All Episodes
Oct. 11, 2020 - Rubin Report - Dave Rubin
57:45
Trump's No Outsider, Legalizing Drugs & the 2-Party Duopoly | Jo Jorgensen | POLITICS | Rubin Report
Participants
Main voices
d
dave rubin
18:30
j
jo jorgensen
38:42
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
jo jorgensen
Well, I think something really big that's different is Donald Trump, because in 2016, he was running as an outsider.
He said, look, I don't have 50 years of political baggage.
I'm not paying back favors.
I'm an outsider.
I'm a businessman.
I know how to balance a budget.
I know how to cut spending.
And I know how to get stuff done, basically.
And I'll bring the troops home.
And so that's why the polls got it wrong, because people voted for him who had never voted or who hadn't voted for 20 years.
And so now, It's four years later and we can see that he's acted pretty much like all the professional politicians, that he's increased the deficit, he's increased the debt, still hasn't brought the troops home.
So now I think that maybe people will say, you know, maybe Republicans are beyond hope.
unidentified
[MUSIC PLAYING]
dave rubin
I'm Dave Rubin, and this is the Rubin Report.
As always, guys, don't forget to subscribe to our channel and click that pesky notification bell.
And joining me today is a senior lecturer in psychology at Clemson University and libertarian presidential candidate, Jo Jorgensen.
Welcome to The Rubin Report.
jo jorgensen
Oh, so glad to be here.
Thanks for having me.
dave rubin
Well, I'm thrilled to have you, and I know for sure that my audience is thrilled to have you, because I've received roughly four billion tweets saying, why haven't you had Joe Jorgensen on?
So for the record, we have been trying to make this happen for a while, and we finally did make it happen.
We weren't avoiding you, and you were not avoiding us.
Is that fair to say?
jo jorgensen
Okay, you just couldn't catch up to the bus, huh?
Back there chasing my bus?
dave rubin
You've got a super-powered bus over there.
Okay, so there's a lot of stuff that I want to talk to you about, and I think you know a bit about my sort of political evolution and probably most of my political stances.
You may not know that I actually did vote for the Libertarian candidate in the last election.
I did vote for Gary Johnson.
I had Gary Johnson.
On my show, I like Gary Johnson.
I don't think he was the strongest libertarian candidate in a year that there was a moment for it.
So I guess my first question that'll probably set up everything else is, if it didn't work in 2016 when so many people were frustrated, what is different this time?
Why should the libertarians have hoped this time?
jo jorgensen
Well, I think something really big that's different is Donald Trump.
Because in 2016, he was running as an outsider.
He said, look, I don't have 50 years of political baggage.
I'm not paying back favors.
I'm an outsider.
I'm a businessman.
I know how to balance a budget.
I know how to cut spending.
And I know how to get stuff done, basically.
And I'll bring the troops home.
And so that's why the polls got it wrong, because people voted for him who had never voted or who hadn't voted for 20 years.
And so now, It's four years later, and we can see that he's acted pretty much like all the professional politicians, that he's increased the deficit, he's increased the debt, still hasn't brought the troops home.
So now I think that maybe people will say, you know, maybe Republicans are beyond hope.
Now, libertarians have known that Republicans are beyond hope since 1971, and that's why the party was formed, after Richard Nixon stopped acting like a Republican.
But maybe now the Republican voters, and let me say, there are many fine Republican voters who want smaller government.
It's the Republican politicians who aren't giving it to them.
And so maybe after having an outsider come in, a businessman who supposedly can balance a budget, maybe they'll say, you know, it's time for a real outsider.
dave rubin
So what would you say to the conservatives or the Republicans who want smaller government, they want lower taxes, and they're looking and they're going, okay, Trump did cut some taxes, he got rid of some regulation, we're clearly not going into other wars at the moment, we're bringing troops home, that are basically looking at that stuff and going, hey, Trump did give us a bunch of the stuff that we want.
Yes, is the budget going up?
Yeah, but the budget, or the deficit going up?
Yeah, but it always seems to go up.
Do you think he's done anything right from a libertarian perspective?
jo jorgensen
Well, he has cut some regulations.
However, I'd like to point out that a tax cut is also going to be possibly an increase in spending if they don't do anything to make that up.
So again, the bottom line- Right, the deficits are going up either way, yeah.
Yeah, exactly.
The bottom line is spending's going up, and that's what counts.
Even if we're not paying for it this year, we'll be paying for it next year, 10 years from now, 20 years from now.
And that's what matters.
dave rubin
Are you constantly amazed as a libertarian that telling people, we want you to keep more of your money is not more of a winning ticket?
I mean, I think when people really hear it, if you bash them over the head with it over and over and over again, and you're like, yeah, we want you to have your money, not them.
I think they do get it, but it seems like it's such an easy sale.
And yet for some reason, people just don't understand it or don't absorb it.
jo jorgensen
Yes, well, what really frustrates me are people like Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey who say, yeah, the government doesn't take enough of my money, you know, tax me more.
But look at what Bill Gates does.
He starts the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, does, you know, good work.
And Oprah Winfrey opens up her own school, right, over in Africa.
Well, if they think that the government can do a better job than they can, why are they starting their own foundations?
Why not simply turn all of that money over to the federal government?
And so I think that actions speak louder than words.
And if even they aren't turning their money over, I think that that should send a message to everybody else that, hey, the government doesn't do a good job.
I can't think of much that the government does a better job than the private sector.
And I think that Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey and all these other liberals who want bigger government, I think that they're just proving our point for us.
dave rubin
So what do you think is going on in their heads there?
Is it misguidedness, or is it guilt, or is it that they know that the machine and the media will like them more if they take these positions?
jo jorgensen
I'm hoping it's ignorance, the true sense of the word ignorance, because a lot of people just don't understand how things work.
And that's one of the biggest compliments that I get from people.
Just, you know, non-libertarian friends, after they meet me, they say, you know what?
I read the news differently now.
I look at things differently now.
They don't, you know, for instance, yeah, we cut taxes.
Okay.
What about spending?
So you can look at things in a superficial way and think things are going great without, you know, the understanding or the underlying what's going on beneath it all.
dave rubin
Yeah.
Does the thing that frustrates you the most have anything to do with the sort of simplistic way we look at politics where, you know, half of the country seems to think that if you tell them they're getting something for free, they seem to think it actually is free.
And combating that notion is almost impossible.
You say free health care, you say free education.
You know, free money now, literally free money.
It's like that combating, oh, but you do have to pay for it.
That's just not what we do publicly very well.
jo jorgensen
Yes, I would have thought that with the Obama phone, remember those?
Basically what Obama's going to reach into his back pocket and buy everybody a phone.
And that's what I've been telling everybody about these $1,200 checks that they're getting is that money is coming from somewhere.
And I know that, you know, supposedly there was a holdup because Donald Trump wanted his name written on the actual check.
Well, I don't think that that check is coming from his back pocket or his private checking account.
It's coming from us.
So somehow they give us money and, and, and make it, you know, make it seem like it's a Santa Claus or something.
But what's frustrating is the, that they take our taxes out, our income taxes, so that we get a tax refund every year after April.
And so it looks like we're getting something.
and I wish they had never started that practice. I don't think we'd be where we are now if people
actually had to feel the pain. And right now people feel the pain when they're teenagers and
then they quickly forget. You know, so many times I hear about somebody's, you know, a friend's
kid who goes to work and like, "Wait a minute, I worked 20 hours this week. What?"
Where's this money going?
And it's like, well, welcome to the world of being an adult.
Welcome to the world of taxes.
And so it feels painful then, but by the time you're 30, 40 years old and it's grown and grown, you've kind of forgotten about it.
dave rubin
So.
Yeah.
So I can't talk to the libertarian presidential candidate without mentioning the phrase that everyone says that getting libertarians to agree on anything is like herding a bunch of cats.
And I think when people think of the party, the party itself.
They think of the naked guy running on stage, all the crazy characters and everything else.
What do you think the libertarians have perhaps done wrong if the ideas are right?
jo jorgensen
Well, I think what we all did wrong decades ago was try to focus on philosophy.
Although I think the Libertarian Party pretty much had to do it because when the party started 40 years ago, we didn't have, um, well, actually more than 40 years ago, 50 years ago, we didn't have, uh, all of these, uh, outlets.
We didn't have all these educational groups, all of these research institutions.
So we pretty much had to do it all.
So we focus on philosophy.
And in fact, it's interesting reading the original libertarian papers that talk about how we shouldn't even run candidates.
You know, we're a political party and maybe not run candidates because our job is to educate.
Well, now we no longer need to do that.
And so that's why I'm so happy to be the candidate.
And I'm really glad that I was able to draw together both the pragmatic caucus and the radical caucus who somewhat agreed on me because what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to give a practical message To the American public and not talk about self-ownership, not talk about me, but talk about, okay, you know what?
You're having a hard time paying your mortgage because the, your healthcare bills are so high, you know, or we hear about people being sent off, uh, around the world and you know, your friends, your neighbors, your relatives being killed in a senseless war.
So let's talk about things that they care about and take off our philosophy hat and put on our political hat.
dave rubin
Yeah, do you think that there's a better chance, because of what you said earlier, that this is the year to make the dent?
Because it seems to me like there was, in the summer before the election, there was suddenly this buzz for a few weeks of like, oh, maybe there's this libertarian thing that could happen, or at least, I mean, I did a video in August When I said that I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson, I said, really, look, maybe he can't win, but I at least want to get the guy in a debate.
Now, you did not get in the debate.
So I'm guessing you're not too happy about that.
But what about combating the system?
Like, can you just talk about what it's been like to just combat the two party thing?
jo jorgensen
Oh, it's been an uphill battle.
And what people don't realize is, well, one thing that I hate is how the Libertarian Party is put as one of the other third parties, right?
And I've been asked, will you debate the other third parties?
And my answer is no, because we need to be on the debate stage with the Democrats and Republicans.
We are the only political party other than the Democrats and Republicans to have a presidential candidate on the ballot and back-to-back presidential elections.
You know, we have joined the adult table and that's the way we need to be treated.
And it is frustrating, but of course the Democrats and Republicans, they don't want us anywhere near because we're going to show that there is a real alternative.
And we keep hearing the media talk about, um, uh, talk about, you know, two old rich white guys.
And I would say that's not even the worst part.
The worst part is neither of whom is going to let you make your own decisions.
Neither of whom is going to let you spend your own money.
Neither of whom is going to bring the troops home and neither of whom is going to do anything about crushing healthcare costs.
And so I've been telling people, hashtag fake debates, because if we don't get the message out there, then people aren't going to see a real alternative because there's really not a big alternative.
You know, they create a lot of fake drama, but they're both big government people, as we saw with Trump.
And so now we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
And we hear the, you know, the debate commission, who of course is made up of half Democrats, half Republicans, you know, Oh, it wouldn't serve the American people, you know, too many people on stage forgetting that, you know, we saw what nine Democrats on the stage at a time and they can't have three or even four.
And also, um, When you look at the debates, limiting it to two, it's not there to help the American people.
It's there to help the Democrat and Republican Party.
They truly do have a monopoly on that.
dave rubin
All right, so let's back up for a second because you mentioned that 50 years ago there was this debate whether the Libertarians were even gonna run a candidate.
So for some people that are watching this right now that don't fully get what a Libertarian is, can you do Libertarian 101 and sort of What is, you know, the reason that it's so hard to herd these cats is when you talk to libertarians, there's always someone that wants less government.
So you get it to less, and then someone says less, and then someone says less, and less, and less, until you're endlessly, you know, everyone, it always ends in the debate about driver's licenses or something like that.
What is a libertarian to you?
jo jorgensen
I say a libertarian is somebody who's on your side and not the side of the politicians, the bureaucrats, the lobbyists, and the special interests.
And I tell people that you know best what's best for you and not the people in Washington.
Pure and simple.
You should be able to make your decisions about education, health care, retirement, all of these things that are going through the government.
You should be able to make your own decision about.
dave rubin
Yeah, do you ever think that in a weird way, or I guess in a depressing way at some level, that the ship has sailed?
That explaining to people why government shouldn't be involved, or why you should keep more of what you've earned, or all of these things, that it's sort of what we talked about earlier, but intellectually they get it, but it's sort of like they can't even fathom a life where the government wouldn't do all of these things.
jo jorgensen
Well, you know, I was disheartened for a while.
However, with COVID, I'm seeing that, no, we haven't lost our individualism.
I was so ecstatic to see those people storming around the Michigan State House saying, hey, we're the land of the free, home of the brave.
You can't lock us up like this.
Or to see the Dallas hairdresser.
Or to see, well, even the shots we've seen of Nancy Pelosi being a hypocrite.
I think people are finally saying, Hey, wait a minute.
This isn't what America is supposed to be about.
And so I think they're now feeling, you know, libertarians, you know, people like me who joined the party decades ago, we've always had this yearning to have freedom and to have more liberty in our lives.
But I think the average person probably didn't feel it.
They didn't feel big government upon them until recently.
And they're being told they have to wear a mask wherever they go, and they're being told, nope, you're under house arrest, you gotta stay home, you can't go to your job.
And people, I think, are beginning to question it.
dave rubin
Yeah, so what is the proper libertarian response to COVID and lockdowns and everything else?
If you were president right, or no, if you were president in February, and if you were president right now, what would be different?
jo jorgensen
Well, the biggest mistake that Trump made was he didn't get the FDA out of the way.
And again, when people ask me why I'm running for president, it's because government is too big, too bossy, too nosy, too intrusive.
And the worst part is, they hurt the very people they're trying to help.
The FDA is an excellent example of that.
That with the FDA, there were dozens of testing kits that we could have had, but the FDA blocked them.
Originally, we were only allowed to have two of them.
So meanwhile, Southeast Asia, they're doing extensive testing, seeing who needs to stay home and who can go out and work.
In the meantime, we're shutting down our economy.
And on top of that, we had Trump up on stage with Dr. Fauci saying, you know what, if you don't have symptoms, no need to get tested.
Well, at the very time he said that, they knew that over half the people, at least that was the wisdom at the time, that over half the people who had the virus had no symptoms at all.
So no, that's the time you need to have testing when you don't know if you have it or not.
dave rubin
And what about the lockdown specifically?
jo jorgensen
Yes, well, about the testing specifically.
Basically, they were locking us down because they didn't know who would be healthy enough to be out on the streets.
So how about testing us, letting us test ourselves, and then we would know.
And here's the irony from my part, is one of my grandfathers is from Sweden, and his family immigrated here to have freedom, to have the freedom that they didn't have in Sweden.
And yet Sweden's Stores and shopping malls and restaurants and schools all stayed open, so they're able to move around freely.
Meanwhile, we, supposedly the land of the free that people immigrate to for freedom, we're all under house arrest.
So that's just a travesty.
So it's just rather ironic that my family came here for freedom, and yet the old country was giving them more freedom, at least in this regard.
unidentified
Right.
dave rubin
So would you have left the decisions about lockdowns up to the states, because in effect, that's what Trump basically has done.
I assume that you're okay with that, right?
You wouldn't have wanted this to be a federal mandate.
jo jorgensen
Well, again, actions speak louder than words.
Trump was encouraging the states to lock down.
I think the governors were following his lead because the president is in a role of leadership.
And I think they were only doing what he wanted them to do.
So now he's saying, open back up.
Well, yeah, but you already told us to close down.
So he shouldn't have given that message to begin with.
And what frustrates me is it's one more example Where people are thinking that they only have one decision, that we should all vote and have one decision.
And people are under the mistaken impression that if the government doesn't tell us to wear masks, we're not going to wear masks.
And Walmart shot that down.
Walmart has a policy where you have to wear a mask if you work there, if you're a vendor, if you're a shopper, whoever, you have to wear a mask in Walmart.
So why can't we have a world in which we vote with our feet or vote with our dollars?
If we want to wear a mask, then we go to Walmart.
And if we don't want to wear a mask, we go to other stores.
Why can't we have that?
And it's really frustrating because on my local news show, my mayor of the city where I live started requiring a mask for all grocery stores and drugstores.
And so they do the man on the street interview asking, do you think we should all wear masks?
And sure, some people were saying, yes, it's a good idea.
Other people were saying no.
And it was frustrating that nobody said, well, wait a minute.
How come we all have to follow the same rule?
And that's what I try to get across the idea with libertarians is how about we each do what we want to do?
And we don't need the government telling us to wear masks.
There are plenty of people who'd wear masks anyway.
dave rubin
Right, so I'm with you on that, that it can be up to the store, it can be up to the restaurant, and they can figure out whatever policies, if they want people to wear masks, or they want people to take their temperature, or whatever it might be.
I'm actually completely on board with that.
What would your counter-argument be, then, to the people who would say, oh, well, if you leave it just up to the individuals, that people are gonna do whatever they want, and that then will cause more of a spread?
jo jorgensen
Well, again, You don't have to go outside.
For instance, my mother was in the high risk group and so she just didn't go to the grocery store and her friends went for her.
So there's no rule saying that you have to go outside and go shopping or go anywhere.
So I would say that, you know, the government, nobody's putting a gun to your head and asking you to walk the streets or going into specific grocery stores.
And also, again, that's just giving the impression that we're too stupid to do anything on our own.
And if you look, there was a survey that was done sometime maybe around April, early May, where when some of the places were starting to open up, and they asked people, do you think we're opening up too early?
And the polls showed that something like 70% of the people thought that we were opening up too early.
So it just shows that even in a free market, people would be a little leery and would be taking precautions.
dave rubin
Yeah, all right, let's move off COVID and talk about the other That's a big thing that's happening at the moment.
Obviously, there are the protests and the riots and Antifa and Black Lives Matter and the rest of it.
A couple of weeks ago, you sent out a tweet that seemed to support the Black Lives Matter movement specifically, and I know you got a lot of pushback on that.
Can you just sort of lay out what you were tweeting?
And then, I don't know, you didn't quite walk it back, but there was a little bit of an exchange about it.
jo jorgensen
It was a typo from a staff member who had capitalized Black Lives Matter, as in the movement, as in the Marxist group.
Now, let me point out that not all of the people who are marching out there with Black Lives Matter are part of the National Marxist Party.
And of course, you know, libertarian would be the opposite of Marxist.
However, if you look, we share so many concerns.
We share, you know, the police, the, Uh, the qualified immunity, right?
Uh, no knock raids, uh, the racist war on drugs.
So there are all these things, all these problems that we agree with them on.
The problem is we see a different solution.
They want to go for more government, whereas we see less government as the answer.
And I was able to meet with a local black lives matter leader who, again, nothing to do with the, with the major group.
And I, I spent the whole day with him and I sat down and explained the free market to him.
And, uh, by the way, he's, he's a black preacher.
He had previously been in prison and we had a great talk and he said, yeah, this makes a lot of sense.
And the one thing he didn't know, and this is the message that I've been trying to get out is for instance, we all heard about Rosa Parks, right?
The heroic black woman who refused to sit on the back of the bus.
Well, what they're not telling you is that that was a government run government owned bus.
And that at the time, 60% of the bus ridership were blacks.
So if you look at it on a free market like today with Uber, what if Uber were to discriminate against the best 60% of their customers?
They would go bankrupt as well.
They should.
And I explained this to him and he said, wow, no, I didn't know that was a government bus.
And yeah, you're right.
They would go out of business.
And so when I explained how government had no accountability, he said, yes, that makes a lot of sense.
And so.
If we can, back to kind of the educating, if we can kind of show to these people, look, you're going to the very people who are causing these problems.
Maybe we can get somewhere.
dave rubin
Yeah, it is interesting because some of the stuff that's overlapping, I always find that the lefties or the Marxist progressives, they always say, okay, we've got a problem with the government and our solution is more government.
And the libertarians say, okay, we got a problem and our solution is less government.
It's hard to get them to understand that.
But if you can, I think that's probably the inroads for you guys.
I'm curious, with that in mind, where do you stand on the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Because I've had some interesting debates with libertarians on whether it should have been passed or not.
And then if you say, no, it shouldn't have been passed, immediately, of course, you're called a racist.
But there are some limited government principles that I think do make sense as to why you wouldn't pass it.
Usually it ends up with everyone saying, okay, well, we just shouldn't re-litigate it.
jo jorgensen
Yes.
So I have no problem with it being passed when it was passed.
Keep in mind that this was shortly after Rosa Parks.
And so there was systemic racism in government.
There still is.
And so if government is the problem, then yes, of course, we should have rules that government fixes it.
However, I would say that right now the free market can do a much better job than the government.
What they should have done was they should have had sunset laws or something like that.
Because keep in mind, what happened was, uh, immediately after they freed the slaves, the blacks were doing great.
Uh, there were skilled craftsmen.
They were offering their services at a lower price to get their foot in the door, which by the way, that's what I did when I started my own business, you know, Hey, try me out.
I'll give you a lower price.
And so they were wildly successful.
And so the whites, what they did was instead of saying, How can we compete with them?
I guess maybe we should lower our prices too.
They said, no, what laws can we pass?
And so they started passing these laws to where, you know, you can't be a wood carver.
You can't read at a fourth grade level, whatever.
So, so it was through the power of big government that we got here.
So that's the only reason why I don't mind the 1964 civil rights act because it was because government was a problem.
So government needed to fix it.
But, and, and I've gotten, I've gotten, um, Criticized for bringing this example up, but the thing is is you can before you can be against it But that's what the that's what the free market is all about sometimes We don't like what the free market does sometimes we do but you may have heard of the case where this woman who worked for this large company Put all lives matter on her Facebook, and she was fired and the key here was she wasn't you know It wasn't a company Facebook, and she wasn't discriminating against an employee a subordinate customer vendor anybody
Completely outside and yet she was fired.
So this shows me that the tide is turning and the free market can handle this better than the government because we've got the profit motive involved.
Now, a lot of people said, well, that's not what we mean.
Well, you know, sometimes you don't like what the free market does, but it's, it's society showing where its values are.
And I think society's values have come a long way.
And I think that the average American has much better values and much less discriminatory behavior.
than the government does.
dave rubin
Well, I always find it funny when people say, if you rolled back some of these laws, if you got the government out of the way, that suddenly people would be opening up white-only restaurants.
And it's like, well, most people that open restaurants, I'm pretty sure it's because they want to serve food.
It's not because they're racist.
And if it was, if there was a whites-only racist restaurant, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't go there and the market would crush it.
So I'm with you on that.
But you did say one thing that I do want to clarify.
So I understand Why you were saying that there was systemic racism, meaning that the South had Jim Crow laws and the government could come in and fix that.
But you said is, or is currently, that there is currently systemic racism.
I don't want to put words in your mouth.
So can you describe, well actually first, can you just define what you mean by systemic racism and then give me an example of what it is today?
Because I think the definition is where people get lost.
jo jorgensen
Yeah, systemic built in the system, hence the word system.
So if you look at the laws, let's say drug use.
Right now, whites and people of color use drugs at about the same rate.
And yet six times as many blacks, especially, you know, looking at people of color, are arrested and charged than whites.
And you might say, well, maybe they just happen to be there, but that raises another question.
But the other thing is, if you look at drugs that whites use compared to drugs that people of color use, the drugs that people of color tend to use have longer prison sentences.
And if you look at the prison population with victimless crimes, which shouldn't be a crime at all, you'll see that they actually are charged more in victimless crimes than are whites.
unidentified
Right.
dave rubin
So I think the part that confuses people here is that systemic, I, I think when I, when someone says systemic racism to me, that means that there are laws that are in place that are racist.
So as far as I know, there are no laws that are in place that are racist.
I think you're talking about the sort of second order of there may be more policing in certain areas because there's more crime.
So then, and then I think what a lot of people would say, well, that has more to do with the breakdown of the black family and why that happened, something like that.
jo jorgensen
Right, right.
Well, first of all, to me, systemic can still be part of the, an organization, the environment.
So if cops are out there arresting people of color at a higher rate, Because that's either what they're rewarded for, or that's the hidden message, or they're just outright told, you need to go out to this neighborhood more often.
Then that's still systemic, even if it's not written.
But like I said, there are written laws for penalties so that drugs that people of color use have longer prison sentences.
So that's actually in the law.
dave rubin
Yeah, do you know of any of those that are still on the books?
I mean, I know I know that in New York City, they used to have the law about crack got a higher sentence than cocaine.
And it was generally thought that more black people use crack because it was easy.
It was cheaper to get.
But I know New York City got rid of that.
Are there still laws like that?
jo jorgensen
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah.
And in fact, I did check with one of my respected friends at Cato to just check in, I think about three, maybe about three or four weeks ago.
And I said, okay, just want to make sure that all of these laws we were talking about before with the prison sentences and so on.
He said, yeah.
So I didn't go into detail just because there were so many of them.
And yes, crack cocaine is one example than crack.
And of course, now we get into the drug war and I can't I have to at least point out that Milton Friedman told us that crack cocaine would have never been invented had cocaine not been legal.
It's only because cocaine was illegal that crack cocaine was even invented.
Just like during Prohibition, people drank less wine and beer and then went to liquor because it was easier to smuggle, because it was more powerful.
So I've mentioned the racist war on drugs and people have wondered what I mean by that.
Again, we go right back to the war on drugs is hurting everybody, of course, but especially with the uneven prison sentences, yes.
dave rubin
Yeah, so it's interesting because I think what it sort of whittles down, I think a lot of my audience is gonna say the way you're defining systemic racism is a little different than the way they define it, which is why I asked that question.
Because there aren't specific laws.
If there was a specific police department that said, arrest more black people, that's in our code of conduct, then of course that is wrong.
But if the question is, oh, there happens to be more policing in an area that has more crime and there happen to be more black people there, well, then we have to figure out why that is.
I think most people bring that, again, to the welfare state and the breakdown of the family.
And the welfare state is very much a lefty policy, certainly not a libertarian policy.
jo jorgensen
Right, absolutely.
But well, let me just say that I agree with your listeners, your viewers, that yes, the free market can handle these problems that we've had with discrimination much better than the government.
And that now what we have is we're discriminating against Asians trying to get into Harvard.
And go right down the line.
It's gotten completely out of hand.
And I completely agree.
dave rubin
Yeah, so on the on the drug part of this, I find this to be a really interesting one because, you know, I always describe myself as a classical liberal and people always say, well, Dave, you sound like a libertarian.
What is a classical liberal?
And I always say, well, look, a classical liberal, in effect, is what I would say really sort of a realist libertarian is, meaning that I love all the libertarian ideas, but I understand I can't win all the time.
And I'm gonna have to put some guardrails there.
That's the most simplest way that I would describe it.
So in my book, I talk about the drug war.
And I'm for legalizing marijuana.
I'm certainly for legalizing psychedelics.
And then we can whittle down every little drug.
But I'm not personally for legalizing the seriously hardcore stuff.
And it's not because I want to put people in jail because of their decisions.
But the simple truth is, I know that if someone was cooking meth next door to me, I know that there's gonna be more crime, and I know that it's going to be riskier to be out there, and you don't want kids there, and the rest of it.
So are you for legalizing absolutely everything with no regulations, or is this a place where you find some middle ground?
I know you would kick it to the states regardless, but where do you fall on this?
jo jorgensen
I mean, yeah, the States right now have laws on drinking.
And I was appalled when I moved from a state that, you know, you could drink pretty much anytime you want.
And then I moved to the South and I was shocked when I found out what you can't buy alcohol on Sunday.
You know, where did I end up here?
And in fact, we couldn't buy alcohol on Sunday until pretty recently.
So, um, so I, you know, yes, I, even though I don't like those laws, at least there's some.
Uh, competition among laws, unless you get the federal government involved.
And by the way, I realized I'm, I'm going to kind of leave the topic for just a minute, just to explain real quick, because a lot of people don't know that, you know, we had when, when I was in school, in fact, I was a bartender in college because I was in a state where the drinking age was only 18.
And that's the way it was back then that different states had different drinking ages until Elizabeth Dole.
Transportation secretary in the 90s came along, took in, you know, just like government always does, federal government always does, takes in the money and then dangles the highway funds in front of states and says, Hey, do you want your, uh, you want your highway money back?
You're gonna have to raise the drinking age.
Now we can have a debate, you know, maybe 21 is the better drinking age, whatever.
But the point is it shouldn't be the federal government deciding that it should be the states.
So when I say, okay, let's have the states, you know, You know, we'll let the states regulate it if they like.
I mean, really let them regulate it.
Not have the federal government, you know, backdoor in there trying to hold bribes over their heads.
So, they can do what they want.
So, really.
dave rubin
So, you let them do it.
jo jorgensen
Well, I was just confused what you said, because you said that you wouldn't legalize the harder drugs, but then you talked about, you know, having somebody having a meth lab I mean, I guess, is a meth lab a harder drug?
I'm confused.
dave rubin
Yeah, well, meaning I wouldn't want, if meth was totally legal, then I suspect that more meth labs would be popping up.
And I know that I, right now, if someone moved in next door and was cooking meth, Next to me, well, we know it's illegal and someone will hopefully do something about it.
Assuming we still have a police department here in Los Angeles, I'm not sure.
But if it was legal, there would be no recourse and we know what will happen.
Crime will expand, you'll get shadier, people around your property value will go down, et cetera.
jo jorgensen
Well, I see it completely differently because we've got alcohol.
Well, alcohol is legal.
And I just don't hear of many people making bathtub gin, but that's part of the problem is when you legalize something or decriminalize it, however you want to do it is it has to truly be legal.
So for instance, in California, they've legalized marijuana, but they've limited the number of people who can sell it.
They've got all these licensing laws.
You've got to pay all these fees.
So there's still.
There's still an underground market.
There's still people selling marijuana illegally.
So that means the laws aren't right.
Again, when's the last time you heard of anybody selling bathtub gin that would cause somebody to go blind?
You don't, because it's legal to the point that we go down and we buy it safely.
So if meth were legal, there wouldn't be people making it next door.
They'd be making it down at Philip Morris or whoever, Seagram's, you know, whoever makes the other drugs.
dave rubin
Okay, so I'm not with you there, but I do understand the line of thinking, so that's just fine.
But what would you say?
This is where the conservatives, I think, see the libertarian movement as sort of bananas, because I think this is where conservatives would say, okay, I get freedom, I get states' rights, I get all that stuff.
But you're telling me that, in effect, if there was enough demand for meth, that Philip Morris and Unilever should start making meth if the market demands it.
And we know that a society filled with meth is not great.
So the conservatives would take sort of, we want to conserve sort of a functioning society where the libertarians are saying it's more of a free-for-all.
Do you think that's like a fair, it's just sort of like a philosophically different spot?
jo jorgensen
Well, I think they're misguided.
First off, if you look where marijuana is legal, You haven't seen increase in marijuana use, let's say in teenagers, and you haven't seen it basically abused.
Again, we look at alcohol.
dave rubin
Right, but marijuana's not highly addictive the way meth or some opiates, some of the more hardcore stuff is.
jo jorgensen
Well, alcohol is highly addictive.
Tobacco's highly addictive.
Those are very highly addictive.
In fact, our own Surgeon General said that tobacco was, Former Surgeon General, I believe it was C. Everett Koop, who said that tobacco was just as highly addictive as heroin.
And yet that's legal.
But what we have right now is we've got drugs being illegal and so they don't go for help.
And even look at where it starts.
Again, when was the last time you heard of a liquor store owner going up and down the halls of a high school trying to sell gin?
If it's legal and the profits aren't there, you're not going to have the profit motive For people to go out and sell it.
Or I ask, when's the last time you ever heard of a vodka addict breaking into houses in order to support a vodka habit?
You can make enough money to support it if it's legal.
When things are illegal, they tend to cost 20 to 25 times higher.
So that's 20 to 25 times as many houses as you have to break into.
And so I'm looking at it, and by the way, I'm not a drug user.
Well, actually I am.
Bourbon is my drug of choice.
Yes, bourbon is a drug.
And I got a graduate certificate in drug and alcohol studies.
And I understand that the way our neurotransmitters work, alcohol is actually a very dangerous drug, much more dangerous than marijuana.
But somehow, somehow I got through the 1970s in high school and college never having tried marijuana.
I got to admit, you know, I'm a goody two-shoes.
But the point here is, There's not a profit motive.
You know, when people ask me about legalizing drugs, the point is, and they say, well, but I don't use drugs, so I don't care.
I say, but you should care if you care about crime.
You should care if your kids are in a school, because right now there's a profit motive to get your kids hooked on drugs.
And high school kids themselves will say, you know, it's a lot easier to buy marijuana than it is to buy alcohol.
Yeah, because alcohol is legal.
There's not the profit in there.
There's competition.
We've got the free market out there taking care of it.
So how about let's have the free market take care of the other things.
And then if you do have a heroin problem, let's treat it as a medical issue and not a criminal issue.
Because you said, well, you want it to remain legal, but you're not for locking people up.
But isn't that the definition of, if it's illegal, then you do lock people up?
I'm confused.
dave rubin
Well, no, I'm with you on the last part of that, in that if someone was addicted to one of the drugs that I think should be illegal, say meth or opiates or something like that, I wouldn't wanna send them to jail for that.
I would wanna get them help.
I don't think putting someone in jail is gonna do anything, and it's just a drain.
jo jorgensen
Sorry?
But isn't that what illegal means?
dave rubin
When I say illegal, I was sort of giving you shorthand on that, but when I say illegal, I mean if you're selling it, then there should be a repercussion for it, a legal repercussion.
If you're just using it, or if you're mass distributing it, I see that different as someone that's using it.
And again, this is just one of those ones where I find that sort of the We're basically agreeing here, and then there's like this little space where it's like, okay, how do you, there's a more, quite a little more of a liberal approach, a little more of a conservative approach, and a libertarian approach.
And you can remain a good person and not totally agree on it.
Isn't that crazy?
jo jorgensen
Yeah, and by the way, you can think that every drug should be legal, even though you've never used them, and bourbon's your drug of choice.
dave rubin
I'm more of a red wine guy myself.
jo jorgensen
Oh, well, you know what?
I do have red wine with dinner.
Yes.
If you're a red wine guy, then good.
We're on the same boat.
dave rubin
Yeah.
unidentified
All right.
dave rubin
Let's just keep going through just sort of the biggest hits and sort of the big issues.
So, foreign policy, it seems to me, that Trump has been pretty solid on foreign policy in that it doesn't seem like we're going to extra wars.
We've got a couple of peace agreements that have been signed in the last couple of weeks.
He's trying to tell the people we shouldn't be in Afghanistan anymore.
We got some troops out of Iraq.
It doesn't look like we're gonna be nation building anytime soon.
Do you see those things as wins and sort of what would a purely libertarian foreign policy look like?
jo jorgensen
Yeah, we're in about 160 countries around the world.
I think we were in 160 countries when Trump took office, and I think we're still in 160 countries.
So if you want to say we've made progress because now we're in 159 countries, well, I don't see that as much progress.
And we spend more on military than the next probably eight countries combined.
And it's making us less safe, not more safe.
That's the worst part about it.
No, we need to seriously bring the troops home.
And if I were president, I would turn America into one giant Switzerland, armed and neutral, in which we protect our borders.
Yes, we should have borders.
We need to protect them.
However, we shouldn't be protecting the borders of everybody else.
And I've pointed out, of course, half facetiously here, we keep hearing how, isn't France great?
They get five-week vacations.
We should get five-week vacations.
Well, yeah, maybe if we weren't paying for their military, we could get five-week vacations too.
Why are we paying for everybody else's military around the world?
Why should a taxpayer in Alabama be paying for France's military?
That's absurd.
And I was actually excited when I heard that Trump was bringing troops out of Germany.
I thought, oh, finally, a small step, but a step in the right direction.
And then I heard he was putting them in Poland.
No, he needs to keep going.
They need to come all the way home.
They need to come to the United States.
Again, one giant Switzerland.
We need to protect our borders.
dave rubin
Yeah, so it's interesting because you've got, obviously, some differences with Trump there, but when he says things like, you know, you gotta pay your share to be in NATO, you fundamentally agree with that sort of thing, right?
That the U.S.
jo jorgensen
should not, well, I... Yeah, I don't think we should be in NATO.
I thought he didn't like NATO.
I thought he was gonna get out of NATO.
Isn't that what he was saying?
dave rubin
I think, well, I think he was at least saying that the other countries have to pay their fair share or we'd get out, and I guess we did at least cut funding.
I don't know if anyone made up that funding.
jo jorgensen
Well, I got a great way for the other countries to pay their fair share.
We get out completely and we don't pay anybody's fair share.
How's that?
Problem solved.
dave rubin
You know, strong borders and a military to protect the United States itself.
Do you think we have any responsibility?
Are there any situations where there could be a genocide anywhere else in the world or, you know, an evil dictatorial regime or whatever it might be?
Would you see any situation where we should get involved to help people that are not Americans?
jo jorgensen
Not from the standpoint of the government.
Now, we heard George Clooney, you know, trying to help people in war-torn Sudan.
We've heard, or Syria, I'm sorry.
We've heard of other people going over and try to make humanitarian relief missions.
You know, Americans are very generous.
They're very helpful.
They want to go over and help people.
So, let's let them help people.
But as far as the U.S.
military, as far as going in, anytime we go over there to do something good, Something bad always happens.
There's always, you know, they call them unintended consequences.
Maybe they're unintended, but they're not unforeseen because anytime you go in and you pick one side as the winner, there's going to be a loser who's not going to be very happy with us.
So I would leave it up to the very generous and very fair minded Americans to do whatever they like on their own and keep the military out of it.
dave rubin
Right.
Is there an inherent problem there, though, that if this was World War II, that the United States would just be sitting on the sidelines and that, you know, the Nazis could have taken over Europe?
I get we're not Europe.
I mean, do you see a moral quandary there at all?
jo jorgensen
Well, I'm glad you brought that up.
Actually, many libertarians think that we shouldn't have gotten into the war.
But I'd like to point out that we were brought into World War II when Japan bombed us.
So I'd like to make two points.
First of all, many historians say that the reason they bombed us to begin with was because of unfair tariffs, that we were in a tariff war.
And secondly, they, you know, we look at Japan now.
I mean, look at all the Toyotas and Hondas we buy from them.
They're not going to bomb us today because we're our best customer.
You tend to not bomb your best customer.
So you say, you know, when you say foreign policy, I also include trade in that.
And when you look at what Trump's doing, basically having a tariff war with China, I mean, you know, there's a reason they use the term war.
And I would say we need to get out of any war with China.
There's no way we can get into a war with China.
We have the ability to obliterate each other.
We cannot do that.
And the best way to do that Is to open up trade.
So just like, you know, we buy all these Toyotas and Hondas from Japan and they're not going to bomb us.
How about we do the same thing for China?
Let's open up the borders.
It's only hurting the citizens.
And of course, I know you've heard, you've probably said it, where goods cross borders, troops don't have to.
So let's go by that motto.
dave rubin
Yeah.
Is there any risk there that if we just opened up trade altogether, that they can just make things cheaper and that that ultimately hurts the American worker?
What's the libertarian answer to that?
I hear that one a lot.
unidentified
Yeah.
jo jorgensen
If they make things cheaper, then that means the people in our country who are poor can afford them.
And it means that we just sell other things that we're good at, that we have a niche at.
And, you know, we've been great in, for instance, the entertainment industry.
Look at the percentage of dollars around the world that are spent on entertainment that come from our country.
I mean, there's, there's, you know, this kind of Brings me back to deficit.
When people talk about, aren't you worried about a trade deficit?
So like China, you know, selling all the cheap stuff here.
Well, that's kind of like asking me, aren't you afraid that you have a trade deficit with where you buy gas?
No, because I buy gasoline from them, but guess what?
They take my dollars and somehow they come around back to me.
So we can't look in at each thing in isolation.
And I'm the opposite of an isolationist.
I think we need to be good neighbors to everybody around the world, both economically and militarily.
And here's one example where freedom works and freedom is morally right, where we can trade peacefully and prevent wars.
dave rubin
Yeah.
So we focused obviously more on Trump because he's the president and policies of the conservatives.
What do you make about what's going on with the Democrats right now, and what seems to be a war between the younger progressive lefties versus a little bit, I guess, of what's left of the old guard.
There ain't much left, and I think it's sort of summed up by, it's summed up by Biden.
What do you make about what's going on there?
jo jorgensen
Well, but the old guard is still strong.
And the thing that I've been pointing out is how they muzzled Tulsi Gabbard, how they unfairly kept her out of the debates.
And what's such a shame is that the Democratic Party used to be the party of peace.
They used to be the anti-war party.
And they've got a great anti-war candidate, Tulsi Gabbard.
By the way, let me qualify that and say great on that position.
I mean, I realize, yes, she's socialist on the economic issues,
and that's why I wouldn't vote for her.
That's why I'm running for president.
Excuse me.
But on the war issues, she's great.
And yet the government, the democratic establishment kept her out of the debates because they wanted to quiet her down.
So yeah, the old guard, there may not be many of them left, but they sure are powerful.
And that's really a shame.
And that brings me, by the way, just one other quick point is, you know, I talk about how the Democratic Party used to be the anti-war party.
When I first joined the movement and people asked me what a libertarian was, what I would say is, well, we take the best of both sides.
You know, we take the best parts about the right, about the Republicans, you know, we
believe in economic freedoms, and we take the best about the left, that we're anti-war,
that we believe in individual liberty.
And now I can't say that anymore because Democrats aren't acting like Democrats and Republicans
aren't acting like Republicans.
And maybe it was coincidence that they even agreed with us.
And young people are shocked when I tell them that as recently as 2012, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both were against gay marriage.
Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party was for individual rights.
You know, they were advocating gay marriage in 1972.
I hate to say advocating, advocating the rights, you know, not that everybody should do it, but advocating.
unidentified
Whereas Democrats, that's a whole different, that sounds far more authoritarian.
jo jorgensen
Yeah.
Yeah.
The people at the top, you know, of the democratic party, they're saying gay marriage should be illegal.
And if you don't mind, let me bring in one other free market item here.
The Disney company in the early nineties, 20 years earlier, we're giving benefits to partners of their gay employees.
So once again, we've got the free market looking out for the individuals because they have to, to make a profit.
They want to hire the best employees.
So they've got to basically put in, you know, uh, you know, about a peer pressure.
So, and you know, going back to racist and all those laws, again, the free market can do such a much better job than the government at anything.
dave rubin
What do you make about, uh, what's going on with Biden?
Do you think something's wrong there?
jo jorgensen
Well, I'm not a clinical psychologist, but even if I were, I think there's some law that would keep me from diagnosing him.
But my answer is, what concerns me is what he was saying 10, 20 years ago.
I mean, what he was saying 10, 20 years ago as a younger man, that made absolutely no sense.
What worries me is, you know, how he thought the crime bill was such a good thing to pass in the nineties.
So people are saying, well, maybe he's not all with it now.
I would suggest he wasn't with it 20 or 30 years ago.
dave rubin
All right, I got one more for you.
I'm gonna toss you a softball here and just tell you that, as I think you know, I have a lot of disaffected liberals that watch this show.
I have a lot of what I would call sort of new school conservatives and even old school conservatives.
But I would say generally at this point, my audience leans probably center right.
Joe Jorgensen, make your pitch for why they should vote for you on November 4th.
jo jorgensen
I would say I understand why you voted for Trump to the conservatives in 2016.
He came in as an outsider.
He said he was going to cut the budget.
He was going to cut spending.
He said he was a businessman who knew how to get things done and he would bring the troops home, but he didn't do any of that.
And I would say to the Democrats, You know, again, the Democratic Party has traditionally been the party of peace.
They shut down Tulsi Gabbard.
They shut down Bernie Sanders.
Basically, you've got a very slick party machine going on that gave you Joe Biden, even though you don't want him.
If you really want an outsider, then please check me out and go to Joe20.com.
That's J-O-20.com.
And I think you'll see that we are really what you believe in.
We are the ones giving you what you want.
And I'm so excited to announce that something like 75% of our volunteers are from outside the party because they realize That the two old parties just aren't giving them what they want.
unidentified
All right.
dave rubin
I thank you for your time.
I'm glad we were finally able to do this.
And good luck the rest of the way.
jo jorgensen
Well, can I ask you one quick question?
dave rubin
Sure.
jo jorgensen
So you voted for Gary Johnson.
Have I won your vote?
unidentified
That's good.
dave rubin
That's good, Joe.
Listen, I am so frustrated by what is happening with the left and the destruction of our institutions, academic, media institutions, everything else.
And I, at this point, I see Trump as the bulwark against that.
The ideas that you've laid out here for the little marginal differences we have, I think are the right ideas.
My audience knows that.
I say that all the time.
I don't, I think this time that I can vote for a third party, to be totally honest.
And I get you hear a lot of that.
And I think you can probably hear it in my voice that it's not the way I sort of want to go in a certain regard.
But I think Trump has done enough on the big things that I care about.
But I'll be happy to discuss this with you privately, maybe the day before the election.
How about that?
jo jorgensen
Can I make one last plea to your viewers?
Yeah.
Many of you live in a solidly red state, like I do.
You know, we were one of only six states to carry Bob Dole.
Your state's going to carry Donald Trump anyway.
The red states are going to give Donald Trump the Electoral College votes.
If you want to send a message to Trump that you don't like that he's gotten you bigger government, vote for me because Trump's going to get the electoral votes anyway.
If you live in a solidly blue state like California, Joe Biden's going to get it.
If you're not happy with what your candidate is doing, then vote for me.
Because in the solid red and solid blue states, it's not going to make much of a difference.
So let's send some kind of message.
dave rubin
Totally in line with what I was saying four years ago, and that's why I was fighting for Gary Johnson to get into the debates, because my thought was, okay, if the Libertarian isn't gonna win, let's just, you know, if that's just not realistic at the moment, I'm talking four years ago, then at least let's get these ideas out there.
It starts with ideas, and if that's a policy, or if that's an idea that can get you to seed some of these good ideas out there, ideologically, I'm totally with you.
jo jorgensen
Okay.
Well, thanks so much.
I hope to be on your show again, hint hint.
dave rubin
Yeah, I enjoyed it and good luck and we'll talk again.
Thanks.
jo jorgensen
Thanks.
Thanks so much.
Had a great time.
dave rubin
If you're looking for more honest and thoughtful conversations about politics instead of nonstop yelling, check out our politics playlist.
And if you want to watch full interviews on a variety of topics, watch our full episode playlist all right over here.
Export Selection