I'm sorry, but my question really goes to part one of your speech. It seems like you mentioned the word coercion, persuasion, and exchange about a half dozen times each. And I think I understand the difference between exchange and coercion. But I'm confused about persuasion. My question is, and perhaps you can answer it as quickly as I offered the question, but what is the difference between commanding somebody, a commanding b to do something, i.e. coercion, and a persuading b to do something? The difference is that a commands b on the threat that if b doesn't do it, he goes to jail. Or if b doesn't do it, he gets hit over the head. In my opinion, I am going to distinguish between persuasion and coercion entirely on the basis of the actual use or threat of use of physical force, not mental persuasion, not brainwashing. I find it impossible to accept brainwashing except under conditions of physical coercion as well. You may have a person held violently in brainwashing that sense, but other than that, the fundamental distinction I would draw as a use of force. Let me ask you this. You seem to say that coercion is bad, and I think persuasion is good because it helps us achieve the necessary cooperation and uniformity that makes the society hold together. What are the implications of the freedom of the individual when individuals are barraged by all sorts of persuasive communications, by the media, by the lawyers? I understand. Business executives, by professors, we're constantly being persuaded. How would John Stuart Mill say to my fear of being so persuaded that I really don't have free choice? He would say to you, and I would say to you. As long as there are alternative channels of persuasion, as long as there is freedom of different views to be held, well then I'm not worried. Maybe I should be, but I'm not. The real problem arises when you only have one thing you hear. Now it is coercion. If you are prevented by force from expressing a view. If you're a citizen of the Soviet Union, you're dressed with a great deal of persuasion, but the sources are limited. If somebody else wants to come in and try to persuade you differently, if the Solzenutsen or a saccharine wants to persuade you differently, he's prevented how? By the threat of physical force. Where now, the fact that we have a great many different channels of persuasion is a very healthy thing. As long as there's no monopoly. And the real problem arises when we don't have a proper, well let me give you a real, I mentioned that one of the worst things we have is a control by FCC of radio and television. Why? Because it reduces the range and variety and alternatives of persuasive material. It gives a special advantage to the advertisers. You ought to have a system of radio or TV in which the material can be disseminated the same way it is in print, in which you could do it through fee TV, paying for it or other ways. But we use force. Namely, the redenile of a license, the fact that a policeman will come away, come and put you in jail. If you operate in contravention to the FCC rules to prevent alternative means of dissemination. In my opinion, that's why you have had a wasteland of television and a phrase in minnow use some years ago. So I think the fundamental answer to your question is that we must strive to keep all channels open. And if we do that, then it's very tempting for individuals to say, I want to be free of that. Impose costs as well as benefits. If you have to make up your own mind, that's a terrible thing. Most people would much prefer to have their mind made up for it. But if we're going to maintain a free society, we each of us have to undertake the task of making up our own mind.