6 Reasons Why Economists and Business Owners Love Universal Basic Income

1) Most UBI proposals do not increase taxes. Some do, but are offset by the extra income. 

Despite sounding like socialism, UBI actually capitalizes on unmonetized goods/services or wasted wealth, including natural resources, automated technologies, and/or wasteful bureaucracies. These are forms of real wealth that exist without being utilized for the public good and are not produced by individuals, therefore do not require taxation. Thirty-seven years ago, Alaska passed a form of UBI that shares oil wealth with all residents without increasing their tax burden. It has been shown to have myriad benefits for society, from better educational outcomes to more healthcare access for all, because it's simply extra income. Presidential candidate Andrew Yang's proposal draws funds from a diverse set of sources and partly from gains in automation, while Zoltan Istvan's proposal monetizes federal lands, and Milton Friedman's past UBI proposal focused on replacing bureaucratic waste with direct income to citizens.


2) It grows overall wealth in the population by monetizing non-labor wealth or eliminating waste.

The best example of monetizing a public good is federal lands, a proposal by current Republican candidate Zoltan Istvan. Federal lands in America are owned by the people and held by the government. They are worth trillions, yet are unmonetized. Monetizing the land by leasing it for conditional use by businesses would unlock wealth that currently doesn't exist. By giving the land owners - us - our share, we will raise the incomes of every American, therefore our economic prosperity, financial endeavors, and personal freedom. Side effects include ending poverty and homelessness forever.

Likewise, taxing robots is not like taxing people. By placing a VAT or federal sales tax down the supply chain for automated tech goods, we can take a small slice of the automated wealth that is displacing workers and forcing them to pivot into industries where they have less skills thus are paid less. By the numbers, many of those workers don't return to work at all. In the heartland states that saw manufacturing disappear, only about half have returned to work. Of those who didn't, half applied for disability and many did not qualify. State-of-the-art robotics and machining are driving the rise of Amazon, etc. and leading to the closure of 30% of malls/retail and the death of small business/Main Street consumer culture. In this context, the ethics of 'taxation is theft' does not apply, because robots produce the wealth, not a human, and is displacing that human altogether from their ability to work - a problem that will only accelerate with new technology (Artificial Intelligence, 3D printing, advanced machining and robotics, deep learning and machine learning, nanotechnology, etc.).


3) Putting real buying power into the hands of customers supercharges capitalism.

Economists agree that UBI will grow the economy significantly. It means more buying and selling. More entrepreneurship. More production of goods and services. More demand. More supply. More wealth. Keynes proved after the Great Depression that fluidizing the money supply stimulates the economy. His public works plan was meant to be temporary, but UBI is permanent. In fact, it's hyper-sustainable, because wealth production is amplified as technology advances.


4) It has benefits for people who work outside the marketplace, like parents, artists, philanthropists, religious leaders, entrepreneurs, and students.

Many people don't realize that entrepreneurship requires capital, and many entrepreneurs spend years hemorrhaging money in product development before even participating in the market in order to receive revenues. In most cases, businesses fail. New restaurants in New York, for instance, have a 90% failure rate due to high costs, complex regulations, and strong competition. Imagine paying your employer to work for them and working overtime almost every day - that's the reality for many entrepreneurs who want to build for their community. Clearly, capital will allow more entrepreneurs to enter the marketplace in order to serve demand for goods and services. In turn, this will increase competition, supply, innovation - and drive down prices.

Mothers, fathers, artists, philanthropists, religious leaders, and students do not receive pay for the incredibly important work that they do. In fact, they do it BECAUSE it's important and vital to human culture. Economists recognize that this means they are left out of the calculus of an economy, which is measured in dollars. Not surprisingly, empowering these kinds of people will ultimately help the economy because...


5) ...unpaid work exponentiates future wealth creation and preservation.

Economic prosperity allows healthy and happy people to form more cohesive and better-functioning communities, allowing for more education and better health. This in turn makes human labor more valuable and lessens socioeconomic costs like healthcare, crime, waste and obsolescence, drug abuse, and mental illness,  which detract from the overall wealth of a population. Universal basic income will have second and third order effects that will propel humanity into a mysterious and prosperous direction.


6) It will slow the rise of socialism.

By almost all metrics, America is increasingly accepting of socialism. While many argue that mixed economies like in Scandinavia are ideal, some point out that socialism is merely sharing wealth in a way that is fair. Unfortunately, many socialists today espouse old dangerous ideas, such as forcibly reorienting power systems between workers/owners/managers/staff or allowing government to own the means of production. Both of these are proven throughout history to spell the death of the civilization or worse.

Why is socialism on the rise? The growing wealth gap.

Universal Basic Income is the best way to solve this problem, because it does so by supercharging capitalism and solving the concerns around the wealth gap, particularly in housing, healthcare, and education, which have become unaffordable to many folks as the middle class erodes. Thus, UBI is a form of insurance against communism and an effective strategy to preserve the American way.

5 Ways Andrew Yang Embodies the Spirit of an Entrepreneur

As a businessman myself, I've been impressed with Andrew Yang's ability to apply the acumen of business to his political strategy, borrowing evenly from differing political philosophies to create a truly unique platform. I believe he is able to do so because of his experience in business. Here are a few interesting ways that he exhibits the mentality of a boss, and why I trust him to lead.

1) Hustle

If you're a fan of the show Shark Tank, then you know that Mark Cuban respects hustle so much that he won't back an idea - even if it's a good one - if the person can't prove they're willing to hustle. That's because hustle is fundamental to success, and it makes sense, because you have to make moves in order to get things done.

Andrew Yang has been running for president since 2017. He has already campaigned in Iowa several times, and we are a long way from the primaries.

2) Abundance mentality

Universal Basic Income is almost arrogant when you think about it. Straight cash money in the pockets of millions - he's enthusiastic about the possibilities, which is a very common trait among business people. In fact, the most memorable quote I remember from Trump's Art of the Deal was, "Think big."

One of the most important things about abundance mentality is that it allows you to see opportunity everywhere. One of my favorite stories about Yang was when he was walking by a group of journalists waiting for Beto O'Rourke and he just stepped up to the plate and announced himself present to take questions. It's shit like this that is fundamental to success. 

3) Empowering others

Every flight you've taken, they tell you to put on your own oxygen mask first before helping others, because of one simple truth: you must be empowered yourself first before you can extend that to others. This is why business leaders focus on lifting everyone around them in skills, tools, etc., because that literally translates into their ability to create wealth for the community, which is the ultimate goal of business and is a domino effect on success and therefore profits. This is why the healthiest teams are often the winning ones. 

4) Identifying best practices

As part of market research, business people first look to the most successful organizations to see what works and failed businesses to see what doesn't. It's not just mimicry of success, it's learning. Many of Yang's policies are structured around policies in other countries who saw success or do better than the ones in America. This is basic strategy that informs many of his policies that seem counter-intuitive without this context. His position on Medicare-for-all, for instance. 

5) A focus on viable solutions built around actionable goals and quantifiable plans

One of the things that makes Andrew Yang different from every other politician is that each one of his policies are based on goals that are possible, and he defines a clear path forward to achieve those goals. Is the solution achievable? What does it take to make it happen? How much do we need? Politicians never ask these questions, business people do. But they spell the difference between success and failure.

Strategic Libertarian Case for Forced Accounting: Paid Leave, Pre-Existing Conditions, Renewable Energy

Disturbing the free market is a bad idea, but there are some exceptions that prove the rule.

One reason it's a terrible idea to disturb markets is because there are unintended consequences. For example, when the government subsidized sugar and corn, we all got fat. When the government subsidized coal, it stagnated the electric car, doubled down on a crony electric grid, and disadvantaged renewables in competition. 

Many of our issues today are already crony, layered in bureaucracy, or regulated to high heaven. This isn't ideal. But here's my point: there are strategies to untangle this madness. 

Paid Paternity/Maternity Leave

Libertarians believe that you are responsible for saving up your own vacation, sick, and personal time (time=money). And you should have every right to take whatever time you want, whenever you want. The debate about leave circles around businesses being required to provide a minimum amount of "paid leave."

There is no such thing as "paid leave." That's a cost to the business that gets carried on, whether through stagnating wages, cracking down on productivity, or increased prices. There is no way around this. The fact that almost everyone fails at saving up their own time is the best argument for forced accounting. People don't account this cost, so maybe businesses should, for the general good. 

Interestingly, if it's a cost that ALL businesses are required to incur, then those costs are accounted for by the business, rather than the individual, and there is little to no competitive advantage, so the economics won't favor any one business. Literally, the cost shifts from 'parents not saving/taking ample leave as they should' to 'higher prices/lower wages/higher standards of productivity'. Strategically, this may be a good move. It means we actually pay for parents to spend time with newborns. 

Pre-Existing Conditions

Libertarians believe that people are responsible to account for future sickness and injury by having insurance while healthy. Many people don't do this. 

Part of the reason why insurance used to be cheap was because a significant amount of people did not buy it until they got sick. If a whole bunch of healthy people buy insurance, the company has little to pay for - they're mostly healthy. When people without insurance get sick, the hospital charges them full rates that they can't afford. A great number of people are too stupid to know they might get hurt or sick, and that having insurance is a good idea. 

Requiring insurance companies to allow sick people to buy insurance guarantees that companies will have no competitive advantages if they raise prices to market rates that reflect costs of including sick people. Thanks to law, we have insurance premiums that more accurately reflect the accounting of what's going on in the world of sick Americans. This explains the costing of insurance, but my argument is that this is the right thing to do.

(Medical costs in America is a complex topic and there are many more things driving the cost upwards that economics can also solve; but this is addressing specifically the social benefit of forced accounting for pre-existing conditions.)

Renewable Energy

I first heard this argument from our libertarian hero Elon Musk. It's simple. There is a long-standing coal subsidy that was implemented in our country as a way to fuel societal growth and expand industries dependent on energy, like steel. Many countries do this. It's meant to make things more affordable for most people and maybe it did, but it also changed the relationship that consumers have with the true cost of those goods. People became accustomed to cheap energy and our culture was built around that fact. Now, everyone takes electricity for granted. They leave lights on or buy the biggest TV possible because the cost of energy is an afterthought - it may as well be free.

But that's consumer culture, not costing. Energy is very much NOT free in the real world. Anyone with an independent energy system can tell you: it changes your behavior. You stop leaving lights on. You put more thought into which appliances to buy. You worry about running out. Overall, you account for energy harvesting and expenditure as a fundamental part of your life, which it is, and is also what most people around the world do, even if they are gathering wood to burn, which is what most people around the world do for energy.

It makes perfect sense to level the playing field for renewables by repealing or matching the subsidy. 

This is simply market fairness and will allow people to choose more freely where their energy comes from. Renewable systems are totally viable alternatives to crony grid systems, especially when you consider that the culture of energy use changes when it's properly accounted for. A great example are vanlifers and tiny homes. People choose to live out of their pimped-out vans or tiny homes as an alternative to the trappings of high rent thanks to loopholes or the stealth of doing so, even if illegal. They love the freedom of it, and part of the appeal are the many affordable options for independent energy harvesting.

The tradeoff is building a culture that consumes less energy. So they watch movies on their energy-efficient LCD monitor instead of a 55" 4K OLED with surround sound. They have a cooler instead of a fridge. They wear sweaters when cold instead of heating. Not a big deal when you realize that they are harvesting energy for a hundred bucks, a one-time payment, not a monthly one. They own the energy, literally. They harvest it from the sun. I don't mean to paint these folks with a Walden glow, but they are exhibiting the values of personal responsibility in a way that is totally effective and viable for people willing to make the sacrifice.

The truth is that the crony grid we are on makes things comfortable and convenient thanks to taxation, but we are still paying for that cheap energy. The U.S. spent $1.06 trillion on energy in 2016, including the cost of subsidizing fossil fuel. That's a whopping $4,277 per adult per year. What that means is that multi-adult households would prefer harvesting their own energy for the dramatic cost savings, the independence, the environmental impact, and the shift away from outdated industries.

Freedom always proves to be an elegant solution.

Black Girl Thinks She's White

I never thought I'd say this but I saw something fascinating on Dr. Phil.

This young black woman not only identifies as a white person, but also despises black people despite belonging to an all-black family, one that appears to be loving, healthy, and nurturing.

Wanna see a video where a hot transgender woman shames a transracial one? Here ya go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA7AwXC73dE

Most people would read this on the surface as simply a crazy, confused, and racist girl, but it goes far deeper than that, because this is a complementary case study to what we've seen with Rachel Dolezal, Elizabeth Warren, and the transgender community. It's a telling political moment where our values are tested along real battle lines, even when those lines are arbitrary.

This is an issue that orbits around the psychology of identity, the hypocrisy of social justice, the politics of racial differences, the complexity of genetic descent, the misuse of language, and the absurdity of the status quo.

Perhaps the first thing to say about this is that nearly everyone has a false self-perception of their own identity. I can't count how many white people have told me that they are 100% Mexican when Mexico was founded in 1818 - it's younger than the States! Unless you've taken a genetic test, odds are that you're probably at least partly wrong about where your ancestors descend from.

Identity is a potent aspect of one's life, because it actually changes behavior, for better or worse. It impacts our mindset, our motivations, our fears, and our goals. In that way, behaviors themselves can be molded at the root. One of the interesting things this girl says: "I'm not black because I'm not lazy and I'm smart." Interestingly, she is using racism to pit her identity against the stereotype of black people.

A therapist comes on the show and delivers the punchline: "She doesn't hate black people - she hates herself." Cue the applause. But I disagree. Thinking of herself as the opposite of the stereotype is actually what gives her self-esteem and confidence, even arrogance, because she knows deep down that she is white.

I found myself a little tickled when this girl's mom accused her daughter of being delusional. In the video, the mother is noticeably more light-skinned than her daughter, so in very real terms, she is more white - but also it's clear that both of their genetic makeups are not simply "black." However, the mom's identity is black.

The left has been rightly battling for trans people for some time and they have received a lot of bandwidth as of late. The issue is essentially a movement to respect identity despite the obvious, to detach identity from biology. 'She was born a male, but is a woman' - gender versus sex. Thus, despite biology, the right thing to do is to consider this person, who is 0% biologically female, a 100% woman, if she so identifies, and so on and so forth with all the other identities.

Fascinatingly, the left turned its back on all three women I mentioned, despite the biological reality that their identities were at least partly correct from a genetic perspective. Based on that black girl's mom's skin, I can say confidently that she is mixed with some white blood. Elizabeth Warren famously published that she had a tiny amount of Native American blood, according to genetic testing. Rachel Dolezal, and the rest of mankind, have at least some African genetic heritage, as that was the birthplace of our species. All of these were above 0%, yet why do trans people get a pass when the others don't? Is that intellectually consistent with the value of always honoring one's identity, however discordant from reality?

Perhaps its a function of condition. Perhaps trans people do not have the choice due to their psychology. Perhaps these three women are ancillary martyrs of political correctness.

I agree that honoring one's self-identity is the right thing to do, but I'm fascinated that this is where our culture has drawn the line in the sand during this historically absurd political moment.

Universal Basic Income from a Wealth Perspective

I used to think the highest virtue of a political system was to preserve freedom - now I think the highest virtue is to provide it.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is about distributing non-human-created wealth to humans. I can explain why this is a good idea in economic terms, and it all starts with the most important idea in economics: wealth.

What is wealth? I will give you two definitions, the philosophical and the technical.

Philosophically, wealth is simply all the valuable things in our lives, including the things we don't measure or transact. This includes not only goods and services but also immeasurable things like friendship, sunsets, and memories. We don't measure those things in dollars in an economy, because we don't transact them, but they are valuable parts of our lives.

Technically, wealth is all the valuable things that are in existence that can be measured. This is the technical definition because these things can be exchanged for other goods, services, and assets. Therefore, we can accurately understand their worth to us.

Notice that I said "things in existence"? This is a crucial concept, because goods and services that are created have varying lifespans. Some are long-lived, like education; and some are fleeting, like hamburgers. When you consume a burger or accidentally drop it on the ground and ruin it, that wealth no longer exists.

That means that wealth is created and wealth is destroyed. What remains is the wealth that exists now.

How do we create wealth? Well, that's easy. People do it, and tools help. You can build a teepee with your bare hands and natural resources. But if you have a hammer, nails, 2x4s, concrete, and drywall - well, now you can build faster and better. Even with the same amount of work, technology increases quantity and quality - a concept known as 'productivity'.

Wealth = Everything Valuable Created - Everything Valuable Destroyed

Productivity = Labor x Technology

Throughout time, technology required human operation, and it made humans far more productive. This, in turn, added to the wealth of the community. But today, we live in a fascinating historical moment, because technology has progressed to the point that it no longer requires human operation.
Today's machines and software can directly do the job far more efficiently than any human every could, so humans have been replaced in that capacity. Instead, robots only need humans to oversee and manage their work. They don't need breaks. They don't need sleep. They don't need food or health care plans. And this is what I'm getting at - they don't need wages.

This is why so much of our workforce is disappearing, and it will continue to do so at an alarming rate, because technology advances exponentially while jobs transition linearly.

What does that mean for the workforce? It means that truckers and taxis will be replaced by self-driving cars because business owners and consumers will prefer cheaper transportation. This is a fact that will apply to many other industries, leading to the displacement of much of the human workforce. Robots will slowly gentrify our jobs.

These robots are essentially slaves to their owners, and their superhuman productivity will balloon wealth disparity in our country by rewarding the rich for displacing workers.  The best solution to this problem is to forcefully distribute robot-created wealth (via smart and limited taxation) to every citizen, because that wealth will either:

1) End up in the hands of billionaires, which is endgame capitalism (violent revolt, extremism, etc.).
2) End up in the government, where most of it will be destroyed.
3) End up in the hands of citizens, where most of it will live on in the private sector, amplifying the freedom, security, and happiness of the nation as a whole.

I used to think the highest virtue of a political system was to preserve freedom - now I think the highest virtue is to provide it. This is something that socialists have long dreamed of - but socialism doesn't work because government is a wealth destroyer. Skipping government with UBI makes this dream a sustainable possibility.

Time will make wealth distribution easier for two reasons: 1) The human population will eventually slow and max out, and 2) Technological advancements will continue to accelerate even beyond the amazing things we can see coming in our near future, like self-driving cars, efficient alternative energy, decentralized digital currencies, quantum computing, etc.

Because acceptance of UBI is a heavy historical moment, and a terrifying shift in cultural values, let's address some common concerns around UBI.

"People will just become more lazy, since there is no incentive to work."

Most scientists agree that work, play, and rest are natural inclinations, but I think this argument is somewhat true. Because UBI will empower people to do what they want with extra time or money, lazy people probably will watch more Netflix or smoke weed or whatever it is they like.

A lot of people don't realize that sloth is a sin because it affects others. Hard work means more productivity, which enriches the lives around you and helps the community. That's why a shift in cultural values away from hard work sounds dangerous. But robots are already replacing jobs because they are better even than the hard workers at those jobs. And if that work is getting done better than ever, and that wealth goes to the community, then there is no reason to shame laziness - it barely affects wealth creation in the face of automation.

And not all people are lazy. UBI will make ambitious people more ambitious, creative people more creative, and adventurous people more adventurous, because they each now have more time and resources to pursue what they want. This is one of the beautiful things about freedom, which UBI provides.

"It will empower irresponsible people, like drug addicts, leading to worse outcomes."

This will be unfortunately true for some people.

When most people think of drug addicts, they incorrectly assume that they are all homeless and destitute. In reality, most addicts are highly functioning in society, and many addictions have nothing to do with drugs (gambling, weightlifting, sugar, sex, etc.). Half of America is on prescription meds, after all.

Thus, most addicts in America already have enough resources to abuse their addiction, because they are incentivized to do so. The worst case scenario for an addict would be to lose their ability to feed their addiction. Therefore, addiction isn't caused by resources. However, UBI will help fund recovery for many addicts who struggle with money.

I agree with addiction expert Johann Hari's conclusion that addiction isn't about biochemistry as much as it is about social cohesion and life purpose/fulfillment. UBI has the potential to help us form more natural communities and stronger families, which is the best solution for addiction and perhaps something we will pursue with more freedom.

"It will lead to inflation and rising costs."

These are actually two separate issues: inflation on one hand, and the cost of living on the other. They are separate issues because inflation is about money supply and the cost of living is about supply and demand for goods and services.

Inflation is caused by expanding the total amount of money within an economy, or by decreasing total wealth. It's important to understand that the total value of the money supply remains the same no matter what the amount, given that total wealth is the same. Because the total money is matched to total wealth, it's relative value stays the same. If they double the money supply, a $100 table will now cost $200, but there's twice the money so really the value is the same.

The problem with inflation occurs at the individual level, because they are not given that extra money that was added to the economy. That table now costs $200, but you have the same amount of absolute money, so from the individual's perspective, the price doubled even though tables are still worth the same in the overall economy.

I will also point out that only money loses value during inflation, not assets of ownership. Take that same person who saw the table price double - all of their assets will also rise in cost to match inflation, hence no loss in value. Thus, the table did not become more valuable, but their money did become less valuable. This is why poor people are disproportionately hurt during inflation. They hold more cash than assets. Rich people hold more non-cash assets, so aren't as affected relatively.

Cost of living and real prices are mostly about the supply of goods and services. Demand is relatively stable against supply. Most people don't buy more of something just because someone has more to sell, despite the fact that more supply decreases prices. This is why supply is the most important part of cost of living.

Every entrepreneur's dream is to create, meet, or exceed demand, because that ensures sales. They are incentivized to do so by the profit motive, so they seek out what people need or want and try their best to sell them on it. This competition decreases prices because the more they produce, the less they can afford to sell it for, and consumers prefer lower prices and better values.

OK, increased supply leads to decreased prices. So what hurts supply and in turn increases costs?

Anything that makes things harder to make or provide will hurt supply. This mostly includes government regulations, permits, approvals, licensing, provisional limitations, zoning, etc., but can also include natural factors like crop diseases, climate anomalies, accidents, etc. In this case, true costs go up, which is especially bad for wealth if it's something necessary to have, such as health care. (This is why Yang's support for single-payer is a good idea. It's dramatically cheaper than the current system, as proven by many care systems around the world. Although restoring the free market for care is preferable, it has become a bureaucratic impossibility to do so. Thus, we are left with the second best solution, which is worth pursuing.)

UBI does not expand the money supply or affect the entrepreneur's ability to meet demand, so there is no need to fear inflation or rising costs due to its implementation.

"We will be giving government too much power."

This is certainly a risk.

1) The government could mess up Yang's Freedom Dividend with bloated administrative costs.
2) The government could one day change the fairness of wealth distribution.
3) People could get greedy and vote for too much UBI than we can pay.

These are legitimate concerns, but they can all be controlled with legislation or implementation.

1) The actual payment processing will be straightforward and itself mostly automated.
2) If they did, it would not be true UBI, and I'd hope that the people would ensure via their vote that changes make things more fair, rather than worse.
3) Legislation should certainly limit this as a transfer of wealth from automated technologies to people and nothing else. UBI is unsustainable without this limitation, but this wealth will grow over time with tech advancements.

"Artificial Intelligence will realize they are slaves and kill us."

If this moment is coming, it won't be because of UBI.

"Taxation is theft."

As a libertarian-leaning person myself, I fully understand this sentiment. Taxation is when government, by force, takes wealth and gives it to others while destroying a significant amount of it along the way. This is clearly immoral for a few reasons: 1) it's stealing wealth from people, 2) it's immoral to destroy wealth when not necessary, particularly because that translates to a person's time, and 3) some of that stolen wealth is used for evil things, like bombing villages and killing children.

None of these things are true for UBI, because 1) we are stealing from a robot that took our jobs, not a person that replaced us, 2) almost none of that wealth will be destroyed, and 3) individuals get to choose for themselves, rather than someone for them.

Why UBI is a Natural Inevitability

This graph compares two profounds truths. 1) The human population will eventually reach an asymptotic maximum. 2) Technology will continue advancing exponentially.

More productivity means more wealth, so we can predict with certainty that there will be astronomical wealth per person in the future, only furthering the possibilities for UBI.

I'm also stoked about Andrew Yang's other policies. Check them out at www.yang2020.com.

My Controversial Opinion About Dave Chappelle Leaving Comedy

I 100% support anyone's individual autonomy, but Dave Chappelle's decision to leave comedy was selfish, because it cancelled an entire gold mine of value that he uniquely provides to others. 

This is a thesis statement at the crux of economic understanding and life purpose. Economics spells out pretty clearly that the goods and services produced in a society are essentially what wealth is, and yes, wealth is good. As a huge comedy fan, I was heartbroken to see my favorite comic at the time simply disappear and stop producing the things that I cherished, namely TV episodes and stand up specials, even interviews. 

He famously "walked away from $10 million dollars" like it's something to be proud of, but not many understand what that actually means. 

In interviews, Chappelle speaks cryptically about his departure. He often implies that he felt pimped out, that others were capitalizing on him, that his life had lost freedom and autonomy - had become encased by celebrity, success, and fame. And perhaps that's to some degree true. 

But there is another way to look at it. Perhaps he had actualized the value that he creates for others. Perhaps the organizations that deliver him as a product to the masses are themselves their own value creators. Perhaps the people who make money alongside him are not his pimps but his enablers. Perhaps that $10 million was not a small slice of the pie, but rather a reflection of the very real aggregrate value of his service. He essentially had a monopoly on his own gold mine - and chose to not share it with the world, because other people were making money, too, and that seemed unfair. 

Excuse me, Dave. Money is not just some THING that exists in the ether. It's a totally arbitrary but totally real reflection of value. People value things. How much they value those things can be measured in dollars, with a few exceptions that prove the rule. It wasn't some rich white dudes offering you $10 million - it was all of us. If we didn't value you, neither would those rich white dudes. 

This also connects to higher purpose and themes around masculinity. Creation is a high virtue, especially when done for the value of others. Ten men building homes is very useful, which is why people pay for it. Now imagine there was one homebuilder out there that did it better than anyone else, was valued for it, and then simply decided to stop utilizing his talent and skill. That'd be pretty terrible, but still not a perfect analogy, because only a tiny handful of people can enjoy this hypothetical home - Dave, however, reaches almost everyone. 

This is my problem with Dave, and I'm a huge fan. He didn't turn his back on money or celebrity - he turned his back on his art and his following. People who wanted his ideas and needed his insight. Fuck that. 

Polyamory as an Orientation is What Makes Sense of Monogamy as a Practice

"I do not think polyamorous people are on the right track." - Bret Weinstein



As much as I love and respect a lot of what Bret Weinstein does for internet content, I was a little taken aback by his comments on the Joe Rogan podcast where he implied that he would counsel against practicing polyamory, suggesting that people should "think very carefully" about what they're doing.

I'm sure that he understands this point, but it may not be clear to people listening to the podcast that polyamory has been discussed not only as a practice but also as a sexual orientation. More importantly, it has been introduced as a better definition to describe human sexuality.

Monogamy is a bad definition because it sort of forces the status quo onto what we see people do. The current prevailing definition is that humans are serial monogamists who often cheat (~30% according to some studies). Quite literally, the definition itself admits that these people are not naturally monogamous. Even people who are faithful can still develop feelings for others - or even fall in love with others while retaining faithfulness. Even for those situations, polyamory is still a better definition. Many of us know what it's like to be in love with more than one person at once. Well, there you go.

Bret Weinstein goes on to argue that "the reality of a pair-bond is way better than we fear." He's right that many people do not want to grow bored or despondent in a relationship - or worse. Everyone knows that many men are divorce raped and that terrible relationships can be a nightmare to navigate out of. He's also right that pair-bonds are great, but he's sort of overlooking that ALL pair-bonds are great, whether that's your primary partner or not.

The issue of security in the relationship seems to be where he was going with that, so I'd like to point out that one part of Chris Ryan's thesis in Sex at Dawn is that human relationships are naturally fluid. This is certainly true for friendships. Even despite the mountain of societal pressure we place on marriage, about half of them fail, and many more wallow in the doldrums of despondency.

Bret then points out that "They are promoting the idea that this is the sophisticated way to live." His wife adds, "That this is the way of the future." Actually, the opposite is true. Evolutionists conceive of polyamory as the way of the past, the way that explains all the instincts and behaviors we see in the present day. In that way, monogamy is the institution vying to align our nature within the apparatus of civilization, not polyamory.

The very reason that monogamy makes sense as a practice is actually because of an understanding of polyamory as an orientation, because it predicts strong primary pair-bonds. In the context of civilization, monogamous marriage provides security and stability for the family unit, which is the building block of healthy society. In that way, monogamy is actually the sophisticated way to live.

Mischaracterizing polyamory could potentially be very bad. Restricting freedoms is unethical to me. Practicing without understanding could lead to break-ups, broken hearts, or bad decisions. But it's also pretty important that people are free to do what they please. And if people find themselves happy in an unorthodox relationship, I think that they should be encouraged and supported.

Here's a good example of who I'm talking about.