Reed Coverdale | How Can America Become Free Again? | OAP #32
Chase Geiser is joined by Reed Coverdale.
Reed is a Libertarian who is deeply concerned about the state of our country and our foreign policy. He is a voice for libertarian principles. His goal is to bolster independent thought, dialogue between opposing arguments, and to end the power hold the establishment and gatekeepers of religious and political ideology have over our heads. Their greatest fear is that we realize we are not each others' enemies in Reed's words.
EPISODE LINKS:
Chase's Twitter: twitter.com/realchasegeiser
Reed's Twitter: twitter.com/reedcoverdale
Reed's Podcast: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCByLOaisZPyJ9E0lT0CqKYg/featured
Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
A faith which will live in infamy.
I still have a dream.
Good night and good luck.
We are live with Reed Coverdale.
Now, do you say Coverdale or do you say Coverdale?
Coverdale.
Coverdale.
I figured it was because I heard somebody else say your name the correct way on your podcast before, but it didn't really make sense last night when I was doing seed Roverdale.
You know, Roverdale just kind of made more sense.
So I didn't know if it applied to the hard continent either.
So tell everybody a little bit about who you are, what your podcast is, and then we'll take it from there.
Sure, yeah.
I'm a truck driver.
I haul heavy equipment in the western states.
And I have a podcast that I've been doing for a little over a year, started it in May of 2020.
It's called The Naturalist Capitalist.
And it's mostly about politics from a libertarian perspective.
But, you know, we also talk about other things.
We delve into philosophy a little bit, culture, religion.
I don't know.
We kind of go a little bit of everywhere.
But I've had kind of all the big names in the liberty movement over the last six months.
And that's really attributed to my rise.
And it's been really cool.
And getting to talk to people that I've been listening to for years that I thought I'd be lucky to ever meet face to face.
And now I'm friends with them is kind of nuts.
So it's been a wild ride.
Yeah, it's funny because I don't even know how I stumbled upon like the libertarian podcast scene.
I think it was, you know, I actually do remember it was Dave Smith.
He posted some tweet a number of weeks ago, maybe even over a month ago now, where he's like, hey, here are the Liberty podcasts everybody needs to follow.
And I think you were tagged and Clinton was tagged as well.
And I just followed you guys and reached out to start doing podcasts.
So I kind of wound up doing these like libertarian podcasts, even though I'm not a libertarian, which is fine because I've got very similar ideas to libertarians and I totally get along with libertarians.
But it's just, it's cool how I think it's easy to forget how huge the world is and how many people there are and how many groups there are.
And it's cool when you stumble upon like this totally niche, tight community.
And I know you guys have had some like internal turmoil, but it's like family turmoil.
It's still tight-knit, close.
And so I don't know.
It's just, I feel like I discovered this kind of hidden treasure.
And I don't mean to say that in like a patronizing sense because I know that libertarians are important and making an impact and growing.
I think that you guys have a real role to play it.
Those are nice words.
I don't know.
I mean, we are pretty irrelevant.
I mean, we want to be relevant, but at this point, I mean, we are not the mainstream.
We're not really a political force of any sort.
So, you know, it's pretty hard to insult us if we're dealing in reality.
Well, I'll tell you what, you guys could totally change the political dynamic with your existing structure now, in my opinion.
If you ran a candidate for president and you focused all of the national funding for that candidate only on Texas, enough that the Republicans would not win Texas over the Democrats in the Electoral College, you could basically choose whether or not a Republican could be the president of the United States if you guys focus like that now.
And that's an incredibly threatening thing that you guys could use to leverage Republican policy.
You could say, listen, do you want us to endorse your candidate or not?
Because if you're not willing to do X, Y, and Z, then we're going to put all of our money only in Texas and we're just going to let the Democrats have it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know what I mean?
We don't really think in that Machiavellian way.
I mean, we're so we're all we're still obsessed about one day we can win and it's not really strategic as far as what can we do right now to influence things in our direction.
What type of political threats can we make or, you know, kind of what you're talking about.
We don't really think like that, which is unfortunate because we should be thinking.
It's kind of a good thing, though, too.
It's like part of the reason why you guys are good people.
Like I tweeted earlier today, like, you know, by the time you get the power, you don't have enough time left to do enough good to make up for all the bad shit you had to do to get the power.
So you have to like find that balance.
Like, how much am I willing to do now in the hopes that I remember who I actually want to be when I get the power and do the good that I started the whole thing for?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, we're kind of an oxymoron, you know, libertarian party.
Libertarians don't believe in political power, but we've created a political party to try to win over the other parties.
And the ultimate goal is dismantling the state, but trying to get from point A to point B without political power is kind of impossible.
I mean, you need to win an election, right?
You have to beat the Democrats and Republicans.
So we're just trying to figure out how that's done.
What does that mean?
Is it actually about winning an election or is it about changing one side to be better?
Or is it about changing the way that the population thinks so that they're not focused on elections the way they have been in the past?
I don't know.
We're just, we're in a midlife crisis and we're trying to figure out exactly what we're supposed to do, I guess.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's really, you know, could you tell me a little bit about what the difference is between a libertarian and an anarchist?
Because I'm finding it harder and harder to tell.
I thought I knew a month ago, but it seems like you guys are all fucking anarchists.
A lot of us are.
I think that libertarian and anarchist aren't mutually exclusive.
I think it's like the square and the rectangle.
So the libertarian is the rectangle, but then the anarchist is the square.
So an anarchist is still a libertarian, but not every libertarian is necessarily an anarchist.
So there are libertarians who are minarchists who just believe in a skeletal structure for the government.
So police, military, fire department, post office, whatever.
Anarchists reject the entire idea of government, that it's coercive, it's violence, it's theft.
So they think all of it is wrong.
So the ultimate goal is to remove any of it that you can.
The reason that I don't really find those two points of view conflicting is because we're so far from both of those goals.
Right.
They're both.
They're on a shared road before the fork.
Yeah.
And I don't really envision us ever reaching that fork, at least not in my lifetime.
So I don't really care.
As long as you want to diminish the state, we're on the same team, whether you believe in no government or a little government.
Yeah.
So ultimately, what's your sentiment then about regarding what the outcome is going to be?
I mean, is it just going to continue for another century of this libertarian movement existing, but Republicans and Democrats getting elected?
Or do you think that we're in a political climate right now where something's going to change?
Because traditionally we have had new parties every century that this nation's existed kind of come.
So we're about due for another one.
I think it depends on how the shakeup happens because I don't think we're going to remain the dominant superpower in the world for another 100 years.
I think the end of that is much nearer.
China is projected to surpass our GDP by 2028, I think.
We're so far spread and thin spread across the globe militarily.
We're $30 trillion in debt.
We're having a currency crisis.
We're having inflation.
You're having people who believe less and less in the political system.
So it's not, I don't think the next hundred years is going to be like the past 100 years.
I think that it really depends on how everything shakes out, how things fall together as far as if another party rises or if it just stays this two-party system.
And like you and I were talking about on my channel last night, if it could be worse, you know, if we end up with a one-party system or a, you know, a more authoritarian government.
I don't really know.
I guess my biggest hope is that this trajectory that people are losing faith in government continues and they finally decide, you know, we don't need this one giant federal government controlling all of these 50 states.
At the very least, we should respect the 10th Amendment again and let the states govern themselves.
I would like to see something like that happen.
I think that some sort of balkanization or secession or breakup is the best solution that we could have going forward for peaceful, you know, a peaceful resolution of the problem now.
Because I think if we keep getting more and more centralized, if the government keeps getting bigger and bigger, we're just going to hate each other more.
And then you could push things to some sort of chaotic civil war scenario.
So I just think that getting people to think in the way of, okay, we don't need centralized control to keep us all online.
We need to be more independent.
We need to be less in each other's lives and, you know, just let the government kind of sit back and let us run the show again.
So I think the best thing we can do is just talk about those ideas and try to change the way people think.
Because if people don't change the way they think, it doesn't matter what type of government policies you pass because if you get rid of an authoritarian policy, but the public doesn't really care, then that can just sneak right back in again.
You have to change the way the public perceives authority, perceives the government, perceives liberty, and that's how you win.
Yeah, that makes sense.
And I do think one of the differences, and I think we briefly touched on this last night, was, you know, this is one of, this is sort of the first time in recorded history that we have civilizations that have incredibly secretive police departments and like the CIA and the FBI were.
There's not really a system of accountability for these organizations.
And they're flooded with money and resources and power at the same time.
So it's sort of inevitable that the intelligence community at some point, I don't know if it, like I said, I don't know if it's next year or next century, but it seems to me inevitable that they will be an overwhelming power in the government to the point where the other branches and departments really can't, they can't overcome it.
You know, there'll be a vetoed power there.
And part of the reason I wanted to bring that up is because I wanted to segue into how the hell do you know Ryan Dawson?
Well, I wanted to say just first of all, that I think we're already there.
You know, CIA kind of does run everything anyway.
I mean, they control both of the parties and they do stuff that is not necessarily sanctioned by Congress or the president even sometimes.
They're kind of their own deal.
But Ryan Dawson, I first found out about him in 2016 because I was a Rand Paul guy myself and then he just didn't do well.
And I couldn't get behind Trump.
So I actually decided, you know what, I'm going to look at Bernie Sanders.
I disagree with him on a lot of stuff, but he sounds like he's kind of anti-war and pro-civil liberties.
And then I came across one of Ryan Dawson's videos.
It was called Bernie Sanders to the Woodshed, and it just went through Bernie's voting history and he's terrible.
Like, I mean, the reason libertarians or liberty-minded Republicans should hate him isn't because he's a radical socialist.
It's actually because he's a warmongering corporatist who pretends to be a socialist.
You know, he's voted for almost every military intervention.
He just didn't like the Iraq war the way the Republicans wanted to do it.
He did vote for the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, but then in 2003, he wanted a multilateral approach instead of a unilateral approach.
He was for intervention in Libya and Syria.
He voted to bomb Kosovo.
And, you know, he, there were times he didn't show up to vote against.
Kosovo had it coming, though.
Those assholes.
And then he's been really bad on bailouts, especially this past year.
I mean, he's voted for every corporate spending bill that just sends billions to corporations.
So anyway, Ryan Dawson completely opened my eyes to who the real Bernie Sanders was.
And since then, I just kind of watched him occasionally throughout 2017, 2018, whatever.
And then in 2019, I started watching him more consistently.
And then in 2020, my friend Eric Jackman actually got him on his show around 9-11 to talk about the 19th anniversary of 9-11.
And so I messaged Eric and I was like, whoa, you had Ryan Dawson on your show.
I would love to get him online.
So I started talking to Ryan in October just through email.
And then I talked to him on the phone.
And he still had his YouTube channel, which had 80,000 subscribers this time, I think.
What did he get banned for?
He got banned for a video that's two years old called the Palestinian Peace Process.
And they told him it was for hate speech.
And they didn't point out which part of the video was hate speech.
So he couldn't really make an appeal.
But I couldn't get him on my show because he was so busy.
And then his YouTube got banned in January.
And so then his schedule opened up.
And then I had him on my show.
You got to hook me up with him, man.
I'm dying to talk to that guy.
Yeah, I will for sure.
And I mean, now that his YouTube channel is gone, he's dying to get on anyone's show.
We'll have him on because it's hard for him to reach anyone.
Alex Jones has been making the circuit like that too.
It seems to be working for him where tonight he was on a podcast live right before this.
And then he was on the Andrew Schultz podcast.
What's it called?
Flagrant.
That's really funny.
And so I've noticed that some of these censored voices are getting away with making guest appearances on other channels.
And YouTube seems to be okay with it.
Yeah, I mean, they haven't come after me at all.
And I mean, Joe Rogan's had Alex Jones on.
And then, who was it?
Tim Poole had Steve Bannon on, who's also banned, I think.
So yeah, I mean, it's a pretty easy loophole if you're not allowed to channel, just go on other people's channels.
And Dawson's been, he's been like prolific, right?
Hasn't he made like dozens of documentaries?
And when I say documentary, it's like it's him and a bunch of news footage and articles and like a webcam, and they'll be hours and hours and hours long.
Yeah.
It's like insane, the details that he gets into.
And so he just keeps doing it.
Like he can't stop.
Like what's the deal?
Yeah, I mean, he's got an amazing brain.
I mean, if you watch any video with him, you can just name names and dates and operations and documents just off the top of his head.
I mean, you can talk to him for eight hours and he wouldn't need notes about the thing.
He can just go and go and go.
But yeah, he does compile all these different documents and files that he finds and videos.
And he does a lot of work on Epstein.
He's done a lot of work on 9-11.
He's done a lot of work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
And he can just go and go and go.
And yeah, I mean, if you watch one of his documentaries, it's not light material.
I mean, every five minutes, you've got to stop the video and kind of absorb what you just watched and then keep going.
And yeah, like his Empire Unmasked is five hours long.
So if you want to fully absorb that information, that's quite a task.
Yeah.
Well, I mean, I think that's great that he's done that.
And I think of him now that I know who he is whenever I think about the deep state because it seems to me that the amount of work you have to do to get to the bottom of what is really going on is insane.
And since it's so insane, there's very few people who do it.
And since there's very few people who do it, it makes those who do do it very unbelievable.
You know?
And so it's like for me, I don't think that he's nuts or wrong or illogical or anything.
I haven't looked into the stuff specifically, but I'm worried of like falling into the flat earth trap where I consume the wrong content for too long and then wind up with the wrong idea about the nature of reality.
You know, and I don't know, like how do you protect yourself against getting in like an echo chamber where you believe bad ideas?
Because I think smart people believe stupid shit all the time.
Oh yeah, I do too.
Something that he actually talks about a lot is, you know, the kook movements within the truth movements.
So Alex Jones is a kook, you know?
I mean, he's not, a lot of the stuff that he talks about is crazy, you know, like lizard people and interdimensional demons and aliens and, you know, all this crap or QAnon, things like that.
I mean, he actually thinks that they're designed to throw off the scent to sound so ridiculous that if you hear anything relating to 9-11 truth, you instantly think, oh yeah, the buildings were demoed, you know, building seven was demoed.
There were no planes that hit the buildings.
They were holographs, you know, whatever, like that whole craziness.
And so that in itself kind of makes you go crazy.
If you start buying into that, if you start saying, okay, the mainstream isn't true, so everything that everybody else is saying must be true, that would be a mistake because obviously then you end up in some pretty ridiculous territory.
So it's really about, it's really usually somewhere in the middle, you know, because what they'll do is they'll call you a, you know, they'll call you a believer or a denier.
So take climate change.
Like if you don't buy 110% of the narrative about climate change that we have like at this point, what, nine or 10 years left to turn things around or the world's going to end.
They've been saying that for 30 years.
Yeah.
So if you don't agree with that, then you're saying, oh, there's no climate change.
Nothing's getting warmer.
You know, the environment's perfect.
It's like, well, no, that's not what I said.
I just said I don't believe this narrative that you're pushing on me 110%.
So it's really just trying to resist that false dichotomy of complete acceptance or complete rejection.
The truth is always usually somewhere in between.
Yeah.
And I think one of the problems, too, is that since we live in like this, we're like in a hyper character assassination sort of culture right now.
And I think that has to do with the internet and social media.
So like in a way that I don't think we've ever experienced before, people are behaving with constant attention to their reputation almost on like an hour by hour basis rather than like a month by month basis, like it might have been years ago.
Right.
And I think that what that does is it makes people very reluctant to have nuanced conversation and change their positions or learn anything that would cause them to make any sort of like apparent shift because they're afraid that any change or shift may be perceived as like a hypocrisy or an ignorance or I don't know, just it's like a, it's like a vulnerability where they can get attacked.
And I guess my concern is how do we, how do we get to a place where people are able to actually change their minds and have debates again, you know, because don't you want like for me, for example, I've said this on the podcast before, it's like, I don't, I don't know if climate change is, is man, is caused by human beings or not.
I don't know.
I want to know, right?
Like, I don't care which answer is correct.
I don't want it to be that it's happening.
I don't want it to be that it's not happening.
You know, I don't, I don't have a belief that I need to have reinforced.
I just want to know what's actually going on.
And it's very difficult for me as a thinking person to figure it out because I don't know what studies to look at.
And then if you look at studies, like you have to like study how that study was funded by what department and who was running the department at the time and where did they go to get their alma mater and who was their mentor.
And then this is why they believe in this form of, you know what I mean?
There's like so many layers to it that it's really hard to get to the bottom of it.
I mean, you talk to some scientists.
They're like, yeah, the measuring devices that were used in the late 19th century and early 20th century weren't very accurate in determining the temperature.
And a lot of times they were measuring temperature from tar blacktop roads and that was radiating heat off the ground.
So it could have been exaggerating the temperature.
There's all these variables that raise questions about the legitimacy of the data that we have.
And I just don't know.
I don't find it hard to believe that we're having an impact, but I also don't find it hard to believe that that impact is greatly exaggerated.
So I don't know.
How do we actually figure it out?
I think that what you got to do is you got to have a philosophy that guides your decisions.
Because I mean, it's good to have your mind change on certain subjects.
But if you ran for office, say, and then you get in there and then your views on everything suddenly change, that's not going to work.
Or if you're always just flip-flopping all over the place and you have nothing guiding you, that also doesn't work.
So I think you have to figure out what it is that grounds you and centers you and points you in a certain direction.
And then that's going to guide a lot of your decision making.
But on circumstantial issues, especially like is climate change man-made?
Or, you know, if you're, if you're a libertarian who wants to figure out how you're going to roll back the state, you know, what should you prioritize?
You know, because you could just be this autistic absolutist who's just saying like, oh, we just need to hack at everything no matter what.
Or you could be someone who said, well, you know, I don't think food stamps are the biggest issue right now.
I think if we ended the wars in the Middle East and stopped giving billionaires money, you know, that would be a better strategy.
So I think what it comes down to is having something that kind of directs you, but then on an issue by issue basis, being willing to look at, you know, different evidence and have your mind changed about how you're supposed to deal with something.
And that way you're going to stay pretty consistent, but you're obviously approaching the situation with a critical mind, trying to figure out the best way you can tackle it.
Yeah.
I think it's one of the things that I think is so ridiculous and so funny about our leadership now is like if you watch C-SPAN and of course they have like their formal debates before they vote on any given piece of legislation and everybody has their two minutes or whatever it is to say their part.
And it's just like all the same shit they've been tweeting or all the same shit they've been saying at press conferences or in appearances on corporate media outlets.
It's like they waste all this time, like three, four hours before they actually do the vote saying shit that they, that they know everyone in the room has already heard them say and hearing what they've already heard from everyone else.
It's like not actually a debate where, you know, different ideas are being exchanged and they're bickering like, you know, sort of like in the British system where they scream at each other.
And I just, I wish that the debates actually, maybe, and maybe the debates do happen like behind closed doors and they just don't do that part on C-BAN, right?
In order to save face.
I don't know, but like, it doesn't seem to me like there's actually anybody like sitting down in a friendly way, having cigars and like saying, all right, let's get to the bottom of this.
What do you think?
What the fuck is really going on?
You know?
Yeah.
I mean, Justin Amosh's last year in office, he, I really started following his Twitter account closely and he would constantly talk about how none of the bills were debated on at all.
It was all, you know, I forget what he was saying.
I think since since Ryan was the speaker of the house, they got rid of adding amendments to bills.
You couldn't debate to have an amendment added to a bill.
So you just had to vote on the original content of the bill.
You couldn't change it at all.
Right.
So why, you know, it just killed any productivity in the house.
And, you know, pretty much everyone would vote right along party lines.
And you'd have a few principled people who would, you know, diverge a little bit.
But yeah, for the most part, man, they don't argue about anything.
They don't care about anything.
They're just there to make a scene and then all vote for the same stuff.
And the funny thing is they're supposed to convince us that they're polar opposites.
So they'll have a few hot button issues like gun control and border security and climate change legislation.
And even though with those things, they don't actually, you know, push for very different laws.
I mean, everything that gets passed is pretty much in the middle somewhere.
But when it comes to war or spending or surveillance, they all rub elbows and vote the exact same way.
And so all this scare about being the right and the left opposing each other, trying to fight for the soul of America, it's all pretty much bullshit.
There's just like four or five people in each party that are sort of principled sometimes.
It's like pro wrestling.
It's like the fake, this, this fake feud.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's that's really interesting.
One of the things that really bothers me is like, you know, in the advertising world that you can't do false advertisement.
Like you can't make claims that are just totally erroneous or you can't say a product's for one thing when it's actually for another.
And when these bills are named like the Patriot Act or the COVID Relief Act or COVID Relief Bill, whatever they called it, it's like there was only like 5% of that bill that had anything to do with COVID relief.
Everything else was like foreign aid.
Or, you know, the Patriot Act is like, it sounds like a great thing, you know, but it turns out like, you know, it just opened the door for domestic surveillance.
And so I wish that there was a law in place that didn't allow for the naming of legislation to be a misleading reflection of what's actually in it.
And maybe the solution is just to like eliminate earmarks so that you can't just throw random shit in the same bill.
But I don't know.
I think that's a major problem because the issue with it is if it's the COVID relief fund or if it's the I Love Teachers Act and you vote against it because it happens to like expand Guantanamo Bay, right?
They can say, oh, you voted against teachers.
You're like, that's not why I fucking voted against it.
And so it's just like a real cheap shot to kind of like to manipulate people into voting for legislation, legislation they don't actually support because they're worried about the PR backlash.
Yeah, it's like the, you know, we're going to name this the Stop Beheading Grandmothers Act.
You know, if you vote against that, you're nuts.
It's like, well, I read the bill and it's actually just about giving more funding to the CIA and I don't want to do that.
But yeah, there's actually a bill that's been proposed called the One Subject at a Time Act.
And I think Rand Paul introduced it pretty much every year to the Senate.
And then either Thomas Massey or Justin Amash would introduce it to the House every year.
And I think Rand Paul would maybe get one or two co-sponsors.
And then in the House, they were lucky if they got three or four.
It's crazy.
I mean, but that is the solution right there.
You have one subject at a time in each bill.
So you can't be like, you know, oh, okay, well, we obviously need to fund the military this year.
You can't vote no on this bill.
So we're all going to, we're also going to throw in this, you know, 500 billion that's going to go toward windmills in Minnesota.
And then, you know, we're going to add this 200 million that's going to go toward, you know, museums and Albuquerque or, you know, whatever.
You can't just throw that stuff on anymore.
So people would actually be voting yes or no on very straightforward subjects.
But of course, they don't want to do that.
So you reach the problem of getting something like that passed.
It's never going to happen.
Right.
Do you think what do you think would happen if the government was unable to pass a budget for an entire year?
Man.
So, you know, we've had some issues, right, where it's been like a month or two and TSA is not getting paid, but they know that they're going to get compensated eventually.
What if just for a year, Republicans are like, we're not going to vote for any budget that Biden would sign.
Yeah, I mean, it's an interesting idea.
I've read that that actually isn't, it isn't as good as we tend to think it is.
We tend to think, hey, the government's shut down, but it's not really shut down.
Like all the parts we hate about the government are still going.
Politicians still get played.
Yeah.
The military is still dropping bombs.
The CIA is still doing all the stuff they do.
It's just they close the national parks, basically.
So, I mean, it's not the win that we think it is.
But I don't know.
Like, if they really did not approve a budget, I'm assuming that.
Yeah, I feel like they would just fund everything back door, you know, some other way.
But I don't know.
I don't know how they could, though, because you can't even take out loans, can you, if you don't pass a budget?
I don't know if you can.
Maybe you can.
No, you can.
Yeah.
I mean, that's.
So you can sell bonds.
Yeah.
I mean, the Federal Reserve was doing all sorts of shit last year that wasn't voted for by Congress.
I mean, they were buying municipal bonds.
They were buying individual corporate bonds.
And none of that was being voted on in Congress.
That wasn't in the budget.
It was a private bank.
Yeah.
Sort of half private.
It is.
It is private.
I mean, the only federal aspect of it is that the chairman is appointed.
Yeah.
But it's not like a, it's not a, it's called the Federal Reserve, so it sounds like it's part of the federal government, but it is a, it is a private bank.
They don't have constitutionally.
They don't have reserves.
Not anymore.
It doesn't really make any sense.
Right.
And they don't have any reserves anymore.
And constitutionally speaking, the government is only supposed to coin money using gold and silver.
Right.
And, you know, I think that's why the Federal Reserve is this private entity as a strategy for the government to be able to use fiat without violating the Constitution.
They basically outsource the constitutional violation.
But our founding fathers were, I believe, anti-fiat, just generally speaking, in terms of not backed currency is what I mean when I say fiat.
Well, it's funny.
You know, Andrew Jackson, who so is he off the new $20 bill?
I haven't even noticed.
I feel like he's still on there.
He's still on there.
He's my boy.
I love Andrew Jackson.
But it's so funny because everyone was freaking out that they were going to try to take him off.
And I was like, Andrew Jackson would not want to be on the $20 bill.
Andrew Jackson.
He hated the banks.
Even the idea of a certificate, he hated.
He didn't want a Federal Reserve note if it was backed by gold.
He thought that was bullshit.
It's just kind of funny seeing everyone clutch their pearls about him possibly being taken off a bill that he definitely would never want to be on himself.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And it's funny how we get hung up on stupid shit.
Like we get hung up on, for example, like the Confederate statues.
It's like, look, if some town has a city council that wants to remove a statue and they vote on it and they're elected by the community in that town, it's like, let them take their statue down.
Like, you know, I don't know.
I personally would vote to keep these statues up because I appreciate the history.
I think they're pretty.
I think that in most cases, they're beautiful work.
Sometimes they're kind of shitty looking.
It depends where you go.
But I think they're neat.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with respecting brave men who disagreed.
And I know that's a very controversial thing to say today because it's so obvious to us culturally how terrible racism is and how unjust slavery is.
But I don't believe that you can define people by the worst things about them or you should.
And just because these people were on the wrong side of history regarding race doesn't mean that they shouldn't be admired for, I don't know, taking a can into the leg to save somebody in a battle, right?
Like they, you know, they did things that were noble.
People are complicated.
And, you know, so if a community wants to take them down, I'm fine with that.
But I don't know.
I just think like with things like, you know, are they going to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill instead of Andrew Jackson or they're taking these statues down?
i'm like you know what like maybe we should be worried about other shit like yeah you know our like corporate income tax going from 26 to 40 like that would suck a lot more than a statue i've never seen yeah yeah i mean if you look throughout i don't know just your lifetime um you know think of every time that there's some horrible scheme going on behind the scenes what they use to distract us with it's always something like harriet
tubman going on the 20 bill or you know banning dr seuss or satanic shoes or you know something like that Colin Kaepernick kneeling at the Super Bowl.
I mean, just who cares?
You know, like that, that's the type of stuff that they try to get us all worked up about.
And, you know, it's distracting us from actual problems.
Sometimes they're related.
You know, it's so, you know, we, you know, we have people getting killed by the police.
So what do we do?
We get rid of Aunt Jemima's syrup because it's racist.
And then we don't do anything about qualified immunity or civil asset forfeiture or the militarization of the police or such a good point, man.
You know, no knock raids, nothing.
Just absolutely.
We acknowledge the issue in like a completely neutered way.
It's like, oh, we're making social progress because we removed this offensive image from a syrup container.
It's like, oh, wow, I'm sure you saved a lot of black people's lives doing that.
Good job.
Right.
Oh, that's such, that's such a good point.
We always, we never want to actually make the hard decisions necessary in order to solve difficult problems.
Like, because the thing is, like, I believe that most of our problems are incredibly complicated, especially in the sense that solving them is painful.
Even if it's simple, what we need to do, it's still painful for like constituents.
So for example, you know, one thing that I've been really advocating recently, particularly the last 12 months, is I don't think that we should be doing any business with China at all as long as the CCP is in power.
I think it's a global terrorist organization.
I don't think that we should be funding it with our business.
And that would be an incredibly painful thing for us to stop doing, especially if we stop doing it instantly, because we don't produce anything here from a manufacturing standpoint, especially not to the extent that we rely on China for importing our goods.
And so, you know, like even if that, even if that solution is simple on paper, there's no way for a politician to possibly navigate actually making something like that happen in the first place, especially not being able to stay in power if they accomplish it, you know?
Yeah.
Yeah, because I don't even think that is the solution.
I think the solution is we got to change how we're doing things here in the United States.
You know, I mean, we've become so complacent, so lazy, so over-regulated.
Yeah, it's going to be a lot of work to get ourselves back on track.
And there are problems that aren't within your and my control.
But at the same time, Americans as people have gotten very lazy and, you know, they don't want to, they don't want to work anymore.
They don't want to have to learn anything new.
They want everything presented to them on a silver platter, where your average Chinese citizen is a completely different type of person.
You know, they're very motivated.
They're working very hard all the time.
You know, and same with like Mexican immigrants who come here.
I've worked with Mexican immigrants on roofing.
They bust ass.
What's that?
They bust ass.
Yeah.
I mean, dude, it's embarrassing.
You know, this whole narrative that they're getting hired for two cents a day.
I mean, I was working at a roofing company where they're starting pay at $18 an hour and they couldn't get any Americans to come work.
So, hey, there are these Mexican immigrants.
We'll hire them.
And they're sending half their money back home.
Yeah, a lot has got to change culturally in the United States for us to have a fighting chance.
And it's not just government policy.
It's initiative and work ethic and determination because we frankly just don't have anymore, have any anymore.
We've just become a consumerist society that wants everything created for us.
Yeah, I agree with that.
But I also think that that is a problem that is very quickly solved.
So like I can example would be, I don't know, there's countless movies where there's like a situation where, I don't know, maybe like a disaster happens and there's like one spoiled person and the whole first half of the movie, they're like unbearable to deal with because it's like, why are you being such a brat in this terrible situation?
And then by the second half of the movie, they're actually, they like realize their woe, you know, and they start busting ass.
So like one example of that would be Lost the TV series.
I don't know if you ever watched that, but there was like the blonde girl that was sort of high maintenance and they crashed on this island and she's like tanning on this island while people are like tending each other's wounds and trying to find food.
And, you know, by the end of the series, she totally changed.
And my point is, I think that when things get really tough in a real way that people feel, you know, there'll be like a little bit of outrage behavior, sort of like we've seen in the last 12 months.
But I do think that people do eventually, you know, sort of pull their pants up and get to work.
Yeah.
Within a single generation, too.
I don't think it has to be like the next generation that has to fix it.
I think it can happen.
Because look, I mean, they went from the 20s to the 30s, right?
With the Great Depression.
Like everybody was living high in the 20s.
It was like the roaring 20s, right?
And, you know, then the economy crashed and you got people that are hopping on trains to find work from town to town and sleeping in the hay.
You know, that's a big change.
So I don't know.
I'm optimistic that Americans still have it in them, but I do think I agree with you that it's not presenting itself.
I just, I think it's dormant, though.
I think that we are a sleeping giant.
Yeah, I hope so, man.
I mean, even though Generation Z is really, really dumb and aggravating and lazy, you know, a lot of this blame goes on the baby boomers.
You know, they tend to be pretty judgmental toward the younger kids, but a lot of the policies that they voted for and things that they did are why we are where we are.
You know, I mean, the Department of Education came around from them.
You know, the massive debt that we've gotten into, you know, college loans, getting people in tens of thousands of dollars of debt.
I mean, it all started with the baby boomers, and now they're the ones who are kind of sitting back, judging everybody else for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps.
So it's not completely fair to just be like, wow, these kids all suck because they've been brought into this world at a time when that was what was acceptable.
And then, you know, they've got all these problems that they didn't really create that they have no idea how to deal with.
So I don't blame them 100% or, you know, get angry at them necessarily.
But at the same time, it's like the baby boomers aren't going to get us out of this.
You know, it's going to be, it's going to be us.
It's going to be the millennials, the Gen Z, Gen X. We're going to have to really, you know, come together and pull ourselves out of this.
And it's not going to be easy.
It's going to be hard.
Yeah.
I, and I just feel like, I feel like maybe we haven't gotten to a point where we feel it enough yet.
Like, obviously, this past year was difficult for everyone from a psychological point of view.
Like, there were so many drastic changes and rules, but like nobody actually lost their house or, you know, people lost their jobs, I guess, but the unemployment benefits were so steep that people were kind of able to weather the storm.
Like, I just feel like the kind of pain that we felt this past year was a very easily surmountable psychological pain, not like a real sort of anxiety about how the hell am I going to feed my kid.
Like people felt in the 30s.
Like people were actually worried about what my grandmother grew up in the Depression in Kansas in the Dust Bowl.
And she said that she was only allowed to wear shoes on Sunday to church so that she wouldn't wear them out.
You know, like, I can't imagine being that poor.
And her father had been a wealthy man with a townhome and a farm.
And when the stock market crashed, they had to sell the townhouse and move out of Topeka into the farmhouse and live off of the farm for the first time.
So they were like urban people that happened to have a farm and they actually had to go back to the farm and like raise chickens and do all that bullshit.
And I just feel like it's going to take, we're going to have to get to that point where people are like knocking on houses door to door, like, hey, do you need any maintenance on your house?
Like almost like a desperate level before there's like a real wake up and change.
Because if you look at the Third Reich, for example, if you look at what happened and how they came to power, the unemployment rate in Germany at that time was about 30%.
Okay.
And when you have an unemployment rate that high, it's not because the people suck.
Okay.
So, you know, maybe that could explain 3% or 5% unemployment.
You know, 5%, I think, is when you're kind of getting in the realm of, all right, what's going on?
But you could really explain like maybe one out of 20 people don't have a job because of circumstances or whatever.
That's, you know, unrelated to the environment.
Right.
Right.
But when you have unemployment that's 30%, that means that you have people with average high IQs, no mental illness, no drug addiction that are waking up every morning and looking all day for how they can be productive and not finding anything for months, right?
And we haven't seen that in America really since like the 30s, okay?
And when things get that wonky where normal, functioning, good people are not able to find any opportunity, then they start identifying enemies, right?
And obviously the Germans pinned it on the Jews.
And I don't know who it's going to get pinned on in the United States.
You know, people say, oh, it's going to be the white privileged class.
It's like, you know, it's always a minority, not necessarily racial minority, but it's always someone who's outnumbered, right?
Like whatever class.
So I have a very hard time believing that 60% of the population, which is white, is going to be, you know, like sent into camps by 40% of the population.
It's like maybe if we were 15% of the population, that kind of thing would happen.
But it's going to be very interesting to see what enemy, who we blame when things get really bad as a society, because it'll almost certainly be wrong who gets blamed, but like not totally wrong, but like too wrong for it to be justified.
But whoever gets blamed is really going to get fucked.
However, when you find a common enemy, it unites everyone else and it can be healthy.
So like internally during World War II, Germany did quite well.
Like the middle class improved.
They were doing well until, you know, Hitler got a little bit too ambitious and decided to invade Russia in the winter instead of having a beer and collecting the interest.
And, you know, I'm optimistic that great tragedy will bring great unity in this country.
I'm just very worried about who's going to be falsely prosecuted as the culprit.
Yeah, it seems like there's a pretty...
Sorry that I ranted there.
I just, you know, there does seem to be a really even split in this country.
You know, I mean, or it seems to be in thirds, though, not really in half.
I mean, it seems like there's a third of the people that don't really care.
And then a third on each side hates the opposing side.
And everyone in the middle is just kind of like, oh my God, I don't really care.
Just stop hating each other.
But if you can't feed your kid, you don't give a fuck about whether or not CRT is in the school.
Like, you know what I mean?
Everybody's going to drop it on both sides.
Yeah.
I mean, I feel like the minorities that are, it's not really a minority on one side, I guess, but the demographics that they're going after, the establishment left is demonizing Trump supporters, you know, and, you know, extreme Trump supporters or whatever adjective you want to put on it, as though they're domestic terrorists.
That's where I've seen a lot of marginalization going on.
And then where I saw it from the right establishment in the past has been with Mexican immigrants, you know, people who are here legally, but or who came here illegally and are working or whatever.
Like that was where I saw it from them.
You know, in 2016, there was all this talk from the Republicans that really bugged me about immigrants.
And the reason it bugged me is the point you were just making out there a little while ago that you're blaming the wrong culprit.
Mexican immigrants are not why our economy is in shambles.
They're not why we're $30 trillion in debt.
It was just a complete scapegoat.
So it really bugged me.
And they're not taking the jobs that Native Americans want to do.
And I don't mean Native Americans as Indians, but I think Native Americans is people who were born here.
Right.
So like they're coming over here and they're busting their ass on like on roots.
I can't remember the last time I saw a white dude working on a roof.
And it's not because they can't get the job.
It's because they don't want to, like you said, they don't want to work for $18 an hour.
So yeah, I think what I think everyone was afraid that the Mexicans were going to steal their jobs.
And then they realized that the Mexicans were actually going to make their life less expensive because they're doing all the jobs that nobody wants to do.
Yeah.
So, I mean, that was a that was one time where I really saw like blatant demonization of a class that didn't deserve it.
And lately it's been with, you know, Trump supporters that they're domestic terrorists and they're threatening our way of life.
And I mean, that's just absolutely ridiculous.
So I don't know if it'll be one of those groups.
I don't know if it'll just be something completely different.
I don't know if it'll be an even split and they are going to realize they don't even have to blame one demographic.
You can just keep everybody hating each other and then you can just reap the benefits of it because no one's paying attention to the true culprit.
I don't know how it's all going to play out.
I mean, I didn't think that everything that's happened over the last year was ever going to happen.
So I don't know, man.
I'm done trying to predict the future as far as what political events are going to happen.
I feel like it's a pretty open book and it just really depends on what mindsets people start taking on now.
Because I think as you were pointing to with the Third Reich, hardship, it can lead to unity, but it also leads to extremity.
People start turning radicalism.
That's why Bernie Sanders, even though I don't actually think he is a radical, his message was radical.
And same with Trump.
He wasn't a radical either, but his message was kind of radical when he ran for president.
The reason people are turning to that type of stuff is because the establishment is radical.
Even though they're the center, what they stand for is endless wars, corporate bailouts, mass incarceration, and nobody wants that.
They're like, okay, if this is moderate, I want either extreme.
And so now you've got the fringe right and the fringe left and the establishment.
And I think libertarianism is actually the real center.
It's what most people should want.
I mean, the problem is they don't want it because people still hold so firmly onto control.
They want to control other people or have someone controlling them.
If they could let that go, they would realize that libertarianism is kind of the center because you're letting people live how they want.
It's the only ideology that overlaps right and left and allows for coexistence.
But, you know, we're a long way from people realizing that.
So right now, the fight is to tell them like, hey, hey, hey, you know, extremity isn't actually good.
The problem is that what you've been told is moderate is actually extreme and ridiculous.
Yeah.
I have such mixed feelings about that because I agree with you that there's a lot of wisdom in moderation and that there's a lot of irrational radicalization that's going on.
But at the same extent, I'm an objectivist in the true sense of the term that I think things are black and white, even in terms of policies.
I think that you should have policies that are based off of a philosophy that's derived in reason, which is man's tool to perceive reality.
That this is how we perceive reality and everything that we do should be based on reason and what is real and objective and true so that we can have laws and policies in place that most naturally harmonize or align with how shit actually works in the universe because that's like the only thing that that's the only way that's sustainable and just.
And so when you have sort of like an objective foundation like that of print like that principle, that objective foundational principle itself, then you can really start making arguments about policies and a way that you can't if you're like a postmodernist subjectivist person who just sort of has like a like an intuition or a whim about what they think is right.
So for example, like, you know, intuitively, people are like, of course, women should be able to get like an abortion.
Like if she doesn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't have a baby.
Like intuitively, that makes sense.
Like you can't see the baby yet.
Like nobody's held the baby.
You don't think of it as like a human being yet, right?
Like absolutely that makes sense intuitively.
If you think about it and you're like, wait, like, all right, if we are born with inalienable rights, like when do we get those rights?
Is it actually at the moment of birth?
Is there some sort of theological instolment that occurs where the soul goes into the fetus?
Like the Catholics say after 40 days, right?
And if we're, and if we believe in the separation of church and state, then do we just make an arbitrary timeline in order to determine where we're comfortable drawing the line?
And like, that's why it's complicated.
And so I think things seem like that moderation is the key or that gray areas are the key are the answer.
But I often think that gray areas aren't really gray areas.
They are just unsolved problems.
You know, it's like a cluster of unsolved problems.
And if we could just, if we could just hash through it, we would get there.
And I guess what my ultimate point was, is that maybe some things that seem radical aren't actually radical.
They're just correct.
And as a society, we are radically incorrect.
You know what I mean?
Like if you're, if you're so off base, then what you, then what you actually need to do seems radical.
Yeah, well, that's actually kind of what I was saying.
Like the actual correct, maybe I should just use a different word than moderate, but the actual correct answer is, you know, it seems radical, but it's not what the radical left or the radical right are pushing for.
Their ideas, I think, actually are radical and wrong.
But what the center, the establishment center has presented as correct is also extremely wrong.
So people will go looking to the right or the left when the solution really is right there.
You know, there are some pretty obvious answers to these questions that nobody's entertaining because they're just going for one of those three extremities, whatever the establishment's pushing or what the crazy right or crazy left are pushing.
And I think the job of libertarians is to say, hey, this really isn't that hard.
You know, we should not be fighting all these wars.
We shouldn't incarcerate people for something they put in their body.
You know, the police shouldn't be able to steal money from you without accusing you of a crime.
The government shouldn't be able to seize property from you without a warrant.
know just down the list and if people basically all the that we already wrote down that we just don't follow anymore if Yeah, exactly.
And if people actually hear it and think about it, it might make more sense to them.
But they've been so propagandized with this idea of control that they either go for the establishment, which definitely believes in control, and then the crazy right and the crazy left also believe in control.
I wanted to ask you, what do you think it means to be radically right wing?
So radically right wing at this point, I mean, because these terms shift all the time, but extremely nationalist, extremely pro-law enforcement, extremely pro-military, extremely anti-immigration, anti-free trade, anti-win to say free trade, do you mean domestic free trade or do you mean international free trade?
International, like, you know, keep sanctions high on Cuba, keep sanctioning Iran, all that type of stuff.
You know, extreme cultural values through legislation, like being against ending the war on drugs, being against not so much gay marriage anymore.
I feel like that's an issue that's just died.
Dude, I had a dude on the podcast that was adamant about a constitutional amendment to make gay marriage illegal.
Okay.
So, I mean, it definitely.
I couldn't believe it.
I hadn't heard anything like that in 15 years.
So, I mean, I was like, what?
Are you serious?
You're going to die on that hill?
And then you've got people like Nick Fuentes.
That's pretty gay, dude.
Yeah, exactly.
People like Nick Fuentes who are considered the radical right, but they deviate.
Like he's not very pro-law enforcement.
He's pretty anti-Israel.
He's pretty anti-war.
So, I mean, it's weird.
You don't really know where it's going to land.
Speaking of gay, do you think that Fuentes is a closet case?
I don't think it's even.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Yeah, no, I think he, yeah, I think he probably is.
I think it's kind of awkward.
Yeah.
Does he know that?
Or is he in denial?
Or do you think that he knows it?
I've not asked him, so I don't know.
Maybe I'll have to get him on the show.
Have you ever talked to him?
No, he blocked me on Twitter when he still had an account.
Let's get him on the on the four horsemen.
Yeah, I would, man, I would do that.
I'd get canceled so hard, but I don't really care.
I would love that.
Well, just don't host it on YouTube for one episode.
Just do it like on a different platform for just one episode.
Yeah, or just like on my alternate channel or something.
I don't know.
I could, I could do, we could figure something out.
I actually have, I have thought of that.
The thought has crossed my mind that he'd be good for the four horsemen.
You know, he's probably cool one-on-one.
He does not like Ryan Dawson, though.
Ryan Dawson ate his lunch in the one debate they did.
And is that, is that like, can you find that anywhere, that debate?
You can find parts of it.
I'll send you what's left of it.
There's like a 15-minute clip out of it, and it's just embarrassing to watch.
Please do.
I would love to see that.
Yeah.
But yeah, I mean, I would talk to anyone.
You know, I would have people that I think are evil on my show.
Like if Billy Crystal wanted to come on my show for some reason, I'd have him on and I'd tell him what a piece of shit I think he is and all the stuff I disagree with him on.
Or if AOC wanted to come on my show, I don't care.
Sure.
I mean, as long as I think it could be an interesting conversation, then I would entertain it.
I mean, if you're a nobody who I don't want to bring attention to because I think you're an idiot, then I'm not going to have you on my show.
But pretty much any other scenario, I'd be interested in having a conversation.
Yeah.
Well, and I think there's a big difference too between trying to talk to somebody who's just like fucking lying versus somebody you just you disagree with.
So like one of the things I struggle with with AOC is I tend to think that she's just like making shit up because she knows it works for Instagram.
Yeah.
I could be I could be totally off base about that, but that's just sort of my intuition about her.
But I'd be happy to debate somebody who like earnestly disagreed with me about tax rates.
So I don't know.
It's just hard to tell these days.
What I think Ryan Dawson needs to do is I think he needs to sort of take like a Bill Hicks approach where he tours and does stand up.
And I swear to God.
All he does is just like walk right through all this shit and rant like he does because it is funny and it is true.
And if he does it as a comic, they can't de-platform him.
Right.
Yeah, he actually gave me the hint of putting all those four horsemen episodes in the comedy category on YouTube so that they're less likely to get removed.
Did it work for him?
No.
He's been banned off of everything.
Everything.
I can't believe he got banned off Coinbase.
What the fuck?
Coinbase, AOL.
Can he have a bank account?
Not in the United States.
He has one bank account on an Indian reservation in the United States, but other than that, he can't use any banks.
Why?
He just say anti-Zionist stuff.
Anti-Zionist stuff.
Do you know what happened specifically?
Was he dropping M-bombs?
Like, what the hell did he do?
No, I mean, it's just been over the years.
It's happened on all sorts of different places.
But the other thing is he'll have copycat accounts that will say really bad stuff purposefully.
Oh, and he gets pinned.
And then he gets pinned.
That happened pretty early on.
Like, I forget.
It was on MySpace or something.
I forget what social media platform it was, but people made like five different accounts that were the same picture and the ID number was just like one number off.
And they would say obscene things and get him removed that way.
Yeah.
That's terrible.
Yeah.
Well, he's figured it out.
Japan seems to love him, huh?
Yeah.
I'm sure he sticks out there quite a bit.
But yeah, I mean, I want to get him over here for some event.
Like if, you know, this is what libertarians suck at.
All their events are so boring.
Like, they should have all that remains because Phil LeBont, he's a friend of mine.
He's, you know, he's the lead singer.
He's a libertarian.
Have, what's his name there?
What's the other guy?
Eric July, you know, like have him do a concert or something.
Like have Ryan Dawson fly over from Japan and do some speech or something.
We can do like the live four horsemen at some event.
I don't know.
Just like make it interesting.
Make people want to come.
Make people laugh.
We're just so crisp and dry and boring and rich.
We need our own Burning Man, dude.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, that's kind of what Porkfest is, but we need with the bands and panels, though.
So it's like South by Southwest meets Burning Man and anybody can go, but you have to become a registered member of the party in order to be welcome.
So you have to be like a card-carrying member of the party to go.
So everybody will join the party for a month or whatever to go.
And then you waltz in, all the panels are going on, all the partying is going on.
That would be cool.
And it would draw so much attention to the movement.
You know, you have the stand-up comics go through.
Like, that would be easy to organize, especially like in Texas or something where there's like so much open land that it would be easy to put together like a like a Woodstock type thing here.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, I mean we should really do that.
We should be doing stuff like that.
We could get the money to do that.
No problem, dude.
You know how people would throw down?
You know how many entertainers would agree to do it for free?
Oh, yeah.
And Joe Rogan, people like that would be all about this type of thing.
This is why I kind of like the Mises caucus takeover thing because they're more into that type of messaging, more into that style.
The old guard is just so boring and pearl clutching and idiotic and thinking that they're going to.
Yeah, but we're libertarians.
We don't need their permission, bro.
Yeah, exactly.
So I mean, things are changing.
I want to see more of those types of things being done and trying to actually appeal to the public that we're trying to convert to libertarianism, you know, try to be funny.
Yeah.
I mean, if we had our own George Carlin, you know, who was a libertarian just out there, you know, just eviscerating the warfare state and that could be Dawson.
It could.
Yeah, I know.
I mean, it's the type of, that's the type of thing we need.
We don't need more boring old establishment types.
We need young, energetic, exciting zeitgeists who know what the people want to see and what they want to hear.
We need to buy like the plot that Waco was the Waco Branch Davidians was on and do it there.
And we need to call it Galt's Gulch.
And it's like an annual thing, right?
And, oh, dude, it would be so awesome.
And we could make it so that when you walk into the event, you like deposit money and it's got like its own crypto just for the event that works, you know, like tokens.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah.
So the whole thing is like this, its own currency, sort of like Galt's Gulch was, but you could, oh, dude, it could be so cool.
And it would be so easy to raise the money to do it.
Oh, man.
I think that, I think that's what it is.
I think that we need to just start doing, like, like I said, like, like we were talking about earlier, like radical things, right?
So, so the Libertarian Party is sort of in like a desperate, vulnerable place right now, right?
With there's a lot of internal turmoil that's happened, but there's a lot of good things that are happening too.
And I feel like if some radical decisions were made with significant enough consensus, then some big outcomes could play out.
So I don't know, like doing stuff like that would be just tremendous.
And like we could do it in such a badass way that it's not just like one show or we could make it like a weekend or a week or I don't know.
I just, I, yeah, I think events like that would be huge.
You could live stream the whole thing for free.
Oh, dude, it could be so cool.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, that would be pretty cool.
I mean, that's how cultural battles are won.
You know, that's why we're, that's why we are where we are today because media has pushed a certain narrative.
The left has been really good because they do a lot of those types of things.
You know, they've got Hollywood.
They've got, you know, a lot of the music festivals, like all that type of stuff.
It's all culturally left.
So we need to do the same thing.
We need to start inserting libertarianism into the culture because I feel like we're so obsessed with legislation and we're not working on changing people's minds.
And when I say culture, I don't mean right or left because I don't think libertarianism culturally should be right or left.
I think it should be a choice.
What we need to get people to understand is that power corrupts and control is not a good thing.
You don't need to control other people.
You need to control yourself.
Control yourself, make yourself better.
You know, that's the goal.
So if we can somehow make that a popular message, that's how we win.
And it's not a popular message right now.
I mean, people think the exact opposite.
So, Reid, where can everybody find you?
Find me at the Naturalist Capitalist on YouTube.
And then on Twitter, I am Reid Coverdale.
Not Coverdale.
Coverdale.
I guess you can find me on Facebook.
I'm the Naturalist Capitalist on Facebook.
And then I'm also Reed Coverdale on Instagram.
I don't do much there.
And then also my podcasts are uploaded to Anchor probably a week after they come out on YouTube.
I get them up there so you can get the audio only version to fetch your speed.
But yeah, most importantly, subscribe to me on YouTube.
Follow me on Twitter.
That's where you'll see me the most.
And I've got some interesting interviews coming up.
I'm actually going on Bridget Fetisse's show next week.
I saw that.
Congratulations.
So that'll be cool.
And then I'm working on getting Abby Martin on the show.
Tulsi Gabbard is going to be coming on the show sometime soon.
And we'll see, Matt Kibby and maybe Peter Schiff.
That one's still working on that one.
How'd you get in touch with how'd you get in touch with Tulsi?
Did you just DM her?
I actually, I campaigned for her on the primary.
So I already knew her.
So I just got in touch with her through venues that I already had.
Cool.
I accidentally sent Clint the link to join the stream.
He's like, what is this for?
Oh, I'm just like saying the wrong link.
Sorry, bro.
But thanks so much for coming on, man.
It was a real joy to have you.
And we'll do it again sometime.
I really love being on your show.
You have a great podcast.
It's super impressive what you've done and what you continue to do.
And I will continue to watch and follow.
And I hope that all my listeners will do the same and all your listeners will start following me.
