If one rejects laissez-faire on account of man's fallibility and
moral weakness, one must for the same reason, also reject every
kind of government action. Welcome to Keith's night.
Don't tread on anyone today. I am joined by Spike Owen,
former vice presidential candidate for the libertarian
party. Mr. Cullen.
Thank you for coming on. Where's the best place for
people to find your work? All over the Internet.
Honestly. Keith.
So if I'm if you look on Facebook search for Spike Owen
if you look on Twitter search for Spike Owen, if you look on
YouTube search for Spike Owen, if you look on Instagram, search
for Spike Owen, technically, I'm on Tick-Tock.
I just don't do much on there. But I if enough people follow me
and harass me, I will start doing stuff on more stuff on
Tick, Tock to, but pretty much anywhere that you are on the
internet. You can find me.
Yes. I've also seen his videos on
Odyssey and The Alternatives and the superiors to YouTube, which
we are trying to to get out there.
Before we get into why progressives and conservatives
should embrace libertarianism, please define libertarianism,
and government. So, libertarianism in a nutshell
is the belief that people do best when they are most free.
We could spend hours breaking down the different schools of
thought of libertarianism and you know, ideas like property
rights and self ownership and individual.
Me and the non-aggression principle and all these other
things. But they all boil down to the
belief that we own ourselves have personal autonomy over
ourselves and do best when we are respected.
When our, when our lives and our rights.
And our individual autonomy is respected.
And when we respect the lives and rights and individual
autonomy, and property of others, and that conversely, the
system that we're in now which does the opposite, which puts
the collective, and those in power.
The individual that we not only live in a society that is less
just in less moral. But also in a society that
doesn't work as well as a society.
That isn't as free as a society that isn't as prosperous as a
society, that isn't as fair and Equitable and a society that has
more endemic abuses, and blow in an efficiency and harm that
comes as a result of it. So, that's sort of the, the
nutshell of libertarianism. Now, government is depending on
who you ask and either a necessary evil to Protect the
lives and rights and property of the people, or just another
infringement on the lives and rights of property.
The people that has no rightful claim to exist in the first
place. Other than through, you know, if
force and extortion, it doesn't have a moral justification for
its existence, Liberty. I personally am an anarchist.
So I tend to lean towards the latter But ultimately
Libertarians respect anyone in that.
In that belief, either that it is, you know, we all believe
it's evil. It's whether it's a necessary
evil. Or an unnecessary evil, which is
where we disagree. But we recognize that it is
inherently and a de facto infringement on the lives and
rights and property of the people, some of us believe that
it's not necessary and as and actually makes things worse,
some of us believe that it is necessary to protect to
coercively protect the lives and rights, and property the people
under it, but that's sort of the nutshell definition.
And, and again, the core definition and core ethos of
libertarianism. Is that the more free we are the
better. Things will be not just, the
more just our society will be and the more moral our society
will be but the more free it'll be the more prosperous.
It will be the more fairer and inclusive and Equitable.
It'll be the less abusive and harmful and destructive.
It'll be that's sort of the the basics of libertarianism.
So, do you see government as sort of a neutral tool that
sometimes we can employ or is it literally a group of people that
claim the right to initiate aggression?
Peaceful people as, you know, economists like Murray rothbard
have said, I believe it's the latter.
Now again, I am willing to work with people who believe that
it's the former and honestly even people many men artists who
believe that. It's because that's sort of the
argument. The men are kiss those who
believe we need a minimal government and the anarchists
who believe we don't need any government.
But really we both recognize that they are a group of people
who presume the authority to to order us around and to take from
us mitr kiss, believe that that Level of coercion is necessary
to stop a worse coercion from happening from growing.
That there needs to be a baseline amount of coercion to
exist to kind of set the standard for protecting the
lives and rights and property of the people and to protect it
from some worse, coercion. That would come.
I disagree with that. I think that when you create
coercion and systemize it and rationalize it, then you create
the ability For Worse coercion to come and you and you you de
facto justify those, but ultimately it's not an argument.
That's really worth having when men are kiss and anarchists can
agree that we're currently, you know, if you look at where our
country and our society, and our government is headed, it is, you
know, moving at the speed of sound in ever-worsening ever
tyrannical, ever oppressive ever bloated, ever inefficient, ever
destructive path and that and that we all agree, the
direction. We need to be making a 180,
degree turn and moving, you know, solidly in the direction
towards a greater. Human Liberty.
When we get to Greater human Liberty.
Then we can start spending more time.
Arguing on, you know, whether we need, let you know, a minimal
State, a so-called nightwatchman state that just is protecting us
from those who would do us harm or whether we don't need one at
all. And all of those services are
better provided by competing and cooperating free providers.
But, you know that again that's that's, that's sort of a, it's
like, if we're in a plane crash and we're all trying to figure
out how to get out of the plane alive and you, and I start
arguing over, you know, Whether whether they should have used
Rolls-Royce jet engines or Pratt & Whitney engines to prevent
this from happening. Like, it doesn't matter in that
moment. Once we get on the ground, we
can have a discussion about which engine to move to use,
moving forward, or you know, what, what, you know, what
process in the in the, you know, the safety maintenance process
needs to be changed to make sure that doesn't happen again, but
let's try to get on the ground and, you know, minimize the
number of casualties in the meantime.
It's like, When in Seinfeld, when the plane is crashing and
George Costanza admits to lying and cheating in the contest.
Like really, that's where your head is.
That's the moment. Scratching please.
Can we get, can we prioritize so focus on the plane, exactly like
that. So I am a progressive.
I believe that everyone in order to live a life with dignity
needs education. Let's just stick on education
for now. A way to achieve.
This is for a group of people citizens to delegate.
Eight a right to representatives to tax the populace in order to
provide such an education. This way everyone gets it, not
just the rich people and the spike Collins of the world, but
everyone is entitled to this education, which is necessary
for us to live with dignity and honor.
Why should I consider something like libertarianism?
Well, you're 100% correct. That, in order for us to have a
thriving Society. We need to have education in.
In order for our children and ourselves to be able to have a
future, we have to know things. We have to know how the world
works. We have to know, we have to
learn how to have certain, you know, marketable skills to be
able to actually make an income. We have to know about things
like philosophy. We need to know about things
like history. We need to know about things
like the Arts. We need to know about all of
these different things, Libertarians recognize, and and
you being the hypothetical Progressive.
When you say to me, I think that the best Way for us to have
education is to, you know, is to delegate the power to people, to
essentially, you know, Rob everyone, or tax everyone to be
able to provide this education. My question to you is, how's
that worked out? It has worked out.
It's worked out very well. Everyone is guaranteed a k
through 12 education. Now granted everyone also now
has to go to college and we have to now start subsidizing that.
But in general, it has given people a bare minimum as that.
It may be the bare minimum isn't perfect, but it's better than
nothing, which is what they'd have in the absence of this
education system. It's what they'd have in the
absence of any education system, but what I would say to and this
is and I've had this discussion with progressives around the
Country is all say, you know, if you are a parent of a child then
I don't have to tell you what your child is going through in
public schooling. In terms of, you know, these
increasingly Draconian systems of testing standards where
they're not really learning where they're just learning to
take a test. And we're if God forbid, they
aren't, you know, geared in such a way to learn that way, which
is a large number of children aren't geared to learn by tests.
And they're labeled special needs.
They're putting classes that they don't need their put in
classes with people. Who actually do need those
classes. The special needs teachers are
overwhelmed as a result because they weren't taught to, you
know, teach they aren't their specialization isn't teaching a
bunch of kids. It's in providing personal
one-on-one education with people who need that, you know, special
attention. No one is being served well in
this system and an increasing number of children are being
left behind ironically enough. Given the the name of some of
the legislation that led to this, you know, we are raising
generations of Scantron babies who aren't actually learning
anything and It is actually easier to give that argument to
parents of children in public education and to teachers,
because they're the ones living it.
You know, I've talked to people in school boards where I say,
you know, your on your, on your school board.
How much decision-making do you get to do now?
And they say none, we hear what our newest Federal dictate is,
and we figure out how best to comply with it in a way that we
can afford. And I go how much money do you
have to do that with? And they go not very much and I
say, why is that and they go? Well, it's As we need more
money, I go. Yeah.
Yeah, but where did the money go?
Where is the education money going and that's when the light
bulb goes off. They're sitting there figuring
out how they can get more money from the locals and they're not
realizing the amount of money that's being taken out of their
community and put in the hands of central planners who have
clearly demonstrated that they are doing a good job.
And so the answer for education is the exact opposite of what we
have now because the education system we have now, is that a
small handful of people are given all of the power or
actually they've taken all of Power and the freedom, and the
money to make education systems for all of the schools, all of
the teachers, all of the parents, all of the students.
Now, even if they were the best actors, even if they were, you
know, people that were, you know, morally above corruption,
and were incredibly intelligent and knew all sorts of things.
They couldn't possibly be able to decide as well as the actual
parents and teachers and experts in that Community what they need
for. For their students and their
schools as well as they can't. There's no way that a small
handful of people hundreds or thousands of miles away.
Could possibly determine what is best for everyone as well as
those individuals in those communities could be able to do
and of course we know politics does not attend to attract the
best. Actors.
It tends to attract people that want Power people that want to
Rob everyone. People that want to have that
ability to tell everyone else how to live people who want to
be put in power by billionaire cronies in Change for Kickbacks
by the taxpayer. And what happens is whether
we're talking education or health care or anything else.
When you put these people in power, when you systemize, when
you get centralize all of that power into the handful of a
small few, you are leading to corruption.
You are leading to bad outcomes. You were leading to bad policies
that leave an increasing number of everyday people behind.
And that's how our education system is playing out.
The libertarian solution to education is, is the exact
opposite dismantle that entire thing?
Take all of that power. And freedom and decision-making,
ability, and money, and put it back in the hands of the parents
and the teachers, and the communities to be able to fix
their schools. And to be able to address the
problems that their schools are facing for their students
empowered, with their freedom, and their power, and their money
back by kicking these clowns out of office, by taking all that
power back and putting it back in the hands of the people where
it always damn well belong. Let's say you had gotten the
chance to debate Kamala Harris when you were running for VP and
it's, you know, largely known that she was as a prosecutor
very interested in Prosecuting parents, whose kids were truant
or did not attend school for the state-mandated number of days.
What would you have said on stage to Kamala Harris?
If she had said, look, I did what I had to do.
Number one. It was the lot number two, if
Allow parents to beat their kids or not, educate their kids or
keep their kids in hellhole conditions.
That is a form of abuse. They would not be able to grow
up and live in a society where they had their rights protected.
If they are not educated. How would you have respond?
I would have if I would have, there are a few things, I would
have said, but the first thing I would have asked her, as I would
have said of the children that you had taken from their single
parents and put in foster care. Because they miss school a few
times, how many of them have gone on to lead?
Better Lives? How many of them have gone on to
have college education's and you know, and work in professional
Fields. How many of them have been have
gone, you know have done better as a result of it?
Conversely? How many of them were subjected
to rape and torture and abuse and neglect?
How many of them stayed in the foster care system?
And never had a parent, an actual permanent parent again.
And eventually graduated out of it at the age of 18 and having
to try to reconnect with their families that they were torn
away from. And the reason the reality is
she can't give an answer because she has no idea.
And so she'd hem and haw around it and give some non answer
answer to basically saying I don't know and I'd say if you
don't know what happened to the tens of thousands of children
who you tore away from their parents because they didn't go
to a state-mandated education center for a few days.
Then why? Why the hell did you do it?
If it was for their Goodwill? Why don't you know what happened
to them if it was for the greater good?
Why don't you know, what outcome it led to if you assume that
every time that you take that you rip a family apart for not
complying with the dictate of the state.
Then what makes you think that you are morally Justified to
have even more power because you've demonstrated that you are
willing to harm people without even knowing or caring if it
leads to a better outcome for them.
Very nice. Let's say I see the world as a
lot of First World countries, having guaranteed Access to
Health Care, Australia, Great Britain, Canada our neighbors.
However, in the u.s. We have extremely high
Healthcare prices, u.s. I associate with capitalism.
Capitalism, is about making money.
And therefore, we have embraced a making money system, instead
of a care system where everyone is guaranteed Access to Health
Care. Or go to their thank you.
Therefore, I do not support libertarianism.
I support the aggressive plan for the state to guarantee
access to health care for all Americans.
Why should I consider libertarianism?
Well, if so, if I have a short period of time in responding
that I usually respond with questions because that's a good
way to get more time by kind of forcing them to think about it.
If I had the just the short period of time, I would say who
got us into the system into the situation.
We are right now. Shins billionaire, cronies, you
know, the insurance companies, the major medical companies and
all and so forth that big Pharma the big Healthcare Management
Companies, the big insurance companies.
And so for in the politicians, they put in office, both
Republican and Democrat. And you know, why did they do
that to profit to make billions of dollars on the backs of
patients? And to be able to create a
system that is more about fleecing the public, then
actually providing care. We all agree on that.
How does giving them even more power fix that?
How does Completely removing the patient from the equation and
turning the taxpayer into a bill paying mechanism that directly
pays to these cronies. Because Medicare for all and
secret single-payer health care, doesn't get rid of the insurance
companies. It doesn't get rid of the, the
big Pharma. It doesn't get rid of the of
the, the large Healthcare Management Companies.
It codified as them as the official providers and makes it
so that the taxpayer is paying an endless amount of money
without even seeing the Costs going directly to those to those
people. And so, you know, how would that
fix it? And then their next day answer,
maybe. Well, then maybe that's not the
answer. Maybe the answer is
nationalizing health care and having a nationalized healthcare
system and my answer my question answer or I guess, question /
answer to that would be, how many veterans have you talked
to? How many people in, for example,
the UK which has the national healthcare system, which is
distinctly different from the single-payer system in Canada,
or Australia or Scandinavia. Have you talked to someone who
has government-run, not just government paid, but
government-run health care. If.
So, what were their outcomes like I have MS.
I have multiple sclerosis and, and I am in groups for people
that have MS and we talked about, you know, Lifestyle
Changes. And and medications and things
to try to slow and stop. And even reverse the progression
of Ms. And there are people that participate in this across
across the, the planet. The people who live in countries
that have government-run Health Care Systems are constantly
lamenting. Now, in America, we lament the
cost and the fact that we often aren't able to get care many of
us aren't able to get care because we can't afford it.
That is a real problem. And we need to fix our Health
Care system by getting the cronies.
He's out of it and by and by, you know, giving the money in
the power back to patients and by and by getting rid of these
barriers to entry that are destroying small providers and
making it so that you have fewer and fewer options to actually
get your care. We need to get rid of terrible
policies like drug protections for, you know, big Pharma for
drugs that have been around forever and we need to get rid
of the Cost Plus model that, you know, incentivizes buying a
saline bag for 500 dollars, in selling it for Instead of buying
it for four dollars and selling it for five dollars, you know,
we need to get rid of all these bad policies that have made
things. So expensive and wasteful in the
first place. There's no argument there.
But the reality is, when I hear people in the u.s.
Complain, they complain about the cost when I hear people in,
for example, the UK or or, or what's another country, that has
a government-run health care. It escapes me at the moment, but
you know, these countries, some of the Eastern European
countries where it's, you know, government Run Healthcare and
government, Managed Health Care. They lament the fact that they
can't even get it at any cost. They can't get an MRI maybe
every two or three years, they get an MRI, even if they have a,
you know, a very, very fast progression of Ms. They can't
get the drugs that are, that are working the best right now,
drugs that were able to get over here.
They aren't even available there because the government won't pay
for them. And they can't, they don't have
an option to pay out of pocket. They just can't have it.
So they either have to legally go somewhere else to get it or,
and hope they don't get in trouble, or they just have to
use the Lesser options, the cheaper options that are
available to them, you know, so I guess my, my way of addressing
that is saying, you know, do you want the cronies in charge or do
you want the government who have powered the cronies in charge?
Because that's what those are, the two different options
nationalization and an expansion of the welfare state are too.
Different options that are basically putting the people who
created this mess in charge and systemizing that, so that we can
never get out of it. The libertarian proposal is to
introduce things like the price equilibrium, which is what
happens when things aren't being paid by governments and
insurance companies. They're being paid by individual
patients, which means that now, the doctor can only charge with
the patient can afford and if they can't afford it, that
doctor don't get paid anything. So they have to make their
products and services cost. What?
People can afford and by getting rid of all that bureaucracy by
getting rid of all that red tape, by driving out all those
thousands of regulators and and people running the insurance
actuarials and and administrators working in their
company to make sure that they're complying with all the
various regulations and rules. You're driving down the, the
cost of the provision by getting rid of Cost.
Plus. You're making it so that they're
going to look for the most cost-effective option.
Instead of looking for the most expensive option is that they
get a bigger piece of it by getting rid of the insurance
model. Model.
You're making it so that they can tell you right there what it
costs and they're not having to spend, you know, tens and
hundreds and thousands and even millions of dollars a year just
to pay for the cost of compliance with the various
insurance regulations and hoops and hurdles that they make them
go through. By decentralizing Healthcare.
You allow it to become cheaper, you allow it to become better.
You allow it to become more Innovative.
You provide for more providers to come into the space and you
and the only people that don't benefit from this are the Big
cronies that lose out. Well, I'm fine with that
arrangement. Now, we're constantly told that
requiring a license, a driver's license to get access to voting
is voter suppression and it raises the barrier to entry.
So fewer people vote. However, they don't see that
when it comes to healthcare and it's not one Lysa.
It's not one license. You have to get that taken.
By the way. The DMV is, as bad as everyone
says, the FDA is so much worse. I read marriage a roo Arts,
nightmare of a book. I could only read like one
chapter. Then I'd have two week break
because it's so bad. So if yeah one license is
suppression. Thousands of regulations is
ultra Healthcare suppression. That literally is what we should
run on anti Healthcare suppression because that's
that's that's really what it is when only Pfizer and moderna and
a few oligopolies are able to compete in this realm.
It's also extremely. I don't want to say it's a lie,
it's rather misleading to say I support guaranteed.
Well, you're just putting The state in charge of it.
It's like saying we have guaranteed criminal justice and
property protection because of government police.
So, that is an excellent point. You can say, Hey, listen, we
have a government-run universal system of justice.
That's free. How's that working?
It's pretty yeah, exactly. So let's say, I am very
motivated by black lives matter and I see that there is terrible
Strife between Two people and the state is the mechanism to
sort of solve this out to stop any racism, sexism, hatred
xenophobia. And while the current criminal
justice system is terrible, the way to do it is to fix the
state's way of issuing Justice to the populace there for a BLM.
Advocate might be a progressive. Why should they consider
libertarianism? Well, we're, we probably agree
with them is in fixing. The injustices that are
happening by the state. So, for example, when in a bad
actor in the state does harm to people, they need to be held
responsible. So we need to end qualified
immunity and I go even further, not only do we need to end
qualified immunity for agents of the state.
We also need to end absolute immunity, for politicians, and
judges and prosecutors. Why does no one talked about
that? We talked about the fact that a
police officer can abuse your rights and infringe upon you and
not be held accountable. What about the judge?
Yeah, about Kamala Harris, who literally intentionally
withheld, exculpatory evidence in at least two capital murder
cases. Why can she not be held
accountable for that? Why can Bad actors in these
Halls of Justice in the criminal justice system, we focus on the
police and good. We should definitely hold Bad
actors and police departments accountable.
If you were I hurt someone Keith.
We would be held accountable. They should also be held
accountable. What about the prosecutors?
What about the judges? What?
About the politicians we should be doing that too.
Yes, we need to end no-knock raids, which led to the death of
Brianna Taylor and many others. Duncan limp.
We need to end red flag laws. We need to end.
We need to end the war on drugs, which was the justification for
no-knock raids. There was no justification for
breaking into someone's house until the cop said.
Yeah, but if we knock, they can flush the drugs, down the
toilet, which it, which is always been an interesting
argument. If we don't knock first, then
they won't. Stop committing the crime.
So that's it. So that's.
So what does that give us the right to break into cops homes?
Well, we couldn't have not exactly sir.
That's why I came in and sorry that I shot shot.
Sorry. It's wrong for us and you get
your rights from us. Well, then we can't delegate the
right to you. Exactly.
And it's real and it leads to the legal fiction, whereby
Brianna Taylor's boyfriend and the cop were both justified in
shooting each other. So Brianna Taylor's boyfriend
was justified in shooting the officer because people broke
into their home and had they had no idea who it was and the cops
were Justified or legally justified in shooting back
because they were carrying out a lawful no-knock warrant any time
the government has created a legal fiction, whereby, people
are legally allowed to shoot and kill each other.
You have a problem. So obviously the answer is
ending, do knock raids. We need to end things like civil
asset forfeiture, where the government is the biggest
burglar in this country. If you take all Fremont, if you
take all That private theft. All burglary all reported
private theft civil asset, forfeiture government taking
property and money from people who have not been convicted of
anything dwarfs that private burglary.
We need to end that we need to end the militarization of the
police state through programs, like the 1033 military surplus
program. We need to end all of this and
more than likely progressives agree with us 100% on almost all
those things. Maybe not the red flag laws, but
if you spend enough time talking with them about It even if they
support gun control, they'll see how it could become problematic
that I can simply pick up the phone again.
Say that guy's a problem. Over there.
Go Rita's house. You know that?
That's a problem. You're basically swatting.
It's legalized swatting. And so we have many agreements
there. Where we disagree is that the
problem is just racism or that the problem is just, you know,
bad officers. The problem is the system.
The reason that you have our police who are supposed to
protect our lives. The, the abstention purpose.
The thing that we are told that the reason for the police
existing is to protect and serve to protect our lives and our
rights and our property, but the reality is The police largely
exist to enforce victimless crime laws and to excel to
extract revenue from the public. They pull people over for having
a broken taillight and they fix the problem by finding them
$300, which definitely fixes their tail light, actually.
It robs them of the money. They need to fix their tail
light or they pulled him over for not feel wearing a seatbelt.
And they fix that problem by giving them a two hundred
dollar. Fine or a hundred fifty dollar,
fine, ruining them financially for days or weeks depending on
how poor they are. And that's a regressive tax.
By the way, the poorer you are the more that hundred fifty
dollar fine hits you hard. If you're a millionaire you get
to find you just keep driving without the seatbelt and I mean
anything to you. But if 150 bucks to a lot of
people that ruins ruins them for the month, that that messes them
up financially, for quite some time.
The system is the problem and the more laws you create, the
more power and presumption of moral good.
You put in the hands of the state the more of these abuses
happen. If I see an abuser and their
Using me and I go, you know what the problem is.
I'm not letting you abuse me, right?
I need to give you more money so that you can educate yourself
better on the fact that you shouldn't be abusing me.
Like there's no, no. The problem is that the abuser
has that power in the first place and that they're not being
held accountable when they commit that abuse.
So, yes, we believe in holding them accountable and we believe
in ending systemic abuses, which is what the left hand to also
agree on or progressives tend to also agree on.
But we also recognize that The very presumption of that power
and the Very presumption of being able to extort people and
and coerce them and force them into things is what leads to
those abuses in the first place. I fear an America where there
are children, who have food insecurity.
Why should I consider libertarianism?
Because we to fear in America where people have food
insecurity, which is why we think the federal government
should stop paying Farmers to grow crops and then not sell
them since the 30s since the 30s.
I talked to a food security expert and we went back and
forth on this. This was this wasn't like
televised or anything. This was goes in Rhode Island.
Anyway, I was somewhere and I was talking with the food
security expert. That's what he called himself
and we were talking and he did a lot of charitable work and
stuff. And he said, you know, and we
had this conversation. He's like, well, Libertarians,
they don't, they don't care if people eat, and I'm like, of
course, we do. That's why we want to end the
USDA and and he was, mine was blown.
He said, but but you Can't do that because then there will be
a volatility of pricing. I said, let's walk through that.
What does allowing Farmers to to what is not paying Farmers to,
to not sell their products? What will that lead to?
And he said the pricing will fluctuate.
I said, which way will it fluctuate?
If there's more product? What will happen if the same
demand for food exists, which it will, it's not like people are
going to suddenly demand more food.
If the demand for superfood continues to rise at the same
level of population growth, and all that stuff.
And if the supply of food goes up, it's basically overnight
because they're already growing it and storing it processing it.
They're just not doing anything with it.
What happens, what happens if in a month, the amount of food
that's available goes up, 30, 40 percent and he said well, I
guess the price would go down. I said, how would that help food
security issues, you know, this is what happens when people
don't finish working through stuff.
They get so focused on trying to solve the problem, within our
current Paradigm, that they don't look and see how that
Paradigm could be fixed. They just look at how more
Band-Aids could be added. So if you can't, if these walls
are permanent these structures and barriers are permanent.
Well, then I have to figure out a solution within this if I
can't. And these walls.
And in this case, you know, in this case, not paying Farmers to
not produce food. Well, then I just got to figure
out how to work with the zero sum of what I have right now.
Well, no, that doesn't work. We've seen how the federal
agricultural policy has led to shock.
You know, it's shocking surprise here.
It has led to centralization of farming.
It has led to more and more factory farms because they're
the ones who have the lobbying teams to lobby for regulations
that are Needed them and hurt their smaller competitors.
So you have big factory farms that are having their less
efficient model subsidized by the US taxpayer.
While smaller Farms are basically given pennies to grow
stuff and not sell it. That's why you should support it
Libertarians. If you want, if you want more
food security because it will end factory farming or at least
I won't say n factory farming. It will end the subsidization
and entrenchment of factory farming interests and it will
end the the handing pennies off to small farmers in exchange for
promising not to provide any food to people.
Let's say I fear the inequality that exists in a free Society if
anyone is able to do what they want.
Some people are going to get very large amounts of wealth,
power and attention. Others are going to be left
behind. If you look at Amazon, Walmart,
Apple, a few people with tons and tons of power which the
average person does not have, the state is a mechanism to
correct this unhampered unregulated terrible dystopian
nightmare that the free market issues us.
Therefore. I am a progressive.
Why would I ever Consider libertarianism.
If it wasn't for the government who would stop this, police
officer from hitting me in the head with a billy club.
The, the, the, when people talk about, I usually end up
interrupting them when they're saying this.
I don't wanna interrupt you because this is your show but I
so someone will say, you know, in libertarianism we'd have
wealth inequality and we'd have a small handful of people that
are really really wealthy like Amazon and Walmart.
And I go yeah. Totally different from what we
have now, right? Yeah, really.
And so, you know, disarm them a little bit.
And then say, that inequality exists because of the
enforcement mechanism of the state.
If I remove all of the rungs of the economic ladder and I put
the majority of people in a safety net, that they can't get
out of and I make it so that only those who are already in
power or that small handful of people down here who have such
an impressive vertical leap that they can actually work their way
up, you know, without having to climb up the ladder, you know,
someone who's an incredible Entertainer or an Incredible
athlete or Do you know, one in a million economic thinker, who
could never be stopped? Even with the most tyrannical,
love of impositions, placed on them?
Then you're going to have massive and growing income,
inequality, income, inequality, continues to grow.
And the reason it continues to grow is because those who have
power are the ones who are writing all the regulations and
rules that are basically created to entrench and grow their
market share at the expense of literally everyone else.
By removing that in dismantling, it by decentralizing.
It you make it where. Now there are more people that
are able to compete. It in this sphere, and I'll
usually tell a story, one of many different stories.
One that I often tell is when I, when I was before covid, and the
pandemic, I was doing a lot of door-knocking Tours in
low-income communities. This was before I even got the,
the nomination. This is when I was still running
for the vice presidential nomination for the libertarian
party. And I was and I was doing it as
basically as a proof of concept, you know, Libertarians tend to
talk to each other and I'm like, okay, that's great.
We can talk to each other. I'm going to show you how I'm
going to spread the message of Liberty to, you know, normies to
Everyday People. And so, I went to housing
projects, and low-income communities, and did door
knocking, tours went through and talked with them about our
policies. And what I found was that, I was
in these communities in North Carolina.
That's where we started. And once kind of once covid.
Hopefully, you know, once things get back to normal, we plan to
fully rapidly, expand this out to the rest of the country, but
I went, I knocked on doors. And what I found was that in
these households. These are people that own almost
nothing. These are people that live
entirely on the state. These are people that
Libertarians are Often told her a complete waste of time because
they just want to live off government.
No, they don't. Every almost every single
household. I went to regardless of their
age and this was these communities were like 99% black.
Probably more, probably effectively 100% black.
There were a small. Smattering of non-black people
are very end and poor had nothing.
Well, in some communities. They had something they were
just lower income but in the housing projects, they owned it
essentially, nothing they had nothing on paper.
They all had businesses. They called them, you know, side
hustle or, you know, a side thing, they were doing or, you
know, a little thing I do on the side or whatever, but they were
businesses. They were Food Service.
Catering DJing event promotion, Landscaping handyman work,
housekeeping. Hey or aesthetic.
Work Hair Braiding waxing, Nails, lips, whatever, you know,
all these different things that they were doing all different
services that people need fixing Windows roof repair, electrical
work. Plumbing, but they had to keep
it small. Because they couldn't afford the
cost of compliance. They couldn't afford all those
occupational Licensing, Laws and zoning laws and and and minimal
education laws. And and and again, I'm not
talking minimal education to be a brain surgeon.
I'm talking State man today. Stan state-mandated education to
cook food for money. You could cook the food and give
it away for free. But if you charge anything that
now you need that. Now you need that the
government's permission and as a result of this, they could never
grow their business because you can't mark it, because you could
go to jail or have the police come and take everything from
you. So you you do it for this person
and this person and you say yeah.
Yeah, you can let them know that I'll do it, but just be careful
who you tell. It's the exact opposite of how
to grow a business. I've been in business for I've
owned businesses for 20-20 and I'm old 23 years.
Now, almost 23 years. Now Dev.
Number. One thing you have to do is
always be marketing. They can't mark it because they
can't afford the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars
in compliance costs. And so they are stuck in poverty
where they either have to work for someone else or just do
something on the side and live off of welfare.
Instead of being able to, I met people that should be
millionaires. I met a couple people who
probably should be billionaires, and I met many more who should
be able to have a A decent modest business that they can
live off of and they can provide some jobs for, you know, they're
for people in their community and they can build a financial
Legacy for their children. They're not going to be
multimillionaires or anything, but they be self-sufficient,
they'd be self-reliant. They don't their own property.
They'd be able to build something for their children.
Who could then expand to be able to do that, but they can't
because of the state imposed barriers that they can't afford
their, the large crony, overlords can afford it, but
they can't. When you get rid of that.
Equality runs rampant because you're now no longer holding
back. The dynamic we're will and
spirit of the individual person. Excellent answer their say that
someone who Embraces the ideology of conservatism.
They generally want institutions and society that are strong that
reflect Family Values, Community, Mutual Aid, and an
idea of a higher power and humans being worthy of Sort of a
general standard of humans, being above animals.
And that's my way of saying right.
Well saying the word religious I feel is sort of saying they have
that, it's worthy. They have their moral and
religious values and they want to see that reflected in their
society Coretta. Thank you.
I wrote this horribly. Why should someone like that
consider libertarianism? You wrote it fine.
You're doing a great job. Keep this is actually great.
I love how your how you're doing the Back because this is how
they talk. Um, so the answer to that is,
you know, when someone says, I want to see my values reflected
in my Society, I go or my community, I go, okay.
Yeah, no, I get it. I could certainly see why you
would want that and I can see why you would want to work, why
you would want to you know, live with people that to have that.
And and they'll say well why can't I have that, you know
Nationwide. And I'll say because what
happens when the other side wins.
So when you say I'm not content with having My community and
Community, doesn't have to be a geographically, contiguous
thing. You know, I live in a
subdivision, but I'm not sure. I consider every single person
here my community. I have my neighbor's, I had my
people I get along with, I, my people, I don't really know that
well, and but I, but I have a much greater community of people
across the country and across the planet.
So however, you define your community.
If you're not content with those in your community, sharing your
values and you want everyone else to I'll also share your
values. What you're saying is I want to
force people into believing what I believe.
Now, putting aside the fact that that's not feasible or possible
because there's never been a successful a successful attempt
to make everyone believe the same thing.
There have only been massive catastrophes and atrocities that
have happened in the attempt to implement that but it's ever
actually worked or happen, but let's say that you could What
happens when enough people who disagree with you want to impose
their ideas on you? You've created the mechanism,
whereby they can do that. You've created this system.
This enforcement arm, that allows them to turn it around
and go know you you have to you now have to be a secular
humanist who, you know, accepts all all sexual.
Weird, I'm looking for sexual orientations, and genders and,
and everything else. And things that you that go
against your deeply held moral, and religious beliefs, and
tough. You have to bake the damn cake.
You have to, you know, you have to be okay with these things.
You're not allowed to, you know, say the parts of the Bible that,
you know, that are discriminatory towards, you
know, gender and sexual minorities.
You're not allowed to have an opinion about, you know, people
of, you know, different beliefs or different whatever.
You're not allowed to have any of that because I've now taken
your system and used it against you.
And that's actually what we have.
This is not a hypothetical. Yeah.
In the Western World. The Western world's power
structures. Were essentially created by
feudalist under the under the well in Continental Europe,
under the auspices of the Vatican and then later in the
Anglo World under the auspices of the Church of England.
And so, this is not hypothetical Keith.
This is what we have now. A structure in a system that was
created to enforce and entrench a religiously based Divine rule
of right. Monarchies was eventually, you
know, basically repurposed for Liberal secular democracies.
And if you don't like it. That's what happened.
It is what happened? So what I say to conservatives
is you want to, have you want to exist in a community and the
society that reflects your values that is perfectly
understandable, that is perfectly valid.
You should be able to have that when you try to impose it
outside of your community in your society when you try to
collectivize and I like using terms, like collectivize to
conservatives because they don't like the idea that they're
collectivist when you try to collectivize that out to
everyone else. You're no longer say.
I want Society. I want my Society to reflect My
Views. You're saying, I want everyone's
Society, everyone's Community to reflect My Views.
And historically, we know that that leads to bad things.
It does not lead to everyone, adapting your views.
It leads to harm, it leads to malice.
It leads to oppositional, you know, and opposition and
confrontation. It leads to conflict and
eventually it leads to the system you wanted to have to
Control everyone else being turned around and used to
control you exactly all the power.
You give George Bush when he had the ninety percent approval
rating, got to the evil, Barack Obama, and then all the power
they gave him went to evil orange man.
And now it's to about the dementia patient as it until
Kamala takes over. I see the intelligence agencies
and the military keeping the country safe.
The terrorists who want nothing more than to kill us until we
give in to them and embrace Islam.
Why should I consider libertarianism?
So this is actually the question that was asked me that made me
go from being a neocon to questioning what I even
believed. And and against the backdrop of
watching everything, play out the way that Libertarians and
other anti-war and anti neocon. People said it would but this
question led to it. It's a multi-part question.
If the government, if the intelligence agencies in the
military are so concerned with fighting terrorism.
Why do they keep getting caught creating an arming and funding
and training terror groups if they care about our safety, why
are we being robbed to pay for the people who want us dead?
To be taught, how to kill us. And if the people who are
Trusted with that, keeping with keeping us safe, are using the
power in the money that we're giving them to do that.
Then why would we trust them to keep us safe?
And I hated that. Damn question, man, cuz when I
heard it, I'm like my immediate response was well, you just, you
know, want the terrorists, a winner, you, I mean it was what
I would always say, you know, you just don't you don't care
about American but but that question I couldn't default to
that because It sounded like, the intelligence agencies wanted
the terrorists to win. It sounded like the military,
didn't care about our safety, or not the militant, but the
military brass, not the veterans, but the actual the
people in charge of the militant that the military-industrial
complex didn't care and that led to a lot of other questions.
If Mill, if the military industrial complex complex
exists to keep us safe. Why isn't it doing it?
Why is it just making themselves rich?
Why is it just building this? This, you know, Global Empire
that is making us less safe. Why do more and more people hate
us even though we didn't do it, you know, why is it leading to
this? And it's either because of
intentional malice or because of incompetence, either way.
They don't work. They aren't keeping us safe,
whether they mean to or not. They're not keeping us safe.
They're making us less safe. They're making everyone less
safe there, and causing irreparable and immeasurable
damage around the around the world in doing so.
And so that was actually the original thing that, you know,
disabuse me of being any kind of conservative really being a
neocon and kind of started me on the path to going from being
more of a Paleo constitutionalist, you know,
eventually being the, you know, final form Super Saiyan
libertarian that Today, so it's not only people like Trevor
Aaronson, who wrote the terror factory, or the New York Times
saying, 14 out of the last 22, terrorist plots have been
started by the FBI in their informants, but you even have
like a blatant examples, like taking Al-Qaeda side in Yemen,
taking Al-Qaeda side in Libya, LIF G, the Libyan Islamic
fighting group against Gaddafi. And then, most obviously, taking
the side of Al Qaeda. Jabhat al-nusra to fight Assad
in Syria. You where Joe Biden says it at
Harvard in front of people that are like, yeah, it was rough.
There weren't any Thomas Jefferson's or James Madison.
So we ended up siding with, you know, our allies who are sighted
with, you know, the guys hide up.
I'm a nozzle here. He's guys in Syria and then it
also gave Al Qaeda Iraq after the u.s.
Overthrew Saddam. They also rejected the talibans
offer to hand over Bin Laden and his co-conspirators.
Which Bush said was Done to show their Defiance to justify an
invasion that was actually planned on September 4th.
So I appreciate you giving them sort of wiggle room as well.
We don't know what that maybe they have bad intentions.
Maybe maybe they're just idiots. You know, like, I will always,
you know, what is it handling? The razor?
I think that, you know, anything that can be attributed to, you
know, instead of looking to attribute it to malice, anything
that could potentially be attributed to incompetence,
should probably be done. So, but I Tend to think it's
malice. I tend to think it's, it's
probably a combination of malice and incompetence.
But Keith you mentioned, you mentioned Yemen.
The US government is basically sponsoring a genocide in Yemen.
And the genocide is being carried out by the Saudi
government. And as you said, Al Qaeda.
Now, when we get caught up in this discussion about, you know,
the, the central, you know, these intelligence agencies and
the military industrial complex, arming and training, and
fighting and allying with terrorist groups.
We get caught up in the, in the brass tacks of it.
Well, that's not going to work. And doesn't that make things
worse. It's treason.
Yeah, if you and I said, hey, let's give 12 cents to Al-Qaeda.
We'd go to jail, probably for a long time because it's a terror
group and they're trying to kill us.
But when the US government publicly gives hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of money and training and weapons,
and, and air support, and all this other stuff.
The million measured in the millions and billions.
We talked about it in policy terms.
This is treason. It's not just war crimes.
It's not just, you know, terrible policy.
It's not just the the biggest single recruitment tool for
these Terror groups, people joining these Terror groups
because they're the only ones trying to fight back against,
you know, the global US military industrial complex Campaign Of
Terror against Eric their entire.
Region in the in the world. It's also treason.
They are giving material and comfort and Aid to the enemy to
declared and sworn enemies of the United States.
And it's just incredible to think of that and there's
nothing that can be done because they would be the ones to do
something about it. Right?
So here, so, you know, that's that, all speaks to when people
say Well, they're keeping us safe.
Not only, are they not keeping us safe.
They are. Engaging in regular public
treason against us to make us less safe.
So they are the last people that I would trust to keep us safe.
On Note reason number six, written in 1870 Lysander Spooner
says it, purports at most to be only a contract between persons
living 80 years ago, only a small portion even of the people
than existing were consulted on the subject or asked or
permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any
formal. Mater and the Constitution so
far as it was their contract, it died with them.
What is he talking about here? What are the most important
contributions of Lysander Spooner?
He is talking about he is using the equal English.
Common law structure to argue against the legitimacy of
really, of all governments, but specifically the constitutional
government. So the theory of why government
is just in in an arc Lauren, you know, Democratic Republic that
we have basically is, well, it has the consent of the governed.
That's what makes it just like if you really try to drill down
into the basics of why we should even tolerate people taking from
us against our will and telling us how to live.
It's well, you know, once you get past the pageantry, and the
badges, and the metals, and the, you know, the marble buildings
and the, you know, the the, the, the grand writings on parchment,
and all this stuff and really Drill down to why we should take
any of this seriously as being anything other than just
organized crime. We are told well it's because
they have the consent of the governed, they have our consent
and he's arguing they never had our consent.
Everyone who's watching this and I can't see it.
I can only see if Keith does it raise your hand?
If it's some point, you were asked, if you were okay with the
Constitutional system of government or whether you wanted
to opt out, my memory might be fading.
But I'm gonna say no since it's See you.
And I. Yes and and I doubt anyone else
did either unless you unless you actually and even for those who
because I've had people say, well, I swore to uphold and
protect and defend the Constitution when I joined the
military or when I ran for office, I go.
Okay. Did they ever give you a chance
to opt out of it? And I don't mean to opt out of
swearing in to protect and uphold it, but opting out of
living under its rule. If the answer is no, which it
is, you don't they never got your consent?
What he was talking about is when the Constitution was
founded, it only got the consent of a of a majority of those who
were consulted, the people there did not the average person in
the in, what is now the us or what was considered the u.s.
Back then or the continent. The former colonies were never
given a chance to opt out. They were never allowed to do
that at best. They were Allowed to elect
politicians who were then able to decide whether or not they
wanted to ratify the thing, but that's different from being able
to opt out from all of it. And the reality is back, then
only white landowning males, were even able to vote, but even
if everyone was able to vote, even if every single person
including the slaves, were all allowed to vote on whether or
not they wanted to have it only those who voted for.
It would have been able to say that they had their consent,
anyone who voted against it. It was forced into it now.
Let's go even further. Keith.
Let's say that 100% of every single human being in the
colonies, including the natives voted in favor of the
ratification of the Constitution.
All of them. Every single one.
There wasn't a single dissenter. Everyone read this document,
when my God, that's the best thing I've ever seen.
Where do I vote? Yes.
Yes.
Okay. They're all dead.
Their children are all dead. Their grandchildren are all
dead. They're great.
Korean children, should all be dead.
We are many, many, many generations removed from that,
from the people. Who, as we know, the vast
majority were never even consulted.
But even if every single one of them had been consulted and in
their totally informed on coerced State.
They said, yes, I want this. It still wouldn't speak to you
and me, we did not consent to this system.
And if anyone other than Government tried to tell you
that you had to live under an agreement by them, by virtue of
the fact that you were born. Within their presumed
jurisdiction, they would go to jail for racketeering and
extortion, and threats of violence, and you know, and a
Ponzi scheme and a myriad of other things because that's
blatantly false using their own legal framework.
It is false to say that anyone has consented to this.
We were never given an option consent, only exist.
If you are allowed to say no, you know, we often say the
difference, between working for someone and slavery, is having
the option to say, I don't want to do.
Is the difference between consensual sex and rape is the
is being is saying, I don't want to do this, the difference
between paying someone and, and being robbed by someone is the
difference or giving to someone or being robbed by someone, is
that is the difference, whether or not you are allowed to say, I
don't want to give this to you. If you're not being told that
you have an option to opt-out, not leave, not leave, but stay
where you are and opt out and live as you see fit harming, no
one. Else.
Then you did not consent and there is no there is no consent
of the governed when an opt-out isn't given.
Exactly Frederic bastiat said if every person has the right to
defend even by force his person, his Liberty and his property
then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize
and support a common force to protect these rights constantly.
Thus since an individual cannot lawfully use Force against the
person, Liberty, or property of another individual, then the
common force for the Some reason cannot lawfully be used to
destroy the person, Liberty or property of individual groups.
So if you have a security Force, make sure you've only delegated
rights to them. That you yourself have.
That's what I love about bastiat.
What is your favorite thing about Frederic bastiat?
And his book, The Law written in, what 1850 it was, it was
published in 1850. It Was Written sometime around
the 1840, the French Revolution. So it was, it was believed that
it was written. In between like 1845 and 1848.
I love Basquiat because I love the law because it's it.
Can you just show them how thin that book is?
It's such an easy read, you can read it like it's like a you can
read it on the bathroom. Your legs might be a little a
little numb when you get off the toilet, but I think this is the
new edition with Walter Williams has forward.
So it's thinner than this. Yeah, it's thinner than that.
Just the basic without usually. It has at least one or two
forwards to which, to give it a little bit of something to it
because it's like a it's a such an He read, it's such a quick
and easy read. And you know, one of my other
favorite quotes from it and I always mess it up is the
delusion of the day or this is the delusion of the day, the
idea of enriching all classes at the expense of one.
Another like you're basically you're grouping people up or
making a fight each other and then you're convincing each one
that you're going to rob everyone else to give them
something when reality is you're just robbing everyone and
skimming from some of the top, what I like about the quote that
you said, is it really speaks to?
To the core of what we talked about.
John Stossel did this once to a Paul to a congressman or a
senator? He said do I have the right to
to do you? Do you have the right to rob?
Me and he said, no. And he said, Do you and I have
the right to go and Rob someone and he said no and I said and he
said, do you and me in like five?
Other people have the right to go?
And Rob said, he went into the sea.
Said, why do you as a politician?
Have the right to take from me? And he said well because the
people have bestowed, the power to me and he said, so then I
don't have the right to rob you, but I have the right to empower
someone else to rob you and he said, well, you know, No, the
our system is well alive, and we'd have Anarchy with that.
If you don't have the right to do something, then you don't
have the right to do it and you sure as hell, don't have the
right to tell someone else to do it.
Imagine if it were legal to hire a hit man.
Well, you didn't kill him. You just bestowed that right
onto someone else. That's our social contract,
Keith. That's essentially what we have
that is the justification of government.
Again, I am more than happy to work with menorca's.
Constitutionalist, people of all political stripes on working to
dismantle authoritarianism, and to, you know, and to put power
back in the hands of the people. So I this is not a hill.
I wish to die on in terms of, you know, libertarian circles.
There are many some of my some of the greatest activists that
are in our party and our movement arm in Turkish.
So I got one Burger who I'm Jacob hornberger, I mean so
perfect example, when I was knocking on doors and housing
projects, guess who was right next to me?
Jacob Warren Burger. Yeah.
He was with that. He was there with me and two of
the times that we did it so and they're in Justin Amash is an
incredible Mentor kiss. There are many incredible Mentor
kiss. In this party and in this
movement and I certainly don't want to disparage them or
anything like that. But let's be very clear about
this. If you don't have the right to
Rob someone, if you don't have the right to impose your will on
someone else, then you are then you do not have the right to
empower someone else or to you can't delegate something, you
don't have. So you can't delegate theft
extortion, kidnapping, murder. You can't delegate these things
to a different group and it's a to someone else.
To some other group. Any manifestation of government
has to have some level of coercion and theft and control
or else. It's not a government.
It's a voluntary community group like it's not or at least it's
not a state. It might be a form of
government, but it's certainly not a state.
A state has a presumption that this is our set of standards and
you have to comply with them and it doesn't matter if you like it
or not. You simply have to the most that
you can do is participate in some electoral system, we create
for you to put the people in charge to decide who controls
those levers. But you can't actually dismantle
the levers because that's treason.
Okay, so which is why, which is why Lysander Spooner is book, is
called No treason because if there's no moral justification
for the thing, then there is no treason to it.
There is simply the refusal to comply with it.
Final question. Mr. Cohen, thank you so much for
being generous with your time quote book.
The book How to Win Friends and Influence People, isn't it?
Amazing? All these books are so old but
they have such amount of wisdom. You have to bring 10times to
understand half of it. Yeah, consists of four parts,
fundamental techniques, in handling people ways to make
people, like you how to win people to your way of thinking,
and how to change people without giving offence.
What is the most important lesson you?
Learned or lessons from Dale, Carnegie in his book, How to
Win, Friends and Influence People.
The number one thing I learned from Dale Carnegie and really
from it just in studying the best ways and to be clear when I
was reading these things and learning these things.
It was with sales in mind. It was not with politics, in
mind. It was with my business in mind,
how to grow my business, how to be able to cold call a business
owner and in a three or four minute period, have them go from
trying to figure out how to get me off the phone.
Phone and try to figure out how I even got their number to, you
know, telling me about their company and figuring out, which
of my packages is going to work best for them.
And you know, what, how we can start, you know, it could put
down a down payment and start the first consultation or
whatever and and so that's where my mind was in it.
But what I learned the most powerful thing that I learned
from all of that is that no one cares what, you know, until they
know that you care. Huh?
No one. Give us a crap about your
political principles or beliefs, or your you're the moral
philosophical. Underpinning of what?
No one cares. And for that matter.
No one cares about your product or your service or anything
else. If they don't know that you
actually are care about or are concerned with their situation
and how to make it better. And so, all of my messaging and
the messaging that I've been going around the chi, just got
back from See, I'm going to be in Miami next week, and I'm
going to be pretty much every week.
I'm going to be in a different place.
Pretty much through until November October November and
I'm going around the country largely to rally the troops to
help identify good candidates and to help, you know, build the
resources and support for them to run for the various offices.
They're running for. But the number one thing I want
to do and that my number one goal is to teach Libertarians
how to message are. Leafs how to message our beliefs
in a way that connects with everyday Americans.
And the way you do that is by beating them where they are in
their spaces and from their precepts, connecting with what
they care about by listening to them.
Reflecting and empathizing that you understand what they're
going through and then and then there you can show them how we
got here and take them on the journey for how our Common
Sense. Libertarian ideas are the fixed
to their problems. We are not consequentialists,
but we can use a consequential argumentation to be able to
bring people over to our side because if I show up to someone
who tells me that they're worried about, you know, crime
or they're worried about health care or they're worried about
Ocean and I start talking about self ownership.
They aren't they, it's not even going to connect with them, that
they're not going to match. They're not going to care about
it. What they care about is, how can
I afford? You know, an emergency room
visit without a destroying me financially.
How can my kids get a good education?
How can I the questions? You were asking me today?
How can you know, how can, you know, my kids grow up in a
society that, you know, treats them, you know, with respect.
How can I keep my kids out of prison?
How can I be able to grow my business?
How can, how can we get rid of? Stupid, lockdowns, how can we
end gun control so that I can defend myself and my family's.
As I see fit. These are all great questions.
We have the best answers to them.
I love that. You asked me questions.
That progressives would ask and conservatives would ask because
the reality, is we have better answers for the left than
Democrats. Have we have better answers for
the right than Republicans, have we have better answers for
everyone than anyone else has. So, there's no need to argue
with them. There's no need to To get into
some, you know, into deep philosophical underpinnings.
At first. All we have to do is tell them
how our ideas work and we're going to win over the vast
majority of them. If and if you are already a
Libertarian, I don't have to you know, explain to you that
libertarianism how it works. Go read How to Win Friends and
Influence People. Hmm.
That is so much more important at this point.
Then you getting even more deep into the finer underpinnings of
libertarian. Thought.
They're certainly time for that. I'm We not just discouraging you
from reading more about are your beliefs and and and finer
tuning. Your beliefs.
It is much more important that you be able to share your
beliefs in a way that connects with the other 95% of people who
don't think the way we do and that is so much more crucial.
So that that would be my final exhortation to you is GoGo read
about how to actually be able to connect with everyday people and
what you're probably going to find.
Is that the way you Connect with everyday people about other
stuff. That's just how you connect with
them on about libertarianism to. So that that would be my take
away from all this if you got nothing else from any of this,
learn how to be able to share our ideas in a way that connects
with everyday people. That's how we win.
The guest is fight Cohen, mr. Cohen.
Thank you for joining me on Keith Knight.
Don't try it on anyone. Thank you Keith.