Speaker 0 (0s): All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the TrueLife podcast. We are here with the one and only Benjamin George, which makes it George and George double dose over here for everybody. I hope everybody's having a great day. Hope the birds are singing. The wind is at your back. And we're going to talk about Benjamin's new book, Noah, no absolutes. I'm sure we're going to talk a little bit about life and where we are and what we're doing and how to maybe see it better and make it better. Benjamin what you got to open up with us today.

Speaker 1 (32s): Oh, I've had a whirlwind of a week. So I, where to begin, not to mention the world's had a whirlwind of a week too. Yeah, well, you know, here's an interesting place to start by kind of tapering off in, or back into our conversation before you know, about alignments of people in groups and processes and all of these things. I had a family member have a heart attack this week.

Speaker 0 (1m 4s): I'm sorry.

Speaker 1 (1m 6s): Thanks. I appreciate it. She's she's doing okay. But it was really interesting because you know, here you, you have this whole traumatic thing and then, you know, she's through, it gets the, the angioplasties and whatnot, and then the prescriptions come along and she was, and this is an older person in my family. She's given essentially a trial drug that has only been on the market for less than six months with the instructions of, if it causes you shortness of breath or it doesn't allow you to sleep, let us know.

And of course it did and she's off of it now, but it was really interesting that, you know, somebody who just had a very, very dramatic, you know, almost life ending experience gets put on a test, essentially. I mean, I'm sure it's approved. It had to be approved, but at the same time, if you're, well, maybe at the same time, if the caveat is let us know if you're having symptoms, that would be, you know, very much things that you don't want if you just had a heart problem.

And, you know, it got me to thinking about what we were talking about is just, you know, all of these things that are happening in the world, you know, when on the surface it said one thing or another thing it's really important to understand the motivations, the perspectives, the, you know, the who's, who's moving those chess pieces behind the scene. And for what reason, otherwise you end up in situations like this, where essentially you're running a human experiment on somebody who just had a breaststroke mortality to me, you know, that seems just questionably, unethical personally.

Speaker 0 (3m 8s): Yeah, I couldn't agree anymore. Recently I watched a, it was a conference of sorts and it was at the Milken Institute and it was five, six or seven or a handful of these top top. There was like a pharmacist, a surgeon, a multiple, a multiple, a multitude of different doctors representing different areas. And one of the things they were discussing was the future of medicine and they discuss something very similar to what you're talking about.

They were saying that one of the problems with medicine is that it moves way too slow. We have all these things that could potentially help people. And, you know, we can't even move a drug forward in this. We have 10 years of, of research and regulations and one guy's like, yeah, that's for a reason because it's unethical to, to move forward. I mean, we all remember the Nuremberg trials where the doctors were just experimented people, nilly Willy, but that was one guy said that, but the other guys seemed to be on the other side of the fence and this is all speculation.

However, it seems to me that somewhere along the line, modern medicine has made a choice that we need to move faster. And we have an aging demographic full of people. A lot of people are going to die. Anyway, they have these diseases. We should be trying new things if we get their informed consent. And the idea of informed consent to some doctors is like, you want to try this thing. Here you go. You know, they don't tell you all these things cause what's the difference between an effect and a side effect, the same thing, man, it's this drug does not have a side effect.

It has all these effects. It might cure your runny nose, but it also give you diarrhea. Those are the same they're effects. They're not side effects. That's just a tricky way of dressing it down, man. So yeah, I think she was experimented on

Speaker 1 (4m 59s): Well, and you know, it's interesting that you bring that up because you know, the whole idea behind that is on the surface. It looks like, yeah, we're, medicine's moving too slow. So we're trying to be better for this generation of people. On the other side, why would, why would a doctor prescribed this trial medication or this new medication? Why? Because there a profit behind it, Because there's an incentive structure behind that. And you know, these incentive structures, I mean, it's, it's, it's a dangerous game to put in, you know, monetary incentives, especially in conjunction with someone's health.

And you know, it's not like we, you know, you mentioned Nuremberg, but we also have, you know, more modern things. You know, how many times have these companies been ordered to pay billions of dollars in damages because they did not disclose or, you know, they didn't do a proper trial or, you know, what have you, there's, there's so many mechanisms of fault at play here. And you know, when you have these, I like to talk to myself in game theory terms, right?

You have, you have, you know, a player. If that player is going to be a reasonable, responsible player, they have a certain series of choices that they're going to make when encountered with, you know, different environments, different, different needs, different problems. If you have selfish players, ingredient players, they're going to make a different set of choices. Well, when you align profit centers was hell you end up with a whole lot of greedy players.

Unfortunately, despite the, you know, Hippocratic oath in all of this stuff at the end of the day, it's still aligned with greeting players, which means the choices that are made by those people, those companies, those institutions, they're going to be a broad spectrum of choices that not necessarily benefit the end user, but they definitely benefit the shareholders, the, you know, the profit centers and, and so on. It's a dangerous game.

Speaker 0 (7m 17s): It is, it's, it's almost like the end user. The patient has been almost factored out of the decision making at all. It's that, okay, this one will make this much, this'll make this much. And you know, especially when you think about the players being, if, if we dub Pfizer a major player, how many of Pfizer's executives have been on the board of the FDA? It's like a revolving door right there.

Speaker 1 (7m 44s): Oh yeah. Yeah. Well, and it's not just the FDA it's it's health in all countries, you know, the CDCs, the who's and you look at the, you know, the board of directors or who's, who's the executives and yeah, it's all the same people. It's it's, and, and that should cause concern for anybody, you know, the regulatory body and the people who are they're supposed to be regulating. He shouldn't, I mean, there's a reason that it's called a conflict of interest because it's specifically a very big conflict conflict of interest yet it, you know, when there's huge amounts of money to be made and this kind of tails into the end user not being factored in the equation is because, well, they kind of are, but it's a volume number.

Right, right. There's just so many people in so much volume that, yeah, we know we're going to sell 2 million of these. If we push it through our, you know, our gynecologists or our general practitioners or whatever, for whatever drug it may be. And that kind of structure combined with the, you know, we're going to just have a open door relationship with the FDA's and the NIH is, and the who's in the CDC is of the world.

And those people are going to come in and make a big profit, which is all kind of public record, or at least a good chunk of it's public record. And you can see how much money these people have been making. That's in a game theory perspective, that's a very, very poor alignment of interests. If you're the end user. Now, if you're one of those executives you're doing pretty well in that game situation. But my question would be is should we allow something like that?

Speaker 0 (9m 36s): I, the answer to your question is no, I think, and, but how, how, how do you change that?

Speaker 1 (9m 46s): So I, you know, these are, this is a long-term game. And I think one of the huge issues of just facing the world at large is if it's not an immediate fix, if you know, it's not just a bandaid that makes the booboo go away, people don't have the time. They don't have the, they don't have the resources to comprehend the information, to have the conversations and, or the will to see them through, because everything's on such a quick cycle when it comes to politics and how all of this stuff is kind of regulated in our society.

That if it's not a quick, quick fix, if it's not a headline, if it's not a campaign promise that can be uttered in a sentence or two, then there's just not a lot of public will for these things. Now, if you talk to people individually, most people are really upset with things like this. And they would tend to agree that these sort of incentive structures are, you know, at best problematic, but, you know, fixing something like this is going to be a long-term thing.

You know, the obvious solution to me at, at, at the start is you need to devolve profit from hell

Speaker 0 (11m 9s): Yeah,

Speaker 1 (11m 10s): Health health, shouldn't be a for-profit business nor endorse should communications for that matter. You know, having, having people who are making massive profits off of networks that are just putting out propagandas or, you know, sometimes facts, sometimes not those sorts of things is a similar problem with, you know, incentive structures and what that information is supposed to be doing to the, for the populace. You know, it used to be Walter Cronkite, everybody trusted the guy because he spoke the news.

Right. Well, now all of a sudden, if you were to poll people and say, do you trust X on X network, you're going to get a whole lot of no. And, and I think we're seeing that, right. People are tuning in the podcasts much more often. You have all these independent networks kind of popping up from YouTube channels and whatnot. And so that one's kind of hammering itself out because there's a free market component there that isn't completely held down and regulated and whatnot.

Now we've seen that free market being impacted, especially over the past few years by censorship. But when we're talking about, you know, as the health aspect of things, there is no free market component there to kind of balance the equation out. That's all bought and paid for game. And so it divesting, you know, those profit centers. And I think there's a way to do it. I don't think there's a perfect way to do it within the confines of the structure of society.

You know, we create, we have a nonprofit status and you can have a nonprofit business that would direct more, you know, and be more of an open source type thing, you know, open accountability. You could even tie blockchain into it to make sure that there wasn't a human being accountable for accountability. It was just a program, you know? So there's ways that you could kind of break this apart, but at the end of the day, who's paying for all of the rules and regulations that are making that whole market able to do what it's doing.

They're paying, you know, through lobbying groups and whatnot. You have it, you have all of this it's bought and paid for games. So what's the solution one that's probably not going to be taken simply because the money to be made is far outweighs the, the, the value that one would get, which is a sad state of affairs. And I think we see that in just about most industries across the board at this, at this stage.

Speaker 0 (14m 3s): Yeah. That's well said. I couldn't agree more. I, I see the same situation. The same red thread runs through so many of our organization. And to me, it's the fact that people are, have become numbers rather than human beings. If you're sitting, if you're a CEO or you're a board of director and you're sitting in some boardroom somewhere, you look at, oh, we'll employ, oh 1 7 2, 2, 2 is not performing. They're not productive, but they don't understand that this employee's kid just died.

All they see is numbers not working. And they don't even use, you know, they don't even use, they don't even measure all the variables. They only have a small set of variables. They measure one's profitable, one's productivity. One is shelf life. You know, they have this, they have this, you know, inadequate equation to measure success and they have completely failed to measure the human component. And when you do that, you strip humanity out of everything. I heard a good quote once that said, as humans, we need rules and we need, you know, if, if we don't have rules, we become animals.

But if we don't have freedom, then we become numbers or robots. And so we need a little mix of both, but it seems that we've gone way overboard into this idea that we're ones and zeros. And, and like, I think you're seeing a play out through humanity. You're seeing people rising up, you're seeing people go and kill people because they're, they're not ones and twos. There's no humanity. And I sometimes I think maybe it's because we're too big, you know, is this, this is what happens when it gets so big, that the only way you can measure stuff is by stripping the humanity out and looking at them like numbers.

What,

Speaker 1 (15m 52s): That's an interesting point, you know, I think it ha you know, too big is definitely part of it, but I think the other part of that sentence would be too big for the system that we've created. You know, when, when we, when we did this whole westernized democracy slash Republic movement, you know, the concept was to decentralize power, right? That was kind of the underlying reason that we have a Congress and we have a executive branch and a judicial branch is to decentralize power.

And that was in the context of the available technology of the time, which was, you know, Telegraph, maybe at that point, maybe not, but more than likely, you know, just old fashioned mail systems, word of mouth type stuff. And in order to encompass everybody, you know, you had to have a certain system that kind of worked for that time and environment. Well, we're in a very different world now, you know, you know, you were able to all have a conversation.

Where are you able to share information instantaneously around the globe? To me, it seems that we could create a system that would work for greater amounts of people. Again, the problem is, is the people who have the authority in the world to create said, system are incentivized against creating a system like that, because it would remove value from their pocketbook. I mean, Nancy, Pelosi's making a killing on the stock market.

You know,

Speaker 0 (17m 33s): It's crushing,

Speaker 1 (17m 34s): Crushing wild

Speaker 0 (17m 38s): Benjamin. Okay. I have an idea that I'm going, I'm going to throw this out at you. And it's a provocative idea. And so this is an idea that I think could fundamentally the United States. Now it's not, and this idea could be applied to other countries, could implement this idea and feel free to tear this thing down as much as you want. Okay. I got two words for you, national socialism. So imagine, imagine the United States, how we just cut like $15 billion to Ukraine or to NATO for God knows what, for what sort of NGO we gave that to her, whatever, what, what if we just created the United States?

Like, you know, the left hates nationalism, the right hates socialism, but you know what? Everybody hates national socialism. Like if you're a national socialists and you're a Nazi, but it just seems to me like, like what's the real problem with the real problem with that is that it cuts into the internationalism of the world and you could make the argument. And I guess I should try to make the argument that that's, I don't, first of all, I'm not a Nazi, everybody. I'm just throwing this out as a provocative idea. But you know, if you look at kind of what happened in world war II on the financial level, what you saw was the end of the Germans, trying to be like, Hey, we don't want, we don't.

We want to keep all our money here. And you saw a lot of bankers coming back. No, no, you're not doing that. The same thing could be said here. Like we could have, we could provide, I think we already have a sort of socialism for the people on the very top, whether it's pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, the banking industry, these guys are borrowing money from the fed at nothing, and then parking it at the fed and then take an interest on. And they don't even lend it out. Why not? And then those same people are like, you know, this doesn't work. What works for you guys?

Why we don't work for us? I'm not on some level. I understand the drawbacks to giving people free money. I get that. But is it possible that there could be some form of national socialism that would cure the evils that are happening to the people in our country? What do you think?

Speaker 1 (19m 53s): I would say cure the evils is a heavy load. That one's a big, that one's a big uphill now. You know, I kind of think what you're getting at is kind of like, you know, the idea of a universal, basic income

Speaker 0 (20m 9s): And pushed back real fast. Cause, cause I, I, I don't necessarily need it to be a, a income for everybody. Okay. Can I change it to a freedom dividend? Would that make a difference if it was a freedom dividend versus a, an income for people to earn it? Because I think we've put into it, like if you've spent your life giving into something, shouldn't you get something back?

Speaker 1 (20m 36s): Well, I mean, that was kind of the idea behind social security. Well, I'm sorry that wasn't the original idea behind social security, but then it became the idea behind social security, you know, after, because for awhile it was the pensions that kind of did that, you know, you, and you invested yourself into a company and then the company took care of you, you know? And that was a really good relationship for the people who got to take advantage of that. You know, the nineties rolled around and there's not too many more pension funds ever since then.

You know, I would say there's, there's a really interesting conversation happening right now because you do have a lot of displaced people. You have a lot of automation and artificial intelligence are going to devastate blue and white collar jobs as they rapidly progress here in the next 10 years or so. You're, you have a whole, the whole dysmorphia of how people used to live versus how they're living now and how they think they should.

And there's so many nuances and facets to this, right. But one of the things that I, you know, in reflecting on that for quite a few years, I found myself leading my down a path of a universal standard of living.

Speaker 0 (21m 58s): I like it.

Speaker 1 (21m 59s): So instead of, you know, equality of outcome, you have equality of opportunity and that's what you strive to create, right? Because the quality of outcome is sensitive. You know, somebody is going to work harder than somebody else that's not going to happen. Yeah. But if you give the equality of opportunity, so that would mean, you know, providing basic services for people, you know, home, water, electricity, access to the internet, those types of things.

If that could be provided now on top of education, of course, which is a whole, a whole, another facet of this, which is really interesting because if we look at education, I wrote a fascinating paper. I think it was up-to-date to 2018 or 2019 52% of the people in the United States have a sixth grade education. 18% of people are illiterate.

Speaker 2 (23m 1s): I didn't know that

Speaker 1 (23m 3s): I, yeah, that blew me away. But when you, you know, now if you, if you have throw that into the context of narratives and propagandas and all this stuff, now you see like what people are becoming so divided. And so tribalized, there's a lack of ability to reason about the world online on a scale to the tune of a hundred million plus people in this country. That's wild. Wow.

Speaker 0 (23m 33s): That's crazy. I, that changes everything.

Speaker 1 (23m 36s): Right. And so when you look at it like that, you go, oh, okay. So there's a lot more to this problem than on the surface, especially what you're getting from the information channels most people subscribed to. And you know, when you start to add these things up, you say, okay, well, what is the problem? Why is there the socioeconomic divide? Well, yeah, if somebody grows up in the ghetto and their parents are making $500 a month tops and, you know, or one parent more than likely, you know, what sort of opportunity, what sort of choices does that person have?

Limited, very limited tragically limited. Right. And, and then, and then, you know, we hear these hero stories about people who extricate themselves from these environments and everybody goes, oh, see, it can be done. But what you're not hearing with the hero story is how many hundreds of thousands failed for one hero? Yup. You know, so what do you start to look at these different nuances of this problem? You know, I, I, and that's why I went down this path of a universal standard of living.

Because if, if you cut out that, that provides the opportunity for somebody to actually have the sense, the time to themselves, the resources for themselves to say, Hey, what do I want to do instead of just like, okay, how am I surviving today? Because the reality is, is there's a solid chunk of people. Well, I mean, I would, I would hazard a guess, you know, if 50%, 50, 2% of people at a sixth grade education, more than likely, most of them are just surviving.

And I, you know, it's not even a great education. I went through that system and it was pretty much garbage, but still, it still gave me a foundation enough that I was able to begin to teach myself to reason about the world, to understand logic, to understand systems, to look at things from different perspectives. But if you don't have that education well now, I mean, oh my goodness, that's a travesty.

I mean, to the definition of the word, and I don't see anybody talk about that, because again, that's not one of those things that is a campaign promise. So a one or two sentence solution that is, that needs to be a complete revamp, a complete re understanding of what we're doing. And there's not a lot of public will for that when public will is regulated by how much money's getting, you know, because it's, you know, and I think honestly, most people who have watched and, and reasoned about the system would look and say, Hey, these people really don't have anybody's best interest in mind, but they're self-serving agendas.

They might have some friends and some family that they want to take care of, or they might have some relationships, but by and large, it's very much dictated by how much money somebody got from who and why they gave them that money, which is sad. Now, once you get to local levels, it's not as bad. Right. And you do see the ability to have localized changes via this system, because it's not entirely corrupted, but it's going that way fast too. I mean, you know, you have, you know, just local Congress, people for states getting, you know, I like I saw a hundred thousand dollars to just kind of tow the company line.

I mean, you know, those types of things are insidious to us actually finding solutions to this problem. They, they, they sneak their way in and divide people with rhetoric, with, you know, all of these different propagandas us, first them red vs, blue, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And you know, to your question, the solution to that is long. And I think it's, but I think there's a path to those solutions.

And I, I was thinking about it this week, actually in a, you know, I would call him, I came up with the term breakaway community.

Speaker 0 (27m 57s): I like it.

Speaker 1 (27m 59s): And I think if a community modeled itself, a small community modeled itself after, you know, having an equal opportunity platform or, you know, where basic needs were provided, you could even have this structured as, you know, our corporation essentially, but we have the technology to have one person, one vote, it can be an anonymous way to anonymous. It can be however, you know, we deem fit and we have the ability to, for everybody's voice to be heard.

And I think if we started at the small scale and communal levels, that's a pathway to realize, you know, a solution to that problem. I don't think solutions are going to come from the top down. I think that ship has sailed.

Speaker 0 (28m 47s): Wow. That is a well said very well said. I like those ideas. I, when I look at it through that lens, I w I would agree with you, it, we have had a hundred years of trying to solve it from the top down. And it seems like it's just progressively gotten worse with that strategy. And you're right. I think, do you know of any experiments or anythings that are happening right now, where there are these breakaway cities or these breakaway things?

Have you heard about anything like that?

Speaker 1 (29m 21s): I mean, there's all sorts of different movements, you know, there's, you could go back to the hippie, communes are kind of the same idea, but you know, there's a lot of people who've declared like micronations, and there's, you know, a couple of there, I think there's a libertarian community up in, oh, I want to say Vermont or something like that. That's kind of The freedom project. And they, they, you know, they use Bitcoin is kind of the currency and things like that.

So there are people who have, you know, have tried these breakaway communities and are trying them. I think that it needs to be a bit more than, Hey, do you guys like this idea, let's do it together. I think there needs to be a bit more structure behind it. And I, I, I think that there needs to be, you know, I, I I've actually programmed or wrote a white paper and programmed a little bit of kind of a blockchain technology that would do the voting and whatnot.

And I think something like that as the foundation to a community like this, and then relying on technology and sustainability and focusing on things that we know enable long-term growth and enable long-term resources. And if it was a community very much dedicated and properly structured with the right technology, I think that could be a duplicatable model that would be able to replicate itself throughout the world.

Speaker 0 (30m 57s): Yeah. Now that you say that I remember hearing about some rhetoric about smart cities. I think they were going to have one in Arizona, one up in Canada somewhere.

Speaker 1 (31m 8s): I prob, sorry,

Speaker 0 (31m 11s): Go ahead. I thought there's a problems there. What do you, what do you hear about those?

Speaker 1 (31m 15s): Well, well, the problem with the smart city is, again, it goes back to this entire thing of, well, who's building the smart city. What do they want for building the smart city? Right. Obviously, you know, nobody's motivated unless there's return on investment these days from a, you know, now there is fully entropy and there are people who, you know, donate to causes and whatnot, but in terms of building an entire city, I'm pretty sure that there's somebody who wants to kick back on, on the end of that.

And so, you know, one of the, one of the necessary points of these communities would be that the structure of them is distributed. It's decentralized. So just like we were talking about earlier, you know, the establishment of Western democracy slash Republic was the decentralization of power. Now we have the technology and the ability to decentralize those power structures into a communal structure where the individual has the power.

So, and, and that would in, in to mediate all of this, instead of having a judiciary, we have a program, one that can't be swayed. One that doesn't have emotions and you know, is just strictly X amount of voted on it. And this is what we're going. This is the path we're going to take. And then all of a sudden that shifts the conversation back to the community, because now if I'm truly passionate about something, that's coming up for a vote in our community, well, I'm going to go out and I'm going to talk to people.

You're not going to protest because there's nothing to protest. I'm going to have a conversation because I'm passionate about this and I want, and I need to, and I want to have conver convince you of all this and why we should vote. Yes. Why we should vote now. And when we do that, when you removed that kind of from a game theory perspective, when you remove that arbiter, that, that point of authority now, instead of there being somebody to be angry at it.

So it's you serve actually having to put in the effort of a conversation there's nobody to be angry at. And so the only way to get things done, if you actually truly are passionate about it is to converse with other people in your community.

Speaker 0 (33m 48s): Yeah. I like it. I, I wonder it seems to me that there's a number there, and I don't know what that number is, you know, if it's 10,000 or a hundred thousand, but it seems at some point in time that that would break down, you know, if it got too big, that would break down, that would have to be some sort of familiar familiarity, something like that, or, or some sort of foundational identification and everybody's shared. Right.

But I like it,

Speaker 1 (34m 19s): I would say it absolutely does break down at a larger number of scale, but where it differs is you can have multiple nodes of these, right. They can all be independent to one another, but they can all still have things that affect them regionally, which is exactly what government is. Right. The whole idea of government is that it's supposed to, you know, take this vast landscape of territory and people, and be able to democratize, democratize the, you know, the relationship between everybody.

So, but if everybody everybody's little community handled their, their local, you could have a regional, you know, a regional group, a regional vote. There could be things that would affect the region. Like, you know, if there was three of these over, you know, in 200 square mile area and the watershed that they all used was drying up or was having problems, or somebody wanted to put a dam in it, or something like that, those would be a regional thing that could then be voted on.

Now, again, this does have problems at scale, just like, are our problems at scale right now. But what it does is it takes and puts the value back in their promotes radical self-responsibility. And at the same time, it, it takes the individual. And now every individual is represented A lot of the problems. I think we have our, because we have representatives who are supposed to represent crazy amounts of people that it's just, there's no reality that they could actually represent all of those people, even if they wanted to.

So when you shift that power dynamic, I think the equation changes a little bit because yeah, you're going to have people that are just going to be like, oh, I don't care. But you're also going to have people who rally around ideas. And now it's a discussion about ideas instead of people. And I think that's the key distinction.

Speaker 0 (36m 29s): Yeah. We it's all in some ways, you know, if, if we look at it like nodes or cities and towns, like we almost have the, like, our government is a similar framework. So let me, let me just try to say this is, is that idea that you have, could it, could we use our existing framework of our government now, if we just switched from people's rights to ideas.

Speaker 1 (37m 4s): Interesting question. I would say potentially, but I w I would also say at the same time, the problem is, is that it is, it's all focused on people

Speaker 0 (37m 17s): With the people, we, the people, instead of we, the ideas,

Speaker 1 (37m 21s): Well, well, we, the people's fine, but I think the idea thing is the extrapolation of the individual. When you're, when you're looking at a community of individuals, now we need to have a conversation about ideas, where what we do in the Western world is instead of having that conversation about ideas, we elect a person to go have that conversation for them.

So in and back to the, the motivation and profit and all of those things, would that person be inclined to give up that role for the, for the betterment of society, in terms of just like, we're all, we're all about ideas anymore. Our representatives are representing us. They're only a mechanism of, of promoting ideas. I don't know if that would work just because of how entrenched these profit motivations are in the world today.

I mean, yeah, no, no, no, go ahead.

Speaker 0 (38m 27s): So if, instead of having a representative, if, if we had the framework where we could all just, I mean, everybody's got a mobile phone, if you could just be like, here's where we are as a community on get, I don't know, Pick your, whatever your community problem is, you know, here's where our community stands on carbon capture. You know, I think you could get a very, a much better representation of what the people in that node want versus what the representative is paid to do.

I think they could do that now, right?

Speaker 1 (39m 4s): Oh, sure. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, there's these things out there they're called Dows in the blockchain world and it's basically a decentralized corporation and they have different types of structures. Like, you know, depending on how much of the token that you are in you gain voting rights, et cetera, et cetera, there's inherent problems with those types of

Speaker 0 (39m 27s): What are the pros of the Dows?

Speaker 1 (39m 29s): Well,

Speaker 0 (39m 31s): First,

Speaker 1 (39m 32s): Well, yeah, one of those is being captured by a small group of people, because once you create a limit of who can participate now that becomes a barrier to injury. The other part of those problems is participation actually. So let's say I create a threshold that 33% of the voting populous needs to vote in order for us to pass any, any referendum. What happens if I can't get 33% of the party to vote, or 33% of the group to vote on anything simply because of, there's not enough organization, there's not enough communication there's and I've seen this happen with a few different doubts where, you know, because the crypto markets, mostly speculation, people just bought in the speculate, they don't really care about the actual governments issues of this thing.

Why would I care if you guys are going to get an extra half percent for mining rewind, you know, I'm here to make some money, right? So there's a, there has to be a balance of incentives just like there has, you know, like we talked about the incentives in the Western world being completely out of whack. The Dow worlds are mostly out of whack too, because you know, the whole premise behind most of the people getting involved is speculatory. At this point, if you look at blockchain on a graph of market penetration, you know, it's probably just past 12, 15, 20% market penetration, which means it's on its rise like this.

And it'll rise very quickly to 90% market penetration simply because the cost of trust is mitigated from institutions and operations down to the cost of electricity. So it's just more economical to, to underlie blockchain for all sorts of things, you know, deeds, titles, all, you know, any sort of, any sort of mechanism where you might need to Notre airy or any sort of escrow service. So instead of all of those things, having, you know, buildings and people and computers and networks and systems, now, all of a sudden you have one single program that moderates the entire thing, the cost of running these is just so dramatically different.

That if I'm a business that adopts this, my operating costs, even if I'm a small guy are going to be minuscule compared to the big guy. So now I can, you know, because small guys start competing, big guys adopt, and it's kind of, kind of how it goes, you know? So those, those alignment of factors are very key and why a community like this would be successful versus why it wouldn't. And I think, you know, looking at it and I've thought about it for quite some time, if there needs to be a meritocracy component to it.

So the people who are working for the communities, the people who are invested, the people not necessarily invested monetarily, but invested with their time and effort. Those people need to have some form of, of compensation. And so I think there's a balance to be struck between essentially socialism, meritocracy, meritocracy, and democracy. And I think striking, striking that balance is I, you know, I think we could actually solve many of these problems and it's an interesting balance to strike, right.

Because you know, you're going to piss off just about everybody.

Speaker 0 (43m 23s): Yeah. It's the, it's the only way there has to be some, some form of it, you know, it's, it's interesting, like two of the most interesting people I know live in Colorado, that'd be you and Charles Hodgkinson. Who's the, who's the main or one of the guys that he's the main guy for Cardona, but he's one of the main guys of blockchain technology. And he is, you know, they, they have had problems with getting people to vote on stuff and, and, you know, pools being captured and, and stuff that way.

But I think that there's something to be said about a slight change in our idea of be it socialism or be it, you know, democracy or be a capitalism. And I think you could just maybe, you know, the same way that you shave off one molecule to get DMT from siliciden, you get to shave off one little piece of those and get a whole new system. I think there's, there's gotta be a better way there.

Speaker 1 (44m 28s): I, I think, I think there is, I mean, it's kind of been a passion project for me for 15 years, to be honest, I was originally traveling down in central and south America and, you know, I met, you know, indigenous tribes and they were completely self-sustained they, and, you know, they had hundreds of people completely. Self-sustained all working in a communal level and nobody was working nearly as hard as anybody in the Western world.

And then I saw, you know, smaller communities that were integrated into Western society and, you know, there are sustainable they're two and one. And then all of a sudden you get to like, you know, the central cities and these things are completely in utter disarray. I mean, the jungles taking back the city as a, as you're walking through the city, I mean, you see, you know, just erupting trees and whatnot, and you go, oh, okay. So this is a little different than these beautiful, sustainable beach communities and jungle communities.

So what breaks and, you know, the idea that something is sustainable is I think one of the key components followed it, that community, whether it be through individual effort or an automated system, or a partially automated robotic process needs to generate all of its own food needs to capture all of its own water needs to generate all of its own electricity. If you don't have that sustainable component as a part of these cities, it's when you get these kind of runaway growth situation.

And that's when you end up with these massive mega cities that we have today, that if the trucks stopped being able to show up, for whatever reason, you have 18 million people killing each other in three days for food. I mean, you know, these are, that's a dangerous thing to be teetering on if you think about it from just an objective perspective. So I think integrating that sustainable portion with all of these other kinds of foundational axioms, you know, a universal standard of living decentralized one vote, one person system, yeah.

Meritocracy on top of, you know, that, that, that socialist universal standard of living and then the democracy in there. I think when you, when you start to play with these and put these together, you can create systems that solve many, if not all of our problems that we face today.

Speaker 0 (47m 5s): Okay, let me ask you this. I love that. And I think that, that, I think that that is accurate, I believe in a system like that, but what it seems to me, one of the major drawbacks or the fundamental drawback would be the you'd have to, you would have to have a worldview, a narrative, and a story for those people that live in those communities.

Speaker 1 (47m 33s): What kind of, there was something else I left out, which was removing the roadblocks to perf personal wealth, wealth generation. So capitalism needs to have a play in that as well. You know, for me to start a business today, you have to register with the state, you have to usually get a lawyer. If you don't know what you're doing, you have to, and then you don't even know what you're setting up if you're doing it that way, because you know, how many people actually got schooled in business law and, you know, business structures and all these things.

And there's so many barriers of entry. And then let alone, if I actually want to do something with like a hardware or chemicals or anything like that. And all of a sudden the barriers of entry continue to stack up. So to the point that if I'm not somebody who's exceptionally credentialed or has a massive network of people or a pool of wealth to draw from, I can not, I can't participate. Right. Even if I have a fantastic idea and I can't even float that idea to have somebody tell me that it's not even a fantastic idea, because I can't even pay enough to get that feedback.

So removing those barriers of entry to personal wealth generation. So now imagine you have a universal standard of living. So I'm not worried about paying the bills, but now I want to go out and I have a passion. I have something that interests me. I really got into, you know, rocketry or whatever. Now I can go out. And my entire focus is that now part of this crypto network would be to enable that each individual would have access to the ability to sell their own goods and services at no cost.

It's just part of your app on your phone, right? So now I don't have the barriers of entry to get into business. I don't have the barriers of entry to subs subsist, so I can try business. Now I can go out and test my ideas against the marketplace. And without having to worry about fulfilling all of these other resource draining things that creates a wealth of innovation of creativity, because you're, you're removing the constraints of what's drawing.

People's focus away from those passions, from those ideas, from those pursuits.

Speaker 0 (50m 8s): That's awesome. I never thought about it like that. Yeah. We got in, in some ways, I guess we're kind of seeing a glimpse of that. I mean, you and I can come on here and we can have conversations about the future and the past and what we think and how we feel, how would that, would that just be like, everybody's phone comes with like a Shopify account or like, like what, what would it be like?

Speaker 1 (50m 35s): Yeah. But you would make it a little bit more of an automated thing. And then, so the white paper that I wrote, you know, if you created this environment where at the end user, you could, you know, they're basically their own business. Now what happens is you're going to have an increase of transactions on the network. And that means more, more value being shifted in the network, which means more value generated in the network, which means more value for the, the, the communal organization.

And that's what provides that feedback loop is what provides the ability to provide the universal standard of living, to have the upkeep, to have all of these things. And so the idea is you're you create a, a truly sustainable system, not from just like a power production stone standpoint or a food standpoint, but humanity, sustainable production, where it's not just about, you know, living and surviving. It's also about gaining wealth and growth and thriving.

And we, we have the technology to build that today, 100%. Now you need the will and the resources to, to accomplish it. Nobody wants to give up resources because there's no profit to be made by investing it. That's the caveat.

Speaker 0 (52m 4s): And you want to build this thing and it's let all these people use it for free. I can't believe it. What's wrong with you. You know, we're going to send a give that away.

Speaker 1 (52m 12s): And then, you know, but if you do it that way and the meritocracy, and this is where the meritocracy component comes in, as people generate their wealth, and it's going to naturally raise the tide and all ships on, on, on a raising tide type thing. So the entire community, the wealth of the community is going to go up by each individual success, not by taxing them or taking something from them, or, you know, having them go through a patent process, which is going to get ripped off or any of these shenanigans.

But simply by the fact that it's creating more transactions on the network, it's drawing more intention and it's not. And, and as that happens, more and more people are going to get attention and the whole network will grow. So that in that meritocracy component comes into play. As, as you invest more into the system, as the system grows from your, from your creativity, from all of these, then wealth comes back, you know, twofold, threefold to the entire community.

Speaker 0 (53m 17s): Yeah. It's, it's, I wonder if Google or Yahoo or, you know, YouTube, they could almost do that now. Like if they

Speaker 1 (53m 32s): Sure there's, you know, I estimated to get a group of basically 10,000 people doing this, it would be probably $1.2 billion. And that would be to build the foundation. The next one would cost a fifth of that. And then the next one would cost a fifth of that. And it, it kind of goes like this, but the cost goes down over time. It's the initial cost to set this up, which is the big bird.

It's the big hurdle to cross. But yeah, somebody like a Google, you know, YouTube, Facebook, you know, instead of focusing on VR, they could build, they could build radar real reality.

Speaker 0 (54m 19s): All right. But yeah, we've got a question here, man. Let's, let's see what these are, what our friends have to say. It says, hi, this is from Anthony Hayes. What's up, Anthony. Thanks for

Speaker 1 (54m 25s): Listening.

Speaker 0 (54m 27s): Hi guys, listen into what you're trying to put out there. I'd like to add in the days of Noah corruption of the duel and mind got so bad that God decided enough was enough. Man's ignorance in those days are far lesser than today. We just seen in England, the shop's running bare as people's self greed, and self-importance became clear how dogs behave in moments of trouble and shutdowns your societies that you are talking about. Forget the one basis of human greed and corruption that, oh, I think that, that is that more there that you, I think it's okay.

So I guess what he's, w I guess what he's trying to say here is that the very foundation of greed will make it so that we can't do it. What say you, Mr. Wizard?

Speaker 1 (55m 19s): Well, you know, we were just talking about this in the game. When you have, when you have a greedy player, you know, the, the choices that you're going to choose are going to negatively impact the others. That's pretty much what he's saying. You know, the difference in this type of proposed system would be that your greed does not take away from someone else's opportunity,

Speaker 0 (55m 48s): Right?

Speaker 1 (55m 51s): Because in the wider world, that's typically what it is. When, when, when a greedy actor acts in that way, they're, they're removing the opportunity from other people, right? When you have a universal standard of living now that greed, while it may still remove some of their opportunities, not going to really impact their bottom line of living life. So now my, you know, this is kind of getting into the psychology of people.

You know, if yeah, you might've taken away my ability to earn a dollar, and now I can only earn 90 cents because you beat me in a market about this. Or, you know, you stole this from some other person or whatnot, but I am going to go home. I'm going to be able to eat. I have food. I have my family, my friends, I have my entertainment. I still have my opportunities. Now I can just form a better idea, my response to somebody, as opposed to, Hey, you just removed the ability for me to provide for my family.

My kid is going hungry right now because you took something from me. These are two very, very different, you know, psychological paths on how we look and view the world when we are done wrong. Again, if it's something that's really impacting, you know, those I truly love and care about, and it's taking away my ability to provide for them. That's a whole different, that's a whole different game. That's when people pick up weapons.

Right.

Speaker 0 (57m 33s): But

Speaker 1 (57m 34s): Yeah.

Speaker 0 (57m 36s): Yeah. I, I think the idea of a universal basic lifestyle, I think one factor that I haven't heard is talk too much about what you just touched on. There is it provides, it gives you back your time, your greatest asset. It allows you to be the sole proprietor of that, which you do, you no longer are going to have this slave mentality. And if, and touching on what the, what, what our listeners said is, you know, instead of it being, yeah, I'm greedy, you took a dollar from me.

Yeah. I came up and I made this better, but that money is going to be funneled back into the foundation. You know, at least some of it where now there's been this blockage that, you know, it goes to the top and it's supposed to come back, but it gets caught up in this guy's family office. You know what I mean? There's like a little

Speaker 1 (58m 31s): Trickle

Speaker 0 (58m 33s): Off to the side and his other account that I have over here, you're not, I got a rain captured a little gutter. It goes right over here, all the, all the runoff

Speaker 1 (58m 39s): Trickle down into my dam. Yeah,

Speaker 0 (58m 42s): Exactly, exactly. But I think that that's, I think that that is something that should be factored in, is this idea of your time. Cause that's, that's probably the only one thing that we all have that is equal is that we all have 24 hours in a day. And some people have the, the great fortune of being able to utilize all those hours without having to go put their shoulder to the wheel for the man in a sort of way.

Speaker 1 (59m 15s): Well, you know, and the thing is, is how many people are living paycheck to paycheck

Speaker 0 (59m 19s): A lot.

Speaker 1 (59m 20s): Yeah. So, and the reality of that situation is, is that every single dollar you're making, you're already spending it in your mind, it's causing you stress, it's causing you worry, it's causing you concern. You're not focused on what makes you passionate. You don't give a shit about what makes you passionate at that point. You just care about paying the damn bills.

Speaker 0 (59m 40s): Yeah.

Speaker 1 (59m 42s): So this is, you know, when you remove that aspect of somebody's pathology, when they're not worried about just paying the bills, when they're not worried about how they're not going to make it, how, you know, all of the things that are not going to be able to do when their effort is rewarded with now, all of the things that they can potentially do or are, you know, and have a more, a larger propensity to do. Now, you change the entire psychology of the situation. You change the motivations for why people do it.

You change how, you know, through those changes of motivation, you're going to be changing. You know, how hard people work, their efficiency of work, their, you know, their application to getting better at their, whatever they're doing. Whereas when you're paycheck to paycheck, you don't really care.

Speaker 0 (1h 0m 33s): You don't, you don't have the luxury of caring

Speaker 1 (1h 0m 34s): And you don't have the luxury of caring. Correct? Yeah.

Speaker 0 (1h 0m 38s): And how much, gosh, it makes me think of so many things. How much of the mental illness today is a direct reflection of people's ability to only scratch by, you know, they, people, people tend to define themselves by what they do, which is such a poor. I wish they wouldn't do that. Like we were so much more than what you do. You are a, a brother, a father, a sister, a husband, a love, or even there's so many things, but some people are like, oh, I'm a truck driver. Like, that's the one thing you go with. Like, no, no, you're okay.

You're that? But you're all these other things. And I think that that's this unhealthy feedback loop that people get into BMO, successful stockbroker, a lawyer, a president, when you pigeonhole yourself into this one identity. And especially when that identity is living paycheck to paycheck, that's when you start going crazy, it's like, oh my God, on this one thing like in, and you cut off so much of who you are and you've cut off of the possibilities of what you can become or what you can be or what other people think of you.

And I really like this idea. I think there's a lot to explore there. And I, I wonder what it would be like if, if time was the actual currency that people could spend. I think that that would be phenomenal.

Speaker 1 (1h 1m 55s): And that's what this that's ultimately what this kind of structure gets to. And, and, you know, the, the fledgling of the idea came from watching these indigenous tribes actually, as I was traveling, you know, I went and stayed with them. Like I know a little bit of medical stuff, so I've fixed up a couple scrapes and cuts and, you know, you know, applied some antibiotics and whatnot, but watching the daily lives is, you know, yeah. They were working hard.

They were working hard for the first four hours of the day when they woke up right before the sun went out, caught some fish, got all the water for the day, harvested all the vegetables for the day. And guess what the rest of the day was, it was hanging out, having a good time, enjoying the morning, catch, enjoying the harvest, enjoying each other's company. And yeah, it wasn't always equal depending on where they were on the world and the access to resources. But there was a fair number of them who are living much more quality lives than I would say, anybody living paycheck to paycheck.

And so the idea exactly what you said is what happens when you have your time back and what happens when that's the arbiter of your day daily processes and what you're going and want to do today? I don't even know that there's how many people get to the point where they get to do what they want today. I don't think there's quite a few in the Western world. I probably a small number.

Speaker 0 (1h 3m 28s): Yeah. And we teach, we teach kids in at the very earliest age that, you know, if you look at the Prussian model that we have moved in here it's, you know, you stand in front of an authority figure who, and you listen to these bells, like a Pavlovian dog, and you'll raise your hand to go to the bathroom and you get a hall pass. It's like we have, we're building the next generation of obedient workers and it's been going on for way too long.

Speaker 1 (1h 3m 53s): Well, that was the whole education system anyway. Right. It was founded, I forget the guy's name, but he, he designed an education system to make workers. And that's what we had talked at as our education system, by some Gloria's use of the human brain.

Speaker 0 (1h 4m 12s): Yeah. I forget the quote we've we, we have enough philosopher. We have enough, but I, you know what, maybe that's what was maybe if we look back at it, maybe we needed that to get where we are today so that we can build this new system going forward.

Speaker 1 (1h 4m 31s): Well, I think you could ever, you can ever argue against something, right? Because all of those choices, all of that effort and everything that had happened has brought us to today. I mean, that's, you know, all, we stand on the shoulders of giants, whether those giants were indoctrinated workers or not. However, you know, I think it does beg the question of, could we be in a different place? Have we had we taken, you know, how have we, instead of focusing on, as the human, as a commodity, If we focus on the human as the end goal, you know, if we're all for lack of a better word, we're all creators.

Yeah. Even, even the thoughts in our head are producing wave that, you know, energy and frequencies that are going out and interacting with everything else around us. In my model, it's impacting the unfolding of reality. But beyond that, you know, we are the, the arbiters of this earth. We are the people who create all the things. We are the people who are building all of the, all of the structures and all of these things. So we are creators. And if the focus was on building better creators, radical and innovative individuals who were completely self-sustainable, who understood reason, understood logic, know how to absorb information, understand the scientific method, able to apply these perspectives and processes to everyday life.

Would we be in a better place? I think we would be personally because every single person who I've met in my life who's taken the time to get to that stage does wonders for the people around them, their community, you know, they are, they're the pillars of their community. And I don't find too many pillars of communities that don't have those attributes.

Speaker 0 (1h 6m 40s): Yeah, I agree. I, I, I think there's, there's, I think that, I think we could adopt that and move it forward. Like you said, I, I would really love to read that white paper. Maybe you can shoot that over to me and we could, we could cover through that. What,

Speaker 1 (1h 6m 58s): So

Speaker 0 (1h 6m 59s): Please.

Speaker 1 (1h 6m 60s): No, no, go ahead.

Speaker 0 (1h 7m 1s): How do you think that that transition would begin? Let, like, let's say we could begin to implement, you know, sort of some changes that would lead to what we were talking about. How would we begin a transition like that?

Speaker 1 (1h 7m 17s): I think one of the there's two initial hurdles. One is the resources that we talked about. The second is really the proper education system. We would need an education. We need to revamp the education system. Obviously if 52% of people are only getting a sixth grade and 18% are illiterate, we're not doing a good job.

Speaker 0 (1h 7m 42s): Right.

Speaker 1 (1h 7m 43s): So, so there needs to be, that's one of the larger hurdles that, you know, I see personally is because the other side of that coin is, you know, those people who are on the lesser side of education. Yeah. They're going to have a lot of common sense, but they're not going to have any reasoning capabilities for these types of ideas. And to them, you know, they're stuck in the paycheck to paycheck, the resource driven and, you know, environment, you know, to look into, you know, the future is something that most can't do, but most people don't even have the luxury to do.

As we talked about, you know, if the resources could be overcome, it's simply a matter of, excuse me, it's simply a matter of just getting the first few people who want to build the damn thing. I mean, that's kind of how everything starts. It's, you know, if you can get a few people who really want to build something like that, magic will happen, kind of feel to dreams it.

Speaker 0 (1h 8m 48s): If you build it, they'll come. Yeah. It's interesting. I had a, I recently wrote a paper to my child's school and had this idea of, you know, if, if you, if you just changed the structure of what the school is, she I'm really lucky. She goes to an awesome school, but, and I thought to myself, like, what if we did just thought experiment where, you know, you, you, on some level you would have to try out for the school.

And I, and I, and there's a problems with that, but you know, the audition for the school, it could be like, okay, what, what can you do? And you don't have to be really wealthy, but maybe you're a, maybe you can build a Tongan wall or maybe you're good at agriculture, you know, but I think that there should be some sort of, at least attributes, okay. Like what can you do? You, let me, let me hear what your ideas are. If you're going to have a school for leaders to go to, what can you do? And once you can figure out how to,

Speaker 1 (1h 9m 58s): Well, that's actually, that's really old model. That's the ancient mystery schools. I'm not sure how familiar you are with those, but

Speaker 0 (1h 10m 8s): That was

Speaker 1 (1h 10m 10s): So, you know, especially the oldest one, he said it was, you know, you would come in and you would, the only people who were initiated into those schools were people who actually were really well-educated are well resourced or well defined in the world. But then that those entire schools were 15 year processes. Most of them, you know, to actually create leaders and create masters or, you know, depending on what school you're talking about.

And so, yeah, that model has been around for as long as we've been around Quite a bit longer, probably. And I, I, there is something to that, because again, it just kind of goes back to the meritocracy aspect of things, right. There, there should be, you know, somebody who spends the time and effort, who, who, who makes the sacrifices, frankly, from, you know, enjoyment and entertainment and all these other things too, achieve the ability to, you know, not just have the idea, but to reconcile the idea and speak about it and try to convince other people about it and, you know, or, you know, become a leader or things like this that should be recognized in society, because those are the people who truly make society better, you know, objectives, objectives, looking back at history.

And so you want to reward those people. And I think having, you know, a system like that, where, yeah, you're, you're in this thing, but it's not gonna be a short process and it's not going to be a luxurious process and it's not going to be something that you get out. And you're like, Hey, cool, pay me a billion dollars type thing, because that's kind of, those are the upper echelons of what we call our elite schools these days. Right? If, if you removed those things and it was just focused on creating better leaders, better pillars of community, I think that's something that would be exceptionally beneficial to society as a whole.

Speaker 0 (1h 12m 24s): Yeah. I imagine, imagine a group of like, say second graders, and maybe, maybe you have a class of 10 or 12 and you come up with an idea. And so, so you have this, you have this group of second graders, or maybe you even have an elementary school. And once a year, the kids get together and they form a group and each group has a project. They work on, they work on it for six months. And then after six months you have like this, almost like a job fair slash kind of a burning man thing, where you go up on stage and you, you invite the community into the school and you say, here's this product we created.

Here's this service created, here's this new type of music we've created. Each cohort can have their own project that they did. And it can be, it doesn't have to be limited to anything. It can be whatever it is they've chosen to do, they get presented.

Speaker 1 (1h 13m 19s): I think you just hit the nail on the head.

Speaker 0 (1h 13m 21s): Okay.

Speaker 1 (1h 13m 23s): You invite the community into the education process.

Speaker 0 (1h 13m 28s): Yes.

Speaker 1 (1h 13m 32s): You invite them. Yeah. Because why wouldn't you for one? Right, right. There's, there's garbage, like science fairs and stuff like that. But those are only like weekend events. What you're talking about, what you're talking about is the exploration of a young mind and bringing in the community to not only reinforce that, you know, the wonderful ideas and the creativity, but then also to identify, you know, things that are gonna grow the community,

Speaker 0 (1h 14m 8s): Each, each, each kid or group would naturally gravitate towards the stage in which they were like, look at this thing. This is awesome. And then the school or the entity that if it was a good service or project or, or product, the school could invest in those kids, let's start this business. Now, the kids are in a business with this place.

Speaker 1 (1h 14m 30s): And that's where that crypto network comes back into play. And this is that, you know, one person, one vote in a decentralized aspect of all of that. But now all of a sudden, a portion of your app on your phone is, you know, a student community projects, and you can pull that up. And even if you weren't at the school that day, you see the videos, you see the multimedia of all these things. And you're like, holy cow, that's awesome. A sixth grader thought of that. Yeah. Let's prop these sixth graders up and anybody in the community can then be like, Hey, we want to invest $10,000 in the sixth graders to explore their idea to, you know, whatever.

And you know, and things like that in the crypto network, you, you have different levels of voting. Not everybody needs to vote on everything all the time. I think that's part of the problem with these doubts. You know, you have a regional thing. If it's just a group of school, kids at a local, you know, 70 person school, well, the only people who should really be impacted by that are this 70, you know, the 140 parents roughly in that local environment, you know, and they can, they can vote to invest network funds at a certain scale.

And so you break these certain scales off and yeah, that's gonna, it's gonna be a hit and miss for a minute and it's going to be some trial and error. But I think the, the idea, the mechanism that the underlying mechanism works itself out, because now if you have the people who are truly interested in that cool idea, I was the only people who are the arbiters of where money should go and where resources should go to these ideas. Then guess what community is going to get good. The ones who are benefiting themselves by investing in these ideas of the community.

I mean, you know, it becomes a feedback loop again.

Speaker 0 (1h 16m 26s): Yeah. There's, you know, and it makes me excited. Cause I think we're there. Like, I think that ideas like this conversations, like we're having books like no absolutes, like I think that this is the beginning of the new form that we've kind of been talking about. And I it's exciting to me,

Speaker 1 (1h 16m 47s): Exciting to me to, you know, my thing is, is I've also, you know, I've been the passion project of putting a community together. Like this has been 15 years in the making for me. I came up with the original idea 15 years ago and thought I had it all figured out, took 15 years before I could say, yeah, I got a good chunk of it figured out at least, but you know, these types of conversations, you know, the ability for us to communicate with people at a, at a personal level, especially allows us, I think, to take this next step.

That's, that's part of the reason that I'm now coming out and talking about my book and talking about these ideas is because I think that conversation needs to happen in this world. And if it doesn't happen well, I mean, I don't think it'd take a rocket scientist to look around and say, shit's kind of going off the rails for

Speaker 0 (1h 17m 45s): Yeah. And it's, it's so welcoming to be on a level where you can talk to someone and, you know, previously we were talking about the problems with top down organization, but when we start, speaking of things, like let's invite the community to come in and be part of it. Like now you're talking about a real opportunity for everyone to participate instead of being forced into this box or pushed over here or allowed to do this, Hey, I'm inviting you to be part of the solution.

And there's something that changes in the way you think about the world and the way you participate in the world when you're given the opportunity or the invitation to be creative or the opportunity to, Hey, let's see what you could do here. I, I really think that that's when creative change and real change and even magic can happen is when people have that that's giving back our time that seeing ourselves different, that seeing ourselves as a team or part of the other, rather than an adversarial role in the competitive world

Speaker 1 (1h 18m 56s): Or a commodity

Speaker 0 (1h 18m 57s): Or a commodity. Yes, yes.

Speaker 1 (1h 19m 0s): Yeah.

Speaker 0 (1h 19m 1s): Yeah. It's lifting the veil of commodification from people's vision. I think,

Speaker 1 (1h 19m 8s): I think so too. I, and I think you, you touched on it, but I think there is tremendous value, tremendous value because from my own personal experience, it was when I first came up with that idea. And then I started living more of that lifestyle, even though I couldn't afford to really, I, you know, I was still hustling. I was, I was a digital nomad before digital nomad was a coined term. And you know, so I wasn't making the money, a digital nomad made, but you know, I was surviving, but you know, just, you know, slowly being able to integrate myself into that model at a personal level really just changed my entire perspective on not just myself, my potential, but also other people, you know, I have a genuine love for everybody.

Speaker 0 (1h 20m 3s): Yeah.

Speaker 1 (1h 20m 4s): Perfectly Frank now there's people who, you know, because they're DS and choices and there's some people who, you know, they don't get any of it because of, because of the same things. But at a general scale, you know, I love people and everywhere I've traveled in the world, people are just people. They want the same things, you know, and they're all, they're all pleasant and wonderful and inviting and caring. And there was one time I was down in Nicaragua and I was traveling out to this place called the corn island.

And you have to stop in a place called Bluefield and then take a boat out there. This was back in the day. And, and so I'm stuck there for a couple of days. So I'm just kind of wandering around me and a buddy and really just, I mean, lean to shacks with sheet metal and wood just kind of thrown together, probably, you know, four or five screws for the whole thing, type idea, super hot, 105 degrees that day or whatever is through the roof. We're just sweating on the side of the road, taking a break and this sweet lady comes up and she's like, Hey, can I offer you some ice water in Spanish?

And we figured it out in my broken Spanish at the time. And so she takes us back to this little lean to shack things or daughter out to run down the street to go get ice cleans out a couple of plastic cups, which looked like the only plastic cup she owned, set us down. We're strangers, mind you set us down, had another, her son was there trying to cool us off with a fan. And daughter comes back with vice. She pours us water and puts a fresh lemon in it just miles the whole time.

Now mind you, we were both, we broken Spanish. So we're not really communicating. This was just a gesture by somebody who had absolutely nothing, but a little bit of shade and the ability to get some ice water and brought us in and just took care of us. And then we ended up staying and she, you know, had a conversation. We ended up buying him dinner because why not? You know, I mean, it was, and it was a wonderful day where I just got to have a human experience and I can, I could go on for probably another hour with stories like that.

And people are people. They want the same thing. They, they, they want family. They want security, they want exploration. They want adventure. They want, they want to feel good. They want to feel taken care of. They want to feel respected. They want to have opportunity when you start to get a little bit further away. And people are in tribes and groups of people and stereotypes and all this other stuff. A lot of problems start to arise that the end of the day, people are just people.

Speaker 0 (1h 22m 58s): Yeah. What a beautiful lesson that, that lady taught you. And I'm sure you caught that lesson before, but

Speaker 1 (1h 23m 5s): Beautiful.

Speaker 0 (1h 23m 6s): You know what I mean? Like what a, what a beautiful situation, where here you are a stranger in a strange land and someone sometimes I think that's just the earth or a force bigger than you can imagine. Just kind of giving you a hug. Like, Hey man, I got you. And it makes me want to do that for other people. Like I there's, this me. Can I, can I share a quick story with you here? Thank you. So I, as a, I'm a ups driver and a on my route. There's one thing I have found is that no matter what you do, you can find something to do while you're doing it and make it more enjoyable.

And one of the things I like to do is I get to know all the families and kids on my route. And sometimes there's just these beautiful little moments that happen. There's this little, little boy he's probably maybe four years old, little Japanese boy. And like, he barely speaks English. And whenever I pull up by his house, you could run it out of his house. He's just, he'll just stand there. Like, like his eyes are all big. I'm like, you want to see inside the truck, You know? And for like the first year, all he could say in English was. Yep. So it would be, he wants you to say the short.

Yep. Hey, you want to look over here? Yep. Did you go to school today? Yep. And you know what? I was so damn cute. I got a, I got a little ups truck and whenever I see them, I'll hand them some stuff, but it's just this little thing that you wouldn't expect like this, the bright smile on a four year old kid that doesn't even speak the same language kind of makes. And there's been days I've been having such a crappy day and I show up and like, I'm not even thinking about it. I see this kid run out and I'm like, you know what, to this kid, I am something awesome right now.

Like I, he looks forward every day to seeing this truck pull up and it fundamentally changes the way I see myself, the world relationships, just this little, little lesson teaching me. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (1h 24m 58s): The little moment in time, a little, a little shot of perspective.

Speaker 0 (1h 25m 3s): It's beautiful.

Speaker 1 (1h 25m 4s): You know, there is a, you know, again, many stories, but there was another one where I was, I was, I was in the middle of the San Jose, Costa Rica, a couple million people in the town on lost. I'm a downtown. I I've asked four people for directions. And I don't know how familiar you are with most Latin cultures, but they don't like to tell, you know, so I got four different directions in four different directions. And so I'm completely lost at this point. And I'm sitting there looking at a map and like looking at buildings and this little old lady who must've been 75 to 85 comes up, doesn't speak a lick of English, of course.

And she asked me where I'm going. And I knew enough to tell her where I was going and she grabs my arm. And she walked me to where I needed to be. That I can honestly say that that moment changed my life because that was like, I was frustrated. I'm stressed. I was, you know, I'd been in the country for about two months at that point. And, and I had had some good times. I'd had some bad times and today I just needed, I forget exactly where I was trying to go.

I needed to get something done though. And I had been led astray four separate times by good intention to people, you know, and then this little old lady out of nowhere just grabs my arm and walks me to exactly where I need to be, which was by the way, six blocks away and took 30 minutes. And I was just like, wow. I mean, you know, and ever since then, I'll always go out of my way to, you know, make sure that somebody needs to find their destination simply because of that woman did it to me.

Speaker 0 (1h 26m 51s): Let's see. Okay. Listen to the language. They're like, do you think that that's the way the world works? Like sometimes when you get frustrated, it's a force shows up and then shows you the way, like you said, your destination, that it's pretty close to destiny, you know, in a weird sort of way. It's almost like, you know, who's to say the world we see is the way the world it is. Maybe these people we see are just different forces and we've manifested them in our own mind. And this, this force is, oh, okay, I see what's happening. And you're a little too, you're a little too stressed out to interpret the reality.

Let me have this person show you the way. It's almost like this invisible hand guiding us, you know?

Speaker 1 (1h 27m 27s): Well, in my model of things, you know, that, that goes into the, every other moments connected every moment, the infancy of potentiality. And you know, when, when you're, when you're in that mode, you're creating a very, very strong presence. You know, people can feel that type of energy coming off of people and, you know, for whatever reason, and, you know, you could get in to talking about the reasons, but you know, that person's in the right moment at that right time picks up on that right signal.

And, you know, I also say there's no coincidence.

Speaker 0 (1h 28m 5s): I agree.

Speaker 1 (1h 28m 7s): And so when something like that happens, I feel it's important to pay attention. And I, you know, I've spent the past 15 years of my life paying attention to moments similar to that, which has led me to here now. And I'm thankful for every single step of every single lesson along that path. So, yes. To answer your question, I, you know, I do think there is, there is a confluence of aspects of nature, of reality of the universe that do generate our unfolding of reality.

And we are a direct impact upon that. You know, again, attaching back to the creator compensation, you know, we are creating our own reality, just so happens. You're creating with eight other billion people and truly, you know, a couple hundred billion plants and a lot of billions of animals and all of these other things and all these other things. But yes, you are a part of that system. And that system responds directly to you, whether you're entirely aware of it or whether it just as a parcel recognition or something like that, or maybe you don't even see it, it's still happened.

And I think the more that we observed these types of events, you know, and are aware of these things in our life, the greater, the appreciation becomes for just how much a part of everything else we are. And that's where, you know, personally, my love for people was born. So because we are a part of this whole thing, and it's all unfolding, I'm naturally inquisitive and I've solved a lot of life's riddles, but I want to see where it's going. What are we unfolding?

Why what for, you know, those are fun questions for me personally. So yeah.

Speaker 0 (1h 29m 57s): Yeah. I agree. And I, I think that, you know, it's, it's like a origami goose, you know, but then you, then you, you fold over one corner. Like now it's a praying man is now it's a frog, wait a minute. What did what's going on here? And it's just this infinite folds that keep on unfolding. And it's, it's sometimes it's easy to forget that. And it's, it's easy to realize that yeah.

When times get tough, it's, it's difficult to remember that you are having a actual physical response. It's difficult to realize that your part of the reason it's like that does that kind of make sense. Like I, sometimes I get caught up and if I get in cruise control, like I forget that I'm the one in control or maybe not in control, but I'm the one who is at least interacting with this thing.

Speaker 1 (1h 30m 56s): Well, you have an effect.

Speaker 0 (1h 30m 58s): Yeah. Thank you.

Speaker 1 (1h 31m 0s): You know, control assumes that you're holding onto the wheel and nobody's holding onto the wheel. I'm pretty sure we can all agree on that, But yeah. You have the ability to influence the direction of things and, and yeah, we do. We do get lost in that. You know, if it's a crazy day, you're not thinking about any of that. That's the farthest thing from your mind, you're trying to survive the dang day, trying to get done what you have to get done.

You're trying to not be busy. You're trying to take care of everybody's needs, yada, yada, yada. And yeah, this goes back to, you know, the idea of how our, how we build our communities and society. But if, again, you were to able to have more control over, you know, I'm not just looking for resources and trying to, you know, find some sustained level of subsisting. Now I'm actually out here in the world, imagine how that changes somebody's perspective in those daily events.

You're not caught up in them anymore. Now your choice is much more on your own. The ability to impact those events becomes a much more cognizant and aware process. Right? And I think the there's absolutely power in that. Not from just the personal level, but from, you know, the ability for people to get beyond themselves and have conversations like this.

Speaker 0 (1h 32m 32s): Let me ask you this question here. I agree. I, I, I want to be part of the, the team that provides people with more time. It seems like though, what, in our reality what's happening is that there is a massive amount of influence, a massive amount of money, a massive amount of power. That's desperately trying to take your time from you. What would be like, how would that, how would you get those entities to try to stop taking or going after people's time?

Cause it seems like if we all want to have more time and open up ourselves to the world, we have to control our own time and we have to be cognizant of that. And it just seems like there's so much powerful interests trying to make sure that you don't do that. How, how would you shift that

Speaker 1 (1h 33m 23s): Now? Here's the magic of the idea.

Speaker 0 (1h 33m 25s): Okay. Awesome.

Speaker 1 (1h 33m 27s): Is you out-compete them in the marketplace?

Speaker 0 (1h 33m 32s): You're

Speaker 1 (1h 33m 32s): Not, you're not, you're not trying to shift their gears. You're not going to shift a group. I mean, these are, these are institutions that are, you know, in throttled in their models and they will, you know, there's zombies to it to change. But the one thing and the one place that you can compete against these people and these institutions is in the marketplace. And when you create an environment where all of the people in the organization are not only able to have their time and energy be spent mostly on their ideas and bring those into the world.

But you also take away the barriers of entry. Eventually the leeches, the parasites, along the way, who are sucking the wealth of those ideas out as they come to the marketplace and you put those two together and you take that as competition to those people, you're going to win because the people that you have that are creating these ideas and putting their, their effort and time and love into this, those are the people who are going to eventually, even if not in the beginning, create they'll, there'll be a team of a hundred people working on the same problem, because they're going to be able to see perspectives in that problem, that the, the team of a hundred people working for a paycheck who are still worried about their bottom line and all these other things, they won't have the proper perspective to view.

Now, is this going to happen every time? Is it going to happen? You know, you know, instantly, no, but over time in a marketplace of ideas, which is what the free market essentially is, the people who have more ability to spend their personal resources, their, their, their freedoms, their will, their passion, their love on their ideas, where they will directly benefit or kinda kick the shit out of people who are working for one dude on top of a mountain.

I, you know, in anybody who disagrees with that, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't know people.

Speaker 0 (1h 35m 51s): It's interesting. Like as soon as you said that, I began thinking, how has it affected my life in the moment I began becoming my own person, the moment I began believing in myself, loving myself and being like, I'm going to build this thing. All of a sudden, my consumption of other people's ideas kind of fell away. You know, not, not ideas that I'm interested with other people, but the ideas are trying to penetrate me. Yeah. Yes. And all of a sudden I'm like, oh, I got, I got 25 things on my own.

Then I have to do that. I really want to do, I don't have time to consume this. Person's attempt to persuade me. You know? So yeah, that, that does make sense. And I'm much, I, I feel that I am much more aware of and passionate of, and enthralled with these dreams and ideas that I have versus my job where I have to find ways to be stoked about it, by whether it's seeing a kid or, or, you know, creating my own thing at this other person's work, you know, like, so yeah, that does make a lot of sense.

Speaker 1 (1h 36m 58s): And, you know, even like seeing the kid and having an interaction with a kid is in a few places in the country, pretty sketchy proposition, You know, and even so even your ability to create a better situation for yourself is under scrutiny, which is it's wildly incapacitating. The people, you know, you know, it's like I have some business down in Mexico, some manufacturing stuff.

And my business partner, you know, he goes, you know, you just go down to Mexico and you want something done and you talk to the guy and it gets done as long as you're talking to the right guy. You know, whereas here you have to go to this organization, get this stamp, you know, send him this paperwork, have this proper, you know, get them their account information and, you know, verification and regulations and all these things. And by the end of the day, you're like, what was I doing?

So, you know, those, those barriers to entry right there, they become profit centers for some people, but they become a depletion of resources for the creative and the enthusiastic and the, the actionable people in society. And, and they do that. And then they create a very narrow path that if you follow this path, you can, you can actually bring it to market, by the way, this VC firm needs 20% equity, because in order to bring this to market, we're going to need about a million bucks.

And, you know, that's how it goes. You see? And, you know, every, every single step becomes a compromise.

Speaker 0 (1h 38m 44s): Mm wow. That is, there's a lot there. Every single step becomes a compromised. Is that only true in the system we have? Or do you think that that's true in everything?

Speaker 1 (1h 39m 0s): Ah, yeah. That's a hard question to just stop the top of their head. I would say it's certainly true in the system we have, or at least, or at least relatively true. You know, I think there's always, whenever you're going to have an interaction with other people, there's always going to be some form of comp because we're trying to have a conversation and agree in ideas. So, you know, my ability to communicate the evidence that I have versus what you have and your ability to communicate, there's going to be a compromise there, compromise.

Doesn't always, it, isn't always a negative thing. Sometimes those compromises allow us to enlighten ourselves. However, I would say that the compromise that is inherent in today's society, rarely if ever serves to have any sort of beneficial outcomes to the individual.

Speaker 0 (1h 40m 4s): Yeah. That is, I was just thinking the same thing in our society. The word compromise has a negative connotation because it means, oh, well, you can do that, but I'm going to, I want this from you. I want this from you. And I can have a compromise it's synergistic and we're building something together. So I'm, we're compromising. I mean, we are, but it's not like it has a negative compromise. It's more of like a positive building with each other to make our ideas better.

Speaker 1 (1h 40m 30s): Right. So, so in that context, I would say, yes, probably in all forms of iterations of society, you're going to end up with a compromising situation, the context and the nature of that compromise the city, I think is very, very wide spectrum of positive and negative

Speaker 0 (1h 40m 54s): That I had. I had something written down to the kids. It just reminded me about, okay, so what's on truth. And in your book, you say, in order to actually know if something was true, you would have to have access to all the information that ever existed. Anything less is a guest. Even if that guests seems to be consistent, the only real verification would be to compare that guest to all information. And so it brings me back to this idea of truth and truth for the people on the top.

And our system is a lot different than our truth on the bottom. And so how, how could the system, we're talking about be a better truth. I know it's a kind of a complicated question, but does that kind of make sense, like would treat her okay.

Speaker 1 (1h 41m 45s): I'm sure. Yeah. You know, truth is relative in that sense. Now you're going to have a lot of relative truths and I think this is what you're getting to, that, you know, seem pretty consistent. And then when you have this type of society, you know, those relative truths from the top down, or, you know, people must be governed are, you know, these ideas that, you know, ignorance is, is not applicable to the law.

You know, you know, things like these, these truths are relative that they're top down. And when they impact people, people get typically have a negative emotional response to these types of truths. We could probably dissect that a little bit, but in this other model of society, you know, the truths are going to be coming from a point of authority. These relative truths are going to be the relative truth of our, you know, our elementary school kids who had a great idea.

Those are the, because the ideas are the, are the heroes that are being talked about and discussed and, you know, moving forward in society as opposed to a guy or a girl, or, you know, whoever can, you know, make people emotionally riled up and, or, you know, get on the most TV shows or YouTube shows. I think the types of relative truths that come out of that model are going to much more positively impact people than what we see today.

Speaker 0 (1h 43m 26s): Did, did you say the ideas are going to be the heroes?

Speaker 1 (1h 43m 30s): Yes,

Speaker 0 (1h 43m 31s): I can you, can you just expand on that a little bit more? I really liked the way that sounds

Speaker 1 (1h 43m 35s): So, I mean, you know, the idea is historically speaking, you're always the heroes, right? Yeah. We have the stories about, you know, people or whatnot, but it's the ideas that are either villainized or, you know, are the heroes of history. Likewise, I think from a societal perspective, if we were to remove personal experience out of it and just look down, it's the ideas of a society that are up for discussion and it's the ideas that move forward as a society.

And if you've got, if you have bad ideas or bad discussion around said, or even good ideas, then the movement of the society is going to follow that track. Whereas if the, the ideas are the heroes and those are what are identified and what people, you know, that's the dinner conversation, as opposed to, you know, all the bad things we could say, It creates a different dichotomy.

It creates a different relationship between the people as an individual and the community. So I think it would be, you know, significantly different if our society was, you know, much more, even though we, we do it on a, you know, we, we do it kind of in the background. I think if the idea was the hero and it wasn't attached to an individual, it wasn't attached to a company, it wasn't attached to a chunk of money.

Now, all of a sudden we're talking about things that actually improve the whole community, the whole society. We're not talking about the dude who we think is going to do it. And I, you know, I, and another point on that, you know, everybody should be the hero in their own story.

Speaker 0 (1h 45m 34s): Yes, absolutely.

Speaker 1 (1h 45m 36s): And if, you know, you're the hero in your own story, then the, the group of stories becomes the idea, the group of people, of all those heroes, putting the others, their experiences and their, you know, their tribulations and all of these things will create, will foment the ideas that move society forward.

Speaker 0 (1h 45m 59s): I, I really liked that. I've never heard that before. I've never heard ideas or the heroes and it, it opens up so much more like everybody can participate in an idea and, you know, ideas don't have to be, well, you can't be part of my idea, but, but if you're just one person, you know, it's so limiting. But if you're a part of an idea, it's like you get to be part of the solution and not excluded from being the, the one person that can make it happen. And that seems like a bad idea.

One person being in charge of everything that doesn't seem like a very heroic idea,

Speaker 1 (1h 46m 33s): Or tribe's being in charge of something too. It takes, it takes the, it takes the motivation or the predication towards tribalism and shifts it towards idealism. Really. You know, if, if we're focused on the ideas, then we're, that's all we're discussing. We're, we're reading about it. We're discussing the logic. We're discussing the implementation, the systems at play, all of these things. When we're talking about ideas, if we're talking about a person, a group of these things, the ideas are not part of that conversation.

You know, we're talking about potentially their ideas and how it emotionally impacts us, but it's not a discussion about how these ideas can be a better thing to society, you know, you know, and if it is in today's landscape, it's who, who hurrah, this is perfect. Nothing can be wrong with it because it came from this dude or this girl and there's inherent problems. And that, I think, you know, you don't have to put on reading glasses to see it pretty, it's pretty prevalent everywhere you look.

Yeah.

Speaker 0 (1h 47m 49s): Yeah. I agree. 100%. I, I really liked the idea. I really liked the idea of the system that we spoke about earlier. And I'm looking forward to next week when we can maybe discuss a little bit more about what that is. Maybe we can dive into the paper and get some, get some more information there and talk more about their ideas. I, I gotta get ready to go drive a truck and maybe see a four year old kid that'll change my day for the way this was, this is so much fun Benjamin.

I really enjoyed it. And I think we got to get into some really good ideas about it. So I tell people where they can meet you and where they can find you. And they can learn more about some of your ideas

Speaker 1 (1h 48m 33s): As always Benjamin C george.com. And you can also tune in next week on Wednesday for another episode of George and George.

Speaker 0 (1h 48m 41s): Yeah, absolutely. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for joining Anthony. Thanks for chiming in and talking to us and that's it for this week, ladies and gentlemen, we will be back next week. Thank you for your time. I hope you have a great day and I'm going to try not to hang up on you after I do this part right here, Benjamin. So one second. Hi, everybody.