PBD Podcast | EP 145 | Libertarian Candidate Jo Jorgensen
FaceTime or Ask Patrick any questions on https://minnect.com/
PBD Podcast Episode 145. Patrick Bet-David is joined by Libertarian Candidate Jo Jorgensen.
Follow Jo Here https://bit.ly/3KnpTVA
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
About:
Jo Jorgensen is an American libertarian political activist and academic. Jorgensen was the Libertarian Party's nominee for president of the United States in the 2020 election, in which she finished third in the popular vote with about 1.9 million votes, 1.2% of the national total.
To reach the Valuetainment team you can email: booking@valuetainment.com
Download the podcasts on all your favorite platforms https://bit.ly/3sFAW4N
Text: PODCAST to 310.340.1132 to get added to the distribution list
About:
Patrick Bet-David is the founder and CEO of Valuetainment Media. He is the author of the #1 Wall Street Journal bestseller Your Next Five Moves (Simon & Schuster) and a father of 2 boys and 2 girls. He currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
0:00 - Start
1:17 - How Jo Jorgensen would have handled Covid
17:06 - Did Jo Jorgensen cost Donald Trump the 2020 election?
18:46 - Jo Jorgensen gives her take on America Legalizing all drugs
28:00 - Jo Jorgenson claims China isn't an issue
45:36 - Why Jo Jorgensen believes in open borders
1:06:06 - Jo Jorgensen's toughest debate ever
1:14:00 - Jo Jorgensen grades Joe Biden through his 15 months
1:15:49 - Jo Jorgensen reveals where she stands on Transgenderism
1:21:28 - Libertarian party on government agencies
Today, episode number 145, with former presidential candidate, Dr. Joe Jorgensen, who got, I want to say this correctly, 1.8 million votes, 1.2%.
And she, a lot of people who are on here with us, they voted for her.
You supported her.
And at the end, we're going to do some calls for people to be able to call in and find out what this whole libertarian thing is that everyone's talking about.
A lot of crypto people nowadays call themselves libertarian.
We're going to have the presidential candidate break that down for us.
Dr. Joe Jorgensen, thank you so much for being a guest today.
Glad to be here.
Thanks.
It's great to have you on.
So for the audience who doesn't know what it is to be a libertarian, what is a libertarian to you?
Somebody who believes that we each have the right to make our own choices and that society works much better if we can each interact voluntarily rather than having the government be in charge of us.
Okay, so you would say, so make our own choices.
So so far, that doesn't seem very controversial.
Everybody would say, I want to be able to make my own choices for myself.
Now, are you saying that both the Democrats and the Republicans want to make choices for you?
Oh, absolutely.
Just look at the recent COVID and schools when it just broke my heart how mothers were going before school boards begging, please teach my child in person.
Please don't make them wear a mask.
They're getting behind socially.
They're getting behind educationally.
And there was no choice because it was a monopolistic system.
So let's just say during COVID, we had Joe Jorgensen as our president.
How different would things have been?
Oh, like night and day.
Let's hear it.
I'm curious.
No mask requirements, of course.
No business shutdowns.
And what a lot of people don't realize, they say, well, it was so good, though, that we shut down the economy so that people didn't get sick.
But you have to look at politicians being politicians.
Of course, they allowed the big box stores to be open.
They let the big guys be open.
It's the small mom and pop stores that they shut down.
So, you know, people think, well, we need politicians.
We need government to help the little guy.
But it's actually government that's hurting the little guy.
And what's very distressing, hearing the message from the left, I would love to explain to everybody on the left who says big corporations are bad.
We need to cut them down the size.
Well, big corporations are big because of government.
It's because government is giving them special privileges and powers and money.
Can you go even a little bit deeper than that?
So let's stay there.
Okay, COVID.
It is COVID 2020.
So would an Anthony Fauci be there under your presidency?
Would we have a Surgeon General that would come out or somebody from the CDC or somebody from the NIH that would come out and say, well, here's what's going on with COVID.
Here's what we got to look at with this.
We got to get the vaccine.
It's going to take us nine to 18 months.
How different would you have been that urgent?
Would you have shut down travel restrictions coming in from China?
Would you have restricted people coming in from Europe for the period that we had?
What were some of the decisions you would have made?
No, I would not have restricted people and there would be no Anthony Fauci giving edicts.
It's one thing to have a medical unit as an advisory committee.
It's another, though, to allow them to be making decisions.
For instance, the CDC was basically making decisions on rent, on whether or not you could evict tenants.
That's such an overreach of what it was intended.
Okay, but go a little deeper for me.
If there wouldn't be an Anthony Fauci, who's giving us updates and what are we learning?
So you're a medical doctor.
You're a medical doctor.
So.
So how about if I can't afford medical because I don't have a medical doctor, who's telling me what to do with COVID?
Oh, we could spend two hours just on medicine.
So if I could divert there, a lot of people say, you know, capitalism isn't working, so we need to have, you know, one size fits all.
We need to have socialized medicine.
Well, we don't have capitalism in medicine.
What we've got is we do have so many rules and regulations that we're not getting the competition needed.
And the biggest example would be insurance.
A lot of people say, well, insurance is too high.
Well, that's because it's not insurance.
What if your car insurance paid for oil changes, getting your car washed, and putting gas in your car?
You wouldn't go around looking for the cheapest gas station because what do you care?
Insurance company is going to pay for it anyway.
And then the next year, your premiums are going to go up because the insurance companies are going to have to raise prices because you weren't looking for the cheapest option.
Right now, there's absolutely no incentive to look for the cheapest option.
In fact, I gave birth to both of my daughters in a birthing center.
And it was basically a three-bedroom house that had a kitchen.
You even had to bring your own food.
Excuse me.
And this was in the 1980s.
And I think it was like $900.
And, you know, you get the doctor.
And I remember telling a friend of mine, like, wow, you know, the birthing center, and only $900.
And she said, oh, but I want to go to the new women's center.
And there had just been this big story about how they had redone it, and they had $600 bedspreads.
And I don't remember how many thousands of dollars it costs, but no skin off of their nose.
And now I realize that's an extreme.
That's at the higher end.
But even just going into the doctor for a checkup or going in because you have an ear infection, that would be a lot cheaper than taking your car.
And if we can take our car in for a $300 repair, then why can't we go to the doctor and get a $90 checkup?
But Dr. Joe, let's go back to it.
So it's COVID.
So there's no one that's going to give me updates on what's going on with COVID.
We're not shutting down.
Fine, I like that.
We're not closing travel coming in from China.
Well, do you mind if I interrupt?
Please.
You said nobody is giving updates.
The free market would definitely be giving updates.
I mean, we've got companies now who are giving us updates about other things out there.
So why wouldn't there be some, let's say, McDonald's of healthcare who is saying, putting advertisements on TV, saying, okay, this is what the latest research is showing.
You need to come to our clinic for whatever, to get tested, whatever.
So, no, we get a lot of information in the free market.
In fact, look at all the information we get off the internet.
If I may?
Yeah.
Oh, please, yes.
So, your president, we know it's a pandemic and it's coming fast and heavy.
What would your administration response be to a populace that is scared to death of this word pandemic and they're hearing it coming?
What would we have heard from your administration in terms of a national response?
Because this isn't just bad flu season.
This is a pandemic.
Well, okay, but let's back up.
Part of the reason there was so much fear was because the government put the fear in people.
If you look at college-age kids, high school kids, the death rate for this was actually lower than the flu.
For younger people, even lower than that.
You don't get up to the death rate of the flu until you get much older.
So again, would we be doing this for the flu?
Would we be shutting everything down?
Would we be calling it a pandemic like that?
That's what I was getting back to, asking you to just kind of elaborate for us on Pat's question about, so you would have been, as our president, coming to the microphone saying, hang on a second, we're using the word pandemic, but you would have then said this.
Well, wait, wait, but who put the word pandemic out there to begin with?
It was the president.
It was the government.
So I'd be coming out there saying, as you've seen in the news, we've got this new, we've got this new disease going around.
We've got this new virus.
And I would act as a leader, not as a king.
I would act as a leader telling people, you know, go to your medical professional, go to your doctor.
Now, of course, under a libertarian administration, if we had fixed health care to the point to where it wasn't a monopolistic system, because that gets back to.
you know, we talk about high cost.
Doctors are a government-run monopoly.
The government grants, indirectly grants how many people can get MDs and how many people can practice.
I mean, if they did that for plumbers and car mechanics, that would be sky high too.
So if we had different people out there providing services, an increase in nurse practitioners and so on, it would be much cheaper and we could easily say go to your health care provider.
So I think I relate to some of the elements of libertarian.
I do.
I fully relate to it.
I get it.
But for me, it feels like to do what you want to do, if you were president in 2020, it would be a mess.
And he wouldn't.
Oh, and it's not a mess and it wasn't a mess now.
It was totally a mess, but let me explain to you why I think it would be even a bigger mess.
Because I think to do what you want to do or even inject that spirit, don't you think it makes more sense to start from Congress, Senate, governor, and work your way up to have other people that are infrastructure that are – like if I were to ask you right now, how many of our congressmen are libertarians?
Registered libertarians, how many would there be?
Oh, none.
How many senators do we have that are registered?
You don't have poll.
So, okay, let's just say you're president, you wouldn't get nothing done.
In today's system, though, but in today's system, let's just say if you were to become president in today's system, who's going to back you up from the left to the right?
They have a monopoly today.
Except if I were president, then there would also be incoming senators and congresspeople, because it's not going to be one person getting elected out of everybody.
It's going to be a movement.
There are going to be other people.
You really think that somebody's going to elect a third-party president and only the president's going to be a libertarian?
No, I think, I think, no, I don't think that.
I think, you know, I think the movement is going to need help from different places.
I do believe that, but you also need backing.
Now, don't get me wrong, the first, the best third-party candidate of all time is who?
Abraham Lincoln.
He's the first Republican, right?
He was third party, came out, boom.
You can tell the Teddy Roosevelt story, right, on what he did.
You can go look at Ross Perot.
People will throw George Wallace in there, Ron Paul in there.
There's a lot of names that they'll throw in the best third-party candidates, right?
But wouldn't it make sense to go and get others internally converted rather than going straight to the top?
Because if you can pull up some of the numbers.
So some will say the following.
Some will say, President Biden is president today because of you.
Meaning.
And they would be wrong, but go ahead.
But I would show you the numbers.
Some would say that you're the reason why President Biden is president.
Pull up the numbers I just texted you.
Pull up the numbers I just texted you.
I don't know if you have that or not, if you can put it on the screen.
Well, like, for instance, I did beat the spread in several states.
For instance, Pennsylvania.
I did beat the spread.
But what you would have to say is something like 80, 85% of the people who voted for me all would have gone to Trump.
And that's not the way it would have gone.
We tend to get votes from both sides.
So it may be if every single vote I got went to one person, but that's not the way it works.
Well, more libertarians would probably align themselves with a Trump than they would with a Biden.
That's not what the research shows.
We draw equally from Democrats and Republicans.
You think so?
That's what the research shows.
Absolutely.
So you don't have to.
Can you unpack that for a second?
Yeah, well, I mean, can you?
Like, describe the Democrat that comes across.
Can let her finish?
I want to actually hear what she's going to say.
Well, actually, what I was doing was I was basically going to be answering your question.
Look at cannabis reform.
That's libertarian, and that's on the left.
Look at marriage equality, where gays are allowed to get married.
That's libertarian, and that's on the left.
Abortion, although I tend to not, you know, that's an issue that I stay away from.
And Ron Paul made a libertarian argument for being pro-life.
So, you know, that's a very inflammatory, so, but, but that would be where Democrats and the Libertarian Party would agree on.
Immigration, I mean, you go right down the line.
There are many people who come over from the left, and I've talked with many of them.
In fact, I met somebody at Bitcoin yesterday.
Very interesting story.
He was on the left, and then he went to a diversity class, and the professor at a college, and he was the only male in the class, or maybe a white male.
But the professor said, if you are a white male, there's a 100% chance that you're going to rape somebody.
And he was just appalled.
So he immediately became a conservative.
But then he didn't like some of those ideas.
And then he found out about the Libertarian Party.
He said, okay, that's me.
Go ahead, Tom.
No, that's what I was going to ask, is to describe the typical Den that would come across, and the typical Republican would come across who were those voters.
Because we've learned about that identity politics that we see through the media doesn't really define anybody.
But then we discover with a lot of demographic acuity, like what happened to Terry McAuliffe when the mothers of children in Virginia were so incensed on the level of control over the education of their kids.
And we can see that it was all races, but the common stripe was women with children under eighth grade really flipped out and turned on him.
And so that's what I was looking for is groups like that that you can describe.
It's like young people that are at public schools, but that came from public education with this and this.
I didn't know if there was like typical, you know, kind of an archetype for these voters.
You talked about issues, but I was kind of curious about the people groups and typicalities, such as moms of kids under eighth grade of all races and economic backgrounds, attacked Terry McAuliffe, and he was not governor of Virginia.
Right.
And I was so glad to see him leave.
Now, unfortunately, you mentioned kids in public schools, and if we extend that to college, unfortunately, most of them are going to the left.
And we got to put a stop to that problem.
In fact, I am part of the founding of an organization of libertarian educators trying to get together to see, okay, how can we stop this?
How can we get in there?
Because, you know, something like 92, 96% of professors lean to the left.
And we've got to get in there and show them and opposing a more sane alternative.
So if you, again, like the point I was trying to make, that the 1.8 million votes you got, the 1.2%, the Canada states that you got it, you know, Georgia, 14,152 votes.
In Georgia, you had 61,792 in that state.
That's 16 electoral.
That would have gone the other way.
Arizona had 49,182.
Wisconsin, you had 38,415.
That's 10 electoral votes.
That would have ended up being a tie 269, 269.
If you can, John, if you can show that on the screen and zoom it in a little bit more so people can see it.
So just to kind of give some context here as well, the 14,000 votes is what Biden beat Trump with in that state.
And then obviously you have the gap, which is you in the middle there, on those votes as well.
So just with these four states, you could make, I mean, and I know that people do make the argument.
Zoom in a little bit, those would have pushed you over, would have pushed one way or the other, and then possibly pushed for Trump on that end as well.
Yeah, well, as I said, many people from the left also vote libertarian.
And in the past, historically, it's about 50-50, although most of our votes come from independents or people who have never voted before.
So if somebody's never voted before, and many people came up to me when I was on the campaign trail saying, it wasn't worth it for me to vote before.
I'm 30 years old, 40 years old, whatever, because everybody out there is just a typical typical politician, but you're different.
And so I don't think they would have voted for Trump.
Okay, fine.
So again, some argument is Ralph Nader is the reason why Bush won.
You know, Ross Pro is why Clinton won, and you're why Trump won.
Some people may say that, but I want to go on issues.
Let's just go on issues.
Let's do that.
Okay.
So when it comes down to issues, what is your position on drugs as a libertarian?
What does a libertarian think about with drugs?
That our society would be much better if we lifted these restrictions.
And I'd like to point out, when's the last time you heard of a liquor store owner going up and down the halls of a high school trying to push bourbon?
Or when's the last time you heard of a vodka addict trying to break into a house in order to support a vodka habit?
Part of the problem we have with drugs is the illegality because there's a profit in there.
If you're selling liquor, which is legal, now you don't have the profit motive to try to sell it to kids.
It's not worth it for the pennies, dollars you would make to end up in prison.
It is, however, for the humongous profits that we have in illegal drugs.
And studies have shown that when you make something illegal, it goes up in price by about 20 to 25 times.
That's why we have the problems that we have with so many of that.
When you make something illegal, the price goes up by 20 to 25 percent.
Some people in California would argue that to say in California they made drugs legal, but it was so expensive, like marijuana, let's just say, but it was so expensive that drug dealers were behind closed doors saying, listen, you're paying that much for that.
Here, come through me and I'll sell it to you for this much.
So it still gave him an out for it because there was still regulations to it.
But what you're saying is, let's legalize marijuana, let's legalize heroin, crack, coke, all of that, and let's let the market decide.
Well, let me point out, according to Milton Friedman, we wouldn't even have crack cocaine if it weren't for the illegality.
Because economically, it would not make sense to take cocaine and distill it down to crack cocaine.
It's only because there was such a profit margin that we even have crack cocaine.
And, you know, I'm willing to say, well, first of all, I'd like to point out that so many people were like, oh, wait until marijuana is legal.
We're going to see, you know, gangs in the street with AK-47s and we're going to have and we haven't seen that.
What we've seen is basically peaceful transactions.
If you want to do it step by step, that's fine.
But the longer we wait, the longer we're going to have young kids at risk by these horrendous drug dealers who are in it just to make a profit for themselves.
One of the bigger issues you're seeing in California right now, though, is that the illicit market or the legal market for marijuana is twice as big as the legal one.
Yes, because they haven't deregulated it because they're only allowing a few people to sell it.
I mean, what would happen if they did that with alcohol?
You know, there were only a few people granted the right to be able to sell alcohol.
We'd probably still see bathtub gym.
And I'd also like to point out, some people say, well, but if everything were legal, you know, then I might have a meth house next to me.
And meth is dangerous.
And we all know about meth houses, right?
That it's toxic.
You can die from being in the house because there's residue and the house could blow up and it's just a bad place for people to hang out.
Well, how many houses, you know, have you ever heard of a gin house or a vodka house?
We don't have bathtub gin being made anymore.
So if it were legal, now instead of having a meth house next to you, you're going to have Seagrams or you're going to have, you know, Philip Morris, whoever.
You're going to have some corporation making those drugs initially regulated and safely as opposed to next to you.
You're not going to have the drugs.
It's going to look more like alcohol than it does right now.
So you mentioned initially regulated, but doesn't that also go against traditional libertarianism where you don't want the government to intrude who would be regulating them?
Oh, absolutely.
We have to work within the system we have.
And again, there are so many reasons.
If we look at the regulation, what we see is we see people getting special, well, first of all, they get special tax breaks.
They spend lobbying money and then they get protection.
So, no, I would want to do away with that.
But you can't just overnight have a libertarian world.
So just like right now, we're starting with marijuana.
We need, like I said, the quicker we can legalize things, then the quicker we can get the drugs out of the hands of the young school kids.
So the closest test that we have is San Francisco, right?
Because in San Francisco, I don't know if you've been to San Francisco.
I'm sorry, the closest test.
Like if you look at what's really taking place right now with a lot of drugs that is more lenient, San Francisco, you got Oregon, you got a couple other markets, but Kraken, Kraken is a company, if you want to pull up that article.
Kraken is a company.
This Kraken CEO, Jesse Powell, today issued a statement regarding rampant crime in San Francisco and the failure of DA.
We shut down Kraken's global headquarters on Market in San Francisco for numerous employees were attacked, harassed, or robbed on their way from the office.
Business partners were afraid to visit and were victimized.
Crime, mental illness, and drug abuse are out of control in the city, which is dramatically underreported because it's too commonplace.
The police are known to arrest the same offenders dozens of times thanks to District Attorney K catch and release program, which has resulted in numerous preventable murders of innocent people.
San Francisco is not safe and not be safe until we have a DA who puts the right of law-abiding citizens above those of the streets criminals he so ingloriously protect.
So drugs, you know, some may.
Well, may I respond to that?
Yeah, but a parent may say, okay, so let's just say we legalize it.
All right, so if we legalize crack, heroin, all of that stuff where people can just get it, and you're saying regulation, not regulation, you're saying things like this will minimize.
This is going to go away.
What I would say is San Francisco is the opposite of a libertarian city.
It is a socialist city.
San Francisco's got to be one of the worst cities in the entire country as far as being libertarian.
They've got, I mean, yeah, it's socialist.
What can I say?
And no, they're not cracking down on crime.
I mean, I don't, we can go into the whole crime spree, people walking out the door with $850 worth of stuff.
How do you handle that?
How do you address that?
Like, if you were in San Francisco right now, let's just say you're...
Mayor?
Yeah, let's just say you're the mayor.
What would you do?
Well, first of all, I'd make it illegal to shoplift, I would say.
I don't care if you walk out with, you know, a pack of gum.
That's shoplifting.
Now, I wouldn't throw somebody in jail for a pack of gum, of course, but no, there's complete lawlessness in San Francisco.
And to me, it is absurd that, again, you're a small business owner, mom and pop store.
Somebody walks out with $800, and that's okay.
That's not okay.
And once again, we get to, we've got laws that are helping the big guys more than the small guys.
Walgreens, who has closed, I've lost track now, 14 stores at least.
They can shut down 14 stores and then have 49 other sane states as well as parts of California that might be sane and still earn a profit.
I have seen on TV so many people who, you know, small company, it's been open for generations, and now they've got to close or they've got to move to another city because they can't afford to have $800 of stuff stolen or they can't afford, you know, that's their only location.
They can't say, well, we'll just, you know, keep our Virginia branch going.
So once again, we've got laws that are helping the big guy, not the little guy, and politicians who just don't care.
Richard Branson, Tom, what was it when Richard Branson a few years ago said he thinks we should legalize heroin and allow people to use heroin?
I don't know if you remember that or not.
There's been other people that have been supportive of this position.
I remember talking to Oscar Goodman, the mayor of Vegas.
I think his wife is now the mayor of Vegas.
21 years of Goodman's, the 22, maybe 23 years of Goodman's have been mayors of Las Vegas.
And he talked about the same thing.
He talked about the fact that if you want to use heroin, you want to use this, you want to use that, go at it.
He had a similar libertarian belief.
But, okay, so let's set that part aside.
Let's go to trade.
Trade with China.
Trade with different countries.
What is your view on trade?
How different would your trade philosophies be than what we have today?
My trade philosophy is that people have the right to trade their goods and services with other people, regardless of where they are.
And that when you throw tariffs in there, that's basically a hidden tax, and people pay more.
You know, let's go to Bangladesh that makes a lot of clothes.
If we put tariffs, now poor people in this country have to pay more for their clothes.
And what we have is we have a government that puts all these regulations in place to increase prices.
And then the government says, oh, well, I guess we have to hand out welfare.
Well, maybe if they got rid of some of these regulations, we would have cheaper goods and services and people would be able to buy things at a reasonable or cheap cost.
So how would your relationship with China be today?
How different would you treat China?
I hope I would have a very good relationship with China as with other countries.
What does that mean?
I mean, that's a lot.
Well, that means, yeah, the example that I like to give is Japan, which is, you know, 1941, World War II, horrible.
They bombed us.
And I point out, you know, we buy so many Hondas and Toyotas now.
They're not going to bomb us now because you tend to not bomb your best customer.
So when goods cross borders, soldiers don't have to.
So if you have a good trading partner, then why would you, you know, why would there be a problem?
Because you can help each other.
Who do you see right now as enemy to state number one?
Like in America today.
So you become president tomorrow.
Who is some countries that you'd be very careful doing business with because their motives may not align with our motives?
Well, but you have to look at the leaders versus the people.
So, for instance, Saudi Arabia, years ago, President Bush was like, oh, Saudi, you know, they're our friends.
Well, yeah, Bush was friends with the king and, you know, the aristocratic people in Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, the other people are getting ready for 9-11.
So if we can trade freely and people see that it's an advantage and that they're being helped by us, then we would have a better relationship.
But again, it's not a matter of this ruler versus this ruler.
It's people freely trading goods.
And which kind of goes to, we talk about foreign aid.
But that's not how things are.
You're saying people.
So in order for you to, your philosophy to exist, everybody in the world would need to believe in what you believe in.
It's not going to happen.
You're saying for people to trade freely with each other?
Well, I mean, it doesn't matter to me.
Well, I shouldn't say it doesn't matter to me.
It would be nice if China could freely trade with Switzerland, but, you know, that's their business.
All I'm worried about is Americans being able to trade with Chinese people.
But in that case, if we're freely trading with China, but anything, they can export anything they want here without any trades or tariffs.
But the stuff we export there, would we then also have to not have a tariff on that end?
Or could they do whatever they want in that case?
When they end up doing that, we end up with more money in our pockets.
If they want to punish their people, there's nothing we can do about that.
What I want to do is not punish our people.
I want our people to be able to get the best prices they can.
I think that's naive.
I think in one thing there, it's more short-term versus long-term.
Is it a good thing in the short term, but something that could hurt in the long term?
How would it hurt people in the long term?
I think if you have export of goods and we're now decreasing, so you're flooding the market with international products, which is good for the consumer, it's cheap.
But in the long term, that consumer needs a job.
And if we're exporting that and you don't have tariffs or a way to protect that, what are we doing to protect the workers in our country then?
Well, you know, politicians, let me give you an example.
And if you don't mind, I need to get a careful do that.
Yeah, please.
Can you do me a favor and pull up?
I'm sorry.
Go for it.
I'll text you.
Go ahead.
So politicians talk about unforeseen consequences, and that's so frustrating because, you know, like San Francisco saying we're going to prosecute only $900 or $950, whatever dollars and above.
Oh, we didn't see this coming.
I mean, no, you should have seen it coming.
So let's take cars.
We protected Detroit.
And what the government did was they said, don't worry, we'll prop you up.
We'll make sure that people pay tariffs.
And so they got lazy.
And if you look at what the unions were doing, which was just so frustrating, the unions would say, oh, well, you hired us to put one screw in over there, not three screws over here.
So we're not going to do it.
And so car companies were unable to innovate.
And so now you're still going to the dealership.
Well, I want the power windows, but not the power door locks.
And meanwhile, Japan over there, which is really competing, they're the ones saying, oh, guess what?
We're going to give you all that free.
So basically, we're propping up an industry and hindering it because we're protecting it from free market forces.
And if the government had not protected them, then maybe they would have been more competitive.
And it would be like, okay, union, we don't care what you say.
You're putting three screws over there, or we're going to go get somebody else because we've got to be able to compete with Japan.
And I teach in my social psychology class that competition is good.
And that's one of the reasons.
And there's a trade-off, but I won't go into the academic stuff.
But the reason that we're walking around with such awesome phones like yours right there is basically Bill Gates and Steve Jobs hated each other and they wanted to outdo each other.
And each one came up, well, I'm going to do this, and then the next one, I'm going to do that.
And they were fiercely competitive and were the ones who won out.
And part of the reason that technology was able to move as fast as it did is that the government couldn't keep up and regulate it at every level.
You know, when it comes to cars, that's for like 80s, 90s, kind of low technology.
You've got cafe standards, you know, mileage.
Biden just put in other mileages.
So we've got the government hindering competition by throwing all these things at them.
Computers were going so fast they couldn't even keep up.
So I think that's a good example of you're saying that the government is hindering.
But if the government is hindering, how then would not tariffs also just ruin it even more?
Because I think you can either go away with all of it and have it more competitive and kind of go about it that route, or you can't just take away certain things.
If you take away tariffs without taking away unions in that end, which is the opposite end of it, right?
Either they have some control or they have no control.
So then at that point, you're just hindering more and just crushing it more.
Oh, trust me, under a Jorgensen administration, the unions would not have the power that they have.
Now, do I think that people should be able to freely and collectively get together and bargain?
Absolutely.
What I'm completely against is the special rules that unions get to where basically unions can hold companies hostage.
So if you want to get together and you unionize and you say, we're going to demand this, and the company says, no, we're going to hire another thousand people.
Goodbye.
Okay.
In other words, free market union bargaining.
But let's go back to that in regards to China.
It's very important to stay on China.
Let's stay on China.
So it's because it's the country that wants to take over U.S. What do you mean why?
You can't say why as a candidate.
It's what most Americans fear, the power and the motive that China has.
They get up and talk about America that they want to break, crush the skull of anybody that gets in the way.
And that's their foreign minister saying that.
And you're saying why?
But let me stay on this.
Let me ask my question.
Let me ask my question and then I'll turn it over to you.
So if I'm a voter, whether I'm on the left or the right, I fear certain countries.
Okay.
And if I'm probably going to fear a little bit of Iran.
I'm going to fear a little bit of Russia.
Probably a lot more today.
I'm going to fear China.
And then there's a few other countries that I would fear, right?
Okay.
To say, yeah, it's just give them trade.
I mean, it's just, it's okay.
Let them do trades with us.
And as long as they're sending us a product, that's great.
Well, what eventually happens is you eventually rely on that country where 80% of the chips are being made there and the value of cars goes to the roof.
And you got China's COVID cases are record-breaking as of today.
Those are China's COVID cases.
John, if you can show that on the screen, and if these guys get COVID cases, I don't know if you've seen what China just did.
The entire nation's been shut down.
So they're not working now.
So I can't get chips out now.
So now I have to delay the value of used cars are about to go up another 10%, 20%.
China doesn't give a shit about America.
China doesn't wake up in the morning saying, well, Joe Jorgensen, your libertarian philosophies are so sweet.
We're going to follow it as well.
And here's what we're going to follow.
They don't care about us.
And because of all these relations we've had with them over the last 40 years, we have made a country that was not in the top 10 of GDP.
Now, number two, is about to pass up U.S.
And they're now realizing the world revolves around us.
U.S. owes them $1.1 trillion of debt, and they got to make those payments to them.
If we're not, it's naive to say that.
What I do think we're libertarian would have worked is if a country's being founded.
So your philosophies work.
If you go start your own country from the beginning, then I would move to it.
But it is so hard to change the infrastructure of a country like this to say, well, let's do this.
Well, let's do that.
But that also means the way we've trained all these other powerhouse countries in the world that we've empowered, they also have to change.
We're naive if we think they're going to change.
I'll turn it over to you.
Well, there's about four or five questions packed in there.
I would still point out, you said that China doesn't care about us.
Japan cares about us now.
Because these are two different countries.
I know, but keep saying Japan.
Japan's not China.
I know.
But my point is, is that Japan bombed us earlier.
They wouldn't bomb us now because we're buying a lot.
What would they do without us buying all their Toyotas and Hondas?
It's in their best interest.
As I said, when goods cross borders, soldiers tend not to.
But you talked about chips.
Part of the reason that we've got so many chips made in China is because of the tax structure, because of the unions, because of all the problems we've got in the U.S., that if we could have more of a free market here, then we would have more chips made here.
So again, I like to sometimes quote my running mate in 1996, Harry Brown.
He said, what the government does is they break your leg and then they expect you to be grateful when they hand you crutches.
And that's exactly what we're doing.
So we've got so many taxes that manufacturing has moved off.
In fact, notice Trump lowered that and some people started coming back.
So, you know, what if we put that at zero?
Do you think maybe there'd be chips made here?
So, yeah, that's why we're relying on China for that.
Oh, my God.
If you go with the approach of just being passive with China, they will use and abuse you in capital.
They will say, I'm so glad Dr. Joe Jorgensen is president because she is so sweet.
Let's take advantage of America.
It's going to be so awesome for us because look what Russia did.
Here's the thing with Russia, right?
How do you think Russia views a Biden versus a Trump?
Love, hate, whatever you want to call Trump or Biden.
Russia or the world didn't do anything under Trump's administration, okay?
You didn't have any Afghanistan issues.
You had Palestine and Israel getting along 25 years first time.
You didn't have any of the stuff that was going on with Russia.
Everybody was pretty chill, saying, you know what, maybe we don't need to do anything.
Then all of a sudden, a leader like Biden gets in, nice man, seems like a very nice man.
I don't know his motives and all that other stuff.
But when I look at him at face value, I'm like, okay, very nice.
What happens?
Boom, Taliban.
Opportunity.
Boom.
Russia.
Opportunity, Ukraine.
Boom.
Everybody's like, opportunity, opportunity.
Look, I want to sit there and say these things make sense, but there are some real legitimate oppositions America has today that we have to know how to manage them.
Okay.
Again, going back to this, Joe, today, China shut down.
Today, most of our air conditioning comes from there.
Most of the equipment we get from there.
Yeah, again, we should be making that here.
But because of the tax structure, because of the unions, because of many other things, we're not.
And how about we solve that problem so we can start bringing menu?
And this brings me back to why you ought to consider running for Congress or Senate instead of president.
This brings me back to why don't you do a, you know, working from the bottom up.
Grassroots movement.
Yeah, grassroots movements.
Let's get some more Senate.
You're at the Bitcoin conference.
Why don't you go inspire a ton of these guys to go and want to go be congressmen and congresswomen and mayors and governors and actors?
I just did that yesterday.
I talked with somebody who said he was interested in libertarianism.
And the way he was talking, I asked him, well, have you considered running for office?
Actually, I think I've asked two or three people that.
But the guy I talked with yesterday said, you know, I have been thinking about that.
Maybe mayor.
And I said, you should do that.
So, and we do need more libertarians at the state and local levels.
And our campaign, one of our goals of our campaign was to help people running for state and local.
So for instance, probably more so than any other presidential campaign, what we would do is we would take the data real time, give it to people who were running for state and local offices.
And because in the past, many, many different campaigns have promised to give the information, and they would get them to them like a year later after the election or not get it to them at all.
But we were probably the best in Libertarian Party history for getting that information to those people so they would have data they could use so that they could try to win their offices.
And we recently had a libertarian voted into a state rep place.
And we do have a couple of prominent libertarians at the local level.
And I think that that is very important because so many people have never heard of libertarians or we're the wild crazy people with the horns.
And they can see that we've got very good ideas that work.
And the people who have run, Jeff Hewitt, Jim Tournady, they've been doing a great job.
And people have started saying, you know what?
This actually does work.
How about we do cut taxes?
How about we do let people make their choice?
Now, you've got to agree with cutting taxes, right?
You can't.
That's not the point, though.
Of course, I'm a capitalist.
Of course, I agree with cutting taxes.
But for me, it's the all-in package.
It's not just one area of cutting taxes.
I can even get in with the drugs part.
Okay, fine.
Let's just say if I go to the city.
The reason I said that is because when I said cutting taxes, you kind of sighed.
And I thought, well, that's common ground we can agree on.
Of course, I'm there.
But here's what I'm thinking about.
So consider me from the angle I'm processing.
I can't run for office.
I'm not born here.
If I was born here, I'd have a different conversation, but I can't.
So I can't create that kind of change, right, myself.
But I'm talking more from your standpoint of where you are.
Why isn't this message that is somewhat a common sense, not trade, not a few of the parts?
I have a hard time with some of the parts of it, because you can never, you can never underestimate the power of an enemy that wants to take you down.
Never.
If you do that, you are so naive, you don't belong in office.
You can never underestimate that.
And quite frankly, I don't want to have a leader that will underestimate the enemy because they'll scare the crap out of me for four years.
And I want that person out of office as quickly as possible.
I don't want that.
But I'm going to go to another thing.
Can I just say something really quickly?
And then, and the reason I was saying, you know, can we move on?
Because maybe this is an agree to disagree.
And there are so many other topics I'd love to cover.
But in my campaign, I said that I wanted to turn America into one giant Switzerland, armed and neutral.
Absolutely, I want a strong military.
Absolutely have our borders safe.
You know, absolutely.
Borders safe?
That's not borders.
You think borders should be open.
You think people should come in and out.
Borders should be protected from enemies.
And so, yes, I want, you know, like I said, one giant Switzerland, except lately they waited on the You Can't Crane thing, but that's another thing.
So, no, I want a strong defense so that I can protect America.
But you were going on, you were leading somewhere else.
Yeah, so where I was going with this, but since you went there, let's just kind of go to the border side.
What are your thoughts about immigration?
Should people just cross the border and come to America if they choose to?
How should we treat illegal immigrants crossing a border in the South?
My position is three of my grandparents are immigrants.
They came over in the early 1900s.
And that's what I'd like to see us go back to, which is pretty much open borders.
Of course, we don't give them free phones.
We don't give them free health care.
We don't do all of that.
And of course, if we know, you know, MS-13 gang members or, you know, terrorists, of course, we don't let them in.
But what made our country great is people like my grandparents coming over here and working hard for the American dream.
And that's one of the reasons why I love my country so much.
My grandmother, when I was younger, used to tell me about the old country, about how, you know, the old country, they just take all your money so everybody has the same and you can work and work and work and you don't get anywhere.
And listening to her stories is really what made me love this country so much.
And she came over here, worked very hard, and my grandfather worked very hard from the same country, although they met here.
And by the way, what's scary is the country that she came from is Denmark.
And Denmark, you know, we don't think of it as an oppressive country, but she would tell us how, yeah, they just take all your money.
And here you can work hard and earn a living.
And by the way, when they died, it's not like they had amassed a huge fortune.
In fact, they lived in Florida and lived in, well, I used to call it a trailer.
She would correct me and say a mobile home.
But the thing is, she said, in America, you can live how you want and you can work hard and make something of yourself.
Open borders.
Open borders.
Again, I'm not going to let terrorists come across.
How are you going to figure out who's a terrorist and who's not?
Do I look like a terrorist?
What if I come to the bottom?
Don't we know?
Don't we know?
Don't we keep track of that?
Is there going to be an ICE?
Would there be a border patrol workers to come through?
Would they have to ID them?
So what do you mean by open border?
Would there not be a wall?
Would there not be a fence?
Would there not be anything for people to come across?
Like I said, like the early 1900s when we had more people come in.
I mean, now it's the opposite.
Yeah, but okay, so let me get this part right.
I want to really understand this.
So if I go, if I'm saying I'm coming from Tijuana, what am I crossing if I'm coming from Tijuana?
Is there a gate?
Is there a border patrol?
Is there an ICE in your world, in your administration?
This gets into something that's controversy on the Libertarian Party because there are many who say yes, we want to gate and others who say no.
So I would prefer to have it so that we have minimal checking.
Here's one of the biggest problems that we have right now: is that, you know, because so many people say, well, people just need to come over legally, but the system is set up so that hardly anybody can come over legally.
So I would like to flip it around so we've got more people than not being able to pass through.
But, you know, we've got national security people who know who some terrorists are.
They know who the gangs are.
Oh, God, Joe, you sound naive again.
You can't say that.
So let me go back to it.
I don't mean to offend you, please.
I don't mean to be disrespectful.
Oh, no, I like to be very hard to be here.
So, but go back to the borders.
So you didn't answer the question.
I want as clear of an answer on this one as possible because would we have an ICE and border patrol under a Jorgensen administration?
Or would anybody be able to drive by and come to the U.S.?
Can I answer that if I'm a candidate again?
Will you have me back if I'm a candidate?
No, I want to hear it now because I'm not a candidate.
No, but if but if you were, if you're on the stage, by the way, I'm not even a moderator.
I'm not even asking questions on the debate.
If you can't answer the question to a guy like me, I want to hear it from you because I think the audience would want to know.
We have a lot of your followers and we have people who are considering a lot of people who call themselves libertarian that now are like, dude, I'm not down with that.
That just completely threw me off.
Well, yeah, and see, that's where I'm getting.
Up until recently, the Libertarian Party platform was that we only let people across the border who are not going to take away your life, liberty, or property.
And now it's become more open borders.
So that's why I'm saying there's some serious discussion in the Libertarian Party.
And my promise to the Libertarian Party was that I would uphold the platform.
And I do like the idea of only letting people across who believe in life, liberty, and property that they're not going to take those from.
So would you have a border patrol?
Would you have a border?
Do we verify that now?
If I come through today, if I go to Tijuana, which I've gone to many times when I was 18 years old, if I'm coming back, there'd be a line of cars and there's a fence that I have to cross.
Tom, you've gone through this before when you go to Tijuana.
Absolutely.
There's a fence and what do they do?
Can we see the idea of everybody in the car?
How about making it wider so the line's not so long, first of all?
I think this is a very serious issue, Joe.
I want to go back to what you're saying, though.
Under your administration, what does that border look like?
If somebody is coming from Central or South America because their country has a lot of problems, they're escaping whatever regime they're going through.
They're escaping the Mexican cartel.
They're trying to come to America.
Or the ISIS is trying to figure out a way to come through the border because Americans are being politicians are being naive and they open up the border to say, oh, we're just an open border type of place.
And ISIS will say, what a naive bunch of people.
Let me get in there.
This is an easy way for me to get in.
Under your administration, that would be open?
I would suggest that we have better national intelligence that we don't know, you know, that we don't know who the dangerous people.
We're not going to get everybody, but we're not going to get everybody who are homegrown terrorists either.
I mean, we've got a Timothy McVay who was born on the soil.
So it's never going to be you never have utopia.
But what I'm asking you is, would your borders be open?
Would it look like going from Florida to Georgia?
No.
What would it look like?
It would look like everybody who comes across, if national security has said that this person shouldn't come across, it's going to be more like 99% coming across.
So what we have now, we just had 2 million border crossings last year.
But the problem that we have now, we've got two problems now.
We've got an impossible system to become a legal immigrant.
There's low quotas.
People have to go through too much paperwork.
Secondly, when they come here, we've got a welfare state that we say, okay, we can pick up on them.
Although, well, two things.
First of all, yeah, I don't like this whole phone idea.
I don't know why we're giving people free phone calls.
Yeah, they're giving them phones instead of ankle bracelets.
Guys, I want to simplify this.
It's very simple for me.
I want to talk borders.
Let's stay on borders.
What happens if a libertarian candidate is the president?
What does the borders look like?
But that's what I'm telling you.
I'm going to let 99% of the people go.
To come in.
99% come in.
Yes.
So we'd have similar numbers, like 2 million, 3 million.
It'd be even higher than that.
It would be like when my grandparents came across, which is what helped make our country great.
But I would like to go back to the charity because I said I don't like the fact that we've got so many welfare programs that they can come in and take advantage of.
However, many of them are set up so that somebody has to be here one year, two years, five years, depending on what it is, depending on if it's state or local, depending on if it's from one state to another.
I don't believe that many of these people are coming across the border just for our welfare.
I think many of them are coming across for the very reason that my grandparents came across, which is to work hard and make a better life for themselves.
I think I still don't have an answer, though.
That's what I'd like to continue.
Go ahead, Tom.
Joe, respectfully.
You know, in your answers here, you're pointing back to some very real issues.
Okay.
So we have quotas, we have H-1B quotas for professional knowledge workers.
We also have certain quotas for total immigration.
Yeah, those are things that are going on now.
But if you were president, you know damn well that an executive order, you could sign on day one and you can move those numbers.
The question really is.
And I would, and I would.
And what people want to hear is what does open border mean specifically for you, the libertarian president?
And if you could answer that.
Again, I'm letting in 99% of the people.
She just did.
And through intelligence, I'm going to have somebody stopping somebody that we know is a murderer, somebody who, you know, that we know is a terrorist from the Middle East.
So nice.
Somebody that's a gang.
How are you going to know?
Like, can you read my, okay, what number am I thinking right now?
Again.
But what I'm trying to say is, how do you know anybody's motives?
How do you know, like, are we going to have a born identity, not born identity, minority to report technology to know who's about to create a future crime and arrest people on future crimes?
You don't know.
Even today, we don't have that kind of intelligence to track all of that.
But I can say the same thing.
How do we know that Timothy McVay was going to go and bomb people?
There are dangerous people in this country as well.
You can't know every motive, but you can know who gang members are in Mexico, right?
MS-13.
Can't you know them?
So then that then goes to if we already have so many problems like a Timothy McVay in our country, why don't we close the borders and make the requirements clear, but a little bit more picky on who we hire.
A company who just hires anybody and everybody into the company without a filtering system, whoever that hiring person is in that company should be fired because there's got to be certain criterias on how you hire people, right?
Such as.
You want me to give you some of them?
Yeah.
It's very easy.
I want to know what your experience is.
I want to know what kind of qualifications you've got.
So I want to know what you bring to the table.
I want to know how you're going to make my company better.
I want to know how many jobs you've had in the last five years and how many times you've changed.
I want to know what your attendance is.
I want to call your three references.
I want to put a small challenge to you in the interview process and tell you, Joe, I like your attitude.
I like the way this is going.
Do you like to read books?
I do.
I want you to read this book, write a paper on it into this third interview.
I want to see what you get out of this book.
You willing to do that?
Sure.
If you don't come back 50% of the time, you don't finish a small assignment like that.
You're not going to finish a small assignment when you're hired with me.
I just filtered out the people that don't want to do the work.
I would filter those people out instead of saying, come on in, everybody.
Let's hire everybody.
So why don't we just hire 200 people, forget about hiring anybody.
Let people apply to work for this company and don't even interview them.
Just bring them all in.
That just, the logic behind, even I'm thinking purely logically as an operator, I can't logically, I should have never, like, if I think about myself at a certain age, you should have never hired me because I was not qualified to be hired.
So we should let anybody through the border.
Okay, so let me go.
We can agree to disagree and get to a more interesting topic.
Yeah.
Yeah, well, this is a very interesting topic.
And by the way, a lot of people are worried about this specific topic.
Yeah, except I don't think we're going to get anywhere on that.
But I think, but what I do think, a lot of people are here saying, you know, there is an answer to that.
I want to know what the position is for the Libertarian Party on how they manage that.
But you didn't just get like 10,000 votes.
You didn't get 20,000 votes.
You got 1.8.
So the way you got 1.8, I'm trying to think, did you guys get 1.8 because there's 1.8 million libertarians in America?
Is it just talking to the base of people that agree with you, or you don't talk to people that maybe challenge the position and break it down where others can make up their mind and say, well, this makes sense or this doesn't make sense?
Because that also gets your argument to be stronger to say, well, listen, I just sat down with this guy.
He asked that question.
I don't have an answer for it.
Guys, we got to be ready because someone's going to ask me this question under the election.
We got to get, watch this clip.
Here's how I answered it.
You should have said this.
This is the position.
Got it.
Let's role play.
So that's how I would train my candidate if I'm their campaign manager.
But let's go through another topic.
I have two questions on immigration before that.
You mentioned that.
Kai, hold that thought.
I want to go ask this one question and then I'm going to come back to you.
So selling stuff, what shouldn't be sold legally?
What should be illegal to sell?
What list would you come up with?
I'm asking you.
I mean, people.
People shouldn't be sold.
Okay, so prostitution under libertarian rule.
No, Pimping would be illegal.
That's not the same thing as selling.
Selling would be slavery.
Selling people would be slavery.
Prostitution is voluntary.
So pimping is fine.
Not the pimping we have right now.
And that's the whole problem.
That's why we have the problems with pimping right now, is because it's not legal.
If you look at a place where it is legal, like in Nevada, certain parts of Nevada, you don't have the STIs.
You don't have the pimps beating up the women.
You don't have a lot of the dangerous problems going on.
And why should it be illegal?
Okay, so pimping should be illegal under illegal.
But you keep saying pimping.
That's a disclaimer.
No, but I'm being specific.
I'm a person's.
How about prostitution?
I'm asking you, prostitution.
Should that be legal?
Absolutely.
It's your body.
Do whatever you want to do with it.
Well, not if you're going to hurt somebody else, but if you're going to have a consensual relationship with somebody else.
And get paid for it.
That's totally fine.
I don't discriminate against ugly people.
I mean, some guys, maybe they couldn't get a hot chick without that.
Why shouldn't they have the same things as somebody who has money or looks?
There you go.
Okay, so what should be illegal?
What should be illegal to be sold?
Do you want to give me a list?
First of all, nobody's ever asked me that question.
Secondly, I can't think of any inanimate object that would qualify.
So let's just say Elon Musk has got $300 billion.
He wants to go buy a nuclear bomb.
Should it be legal?
That question is so ridiculous.
I guess it depends on how dangerous of the neighborhood he lives in.
Is that really on the top 10 concerns of voters' mind?
It is.
Oh, it is.
No, I see inflation.
Well, Border is definitely one of them, and you wanted to skip that because you didn't think it's a big deal.
China was one of them, and you said, can we go to another topic?
That's one of their top 10 issues.
Now I'm trying to get a little bit more different because I'm saying what product because let's just say crack should be legal.
Can I tell you real quick, please?
Okay, we didn't skip China.
We just got to a stalemate.
I gave you my Japan answer.
I gave you myself.
I know, but yeah, again, you keep mentioning crack.
We wouldn't even have crack if cocaine hadn't been illegal, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.
So I want to follow up on Pat's with what can and can't be sold.
What age can certain things be sold?
Is there a limit on that?
Alcohol now is 21 here.
It's 18 in most other countries.
Drugs, legalization, is there a certain age where you can or can't?
And who says that and what's the process of making sure that that's followed?
Well, I'm fine with 18.
And I'd like to point out the reason that it's 21 is Elizabeth Dole, because basically if a state, the residents would send their money to the federal government, and the only way for them to get it back would be for bribery to occur, which is, okay, you're only getting your money back.
That's your money, by the way, if you raise your drinking age to 21.
Why shouldn't different states have different laws in which one state's 18, another one's 21, another's 20?
So, you know, competition among states, but what we have with the federal government is one size fits all where we don't get much choice.
But no, I'm not having, you know, an age limit of five on alcohol.
That's ridiculous.
18 is pretty reasonable.
And what about drugs?
18 across the board is fine with me.
And would that also be a country thing, or is it more a state or even like a city, county?
Yeah, states, I mean, there are dry counties.
And what happens if you are on vacation in a different state and you're breaking the law?
Like, for instance, if you, there's cases of people who have marijuana, they live in California, they go to some place where it's not legal, you get caught.
Like, what's the ramifications there?
How does that look like?
Well, just as we ended alcohol prohibition nationally, I would like to end marijuana prohibition nationally so that we don't have that.
With that, though, if one county or one state says we don't want to, are you then limiting that they have to, or is it more a, well, if you don't want to, then you don't have to?
Again, I think people have the right to make their choice.
I mean, notice we're not having this conversation on alcohol.
We're not saying, you know, well, what if, you know, Mississippi wanted to outlaw alcohol?
And I'd like to point out, and I know from my job, that marijuana is a heck of a lot safer than alcohol.
And so, again, we've got a system in which the politicians, they prefer alcohol, so they make their drug legal.
Why not make other people's drugs legal?
Joe, just out of curious, who have you debated?
who's been your toughest debate ever?
I mean, I didn't feel that any of my debates were tough.
I've only, I'm, yeah.
Who have you debated?
In 1996, I was in a third-party debate when I debated the Green Party, Constitution Party, and those.
In March before the nomination, I was also in a third-party debate where I sat next to the Green Party nominee and a few other people.
And then, of course, the debates within the Libertarian Party.
But when's the last time you had a really tough debate against a non-libertarian?
When is the last debate?
It was pretty easy debating the Green Party candidate, that's for sure.
So.
Yeah, let me continue.
When is the last time you had a debate with a non-libertarian or non-Green Party?
When is the last time you had a debate with somebody that was non-libertarian, non-Green?
Well, an official debate, like I said, it would be in the nomination process in 2020, 2019, 2020.
Who'd you debate?
Well, as I said, the Green Party, I don't remember who all was on the stage.
Some of them are parties I'd never heard of, but I have heard of the Green Party.
And then in 2020, it was within the party.
So you've never debated anybody that's opposing Libertarian or Green Party.
Well, I mean, again, I want to Google it right.
I'm on YouTube right now.
If I type in George Orgenson debate, what would you say is the debate that you had that was either a Democrat or Republican or an Independent?
Oh, there was a Democrat or two in the debate in Chicago in March.
Yeah, I guess it would have been March 2020.
Who were they when you debated them?
I don't remember their names.
Was it a stage debate?
Was it public?
No, yeah, it was in Chicago.
And what was the format?
What was the format of the debate?
We would go down the line and answer questions and get to respond to each other.
But that's not a debate, though.
So you've never run.
Well, I mean, you know, it's not like the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
It wasn't.
Are you planning on running in 2023, 2024?
I don't know.
Okay, so let's just say you are.
Who is your, like, who behind closed doors are they sitting there and like, you know, going back and forth?
The ASICs, you say this.
If they say this, you say this.
Like, who does that with you guys back and forth debating?
Do you guys practice a lot of that?
Well, since I was in no debates after the nomination, we didn't do it.
We were invited to the third-party debate.
However, we were on the ballot in all 50 states.
And so I did not want to debate the other parties because that would get us into comparison with them as opposed to the Democrats and Republicans.
If I debated the Green Party, then for the next four weeks, I'd have reporters asking me to compare, you know, what about this on the debate stage?
And now compare this.
And the Libertarian Party is the only party other than the Democrats and Republicans to be on the ballot in all 50 states.
And so I'm not going to debate the Green Party or Kanye West, who's on 16 states.
It actually probably would get you more eyeballs if you debated Kanye West.
I think that actually would be a good debate.
That actually might not be a bad idea.
But going back to it, so debating, so who's been your toughest interview?
Who has interviewed the toughest and pushed you where you got off saying, what a son of a bitch?
In the past?
Yes.
Toughest interview ever.
Well, you couldn't wait to finish the interview.
Oh, that would have been in 1996 when I was running for VP and I interviewed somebody in Ohio, but I don't remember the guy's name.
That's a long time ago.
Edif.
It's a long time ago.
That's like saying you want to be a heavyweight champion today, but the last time you fought a heavyweight was 26 years ago.
You know how tough that is?
Well, no, you didn't ask when's the last time I fought a heavyweight.
That was the last time because I wasn't as prepared in 1996.
So who's the last heavyweight you fought?
Who's your last heavyweight you fought?
Oh, like who interviewed me?
Yeah, who's the toughest interview you've had recently?
Well, but again, I wouldn't call it tough, but the Washington Post.
I mean, I got interviewed by several media people, but I didn't consider them tough.
Yeah, so, okay.
So for me, the reason why I asked that question is because I've sat with other libertarians and for somebody who politically was on a different side, and I sit down and like, let me hear the libertarian argument.
And, you know, I'm like, oh, okay, that makes sense.
Oh, okay.
Well, you know what?
That's a good point.
You got me thinking.
Oh, wow.
Okay.
You know what?
Never thought about it.
I never looked at drugs that way.
I never looked at prostitution that way before.
I never looked at, you know, stealing that way before.
Interesting.
Okay, cool.
It made me think, right?
And I don't feel I asked.
Well, so the meth house didn't make you think the idea that, okay, if we had Philip Morris making meth instead of the guy next door, that that would be safer.
Isn't that maybe something you haven't heard?
And we didn't get into prostitution, but hey, I think I was pretty unique saying that I don't want to discriminate against ugly guys.
I mean, right now to do it legally, you have to have money or you have to be good looking, right?
To get the woman that you want with her looks.
I think that's you.
Are you open to feedback?
Can I give feedback?
Okay.
So if I wanted to give you feedback, here's what I would do.
I would sit you down in a room like this for four weeks straight, and I would grill the hell out of you until you were throwing stuff at me.
Oh, absolutely.
Yeah, and you would throw stuff at me because I know how to do that.
And you would say, Pat, I need a break.
I'd say, no problem.
Go for it.
Take a break.
Come back.
Okay, Dr. Joe, we role play this.
I'm going to ask a question one more time.
What are your points?
Boom.
And I would go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, because there's a difference between the big stage and between debating other libertarians.
I mean, what does a debate with a libertarian look like?
Okay, I agree with him.
Yeah, I agree with him.
But I also agree with him.
But what I would say is this, but I think the age is 19.
But I think the age should be 18.
But I think the border should be this.
But I think that, but I agree.
But I agree.
But I agree.
I mean, the most one time we had a debate, Tyler, who was the debate we had with the two marijuana folks that we had here debating.
Dr. Barrellas.
Yeah, and then, no, no, it wasn't even that.
It was the debate I had between Alan Dershowitz and the other gentleman who wrote the vaccine book.
And then 20 minutes into, I'm like, guys, why don't we just finish this debate and guys go have dinner together?
Because every word is, I agree, I agree, I agree.
Nobody wants to see something like that.
People want to learn on opposing ideas to sit there and say, that doesn't make any sense.
Okay.
So how do you, let's change the subject.
How do you feel President Biden is doing so far?
Oh, awful.
Tell me why.
Almost couldn't be worse.
Why?
Go right down the list.
The masks.
Well, first of all, the fact that he basically thinks he's king for everybody, for every decision.
The fact that he thinks he can tell schools what to do.
The fact that he's given Fauci so much power.
That he's shutting down businesses.
That he's printing up money, handing out checks.
I can't think of anything he's done right.
The only thing that I would have done that he did was withdraw the troops, but I certainly wouldn't have taken the soldiers out first and left the civilians.
That doesn't even make sense.
So the one thing that I agree with him on, he totally screwed up.
I can't think of anything he's done right.
What did you like what Trump did?
Did Trump do anything right?
Yes, he did reduce some regulations.
Yeah, reducing regulations, reducing taxes.
Now, of course, you know, the debt and the deficit, we're getting into Obama territory, but yeah.
Deficit.
Oh, and I did like his pick for the Supreme Court.
Which one?
No.
Amy.
Yes.
Coleman.
Yeah.
I like, I would have a hundred times picked her over our most recent one.
Okay, so Libertarian, let's talk about transgender, where, you know, the conversation with Disney saying, you know, sex ed by third grade and, you know, after third grade, we do sex ed.
And then I think Jen Sacchi yesterday, if you want to put up what Jen Sackey said yesterday about transgender, I don't know if you saw that or not.
Put Jen Sackey transgender yesterday briefing.
Yeah, if you can.
Huh?
Solve for news?
Yeah, soft for news.
It wouldn't be March 31st.
Go back to it because it was yesterday.
It's April 7th, I want to say, just type in news, yeah.
Press briefing, press records, they're not even going to put it up.
There are so ridiculous.
Can you zoom in a little bit to see if we have it?
Yeah, let me find it.
Okay, you find it.
But meanwhile, what is your position with Disney coming out and then Disney saying that 50% of their characters moving forward within 12 months are going to be part of the LGBTQ community?
What's your thoughts on that?
Well, Disney's a private company.
It's a public company.
I mean, I'm sorry.
Well, I mean, it's not the government.
Okay.
I mean, it's the free market as opposed to government.
So they can do whatever they want, and their customers can do whatever they want.
And I've heard many people say that we are not going to continue to put our money into Disney.
And I don't like what they're doing.
But can I step back to the bigger transgender issue?
Because this is another issue in which I think both the Democrats and the Republicans are basically wrong.
On the Republican side, many Republicans are saying, you know, well, first of all, people are confusing sex with gender.
And to use a shorthand method, gender is between the ears, sex is between the legs.
So, and yes, it is possible, and I'm teaching this in class right now, it is possible to have the genitalia that do not match because of hormones prenatally, especially around the sixth and seventh week.
So the Republicans act as though there's no such thing as being transgender, that you're basically just cross-dressing, which is a different thing.
The Democrats, on the other hand, act like 25% of the population is transgender, and now we've got to change all of our laws.
I mean, it's less than 1%.
It's one out of 1,000 people are transgender.
So there is a sane place in the middle where we can say, yes, a very, very small minority of people are transgender.
And why do we need to make laws about that?
And, oh, well, and see, this gets back to the don't say gay thing.
That gets more into parents not having choice over their schools.
And I can tell you that before age 10, kids are not thinking about any kind of sex.
They don't understand being attracted to another person.
Even heterosexual eight-year-olds are not thinking about heterosexual sex.
So why are we teaching, why are they teaching, homosexual sex to eight-year-olds?
It doesn't make any sense.
But instead of having a law, what we need to have are schools that parents can choose to send their kids to in which the parents decide.
And I do think that parents would overwhelmingly say, what do you mean you're teaching my seven-year-old about homosexual sex?
That's just not even on the radar.
So Jensaki says sex reassignment surgery, puberty blockers for kids is best practice.
States preventing it will be held accountable.
So for you, is the libertarian position let the person do whatever they want to do with their body or if a nine-year-old wants to change their sex, that should be okay.
What would your position be with that?
The research is so clear that you should not do sex reassignment before age 16, 18, at least.
Many kids, it really can be a phase.
In fact, I just said that gender dysphoria is about one out of a thousand in the population.
Some recent polls have shown that 2% of high school kids think that they're transgender.
Okay, that can't be right.
So these are some people who think they are, but they're not.
And so I believe that good medicine would win out in this case.
That if you go to a medical doctor who's trained and who has read the research, they're not going to give you gender reassignment surgery.
But the problem we have now is, once again, the government is overstepping and they're basically telling doctors you have to do this.
And has Jen Saki gone to medical school?
Has she read the research?
Has Biden read the research?
So why do we have people who are politicians making these decisions?
Let's take some callers.
Let's take some callers.
John, did you have a question for us?
So real quick, I will never forget Ron Paul getting absolutely grilled by Bill Buckley on the Libertarian Party and their stances.
So you were talking earlier about having the CIA have information on people who may come across the border or ICE or my question is what is your stance or the Libertarian Party's stance on organizations like ICE, NHS, the CIA, the FBI?
Would you have an FDA?
Would you keep these organizations, abolish them?
Would it be case by case?
Would you privatize everything?
What would be your stance on that?
Yes, many of them would be abolished.
Let me mention the FDA specifically.
I'm fine with, I mean, first of all, I think a free market, FDA kind of organization would be much better than being under the government because nothing works better under the government than it does in the free market.
And let me give you an example of that.
We've got, let's say, going if you, and let me go broader, okay?
In the government, you can screw up and it's not going to cost you.
Because I've had people say, well, what about OSHA?
What about having people out there regulating?
Well, if you look at things like Yelp or the mobile restaurant guide or Zagat, they are going to put out the best information they can.
Because if they say this restaurant is five stars and you go there, it sucks, you're going to stop using them.
You're going to stop giving them money.
But the government can't go out of business.
So you can be a safety inspector.
In fact, I've talked to a few people on the campaign trail who said, oh, yeah, I worked in Chicago and they basically gave me a hard hat and gave me forms.
And they said, just go and ask the people to sign them.
Like, basically, don't even look.
Because what happens if you don't look?
You know, the government's not going to go out of business.
So rather than the FDA, which is protected by the government, which you can't fire them, I'd rather the free market get rid of the people, get rid of the organizations who do not do well.
So now, if you want to keep an FDA as an advisory role, okay, but not having them make legislation.
And that's one of the problems is we've got like the FDA, we've got the CDC that are now becoming legislators.
As I said, with the CDC coming around and saying that, yeah, don't evict anybody from your apartment.
They're not elected.
And they shouldn't have the right to do that anyway.
If anything, eviction laws should be done at the state and local level, not the federal level.
My position is, if you're not in the military, you should have almost zero contact with the federal government, that it should be run state and locally.
Let's take some callers.
There's some people that want to really talk, so let's take some callers.
John, if you're ready, let us know who you got and we'll go through it.
We have Raul on the phone.
Raul, how are you?
I'm good.
How are you?
Fantastic.
So Raul, what's on your mind?
What question do you have for Dr. Joe?
Awesome.
So I am the entrepreneur and recovery worker, so I don't have any interest in getting into politics at all.
I'm curious as to what advice Joel would give a young person looking at getting into politics.
Oh, a young person getting into politics?
Yeah.
So a lot of reporters asked me, when did you first become interested in politics?
And my answer was, I'm still not interested in politics.
I'm doing this as self-defense because the government is taking over.
I'd rather be home gardening.
To me, anybody who says they want to get into politics, that concerns me because usually people who want to get into politics want to make laws.
They want to tell their people what to do.
So typically people who are freedom fighters and want to restore freedom, they're not asking about being a politician.
If you're a freedom fighter and you want to get out there, yeah, I would say go to the local libertarian group and talk with them.
Okay, next.
Raul, good question.
Let's go to the next person, Johnny.
Yeah, we have Jake.
Jake, how you doing, Jake?
Hey, PBD.
Good morning.
Good morning from Denver.
Fantastic.
What's on your mind, Jake?
Yes, sir.
So getting on the live feed here, anytime I come across a libertarian, I can't help but to think of Dr. Ron Paul and his run with, I guess, his 08 and 2012 campaign.
Anything libertarian I always come across, like, I guess, in the Fed.
And I'd like to know your take on ending the Fed.
If you want to increase competition, cryptocurrency, back our currency up by gold, how would you go about that?
Thank you.
Thank you for taking my call.
In fact, The reason I'm here is I'm at the Bitcoin convention, and so many people have asked me, do you want to go back to the gold standard?
And my answer is I don't think that goes far enough, that monopolies don't work.
And part of the problem that we have with paper money is Joe Biden can come along and say, oh, I'm going to send everybody a $1,400 check.
But there's not $1,400 there to give to everybody.
So they go in print, which gives us inflation.
And there are basically two ways you can tax people.
You can either raise taxes in which people see it and they often complain because they see their paychecks lower, or you can cause inflation and then you're put in a higher tax bracket and you don't realize how that money is being taken out of your pocket.
So I would like to see free market money the way that we have free market and other things.
And, you know, even go back to back in the olden days when people couldn't pay their doctor, they would come in with chickens, right?
So, hey, if you want to accept chickens as currency, that should be your right.
Somebody just gave a super chat.
The username is No One Know Thyself, gave $25 and said, I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016.
You lost my vote when you endorsed BLM after all the rioting and looting stemming from their protests.
How could a libertarian be in favor of an authoritarian organization intimidating innocent people?
Not once did I endorse BLM, the organization.
And no, rioting goes against every single libertarian principle out there because you're taking away life, liberty, and property.
So they are not a libertarian organization, quite the opposite.
Now, I was criticized when I said we shouldn't be racist.
And, you know, keep in mind, the George Floyd incident happened, what, four days after I got the nomination.
So that's what everybody was asking about.
That was the topic.
One thing I do agree with with Black Lives Matter is that there is a problem.
And so I'm willing to speak to people who at least see there's a problem.
Now, here's the big thing, though.
And it kind of breaks my heart because I see these people in Black Lives Matter going to the government to try to solve their problems.
But government is the one that created those problems.
And I tried to spread the message that Rosa Parks was riding a government-run, government-owned bus that in a free market, you know, let's, and by the way, at the time that happened, something like 70% of the bus ridership was black.
Now, let's say Uber discriminated against the best 70% of their customers.
They'd go out of business as well.
They should.
It's only because the government could run a racist system.
The government, as I said, with the FDA, with everything else, can't go out of business.
So that's why we need the competition.
So, no, Black Lives Matter.
Like I said, I agree with them that there's a problem.
Asking for more government is the complete opposite direction.
You're not against protesters, though.
Like you supported them as protesting.
Not rioting and burning down buildings and all that.
Absolutely not.
Going out into the streets with signs, that's fine.
You want to put that article up, John?
Because I think that's what this journalist is talking about.
Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah.
If you want to put this up.
Yeah, but notice opportunistic people hijacking the movement.
I mean, I heard instances in which there were peaceful black lives.
I'm trying to think of where this happened.
It was a Starbucks in Portland, I think.
I don't remember the exact city.
But there were, and somebody got this on tape.
There were Black Lives Matter people there protesting.
And then there were the white Antifa people coming in.
And they were saying, oh, we got to get this going.
And they start vandalizing a Starbucks.
And the Black Lives Matter people are saying, no, no, no, that's not what we want to do.
You know, go away.
You're not helping.
So I don't care who it is.
Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the local garden party, the local garden club, absolutely rioting, burning down buildings.
That's the opposite of libertarian.
So let me ask a question.
I think this goes to what the caller is just saying is some maybe confusion about Libertarian Party.
If you go, the average person on the street who doesn't dive into mountains and mountains of articles and get them roughed up, you say, what's a Democrat?
Oh, that's the party of the little guy.
Gay marriage, minorities, helping people get welfare.
Aren't the Democrats for the little guy?
I'm just talking about an uninitiated man on the street.
Then, Republican, so what's a Republican?
Oh, they're in favor of business and low taxes and things like that.
So even the uninitiated person on the street is going to understand a couple things.
What are the brand tenets or the two core flags that are easy to remember and easy to articulate that the Libertarian Party is trying to put out there?
Because there seems to be a lot of confusion about what your stances really are, which goes to you need to be better at projecting the message.
So what are those little things that you would have people remember?
Oh, yeah.
Well, look, if you want to be about big business and low taxes, converted value, that's Republicans.
You want to be about the little guy in gay marriage and minorities, that's Democrats.
We are this.
Individual liberty and personal responsibility.
Which means what?
That you are allowed to make your own choices.
So you have the individual liberty to send your kids to the school you want, get the kind of health care you want, get the kind of retirement you want.
But on the other hand, you've got the responsibility that you are responsible for your choices.
So if you don't save enough, the government's not going to rescue you.
You're going to rely on charity.
But do you mind if I go back?
This is one of the things that frustrates me the most, if you wouldn't mind my, is that unfortunately the Democratic Party has been given the accolades that now we have marriage equality, that now gays can get married.
10 years ago, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were against gay marriage.
It was the Libertarian Party who even back in the 1970s said people should be able to marry whoever they want to marry.
And so, and it's how you categorized it is how I would have categorized it maybe 40 years ago.
In the 1980s, when people would ask me what a libertarian is, I would say we take the best of both sides.
And I would say, for instance, we take the best of the Democratic Party in that we believe that you should be able to marry whoever you want to marry and so forth.
We take the best of the Republican side.
You should be able to hire whoever you want to hire, fire whoever you want to fire.
We put those together.
But you can't say that anymore.
I mean, the Democratic Party is no longer the Democratic Party.
I remember from the 1960s, they were the anti-war, pro-peace party.
And now, look, Trump says he wants to bring, you know, have troop withdrawal.
Who are the first people to criticize him?
The Democrats.
And so now we've gotten to the point to where it's no longer the left is protecting personal liberty.
In fact, they're the biggest fascists.
They want to censor everybody.
And Republicans, their free spending almost as bad as the Democrats.
So now it really is the red team and the blue team.
And whatever Trump wants to do, Democrats are automatically saying, no, no, no, we can't do that.
And then Biden wants to do something.
And the Republicans automatically know we can't do that.
But if you look, Trump had some very, you know, what was historically, what historically belonged to the Democrats, ending war.
And here the Democrats are fighting that.
So I have a question regarding that, because in many ways, it seems like how you're explaining it is in terms of individual freedom and then more collective in terms of you can kind of do what you want and more freedom on that end.
I think that's more a vague concept and an idea that we, I'd say probably most people could support.
Hypothetically, theoretically, awesome.
I want to have more liberty and I can decide what I am.
And I also have the responsibility of that.
Now, the second thing you said is how the parties have shifted, right?
So don't you think that in that case you need to shift the way the Libertarian Party looks as well?
Because you can't say, well, we're a little bit of that and we're a little bit of that.
Because a big thing with people vote, how many people voted for Biden because they didn't want Donald Trump?
How many people voted for Donald Trump because they didn't want Biden?
So if it's a, I'm voting for this because I don't want that in a two-party system, then that's where you're at.
So how are you going to then position yourself as a third party of don't vote for that, don't vote for that, because this is what we are.
So kind of the way I look at it is the biggest problem with a libertarian, especially the Libertarian Party, is I see them as the get rid of the government, get rid of most of the things, which in that case is like, okay, then we're just living in a tribe.
In other words, we could go to Montana and just set up tents and live among ourselves.
So it needs to be something that's a little bit more confined and say, here are the three things we do, which is different, and here are the things we don't do, because that way people can say, this is what we are and this is what we aren't.
Because a big thing, even if you look back at any third attempt of a third party throughout basically the last hundred years, is nobody really knows what the third party is except that it's not the Republican Party or it's not the Democratic Party.
Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't create a party that's bigger than him because once he stepped away, it was Teddy Roosevelt's party.
It wasn't here's the foundation of what we believe, either get on it or get off.
It was more, hey, we want to see Teddy Roosevelt in office and we want him to do his thing, so let's vote for them.
But you need to create something that's bigger than one person in that case.
You brought up several excellent points.
So, yes, you're right.
We can no longer say good part from the right, good part from the left.
And like I said, I used to say that in the 80s.
I don't say that anymore because you can't.
And I would like to, you know, I'm criticizing the Republican Party, but I would like to point out that I look at Republican politicians and the party separate from Republican voters.
And in fact, my 1996 stump speech was why Republican politicians keep selling out freedom.
And I would talk about the many fine Republican voters who want smaller government, but the politicians keep giving them bigger government.
So very frustrating, such as even Ronald Reagan.
But yes, something the libertarians have been very bad at is for many years, we said what we were against.
You know, abolish this, abolish that, and this, and that.
Instead of saying what we were for.
And the other problem that we've had is we almost put ourselves out there as an exclusive club.
And if you don't answer every question right, then you're not pure enough to be a libertarian.
You know, very philosophical.
And we need to let in people.
I say let in people.
Even that was old libertarian language.
We need to bring in people who do want something that's different from now.
People who do want some liberty and being able to make their own choices.
And that's one of the things that we're doing with People for Liberty.
So we're never going to get anywhere if we keep doing the same thing in the party, which is you can only come in if you sign in blood that you're 100% pure.
So what we're trying to do is reach out to people who have an interest in one freedom issue, one issue, because everybody's got something.
Or at least, let's say, 40 million people, if not 100 million, where there's one thing that they say, yes, the government needs to stay out of my life with this.
And what we're doing is we're looking at these different people and saying, okay, come on into the liberty movement and let's see what else would interest you with freedom.
Now, some things are obvious, and we have found through doing surveys, and that's what People for Liberty is doing, we found through surveys that if you are for cannabis reform, then you're also for criminal justice reform.
And that's pretty obvious, right?
But there are some less obvious ones.
Like if you're for school choice, it turns out that your adjacent issue or the thing that you're most likely to say yes and for this as well is getting rid of licensing laws.
Because so many people who want school choice, they've tried to hire somebody to tutor or to teach a class to get credit for whatever.
And then they find out, oh, there's all these licensing laws.
We can't send our kid here.
And especially with COVID, when parents couldn't send their kids to the real school, so they try to find, hey, let's find, you know, cow students or professors, whatever, to teach.
And it's like, no, can't do that.
So what we're trying to do is bring people in on one issue.
And then it's, you know, slowly bringing them in.
The only issue I see with something like that is going back to gay marriage, which you just mentioned.
It was the Libertarian Party that spearheaded that.
As soon as it become trending, the Democrats threw that under their umbrella and said, yeah, this is a part of us.
So if you're only going on one case on trying to reel people in, then you're going to reel people in.
But as soon as there's a popular movement for that, then one of the parties, however, which one that aligns more with, are just going to swipe that under the rug for them and say, yeah, this is what we stand for.
Well, two points.
And I might not have made this clear.
First, when I say one issue, it's different for different people.
Like I said, some people, it'll be cannabis.
Other people, school choice.
Other people, health care.
And by the way, health care is one of my top issues.
So we're not out there pushing one issue.
We're just saying if you have one issue, we don't care what it is, come on in and let's introduce you to some other people.
And the second thing is, you know what?
If the Democratic Party grabs onto it and passes laws, so now we have marriage equality, fine.
You know, like they, one of the famous things is that the socialists in their 1920 platform or whatever, never elected a socialist and yet every one of their planks got in.
If I can get my planks in, I don't care who gets them in.
By the way, we're about to get a caller in.
Two things before we wrap up.
Do you have an opinion on Dave Smith?
Well, yes.
Is it a good one?
Is it a bad one?
What's your perspective on him?
Because he's getting a lot of younger people to pay attention to him.
Yeah.
I mean, like everything else, some good, some bad.
How different are you and him?
What differences do you guys have?
Philosophically, not much.
Okay.
I mean, well, actually, I don't want to say that.
I mean, no, let me take that back.
When it comes to like health care, no difference, I'm sure.
Although I haven't heard him speak directly to health care.
Education, probably not much choice, or not much difference.
But there are some, there are many things that he has said that I'm 100% against.
So such as?
Oh, such as if you're a man and you want sex and you can't get it by persuasion, then you can give a woman 12 drinks and it's okay.
I don't think that's okay.
That's what he said?
That's what he said that you can give a woman 12 drinks.
He said he said if he gives a strategy specifically.
Was that an offhand comment, an interview, or how did he present what you heard and you just repeated?
So it was reported to me that he said it on his podcast, and then when people protested, he posted it and put it in writing.
And also, I disagree, you know, yeah, let's just say that's one of several.
Okay.
Okay, so let's let me just ask another question before we do this.
Was January 6th an insurrection or was it a protest?
It was a total misguided protest.
And I'm so glad that they found that first person not guilty, that the guards basically let them in.
These people didn't plan a resurrection.
They didn't have maps.
They were just people who were angry and upset.
And I, you know, if somebody vandalized something, if somebody hurt somebody, absolutely they need to be brought to justice because you have the right to life, liberty, and property.
But when the security guard opens the door for you, you know, it should be nothing trespassing at the most.
But he didn't even get that, right?
He was found not guilty of that.
Fantastic, folks.
I hope you enjoyed this as much as I did.
My dad is here.
My dad, it's his 80th birthday, and I told him I'm going to get him on the podcast.
And he has no clue that we were going to get him on the podcast, but he apparently showed up.
I didn't think he was going to do it because my dad doesn't like the camera.
Do you see him or no?
Because that door is open.
They're grabbing him.
They're grabbing him.
Okay, so while he's doing that, I see Jen and there.
Oh, you see Jen and who is here, John?
Oh, we got people.
Oh, everyone is here.
Okay, come on.
Brooklyn is in the house.
Brooklyn, Kai, maybe let him sit right here.
Sean, we got balloons.
We got Janita.
Look at all those balloons.
You got all those.
Let me see Brooklyn.
Come here, baby.
This is too many people, huh?
Brooklyn.
Yeah, we can change that.
We can change that.
Oh.
Joe, we do this every show.
Apparently, it looks well organized.
How are you doing, baby?
Okay.
I think this is Brother.
Ana Juan.
Anna two.
Anna.
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday to you.
Happy birthday, dear Gabriel.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU!
WHAT WAS THAT, BROOKLYN?
What was that?
If she starts crying, Mario, I'm telling you right now.
He broke it.
What is happening?
Come here, So, baby, question for you after listening to today's podcast.
How you feeling?
Huh?
Pop, you want to say something?
Everybody wants to hear from you.
Yeah, let's hear the mic.
Put it up a little bit.
Thank you.
So, how you feeling, man?
Come a little closer to the mic, please.
Thank you very much for this surprise.
I never.
Yes, 80 years.
80 crazy years now.
80 years old, huh?
Yeah, 80 years.
Fly.
Then this is it.
So the question after today's interview, are you now a libertarian because of George Orgenson?
Are you going to be a libertarian?
Did you pay attention to what she was saying with her argument?
Did you listen to the podcast?
No.
Let's shimmy.
Okay, he's behind on podcasts.
He's still on Francis and Gano.
Yeah.
He had an appointment this morning.
I know he did.
I know he did.
And we said last night that we're going to get him on.
I think this is the first time Brooklyn, this the first time you're on or second time?
Is this the first time she's on?
Second time she came before or no?
Okay, very cool.
What do you think this is?
Say something.
Say, baby.
Baby.
Baby.
Pop, give us some kind of advice, man.
Adam yesterday said, what advice do you have for us?
We were having a nice glass of wine.
We were having good conversations.
Just patient.
Be patient.
Be patient.
Tell life you don't know what's going on.
And every single day you're receiving a box.
Yep.
There is everything in that box.
The day you're followed to end.
And if you review, it wasn't yours.
It was God that's giving you the gift and to using it as a great positive thing.
Be positive.
And that's it.
That's it.
Life is sad.
What were you saying about time is a thief?
Would you agree?
Exactly.
Time is a thief.
Yeah.
There is the two thieves walking with you.
You can't sue them.
You can't do anything.
They're taking everything from you before you know what's happening.
You know, I'm going to do it tomorrow for sure.
I'll start it tomorrow for sure.
There is no tomorrow for that person.
If you want to start right now.
Right now.
I got to go, guys.
I got to see you.
You know?
This is a simple way that success.
Of course.
Yeah.
Let me tell you, I said this last night.
I said this like my sister's here, Paula.
If you want to come a little closer so the audience can see you as well, but I said this yesterday when we were having dinner because what year was it when he had his big heart attack?
Was it 93 or 94?
94.
94, right?
And I remember for the longest time you kept your packs of cigarettes in the kitchen.
You lost that packs of cigarettes.
What'd you do with it?
I wish I could find it.
No, some friend they came and smoked.
They smoked that pack in the last pack of cigarette they smoked.
Yeah.
Maiva, by the way, Alfred.
Alfred Krishna cigar.
Camu Kodum Alfred.
Albert Alfred.
Yes.
Anyways, but we were saying yesterday how lucky we are, I am personally, that God chose you as my dad.
My life has changed because of you.
I am the man I am because of you.
Every day I thank God for you.
I know Paulette and I feel the same way.
You have a very unique way of leading, loving, and the standard you set of a man that, when you said you're going to do something to do, you and Paulette, through this two, are you six grandkids, six grandkids, six grandkids.
Man, that's pretty intense.
Yeah listen, if I had it my way, you would have 14 more.
Yeah, we're done with that anyways okay well listen, thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Maybe one Adam, you know what we got to do.
One of these is we got to do a podcast.
We just sit down with pops and we do a podcast with them.
Okay no, we're gonna do it one day.
We sit down.
Maybe we uh have the family.
We got you a cake here but Brooklyn, you are not nervous at all with all these people around you.
She had to run this room, right.
She's uh, she's uh, very comfortable right now.
Yeah, the girl who was born on our anniversary, June 26th crazy today we'll never forget okay Brooklyn you okay, we finished the podcast.
Is that okay with you?
We love you, baby girl.
Daddy, love you so much.
Papa, thank you so much, thank you, thank you.
Thank you for sticking around everybody.
Dr. Joe Jorgensen, thank you for coming out taking all the questions to wrap up the podcast with, where can people find you, where they can learn more about what you're doing?
Next, if people wanted to find you, is there a website?
Is there Twitter?
Is there somewhere to go find you people?
The number four, Liberty.org Liberty.org.
Peopleforliberty.org.
Let's put the link below, put it in the chat box, put it in the comment section, put it in the description, put it everywhere.
You heard it today.
Maybe if you do decide to run, we'll bring you back and we'll ask some of the same questions and maybe we'll have different kind of answers.
