Transcript
This isn't your average business podcast, and he's not your average host. This is the James Altucher Show. Today on the James Altucher Show. It's not every day that I have a top presidential candidate on the podcast, particularly one who has won their nomination of their major political party. So you've all heard of the Democrats. You've all heard of the Republicans. But the 3rd most popular party in the United States, and they're on the ballot in all 50 states. And in 2016, they even got 5,000,000 votes. Over 3% of the vote is the Libertarian party. And doctor Jo Jorgensen, she was the VP nominee in 1996, and now she's the presidential nominee in 2020. I had a lot of questions really. I think, you know, some people say, oh, are the libertarians crazy or are they do they make sense? Like, what are they all about? Are they right wing? Are they left wing? Are they socialist? Are they conservative? Are they capitalist? I wanted to find out. And I asked her basically about every issue on my mind, every issue currently happening from coronavirus to foreign, you know, relations to taxes to whatever. And I don't know, you tell me. Leave me a review. Like I think she made a lot of sense. I don't really think the libertarians have a chance, but I think it's important that we all listen to other voices. A democracy is not about one voice, obviously. It's about having multiple voices. And I'm a firm believer that a reasonable society listens to multiple voices and that rational people make decisions. And by rational, I mean, you're a good person and you're obviously interested in your own best interests. But hopefully, if you're a good person, your own best interest will overlap with others. And the combination between reasonable and rational people and consensus could lead to a good government, which is why I'm happy doctor Jorgensen, presidential candidate for the Libertarian party, came on, explained her ideas and beliefs on the various issues. Alright. Well, I am so pleased to have presidential candidate from the Libertarian party, doctor Joe Jorgensen on the podcast. Doctor Jorgensen, I know you've been busy on on your bus tour. Thank you for spending the time to come on the podcast. Oh, great to be here. Thanks so much. And I'm always so intrigued by the Libertarian party. It's a very different outlook and philosophy than the other two parties where often I have a hard time pinning down what their exact philosophies are. But the you know, first off, I wanna say you've been in the Libertarian party for a long time. You ran as the v national VP candidate in 1996. You've also run for congress. How how did you get involved in the Libertarian party, and what's your goal in this in this election? Because unlike Donald Trump and Joseph Biden, I doubt your goal is to win, but perhaps you could tell me what your goal is. Well, my goal is to win only because as somebody with a PhD in industrial organizational psychology, I understand that very difficult goals, even impossible goals can be motivating. So I certainly am going after, winning. However, you made an interesting statement. You said to it's it's hard to really understand what the other two parties are for, and and you know clearly what the Libertarian party was for. When I did join the movement 40 years ago, they used to say, well, the Libertarian party, we take the best of both worlds. We take the personal freedoms from the left, from the democrats, and the economic freedoms from the right, from the republicans. But now they don't have either. You know, the, democratic party, a lot of people are surprised to know that even as recently as 2012, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were against gay marriage. I mean, obviously, they're against free speech, and now they're no longer the party of anti war. They muzzled Tulsi Gabbard, and now they've got Joe Biden, a war hawk, up there. So they don't stand what they used to stand for. And then the Republican party, yeah, they no longer believe in the economic freedoms. And even when they have an outsider like Donald Trump come in. And and let me mention, I can understand why people voted for him because he came in saying, look. I'm a businessman. I know how to balance a budget. I can do the same thing for for government that I did for my companies, and he comes in and does the opposite. We've got bigger deficits and more debt. So if even an outsider can't come in and act like a Republican, that pretty much shows there's no hope for the Republican party. Yeah. You know, it's funny because and and I had a conversation also with your VP candidate, Spike Cohen, and he re I like it. The phrase he used, he referred to them as the republic rats. It's almost like all one party. I'm curious. And then I I do wanna get to to your election and and libertarian philosophy and and your beliefs. What what do you think is the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats right now? Or is there one? I don't see one. Again, with Trump and Biden. First of all, even the mainstream media is saying, look. We've got 2 old rich white guys, And I would add the statement who've never had to live under the laws ever. You know, the the way our government was designed was to have, citizen statesmen, politicians go to Washington for a couple months, pass a few laws, and then go home and live under them for the rest of the year. And now we've got somebody like Joe Biden who's been passing laws for 40 years and has never lived under a single one of them because now we have Animal Farm all over again. We've got the elite who have their own sense who have their own laws. And so this is really not what our country was supposed to have. And now we've got in fact, I've been telling people hashtag fake debates. We've got 2 people who both wanna make more decisions, both make more of your decisions. They both wanna spend more of your money. Neither one wants to bring the troops home, and, neither one is for the individual liberty for us to even go outside during a pandemic. So what difference is there? Well, you know, they you bring up a lot of great issues. And and and particularly on the debate side, you're in their most recent polls. You're running 3rd, obviously, after Joe Biden and Donald Trump, but ahead of the Green Party, Howie Hawkins. So the Libertarian Party has always been on the map for voters. I I believe you're in the ballot on all 50 states. Maybe the only other party other than Democrats and Republicans. I'm not sure. Is that is that true? Yeah. In fact, we're the only party other than the Democrats and Republicans who've been on the ballot in all 50 states in back to back presidential elections. We really are closer to the democrats and republicans with ballot access than the other, quote, unquote, third parties. And and the Libertarian party in 2016 got a significant almost 5,000,000 votes with Gary Johnson, and Bill Weld, and that's probably the best result ever. So, again, I'm I'm hoping you can do just as well. I do think it's so important to have your voice out there. Is there any chance to be on a debate? Well, we hope so. You mentioned Gary Johnson. He got to well, in order to be on the ballot or I'm sorry. In order to be on the debate stage, you need to score 15% in the polls. And Gary Johnson got to 13.6, which is probably no coincidence because, once again, we've got 2 people who are 2 parties who are in power. And so what they did was they looked at past elections, you know, looked at Ross Perot, John Anderson, and said, okay. What number could we come up with that's low enough that it looks reasonable, sounds reasonable, but just high enough that nobody can make it? And they arrive at 15%. And so, of course, Gary Johnson gets 13.6%. So I'm hoping to get to 15%. However, a lot of the, polls that they use aren't even including my name in the polls. So I would encourage your viewers, your listeners to if you get even if you're even if you're not a 100% sure, but you think there's a chance you would vote for me, just tell them you're voting for me to get my name up in the polls so that we can have a real alternative on stage. And by the way, once I get on stage, if you don't like what you hear, you don't have to vote for me. But how about let's get me on stage so that people hear a different alternative? Well, let's let's hear about that alternative. And let's start with foreign relations because I think well well, may maybe first, describe overall for people who don't know the kind of libertarian umbrella of philosophy? Because I think it's so fascinating, and it's a very pure kind of philosophy. So well, yes. It it it is a philosophy. But the good thing about the Libertarian party, the libertarian movement, is that when we first started out, we considered ourselves to be educational. It was our job to go out and explain individual liberty, personal responsibility. But the good thing is is that the movement has grown, and so now we have educational entities out there. We've got Cato, kato.org. We've got Reason. We've got these other places who can do that. So I'm looking at this as I'm running, you know, in an election, and I'm trying to explain to voters how their health care costs can go down, how they can have more choice in their lives, and how they can basically have a better life with our policies. And and I'm trying to talk about policies, and the my main one is health care that right now we hear people say on the other side. We hear them say, well, the free market doesn't work, so guess we're gonna have to go to single payer. Well, I've got news for them. We haven't had a free market health care system in almost a century, and that's why we have the problems we have. And when I hear them say we need Medicare for all, what I hear is we need VA hospital for all, I don't think anybody thinks we need that. It's a monopolistic system that absolutely doesn't work. And if we look at free market systems, such as Singapore or, the state of Indiana with their employees, we see more of a free market system. And our I'm saying we we see prices go down. We see quality go up. And the 2 most free market health care fields in our country would be LASIK surgery and cosmetic surgery. Both of those prices go down, quality go up. Well, tell me, what is a free market health care system? I don't because I'm so I I don't know. There's I have so many phrases and catchphrases and slogans are thrown at me. I don't really even know what kinda health care system we have. So what we have right now is the system in which the government plays a huge role. Over 50% of the dollars in the health care system go through the government. And when that started happening, when government involvement went up, that's when the prices started skyrocketing. A free market system is one in which the people who provide the good or service have to compete. Now in a way, you could say we don't have much of a free market system just because our taxes are so high, but, you know, forget all of that. If if you wanna buy a computer or you wanna buy a car, you've got different companies who come up with different solutions, different price points, different models, and then they have to compete against each other. So you you don't just let's say it's time to buy a car. You don't just go to the local dealership, the one that's closest to you, and say, okay. I wanna buy that car. And you ask them what the price is, and they say, well, don't worry about it. Your insurance company will pay for it. We don't know we don't know what the price is, and so you drive off with your car. That is what's happening in our health care system. I didn't for about 15 years ago, I didn't have health insurance for a few years, long story. And I needed an MRI, which I was more than willing to pay for. And and but, of course, I didn't wanna pay more than I had to, so I called around trying to find prices. They couldn't even tell me the price. They were like, well, you'd have to talk to your insurance company. Well, I don't have insurance right now. Well, we don't know how much it costs. You know, like, come on in, get your MRI, and then you'll find out how much it costs. Imagine buying a car like that. So, but in a free market system, you've got people competing for your business. Now I mentioned Singapore and Indiana. They're not a 100% free market. They're just on the way to free market, putting dollars in the hands of the people who, just like they're buying a car or computer, they go out with their money. They decide what they want, when they want it, and they get to keep the savings. So what does that what does that mean? Like, what happens in Indiana? I'm I'm an an employee of the Indiana system. I go to the hospital. I need, heart surgery. What do what happens? So what happens is, what is funny, I I hope you don't need heart surgery your 1st year. But, yes, in general, what happens is the, state actually gives you dollars. And they say, okay. Here's few $1,000 for smaller medical costs. Let's say, you know, if you buy antibiotics or you need a physical, you're gonna pay for it out of your own money, but here, it's money we're giving to you. And they also pay for the insurance. So you go out and you look for the best price. And it's funny that you mentioned heart surgery because if you look at costs in our country, heart surgery costs about a $130,000. If you go to, yes, if you go to Singapore where people have dollars and they go around you know, just like when you buy a car, you ask for the price first and then you decide which place you wanna go to, their heart surgery only costs about $18,000. So overall and and that's an extreme, but overall, it costs about a third. But let me tell you what happened in the state of Indiana. So and and it was voluntary. You could either have the old insurance way where you go with your little co pay card and you don't know how much stuff costs, or you could go with the system in which you get money and you get to keep the savings, which is the way life should be. That's the way it is when we buy cars, computers, or even groceries. Or or when I bought my wife from Russia, that's I knew what I was paying for. We won't talk about that. So, so, anyway, in the state of Indiana, before the the system began, about 10% of the drugs that were bought were generic, which would make sense because you're spending somebody else's money. What do you care how much the drugs cost? However, within just about a year or 2, about 90% of the drugs that were, were generic. And here's the best part. The people were glad to do it because they got to keep the savings. Just like if you shop around for the best gas prices, you get to keep the savings. That's the way it should be. Well, I I agree. And and it seems like a lot of policies start with, let's call them good intentions. Like, for instance, student loans. Every student every person should have a chance for higher education. It's the good intention. But what ends up happening is, oh, I don't need to worry about, you know, student 18 year olds don't have a concept about money, I don't need to worry about paying for some rinky dink college, and then tuitions go up faster than inflation every single year, because college presidents know the government's paying for it. So what what would you get rid of? Like, day 1 in the office, what would you get rid of in health care? Would you get rid of the FDA, which drives up prices because of, you know, $2,000,000,000 worth of testing every drug needs? Well, yes. The FDA would be a good start because you're right. It takes about $1,000,000,000 in 10 years to get the average drug to market. So it's the people who pay the price. In fact, let me mention quickly, when people ask me why I'm running for president, I tell them it's because government is too big, too bossy, too nosy, too intrusive. But the worst part is they usually help or they they usually hurt the very people they're trying to help. And we see that with the FDA. You know, let's protect people from bad drugs, and what do they do instead? They drive up costs, and they put people on a waiting list, so now you can't get any kind of drug. And how many drugs were are probably good but didn't have a $1,000,000,000? Exactly. And exactly. Or how many drugs are in the pipeline right now? They've only been in the pipeline for 6 years. You got another 4 years to wait, and you could use it today. But to to get back to your question about what I would do is, I think the biggest problem is that our insurance system isn't really insurance at all. So to give the car insurance, to kind of extend this, the car insurance example, what if your car insurance paid for gas, oil, car washes? You know, you would have absolutely no reason to shop around for the lowest gas prices. You just drive in to the closest place or the nicest place. What about your $5 co pay? And off you go. And then the gas companies, the gas stations have absolutely no reason to compete because, they don't have to because you don't even know what the prices are. In fact, they could raise prices, and you wouldn't even know it because the car insurance companies would pay for it. That's what we have right now. So what we can't do is we can't pull the rug out from underneath people. We can't just say, okay. You're on your own because we've got all of these inflated prices because the government dollars have been put in there. So what I would do is start with the VA hospital, which is, you know, been horrible. It it it it its service is horrible for anybody, but especially the people who are willing to risk their lives for our country. And instead of having a VA hospital system, I would actually give just like the state of Indiana, I would give the VA I would give the veterans dollars to put in their pockets, and they go around and shop for what services they want when and who gives it to them. And then also the same with Medicare and Medicaid in which, by putting the dollars in people's pockets, they go around and shop just like shopping for the lowest gas prices and start the prices going down. So that would be the first step is What if I what if I have no money and I I need some medical help? What would happen to me? Well, right now, you'd be in the Medicare system or Medicaid rather. You'd be in Medicaid. And so instead of saying, okay. Here's your Medicaid card. I'd say, okay. Here's money in your pocket and real insurance, and now you get to go shop around. So between the money in your pocket and the insurance, now you would have anything paid for that you need to get paid for. And and on the FDA side, how would you deal with the fact that there might be some scams or bad drugs in the system? Now, by the way, the FDA also has bad drugs in the system. They recall many drugs every year, so it's not clear that that even works. But what would your system do if we were to reduce cost and and, you know, reduce the amount of time it takes to get drugs into the system? Well, first, we need to have a free market system in which if the companies do make mistakes, they go out of business so that if you put a bad drug out there, you have the threat of going bankrupt. But right now, we've got crony capitalism with people in Washington bailing their friends out, giving them money if they make bad business decisions. But, well, there are 2 things. The FDA originally only had a safety requirement. You only had to prove that your drug was safe, not that it worked. In 1962 is when they added the efficacy requirement. Now you have to prove that your drug does what it's supposed to do, which sounds like a great goal, But the problem with that is that it takes so long to meet those standards. So if all we did was kept the FDA and went back to 1962 standards where you just had to prove your drug was safe, that would help in a whole lot. Because what happened before 1962, if there was a drug that really didn't work, usually, doctors and patients discovered that within a few months, and usually drugs were gone anyway that didn't work because it didn't work. And people said, this isn't working. We're not going to use it anymore. Sure. And there's been so many medical disasters with people just saying, oh, but the FDA said it's okay, so let's keep taking it. And, you know, they don't become as careful individually. Exactly. So, you know, as a first step and and I'm not for and I think this is part of the reason I got the nomination is I'm not saying, okay. January 1, we're yanking everything out. We're yanking the rug out from underneath everyone. You're on your own. So with the FDA, I'm more than happy to say, okay. We'll keep the FDA at least for a little while and get rid of the efficacy requirements just to keep the safety. And when everybody sees that the world isn't gonna collapse, okay, then, you know, we can either privatize the FDA, let other companies come out and do that job, or just have it as an advisory where if you are a drug company, you kinda, like, pay for their stamp of approval. But, you could sell drugs without the FDA stamp of approval, and it wouldn't take money out of taxpayers' pockets. The drug companies would have to pay for it. But, again, if if we let businesses fail who put out bad drugs, then they're going to have the incentive to do that. And what the government does right now is they get rid of that incentive. You know, the airline companies, the, you know, Wall Street, they behave recklessly, and the government says, oh, no problem. We'll just bail you out. We can have to stop that mentality. Well yeah. And I don't wanna I wanna very much get to economics and and financial policy, which is verges on what's happening with coronavirus and the and the lockdowns and so on. I'm just curious first on foreign on on foreign affairs, foreign relations. So, you know, libertarians, and I very much agree with this, are are and correct me if I'm wrong, are very much anti war, and I agree with that. There's no reason to send 18 year olds to foreign countries to shoot other 18 year olds. It seems inhuman to me. I I mean, in history, can you think of a war that if you had ever been president during that time, you would have felt justified to send troops to to war? It's possible, World War 2 because we we were attacked, but but not to the degree that we did. And historians point out that, you know what? If if we hadn't done what we did after World War 1, then World War 2 would've never happened to begin with. So, I mean, in general, I I guess I would've fought against the British, in 1776, the free I wouldn't have. Really? You would've stayed with king George? What was I mean, we were just we were essentially do bailing out a bunch of taxpayers in Boston, to fight the British and the British stopped slavery in 18/31. I don't we would have kind of we would have eventually gotten independence the way Canada did very peacefully. And so I don't know if I would have fought the British. But this is neither here nor there. What about today? Yeah. What would you what would you do today? Today, I would bring our troops home and turn America into 1 giant Switzerland armed and neutral. That we are in almost a 150 different countries, and we spend more money on our military than the next 7 countries combined. And there are well, I was gonna keep going, but it sounded like you wanted to it looked like you wanted to say something. No. No. But plea please keep going because I I I wanna be convinced. Oh, you wanna be con okay. The guy Well, okay. So I'll ask the question, which is that there's always worries. Could we be attacked if we reduce the army? And are there any situations where we really do need to be the police of the world, like in the case of a genocide? And if we fully pull out of the Middle East where I agree we've we've messed things up for many, many decades, is there a chance that the you know, an imbalance could happen like Iran? It could just sweep over the entire Middle East, where you know, because they greatly outnumber everyone else, and then there's a problem. Well, to answer your first question, could we be attacked? We were attacked being over there. So you look at 911. I would suggest that we might not have been attacked, on 911 if we hadn't been over there because what bin Laden did is they used us being over there as a recruiting tool. He said, look. Americans are lying to us. They said they'd we'd be here temperate they'd be here temporarily. They're not. They give us a date. They're gonna be out of here by now or and they're not out of there by then. And they're trying to take over our religion. They're trying to take over our laws, and he really got people riled up. Now could a madman convince people to fly planes into buildings even if we're not over there? Yes. But it would be a heck of a lot harder. We just made it easier on him because he kept pointing to us being there saying, look. And and let me let me quickly, you know, disclaimer. Nothing justifies that. Absolutely nothing. But I'm saying he was able to easier twist it, to convince people to do that. And if we had been over here, it would have been a lot harder for him to say, hey. Look. They're trying to take over our religion and our land. They'd be like, what are you talking about? They're they're sitting over there on the other side of the ocean. I we you know, we don't see that. And as far as leaving vacuums, yeah, we've left vacuums before. Well, part of the problem is we left our military equipment over there. We said, well, we'll see, and we left our military equipment there for our enemies to get a hold of. But, so I would when I would retreat, first of all, I wouldn't forget to take the equipment with me when I left. You know? Kinda like, you know, being a kid and leaving and forgetting your toys. No. I'm bringing my toys back with me. You know? This belongs to us. We're not gonna leave it in the dangerous hands of others. That was absurd to even do that. And, also, I would go through a more orderly withdrawal. Now you asked, is there any place where possibly I would stay? I would say the default option is we come home. Is it possible that there's some high secret thing that, that that we need to stay in a base here or there? Maybe. And and as president, I would find out, but I would say, again, the default is come home. And especially, you know, 2 things. 1 is the cost. You know, why do we need to help support France and Germany with their defense? And we keep hearing, oh, isn't France great? They've got, like, 5 week vacations there. We should have 5 week vacations. Well, you know what? Maybe we could have 5 week vacations if, we weren't paying for their military. If they paid for their own military, maybe they'd be the one with, you know, 2 week vacations. But, secondly, it's the fact that it makes us more vulnerable. And what's ironic is the job of the military is to protect us, is to make us more safe, and it's making us less safe being in in these places. So I would say look at where we are now. But but given that we've created so much trouble and we've we've dug ourselves in into a deep hole, I would say, by mistake, would could we now destroy the balance of power, by leaving? Because, again, like, you know, there's this huge millennial conflict between the Shia and the Sunni. Could Iran just sweep over all the other countries of the Middle East and and really damage our, you know, connection to the resources there? Well, again, let me quote David Bergland, former presidential candidate, and say utopia is not an option. And I would suggest, is it worse that we stay there? Could there be problems when we leave? Yes. But are there problems with us being there now? Absolutely. And I would suggest that we do it in a little more you know, I'm I'm not going to be and, you know, I really think that Trump in I I really think that he wanted to bring the troops home, and he made the mistake of leaving all of the military industrial complex advisers there who basically were, you know, had their own agenda. I would actually bring in people who wanted peace and who come who could come up with a good way to come about this, to do this as opposed to, you know, just having it be wishful thinking. But you're right that we have to be careful in how we do it, and we need to do it orderly. But even people who say, yes. We have so many problems to you know, yes. We have created vacuums. They're saying, yeah. We still need to get out of there. What about, in terms of being the world's police? Like, let's take a place where we're not involved, but maybe could could question it is, like, Myanmar where where there's a genocide happening or, you know, there's other situations, but, like, that's a small contained situation where we could effectively be a police force on the world. But being the police force always creates other problems. Even with the, treaty that Donald Trump is very proud of, then they're saying, oh, it's the best treaty. You know? It's the only treaty of its kind since 1994 or whatever. Still, not everybody's happy with it. There are still groups of people over there who think it's completely unfair, so it's it's a no win situation. No matter what we do, even if we go in and come up with something that people are heralding is great, there are still people who are gonna be unhappy, which is going to give them reason to attack us. And, also, if it is a very small contained situation, I would suggest that the American individuals could help out. You know, what I'm saying is we shouldn't have the American military, the US military act on behalf of the US government. Now can individuals through, helping privately, sending donations, or going over there in a peace corps type of situation, can individuals help? Of course. I would never tell American individuals they can't help, you know, their fellow, human beings around the world. I'm just suggesting it shouldn't be the American government. What what about a situation now like, you know, switching gears a little, like, on tariffs? So if we charge note you you know, you're anti tariff, and I agree with that also. Tariffs have been the cause of every major recession and depression except for this last one. But, you know, if we have no tariffs and China's charging 30% against our goods, how do we deal with that? We deal with that by opening up our borders, by saying, you know what? We are we're we're we're open for business. We we would like to buy your products, and you may sell your products at at whatever cost that you like. Because what people don't realize is that tariffs are basically an invisible tax, and we need to get rid of that invisible tax. And, it's probably no coincidence that you brought up trading right after talking about the military because I'm sure you've heard that when goods cross borders, troops don't have to. And I give my own personal story of when in the early eighties, I was driving and, pulled into a parking lot and I had this older gentleman come over towards me with the scowl on his face. And, you know, at first I thought, oh my gosh, I hope I didn't cut him off. You know, I didn't mean to, but he came over and he was glaring at my car, and he asked me how dare I buy a car from Italy? Do I not know what they did to us in World War 2? Because he was a World War 2 veteran. And now because he was a veteran, I you know, I'm I'm grateful for his his service. I'm not about to get into an argument or even a debate with him. But what I wanted to tell him was, you know what? As long as we buy cars from Italy, they're not going to bomb us. And in fact, you know, we got into World War 2 because, because Japan bombed us. And I would suggest that Japan is not going to bomb us now because we buy so many Toyotas and Hondas from them. So, you know, you tend to not bomb your best customers. So we cannot afford to get into a war with China because we're able to blow each other up. And so I would suggest we keep our borders open and become very valuable and become friends with China and lead the way in allowing people to peacefully trade with each other. So are you saying by opening borders, it could lead the open the door towards other countries manufacturing and producing for like, really, the problem with China is is that they charge huge tariffs. They peg their dollar to us ours, so their their goods are always cheaper, and then they overcharge and we're for we're we're captive customers to their, you know, the it turned out with with the coronavirus in there was no plan b in our manufacturing supply chain, like, it was all China. And that's why they were able to control us so much with their tariffs. Like, how how would a situation like that change? Well, first of all, why did they have manufacturing to begin with? I would suggest part of it is because of our high corporate income tax, and so let's eliminate that so that we get rid of some of the incentive for people to have manufacturing plants around the world. Now it's not gonna get rid of it completely because, of course, cost of living is lower in other places. But as far as, you know, we we can improve the situation. And just, you know, just because China has tariffs from our goods going there, that's actually hurting their people. It's actually raising the cost of goods for their, citizens, not for ours. So I don't see any reason to raise the cost of goods for our citizens just because their citizens have to pay a higher price. No. But they charge a higher price to us that we're forced to pay because there are only, you know, when Oh, you mean when we buy their stuff? Yes. Well, then of if if their if their cost is too high, then other countries will be selling us goods at a lower price. That's what the free market's all about is we don't you know, there there's no rulebook that says we can only buy stuff from China and that we're held hostage to them, and we have to buy their higher priced goods. You know? Let India, let Bangladesh, let I I agree with that, but how come we haven't already started, you know, switching or how how come our corporations haven't already started switching focus to those other countries? For buying stock? Yes. For manufacturing our goods. Well, but but but but you keep saying manufacturing, and I'm saying buying. Those are 2 different things. Again, part, you know, part of the reason probably why they're over their manufacturing goods is because the costs are cheaper, but part of that is the US income tax, which, like I said, wouldn't completely get rid of it, but it would help return some because there still is a cost for doing something overseas. So what if we had a corporate income tax of 0 and and companies could maintain you know, stay in the United States? But, also, there are other countries that people have moved to for, for manufacturing and for buying goods, but but manufacturing goods is separate from buying goods. So what I'm saying is when we buy goods, let's open up our borders. And if China's prices are too high for stuff they're selling, then we buy stuff from other countries. Kind of like, you know, again, you've got 3 local supermarkets. If the price of one is too high, you don't say, oh, nothing we can do. We have to go pay for higher prices. No. You go to one of the other grocery stores. So the same with countries. If China, if their prices are too high, we buy from somewhere else. So let you you segued into taxes. Let's say and and, again, I agree with it about, 0% corporate income tax. These are institutions that create jobs, create prosperity, create innovation. Not sure why peep people don't really understand that when the government taxes and brings in money, it's not like it goes into an account and then gets dispersed into another account. That money disappears from the economy until it's later spent, and people don't quite understand the economics of that. But what would you do day 1 with personal income taxes? Well, day 1, I would start a plan to get rid of them a 100%. Now on day 1, can we just say, okay. No income tax? No. We still have to, again, do it in a somewhat orderly fashion. But, no, we need to get rid of the personal income tax. Some people say, well, then what's gonna happen to our government? But they don't realize that only about half of our revenues come from personal income tax. So and you know what? Even if we had money sitting in the bank, we should still cut our spending by half because we're doing way too much. And, again, even our military loan is a huge chunk of that. So we're spending all of this extra money being around the world, making us less safe. How about we spend less money and make us more safe? Like, why why wouldn't you do that? So, so income tax would naturally go down anyway, but the plan is to get it down to 0. And what what, departments would you like, this this these two questions go hand in hand. What departments or parts of government are currently effective, if any, because I'm I'm doubtful of any? And and I'm saying this as just a concerned citizen, not even a a political advocate on any side. But what what departments are effective? What departments would you get rid of first to eliminate spending? Yeah. Get rid of pretty much any department that's been created in the last 200 years. Just keep, you know, just keep the original couple that we had when the country was founded like the Department of the Treasury, but, no. Let's start with the Department of Education. And, you know, education is a local issue. If you look at the needs of the people, you know, the the needs, wants, and desires of the people in, let's say, rural Appalachia, much different than the needs of the people in downtown New York City, much different than Wyoming or California. So why do we have a one size fits all department of education in Washington? In fact, if you look at the cost of that bureaucracy, if, if we got rid of it, that would be an extra $1500 to each student that could be paid towards tuition. And the the scary thing about the Department of Education is that since they've been around for 40 years, not only have scores not gone up, if anything, they've gone down, and education costs even more. So once again, government you know, they say they're here to help, and every time they try to help, they end up making things worse. So gotta get rid of the Department of Education. Is there any chance that if you let things go as local as possible, that some localities could teach things that are very much against the interest of the majority of the people? Wasn't that what they're doing now? I would suggest right now. Oh my gosh. I I heard, when I went out to Washington state, I talked with a mother who said that what her child was learning in the Seattle Public Schools was just horrendous. They were putting her child on a guilt trip, and they basically had to move just so she could get in a different school district because of of of how they were indoctrinating her kids. So I would suggest that through the monopolistic school system we have now, we're getting bad messages. But, you know, it's it's funny that you mentioned this because education is usually the example that I give of why government is just making us so polarized. You know, people ask, well, how come we're, you know, polarized? Why are we at odds with each other? And I would suggest it's because every part of our life goes to the government. So for with education, let's say that you want your child to go to a school that has prayer, and let's say your neighbor doesn't. What you have to do is you guys have to battle it out. You each have to support your own candidate, donate money, put off the yard signs, get all your friends to vote for whoever, and then go to the ballot box and vote. And one of you is gonna win, the other one's gonna lose. And one of you is gonna get what you don't want. How about instead, we keep our dollars, and then, as Milton Friedman said, we vote with our feet, vote with our dollars, in which you can send your kid to a school with prayer and your neighbor can send his kid to a school without prayer, and then you can both be happy. But, again, we've got the one size fits all education, health care, retirement. Pretty much everything goes to the government. And it's funny because people are so concerned that, oh, you know, congress the, you know, people in Washington are so corrupt. Well, they were very corrupt in the 19 thirties forties, but people didn't care as much because not every aspect of their lives went through congress. They had control over their health care and their education. Now it is a problem because people don't have control over their lives anymore. I wanna talk for a little bit about coronavirus, not only our response to the virus, but our response economically because they're they're kind of linked hand in hand and have created essentially a worldwide global disaster emanating from the US. But you're president of the United States. You start to hear about this virus coming out of China. What do you do? What do you suggest? What what happens first? Well, the first thing I do is to get rid of the obstacle in the FDA, and that was the first mistake that president Trump made is is there was basically an obstacle to testing. There were, you know, dozens of testing kits that could have been sold in the United States, but they were blocked by either the FDA or the CDC from being out there. And then the second thing he did is he stood up on stage with doctor Fauci and said, only get tested if you have symptoms. Well, even at the time, they knew that a lot of the people had the virus without any symptoms. So what should've been done is everybody should should've gotten tested like they did in Southeast Asia in which if you if everybody gets tested, then you know who needs to stay home and who can go out and work. And instead, we shut down everybody so that now, we lose tens of millions of jobs, and many of them are not going to come back. They're not going to come back. Many of them are not gonna come back or for at least for a long time. So which which then you know? I've I've heard you in an interview say that, look, individuals are smart enough to decide whether they're gonna go to school, go to work. Many people had to go to work anyway in this current lockdown. You know, there was the essential workers. There were the delivery workers. In New York City, you had everybody in their penthouses clapping at 7 PM for the essential workers, which were the delivery workers, and it just felt sort of disgusting to me at the time, like, people at the penthouses clapping for the people risking themselves on bicycles delivering pizzas to everyone. But and I agree, I I a lot of people I knew were were staying at home even before the lockdowns. People can make decisions. Do you think that is good enough though? Do you think people are are and I I'm asking a question I know the answer to, but do you think people are capable of making these decisions as a society? Well, first of all, not everybody is going to do exactly the right thing, but let me quickly add that being stupid shouldn't be against the law. But secondly, people look at the at the alternative as though, well, government's smart enough to make all the decisions, and they're not. And especially with New York, oh my gosh, with Cuomo and, all the people being put into the nursing homes who, actually had a higher risk of Yeah. COVID. So here we have government making the wrong decision, and people were forced to live by it. So not everybody's gonna make the best decision. Again, there's no utopia. But let's let people if they're going to live or die, let's let them live or die based on their own decisions and not being forced into a decision that they don't want from the government. And so so fast forwarding a few weeks after this, peep you know, we realized how fragile the economy was. Just a few weeks of economic shutdown and up to 40, 50,000,000 people have have been furloughed, lost their jobs, or imply or applying for unemployment insurance. If the government is telling everybody to stay at home, are do they do a bailout like what happened and what might happen again? Well, no. Because first of all, that money's got to come from somewhere. And and and but let me back up. I still don't like the assumption because they need to let people out and work. And, a a recent poll was done which showed that people have this huge misconception about the virus. It turns out that if you're in your twenties or thirties, you have such a low risk of dying. It's almost 0. You know, there is no reason to keep young people locked up and not let them go to work. No reason at all. And so, it's it's it's the older people and the people who have some kind of compromised immunity or some other problem. So so first of all, we need to get people out there. But whether or not people are out there working, no. Because when you hand out those checks, first of all, the money has to come from somewhere. So it's coming from you. And so rather than you sending it to the sending money to the government, and then the government is handing some of the money back to you, but also money back to the big corporations, how about you keep the money and you get to spend the money where you want to? And I know I would rather spend it locally and keep some of these businesses from going out of business. You know? The smaller businesses were a lot harder hurt than the big companies. In fact, some of the big companies posted, huge sales, and they weren't hurt because the government basically shut down other companies and said, okay. Well, these stores can stay open. Right. They kept market share while the mom and pop stores went out of business. Right. Or even gained market share because the stores were closed. Right. And so so, you know, you say the money, has to come from somewhere. Let's say we're starting to move towards a a libertarian, view and departments are shut down, military's, limited, money is saved, maybe we even generate a surplus or at least break even, so no, you know, less deficit. Is there room for borrowing for a country? It's not it's not the worst thing in the world to take on debt when interest rates are low, but I know you're against any sort of deficit. Where where do you where exactly is the is the right space here? Well, the right space now is not to be borrowing. That's for sure. Because we already can't pay back what we've owed, you know, what what we owe. So, no, we this is ridiculous to to keep borrowing. And, you know, kind of along these lines, back to the other question, because when you borrow, a lot of times, the money does go to the government, and research is pretty clear that money left in the hands of businesses create about twice as many jobs as that same money that goes to the government. So why do you want it to go to the government? And the government can't create jobs. It can only take from some and give to another. So how about let's create real jobs out in the private sector where they do some good, and we get more jobs. Like, wouldn't you know, do you want a certain number of jobs, or do you want twice that number of jobs? I'll take twice that number of jobs. Thank you very much. Will will automation hurt jobs in a way that, the government needs to step in? Again, this is an argument that really holds no water. If we go back to the you know, when the country was first founded, we had so many people working on farms. And then they come up with, you know, we've got the combine. We've got all this automated farm equipment. And people said, oh my gosh. But now people aren't gonna have jobs. Now what are we gonna do? Well, now something like what? 2% of our country is in the farming industry. And guess what? We found other jobs for people. So anytime we have automation, it just frees up people for other jobs, for industries that we didn't even know we would have. So for instance, I think you mentioned that I was a VP candidate in 1996. Yes. We didn't have Google or Facebook, back then. So we've got these huge industries now, these huge companies that weren't even in imagine weren't even in people's imagination at the time, creating all these jobs. So if if we have automation in one area, now we're going to get now, you know, it's like people still have money to spend. And now instead of spending a higher price because there's, human labor involved, now they spend a lower price because it's automated, and now they've got extra money to, you know, go out to restaurants or get massages or whatever. But, but to go back to that argument again, when the government doesn't interfere, then we see more of a natural you know? Like, again, nobody's saying, oh, we need to bring back buggy whips. You know? What about all the people who no longer make buggy whips? Because now we drive cars. You know? Those people went on to make cars. So so given that a large part of the country is getting some form of government services, whether it's welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, whatever, how do you start dismantling the system so people are still, particularly the ones most in need, are still taken care of? Well, I would suggest again that the private, that the free marketing can do a much better job. And the example that I like to give was kind of a famous one back in the early nineties. I don't know if you heard of this story, but the unite the, CEO of United Way in the early nineties spent something like $400,000 on fancy artwork. And keep in mind, that'd be close to about $1,000,000 today. So, what happened was donations dried up. People were like, yeah. We didn't give you money to spend on fancy artwork. We gave you money to to help those in need, to help, you know, unwed mothers or to, you know, people with mental illness or people with substance abuse, not artwork. And so the United Way had to work really hard to get those donations back because they had to prove that their money was being spent where it should be spent. Now you look at that same money going to the government. If the government has high overhead, oh, well, they just raised taxes. There's absolutely no accountability in the government because that's the nature of it. And we look. We've got and and and this is what drives me crazy. I would love to have a talk with, Bill Gates or Oprah, who I I think they they both have said, yes. I think the government should tax me more. You know? Yes. I should give more money to the government. And yet, Oprah started her own school in Africa, right, for girls, and, Bill Gates has the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation where they're spending a lot of money. And my question to them is, well, if you think the government can do such a good job of spending money, then why don't you just give that money to the government? Let them let them open up the schools and work on, you know, vaccines or whatever. And and I'm sure the answer is no. They they do think they can do a better job. And and I ask people, okay. If if you've got an inheritance let's say you've got $10,000 inheritance and you decide, well, you know what? I really don't need it. I wanna give it to somebody in need. And you look around. Do you wanna give it to a church, you know, maybe a local United Way type, charity? And when when deciding how to best help those in need, are you gonna say, yes. I'm going to give this $10,000 to a federal government program. No. So so but this this is very interesting. Whether are there any areas where the government is more capable of running that area than private industry? So and this is related to I have 2 more questions, basically. One one is if one way to raise money is we can privatize or sell some of the government assets, whether it's highways or, dare I say it now in the current debate, the the post office or you know, what what other assets could would you think about privatizing that could be run more effectively in private industry? Well, you ask, can anything be done more effectively by the government? My immediate answer would be no. However, I will follow it up with, you know, I think the function of government should be police courts and military. Let's have them run those 3. Now do I think that a private industry could run it better? Probably. You know, we hear about $600 hammers in the military. However, I think it's more appropriate that the government run police courts and military. And out of those, the federal government should only be doing some of the courts and the military. Policing needs to be done at the local level. So, I and and we would need so few funds to to run that part, and people would be so much better off. So we should at least head in that direction. What about selling assets to to raise money? Because that would be a way to pay back the deficit. Well, I that would also be a way to provide people who are dependent on Social Security because Al Gore lied to us. He said, you know, we have our funds in a lockbox. We don't. Percent. So I I so I would have an immediate opt out where you could immediately opt out of Social Security, never pay another penny because, you know, the money's gonna get you know, you're not gonna see that money anyway. However, for the people who are dependent upon it, who paid into the system, we have to make that right because they had no choice. Their money was taken before they even saw their paycheck. Now their money, instead of going to a lockbox, was going for stuff it shouldn't have been, like downtown office buildings and other things. So, yeah, sell downtown prime real estate, sell vehicles from the military, sell, mineral rights, water rights, sell all of these things, and then give the money back to the rightful owners, the people who put money into it, and now they have a safe retirement. Do you think, like, high for instance, the the the state highway system, do you think that would be in better hands, privatized rather than, the government? Because we could sell that for tens of 100 of 1,000,000,000. Well, the this the that should be a local or rather a state issue. And and it's not just as much the money. It's the power. So, again, Elizabeth Dole, if you've never heard of her, might have heard of secretary under Right. Someone Bush. Very good. Excellent. Yes. The wife of Bob Dole, presidential candidate 96. And a lot of people don't know, especially younger people, back when I went to college, different states had different drinking ages. And so what happened when Elizabeth Dole was transportation secretary, when people paid their money into the federal government, now they've got highway funds, and so then they gave them back to the states. And, she basically dangled the money and said, hey. You want your highway money? You have to raise your drinking age to 21, and then you get your highway money back. Now we can have an argument over maybe having a higher drinking age is better. Okay? Maybe it is, but that shouldn't be the federal government making that choice. It should be each individual state. So, again, rather than running money through the federal government, let each state decide how much to spend and at least and and how to spend it and where to spend it. And you know what? Maybe the roads will suck, but then people will move elsewhere. In fact, it's it's funny that you bright bring that up because in South Carolina, our roads do suck. And, and and we and we allocated highway money, and then it gets spent on something else, not the highway. But there have been major industries, and I don't know if you know this, but we have a BMW plant. And Michelin, North America all of North America is headquartered, where I live in Greenville, South Carolina. And some of these companies are saying, you know what? If you don't fix your roads, we're we're leaving the state. So if we wanna keep the jobs, if we wanna keep our standard of living, we're gonna have to improve the roads. Now take that up to the federal level. You know, where's the accountability again? There's not much accountability with the federal government, but each state knows it has to be responsive or it's gonna lose money, business, tourists, companies, whatever, to other states. So all of this is so reasonable, and I really love everything you're saying. Why do people sometimes say, oh, libertarian, that's like the crazy party. Like, how do you express a better PR image of the libertarian party than what's been expressed in the somehow in the past? I don't know when in the distant past, but somehow. Well, I think I am, actually, in that what's so exciting is about 75% of our volunteers are from outside the party, and that's pretty unusual for a libertarian campaign. Usually, you've got the candidate, you've got the core group, and then kinda work gets out. But pretty much since week 1, the majority of our support has been from outside the party. And I think it's because it is my message, because I'm not going out there giving, you know and and and and I hate to say this, but I think in to some degree, it has been how we, portrayed ourselves. And and I was just as guilty as anybody else going out there saying, it's my money and it's my body and I can do what I want. And that doesn't, really tell the voters how we can help their lives. And so I'm going out there explaining, okay. Here's how you can have control of your health care instead of people in Washington. Here's how you can have the kind of education you want, and show them how we can actually help, help this country with our ideas. And and final final question, because I know you're busy, and I super appreciate the the time you've spent and and given the show. Given our current state of affairs, and it's just everything's so polarized, so many decisions have been made for political reasons rather than economic or health reasons, We're in a bad place right now. I mean, for the first time in my, let's say, 18 years as somewhat of a pundit and a and a platform, I'm I'm I'm seeing a path to disaster as opposed to the by the usual path of optimism no matter how bad it gets. There is a a path that could take us to a bad spot. What do you see happening now, no matter who's elected? Oh, well, I am so thrilled that of of of the reaction that we saw to government's mishandling of the coronavirus, which is that you know what? I I I gotta admit, I was beginning to become discouraged that thinking that our American rugged individualism is gone. But when I saw the people in Michigan, for instance, driving around the state house saying, no. This isn't America. You know, we we have the right. This is supposed to be a free country. We have the right to go out and leave our homes. And just to see people reacting to government the way they are, I am so invigorated to know that Americans still realize that we are a free country, and we should, be able to do what we want. And, by the way, let me mention what's so ironic about this is, one of my grandfathers immigrated from Sweden, and they came here. You know, America, land of the free, home of the brave. They were looking for a better life. They were looking for freedom. And so ironic is in sweden They were allowed to continue to go shopping go to schools, go to, restaurants whereas we were all under house arrest. And so, people are realizing no This is not America And I think that this is the beginning of a movement with people realizing, well, you know what? Maybe it's not doing such a good job in the rest of, you know, the the the rest of my life either. And if you look at how how people are just not happy about Joe Biden, they're not happy that Donald Trump didn't come through with his promises. So I would like to mention, if you do like these ideas, to go to joe20.com, that's jo20.com, and to see how we can help create a revolution and to get some real change out there to where you can make your own decisions because I suggest that people out there that every American out there that you know best, what's best for you. It's not the people in Washington. Well, doctor Joe Jorgensen, presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, the the 3rd largest party in the United States. Again, in just 4 years ago, your party got almost 5,000,000 votes, and it's about 3.3 percent of the vote. I hope you do better. I hope you rise as a a real voice in in the conversation for our country and democracy. And once again, I really appreciate you coming on. I hope you can come on again. Thank you so much. Well, thanks. Glad to be here. Have a great day. You too.
Comments