 and starting to unwind that and release, I think, a marketplace that can produce the kind of growth that we saw in the past. I see no limitations of growth. I don't see any reason why this economy couldn't grow at substantial higher rates than it is today at much higher productivity rates. If you unleash those, if you unleash the capacities of human beings to actually produce freely and to trade and innovate freely in every space, not just in electrons but in atoms as well. Have you been to Burning Man? No, I have not been to Burning Man. How many of you have been to Burning Man? I've heard stories. Okay, there's something in the back who's been to Burning Man. Very good. This is ridiculous. If you guys are coming here and you care about the individual and you want to see a relatively lightly regulated environment in which people max out their creativity, get yourself to the Nevada desert at the end of August because it is awesome and it is so, you know, one of the slogans of Burning Man is keep Burning Man potentially lethal because the fun that you're having is, you know, you're out in the desert and people are on every kind of psychedelic and a giant dragon comes by that can, with two flamethrowers in its nose, blaring music and offering drinks. And mostly people don't die. It's pretty amazing. The key, though, you're on is that Burning Man is so expensive. It's so difficult to survive in the desert and you have to do all this organization. It selects against people with low IQ, low executive function, inability to manage risk. And so the idea is that it's only possible because it's not convenient. It's, you know, this is the old puzzle about North Dakota's high SAT score. Somebody once asked the governor, like, what's going on in North Dakota? He says, well, Forty Below keeps the riffraff out. So you have this wonderful situation that there are situations that we see where by getting rid of people who can't compete, you can have a relatively self-regulating environment because everybody who needs all the guardrails and all of the edges sanded and all of these are out. The problem is we're dealing at scale and it's not clear to me whether we can have everybody in on the risk system. We have bread dependence. So that's where I'm going to agree with. I agree. I know. That was the part I was throwing to you. So we have bread dependence, for sure. But it's also the case that we can't necessarily easily take on all of our problems. If you decide to have a child, the umbilical cord is wrapped around the throat and you don't have a high income, and you've got a kid with cerebral palsy, you've got an interesting situation. And now are you going to regulate who can have sex, unprotected sex with whoever else? All of these things are unclear. Now all of you Einrandians have thought about these things. You all have very interesting answers, so I don't want to spend time on the low-level thing. What I do want to say is, first of all, you guys got to go to Burning Man. Second of all, very often you have to select against the people who can't handle the risk, or you have a system that moves towards the kind of nanny state and highly regulated structure. And the most important thing is we need places to misbehave. It's very important that the people who want to misbehave at a very high level have somewhere to go. And the big problem isn't regulation someplace. It's the concept that no place shall escape regulation. We have to regulate tech and hedge funds. Any place you could have fun, you know, porn, we've got to regulate the hell out of porn. It's like, geez, you can regulate our porn for God's sake. Well, we've done hedge funds already. We're about to do technology. Well, that's the thing, right? So you need the place for high-agency people to go do high-agency things with other high-agency people in a very lightly regulated environment. And what I suggested at some point to the head of the Heritage Foundation is take every healthy company, decide that you can hang a 5% or 10% national interest exemption off of the side of this thing, for people to do unregulated stuff that might do amazing things for the world. Because I don't think we're going to get a very lightly regulated society. You need some place to go to misbehave. And the most important thing is we have to get our top people, like, we're really going to regulate the hell out of Elon Musk. The one person who's working in the atomic layer, it's like, oh my God, maybe he's having too much fun with women and drugs. Let him have fun with women and drugs. We need the cars. We need the batteries. We need the space travel. But this is what concerns me is, I mean, why shouldn't everybody be having fun? So this, in a sense, elitism, right? This idea that only Elon Musk should be had fun, but the woman who wants to open a nail salon is driven and maybe she has a low IQ, but she can run a nail salon and she's hired people and she's got that counting done. And obviously nail salons provide value to people because, you know, they're everywhere, so you guys must consume their product. I don't, but you guys must. And we license her and we put her through hell to start this nail salon. And why? Why shouldn't she be able to live in that same unregulated environment where she can have fun, provide a value, and make some money instead of being driven off and into poverty because you can't afford the opening fee that are licensing. I want her less regulated. Yes, I'd say less. I want force out of it. I don't see why the government has any role to play in what we engage with voluntarily, no matter what our IQ is. That is, I don't see the government having a policy for high IQ people, you know, create a space for them to have fun and not have a policy for low IQ. It's true that some people are going to have problems with, you know, health and whatever, all of that. They've got to be solutions for that that don't involve somebody showing up at your house in a sense with a gun and taking your stuff away. They've got to be solutions that we can create voluntarily to solve those problems. And those are edge problems. They're not major problems. The number of people who really can't take care of themselves in an economy. I mean, I was, I remember Jordan Peters was saying people with low IQ, you know, what are we going to do? The 10% of them in one of the, one of the panels that we were at. And I was thinking when he was saying, I was thinking of sitting in the Chicago, I don't know, 30, 40th floor of the Chicago finance firm, very comfortable and watching on the skyscraper, these guys cleaning windows, sitting on this narrow little thing and cleaning the windows. You couldn't pay me. There's no number that you could pay me to do that job, right? You know, it scares the, but Jesus out of me. There's no way I would get up there. And probably, I don't know what their IQ is, but my guess is it's lower than mine. But great for them and they're earning a living and it's great. And yes, one day a robot will do it and one day there'll be jobs that we can't even imagine that will require the same kind of skill sets and risk taking in a way that us intellectuals can't imagine, right? Because we won't do those kind of jobs. So I, you know, it strikes me as bizarre that we're overly worried about, oh, those people over there can't take care of themselves. Yeah, I think people are amazingly, I mean, we were in China in 2004, was it a six or something like that? And we went, and I was very skeptical of China and we went to Dongguan China. Dongguan China is a city that didn't exist and within 10 years, it had eight million people. And everybody in the city was on the move, right? Everybody was doing stuff, right? They weren't, you know, who knows how smart they were, but they weren't doing sophisticated stuff. Everybody was doing stuff, millions of people working hard to make a living. Often on their little scooter, they had the whole family dragging, I mean, risk taking that I couldn't imagine, right? And they had, and they were succeeding and they were achieving stuff and they were building stuff and it was amazing. The energy was palpable in this place. It's probably what America felt like in the 19th century. And they were just striving to make their lives better, to improve their life. And I want people to live those kind of lives. I want people to be engaged. I want people to embrace. I mean, at some point you guys talked about, or maybe it was you with Ben, about the value that comes from actually working, right? And it's great to see people engage in that kind of work. And I think when you leave people alone, that's what they do. It's when you coddle them, it's, oh, you can't do it. You know, it's too much risk for you. Let me take care of you. That's when you lose them. But we're in agreement on that. So it's not about coddling. It's also not about, like, high IQ. There are lots of people with lower IQs are much more effective than people with high IQs. Believe me, if you've been to a math department, you know this is true, right? The issue is about most of us are going to require having data rather than alpha to some process. So if it's electrification or indoor plumbing or a new road system or digitization or virtualization. Most people don't know what beta and alpha mean. Sorry. Okay, alpha, you've got some highly idiosyncratic thing that you know how to do, and it's awesome. Beta is you have exposure to something that's generally going on. Like, hey, I heard crypto's really good, okay? So you're doing that crypto thing. And if crypto's going up, you're getting rich just because you're in on crypto. You don't understand elliptic curve cryptography, but hey, you've got some bitcoins. So that worked out for a period of time. Most of us are not going to get paid by having alpha, right? We're not going to be the next Elon Musk. What we are going to do is we are going to say, I wanna be part of a vibrant society. I've got a little idea and I'm gonna attach it to a bigger one. So that's why it's not about elitism. It's about let the people who are gonna have the really big ideas, the alpha, contribute them so the rest of us can get some goddamn beta and lead really fulfilling lives because it requires a fair amount to make a living with beta. I mean, alpha's really hard, but beta's hard enough as it is. No, it's a great point. And only a few people in any society, in any given point in time in society, provide alpha, really change the world in that sense and really move us forward. And yes, you wanna give them as much freedom to create that alpha as possible. And we should all benefit from that freedom as well. I don't wanna give them exclusivity on freedom. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broods.