 The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show on this Friday, Friday, week from the beginning of Ocon. Hopefully, I will meet many of you, see many of you at Ocon. I'm looking forward to it. I fly in on Thursday. Opening reception for Ocon is on Friday, exactly a week from today. Should be a lot of fun. I think you can get my talk on Saturday, so a little bit of work still to do on that. All right, let's see. We've got a full new show today. Tomorrow we have our AMA. So if you're $25 or more, you can participate on a monthly basis. You can participate in the video by Zoom. If you haven't got a link, let us know. We'll provide you with a link. So the AMA is tomorrow at 3 p.m. east coast time. If you've got a question out of nowhere, if you want to participate, if you don't usually do shows live, but you want to ask a question live, please join us. Tomorrow AMA 3 o'clock. We'll have both live contributors and we'll take Super Chat. I'm still wondering about, I still want to do a member show, either Sunday or Monday. I'm curious about from some of the members out there, what, if you have a particular topic, what do you think about just doing something like on favorite TV shows and getting everybody to participate and talk about on the chat their favorite TV shows. So I'm thinking about something lighter, more, I don't know, more social, more fun rather than a, you know, another. Yeah, I know. I do a poll on Twitter, polls on Twitter. Who has time for this stuff? I don't have time for this stuff. Anyway, no, I don't have time for it. So, but, so I'll just pick something. If people want to suggest something or want to comment on my idea of favorite TV shows, then you can do so in the chat or send me an email or, but you're on it, you're on bookshow.com or any of the, all of them. All right, what else? What else? Oh, if you want to do a poll on Twitter and let me know what the results are. That'll work. Just tag me on Twitter on the poll that you do on Twitter. Yes. And then we're going to do seven deadly sins on Tuesday. So we'll kind of wrap up a Christianity theme before Ocon and after Ocon we'll move on to somebody else to pick on other people. But yeah, Tuesday we'll do seven deadly sins and the morality that's implied by it and contrast that with the objective of seven virtues. All right, let's jump in. So over the last couple of days, the Prime Minister of India has been visiting the United States. Modi has been here and has met with Biden and spoke to Congress and, you know, signed deals and cut deals and a bunch of different things. And it is a, you know, from every perspective, this is an important visit and important relationship. India is by population the largest country in the world. It has the largest population in the world. It has exceeded China. So, and it has a relatively relative to China, relative to the US, relative to much of the world. It has a young population. It also has a lot of upside. That is, it's still a very poor country, still poorer than China. So there's a lot of upside. There's still a lot of poor in China that have not been made more productive by, in a sense, bringing them to the cities or increasing infrastructure or giving them the tools to be significantly more productive. So it's an enormous amount of upside in India. India is also, you know, considered the democracy. How free India really is is a question. Modi has certainly made it in many ways, God's less free. Modi is responsible for a lot of kind of civil rights violations and individual rights violation and a clear kind of anti-Muslim, 15% of the population of India are Muslims, clear anti-Muslim agenda. But it's still a relatively, relatively free country. Modi has also increased, unfortunately, the kind of central planning, the role in the economy of the central government. So Modi is kind of a typical, I'd say, new right. Not as bad as a new right, but a right political leader who, you know, what do you call it? Ethnicity matters a lot, religion matters a lot, nationality matters a lot, economic liberty a lot less, individual freedom a lot less. So there's certain typical in that. On the other hand, as I said, India is relatively free, certainly freer than China, which it is often compared to. And this is the importance of, I think, the relationship between the United States and India is the fact that India is positioning itself as a real alternative to China, both in a geopolitical sense of, you know, ultimately a military and economy that is significant of size, a geographic location in the south of Asia, along many of the world's most important trade routes going from the Middle East to Asia, then on potentially to the U.S. and to the Americas, or from Asia to Europe, all go through the Indian Ocean and through India. So India has a strategic, a very strategic location. India has also conflict with China. China and India, which I think in the 2000s, early 2000s, were viewed as a potential block, a potential alliance that could challenge the United States and could challenge the rest of the world, Europe. That block never really materialized. China and India have very different interests as governments and as... And there are real disputes, territorial disputes between China and India that once in a while turned bloody, where there's actually shooting between Indian forces and Chinese forces. Most of those are in the north, but China and India have grown further apart rather than together. And this is, of course, an opportunity for the United States to enter and have more influence in India and to counter the growth and the influence of China. I'll also mention that business, from a business perspective, business is trying to diversify away from China. There's a lot of worries about China, the crackdown by the Chinese authority on American businesses, the loss of appetite by many Americans to do business in China as China becomes more authoritarian, as China becomes more oppressive. While India, you could argue, is semi-free, China is not free at all and has become less free over the last 10 years, certainly over the last five years. And there is a significant push among business leaders in the United States and in the West to move away from China, and yet outsourcing is important, particularly a presence in Asia is important, cost of labor and skilled labor is important. India has a homegrown, highly educated population that knows English, that is trained in English, many, many engineers, and the idea is that a lot of production that happens in China will ultimately move to India. Whether that happens or quickly, that happens hard to tell. Finally, India and the United States are also working on significant military alliance. The United States, U.S. companies are going to be building some military hardware in India. One of the interesting things about India is India has been a steady buyer over the last, I don't know, 20, 30, 40, 50 years of Russian and before that Soviet military equipment. You would think, and I think this is absolutely true, that the one Ukraine has given India pause and the pause is that the Russian equipment sucks and, you know, seeing it in action, seeing it in a real war, opposite and confronted by Western equipment, U.S.-based made equipment, shows how pathetic that military equipment is, and I think this is going to have a lasting impact on Russia's military industry, military production industry, their ability to sell military equipment all over the world. I think a lot of people out there are going to hesitate and the only buyers they're going to have are countries that cannot buy from the West because the West embargoes them or won't sell it to them like Iran. But I really do think countries like India are thinking twice about whether they want to buy military equipment from Russia, given the quality that we have seen of that equipment. So one of the consequences of the war in Ukraine is going to be a decline in the use of Russian military equipment. So they're turning to the United States. We're trying to do the whole South Asia in 15 minutes or 20 minutes or whatever. But one of the challenges India has and one of the reasons India has been buying military equipment from Russia is that the United States has been selling military equipment kind of shockingly to India's enemy, a country that India's fought a war against, a country that India has territory disputes with, a country that is Islamist, that has a strong Islamic faction, that has many terrorist groups acting in it, that has worked against America's interests in Afghanistan and in the rest of Central Asia. And that is Pakistan. America continues to give Pakistan weapons. And that causes, I guess, India to hesitate when becoming friendlier with Pakistan, with the United States. So maybe this is a shift away from the suicidal policy of supporting Pakistan. The United States should have nothing to do with the Pakistani government. It should have nothing to do with providing them with weapons. Pakistan is, to some extent, an enemy of the United States, not a friend. India is much more likely to be a friend. India shares many of the same enemies as the United States, thus certainly within the world of Islam. This is why, by the way, India and Israel, over the last, I'd say, 10 years have gotten a lot closer, Israel sends, sells India much military equipment. As a consequence of that, closeness and friendship. Again, because India also faces a threat from jihadis and Islamic totalitarian. So that is, they share that with Israel. And I think they share that with the United States and it's time the United States recognized that. So I think this is a positive move. I think watching kind of the rights violations happening in China is something that's important for the United States to do. I think the U.S. will have hopefully leverage over India and trying to convince them to not move in that direction further and to have more respect for their own population. We will see. But as an alternative to China, as an opportunity to open up, this is going to be important. One other aspect of this that I almost forgot about but is important to note, which kind of contradicts all this in some ways, but this is the complexity of international relations, particularly the complexity of India. India is the great beneficiary right now, since the Korean War started, of the, in a sense, embargo and cap that was placed on oil prices from Russia. India is basically buying almost everything that Russia will produce in terms of oil. It is buying well over 50% of all the oil produced in Russia, at least of all the oil being transported by ship, which is a vast majority of that. India used to be a major importer of oil from the Middle East. It basically doesn't import very much oil from the Middle East at all. It now imports oil dramatically, predominantly from Russia. Therefore, it is a huge provider of revenue for the Russia war machine and it's violating kind of the embargo that the U.S. set. It isn't participating in that. It's working against, if you will, U.S. interests in that sense. But in India's favor, it is buying that oil at a discount. It's getting really, really good prices, which I think is helping the Indian economy and improving the Indian economy situation. So India is enormously benefiting from the fact that Russia has to sell its oil for cheap and that oil is flowing most into India. How much of that oil then gets repurposed and put into other ships and shipped to Western Europe maybe? Who knows? Who knows? And somebody's making a nice profit over the arbitrage between those two prices. Certainly at the beginning that was happening. I don't know if that's happening as much today. But, yes, India is certainly a beneficiary of Russia's problems but also Russia is a beneficiary by getting a lot of money. A huge beneficiary about, you know, a huge beneficiary of the cash that they get from the Indians. And that funds their war machine to a larger extent. But of course, as I said, the United States pays Russia billion dollars a year for the uranium. So it's not like India is unique here. The United States emboggles them with one hand and buys stuff from them with the other hand. Foreign policy, the United States foreign policy is just a complete and utter, unmitigated disaster with no principles and no strategy and no consistency. All right, that took way too long. All right, we're a year away from, we're a year from the Dobs' decision where World War II's weight was overturned and the right to have an abortion was basically denied and where the issue of abortion was left completely to the states. Since then we know that a bunch of states have outlawed abortion. Most of the South is basically an area where you cannot have an abortion. It's basically almost completely restricted. Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia and then in the North, South Dakota, North Dakota and Idaho. These are our states where you pretty much cannot get an abortion. Some of the states have made it very difficult. Georgia and Arizona and Nebraska in particular. Other states that everybody thought would restrict abortions like Kansas have not, have restricted somewhat, but have left access to abortion for some women still intact, the same in Iowa and Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And then other states have made it, you know, still completely have no restrictions really on abortion. Oregon, California, Washington state, Maine and much of, you know, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Jersey. So, New York of course. So, you know, the country has become very bifurcated, very, very bifurcated about this. This of course has created a lot of stress and distress among women all over the U.S. but particularly in the states that have limited access to abortion. It's unclear whether this, all of this has actually resulted in fewer abortions. There have been 25,000 fewer legal abortions. It's not clear though how many illegal abortions are happening out there. Nobody, well they're illegal so there's no tracking mechanisms of it. What we do know is there's a massive shift on where the abortions are happening. There were 94, almost 94,000 fewer legal abortions in states that banned or severely restricted abortions and there was an increase of 70,000 basically legal abortions in states where abortions were being legal. So, the travel industry has been one of the beneficiaries of DOBS and it's just horrible now that women have to get on a plane or drive long distance and incur significant expenses to get something that I think is a right that they should have access to as a right in the land of the free and the home of the brave. The travel times to an abortion facility have increased threefold. The largest increases of course in the south, in Texas, particularly in places like Texas. You know, American Indians, Alaskan natives, black and Hispanic populations have experienced the largest increases in travel time to abortion facilities. You know, requests for medication to end pregnancies has increased significantly also in the 30 states where you can get those medications. Well actually, they've increased 42,000 in some states but they've increased across the board in all states. Physicians, fewer physicians now going into OBGYN so generally physicians are less interested in women's health it's just too complicated, too risky. They've heard too many stories, horror stories about doctors getting in trouble for doing abortions. Why bother when you can get into another field? So there's, you can expect, I definitely expect a rise while declining the number of doctors and a shortage in OBGYN generally which will hurt not only the ability of women to have abortions but also it will hurt the ability of women to actually go through pregnancies and have births and have healthy, all of that be done in a healthy way because OBGYN are crucial to all of that so you might see an increase in maternal mortality which would be tragic and horrible and sad and barbaric and primitive and all of that particularly in the states that abandon abortions and where I think OBGYN doctors are going to flee and going to leave. You know, the flip side of this is interesting and that is that support among Americans for abortion is growing steadily, has grown significantly since Dobbs. It is now true that 70% of Americans who are polled support abortion in the first three months with no limitations. That is the highest, probably it's ever been, certainly the highest it's been in the last 10 years but I think the highest it's ever been. 37% support abortions in the second trimester with no restrictions, again that's the highest it's ever been and the last three months, supporting abortions the last three months is now at 22%, again the highest it's ever been. So across all abortions in every phase of pregnancy the support for those abortions is now at record levels and that is again a backlash against Dobbs. We will see how it all plays out and if that holds over time but that is the only good news I could find in Dobbs' ruling. So yes, a sad one year anniversary. Quickly, we're getting older. We as the big we, not me because I'm not getting older but we are getting older, Americans are getting older dramatically, significantly older. The median age in the US, the median age is that age in which half of the population is older and half of the population is younger, is significantly older is now almost 40, so we have half the population basically under 40 and half the population over 40. Well it's not 40, it's 38.9, so it's almost 39. 39, that's of 2022. Just in 1980 the number was 30, so the US population is aged on average if you will by 10 years. This is a consequence of having fewer babies, this is a consequence of less migration, particularly younger migrants. I think a lot of the family unification is brought to the United States older migrants instead of focusing on young migrants and going into their peak productive years which would be a lot more productive, a lot more beneficial in every respect. So the United States is joining the rest of the world as being a country that's getting older significantly. On a state level the oldest, the highest median age is in Maine. Yeah, I mean young people don't want to live in Maine, it's cold, it's boring. 44.8, I also think that part of New England has some of the highest deaths of despair in the country, Maine, Vermont, I think have really high, I mean it's a beautiful country but it's also dark and gray and yeah. 44.8, guess which state has the lowest median age? Almost at the same level as the United States had in 1980. What would you say the youngest state in the country is? This shouldn't be that hard if you understand who has lots of babies. If you know who has lots of babies you should be able to tell which state has the youngest. No, Texas, God no. Yeah, Ian's got it. Utah, of course Utah. I mean it's got to be the Mormons. They still have eight, nine kids. I mean they still have a lot of kids. That's from each wife. I'm kidding. So yes, Utah has, the median age in Utah is 31.9. I mean the fact is that even in Utah that number is going up. That is, even in Utah they're having fewer babies. So about a third of all states have a median age over 40 years. Seven counties in the US have a median age over 60. I wonder how many of those counties in Florida. This news story doesn't have that so I don't know. All right. So finally, let's pull out this one last story. Canada just passed Bill C18. It is a law that mandates that tech companies pay content fees to domestic media outlets if they link two articles in those media outlets. In response, meta, Facebook in other words, Facebook is basically going to end the ability to link to Canadian media. So you won't be able to link to Canadian media stories, at least in Canada. I don't know if in the US you can still link to Canadian media, but you won't be able to link to Canada. California is thinking about passing a similar bill and Facebook has announced that if California passes that bill, Californians will no longer be able to link to local California media anymore. This is interesting. We'll see how this all plays out. Australia passed a law like this last year. Facebook initially said it would not link to any newspaper. It blocked that. It blocked users from seeing or sharing news content on Facebook. And within about a week, Facebook relented. They went back on them because they didn't want to pay or they hadn't arranged contracts. They relented. The Australian government changed the law and gave Facebook time to negotiate with media outlets the fee, the rate. And I think today Facebook does pay local media outlets in Australia, but only after they've had time to negotiate it, negotiate those rates. It's hard to tell here what the right thing to do, but you'd think that the media outlets would find a way to negotiate a rate and get media. And there's a whole with AI and everything. There's a whole realignment that's going to happen in the tech industry around the ability to use their content without paying for it. And I think tech AI is going to have to start paying for media in one way or another. And it's going to be interesting how all this plays out. But we will see. We will hear in the Iran Book Show. We will keep track of that story and see. But if suddenly you can't link to certain stories on Facebook, now you know why. All right. I wanted to spend three minutes, five minutes, just saying something that's not very newsy and really demands a bigger show. And I'll devote a larger show to it. And that is, but it comes out of some aspects of the submarine story or the submersible. I keep being told it's not a submarine. It's a submersible. I don't know the difference. I don't really care that much. Submarine submersible. So be it. And that is that so many people not only are saying things like they deserved it because they were rich to have died, or they should have never been allowed to go into this because it was a dinky submersible. But people are saying, in a sense, people should not be allowed to take risks. People should not be allowed to take risks. Or it's evil and irrational so people take risks. And then some of them take the next step. And therefore they deserve to suffer the consequences, which I think is horrific. But this is one of the biggest problems in our society. One of the biggest problems in our society is our attitude towards risk. We cannot live without taking risk. We cannot thrive without taking risk. We cannot have fun, enjoy life, flourish, succeed, thrive without taking risk. Whether it's financial risk or even existential risk of living. And this is also important for the AI debate. Risk is part of life. We want to understand it. We want to be rational about evaluating it. We want to be aware of the risks we're taking and how much we're willing to take. Because our life without risk is death. There is no such thing. And yet we have created a regulatory state. We have created a mentality. And part of this is how we treat young people and children and particularly boys. We've created a childhood where we're denying people the ability to take on risk. And therefore we're denying the ability of people to thrive and move their life forward. Now I don't understand why somebody would want to go into a metal tube and go three kilometers under the water. I mean, I can't even contemplate that. I mean scuba diving, I guess. Now I get that seeing the Titanic under the water would be super cool. Not in my risk-reward category doesn't even come close. But for some people it does. Some people are worth, you know, it's for them worth taking that risk. That's true of people who skydive, which is not particularly risky but I would never do. Rock climbing, which I don't know what the risk factor is but it looks super scary. Flying a rocket into space or into semi-space or whatever they call it. I mean, or taking a quote untested vaccine. Like, I would have taken the vaccine in August COVID-19. That's how much trust I have in biotech. And I figured the risk was small, young, healthy. Certainly if I was 75, 85, I would have jumped to take the vaccine for COVID vaccine in August of 2020. But no, I mean, what's particularly insane right now is that people who used to think we don't need an FDA are now saying, oh, the FDA approved the COVID vaccine too soon. Really? With no FDA, we would have had a right to try and you could have signed a disclaimer and signed a waiver and you could have taken the vaccine much earlier in a free market without an FDA. I mean, the precautionary principle, the environmental movement, the regulatory thing about you can't build this, you can't make that, you can't do this because it's risky. The nuclear power, the fact that we don't have nuclear power. All of these are consequence of society's negative attitude towards risk and their negative attitude towards risk has come across in spades over the submarine issue. People should be free to take risks with their own lives. And whether you evaluated rational or irrational, people have a right to be irrational. I mean, this submersible, I mean, the owner of the company was in it. I would consider that. I mean, I always think when I fly in a plane and I think bad thoughts about flying in a plane, oh, the pilot doesn't want to die, right? So the pilot's going to do a good job. He's not because he doesn't want to die. Right here, the owner of the thing was piloting it and it still imploded and killed them all. I mean, at least they died probably fast and they didn't have to suffer through the slow torture of dying slowly from suffocation. So this issue of risk tolerance, we've got to allow people to take risks, experiment, push the envelope. That's how civilization advances. And yes, civilization doesn't advance by somebody climbing the Everest. But it's that mentality of somebody willing to try to climb Everest and go for it. It's that mentality towards life, of living life to the fullest in a sense, if those are your values. Now again, there are irrational risks that we don't want people to take. But it's their responsibility. If we start capping it, restricting it, limiting it, we're going to live in a, not a stagnating, a declining, a declining civilization. We're going to end civilization. Civilization is built on the freedom of individuals to take on risk. Yeah, we can, we can judge certain of those risks as irrational. But if we kill that ability to take on risk, we kill civilization. All right, that was my spiel. And I will, I need to do a longer show on that because there's a lot of issues that that brings up. All right, we are only about a third of the way to our $250 goal. So if you, if you want to ask questions and if you have, and if you want to support the show, please do so. The shows have a, they have a target, a fundraising target of 250 to keep them going and to keep them funded. All right, let's just jump in. And you can also use a sticker. 60 people are watching live right now. So $3 from everybody live right now would get us to our target. So if we get 60 people to do $33, we're cool. All right, Michael says, while I reject the libertarian movement, you noticed 10, 15 years ago, no one knew what a libertarian was. Now that concept of more individual freedom and autonomy concept is more mainstream. There are more judges who are influenced by this orientation. Well, I don't agree with you on the 10, 15 years ago. I mean, I was active 10, 15 years ago. And if anything, I think, you know, certainly 10 years ago, the environment, the libertarian movement was even bigger than it is, or not bigger, more visible than it is today. It had real tentacles into the Republican Party. It had real influence on people, you know, the Tea Party and people who sought power, sought office were very influenced by libertarian thinkers and their economic policies in particular. You know, they really influenced the Republican Party. I think that influence has been mitigated. It's much lower today than it was back then. But yes, I mean, you know, free market thinkers who are typically associate themselves with the libertarians have been influential and have influence out there. But you know, and one of their great successes maybe is the legalization of Moana, one of the reasons I think they succeeded theirs because they aligned themselves with the left in succeeding. They have not really succeeded anything by aligning themselves with the right. That has not led to any increase in freedom anyway, even though libertarians have tried that and are still trying it. There are more judges. That is going to change because as I've told you, the new generation of fed socks is much more interested in common good conservatism. Then in the old style free market kind of conservatism that was influenced by libertarian thinkers. But so yes, as certain judges were, I don't know if that will continue sadly. So I think there were more influential, 10 years ago than it are today. Today the new right has become much more influential and the new right basically wants to shut out the free market libertarian types from debate, from discussion, and they kick them out. All right. Wesley says, Peter Singer said regarding abortion that killing a newborn is never equivalent to being a person who wants to continue living. Thoughts. Yeah, I mean I think those useless kind of comparisons because at the end of the day both should be illegal, both are clearly violation of rights, which one is worse, is the adult living up to their potential, not living, I mean, when she started getting into those kind of descriptions, then I think it's very dangerous. I would say that killing an individuated human being is wrong. Period. No matter what age. And it is murder and it should be illegal. And I don't think we should rate it to scale it. Andrew says, you've covered this trend for a long time, but with the chips and electric car industries, the mercantilism of the U.S. on both left and right has become very apparent. Yes. And I think that, I mean, there's always been a tendency towards mercantilism in the United States. It's always been. Even Reagan, back to Reagan and the restrictions of Japanese imports of cars and chips and other things. There's this tendency to satisfy a pressure group that's pushing for some restriction on trade has always been there. Oscar, thank you. Really appreciate the $20. Really appreciate that. It's always been there. But it intensified with Trump. Trump gave it legitimacy in a way that it never had before. And it's really accelerated under Trump. All right. Let's go back to L. Is it harder for companies to compete in a free market in their country if a competitor is heavily subsidized in another country? Could tariffs be a way to mitigate the effect of subsidies in foreign countries? It is harder. It is harder. But you don't mitigate an evil with another evil. You cannot mitigate it with subsidies. The fact is that some people are going to go out of business because in other countries stuff is subsidized. Overall, your country, you know, the country that is importing the stuff is overall benefiting from that fact. A particular manufacturer might suffer from it. Overall it's benefiting because we're buying stuff from other countries cheap at the expense of other people's taxpayers. That money gets, you know, the savings get allocated into other industries and other productions in our home country. It is never, you don't, when other countries shoot themselves in the foot, which means subsidizing their own industries, the answer to that can never be shoot yourself in the knees by giving subsidies yourself to your countries. And there's no end. You subsidize the industry to compensate for their subsidies. So they increase the subsidies. So you increase the subsidies. So they nationalize the companies. So you nationalize the company. There's no reason to violate individual rights which a subsidy is in, let's say, the United States just because the Chinese are violating individual rights in China. We don't start camps for people we don't like in America because China is starting caps. The same thing appears in economics. We're not violating the rights of their own citizens in economics by having tariffs, subsidies, whatever. We don't violate our rights by doing the same thing. I talked a lot about this when I talked about tariffs and Trump in the 2017, 18, 19 period when Trump was partisan. I did a lot of shows on tariffs and tariffs for countries that are unfree that are supporting their own industries. Tons and tons of shows on that. I talked a lot on YouTube. By the way, we're exactly halfway. If somebody wants to come in and do $100, we'd almost be there. Short of that, it's going to be hard to reach the goal today. All right, Wesley says we only got two questions. Pro-CDC abortion restrictions have not led to any increase in births. Does that surprise you? No, because I think you're getting one illegal abortions and I think two people traveling to places where they can get abortions. And the other aspect of this is generally the trend has been fewer births. But it's tragic that we're making it more difficult, more dangerous, and more expensive for women to get abortions. Okay, last question unless somebody comes in. Michael says I'm skeptical. Altruism can really go all the way in America. Too many egoist roadblocks. Maybe not all the way, but I think it'd go a long way, unfortunately. A long way, unfortunately. It has a lot of roadblocks, but we better start reversing those roadblocks and getting, in a sense, and going not on the defense, but on the offense with an alternative to altruism. We better start making progress on that. Otherwise, I don't see how you stop altruism from ultimately leading to some kind of authoritarianism in this country. All right, everybody, thank you. Really appreciate the support. And thank you to all the superchatters. Thank you for the value for value. Those of you who'd like to support who are not listening live, you can do so on, thank you Laboratory L, who just added $10. You can do so on your own bookshow.com. You can also do it on Patreon. Yeah, it would be great if we saw a significant increase in people on the monthly contributions on Patreon and subscribe star and your on bookshow.com slash support, which is basically PayPal. Thank you again to the superchatters, both the people who asked questions and the people who did stickers, and I will see you all tomorrow at 3 p.m. for the Ask Me Anything section. Hopefully you have some questions. Yeah. All right. See you tomorrow at 3 p.m. East Coast time.