tv Cato Institute Heritage Foundation Intern Debate CSPAN August 29, 2019 12:34pm-2:07pm EDT
archives and unique access to the senate chamber. we will look at the history, traditions and roles of the u.s. senate. >> sundays at 9 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> next, a debate on libertarianism versus conservatism. between summer interns from the cato institute and heritage foundation. topics include the role of marriage, immigration, pornography and the government's responsibility to restrict and regulate certain drugs like marijuana. this debate is moderated by "national review online" editor charles cooke. thank you all for joining us this evening.
for those who don't know me, i am neil saul, student program ps coordinate here at the cato institute and an honor to introduce tonight, tonight is it at the heritage interns go head-to-head with acute interns to debate is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy? with political flossie provides better answers to today's most important political questions? of course each of us have always had much to agree upon, limited government, free markets and individual liberty are all pillars of the political flossie that we both value and appalled. which of often led us to the same policy preferences and conclusions. yet, what each of us invasion in a free society without governmental and regulatory intrusion often does look quite different. policy preferences surrounding foreign policy, immigration, sex
work, emerging technology, marriage and families come just in a few, create cleavages that emerge from differences between our political philosophies. as we've seen in today's political climate, seldom are these differences laid out through constructive civil discourse. in recent days the protection of free speech has been under threat by those who claim the harms of certain kinds of speech outweigh its protection, that there's more sensible approach to the regulation of this kind of expression. tribalism has found skepticism and that and there into their s that about absolute power under the rule of law. that hasn't shied are in a global human rights for the preservation of freedom. which brings us here tonight on this stage as an opportunity for the exposure and articulation of ideas, values disagreement, discourse and debate.
these interns have worked tirelessly this summer to parse out these nuanced policies, differences through fun, logical, and rational debate. but before we begin i i like to mention a few housekeeping items. after the conclusion of this debate, please join us outside in the auditorium in the winter garden as well as on the second floor for a reception. also join the conversation throughout the debate by using the #lvcdebate as you see on screen. we will be drawing your questions during the q&a portion from this feed for the debate portion. furthermore, if you're on snapchat please check out our special snapchat filter. if you send snaps to at cato institute, they may be featured on social media. one important thing to keep in mind especially when posting a social media is that the opinions you'll be doing tonight are those of our debaters are not the cato institute nor the heritage foundation. we would also appreciate your
participation in our postdebate survey. you will receive is by e-mail and it is your chance to express who you think prevailed as well is your opinion on the number of issues that will be at hand and raised the cd. in the spirit of debates, another debate, this time on whether capitalism or socialism has better benefited women, will be held here at cato on september 16 at 6:30 p.m. and i would would encourage you all to attend or to watch online. lastly, i would like to express my thanks for our incredible conference staff for putting this event together. elaine richardson and calling harmon of the heritage foundation for their hard work, coordination and collaboration. matthew feeney and will the field for their invaluable assistance with debate preparation on the cato institute site. trish and sounds and in the front row who agreed to serve as an alternate and provide extensible research and preparatory work as well.
and lastly, a big thank you to charles cooke who has agreed to moderate tonight debate. charles cooke is the editor of "national review online," a cohost of the mad dogs in english and podcast, and the author of the conservative areas in manifesto. he is a graduate of the universe authored and which he studied modern history and politics to his work has focused on anglo-american history, , britih liberty, free speech, second amendment, and the american exceptionalism. charles is a frequent guest on hbo's real time and has broadcast for bbc, msnbc, fox news and fox business. he emigrated to the u.s. in 2011 and became an american citizen in 2018. he lives in florida with his wife, their sons and their dog, a black lab. please help me welcome charles cooke. [applause]
>> thank you very much for coming. thank you to cato and heritage for having here asking me to moderate this debate. it's a pleasure to be involved in an argument about political ideas that doesn't ultimately come down to the question of whether the parties are french or not. i think i keep being invited back to do this because, well, other than boris johnson, who is busy now, because about a book on this topic called the conservatory manifesto and which i attempted to tease out the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, and to offer a way forward that fuses them where possible. i was not i suspect invited back for my addictive abilities, given that one thing about in
that book was that america's next president might will be a quiet retiring, humble, modest, noninvasive sort of guy who would remove the celebrity culture from our national politics and reduce the executive branch to the more limited role the founders had imagined. and then we elected donald trump whom my colleague kevin williamson has described as a man with the sensibility halfway between caligula and liberace. [laughing] imagine my wife does allow me to place bets over about five dollars anymore. it does remain an important debate, especially at this moment. because we are assessed in america with our two two politl parties and with the presidency, our political culture has a tendency to flatten all non-left ideologies into just the right. cato, for example, is often described as conservative when
it is no such thing. heritage is presumed to be on board with every military innovation, when it is not. anyone who doesn't want to vote for a democrat is put into the same camp. a good example of this was a way in which despite having very different jurisprudential approaches and personal political views, both neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh seem to be an distinguishable during their respective hearings. that tendency during the last print court term has led to great shock among some legal commentators when the notice how much they diverged, which is to say, we are not here this evening to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. but rather to ask more foundational questions such as whether angels actually exist, whether if they do they should be dancing on fans in the first place, whether they're dancing on pins is go to bad for society. whether pens make a safer or we need more robust and control.
whether the injuries sustained as a result of dancing appearance should be paid for i the dancers or by anyone else. so what is so forth. this is not going to be a pin free zone. before we started a couple of house rules. please don't clap or boom during the debate. you can cheer and the and throwing a close at the end. please make sure your cell phones don't ring. if they do ring, please don't answer them. i've equipped all of the debaters tonight with tasers and they will know what to do if there interrupted. the resolution tonight is, is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy? we will start off with an opening statement from the conservative side, followed by an opening statement from the libertarian side, followed by rebuttals from each.
>> thank you all for coming. as you know tonight we are hosted in hide auditor name for economies friedrich hayek. to paraphrase his nobel prize acceptance speech, if man is to do more good than harm in his efforts to improve the social order, then he will shape the results as a craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather cultivate growth by providing the appropriate environment, like the cargo does for his plants. he is gardner has two choices. one, he can abandon his plans to subsist alone, dehydrate, shrivel up and die. or, to the, the carter can water his plants. place them in good sunlight and give them nutrient rich soil so that they can bloom into magnificent flowers. the point of hayek's card is this. when the government sets the right conditions, the political community flourishes that is not
to say that the gardener will micromanage or engineer his plants according to landscape design but he can create the environment when they produce fruit. conservatives and libertarians have enjoyed a mutually beneficial alliance. to get the prep rally support for the free market and defeated communism. but in tradition of the founders, conservatives recognize that unfettered liberty must never, at the expense of our society and our humanity. at the heart of today's debate is a central question, what kind of country do we want to live in, and are destined to inherit? conservatism is a political philosophy that is designed to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty to the next generation by creating an atmosphere of moral virtue and law, faith, family, and responsibility. unlike the axiomatic no size fits all ideology called libertarianism, conservatism is
a balancing pendulum with order on one end and liberty on the other. but libertarianism ignores the tension between order and liberty. the result is excess celebrity and almost no order. in the name of live and let live, libertarianism removes the social scaffolding around our society and the moral compass from our nation. and we see what happens when libertarians try to estimate their ideals. always and everywhere that libertarianism causes societal decay. the libertarians said the device drugs. entire regions of this country suffered under the opioid epidemic. the libertarian said the right to abortion is a a liberty as fundamental as property. abortion became available on demand. an life and liberty was robbed from 60 million innocent unborn. the libertarians said open the borders. the american taxpayer foots the
bill for illegal immigration either by forfeiting his job or his money to larger welfare state. the libertarian said, marriage doesn't matter. children got trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty and fatherless broken homes. libertarianism is a utopian ideology that wants to build an impossible society, but the ideal world that libertarians want is not worth striving for. it's hurting much the farthest stretch of anything our founding fathers envisioned. tonight we will set the record straight on the founders' vision for america. looking back to hayek's garden, the americans do not want a broken plan of itemized individuals. we do not want weeds and briars to tear up our inherited plot. what we want is a thriving garden. [applause]
>> good evening, everyone. thank you for taking the time to come to cato i watch online. i also want to extend a special thank you to our moderator tonight, charles cooke, as well as to the heritage foundation for coming to the lions den. as we weigh the merits of these philosophies, we must consider an essential question, what is the purpose of government? even volumes of text may not provided for the company to answer, the declaration of independence provides the best concise and to the governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that right there is a libertarian vision for government. simply put, libertarianism is doing a better job than consultant at securing these most vital and precious rights. libertarians alike are conservatives and progressive friends recognizes each adult has the right and responsibility to make decisions about how best
to go about their life, so long as those decisions do not infringe on the rights of another. libertarianism resist that most base and human desire to impose one's belief on another through force. and that force is essential to understand. we do not reject the fundamental importance of virtue, but believe that liberty is the best means of achieving such virtue. we recognize and chairs the vital role of civil society in any republic. if the imposition of moral values by force of law is not only unethical but crowds out the post essential roles of civil society. if we abdicate our responsibility to some conservative in washington who thinks they know how to order liberty or some progressive who believe they can transform society at the push of a button, all will be lost. a conservative who believes the government can central to manufacture a virtuous society falls victim to the same fatal conceit of a marxist who
essentially plans the economy. virtue imposed by force is hardly virtue at all. rather, virtue must be inculcated by vital community institutions. true liberty when some society is allowed to flourish sustains virtue. thinking about good governance, we hold a lot in common with our conservative friends can we believe in the rule of law and a vibrant judiciary that ensures contract and property rights, so fundamental to any free society are upheld. we recognize the importance of a criminal justice system that ensures those who infringe on the fundamental rights of others based adequate discipline. we believe in a military that provides for the national defense but we have different conception of the limits of government that our conservative friends. accordingly, i have one key request for the audience tonight. be wary of what george orwell would call political language throughout this debate. make sure to consider what the true ethical implications are
when conservatives argue for certain interventions to uphold the social order. smart drug policy means locking people in cages. likewise, protest institution of marriage really means prevent those with a different sexual orientation and i from raising a child. protect our liberty all too often means propping up a a despotic regime like that of saudi arabia. let's at least be honest about what certain conservative principles truly entail when assessing their merits. libertarianism stems from a deep intellectual humility that we may not have it all figured out when we enact government policy. rather than unilaterally decide on some social policy, libertarians place their faith in what adam smith called natural liberty. the natural liberty that emerges when fundamental rights are protected is how best to ensure our society prospers. that, not government coercion cup is that we preserve life and liberty and give people the best chance at securing happiness for themselves and for their posterity. thank you.
[applause] >> now we will have a two minute rebuttal, first from the conservative side. >> they talked a lot about the imposition of moral values claiming that we conservatives fall victim to the fatal conceit of collectivism. but we were content it actually libertarianism that backfires d invites the slippery slope government intervention that we all want to avoid. the problem is the individual choices that libertarians hold so near and dear sometimes produce large-scale unintended consequences that can rot civil society and lead ordinary people stuck picking up the pieces. drugs have not just a little freedom from individuals. they have debilitated and tire regions of this country, from rural appalachian all the way to the rust belt. so when the social fabric starts
unraveling, who but the government is called to stop it? that's the problem. it's the state that will get involved to cure the societal ills that libertarianism created. because libertarianism adam isis individuals to ultimately seek meaning in the state. we must ask ourselves, is it really authoritarian to protect our national sovereignty and her citizens by securing the border? is it unjustified to deter foreign adversaries and aggression abroad so we don't face invasion or extortion tomorrow? is really a violation of civil liberties to get people off of welfare and out of poverty by promoting marriage? is a really tyrannical to want to get drug addicts off the street and parents off of drugs or children are not driven into the foster care system? the simplicity of libertarian is is that they don't often see the difference between banning the big gulp and banning black tar heroin. the problem is that if we fail to care for civil society and if
we take individual freedom to its extreme, and balk at the chance to timber country, the only freedom libertarians deserve is the freedom to decline and fall. [applause] >> i like to remind you all that no matter how pretty the language from the conservative side is, fear mongering isn't an argument. this is a debate and we're here to make arguments. so throughout i think you really need to keep in mind what's an argument and what is something essential to great that isn't supported by fax. libertarianism at its core is supported by facts. if you look at the data that we're going to give you about this speech, for example, in regard to the opioid epidemic, you will see that actions by limiting the government restriction on drugs you do see fewer drugs, you do see more people not doing drugs. that's hard data. the other important thing you
need remember is invented that if the concern is tell you why the government needs to be doing all of these different policy decisions. do you know what is a effective way of not being addicted to drugs? went to na, going to narcotics anonymous, going to local church, being involved with their families and communities to see what they can do for you. at its core libertarianism is about the police that freedom is something that is important. by no means is it unlimited. that would be a bad policy choice to once again is not supported by the data. but at its core will military institutions we believe i society can realistically do we believe religious freedom applies and extends to jews, muslims and mormons just as much as it does christians. and at its core when conservatives talk about family values the target one type of family. this is why you should prefer libertarianism as a political philosophy because we believe you should be wary of the considerations that the
government makes for you. we don't have a lot of say what happens in washington we don't have a lot of say what. we do have a safe of what in our personal lives. libertarianism is the only political philosophy between the two of us that believes that you have the ability and that you have the right to make choices for your own life, for your own family, and for your own community. that is why you should prefer libertarianism to conservatism. [applause] >> we now move on to more specific topics for each side will speak for four minutes on the top and there will be one minute for each for rebuttals. the first topic and the libertarians will start this one, does government have a responsibility to restrict citizens from consuming drugs known to cause addiction and physical harm?
>> conservative say drugs you are. to change things up we will concede that point. now what works the question at hand is whether the government has a responsibility to restrict drugs. after that we respond no. first, let's address the historical argument. do you know what the most dangerous drug use? on june 25 a global commission on drug policy looked at several dimensions in the context of both harm to users and harm to others. nearly every category alcohol, a drug deemed by the government to be appropriate for people to consume, was deemed the most harmful. the united states tried to ban alcohol before 1920. prohibition didn't work. here are the effects that it brought. act i 4% increase in crime over the course of one year in 30 major u.s. cities. 45% increase in drug addiction that spawned the creation of mexico's oldest drug cartel. a burden legal system and a 50% increase in deaths from alcohol
from 1920-19 for what you want 101, and a 66% increase in deaths from alcohol from 1921-1926. 1921-1926. the decade prior to prohibition these deaths had been steadily decreasing. next let's look at today. 14% of adults smoke cigarettes. in 2017, one in seven u.s. adults use marijuana. an estimated 73% of the adult population drinks alcohol. these users are people, and locking them up for one and escape is wrong. if you wouldn't lock up your body from a beer during happy hour, then why would you ask her government to do it for you? there are different ways we consume intoxicants. downing a bottle of granite staters vodkas to for having a single class. danny substances does not work. it never has, it never will. and when substances are banned, and there to surrounding drugs begins to ignore the human aspects of drug addiction. because banning drugs does not
address the root cause of drug addiction. studies done on rats testing the appetite of rats for heroin, rats consistently chose social interaction. studies on humans have come to the same conclusion. when people engage with good communities they are less likely to fall prey to drug addiction. we seen this before. during the vietnam war soldiers used heroin, literal heroin. when they came home and were no longer surrounded by war and communist, they simply stop doing drugs. if people are isolated like in the prisons where we currently throw drug users, , they are moe likely to become addicts and experienced the negative side effects of using drugs as an escape. drugs are about human nature. thus, our final argument is a moral one. if drugs are bad, shouldn't your people to refuse to do that without anyone telling that you? don't you want someone to have the moral character to know that drugs are bad and refused to do them? it's not against the law to cheat on your significant other
but that doesn't mean you should do. it's probably still a bad thing to do. in a world where drugs are legal, communities are strong and resilient in the fates of drug use. if someone finds themselves at the bottom of the bottle, friends, families and non-government institutions can help them. many people in this auditorium of someone who struggles with addiction. .. because families and communities are better than a detached, unfeeling
government. you cannot ban human nature. governments are on incapable of addressing the causes of drug use. the state can only put you in a cage and we've seen how that works out and thus the government should not band drugs. >> let's hear the same question for the conservative side, does the government have a responsibility to band prescription drugs known to cause physical harm?>> because of the societal damage, that drug consumption causes, government has a clear responsibility to restrict them. more people died from drug consumption that all the military casualties in vietnam and iraq combined but it seemed libertarians only care about the death toll when it involves the military. libertarians say drug is a crime, maybe jd vance felt like a victim. at 12 years old vance watched his motherdeteriorate from drug addiction in ohio . drugs were the reason he grew up in a chaotic and
dysfunctional home and the reason he lived with his grandparents for much of his childhood . drugs put his family into a downward spiral of intergenerational poverty and we can look to the documentary seattle is dying and find more victims, how homeless people are wandering the street facing drugs. currently 2 million people are addicted to opioids. 130 americans die every day from opioid overdose. drugs inflict real harm not just on individuals but families, entire neighborhood and city and to say otherwise
is ignorant of reality. this is not the society the next generation deserves. drugs haven't liberated people, they've enslaved them. how is an individual free if his sense of reality is hijacked?how can he act as a freeagent if his cognitive faculties are under attack by these substances? don't take it from me, take it from scholar walter black of the rhesus institute. he wrote drugs are sold destroyers, when plagued by addictive drugs all too often the intention of freedom becomes atrophied. welcome to the libertarians brave new world where human dignity is reduced to nothing . drugs are third-party, children. 70 percent of abused and neglected children live with addicted parents and they have no say in. children from drug infested homes are more likely to suffer in school, commit suicide or develop drug addictionsthemselves and can libertarians say that legalization will not exacerbate the situation ? of course not. legalization will fix america's drug problem, it will normalize it. the rules of supply and demand tell us legalization will increase availability and cheapen prices leading to ever escalating drug use and drug consumption proliferates, so will hospitalization and traffic fatalities . the government is a social signal or whether we like it or not and people will follow the signal if indeed it sizes
drugs. our opponents talked about the failure of the drug war, mass incarceration and the black market and how all this is going to full-fledged legalization. the war on drugs hasn't been 100 percent successful of the war on murder hasn't been successful either. there's never perfect compliance so do we quit and let a national purge happened because enforcement is difficult ? are we not going to try to end the drug epidemic. the question our opponents need to answer his will legalization be better or worse? it's clear under libertarian watch america will waste away. we asked the libertarians many teenagers need to die from black tar heroin before the government shouldn't get involved and 10,000, 100,000, 1 million? how many towns need to write drug addiction. it's starting to sound less like liberty and more like a slow societal suicide. >> you, now we have a rebuttal from the libertarians.
>> i would like to answer that question, legalization will make these communities better. i noticed you are conservative friend points out the drug can harm people but you know what invariably harms people, the war on drugs we've been waiting for the last almost century. and talk about the toll of the elevated crisis, i'm not sure that they're taking it seriously. we can look at the example of portugal, portugal in 2001 beta heroin crisis where one percent of the population was addicted to opioids, what they do, acounterintuitively decriminalized all narcotics. what happened? death rates plummeted. if the us couldreach death rates analogous to that of portugal we would save one like every 10 minutes . what i can do forour communities. rather thanlocking drug addicts in cages , we should give them treatment just like we get alcoholics treatment . we, drug legalization would make these communities better . >> thank you and a one minute
rebuttal from the conservatives. >> the libertarians can talk about the drug war but they haven't proven legalization will make these communities better and when they talk about alcohol and the prohibition of the they didn't mention is that there is a self-regulating, self moderating culture in america around alcohol. after work coworkers will head to the bar and had to do cocaine vending machine? i don't think so. unlike the big golf drugs are inherently addictive substances and the government is a social signal stigmatize her. spans across regions of this country so when drug addiction is over an entire community, it's not a life choice anymore, it's a disease. portland, seattle, san francisco are someexamples of where libertarian policies like this have led. they surrendered to drugs and make them crippled by it. often they say they've improved . >> thank you, our next topic is immigration. the conservatives will go first, the question is on
undocumented migrants do not pose a threat to the united states. >> it's kind of sad we have to do this. border security is a fundamental exercise and national sovereignty. a country has a right to decide who and what is it, therefore legal immigration is an affront to the country and its citizens. this is not say the conservatives oppose immigration, we recognize we are a country of immigrants. that said we further understand and intrinsic component of any sovereign country is the ability to control its borders. the trump state undocumented migrants do not pose a threat to the united states. they must demonstrate illegal immigration poses no threat to the country while we must prove in some capacity that it does and does the evidence is on our side. illegal immigration presents a threat, every year i separate and illegal aliens responsible for 80,000 duis, 70,000 drug offenses and 50,000 assault . the network of trafficking
associated with illegal immigration threatening us citizens and migrant families. games such as ms 13 run a lot because we refuse to enforce laws and opponents counter that point by showing data that there's your private they're using flawed studies. no one knows the full breadth of illegal alien crime because we don't know how many of them are here. further illegal alien population is far less likely to report crime because they fear deportation and when they do come forward how are we supposed to be an accurate numbers when they were reported. but the data is irrelevant, every crime committed by an illegal alien is a crisis that should never have occurred in thefirst phase . this debate is not about probability. a mother of three and a grandmother of six in may of this year was repeatedly stabbed and killedby an illegal alien after forcing his way into her home . a 14-year-old girl who was april this year was brutally murdered by two ms 13 gang
members, one arm with a asked, the other with a machete at our opponents say with a straight face illegal immigration poses no threat to people like them. ofcourse not. illegal immigration also imposes an undue financial burden . our opponents will say that our borders will boost economic activity but they neglect one important reality, the united states as an advanced welfare system. illegal aliens tend to be low skilled workers who qualify for government assistance and there are at the very least 11 million illegal aliens hitting within the united states. the average illegal alien household receives $14,000 more in government benefits and pays in taxes. with the estimated cost on our country for the lowest estimate of 11 million illegal aliens, $1.5 trillion . this is why milton friedman famously said we cannot have open borders and a welfare state so if you follow the libertarian logic of free movement of labor and open borders, you're advocating for the expansionof welfare . our opponentswill likely say that government welfare ,
it's appealing but as a conservative i don't live in a libertarian fantasy. i understand there are political realities and that welfare isn't going anywhere soon. another common libertarian argument is build a wall around the welfare. don't get assistance to noncitizens. this is yet again politically unreasonable and morally cruel. countries like the united arab emirates denied a powerhouse in the workers who represent 90 percent of their population but this policy has created a de facto second-class citizenry. the system is detrimental to any free society and the conservatives will not allow it to happen in theunited states . i got my opponent if you really believe there's no threat associated with illegal immigration and you want open borders, how do you reconcile that with allowing criminals into the country? how many citizens need to be killed by ms 13 before you believe the government should do something and further, are you content with the expanded welfare state or do you want to deny immigrants access to
mark. >> now libertarians have a chance to enter that . >> issues are as prone to rampant misinformation and outlandish claims and immigration policy. the human brain seem hardwired to create dichotomies. our president and conservative friends know this alltel well. let's be clear, undocumented immigrants do not pose a threat to the united states . to understand why, let's unpack the gross misconception surrounding immigration debate. our conservative friends correctly note that the vast majority of firearm crimes committed by a small number of people so i trust they will welcome the similar truth found in immigration crime statistics and conduct policy accordingly. it is often alleged that undocumented immigrants are actually violent and oppose a national security threat. that simply isn't true.
texas is the only state that tracks crimes by immigration status and in texas which is hardly a state known for its soft treatment of immigrants, homicide rates conviction rates on undocumented immigrants was 44 percent below that of native americans. nationwide undocumented immigrants are 47 percent less likely to be incarcerated. the academic literature has found a negative correlation between prime and immigration . we have to be honest about the statistics. fear mongering is common. one study found that the media was twice as likely to report a crime of an immigrant as compared to a native citizen. nevertheless the chance of dying by a foreign born terrorist including 9/11 which accounts for 93 percent of all the terrorist debts is one in 3.8 million. the annual risk of dying in a car crash is one in 103.you would be a fool to suggest banning cars because they offer benefits tosociety . same logic applies to undocumented immigrants.
this brings us to our second misconception. that undocumented immigrants hurt our economy. the truth is just the opposite. theeconomic literature consistently finds immigration as a positive impact on long-term economic growth and little to no impact on wages of nativeborn americans . most estimates find a positive attack on nativeborn americans. undocumented immigrants are ineligible for federal tested welfare so they hardly pose a threat to entitlementspending which is already out of control. from 2002 to 2009 immigrants as a whole subsidized medicare making 14.7 percent of contributions only consuming 7.9 percent of expenditures . a third common misconception is that undocumented immigrants won't assimilate. if you compare today's immigrants to the immigrants that came from ireland and italy, to gross that nobody would dare call a threat to american culture you will see the assimilate at the same
rate. three generations in, voting patterns and self identification as an american are identical to non-immigrant families . oneimportant fact should be emphasized, the nation doesn't mean nothing heritage foundation values . but if we truly want to protect our heritage, we must continue to allow for robust immigration . with the exception of the blatantly racist chinese exclusion act of 1982, the conception of an illegal immigrant not exist in our country until 1924. almost everyone in this room is descended from someone who is fleeing persecution or seeking better opportunities for their families. those people wouldn't make it to america under current law. when you hear conservatives they get to the back of the line, remember there is no line. our current system lacks any sort of meaningful due process. we like children in cages away from their parents, demonize people trying to provide for their family read our policies create criminals out of good people. undocumented migrants do not
affect the united states unless we make them one. >> a rebuttal from the conservative side. >> we have to remember we're having this conversation in the context of the status quo, a world where we have border patrol and agencies like ice. what will happen if we remove the security measures to mark what happens if we remove security measures, concepts are not the same as ms 13, were going to see aninflux of crime on the border . can we not even truck try to stop illegals from crossing our opponents contend with men and women and children, how long do we have to wait? i have yet to hear an answer about how we should enable the welfare state and it doesn't affect the federal government, it affects governments as well. 26 states welfare benefits and if our country is unwilling to build a wall aroundwelfare , what makes you think it can build a wall around welfare -mark talk about numbers like 1.75 people eagerly into the country. if we allow more and think of the additional people who come in , the government estimates the current 11 million illegal alien population willcost us $1.5
trillion . thatwill happen to ? 10, 50, 100 million more people . i never thought i would hear libertarians expand welfare. >>. >> one minute for the libertarians to respond . >> first immigrants are not eligible for welfare, second, look at a company like sweden we saw the influx of immigration led to people in the home state, citizens voting against welfare because they want immigrants to get it. it is enough of it? yes. might need you decreasing welfare? also yes . when we take a look at what happened in policy where not saying there's no threat from immigrants, what we're saying is it's not worth it to say we're going to not allow anyone in, we're going to overextend what the threat is . instead of addressing the data, we gave you clear data that undocumented immigrants are less of a threat than nativeborn americans so there's 50,000 homicides a year from undocumented immigrants, how many are
there from nativeborn americans mark a lot more. when we address this subject at hand it's important to remember that we don't identify all immigrants as ms 13 members and we don't identify all christians as westboro baptist church and in a country where a closed border. >> out of time. >> thank you, okay. third topic. libertarians will start this one. >> a larger defense budget will not enhance american national security. >> to understand the impact of a larger defense budget on american national security, we should look at what we're getting with the 716 billion dollars requested by the department of defense in 2019. unfortunately, nobody knows where that money's going to just this past november but has gone failed an audit that cost the taxpayer $400 million and in a remarkable
statement, deputy secretary state secretary of defense patrick shanahan noted that quote, we failed the audit but we never expected to pass it anyone who believes in a strong national defense should find this troubling . equally troubling are the many areas of our defense budget that do nothing to enhance national security . you'd be hard-pressed to see the air force spending $1300 on cost cuts $14,000 on a 3-d printed toilet seat that makes us safe. over the course offour years the department of defense spent $294 million , the equivalent of four us airports as 35 joint strike fighters on a different dysfunction medication. look it up. in 2016 the washington post recorded the pentagon buried an internal study on $125 billion in internal waste amid a series that congress would use the findings as an
excuse to slash the defense budget. as we were talking about the department of education failing audit, conservatives would not be calling for increasing suburban funding and we are spending more to get less. the deleterious impact of this drop would be as former secretary of the navy under reagan, john lehman notes an average of 22 years deploying weapons and the four years during the cold war. contrastingly china and russia are producing fifth-generation ships and fighters in four years and why is this -mark it's because a voted budget inhibits innovation. the world people fight in in the future will demand innovation. we will need more advance technology but a bigger budget will not improve our national security if we keep providing incentives to keep projects inexpensive and incentives are important.a larger budget would do nothing to streamline the pentagon's bureaucracy. i have one final question
conservative must answer to make an effective argument. if our current levels of spending art sufficient, what levels are and why? how much more do you need to be taking on future generations to ensure national security? on may 15 foundation stated we need a 35 percent growth in spending each year. do the math. by the end of trump's third term that would be over $1 trillion and how much safer is that going to make us to mark our defense spending is almost equal to that of the next eight highest spending countries combined and five of those countries are our allies so would additional spending make the average american any safer? ultimately one of the best things america can do for its national security is to remain the world economic powerhouse and over funding and elaborate bureaucracy is certainly not a way to do that . former joint steve chief of staff air chairman remark that the most significant threat to our national security is our debt and
we're not advocating to cut the budget, we're just saying don't spend more on it. in all of this there are important points. is it beneficial to americans national security to engage in unconstitutional wars that kill civilians? shouldn't we be spending american tax dollars on drones that kill civilians in the middle east? because we're not making friends when we bomb weddings in pakistan. conservatives must not only answer why we increase spending but why supporting places like saudi arm america makes americans safer. our military has no planned strategy and accordingly we do not know what a military spending looks like and spending more is not the answer. >> an opening statement from the conservatives.
>> george washington once said to prepare for war is one of the most effective new means for pursuing peace. the united states is plain and simple a global power with global interests, interest like protecting the free market, navigation on the high seas and regional state ability . we cannot protect the interests without a robust military capable of deterrence and without a defense budget to support it. why must we project power across the globe? china is gradually taking over the south china sea jeopardizing our asian allies. will china stop if the united states withdraw from the region? they would escalate their expansion. around is a sponsor of terror, will iran stop if the united states withdraws from the region after mark no, it is a sponsor of terror and they would complete their nuclear program. north korea is developing nuclear weapons and russia is continuing with the invasion of crimea. will they suddenly stop if theunited states withdraws to mark no, north korea would consider an invasion . the united states military
deterrence works, our navy has kept trade lanes open in the south china sea, our ground forces stationed overseas desert invasions of taiwan, south korea and the ukraine. our airpower has disrupted operations abroad. the us must project power to maintain international interest but we are handicapped by budget constraints. the defense budget is insufficient to meet these challenges. our opponents have said the united states been so much more when compared to other countries. this is true but aggregate expense is not an aggregate measure of power. we have commitments across the world which our military must meet.unlike other countries were not concentrated in one region. the united states navy may be larger than the chinese navy but our navy spans the growth whereas china is concentrated intheir backyard . the seventh fleet has 50 ships when compared to china's 200. are we able to effectively deter chinese aggression in the south china sea when we don't have regional parity? of course not. we need a military capable of deterrence and of the common
libertarian argument that it would exacerbate the military-industrial complex, that is correct. there is waste in the defense budget which is why conservatives have opposed policies like rollover account and base realignment of closure programs but when eisenhower warned the country of the military-industrial complex he was warning us about it economy driven by defense spending that represented nine percent of the economy and 52 percent of the budget, today it represents three percent of the economy and three percent of the budget. conservatives want to spend tax dollars effectively but the mere potential for waste does not negate the underlying principle of a military deterrence driven by a robust military. do i have to ask our opponent how do you seriously plan to provide for common defense to mark you believe that a diminished budget and a diminished military will keep the us safe or the reasons we can have this debate is because of ourrobust military budget. don't sit here and tell us you don't like waste in the budget .
what is your plan or, how much should we bespending on military? anyone can sit around and offer no solution . >> thank you, now we have one minute for each rebuttal outing with the libertarians. >> as i hear the threat phrased by the conservatives i'm reminded of a quote that said he who defends everythingdefends nothing. let's address some of these threats and why spending more money is not the best way to address them . our conservative friends mention the koran poses and i like to remind them the biggest threat would be nuclear proliferation. we had a deal that barred them from a nuclear weapon and they talk about how iran answers terrorism . we are aligned with the saudi's for waging a war of aggression in yemen and it's also a state sponsor of terrorism and why would we destabilize them further to mark additionally a raise the threat of russia and i like to remind them our nato allies are more than capable of responding to the threat of russia.
russia has an economy the size of italy. finally i'm not understanding how all these commitments around the globemake us safer. for example our 18 year long war in afghanistan is not how we improve readiness . rather than dumping more money, wraps we stop waging the warin afghanistan to improve readiness . >> now a conservative rebuttal. >> despite what myopponents might say this is like a game of risk . we are dealing with werewolf threats. the reality is that we are a global power and we need to play a role on the world stage so that we don't leave ourselves vulnerable. you expect russia and china, now that the united stateshas withdrawn its military presence, we can finally live in peace and trade with them, that's ridiculous . i want us ships in the south china so there are chinese ships off the coast of los angeles area i want us planes tostrike sizes so there are large-scale attacks on western city . i want soldiers in europe thoughthere isn't a russian
invasion of ukraine tomorrow . neglect the budget and hope people play nice how do you plan to protect her, and free markets when iran restricts the flow of oil because the u.s. navy isn't there to deter them ? he cannot maintain global interests without a robust military and a strong defense budget . >>. [applause] >> before we move on to our final topic , this hashtag behind me, there are questions to it which i will impose both sides during the q&a section which follows so please use that if you're so inclined. question, and the conservatives will go first on this one. final topic, is the decline of marriage necessarily a bad thing. >> the decline of marriage is an accidental threat the to the united states in principle and in practice . 72 percent of americans were
married in 1960, only half are married now that it doesn't take statistics to understand that marriage is one of thosethings that gives life meaning . since the dawn of civilization am kind of marriage as existed . if it's court system, a solid foundation to build a life upon and an escape from loneliness and in many cases poverty, not only that it's a building block of society, the bedrock of civilization and the vehicle by which we care for the next generation. it also turns out marriage is america's greatest weapon against welfare dependence and child poverty. because of the lack of economic stability and the psychological impact of single parenthood, the erosion of the institution of marriage is detrimental to children. according to theu.s. census,
the poverty rate for single parents with children in 2009 was 87.1 percent . while the rate for married couples with children was 6.8 percent. childrenwith only one parent are less likely to finish school , more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol and more likely to commit a violent crime. over half of incarcerated youth are from single-parent homes and we must ask ourselves is this the future we want for our children? of course not. children need parents . where else do the libertarians expect to get their generation ofinnovators and scientists without parents to guide them? the fact is marriage is the best model for raising leaders and citizens . how can we justify nine children the tried and true effective environment for their upbringing. i asked our opponents why are you so eager to experiment with 's livelihood ? not to mention marital decline puts the society to a larger welfare state. instead of finding aspouse, many are marrying the american taxpayer. the majority of benefits for families with children goes to single-parent households .
as result an over reliance on government assistance as deprived children of the love and security would have received from two parents. michael brendan dougherty argues it was a culture of fulfillment and convenience that replaced this and led to the dissolution ofhis parents marriage and led to his own identity crisis . marriage is not just a lifestyle choice or a contract or a tax break. children depend on it. and there's something we can do right now to save the institution of marriage area conservatives understand how to balance limited government and the crisis of marriage. our opponents will say we want to micromanage marriage but it's just the opposite. we don't want welfare to take the place of the family breadwinner. we don't want people married to the government . we want people married to each other. a good step in the right direction is removing the penalties against marriage inherent in the welfare system and ending the subsidizing and incentivizing of single parenthood.
and all this evidence, we can't give up on marriage. we simply can't afford to. >> thank you, now from the libertarians . >> there's a rich and vibrant history of conservatives lamenting the decline of marriage in our country and at various points, conservatives have stated the right for women to own property , women's bridge, interracial marriage and same-sex marriage would undermine institution. last year we are in the institution of marriage has survived . nevertheless, conservatives who are always quick to note that the force for limited government are as steadfast as ever in their support for interference in marriage and the essential question when considering whether the decline of marriage is a bad thing is what the government should do about it. let's examine conservative policy prescriptions and as we do so, keep another
question in mind, which passed area of marriage would conservatives wish to return us to? conservatives implicate the same-sex marriage as a key factor. why did two adults not have the liberty to marry and raise a child together? there's nothing ethical about preventing such a marriage and doing so arms the future of our country. literature has found over and raised by same-sex parents there just as well as children raised in traditional marriages when the necessary confounders are controlled for. i love for conservatives to lecture kenneth read an nba player who was raised by two mothers on how father is required to instill masculinity in a child. another policy proposal favored by conservatives to address the decline of marriage is limiting no-fault divorce. no-fault divorce allows a self-determined marriage without showing faults by the other party. conservatives argue no-fault divorce has compromised the institution of marriage. some have proposed ending no-fault divorce for parents with children such a repeal would not only be harmful to mothers and also to the very
children it would aim to protect. marriages that should be terminated with indoor and the social science literature has shown parents born to children born to high concept marriages are worse off in those born to single parents. although marriage may be preferable to single parenthood on average, only when blissfully divorced from reality could argue is better for parents to remain together in a conflict written household and separate and on the repeal of no-faultdivorce mothers would be hurt . research by the economist betsy stevenson and justin wolford, states that introduce unilateral divorce help female suicide decreased by 15 percent, domestic violence decreased by 30 percent and 10 percent. make no mistake, the repeal of no-fault divorce laws that many conservatives favor will lead to the deaths of mothers . such a proposal is a textbook case of the treatment being worse than the cure. other proposals just wrong
tax incentives are equally foolhardy. for one, they devalue the institution conservatives cherish. consider the margins created by such incentives. when parents linked together by financial incentives provide a healthy environment? a cursory glance at history including the failed attempt by the soviet union to regulate marriage indicates by governments have no business in interfering with corevalues such as one's choice of partner or religion. conservatives would benefit from absorbing this wisdom . it is not the role of government to regulate marital choices. that is the domain of private individuals and associations including churches favor traditional marriages. the state should play no role in destroying one of themost fundamental choices of any individual . it's wrongfor the state to choose your partner for you . >> thank you, first rebuttal. >> our opponents mentioned alternatives to traditional marriage.
the fact is the arrangement of traditional marriage is the best-known environment for raisingchildren by every metric . biologically and psychologically speaking, children don't need parenting area and they need mothering and fathering and our opponents claim these other arrangements forraising children are just , they're probably superior but i find that interesting because the logical extension of libertarianism as examining by murray brockman is that parents shouldn't even be obliged or coercedinto feeding their own children , let alone raising them so at that point i think the familiar structure is irrelevant to libertarians what is not to us. >> and the libertarian rebuttal. >> for those of you who didn't chime in last year we disavowed rockmart last year and let us do it again. i would like to remind you throw out, thank you. think of the children is not an argument.
when we look at the decline of marriage we need to look at why it's happening and that's why people are getting married later in life because they think it's an important decision that should have some thought behind it and that divorce rates are going down. and while divorce rates in the 1980s, we're seeing them lower now which is still higher than the 60s there was no no-fault divorce which is when you saw all the bad side effects that will told you in his opening statement. fundamentally this is an argument about choice. marriage today is about love, it's a fundamentally different institution and it's probably good for children , they're giving you great data, let's believe them but at its core when we look at what the government's role in marriage to be, it shouldn't be involved at all because you know what's best for you, you know what's best for your partner and you should keep your children together. >> thank you, we were now at the q&a section and i'm going to post thefirst question to the libertarians . two minutes for this one. you said in the segment on drugs that liberalizing drug
rules would help in that it would lead to fewer people with addicts. the moral case for doing that, not liking in people in cages and putting things into their body, let's assume that we don't see the response that you propose and we liberalize the drug laws and we do see also to morals. where does that putthat mortal case ? >> i love morals, they're great. it would put us in a slightly difficult situation. i concede to the conservatives there are cases where drugs can defray agency and agency is super important but at its core if we look at the data not on whether people get addicted but on what's most effective way to get them not addicted, we have seen really good success in regard to aa and na. there are systems put in place not run by the government that help us
determine what is the best solution for combating addiction. and addiction is something really difficult. no one's disputing that but when we look at what the policy prescription should be , it's important to remember that ethical and effective policy goes hand-in-hand . we look at important things and we're saying what's the best way for the government and institutions with a legitimate use of force that has a monopoly on it, and we say what happens if you put the government in charge of something to mark what with the government realistically do to ask? not sure. it would probably involve some penalty and with something like addiction when your choices taken away, it might be that your first cigarette was something that you chose but your second or third cigarette probably wasn't an act if the government said they were going to penalize addiction, a bad policy because you're now penalizing people for something outside of their control area in response to addiction is always going to be something involving rehabilitation.
it's always going to be something that re-engages communities because as you look at the data about what helps addiction, it helps to be involved with community and no matter what way you tried to send things, governs is not a community . >> anda related question for conservatives . given what you said about the effect of drugs, how strong is the case for banning alcohol or cigarettes? cigarettes are addictive and why should we ban marijuana but not alcohol given that there is some evidence to suggest alcohol, one causes more problems than the other? >> libertarians site marijuana as there with her case and it's more compelling because it's a week, i get it. it does the size of your brain, that's important to note that the thing about alcohol is that the fdr administration deemed it essentially on a cost-benefit analysis, the cost of prohibition, capital prohibition exceeded the
benefits of prohibition because we were fighting the war and as i mentioned earlier, it was an established convention in american culture to casually drink alcohol . that is not the case unfortunately with black tar heroin or meth and ultimately you could argue that alcohol as impose greater societal harms. if you look at traffic fatalities, hospitalization, it's by far takes the cake there but this is about aggregate harm. if you add hard drugs into the equation, you legalize those two, what will be aggregate harm be smart we acknowledge alcohol imposes great harm on society but what else will happen if we also legalize meth and heroin and cocaine? >> thank you and this is a question for both libertarians and the conservatives. such social media companies be permissive to sell their unit users data? >> yes, they should be. that isa market operation. if you give consent, that's
the key . >> i clarified again, social media companies or private companies, the government shouldn't tell them what they can do even though it makes, you might feel key when it happens, if you read the terms and conditions i recommend that you do youdid agree to it . >> there are market forces that prohibit the most egregious uses of data area that people push back against those uses of data . >> we agree or i agree with the libertarians. these are private companies, they're allowed to do what they will with it and people contract the way information, then they're allowed to increase ad revenue and increase better targeted act that way. as a general rule of thumb whatever you put online is going to stay online so companies right now are not coaching data, they're not coaching datathat's
unreasonable, something we put on there and we should have the expectation is going to stay there . >> any question for the conservatives, what would you say is the most serious social problem estate is incapable of successfully addressing customer. >> very good question. blame hashtag, not me. >> i honestly would say the decline of marriage. whether we like it or not, no nation is meant to endure forever and this is a civilizational, this is an exit essential brought you our civilization and the united states at large. marriage rates are really low and i talked to my parents, i talk to their parents and it's a situation that we haven't seen before and we have to ask ourselves why is there this culture, why is it a culture of convenience and self-fulfillment sopervasive and should we reassess that moving forward ? >> and a question for the
libertarians, what nongovernmental institution does libertarianism need to exist for libertarianism to drive mark i know they say we don't want the government involved, is it a free-floating ideal or do you need a set of preconditions and what arethey mark . >> there different types of libertarianism, if you ask a virtual libertarian would say the church because that's what those people happen to have, the ideas just happen to bein accordance with your average church . if you ask a libertarian that's probably more of a classical liberal,80 some sort of education system . it might not look like our current education system and it might be someplacewhere you go and maybe it's a charter school, maybe it's a private school . it's not an easy question to answer directly because there is a lot of diverse city within the libertarian movement about what sort of institutions are good, which
ones we keep around and which ones should we support . >> then a question for both sides , two minutes each if you need it . should the government regulate murphy? conservatives first. >> the government should most definitely ensure that no pornography is only reserved for audiences that are 18+ but pornography such as health pornography, yes. the government should forbid that from entering the marketplace because it would be corrupting minors and people are unable to give consent . oh yes, the government does have a role in ensuring that type of pornography does not enter the marketplace. >> libertarians. >> will concede on child porn causes harm to children. when you look at the larger question about pornography, it's really complicated so if you want a good case study, look at the united kingdom and see what they're doing their foreign loss. in 2014 there was something
called a base hitting protest outside of parliament your christmas time because the uk use a bad piece of legislation from the 1970s to ban a lot of different sexual acts, one of them was faced sitting, and the reason it was called the face sitting protest because you have members of the porn community come out and end face sitting in order to illustrate that wasn't functionally different from other pornographic acts that were allowed on camera . so when it comes to whether the government should regulate pornography, i would say in theory you might have reasons why the government should. if in terms of something like revenge porn where it's a contract violation, it harms policy and it's morally abhorrent, but when you look at the practice of pornography overall and most sites, it becomes difficult because there's first of all a lot of data and the governments not equipped to handle that and the second reason is that when you look at what's banning porn does,
it's normally not an overall ban . normally advanced pacific types of pornography and end up affecting minority groups so certain sexual acts on women are not allowed so certain sexual acts on men are allowed and that inequity is something that shouldn't happen , frankly so the externalities involved with banning porn are complicated and any governments should think through their position carefully before they attempt such a van. >> this is probably the first debate in the history of the united states at which we mentioned milton friedman and face sitting area 10 minutes within one another. [applause] another question for the libertarians, what is the proper role of america's military in the world? >> the best way to look at it is the difference between isolationism, being isolationist and being
interventionist. and the key is to provide for the national defense. to do whatever it takes to provide for the national defense and respond to threats appropriately. >> a question for the conservatives, you were accused of wanting to put people in cages more than is necessary. his mass incarceration problem in america and if it is, what the primary solution you propose? >> the referenceabout putting children in cages, i'd like to point out that the border i hope that column common knowledge but the reason that's happening , it's happened during the last administration is because of a loophole in our laws, in our border security laws called the florez commitment. what that did was mandate that children be separated from their parents at the border and as a result, they are separated from their parents at the border and put in separate detainment facilities so the solution
there is if we close loophole, we just incentivize migrants from making that treacherous journey through central america, through mexico, buying children along the way because they know it improves their case either to claimasylum or to , through other claims. >> just in general, at present we have to many laws and if we do what should we do about them? >> the fact is that crimes deserve incarceration. along the spectrum it depends on what the crime is. i don't believe mandatory minimum sentences personally, but in terms of greater crimes, more severe crimes, what is the alternative to incarceration because you committed a crime, punishment is due and that is the legitimate reason. >> question for both and we will start with the
conservatives. should the us support the reorganization of nato? >> the us supports nato because it's one of the greatest deterring forces of the latter half of the 20th century. through nato we've been able to deter not only the soviet union but russian aggression and i know there are concerned today about certain nato countries not meeting their military expenditures but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support the institution or withdraw our support and we should diminish our military spending as a result. nato is a force for good and we should as a corner piece of us foreign policy, we should absolutely supported. >> should we support nato? >> i agree nato has had a role in the 20th century with the soviet union and continues to do so with russia. where we might have a point of disagreement is over subsidization where we are subsidizing much of the defense of european countries
. we might disagree on what nato should be used for, the intervention in libya in 2011. had created a failed space and propagated terrorism and that was a nato operation so we may have points of disagreement there as well . >> and the final question is an important one, especially given our present state for both sides, libertarians first. should the united states government provide taxpayers reparations to thedependence of slaves ? >> there's no easy answer to and i think you're not going to get a great one from either of us, frankly. this country was built on the back of slaves, there's no way around. the way in which we historically treated people of color in this country is awful and there is probably something we morally need to do about it. when you look at the issue of reparations, it breaks down to how do you provide reparations in a way that addresses all facets of this very complicated issue and there's not a good way to do that.
there have been certain things proposed in regard to giving all descendents of slaves a block grant. if you want to know why this might be a goodidea , it's really funny because robert knows it, probably support reparations in this way when he talks about property so if you want to read anarchy state, talk about his six lifetime slices and the way that property gets exchanged rightfully, he might give you an answer to support that. there are other ways where we talk about supporting institutions and i have not given a lot of thought about my personal opinions on this issue. there a lot of disagreement, there's a lot of really good points raised on all the side and i think one thing that i can say with certainty is that our country needs to think about the way we treat all members of everyone who lives inside of the borders. regardless of their circumstance cause we're all
here together and we can definitely treat people better. >> and conservatives. >> first off, slavery. we condemn it as internal institution, it left many people. it is not the role of government to fix every injustice. a better way to address the issue is to try to get communities for affected off a long cycle of government dependency and i think one of the greatest reasons as to why particularly that african-american community has had difficulty progressing is because they have become reliant on the government based off all democratic policies in the jim crow south so i think that reforming the welfare state and reforming how we address these communities is a far better solution than just redistricting well from the generations who did nothing to inflict slavery on people. >> thank you and where not in the final portion of this evening debate.
we're going to start with a four-minute conclusion from the libertarians and have a four-minute conclusion from the conservatives. >> the other way around. >>. >> throughout this debate we demonstrated we should all be conservatives as we should ultimately want to be more like friedrich hayek and less like john maynard kane. libertarian ideology must like keynesian economics is focused on the short-term, demand individual economy in the present and this is so active that the conservative like friedrich hayek things in the long run . he looks to the future because he does not subscribe to the keynesian position that in the long run we're
all dead . he understood a narrow view of the present your disastrous results in the future. the same is true for our politics. opponents told you that drug addiction will deliver you but we know that drug addiction will enslave you area condition felt by those struggling with it and by society at large. these harmful substances have laid waste regions of the country, drug legalization would be a surrender, not a victory for liberty because drugs and i'm not only you but your children and your communityand your posterity . our opponents they told you illegal immigration poses no threatto the united states but we know that it undermines our basic sovereignty . illegal immigration poses a real to citizens and migrants and open borders will burden us with a welfare state if we do not secure the border, future americans cannot call himself a sovereign nation anymore. our opponents told you that our present world stage creates chaos the world is safer for american leadership . it's military dependent, military deterrence uphold
international norms, takes free markets and ensures the security of the nation, only through a strong defense budget and we maintain a military capable of meeting today's challenges. without military strength, we really have mercy of foreign powers.our opponents told you the decline of marriage should be no cause for alarm we know it will the building block of society right from under us. the gradual dismantlement of marriage and the prosperity of children and denies them stable trainings, encouraged and incentivized by the welfare state levies a tax on the handicapped children, we should promote the family unit to reforming the welfare system, if not future generations will behelpless against an unraveling social fabric . libertarians and their dogmatic devotion to economy is destructive and the torch of liberty will be snuffed out. conservatives understand that absolute autonomy does not
yield absolute good. and it can back are the ultimate preservation of liberty. conservatives believe government exists to serve society and country but it's restrained and guided by a respect for liberty. we are not born into this world as individuals, we warning to something greater than ourselves. our family, local communities and countries. conservatives want to fight for civil society to our german exercise liberty and pursue happiness . if we blindly follow absolute autonomy today, we do so at the expense of ourcivil society tomorrow . going forward my libertarian colleagues that more like friedrich hayek, looking the wrong one and you'll see that society needs a civil society. the namesake auditorium understood that western civilization depends on a traditional and moral practice. in order to preserve our political liberties, we must uphold civil society area family, community , country. therefore, only conservatives
can guarantee that the torch of liberty will continue to burn brightly for generations to come. thank you. >>. >>. [applause] >> this is a debate about political form and above all else, the best political philosophies are consistent in their application of moral sense. so what principle do conservatives stand for? family values and perverting institutions . what does it look like to apply those values as you seem throughout this debate, not all families are considered good enough for conservatives and there's obviously not going to be a bright line or where we need to do away with institutions.
you heard how conservatives have cried wolfon the destruction of marriage when women got the right to vote just as they do now. you have heard how conservatives criticize certain intoxicants while giving alcohol and exception because somehow it makes more economic sense . you heard conservatives say the department of defense is above reproach when it comes to government waste in regard to incentives. now you can look at me as they stand in consistency by itself is a problem. the real world solutions and sometimes these real solutions require compromise area of your point area but as we show you, these conservative inconsistencies read tangible harm. the libertarian position remains consistent. policies should be counted on choice and prioritize small government accordingly.we use data and we don't continually strawman our conservative friends area both the libertarian world and conservative world will have laws. the difference is the libertarian world would give you a choice to be a conservative. conservative world deny libertarians. and the libertarian world, you can still preserve family
values and religious institutions. conservative world imposes conservative beliefs on its citizens and uses state sanctioned force when individuals peacefully defend. and here's why. at its core, libertarianism breaks down into two key features. astrong belief in the importance of equal freedom and a skepticism surrounding government institutions . equal freedom is the idea that i am free to do whatever i wish as long as i do not violate freedom of other individuals . a skepticism surrounding government institutions is just that, a skepticism. there are cases where the government should ethically and effectively engage in policy to preserve freedom. however, our modern government is so much more than that. and in doing so, often infringes on equal freedom. throughout this debate, conservatives have missed the point. it declared us isolationist and rigid individualists who want to see communities fall and advocate for policies
spell an accidental threat to america. not what libertarianism is really libertarianism empowers individuals and communities to decide what choices they ought to pursue. most simply, our legal system is founded on the idea that people be held accountable for their actions. people can choose to do the right thing area accordingly, it does make sense to prioritize freedom in establishing a political philosophy freedom is more than its value. whatever your conception of the good is, whether it be supporting your church or even something as ridiculous as making it your goal in life to walking alligator across i-95 on the tuesday, it's important that people choose to pursue it. interest in being a moral agent is by far the most important part of being a good person. we do not want people to do
the right thing because someone told them to. we would find it incredibly concerned that the only reason i torture people was because it was against the law or someone told me i shouldn't because torture is wrong. people should do the right thing because they want to be a good person who does good things and when you place all of your trust and institutions, you diminish the standing of personal responsibility . out of all the political philosophies libertarianism is the only one that only prioritizes moral choices and community. and that'swhy you should believe in libertarianism as a political philosophy . >> i should say as the new floridian i want today in which i don't have to take an alligatoracross 90 9595 . >> right to the end. if we could have a round of applause or both sides of the debate. [applause]
>> .. >> .. whenever my three -year-old takes away his brother's toys and i don't take his toys he says i'm just helping them not have them anymore. there is nothing that raises the hackles of conservative libertarians like then talk like that. thank you so much. i believe i want to say a few words but after that you had outside be plied with alcohol. [laughter] [applause] >> please give it up one more time for our debaters. [cheering and applause]
migration. that includes refugee and migrant smuggling. watch this live at the p.m. eastern here on c-span2. also today a discussion and constitutional issues in the drum administration and what that means for american democracy. we will join the american political science association at their 115th annual meeting. you can see that live starting at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span or online at c-span .org or listen live at three c-span radio app. weeknights this month we are featuring book tv programs showcasing was available every weekend on c-span too. tonight we focus on bestsellers. that is tonight starting at 8:0n c-span2. >> hi, i'm david rubenstein and of the privilege of serving of the cochair of the national book festival. open to all people in the united states and for anyone who wants to come is in washington on labor day weekend at the
washington convention center. however, if you cannot make it and everyone obviously can't be in washington dc at this time, please read about this and learn about this through book tv which is on c-span2. they will do extensive coverage of the national book festival and, as always, do a traffic job of letting you know what's going on at the national book festival even if you can't be there. >> more from campaign 2020 now with south bend indiana mayor and democratic presidential candidate, pete buttigieg. he recently held a town hall meeting in nashua community college in new hampshire. this is about one hour. [cheering and applause] ♪ ♪ >> thank you. thank you. wow.