I'd take a thousand but at some point you have to understand that the benefits of redistribution of wealth don't justify the initial violation of the property right if you look at the argument the poor need the money more at no point in that argument you contradict the fact that we extrapolated from agreed upon principles that people own themselves we've extrapolated that people have property rights and so whether or not it would be a good thing or a nice thing or even a necessary thing for the survival of some people we don't see that that justifies the violation of the right that we logically extrapolated and so that also I mean they're still exist this institution of of individual philanthropy, Milton Freidman makes  this argument alright so Bill gates can give to charity if he wants to but it would still be wrong to coerce him exactly to meet the needs of the poor. are the two of you happy with that reply? anything to add? alright 