Chase Oliver is a woke elitist. He have just have hijacked the " ever decreasing libertarian party" He says that himself.. He says he Social liberal (woke) and fiscal conservative (elitist).. Most of Libertarian have flocked to Trumps camp and this clown chase knows that.. He has too big of an ego to line up with rest of look a like and be party of woke democratic party establishment which will force him as cog in their machine,, He share same ideology as the woke far left
I agree with him 70% of the time, but he has some silly beliefs. He believes in giving puberty blockers to kids and supports biological men competing with women. He also doesn't have a problem with illegal immigration. And he wants to remove references to God on money and important monuments.
"physical removal of a body part is different than taking medication." It actually isn't meaningfully different. Kids' bodies are being permanently altered with these "medications." Most of these drugs/hormones lead to permanent infertility and other physical changes that do not reverse if the child stops taking them. Chase is just wrong on this topic. The age of majority should apply to the drugs as well. Praise to Liz pushing him on that.
@@RoyArrowood Not sure. I've written in Ron Paul twice. I could see myself doing that again or Dave Smith. If my state of Oregon gets competitive because RFK is pulling hard from Biden then I could see myself maybe voting for Trump purely because it will piss the people off that think they are better than others.
@@andrewaddison6270 hinging this debate around puberty blockers and hormone therapy isn't really helpful. That's the exact sort of thing we should leave to the healthcare professionals to investigate. We can do better than some one size doesn't quite fit all solution. Gender Dysphoria is a shared symptom of many different genetic complications. Europe is constantly questioning the US' standards, including these things.
Wow..... great interview guys! Chase is solid. Very very well done. Reasonable, passionate, thoughtful discussion. No yelling at each other. No interrupting of each other. Loved it.
I’m looking at other candidates other than Trump and that Kommila woman. She’s had the last four years to fix our country and what has she done? Groceries, electricity, and almost everything else has doubled in price. How much more can Amerika take before we implode like the former Roman Empire?
@@blackgateboxingxuanmenquan6407 Is that what you plan to say to the voters? If you honestly think that our winning depends on Americans grasping Austrian economics you are sadly deluded. Most Americans won't listen to a lecture about Austrian economics for longer than it takes to say "Austrian economics." We need to come at them with issues they confront every day - crime, inflation, terrible schools, a sluggish economy, too much debt.
I'm a Misesian An-cap and I have been for 20 years. I just found out this guy is even a thing. But, on the MILE-long political spectrum ranging "Rothbardian to Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi", Chase Oliver is an inch away from me, so I wish him success. Meanwhile, Mike Rectenwald ( who's views are very aligned with mine ) is man in his 50's who would take a pot-gummy from a stranger and blank out while speaking at an event, largely focused on his nomination. Libertarianism just has an "attracts strange people" problem. And the more time goes on, the more I miss Harry Browne.
I'm very similar, i do not agree with chase on everything (mainly his culturally leftward positions), but I do on a hell of a lot more than anyone else.
So glad to hear you say that. I wish the rest of the Mises crowd felt the same way. If you want to help the Party grow, please talk to other MCers and get them to support the Party's ticket, or at least stop spreading lies about the positions they stand for.
To be fair to Rectenwald, he genuinely thought he was done with public speaking before taking the edible. Second hand gossip, but I got it from someone who rubbed shoulders with him at the convention. His biggest hiccup was more awkward introvert things.
Being a libertarian should be “woke” freedom is freedom for both sides, it doesn’t matter whether you’re Mormon or trans, you should be allowed to do that without a fascist government
@@erc9468 it is self understanding and psychological learning, it is accepting who we are. We do not need the state for that, people have been gay since the beginning of time, we are only now learning to accept it, the government is using it as a tool, but it is not a bad tool. It just needs to seperate, because we’re learning.
I watched a "Free and Equal" debate that Oliver and one other Libertarian candidate (Lars Mapstead) took part in that included people running for president via the Green Party and as Democratic Socialists. Some of these candidates from the other parties made outrageously anti-property rights statements and Chase and Lars did not verbally oppose any of their proposals, which may have confused people who aren't familiar with libertarianism and the LP into thinking we agree with those anti-property rights views.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
Listening to this conversation, it became obvious to me that Chase was misrepresented on popular social media. His positions are consistently with property rights and individual rights.
It's too funny as Zach tosses the candidate soft balls, whereas Liz is asking tough questions - not always from the best angle, but it's obvious the alignments here.
Tell me why the state has the right to tell you want to do with your business or your property? The state telling you can't do something is the exact same as the state telling you that you must do something.
@@simahui3383 A business mandating medical treatments for employees is still a mandate, even worse if it is not part of their original employment and is added after the fact so it's not part of the employment agreement.
He is not for government mandates, hell, he only thinks they should be legal, not even encouraged, basically on the same level as charging 20$ for bad food.
Chase did mention that Lew links to Nazi websites. I'm not looking it up but if true, that's evidence. Check out Lew Rockwell's 1990's LA Times article after the LA riots AFAIK he never backtracked on that absolutely racist trash. I'm a big fan of Mises and friends but especially as a smaller org at odds with the MSM, we really need to police our own - chastise or ostracize people who are overtly and unapologetically awful. It's crappy but we all need to be ambassadors for our brand.
Lew Rockwell was listed as the editor on newsletters that said stuff like "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." So even if he didn't write them, he certainly knew about them before they were published and was okay with it. Several people, including former Ron Paul Chief of Staff, said he was the ghostwriter on those newsletters, so it's really his word against several others, and Lew has a much larger reason to lie about it.
Interesting idea, but probably would depend on if the kid was willing. Cause i could imagine a kid that was personally religious wanting to try it. Not that I really agree with it, children are always a grey area and need to be regulated more than adults.
@@DillonCarbajal Thanks, it's always going to be a touchy subject. No one would say otherwise. But it is important to have real conversations on this stuff and not shut it out.
Turns out that gender transitioning children ACTUALLY IS THE NEW GAY CONVERSION THERAPY------what little research there is indicates that gender non-conforming kids (tomboys, effeminate boys) that would otherwise turn out to be gay are being transed into the opposite gender.
I'm very glad that Chase Oliver is representing this party. His professionalism, maturity, and positivity in communicating practical Libertarian solutions is what works to win over real people in the real world. I think the Mises Caucus read too much into the attention that toxicity and courting controversy gained on social media. That only happens because *social media companies* want engagement to boost *their* revenues and will thus reward toxicity and controversy (witness most of the comments below). It did not result in more members, more donations, or more ballot access, and thus this behavior did not actually help the LP. Oliver opposes government mandates and always has, and it speaks volumes that his opponents either employ ad hominem attacks or misrepresent his position, not realizing or caring that such antics make all of us Libertarians look bad.
@Nellie555 I am happy that you were able to find some relief being intersex. This however is not the same as “trans”. Your condition is a proven medical condition. Being “trans” is a subjective feeling that can not be proven. I am a gay man that worked for 8 years as the office manager of a private psychology practice. It does not take years of therapy anymore to receive medical treatment for “trans”. There are practices which advertise writing “letters” after two virtual visits. Kids should be able to express themselves without changing themselves. Men can not be women and women can not be men. This is the fact that they should be told.
@Nellie555 With all due respect, being intersex is not the same as being an intact male who undergoes an elective transition to female. You already had all the secondary sex characteristics of the gender you got re-assigned to, and you had the right gonads for that gender.
Zach/Liz/Reason: Thank you for bothering to get Mr. Oliver's side of the story. I have been hearing the words "Libertarian Party" in the media and internet platforms more in the last 5 days than I have in the last 5 years. Time will tell how this all pans out. In the meantime..... After all of the complaints I have seen regarding Oliver's nomination, I have to ask: is there anyone in the LP that would've been acceptable? I wanted Amash (not running, and may have been driven out by the MC?). Then I wanted Mapstead (who, despite his excellent platform, didn't get enough votes from delegates - and he's been a complete gentleman about it). I was not impressed with Rectenwald, and his performance didn't change my mind. I like certain aspects of RFK Jr., but he's not a libertarian. Trump is not a libertarian, and he wasn't even eligible (which he later admitted on one of his social media accounts). So again, WHO would've been acceptable here??? We continue to lambast the LP over 1-3% of the vote, while never once questioning the broken system that keeps them there (unless you're a duopoly shill, in which case you want it that way). I'm still on the fence about Mr. Oliver, but I am listening. I live in a blue state, so any vote for D or R is wasted. If the duopoly candidates are ever of a mind to complete on an equal level, they are more than welcome to open to debates to 6-8 candidates and move to abolish the Electoral College and bring in Approval Voting. Only THEN will I consider voting for them. Spoiler alert: they're not going to.
Alaska has Ranked Choice, we're voting on it again this year (the bulk of my motivation to go vote this year). The fairvote website has a decent shake down of the 2022 election.
The EC prevents the deranged voters of 3 or 4 big cities from completely voiding the rights of those who keep them alive, something that has already gone too far.
I'm sorry, Liz, but I think the overwhelming majority of parents, when told if they don't let their kid get gender altering surgery that they "might" commit suicide later in life, would still choose NOT to mutilate their kids. The fact that they are kids means they are going through a period of constant change. They might feel differently next year, or after they finish puberty. Once they are adults they can make decisions about their own bodies. In the meantime there are lots of good therapists out there.
As with other body dysmorphias, changing their appearance is very unlikely to ameliorate the underlying mental issue. Like how a grossly underweight anorexic person still sees themselves as fat.
Not true for most of the country. It's not that your kid will unalive themselves later in life but right there if you don't follow whatever the health authority says. Most parents who aren't libertarians will feel emotionally blackmailed by the authority, especially doctors and counselors who supposedly represent science and facts. You can also watch the Texas trans hearing to see how many parents testified for it, repeating the same threat that forced them to trans their kids. I have a friend who's such counselor that used to repeat the same baseless claim, because that's what all of these counselors are trained to do in universities and compelled to do by their hospitals and state/national licensing organizations. Even after my friend woke up from the Marxist brainwashing, they said 99% of the people in the field are either brainwashed or scared to step out of the guidelines and lose their livelihood.
@@kokoromarudi7717 If your kid is under 15 his chances of offing himself are remote. After 15 the rates of suicide in every 10 year age group are higher than 15-24. People of all ages commit suicide for all sorts of reasons. I don't think "they won't let me change my gender until I turn 18" is very high up there on the list of reasons. People committed suicide before gender changing was a thing. You can't cave every time your kid throws a temper tantrum. They'll just grow up being spoiled brats who expect everything to simply be handed to them.
@@jonathanrichter4256I agree, I was just saying that a lot of parents believe the authorities and believe their kid would actually do it, so they caved in
I don't vote and I don't agree with Chase Oliver on everything, but the idea that Trump is more libertarian than him is absolutely insane. Anyone who says this exposes themselves as a conservative masquerading as a libertarian.
@@tflg3257 If we get Ranked Choice Voting all across the country, that will change. Keep an eye on Maine this November. I would not be shocked to see Oliver/ter Maat get 20% there.
You're missing the point... I am a small l libertarian... The LP does nothing but suppress libertarian values. Dems/Reps don't get into office and make change because they are absolutists... they get there through compromise. Trump came in and said he would put LP members in positions of power that can be used to make change libertarians agree with and the LP screamed in Trumps face. The LP is suppression, it has no plan to ever get anything done.
In that case you were never voting Libertarian period this year. Rectenwald had no more chance for votes than any other candidates. You Trumpertarians are showing your hand super hard right now.
I wasn't very convinced with his responses. He said libertarians should work together and focus what we agree on, but has an uncompromising stance on abortion. I agree the government should stay out of medical choices, but the Cass review proved puberty blockers do have a permanent effect, allowing them but not surgery because they're "just a medication" (when the governmetn also bans medications) seems like an inconsistent stance to me. I can get over that, but along with other things like shouting someone down "because they're a nazi" does not leave me enthused at all.
@@RoyArrowoodI genuinely am not trying to straw-man his position, but he genuinely makes me wonder if he believes the government should prosecute people that abuse their children, or if he’d make some kind of whack job “well it’s up to the parents and the children and consent blah blah” argument.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
@@rasputinjesus I wouod love to be involved with my state party but im in Pensacola Fl and have no idea where im supposted to get involved at. I have tried the LP website and facebook. Facebook basically says pcola chapter no longer exists. Website is not helpful at all. Libertarians are kinda bad at marketing imo
@@dominickschrute3084 Yes he was a bit wishy washy on that point. I thought it was a good opportunity to remind people that he is running for president and that it is a state issue but then make some kind of concrete statement on the matter. Disappointingly he was unable to articulate any reason the Feds could ban surgery but not medications.
I skimmed Chase Oliver's Wikipedia page and his platform basically reads like a mainstream Democratic. There was no mention of fiscal restraint or cutting the size of the government, it was all about liberal social issues.
There have been a series of edits within the last so many hours of writing this comment. Always be sure to click the "View History" button on wiki pages
In what universe would you use a Wikipedia page to get Chase's platform beliefs instead of his actual website? You do know that candidates don't control or write their Wikipedia entries right?
@@danbert8 In what universe would you use a politician's website to get their platform instead of looking at their record (speeches, social media posts, interviews)?
Even if you don't trust their platform being their stated platform... Wikipedia is hardly a comprehensive and unbiased source. Are you saying Chase doesn't have fiscal restraint and shrinking government as priorities because it's not mentioned on a publicly editable encyclopedia? What do his social media posts, interviews, and speeches say about those topics?
It's also a live demonstration of Rothbard's Law: everyone always specialized in what they're worst at. Chase is trying to appeal to the same fictional "modern audience" that led to Disney putting 1/3 of their company up for sale some months ago.
Because it's been infiltrated and usurped by socialists. Woke is anti-liberty, and socialist libertarian is a contradiction in terms. True libertarians recognise and reject authoritarian political systems. Socialist ideas have no place in libertarian politics, as they are all predicated on top down control, the removal of individual rights for the sake of the collective, and the intellectual engineering of society, overriding the vital interests (and even the lives) of individuals and groups who oppose them. Libertarianism is by definition a broad church, but post modernist, neo-marxist woke, is not. It's an absolutist cult, and it's been welcomed by linbertarians as 'well that's one view' . . . and now it controls and defines the libertarian party as an entity that has been captured and neutered by the far left. This ain't YOUR party any more, it's theirs, and they are fully on board with the woke globalist agenda. The moral of the story is, don't believe everything on the label. Your party is infested. True libertarians would leave them. Let the 'libertarian' party be 100% woke leftoids, then start a new libertarian party with better housekeeping. Maybe if the authoritarian Trump WAS nominated, it would have acted like a bug bomb, but that would be just as damaging for libertarianism in the long run as this collectivist virtue signaller is now. Freedom never comes from them, or through their rigged political systems. It always corrupts and distorts freedom movements to its own twisted ends. It comes from us. Party members or not, living and thinking freely, no matter how they try to dictate their conformity upon us. Stay free.
He was a democrat who left that party over foreign affairs policy. So the question is if he's latching onto a third party in a desperation to keep the political career rolling, which it doesn't look like it.
Chase Oliver's nomination by the LP is a huge gift to Trump. He sounds like a politician. . . . . and kind of a dick. To Liz's point: If a child requires an amputation to remove a cancerous tumor, they don't need to wait until until age 18. . . . . nobody would delay true healthcare even if it is irreversible. A tattoo is not healthcare, it's a body modification. If Oliver wants tattoos and "gender-affirming" surgery to follow the same rules, he needs to admit they are both body modifications, not healthcare. . . . . . So his position is not logically consistent. If he thinks healthcare (including gender transitioning) should be a decision made by the parents, then there is no principled reason a child should not have surgery.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
@@rasputinjesus Meh. We don’t want to join politics “Pride” parades. Won’t pay dues to this stuff. They’d be taking my $$ to push something that should be legal, yes, but is morally and societally condemnable. Pride is just the gay equivalent of the nasty and reprehensible morals of heterosexual Mardi Gras. If the LP were a swingers joint, I wouldn’t pay a cent to it then either. Party needs to shape up. We turned a black light back upon it, and we don’t like what we see.
Euthanasia is also irreversible, some damage from smoking is permanent, alcohol addiction could persist until death, heroin addiction could be permanent, the list goes on and on and on. Whether it be irreversible, dangerous, deadly, etc., if the receiving end agreed to it, then it's not for the government to interfere. Also keep in mind that every government intervention is funded by money stolen from you.
Europe constantly questioning the FDA would be a decent point to tangent into here. Not too pleased with revolving this narrative around puberty blockers and hormone therapy, as those are the marked up one size doesn't quite fit all solution the monied up lobbyists enable. The main point should be that politicizing niche medical cases that affect less than 2% of the population is incredibly dumb. We could do that with any niche batch of medical things and see the same stupidity on a different theme.
“Trans” isn’t a condition. It’s a social fad. If a bunch of “cutters” went to a doctor so that he could cut them with scalpels and apply antiseptics, and parents were teaching their kids to mimic this behavior by taking them to “cutter”-docs, that’s not healthcare. That’s abuse. And the doctor should be punished by law.
How is it a Libertarian Party principle to intervene on trans issues? Sounds like rehashing the “gay” movement all over again. So you all want to eliminate the Age of Consent for adults to “f@&k” kids but not to allow them to choose how they express their gender? FYI this has nothing to do with any medical or surgical procedures; that’s a total Red Herring and anyone using that as a basis for an argument is just a Conservative in Libertarian clothing building Strawmans
I like that Liz Wolfe asked him the tough questions, and although she clearly made him think hard a few times, and she called him out when he dodged a question, I think he acquitted himself well overall, while Wolfe seemed to get visibly angry. Indeed, Oliver's position *is* the Libertarian one. Parents and their children consulting with their doctors are far better equipped to make the right decision for the child than government bureaucrats or politicians. The incentives for the former are aligned much better. The parent loves the child and hires the doctor to provide quality care. A bureaucrat, on the other hand, is just doing a job with few incentives to do it well, and a politician will say whatever it takes to win votes. Oliver's approach also results in smaller government, obviously. Furthermore, Wolfe's complaint about well-funded activists makes little sense to me. In the free marketplace of ideas, people are and should be free to donate money to the causes they think will help further their views, and the conservative and libertarian side is typically *much* better funded (e.g., Koch) than the liberal side. She also doesn't seem to articulate a proposal to address this. Should think tanks like Cato, Heritage, and Heartland be banned from weighing in on political debates because they are well-funded? Does Wolfe forfeit the right to comment because of the revenues raised by Reason Magazine? Do well-funded rich people have less of a right to talk about politics than poor people?
Regarding use of language like "gender affirming care," this seems just like free speech to me. Both sides of a debate have been fighting to get everyone to use their preferred choice of terminology from as long as I can remember, from Pro-Life people using "unborn baby" instead of fetus (I've done this myself, as has Wolfe), Libertarians calling taxation theft, and conservatives using terms like "RINO," "socialist," and "woke" as epithets, etc. Only someone who has consistently complained about this tactic and refrained from engaging in it themselves has much cause to object to it.
Thank you for coming to our convention, Zach. It was great to actually meet you in person. I really like our candidate and am thrilled to see him here on your show. Thank you! 😊
@@Abomination317politically it's the same as a independent but they lean toward freedom on everything presidentially. Iv aways thought a term or 2 should set us back on course. Libertarian is flawed because free will is flawed cause we have bad seeds. A person's utopia will never be achieved but we all want it. We need more freedom and a smaller government. You see he said what he thinks and the states should do what they want though.
Legal protection of minority rights, rather than subjection to majority rule over individual rights (such as bodily autonomy) reflects the debate between minarchy and anarchy. That does not make all minarchists "inconsistent" as Liz appeared to assert.
The smallest minority of all is the individual. If children have a right to intact bodies before they're 18, why make an exception for trans or queer kids?
@@CountArtha no one has a right to intact bodies. That's a positive right, like the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. Natural rights are negative rights. That said, a child born with a birth defect (internal or external), should not be denied the opportunity to seek treatment. What's the best treatment? I'll decide for my children, you decide for yours.
@@Desiree_BB By "right to intact bodies" I only mean the right not to be mutilated or defaced - the example Oliver gave was a sixteen-year-old getting a tattoo. The problem a lot of us are having is that _gender-affirming care_ (so-called) would have been considered mutilation just a few years ago, and no parent has a right to "decide" to mutilate their children. If your parents happen to have progressive attitudes about the malleability of gender and use your body as a proof of concept, you are being harmed and the government ought to protect you.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
@@rasputinjesus after your nomination of a LBGTQIAntifa member of WEF I RENOUNCE the Libertarian Party. Oh well, after the Democrats are done PURGING the Republicans YOU'RE NEXT! You never even matched the seats the Whig party was able to get.
He's libertarian enough for me. I think he would absolutely smear Trump and Biden in a debate. That is why he will never be allowed to be in them. My dream outcome for the election is that Biden comes in 4th or lower.
@robbnoble1509 Biden never could debate. His strategy has always been to lie and make stuff up. He lied about having degrees he didn't have. He lied about doing jobs he never did. He was laughed out of the presidential race in the 80s because he plagiarized his speeches. He can't do this now that people can look up the stuff he says in real time. The only reason he won was because delusional leftists who thought they were going to get their student loans forgiven put their own selfish needs ahead of everything else. Most of them know better now. They won't vote for anyone else, but they will stay home. Trump might show better in a debate because he is an A-hole, and so many people like that. In a real intellectual debate, any libertarian would smear them both. Chase seems fully capable of articulating a few points, which is way more than any of the others.
None of the candidates were compelling, including the one endorsed by the Mises Caucus, who was high at the convention. Oliver squeaked by None of the Above 60%-40%. Once Dave Smith decided not to run, the LP was doomed to another Jo Jorgensen situation.
Chase has my vote. Articulate, committed to the party, trying to build the coalition from all sides. There is a silent middle who are sick of the polarized tribalism. If they get a chance to hear Chase, he will gain momentum. Now we need high profile donors and endorsements ASAP. If you really care about the libertarian platform and think the government is actively hurting its citizens, you have a moral obligation to support this ticket. Vote Chase even if you think it's the lesser of three evils.
I mean, if the objective is to find someone who supports free people, free minds, and free markets he's the closest thing we got. He's a hell of a lot better than Trump and Biden on all fronts. If the idea is to oppose statism he's the best bet so i'll support him.
How can I as sane person even vote for this man that keeps saying insane stuff? I'm sitting here how are people so gulible they fall for this nonsense?
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
Is this a quote he's had? Or are you connecting the parents and child making decisions without government approval? Also, this isn't a good analogy, I'm sure the child isn't consenting to have cigarettes put out in their arm
@@juancuelloespinosa the child can't consent to anything,...they aren't physiologically AND psychologically able. Also, the idea the government, if it is to exist, doesn't stop child abuse of that caliber...wtf?? lol. Parents transitioning kids do so without science to back them...and therefore calling it abuse can make sense. The science shows no real benefit, hence the UK just banned all gender affirming care with hormones or hormone blockers.
@@dominickschrute3084 I agree. age of consent is a thing for a reason. I'm trying to know whether this was a quote by oliver, and pointing out simply that conceptually, it isn't a good analogy. a better one would be sexual relations, or something
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad that anyone thinks anything can change without replacing the monetary system. That should be the only issue. Doesn't matter who is president.
@@BigEvan96 Yeah it would require dissolving that power nexus. It wouldn't be that terribly difficult to switch currency to crypto. 1) I wouldn't think you could use an existing ledger. I mean, use an existing platform but a blank ledger and fresh tokens, and then trade tokens for dollars. The platform would need requirements for security, decentralization, and transaction processing time at least. Anyone could run a server, but normal people probably wouldn't be able to afford it. 2) Gov't needs to guarantee internet access for the people, because they can't tax you if you can't pay. You could do this in a number of ways -- Washington would probably choose the most painfully bureaucratic one like vouchers 3) you need institutions that can give loans -- I imagine it being pretty much a bank. You send your crypto to their account, you get bank tokens in return and earn interest on them. They need to have deposit insurance. Yeah banks suck but, hey, people need loans. 4) credit reporting would be a fairly easy one, you just have to prove you own accounts and they have your entire bank history (they send you a token, you send it back) 5) After the dollar -> crypto switch, the government can accept other forms of cryptocurrency as payment. They would have to meet the same requirements. and then the government would be limited in what it spends by how much it taxes, therefore limiting their power, which will make lobbying less profitable, income growth will normalize, you'll stop seeing videos of people crying that they can't afford their bills. And I think there's a lot to be said about being first-to-market. Suddenly your currencies are the most valuable currencies, but you won't see the "bad money drives out good" phenomena because they're the only accepted currencies and people will act like they're allergic to fiat. We already have quantum computing regulations in place, so at least there's that.
Yeah you gotta dissolve that power nexus. It wouldn't be that terribly difficult to switch currency to crypto. 1) I wouldn't think you could use an existing ledger. Use an existing platform but a blank ledger and fresh tokens, and then trade tokens for dollars. The platform would need requirements for security, decentralization, and transaction processing time at least. Anyone could run a server, but normal people probably wouldn't be able to afford it. 2) Gov't needs to guarantee internet access for the people, because they can't tax you if you can't pay. You could do this in a number of ways -- Washington would probably choose the most painfully bureaucratic one like vouchers 3) you need institutions that can give loans -- I imagine it being pretty much a bank. You send your crypto to their account, you get bank tokens in return and earn interest on them. They need to have deposit insurance. Yeah banks suck but, hey, people need loans. 4) credit reporting would be a fairly easy one, you just have to prove you own accounts and they have your entire bank history (they send you a token, you send it back) 5) After the dollar -> crypto switch, the government can accept other forms of cryptocurrency as payment. They would have to meet the same requirements. and then the government would be limited in what it spends by how much it taxes, therefore limiting their power, which will make lobbying less profitable, income growth will normalize, you'll stop seeing videos of people crying that they can't afford their bills. And I think there's a lot to be said about being first-to-market. Suddenly your currencies are the most valuable currencies, but you won't see the "bad money drives out good" phenomena because they're the only accepted currencies and people will act like they're allergic to fiat. And then we already have regulations for quantum computing so that's helpful.
She was actually making good substantive points on the trans discussion, but constantly interrupting and raising her voice and talking over both her guest and co-host made it really hard to appreciate the discourse. I'm all for oppositional and challenging questions, but not like that.
I have been a registered member of the Libertarian Party since I became eligible to vote, and I have identified as a Libertarian even before reaching voting age. It is truly disheartening to witness the current state of affairs. One can only imagine the reaction from a figure like Harry Browne would have had if he were still alive today.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
The US libertarian party continues its long, storied journey of utter irrelevance at the national scale I see. No surprises here. I will not vote for someone who deploys the limp-wristed (I'm using that term advisedly) cop-out of "let parents and doctors decide" when asked about the issue of so called "trans" children. A complete absurdity.
There isn't really any other position to take on that issue for a libertarian. Who *should* decide what the best decision for the health and well-being of a child is if it's not between children, parents and doctors? You may have your private opinion on such issues, but you don't get to dictate it to other people. Not if you're even remotely libertarian.
@@Muonium1 So Christian Scientists can't prevent their children from getting blood transfusions on religious grounds? The libertarian Party had to deal with that issue in the 1990's. The only difference is that the Trans issue involves sex which apparently is much more divisive than the life of a child.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
@rasputinjesus i tried to volunteer... they weren't interested in any community voluntarism... and most local party members didn't even petition for signatures. I got a huge chunk of signatures for them. I even did volunteer clean up under their banner. They don't want to do community work so now i do it on my own.
To be fair, that is always going to be the case with Libertarians. Michael Rectenwald is a snooze-fest. He's great if you align with him, but he's not going to attract many outside voters. Democracy is too shallow for a guy like him. Democrats and Republicans are just better at playing the celebrity/royalty show that wins democratic elections.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
16:33 Sorry, but not all parents have unconditional love for their kids. Plenty care more about their friends' and surrounding culture's opinion in an attempt to improve their own social standing.
I think Mises Institute has topics like economics nailed down pat, but from a social point of view they feel pretty conservative. Luckily as Chase pointed out, much like Ron Paul did in the past. Both want you to make personal choices on how to live your life.
As happens so often here, the hosts are completely failing to make the correct libertarian arguments. Federal and local governments passed laws exempting employers from liability IF they imposed mandates. That means "private company chooses to do it" is a contextual lie. When there is some law or regulation "encouraging" them to impose mandates, that's tyranny. That the end imposer is "private" is a scam. And yet that's what Oliver is playing along with, here.
Yeah, in another video he basically says we should just let everyone come in, that migrants are actually less likely to claim benefits because they're using stolen social security numbers or whatever. That they pay in but don't take back (with even a small amount of research you find this is completely false). Problem solved, I guess. 😒
My biggest qualms about possibly supporting Chase, and I've had this with other left-leaning libertarian politicians, is that they often seem to get bogged down in identitarian and other collectivist politics. People who are strict libertarians simply stand for equal rights for all and don't go around pandering and virtue signaling to this collective or that. When a Libertarian politician panders to identitarian groups they are not really standing up for the broader goals of equal liberty for all.
The policies these left-"libertarians" support will ultimately end up in authoritarianism. I've seen left-libs support UBI and Universal Healthcare, which it, surprisingly, doesn't seem like Chase Oliver supports. Or at least not that I know of yet. Simply put, although I align better with him than red and blue, I find it difficult to support someone who misrepresents the mises caucus and other, questionable, opinions he had made. Libertarianism is about having absolute freedom with the NAP legal norm to ensure said freedom. Supporting this guy might be a bad choice when I've generally seen left-libertarians be authoritarian-lite. Their policies WILL, in the low time preference, lead to the same authoritarianism we have today, but with a different flavor.
That’s pretty much where I’m at. I like some of his ideas and policies, but the pandering and virtue signaling does bother me as well. That and his stance on puberty blockers for kids, and medically transitioning them.
The issue with the messaging around companies have the right to impose mandates, is that companies weren't allowed their right to NOT impose mandates. That was the major anti-libertarian issue. The mandates were coming from government through and through, and even if a company would have imposed mandates of their own free will no one could know cause they had a government gun to their head. Of couse companies have the right to discriminate, that was taken away from them.
One thing that rubs me the wrong way about "lol companies can do whatever they want" is that a HUGE wing of dystopian sci fi is that corporations become pseudo governments unto themselves. I can imagine the libertarians in those stories saying that the corporations, which own entire solar systems, have a right to control the lives of those who live on their planets. We see this all the time in reality as well. In antiquity, there were company towns. Today, we have corporations owning the largest public forums in human history. In both cases, violations of the Constitution are regular, yet our libertarians think that's just find and dandy. Welp, I disagree. I think the government has an interest in protecting civil liberties affirmatively, not just preventing itself from violating them. I don't know what the shape of those affirmative protections should be, but it's hard to deny that the arc of history is bending toward megacorporations having quite a bit of control over our liberties. Best to start setting boundaries now.
The nominee is determined. It is time to come together. I disagree with Chase on a few issues. But I agree with him well over 95% of the time. And the progress of the Liberty Movement and the LP is what is really at stake, here. We need to rally around Chase. Biden and Trump are such horrible candidates, and one of them will win. But the fact that they are both horrible means the LP has a major opportunity to advance towards 5%. I think Chase can do it.
My issue with the Libertarian party is that they don't have any kind of consistent agreed-upon central platform that lasts beyond an election cycle. Sure, everybody can come together around general libertarian ideology, but when it comes to specific policies and stances, there is infinite intraparty disagreement, and I can't help but perceive the current Libertarian party leadership as picking and choosing stances based not on principle, but instead on where they are likely to be able to peel off vulnerable voters from the main parties.
@@Justin_Beaver564 yes, but every Libertarian seems to have a different idea of what it means to be "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" when it comes down to specific issues.
@@HenryThree That's true of every party though. When you have 10 candidates running in the primary it's because they aren't agreeing on some policy or another. Libertarians may be a more extreme version but they do have an central platform of the NAP and private property rights.... then from there the boundaries can differ a bit.
@@ethanhandel1001 My perception has been that any nominal differences in policy stances amongst the primary candidates for one of the main parties get ironed out after the primary as they coalesce around the donor-approved party platform. I would argue that the Libertarian party has a unifying ideology but no consistent party policy platform, while the Dems & GOP have relatively consistent, slow-to-change, party policy platforms but no real unifying ideological framework, leading to wildly contradictory positions.
@@ethanhandel1001 They haven't been able to agree whether blackmailing your employees into getting a medical treatment they don't want violates the NAP; nor whether parents can turn their children trans without violating the NAP; nor whether a pregnant mother can kill her baby without violating the NAP. Turns out the NAP can't be applied without an underlying moral axiom.
I'm a libertarian leaning independent. I looked at the Oliver's platform and was mostly ok with it except a few points. I'm against _not_ supporting Israel. I'm for getting out of Ukraine but not abandoning them. Putin winning Ukraine would be a problematic for the world since I sincerely doubt he would stop there. Also, completely getting rid of the department of Education is nuts.
Chase's responses were very disappointing and inconsistent. A tattoo is far more 'reversible' than puberty blockers. There's no defined difference of impact between medication and surgery - both can be permanent. He needs to take the time and research what the issues are around transitioning and kids; leaving it to parents and "experts" ignores the cultural influence on government. Sadly, this is where libertarianism falls short IMHO.
@@luvitluvitbaby This is what I mean - not understanding that the doctor, parent, and child are all being influenced by money (do you trust the pharmaceutical industry?), culture, schools, activists in that decision. It is not strictly a medical decision in the current paradigm. The UK just introduced new restrictions for under-18s. Still think it's ok if just the doctor, parent, and child agree and the government doesn't? www.gov.uk/government/news/new-restrictions-on-puberty-blockers.
@@Ken-sd4uv But the parent of that child can consent, and with the consultation of a highly trained medical professional, i.e. their physician, it is perfectly legal.
If you talk to other libertarians, Chase has been name calling and mud slinging at them for years. Saying something and actually doing it are not the same things.
@@wildemthefem5773 yeah I get it, I’m not gonna trust any politician too much but I’m absolutely sure he’s gotten a lot of hate from the same party members too, so I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. But the truth is we don’t need any politicians, we need a redo
If Chase agrees that ALL parenting decisions should be left to the parents, does he agree that parents should be allowed to let their children smoke or do drugs or have sex with adults? Do you advocate eliminating government intervention in parenting entirely, or ONLY in this particular case?
Brah, lying now trying to say he doesn't and won't support the Libertarian Party and called the party racist, now backtracks. He's good at changing his story.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
This interview did indeed convince me that Chase is woke. The rude barbs and insults (Tim Pool hiding under his beanie?) while criticizing others for doing same and simultaneously playing the victim, the lack of understanding of issues, the superficial thinking and defensiveness when asked to back up calling someone a racist...never thought I'd see a woke libertarian, but here we are.
The Libertarian party has allowed itself to be destroyed right at the moment a third party, especially a truly libertarian third party, could gain it's most strength. I don't think that's an accident.
@@RoyArrowood Everyone I talk to wants an authoritarian state. They don't want the responsibility of liberty. They want to pick someone that aligns with them, who will impose their beliefs, through law, on the entire country. Even though they don't typically understand what they really want.
There is a problem with using puberty/hormone blockers on children, doing that during developmental years stunts the development of more than just genitals. They also are important for the healthy development of the brain, etc. People keep ignoring that.
#ChaseOliver dictating to #Israel -- a sovereign nation -- that it should've used a "scalpel and not a sledgehammer" is the most un-libertarian thing I've heard from an LP candidate. How about "no money for Israel, no money for Hamas, and no interference w/Israel's sovereignty."
Zach has gotten pretty good since he started w reason. Liz... Not so much. Had to stop watching this show, but came back to hear from chase in his own words. Not regretting my choice... But was impressed by Chase.
@@noname-xo1bt I'm all for push back and challenging. But talking over both guest and co-host? Raising your voice and interrupting? It really detracts from the push back, even when what she is saying is coherent (as I admit it mostly was on the trans issues here).
@@kokoromarudi7717 Don't put words in my mouth. I should be able to refuse a totally unreasonable request from my employer and not be fired for it. Even employees are allowed boundaries, like attractive young women who would rather not be groped at work or healthy young men who would rather not have an 800 percent increase in their risk of myocarditis.
@@kokoromarudi7717 no.... I think the business and the employee should be able to arrive at the age themselves without government intervention. True minimum wage is $0.... No business owes anyone a job, which is why they can fire at will... But allowing businesses to force employees to undergoe irreversible medical procedures to keep their jobs is about as anti-freedom as it gets. Don't be naive. Employees are, for the most part, at a disadvantage to the employer. If you think the market is so free that everyone can just up and leave their job whenever they want, you're delusional.
This just reinforces my view that it is the "party system" itself that is the problem. I am a former Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian - in that order. I will never join another party. Each party quickly becomes focused on the good of the party and not the good of the people and the nation.
Can someone just explain to me the reason for the so called Libertarian "primaries": that saw Chase win 6 states but only 6,000 votes only acquiring 8.8%! and some how had a better chance than a guy who won 23,000 votes and 56% & another that won 15%? Then please explain how a candidate for nominee , Oliver Chase, starts out with 11% going against another candidate who started with 35% and each round gained more and more; and somehow at around round 5 Chase got 49% versus the other candidate that had 45% and was obviously projected to win before round 5, but somehow lost to NOTA at 5%? I say that means the nomination was rigged.
The MC is mostly running things, and Chase is not their candidate. So, are you saying the MC rigged the primary for someone else or that they are so incompetent that they allowed someone to rig it under their nose? As candidates drop out and speeches are made, votes change. That's the answer.
Chase had 19.70% in the first ballot, Rec had 28.18%. I stated that don’t prohibit us having primaries, Chase won all except one. Primaries are non binding. The ticket is elected by the delegates. Each round the right and those with the lowest vote total of the candidates running get eliminated with the exception of NOTA. Then we go to the next round so folks typically have a second or third choice that they vote for in subsequent rounds.
@@michellemaccutcheon4813 So you just told me that having NOTA vote rigged it. I understand delegates make the decision. It just seems very anti democratic if literally 62%+ of votes divided into 3 different candidates, or 88% overall who didn't vote for Chase was ignored and the delegates decided he needed to be candidate even though he won with 49%. Seems the Libertarians are no different than Republicans & Democrats who've done similar things especially in regards to Trump back in 2016.
@@tann_man can you elaborate on that? Because everything he spoke on he very clearly established under libertarian principles. The only thing he could have fleshed out more cogently was his stance on abortion, which is very clearly an issue of protecting one’s bodily property rights from trespassers (see Walter Block). Granted, that might have gotten too esoteric for a relatively “mainstream” discussion like this, or with respect to the political main stage.
@@kaveman_realh9224 exactly 💯. I think it’s many people who genuinely dont know what libertarianism is , conservatives who desperately want libertarians to join the Republican Party, and Mises caucus conservatarians who want to fundamentally change the party to be a conservative/libertarian/populist party. The people who are full blown libertarians all the way overwhelmingly support chase olive. They may disagree with him on some things sort of like we all disagree in life in general. We all aren’t robots. But they aren’t against chase Oliver. Online conversations are very disingenuous.
A libertarian who actually supports freedom and not just ghoulish elitism. Halleluyah.
Chase Oliver is a woke elitist. He have just have hijacked the " ever decreasing libertarian party" He says that himself.. He says he Social liberal (woke) and fiscal conservative (elitist).. Most of Libertarian have flocked to Trumps camp and this clown chase knows that.. He has too big of an ego to line up with rest of look a like and be party of woke democratic party establishment which will force him as cog in their machine,, He share same ideology as the woke far left
I think he's a great candidate, many people talking shit about him are just free market republicans and not libertarians.
He's also the only option we got that wasn't a friend of Epstein.
Who tf is trying to rig our candidate choices?!?
I agree with him 70% of the time, but he has some silly beliefs. He believes in giving puberty blockers to kids and supports biological men competing with women. He also doesn't have a problem with illegal immigration. And he wants to remove references to God on money and important monuments.
Yep very true, many people hate him because he gay and are calling him woke for allowing people the freedom to call themselves a different gender
"physical removal of a body part is different than taking medication."
It actually isn't meaningfully different. Kids' bodies are being permanently altered with these "medications." Most of these drugs/hormones lead to permanent infertility and other physical changes that do not reverse if the child stops taking them.
Chase is just wrong on this topic. The age of majority should apply to the drugs as well. Praise to Liz pushing him on that.
Finally. A real criticism.
This comment is why I will not vote for him.
@@stricklandfanWho will you vote for?
@@RoyArrowood Not sure. I've written in Ron Paul twice. I could see myself doing that again or Dave Smith. If my state of Oregon gets competitive because RFK is pulling hard from Biden then I could see myself maybe voting for Trump purely because it will piss the people off that think they are better than others.
@@andrewaddison6270 hinging this debate around puberty blockers and hormone therapy isn't really helpful. That's the exact sort of thing we should leave to the healthcare professionals to investigate. We can do better than some one size doesn't quite fit all solution. Gender Dysphoria is a shared symptom of many different genetic complications.
Europe is constantly questioning the US' standards, including these things.
Wow..... great interview guys! Chase is solid. Very very well done. Reasonable, passionate, thoughtful discussion. No yelling at each other. No interrupting of each other. Loved it.
I’m looking at other candidates other than Trump and that Kommila woman. She’s had the last four years to fix our country and what has she done? Groceries, electricity, and almost everything else has doubled in price. How much more can Amerika take before we implode like the former Roman Empire?
The MC being the leading voice in the Libertarian Party and not having their preferred person be the candidate is the most libertarian thing ever.
The most LP thing ever, you mean. What? Run a libertarian? Nah….
Yes it is. Unfortunately MC are Republicans in all but name.
@@DarthUmbris626 You should really read Ludwig von Mises’s work. You might learn what libertarianism is.
@@blackgateboxingxuanmenquan6407 Is that what you plan to say to the voters? If you honestly think that our winning depends on Americans grasping Austrian economics you are sadly deluded. Most Americans won't listen to a lecture about Austrian economics for longer than it takes to say "Austrian economics." We need to come at them with issues they confront every day - crime, inflation, terrible schools, a sluggish economy, too much debt.
@jonathanrichter4256 all of which the MC addresses.
I'm a Misesian An-cap and I have been for 20 years. I just found out this guy is even a thing. But, on the MILE-long political spectrum ranging "Rothbardian to Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi", Chase Oliver is an inch away from me, so I wish him success.
Meanwhile, Mike Rectenwald ( who's views are very aligned with mine ) is man in his 50's who would take a pot-gummy from a stranger and blank out while speaking at an event, largely focused on his nomination.
Libertarianism just has an "attracts strange people" problem. And the more time goes on, the more I miss Harry Browne.
This is the most respectable comment ive ever seen from an ancap. good on you!
I'm very similar, i do not agree with chase on everything (mainly his culturally leftward positions), but I do on a hell of a lot more than anyone else.
"miss Harry Browne"
Me too my friend, me too.
Until every dollar is yours. To spend. To save. To give away. As you see fit.
So glad to hear you say that. I wish the rest of the Mises crowd felt the same way. If you want to help the Party grow, please talk to other MCers and get them to support the Party's ticket, or at least stop spreading lies about the positions they stand for.
To be fair to Rectenwald, he genuinely thought he was done with public speaking before taking the edible. Second hand gossip, but I got it from someone who rubbed shoulders with him at the convention. His biggest hiccup was more awkward introvert things.
Finally a Libertarian candidate who's an actual Libertarian. Definitely considering voting for him this fall.
💀💀
💜
Being a libertarian should be “woke” freedom is freedom for both sides, it doesn’t matter whether you’re Mormon or trans, you should be allowed to do that without a fascist government
Wokism is Fascism.
It is the imposition by the state of a certain value set on citizens.
@@erc9468 it is self understanding and psychological learning, it is accepting who we are. We do not need the state for that, people have been gay since the beginning of time, we are only now learning to accept it, the government is using it as a tool, but it is not a bad tool. It just needs to seperate, because we’re learning.
@@erc9468found the republican lurker
I watched a "Free and Equal" debate that Oliver and one other Libertarian candidate (Lars Mapstead) took part in that included people running for president via the Green Party and as Democratic Socialists. Some of these candidates from the other parties made outrageously anti-property rights statements and Chase and Lars did not verbally oppose any of their proposals, which may have confused people who aren't familiar with libertarianism and the LP into thinking we agree with those anti-property rights views.
I noticed the coalition with Jill Stein and Cornel West. I'm confused.
Hey Chase Oliver, can you explain your tweet “I reject Ron Paul and I am #sorrynotsorry about it”
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
@@rasputinjesusI see you copy pasting the same reply. Do you have anything to add to the OP's post that can shed light on his assertion?
The rejection of Ron Paul was based on Paul calling Covid a "Hoax" in the very early days of Covid.
and that's why mises caucus folks will be voting for trump
Vote for the policies, not the candidate. That should be the whole point. Otherwise we're just as bad as the other two parties.
Listening to this conversation, it became obvious to me that Chase was misrepresented on popular social media.
His positions are consistently with property rights and individual rights.
Well yeah, he's a libertarian.
Same here.
It's too funny as Zach tosses the candidate soft balls, whereas Liz is asking tough questions - not always from the best angle, but it's obvious the alignments here.
I think it's style too, Zach is always polite and Liz is often passionate.
He is a COHEN...so
Liz is seriously uninformed and one sided. She needs to read more.
Nothing says libertarianism like enforcing mandates into others.
I guess it's a good thing Chase is for the choice of the property owner over the state.
Tell me why the state has the right to tell you want to do with your business or your property? The state telling you can't do something is the exact same as the state telling you that you must do something.
@@simahui3383 A business mandating medical treatments for employees is still a mandate, even worse if it is not part of their original employment and is added after the fact so it's not part of the employment agreement.
@@ChrisParrishOutdoorsWho owns the business? Is there some reason people have to work there?
He is not for government mandates, hell, he only thinks they should be legal, not even encouraged, basically on the same level as charging 20$ for bad food.
He was doing well until Chase decided to call another man a racist whilst providing zero evidence. That makes him look lazy and irrational.
Chase did mention that Lew links to Nazi websites. I'm not looking it up but if true, that's evidence. Check out Lew Rockwell's 1990's LA Times article after the LA riots AFAIK he never backtracked on that absolutely racist trash.
I'm a big fan of Mises and friends but especially as a smaller org at odds with the MSM, we really need to police our own - chastise or ostracize people who are overtly and unapologetically awful. It's crappy but we all need to be ambassadors for our brand.
Lew Rockwell was listed as the editor on newsletters that said stuff like "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
So even if he didn't write them, he certainly knew about them before they were published and was okay with it. Several people, including former Ron Paul Chief of Staff, said he was the ghostwriter on those newsletters, so it's really his word against several others, and Lew has a much larger reason to lie about it.
And having a link to the Daily Stormer on your own web site is enough evidence.
I wonder if he would say "let the parents and doctors decide" if the issue were sending a kid to a gay conversion therapy program.
interesting question
Interesting idea, but probably would depend on if the kid was willing. Cause i could imagine a kid that was personally religious wanting to try it.
Not that I really agree with it, children are always a grey area and need to be regulated more than adults.
@@ananon5771 great point
@@DillonCarbajal Thanks, it's always going to be a touchy subject. No one would say otherwise. But it is important to have real conversations on this stuff and not shut it out.
Turns out that gender transitioning children ACTUALLY IS THE NEW GAY CONVERSION THERAPY------what little research there is indicates that gender non-conforming kids (tomboys, effeminate boys) that would otherwise turn out to be gay are being transed into the opposite gender.
I'm very glad that Chase Oliver is representing this party. His professionalism, maturity, and positivity in communicating practical Libertarian solutions is what works to win over real people in the real world.
I think the Mises Caucus read too much into the attention that toxicity and courting controversy gained on social media. That only happens because *social media companies* want engagement to boost *their* revenues and will thus reward toxicity and controversy (witness most of the comments below). It did not result in more members, more donations, or more ballot access, and thus this behavior did not actually help the LP.
Oliver opposes government mandates and always has, and it speaks volumes that his opponents either employ ad hominem attacks or misrepresent his position, not realizing or caring that such antics make all of us Libertarians look bad.
Parents who transition their kids are abusers. They may not have bad intent but it’s still abuse.
@Nellie555 I am happy that you were able to find some relief being intersex. This however is not the same as “trans”. Your condition is a proven medical condition. Being “trans” is a subjective feeling that can not be proven. I am a gay man that worked for 8 years as the office manager of a private psychology practice. It does not take years of therapy anymore to receive medical treatment for “trans”. There are practices which advertise writing “letters” after two virtual visits.
Kids should be able to express themselves without changing themselves. Men can not be women and women can not be men. This is the fact that they should be told.
@Nellie555 With all due respect, being intersex is not the same as being an intact male who undergoes an elective transition to female. You already had all the secondary sex characteristics of the gender you got re-assigned to, and you had the right gonads for that gender.
Parents who put their kids in conversation therapy are abusers
@@merlercer …..ok
Parents who support their kids being a transformer in any way shape or form is abuse.
Zach/Liz/Reason: Thank you for bothering to get Mr. Oliver's side of the story. I have been hearing the words "Libertarian Party" in the media and internet platforms more in the last 5 days than I have in the last 5 years. Time will tell how this all pans out. In the meantime.....
After all of the complaints I have seen regarding Oliver's nomination, I have to ask: is there anyone in the LP that would've been acceptable? I wanted Amash (not running, and may have been driven out by the MC?). Then I wanted Mapstead (who, despite his excellent platform, didn't get enough votes from delegates - and he's been a complete gentleman about it). I was not impressed with Rectenwald, and his performance didn't change my mind. I like certain aspects of RFK Jr., but he's not a libertarian. Trump is not a libertarian, and he wasn't even eligible (which he later admitted on one of his social media accounts). So again, WHO would've been acceptable here??? We continue to lambast the LP over 1-3% of the vote, while never once questioning the broken system that keeps them there (unless you're a duopoly shill, in which case you want it that way).
I'm still on the fence about Mr. Oliver, but I am listening. I live in a blue state, so any vote for D or R is wasted. If the duopoly candidates are ever of a mind to complete on an equal level, they are more than welcome to open to debates to 6-8 candidates and move to abolish the Electoral College and bring in Approval Voting. Only THEN will I consider voting for them. Spoiler alert: they're not going to.
Alaska has Ranked Choice, we're voting on it again this year (the bulk of my motivation to go vote this year). The fairvote website has a decent shake down of the 2022 election.
That part
The EC prevents the deranged voters of 3 or 4 big cities from completely voiding the rights of those who keep them alive, something that has already gone too far.
I'm sorry, Liz, but I think the overwhelming majority of parents, when told if they don't let their kid get gender altering surgery that they "might" commit suicide later in life, would still choose NOT to mutilate their kids. The fact that they are kids means they are going through a period of constant change. They might feel differently next year, or after they finish puberty. Once they are adults they can make decisions about their own bodies. In the meantime there are lots of good therapists out there.
As with other body dysmorphias, changing their appearance is very unlikely to ameliorate the underlying mental issue. Like how a grossly underweight anorexic person still sees themselves as fat.
@@noname-xo1btand the best treatment for that is definitely to affirm that anorexic that yes, they are grossly fat
Not true for most of the country. It's not that your kid will unalive themselves later in life but right there if you don't follow whatever the health authority says. Most parents who aren't libertarians will feel emotionally blackmailed by the authority, especially doctors and counselors who supposedly represent science and facts. You can also watch the Texas trans hearing to see how many parents testified for it, repeating the same threat that forced them to trans their kids.
I have a friend who's such counselor that used to repeat the same baseless claim, because that's what all of these counselors are trained to do in universities and compelled to do by their hospitals and state/national licensing organizations. Even after my friend woke up from the Marxist brainwashing, they said 99% of the people in the field are either brainwashed or scared to step out of the guidelines and lose their livelihood.
@@kokoromarudi7717 If your kid is under 15 his chances of offing himself are remote. After 15 the rates of suicide in every 10 year age group are higher than 15-24. People of all ages commit suicide for all sorts of reasons. I don't think "they won't let me change my gender until I turn 18" is very high up there on the list of reasons. People committed suicide before gender changing was a thing. You can't cave every time your kid throws a temper tantrum. They'll just grow up being spoiled brats who expect everything to simply be handed to them.
@@jonathanrichter4256I agree, I was just saying that a lot of parents believe the authorities and believe their kid would actually do it, so they caved in
I don't vote and I don't agree with Chase Oliver on everything, but the idea that Trump is more libertarian than him is absolutely insane. Anyone who says this exposes themselves as a conservative masquerading as a libertarian.
@NILLOC17
It doesn't matter when no one knows what Libertarian means.
@@tflg3257 If we get Ranked Choice Voting all across the country, that will change. Keep an eye on Maine this November. I would not be shocked to see Oliver/ter Maat get 20% there.
To paint Trump as a conservative exposes you as anything but a libertarian.
You're missing the point... I am a small l libertarian... The LP does nothing but suppress libertarian values. Dems/Reps don't get into office and make change because they are absolutists... they get there through compromise. Trump came in and said he would put LP members in positions of power that can be used to make change libertarians agree with and the LP screamed in Trumps face. The LP is suppression, it has no plan to ever get anything done.
@@tflg3257What libertarian forces mandates..?
He needs some strong policies, like getting rid of many federal agencies that didnt exist before 1960
Definitely not voting for Oliver. He will get less votes than Jorgensen or Johnson.
Self fulfilling prophecy?
In that case you were never voting Libertarian period this year. Rectenwald had no more chance for votes than any other candidates. You Trumpertarians are showing your hand super hard right now.
@@TheLibertyJusticeCoaliti-bq8eo Shame for you to assume I’m voting Trump. I’m not voting.
Why not? You aren't libertarian?
Not voting is the worst choice. Write in rectenwald if you really want to protest. Not voting is just lazy.
I wasn't very convinced with his responses. He said libertarians should work together and focus what we agree on, but has an uncompromising stance on abortion.
I agree the government should stay out of medical choices, but the Cass review proved puberty blockers do have a permanent effect, allowing them but not surgery because they're "just a medication" (when the governmetn also bans medications) seems like an inconsistent stance to me.
I can get over that, but along with other things like shouting someone down "because they're a nazi" does not leave me enthused at all.
I can't say that I am enthused but I can't think of a better choice
@@RoyArrowoodI genuinely am not trying to straw-man his position, but he genuinely makes me wonder if he believes the government should prosecute people that abuse their children, or if he’d make some kind of whack job “well it’s up to the parents and the children and consent blah blah” argument.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
@@rasputinjesus I wouod love to be involved with my state party but im in Pensacola Fl and have no idea where im supposted to get involved at. I have tried the LP website and facebook. Facebook basically says pcola chapter no longer exists. Website is not helpful at all. Libertarians are kinda bad at marketing imo
@@dominickschrute3084 Yes he was a bit wishy washy on that point. I thought it was a good opportunity to remind people that he is running for president and that it is a state issue but then make some kind of concrete statement on the matter. Disappointingly he was unable to articulate any reason the Feds could ban surgery but not medications.
I skimmed Chase Oliver's Wikipedia page and his platform basically reads like a mainstream Democratic. There was no mention of fiscal restraint or cutting the size of the government, it was all about liberal social issues.
There have been a series of edits within the last so many hours of writing this comment.
Always be sure to click the "View History" button on wiki pages
In what universe would you use a Wikipedia page to get Chase's platform beliefs instead of his actual website? You do know that candidates don't control or write their Wikipedia entries right?
@@danbert8 In what universe would you use a politician's website to get their platform instead of looking at their record (speeches, social media posts, interviews)?
Even if you don't trust their platform being their stated platform... Wikipedia is hardly a comprehensive and unbiased source. Are you saying Chase doesn't have fiscal restraint and shrinking government as priorities because it's not mentioned on a publicly editable encyclopedia? What do his social media posts, interviews, and speeches say about those topics?
I know its cliche, but its called grifting. The LP is still coopted
He’s talking about “marketing” instead of honest belief. Marketing is snake oil sales.
That's how he won. And that is the sad reality of all democracy. Honesty doesn't win. Appeasement does.
@@noname-xo1btIndeed
It's also a live demonstration of Rothbard's Law: everyone always specialized in what they're worst at.
Chase is trying to appeal to the same fictional "modern audience" that led to Disney putting 1/3 of their company up for sale some months ago.
This guys a clown! Why does my party constantly disappoint?!?!?
It's not your party. Go start a Mises Maga Party.
The only thing libertarians agree on is they hate Libertarians.
@@Justin_Beaver564 found the guy that agrees with transitioning kids.
Bet you like em young.
Because it's been infiltrated and usurped by socialists. Woke is anti-liberty, and socialist libertarian is a contradiction in terms. True libertarians recognise and reject authoritarian political systems. Socialist ideas have no place in libertarian politics, as they are all predicated on top down control, the removal of individual rights for the sake of the collective, and the intellectual engineering of society, overriding the vital interests (and even the lives) of individuals and groups who oppose them.
Libertarianism is by definition a broad church, but post modernist, neo-marxist woke, is not. It's an absolutist cult, and it's been welcomed by linbertarians as 'well that's one view' . . . and now it controls and defines the libertarian party as an entity that has been captured and neutered by the far left. This ain't YOUR party any more, it's theirs, and they are fully on board with the woke globalist agenda. The moral of the story is, don't believe everything on the label. Your party is infested. True libertarians would leave them. Let the 'libertarian' party be 100% woke leftoids, then start a new libertarian party with better housekeeping. Maybe if the authoritarian Trump WAS nominated, it would have acted like a bug bomb, but that would be just as damaging for libertarianism in the long run as this collectivist virtue signaller is now.
Freedom never comes from them, or through their rigged political systems. It always corrupts and distorts freedom movements to its own twisted ends. It comes from us. Party members or not, living and thinking freely, no matter how they try to dictate their conformity upon us.
Stay free.
Because it's been coopted?
He sounds more liberal than libertarian.
He sounds like a liberal that tries to mimic libertarian rationale to justify his positions.
You sound more gay than straight
He was a democrat who left that party over foreign affairs policy. So the question is if he's latching onto a third party in a desperation to keep the political career rolling, which it doesn't look like it.
Vivek is more libertarian than him
Libertarianism is inherently liberal. Get over it
Chase Oliver's nomination by the LP is a huge gift to Trump. He sounds like a politician. . . . . and kind of a dick.
To Liz's point: If a child requires an amputation to remove a cancerous tumor, they don't need to wait until until age 18. . . . . nobody would delay true healthcare even if it is irreversible. A tattoo is not healthcare, it's a body modification. If Oliver wants tattoos and "gender-affirming" surgery to follow the same rules, he needs to admit they are both body modifications, not healthcare. . . . . . So his position is not logically consistent. If he thinks healthcare (including gender transitioning) should be a decision made by the parents, then there is no principled reason a child should not have surgery.
👏 very well said
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
I can see why libertarians are running away from this guy.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
@@rasputinjesus Meh. We don’t want to join politics “Pride” parades. Won’t pay dues to this stuff. They’d be taking my $$ to push something that should be legal, yes, but is morally and societally condemnable. Pride is just the gay equivalent of the nasty and reprehensible morals of heterosexual Mardi Gras. If the LP were a swingers joint, I wouldn’t pay a cent to it then either.
Party needs to shape up. We turned a black light back upon it, and we don’t like what we see.
Why? Could you provide an explanation for your comment?
Medications are sometimes irreversible as well. Many ppl who took chemicals to transitions are not able to revert back.
Euthanasia is also irreversible, some damage from smoking is permanent, alcohol addiction could persist until death, heroin addiction could be permanent, the list goes on and on and on. Whether it be irreversible, dangerous, deadly, etc., if the receiving end agreed to it, then it's not for the government to interfere. Also keep in mind that every government intervention is funded by money stolen from you.
Europe constantly questioning the FDA would be a decent point to tangent into here. Not too pleased with revolving this narrative around puberty blockers and hormone therapy, as those are the marked up one size doesn't quite fit all solution the monied up lobbyists enable.
The main point should be that politicizing niche medical cases that affect less than 2% of the population is incredibly dumb. We could do that with any niche batch of medical things and see the same stupidity on a different theme.
“Trans” isn’t a condition. It’s a social fad. If a bunch of “cutters” went to a doctor so that he could cut them with scalpels and apply antiseptics, and parents were teaching their kids to mimic this behavior by taking them to “cutter”-docs, that’s not healthcare. That’s abuse. And the doctor should be punished by law.
@@MrHobbes08It's not dumb to push back against sterilizing children and causing them irreversible damage.
Parents who transition their kids are abusers. They may not have bad intent but it’s still abuse. Liz destroyed this guy. 😂
It’s not a debate it’s a interview
How is it a Libertarian Party principle to intervene on trans issues? Sounds like rehashing the “gay” movement all over again.
So you all want to eliminate the Age of Consent for adults to “f@&k” kids but not to allow them to choose how they express their gender?
FYI this has nothing to do with any medical or surgical procedures; that’s a total Red Herring and anyone using that as a basis for an argument is just a Conservative in Libertarian clothing building Strawmans
I like that Liz Wolfe asked him the tough questions, and although she clearly made him think hard a few times, and she called him out when he dodged a question, I think he acquitted himself well overall, while Wolfe seemed to get visibly angry. Indeed, Oliver's position *is* the Libertarian one. Parents and their children consulting with their doctors are far better equipped to make the right decision for the child than government bureaucrats or politicians. The incentives for the former are aligned much better. The parent loves the child and hires the doctor to provide quality care. A bureaucrat, on the other hand, is just doing a job with few incentives to do it well, and a politician will say whatever it takes to win votes. Oliver's approach also results in smaller government, obviously.
Furthermore, Wolfe's complaint about well-funded activists makes little sense to me. In the free marketplace of ideas, people are and should be free to donate money to the causes they think will help further their views, and the conservative and libertarian side is typically *much* better funded (e.g., Koch) than the liberal side. She also doesn't seem to articulate a proposal to address this. Should think tanks like Cato, Heritage, and Heartland be banned from weighing in on political debates because they are well-funded? Does Wolfe forfeit the right to comment because of the revenues raised by Reason Magazine? Do well-funded rich people have less of a right to talk about politics than poor people?
Regarding use of language like "gender affirming care," this seems just like free speech to me. Both sides of a debate have been fighting to get everyone to use their preferred choice of terminology from as long as I can remember, from Pro-Life people using "unborn baby" instead of fetus (I've done this myself, as has Wolfe), Libertarians calling taxation theft, and conservatives using terms like "RINO," "socialist," and "woke" as epithets, etc. Only someone who has consistently complained about this tactic and refrained from engaging in it themselves has much cause to object to it.
Nobody got 'dEsTrOyEd'; this is what good interviewers do. Challenge the interviewee.
solid candidate. solid principles.
Thank you for coming to our convention, Zach. It was great to actually meet you in person. I really like our candidate and am thrilled to see him here on your show. Thank you! 😊
What does the LP candidate have on his harddrive?
Video of your mother.
Says a voter of the uniparty. What's your candidate got on their hard drives?
He is gay, so I am guessing lot of boys.. He just like them young
@@jayedgar8177Yeah of your mother recording him with other men/boys lmao
He has a file on his computer called 'the Epstein adventures'. You don't want to look inside that folder because it might scar you for life.
Chase sounds like a politician.
It's a huge ask to want libertarians to not be divided. Only not real libertarians are united.
Lol
@@Abomination317politically it's the same as a independent but they lean toward freedom on everything presidentially. Iv aways thought a term or 2 should set us back on course. Libertarian is flawed because free will is flawed cause we have bad seeds. A person's utopia will never be achieved but we all want it. We need more freedom and a smaller government. You see he said what he thinks and the states should do what they want though.
Why do all you Americans word everything like little children?
@@AutismoGamer Because it's a meme, doodoo head.
Legal protection of minority rights, rather than subjection to majority rule over individual rights (such as bodily autonomy) reflects the debate between minarchy and anarchy. That does not make all minarchists "inconsistent" as Liz appeared to assert.
The smallest minority of all is the individual. If children have a right to intact bodies before they're 18, why make an exception for trans or queer kids?
@@CountArtha no one has a right to intact bodies. That's a positive right, like the UN's Declaration of Human Rights. Natural rights are negative rights. That said, a child born with a birth defect (internal or external), should not be denied the opportunity to seek treatment. What's the best treatment? I'll decide for my children, you decide for yours.
@@Desiree_BB By "right to intact bodies" I only mean the right not to be mutilated or defaced - the example Oliver gave was a sixteen-year-old getting a tattoo. The problem a lot of us are having is that _gender-affirming care_ (so-called) would have been considered mutilation just a few years ago, and no parent has a right to "decide" to mutilate their children. If your parents happen to have progressive attitudes about the malleability of gender and use your body as a proof of concept, you are being harmed and the government ought to protect you.
Turns out the Libertarian Party is STILL the Uniparty!
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
That makes no sense
@@rasputinjesus after your nomination of a LBGTQIAntifa member of WEF
I RENOUNCE the Libertarian Party.
Oh well, after the Democrats are done PURGING the Republicans YOU'RE NEXT!
You never even matched the seats the Whig party was able to get.
He's libertarian enough for me. I think he would absolutely smear Trump and Biden in a debate. That is why he will never be allowed to be in them. My dream outcome for the election is that Biden comes in 4th or lower.
Please. This guy stumbles over himself trying to answer basic questions. Even Biden would crush him.
@robbnoble1509 Biden never could debate. His strategy has always been to lie and make stuff up. He lied about having degrees he didn't have. He lied about doing jobs he never did. He was laughed out of the presidential race in the 80s because he plagiarized his speeches. He can't do this now that people can look up the stuff he says in real time. The only reason he won was because delusional leftists who thought they were going to get their student loans forgiven put their own selfish needs ahead of everything else. Most of them know better now. They won't vote for anyone else, but they will stay home. Trump might show better in a debate because he is an A-hole, and so many people like that. In a real intellectual debate, any libertarian would smear them both. Chase seems fully capable of articulating a few points, which is way more than any of the others.
If the Mises Caucus is in control, how did this guy win the nomination?
None of the candidates were compelling, including the one endorsed by the Mises Caucus, who was high at the convention. Oliver squeaked by None of the Above 60%-40%. Once Dave Smith decided not to run, the LP was doomed to another Jo Jorgensen situation.
Because they only have authority to sabotage the convention, not vote for everyone
Their choice was weak, but there is speculation the democrat deep state infiltrated the party to keep them from winning any seats in the government.
because the clowns of the mises caucus are in control
The delegates voted on this and he won. The Mises Caucus candidate had a rather poor showing.
Chase has my vote. Articulate, committed to the party, trying to build the coalition from all sides. There is a silent middle who are sick of the polarized tribalism. If they get a chance to hear Chase, he will gain momentum. Now we need high profile donors and endorsements ASAP. If you really care about the libertarian platform and think the government is actively hurting its citizens, you have a moral obligation to support this ticket. Vote Chase even if you think it's the lesser of three evils.
I mean, if the objective is to find someone who supports free people, free minds, and free markets he's the closest thing we got. He's a hell of a lot better than Trump and Biden on all fronts. If the idea is to oppose statism he's the best bet so i'll support him.
Dude just come out of the closet already
This guy would be lucky to get 2 or 3 percent.
I'd say lucky to get 1 percent lol
So essentially the exact same as any other libertarian candidate.
How can I as sane person even vote for this man that keeps saying insane stuff? I'm sitting here how are people so gulible they fall for this nonsense?
The Libertarian Party has been a dead party since 2016...I would be shocked if they break 1 percent
may be 0.01 percent,, that might be too high
Let's go!!! Love Chase. Thank you for this interview!
Your last few libertarian candidates have truly been terrible
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
"Look, I don't think parents should be putting cigarettes out on their kids' arms, but I don't want to tell people what to do." 👎
Is this a quote he's had? Or are you connecting the parents and child making decisions without government approval?
Also, this isn't a good analogy, I'm sure the child isn't consenting to have cigarettes put out in their arm
@@juancuelloespinosa the child can't consent to anything,...they aren't physiologically AND psychologically able. Also, the idea the government, if it is to exist, doesn't stop child abuse of that caliber...wtf?? lol. Parents transitioning kids do so without science to back them...and therefore calling it abuse can make sense. The science shows no real benefit, hence the UK just banned all gender affirming care with hormones or hormone blockers.
@@juancuelloespinosaso if a child consents to chemical castration it’s ok? How can a child give consent?
@@juancuelloespinosaif a child “consented” to a cigarette put out on their arm, would you say it’s ok? Or still abuse?
@@dominickschrute3084 I agree. age of consent is a thing for a reason. I'm trying to know whether this was a quote by oliver, and pointing out simply that conceptually, it isn't a good analogy. a better one would be sexual relations, or something
It'd be funny if it weren't so sad that anyone thinks anything can change without replacing the monetary system. That should be the only issue. Doesn't matter who is president.
What do you suggest? Eliminating the federal reserve?
@@BigEvan96 Yeah it would require dissolving that power nexus.
It wouldn't be that terribly difficult to switch currency to crypto.
1) I wouldn't think you could use an existing ledger. I mean, use an existing platform but a blank ledger and fresh tokens, and then trade tokens for dollars. The platform would need requirements for security, decentralization, and transaction processing time at least. Anyone could run a server, but normal people probably wouldn't be able to afford it.
2) Gov't needs to guarantee internet access for the people, because they can't tax you if you can't pay. You could do this in a number of ways -- Washington would probably choose the most painfully bureaucratic one like vouchers
3) you need institutions that can give loans -- I imagine it being pretty much a bank. You send your crypto to their account, you get bank tokens in return and earn interest on them. They need to have deposit insurance. Yeah banks suck but, hey, people need loans.
4) credit reporting would be a fairly easy one, you just have to prove you own accounts and they have your entire bank history (they send you a token, you send it back)
5) After the dollar -> crypto switch, the government can accept other forms of cryptocurrency as payment. They would have to meet the same requirements.
and then the government would be limited in what it spends by how much it taxes, therefore limiting their power, which will make lobbying less profitable, income growth will normalize, you'll stop seeing videos of people crying that they can't afford their bills.
And I think there's a lot to be said about being first-to-market. Suddenly your currencies are the most valuable currencies, but you won't see the "bad money drives out good" phenomena because they're the only accepted currencies and people will act like they're allergic to fiat.
We already have quantum computing regulations in place, so at least there's that.
Yeah you gotta dissolve that power nexus. It wouldn't be that terribly difficult to switch currency to crypto.
1) I wouldn't think you could use an existing ledger. Use an existing platform but a blank ledger and fresh tokens, and then trade tokens for dollars. The platform would need requirements for security, decentralization, and transaction processing time at least. Anyone could run a server, but normal people probably wouldn't be able to afford it.
2) Gov't needs to guarantee internet access for the people, because they can't tax you if you can't pay. You could do this in a number of ways -- Washington would probably choose the most painfully bureaucratic one like vouchers
3) you need institutions that can give loans -- I imagine it being pretty much a bank. You send your crypto to their account, you get bank tokens in return and earn interest on them. They need to have deposit insurance. Yeah banks suck but, hey, people need loans.
4) credit reporting would be a fairly easy one, you just have to prove you own accounts and they have your entire bank history (they send you a token, you send it back)
5) After the dollar -> crypto switch, the government can accept other forms of cryptocurrency as payment. They would have to meet the same requirements.
and then the government would be limited in what it spends by how much it taxes, therefore limiting their power, which will make lobbying less profitable, income growth will normalize, you'll stop seeing videos of people crying that they can't afford their bills.
And I think there's a lot to be said about being first-to-market. Suddenly your currencies are the most valuable currencies, but you won't see the "bad money drives out good" phenomena because they're the only accepted currencies and people will act like they're allergic to fiat.
And then we already have regulations for quantum computing so that's helpful.
Exactly.Gold and silver only
Liz,
You were very rude to your guest and you are very argumentative.
She was actually making good substantive points on the trans discussion, but constantly interrupting and raising her voice and talking over both her guest and co-host made it really hard to appreciate the discourse. I'm all for oppositional and challenging questions, but not like that.
Ever since the george floyd episode, shes been a lost cause on not veing rude to the guests and interrupting
I have been a registered member of the Libertarian Party since I became eligible to vote, and I have identified as a Libertarian even before reaching voting age. It is truly disheartening to witness the current state of affairs. One can only imagine the reaction from a figure like Harry Browne would have had if he were still alive today.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
The US libertarian party continues its long, storied journey of utter irrelevance at the national scale I see. No surprises here. I will not vote for someone who deploys the limp-wristed (I'm using that term advisedly) cop-out of "let parents and doctors decide" when asked about the issue of so called "trans" children. A complete absurdity.
I know other people making choices for themselves scares you.
There isn't really any other position to take on that issue for a libertarian. Who *should* decide what the best decision for the health and well-being of a child is if it's not between children, parents and doctors? You may have your private opinion on such issues, but you don't get to dictate it to other people. Not if you're even remotely libertarian.
@@Danteztic nope, you don't get to harm your own children. Sorry that you really want to, but no.
@@Muonium1 So Christian Scientists can't prevent their children from getting blood transfusions on religious grounds? The libertarian Party had to deal with that issue in the 1990's. The only difference is that the Trans issue involves sex which apparently is much more divisive than the life of a child.
@@joeh46250 nope, not if the child needs a transfusion to live. wow, y'all REALLY want to hurt kids don't you! gross.
This dude has publicly rejected Ron Paul, so we reject him
How did he reject Paul, and on what grounds?
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
so you're a cult?
@rasputinjesus i tried to volunteer... they weren't interested in any community voluntarism... and most local party members didn't even petition for signatures.
I got a huge chunk of signatures for them. I even did volunteer clean up under their banner. They don't want to do community work so now i do it on my own.
@@nicknihilist4478 Which state? You may be able to help the MC as a whole instead if you're stuck in a lame LP state. Also when was this?
Oh weird, the party picked another bad candidate...
To be fair, that is always going to be the case with Libertarians. Michael Rectenwald is a snooze-fest. He's great if you align with him, but he's not going to attract many outside voters. Democracy is too shallow for a guy like him. Democrats and Republicans are just better at playing the celebrity/royalty show that wins democratic elections.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
Aint that the truth. GEEZ.
He is still better than the two major parties candidates
@@jwalker2942 You know its a poor candidate when supporters sink to "he's better than the other guy" lol
I’m voting for Chase Oliver
lol
Same
16:33 Sorry, but not all parents have unconditional love for their kids. Plenty care more about their friends' and surrounding culture's opinion in an attempt to improve their own social standing.
@1shagg420
How do all of someone's children end up trans?
His logic is like saying because almost none of us want to murder someones, murder laws are meaningless.
He seems like a nice guy, for most part.
Wow, lots of hate... Almost as if LewRockwell fans are watching Reason content.
Of course
I think Mises Institute has topics like economics nailed down pat, but from a social point of view they feel pretty conservative. Luckily as Chase pointed out, much like Ron Paul did in the past. Both want you to make personal choices on how to live your life.
I haven't read LRC in a while but yeah, pretty much.
As happens so often here, the hosts are completely failing to make the correct libertarian arguments.
Federal and local governments passed laws exempting employers from liability IF they imposed mandates.
That means "private company chooses to do it" is a contextual lie.
When there is some law or regulation "encouraging" them to impose mandates, that's tyranny.
That the end imposer is "private" is a scam.
And yet that's what Oliver is playing along with, here.
If you drop the "Questions" part of the name and rename it "Just Asking" it's catchier and your exposure will increase. Just saying. lol
Never heard of this guy but I guess I am voting for him
You support the guy who wants kids to chop their sausages off?
Really liking Chase. Love to hear his refreshing opinions on many issues!
Turn the question around... ask Liz what her solution whould be... is it for government interference?
"Getting the immigration problem solved with less government." That's literally the problem, the government isn't doing anything to maintain a border.
Yeah, in another video he basically says we should just let everyone come in, that migrants are actually less likely to claim benefits because they're using stolen social security numbers or whatever. That they pay in but don't take back (with even a small amount of research you find this is completely false). Problem solved, I guess. 😒
My biggest qualms about possibly supporting Chase, and I've had this with other left-leaning libertarian politicians, is that they often seem to get bogged down in identitarian and other collectivist politics. People who are strict libertarians simply stand for equal rights for all and don't go around pandering and virtue signaling to this collective or that. When a Libertarian politician panders to identitarian groups they are not really standing up for the broader goals of equal liberty for all.
The policies these left-"libertarians" support will ultimately end up in authoritarianism. I've seen left-libs support UBI and Universal Healthcare, which it, surprisingly, doesn't seem like Chase Oliver supports. Or at least not that I know of yet.
Simply put, although I align better with him than red and blue, I find it difficult to support someone who misrepresents the mises caucus and other, questionable, opinions he had made. Libertarianism is about having absolute freedom with the NAP legal norm to ensure said freedom. Supporting this guy might be a bad choice when I've generally seen left-libertarians be authoritarian-lite. Their policies WILL, in the low time preference, lead to the same authoritarianism we have today, but with a different flavor.
That’s pretty much where I’m at. I like some of his ideas and policies, but the pandering and virtue signaling does bother me as well. That and his stance on puberty blockers for kids, and medically transitioning them.
very well said. I’ll still vote for him because i feel he’s better than Kamala and Trump. But he’s still a C tier candidate
Great job Liz
Registered as a Libertarian 10 years ago and another election comes with a candidate I can't vote for. This guy is from the nut job wing of the party.
What makes him a 'nut job', exactly?
50% of the party supports him, thats far too much to ever fix the party anytime soon
RFK is amazing.
How so? Other than ad hominem, what is your issue?
@@Think-dont-believe RFK's brain worm died of starvation.
The issue with the messaging around companies have the right to impose mandates, is that companies weren't allowed their right to NOT impose mandates. That was the major anti-libertarian issue. The mandates were coming from government through and through, and even if a company would have imposed mandates of their own free will no one could know cause they had a government gun to their head.
Of couse companies have the right to discriminate, that was taken away from them.
One thing that rubs me the wrong way about "lol companies can do whatever they want" is that a HUGE wing of dystopian sci fi is that corporations become pseudo governments unto themselves. I can imagine the libertarians in those stories saying that the corporations, which own entire solar systems, have a right to control the lives of those who live on their planets.
We see this all the time in reality as well. In antiquity, there were company towns. Today, we have corporations owning the largest public forums in human history. In both cases, violations of the Constitution are regular, yet our libertarians think that's just find and dandy.
Welp, I disagree. I think the government has an interest in protecting civil liberties affirmatively, not just preventing itself from violating them. I don't know what the shape of those affirmative protections should be, but it's hard to deny that the arc of history is bending toward megacorporations having quite a bit of control over our liberties. Best to start setting boundaries now.
Chase is a good man. I've spoken to him, personally, on the phone. He's genuine.
Who cares what you think?! Noone will vote for this clown
A genuine pedo.
Don't care he voted for Obama and Biden and hates Ron Paul glad he won't get %1
Liz completely ignoring the viability of social transitioning tells me she's not interested in people transitioning period.
💯
The nominee is determined. It is time to come together. I disagree with Chase on a few issues. But I agree with him well over 95% of the time. And the progress of the Liberty Movement and the LP is what is really at stake, here. We need to rally around Chase. Biden and Trump are such horrible candidates, and one of them will win. But the fact that they are both horrible means the LP has a major opportunity to advance towards 5%. I think Chase can do it.
Thank you!
My issue with the Libertarian party is that they don't have any kind of consistent agreed-upon central platform that lasts beyond an election cycle. Sure, everybody can come together around general libertarian ideology, but when it comes to specific policies and stances, there is infinite intraparty disagreement, and I can't help but perceive the current Libertarian party leadership as picking and choosing stances based not on principle, but instead on where they are likely to be able to peel off vulnerable voters from the main parties.
The original socially liberal, fiscally conservative stances of the party founders should be the central platform
@@Justin_Beaver564 yes, but every Libertarian seems to have a different idea of what it means to be "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" when it comes down to specific issues.
@@HenryThree That's true of every party though. When you have 10 candidates running in the primary it's because they aren't agreeing on some policy or another. Libertarians may be a more extreme version but they do have an central platform of the NAP and private property rights.... then from there the boundaries can differ a bit.
@@ethanhandel1001 My perception has been that any nominal differences in policy stances amongst the primary candidates for one of the main parties get ironed out after the primary as they coalesce around the donor-approved party platform.
I would argue that the Libertarian party has a unifying ideology but no consistent party policy platform, while the Dems & GOP have relatively consistent, slow-to-change, party policy platforms but no real unifying ideological framework, leading to wildly contradictory positions.
@@ethanhandel1001 They haven't been able to agree whether blackmailing your employees into getting a medical treatment they don't want violates the NAP; nor whether parents can turn their children trans without violating the NAP; nor whether a pregnant mother can kill her baby without violating the NAP. Turns out the NAP can't be applied without an underlying moral axiom.
The moment he said "carpet bombing" he lost me. Factually incorrect on an important and sensitive topic.
“Carpet bombing” is not a technical term.
It’s a phrase used to describe the mass bombing of civilians
@@PsyclopsIA Never said it was a technical term. They are not mass bombing civilians. My point stands.
Looking forward to voting for him in November!
I'm a libertarian leaning independent. I looked at the Oliver's platform and was mostly ok with it except a few points. I'm against _not_ supporting Israel. I'm for getting out of Ukraine but not abandoning them. Putin winning Ukraine would be a problematic for the world since I sincerely doubt he would stop there. Also, completely getting rid of the department of Education is nuts.
Chase's responses were very disappointing and inconsistent. A tattoo is far more 'reversible' than puberty blockers. There's no defined difference of impact between medication and surgery - both can be permanent. He needs to take the time and research what the issues are around transitioning and kids; leaving it to parents and "experts" ignores the cultural influence on government. Sadly, this is where libertarianism falls short IMHO.
If a doctor, a parent and the child all agree puberty blockers are for the best at that time I think they should be free to make that decision.
@@luvitluvitbaby This is what I mean - not understanding that the doctor, parent, and child are all being influenced by money (do you trust the pharmaceutical industry?), culture, schools, activists in that decision. It is not strictly a medical decision in the current paradigm. The UK just introduced new restrictions for under-18s. Still think it's ok if just the doctor, parent, and child agree and the government doesn't? www.gov.uk/government/news/new-restrictions-on-puberty-blockers.
@@luvitluvitbabya child cannot consent. What part of that do you not understand? If an 8 year old wanted to die would you take them to the vet?
@@Ken-sd4uv But the parent of that child can consent, and with the consultation of a highly trained medical professional, i.e. their physician, it is perfectly legal.
Libertarians choosing Chase Oliver as their POTUS nominee is why I am an anarchist.
I genuinely like this guy I appreciate that he lets everyone be, the culture war is just to keep us fighting. Peace is what we need
If you talk to other libertarians, Chase has been name calling and mud slinging at them for years. Saying something and actually doing it are not the same things.
@@wildemthefem5773 yeah I get it, I’m not gonna trust any politician too much but I’m absolutely sure he’s gotten a lot of hate from the same party members too, so I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. But the truth is we don’t need any politicians, we need a redo
If Chase agrees that ALL parenting decisions should be left to the parents, does he agree that parents should be allowed to let their children smoke or do drugs or have sex with adults? Do you advocate eliminating government intervention in parenting entirely, or ONLY in this particular case?
Brah, lying now trying to say he doesn't and won't support the Libertarian Party and called the party racist, now backtracks. He's good at changing his story.
Congratulations to Chase Oliver on winning the Libertarian Party nomination for President. I look forward to voting for him.
Worst Libertarian nominee of all time.
It's not enough to be passively anti-Chase. We must be actively anti-Chase.
How?
Well, he does seem reasonable 😂😂
This guy is the best libertarian candidate in YEARS?!
He’s the reason libertarians don’t even like their own party…
@WolfdogsRescue
A party of aimless misfits.
Are you involved with your state party? If not, please do. They need the volunteers and supporters. If you’re disappointed, get involved and change the course we are on.
Great job Chase! An excellent warrior for liberty.
This interview did indeed convince me that Chase is woke. The rude barbs and insults (Tim Pool hiding under his beanie?) while criticizing others for doing same and simultaneously playing the victim, the lack of understanding of issues, the superficial thinking and defensiveness when asked to back up calling someone a racist...never thought I'd see a woke libertarian, but here we are.
Great Job Liz
Give em hell Liz!!!!
Great interview. I'll probably vote for Chase.
The Libertarian party has allowed itself to be destroyed right at the moment a third party, especially a truly libertarian third party, could gain it's most strength. I don't think that's an accident.
I smell a plant.
Like Americans are gonna just wake up one day and start loving liberty again? 😂 The country is doomed.
@@RoyArrowood Everyone I talk to wants an authoritarian state. They don't want the responsibility of liberty. They want to pick someone that aligns with them, who will impose their beliefs, through law, on the entire country. Even though they don't typically understand what they really want.
There is a problem with using puberty/hormone blockers on children, doing that during developmental years stunts the development of more than just genitals. They also are important for the healthy development of the brain, etc. People keep ignoring that.
Chase Oliver is definitely winning over people across the aisle.
Correct, his left leaning policies attract left leaning people, which I don’t want, keep the votes.
Chase 2024! ☝🏾🟡
#ChaseOliver dictating to #Israel -- a sovereign nation -- that it should've used a "scalpel and not a sledgehammer" is the most un-libertarian thing I've heard from an LP candidate. How about "no money for Israel, no money for Hamas, and no interference w/Israel's sovereignty."
AIPAC will yry to get Chase out. We need to support Chase.
AIPAC probably put chase in
Non-policy based, but I feel like Chase needs to slow down a bit sometimes. I feel like he's always talking at 100 miles per hour.
I'm a Libertarian, and I am really happy to be voting for Chase Oliver in November!
Zach has gotten pretty good since he started w reason. Liz... Not so much. Had to stop watching this show, but came back to hear from chase in his own words. Not regretting my choice... But was impressed by Chase.
Someone has to push back a little. Give Liz a little credit for not just fluffing the candidate. This isn't CNN, Fox, etc.
@@noname-xo1bt I'm all for push back and challenging. But talking over both guest and co-host? Raising your voice and interrupting? It really detracts from the push back, even when what she is saying is coherent (as I admit it mostly was on the trans issues here).
What hes failing to acknowledge is that the business is taking away the employees choice. Many employees can't afford to just quitn their job.
Sooo...a business doesn't have a responsibility to make themselves less needed by their employees.
Blackmailing your employees into waiving their right to refuse medical treatment is very, very unethical.
No business owes anyone a job. Do you also think businesses should pay a "fair" and "livable" wage to the employees?
@@kokoromarudi7717 Don't put words in my mouth. I should be able to refuse a totally unreasonable request from my employer and not be fired for it. Even employees are allowed boundaries, like attractive young women who would rather not be groped at work or healthy young men who would rather not have an 800 percent increase in their risk of myocarditis.
@@kokoromarudi7717 no.... I think the business and the employee should be able to arrive at the age themselves without government intervention. True minimum wage is $0....
No business owes anyone a job, which is why they can fire at will... But allowing businesses to force employees to undergoe irreversible medical procedures to keep their jobs is about as anti-freedom as it gets. Don't be naive. Employees are, for the most part, at a disadvantage to the employer. If you think the market is so free that everyone can just up and leave their job whenever they want, you're delusional.
This just reinforces my view that it is the "party system" itself that is the problem. I am a former Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian - in that order. I will never join another party. Each party quickly becomes focused on the good of the party and not the good of the people and the nation.
Mises Caucus or not, I'm still voting for the Libertarian candidate. The only other option is to abstain, and I'm not Katherine Mangu-Ward yet.
Can someone just explain to me the reason for the so called Libertarian "primaries": that saw Chase win 6 states but only 6,000 votes only acquiring 8.8%! and some how had a better chance than a guy who won 23,000 votes and 56% & another that won 15%? Then please explain how a candidate for nominee , Oliver Chase, starts out with 11% going against another candidate who started with 35% and each round gained more and more; and somehow at around round 5 Chase got 49% versus the other candidate that had 45% and was obviously projected to win before round 5, but somehow lost to NOTA at 5%?
I say that means the nomination was rigged.
The MC is mostly running things, and Chase is not their candidate. So, are you saying the MC rigged the primary for someone else or that they are so incompetent that they allowed someone to rig it under their nose?
As candidates drop out and speeches are made, votes change. That's the answer.
Chase had 19.70% in the first ballot, Rec had 28.18%. I stated that don’t prohibit us having primaries, Chase won all except one. Primaries are non binding. The ticket is elected by the delegates. Each round the right and those with the lowest vote total of the candidates running get eliminated with the exception of NOTA. Then we go to the next round so folks typically have a second or third choice that they vote for in subsequent rounds.
@@michellemaccutcheon4813 So you just told me that having NOTA vote rigged it. I understand delegates make the decision. It just seems very anti democratic if literally 62%+ of votes divided into 3 different candidates, or 88% overall who didn't vote for Chase was ignored and the delegates decided he needed to be candidate even though he won with 49%. Seems the Libertarians are no different than Republicans & Democrats who've done similar things especially in regards to Trump back in 2016.
I’m sold. Chase is a man who’s principles are unshakable, and he’s willing to call out the bullshit on all sides. Absolute champion!
The only problem is his principles are hardly libertarian.
@@tann_man can you elaborate on that? Because everything he spoke on he very clearly established under libertarian principles. The only thing he could have fleshed out more cogently was his stance on abortion, which is very clearly an issue of protecting one’s bodily property rights from trespassers (see Walter Block). Granted, that might have gotten too esoteric for a relatively “mainstream” discussion like this, or with respect to the political main stage.
@@tann_man if you think he’s not libertarian, you clearly don’t know what libertarianism is.
@@kaveman_realh9224 exactly 💯. I think it’s many people who genuinely dont know what libertarianism is , conservatives who desperately want libertarians to join the Republican Party, and Mises caucus conservatarians who want to fundamentally change the party to be a conservative/libertarian/populist party. The people who are full blown libertarians all the way overwhelmingly support chase olive. They may disagree with him on some things sort of like we all disagree in life in general. We all aren’t robots. But they aren’t against chase Oliver. Online conversations are very disingenuous.
@@Cameron0718 there is nothing libertarian about child abuse... that's the problem