Dave Smith and Robbie the Fire Bernstein dissect Donald Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts, arguing the Justice Department weaponized the law against him while ignoring witness Michael Cohen's perjury. They contrast this with MSNBC's Chuck Todd, who dismisses the trial's political impact, before shifting to condemn transgender puberty blockers as irreversible child abuse driven by activist propaganda. The hosts challenge libertarian views on parental rights, asserting that allowing minors access to sterilizing treatments without medical necessity constitutes state-sanctioned harm, ultimately framing the entire gender discourse as a dishonest manipulation of science and public opinion. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
One Piece in a Bigger Game00:14:25
Fill her up!
You're listening to the gas human.
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.
You're listening to part of the problem on the gas digital network.
Cheers, your host, James Smith.
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.
What's up, brother?
Having a nice day.
How about you, Mr. Smith?
Can't complain.
Can't complain.
And me and you will be camp complaining in Las Vegas in a couple of weeks coming up.
ComicdaveSmith.com for those tickets.
I'll be at the Comedy Mothership in July.
Bunch of fun stuff coming up.
Nashville, Tennessee.
And of course, Rob, you're going out this weekend, I believe.
I got Doylestown, Porch Tour, and then all over the country, PorchTour.com.
And for Vegas, I'm going the night before to the sphere.
So if you're going to be out there on Shakedown Street, you want to exchange some grilled cheese for drugs, I'll be out there.
Let's do it.
Sounds like a good plan.
I bet some of our fans in Vegas will take you up on that.
I'd like to thank.
All right.
For today's show, there's a couple things we wanted to talk about.
We have to lead off with the Trump convictions.
We have not talked about that yet on the podcast.
Although I guess we kind of have talked about the general issue quite a bit on the podcast.
I don't know that I have that much of a different take than I've basically had through this whole.
34 counts.
This guy's guilty as hell.
That's 34 times they found him.
Well, that does seem to be, as we could have predicted, that is the NPC talking point that everyone is using.
Well, he's a convicted felon.
It's unbelievable how much progressive establishment Democrats love running with mindless dogmatic slogans.
You know what I mean?
Like they were so excited just to get a new one.
It's not like they've got a new compelling pitch or a new argument or something.
They're just like, oh, we have this phrase we get to use now, and it sounds pretty rough, huh?
Convicted felon.
What more is there to argue about?
Of course, I will say I've basically been saying this whole time, and I think you have too, Rob.
It's fairly obvious to anybody paying attention who's not under a spell of some sort that, you know, the Justice Department, the Justice Department is being weaponized against Donald Trump.
They're bringing charges against a former president that they would never bring against any other former president.
They're not, it's, they're twisting things into novel legal theories and all of this.
The case here is just seems absurd.
I've been saying that this whole time.
And I was still, there was a moment when he got convicted where even I did feel a little bit of that like, damn, that's historic.
Okay, they actually did it.
They actually convicted a former president of 34 felonies when it's clear nonsense.
I don't know.
It was particularly surprising with how poorly the case went.
And when I say how poorly the case went, their star witness was Michael Cohen, who came into the case as a liar.
I believe, even though it gets very confusing, and I've read all the articles multiple times, this double referencing to, I guess, falsifying business records to hide another crime without the jury having to come to terms on what that secondary crime was.
It's truly incredible.
No court case for that secondary crime.
And I guess the only person that can actually testify to his intentionally wanting to do it would be the lawyer.
And the lawyer, what's his name?
Michael Cohen was caught lying in his testimony about the conversations in regards to these payments.
So I thought that there was a possibility that this thing was going to go away just because of how poor Michael Cohen's testimony went, but the judge did everything he did to wink and nod at that jury and go, hey, do what you got to do to come back with the guilty.
And they did on all 34 counts.
Yeah, it's wild to see.
You're absolutely right.
When you look into it, and of course, because there's, you know, there's a lot of what they call, what's the term I'm looking for?
Prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecutors don't have to bring cases like this to trial.
You know, they choose whether they will or whether they won't.
In fact, the prosecutor in this case or the DA in this case has a history of doing that with a bunch of other felonies that he downgraded to misdemeanors.
And for them to try, they're so grasping at straws using this, you know, argument that, as you pointed out, might hold up legally, but the argument is that this is a felony because the falsifying of records were in service of another crime.
And then the fact that they get to be completely vague on what that other crime is and that you don't have to be convicted of that crime.
They can just like assert that there was a crime is so crazy.
And the whole, you know, the whole thing is really, it's so transparent what it is.
And just to add two more layers to this, I don't know why there's no, I'm going to just call it, I know this isn't the right term, but professional immunity.
And what I mean by that is if you are using a professional whose job it is to advise you and how to do things legally, it should be that guy's fault.
If you're just looking to do something and there was a legal way to do it, and then the lawyer does it in an illegal way or your bookkeeper does it in an illegal way, that shouldn't be your fault.
That's why you hire professionals.
It's why you see lawyers is to go, hey, am I able to do this?
No, you can't.
Or here's the way that you can do it.
And if they say, here's the way that you can do it and they get it wrong, that should be on them.
I get your point.
I mean, it's kind of similar to like if a cop tells you you're allowed to park somewhere and then gives you a ticket.
You're like, hey, wait a minute, but you're the guy.
You're supposed to be the guy who has expertise in this.
I came to you because you have this realm of expertise.
And it does seem like it seems logical to me that there should be something to that.
That if your lawyers go and do it, if you now, obviously, if you instructed your lawyers to do illegal stuff, that's a little bit different.
But like if you just went to them and said, hey, do this in the legal way and they did it in an illegal way, I would think, yeah, that should be on them.
I don't know.
That seems fairly logical to me.
I don't know if you saw Trump did a brief press conference and it was the only, you know, Trump's usually the idiot.
It's the only coherent thing I heard about the entire case, which goes, I paid a lawyer and I had a bookkeeper mark the payment to a lawyer.
We didn't mark it as construction costs.
We didn't mark it as sheetrock.
He goes, how was I supposed to record this?
I handed money to a lawyer and then the lawyer went and made the expense.
My bookkeeper, who's a good bookkeeper, wrote down legal expense.
What was I supposed to record it as?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, one of the things that's interesting about this is as I see it, and I'd imagine you do too, Robin, and people listening see this as kind of one piece in a much bigger game that's being played against Donald Trump right now.
And it does make you wonder what the, like how far they will take this, what the next steps are going to be, and what exactly the plan is here.
Because as a result of this, it's being wildly reported that in 24 hours, Donald Trump raised more than $50 million.
Laura Trump just claimed that it's up to $70 million today.
I believe Eric Trump said if you count the big donors, it's 200 million, which seems hard to believe.
I mean, not saying it's not true, just like that's really bananas if you raise that much in 48 hours.
And it does seem to me, at least my gauge of things, is that a lot of people, even kind of in the middle, look at this and see it for what it is.
You know what I mean?
Like they see this as like, oh, this is insane.
You know, the guy's leading in all the polls to be president again, and you're trying to get him on this.
It just seems like anyone could just sniff this out and be like, yeah, this is kind of bullshit.
I agree 100%.
And I think that the general attitude in the country was supposed to be Biden's pitch was a return to normal.
And now we have at least, I don't know the actual economics, but it seems like at least price inflation when you're going to a grocery store, people are pretty pissed off that they can't buy houses.
They're pretty pissed off about immigration.
I don't think people like what's going on with the foreign affairs and the wars.
Like, can we have a conversation about trying to fix these things and not the yelling Donald Trump is evil or the most corrupt?
Because he might actually have better ideas to fix this right now, in which case, I don't really care about hush money payments.
Right, right.
Well, that's a good point, too.
I mean, most people, like, you would think that it's not as if he's being convicted of any of the stuff they said, like he'd committed treason or he led an insurrection or something like this.
It's not like it's like, well, that was a real issue for the country.
You could spin it in some way.
This is very clearly something that doesn't matter to any working family.
Like this is whether or not he was, whether or not that hush money should have been filed as a different business expense, as a campaign expense or whatever.
That's like, that has nothing to do with anything that a working family is like, oh, this will help my life or make it less worse than it is now.
So that's a good point as well.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Yo Kratom, home of the $60 Kilo, longtime sponsor of this podcast and this podcast network.
We could not do what we do without our great sponsors.
So if you are over the age of 21 and you enjoy Kratom, make sure to get your Kratom at yokratom.com.
It's the best price you're going to find anywhere, $60 for a kilo, yokratom.com.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Okay, so you, I have not seen this yet, but you said that the Chuck Todd reaction was worth taking a look at.
And I was kind of intrigued by what you told me about it.
So let's play that video.
Here's Chuck Todd with his thoughts on the Trump convictions.
Okay, the more you talk about this trial, the more you're losing with the voters you need to win.
Why do I say that?
First of all, there's plenty of evidence to back this up.
I can take you back to the Bill Clinton impeachment in 1998.
Republicans thought for sure running against Monica Lewinsky was going to be a winner for them.
It was not.
Voters were like, guess what?
We need to do our lives.
Not only that, we already knew this about Bill Clinton.
We factored his character into our decision to vote for him in 1992, Access Hollywood tape.
Everybody's going, how can Republicans be rallying around Trump so easily this time?
Well, fool them once.
Shame on you, right?
Fool you twice.
Well, Access Hollywood tape, the Republican Party walked away from him, but voters did.
And that's why I think this trial is not going to have an impact, because for the same reason, the Clinton impeachment had no impact.
Voters knew Trump's moral failings before, and they voted for him anyway.
People would even say it.
You heard it in some of that sound that Shaq had.
So I think this is, I think if you're relying on this, whether you're Trump and think it's a grievance thing is a good idea, you're going to turn off the middle.
And if you're Biden and you run on it too much, you celebrate too much.
Look, this is a sad day for America.
Hard stop.
There shouldn't be any celebration.
If you're celebrating, you're part of the problem.
This is why this country is being ripped apart.
He brought this on himself.
That's also a fact too, at the end of the day.
Let the legal world debate whether Alvin Bragg should have brought this or not.
I think there's a lot of evidence that Alvin Bragg has still been the best thing for Trump's campaign.
Without the Alvin Bragg indictment.
All right, you know, you could pause there for a second.
You know, it's interesting.
So I'm just seeing this for the first time now.
And what's interesting to me about it is that, okay, it's like he's making a reasonable point, but he's doing it in the douchey propaganda way that these news people do it, where what they do is, again, it's just, it's these simple techniques.
This is why, listen, I mean, whatever.
I'm not like trying to pat myself on the back.
I think anyone capable could have done it, but this is why it was kind of easy to take apart Chris Cuomo.
Because like once you understand the tactics, you could just like call him out as you see him.
Like, nope, that's one, that's one.
And so like what Chuck Todd does here is he takes, even as he's almost like giving an inch, what he does to make sure he doesn't give the whole game away is he does this thing like he just did here.
He goes, he goes, now listen, whether Bragg should have brought this case at all.
That's for legal experts to figure out.
You know, like they take these issues that are like the major issues and just take them off the table.
And it kind of sounds compelling if someone does it in a way where they're skilled rhetorically.
But then when you actually think about it, you're like, wait, how come we don't get to talk about that?
Why did you just say, no, leave that for legal minds, but you're having all of these other legal conversations.
It doesn't really make sense.
I mean, granted, he's having more of a political conversation, but really the Bragg's thing is a political point as well.
It's like, no, it's not this.
He's right about the point he's making that voters are, this isn't going to turn Trump voters off.
But I think where he's wrong is that he then, of course, can't go all the way and just call this what it is.
So he goes, you know, if Trump relies on it too much and it's seen as vengeance, that's not going to play good.
If Biden relies on it too much, that's not going to play good.
But he knows he's only really talking to Biden to not, because it's not the same thing to run on pointing out that the Justice Department has been weaponized against you as it is to weaponize the Justice Department against your opponent.
Chuck Todd manages to equate these two things.
So even while he's giving you an inch, he's still framing the whole thing up in this bullshit way.
To state it differently, he's completely overlooking the fact that this was corruption by the DA, that the court case was even brought.
However, all the other, he's in a dignified press way taking issue with the way that everyone else is reporting on it, which is Donald Trump is a criminal.
How dare this guy even still be in the race?
He's now a convicted criminal.
The jury of 12 random individuals in New York City of different opinions, different ethnicities.
This is the way they're all selling it is they're going to repeat that.
Yeah, so Chuck Todd is doing better than them.
Well, and then he's going to make a point very similar to what I had said prior to us rolling the clip, which is him pivoting to, hey, guys, we should be moving on from this.
No Small Bump for Biden00:05:07
All right, let's play the rest of it.
It's just a fact of when that indictment happened was at a moment that Trump desperately needed something to rally Republicans around him.
So it is, you know, in that sense, it has been weirdly helpful to him up until this point.
But if you're talking about, I think the mistake would be what Trump's doing now.
Trying to make it part of this.
You saw that news conference today and he just said it felt like it was political a campaign speech.
That's all there is is a campaign speech.
And this is what it sounds like.
And here's the thing.
The voters are going to punish whatever candidate is not talking about the issues that they want to talk about.
This is why I think the democracy message is not working for Biden.
If you care about the democracy, you've already made your decision who you're voting for.
The voters that are left or the voters that are going, I want to buy a house.
It's too expensive.
Or I'm really frustrated by this or I'm frustrated by that.
They're looking forward.
Campaigns that relitigate the past are destined for failure.
So that I think that's the way you got to look at this.
I think we may see a short-term bump for Biden, just like we saw a short-term bump for Hillary Clinton right after the Axis Hollywood tape.
And it disappeared almost as quickly as that bump happened.
Okay, we could turn it off here.
I think I get the point he's making again.
I just think this, I don't think there's going to be a small bump for Biden here.
The evidence I'm seeing is Trump raising insane amounts of money, probably breaking campaign fundraising records.
This isn't like the Access Hollywood tape.
This isn't something, Trump saying something really crude and embarrassing that came out that he wouldn't have wanted out in the public.
This is Donald Trump being railroaded very clearly.
Very clear.
Does anybody honestly believe that in 1996, if they had had this on Bill Clinton, they would have been prosecuting him while he was running for president?
Or that's re-election, 92, whatever.
You know what I mean?
If he had ran again or what, you know, does anyone honestly believe that?
Do you think that any of them, there's any president who they would have taken this type of action against over this ridiculous of a stretch of a crime?
I don't think the country could have handled that many DA agents suiciding themselves.
Yeah, right.
Maybe there's a reason why they never brought these charges against Clinton.
But anyway, it's just, I don't think it's the same thing.
But I do think what he's doing here is, look, it's not as if it's not as if Chuck Todd is not a partisan.
And when I say partisan, that's not, he's an establishment.
You know, he's a propagandist.
He's working for the establishment.
I say partisan because in this context of this year, that means not for Donald Trump, for Joe Biden.
I think what he sees is like, this messaging is a disaster for us.
And I better pivot to this other messaging that I think might be more successful.
He's also, Chuck Todd is like not the dumbest guy at NBC News.
He's one of the brighter guys there, not that he's like a decent journalist.
But I think he recognizes that this, you know, so much of this messaging is just a disaster.
If your thing is just going to be to repeat that he was convicted in this case that most normal people look at and go, yeah, but the case was bullshit.
And you just go, convicted felon, that's probably not going to work.
I'm sure it will work on some people, but it's not going to work on enough.
They're going to play it as much as they can.
This is unprecedented to have a person running for president that's a convicted felon.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's going to be, oh, that we're going to hear that all the way through the election and it'll be just as stupid every single time.
Sometimes, you know, people, one of the things people say, which I mentioned this on, I think on the show with Patrick Pett David, but I've seen it a little bit since like since Trump got convicted.
I've just seen this take that you see all the time, but it's amazing how people will utter these phrases that they, it's like they just someone told it to them.
They're repeating it.
It has gone through nothing besides that.
There wasn't even like a split second of like critical thought about that slogan before between hearing it and saying it.
But the thing is, they go, no, no president is above the law.
Nobody's above the law.
People love saying nobody's above the law.
And I heard that on CNN and I'm telling that to you or however it gets in there.
But isn't that, it's the most, you remember the line in The Godfather that's the best fucking libertarian line ever in a movie where he's explaining the family business to Kay.
And he's like, look, my father's a powerful man, just like a senator or a president.
And she goes, she goes, listen to yourself, Michael.
Senators and presidents don't have people killed.
You know how naive you sound?
And he goes, now who's being naive, Kay?
And it's just such a great line, right?
It's like, I don't know.
It's just there's something where you just cut to the bottom of what's really going on here.
And I love it.
I lost my train of thought there a little bit, but that's okay.
Anything else on the on the Trump stuff, Rob?
Naive Arguments About Power00:05:08
So, I mean, it's still in development.
I'm guessing, I mean, he could get 125 years of prison and it's going to be interesting to see what they actually sentence him to, how he wins on appeal, what happens when he wins the election and the court case just goes away.
And then we get to hear about the corruption in the system that all of a sudden his convicted fellow, whatever, falls away.
It'll be interesting to see the Republicans try and pull Alvin Bragg in front of Congress to give him a hard time.
And if there's more developments on the story that the judge was handpicked and was also the judge who worked on the court cases, there were two other Donald Trump-related court cases that this judge sat, was the judge for, which apparently is odd because they're supposed to be picked randomly.
Yeah, that is interesting.
All right.
Let's move on to another topic that I felt we kind of had to address.
Not that I particularly wanted to, but I just felt like kind of obligated in a weird way to talk about this.
Let me preface by saying that I do not plan on talking about Chase Oliver a ton over the next coming months.
Just wait till there's endless Twitter videos of the LP believes.
Listen, I suppose it's possible he'll give me something so great that I got to talk about it.
Or I suppose it's possible he'll give me something so terrible that I got to talk about it, which is kind of how I feel right now.
But I look, I don't really know Chase well, but I've known of Chase for a few years now.
And it's just, it's wild to me to even be spending time on the podcast talking about the guy.
And I don't mean that as a personal slight.
I kind of do, but whatever.
It's just, it's not something I want to spend a lot of time on.
And I'll also say that, you know, I've heard there's been a fair amount of people in the Libertarian Party because I do have some people who listen to my show or follow me on social media who are not like Mises caucus guys, but are just in the Libertarian Party, but, you know, kind of the type of guys who like always thought the war and the party was kind of silly.
We didn't need to be fighting it.
They're like, I like Dave and I also like these other guys.
There's a decent amount of them.
And some of them have been like telling me like, look, I know Chase isn't like your favorite guy, but he's the LP candidate.
You should be supporting him for the health of the party and for the health of all of this stuff or whatever.
And I just, I'm always surprised when I get that because it's like, do you, are you that unfamiliar with me?
Is that really what you think I'm going to do?
Listen, my, my first obligation in this world is to tell my audience the truth.
That's the most important thing.
I have to tell them the truth.
That's, that's the contract that I'm under.
So there's no negotiating that.
I'm not going to not say if I think a candidate's not worth supporting or if I think there's awful things that they're saying.
And then on top of that, look, like, look, I was floating around the other day on the show.
Maybe we need a new word to call ourselves or whatever.
I don't know.
You know, the battle over linguistic territory is always like, it's very important, but then there is a time to retreat and move on to something else.
And so it's always kind of debatable what one ought to call themselves.
But the point I'm making is just that libertarianism in general, I'm married to this term.
You know, I can't really like, it describes my worldview.
It's the term that all of the people whose theories shaped my worldview used for themselves.
And as long as people associate me with that, and now there's this other guy who's has the, you know, the position of kind of representing libertarianism over these next few months, if there's takes that are so god-awful that would rise to the level of what I would argue is child abuse, then yeah, I'm going to separate myself from those views.
And I'm surprised anyone who knows me would think something other than that.
Okay, so there's my little preface.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Sheath Underwear.
Love this company, love this product.
And in celebration of Father's Day, Sheath is running a super sale of 30% off when you use the code BigPapa.
30% off your Sheath underwear, the most comfortable boxer briefs you will ever put on your body.
And longtime loyal sponsor of this show.
Go check them out at sheath.com and make sure to use the promo code BigPapa for 30% off.
Great Father's Day gift.
Best pair of boxer briefs you will ever own.
All right, let's get back into the show.
So Chase Oliver went on the Just Asking Questions show, which is a reason show.
And it's hosted by Zach and Liz, who I will say, I like those guys.
I like both of them.
I'm not sure how much my audience likes them.
Totally Bought Into Propaganda00:13:52
And I'm not sure how much they like my audience.
It seems like there's like my camp of libertarians doesn't seem to like them and they don't seem to like my camp of libertarians.
However, it's worth understanding that they're not in like Chase Oliver's camp either.
They're in a separate kind of like group, I would say, in this libertarian world.
We're supposed to be the mainstream media for libertarians.
Why is this Dave Smith's guy so big and popular?
Well, listen, I have I've gotten that attitude from a good number of people in this world.
I have not at all from Zach and Liz at all.
As I said, I like those guys.
I think they've been nothing but, dare I say reasonable with me?
No, I just think I think they've been fair every time I've talked to them.
So anyway, this was a segment on the show where they were interviewing Chase.
The topic of transing the kids came up.
And here, let's play and respond a little bit.
Fine.
Healthcare, the decisions of a patient, a doctor who they consult with.
And if they are a parent, the child being the advocate of that parent.
And ultimately, a doctor should not be required by government or insurance company or any kind of mandate to violate their oath or their desire to help and heal.
Period.
I think when you frame it like healthcare, that sort of gives the entire game away, right?
This is the same as the argument that a lot of pro-trans activists use, you know, talking about it in the form of, you know, would you rather have a, you know, an alive, you know, a dead son or an alive daughter, basically the implication being that if you disallow a child to transition, then, you know, the mental illness that the child will suffer from could end in suicide.
And so of course, what, you know, empathetic parent wouldn't make that decision like this.
I think framing it as healthcare sells the detractors, some of whom are operating in very good faith, quite short.
I mean, we just had Jesse Single on this podcast.
And one point that Jesse makes time and time again is that the best evidence we have about gender transitions for children thus far comes from the CAS review, which was just published in the United Kingdom, which really is pretty damning for a lot of the people on the side of doing this invasive, these types of invasive treatments for children.
So like, as far as like, I can understand wanting to get the state out of it as much as possible, but like, how can you not look at it and sort of see a situation where we are just, you know, make allowing minor, minors are making decisions and parents are making decisions for minors with the help of doctors, with the help of an activist class that has spurred this along in a way where we just like don't have longitudinal, good, high-quality studies as to how this affects kids.
Hey, I say let those studies take place and they should do so outside of the confines of government.
Let independent organizations do these things.
But in the meantime, you should be allowed to seek the healthcare you want.
There's all kinds of medications.
Guess what?
Government said taking ivermectin was bad for you and many people just decided to do it anyway.
They took the choice.
They didn't want the government to ban that choice.
Same with anything else related to COVID.
Let's pause it here for a second.
So listen, first I'm going to say I think Liz makes a lot of good points there.
I would take it several steps further.
I don't know that anything she said, I think is incorrect.
But I think I would also say that there is, in addition to there being like, okay, the evidence does not at all suggest, like you don't actually have sound scientific reasons to suggest that this is the right thing to do, medically speaking.
It doesn't matter if you call it, you know, medical treatment or gender affirming care.
I also don't even need that to just be able to logically deduce that this is this is just outrageously abusive to children.
And in that case, it's, it's not as simple as, well, keep the government out of it.
And he actually at one point also says private insurance shouldn't be allowed to like deny, or he says insurance shouldn't be allowed to deny these type of, you know, chemical castrations.
But can't we just as human beings look at this and go, look, you are, I mean, at least, let me say it like this.
At least in large numbers of the cases where children are being put on puberty blockers, in large numbers, overwhelming numbers, it's child abuse.
Anybody who's spent time, like even like an 11-year-old, a 12-year-old, if you've been around an 11-year-old or a 12-year-old, they're still kids.
They're little kids.
And one thing that people who are around kids at all know as a universal truth is that kids are incredibly malleable, incredibly malleable.
It is very easy to lead them.
It's very easy to lead them in the direction that you want them.
I'm not saying like kids can't be stubborn and you can always get the behavior you want to.
I'm just saying they're very vulnerable to being led psychologically.
And the idea that there's there has just been this explosion in the number of trans kids who need this treatment is ridiculous.
We see this all the time where, you know, there's parents who claim they have three trans kids.
And you're like, the odds of that are just overwhelmingly insane.
There is no chance that that's real.
You are leading this dance, not your kids.
And if you are like to give your kids puberty blockers in a situation like that or a situation where it's even, I mean, I'm not saying like maybe you couldn't find the one outlier situation where like there's like a kid who really is like the most masculine woman ever or something like that and doesn't want to go through puberty really knows that about themselves.
But you're talking about a decision that for the overwhelming majority, there's just no way kids are capable of really knowing whether this is the right decision or not.
And they're so easily led by their parents.
And if they're being led by their parents, that's outrageous child abuse.
Just appalling.
And that should, we don't have to defend that.
I don't know.
Anything you want to add, Rob?
Just the idea that this is outside of the force or manipulation of government, to me is just certifiably false.
I think what healthcare does doesn't cover the studies that the NIH funds, the information that gets put out by these colleges and hospitals that would like to see this lifestyle and have more people do it.
Or that lady, I remember in that documentary we quoted on the last episode where there was that doctor going, well, we're just pausing it.
Well, what's the research on that, that that works?
Oh, and it's all it's totally wrong.
It's all totally wrong.
There's like irreversible, there's irreversible effects of it 100% of the time.
They're not reverse.
If you don't go through puberty when you were going to go through puberty, that doesn't just like not have its effect.
And in fact, they say an incredibly high rate of the boys who go through it are sterilized and can't have kids anymore after it.
It's like, no, it's if you actually look into the details of any of it, which is uncomfortable to do, but it's the claim that it's reversible is just, this was a claim they were making a few years ago that is going away more and more because like none of the evidence backs that up.
It is absolutely irreversible.
The problem with these conversations is it's just, to me, very far removed from reality.
And that let's just, let's already assume that you could be born into the wrong body.
All right.
I don't agree with that.
Which is, by the way, you would think the first claim they would have to have some evidence for, but right.
That's just the assumption.
But let's just go with that.
Sure.
What evidence do you have, though, that kids are able to make this decision for themselves at a and you don't.
There's none.
In fact, all the current studies are, I think it's like 5% of them are making the right call.
So how many kids are you helping when you're actually allowing kids to make this decision?
Well, you're harming 95% of the kids that are making this decision.
Right.
So when Chase comes, no, look, you're completely right about that.
But when Chase comes out and says, well, let's get government out of the way.
Let's defund all this stuff.
It's like, yeah, yeah, we're all in agreement there.
But there's something else that's more fundamental, moral about this question.
And it's like, this is the problem, by the way, with Chase is that, first of all, obviously the issue here is the conclusion is just so awful.
It's evil to support doing this to kids or to support this being legal to do to children.
But there is this problem where in the same sense where people are pulling up all these old embarrassing tweets for him, where, you know, he's talking about how he's having dinner with 10 people, but they'll all be socially distanced and wearing masks inside.
And because we can't always, because we have to take the masks off to eat, we're going to make sure we eat socially distance and all this stuff.
It's like, even if he didn't support the government policy, he totally bought into the propaganda.
And you just see the same thing happening here.
Like you've totally bought into the propaganda on this.
And the propaganda is not something that came.
Like I'm confident that if we defunded all of those things and there was no government involvement, none of this, we wouldn't have been propagandized to see that this was anything other than as insane and evil as it is.
But the point is while we're doing that, don't keep trans and the kids.
No, don't keep doing this.
And then we'll figure out where the good studies are any more than if let's just say within this.
And again, just to be clear here, I'm not equating these two things and saying they're the exact same thing.
Okay.
But I am just attacking the logic of the argument that Chase is using.
Okay.
Let's say that for if a doctor and a mom agreed to cut off an eight-year-old boy's healthy arm.
Okay.
And they just both agreed, cut off his arm.
I think he's, I think he's really a one-armed person living inside a two-armed person's body.
Cut off his arm.
No one, right?
We all have the same feeling about that.
And for all of modern history, if anyone ever suggested that, they'd be like, you're insane.
You're going to go to jail and lose your license.
Like, what are you out of your mind?
You just cut off a healthy limb of a child.
That is just totally not acceptable.
But let's just say a radical left-wing activist group started advocating that it should be okay to cut off an eight-year-old boy's healthy arm.
And then every major corporation and the entire political class and media class in Hollywood all got behind them and pushing that.
And then they started doing that.
And then a libertarian came around and went, well, you know, the government should stay out of it.
It should be between the parent and the and the kids and their doctor about whether they're doing this.
And you're like, yeah, right, dude.
So I'm just saying that's the logic of it.
That's the logic that the problem is that Chase is totally bought into the propaganda.
So he doesn't even realize that this is a craze that's risen up over the last few years, that this isn't an organic market function, that it's not the case that a substantial number of boys and girls in the United States of America were born into the right body and need to go through all of this, this process in order to switch to the gender that they were really supposed to be.
That's all bullshit.
That's not true.
I'm not saying that there aren't like very rare cases of people who maybe really do feel like they're in the wrong body and that they're a different gender.
They're not that other gender, but they may feel that way, but that's very rare.
What's going on right now is a top down created fad of like child abuse, of fucking with kids' minds and giving them all types of incentives to say like, you'll be interesting and you'll be special and you'll be kind of a member of a victim group if you do this kind of weird thing.
And it's drawing all these weird kids into it.
And not even just weird kids, but kids with weird parents when they're even younger.
So of course, Chase doesn't see any of that and is somehow trying to defend this.
And I guess if you buy into this concept of, you know, that children can make these kind of decisions for themselves, I guess we can recruit them for war.
Adults can have sex with them.
I mean, let's keep playing.
Let's keep playing because they get a little bit more into this stuff here.
It's on us.
We didn't have told what our treatment has to be.
We took care of our own lives.
We need to apply them to every area of healthcare.
This is exactly why it relates to healthcare because it is a healthcare issue.
This is not an issue that is any different from any other care that a physician, patient needs.
And when they're a minor, their parents are in charge of that.
Pause it right there.
I mean, like, again, that's just so incredibly dishonest that this is just, first off, saying it's healthcare is presuming you've won the argument without making the argument.
Like what Liz just said is like, no, it's not.
There's actually evidence that this isn't healthcare.
If there's evidence that a remedy to an illness makes you much sicker, then that's not just healthcare to give that to them.
That's actually abusive to give that to them.
And so number one, you haven't proven the case.
But number two, you know, for Chase to say, this is healthcare, it's just like any other operation.
It's just like if a kid breaks their leg and they got to come in and fix their leg, like, no, it's not.
This is elective irreversible treatments for children.
That's obviously the issue here.
Nobody having this debate in good faith doesn't realize that that's the issue at hand.
And so, no, you can't just say, oh, it's just like every other medical treatment.
Who cares?
Well, you know, who cares?
And in a free market, I don't understand why an insurance company would want to cover this and that if they don't cover it, you're going to remain from a health standpoint, healthy.
In other words, they're not going to have future costs of having to repair things for you.
If you were born a boy and you identified as a girl and you don't go through any surgeries from a health standpoint, I mean, I guess worst case scenario, and I know that this is not polite, but I guess if the risk is you're going to kill yourself, well, I guess you're no longer a liability on the books of the insurance company.
Who Decides for Children00:09:41
You're saying in terms of incentives for the insurance company.
I'm just saying if you're an insurance company and you're a business, so you've got a healthy individual from a physical standpoint, right?
And now you're going to put them through a surgery that makes them, maybe the word's not unhealthy, but you're going to have future treatment forever.
That's a cost to you.
Why without someone stepping in and intervening in the market and saying that this has to be treated, would an insurance company ever want to take on the liability of firstly engaging in the cost of any treatment whatsoever that they don't have to, especially if it makes you sick and is going to lead to future treatment.
Why would an insurance company want to do that in a free market?
Yeah, I know.
I get your point.
It's an interesting one.
All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is Monthly Knife Club.
It is a subscription box for guys and gals who like knives, the outdoors, and everyday carry gear.
Every month they send you a new name brand knife on autopilot.
They've recently updated their ultimate knife and gear boxes.
Now the knife of the month included in the ultimate plan will oftentimes have a value equal to or greater than the entire cost of the box.
They've also added name brand automatic knives from names like Hog, SigSauer, Kershaw, ProTech, and many more.
Father's Day is coming up and this is the perfect gift for the man who's hard to shop for.
Go check this out, monthlyknifeclub.com, an unbelievable Father's Day gift idea.
There are many tiers of name brand knives and ECD gear starting at only $25 and save 10% on your first month with the coupon code Dave10.
That's monthlyknifeclub.com, promo code Dave10 for 10% off your first month.
All right, let's get back into the show.
Okay, here, let's keep playing.
When they're a minor, their parents are in charge of that.
Parents can have that sovereignty because they have unconditional love for their kids.
They want to see their kids survive and thrive.
They're going to be a better advocate than a board or a bureaucrat.
And certainly one size fits all healthcare is not libertarianism.
That is not freedom.
We need to have a lot of things.
Let's just pause it here.
I mean, look, just nothing gets me angry because I do like, I think libertarianism is such a beautiful philosophy.
And I think there's such like geniuses who I know who have like taught me so much about it, many of whom are still alive and they really understand the depth and the beauty of these ideas.
And so I just hate empty nonsense libertarian slogans that don't mean anything.
And this here is just maybe the first one, you know, that we don't want a one size fits all.
You know what I'm saying?
That's it.
Libertarians don't support a one size fits all.
Well, yeah, but like we do when it comes to like aggression.
We do have a one size fits all that that should be illegal.
We do have a one size fits.
Everybody has a one size fits all when it comes to child abuse.
So that's the argument is like over whether this is child, this isn't either gender affirming care or nothing, right?
It's either gender affirming care or horrific child abuse.
You get my point?
So to just sit here and be like, well, we don't, but we don't prescribe a one size fits all.
Yeah, we do.
Yeah, we do in that situation.
We do.
In the same like, if I say every single hospital and every single insurance plan and every single surgeon should never chop the healthy arm off of a healthy eight-year-old boy just for fun.
And you go, well, libertarians don't prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution.
Yeah, kind of we do, actually, in that situation.
And the other, uh, the other thing there that Chase said that's just, you know, just, I mean, I don't know, kind of painfully stupid is the idea that, well, parents love their kids.
Like as if, as if that would be an argument against child abuse.
Now, parents love their kids.
If they're abusing them, then they know what they're doing.
Like parents love their kids.
Yeah, that's pretty fucking vague.
And it's true sometimes.
It's not true all the time.
And there are also very sick parents who abuse their kids.
There's parents who keep their kids sick.
There's parents who plant ideas in their kids' heads.
There's parents who don't want their kids to ever leave home because they have mental illness.
There's parents who literally, if their kid starts climbing up the ladder, will try to pull them back down because they don't want to be outshined by their kid.
There's a lot of sick people in the world.
And so to just say like the parents doing this love their kids is just a cop out of any type of meaningful engagement with the real world.
You know, it's like when libertarians say things like, nobody wants to be on welfare.
That sounds nice, right?
Doesn't that sound nice?
It's totally not true.
We all know it.
At least anybody who's anybody who hasn't lived their whole life in the upper echelons of society knows that actually there are some people on welfare who will tell you.
They're quite happy to be on it.
All right, let's keep playing.
Individual to choose what to do on a case-by-case basis.
And like I said, this is being very overblown to read the most common treatment is social transitioning.
These cases that are being brought forward make it seem like every kid who questions their gender is automatically thrown on puberty blockers or an hormone replacement therapy is just not telling the whole truth.
I recommend that detractors meet with families who have trans kids as I have all over the country.
I met a young person from two hours.
I don't think that's fair, right?
Like I have a bunch of trans friends and I have parent friends because I'm also a parent who have had gender questioning children, right?
Like to act as if it's like merely a lack of knowledge about this self-sort the arguments that people like me are making, which is that I don't think it's freedom either to have a situation where we've very much had this activist class that has been highly successful with influencing a lot of gatekeeper medical organizations in the United States to make it seem like the only acceptable way to treat a gender questioning kid is to socially transition them or to get them on puberty blockers.
Like, I mean, to me, that's not freedom.
To me, that's a very moneyed activist class that has really played a significant role in changing the narrative around this discussion when I don't understand why children in many cases couldn't just wait until they're actual adults and can more fully make decisions for themselves.
Because when you're dealing with minors, you were dealing with this challenge of like, well, to what degree should the parent be empowered to meet this with a minor versus to what degree does the minor child really need to take some time to actually become a full legal adult before making this choice.
So here's the thing.
You mentioned the gatekeepers of information and things like this.
The best way to get rid of them is to tear down the gatekeepers, not having it.
No national institute of health or FDA or CDC that's guiding this stuff.
Let culture actually decide that.
Let free market minds decide that.
Yeah.
I mean, I mean, the APA and even the fact that like journalists have been instructed by like the Associated Press Style Guide, which is the asylum manual that all journalists use, to use terms like gender affirming care, which again, when we begin to frame these things in certain terms, we're giving the entire argument one side of the argument.
We're sort of skewing things in favor of them.
It's an excellent point that Liz makes and that it's the same game that they play when they talk about abortion as reproductive rights.
Well, okay, like if you're going to call it that, then you're just you're you're assuming the answer to the argument before you even have it.
And reproductive rights is even worse because it's just like such a ridiculous term.
It doesn't even kind of sound like what an abortion is.
It sounds like the opposite of an abortion.
I'm fighting for my right to reproduce.
Like, what?
No, you're not.
You're fighting for the exact opposite.
He's like, yeah, but reproduce sure does sound a lot better, doesn't it?
Doesn't it, Rob?
Reproduce?
Doesn't that sound nicer than abortion for some weird reason?
But anyway, the gender affirming care, obviously the presumption is built right into the word affirming and care, you know, from the other perspective.
Like that's, it's just so with both of these terms, with reproductive rights and gender affirming care, the level of dishonesty in the, in the title is so revealing.
I mean, it's like, come on, dude.
Like if you're being honest about this debate, you were going to say, there's a boy who says, I want to be a girl, and it's affirming to say you're a girl.
Like, okay, how about we affirm what is biological reality?
Wouldn't that be gender affirming care?
I mean, it's just so, it's so bananas that they even call it this.
Imagine if you went to Planned Parenthood with your wife and you said, we're looking to start a family.
We're looking, we're planning on starting a family and we wanted to know, you know, what government incentives exist for financing and maybe if you guys could help us with in vitro fertilization, she's a little bit older.
We're just trying to make some arrangements for this family that we want.
Like, we don't, we don't help with that kind of planning here.
We do a different kind of planning, much darker planning.
But anyway, this is just, and it's, look, if you're not, which I almost think is a prerequisite of not just being a good libertarian, but being someone who has anything to add to the conversation about politics in our moment.
I think it requires you to kind of like see through the propaganda to not buy into whatever the latest, you know, fad or trend that's pushed out by the, by the government class and the media class and all of this and big business and all of this stuff.
And to see it, it just doesn't take that much to step back and go, oh, this is crazy.
This is all insane.
There's this condition that has no, is not met.
You know, forget about talking about this scientifically.
You know, scientifically speaking, there is no objective evidence that you were born in the wrong body.
That just doesn't exist.
It's all based.
The centerpiece of all of this is a feeling.
And then you're trying to build science off of a feeling.
This just makes no sense at all.
I don't know why I was thinking about this the other day.
You know, sometimes I smoke weed and I take long showers and you have weird thoughts, but I was imagining if I woke up from a coma and this entire reality that I'd lived for my life was fake and I found out I was actually a 35 year old lady in a coma.
In my head, I'd live this entire lifestyle and I wake up in a bed tomorrow as a lady.
You know what my first thought is?
Building Science Off Feelings00:14:03
Oh, I guess I'm actually a lady.
Let's go figure this out.
I'm not thinking, oh, I was a boy.
I'm a boy.
I know.
I just lived 35 years as Rob.
This is bullshit.
I've been giving myself a dick.
It's the last thought I'm having.
I'm looking down.
I'm like, oh, no, no, that's in China.
You go, there's objective reality right in front of my face.
All right, let's keep playing a little more of this.
We hear both sides.
I believe we hear both sides of the argument quite a bit.
And trust me, those are not government institutions.
Any government institution shouldn't be trying to guide one thing one way or another.
Let culture, free markets, and free minds do that stuff.
And that's where that's going to come from.
And you may disagree with how things are done.
That's a free marketplace of ideas.
And I support that.
I support people having their own opinions on these things.
I would never, ever try to tell you how to raise your kids.
I don't want to tell other parents how to raise their kids.
That is not my job.
Because do you, do you get what I'm saying about the like one centimeter deep, superficial libertarian sayings that you're like, yeah, no, that's not even actually technically right.
So you sit there, I don't tell you how to raise your kids and you don't tell other people how to raise their kids.
It's like, well, okay, but kind of I do.
I mean, you know, to a certain extent.
If you're sad, if you're sacrificing your child to Moloch in your backyard, there's two or more kids there that you're about to cast into the fire.
I'm going to run in there and graduate.
I'm a libertarian.
I'm a libertarian.
I don't tell other people how to raise their kids.
You know what I mean?
Like there might be somewhat like fairly wide parameters on it.
But, you know, first of all, like, I don't just tell other people not like I would tell other people, you should love your kids.
You should read to your kids.
You should play with your kids.
You should talk with your kids.
I would tell them that.
I wouldn't be comfortable forcing them to do any of that, but I would also tell other people how to raise their kids.
I'd tell them, don't abuse your kids.
And I would be comfortable enforcing that.
Like, I think anyone would be justified in enforcing that you're not allowed to abuse your kids.
And so, yeah, this is just a total empty platitude to say the question is over whether this is child abuse.
And once this is, once you accept that it is, because it clearly is, it is clearly child abuse to give your child to again, the only way it could be morally justified, right, is if the child truly was capable of making this permanent choice for themselves.
And if you accept that a child is capable of making this choice, then as you kind of alluded to before, Rob, well, you're going down some really dangerous paths there.
I mean, like, I'm just saying, like, there is, this is as serious a choice as there could be.
If you're saying a child can make that choice, because that's the only way it's, it's morally defensible, is if it's truly a meaningful consent by the child to do something so drastic and elective and irreversible.
And to sit there and just say, well, we want a free marketplace of ideas in that.
Like, no, I don't want a free marketplace of ideas and child abuse.
Like, I mean, I don't know.
At least that's not my take on it.
That's not what I'd say if someone goes, how do you feel about child abuse?
I'd be like, it should be against the law.
I wouldn't be like, well, I want a free marketplace of ideas to determine that it should be against the law.
It's like, I mean, maybe that's the best way to get to that outcome, but I just want that outcome.
All right, let's keep playing.
My job is to reduce the size and scope of government and the abuses that exist.
Let me drill.
Hold on, Liz.
Let me drill down into what I see as the core of this, maybe disagreements, because I think it's really important for libertarians to think about where they stand on this issue.
It's one of the big culture war issues right now.
And it's important for parents.
It's important for kids.
It's important for everyone.
That's why we did an hour and a half with Jesse Single on this.
And what I hear Liz saying is that there's been a very one-sided discourse about this and people have been shut down from questioning the guidance, kind of marginalized or called bigots or transphobes and stuff like that.
And what I hear Chase saying is that the libertarian position, I mean, first of all, it sounds like Chase sort of agrees that free discourse is the part of the solution here, but also that you have to decide who ultimately is the decision maker.
Is it the state?
Is it these bureaucratic boards?
Or is it the parents when you're talking about minor?
Do you have a disagreement there, Liz, with his proposal that ultimately, given what we know now, the parents need to be the ones working in consultation with their doctors instead of the states, you know, putting these mandates forth as well?
Well, I mean, are you comfortable with the state allowing parents and doctors to decide to follow a child's wishes and to surgically transition?
Like say they surgically transition an eight-year-old.
Surgeons transitions for 18 and older.
No, I always have a position that surgeries for 18 and older.
And I do want to say this.
Why isn't it a situation where the parent gets to rule?
Like why does the state gets intervene in that case?
Well, I just want to speak to that last thing that Zach said, say that there are people who are saying, well, you're a bigot or you're a hater, and that's dividing the question up.
And that's creating division.
The same division happens when people say that parents of trans kids are child abusers, groomers, that they're pedophiles.
These kinds of accusations come from the other side of that argument.
We're going to have real open discourse with free, open discourse, transparent information, and actually discussing the issue instead of attacking each other.
That has to come from both sides of this issue.
There's huge division here.
And I'm somebody who is willing to reach my handout.
I will listen to just about anybody.
Let's pause it right here.
Yeah, well, right, because Liz asked such a great question there.
I mean, that was really right on the money is that it's like, okay, well, like that, right.
And look, this is the same thing.
I guess, I guess a similar point that I was, I guess we're both getting at the same point when I was saying this earlier, but it's just like, look, she's attacking the logic of what he's saying.
If your logic is that these decisions should be between, you know, parents and their, and their doctors and the children and the state shouldn't get involved, well, then the logic of that would say then that should apply to all of these other things.
Or what's different about that?
Why wouldn't this also apply to surgery?
Why wouldn't this also apply to lots of other forms of abuse?
And so Chase pivots back to talking to Zach about, he's about to kind of address the question, but he pivots back to Zach and goes, well, listen, it's not just one side of this who's getting smeared if they talk about it, but also we are being called groomers and all of this stuff.
And look, I would say two quick things, maybe three things I'd say about that.
Number one, the slight difference there is that the people who are being called transphobes are being called them by people with power, by a large percentage of like the powerful class in this country.
And the people who are calling you a groomer are largely comments on Twitter.
There is a little bit of an asymmetry there.
It's not the exact same thing.
The other point I would mention is that, you know, Chase is now he's running.
He's being a politician.
So now he's running for president and he's like, no, all these people are name calling, but I'm sitting here with my hand out and I want to talk to both sides because that's how we come together as a nation or whatever.
The truth is that Chase is, I've known the kid for of the kid for a few years and he's been out there calling Ron Paul and Lou Rockwell racists and the whole Mises caucus, bigots and racists and all this stuff.
He's been out there like that's, it's just not true that he's the guy who just wants to have a conversation about this.
And lastly, and I think the most important point of all of this is just that like, again, all of the argument, all of the arguments always on every single woke argument that there is, they always rely on starting the framing from a presumption that they've already won the argument without ever having to actually make the argument.
That's why it's just, do you support gender affirming care or no?
End of argument, right?
I already assumed I won in the question.
The fact is that if you view this as child abuse, which it pretty clearly is, then it's not just, hey, we want to abuse children.
You want us to stop abusing children, but we got to stop hurling insults at each other.
It's not right when I call you a bigot for not wanting me to abuse children.
And it's not right when you call me someone who's abusing children when I want to abuse children.
Like, you see how that's not equal?
If it's child abuse, which it's just so overwhelmingly obvious that at least the starting point in the argument should be that it's child abuse.
How is that not the starting point?
You're experimenting.
You're experimenting on a generation of kids with ideas that you have systemically put in their head.
You know, even if you want to claim there's a certain number of these kids who organically are, you know, under this belief that they are the other gender, clearly there's at least a large number of them who you've put this idea in their head.
It did, they, there didn't start being this many of them until you insisted on every third grade class around the country asking what your gender is.
So the starting point should be that that's obviously child abuse to those people.
And if you're, if you're not, you have to have some type of argument for why it's not.
And that's never presented.
It's just always assumed.
Hey, don't call me a racist for wanting to re-enslave black people.
It doesn't help the national discourse when you use names like race.
Right, right.
I mean, that's like, why, why should we not call this the most heinous names?
All right, let's keep playing.
Of course, without creating, you know, narratives of, well, you believe this way, so you must immediately be this.
That is not the way to go about freedom and free discourse.
That is just insulting each other.
And I would say, if you look at the discourse that's been happening between me and the people who have been commenting, who has been throwing more hatred and division out there?
I've been called all kinds of things by people who don't like me.
And guess what I have been doing?
Returning fire, because I know that that is not a way to constructively build a conversation.
And when they want, and when folks want to have a constructive conversation, I'll be right here waiting to have it.
Yeah.
So I'm here having that conversation.
What is your response to why the state should like, why would the state be the decision maker with regard to surgical transitions after age 18 versus the parent?
Like, why do you think that's the problem?
Because I always surgery is a 100% irreversible procedure and puberty blockers at HRT, while not perfect, have been shown to have be mostly reversible and you can get off of them.
And surgery, just like tattoos, and frankly, if you're, you know, I'm against circumcision personally, I believe that's also body modification.
But I would like to see that done for adults, if at all possible, without, of course, religious exemption for that last thing I mentioned there.
But everything else should be up to an adult to be making those decisions.
It's why my six-year-old niece, when she was 16, she said she wanted to be a tattoo.
And they said, nope, you're not getting that.
Regards, any other kind of body modification, we've set the standard of adulthood and it should continue to be the standard for body modification surgery.
Well, you've heard it here first.
So that's, let's wrap it up there.
But yeah, look, I mean, you just say less reversal than puberty blocking.
You just see how much his logic completely falls apart.
I mean, first off, his assertion that they're, you know, largely reversible is just utter nonsense.
That's just not true and it's not backed up by the science at all.
You know, it's like, what is it?
Mostly peaceful, but fiery protests, mostly reversible.
But look, I mean, look at what Chase is reduced to here.
And look, forget he just, he's having this absolute collapse in his logic because he's trying to defend something that's just indefensible.
But then he also throws in this thing about circumcision being wrong also, which I happen to agree with with Chase on.
But then he also goes, but with religious exemptions, of course.
So what?
Is it abusing a child or not?
Why would you have religious exemptions?
Like by your own logic, it doesn't even make sense.
So it should be banned by the force of government.
It should be banned unless you say it's part of your religion.
Then you're allowed to do it.
Like that doesn't even make sense.
But what Chase is reduced, and more to get to the meat on the bone here, what Chase is reduced to here, which is just, I mean, I would just, any reasonable person, tell me if this argument holds any weight.
Because what Chase is reduced to here is arguing that it is a less serious decision to take puberty blockers at age 12 than it is to get a tattoo at age 16.
That you shouldn't be allowed to get a tattoo at age 16 because that's a little bit too permanent, but you should be allowed to take puberty blockers as a preteen.
That argument is so absurd.
And the conclusion, you know, it's like, dude, you're like, and this is why we got to distance ourselves from this shit.
Cause it's like you're out here advocating child abuse.
And then the logic upon which that argument is founded is the weakest, the weakest possible argument.
Here's the problem with his perspective.
Let's say I'm a 16-year-old biological male and I identify as female.
And my parents, they agree with me.
I'm a female.
My doctor agrees that I'm a female.
And you know what we all want to do?
We want to remove my penis because I want to live out my life as a female.
And you know what Chase is saying?
He's going to force me by the government to live three more years or two more years of my life with a dick that I don't want.
Can you believe that he would use government force to mandate that I had to live with a penis that I didn't want for two more years?
So all of the things that Chase and his camp would say about us, he's the same way, but only for surgeries.
But I mean, just, come on, this is just like, it's too ridiculous.
Don't force my 16-year-old to live with a penis that doesn't want.
And look, I'll tell you that even the anti-war leftists who I love, none of them, none of them are for trans and the kids.
It's really wild that any libertarian would try to go down this road, especially when it has been so clearly created by state monsters.
Like I'm not just saying the government itself, but universities and the corporate media and like all this stuff that just so clearly like these are these are creations of government as much.
They're not like some organic, you know, laissez-faire outcome that led to any of this stuff.
Laissez Faire Outcomes00:01:25
Look, I'll say this.
I'm not going to, assuming he doesn't force me to.
I'm not going to talk about Chase that much going forward.
If he does something great, I'm sure I'll give him a little bit of credit for it.
If he does something terrible, I'm sure I'll knock him a little bit for it.
I did tell him when I saw him at the convention that I would have him on the show.
And I'll be a man of my word on that.
I'm happy to have Chase on the show if he wants to talk about it.
We could talk about a lot of the anti-war stuff that we really agree on.
I'm sure there's some other stuff we really agree on we could talk about, but we would have to talk about some of this stuff too.
But if Chase is really saying, hey, I want to meet in the middle and like have this reasonable conversation, he said other things about how he wants to get like the Mises caucus, you know, wing of the party to support him.
I mean, this, I'll just say, if that is your goal, then I think coming on this show is probably the best way to reach the most of those guys.
And I'm certainly not somebody who's going to be an unfair host and just call you a bunch of names.
I will take on your arguments.
So I'm happy to have him on the show as I already offered.
And then we'll try to probably move on and focus on some other things.
Anyway, that's going to be a wrap for today's show.
Thanks, everybody, for listening.
Comicdavesmith.com for all of me and Rob's tour dates together.
And of course, what is it?
Porchtour.com.com.
Run your mouth.
Porch tour.com to go check out the summer porch tour, which is always the talk of the summer.