 Why do so many objectivists typically refrain from identifying themselves as libertarians? Because I would think a bigger tent for objectivists would help, right? Not to use the language of the left, but a more inclusive language from objectivists might help the cause. But if we believe that the cause is philosophical, not political, that ultimately the cause is convincing people about the morality of self-interest, and the cause is convincing people of epistemology of reason, then a big tent doesn't help because it kind of blurs those distinctions, and it doesn't make clear what it is we actually stand for. Sahinran was very clear. She stood for capitalism, because she stood for egoism, she stood for egoism, because she stood for reason. For her epistemology and her ethics are the core of her philosophy. The politics is just a logical outcome of all of that. The problem with libertarianism as an ism is that it is a big tent, and it's a big tent with some people who are sympathetic, maybe, it's true that politically and from political economy perspective, we agree, and they might even sometimes flow to some of our philosophical ideas, so we have some allies within this big tent. But we also have some real enemies, I mean real enemies, not marginal enemies. We have Kantians, Sahinran called Kant the most evil person in history, because of how she viewed his philosophy, and how destructive she believed his philosophy was the 20th century. So if you agree, yeah, we agreed free markets, but you guys pretend to come to free markets from the perspective of the most evil philosophy in human history, according to Ahinran, we're not allies, right? We're not allies philosophically. Or you have anarchists who are for the most part moral subjectivists and philosophical subjectivists and relativists. Well, that again, we consider philosophically incredibly harmful and instructive for the cause of reason. So how can we be in the same tent with them when their fundamental ideas are so destructive to what we're trying to do? So if you believe as Ahidu, as Ahinran said, lead it, that the only way to truly get to free markets, the only way to win the political battle is to win a deeper philosophical battle, then we have no, then there is no tent, right? Then in some ways, we have tents with other people, right? So I, I, you know, there's, I respect people who are advocates for reason, even if they happen to fall politically on the left, because I think that ultimately, if they're consistent advocates of reason, then free markets is obvious. I don't, it doesn't work the other way around necessarily. It doesn't seem to work the other way around. So I am very hesitant to have a tent with anybody. If I have a tent, it's a short term tent. That's very objectivist of you. That's very Ahinrandian of you. Yeah, I mean, because if you take ideas seriously, I don't think it's Ahinrandian as much as it is taking ideas seriously. I'm willing to sit down with Stephen Pinker and talk about the enlightenment and talk about reason and the points of reason. I don't think he understands reason, right? And I'd like to talk to him about that. Or I'd like somebody to talk to him about that and see if we can fix that, because I think it's destructive. I like to talk to, I don't know, Dave Rubin or even Sam Harris about free speech and about certain issues of philosophy. I like to talk to George Seligin and Larry White and Pete Betke, who are libertarian economists about economics and about and some of them I can go deeper with and they'll accept some of the deeper stuff. But then they go to, you know, some of them might go to Anarchy or some of them might go to more subjectivism. So on every issue, I think it's important for us to clearly define what we agree on or what we disagree on. And when you do that, I think there are a few tents. I think even libertarians who are not objectivists have a problem with big tents. I mean, I don't want to speak to everybody, but there's some economists I know who are libertarians technically who don't like the term because they don't want to be associated with some crazy, you know, anarchists, you know, who call themselves socialist anarchists or whatever, who are part of this libertarian tent. They don't want that association. And they just say, look, we're just free market economists, we're just good economists. And that's what we do. And we don't, we don't need these labels and these big tents. So I don't think it's uniquely objectivist. I really do think the tent idea is, is problematic if anybody takes their own ideas seriously.