A recent podcast with him. Many insights. http://abre.ai/sIZ
My highlights:
"But today, when, you know, the gentleman who was head of the CIA was a big military person, when he was busted--was his name Petraeus?--I thought--I mean, I looked at his Wikipedia page and there were all these decorations. Hundreds of decorations. I saw that the fellow jumped from helicopters at night, climbed walls. Threw grenades through small windows. Turned out, the fellow had never been in battle. He had never been in battle. So here we have a generation of people who have never had to take risks for the sake of others. And society cannot function when you have an imbalance between, like in the first column is people who make others take risks for them. And then you have in the right column people who take risks for the sake of others. It can't function that way. It cannot."
"Ralph Nader had a heuristic for war. He said that if you are going to vote for war, you should have a member of your family--a descendent, a son or grandson--on the draft. And then you can vote for war."
"When you go to a doctor, if the doctor amputates someone and he takes the wrong leg, you don't take the doctor and amputate his leg in return. But there is a penalty, you see. So, we're not worried about places in which this equilibrium has been discovered heuristically, bottom up. I am worried about modernity. I am worried about bureaucrats causing hyperinflation, affecting savers and citizens but not harming them at all. I'm worried about that kind of stuff. We're not worried about contracts between individuals that can find equilibrium in some way or another."
"systems, when they are localized, tend to enforce skin in the game very naturally. You look at, systems when they are small, you can identify cause and effect very easily, and then you can force the cook to eat his own cooking. And you see it in small communities. Like the army, for example. In almost every country I looked at, people who repair helicopters are sort of forced to take rides on them. And in almost everyone folding for parachute jumping, has that sort of skin in the game involved, where if you fold someone's parachute you may be asked to jump in it, jump using it. So you have this, so there's a natural tendency by systems, when they are small, to produce a skin-in-the-game rule and function that way. But it looks like when things get large there is a size effect. Large is ugly. And large doesn't have skin in the game. And large doesn't have these warped incentives. And large, of course, likes regulation rather than the simple heuristics. As a libertarian I like the last resource. It doesn't mean no government at all, which would be minimum, but whatever is less; not the first."
My highlights:
"But today, when, you know, the gentleman who was head of the CIA was a big military person, when he was busted--was his name Petraeus?--I thought--I mean, I looked at his Wikipedia page and there were all these decorations. Hundreds of decorations. I saw that the fellow jumped from helicopters at night, climbed walls. Threw grenades through small windows. Turned out, the fellow had never been in battle. He had never been in battle. So here we have a generation of people who have never had to take risks for the sake of others. And society cannot function when you have an imbalance between, like in the first column is people who make others take risks for them. And then you have in the right column people who take risks for the sake of others. It can't function that way. It cannot."
"Ralph Nader had a heuristic for war. He said that if you are going to vote for war, you should have a member of your family--a descendent, a son or grandson--on the draft. And then you can vote for war."
"When you go to a doctor, if the doctor amputates someone and he takes the wrong leg, you don't take the doctor and amputate his leg in return. But there is a penalty, you see. So, we're not worried about places in which this equilibrium has been discovered heuristically, bottom up. I am worried about modernity. I am worried about bureaucrats causing hyperinflation, affecting savers and citizens but not harming them at all. I'm worried about that kind of stuff. We're not worried about contracts between individuals that can find equilibrium in some way or another."
"systems, when they are localized, tend to enforce skin in the game very naturally. You look at, systems when they are small, you can identify cause and effect very easily, and then you can force the cook to eat his own cooking. And you see it in small communities. Like the army, for example. In almost every country I looked at, people who repair helicopters are sort of forced to take rides on them. And in almost everyone folding for parachute jumping, has that sort of skin in the game involved, where if you fold someone's parachute you may be asked to jump in it, jump using it. So you have this, so there's a natural tendency by systems, when they are small, to produce a skin-in-the-game rule and function that way. But it looks like when things get large there is a size effect. Large is ugly. And large doesn't have skin in the game. And large doesn't have these warped incentives. And large, of course, likes regulation rather than the simple heuristics. As a libertarian I like the last resource. It doesn't mean no government at all, which would be minimum, but whatever is less; not the first."
![[Image: ohshit.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/ohshit.gif)
![[Image: smile.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/smile.gif)
