 So, oddly, is there a bit of a branding issue here? I mean, it has capitalism, let's say, which is the greatest system for the ideas you're talking about, has its freedom sort of been used against it, so it's not even selling itself the right way. So, in other words, there's more goodness happening in the world now than ever before. There's, you know, what is it, humanprogress.org, they release studies every day, there's more green on the earth than ever before, there's less poverty than ever before, there's less infanticide than ever before, a zillion other things. But we don't focus on any of those things, almost as a function of our success or something like that. Well, as a function of our morality, right, we're looking for the next suffering group. We're looking for those need and the success of these people, these individuals, is irrelevant as long as there's somebody in need. And there's always going to be somebody in need relative to, let's say, those success. Since capitalism has never had the proper moral defense, and so capitalism is always being undermined, undermining itself because it tried to establish itself on this foundation of altruism and sacrifice. And Iron Man is the first thinker, certainly in modern times, to question the moral underpinning of our lives and to discover moral underpinning that is consistent with capitalism, which is the idea for the pursuit of self-interest. So it's a branding problem, but it's an intellectual branding issue that it's, what's capitalism about? Well, it's the pursuit of profit and money, so that's selfish. And as long as that's selfish means everybody knows that that's immoral, then it's at best what you think, well, okay, maybe capitalism's a necessary evil, but hopefully we can transcend it in some point, and whether it's a mixed economy, whether it's, I mean, this is the Marxist plate on this, that, oh yeah, of course capitalism produces more than feudalism, but we're going to have some magical system where no one has to work, but we're going to have abundance, and we first, we need a dictatorship in order to get that, and then it's going to wither away. But if the whole framework of that is, okay, yeah, but capitalism's evil, so why don't we try something else, and maybe it will work, who knows? If that whole atmosphere exists, you're never going to have a real defense of capitalism, because a defense has to be, this is moral. And what you saw in the 19th century, this is, it's, so why it's just, it's branding, but like branding on stilts, sort of issue. The 19th century is progress on every measure of human life. Exploding populations, so the world population from, when you go from 1800 to 99, way, way higher. Quality of life, that not everyone's now working in farms and you're starting to have leisure time, people going on vacations and so on. Weekends. Weekends, you have access to art that you didn't have before, then if you're talking about technology of, you get electricity, telegraph, anything you look at, it's tremendous, tremendous, tremendous unprecedented progress. What do people think about the 19th century? It's robber barons, and there were child, the children in factories, and so on. Their view is that it's a complete negative, and that's the educational system, but deliberately has obscured the history of capitalism. So it's, yeah, it doesn't have good branding, but nobody knows anything about it, and it's been demonized on every level. And because it's, the essence is, it's selfish. So how do we fix that beyond this? Well, the only way to fix it is education, education, education. Speaking up is educated people about the history, educating about people about what capitalism actually means. I mean, so many people don't understand that capitalism really is the system of freedom. It's the system that leads the individual free to pursue their own values. It's the system of protecting their rights, their right to protecting them from coercion. So capitalism and freedom are really the same thing politically and from a social construct. And they don't understand where profits come from. They don't understand why profit is moral, why profit is virtuous. But underpinning all this is you have to have this moral revolution. You have to have a change in the way people think about what a good life means, what being a good human being means, what thriving as a human being means. And there's no shortcuts, right? You can't, and if you believe in free will, then you've got to convince people, you've got to discuss it, you've got to present the ideas, you've got to educate them, and you've got to engage in the battle of ideas that is ongoing. Is there any system for all the shortcomings that we might have as a moral foundation of what we've sold as capitalism in the United States? Is there any system that's doing it better right now? In terms of the United States today? Well, in terms of capitalism and freedom and the basic ideas of the individual and everything else we've talked about here, is there any system that you know of that's doing it any better than the United States right now? And it's important to get, the essence of capitalism is the recognition of an individual's rights. So it's a system that takes seriously the Declaration of Independence and each individual has a right to life, liberty, property would have been in there, if not for slavery, which I want to come to because it's a huge issue, and the pursuit of happiness. And to the extent that things have gotten better since the Declaration of Independence and things on all kinds of scales, as we've been talking about, have gotten better, it's because rights have been taken seriously. So that on the issue of slavery, that look, slavery and the Declaration of Independence are incompatible. It's a huge black mark that the America allowed slavery. If we're taking the Declaration seriously, we have to abolish this, a person has a right to life and has a right to liberty, doesn't matter his skin color. And this is part of the whole argument that the abolitionists were making, and like a Frederick Douglass is, if you take the Declaration of Independence seriously, you have to abolish slavery, which is true, or if you're thinking about the women's vote, it is, it's an individual has a right to life and a right to liberty and to think for themselves and then have political, choose their political representation. It's not about a male or, so it's a recognition of rights. And to the extent they're recognized, you get progress. And what happened in particular in regard to capitalism and why it's sort of, we've had some progress and gone backwards in all kinds of ways, what was the right that was particularly attacked was the right to property. And if you think of the Socialists, the Communists, Marx, it's what we're doing is abolishing private property. Everything is going to become public. And property rights are a crucial, crucial right. Indeed, in the end, you can't have any other right. I have a right to think if someone can come into my environment, blast a stereo at the hundred and ten decibels, I can't think anymore. I have to have control over my life, which means the property that I've earned in order to pursue all my other values. And so you're destroying a condition of all rights when you attack property rights. But they're nevertheless still is a different, that economically, we've never achieved the growth that the 19th century has achieved in the 20th century. We've still grown economically, but because there's been all kinds of controls then put on people's ability to trade, we don't have free trade anymore, all kinds of restrictions on property, things economically are way worse than they could have been if the right to property were recognized. But some other rights have been recognized and we've gotten better in regard to that and we're way better in regard to the whole issue of color and skin color politically, political, but we're now getting intellectual currents that are reviving this. And if that happens, it's we're going to get politically really, really bad. Right. And I can sense that happening. I mean, even right now, the small crew of Democrats who are saying that they're going to run for president, everyone is talking about tax, tax, tax, tax, tax. So it's not just Cortez. I mean, Elizabeth Warren in the last couple of weeks now, we're going to figure out a new wealth tax and etc. No, they're all, I mean, this is the agenda. The left has moved further to the left. They see an opportunity there. It's appealing. It's what I like about what I like about Cortez, what I like about Cortez is she speaks a moral language. She boils it down to what's really going on right now. Others might couch it as I mean, Elizabeth Warren comes out and says, I'm really for capitalism. I want to save capitalism and I want a wealth tax and I want to save capitalism. Cortez doesn't doesn't play that game. I'm a socialist. Right. You admire her, but she goes to the moral roots. I mean, one of the things she said, she says, for example, they say, well, how are you going to afford Medicare for all? And she says, look, it's right. This is just, if it's just, we'll figure out a way to pay for it. Right. And you go, yeah, I mean, she's right. If it really is just, then we'll figure out and we have to sacrifice a bunch of billionaires in order to put them on a, you know, burn them at the stake or whatever. We'll get, we'll do what is right. If that's the case. But it's not just a bunch of billionaires. I know you were being decisions, but it's a lot more than that. We know it's a lot more than that. And we know the economic consequences of what she's advocating for. But she is saying, I'm willing to take all those consequences. Those consequences are not what's important in life. What's important in life is to be good. What's important in life is to be just. What's important in life is to be moral. And that's where the rubber hits the road. That's what needs to be challenged. That's what the right cannot challenge because they bought into that morality. And that's why the only thing that Atacca calls on any of these commentators can do is say, how are you going to pay for it? Well, how are you going to pay for anything? Right. It's not about how you pay for it. It's about, is it right? It's not right to have Medicare for all. It's not right to have a wealth tax. It's immoral to have a wealth tax. It's immoral to use force to take somebody's property. Property rights are just as sacred as free speech. They're just as sacred as any other right in this country. And unless we're willing to fight for these rights, for the absolutism of these rights, then forget it. There was a case when Obamacare was being passed that really hit home on this rate. So Obamacare is about to be passed and the head of the Renational Committee writes an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal about how he's against Obamacare, socialized medicine. It's terrible. It's going to destroy medicine in America. And what we really need to focus on is protecting Medicare and Medicare is a must. And we need to beef up Medicare and make sure Medicare is a cost. And next morning, he's on NPR. And the guy on NPR says, so you want to protect Medicare? And he said, absolutely, we're a pro-Medicare. And he says, but Medicare is socialized medicine for people over 65. Why is socialized medicine okay for people over 65 and not okay for people under 65? And the guy said, no answer. So either you defend property rights, either you stand on principle, either you defend capitalism free markets, or you're going to lose. And that's what the right hasn't learned from its history over the last 100 years. To the extent that they even believe in capitalism, many of them don't anymore. To the extent that they believe in free market, if they can't defend it morally, they will lose every single time. So then what do you do about sort of what would be like a needed intermediary step if you were to roll back some of these things that you don't like, some of the regulations and all of that, that you'd end up sort of short-term hurting a lot of people, let's say. Even if long-term, do you have any responsibility then? Sure. And it's hard. It's not easy. And I don't think anybody should pretend it's easy. So what do you do about Social Security? You can't just end it tomorrow. You'd have to phase it out over a generation, too. And there are multiple proposals on how you would do that. You can't just end Medicare tomorrow, but there's the being proposal of voucher systems and phasing out the voucher over a long period of time. So there are ways to handle it where you take into account the historical context of how we get there. But the fact is that the more we delay dealing with these issues, the more painful any change will be. And the fact also is that there's going to be pain. You can't run a corrupt immoral system and then try to fix it without people suffering. People are going to suffer when the fix comes. And the question is, do we fix it consciously in our control or do we fix it when everything's falling apart and we have no choice and people are dying? And I think important in that is that if you're really trying to abolish it over a period of time, the reason you would be doing it is, as you put it, it's a corrupt system. So there's victims now. It's not just the victims of it. So if you think of social security, because it's a pretty simple example, what the program is, it's not presented like this, but what it really is, is they took money from young people and gave it to old people. And not old people paid a ton into social security. So it's not a savings program. You took money from young people and gave it to old people. On the hope that when these people get old, there's going to be other young people around them. And now they're worried that because of demographics and various things, there's not enough young people. We've made all kinds of promises. The victims now are all these young people who they're having struggling. It's a way of a changing economy. They're having trouble. They're in law school. They have debt and they can't get the job that they were expecting and so on. And now whatever job they get, you're going to take 5%, 10% of their, that they might be saving for a house or get a better education. And you're taking it from them and you're giving it to someone. And that is, there's victims here. So what you're trying to do is phase this out with and have as little victims as possible. But it's impossible not to have any victims because the whole point of the program is it victimizes some people for other people. All right, I don't want to end this on victimhood. So give us a nice button ending that's not about victims. I mean, at the end of the day, you know, we've talked in the series that we're doing, we've talked a lot about happiness. And one of the ways to conceptualize what to think about capitalism is at the end of the day, capitalism is a system that leaves us free to pursue happiness. This is the vision of the founding fathers. It's by taking courage and out of society, by eliminating the threat, the fear of force, of somebody walking into my house and taking my stuff, of victimizing me, that the state is there to protect me from that and it leaves me free otherwise, to pursue my values, to take the risks I want to take or not to take the risk, but to pursue my values, my happiness, my success. And indeed, I don't think people can be happy in a system where they are fearful for their lives, where they're fearful for their property, where their thoughts are being controlled, where they're told what to do, where they don't take ownership over their own thinking, ownership over their own soul, ownership over who they really are. Capitalism is a political manifestation of free will. It's the idea that you have the capacity to make choices and to pursue happiness, to pursue success, to pursue a thriving life. I can't top that, can you?