Jeremy Kauffman
01:12:20 Share

Explaining football to the friend who's just there for the nachos? Hard. Tailgating from home like a pro with snacks and drinks everyone will love? An easy win. And with Instacart helping deliver the Snack Time MVPs to your door, you're ready for the game in as fast as 30 minutes. So you never miss a play or lose your seat on the couch or have

to go head-to-head for the last chicken wing. Shop Game Day Faves on Instacart and enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three grocery orders. Offer valid for a limited time. Other fees and terms apply. Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families.

With Greenlight, you can send instant money transfers, set up chores, automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids' spending with real-time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save, and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place.

Get your first month free at greenlight.com slash wondery. That's greenlight.com slash wondery. Hey guys, before we start today's show, I just want to let all the responsible adults out there over the age of 21 living in states where Delta 8 is legal know that if you're looking for Delta 8 to get started,

stoned, go to yodelta.com. You can stock up on high quality lab tested Delta eight gummies and vapes. Make sure to use the promo code gas. That'll get you 25% off your entire order. That's yodelta.com promo code gas for 25% off. All right, let's start the show.

What's up? What's up, everybody? Welcome to a brand new episode of Part of the Problem. I'm very excited for this one. Very quick note before we start the show. Yesterday, we recorded the annual State of the Union podcast with me and the great Ari Shafir. That will be available only on partoftheproblem.com. It should be up within the next day or so, and it'll only be up there for the first week, and then it'll be put out for everyone.

So go sign up to partoftheproblem.com if you want to get it early, which is where we are going live right now. All the shows now are live, ad-free, uncensored, only at partoftheproblem.com. Okay. Welcoming back to the show. It's been a little while, but of course we have Jeremy Kaufman, who is a free stater, a member of the Libertarian Party, former Senate candidate, and new president.

um internet sensation the uh the libertarian haktua perhaps uh we could say or something like that so this oh my god dude this uh you know this video of you having an encounter with two

people claiming to be federal agents has blown up. I just checked it as before we started the show and it is at 34 million views. And of course, that's just on your tweet. That's not counting like a lot, you know how those things on the online are a lot of people share them and then you don't really get the total numbers. So before I want to play the video and then I want to kind of discuss it. But first I would just say, what's it been like over this last day for you?

It's been interesting. I have a great support network here. That's something that makes that possible, doing that from New Hampshire. But it's brought a lot of positive attention. It's basically torn through the right-wing media. And I feel good about bringing this lesson to them as a libertarian. So I view it mostly positively. There are a lot of unhinged weirdos online, but I don't take them very seriously.

Yes, well, that is, there certainly are a lot of unhinged weirdos online. That's for sure. And I do kind of want to get into that in a bit. But so just to, and I, the thing is, I want, I want this episode to be able to go out everywhere. So I'm almost like just choosing this carefully. But so this was a response to a tweet from the- Well, they never, they never said. They did not make any statement about why they were there. They said they were there for the off post, but they did not say why, you know? And so, yeah.

So one could speculate if we had to guess it was probably at least in my assumption, I guess you're right. We're about to watch. We can watch the video in its entirety. I guess that I guess I we all have as much information as you have about why they were actually there. Right. Because that was the entire. We can speculate why they were there, but we would speculate. But just to be clear, because really it is.

pretty black and white, that the tweet in question was basically, at least the one that came to my mind, and I'm sure comes to your mind too, was basically the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire saying, let's just say if what's been attempted with Donald Trump was successful with Kamala Harris, that person would be a hero. Something along those lines? You know, that party is somewhat infamous for celebrating, you

you know, when politicians have passed. So that's, you know, that's not really new to come out of that group of rascals over there. Yes. Well, look, I would just say that however you feel about that sentiment, which we could get into because it's kind of an interesting topic in a way, but it is certainly legal. There's no argument that it's legal under the

U.S. Constitution under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution and is certainly by any libertarian standard of what we believe ought to be legal is protected speech. It's an opinion. It's you know what I'm saying? Like there's there's nothing that should that should warrant federal agents approaching you for it. Right. Right. Yes. And right. And what the government should be doing if

speech is legal, as it clearly was, is they should be saying that. They should be educating the public and saying-- they should be putting out a statement saying, hey, you can stop tagging us. This is something you're allowed to say, rather than going around and intimidating people, in an entirely one-sided way, of course, as well. They're not going to go knock on--

the various actors and celebrities, some may come to mind because I've seen some of the clips, but I'm very bad with remembering celebrities' names. So these people have said very similar statements, you know, about celebrating, wishing Trump had been hit or celebrating whatever. Sure. And I think that, and perhaps, and you know, there's a little bit of almost a debate amongst like libertarians versus some former libertarians who have kind of gone on a more hard right

wing direction. And one of the things is that, so I'm thinking of one guy particularly who is, well, I'll just say it is that that streamer Destiny, he got in a bunch of trouble, had a viral clip where Pierce Morgan really kind of like, you know, was very hard on him about essentially celebrating after the first Trump assassination attempt saying he didn't feel bad for the firefighter who was killed, all this stuff. This guy, Destiny,

is not a fan of mine. It was, you know, made up weird amount of videos about me and like insulting me and stuff. But at least I would, if federal agents showed up to his house over tweeting that, which of course I think to your point is they didn't and they never would. But if they did, I would be like, that's an outrage. I,

and I don't even want to have a conversation anymore about how you felt about what he was saying. It's kind of like a baseline thing. Like either you believe we are free creatures or we are slaves. And if you believe we, we ought to be free, then like there is, it is there. It is an outrage that federal officers, it is,

in the capacity as thugs would approach someone essentially. And look again, if it was any private individual did this, we would recognize them for the thugs that they are attempting to intimidate an American citizen for exercising their freedom of speech. It's, I guess we're used to these outrages in our country these days, but it really is just appalling.

I agree with you. Yeah, I mean, but I think, though, even though it's a pog in the abstract, and I agree, I would absolutely have been offended if it happened to Destiny. I think the biggest thing here is that they did it this way and in this direction because it really does highlight how one-sided this entire sort of system has become.

the sort of blue power structure, uh, whatever you want to call it. Like it, it's intra agency. I'm not trying to get like too conspiratorial here, but it like it's intra agency. It's, it goes into all these other arms of everything. Like, like the journalists won't cover this, right? This story is getting massive attention. Not a single, uh,

you know, legacy quote, you know, whatever you want to call them, is going to touch this story. Despite the story here is FBI agents knocked on someone's house, refused to identify themselves, refused to say why they were there, you know, and it's blowing up, you know, on social media. And they're not going to touch it. They'll cover the tweet that LPNH put out, right? But they will not cover that the FBI came.

Yeah, and yeah, you know what? Let's just let's go to the video just in case anybody hasn't seen it Let's watch it in its entirety and then we can we can break it down a little bit more Yeah, there we go Can you give your full name please Is that sufficient to identify is there only one O'Donnell affiliated with the FBI I

Could you please state your full name, sir? Could you please stop recording? No. It's First Amendment right. What's your name, sir? Could you stop recording, please? Absolutely not. You can show me your name and identification or I'm going to go back inside my house. Okay. I don't really want to broadcast. Oh, this is going out right after you guys walk away. So you can show me your name or ID. You can walk away. I'm not going to talk to people who claim to be federal agents unless they can show me identification.

You see our badges. I need to see. Is your full name on that badge? No. I'd like to see something with your full name or I'm not going to talk to you. This will be going online as soon as you walk away. All I want to do is talk to you about a post that was made. I want to talk to you about you guys coming here. Say you make a salary of I don't know what low 100K. You guys making six figures?

factor in 50% expenses overhead, maybe 100% expenses.

Talking about burning a couple hundred dollars an hour just here, let alone all the time you guys are spending to investigate something that you know is not against the law, right? Like you're familiar with it. So then why would you come? Because we wanted to make sure that there weren't any other threats. No, you're coming because you're part of a regime that does this kind of thing when you know laws aren't being broken. And that's an embarrassment, man. Didn't you guys read the Constitution? Do you not believe in America? Like how do you do your jobs and go home? We appreciate it.

You're walking away. Because nothing we did is against the law, and you guys are fuckheads that try to act like bullies. And I hope you go home and are embarrassed. You can't even say your name on camera because you know that what you're doing is embarrassing. You know Americans that believe in the Constitution think you're laughable. You go home and you think about what you did today. Go home and think about it, you cowards. Drive away. Drive away. You're not welcome. You should be embarrassed.

Embarrassing. You guys are embarrassing. All right, dude. I mean, fucking Bravo, dude. Just handled so flawlessly. Like, I feel like if we had scripted it, it couldn't have been any better than that. There were so, I mean,

I mean, look, dude, it's like I'm laughing through it, even though it's something that's really not funny. It's like very serious. It was very intense for me. Yeah, it was. I'm not trying to say it's not easy. You know, you get your adrenaline going and so on. Like, yeah, for sure. I can joke about it now, but yeah. Yeah, but I mean, there's men with guns approaching your home where your family lives. It's like a very serious thing, but it's just impossible to not laugh because it's,

it's a mix of number one at the beginning it's like it's like you're talking to a drunk woman like no offense if there's drunk women listening but you know if you've ever been in an argument with a drunk woman before like and you're just like what you know it's like you're like can i have your full name please i have a badge this is right here it's like do you have your full name on your badge no whatever you're like what like what are you like are we human and

The most amazing thing, which I think you noted in your post about it, was like, as you stand up to them, it's like these guys are here to bully you. But as you stand up to them, you just see the shame on their face. And there's something just beautiful about that. Yeah. I mean, I think...

On some level, they've got to know what they're doing. I did put out a post today, if there are good people, maybe there could be whistleblowing acts or things like that. I imagine if there are, well, one, we know at least one federal agent is now listening to this program.

But look, if there's a good guy-- I am not someone who believes all cops are bad people or all federal agents are bad people or all government officials or regulators are bad people. I think a lot of them are. But I think there are some decent ones within that structure. And the ones who are good can attempt to document and provide evidence about what's going on.

Because I think there has been this sort of capture of these organizations. And I don't even mean it in this intentional top-down way. It's almost like a mimetic capture. It's almost like there's this set of self-reinforcing things that exist within it, rather than-- like I said that there's this blue power structure, but it's not

a man. That's why Joe Biden could be replaced by Kamala Harris so easily. And why the fact, and like, they're of course not happy. The blue power structure isn't even happy with Kamala. It was kind of locked into her, but like, it doesn't matter because the structure, you know, sort of persists and this starts to sound like crazy talk. I know it's not, you know, uh, but, uh, it's the set of incentives that's created that keeps out, um, your sort of people with our set of values and beliefs. Yeah.

Yeah, I think that's right. And I think it can be oftentimes like a mix of both. Like there can be a conspiratorial aspect to it. There can be people at the top who are like, hey, look, we want to crack down on this type of speech. But I think that what explains the vast majority of it is exactly what you said. It's a memetic energy and an incentive driven energy. It's the incentives and the

imitation kind of create a culture. And then after a while, it's you just have a culture where almost anybody who like even if they just if they when they hear the story, they go, yeah, well, you had to go see about that tweet. I mean, yeah, could potentially be dangerous rather than viewing things through the lens of like, hey, no, if this is legal, then you don't get to send armed men to go harass somebody over it.

One of the things to me that is, as I said to you before we started recording, is kind of like the real white pill of all of this is that it does seem like the video is essentially you. The video is essentially a guy, you, standing up for his rights, not buckling and humiliating a couple of feds.

And this was so appealing to so many people that tens of millions of people have watched this video and shared it and loved it. And that to me at least goes like, well, there's something pretty positive there. What are your thoughts?

Well, I agree completely. But I think that the percent of people who see it as positively is bordering on a permanent minority in America at large. And so, of course, my strategy-- and I'll repeat it again for anyone here who hasn't heard it, but it's what I talk about all the time--

People with my set of beliefs or our set of beliefs, not to collectivize us, but should be finding a citadel, be building our own power structures and our own institutions. There is not a clear way that you can recapture Harvard or recapture the New York Times.

And these are all part of this reinforcing set of beliefs, which is why the New York Times is never going to cover the stories that are harmful. And then you can't cite and then you can't. It's not it can't be true on Wikipedia because the New York Times won't report it or the university won't study it. And so there have become things that are.

unknowable within, and they can't engage with this aspect of reality, right? Even inside our own movement, in our own movement, these would be some of the things that cause ire and resistance to getting into. But anyway, my answer is, if you're of the set of beliefs, you've gotta find a network, you've gotta find a community, whether it's in New Hampshire or not, that is the bare bones of any kind of resistance.

Yeah, well, I certainly think that you're, I think you're 100% right that,

I don't know if I'd even say we're moving into permanent minority status. I think we've been permanent minority status forever. And perhaps even our minority is growing, but it's still never going to be a majority. Look, there's also neoconservatives were a very powerful minority. The transgender movement was a very powerful minority. So it's not that minorities can shape things, but I do agree with you that there's no hope

of capturing these institutions. Because again, we are asking them to all go against their incentives. And the people on the other side are saying, no, go with your incentives. And in that fight, you're just always going to lose. You're not going to like start pushing the waves the opposite way and making them crash, you know, out into the ocean rather than toward the shore.

Yeah, absolutely. And then the other thing that's actually important here in terms of people who have these radical beliefs, and this is another thing we see within the libertarian movement where people don't understand this and they expect, they think they're just going to go around and persuade people individually one by one and people will just agree. But in reality, if you look at how unpopular beliefs eventually became popular, and you can look at the abolition of slavery, gay rights, interracial marriage, whatever,

It's always met with a lot of vitriol in that early stage. And what you're really trying to do is, that's fine, as long as your core of support is growing. Because what eventually convinces the normies, they're just being enough other people. A good friend of mine, Travis Corcoran in New Hampshire, who's one of my favorite people to follow, has said,

this post the other day about how you're basically just a lot of people can't even entertain an idea until at least 10% of people believe it. Like they're just, they can't even engage with the mirror because they only perceive things sort of through a sort of

social perception of reality. And it's fascinating to see people with this psychology, but it's actually a lot of people. And so that's ultimately how they're going to be persuaded. And there's no way persuading them other than increasing the density of people who aren't that way, who have a sort of strong core about themselves. The density of those people is what ultimately brings everyone else along.

All right, guys, let's take a moment and thank our sponsor for today's show, which is My Patriot Supply. Listen, you don't need me to tell you that life is precious, and you don't need me to tell you that the last few years have been a bit unstable. That's why I keep four-week emergency food kits from My Patriot Supply in my home. It's got everything my family could need during a crisis. With over 2,000 calories per day, there's enough to go around during times of social unrest, government crackdowns, or God forbid, some type of attack.

The food lasts for up to 25 years and it's ready whenever you need it. Don't take your safety and your family's safety for granted. Right now, you can get $50 off the same four-week emergency food kits that I keep in my home by going to my website, preparewithsmith.com. That's where you'll save $50 on your four-week emergency food kits from MyPatriotSupply.com.

And my Patriot Supply will send it over as fast as humanly possible. Orders typically show up in about a day. Get your four-week emergency food kit now at preparewithsmith.com. One more time, that's preparewithsmith.com. All right, let's get back into the show.

Yeah, you know, I think about this with myself a lot because I remember, like, I first, you know, like, I found Ron Paul in 2007, and then I started reading a lot of, like, Murray Rothbard in the next few years. And I was, like, convinced by the anarchist argument for at least a couple years before I would call myself an anarchist. And I remember it was literally just –

It sounded too crazy to me. And I was like, but like, I don't even mean it sounded too crazy to me. That's not the right way to put it. I meant I felt like it would sound too crazy to other people.

And so I was like, you know, I was like, even though I've read the anarchist versus the minarchist arguments and I find these anarchist arguments way more compelling. I was like, I don't want to be seen as that guy, because if I tell you I'm that you're going to just be like, no, you're fucking nuts. This is insane. And it's I try to think about that a lot. It's amazing how powerful of a tool that is. I think it's actually a much more powerful regulator than Trump.

The law, because I was I broke laws many times. You know what I mean? Like, I mean, maybe not a more powerful regulator than if I actually thought I was going to do like serious prison time. But it's pretty up there. Like the the feeling of that we get as so social psychological creatures of being like,

I am traveling too far out of the pack right now is a very deep instinctual feeling where you're like, there is danger here. This is where I get eaten by an animal. I better move back to where there's more people. And so I do think that's a huge part in ever building like a mass movement is having enough of a pack there that people don't feel too afraid. Like they're like, okay, I'm with some people here. So I think there's a very good point.

Yeah, 100%. And for libertarians who have never experienced it, I didn't experience that much. I was like a-- I'm kind of what you described for a long time. I mean, I was a libertarian in my head for a long time. I didn't really live it as part of my life. I would make sort of libertarian arguments in progressive circles without-- these were smart progressive-- like tech people, not like hardcore progress-- you know?

And I would like make the arguments and you would have, you could tell they're like probably maybe a couple of other little bit, but you're not wearing it on your sleeve when you're that much of a minority. And when I came to New Hampshire and it became much more of my peer group, which was more than 10 years ago or around 10 years ago at this point, then I became way more comfortable, you know, wearing it on my sleeve and being out there. And then eventually my strategy became that,

We actually need to be as out there as possible. At least some of us, not every freestater has to be. Part of why we do what we do is because we want to be--

There's also a sort of like mere exposure effect. Like this is going to be uncomfortable with people. And you've got to get through that phase of people hearing about ideas as radical as abolition. And so we're being that unapologetic voice. Other people can go around and be the like polite gays in suits, you know, shaking hands and saying, no, we really do just want to get married and adopt two children, you know, or whatever. But, but, and then there's like the gays who are like in the parade, you know, being like, you know, swinging their dicks around. Uh,

And so we're like, you know, it takes, I think both types are necessary actually, as you're trying to bring the public to your side.

Yeah, I think that's probably right. And I think probably most successful movements have had all of those different sides to them. Certainly the abolitionist movement, certainly the civil rights movement, both had kind of like a moderate face and then a more radical face to it. One of the things I've been thinking of, and I'm trying to almost like formulate this in my mind. So let me try to put this the right way, but

So, look, for people who know, it's not as if I've been critical at times of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's messaging. Me and you have had some passionate arguments about some of this stuff before and some good conversations about it. One of the things that really I was kind of blown away by was the.

People who would identify as libertarians, who as this video was going super viral, were condemning the tweet.

or talking about the, and for me, as somebody who has been a fairly sharp critic of some of the tweets out of New Hampshire, it was, I was kind of taken aback where you're like, okay guys, but that clearly isn't the story here anymore. Like, I don't know what the analogy to it would be, but it's like, if, if like,

some woman was like running late to meet some, a guy. And then because she was late, the guy punched her in the face. And I was like, Oh my God, call the cops. That's a crime. And then someone was like, Hey, let's talk about how she was running late. You're like, no, we're not having a conversation about that anymore. That is obviously not the story here. I don't care how you felt about the tweet. There are federal goons showing up to harass an American citizen over a

legally protected free speech. Are you a libertarian or aren't you? And it kind of, look, this is something that I've been thinking about a lot. I'm sure you have too. It really started with COVID for me where there were these libertarians who really failed the COVID test, who were not like vocally opposed to lockdowns and mandates and these things. And then there were a whole bunch of right-wingers who were vocally opposed to them. And I was like, explain to me why I'm not just on their team

rather than your team like when when a moment like this happens it almost goes like yeah i don't care what you tell me you believe in when it actually goes down you are a who's not willing to even like verbally stand up for liberty and i don't know i'm i'm still formulating this thought kind of but i wonder if you have any thoughts on on that or if you've seen some of that stuff

I think it's actually mostly because left-right is a real distinction and that phenomenon, whatever, it's difficult to get at what the root of it is and we can even get into that more, but that phenomenon explains a lot of it. And you see all the libertarians who had a problem with it would basically be called left libertarians. I think they should be. They're more egalitarian in nature. They're all the ones that also want open borders.

Because these are correlated concepts in some way. And I think it potentially has to do with their orientation of moral concern. I'm very focused on me and mine, not just my family, my friends, my peers, my community. But I'm like, ignore, why are we thinking at all about these? Unless they're actually a threat to us in some way, why are we thinking about any foreign country? I don't know.

I don't want to have to think about like Florida or California. Like I don't, you know, I, I believe in, I think like America is the greatest country in the world, but you know, I don't want to have to, I think I want, I want even more separation, you know, even inside these things. And so, but other people just have much, you know, you know, much different,

And so in COVID, their sympathies were much more, their orientation is all towards the people might get hurt. We need to do this to make sure that people might not get hurt. And they feel that the worth of some random person in Haiti is equal to the worth of their neighbor. So who are you? And so their value system is actually different.

than the value system that right-wing people have. Yeah, I mean, you're undeniably right that it is this left-right divide. And it's something I've been thinking a lot more about over the last few months, particularly since the LP convention in DC. I guess I kind of felt like, you know, I felt like

obviously I felt I had a certain obligation. And, and I also like, I got into like the kind of vision that he's had about Michael Rechtenwald being the nominee. I was trying to see that through. Obviously people know he ultimately lost and chase got the nomination. And it was almost like I had this, I had come into this new period. There was like,

So the time where I was trying to like be a part of this, like this movement to take over the Libertarian Party, there was a time when I was flirting with running and then planning on running, ultimately deciding not to then trying to get this other guy across who ultimately didn't. And then it was almost like, OK, I'm taking a step back now.

And let me think about this. And one of the revelations that I had, which is really stupid if you think about it, I don't know why I just started thinking about this after the convention in D.C., but I started to think to myself, it's like I've been so focused for so many years on this idea of like recreating the Ron Paul revolution.

And it always was just almost like a given in my mind that's like, well, that's what you'd want to do. I mean, that was when people had the most interest in libertarianism. So let's try to do that again. And it just kind of like it all kind of clicked to me where I was like, you know, 2024 is not 2008.

And they are about as different as those many years apart from each other could be in any society. I mean, maybe short of like a full-fledged revolution, but you could almost even debate whether we've had a full-fledged revolution in this country. And I just started realizing that like maybe that old coalition is impossible to bring together today.

And like, you know, this is probably something that you've thought about, like in the Libertarian Party over the last few years, like you do look at some of these people and you're like, I don't really the idea that there's going to be a coalition between the left libertarians and the right libertarians or between Mises and Cato is just.

obviously impossible. And just the immigration divide alone, I mean, that's like the biggest issue in America today. And you're not going to have open borders and closed borders people in a coalition together. And there was something just...

seeing some of the libertarians who were taking this as an opportunity to criticize your aggressive tweeting style really just reinforced that in my mind where i was like look there is an important divide between are you a libertarian or are you a statist i'm always going to be on the libertarian side of that divide but i do just think the left-right divide is much more important these days i don't know what your thoughts on any of that are i i

I think-- so what I wish is that the other side could acknowledge it, because then if you're going to have any hope for-- if we could be like, OK, we share this set of values, but we differ in this important attribute, and this is an explanatory reason for why we see these issues differently, then maybe there'd be some hope. But they insist that-- but I just don't see this at all. The left constantly insists that they're the center.

And so this is why they have to disavow the right and say like, they're not real libertarians, et cetera, et cetera. And so the thing is when you do that, then you make it an existential battle. Because if you're saying that we can't exist

at all as even the word that we think we are, then you turn it into this existential battle. And now what you see in this sort of existential battle, everything becomes about the battle. And this is also why you see all this stuff of the way that people inside the movement behave, while like all these, you know, conservatives are amplifying this post and loving it, the libertarians who are very concerned with the like internal battle for status inside of the party, you know, are interacting with it through, you know, through this lens. And a

A whole bunch of behavior of people inside the Libertarian Party can simply be seen as like jockeying for the next LNC election, because what else is there to really accomplish other than to grab the car and then get blamed for not being able to do what you promised because what you promised is typically impossible.

I do have two potential helpful conclusions from all this. Well, one is I would beg the left-- this isn't a conclusion, but I would beg the left libertarians, if you know any, if you know any who will listen, clip this and send it to them and say, guys, can we please just acknowledge this about each other? I'm willing to say that I'm right-wing. I don't have a problem with it. But you guys can't say you're left-wing.

Oh, but what policies are left? It's not about policy. It's not about policy. It's about your reaction. So it influences policy a little bit on the margins, like borders, right? But it's mostly about, this is a different, are moral orientations. Okay, but in terms of useful things, for the right-wing libertarians, I don't think we should give up on the word

libertarian. I know some people like that idea, but I don't. Libertarian is a political and legal theory on how to resolve disputes between humans. It's an amazing theory. It's a beautiful theory. The more that we can scale it up, the more it would actually solve

problems. That is the word to describe what I believe more so than any other word. I wish Mises caucus would embrace that they are right-wing libertarians and just own this. We do both sides need to own it. We're the left-wing libertarians, we're the right-wing libertarians. That's what you are. Then also, you don't need to do anything else than say, just acknowledge what you care about.

You believe you're libertarians and you want to control the name Libertarian Party because that is how a lot of people conceive of the word. That's literally why I care about the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. That's why I got involved. That's I get to help. It's a it's a you know, this is and this is why I use it in a certain way. And I've built a team of people that use it in a certain way. But.

This is just get down to the brass tacks. You don't need to promise anything. We're just going to make sure that the Libertarian Party isn't like that's the ultimate reason people are in Rieseskakas. We just don't want the Libertarian Party to be controlled by those losers. Right. Yeah. Just get down to the bottom of it. Why are we pretending we're here for any other reason? You know, and that's how I agree. Yeah. And once you put here's what you can actually do once you put it together, you can do what Angela did, which was very smart, which is look.

We're a block that you can pander to. We're a coherent group of human beings with a set of beliefs that if you offer us something, we will support you because that's the best you can do. That's the best you can do when your beliefs are ultimately – I mean, how many people can even understand the legal and political theory of property rights that is libertarianism? Okay, people – so if this is your coalition, become a coalition. You can use the Libertarian Party as your coalition mechanism if you want.

especially since they're called the Libertarian Party and you don't want to lose it, but just use it for that purpose. And you're ultimately putting together a block to be like, all right, who's going to pitch us on more stuff this year? And if you can occasionally win some local elections or whatever, build up profiles, but focus on a block that...

That's the best thing I've seen come out of the Libertarian Party in a long time. So let me ask you – That's a lot. No, no. It's very interesting. Let me ask you. So like in terms of – like what do you think actually is the defining feature between like say left and right libertarians? Because I agree with your point. It's not like –

sometimes it won't, it has nothing to do with, um, the, even your policy. Um, so one example, by the way, that I've, uh, that I've used a few times before, I don't even mean to pick on this guy. It's just, it was such a perfect example that I just can't not talk about it. But so I was at the, the Libertarian Party National Convention, um, along with you and some other great people there. And, um,

So there's this one guy who I think is kind of like a staple of the Libertarian Party world, but he wears these crazy outfits. Like he's in a thong. It's like a grown man in a thong and like a cat uniform type thing. And he comes up to me at one point at the convention and he goes, hey, Dave, I'd like to have a discussion with you about immigration. I think you're wrong on your stance.

And I was like, I was like, oh, you know, I just I actually just recorded a podcast with Bob Murphy where I went through like my whole views on immigration. If you want to check it out, like you can check it out. He goes and he goes, no, no, no. I'm interested in a dialogue here. And I was like, yeah, I'm sorry. I can't right now. I got to like run. And he goes and he just launched into it and started going like, you know, open borders is just the free movement of people. And I was like, yeah, I'm.

I'm familiar with the argument. I disagree. And there was just this moment where I was like, I didn't say this out loud or nothing, but I'm just like, dude, you are a grown man in a thong.

If you think I'm into a serious conversation with you right now, like, and, and the thing that stuck sticks in my mind is like, listen, I, and I don't know the guy, but I know this is true. Obviously we disagree on immigration. I guarantee you, if you were like, Hey, where do you stand on war money, taxes, guns, regulation? I mean, I bet you could go down the list of really, really important issues that we would totally agree on. But we,

we don't agree on the idea that a grown man and a thong is going to come up and have a serious conversation with someone. And that is, that is so much more important than that other list of things. Like if you don't get that, then there's, there's nowhere we can go from here. And that's almost like the best way I could think to like describe the distinction. Yeah. I mean, you have this sort of cloud and I know it's fun to figure this out because I've been trying to figure this out. Like what's the root of all this. And I haven't, I don't have like

confirm your theory, but you get these sort of like, you're grasping the elephant or whatever when you're blind and trying to figure it out. It's similar to, 'cause it is that adjacent left thing. You'll see this like aspect of like non-judgment. Like we shouldn't judge, as long as it's voluntary and like that it shouldn't be judged. And it's like, what?

I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. This is a legal theory about property rights. Why did you say I don't have to judge anyone? You know, like, I can judge people. I just don't want to produce goods in a coercive manner. This is a theory about economics. You know, like, I don't agree with it. But this is the left libertarian, you

you know, kind of effective. You'll see, again, the orientation of moral concern. They want to set the whole world free, a world set free in our lifetime. They're interested in liberation, liberate everybody. So, yeah, these are all sort of things you see that are in this cloud. Yes, it's one of the, by the way, I gave a, in my speech at the Libertarian Party Convention, that

I basically went through like all the things I think libertarians are doing great and all the things I think they're doing wrong. And specifically in the section of what they're doing wrong, I used that phrase and said, we got to stop using stupid phrases. And that was one of them was good ideas don't require force. I hate that.

And the other one was that, was a world set free in our lifetime. I was like, we sound like, I compared it to in George W. Bush's second inaugural address. He said his goal for his second term was to rid the world of tyranny. And I was like,

sounded, you know, sounded a bit lofty to me, you know, like, and, and I, I would like a world set free in our lifetime, but like, if we could set one city free in our lifetime, that would be an enormous accomplishment. Somewhat something like we're like, we would be like, wow, we really did it. You know what I mean? And so the idea of, of setting a city free or setting a state free, setting the United States of America free, but your goal right now is that

Sub-Saharan Africa must embrace individual liberty before I'm dead. I'm already 41. You know what I mean? Like, I don't have that much time to go. We got to get moving on this, Jeremy. Yeah, well, that's why we reduced the scope to a population of 1.4 million in New Hampshire. I do think there are reasons that it has to be a state. You know, you can look outwards maybe once you've accomplished that, but we don't need to worry about anything else.

And you know what I've been reading about, Dave? It's like early history of Israel, actually. The population of the land now known as Israel was like 5%, 6% Jewish in 1890. And what is it today? And we are colonizing. The lenses are going to clip this, but I don't care. We're colonizing settlers. We're here. You've got to match this ideology. You need to get out. That's my opinion.

And I'm sorry, but I just don't have another way to create it. I want to be clear. I'm not trying to be violent. I would like to buy all their property through market transactions. But we have identified this place. We're going to keep coming. You can work with us and join us. We think we can create something that's great for everybody. And my version is not heroin in the streets and this kind of thing. I do believe in order in a community, 100%.

I believe we can produce that order in different ways and better ways, et cetera. But I'm not of that, you know, there's a form of libertarianism. But this is what we're doing. And, you know, put out the beacon. But yeah, and I've been learning about it. What are these movements? And like, they were radical. Some of the stuff they did was like really radical, you know? And I'm not trying to say I'm trying to do some of the things that they did necessarily. But it's, you know, it's,

Jeremy, for the record, is not planning on winning a war and occupying Massachusetts or anything like that. All right, guys, let's take a moment. I want to tell you about the sheath underwear 10 year anniversary sale for 10 years. Sheath has been making the best boxer briefs on the market.

They have been on top of their game for a decade now. And of course, they've been a longtime sponsor of our show for many years. And I've been raving about the product the entire time. They are the most comfortable pair of boxer briefs you will ever own. The only underwear that I ever put on my body. And now, because they are celebrating their 10-year anniversary, you can get the best deal we've ever offered on the best boxer briefs on the planet. All you got to do is go to sheath.com and use the promo code DECADE.

for 30% off your entire order. sheath.com, promo code DECADE for 30% off your entire order. All right, let's get back into the show. But, well, look, I get your point. And look, I've always said, I think there's a very strong argument for the Free State Project and that goal. And I certainly get the argument there. On the left-right distinction, the other thing that I just kind of can't,

but notice is that, and I'm not even sure, I guess this, I'm not sure exactly how this plays with like pure left wing ism versus right wing ism, but there does seem to be one of the big characteristics that differentiates the two to me seems to be a kind of like this internalized agreement with the regime that is like,

quite frankly, hostile to Western civilization, to bourgeois norms, to straight white men, to traditional family lifestyles, like this instinct to always side against whoever is seen as like, you know, a

higher up in the hierarchy of oppression or something like that. The idea that like immediately, I remember if you remember the Garrett Foster story out in, in Austin where the guy did, I believe end up getting convicted. And I still, to this day think that's just wrong. Like I do not think, Oh, that's right. That's right. That's right. I'm sorry. I forgot. He got pardoned that, but, and, and good for Abbott. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. But I mean, that is, you know, it's just like, I'm sorry. I'm not immediately like my instinct. And maybe this is what, as we're kind of like thinking out loud about this, maybe this is what makes me a right libertarian. But my instinct when I hear for anybody who doesn't know the story, this was during the black lives matter protests. This guy, Garrett Foster, who tragically, you know, got killed that night. He's there. He's in the street in the protest, uh,

There was like an Uber driver who was an ex-military guy who's coming up. He tries to kind of like go, you know, through the protest. I forget exactly what happened, whether he went through the light or whatever, but the group mobs him. They run up to his car. Garrett Foster runs over with a rifle, has it in down ready position,

The guy in the car has a pistol, shoots and kills him. Now, my instinct in that situation is, first of all, I think it's tragic. It's tragic when somebody gets killed. It's tragic that the guy had to go through this. But I just kind of err on the side of like, I'm kind of on the side of the guy who's being a normal person.

I'm kind of on the side of the guy who was driving a car on the street where cars belong and who was probably just trying to work and just trying to go home. And the guy who ran up to him with a rifle in down ready position while there's a mob of people around that guy. And he's now got to take, he's got to decide, do I put my life in your hands or do I put my, keep my defense in my hands? I just tend to side with that guy. And,

immediately a lot of libertarians knee jerk recited sided with Garrett Foster. And that to me always seemed like kind of one of the distinctions. Like it's like why you're, it's almost like a feeling that like the black lives matter protester gets the benefit of the doubt rather than just the guy.

who's just driving home. - Well, they do. That's part of being on the left is like they almost sort of reflexively side with the lesser, you know, and not that collectively blacks are lesser, but like that idea of like they're siding, like it's a protest, they're oriented towards equality, equity, this kind of thing. And I think that's,

I remember that issue. I mean, we don't need to read litigate. I remember that one being like really complex and I didn't like go through it enough to have a strong opinion on it. But certainly, I mean, I think almost all of the BLM protesters were crappy people. And I'm of the kind of opinion, like I want, I have this belief

meme that I've been showing that's like the bottom right and the top right kissing all the way out even farther to the right. Because it's like, I want very few rules. I don't want that many. I would get rid of a ton of them. But if a rule is to exist, then it ought to be enforced. This is the way I govern my household. I have

way fewer rules than most families and parents have, probably in America generally for my kids. You know what my kids do? They follow the rules that I set for them because I enforce them with like basically 100% authority, you know, because it's a rule. Like this is what, you know, they, I'm not saying rules, rules can be changed. Rules can evolve. I'm not trying to sound like this close-minded person, but like, you know, we enforce standards, you know, but I think, um,

The psychology of these people really is different. I had an interesting post in my history, it's one of my more popular viral ones before recently, on this concept of white hierarchical individualistic men. They actually cluster meaningfully different in a variety of sociological profiles. And they're like around one sixth of the population of America. And you can cluster their beliefs in a whole bunch of things, like global warming and a whole bunch of other factors. And they're like out

here on one side, and my hands are in them. You can imagine, they're very far apart from each other, on global warming, on gun rights, on private gun ownership, regulation of private businesses. It's like borderline

libertarian but also you'll see on it doesn't have these sort of other elements of the type of libertarian that you're talking about my view is that this is this is the type of man who built modern society uh and we're dominated everywhere but other people might view it differently and might think we're racist bigots sexists whatever you know uh well yeah i mean it is like

They don't have to be white, by the way. I'm not trying to make it about race. There are people with these characteristics that aren't white. No, I mean, look, this is as I know you saw some of it, but like over the last few years, this was one of the fights that I would always pick with other libertarians, which I just I

couldn't even believe I was getting the level of pushback I was from some of them. But it was just like, I would be like, you know, like my, as you alluded to not being one of the libertarians who believes the streets ought to be the home for junkies or something like that. Or my, I actually couldn't because by the way, the story, a lot of the, uh,

the left libertarians who aren't fans of me and you, they would retell this story in a bunch of ways that wasn't actually what happened. They would say I called the cops on a homeless guy in a playground, which is not true. I did not call the cops on a homeless guy. But I was back in the Upper West Side where I used to live with my daughter. And this was like three years ago. So she was three or almost three.

And we went to this playground and there's just like this homeless junkie passed out at the side of a public playground. And I was like, yo, he should be removed. Like, I thought that would be the one that nobody could possibly argue with because it's like, like, this is clearly a place. A lot of people have sympathy for the bum. They have sympathy for that. That's the crazy thing to me. It's like they align with the, like in that situation, they are taking the respect of the bum. They're not taking, right. They're not.

And that to me is almost like the closest to the core of what we're really talking about in this divide that I could get to. It's like, by the way, I'm also not, I'm not like the furthest right wing and I don't have zero sympathy for the bum. I do like, Hey, I'm, I'm the type of guy who like, if we were like, someone was like, you know, there's no homeless people in my town, but like if there was someone and one of my neighbors was like, Hey, we're raising money. We're going to put this guy up here. We've got him in a program where he can get back.

into this or blah, blah, blah. I contribute to that. I think it's better for the whole community. And I'm not against helping someone who's really down. But in this situation, it's not a close call for me that the kids and the families and the family... And by the way, this was the Upper West Side of New York City. There were...

Asian families and black families. There's also, it wasn't like white people there, but I'm on team normal. I'm on team family. I'm on team dad, bringing his daughter to the slide, not on team homeless junkie Trump's there. You know what I mean? They are concerns. It's the best I can say it. Well, I'm with you 100%. And,

I don't know if you want to do autistic libertarian legal theory just briefly. Let's do it. To me, you've got all this stuff that was built up that would not be the proper way that it should exist if we had started from the atoms of everyone's private property. But what we will do with those atoms is we'll assemble them into larger ones. I'm in a municipality. Houses are close to me.

It's not going to be total anarchy. Property rights are bundles of rights. We have pipes, we have roads. God don't strike me down for saying this, but there will be zones. I don't know. We don't have to abandon the word zone. There's going to be things that will exist.

And your people are going to pay for the police, right? The police will work differently, but not everyone is going to protect themselves. People are going to pay for a protection service, right? So instead of throwing everything away and saying,

It's all terrible because it's all produced coercively and every person who participates in the system-- I think the right way to view it is how far away is that behavior from the counterfactual of what would be produced privately, how things ought to be getting produced if we actually had a-- and so we can judge things from the distance of that.

If that park was properly paid for by the people living around it, how we should judge the behavior of what's allowed in that park is by mostly what those people would want, if that's the closest way that it would have been produced. They don't want this-- it may have even been Rothbard, who I almost universally love, who had this, but this idea of we should view government property as un-homesteaded land, I actually don't agree that that's the right counterfactual.

I think it's something like this land is, the right counterfactual should be something like everyone should be a stockholder or like

a shareholder in their local court, like the municipality is the corporation and one home is one share, or you could imagine other systems, but like things directionally that way is, and you can even find municipalities that were formed actually relatively aligned with, with sort of libertarian theory. And then, yeah. So I completely agree with you. And, and look, Rothbard was, is the, the genius of all geniuses. I think he's one of the greatest minds of the 20th century. And, and, you know, but, but,

There were a few areas where he was wrong, and I do think he's wrong about that. To me, it just doesn't... If I...

If I enslave you for six months out of the year or four months out of the year, depending on what level you're at of income, if I enslave you for four or five, six months out of the year, and I take those resources to build and maintain a piece of property, it does not follow to me that justice would be me saying that property is now unowned.

Like justice would be that you should get it. Like you were the one. And OK, it's a lot more complicated when it's not just one person. It's millions of people. But the theory still, like to me, holds that you wouldn't just declare it unowned. That just seems ridiculous to me. It doesn't share any of the characteristics of it's not the wild frontier where anyone can go homestead it and it doesn't affect anybody else. It's just it seems all wrong to me.

Yeah, well, maybe I'm misremembering that even. So if you bring it all the way up to the borders level, it's like, well, what's the proper counterfactual? And it probably is true that we wouldn't be producing border security any way like the way that we're doing it today.

Now, if you took it, if you reconstructed America from these smaller atoms and built things up, I think towns would still probably look pretty a lot like towns do today. There would be differences, but they actually wouldn't change a ton. Whereas I think when you get at the state level and the country level, you would see larger and larger changes.

Then you have a problem where, well, there isn't really a way. I don't want to really pay as a libertarian in New Hampshire to police the border in Texas, but at the same time, I don't want certain types of people who might come across the border in Texas to ultimately come to New Hampshire.

And what are the mechanisms for me stopping them from coming here where I am, which is the way I basically view everything. It's an important thing to think about if geographical concentration is your strategy, then yeah, that would be...

undeniably you'd kind of have to think about that. I got to ask, by the way, because I'm just because we're having this conversation and I've I've really vowed to not talk about him much on the show and I haven't. But I had to ask you kind of about the Chase Oliver campaign and what your your thoughts on this were. One of the things that I thought was kind of interesting is that you you and Chase both ran for the Senate at the same time and you could not have run

more polar opposite libertarian campaigns you know like if we're talking about this left right divide there there's not a better poster boy for each you know what i mean than you two um and you both ended up getting like two percent you know what i mean it's like it's kind of almost this interesting thing where you're like ah no like no matter what the libertarian kind of gets now it might be a little bit different in new hampshire but you know i i'm kind of

I'm watching this. I did see like a few of the Chase supporters in my I haven't really been commenting that much on Libertarian Party things since the convention. I shared your video. And so I kind of got some of these feedback from the Chase people who are very upset about the post. I guess Chase himself came out and condemned the tweet. I don't know. I'm I'm kind of.

I got to say, I'm amazed at the lack of noise that the chase campaign is making. Even in my world, it just doesn't register as anything. I don't know. Like I said, when I look at the Joe Jorgensen campaign, I look at that and I go, the one tangible thing that I think that came out of it is that Spike Cohen kind of got launched.

as like a figure in the Liberty movement. I didn't know who Spike was before the campaign. A lot of libertarians didn't. Almost all libertarians know who Spike Cohen is now. And he is an effective messenger. I mean, I love him and I think he's a great guy. Whether you love him or not, he certainly is one of our most effective messengers. So you're like, okay, that's something. It's not nothing. We got like, we launched his profile. He went from being a guy with like a few thousand followers to a guy with like a couple hundred thousand followers from that campaign.

i i don't see anything like that coming out of this campaign but both of them seem to be generating no enthusiasm and i guess and the other thing that i find kind of interesting i just curious if you have any thoughts on this is that it's kind of interesting to me that while all of the left libertarians kind of lectured us over the years about um how unpopular our rhetoric would be

None of them seem very excited about Chase, and he has totally moderated his rhetoric. Like, he's not running on any of the kind of left-wing things that would have been the things that we were arguing with left libertarians about. I don't know. What are your thoughts on it? I agree with basically everything you said. I mean, the – well, the campaigns we ran were very different. I mean, I wasn't really running a real campaign. I'm just doing the New Hampshire maximalist strategy thing, and it's just another – that's –

What the campaign was. Sorry if you didn't figure that out yet, everybody. But yeah, look, I got on the stage at the National Convention and called Chase a gay race communist. But that's just a way of saying he's a leftist. That's provocative. They can't see that they're leftists. They want to fight you for the party. So they have to be kind of fought. They don't get any attention because they're trying to exist within a system that's not going to give them any. And so the only way you can get it is to demand it.

which I feel like we in New Hampshire continue to even show them and show people, and these people just get mad at us. They can't even engage when the market is working. Obviously, my account just blew up, but even before that, if you look at the growth of the LPNH account versus the growth of both of their accounts, throughout the campaign season, LPNH is growing faster, even as they're running for president. Now, that said,

And in terms of pure vote percentage, and this is also the fundamental thing that in terms of the Libertarian Party and the movement getting wrong, like you are not optimizing for pure vote percentage the next election. Like if you get a bunch of people who are just like,

Oh, I, yeah, like a third party, like, yeah, those other parties suck. I'll vote for the alternative guy. Like, that's not a movement. That guy can't bring you anyone else. That guy is a terminal voter that you could have picked up at any time. He is an end note. He does not do anything for you, aside from make the number go up a little bit in that election. What you're trying to do, and again, I do this with all of our stuff,

We're trying to attract a real set of values, a real set of things that you can have and then spread outwards. And so if you were going to try to keep the Libertarian Party alive, get it down to like 300 people who get it.

Kick everyone else out and come up with a much better mechanism for who you're letting into this thing. You can actually keep some strong definition to it. Right now, half the people in the Libertarian Party have no idea of what libertarianism as a philosophy is. Chase is bringing in more people who also will have absolutely no clue. It's just guns and legal weed or whatever.

And also, the fact that they're doing this, they know it, which is also why neither of them would be interested in talking to me, because I would say it to their faces, which would be unabideable. Because the leftist strategy-- the right is on the side of reality. The left is on the side of fiction. The side of fiction can't confront the side of reality. And so the only strategy is to avoid confrontation. When we had a beef, you confronted me.

And I may not have handled that perfectly for my end. I'll say that on the show. I've said that to you probably. I may not have either. Yeah. So, and...

but we had a confrontation. We confronted each other, right? Cause that's a, that is, uh, I think a more right wing, uh, way of handling this. Right. So, and this is why, like, I will, I will wait. I went on to fake or terriots with like six people there. It's one of the funniest, uh, podcast episodes I've ever done actually. And now they just call me a racist, but wouldn't even talk to me because like, they can't, they can't even talk to you. You have facts on your side. I,

I have the facts on my side most of the time when I'm saying crazy stuff. And, you know, so there's no engagement. They'll shame you, but they won't have any back and forth with you. All they can do is taboo you because there's no truth on their, on their, on the issues of where, well, most of the areas of disagreement, there's very little truth on their side. As,

As we age, everyone accumulates senescent cells in their body. Senescent cells cause symptoms of aging such as aches and discomfort, slow workout recoveries, sluggish mental and physical energy associated with that middle-aged feeling, also known as zombie cells. They are old and worn out and not serving a useful function for our health anymore, but they're taking up space and nutrients from our healthy cells.

Much like pruning the yellowing and dead leaves off a plant, Qualia Senolytic removes those worn out senescent cells and allows the rest of them to thrive in the body. Take it just two days a month. The formula is non-GMO, vegan, gluten-free, and the ingredients are meant to complement one another, factoring in the combined effects of

all ingredients together. They have a 100-day money-back guarantee. This clinically tested two-day rejuvenation regimen may hold the key to unlocking cellular health and revitalizing aging tissues throughout the body. New research on aging and longevity, including a clinical study on qualiac senolytic,

shows that senolytic supplementation can play a huge role in enhancing how we age. So start resisting age at the cellular level and try Qualia Senolytic. Go to qualialife.com slash problem for up to 50% off and use the promo code problem at checkout for an additional 15% off. For your convenience, Qualia Senolytic,

is also available at select GNC locations near you. So one more time, that's Q-U-A-L-I-A, life.com slash problem for an extra 15% off your purchase. And thanks to Qualia for sponsoring today's show. All right, let's get back into it.

Yeah, I mean, look here, you're preaching to the choir on that one. I mean, I debated so many of those guys, you know, during the kind of run of leading the takeover of the Mises caucus and stuff. And it's like, yeah, I mean, that that really does sound right. I do just I guess one of the things that's fascinating to me, and it's fascinating about your video with the feds, and it also holds true with this is what you just said, that it's like they know it.

And this is what's so bizarre to me, where you're like, look, like, why isn't Chase talking about the trans, the kids stuff now? Why isn't he talking about, you know what I mean? Like, there's so many of these things that it's like, he's trying to walk away from that because you know, you know that you can't actually win an argument on this. You know, this isn't actually popular. He's not like, again, like to your point about New Hampshire's Twitter growing faster than theirs during a president, that is really an incredible thing.

you know, thing to note that it's like, and, and look, maybe from their perspective, they're like, oh, we don't want to grow it the way New Hampshire is growing it. Like, okay. So then what's your way?

What's the what's the other way to do it? Because it seems like, by the way, I don't and I don't begrudge Chase this at all. I invited him both personally and publicly to come on the show. And I was as anybody who knows me, I did it in good faith. I wouldn't be like trying to criticize the guy felt almost a little obligated, like, hey, let me give you this platform if you want. Obviously, I'm going to push back on some of the stuff I disagree with you on.

But they don't want to come on the show. And I don't begrudge them that. If I were his campaign advisor, I'd probably advise him not to come on this show. It's not going to go well for you. You can't really defend your ideas. I would fight anyone, though. That's why it's like, I'm like, what's wrong with you? You're supposed to be the leader. You should be able to talk to anyone. You should be able to handle any situation. That's what it means.

You're just showing that you're scared. And I just don't understand how you can expect people to follow you when you implicitly show people that you're a scared person.

Well, I guess my thing is almost like, look, I could accept if it was like, hey, look, New Hampshire is pursuing their strategy on how to grow their audience. Dave is pursuing his strategy on how to grow his audience. We are pursuing a separate strategy on how to grow that audience. But it's almost like just nothing. Like if they were like, hey, look, our time is valuable and we don't think that coming on this show is the best use of our time. Fine. But it's like.

What shows are you going on? It seems to be doing nothing. Like, right. I mean, they said no to the Tim Pool show where also I would have been, you know, I would have asked some hard questions, but I wasn't going to go in there and like, just make fun of it and attach it. You know, that's not what I was going to do. So, but I think they don't want to answer those questions. So what do you,

Well, let me ask you this and then we could we could wrap after this. But so you're so I hear what you're saying that you think that the Libertarian Party should be the Mises caucuses goal should be to keep the thing like exclusively right wing libertarians and kind of controlled like the messaging and work on coming up with as many mechanisms as we can to like make sure we're getting really quality people in who are who are members. Do you think?

Because it does seem to me like this Chase campaign is going to fall flat on its face and accomplish absolutely nothing. Do you think there's a good opportunity to do that after this? And is that worth pursuing, in your opinion? I mean, I think the value of what you're capturing is worth what it effectively costs in human capital to do it. Although I'm sure Michael Heiss and his team, like,

put in a tremendous amount of work and maybe I am underestimating it, but I think the total cost of producing that for the prices where people would potentially be willing to do the work for are, it is producible. Effectively, for the right-wing libertarian, is it worth $50 to $100 a year on average per person to

have the Libertarian Party in control of people like you, it's worth that much money to me per year. If all I have to do is be a member of national, be a member of my state party, and show up. One of the things to say also, the more we embrace that this is the real politic nature of it, the more we can throw away with all the other crap that doesn't matter. Strip your state convention down to two hours, okay, we're in charge, we're done, go home. The

know i just get down to the the the brass tacks of of what reality is here you're saying with national convention like like i know look honestly i'm gonna the music didn't do a good job they did not like this is supposed to be the power of politics i thought they did a much better job before you need to make sure you if you control them if you control the entire thing or we're close like they didn't do a good job getting their done they didn't do a good job like at the actual convention like just getting

through stuff, but they should be a mechanism for continuing to help fight for the state parties and organizing them.

along this right-wing axis. And then as soon as they have firm, clear, the entire majority control the next year, they have the entire firm, clear, entirely controlled at the ONC, they should rewrite the entire thing, and they should make it and stop and get rid of all this pretending. And I don't know what they should rewrite it to, but that's what I wrote the entire thing. And this is it, and we're keeping it this way. Or

Or, you know, I mean, maybe there's some room again, if the lefties can come to the table, you know, maybe we can like divvy out states, you know, and like, like I don't give LP Louisiana or whatever, like wants to be like super gay and recruit the like trans furry libertarian crowd and the people who want to wear, you know, you know, naked suits. Like, I don't, I,

Again, it's a theory of property rights. Maybe those people should be concentrating in Louisiana. I'm not against those people living the way that they want to live. I'm just against them living that way near me. You know?

And hell, I invite them to New Hampshire, again, if they can recognize their role, take over the Democratic Party. We have those types here. We're not devoid of those types. I'm always trying to push them. I'm like, go take over the Democratic Party. Imagine if your choice on the ballot

right, was you or the guy in the spandex. Like, as you said, you agree on almost everything. Like, those are two choices to have on the ballot. Those would be like the best possible two, you know, two choices to have. You know, if you have to pick, you know, again, that, well, you can imagine someone in the continuum that would be better than that second person, but they've got to be able to take over the Democrats. So they've got to, you know, have some leftist essence, you know, to them. And that's what they should be, you know, doing.

It's taking over the Democratic part. They should be putting a bigger power base in there. I could not agree with you more on that. I've said it many times over the years that these left libertarians want to go to war with us. It's like, just go be the best leftists. Yes, exactly. Go be that. Like, why not? All right. Well, listen, Jeremy, it's always a pleasure talking to you, brother. Congratulations on the viral success. Be careful out there. And let's do this again sometime soon.

Thanks. It was great. Oh, and just anything you want to promote before we get out of here. Follow me on X, Jeremy Kaufman. Every libertarian has to come to Mecca at least once. So make sure you've planned your trip to New Hampshire. Porkfest is a great time and is the like sort of consensus best time of the year. If you just got to come one time, you'll come to Porkfest. But you can come anytime you're here. Come to New Hampshire if you made it this far in the show. Hell yeah. All right. Thank you, Jeremy. And thanks, everybody, for listening. Catch you next time. Peace.