 I wanted to just make a quick point about radicalism. So this could be rights radicalism, it could be libertarian radicalism, it needn't be libertarian anarchist radicalism, but anything where you're pushing, you're sufficiently far from the status quo to be radical. I think that the rejection, one of the problems with the rejection of that on its face of just saying, well, you shouldn't be a radical, which underlies a lot of the critiques of the kind of natural rights radicalism that Grant that you write about is that it's, to some extent, it's ahistorical that you go back and you look at the history of political progress and that the changes that made the world a significantly better, freer, happier place, they're not coming from people who wanted to tinker around the middle. They may, I mean, they may have been enacted in some cases by that, but they're driven by radicals, by people who were thinking way ahead of their time, by people who were making forceful arguments. You, you read these texts and they're the texts that today resonate with us, where you can, you read them and you can say like, this person, you know, maybe they're not ultimately as radical as I am, but these people were really on to something, had incredibly important stuff to say and their ideas changed the world. You never say, well, I wish they had just tamped it down a bit. I wish that they hadn't advocated so much radical stuff. I wish that they had stuck more to tinkering around the margins. You say instead, no, I wish if anything that they had been louder and that more people had listened to them and that their radicalism had spread faster and further than it had. And so I think that if we, if we see radicalism now as the art of the impossible, you know, like why bother with it? We're only going to tinker around the edges. That's, that's ahistorical in the sense that it's like, there is absolutely no reason to believe none, to believe now that we have reached the pinnacle of government institutions, that we've reached the pinnacle of human achievement, that we've reached the pinnacle of human freedom, that the world as it is now is the best that we can get. That would be, that would be as absurd as thinking that science today has figured everything out and there will be no more progress. And so if we, if we reject the very idea of radicalism, we reject the people who are making these large claims, we will halt progress. And so maybe the radicals are wrong. Maybe some of them are wrong or maybe some of them are right. But in retrospect, future generations will look back on us if we embrace that path and say, boy, I wish those people had been a little more radical. On that point there, and there's this tendency that we see sometimes with libertarians to think that the liberal tradition, the classical liberal tradition, like starts with John Locke and ends with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and that ever since then, we've just sort of been coasting, right? And that we reached the full implications of the Enlightenment revolution and thinking about man's place in the political order. But there are thinkers in the liberal tradition, like Murray Rothbard, like Lysander Spooner, who have sort of carried the torch forward. And I think it's important that people engage with those thinkers and be challenged by them and argue with them and sort of look towards the horizon rather than back towards the past.