Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein critique CNN's mishandling of Trump's town hall, noting the network ignored substantive economic issues while focusing on demagoguery. They analyze Trump's civil defamation liability regarding rape allegations, distinguishing it from criminal guilt, and debate immigration policy through a libertarian lens. While acknowledging self-ownership principles, they argue current public land control complicates rights, advocating for private borders or sponsorship systems to avoid taxpayer burdens. Ultimately, the hosts warn that open borders violate property rights and could cause economic disaster, urging libertarians to adopt reasonable standards like E-Verify opposition and community-focused restrictions. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Government Too Big00:14:27
Fill her up.
You are listening to the Gash 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.
What's up, everybody?
Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem.
I am Dave Smith.
He is Robbie the Fire Bernstein.
Hope everybody out there is having a good one.
He got a fun show planned for you guys today.
And then pretty soon, me and Robbie, we will be off to Tampa, Florida.
Side splitters.
That's the next stop.
ComicDaveSmith.com.
Go get all of our dates and ticket links and stuff up there.
RobbieThefire.com.
That's Robbie's website with all his stuff.
What's up, brother?
How you feeling?
Oh, I'm doing great.
Looking forward to Tampa.
And I got some report store almost all laid out.
Dates coming soon.
Robbythefire.com.
Cafe Bohemia every Wednesday.
Get him busy.
Hell yeah.
Hell yeah.
That's what I like to hear.
Well, let's get busy ourselves with what's going on in the world.
There was a, obviously we have to start by talking about the glorious spectacle that was Donald Trump's town hall on CNN yesterday.
I don't even know where to start.
They talked about a lot of things.
Trump was one-on-one with some CNN lady there.
And they fucked up when they casted that audience.
I don't know how they messed up in casting, but they actually had Trump supporters out there and Trump clicked back into being funny.
It was, let's just say, it was Donald Trump in his element.
Whatever you feel about Donald Trump, whether you love him or hate him or you're somewhere in between, that is what he does.
You know, that's what he does.
It was Kobe Bryant playing one-on-one.
Like, that's his thing.
That's what he's good at.
And then this CNN lady who just literally everything about it is like they just did it all wrong.
She just, the audience, the her whole, like the way she tried to attack him was just all wrong.
She was constantly rude and shitty to him, but not even in a like substantive way, like not like she's giving pushback to the point that he's making in a way where she's just being snippy and interrupting him.
And just it, it's unbelievable how likable they make him.
He is not naturally a likable person, and yet CNN makes you root for him.
It's like they force you to.
That was like the biggest thing I couldn't believe through the whole thing.
It's like, there's something very interesting about Trump.
It's very, they're in a tough position, CNN.
They're in a tough position because he's so good for them on so many levels, you know?
Like, you know, I mean, I don't know what the numbers for this were, but you know, it was huge for CNN to have, you know, whatever they ended up doing, 70 minutes.
Interestingly, they, they allotted 90 and only did 70.
It did seem like they realized like, ah, this is not going the way we wanted it to go.
But he's so good for business and yet they hate him so much.
And they also, they can't attack him from any of the angles that he's actually very vulnerable on.
And so you saw this a lot in the town hall that they can't, you know, there's all of these things that you could go after Trump for, but they really can't.
You know, I remember thinking about even the point where they're talking about the debt ceiling and he's talking about how spending is out of control.
And like, okay, obviously this is really very obvious to us, but even to anybody who just vaguely pays attention to politics, it's like, okay, so what's the angle to attack Donald Trump on there?
Well, obviously that he blew up the budget.
You know what I mean?
That like spending increased every year he was in.
And then in 2020, the highest spending level in American history, you know, but they can't criticize him for that because they're, they're trying, they're like, well, we're spending the other 23 hours of the day demagoguing how dangerous it is to not extend the debt ceiling, right?
So it doesn't like that wouldn't work.
So they just, they're almost like they, they have these self-imposed handcuffs.
I thought, firstly, you're 100% right.
And I think that's an interesting way to put it, that everything that would be worth attacking him on, they can't, like, they can't attack him on COVID response because they were championing that.
Like, so everything that you'd want to hit him for, you can't.
And it does feel a little bit like he's the roadrunner and they're wily coyote and they just keep convincing themselves that they can get him.
And then they put him on TV and they're like, ah, fuck, we did not win that one.
Yeah.
With that said, I actually thought that that was the most compelling and best moment.
The two best moments, but one of them was when he said, drill, baby, drill.
Because more often than not, Trump does not have a solution.
Like when he's talking about abortion, he goes, oh, you just put me back in there and now I can negotiate.
It'll be perfect.
He's very good about, oh, I'll just figure it out.
You just have to trust me.
I'm going to figure it out.
And he usually doesn't have an answer or a storyline.
When it came to the economy and inflation, even though he might be lying, it might not be true.
He might be over on spending.
He actually has a very compelling storyline.
Drill, baby, drill.
We were drilling when I was in.
We were going to be a net exporter of oil and gas.
That's cheap energy.
The economy is built on cheap energy.
I was doing that and I can bring it back.
And I actually thought that that storyline makes sense.
And I thought that that was one of his best moments.
Yeah, I agree.
I agree.
That was that was a strong moment for him for sure.
Look, I think that he also handled, they opened up.
They got into all of the controversial things you assume they would have right away.
So right away it was the legal trouble that he's in.
It was the election of 2020, January 6th, all of that stuff.
I think given what he's done already, he handled it all about as well as he could politically.
He was just basically like, I'm not caving an inch on this.
And that's that.
It was pretty interesting that he is still like he still is holding on to this narrative that the election was stolen from him.
And I guess in a sense, he really can't pivot out of that now.
On that one topic, that one really annoys me because if the last election was stolen from you, why are you even running?
Why are you running this time?
What's the point of the whole thing?
If you're just saying that the last one was stolen, you were the president and you're not good enough at your position to allocate the resources to preventing the theft or proving the theft, then why are we even going through this charade again?
What's your pitch for why I should even show up and bother to vote if you're incapable of proving it?
You're incapable of stopping it.
Then what's the point of all this?
It's such an excellent question, Rob, and it is one that I have yet to hear anything even resembling a satisfactory answer to from any Trump supporter.
Then I've posed very similar questions, basically the same question to them several times, never gotten one back.
You're telling me that you could not stop this with the power of the presidency.
And we're going to do it again with Joe Biden having the power of the presidency.
If you're saying they stole it from you, how are they not just going to steal it from you again?
And your defense of it was putting Giuliani on TV for his face to melt and then having a lady screaming about Dominion Krakens that just lost Fox close to a billion dollars in a defamation lawsuit.
So to me, he needs to move away from the election thing because it's just him being a loser.
You made a claim.
You couldn't prove it.
I'm not even saying that the election wasn't stolen from him.
What I'm saying is that if you're actually going to prove to me that you're competent, you would have to have been able to prove it or prevent it.
And he didn't either.
Yeah.
No, I think that's exactly right.
The thing is that he went so hard on it that he can't say now, he can't backtrack on it.
Because then you're like, oh my God, but you claimed this with such certainty for so long.
And what are you saying?
You were wrong now?
And you know what I mean?
Like, so he can't do that.
But so he's got to just go, yep, it was.
Let's try to not talk about it.
And that's, it's, it's an interesting dance to see him try to try to pull off.
The moment from the town hall that was the best, and I think you were thinking of it a second ago when you said drill, baby, drill was his best.
And then you went, well, it was one of two was the Ukraine stuff, I assume is what you're thinking of.
I think I got to say, that is right now the most compelling pitch for supporting Donald Trump.
There's really, there's nothing else that even comes close, in my opinion.
Look, the guy was a disaster as president on many levels.
You know, we've gone over it a million times on the show, whether it was the, he just got rolled by everyone, you know, he got rolled by the deep state.
He got rolled by his generals.
He got rolled by his defense department.
He got rolled by his own FBI, by his own CIA.
He got rolled by the NIH.
He got everyone.
The whole story of Trump's presidency was always just what.
And he, you know, he gave us the, he put Fauci as the head of the Corona task force.
I mean, it's just freaking unforgivable.
He gave America Fauci in 2020.
He was bad on money.
He was bad on spending.
He was bad on war.
He was bad on all types of issues.
But he is saying that he just wants to negotiate a peace in Ukraine.
And he sounds like he means it.
And even if you're going to be bad on all of that other stuff, and even if you're going to have a left-wing reaction to you that is just going to make this country a much worse place as it did last time, that's taken the threat of nuclear war and World War III off the table, at least for the moment.
And if he's actually good on that, there's a really compelling argument.
There's a really compelling argument for him being preferable to Joe Biden, let's say, if the choice is between the two of them.
Let's play the clip of what he said on Ukraine.
Do you want Ukraine to win this war?
I I don't think in terms of winning and losing.
I think in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing all these people and breaking down that you said you don't think in terms of Ukraine or Russia to win this war.
I want everybody to stop dying.
They're dying.
Russians and Ukrainians.
I want them to stop dying.
And I'll have that done.
I'll have that done in 24 hours.
I'll have it done.
You need the power of the presidency to do it.
So that was the, that was the gist of it.
There was a very interesting moment when it really kind of shows you the mentality that these people like in the corporate press have.
Because he's talking about how he wants to negotiate a peace.
And she's, and her response is, but you won't say you want Ukraine to win.
You won't say, but you're supposed to say Ukraine, good guys.
That's our talking point.
Like that's the message that we need to be repeated here.
And of course, Donald Trump's answer is what any sane person should think about this.
Like you want, people are dying.
Let's try to stop that.
That's what we want.
That's what we want.
That's what America's interest is, if there is any American interest.
It's like, yeah, you don't want a wider war.
You don't want the war to continue.
You want peace, not war.
War bad.
Peace good.
This is pretty basic.
Whether the Donbass region is ruled by Kiev or Moscow is not of concern to us.
Whether the corrupt government in Kiev or the corrupt government in Moscow rules Luhansk does not matter to me at all.
It's of no concern whatsoever.
And so it's just so insane that it's almost like, hey, people are dying and I'd like people to stop dying.
And they're like, and you want Luhansk to be ruled by Kiev, right?
Like, what?
Why is that even something you'd have to like insert in there?
Anyway, this is, of course, because he was good on that issue.
He's getting attacked by a lot of the other people in the corporate press for it.
And it's just, if there's one thing that encourages me, and I got this a lot in the response I've gotten from my latest Rogan appearance, is that the arguments are so dumb that they can't possibly work.
Like propaganda can work, even propaganda that's wrong, even propaganda that's kind of dumb.
But like it's like the response that he's getting to this is like the same shit like people were giving me.
Like it's like, oh, so you're on Russia's side.
What?
It's like, oh, so you love Vladimir Putin?
You're a Putin puppet.
That's what Joe Walsh said the other day.
He's still a Putin puppet.
He's still a Russian asset.
You're like, what?
Because he wants people to stop dying.
That means you have to be rooting for the bad guys in your worldview or whatever.
It's all, it's just so stupid.
Like propaganda, there is a level of stupidity where you're like, okay, this can't be effective anymore.
Propaganda Works Even When Wrong00:02:33
You know, like, okay, some really smart scientists came up with a jab and that'll cure a virus.
That could work.
You know, it's not until, but then when everyone you know who got jabbed also got the virus, then it's pretty hard for it to work, right?
So like this stuff can work for a while.
This, if someone says right in front of you, I just want people to stop dying because they're dying over there.
To try to spin that as being some dangerous, horrible policy, that's going to be pretty tough.
All right, guys, let's take a brief moment to let you know that today's episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.
BetterHelp offers professional counseling done securely online.
So if you feel like there's something interfering with your happiness or preventing you from achieving your goals, definitely check out BetterHelp.
I highly recommend therapy.
I think we all have issues that we're dealing with and it can help everybody.
So whatever you're dealing with, BetterHelp has a wide range of counselors available for you.
Plus, BetterHelp is more affordable than traditional offline counseling.
Financial aid is available and it's easy to get started.
Once you sign up, BetterHelp will match you with your own licensed professional therapist who you'll be able to communicate with in under 48 hours.
It's not a crisis line.
It's not self-help.
It is professional counseling done securely online.
And BetterHelp is committed to facilitating great therapeutic matches.
So it's easy and free to switch counselors if needed.
You can send a message to your counselor at any time.
You'll get a timely and thoughtful response.
Plus, you can schedule weekly video or phone sessions.
So it's the perfect way to do therapy in the modern age.
You won't have to go back to sitting in uncomfortable waiting rooms in the future.
Go to betterhelp.com slash problem to join the over 1 million people who have taken charge of their mental health with the help of an experienced professional.
New testimonials from users are posted daily.
In fact, so many people have been using BetterHelp that they're recruiting additional counselors in all 50 states.
Betterhelp.com slash problem.
That's B-E-T-T-E-R-H-E-L-P dot com slash problem.
That'll get you 10% off your first month.
One more time, betterhelp.com slash problem for 10% off your first month.
All right, let's get back into the show.
I thought, first is that the CNN protocol here of like assuming their position in the questions, it just, I almost think some of their tricks aren't working anymore.
And it kind of becomes apparent.
And I think that's why Trump's actually going to be able to walk away unscathed from this Gene Carroll thing, which we can get to in a minute.
Court Case About Rape Is Not Real00:15:11
But specifically on the Ukraine one, the position of what we can't allow Ukraine to lose is exactly what's costing all these lives.
That is the propaganda, which is foolishly keeping us in this war.
So it's so funny when she's really just trying to pin him.
Like, are you saying that you want Ukraine to lose the war?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is this entire thing is really stupid and a lot of people are dying unnecessarily.
And so we can just end it.
But then Ukraine will lose.
Doesn't matter.
Let's just end it.
So it was just an amusing, like, firstly, it's great if he's actually going to take the stance, let's end the Ukraine war.
That's great.
You know what I mean?
The big talking points that we need from anyone on the Republican or possibly on the Democratic side is no central bank digital currencies, end the war in Ukraine, and the conversation about prosecuting Fauci and ensuring that, you know, we don't go back to medical tyranny.
Right.
But like this was, so it's, it's great to see, and also that it's making to everyone watching at home, hey, the Ukraine war is stupid.
We don't need to be married to the opinion that, you know, if Putin wins this, he's going to go take over the globe and it's the worst thing that ever happened and that this is a fight against the Nazis again.
And it's the most, the thing that we need to win in our lifetimes.
That's what's going to keep this thing going and just killing people for no reason.
Yeah.
And I even, I got to say, I liked the part where he refused to call Putin a war criminal, which came a few times.
Because that's how you de-escalate.
That's been the stupidity of the war machine looking for profits of declaring that he's a war criminal so we can't negotiate.
Right.
Exactly.
Cause it's like he's, and he basically said as much.
Like he's like, look, I'm not locking myself into that corner.
What?
So I'm a war.
So I say he's a war criminal.
So that means what?
He's got to be seized and tried at the Hague now or something like that.
It's like, okay, well, that's not going to happen.
And now that shuts off the conversation from any negotiation.
You know, like, it's like, and again, like, Putin is a war criminal.
I'm not saying he's not.
I'm just saying I'd much rather see someone who, you know, who's potentially going to be president again being like, hey, let's work out a negotiation to end this war.
And that's not the way you start it.
That locks you in from not being able to negotiate at all.
It's like if there was in the height of the war in Iraq, someone, you know, let's say there was like talk of like a ceasefire, say the, you know, the Sunni insurgency and, you know, the American like generals or David Petraeus or something like that, they were going to have a meeting and discuss the possibility of a ceasefire.
And you'd be like, wow, this is great.
You know, it's 2006 and people are dying like crazy over there.
It's really great that they could talk about maybe not killing each other anymore.
And the SUNY insurgency came in and they said, all right, well, George W. Bush is a war criminal and we want him arrested and tried for war crimes.
And we want every single American force to be out of here by tomorrow.
You'd be like, oh, okay.
Well, that's not going to happen, right?
Like, and all of that might be true, and that might be a reasonable desire.
But if you actually want to get a ceasefire going, start by just agreeing to a ceasefire.
Start by just negotiating that and then see what else you can get, you know?
So it's just, it was Trump did a very, very good job on the Ukraine stuff.
And, you know, I mean, geez, he is like the only like major political figure around the Western world who's saying the right things on this.
So got to give him credit.
Got to give him credit for that.
Okay.
So you said you wanted to get into this latest sexual assault civil court case that Trump was in.
It's pretty, I'll say one thing and then you can follow up.
I don't know the exact details of it.
I mean, I've heard Trump's denial of it.
He's saying, look, the trial was in New York City or whatever.
I'm not getting a fair trial there.
I think that's probably a fair point.
One of the things I'll just say that I think is really dirty that I've noticed the corporate press doing, and it's a really dirty move, is they keep saying like he was convicted by a jury of his peers in a sexual assault case.
And they're very intentionally making it sound like what that sounds like, which is not the case.
If that was the case, Donald Trump would be looking at a rather long jail sentence, right?
It was a civil case.
And so just saying, it's just a very different thing than to be like, oh, he's convicted of sexually assaulting a woman.
You know what I mean?
So anyway, that's the one thing I've noticed.
But any thoughts on that?
Oh, he will be introduced everywhere he goes now as a sexual assaulter.
Yeah.
Well, listen, I'm not a lawyer.
I don't understand everything within our legal framework.
And sometimes when I dip my toes into this, the actual lawyers out there are people who have better understanding and the political science of law, they object to this.
I feel like with items that are a crime, such as sexual assault or rape, I can understand why someone might want a settlement instead of pursuing a conviction.
I understand it.
If you were sexually assaulted or raped, you might go, you know what?
For the following paycheck, we can call that even Stevens.
And people might go, hey, that's not moral.
The guy should actually go to jail because he might do it to someone else.
You can have that conversation.
But I can understand why a conversation could happen outside of court that a person decides not to press charges.
I don't understand how you can then have a court case on something that is of criminal behavior, but have it only be civil in nature.
I don't understand that.
If a court case is going to, if a court is going to actually make a determination that a illegal and violent act took place, there should not only be civil penalties.
Now, in this case, it gets a little bit more confusing because it actually wasn't a court case about whether or not he had raped her.
It was whether or not he had defamed her when he said that he hadn't raped her.
Making like, in other words, it's not actually a court case about the rape.
It's a court case about the defamation, but it's contingent on whether or not the rape actually happened.
Now, to make it even more confusing, so they had to change the statue of limitations for the court case to actually go through.
You got the lady on the news saying that she's a rape enthusiast.
It's just a function of that Donald Trump wasn't the rapist she was looking for, right?
He actually ruined, like she thought that she was going to have a more wholesome rape experience, and he ruined that for her, that for the rest of her life, she's now no longer interested in rape.
And so they go through with the court case.
She's baddie, too, right?
I mean, this lady is really nuts.
And so they go through with the court case, and it comes back, which I don't quite understand, that it was not, he sexually assaults her, assaulted her, but he didn't rape her.
But what I don't understand is if the claim was that he raped her, that was what he claimed happened, how does a jury make a decision that it wasn't rape?
How is there some sort of a lesser charge of sexual assault?
Like it seems like it's a bunch of people just trying to meet in the middle where the prosecutors put up something and then they're like, oh, we'll just make everyone happy so she can have $5 million.
But to me, it's like if the activity took place and it wasn't consensual, then he raped her.
And now what's crazy about getting rid of statue of limitations was, or at least this is what they're claiming, is that she didn't even know the year that this took place.
How are you going to mount a defense if the person can't even come forward and tell you, at least if there's a date, then you might be able to get security cameras.
You might actually have an alibi.
You might have hair specifically where I was.
How do you mount a defense when there's no date even to the year?
How do you possibly go, yeah, that never, then now it's just your words again.
Like, so can anyone just claim rape against with Donald?
Maybe that's the newest way in this economy make some money is you claim Donald Trump raped you.
Donald Trump raped me.
I'd be used to it.
Donald Trump raped me.
He raped me a lot.
I never, I never met them.
But now just bringing it back to the I can't even enjoy my rape fantasies anymore.
Bringing it back to the media.
10 years ago, if you were convicted of sexual assault, you were not running for president or it was very unlikely that you were going to win for president.
The media did Donald Trump so dirty that we've just live in this new world of, well, leftist media saying this, Donald Trump's saying that.
You can believe who you want.
I don't think that's like a, like that.
You understand what I'm saying?
It's like they lied and played it dirty first that we now live in a new reality where someone could be convicted in court of sexual assault and they just go, well, that's a dirty court.
It's a dirty system.
And everyone goes, all right, you can still run.
Like think about, I mean, think about what happened to Louis C.K. over claims of consensually masturbating in front of women and then that making the newspaper and ending a career versus this guy actually being found criminally liable.
I guess it's not, or at least there's a $5 million penalty on the basis that he sexually assaulted a lady and he's still able to run for president.
Yeah, it's really something.
And there's something like Trump's unique ability to just be unfazed by this.
Like the fact that whatever part of your brain makes you feel shame is missing in Donald Trump's, like that it just doesn't exist.
He just has none of it, you know?
Like there's no like, this, if I do my hair like this, I might look kind of ridiculous or, you know, like, oh, I don't know.
If I make a gold-plated building, people might think something about me.
That doesn't exist in his head.
So the way he handled it for this situation was just flawless.
I mean, I'm not saying feel however you feel about what happened.
I'm just saying, like judging it politically speaking, he just like, it was really amazing.
Like she's bringing up this like, okay, you're convicted of sexual assault, blah, blah, blah.
And most normal people would at least feel a little bit of like, oh man, every, she's like saying I'm a rapist.
Everyone's going to think I'm a rapist now.
Oh, this is horrible.
And he's just like, he's like, first of all, her cat's name was Vegina.
Okay.
They would not let us use that.
It's ridiculous.
He's got the audience laughing about it.
Like he just feels nothing.
And that too, along with what you're saying, that the media is just so, you know, has such boy who cried wolf syndrome over all of this.
But that just allows him to just kind of skate.
It's all bullshit.
None of it's real.
And then you're just like, all right, I guess we're moving on now.
Anyway, speaking of- Last point, I mean, this is just my autist brain where it just, the non-truth of the entire system is what's so aggravating because we live in a climate where we see that the left will make claims of sexual assault to try and get political figures removed.
And so we kind of need some sort of a way to police for that because it's not like the just women should be believed is not a great approach because we're going to end up with innocent people who are removed from career opportunities, wives leave them, whatever.
There are negative consequences.
And we see that, oh, you just need two friends essentially to corroborate a story.
On the other side of it is if these actions actually took place, the guy shouldn't be able to run for president.
So to just be able to like, everyone just kind of okay with being in this la-la land of, well, that might have been a criminal court or, you know, it's the lesser standard.
These are like not things that we should just be able to float up and move on from.
It doesn't, or at least it doesn't sit right with me.
Yeah.
No, I completely agree.
I completely agree with you.
Let's just on the on the topic of the corporate press and everything being fake.
Here, we just got to play this real quick before we move on.
Here is Joe Scarborough's.
Oh, I want to mention before we play this clip, just that one little thing, just an interesting note to me is that so not only was the CNN town hall, they were allotted 90 minutes.
They only went about 70 minutes.
But then just this morning, me and you, I didn't watch it live last night.
I was going to watch it this morning and I could not for the life of me find the full thing.
And me and you were texting and you were like, yeah, I can't find this thing anywhere either.
There's no full clip of it.
CNN did not put it up on YouTube, on their YouTube channel.
There were a few clips that they had put up.
A whole lot of media pundits respond to it.
Finally, you tracked down the full unedited thing on Rumble.
But it was pretty difficult to find this thing.
So they kind of cut it short and then seemingly did their best to scrub, just to scrub the record of it.
That was an interesting note.
Anyway, let's go to Joe Scarborough and his reaction.
It was a disgraceful performance.
Yes.
I'm constantly telling people not to catastrophize over Trump, that he's actually going to lose because he keeps drilling down deeper and deeper into his base.
But it is, it is, I can't believe I'm going to use catastrophizing language here.
But it was, it was just, it was disgraceful on every level.
It showed, I wouldn't say it's dangerous for democracy because we passed that a long time ago, but it showed the corrosive effects of Trumpism over eight years.
And I've got to say, The most shocking part was an audience who cheered on a president who tried to overturn American democracy.
An audience that mocked and ridiculed a woman who a jury of her peers, Donald Trump's peers, found had been sexually assaulted.
Those Americans there last night turned that into a punchline, laughed and dismissed cops getting the shit kicked out of them on January the 6th, eaten up over and over again, calling a cop a thug who actually is trying to stop people from the house floor from being killed.
I could go, I just could go on and on, basically saying he would turn over Ukraine to Vladimir Putin.
And it just, it was on John Meets on every front.
You could go piece by piece by piece to talk about how breathtakingly dangerous what we saw was last night, this virus of lies that's been loosened on the American people.
All right.
You guys get it.
It's really something to, I remember many of us, I remember me and you talking about this, Rob, back in 2016, in 2017.
Laughing After Sexual Assault Conviction00:05:16
We go, how are they going to keep it at 11 this entire time?
You know, like, how many times can you go to the well of like, this was the threat to democracy?
And this is the, this is yes, yes, Joe Scarborough.
It was Donald Trump's town hall was basically another 9-11.
You know, you're absolutely right.
It was, it was January 6th all over again.
It was like, how many times can you go to this well?
And you can even see in Scarborough's voice, he just doesn't have any energy behind it.
Like, what, how do these people wake up every day and go like, ah, this is what, like, all right, I'm going to go back up there and say that Trump's a threat to democracy.
And this is the worst thing that's ever happened.
Oh, and a catastrophe and disgraceful.
And democracy's over.
And what do you, there's such a disconnect between people in this world and regular people.
It's unbelievable.
It's like what regular people look at that and go, ah, it was really funny.
It was really entertaining.
You know, that's that.
Yeah, he made a few good points.
Yeah, he said some things I don't agree with, but it was, it was fun.
It was, Trump was on.
He was being really funny.
The room of people there were clapping and laughing.
And that's what pisses Scarborough off so much is that they kind of like, they, they get it for what it is.
It's, it's amazing that after all this time, the, the, the corporate press still kind of can't figure this out.
They can't figure out how to grapple with this, this Donald Trump character.
It's just really something fascinating to watch.
Anything you want to add there, Rob, before we move on?
It's just, it's great to see when you actually give Trump an opportunity to be on TV and they go right back to, oh, whoops, shouldn't have done that.
And so now they can't even play the original footage.
They got to, everyone's got to spin it and go, you missed the most horrible thing last night.
Here are the seven takeaways of why he's so terrible.
And they can never just let you see the source material for itself.
It's dangerous for democracy when the guy who got more votes than any sitting president in U.S. history is allowed to speak to the American people.
That's not democracy, you see.
Also, I love that democracy has no meaning.
I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but from just a comedic standpoint, to be able to be in front of a room full of people a day after being convicted of sexual assault and get the room to laugh at it, that is triple back belt judo shit.
I couldn't pull that off.
The only one who's ever done anything similar was when David Letterman got up in front of his audience and he talked about his affair and he got them like that.
I'm just saying that's like ninth level black belt, like triple stamp TV.
He Carter is catching a go-go plotta in the UFC.
It's next level shit.
Yeah.
And so if anything, you guys should be terrified because one, he's handling the worst information that you have about him really well.
He seemed to have found his charm and he's got really compelling talking points about the economy, our border, inflation, and the war in Ukraine.
So when it actually comes to all of the substantive issues, he has a better and more compelling take than Biden.
You should be concerned.
Yeah.
No, I agree.
That was one of my major takeaways from this was I go, I was just like, I think Donald Trump is very likely going to be the next president.
You know, like you're just watching this and you're like, man, it's just Biden's two years older.
It'll be three and a half years older by the end of this.
Trump is as Trump as ever.
And I just, things are going so bad that I, I don't know.
I think there's a real, a real high likelihood that he takes this thing again.
I think if we have real elections, I don't see how Trump loses to Biden, unless maybe they come up with a different candidate, but we'll see.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We shall see.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, Sheath Underwear, the underwear of legends.
And as one of those legends, I will repeatedly tell you, this is the best pair of boxer briefs I've ever owned in my entire life.
You will never get a more comfortable pair of underwear in your life than you will at sheathunderwear.com.
The only underwear I own, I threw everything else out, ordered a ton more sheath underwear.
Makes you feel like a million bucks.
I don't know what to say.
It's just great.
They're high quality.
The moisture wicking technology just makes it feel awesome, keeps everything cool and separated.
You're going to love it.
The dual pouch system is a game changer.
You don't have to use it if you don't want to.
You can just wear it like regular underwear.
It'll still be the most comfortable box of briefs you've ever worn, but you're going to want to check out that dual pouch.
Keeps everything where it's supposed to be.
Nothing sticking together.
You get the gist.
Support Sheath Underwear, a loyal sponsor of this podcast for over three years and the maker of the greatest underwear and the makers of the greatest underwear that has ever touched your man parts.
Sheathunderwear.com, promo code problem20.
That will get you 20% off your next order.
Sheathunderwear.com, promo code problem20 for 20% off your next order.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Libertarian Views On Homelessness00:16:03
All right.
Let's switch gears here for a little bit.
I got to talk as I am obligated like three times a year to talk about immigration and give my views on it.
Cause I got in a little Twitter spat with some goofy open borders libertarians.
And so anyway, also this is in the news over this horrific e-verify proposal that's going on right now.
And of course, you can always count on the federal government to ruin anything that it touches.
And so we can get into that a little bit too.
But I got into a whole spat over this over the, I don't even know where it started, but man, did it get autistic real quick?
And myself included.
I like can't stand, you know, little like fucking little threads of arguments that I think don't follow and then I'm fucking correcting it.
So I just, cause there's a bunch of people there who are like, well, just lay out what your immigration views are.
And it is kind of difficult to do on Twitter.
The, I think from my perspective, the, the correct libertarian position on immigration is the hardest of all libertarian positions to fit on a, like, on a bumper sticker.
You know, kind of, you need to like explain it a little bit.
But so anyway, I just felt like, let me, let me do that now once again for everybody, and then we can kind of talk about what's going on with this E-Verify proposal.
So this is kind of how I look at it.
Okay.
So what libertarians believe, the core of libertarian philosophy is self-ownership.
That is the very, very core of it, that you own yourself.
And that to libertarians, that's what liberty is really all about.
And when we say own, we just mean who has the moral right to exercise control over it.
So you have the right to exercise control over yourself.
We believe in, because of self-ownership, we believe in the non-aggression principle and private property rights.
Okay.
So that's basically libertarianism.
Now, if you follow that to its logical conclusion, you will get to anarchism because the very nature of a state is on some level to violate the non-aggression principle.
It's going to be coercive in some way.
Now, that, you know, if you start describing something that's not coercive at all, you're not really talking about a state anymore.
Now, there are lots of libertarians who believe in what we call minarchy.
They believe in a very, very tiny state.
Like they think a tiny state is necessary strictly for the purposes of protecting people's rights.
Leaving that debate aside, the minarchy-anarchy debate, that's more or less what libertarianism is, right?
Now, immigration is a particularly tricky issue because the government controls the borders.
And then also in our current system, they also control all of public property.
So literally, it's not just the entry to the country, but it's like basically up to everyone's door is land claimed by the government.
This makes things a little bit tricky.
So imagine this is a thought experiment and a thought experiment that is somewhat relevant to the world that we live in today.
And this is kind of part of the reason why I think libertarians need to get good on this stuff.
So imagine you have a private city block.
Okay.
It's all privately owned.
I don't know.
Maybe there's 30 or 40 houses and the street and the sidewalk is owned by maybe every house owns their own little plot outside, or maybe one guy owns the whole street, whatever.
It's privately owned.
Okay.
This is a libertarian situation.
There's every everyone got their, you know, no one stole the building.
Everyone got it.
They either built it themselves or they voluntarily purchased it from somebody else.
Right.
And let's say a whole bunch of homeless schizophrenic drug addicts covered in their own theses decided they wanted to build tents on the street and they wanted to live there on the street.
And then let's say they had private security and they kicked them all out.
They were like, you have to leave.
You can't live here.
You can't shoot up heroin here on this street.
There's a little girl who's coming walking to school and no one wants to see this.
You got to go.
And even if they refused to go, by force, you made them leave.
You physically removed them.
That would be perfectly libertarian.
Okay.
This would be perfectly libertarian.
Now, let's say then the next day the government came in and seized the sidewalks and the street.
They said, you guys can still own your house, but we own this property now and we're going to rob you to pay to maintain it.
And then they said, we're no longer going to enforce the rule that homeless people can't sleep and shoot up on the streets.
So now you got a bunch of homeless people shooting up.
And now you as the property owners have been completely disenfranchised and you no longer have the right to exclude people who you didn't want on your street.
And now your daughter's got to see, you know, homeless people covered in shit shooting up heroin outside every day.
You can see where the government doing nothing about that problem is also the government doing something to people, right?
That's also them doing something.
It's not them doing nothing.
And in fact, from the libertarian point of view, the solution is fairly obvious that, oh, we would like this to be privatized so that the property owners could be, you know, they could have the right to exclude people from here.
However, given the government owning that, it is not so clear that it's preferable from the libertarian position for them to allow the homeless people to camp out there than to make them leave, right?
Like if those were your only two options, they either stay there or make them leave, I prefer they make them leave because that is a closer simulation to what this would certainly be under libertarian, libertarian system, right?
So it makes sense to prefer that to the other outcome, which is clearly not like, look, when you see homeless people camped out all throughout cities across America right now, this is a major problem.
It's a major reason why people are flooding out of cities, a major region.
Talk to anybody who's got a family who's left a big city in the last couple years and talk to them about why they left.
I guarantee you, this comes up pretty quickly in the top two or three reasons why, myself included.
And so we have this problem that's going on.
Now, where, where, Rob, on private property is this permitted?
Where is it permitted for homeless people to just set up camp?
I mean, okay, there might be a couple private homeless shelters.
You know what I mean?
There might be like places designed for that.
But other than that, what store, what, you know what I mean?
Like what private home or business, what private piece of property is that ever tolerated on?
None.
Okay.
Where does it all happen?
On public property.
Now, by the government not enforcing these rules, it's not, this isn't more libertarian because they're not doing anything to the homeless people.
It's, it's a nightmare.
And there's no reason why libertarians have to be like, yeah, we're for the government not doing anything to those people.
Like we're for the government not having the land to begin with.
But actually, if they're going to have the land, I have no problem with them exercising some reasonable control over it and kind of somewhat the best approximation of what a private free society would look like.
This same principle applies to immigration.
It's not that it's the exact same situation.
I get this a lot.
Logical analogies are not equations.
This is like a basic IQ test.
When I say this, and then people will respond on Twitter and they'll be like, so you're saying, so you're saying that immigrants are homeless drug addicts?
Like, no, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying the same principle applies.
That essentially, if libertarians believe taxation is theft, as it is, well, okay.
So everything the government has was robbed from the domestic population.
But that does not then, it does not then follow that that is owned by everyone in the world equally.
The same way if someone mugs you, that wallet does not become everybody in the world's wallet.
The correct answer is that it should be returned to you.
You know, like that, it's yours and it's been stolen.
So essentially, public land and anything the government owns is stolen from the American taxpayers.
So that does not mean that it belongs equally to citizens of the world.
Now, this people will say, well, let me just say this.
So libertarians who argue for open borders and open borders in a system where you have, like I said, the government controls all of the, they control all of the property up to the doorstep of every citizen.
They also, there are anti-discrimination laws.
You can't not hire someone based on their nationality or based on if they are an immigrant.
You can't not house someone.
You can't not treat someone in a hospital.
You can't not take their kids into the public schools.
So it's like we're in a current system where now the domestic property owners who libertarians believe should be the ones making these decisions have no choice.
And if you're for open borders, I mean, it's been a while since I looked at these polls.
It's over 90% of Americans oppose open borders.
Okay.
So by being for open borders under current situations, you are forcing this on the vast majority of Americans.
This is not a voluntary interaction.
This is imposed on them and they have no means by which to resist these changes, which obviously many of them don't like.
So the open borders is not a libertarian solution to this.
The libertarian solution is private borders, private communities, them being able to decide.
But short of that, you could have a much better system with, as Hans Hermann Hoppe proposed, a sponsorship system.
And we have some elements of that within our immigration system, but just like if you had to get sponsored, meaning that someone has to assume financial responsibility for you, and then you can come.
That would be a much better situation because then at least they're not like offloading these expenses onto the taxpayer.
Now, one of the, there's a few responses that I'll get to this, and I'll just, I'll, I'll wrap up on this, this quickly, Rob, and then we can talk about the E-Verify stuff.
But one of the, there's, there's a couple interesting responses I get to this.
So one of the things that libertarians will say is they'll say, well, this, that view could be applied in lots of other areas with very bad, you know, in very bad ways.
Like you could say, hey, you know, the taxpayers don't want whatever guns, or you could say, hey, you know, well, what if they don't want unvaccinated people, you know, driving on the roads or something like this?
And there's bad, like, there's, and this is, there's, there's some truth to this.
The thing is that these reducto adsertum arguments don't disprove something on their own.
There is that, what, what you do when you have these like, you know, you take something to its logical, like the farthest you can take it to to make it seem ridiculous is you you're kind of attacking the underlying principle.
Libertarians are good on this stuff when it's black and white.
They get goofy on this stuff when you're in shades of gray.
So look, if you eat, this is the example I gave on Twitter the other day.
If you eat five pounds of salt, it will kill you.
But that does not prove that you should never eat salt, right?
Because if you just sprinkle a little bit of it on your food, it could be actually very delicious.
And not a problem.
So yes, this principle could be applied in very bad ways.
Now, the major difference from the libertarian perspective over, say, not letting someone, you know, who's unvaccinated traveler saying, you know, whatever, whatever other policy you wanted to think about that's anti-libertarian is that that is it is different to violate someone's natural rights than to not.
So one of the examples that people use, they'd go, oh, okay, well, what about if immigration restrictions are justified, then what about restricting someone from having a kid?
Because that's just bringing a new person into the society.
And it's like, yeah, well, the major difference there is that it's a natural right to have a child.
It's not a natural right to enter property that you don't own, that you weren't invited into.
That's not a natural right.
Now, what libertarians will say often is they'll, they'll give examples, the open borders ones, at least, they'll say, well, hey, you know, if I want to have my cousin from Italy over to my house, what right does anybody else have to tell me I can't have them there?
And fair enough, you're right.
That's true.
But what about when 100,000 people just show up at the border?
Like they currently are, like it's literally happening as we speak.
What about that?
No one invited them.
No one's housing them.
This is property that they do not own.
Why do they have a natural right to enter it?
You don't have a natural right to enter into property you don't own uninvited.
It should be the decision of the domestic property owners, whether they want to have you in or not, in the same way that me or you can decide whether we want to have someone into our home or not.
But they can't make that decision right now because the government's monopolized it.
But they are telling you the overwhelming majority of them don't want it to just be a free-for-all.
Anyone can come in.
So why should that be imposed on them?
There's nothing libertarian about that.
Now, back to the reducto ad absurdum point, you can also do it the other way.
And this is the point that I often make that if you're really going to say that there can be no restrictions on public property, okay, fine, but take that to its logical conclusion.
And in a weird defense of some of these open borders libertarians, some of them will.
So I posed this question the other, because someone said to me, they go, no, there can be no restrictions on public property.
It's unowned land and therefore everyone has a right to it.
And so I posed the question, which has been my go-to hypothetical on this.
No Restrictions On Public Spaces00:05:36
I was like, okay, so tomorrow at a public school, a 50-year-old drug addict wants to walk into the school.
He wants to go into the girls' locker room and smoke meth.
Should he be allowed in?
And he said, yes.
And he goes, yes, because, you know, then people will realize how horrible public schools are and they'll be more libertarian.
And when you get to that point, I mean, he's trying to be consistent.
So I at least give him credit for that.
But when you get to that point, just think about how ridiculous and evil what you're saying is.
You're saying we will endanger these children's lives.
Put the most vulnerable, innocent members of our society, children, in jeopardy so that I can hold on to my abstract principle and then to have this ridiculous view that this is going to make people more libertarian.
Like schools have gotten shot up.
It didn't make people more libertarian.
What makes you think this is going to make people more libertarian?
Like there's no reason to think that.
But of course, I think for the vast majority of people, they'd realize, oh yeah, once you actually start thinking about this, there's like, there's no way you can just have no restrictions on public spaces.
It just doesn't work.
And there's no reason for libertarians to marry themselves to that.
That's not what we stand for anyway.
What we stand for is reducing or abolishing the state, not making sure that they enforce like that they allow all the areas that they've stolen to be completely destroyed and degraded.
That's not what we stand for.
We don't need to marry ourselves to this wildly unpopular view that will make it impossible for us to ever sell our ideas on a mass level.
Impossible.
Go try it.
Go right now, start talking to the average American who's completely turned off by this whole system and tell them, you know, start going, hey, these wars are all bullshit.
They're like, yep, I'm with you.
Hey, the government's completely corrupt.
Yep, I'm with you.
Hey, the deep state is this shadowy cabal of unelected rulers who's interfering and everything and doing all this evil shit.
Yep, I'm with you.
Hey, the Federal Reserve is totally destroying the value of the dollar.
Yep, I'm with you.
Also, open the borders tomorrow.
Good luck.
You're done now.
You're not in the conversation anymore and for nothing, for no good for a policy that isn't even the correct libertarian policy to have.
So like, just drop all this goofy shit.
So anyway, in closing, yes, the reducto ad absurdum, this principle can be applied in bad ways.
Correct.
Also, the other way, if you have zero restrictions, you're living in a goddamn nightmare.
So yeah, you can't have zero and you don't want to have awful ones.
What you want to have are some reasonable standards.
Okay.
So like, look, a war on drugs, no, insane.
You're violating people's private property.
All of this like awful shit.
You're throwing people in cages for nonviolent crimes.
No, that's bad.
A rule that says you can't smoke meth in the government courthouse?
Reasonable.
Okay.
Reasonable.
That's not something libertarians should be upset about.
Would you believe that?
They won't just let you masturbate in the middle of the library.
Like, yeah, that's right.
You can't.
That's good.
And when it comes to immigration, it's reasonable to say that the domestic population gets some say in it, some say over whether or not they want to be flooded by a number of people that we don't even know, that we don't even know.
And especially under current circumstances.
Okay.
There's my little rant for now.
I'm sure we'll come back to it again at some point.
Maybe I'll do another debate with someone on this topic.
I'm not sure.
Some people were proposing I do one.
Maybe.
I did one with Spike Cohen if anyone wants to go check that out.
I think it was pretty good.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Freeze Pipe.
For the smoothest cannabis smoking experience, you need a freezable pipe bubbler or bong from Freeze Pipe.
If you're tired of harsh smoke, coughing attacks, or that dragon throat feeling, then try an icy freeze pipe and start enjoying clouds so smooth, you'll check to see if the bowl is even lit.
Freeze pipes, bubblers, and hand pipes are as smooth as traditional pieces that cost twice as much.
Or check out their bongs and dab rigs for an outrageously smooth experience that will change how you light up forever.
The secret is they're freezable glycerin chambers that come on every piece.
You pop one of them in the freezer for an hour and as smoke passes through this icy chamber, it's instantly cooled by over 300 degrees.
Think flavor-packed clouds with zero chest and throat burn.
I can tell you that I have a lot of friends who enjoy the cannabis and they all swear by this thing.
So go check it out.
The smoothest smoking glass pipes, bubblers, and bongs.
Visit freezepipe.com.
And if you use the promo code P-O-T-P, you'll get 10% off your entire order.
Freezepipe.com, promo code P-O-T-P for 10% off your entire order.
All right, let's get back into it.
This E-Verify thing is a monstrosity, and it will be truly horrible if this passes.
And it's classic government shit where they cause a problem and then they try to come up with the solution and the solution just makes everything worse.
The Problem With Open Borders00:12:04
I don't know how much you've looked into this, Rob, but it's pretty freaking creepy and it's pretty in line with like a lot of the creepy shit that the government's been doing over the last couple decades here.
But this is basically they're proposing a federal database where you have to prove to your employer that the federal government says you're allowed to work.
This isn't about immigration control any more than like the Patriot Act was just about getting Muslims or something like that.
This is something that's going to be used against Americans.
So everyone should oppose this.
I don't know if you have anything, any thoughts on any of that, Rob, feel free to jump in.
Well, I've seen Thomas Massey tweeting about it quite a bit, and I've yet to see Thomas Massey be wrong on an issue or uninformed on an issue.
So if there was one, if you only went to Twitter and followed one person, it was Thomas Massey, you'd be informed on some of the most important things.
So I haven't dug into all the particulars, but just to flag what's very creepy about it is, I mean, you just said, and I don't even know if this is technically accurate.
It might just be a summation, but what does that mean allowed to work?
So I guess in this instance, the criteria is that there's going to be a digital database of everybody that might, you know, be tied to your fingerprint, your rent, you know, your eye scan or some other piece of technology.
But so I guess in this instance, it's to make sure that you're a legal citizen.
But what if that's tied to some sort of a vaccine that you were supposed to have or an opinion that you were stating online or whether or not you're, I don't know, all of a sudden just some registration's overdue.
What this sounds like is building digital infrastructure that's going to force you to have some sort of phone or other piece of technology that's going to know more about what your whereabouts are.
And what we need to be protecting ourselves from is creating infrastructure that makes us easily controlled by government.
At the moment, like, I mean, we already don't have, you know what I mean?
They can already, every time I'm on the road, a cop can pull me over.
There's like a lot of opportunities for us to be policed.
But at least at the moment, it's not some digital infrastructure where they just get to type in, hey, this guy doesn't get to leave his house or this guy needs to go get that vaccine.
Like at least like there's still some freedom because we haven't just handed them the keys to control us.
If we give them the keys to just have a digital infrastructure where they get to just run some algorithms and decide who gets to do what, have some credit scores or otherwise, don't think they won't use it.
Of course they will.
So we got a, we got a forecast.
We got to educate people and do whatever we can to be like, don't give them the keys to have a digital infrastructure of knowing where your whereabouts are and having more easily ability to police your behavior.
It's not a win.
100%.
I 100% agree.
It's really something how like, say, Donald Trump's proposal of building a wall is that's casted as like the most evil thing imaginable.
And yet this is like no coverage.
Who else is covering it?
I mean, other than essentially Thomas Massey's Twitter, I've seen no coverage of A-Verify anywhere.
Yeah.
No, it's been, I think it's been him really leading the charge on it for sure.
But yeah, it's like this.
So like a national database like that, you know, where you must get permission from the government in order to have a job.
You know, that is like, that's like not even newsworthy.
But building a wall, my God, my God, the evil.
And I saw on the current fail rate, like 200,000 or maybe the exact, might have been 157,000 Americans every year would basically be out of their job just because of a system error.
Like they currently have problems with like fake arrests that have been expunged.
Like they straight up messed up.
You were arrested and it got expunged.
It was a mistake.
And yet you go to your employer.
Have you ever been arrested?
No.
And then it comes up and they're like, well, you were arrested and he lied to us.
You don't get a job anymore.
So there will be a even though they got the fail rate down and now it's only 50,000 Americans.
Is the government going to be writing them all a check when they have a failed system that prevents them from employment?
And then also, how many current employers are you going to make?
Like, here's the other thing.
Once people are here, I don't want to like round people.
I actually, dude, I find Latin Americans are great.
Every time I interact with them, I actually find they're hardworking.
They got a positive demeanor.
And I know you're not allowed to make stereotypes, but I would say my personal perspective on people from South America is a positive stereotype.
100% agree with you.
Look, every job I ever did, every like shit job I ever did, like as a kid and as a young adult, there's always Mexicans there.
They're always great people.
And I really, people I have a lot of respect for who like work their fucking asses off for very little money and are very family oriented.
And like we're all like really good people.
There's not an issue.
And I agree with you.
I also don't want to like, look, I'm saying we shouldn't support a position of open borders.
I'm saying that it is not a natural right to just go somewhere and be like, I'm just going.
No one invited me.
I'm just going.
That being said, I don't want to like ruin the lives of people who have been here and are here.
I don't know.
I don't want to just like, oh, so now they're out of work and their family is going to break up or something.
That's the solution.
And what all the and all the employers hiring them are now breaking the law.
And I mean, I guess they're currently breaking the law, but it's a little bit like, feels like, you know, selling marijuana in states where it's legal, but the Fed doesn't allow it type thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Here's the problem with open borders.
It's just, I would be a fan if there weren't social benefits.
And then also the other thing that just doesn't make sense is one, amnesty and then second generation being able to vote and changing voting demographics.
There are state imposed laws that are what make it bad policy because it's just robbing from people.
If you remove those elements, I'm totally fine with it.
But this one specifically, you build the wall, at least you are able to police the border so that you don't have more of the criminal activity of people coming in illegally.
The ones that are currently here are here.
So to create the A-Verify to just make their lives more miserable while they're here, I don't think that's going to reduce immigration.
And if anything, you're just going to have more criminals because they can't work legal jobs or you got employers that are now criminals and you've created a technology that can make all of our lives worse.
That seems like the worst way to handle this.
Yes, it's the worst way on every front.
And the view that like they're going to go back to Mexico or something like that if they can't work here, I think is a dubious claim.
It's probably they'll just lose their job and then try to find a job off the table.
Or you'll just end up with more socialized benefits for them.
You're going to end up with like feeding and housing centers that are going to cost us more money.
And then you actually removed a productive person from society that was sending back money to their family to now just a leech that we're stuck with.
Yeah, it's it's it's all wrong.
And then don't tell me for a second that you think that like this same federal government that now has an apparatus where they can determine whether you're allowed to work or not, even though obviously we're just starting it for illegal immigration.
But then they might go, oh, you know, there's also this domestic terrorist problem.
There's also the unvaccinated or whatever, whatever the new version of that is in 10 years from now, don't tell me there's, that's not possible that they get added onto that.
And I just want to point out to all the idiots out there that go, oh, these people are taking American jobs.
If your job is currently being displaced by a person who just came to the country and doesn't speak the language, you were three years away from being replaced by a robot or your job going abroad anyways.
It's this, if there's any reason why there isn't more like U.S. manufacturing, it's because of like your wage laws and all these other things that you do that just send the jobs overseas.
Let me make it too expensive to do it here.
I, of all of the arguments against immigration, the, they took our jobs argument as the one I am least sympathetic to.
I'm least sympathetic to that argument.
That's like, okay, no one took the job from you in the same way you didn't take like, I don't know.
That's just like, yeah, if like you would do a lot of other jobs if somebody offered you the salary that you wanted, but because someone's willing to do it for less.
Like I would go take a job for $20 million right now that someone's willing to do for $20,000, right?
But I won't.
Hey, Fox, what more do we got to sell?
Yeah.
Well, I'm saying like that person didn't take it from me.
Like it's anyway, that I don't buy.
The arguments that I'm much more sympathetic to are like people who are like, hey, like we've lived in this community for a long time.
And now all of a sudden, like half of my daughter's public school speaks Spanish and everything's changed and crime is up and like we had no say in this.
And here's a guy who's been paying property taxes in his, in this town for 30 years.
You know what I mean?
Who's like funded at been forced to fund this entire school and now it's all changed and he has like no say in the matter.
That's that I'm more sympathetic to.
I'm more sympathetic to like whatever our emergency room.
Like, you know, if my kid breaks their arm, I got to go wait in an emergency room line for hours because it's flooded with illegal immigrants because they just, there's a law that says you can't not treat them and then they just don't pay for it.
And that's reflected in everybody else's, you know, healthcare costs.
That I'm sympathetic to.
Because from a libertarian perspective, you're like, yo, that's wrong what's happening to that person.
Look, there's never going to be zero immigration to America and that wouldn't be desirable.
Immigrants in general do help the economy.
And there would be disastrous repercussions if we had no immigration in the country.
But that being said, in a purely like free society, property owners would be able to decide who they want in, how many people they want in and who they don't want in.
And that's not what we have currently.
And that's certainly not what we would have under open borders.
But beyond that, it's also just, it just seems absurd to me when to try to argue as like some of the Cato guys and the more goofy ones there do, that like just opening the borders right now would have all of these positive outcomes.
I mean, it's literally, it's, it's, it's like seems on the level of like the neocons arguing that if we just topple this government, all these great things are going to happen.
Like, okay, so we currently, I don't even know what the numbers are.
I know we've taken in about a million immigrants a year over like the last couple decades.
I don't know exactly how many legal immigrants we're taking in this year, but somewhere in that ballpark of like a million, maybe a little bit higher.
And illegal immigration is like, I think there's like 200,000 border apprehensions a month.
Who knows how many are getting in that aren't being apprehended?
We have no idea.
There's somewhere between 30 and 50 million illegal immigrants in the country right now.
If you just announce tomorrow that the borders are open, how many people do you think would come?
I think it's very conceivable we'd get 10 million in the next year.
I don't even think that's a crazy like guess.
It might be a lot more than that.
So like, what do you think that's going to do?
What do you think that's going to result in like a more libertarian society?
Or are you going to have a crazy right-wing reaction against that?
A crazy left-wing reaction against that.
And the whole thing is just going to be a disaster.
Anyway, libertarians got to divorce themselves from some of these goofy views that are not even deduced from libertarian principles.
That's kind of my main point on the whole thing.
All right.
Let's wrap up the show there.
We will see all you motherfuckers in Tampa coming up in a week and a half, is it?