Today on the Matt Walsh Show: People fear that staying inside for a few weeks, educating their own kids, and eating dinner at home will destroy our economy. Perhaps it will, but what does that say about our system? Is it time to rethink some things on a fundamental level? Also, Five Headlines, including Tom Brady leaving the Patriots to deflate footballs elsewhere. And Bernie Sanders supporters are whining about voter suppression. But is voter suppression real? And if it is, is it bad?
Check out The Cold War: What We Saw, a new podcast written and presented by Bill Whittle at https://www.dailywire.com/coldwar. In Part 1 we peel back the layers of mystery cloaking the Terror state run by the Kremlin, and watch as America takes its first small steps onto the stage of world leadership.
If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/Walsh
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Patrick's Day in many ways, everything is shutting down.
They're even shutting down the liquor stores on St.
Patrick's Day, which is sacrilege.
But with everything shutting down, it's expected that there will be a huge hit to the economy, of course.
I want to ask the question, why should it be so harmful to our society and our economy that people are staying home, spending time with their families, spending time with their kids, cooking their own meals, educating their own kids, and so on?
It is harmful to our economy, yes, I don't deny that, but isn't that perhaps an indication that there's a fundamental problem with the way that our system is set up?
That those sorts of very healthy activities have to be discouraged?
So we'll talk about that. Also, five headlines including Tom Brady leaving New England to deflate footballs
elsewhere in the country and Bernie supporters are complaining
because that's what they do best. In this case, they're complaining about voter suppression
saying that voter suppression is what has caused Bernie Sanders to not do so well in the primaries.
But what is voter suppression?
Is it actually happening?
And if it is actually happening, is it really a bad thing?
I say, no, it's not.
But we'll discuss that today on the Matt Wall Show.
All of that coming up.
But first, let's talk about our dear friends over at Rock Auto.
You know, cars these days are more complicated than they've ever been, and what that means is that there's more.
It's like in your phone.
It used to be a phone was just a thing you pick up and you use it to talk to somebody else.
That used to be all a phone could do.
Kids back in the day, that's what it was.
Well, the great thing about that is that there were fewer things that could break in your phone, because all it did was the one thing.
Sort of like cars now.
There's so many things going on, so many elements to them, that there are many things that can break.
And then what do you do when something breaks?
Well, you go to rockauto.com.
It's so much easier than walking into a store and having someone demand quick answers to things like, is your Odyssey an LX or an EX and things like that.
You might not know the answer to right off the top of your head and then you look stupid as well on top of it and that's no good.
That's why you want to go to rockauto.com.
The catalog is unique.
Remarkably easy to navigate.
All your questions are answered.
Everything is easy enough for even an idiot like myself to be able to navigate.
rockauto.com has everything you need from engine control modules and brake parts to tail lamps.
Whatever you need, they have it when you go to rockauto.com.
rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to rockauto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car, truck, right?
Walsh in there.
How did you hear about us, Box?
So that they know that we sent you.
All right, so there's no question that the steps being taken by the federal and state authorities right now to contain the coronavirus are extraordinary.
Schools are closed.
Businesses are shut down.
Now the federal government has issued guidelines calling for everybody in the country to stay inside as much as they can, avoid gatherings of over 10 people for the next 15 days, at least.
We'll talk more about that in the headlines section.
And it may well be true that these measures will have a devastating effect on the economy for years to come.
It may also be true that they're necessary to prevent a catastrophic loss of life.
It may be true that our choice right now is between potentially destroying our economic system or potentially destroying our healthcare system, because it's not just about the mortality rate, it's also a matter of The capacities of our hospitals, if everybody becomes infected in one big mass, and then you've got a 10% hospitalization rate, where are those people going to go?
You know, it could lead to the breakdown of the healthcare system like we're seeing in Italy and other places.
So, all of these things are being weighed.
Whatever the case, and however we feel about it, President Trump has indicated that it may actually be longer than 15 days, much longer, before things can return to normal.
But here's a question that I don't see very many people asking.
And that is this.
Should everything return to normal?
Do we actually want things to return to normal?
Now, in order to answer that question, I think we have to first figure out why the temporary closure of schools and restaurants and other businesses has the potential to cause such havoc in the first place.
For most of us, I think maybe to someone who's like an alien from outer space who sees this going on and sees that people have to stay inside for a few weeks, and then if they were told that this alone is going to destroy society and destroy the economy, it might not be so obvious why that should be the case.
For most of us, the self-quarantine being observed across the country, including in my own house, involves what?
In some places, it's more extreme than this.
But for most of us, it involves basically spending more time with our families, making fewer unnecessary purchases, teaching our kids at home rather than sending them off to government buildings for the majority of the day, eating meals that we cook in our kitchen rather than eating fast food, Now, these practices, it is feared, will wreak untold destruction.
But these practices are also objectively good and healthy.
And while they have the potential to ravage our economy, they also have the potential to make people happier and to give them more meaningful lives.
Now, perhaps it's worth considering whether it is good That good things, like frugality and self-sufficiency, should be so bad for our country.
And if it's not good, that good things are bad now, then maybe we should next consider whether there's a better way to set up a society.
A way that will not cause us to break out into hives and panic at the thought of millions of families eating dinner in their own dining rooms.
Because that's what's going on right now.
People are saying, well, we can't have all these people eating at home!
The restaurants will go down.
There'll be unemployment.
Which is true.
I'm not minimizing the potential human cost that might be felt here.
People will lose their jobs.
Working parents will have to quit their jobs or spend exorbitant amounts of money of their, you know, exorbitant amounts of their income, which they really need right now, especially now, on daycare to accommodate the children who are no longer being, going to school all day.
Businesses will close.
Nobody would suggest that these things are, in and of themselves, anything less than terrible hardships.
Nobody's saying that these things, in and of themselves, are good.
But these hardships, this is my point, these hardships are not ultimately the result of a virus or of a government shutdown.
At bottom, they're the result of the way that we have chosen to structure society.
Our economy, our lifestyles are centered around and have been for a long time, but have not always been throughout human history, but for us have been for a long time structured around, centered around, Dependent upon people buying lots of stuff, wasting almost every penny they earn as soon as they earn it.
The vast majority of Americans, according to a recent study I read, the vast majority of Americans spend, you know, about 90% of their paycheck almost as soon as they get it.
But that's, we need to do that in order for the economy to work.
So it's centered around that, wasting all your money, sending your kids off to giant facilities to be taught by government employees, not being self-sufficient, not spending very much time at home.
For the system to work, it is imperative that those who do radical things like save money, cook meals from scratch, even grow and raise their own food, educate their own children, it is imperative that they remain in a small minority.
Because if suddenly everybody starts doing those kinds of things, or most of those things, the system can't sustain itself.
And that's what we're facing right now, is that suddenly everybody's doing that all at once.
And the system can't sustain itself.
What does that tell you about the system?
I think when this is all past us, we're going to be urged to run out and save the system, By going on spending sprees at Target and Best Buy, engorging ourselves on restaurant food and fast food, and shoving our kids back into their chairs behind their desks in their classrooms in the government buildings with 32 other students in the same classroom, ushering mothers back into the workforce so that they can fulfill their sacred duties as cogs in the economic machine.
And basically reverting back to a state of helplessness and dependence as a people.
Now, after a while, it will be hoped, things will level off, things will stabilize.
That is, until there's another national emergency that we will again be totally unprepared for and ill-equipped to handle because we refuse to make any adjustments to the way of life that left us so vulnerable and panic-prone in the first place.
What if There's another way of living.
Well, we know there's other ways of living.
The way we live now is modern.
It's new.
It hasn't always been this way.
It doesn't always have to be this way.
And I shouldn't have to stipulate this, but I feel like I have to.
This is not a pitch for socialism.
It's not like there are only two options.
Socialism or our consumerist culture.
Those are not the only two options.
There are a lot of other options.
This is not a pitch for socialism at all.
That is manifestly the wrong answer.
But what if there is another way besides the way we live now?
And I don't say this just because of the coronavirus.
It's not like the coronavirus happened and all of a sudden I'm rethinking the way society is structured.
I've always been saying this.
Now, our inability to fend for ourselves in a time of crisis is a pretty big concern.
I see people online worried, you know, that especially young people are practically going to starve to death because they can't order out, or they can't go to a restaurant.
And I understand the concern.
I don't think they're actually going to starve, but I understand because there are a lot of young people especially who just don't know how to... The idea of them making their own meals For an extended period of time is just bewildering to them.
They can't even imagine doing it.
But I'd be saying this regardless of any pandemic.
Because it seems like our sky-high rates of suicide, drug abuse, depression...
The fact that we spend so many hours of each day, ten hours a day I think the latest study says, mindlessly staring at glowing screens rather than living a real human life, all of these are indications that the current system may make us into relatively comfortable and wealthy people, but it is not making us into happy and well-adjusted and well-prepared people.
So maybe this crisis can be a catalyst for fundamental changes to the way that we live, how we prioritize things, And those changes, of course, would have to be gradual.
But I think they'd be worth it.
And if we set out to make them, we might find that the next time we have to stay in our homes for a few weeks, we don't have to be so panicked about it.
This is... Right now, the way that our free market economy works is that it is entirely consumerist.
That your most important duty is to be a consumer and to buy stuff.
Remember after 9-11, a lot of people were making fun of George Bush because he came out and he said, look, here's the thing you can do, go out and buy stuff.
And in fact, he said that several times throughout his presidency.
That was a common theme he went back to, go buy stuff.
Well, it does seem pretty absurd that in an international emergency, you're saying our greatest duty right now as Americans is just go buy stuff?
Well, yeah, at least that's with the way the system works now.
That's probably your most important duty, at least to keep, as far as the economy is concerned, as far as our system is concerned.
The most important thing you do is just buy stuff.
On Black Friday, all the people running out, the hordes trampling each other for consumer electronics, they're patriots.
They're keeping these things going.
It doesn't have to be that way, where we have to be dependent No self-sufficiency.
Send our kids out of the home.
You know, depending on government for education, depending on the marketplace for everything we could possibly ever need because we can't make or create or do anything ourselves, doesn't have to be.
That doesn't, that does not have to be the way a free market economy works.
It is the way ours works.
Doesn't have to be.
So maybe that's worth rethinking.
Well, moving on, we'll get to headlines in just a second, but, you know, as we get into spring, and it's a very strange sort of transition into spring now, but a lot of people still doing spring cleaning and going through and getting rid of old things.
Well, you know, part of the problem is, at least especially with my wife, Getting rid of old things can be very difficult.
It's for me too.
We're both pack rats, but for her it can be hard because things have sentimental value.
She doesn't want to get rid of that.
She doesn't want to get rid of this.
That's where Legacy Box can really help out.
Legacy Box is a way for you to easily and affordably digitally preserve your past.
It's so easy.
You just pack it up and send it over and then receive perfectly preserved digital copies on a thumb drive, a DVD, or on the cloud.
Whatever it is you have, you know, old VHS tapes or DVDs that are scratched.
Photographs, you know, whatever it is you have.
And we've already done this.
We had a whole box of old things, old memories that were preserved in ways that were certainly not the most efficient and also not easily accessible.
So we sent it over to Legacy Box and we got this wonderful package back.
You know, it's a really easy process to do as well.
Legacy Box is the world's largest digitizer of home movies and photos and has helped over 750,000 families digitally preserve their past.
And you can do this too.
You can get started preserving your past today.
Go to LegacyBox.com slash Walsh to get an incredible 40% off your first order.
It's a hell of a deal.
But today to take advantage of this exclusive offer, send in when you're ready.
So you want to go today, Get the offer, and then when you're ready, you can send in what you need to.
Go to Legacybox.com slash Walsh.
Save 40% off while supplies last.
That's Legacybox.com slash Walsh.
Okay, going to headlines.
Number one, the White House has already referenced, has already referenced, has issued new guidelines recommending that people stay home as much as possible for 15 days, avoid restaurants, avoid bars, avoid gatherings of over 10 people.
So you can't have any more than 10 people in a crowd.
So fortunately for the Biden campaign, they've already said that this means they can continue with their rallies.
They're gonna be safe.
It also means that I can proceed with my birthday party as planned.
Because I'm a loser.
That's the joke.
If you didn't get it.
And it's not really a joke.
But there are still, as far as I can tell, some serious questions.
Like, what happens after the 15 days are up?
Trump said this thing could last until July or later.
If the virus is still spreading rapidly or even more rapidly in 15 days, is the quarantine extended?
I think the answer right now is that nobody really knows, because nobody knows exactly what's going to happen.
We're in uncharted territory, at least in our experience as modern Americans, this is uncharted territory.
By the way, I was also thinking, this 10-person limit is a huge blow to Mormon, Catholic, and Orthodox Jewish families.
You know, because you have way more than 10 people in those houses.
So some tough decisions will have to be made.
I mean, I think every family has to decide on their own.
Maybe you draw straws to figure out who has to go stay in the shed.
In my family, we already do that once a week.
It's just a fun tradition.
But it's something that maybe more families will have to think about.
Number two.
It was announced that all liquor stores in Pennsylvania will close indefinitely.
On St.
Patrick's Day.
They're closing liquor stores on St.
Patrick's Day, which is a mortal sin.
Literal sacrilege.
And I have to say, I don't get this one.
Liquor stores are not places where large groups gather for periods of time.
In fact, most liquor stores you go into, there's like a couple of people there.
Unless it's a special, well, like St.
Patrick's Day.
But aside from special occasions, you know, it's not like in most liquor stores there's hundreds of people all packed in there.
So you come in, you buy what you want, and you leave.
Why would we need to close a place like that?
This seems to be adding unnecessary hardship, and I'm not just talking about hardship for people like myself who want to have access to bourbon, but more importantly, hardship for the people that work in these places.
You're shutting them down, it seems like, for no reason.
Number three, Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York, in the midst of all the shutdowns and social distancing, still went to the gym yesterday, to the, I believe it was the YMCA.
As the common folk are told not to do that, I guess Bill figured, well, I'm not common folk.
I'm the mayor.
I'm important.
And he was asked about it on CNN today.
On a personal note, I want to ask you how you're coping.
You went to the gym yesterday and Twitter lost its mind.
I don't get it, but we'll move on with our lives.
The gyms are all closed now, Allison.
Yes, I know that the gyms are closed.
Is there any sense that you were late personally to get your arms around the sacrifice that's required?
No, everyone is going to have to make sacrifice, but as our health commissioner said yesterday, people still, in new ways, are going to have to get exercise.
Uh, whatever scenario, we're going to tell people how to stay healthy.
It may be a walk, it may be a jog, but obviously socially distanced, until and unless we get to the point of literally ordering everyone indoors.
So this is going in stages.
Somehow people are going to have to stay healthy and sane through this, and it's going to take a lot of improvisation for sure.
Mayor Bill de Blasio, we really appreciate all the information.
We always like seeing you in studio.
Thanks so much.
Thanks so much, Allison.
Really held his feet to the fire, didn't she?
Well done, CNN.
I mean, you really, you made him, you held him accountable there, didn't you?
Bill de Blasio is, and this is kind of a side note, but he's one of those guys who, to me, just seems unappealing and viscerally unlikable in every way.
He's the kind of guy who gets on the elevator with you and you're immediately like, oh geez, man, this guy.
Just based on, just for no particular reason, just something about him.
His demeanor, his aura, his essence.
Which makes you wonder how a man like this ever got elected.
How could anyone have ever seen, much less millions of people, seen this guy and listened to him and thought, I need to vote for that.
That's my guy.
I am going to the polls for that guy.
And it just once again supports my contention that too many people vote.
Too many people have the right to vote, the franchise needs to be drastically limited and reduced, and millions of people need to have their voting rights taken away.
Bill de Blasio, his existence as a public official, as an elected representative, as an elected mayor, I think proves my point there.
And that is my totally sincere and unironic position, by the way.
I really do believe that.
We'll talk more about that in just a second.
Number four, NBCUniversal has announced that four movies currently in theaters will be released for home viewing early.
So I think they're coming out, in fact, this weekend.
These are movies that are in theaters right now.
The Hunt, The Invisible Man, and Emma.
Are all coming out on, will be available on your TV.
I think this is another example, another way that society is probably going to be permanently changed because of this crisis.
And this is a smaller thing, though not entirely insignificant.
But after Universal releases these movies, and they'll be available for 20 bucks for rent, I'm guessing they're going to make a lot of money off of them, and more studios are going to start doing it, and then it's hard for me to see how these studios revert back to the old way, the traditional way, the way that they've been doing it for decades, once all this has passed.
Because I think they're going to discover that they make a lot more money this way.
And I know for me, I imagine I'm probably not alone in this, but there are many times when a movie comes out, I see a preview, and I think, oh, that looks kind of interesting.
I'd watch that.
But I can't get to the theater because we can't find a babysitter, or I just don't feel like going to the theater.
So I don't watch it.
And then when it finally comes out months later, I've already lost interest.
Now, if that movie was available the day it came out for me to watch at home, I probably would have spent the money on the movie.
And I think there are probably a lot of people in that boat.
So we'll see what happens going forward.
Number five, finally, Tom Brady announced today that he's leaving the Patriots.
After, what, 20 seasons, he's going off somewhere else.
He'll be leaving and playing elsewhere.
No word yet on whether he'll bring his own spy cameras and deflated footballs or if they'll provide those for him.
Probably they worked that out in the contractual phase, I'm not sure.
And I guess now's a good time to go back and, as we remember Tom Brady and his career, I think now's a good time to go back and remember.
It was a great moment, a classic moment.
His last official pass as a Patriot.
This will live on forever.
This is his last official act and pass as a Patriot in a Patriots uniform in the playoffs.
Let's go back and remember how that went.
to end it the two of them together yes i mean it's we'll never see this run again jim
rady's pass it's intercepted and returned for a touchdown by logan ryan the former patriots
the memories what great memories I actually like Tom Brady.
I'm just being a jerk.
It's my way.
It's how I show I care.
Now, we'll get to you a very important daily cancellation, but before we do, I want to tell you about Paint Your Life.
This, I really can't recommend this highly enough.
If you haven't done Paint Your Life, I think you should at least go to the website and check it out.
I think it's a great thing.
And what you do, we did this as well.
We found one of our favorite photos of the kids, sent it over to Paint Your Life, and they created out of that a work of art, a beautiful painting.
We have it hanging in our living room.
And every time someone comes in without fail, they stop and they ask about the painting.
And usually I'll start by telling them that I painted it.
And then if they buy that, I'll just go with it.
So sorry, Paint Your Life.
I take away the promotional opportunity there.
Usually they don't buy it, and then I'll admit that it was from Paint Your Life.
If you want to give a truly meaningful gift, you've got to try paintyourlife.com.
Have an original painting of yourself, your children, family, a special place, a cherished pet, whatever it is.
You go, you send it to them.
They create out of it a true painting at a price you can afford.
And this is done by hand.
This is not some computer gimmick.
This isn't some Photoshop thing.
They do it by hand.
They send it back to you.
And here's another thing I really like about PaintYourLife.com is that they're very responsive through the process of painting your picture for you.
They're going to ask you.
They're going to send you Uh, you know, updates on how it's going, ask you how you feel about it.
If you want changes to be made to it, they'll make the changes.
So they're very receptive.
It's very affordable.
It's a beautiful painting.
No reason not to do it.
Right now as a limited time offer, get 30% off your painting.
That's right.
30% off and free shipping.
To get this special offer, text the word Matt to 64000.
That's Matt to 64000.
Text M-A-T-T to 64000.
Now for your daily cancellation.
Today we'll be canceling voter suppression.
Not the thing itself, but the phrase.
Because, as you know, I'm a big fan of voter suppression, but the phrase itself, I think we're going to cancel.
You're not allowed to say it anymore.
Exhibit A, with Crazy Bernie losing in the primaries so badly, his surrogates are now all over the TV claiming that his voters are being suppressed.
That they would be voting, but they can't because they're suppressed.
This is kind of like a version of when you lose a game of one-on-one basketball, and then after you already lose, You suddenly come down with an injured ankle that's been injured the whole time, and you say, oh yeah, my ankle's actually been bothering me for weeks.
Yeah, it's been pretty tough.
Good game, but you know my ankle.
If my ankle was better, I probably would've, but good game.
I'm not taking anything away from you.
It's just with my ankle, that's the issue.
It's probably why I lost, but great job.
Now, let's take a look at what voter suppression Looks like.
What does voter suppression mean to a Bernie Sanders surrogate?
Let's find out.
First, here's Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Fox a few days ago talking about the awful suppression that Bernie Sanders voters faced.
You did a campaign event at the University of Michigan.
It had 10,000 people.
It was like a rock star status.
But those kids did not show up, at least if you look at the numbers.
Just overall, this race.
So how can you say the progressive position is still prevailing nationwide when Joe Biden is winning so much?
Well, I think one thing that isn't being talked about is the rampant voter suppression in this country.
Right there in Ann Arbor, where we had that rally, those kids were waiting three hours in line to vote in Michigan.
And so, when we talk about who's turning out and who's not turning out, we absolutely— So just to be clear, you're saying that you think voters didn't get to vote, they wanted to vote in Michigan?
Absolutely.
You know, obviously there's also more that we need to do in terms of turning out youth voters.
It's, uh, we need to make sure that we're inspiring young people to turn out.
But when you do turn out, you should not be waiting three, four, seven hours in order to vote.
Okay, so voters are suppressed because they had to wait in line.
So what, what was, who was suppressing them?
Other voters?
The voters were suppressing each other because they all happened to want to vote at the same time?
Don't long lines mean that lots of people are voting, which means that they're not being suppressed?
Isn't that an indication that voter suppression is not happening?
That's like saying that long lines at a Star Wars movie is evidence that people are being prevented from seeing Star Wars movies.
No, that makes no sense.
And the thing is, if there were no lines, Then AOC would be up there saying, well, it's voter suppression.
People couldn't make it to the polls, obviously.
So, if there's a lot of people, it's voter suppression.
If there's nobody, it's voter suppression.
That's what we learned.
Now, here's Philip Agnew, Bernie Sanders' advisor, explaining what voter suppression means to him.
The one thing I will say, though, is we're we were I was also in Mississippi, and that's where we saw each other.
And there were a number of black colleges who were on spring break during Election Day.
And so we're up against rampant voter suppression efforts that are pushing young black folks out of the voting out of the booth.
And not allowing them access to the franchise.
And so I think across the board, the Democratic Party has a lot of work to do to make sure that young black folks, that older black folks have access to the ballot box.
And our campaign is proud to actually been a part of that.
But it's an uphill battle.
And it's not just our campaign.
I think across the board, we've got a lot of work to do.
Kids were on spring break.
That's voter suppression.
The kids are on spring break.
They chose to go on spring break, and so they're being suppressed.
They're off in Cancun or whatever, or Pensacola, and they're being suppressed.
They're lounging on the beach, drinking copious amounts of alcohol.
I'm being suppressed!
Help me, I'm being suppressed!
Now, of course, if kids had class that day, we would also be told that that's voter suppression.
So classes, no classes, voter suppression.
Lines, no lines, voter suppression.
Everything is voter suppression.
See, unless, this is what would not, by the standards of AOC or this guy, here's what you would need to do in order to not be suppressing voters.
You would need to go, Pick up the voters in your arms, cradle them like a baby, sing them lullabies, and carry them into the poll, and then put them down in a comfortable chair in the voting station, and pick up their hand for them, and with their own hand, press the button that they want to press.
That's, basically, they need, if they have to expend any energy at all, or do anything for themselves, they're being suppressed.
But here's an idea, here's a thought.
If you want to vote, make it a priority.
Wait in line.
Schedule your time.
Take off work if you have to.
If it's that important, it's not like we vote every day.
It's something that comes up every two years.
So, you're telling me it happens every two years and you can't figure a way to schedule around it?
I don't buy it.
We have all this early voting and everything, and we see what happens with early voting in the primaries.
People vote early for a candidate who, when it's time for the actual voting to start, is already dropped out of the race.
But we're told we need early voting because we need to give people months or weeks to vote because they might not have time on the day of voting.
Give me a break.
You got two years?
It's that important to you?
You've got two years to schedule time for that day and you can't do it?
Really?
Give your boss two years notice.
Tell your boss two years ahead of time.
On this particular day, I'm going to be taking off for 30 minutes.
You're telling me he's going to tell you no, you can't do it?
If it's not that important to you, That's fine.
Don't vote.
See, I'm not one of those people that says, how dare you not vote?
You are, you are not, you're betraying your civic duty.
No, it's fine.
You don't want to vote?
Don't vote.
Perfectly fine.
In fact, if you have any hesitation about voting, if there's any part of you that thinks, I don't want to vote because I, that's, I'm giving up time that I could be spending watching TV or whatever.
If that's your thought process, don't vote.
Perfectly fine.
It'll be okay.
In fact, it'll be better without you.
If it's not really a priority.
I, again, I am someone who actually, I want to suppress votes.
I do.
I want civics exams for all voters.
I want the voters to be taxpayers.
I want them to be English speakers.
I think the number of people voting should be a fraction of what it currently is.
Voting is not, is not, is not a God-given right for all people.
I say it again.
Voting is not a God-given right for all people.
It was never intended to be.
That's never how it was supposed to be set up.
And even now.
See, when I say that, it sounds like heresy in the modern American mind, because most Americans don't understand the history of their own system or how it's supposed to work.
But even to the person who says, well, how could you possibly say that?
Voting is wonderful.
Everyone should be voting.
You don't even believe that yourself.
Do you think six-year-olds should be voting?
Do you think rapists in prison should be voting?
Now, there are some people dumb enough to say that, yeah, even they should be voting.
But most people would say, well, no, of course not them.
Okay, so that means that you agree that voting is actually not a right for everyone.
You agree that there should be some parameters put in place.
You and I are on the same page.
I'm saying it's not a universal God-given right.
You also believe that, whether you say it or not.
So, since we're on the same page, that there should be parameters put in place deciding who can vote, then what I'm saying is, let's talk about what those parameters should be.
You know, should it just be that we're ruling out six-year-olds and rapists?
I mean, are there other kinds of people who maybe shouldn't be allowed to vote?
Kinds of people like, for example, people who couldn't pass a sixth grade civics exam, or people who are not Taxpayers, and are not contributing to the economy that way.
Or people who can't speak English.
Right?
Do we really need them to be voting?
Is it better for the country to have voting from those people?
I would say no.
It's not.
I would say it's clearly not better for the country.
And if it's not better for the country, and voting is not a God-given universal right, which again, we agree it's not, Then why are we doing it?
Why are we allowing it?
What's the worst-case scenario?
If we made it so that everyone who votes can pass a sixth-grade civics exam, what is the dystopian worst-case scenario?
Oh my gosh, now we have reasonably informed and intelligent people voting.
It's the end of the world.
What's the downside?
I don't even see it.
I really don't.
Okay, let's go to, we're gonna go to emails here in a second, but first, here's possibly the best news you're gonna hear all day.
And we could all use some good news.
Right now, using promo code WALSH, you'll get 10% off any Daily Wire membership plan.
And let me tell you, if you're not a member, you are missing all the best stuff.
Members get our articles ad-free.
You get access to all of our live broadcasts.
You get a show library.
You get the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro Show.
You get bonus content.
You get access to the mailbag, which we're going to get to in a second here.
Plus, our new all-access tier gets you into exclusive live online Q&A discussions with me, Ben Shapiro.
All right.
and Michael Knowles, Andrew Clay, I almost said me and Matt Walsh,
both of us are gonna show up together.
Plus DailyWire writers and special guests.
And don't forget, you'll also get the greatest of all beverage vessels,
the Leftist Tears Tumbler, all of that.
Plus 10% off when you use promo code Walsh right now.
Go over to dailywire.com and become a member today.
All right.
So some emails.
Both of these are why I'm wrong emails.
So this is from RD.
It says, Matt, you're wrong that we should only listen to the experts on coronavirus.
This is exactly the kind of mentality you normally complain about.
You're the one who has said many times that you have every right to talk about something like ADHD and people who expect you to have an MD to discuss it are just trying to shut down debate.
I like that version of you better.
You were right about that.
Trying to turn the national conversation into something that only experts can engage in is elitist snobbery at its worst.
Well, you're right, RD.
I have complained about the mentality that says that you should have to present your resume before engaging in a conversation about anything.
I reject the idea that you have to be a certified expert to have an opinion on any subject.
But I also think that if we're in the middle of a crisis, and that crisis involves a very specific scientific phenomenon like a virus, then you should have a real understanding of viruses and a very firm base of knowledge and some experience in the field if you're going to make public pronouncements about the virus and its relative threat to the public.
And so on.
So those two positions of mine are not in conflict and I really don't think it should be controversial.
All I'm saying is you should know what you're talking about if you're making statements about something like a pandemic.
And especially if you're making explicit or implicit recommendations to other people about how seriously they should or should not take it.
Then you should know what you're talking about.
I can't believe you're not the only email like this.
How could anyone disagree?
But people do.
I'm saying know what you're talking about.
People say, well, how dare you?
I don't think you should know what you're talking about at all.
We go back to the voting thing.
It's like this people think it's good to have ignorant morons, you know, chiming in.
It's not.
Now, imagine if somebody was diagnosed with cancer.
Do you think it would be responsible and reasonable if I were to come along with no experience in oncology and no expertise and no medical degree or anything, with very little understanding of how cancer works, and all the same, if I were to come to that person and dispense confident advice on the types of treatment they should receive and how serious they should take their diagnosis?
Would that be reasonable for me to do?
Would that be responsible?
Would you encourage that?
And would the person with cancer be an elitist snob for saying to me, you know what, I'm going to listen to the doctors on this, so maybe you should pipe down?
No, I think pretty clearly.
And does that mean that I should never say anything about cancer?
Does that mean that there are no issues related to cancer that I could possibly have anything valuable to say about?
No, it just means that on the specific medical and scientific questions, I should leave it to the people who understand the questions and the answers better than I do.
Again, that should not be controversial.
You mentioned ADHD.
You're right.
I have many opinions about that.
I have no problem sharing them.
But my opinions have little to do with the neurological or medical issues involved.
Now, if a neurologist comes along and tells me about the differences in brain scans between ADHD people and people without ADHD, I'll listen.
I'm not going to argue with them.
They know that better than I do.
I haven't really studied the issue that much, at least the neurological piece of it.
And if a doctor wants to tell me about the diagnostic criteria for ADHD, you know, if I'm making statements about that and a doctor says you're wrong, here's the real criteria, okay, I'll listen to that too.
I'm not going to pretend to know more than the doctor or the neurologist in their fields.
But my point about ADHD is that even though there are diagnostic criteria, and even if you can see it in a brain scan, which for my reading actually in many cases you can't, but again, I'll defer to the experts on that, My point is that it doesn't prove that the thing is actually a disorder.
It doesn't prove that the people who have ADHD aren't supposed to be that way.
Because what the doctors are saying about the ADHD kid is not just he exhibits these traits and he has this and that going on in his brain.
What they're saying is he's not supposed to be this way.
We have to use drugs to change him.
A kid is not supposed to act this way and think this way and behave this way, and so we must treat it like a disease and try to change it.
And that, I submit, is not a medical opinion.
That is an opinion about how humans are supposed to be, which is a philosophical opinion.
It's a very deep philosophical opinion.
If I were to ask you, how is a human supposed to be?
How is a human supposed to think?
Now, I'm not even sure if that's an answerable question, but if it is an answerable question, it's not answerable just to doctors.
I think we all have an equal shot at taking a crack at that one and getting it right, because we're all people and we all have experience being human beings.
Now, I say that the child with ADHD is supposed to be that way.
I say that's his personality.
And if it interferes at school, well, that's more a statement about flaws in the school system than it is a statement about flaws in him.
So my opinion is not medical, not scientific.
All the science in the world is not going to change my mind because it's irrelevant to the point.
That's not the point I'm making.
It would be like if I was giving my view on the meaning of life, and you were to say, oh yeah, you're not even a scientist.
So what?
Why would a scientist have any greater insight into the meaning of life than anyone else?
Now, they might be able to tell me a lot of scientific facts about the nature of life, fine.
But as far as its meaning, its purpose?
I mean, who cares if you're a scientist or not?
You're not going to have any better chance at being right on that than anyone else would.
And so, those are the differences.
Finally, this is from Cody, says, big fan of the show, but you're wrong in regards to price gouging.
The attached link does a concise yet thorough job of explaining why this is not a bad thing.
Also, it is troubling that you express more concern with an individual selling an item to willing buyers at an agreed upon price, as opposed to the state literally taking what was rightfully his property at point of gun.
Although I am an extreme liberty lover and anarcho-capitalist, I don't doubt that you also support individual sovereignty, although maybe not to the same degree.
It is important in times like this for us to not allow fear to cause us to turn a blind eye at tyranny, which is exactly what occurred when the aforementioned man had his property seized.
And then Cody attaches a link with a 10-page document.
Cody, I haven't read your link yet.
I admit, I will.
But of course, there is a difference, I think, between saying people have the right to price gouge and saying that people are right to price gouge.
Now, you seem to be making the latter case, that it's the right thing to do.
Now, or maybe I'm wrong, but we're making that case.
And maybe the article that you're sending will get into this.
But if you want to tell me that there are situations where so-called price gouging by stores in an emergency or disaster is necessary, And maybe in some cases actually good, then I might agree.
I could see how that might be the case.
You could argue plausibly that a store increasing prices on a necessary item in a time of emergency will ensure that it's available to more people.
So, if there's a shortage of clean, healthy water in a disaster, You've got a store with these big gallon jugs of water for 98 cents a piece.
Well, what's going to happen?
The first few people that come in are going to clean the whole place out and get more water than they need.
And then there are going to be other people who get no water.
And so maybe price gouging, I'm totally, I don't even know if this is the argument in the link.
I'm just saying, this is an argument I could see for price gouging.
Um, but what, if you raise the price, then it's going to mean that few, that people are not going to buy as much, are more likely to buy only what they need.
And then that's going to leave some more for those who need it.
And then we're spreading out, spreading the wealth, you know, to use an unfortunate phrase.
Um, okay.
And so I could see that.
That's not what happened here.
This was most assuredly not something that was done to ensure that more people would have access to the thing that this guy bought.
This was a guy who bought up all the hand sanitizer, you know, in the stores in his state and surrounding states.
He went around, bought like 17,000 boxes of hand sanitizer, or 17,000 things of hand sanitizer, bought them all up so that he could resell them, sometimes at prices that were, you know, like $70, like 10 times what they would cost in the store.
Now, here's the point.
This dude was doing exactly the thing that the defenders of price gouging say we need to protect against.
You see what I'm saying?
The kind of good price gouging that arguably a store could do would be done exactly to stop this guy from doing what he did.
Which tells me that this is the bad kind of price gouging we're talking about for sure.
You know, let's think about, what if this was a really necessary item?
I think the only argument you could actually make against what the state did, in this case, by confiscating the hand sanitizer from this guy, is to say that, well, it's not really a necessary item because you have soap.
Soap's actually better to wash your hands with than hand sanitizer.
So it's not like if people don't have hand sanitizer, they can't wash their hands.
If they have soap, they still can.
So you could argue it's not a necessary item, so what the state did was exorbitant.
Okay, maybe that's the case.
But are there situations where the state would be correct in responding the way they did?
Is this a power or authority that, in theory, they should have?
I would say yes, and for this reason.
Imagine, and this is not necessarily a far-fetched hypothetical.
What if somebody goes around during a shortage, during an emergency, buys up all the baby formula in all the stores and surrounding areas?
Hoards them all for himself, doesn't even have a baby himself, and then resells it for exorbitant prices.
Well, now you've got a situation where many families are gonna need formula.
You know, you got mothers who don't breastfeed or can't breastfeed for one reason or another, or they've already stopped breastfeeding and now they don't produce milk anymore.
They need that formula for their infants.
And maybe they can't afford it at what it's being sold by the price gouger.
What do we do?
Do we throw up our hands and say, well, finders keepers, sorry babies, you're out of luck.
Guess you'll have to starve to death.
No, I don't think that.
I don't think we say, well, we don't want to infringe on this guy's liberty to buy all the baby formula and become a millionaire off of it.
We don't want to infringe on that right.
So we're just going to let the babies die.
It seems clear that in that case, If you argued against state involvement, you would be putting his supposed liberties, his supposed right to buy whatever he wants and sell whatever he wants without restriction in every situation over the needs of families to feed their children and the rights of babies to not starve to death.
And this is exactly where libertarianism breaks down, in my opinion, because a right, like the right to buy and sell stuff, is important.
Of course.
But you would want to make it sacrosanct.
Right?
Where you would say that nothing could ever be a good enough reason to infringe on that right.
And I simply disagree.
I think that there are times when the right to buy and sell stuff has to be subordinated to other rights.
So the way I would break this down, I guess, is that in situations like this, if somebody is buying up necessary items that the community needs, really needs, then the state ought to step in.
In situations like that.
You know, not under normal circumstances.
And I think that hand sanitizer is a relatively superfluous thing because you don't need it because you have soap.
So probably I would agree with you, the state was wrong in this case.
But I'm not going to make a blanket statement that it would always be wrong for them to do this.
Because as I said, I could certainly see situations where I think for the state not to get involved would be madness.
So, that's where I would Believe that.
But you're right.
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist myself, so maybe it's not surprising I have this view.
Thank you for watching, everybody.
Thank you for listening.
Be safe out there.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Danny D'Amico, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
Doctors are working around the clock to find a vaccine for Trump Derangement Syndrome.
