And the same thing with policing. With policing also, ye ere very hardened positions. But youow, we have 16 thousand arso police departments in the united states. Another three thousand sheriffs offices. Huge amount of heterogeneity in practices, in selection, in training and promotion, in disciplinary procedures and so on, leadership. And the upside of this is that you can look to examples of success or some sort of moderate improvement. In one such such example, as you mention, as exists in camden, where, for budgetry reasons, in around 20 11, 20 12, they had to just disband the police department, not because they wanted to, but because theycouldn't pay them. And it was replaced yenew thewe was a sort ofa coalition of folks who began involved. It was replaced by county police department. They started from scratch. They changed the selection practices. They hired some of the old people back, but everybody had to apply again. And that police force actually managed to achieve exactly like you said, greater witness cooperation, more case closures, fewer complaints against police l thoug there were some and it's not perfect by any means, but it was more effective in offering protection to the population than the previous police department. But it was also larger. So it doesn't really fit a narrative that, you know, getting rid of the police department abolition or defending. Of course, these positions are a nuwance, and many people understand different things by them. But what happened in camdin doesn't really fit any particular areultical narrative. And if one his to learn from it, i think one has to set those dispositions aside and just take a look at what happens and how one might repigate. So i've been trying to have these conversations, andsteve started off this by saying that, you know, he was raised intellectually among conservatives, andhe continues to engage in this kind of conversations. I just feel like we're not going to get anywhere if we don't have some sort of common understanding from which to begin debate. And so i've been very interested in talking to people whom i commat it from different positions. But that requires also understanding their positions, otherwise we just tolk past each other. So i don't know, you race a lot of issues. I've adressd two of them, but i'll just hand off to see ist steve gramma here.

I was gong to say, just steve, it strikes me that, again, to stressless analogy, that a lot of this ultimately falls into something that we could kind have been as zoning riht, which is about, you know, why or cityis the place to live anyway. You know, these issues of density and bringing people together, and the idea that the way forward is through the novelty generated by these surprise associations. And so how might we, based on, you know, the insight here, and, you know, kind of embodied in your collaboration with liberterry and brink lindsey, you know, think about rezoning ourselves culturally, and then, you know, re shaping the incentive structures so that we can kind of work against all the ways that we've elaborated over the last hour, pull us apart from one another and re intrench those divisions. Yes,

a yean i thought a lot about, again, certainly in the context of the university, that universities are becoming a kind of example of ideological monocropping, and that that's bad in a lot of ways. One, i think it's actually bad for conservatives. I think conservatives are getting worse at being conservatives than they used to be. Again, i would say, when i was a ki, we all think, when i was a kid, you know, giants walked the earth, right? But there were these incredibly impressive, important conservative thinkers, right? A mean, certainly in economics, in ross field, a more libertarians, but you non, my field, and political science, ri, again, i mentioned that before. Sa, just at harvard, rate, sam huntington, james c. Wilson, nathan glazer, all these people, right? And that was just in one institution. And one thing that meant is their colleagues had to present arguments that could, like, stand the muster of these people arguing with them, right? And decreasingly, does anybody have to worry that somebody like that is going to raise an uncomfortable soi wait the distant example that rajis probably seen right in department siminars at hopkins, which i love. Anything is a great place, and i o make that clear, right? People can, almost without thinking, say things about something called neo liberalism, without ever having to actually think about rigorously what it is the phenomenon they're talking about is right? They often talk about it in these terms, like it's the geist, like itsis some malign force that's taken over everything, which is like bad social science. But again, if nobodyis going to question it, ore asking like, what do you mean by neo liberalism?