 And I'll just say this, even though I think a lot of people will poo poo it and roll their eyes and so on. No builder wants to build buildings that collapse just again a sense of pride. Nobody built buildings in order to kill people. Nobody enjoys very few people, very, very few people in luckily in our world enjoy killing people. There are two things that are unsafe on purpose to endangering lots of people. I mean it happens and again bad stuff happens and there's no way to eliminate it. Bad people exist, there's no way to eliminate them through government coercion or through the marketplace. Some bad does exist. But at the court people are not like that. Most people are not like that. So most of it doesn't happen. Well, buildings have to buy insurance, should buy insurance. I wouldn't buy a condo in a building that didn't have insurance, that wasn't covered by insurance. Insurance companies would have a huge incentive to send in inspectors on a regular basis. Every time an insurance policy was renewed, maybe every five years, every three years or whatever, and a coastal area where there is coercion, where there is more deterioration, incentive to send in more frequently. Again, insurance company doesn't want to lose money. Doesn't want to lose money. And depending on how the policy is written, it has a huge incentive to get, to warn the owners of the building that these things are problematic and if these things happen, the insurance won't cover them because it's the responsibility of the building owner to fix the problem. And I trust, this is another point, I trust the insurance inspector much more than I trust, I've talked about this with food, much more than I trust the government inspector. What's going to happen if the government inspector gets it wrong? What is going to happen in Seaside or whatever to the government inspector who said, this isn't that big of a deal? I mean, maybe he'll lose his particular job. He'll probably go and work for another government agency. But it's pretty rare that inspectors lose their jobs. Maybe because this got a lot of press, he will. But every time there's an outbreak of food stuff, does somebody at the FDA lose their job? Every time a drug turns out to be not as good as the FDA says it is, does somebody at the FDA lose their jobs? Unlikely. These are government employees with tenure. What happens to a private company that screws up? Well, they go bankrupt. They fire their employees. They get a big BDV show for the contribution. And yes, please show your support value for value through the super chat. I very much would appreciate that if you appreciate what I'm doing, if you appreciate what I say, if you appreciate my effort in trying to get these ideas out there. Of course. So insurance companies would regulate, would send inspectors, would have the proper incentive. And insurance companies did a bad job of that with God of business. Governments don't go out of business. Even when they do a terrible job. And you think that using contractors and insurance companies have short time frames that they worry about, that's a joke. The people who really have a short time frame are politicians. Senators maybe have six years. Maybe they start running a year early. These are really five years before they have to appease special, the people who vote for them and the people who give their money. Congress, they only have two years incentives. Mayors have to worry about four years. Most elected officials have the shortest of time spans. They don't think long term. They think short term. Government generally is an institution that thinks short term, not long term. Yes, please like the show. Thumbs up if you like the show. There should be a lot more likes right now than they are. It helps algorithms. It helps promote the show. So thank you for doing that. So the builder himself, his reputation, his benevolence in some sense, insurance companies, the people who fund the building, the people who buy the condos in the building. Imagine a world in which the government didn't have inspectors. They weren't regulations on building codes. Would people buy willy-nilly these properties without having an inspection? I mean, when we bought a condo, an inspector went in and did a whole massive report about all the different problems with the condo. Now, if the condominium didn't have insurance, if they want government regulations around the building of the building, then I would have demanded a separate inspector, like a civil engineer, go in and inspect the foundations, inspect the retaining walls, inspect given engineering opinion. Or I would demand before I bought the condo that the seller provide me with that or that the seller provide me with what the insurance company had recently done and show me an inspection report. So we as individuals, in cases like this, now it has elevated our responsibility. But we all have a self-interested interest in buying safe places, even poor people. The idea that the poor people can't do this, the two ignorant, the two stupid, the two poor, I mean, it's just nonsense. Poor people don't care about their lives. People can't do Google searches. Poor people can't request reports, safety. Poor people today are suffering because of government regulation of building. Because government regulation of building is so bad today, particularly in places like California, where very little low income housing is being built. Because it's not worth building low income housing. Because the fact is that there's so much regulation on the quality and the type of home to be built, particularly condos, that there is no such thing as low income housing. According to the government, government dictates how big the bathrooms will be, how big rooms will be, the quality of the materials being used. Not just for safety, but for livability or whatever. So that housing for people who can't afford good high quality housing is unavailable. And what does that lead? The homeless crisis we have today. The homeless crisis is, at least to some extent, a consequence of the fact that there is no low income housing being built. And there's no low income housing being built, partially because of not in my backyard, partially because the government won't release land and allow through zoning for the building of low income housing, but also because the building regulations are such that you cannot build low income housing. There's no such thing. The regulations require you to build middle class housing. It's the only thing you can build. And that's a big part of the homeless problem. Part of the homeless problem started when in New York City decades ago, I think this was in the early 80s, they demolished those massive, ugly, horrible buildings they had built to house poor people, I guess in the 50s and 60s when they were doing a lot of social engineering. And they built these low income complexes. Low income complexes. And they were horrible and they were condensants. They blew them up and you can find videos of the buildings collapsing and going away. And then they evacuated all the residents. And I guess they paid them. And then they built these new buildings. And the fact is these residents couldn't afford the new buildings. They couldn't afford the new condos. And they built the new buildings to government specs, to regulatory specs. And many of those people that were evacuating for those original buildings who couldn't afford the new ones either had to leave New York or become homeless. And that's the beginnings of that homeless problem. So it truly is despicable that people advocate for the government involved in these things. When the government involved in these things, government involvement in safety regulation has been, has had very little effect on actual safety. And it has a massive negative effect on poor people and quality, on production, on wealth. So you have the builder, you have the insurance company and then you have the bond holder and the bank and then you have the person who buys the condo. Each one of those has a responsibility. Each one of those, for their own selfish, self-interested reason, is gonna monitor the quality of the building. All of those combined can do a better job than the government. Yeah. Is it gonna be perfect? Were there never gonna be accidents? There's never gonna be a building coming down. There'll never be a homeowner's association that procrastinates about fixing something. Well, of course not. Nothing. You know, you can't achieve 100% safety record. If you try, it's absolutely destructive. It'll be so expensive, nobody will be able to live anyway. Accidents will happen. It's sad. It's tragic. It's unfortunate. People who don't, people will die and they don't deserve to die. And by the way, I never said in the interview that anybody deserved to die, but that's the way the left spins these things. It just shows you how ugly they are. I said that the people who make the decision should be the people who suffer the consequences. And the children, it's tragic and sad, but children suffer the consequences of adult decisions. But I shouldn't be able to, I shouldn't make decisions and they're not suffer the consequence, somebody else suffer the consequence of my decisions, which is what happens with government. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the spare cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes, that should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, you know, I want to see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I want to see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this, and you know, the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So, you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes, but if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share, and you can support the show at your onbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe, because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So, yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go, easy. Do one or all of those, please.