Libertarian candidate Larry Sharpe joins Dave Rubin to discuss his New York gubernatorial campaign, aiming to disrupt the two-party system by exposing state corruption and repealing the "Safe Act" gun laws through pardons for 1,000 convicted individuals. Sharpe outlines a strategy to localize government, eliminate unfunded mandates, and raise $2 million via infrastructure naming rights rather than tolls, while defending Gary Johnson's "baker cake" controversy with a proposed compromise on services versus goods. Ultimately, his pragmatic approach seeks to win over single-issue voters and non-participants, arguing that third-party disruption is essential for forcing major parties to address civil liberties and small government principles. [Automatically generated summary]
Yes, because we're better than you when it comes to tyranny.
We got you.
You can't beat us.
So yes, this is a critical piece.
I'm glad I'm doing this.
It's the right answer, because imagine this.
If I make any impact in New York, what does that say for the country?
It shows that the impact of this race is so important that if I can make anything happen in New York State, it will affect the rest of the nation overnight.
I want you to imagine for a second, in my race, I just get 10%.
That will change how people think in New York throughout the entire state.
It'll force Republicans that actually have to be Republicans, Democrats to be Democrats, because now the Libertarian Party will have an actual voice.
So now when I go to Republicans and I say, you're supposed to be about small government, someone will listen.
When I go to Democrats and say, you're supposed to be about civil liberties, someone will listen.
It will force them to be better.
But I'm gonna go one step further.
What if I actually beat the Republican in New York state?
That's magical.
I beat the Republican.
New York State politics works for the first two parties actually run everything.
And we can get into some of that stuff, and I've had him on the show, and I think he's a good person.
I think he was just a flawed candidate.
But just that the party itself seems to be extremely disorganized, and you know, when they have these conventions, and it's like naked people, and all this.
So before we get into the specifics of New York and what your libertarian principles are and things like that, tell me a little bit about your history, because you are actually born and bred in New York.
I'm born in Manhattan, biracial parents in the 60s.
My mom gives me up for adoption because she can't handle the issues of biracial issues in her family.
I'm very lucky.
I get adopted very young.
I think I was six weeks old by a lovely couple who took me to the Bronx, a German immigrant, and her husband, who was in the army in Germany, and that's how we met her.
So I'm raised in the Bronx.
I'm around nine or 10 in that area, 11.
And at that point, my mother had actually divorced and met another man who was my actual father, who actually raised me and taught me how to be a man.
We moved to Long Island.
He died when I was around 12 years old.
When he passed, it was just me and my mom.
My mom couldn't handle it.
She was really devastated by this.
Her family was in Germany.
She was here.
I was distant.
I was a young teenage boy trying to find my way also.
When I was 17, I left and joined the Marine Corps.
Joined the Marine Corps, was there for about six years, seven years.
When I got out, my mother had already collapsed.
She was initially addicted to legal drugs and eventually illegal drugs.
She was arrested, victim of the drug war.
She went to prison, convicted felon.
I got her out and tried to put her back on her feet.
I tried to help her to... She left the prison with two garbage bags.
That was what her life was.
So I helped her get back on her feet, try to get a job.
I saw how hard it was for her to get a job.
I mean, she was...
Always lying on every form because they knew she was a felon and they wouldn't hire her.
And when she was working she had to always lie and she was a hostage basically.
I became an entrepreneur because I didn't want my mom to be a hostage.
So we started our own business.
Me and her and my stepdad who was another man she had married afterwards.
And so we started a business together so that she could be her own person and not be a hostage.
That was our first business.
After that, got up and running.
I left that, had a bunch of sales jobs, and then decided to start my own business again.
That business did not go well.
I sold that one off.
Then I went and got this business, which I've had for 14 years.
I'm a consultant, a trainer.
I've been an officer in a public company twice.
I've taught in colleges.
I teach now at Baruch, sometimes John Jay.
I've taught at the graduate level as a guest instructor in Yale and Columbia.
So I've taught a lot.
I do a lot of executive coaching, training, leadership.
Sales, that kind of stuff.
I'm an entrepreneur.
I've been doing it for 14 years.
And two years ago, I saw an opportunity to jump on board the Libertarian Party as a VP nominee.
So you mentioned you're biracial, and I hate making anything about race because we're so overly racialized now in identity politics and all this, but I think that a certain amount of my audience, when they hear you say that, all right, so you were, Ronald Reagan was your commander-in-chief, and you were identifying as a Republican back then, as a black man.
I've had many black conservatives on here, some of whom I consider great friends, like Larry Elder and I've had Thomas Sugg.
No, so that's why I wanted to ask you about that.
What was it like then to take that political position?
I couldn't hear anyone else because I didn't care.
I could only hear the person who I was.
I identified with him.
Self-made man, growing a business.
I identified with Gary Johnson, and I still do.
And so when he decided to talk, I said, oh, I get it.
And I came to the party because of him.
But to be forward, I didn't join the party still right away.
I've never joined a party in my life.
I've never joined a party.
But at this point, I thought, you know what?
I'm going to go to the meetings.
I'd never been to a party meeting before.
And I went to the meetings.
And when I went to Libertarian party meetings, as odd as they were, and they are odd, it was still just regular people.
It wasn't crazies, it was regular people.
Business owners, people who wanted to see some change.
I identified quickly with them, and I joined.
So I joined the party in 2012, and that's when I became a Libertarian.
But when I joined the party, I hadn't read Bastiat.
I hadn't read, I didn't read any of them.
I didn't even know them.
So that's when I joined them, I began looking around, and then I read the law.
Still my favorite of all of them is Bastiat, it's my favorite.
That was the simplest and the one that I identified with the most.
Still my favorite.
But I read all the rest also, I began to read them, right?
I read the Road to Serfdom, I began to read those afterwards.
But they were easy for me to understand, and people, they'd tease me, they'd go, Larry, you've been in the movement so short a time, but you can talk with the principals.
I'd been teaching them for 14 years, but not under the name.
In a different world.
So it was very easy for me to adapt and to bring those things to bear.
So I voted for Gary Johnston in 2012, and I supported his candidacy completely in 2016.
I was running around doing debates in his stead.
I was on TV instead for him.
Anything he wanted, I would do.
So I jumped through hoops for him, because I wish he was our president now.
I did a video in the summer before the election of why it would be great to support him even though he wasn't a perfect candidate, et cetera, et cetera.
But he had a couple gaffes that were pretty bad.
And I also, I don't even blame him for them in a certain way because it was the only, to your point, it was the only way he could get press.
Like the only time they talked about him was Aleppo.
Or the other moment where he couldn't name a leader that he respected.
But the one policy point that really bothered me with him, and I don't know, maybe we don't see eye to eye on this, is that he wanted the baker to bake the cake.
And while the person goes, but it's wrong, I get it.
Emotion and culture matter.
And what he was trying to get at, which is my policy here, is to find a good solid middle ground.
I do not want a baker to make a cake for someone he doesn't want to make a cake for.
That's his labor, having to do it for someone.
That's wrong, should never happen.
So here is Here is the good compromise.
If a baker or anyone, anyone creates a product and puts it into the retail market, whether that be online or on a shelf in a store, if a person creates a product and puts it there, he must allow anyone who has the currency that he wants to purchase that product.
Yes, and I'm saying, just let... Now, if the person says, I want that cake off the shelf, and literally, you're Jewish, and he's a Nazi with a swastika on his arm, you must say, take it, you have the money, take my ticket, get out of here.
He then says, I now want you to put on it so-and-so.
No.
You can refuse that service because now that's not retail.
That's you doing a service for that individual.
You should absolutely be able to say, no, I will not put anything on that cake at all.
That's the way it is.
That's how I made it for anyone.
If you want it, take it.
That's not good enough for you.
Have a nice day.
That is my compromise, and I think that's what Gary Johnson actually meant to say.
Because if you heard the way he said it, and when I spoke to him about it, he understood what I was saying.
I'm glad you cleaned it up for yourself, and I'm glad you cleaned it up for Gary, because I feel kind of, because I know he's a decent guy, and I don't like giving him crap for it.
What would you say to the part of the libertarians that want to go that extra step, that say either the 64 Act should be repealed because we don't need these laws anymore, or that no, you just, even if it's just the same old product on your shelf, and you just don't like the way somebody looks, because you are a bigot, It's still your stuff, and what do you say to that?
If you don't take that first step, you will get nothing, but not just nothing.
Those people who keep voting are going to keep voting our rights away.
They do it every single year.
They keep voting our rights away as we accept everything or nothing.
It isn't nothing.
It's worse.
It's worse.
Give us the compromise that makes sense, they'll see the world doesn't end, they'll see there's not a zombie apocalypse, and then we can move to the next level.
Is that part of the problem of being sort of an outlier party?
Because the Libertarian Party that's existed for a long time and it's on all the ballots but never really breaks any major thresholds, that part of it is you get too caught up in the purity test.
Now all parties do in a way.
All do.
I think for the third parties, this may be a little trickier, and maybe for libertarians more than else, because if you're really basing it on the individual, the purity test is pretty freaking high, is what you're going to make that individual do.
So would you say that the way you just described the cake situation is basically your view on government in general?
Because again, this is where you can go to a libertarian that really is an ad cap, or the people you described as the backbone, that basically you're sort of, I guess I would just, I mean, this is what I would say a classical liberal is, really.
It's just that where the rubber meets the road, you understand that there has to be some Is that sort of your guiding principle?
But to be full with you, our nation is nowhere near that.
I mean, I might as well start asking, you know what I'd like?
I'd like a world where leprechauns ride unicorns.
At the moment, it's the same thing.
It just doesn't exist.
We're nowhere near there.
And one reason why I'm attacking New York State as hard as I am, campaigning so hard, is if we can just stop the bleeding, if we can just stop it from shifting left.
Right now, if you know, we're talking in New York State about giving teachers the right to tell law enforcement if a child is dangerous, so they can now confiscate that child's parents' guns.
We're talking about that now.
That's the new things about New York State.
We're going so far away, it's not even funny.
So to talk about this, it's imaginary.
I just want to turn it around.
Let me do that.
If I do that, we got a shot at getting there.
I probably will never see a voluntary society in my life.
I probably won't.
It'd be awesome if I could.
But can I turn us around so we're facing it at least?
That I can do.
That I can absolutely do, and I can do that in my lifetime.
What do you make of the states like New York that have gotten so away from the ideas, forget the policies, forget the 3,000 problems, right?
But just the basic ideas of why liberty and individualism and limited government and your own capacity to control your property and things of that nature.
The states that have gotten so far away from that.
I mean, I guess that's why you're running in the first place.
At the end of every law, there's a couple minor exceptions, but almost every law, at the end of every one, is a guy or a gal with a gun to put you in a cage.
Defend your rights, property, whoop, you can use force.
But when you are afraid, your first step is force.
So when you are afraid, your first step is government.
And that's what happens in the states like New York, California.
The first answer is government.
It's the old, there ought to be a law.
I don't like this.
There ought to be a law.
This is wrong.
There ought to be a law.
And that culture has been part of us for at least 50 years, if not more.
I mean, just decades upon decades, it's been that way.
I used to do the same thing.
Right?
Oh, someone's smoking in front of me.
There ought to be a law!
I used to think the same way until I was enlightened and go, oh no, that's a bad idea.
Why would I do that?
But I thought I was righteous.
And the thing that we have to remember is we also idealize the idea of democracy.
We idolize.
Well, we voted.
There's a law.
The story I love, I tell this all the time, I was speaking to an IP attorney, intellectual property attorney, and she was talking to me about intellectual property law.
And I'm making this up, I don't remember the actual rules, so she said something, and again, I'm not a lawyer, I'm gonna just say numbers so that we have some.
You know, copyright law is 95 years after the person's death.
It was something like that.
And I said, 95 years after their death?
She goes, yeah.
I said, what a terrible law.
It's horrible.
She said, yeah, but it's the law.
And I said, I know.
I'm not doubting that you're a lawyer.
I'm sure you know the law.
I'm sure that's true.
And it's a bad law.
She said, but Larry, you understand, we had to change our laws to match international law.
So now we match international law.
And I said, great.
That's a really bad international law.
She looked at me like, huh.
She was angry at me because in her eyes, law equals righteousness.
They're the same.
There's no difference.
International law equals extra righteousness.
It's just, it's amazing.
So she was mad at me because in her eyes, I was a heretic.
That's how she saw me.
Now, she didn't make the law.
It wasn't her idea.
She was not a congressperson who did it.
No, she's simply a priest of the law.
And I'm a heretic.
And she was mad at me.
Now you might think, well that's only lawyers.
Guy at the Department of Buildings in New York.
I'm talking to him.
This guy's educated, smart, credentialed.
I say to them, I say, I'm kind of curious about the landmarking law.
And if you may not know, landmarking in New York City is when you can actually, you know, kind of, a community can say this property is landmarked and now nothing can be done to that property unless the community agrees.
Lots of people want it.
They want to protect their community so they can't, developers can't come in.
I want government's primary purpose to be to instead defend the rights of the individual.
Specifically when you have localization from the local bullies who will pop up.
Because local bullies will always pop up.
But now, local bullies are validated by the big government because you voted.
So local bullies have more power than ever.
Instead, the state government should be defending the individual against local bullies, against eminent domain, against property tax hikes, against speeding tickets that are $405 for a speeding ticket.
We should be defending them against the local bullies, but we're not.
All right, so let's talk about some of the unique issues in New York, because although a lot of states have, you know, a big city and then a rural area, New York really has it.
And I remember growing up in New York where there were always, you know, I'd read Newsday was the Long Island paper, and they were always talking about the fights between New York City and And Albany, because we have this huge rural upstate area.
The upstate area right now is extremely economically depressed.
How do you deal with, as someone that wants to be the governor of the state, the chief executor of the state, how do you deal with having, what is it, something around like eight million people?
Eight and a half million people in New York City, 16 million in the metro area, if you include parts of Connecticut, parts of Jersey, Long Island, parts of Westchester County.
So it's about 16 million metro area.
New York City is the largest city in America, and by far.
It's over double LA.
LA's the second, and it's over double.
So it is by far the largest city in America.
There are more people in one of our boroughs than at least 10 states.
Just one of our boroughs.
There are more people in New York City than there are in 40 states.
That's how big we are.
We're massive.
But not just that.
New York City is very unique in that about one-third of its population is not born in the country, and about one-third is not born in the city.
So we are literally a magnet for talent.
Which is why, because we're a magnet for talent, and we have 60 million people who are possible candidates for customers, candidates for jobs, we can basically be a communist state and still function.
Right, because we have so many advantages.
Our advantages are so high, people say, how can you possibly work in New York City?
There's so many advantages.
And we have the massive advantage of finance.
I mean, finance is a massive part of New York City and Manhattan's infrastructure.
And no one else shows up ever, unless they're angry.
So then angry people show up against them.
It, by default, becomes us versus them.
They go in their back room, create their edicts, and announce to the people.
And we have local tyrants.
But more importantly, how do I get anything done in my county when I have to buy all these things as mandated by the state and by the federal government?
I have to raise money somehow.
Only two ways.
There's a loophole in New York State when it comes to property taxes.
Every other tax has to be voted on by the people.
Property tax, no.
Only by the council.
So officially, our governor will tell you there's a 2% cap in property tax.
But there's an exception if it's an emergency.
So they go behind closed doors, declare an emergency, and raise property taxes 9%, 10%.
Well, let's just pause for one sec, though, because as you're saying it, I'm thinking, man, this is the type of stuff that I think if people really understood, they would be pissed about.
But it's like one of those things that as a candidate, explaining this to people and getting people to be like, yes, it is the backdoor deals at the, this is like one of those issues where it's not easy to put the bumper sticker on and get people to get excited about.
We have counties where you have one-third of the population on Medicaid, one-third on Medicare, and a dwindling population.
The tax burden going up.
New York State has a budget of about $170 billion.
And compared to California, I'm sure that's high score.
However, I'm going to compare that to another state, Florida.
Florida has more people than us.
Half the budget.
Now, the argument I always get is, but Larry, New Yorkers expect a certain amount of services, then why 100,000 is leaving every year and half of them are going to Florida?
So many New Yorkers are leaving our state that in the Carolinas, they have a name for us.
They call us halfbacks.
We're from Florida and halfway back.
So if we're in the Carolinas, we're called halfbacks.
Do you sense that there's a rebirth of liberty in this country in general?
I mean, I can tell from when I'm out now on the road and touring and the response I get to this show and the amount of emails I get on Twitter, that people are talking about liberty again.
They're talking about, it's not just the Tea Party anymore, talking about liberty.
You talk about liberty, you talk about freedom, you talk about the founding documents.
People are actually reinvigorated about this stuff.
So I'll tell you one of my fears about what could potentially happen with the libertarians, because I do, you can see, I'm with you on so much of this stuff.
And even though, again, as I call myself a classical liberal, there's plenty of room for agreement here, okay?
Great.
And where there might be little disagreement, That's rich, right?
I love it.
That's a great place to do it.
Okay.
What I'm a little concerned about is that the movement of Liberty is gonna grow and grow and grow.
It's gonna do real nice.
You'll probably do pretty well.
If not win, you'll do pretty well.
Austin, if not win, will do pretty well.
I think there were a couple other candidates around that are gonna do pretty well.
And then it will grow into something that nationally, come 2020, is gonna be...
I agree.
actually more viable than it was even under Gary Johnson.
They'll get someone that's probably younger and more tech savvy and whatever,
it'll be someone kinda cool, and that they're gonna then take like,
they're gonna pull at some unheard of number for libertarians at a national level, something like 15%.
My fear would be that then, because I believe the left has gone so far left, that the idea of potentially helping them put in policies that would be 180 degrees from everything you just said there, that would put in all the de Blasio stuff that you hate in New York City and all that, that I would really, really fear that.
But you just view it as almost a necessary evil to- I'm looking at it myself now!
In New York State, we have the Safe Act, and it's a big deal in New York State, you may or may not know it.
The Safe Act came out after Sandy Hook, and it basically made a bunch of equipment illegal.
So it made a bunch of people who own firearms legally criminals overnight.
And now they put you in jail.
And not just that, if you have a magazine, if I remember the rule right, if your magazine can fit 11 rounds in it, You are now a violent felon, according to New York State law.
That's it.
Violent felon.
That's how bad it is.
The safe act is terrible.
And now we're talking about the idea of taking guns for people.
As I told you, the children in school, if the teacher says that the child is a problem child, they can go take your guns.
If you are mentally ill, they can take your guns.
And New York State includes if you're transgendered.
So you don't get to have guns if you're transgender in New York State.
I mean, it's embarrassing how bad this thing is.
It's terrible.
That has to be repealed.
I can't repeal the law.
I'm only the governor.
So what I can do is I can begin to pardon people who were convicted of it.
About a thousand people in New York State have been convicted of safe act crimes.
Uh, infringements.
About a thousand.
I'll begin pardoning them within the first nine days.
New York State works, it's evil, hit it with a stick.
That's our first, always first reaction.
What is that?
Hit him with a stick.
That's what we do.
So yes, that's true.
I actually met, in James' time, the first guy who got a first conviction.
He's a now three-time convicted felon, I think, if I'm not mistaken.
So I'll begin pardoning.
When I start to pardon, that will let people know I'm serious.
Stop.
Now, what's going to happen when I pardon?
The reason why people don't pardon early is because of what's going to happen.
When I pardon 100 people, one of them is going to do something stupid.
They're going to go rob a liquor store or steal a car or whatever.
Do something bad.
Beat their spouse.
Insert thing here.
What are they going to do?
I get it.
It's going to happen.
And when it happens, they're going to blame me.
They're going to say, Governor Sharpe, you're an evil guy.
This liquor store got robbed because you let a guy out because he was a violent felon.
And I'm going to say several things.
Number one, I don't care.
When I win, everyone's gonna hate me.
I'm gonna be attacked every day by the Assembly, every day by the Senate, every day by the press.
I'm gonna have an Assembly and a Senate that's completely against me.
That's one of a bazillion things.
I won't care.
But not just that.
Yes, one guy did something wrong.
Put that guy in jail for that.
99 people didn't.
And they got off.
And our nation was built on the idea that it would be better for a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to be imprisoned.
Well, get 99 out!
I'm okay with that.
And when I do that, the Assembly will see that I will take the heat for them.
And when they see that in 2019, they'll repeal in 2020 because I've given them the air cover.
And on top of that, I'm going to veto any bill that has any safe act enforcement funding.
Gone!
They won't bother putting it in because I'll veto it and they will now have to double down on it as a separate piece that will crush them on the right.
They won't do it.
So that means it will not be enforced.
And I will actually be imparting people as they get arrested.
Prosecutors love an easy conviction.
Cops hate it.
The cops will love that I'm not enforcing it anymore and they will happily not enforce it.
It becomes useless in 2019, gets repealed in 2020.
By the way, I copied the same model for marijuana laws.
Same model.
Same thing, begin to pardon people who are convicted of non-violent marijuana possessions, stop enforcing it, same idea, same concept, they see how it works, 2020 repealed.
Now it's the Imperial Bridge of the Imperial family.
So, now that has to go.
Instead, let's lease out naming rights.
Could be the Verizon Bridge, the Sprint Bridge, the Staples Bridge, the Home Depot Bridge.
I don't care.
You pick the person who wants it, right?
The company who wants it.
Now, they do this already for stadiums.
They pay $10, $20, $30 million a year for something used half a year.
This is a bridge that gets used every day.
Your name gets mentioned a hundred times at least every morning and afternoon during rush hour on every radio station in a 16 million person metro area.
You're telling me companies that pay literally billions of dollars in marketing every year won't drop a hundred million dollars on a bridge?
But here's the rule.
No tolls.
Actual break for people.
And they control maintenance.
If they control maintenance, guess what?
No more corruption in the maintenance industry anymore.
Because now Sprint's paying for it, not the government.