 So, I'm against the safety net, a government sponsored safety net. I believe that any safety net should be voluntary. And I think you have to fight for that. You have to fight against the idea of a coercive safety net. Because if you're just fighting to shrink the safety net, you're not fighting on principle. What's the principle? Giving somebody a thousand bucks is too much, but 400 is okay? Why? Why not? It's the minimum wage, right, in America today. It's $7, they want to make it $15, I would say, why not make it $100? I mean, if the minimum wage works, why not make it $100, everybody can be rich. Of course, then they realize that that can be, right? You have to fight for no minimum wage. Because otherwise it's a slippery slope. There's no reason not to make it high. If you, once you accept the safety net, you lose control over how big it's going to be. So you have to make the case that a safety net is bad for two reasons. One, it's coercive. And we have to make a case that coercion is evil. Coercion is bad. Taking a gun, sticking it at somebody's back and saying, give me your money is wrong. It's wrong when an individual does it in a back alley in the street, and it's wrong when the government does it by pulling the money out of your paycheck without you even having a chance to get it. You're in the middle of answering the question, but I have to interrupt. Some people believe that coercion is a necessary evil to provide the sufficiency. Yes. I say there is no such thing as necessary evils. Evil is evil is evil. Just because you want it, just because they need it doesn't make it necessary. Evil is evil. Just the fact that we use necessary evil suggests that something's wrong here, right? Evil should never be necessary. Only good should be necessary. So coercion is wrong. I give you an easy example, a simple concrete to remember. Let's say my neighbor is sick, or his child is sick, make it more emotional. His child is sick, and he doesn't have enough money for the treatment, dying. The child is dying. He doesn't have enough money for the treatment. He only has two options. I have money, let's say. He can come to me and ask me to help, and I might help, but I might. You might not. But I might not. Maybe my children need the money right now. Maybe I don't have any money to spare. Maybe this neighbor is a really, really bad guy. There are many, many reasons why I would not help. There are some many, many reasons why I would. But it's my choice. He can ask for my help. The second alternative is he can pull a gun out and force me to help. Now, if he literally did that, we would say he's a crook. He's a thief, even though the cause might be good, we would say, that's wrong. You can't pull out a gun and take my money. And we would put him in jail. Ah, but this is, now he pulls a trick. It's a mind trick, right? He goes to all the neighbors, and he says, I want his money. Let's vote on it. And we vote. And 51% of the neighbors say, yes, we should take his money. And now when he pulls the gun at me and takes my money away, now it's okay. We took something that's clearly immoral, clearly wrong, clearly identifiable as theft. And by voting, turned it into something that's okay. So democracy is actually abused or abused for legitimate reasons. Democracy has always been abused to violate the rights of an individual in the name of the majority.