Kind: captions
Language: en
All the people who sold the war in Iraq,
they lied us into war after a war.
They've bankrupted the country, damn
near destroyed the dollar, and like no
one loses their job. No one even gets in
trouble over any of this. If you make
everybody monsters and they're not human
beings, well, you can't do diplomacy
with monsters. You can't make a deal.
You can't negotiate with monsters, but
you can with humans. Maybe there are
times where you're not. You shouldn't
negotiate or you can't negotiate with
humans, but it's better if you can. and
and we could use a lot more of that
thinking. Donald Trump has put a lot of
political capital chips into the middle
of the table that I can end this war,
you know, and he's going to look very,
very bad if he can't. So, he's very
highly incentivized to get this thing
done as quick as possible. You're
fighting in a way that produces more of
the thing that you're fighting. And so,
the first step is to stop doing that.
like your your cure is making the
patient more sick. So, stop doing that
and then let's see if maybe we could
heal. Where are the tapes? Why is
everyone talking about the flight logs
and the files? Where are the tapes? This
guy was clearly taping people to
blackmail them. Like, why does anything
need to be redacted for national
security? Like, I'm sorry. You're
telling me there's a pedophile ring and
we can't tell you everything about it
for national security? Why would that be
related to national security?
The following is a conversation with
Dave Smith, an outspoken and at times
controversial anti-war libertarian,
comedian, and podcast host. This is the
Lex Freedman podcast. To support it,
please check out our sponsors in the
description. And now, dear friends,
here's Dave
Smith. You are a longtime libertarian,
uh perhaps an anarco capitalist. We can
talk about that. Can you uh explain the
different variants, flavors of uh
libertarianism and where you stand among
those variants? Yeah, so there's almost
like anything like with left-wing
schools of thought or right-wing schools
of thought, there's many different camps
and different thinkers and so within the
kind of broader theme of libertarianism,
there was a lot of influence from uh
people like Rand, Milton Freriedman,
Thomas Soul. Those were, I think, some
of the more mainstream figures. And then
there's kind of like the Ron Paul brand
of libertarianism, which is kind of
distinct from that other camp where
they're much more of an emphasis on
foreign policy. All of them kind of fall
into the um radical minarchist points of
view. And then there's
Rothbartian anarcho capitalist. Then
there's also like uh David Freriedman
who's an anarcho capitalist but from a
completely different perspective than
Murray Rothbart. I would probably be
most I'm most closely like with the
Rothbart school which very similar to
Ron Paul um but even maybe a little bit
further in that you know the very little
bit of government that Ron Paul might
support. You've been a big fan of Ron
Paul. Can you explain what you admire
about him? A big fan is an
understatement. I think Ron Paul is like
the greatest living American hero. Um, I
I I revere him on the level of of the
founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson or
George Washington. Number one, I mean,
all of the major issues that he w he was
correct in his understanding of them,
his diagnosis of what caused these
problems and his solutions. And in
hindsight, there's just like a million
different examples of where almost
everybody today would agree, even though
his ideas were very controversial at the
time, be like, "Oh my god, if we had
just listened to Ron Paul about that,
we'd be so much better off." But I think
there's something almost deeper than
that about why so why Ron Paul inspires
so much love from so many people is
okay. So number one, the guy he was a
champion of these views for decades when
there was no payoff for it at all where
he was just kind of alone in the woods
being you know they used to call him Dr.
No, because well, he was a medical
doctor and then he was he would be the
lone no vote in Congress like all the
time like on on the bills that the
entire Congress bipartisan agreement
everything is and there's one vote
against it, you know, um and that he
would be that guy. He clearly kept doing
what he was doing simply because he
believed it was right, not because there
was any benefit for him. In fact, he
dealt with a lot of headaches for the
views that he had. And then he was just
a genuine person of integrity. you know,
he's the only uh congressman who I've
ever heard this about and and like DC
insiders, people on the hill will say
this. He was the only congressman of my
lifetime who the lobbyists simply
stopped visiting. He was the only one
who they just stopped going to his
office cuz they were just like, there's
just no getting through to this guy. He
was just not playing politics like that.
And he was, you know, you imagine what
it must have been like from like the
lobbyist perspective when they first
tried to go there, you know, and they'd
be like, "All right, listen. we really
need you to, you know, vote yes on this
or that. And he was like, the
Constitution doesn't authorize us to do
that. And they're like, what? Like, who
who in this town even talks like that,
you know? And so there was just he's
also just I've I've met him uh many
times at this point. And he is just
genuinely he's like one of those guys
who's just from like an older, better
generation. Just he's the sweetest guy,
but he's like uh but he's not a
pushover. like he was a tough guy in in
his day and he was an athlete and he was
in the Air Force and is married to the
same woman for I think over 60 years at
this point has like a big beautiful
family. He was a country doctor. He was
a baby doctor who delivered thousands of
babies. like he's just it is he's like
this kind of classic American figure and
um you know I just think uh you know at
the risk of of falling into like hero
worship or something like that. I do
think he's a I think he's a genuinely
great man and I think great men are to
be revered. Yeah, as you said there's
integrity there. Can you speak to the
ideas that Ron Paul represents? Like he
says some of the things he's been right
about. Maybe can you speak about the
economics, the Fed and maybe war and
being anti-military intervention? Well,
I think it comes it all came from kind
of the same central thesis which is that
the highest political value ought to be
liberty. Um and and that you know the
government by its very nature is an
instrument of force and tyranny and that
therefore the more government you have
the less liberty you have. Um, I think
he also was he was way ahead of his time
in in like really calling out the
corruption in DC. And I think that's one
of the things that's kind of that's that
it's a common through line between the
Federal Reserve and um government
spending and of course this crazy war
industry that our country has. Um there
so there there's a a lot of components
to that, but essentially Ron Paul was
talking about draining the swamp way
before it was like this dominant mass
message. And I think Ron Paul in many
ways laid
down he laid the groundwork in his 2008
and 2012 presidential campaigns for not
not saying that he leads to Donald
Trump, but he laid the groundwork for
Donald Trump to be able to get up at the
South Carolina Republican primary debate
and look at Jeb Bush and say, "Your
brother lied us into war." And you know
what I mean? And and and to have the
Republicans agree with him. you know,
the same these were a lot of the same
people who had voted for George W. Bush
twice and supported the war and even
mocked their liberal, you know, fellow
countrymen for not being on board with
it. And and a lot of that was the work
that Ron Paul did and people waking up
to um the how how messed up all these
wars were. And I think that at least
from there there were a couple major
things for me, okay, at the time. So I
was like a I was a young man when I
first found Ron Paul. I was I was in uh
2007 was when I first saw him and then
started obsessively reading all of his
books. And so I I was young. I'm I'm
born in ' 83. So what that mean? 23 24
uh when I first met him. So I was a
young guy. And at least for me at the
time, there were like kind of two
categories in my, you know, naive mind
where, okay, there were like the
liberals who supported big government at
home but were skeptical about, you know,
big government abroad or skeptical about
wars. And then there were the
conservatives who said that they
supported small government, limited
government at home, but were always on
the side of whatever the next war is.
And at least for me, and I think for a
lot of people of my generation, Ron Paul
was the first guy who came along and
said like, "No, I'm for limited
government here and abroad." And it was
kind of like a portal where you could
like access a different perspective on
the world. And then once you saw that,
you were like, "Wait, that's actually
what makes sense. It makes it it doesn't
make sense to like what are what is it
exactly that like um all the Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush and and even
like Milton Friedman and guys like that
and Thomas Soul and the it's like you
want a constitutionally limited world
empire like that's what you guys stand
for cuz that doesn't that doesn't fit
together at all. And so why is it that
we took we we were taking this as a
given. And then of course the more you
you look into it you realize that like
okay
there those two things do make sense
together. And then also that kind of
like in the initial wave of like the
original progressives you know look
people like Woodra Wilson or FDR these
were people who were pushing big
government at home and big government
abroad and that actually made much more
sense as a cohesive worldview. And to
oppose that would be the Ron Paul
worldview. And then the other thing for
me and this was actually this was my
introduction to Ron Paul. And this too
to me was like kind of a portal in a
way. It was it was a way at least in my
naive not fully functioned brain or
fully developed brain at 24 years old or
whatever. Um it was a way for me to kind
of get like like I tapped into something
that was outside the empire. And I had
um I had heard a lot, you know, I was
already against George W. Bush and I
didn't like the war. I could I I had
already figured out, you know, I think
this I think this war in Iraq is
bullshit and I think that we were lied
into it. And so I kind of got that. And
then there were there were liberals and
and left-wingers who I knew. I grew up
in New York City, so I was very familiar
with the left-wing perspective and who
were critical of of George W. Bush and
and for fighting the war and and you
know signing the Patriot Act into law
and things like that. But I had never
really heard anybody break it down the
way Ron Paul did when he was when he
basically was like look there's a reason
why these terrorists hate us and it's
not what they're telling you. They don't
hate us for our freedom. It's not as if
I remember the way Pat Buchanan put it
which I always loved was he goes he said
Dick Cheney makes it sound like Osama
bin Laden stumbled on like in the
deserts of Afghanistan he stumbled onto
a copy of our bill of rights somewhere
and he was like oh my god they're free
to look at this speedy trial are you
kidding me like this is like what is
going on here they can own guns and
their women can wear miniskirts and that
and that just made people so angry that
they were ready to you know like suicide
bomb themselves are like that makes no
sense at all. And then Ron Paul was just
like, "No, look, here's the thing. If we
think we can just go around the world
killing people, propping up
dictatorships, putting our military
bases in the the Muslims holy land and
not engender hatred from that, then we
do that at our own peril." And I thought
that was it was such an interesting kind
of you know it had always been I I'm an
80s and 90s kid and to me it was always
kind of a given that like America's
number one we're the force for good in
the world and we're and it was like an
interesting
introduction to the idea that there are
people outside of that who are dominated
by that who don't care for it very much
and like that that's what 911 was
actually about and for me you I was
living in New York City I was 18 I think
when 9/11 happened and that was like the
moment of my childhood. It was a huge
thing to live through. I mean, we were
attacked. This seemed like something
that could only happen in a history
book. That didn't happen to America in
the '9s. 2001 was basically the '9s. Um
and uh and it was just like, oh, finally
it clicked. It was like, that makes
sense. is the first time I had ever
heard like an explanation and an
understanding of this whole thing that
we're involved in now from 9/11 to the
terror wars that actually just made
perfect sense. Yeah. We should also say
that there's some degree of truth that
the battle is not just militaristic,
it's also cultural. And then many of
those parts of the world don't want
other people's
values forced onto them. Right? But the
way that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
and every right-wing host in America and
Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly and like
everybody. What they were saying is that
they hate that we're free. Whereas it
was much closer to saying like they
don't like us imposing on them. Even
like all the hardcore neocons, Brett
Stevens, the New York Times, he wrote
this piece on the 20th anniversary of
the invasion of Iraq, so uh 2023 to
cheerlead the war in Iraq. And he goes
through the whole piece and there's not
one mention of the million people who
died in the war. You know, he literally
just goes the piece is just measure life
under Saddam Hussein verse life under
the Shiite parliamentary system that
they have now. Which one's better? And I
he's arguing this one's better.
Therefore, it was worth it. But there's
like no mention. It's like, okay, but
what about the 20 plus million people
who were displaced? What about the
million people who were killed? What
about all the millions of people who
were injured? What about the tens of
thousands of our soldiers who have blown
their brains out in the aftermath of the
thing? Like it's like so so many times
this true in with government policy in
general. People talk about like the end
result that they want, but you're like,
"Yeah, but what about the process by
which you get there and how much hatred,
you know, could you I mean, like I you
know, it's it's not that hard for me to
like put myself in in other people's
shoes." And like I have two little kids
and a wife and if anybody were to ever
try to argue to me that they have to be
the eggs that get broken to make some
bigger omelette. Like it's it's okay.
Like you know we're ultimately going to
impose something on your society that's
better than what you have right there.
It sure does suck that your wife and
kids got to be the one who get taken
out. I mean I'm as I'm just saying this
to myself and this is not real. This is
just a thought experiment I'm making up.
I'm already pretty close to being a
terrorist. Like my next thought is kind
of like, well, okay. Well, I hope you're
gonna like it when you watch your family
die in front of you, you know? Now, I'm
not hopefully even if that happened to
me. I wouldn't go kill that guy's
family. Like, maybe I just go after him
or something. But I could understand and
I think most people have kids could
understand go going to a level of like
the the most evil dark place you could
imagine if something ever anyone ever
threatened or or actually did something
to your kids. Yeah. We have to remember
the thing that's difficult to measure
that you just mentioned which is the
hate that's created by every bomb that's
dropped. It was uh General Mcristel who
you know was the general running af the
war in Afghanistan. He wasn't like he
wasn't Ron Paul, you know what I mean?
Like he was a a sir, yes sir, how do we
fight and win this war general? And he's
the one who coined the term insurgent
math that 10 minus 2 equals 20. you
know, it's like the more you the more
you keep I was just reading I was
rereading about this the other day um
because of the uh you know Trump's been
bombing uh the Houthies in Yemen and you
know it was like when when we first I
think it was in in at least in 2009 is
when Obama really stepped up the drone
campaign with the then secret drone
bombing campaign and the Yemen was one
of the major theaters and even back then
when it really was just a it was a war
on terrorism. Like the main targets were
always al Qaeda and the Arabian
Peninsula and their presence in Yemen.
Even then, like so before the Saudis
invaded, so like from 2009 through 2015,
AQAP just kept growing. It was doing all
these targeted bombing campaigns. They
call them targeted. 96% of the people
are innocent who get killed, but they
call them targeted drone bombings. And
they and and al-Qaeda and the Arabian
Peninsula just kept getting bigger and
bigger because, you know, it's like
Yeah. Every time you go in there, it's
like, okay, you took out one target and
then you took out three little girls
and, you know, a few and every one of
those little girls had brothers and
uncles and fathers and, you know, and
and all of them just signed up to join
the fight now cuz, you know, and I Ron
Paul was the first one who really made
this click for me. But it's in a way,
and I'm not like I'm not a leftist. I'm
not an egalitarian. I'm not a cultural
relativist. I'm not saying that all
cultures are the same or that we all
look at the world the same way. There's
enormous differences between all of us.
And I personally think some are better
than others, but there are things that
unite all of us. And in a weird way,
it's I I remember one time I was arguing
with a Democrat guy on a SE cup show. I
used to be a contributor on on her show.
And we were arguing and it was after it
was after a terrorist attack here in New
York, a fairly minor one. It was like a
guy like I think he hit someone with his
car and then jumped out with a gun and
then the cops lit him up and killed him.
Um, this is like back in 2017 I think.
And he he claimed to be ISIS inspired. I
don't I don't remember if there was like
a direct connection or not, but they
were at the time they were like,
"Doesn't this mean we got to step up the
war in Iraq or in Syria where ISIS's
stronghold is?" And I remember the guy
saying to me, he goes, "Uh, you know, I
went off on how these wars have been
disastrous." and he goes, "Yeah, yeah,
but Dave, what you're saying here is
we're supposed to do nothing. Like, this
just happened and now we're supposed to
do nothing." And so, like, even though
this guy had a suit and tie on and we're
in a cable news studio and we're in a
first world country, we're in the United
States of America and we're having that
the basic thing that he's saying is
like, what do you say? You're saying
we're not going to go kill some
motherfuckers, you know? Like, I mean,
he's he was just putting it as like do
something, but what's something?
something is dropping bombs on human
beings, you know, when like, yeah, some
innocent people are going to die, but
okay, that but it's the same thing. It's
the same after 911 where like we got to
go fucking invade some countries right
now. That's the same impulse. It's like
they killed some of our people. You
think we're not going to show them who
the real killers are? You think there's
a chance that you could come here and
and that is like the most human instinct
ever? It's like some other tribe just
came in here and killed some people in
our tribe. So, what do you want to do
about that? Well, I don't know. It's not
going to take me too long to figure out.
We're gonna go kill a bunch of people in
their tribe. And I do think that like
that is I think that's the major
motivating factor for both sides of the
Israel Palestine conflict. I think
that's the major motivator for both
sides of the war on terror conflict. And
it's like that's it's in a way when you
look at it like that there's something
even though it's so dark and tragic,
there's something almost beautiful about
it where you're like, "Oh, we're all
caught in this same cycle." Yeah. Deeply
human. the the warring between tribes,
but you know, especially in the recent
years, but more and more through human
history, there's almost like a third
party, which is this military-industrial
complex, which is making money from the
two tribes. So, if you just have two
tribes, one I've been reading a lot
about Jangghaskhan. If uh this is why
Jenghaskhan banned this, it was very
common in uh in Mongolia before
Djangghaskhan to steal people's wives
like you're my wife now, right? And he
he realized that that creates a lot of
conflict. Yeah, it sure does. That seems
natural and human that kind of conflict.
But when whenever you a third party
rolls in and starts making money on the
whole thing and then driving that
forward then the escalation of the
conflict comes with this whole machine
that makes deescalation really
difficult. Yeah. The military-industrial
complex in America. It's so big and it's
so sophisticated and it's so so it's not
just that there's you know um you know
there's this there's the intelligence
agencies, there's the weapons
manufacturers, then there's the like
people in the media who are either
directly or indirectly just paring, you
know what I mean, all of their talking
points. And so it's not just that you
can kind of like like you make money
when there's a conflict, but you have
this entire apparatus to like create the
conflict and then create the public
sentiment for that. And then we're and
it's interesting we're we're in in an
interesting place cuz we're kind of in
this like new frontier of now where
shows like this can happen and and
there's a lot of them and a lot of them
are humongous like yours. Um, but for so
long it this just didn't exist. And it
was just like, oh, like for so long it
was the case that like the New York
Times and NBC and CBS and ABC and the
Washington Post and the the Associated
Press, I guess, they could just move the
nation. I mean if they wanted to be like
hey there is the the idea that forget
even like after 911 the idea that in
1990 1991 that there was any organic
movement from the American people going
you know we really got to see about the
Saddam Hussein guy you know uh the uh
dictator in Iraq is having a slant
drilling dispute with the uh Amir of
Kuwait. We really got to do something
about that. Like that is not something
that organically came from any that was
not like a a few soccer moms hanging
out, you know, watching their kids game
being like, I really do think I think in
in a couple years we're going to have to
send these boys over to Iraq to go. Like
that's not they just from the top down
were able to create this feeling that
like, hey, there's a new Adolf Hitler on
the rise over here in Iraq. We got to go
see about this. There are these poor
people in Kuwait. We have to do that.
you know, like there's they were able to
create this desire for war. Um, that was
it's it's really incredible when you
think about it because there's for I
think for the most part in human
history, you would have had to have some
type of plausible threat, some type of
plausible reality to convince people
that we actually have to go to war um in
order to deal with this. whereas like
you know the United the idea that in
1991 the United States of America would
feel threatened by Iraq was just
ridiculous and yet they were able to do
it. Well so to push back a little bit
throughout human history there was also
a thing you look at the Roman Empire
where just the cultural values were
different where military conquest was
seen as a good thing. So like we just
almost assume in the United
States there would war has been framed
in the defensive sense like where
offensive war we're not doing that
anymore. You make a fair point. It's
certainly true that throughout human
history there's been um there's been
like overt
um empire building and wars of conquest
and things like that. But I guess I'm
just saying at least even there you
would have some type of cell of like why
we're going to go take these resources
and why that will be good for us.
Whereas the idea that there like Kuwait
just needed to be defended by the
Americans seems so it seems so hard to
convince anybody and yet they were able
to do it. If you read like Neocon
writing in the 90s, it was very
interesting. Um because they would they
would tell the truth a lot more. Uh and
they were
essentially I think there was the Soviet
Union had just collapsed. It was what
what Charles Crowhammer dubbed the
unipolar moment. There was like a lot of
there was excitement. There was a
feeling of invincibility. Um and also
the neocons weren't in power any after
'92 really. I mean, they had a little
they were in the George HW Bush
administration, but after '92, they
really weren't. So, they're just writing
at these think tanks, and it just didn't
seem as, you know, like they weren't as
guarded. There weren't like these
accusations of you're a war criminal or
something like that. But what he said,
uh, what Jonah Goldberg agreed with was
that every, uh, I think the statement
was every 10 years or so, America's got
to find a puny little country and put
them up against the wall just to let the
rest of the world know that we mean
business. And that was actually their
mentality. I'm sure there's people that
agree with that. I happen to disagree
with that. But the the drums of war are
beating a little bit over Taiwan and
China. More than a little bit. Yeah. But
there I can't even see a justification
for a just war. What is the long-term
benefit to society if you do military
intervention? I well I also think this
and I' I've been saying this for a while
but I do think there is this like um
there there's like this empire mentality
that Americans have got to shake off
like as if it's even a question of
whether we should allow it or not like
are we in a position to allow or not
allow that? Why do we have it's it's
almost like if you were um you know like
I I don't I hope China doesn't invade
Taiwan. I hope Taiwan remains as free as
possible. I hope China becomes free. I
root for freedom and prosperity for
everyone, you know, but I also root for
like everybody to have a healthy
marriage. But if you were like if you
were talking to me and you were like,
hey, the guy down the street is cheating
on his wife. Like I don't think we can
allow this. I'd immediately be like,
that's really not my place. And then on
top of that, I also have no power. I
have no authority over what they do in
their marriage. Like I have to be
concerned with my marriage. And the idea
that like imagine if there were the
political
will to uh invade Mexico like if DC
decided we're taking Mexico City like
that's that's going to be part of
America now and we're taking it by force
and then China was like we're not sure
if we can allow this. I think
immediately most Americans would be like
allow like how the fuck do you think
you're going to stop us from taking
Mexico City? What are you gonna do,
China? You're gonna send your navy ships
over here to fight us off the coast of
Mexico? Good luck with that. And and at
least from my understanding, in almost
all the war games that they've run, if
we did militarily, even if it doesn't
come to nuclear weapons being used, in
which case the whole world gets blown
up. But even if we go to militarily try
to stop China from invading Taiwan and
no one everyone agrees to not use nukes
and we just fight a conventional war, we
lose that war every time. I think what
you said applies to a lot of the wars
we've been involved in. But China and
Taiwan is a little bit different because
because of TSMC, right? Because there's
an economic dependence. If that was the
concern, then the response would be we
need some type of Manhattan project. And
I'm not supporting a government project
here, but there would be we need some
type of Manhattan project to say we're
going to make these things here. We
can't. And look, I I was running that
experiment before saying like what if we
all pinky promise not to use nuclear
weapons or something like that. But
that's not the reality of the situation.
The more reality, look, even in in
Ukraine, everybody the biggest hawks,
the biggest pushers of this policy and
Joe Biden and policy to fund Ukraine, no
one's suggesting we send in the 82nd
airborne. No. which is really the only
thing that could repel the Russians
right now and restore, you know,
Ukrainian the the original sovereignty
of the Ukrainian borders. But no one's
suggesting we send in the 82nd airborne
cuz we all know, well, we can't have a
direct war with Russia. That's the end
of the world. And same thing with China.
So, you know, I'm not saying microchips
or whatever aren't important, but
there's we can find other ways to the
Taiwan is not magical. Like, we can
produce these things in other places.
No. So you have the humility to say that
you don't really know much about the
situation. It sounds ridiculous to say,
but there's something magical about not
Taiwan but DSMC. It's incredibly
difficult to manage the supply chain and
manufacture at such a low cost that they
are. And to add to that, China has been
signaling about the one China policy.
But you're absolutely right that you
shouldn't be doing the the Washington
thing of beating the drums of war.
That's like the completely the
counterproductive thing. There should
you should uh actually try to find
partnerships with China. Build
friendships and cooperation like India
is doing a good job of this like build
friendships. This the 21st century
conflict this cold war thinking is going
to be destructive to the economy,
destructive to humanity, to the
flourishing of the individual nations of
the world. There there's just nothing
positive except making money for the
military industry. Well, yeah. And and
it was totally destructive during the
original Cold War, too. um and almost
led to nuclear war on a couple of
different occasions. But look, I would
just say and I I really I'm no defender
of the Chinese regime. I hate communism
and or fascism, whatever they are. Some
hybrid mix of of the two. They're paying
you, aren't they? Yeah. No, fuck them. I
don't care. By the way, I get a lot of
people speculate online, but I am not
I'm not getting any of these checks,
man. And I'd really like them to start
coming in. Um, but there's like even
when it's like China, you say China's
asserting the one China policy, but the
one China policy is the policy of the
United States of America and has been
for 50 years now, right? So it's not I
think what's happening there a lot of
times is that essentially even though
officially the one China policy is the
policy of the United States of America
all of these American politicians um and
and you know different figureheads
across powerful centers in America are
are saying that China doesn't have the
right to go into Taiwan and then China's
in the position of being like well hey
wait a minute no that's not actually the
policy we maintain this one China policy
but we allow them to kind of do what
they want to do. And you know, the the
most obvious example of this was when
Joe Biden actually said like, "Oh, we
wouldn't allow that and we would
militarily intervene if they went into
China." And then, and this was so
bizarre, then the White House, whoever
that was, came out to correct the
president of the United States and say,
"No, the policy of the White House is
the one China policy." Which, look, I
mean, again, I think the whole point of
this is that the reason why whoever the
hell was able to overrule Joe Biden in
his administration, I I don't know who
that is. Um but the whole point is that
if you say and and this is why there is
some wisdom in America accepting the one
China policy is that if you
tell China that we recognize uh uh
Taiwan's independence and that they're
not a part of China, that might be the
type of thing that would make China
invade and say no, we're not accepting
that. And so at least right now it's
like kind of like okay here's look this
is the reality. It's something that you
kind of run up against with the war in
Ukraine a lot and and with the situation
in China and Taiwan is that there are um
there are constraints placed on us by
reality. It's not all just how would you
like the world to be? How would you like
it to work? Obviously, I think we would
all like that bigger countries don't
invade smaller countries and bigger
countries don't bully smaller countries
around. That is not the way of the
world. We are a big country that is the
biggest bully in the world. So we're in
no position to let but what we're kind
of in the position is just like you're
like hey we'd sure love if you don't do
that. You know you can do it and you can
get away with it but we would sure love
it if you don't. And so the goal would
be to do everything we can to make sure
that doesn't happen. When Vladimir Putin
starts talking about like hey if you
keep pushing the idea of Ukraine joining
your military alliance I'm going to
invade that country. the goal there the
or the move there would be to be like
okay we'll stop talking about that is
there something else that we can agree
on you know like is there is there a way
that we you we you will promise you
won't do anything to them and okay and
we'll promise we won't bring them in our
military like that's the goal you don't
just go like no fuck you we're doing it
anyway over and over and over again
until they do the thing I think we got
to this discussion from the
military-industrial complex and military
intervention and Ron Paul before that if
you could like rewind a little it uh is
there any amount according to you and
according to various flavors of
libertarianism is there any amount of
military
intervention that's justified that's
okay um well I I would say okay so at
least to me in in terms of like pure
libertarian theory or just in in terms
of like what I think is right or wrong
like there is such thing as a just war
um the most obvious
uh example of that would be like you're
invaded by a military and fighting them
off. Um, so in in that sense also like
even if you want to if you want to kind
of isolate from everything else, uh,
from, you know, all of the awful US
policy toward Russia post Soviet Union
to all of the, you know, NATO expansion
and color-coded revolutions and all of
these things. If you want to, you know,
Vladimir Putin invades Ukraine, I do
think the Ukrainians have a right to
fight and and protect their their land.
like there the there's an aggressive
there's an aggressor there and you have
a right to defend yourself. Uh so
certainly in that sense I think um the
American Revolution was a just war. Uh I
think there are you know there there can
be just wars in terms of pure
libertarian theory. I think I would say
that look you you don't you never have a
right to kill innocent people there.
That's never morally okay. Now there
could be a scenario just like this is
true in life in general right like
there's lots of things that you don't
have the right to do but you could come
up with some scenario where you might be
in a position where you have to do it
because there were all of these
extenduating circumstances you know like
for you know you could think of
something where like you remember the uh
the Saw movies where they used to you
know these crazy like horror scenarios
but it's like um okay so there's a
person you know a evil bad guy has
buried a key inside this person and you
have to kill that person in order to get
the key in order to unlock these 20
people to let them out of a cage. Now
look, you still don't have a right to
kill people. It's horrible and wrong and
what you did there was still evil. But
if you were taken to trial over it, you
could probably explain to a judge and a
jury be like, "I know, but the situation
I was in was either these 20 people were
going to die or this one person was
going to die, and under that situation,
I chose to save the 20." So like in
other words, by perfect theory, no, you
never have the right to kill innocent
people. There could be a scenario where
you were like, look, we had to take this
military action and some innocent people
did die and it's so tragic and awful
that we had to do this, but we are
certain that many more people would have
died had we not done this. Now, in that
case, I would look at that as like um
number one, it's much like killing the
one person to save the 20. It's still
wrong. It's still an immoral thing that
you were forced into doing. It's not
justified. I would say that the
overwhelming onus should have to be on
you to demonstrate that you absolutely
needed to do that. And that's how I feel
about all these these wars. you know,
it's not like um you know, I think that
like let's just say like if you could
make World War II like you could reduce
it down to the simplest caricature of
what World War II is and say there's no
Joseph Stalin. We're not even partnering
with him. Like there's a good guy in
Russia who we were partnering with and
there's and and the British Empire had
never done anything wrong. They were
just nothing but good guys. And of
course FDR was nothing but a good guy.
And Hitler was even worse than the real
Hitler. You know what I mean? And in
order to stop them, we had to go on this
bombing campaign. And we only got Nazis.
We only killed the bad guys. And we were
able to take out the Third Reich. But
one 8-year-old girl died. And you did
this thing that stopped the whole world
from falling into subjugation. So I
think almost everybody would
agree, Jesus, man, you have to do that.
Okay. This is um you have to do that
because the whole world's going to be
subjugated. There's nothing but good
guys here. The Nazis are so evil. And
there's one I still would say that every
single time World War II came up, we
should all just be somber and we should
all just think about that little
8-year-old girl who died and what a
horrible thing it is that we had to do
that, you know? And so the like when
there are these campaigns where like,
you know, like where tens of millions of
people are killed, the fact that
anybody's ever like spiking the football
or this kind of like rah rah, we were
the good ones. And then also when you
add in all those other complicated
factors like that this wasn't the
scenario at all. Um but I do so so I
guess essentially I'd say no you don't
ever have a right to kill innocent
people. It's never self-defense to be
killing innocent people. I mean short of
like you know some type of scenario
where like you know if you're holding a
baby and coming at me shooting and I
shoot back at you and okay I was acting
in self-defense and it happened to kill
a baby. I'm I'm talking about like what
the scenarios where you're dropping
bombs on cities. Um it's never justified
and the overwhelming onus should be on
you to demonstrate that you absolutely
have to do it and that that should be
the standard because there's so many
other standards that I see thrown out
that I just think are make no moral
sense at all. you know, people will
argue about like uh in Gaza, they'll
argue about um the civilian to combatant
ratio, which I like that to me doesn't
really that's not what counts. That's
not the measure that's important. Um and
also no one knows what the numbers are.
They all just kind of like pretend to.
Uh and then the other thing will be um
that people as someone just recently
argued with me about they'll say like uh
well Hamas has to go. That's the
starting point. Hamas has to go. And I'm
like, "No, I don't think you get to say
that." Because the the truth is that
look, you can make an argument that
Hamas has to go. Sure. You can make an
argument that the Ludnik have to go. You
can make an argument that Kim Jong-un
has to go or that G has to go or that
Putin has to go or that Zillinsky has to
go. Or certainly, I would make an
argument that Joe Biden had to go. But
just because a government has to go,
that doesn't mean you could just go kill
all their people. Yeah. That should not
be the starting point like the
assumption, the axiom of the discussion.
Yeah. The the question
is, is it is there no other option than
doing it this way? It's like, okay, like
October 7th happened. We can all agree
this was like a a horrific tragedy um
and a you know, an indefensible act of
terrorism. Like, okay, can is it
guaranteed that another one of those is
going to happen tomorrow? Or was this
the biggest security failure in in you
know, Israeli history? Okay. Well, if
it's the biggest security failure, let's
just say, not even going down the inside
job rabbit hole or anything like that,
but just saying it's a giant security
failure. Okay, then put a bunch more men
at that fence first of all. And now you
got to talk about how can you achieve
your goal while inflicting the minimum
amount of devastation on innocent
people. Let's talk about it. You brought
it up. October 7th. So, what exactly do
you think about the October 7th attack
by Hamas on Israel? Um well I mean like
what I just said that it it was uh
horrible and you know uh it's always by
the same logic that I'm giving you now.
It's always it's always evil to target
innocent civilians. I don't believe uh
you know civilians can be held
responsible for the uh the crimes of
their government. Um this was by the way
the Osama bin Laden logic which I think
would also be the logic of like Bill
Clinton or George W. Bush or Barack
Obama. But Osama bin Laden very
explicitly said when he was asked like,
"Well, are you just going to target like
US military sites or are you targeting
US civilians?" It was an interview in
the '9s before 9/11. Um, and he goes,
"No, civilians are fair game, too,
because you guys have regular elections
and you guys vote for your government
and therefore you're responsible for the
crimes that they commit." Now, I think
that's the logic of a fanatic like Osama
bin Laden, and that's not the logic that
any of us should follow. It it doesn't
make any sense, and it's not true that
people are responsible for the crimes of
their government. Um, I think that that
same argument is used quite a bit by
people on the pro-Israeli side when they
say like, oh, they they had an election
in 2005 and Hamas won a plurality,
therefore 20 years later, they have no
rights. I think that's insane. So, okay.
So, Hamas had no right to go after um
civilians. Uh, you know, it's horrible.
And you see, you know, the um these, you
know, teenagers being killed and the
people um you know, you see the images
of people uh who were who are held
hostage for all this time. So, it's like
your heart breaks for those people. It's
truly tragic. Um, I I do
think that it
was in many
ways an indictment of so many different
things. You know, like October 7th
happening was an indictment of um the
entire occupation/ siege of of Gaza and
the West Bank, you know, for that
matter. Um it was I I think
um should have probably forever
destroyed the legacy of Benjamin
Netanyahu. Um who is you know I I mean
this isn't like George W. Bush you know
was I mean he was on the job for almost
a year when 9/11 happened but it was
still kind of new you know like it was
still kind of in his first year of being
president. Benjamin Netanyahu was the
longest serving prime minister in
Israeli history and had explicitly been
like, I'm the tough right-winger who's
going to be tough on these Palestinians
who's going to like move away from the
idea of coming to a two-state solution
because this is what we need to keep us
safe. Like the justification is like I'm
going to be hard on these motherfuckers
cuz that's cuz I know what it takes to
keep us safe. And that culminates in the
the worst massacre in in Israeli
history. Um, and then I mean the other
big one is that I mean and it's not like
a I wouldn't even say an open secret at
this point. It's just out in the open.
He had this strategy of propping up
Hamas for years. And so he had this
strategy of propping up Hamas um for a
myriad of reasons. Um, but a major part
of it was that look man, as long as
there's terrorists in power there,
there's never going to be any pressure
on us to give the Palestinians a state
because look, are you telling me I got
to negotiate with them? He was allowing
Qatar money to float. Insisting that
Qatar money float to them. When the
Qatar money dried up, sent the MSAD in
to insist that it gets back to him.
Hundreds of millions of dollars,
briefcases, and cash. And he said in his
own words that the reason for doing this
was to keep to his words were prop up
Hamas, bolster Hamas, to keep them in
power so that the West Bank and the and
the Gazins were divided and that the
international community as well as the
liberal Jewish community in Israel
wouldn't be able to put pressure on them
to make a deal. But what are the
options? So, if he doesn't allow the
money in, it also looks really bad for
him because if he's not allowing the
money in, that means he's not allowing
the quote unquote aid in to help the
Palestinians. Yeah. But Lex, I mean, the
the dynamic here, right, is from
to today, Israel's had a full blockade
around the country. They won't let
potatoes in. They won't let sugar in.
They won't they the they and the the
justification is because they're dual
use. You know, they they can be used to
make rockets as well as they can be used
to, you know, feed starving children.
So, we can't let that in because it's
dual use. But cash to Hamas, does that
not have dual usage? Like, is there is
there nothing else that they can? So
yeah, it's like yes, when you have a
full blockade around the country, you
take on certain responsibilities. And I
think this is, you know, this is the the
essence of really the the whole struggle
here, which is very tough, I think, for
the pro-Israel side to grapple with. But
the bottom line is that Israel hasn't
occupied Palestine for like a few months
after a war or even a couple of years
after a war while they're figuring out
what we're going to do with them. It's
been over 60 years. is the the we're
talking about a a one week long war or a
day short of a week long war in 1967.
Israel's had control of them ever since.
And much like in the same way that like
if you kidnap someone and you lock them
in your basement and you don't feed
them, you murdered that person. So in
other words uh um stated
differently, you're not allowed to
kidnap people and lock them in your
basement, but once you do, you take on a
responsibility to feed those people. You
know what I mean? Like you can't you're
not allowed to keep someone and not feed
them. That is a worse charge than just
keeping them. And so yeah. Anyway, I
guess my point is the solution to that
if if you go like, well, I'm a bad guy
if I fund Tamas. I'm a bad guy if I
don't let the aid in, was to let the
reputable international aid
organizations bring aid in to the people
of Gaza. Don't have uh don't don't
pressure the Qataris to send in
briefcases full of cash. allow
internationally recognized, reputable
human rights organizations who are
lining up trying to do it, stop turning
them away and let them in. And and and
this is just it's so long past due. I
mean, like it's it's just I'm not like
defending uh Arab terrorism. It's uh I
think it's really it's it's a tragedy
that the Arabs embraced terrorism. Uh I
don't think it's unique to them. And in
fact, you know, I think it was the um
the Zionist militias who introduced
terrorism to that part of the world. But
there was also like there look terrorism
persists because it works. And this is
true with state terrorism and with
non-state terrorism. You know, it's like
there it terrorism has often worked for
people. The I think the thing like early
I think early Yaser Arafat I know was
very influenced by um the
Algerians who you know successfully
kicked the French out embracing
terrorism and it was almost like the
major
miscalculation of the the those
Palestinian Arabs who did embrace
terrorism was that this isn't the French
this isn't the French hanging out in
some colony with their home country back
home where maybe a few acts of violence
could work enough to, you know, your the
liberal population back home is like,
"Oh, I really didn't like the response
to that terrorism. We killed so many
people. Forget it. This is too much of a
headache. Let's get out of here." The
Zionist settlers were there to stay.
They weren't going anywhere. They
weren't going back to Eastern Europe.
You know what I mean? They weren't go
They were just that. And so, it's a
tragedy that this whole thing went the
way it did. But you always whenever
you're talking about like a conflict
like this, the person who has the or the
the party who has the power is the one
who needs to make concessions, you know,
and the there it's just indefensible
that the status quo of the Palestinian
people having no rights, literally no
rights, being ruled by a government that
they do not get to vote uh for or
against. Um, no right to do commerce
with the outside world, no freedom of
travel, no freedom of movement, no basic
property rights. You can be kicked out
of your home at any time, no right to a
fair trial, uh, no right to a lawyer, no
right to a jury of your peers. I mean,
the fact that that has been the status
quo since
1967 is just indefensible. And if and
and then in the context that that has
been the status quo, I guess I'm just
not even though I'm against
it, it's kind of like when you're just
lecturing about the way in which they
resist
this, I I think it's very tough to be on
a strong moral footing, you know. Yeah.
You have to you have to r