I’m a Ron Paul libertarian, and the more I hear Chase speak, the more I like him. He’s leagues better than any other candidate. It’s mind boggling how any libertarian could support someone like Trump after hearing just ten minutes of this conversation.
The thing i like least from him thud far is that he never mentions that as president much of the stuff he is questioned about is beyond executive and even federal authority. That is one thing i would like to hear more. I dont agree with all of his positions but he is definitely the most libertarian soley based off of his words and probably the best vote for me
Have you ever heard of Lew Rockwell? He's one of Ron Paul's closest companions and the founder of the Mises Institute, but Chase Oliver called his writing "bigoted tripe."
Pretty easy, they would rather cast a vote that's against Kamala rather than "throw away" their vote on a libertarian that will not win. I think you already know this. Yes, everyone should "do the right thing" and vote for the candidate who best represents them. "Don't vote for the duoply!" Etc. Etc.
Good Libertarian at-least rhetorically. Qualifies as a good candidate simply due to the fact he is not a narcissist, spending whatever it takes to prop up the economy and pandering to various groups through protectionism.
@@HankyUSA but that's not what happened, was it? Yet, Chase Oliver believes that those businesses doing the government's bidding should not have been stopped from doing the government's bidding.
I am so glad to see somebody willing to tell the truth on every issue and willing to stand up to the duopoly and even the resistance in their own party to defend the right thing.
Very good interview, quite possibly the best that a Reason rep has done on Chase Oliver yet. Tough, but fair, and addressed s number of key issues in depth.
At age eighteenth one is considered officially an adult. IMHO this is probably the most rational, compassionate and objective perspective for both medicinal and operative choices. Therefore I agree with #ChaseOliver2024 on his operative choice position but absolutely not on the medicinal before 18 years because just like the COVID-19 vax and in the past AZT for AIDS a child under 18 may not thouraly comprehend the long term potential consequences of these drugs injected or consumed into their system.
Is giving a minor medication to stop a known condition that causes them to enter puberty early leading to later health problems wrong? Should federal laws exist that make it illegal or difficult for doctors to prescribe valid treatments because some people may use those treatments inappropriately? The problem is that laws have consequences and require enforcement. The discretion of a power tripping cop or district attorney not to use the law to go after legitimate treatment is no more guaranteed than the discretion of a doctor not to misuse the treatment. I would rather have the occasional malpractice of a doctor that can be sued than systematic trampling of numerous other doctors and patients by a legal system that cannot be sued.
The difference between gender affirming care and something like tattoos is that it IS healthcare, kids can consent to things that are medically necessary. Medically transitioning as a teen is not the solution for every person with gender dysphoria but in the rare small cases we ought to not have the government intervene in healthcare given they don't know shit. Welcome to libertarianism.
Remember every ban requires law enforcement personnel which means more tax money and more surveillance. Are you ready to be surveyed forever to stop these treatments?
So the worries about immigration are just conservative media propaganda?? I’ve watched several interviews with this guy and I’m still on the fence, and his ideas about immigration are one of the reasons why. He seems WAY too lax about immigration. We saw what mass immigration did to the UK, and that also demonstrates why assimilation is important. I was liking all I was heating up until that point. Will keep listening though and see what I think afterwards.
He referenced studies showing that legal immigrants have a lower crime rate than citizens. Is that not convincing? Or does it not get at your concern? His platform has many other parts that, among other things, would help immigrants to live peacefully in the US, without resentment or entitlement. e.g. Reducing entitlement programs and making it easier for everyone to work.
I agree, that’s where libertarians lose me. Scott, I take your point, but drastically reducing and restricting the nanny state BEFORE opening up immigration is necessary; as well as extremely unlikely so it’s almost not even worth discussing. When my Italian great grandparents came to nyc in the start of the 20th century, everyone had to make it on their own or with help from friends, not with free handouts for virtually every possible need in life. That “make it on your own” requirement forced assimilation and proved an immigrants worth to the country. Now they come here with no interest in work, it’s just for the free stuff. It’s made worse when we see Muslims yelling death to America while putting Palestinian flags up in place of the American flags they tore down and lit on fire. These scenes immediately make me want to throw my hands up and vote for whomever is most likely to put an immediate end to that, as well as the obvious abuses to our “asylum system” that’s used exclusively for economic migrants and potential terrorists who can now walk across the border and wait around in America while they can coordinate whatever schemes they have in mind.
The reason immigrants flood to Europe and Canada is because of welfare and benefits, chase opposes entitlements for these immigrants. They get a background check and can come to WORK or VISIT, not freeload or vote.
The problem is illegal immigration. When a whole subgroup of people lives outside of the law and their community, they perpetrate and become victims of crime more often. Giving them all a legal way to be in the country allows them to earn legitimate incomes and allows them to report crimes. The worthless borders we have now aren't stopping anyone. They are here anyway. Its better if they are here legally.
Don't understand the dislike for Chase Oliver. Just because he's a "Left Libertarian" (like Gary Johnson) and not "Right Libertarian" (like Ron Paul)? He's still more conservative on fiscal issues than any of the GOP's candidates for this election.
I've been libertarian aligned for decades, and the past few years have done an excellent job at reinforcing why I consider myself an independent. Unfortunately, the LP has largely been taken over by "Republicans who smoke weed", MAGA types, and others who have shifted things to the point where we have an LP candidate who is not being supported in favor of a Republican because the LP candidate ... goes to pride events, supports more immigration, and believes in getting the government out of business and parental choices.
The LP has lost its way. Its leaders are more interested in being anti-woke than pro-liberty. They are often the same thing, but their objections to Chase are where they have gone astray.
I’m sorry but the only legitimate function of government is to protect individuals from harm. Transitioning children is harming children. It’s within the legitimate purview of government to ban such barbarism.
@@matthewrix1047Does that logic apply to enameloplasty in children? That's "mutilation" but is considered healthcare and therefore gets a pass. What makes gender affirming care different (in extreme cases where a kid like 16 or so is found to need this treatment to thrive and the patient, doctor, and parents all agree.)
@@matthewrix1047 Then I guess you must support other measures to prevent "harm" like banning drugs/alcohol/etc., expanding the security and police states, limiting the free market, launching military offensive, etc. After all, all of those things it can be argued are protecting the individual. If not, then you agree that the government doesn't have carte blanche to "protect" individuals, and there are major limitations. And given that the "harm" from transitioning varies wildly depending on the specifics of the situation, any talk about an outright ban is clearly overstepping.
I like that idea of fazing out SS. And the idea of a new Ellis island is a good one. He should talk to Vance and Trump the trans issue is where I will not along with.
Would we consider kids and people comfortable in their skin if they come out as straight or heterosexual or does that only apply when they come out LGBT+?
Republicans love third party candidates. They know that it helps them win. Look at the vote totals in 2016. MI, WI, and PA. 3rd party is the only reason Trump won. Thanks for your persistence in helping Republicons.
This guy sucks. The LP needs to dissolve or just focus on local action. Tragedy how libertarianism is viewed as a joke by many because it hasn’t purged the leftists.
The problem with his Social Security plan is that it is too long term. It requires a commitment for more than a decade, to get the existing beneficiaries through the last years of the system. Even if Oliver were to stay in office a full eight years, once he is out, some other Dem or Republican is going to get in office, and try to restart the whole thing. For the record, I think it is a great idea. I just don't think it is possible to pull off.
Its a shame that Libertarians seem more interested in promoting bad social policy than they are for reducing the scope of the government. If they were more focused on promoting liberty than trying to promote degeneracy, I would have considered voting, but it looks like I will continue to protest vote
@@Justin_Beaver564 the benefit of social liberalism is that one can do what they want as long as they're not hurting anyone. They should rather focus on the good policy that promotes freedom. If they can't seperate there social preferences from administrative policy they are going to lose every single time
I don't understand how promoting liberty is going to stop ""degeneracy"". Whats is ""degeneracy"" and how do you stop it. What if so called "degenerate" individuals dont stop so called "degenerate" behavior. most policy aimed at stopping ""degeneracy"" usually have some state force backing it. degeneracy is a relative term that means nothing. you cant make policy off of subjectivity like this.
i would like to know ,what he would do w the taxes we pay in , where does it go , if it not going to social security or welfare or medicare ,medicaid ,police , etc .. the free market exist .. we been through a time where our insurance rather low cost or not we paid for and us americans went broke , now i am for w out borders but his version was done ..
Every man for himself, I guess. State taxes will be 4%😅 Housing Apr rates will be 2% again 🙂↔️ But there will be zero government aid, drug addicts will return, crime rates will rise, ehh
38:30 the most charitable way I can possibly interpret this revolting response of "c'est la vie, just let the parents and doctors do whatever they want!" is to assume he labors under near incomprehensible levels of naïvety and obliviousness with regard to what's actually going on in these cases. Does he also believe that we should 'just leave it up to the doctors and parents whether they want to have their kids get an icepick lobotomy!"? As a homosexual man myself, I will never ever EVER vote for someone who is so willfully blind they can't see the horror of what is now being done to those who can't consent in the name of "tolerance" and "empathy" and "diversity". The least charitable way I can interpret his answer is that he simply enjoys seeing these things being done.
Exactly. When it comes to most medical issues, being hands off makes sense. When it comes to child abuse, even child abuse supported by the medical establishment, it is another matter. These doctors are actively ignoring the scientific evidence against 'transitions' and in some cases emotionally blackmailing parents. It turns out that loving parents make bad decisions for their children when the culture and advice they get is bad. I am happy to hear he is against surgery at least. Chemical castration is apparently okay though.
You obviously aren’t a parent and have been crippled by your own experiences with your parents. However yes the CHOICES are with the parent, child and their experts. Think beyond your box.
Can kids consent to taking amphetamine derivatives or SSRI reuptake inhibitors? Kids can't make any informed decisions regarding their medical care. The question is when should government get between parents and doctors in that decision making process? Why only these drugs? I'm not defending these blockers. I think it is a fair question.
@@Brian4Liberty It's not just these drugs but any medical procedure or substance that is clearly harmful to the patient. Generally this is called malpractice. The only reason puberty blockers are not considered malpractice is because of politics. The idea is just to categorize the practice appropriately.
What is the alternative? Give control to the state? I do not want the state making the decision here, what happens when someone you disagree with gets elected?
I am with Chase on most of his points except that I caution of such a large indiscriminate cut on defense. There is no doubt that there is much bloat and waste in the Pentagon, but in this age, the United States needs to be as strong or stronger than ever. Make no mistake that China is trying to dominate the United States on all fronts to be the world’s dominant country / ideology. My other issue is that children should not be allowed to have their physical gender be changed until they are of adult age (18).
I was about to say that if Chase Oliver always spoke like this he would have my vote. But then 2/3 of the way he says I am the LGBT candidate how can a candidate claim to be about individualism if he is campaigning on identitarian politics? How can chase criticize JD Vance for his past behavior when he has demonstrated himself to be rather weasley and self-serving. Oliver is also demonstrating that he still doesn't understand, the government doesn't need to make a specific law for companies to fall in line with its authoritarian rule. Companies and their insurance providers don't magically ignore the past. Even if the Supreme Court tells the CDC that they're acting unconstitutionally that doesn't mean they magically reverse course. It is amazing how the left-leaning libertarians call themselves pragmatist, when they seem to live in this magical utopian world in which the entire population is going to ignore the government's previous trespasses.
Being an LGBT candidate is not the same as supporting identity politics. Im lgbt myself and many republicans try to pass legislation that restricts lgbt freedom of expression. I dont get why so many libertarians defend this stuff. It really doesnt make sense to not atleast point out that people like Ron DeSantis have been passing legislation that is absurd and restricts freedom of expression. As for the groomer stuff, much of what has been passed has nothing to do with children, he targets adults.
@@gerberjenkinson4963 Ron DeSantis limiting freedom of expression? Thank you for providing an example on why running on identity politics is stupid. I assume you're talking about the "do not say gay," which was a bill that limited what public School teachers can say in a classroom to students in regards to sexual identity. You see it is possible to have valid criticism over the law however you obviously never read the law relying on what advocacy groups who claim represent your identity group. Based on your identity group you're willing to fly off the handle on the lies and misinformation. What does Oliver have in common with a lesbian or a transsexual? I especially noticed that when transsexual/transgender advocacy groups for a certain policy it's usually my gay brother who is one of the victims. Identifying primarily with an immutable characteristic suggests your ideology has far much more in common with Marxism than libertarianism.
@@woodchuck003 I'm gay, and I don't see saying you're an LGBT candidate means you identify primarily with an immutable characteristic or that you agree with identity politics. I don't think Chase has made a big deal at all about his sexual orientation. I've told people I'm gay, and when I do I want them to treat me the same they did before knowing my sexual orientation. I don't want to be treated differently. I don't see any evidence that Chase wants to treat people differently based on immutable characteristics. I also don't think Chase is a left-leaning libertarian. He's very libertarian on economic policies as well, making him a well-rounded libertarian.
Most everything this guy says I’m good, but then he talks about leaving gender affirming care up to Drs and parents. There are far too many examples of this not working and only harming kids. That’s just not right. He talks about everyone doing their homework on immigrant crime but it sounds like he’s the one that needs too.
Chase Oliver looks like he could be Sean Hayes from Will & Grace. 🤣 All that aside, I think he has a lot of good stuff to say. I wish he had more support. I think his policies could really help America.
Nick - STOP interrupting your interview subject; you did it at least a dozen times. Just because something pops into your head doesn't give you leeway to cut off someone who's trying to answer your last question. Just shut up and let them finish; if you have a thought, write it down and ask about it later. Watch Peter Robinson interview people on "Uncommon Knowledge"; that's how it should be done.
Once the US withdraws its military from the world, should individual US citizens be allowed to support another country (such as Israel) with money or even by fighting? And what, if any, responsibility would the US as a nation have for the actions of those people - especially considering that other nations WILL think our nation is responsible for them?
We already have the laws for that. They are rated "working with a foreign agent", the US does not consider the safety of those citizens. There are American citizens fighting in Ukraine and Israel right now. We will not rescue them if they get in trouble.
I agree "controversial" isnt great in the title. Anyone outside of libertarian world will that it means controversial in regards to the candidates in general. Trump kamala rfk etc. when in that context hes basically just unknown
@@MrWhipple42 Wha.. What do you mean? Am I not allowed to disagree with them also? And why are you implying that the initiation of force and instability is Americas fault? What about Russia, China, Iran?
@@MrCrabguy The roots of the current conflicts with all three of those countries go back to aggressive American foreign policy decisions: Russia because the US has been provoking them for 30 years by expanding NATO right up to its border, Iran because the CIA overthrew its elected president and installed and propped up the shah for 25 years, and China because the US has nuclear-capable assets right off their coast and is building more military bases in their region (not to mention the trade war Trump initiated). Libertarians believe that free trade and diplomacy are more likely to build a peaceful world than trade wars, proxy wars, and being the world's policeman.
@@MrCrabguy I posted a lengthy comment in reply to you, but either RU-vid or the channel admins didn't like it and it's been removed. (This happens a lot on RU-vid. One never knows what will trigger the algorithm.) Short version:Russia is responding to 30 years of steady NATO expansion, Iran is responding to the CIA overthrow of their elected president and 25 years of propping up the shah, and China is responding to US nuclear-armed ships and planes sailing and based right off their coast. We're good at provoking people.
Remember every ban requires law enforcement personnel which means more tax money and more surveillance. Are you ready to be surveyed forever to stop these actions by private individuals?
14:46 I love his immigration policy. I appreciate how he articulates the humanitarian consequences of illegal immigration, something neither the Ds or Rs ever speak about.
@@jamesbizs I have listened to him debate on this topic. As someone who sees the need for both a secure border and a large amount of legal immigration, he is even more in line with my views than Kennedy.
RFK Jr is probably the best shot we have at the moment. Bring back sanity and real liberalism, so we can shift the Overton window back to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I like Dave Smith but I'm gonna ignore him on this one and vote for this guy. Is/was he maybe not that great on a thing or two? Maybe not. But to me at least he's got mostly talking points that can at least qualify as libertarian. He doesn't come off as a "fake" libertarian or a panderer to me really. I also like how his face is kind of cold when he answers the questions. He doesnt seem phony charismatic but at the same time not awkward. He just answers the questions plainly and clearly.
Chasr Oliver is the only intelligent candidate under retirement age. I may not agree with everything he says, and he comes off as a bit of an idealist- and like every other candidate wants to over assert executive powers. But all that said; he really is the only sane, pragmatic choice in 2024.
The best thing about Chase Oliver is that his nomination has freed up so many libertarians to make a difference by voting for one of the shitty candidates that actually stand a chance of winning.
"To make a difference." Hilarious. Tell me how the democrat and republican policies will solve problems regarding the affordability of housing, healthcare, or education? They haven't because when the status quo makes you rich and powerful your goal is to protect the status quo.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 You're right. That's because government can’t solve these problems. What Libertarians would do, is massively reduce the size and scope of government and allow the market to function properly.
I would have slightly more sympathy for libertarians' anti-military, defund the military, and isolationist policies if they had military and international relations experience. They come off as being ignorant of world history, and strangely, ignorant of human nature. Unlike our founding fathers who based our Constitution on an understanding of the natural moral limits of humanity, too many libertarians have a romantic, absolutist view of human aggression. Libertarians are moralist rather than realistic. God save us from the moralists. If there is no god, then we need to save ourselves.
As a long time Libertarian, the practicality of Libertarianism on a global scale is far different that it's applications domestically. It is definitely an area of weakness amongst a lot of libertarians.
It's because many libertarians are locked in adolescence, where being consistent within the ideological framework is far more important than creating beneficial practical outcomes. It's also the case that libertarians often lack a theory of mind - just because you want to act in accordance with libertarian principles doesn't mean that third parties are compelled to do so.
>anti-military, defund the military, and isolationist policies You mean, the exactly policies of "our founding fathers who based our Constitution on an understanding of the natural moral limits of humanity"? Or did I miss George Washington's famous speech entitled "Team America: World Police"?
@@Maquaker The Constitution explicitly directs the funding of the Army and the Navy with biannual appropriations. How they are used is another question.
@@Maquaker The George Washington who led an army in a war against a foreign nation, in an alliance with the most powerful empire in Europe, or some other George Washington?
Does oliver think sexuality is encoded in the layers of your skin? Why does he keep talking about being comfortable in your skin when referring to bisexuals?
Chase Oliver is not going to get more than 2%. As a black libertarian, I hate the libertarian party, nothing but a bunch of pseudo racist snobs with upper middle class parents that want to rebel. He's a plain jane with no appeal but he's better than JoJo who lost support for the party
@@lauraowens172 That's very debatable they have been on some. For instance they say yes to gay marriage. But they also advocate for gun rights. So you can lump it all together if you like but in reality they have more nuance then that.
I expect what they meant by "liberal" is "classical liberalism", which focuses on civil liberties and free markets. That used to be a part of the libertarian guidelines, but I guess all of that has fallen by the wayside.
@@shaun7142 And i referred to him as a social democrat. I never said anything about liberalism. If classical liberalism is what they meant they should have said that. Rather then just saying liberal and expecting me to define it the way it was defined 60 years ago versus the consensus on it what liberal means today. Its a silly argument to make.
@@jw1980 Yes you did, and I assume the other commenter viewed that the same way. That is, you aren't actually talking about social democracy, you're talking about the fact that he has some social aspects that align more with Democrats, who tend to be more liberal in their policies, specifically the more classical liberal parts. Note, social democrat means they support a reformist platform that would bring a country gradually towards socialism, using things like an expanded welfare state and state control over the economy. That is nothing like what Chase has argued for. Instead, as shown in your second comment, you were talking more about social policy that vaguely aligns with Democrats. Liberalism in general doesn't mean Democrat. Have you ever heard the term "liberal democracy"? Liberalism is at the core of our institutions, and the way Democrats have used the word has no bearing on what the word means in general.
"Controversial" implies that people both know about something or someone, and that they care about that something or someone. "Ambivalence Inducing" would be a much more apt description of Mr. Oliver and his speaking.
Because he shares far more in common with libertarianism than the Democrats. Libertarians agree with both parties in broad strokes on many issues, the problem is everything else. Unfortunately, the LP has been taken over by "Republicans who smoke weed" and complain when traditional libertarians don't act like Republicans.
Stop conflating genuine concerns about gender affirming care for minors with anti LGBTQ. They are not the same and you look extremely ignorant…go read the class report or WPath files
Considering the number of people I have seen in these comment sections complaining about Chase going to Pride Events, it's not just about gender affirming care.
I don't understand why people call him a lefty. He's a lefty because he believes parents know their kids better than the state? He's a lefty because he supports a return to traditional American immigration policy? He's a lefty because he's a capitalist? He's a lefty because he's non-interventionist? The Republicans have forgotten what conservatism is, propping up the Trump cult of personality like Stalin in the USSR. The Dems don't claim to be conservative. Chase Oliver is the only candidate that actually believes in American traditional ideals.
