 All right, so the question is if you violate natural law, or whether you violate your natural law by letting this person starve on the side of the road, okay, well, suppose you say yes. That's a natural reaction, sure. Suppose you say yes. How have you violated natural law? So it's, you know, you acquire the apples, they're yours, right? You're going to eat them, you're going to drink the water, you acquire them, they're yours, you're going to eat them, you're going to drink it. It's not like you're, you know, taking the apple, grinding it into the ground and laughing cackling, letting it go to waste, and then spilling the water off just like, I'm causing you. No, that's not what's happening. You're going to eat them. You're going to use them. So you didn't violate those constraints on natural law. You're not letting the property spoil. Are you harming this person? Okay. I mean, if you want to say something like that, okay. How are you harming them? It's not like you're actively kicking them. It's like, you're starving and I'm going to kick you. No, that's kind of awful, but it's not like you're doing that. You know, it's not as if in the scenario you arranged, you like chain this person up on the side of road and interfere with their life decisions so that they couldn't eat. That's not what's happening either, right? You're literally not doing anything to that person. If you want to say inaction is the same thing as, inaction that leads to harm is the same thing as harm. Okay. You can do that, I suppose. But then how many people have you harmed today? If you really want to talk about this, how many of you have chosen to go to the movies? That's what, you know, a single ticket depending on when you go and what show and whatnot. That's, you know, seven, eight bucks. You get that popcorn. That's another 15. It's pretty expensive stuff real quick. And, you know, in the scenario that I painted, you're at least, you know, keeping your food for yourself. You're going to feed yourself. If you choose to go to the movies as opposed to giving food to somebody, right, that's almost worse. Like, you know, I could feed you and save your life, but I really want to see the movie. I really want to see this movie. It's got a great star in it, but waiting for us to come out forever. It's the sequel. Whatever you want to add to it. Like, oh, wow, that seems almost worse, right? Or even, even some of the things that you choose to buy, right? Like, so, what, Frappuccinos? They don't even have any actual coffee in them. It's mostly sugar and some flavoring. I mean, I guess it's cream, but I really don't know. But you're going to have that $6 fake coffee drink as opposed to buying somebody food that's nutritious, you know. There's all kinds of ways that you make decisions whereby you decide not to help somebody and you do something else instead. Now, if you want to say, you know, the, the, if you could have helped somebody and you didn't, you know, as a result, they, they're hurt or they die. They're harmed. I suppose you could do that. But then you're causing a lot of harm every day. I mean, don't keep it wrong. I hope you start thinking about this, right? Maybe the next time you go see the movie, it's like, well, I could say somebody's life work and go watch the movie. You know, even something like, my name is streaming services, right? And you're $15 a month, whatever. I want to watch a month of TV or I can feed somebody and save their life. Hmm. My latest show is on. I'm sorry. So, you know, it's like, I'm going to go watch a movie. So, if you really want to say that, you know, letting them starve on the side is the same thing as killing them or same thing as harming them. Okay. I guess you could do that. But then you are actively harming somebody every day, right? You're in action or decision to do something else, harm somebody every day. Okay. So, how exactly have you violated the natural rights? You're not actively harming them. You're not letting the food spoil, not letting the water spoil. So far, not violating natural rights. Do you have a duty to help them? Um, well, I guess maybe you could do that. It's not in Locke's theory. In Locke's theory, you have no duty to help somebody else. You can't interfere with their life, but that's not the same thing as making sure their life goes well, right? You can't interfere. That doesn't mean you have to help them along. I mean, maybe you want to change the duties that we have. So, like you kind of left luck behind. And you're also giving up some sovereignty over your own life. Because now you have to do things in order to help somebody else's life based upon the decisions that they've made. So, in this case, you no longer have sovereignty over your own apple. Somebody else's decisions or actions or maybe even through no fault of their own, right? But that set of circumstances usurps your own decisions and about acquiring that apple and that property. So, maybe if you want to say you have a duty to help others, okay, or if you could do that, but then, you know, you can say that. But then, by the way, how often have you violated that duty today by, you know, making decisions that could have benefited others, right? Coffee, movies, you know, video games, golly, right? Video games about 60 bucks. There's a lot of people's lives right there. You can say a lot of people's lives is 60 bucks. There's lots of people starving. You can send that food off, they'll live. And if you're worried about finding good charitable organizations, there are watchdog groups for this. It's not hard to look up which charitable organizations are doing good. So, you know, you can do, or even if you don't want to charitable organizations, that's fine, right? Go down H-E-B, buy 60 bucks worth of groceries that are nutritious. They're going to, you know, provide the basic needs to start passing them out to folks. You can do it. So, if you want to say that you have a duty to help others live, to help others, you live their life, maybe it was a basic requirement. It's like, okay, I guess you could do that, right? But then, how many, how often have you failed in that duty today alone? Much less the past week, month, year, life, whatever, right? Now, locks theory doesn't contain a duty to help others. You can't interfere with their lives, but that doesn't mean you have to help them either. You can help them if you want to, but you're not obligated to, right? So, in this case, you haven't violated any natural law. You haven't let the property spoil, the apple spoil, the water spoil. You haven't harmed them, and you don't have a duty to make sure that they're okay either.