All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 28, 2007 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:09
664 Rights

What are 'rights'?

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good morning everybody.
Hope you're doing well. It's Steph. Time for an even greater mix of audio quality.
I have to have my hands free.
I'm munching on a granola bar, so that's why we are using the non-handheld microphone, so we have even more variability in the audio quality.
So I hope you're doing well. I'd like to talk about rights this morning, and hopefully it will make sense to you.
It'll make sense to you, and we'll see if we can't Clean up this language.
This language problem that rights always seems to involve.
I think it's well worth having a chat because the word is bandied about quite a lot.
And I think it's well worth trying to find ways in which it can be delineated and focused a little bit.
And I'm as guilty of this as anybody, if not more so, because I use the term.
It is very convenient, right? And a person has a right to live in freedom, and a person has a right to be free of violence, and this and that and the other.
And... Property rights.
I've used the term quite a bit as well, but I've sort of noticed that whenever people get into it on the board and start talking about rights, it very quickly sort of descends into a Gordian knot of impenetrable incomprehension on all sides, incomprehension of the other person's point of view.
So, I'm going to make a case that rights should conceptually, if not linguistically, be thought of as properties rather than So let's just have a quick look at what the term is.
The term is very fluid, right?
The term is bandied about quite a bit, and I bandy it too, but the fluidity of the term seems to be that either reality or other people have a positive obligation to treat a person in a certain manner.
If I have a right to an education, then what that sort of passes down to is that other people are positively obligated to To provide me with an education.
And if they don't, then they are doing wrong in a heinous kind of way.
And obviously I would say it's pretty implicit in the idea of rights that rights violations can be morally aggressed against, right?
So if I have a right to an education and somebody does not provide me with an education, then...
I have the right to aggress against that person.
It is a debt that is accumulated.
A right is a debt that is accumulated by other people in terms of positive things that they're supposed to provide for me.
Or, if we talk about something like property rights, then I have a right to own and manipulate this piece of matter or energy.
And other people have a negative obligation, right?
So they should not Steal it or take it.
It's not a positive obligation like they have to provide me with an education.
It's a negative obligation.
They should not take or commandeer my property.
So, that really is what rights are generally considered to mean, in my understanding, and if it's different for you, be sure to let me know that rights A right is either a positive or a negative obligation that accrues to others and to the self, right? We wouldn't say, I have property rights, so you must not steal my property, but I could steal your property.
It is supposed to be a more universal formulation.
So when I say, I have a right to an education, what I mean is, everybody has a right to an education, and those who provide education have a positive obligation to...
Provide said education or money or whatever it is to those.
And children have a right to food and shelter that they cannot provide for themselves and therefore their parents must provide.
There's an obligation, a positive obligation that's created in the act of having children.
And so on and so on and so on.
So basically, it seems to me that There is these positive and negative obligations that are created for people as a whole, and those are called rights.
Now, the first problem, which should, I think, give us some indication that there is a problem, is that rights, of course, as they, and we all know this, I'll just sort of touch on it briefly, but rights, as they are talked about in the modern world, and I think have been talked about throughout history, have the unfortunate The property of being contradicting.
Contradictory. They contradict each other all over the place, right?
So we say, well, we have property rights.
And then we say, well, yes, but we have a right to an education.
Well, those two are in violation, right?
If I have a right to an education, then other people have a positive obligation to provide me with money, materials, time, energy, resources to educate me, which is a pure violation of somebody's, or probably quite a lot of people's, property rights.
So if children have a right to be educated and the state provides that education, then my property rights in terms of taxation are violated.
So here we know that there's a very significant logical problem, a very significant problem in reality, right?
Wherever there's a logical problem, there's a problem in the interpretation of reality.
And that's why things go awry, right?
If I build a bridge without reference to the principles of physics and tension and support and strength, tensile strength and so on, then my bridge is not going to be successful.
It's either going to be overbuilt, in which case it's a waste of resources, or it's going to be underbuilt, in which case it falls down.
But unless I slavishly obey the The laws of matter in building my bridge, it's going to fall down.
So a logical error in my calculations or whatever, or a logical error in the choosing of my materials versus the weight-bearing load that the bridge is supposed to have or carry is going to result in a problem.
And the problem is related to reality, not to my calculations, right?
Internal problems or who cares, but compared to what is reality and the demands of Of the bridge that I'm supposed to build.
Is it a footbridge? Is it a suspension bridge?
You know, these kinds of things.
So whenever we have a logical problem, we have a problem with reality.
Like, we are misinterpreting or misapplying the principles of reality.
And so when you have rights, in other words, there's no differentiation between negative obligations, i.e.
don't steal, don't kill, don't rape, and positive obligations, i.e.
help the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the strippers, you know, that kind of stuff.
Then we know that we have a significant logical problem going on in a formulation, and that is a problem that is derived from...
or the problem that relates to or is the effect of a significant misinterpretation of reality.
Now, whenever you get a situation conceptually wherein people can define a particular thing in two opposing ways and not really understand that...
In its essence, then you know that you are not dealing with something that either exists in or is derived from objective material reality.
And I know, my god, what a horrible sentence.
I truly apologize.
I will try not to lead you into this fog and tell you there are landmines and spikes.
I will try to be a little more clear.
Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. So, round two.
Let's try that again, shall we?
If I say gases expand when heated, and you say gases contract when heated, what's the problem?
Well, we get some gases, we measure them, we figure out the material properties of energy and so on, and we figure it out.
A rock falls when you let it go?
Well, you say a rock falls when we let it go.
These things don't tend to be disagreements for very long.
If I say 2 plus 2 is 4, you say 2 plus 2 is 5, we can figure it out.
Get four things and count them.
So... And I'm not saying...
I mean, this can get very complicated, Fermat's last theorem and things like that, the proof of which I think consumed an entire quarry of chalk.
But for the most part, it's relatively simple to process a methodology by which we determine the truth or falsehood of various propositions.
The methodology being empirical testing, logical consistency, and so on.
So when we have conceptual areas where...
Disagreements quickly descend into mutual incomprehension, often hostility, people throwing their hands up in the air, and so on.
We know, we just know, that we're dealing with a sphere that is not something that describes what exists or uses the principles that are derived from what exists, right?
Logic and so on. So, it's the old thing that if I make up something called a flubar, And we start arguing about whether the flubar is red or blue, and all we know is the word flubar, and we think it's essential that we figure out the color, then it's going to be much more...
It's going to be almost completely imagination and not logic or testing, because there's no...
Flubars don't exist in reality, and none of the properties that flubar...
So there's no material properties which you can measure, right?
Flubar is just a word.
I guess you could measure the sound of somebody saying it, but it doesn't really matter.
There's not really any properties other than somebody saying something.
So it doesn't have any material properties, neither does it have any logical consistencies.
So it is neither matter, nor is it describable or analyzable using the principles derived from matter, logic, consistency, universality, reversibility, all that kind of stuff.
So... When you get involved in a discussion with someone, and this occurs with things like areas that human beings get all knotted up about because of lack of definitions in these kinds of areas, include the wonderful and magical realms of things like virtue, morality, ethics, aesthetics, the state, God...
Family, not in terms of biology, but in terms of obligations, rights, things like that.
Duty, patriotism, all this kind of stuff.
Country. All of the stuff that neither exists in reality, nor is describable using the principles derived from reality.
Whenever you get into these kinds of areas, and this is...
I mean, frankly, this is, except for us and maybe a couple of other people...
This is all modern discussions.
Politics, all of these things, they neither exist in reality, nor are they derived from principles that are themselves derived from reality.
Oh, double derivation, I apologize again.
Perhaps I'd work better with the other mic.
I'm not going to switch, though, because I'm going 1.15.
So, in the realm of something like rights, and we'll take this sort of general principle...
And say, look, if it doesn't exist in reality and it's not analyzable based on principles derived from reality, then we're not talking about anything.
You know, we're arguing about the color of a house in a fairy tale written 500 years ago where there's no indication of the color.
Could be anything.
Doesn't matter. Who cares?
Make it up. We are arguing about what color a flubar is.
So, if we look at something like rights, clearly, clearly rights do not exist in reality, right?
You can open up a human being and you can find a kidney.
I did it with a homeless person last night.
Just curiosity. But you can't open up a human being and find rights.
And people say, in response to this, yeah, well, you can't open up a human brain and find consciousness.
Well, yeah, because it's gone by the time you get there.
But actually, that's not true, right?
I mean, you can find consciousness.
You just hook it up to an MRI, right?
You just hook it up to the electrical monitoring device that measures the activity within the brain from an energy standpoint, and lo and behold, you see some sort of consciousness.
I mean, you can't tell an enormous amount about it, but you can certainly tell when it's there, and you can certainly tell when it's not there, because that's something called brain dead, which is, I think, the graduate course in modern philosophy.
So rights do not exist in reality.
And because they don't exist in reality, we have one strike against measuring them and talking about them.
Physics, chemistry, biology, and so on, these are all things that describe things that occur in reality, things that exist and can be measured.
But in reality, so there's a testability principle, null hypothesis, scientific validity, and so on.
The scientific method can be applied against these things because they exist in reality, so yay for them, that makes things so much easier.
But if we're going to talk about things which do not exist in reality, and there's lots of things which we can talk about with high degrees of rationality which do not exist in reality.
I mean, one example which we talked about before is mathematics, right?
Numbers don't exist in reality, but that doesn't mean that you don't need logical consistency in your mathematical theorems.
You absolutely and completely and totally need more so than a scientific theory.
You need logical consistency in your mathematical propositions or theories.
Because you can't test stuff, right?
You can test a theory of physics against the behavior of matter and energy, so you can't as easily test a mathematical theory against logic and reality.
Now, of course, as I mentioned before, there are certain logical hurdles that have to go on, like have to be passed before you even bother testing something.
If you bring a proposition to your I don't know, physics PhD graduate school council review board dudes, and you say, I want to test this physical theory, and my assumption is that gases contract when heated.
They're going to say, well, you can test it, but it's not going to work, because gases expand when heated.
You won't bother testing it, right?
Same thing if you have a mathematical principle, and you start off with 2 plus 2 is 5.
However many pages you've got doesn't matter.
People are going to say, well, that doesn't work.
That doesn't make any sense.
So, the first hurdle, of course, is logical consistency.
And then, you know, testability.
Now, the things that we work on that do not exist in reality are not disconnected from reality, right?
They're a pendulum swing from reality and back, right?
And it keeps going, right?
So we derive the principles of logic from the behavior of matter and energy, which is consistent and objective and so on.
Quantum LSD trips for the moment accepted both because they're still unknown in terms of their cause and explanation and also because I don't know enough about them to have any coherence.
But laws of logic derive from the objective behavior of matter and energy.
You use the laws of logic to build a bridge.
Properties of matter, laws of logic.
I want the bridge to do X. Here's what's required.
I have to consistently put together a plan to do so.
And... So you use the laws of logic derived from reality, you build the bridge which exists in reality, the bridge stays up and doesn't, it's a testable thing in reality.
So when you're looking at something like ethics, morality, let's just say use the word morality, when you're looking at morality, you need to have logical consistency in your moral propositions, right?
Because you have to have them follow the laws of logic derived from the objective behavior of matter and energy, right?
And then when you apply that moral behavior, there will be results.
If you have a moral theory called communism, you get one result.
So it's not that these things are disconnected from reality.
It's just that they don't exist in reality.
The scientific method is derived from the behavior of matter and energy.
You apply the scientific method, and your success rate for the advancement of scientific knowledge, the validation of your theories, goes up almost infinitely.
I mean, they only accidentally got things right in the Dark Ages, right?
So, just because these principles do not exist in reality does not mean that they are not slavishly derived from reality and through the exercise really allow you to command reality, right?
Nature to be commanded must be obeyed, saith a great scientific philosopher.
So, reality works on principles, right?
But those principles do not exist in reality.
Our theories work on principles and those theories and those principles do not exist in reality.
But that doesn't mean anything.
Just because You can't as yet, and maybe you will someday, but you can't as yet point at a gravity atom or see a gravity well on some sort of energy measuring device.
So gravity itself does not exist in reality, but in terms of matter and energy, this is my knowledge.
Of course, if I'm totally wrong, let me know.
But... It is nonetheless operational within reality.
So if the bridge stays up, if the bridge is appropriate to its requirements, the appropriateness, it does not exist as an atom or energy in the bridge, right?
You can open up a bridge and find the concrete girders and the support beams and so on, but you can't open it up and say, oh look, I found a little chunk of appropriateness to the task.
So the appropriateness of a bridge you build to the requirements does not exist in reality, yet, nonetheless, the bridge is either appropriate or not, to some degree.
If you build a footbridge designed to carry trucks, it's not appropriate.
If you build a suspension bridge designed to carry pedestrians, it's really not that appropriate.
It's a little bit of overkill. So, appropriateness exists as a concept and as a relational measure that is objective, but appropriateness does not exist in the real world.
And it's the same thing with just about everything that we come up with in our minds.
It's not a direct description of matter or energy, right?
I mean, red exists as a concept, but red is also something that's measurable within reality.
The wavelength is red.
So, anyway, I hope that that sort of helps clarify what we're talking about in terms of rights.
They don't exist in reality. So, they're not inert, right?
They're propositions. Morality doesn't exist in reality, but morality is universally preferable behavior.
It's a prescription of how people should act.
And the should, and the description, and the prescription, and none of that exists within reality, but the moral propositions must pass the test of logical consistency, and ideally should describe and predict some effects of those moral theories in action over time in societies.
So clearly, rights, if they exist independently of obligations, would simply be something called properties.
If I say most human beings have a right to two arms, then I'm really saying most human beings have two arms.
I'm not describing a prescription.
I'm describing what is.
I'm describing the property of a human being.
I'm saying human beings are defined by rational consciousness or whatever.
Whatever your definition is.
I mean, within the realms of biology.
Then I'm not saying that human beings have a right to rational consciousness.
I'm saying that human beings have as a property of existence of their existence rational consciousness.
And human beings have two eyes.
Do they have a right to have two eyes?
No, they just have two eyes. I'm just describing a property.
So, to differentiate between the description of a property of a human being...
Which is a measure of a physical characteristic, matter or energy.
Human beings cannot live naked in, I don't know, minus zero degrees Kelvin.
They can't live. Do they have a right to live?
No, we're just saying they can't. If you freeze them, they will die.
If you freeze us, do we not die?
So when describing a property...
It's important to understand that you're simply slavishly describing or extracting as an abstract the properties of matter.
And that's just biology, right?
Zebras have stripes. Do zebras have the right to have stripes?
Well, it doesn't really mean anything. It's not that zebras should have stripes, they just do.
So, that's the first thing to say, which is that rights do not exist as a property of Of the species.
They do not exist as a physical characteristic of human beings.
So clearly, rights are a prescription, then.
Rights are an ought. And as we know, oughts don't exist in reality.
So what? No problem.
Doesn't matter. Numbers don't exist in reality, but they still work.
They're still incredibly useful, incredibly powerful, and of course, any...
Theory regarding numbers has to pass the first test of logical consistency, just as any theory regarding preferable human behavior must pass the first test of logical consistency, and nobody can argue against any theory of preferable behavior without displaying preferable behavior in a universal format.
We've gone through all this sort of stuff before.
So the case that I'm going to make is that rights are redundant.
They're either a description of what is in the world, in which case they're just properties or characteristics.
Human beings have two arms.
That's not a right. That's just a description.
Or they're prescriptions in terms of negative obligations to others.
We'll just start with the negatives because they're easier.
Don't steal, don't kill, don't rape, whatever.
And if rights are...
Oorts, right?
If rights are prescriptions for behavior, how human beings should act, well, then they're morality.
That's ethics. There's no point inventing another term.
No, don't use two words when you can use one.
And don't use 660 podcasts when you could use...
Oh, well.
You know, it's funny. By the by, I did it last night.
I was telling Christine about the podcast I did yesterday.
And I explained the basic thesis in about five minutes, and then I was like, wow, I wonder what the other 40 minutes were for.
Tangents, jokes, giggles? We don't know.
No, we do. So, I think this is one of the reasons that rights become so confusing, because some people are using it as if they are properties of human beings, which clearly they're not.
Some people are using it to say that they are positive obligations to To others, which, of course, violate logical consistency.
Every positive obligation to others is a negative obligation on the self.
And let's not...
I mean, I know people always get tricked up on this.
Oh, positive obligations with regards to children!
Well, you can give your children up for adoption, right?
You don't have to feed them, you don't have to clothe them, but you can't kill them, right?
I mean, don't kill is the negative obligation that is the basis of parenthood.
And if you don't feed and clothe your kids or take them to the hospital when you're sick, then you're going to kill them, right?
I mean, so that's not a negative.
It's not a positive obligation.
You must feed and clothe your children.
No, you don't have to. But you've got to give them up for adoption if you're not going to, right?
If you don't want your pet, you don't lock it in the basement and starve it to death.
You don't just kill it. You just give it to somebody else.
I mean, that's what you do. So this is why rights get so confusing, because they're just a mishmash of stuff that's made up that maybe exists in reality, but of course it doesn't in fact, but people talk about it as if it does, that human beings innately and through their nature have a right to X, Y, and Z, and of course they don't, because that doesn't exist in reality.
And that other people say, well, rights are a positive obligation and exist in In, you know, through human nature are automatically derived from human nature and of course that's not true at all.
Because you can't get an ought from an is.
You can't get rights from human nature.
You can't get obligations from matter and energy.
I mean, just try commanding a stone to rise and that's as much luck as you're going to have, right?
Getting oughts from matter and energy.
They don't exist. But so what?
It doesn't matter. So...
Other people will then use positive obligations and say, well, rights are positive obligations and they don't exist in reality.
And other people will say, well, rights are just negative obligations and they don't exist in reality.
Positive obligations that do exist in reality, negative obligations that do exist in reality, it's a big mishmash.
And because people aren't working logically from the ground up and saying, well, what is true and what is false, how do we know the difference, what is real, what is not...
What is an ought? Can it be derived from reality?
Because people aren't using the basics, so they just jump into the realm of rights and start swinging this club of rights around.
And, of course, none of that really makes any sense, right?
It doesn't work logically.
And this is why conversations about rights turn so heated and so messy.
It's theological in its essence, right?
In that you're trying to describe and argue about the color of a flubar and nobody knows what the hell a flubar is.
So people don't define rights in any way that makes any sense.
And that's because, of course, rights are meaningless.
It's either matter, in which case it's properties, or it's not matter, in which case it's ethics or morality.
The term is determinately flexible, I guess you could say, to the point where people just...
Get emphatic, right? You always know when you're not talking logically, you have to get emphatic, right?
Whenever you are not both engaged in the task of defining what you're doing from the ground up, then you have no choice but to get emphatic and to get irritable, or aggressive, or to withdraw from a conversation of other people who are doing that, right?
That always indicates a failure of logical reasoning, and of course I've done it too, but That is, that's the problem, right?
And that's what you can tell.
And I would really suggest, sort of what I'm trying to really get at here, is that, you know, I hope that what I'm saying is useful in terms of rights, but what I'm really trying to get at here is that...
It's well, well worth trying to get the hang of knowing when things are going off the rails because of a lack of definition.
When a debate gets heated and aggressive and so on, it's going off the rails because of a lack of definition, right?
So... So there's a discussion about presidents and so on, and we have a gentleman who's making a very passionate case for George Washington and his virtue and so on.
Well, that's great, but we don't know what virtue is.
We haven't defined what virtue is.
Is virtue killing people in the service of a country and setting up a government?
Well, then George Washington was very virtuous.
If virtue is self-defense, then if a British soldier was attacking George Washington, then he had the right, obviously, to defend himself.
That would be virtuous, I guess.
But no one has defined it, right?
And so, we don't know, right?
I mean, is being a general in the army and setting up a government and then not wanting to lead that government, is that virtue?
Well, then he's virtuous, but...
Until we know that it's universal and absolute and applies to everyone, then we don't really have a clue what we're talking about, what's going on.
We're just making up stuff.
And look, I've done it too.
I'm sure that after people have listened to my criticism of the Founding Fathers and so on, then...
They're going to say, well, you said it was a great achievement, and now you're saying that the people who did it were corrupt and evil and so on.
And, I mean, I can totally understand that, right?
I mean, I didn't do these things in sequence and so on.
But what I would sort of generally mean about that, and I'll just close off by mentioning this, is that absolutely, the separation of church and state was an achievement.
The non-recreation of an aristocracy was an achievement.
Absolutely. Absolutely.
It was an achievement. The people who did it weren't consistent.
They trumpeted principles that they did not themselves follow.
And it's not just slavery.
It's property rights. Life, liberty, and property was the original thing.
And they caved in order to build a kingdom, or in order to build a country, and to include the South.
And why? Because, I don't know.
I couldn't tell you. There was something to do with the aggregate that they wanted.
They wanted the South to get away. Maybe they wanted to tax it.
I don't know. But they ditched property from the Constitution, and they created a government in direct defiance of all men are created equal.
So it was property and slavery and the rights for women and children and so on, right?
Now, are people supposed to invent all these ethics before their time?
No, of course not. But they had already said this, right?
They had already said all men are created equal.
They had already talked about the validity and necessity of property rights, and they had already talked about the evils of slavery.
So, oh, well, there's compromise in every human situation.
There's compromise. There's compromise.
No, there's only compromise if you want a state.
There's no compromise otherwise, not in terms of your ideals.
I say, well, you know, if these guys hadn't put the state in Somebody else would have put an even worse state in, and then they would have been subjugated to that, so you've got to play the game, and this and that.
Sure, maybe, who knows? Of course, if everybody says that, we'll never get rid of the state.
If everyone said, well, if we get rid of slavery, then they'll just end up being taken over by worse slaves, well, guess what?
You never get rid of slavery. It's just an excuse for the status quo.
It's just an excuse for inertia.
It's just an excuse for inaction.
Well, things that could have been worse if we didn't compromise, well, you know, then compromise forever.
See where it gets you. Well, it gets you worse and worse.
So, intellectually, sure.
I mean, the words were an achievement, and those words were followed through in certain areas, and that's a huge step forward.
Does that mean we should worship these people as heroes who are right for all time and who made some sort of fundamental, personal, profound?
Worship the ideas, no problem, right?
Worship two plus two is four.
Worship all men are created equal.
Fantastic. I got no problem with that.
Worship the individuals who betrayed their principles?
Well, I don't really see how...
Worshiping individuals just makes no sense to me.
It just makes no sense to me.
It's fundamentally theological and doesn't respect all of the challenges and contradictions of human nature.
Aha. There I go!
See? Even me! I get caught up in this word.
But yeah, it was a profound intellectual achievement.
It was a profound intellectual achievement.
And we can, I think, respect that.
I can, at least, right? I think it was a great thing to do.
Certainly better than setting up an aristocracy, in which case they would have started taking over countries probably 50 years sooner.
So 50 years, Grace, which is a lifespan in those days, right?
So one generation got to grow up in the absence of American imperialism.
And then it started, right? But, you know, one generation.
They created one generation that was relatively free.
Two generations, perhaps, and that's great.
You know, that was, you know, did all right.
They did good. But they did not live up to their own ideals, for sure.
It completely betrayed them. And so I can respect, you know, that Einstein had a great intellectual achievement by coming up with the theory of relativity.
Sure, great intellectual achievement.
I can admire that kind of achievement.
But, I mean, it's the same way that I admire a great singer, or it's the same way that I admire somebody who can, I don't know, juggle nine hissing cats.
It's cool. It's neat.
And in the realm of the ideals that were put forward during the Enlightenment and, of course, derived from the pre-Enlightenment and so on, yeah, I can admire all that stuff.
I think that's great. I can admire those ideas.
The people, on the other hand, not so much, right?
Einstein was a jerk, I mean, personally, right?
He was a jerk, and created an enormous amount of personal misery in his life, right?
So, I would say that it's just important to admire the ideals, but the people, well, I don't know.
I just don't think it's that important.
So people will say, and we know this, right?
We know this because people will say, well, Ayn Rand was just a petty dictator, or Ayn Rand was irrational, Ayn Rand didn't follow her own ideals, and so on.
It's like, yeah, maybe, but so what?
So what? Somebody can say 2 plus 2 is 4, and the next day they can say 2 plus 2 is 5.
Does that mean 2 plus 2 is now 5?
Does that mean that 2 plus 2 is not 4?
No, it doesn't matter. It's the principles that we look at.
It's the principles we regard. The individuals?
Oh, Lord, I just think that's a bad idea.
And I think it's a bit of a cop-out in terms of how we should be living our own lives.
But I'm certainly open to debate on that, and you can let me know what you think.
So I appreciate your time.
I appreciate your patience.
I would certainly look forward to some donations.
It's been a little arid lately, so if you have some money burning a hole in your pocket that you'd like to put to a good cause, I certainly would appreciate it.
▲
Export Selection