What do human beings value? It is a question that is both personal and social. It is personal as each person's valuation is personal.  It is social as you are a person in relation to other people. It is social as you can exercise your ability to gain what you value by and with the help of others who are like you in so many ways.  Focus on empowerment arises through looking for that best bargain in what you elect to receive and accomplish through expending the resources that are yours. This work is in the nature of efficiency engineering support for your part of humanity. It is to provide you opportunity to best define what has value to you and to understand what it will likely cost you to gain or accomplish what you value. One of the most effective tools we have for this is our understanding of investment. What we do involves a cost in terms of our personal commitment of what we have to expend. This is our personal expenditures and it is what we value for the purpose of achieving a result that is also what we value. We call it a good investment when what you gain through accomplishment is personally considered more valuable than what you had to commit to achieve it. In elisting others becomes a way to share cost and to better assure the valued result. The more we learn about personal investment, the more effective we become and the greater our individual and corporate empowerment. One of the more effective understandings for optimizing what we get from expending our time and effort is the realization that we are going to expend it all. Every moment we live will be used for something. All our effort, learning and abilities will be expended. Consider the personal expenditure we make as young adults seeking to enjoy the benefits of family, of joining our lives with another and raising the next generation. Even though we spend our youth years investing in enhancing our personal capacities and expending upon ourselves through training, education, skill building and the like, there is still the potency of family. It is not just becoming more effective as a social unit. It is also that very human understanding that there is value in just being a unification of people for commonly held purposes. It is a source of personal value. Though we can vary in many ways, we still seem to share that sense of value that draws us to taking part in finding those common purposes with others. The cost incurred in pursuing any one personal investment is loss of potential from pursuit of alternatives. Making a decision limits freedom, but the value of personal freedom can be replaced by unity promoting common purpose choices that are available to a family unit. Having choices is freedom a human value. Becoming a family unit involves both a cost and a new value in choices that come available. Making such choices is a part of living and we make them every day we are alive. It is not just the major choices as joining lives with one another, but whether we are to actively pursue other, less personal purposes. How much of your personal time and effort would you be willing to commit to achieve some increased level of political freedom? It involves a choice that is potentially yours to make. In our study of human performance, we are examining the potentials for leveraging our sense of human purpose and our value in joining efforts with others based on common senses of value on purposes we share with others. Our general empowerment is one of promoting personal choices in how our time and efforts are spent and personal or family election is on what is likely to be gained or accomplished through those expenditures. It is necessary to address the common commitment of humanity tending to the limits of human life itself. We have needs that must be filled if we are to live. We have limits to our strength and concentration. We have limits to our intelligence and wisdom that we are able to apply. Also by humanity itself, we are able to consciously and effectively manage and have effect upon the time, strength, learning and other human capacities that are ours. That too is investment. If we expend great physical energy, we can grow stronger and more agile. But this is at the cost of expending time to both seek the effect and to rest from our physical efforts. In a light manner, we can expend mental energy increasing our knowledge to think effectively, but there is a cost there as well. We actually expend most of what we have just in living. The remainder is available for intentional decision. In this study based on empowerment, we expend to gain effectiveness in our intentional decisions. The investment is time and attention both in receipt and interactive exploration of what we learn. The desired product is an increase in human capacity to make intelligent and informed personal investments. The value is not in the knowledge base as the new factual information is far from extensive and most of it being human already known and accepted. The value is not in the information itself but an expanded way to see and understand our world. It is on this basis that we examine concepts like the expansion of the grand jury to apply management to governance. It includes cost and benefit in terms of paying jury members for participation. And as humans, it includes people working together for commonly valued results as supporting our government in secrecy decisions for sensitive information. It is human to demand services from the economy and government that we own. It is human value in potentially rejecting massive complicated laws you cannot readily receive and value. It is us as empowered humans who can address the ineffectiveness and damaging nature of current governance with knowledge of costs and benefits making changes. It is human to share this with others minimizing the cost to us as individuals and maximizing our corporate effect. What we cover in this course is witness to that human truth that it is all about us that we really are the only party in interest. One of the more effective pieces of intelligence is the nature of change that we the people can put into effect by general mandate. For the personal investment, the change is made once and will be very difficult to un-make. When established by a people acting as a unit, the cost may be significant but the result will continue as a benefit for a long time With mandate, the necessary personal investment can be quite limited. Receipt of the basis for mandate and general agreement is sufficient to add to the empowerment of those who are more involved in the change. Those whose greater investment was their personal choice. Likewise, where a greater personal investment is reasonable, it can be multiplied in effect by the inclusion of the support of others. If the cost is acceptable, there may be an expanded grand jury to review secrecy matters, to review legislation or to take other support of a regulatory actions. The grand jury once in place will also be a tool for further investment. Empowered people can decide whether there is sufficient value from expanding or shrinking any future grand jury efforts. That too is an investment potential and there is so much more. The jury is a sampling of humanity. It is not a group of special people who can grasp personal privileges from having taken part in the new jury system. They are to be individuals representing all of us. What they decide will be like what people in general will decide. What they choose to do is what in general we would choose to do if we were on that jury. The materials we have been addressing in this study are truly powerful. They empower citizens to accomplish what citizens commonly value. They can initiate and maintain such changes as people feel will benefit humanity. They can serve those who we employ to do the day-to-day management of our nation, providing them with ability to address matters to a sample of the public or to receive what the public would mandate for their action. So how many times will citizens have to come together to initiate the expansion of our system of grand juries to function as a support for government and as a means for citizen management over government? Of course it only requires that change once. Better still once the change is made by the public through their mandate. It is not going to be reversed until the people change their minds concerning the value they have in being in support of and in charge of central governance. This is not one of those political matters where administrator and authority feels compelled to challenge and reverse the accomplishments claimed by some earlier set of privileged leaders. What we are discussing in this course is the potential for civilization level management of humanity with the general concept of civilization operating for the benefit recognized by we the people. The exercise of privilege yields waste where it costs time and effort just to maintain what leaders would do for the benefit of commoners. There is a need to constantly review and re-evaluate these property taxes and how the rent or taxes if you prefer are to be collected in support of government by privileged leaders. The exercise of privilege and land ownership includes the need for owners to hire experts if they want to continue with even the limited ownership that privileged-based leaders have permitted to common citizens. Consider the result of a state-level mandate that any transfer of property in the state records is a service rather than a source of regulation. It is that granting new deeds is an immediate act with the state taking care of its own records as it serves the citizens. That change would be made once. It would not have to be made a second time. Also it is likely that the change would be relatively permanent. Once gained as a service it could easily cost public careers for leaders who tried to reverse it. Simply taking things from the public terminating a service while creating costs for citizens would be unlikely. It is especially unlikely when that change has just been accomplished at considerable personal cost to people through the commitment of a man to a mandate. The fact that the leader preferred the privileged approaches is unlikely to be accepted by the public as any sort of improvement in their lives. We do have some general intelligence and its technical support for decision makers. These are rules derived from experience with efforts to accomplish things in the past. In that sense these do not function as science but as general knowledge that can support intelligent investment of our time and effort with reasonably accurate expectations for what our efforts can accomplish. We all necessarily act on expectations of what something will cost, what we will commit, and the likelihood of what we will be able to gain through our expenditure. Both are expectations not factual valuations. As human beings we do the best we can to develop more or less accurate expectations. Our need for intelligent evaluation is a basis for learning. Wouldn't we try something that does not work? It discourages our future attempts to do the same. When we try something that is rewarded with a result we personally value, we are encouraged to use the same approach again. We call it learning by experience. I also note that much of our educational culture seems intent on a different learning. One that insists on recognizing the right way things are done and trying with greater intensity and effort if it does not seem to work. Indeed there are times when that pays off and we are able to gain what we value by that method. There are also many more times where the unexpected result is made worse as reality tends to be consistent. The effort here is to be aware of our humanity and that both of these approaches to learning and improvement are available for your application. In complete accord with the general purpose of this work the choice is yours. You are empowered by having that choice as a basis for understanding and working with reality. The choice is yours. You are empowered in your dealings with others as they also learn how to approach their own decisions. Some will prefer one approach over others as a general matter. Others including most who take this course will be a bit more intentional in selection. That is empowerment. Being able to have intentional effect on how you learn is a very deep empowerment. We have a few technical rules from estimating that may serve you well in making intelligent investments. We will be urged to evaluate costs before deciding to commit personal time and energy. Based on the weakness of expectations for our future situation any estimated cost based on a personal action will have to be doubled by unexpected costs. When it comes to doing things it will generally take twice as much time and effort to gain accomplishment as can be reasonably estimated before starting the effort. We seem to be pretty good at understanding the value we seek through our action but this general rule will well best assure that we have a workable upfront expectation for what we must commit to gain it. We know that there is going to be an active resistance to anything that we try to accomplish just because it will require some change from what we otherwise expect to happen. Change is always approached as a cost. Also in any project there are unplanned complications or challenges that have to be addressed on the way to accomplishment. This is a consistent reality. What the general estimating rule accomplishes is the inclusion of an investment to handle a reasonable amount of contingency and it is not that we can plan where those contingency challenges will arise they cannot be planned as they seem almost random. We just plan to have sufficient resources to address them as they arise. This general rule has been tested by time and experience. We are able to build buildings and businesses and the contingency allowance is usually sufficient to handle the unexpected as it arises. We are able to plan vacations in retirement and the expected contingencies of lost vehicle keys, mistakes in communicating with providers, illnesses and other unplanned matters can generally be handled by the contingency without loss of purpose being served by our efforts. Your ability to plan effectively will almost always be rewarded. This of course assumes that you have approached the desired result in terms of investment rather than just another more intensive attempt to accomplish something that has previously failed. For the next focus we return to that concept that brought us together in the beginning with another point of intelligence that can serve us in seeing and understanding the investments that are most likely to serve us. We return to the basic understanding that we the people are the United States and without us there is no nation. We are the public and there is no other public to be served. We are society and there is no society here but us. The new addition is that we when addressed as a unit are a single unit. We cannot go in two directions at the same time. We cannot enter into conflict without ceasing to be a unit where we go as a nation we go together. What we do as a nation is what we accomplish not what some do in overcoming others. One obvious reason for our never seeming to go much of anywhere as a nation is that our leaders are intent on going where we will not go as a people. In our current culture especially that arising from political rule the focus is taxation and spending for the benefit of the public. With the blindness that has been promoted in our culture leaders tax us based on what the public will tolerate and spend on what leaders decide is beneficial to the public. It is taxing without citizen support. It is spending without citizen approval. There is no citizen choice no freedom for the American people. Our alternate understanding built on performance concepts is that we the people will tolerate taxing to run the government that operates in our name and we have hopes that our leaders will not waste what is taken from us. And then there is the American common law. Our leaders are elected to represent us. They have no good basis for seizing anything without permission of the owners. They have no basis for spending anything that is not approved by we the people. We are the sovereign the owner the source of all political authority and the source of all that government holds in our name except as members of us. Our leaders are not some special party in interest. They are elected. They are most certainly not some sampling of we the people who share a purpose with we the people who elect them. They are our agents, our employees, people who work for us. Denying this leaves no basis to continue receiving public funds as their income. The division of legal reality from our cultural application is stark and real. As long as we seek to quarrel over issues we can go nowhere as a nation as a society or as a people. Of course this also sets our path for empowerment. It is recognition of our potency as we the people and our ownership over the nation and its governance and its economy. We are the only party in interest where we find such value that we are not quarreling among ourselves. We have the power to do whatever an owner is authorized to do with what is owned. This is power not influence. It is not potent through convincing powerful people to take sides with us against other citizens. Power does not come from electing some champion to enter into political conflict on our behalf. Power comes from our agreeing on when, where, and how our government is to serve we the people. And so we set up a representative sample of we the people instructing them to manage over those who have been hired to run the government. We are that jury of citizens and can generally trust them to represent us because they are a sampling of us. When the jury finds Pareto level agreement they speak for we the people. They speak for the people who own the nation, who own its government, and who own our legal system. They are not managed by the hired help or limited by the rules that our employees are bound to obey. They are not limited by the constitutional instructions we issue to public employees. But our sampling of we the people who can generally be trusted to come to agreement on those things where we the people can find like agreement. The grand jury is a convenient tool for we the people to enter into exception management over those who operate our nation and government on our behalf. Now this is empowerment. So who gets selected to be part of such a body? The answer is random selection. It may be limited to competent adults but otherwise is a representative sampling of we the people. Only we the people get to exclude individuals from this body and then only where there is a Pareto level agreement that some member be excluded. The people on the jury are selected at random and can be compelled to be part of that body. It is by the sampling that people are selected and refusal to serve does not relieve the sampled person from being in the sample. They simply represent people who would not voluntarily be a part of that body. That is the nature of sampling. It is like understanding. Nobody gets thrown off the jury except with a Pareto level agreement to that by the whole of the sample by agreement of the jury. Active participation is a different matter as membership on the jury does not include a duty to voluntarily take part. It has to be voluntary participation to represent those who would choose to participate. Selection into such a sample is an opportunity not a duty.  What you consider to be important enough to present to the rest of the sample is what people who are like you consider to be important. Acting as part of this sample is the highest possible level of personal empowerment and this is the nature of exception management. Once formed the jury has no assigned duties and responsibilities. They are only limited by the nature of exception management. Their actions only go to government but they are unlimited by law or by authorization. They are the effective voice of we the people who are only limited by referring to the larger body of we the people. What has interest to this body of jurors is presumed to be what has interest to we the people. What the jury requests from public employees is what we the people require of our employees.  That is the nature of exception management. It is the voice of the owner stepping in whenever and wherever it seems appropriate to the owner. The second side of this same sampling function is the purpose for there being a government. It was created by we the people to accomplish unity and to provide us with justice and welfare services. We have an ongoing and focused interest in promoting the operations of governance that will deliver these services to us as we the people. Exception management is not just stepping in to do what seems appropriate. It is also abiding interest in assuring the efficiency and effectiveness of our public employees as to their delivery of services to us. Exception managers take action in support of the performance process of governance. Assuring as far as seems reasonable the ongoing generation of value by delivering these services to the public. It is a support service. It is receiving questions from employees and supporting them in their teaming with other employees and meeting other challenges. It is responding to employees who seem to be having difficulties in accomplishing what was assigned to them. It is stepping in to remove obstacles to performance. It is handling distractions and external challenges that would divert public resources from serving us or interfere with their efforts on our behalf. It is even stepping in to handle challenges raised by members of the public that would distract or interfere with public services. Like a foreman on a production line the jury can choose to handle visitors and others who might distract workers from their assigned productive efforts. The general understanding is that we have the work group and foreman as someone who takes ownership of what the work group does. The jury can assume effective ownership over the operation of government supporting and protecting it in its operations that assure public services. And as an even greater challenge if it is not of sufficient interest to the jury that they choose to participate or act it is not sufficient of interest to the public no matter how passionate some segment of the people may be or even if their presentation of some efforts of criminality or unfairness the jury is still the public body and representation not every good cause is going to be pursued nor every wrong writer. The purpose of exception managers is not one of running things but acting on behalf of we the people on those things of such general importance that we would volunteer to act. I do urge looking upon such a sampling for what it accomplishes not for what it does. Sampling is a performance tool and it is a success when it is able to provide the benefits of exception management to those public employees who are hired to run our government for us. As in all tools it is not going to do anything beyond what we the people are intent on doing for ourselves it is just a technical support that allows us to accomplish what we value more efficiently and effectively than we might do as a whole public gathering. The challenge is that of sampling itself. Is it possible to have someone else actually represent you in this fashion doing what you would do if you were there? That is the very purpose of sampling selecting a representative part of some larger group. In our tradition of sampling it is an assurance that at least 95% of the time the sample will actually be representative when it comes to agreement. That was the very purpose of the sampling plan presented. Noting the randomness of our variations we can have a very small sample represent us. Instead of polling half a billion people we can get direct input from less than 50 people with reasonable assurance that someone there will actually make their decisions as we would make them. That is pretty heady stuff and with a potency so incredible that it will likely face almost universal challenge by those public employees who have decided to accept their function as rule. To put it simply no leader can rule when the boss is watching. To get to this point we do have the challenge of coming to agreement that first time to find our public voice and redirect our government to support our sampling system. Our leaders once properly directed are likely to do a very competent job of it as they work in fear of giving power to each other. They are after all a said and done part of we the people and not some ruling class of elite and special people. I would approach establishing the sampling and management system as a long term goal to be mandated when some of the more obvious misrepresentative activities of government have been addressed and the performance of public mandate has been established as a workable product. The reason is practical that this is so sharply counter to our culture as to interfere with voluntary participation of citizens. Finding the voice of the people and harnessing it to enlist our leaders for more focused change actions will make the potential for public mandates in far more real to citizens. In our next adventure we get to be a lot more personal through exercising your potential decisions to enter into management. The division from common culture will be honed into a working tool for your empowerment. Consider the divisive current culture challenge whether we are better off with national government or some one world government. The performance approach recognizes these as a question of which sort of government should rule over you. The appropriate performance answer if we the people are in charge of our government it really doesn't matter.


the rapid pace of this erosion of trust. There's not an unlimited supply of it. And at some point there is a tipping point. And when we lose our democracy, it's very, very hard to get it back. And if we don't have a set of rules and a framework that we all agree upon and we can all thrive within, then I think it's a very, very, very different country and a very different world. This is Rob Johnson, president of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. I'm here today with Frank McCourt. McCourt Global, in conjunction with SciencePo, Georgetown University, and hopefully recruiting many more, is looking at the nature of democracy, the nature of governance in the context of the technological platforms we have here today. And the challenges that his project, Project Liberty is raising, and these people are working on it from the vantage point of the common good in humankind, is an extraordinary endeavor and an extraordinary example. Frank, thanks for joining me.  Thanks for speaking kindly about the project. I really appreciate it. I find that effortless to be enthusiastic after learning about it. Let's talk first about your inspiration. Then we'll talk about what to do. But I'm curious, in your own mind, where did this vision come from? What inspired you to launch in this direction? Yeah, well, I think I was inspired in part because of a great deal of concern about the direction things are headed in a country I love, a country that my family for five generations has been a part of building. I suppose if I dig deeper and really think about where does it all come from, it comes from a certain upbringing. I think about my great-grandfather every day, an immigrant coming to this country at 13 and then starting a business in the late 1800s building roads when Henry Ford started building cars and then literally, as I said, building this great country. And sitting as a steward of a family and a business of five generations, up until a decade or so ago, I never thought we'd be sitting here talking about the sustainability of democracy or capitalism for that matter. But I became very concerned about that and wanted to do something about it. And that's what is really the impetus behind this project is not settling, sitting. I've lived by and complaining about it or opining on the problem. It's actually trying to get in the game and do something to fix it. And lastly, I would just say that, again, growing up in Boston, large Irish Catholic family, seven kids, nine at the table, minimum, often many more, you can imagine that environment and what it was like. Those kids were very good at defining the problem. And my parents would always remind us before dinner was out, you've done a great job defining the problem. Now what are you going to do about it? And Project Liberty is trying to do something about a really big problem. I remember reading in some of the interviews that you've done, that you talked about America, which might call the product of migration, that people picked up and did something different. They moved. It was geographic migration. And my sense was you were imparting to us that maybe in the same square miles, it's not about picking up and running away. It's about migrating our systems to be better and more supportive of humankind. Yeah, I couldn't agree with that assessment more. It's when things are not good when we live in a physical place and we see this over and over, unfortunately, in the world, people leave where they're at when things become intolerable. But they do need a place to go. And that's human migration of a physical nature. In this very country, as you point out, is the product of a physical migration from a regime, a structure, where people felt underrepresented or not represented, didn't no longer tolerate a feudal system, a monarchy, et cetera, and the form of governance and what their lives were like. And so they picked up and left and started a new project called America, New Governance, a new model, a new set of values and a new set of principles, and we've all lived with the benefit of that physical act. Well, now we're living in a digital world and very, very powerful, large structure, which is, in my opinion, and I'm just sharing an opinion, is very, very unhealthy. And not only unhealthy is eroding trust at such a rate that the very systems that we rely on, i.e. democracy and capitalism, which are built on the premise of trust, when you destroy the trust, the system's crumpled. There's no logic that I'm aware of that if you remove the underpinning of a system, that it will survive. So it's, I think, a very, very important time for us to define clearly, see clearly the problem, but I hope not dwell on the problem, but now really gather up our most creative selves, our best selves in a way, and do something about it. What are you going to do about it? The answer to that question. Mom's echoing in your ear. Yeah, well, I think that not wallowing in the sorrow of, how we say, recognizing we're in this difficult place and moving forward is a key part of what I call the example you're setting. There are lots of different things people talk about. They talk about climate change. They talk about the military and the dangers of the Ukraine. They talk about instability in the financial system and what have you. The project is focusing on what? What's the place you're zooming in on to make the difference? Yeah, we're zooming in on what we see as a core, a core fundamental problem. And if we solve it, the chances of solving all those other problems increases. And so we're not suggesting that Project Liberty solves all the problems in the world or that changing tech changes all human behavior. What we're saying is that the current architecture of the internet is flawed. And it can't be fixed merely by regulation or by tweaking it around the edges. We need to fix the model and change it completely and make the old model obsolete. And yeah, maybe by putting this into some context, what I refer to technology, I want to be clear and the problems associated with it. I'm talking about the idea of extracting and exploiting our data, surveillance capitalism and just surveillance period. It feels to me very incompatible with democracy. And the other is social media and how it is designed actually to optimize for rage, optimize for anger because that creates stickiness or time online. You get what you optimize for with technology. Technology is just a tool, right?  Some means to an end, it's not the end of itself.  It's a tool. And so we need the technology, I believe, to support democracy, to support a fair form of capitalism. And it can. So I don't want to come across as being pessimistic in the least. I want to be realistic about the magnitude of the problem, but I'm highly optimistic that if we fix the fundamental flaws with technology and how it's currently being deployed, we can not only solve and strengthen our democracy, we can actually then be in a position to solve other problems that have been really very difficult to even grasp. How could we solve that if we can't even agree, for instance, on facts and so on and so forth? So if we can reset the technology and kind of reclaim our public square, refocus it all on the common good, this technology should be serving a purpose. It should be for people and for society and strengthening, not for platforms. And just to create as much monetary value at whatever cost. So I think that if we can fix the technology and redirect it to work for democracy and for society, I think we're going to find solving these other problems much, much easier, or at least much more possible. If you get it right, then the systems are more responsive to what you might call detecting discord and evolving towards a positive outcome. If the systems are refracted by that yearning, like you said, fomenting rage to increase time, to increase the advertising rate for the vendors. Not a good formula for democracy. It doesn't have anything to do with, how do you say, meeting the challenges. Yeah, and let's think about this for a minute. If your mantra or mission is a statement is to move fast and break things, well, we move fast and we're breaking things. If, on the other hand, it's move fast and fix things, maybe we can fix a few things and maybe we can replace some of this despondency we're seeing all around with a real hopefulness. I believe that's very, very possible. We've been beneficiaries of institutions that have supported these operating systems, democracy and capitalism, very well, or reasonably well, let's say, over the last 70 years. I'm talking about post-World War II. But that was an analog world. And now we're living in a digital world. And we can't expect that a set of institutions designed to support these key operating systems will function at the highest level when we're now moved from analog world to digital world. So we need a new civic architecture for a digital world. And again, to me, I'm very hopeful at the same time that I'm very concerned because I think I've seen over and over again the ingenuity of people, particularly Americans, to innovate and create once we get directed and aligned. And right now, the very unfortunate part of things is that the technology itself is causing polarization and misalignment and misinformation and so on and so forth. So we need to fix this problem at the root cause to then in turn solve for lots of problems solving and lots of improvement for society and humanity. So, yeah, I think it's a very, very critical moment for all of us. Well, as you mentioned with the social media, you can bombard and denigrate, be vicious, not even be truthful, but really take people down. When you look at surveys, whether it's Gallup or Richard Edelman or whatever, the trust and faith and academic experts, scientists, government agencies, corporate leaders are all collapsing. Yeah, and it's the key, it's the key, single key thing that these systems are built on is trust. And it's, if you lose, if we lose trust person to person or at a societal level, as I said earlier, I don't think the systems have a chance. It's logic. The very foundation they're built on needs to be strong and needs to be maintained. And that's what really, that's what continues to animate me but that's what got me off the sidelines here is just a grave concern that the rapid pace of this erosion of trust, there's not an unlimited supply of it and at some point there is a tipping point and when we lose our democracy, it's very, very hard to get it back. And I want to see our family's business thrive for another five generations. I love the country and I want to see other people's businesses thrive and survive. And if we don't have a set of rules and a framework that we all agree upon and we can all thrive within, then I think it's a very, very different country and a very different world. And so I hope that many people will get involved and it may not be, our idea may not be the best idea. There may be someone else out there with a better idea and if there is, I want to support that person and those ideas, but let's evolve together and let's make this a collective project. I think this is a project, this is a problem big enough for all of us to pay attention to and to get involved in. And project liberty has three tracks associated with it. It's not just a tech solution to a tech problem. Yeah, there's a tech track and a tech solution, something we call a decentralized social networking protocol which we've created, which is open source and we've gifted to humanity. And if adopted, it would fundamentally change how the internet works. But there's also a governance track and a movement track because we really feel people need to get involved. Society needs to get involved to fix this and want to see it fixed. And this time around, we need to have real governance. And by governance, I mean we need a conversation and agreement upon what are the values and the principles that we're going to agree on here that we want the technology to support and to help thrive. In other words, if we want democracy to thrive, let's optimize for democracy, not rage. I'm looking at the challenge.  You're going for it. You're seeing it in this larger context of the common good in the systems that support them. My sense is in a time where expertise has been denigrated to engender trust is a formidable challenge. And I guess I'm saying people have their habits. You're building a new platform. How do we catalyze the shift to the new platform to recognize what you might call collective health of going from dependence on those systems to these new systems? You know, I think, again, I could be missing the mark here. But I'm a huge believer in people. And I've seen time after time after time. If there's something that's credible, authentic, doable, it can be very bold but doable and hopeful, people get very excited about it and rally behind it and make it happen. If we can replace some of this despondency that's creating this instability and this leading to this lack of trust and so on and so forth with a hopefulness and a future that people can see it as a possibility, I think we can change the shift, the energy completely here. Right now, we're stuck. And there's very little discussion about the future. There's a lot of discussion about past grievances and lots of discussion about, you know, can we make things like they used to be and so on and so forth. We're stuck. When people are afraid, they become nostalgic. They lurk backward rather than evolving forward many times. Yeah, and they want to recreate a time that maybe even wasn't really like they think but it felt better. If we can feel better about the future, why not go for it? People want what makes them feel better, right? If it's real. I think that what we're seeing though is that in the recent past people are being sold something about making them feel better. That's not genuine. It's a mirage. It's not being spoken to honestly. And if we have a project that's a collective project, right? It's not just one person's project or one thing. It's not like that. It's a collective project. It's something, let's put that man on the moon again and do it collectively and be excited about it and feel good about it. I think that changes completely the dynamic. I think that we are in a place where wallowing in fear creates otherness, blame, hostility, polarity. But it also, none of those things help you regenerate. When you say stuck, that's the word that really came to my mind is when you're stuck, there's a lot of work done in mind science about the three regions of the brain and the old parables of fight and flight and so forth. When you shame people, things get worse. And the nature, the healing, the moving beyond is about, like you said, that regeneration of trust. And my Chinese friends who are often very good at criticizing the United States say, when you look at the history of China, when did rebellions happen? It wasn't when the adults were damaged. It's when they feared for their children's future. That's the propulsion. And you and I have young children. I have two grandchildren, one on the way. The anxiety that often inhabits my daydreamers is what am I going to do for their future? And feeling confidence in that, I think will calm an awful lot of nerves. I think the Chinese have an insight there. I think that's exactly right. And we can get into another conversation about how Chinese people are looking at internet usage and technology and so forth, but that's a conversation for another day. But that insight regarding fear and that insight regarding how we look at the world as parents and grandparents and through the eyes of our kids and the world we're going to leave for them is, I think, very, very powerful. And I think we can turn this fear around because I haven't ever found or met a person that won't trade fear for hope if the hope is real. There may be people trying to bombard you from finding or feeling the hope for their own narrow purposes. But I think the example that you're creating with this project and with your vision and your work and the team you're putting together is the basis for hope. And we'll conclude this chapter and we'll come back again. We'll talk about some more of those other dimensions. But I really am glad you could come in today and let me share with our audience the pathway you're on. And I'm going to ask a lot of people to check this out and join. I appreciate it a lot and be happy to come back anytime.  So it's a pleasure to have this conversation with you. Pleasure is mine. Thank you. Thank you.


What's going on everyone? Sam here with Lance sports cards. We are ripping four boxes for Jeffrey H. We've got One 22 bowman draft super jumbo baseball two twenty two twenty three bowman baseball jumbo one 2023 at bowman baseball hobby Uh, and that's it. So good luck here. Jeffrey. It's gonna be a four box baseball mixer All right, we'll start with your bowman hobby again. Jeffrey. I'm sure you're aware at this point I know you do a lot of bowman with us. Uh, no no paper base ships. I've got to say it Buddy's a Mets fan sometimes more We hang he'll play the Buckner play to rattle me and our friends. I just counter by Loosen to the royals in the world series. That's true God Good luck Jeffrey. Here we go, buddy We're gonna glow again here Fernandez Leandro Arias Now Harvey. Oh my god the dark knight dude Did I watch the entire tiktok about like the fall of now Harvey a few days ago? I should have sent it to you Vaughn return and us But something I think you would have been interested in The old dark knight. What did he get mono mono legends? There's drew waters to 4.99 Jackson holiday Yosue de Paula First no way. Yosue. Do you see this this steam rising a little bit of room still not there too? Yeah, I think it works man. Yeah here's Baby Got a green grass coming up. It's gonna be Samuel Munoz to 99. Nice one there my guy at 22 Bowman crown So I'm a place Jordan not numbered on the base spell try I'll see an orange. See a big orange here Jeffrey orange, uh drew Dope yuffry Solana orange mervis pulled the orange mervis recently out of a full case of this Pretty cool Matt McLean top 100 I mean Gomez Matt Mervis speaking of there he is that sign Matt Mervis orange Could be a sign Uh Matthew Wood on the gold nice one there 250 for the Brewers that'll that'll work out of a Bowman hobby Anything numbered is always a big plus nice one there you grab Jeffrey Here we go buddy Uh Gabriel Martinez Watson Marcelo Meyer There's Gunner Henderson Talk about the 2015 World Series at 12 40 a.m Hey, there you go. Hold on. Let's go dude. What better to do on a Tuesday night than the 2015 World Series? There's Simon Hwan Then Santana Jason Dominguez Bradley I'll be yours to bars Jason. Sure. Yo, there's Christian Maccaro spotlights Serda and Ellie. No, no Jason. There's Vaughn Grissom Guero Justin Henry moly whoops purple paper it's 250 max wag And Spencer Jones Spencer Jones and me That was a Forrest and Jake one dude Just two 23 Bowman John Nos Straight on expectable Yeah I hear you mom I wish I was asleep right now. I wish I hadn't heard that Hey Forrest and Jake came up with that one to be fair You should've never repeated it But Jake it's even worse I think I've heard it all now Why don't you hear something even worse than that? Spencer Jones again speaking of What is it? Jake remixed it and goes Spencer Jones Yankee Green paper Alec Burleson to 3.99 I was gonna Closer Oman says So that's what I'm saying.  Dakotas, I like Dakotas Yeah, he's funny Really? He's pretty solid There's Lunar Glow, Juan almost It's gonna be Juan Carella Blue Lunar Creator Auto Saw that before we got there Spencer Jones first Spencer Jones Is that the worst one yet? There's a lot of them I was watching you in Forrest on Sunday For a bit, I just heard Forrest was talking about me after I Made an appearance in chat And I just heard you in the background See ya, see ya Grand base And clears And Dia Stela Cruz to 2.99 Let's go Miles taking a random team spot tomorrow Justin Crawford This future paper, Josh Young Nice one there to 2.99 Lazaro Montez Gabriel Moreno Atomic, rookie auto for the Blue Jays To 1.00, nice one there, Jeffrey Very high end prospect And that acquired by Arizona For Dalton Varsha And Lourdes Gurriel Jr There's Alex Ramirez to 3.99 Which in my opinion The freaking Diamondbacks one That trade now Gurriel's plan, Gurriel's like an all star This year, it's wild That's three numbered autos, no Yeah, very head scratching trade for sure Moreno, I mean I guess they just Didn't like what they saw in Moreno, I guess But this guy's still young, dude Jacob Berry And base, alright, so I'll do it for Bowman Jumbo Round 2.22, Bowman Draft Super Jumbo A bit of a minute since I ripped some of this So I'm pretty excited Let's see it buddy, let's see a big holiday In this, like a red holiday or something Nah, I was gonna say, you may have some time I didn't find Varsha, but I'm with you on that one While I was weary, which is a certain way to do this One I forgot about Rada Kul Young Naisu Alvarez First Williams first Paper Hey, there's Jackson Churio to 2.50 Purple Paper Purple Roger Arias to 2.50 for the Yanks First Nate Furman Nitroff Dustin Harris and Nate Uhrman 11 of 2.50, nice one there for the Guardians Congrats, Jeffrey Thank you Bowman Drafts, man, kills you Victa Eric Brown Dylan Beavers first Volpe There's Josh Kazovich To 1.50 That's gonna be Kumar Rocker Variation, nice one there For the Rangers Jack Branigan first Elijah Green first, refractor Wimburgoya and Alex McFarland, base auto For the Phillies Nunchuck Pack, number 3 Sims, Nazir Mew Purple, Jacob Miller, nice one there to 2.50 Pretty solid, actually No, he didn't do 10 box football today, smack First Hunter Barko, refractor Troy Melton to 4.99, nice one there on the auto Congrats, Jeffrey Yeah, no football breaks today So we have a big football release tomorrow Select football comes out tomorrow So just baseball and basketball tonight For Who breaks at least Victa Cole Young Uismann, Perito, William Kempner And Triantos So tomorrow will be all football The entire day on bowl channels Well at least in the morning on bowl channels And then at night over here Football and then personals over here tomorrow night So 4.99 with Kyle Kyle will be doing personals tomorrow night So if you want to select All that good stuff Green, Jay Allen to 9.99 Ronconi, Stradafabian, Vasquez, Felix Valerio And chase my draw First base auto for the Red Sox Nunchuck Pack here No, I've not seen any of the select photo Get ripped yet, now I have to imagine it's pretty solid though Is Henry Bolt, that's my guy right there too Robbie Snelling, Alex McFarland Carson Milbrandt Four for four on first refractors there And last Pack of the break Good luck here, Jeffrey Sky blue paper, Andrew Rojas 2.4.99 Jackson Holliday And rushing, that is a first refractor Get real huge, Alexis Hernandez Jordani de Los Santos and blue Ryan Ritter, nice one there too 150, true blue for the Rockies Nice one there, congrats Jeffrey And paper base, that'll do it for your break Jeffrey, thanks as always for your support buddy Over here and with group breaks Got him right out to you my friend