 Good day mate, 40 here. So the HBO TV show White Lotus has finished up its second season and it's funny how critics are just universally condemning it for not sufficiently punishing those male characters displaying toxic masculinity. And Michelle Goldberg, New York Times columnist to profiled me twice once for Salon Magazine back in 1998 and then for Talk Magazine in 1999. She writes column this week, decrying that maybe one day we'll get TV shows that deal with politics instead of transcending politics. God forbid that TV show doesn't make some sort of didactic left-wing thought. God forbid that we get to transcend politics. So a similar kind of silly plane got New York Times here when freedom meant the freedom to oppress others. So I don't really think we can have freedom without the freedom to oppress others because oppression just means so many different things that kind of lacks objective meaning. So certainly you should have laws of the land like they do in Australia. I mean such a well-run city. Just kind of amazed how well-run Sydney is. There's no trash around, no graffiti, virtually no homeless, almost no begging on the streets, almost no crime. So you can have a rule of law that perhaps limits people's ability to oppress others. But oppression contains such huge subjective elements that freedom for one party is going to mean some negative results for another team. So whose side do you ultimately want to be on? I want to make my way here to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Here we go mate. So there's a big New York Times book review article. Then freedom meant the freedom to oppress others. Jefferson Cowey's powerful and sobering history of freedom's dominion traces the close association between the rhetoric of liberty in Alabama County and the politics of white supremacy. I don't think liberty was just rhetoric here. So freedom of association is going to mean oppression for some other people. You get to be free to rent to whom you want and sell to whom you want and hire who you want. That's going to feel oppressive to the people you don't want to bring into your circle. So freedom is a very big American value. We've got Ralph Waldo Emerson from Civil War says Americans are fanatics of freedom. They hate tolls, taxes, turnpikes, banks, hierarchies, governors and laws. So of course different people interpret freedom differently. The Pilgrims, the Puritans, the Quakers, the Scots-Irish, the Cavaliers all had different understandings of freedom but freedom still remains the dominant American value. But yeah, it comes at a price to others. And you see it in Australia. This is a society dedicated to fairness. Which is very different from a society dedicated to freedom. So you have more restrictions on your freedom in Australia. But that comes with the greater fairness. So what's more important to you, fairness or freedom? I like community but community comes at a price. I think it's a restriction of freedom. I like my freedom but I wanted to give up some freedom to have the knock on there.