#26 What even IS freedom?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
[clip] So a lot of people are upset or are afraid that, you know, the Second Amendment rights

(00:17):
are being taken away with gun control laws.
Like that's a big thing right now.
The right wants the Second Amendment to stand and people can own guns, the right to bear
arms, right?
But how does that, how do gun control laws fit within the Second Amendment while still

(00:40):
offering the freedom to the citizens of the country?
The safety to the citizens, right?
Right, yeah.
The right to bear arms, but the right to be safe.

(01:02):
[introduction] This is our podcast.
Do you have a minute?
I'm LS and I'm talking with my dad, NDM.
We do this podcast because we like talking to each other.
And also we want to see if anyone else wants to talk to us because sometimes it's a lot
funner when you get to share your conversations with other people, I suppose.

(01:24):
But we definitely do want feedback on whether we're doing it good enough or not.
You know, nobody's told us whether they like it or not.
And here we are at, this will be the 24th, 25th maybe episode.
So a quarter of a hundred or whatever, and here we are and we haven't received any feedback

(01:45):
on our format yet.
So well, not a lot of feedback.
Not a lot.
Nothing from anybody that's not our beloved family and friends.
That's the thing is you can't trust their opinions.
They're going to love everything.
That's right.
Or they already hate you.
Or they already hate you.

(02:06):
But we're still having fun.
So we keep going.
We're going to keep going anyway.
Yeah.
Even if you don't listen.
But if you're listening, let us know.
Please.
[main conversation] So today I was thinking we could talk about freedom and what that means.
Freedom.
The dumb part or the free part?

(02:27):
Oh, the free part.
Freedom.
Oh, not U-M-B... D-O-M.
That's what you're talking about.
Yeah, freedom.
Freedom.
So what?
We have a new president that's going to be inaugurated in four days on the 20th, right?

(02:47):
Yeah, on Monday.
Or actually, when you hear this, four weeks ago, five weeks ago, he was inaugurated.
Right, right.
But to us, right here now, it's in four days.
This is where we're at.
He's about to be inaugurated.
I suppose when we upload this, we can see, did the world blow up?

(03:07):
Did everything fall apart at that point?
Did it fall apart or is it loads better?
Are we more free or are we less free?
That's what the statement is.
Right, yeah.
That's the discussion point because I've been watching the Senate, the cabinet hearings

(03:28):
a little bit.
Okay.
But it's really, it's still dualistic.
I don't know.
One side against the other.
It's clear to know just based on the questions fully, if they're Democrat or Republican or
against or for, it's not possible for both of them to be for the cabinet nominees.

(03:50):
And they feel like everything's going to fall apart.
And then the other side feels like it's going to be great.
And it's already falling apart and we're trying to put it back together.
They say it's been together just fine now, it's going to fall apart.
So freedom with that, does it have two sides?
Well, yes.
Okay.
So I heard Jordan Peterson talking about the Republicans and the Democrats just recently

(04:17):
on the Huberman Lab podcast.
And he says that he believes that the Democratic Party needs to start stepping up a bit more
right now.
And we need that check on the Republicans.
It's not that he's pro-Democrat or pro-Republican.

(04:38):
I think he's actually pro-Republican as a Canadian.
He prefers the Republican ideals, I suppose, would you say?
But...
Well, yeah, who knows?
It's just like he does prefer God, but he's not going to go with the God you identify.

(04:58):
So he's not going to go with the political party you identify.
You're a valid thinker.
Right leaning, maybe, could you understand?
Conservative leaning, you might say that.
He's more conservative, less liberal.
But no, he's truly liberal for what liberal is supposed to mean.
What it's supposed to mean.

(05:18):
Where liberal is left leaning wokeness, he's completely against that.
But he's completely for personal responsibility and conservatism.
So the liberal progressive used to be the conservative growth and building and knowing
as much as you can know.
Liberal used to mean knowledge.

(05:39):
Now it's not knowledge, it's indoctrination.
You follow my plan.
Is the liberal now.
So no matter where he sits, you talked about the check of the Democrats against the Republicans.
Whatever form is in power, the other needs to make sure their voice is heard.

(06:02):
They need to make sure that the one side, the one that's in power isn't the extremists.
It doesn't become extreme.
It stays in check.
We have checks and balances in our government.
And so it's not good that the Democrats, what he sees is the Democrats aren't talking to,

(06:22):
I mean, they're not going on podcasts.
They're not, I mean, they're turning down, they're turning down invitations to go on
conservative, leaning podcasts is what they're doing.
And they don't have backbones or something.
Like it's not that each of these people are spineless, but you know, it's the party as

(06:47):
a whole isn't fighting, I guess.
It's not strong.
It's not, I don't know.
He put it in words that are better than mine.
Correct.
But you have to do that based on your position.
If your position is strong and you can have passion for it, you're going to step up and

(07:07):
say it.
If you're being directed, if you're a puppet, the puppet leadership, that's what we talk about
in politics sometimes is the person really doesn't have any conviction for what he's
saying.
He's just the puppet of, he was told to say that these are the talking points.
So a puppet goes out with talking points.
You state your talking points and that's your only responsibility.

(07:28):
You don't have to support them or put passion behind them or try to persuade others to your
side.
It's not your point to persuade.
It's your point to just state the talking points and that's what they do.
And they've done that for years.
And that's why they call it machine.

(07:48):
If the machine's running it, you're just going to be spouting talking points.
You don't have anything to say on a podcast.
They've never thought about those talking points.
They're just stating them.
Okay.
Yeah.
So freedom though, do we have the potential to be losing freedoms if the Republican Party

(08:09):
does go unchecked, if they just run with all of the Republican powers and over the next
four years if we have high control of the Senate and the House and all the state governments,
like what would happen if everything was 100% Republican?

(08:33):
I think that's too directed of a question.
Okay.
I think that's about freedom more in an open stance.
So the things that I would like to touch in regard to that are communication.
So how would communication change?
Fiscal responsibility.
How would the budget change if they had everything they wanted?

(08:57):
Conversation, communication, conversation, maybe it's just those two things because if
they get everything they want, the Democrats will not say a word.
And that's what I think Jordan Peterson is talking about.
They feel they're gonna lose freedom, but did they actually lose freedom?
There's this point about women's rights and the Roe versus Wade overturning and now they

(09:19):
think it's gonna go to the next step that, I don't know, they're afraid.
Right.
Completely afraid of losing all of their rights.
The conversation is what keeps that from happening.
So there's still 46% of the people that would love to have an abortion every month.

(09:40):
Every month.
Oh, whatever they do, they would love that option and that option has to be available
to them, but it's not gonna be legislated.
It is available to them.
Having an abortion is a painful process.
I don't think people want to do it...like speaking specifically, I don't think that

(10:02):
it would be something that people would be like, I can just get an abortion.
I'm not gonna have any protected sex.
It feels better unprotected and so abortions are there.
There's Plan B is what they say.
It's a pill that you can take so that it makes it so that the egg once fertilized doesn't

(10:27):
develop.
I think that's what that is.
It stops it...
The day after pill or something.
Yeah.
It stops it so soon after it, just in case it happened.
It's not, well, you're confirmed pregnant.
You have to wait two weeks after fertilization before you know whether you're pregnant or

(10:49):
not anyway.
There's a couple of ways to do that without having to invade with an abortion.
But getting an abortion...
So in chemical ways.
You have the pill.
You've got abstinence, of course.
You've got protection, and you've got the pill, and you've got this day after pill.
You can use both of those and there may be side effects or there may not be.

(11:11):
Right.
Who knows if that's really what's causing a lot of this chronic illness that the country
is.
It's another thing that the Democrat, that the Republican platform may do is make America
healthy again.
If we can get rid of a lot of chronic illness, and maybe it is these day after pills and
stuff like that, whatever people are taking, and perhaps even the pill, I don't know.

(11:37):
What's causing all this vaccinations and the stuff in our food?
If we can correct that, that's going to make life better for everybody.
If we can correct the budget deficit, that's going to make life better for everybody.
We can keep a hammer from costing $40,000.
Whatever, there's no not specific...
What?
I did hear something recently that it would have taken $5 billion, Joe Rogan came up with

(12:04):
this idea, would have taken $5 billion to rebuild Lenea Maui, the whole city.
$5 billion would have rebuilt everything.
The country could have paid for that and rebuilt it.
We got this issue with California now that, are we going to spend money from the country
to build it, or is it just going to be on the individuals and the insurance plans?

(12:25):
Are we all going to pay for it through insurance?
Are we all going to pay for it through taxes to help rebuild?
And then $7 billion, excess, accidentally was sent to Ukraine.
Whoops.
Yeah.
And they just let that stay and they didn't do anything for Hawaii.
They didn't send $5 billion to Hawaii and they sent the $7 billion extra, a mistake,

(12:48):
and it was allowed to stay in Ukraine.
So just take that back, fix Hawaii, but we're not caring for ourselves.
So this is the America first concept, and that's one of the Republican ideals is nationalism.
This is where we started months ago with the discussion on politics.
Should we be a nationalistic society or should we both be globalist and continue to think

(13:11):
Ukraine is more important than us?
And so we're going to let it stay there.
And we're going to solve the global warming problem.
Are we going to create 250,000 jobs, move two or three businesses to Venezuela so they
have companies there?
Or are we just going to make sure that our companies are all strong first?
Right.
Yeah.
So that's the nationalist versus globalist.

(13:35):
Both globalist, yeah.
And I think that's the thing.
So the Democratic Party, those on the liberal side of the left wing would think that we're
going to ignore climate change and ignore the planet, that we're going to just let it
do what it does.
And the green news scam is the word that Donald Trump has used.

(14:00):
But that is from a nationalist standpoint, you have lost freedoms.
We've lost freedoms.
We've lost the freedom to have Mali built back or Linnae.
That freedom is gone, and so it's been lost already.
Perhaps we'll lose the freedom of having Pacific Palisades built back because the interest
was more geared towards the global world as opposed to our country and our stability and

(14:26):
our safety.
And our safety, yeah.
If you're not safe, freedom doesn't mean anything.
Right.
Well, yeah.
Are you free?
You can't be free and not safe, right?
Yeah.
And introducing safety to that, the classic freedom statement from William Wallace and

(14:47):
Braveheart.
You can take our lands.
You can take our whatever else he said, but you can't...
But you can't take...
Can't take away our freedom.
Our ability and freedom, yeah, in that statement, freedom is your ability to choose your choice
that we talked about that Victor Frankel talked about, the space, your choice, and we talked

(15:10):
about that a lot, actually.
Right.
Your agency or your choice is always yours.
No matter what your thoughts or your knee-jerk reactions are, your choice, you can choose
to do something, even if you're not safe.
Now, William Wallace clearly wasn't safe.
He was laid on the rack and they pulled his intestines out.
And as he was there still alive watching his intestines be strung, he yelled, freedom.

(15:37):
That's what he was for.
He was after that.
So that was defiant, a defiant freedom because he was not safe and none of the people were
safe.
He knew no one was safe, but someone had to step up and fight because you could.
They decided to fight instead of cowering in the corner and letting the kings take over.

(15:59):
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's another guy that just didn't just deal with the circumstances.
He didn't just accept how things were.
Yeah.
He decided to react instead of...
He decided to...
Respond.
Respond instead of react.
Right.

(16:20):
Yeah.
The reaction would be cower in your house and stay away from the kings with the guns
and the swords that are going to kill you.
No, you step right up to them and you have a sword in your back and you kill as many
of them as you can.
And you get away because you know what you're doing.
You plan it.
You strategize it.
Yeah.
What was it?
Kennedy and one of the...
I don't even know what his first name is.
He's one of the senators.
But he said, that kind of stupid has to have a plan or that kind of dumb has to have a

(16:48):
plan.
And that was because the whole thing about weaponizing the DOJ.
And it's clear to half of the country that the DOJ has been weaponized for the last eight
years.
And it's clear to the country, half the country also, that we're going to stop that weaponization
by bringing in a valid DOJ that deals with law and rules as opposed to political motivations.

(17:11):
But even that side says, we're afraid that it's going to be politically motivated and
that's something that cannot happen in our country.
Well, then why have you been doing it for 48 years?
Yeah.
Why have you always been on that path?
So maybe that's going to happen or maybe they will calm down and be quiet.
We were talking about William Wallace.
The thing I have a question.
You answer this if you can.

(17:34):
Who's William Wallace and who is the king in our current political environment?
The king.
Well, yeah, maybe we can start with the king.
We've got to identify the enemy before you can locate the hero, right?
Right.
Aren't they both enemies and both heroes?

(17:55):
Yeah.
Because they're enemies of each other and they're heroes to their side, right?
Right.
So think that through and try to identify who William Wallace is and who the king is
currently.
Could it be Satan?
That's too easy.
Yeah.
That's why that's funny is because that's too big.

(18:19):
That's too big.
God and Satan.
So instead of William Wallace, the king, who's God and who's Satan?
Yeah.
And so thinking personally, I think that's what I can speak to really is the evil in
my life is anybody that tries to control my circumstances, my situation without me understanding

(18:46):
why they're controlling, I suppose.
So like there's in my city, there's a ban on roosters.
Like we can't have, we can have chickens up to like there's a certain number according
to how much land you have, which might be more or less than what makes sense.
But roosters though, it's the only problem with roosters is that, well, I suppose there's

(19:13):
two problems.
They're noisy way early in the morning.
They're not noisy at night when people should be sleeping, but they get up with the sun.
And so they're too noisy for people that work swing shifts, I suppose.
But then the other problem is they fertilize all the eggs.
And so then you have more chickens, more and more chickens.

(19:35):
So if I didn't talk through that and realize that, yeah, that makes sense.
We should ban roosters.
I mean, we should try and have as few roosters as possible in the city.
Then I would be like, that's a stupid rule.
I hate that there's a rule on that.
But I mean, I kind of do hate that there's a rule on there.
And I hate that it's a law because that should be something that individuals just govern

(19:59):
themselves.
Anyway, people everywhere should be smart enough to keep their roosters away from their
hens.
A fertilized egg is more nutritious than a non-fertilized egg.
Okay, so I didn't know that.
I would love to have every egg fertilized.
I didn't know that.
Yeah.
Every egg being fertilized.
And I live in a rural city, and my city has that rule.

(20:20):
And after I moved here, they changed that rule and said roosters are disallowed.
And so I went to the city council and discussed with them because we're a small town.
I can talk to the city council.
Yeah, I can't talk to mine.
It's more difficult for you to talk to the city council.
So I went through that and I told them that about the nutrition of a fertilized egg.
I'd want all the eggs to be fertilized.

(20:42):
That's a better egg.
Plus, if you can operate it...
So they said it's a noise issue.
So they don't like hearing the roosters, but I love hearing the roosters.
That's why you move to the country.
Yeah.
I mean, it's okay if you're in a city, but the train...
I mentioned the train in this discussion too.
Every AM, between 1 and 4 AM, every morning, a train blows its horn as it goes through

(21:07):
town.
I mean, that's a lot more noisy than the roosters.
And if you got your windows open, it's going to wake you up middle of the night, every
day.
The city's probably got to ban that train.
They got to have the tracks moved out further west so that you can't hear it.
If noise is the issue, then we've got bigger problems than roosters.

(21:28):
Right.
So don't worry about the roosters.
And then, yeah, it's just...
I think people want to write regulations.
Okay.
So which one is God and Satan in that regulation standpoint?
Well, to me, the evil is the regulations, the imposing boundaries on people where I

(21:53):
don't want boundaries to be in my life.
I don't want those boundaries.
That's the definition of a law, right?
A law imposes boundaries on other people.
Yeah.
A boundary.
And if we're placing boundaries, personal boundaries, individual boundaries, we can
only bound ourselves.
We can't bound anyone else.
Right.
We can't state someone else has a...

(22:15):
You can't say these things in my presence.
Yeah.
We have those boundaries.
If you cross my boundary line, then this is what will happen.
Then I'm going to do this.
That's a boundary.
And that's kind of the way they do the laws.
If you have a rooster, we are going to do this.
We are going to fine you.
Or if you have your grass grow longer than six inches, we are going to fine you for that.

(22:37):
We'll institute a penalty.
And then if you don't comply over a number of times, that penalty goes up and higher.
And then you have possible jail time if you just decide to be obstinate against this rule
that we've placed on this law.
If people live by...
That's where it comes back to the communication, we can't get too far away from the topic that

(23:01):
you're talking about.
I know.
Oh, that's okay though.
But yeah, go ahead.
We'll come back.
Who's less free?
Is the person that has roosters less free or the person that is obeying the law less
free?
Because the one obeying the law doesn't get to have roosters on their place.
They've lost the freedom of having a rooster.
But the person who has the rooster will potentially lose the freedom of their money or their actual

(23:29):
freedom to go to jail if that comes to it, if they decide.
This is a big enough offense now.
You have a rooster and you've not gotten rid of it.
And we find you $1,000 a day for six days now.
You deserve jail time.
Well, if there was a law in place, they'd never had the freedom in the first place if
they even had roosters.
If there was no law, then they wouldn't run the risk of being incarcerated because they

(23:54):
broke the law.
There's no law to break.
Okay.
If there's not a law, then you haven't lost any freedom.
But you have the freedom to have a rooster or to not have a rooster.
You could do one or the other.
Right.
And you have the freedom to move away from your neighbor that has a rooster or you can
stay there and sleep with earplugs in or...

(24:15):
I mean, there's...
Or you can talk to your neighbor.
You can have a communication.
That's I think what Jordan Peterson was talking about in the first place.
They need to let their voice be heard.
If the neighbors don't like the rooster, it doesn't need to be the city that comes down
on the people.
It needs to be the neighbors.
Right.
They talk to their neighbors and say, if you like the rooster, is that okay?

(24:35):
I mean, we don't like it.
All six of us don't like the fact that you've got that rooster waking us up in the morning.
We're just light sleepers and we all together would like it if you wouldn't get rid of your
rooster.
And if he says, there's no way I'm going to get rid of the rooster.
So there are other options too.
There are other options.
Yeah.

(24:56):
And that's talking about safety.
You can do unsafe things.
You can go and try to kill the rooster on your neighbor's property and he is protecting
his property.
He has rights to hurt you.
He can damage you because you entered his property and you're trespassing.
At least he can call the law on you for that.
And at most, if you have a weapon, he can come out with a weapon.

(25:21):
Right.
That's his freedom.
You're damaging me and my property and you have a feud right there, a potentially very
dangerous situation.
Or you can do it the other way.
You say, you know, it's not the rooster that we don't like because the rooster is small,
though they are more aggressive.
That's the other thing about roosters is they're a more aggressive animal.

(25:43):
If you have children walking down the street to school and a rooster is out there with
them, the rooster can attack them.
Okay.
And it's frightening.
The rooster probably wouldn't kill them and eat them, but a rooster will attack where
a hen will not.
So that safety issue can be done with fencing and you keep them inside.
But there's also, you can D, what?

(26:05):
Take their larynx out.
They don't have to crow loudly.
Oh, interesting.
There's even solutions, you can put a belt around their neck, just to kind of tight.
They need space to make the crow.
If you restrict their neck, it won't make any sound.
Okay.
So you can debark the roosters, huh?
Yeah.

(26:26):
Yeah.
A simple collar will do it or you can actually surgically take out the larynx so that there's
no action on the rooster.
Well, roosters only live like a few years though, right?
Yeah, they live two or three years.
They're not.
Two or three years.
They need surgery to change their larynx.
So that's a big thing.
Maybe the band would be the best.

(26:46):
The band is best.
And then especially if you're having chicks and you're buying straight run chicks, you
don't know how many are going to be roosters.
And you don't want to just kill them and bury them.
You want to, if you're going to have a meat and the laying hens, laying hens and meat
hens.
And you can take care of them soon enough, you know, with a straight runner, if you're

(27:10):
raising your own chicks and hatching your own, you still need them for 90 days or, you
know, three or four months till they're big enough to butcher and eat.
Yeah.
But you can certainly process your roosters and that's what you do.
That's why you have steers.
You make steers.
The other weird thing in our country town is they allow steers in town, but they do

(27:32):
not allow bulls.
So a bull is more aggressive and will walk through a fence.
And so that's against the law that's in the code.
Okay.
So you can have a cow in town, but you can't have a bull to service that cow.
The way I've done that, I just haven't told anybody the bull's there.

(27:52):
Bring the bull in.
Do the bulls look like what, steers?
Is that, or I don't know.
I don't know a cow anatomy.
Yeah, a bull is generally bigger than a cow.
So you can tell that it's bull and the heads are bigger.
They grow more strong.
It's like seeing a male and a female.
You can tell a man against a woman just based on their muscular structure.

(28:15):
Okay.
Most generally.
Most generally, right.
So that's the case.
Okay.
Yeah.
And you just don't tell anyone when you have a bull around.
You don't keep them.
Right.
You just hire one, right?
Is that what you're doing?
Yeah, you hire one in and you're bringing it in temporary and it might be here for three
months, but that's okay.
I'm watching it.
I'm caring for it.

(28:36):
And the city's been really good after they put the laws in.
I think they put the laws in based on the machine.
We talked about the democratic, the machine that just gives you talking points.
They were operating with talking points.
I think it was voiced around and this was seven years ago.
Yeah, I don't know.
Maybe it had to do with the political environment and global warming and caring for everything

(29:00):
and trying to be in charge, but they were just spouting talking points and putting in
place what was recommended them every city needs to have.
If you're a city and you want to grow and be valid, you need to protect your citizens
with these laws.
Okay.
And keep the riff-raff out.

(29:20):
They're just trying to be a good city.
That's all.
They're just trying to be a good city.
Yeah.
And it depends on the role that's in place.
So was that God or Satan?
Was it the king or was it William Wallace that was trying to be a good city?
The king.
I think it's the king.

(29:41):
I mean, just because there's a certain power structure there.
The king is the one that reaches for power and William Wallace is the one that reaches
for freedom.
Reaches for liberties.
And who's using their power, so reaching for power and using their power to enforce something.

(30:03):
So it's an enforcement.
It's a coercion.
The law coerces people.
But it's in the name of safety.
It's in the name of liberty for their citizens.
The general good and regulation.
So the more regulations you put on, you're trying to make everyone safe.
You're trying to keep everything operating so it doesn't harm anybody.

(30:25):
But you are doing that.
And so I put the person that's legislating these rules and trying to write them as the
king or as Satan.
The king and Satan are on the same side.
Yeah.
Okay.
And the reason for that is that they are the ones that are exacting the punishment as well.
So they're wielding the power.

(30:47):
But doesn't God exact punishment?
Isn't he a vengeful God?
Sure.
You could say that.
Okay.
Isn't freedom vengeful?
And William Wallace, was William Wallace vengeful?
Certainly.
He killed as many people as he could.
Right.
He did.
Yeah.
And he bolstered his army and persuaded them to come to battle and to kill as many people

(31:12):
as they could.
Yeah.
And he had strategy to definitely wipe out a whole group of army that thought they had
power, but he through strategy broke that power.
And even when he died, that was a strategy to yell freedom because that put freedom
in the hearts of everyone who heard him.

(31:32):
And there was still strength there even though he was unsafe.
So real quick, aside from that, but also kind of related.
I went to see the William Wallace monument in Scotland when I was there about 20 years
ago.
And they constructed it to look like Mel Gibson.

(31:54):
William Wallace monument in Scotland looks like Mel Gibson and it's great.
It was done after the Braveheart was...
Yeah.
I mean, there's a tower.
So there's a tower and that was done before the movie Braveheart.
But then there's also a statue of William Wallace and that's Mel Gibson.
It's a statue of Mel Gibson.
Yeah.

(32:15):
Yeah.
That was entertaining.
Well, that's cool.
But they took...
Because that story now, as an archetypical story, it's a story.
And in the story, the biggest, the best connection that everyone will have in the world to it
is going to be Mel Gibson.
Right.
They're not going to...
They don't know who William Wallace is.

(32:35):
If you saw a picture of William Wallace, you wouldn't recognize him and it's nothing.
It's possible we don't have any drawings of him or anything.
Mel Gibson is that image.
Yeah, Mel Gibson with long hair and his kilt on and that's William Wallace, clearly.
Right.
Right.
It's like, you know, I'm like Socrates.

(32:57):
We don't know what Socrates looked like.
We have descriptions of him that he was bulgy eyed and he had a round face and he's not
pretty to look at.
Right.
A really ugly fella.
And so they've tried to present him that way and he's not something that you want to go
to.
You want to try to be like, but you can...

(33:18):
It's his insights that people love.
They love the philosophy, the thinking that he had.
Right.
People love Jordan Peterson's thinking, but he also has a fairly reasonably handsome look
about him as well.
Yeah.
So it's not bad to go to a show that he's in charge of or to watch him.

(33:43):
Right.
Right.
So freedom, the king, the hero, power.
Okay.
So a lot of people are upset or are afraid that, you know, the second amendment rights
are being taken away with gun control laws.
Like that's a big thing right now.
The right wants the second amendment to stand and people can own guns, the right to bear

(34:11):
arms.
Right.
But it's not as that how do gun control laws fit within the second amendment while still
offering the freedom to the citizens of the country.
The safety to the citizens, right?
Right.
Yeah.
The right to bear arms, but the right to be safe.

(34:32):
Yeah.
There was recently in a major city near me, a mostly assembled rifle was confiscated from
the backpack of somebody at the mall.
Okay.
It wasn't anything like it.
Nothing happened except for somebody saw a mostly assembled rifle in his backpack and

(34:52):
called the police and they got him.
It was sticking out.
He was just maybe just bought it at the thrift store.
Yeah.
Whatever the story was.
It's possible.
He was just traveling from the pawn shop to his apartment.
Right.
He needed to get some new flip flops or crocs or something.
So he had to go get those too.

(35:14):
Yeah.
So he was apprehended and whoever called it in felt not safe with that there.
They saw that and they didn't feel safe immediately.
They needed to call law enforcement.
Okay.
So feeling not safe, they were feeling their freedom was in jeopardy.

(35:35):
Right.
So they were afraid for their freedom.
So they called it in to see if someone could come in and help them stay free.
They didn't want to be potentially hostaged by a gun in their sight.
Yeah.
And the gun wasn't assembled.
So if you are carrying around parts of a gun, do you need an open carry permit for that?

(35:57):
It's a concealed carry permit.
Open carry is either part of the law or not.
Okay.
In my state, you can open carry, but to conceal.
So it was visible and it was in pieces.
It was visible.
It was open carry.
So I think that probably the gentleman had no legal challenge, but it was newsworthy

(36:19):
and the news picked it up because here's a potential issue.
It almost was bad, right?
Yeah.
Well, they thought it could have been bad.
I don't know.
In the 70s, 60s and 70s and 80s even, the trucks all had a gun rack in the back of their

(36:41):
window or behind the seat.
I was raised in rural America and everyone had their rifles in their truck.
And it just sat there.
Trucks weren't locked.
Nothing was locked.
No one stole them.
Society just operated.
Yeah.
But now you can't even have your gun in your car.
It's concealed if it's in your car.

(37:02):
So how do you make laws that are appropriate?
I can't remember what specifically Jordan Peterson, I heard him
He was asked, how would you make a policy about that?
He says, you'd have to think a long time.
It would take a lot of discussion to figure out how to make a policy to make it work.
I just haven't thought through that and it would take a lot.

(37:23):
It's...I mean, clearly, I believe that people should not kill people, killing with guns
is wrong.
And guns aren't really the bad thing.
It's the people that are bad.
And so how do you keep bad people from it?
And so there's a whole big thing about the policy.
And clearly, he wasn't talking about guns, but with this gun issue, they've made laws

(37:44):
and rules and you can't carry them, concealed carry laws.
If you're qualified and you have a reason for it, you can get a permit to conceal carry.
And someone is making the judgment as to whether you really have a good enough reason to conceal
carry with your career or your activities.
There's another option that's come up recently is the less lethal, what, Byrna has a gun,

(38:08):
not a gun, a launcher.
It's not a gun.
It goes, it's completely plastic and it's used as CO2 cartridge to fire and it fires
kinetic rounds.
There's no explosion on it or it can fire tear gas type stuff, pepper spray.
And as it breaks pepper spray on the perpetrator and the one that you're trying to stop, it'll

(38:31):
stop them because it's a secure gas pepper spray mix.
But it's not a gun and so it's completely legal.
It's not a gun.
Yeah, it's a launcher.
And so it's not governed by any of those concealed carry laws.
So you can have a launcher.
You can have a slingshot too.
You could have a slingshot.

(38:51):
You can throw rocks.
Yeah.
And if you got to be like the slingers, like David and Goliath, if you were good at that,
you can take out anything.
Anything.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You can hit a gun across the mall with your slingshot.
That's how accurate they were with that.
I mean, David knew that rock was going to hit him right between the eyes.

(39:12):
Yeah.
He knew it before he started swinging.
That's a good story.
Right.
Right.
It's a good story.
Good hero.
And that's Malcolm Gladwell described it that way that the slinger was automatically going
to win in that fight.
There's no way the infantrymen had a chance against the slinger.
If someone was going to sling, they were going to do it good.

(39:33):
They were going to win.
Yes, absolutely.
And David knew that and everyone on the field knew that.
He said there's no way that they didn't know that when he started, came out with his sling,
he was going to win that fight because he wasn't going to get close enough for the infantrymen
to have any chance of hitting him.
Right.
But that's, I don't know how that relates to freedom too.
Well.

(39:53):
It does because everything does.
I mean, was David Satan or God in that case?
And was Goliath Satan or God?
Goliath was the God of their people.
Right.
He did have his community maybe.
Like what was his purpose for trying to invade whatever?
Yeah, or were they just trying to protect their land like Gaza and Israel right now?

(40:18):
The Gaza Strip, that's what is complained about.
Yeah.
Many people, maybe the king or maybe it's Satan or maybe it's God that says Gaza is
part of Israel.
And then Palestine, the Hamas says no, Gaza is a separate country and Israel is trying
to overrun us.
But the Abraham Accords, I don't even know what they are, but maybe they define that

(40:39):
and say that Gaza is part of Israel.
And so you're under that protection.
Don't try to have a civil war against something that's protecting you.
Right.
So however that works and if it actually resolves.
But the same thing with chickens.
Right.
Or roosters.
That question is in everything.

(41:01):
All right.
So let's bring freedom up down to tier zero now.
Okay.
Freedom as opposite to control, constraint maybe.
Tier zero being just me.
Right.

(41:21):
What I'm free to do or what I'm bound to do and is it, do I take my own freedoms away
or do I control?
Yeah, that's what you have control over.
Are you free for one thing or another or are you constrained?
Are you placing constraints on yourself and does that mean you're less free or does that

(41:43):
mean you're more free?
I think I heard once somebody explained how if you've got habits and routines lined up,
then that means you've got the freedom.
You've got more freedoms because of that somehow.
Right.
Does that sound familiar at all?

(42:03):
Yes.
And actually that's stated in a religious standpoint against commandments.
Why would I be limited by all these commandments?
No, they don't limit you.
They give you more freedom because it keeps you away from those problems, those issues.
I don't know.
Let's say killing people.
Thou shall not kill.
If you go around killing people, that's going to limit your freedom.
If you don't kill people, you've got the freedom to do whatever you want for the rest of your

(42:25):
life.
What if there was no laws about killing people?
No law against killing people.
Would you go around killing people, would that still restrict your freedom?
Like a cannibal society, who their role is to kill people, that's how we eat.
That's our food.
Okay.
And it's the neighboring tribes or it's my neighbor actually that I'm going to eat him

(42:48):
today.
Are they free?
Or they're always in jeopardy of being killed, being eaten or being eaten in a society like
that.
That does limit your freedom.
You can't just casually walk around the streets.
You can't take a walk in the park with your dog because someone may decide that you are

(43:09):
food.
Right.
Right.
So you're not safe and so therefore you're not free.
You're not free.
Yeah.
Your freedom to eat someone means you have also the detriment of being eaten.
Your freedom to kill someone means you can be killed.
We all can be killed or can kill.
But if the society is operating with constraints, individual constraints, ethics and morals

(43:37):
and say we believe that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights to life,
unalienable right to life, that means we're not going to try to kill people.
And we all agree to that in this society.
So you're generally freer than if we didn't have an agreement, a right to life.

(43:57):
Okay.
If there was no right stated and it's not stated, no right agreed upon by everybody,
whether it's stated in the law or not.
Ethically and morally, we don't want to kill people because we don't want to be killed
perhaps or because we thought it was right.
Because that is a right, a right to be alive.
Yeah.
And it's constraint we put on ourselves because of someone else's right.

(44:20):
So infringing the rights of your neighbors.
That's kind of what the golden rule states, that ethic.
Do to them what you want to be done to you unless you're a masochist, then don't do
to them what you want to be done to you.
Right.
Do unto others only as far as they want.
Yeah.

(44:41):
You got to consider them too.
There's got to be empathy and compassion in that story.
Just because you love pain doesn't mean everybody does.
Right.
Okay.
Then the boundaries do offer freedom then in that sense.
So I imagine I could have...my favorite beverage in all of the world is Mountain Dew.

(45:06):
And it's actually the real sugar Mountain Dew.
I love that.
It's just so delicious.
So all of the other varieties, you don't pay attention to that, whatever they are.
Code Red and the blue kind, I mean, that's all gross.
I don't like that.
I like the pure real sugar Mountain Dew.
They don't sell the real sugar Mountain Dew in the stores near me anymore.

(45:28):
I don't know if they're not making it.
I was the only one in the world drinking it maybe.
I don't know.
But I could drink Mountain Dew all day long, but that would do things to my body that would
reduce my freedom.
Okay.
And so the freedom to drink soda as my primary hydration would cause my freedom to be healthy

(45:57):
go away.
I'm not free to be healthy anymore.
Or I mean, I'm free to be healthy by making the choice to not drink soda all day long.
But there would be in the future certain things I wouldn't be able to do anymore because of
that as a consequence of the freedom to drink as much soda as I want.
And that's I think this chronic illness that occurs because people feel they're free to

(46:20):
eat these boxed foods on this, you know, whatever it is.
Yeah, that's being discussed now.
If there's stuff that's bad for you, that's causing your body to break down more quickly,
like, well, whatever it is, you're choosing your freedom.
Right.
So we have choice for freedom.
So you can be free to drink sugary caffeinated high intensity beverages all day long, like

(46:44):
monsters or whatever those are, you know, energy drinks, right, people who drink those
every day.
That's going to adjust your body style, what you do, what you work on.
So drink energy drinks, drink the worst drink possibly for you, maybe the best to keep your
attention for a minute, but it has long term effects.
Or you can choose to drink one of those a week, one of the Mountain Dews a week and

(47:08):
enjoy it.
Really love it.
I just, this is my Mountain Dew day.
Don;t talk to me today.
I'm having fun.
Don't talk to me today.
I'm going to be highly caffeinated in just a minute.
Yeah.
So nothing I say is going to make any sense, but I'm going to enjoy it.
But do that once a week so that, you know, the rest of the time you're working on your
health drinks and drinking more water and ice water and whatever, you know, hydrating

(47:32):
with other things.
Yeah.
But you're choosing your freedom.
I choose to be more free and that's a, who is, who can choose that freedom?
Is it the King that can choose that or the William Wallace?
Is it God that chooses the freedom or is Satan that chooses the freedom?
The way you phrased that, it sounded like you were equating God with the King and Satan

(47:53):
with William Wallace.
Okay.
Which is true.
Depends on what side you're on, right?
Yeah.
It's absolutely true.
It depends on your perspective.
We talked about perspective before.
It's all about perspective.
So if we assume God's good and Satan's bad and assume that William Wallace is good and
the King's bad, but it's the other way around.

(48:16):
Satan doesn't believe God's good.
Satan is upset that God has allowed these people to do these crazy things.
And what we were talking in our past conversations, you know, if it were my world, as Satan would
say, I would just snap my fingers and everyone would be there in immortality and eternal
life.
Let's just bring them all.
Whether that's Satan's role or God's role to do.

(48:38):
And if you did it, would you be Satan or God?
If you gave everyone freedom, yeah, where does responsibility play in freedom?
That's where the question comes up.
So you're making a choice between drinking Mountain Dew or drinking water every day.
You can drink Mountain Dew all day long every day, or you can drink water all day long every
day and drink Mountain Dew once a week.
You're making that choice.

(49:00):
Where's the responsibility in your freedoms?
Yeah.
There was a concept described in the Bitcoin Standard book that I'm reading right now.
It's the concept of transactions with yourself.
You're making...every day you're making transactions with your future self all the time.

(49:21):
By choosing something today, that's a transaction with myself.
And I'm going to have to pay for that later if I choose soda all day long and no water.
That's something the future me is going to have to pay for.
Or I can invest in myself today with water, with electrolytes, with good, healthy beverages

(49:48):
and food and everything.
And then my future self is going to be like, thank you.
Thank you past self.
That was a nice thing for you to do.
Yeah.
Everything we do is a choice and is your actions.
Your actions are deciding and you're weighing that balance.
You're transacting that.

(50:08):
Are you always making choices towards freedom or could you make choices towards...
Captivity?
...incarceration?
Captivity.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And whether you're conscious of the choice or whether it's...whoops, I didn't realize
that was going to happen.
Everything that you do leads either to more free or more captive, I think.

(50:34):
Let me introduce a new word here.
Hedonism.
Do you know that?
I've heard of that word, yeah.
So it's like the pleasure of the moment, instant gratification.
Hedonistic, I'm going to do everything that's just to my pleasure, to my joy and immediate
satisfaction.

(50:55):
So I'm going to work with what I have.
Hedonistically, I'm going to do what's right for me.
It doesn't matter where you are in the picture.
What's the odds?
And that leads to captivity.
That's what I'm thinking.
You're making your choices to drink sugary drinks because they taste best.
That's what I love.

(51:15):
Water is boring and dull and it's too light.
I like a thicker drink with a lot of sugar in it.
So I'm going to do that.
Yeah.
And I'm going to drink that for my hydration.
And actually, yeah, I'm on that problem right now too.
I have some drink mixes, which are just sugar.
It's Kool-Aid.
It was their Honeyville food storage drinks.

(51:41):
And they're way old and so I'm drinking them.
You're drinking them.
But unfortunately, I'm drinking them as water.
I have like three or four flavors and I determined two of the flavors, the lemonade and the red
punch are horrible.
So I just threw those out.
Those were easy to throw out because they don't taste good at all.
So it's completely wrong mixture.

(52:01):
And if you were in a survival situation and you had that lemonade, I don't even know that
I could drink it then.
It's just a horrible taste for me anyway.
Someone might like it, but I just throw them out.
I could throw a number 10 can away.
But these ones that are good, the orange and the grape, they taste so good.
So it's like the Mountain Dew.

(52:22):
It's not necessarily a, you know, there's no caffeine in it and stuff like that.
So it's not as stigmatized as Mountain Dew, but it's probably more sugary.
So it's a sugary drink.
And if I take that as my full hydration, water or drink hydration, it's going to be bad for
me.
So I don't take it all the time, but I do eat it with meals.

(52:44):
I use it with meals.
Like I used to use milk with meals.
Now I'm using the sugary drink.
And mom has just mentioned to me, you know, now you're drinking this sugary drink.
That's not any better.
That's probably worse.
Yeah.
So cutting sugar out of your diet is another thing or at least limiting it, extremely limiting,

(53:04):
wisely using it to what?
Sparingly use it sparingly.
Yeah.
In moderation.
Yeah.
But hedonism is saying, I don't care about any of that.
I'm just going to do what feels good.
What's right for me right now.
What's the opposite of hedonism if you're responsible?
So this is another, another concept in the Bitcoin Standard Book is time preference.

(53:28):
If you have a high time preference, this is an economic principle, I believe.
Okay.
But we can relate it to health, you know.
Sure.
Yeah.
Hedonism.
High time preferences, you are interested in rewards right now.
What you feel right now, the present, you're hedonistic.

(53:51):
Right.
High time preference.
Low time preference is you think about the future.
You care about what's going to happen as a result of what you've done today.
So high time preference is you're fishing today.
You're catching fish for your food today with your hands.
Low time preference is you spend a little bit of time constructing a rod so that in

(54:13):
the future it takes less time to fish for your food.
And then maybe you work a little bit more, build a fishing boat.
And then you can get into...
Get closer to the fish.
Your effectiveness goes up because you're not so focused on today's results.
Right.
And that even time for farming fish, you could put fish in your pond and know that at any

(54:37):
time you can get three fish every day.
But then farmed fish aren't as healthy as...
Wild caught.
What?
Wild caught fish.
Yeah.
So you need to have the boat.
If you're going to get the most nutrition out of it, the longest term, the longest time
preference is to go out in the ocean and pick your salmon out of the sea yourself.
Right.

(54:58):
The next one is by the wild caught salmon.
And the last one is by the farm caught salmon, farm raised salmon.
But it's cheaper.
The farm raised salmon is cheaper than the wild caught.
That's a high time preference choice.
Because the time preference...
Yeah.
Your higher time preference, you can get it more quickly and it's less expense.
Yeah.
So that's more hedonistic on the spectrum, it's more hedonistic than it is responsible.

(55:23):
Is responsible?
I don't know what the other word for hedonistic is.
Let me find out what that is.
Hedonistic antonym, right?
Yeah.
Opposite words of hedonistic.
Similar and opposite words.
There is no ascetic.
An ascetic is the opposite.
That doesn't...
You're hedonistic or you're ascetic.
An ascetic is getting rid of everything that's pleasurable.

(55:46):
So yeah.
You're either living for pleasure or you're getting pleasure out of your life.
Is that really...
I don't know what that word means.
Ascetic?
Asceticism means that it's just going to...
It's a minimalist.
The minimalist idea.
You're an ascetic.
I am?

(56:06):
You've studied that, but is it minimalism?
Okay.
Yeah, I see that.
See if you can confirm that.
This is a brand new word for me.
I've never seen this.
Okay.
You're relating to or having a strict and simple way of living that avoids physical
pleasure.
No, I'm not ascetic.
Right.
Well, minimalism.
A simple way of living.

(56:27):
You have a little pleasure.
You'll drink your drink once a week, but you won't drink...
Actually, how often do you drink that Mountain Dew?
I actually do once a week.
Friday is my soda day and I get a Mountain Dew on Friday.
Okay.
All right.
So you're ascetic to some degree on the spectrum between hedonism and ascetic.
You're more ascetic.
I am more ascetic.

(56:47):
I wouldn't say that I am strict and simple specifically.
Yeah, you're not radical.
I'm not a radical ascetic.
Right.
Right.
But that's good.
It's an antonym.
And that's a direct antonym to hedonism.
You're either highly time...
What was the word?
High time preferences, hedonistic.

(57:09):
Time preference?
And low time preferences.
Yeah, and low time preference is ascetic.
It doesn't matter when it happens.
I know it's gonna happen.
I know this is the right thing to do.
And I may never get the benefit, but it's the right thing to do.
So I'm gonna do it.
I'm not gonna worry about getting the instant gratification at all for this.
It's the right thing to give them that benefit.

(57:31):
Right.
So would you say that those that have a low time preference are more free than...have
more freedoms than those with high time preferences?
Yes, but I don't know why.
Okay.
I believe it's true.
I believe that's true.
So now we have to prove it.
We have to prove that it's true.
Do you believe it's true?
I think so.
Okay, so...

(57:51):
It's not a black and white...I mean, maybe it is black and white.
There's nothing that's actually black and white as we know, but it's not simple.
It's not clear right now.
Yeah, you get what you want right now, but that's kind of restrictive as far as your

(58:12):
potential.
Now, let's talk about it real quick.
Restrictive.
We talked about the 10,000 hours when we were talking about that at some point in the past.
And you can focus on 10 or 20 things that you're building 10,000 hours, but you can't
do 5,000.
Right.
When you select something, you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other end
of the stick also.
So you select sugary drinks.

(58:33):
You're picking up whatever is on the line on the end of that stick.
It's also what you're agreeing to.
You're agreeing to the immediate hedonistic pleasure, instant gratification.
That tastes good, but you're also picking up the effects of that over the time that
you're using it.
Yeah.
Your long-term effects.

(58:55):
Right.
And that limits your freedom.
That's why it limits your freedom, because it's the other end of the stick.
If you're taking an ascetic thing and say, I'm not going to take any pleasure out of
this right now.
I'm going to do what I feel is right and not really pay attention to my needs at all.
I'm doing it because it's the needs of others.
How can you aesthetically make your choices?

(59:16):
Asceticism says, I want to avoid pleasure.
Not necessarily that you're avoiding pleasure.
You're just not focusing on the pleasure.
Right.
It's not...well, it's strict and simple way of living.
So if you're highly ascetic, then you're highly avoiding physical pleasure, avoiding entertainment.

(59:41):
One example is an ascetic diet of rice and beans.
Rice and beans are very simple foods.
And they give you good protein, good fiber.
Protein and carbs.
And so if that's all you're having, you're living on a rice and beans diet, then that's
very ascetic.

(01:00:02):
Yes.
Right.
And that's what Dave Ramsey talks about.
That's why he uses rice and beans.
Beans and rice, rice and beans.
Yeah.
He says, I don't mean that that's all you ever eat, but that's the lifestyle.
You're going to go to the simplest, most nutritious food you can find.
Rice and beans, beans and rice.
And so with that, with gazelle intensity, if you're going to be as intense as you want

(01:00:25):
to towards the freedom that you're looking for, then you're going to ignore a lot of
other things.
You're going to ignore it.
Yeah.
If you're being chased like gazelle intensity, that's the other side of Dave Ramsey's statement.
You've got the rice and beans and that's how you live.
You live an ascetic life so that you can be gazelle intense about your future goals and
the things that you're wanting to be free in.

(01:00:50):
So you're limiting your budget, necessarily applying everything that you can to your debts
and then to your emergency fund and then to your retirement fund at 15 or 20% of your
income.
So you do that with your finances, limiting yourself.
You're binding yourself to that.
You're losing freedom of what you can spend your money on today.

(01:01:12):
And you're saying, I'm only going to buy, I only need rice and beans.
So I'm only going to buy rice and beans.
I'm not going to buy quiche or eggs right now.
Rice since there's $7 a dozen, I'm not going to buy them until I get back down to $2 a
dozen, then I'll buy them again.
But I can find that nutrition in rice.
I don't necessarily need the egg.
And so you just make those decisions, those hard decisions about your budget, but it's

(01:01:36):
increasing your freedom.
You've got the freedom.
It's increasing your future.
Does freedom depend on what you get in the future?
Is it a future thing?
Maybe it's only future looking.
Maybe.
Safety is current life right now.
Safety is also in the future, but is freedom current life and future?

(01:01:56):
Freedom is a spectrum.
I think there's the freedom you have now, but then there's the other, the long-term
freedom.
There's the immediate freedom and the long-lasting freedom maybe.
And so the more you restrict yourself today, possibly gives you more long-term freedoms.

(01:02:20):
Yeah.
It like in debt using that example.
If you're in debt when you're 20 and then you never solve that, you never get out of
debt, when you're 60, you're still going to be in debt.
Yeah.
When you're 20, you used your freedom, your debt capability, your freedom to-
Because instant gratification, using other people's money.

(01:02:43):
For all of that now.
But now, now that you're 60, you still don't own a house.
You still don't-
Yeah, nothing's free and clear.
And there's still debt.
You're still using that same hedonistic idea that debt is there for my benefit, so I'm
going to use it and I'm going to stay.
And you stay in that cycle.

(01:03:04):
You've never gotten free of it.
You say, I'm not free of debt.
If you're not, I'm not debt free.
Yeah.
I have debt.
Still hold it.
So I'm bound and bondage to that debt.
I'm in captivity to the debt because I've never freed myself from it.
I never took the choice to be ascetic enough to eliminate the debt.

(01:03:25):
And that's Dave Ramsey's whole program.
Get yourself ascetic enough, in control enough of your other spend, your spending that you
can buy yourself out of freedom, that you're going to feel like you're in bondage even
worse for a year or two.
So you put yourself in bondage yourself and say, instead of just paying what they require
for my bondage, I'm going to pay excess so that I can get out of that bondage and then

(01:03:48):
have it done with for the rest of my life.
Yeah.
And then you have that freedom.
Yeah.
With your full income.
He says the biggest wealth builder is 100% of your income towards building wealth.
That's a Dave Ramsey statement.
So if you get debt out of the way, you have no debt payments, no obligations, you're not
in bondage to anybody, 100% of your income is going to build wealth like you'd never

(01:04:09):
imagined.
Yeah.
You can spend that money.
You're completely free at that point.
That would be amazing.
Yeah.
To be able to spend all of your money as discretionary as opposed to just 20% or 10% or negative 5%
as discretionary.
Yeah, negative 5%.

(01:04:29):
So it takes ascetic.
You've got to get an ascetic life.
You got to decide what things you're not going to do.
You got to limit your freedom now.
Tier zero.
You've got to limit yourself.
It's got to be your own idea.
Dave Ramsey can't say it and you do it.
You can only do it.
We talked about that before.
If you agree that it's what you want to do.

(01:04:51):
Right.
If you internalize it and have a good enough reason that you've persuaded yourself to be
on that mindset, then you can actually do it.
You can live that ascetic life and dedicate all of your resources to these things that
are going to be the biggest benefit, the biggest trunk in the tree, the thing you're working
on that's going to solve as many problems as possible.

(01:05:13):
That's what you want to work on.
You want to bind yourself to the thing that's going to solve the biggest, largest amount
of problems for your future, for your future freedom.
Right.
Yeah.
Future freedom, low time preference.
You might have your freedom today to buy a Lamborghini.

(01:05:34):
You could finance, I could probably finance a Lamborghini with my income right now, but
that wouldn't...
After you filed bankruptcy and after a year, they would finance your Lamborghini.
Even then.
So you got rid of any other debts?
Yeah.
Okay.
I don't know.
Maybe you could.
Yeah.
I mean, there's incentives to loan money, to loan to people these days.

(01:06:02):
And there's incentives to borrow.
That's the other thing is if interest rates go down, people want to borrow, they don't
want to save because I mean, lending interest rates go down, which means that your earnings
on your savings, the money that you have in the banks, that goes down as well.
Anyway, yeah, low time preference.

(01:06:26):
That's the way to go.
It's close to asceticism without being...
You wouldn't specifically buy a Lamborghini because you've never even seen one.
Yeah.
Oh, I'm going to see one this weekend though.
I think I'm going to.
I'm going to the auto expo.
Well, okay.
So there will be a Lamborghini.
You could look at it and see if it really...
I think there's got to be a Lamborghini I can actually sit in if I wanted to.

(01:06:48):
If it really piques your interest enough to say I could buy it.
But I think more likely you would buy a brand new truck, an $80,000 F-150 or F-350 with
all the automatic driving and everything, or a GMC.
Just because I think my brothers are so cool that I want to be just like them.

(01:07:09):
Yeah, you need to have a truck.
You need a truck.
I think you would buy a truck before you would buy a Lamborghini.
I would buy a 15 passenger van before I buy a Lamborghini.
Yeah, there you go.
Because you can do anything with those.
Those are a truck.
Oh, that's a truck.
If I buy another 15 passenger, it's going to be a four wheel drive 15 passenger van.

(01:07:32):
Right.
So those things, that would be the vehicle to own.
Because you can do anything with it.
It's fully protected.
You can move manure in it if you want to.
You could probably put 12 foot long boards in it too.
Yeah.
You could put full carpet sections in it.
That's what it's used for.
Man.
But if I were living with high time preference, I'd be like, I'm going to get that today.

(01:07:58):
I'm willing to get into long term debt.
And when you do that, that limits your long term freedom.
It does.
Completely limits your long term freedom.
Even if you had no debt and you weren't going to do debt, but you're going to spend $80,000
on that vehicle.
That $80,000 in seven years would have doubled.
It would be $160,000.

(01:08:19):
And that's one other thing that Dave Ramsey talks about periodically is that didn't cost
you $80,000 because you used that money.
The 40 years down the road, 40 years down the road, $80,000.
So if you bought it, let's say you're in your 30s.
Let's say you're 40 years old.
Let's say I'm 40 years old.
Potentially.
Potentially you're 40 years old and you're going to retire at 65.

(01:08:42):
And you're going to buy a truck for $80,000 instead of leaving your money for the long
time preference.
I keep forgetting that word.
Low time preference, aesthetic.
Low time preference to leave your money working for you or put it in a vehicle so that you
can enjoy that vehicle right now with a high time preference.
I want to enjoy this vehicle for the next 15 years instead of put it out there.

(01:09:06):
So if you get a 10% rate of return, it doubles every, well, from 40 to 65.
That's 25 years, right?
Yes.
25 years.
It's going to triple, double three times.
The rule is 72 with about a 10% return, you're going to double three times.
So your $80,000 is 160, it's 320.
$320,000 that you'll have at 65 or you'll have a truck that's now 25 years old and not

(01:09:30):
worth anything.
Yeah.
Maybe a $10,000.
So you took your $80,000 down to a $10,000 value.
You enjoyed it.
You used it.
But was that enjoyment worth $360,000?
That's what you're buying your truck for.
Right.
You're not spending $80,000.
You're spending $360,000 for that truck.
You're spending what that money could be.
You have to think about your long time preference.

(01:09:52):
As a trade off.
As a trade off, yeah.
So you calculate what it costs you in today's dollars based on its future benefit.
Yeah.
Okay.
Whether you really want that or you can keep driving your 20 year old truck right now or
if you need a new truck and it's just died, buy another 20 year old truck for $10,000.

(01:10:13):
Right.
Instead of $80,000.
Because that $10,000 is only $40,000 in 25 years.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's 40,000.
So you're spending $40,000 instead of $360,000 for that truck.
Yeah.
Interesting.
So if you keep your mind, and that's the aesthetic, the aesthetic would think about things like
that.

(01:10:33):
It's sure I get pleasure out of it, but I'm not for instant gratification, instant pleasure.
I'm for the long term benefits of the right thing to do, the most freedom that I can gather
by this action, whatever action I'm taking.
Right.
Now you would say that someone's individual freedom, like what they decide is their freedom

(01:10:55):
is a subjective thing.
That depends on what their values are.
If I value more looking good right now in my $80,000 truck, if that's what I value,
if that's the people that I hang out with, if I cruise the Vard with my fancy truck that
bounces when I push the button, then that's actually more worth it than having a paid

(01:11:23):
off house in 25 years.
Yeah.
$360,000 means nothing to me.
I have had this conversation with someone in the past.
He said, I'm not going to think about the future because I'm never going to get there.
So that's a hedonistic lifestyle is saying, I'm living for today.
I'm not living for 30 years down the road.

(01:11:44):
Who knows if I'm going to make it there and what that's going to look like.
Chances are I'm going to get cancer and die before then anyway.
Yeah, right.
If I lived an ascetic life and I hated my life because it was just hard to live because
I was dedicating money to something else and then I get killed with cancer, someone else
is benefiting for that $320,000.

(01:12:05):
Why would I want to benefit someone else?
I want to benefit me.
Right.
Right.
That's the long-term vision.
Do you have a vision of yourself in 20 years and what does that look like?
If it looks like, well, I'm probably going to be dead, then you're going to want a little
bit more now.
Right.
Well, and is that right?

(01:12:26):
Right.
I say right, but I don't know if that's right.
Is that a valid position to take in regard to freedom?
I'm exercising my freedom right now.
Hedonistically, I'm going to exercise all my freedom.
I'm going to do everything that feels good to me and is serving me today.
And I'm not going to consider at all 20 years down the road.

(01:12:46):
Yeah.
I mean, that's how I've lived up until now.
Like why wouldn't it work for the next 20 years?
I'm okay, right?
Yeah.
I think that's part of freedom is the freedom to live a hedonistic life without judgment

(01:13:08):
from someone else.
Yeah.
Without saying it's right or wrong.
And that's when we get into our discussion on truth, which we will at some point.
Yeah.
An altruistic truth or is it a subjective truth?
Right.
And so we'll talk about that, but you've got to without judgment, you got to allow people.
And that's I think the God Satan question.

(01:13:31):
Satan wants to say everyone's going to have a Dodge 350 truck, 3500 truck.
You know, everyone's going to have this.
Or Satan wants to say everyone's going to put off gratification until later and save
their money.
Everyone.
Everyone has to save their money.
Everyone has to have a paid off house when they're 60.

(01:13:52):
Satan could say that, right?
Communism.
Well, no, he couldn't say that.
He couldn't?
I think he could.
I think dictating that someone lives a good life is also Satan.
Here's the structure.
That's the single payer system.
Yeah, it could be the single payer system saying everyone deserves health care in the

(01:14:14):
country.
And so we're going to tax everyone 50%.
Every make 50% comes to the government and we are providing you health care.
Yeah.
Everyone gets health care.
I would visit the doctor for like literally every single thing if that was how it was.
I'd be like, okay, I'm going to the doctor this week because my ankle hurts.

(01:14:34):
And then I'm going to the doctor this week because I had a headache last night.
Yeah.
And the person, and the problem with that system is the person that has appendicitis
and his appendix burst today can't even get into the doctor because there's too many ankles
and headaches in front of him.
Yeah.
Yeah, that makes sense.
Because the line is too long to get an emergency cared for.

(01:14:55):
The triage is hard to get done in a system that everyone has free access.
Right.
So, if you limit the access, then the emergencies could be cared for.
So that is, yeah, it is a Satan plan.
I guess you could say we're going to require everyone to have a paid off house as their

(01:15:15):
60
And then because, well, they wouldn't...
How would he do that?
I'm going to give everyone a house.
No, I don't think that.
I mean, he could.
That's a Marxist status.
But that's not the side of it though.
That's...
Okay.
That's...
It's either I'm going to give everyone what they want right now or I'm going to force

(01:15:38):
you to save, I'm going to force your retirement savings and I'm going to force your charitable
donations and I'm going to force...
You have to eat healthy so that you live until you're 120.
You have to exercise every day.
This is going to be good for you in the long run.
I know what's best for you.

(01:15:59):
Yeah.
And you get to the 120 and you have no debt and your kids are well cared for.
They've got all of their inheritances and life is great, but they made you do that and
here you are.
You were coerced.
And that's the question about this digital currency.
Oh, I forget the exact name for it.

(01:16:22):
If a country puts that on, then they can legislate through the use of that money, whether you
have rights to use it or not.
So if you didn't go to the gym this week and it's not on your card, the scan in the back
of your hand or your card doesn't record.
Was your social credit score or something?
Yeah, your social credit.
You didn't do the right things.
You didn't buy the right foods at the grocery store.

(01:16:43):
You bought the sugary drink and so now your demerit on that, you lose some of your money,
your tax a little bit more.
So to get your best tax rate, you've got to be in the gym every week and if you didn't
scan your card, we know it already.
We automatically know what you're doing.
And that's the central currencies, the central currency has that ability and you don't want

(01:17:07):
to have that with blockchain, with the technology.
They could identify all that stuff connected to the currency and your ability to spend
money.
Yeah.
That's why decentralized currency is the thing that's...you're reading the Bitcoin book,
right?
I am.
It probably talks about that as well, centralized or decentralized.
It's got to be a big part of it.
It's got to be, right.

(01:17:28):
I think I'm getting to that part and I'm only halfway through the book.
Either coercion or freedom, you got someone managing it that's telling you what to do
or you got the freedom to do with it what you want and you get to transact your own
decisions as opposed to transacting their decision.
Whether your decision is hedonistic or ascetic, that's your freedom to choose where on that

(01:17:50):
spectrum you land and how you want to live your life.
And so that's the God side of it is saying, I'm going to give you this agency, this freedom
to choose.
You choose what you want.
And I'm going to have consequences, but they're not consequences I'm imposing.
You're going to impose your own consequences by choosing that sugary drink.

(01:18:12):
Your consequence is based on there's a logical other end of the stick you picked up.
Okay.
Logical.
It has to be logical.
It can't be you had a chicken in your yard, you had too many chickens in your yard and
so now you have to pay $4,000.
Fine.
That's not a logical...
That's a coercive law.

(01:18:35):
The logical law would be that you have a rooster and your neighbors don't like it and your
neighbors are coming as a group to talk with you.
That's a logical conclusion.
The uncomfortable situation that you find yourself in because of that.
You've got an uncomfortable living arrangement now.
So you either move or you get rid of the rooster or you convince them, you persuade them all

(01:18:57):
these benefits, you pay them off.
You say, I've got eggs.
Eggs are $7 in there.
I'll guarantee I'll give you eggs for free if you let me keep my rooster.
Well, okay.
All right.
I'm good.
I don't mind the noise.
Yeah, I'm down with that.
Yeah.
I don't mind the noise at all now.
I can eat eggs every day.
Right.
So...

(01:19:18):
And that's where I started out.
You started communication, the discussion and what you started out with Jordan Peterson
saying they need to make their voice heard.
If you don't make your voice heard, there's no way to come to a valid... and it's not
a valid agreement, an agreement.
It's not a compromise.

(01:19:38):
You don't...
What I'm reading that book, Chris Voss never split the difference.
Never split the difference.
Compromise is not a good idea.
Compromise is not what you're after.
You're after agreement and you wanna persuade enough.
You wanna have enough gumption.
And that's where he said the Democrats don't take conservative talk show options or offers.

(01:20:02):
Dave Ramsey couldn't talk to them.
They wouldn't even talk to Dave Ramsey.
Yeah.
You know, he did talk.
I mean, Joe Biden did talk to Simon Sinek and it seemed to be a good interview, but
I don't know how long the interview was.
Simon and Malcolm Gladwell is really more liberal than I thought he was.

(01:20:22):
He's kind of deep end liberal or left wing.
And perhaps Simon Sinek is the same.
So that's why he got the interview with Joe Biden because he was gonna be soft and try
to help Joe Biden put the points out that he wanted to put out.
And that interview didn't make it in the public view very much.

(01:20:46):
And what they won't go there because they have nothing to say.
If they get a hard question, they can't answer it.
They don't have any reasoning or thought or passion behind their talking points.
That's what I think is the obvious answer to why they don't do it.
Yeah.
There might be some that really do, but they're afraid to speak because you get canceled if

(01:21:14):
you speak.
They can't say what they wanna say because...
If it goes against the talking point, then they cancel themselves.
So the machine will cancel that person inside the machine because they tended to think...
So that Federman right now, that's the question as to how he's gonna survive.

(01:21:37):
Tell me about what that is.
But he's Pennsylvania.
And so Pennsylvania went red and all the swing states.
But he's a Democrat.
He was fully against Trump.
And now he's saying, let's listen to him.
He's opening the conversation.
He's willing to communicate.
Okay.
And he has taken positions.
He would go on a conservative talk show.
I think John Federman would be fine with that because he's able to think and consciously

(01:22:03):
think.
But he's not spouting Democrat talking points right now.
They're saying he's conversing.
And I think that's why I've had the opinion that if they will just talk for three hours
with Joe Rogan, their opinions will change a little bit.
But they can't afford to have their opinions changed by a deep conversation back and forth.

(01:22:27):
So these hearings right now, as they're grilling from the left-wing standpoint saying, this
is all what we're afraid of, they're not even recognizing that that's what they've been
doing for the last eight years is this DOJ weaponization.
But I don't know how they can hear that and not comprehend it, not agree that, yeah, we

(01:22:51):
did go after Trump.
Because from their side, this freedom, they're less free because Donald Trump, a convicted
felon, everything evil in the world, Satan is in the presidency seat.
So now I'm not free as a senator, as a Democratic senator.
My freedoms are completely bounded.

(01:23:12):
So I'm not gonna talk.
That's what Jordan Peterson is saying.
This is the challenge.
If they just shut up and don't do anything, because you can't talk against that.
You can't say, no, we didn't do that.
Actually, this is the way it happened.
These are the facts.
But I'm gonna ignore those facts because the actual facts are, he is a convicted felon.

(01:23:32):
And I heard one of the senators yesterday, he says, remember, he wasn't convicted by
the Democratic Party.
He was convicted by a jury of his peers.
Yes.
So...
Remember that.
Remember, this is the important thing.
Yeah.
That jury of his peers placed those penalties on him, but it was, yeah, just crazy.

(01:23:55):
And you don't know.
I wasn't in the courtroom.
I'm not the judge.
And the judge was, he put this sentence, released the sentence, freed Donald Trump from any
incarceration, from any captivity at all, any fines.
He says he completely...
I forgot the word, the legal word, just redacted the sentence.

(01:24:17):
So yeah, the sentence, you are a convicted felon.
The sentence is no penalty whatsoever.
Yeah.
I think he had to do that.
Wasn't the law recently changed so that presidents past or future have no penalties to their
felonies or something like that?
Well, in office.

(01:24:38):
But this was a simple thing.
This is about his business, something.
The way Donald Trump described it, he's calling a legal expense, a legal expense on his tax
returns and that's what they've put those 34 counts on.
And he says that it just doesn't make any sense.
So what's gonna happen is it's gonna be appealed now that it's closed.

(01:25:00):
It can be appealed.
It will be appealed in maybe two or three or five years before it's heard, and maybe
only three months before it's heard on appeal, and it's gonna be overturned.
And then they'll have to push again.
They can push again to do that.
So it's just lawfare.
That's lawfare and that's weaponization of the legal system.
And it needs to not happen.

(01:25:21):
And that's the whole point.
A good... for a society operate fairly and with freedom, you want to not be subject to
lawfare, right?
If you did something wrong, then you need to be punished for that.
There's... sure.
But if you're just living your life and you're filing no tax returns the way you need to
and you're making your mistakes, errors, like the error be judged, but it doesn't need to

(01:25:45):
be weaponized and say, you're bad and here's all the reasons you're bad.
I did experience that once.
I was released from an employer based on a review.
The company was bought out by a larger company.
And it was there... it was my opinion, and I believe it's the common opinion of the world,

(01:26:08):
that when you buy someone, you try to cull out the bad stuff, the low hanging fruit,
you get rid of that so that you can focus on your primary work.
So they identified these people are not... and I'm thinking it had to happen that way.
I was one of the recent hires, one of the newest people there.
They came and interviewed everybody.

(01:26:29):
They talked to everybody, just the group from the new company.
And then they identified some things.
I said, we're going to search into this.
And then they gave me one week off, say, just take a week off.
We're going to investigate a few things.
Not knowing what they're investigating, not knowing anything about that.
They brought me back after the week.
They said, just enjoy it.
It's paid.

(01:26:50):
Don't worry about it.
We'll take care of everything.
And then it was an immediate release of employment when I got back because of loss of confidence,
is what they said.
So they wouldn't indicate the specific issues.
There was no ability to answer any questions.
Like Donald Trump, he couldn't say anything about the trial he was under.

(01:27:11):
It was forced on him.
And you have a gag order.
So don't talk about it.
You can't say anything.
And you're just limited in what you can bring to bear in this court also.
So he was limited in his defense.
I was limited clearly.
I had no defense.
They are making the decisions.

(01:27:32):
They own my job.
I was an employee of theirs, so they could choose that.
But where we talked about, you've got to justify it.
Apparently they felt they were justified enough, but they didn't give any reasons for that
justification.
Their attorneys were behind it.
And they said, the most we're going to say is this statement, loss of confidence.
And that's it.

(01:27:53):
And so that was my transition to my independent career, which was the best thing I did.
It opened up all kinds of things for you.
It's just I should have done it.
I should have been able to do it under my own freedom, my own choice, as opposed to
being coerced to that.
So that's what...
My freedom was completely obliterated, but it was only 11 days obliterated.

(01:28:17):
I thought it took a long time.
We talked about that before.
I thought it was forever.
It seemed like the world ended and I was down for a long time, but it was only 11 days.
I was fully back in my better vehicle to operate with.
So it was cool.
So while you were in it, it was really hard.
It was difficult to see where you were going maybe.

(01:28:42):
That I wasn't free whatsoever.
I lost all my freedoms, but I still could choose to live aesthetically for that 10 days,
a week and a half, and focus on the most important future benefit that I could identify.
I think that's what I did.
And apparently I did it appropriately because it worked just fine.

(01:29:04):
I ended up with two offers and I took the one that I felt was closest and best to what
I was able to do.
And that worked out well.
And since then, I've made another change, but on my own freedom, I've made another change
to what potentially is a better position as well.
Yeah.
Freedom is a lot deeper than I thought it would be.

(01:29:27):
Yeah.
As everything is and that's the fortunate thing.
And is this enjoyable?
Are we hedonistic in loving to talk about freedom in this deep status?
Right.
Because yeah, one other thing from the Jordan Peterson and Andrew Huberman podcast, they

(01:29:53):
said, you're not meant to be good when you start out.
And you've got to keep working at it.
And in seven years, maybe we'll be good at doing a podcast.
You have to build.
We have to work through the acting like a fool part to get there.

(01:30:15):
Competence is earned and you earn competence levels.
You don't have to get to 10,000 hours before you can start being competent.
You're gaining competence as you're rolling up.
And as it's earned, as you earn it, it hopefully is beneficial so you can get some response
out of it.

(01:30:37):
But we keep learning and we're free to do this.
That's the thing.
Even though there's, you know, we've talked about that before too, there's some pushback
against this.
You know, and we talked about privacy.
We identified a whole thing.
Is it safe?
Is it private enough?
Can we be secure in this?
Right.
There's that concern.
So that's holding us back a little bit.

(01:30:57):
That's a constraint, a limitation we decided to put on ourselves for a bit, perhaps.
There's other people who say, you know, you're just wasting your time and what you talk about
is foolish anyway.
Right.
There's no value in it.
You guys are only doing that because you're hedonistically enjoying the conversation,

(01:31:20):
but no one else in their right mind enjoys that.
But I don't know.
Critical thinking, hopefully what we're exercising is critical thinking, right?
We're trying to look at both sides of something or identify how it really affects our life
in your life and my life and how we are supposed to view it and set up connections so that

(01:31:44):
we can live better.
We want to live better.
And that's what we're trying to figure this out for.
Well, and you and I want to be able to think better and we want to know more things.
And I think the best way that we can use our journey in this to benefit anyone else besides

(01:32:05):
just you and me is by doing a podcast.
Like this is a service, our own way of serving our fellow human beings.
This is a journey.
We're just identifying a journey and we're taking people on a journey with us.
We're not experts.
We don't know anything.

(01:32:26):
I mean, the word you just picked up today that I had somewhat a general knowledge of
was ascetic.
But now you can use ascetic, you know, in the ascetic lifestyle as opposed to a hedonistic
lifestyle.
And so we've further solidified those meanings and that dichotomy, that dualism in our life.
We can know where we're selecting.

(01:32:47):
And the more you study, the more you think, the better you're able to meet any situation
in life.
Talk about chickens and guns, this relates to chickens and guns.
And then how you can start to create policies that make sense as opposed to just saying
what the talking points of the machine are telling you.

(01:33:09):
This is the thing that's going to make most money for us.
So that's what you want to promote.
We're not trying to make money with this either necessarily.
It wouldn't be bad if there were money.
But I think that's why we enjoy the conversation because we are advancing.
We're seeing the journey.
We talked about that, the joy in our joy episode, there's joy in the journey.

(01:33:32):
It's not necessarily a satisfaction at the end.
We're not looking for a point.
There's not a goal point that when we get there, then we're going to stop.
No, the journey continues.
We're going to enjoy this as far as it goes and continue beyond that even.
And Jordan Peterson, he didn't stop when he wrote his first book and say, well, that's
it.

(01:33:52):
I got my book out.
My main book is published.
Right.
And he just wrote this next book and he's not going to stop with that book either.
We who wrestle with God won't be his last work.
There's another thing he's going to do.
And on that same thing, Tim Ferriss has been for 20 years working on things and he's just
coming out with a new book.
Something about, no, he wanted to write that four or five years ago, but he's been working

(01:34:14):
on it and I forgot the title of it.
Something about no?
No.
Yeah, the word no.
And Chris Voss talks about that too in the Never Split the Difference.
No is the best word in the world.
That's the starting of any communication.
Any learning, any venture starts with no.
As long as the recipient of the no knows that that's not the end, it's the start.

(01:34:41):
Right.
And so you can ruin almost everything.
The no book is what it's called.
It's called the no book.
Oh, okay.
So, but it's, I don't know when it's published.
Is it, it may be out now.
I don't know.
I don't know.
But it's, it's the one he's been working on for a while.
So he just barely started talking about it.
Yes.
So all those people, they're in a conversation, they're in a journey and we're watching the

(01:35:05):
journey of Jordan Peterson, the journey of Tim Ferriss.
It's fun to watch those journeys.
And that's what people, if anyone does watch this journey, it's there.
We have 24 episodes, I think you said that are already there.
So someone could join in that.
They could binge listen, you know, as they're out milking their cows and, and follow the

(01:35:27):
journey and see how it's developing, see how it's growing, see how now this dichotomy and
we're going to talk spectrums and because we've identified that as part of it.
And before we brought in tier zero and you know, we can talk about the tiers and communities
you're a part of.
And all that lexicon is just part of us now and, and it's part of this journey.
So anyone who's listening is also going to be in that, whether it's today or three months

(01:35:53):
to today when this is actually published or three years from today, when they actually
pick it up and start listening to the series, the series is going to be there.
And it's going to still be a journey for someone in 2035.
It'll be a journey that can be taken by anybody and it'll be fun.
Just like it's fun for us.
Yeah.
Yeah. It'll be there.
So we're, we're laying a groundwork.

(01:36:13):
I'm going to give you another quip, another historical setting from my life.
Uh huh.
Yes.
I was a, I gained, earned my Eagle Scout when I was a youth.
And then as I was working for professionally in the scouting organizations, I was a professional
scouter for a while.
There's an Indian chief from Texas, Ray O'Alachiah that came to one of our events and he had

(01:36:38):
part of what he does is he gives gifts to certain individuals.
And I was indicated as one of the individuals he would give a gift to.
So he gave me an arrow that he made.
He carved the arrowhead and he put the, it's just a standard dowel, but he put, he pulled
off the eagle feathers and strapped them on with, with leather and he signed his name

(01:36:59):
on it, signed his totem on it.
Okay.
So he did that.
And then he gave me a, a, an oath.
His chief oath from Ray O'Alachiah was to watch what you're doing and make a path where
you walk so that others may follow.
That was one of the most important points that I got out of his oath.

(01:37:21):
I didn't, I didn't write it down.
I don't have it.
I only have what's in my memory.
I didn't ask him to give me a copy of it, what he told me.
And I don't know if he, he probably just says it and he doesn't have it written.
It's one of those.
It's like a blessing.
It's a blessing.
Yeah.
And it, well, with our blessing, he may use the same things all the time, but it's a,
it's a verbal, a verbal thing, not a written thing.

(01:37:44):
Okay.
So in those, in the old days, you know, that nothing was written, everything was verbal
transition of history.
So that part, we're making a trail for others to follow.
And I'm, so I take that as my responsibility.
It's my responsibility to lay out a trail that others can follow and watch.
And so as we get developed past this, our freedom to do this is going to increase your

(01:38:09):
freedom as you listen to follow and grow yourself.
So we're helping everyone.
We're, we're changing the world.
Yeah.
In our little way right here.
That's the goal.
It's the goal.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Without, without getting into the city council and the state government and the national
government.
Yes.

(01:38:30):
I don't, I have no interest in doing any of that right now.
You don't want to change the policies directly.
Right.
Okay.
Well, it can be influential in a way.
You are in a position that you're barely old enough to run for Senate or Congress or president
of the United States.
Oh, my life is just beginning is what you're saying.

(01:38:51):
That's right.
It's not over.
You're right at the apex.
Yeah.
And in the next 20 years, who knows, you could be in one of those positions.
Just fine.
You have 40 years that you could choose one of those things.
So it depends on where we go.
I mean, Jordan Peterson likely will never serve in public office, but he could, he could
as well.
If he wanted to, probably.

(01:39:13):
Who is surprising that took public office?
Well, Donald Trump, Donald Trump never thought he would.
In the eighties, he gave that interview.
You know, if the country needs me, I wouldn't decline the offer or the option, but I don't
have no intention of being a politician.
I've got plenty of things to do.
Right.
Yeah.

(01:39:33):
I guess it could be my famous last words.
I don't know.
I don't know.
But Trump is not going to die.
He's going to probably die at 120.
Like you said, he's going to eat right.
He's going to be 120 years old.
Yeah.
Carter has to be the oldest.
He's certainly resisting the hair transplant trend.
Yeah, that's good.
It's not orange anymore either.
It's just turning gray or white or whatever.

(01:39:56):
Right.
That's what I've noticed.
Interesting.
I mean, Jimmy Carter at a hundred years old is going to be just a byword when Trump gets
to be 120 and we're all 120.
Yeah.
So.
[outro] Well, that's a pretty good, pretty good place to say thanks for listening.

(01:40:18):
Very good.
And anyone that wants to get ahold of us can check the show notes for all of the best ways
to contact us.
Yeah, what else?
What else is important?
Our next discussion is going to be on.
We decided that you will lead the discussion on singularity as opposed to dualism, I suppose.

(01:40:46):
Well we ended dualism and that's going to be published just now.
But what, five weeks ago we talked about dualism?
Yeah.
We're going to touch singularity because we identified and said this is a question that
needs to be discussed.
Does it exist and where does it exist and how does it work?
But there are singularity, there are words about singularity is used in a few different

(01:41:10):
contexts in today's world.
So we want to talk about that first.
How it's used.
The fact that it is a word means that there might be some evidences for it.
Yeah, there are current meanings for it, which don't really apply to what we were discussing.
Yeah.
They don't apply to the meaning.
The way it's used now doesn't apply to the meaning we were trying to discuss, the depth

(01:41:31):
that we were trying to get to it out of dualism.
So we'll have a good conversation.
We'll figure all that out next week when we get together for do you have a minute conversations.
Yeah.
All right.
Happy to be involved.
Thanks.
Okay.
Talk to you later.
Have a good day.
Bye.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}#26 What even IS freedom?

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

#26 What even IS freedom?

Stuff You Should Know