So, dr. Paul, thanks so much effort. Joining me, Libertarians focus a lot on government out of all the institutions in society. I'm curious what makes government a unique institution worth all this intellectual energy. Well, it's worth the energy. If the energy is being used to devise a government, that is strictly limited to the protection of Liberty. If we're going to have government, it should be strictly limited, the Sounders man, attempted that, but it
didn't work out. So, All that were too many loopholes, but all the energy I think you're referring to is going into government, which is illicit is not a good government. It's not constitutional. It's not beneficial, and it has very little to do with Liberty. Matter of fact, when you look at the welfare of warfare state in the monetary system. It's it's divine that divides me, amazed to undermine Liberty. So, all that activity is
negative. So, in many ways, freedom, is something that is negative in the sense of what the government shouldn't be. Be doing rather than all these things. They say. Well, we have to have people Freedom From Any needs and not be injured in any way and they have to be taken care of. Well, that's not freedom. Freedom means the government to be allows us to be less time to ourselves and to be responsible to ourselves. Well, there's also corporations
that have a lot of power. What is the difference between government doing something and something being done in the
marketplace? Well, sometimes there's no difference and that's A problem when the government does it, and if they get involved in a commercial event and they're competitive with a, you know, product composition competition is, this should be wrong morally economically and constitutionally, but then again, within what we accept or too many people accepting the marketplace isn't purely in the market, then there's just mixture that goes on.
So when I hear socialist complaining about, you know, free markets and all this Freedom being - that Is look at what the corporations are doing. I think people have to sort it out or the corporations big and in control of things because they're in collusion with the government and that is what I think happens the government and even our social media. That's great and they give us a lot of services.
But they also had been developed and are the arm of government and they provide so much of the private information of individuals to the government. That's no longer private. It's quasi-private, but Closer to is an interventionist type of system, but it's also closer to a fashion system. That would be a free enterprise. What is the non-aggression principle in self-defense principle? Well, the non-aggression principle is something I talk about a whole lot and very simple.
Nobody's a lot of commit aggression and the boshy ice in the law is really good on this, because he makes a point that most people do understand, they, take the position that you can. Antsy over people, you can't hurt people and people recognize that and they, they want to be protected against somebody Cummings and see him hurting them. But but starships and play in my complaint is that those rules
should apply to the government. So if you don't want, if you want an honest government, you can't allow the government to tell us lies, but they tell us a lot and they commit a lot of aggressions lighting, it illegal Wars, they commit to a lot of Fraud and theft by having a project that much.
So, if we as individuals on a lot of doing the government shouldn't be allowed to do it. So the non-aggression is, people can't commit aggression and they can't have that aggression committed by a government for the benefit of special interest. If you can't steal from your neighbor, you're not a lot of senior Congressman into your neighbor's house and take what you want from them and redistribute the wealth.
And that is one principle that people very rarely pay attention to. And I know you guys also about the for And policy the same way we want to not use aggression against our friends, and our neighbors, and the government shouldn't do that. But if our government goes and say, Hey, you know, it's a good idea for us to have control of the oil in Saudi Arabia or around or something like this. We use aggression to do that. That that is wrong.
It should be a nonaggression that we should never commit an act of war or sanctions or pressure to have our way. It doesn't. That by ignoring it, we endorse everything that they do, but if there's a fight in the Middle East and it's a complex, especially even if it isn't complex. It's out of our jurisdiction and it won't, it doesn't help. And we don't have the authority to do it and it usually backfires on us.
So Appliance to foreign policy, I think is very important because many people have heard me talk about blowback because when you do something and you pick sides, which is what you Have to do decide that you're acting against aren't very happy. So, if we go and start bombing people and putting on sanctions and penalizing, people and support, one faction of the other, they're going to be pretty unhappy with this. And that's greed's, you know, the terrorist attacks against us.
Let's say that I'm someone who only cares about the collective interests of or Americans. Why should I care about libertarianism? Well, all you Review history, you could start, you know, with the with our settlement at Plymouth Brenna's Rock and clintus colony because for three years, they try socialism and it was a total disaster. People died and starve to death and they get along together and then they finally turned over private.
They sort of the land to the private owners and they called me striving and it survived. So the answer to the question is the more free. You have the more Prosperity you have we were and had been in the past, not so much. Now, the freest country ever, and the most productive, and the
largest middle class ever. But now that we've destroyed are in the process of destroying our currency, this destroys the middle class of the middle class is getting poorer and there are more people hungry, even though we have apparently a lot of prosperity, but at the same time we have a lot of people living in the streets, so if we want prosperity, I hate that you have to have a Freer market and if you look at countries like Zimbabwe and that is the Wayland, do different, South
American countries. When they had Freer economies that are very prosperous, but we're now what we're seeing is we're becoming less free and less prosperous people with it. What do you mean? We still the richest in the world, but it's all based on debt because we can press the world's currencies like Clinic gold people. Take our money and they Support such an Eis, our prosperity, but that comes to an end. And what it does, it sort of collapses. So the argument can't be that
old. The government has taken care of. A lot of people, even though there's some problems. There's no doubt in my mind that the free or a country is more prosperous. It'll be the larger. The middle class will be in the less violence will occur. Many people say that we need the state to regulate companies that otherwise would act in their interests at the expense of others. Is the need for economic regulation a justification for
government intervention? No, it's a lot of people believe that to be the case that the regulation, but this is where so many people from a libertarian view Fallen as headers. No regulation. No regulation. That's not my position. I don't want government regulation. I went Market regulation, so that if there's a housing bubble due to the government, You, you don't, you don't bail out the big companies.
They said, well, when we need her more regulation so they could be in and they being in Washington. I know if you want more protection of the consumer in the banking industry, the bankers come in and write the regulation. So they always backfires you want they regulation on drugs. You have the drug industry regulator. And, of course, they push the prices up and saying way with the medical insurance and more regulations and distribution of wealth, you get the worst of
conditions. But I kind of avoid talking about no regulations. I don't want arbitrary, special, interest regulation. And then that is what it is. As soon as the government get its power, the special interests will gravitate to Washington and, and control the regulation. What we well, we want to do is not, we have to deny them power.
Some people say, well, yeah, we should have independent people writing these regulations and all this, that that doesn't work, as long as the government has, Power, you know, if somebody's going to try to take advantage of it and that that is that is the reason why I come to conclusion. You have to eliminate this authority to do this and they have no incentive in the best example I can get is, I was never bothered other than washing, for 23 years.
I was never bothered with a lobbyist, and I never responded and I technically and morally, I would say that if there's a, there's a group of companies and they had passed, and they wanted somebody to like, Bang, you know under no conditions. I would I would take the money for we're legal, but no, they just didn't bother with me because they wanted to do. They wanted to make a deal with me. And so it's power of this said, a have to get rid of not more
regulation. So I don't I don't endorse this whole idea that we have to get money out of politics. We want to get government out of politics out of sight, out of how to run our laws. Are there any votes you made in Congress that you regret? Not really. There's a couple. I guess people could go through. Sometimes you get a bill that might be, most of the bills are mixture. It is, it isn't always clean cut whenever clean cut, it was very easy.
Sometimes you have to weigh it. What does he have a bill that says that the you're going to lower the taxes on. So, and so, but you're going to raise the taxes on somebody else. Well, is there an answer to And I always how you just use a calculator if there was, and you were saving more money than your spending, I vote for but if it was even Stephen, I would look and see which one has the most. Does the most harm to the economy. There may be something like that.
I've never looked at every single vote to find out which one it would be, but no, basically, most people kidding me. They said, we try sleep well at night and I'd like to think that. So, Yeah, it's interesting during this impeachment inquiry. I remember you actually gave alternative reasoning for voting for Bill Clinton's, impeachment. Why did you all vote to impeach Bill Clinton? Yeah. Well, you know, in some ways, maybe somebody who wanted to be
really nitpicking with me? - are you like I give a thought about that? Maybe I shouldn't. Dollar sign is too because of because of their lack of respect. For the Constitution, Ronald Reagan. I knew him the best and he was a good person. And, and yet he did some things that I just really didn't like the Congress. Had passed a Bill Boland amendment to prohibit the presence of spending any money in Nicaragua and they did it
secretly. And I thought it was, you know, it's not that he shouldn't have done it anyway, without In a Prohibition, its parts Constitution doesn't allow him to just go starters on war but to for the Congress to speak out. It's just a reverse of declaring words that don't go to war yet. They still did did get involved. So that's just an example of their, they're all guilty to some degree on the, I like to think more definite.
Practical thing, I'm saying we should be impeaching these ideas, you know to make a point where you want to live in. Free prosperous is high. You have to get rid of the bad ideas and get people to replace them with better ideas. And that's why I spent a lot of time when education teaching Austrian economics and working for sound money because I'm so convinced that as long as you have a money machine and it's always a monopoly at the government.
That is what facilitate that's what pays the bills. So the root liberals and the conservatives agree, that deficits don't matter. And just look now and we're running over trillion dollars a year. Year, it's going higher. The Republicans. Usually a greater deficits in the than the Democrats know. It's all a farce, but it's also something that doesn't last forever causes is finally destroyed and the foreign policy collapses because we can't afford it.
And that's when people like you and others should really be speaking loudly. And clearly about what can replace it. It's not complex. It's just a concept of Liberty. Terrific, final question for you, your Talking to someone who's never heard of libertarianism. What is your elevator pitch? I think, would you like to be in charge of your own life and that would be yet. Do you think the government should tell you about how to write your personal life?
What ye drink, smoke religion, I hang out. Do you think the government should do this? Most people say it's my life, I can deal with that. Well, do you think the government should start start wars, you know, without declaration of war? And she, we always fight Wars. For Nationals. Most people would say it's nonsense that's going out there. And in spending money on Wars for the special interest and
also on economic policy. It's instead of talking to in a 2002, much academically say, well, you know, I like an homage. Why don't you have the right to spend your money? You have a right to your life. Why shouldn't you have it right to keep your money if you have a right to keep you. Anybody, but we can see that
with the income tax. They may all your life because you have to get everything to the government and the government gives you back so much under the conditions on how you're going to spend it. So, it's just a matter of personal Liberty. That should be should bring people together. It'll be more prosperity and a lot more peace. Thank you to everyone listening and thank you. Dr. Paul for promoting separation of economy and state for the same reason. We need separation of church and state.
Take care. Well, wonderful. I could be with you.