 Do you think that the United States and the UK have the right to invade Afghanistan? What gives any political entity a country a right to exist, in a sense, as a political entity? And I'd say what gives it is the extent to which it defends the rights of its citizens. That is, government is only legitimate to the extent that it protects the sovereignty of its individuals. Countries don't have sovereignty, only individuals have sovereignty. You own your own life. To the extent that you grant your government legitimacy, is to the extent that it's legitimate. If it's any dictatorship in mind, therefore, it's illegitimate. Any country that systematically violates the rights of its citizen, what does it mean to say Saddam Hussein has sovereignty over you all? I mean, that's bizarre. He has a murderous thunk who killed his own people en masse, who didn't allow individual rights in any respect, and anybody in his country yet he has sovereignty over you all. No, he's completely legitimate. Anybody could have invaded any government if he didn't want to be completely legitimate. Now, the question is, should you invade to get rid of Saddam Hussein? That, in my view, is completely a question of, you know, your own interests. That is, wasn't it America's self-interest invading Iraq? In my view, the answer ultimately is no. Why is it an America's self-interest to invade Afghanistan? Probably, but not the way they did it. So, it really is a question of self-defense. So, what is it self-interest? Ultimately, what is it? Is it crucial for American self-defense to invade Iraq? If the answer is yes, then you invade it. If the answer is no, then you nominate it. The legitimacy, the sovereignty of Iraq is irrelevant to the question. Now, if you talk about France, then there is a question of sovereignty, because it is a legitimate government. Now, it is right-respecting, at least to an extent, you know, just as Britain is, and just as America is, they're all mixed, right? They're not pure, but they're all mixed. But, look, I can see by your face that you disagree with them. If you think, if you think that France, or take the UK, that the UK are France, on the same scale of rights violation as Iraq is, and you're completely detached from reality, Well, the line, in my view, the line is the four characteristics of a state, let me see if I can remember all four, but the four characteristics of a state that is illegitimate, completely, that is basically a dictatorship, but to a totalitarianism. One party will, you know, whether you have, the most important one in my view, whether you have censorship or not, freedom of speech, and to the extent to which it is applied, whether you have any kind of elected government. You know, okay, so those two. But the keys, in my view, are some kind of one party world which denies any kind of election, and freedom of speech. As long as you have freedom of speech in a country, there's some freedom left in that country, there's some way to use reason and thought and arguments and discussion in order to change the world in which you live. When freedom of speech is gone, you're basically living in dictatorship in which your only means of dealing with change is through violence, through evolution, bringing up, taking arms, and revolting against it. So a country that rejects all notions of speech, which clearly you all did, which clearly France and Britain and America don't. There's freedom of speech, I'm here, right? I'm not a very popular guy, I was just in Israel, there's freedom of speech in Israel. Speaking of France, I've spoken in most of Europe. There's basically freedom of speech in the West, and in much of Asia. China's an interesting excuse. There's clearly less freedom of speech in China. There's one party rule in China. China's probably the most borderline you're going to get, but clearly Europe, the US, Japan, the Koreas, are fundamentally free countries. They're not as free as we'd like, but they're fundamentally free. And clearly North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and I can think about a bunch of others, I'm not free in a fundamental sense. There's a difference between the two. And all you'd have to do is go visit those places. Not for very long. And you would notice that there is a stark, stark difference. Now, is the US and England will be one country? No, absolutely not. They're nowhere near as free as they should be. But they are much freer than these guys, and therefore they're much more moral, and therefore legitimate regimes. Those are these that are not legitimate regimes. The North Korean regime is not a legitimate regime. Somebody wants to invade them and get rid of the guy. All the power to you. I wouldn't do it because my life's not worth whisking for the sake of the North Koreans. But if you want to do it, that's your business.