Dave Smith and Robbie dissect the federal government's intervention in domestic unrest, arguing that while libertarians oppose state violence, they must support local law enforcement to prevent Bolshevik-style revolutions when local police fail. They critique Trump's half-hearted deployment of federal forces due to fascist fears, noting his strategy backfired as chaos under his presidency fuels public perception of "Trump's America." The hosts predict avoided debates due to Biden's health and criticize his VP selection for prioritizing identity politics over competence, concluding that the pandemic has intensified culture wars over daily life control. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Big Election and Government Size00:04:02
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gas Digital Network.
We need to roll back the state.
We spy on all of our own citizens.
Our prisons are flooded with nonviolent drug offenders.
If you want to know who America's next enemy is, look at who we're funding right now.
Every single one of these problems are a result of government being way too big.
Hey, what's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I'm back and I'm back with my partner in crime, Robbie the Fire Bernstein, the king of the caulks.
The caws will rise again.
How are you, brother?
I'm doing well.
How are you?
Very good.
Very good.
So for today's episode, I thought we would, there are just a few different things that we could talk about.
And I don't have too much planned, but I think there could be some interesting conversations we could have.
And I thought we would spend a little bit of time talking about the presidential election because I really haven't been focusing that much on the presidential election.
They're hot on the campaign trails.
I don't know how you're missing this.
Yeah, right.
Joe Biden is hot in his basement, which is, you know, by the way, I got to say, smart campaign strategy by there are people.
I would be doing the exact same thing if I was running Joe Biden's campaign.
No, but it's kind of, it's like there's so much going on that you almost forget how close we are to a presidential election.
That's that's, you know, a pretty big deal.
And I know, you know, people always say this is the most important election of our lifetime, you know, and all that stuff.
But regardless of any of that, you have to admit this one does feel like a big one, especially with the kind of cultural implications of who wins the election, not just the, you know, what policies are they going to get done.
I think it's pretty easy to say that Donald Trump being elected was the biggest, the biggest election of our lifetime.
And not just because, oh, he did X, Y, or Z, but just because like what it meant to the average American's mindset about government and the presidency and things like that.
So I think this is a really big election.
Anyways, just there's been so much shit going on that you almost kind of forget we're like a few months out.
We're literally, it's almost August, you know, and then in November, we're picking a new president.
I mean, me and you aren't, but some other people probably will be.
So, but, you know, before we even get into that stuff, I wanted, I went on a little bit of a Twitter storm yesterday, and I thought there were some things I was just thinking of, and I was kind of curious to get your take and kind of talk about this a little bit more.
But I tweeted out this.
Yeah, I'll read this tweet first.
I said it would serve most Americans well to try that old debate exercise where you argue the other side's position.
Make a serious effort to argue from the other side as best you can.
If you're incapable of seeing the other side's point of view, it's really easy to justify some horrible shit.
And I think, and the response I've gotten to that was kind of interesting to me.
And I think that, you know, look, I'll say this.
Obviously, there are some people, individuals who are crazy or people who are, you know, acting in bad faith, like dishonest people, you know?
And so I'm not saying that you can always make a good argument for everything that's ever been presented.
Counter Regulation for Open Borders00:14:31
But in general, if there are a large enough group of people who believe something, and if there are normal, decent people who believe something, you know, not like some horrible person who's like a murderer or a violent person or something like that, but like a decent, you know, guy who gets up and goes to work every day and takes care of his family or is decent to his friends or, you know, just like a decent person.
If they believe something, usually you should be able to at least kind of understand why they feel the way they do.
And the response that I've gotten to this was very strange to me.
I had one person who responded, actually a couple people who responded about minimum wage.
And they said, it's just, it's impossible for me to do with the minimum wage.
Or can you or can you even do this with the minimum wage?
And I was like, yeah, of course.
It's easy.
That's like really, really easy.
And it's like, I don't know.
People work really hard.
People work a 40-hour weekday at a really tough job.
Don't you feel like they should have enough to live decently?
People are concerned that they're going to be taken advantage of and that if government doesn't step in and ensure that they're paid well for their efforts, companies are going to exploit them.
And it's up to us to go, okay, I understand your concern.
And yes, people should be paid well for their labor.
However, when you create a minimum wage, what you're actually doing is pricing certain people out of the work market.
And then people could get shitty jobs and work their way up.
That's the way life works.
But if you create a minimum wage, you're going to get rid of those shitty jobs because they're going to end up in other countries.
You're going to end up with robots doing them instead.
And so I'm going to tell you that I understand your concern, but the better way of getting there is not through a minimum wage because you're creating a price control and essentially you're going to end up with less jobs and more people competing for those jobs.
It's not a working system.
You need the market to come in and then everyone's going to end up better off.
But to just go, hey, those people are dummies, it's not true.
They've just bought into the idea that government can better work the market if they're coming in and regulating, which they're wrong, but you got to educate them that.
You can't just go, hey, they're dummies.
And it's not just right.
No, I think that's exactly right.
And it's not like what you just did right there kind of proves the point of why I think this is useful because it helps you to make a better counter argument if you can kind of at least try to understand where they're coming from.
And it's not just that they're not dummies.
It's that they're not evil.
You know what I mean?
Like they're not bad people.
They actually might have a really noble goal in mind.
Now, of course, I'm not saying this applies to everyone.
There are bad people out there, but it's.
I think it mostly does.
I think even Hitler thought he was doing good.
Most people like they convinced, you know, there's the rare, real, you know, psychopath, but your average, even evil person.
I'm just saying usually they have like a justification.
I agree that even very, very evil people usually rationalize and convince themselves that they're the good guys, but that doesn't mean they're not evil.
But I'm also saying that I think that just people who aren't evil get things wrong or, you know, have the wrong side.
But you're going to, just in general, as a rule of thumb in life, you're going to, if you actually want to find, you know, the truth and you want to have impressive, compelling arguments, it's going to be a lot easier if you can kind of understand where the other side is coming from.
And truthfully, I think that I have, I don't think there's any ideology out there that I've ever, that I've ever come across that I haven't at least gotten a little something from.
You know, like if you really try to understand somebody's like arguments, usually, I'd say almost always, there's at least one nugget of like, okay, that's a pretty good point.
And then you can kind of encompass that into your worldview and go, okay, well, this is their concern.
It makes you better at addressing their concerns because you understand what their concern is.
And it's just the intellectually honest thing to do.
So anyway, I tweeted that.
I wanted to read that tweet first, but I tweeted that because of a tweet that I had put out right before that.
And what I said was, oh, hold on one second.
Shit, I had it up and I lost it.
So what I said right before that was, I said, I am against the federal government existing, let alone doing anything.
And even I can easily understand why people are supporting the feds coming in.
It's because the state governments have failed monumentally and the situation is out of control.
And to this, I got a lot of libertarians responding that I was some type of state apologist or that I'm justifying the feds coming in or I'm justifying the federal government doing anything, let alone snatching up, you know, because the feds wouldn't do it if you didn't get up and support them.
We are single-handedly justifying their actions because prior to our approval, they're not allowed to do it.
Well, it's not, you know, it's not just that because like, okay, yes, that would be stupid enough, but I'm not even justifying the feds' actions or supporting the feds' actions.
I'm saying I'm against the feds existing at all, let alone doing anything.
But I can understand why people are supporting it.
And I, you know, for the people who were like giving me shit about that, it's like, dude, if you can't understand that, you're going to have a real tough time ever convincing anyone of your arguments.
I mean, you're, you're really, if you can't understand why someone looks at a violent mob and people terrified of this mob at, you know, just like trying to tear down civilization and you don't understand why someone would be like, yeah, whatever shuts that down, I'm for that.
You're, you're really going to be lost.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our awesome sponsor for today's show, which is Sheath Underwear.
Guys, this product has been a game changer for me and so many people I know.
It's the best pair of underwear I've ever put on.
I'm wearing a pair right now.
They're all I wear at this point.
I got one pair, put them on, and I was like, I can't go back to anything else.
They're just high quality, super comfortable.
They look good.
They also have a dual pouch.
They kind of keep everything separated and where it's supposed to be.
You got to go check them out.
Sheathunderwear.com.
It's a great product.
They have a line of women's underwear as well.
I'm telling you guys, you never thought about this before.
The dual pouch thing is incredible.
It was designed by a soldier in Iraq.
As you can imagine, things got pretty hot and sticky.
If you're working out in these summer months, you need a pair of sheath underwear.
They have a great line of women's underwear as well.
Go check them out.
It's the official underwear of part of the problem.
Grab them at sheathunderwear.com.
Make sure you use the promo code problem20 for 20% off.
All right, let's get back into the show.
I'll tell you, there is a sect within libertarians who really are these type of thinkers.
It's like, oh, like literally, people are calling me a fascist apologist for that tweet for saying I can understand.
I can understand why people feel a certain way.
And I don't know.
That to me is like, you're really lost.
The scarier part about the Fed thing, and it almost sounds like Trump is making an adjustment on this policy.
It's them doing it against the will of the states themselves.
In other words, if the state called on the federal government and said, hey, we need your help here, I still would, in the scheme of things, go, that's like not good.
It's really scary to have, you know, Fed people who can just grab you into a van and like you're not dealing with the cops anymore.
You're dealing with the, you know, it's like being pulled into the back of the casino.
Who are you going to tell?
Who's going to get in trouble?
Like, that's it.
You're now in their territory.
There are no laws.
It's very, it's a very, very scary thing.
But what makes it really, really scary is when a state itself is saying, we don't want this.
And then the Fed is imposing it upon them.
What I do think is really, and I haven't heard from Trump, but would be really interesting to me is to go, listen, if you guys don't won't let us come in and help you, or you're not willing to get rid of all this violence, then we're going to pull X funding.
We're not giving you this police gear.
We're not coming in.
Like when you all of a sudden say, hey, we're bankrupt and we need this bailout for these buildings that were destroyed.
That is now your problem.
You have refused our help and you're on your own.
Like that would at least make sense to me as a power play to get in there.
But yeah, I understand what you're saying.
But the truth is they don't need, they don't need the Fed's help.
That's the truth.
They really don't need the Fed's help.
I mean, the local police departments can handle these mobs no problem if they wanted to.
They've already gotten enough of that federal funding and the fancy toys from the Department of Defense.
And they could put these things down if they wanted to.
They're being ordered to stand down by the state governments.
And then on top of that, the state governments are prosecuting citizens who defend themselves and their property.
So it's a real, you know, the whole situation is a mess.
Wouldn't that almost make more of an argument for the like, because now you're imposing upon, like, in other words, you're now making like single individuals, it's illegal for them to defend their own property because of a state law.
So you put them in that framework, and I'm like, well, I guess it's good that we got the federal government that's going to oppose your state government, which is making you a criminal for defending yourself.
You know what I mean?
Like that, that kind of becomes the argument for the Fed is to go, hey, the state.
Now, I don't, I don't agree with that, but that is the yes.
So I think what you're saying is spot on.
And this is a tricky situation for libertarians.
And I was talking about this with Malice the other day, where it's like, oftentimes I've seen there's a certain, like I said before, a certain sliver of the kind of ANCAP libertarian community that has a lot of trouble dealing with Sophie's choice type situations when you have two bad choices and neither one is the ideal situation.
And then saying, you know, if maybe there's a preference between one of these two bad choices.
Now, again, I think this is, you know, what a lot of, it seems to me that there's this whole wing of the, you know, I mean, it's not a huge wing, but it's a small, it's a, you know, sizable enough wing of libertarian ANCAPs who, it seems to me, really like being the kind of virtuous ones who always argue for non-aggression and always, you know, have this kind of perfect answer.
And it's like, well, that is good.
That's a good starting point to be a libertarian.
And I think we should always make it clear that that's our ultimate goal.
That's where we want to go.
But as soon as you get into any type of situation, like even if you just go, okay, well, I'm an ANCAP.
This is my ideal society.
Right now we're in this situation and we're kind of faced with these two choices and this one might be better than that one.
And this one might help us lead to this place that we want to go.
That's when those types start calling you a statist or an apologist or whatever.
I mean, literally, this is why they give me shit over my discussions on immigration.
Because I'm just willing to say, okay, this is where I'd like to go.
This is the situation.
And of these two options, one might be better than the other.
One might lead us toward where we want to go more than the other choice would.
I said this when I was talking to Michael Malice, where one of the examples I use that really like drives these people insane, it makes them short circuit because it requires nuanced thinking and it breaks out of the binary.
But I said, okay, so we all want to abolish public schools, but let's just say that there was a vote or something, a referendum on public schooling in your local area or in your state or something like that.
And they said, we're either going to teach the virtues of capitalism or the virtues of socialism.
Which one would you prefer?
Now, if you're a libertarian, are you only allowed to say, I want public schools abolished?
Like, okay, but that's not on the table.
That's not on the referendum.
You have a Sophie's choice here.
It's already, public schools are already going to exist.
They're either going to teach the virtues of capitalism or the virtues of socialism.
Is one of those better than the other?
And if you're a libertarian and cap, of course you have to acknowledge that one of those is much, much, much better than the other.
So all I'm saying is that there are situations where we're not going to get exactly what we want, but there still might be a better option than the other.
And sometimes it's very murky and it's very unclear what is exactly going to be best.
In this situation, I'm really not sure.
I really don't know.
But again, go ahead.
There's an interesting aspect, and I'm really playing devil's advocate here because I've been the one who said that sometimes you need counter regulation for government regulation, which is kind of like the open borders thing.
We've created regulation that there's social policies.
And so the counter regulation is you can't have an open border.
I'd rather have neither of those things.
So, but what's interesting is like, if you kind of play that scenario out, you can go even as extreme as being like a war advocate where you go, hey, listen, I would prefer to live in this framework where no country had an army, but that's not the way it is.
And so given the current situation, yeah, we need to have a standing army in this country.
Now, now that might not be the most, the best example, but there is something to be said for like, we're already within their framework of going, hey, this is bad.
And so amongst the bad decisions, I'm going to make this decision.
But then that's probably what every politician is doing.
Most of them are not 100% to their gender, their goals, but they go, oh, well, this is the way the game's played.
So I'm going to try and do what I can within the framework.
State Autonomy and Street Protests00:04:27
So I think you're right.
It's a dangerous game.
There's no question.
It's a dangerous game to play.
And that's why I think that the role of libertarians is to always be fighting for our ultimate end goal, to make it clear what we're for.
But then I also don't think the goal, I think what loses a lot of credibility for us is if we refuse to enter these conversations at all.
And just go in this case, we're really coming with a anti-violence agenda.
So even like your socialist capitalist example, you're kind of saying, hey, I know socialism is a violent way of taking things from people.
So I'm not going to stand with that.
And when we're looking at the protests, we're kind of saying, hey, we've got violent protesters here.
And then we've also got federal agencies who against the state and the people's will of that region are now taking people off the street without just cause.
So I don't like either of those.
So, how do I look at the situation and get rid of the violence in a way that kind of, you know, mitigates this risk of the state being all-imposing and mitigates the risk of these people in the streets, you know, depriving business owners of their freedoms and just getting away with it?
Right.
Yeah, exactly.
And this is why, kind of going back to what I started the show with, you go, okay, I can absolutely understand why people are cheering on the feds coming in.
It's really not that hard.
And I would challenge anyone, even any of you people being against the feds coming in, just try for a second for the sake of like a debate, thought experiment, you know, mental exercise.
Just try to think about why.
It's really not that hard.
You can figure it out if you think about it.
The situation is out of control.
People aren't allowed to defend themselves without fear of going to jail for decades.
The local police are standing down.
Nothing's going on.
There's chaos in the street.
There's been chaos in the street for, you know, at least a month in a lot of these areas.
Businesses are being destroyed.
People are terrorized.
There's fucking your city, there's graffiti and litter everywhere all around your city.
Then finally, someone's saying they're going to do something, you know, to like, okay, maybe this will work.
Maybe this will stop it from happening.
And now to the other side, to the libertarians who are against the feds coming in, of course, I can also see their side.
You can argue that it's like, this is not the role of the federal government.
There doesn't seem to be a very large standard of due process for who they're snatching up and who they're not.
They're being pulled into unmarked cars.
And this kind of feels like the type of thing that like, you know, a Gestapo or something like that would do.
It's not really what you want your country to be doing.
And it's a very dangerous precedent that all of a sudden the feds can come in without being invited in by the states and just decide something's out of control.
Well, they could decide anything's out of control.
I mean, do you really want, you know, Joe Biden or AOC or, you know, someone like that to have that type of power?
And so it's really not that hard to see both sides of the argument here.
And Donald Trump was also floated out the idea of sending feds into Chicago just because the violence in Chicago is so out of control.
I want to add in that there's also a level of freedom in the idea, which doesn't really exist, but of state autonomy, that at least if states could be radically different from each other and the Fed couldn't impose its will on it, at least we have the freedom to move to a different state.
But if all of a sudden you even have Seattle, which goes, hey, we're of the mindset that we want to be able to have protesters in the street.
So you might be a person who currently lives in Seattle who's wealthy and goes, you know what, this is a fucking shitty ass state.
I'm going to move out of it.
And some of the people that want to, you know, ride in the streets can go ahead and do so.
But if all of a sudden you remove that state freedom or even the people, the state that goes, hey, I want to be able to have this freedom of people riding the street.
And the Fed goes, well, you can't have that freedom.
It's the same as marijuana laws.
Like how far of a stretch would it be for the feds to start going into these states where weed is legal and using this same Fed police force that they apparently have to start snatching people who are in the weed game just out of legally?
Yeah, well, that states off the street.
And that's not just a hypothetical.
In Obama's first two years, he did that.
He sent federal troops, federal agents into California and arrested people, shut down medicinal marijuana plants, arrested sick people.
It wasn't then he started realizing this wasn't helping with his voter base and he backed away from that.
Libertarian Rights vs Communist Revolution00:15:08
But yeah, I mean, pot is still on the books against federal law.
It's a Schedule A1 substance.
And so yeah, no, it's not like outside the realm of possibility.
Now, it doesn't seem likely that we're going back in that direction with marijuana at this point, but it's a completely reasonable point.
It could be Bitcoin.
Could be right, it can be something else, and it could be something that won't even come to our mind.
You know, we don't know.
So, I understand the argument for that.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Lucy.co.
Lucy Nicotine is a company founded by former smokers who are finally making tobacco alternatives that don't suck.
It's 2020.
Get rid of your cigarettes, unplug your vape, throw out your tins of dip, and go get some Lucy nicotine gum or lozenges that actually taste great.
I will tell you, I have tried other uh nicotine products before, they all made me nauseous or were just gross.
Lucy is the real deal.
They've got lozenges and gum that actually taste really good.
If you're trying to get off the cigarettes or the vapes, I know it's something I've struggled with a lot in the past.
Go give this a shot, it might really help your life.
A subscription to Lucy comes directly to your door each month.
It's that simple.
If you use the promo code problem, you'll get your first trial order of gum and lozenges at the lowest price they're allowed by law to charge you.
That's right.
The wonderful government has rules against giving nicotine away for free.
And the team at Lucy is working with us at gas.
Get your first trial order of gum for right around a dollar and lozenges for right around two dollars.
So, go to lucy.co and use the promo code problem at checkout to get rid of your old SIGs or vapes.
That's lucy.co promo code problem.
All right, let's get back into the show.
I would say that libertarians, you know, are in, you know, there's one of the things I was talking about with Michael Malice.
Uh, the great Eric July did a whole stream on this the other day where he was basically saying, um, and his position was that he was like, Look, the communists are my enemies, and the state is my enemy, this violent mob is my enemy, and I basically look at them all as rival gangs.
And if the rival gangs are going at it, I'm not obligated to defend either of the rival gangs, and I'm not going to stand up and defend somebody who would never defend me in the same situation.
Um, and there is a really like there's really something to that.
That is a that is a fair point.
There's also another point to being said that it's like, well, libertarians stand up for the rights of everybody, and that's kind of what separates us.
That we're the ones of principle who actually do stand up for them.
Um, it does you know occur to me that I just go, okay, so of how of all the people who are like giving Eric July shit for that, or all the people out there who are like, Where are the libertarians about this?
You know, I did, I know this because I just had Roger Stone on my show, on the show, uh, uh, just a few weeks back, um, when it looked like he was going to prison for quite a long time.
And I would just wonder all those people saying that like libertarians need to stand up and defend these people against federal agents coming in and snatching them up for protesting.
I wonder how many of them stood up for Roger Stone when he had federal agents swarm his home with a SWAT team for the crime of lying to Congress.
You know, I saw a lot of those same type libertarians kind of mocking Roger Stone when I had him on my show.
I keep saying my show, the show that we're on right now, this show.
So when I had him on, so it's kind of like, okay, are you guys really consistent across the board with this?
Because it does seem like at best you're serving as a useful idiot if you only stand up for the kind of left-wing crazies out there in this situation.
The thing to me that really makes it hard, a really difficult situation for libertarians, is not just that these guys are communists.
So, this is something else that I tweeted out the other day.
And again, it's not to say that everybody who's rioting or protesting is a communist or even close.
My guess would be most of them couldn't even really define Marxism if you asked them to.
But there certainly are a whole bunch who are.
And the thing that, like, so I said, and this is where the only area where I guess I would like disagree a little bit with Eric July, where I would just be a little bit more precise and say, it's not about being a Marxist or a communist.
And I tweeted something to this effect last night as well.
I went on a tweet storm.
My daughter fell asleep.
She's in the crib.
I'm tweeting.
But I said, you know, if there were a group of communists who were meeting in someone's home and they were like reading Das Kapital or something like that, and they were just having a discussion about how a communist society would work and why, you know, it's, you know, capitalism is inherently unstable and how the, you know, bourgeois is exploiting the proletariat or something like that.
And federal agents came in and snatched them up.
We would all be loudly defending them.
I mean, this would be like, this is outrageous.
I don't care if they have some views I disagree with.
This is outrageous that the government would come in and grab them.
So the issue to me isn't really just that they're Marxists.
It's that there's a violent mob.
That's the issue.
Like you can believe whatever you believe, but once you start acting in a violent mob, then things get kind of tricky.
And then I had a whole bunch of people respond to me.
And this is where I'll criticize maybe some of the more right-leaning members of our audience.
Or they start saying, they're like, well, that's what communists are.
They're always a violent mob.
You know, if you're a Marxist, you're always going to be.
It's like, no, they're not.
It's not true.
The vast majority of Marxists are fucking dorks.
Now, they might do some shitty things.
Like they might be a professor who's like kind of brainwashing children into believing this shit.
They might be out there, you know, having debates with Gene Epstein at the Soho Forum.
But it's not true at all that just because you're a Marxist or a communist, it's obvious that you're going to be out forming a violent mob.
And I think that obviously for libertarians, that's kind of the line.
Like that's the line we draw in the sand.
Are you initiating violence?
Now, the thing about it is that what's tough, and I, again, I'm repeating a little bit of what I said with malice the other day, but I'm interested to get your take on this as well.
And I'm still kind of working this all out, you know, as I speak.
But whatever form of individual, you know, justice that we believe in, which is what justice is, it's a very individual thing.
You know, it's like where you, you know, if you get in a fight with someone at a bar, it's like, okay, well, who threw the first punch?
Who was defending themselves?
You know, is like that's how anyone in a just society should try to figure things out.
But when you get into a violent mob, I really think that those rights kind of go away.
I don't think now, of course, this has to be applied within reason.
As I said with malice, if you're in a violent mob, like if you go out for a protest and a few people start getting violent, I don't think, oh my God, you can just spray the crowd down or something like that.
Like that's insane, you know?
But if the protest turns into a violent mob and day after day, week after week, you know, like month after month, there's just property destruction and all of this shit.
I do kind of think it's on you to remove yourself from that mob because there's no way anyone's going to be able to tell, oh, this guy initiated violence.
This guy is just standing there.
Like, I don't think it's, and this is true in Ankapistan.
Like in a completely libertarian society, if a mob of 13 people, let's say, comes storming onto Rob Bernstein's property and one of the 13 people isn't doing anything.
He's just, you know, whatever.
He's just chanting or something like that.
But the rest of them are all being violent and destructive and assaulting people and all of this.
And you start just kind of responding to all of them.
I don't think it's a legitimate claim for that one person to say, but I didn't initiate violence.
I was just over here chanting.
It's like, okay, well, it's dark.
You're wearing masks.
You're with a group of people who are doing this.
You need to remove yourself from this situation.
And that's, you know, to me, that seems reasonable.
I don't know what you think about that.
I think it sounds reasonable to me.
You're saying that at some point you are, even if you're not being violent, you're kind of giving them cover and you're participating in, like, it's almost like if you, three of your friends went to go beat someone up and you came as the fourth to watch them.
You know, you have some guilt.
You can't pretend like you weren't a part of the incident.
So that's what this is on a larger framework.
Right.
And what's the answer here?
Like the answer can't be like if a mob of people come at night in masks and start destroying a city, the answer can't be, well, we can't do anything because we can't tell who's who.
So we have to just sit back and let this city burn.
Like that, that can't be the answer.
That's not a reasonable response in a civilized world.
The other thing that I would throw out there is that, and this one is really gets tricky for libertarians to wrap their head around.
And believe me, I understand why you're resistant to this, because we always want to be fighting against the state.
You know, that's always, and we should be.
The state is the greatest threat to liberty, to prosperity, and the state is the most evil organization in human history.
It's done more evil than anybody else.
But we, you know, you could at least entertain the possibility, just for, because it's, if nothing else, an interesting, you know, conversation to have, is that, is it possible that there is any state action that could be better for liberty in the long run?
And of course, we can see things like this where you'd say, look, I don't think that the government should have a monopoly on prosecuting crimes, but while they do, I think they should prosecute murderers and rapists and, you know, thieves and things like that.
Because if they don't and they maintain that monopoly, then obviously society is just going to crumble.
I mean, that seems fairly reasonable to me.
But someone, I saw someone posted, I'm not sure if this was in the Facebook group or just online, but somebody posted this and I thought it was an interesting kind of point.
And they basically said, what if the czar had put down the Bolshevik revolution, like just used all types of force to put down that revolution?
Would that have been better or worse for the prospects of liberty?
Now, understand, if there's no Bolshevik revolution and there's no rise of the Soviet Union in Russia, it's not only that all those people who Lenin killed and Stalin killed, you know, probably don't end up getting killed.
There's probably no rise of the Nazis.
There's definitely no rise of Mao Zetong without the Soviet Union.
And probably for that matter, no rise of the North Korean communist government.
It's like, oh man, maybe you could have prevented a whole lot of human suffering.
And the most, you know, Antithetical to liberty governments that have ever existed would not have risen up if there had just been some kind of like, you know, the state putting down a mob.
Now, I'm not saying that that completely applies to the current situation.
I do not think that the kids in fucking Portland are anywhere near taking over the United States government or taking over the United States of America and installing a communist revolution.
I'm not saying any of that.
But, you know, it's at least an interesting thought.
I don't know any history.
And I mean, I really don't know any history.
I just learned about the Bolshevik Revolution because you just mentioned it.
So thank you for that education.
But I mean, couldn't you suggest the same framework for the American Revolution that we were a violent mob?
So it's like, it's like anything else.
It's hard to cherry pick which freedoms you want to restrict because it's a dangerous game.
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, it's just that, you know, look, the, and look, I mean, you can, you could make that argument for the American Revolution.
I guess the difference there would be that, you know, we're kind of trying to repel an invading army from abroad, whereas this is kind of a mob just going around destroying people's shit.
I don't know.
It's, I think all of these things are complicated.
And really, I think the libertarian position, like, I do think it's interesting to have all of these conversations.
It's interesting to think about things from other people's point of view and think about what, you know, the best of bad choices might be.
But even while doing all of that, I do think it's libertarians' role to cling to private property and the non-aggression principle and really try to explain to people how that could solve so many of these problems.
So what would we put forward as, and this is my first time thinking about this, kind of like the better framework here.
So perhaps it would be, hey, absolutely everyone has the right to protest, but the second that the protest turns violent at some sort of a critical mass, it's going to be shut down, or it's the government being like, hey, here's the protest areas.
Anyone protesting here?
And like, it's kind of like by the Washington Monument.
You know, they do that in Washington, D.C.
They make that area available for rallies and you can fill up a lot of space there to show off, hey, how many people care about your cause, but it's like, it's got to be in this area.
If you guys are blocking highways or traffic or whatever, we're considering that to be like, I don't know, maybe make legal areas for protesting illegal or like some sort of a critical mass of violence, at which point it is illegal.
And then maybe that's just on the state level where it's like the state has to shut it down, but the feds are not allowed to.
And then at which point it's like, it's up to people to punish those states by leaving.
Well, this is what I would like.
I mean, I don't know.
That's an interesting, that's an interesting idea.
What I would like to see, you know, within reason, I mean, obviously, you know, and Kapistan, but, you know, within the current situation, is I would like to see.
Well, look, I'd like to see the Castle Doctrine and stand your ground laws nationwide.
Protecting Freedom from Federal Overreach00:14:57
I'd like to see people saying, look, and the sheriffs and the mayors and the governors saying, we are not going to prosecute people who defend themselves, their homes, their businesses.
Oh, and there's the mayor right now calling it.
You know, we are going to allow people to defend themselves and we're encouraging people to defend themselves.
The Louisiana couple are getting fucking prosecuted.
And I'm sure they'll get off.
I mean, they're lawyers, so they're not going down for it.
Let's hope so.
I mean, you don't really fucking know.
But yes, I'd like to see, you know, I'd love to see a culture of kind of just letting would be violent people in the mob know that everyone's going to be on those people's side.
We're going to cheer them on when they come out of their house with guns ready.
And that's that.
And you do not get to assault people, to loot, to rob, and to terrorize.
You don't get to do that.
I don't care what the issue that you're so upset about is.
It doesn't matter.
These people didn't do it to you.
They're innocent people.
You don't get to victimize more people because you're complaining about someone else being victimized.
That would, I think that would be a good start.
All right, guys, let's take a quick second.
I want to thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Yo Kratom.
Listen, if you're over the age of 21 and you like Kratom, go check out yokratom.com.
If you've never heard of Kratom before, don't worry about it.
But if you're into it, go to yokratom.com.
They have the $60 kilo.
It's an unheard of deal.
YoKratom.com is one of the biggest sellers of Kratom nationwide, and they made yokratom.com so you can buy directly at wholesale prices.
This is quality Kratom.
We've heard great feedback from the fans.
They can confirm this is good stuff.
And like I said, it's the only place where you can get a kilo for $60.
You don't have to go around looking for a gas station trying to find the stuff.
They send it right to you.
Last time, if you're currently a fan of Kratom, go to yokratom.com and get yourself a $60 kilo.
All right, let's get back into the show.
I think as long as we have local police, that they should protect people and property.
I mean, I'd much rather see it all be privatized.
But as long as it is government running the police, then I do think that they should have an obligation to do that.
And the Supreme Court's ruled against that and said that police departments don't have any obligation to protect people.
Which makes no sense.
How is that possible?
How are we taxed with the idea or living states where I can't, I have to go get a license, get a gun.
I can't just assume my own protection.
I have to do it through their framework.
So if you don't have the freedom to protect yourself and the idea is we're going to pay taxes for this group of people to protect me, that should be their obligation.
It makes zero sense to me how they are both like the monotony.
It's this game that government plays where they go, listen, you put us in charge and we'll take care of things.
And then when push comes to shove, not only do they not take care of things, they just kind of go, well, it's not our job.
What do you mean it's not your fucking job?
You're the ones who have created this entire framework where you said that you guys can control these situations and that you should be put in charge and that you're going to take our money because you're going to be, it's the same fucking thing that they're doing with Corona now, basically, where they're like, listen, every governor, like, listen, we're in charge.
We're going to make every decision for everybody.
And then they keep telling restaurants, hey, you can open.
And then they go, they buy all their food and they go, oh, you can't open.
It's like you either have to make a decision and be in charge or not make a decision and let us decide for ourselves.
Playing this in-between middle ground makes no sense.
You're just taking the money from us and then not even pretending like you're going to give the goods and services back.
And even the giving the goods and services back, I get that that's a flawed system, but at least it's like an approachable model.
But for them to say, hey, give us the money.
We're going to be in charge.
Oh, but actually, we're not going to be in charge and we're not going to do like that's just so what is even the claim or the lie at that point?
Yeah.
Yeah.
No, I look, I agree with you.
And again, this is getting into the choosing the better of two bad situations.
So yes, none of this money should be extorted from people to begin with.
But if you are going to extort the money from them, then yeah, I do think you should have an obligation to protect people and property.
And not, again, I don't think you should have an obligation to enforce every bullshit law, but that you should have an obligation to protect people.
And of course, they've been horribly done a horrible job with that.
And then with all of that being done, I think the Fed should fucking stay out.
This is not a role for the federal government.
It's just things get tricky when none of that is happening.
The opposite of everything we said we wanted on the local level is happening.
And then the feds are coming in.
So now, like I said, this is just, it's the worst of all worlds.
This is on every level.
It's the worst of all worlds.
Just from an election standpoint.
So Trump's kind of playing the Perfect, because let's transition right back into that.
So, yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, so Trump's playing the law and order card.
And now he's saying, I'd love to go into these other states.
I need to be invited because you see the outrage here when we've gone in uninvited.
But if they'll invite us in, we've got the resources and we can make sure that everybody's safe.
And I believe that we should have a safe country.
And then you've got Biden, which if they ever do actually debate, Trump's trying to pin him as to, hey, listen, he's the extreme leftist.
He's the one who's giving cause to all these people.
It's almost like the opposite of what they were saying of Trump, like, hey, look at all these racists that are going to feel empowered.
But this time it's kind of true.
Hey, look at all these violent leftists that are being empowered by these policies and they're not going to stand up.
I'm the one guy who's going to make sure that at least we have a country because you don't just have violent people in the streets protesting.
So it's an interesting political move.
I'm more on the side of being fearful of the government power and the feds coming into states to control, you know, to control protesting.
But I would assume most in middle America, if they're looking at any footage of what's going on in Seattle, is like, I just don't want that.
Well, right.
So this isn't the worst play by Donald Trump.
I think it's a smart tactic to go, okay, I got to double down on law and order, make the Democrats the party of lawlessness and the Republicans the party of law.
On that note, he has to actually win.
Like there's still the protesting going on.
So it's almost this half-assed play where it's like, if he sent in the feds and fucking droves and like all of a sudden you saw footage of clean streets and almost the military out there, almost like when they shut down Boston, which was scary as shit.
But if you saw that where like they really sent it in and said businesses are open and we are patrolling this area 24-7, no bullshit, then people go, oh man, this is a strong guy who's going to keep us fucking safe.
Well, yeah, but then of course between.
But then the entire corporate press would paint him as a fascist also.
So he's also got to worry about that end of things.
Here's the truth, right?
Donald Trump's in trouble.
Donald Trump's in trouble.
This is not looking good for him right now.
It's really so funny that we talked so much about the presidential election back when we were doing, I mean, almost every episode, we were talking about the Democratic primaries, you know, and the whole shit show that was the Democratic primaries and Bernie's campaign and, you know, the all of that stuff.
And we always said, and I think we had our mind on something else, but I remember me and you always said that barring some major unforeseen event, Trump was looking really good.
And what me and you probably had in mind was like some type of, you know, economic collapse, you know, the dollar bubble finally catches up and things fall apart, something like that.
But it's, you know, to look back at it now and be like, oh my God, was there an unforeseen, you know, major event?
I mean, it's unlike anything you could have imagined, right?
So not only a global pandemic, but these crazy, you know, the complete lockdown of the American economy, or maybe not complete, but very large, the largest ever.
And now these massive protests, riots, looting across major cities, you know, in the entire country.
And this is bad.
None of it is good.
And Donald Trump's the president.
Now, you can split hairs here and say, well, I don't think this part is his fault.
You can do it.
And you can make a reasonable argument through a lot of the things.
You can say, well, he didn't really shut down the economy.
It was the governors who did.
And he wasn't really for the protests.
It's the local police who are letting it happen.
Fine.
But it's all happening on Donald Trump's watch.
And Donald Trump ran on so much winning.
You know, I saw this blue checkmark Twitter account, like a Trump supporter.
I can't remember who it was, but they tweeted a picture of the insanity or a video rather of the insanity in Portland.
You know, just these, you know, Antifa types like, you know, throwing shit at buildings and setting fires and going crazy and just, you know, this video that you can't, you know, like we've all seen, you know, a hundred of at this point.
Like, you can't even believe this is America.
And he tweeted above the video.
He said, this is Biden's America, or this is the America Biden wants, or something like that, or this is the America Biden will give you.
It was something along those lines.
And I mean, right away looking at it, I just, I saw the problem with this angle, which I'm sure every one of you can see right away, is that this is Trump's America.
Now, you can say it's not Trump's fault or whatever, but the reality is this is Trump's America.
This is the America we have with Donald Trump as the president.
And this puts him in a bad situation, just a really, really bad situation.
You know, it's funny.
I used to say, if you remember back at the beginning of the year, late last year, I used to say that part of me wanted Bernie Sanders to win the nomination for a few reasons.
But one of them was because then at least we have socialism on the ballot.
Like we could have a referendum on socialism versus capitalism.
Not that Bernie Sanders is a true socialist or Donald Trump is a true capitalist, but it would be viewed that way.
You know, billionaire Donald Trump versus socialist Bernie Sanders would be how it was viewed.
And I felt like we could still win this battle.
So maybe we should go.
Man, I look back at that.
I was so wrong.
Thank God socialism wasn't on the ballot this year because it has a very good chance of winning.
When people are unemployed and nervous and you're promising them more stuff, thank God that's not on the ballot.
That being said, Donald Trump is, and all of his people are aware of this.
This is in every level, this is shaping out to be a disaster for Donald Trump.
The economy is in the shitter.
The civil unrest is at, you know, at least an all-time high since 1968.
The polls are looking bad, looking really bad for Donald Trump.
Now, you can say, okay, there were some polls that got it wrong in 2016, but truthfully speaking, the national polls weren't that far off from what ended up happening.
There were some state polls that were pretty off.
But right now, Trump is getting destroyed in the national level.
You know what I really think killed him more than anything?
It's that at the start of this, he was still going, it's going to be fine.
Don't worry.
That's what really.
And it could be, it could still be that this fucking thing was the hoax of hoaxes.
It's not nearly as bad as it ever was.
Trump had the foresight to realize, hey, we shouldn't be shutting down the world over this.
And that there was so much spookiness that they did shut down the world and it just became reinforcing, reinforcing.
We ended up in this spiral where it became a big deal.
And if, you know, we had more followed his lead, we would have gotten past this in that we wouldn't have just shut down the world and it would have been as bad.
But this turned out to be a huge fucking deal.
And at the start of it, he was saying it wasn't going to be.
If he had just copped to it at the beginning and said, guys, it's going to be a really rough patch, then it wouldn't be his fault.
And most people aren't thinking things through that deeply.
Most people are kind of reacting to leadership and things like that.
And you said this won't be a big deal and it's the biggest deal.
That's the reality.
Whether or not he was right on every little issue or not, you said this would be nothing and it was the biggest thing ever.
And this is America under your leadership, kind of like the buck stops with you type attitude.
Now, if you look at, again, you can make the argument that the polls are bullshit and some of the polls were wrong last time, but Donald Trump's down by double digits nationally.
He's losing every single swing state and Texas seems to be in play.
This is a disaster.
That is fucking scary.
The Texas thing is scary.
It's a disaster for Donald Trump right now.
Just one thing for them to debate, and people remember how fucking stupid Biden is.
Right.
He's the luckiest person in the world.
He gets to hang out in a basement.
I think they're deep faking his videos.
I don't really, but I could go off about that.
Well, but here's the thing, right?
On top of all of that shit that we're saying for Trump, another huge advantage for Biden that really is hurting Donald Trump is that Biden has right now and probably will last all through this election, the perfect excuse to be staying inside.
He's got the perfect excuse to not be out there.
Hey, look, I'm the responsible one.
You know, like I'm following what the experts say.
So on top of all of that other shit, Trump's greatest asset in this election is Biden.
And Biden is being muzzled brilliantly by his campaign.
I mean, they can't muzzle him 100% and that hurts him.
So look, here's the thing, right?
We're in a very tumultuous time.
A lot of things can happen between now and November.
You have August, September, and October.
You know, it's three long months.
A lot's happened in the last three months.
So who knows what can happen in the next three months?
And still, Donald Trump's best asset is that he's running against Joe Biden.
And Joe Biden is capable.
I mean, he has these flubs and these embarrassing things, but he's capable of having one that's so bad that it's a game changer.
He's also capable of deteriorating a lot in the next few months to the point where people won't, you like, just can't go with that guy.
This is all possible.
But right now, make no mistake about it, things look very bad for Donald Trump.
Can I fairly bad?
I'm loving that Biden's playing this card.
Hey, listen, it's the bad leadership.
If I was in charge, I'd make decisions.
I get this done.
This guy still can't decide on a single black lady that he likes enough to be VP while also advocating that everybody's equal and qualified in the same level.
He still can't seem to find this black, you know, he needs a black lady.
He's made it very clear it's got to be a black lady, and he thinks that they're super qualified, but he can't, he can't decide on one.
They're just all so qualified.
It's hard to pick one.
Well, now they're in a situation where, here's the thing, right?
Biden's Progressive Wing Dilemma00:03:05
They, I think this was in some ways a mistake by the Biden campaign, although I don't know.
We'll see.
I got to say, I don't think that the, I was going to say identity politics, but maybe that's not exactly the same.
Connolly's a rice and move on.
Well, that wouldn't, you know, I don't know.
I, you know, Connolly's a rice comes with a lot of baggage, people on the left and the right.
Like, it's not like, oh, then the independents and the center-right people get on board.
A lot of them really don't like the Bush administration and, you know, for obvious reasons.
And it certainly wouldn't do anything.
I think more important for Joe Biden is to get the progressive turnout right now.
And that certainly won't help.
But Biden boxed himself in to this kind of woke identitarianism.
I'm going to pick a black lady.
You know, I'm like, even if you ended up picking a black lady, it's the very woke identity politics position to say, I'm going to.
I'm not even considering other people.
That's who's going to be my VP.
And you can see, I mean, if you look at Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris or the people who ran on that type of stuff, it really didn't do very well.
And people don't really respond to that.
And it just doesn't seem to be like this huge issue for people.
And he was kind of like, okay, I'll take this big move and I'll pick one, you know, this for to kind of play to this, this, I don't know, whatever the base that does care about that stuff.
The problem is now, if you're Joe Biden and you're the Joe Biden campaign, you want, you're not trying to reinvent the election.
You're not looking for a game changer.
You're looking for the safe pick that won't ruffle any feathers, that will just, because you're looking at these polls, you're looking at the current situation in the country, you're saying, we can ride this out and win.
And so now it's like, truthfully, someone like Amy Klobuchore looks a lot more appealing to a Joe Biden, someone who's just kind of like, eh, just a, I can just say she's competent.
I mean, sure, she's not, and she's an idiot, but you can, she's, she plays competent on TV.
You know what I mean?
Um, and so that that would make more sense for him, but he's already committed to kind of four woke identity reasons, pick a black female, and then he's got to realize that, like, you know, oh, Kamala Harris is a, is she really going to get the progressive wing on board with her?
I mean, she didn't get too much of the progressive wing on board with her campaign.
Who's to say that?
So, so they've got to kind of figure that thing out, and it'll be interesting.
We'll see, we'll see who they end up going with.
Um, you are right that uh, that Trump needs the debates.
That's really what Trump needs.
Trump needs to stand on stage one-on-one with Joe Biden and to dominate him.
I got to say, I think more and more that that is not going to happen.
I think Biden's team will find a way.
Trump Needs the Presidential Debates00:04:38
And I just say that because you know what?
If I was on Biden's team, that'd be literally all we were talking about all day long.
It's like, so what is our justification for not debating Donald Trump?
How do we, how do we sell this in a way that doesn't make it seem like we're ducking him?
But there is no way I'm putting crazy old senile Uncle Joe up on stage with Donald Trump.
That's just not happening.
So, that's the starting point.
This isn't happening.
How do we work back from there?
Like, where's the reasoning coming in?
And so, I just, I do think with the COVID shit, with the fact that, you know, it's like whatever cases are spiking in certain areas of the world or in the country, rather, I think they'll be able to come up with some reason why they can't why they can't do that.
But we'll see.
I don't know.
I don't know.
Anyway, it's all going to be interesting.
It's really crazy how much the country is obsessed over politics these days.
And the, you know, the fact that there's a presidential, it's almost like all this shit's going on.
And then you look up and you're like, oh shit, we're like three months away, like three months away from this thing.
Government is really going to be something.
Government super matters right now.
And that, you know, if you're average, Joe Schmo, all right, they take your tax money.
And other than that, you go to the DMV every four years.
You really don't have to interact with government that much.
But right now, they're making, you know, the decisions about whether or not you can leave your house.
So it's really on people's minds.
It's not like a fictional entity that, you know, you deal with every once in a while.
Yeah, no, no question about that.
And it does seem like there's no, right.
I mean, no government is literally giving you a list of the activities you're allowed to do and not allowed to do right now.
This is really unprecedented in American history.
This is, you know, this is huge.
So many people right now, like you said, right?
Usually your experience, the average Joe's experience with the federal government is like, well, once a year, you got to cut him a check.
And maybe it's just taken out of your paycheck every, you know, every week.
So once a year, you got to like file and maybe get a few bucks back.
You maybe get pulled over by the cops, your local police, you know, maybe once or twice a year.
I don't know.
You know, right, like you said, going to the DMV, things like that.
Right now, you're in a situation where you're checking with the government every day to see what you're allowed to do.
And in many cases, you're desperately hoping that they're going to send you another check because one of the things you're not allowed to do is go to work.
So there's the relationship between people and government is, you know, more intensified than ever.
And of course, this really fuels the culture war.
You know, it's like so many of these things.
There's it's amazing.
And I know we've talked about this many times, but it's amazing how people don't see this.
It just goes, it's like the seen and unseen type thing where there are all of these areas in life where people have these wildly different views, all of these different things, but there doesn't need to be like a war over it.
I mean, you even think about the fucking like immigration.
Actually, I was listening to one of Eric July's streams and he had Keith Knight called in.
That kid's great.
I just fucking love listening to him.
And he was saying that when the topic of immigration came up, and he goes, Well, it's not like we have some huge like fight over who's allowed in your house.
You know, it's only the areas where the government controls it that there ends up being this huge fight over who's allowed, who's allowed in the country.
Well, we all have to vote and pick our own size.
No one's really fighting over who's allowed in your church or who's allowed in your house or in your business or anything like that.
It's like you, I don't know, they decide.
And that's that.
Who's allowed in the mall?
Whoever the mall decides, they don't kick out.
That's like what I said is the worst part of them: they go, listen, we're going to be in charge and you give us the money, we'll make the decisions.
And then they refuse to make the decisions, right?
Right.
And so, but all of these things, it's like, well, where does the culture war really stem from?
It stems from like, are we going to get Hillary in or are we going to get Trump in?
And now, are we going to get Biden in or Trump?
Because one of us is going to have to live under the other one's rule.
And so, you know, each side is like, well, I sure as fuck don't want to be under the other side because they hate me.
And you can, you know, are you at all surprised?
We haven't heard much from Hillary recently.
I feel like that must be some Epstein thing.
She's actually out in Hiden or something.
Well, did you hear when Trump wished her well?
Dave Smith Podcast Sign Off00:01:03
No.
I wish her well.
I've met her several times.
Not Hillary Clinton, the Maxwell.
Oh, I wish her well.
I hope best for her.
That's the wrong person to wish well right now.
Yeah, I wonder.
I wonder what dirt she's got.
Maybe that'll be the final play where they bring Trump down.
So turns out she only had dirt on one guy.
That's Donald Trump.
That would be the most incredible thing ever.
Yeah, yeah, it sure would.
Pictures of him fat with a little wiener having sex with kids.
Oh, God.
Oh, man.
All right.
On that, on that lovely visual, we're going to wrap up.
Thanks, everybody, for listening.
We'll be back soon with a brand new episode.
Hey, I am.
I was supposed to say this on the podcast, but I'm on Instagram now at The Problem Dave Smith.
If any of you guys want to follow me over there, go check that out on Instagram at The Problem Dave Smith.
Of course, I'm at Comic Dave Smith on Twitter, at Robbie the Fire on Twitter.
Run Your Mouth podcast.
That's Rob's other podcast.
It is fantastic.
Go check that out.
Thank you guys for listening, watching, being with us, being in us.