 So if you look at, because these ideas are very old ideas. And I look back to, and I haven't revisited this in a while in detail, but Adam Smith, before he wrote the wealth of nations, wrote the theory of moral sentiments. And this was a very, and I know, so what's your, as he talked about, how we're driven as a human being where we do have this self interest, right? To, I would say it starts with making sure that we stay alive, like we feed ourself and we clothe ourself and we fit into society. But then it gets to the point where we're driven to make contribution and do things. And ultimately, by pursuing that, you provide for the wellbeing of others as a result. So the intention of the left, I would say, by forcing people to give up money or to do this so that they can distribute to everyone, ultimately the best thing for everyone comes about by a person pursuing that self interest. What are your thoughts around that? Well, absolutely, but this is the revolution. This is why I ran to such a revolutionary because she fundamentally disagrees with Adam Smith in this sense. Adam Smith correctly observed in the wealth of nations and in theory of moral sentiments, he correctly observes that the baker doesn't bake the bread for you. He break the bread for himself. Hopefully he likes baking bread. More importantly, in the context of the baker, he's trying to make a living, he's trying to feed his family, he's trying to feed himself. He's motivated by self-interest. Adam Smith says, self-interest is not very good. It's not a moral trait, it's not a virtue. But we tolerate it because if you add up the self-interest of all these people, you get a better social outcome. I ran in and says, I don't care about the social outcome. What I care about is your right as an individual to pursue your happiness, your self-interest. What I care about the baker, I care about the baker as the baker. Not what he does to other people, but the baker. And I want the baker to be able to be happy. And for the baker to be able to be happy, he must be free, free to make his own choices, free to have his own ideas, free to bake whatever bread he wants to make, whether it fits into the regulatory regime or not. Free to, as long as his customers want it and as long as it doesn't hood them in a commit fraud or he's putting poison in the bread, he should be able to be free to make his bread as he sees fit and pays employees as much as he wants because I care about the baker. Now, yes, it turns out that if you leave people free, if you leave people free to pursue their self-interest, society, if you can even define that term, is better off. Everybody who is willing to work, everybody who's willing to produce is better off. But that is not the reason to defend capitalism. The reason to defend capitalism is in a sense what the founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence. You have an inalienable right to pursue your own happiness. Your happiness, not society's, your own. And the only political, economic, social system that leaves individuals free to pursue their own happiness is capitalism. So to me, that's the moral foundation. It's about the individual. And yes, it works because when you leave people free, they take care of their own property. That's why capitalism also produces the cleanest environment. If you leave, because private property is clean, it's public property that's polluted. When the war came down in Berlin, what we discovered was that the most filthy place on the planet was communist East Europe because everything was public property and nobody cared. Everything dumped a garbage in the public space. When you have your own private property, we take care of it. You take care of yourself. You then, in order to make a living, you have to produce values that other people want. And therefore, you are helping them. So when I buy an iPhone for $1,000, it's hard to believe it's that much. My life is better for that. My iPhone is actually worth it, don't tell Apple, much more than $1,000, tens of thousands of dollars this enhances my life. I'm willing to give up $1,000 because my life is better off by doing so. So if you think about that, every transaction we go through every day, when we buy groceries, when we go to a restaurant, when we buy iPhones, when we consume electricity, whatever it is that we do, we are benefiting more than what we're paying, otherwise we wouldn't do it. So capitalism is a system through trade, through the win-win relationships that trade creates. Capitalism is a system that everybody is constantly better off through it. As long as you're working and producing something and earning something. So it's a win-win relationships. It's a win-win relationship. So because I'm selfish, because I want to produce, because I want to have a better life, I'm making everybody else's life better as well because I have to trade with them. That's the beauty of capitalism and that's the beauty of this morality or the small defense of capitalism. So how...