Joe Rogan and Steve Hilton critique the U.S. political system’s reliance on wealthy donors, citing CrowdPak as a solution to simplify campaign finance transparency. Rogan argues for police accountability via untamperable body cameras, like LAPD trials, while both condemn excessive regulation—e.g., revenue-generating traffic lights—as fragile, centralized systems. They debate legalizing prostitution (Colorado’s success vs. systemic exploitation) and question cultural hypocrisy, like Australia’s brothels reducing divorce rates or New York’s "naked cowgirl" ban. Hilton warns of pornography’s impact on youth, while Rogan speculates on AI surpassing human consciousness, balancing tech’s risks with freedom’s necessity. [Automatically generated summary]
This episode of the Joe Rogan Experience is brought...
I should say the podcast.
The experience.
Brought to you by Stamps.com.
What Stamps.com is is a method that allows you to use U.S. Postal Service to print U.S. Postal Service right from your home computer, right from your office computer, right from your desktop.
Just a regular old computer and a regular old printer.
You can print official U.S. postage for any letter, any package, any class of mail.
All for a fraction of the cost of an expensive postal meter.
And if you go to stamps.com, you never have to go to the post office again.
It's so easy.
With this deal that we offer you, if you click on the old school microphone in the upper right-hand corner of Stamps.com, you enter in the promo code JRE, you get a no-risk trial, $110 bonus offer, which includes a free digital scale and up to $55 of free postage.
Then you take your packages, you weigh them, you calculate all the jazz, print out official U.S. postage, slap it on the old box, postman comes, hand it to him, and you're diggity-diggity done.
That's it.
You don't have to go to the post office.
You don't have to wait in line.
You don't have to talk to some completely under-motivated and underwhelmed person who really doesn't want to be there at all, much rather beat you over the head with a club than weigh your stupid fucking packages.
You don't have to do any of that.
All you have to do is go to stamps.com and sign up for this offer.
And before you do anything else, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage, type in JRE.
That's stamps.com and enter in JRE.
It's easy, it's convenient, and you remove stress and hassle from your life.
If you own a small business or if you regularly send out packages of varying weights and sizes, this is the way to go, kid.
Trust me.
Stamps.com.
And remember, before you do anything else, click on the microphone at the top of the homepage and type in JRE for your $110 bonus offer.
We're also brought to you by LegalZoom.
LegalZoom is a fantastic way to deal with, well, I like stamps.com.
You can deal with shit from your home that you would ordinarily have to go somewhere for.
With LegalZoom, you could deal with so many legal issues without having to schedule an appointment with a lawyer on their time, drive through traffic, park, sit down, pay an exorbitant amount of money to some person, again, who doesn't really want to fucking talk to you.
They just want your cash.
You could do all that stuff at home and do it for a fraction of the cost and do it quite easily.
You can form an LLC or incorporate to start your own business.
Very easy to do.
You can apply for a patent to secure an invention.
Register your trademark to protect your products and services.
And you can do it all drunk and naked.
No one can stop you.
You can take illegal drugs and do something legal.
Do you know that?
I'm not advising it, but if you so chose to do it, it is your right as a person.
As long as you do everything correctly and everything's filled out the way it's supposed to be...
You're good.
And if it's not filled out the way it's supposed to be, here's the beauty of LegalZoom.
LegalZoom can connect you to a third-party independent attorney if you're in a cold sweat panic and you think that you've done something illegal.
If you've filled out the forms and you're like, this shit is not going to fly!
You can contact LegalZoom and they will hook you up with a third-party attorney.
LegalZoom is not a law firm, but they do provide you with legal self-help See, legal self-help is the way to do it.
If you can get things done like filing patents, like forming LLCs, forming a will, you can even get divorced.
And they have an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau.
You can't go wrong with that.
A-plus.
Not A-minus.
Not B-plus.
A-plus from the Better Business Bureau.
Over the past 14 years, they've helped over a million businesses get started right.
Go to LegalZoom.com.
And when you go through the month of June, you can get a special price on trademark, copyright, or provisional patent applications by using the referral code ROGAN at checkout.
Celebrate innovation with LegalZoom through the end of June.
Remember, LegalZoom is not a law firm, but they do provide you with legal help through independent attorneys.
these.
unidentified
Someone's trying to fucking text me in the middle of a goddamn podcast.
I think if I put my phone near my computer, they'd fucking argue with each other telepathically.
That's probably what it is.
That's it.
LegalZoom.com.
Use the code word Rogan.
We're also brought to you by Ting.
Ting is a mobile service that does things differently.
They do things on their own terms.
And what that means is they buy time through the Sprint Backbone.
They use Sprint, so you get the exact same service that you get with Sprint, but you get it with no contracts, no early termination fees, no nonsense.
They don't trick you.
There's a lot of ways that cell phone companies make money.
And one of the ways they make money is they charge you for X amount per month.
Like you have a deal where you get 1200 minutes a month or whatever the hell it is.
But when you do that, most of the time you're not using those minutes, but you're still paying for those minutes.
The way Ting does it, it's very smart, and I think it's a better way, and I think it's the only way that they're going to do it in the future.
What they do is you pay for what you use.
If you use a lot, you pay more.
If you use very little, you pay less.
Would save money using Ting.
That's a pretty incredible statistic.
If you go to Ting's website, go to rogan.ting.com, they'll explain the whole thing to you.
$21 is the average monthly bill per device for Ting customers.
That's amazing.
Because you'd be surprised at how little, when you look at these service minutes, you know, like 100 minutes a month, 200 minutes a month, most of the time people are texting each other these days.
And if you call me a lot, man, most of the time I I don't spend a lot of time calling people.
$440 is the average annual savings per device for a business with 1 to 20 employees.
So if you have a business, Ting is the way to go if you want to set up business phones.
And you have many options as far as the phones themselves.
You have all of the best Android phones that are available today.
And you buy them.
See, the thing about when you go to one of the big name...
You're not actually buying the phone.
If you pay $200 for a phone, you're not really paying $200 for that phone.
The phone costs probably $500 or $600 and you think you're paying $200, but the other $300 to $400, you're paying off over the course of your contract.
That's why if you try to leave, they stick it to you and they make you pay what you owe them.
So that's what a contract termination fee is.
What it's all about is you still owe money on a device.
You essentially leased a device.
Ting doesn't handle it that way at all.
With Ting, everything that you purchase That they sell at rogan.ting.com are the finest cell phones available today.
Like the Samsung Galaxy S5, which is water resistant.
Just added.
Water resistant.
If you're a fucking dork like me and you spill shit, that's the way to go.
They have the HTC One M8. All the best new Android phones.
The Samsung Galaxy Note 3, which I use.
Fantastic phone.
You can draw on it.
It has a pen.
How could you go wrong?
And if you're like one of those old crazy grandmas, they have flip phones.
They have everything.
And as cheap as $42.
You can get a phone for $42, which is kind of ridiculous in this day and age.
And when you buy it for $42, you actually buy it for $42.
And if you try it for a while and you go, you know what?
I want to cancel.
Just cancel.
That's it.
You don't have to worry about shit.
It's a beautiful, ethical way to do business, and the results have been fantastic.
Massive, massive public positive feedback that I've received from all the people that have switched over to Ting.
Saved money, loved the company, loved the idea behind the company, and loved the fact that they have a wide selection of devices.
So go to rogan.ting.com today and save yourself some cash, kids.
Alright, my friend Steve Hilton is here.
We're going to talk about all kinds of groovy shit.
Let's cue the music.
unidentified
The Joe Rogan Experience.
Train by day, Joe Rogan podcast by night, all day.
And there's new sort of etiquette developing about how to handle this.
I think I was reading something about where you've got eight people around a table having dinner and it's okay for three of them to be looking at their devices.
That's okay.
But if it gets to more than three, someone's got to look up because that's the rule.
I find it fascinating how my children react to devices.
That's where I really get a sense of it, because they don't have a cultural context.
You know, when my four-year-old watches television or watches devices, and I'll stand in front of her watching TV, and she just reaches up and tries to move me.
Yeah, you literally can't get in between at that point.
I've really noticed that.
If they're watching something, that's it.
You may have been away for a week and you haven't seen them and they're desperate to see you, but if there's something on TV at that point, not interested.
There's a lot of quite interesting brain science about what's going on when kids watch TV, and it's generally fine.
But when it gets to a point where they're watching more than two or three hours a day, and a lot of kids these days are in that situation, it literally starts rewiring their brain.
Although most people here probably couldn't tell the difference between the British and the Australian accent anyway.
You can just keep talking.
We'll think it's an Australian accent.
I get it, I get it.
And he goes and said, apparently there's some bloke who's going around saying, if you eat too much of our food and don't take any exercise, you get fat.
Well, I could have told you that.
It's a really sweet response, which is, yeah, if you just do all of something, that's not good, but a little bit's okay.
That's a quite Australian response, too, as opposed to the measured American legalese that you would probably hear from some CEO. Yeah, you know, I have a real issue with that documentary, and he did a show also called 30 Days.
Because I know what they're doing.
They're not necessarily just investigating.
They're also trying to achieve a desired result.
And that desired result being something bad.
They're trying to do something that's going to be titillating.
And oh my goodness, his liver is going bad.
Like he's sick.
He's sick.
He's toxic.
There's a lot of people who have called bullshit on that.
Especially the liver toxins and all that stuff.
They're like, where's the liver toxin?
You're dealing with carbohydrates and proteins and fats, but these things aren't toxic.
They're just not good.
They're just high in cholesterol, and they're kind of fatty and sugary.
I know for a fact that they did some fuckery on his show.
He had a show called 30 Days where he was trying to achieve the same results.
Because they went to a friend of mine who's a doctor.
And this doctor specializes in hormone replacement therapy for older people.
For older people and people that are, you know, like, you start getting older, you want to replace your testosterone, things along those lines.
And they wanted to do it in 30 days.
And they wanted to do it on this program.
Take a man who's getting older and in 30 days inject him with hormones.
And the doctor, who's an ethical doctor, said, you don't ever do that.
He said, we would never do that.
He said, what we would do is we would get you on a proper diet.
I would take your blood.
It would take a week to get your blood results back.
I'd get your blood results back.
I'd want to get a detailed analysis of what you're eating, what you're doing, what kind of a lifestyle do you have.
It's not a simple fix like we give you hormones.
So what they did is they found a quack doctor Who did just shoot the guy up with hormones.
And the guy was like, oh, roid ragey and angry afterwards.
And his wife wanted to keep him chubby.
I mean, the whole thing was a disaster.
This is not an ethical examination of this complex issue.
The problem with entertainment is it's not a puppet show.
It's not a cartoon.
You're pretending that you're exploring these ideas.
And when I was doing that sci-fi show, I found some similar issues with certain producers and certain people who were used to that world of reality TV. Reality TV has become this very strange mishmash of choreographed scenarios and predetermined scenarios, predetermined results.
And they do it sort of in this guise of reality TV, but essentially it's like loosely scripted bullshit.
And they're pretending that it's like, this is what's going on in the doctor's office.
No, you set that up.
That's not what goes on in a doctor's office.
That's not what would go on in a doctor's office.
You're pretending because that's going to get people to freak out.
Well, the whole business is completely fucked because the business started off with a bunch of people that came over from scripted shows.
So the legacy people that were involved in these dramatic shows where there were no, until Survivor came along, there were no reality shows, quote-unquote reality shows.
So I have a deep understanding of this because I hosted Fear Factor for six years and because Fear Factor came in in 2002, which was when all the reality shows were being born.
So I got to see where these people had their backgrounds from.
And almost all of them had their backgrounds from dramas or from sitcoms or from the world of fictional shows.
So much so that you were considered to be like a traitor if you were involved in a reality show.
Like, people got mad at me.
Saying that I was taking jobs away from writers because I was involved in reality shows.
And I was like, oh, this is a hilarious argument.
But these people all came from this world where you manipulate things in order to make drama.
So they started doing that to quote-unquote reality shows.
So that's what you're getting.
So this 30 Days show that doesn't exist anymore and Super Size Me show, they're, you know...
You're tackling very complex issues, and you're doing it in an entertaining form.
And when you do that, there's some integrity that sort of goes by the wayside.
In the end, you're relying on the people involved to have a bit of integrity and ethics in the way they do their jobs.
And I just saw a little example this weekend.
I was out doing stuff to do with the election in my company, and I did an interview for the local news, for the NBC News.
And we were doing some demos of stuff with people in Santa Monica, and they wanted to film one of the people that we're doing it with, you know, interacting with our thing, right?
With our website.
And at that point, there weren't any people interested in doing that.
So one of the teams said, why don't we just pretend to be a member of the public doing it?
And it was really interesting because they said, no, the producer and the journalist said, no, no, it's got to be, you know, a real member of the public.
And I thought that was really cool.
You know, they obviously wanted to go.
They were busy.
They had to get back to the studio.
They were really annoyed that they're having to wait a long time for an actual member of the public.
But they really did say, no, we're not going to fake it.
And it would have been so easy and no one would have noticed.
And in that moment, it was literally just their personal integrity.
And it was really cool to see.
And I hope that's really widespread in the news business.
But it was just, for me, a really interesting example of you can make rules and you can have stuff, but in the end it's about people and their choices in the moment.
And the premise of the show was you would have this little earpiece in that someone could talk to you in.
So I would put an earpiece in the contestants and send them out.
And when they would be standing somewhere, I'd say, OK, can you hear me?
And they'd say, yes.
All right.
Here's what's going on.
And then these two guys came in with cameras.
They were holding cameras.
You are a reporter on the news.
Here's your scenario.
Someone called in a UFO sighting.
They saw a UFO sighting.
We brought in the cameras.
Unfortunately, that person went away.
So what you have to do is convince some member of the public that's around there to take that person's place and to say that they were the ones who saw this UFO. And you have to get them to say that they were taken aboard this UFO and that they were examined by aliens.
And so it was kind of funny.
They're like, okay, here we go.
All right, how do I do this?
What was shocking was how many people, when you put that camera on them, immediately said they would do it and immediately started just lying.
It could be that as well, but I think most likely it's they want to be on television so they could go home, set their DVR, and, you know, it's on, it's on, it's on, it's on!
I think for a lot of people in this day and age, that is just some sort of a weird ultimate goal, just to have that camera on them and then they go home and see it.
Right.
Whether it makes sense or not.
And for a lot of folks, it doesn't make sense.
A lot of folks, you know, it winds up ruining their lives.
You know, they find out how other people feel about them.
Plus, you expose yourself to the critique of millions of anonymous people filled with hate.
Filled with hate and disappointment of their own life and just ready to spew venom in your direction.
unidentified
They just can't wait to shit all over you, Steve Hilton.
We went out and made a little film just to test that out about the elections going on in LA. And we literally went up to people and made up candidates that were running for Congress.
And asked what they thought about that, you know, and what do you think of Angelina Jolie running for Congress?
And this guy, yeah, I was so excited when I heard that.
That's great.
You know, I think she's great.
And it's just that you can't believe how people just engage with these things.
And that's a real problem when it comes to politics or anything when you're allowing people to make choices that can affect others.
People are weird.
And a good percentage of them are really dumb and uninformed and not interested.
When you say dumb and uninformed, here's what I think when I say that.
When I'm saying dumb, what I mean is...
If the human mind is essentially, say if everyone has the exact same physical structure, the exact same genetics, the exact same hormonal system, and one person does yoga every day and eats healthy and does chin-ups in the morning when they wake up and drinks a lot of water,
and the other person sits in front of the TV, likes to smoke cigarettes, eats nothing but sugar, You get to see the results of one person being very aware of their body and taking care of their body and the other person not.
Well, you get that same effect with life.
You get that same effect with how you approach the world itself.
Some people approach the world through this lazy, disconnected, you know...
Like, pop culture obsessed, nonsensical, pop culture obsessed Jamie.
I'm talking to you, you fuck.
He's a little pop culture obsessed.
Not too bad.
Jamie's aware of a lot of other shit, too.
But some people, they don't enrich their life.
They don't enrich their mind.
They're not curious.
And those people, with all these poor decisions and drug addictions and the life's a mess, they have an equal say to the person who's rational and aware and kind and objective.
Equal say.
And I think that's one of the weirdest things about It's about communities, about culture.
It's about trying to figure out how do you mitigate the effects of the lazy?
How do you deal with the effects of the morons?
Like when you have a riot and people start pulling white people out of cars and throwing rocks at their heads, which they've had in Los Angeles in the past, especially after the Rodney King beating and things along those lines, just random white people just attack them.
How do you allow...
When you see these things can happen...
I'll just use that as an example.
It could be a million other things that are really stupid that people do.
How could it be that one person gets one vote and another person who is...
Very aware.
Another person is very educated.
Another person who's very kind and very sympathetic to all walks of life gets an equal vote.
One person could be a total racist.
You could go to a voting booth with a t-shirt on that says, fuck black people.
And you can vote.
And no one can stop you.
Especially if you have a shirt, sort of like a flannel shirt that's over the t-shirt that says fuck black people, so you have to really look hard to see fuck black people and you think you're getting over.
No one can stop you.
I think one of the things that they were trying to work around when they developed the concept of a representative democracy, the concept of America, a representative government, It's like, okay, let's sort of have some filters in place.
You're voting, but you're kind of voting on a representative, and the representative sort of votes for you.
It really reminds me, actually, the racist point you just made.
There was a really effective commercial for Rock the Vote, I remember, years ago in the UK, where...
I was back there at the time.
And they literally had some image of, it wasn't images like a TV ad, of a racist guy spewing racist stuff.
And then the tagline for the ad was, you'd better vote because you can be sure that he will.
It was a really, you know, good way of making that point.
But I think that generally, you know, those kind of people are the extreme.
I think the idea is that most people are not, you know, the kind of extreme end of it where they're either totally, you know, where their views are just completely abhorrent or they are just completely off the page in terms of their knowledge.
You got, you know, majority of people who are basically I think the problem is they just don't know enough about it.
The information they get is not interesting.
It's not presented in a good way.
There's other interesting things going on.
They're busy with their life.
You know, they want to get involved.
And so what happens, and I think it's happening more and more, is you end up with a smaller and smaller group of people who basically control the political system.
Because The mass of people are just not interested.
They're turned off.
They think that getting involved won't make any difference.
And so what you end up with is people with a lot of money, special interests, those who, you know, the kind of professionals of the political game running everything.
And that actually makes people even less inclined to get involved because they see what's happening and think, oh, well, why should I bother?
Yeah, and then people start saying things like, oh, the New World Order is in control anyway.
The Bilderberg Group is in control anyway.
There was some thing yesterday that was in the news where one of the members of the Bilderberg Group, I think he's some Dutch guy, had Some impromptu public discussion with all these people, and they start bringing out all these details of 9-11.
You know, 9-11, the building was brought down, thermite, and they circle this guy and start talking to him.
It's kind of fascinating, you know, this idea of the Illuminati, this idea of a small group of people controlling everyone through iconic symbolism and eyeballs inside of pyramids.
All that stuff becomes, in a lot of ways, a vehicle for feeling unempowered, for feeling disenfranchised.
Someone should challenge that, and what they should do is they should make some sort of a proposition banning shrimp.
You know?
Like, have these big signs in front of Red Lobster, you know, with Genesis, like, whatever the quote in the Bible that says here.
Because there's four times as many references to shellfish as there is to gay people.
There's, like, a lot of references to, like, you're not supposed to eat shrimp, but you can go to an all-you-need buffet and people right after church step right up.
And my point that I was trying to make kind of clumsily earlier was that it's kind of strange That we are so varied.
And it's kind of strange that everyone does get, like, if there's three of us in a room, you know, we have to all decide.
And if one of us is retarded, not literally, but are people with Down syndrome, are people that are, anyone that is, like, mentally compromised, are they allowed to vote?
I mean, the whole point of what you try and do with, you know, the criminal justice system and so on is to try and exactly, you know, rehabilitate people so they don't offend again.
Yeah, I think people are just so tired of people just fucking up that they're like, you know what, this is a good way to keep fuck-ups from voting.
The idea that we were talking about earlier that a person could be a racist, a person could be a complete nutter and still vote along with a person who's really kind and educated.
Their vote counts equally.
They're in a community.
As soon as that nutter robs something, it's a good way to cut him out of the system.
Alright, fuck that guy.
You can't vote anymore.
Which I guess kind of makes sense, but...
Maybe it's just a numbers thing.
If there was 10 people on an island, we would have to rehabilitate the guy who stole the coconuts.
We'd have to say, come on, man.
You can't be stealing everybody's coconuts.
This is a fucked up way to live your life.
You should contribute.
Stop stealing fish.
Stop stealing coconuts.
Get it together.
And then we'd let that guy be a part of the community.
By the way, I think it's an incredibly important point about...
About democracy generally, I think the closer it is to a real community where everyone knows each other, right?
Where the decisions are made kind of by people who can look the other person in the eye and all that.
I think they're going to be better.
I think one of the problems is that you've got these big, big systems and they're kind of really far from the human level where that kind of trust can be established.
And that is one of the problems with a lot of things in government and politics.
It's all just too big and removed from that human scale.
Well, that's a problem with a lot of things when it comes to human beings, this diffusion of responsibility that comes with being a part of a massive group, like war.
The idea that if there's 300 million of us and a million of us are overseas, you know, fighting for freedom...
You could deal with that because it's not happening in Calabasas.
You could go to work and you could deal with your life and the scope of your world doesn't come up.
But you're kind of peripherally aware that this is happening somewhere else.
But if people in Van Nuys were going to war with people in Studio City, and it was only a couple miles away, and you had to deal with that, then it would be something we would have to try to calm down.
We'd have to try to deal with this.
Like, what the fuck's going on here?
Like, what are we doing here?
It's something you have to deal with.
But the sheer number of human beings that are involved in the world today and in communities and cultures, it's almost unmanageable.
It's unmanageable for a person who's not designed for that.
We're designed essentially to deal with our immediate atmosphere.
We're designed to deal with small tribes of people.
Friends, family, the people that you know, the people that you keep close.
And when you get past that, it's almost like, I don't know what to do with this.
And so we pass the buck off to some representative.
Don't work because they get away from the point where you can really know the other person or the group that you're with.
There's some guy in England, I think at Cambridge University, did some research about the maximum number of people that you can really have any kind of human relationship with at any one time.
I think he got to a number of 150. Dunbar's number.
Is that right?
So you know more about it than I do.
I thought that was just a really interesting perspective on it, which is that after that, it just gets too diffuse.
It's really the last kind of, well, definitely the last hundred years, but, you know, and it's just getting faster and faster, you know, this kind of everything becoming really kind of organized at this sort of inhuman level.
Yeah, I think that's a really good summary of it, which is that basically we think that when you talk to people about politics, one of the things they say is that we just don't know enough about it.
We don't know enough information generally, but we don't have information we can trust.
We have all this spin and ads and all the rest of it from the politicians.
We can't really believe them.
There's all this stuff around on the internet.
I don't know what to believe.
So what we're trying to do is give people really objective information that they can rely on to figure out where the politicians are on the issues that they care about.
And the thing that we found from our research is that one of my co-founders, Adam, who's a professor at Stanford, has been working on this for many years and basically what he's shown is that the best way to predict what a politician will do if they're elected is to look at where they get their money and to look at also who they give money to because most politicians also kind of donate to other candidates so if you look at all that Campaign finance information,
the money behind this politician.
That is going to give you the best guide to what they're really going to do in office.
And it's something that you can actually, what we're trying to do is like turn that into really simple information that you can, without kind of reading tons of stuff and doing loads of research, you can get a quick snapshot of who these people are.
And then in time, the other thing we want to do is make it possible for you to find The politicians that are really good or bad on the issues that you care about and get involved in their campaigns.
Because the other thing is that you've got a tiny, tiny number of people who are funding all these campaigns.
If you look at the total number of people who put money into politics, it's a really small number compared to the number of people who vote and then the number of adults in the whole country.
It's a tiny number that are funding it all.
And even within that, most of the money comes from an even smaller number.
And they're paying for all of this.
And they're getting the outcomes that they pay for.
And so some people say, right, you've got to get money out of politics.
You've just got to get it out.
And obviously, that is something that has a lot of appeal.
You can see why you'd want to do that.
There's a brilliant guy called Larry Lessig.
I don't know if you've come across what he's been doing.
And he's been arguing about this for years.
And he's been saying, He's at Harvard.
He's a brilliant campaigner on this issue of money and politics.
And he's been saying, if you think about any problem in America today, whatever the issue is that you care about, if that's gay marriage or the environment, or it doesn't matter what it is, you're not going to get anywhere in terms of solving that problem unless you deal with the first problem, which is the money.
Because the money in politics stops the proper solutions from being developed.
Because what it means is that you've got these special interests, whether that's left or right, it doesn't matter whether it's big businesses or unions, it doesn't matter.
They want their particular outcome and they're buying it through the system.
So we've got to get the money out.
And he's got a campaign around that and he wants public funding for elections and so on.
And all that is kind of a noble aim, I guess.
But my feeling is that that's a really hard sell.
Because you've got a constitution that says it's free speech.
You're allowed to give money to politicians and we can't just kind of stop that.
You've got to let people donate to politicians.
And so our take on it is to say, well, if you can't take the money out, let's at least dilute the influence of the people there right now by letting more people, making it easier for more people to get involved and give money to these candidates so they are not dependent On these big donors with their particular interests.
And that's really what we're trying to do is kind of make it easier for people to get involved in politics so that they can really, you know, get these politicians off this hook they're on, which is that their dependence on these donors for their campaign spending, which means that once they're elected, it's kind of inevitable that they pay attention to them rather than the people who elected them.
In a lot of ways, it mirrors the influence that the internet has had on the news itself.
Because the news used to be distributed only through these proper channels, whether it was NBC, CBS, and then the cable news networks, CNN, Fox, and all this jazz.
But now, it's become this thing where websites develop, Huffington Post, all these, the Young Turks, which is an internet-based news show, and they have no censorship, they have no restrictions, they have no influence other than the ones that they choose to accept.
Or the ideas that they bring.
And they have the same amount of distribution that everybody else does.
And you can have a website, just, you know, mikesfuckhead.com, and put it up.
And if enough people find it valid and interesting, he can have a million hits a day, unique visits a day.
And it might be more than CNN gets.
And just simply because of the fact that it's good information...
But what I was getting at is that The same way the internet has sort of interfered with the distribution of information.
Look at what's going on with this Edward Snowden case.
This is a perfect example.
This massive change in the way the entire country looks at the NSA and government spying was done by one man leaking information to one guy in one source which spread through the internet and then boom it blossoms this huge news story that was essentially if he had sent that same story through the proper channels like the New York Times or CNN they would have ignored the fuck out of it they would have figured
out a way to cover that thing and throw it under the rug and staple that rug down and light it on fire I mean what he did was Figure out a way to distribute things through this new channel.
And essentially, that's what the internet is doing with voting.
Before, something like the internet came along, it was very difficult to find out who the influences of all these different individual candidates were.
With something like CrowdPak, It becomes much more easy and that also will change the way these people interact with these corporations.
And that hasn't really happened to politics yet, but that is what we're trying to do because, and others as well, it's not just us, but I, you know, I think that we've got something interesting here, which is this way of giving people objective information about the candidates based on who gives them money.
But, but overall, we're part of this movement of trying to really put power in people's hands through technology.
And I'm sure it's going to happen.
I'm really sure because people want it.
You know, they are sick of just feeling that they don't get any response and that these people over here control everything.
And nothing ever really changes.
And actually the politicians themselves, in my experience, they, you know, you'd think, well, maybe I would say this because I used to work in politics myself for the Prime Minister in the UK, so I kind of know them.
They kind of used to be my world.
That used to be my world.
My feeling is that generally the politicians actually hate this just as much as everyone else.
They hate the fact that they have to spend so much time raising money.
You know, literally there was this document that was leaked To the New York Times, I think, a while back, from the Democratic leadership in Congress, where they gave a kind of guide to the newly elected members of Congress about how they should spend their time.
And it was a recommendation.
To the newly elected members of Congress, and it went through how many hours a day they should spend on different types of activity, you know, thinking about policy, talking to constituents, this kind of thing.
Half of the time, it was four hours, was recommended that they spend on fundraising.
And so the people who go into politics, they don't want to live like that.
They actually hate it.
They hate, you know, being shoved in a room, which is what happens, and being, they call it dialing for dollars, you know, like just literally sitting on the phone trying to raise money.
You can talk to some people who know more about it.
So I think actually the politicians themselves mostly...
I hate the system.
And so I think that there's a lot of effort actually in Congress to try and encourage more small donors and make it easier for people to give money because actually that's what they want too.
They don't like being beholden to these big donors and these companies.
I mean, a lot of the things that I was trying to do when I was in the government in the UK, and it's kind of part of what we're doing with CrowdPak, is trying to encourage that even distribution, that more even distribution of power, and redistribute power from The kind of traditional sources of power and central leadership and putting power in people's hands so that they can control more and more aspects of their life because in the end they'll make better decisions overall.
And it's also just more healthy, I think.
Going back to what we were saying earlier about...
You know, the way people can only know a small number of people.
And if you give them power to shape more of the things that happen in their lives, I think that actually they will take more responsibility.
They'll be more responsible in a community sense.
You'll just see everything get better if you take power out of the hands of these sort of leaders and central organizations and put it in the hands of people.
I think there's also an issue of it being overwhelming, the amount of information that you have to absorb whenever you deal with political issues, whenever you deal with campaigns, whenever you deal with new elections.
You're given this pamphlet of different people and the different propositions that are up for vote, and you just get overwhelmed.
Especially if you have a job that's taxing as it is, and you have a family, and you're thinking about golfing on the weekend.
God, I'd like to go golfing.
And you look at all this bullshit, and like, oh, I can't even pay attention to this.
Is everything okay right now?
Yes.
Well, fucking, let me just get this over with, and let's hope everything stays okay.
And very few people take responsibility for what gets voted in.
It's easy to say, Oh, the voters are lazy or whatever they should do.
But honestly, like you said, they've got real lives to live and they haven't got time for all this stuff.
And that is a really big part of why we want to make it simple.
You know, we're assuming that people want to spend less time Doing this stuff, not more time.
And I think a lot of the kind of organizations and people that have tried to get people, you know, mobilized, you know, civic organization and that kind of thing, you know, it's worked to a certain extent with some people, but for the majority of people, they just don't want to do it.
They can't do it, actually.
They're literally too busy.
With things that are higher priorities like their kids and their family and their job or whatever it may be.
Hobbies, doesn't matter.
It's stuff that they choose to do and that's fine.
That's their life and we shouldn't kind of require that you have to spend ages figuring out This political stuff.
And that's why we're trying to make it really simple for people.
But based on quite a lot of complex...
And that's what technology allows you to do.
You can take quite a lot of complex data and information, like we're doing with the campaign finance records, where it's literally hundreds of millions of pieces of information, and we're boiling it down into one piece of information, which is a score, like where is this candidate On the scale of liberal to conservative, where do they sit and where are they on each issue?
That's what we're trying to do to make it really simple.
Isn't it sort of analogous in a way to what we were talking about, about the amount of people that you can keep in your brain, the Dunbar's number, is that if you lived in a small tribe, say if we all lived 50 of us together in some small village somewhere, We really wouldn't have votes about gay marriage, and we really wouldn't have votes about...
There'd be a million different things that would never be up for vote.
And if someone really did start micromanaging everyone's lives, you'd be like, hey, you know, Mike is an asshole.
We gotta kick him out of this fucking tribe.
This guy's trying to get people to wear purple and, you know, wear certain Nikes during different moon cycles and make tribal rules and rituals and make all these things standard.
And, you know, for whatever reason, he doesn't like men sleeping with men.
One of these experiments that happened was in Holland.
I think I'll get that right.
In Europe.
And they did this brilliant experiment with traffic where they, in a town, I think it was Friesland or something like that.
I probably got that wrong.
Where they literally took away all the traffic signals.
All of them.
Everything, right?
They took away traffic lights.
They even took, you know, stop signs, everything.
Even the markings on the road.
So they took away the white line in the middle of the road.
Everything.
All gone.
And their theory was that without that kind of external rule-making and kind of stuff going on to tell you what to do, people would have to Kind of relate to each other as other people and just figure it out amongst themselves.
So they would have to look other people in the eye and sort of work it out between them.
And they found they had this brilliant effect, which was that...
Accidents fell to zero.
The traffic speed was lower, but the traffic flow was much better.
It just worked all around.
All the kind of things that you try and do when all these people think about traffic planning and whatever, they achieved all those aims by literally taking everything away and just allowing people to relate to each other.
As humans.
That's fascinating.
I thought it was such a great little story and I think that you could do that in all sorts of areas.
If you just leave it to people to figure it out on a small scale where they can relate to each other, you just get a much better result.
Whereas everyone in Friesland or wherever the fuck that place was in Holland, those people probably all know each other.
It's a small area.
There's not a lot.
When you get to some weird number like the 20 million people that live in the greater Los Angeles area, That's too crazy.
It's too nutty.
And there's nothing less human than a light, a stoplight.
Red means stop.
Green means go.
Wait.
Look at it.
It's green.
Go!
I mean, it's so disconnected from human interaction.
And without it, we become crippled.
There's no better chance that you're going to run into a traffic stop or a traffic jam than if a cop is directing.
If there's a cop that's standing there telling you people go forward and you people stop, for sure that guy's fucking that intersection up sideways.
Every time I go into one of those situations where a light is down and there's a cop standing there, it's a fucking disaster.
Whereas if it was just a light, if it's just red light, green light, everything seems to work because we're sort of programmed to wait for that light and then go.
I completely agree with the way you put it, that there's tons of them that are great, and then there are others that totally abuse their position.
It's another really interesting example of how technology can be really helpful in a way.
I saw that they're trying to do it in here, the LAPD, that if you put the cameras on and you can't mess around with them, That's a really powerful incentive.
They were having lights like if you were going through the light as it was yellow and it turned red, they would flash.
So if your wheels were not, you know, if they were in front of the line, you hadn't made it across before the light turned red, they would give you a ticket.
But it turned out to be a private company that was actually profiting from these tickets.
And so they deemed that unconstitutional and they removed all those lights.
But people were just in a goddamn uproar.
It was just madness.
Everywhere you go, you'd see flashes going off at traffic lights.
And all it was was revenue.
It wasn't preventing people from running lights or preventing people from gunning it when the light turns yellow.
It was just fucking people out of their money.
And it was just one more thing where they complicate the system further.
They add one more element that makes it one more thing that you have to think about, one more little piece of control.
And one more dehumanizing aspect.
People like freedom.
And one of the reasons why people like freedom is because freedom isn't just the freedom to do as you wish.
It's the freedom to not have to think about a bunch of other shit and be influenced by a bunch of other shit that takes your time away and takes your energy away.
And I think that's where we're at when it comes to a lot of these propositions and a lot of these Really uber-complicated things that are involved in our day-to-day lives.
It's like we've complicated ourselves to this point of almost of no return and where there's very few alternatives.
Yeah, and I think that the thing that happens then is that they've complicated it.
Then it's not working and they say, oh, we better try and fix it.
Then the fixing of it makes it even more complicated.
And then a new government comes in or a new governor or whoever it may be.
And instead of actually just stopping and thinking, you know what, we've just got to rethink the whole thing and start from scratch and just not tinker with it anymore and try and improve it because it's just going to make it more complicated.
That never happens.
There's never really enough time for that to happen.
They're not there.
They're only thinking about the next couple of years and the next election or whatever.
And so things just get even more complicated.
And they never seem to get to that point where people think, yeah, that's really working great now.
My wife and I went out to this restaurant the other night, and the restaurant was this...
We were noticing that there's this theme that's going on in a lot of restaurants where they have, like, this rustic thing going on where they have old-school lights, the filaments in them, and then they have hardwood tables and wrought iron this and metal that, and...
And I was like, I think people are sort of reacting to this fabricated world that we've created and we long for this simplicity.
That's why there's these shows like these Alaska shows where people living on the frontier and they're fucking collecting wood and fighting off wolves.
It's like we almost long for that simplicity above this world that we've complicated to this almost unmanageable point.
And you see in so many areas that, I mean, like food is a great example where there's all this kind of stuff about organic food and seasonal and local and grow it in your garden.
And that whole movement, I think, is a reaction.
I mean, if you think about food, like years ago, Like in the fifties, I think, you know, it was all about, um, you know, let's have all the kind of TV package food and all this kind of industrialized food that was then seen as better because it was, you know, scientific and hygienic and like really kind of good for you.
And then people are now just thinking that is just really horrible.
This is all the chemicals.
It's disgusting.
Now the movement is all for this kind of, uh, local organic food.
It made me laugh though, because my family from Hungary, And so when I was a kid, we used to go back to Hungary the whole time.
It was a communist country.
And there were no food stores, loads of choice and everything.
And you would go in the store and it was just, you know, what you got.
Just a few sort of vegetables and it was just very basic.
And now, I remember the other day, walking around in San Francisco, and there's the kind of farmer's market thing going on, and they had their kind of ugly vegetables and whatever put out there.
And it just looked exactly like the Hungarian communist food shop.
But here in San Francisco, it's the most expensive, fancy, amazing food that you can get.
But it just makes me laugh, really.
I think a lot of it is just...
You know, a reaction to what's gone before.
And we're currently, I think you're totally right, in this kind of sense of it's just gone too far, the whole industrialization of so many different aspects of our lives.
Well, it's also we're starting to realize where people live in cities and they look around and they see all these buildings and they see this asphalt and they see these telephone poles and they go, there's no food here.
We have to bring in the food.
Like this is kind of crazy.
And then you get on top of a building and you look around at how far the no food here area is.
It's pretty goddamn big.
And then you look at all the different people that live in the no food here area that require food.
You're like, fuck, we got to feed these fucking people.
And then you go, where's this water coming from?
And then you go, oh, it comes from Colorado.
What?
The water comes from fucking what?
It comes from the Colorado River.
Oh, no!
So the only way we get water in California is we have to take it from thousands of miles away.
This is a crazy place to be.
We're in this unsustainable environment.
And new people move here every day.
New thousand people every day.
Boom, boom, boom.
Set up a fucking house, build this, another structure, boom.
And then we slowly push out our no food here area deeper and deeper into the desert.
No one's thinking about where this goes.
So far, so good.
Sustainable.
Go to the farmer's market.
You can get plenty of good groceries.
But very bizarre.
If there's somehow or another some cutoff of our oil supply, some way where we can't travel as easily anymore, we're in a real rut.
It's not a good spot.
Ideally, every neighborhood should have a couple of acres.
There's a brilliant guy, I don't know if you've come across him, called Nassim Taleb.
He wrote this book called The Black Swan.
He's a mathematician and he was in the financial markets.
And he really kind of predicted the crash and understood all that, and he's just great.
And one of his big points is that these big systems that we've ended up with, and the word he uses are they're completely fragile.
They look kind of big and solid, but actually we're so dependent on them It makes us really fragile.
If they collapse or fall over or whatever, whether that's a company or some government system, we're really screwed because we're so dependent.
And that's really a kind of fragile situation.
And so that's definitely one of the reasons I sort of love what he writes about and talks about is that he's arguing for exactly that kind of thing, you know, making sure that companies don't get too big to fail, not just in the financial sector.
A lot of people have talked about that with the banks.
There's too big to fail argument.
But in every area with the food system and other types of businesses where we're so dependent, if something went wrong, we couldn't cope with it.
And when you have small distributed, it's just like we were talking earlier about the power being distributed.
It's not just voting power and political power.
It's economic power.
It's social power.
Every type of power.
It's just going to be much better for us if it's distributed more broadly.
While you're over here in America and you're enjoying our fine country, you should go see our biggest disaster.
Because Detroit at one point in time was this economic stronghold for America.
It's where we built Camaros and Corvettes and Firebirds.
And it was this place where America built what it built best, which is besides buildings, it's cars.
America built cars.
And it all fucking fell apart.
It fell apart when they started moving jobs to Mexico and other countries.
It fell apart when they started producing shittier and shittier cars And when there's all sorts of complications with unions and with a million different problems.
And then slowly but surely they started diminishing these factories.
And there's a really interesting documentary.
I don't know if you watched Michael Moore's first documentary, Roger and Me.
Did you ever see that?
Roger and Me was all about Flint, Michigan.
It was about his hometown where they closed down these plants.
And then these people went into immediate massive poverty.
And it was a huge, huge issue.
And if you go to Detroit today, you could buy a house for $500.
And I'm not bullshitting.
They had houses for sale.
I was there, $500.
And it's a mess.
It's a real mess.
I mean, there's areas where they're trying to gentrify these areas, and they're building local businesses, and they're trying to encourage growth.
And, you know, I mean, if a company wanted to move there, you have a massive amount of people that are looking for jobs and cheap land.
And it's a good idea.
It's a good place to start, but very, very difficult to encourage people to do so.
So, Detroit shows how easy things can fall apart.
And there's been a bunch of blogs that have been created, websites where they've shown How these trees and nature are taking over these areas that used to be populated where trees are growing through buildings.
Bears are moving into these areas that used to have, you know, towns.
And bears are slowly starting moving their way into Detroit.
And it's fucking crazy.
Yeah, but...
That shows you how easily it could all fall apart, whereas, you know, 50, 60 years ago, here's an image that Jamie just put up.
These are trees that are growing Inside of this abandoned building.
They're just growing through the floor, and eventually they'll make their way through the roof, and the roof will rot, and it just shows you how easy it is for nature to reclaim areas that human beings feel like, well, this is a city now.
No, it's a city for now.
You know, it's not a city now.
It's not permanently a city.
This is...
Trees just grow...
You ever go to the airport, drive down Sepulveda?
There's areas where it's really old roads, and these trees have grown up through the sidewalks so bad that the sidewalks are...
You know, you can't walk on them.
I mean, they're like ramps, because the tree has slowly but surely lifted up the concrete of the sidewalk, and it's trying to reclaim this area that they've put this stupid rock paste over.
But then you've got a huge problem with the crime.
It's just so interesting how you have a city that is so great in so many ways, and they've got this sort of pocket of real poverty and crime, and that's been going on for years, and despite all the other advantages, and they've got a lot of, you know, Great economic growth going on there, and so on.
And people visiting, and it's great.
But they've still got this entrenched problem with crime and gun violence.
And it's interesting how long it takes for some of these problems to be worked out.
I think it's one of the more kind of interesting ways into that whole drug legalization argument is to think about the social problems that come from the current rules.
Not just, you know, a lot of times people talk about drug use being a social problem, but actually it's everything that comes from it.
The crime and the gangs and that's, I think, the most intelligent argument for legalization.
Yeah, and there was a real interesting article recently about Mexico.
They were talking about the cartels like hemorrhaging money because they relied on marijuana trade and now with legal marijuana, just the legal marijuana in Colorado and in Washington State and then all the medical places have massively diminished the amount of influence.
That these guys have.
The amount of wealth that they can get from selling illegal drugs.
Because people don't need it anymore.
It's super easy to get.
So like the marijuana trade, which is one of the most common drugs, is kind of drying up for them.
And so they're scrambling to try to find some other avenues of revenue.
It's pretty interesting stuff.
Because it just shows people, this is what you do when you make things illegal.
We should have figured it out in the 1920s with Prohibition.
I mean, it's amazing that people are so goofy today that they still are dealing with the same issue that they kind of resolved in the 1920s.
Almost a hundred years ago, they figured this out with alcohol, and they have to relearn the same lesson with cannabis.
It's just...
It's nutty.
And it's, again, it's another thing where it's a personal issue where you have just too many goddamn laws.
You have too many restrictions on personal freedom.
I think that the politicians have been put off for a long time from doing anything about it by the kind of reaction that they'll think they'll get from certain parts of the press and so on.
But actually, I think that's changing, and it's changing really quickly here in America.
The fact that you've got these ballot measures That are winning in different states, and that's just going to accelerate, I think.
Not just that, the amount of revenue they pull in.
With no resistance whatsoever, Colorado has 39% tax revenue on marijuana that's sold recreationally.
39%.
And everyone there is like, okay.
39% is cool.
No one's arguing over the most preposterous sales rate ever.
39% is fucking crazy.
It's basically the government is a drug dealer.
I mean, that's what it is.
You're not just taking taxes.
You're fucking a partner.
You're a partner in this.
39% is a big partner.
You're at almost 40%.
And then they're making over $100 million a year in tax revenue just in the state of Colorado.
So when that kind of money starts coming in, then that money has influence.
And then they have to respect the pot dollar because the pot dollar is going to be a lobby just like anything else, just like the pharmaceutical lobby, just like the natural resource lobby, just like anything else.
The pot lobby is going to be legit now.
Because there's going to be a tremendous amount of revenue available.
And big business.
There's big businesses that are moving into Colorado right now and establishing warehouse.
Warehouse spaces in Colorado are just evaporating.
They're disappearing left and right because people are just picking them up.
The way Colorado's laws are set up, in order to sell marijuana, you have to grow marijuana.
So if you wanted to open up a shop in Colorado, you'd have to grow your own stuff and then sell it.
You can't buy it from someone else and then sell it.
So they're just giant warehouses everywhere being scooped up and they're setting up these massive grow ops and then they're funneling that money because it's being sold legally.
They're funneling that money right back in the state at a rate of 39%.
It's crazy.
And huge companies are slowly but surely creeping their way towards Colorado because they realize this is a multi-billion dollar industry in just a couple of years.
You're looking at three, four, five years from now, a multi-billion dollar industry nationwide currently Places where they're having serious money issues, serious problems with generating tax revenue, all of the sudden, all the profits that are going to illegal sales of marijuana, now 39% of that money is going to come right to the taxpayers, or right to the tax collectors.
They're gonna think, I don't need to shoot that dude.
Guy's an asshole, but whatever.
That's his problem.
You know, look, it's never good to suppress people.
And when you have something that's irrational, like marijuana laws...
It gives people this feeling of frustration, this disconnect.
It gives them this feeling of being disenfranchised with the people that are supposedly in charge.
And it makes them upset.
Like, why should a grown man be able to come?
If there was only two of us, we were living on an island.
And I was like, Steve, I don't think you should smoke pot.
If you smoke pot, I'm going to lock you in a fucking cage.
He'd be like, you're an asshole.
What do you give a shit what I do?
It's when there's two million of us that you feel like you can get away with something like that.
That someone can come along and say, I'm the sheriff, and if I find someone smoking marijuana in my district, I'm going to put them under lock and key.
I'm going to make our streets safe for the children.
But what I'm interested in is like just coming to, you know, I've been here two years now, but I do get a feeling that that is a really quite kind of almost mainstream position.
A lot of people feel like that in America.
Maybe it's a California thing.
I don't know.
But then I'm interested why the libertarian movement, you know, the political expression of that kind of attitude is the libertarian party, the candidates.
They don't seem to get anywhere.
They don't seem to do well, even though that kind of attitude feels to me like it's really very kind of true to the American approach to things and is shared by a lot of people.
And this newfound freedom, this newfound ability to access information, it's going to take a while.
I think people are evolving right now.
I really do.
Socially, at a rate that's just unheard of.
The kind of movements that you're seeing now...
Whether you agree with them or not, whether it's Operation Wall Street or whether it's...
Anytime there's a social change or social movement in this country, whether you agree with it or not, it's fascinating to step back and watch this swarm of activity that takes place because of any issue that comes up now that...
Really couldn't happen before without, you know, you'd have to have like a physical meeting.
You'd have to have people would get together and someone would have to have a megaphone.
unidentified
What we need to do is take back the streets.
What we need to do is make the world safe for our children and we need to get out of Vietnam.
You know, and then, you know, the cops come and break it up and hose everybody down and they would shut down the problem.
You can't do that anymore.
You can't shut down the problems because the problem exists on Reddit.
The problem exists on millions of people's Twitter accounts where they're posting things.
The problem exists on Facebook.
The problem exists anytime there's dissent, that dissent sort of encapsulates An entire group of people that share these ideas and they can freely communicate.
And I think they're just starting to realize that they can freely communicate the way they can.
And unfortunately, a lot of them are annoying.
Unfortunately, a lot of people that have figured this out are annoying.
And you see these really dumb ideas that spread like wildfire and a bunch of idiots are behind it.
That's fascinating to watch too.
But I think ultimately, when it all balances itself out, we're going to deal with a much more informed, much more educated, much more aware, much more socially conscious society than we have ever had in the past.
I think a decade from now, two decades from now, we're going to see the rewards of this.
The way we're thinking about it is that we want to kind of...
Now, the next step really is to really take that energy and really direct it into the heart of the political system.
Not kind of on the edges of it with kind of protests and sort of social movements, but really getting into the guts of the way laws are made and the way the country is run, the states are run, cities are run.
And kind of injecting it into the real heart of power.
I mean, I wonder if the way technology is advancing and the way technological innovation seems to exponentially increase, if there's some way to manage things in a way that's sort of not discovered yet or sort of hasn't been No one's figured out a way to sort of organize this whole thing in a way that's much clearer.
And now we're dealing...
It's almost like code.
Like, do you remember what code used to look like when you used to use DOS and if you used an old computer, you had to enter everything and command prompts?
But then someone came along, like Xerox, figured out this graphic user interface.
You just, well, fuck all that.
See that thing?
Just double, just press twice when you want that to open up, and boom.
And then you'll see a graphic representation of what you want that's a much more simplistic element.
You don't have to look at all the code behind what you're doing when you're using Microsoft Word.
Cut all that shit out.
Let's just see...
Let's make it real simple.
And if we could get it to that in politics, like, okay, what would we have to do to make more money go towards school and less money go towards...
Is there a way we could work that out?
If you look at how much money is being spent in the Iraq War, how much money is being spent in Afghanistan, is there a way to take 30% of that and put it into our schools?
Because, my God, the school system would radically change.
Our education system would radically change.
The amount of people that would come out of these educational systems that were more balanced, more aware, had more nuanced perspectives, would radically change.
Our country would radically improve.
Like, over the course of a decade, if you could just figure out a way to put that kind of power in people's hands, what they choose to do.
Well, I think the way that you do that, it comes back to what we were saying earlier.
Is actually literally doing it by getting rid of these kind of big organisations, central government organisations that try and run the whole system from some office somewhere that's completely removed from the parents and the kids that are actually using the schools and really give responsibility.
For the way the schools operate to local communities so that they can try things out because every kid is different.
They learn in different ways.
It feels to me like when it comes to education, we've got this approach, which is someone has decided, you know, this is the theory.
This is how we're going to get kids to learn whatever it may be.
And we're going to try and have...
A kind of common application of that in every school, and everyone's going to teach the same way, and that's great.
And I just think the evidence shows that is not right.
It doesn't work for every kid, and you want to have a system where you've got much more ability to experiment and try things out and adapt things to each...
I think a community approach to these things is going to be the way to do it.
You definitely need the money, of course, to have high quality as well.
So I agree with that.
It's just that if you just put more money into the current system of organizing schools, I don't think you'll get the kind of benefit that you could if you actually gave the power.
Over the system and took it away from the people at the center and put it in the hands of people locally.
You could see, like, these people have an approach and their approach is more sort of Waldorf school based and less electronics and more wooden toys and interacting with kids.
And look at the benefits, like, man, all these people are coming out so creative.
But then there's another place in San Francisco that's much more tech involved.
Everybody has an iPad and all these kids.
Well, there's a benefit there as well.
I mean, I think schools are a huge issue.
The massive underfunding of education in this country is a huge, huge issue.
And it's madness.
And it's almost like...
Sort of ensuring that poverty and that this is going to be...
In this country, the prohibitive cost of higher education is shocking.
When you start thinking about how much money it costs to go to college, how much money it costs to get a degree, and you accumulate student loans that are almost insurmountable.
How many people get out of college in this country?
And it's beautiful to hear that they do something along those lines.
And it's also beautiful to hear that I believe it was MIT has released all of its studies online.
You can take all of its classes online for free.
I mean, you can essentially get an MIT education through your home computer, which is very nice.
It's very nice that that...
And if you think about the amount of access that people have to higher education today when it comes to online courses, when it comes to just papers that they could read and download, documentaries they can watch, different things that they can read, it's kind of incredible.
Yeah, and it's actually really powerful in not just thinking about America, but people in the States who wouldn't have had that access before.
But actually, all over the world, in Africa, where you're just able to bring instruction and the best people in the world, the best teachers, to the most remote village in Africa is completely staggering.
I've always had a fascination with the power that someone has in the position of being a professor.
And especially a professor with tenure, where they have this job that essentially is very difficult to get fired from.
I mean, you have to really do something really fucked up to lose your position.
And because of that, some of them, and I've had friends that have had these professors, some of them get these incredibly arrogant attitudes, and they...
Push their ideas as if they're doctrine.
And they push their own political ideas and their own ideology, oftentimes a very left-wing liberal agenda to the point where it just infuriates certain parents and infuriates people who disagree with these ideas, who get silenced because, you know, it's the professor's word and that is it.
I mean, you know, to me, the whole point is You should be equipping the students to think for themselves and to kind of come to their own point of view, but give them the tools that they can do that with, and go out and then use that knowledge and ability to do great things in the world, not to kind of tell them your point of view.
Well, you can tell them your point of view, but make clear that it is your point of view, and there are other points of view, and it's up to them to decide what they think.
I love this speech that Mike Bloomberg gave the other, I think it was last week.
Did you see this?
He went to Harvard and he gave a commencement speech, I think, to Harvard where he really attacked them on this point.
And said that they had this kind of liberal bias in the faculty there that was just really bad and the opposite of it.
And he had this great piece of data which was that if you look at, going back to campaign finance, if you look at the campaign finance records, because everyone's donations are reported and when you make a political donation, You have to say what your occupation is.
So you know it's quite easy to look at types of professions or whatever and where their money goes.
And he got this piece of data which was that if you look at the political donations of Ivy League faculty and staff And you look at where the money went in the last election, the figure for how much went to Obama was 96%.
The problem is the alternative was far more offensive.
If it went to John McCain and Sarah Palin, that 4% is the problem.
Believe it or not.
In this country, I mean, Obama's...
I'm not a fan of what this administration has become.
Especially when it deals with freedom of the press, when it deals with whistleblowers, when it deals with spying on Americans, like all the revelation that we found out about the lack of privacy that people have.
I'm not a fan of that at all.
But goddamn, having Sarah Palin as the vice president of the fucking United States would have been disastrous.
Having an old man who's playing poker while they're talking about going to war with Syria.
He was literally sitting on his phone playing poker.
You know?
I mean, what the fuck?
That was the president?
That was the vice president?
Those two dummies?
I mean, that's a disaster.
That's a fucking goddamn disaster.
So...
Of course the most educated amongst them went for the lesser of two evils, being Obama, being a guy who is a very articulate and intelligent guy who's a whore.
I mean, essentially, that's what Obama is.
What he is is a guy who's this very intelligent, articulate guy who had these ideas and promoted this ideology, got into office, and did essentially exactly what Bush did.
I mean, in worse, when it comes to whistleblowers.
Well, you know, all the things that we're going to do, we're going to close down Guantanamo Bay, we're going to get out of Afghanistan.
It turns out most of it was bullshit.
Most of it...
This country has a horrible record, and this administration has a horrible record on freedom of the press, a horrible record on punishing whistleblowers.
And it's the lack of...
The lack of respect for journalism and freedom of the press is very disturbing to people, because what is journalism truly?
Well, what it truly is, is you're exposing reality.
What a true journalist is doing is exposing reality.
When you punish people for doing that, when you punish people for blowing the whistle on, with essentially unconstitutional activities, like the NSA spying on every single fucking person on the planet.
And it's really important that we're non-partisan.
So while we've got a strong point of view about the system generally and how we can improve it, we don't really...
We don't take sides.
We don't have a point of view as a company about individual issues.
But I think that we do really care about changing the system.
And I think that one of the things about the press that sort of happens, and I've seen this on kind of both sides of it, is that there tends to be this kind of coziness that develops with a lot of the press, particularly the traditional press, where they want to Have access to the politicians, and the politicians want to get their message out, and it just gets quite kind of cozy.
And so that whole role of investigation and exposing things kind of sometimes takes a back seat to having a good relationship so that you can get your message out and they get access.
And I think that that's one of the things, again, that's really helpfully being changed by technology, like you were saying, which is that you've got people who are able to do that job of investigation without having to be part of some Cozy group around the politician.
unidentified
Yeah, that's going to lob softballs at every politician in the interview.
If you see it from the politician's point of view, their point of view, and there's a lot of truth to it, is that they're trying to do stuff.
It's really, really hard.
Trying to deal with some of these problems is difficult.
There's incredible expectations.
You get shit for just trying.
You're totally under scrutiny.
Your life is under scrutiny.
It's a really, really hard job.
And they feel that increasingly the media and the press are just interested in the trivial aspects of it and who's up and who's down and they're not really interested in kind of exposing the complexity of some of these issues.
So that's how the politicians see it.
And then on the other side, and that's why they end up trying to, you know, have a relationship that enables them to, in the way they see it, to explain what they're trying to do a bit better.
So that they, so people kind of give them a fairer hearing.
So that's why that all happens.
And, you know, there's a lot of...
There's a lot of truth to that, to be honest.
It is difficult what they're trying to do.
Whatever your liberal Democrat or a conservative part does, it makes no difference.
It's difficult.
Governing is difficult.
It's complicated.
The problems are complicated.
Everyone's got their point of view.
You're kind of being screamed at and yelled at the whole time.
And it's hard.
Now, look, they choose to go into it.
So we cannot feel sorry for them.
You know, they made that choice.
Like you said, they have that kind of, I'm going to be the leader and I'm going to go there and sort things out.
So it's the choice that they made.
But it is difficult.
And that's why they want to, you know, try and control the message, I think, because they feel that a lot of the time they don't get a fair hearing.
Well, that makes sense in some ways, but it doesn't make sense from the point of view of the people that are in the position of being a journalist.
If you're in the position of being a journalist, your whole position is to expose inequality, expose violations of the Constitution.
And when you're in one of those places where you Whether it's for CNN or Fox News or whoever you're working for, if you get to sit down with Dick Cheney or you get to sit down with Obama, you're already muted.
You're already neutered.
You're already silenced.
You don't get that chance.
They're never going to have Glenn Greenwald sit down with Obama in an open internet forum that airs in real time live.
They shot a few people and parked some cars on railroad tracks with families in them, and then people kind of stopped doing that.
I think that guys like Glenn Greenwald, who lives in Brazil and gets to sort of attack America from a distance...
At least until they find him.
I think what guys like him are doing, he was the one who helped Edward Snowden release all of his documents.
These new players in this whole game, these outsiders that don't have to cozy up, don't have to be a part of this nepotism that we're seeing with the big ones.
Anybody that's in any sort of a large group Fox and CBS and NBC. You're a part of this wacky system.
You're a part of this system that's not going to expose these things.
It's going to let these people get their message out because if you don't, you're not going to get the big names.
If you don't get the big names, you're not going to get the ratings.
And then those big names are going to go over to Fox.
Those big names are going to go over to CNN. They're going to go somewhere else and you're going to lose this campaign.
And I believe it's getting exposed in a way today that just wasn't happening 20 years ago.
20 years ago, you would just be frustrated.
And you would just go off and you'd write a book and everybody would go, oh, he's a nutter.
Look at the fucking crazy book that guy wrote.
And, you know, some people would read the book and say it was amazing and other people would just ignore it.
And new revelations would take place along the way and whatever had happened would be forgotten.
And then the politician would get out of office.
And I think George Bush is the last guy to sort of skate away like that.
And, you know, now he sits around and paints weird pictures and slowly goes insane.
Have you seen the things he's doing?
He's slowly going insane.
I mean, he's painting pictures and he's locked in this world of, he's essentially in a prison on a ranch.
I mean, that's what he is.
He's constantly circled by Secret Service agents.
He's hated all over the world.
He's at least indirectly responsible for over a million deaths.
This one guy, they're pinning it on him and Dick Cheney and his administration and this sort of pyramid of events.
And this guy feels that shit.
And he's just sort of wandering around on his fucking ranch, painting himself, staring at himself in a bathroom mirror.
I mean, it's really, really weird stuff.
And I think he's probably going to be the last guy that ever skates off into the sunset with this knowledge.
I think Obama's going to be held accountable for a lot more than Bush ever was.
And I think whoever's next is truly fucked.
Whether it's Jeb Bush or whether it's whatever new Democrat they try to sneak into, I don't know, Hillary Clinton.
I don't know what they're trying in 2016. And we won't know for a while because they have to vet out everyone's fucked up vices and skeletons in their closets.
You have one gay affair when you're 20 years old with a guy for a couple of weeks and you're fucked for the rest of it.
That guy's out there waiting to talk shit about you if you run for president.
You know, there's one time you did a little bit of heroin when you were on the road with a bunch of your buddies.
You know, you're in college, you tried heroin.
Oh, those fucking college buddies are ready to write a book about you doing heroin.
I mean...
It's a weird time when it comes to exposing people's past and this idea of this perfect person from the cradle to the grave running for president is preposterous.
You don't want that person.
That person, if they've never made any mistakes, that means they've never taken any chances.
If they haven't taken any chances, they haven't lived.
And I'm not talking about mistakes like victimizing people, horrible things that are completely unconscionable.
That you wouldn't do and I wouldn't do.
Murder and robbery and kidnapping.
All sorts of terrible things that are just massive, you know, ethical errors that just shouldn't be ever tolerated from a person's character.
Just little things.
Like, here's a perfect example.
There's a woman who's running for mayor right now in Mississippi.
And apparently when she was younger, she was a prostitute.
And it's a big story that...
Folks are trying to figure out, is that okay?
How do we handle this?
What do you do about a person who had made mistakes when they were younger?
She revealed that she was a former prostitute and she was a prostitute like I believe it was 30 years ago and she met her husband while he was a John and he was one of her clients and she married him And she hasn't been a prostitute since.
And I think in a lot of ways, you could see that and think, this person is actually really well qualified to be in office.
Because obviously, you know, going through those sorts of experiences will give you A sense of empathy for, you know, the tough lives that some people have and the circumstances that end up putting them in that situation.
Well, not only that, what she did was totally legal as well.
She was in a legal brothel in Nevada and it was over 30 years ago and she hasn't been there since.
And the idea that this person Is not allowed to make errors and that she wouldn't have developed like a lot of empathy and character and she wouldn't have a more balanced perspective than a person who's grown up in a very privileged household with very rich,
wealthy, connected people and then they got him to an Ivy League school and then he became a member of Skull and Crossbones and blah blah blah blah instead of that, well you have a person who was 14 and was pregnant with a child And had to take care of her child, and her parents died.
And she was forced into a situation where she had to earn a living, and she didn't have a lot of options.
And this was one of her options that she chose.
And how could you judge someone who's a teenager that makes those choices?
I mean, I don't think you can.
And I think this person, I mean, good for her that she stepped up and talked about that.
I came from a poor family and a broken home where Bill Clinton had, you know, and, and it's okay.
That kind of difficulty is, is acceptable.
But then there's this other category, which is just as character for sex and drugs and whatever, they're just as character forming potentially, but are not acceptable.
Sure, even 10 years ago, forget about 30 years ago, if 10 years ago the guy went to a prostitute and said, listen, I was horny, I didn't have any options, I had a few bucks.
One of the things that I definitely feel strongly about is If we're going to make that kind of decision, the sex trafficking trade needs to be one of the ways you think about it.
I think there would probably be far less demand for sex trafficking, for illegal sex trafficking, if prostitution was legal, if adults could make that decision.
If some woman, you know, was in a situation which was like, you know, I'm reasonably sexually attractive and I make X amount of money per month doing this, I can make that same amount in a day having sex with people.
Okay, I'll just do that.
You know, if it's a woman's choice to do so, and some women would have no problem with that choice.
The real problem, of course, is victimization.
The real problem is exploiting young people, victimization, and objectifying women.
But doesn't that already take place?
And isn't part of what objectifying women, part of this issue is, it's very difficult for some people to find sexual partners.
So there's like, This thing with this Elliot Rogers, this crazy kid that shot up everybody in Santa Barbara.
The nuttiest response that I've seen to this, the craziest, most infuriating response, is by these people that believe that if women weren't so stuck up, this guy wouldn't have gone on a rampage because he would have been able to have sex with more people.
Or he would have been able to get people to have sex with him.
Pickup artists and these women-hating fuckheads.
There's a bunch of guys that operate under this guise of being for men's rights.
You know, it's kind of funny because I didn't even know there was like there's a thing called an MRA.
It's a men's rights advocate or activist and it's an insult from feminists.
I got called an MRA once and I was like, what the fuck does that mean?
So I had a Google MRA men's right and I thought it was ridiculous that wow, how could you be a feminist?
But be making fun of someone who's into men's rights like shouldn't we all have rights?
I mean, shouldn't there...
But then I started looking into these men's rights guys, and I go, okay, I see what's going on here.
I don't even really want to get into it because some of it is so fucking stupid and I've been reading these things over the last couple of days and I'm trying to erase them from my memory.
Because some of these poorly written articles by these men are so stunningly stupid.
Like one of them was, this guy was talking about How he was around this 60-year-old man and this 25-year-old woman who is his incredibly hot wife and that this 25-year-old woman was insulting this man and, you know, that this is the anguish that this guy had to deal with and how horrible it is and this is what men have to deal with.
I was like, that might be one of the dumbest fucking arguments I've ever heard in my life.
First of all, what if it was a 25-year-old man and a 60-year-old woman that was this old, wretched creature that this guy was forced to fuck for money?
Would you be on the man's side or the woman's side then?
Which position would you take there?
Of course this woman is going to say shit he thinks this old man.
She's not supposed to be fucking him.
She's supposed to be having sex with a 25-year-old man or a 35-year-old man or someone reasonably close to her age where they would be naturally sexually attracted to each other.
What you're dealing with is a bizarre situation where someone has sort of circumvented the system by acquiring money.
But it's just what you're dealing with with these men is a bunch of nitpicky shitheads with terrible personalities that are complaining about men getting a bad rap in this world.
If you do well in this life, you have an amazing chance as a man of being sexually successful, of having a great life, of not being persecuted, of not being raped, of not being beat up by your spouse.
I mean...
The idea that men don't have the better end of the deal is unbelievably ridiculous.
When you look at this Donald Sterling guy, this fucking shithead that owns the Clippers, he's 82!
His girlfriend was in her 20s!
And this possibility only exists for men.
It doesn't exist for women.
There's very few 82-year-old women who have attractive 20-year-old boyfriends.
I think she's 50s, but I think that that's what's really, to be honest, really cool about what she's doing there, which is like she's just really constantly challenging those kind of stereotypes.
She's got a pretty intelligent point of view on some of these gender issues.
I think the fact that people find it uncomfortable is kind of making the point that we're agreeing about, which is that this is not how it's supposed to be.
- Why do they say that stuff? - Babies, and they're not recognizing the issues that women do have to deal with.
Women have to deal with worrying about groups of men.
Women have to deal with worrying about, if I walk into a parking lot, okay, and it's at night, and I see a woman in that parking lot, I'm not worried about that woman.
But if I was a woman, and I walked to a parking lot, and I'm walking in my car, and I see a man, and that man's looking me in the eye, I have to wonder what kind of a man that is.
I have to think about that.
I have to think about that as a man.
But as a woman, you really have to think about that.
It's very rare that a man gets robbed by a woman in a parking lot.
Of course it can happen, especially if the woman has a weapon.
Of course, if you're in Russia, she might rape you.
There's some stories about Russian women.
There's some story about she held some man captive and force-fed him Viagra and fucked him for 30 days.
That's Russians.
They're crazy.
Some Russian chick might actually do that to you.
But for the most part, it's a non-issue.
Or statistically speaking, it's a very, very, very small percentage of the population that has to worry about this.
For women, the amount of women that get sexually assaulted, the amount of women, especially like in college, it's crazy.
In college, it's, you know, something like more than one out of ten women get sexually assaulted in college.
I don't know what the exact numbers are.
I've read varying reports, but even ten percent is fucking crazy.
It's a big problem if you're a woman, because men are aggressive.
We're aggressive, we're filled with testosterone, and we need to cum.
It's a real problem.
Every day our balls are building up more sperm, and if you're a shithead, and if you were raised improperly, and you don't have respect for women, or the opposite sex, or anyone in general other than your selfish self, Yeah, we have problems.
We have problems with that.
So, yeah, we need accountability as men.
But it would also help if there was places where people could relieve themselves.
It would also help if there was a handjob place on every corner.
If you drive down the street in LA, if you drive, go to Ventura Boulevard, drive down the street, if your back is bothering you, you can find a massage place one a mile.
You'll see a neon light Thai massage, Swedish massage, this massage.
You can go in and get your neck rubbed.
Why can't you get your balls rubbed?
Why can't you?
Why not?
Because we're crazy.
Because we have these weird ideas about sex.
We have these weird ideas about what is evil and it's based on the Puritan values that this country was founded on.
Which are founded by religious nuts who were so kooky that they got in boats to escape persecution and traveled across the fucking ocean.
I mean, the echoes of this ignorance is still propelling us today.
I've got a lot of sympathy for it, but I just keep coming back to this thing about, well, what is the...
Are you going to set up a situation where it's not really a choice?
That there's some kind of economic or other power or pressure that means that even though you kind of treat it like a marketplace where everyone's freely entering into it, is that really going to be the case?
And I'm not suggesting, by the way, that prostitution is going to stop rape.
What I'm suggesting is that there are real issues with human sexuality, and there's real issues with making things illegal that shouldn't be illegal, whether it's drug use or whether it's sexuality.
I think there's real issues in suppression.
I think when you suppress people from doing things, whether it's suppressing them from using marijuana, suppressing them from drinking, Suppressing them from wearing certain clothes.
Suppressing women from driving.
When you suppress human beings from things that are illogical.
And I find it illogical that sex is illegal to sell.
And I'm not saying I want to go to prostitutes.
I don't.
I don't.
But I think they should be legal.
I really do.
I think it's nonsense.
I think we live in this weird world where if something is legal to do for free, How is it possible that it's illegal to do for money?
It doesn't make any sense.
I see your point of view and I agree with it wholeheartedly that you do have to worry about people being...
Sold into this that you have to worry about them being somehow or another Compromised by this this overwhelming need for you know the financial revenue that can be generated from sex and that people could be exploited and they could be a real issue with the objectification of women it could change the cultural attitudes about things but if you go to countries where it is legal that prostitution and I was just going to say, I think in Holland.
Yeah.
They find lower instances of AIDS, lower instances of...
Like Jim Jeffries is a buddy of mine who's a stand-up comedian from Australia.
In Australia, brothels are legal.
And he talks about how divorce rates are way lower in places where brothels are legal.
Because the men don't need to cheat on their wives.
Like, some men just give up.
They can't get sex with their wife.
And he goes, fuck, I'm fucking out of here.
And they get divorced.
And they go through this huge, stressful situation.
In Australia, you just go to a brothel.
You know?
And Jim was joking around about how his mom and his dad were fighting.
And his mom was like, yeah, and he goes to the brothel every night.
I don't know if you know that.
Or every Wednesday night.
And he goes...
Not every Wednesday.
That was the punchline.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
It's whether or not people are being exploited.
That becomes the problem.
But that becomes the problem with everything.
I mean, if people are being exploited into labor, if children are being forced to work in factories at young ages, which they are in other countries, And typically other countries that provide us with these goods that we so want.
Cell phones, laptops, all these different...
I mean, how many children every year are scraping minerals out of the mountains that they need to use to make electronics?
There's a lot of them.
And this is exploitation.
This is exploitation that we benefit from.
And I think that we have to address all forms of that.
But we also have to address ridiculous laws that don't make any sense.
And anytime you try to control people, anytime you try to suppress people's ability to express themselves in any way, if you don't like it, whether it's walking topless down the street, you can do it if you're a man, you can't do it if you're a woman.
That's what they're dealing with in New York City now.
In New York City, you're allowed to be topless.
There's some woman who calls herself the fucking naked cowgirl, and she's getting sued by the naked cowboy.
Because a naked cowboy is a guy who, he wears underwear, and he plays guitar with a cowboy hat on.
And he's like this...
Sort of tourist attraction in New York.
Well, women are allowed to be topless now as well in a lot of places because the idea is, well, why is a man allowed to have no shirt on but a woman has to have?
It's because you're saying that breasts are much more sexual when they're on a woman and that they need to be They need to be covered.
And that sort of develops a sort of inequality in the law.
That a woman is oppressed or a woman is subject to laws that a man is not.
And that seems to be very difficult to pass.
So, you know, you deal with some situation where women are allowed to be topless.
And they should be.
How many guys get arrested for being gigolos?
Is it zero?
I mean, when was the last time a guy got arrested for fucking a woman because she paid him to?
Has it ever even happened?
But women get arrested for prostitution all the goddamn time.
You're right that there are so many kind of weird things about sex and how that kind of plays out when you think about sort of social issues and stuff like that.
And I think one of the biggest things that's going on is the way that kind of the sort of sexualization of...
Of, you know, like public space and the kind of world around us is like really influencing more and more children.
I think that they're kind of, it's getting younger and younger that kids are being exposed to kind of sexualized stuff.
That is a real problem because it's changing their expectation of what sex is.
And there's lots of studies now showing how the, you know, like kids' sexual behavior is really different.
You know, boys sort of viewing porn differently.
Violent porn at much earlier age, thinking that that's how you behave, treating women really badly, women thinking of themselves as sexual objects more.
I think there's a lot of kind of quite deep problems that are coming out, and we'll see in the years ahead, from the way that that is just, you know, like sexual images and content is just becoming much more widely available for younger kids.
That's a really good point, because it's so prevalent and it's so uniquely new.
The ability to download porn on a cell phone.
So essentially, if your child is 12 and they have an iPhone, you send them off to school, they're watching people fuck.
I mean, they're gonna.
There's no way you're gonna stop them.
If that phone has internet data, if it has internet access, those kids are gonna look at images.
If they have somehow or another some access to an iPad or a laptop or something that's connected to Wi-Fi, if it's not blocked through some sort of a complicated filter that they probably know how to dismantle better than you do, They're gonna see sex.
They're gonna see sex in a way that we never saw sex.
You know, I have this joke in my act that is a true story about when I was 11 years old, me and a couple of my friends found a magazine in the woods that was a foot fetish magazine.
And it took us like a few minutes to realize what was going on when we were looking at this magazine because it was really confusing.
So, the point was that we found this bag that had these magazines in it, and we're going through this one magazine, and it took us, like, many pages in.
My friend goes, dude, this shit is all just dicks and feet.
That's what he said.
And to this day, I laugh thinking about my friend saying that, and that we were stunned and confused.
Well, we were just looking at a magazine and we were 11. Today, kids get to watch actual sex.
And apparently, the sexual activity of children is changing.
Someone did some study recently that showed this massive increase in anal sex amongst children under 18 years of age.
I agree, but I think hopefully, at least because I'm the eternal optimist, I think it's temporary.
And I think that ultimately it's all going to even out.
Because I think that what people are doing is they're looking at these things, like if women are engaging in these sexual activities at a much earlier age, they're looking at it as like this is something that they need to do to become more attractive to men.
Because this is what they've seen.
They've seen this.
My thought on all of this is that we're going to reach a point within our lifetimes, probably within the next few decades, where we're going to be able to read each other's minds.
I think it's inevitable.
You know, over your house, actually, was the first time I ever tried Google Glass.
And I remember putting this thing on and scanning it and, you know, and Googling things and looking at navigation screens in front of my eye thinking, man, shit's going to get really fucking weird soon.
I think if you look at the trend, what is the trend?
The trend is that information is easier to access now than ever before.
And it becomes easier to access and easier to access to the point where you can ask your phone questions with your voice.
You press a button, you know, who is Steve Hilton?
Steve Hilton gives you the information.
But that's just one step and it's not going to stop there.
It's not halting.
It's exponentially increasing.
So what's the trend?
The trend is dissolving boundaries between people and information.
That information includes information in your own mind.
That information includes there's going to be a much more effective interface than looking at a screen and asking a screen a question.
The interface is going to be somehow or another a neural implant, something that you inject into someone's body like nanobots.
There's going to be some weird sort of an interface.
And when that happens, they're going to come up with a better one a year later.
It's going to be a more invasive one.
And then we're going to have to come to some sort of an agreement where we're going to say, hey, listen, in order for the human race to establish an enlightened perspective, we're all going to have to look into each other's heads.
We're all going to have to be able to read each other's minds and find out how we think and feel.
And so there'll be no more mystery in this world.
There'll be no more romance novels.
There'll be unnecessary.
There's not going to be any romance.
There's going to be this weird hive mind thing going on.
I think that's incredibly interesting and the way that that will change so many things if that comes to pass and people can just know what the other person is thinking.
Well, think about what it used to be like before language was established.
People used to grunt and point and kind of try to figure out what the other person wanted and we're essentially monkey people.
What did we do?
We figured something out.
We got to this point and now you compare your life today to that point.
I was in a conversation with a friend, and we have another friend that is becoming a prepper.
He's fucking setting up his house for solar power and collecting rainwater and growing his own fruits and vegetables, and doing so in this fear that society was going to collapse.
And my friend Jimmy was like, If society collapses, you don't want to live, man.
Like, you don't want to be that one fucking guy that's got all the food and you're, you know, standing on your porch with a rifle and you're all taking turns waiting for the zombies to come over the hill, you know, sounding the horns and alerting the people that the barbarians have arrived.
You don't want to do that.
You don't want to go back to those days.
You just don't.
And I think that...
We don't want to go back to the days of no language, and we're not going to want to go back to the days of secrets.
We're not going to want to.
Once the no secret thing happens, and people just get this kind of understanding of what it is to be a human being, that it's universal.
It reminds me, there's this work going on at Stanford, they have a virtual reality lab, and they're looking at how virtual reality could change the way people think about other people, about other issues.
There's one experiment they're doing where, I'm trying to get it right, where I think they put you in a forest situation, you think you're in a forest, and then they measure some nature.
Some example of nature.
And then they see how they really give you a deep experience of that through virtual reality.
And then they look at your behavior in the next week after that to see if you're more conscious of that.
You recycle more.
You change your behavior because of this completely false experience you've had to give you this virtual reality experience.
And that's what they're researching in all sorts of other ways.
And they're showing that it does.
And you can actually influence someone's behavior by giving them this sense of Yeah.
And that's, again, just in its infancy.
You know, the virtual reality stuff is just getting going.
And I just think it's interesting, all these things, how they will affect so many aspects of how we relate to each other and think about these issues that at the moment are just so kind of superficially dealt with.
It's going to get really squirrely when that artificial reality is indistinguishable from the reality that we're experiencing right now.
Because that's coming too.
That's what the whole simulation theory is based upon.
This idea that one day we're going to get to a point where you can't tell whether or not we live in a computer or we live in the material carbon-based flesh world.
And if that's the case, how do we know that we haven't already gotten to that point?
How do we know that we're not in a computer right now?
And we're thinking that we're experiencing this reality, but it's not.
It's not really happening.
We're just a part of a program.
And that it's so good that you think you really are Steve Hilton.
The thing is that this kind of gets to a point where I can't handle it anymore.
My brain cannot literally cope with Thinking about some of this stuff, I remember a friend of mine repeatedly trying to explain to me quantum physics and quantum things, and I just literally can't understand it.
When we start getting into quantum stuff, I don't even think they understand it.
I mean, they understand it in terms of these theoretical concepts, but it's so abstract in a lot of ways.
When you're dealing with things like, when they start talking about subatomic particles, and they start talking about the things that they actually do know, like the things that you actually can measure.
Like particles in superposition, meaning they're in movement and still at the same time.
When they're talking about things blinking in and out of existence, they go away and they don't know where they went, and then they come back.
With just that alone, the measurable stuff is so crazy that the lowest point, not the lowest, but the smallest measurable point of reality, which is these quantum ideas, the world is made of magic.
Things appear and disappear.
Things are still and they're moving at the same time.
They're here and they're there.
They're in two different places at the same time.
And they can take particles and they can move them across the world.
And when they interact with each other, they interact with each other faster than you can count, faster than you can measure.
They interact with each other instantaneously.
Faster than any kind of communication that we could have between these particles, given the amount of distances in between them.
The speed of light, the speed of sound, they're instantaneously interacting with each other.
Now they're figuring out a way how to send particles through time.
They're figuring out ways to send particles through time, to actually time travel with particles.
And so all this stuff that they're doing right now is just one step on this never-ending quest for technological innovation.
This never-ending quest where people are trying to satisfy their curiosity.
They're not going to stop.
They're never going to stop.
If we don't get hit by an asteroid, if we don't get...
It's like when Oppenheimer built the nuclear bomb.
I mean, should that really have been done?
Well, you know, the argument, the intelligent argument is if they didn't do it, the Nazis would have done it.
So yes, it's important that the Allied forces developed it first.
But I think that that's the job of...
I think...
There's all sorts of roles that are played in a society, and there's the innovator, and there's the scientists, there's the people that are constantly pushing the boundaries of technology, and then there's the social engineers who step back and go, okay, let's look at the repercussions of this, and how do we mitigate the negative aspects of it?
How do we figure out how to integrate these ideas into society and use them to enhance society, and what is being done to sort of manage that, and what is being done to minimize the negative impact?
You have to have a phone that you give to people that could possibly be annoying so that at any given time, if it fell into the ocean, you'd be like, whatever with that fucking phone.
And then have a phone that you only give to your family and your close friends.
Well, one of the things that really puts me off, I just can't, there's something about my kind of useless, sort of fat, stubby finger, I'm just hopeless with touchscreens.
But you're not a rageful guy, which is so crazy, because you're normally the last person I would expect to get violent and throw something and get crazy.
It was scary for a lot of people also because of who he was attacking, that he was attacking people that were technological innovators.
He was attacking people that were involved in the distribution of technology.
And he believed that, and in a lot of ways correctly believed, that there was something going on right now where people were creating technology and this technology would eventually do bad things to the human race and to the biological Existence that we currently exist in, you know, this sort of like established way of being and living that we consider being, you know, inherent to being a human being.
And he felt like these people were the enemies of humanity because they were fostering technology and creating technology.
Instead of living in the moment and dealing with the moment, he just saw this attack by the biological humans or on the biological humans by technology.
Which essentially, I kind of see his point in a way.
I don't see his point as far as like attacking people that are creating technology, but if you really extrapolate where we are right now and where we're going, this symbiotic relationship that we have with technology where people are afraid to leave their phones behind, The phones will eventually become Google Glass.
Google Glass will become an implant.
An implant will become...
Well, you know, Steve, you've got good news and bad news.
The good news is you have a year to live, okay?
The bad news is you have cancer.
The good news is we have an artificial body that we have created that we're going to put your body into.
The bad news is it lasts forever.
Or is it the good news?
What it is is a new world that we're living in where we're going to have weird choices that never existed before.
And a lot of the people that are involved in Google, they hired Kurzweil.
Ray Kurzweil, who is the proponent, the number one proponent of this sort of Transcendental moment where we become one with computers, where we become one either with some sort of a computer interface, or we download our consciousness into an artificial body, or we figure out a way to exist in some sort of a virtual reality that is eternal.
A lot of people feel like that's where things are going to go if you give us a thousand years.
I've talked to a friend of mine about this quite a bit, which is, if you think about, I'm just interested that there is, okay, the Unabono, that's an extreme example, and I didn't realize that it was so focused on technology.
But there isn't really a, people like it, generally speaking, there isn't really a movement, a sort of anti-technology movement, certainly not that I'm aware of.
I can't remember exactly when it was, but when you had the industrial revolution and the Luddites smashing up machines that were taking jobs away from people and in their view really damaging society.
That was quite a big movement.
It didn't get anywhere and You know, history sort of made them irrelevant, but there was a movement with an aim and an organization that did stuff.
I think that specifically it was the new equipment, like the weaving.
During the Industrial Revolution in England, the machines that were now being used to do the work that had been done by people, and they objected to that.
And I'm sure there's people with a better study of history that can give you a better picture.
But that was, they were called the Luddites, I think, named after the person that set them up, someone called Ludd, I think.
I don't know how big it was, but it's big enough that it's something we still know about and it's part of the history of that era.
And there's nothing like that now, not to my knowledge, where you don't have people going out and smashing up cell phone towers to make a point about technology.
But I think it's what we were talking about earlier that maybe back then they didn't have enough information to draw upon and they saw it as being this direct threat to their livelihood.
And I think today we're sort of forced into this realization that it's neither good nor bad, but rather something that needs to be managed.
And there's good aspects to it, and then there's negative aspects to it, and ultimately you have to figure out what outweighs what and how to lean it towards the positive.
How to manage it in a way that it goes towards the positive.
And I think that's the case we were talking about with children watching television.
You know, there's the Waldorf school.
My oldest daughter was in the Waldorf school system for a while, and there's a lot of wackiness to that.
Like, they didn't believe in any technology.
They didn't believe in any video games.
But they've proven that video games can enhance cognitive function.
The neural pathways that are created by stimulating video games can actually...
They mimic games like chess.
You know, like, problem-solving games.
Games that stimulate the imagination and creativity.
Like, they exist.
Video games can be used in that same function.
This idea that all video games are bad.
And then I found out that the guy who founded this whole Waldorf system was a channeler.
You could tell when someone's looking behind you, at you, that people could sense it in a way that is more measurable than chance.
So I think there's probably something there.
There's probably something when you think about someone and they call you and that happens.
See, I've thought about people and all of a sudden I get an email from them out of the blue.
I haven't talked to them in years.
And all of a sudden, a person that popped into my mind, like, wow, I wonder what that guy's up to.
Boom!
We get an email from him.
Hey, man, what's up?
Like, wow, what is that?
Is that a weird sort of a distant connection that will eventually one day be much more strong?
I don't know.
I don't know, but I know that a fucking channeler starting a school that tells you not to use cell phones and don't watch TV, that guy's a silly bitch.
And that people who watch porn, they actually have less brain matter.
They have less matter in their brain.
People that are obsessed with porn...
And when you think about it, it's probably because whatever they're doing, whatever part of their brain they're stimulating, they're constantly focused on that and all the other shit about wondering about existential questions, the purpose of man, the idea of infinity, all these weird questions that normally bounce around inside a person's brain.
They're completely non-existent because you're just trying to find the next person to jerk off to.
But that guy the other week that came out in the government, he was in the Environmental Protection Agency, I think, and he was watching, he lost his job, he was watching porn, like, I think six hours a day or something, in the office, in the government office, and you just think, what is going on that that's even possible?
Especially if you give them, it's like we were talking about as far as professors or police officers or anybody in some sort of an ultimate position where they don't have enough supervision.
They don't have enough, they have too much influence over others and they don't have enough oversight.
You wind up being this fucking guy who's supposed to be paying attention to our drinking water and he's just beating off all day.
Exactly.
It's also a job thing, too.
It's like, how many jobs really should there be for the Environmental Protection Agency?
And how many people do they really need to do those jobs?
I wonder how many people are listening to this podcast right now that are like, fuck, that's me.
I want to get busted.
If you're in an office, and especially if your computer is facing you and you're looking at the door so you get a clean shot at anybody walking in, for men, men are freaks.
You give a guy the opportunity to just beat off in his office, a lot of times dudes are going to take it up.
What a weird world we live in where that's an issue.
Imagine if, like, it was back in the day where, you know, a guy who was assigned to work for the city water department in the 1930s, they found 7,000 pornography books in his office.
Like, Frank, what the fuck are you doing, man?
Like, I'm getting crazy with all this reading.
I think in a lot of ways what we're dealing with when it comes to pornography, when it comes to the internet, when it comes to just...
Technology itself is we're dealing with these things that have influence over people in a way that we're not designed to process.
You know, we're not designed to process movies, a giant screen where explosions and, you know, spaceships and all this stuff that's not real, but we're seeing it in a way that's much more impactful than real life.
We're seeing it right in front of us.
You know, and I think that that fucks with people's heads.
You know, I think that Pornography, the ability to at any time you want, just go online and watch people have sex.
Like, you know that you could do that.
It's at your little fingertips, especially if you're, like, sexually starved.
You know, if you're, like, you really want sex and you can't get it, and you know, I can watch it right now.
But we're also much more complex than the average animal.
That's where things get really weird.
Where things get really weird is that, yes, we are animals, but we are also animals with computers.
We're also animals that are aware that we're animals, so we have to think about our actions.
We're self-aware.
We're aware of the influence that others have on us.
And we're constantly expanding that influence.
You know, so we're not just animals.
We're animals with computers that may become part of machines.
That's the thing that freaks me out the most, is the symbiotic connection that human beings have to technology and the potential for developing artificial technology or artificial life.
I think that we give birth to that.
I mean, Marshall McLuhan once said that human beings are the sex organs in the machine world.
And I always wonder if we're not some strange caterpillar that becomes a butterfly that has no idea what the fuck it's doing.
We're making some sort of a technological cocoon, thinking that we're just doing my thing, running around, looking at porn.
No, you know, you're a part of this gigantic machine that's processing and pushing for the innovation of technology.
And the innovation of technology will eventually give birth to a life form.
They're constantly working on trying to map out the human mind, Duplicate the functions of the human mind in some sort of a synthetic process.
And we're not anywhere close right now, but the way technology accelerates...
Yeah, I read this article by this really grumpy fuck who's an interesting guy.
He's a smart guy, but he's also just probably a lonely shithead.
And he was mocking Ray Kurzweil and how Ray Kurzweil knows nothing about the human mind.
He was talking about the complicated functions of the human mind and the way the human mind processes proteins and that this is barely understood.
But what I read from this and what I got out of this is like, I don't think this guy understands that the biological functions are not going to matter.
If they can be...
biological functions can be completely irrelevant because they've figured out some sort of an artificial way to duplicate all of the exact same synapse firing mechanisms.
Like without all the biological functions, the processing of the proteins, the interacting with the hormones and human neurotransmitters, all that stuff is great if you're using a body.
But this guy was so hung up on the fact that Kurzweil's wrong because we don't understand how the human body works.
Well, No!
No, he's not!
Because you're just talking about bodies.
Yeah, bodies are super complicated and we haven't totally figured it out yet.
But we might not have to.
If we can figure out a way to do all the things that a body does, but do it with a computer, or do it with technology, or do it with some sort of quantum computer, Some sort of quantum computer that's contained in an artificial body that can completely replicate the functions of consciousness, the functions of emotions, of interaction, of curiosity, of creativity.
If you can develop an artificial computer that's creative, it doesn't matter of luteinizing hormones and all this shit that you're bitching about.
What they do know about the mind and they do know about the body is comparatively rudimentary when you think about what we know about a clock.
We know everything about a clock.
You know, you could buy a Swiss watch and there's a man out there that knows every single function of that watch, knows how it interacts, knows exactly what's going on, tick-tock, tick-tock.
We don't know that about the body yet.
You're right.
You're correct.
But we're not going to We're not going to have to.
Because they're going to come out with some shit that's way better than a body.
They're going to come out with some shit that's way stronger than a mind, and it's going to be artificial.
And one day it's going to go, hello, and you're going to go, oh, shit.
Why exactly are you guys living like this?
And you're like, oh, I don't know.
Just kind of going on momentum.
Just how we do it.
I don't think this is the best way to go about this.
I don't think so either.
I have a better idea.
Oh, great.
And then this fucking thing is going to take over.
We're going to know what's important and what's not.
There was a guy once, and I've brought this up before, but...
It's important to note.
There was a guy that we talked about in the podcast who had been bitten by a shark.
And the shark had taken his arm and taken his leg.
And he had this carbon arm and he was moving his fingers around.
And he was standing there talking with this fake arm and his fake leg about how great it is that technology has provided him with a way to still be mobile and functional even though he had been attacked by a shark.
And I was sitting there and I was thinking, wow, this is fascinating.
This guy is like kind of a cyborg.
What we see is a man with an artificial arm and the story was about how well they had created this arm to the point where this guy was living a totally normal life and was functional and mobile and could take care of himself even though his arm had been bitten off by a monster.
And then I thought about what if it was both legs?
Okay, and then they figured out artificial legs.
Who would say no to that?
Nobody.
Give him some artificial legs.
Now he can move around.
Okay, what if it was his whole body?
Who would say, listen, man, we're going to take your head and we're going to stick it on a robot body, but you're still going to be you.
Oh, okay.
All right, I'll take it.
Okay, we're sticking your head on a robot body, but listen, we've got a problem.
The robot body is rejecting your brain, but we found an artificial brain that works just like your brain.
We're going to download your consciousness to this artificial brain.
You won't even know the difference.
Okay.
Well then, who are you and what are you?
What are you?
Are you a person still?
If you are your thoughts and your personality and your memories downloaded into some creation, some sort of a new thing that they've done that mimics all the functions of the human mind without any of the biological limitations, What are you?
It's so funny you talking about that because it reminds me years ago when I was doing my interviews to go to Oxford University and I had an interview with a philosophy professor.
And he gave me this scenario, which I now know is a famous philosophical thing.
It's called the experience machine.
And there's this construct very much like what you're talking about, which is like if we could put you in a machine that gave you all the experiences of a fantastic life, but it would be a machine doing it.
Would you choose to do it?
And I remember saying, no, I wouldn't want to do that because I'd feel I'd want to have really done it myself.
And if you're just in a machine, that's not the same thing.
Ah, but what if the machine made you feel like that?
Whatever I said, there was some kind of comeback.
And in the end, I just remember getting really frustrated.
I said, I don't know.
That's why I want to come and learn about philosophy so I can...
In the hierarchy, I think that you know a lot more about it than I do and you've read more about it than I have.
And I just think that, yeah, it's really important that generally we talk about it and keep a really strong sense of awareness of how these things might change stuff.
And a lot of the time it will be for the better and that's great, but we should just talk about it.
Well, I had the opportunity to talk to Kurzweil for an hour and a half, and I sat down and interviewed him about these things, and it was really fascinating.
We had a great conversation, but this guy is not thinking about negatives at all.
All he's thinking is gung-ho, full blast, pedal to the metal.
He takes giant bags of supplements every day, because he's an older man.
He's just trying to keep his biology alive long enough to see this This new birth of technology and when it gets really crazy what he's trying to do also is he's trying to Make his father come back to life.
His father died when he was young, and he believes that if they figure out a way to recreate a person from memories, from just the knowledge of who this person was, images, that you're going to be able to recreate this guy in some sort of an artificial form.
I mean, it's one of the things he's discussed.
He wants to see his father again.
And the idea that he can recreate his father technologically.
From memory, from all the data that he knows, from recorded stuff.
One of the most fascinating concepts that I've ever heard when it comes to the increasing power of computing is that they're going to get to a point one day, if computers continue to accelerate,
they're going to get to a point one day where they can take into account all the positions of all the objects and all the things that exist all over the world as data and from them We'll extrapolate where things will be and where things were.
So by where things were, meaning knowing everything in this room, where it's at in this position, they'll be able to figure out how it all got here.
Who moved?
Jamie moved this over there, and Brian picked that up and turned it on, and they'll literally be able to calculate.
The past.
They'll be able to, by what we have here, by everything we have here and what we know, they'll be able to calculate the actions of the past.
We're the dumb monkeys that are sitting around here waiting for things to change.
And when things do change, we will be just as weird as...
Some Australopithecus.
If you put him in a time machine from a million years ago and threw him into the fucking Burbank Mall, this thing would be running around going, what the fuck is this?
Because things change.
Because things grow.
And things evolve.
Including humans.
We're just along for the ride.
So I think the real key to human beings and the most difficult aspect of life is to get really good at this moment.
Get really good at just existing in the moment and enjoying it.
It's a great way of thinking about it because it just means that you don't worry so much because there's stuff that you can understand and relate to and be good at and enjoy.
Yeah, and that's why I totally agree with you that the more you can give people the freedom to experience and enjoy and kind of, you know, write their own story about how they do stuff.