America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - Nick Fuentes vs Adam Kokesh

00:00:03.000 Welcome, everybody, once again. 0.98

00:00:04.000 This is America's number one Chadcast.

00:00:06.000 This is Call Me Out.

00:00:07.000 We have an absolutely incredible debate lined up tonight.

00:00:12.000 We got Adam, the libertarian legend, Kokesh, and the America first captain himself.

00:00:22.000 Some are calling him Super Future Fuentes.

00:00:24.000 Actually, that's just me, but we're here.

00:00:27.000 We're ready to rock.

00:00:29.000 We got Adam, no longer running for president.

00:00:33.000 In 2020, he'll be entering the United States Senate race in Arizona.

00:00:37.000 And we got Nick, who's potentially running in 2040, really looking forward to it.

00:00:42.000 But Adam, first of all, before we get into it, tell us about what happened.

00:00:46.000 You're no longer running for president or unpresident.

00:00:48.000 You have now entered the United States Senate race in Arizona.

00:00:52.000 Can you tell us a little bit about that before we get started?

00:00:55.000 Well, I live here in Arizona.

00:00:55.000 Sure.

00:00:57.000 I moved here a few years ago where I'm homesteading and building an earthship and a complete homestead from completely undeveloped land.

00:01:04.000 And I chose Arizona very carefully because it is the greatest state in the Union by far.

00:01:10.000 After having traveled the country on four national book tours, it was an easy conclusion for me to come to, and I chose very carefully.

00:01:16.000 I'm very happy with this here.

00:01:18.000 In Arizona, the Libertarian Party fielded a great slate of candidates for the U.S. Senate, for governor, and a number of other races, and they were all disqualified by a Republican lawsuit.

00:01:31.000 And so the only way to get Libertarians on the ballot now is as a write in.

00:01:35.000 In the primary to be qualified for the general election ballot.

00:01:40.000 And there are enough people who were very upset about this who said, you know what, we're not going to let the Republicans get away with this.

00:01:45.000 Since there's this sort of backdoor way onto the ballot, we're going to support another awesome slate of Libertarian candidates.

00:01:52.000 So I was recruited and I got to hand it to Barry Hess for being really the lead organizer of this project.

00:01:57.000 It's very exciting.

00:01:58.000 So last week, I suspended my presidential campaign in order to give it to the 2018 US Senate race.

00:02:04.000 I'm running as a Libertarian to take the seat vacated by Senator Flake.

00:02:09.000 And running against quite a colorful cast of characters.

00:02:14.000 But you know, Al, we should get into that on another interview.

00:02:16.000 I don't want to take too much time from this awesome debate.

00:02:18.000 But as a U.S. Senator, what I'm going to be doing is meeting with as many of the troops as I possibly can and looking them in the eyes and telling them that I was one of them and that we have been lied to and that they are not fighting for freedom and that I will do everything I can in my power to ensure that not another American soldier dies for lies.

00:02:40.000 And for those of you in the audience who don't know me from previous appearances on this production, I'm a former Marine and author of the book Freedom.

00:02:52.000 Yes, Adam is actually a three time Chadcast alumni.

00:02:56.000 Nick, two time Chadcast alumni.

00:02:58.000 Ready to get rocking.

00:02:59.000 Let's start on the border because we just talked about Arizona.

00:03:03.000 I'm going to ask Adam a question and then Nick is going to have a chance to respond.

00:03:06.000 You guys got unlimited.

00:03:07.000 I wish you'd have a chance to introduce himself too.

00:03:09.000 Okay, Nick.

00:03:10.000 Well, I did.

00:03:11.000 I wish you'd have liked me and be like, who's this?

00:03:11.000 I did a pretty good job.

00:03:15.000 Who's this jerk in the suit jacket with the green screen? 0.99

00:03:17.000 They're going to want to know who Nick is. 0.99

00:03:19.000 So, like, you know, give him his.

00:03:21.000 Absolutely.

00:03:21.000 It's not fair.

00:03:22.000 No, I already introduced him as Nick Superfuture Fuentes.

00:03:25.000 I thought that was pretty good.

00:03:25.000 But, Nick, tell us about yourself.

00:03:28.000 Well, yeah, I'll introduce myself.

00:03:33.000 I mean, I'm sure fans of the number one Chad cast know me already.

00:03:37.000 I was on the Sticks debate.

00:03:39.000 And me and Alan go way back.

00:03:41.000 I mean, I consider him a good friend.

00:03:43.000 And so it's good to be here.

00:03:44.000 I'm, of course, the host of America First, Monday through Friday, which is.

00:03:49.000 I guess you could call it a chat cast.

00:03:50.000 I prefer to call it just kind of a podcast or a show.

00:03:54.000 I'm not a Marine.

00:03:55.000 I'm a high school graduate and a college dropout, I guess you could call me so far.

00:03:55.000 I'm not a Marine.

00:04:00.000 But I'm an America first guy.

00:04:02.000 I'm not a libertarian.

00:04:03.000 I'm not an anarchist.

00:04:04.000 I used to be when I was in high school, but I would call myself now a nationalist or a conservative.

00:04:11.000 And so it's good to be with you.

00:04:12.000 I'm excited for the debate.

00:04:13.000 So we've got the Kanye West of live streaming versus the Larry Bird of libertarianism.

00:04:19.000 Let's get into it.

00:04:21.000 Does everything sound good, voice of reason?

00:04:24.000 Let's get rocking.

00:04:26.000 So as I said, I'm going to ask Adam a question and Nick's going to get a chance to respond.

00:04:26.000 Adam.

00:04:29.000 You guys have unlimited time.

00:04:32.000 As a libertarian and potentially a U.S. senator from Arizona, Would you abolish ICE?

00:04:39.000 Absolutely.

00:04:40.000 Tell us why.

00:04:42.000 Because the only legitimate borders are private property borders.

00:04:45.000 And if you believe in the market, if you believe in freedom, then the only legitimate solutions to the problems of human movement are market based solutions.

00:04:55.000 We really can't trust government to do anything that it says, but we can't trust it to even do what it wants to do or what it intends to do effectively most of the time.

00:05:04.000 And especially with something like immigration, trying to control.

00:05:08.000 I mean, you just look at the proof.

00:05:10.000 I mean, they're what the fear mongers will tell you there are 13 million people here illegally.

00:05:15.000 Well, you know, if you want to take it with an American native perspective, well, there are 330 something million people here illegally.

00:05:24.000 But when it comes down to it, if you believe in freedom, if you believe in private property, if you believe in free markets, then you have to say the only legitimate borders are private property borders.

00:05:32.000 When government claims an entire territory, that's not a legitimate property claim in the first place.

00:05:37.000 And if you want to really be able to control, Who lives near you?

00:05:41.000 And I think we should all have some natural desire for that, like I do.

00:05:45.000 That's why I bought land here in Arizona in an awesome community full of people who share my values.

00:05:50.000 And I got a big fence up around my property.

00:05:52.000 I get to decide who comes on my property.

00:05:55.000 And I think it's unethical and it's holding back humanity when you have a government standing in the way saying, No, we're going to be the one who determines who's allowed in this vicinity and therefore who's allowed on your property.

00:06:08.000 And in terms of how much this is holding back humanity, this idea that governments Should have some role in the restriction of freedom of movement of human beings is that it has cut global productivity in half. 0.91

00:06:21.000 And this is not just me making shit up or off the top of my head.

00:06:24.000 There are several economic analyses that will show you that if you remove government borders just as barriers to the flow of human capital, not even like getting rid of any of their other significance, just of labor capital, that global productivity would double. 0.85

00:06:41.000 So we just get over our hang ups about nationalism and tribalism and ethnic.

00:06:46.000 Pride and grouping and all that.

00:06:47.000 Hey, we all have to work half as much and we have the same quality of life, or quality of life doubles for everybody.

00:06:53.000 So, yeah, freedom's the answer.

00:06:55.000 What's the question?

00:06:56.000 Nick, your response.

00:06:58.000 Well, so if the question is to abolish ICE, I mean, this is more of a policy issue.

00:07:03.000 I think the obviously deeper rooted question is should we have borders?

00:07:07.000 If you don't think we should have borders, then why would we have immigration and customs enforcement?

00:07:11.000 So, it's almost a non starter if you don't believe in borders.

00:07:14.000 And I believe that's fundamental.

00:07:18.000 Oh, right, right, right.

00:07:19.000 Now, private property borders as opposed to government borders.

00:07:23.000 And so, a number of claims were made.

00:07:25.000 I guess we'll get to the ICE part.

00:07:27.000 I mean, if you believe in borders, if you believe in government borders and the enforcement of them, you believe in ICE because ICE is the immigration and customs enforcement, which is needed in the 21st century.

00:07:38.000 You know, before we could easily just round them up and ship them out if they were illegal, as we did in Operation Wetback in the 1950s.

00:07:45.000 And when we enforced the border for a long time, we didn't really even have that problem so much.

00:07:50.000 Now we do need ice.

00:07:51.000 But to address some of the myths, I mean, Adam made a lot of pretty stunning and large claims.

00:07:58.000 For starters, I heard in there a pretty interesting one, and this is one I tackle a lot on my show, which is to say that he said that, well, if we have 11 million illegal immigrants, that's fear mongering.

00:08:08.000 And actually, there's 300 million illegal immigrants because of the Native Americans.

00:08:13.000 And I would say that, you know, if we're going to operate within the paradigm of the current reality and not this like hypothetical, like libertarian fantasy land that's governed by abstract principles, you know, I would say that we have to look at it that settlers are very different than immigrants. 0.55

00:08:29.000 The people that came here and wiped out the Native Americans were settlers. 0.80

00:08:33.000 They weren't going from one existing society into another, where you have Mexican immigrants now coming into American society. 0.76

00:08:40.000 They left British society, which was developed, which was industrializing, and they came to America, which was a frontier where there wasn't a lot of resources, where there wasn't a lot of development, where there was constant warring with the Native tribes until the middle of the 19th century.

00:08:56.000 And so it's a much different proposition. 0.99

00:08:58.000 The immigrants that you see now, if you could even call them that, They're not assimilating into the culture that they come into. 1.00

00:09:04.000 They're not coming to work. 1.00

00:09:05.000 They're not coming to settle.

00:09:06.000 They're coming to take advantage of our resources.

00:09:09.000 And you know that because we saw in the caravan of people that left Central America and came to America, they went through all of Mexico. 0.91

00:09:17.000 They went through Mexico, which is perfectly developed, which is certainly more safe than some of the lawless Central American countries.

00:09:23.000 But they went through all of that and to the borders of America.

00:09:26.000 Why?

00:09:26.000 Because America has more stuff.

00:09:28.000 The Middle Eastern Syrian refugees, they went through Turkey, they went through Eastern Europe, and then they finally stopped in Germany.

00:09:35.000 And it's not because there were no safe countries along the way.

00:09:37.000 It was because Germany has more stuff.

00:09:39.000 And of course, that's why they come. 0.81

00:09:41.000 Additionally, he advanced the idea that government does not have a legitimate claim to land, which is, of course, ridiculous.

00:09:50.000 They have a claim to land because they can defend the land.

00:09:53.000 We had the 13 original colonies.

00:09:55.000 We then purchased the Louisiana Purchase, which was right up until we go out a little bit further west.

00:10:02.000 The rest of the territory we got from the Mexican Cession or we got from various treaties in the Northwest.

00:10:08.000 And so that was all done by treaty between governments.

00:10:10.000 If he wants to say that's illegitimate, I guess he believes all countries are illegitimate, but the idea that they're totally just based on domination and conquest, they were established through transactions, through purchase, or through some kind of a treaty.

00:10:24.000 Lastly, he talks about productivity, which to me is fascinating.

00:10:29.000 He advanced this in the debate with Stefan Molyneux, and I was just dumbfounded at this argument that, well, if there was no borders, if there was just the free movement of people, global productivity would double, which is absolutely the height of.

00:10:42.000 Of ridiculousness, of ludicrousness, because we look in the case of the Arab migrants in a country like Germany, for example, and they find that 70%, no less than 70% of the migrants from the Middle East and North Africa are long term unemployed.

00:11:00.000 So the people that come into Europe, the existing immigrants that are coming in, it's not like they're picking themselves up by the bootstraps and they're starting small businesses.

00:11:08.000 They're Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

00:11:10.000 Of course not.

00:11:11.000 They're taking advantage.

00:11:12.000 Of the government welfare state.

00:11:14.000 And of course, the reason being is because they're bringing over the culture that they left behind, which is that of not productivity, to say the least.

00:11:22.000 And anyway, if we were going to entertain something that's hypothetical, we would have to look at the tremendous costs that are involved of integrating people, which some might say are insurmountable.

00:11:31.000 I mean, sure, if people were interchangeable, that might be the case.

00:11:36.000 If individuals were deracinated, had no religion, had no allegiance to their nation or families, if they all spoke the same language, then you could probably say, yeah, there would be no costs associated with.

00:11:47.000 Mass migrations and therefore productivity would increase.

00:11:50.000 But there's no evidence that that would be the case.

00:11:52.000 We know that the reason that free trade between nations works a lot less than free trade within nations is because people are much more willing to move from Indiana to Illinois, or actually, it's really more vice versa, at least in my experience, than they would be to move from Illinois to China, or they would from Illinois to Vietnam or Indonesia.

00:12:10.000 And that's for obvious reasons.

00:12:12.000 They'd have to learn a new language, a new culture.

00:12:13.000 They'd have to learn to eat with chopsticks and eat bugs and stuff like that.

00:12:17.000 So it's a lot.

00:12:18.000 It sounds great on paper.

00:12:20.000 Freedom, freedom.

00:12:21.000 This is the rallying cry.

00:12:23.000 But we think about it for more than five seconds and we find it's really just not substantiated by facts, history, or political theory.

00:12:31.000 Adam, do you have a response to that? 0.99

00:12:35.000 Oh, shit. 1.00

00:12:36.000 Sorry. 1.00

00:12:37.000 Shit. 1.00

00:12:37.000 Hold on. 1.00

00:12:38.000 My bad.

00:12:38.000 Adam, you're saying.

00:12:39.000 Start over, Adam.

00:12:40.000 Yeah.

00:12:40.000 So, no problem.

00:12:40.000 Cool.

00:12:42.000 I mean, it's just funny to hear Nick talk about fantasy land where he lives in this fantasy, the Amero fantasy land, where government works. 0.80

00:12:52.000 Like, and that's insane. 0.92

00:12:55.000 That's the denial of reality.

00:12:58.000 And the denial of economic reality that, like, choice, freedom, movement, that is like those are prerequisites for free trade, and that free trade promotes wealth, and that's what makes civilization prosper.

00:13:13.000 The cost of integration thing that's kind of a silly, like, well, we're going to be collectivists, so we're going to have to pay to integrate people.

00:13:20.000 No, you know, if you don't have a forced collective in the first place, you don't have to be forced to pay the costs to integrate people.

00:13:28.000 You can respect diversity.

00:13:30.000 You can respect the evolution of culture, the evolution of thought that things are going to change, things are going to flow, and that societies and civilizations are going to shift and change.

00:13:38.000 But more importantly, I think fundamentally here, there's a point that he brought up about property and that trying to say that government has legitimate property rights claims because it can defend it.

00:13:50.000 Now, if I kidnapped you, Nick, and I had you tied up in my basement and I had duct tape over your mouth and weird torture devices attached to you, I wouldn't say, well, I can defend him, therefore I own him.

00:14:05.000 So it's legitimate.

00:14:06.000 I kidnapped him, I stole him fair and square.

00:14:09.000 And I mean, this is probably why you think taxation isn't theft, right?

00:14:12.000 Because government already owns you, and that's a legitimate claim.

00:14:15.000 Well, I'm sorry, but your concept of property is just divorced from reality.

00:14:21.000 And that might be a little more fundamental philosophical divergence if you guys want to get into that.

00:14:28.000 I think the Lockean concept of property rights is very important.

00:14:28.000 I'm a homesteader.

00:14:33.000 If you mix your labor with natural resources and you can claim it, and yes, defense is relevant in that, and so is respect by society in the market, and to some degree, property outside of your body is subjective.

00:14:46.000 Uh, but to say it's by like I claim it and I've used it and I've mixed my labor with it or I've traded for it legitimately, that's you know, that's that's a logical basis for property rights that you can apply consistently to a number of issues, you can apply as a foundation for ethics and everything else, but if it's just Well, we can defend it.

00:15:07.000 I guess it's ours. 0.98

00:15:08.000 You're going to be fighting over shit forever. 1.00

00:15:11.000 It's a ridiculous false basis for property rights. 1.00

00:15:16.000 All right. 0.76

00:15:17.000 Nick, go ahead.

00:15:18.000 Yeah, I mean, I'm glad that you brought up Locke because I think this illustrates a fundamental divergence in what we believe is human nature.

00:15:26.000 And what I would say, firstly, to answer, or first of all, I don't think firstly is a word, but in the first place, when we talk about government versus people, I think what you have is the fallacy of composition.

00:15:37.000 When you start to compare, well, Hold on, hold on for a moment.

00:15:41.000 I want you to do the level.

00:15:41.000 Hold on.

00:15:43.000 No, I can hear you.

00:15:43.000 I can hear the owner.

00:15:44.000 Sorry, sorry.

00:15:45.000 Just so you're clear.

00:15:46.000 The owner is a little bit of you.

00:15:48.000 Just freedom, man.

00:15:49.000 Excuse me.

00:15:49.000 Are we going to have open interruptions?

00:15:52.000 Oh, whoa.

00:15:52.000 Thank you.

00:15:53.000 So, in the first place, I would say you have the fallacy of composition, which is to say that within a country, you couldn't kidnap me, I couldn't attack you because we have a Lockean order.

00:16:06.000 And the reason we have a Lockean order that's based on contracts is because the government enforces the legitimacy and the viability of the contracts.

00:16:15.000 If you were to kidnap me, if there was something that would happen, well, that would be the only reason we would say that that would be against a Lockean contract is because the government would come in and say that's illegal.

00:16:26.000 That's against the law.

00:16:27.000 You can't do that.

00:16:28.000 There would be retaliation.

00:16:31.000 And on a more national level, that simply doesn't exist.

00:16:35.000 What international body enforces contracts between countries?

00:16:38.000 It simply doesn't exist.

00:16:40.000 And so, in that way, and then this illustrates a larger premise, by the way the world and nations function in a Hobbesian order, which is to say that it is, unfortunately, I don't know if it's moral, but might does establish rights.

00:16:53.000 If we were living in an anarchistic society and there was no law established by government, there was I'm not sure there's any other way to establish a law.

00:17:01.000 And I took your property, and nobody could take it from me if there was no law to say that was against the law.

00:17:07.000 Now, you could say it's wrong all day long.

00:17:09.000 You could stand on the sideline and say, That's wrong.

00:17:11.000 You can't take my property.

00:17:13.000 That's not, you're breaking a Lockean contract.

00:17:15.000 But if I'm able to defend it, if I took it and I'm able to prevent you from taking it back, it is in effect mine.

00:17:22.000 It is de facto mine.

00:17:23.000 It doesn't matter what Locke or anybody else has to say about it.

00:17:28.000 It's mine.

00:17:29.000 Nice.

00:17:31.000 Yeah, it doesn't change the fact that it's mine.

00:17:32.000 So I think really the divergence comes from, again, this fantasy land where libertarians like to live in the world of abstractions.

00:17:40.000 So, what do we mean by fantasy land?

00:17:42.000 It means that libertarians live purely in the world of philosophical abstraction.

00:17:48.000 They say, well, it doesn't matter if the government exists, it doesn't matter if the government has resources, and you could point individuals and institutions.

00:17:56.000 That doesn't matter. 0.92

00:17:57.000 Government doesn't work.

00:17:59.000 What's really legitimate is the free market.

00:18:01.000 And this is entirely abstraction.

00:18:03.000 We know that in the real world, We deal with government every day.

00:18:07.000 Government is real.

00:18:08.000 The claims are legitimate, and they're legitimate because people recognize them as legitimate.

00:18:11.000 And that's really what matters in lived reality as opposed to it in the world of abstractions where we're, oh, well, it's not really legitimate because taxation is theft and all this kind of stuff.

00:18:22.000 But we all know that's very hokey.

00:18:24.000 It's all abstraction.

00:18:27.000 All right.

00:18:28.000 So while we're on the subject of the border, Adam, we have a very serious drug war that's pretty much a game.

00:18:35.000 I don't personally support the drug war.

00:18:38.000 Maybe some drugs should be illegal, I guess, like heroin and things like that.

00:18:41.000 But we've got a serious, basically, a war going on on the border, it seems like.

00:18:47.000 As a potential Senate senator from Arizona, what would be your first step in regards to the drug war?

00:18:55.000 And Nick, we're going to give you a response on that.

00:18:58.000 Oh, well, it's really simple.

00:18:59.000 You own yourself as a free, independent human being.

00:19:02.000 You have the right to decide what you put in your own body.

00:19:05.000 And if there's no victim, there's no crime.

00:19:07.000 So it's criminal for government to take away that fundamental human right.

00:19:12.000 Nick.

00:19:14.000 Yeah, I think all drugs should be illegal.

00:19:17.000 And the reason being is because, you know, we have to, we talk about self ownership a lot, which I think is very fascinating because I've yet to hear Adam define at what point a person owns themselves.

00:19:28.000 I mean, would we say that a child is in a position to give informed consent for sex?

00:19:34.000 Would we say that a child is in a position to take a drug that they don't understand, like heroin or methamphetamine or marijuana, for example?

00:19:42.000 I think what we see in many studies is that when you legalize a drug like marijuana in states like Colorado, among others, the rate of usage by adults and children increases.

00:19:54.000 And to see that kind of harm done to society at large and to children, I think is a horrible thing.

00:19:58.000 But I think fundamentally, the problem with this idea of self ownership is where do you define it?

00:20:05.000 And some might say, some of the more moderate libertarians will say, oh, it's 21 or it's 18.

00:20:10.000 And of course, that's entirely arbitrary.

00:20:12.000 They say, well, it's when the brain develops.

00:20:14.000 That's different for everybody, number one.

00:20:14.000 Develops.

00:20:16.000 And then number two, who's to say that brain developing is a good metric to define ownership?

00:20:20.000 I mean, could we say that it's when the body is fully developed?

00:20:23.000 Who's really to say it's all entirely arbitrary?

00:20:26.000 And so it all goes back to common sense.

00:20:29.000 This is where we live in the real world as opposed to abstractions.

00:20:33.000 Is it a better or a worse thing for society to be on drugs?

00:20:36.000 Well, it's worse for society, it's worse for productivity, it's worse for people's health, and government should be able to make that decision.

00:20:43.000 Government knows what's best.

00:20:45.000 For society, the people who are the people who run the government ought to know what's best for society.

00:20:50.000 That's how we should determine government, and then they should enforce that.

00:20:53.000 I think that's a wonderful thing.

00:20:55.000 That's why I used to be a libertarian, but I became a statist because I realized that we can and, in fact, do know what is best for the public at large.

00:21:04.000 That's why government should be able to make those kinds of decisions.

00:21:07.000 Adam, yeah, you might want to respond to a few things before.

00:21:10.000 Yeah, go ahead.

00:21:12.000 There's so much in there.

00:21:14.000 I mean, first of all, Nick.

00:21:17.000 Think about your parents for a second when you say that all drugs should be illegal.

00:21:23.000 Because if it wasn't for alcohol, you probably wouldn't be here right now.

00:21:28.000 You say that drugs are bad, that universally they have no positive benefit for society, they're bad for productivity.

00:21:34.000 The most popular drug in America is a productivity drug.

00:21:37.000 It's called caffeine.

00:21:38.000 People use it every day, all the time, by choice.

00:21:42.000 It enhances their lives.

00:21:43.000 People use marijuana all the time.

00:21:46.000 It enhances their lives, it makes it better.

00:21:48.000 For so many aspects of their health to be able to have that freedom to decide what drugs are in their own best interest.

00:21:56.000 But this almost isn't a debate anymore.

00:22:00.000 I have to wonder if Nick's playing a caricature of a statist here, if this is a libertarian fantasy to get to debate someone so ridiculous who would say that all drugs should be illegal and government knows what's best.

00:22:12.000 I mean, this is amazing.

00:22:14.000 But the debate is lower to this point where it's like, you live in fantasy land.

00:22:19.000 No, you live in fantasy land.

00:22:21.000 No, you need to get back to reality.

00:22:24.000 No, you need to get back to reality.

00:22:26.000 But I mean, the fundamental difference here with Nick, and I think he said this in his answer to that last question about government knows best, and he said this on his podcast.

00:22:37.000 And by the way, someone pointed out that Nick mentioned me in one of his podcasts recently. 0.80

00:22:44.000 And the first thing he said is that my audience, and I'm going to quote him here, he said that my audience of conservatarian fags who believe this kind of stuff. 0.71

00:22:55.000 Like taxation is theft, and it's like, dude, really? 0.79

00:23:01.000 Don't you have an argument?

00:23:02.000 You have to just go and call my fans conservatives. 0.99

00:23:09.000 I mean, it's like that's so much worse than calling them conservatarian or fags, but did you call them like status quo, establishmentary?

00:23:19.000 They're a conservative is defined as promoting the preservation of the existing social order. 0.97

00:23:27.000 Like, no, we know that humanity can do better.

00:23:30.000 Seriously.

00:23:31.000 But this thing about like when you say government knows best, basically you're saying I know best, because you're not really for capitalism.

00:23:38.000 You're for central planning.

00:23:39.000 You say, I'm not really for, you said this in your podcast, I'm not really for capitalism.

00:23:43.000 I'm for whatever's in the interest of the public good.

00:23:45.000 The thing is, you're the guy who has the intellectual arrogance, is it?

00:23:52.000 That leads you to say, I know what's better for you than you know for yourself.

00:23:58.000 Yes.

00:23:59.000 That's just, I'm sorry, that's hilarious.

00:24:02.000 Like, you get to be the central planner.

00:24:04.000 And basically, you're saying that I'm going to use government to force.

00:24:04.000 You're the one.

00:24:10.000 My idea of what's good for you is on you.

00:24:13.000 You are what's wrong with the world.

00:24:16.000 You represent the culture of statism, of insecure people using violence through government to control their people who are so insecure about their own sexual reproductive strategy. 1.00

00:24:30.000 You have to attack fags. 1.00

00:24:33.000 In your podcast, you've been talking about going after fags. 1.00

00:24:37.000 That's your thing. 1.00

00:24:39.000 You go, hello, gay people. 1.00

00:24:41.000 Fags. 1.00

00:24:43.000 You are going after fags. 1.00

00:24:47.000 America's number one chat cast. 1.00

00:24:48.000 There's so much obvious behind this, but what it is that fundamentally you think you're better than everybody else and that you can decide policy and use government to force it on people and justify it by saying might makes right.

00:24:48.000 We're a lot.

00:25:03.000 Thank gosh, you will never be elected to public office in the United States, at least I hope.

00:25:10.000 That's the pot call in the kettle black, right?

00:25:12.000 I think you would know a lot about people who would never be elected to public office considering you are one of those.

00:25:17.000 People, but if I could get a rebuttal in this, uh, I think it's just hilarious to me.

00:25:23.000 Um, you talk about well, let's take this piece by piece.

00:25:27.000 Your first claim is fascinating. 0.99

00:25:29.000 You say, Well, this is an argument that's degenerated to the point where you're just saying you're ridiculous. 0.97

00:25:35.000 No, you're ridiculous, and it's funny because I gave a very cogent rebuttal to your statement that drugs should be. 0.95

00:25:41.000 I said, At what point, besides some arbitrary determination, can we objectively establish at what point a person owns themselves and to what extent? 0.99

00:25:48.000 I think we could all agree it's ridiculous.

00:25:51.000 Than an infant totally can make competent decisions, and a toddler could make totally competent decisions.

00:25:58.000 And then at what point it's arbitrary?

00:26:00.000 And I will say, you didn't answer that in your rebuttal.

00:26:02.000 So that's the first point.

00:26:04.000 You say that it's degenerated to name calling and this and that, and use your entire rebuttal to my rebuttal to kind of grandstand about, oh, he's a statist.

00:26:13.000 You repeated yourself three times.

00:26:14.000 Wait, wait, wait, I didn't interrupt you.

00:26:16.000 I did not interrupt you.

00:26:17.000 You're going to have to allow me to respond.

00:26:20.000 And then you go on to say, well, I'm a caricature of a statist.

00:26:23.000 I am a statist.

00:26:24.000 I am 100%.

00:26:25.000 A statist.

00:26:26.000 I am a conservative in the most traditional sense.

00:26:29.000 And I used to be like you.

00:26:31.000 I used to be a libertarian, but then I kind of gained just a little bit of experience in the real world and I came to understand why it is necessary that force exists because we know what is good for people.

00:26:44.000 We know what is good for society.

00:26:46.000 And that's the biggest myth about liberalism in general.

00:26:50.000 I mean, this is what you go back to John Stuart Mill and the utilitarians.

00:26:55.000 John Stuart Mill said the reason we need liberty is not because liberty is.

00:26:59.000 Sufficient in and of itself to justify a free government.

00:27:03.000 That's not what he said.

00:27:04.000 He did not say we need liberty because it's a no brainer.

00:27:07.000 Liberty is awesome.

00:27:08.000 He said we need liberty so that we can figure out what is the best way for people to live because, well, we should be able to experiment and we might not think it's a good way to live, but maybe it is.

00:27:20.000 Well, I mean, that's entirely fiction.

00:27:21.000 I'm a Catholic, I'm a student of history, and then I think we can basically understand.

00:27:27.000 I think if we have a competent regime that is in power, They know what is in the interest of the public.

00:27:33.000 For example, in Russia, I think Vladimir Putin knows what is good for the Russian people.

00:27:38.000 I think, in the case of many countries, in China, Xi Jinping, in Turkey, Erdogan, all the tyrants of the world, they know what is good and they execute the will of the people.

00:27:47.000 And that is the task of government.

00:27:49.000 Now, you're over there saying he thinks all drugs should be illegal.

00:27:52.000 He means Tylenol and aspirin and Advil.

00:27:55.000 Of course, I was talking about illicit drugs, currently illicit, which go from marijuana all the way up through amphetamines.

00:28:02.000 And there are pharmaceutical applications and they're given as pharmaceuticals.

00:28:06.000 Not sold on the street, not sold for recreational purposes in dispensaries in Colorado.

00:28:11.000 And these are the drugs which I think should remain illegal.

00:28:14.000 Alcohol, if it were my perfect world, if I were running the state and the state was absolute and it was theocratic in many ways, yeah, alcohol would be illegal.

00:28:24.000 I think marijuana would be illegal.

00:28:26.000 I think a lot of things would be illegal because we know that they're not good for people.

00:28:30.000 Alcohol, marijuana are substitutes for reconciliation or rather communion with God.

00:28:37.000 They're a substitute, they are filling a God sized hole.

00:28:41.000 And you could say, oh, well, they're for recreation or for the, and I understand there are some uses for that, but by and large, we find that marijuana leads to horrible effects in the brain.

00:28:49.000 I'm not a scientist, but I've seen many studies and I know lots of people who have taken marijuana regularly.

00:28:55.000 And we know it's probably not the best thing for productivity.

00:28:58.000 And so I think that's just generally the fundamental contention is that you believe and your vision of human nature is effectively tabula rasa because you are a Lockean.

00:29:11.000 People are basically a blank slate and they're fun.

00:29:13.000 They're born good.

00:29:14.000 They're born wanting peace and wanting love.

00:29:17.000 And also, because you are a libertarian, I would assume you believe in neoclassical price theory, which posits that human beings are rational economic actors.

00:29:26.000 We come up with all these weird epistemological economic arguments where they say that, well, man is a completely rational actor.

00:29:35.000 It's a marginal human being who is making decisions based on cost and quality.

00:29:39.000 And this is why human beings are rational.

00:29:41.000 And this is why we have an economic philosophy.

00:29:44.000 But we know that's entirely not true.

00:29:45.000 We know that people on average are around 100 IQ, and that varies certainly by a number of factors, including race.

00:29:52.000 And we know that people cannot really be trusted to make totally competent, rational decisions.

00:29:58.000 Now, we could use markets to economize scarce resources, and that's one of the best ways to direct resources in efficient ways.

00:30:10.000 But to say that, well, the people know what is best for the public good, for the long term good, for the health of society, Is simply not borne out by the facts.

00:30:18.000 We see this with free trade, for example.

00:30:20.000 We have a massive trade deficit with the world because we have lowered all our trade barriers.

00:30:25.000 And what is the result?

00:30:27.000 Consumers do not choose American goods, consumers choose foreign goods.

00:30:32.000 And you might say, oh, well, who cares?

00:30:33.000 It's goods and services flowing around.

00:30:34.000 Isn't that a great thing?

00:30:35.000 Well, what's happening in the long term is that we're selling off all of our investments.

00:30:39.000 We're selling off real estate, we're selling off stocks, we're selling off debt.

00:30:43.000 This is horrible for our economy.

00:30:45.000 This is horrible for our nation.

00:30:47.000 We're selling off all these long term projects.

00:30:50.000 In exchange for short term consumption.

00:30:51.000 And that's really what the free market does it prioritizes short term consumption, impulsive, hedonistic short term consumption at the expense of the longer term or the more total public good.

00:31:03.000 And that's just one example, but that's what the public does at large.

00:31:06.000 So that's why we need the strong hand of the state to enforce order, to execute the will of the public.

00:31:14.000 And so, yeah, I am a statist.

00:31:16.000 It is a caricature, but I think you're a caricature in many ways of the anarchist position.

00:31:22.000 And that's why it's a good meeting because it's a diametric dialectical opposites.

00:31:26.000 Adam.

00:31:27.000 All right.

00:31:30.000 You don't want to throw anything in there, Al?

00:31:32.000 I do.

00:31:33.000 I want to say, just to clarify, Nick.

00:31:35.000 So, marijuana is currently illegal at the federal level, right?

00:31:39.000 So, would you maintain that even for veterans with PTSD, even for cancer patients?

00:31:43.000 Would you like to clarify that?

00:31:44.000 And then Adam will have a chance to respond.

00:31:47.000 You know, I'm not an expert on the medicinal marijuana.

00:31:47.000 Yeah.

00:31:50.000 I would say that in certain circumstances, it's worth consideration if that could be used for medicine.

00:31:57.000 I've seen a lot of things which say that it does not help people.

00:32:00.000 For example, Martin Shkreli, who I think we're all a fan of, has said, and he's a pharmacist.

00:32:05.000 He says there is no evidence to suggest that medicinal marijuana has health benefits besides reducing pain.

00:32:12.000 And so I don't know.

00:32:13.000 I mean, we could look at it for medicinal pharmaceutical purposes, but again, that would have to be heavily regulated, and it would be illegal for recreational purposes.

00:32:24.000 Of course, the guy in the pharmaceutical industry certainly has no conflict of interest whatsoever.

00:32:29.000 But, you know, there's something else there in what you said, Nick, that I found a little.

00:32:38.000 Troublesome, even condescending directly when you said, I was just like you, and then I got some experience.

00:32:51.000 How old are you, Nick?

00:32:52.000 19.

00:32:54.000 And what was that experience?

00:32:56.000 I saw Antifa during the election.

00:32:59.000 And this was really a jarring, formative experience for me.

00:33:04.000 I saw Antifa, and in that moment, Because I was really on board with like four years ago, I probably would have been a huge fan of yours.

00:33:13.000 I was a fan of Austin Peterson.

00:33:14.000 I know you debated him.

00:33:15.000 He's more of a minarchist.

00:33:16.000 But for about a week, I was totally on board with Murray Rothbard and all that.

00:33:21.000 But then I was at this Antifa protest.

00:33:23.000 And I know you might say, oh, you're just insecure.

00:33:25.000 You know, that's typically what people like yourself will come down to these fallacies.

00:33:31.000 But I saw Antifa and I thought to myself, these are not rational people.

00:33:35.000 You cannot articulate a case for freedom.

00:33:39.000 To these people, you cannot articulate a case for liberty, rationality.

00:33:44.000 I mean, there are some people in the world who want to see the world burn.

00:33:47.000 And those are the people who want to see the world burn.

00:33:51.000 How can you say that you can't articulate a message of freedom to them when you're articulating the exact opposite?

00:33:56.000 You are articulating a message that is deliberately anti freedom.

00:34:00.000 But the reason I was a libertarian at the time.

00:34:02.000 So condescending is I'm thinking, like, okay, so you believed in freedom and then you got some experience and now you believe in statism.

00:34:10.000 Like, what?

00:34:10.000 You're 19?

00:34:13.000 Working at McDonald's?

00:34:14.000 Was it on a high school yearbook?

00:34:16.000 Was it a league club?

00:34:17.000 That was your real world experience?

00:34:19.000 I saw my buddies die in a rock.

00:34:21.000 I went to jail for what I believed in.

00:34:23.000 I've read some books about economics, which I would highly suggest you do when you talk about price theory.

00:34:28.000 No, the belief that the market can set prices for things is not based on the idea that any individual is going to be perfectly consistently rational, but that the collective wisdom of millions of people in a market exercising their rational choices for themselves on a moment by moment basis.

00:34:45.000 Is it creates like the effect of a giant supercomputer that your intelligence can come nowhere near in terms of the power of making those decisions?

00:34:55.000 So, for again, it's this arrogance that I see in you that is just so disturbing.

00:34:59.000 I mean, you want to learn something, man, look inside and examine that.

00:35:02.000 The market is capable of setting a balance between long term and short term consumption priorities.

00:35:08.000 That's one of the mechanisms of price theory you're able to say, hey, we want something now that's going to be based on low time preference versus a high time preference, right?

00:35:18.000 If you need something now, you're going to have a different approach to the price of it than if you're willing to have it later, if you have low time preference, if you have patience, if you're willing to invest in the long run.

00:35:30.000 So, again, it's just, Al, I mean, I'm kind of disappointed here.

00:35:34.000 I thought we were going to have a real debate, but it keeps coming down to just this projection of arrogance that I know what's best for you and I can force it on you.

00:35:43.000 These are not arguments, Adam.

00:35:44.000 These are not arguments.

00:35:45.000 I mean, what you're effectively doing is, and I've seen you do this on all your other failed debates, I watched your debate with Dyer, with Spencer with Stefan Molyneux, and it's almost like you just professionally go around losing debates on the internet.

00:35:58.000 And this is exactly what you do.

00:36:00.000 There is an argument that is made, and you respond with it first in that hominem.

00:36:03.000 You say, Oh, you're 19.

00:36:05.000 What do you work at McDonald's or the high school yearbook, which is not an argument.

00:36:08.000 I mean, this isn't that way it was made.

00:36:10.000 I'll let you go through your whole screen.

00:36:14.000 And then it's more rhetoric.

00:36:15.000 And then you want to bring up the problem of knowledge.

00:36:18.000 You think I've never heard of the problem of knowledge?

00:36:20.000 The problem is simply, and I've demonstrated this with a number of examples.

00:36:24.000 Where the public or the individual rational actor in the economy cannot make the best decisions.

00:36:30.000 I'll give you another great example.

00:36:32.000 You look at Africa, Africa, sub Saharan Africa, such an unfortunate place.

00:36:37.000 And you see this time and time again.

00:36:39.000 I knew a very good friend of mine who went down to Africa.

00:36:43.000 And what he found when he went there, he noticed why there was no economic growth in Africa or why it was very little or it will never be on track with Western nations. 0.81

00:36:52.000 He said that he met Africans there and what they would do is, One time there was an African who got seeds, okay?

00:36:58.000 And he was told if you plant the seeds now, there'll be a big harvest, and then you'll be able to sell what you produce.

00:37:05.000 And then there'll be more seeds.

00:37:07.000 You can plant them the next year, and this could then turn into a business.

00:37:10.000 You could scale it, and you'd be very wealthy. 1.00

00:37:12.000 And so the African farmer did that.

00:37:14.000 He planted the seeds, he sold the produce, he got the seeds for the next year.

00:37:18.000 And then you know what he did?

00:37:19.000 After he sold off all the produce and he had a little bit of money and he had the seeds, he sold the seeds.

00:37:26.000 And he spent all the entire money on jewelry and things that would make him look high status.

00:37:31.000 And this is effectively the problem is that people can be impulsive.

00:37:36.000 So called rational actors cannot, in most cases, be trusted.

00:37:39.000 It's a balance along in the short term, and certainly not across the entire public.

00:37:43.000 Now, and I offered sort of an olive branch.

00:37:46.000 And I conceded this, maybe you missed this, because there's this little hamster wheel running your head saying, freedom, freedom, the free market, that kind of thing.

00:37:53.000 But markets are a great way to organize economic activity, they're a great way to.

00:38:00.000 Direct scarce resources.

00:38:02.000 And I'm using the language I'm using is very precise here.

00:38:05.000 They're very good at organizing and directing scarce resources most efficiently.

00:38:10.000 Markets are great for that and they should be used to an extent.

00:38:13.000 But there are limits to which the market serves the public good at a certain point.

00:38:18.000 And this is what we see in this country it becomes an end in and of itself that the market must be free and efficient for the sake of market efficiency and for the sake of market productivity, never mind the fact that it's wrecking a horrible public.

00:38:32.000 Damage to society.

00:38:33.000 We see that the suicide rate is at all time highs in America because of deaths of despair. 0.79

00:38:39.000 We see it in white middle aged people in middle America. 0.58

00:38:42.000 And why is it? 0.62

00:38:42.000 It's because their communities are being hollowed out, because all the best talent is being relocated, because all the factories are being shut down, because traditional America is being ripped in half by the disruptive, creative destruction of the market. 0.62

00:38:56.000 And you could say, well, that's just how it goes.

00:38:59.000 That's the way the cookie crumbles.

00:39:00.000 It's Pareto optimality.

00:39:02.000 Learn to code, old man.

00:39:04.000 But for people like me, I believe that the market should serve the people and not the other way around.

00:39:09.000 And so I think that's the difference.

00:39:11.000 And if you want to respond to that argument, I'd be very interested in what you have to say.

00:39:14.000 You're older than me.

00:39:15.000 You're obviously a very wise elder person.

00:39:18.000 And I'd love to hear an answer to that argument instead of an insult or something like that.

00:39:22.000 But that was my evolution.

00:39:25.000 I went from a libertarian.

00:39:26.000 I valued the same things that you did.

00:39:28.000 And then I thought of other things that libertarianism simply could not explain.

00:39:33.000 It was not adequate to explain the things I was observing.

00:39:36.000 Adam.

00:39:38.000 Wow.

00:39:38.000 You know, I never heard that story about the African farmer before.

00:39:43.000 I'm convinced. 0.99

00:39:45.000 I think Nick's right.

00:39:46.000 You win.

00:39:46.000 I give up.

00:39:47.000 You win the debate.

00:39:48.000 Not an argument.

00:39:49.000 Not an argument.

00:39:49.000 Anecdotal data that really did it for me.

00:39:51.000 No, I want to address that last thing you said there because that was a relatively serious point about the market serving the people.

00:40:00.000 Market is the people.

00:40:02.000 When you say, what is the market?

00:40:03.000 It is every interaction of all people on the planet simultaneously.

00:40:09.000 It's everything.

00:40:09.000 Everybody coming together voluntarily to trade goods and services.

00:40:15.000 And one of the things that's really important in understanding this, Nick, and this is one of the things that was sort of an important premise to my study of economics that you may have missed, which is that value is what is created by a market, not dollars, not widgets, not things that a central planner can control.

00:40:40.000 One of the things that I talk about in the book, In Freedom, is there's a section here called Everything is Economics.

00:40:46.000 Everything can be studied and appreciated and understood through the dismal science of the flow of value known as economics.

00:40:55.000 And sometimes people say, well, we don't really want to think of our relationships, our personal relationships.

00:41:03.000 We don't really want to think about our family exchanges as economic exchanges.

00:41:10.000 But I think it's really important to include them in that because when you say you're going to central plan, you're talking about certain parts that you're going to pull out of the economy.

00:41:18.000 Based on this big abstract understanding, based on, and I appreciate, yes, you're looking at the economy through looking for underlying principles.

00:41:28.000 Earlier you said you couldn't imagine how a law could be created without government.

00:41:31.000 Well, your failure of imagination is not an excuse for violence, sir.

00:41:35.000 But no, there's the natural law.

00:41:36.000 I think that's the most important one.

00:41:37.000 There are voluntary organizations that have laws of their own that are not governmental laws.

00:41:44.000 But when it comes to this bigger issue of everything being economics, When you say, well, no, we're going to save romantic relationships.

00:41:55.000 We're going to keep them out of economics.

00:41:57.000 We're not going to try to number them in dollars and cents.

00:41:59.000 But there's nothing in our lives more valuable than our time, our attention, and our love.

00:42:05.000 And a relationship is a voluntary exchange of those things.

00:42:09.000 And when you understand that you can't centrally plan that stuff and you really appreciate what it means for individuals to be able to make choices in their own self interest, you understand that, yeah, they're going to make mistakes sometimes, and that's okay.

00:42:22.000 But that's better than me forcing my central planning and my preferences on other people.

00:42:27.000 And really, that's what freedom comes down to respect for other people and willingness to say, I might not agree with you.

00:42:34.000 I might have different preferences than you.

00:42:36.000 I like different flavors, but I'm going to let you have your choice.

00:42:40.000 I'm going to let you do that because I cannot decide what's valuable for you.

00:42:45.000 I mean, you feel like it's valuable for you sitting here on the internet for an hour being told, you know, How wrong you are, and losing this debate in so many ridiculous ways, and being called out on every logical fallacy.

00:43:00.000 There have been a lot that have gone by here, but all the major ones, you're just getting called one out because you think that this is a good use of your time.

00:43:00.000 I've missed a lot.

00:43:09.000 For a lot of people, it wouldn't be.

00:43:11.000 You know, a lot of people would not like being in your seat right now, being told how wrong they are about all this stuff.

00:43:17.000 But you are choosing to be a part of it because you believe that it's a value for you.

00:43:21.000 And even though you do not respect my right to make the choices for myself about my pursuit of happiness and what's in my self interest, sir, I respect your right.

00:43:32.000 Well, that's great.

00:43:33.000 That's great.

00:43:34.000 But the unfortunate thing is that in many cases, planners and people know what is best.

00:43:39.000 There's a great quote by, I believe the man's name is Thomas Carlyle, and he said, The most effective form of government would be if you could find the most capable and the wisest man and just make him an absolute dictator.

00:43:51.000 Forget this democracy stuff, forget this market stuff.

00:43:54.000 That's the best way.

00:43:55.000 And the reason being is because while you can have your preference and you can have your opinions, there are things that are objectively true.

00:44:02.000 And you say, well, oh, well, we are the market.

00:44:05.000 And that's a very convenient, again, we have to boil down the fact that most of your worldview is based on rhetoric, is based on abstraction.

00:44:13.000 That's a nice thing that you can write in a paper.

00:44:15.000 Well, who is the market?

00:44:17.000 After all, it is only us.

00:44:18.000 And I've given you a concrete example of what's happening to real flesh and blood people.

00:44:22.000 Their communities, their families, their relationships, their lives are being turned upside down by bad free trade deals.

00:44:29.000 You look at what's happened to people in Appalachia.

00:44:33.000 You look at what's happened to people in the Rust Belt.

00:44:36.000 And what is this a direct result of?

00:44:38.000 It's a direct result of trade deals like NAFTA, where what happens is that our government lowers our trade barriers with Mexico and with Canada.

00:44:46.000 And that industry flees over the border.

00:44:48.000 In many cases, it flees over the border to China.

00:44:51.000 And then people lose their jobs.

00:44:52.000 And you could say, well, that's market efficiency.

00:44:54.000 We're lowering our trade barriers.

00:44:56.000 And that's just simply market efficiency.

00:44:58.000 And that's why it's a good thing.

00:45:00.000 Well, that's a government man.

00:45:01.000 You're talking about NAFTA?

00:45:02.000 The market didn't come up with NAFTA.

00:45:04.000 The market didn't come up with NAFTA.

00:45:06.000 Governments came up with NAFTA.

00:45:07.000 Well, was NAFTA more or less free market?

00:45:10.000 It's always managed markets, special trade deals.

00:45:13.000 It's always an impingement on the free market.

00:45:14.000 It's liberalized trade.

00:45:16.000 Trade has been liberalized with NAFTA.

00:45:18.000 We have lowered barriers to exchange.

00:45:21.000 Wouldn't you be in favor of that?

00:45:23.000 I mean, you could argue that overall it had that effect, but obviously you're still saying that government is going to have that.

00:45:29.000 You're blaming a government program and its negative results on the free market.

00:45:36.000 Do you see that?

00:45:37.000 No, no.

00:45:38.000 I think you don't understand the argument from degrees that we had a market before where America was protecting our industry.

00:45:46.000 There were regulations in place and barriers in place, barriers to the free exchange that you like.

00:45:52.000 That were then eliminated, that were then, we got rid of those barriers to free exchange and love and all that.

00:45:58.000 We got rid of those barriers.

00:46:00.000 And the result was that it hurt people.

00:46:02.000 It hurt our countrymen.

00:46:04.000 We sold them out so that we could have more productivity.

00:46:07.000 We could have cheaper goods. 0.98

00:46:09.000 Look at all the cheap goods coming from Mexico. 1.00

00:46:11.000 Isn't that wonderful? 1.00

00:46:12.000 Well, it's not wonderful for all these old people. 1.00

00:46:14.000 They're now killing themselves and are now on opioids from despair. 1.00

00:46:18.000 And even.

00:46:19.000 And their grandparents, who were horse and buggy manufacturers, should get their jobs back too. 0.99

00:46:25.000 Damn all this. 0.99

00:46:26.000 Progress to hell. 1.00

00:46:28.000 Then there it is again.

00:46:29.000 There's a big difference between technological innovation and the kind of unprotected industry that we have.

00:46:36.000 We couldn't have manufacturing always in this country.

00:46:39.000 We should have manufacturing.

00:46:41.000 We need manufacturing.

00:46:42.000 It's part of the economy.

00:46:43.000 But we have all kinds of other industries in this country that are protected, but we destroyed our manufacturing.

00:46:49.000 And that was so that we could have cheaper things and we have a freer market.

00:46:53.000 Who's we?

00:46:54.000 Which we are you talking to?

00:46:55.000 Because I don't remember.

00:46:56.000 Well, you could talk about all the free traders, all the economists.

00:47:00.000 Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute.

00:47:00.000 You could have.

00:47:04.000 Cato Institute puts steelworkers out of jobs.

00:47:07.000 You're blaming Cato for that.

00:47:09.000 I'm blaming the policies which were devised in the think tanks by ideologues not so different than yourself.

00:47:15.000 So, were you there?

00:47:16.000 Because you said we.

00:47:18.000 But, oh, we're using we in a rhetorical sense.

00:47:18.000 No, of course not.

00:47:23.000 We got a super chat.

00:47:23.000 All right.

00:47:24.000 These arguments were based on rhetoric.

00:47:26.000 And see, it's very convenient when, well, you know, a rhetorical device in a sentence is very different than substituting arguments for rhetoric, which is what you're doing.

00:47:34.000 And this is what you're doing now, by the way.

00:47:35.000 Rather than contend that the free market is in the public good, you want to say, Were you in the room when Cato devised their free?

00:47:42.000 I mean, this is exactly what you do in the debates.

00:47:45.000 It's very cunning.

00:47:46.000 It's very cunning, Adam, but it's not a substitute for an argument.

00:47:49.000 Sorry, one at a time.

00:47:50.000 See, it's very important when you're talking about ideas and you're trying to connect with reality to use words deliberately and precisely.

00:47:59.000 And so I'm asking you, who are you referring to when you say we destroyed the steel industry?

00:48:05.000 You're right.

00:48:07.000 When I said we, I meant when the government took down those regulations.

00:48:11.000 It wasn't we, it was free market programs.

00:48:14.000 Of eliminating trade barriers.

00:48:16.000 Well, it's just ironic.

00:48:17.000 You're going to sit there and so disingenuously and deceptively say that eliminating government barriers to trade was actually a government program.

00:48:27.000 It's the height of folly.

00:48:29.000 And it just shows how disingenuous you are.

00:48:31.000 Everybody knows that was a liberalizing of trade.

00:48:33.000 Everybody knows they were opening up free markets, which led to a horrible externality.

00:48:39.000 And you're blaming that on government, which is very deceptive.

00:48:42.000 But you have to do that because you're not standing on very solid ground.

00:48:47.000 No, there, no, you know, and if I, at the beginning of when you raised the issue of NAFTA, I may have misspoken.

00:48:53.000 So, excuse me, you know, I understand that overall you can make the case NAFTA was an increase in trade in some ways.

00:49:00.000 My point was that it was still a government managed trade agreement.

00:49:04.000 It wasn't the free market.

00:49:06.000 You were trying to say that that was the market.

00:49:08.000 It's not the real free market.

00:49:10.000 It's not the real, that wasn't the real free market.

00:49:13.000 It's the same thing.

00:49:14.000 This is the same fallacy that, for example, Paul Krugman will do.

00:49:19.000 Krugman said the stimulus will save the economy, and then he and then it didn't.

00:49:23.000 He said, Oh, well, the stimulus just wasn't big enough.

00:49:25.000 This is what the communists do.

00:49:27.000 Well, uh, no, I'm not claiming Krugman, I'm not claiming him.

00:49:34.000 No, I'm not saying I'm saying it's the same fallacy, it's the same fallacy, which is to say that no matter how horribly the market will fail, well, it was just because it wasn't free market enough, and therefore, and therefore, because your position has never existed.

00:49:51.000 And in your mind, until it works perfectly, it will never exist.

00:49:55.000 It can never really be attacked because you can always sit there and say it was a liberalization of trade, but it still wasn't 100% perfectly liberal.

00:50:03.000 Therefore, well, it wasn't the real free market.

00:50:06.000 I'm going to call in Molyneux for this one because Molyneux makes this amazing point that just blows what you said out of the water and actually blows a lot of what he said out of the water recently, too, in terms of freedom.

00:50:19.000 He is saying, hey, we can't have freedom.

00:50:21.000 We've never had that before.

00:50:22.000 It's never worked.

00:50:23.000 This is the same thing as saying, hey, we can't. 0.95

00:50:25.000 Get rid of slavery because who will pick the cotton?

00:50:27.000 You know, we can't get rid of government because who will build the roads? 0.97

00:50:29.000 We can't get rid of slavery because who will pick the cotton?

00:50:32.000 And Stefan Molyneux makes this great analogy where he says, Well, when people were debating slavery and they took the point of no, we need to abolish slavery, they said, Because it's freaking wrong.

00:50:42.000 They didn't say, Well, we can't imagine that someday we're going to be sucking dinosaur juice out of the ground and running machines through fields of cotton that are going to pick all the cotton for us and poop out t shirts.

00:50:52.000 No, you just said it doesn't matter.

00:50:54.000 It's freaking wrong.

00:50:55.000 It's holding back humanity, doing things that are wrong, that are Reducing our economic efficiency, that are making things that are holding us back.

00:51:03.000 It doesn't matter.

00:51:04.000 It's wrong.

00:51:05.000 And see, everything that you're doing is like we go back, you want to look at like every single thing that you're advocating for government doing is a moral crime, is a violation of self ownership.

00:51:16.000 I mean, it's a violation of just basic common ethics that you can only use force and violence in self defense. 0.97

00:51:22.000 You can't just say, well, I don't like what you're doing, so I'm going to point a gun at you and say, if you don't like, if you don't do what I want you to do, then I'm going to shoot you.

00:51:29.000 Well, this is a pivot. 0.98

00:51:31.000 First of all, we have to acknowledge that that's a pivot.

00:51:35.000 I said there are negative market externalities.

00:51:37.000 And you said, well, it wasn't free market enough.

00:51:39.000 And so I illustrated the fallacy.

00:51:40.000 And then you pivoted and said, well, it's just, well, it's just government is just wrong, though.

00:51:45.000 And so that's another argument.

00:51:47.000 So now that we've acknowledged you have failed to answer that argument and you've pivoted to another one, I will now rebut your argument that government is based on force and that's inherently immoral.

00:51:56.000 Government and the existence of government is not immoral.

00:51:59.000 And the big reason I would say, and my contention would be, from where do you derive your morality?

00:52:05.000 From where do you derive, and what binds you to your morality?

00:52:08.000 You go on these streams and you say, Self ownership, the non aggression principle.

00:52:12.000 And you've never yet been able to articulate what binds you to that morality, where you derive it, and why it is actually true.

00:52:19.000 That is your taste.

00:52:21.000 The non aggression principle is what you believe to be right.

00:52:23.000 What I believe it's perfectly moral that a government is to exist.

00:52:27.000 And who's to say who is correct and who isn't?

00:52:30.000 All right.

00:52:31.000 Well, we got a super chat, which happens sometimes.

00:52:34.000 This guy, Bill, what's his name?

00:52:36.000 Bill Severe says that, Nick, you blocked him for telling a joke and he is upset.

00:52:43.000 Do you have a response or no?

00:52:44.000 Which is good.

00:52:45.000 Well, it depends on the joke.

00:52:47.000 I block a lot of people.

00:52:48.000 Yeah, Bill, you got to specify the joke because in life, man, if things are funnier, you can get away with a lot more.

00:52:54.000 So if it's a funny joke, I support you, Bill.

00:52:57.000 If it's not funny, I support Nick in this situation.

00:53:01.000 So I got a fun question for you guys, real quick.

00:53:04.000 And you got something to say, real quick, for some reason?

00:53:06.000 It was on the issue of the NAP, the border, the drug war, and all that stuff.

00:53:11.000 And it was the issue of the criminal cartels that control territory on the border with us.

00:53:17.000 Right immediately adjacent.

00:53:18.000 Can you guys make sure you're on mute?

00:53:21.000 There we go.

00:53:21.000 It's cool.

00:53:22.000 Okay, cool.

00:53:24.000 How would the NAP fix the criminal cartel situation at the border?

00:53:31.000 Oh, that's very easy.

00:53:32.000 If everybody respects the non aggression principle, then you don't have any crime.

00:53:36.000 Simple as that.

00:53:38.000 Nick? 0.98

00:53:38.000 Do you understand how ridiculous that is, though? 0.98

00:53:40.000 I mean, then this is the fundamental difference in human nature man is fallen in a biblical sense, but also in every other sense. 0.98

00:53:49.000 There are people who are evil. 0.83

00:53:51.000 There are people who are insane.

00:53:52.000 And because of the existence of man's more bestial nature, we need a government.

00:53:58.000 And this is what Hobbes said to prevent the horrible state of nature that would exist without government, constantly deterring and overpowering individuals who wanted to inflict their tyranny on us.

00:54:09.000 You could not have an ordered society.

00:54:11.000 And so that's just it.

00:54:12.000 When there are evil people out there who are cutting off heads and they're doing horrible things, your response is simply to say, oh, well, the non aggression principle.

00:54:20.000 And that's just yet another example of how Adam's entire worldview.

00:54:24.000 Is dependent on abstractions.

00:54:26.000 How do we fix the wars?

00:54:27.000 Non aggression principle.

00:54:29.000 How do we fix the drug cartels?

00:54:30.000 Just convince them of the non aggression principle.

00:54:32.000 Yes, but we live in reality, we live in a society.

00:54:37.000 And so to fix the drug cartels, me, because I am a statist, I can say I would resolve it with action.

00:54:44.000 I would shut down, for example, the CIA, which is obviously in bed with the cartels.

00:54:48.000 I would ruthlessly pursue anybody who sells drugs, perhaps even people that do drugs.

00:54:55.000 Look at what happens in the Philippines under Duterte, where they throw people out of helicopters, where there's extrajudicial killings.

00:55:02.000 I mean, and that's the kind of thing that a status can do.

00:55:04.000 We would say, here's a real problem.

00:55:06.000 It's hurting Americans, and we are going to do something about it.

00:55:09.000 We can act using the state, using force.

00:55:13.000 And that is sometimes a beautiful thing.

00:55:15.000 We need the state.

00:55:16.000 We need force because evil exists in the world.

00:55:19.000 And we see that all over the place.

00:55:20.000 And so to simply, oh, well, we'll just not aggress them, it's not sufficient.

00:55:27.000 Adam, anything left?

00:55:28.000 Sorry.

00:55:28.000 Oh, sorry.

00:55:29.000 Sorry, Adam.

00:55:31.000 I'm muting you because you have a little bit of feedback, but you can go ahead now.

00:55:34.000 Okay, yeah, sure.

00:55:35.000 I mean, it's a pretty disingenuous misrepresentation of what the non aggression principle represents in terms of going after the real problems of the world when there are people who are willing to do violence to control other people, like statists.

00:55:50.000 So, no, with the non aggression principle, people are free to come together in non violent ways to form organizations capable of doing force and violence in a defensive way.

00:56:03.000 So, like, that's really, and we're going to have Better things.

00:56:06.000 This is what the American founders, you want to talk about Americanism, opposed a standing army because they were in favor of a militia defense, which is a more decentralized, market based approach to defense.

00:56:18.000 That's what the non aggression principle leaves you with.

00:56:21.000 So you talk about the violent and bestial nature of man.

00:56:27.000 That's exactly why we can't let people like you, Nick, have a government to force their will on other people because that's how you get tyrannies.

00:56:35.000 That's how things get dangerous.

00:56:37.000 Now, For the people who are listening, I want to talk to the audience directly instead of talking to Nick or Alan for a second here.

00:56:41.000 Because if you're watching this, you're an hour into it already.

00:56:45.000 You've heard so many of these psychopathic ideas of control, this bestial nature of wanting to control what drugs people are putting in their bodies from Nick.

00:56:56.000 And these are the people who grow up to be the leaders of the Democrat and Republican parties.

00:57:02.000 And they have tricked most of America into thinking that you have to be one or the other, that you have to play along with their game, that you have to.

00:57:10.000 And it's like, well, you have to.

00:57:11.000 Red team go, blue team go.

00:57:13.000 It's just that that's the only choice you have.

00:57:16.000 And it's absolute nonsense.

00:57:18.000 Okay.

00:57:19.000 So, this is why there's an alternative that's so important.

00:57:21.000 This is why most human beings are not statist.

00:57:25.000 Most human beings do not want to use violence to control other people.

00:57:29.000 Most human beings would prefer, when given the choice, to get along with people peacefully and cooperatively in a civilized manner.

00:57:38.000 And yet, we end up with Republicans and Democrats and statists like Nick running this country, running this.

00:57:45.000 World, because enough of us step back and go, Hey, we're just gonna chill and enjoy our lives.

00:57:49.000 There's an evolution happening right now in humanity of people realizing that we don't need force and violence to organize society, that we can be better off with freedom, with respect for individual rights.

00:58:00.000 This is why the Libertarian Party is growing, even though most people who understand this about politics are just like, Hey, voting's usually a waste of time.

00:58:07.000 We know better.

00:58:08.000 And I understand, yeah, when there's not a Libertarian on the ballot, when there's not a legitimate initiative that's worth your time, yeah.

00:58:15.000 Voting is usually a waste of time.

00:58:17.000 But right now, there's an incredible opportunity to get involved with politics, to get involved with the Libertarian Party, because we're not about politics in the traditional sense of who do we point the guns of government at to organize society.

00:58:29.000 Our answer to that question is nobody.

00:58:32.000 It's wrong.

00:58:32.000 Nobody.

00:58:33.000 You don't point guns at people to control their behavior unless they're threatening you.

00:58:37.000 So let's put an end to this.

00:58:39.000 Let's make sure that people like Nick here can't tell you what to do ever again, because they're the ones who are in charge right now.

00:58:45.000 The Republicans and the Democrats and the statists here.

00:58:48.000 Nick represents That status quo.

00:58:51.000 If you get involved now, we can stop them.

00:58:53.000 We can continue this beautiful dance forward for humanity towards a more peaceful, less violent society.

00:58:59.000 So, I highly encourage you to go to lp.org, join the Libertarian Party today.

00:59:03.000 The only thing you have to do in terms of taking a pledge to join is say, I oppose the use of violence to achieve political and social goals.

00:59:11.000 If you want to help me out with what I'm doing, of course, you can get my book, Freedom for Free, at thefreedomline.com.

00:59:19.000 You can find all my other websites through there.

00:59:21.000 But this is really important.

00:59:24.000 And I do appreciate from Al and Nick in particular.

00:59:28.000 Is this a forfeit?

00:59:29.000 Is this a forfeit?

00:59:30.000 You're forfeiting, right?

00:59:32.000 No, I'm rounding the base.

00:59:35.000 This sounds like a close.

00:59:37.000 This is a victory lap.

00:59:38.000 This is a victory lap, Nick.

00:59:40.000 I know these big ideas are confusing.

00:59:42.000 I know I'm like twice as old as you, and I know you want to interject with something cute, but no, just get back to reality, Nick.

00:59:49.000 Go ahead.

00:59:49.000 No, I'm taking my big lap here.

00:59:51.000 Tell us how we can elect you to the state.

00:59:52.000 And you're right.

00:59:53.000 Tell us how we can elect you to become a senator in the state.

00:59:57.000 You know, Nick, you're absolutely right to point out that I didn't rebut all of your arguments here because there were so many logical fallacies.

01:00:02.000 There were just It was overflowing.

01:00:04.000 No, go ahead.

01:00:06.000 Look, you've convinced yourself.

01:00:07.000 Go ahead with your forfeit speech.

01:00:09.000 Go ahead with your speech.

01:00:11.000 Other people.

01:00:12.000 Like, you can interrupt if you interject intelligently.

01:00:15.000 And it's like.

01:00:16.000 I didn't interrupt you a single time, but it sounded like a closing statement.

01:00:20.000 I just want to make sure that's what it was.

01:00:21.000 But you can go ahead.

01:00:22.000 Interruptions can contribute to a conversation, but your interruptions are just being annoying.

01:00:29.000 I didn't interrupt a single time, but I wanted to clarify that this was a closing statement.

01:00:32.000 That's what you're doing again. 0.84

01:00:34.000 You're not just interrupting, you're like trying to talk over, and that's what's really silly.

01:00:37.000 But that's what that's what's better for the audience.

01:00:42.000 I know what you guys want to hear.

01:00:43.000 So I do, I do though, but I do, Adam.

01:00:46.000 But go ahead, finish your closing statement, Adam.

01:00:49.000 Is this a closing statement?

01:00:50.000 Because I had a few more questions.

01:00:51.000 It sounded like it, it sounded like it.

01:00:53.000 Okay, go ahead, let Adam talk.

01:00:55.000 Let Adam talk.

01:00:55.000 That was just, I'm just getting warmed up for my victory lap.

01:00:58.000 That was okay, okay, okay.

01:01:00.000 So, Adam, go ahead, Adam.

01:01:02.000 This is Adam's floor right now.

01:01:03.000 Oh, yeah, Adam finished.

01:01:05.000 Yeah, Adam, finish what you guys said, buddy.

01:01:08.000 I'm good.

01:01:08.000 Okay, you're good.

01:01:09.000 Okay, cool.

01:01:09.000 Nick, do you have any response to that?

01:01:11.000 Because you guys got unlimited time, you know?

01:01:12.000 Yeah, well, look, all I said, Adam wants to make it out like I was interrupting him.

01:01:16.000 I didn't interrupt a single time in the debate.

01:01:18.000 The only reason I jumped in and there was because he said, I'm not talking to Nick or Alan.

01:01:23.000 I'm talking to the audience.

01:01:24.000 He starts plugging, he's thanking everyone for taking the time and plugging his website.

01:01:28.000 It sounded like a closing statement.

01:01:29.000 I just wanted to clarify that that's what it was.

01:01:32.000 And so that's the only reason I interrupted because, and look, if we're in the middle of a debate and you can't answer the argument and you just say, Forget it.

01:01:41.000 I'm doing my closing statement.

01:01:42.000 That's a forfeit.

01:01:42.000 So I just want to clarify it wasn't a forfeit.

01:01:45.000 It's been an hour.

01:01:46.000 It's been an hour, and I wanted to get some points in.

01:01:49.000 And if you have a few more questions, Alan, we can take you.

01:01:53.000 You got some.

01:01:55.000 Yeah, I got a few more questions.

01:01:56.000 Just some fun questions where you guys might find some middle ground.

01:01:59.000 It's been an excellent show.

01:02:00.000 I think we'll go for maybe more 15 more minutes or so.

01:02:02.000 I got two questions that I'm personally interested in hearing the answer to.

01:02:08.000 We'll start with Nick on this one.

01:02:10.000 Which is more important, to build the wall or to end the Federal Reserve?

01:02:15.000 Oh, that's a good question.

01:02:17.000 Probably build the wall.

01:02:19.000 Build the wall.

01:02:19.000 Because, and it's funny, this actually goes back to something Adam was saying.

01:02:23.000 Adam, he said this before.

01:02:24.000 He said, well, government can't do anything right.

01:02:26.000 No, government can be awesome. 1.00

01:02:29.000 If you have somebody who is competent, our current government is full of idiots, it's full of people who don't want to get anything done. 0.99

01:02:35.000 So if we have somebody who is a man of action, who can truly execute the will of the public and is competent, then we can have someone who builds the wall. 0.99

01:02:44.000 And we've seen in Hungary, In Israel, walls work.

01:02:48.000 The wall in Israel shut down illegal immigration, reduced it by 95%.

01:02:52.000 That's effective. 0.97

01:02:53.000 And so we need to build the wall, reduce our immigration. 0.98

01:02:56.000 And in doing so, we get the demographics of the country under control. 1.00

01:03:00.000 We don't want all these low IQ immigrants to come in here and take our stuff and eat our food and be a leech on the public dole. 1.00

01:03:08.000 We don't need that. 1.00

01:03:09.000 If that continues, we won't have a country in 50 years.

01:03:12.000 And forget government for a moment.

01:03:13.000 We won't have a nation.

01:03:15.000 A nation absent a government is a single unified people, linguistically, by ancestry, by custom, by religion.

01:03:24.000 We need a nation again.

01:03:25.000 Right now, in some ways, Adam is right.

01:03:27.000 We have a tyrannical state and just this mass.

01:03:31.000 Of just an incoherent, what Teddy Roosevelt called the polyglot boarding house of the world and a state presiding over it.

01:03:37.000 We need a nation and we need a national government with national vigor and energy.

01:03:43.000 And it starts with the wall.

01:03:45.000 So I would say the Federal Reserve to end that is extremely important because that's how you shut down the welfare state and the military industrial complex.

01:03:51.000 But the wall has to come first.

01:03:53.000 Adam.

01:03:56.000 Yeah?

01:03:57.000 What's your response to that, sir?

01:03:59.000 Obviously, you're going to choose the Federal Reserve over the wall.

01:04:03.000 And can you tell us why?

01:04:06.000 I don't want either the Federal Reserve or the wall.

01:04:09.000 Okay.

01:04:10.000 That makes sense.

01:04:11.000 We'll get rid of both of them.

01:04:12.000 All right.

01:04:13.000 Cool.

01:04:13.000 I want freedom of money and I want freedom of movement.

01:04:16.000 All right.

01:04:16.000 Cool.

01:04:18.000 One final question I want to ask you guys.

01:04:21.000 In your opinion, which was more detrimental to the United States, the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 or the Hart Seller Act of 1965?

01:04:31.000 Who goes first?

01:04:32.000 You, Nick.

01:04:33.000 Go ahead.

01:04:34.000 The Hart Seller Act, easily.

01:04:36.000 And I look, I definitely sympathize with.

01:04:38.000 People who would say the Federal Reserve because it's horrible what fiat money has done.

01:04:43.000 And in some ways, like I said, I'm familiar with a lot of the libertarian stuff, and a lot of it I agree with.

01:04:49.000 I'm not an anarchist, but I do agree with a lot of the fundamental contentions, which is that the Federal Reserve has been a disaster for this country.

01:04:56.000 It's created inflation, it's distorted markets, it's put power in the hands of central bankers, and central bankers are unelected.

01:05:04.000 So even if you are for a government, you would at least hope that these people would have some accountability, but they don't.

01:05:10.000 And so the Federal Reserve has been a horrible thing.

01:05:12.000 It's allowed the welfare state, the military industrial system.

01:05:15.000 But by the same token, a country can recover from economic collapse.

01:05:20.000 A country can recover from the ills that are created by the Federal Reserve.

01:05:24.000 We saw it in the Soviet Union, for example.

01:05:26.000 We see in Eastern Europe, these countries, after 50, 60 years of communism, they're still there.

01:05:32.000 They still have their old architecture, tradition, language, people.

01:05:35.000 You look at Poland, you look at Hungary, Czechia, America.

01:05:40.000 Has not withstood immigration. 0.91

01:05:42.000 That's the fundamental difference.

01:05:44.000 We could survive 100 years of fiat money if we had a homogeneous population and ethnic core, but we cannot survive a literal invasion and we don't even call it that. 0.88

01:05:54.000 So the Hard Cellar Act is far more pernicious. 0.60

01:05:58.000 Adam.

01:05:59.000 Yeah, and I just have one thing to respond to in that, which is that Nick said that it would be preferable if people could choose their own leaders through an election process.

01:06:10.000 And I think that seems To really contradict a major part of the premise of what Nick has been arguing this whole time, I think you know, if you really accept Nick's premise of central planning and statism, I think Nick should just choose everybody's leaders for them.

01:06:25.000 You know, I don't think we even need elections anymore, we can just let Nick decide everything.

01:06:29.000 We'll let you know, make him dictator for life.

01:06:30.000 Why not?

01:06:31.000 I like that idea because he knows better than everybody else that he can come on, Adam.

01:06:35.000 I try and extend an olive branch, and that well, here, the reason why I say an election or you choose them is because, well, I'm I don't believe in democracy, I mean, I really don't.

01:06:45.000 But I believe in democratic processes can create accountability.

01:06:49.000 So, the one thing that I've always said, I don't believe in democracy.

01:06:51.000 I don't believe in that kind of thing.

01:06:53.000 But I do believe that the processes that we have in place, some of them create accountability.

01:06:57.000 So, if you elect like a state representative, there's accountability.

01:07:01.000 If he doesn't do his job, he can be recalled.

01:07:03.000 But that's not good in every case.

01:07:05.000 And originally, you bring up the founders like they were libertarians earlier.

01:07:09.000 The founders didn't believe in democracy.

01:07:11.000 Originally, the electoral college was not, they did not make their determination for what would be president based on a popular vote, it didn't happen that way.

01:07:19.000 And senators were not chosen by popular vote.

01:07:21.000 They weren't Democrats either.

01:07:22.000 So, no, again, I do believe to a large extent that managerialism or planning, there's a lot to be said for it.

01:07:30.000 There's a lot to be said for that kind of thing.

01:07:33.000 Adam?

01:07:35.000 Well, another sort of central premise without having to get into every logical fallacy that I've heard here, in this idea of central planning, And this idea that Nick or any other central planner or government will know better for people is, I mean,

01:08:00.000 I just go back to this idea of lack of respect for individuals being able to decide what's best for themselves.

01:08:07.000 And it's like, I'm actually like, I'm really, you know, it's almost overwhelming to hear this because when Nick attacks the founders, As not being libertarian, it's a bit of a red herring.

01:08:23.000 I'm not going to be like, hey, you have to argue exactly parallel to what I'm arguing, because obviously I'm not doing that.

01:08:29.000 But I didn't say, hey, the founders are libertarian and therefore the founders are right about everything.

01:08:33.000 No, I was making one point that they learned something and that decentralization and free markets and freedom of choice is in the best interest of prosperity.

01:08:44.000 But even in what he just said about democracy and elections being accountability mechanisms, the ultimate accountability mechanism is freedom.

01:08:52.000 Is that you have the freedom?

01:08:54.000 To opt out, that you have the freedom to secede, that you have the choice to leave at any time and say, you know what, I want to be free on my property.

01:09:00.000 I don't want to be hurt.

01:09:02.000 I don't want to be bothered by anybody.

01:09:03.000 I just want to be left alone.

01:09:04.000 I want to be free.

01:09:05.000 Can I do that?

01:09:06.000 And what Nick is saying is, no, no, you can't.

01:09:09.000 You can do that.

01:09:11.000 And it's kind of interesting, though, because I would say that you and I are alike in one way, and that we are, as Spangler would define it, we are socialists.

01:09:21.000 You got the Zoom chat up.

01:09:22.000 I'm sorry to interrupt you, Nick.

01:09:23.000 He just had a Zoom chat up.

01:09:24.000 Just needs to exit out of that.

01:09:25.000 Oh, yeah, that's all right.

01:09:26.000 Go ahead, sir.

01:09:26.000 So you said they were both socialists?

01:09:30.000 Yeah, I'll tell you how.

01:09:32.000 Yeah, see, see, I know.

01:09:33.000 Have you ever read Oswald Spangler, the historian?

01:09:38.000 He wrote, that's why, see, this is why I was going to, you have to allow me to explain.

01:09:38.000 No.

01:09:42.000 That's why he can't interject like that.

01:09:44.000 What he said is that a socialist, and this is not like the standard definition, but he defined socialists and he said that we're all socialists.

01:09:52.000 All Europeans are socialists in that we want to advance.

01:09:58.000 Our view of what is correct on society.

01:10:00.000 It's not sufficient that we have our own beliefs.

01:10:03.000 It's that we have to put them on the world.

01:10:06.000 So it's not sufficient that I believe that the state should enforce things according to what I want.

01:10:12.000 It's that everyone should adopt those beliefs.

01:10:13.000 It's not sufficient that the communist go off and form his own commune.

01:10:17.000 We all have to enforce this cosmic justice on society, socialist.

01:10:22.000 And in that way, it's very similar to you.

01:10:24.000 You're not content to say, I will leave society with.

01:10:29.000 My compatriots, and we will just kind of do our own thing.

01:10:32.000 You're saying I have to run for office.

01:10:33.000 I have to convince everyone.

01:10:34.000 I have to change at a societal level.

01:10:37.000 We have to get people to embrace freedom, even though, like, people really don't want that.

01:10:41.000 People don't want to govern themselves. 0.79

01:10:43.000 Again, you're really not listening, Dick.

01:10:45.000 I mean, this is how libertarianism is fundamentally different from statism is that we respect the choice of others.

01:10:51.000 Well, you want everyone to be non aggression principle, right?

01:10:55.000 What I'm doing here in Arizona, I am homesteading.

01:10:57.000 I am creating an economically independent homestead.

01:11:00.000 You're running for Senate.

01:11:01.000 And you're running for Senate.

01:11:03.000 Right, because I want to show, but you mischaracterize what I'm doing with that and saying that I'm like forcing ideas on people by running for Senate.

01:11:10.000 No, I'm saying, look, hey, let's stop forcing so many ideas on people.

01:11:14.000 And as a senator here, I can.

01:11:16.000 I can at least reduce the amount of force behind ideas being forced on the American people because I want the American people to be free.

01:11:23.000 Well, I didn't just say force.

01:11:24.000 I said persuade.

01:11:25.000 I said you want to see society.

01:11:29.000 Socialism is about persuasion.

01:11:29.000 Right.

01:11:31.000 Socialism is about force.

01:11:33.000 Okay.

01:11:33.000 Well, I'm using, and that's why I modified it by saying it was Spengler's definition, which is that you want to see your vision in the.

01:11:44.000 It's not sufficient that you live it out.

01:11:46.000 You and when whether you do it by force or by persuasion, you're running for center for this reason, for that reason, you want to see society to be libertarian, to be able to see people free to develop whatever they want.

01:11:58.000 Okay, well, yeah.

01:11:59.000 And you're so consumed with your own rhetoric, you can't even see what I'm trying to say, but that's okay.

01:12:04.000 It's not a big thing, but it was just an observation.

01:12:07.000 All right, all right.

01:12:09.000 So, Adam, we'll start with you first.

01:12:12.000 We'll do closing statements.

01:12:13.000 Where can we find you?

01:12:14.000 What are you working on?

01:12:15.000 What are your big projects next?

01:12:17.000 If you have anything left to say to Nick, and then we'll do Nick's closing statement and we'll call it a debate on America's number one chatcast.

01:12:24.000 I want to thank you both for being here.

01:12:26.000 Adam, three time chatcast alumni.

01:12:29.000 Nick is now a two time chatcast alumni.

01:12:30.000 I'm probably going to send you both Letterman's jackets with a big C and a big one.

01:12:36.000 You got to make four, right?

01:12:38.000 You got to make four to get the jacket.

01:12:40.000 Oh, that's true.

01:12:41.000 That's a good point.

01:12:42.000 That's a good point.

01:12:43.000 So, yeah, well, we might have to do Fuentes Coke Cash too because it's incredible to watch because I mean, I feel as if I'm a little bit, there's some things that Adam says that I like.

01:12:51.000 Adam does incredible work with veterans, things like that.

01:12:53.000 There's some things that Nick says that I like a lot.

01:12:55.000 I mean, so it's weird that there's Al in the middle between the libertarian and the statist, just kind of hearing out both arguments and just enjoying it.

01:13:06.000 This has been incredible.

01:13:07.000 I mean, you guys are both incredibly entertaining speakers.

01:13:10.000 I mean, I laughed out loud.

01:13:12.000 I had to go off camera because I was laughing, you know, because I didn't want to laugh into the mic.

01:13:16.000 It would have been silly.

01:13:17.000 But I mean, incredible.

01:13:19.000 Thank you guys both for being here.

01:13:20.000 Awesome times.

01:13:22.000 Adam, let's start with you.

01:13:22.000 Closing statements and anything else you want to say to Nick?

01:13:26.000 What is this age before beauty?

01:13:28.000 Really, I don't get the last word.

01:13:30.000 Okay, cool.

01:13:31.000 All right, I got this.

01:13:34.000 I got this.

01:13:36.000 I give him the advantage, he needs it.

01:13:38.000 No, no respect for the elders here.

01:13:40.000 I get it.

01:13:41.000 It's cool.

01:13:41.000 No, um, I do want to say thanks to both of you for making this happen, Nick.

01:13:45.000 And it's been great that we've been able to have as intense a philosophical, political conversation as this has been and kept it lighthearted and been laughing all the way through it.

01:13:55.000 And I appreciate that and I respect that about you, Nick.

01:13:57.000 And I want to say that you're young, you got a lot of talent.

01:14:00.000 What you've put together with your website and with your podcast is something to really be proud of.

01:14:07.000 I mean, it is significant that you have the voice that you do in the conversation globally.

01:14:13.000 The conversation of humanity right now is something that I think, especially at 19, I mean, I didn't get into independent media until I guess I was 20 something later, late 20s.

01:14:25.000 And I really wish that I'd, at your age, been engaged at this level.

01:14:31.000 I really think that you have a lot to offer the world.

01:14:34.000 Have a lot of talent, and it's really great that right now you're using your talent to make the ideas of statism look so ridiculous and easy to defeat in a debate and in an argument.

01:14:48.000 I mean, I really, really appreciate that.

01:14:49.000 I know at some point, I mean, when you become a libertarian in the truest sense, it's not like you become it, you realize that you are a libertarian, you realize that you're a free, beautiful, independent human being, and that you don't want to force your ideas on anyone, you don't have anyone's will.

01:15:06.000 Force upon you in any way.

01:15:08.000 And I think someday you'll get to that point, and I really look forward to that.

01:15:11.000 But I did want to make one point about drugs as enhancements.

01:15:17.000 You guys know Rush Limbaugh?

01:15:18.000 Yep.

01:15:19.000 Yeah, okay.

01:15:20.000 You know, like his great cliche is that, like, you know, he's got half his brain tied behind his back.

01:15:26.000 Right?

01:15:26.000 Okay, well, I wanted to make this a fair debate.

01:15:29.000 So before we started this, I just want Nick to know that in the interest of making this a fair debate, I smoked a monster blunt all by myself.

01:15:39.000 And I thought I was going to give him a fighting chance.

01:15:41.000 I was kind of disappointed.

01:15:42.000 I didn't see a little more taking advantage of my weakened state and being able to jump in.

01:15:47.000 But even with half my brain tied behind my back, it was still easy to prove that libertarianism, free markets, peace, harmony, cooperation, love is superior to force and domination and statism and violence every single time.

01:16:02.000 So obviously, this debate is a great example of that.

01:16:05.000 We are proving in this volunteer exchange that coming together peacefully in conversation is better than coming together in force.

01:16:13.000 So, I know there's some backhanded compliments in there, but really, when it comes down to it, Nick, I do respect you and I appreciate your willingness to participate in this.

01:16:22.000 It's been a lot of fun.

01:16:23.000 And, Al, thank you so much for putting this together.

01:16:25.000 You can find out everything you need to know about me, including getting my book for free in every digital format possible at thefreedomline.com.

01:16:34.000 Thank you very much, gentlemen.

01:16:35.000 All right, Adam, Mr. Kokesh, my man.

01:16:39.000 Have a great night and good luck in the future.

01:16:42.000 And we'll be paying attention, man.

01:16:43.000 You got something to say real quick?

01:16:45.000 Nick can give his closing.

01:16:46.000 Okay.

01:16:46.000 Well, yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely.

01:16:48.000 Yeah.

01:16:48.000 Go ahead.

01:16:49.000 Well, yeah, no, thank you to Al.

01:16:52.000 Great, great chat cast.

01:16:53.000 You know, it's really great production value for the chat cast.

01:16:59.000 So it's always a great time.

01:17:00.000 You know, sometimes people are, like with Baked Alaska, some of the debates were like late or there were issues or whatever.

01:17:00.000 It's always very easy.

01:17:06.000 So you guys do a great job.

01:17:07.000 Thanks to Adam for coming on.

01:17:09.000 You know, Adam, I do like you.

01:17:11.000 You know, we disagree on a lot of things, but I think you got great energy.

01:17:14.000 You're funny.

01:17:15.000 And what I admire about you is that you're ambitious and you persevere because we're both kind of political.

01:17:22.000 Fringe people.

01:17:23.000 You know, you think that it's not fringe, and I think I'm not fringe.

01:17:25.000 So, relatively speaking, compared to the mainstream, I mean, what we're doing is ambitious and it's tough.

01:17:32.000 So, I admire that and I respect that.

01:17:34.000 So, the feeling's mutual.

01:17:36.000 I appreciate what you said to me.

01:17:38.000 Now, that said, we obviously do have very significant disagreements.

01:17:42.000 And I will say that I came at it from a position that's similar to Adam, and that I was a libertarian.

01:17:46.000 I even flirted with the ANCAP position for some time.

01:17:51.000 You know, I've read Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Hazlitt, Friedman.

01:17:56.000 You know, and I was really in it.

01:17:58.000 But what really changed for me was I came to see society.

01:18:01.000 I just had a fundamental shift in my worldview, which is to say that I saw the public good.

01:18:07.000 I saw the nation as the real ends of society, not essentially freedom, not totally liberty, not totally peace or even love.

01:18:16.000 I saw higher ends that society could strive for, like glorifying God or the public good, things of that nature.

01:18:23.000 And I think that's fundamental, is that I'm not, Essentially anti liberty.

01:18:27.000 I'm not anti peace.

01:18:28.000 I'm not anti any of those things.

01:18:30.000 But I think we have to come to grips with the fact that mankind is fallen.

01:18:35.000 There is great evil in mankind.

01:18:37.000 The natural state of mankind is disorder.

01:18:41.000 And we look at disorder that arises through freedom or that arises through all these other kinds of trade or something like that.

01:18:47.000 And it's things that can be quite horrible.

01:18:49.000 And I think that the only way that we can truly have liberty, truly have freedom, truly have the kinds of things that Adam cares about is if evil, if insanity, if degeneracy is kept at bay.

01:19:01.000 And the only way it's kept at bay. Is by the hands of the executioner.

01:19:05.000 And that can either be figurative or it can be literal.

01:19:08.000 That there has to be a very strong and overwhelming force that underwrites the values and standards and laws that we have for society.

01:19:16.000 That if there are people who want to inflict their individual tyranny on us through a terror attack or a murder or through any kind of thing, even if it's individual, that they want to do drugs or harm themselves, that there is a legal force that underwrites that, that connects us horizontally in time with all of our kinsmen.

01:19:34.000 But also vertically across time with our ancestors and with posterity, that there is a vanguard keeping all that together.

01:19:40.000 The unfortunate and tragic, but only way to do that is with the state.

01:19:44.000 So I'll say reluctantly, but because of our nature, that's my position.

01:19:49.000 But it's been a great time.

01:19:49.000 And thanks to everyone involved.

01:19:51.000 I like you all.

01:19:52.000 It's great.

01:19:53.000 Like Adam said, we can laugh and have these intense disagreements.

01:19:56.000 And maybe that is a testament to the free exchange.

01:19:59.000 So thanks for having me.

01:20:01.000 Awesome times, guys.

01:20:02.000 So I think that's been it.

01:20:05.000 We got to tell the audience a little bit of a secret.

01:20:08.000 Because we have another show coming up at 8 30.

01:20:10.000 We didn't tell anybody about it.

01:20:11.000 It's absolutely huge.

01:20:14.000 So I'm excited for that.

01:20:15.000 If you're joining us now, join us at 8 30.

01:20:19.000 I can't even reveal.

01:20:20.000 Oh, it's a big surprise.

01:20:21.000 Yeah, it's a big surprise.

01:20:22.000 It's just, you didn't see this coming.

01:20:25.000 They've both been on the show before.

01:20:26.000 Yeah.

01:20:26.000 So it's going to be another.

01:20:28.000 And I didn't tell anybody about this.

01:20:29.000 Great.

01:20:30.000 Yeah.

01:20:30.000 I don't even know.

01:20:32.000 I think in closing, I would say that if I was president of the United States, I would probably appoint Adam as in charge of veteran affairs.

01:20:32.000 This has been wild.

01:20:41.000 And Nick would be a consultant.

01:20:43.000 We'll just leave it at that.

01:20:44.000 Who knows what I mean by that?

01:20:46.000 Anyways, just kidding, guys.

01:20:48.000 But not really.

01:20:49.000 That's probably what I would do, honestly, if I was president.

01:20:51.000 Anyways, that's been it.

01:20:53.000 This is America's number one Chadcast. 0.99

01:20:55.000 You came to the right place.

01:20:56.000 Come back at 8 30 tonight because you didn't see this coming.

01:20:59.000 It's going to be wild.

01:21:00.000 It's going to be awesome.

01:21:01.000 Guys, thank you so much for coming.

01:21:02.000 Nick Fuentes, Nick Superfuture Fuentes, Adam Libertarian Legend, Kokesh.

01:21:08.000 What did you think about the show today?

01:21:09.000 Oh, it was fantastic, man.

01:21:10.000 Yeah, it was awesome.

01:21:11.000 Let me.

01:21:12.000 It's awesome.

01:21:13.000 Yeah, we got it.

01:21:13.000 We should just end there.

01:21:16.000 Guys, 8 30.

01:21:16.000 That's all we need to say.

01:21:17.000 You're all so smart for being here because it's going down at 8 30.

01:21:20.000 All right.

America First - Nicholas J. Fuentes - July 29, 2018

Nick Fuentes vs Adam Kokesh

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript