 You have said that the government should not own property. Is there any exception for the national defense in cases in which security might be compromised by leasing an office building that may be bugged? No, I don't think so. I don't see any reason why you can't secure an office building from bugs. I mean, the technology certainly exists. Leasing it from reputable companies, leasing vast quantities of land in order to build a base, and maybe the leases are 99-year leases, but long-term leases that actually protect you. So I don't think that ownership, I can't think of a situation where ownership is required for national defense. Now, look, there's a sense in which the weapons the government has, it owns. There's a sense in which the money it has in the bank, it owns. There's a sense in which, you know, I don't know, the stationary it's bought, it owns. But it's not exactly ownership, because I think ownership can only be private, can only be by a private entity, by somebody you can say, here, these people own it. A government definition is not anybody, specifically. So I don't think the concept of ownership directly applies to it, and I think certainly there's no reason for it to own land, but in some ways, everything that it has, it has at the, what's the word I'm looking for, at the behest at the permission of the citizens, that is, it is the citizens' servants, and anything it has is really the citizens, and if the citizens don't fund the government, then the government can't maintain any of it, it's all gone, it has no meaning. So I think you have to understand that the idea of ownership applies to the government differently than it applies. It doesn't really apply to the government in the sense in which it applies, private ownership doesn't apply to the government in the sense that it doesn't have property rights. And everything except, you know, except the stuff that it absolutely is necessary for the execution of its role, you know, that it be under complete, that complete control, like a weapon system or something like that, I think should be leased. Now, I'm sure you could come up with some scenario in which owning a piece of land was necessary for the reasons you mentioned, for some kind of national security reasons. Okay, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But again, I think the whole issue of ownership is you have to think of it differently because it's the government. Okay, Action Jackson says the FBI arrested leader of an armed group that is stopping immigrants after they crossed the U.S.-Mexico border into New Mexicans. Do civilians have a right to patrol the border, only the fed border patrol? I mean, you don't have a right to walk around with a gun and point that gun at somebody who is not threatening you, who is not threatening you and is not committing a violent crime. So you're not doing it as an act of self-defense. See, you don't have a right to point a gun at people who are not committing a crime. So, I mean, this is vigilanteism, but he has vigilanteism against people who are not even committing a violent crime. So I've almost no sympathy for it. Now, if it's your land, if it's your land, if you own the land, and you've got to sign out no trespassers and you're patrolling your land on the border, then fine. Then it's your property. You're defending your property against people who are violating your rights by violating, by entering your property without permission. But if it's not your property and it's not your friend's property you invited you to be on their property, if it's not private property, then no, you can't go into the public space with a gun and point it at people because they're doing things that you think objectionable. I mean, I don't think even a shoplifter would you point a gun at a shoplifter? I mean, I don't think so. I think you point a gun when the issue is violence, when the issue is violence. I mean, maybe a shoplifter because it's a violation of property rights. But it would depend on the circumstances. To what extent was there a real threat? What were they stealing? Are they stealing a bottle of water? Are they stealing or are they robbing a bank? Notice that I'm thinking on my feet here, guys, on a lot of these questions. Just for what it's worth. My answers are not ready-made. I don't have a list of the answers to all questions. Objectivism doesn't work that way. You have to work through the answers. So hopefully it's valuable to you to see me try to work through these. So I don't think crossing the border is, it's not a violent crime. It's not a property crime. You're not entering somebody's property and theoretically a threat. You're not stealing anything from anybody. I mean, fine if you want to patrol the border and call the national, call the border patrol if you see somebody crossing the border. That's absolutely within your right and fine and no problem. But to point a gun, that is mob rule and absolutely somebody like that should be arrested. Absolutely. We don't run the country with, what do you call it, by gang rule. We don't run the country by vigilantes. We don't run the country with militias. Militias don't run the United States of America. I mean, again, unless you're willing to declare, to declare civil war.