 I guess you're asking about some welfare and universal health care, things like that really, aren't you? No? I was in a... Well, I mean... Well, this is the thing, I mean the question is who's going to help them, isn't it? Yeah, so I mean, this is incidentally why I'm okay with a social safety net and universal health care. It means that there is at least something that is guaranteed to be there to help them. I mean, yeah, obviously I think people who have fallen on hard times and are down on their luck might... I mean, the only charity I actually do is giving money to homeless people. But then I know that they've had the money and they needed it and I don't trust charities to do this. But yeah, I'm fine with a social safety net. I think that one of the things that I find interesting about objectivists is the role of government is... Generally described to me as the only domain that government can have a role in is in the use of force. And I'm characterizing that correctly. I actually... I don't see why the government can't do other things. I mean, who's going to build the roads? I guess is the question. Yeah, answer that one. I mean, the reason we object to government doing other things, including building the roads, is the only way for them to do that is to use force. So what I object is to anybody, anybody, an individual or a group taking my money without asking, right? So using coercion against me. So it's... I find it fascinating that if you came to me and said, I need help and I said, yeah, I can't help you right now and you pulled the gun and took my money, that would be stealing. Everybody in society would accept those stealing, go to jail, we don't accept it. But if you got everybody to vote to take my money, that's okay. Anything that's immoral for an individual human being to do is immoral for a group to do. No, that's the public opinion. We can be the government with powers that... No. No, but that's immoral. That's the essence of immorality, the essence of immorality. So Socrates is corrupting the youth just as we tried to do at King's College. And the group government decided that it was a bad thing and they killed him, right? And so that's not right. So why is it right to take my money? Because you decide that the group decides that my money should be taken away from me. So the requirement for us to live in a society is... No. You live in a society which is an implicit consent to... It's not implicit because nobody asked me. Nobody asked me. I do not want to give my money out. Otherwise you'd have to leave. Where would I leave to? I mean, no, I have a right to live wherever I see fit people using force against me. That is the essence of human life in a society together. See, the point objective as a mage is the agreement we make when we live in society is not we'll use force whenever we have enough votes to use it. The essence of the agreement we make when we live in a society is that force will never be used against another human being. No, not arbitrarily. Not arbitrarily. In initiation. So if somebody doesn't want to do something, I would never force them to do it. Never force them to do it. For example, if someone is just refusing to follow the laws, then force has to be initiated against them to make them follow the laws. Well, but it... The law isn't necessarily against violence. They still have to have force initiated against them in order to follow... That's because... No, because we live in a corrupt society. We live in a society in which laws are not. No, society is there only as a government to have laws that protect us from violence. There shouldn't be no other laws. There should be no other laws. So I would say not only is something like welfare destructive to the person, to me, because money is being taken away from me without my consent, which I view as incredibly destructive. It's taking my life, it's taking my time, it's taking my effort without my consent. But I also think it's destructive to the person receiving it because I think that they are being told, here's a check, don't think, don't produce. Don't be rationally selfish. Don't pursue your life. We'll take care of you. You're too stupid to do it yourself, which I don't think 99.9% of people are. And the same with healthcare. I think not only by universalizing healthcare am I getting an inferior product. I mean a dramatically inferior product to what the marketplace could provide. But we're all getting an inferior product. And then what we're telling doctors is you have to accept this amount of money for this treatment. You don't have any other options. So we're enslaving the doctor and the nurse and the entire medical profession because we believe that it is an essential good. Well, so is agriculture. Why don't we, why don't we, so is food. Why don't we nationalize all food production in the world? Food is more important than health. If you don't have food. Well, it's what they did in Venezuela and now everybody's starving. What I mean is that they're making sure that if the argument is everyone is entitled to X, then having a social safety net is to provide the X. Yes. And my argument is nobody's entitled to anything unless you produce it. And then if you want something that you don't have, ask for it. I mean if my neighbor came to me and said, look, my son needs an emergency procedure. I don't have enough money right now. Could you help me out? I'm more than likely happy to write him a check and help him out. But if he comes with a gun at me, if he gets in the neighborhood to come at me to provide that health care, that's just morally offensive. I think that's the purpose of the state itself. I mean, the state has to be imbued with powers that no one individual can have. Otherwise, you're going to have people being the judge in their own trial and things like this. So we have to provide the state with. Yes. So there's one issue which we have to give to the state because we can't handle it. This is why I'm against anarchy, right? There's one issue that you have to extract from society so that markets can emerge and volatility trade can emerge and that's forced. And that's the one thing that we have to imbue government with, with protection. It has to be the agency that protects us from frauds and criminals and gangsters and terrorists. That's the principle that we're making a pragmatic up. For example, it's going to be cheaper and easier if we just have nationalized roads and then pay a small road tax. No, it turns out exactly the opposite. Absolutely no question. Particularly today with modern technology, we could have a GPS. You could have a GPS on your car that told you exactly which roads and who you have to pay. It could be so cool. And the owners of the road would take care of the roads so much better and they'd be building new tunnels and new things which today government could even imagine to do. Our means of transportation would be 100 years more advanced if it privatized the roads. Well, who built the railroads in England? It wasn't government. Oh, it was Brunel. Yeah, it was private enterprise. Who dug the first canals in the United States to transport goods from one place to another? It becomes useful to more people more often to have these things nationalized. I don't have to go through a toll every time I change roads. Yeah, but you are going, you know, as a consequence of that you're getting a tax system and a whole infrastructure that is massively inefficient in order to fund that road. That means I pay less anyway because I mean if I have to pay a toll on every road I may as well pay a toll overall. You wouldn't have to pay a toll on every road. I mean the idea of privatizing roads, I mean there'd be books written about it. I mean there are private roads and you have to pay a toll to go. Yeah, some private roads you'd have to pay a toll on. Some private roads you wouldn't have to pay a toll on depending on why the road was built and who is actually managing the road. You could imagine trade associations building roads to get you to the shopping mall because they have a strong incentive for you to travel to the shopping mall. You can imagine insurance companies building roads for you to drive because they want to sell you client shields. You could imagine, I mean the only thing missing from imagining how private markets and roads are the last thing to be privatized. The only thing limiting is our imagination. And I always say people ask me things like, how would the market deal with problem X? And my answer is usually, I don't know, but my experience with markets is that they will always come up with a better answer than anything I could imagine because if I could imagine those good answers I would be a billionaire today because I would have either done it or invested in it. But I can't imagine, you know, if the government can't build my business. Yeah, I wouldn't want the government to build my five. But roads are fine, right? And healthcare, which is far more sophisticated than this, far more difficult, far more important, far more valuable, I certainly don't want them to do. And education, which I view as the most important product produced by in society, that is the last thing I want government to touch. Yeah, but I think it's more about just convenience rather than innovation in that regard. Something that is perfectly functional as it is, like a road. It doesn't need any particular innovation. We just need them done effectively and maintained well across the country. I'm happy to let a government do that. I saw what happened in this country last week when it snowed a little bit. Okay, yeah. A little bit. That's a British problem. It's not a British problem. It is. But it wouldn't happen if somebody had an economic incentive around those roads. If somebody had a self-interested incentive about keeping those roads clear, they wouldn't happen. Yeah, so snow is unusual and rare. But the thing that we're missing is what is possible, and I don't have an answer of what is possible because, again, I would make a lot of money if I did. What is possible to transport human beings from point A to point B if we privatize that problem? If we said to the marketplace, you get to innovate with regard to transportation from point A to point B. We think everything regarding that transportation from the road to the mechanism by which we use train, automobile is regulated. I'm not saying they're not regulated, but it's still a market. It's just a regulated market. And it's foundation. The road is owned by the government. So it's like money. It's like you don't get innovation in money with exception. But that's not saying you can't create a new foundation privately, like with the trains. Well, of course you can, because the government won't let you, right? And the trains, once the government nationalized them and privatized them and privatized them, it all disappears. Yes, originally, in a beginning state, you could create something new and then they take it from you because it's a public utility. Yeah, I agree. I'll ask you a friend of the question. Yeah, sure.