We Are All Libertarians
2013-04-13 · Guest: Judge Jim Gray (2012 Libertarian Vice Presidential Candidate) · 82:27
Libertarianism and its influence on American politics
Bob Zadek and Judge Jim Gray explore the rising influence of Libertarianism in American politics, arguing that both major parties are failing where Libertarian principles of individual responsibility and limited government succeed. The discussion covers healthcare, immigration, the drug war, and foreign policy, followed by Bob’s critique of the “nanny state” and government intrusion into parenting and local revenue collection.
Topics: Libertarianism, Healthcare Policy, Immigration Reform, War on Drugs, Marriage Equality, Foreign Policy, Nanny State, Education, Red Light Cameras, Rain Tax
Speakers: Bob Zadek – Host Judge Jim Gray – Guest, 2012 Libertarian Vice Presidential Candidate Melissa Harris-Perry – MSNBC Host (Audio Clip)
The Libertarian Philosophy [00:15]
Bob Zadek: Hello everyone, it’s Bob Zadek. Welcome to The Bob Zadek Show every Sunday at noon on NewsTalk 910. We are the leading Libertarian talk radio show in the Bay Area and around the country. Thanks so much for listening. We are the show of ideas, not attitude; the show of stuff, not fluff.
We are, as I said, the leading Libertarian talk radio show. Libertarian. Well, there is a Libertarian Party, which I have been in the past active in, and Libertarianism is a philosophy, a point of view, a way of examining and testing the relationship of citizens and their government. And at its core, that’s what Libertarianism focuses on: the relationship of a citizen to the government. It focuses on the preservation of individual freedom, private property, and basically the right to live one’s life as you wish, so long as in doing so you don’t cause harm to the person or property of someone else.
So it is a point of view, a way of examining issues to see if those issues comport with a view of society, a view of your relationship to government that you can live with and you are comfortable with. We don’t advocate necessarily—at least I don’t—I don’t aspire for the Libertarian Party to itself become a dominant political party. That’s a political issue, and third parties are never very successful in the United States. It just isn’t—the government isn’t organized that way. The deck is stacked too much against a third party becoming active.
But what is happening, and what I and so many other Americans advocate and invite is, we invite the country to first of all understand Libertarianism, and then if you find yourself comfortable with the philosophy—and I quickly add, who could not?—if you find yourself comfortable with the philosophy, then when important issues of the day are before us and we have to exercise our voting activity, if we have to advocate for a cause, look at important positions through the Libertarian lens. And you will find that the conclusion you reach, the analysis you reach, will be one where you are philosophically comfortable.
And what’s really interesting is, in politics today, as Democrats and Republicans struggle to find common ground, inevitably the common ground is the Libertarian approach. That is, what we see is more and more both of the oligopoly of political parties—the two main political parties—really find themselves gravitating towards a Libertarian point of view. It’s pretty interesting times in that regard.
Introducing Judge Jim Gray [04:50]
Bob Zadek: To examine the important issues of the day through the Libertarian lens and to explain to you how a Libertarian would solve major problems and how we look at the major problems, I am proud and delighted to welcome Judge Jim Gray to the show. Judge Gray, as you all know, was the Libertarian Party candidate for Vice President in the last presidential cycle. He was Governor Gary Johnson’s running mate. Judge Gray, before, during, and after his run for the Vice Presidency, was one of America’s leading outspoken critics of our insane, expensive, and irrational drug policy. And since that election, Judge Gray has been joined—has joined Gary Johnson in promoting Libertarian points of view around the country at college campuses and elsewhere. Their website, which is home base for them, is called Our America Initiative. Judge Gray, thank you very much for joining me this afternoon.
Judge Jim Gray: Well, Sir Robert, it’s just a pleasure. And in fact, you may recall we had a chance to shake hands a couple of months ago too, so I almost feel like we’re family.
Bob Zadek: I do recall, and in fact, that photograph is on my then recently purchased iPhone, where it will remain for the rest of that iPhone’s life. And of course, you were a guest on the show when you were active in your vice presidential candidacy.
Judge Jim Gray: Well, indeed, and that’s beyond my wildest expectations to be on your phone. But you’re talking about liberty and freedom, Bob, and you’re simply so right. But that also—and maybe people don’t focus on this—but that also means we are the party of responsibility. Because it goes hand in hand. With freedom, there also comes responsibility, and that is of course tremendously lacking in Sacramento and Washington and so many areas of government today.
So that we really, if you look at it—and I’ve gone around the country like you say—we are in the mainstream of American political thought. We are both financially responsible and socially accepting. And you notice I don’t say “socially tolerant,” because that kind of implies that, well, I don’t agree, I think you’re really kind of silly, but I’ll pat you on the head and say, well, you can do your silliness if you want to. That’s just not who we are. You know, as long as, like you said, you don’t adversely affect my life, you can live your life as an adult as you wish, and we are accepting of that. And that certainly includes marriage equality, and it certainly includes racial and gender equality, and just down the line. So we are in the mainstream, and if only people realized that and saw us and Governor Johnson as viable in our race, I think we would have won the election had we been a part of the presidential debates. Because we would have shown the world that we have the right answers, we have the right approach, and what we do works.
And when it comes down to it, I see myself as a functional Libertarian, and I think most of us are, which means: yes, we believe in government, of course. You know, you have to have a strong military, and you have to have court systems and various things of that kind, and some regulation when the market doesn’t work. But you also need to have that responsibility. And so when it comes down to it, yes, we believe in government, but government is the last resort instead of the first resort.
The History of Government in Healthcare [08:33]
Judge Jim Gray: So with regard to healthcare, you know, we will have a safety net. You know, I was in the Peace Corps for heaven’s sake. We will have a safety net, but let the government out of the situation completely if we can take care of ourselves, because government has made a mess of our healthcare system. And Obamacare, the so-called Affordable Care Act, is basically going toward having the Department of Motor Vehicles run our healthcare as well as the rest of our lives, and it flat out doesn’t work. So it’s nice to be able to share these issues with you.
Bob Zadek: You mentioned healthcare. I, of course, to say the least, am somewhat partial against Obamacare, obviously. But as I look at Obamacare, Obamacare is going to, in my view, die of its own weight. And when people talk about healthcare, the first question on healthcare—sort of the question that Obamacare answers in totally the wrong way—is: why is government involved at all in healthcare?
And let me just explain, Judge, and then you can respond and we can have a dialogue about this. Healthcare is, of course, crucial to the well-being of every citizen and non-citizen resident in the United States. It is, of course, crucial. So is food, and so is clothing. But in fact, we do not have a federally mandated delivery and payment system for food. People just buy it. Yes, we have—and I would argue excessive, but putting excessive aside, we don’t need that in the conversation—yes, we have a system where people who don’t have the ability to buy food are helped. But in point of fact, the delivery of food, the delivery, the manufacture, the total providing of that life-supporting product is private.
And why we have decided that a private delivery system with market-based pricing doesn’t work for healthcare is somewhat insane. Now, to help out the audience, Judge, and then I’d love to hear your views: how did we get in this mess of government involved more and more in the decision involving health? That is, how you are taken care of, what you are allowed to purchase, what a seller is required to sell you. How did we get there?
The way we got there was—and this is basically little known today—is prior to World War II, the healthcare delivery system was 100% private. There was no mandated anything. No Medicare, Medicaid, nothing. The government was almost totally uninvolved in the delivery of healthcare to its citizens. And the system worked pretty darn well.
Judge Jim Gray: We had the best healthcare system in the world.
Bob Zadek: It was the best system. We invented new drugs, new healthcare devices, it all worked. Then what happened was the government—the government got involved for the first time. In World War II, there were wage and price controls to avoid rampant inflation during the heavy spending of World War II. Employers were not allowed to give raises to employees. So employers went to Washington and said, “We have to be able to give our employees something to get the best workers. And we have an idea. How about letting us, the employers, give the employees free—free healthcare insurance, which we the employers will buy? And we’ll give it as a benefit.”
Government said, “That’s fine, and just to make sure it works, we will make this tax-free.” The only benefit an employer could ever to this day give an employee which is not taxable to the employee. Boom. Government is involved in healthcare. From that, we created this insane system of healthcare is depending upon where you work. Remember, it was government-created. And then the genie is out of the bottle, and here we are, the government involved in healthcare.
The second leg, Judge, the second leg was, in my opinion, in the late 1970s when the federal government again got involved in healthcare by passing a statute that required, as a matter of federal law, hospitals not turn away from the emergency rooms anybody simply because they couldn’t afford it. Once that happened, the government got involved in healthcare and the government was paying for it. Boom, it’s all over. And that’s how we got into this mess, through government inviting itself to the healthcare party. Judge?
Judge Jim Gray: Bob, you’re absolutely right. That is an absolutely factual historic lesson that you mentioned. You left out a couple, of course, because it keeps marching forward. Richard Nixon, of all people, had wage and price controls in the early 1970s. That increased it as well. And of course, a major one is Lyndon Johnson and Medicare. Because prior to this, like you said, I was raised in the ’50s and early ’60s and it just wasn’t a topic of conversation that we cannot find reasonable healthcare for reasonable prices. Just wasn’t even on the radar. And we weren’t closing emergency rooms; we had all we wanted.
And then, like you say, the government gets more and more involved. Medicare, and now of course all emergency rooms have to accept whomever comes in, so we’ve closed emergency rooms. I mean, they either do that or they go out of business. And today, just to bring this home graphically, today you, I, or anyone else can get really good quality healthcare for reasonable competitive prices in two areas. What are they? LASIK eye surgery and cosmetic surgery. Why? Because the government’s not involved. So, you know, come to Dr. Zadek and I will give you this LASIK surgery and I’ve done it 4,000 times and I’ll give you, you know, various payment schedules, etc. It’s competitive and it works beautifully well.
So again, get the government out of our healthcare and then for people who can take care of themselves—and then we all understand there are some folks that cannot. So what do you do about them? And the answer is, look, instead of having the government intrude in the marketplace and get involved in insurance and everything else—and by the way, we’re now giving supposedly 30 million people in our country healthcare insurance that don’t have it, and pretty soon it’s going to be worth nothing because no good medical professional is going to take it because they’re reimbursing so low. But one way or the other, instead, have the government spend money on doctors, medicines, hospitals, and nurses instead of administration, bureaucracy, and fraud. And so basically people who literally cannot take care of themselves will go to a government clinic, probably on private contract similar to Kaiser Permanente, and be able to have their matters taken care of.
And some can call that socialized medicine if you want to. I don’t care what you call it. But I lived in a socialistic institution for four years and it worked pretty well. It’s called the United States Navy. And we went to naval clinics and it just worked pretty well. And then those that are in between, have them pay a higher co-pay when they go to the government clinics. You can probably do that through block grants by the federal government to the state. The federal government should not be involved in this at all, nor should they, by the way, in education for pretty much the same reasons. Bring competition back. And I really applaud you, Bob, in what you’re doing and spreading this word, because as soon as people really see what’s going on, they will flock to this approach.
The Crowding Out of Private Charity [17:00]
Bob Zadek: This is Bob Zadek. I’m talking to Judge Jim Gray. Judge Jim Gray was the Libertarian candidate for Vice President in the 2012 electoral cycle. We are examining the affairs of the day through a Libertarian perspective. 800-345-5639 to join the conversation.
Judge, one of the interesting results of the government takeover of parts of society like healthcare is a word which has a very positive and rich and important and psychologically healthy connotation has become cheapened. And that word is “charity.” When I grew up, as I was growing up, charity was something very positive. It was the best in people. Those of us who could afford it would willingly give money to charity. The charities were very prudent about how they spent their money because they were operated by people who cared, not who were paid to care, but who cared. And there were lots of—every community had charity—positive word, not a negative word—hospitals. And those people who couldn’t afford healthcare went to a charity hospital. And while they might not have gotten the very same healthcare as the upper 1%, they got pretty darn good care and they weren’t made to feel badly about it. It was part of a healthy society.
Now, if I am asked as a Libertarian, “Well, what about people who can’t afford healthcare?” and my response is “charity hospitals,” I get looked on like I am Satan. How did charity get to be such a negative word when it is the very best in people? But that’s what society has become when government now, rather than have voluntary charity, by having us raise our taxes so that others can get services they can’t afford, it is compulsory charity. It is the same charity. Those people who get services they haven’t paid for, they are getting charity, whether they like it or not, except the charity is a matter of right from the government. It is still charity, something you didn’t earn but you need. And how in the world did charity become so cheapened? It makes me sad.
Judge Jim Gray: Well, Bob, I’m proud to be on your show. You just have so much insight and you articulate it well. And you’re simply absolutely right. Again, when I was growing up, if people couldn’t afford things, they would go to a lot of Catholic charitable hospitals, etc. Other hospitals would donate their time, surgeons would donate their time. The job got done. But then understand as a fact of life: if the government takes one step forward, individuals and charitable organizations, NGOs, will take two steps back because, “Oh well, the government’s going to preempt that.”
Efficiency and the Nanny State [20:20]
Judge Jim Gray: And then again, I respond with the issue of mosquito nets. Now, where in the name of God am I going with that? Well, I was just in South Africa about three or four weeks ago, and malaria is still an enormous problem there. And it is shown that for every 10 mosquito nets you get on the ground so that people can sleep under mosquito nets, you’re going to save a life or keep somebody from getting malaria. And it’s also shown that for every mosquito net that gets on the ground by a government, it costs $7.75 per net. But for every NGO or charitable organization, it costs about one-fifth of that. So they’re much better, much less graft, much less corruption, much less administration and bureaucracy. It gets the job done more efficiently and people will then respond.
So we’ve just gone in the wrong direction. We just have government being the nanny state. Not only that, you know, the world’s policeman. I mean, it just goes completely around. The government is having us live in fear with all this TSA stuff that, look, take away the TSA, abolish it, and give the security back to the airlines. They have every interest in keeping their planes safe. But the government preempts this, the government does it, and the answer is: no, it doesn’t work, it’s inappropriate, and others will do it better.
Bob Zadek: Judge, you’re exactly right. And the war on terror—by the fact that we have a war on terror means in and of itself the terrorist has won. And by that I mean, terror is a tactic. What is the goal of a terrorist? Not to have a high body count. The goal of a terrorist is to instill terror. And they have won if we are reminded every day, every time we fly, if we are reminded to live in terror, then the terrorists have won. They can pack it up, go to the Caribbean, declare a victory, and go home. When we respond to terrorism by making sure everybody is terrorized, that is a total victory. If the terrorist never kills another American, they can declare total victory. So you’re exactly right to raise that issue.
Immigration and Amnesty [22:43]
Bob Zadek: Now, Judge Gray, immigration is a big deal today. And Our America Initiative, you and Governor Johnson, have expressed very clear and views on immigration. Now, we’re going to go to break for 90 seconds in about two minutes. But the bullet points on a Libertarian’s view of immigration, Judge, in about two minutes, then we’ll pick it up after the break.
Judge Jim Gray: This, Bob, is pretty much the easiest of our difficult decisions to resolve. You know, today very powerful Republicans give lip service to trying to change the system, but they don’t want to. If they’d wanted to, they would have done it decades ago, but they like the cheap labor. A lot of very powerful Democrats give lip service also, but they want all these people coming into the country to vote for Democrats.
What you do is very straightforward. You give pretty much easily work visas to people who want to come in here and work. And you have a background check, you know, to make sure that you don’t have mental issues or criminal justice issues, etc. But then they can come here and support themselves. You give them that work visa. They come across the border as they wish and they’re legalized. They can get driver’s licenses, they’ll pay their taxes. They don’t get welfare, you know, that sort of thing, and they don’t get non-emergency medical care. But if they can bring their families, they can bring them too, as long as they can support them. That’s what works.
And then, of course, you have punishments for employers that hire people that do not have either a citizenship, green card, or—I don’t care what you call it—an orange card or the work visa. And that’s really straightforward. It’s inhuman what we’re doing today. We’re penalizing, harming millions and millions of people. We need that labor. Immigration is a good thing. Our ancestors all came here for the same reason that the people are coming here now: to have a better life for themselves and their family. It’s not hard.
Bob Zadek: Judge, we’re going to go to break in about one second. But when we come back, I’m going to test the strength of our bond, you and I, and we’re going to talk about the hottest of hot-button issues on immigration, which is—dare I say the word—amnesty. Amnesty gets everybody all excited. Let’s see if Judge Gray and I agree or not. Bob Zadek, 800-345-5639. Back in 90 real short seconds.
[Break]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to The Bob Zadek Show. I’m your host, Bob Zadek, every Sunday at noon on NewsTalk 910. 800-345-5639. We are the leading Libertarian talk radio show in the Bay Area and around the country, the show that examines the affairs of the day through a Libertarian perspective. Today I am proudly joined by Judge Jim Gray. Judge Gray was the Libertarian candidate for Vice President in the 2012 electoral cycle. He was Governor Gary Johnson’s running mate. Judge Gray and Gary Johnson are active in Our America Initiative. They are touring the country, helping people understand—and students on college campuses quite a bit—helping the country understand how to examine the affairs of the day as a Libertarian.
We were talking before the break about the very hot-button subject of immigration. And before the break, I dared to raise the third rail of immigration, which is the subject of amnesty. To expand the topic before I invite Judge Gray for his views: we have, by most people’s count, about 11 million illegal immigrants in the country. Many of them have been here for decades. They are in the shadows, but they are presumably like most of us, law-abiding. They work, they have families, their kids go to school, they play Little League. They are part of our—the fabric of our society.
And the question is what to do about them. On one extreme is—extreme Republicans, the Republicans on the lunatic fringe will say, “Send them out.” As Governor Romney said—I can’t believe he said this, but he said—“Let them self-deport.” What a ridiculous thing to say. But the question is what we do about them. Some proposals have been just give them or allow them to apply for citizenship, afford them amnesty. They are here anyway, they’re not hurting anybody, let them be here. Those opposed to amnesty say no, we can’t reward lawbreakers. Judge Gray, what do we do about 11 million of our fellow residents—I can’t say citizens—who are here enriching all of our lives as well as the lives of their family members?
Judge Jim Gray: Well, and the answer is that you get things under control. And I’m going to quarrel with you just a little bit, and somebody quarreled with me and I changed. I don’t use the term “illegal immigrant.” I hate it too. People are not illegal. So I call them undocumented workers, and maybe even that one’s an awkward term. But you’ve got to control the border first. And like we were talking earlier, Bob, where if you’d actually allow people to have these work visas, then you gain control on your border and the people who are presently here can apply for and receive the same work visas, etc.
And once you get that and get control of the border, then you address the issue of citizenship. And it’s a dilemma because, like you and any fair-minded person would say, that you have millions of people around the world that would give anything to be Americans and be able to come here and have a path to citizenship, but they tried to do it the legal way. So to have others that took some self-help barge in front of them in the line isn’t quite right either. But what you do, once you get the borders taken care of—because that was the mistake that, and they were well-meaning, but President Carter, President Reagan, they allowed some amnesty and it just encouraged more people to come over here. You get the borders controlled, then you have a reasonable way and a fairly prompt way of giving people a path to citizenship. And yes, if you have other family members in other countries, you know, you can do that too. If you have workers that are very capable, you know, that’s not a bad idea to bring in engineers and others that will help our economy. But you do that in a logical fashion and you do it promptly after you get the borders secured.
Bob Zadek: My view, and this is going to be a headline-grabbing event, we’ll read about it tomorrow morning, you and I sort of—dare I say—disagree, but only in the very outer fringes of the margin. I say amnesty is a positive goal. I use as my analogy: taxing authorities, the federal government, the states, will often announce amnesty programs for tax dodgers. And they will say, “Okay, tax dodgers, anybody who has done a bad thing on their tax return and cheated, come forward now, confess, pay the back taxes, and you will not go to jail, not have a fine, not have a penalty, not have late charge, not have interest.” And those programs say to lawbreakers, “We will waive the lawbreaking, just pay the bill.” In other words, it’s done because it’s good policy.
Also, during Prohibition, we had lots and lots and lots of lawbreakers, lots of felons, people who sold alcohol. Prohibition was repealed, all of a sudden anybody who had violated the Volstead Act was not prosecuted even though what they did was then a crime. They were all given de facto amnesty. Amnesty is a good thing and it’s not a bad thing. And I am not afraid of encouraging more people to come to this country because I want them to come here. Anybody who wants to come here, I want them here. So you and I may disagree. I say automatic and immediate amnesty, with some rules in the margin—you haven’t committed a crime and stuff like that. But basically, 11 million citizens come out of the shadows and join American voting society. But it’s a minor point, we’re allowed to disagree, I suspect.
Judge Jim Gray: Bob, I agree with your assessment and the rest. I am concerned about the inequality of those that tried to do it legally and have people jump in line. I’m also a little concerned about people paying the costs because there are a lot of really good, hardy, dedicated people here that just don’t have the resources. So I’m concerned about them as well. But you and I agree. Let’s put our heads together and may it be so that we can argue the finer points. But amnesty is a good thing in a lot of ways, and fairness is as well. But today I’m just embarrassed. It is just what we have is a system that is literally harming people, and shame on us.
Bob Zadek: Oh yeah, it’s a race-hating system. I am so embarrassed and I’m so ashamed of my country in the sense that they have some pretty ugly public statements about “them,” “them,” that fearful “them,” the immigrants. You and I both are descendants from a “them,” and that does not belong in the conversation in America today.
Judge Jim Gray: You’re right there, and may I jump in and say probably that the civil rights issue of our country today is the “them,” which is the way we treat Muslims in our society. You know, so many people are equating Muslims with terrorists. And you know, it used to be that when we had a lot of Irish coming in that they were equated as drunks, or we had the Italians coming in, they were all equated with Mafia. You know, shame on us. Treat people like Libertarians do, as individuals instead of as groups of people.
Bob Zadek: Oh, I’m so glad you said that. Because group identification—and we have so much group identification in policy areas, in legislation—you are exactly right. We are Americans, we are not members of a group. And this group identification and legislation to protect groups—anything from hate crime to enhanced sentencing for those who commit hate crimes—all of that is policy at its very worst.
The War on Drugs and Marriage Equality [34:56]
Bob Zadek: Now, Judge, it would be cruel of me not to raise as a policy question for us Libertarians to discuss, not to raise for a bit the subject where our side and Judge, your side since you are so outspoken, is winning. The Libertarian side is winning, and that is in the war on drugs. And when I say we are winning it, through the operation of federalism, the states—and we’ll get into this in a moment—are in effect, the states are causing the nullification, the de facto repeal of pretty dumb federal laws on criminalization of drug use in America. Now, this, Judge, is an area where you should be proud because you have been one of the most outspoken opponents of our irrational drug policy. And you, if you haven’t won, you will win, and you will win probably no later than the 2016 election cycle.
Judge Jim Gray: Bob, I think you’re right and thank you for that. And by the way, Governor Gary Johnson also—my goodness, what courage when he was the Governor of New Mexico, Republican governor in a Democratic state, stood up in 1999, a long time ago, and said at no constituency said the war on drugs is not working. And now, as you say, I think 2016 it will be over. That proverbial light at the end of the tunnel is now in view since those great people in Colorado and the state of Washington passed their initiatives this past election to treat marijuana like alcohol. It’s going to force the federal government to face reality.
And by the way, you may recall—you’re the history lesson, I’ll add one—that the beginning of the end of alcohol prohibition was the people in the state of New York who simply passed a statute saying alcohol is no longer illegal in the state of New York. Yes, it is under the federal law, but no, it is not under the state law. The states have perfect rights to do that under the Constitution, even under the supremacy clause, even under the Supreme Court dictates. We have every right in the state of California and it will be on the ballot in 2016 here in the state to treat marijuana like wine, for example, and get the federal government out of it. Regulate it, control it, and tax it.
And by the way, we tried to get “Regulate Marijuana Like Wine” on the ballot in 2012, but we just couldn’t get the funding for it. But we did send it through the Attorney General’s office, and Attorney General Harris’s office came back with the language that would have been on the ballot—which by the way would have ensured its victory—saying that we will save tens of millions of dollars a year in California alone on enforcement costs and generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. You know, the question is, we’re going to have marijuana in our society. It’s the largest cash crop in the state of California today—number two is grapes, by the way. And so it’s here. So the question isn’t shall we have marijuana not here or here; the question is shall we have it with Mexican drug cartels and juvenile street gangs, or regulated, controlled, and taxed? So we’re there. We should take credit for that. Libertarians have spearheaded this movement for a very long time.
We should also take credit for this marriage equality movement that now is going across the nation. In the last couple of days, I was in Minneapolis in Minnesota. It’s gaining speed there, it’s gaining speed around the nation, rightfully so. In fact, I wrote a column on this—I write a weekly column in our local papers that you can get at Daily Pilot, Costa Mesa dot com—but talking about marriage equality is just the next logical constitutional step. First there’s racial equality, then there’s gender equality, and now it’s marriage equality. It’s a constitutional right where people, consenting adults, should be able to choose their partner. So it’s there, and thank you for that. It’s no question but what drug prohibition is on its way out, and then we will all look back, just like we do with alcohol prohibition, and be aghast that we could have perpetuated such a failed system for so long.
Bob Zadek: And how interesting it is that you did this very, very comfortable and appropriate segue from drugs into marriage equality. Because yet again, the premise when I introduced you as a guest today, the premise was society is moving towards a Libertarian view. And we have discussed two areas, one after the other, and these are major areas: drug policy and marriage equality, where both parties have left a position that they more or less embraced—and remember, it was Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act, remember that, so the Democrats have unclean hands—but both parties are moving from their traditional position to the position which Libertarians have always held. So Libertarianism as a way to look at the world is on the ascend. And Judge Gray has pointed out two areas, drug policy and marriage equality, as the two areas where Libertarianism is carrying the day.
Foreign Policy and Defense [41:22]
Bob Zadek: Now, Judge, a third area where I dare say a Libertarian point of view is starting to gain considerable traction is in the area of defense, defense policy. And in defense policy, Governor Johnson and you as well have been promoting a point of view, a way to look at foreign policy, which was so different from the foreign policy of the other two political parties. And they are partly of economic necessity, partly of the situation in the world, both political parties are moving towards the foreign policy approach that has always been the Libertarian approach. Judge, summarize for us how Libertarians would comment on, in terms of bullet points, the role of defense in America, the defense policy, and specifically the Middle East.
Judge Jim Gray: Well, and indeed, and again, these are huge issues. And we believe in a strong defense. You know, I was actually the only one of the six of us running for President or Vice President that’s been in the military. I was awarded a combat action ribbon in Vietnam and I’ve seen what happens when you send our troops into harm’s way without being well-equipped and prepared, and that would not happen under the Governor Johnson administration.
But we are using our troops—how many of you listening think that Yemen is a security threat to the United States? Or Somalia, or the Sudan? You know, it’s not. We are using our troops offensively; we should be using them defensively. A long since I believed after 9/11 that it was appropriate to go into Afghanistan. That was an act of war, not perpetrated by the government of Afghanistan per se, but it was condoned, it was allowed, and that’s where the folks were. We should have gone in, root them out, bring them to justice, should have taken us what, three months, maybe four? And then we should not be nation-building there. We have a nation to build here. So we have become a Department of Offense instead of a Department of Defense.
And besides, Bob, you know this, and Libertarianism again is expanding because the biggest security threat to the United States of America is a failing economy. And today, for every dollar the federal government spends, we’re borrowing 30 cents. You know, regardless of your philosophy, you understand that no company could do that and stay in existence, no household could do that without going through bankruptcy, and neither can any country. This is an insidious, invidious, huge threat to our country. We must cap our spending.
And one of it is, you know, we have a thousand or 900 to a thousand military bases in foreign countries today. Again, if they’re necessary for our security, terrific, keep them there, reinforce them if we have to. But I would venture to say that we could close down 80% of those foreign bases and still be fully as safe or probably even more so. You know, I don’t think that Germany is going to be attacked by Austria in my lifetime. We have no business having troops anymore in Germany, or in Japan for that matter. Bring these troops home, have them spend their money in California or Nebraska or New Jersey, somewhere here. We can’t afford it, we can’t be the world’s policeman, it doesn’t work, and that’s the security problem that we need to address. But if anybody attacks us or our allies, I assure you, under Libertarians or otherwise, they’re going to wish they had not. We’re going to slap them back, and I believe in that strongly. But otherwise, the time has ended for a variety of reasons for us to be the world’s policeman. It’s simply not working.
The Question of Standing Armies [44:23]
Bob Zadek: Judge, I had this interesting thought prompted by hearing you and Gary Johnson speak so often about defense. And I wondered, do—this is going to sound almost as heresy, but I intend it with utter seriousness—2013, I think a case can be made that we no longer need a standing army. We no longer need hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground sitting in barracks just being there with rifles. Right now, I dare say with special forces type soldiers, no standing army—there will not be a battle anymore with men in foxholes shooting rifles across an open area. That’s gone. And we are back to the world of the founders with no standing army, but with great technology and a force that’s ready to go anywhere in the world, a small elite force. That’s all we need. And pull back every single base. If we need bodies, let it be the country that is threatened, they will supply the bodies, and we’ll supply technology. And I dare say, what’s wrong with a foreign policy and a defense policy without much of a standing army? Am I nuts?
Judge Jim Gray: Bob, those are very good points. And we would need to listen to the military and the State Department and the rest of the world, but those are things we simply should look into. And you’re right, you know, we do have rapid deployment capabilities today that we never had before. I was in the Navy, I think that we do need to have carriers and that sort of thing. Those are boots on the ground or on the ocean. So we do need those things. And I would keep some troops still in South Korea. I think it’s important to see what’s going on, but not nearly the numbers, even under these circumstances, that we have now.
So these are things we just need to look at. Just like with when Governor Gary Johnson was in the governorship of New Mexico, he performed an audit. He looked at what we were doing, how much we were spending, how much bang for the buck we were getting, what was working and what wasn’t. That’s what we need to do with regard to all of these things: education, healthcare, defense, all the rest. Let’s look at it like a business enterprise because government’s supposed to be a business. It isn’t, but it certainly should be. It was under Governor Johnson. And see what we need to do.
But number one priority, of course, by the government is to keep us safe. And I appreciate that. But like you say, these are things that are not sacred cows. We have to look at practicality and look at our economy. And by the way, this is why Governor Gary Johnson and I in the last two weeks have gone around the country speaking—we call it the Campus Live Free Campus Tour. We’ve been to 10 universities because kids get it. They understand. And when I look at them and I introduce Governor Johnson, so I go first, and I look at them and say, “You know, I have some bad news. I’ll be as gentle as I can, but anybody under the age of 35 is bankrupt. It’s my generation that has spent all of this money irresponsibly. But we’re going to be okay, but our children are going to have to pay it back and our grandchildren are bankrupt.” And kids get it. And that’s why we’re spending time there, because it’s their future and they understand Libertarianism not only sounds good philosophically or otherwise, but it works. It works just like a business, it works to get the maximum that we can, plus allow what obviously works, which is our soul.
And Bob, you know this, and I hope our listeners do understand as well: what is the soul of the United States of America? And I believe that people around the world still love America and they love Americans. They’re not all that happy about our government, but then again, neither am I a lot of the time. But the soul, what makes us special, is our liberties, is our freedom. And our soul is under attack today by our very own government. And nuts to that. You know, I left the Republican Party with the passage of the so-called Patriot Act, direct frontal assault on our civil liberties. We have drones flying over our country today surveilling our own people. Governor Johnson and I say no, not without a judicial warrant and with probable cause, we’re not going to surveil our people. The National Defense Authorization Act, where literally a citizen of the United States could be arrested and detained, you know, without trial forever, interminably. They could even be rendered, it’s called, sent to a foreign country, all without charges. That is not what we stand for. We must bring this back. And Governor Johnson is the only one of anybody running in the top three for President in this past election that stood up for our liberties, stood up for our soul, and I was proud to be his running mate.
Bob Zadek: Libertarians, if we—what we care about the most is the right to live our lives in privacy, having our rights respected, not challenged by government, but respected by government. Government exists only to protect our rights, not to deny us those rights. And that is core Libertarian view. We are not heartless. We—all of us believe each of us has a moral—moral, not legal—moral duty to look after our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans, our fellow humans. It is a moral responsibility. Each of us has the right to establish the extent and the limits of that moral responsibility. So the difference between a Libertarian point of view and a non-Libertarian point of view is that a progressive point of view looks to force me to meet the standards of somebody else’s morality. And I am denied the freedom of my conscience to set my own standards for morality, not to comply to someone else’s.
And the second event, Judge, and I’d love for you to have the last word on this, is the encroachment of the federal government in areas where the states should have the province. Judge, we have one minute. How nice it would be if states were given their traditional role of looking after our health and safety.
Judge Jim Gray: Absolutely. You know, it’s in the Constitution. It’s what works. It’s the concept of federalism, which was a founding principle of our country, to allow each state—I call them 50 crucibles of democracy—to be able to go forward and get this done. So yes, you know, I was in the Peace Corps. I care about people, Bob, just like you said. I’m looking forward to shaking your hand again next time I see you, because you’re absolutely right. There is a moral responsibility. We feel it, not because we have to, but because that’s who we are. So government is the last resort. It works worst of the bunch, but we will make sure that there is a safety net for our people. But first allow individuals to take care of themselves, then their family can take care of them, then their community, then the charitable organizations, the religious organizations. But if none of that works—and most of it will—the government is the last resort. Let’s get the government out of our lives. It’s expensive, it’s intrusive, it’s unbelievably powerful, and it’s keeping us in fear and harming us in our various lives today.
Bob Zadek: This is Bob Zadek. Thank you, Judge Jim Gray, for joining me. I’ll be back in two minutes with the miracle of how I survived my teenage years. This story will give you goosebumps. I’ll be back in two minutes. Judge Gray, thanks so much for joining me. Good luck in your lecture tour. Stay tuned, everyone. A miracle will follow in two short minutes.
[Break]
The Nanny State and Parenting [53:28]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to The Bob Zadek Show. We are the leading Libertarian talk radio show in the Bay Area and around the country, the show of ideas, not attitude; stuff, not fluff. Thanks for listening. We look at the world through the very toasty warm prism of Libertarianism. Thanks so much for joining me. We are here for 90 minutes from 12 to 1:30 every Sunday.
Before the break, I promised to share the story of the miracle of my surviving and getting through my pre-teen and teenage years. It is quite a goosebump-inducing story that I have been anxious to share with you. I was the victim of what I now have learned to be pretty poor parenting. But somehow I survived. What did my parents do to me? Well, this is going to be painful for me to share, but I will do it and I will feel better for it.
My parents would allow me, indeed encourage me, to ride a bike without a helmet. I rode a bike without training wheels. I, when I was thirsty in the summer, I drank water not from a plastic bottle filled with filtered water, but from where? From the garden hose I drank water. How I survived, God only knows. Not only that, when my friends and I were finished playing baseball or whatever sport we were playing, we went to Hy and Dave’s Park Luncheonette on 193rd Street off Union Turnpike, and we had a Mission Orange soda. And we had one soda, it was 12 ounces, and you know what we did? We passed it around. We all drank from the same bottle. How I survived, God only knows.
All the medicine in our medicine chest, or none of it, had child safety locks. I could just unscrew it if I wanted to. I ate blue cheese dressing. I ate tuna fish out of the can. One of my favorite lunch meals was chicken, pieces of chicken on white bread, and you know what the topping was? It was something we called schmaltz. You know what schmaltz is? It’s solidified chicken fat. Chicken fat. That was the topping in addition to ketchup. I rode in my family car, a Ford, without a seatbelt, and I jumped around. I never even knew what a booster seat was. We didn’t have airbags.
And I, my parents would, when I wasn’t in school, I would leave the house in the morning and the rule was I came back before it got dark. That was the rule. And I was—I can’t even say the word—I was unsupervised. Oh my goodness, I was unsupervised. And I played with guns. My next-door neighbor Susan and I, we had cap pistols and we had water guns. I had a BB gun. We played with soldiers, we played cowboys and Indians. We both had guns in holsters. We played rough games unsupervised in the park. We played with a stickball bat, a hard piece of broomstick taped with black tape so you can hold it. And we swung it—swung it, swung it—with no helmets. In effect, I lived a pretty gosh darn dangerous life. But somehow I survived and I made it through to adulthood.
Children today are so protected. How in the world can they expect to grow up to learn how to care for themselves when, compliments of the government, they are so protected? What started this story for me? What got my attention? Well, there was a story about Jason Welch. Do you know about Jason Welch? Jason Welch was a seven-year-old. He was in a Maryland elementary school. And he’s a pretty—pretty tough kid he must have been, because he did a pretty aggressive act. He was eating a Pop-Tart—and we know how dangerous they can be—and he nibbled the Pop-Tart what the teacher thought ended up looking like a gun. Now, Jason said he was making a little—he was trying to chew it into the shape of a mountain, but the teacher thought it was in the shape of a gun. And Josh—Josh Welch—was suspended from school. Imagine the trauma of a seven-year-old, a seven-year-old suspended from school for three days because he chewed his Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun.
And not only that, but the school was so concerned about how Jason pointing this dangerous Pop-Tart at every other student—who knows, the other students probably were diving under their desks—but the principal of the school sent a letter home to get this, all of the parents in the school. And he tried to calm the—the neighborhood must have been all in a dither because here you have Jason, all of seven, aiming a loaded Pop-Tart at his fellow students. He sent home—the principal sent home a note that said, quote, “During breakfast this morning, one of our students used food to make an inappropriate gesture that disrupted the class.” The principal went on to calm the nerves of the parents by saying, “While no physical threats were made and no one was harmed by this loaded Pop-Tart, the student had to be removed from the classroom.” Now get this, talk about protective parents. The principal said to the parents of the kids who were in the class with the loaded Pop-Tart, “If your children express that they are troubled by today’s incident, please talk with them and help them to, yes, share their feelings. Quote, ‘Our school counselor is available to meet with any students who have the need to do so next week.’”
Can you imagine? All of this because Jason Welch chewed his Pop-Tart into the shape of a what the teacher thought was the shape of a gun. This is the society in which we are raising the next round of independent thinkers, inventors, courageous young adults. Kids who are trained to dive under their desk if somebody points a Pop-Tart at them. And what this points out is, why is this, besides being so utterly laughable, besides being an indictment of our educational system—because this is not the only example, I will share more with you in a little while—besides that, there is a more—there is a much more basic issue. The much more basic issue is: what in the world is government doing interfering with the parenting of children?
We have become a society where government is so involved in telling parents how to raise their children, so that parents are, it seems to me, simply abdicating the whole responsibility and saying, “Well, government is doing it, therefore I don’t have to.” Now, I didn’t pick one cheap shot at a Maryland elementary school principal who was a bit of a jerk to say the least. This goes on and on and on. There was a teacher in an Illinois middle school who threatened to suspend a 14-year-old. What did the 14-year-old do that warranted a suspension? And I dare say suspension to me is a pretty traumatic event to happen. It affects the child. What did the student do? He wore a t-shirt with the Marine—Marine insignia on it on his t-shirt. He was suspended because it was—the school had a zero tolerance towards guns and the Marine insignia had two crossed rifles on it, and that student was threatened with suspension.
Not only that, a six-year-old boy was suspended from another Maryland school for pointing his finger like a gun at a classmate and saying, “Pow.” That student was suspended. This is what we are doing to our children. We are regulating the helmets they must wear, the schools they play in, the activities they are permitted to carry on. So students are not given the experience of discovering what is bad for them. It is the government all of a sudden through nanny state at its very worst jumping into the home, into the intimacy of the home and telling parents how to raise their children and what to do and what not to do. It is so scary about how the total role of parenting is being transferred from the parents to the government.
Now, what really got me on this—on this bender that I am on, there was a MSNBC newscaster who recently caused quite a stir when she opined—when she shared her opinion on parenting. This was utterly outrageous. See for yourselves if you share my outrage. Raymond, if we can play the clip.
Melissa Harris-Perry: We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of “these are our children.” So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it’s everybody’s responsibility and not just the households, then we start making better investments.
Bob Zadek: In other words, parents, your kids are not yours. It was bad enough when Hillary wrote her book, It Takes a Village. Oh my God. Now we have MSNBC, a somewhat mainstream cable news outlet, promoting the policy that we have to break through this absurd notion, parents, that your kids are yours.
There was another example that just—it shows the overreach of government so profoundly. There was a story about an Ohio father who was determined to help his six-year-old daughter become self-reliant. A goal that parents should certainly try to have their kids achieve. And he lived in a pretty safe suburban, quiet suburban neighborhood. This was in Ohio. And he had his daughter go out—she was six—and get used to walking around the neighborhood. He let her walk to a nearby store just to get used to it. Remember, this was a quiet suburban neighborhood. His daughter was six. And he let her walk to the store and she never returned. And he got a call—he being the father—got a call from the police saying the police got a call about a six-year-old who was, quote, “unsupervised,” close quote. And the father had to go down to the police station. Now, how did the six-year-old daughter get to the police station? Because a, quote, “concerned citizen” said there was an unsupervised six-year-old walking in the neighborhood.
Now, the father—the police called CPS, Child Protective Services, and the father had to do a lot of explaining and they considered taking his six-year-old daughter away from him. All of this because she was, quote, “unsupervised.” Unsupervised. I grew up my whole life when I walked out of the house in the morning, from as young as I can remember, I was more or less unsupervised. And sure, I fell out of trees and I chipped a tooth and I scratched my knee and I played with cap pistols and through some miracle I made it through to adulthood and I learned how to be self-reliant. So aren’t we—haven’t we gotten to the point now that government has gone too far, too far into the home and taken over the responsibility for raising children? Yes, we want parents to be responsible. If parents can’t be responsible, they really shouldn’t be parents. But until they are proven to be totally irresponsible, the government has no business in telling parents how to raise their children. It is such an offensive measure for government to intrude in the most private of relationships, the relationship of parent and child. I just—it just astonishes me.
There was one last story, then we’ll go on to the second issue of the day. There was a young gal, a teacher named Cheryl Sabb in a Michigan elementary school, who personally called the parents of a nine-year-old student to complain. Now, what did the parents do that the teacher, Cheryl Sabb, had to call to complain? They sent their nine-year-old student to school with cupcakes that were decorated to enable the boy to celebrate his birthday. And they were decorated with little green army men on them. And for that, the teacher called the parents. And she said to the parents, the parents were insensitive considering the Sandy Hook shooting. Can you believe this? This is the public schools intruding into a cupcake with a little army figure on it that a nine-year-old boy was sent to school to celebrate his birthday. Now, am I insensitive, or am I on firmer ground by reacting to this issue of school intruding into the parenting of a nine-year-old student?
One last story and then we go on. The most infuriating—as I looked into this issue, one of the more infuriating offenses was: there was a teacher named Cheryl Sabb, S-A-B-B—find her on Facebook, Cheryl Sabb, S-A-B-B. Cheryl Sabb sent home her elementary school class—it was actually a fourth grader—with a sentence that she dictated for her students to write down. Remember, these are fourth graders. What happened was, in this fourth-grade class, a lawyer was invited to give a bit of a lecture on the Constitution. A local attorney came in and he was teaching the students about the Bill of Rights. Good topic, fourth graders should get some exposure to the Bill of Rights. And the attorney gave what appears to be an objective, fair presentation to these fourth graders of the Bill of Rights. The lawyer left and then the teacher dictated the following sentence to her class and had them write it in their notebooks. The sentence Cheryl Sabb, S-A-B-B, dictated was, quote—remember, she told fourth graders to write this sentence—“I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure,” close quote. Imagine being a parent and entrusting your fourth grader to Cheryl Sabb, S-A-B-B, in Florida, and that is the sentence that your student put in their notebook. This is the government being involved in the educational process of our young kids.
Am I now—when I went to school, I simply learned stuff. I was not indoctrinated to my knowledge. The teachers were good and government did not intrude in how I spent my free time, so long as I wasn’t abused in the 1950s sense of the word, a more sensible sense of the word. This is what we have today, and this is how our children are being raised.
Red Light Cameras and Revenue [74:36]
Bob Zadek: Another topic that caught my attention that set off all my Libertarian buttons is a subject that will affect each of us at some time in the near future. And don’t you hate this? The subject is red light cameras and speed cameras. Any of you get nailed by a red light camera or a speed camera? 800-345-5639, we have our support counselors standing by if you want to share your grief.
What is the story on these red light cameras? Red light cameras are a medium high-tech kind of device. They are, as you all know, installed on red lights, and they will photograph your license plate as you—if you go through a red light. And that is installed because government has an interest in making sure people don’t kill each other on the roads. A valid goal of government, I suppose, I’ll concede that. The question is, these red lights do not—from the evidence—are installed not to save lives, but to make money. That is to say, there is a—these are offered by the vendors who sell them to municipalities and counties as a way to raise revenue.
How does it work? Well, the vendors will teach the government, “Okay, here’s what you do, government. You put in this red light camera and then you shorten by only one second the range of the yellow light. And if the yellow light clicks to red real fast and then the camera takes a picture, boom, you make a bucket of money.” And the cities are eating this up. Now, how do you feel about that as a matter of policy? You have—you get nailed by a camera and there it is, and you’re on—you’re photographed, you get a robot-driven ticket printed to you, printed up and sent to you by a robot, and you’re guilty.
Now, you can look at this in one of two ways. On the one hand, you can say, “Hey, it’s great because it is a free tax that I don’t have to pay because only the suckers who go through the red lights have to pay it. I’m not going to go through the red lights. I love it, raise the fine as much as you can, and I won’t have to pay it. It’s like a tax that you’re exempt from.” Or is this bad public policy because it strikes you as being unfair? But that is what’s going on. And there have been numerous studies that seem to indicate—although there are studies both ways—but there are at least some studies that say that these red light cameras do not prevent accidents. In fact, they cause accidents because people will come up to a red light—it’s turning yellow—and rather than get nailed by the red light camera, they slam on their brakes and boom, they get rear-ended by somebody else. So there is always an increase in rear-end accidents whenever you have red light cameras. But they make buckets and buckets and buckets of money.
So is this a valid use of governmental power to use these red light cameras simply to raise money for the municipality, or is this an intrusion? Now, to show you how this all works, there was a story about St. Petersburg, Florida. In St. Petersburg, Florida, who installed a red light camera, they were taught by the vendor, “Hey, here’s a way to make lots of money. When you install our red light camera, just reduce the yellow light from by one second—by one second, and actually by a tenth of a second. It was reduced from 4.3 seconds to 4.2 seconds. And as soon as they did that, they increased the number of citations materially and they generated an extra $260,000 in 13 months.”
Now, I find myself having mixed feelings about that. I would say, so long as I don’t get nailed, I like the fact that my municipality is raising money that I don’t have to pay for. On the other hand, isn’t it patently unfair for a government to be using this device to raise money? It just is not the kind of government I want to live in. But that’s what’s going on with red light and with speed cameras.
The Maryland Rain Tax [80:32]
Bob Zadek: Last bit of news for you, then regrettably I have to say goodbye for the day. Maryland just enacted a rain tax. In Maryland, you pay a tax on the rainfall on your property. Because the EPA has decided—the federal EPA has decided—that rainwater running off a roof of a building constitutes an improper discharge of dirty water into Chesapeake Bay. The EPA requires Maryland—and Maryland, about nine counties in Maryland have done this—Maryland has enacted a tax on rainwater. That is to say, you pay a tax based upon the size of your roof or other, quote, “impervious surface,” that you own. You pay a tax based upon your roof because water that—if your roof is impervious, then water runs off the roof into the street, gets dirty into Chesapeake Bay, and you’re fouling up the bay. So compliments of the EPA, you now pay a tax in Maryland on the rain. And the tax is so high that some shopping centers fear they might have to close up because they got an awful lot of roofs. So if you are building a shopping center in Maryland, a suggestion from The Bob Zadek Show: you better use a thatched roof, one that leaks, and you’ll avoid the tax.
Pretty bizarre goings on out there in America. Thank you so much for listening. This is Bob Zadek, host of The Bob Zadek Show. I’ll be back happily next Sunday to share the events of the day from a Libertarian perspective. Thanks so much. I’ll see you next week.