Federalism and the Flat Tax: The Austin Petersen Plan
2017-09-24 · Guest: Austin Petersen (Missouri US Senate candidate) · 52:07
Austin Petersen and the Republican Liberty Wing
Bob Zadek interviews Missouri US Senate candidate Austin Petersen about his transition from the Libertarian Party to the Republican primary. They discuss the growing “Liberty Wing” of the GOP, Petersen’s plans for healthcare reform through competition, his non-interventionist foreign policy, and the need for significant criminal justice reform to end the war on drugs.
Topics: Federalism, Flat Tax, Individual Liberty, Second Amendment, Obamacare, Healthcare Competition, Foreign Policy, Non-interventionism, War Powers, Small Government, Regulatory Reform, Criminal Justice Reform, Drug War
Speakers: Bob Zadek, Austin Petersen, Caller (Jacob), Caller (Eben)
Historical Context and Introduction [00:25]
Bob Zadek: Hello everyone, welcome to the Bob Zadek Show, the only live libertarian talk radio show on the air all weekend and the longest-running live libertarian talk radio show in California. Thanks so much for listening this Sunday morning.
And an important Sunday morning it is. On this day in history—well, not quite this day, but on September 21st, 1780—an infamous day, Benedict Arnold met with British General John André to plot the turnover, the deceitful turnover of West Point to the British. Had that succeeded, the British would have controlled the Hudson River and perhaps the revolution would have been lost. It failed. John André was hung. Benedict Arnold escaped to England where he lived in disgrace, died poor—no loss there.
78 years later, on September 17th, 1787, the Constitution was finished. The founders had written the Constitution—55 more or less men drafted the Constitution. The work was done in 1787. Out it went to the colonies for ratification. An important week in the history of our country.
With that introduction and reminder of what has happened in our glorious past, I’m happy to welcome to the show the next Senator from Missouri, Austin Petersen. Austin is presently a candidate for the nomination to run against Claire McCaskill in Missouri. An important race and an important battle. Austin has been in the past a libertarian—that is, a member of the Libertarian Party. He remains a libertarian, but he will explain that. He is running against Claire McCaskill as a Republican. I’m happy to welcome Austin to the show this morning to help us understand the important role that those people with a libertarian orientation would have in the future important strong health of the Republican Party. Austin, welcome to the show this morning.
Austin Petersen: Good morning, Bob. Thanks for having me today.
Bob Zadek: Now Austin, I guess I ought to mention just so the audience has this understanding: we had a president who was “the boy from Hope,” Bill Clinton, somewhat famously was or was not, probably was, born in Hope, Arkansas. You are, I guess, you were born in Independence, Missouri, raised in Peculiar, Missouri, and that was a town near Liberty, Missouri. Is that all pretty accurate?
Austin Petersen: That’s correct. Yeah, I hope that it’s a foretelling of exactly the kinds of policies that I will put in place when I become the next Senator from Missouri. That’s correct, Bob.
The Liberty Wing of the Republican Party [03:50]
Bob Zadek: Now, I am not a political operative. I don’t know how to organize retail politics. I wouldn’t suggest that you run ads as “the boy from Peculiar,” but that’s just my point of view. You can kind of do what you want in the general election.
Now, Austin, this morning, you are running, of course, as a Republican. You are running against Claire McCaskill. Of course, the Republican Party is becoming, hopefully, a bit of a wider tent than it has been in the past, and the libertarian wing or the liberty wing of the Republican Party seems to be growing in importance. And that is especially true in the Senate. In my observation, as I have been an observer of politics, I used to always enjoy following the machinations in the House of Representatives. There was a lot more action, if you will, going on there. I became interested at the time of the Republican Revolution in ‘94 when Gingrich became Speaker of the House. But of late, I have noticed that all of the really interesting intellectual activity has been going on in the Senate with the liberty wing of Rand Paul and Mike Lee and others with a similar orientation.
So give us the big picture of what you think, what you believe, and what you hope is going on in the Republican Party and why someone such as yourself with a libertarian orientation—but that is just my label, you can adjust that if you wish—why your election to the Senate with your point of view is so important both for the party and for the country.
Austin Petersen: Yeah, well, there’s been a wave of activity of liberty Republicans for about the last decade. The biggest, I would say, catalyst for it would have been the presidential campaigns of Congressman Ron Paul, which galvanized a broad-based, diverse movement of people who care about individual freedoms. And certainly, it got me interested and activated in politics.
I’ve always considered myself someone who believes in the principles of individualism, the idea of economic freedom and personal liberty. And sometimes I like to say I’m a fiscal conservative and socially whatever you want to be, just don’t force it down my throat. The idea is that in a free society, you should be able to choose to pursue which values you would like to pursue—your own religion or non-religion if you like—and you should be able to pursue them free of harm.
We have a Constitution which codifies those principles. I do consider myself a constitutionalist. I believe in what the founding fathers’ vision was for the United States, and obviously they gave us an amendment process for a reason, because they were not demigods; they were men just like us. And so we—I think we’ve gotten away, we’ve strayed away from much of the vision that the founders had for us, which is why I’m running for the US Senate.
And a lot of people, Bob, have asked me why I’m running as a Republican considering that I have run as a libertarian in the past. Well, it was not an easy decision. I actually spent two entire months and made over 4,000 phone calls directly, personally to my supporters and asked them three questions: One, should I run? 100% said yes. And then two, which party should I run under? And 98% or more, including registered Libertarians, Republicans, and even a few progressive Democrats, said you should run as a Republican. Because many of them believe in what I believe in. Many of them don’t care for Claire McCaskill or her policies or her tenure in the Senate—much of her record has been opposed to what Missourians value, fiscal conservatism. And I would say that the third question that I asked, of course, was “Would you donate to the campaign?” And the majority of those people did.
And so far, we’ve been able to put together a very successful campaign that is ready to roll and ready to win the Republican primary nomination so that I can take over the government and leave everyone alone. So that would be my elevator pitch for why I’m running as a Republican and what I believe in.
Policy Distinctions: Gun Control and Healthcare [08:30]
Bob Zadek: And I would like to just supplement that or mention that when voters make decisions, the orientation such as “I am a constitutionalist” or “I believe in individual liberty”—those abstractions, they are sometimes referred to as voter shortcuts. Voters look for labels to avoid having the burden of understanding specific issues. It’s a lot easier for voters just to use labels like Democrat, Republican, Progressive, and those labels just are helpful to lazy voters, voters who don’t spend so much time.
But the issue is not so much the broad labels, but it’s how those labels would specifically cause you to vote in specific areas. Now, on the area of individual liberty, can you give examples of the type of issue where your orientation might be different than those of who might be your competitors in the race, or those who might be different than other senators in the Senate when you get elected?
Austin Petersen: Well, I would love to be able to differentiate myself from my Republican primary competitors. Unfortunately, I only have one declared competitor at the moment who doesn’t seem to be a big factor in this race. The establishment Republican candidate has yet to declare, although he has filed an exploratory committee, but he has not taken any stands on federal issues. So I wouldn’t want to get ahead of myself and assume what his positions would be.
All I can say is that I do differentiate myself from my competitor Claire McCaskill in the issues of a big one, which is gun control. She’s voted for a bill called the Assault Weapons Ban, which would have made many types of sporting and hunting rifles that Americans use on a daily basis—it would have made them illegal. And you know, “assault weapons ban” is the name of the legislation, just so you know. I know that there’s no such thing as an assault weapon. There’s a big difference between what is an assault weapon and an assault rifle. It’s just unfortunate that the people who are currently writing our laws don’t understand the difference. But you know, I’m a hardcore Second Amendment advocate. I do believe that people have the right to keep and bear arms. And so that would be a big differentiator between myself and McCaskill.
Obviously, she was a supporter of Obamacare. She was one of the principal architects for the passage of the legislation which has quadrupled my premiums, septupled my deductible. I had very affordable insurance with a pre-existing condition and was able to purchase insurance for less than $100 a month with a $1,500 deductible. Now I’m paying, because of the quote-unquote Affordable Care Act, I’m now paying $411 a month with a $7,500 deductible. We were told we could keep our plans, we could keep our doctors. Neither were true. And Claire McCaskill is directly responsible for that.
So I would like to see some competition introduced into the healthcare system, stop taking money from the poor and the middle class and giving it to these rich insurance companies as subsidies, which is really what Obamacare did. It was a giant corporatist bill. It was not for the poor. It was not for the middle class. It actually redistributed wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy.
So that’s another big difference between myself and Claire McCaskill. And obviously, being a fiscal conservative, I would not be voting for giant spending bills like the omnibus bill and other non-fiscally conservative measures that she has taken in the US Senate. She tries to paint herself as a moderate here in my home state of Missouri, but when it comes to her votes, she is a party-line Democrat. And so I’m just doing what I can to try and show the differentiations between myself and my eventual opponent, Claire McCaskill.
Strategy for Repealing Obamacare [12:20]
Bob Zadek: This is Bob Zadek. I’m speaking this morning with hopefully the next US Senator from Missouri, Austin Petersen. Austin is an announced candidate in the primary election to run against Senator McCaskill in Missouri. Questions for Austin are of course welcome. 424-BOB-SHOW is the way to get through. Our operators are standing by welcoming your questions.
Now Austin, your platform on your website and when you have been interviewed in the many interviews you have given has been “repeal and replace,” whatever the phrase is, Obamacare. And that of course has been the mantra of the Republican Party for seven years. And I would just offer an observation—you can comment or not if you wish—but I felt that, I always have felt that the Republicans made a profound mistake by adopting this phrase “repeal and replace.” It’s just the shock to the American public of a dramatic piece of legislation is often scary to most Americans. And I’m talking about a public relations matter.
And I go back—I, as you, enjoy studying American history—and I would like to remind the leaders of the Republican Party that when we as a country labored under the Articles of Confederation for about six years, the Articles of Confederation were probably a terrible unifying document. James Madison knew that and organized a convention for the purpose of tweaking, amending the Articles of Confederation. And everybody said, “Pretty good idea.” And they met in Philadelphia, and not only did they not tweak it, they tore it up, threw it away, and drafted an entirely new Constitution that got ratified by the country.
So the point is, the Republicans I think would do better if they adopted the same approach as the founders and saying, “Okay, let’s fix Obamacare.” And everybody agrees it needs fixing because it’s garbage legislation. It’s terrible. It’s doomed. It’s in a death spiral. And once you get together to fix it, the fix will be to repeal and replace it. But if you follow the political wisdom of the founders, I think you’d get a lot more done and you’d have more—the Republicans would have more public support. I just always like to learn from the lessons of the founders. They were the smartest politicians that ever were on earth. And just my thought as to how to get rid of this abomination called Obamacare. And what’s going to happen is it is going to be—it’s probably never going to be repealed, it’s never going to be replaced, but it’s going to be fixed and fixed and fixed and fixed and fixed. And when you end up looking at it at the end, it will have been repealed without the label. Any thoughts?
Austin Petersen: Right. So I completely agree with you that from a public relations standpoint, it is problematic to say “repeal and replace.” I have tried to avoid it as much as I can. Sometimes what will happen is that you’ll speak to somebody about legislation or you’ll talk about things and they’ll assume that because you’re offering something, you know, like offering competition across state lines, for example, then they’ll say, “Okay, well that’s what you want to replace it with.” So they’ll just use the shorthand “repeal and replace.” I do try to avoid it as much as I can, but it does happen sometimes.
And yes, from a PR perspective, I think you’re right. But what we really do need is competition. Again, my health insurance has been canceled now twice. Actually, just a month ago, I got a message saying that I could no longer purchase insurance in the individual marketplace with my current plan. And so what I’m assuming is going to happen is that instead of paying $411 a month next year, I’ll probably have to pay $700 a month or even more. I have no idea what’s going to happen to my insurance. And it is, you know, kind of scary. I live alone. I don’t have a wife or, you know, I have an immediate family, but you know, I look after myself. So it’s not as if there’s somebody around, you know, to say, “Hey Austin, hey, you might want to, you know, go get your thyroid levels checked,” etc., etc.
So I sincerely feel the nervousness that the American people have about what’s happening with their healthcare, which is why I believe it’s imperative to get some reform and for us to reform them in the ways that I believe will lower costs.
The Free Market Example: Eye Surgery [17:35]
Austin Petersen: And one of the examples I like to talk about, Bob, which I think your listeners will appreciate, is the example of eye surgery. So most people don’t think that—people think that, “Oh, well, if you have a free market in healthcare, greedy doctors and greedy hospitals and greedy administrators are just going to want to make as much profit as possible and so the costs will just skyrocket up and it’s terrible to make a profit in healthcare.”
But if you look at what happened to eye surgery, it’s a perfect example because eye surgery is not covered by most insurance plans. And what has happened to the cost? Over the last 10 years, the cost of getting your eyes fixed has come down and the quality has come up. It used to be that you would have to pay something like $10,000 or more plus the follow-up care to get your eyes fixed, and the surgery was not of high quality—sometimes it would revert. But now, just 10 years later, you can go and purchase inexpensive eye care for about $500 an eye. And that’s because of competition. That’s because the free market has been allowed to work in that portion of healthcare.
So that’s what I’d like to see done across the board. And you know, again, the free market doesn’t absolutely fix everything. There’s no perfect system. I think the problem that we have, especially with our political dialectic today, Bob, is that people assume that there is going to be some kind of perfect system whereby everyone will possibly get coverage. That’s what the socialists are promising: “Oh, if you have universal coverage, then everyone will get taken care of.” Well, that’s a lie. It’s a lie.
And even Bernie Sanders last week, I think he kind of stuck his foot in his mouth. He invited a doctor from Canada to come onto a radio show to discuss about what Canada’s socialized medicine system is like, and the doctor admitted that the wait to get care can sometimes be up to a year. A year! I mean, what are you going to do if you need a hip replacement and you have to wait an entire year? That’s a year of suffering.
And so again, there is no perfect system. I can’t promise you utopia. But what I can promise is that if we had competition, if it was legal for people to purchase inexpensive health insurance plans like catastrophic plans—if that were legal to do that—then the prices would come down generally and more people would be able to get more care for less cost. And too many people, I think, confuse health insurance with healthcare. Well, you can have all the insurance that you want in the world, but if the insurance doesn’t actually cover what you need, then that is a problem.
And that’s why it’s time for us to repeal Obamacare. We should stand with the conservatives in the Senate who want to fulfill the promises that they campaigned on—people like Rand Paul, people like Mike Lee, and others who have been promising for seven years to repeal Obamacare. So it’s not the conservatives in the Senate who are the problem. It’s the liberal Republicans who have promised that they would repeal Obamacare, who voted for it when Obama was president, who have flipped now that they have the authority and the power to do so. They are the problem. They are the ones we should be targeting, not the conservatives who are trying to keep their promises.
The Power of the Liberty Wing [20:46]
Bob Zadek: And you mentioned Rand Paul and Mike Lee, and I want to just jump in, Austin, because that’s a very important concept. The Senate is comprised of, of course, 100 senators. The Republicans right now have the thinnest of voting majorities. And that is very important because when you have a very thin voting majority, the smaller wings of the party, such as Rand Paul and Mike Lee and soon to be Austin Petersen, these senators will have disproportionately large control and a say and a seat at the table over legislation because without the liberty wing supporting what the Republicans want to do, their efforts will fail. It becomes something akin to a parliamentary system where minority parties or minority thinkers have a large amount of power. And so an election of Austin Petersen, in my opinion, with libertarian leanings and with a bit of a bias—maybe a strong bias in that direction—will give libertarians and independent-minded people an enormous power in the Senate. And that is why this election is, in my opinion, so important.
This is Bob Zadek, speaking with Austin Petersen. Questions for Austin—Austin is hopefully the next Senator from Missouri. 424-BOB-SHOW. Questions for Austin.
Foreign Policy and Non-Interventionism [22:38]
Bob Zadek: Now Austin, you mentioned, you used the phrase in your last comment about “American people are afraid,” you were referring to it in connection with healthcare. Well, if you want to know afraid, think about foreign policy in general, particularly Korea with their nuclear and growing nuclear arsenal. So foreign policy sometimes is a very important issue in upcoming elections. Other times when the world is a bit less dangerous, foreign policy is less important and domestic policy is more important. In the upcoming election, I believe foreign policy will be quite important in 2018 and in 2020. Therefore, it is really important, Austin, for you to help voters in Missouri and around the country understand how your view of foreign policy might be different from Senator McCaskill and indeed perhaps with other Republicans in the Senate or in the House. So give us the overview of the differences between your worldview and those in the Senate right now and your opponent.
Austin Petersen: Well, if I was just a typical politician, what I would do is I would try and find some minuscule threat and I would hype it so as to terrify the population and tell them that the only thing that can protect them is to get someone like myself elected and I will protect them. But I don’t want to be like that. I hate fear-mongering.
And I would just like to remind everyone that you have a much greater threat from drowning in your bathtub than you do from being killed in a terrorist attack. That doesn’t mean that we don’t need a national defense. We absolutely do, and we need to keep an eye on our enemies and the people who would harm us or do us wrong. But I am so sick and tired of politicians using fear as a way to boost their power because it is so frequent that the politicians will go out and they will find some threat, whether it be drugs, you know, like an opioid crisis—which, whether or not it is a crisis, I think is not a question, it certainly is a problem. But the solution for them, for the politician, is always “Give me more money, give me more power, get me re-elected, and I will save you from yourself.”
And that’s in relation to the war on drugs. But when it comes to foreign policy, so much of our resources and time are going to try and reshape the Middle East, which is such a mistake because it’s a region of the world that has been unconquerable. The only people who have ever conquered Afghanistan successfully were the Mongols, and you know, that was hundreds of years ago. And the Russians were not able to hold that area. It’s an exercise in futility to believe that we are going to be able to bring democracy through force to that region of the world.
We do need to have a policy that is sober and prudent and one that is in line with checks and balances, which is why I did support Senator Rand Paul’s sunsetting provisions of the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force in Iraq and Afghanistan. My opponent Claire McCaskill voted against that. She voted to continue to grant the President more war authority unilaterally.
Now, here’s something pretty funny I saw the other day, Bob. Think about this: The Democrats and socialists and lefties and liberals have been making a big stink about how Donald Trump is the next Hitler and oh, he’s a horrible man, he’s got too much power and we don’t trust Donald Trump. And yet they all support giving him unilateral war powers. Now, isn’t that an interesting dichotomy there, that the liberals who say they despise President Trump so much are willing to give him unchecked authority, including people like Senator Claire McCaskill? And that just goes to show you the hypocrisy of the left.
But truly, Donald Trump’s own people do not support an escalation of troops in the war in Afghanistan. His own people voted for him in part because Donald Trump was more dovish when it came to our interventions into the Middle East. And that is a problem because we seem to always vote for the anti-war president. Americans always vote for the anti-war candidate, but we never seem to get the anti-war candidate. And so that is why I supported Rand Paul’s bill, which would have sunsetted the authorizations for the use of military force in the Middle East.
Now, in regards to North Korea, and this is not fear-mongering, I will admit that is a sincere threat. That is a threat to ourselves and our allies and one that we should be keeping a very close eye on. We ought to be careful about escalating a war of words simply because what we don’t want to have is an international crisis that would endanger South Korea or our ally Japan. And I always try and put myself in someone else’s shoes in order to determine how I would feel if I were in their situation. Now, if I was a citizen of Japan and a belligerent nation-state that was nuclear-powered was launching missiles literally over my head, I would probably be calling for war. I would probably be calling for my government to stand up and defend us from that threat. The American people would never tolerate a missile flying over our airspace. And I certainly can understand why the citizens of Japan would be willing to arm themselves up to stand up and say, “We would like to defend ourselves.”
And quite frankly, I think it’s about time. The United States has been stepping in and filling in the gaps for Japan since World War II, and we’ve committed to defending them entirely, so their nation has not been able to militarize. I think at this point in time, with as strong an ally as Japan is, we ought to allow the Japanese to stand up and start spending on their own defense. And I think that’s the fiscally conservative thing for the United States to do. I think it’s the morally correct thing to do. I also think it’s the tactically correct thing to do so that our greatest ally—one of our greatest allies, Japan, who we love and who are so endeared to us now—can defend themselves from the threat of North Korea.
But it’s definitely something we have to keep an eye on. It’s definitely something that I will be mindful of when I become the next Senator from Missouri. But I am not a warmonger. I do believe in a national defense. I simply think that we’ve overextended ourselves around the world. We’ve engaged in nation-building exercises in regions of the world that are unfamiliar with our customs, and I think it’s time for us to take a more prudent approach to foreign policy in general.
War Powers and Political Hypocrisy [30:31]
Bob Zadek: This is Bob Zadek, speaking with Austin Petersen, who hopes to be and I believe he will be the next Senator from Missouri. He is running in the Missouri primary, hopes to compete against Claire McCaskill in the general election. We’re going to take a short break and I’ll be right back with more questions and conversation with future Senator Petersen. Please stay tuned.
[Music break]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show, the only live libertarian talk radio show on the air all weekend and the longest-running libertarian talk show in California. Thanks so much for listening to my conversation this morning with future Senator Austin Petersen. Austin is running in the Republican primary—actually, it’s an open primary as I understand it in Missouri—hopes to compete against Claire McCaskill in the general election and become the next Senator from Missouri. If he does, he will no doubt join the liberty wing of the Republican Party, joining Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee and of course many others as well.
Now Austin, before the break, you were critical of the Democrats for not limiting President Trump’s powers by voting to repeal the war powers—repeal the use of military force which was enacted right after 9/11, about a week or two later. However, I would just point out, and you mentioned that in your commentary, that the criticism goes well beyond the Democrats. The Republicans, to their great shame, did not support Senator Paul. Senator Paul gave a well-reasoned and impassioned and 100% accurate presentation as to why the use of the temporary use of military force in 2001 should be repealed. It no longer ought to give the President political cover to fight what right now is 11 or 12 undeclared wars. So you gave the Republicans a pass. I’ll remind you, of course, they did not support Senator Paul, or many of them did not support Senator Paul as well. And I point that out because I dare say, I suspect that you would have joined Senator Paul, and that is exactly the kind of political courage and independent thinking we need in the Senate. So the blame goes well beyond the progressives and lies with many of the Republicans as well, don’t you believe?
Austin Petersen: Sure, sure. Yeah, I didn’t mean to do that. I just wanted to say that the Republicans at least aren’t being hypocrites because the Republicans, you know, they ostensibly support Trump and they ostensibly support more war and more intervention and more nation-building. I just found it ironic that the Democrats who say they despise President Trump so much are willing to offer him such massive power over our nation’s military. So yeah, obviously the Republicans should have stood with Rand Paul on this as well, and I absolutely would have done so if I had been the Senator from Missouri at that time. But yeah, of course, I just think that, you know, you should expect that the Republicans are going to vote that way. So that was the reason. It wasn’t an omission by accident, I would say.
Small Government and Petty Tyrannies [34:01]
Bob Zadek: Now, you recently had a very interesting interview by Ben Shapiro, and I commend that interview to all listeners who are curious about your positions. And on the interview show with Ben, you spoke a lot—and I couldn’t agree with you more—in favor of smaller, if not small, government. And you made a point that you expressed a belief that Republicans were for, in general, for smaller government. I’m not so sure that’s correct. I know that you are, and you would make a big difference in Republican thinking to the extent that one person could. But tell us, small government, what exactly do you mean? And do you mean small government at all levels? Do you mean a small federal government? And if you could be somewhat just specific as to how a government, if you had a bit of a voice in how it’s organized, how the federal government would be smaller? What wouldn’t it do that it is doing now? I just want our listeners out there, especially our friends in Missouri, to understand how life would be different if you had a voice in Washington.
Austin Petersen: Well, most people don’t know or understand just how granular government controls us at the local level. I mean, we have our state and local governments and we have the federal government. But most people don’t even know, for example, that the government actually regulates the size of the shoe leather in the shoes that you’re wearing right now. There are so many different things that the government does that people don’t realize. For example, the amount of water in your toilet bowl is regulated very heavily, especially in states like California. And the showerheads—when you take a shower in the morning, many showerheads now are required to be fitted with a limiter so that the amount of water that flows through the showerheads is strictly limited.
And so there are so many petty tyrannies that add up to one giant tyranny that happen to us on a daily basis that a limited government would allow. So think about what you pay in taxes: state and local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, death taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes. We have so many different types of taxes that are taken from us that there are some people in the United States who pay more than 50% in what they make in taxes. Because if you think you pay 40% in income taxes at the moment, well, don’t forget you’re paying your sales taxes, right? And then when you pay on everything that you buy, you’re paying property taxes just for the privilege of owning a car.
So many times, many Americans are actually paying more than half of what they earn into the system of taxation. Much of it is wasted, much of it is frittered away, much of it is being—is going to graft, much of it is going to corruption, much of it is going to pad the pockets of lobbyists and insiders. And of course, if we had a limited government, then you would be able to keep more of what you earn. Your paycheck would be bigger.
There are so many things that the government does that can be done by the private market. I think we’ve lost trust in the concept of freedom. We don’t believe that without the FDA that people would adhere to some form of quality standards. We don’t think, “Oh my goodness, you know, if we didn’t have a USDA, then how would we get good beef? How could we make sure that butchers wouldn’t sell us beef with like tumors or pus or disgusting things because if they didn’t, then they wouldn’t care, they wouldn’t care about us?” Well, you forget that there is actually a regulatory and natural regulatory process that occurs in the marketplace. If you get caught selling bad food, then people won’t buy from you anymore.
But again, society has become overly punitive and depending on your political point of view, you’re going to say, “Well, my political point of view is correct, so I should use the government to enforce my version of morality because I am so obviously correct.” The libertarian view is that I do not know how to live your life better than you, so I will not create a punitive body of enforcement, which is a government—aka government—which will enforce my narrow version of morality. I have my system of morality, I have my system of ethics, but I just want to—I just want to ensure that I am not incorrect. And if my values and morality are incorrect, I will not force them on my fellow citizens, and I would ask my fellow citizens to do the same and not enforce their narrow version of morality or their narrow version of ethics on myself.
So in terms of what would we specifically be doing, I mean, let’s talk about the federal cabinet-level positions. Do we really need a Department of Education, or can the states step up and handle the education policy for their own state? Can parents make the decision of how to educate their children free from a federal regulatory body which is divorced from the needs of the citizens in the many states? We’ve only had a Department of Education since 1972. America became the greatest and most powerful nation on earth with an educational system that was divested to the states. And I think we can go back to that. I think that we don’t need a federal Department of Education. The states should be able to set those standards for themselves.
So I would just say that those—I could talk for hours about all of the things I would do, but that would be one major example. And again, on a granular level, I think that the market needs to be able to set the sort of regulatory policies where checks and balances occur with the citizens, our families, friends, neighbors, churches—not only to regulate one another, but also to take care of one another, to protect one another, and to ensure that our rights are duly noted and protected in our communities.
Bob Zadek: Austin, I’m so glad that you said just what you said about government spending and compromising individual choice. The essence of most government spending, in my opinion, is that government spending is done because under the principle that the government knows how we should run our lives better than we do, and they will spend enormous sums of money to enforce their view of how we should make our own decisions. That is, in one word, in my opinion, or in one sentence, where a lot of government spending goes. And when you talk about the free market, the free market is just democracy with a checkbook. People vote with their dollars what they like and what they don’t like. We know how to vote, and government should just let us run our lives.
Caller Segment: Jacob [40:42]
Bob Zadek: Now Austin, we have some callers, as I suspected we would. Jacob, good morning, and what’s on your mind this morning?
Caller (Jacob): Yes, Mr. Zadek, could you repeat the name of your guest and ask your guest regarding outside political forces that might be already there in the race that will become a factor? Does he perceive that to be a reality? And regarding the previous disturbances, the Michael Brown incident, will that be a factor in this race at all?
Bob Zadek: The guest is Austin Petersen, A-U-S-T-I-N P-E-T-E-R-S-E-N. Thank you, Jacob. Austin, did you hear the question and can you help Jacob out?
Austin Petersen: I did, absolutely. So the first part, outside influences. Yes, there are outside influences, depending on how you would define that. There are plenty of private institutions, non-profit institutions that have committed to supporting not only my primary opponents but also my general election opponent. It’s very difficult for someone like myself to get institutional support simply because I don’t make promises. I don’t have a quid pro quo system set up where if you give me this, then I will do that, which is usually incumbent on the incumbent for them to bring home the bacon. For example, if you’re running for the US Senate, they do have appropriation power to the states. So there are non-profits, there are lobbyists who have committed publicly to supporting, like I said, not only my primary opponent but also my general election opponent.
As a matter of fact, the Democratic Senatorial Committee has already launched a six-figure ad buy attacking me here in the state of Missouri, and they’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on this attack ad here in Missouri. The Club for Growth, which is a non-profit institution that is usually conservative-based and would normally be at least ideologically aligned with someone like myself who is a strict fiscal conservative, has at least signaled that they have been given $10 million to support my primary opponent in the race, which will be a very difficult challenge to surmount. Of course, everybody on the conservative side of things will want to be my friend when I win. But at the moment, most of the institutions that are usually getting involved in these kinds of races, the various non-profits, will be supporting my opponents both in the primary and in the general election. So I’m basically the Bernie Sanders of the Republican primary in Missouri because I’m entirely funded by grassroots, funded by grocery clerks, single moms, current members of the military whose only special interest is individual liberty.
Criminal Justice Reform and the Drug War [44:52]
Austin Petersen: But in regards to the second question, Michael Brown, yes, we have had quite a bit of tension in the inner cities between the citizens and the police. I think that has a lot to do with the overly punitive criminal justice system that we have that is perceived to be biased against people of color and minorities, especially here in Missouri. I happen to agree. I think the criminal justice system needs major reforms, and the biggest problem that we have, which I would actually have some authority over, would be the federal war on drugs, which I think has been a prohibitionist bloody war on our own people. It is expensive, and I think that it is an absolute waste of life and time.
I think that drugs should be treated as a medical problem, not a criminal problem. I think it’s horrible when people get addicted to drugs, but I don’t think that throwing people in jail for doing self-harm helps anyone because we can’t even keep these drugs out of prisons, so how are we going to keep them out of the United States? I think the best way to ensure that people who are harming themselves with these dangerous drugs is to take a medical approach, not a criminal approach, which is why I have advocated and will continue to advocate for a total end to the federal war on drugs.
And much of the policies that are happening on the local level—the fish rots from the head down—and so the states also have very punitive policies, and so the tension that’s happening in the inner cities is that they perceive that they—and I believe rightfully so—that they are the victims of a harsh criminal justice system where the legislatures have enforced things like mandatory minimum jail sentences even for non-violent crimes. I mean, non-violent crimes! You can be gunned down in the street for being a threat because you sold a pound of marijuana. But in Colorado or in Washington, well, hey, you can become a millionaire. So why? Why do we have this inconsistency in our policies when it comes to these chemicals? And I will admit many of them are very dangerous. But again, we don’t know how dangerous the chemicals or the drugs are because they’re illegal. We can’t do proper testing on them. Doctors can’t do the proper types of testing that would be necessary. I think I just read a study the other day that MDMA, which is commonly known as ecstasy, may help people who are suffering from PTSD. And we need more testing like that.
But in regards to Michael Brown, again, I do think that our criminal justice system has been overly punitive, and that is why there is so much tension between the people in the cities like Kansas City where I am at now and St. Louis. I think if we had criminal justice reform, that would give the people in the urban communities more trust in their government. I think that right now minorities don’t have any faith or trust in their government, and I don’t think we’ve given them an opportunity to have faith or trust in government. So whether or not you think Michael Brown was innocent or guilty, I think is irrelevant simply because the aftermath, the backlash from the incident with Michael Brown, it is sort of the straw that broke the camel’s back. The tension brewed and bubbled, and then the passive-aggressiveness becomes full-blown aggressiveness because the people feel that they aren’t getting a fair shake from their government. I tend to agree with them, and so we need criminal justice reform, which is why I’m definitely campaigning on that issue in my Senate race.
Bob Zadek: And you would help Senator Paul and Senator Booker, I think, in that regard. Jacob, thank you for the call.
Caller Segment: Eben [48:33]
Bob Zadek: We have only a few minutes left, Austin. I have one more caller. I want to see if we can get this caller in. Eben, are you still there?
Caller (Eben): The former speaker was so fantastic, and it happened to be on a book that I had just finishing up now called Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It. It’s from a judge that was formerly from conservative Orange County, and he has just pretty much paralleled everything that was in this book. And I think Sir Richard Branson is leading the way around the world on the Global Commission on Drug Policy in Switzerland, and they’ve done what they need to do in Portugal, and it’s become a fantastic example of what should be done in most countries around the world.
Bob Zadek: The judge you mentioned from Orange County was the vice-presidential candidate on the Libertarian Party in the 2012 election. He was a guest on my show a couple of times, so I know who you’re referring to. So we have only a minute left. So I think Austin has commented on drug policy. He will help Senator Paul and Cory Booker and others where help is surely needed on rationalizing this insane criminal justice system we have that is a patchwork of bias and irrationality. I think that’s true, isn’t it, Austin? We only have about a minute left.
Austin Petersen: That’s correct. I agree with you.
Caller (Eben): Well, my issue has to do with fire sprinklers versus fire-free paint. That’s more on a more local level, definitely statewide. I tried to examine everything I could around the internet, and every time you ask for “as opposed to” or whatever, the only thing that comes up is on the fire-free paint, excuse me, is on the sprinkler system. Now, if you own a lot of books and art, you don’t want to be under that, and the fire-free paint is extremely efficacious. They show places loaded with all kinds of things, three or four times burned inside and the building doesn’t burn.
Closing and How to Support [50:45]
Bob Zadek: Eben, I hate to interrupt, but time is our enemy, unfortunately. So we have only a minute left. I want to just help our audience understand how they can support Austin. So sorry to interrupt, but we’re running out of time. Austin, how can our friends out there help you beat Claire McCaskill? We have only about 30 seconds.
Austin Petersen: Okay, well, unfortunately, I was banned from Facebook for 30 days for talking about Claire McCaskill’s gun record recently, but you can find me at AP4Liberty—AP the number 4 Liberty—on Twitter. After 30 days, I’ll be able to post again on Facebook at AP the number 4 Liberty. You can also find my website, austinpetersen.com or austinforsenate.com. Austinforsenate.com is the easiest place because Petersen is spelled with three E’s, no O’s. Austinforsenate.com, that’ll take you there.
Bob Zadek: Thank you so much. Thanks to my friends listeners. I’ll be back again next Sunday for another one hour of libertarian thought and ideas. Thanks so much for listening and please enjoy the rest of the weekend.