March 9, 2025 • 67 mins
Hello dear show notes reader,
We're 25 episodes in! Woo hoo! (Imagine Leslie Knope. Now read the italicized bit again.)
As the author of these show notes, I feel like 25 should be a significant number, but I also don’t have any valid reason why. Nonetheless, I felt inspired to make these show notes really shine!
What’s good about this episode?
While editing, I had two realizations:
- Dan is a better podcast host than I am. (I’ll deal with that emotionally later.)
- This episode’s format unintentionally gave me a meta-analysis moment—right here, in these show notes.
Here’s what I mean: we both read long quotes from books we’ve been chewing on. When one of us shares a quote, we know a follow-up question is coming—something like "What do you think?" Since we expect it, we listen more actively, playing with the idea in real time instead of waiting for our turn to speak. By the time the sharer is done, the listener is already mentally off to the races, turning the quote over, looking for angles. That made for some damn good back-and-forths.
What’s bad about this episode?
The prep work. As you will hear, we listened to the auidobook version of The Sovereign Individual, by Jame Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg, and neither of us enjoyed it. But we hope you enjoy our discussion about this slog of a book.
Books Discussed
- The Sovereign Individual by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg
- The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe
- Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson
- The Tao Te Ching by Laotzi
- Three-Body Problem by Liu Xicin
Chapter Titles with Timestamps
[00:00] "Should We Just Move to a Tax Haven?"
[02:11] "Books That Should Have Been Shorter"
[04:33] "Did They Predict the Future?"
[06:48] "The Doomers Strike Again"
[10:16] "Technology Changes Power, but Does It Decentralize It?"
[17:59] "The Cyber Economy That Wasn’t"
[24:39] "Populism, Power, and the Small Guy’s Revenge"
[32:40] "Why Build a Few Big Things When You Can Build a Million Small Ones?"
[41:52] "Has the Outrage Faded?"
[45:31]
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
I just want there to be representation and the government to fear the people.
That's all I want.
Yeah.
Yes.
That's, that's, that's all we want.
Just the government to fear the people.
Is that too much to ask for?
Welcome to Unqualified Advice, the show where we try to make sense of business, investing,and life with just enough experience to get ourselves in trouble.
I'm Sean and he's Dan.
(00:21):
We both started in different careers, Dan in IT, climbing the ranks to Chief TechnologyOfficer in New York, and me in manufacturing, managing production quality across three
countries.
At some point, we both decided we didn't know enough.
So we went back to school for our MBAs.
Me at Columbia Business School and Sean at the University of Houston, downtown.
(00:41):
And after all that, we figured the best way to share what we've learned and what we'restill figuring out is to start a podcast.
So if you like deep dives into decision-making, business strategy, and the occasionalhalf-baked investing theory,
Or just enjoy listening to two guys challenge each other's ideas and occasionally admitwhen we're wrong?
You're in the right place.
(01:02):
Welcome to Unqualified Advice.
Hey Dan.
So are you?
How are you feeling?
you ready to go ahead and bolt this place and move to a move to a tax haven?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I feel like I live in a meritocracy and I don't need anyone else in my life.
I'm going to pull myself up by the bootstraps and to hell with anybody else that can't.
(01:25):
Well, I think we have some people that we're going to discuss today that feel the sameway.
Well, yeah, so we finally got through it.
I think we started this book back in what, December?
November?
(01:45):
I don't know when I started.
It took me a while to get through this thing because it was just a...
We are today, dear listeners, talking about our experience reading The SovereignIndividual by John Rhys Moog, and I'm forgetting his name now all of sudden.
(02:06):
James Dale Davidson.
James Dale Davidson, thank you.
No other than one of them has a Lord title, that's all I know.
You know?
not bad.
Yeah, I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, because maybe understanding someof their context would help.
But I think I was, I had enough time just getting to know their ideas that I have.
(02:30):
My intuition is that they are from moneyed families, have a lot of education and took alot of philosophy classes in, in college, but that's, that's just my intuition.
but how far did you make it through?
Did you get all the way through?
you come up a little shy?
(02:53):
it and I think I've got like two hours left.
So for all of my griping and moaning about this, I will say that that last two hours, Ithink chapters 10 and 11, do have some good nuggets in them.
And there's some nuggets there that I actually wanted to touch on today.
So maybe you won't have to read it after this.
(03:16):
Well, think I I actually think that's kind of perfect because we've been circling aroundthis.
If you read if you listen to a couple of prior episodes, I think I've got a kind of zingeron my take from this or a take from this book.
We don't need to go over that again here.
But if yeah, we can dive into the.
(03:38):
The takeaways, I think this is squarely in one of the one of the books that could havebeen like a quarter the length.
or even smaller in order to deliver its message.
Yeah, I think...
I think a quarter feels about right.
I definitely would say half of, of the fluff could have been trimmed away.
There was, you know, all in all, 11 chapters.
(03:59):
And if you'd listen to it via the audio book, I also downloaded the, the, the Kindle bookso I could, so I could, go, go snag quotes, as I like to do, find this, find, you know,
bookmarked little
things I like in the audio book and then I go back and kind of reread that part in thecontext around it a little more closely.
(04:22):
Just how I choose to absorb these things you do as you wish.
No, but you know, all in all, yeah, it was 11 chapters and 22 hours or 23 hours.
was, know, about two hours each chapter being about two hours long.
There's good fiction books that are that long, you know?
What I'm saying is you can tell.
podcast episodes where it's like, I got a lot out of that two hours and some of thesechapters I was like, I think I disappeared for half of it.
(04:51):
Yes, what ended up happening to me is I'd find myself thinking about work of the day andwhat I had been doing or what I needed to do, depending upon which way I was coming or
going, missed, I'd say a good third of this novel, or this was whatever this is, Idefinitely probably did not absorb fully.
And one of the, guess, drawbacks of consuming something via audiobook.
(05:16):
I don't know, I feel like if I did it by print, I would have put it down and not picked itback up.
that's true.
I don't think I would have actually gotten through to the end.
there were times you hear something and then you say, wait, what?
And hit back and relisten.
And I think it's a good way to kind of get through some more dense content like thissometimes.
quick breakdown of, kind of the structure, chapter one, they talk about the transition ofthe year 2000.
(05:42):
So for context, this was written in 19 written released in 1996, I think.
If, memory serves.
you know, we're almost 30 years, since it's publication.
so there's, they start off talking about what is they're calling the fourth stage of humansociety being the information age.
where they're really just talking about the coming of the information age and Honestly, Ido have to give them a lot of credit.
(06:06):
They predicted a lot of, I think they predicted a lot of things that we have seen actuallycome to fruition in terms of the way we've utilized technology now for.
completely taking over our banking lives, completely taking over so many of thetransactions we used to do in person, you know, now our e-commerce transactions.
(06:28):
And this was 96 when what Amazon was maybe just opened or that was at 99 or 98 when thathappened.
Yeah, good question.
I mean, the internet was fake, right?
People were measuring eyeballs and Wall Street was all like, you don't measure eyeballs,we need to measure dollars.
yes, I remember at that time there's still being discussions of like, this internetthing's just gonna be a fad.
(06:49):
And it wasn't, I don't think by and large appreciated to the level that they did actuallykind of understand that and kind of see the coming of smartphones and cryptocurrency and a
lot of things that they did kind of say, more or less say something like this will exist.
I found that at least a little rewarding to get through.
(07:14):
But then they're delved into kind of what the...
totally inflammatory at times too, like the Y2K stuff, like they went off of the deep endon like what's gonna happen and how that's gonna play out.
And I'm sitting there listening to it going like, I remember my mom having to prepare heroffice for this and how much work it was and expense and so on and so forth.
And they did what they could and then it was kind of like, well, we'll see what happens.
(07:38):
But yeah, they were banking on like blackouts, chaos, all kinds of stuff.
And I was like, got that one wrong.
Did your mom work for the university?
No, she works in a doctor's office.
even more understandable.
Okay.
I would call these guys doomers, right?
(08:01):
So there's overall, okay, so yeah, they're hyperbolic to the negative, In general, where.
I was trying to think about this in context of the fourth turning, cause we, we had bothcome into this book after hearing it recommended by some channels where we also heard the
fourth turning recommended on.
We really got a lot out of that book and really liked talking about that.
(08:22):
So we thought we'd pick this one up and the way it was introduced to us, or at least to mewas, uh, it's kind of like a companion piece to.
the fourth turning and kind of like imagining what's coming out of the fourth turning.
I thought that was, was on the made you think podcast, Nat Eliasson's podcast.
And I thought that was a very interesting argument for wanting to get into it.
(08:42):
And I will say, yes, this is like, okay, I could see this being in that timeframe afterthe, after the ecpyrosis and the crisis of the fourth turning coming into this new age.
And I think this is an imagination of what that would look like.
And I just think it's the shittiest version of that.
Okay, say more on that because I feel like, you know, I look at it and think for sure.
(09:07):
The paint, okay, so here's my breakdown.
The picture they paint seems to be like, this is how the world will be.
Whereas I think it's like more, this is how the rich people will be.
Around the world.
Exactly.
feel like I feel that's why I said, then I think they come from a money background.
(09:29):
Because I think they have a very cavalier attitude towards the 95 % of people thatactually this won't none of this will actually quite apply to right.
And they even talk about a number towards the end of saying
You know in the future we envision envision there being a hundred million ultra rich thatcould go and form their own society and honestly You know there if you think about the
(09:57):
total population and the top one percent, they're probably right going for I think
the book and pick the ideas of this book, it almost makes me feel shallow because in a waythis is very expansive and optimistic.
It's like if you have the willingness and agency over your own mind to do things, then youcould be in some echelon of what they describe, which I think would be amazing if more
(10:26):
people were to be elevated into this way of thinking than
You know, I think that we might see some very interesting outcomes for people who wouldotherwise, if they'd have been infected with some other kind of psychology, would be less
actualized.
That is I get that.
Yeah, that makes sense.
(10:46):
Because these are the people that they'd be talking about here really high agency peopleas well right to do any of this.
I think there's like, again, there are a lot of good ideas and things like, I kind ofagree with that.
Okay, that happens sort of.
It just got over.
(11:07):
Yeah, yeah, can we exactly can't
stuffing it down people's throats like dogma or acting like it's just this way and we'regonna leave the 95 % behind because whatever.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Like I also, I'm wondering who they're envisioning is going to be mining the copper forall their devices that they're running or that are running the, this future.
(11:30):
that, you know, well, and then we have zero scarcity, right?
So then it's, you go to a Star Trek future versus this dystopian future, right?
It's a, it.
and how do you then get through that transition?
That's a different sci-fi future entirely in my mind, right?
(11:53):
Because, yeah, it shifts the way everything happens and I don't know what that's gonnalook like when it does happen someday because we're gonna try it eventually and it'll be a
big experiment somewhere and it'll either, who knows?
Yeah.
I was gonna say either, but no, there's like thousands of ways that could probably playout.
(12:18):
yeah, totally.
I mean, they're, yeah, that's like the three body chaotic problem, right?
Like you stuff the idea into the box and then it's like you have, you don't have anymathematical proof of how it comes out on the other side.
Exactly.
so yeah, let's just quickly kind of highlight the overarching, the arch of kind of thisbook.
And then I want to really dig into a couple ideas in those later chapters.
(12:41):
So in, earlier chapters, they introduced the idea of, mega politics, which I kind of,after having read more of the book, I thought I would have a better grasp of what they
meant when they were talking about it.
They keep using the word a couple of times later on, but really they just.
introduce this idea that's kind of like macroeconomics for politics is I think the bestway to think about it.
(13:01):
And talking about how we've moved from I forget the age of feudal age to feudalagricultural to industrial now to the information age, moving through these, you know,
progressing through these stages and how those are kind of mega political transformationsin which like the technology fundamentally changed the way that society interacted and
(13:24):
interconnected.
So like, think of like the example they used of the, exactly.
And I think that's clear that we're seeing a shift there, which is also why.
a turning and like paradigm.
And I think, I mean, for me, the thing that shook me not, I just want to say shook, that'snot the right word.
(13:47):
That's not they didn't shake me necessarily anything that made me go hmm, the most wasthey're talking about the timeline over which these transitions happen and how in there,
they made a very cogent argument for the Industrial Revolution and really kind of startingabout 200 years prior to where most people give it credit for and say in sign about how
(14:08):
during that time, the
power of the church really crumbled and the way societies organized transformed.
That made a lot of sense and I feel like I can apply that and overlay that to todaysomewhat.
And like maybe the...
that change coincided with the printing press, So it was a fundamental shift ininformation access and dissemination.
(14:33):
Fundamental change in power structure because really, the Catholic Church was the biggestform of government worldwide at that point.
And yeah.
Is it still in the top 100 today, you think?
in terms of governmental power.
I don't like kind of, don't know.
mean, I'm thinking of it like a different way.
(14:54):
Nevermind, was silly sidebar.
I'm sorry, I distracted you, Dan.
Well, I mean, yeah, no, like then we could start, you could talk about Mormons andScientology too.
like, there's like, anyway.
Yeah, it is.
It truly is.
It truly is.
(15:16):
they're good at it.
I'll say that.
Yeah.
where were we?
yeah.
So talking about the, move from, you know, agricultural industrial revolutions and howlong those transitions took, think that was useful for me to really say, see that, okay,
this stuff can be going on.
And it's not like it's not a, it's not a binary, right?
It's going to be a weird, slow metamorphosis into whatever the next thing is.
(15:41):
Because there'll be so much resistance to change as well as pockets of people picking itup.
And countries with governments and societies and structures that allow for more change andthen others that don't.
And then some that are more connected and less connected.
You know, it's like the future is here but distributed unevenly.
(16:02):
Yeah, I just for some reason got a mental vision of a lava lamp when you were talkingabout that for some reason.
I don't know.
Maybe I should get one.
Just remind us of the chaos.
Move with it, don't move against it.
(16:23):
Wu Wei or whatever.
Though the Wu Wei the yeah, from the Tao Te Ching exactly that the spirit of wateressentially.
Yeah, so after you know, digging through a bunch of very detailed information about theyou know, the agriculture revolution and the decline of the church and you know, it's
(16:46):
throwing throwing out some in a
Couple interesting little factoids along the way about like how the one of the popes usedto have an accountant to count the number of orgasms that the clergy had at the orgies
because he valued virility.
You know, there were a few interesting little factoids, but really just that's the, youknow, 40 % of the book that needed to really be pared down.
(17:10):
I think that's where we got really kind of frustrated the most too.
between a pope counting the orgasms of his clergy and Gavin Newsom dining at FrenchLaundry during the pandemic?
Is there any sort of corollary there?
Like power structures and people at the top and living completely differently than thepeople they lead?
(17:32):
Oh man, I didn't get that at first, now that it clicks that yes, because
Yeah, do as I say, not as I do, right?
Very much so, to, I mean, we all, I think we all expect a bit of it, and then when it'sthat far, we're like, no, burn it down.
And I think that's a little bit of what's going on today.
(17:54):
exactly, exactly.
It's like burn this down because I don't trust any of you that you're actually running itright.
Yeah, so chaos monkey, start throwing your grenades.
And that's a really good observation, Dan, because yeah, if it had been like hosting aparty in his backyard, that'd be one thing, but it was out at, yeah.
(18:16):
No, was fine dining, Michelin restaurant.
You know, it's just like, had, I don't know.
It was all the things, really.
Except there wasn't an orgy at the end, or maybe we don't know.
Well, hey, was that before Epstein or after Epstein?
I'm not looking at.
Yeah.
(18:38):
So on to the next thing.
No, it was, it was a good distraction.
So that they actually, after getting through a very detailed history lesson, get into alittle of their, you know, forecasting, so to speak.
Well, not to, so to speak, they start forecasting about what they're, what they see comingand talking about the emergence of the cyber economy.
(18:59):
And this is where we touched on a few points where,
they, you know, seeing a borderless digital economy and how there won't be able to becontrol executed over it.
And I don't think that's quite right.
Do you Dan?
I just don't see how it's possible without the world order totally crumbling, kind of likeall at once.
(19:23):
But at the same point, from the ashes of anything, there's always been power that arises.
So I don't understand how, I mean, just look at Peter Thiel and the people most connectedwith him.
Do you believe that they would not end up?
Like if I snap my finger today and all governmental power just dissipated, do you notbelieve that Peter Thiel would exercise his power to become one of the most powerful
(19:52):
people on earth?
If he isn't already, he seems to be a puppeteer.
Or not puppeteer, like a, you know, he's behind the scenes working magic.
He's like the hand of the king in Game of Thrones or something where he's there proddingalong on the court, you know.
(20:13):
Yeah.
So anyway, yes, I am with you.
I remain completely skeptical that like, that it would be 100 % you know, we live in abeautiful age where there's very little violence.
But if you look through most of recorded history, it's just humans killing each other oversex, food or territory.
(20:38):
or yes, and yes, I want to get more onto that later, specifically around the territory,because I think that was an argument they make kind of later in the book, or they actually
kind of pick a part of it.
And I have a couple of good quotes.
So, but like, what I don't think they fathomed is how in control a government can be of adigital system, i.e., you know,
(21:05):
China.
China and us, you know, basically not allowing TikTok here and being able to put in firmcontrols around with our networks.
I don't know that, you, you know, if you, if you wanted to escape that you would have tohave, I mean, the only thing that I guess that maybe with SpaceX making Starlink, a
(21:27):
reality that maybe you could skirt around a lot of government controls with a satelliteuplink.
all it ever does is the power then goes into someone's hands and then that person orentity has to be benevolent.
Like after Bretton Woods or whatever in the US says, we are going to control the openoceans and if you align with our values, meaning don't kill your own people, don't invade
(21:54):
other countries, then all the sea lanes will be open to trade for you.
We will not charge you.
for the protection of open seas, right?
And then that made the whole global order and economy better, bigger, reduce poverty atrecord pace than the humankind has ever seen.
And...
(22:15):
So Starlink or some other entity, know, it's like, wherever that power floats to, willthey be as benevolent as that ethos was for, you know, from the United States?
In that example, or SpaceX currently, whatever.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, in this way, the SpaceX thing, it that would be the people to escape.
(22:38):
would be how they would be escaping the control.
Right.
So the, like, you would still have the government control over, I think over your landdigital lines.
Like, I think that's going to be you.
Always your, your, whatever nation state government, that you're in would be able toinstitute some sort of control over that data moving there.
(23:01):
But if it's just moving.
through space, that would be the one way that you would be able to escape control, was theway I was framing that thought.
But I like your Bretton Woods analogy way better.
Well, I mean, would take it.
There's two things I would connect is like that.
The paradigm of Bretton Woods post World War II, the small L liberal world order and.
(23:30):
Man, my brain just lost it, man.
God damn it.
Say your last point again.
It was about, oh, now I lost everything.
Yeah.
No, were Bretton Woods compared to basically using like, Starlark is an example of a wayto escape control, right?
(23:57):
Escape control.
Yeah, the other thing I would connect here is Ben Thompson's aggregation theory fromStrotecary and how like, you know, I think a lot of people wish that, you know, Lena con
had been successful in taking down Amazon and Microsoft again and Google and whatever.
And, aggregation theory would hold basically that like, doesn't matter.
(24:19):
You could destroy the entirety of Google, but there would be something else that wouldrise and take up that much market share.
again, because it's not about controlling supply.
Its demand actually goes to the one place because the bigger the one place is, the moreuseful it is.
And therefore it hovers up more demand.
(24:41):
so in network, yes, exactly.
And at this point, like you should expect behemoths in tech.
That's kind of just how it goes.
and
you know, in some sort of power vacuum with this many people on earth, it's like, yeah,there's gonna be big powers that coagulate again.
(25:01):
It's not gonna be this like magical, sovereign individual that just flies from place toplace and money moves with me everywhere I go and I'm completely safe and people wanna, I
was like, come on.
The more alone you are, the more of a target you are, I think.
okay, why don't you, yeah, go ahead all you 50 million ultra billionaires go move intothat one little valley over there.
(25:23):
Do that, just yeah, just go do that.
See how that plays out.
that's, that's where they drop a bomb.
Like that's how, you know, that's where the terrorists go after.
you think you can build secure systems, but can you?
Because he's, again, as they argue,
The one, one actually interesting point they make about, you know, the advancement of techis that it does kind of, make it easier for the smaller actor to cause a lot of disruption
(25:55):
in a defense system.
Like you don't have to be necessarily a global scale player to take down a, the controlsystems of a very important.
Yeah.
back a few years.
Yeah, right.
So.
Different, back a few years.
And now we're seeing it in Ukraine.
Vietnam was not well funded or protected.
(26:17):
They just did it better.
On home territory and were more motivated, know, a litany of reasons.
Mm-hmm.
Yep, exactly.
So, that's an interesting analogy.
I hadn't thought of it that way.
Now you made me forget I was thinking again.
Yeah, no, you were thinking you're thinking about how like, you know, like the small guystill has power.
(26:41):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yes, yes, yes.
It gives other avenues for the small guy to have power.
Yes, absolutely.
American, Britain, and Vietnam, yes, absolutely.
So that was kind of an interesting point, but I don't see how you don't have still...
again, power law dynamics, network effects where it just pays to have scale and sizebecause of the other efficiencies and because we as people don't want to work, you know,
(27:12):
12 hours a day, 15 hours a day, if we don't have to, if we can be more efficient with ourtime and have a system that allows us to have leisure.
I think it, I don't see how that goes away.
or how people don't want keep trying to move towards some level of that ideal, right?
Yes, and I also don't understand, just going back to, I can't get past the idea that powerstructures wouldn't naturally unfold.
(27:39):
And if those of us who are idealistic and agentic decide that, we are going to shun powerstructures and we are gonna remain sovereign individuals, and we will not assign ourselves
or sign up for some sort of.
that projects its power upon other people, the more you resist that, the more you would, Ithink, add room for the kind of power that you wouldn't want to see in the world.
(28:07):
Yes.
And then it doesn't take long.
So I'm reading this other book, Prometheus Rising.
It's great.
Here's a line from it.
And I feel like it connects to this idea just a little bit.
So suspicion leads to more more suspicion.
The only alternative was suggested sarcastically by playwright Bertolt Brecht, who washounded by U.S.
secret police as a communist and by East German secret police later as not sufficientlycommunist.
(28:33):
Quote, if the government doesn't trust the people, Brecht asked innocently.
Why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new people?
No way has yet been invented to elect a new people, so the government will instead spy onthe existing people with increased vigor.
That's good.
That's really good.
Okay, I'm looking forward to that book.
now that I'm thinking about these power structures and this idea that they wouldn'tnaturally reoccur, or that the smartest, most benevolent people would try to avoid them, I
(29:06):
feel like that would actually create room for a darker world.
Yeah, yes it would because...
Someone's gonna want power.
That is a default.
It's humanity we're talking about.
precisely we naturally organize and structure ourselves,
But I, hmm.
I guess you would, I could see a splintering though, right?
(29:29):
To on the other side, could larger nations split into smaller nations?
Or is it more likely that Russia goes and tries to remake the USSR?
Yeah, I don't know.
This is where I keep going back to Zion and it's like, how long does the power ofgeography hold?
Because when he talks about geography and why Russia is scared about this border or thatborder, and then why the United States is so protected and powerful and all these things,
(29:57):
I'm like, yeah, that makes sense.
That's all that makes sense.
that idea makes sense too.
Does it just reoccur?
Yeah, because we do just have this natural geography that because you can't or.
a mess, the Balkans are still a mess, America still is powerful.
It's like, does it just recur?
Slightly different, but recur.
(30:19):
That's a good question.
Did you just see a little thing pop up on the screen?
Yeah, you got a little thumb up.
I don't know why.
I don't know what that was from.
Okay, interesting.
So actually this all ties to one of the quotes I wanted to bring up.
So I want to bring this in here too.
So, a moment's reflection shows that technology of the information age is not inherently amass technology.
(30:48):
In military terms, as we have indicated, it opens the potential for smart weapons andinformation war in which logic bombs could sabotage centralized command and control
systems.
So that quote just danced back and forth of like two points you made.
technology is better when it's inherently a mass technology, right?
But also it doesn't have to be.
(31:09):
yes, you're right.
No, I mean, I built high availability systems that were geographically dispersed.
Like you kill one place, we stay going.
Mm-hmm.
That's true
And if you listen to the leadership at Andoril, they're designing systems that do similarthings.
And I'm sure whatever they talk about in public is much further behind than where theyactually are.
(31:30):
Yeah, I would love to know more about what's going on there most days, think.
think it's, yeah, I think it's an interesting company.
Yeah, I forget where I was going with that after that aside, but.
Read the quote one more time.
(31:51):
A moment's reflection shows the technology of the information age is not inherently a masstechnology.
In military terms, as we have indicated, it opens the potential for smart weapons andinformation war in which logic bombs could sabotage centralized command and control
systems.
So yeah, again, I don't see how you could actually sabotage a complete centralized commandand control system.
(32:14):
I guess maybe the treasury?
from what I've heard lately, their server structure might be a little outdated and in needof some improvements.
But I think for a large portion of everything, it's gotta be decentralized in way that weprobably don't understand for security reasons.
(32:39):
Yeah, that's a good point.
We're not out there touting our resilience as a US government.
When in fact, perhaps there's much more resiliency than we know.
I hope there is.
it's, it's kind of the opposite of having a big weapon, right?
(32:59):
if you have a good defense network, you don't necessarily want to give you all the detailsabout what that defense network entails because then I'm just giving you the way to start
planning for how to get around it.
So I'm sure that there's a lot of things that we don't understand, but again, I can't seehow this exactly plays out on like.
the way they think, I don't know, kind of, it's still an interesting argument.
(33:21):
And again, with the difference in networks, I don't know where I'm going.
I'm gonna just shut up now for a minute.
Hahaha
Well, okay, so I think maybe one point that I think, honestly, I feel like this is a pointthat Elon Musk is trying to stuff down the throat of the American government and to date
(33:41):
it has been resistant of you can't keep building huge, enormous things.
You need to build tons of tiny little things.
And I think the best, the easiest analogy would be Starlink again, where it's like,instead of there being like eight satellites up there that are geospatially locked to the
(34:03):
United States and providing internet, which would probably be like the direct TV model.
You, he's got like, I don't, I don't know.
Now I think there's a rocker going up every single day, launching more of these things.
Like it's, it's a constellation of satellite, miniature satellites, right?
And,
then you see the same thing with the drones and different ways and means that are beingexercised in Russia and Ukraine.
(34:30):
And you just, can't help but to think that the entirety, the future.
we are witnessing the paradigm shift shift of how these things are conducted becausewhat's the use of a nuclear weapon unless you have like, you have to have even someone
with like, well, was even like a slightly psychotic leader is probably not going to wantlaunch one.
(34:51):
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, that's true.
you have to go in order to be willing to launch one at this point, because it's mutuallyassured.
So most power people are really interested in maintaining power.
So they're not gonna launch one because that automatically means that they will no longerhave power because they'll be vaporized as well.
So now it's down to tiny little things.
(35:12):
where to hit them, that's a fine point.
but eventually they would get there.
But you, you would, yeah, you're, you're absolutely right.
I think that the deterrence around using those large weapons has kept us safe for so manyyears.
at least safe from their particular usage, though they still try to big build plenty oflarge, play big regular, regular bombs like the Moab, you know,
(35:38):
the Trump wanted to display in his last term.
Hmm.
Yeah, how much of that is marketing?
I think, I think for him, that was a wanting to show power and punch somebody in the face.
And it wasn't even not like a particularly good application of it from what I remember atthe time, was overpower for what they needed to do.
(36:00):
or what they thought they needed to do.
But yeah, I think just to demonstrate that, I'm, I'm kind of crazy, crazy enough to pullthis out.
Those are a horse loose in the hospital.
What do we do?
I don't know.
There's never been a horse loose in the hospital.
that from anything?
(36:22):
Okay.
That's good.
It's never been a horse lose the hospital.
That's a great analogy.
I would die.
don't know.
We're going through this for the first time.
Yeah.
So speaking of our, of our current head, they had a they had a quote that I found
(36:49):
I'm like, okay, I bet you can just say this every year for the last 200 years.
Corruption is far more universal and widespread than previously thought.
Evidence of it is everywhere in developing countries, with growing frequency in industrialcountries, prominent political figures, including presidents of countries and ministers
(37:09):
have been accused of corruption in a way this represents the privatization of the state inwhich it's.
power is not shifted to the market as privatization normally implies, but to governmentofficials and bureaucrats.
It's like, okay, yeah, that's just the way it always is or always seems.
right, because I would say arguably that it feels 2024 corruption, 2025, I'm sorry,corruption and acceptance of it is through the roof compared to 1996.
(37:43):
Hmm.
Well, hold on.
Instead of going back that far, what about 2023 to 2025?
Yeah, no, it feels like we hit an inflection point, right?
Kind of honestly.
want you to explain more.
Okay, specifically, wait.
reversed?
There was there, I feel as though there is more open acceptance of corruption at thispoint in 2025 than in 2023, specifically with what is going on around DJT on the stock
(38:20):
market, the Trump coin, the Melania coin, the associated ETFs they are launching now atTrump.FI or whatever.
my god, okay.
that this is clearly a personal enrichment.
Well, how much is, what's, what's the difference?
What's your, if,
(38:42):
I don't know, I really don't know the answer, but my question is, or are there differentwords to choose?
What's behind closed doors and cannot be?
I'm going to say yes, it's corruption because they're gifting the shares to think peoplelike the FBI director and stuff as
Yeah, that's complete corruption.
But it's being done in the open.
(39:02):
I want better words.
I want better words.
There's out in the open versus not out in the open.
It's, it's not even, no, it's, it's, it's out in the open of the, of the, middle of afield beneath a giant neon sign with spotlights circling around saying corruption going on
(39:23):
over here.
And people just keep driving down the highway.
That's what I feel like is, is, is where it's at.
Yeah, I also think you'd have people who are very well educated and know their stuff argueright there against you.
I would love actually what are the no but okay let's
(39:44):
within the Democrats is extreme as well.
I do too.
That's also fair.
That's absolutely...
I'm not, well...
are you angry because you can see it now?
No, I could say the same thing about Pelosi or any of the members of Congress that havebeen insider trading forever.
What I was, I guess, trying to highlight is I feel as though there has been a littleelevation recently, specifically around the personal enrichment with the current system
(40:13):
and the current person in office.
But you are absolutely 100 % right that this level of corruption, like,
One more question.
Are people okay with, more okay with it because they feel as if they can participate in itbecause it's out in the open.
Whereas the secret backroom dealings no one else can participate in.
(40:34):
So it's like, I would like to burn the people in the room.
That's the reaction.
Not, that's not me.
That's the reaction.
Right.
That's a, that's a hell of an interesting question because I, because you can go and belike, well, this is clearly going to do some numbers.
Let me go ahead and get on, on this Friday night of the Trump coin launch because peopleare crazy.
(40:55):
Yeah.
So I think that does help.
Yeah.
Wasn't even on my radar.
Yeah, I, I, I saw it going on on Saturday.
I was like, it's not too late.
Why did, why am I not doing this?
And I was like, because I don't want to, I don't want to participate because I don't wantto help drive the system.
So I just quietly sat on the side and was like, yeah, I'm sure I can do fine.
(41:18):
And I probably would have done pretty well, but it wasn't worth it for me.
Also then the stress of, how quickly before this blows up, also would, Yeah.
You'd have to.
Yeah.
No, but that's a, you know, Dan, that's a great point you just brought up.
Because I think you could go back in every administration for the last.
(41:41):
Yeah.
all bad.
And we should accept that there's always going to be some.
like, finding out that we've got some huge stuff and that we could never see it, thatmakes people really angry.
And then to see it just out in the open where you can participate in it a little bit, Ithink that's how he gets, he just, it's like, well, made some other people rich.
So then people are okay with it.
(42:03):
It's like a lottery or something.
I think...
I think you're onto something with that.
because it doesn't, I feel like there's less rage in 2025 than 2017 and eight years ago.
I feel like there's a lot less rage around, which I'm all right with, frankly.
Or maybe I'm just not looking in the right spots or I don't, I don't know.
(42:26):
Yeah.
on.
But I agree with you.
General feeling.
It just seems like people have, there's a certain kind of levity that has been introduced.
just become a nerd to the situation.
We've seen it before.
We're not so scared.
You know, I think people get mad when they're scared.
And there were a lot of people that were scared for probably not great reasons.
(42:48):
They probably didn't need to be.
And now they realize that maybe I was overreacting.
Okay.
Okay.
This is just a
horse losing a hospital.
It's just a horse loose in the hospital.
Okay.
What's the next quote?
Well, here's an idea they had that this will never happen.
(43:10):
Okay.
So the big point that voting is kind of like a proxy for a military contest, right?
Like a geographically, for a geographically aligned military contest.
In a sense, the way we have set up our structure, the people of the United States voteabout who's gonna be leading of the whole nation and sort of duking it out, right?
(43:37):
be, that's definitely the old way.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So interesting point.
Like I'm like, yes, that's actually, that sounds accurate.
Um, then they, they, they propose a change to, uh, voting, uh, that we could do withcomputer technology.
computer technology offers to make truly representative government.
The supposed problem of excessive campaign expenditures and undoubted annoyance of chronicpolitical campaigning could be resolved in an instant rather than being elected.
(44:03):
representatives could be selected by a sortition entirely at random with a highly, with ahigh statistical probability that their talents and view match those of the population at
large.
This would be merely a modern version of the ancient Greek system of selection by lot.
It's like, well, that sounds like a lovely way to get a house of representatives electedsort of.
(44:25):
Uh, but I don't see any way anybody lets that happen.
Right.
Yeah, no, heels are too dug in at this point.
One, two, what about preference falsification?
How do you know what people want?
I think the last couple of elections are pretty clear examples that we don't know.
(44:48):
Yeah.
Well, I think their point was just saying that the people that are elected are, you know,they are campaigning and saying these things that they will represent you, but it's not
necessarily, you don't get a representative percentage of portion of population actuallyrunning the country.
You get a lot of lawyers and a lot of narcissists.
(45:08):
so if you wanted a country that was maybe perhaps more sanely managed, you would havepeople that were more accurately representing.
the population at large, which, you know, it's a nice, lovely utopian ideal.
like maybe,
reducing the tyranny of the bureaucrat.
Yeah, exactly.
(45:29):
the, and the, and the, honestly, the, the corruption that you get associated with it,right?
Because by running the campaigns, have to spend that money on the people make promises andyou get, it's a, it's a corruption inducing system.
that's
better today than it was, what, in like 1880 or when was, there's a particular name forthis process where it's like, I mean, was like cronyism defined.
(45:55):
And that's how like America ran for a while.
It was like, you do this for me?
I'll get you a seat.
And I was like, yeah, it really was just tip for tat like that.
Inside job.
very much.
you so speaking of kind of like cronies and all this that that to wind up, we were talkinglast week about Singapore recently, I think it was last week or week before.
(46:22):
What do you know about their how they pay their legislature or their their governmentworkers?
about the legislature, but the bureaucrats, the people who run government, are paidextremely well.
Like, investment bankers' salary.
So here's something interesting.
Performance-based compensation for legislatures, paying leaders on the basis of theirperformance just as a logical extension of Lee Kuan Yew's Flexi-Wage program in Singapore,
(46:47):
which pays government employees based on real growth of the Singaporean economy.
There is every reason to believe that the performance would be greatly enhanced if the payof legislatures and executives were keyed to objective measures of performance, such as
the growth of after-tax per capita income.
pay them on a basis of performance and the chance that they would perform would increase athousandfold.
(47:09):
I'm really biased because I can be motivated by money, but I think this is a brilliantidea.
And I remember being a teen and having arguments with people I grew up around that like,you know, they were like, well, the president makes 400 grand a year and that's way too
much, you know?
And I'm like, I don't know.
Like DC seems expensive and it's the leader of the free world.
(47:30):
I think maybe we should be paying the person a lot more.
And then tying it to performance metrics, I think is bloody brilliant.
Yeah, I want this.
Like this is what I want.
This is what I want.
I don't want them to only care about being re-elected or not.
I want them to care about outcome.
(47:50):
Yeah.
And also, also not even on the elected officials, even in the, I think government agenciesthemselves, right?
Like they should be.
of these incentives are hard to structure though.
how do you make, how do you incentivize FBI agents?
Are you just like number of arrests?
And it's like, well, that's a little scary.
you give a, yeah, that's right.
(48:11):
You can incentivize bad behavior or get weird gaming.
Yeah.
or, and maybe not a, as a, a, know, you'd have more of a flat base and have like a 30 %based off of incentive structure type of situation.
You know, more like a, a bonus type structure.
(48:35):
where
certain metrics have to be progressed towards or met.
I don't know.
I will be like, this is the type of thing I could see those trying to do.
And so I'm kind of, I'm really interested to see how all that keeps playing out becauseit's been a wild first couple of weeks with the things they've cut, threatened to cut,
(49:00):
backed off, started cutting again.
So I had some time this morning.
I was at the gym and let my mind wander a little bit.
And I started again, kind of going back to one of my themes for the year is just likequestioning, questioning my priors and being more comfortable with thoughts that would
otherwise have normally made me uncomfortable.
(49:21):
So doge.
How do you feel?
Well, that's what I'm wondering.
That's what I'm trying to explore.
What if, what if this is the rising of the ashes, the Phoenix returns moment for theUnited States, the purging and ruffling of the molting of feathers that needs to happen to
(49:43):
reinvent oneself, to shed the excess pounds so that you can run the mile.
What if this is what's happening?
And if so,
And if succeeds, once again, the founding fathers will have created the most brilliantform of government yet seen in humanity.
There's a lot of what ifs there, but I thought it was an interesting thought that occurredto me.
(50:09):
I have been very conflicted in my emotions around it because so much of me is like, yes,yes, yes, cut, cut, cut where you can.
But other parts I'm like also, but those are people that are becoming unemployed jobsthat, know, hardships that are going to be felt.
Some things that probably deserve to be right.
(50:30):
It's cut it.
Yeah.
but at.
without pain.
Hey, you know what though, at least we're talking about this for the first time in a longtime.
So maybe we start, then the legislature can come in and say, Hey, no, actually that'sillegal for you to do that.
And the checks and balances, you start working against each other a bit is what I, and weact actually.
(50:50):
Hopefully it doesn't grind to a halt, but hopefully then it keeps the momentum focused onthe things that can happen and need to happen in a more impactful way.
But yeah, I'm, I'm, oddly optimistic about parts of it, but then.
optimistic, yeah, I agree.
then like also when I find out that, you know, a few people that might now have rewrite atread write access to like a system like the Treasury payment system that, you know,
(51:17):
distributes, you know, very complex and make sure that all the all the government bondsget paid all everything that needs to go outwards from the government actually executes
just executes.
You know, it's like, well, man, what if they because you know, sometimes
there's been bugs on Twitter where they released an update and he's just going to try tobe doing something positive, but he just accidentally like screw something up and like,
(51:42):
you know, kills our credit rating.
Like not, not, I'm not, yeah, I'm not, I'm not even like, I'm going to like best casescenario, like, or not best case scenario, but like, know, theoretically I could see them
going in and trying to make things more efficient, say we're going to make this systembetter and run better.
And then a bug comes up and like, there goes, you know, we just downgraded our creditrating with Moody's.
(52:03):
Yes, yes.
And that's, that's a system where I don't want the move fast, break things mindset.
And it works great on Twitter when you can, you know, at bug, we'll go fix it quick andget it running better.
Okay, fine.
You know, people get a little snarly about bugs occasionally, but it
Johnny.
He's got to rewrite four lines of the algo and we'll recommit.
Yeah.
(52:24):
So a little more worrisome on government payments when what could be going wrong.
But anyway.
other controversy attached to Doge that has been on the airwaves it seems is that there's,I don't know how many, five it seems?
I'm going off of little meme pictures.
(52:45):
I don't really know much information here of four or five guys who are like in their 20sand are like, you know, getting after it.
Mm-hmm.
and the controversy that exists because of their age.
Did you see any of this?
I have not seen it.
No, I have not.
(53:05):
know that like the, there's one guy involved.
It's like 25 doing a bunch of stuff, but no.
don't know enough about any of these individuals and I think there's been some additionalcontroversy with maybe at least one of them, but I'm gonna stick with just the age thing.
just, thought it was very interesting that.
I know, I kind of put it in the same bucket as NIMBYism, right?
(53:26):
It's just people being angry, pitchforky about bullshit.
and then I saw somebody else, I believe grabbed that, you know, a clip of that poster withsomebody that being talked about and said, but if you look at the age of the founding
fathers in 1776, there was like 18 to 26.
You know, it's like, and your point is, yeah, yeah.
(53:47):
Jefferson was 33 or something like that.
Franklin, Franklin.
Yeah, Franklin was, yeah.
So.
was the old wise man in the room at that point.
Yeah, probably was like 50.
And then, you know, after the country's actually formed and he gets to go gallivant aroundFrance and raise money for...
more Revolutionary War stuff or whatever.
He's having a great time and lives into his 80s.
(54:07):
Something like that.
Yeah.
So yeah, the age part, I don't, I don't care so much about, I'm like, that's, that's notreally a disqualifying thing.
It's not like, it's not where we have it, like in the constitution where we have to say,where you say you have to be at least 35 to do this.
That's just a, finding people that are talented to do the right work.
(54:27):
Now, if there's other things that they're doing that are untoward and maybe give us reasonto question their motives, then maybe that should be discussed.
in more depth, but yeah, not based upon the based on the age alone.
I'm with you on that.
yeah, with you on that one.
All right, what you got?
Well, I have, so we've gotten all the way up through chapter 10 here in my notes of 11, 10of 11.
(54:58):
Chapter 10 was kind of focusing on the twilight of democracy.
I believe that was actually the title of it.
And chapter 11 is...
I don't want democracy to go away.
Well, yeah, no, that's what I mean.
They were just talking about that was their vision of, replacing things with arepresentation by sortition and things of that nature.
(55:23):
Like what they were trying to envision, what things might look like out after.
not really the end of democracy.
It's more like the evolution of democracy into a technocratic republic or something.
Got it, okay.
I just want there to be representation and the government to fear the people.
That's all I want.
Yeah.
Yes.
(55:43):
That's, that's, that's all we want.
Just the government to fear the people.
Is that too much to ask for?
I, some days I think so, but you
Yeah.
so the last, the last chapter is kind of the waxing poetic about morality, and theevolution of morality in the information age.
(56:05):
And I have a couple of quotes, one that, we already touched on around corruption.
but then two others that I think really helped summarize who these people are and who, andwho the authors were and in, in, their views.
So the first one is the original phrase of John Locke has it precisely.
(56:27):
Everyone has a right to life, liberty and estate.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson added another of Locke's phrases, the pursuit of happiness.
That makes a very fine phrase and a very fine aspiration, but life and the state is moredown to earth than the phrase life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Society depends absolutely on the right to life and the right to property.
(56:51):
In practice, history shows these can be protected when there is liberty.
If the state is all powerful and the state becomes the great enemy of life, as in wars ofaggression and of individual property by taking an inordinate share of the nation's wealth
for its own often undesirable and always wasteful purposes.
(57:12):
so
I think this is a fine point that they make here.
but also then shows you the misanthropic kind of take they have of, of not looking towardsa greater good, right.
and making it very much about self-determination, Ayn Rand type progress, I think, or notprogress, and Ryan type POV.
(57:38):
I don't know.
Did that, what did you think about that little blurb?
Did that give you any thoughts?
I think the first thought that did occur to me was, and I forget which book I got thisfrom, was that the pursuit of happiness is, as written by Thomas Jefferson, is not the way
we take it in our minds today.
It is more about like this.
(58:01):
I'm gonna use the word agentic again.
It's this pursuit.
It is this ability to.
It is this unencumberedness.
It is this go reach for your higher ideals.
It's not just like I'm walking around and being happy and all my stuff is taken care of.
Because I think lots of happiness culture is just folly anyway.
(58:25):
It's this false pursuit.
Whereas if you need to dig a hole, then maybe you just go dig it.
And then you'll be like, wow, I did a great job digging that hole.
And that does much more for your psyche than...
thinking about happiness, right?
So I get you, but I guess I would push back a little bit because I think they're kind ofintertwined, even if you use Thomas Jefferson's words instead of John Locke's, right?
(58:55):
Or am I twisted my explanation?
No, I know, you make sense.
but in my only, yeah.
I guess my only point around that was I thought, I think it's a very interestingdelineation that, you know, Locke would have said life, liberty and the state.
think that makes it because of the core, like they're, I think they have a very good pointthat they're right.
(59:16):
That that is, those are the things that the state needs to protect.
And this is almost like to me and again, a philosophical ideal versus a, well, no, this isall philosophical ideals.
Yes.
Right.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
I think it's, I think it's what they're arguing, the authors of the book saying, we preferJohn Locke's point of view, essentially.
(59:40):
And I'm sitting here saying, no, I think Jefferson got right.
Or improved upon it.
And I think your explanation of
was also writing a completely different document.
He was writing a document that basically assumed that there was a state.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Interesting.
Interesting point of view.
It's an interesting point of their interesting, interesting note, right?
(01:00:00):
You're assuming that we are, we are declaring our dependence here.
The state is assumed and inferred.
Yeah.
Yes.
Yes.
Interesting.
Uh, good point.
the last, the last quote, and again, this is, I think, but let me just read it and I'lllet you respond.
(01:00:21):
Okay.
A godless, ruthless and rich elite is unlikely to be happy or to be loved.
This inadequacy in the initial moral education of what will be the dominant economic groupof the next century is likely to be reinforced by their life experience.
These people will have the discipline of an advanced technical education of one sort onesort of another to fit themselves for their new roles as the leaders of the new electronic
(01:00:45):
universe.
but they will learn from that only some of the moral lessons that have historically beenthe framework for human social conduct.
They may be moral illiterates.
They have been taught the lessons of economic efficiency, the use of resources, thepursuit of money, but not the virtue of self-sacrifice, let alone chastity.
(01:01:09):
So I think that is to me, yes.
And I think that is, this is to me, again, I was trying to look for things that I wastrying to understand who these authors are.
And I think this shows to me, like they have a very specific viewpoint of, on their peergroup, right?
(01:01:30):
Like this is them talking about their peer group and the weaknesses within their peergroup.
Yeah.
Yes.
So I think maybe these guys weren't so popular.
I don't know.
No.
They did a lot of moralizing towards the end and I got the impression that they wouldprefer more like a 1950s, everybody kind of buttoned up version of society than what's
(01:01:58):
going on today.
Yeah.
So just to give context on the rest of the book for you.
or that's how I was taking it.
I'm like, okay, this kind of gives me some context on how they've argued these points andwhy they're arguing, think coming towards, out of this crisis or this change being.
(01:02:20):
I want to question, I don't know about that.
Or I'm wondering about that.
Are we conflating religion and chastity or whatever, these other labels with...
Like, we're putting our biases in there, right?
Like, I think you and I both would be like, you don't require religion to be of higherservice and higher morality, right?
(01:02:50):
And that, I think, is the folly of many religious people's point of view about atheists.
They don't recognize, like, without religion, it must mean that you're like an evilperson.
And both parties guilty there, rather than understanding that you can be...
moralistic and have really straight and narrow you could you could be super straight andnarrow and also believe that there's no god
(01:03:10):
But maybe their point is more that you've got these highly educated up in the clouds kindof people being elected to power and these structures when they themselves have no sense
of community, no sense of connection to the broader kinds of people.
(01:03:31):
And therefore they're leading out in a direction that is not connected with the
the people that are under them.
And once you have this crumbling of community or tribe, then your society starts to fallapart.
at which point you don't have the government that you thought you did.
(01:03:53):
like that take.
I like that take.
I like that take and I like that question.
aspect is like, we're desperate for that now.
I think a theme in our notes that you keep coming back to in a couple different lines, andI feel like we should really dive into it soon, is loneliness.
Yes.
Okay.
I think you, I think you have, I think you're, I think you're onto something there, right?
(01:04:14):
Is it's a definitely could call calling me out of my biases by the way.
Thank you.
It's hard to see your own.
I mean, I welcome it anytime you can.
absolutely right.
in that section, they also do make an interesting point around that there are, at thatpoint in time, of like two systems, one of kind of a more puritanical religious sides, and
(01:04:48):
then one of a more like everything is okay side or like atheistic side.
And they both say, well, you can't feel certain ways about certain things.
they both produce intolerance and that makes them ultimately no different from each other.
I'm 100 % on board with that.
(01:05:10):
think that's, I had forgotten about that until you said that, but yes.
Good intuition, Dan.
Well, that's all I had noted.
that was a really good discussion of this book, frankly.
I hope that's how I'm feeling about it right now.
I'll go back and listen later.
(01:05:30):
for anyone who wants to dive into it, like it's definitely deep material.
Like you do get history lessons, you get some strange and interesting facts.
We're not, I know we sort of like said, this was a slog and it was, but I think forcertain readers, you've, still get a lot of fancy out of it.
Yeah, I would say maybe read chapter one and two and then nine, 10, and 11, and you gotit.
(01:05:54):
I don't know, maybe eight, nine, 10, 11, but yeah, there's, it's worth it.
if you have a lot of time and you really enjoy thinking about this sort of stuff, I endedup, I ended up thinking at one point, I'm not going to finish this and I ended up getting
through it in the last couple of chapters.
really ended up having some interesting thoughts with myself on.
(01:06:14):
so there there's definitely nuggets in here that are, worth, worth consideration anddeeper thought.
And you know,
that doesn't sound like it's up your alley, go read something that you do want to read.
That's what I would say.
Yes.
Yes.
And thanks for joining us while we talk about it.
Yes.
(01:06:35):
until next time, everybody.
This has been some unqualified reading advice.
We will talk at you next time.
All right, cheers everyone.
I just want there to be representation and the government to fear the people.
That's all I want.
Yeah.
Yes.
That's, that's, that's all we want.
Just the government to fear the people.
Is that too much to ask for?
Welcome to Unqualified Advice, the show where we try to make sense of business, investing,and life with just enough experience to get ourselves in trouble.
I'm Sean and he's Dan.
(00:21):
We both started in different careers, Dan in IT, climbing the ranks to Chief TechnologyOfficer in New York, and me in manufacturing, managing production quality across three
countries.
At some point, we both decided we didn't know enough.
So we went back to school for our MBAs.
Me at Columbia Business School and Sean at the University of Houston, downtown.
(00:41):
And after all that, we figured the best way to share what we've learned and what we'restill figuring out is to start a podcast.
So if you like deep dives into decision-making, business strategy, and the occasionalhalf-baked investing theory,
Or just enjoy listening to two guys challenge each other's ideas and occasionally admitwhen we're wrong?
You're in the right place.
(01:02):
Welcome to Unqualified Advice.
Hey Dan.
So are you?
How are you feeling?
you ready to go ahead and bolt this place and move to a move to a tax haven?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I feel like I live in a meritocracy and I don't need anyone else in my life.
I'm going to pull myself up by the bootstraps and to hell with anybody else that can't.
(01:25):
Well, I think we have some people that we're going to discuss today that feel the sameway.
Well, yeah, so we finally got through it.
I think we started this book back in what, December?
November?
(01:45):
I don't know when I started.
It took me a while to get through this thing because it was just a...
We are today, dear listeners, talking about our experience reading The SovereignIndividual by John Rhys Moog, and I'm forgetting his name now all of sudden.
(02:06):
James Dale Davidson.
James Dale Davidson, thank you.
No other than one of them has a Lord title, that's all I know.
You know?
not bad.
Yeah, I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, because maybe understanding someof their context would help.
But I think I was, I had enough time just getting to know their ideas that I have.
(02:30):
My intuition is that they are from moneyed families, have a lot of education and took alot of philosophy classes in, in college, but that's, that's just my intuition.
but how far did you make it through?
Did you get all the way through?
you come up a little shy?
(02:53):
it and I think I've got like two hours left.
So for all of my griping and moaning about this, I will say that that last two hours, Ithink chapters 10 and 11, do have some good nuggets in them.
And there's some nuggets there that I actually wanted to touch on today.
So maybe you won't have to read it after this.
(03:16):
Well, think I I actually think that's kind of perfect because we've been circling aroundthis.
If you read if you listen to a couple of prior episodes, I think I've got a kind of zingeron my take from this or a take from this book.
We don't need to go over that again here.
But if yeah, we can dive into the.
(03:38):
The takeaways, I think this is squarely in one of the one of the books that could havebeen like a quarter the length.
or even smaller in order to deliver its message.
Yeah, I think...
I think a quarter feels about right.
I definitely would say half of, of the fluff could have been trimmed away.
There was, you know, all in all, 11 chapters.
(03:59):
And if you'd listen to it via the audio book, I also downloaded the, the, the Kindle bookso I could, so I could, go, go snag quotes, as I like to do, find this, find, you know,
bookmarked little
things I like in the audio book and then I go back and kind of reread that part in thecontext around it a little more closely.
(04:22):
Just how I choose to absorb these things you do as you wish.
No, but you know, all in all, yeah, it was 11 chapters and 22 hours or 23 hours.
was, know, about two hours each chapter being about two hours long.
There's good fiction books that are that long, you know?
What I'm saying is you can tell.
podcast episodes where it's like, I got a lot out of that two hours and some of thesechapters I was like, I think I disappeared for half of it.
(04:51):
Yes, what ended up happening to me is I'd find myself thinking about work of the day andwhat I had been doing or what I needed to do, depending upon which way I was coming or
going, missed, I'd say a good third of this novel, or this was whatever this is, Idefinitely probably did not absorb fully.
And one of the, guess, drawbacks of consuming something via audiobook.
(05:16):
I don't know, I feel like if I did it by print, I would have put it down and not picked itback up.
that's true.
I don't think I would have actually gotten through to the end.
there were times you hear something and then you say, wait, what?
And hit back and relisten.
And I think it's a good way to kind of get through some more dense content like thissometimes.
quick breakdown of, kind of the structure, chapter one, they talk about the transition ofthe year 2000.
(05:42):
So for context, this was written in 19 written released in 1996, I think.
If, memory serves.
you know, we're almost 30 years, since it's publication.
so there's, they start off talking about what is they're calling the fourth stage of humansociety being the information age.
where they're really just talking about the coming of the information age and Honestly, Ido have to give them a lot of credit.
(06:06):
They predicted a lot of, I think they predicted a lot of things that we have seen actuallycome to fruition in terms of the way we've utilized technology now for.
completely taking over our banking lives, completely taking over so many of thetransactions we used to do in person, you know, now our e-commerce transactions.
(06:28):
And this was 96 when what Amazon was maybe just opened or that was at 99 or 98 when thathappened.
Yeah, good question.
I mean, the internet was fake, right?
People were measuring eyeballs and Wall Street was all like, you don't measure eyeballs,we need to measure dollars.
yes, I remember at that time there's still being discussions of like, this internetthing's just gonna be a fad.
(06:49):
And it wasn't, I don't think by and large appreciated to the level that they did actuallykind of understand that and kind of see the coming of smartphones and cryptocurrency and a
lot of things that they did kind of say, more or less say something like this will exist.
I found that at least a little rewarding to get through.
(07:14):
But then they're delved into kind of what the...
totally inflammatory at times too, like the Y2K stuff, like they went off of the deep endon like what's gonna happen and how that's gonna play out.
And I'm sitting there listening to it going like, I remember my mom having to prepare heroffice for this and how much work it was and expense and so on and so forth.
And they did what they could and then it was kind of like, well, we'll see what happens.
(07:38):
But yeah, they were banking on like blackouts, chaos, all kinds of stuff.
And I was like, got that one wrong.
Did your mom work for the university?
No, she works in a doctor's office.
even more understandable.
Okay.
I would call these guys doomers, right?
(08:01):
So there's overall, okay, so yeah, they're hyperbolic to the negative, In general, where.
I was trying to think about this in context of the fourth turning, cause we, we had bothcome into this book after hearing it recommended by some channels where we also heard the
fourth turning recommended on.
We really got a lot out of that book and really liked talking about that.
(08:22):
So we thought we'd pick this one up and the way it was introduced to us, or at least to mewas, uh, it's kind of like a companion piece to.
the fourth turning and kind of like imagining what's coming out of the fourth turning.
I thought that was, was on the made you think podcast, Nat Eliasson's podcast.
And I thought that was a very interesting argument for wanting to get into it.
(08:42):
And I will say, yes, this is like, okay, I could see this being in that timeframe afterthe, after the ecpyrosis and the crisis of the fourth turning coming into this new age.
And I think this is an imagination of what that would look like.
And I just think it's the shittiest version of that.
Okay, say more on that because I feel like, you know, I look at it and think for sure.
(09:07):
The paint, okay, so here's my breakdown.
The picture they paint seems to be like, this is how the world will be.
Whereas I think it's like more, this is how the rich people will be.
Around the world.
Exactly.
feel like I feel that's why I said, then I think they come from a money background.
(09:29):
Because I think they have a very cavalier attitude towards the 95 % of people thatactually this won't none of this will actually quite apply to right.
And they even talk about a number towards the end of saying
You know in the future we envision envision there being a hundred million ultra rich thatcould go and form their own society and honestly You know there if you think about the
(09:57):
total population and the top one percent, they're probably right going for I think
the book and pick the ideas of this book, it almost makes me feel shallow because in a waythis is very expansive and optimistic.
It's like if you have the willingness and agency over your own mind to do things, then youcould be in some echelon of what they describe, which I think would be amazing if more
(10:26):
people were to be elevated into this way of thinking than
You know, I think that we might see some very interesting outcomes for people who wouldotherwise, if they'd have been infected with some other kind of psychology, would be less
actualized.
That is I get that.
Yeah, that makes sense.
(10:46):
Because these are the people that they'd be talking about here really high agency peopleas well right to do any of this.
I think there's like, again, there are a lot of good ideas and things like, I kind ofagree with that.
Okay, that happens sort of.
It just got over.
(11:07):
Yeah, yeah, can we exactly can't
stuffing it down people's throats like dogma or acting like it's just this way and we'regonna leave the 95 % behind because whatever.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Like I also, I'm wondering who they're envisioning is going to be mining the copper forall their devices that they're running or that are running the, this future.
(11:30):
that, you know, well, and then we have zero scarcity, right?
So then it's, you go to a Star Trek future versus this dystopian future, right?
It's a, it.
and how do you then get through that transition?
That's a different sci-fi future entirely in my mind, right?
(11:53):
Because, yeah, it shifts the way everything happens and I don't know what that's gonnalook like when it does happen someday because we're gonna try it eventually and it'll be a
big experiment somewhere and it'll either, who knows?
Yeah.
I was gonna say either, but no, there's like thousands of ways that could probably playout.
(12:18):
yeah, totally.
I mean, they're, yeah, that's like the three body chaotic problem, right?
Like you stuff the idea into the box and then it's like you have, you don't have anymathematical proof of how it comes out on the other side.
Exactly.
so yeah, let's just quickly kind of highlight the overarching, the arch of kind of thisbook.
And then I want to really dig into a couple ideas in those later chapters.
(12:41):
So in, earlier chapters, they introduced the idea of, mega politics, which I kind of,after having read more of the book, I thought I would have a better grasp of what they
meant when they were talking about it.
They keep using the word a couple of times later on, but really they just.
introduce this idea that's kind of like macroeconomics for politics is I think the bestway to think about it.
(13:01):
And talking about how we've moved from I forget the age of feudal age to feudalagricultural to industrial now to the information age, moving through these, you know,
progressing through these stages and how those are kind of mega political transformationsin which like the technology fundamentally changed the way that society interacted and
(13:24):
interconnected.
So like, think of like the example they used of the, exactly.
And I think that's clear that we're seeing a shift there, which is also why.
a turning and like paradigm.
And I think, I mean, for me, the thing that shook me not, I just want to say shook, that'snot the right word.
(13:47):
That's not they didn't shake me necessarily anything that made me go hmm, the most wasthey're talking about the timeline over which these transitions happen and how in there,
they made a very cogent argument for the Industrial Revolution and really kind of startingabout 200 years prior to where most people give it credit for and say in sign about how
(14:08):
during that time, the
power of the church really crumbled and the way societies organized transformed.
That made a lot of sense and I feel like I can apply that and overlay that to todaysomewhat.
And like maybe the...
that change coincided with the printing press, So it was a fundamental shift ininformation access and dissemination.
(14:33):
Fundamental change in power structure because really, the Catholic Church was the biggestform of government worldwide at that point.
And yeah.
Is it still in the top 100 today, you think?
in terms of governmental power.
I don't like kind of, don't know.
mean, I'm thinking of it like a different way.
(14:54):
Nevermind, was silly sidebar.
I'm sorry, I distracted you, Dan.
Well, I mean, yeah, no, like then we could start, you could talk about Mormons andScientology too.
like, there's like, anyway.
Yeah, it is.
It truly is.
It truly is.
(15:16):
they're good at it.
I'll say that.
Yeah.
where were we?
yeah.
So talking about the, move from, you know, agricultural industrial revolutions and howlong those transitions took, think that was useful for me to really say, see that, okay,
this stuff can be going on.
And it's not like it's not a, it's not a binary, right?
It's going to be a weird, slow metamorphosis into whatever the next thing is.
(15:41):
Because there'll be so much resistance to change as well as pockets of people picking itup.
And countries with governments and societies and structures that allow for more change andthen others that don't.
And then some that are more connected and less connected.
You know, it's like the future is here but distributed unevenly.
(16:02):
Yeah, I just for some reason got a mental vision of a lava lamp when you were talkingabout that for some reason.
I don't know.
Maybe I should get one.
Just remind us of the chaos.
Move with it, don't move against it.
(16:23):
Wu Wei or whatever.
Though the Wu Wei the yeah, from the Tao Te Ching exactly that the spirit of wateressentially.
Yeah, so after you know, digging through a bunch of very detailed information about theyou know, the agriculture revolution and the decline of the church and you know, it's
(16:46):
throwing throwing out some in a
Couple interesting little factoids along the way about like how the one of the popes usedto have an accountant to count the number of orgasms that the clergy had at the orgies
because he valued virility.
You know, there were a few interesting little factoids, but really just that's the, youknow, 40 % of the book that needed to really be pared down.
(17:10):
I think that's where we got really kind of frustrated the most too.
between a pope counting the orgasms of his clergy and Gavin Newsom dining at FrenchLaundry during the pandemic?
Is there any sort of corollary there?
Like power structures and people at the top and living completely differently than thepeople they lead?
(17:32):
Oh man, I didn't get that at first, now that it clicks that yes, because
Yeah, do as I say, not as I do, right?
Very much so, to, I mean, we all, I think we all expect a bit of it, and then when it'sthat far, we're like, no, burn it down.
And I think that's a little bit of what's going on today.
(17:54):
exactly, exactly.
It's like burn this down because I don't trust any of you that you're actually running itright.
Yeah, so chaos monkey, start throwing your grenades.
And that's a really good observation, Dan, because yeah, if it had been like hosting aparty in his backyard, that'd be one thing, but it was out at, yeah.
(18:16):
No, was fine dining, Michelin restaurant.
You know, it's just like, had, I don't know.
It was all the things, really.
Except there wasn't an orgy at the end, or maybe we don't know.
Well, hey, was that before Epstein or after Epstein?
I'm not looking at.
Yeah.
(18:38):
So on to the next thing.
No, it was, it was a good distraction.
So that they actually, after getting through a very detailed history lesson, get into alittle of their, you know, forecasting, so to speak.
Well, not to, so to speak, they start forecasting about what they're, what they see comingand talking about the emergence of the cyber economy.
(18:59):
And this is where we touched on a few points where,
they, you know, seeing a borderless digital economy and how there won't be able to becontrol executed over it.
And I don't think that's quite right.
Do you Dan?
I just don't see how it's possible without the world order totally crumbling, kind of likeall at once.
(19:23):
But at the same point, from the ashes of anything, there's always been power that arises.
So I don't understand how, I mean, just look at Peter Thiel and the people most connectedwith him.
Do you believe that they would not end up?
Like if I snap my finger today and all governmental power just dissipated, do you notbelieve that Peter Thiel would exercise his power to become one of the most powerful
(19:52):
people on earth?
If he isn't already, he seems to be a puppeteer.
Or not puppeteer, like a, you know, he's behind the scenes working magic.
He's like the hand of the king in Game of Thrones or something where he's there proddingalong on the court, you know.
(20:13):
Yeah.
So anyway, yes, I am with you.
I remain completely skeptical that like, that it would be 100 % you know, we live in abeautiful age where there's very little violence.
But if you look through most of recorded history, it's just humans killing each other oversex, food or territory.
(20:38):
or yes, and yes, I want to get more onto that later, specifically around the territory,because I think that was an argument they make kind of later in the book, or they actually
kind of pick a part of it.
And I have a couple of good quotes.
So, but like, what I don't think they fathomed is how in control a government can be of adigital system, i.e., you know,
(21:05):
China.
China and us, you know, basically not allowing TikTok here and being able to put in firmcontrols around with our networks.
I don't know that, you, you know, if you, if you wanted to escape that you would have tohave, I mean, the only thing that I guess that maybe with SpaceX making Starlink, a
(21:27):
reality that maybe you could skirt around a lot of government controls with a satelliteuplink.
all it ever does is the power then goes into someone's hands and then that person orentity has to be benevolent.
Like after Bretton Woods or whatever in the US says, we are going to control the openoceans and if you align with our values, meaning don't kill your own people, don't invade
(21:54):
other countries, then all the sea lanes will be open to trade for you.
We will not charge you.
for the protection of open seas, right?
And then that made the whole global order and economy better, bigger, reduce poverty atrecord pace than the humankind has ever seen.
And...
(22:15):
So Starlink or some other entity, know, it's like, wherever that power floats to, willthey be as benevolent as that ethos was for, you know, from the United States?
In that example, or SpaceX currently, whatever.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, in this way, the SpaceX thing, it that would be the people to escape.
(22:38):
would be how they would be escaping the control.
Right.
So the, like, you would still have the government control over, I think over your landdigital lines.
Like, I think that's going to be you.
Always your, your, whatever nation state government, that you're in would be able toinstitute some sort of control over that data moving there.
(23:01):
But if it's just moving.
through space, that would be the one way that you would be able to escape control, was theway I was framing that thought.
But I like your Bretton Woods analogy way better.
Well, I mean, would take it.
There's two things I would connect is like that.
The paradigm of Bretton Woods post World War II, the small L liberal world order and.
(23:30):
Man, my brain just lost it, man.
God damn it.
Say your last point again.
It was about, oh, now I lost everything.
Yeah.
No, were Bretton Woods compared to basically using like, Starlark is an example of a wayto escape control, right?
(23:57):
Escape control.
Yeah, the other thing I would connect here is Ben Thompson's aggregation theory fromStrotecary and how like, you know, I think a lot of people wish that, you know, Lena con
had been successful in taking down Amazon and Microsoft again and Google and whatever.
And, aggregation theory would hold basically that like, doesn't matter.
(24:19):
You could destroy the entirety of Google, but there would be something else that wouldrise and take up that much market share.
again, because it's not about controlling supply.
Its demand actually goes to the one place because the bigger the one place is, the moreuseful it is.
And therefore it hovers up more demand.
(24:41):
so in network, yes, exactly.
And at this point, like you should expect behemoths in tech.
That's kind of just how it goes.
and
you know, in some sort of power vacuum with this many people on earth, it's like, yeah,there's gonna be big powers that coagulate again.
(25:01):
It's not gonna be this like magical, sovereign individual that just flies from place toplace and money moves with me everywhere I go and I'm completely safe and people wanna, I
was like, come on.
The more alone you are, the more of a target you are, I think.
okay, why don't you, yeah, go ahead all you 50 million ultra billionaires go move intothat one little valley over there.
(25:23):
Do that, just yeah, just go do that.
See how that plays out.
that's, that's where they drop a bomb.
Like that's how, you know, that's where the terrorists go after.
you think you can build secure systems, but can you?
Because he's, again, as they argue,
The one, one actually interesting point they make about, you know, the advancement of techis that it does kind of, make it easier for the smaller actor to cause a lot of disruption
(25:55):
in a defense system.
Like you don't have to be necessarily a global scale player to take down a, the controlsystems of a very important.
Yeah.
back a few years.
Yeah, right.
So.
Different, back a few years.
And now we're seeing it in Ukraine.
Vietnam was not well funded or protected.
(26:17):
They just did it better.
On home territory and were more motivated, know, a litany of reasons.
Mm-hmm.
Yep, exactly.
So, that's an interesting analogy.
I hadn't thought of it that way.
Now you made me forget I was thinking again.
Yeah, no, you were thinking you're thinking about how like, you know, like the small guystill has power.
(26:41):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yes, yes, yes.
It gives other avenues for the small guy to have power.
Yes, absolutely.
American, Britain, and Vietnam, yes, absolutely.
So that was kind of an interesting point, but I don't see how you don't have still...
again, power law dynamics, network effects where it just pays to have scale and sizebecause of the other efficiencies and because we as people don't want to work, you know,
(27:12):
12 hours a day, 15 hours a day, if we don't have to, if we can be more efficient with ourtime and have a system that allows us to have leisure.
I think it, I don't see how that goes away.
or how people don't want keep trying to move towards some level of that ideal, right?
Yes, and I also don't understand, just going back to, I can't get past the idea that powerstructures wouldn't naturally unfold.
(27:39):
And if those of us who are idealistic and agentic decide that, we are going to shun powerstructures and we are gonna remain sovereign individuals, and we will not assign ourselves
or sign up for some sort of.
that projects its power upon other people, the more you resist that, the more you would, Ithink, add room for the kind of power that you wouldn't want to see in the world.
(28:07):
Yes.
And then it doesn't take long.
So I'm reading this other book, Prometheus Rising.
It's great.
Here's a line from it.
And I feel like it connects to this idea just a little bit.
So suspicion leads to more more suspicion.
The only alternative was suggested sarcastically by playwright Bertolt Brecht, who washounded by U.S.
secret police as a communist and by East German secret police later as not sufficientlycommunist.
(28:33):
Quote, if the government doesn't trust the people, Brecht asked innocently.
Why doesn't it dissolve them and elect a new people?
No way has yet been invented to elect a new people, so the government will instead spy onthe existing people with increased vigor.
That's good.
That's really good.
Okay, I'm looking forward to that book.
now that I'm thinking about these power structures and this idea that they wouldn'tnaturally reoccur, or that the smartest, most benevolent people would try to avoid them, I
(29:06):
feel like that would actually create room for a darker world.
Yeah, yes it would because...
Someone's gonna want power.
That is a default.
It's humanity we're talking about.
precisely we naturally organize and structure ourselves,
But I, hmm.
I guess you would, I could see a splintering though, right?
(29:29):
To on the other side, could larger nations split into smaller nations?
Or is it more likely that Russia goes and tries to remake the USSR?
Yeah, I don't know.
This is where I keep going back to Zion and it's like, how long does the power ofgeography hold?
Because when he talks about geography and why Russia is scared about this border or thatborder, and then why the United States is so protected and powerful and all these things,
(29:57):
I'm like, yeah, that makes sense.
That's all that makes sense.
that idea makes sense too.
Does it just reoccur?
Yeah, because we do just have this natural geography that because you can't or.
a mess, the Balkans are still a mess, America still is powerful.
It's like, does it just recur?
Slightly different, but recur.
(30:19):
That's a good question.
Did you just see a little thing pop up on the screen?
Yeah, you got a little thumb up.
I don't know why.
I don't know what that was from.
Okay, interesting.
So actually this all ties to one of the quotes I wanted to bring up.
So I want to bring this in here too.
So, a moment's reflection shows that technology of the information age is not inherently amass technology.
(30:48):
In military terms, as we have indicated, it opens the potential for smart weapons andinformation war in which logic bombs could sabotage centralized command and control
systems.
So that quote just danced back and forth of like two points you made.
technology is better when it's inherently a mass technology, right?
But also it doesn't have to be.
(31:09):
yes, you're right.
No, I mean, I built high availability systems that were geographically dispersed.
Like you kill one place, we stay going.
Mm-hmm.
That's true
And if you listen to the leadership at Andoril, they're designing systems that do similarthings.
And I'm sure whatever they talk about in public is much further behind than where theyactually are.
(31:30):
Yeah, I would love to know more about what's going on there most days, think.
think it's, yeah, I think it's an interesting company.
Yeah, I forget where I was going with that after that aside, but.
Read the quote one more time.
(31:51):
A moment's reflection shows the technology of the information age is not inherently a masstechnology.
In military terms, as we have indicated, it opens the potential for smart weapons andinformation war in which logic bombs could sabotage centralized command and control
systems.
So yeah, again, I don't see how you could actually sabotage a complete centralized commandand control system.
(32:14):
I guess maybe the treasury?
from what I've heard lately, their server structure might be a little outdated and in needof some improvements.
But I think for a large portion of everything, it's gotta be decentralized in way that weprobably don't understand for security reasons.
(32:39):
Yeah, that's a good point.
We're not out there touting our resilience as a US government.
When in fact, perhaps there's much more resiliency than we know.
I hope there is.
it's, it's kind of the opposite of having a big weapon, right?
(32:59):
if you have a good defense network, you don't necessarily want to give you all the detailsabout what that defense network entails because then I'm just giving you the way to start
planning for how to get around it.
So I'm sure that there's a lot of things that we don't understand, but again, I can't seehow this exactly plays out on like.
the way they think, I don't know, kind of, it's still an interesting argument.
(33:21):
And again, with the difference in networks, I don't know where I'm going.
I'm gonna just shut up now for a minute.
Hahaha
Well, okay, so I think maybe one point that I think, honestly, I feel like this is a pointthat Elon Musk is trying to stuff down the throat of the American government and to date
(33:41):
it has been resistant of you can't keep building huge, enormous things.
You need to build tons of tiny little things.
And I think the best, the easiest analogy would be Starlink again, where it's like,instead of there being like eight satellites up there that are geospatially locked to the
(34:03):
United States and providing internet, which would probably be like the direct TV model.
You, he's got like, I don't, I don't know.
Now I think there's a rocker going up every single day, launching more of these things.
Like it's, it's a constellation of satellite, miniature satellites, right?
And,
then you see the same thing with the drones and different ways and means that are beingexercised in Russia and Ukraine.
(34:30):
And you just, can't help but to think that the entirety, the future.
we are witnessing the paradigm shift shift of how these things are conducted becausewhat's the use of a nuclear weapon unless you have like, you have to have even someone
with like, well, was even like a slightly psychotic leader is probably not going to wantlaunch one.
(34:51):
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, that's true.
you have to go in order to be willing to launch one at this point, because it's mutuallyassured.
So most power people are really interested in maintaining power.
So they're not gonna launch one because that automatically means that they will no longerhave power because they'll be vaporized as well.
So now it's down to tiny little things.
(35:12):
where to hit them, that's a fine point.
but eventually they would get there.
But you, you would, yeah, you're, you're absolutely right.
I think that the deterrence around using those large weapons has kept us safe for so manyyears.
at least safe from their particular usage, though they still try to big build plenty oflarge, play big regular, regular bombs like the Moab, you know,
(35:38):
the Trump wanted to display in his last term.
Hmm.
Yeah, how much of that is marketing?
I think, I think for him, that was a wanting to show power and punch somebody in the face.
And it wasn't even not like a particularly good application of it from what I remember atthe time, was overpower for what they needed to do.
(36:00):
or what they thought they needed to do.
But yeah, I think just to demonstrate that, I'm, I'm kind of crazy, crazy enough to pullthis out.
Those are a horse loose in the hospital.
What do we do?
I don't know.
There's never been a horse loose in the hospital.
that from anything?
(36:22):
Okay.
That's good.
It's never been a horse lose the hospital.
That's a great analogy.
I would die.
don't know.
We're going through this for the first time.
Yeah.
So speaking of our, of our current head, they had a they had a quote that I found
(36:49):
I'm like, okay, I bet you can just say this every year for the last 200 years.
Corruption is far more universal and widespread than previously thought.
Evidence of it is everywhere in developing countries, with growing frequency in industrialcountries, prominent political figures, including presidents of countries and ministers
(37:09):
have been accused of corruption in a way this represents the privatization of the state inwhich it's.
power is not shifted to the market as privatization normally implies, but to governmentofficials and bureaucrats.
It's like, okay, yeah, that's just the way it always is or always seems.
right, because I would say arguably that it feels 2024 corruption, 2025, I'm sorry,corruption and acceptance of it is through the roof compared to 1996.
(37:43):
Hmm.
Well, hold on.
Instead of going back that far, what about 2023 to 2025?
Yeah, no, it feels like we hit an inflection point, right?
Kind of honestly.
want you to explain more.
Okay, specifically, wait.
reversed?
There was there, I feel as though there is more open acceptance of corruption at thispoint in 2025 than in 2023, specifically with what is going on around DJT on the stock
(38:20):
market, the Trump coin, the Melania coin, the associated ETFs they are launching now atTrump.FI or whatever.
my god, okay.
that this is clearly a personal enrichment.
Well, how much is, what's, what's the difference?
What's your, if,
(38:42):
I don't know, I really don't know the answer, but my question is, or are there differentwords to choose?
What's behind closed doors and cannot be?
I'm going to say yes, it's corruption because they're gifting the shares to think peoplelike the FBI director and stuff as
Yeah, that's complete corruption.
But it's being done in the open.
(39:02):
I want better words.
I want better words.
There's out in the open versus not out in the open.
It's, it's not even, no, it's, it's, it's out in the open of the, of the, middle of afield beneath a giant neon sign with spotlights circling around saying corruption going on
(39:23):
over here.
And people just keep driving down the highway.
That's what I feel like is, is, is where it's at.
Yeah, I also think you'd have people who are very well educated and know their stuff argueright there against you.
I would love actually what are the no but okay let's
(39:44):
within the Democrats is extreme as well.
I do too.
That's also fair.
That's absolutely...
I'm not, well...
are you angry because you can see it now?
No, I could say the same thing about Pelosi or any of the members of Congress that havebeen insider trading forever.
What I was, I guess, trying to highlight is I feel as though there has been a littleelevation recently, specifically around the personal enrichment with the current system
(40:13):
and the current person in office.
But you are absolutely 100 % right that this level of corruption, like,
One more question.
Are people okay with, more okay with it because they feel as if they can participate in itbecause it's out in the open.
Whereas the secret backroom dealings no one else can participate in.
(40:34):
So it's like, I would like to burn the people in the room.
That's the reaction.
Not, that's not me.
That's the reaction.
Right.
That's a, that's a hell of an interesting question because I, because you can go and belike, well, this is clearly going to do some numbers.
Let me go ahead and get on, on this Friday night of the Trump coin launch because peopleare crazy.
(40:55):
Yeah.
So I think that does help.
Yeah.
Wasn't even on my radar.
Yeah, I, I, I saw it going on on Saturday.
I was like, it's not too late.
Why did, why am I not doing this?
And I was like, because I don't want to, I don't want to participate because I don't wantto help drive the system.
So I just quietly sat on the side and was like, yeah, I'm sure I can do fine.
(41:18):
And I probably would have done pretty well, but it wasn't worth it for me.
Also then the stress of, how quickly before this blows up, also would, Yeah.
You'd have to.
Yeah.
No, but that's a, you know, Dan, that's a great point you just brought up.
Because I think you could go back in every administration for the last.
(41:41):
Yeah.
all bad.
And we should accept that there's always going to be some.
like, finding out that we've got some huge stuff and that we could never see it, thatmakes people really angry.
And then to see it just out in the open where you can participate in it a little bit, Ithink that's how he gets, he just, it's like, well, made some other people rich.
So then people are okay with it.
(42:03):
It's like a lottery or something.
I think...
I think you're onto something with that.
because it doesn't, I feel like there's less rage in 2025 than 2017 and eight years ago.
I feel like there's a lot less rage around, which I'm all right with, frankly.
Or maybe I'm just not looking in the right spots or I don't, I don't know.
(42:26):
Yeah.
on.
But I agree with you.
General feeling.
It just seems like people have, there's a certain kind of levity that has been introduced.
just become a nerd to the situation.
We've seen it before.
We're not so scared.
You know, I think people get mad when they're scared.
And there were a lot of people that were scared for probably not great reasons.
(42:48):
They probably didn't need to be.
And now they realize that maybe I was overreacting.
Okay.
Okay.
This is just a
horse losing a hospital.
It's just a horse loose in the hospital.
Okay.
What's the next quote?
Well, here's an idea they had that this will never happen.
(43:10):
Okay.
So the big point that voting is kind of like a proxy for a military contest, right?
Like a geographically, for a geographically aligned military contest.
In a sense, the way we have set up our structure, the people of the United States voteabout who's gonna be leading of the whole nation and sort of duking it out, right?
(43:37):
be, that's definitely the old way.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So interesting point.
Like I'm like, yes, that's actually, that sounds accurate.
Um, then they, they, they propose a change to, uh, voting, uh, that we could do withcomputer technology.
computer technology offers to make truly representative government.
The supposed problem of excessive campaign expenditures and undoubted annoyance of chronicpolitical campaigning could be resolved in an instant rather than being elected.
(44:03):
representatives could be selected by a sortition entirely at random with a highly, with ahigh statistical probability that their talents and view match those of the population at
large.
This would be merely a modern version of the ancient Greek system of selection by lot.
It's like, well, that sounds like a lovely way to get a house of representatives electedsort of.
(44:25):
Uh, but I don't see any way anybody lets that happen.
Right.
Yeah, no, heels are too dug in at this point.
One, two, what about preference falsification?
How do you know what people want?
I think the last couple of elections are pretty clear examples that we don't know.
(44:48):
Yeah.
Well, I think their point was just saying that the people that are elected are, you know,they are campaigning and saying these things that they will represent you, but it's not
necessarily, you don't get a representative percentage of portion of population actuallyrunning the country.
You get a lot of lawyers and a lot of narcissists.
(45:08):
so if you wanted a country that was maybe perhaps more sanely managed, you would havepeople that were more accurately representing.
the population at large, which, you know, it's a nice, lovely utopian ideal.
like maybe,
reducing the tyranny of the bureaucrat.
Yeah, exactly.
(45:29):
the, and the, and the, honestly, the, the corruption that you get associated with it,right?
Because by running the campaigns, have to spend that money on the people make promises andyou get, it's a, it's a corruption inducing system.
that's
better today than it was, what, in like 1880 or when was, there's a particular name forthis process where it's like, I mean, was like cronyism defined.
(45:55):
And that's how like America ran for a while.
It was like, you do this for me?
I'll get you a seat.
And I was like, yeah, it really was just tip for tat like that.
Inside job.
very much.
you so speaking of kind of like cronies and all this that that to wind up, we were talkinglast week about Singapore recently, I think it was last week or week before.
(46:22):
What do you know about their how they pay their legislature or their their governmentworkers?
about the legislature, but the bureaucrats, the people who run government, are paidextremely well.
Like, investment bankers' salary.
So here's something interesting.
Performance-based compensation for legislatures, paying leaders on the basis of theirperformance just as a logical extension of Lee Kuan Yew's Flexi-Wage program in Singapore,
(46:47):
which pays government employees based on real growth of the Singaporean economy.
There is every reason to believe that the performance would be greatly enhanced if the payof legislatures and executives were keyed to objective measures of performance, such as
the growth of after-tax per capita income.
pay them on a basis of performance and the chance that they would perform would increase athousandfold.
(47:09):
I'm really biased because I can be motivated by money, but I think this is a brilliantidea.
And I remember being a teen and having arguments with people I grew up around that like,you know, they were like, well, the president makes 400 grand a year and that's way too
much, you know?
And I'm like, I don't know.
Like DC seems expensive and it's the leader of the free world.
(47:30):
I think maybe we should be paying the person a lot more.
And then tying it to performance metrics, I think is bloody brilliant.
Yeah, I want this.
Like this is what I want.
This is what I want.
I don't want them to only care about being re-elected or not.
I want them to care about outcome.
(47:50):
Yeah.
And also, also not even on the elected officials, even in the, I think government agenciesthemselves, right?
Like they should be.
of these incentives are hard to structure though.
how do you make, how do you incentivize FBI agents?
Are you just like number of arrests?
And it's like, well, that's a little scary.
you give a, yeah, that's right.
(48:11):
You can incentivize bad behavior or get weird gaming.
Yeah.
or, and maybe not a, as a, a, know, you'd have more of a flat base and have like a 30 %based off of incentive structure type of situation.
You know, more like a, a bonus type structure.
(48:35):
where
certain metrics have to be progressed towards or met.
I don't know.
I will be like, this is the type of thing I could see those trying to do.
And so I'm kind of, I'm really interested to see how all that keeps playing out becauseit's been a wild first couple of weeks with the things they've cut, threatened to cut,
(49:00):
backed off, started cutting again.
So I had some time this morning.
I was at the gym and let my mind wander a little bit.
And I started again, kind of going back to one of my themes for the year is just likequestioning, questioning my priors and being more comfortable with thoughts that would
otherwise have normally made me uncomfortable.
(49:21):
So doge.
How do you feel?
Well, that's what I'm wondering.
That's what I'm trying to explore.
What if, what if this is the rising of the ashes, the Phoenix returns moment for theUnited States, the purging and ruffling of the molting of feathers that needs to happen to
(49:43):
reinvent oneself, to shed the excess pounds so that you can run the mile.
What if this is what's happening?
And if so,
And if succeeds, once again, the founding fathers will have created the most brilliantform of government yet seen in humanity.
There's a lot of what ifs there, but I thought it was an interesting thought that occurredto me.
(50:09):
I have been very conflicted in my emotions around it because so much of me is like, yes,yes, yes, cut, cut, cut where you can.
But other parts I'm like also, but those are people that are becoming unemployed jobsthat, know, hardships that are going to be felt.
Some things that probably deserve to be right.
(50:30):
It's cut it.
Yeah.
but at.
without pain.
Hey, you know what though, at least we're talking about this for the first time in a longtime.
So maybe we start, then the legislature can come in and say, Hey, no, actually that'sillegal for you to do that.
And the checks and balances, you start working against each other a bit is what I, and weact actually.
(50:50):
Hopefully it doesn't grind to a halt, but hopefully then it keeps the momentum focused onthe things that can happen and need to happen in a more impactful way.
But yeah, I'm, I'm, oddly optimistic about parts of it, but then.
optimistic, yeah, I agree.
then like also when I find out that, you know, a few people that might now have rewrite atread write access to like a system like the Treasury payment system that, you know,
(51:17):
distributes, you know, very complex and make sure that all the all the government bondsget paid all everything that needs to go outwards from the government actually executes
just executes.
You know, it's like, well, man, what if they because you know, sometimes
there's been bugs on Twitter where they released an update and he's just going to try tobe doing something positive, but he just accidentally like screw something up and like,
(51:42):
you know, kills our credit rating.
Like not, not, I'm not, yeah, I'm not, I'm not even like, I'm going to like best casescenario, like, or not best case scenario, but like, know, theoretically I could see them
going in and trying to make things more efficient, say we're going to make this systembetter and run better.
And then a bug comes up and like, there goes, you know, we just downgraded our creditrating with Moody's.
(52:03):
Yes, yes.
And that's, that's a system where I don't want the move fast, break things mindset.
And it works great on Twitter when you can, you know, at bug, we'll go fix it quick andget it running better.
Okay, fine.
You know, people get a little snarly about bugs occasionally, but it
Johnny.
He's got to rewrite four lines of the algo and we'll recommit.
Yeah.
(52:24):
So a little more worrisome on government payments when what could be going wrong.
But anyway.
other controversy attached to Doge that has been on the airwaves it seems is that there's,I don't know how many, five it seems?
I'm going off of little meme pictures.
(52:45):
I don't really know much information here of four or five guys who are like in their 20sand are like, you know, getting after it.
Mm-hmm.
and the controversy that exists because of their age.
Did you see any of this?
I have not seen it.
No, I have not.
(53:05):
know that like the, there's one guy involved.
It's like 25 doing a bunch of stuff, but no.
don't know enough about any of these individuals and I think there's been some additionalcontroversy with maybe at least one of them, but I'm gonna stick with just the age thing.
just, thought it was very interesting that.
I know, I kind of put it in the same bucket as NIMBYism, right?
(53:26):
It's just people being angry, pitchforky about bullshit.
and then I saw somebody else, I believe grabbed that, you know, a clip of that poster withsomebody that being talked about and said, but if you look at the age of the founding
fathers in 1776, there was like 18 to 26.
You know, it's like, and your point is, yeah, yeah.
(53:47):
Jefferson was 33 or something like that.
Franklin, Franklin.
Yeah, Franklin was, yeah.
So.
was the old wise man in the room at that point.
Yeah, probably was like 50.
And then, you know, after the country's actually formed and he gets to go gallivant aroundFrance and raise money for...
more Revolutionary War stuff or whatever.
He's having a great time and lives into his 80s.
(54:07):
Something like that.
Yeah.
So yeah, the age part, I don't, I don't care so much about, I'm like, that's, that's notreally a disqualifying thing.
It's not like, it's not where we have it, like in the constitution where we have to say,where you say you have to be at least 35 to do this.
That's just a, finding people that are talented to do the right work.
(54:27):
Now, if there's other things that they're doing that are untoward and maybe give us reasonto question their motives, then maybe that should be discussed.
in more depth, but yeah, not based upon the based on the age alone.
I'm with you on that.
yeah, with you on that one.
All right, what you got?
Well, I have, so we've gotten all the way up through chapter 10 here in my notes of 11, 10of 11.
(54:58):
Chapter 10 was kind of focusing on the twilight of democracy.
I believe that was actually the title of it.
And chapter 11 is...
I don't want democracy to go away.
Well, yeah, no, that's what I mean.
They were just talking about that was their vision of, replacing things with arepresentation by sortition and things of that nature.
(55:23):
Like what they were trying to envision, what things might look like out after.
not really the end of democracy.
It's more like the evolution of democracy into a technocratic republic or something.
Got it, okay.
I just want there to be representation and the government to fear the people.
That's all I want.
Yeah.
Yes.
(55:43):
That's, that's, that's all we want.
Just the government to fear the people.
Is that too much to ask for?
I, some days I think so, but you
Yeah.
so the last, the last chapter is kind of the waxing poetic about morality, and theevolution of morality in the information age.
(56:05):
And I have a couple of quotes, one that, we already touched on around corruption.
but then two others that I think really helped summarize who these people are and who, andwho the authors were and in, in, their views.
So the first one is the original phrase of John Locke has it precisely.
(56:27):
Everyone has a right to life, liberty and estate.
In 1776, Thomas Jefferson added another of Locke's phrases, the pursuit of happiness.
That makes a very fine phrase and a very fine aspiration, but life and the state is moredown to earth than the phrase life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Society depends absolutely on the right to life and the right to property.
(56:51):
In practice, history shows these can be protected when there is liberty.
If the state is all powerful and the state becomes the great enemy of life, as in wars ofaggression and of individual property by taking an inordinate share of the nation's wealth
for its own often undesirable and always wasteful purposes.
(57:12):
so
I think this is a fine point that they make here.
but also then shows you the misanthropic kind of take they have of, of not looking towardsa greater good, right.
and making it very much about self-determination, Ayn Rand type progress, I think, or notprogress, and Ryan type POV.
(57:38):
I don't know.
Did that, what did you think about that little blurb?
Did that give you any thoughts?
I think the first thought that did occur to me was, and I forget which book I got thisfrom, was that the pursuit of happiness is, as written by Thomas Jefferson, is not the way
we take it in our minds today.
It is more about like this.
(58:01):
I'm gonna use the word agentic again.
It's this pursuit.
It is this ability to.
It is this unencumberedness.
It is this go reach for your higher ideals.
It's not just like I'm walking around and being happy and all my stuff is taken care of.
Because I think lots of happiness culture is just folly anyway.
(58:25):
It's this false pursuit.
Whereas if you need to dig a hole, then maybe you just go dig it.
And then you'll be like, wow, I did a great job digging that hole.
And that does much more for your psyche than...
thinking about happiness, right?
So I get you, but I guess I would push back a little bit because I think they're kind ofintertwined, even if you use Thomas Jefferson's words instead of John Locke's, right?
(58:55):
Or am I twisted my explanation?
No, I know, you make sense.
but in my only, yeah.
I guess my only point around that was I thought, I think it's a very interestingdelineation that, you know, Locke would have said life, liberty and the state.
think that makes it because of the core, like they're, I think they have a very good pointthat they're right.
(59:16):
That that is, those are the things that the state needs to protect.
And this is almost like to me and again, a philosophical ideal versus a, well, no, this isall philosophical ideals.
Yes.
Right.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
I think it's, I think it's what they're arguing, the authors of the book saying, we preferJohn Locke's point of view, essentially.
(59:40):
And I'm sitting here saying, no, I think Jefferson got right.
Or improved upon it.
And I think your explanation of
was also writing a completely different document.
He was writing a document that basically assumed that there was a state.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Interesting.
Interesting point of view.
It's an interesting point of their interesting, interesting note, right?
(01:00:00):
You're assuming that we are, we are declaring our dependence here.
The state is assumed and inferred.
Yeah.
Yes.
Yes.
Interesting.
Uh, good point.
the last, the last quote, and again, this is, I think, but let me just read it and I'lllet you respond.
(01:00:21):
Okay.
A godless, ruthless and rich elite is unlikely to be happy or to be loved.
This inadequacy in the initial moral education of what will be the dominant economic groupof the next century is likely to be reinforced by their life experience.
These people will have the discipline of an advanced technical education of one sort onesort of another to fit themselves for their new roles as the leaders of the new electronic
(01:00:45):
universe.
but they will learn from that only some of the moral lessons that have historically beenthe framework for human social conduct.
They may be moral illiterates.
They have been taught the lessons of economic efficiency, the use of resources, thepursuit of money, but not the virtue of self-sacrifice, let alone chastity.
(01:01:09):
So I think that is to me, yes.
And I think that is, this is to me, again, I was trying to look for things that I wastrying to understand who these authors are.
And I think this shows to me, like they have a very specific viewpoint of, on their peergroup, right?
(01:01:30):
Like this is them talking about their peer group and the weaknesses within their peergroup.
Yeah.
Yes.
So I think maybe these guys weren't so popular.
I don't know.
No.
They did a lot of moralizing towards the end and I got the impression that they wouldprefer more like a 1950s, everybody kind of buttoned up version of society than what's
(01:01:58):
going on today.
Yeah.
So just to give context on the rest of the book for you.
or that's how I was taking it.
I'm like, okay, this kind of gives me some context on how they've argued these points andwhy they're arguing, think coming towards, out of this crisis or this change being.
(01:02:20):
I want to question, I don't know about that.
Or I'm wondering about that.
Are we conflating religion and chastity or whatever, these other labels with...
Like, we're putting our biases in there, right?
Like, I think you and I both would be like, you don't require religion to be of higherservice and higher morality, right?
(01:02:50):
And that, I think, is the folly of many religious people's point of view about atheists.
They don't recognize, like, without religion, it must mean that you're like an evilperson.
And both parties guilty there, rather than understanding that you can be...
moralistic and have really straight and narrow you could you could be super straight andnarrow and also believe that there's no god
(01:03:10):
But maybe their point is more that you've got these highly educated up in the clouds kindof people being elected to power and these structures when they themselves have no sense
of community, no sense of connection to the broader kinds of people.
(01:03:31):
And therefore they're leading out in a direction that is not connected with the
the people that are under them.
And once you have this crumbling of community or tribe, then your society starts to fallapart.
at which point you don't have the government that you thought you did.
(01:03:53):
like that take.
I like that take.
I like that take and I like that question.
aspect is like, we're desperate for that now.
I think a theme in our notes that you keep coming back to in a couple different lines, andI feel like we should really dive into it soon, is loneliness.
Yes.
Okay.
I think you, I think you have, I think you're, I think you're onto something there, right?
(01:04:14):
Is it's a definitely could call calling me out of my biases by the way.
Thank you.
It's hard to see your own.
I mean, I welcome it anytime you can.
absolutely right.
in that section, they also do make an interesting point around that there are, at thatpoint in time, of like two systems, one of kind of a more puritanical religious sides, and
(01:04:48):
then one of a more like everything is okay side or like atheistic side.
And they both say, well, you can't feel certain ways about certain things.
they both produce intolerance and that makes them ultimately no different from each other.
I'm 100 % on board with that.
(01:05:10):
think that's, I had forgotten about that until you said that, but yes.
Good intuition, Dan.
Well, that's all I had noted.
that was a really good discussion of this book, frankly.
I hope that's how I'm feeling about it right now.
I'll go back and listen later.
(01:05:30):
for anyone who wants to dive into it, like it's definitely deep material.
Like you do get history lessons, you get some strange and interesting facts.
We're not, I know we sort of like said, this was a slog and it was, but I think forcertain readers, you've, still get a lot of fancy out of it.
Yeah, I would say maybe read chapter one and two and then nine, 10, and 11, and you gotit.
(01:05:54):
I don't know, maybe eight, nine, 10, 11, but yeah, there's, it's worth it.
if you have a lot of time and you really enjoy thinking about this sort of stuff, I endedup, I ended up thinking at one point, I'm not going to finish this and I ended up getting
through it in the last couple of chapters.
really ended up having some interesting thoughts with myself on.
(01:06:14):
so there there's definitely nuggets in here that are, worth, worth consideration anddeeper thought.
And you know,
that doesn't sound like it's up your alley, go read something that you do want to read.
That's what I would say.
Yes.
Yes.
And thanks for joining us while we talk about it.
Yes.
(01:06:35):
until next time, everybody.
This has been some unqualified reading advice.
We will talk at you next time.
All right, cheers everyone.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.