Adam Smith as a personal preference to morality. What I meant is, it seems to be a moral system that underpins what he was presenting, whether he realized it or not. Well, yes, but he actually talks about it, which makes it interesting. But again, I think by saying, when you add up a lot of vices, you get a virtue. People go, socialists go, well, wait a minute, that doesn't make any sense. I behave immorally, and somehow the invisible hand makes it go away and good things happen. So I think this is why it's been so difficult to defend capitalism. And I think Ayn Rand is the first thinker, really, is the first thinker. To make him say, no, Adam Smith, you're wrong. The baker is virtuous for trying to take care of his own life and take care of his family. The baker is virtuous in trying to focus on the profit that he makes and trying to make maybe it would be even more virtuous if he's focused on making the best bread possible. That the baker, by being productive, by engaging his mind in a productive activity, by taking care of himself and the people he loves, by living a good life, that is the essence of virtue and that is the essence of nobility. So it's not an accumulation of vices that creates this good. It's an accumulation of virtue that creates this good. And now she's grounding capitalism on a moral foundation. So she's saying, if you want to have capitalism, it's not enough to have the economic knowledge. And indeed, if you keep the moral knowledge in the moral system that we have, we're never going to have capitalism because you're undercutting yourself. What you need, the real revolution in a sense, the real upheaval in terms of the way people think about the world, is in morality. What we need is to replace the altruistic system of morality. And again, altruism does not mean just being nice to people. Altruism means what Augustine Comte coined the term meant. It means living for the sake of others. We need to replace that with the idea of living for one's own sake, but not in the conventional way, the way the dictionary defines selfishness as taking care of yourself by exploiting other people. Why have that after the comma? Why not just say taking care of yourself? If people actually held that moral belief, capitalism is obvious because people who want to live the best life that they can live and live a flourishing life want to be free. And all capitalism really is, is freedom taken seriously. It's freedom in every realm of our lives, not just in the... It's interesting that the left wants freedom in our social side, but they want to control everything economically. They're economic totalitarians. Yes. People are often baffled when I say the left is inherently totalitarian, even if they're advocating for social freedoms. You can't do anything without money. I'm sorry, it's just the way the world works. Oh, but you can just print it. Yeah, yeah, that's how it works. So many of these mythologies. But yeah, Ayn Rand used to be frustrated by left and right. She used to say, look, the left is quite willing to be, to give us freedom in the bedroom, but it's totalitarian in the boardroom. And the right wants to give us freedom in the boardroom and it's totalitarian in the bedroom. And what she wants and what objectivism holds is liberty, is freedom in the whole range of human life. So as long as you're not using force against another person, as long as you're not violating somebody else's rights, the state has no business in your life.