Welcome to the Bitcoin Infinity Academy, brought to you by the Plan B Network and Bitbox.
This is our course on my second book, Bitcoin Independence Reimagined from 2020.
I'm Knut Swalom. I'm here as always with Luke DeWolf. How are you this morning, Luke?
Good morning, Knut. I am doing very well, thank you. Excited to be back at the Bitcoin Infinity
Academy. And we're about to take a short break while you go off to El Salvador and do some
fun stuff there. So we're recording this one just before you go. Excited for this one. It's called
Protection from what? Protection from what? Yeah. Protection from whatever you needed protection
from in El Salvador until a couple of years, before a couple of years back. Interesting. I
wasn't sure that this chapter would go to that angle, but let's see about that. Let's see.
Before we dive in, just a reminder that the best way you can support the show and get involved is
to join the Bitcoin Infinity Academy through our Geyser page at geyser.fund slash project slash
infinity. All the information is there. You can join the live recordings. You can join our
private chat groups and have conversations with us about what we're talking about. And all the
information is there. So go check it out. geyser.fund slash project slash infinity. And now,
I think let's dive in. Right, Knut? Absolutely. Protection from what? Some of the rules that
governments choose to impose on us are supposedly there to protect us from ourselves and our
respective shortcomings. Bank bailouts, for instance. By removing the punishment connected
to risk-taking, you also inevitably remove the ability for people involved to learn from their
mistakes. Having skin in the game is crucial for any learning process. If this is removed,
the risk-taker will learn the opposite of what he is supposed to learn from failure.
He will conclude that the risk was worth taking, regardless of its consequences.
Every time a law or policy mitigates the natural penalty for a bad investment, the entire system becomes a little more friendly to scammers and insincere people.
This principle holds true for bank bailout policies, but also for market regulations that primarily help the regulator and his friends by setting the bar for entry into the market at a height that their competitors can't overcome.
However, the moral hazard created by removing people's skin in the game isn't limited to just financial markets and banks. Far from it.
Safety regulations, standardizations, certifications, and even social security have successfully removed certain risks from certain professions and businesses.
But in doing so, they've also helped remove critical thinking and created entire species of bureaucrats that weren't needed in the first place.
Bureaucrats who have no skin in the game at all except for their own jobs are conjuring up new policies as excuses for their existence all the time.
while mitigating risk may be helpful in the short term these policies are effectively turning what
should be a concrete foundation to build our citadels on top of into a house of cards occasionally
repaired with duct tape yes the dangers of rules and bureaucracy yeah the bureaucracy is expanding
to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy as they say i i think this is this is a chapter
about very very basic things like things that are so basic that they are not very often talked about
and like learning from the ability to learn from your mistakes and having that taken away from you
it it's such an easy concept to grasp really but but so few reflect over what it actually means i
I mean, all social security nets and stuff,
they do come with a side effect of removing a person's ability to learn from their mistakes.
Skin in the Game is a great book by Nassim Taleb,
who has written some really good things,
but has also gone off the bandwagon and said some really stupid shit on occasion.
But I still recommend that book a lot.
It's one of those books that stayed in my brain for a long time after reading it.
He talks a lot about the leaders today as opposed to leaders in feudal society and in ancient Rome and stuff and how the leaders were often the ones on front, like leading the charge on the battlefield.
They had all the skin in the game you can think of.
They put themselves at risk first and their subjects second.
And politicians today, it's just the absolute opposite.
They put others' lives at risk and sit in their ivory towers fully protected from the system.
I mean, to absurd extents, look at proxy wars, for instance.
A leader in a different country with more money can effectively send out 18-year-old boys to war in a country that don't really have anything to do with.
And it's just absurd on so many levels.
So yeah, I think these are important points to raise for those who seldom think about these things.
Do you have any thoughts on this particular paragraph?
Absolutely, yeah.
And I mean, I think it's a good distinction that not only is this an issue with government regulations, but also with industry regulations.
And I can talk about two examples there.
So one being the GDPR.
And I'm not, and okay, first of all, I'll just say that I think the social safety nets are kind of the ones that, that are really removing the skin in the game. And these are the things that basically just have the unintended consequence of making people dependent and, and removing all of the potential risks so that the pros and cons and consequences just do not factor in anymore.
But then the other type of regulation is the one that I think is more under the surface and not talked about, as you say. So the GDPR, we talk about this in, I think, we talk about it in Clown World, I'm quite sure, and you've talked about it in other places as well.
But the GDPR is basically a privacy regulation. And to a certain extent, it's effectively a cybersecurity regulation. It's the right to get your data removed from any company. And it requires all these things such as announcements that there are cookies that your data is being tracked, which are definitely annoying.
But the thing is, the entire industry around the GDPR is this whole suite of consultants who just do compliance to GDPR.
And companies have to spend ridiculous amounts of money just simply complying with this regulation.
Now, the intention of the regulation to give people the freedom to get their data deleted and all this absolutely is a good one.
And also data protection is an important thing too. Personal data needs to be protected to a certain level. These are good and useful goals to have. But when they're government mandated and they require all of this compliance and all of this expense to fulfill, well, all it does is it raises the barrier of entry to even conduct business.
and additionally it just creates this entire industry in and of itself that that is is
self-fulfilling essentially like the the gdpr industry i know plenty of people who basically
do this for for a living and are experts in in privacy regulations and all this and and i know
that that they're not in it to to you know just fulfill the needs of the bureaucracy i i the the
regulation itself again is is very well thought out and intentioned but the implementation and
the requirement for so much money to go into it is just is just ridiculous i do do you have any
thoughts on that yeah i have my own personal experience with it that like i think the big
takeaway here is that all market interventionism favors the big players at the expense of of small
players and market small market competitors the gdpr i i was i had my office job when this was
implemented and we had to update all sorts of you know routines and and uh documentation and whatnot
and do do the whole gdpr washing of the entire machinery of the that particular office and of
course that's a cost not only a monetary cost but time consuming and whatnot and uh i bet a lot of
companies went out of business because they couldn't compete anymore because they're at
a disadvantage of course the bigger firms have an advantage here since the cost is the same for
for everyone or the task at hand at least is the same for everyone and it's important to remember
that gdpr is it it's just a a trickle down thing like it's it's it's an effect of other previous
market interventions that happened before it the cookies thing is one but that happened like a
couple of years before GDPR and only applicable to the EU as far as I know and but it's still
forced all of these website providers to to reprogram each and every site to have this cookies
banner meaning there's an additional cost meaning that smaller websites that may or may not have
competed with the like the titans of the internet in the early like the googles and the amazons and
the Facebooks of the world, this was advantageous for the big guy and disadvantageous for the small
guy. And you can backtrack it how long, as far as you want. The primary disadvantageous thing
that smaller companies don't have is access to the money printer. So getting artificially cheap
loans because you already have a lot of money or you already have a market advantage that's that's
what creates these giant monopolies uh across the world and it's it's the problem we're trying to fix
with bitcoin right if the fixing inflation fixes all the other things too and and all this bureaucracy
and all this politicization of everything and the over regulations and you need to do this and you
need to do that.
Those are like second and third and fourth order effects of the money printing that makes the whole bureaucratic machinery bigger in the first place I mean in the shipping industry we also had to tackle
At one point, there was a new rule that there needed to be two life vests for each passenger on board a ship with more than 12 passengers or something like that,
which came from the big ferry lines that could have a room full of a storage room
filled with life vests, the extra life vests, which simply wasn't possible on the smaller vessels.
But we still had to comply with the same thing, meaning that the bigger companies
and the bigger ferries, the bigger cruise ships and whatnot,
had an advantage over the smaller guy just trying to make a living within that industry.
So, yes, all of these bureaucracy vectors lead to the same point, and that is monopolies, monopolies, monopolies everywhere.
Another example would be the lockdowns and how small restaurants were forced to close down while the Burger Kings and the McDonald's and the Kentucky Fried Chickens of the world thrived.
It just skews the market signal and favors those who are already on top of the game.
So it's vital.
Absolutely agree.
And I think the example of the shipping company is actually very good
because here, this isn't the government doing this.
And the other example...
Well, inadvertently it is.
I'd say regulations come from...
In this case, no.
And that's because my other example here is exactly from the same group,
the International Association of Classification Societies.
There is no government enforcing this thing to exist.
but all of these classification societies which basically certify a ship to go out,
they have all of these regulations and they have gotten together as a consortium
and you cannot get a vessel made that isn't satisfied by these consortiums.
Now, okay, we can take one step back and we can say that, okay,
maybe there is some government saying that you cannot have a vessel put out to sea without that,
But the entire thing, I think, is just one big game of risk chicken. Like, no one wants to be the one that makes a ship that sinks immediately or loses steering power right when it's about to come into port and crashes into another ship and kills a bunch of people. No one wants to be responsible for that.
So they all collectively agree to put these onerous conditions on each other, right? But the problem is it keeps growing and growing and growing. And so the example that I have is the cybersecurity requirements that came in just in the last couple of years.
they used industry standard cybersecurity framework as the basis of what they were doing.
This was all good. This was all done by best practices, right? And then they said all new
vessels that were being put to dry dock after a certain date had to comply with this. And they got
to that date and no one could comply. Actually, like literally zero people, zero shipyards could
comply with that. Right. And so they first of all had to push the date and then they had to reduce
the level of the requirements and they had to say, well, okay, we'll work with you and give
exceptions, blah, blah, blah. So again, good, good intentions, but it's just that
raising requirements for doing anything so high that it just stifles all innovation.
It creates this massive cost. Shipyards have to have a massive cost. Producers of all kinds of
automation and electrical products on ships had to have such a massive cost just to show that they
comply with this stuff. And who's the big winner? The classification societies, because they get to
go around and say, hey, we're going to certify your product, we're going to certify your ship or not.
So now they have a massive reason to have more revenue. So basically, as I see it, they've gone
into a position of having control because they can rubber stamp and regulate. And now they can
regulate themselves into having more work conflict of interest much yeah exactly i mean that is
the bureaucracy expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy that's exactly what it is
um i'm just pointing out that it's it's it is tied to government since governments are the ones
making laws and regulations in the first place or like this is tied together and what i think most
people don't see the connection to the money printer and don't see how that's like puts a
turbo on all of these effects and just makes them just makes the world more orwellian or more like
terry gilliams brazil faster and faster when it needlessly if we had a restraint on that all of
these all of these things would would at least not be as play out as fast as they do in in in today's
world. Yes, absolutely. I think we've discussed this quite a bit now, and now in the next paragraph,
I think we move back towards the social benefits. So I think, yeah, let's continue.
Proponents of generous social benefit policies often claim that their opponents should be less
selfish and more empathetic to the needs of their fellow man. In truth, nothing makes people more
selfish than a political system that continuously tells them that they're entitled to this and that.
When people believe these lies, they also believe that they wouldn't have survived without the systems they were born into.
They are made to believe that without the state and its coercive taxes, things simply wouldn't work, and no one would be there to look after them.
The sense of entitlement is a very dangerous thing because it makes people believe that they can bypass personal responsibility from their life equation.
It makes people forget that a society is just made up of its citizens and that there's no limitless faucet of wealth to pour new resources from whenever politicians see fit.
Everyone needs to chip in in order for the machine to work.
Fat beggars, able-bodied couch potatoes, and chain smokers demanding free healthcare are relatively new phenomena.
And they're not proof of how far we've come or how humane our societies have become.
On the contrary, they're a testament to how limitless the cynicism of the elite really is, and what lengths they're willing to go to in order to keep their voting cattle ignorant enough to uphold a decadent system that slowly deprives them of their souls.
Okay, some full-throated attack at the social benefit layer.
Yeah, this book is not holding back, is it?
I think we put a bit more deliberate restraint when we wrote Clown World to not be as attacky on these things.
Even though, yeah, I still agree with all of these points.
We've lost something.
democracies
inevitably
produce a class of people
that think
that the government is
completely necessary for a society
to function
for instance I heard of a
new thing in the Spanish
school curricula now they're gonna have a class
for
to teach people
teach people how important
taxes are for
a society to function
that's in the school curriculum now for kids so they're getting indoctrinated straight away that
we need this in order for society to function and you can deductively reason your way out of that
like this it's not at all necessary but but it fuels itself it's everyone working for the
government and getting paid by the government in other words getting paid by the taxpayers who
actually produced something and then were forced to give their money to the government of course
they think that the government is necessary because in their opinion, without the government,
they wouldn't make any money, which is not true.
Like, there would be more jobs if there were fewer hurdles to entering the free market.
Like, in a society with no, what do they call, minimum wage laws, there would be no unemployment.
There can be no unemployment if there's no minimum wage law.
sure some people may make very little money but they should they wouldn't be unemployed
and this is yeah i don't know there's a lot of talk about dignity from uh especially from
left-wingers when it comes to social security and and and uh and this stuff a minimum wage laws
and it's always like think of people's dignity they shouldn't have to beg or they shouldn't have
Like, even if I'm at the parking lot, just waxing your car while you go shopping, or if I fill your shopping bags for you and get a euro here and a euro there, I think that comes with a lot more dignity than just begging for money or getting free handouts.
Like, dignified is actually doing something for your bread and butter.
the the least dignified thing in the world is just getting free money because the the state
thinks you're useless it kills the soul yeah and i mean i don't know that we're ever going to fully
solve the problem of say homelessness or or people who just simply don't have it together to
hold down a job or or whatever it is there's people with problems mental health problems
physical problems that's going to exist. It's cited quite often here that in Finland,
that Finland has gotten rid of homelessness. And usually it's actually from outside of Finland
that pretty much say that. Like there's still these kinds of people around though. There's a
lot less of them. They're not hanging out on the street all the time, but there's people hanging
out with a can of beer, sitting in a circle outside of a grocery store, outside the nearest
alcohol shop and that's all they spend their days on.
There's some people who have serious mental health problems who are around in the world.
They still exist even if the state has provided housing for them.
I even heard anecdotally that some of them can keep up the social housing because they can have it together to simply fill out the form to keep the housing going So this is really all just to say that there is no silver bullet
And even if we were in some kind of utopian world where the government could magically
provide everything to people who need it, there's still going to be people falling through
the cracks and it's not going to be perfect.
And then this is also to say that I have nothing against people giving money voluntarily to help the less fortunate.
Of course not.
And here's the thing that goes unseen. And I mean, maybe this is just a really basic argument here. But if we weren't getting taxed to oblivion, and having this taken out of our paychecks, without a without any say in the matter, maybe individuals who have some money would be much more likely to put some resources towards helping those less fortunate, if only for selfish reasons, because they don't want to be hassled by, you know, homeless drug addicts all the time.
But maybe some people are better than me and are more altruistic.
No, I mean, I think it's obvious that that's the outcome.
And the problem is that people ask themselves the wrong question.
Whose problem is it that someone's homeless?
Like, if someone's homeless in Finland, is that every Finns problem?
What about people outside of Finland?
Or like, if people are homeless in Helsinki, how is that someone from Rovaniemi's problem?
really like and where do you draw the line is it countries is it cities like is it the eu and i
think the the the obvious answer to this is the individual and the individual taking care of his
family uh if there's if you have a sibling or uh an offspring that is mentally ill it should be your
responsibility to take care of them as soon as you outsource it that that very outsourcing
like you don't see the bill that's the thing you never see the bill you never see what what
and even if you did even if you if if you got a paper that broke down exactly what all the tax
euros went to and where the newly printed money went to even then you wouldn't see the alternative
timeline that could have played out you wouldn't see the exponential effects that could have
happened if the free market was allowed to do its thing. So it's the back to Bastiat is that
what's seen and what's not seen, we're depriving ourselves of all of these exponential effects that
could have happened just to save someone who should have been saved by their own family.
But the family cannot save them because they're being taxed out into oblivion. So that's the
reason the illusion that we need the state to provide of this or all of this is still so dominant
because families can't afford to take care of their own anymore and most people have no
no concept of how big this problem is and how ridiculously large the taxes are if you add all
of the stuff up and include the inflation and include the unseen exponential effects that never
happen i think probably in every european country you work on average like four days out of five for
the government and one day for yourself just to have your kids kidnapped and your elders your
parents taken away from you and you know all of this good stuff the government does and forcing
you to buy insurance that you didn't didn't want and all this other stuff no i am i think people
vastly underestimate the cost of having an organized crime organization handle all of this
stuff. Yeah. End of rant. Yeah, I totally agree. A couple more points here. One of them definitely
is that there's a double-edged sword to families taking care of their own. Dependency can trickle
down a long way basically if you get to the point of that uh pretty much uh families keep
a member who is uh abusive and destructive towards them going well that can be a bad situation
also and sometimes there's a time to make them go figure things out for themselves in other words
dependency can go all the way down to the level of like yeah you you've just got to let someone
succeed or fail on their own merits, basically.
Absolutely.
But that decision has to be made by the family.
Like, whose is the responsibility?
Why is it someone else's?
Why should it be someone else's responsibility?
And there's no good answer to it.
Definitely.
And then the other thing here is that this is basically taking this argument to its furthest
possible conclusion of, well, what if someone doesn't have any family?
What if someone doesn't have any friends?
What if someone doesn't have a religious organization that wants to help them?
what if someone doesn't have a charity that wants to help them and and the thing is okay well that
that sucks that sucks for that person but i think the point is maybe that person should have done
something to not have alienated literally everyone in the world from giving them a helping hand and
and i i think another thing here is that some people have actual disabilities physical mental
that's that's too bad that's usually not their fault i'll even i'll even take away the usually
that's generally not not someone's fault and yeah it can be it can be hard if you really do have to
depend on others to to live or to to function and all this i am not without compassion and empathy
i am against the government mandating that this happen and if someone is so big of an asshole
that they can't get anyone to help them out that's that's the consequence no it's it's it's
it's from a point of empathy like we're coming from empathy when we make this argument because
we see that the government not meddling with it would lead to more more saved lives and more
less misery like it's inevitably leads to less misery because guess what life is tough life is
unfair that's a universal fact like you're born and yeah you better make the you you you're delta
hand of cards and all you can do is play your cards to the best of your ability and that's true
for everyone doesn't matter if you're born without money or without legs or without a brain well
functioning enough to grasp these things we're all that it's it's all unfair and the the natural
state if you're born with it is poverty so like fighting poverty by fighting uh by taking away
people's ability to to to be prosperous is counterproductive to say the least like you
can't fix a hole in the road by digging another hole somewhere else in some other road that and
that is effectively what this thing is doing so so yeah no and one one last one last point here
before we move on is that empathy is such a misused word and the thing is we supposedly are
only supposed to have empathy for the people that are down and out right but i have empathy for
both sides of the equation here right i have empathy for the people who are harassed and
hassled by the the homeless drug addicts right i have i have empathy for the people who maybe
aren't super thrilled with third world immigrants showing up and receiving tons of benefits and then
receiving slaps on the wrist after they rape someone because they would be deported to a less
nice country. Like the empathy goes in both directions. And the thing is, empathy is pretty
useless emotion. In my view, you should you should care about the people in your close circle. And
if you try to extend empathy to the entire world, well, you're just going to have competing
priorities. And you've got to make a decision somewhere to prioritize one group of people
over another. And I generally want to be empathetic towards those people who are doing their best to
make the world a better place. And empathy for people who are having a tough situation doesn't
mean that I need to give them my resources. I might if they make a compelling argument and
they're close enough to me to affect my world, but I'm not going to attempt to save every
baby who's born into a third world country something like that
no then the the road to hell is paved with good intentions so this this uh trying to trying to
save everyone is is it's it's doomed from the get-go and there's something here about the
difference between empathy and compassion i think i don't know exactly what that is maybe a comment
down below or something if you're watching this but yeah as i said we're we are both coming from a
a position of empathy here and i i think more people would be better off if things were different
and the free market was allowed to do its thing more freely governments were smaller or non-existent
and that's why we like bitcoin because we we can actually defend it from grassroots
point of view. Yes, absolutely. I think let's move on. I probably actually should have even read this
paragraph with the last one because it's pretty much a continuance, so I'll just read it.
Well, this is a short chapter, so we need all the paragraphs we have.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Moving on.
Dependence is the poodle's kernel here. The more dependent the participants of a political system
are, the less likely that system is to survive in the long run.
As Margaret Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of
other people's money.
Any society that makes its people dependent on the mechanisms of that society and demands nothing in return is doomed to fail One could argue that social security programs make people less prone to criminal activity but this argument fails to
address the crime that was needed in order to anesthetize these would-be criminals in the first
place, namely the coercive taxation methods used to finance the whole ordeal. Anything but personal
responsibility for your actions is less effective and more costly for a society in the long run.
all right any further comment here just that this is what what the point that everyone seems to miss
including steven pinker and his enlightenment now as a book who's that's pointing out how well off
everyone is today and how how little crime there is and how how few wars in com in comparison to in
in the past but not if you take the excessive taxes and the money printing into account and
you see them for what they are aggressions against other people and criminal activity
in that case we're not living in the best of times we're being stolen from more than ever before
so relative peace it's like it's like saying we've achieved peace when when you have a a mobster with
a shotgun telling you what to do like that's not peace in my opinion no very good point nothing
further to add for this one, so I'll just read the next one. Go ahead. In Bitcoin, none of these
problems exist, and it would be very hard to implement such policies in a Bitcoin economy
because of the very nature of Bitcoin's cryptographic signature model. Not your keys,
not your Bitcoin is just another way of saying no pain, no gain. And as everyone who has ever
truly owned and lost Bitcoin knows, this is the true nature of any possession. If your possessions
are somehow guaranteed protection by a third party and not by yourself, you don't truly own them.
With Bitcoin as a world reserve currency, you can build a society on top of an underlying
concrete trustless foundation. And you can weave this provable sincerity into the fabric of whatever
policies and values society aims to uphold. It could provide us with a much more stable common
ground than fictitious promises such as the UN's list of basic human rights, the US Declaration of
independence or even the Ten Commandments ever could. The only thing preventing this from
happening is our collective lack of imagination. TLDR Bitcoin fixes this. Yes. And yeah, there's a
lot to unpack here. The not your keys, not your coins phrase is a phrase I miss hearing at the
Bitcoin conferences when everything is about institutional adoption and stuff nowadays.
it still holds true and the Bitcoin, all Bitcoins are self-custodied by someone.
Like there's a guy or a group of guys or gals that hold the keys to a certain Bitcoin address.
Sure, if you're at Coinbase and you hold someone else's, you're an employee at Coinbase that holds someone else's enormous amounts of Bitcoin,
then if you fuck off and buy an island somewhere, not only are you in legal trouble, but you will also lose your probably quite big monthly salary for having that responsibility.
So there are other incentive structures in play.
Still, at the end of the day, not your keys, not your coins.
That's how this particular system works.
all of these documents like the u.s declaration of independence we could go back to the magna
carta and like point out all the flaws of all of these man-made documents that were made before
bitcoin for the declaration of independence i mean none of the i'd say most of the amendments
have have been broken at this point the the freedom of speech definitely the right to bear
arms definitely it's not what it used to be in the u.s and the the thing is this is a paper written
by dead people and the it's a contract between people who are no longer living so it's not a
valid contract from a rothbardian contract ethics perspective the the the un's list of basic human
rights has a lot of rights that that are countered to the other rights because as we've talked about
a lot you and i the on the only true universal human right is the right right to be left alone
it's it's the only one that can be that is applicable to every living or dead or future
or past human being ever like if if there's it's the foundation of natural law law that is discovered
rather than man-made so and a right to housing for instance or a right to health care
has to break the the the rights to be left alone because someone has to build the house someone has
to provide the health care someone has to pay for it so so that's how that's wrong and the 10
commandments i would say that they're also self-contradictory in the don't steal thing like
don't steal sort of covers everything if you if you view your own body as your property
then you shall not steal is the same as you shall not kill because it killing or hurting another
person is just aggression it's stealing the other person's property and i would say the first then
this might be somewhat what's the word offensive opinion or unpopular opinion but i think the
first two commandments about having no other god than the god that the commandments command you to
have is violating don't steal because it's taking away my options so so there's that yeah and do you
have any comments on this luke in general or more specific well just the bitcoin of it all the reason
that i believe in bitcoin so much it's not the the technicals of it it's not the the the scarcity
all of these all of these things are great and it's it's it's why i believe that it's going to be
the the money that takes over the world but like i i really believe in this and i'm putting my
energy into this and my efforts into this because of its the potential to change the world in such
a profound positive way and give power back to the individual and get us out of of yeah this this
insane mess of being controlled by governments and regulations and the fiat money printers and all
this and yeah just just i i wish more people in bitcoin would see this also and prioritize it for
these reasons and be interested in Bitcoin, be interested in what you can do for Bitcoin,
not for what Bitcoin can do for you, basically.
Oh, that's beautiful.
That's a Rambo paraphrasing of a Rambo quote, I think.
It's definitely not my quote, but yeah.
Which is also paraphrasing, I think, a Kennedy quote, right?
Ask not what you can do for what your country can do for you, but what you can do for it.
And the Rambo quote is, I just wish my country would love me as much as I love it.
From the ending of Rambo 2, I think.
If I'm right about that, maybe it's Rambo 3.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
Yeah, ask not what Bitcoin can do for you, but what you can do for Bitcoin.
It's a good way to live.
Because I believe in Bitcoin because we are the Bitcoiners.
Because I believe in humanity.
Because I believe in human beings.
And human beings being able to solve problems without fighting one another.
without aggressing against one another.
And Bitcoin clearly shows that we are.
Because that's all it is.
It's human beings resolving conflict without violence or without aggression.
It's built around it.
It is the embodiment of the non-aggression principle.
That's what I believe in.
I believe human beings are capable of that.
Now, whether that requires large up returns or not,
that's a different question completely.
But I believe in this network because I believe in human beings.
Well put.
I think this is great.
I mean, the summary of this whole chapter is that we're in a big mess of regulations and things that are supposedly there to protect us, but really make things worse.
And hopefully Bitcoin is the way out.
Yes.
And with that, I thank you for listening.
And we would like to recommend you to go and check out Plan B Education Network thingy.
Go to planb.network to find a bunch of courses about Bitcoin and other adjacent things.
They're available all over the world.
And there are hubs here and there which you can join for specific physical courses.
Plan B is expanding.
Luke and I were recently in Logano for the fantastic Plan B Forum conference.
And there's a lot of things going down there, isn't there, Luke?
Yes, absolutely.
I really enjoy always going and hanging out with everything that Plan B is doing and seeing it expand.
So go to planb.network to check out all of their educational resources and see how you can get involved.
They're looking for volunteers and contributors in many different ways.
and also of course we're we're thrilled to recommend the the bitbox zero two nova edition
bitcoin only firmware of course it's the latest and greatest from bitbox and the they now have
ios support and the latest secure chip a much improved interface everything is everything is
great a new glass screen so lots of upgrades to this bitbox zero two nova edition so go to go to
bitbox.swiss slash infinity for more information and you get a discount with our code that way so
that helps support the show so i think that's everything yeah the bitbox already had a fantastic
user interface but it's even better now so definitely check them out they're our favorite
hardware wallet also while you're at it get a start nine use wexel go to shopping bit and use
the Consiguer service and get a 21 energy house heater. Do all of this stuff. We have a lot of
friends and we love their products. And use code infinity everywhere. Don't forget. Yeah, yeah. Use
code infinity. Whether it works or not, that's secondary. Just use it. Whether it even, whether
it works and goes to us doesn't matter. No, it doesn't matter. Use code infinity. Yeah. And with
that, this has been the Bitcoin Infinity Academy. Thank you for listening. Brush your teeth.
Thank you.