Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Snarkiness

Aaron is joined this week once again by Buck Johnson of the Death to Tyrants Podcast, to discuss Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard and just why she’s managed to become so popular among the libertarian movement. We discuss the importance of bringing attention to candidates like Tulsi who represent important libertarian perspectives, but also talk about the importance of maintaining our principled opposition. Remember, you can agree with someone on some things, but that doesn’t mean you have to wholeheartedly embrace everything they stand for!

Also discussed are Buck and Aaron’s predictions for the 2020 elections, the importance of libertarian unity, the importance of positions like Tulsi’s strong anti-war stance, and drawing some comparisons between Tulsi’s 2020 campaign and Ron Paul’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

Make sure to check out the Death to Tyrants Podcast every Monday!

The Death to Tyrants (Buck’s podcast) episode where he discusses Tulsi with journalist Brad Polumbo of The Washington Examiner: 

Mason Mohan on why the “Overton Window” drives his support for Tulsi as a libertarian option.

Killian Hobbs for Think Liberty on the libertarian problems with Tulsi Gabbard

Yes, yes, we all know Beto wants to take your guns, but beyond the insanity that is becoming the Democratic 2020 primaries, President Trump is facing his own challenges from within his own party, with three potential challengers hoping to take him on, and yet the party seems dead set on not letting that happen! With four states already cancelling their primaries, it seems the incumbent president’s position is safe. But is that as unfair and unprecedented as some claim?

Jason talks a little bit about the history of political campaigns, and why what we’re dealing with now is really just a return to form for America, in terms of nasty personal attacks, rather than something new and scary. He also brings up the history of primaries, and how what’s going on now is really just part and parcel of the necessary messiness that is representative government, and that it could ALWAYS be worse, and has been worse before.

Aaron talks about the psychological phenomenon of pluralistic ignorance, aka “the emperor’s new clothes” syndrome, and applies to it to the republican party and the way that so many claim to keep supporting him, even while everything the president does seems calculated to undermine anything like classical liberalism or classical conservative values. Aaron also brings up the importance of having a true primary challenger to Trump, and the need for the party to wake up and realize that no, most people don’t actually seem to like the guy. However, both Aaron and Jason agree that, of Trump’s three primary challengers, none of them seem to be ideal to take up that mantle and truly pose any sort of challenge to pluralistic ignorance.

Mark Sanford, Joe Walsh, and Bill Weld’s Op-Ed for the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-are-trumps-republican-challengers-canceling-gop-primaries-is-a-critical-mistake/2019/09/13/7a951c84-d665-11e9-86ac-0f250cc91758_story.html?outputType=amp

Federalist Number 10, by James Madison: https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

President Trump has already made it plain that due process doesn’t really matter to him when it comes to second amendment issues (“Take the guns first and worry about due process later!”), and it seems that other republicans like Lindsey Graham and Dan Crenshaw have decided to follow his example by lauding and applauding red flag laws. 

But what if you’re not a gun person? Why should you worry about red flag laws that won’t affect you? And even if you are a gun person, surely these laws are just issues of public safety, right? Austin and Aaron tackle why the dangers of red flag laws go far beyond merely the second amendment, and how they represent a precedent of disregard for due process that goes far beyond guns or the second amendment. Aaron talks about the psychological implications of decision-making based on fear, as well as bringing up how this has manifested in other legal arenas, to the severe detriment of both due process and justice for the accused, as well as bringing up how the high-construal-level nature of red flag laws may actually end up undermining the very goals of those who want them passed, while Austin points out how red flag laws are similar to civil asset forfeiture, as well as pointing out the numerous hairy legal scenarios that red flag laws will create.

Thomas Massie and Jim Jordan on the ineffectiveness of red flag laws: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2019/08/23/red-flag-laws-universal-background-checks-infringe-constitutional-rights/2088394001/?fbclid=IwAR23ucseJSlHJj5jPQz3f60wGlH5SuQDf7yBe7QXrBR35TNxI7KIXzLyRzA

Why the way the media portrays mass shootings is based on bad data: https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-botched-study-fooled-the-world-about-the-u-s-share-of-mass-public-shootings-u-s-rate-is-lower-than-global-average/?fbclid=IwAR2vXgjq6CMLxpyOErcSGkUMxJPsWYXlcPb-LUUd5AtnZe-PwDk8QETMKRA

Lindsey Graham’s defense of Red Flag laws: https://reason.com/2019/08/14/lindsey-grahams-dishonest-defense-of-red-flag-laws/?fbclid=IwAR1kJyQ2llks29whkjidYiwZl3s1Fe0bhJ1gyTecKSp3T4EAVq5rj9cBmy0

Why Red Flags violate due process: https://reason.com/2019/08/07/republicans-who-support-gun-confiscation-laws-imagine-due-process-that-does-not-exist-on-paper-or-in-practice/?fbclid=IwAR1zpKFiIIhTu5WVbyzthP_QHTuG08iJ5m2ZZqpOvfK-ZET3Vb1oOh0-3QI

Aaron’s Article on the Bad Decision Making Tendencies Surrounding Numerous Gun Control Ideas: https://fee.org/articles/four-things-everyone-gets-wrong-about-mass-violence-a-social-psychologist-s-perspective/

DJ Jaffe’s Article for National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/red-flag-laws-should-mandate-treatment-not-just-gun-confiscation/

Another stand-up special, another boatload of hurt feelings. Jenn and Aaron review Dave Chapelle’s new special “Sticks and Stones,” talking about Chapelle’s specific takedown of cancel culture, the psychology behind humor and how it can be helpful or harmful, as well as the responses to Chapelle’s edginess on both the Left and the Right.

The Vice article excoriating Chapelle: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/59ngpb/you-can-definitely-skip-dave-chappelles-new-netflix-special-sticks-and-stones?utm_source=vicetwitterus

The Buzzfeed article accusing him of “punching down”: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tomiobaro/dave-chappelle-transphobic-netflix-special-sticks-and-stones?fbclid=IwAR30xYjIs5ZEQ0qArHSAyDK7i8856yBl_8xVF9LIex8VI2CxBeRqPR0__rs

A piece from NBC highlighting why Chapelle’s particular style of comedy is still valuable: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1048566

A review article on the psychology of humor: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299475804_Rape_is_the_new_black_Humor's_potential_for_reinforcing_and_subverting_rape_culture

Remembering the fourth anniversary of Eric Garner’s death and the recent dismissal of the officer who killed him, Austin and Aaron discuss the broad-reaching topics of police misconduct and brutality. Both hosts discuss the widespread issue of police believing that they are above the law, as well as the problematic ways that the populace reinforces this behavior, as well as discussing how we need to change the conversation surrounding law enforcement and the police in general if we want to see any sort of societal move away from the current authoritarian model.

A data-driven brief on police violence, specifically homicides, in the U.S.: https://granta.com/violence-in-blue/?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Patrick Lynch’s statement on why he disagreed with the dismissal of Pantaleo from the NYPD: https://dstarnews.com/eric-garner-justice-nypd-fires-officer-daniel-pantaleo/

Elie Mystal for The Nation on why there needs to be more of a crackdown on police authoritarianism: https://www.thenation.com/article/eric-garner-oneill-pantaleo-fired/

CATO’s summary of the police officer who shot a child in the knee and has been declared immune from charges: https://www.cato.org/blog/eleventh-circuit-grants-immunity-officer-who-shot-child-lying-ground-while-trying-shoot?fbclid=IwAR0z6K3_uVfaUnv4tH1LvcKhAxfgwqZirRzoHs8RSLkr7ULty_wDe-E0AsQ

A brief overview on Joe Arpaio, the Arizona Sheriff who embodies a lot of the problems discussed in this episode: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/27/us/joe-arpaio-sheriff-pardon.html?action=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article

An overview on some of Arpaio’s specific legal issues: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-joe-arpaio-verdict-20170706-story.html

Seth McFarlane’s “Family Guy” speech that Aaron references: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYVnetmZ2ow

Aaron is joined this week by a returning guest, The Bulwark's Andrew Egger, to discuss an instance of truth being stranger than fiction; the Greenland situation. Andrew goes over what happened to cause President Trump’s issues with Denmark over Trump’s desire to buy Greenland as a “real estate deal.” Andrew and Aaron talk about Trump’s Veruca Salt/Dennis Reynolds-esque tantrum around Denmark’s refusal to sell their territory dating back to the Viking age to the United States, bringing up topics like Nationalism, Neoconservative vs. Trumpian foreign policy, and “nation building.” Aaron brings up the psychology of honor culture (yes, we know, that’s just the kind of person he is), nationalism, and cognitive dissonance. Andrew brings up a little bit of the Trade War (the insane, inane, and no-brained idiocy that it is) and how Trump’s temper tantrum throwing ways manifest there as well, as well as briefly discussing other ways that the president’s personality (what psychologists would call a personality high in reactance) manifests itself in international politics.

For those of you who don’t watch Always Sunny, here is the “Golden God” reference that Aaron makes about halfway through the show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNc7FEJmBZ0

Andrew’s original piece on the Greenland incident: https://thebulwark.com/the-greenland-kerfuffle-is-not-just-an-embarrassing-sideshow/?fbclid=IwAR3GWFs41C8mZBtP3MCfvNoMskl5NwHu76zT1B6wAZCzgk7uGevaW9YwFkg

Marc Thiessen’s pro-Trump-Greenland-idea op ed for the Washington Post: https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/22/trumps-idea-buying-greenland-is-far-absurd/?outputType=amp

Tom Cotton’s similar op ed for the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/26/opinion/politics/greenland-trump.html

The Washington Post on the National Republican Congressional Committee and their t-shirts, as well as a little more of Tom Cotton’s meshugas: https://beta.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/22/trump-wont-get-greenland-gop-groups-are-cashing-idea-with-t-shirts/?outputType=amp

Continuing on from last week’s discussion of Nationalism, Jason and Aaron decide to link Nationalism more broadly to topics of prejudice and immigration. They start by attempting to reach some sort of common definition of Nationalism, with Jason favoring a more historical categorization focusing on specifics, and Aaron favoring a broader distinction between Nationalism and Patriotism drawn from psychology literature. While neither of them think nationalism is good, there is some friendly disagreement as to the inherently prejudicial nature of prejudice. Jason gives us an overview of nationalism’s history within the U.S., specifically as it applies to the issue of Immigration, while Aaron talks about why he still believes this to be an issue of racism. Finally, Jason discusses the importance of using “political judo” in our responses to nationalism and the claims of nationalists, while Aaron stresses the importance of differentiation between patriotism and nationalism. 

The Associated Press on President Trump’s further actions to restrict legal immigration: https://news.yahoo.com/rules-deny-green-cards-immigrants-125105293.html

The CATO Institute on why the “welfare argument” against immigrants doesn’t hold water: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-blame-immigrants-bloated-welfare-state?fbclid=IwAR3SVitgpDoDeWdQ6hTjamruKO7ESXvXw3vOla5yPU59VcGysMgbo-eDrWI

Reason Magazine going over the history of President Trump’s nationalist immigration policies: https://reason.com/2019/03/21/trump-is-fighting-to-dramatically-restri/

Executive Chairman of the National Foundation for American Policy, Stuart Anderson, on the classical liberal vs. nationalist approaches to immigration: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2019/08/01/immigration-nationalism-and-americas-founders/

A takedown of “national conservatism” from the Acton Institute: https://blog.acton.org/archives/110963-a-healthy-conservative-nationalism-not-without-classical-liberalism.html

For our first Season 2 episode (new intro music!), Aaron interviews Stephanie Slade, a managing editor and writer at Reason Magazine, on her recent experiences visiting the National Conservatism Conference. 

Aaron and Stephanie discuss the rise in nationalism on the right wing, why nationalism isn’t a good thing (as opposed to patriotism), why nationalism is explicitly anti-liberal (in the sense of classical liberalism) and thus inherently anti-American, and why the dream to use government force to inflict virtue is naive and ultimately self-destructive. 

NOTE: We recorded this episode before the recent tragedies in Texas and Ohio, which is why we do not reference them. We are not trying to dodge the issue of the nationalist ideology put forward by one of these individuals, but do believe that what we discuss here is and should be part of that conversation.

Stephanie’s Article on the National Conservatism Conference: https://reason.com/2019/07/18/the-new-conservative-nationalism-is-about-subverting-individual-liberty/?fbclid=IwAR3YFTIv-sS69is2K2gtRTNFzNVn3nQ417coSrPDfQZXDZdQDvm-oOKkfq4

Shikha Dalmia on National Conservatism’s attitudes to immigrants: https://reason.com/2019/07/26/new-nationalists-have-an-assimilation-problem/?fbclid=IwAR2IeQZD2DepfXm2-JodUUHjM9gW-uCo_bJt_TJVkxE1CwsAKGCNTnZXcgM

In part 2 of our Civil War debate, we discuss the Civil War in light of the Founding Principles, during which Austin Collins attempts to derail us by trying to make this about the Federalist papers. We then skip over the years of the war itself to keep the focus on the governmental actions surrounding the war by discussing the unmitigated, vengeful disaster/righteous subjugation (depending on your point of view) that was Reconstruction. We also revisit the difficult question of secession, specifically applying it to the Reconstruction context. We then tackle the minor question of if and how we can come to terms with the legacy of the civil war as a nation and culture, before closing out our debate with the oft-repeated, yet still important truth of the necessity of open, honest dialogue and discourse across ideological and party lines, especially when it comes to such difficult and divisive topics as The American Civil War. 

NOTE: We apologize that Aaron sounds weird in the intro and outro of this episode. We blame the state of Oklahoma and its horrific, horrendous allergens. 

Herman Melville’s Poetry on the Civil War: http://www.nccsc.net/essays/historical-art-melville-and-poetry-civil-war

Booker T. Washington’s Up From Slavery: https://www.amazon.com/Up-Slavery-Autobiography-Booker-Washington/dp/1632202840

Our previous episode on Race Relations and the legacy of slavery: https://anchor.fm/life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-snarkiness/episodes/Slavery-Reparations--the-Contact-Hypothesis--and-Transitional-Justice-e4eeej

The default position for a lot of libertarians/classical liberals/small government folk tends to be siding with the South in the American Civil War. We do not, and we've gotten some flack for it. Thus, being the nerds we are, we decided to have a formal debate about it (’tis the season), joined by Austin (Tex) Prochko as our designated Confederacy advocate! Listen to four libertarians discuss the Civil War, its causes, philosophical implications, and misunderstandings surrounding it as Austin, Jason, Tex, and Aaron tackle perhaps the most controversial event in American History. 

The Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens. This was the speech referenced by Jason in which the Vice President of the Confederacy made it clear that slavery was a fundamental “institution” in the Confederacy’s eyes. : https://iowaculture.gov/sites/default/files/history-education-pss-civil-cornerstone-transcription.pdf

John Locke’s Letter on Toleration. This is the treatise by Locke that Tex referenced in today’s episode.: https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/locke/toleration.pdf

The Declarations of Secession from the different confederate states: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states