 Let's see, was Frank Lloyd Wright the influence for the fountainhead? Yeah, in many respects he was. There's no question. I mean, I ran, studied his, was an admirer of his architecture, studied his architecture. Suddenly the influence in the sense of architecture, yes. And as a sudden level of parallel between walk and Frank Lloyd Wright even in their life, Frank Lloyd Wright was not a trained architect, neither is, neither was a work. Of course, Frank Lloyd Wright was an engineer. Frank Lloyd Wright, you know, went through long period of time where he got no commissions, built nothing, and people turned him down because he was too radical, it was too different, was too new, was too provocative, and wanted to build, you know, and suddenly Frank Lloyd Wright built the way he wanted to build no matter what. But I don't think Frank Lloyd Wright was the model for walk's unique and revolutionary moral character. I think that moral character is all I ran. That is who portrayal of the ideal man, and I don't think Frank Lloyd Wright was that man. So that integrity, that certainty that he had, that ruthless pursuit of his own rational, long-term self-interest, or just self-interest, right, that clear understanding of what constituted his self-interest and his unwillingness to compromise at all. I mean, Frank Lloyd Wright was an admirable man, but I don't think I knew that necessarily at the time, and I don't think he's quite as admirable, certainly not explicitly as admirable as Howard Walk is. I mean, Howard Walk represents embodies, embodies in his character, in his actions, in the way he thinks about the world. A whole new morality, a whole new code of ethics. It would have been almost impossible to be Howard Walk before Howard Walk was written. Because Howard Walk already understands, think about the speeches, what an individualistic morality would constitute, even though Ayn Rand hasn't fleshed out the entire philosophy yet, certainly not even the entire moral philosophy yet, she did to a large extent in the character of Walk. Greg Salamieri points out about the previous discussion about Frank Lloyd Wright and Howard Walk in the Fountainhead. He points out that there's an essay in Robert Mayhew's book on the Fountainhead, which is a brilliant book. I heavily, heavily recommend it. Robert Mayhew's book of essays on the Fountainhead, all these books of essays on Ayn Rand's novels are brilliant. They've got some fantastic essays in them. Greg himself has a number of excellent, excellent essays in the books. Anyway, there's one by Michael Bolina, the former executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, who writes about this relationship between Frank Lloyd Wright and Walk, and he uses a lot of material from the archives in terms of what Ayn Rand actually said and wrote about that relationship between and his relationship more broadly with Frank Lloyd Wright, which is interesting. So I strongly recommend getting a copy of Robert Mayhew's book of essays on the Fountainhead and, of course, all the other ones. And look up for that essay, particularly if you're interested in this question. And you're saying that man should first serve his own self-interest and be interested in himself first? I wouldn't say first. I would say only that you would have to explain this. Other men can be of interest to an individual if they represent moral values. You serve your own interests best by finding, associating with, working with the right kind of people. Therefore, other people can be a value, a great value to a man, but only when and if they correspond to his moral ideas, not otherwise. In other words, man does not have to serve anyone except himself, but he does, in effect, serve others when they're interested in their values agreed. You discuss values quite frequently and why men need values and how they get their values, because you say man comes into the world without any preset notion of values or concepts and learns. Why is it that we were discussing youngsters this afternoon that you find very young children who are, by nature, selfish. Young children are completely self-oriented now. Do they learn that or is that something that is inherent in the very young that they are completely self-oriented? Well, I think that's inherent in everything that's living. It's inherent in any living entity, an entity which was not concerned with itself or to the better. An entity that did not value itself would not exist for very long. But now children are below the understanding of the issues and, in effect, do not yet have a choice. It is when children begin to speak, when they begin to acquire ideas that their choice begins. And the idea of self-sacrifice is a totally artificial, very evil idea which children and adults learn from others, which is passed from person to person. Now it doesn't mean that if a child were left alone he would naturally be selfish properly. No, because it is an enormous achievement to discover rational selfishness, not acting on the way more pleasure of the moment, but knowing what is rationally an important goal of what value is it to you and how to achieve it. The idea of being rationally selfish is not available to children. It would take a long period of thought or the proper teaching for them to discover it.