 Yes, I'm probably one of the household objectivists at ESI over the years, having spoken on about a nine-nineteen-hundredth anniversary, what do you regard as the role of government in an objectivist society, but in particular foreign policy and the sense? So I think the role of government is police, to protect us against criminals and to protect against fought. A judicial system, a judiciary that obitrates disputes and of course prosecutes those who committed fought and committed crimes. And a military that has protect us from foreign invasion, from terrorist attacks, from, you know, from violation of our property rights. I think there's an open debate at which point violation of American, let's say we're talking about America, of America's property rights overseas would justify a military intervention. I think that's a debatable issue at what point that happens, but I certainly think there is a point at which massive confiscation by foreign government of American property is justification enough for U.S. to use a military force to protect the individual rights of its citizens. So the overarching idea is the role of government is to protect the individual rights. The individual rights of its citizens, that's why we have nations, rather than the individual rights of all citizens all over the world. American government is said to protect the individual rights of Americans. The U.K. government is said to protect the individual rights of the British. Now if all governments are doing a good job at that, then, you know, they all look the same and there's not much difference between them. Unfortunately, we don't have that kind of circumstances. I'm not sure, you know, I get a sense that you're asking more in terms of the foreign policy. But I think the aid government is said to protect its citizens. So if it's attacked, its job is to defeat the enemy as thoroughly, as quickly with as few casualties to itself as possible and then bring the troops home. So my view is crush the enemy and come back home. No nation building, no martial plans, no helping established democracy in the world as, you know, Bush would have liked, no setting up puppet governments overseas. You go and penalize the people who've inflicted, you know, who've violated your rights and you get out of there as soon as feasibly possible. Again, the criteria for all those actions is, what is the action necessary to protect the individual rights of your citizens while minimizing the risk to your citizens?