Okay, I'd like to read an excerpt from the book here in regard to proportionality as well and how it applies to police actually.

Rothbart says, quote,

that means that police in a libertarian society must take their chances like anyone else.

If they commit an act of invasion against someone,

that someone had better turn out to deserve it.

Otherwise, they are criminals, unquote.

So again, back to this individualistic perspective where there's not a separate class or category of people, as we have in kind of modern society where police can do certain

things that others can't. The police are subject to the same libertarian principles and philosophy

as everyone else in this world, Rothbard is describing, which is to say they have more skin in the game, right? If they

shoot someone that's innocent, then the, I guess the errors of that innocent victim would

then have recourse to the police. So again, it may be seen, it's so radically different than what we have.

I think a lot of people is just kind of, it's outside their Overton window a bit.

But this is, it has much deeper historical roots than what we're accustomed to today.

Yeah, but again, it seems to be the obvious and reasonable conclusion.

It's like if, you know, if there's this crazy guy running around in a uniform and just, you know,

butchering people because he thinks they're somehow criminal.

Well, obviously that that person is not in his right and he's aggressing against other sovereign individuals.

So that ought to be punished, obviously.

It doesn't matter if you wear a uniform or not.

And as you say, it really changes the incentive of the skin in the game structure.

You know, if you know that whenever you make a mistake, that you're personally

responsible for it and that the graver their mistake is, the more painful will be your

...