tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 29, 2016 4:00am-6:01am EDT
service members. do you see the same thing with women's integration? is there a generational distinction where younger service members are onboard and it's more those that are in their 15, 20-plus-year service that aren't? or something else? >> i would like to make a quick comment on this. i don't think we're done with integrating african-americans, frankly, or gays. i still think we've got a long ways to go on both counts. and the motion that the younger are -- don't have bias across the board is -- that's simply not true. are they a little more open and accepting? i say maybe when they come in, but leadership influences their attitudes over time. and those senior leaders have a huge impact on those junior members who are joining the military. to me it's got to start with senior leaders. but certainly, i would say the entry level are more pliable and
more willing to accept whatever leadership tells them. >> i also think there is a difference. the thing about repealing don't ask don't tell is those folks were already in the unit. it's like it was the person serving next to you that you did not know was gay. and so that's different from both the example of african-american integration and integrating women into combat arms. i do think there is not so much -- it's generational, but not because of society. i think more generational because of experience. i think there is a difference -- i see a difference in the senior officers today -- you know, i'm going to brag a little bit about my class of '80. it has a number of three and four-star generals right now. and even if they've spent their career in the infantry, they spent four years training next to women. there are other services where we have senior generals who have
never fired a weapon down range next to a female marine. oh, excuse me, female service member. or done a combat confidence course with a woman on their team. they didn't grow up with the women next to them. and i do think that makes a difference in terms of leadership. that, yes, you know, you would argue that if this was a really bad idea, the men who had had more experience training with women would be more opposed to it than the men who had no experience. so just that fact that the men who've had experience, the men in the mp's who have fought next to women, who have been under fire down range next to women are not saying women don't belong in these roles. so that tells me something. so i think the experience factor, which does tie generationally because this has grown over time, is really relevant in terms of acceptance. >> i think just to piggy back off of that last comment, you
know, being in the service that has been segregated the most from this, from anywhere that we train women initially to i think just a harder delineation of, yo u know, combat roles for men versus noncombat roles for women. more than generational, i think it's socialization. and i think why generationally, the younger generations come in, don't see it as a big of a deal. just socially, they've been doing more with women from day one. i think you can say the same with don't ask don't tell, sort of two-fold. one, these were people already serving. they were able just to serve openly. it's a lot harder to -- you know, somebody you've deployed with multiple times that you have, you know, been in combat with, it's a lot harder to say oh, well, now that i know this about you, you don't belong anymore.
there's no way to also really hide the fact that you are a woman ever. and i think even with -- and i agree with ellen that we still have a long way to go with both african-american integration -- not just african-american, but minority in general -- integration, and full acceptance of don't ask don't tell. even in the case of african-americans and the thing that if you look at -- especially rhetorical studies of how groups are able to really leverage their service to gain full recognition. and you saw this not just with citizen rights outside the military, but full integration. it was a lot harder to tell in the world war ii era that it was a black soldier or white soldier fighting because they were doing the exact same thing. there has been much more now qualification of women's jobs and women's roles. and even as a cobra pilot, there
was, i think -- i got both goods and bads. goods in that i got thrown into a deploying situation right away. it was just very much about job performance. but whenever it would come back to garrison, there was a lot of qualification skills. oh well, you know, it was the female cobra pilot who did this. so maybe things were different. maybe standards were different. because you stand out a lot more. the physical differences, you can tell women tend to be built differently and look differently. there's a physical ability to stand out that i think has hindered some of the integrations in the way that racial and sexual orientation integration hasn't been hindered. >> thank you. other questions? back in the back and then to the front. dr. burnett and professor davidson. >> i would like to -- i'm ari burnett, associate dean and
professor of sisa. i was very impressed with sue fulton's comments about how being better in this dimension makes us a more powerful fighting force. i'm curious about your thoughts in terms of how this makes us a more powerful fighting force, maybe a more dominating force in a comparative sense against our competitor nations who we're likely to go up against, the russians and the chinese in terms of how they're moving or not moving in this direction. >> the research as the least academic member of the panel. let me talk about research. [laughter] >> one interesting thing i saw was homogenius groups get lazy
in their thinking because they assume others in the group are going to agree with them. when you add people from racial differences or gender differences or other differences, they think they get -- they work harder because they feel like oh, i need to defend my idea, my point of view. they work harder to prove themselves because there's not that same sense of oh, these are my people in a sense. ideally, when you have a diverse group, including gender diversity, you're going to bring different strengths to the battle, you're all going to get smarter. you're all going to get better. there's going to be an aspect of proving yourself on both sides that should make the unit perform better. should make the unit make better decisions.
it gets more complex. i heard general kazan say it used to be about amassing fire power on the enemy. now it's much more complex. you're making decisions down to the small unit on a regular basis about who the enemy combatant is and isn't. in more complex battlefields. if you're making better decisions in the unit, if if you have a broader diversity of skills in that unit, it should make you stronger. now, that's hypothetical. but it seems to me that as we move forward, the smart leaders are going to say okay, what does she bring to the fight? you know, realizing that our, you know, chris greist wasn't a brilliant land navigator, but she made herself a great land navigator. points.had her plotting could a guy have done that?
yes. but it turns out the best person for that particular job was a woman. so that's the second piece as you're broadening the pool. so you should be able to put the best person, the best job regardless. and i think that's true whenever we take it another step forward. one of the things we said about don't ask don't tell is it's not about equality, it's about readiness. it's about -- if your best arabic linguist is gay, who cares? you need a really good arabic linguist. if your best person for the job -- and we're going to have discussion again. if your best person for the job is transgender, who cares, do the job. so in those respects, we should expect that this makes us stronger. and that our enemies who are more invested in traditional ways of -- these are the people who traditionally will fight in our infantry, and those people aren't eligible, they're missing out on talent. so that should put us ahead. any other thought?
>> to take it to a higher level, a little more theoretically -- sue touched on the good, practical points. but what it also brings -- especially the russian and chinese model, where it's a very top-down directed military. you have essentially a military class. you're almost born into that. it becomes a -- not just a profession or a citizen soldier type idea, but a class of people that do this job. you do whatever the leader tep -- tells you to do. buy-in.s more citizen yes, we need strategic planners and we need military professionals who that is what they do for a living, but part of being in a democracy is citizen buy-in, citizen response. this idea of the citizen soldier
that's both an enabling force. like sue said, you can draw from a really, really diverse talent pool. the biggest that pool gets, the more you're going to guarantee you get the right person for the job. but on the flip side of that is that it's going to force military leaders and political leaders to be very deliberate and very measured in their military decisions. you know, if you have the entire citizenship pool, it's very easy to support going to war when you know there's no way you're ever going to have to fight it. if you're saying well, it's just this class of people over here, i'm not part of the military establishment, i'm not part of the military class, sure, i'll support the war. russia is really good at doing this. they're really good at drumming up this really strong military that's its own class and they can sell military action to their public very well, whether or not it's actually the best thing to do.
and having a more -- a wider pool from which the military is drawn makes both military and civilian leaders have to be very measured and very deliberate. and hopefully also forces citizens to be much more informed about what's actually happening and what actually is going on, that military decisions are made when it's actually in the best interest of the country for a military action to be taken. and that, i think, is a very important delineation between democracies and the idea of a citizen soldier and having this very wide citizen pool and nondemocracies who just create a really big military that they drum up to try to show military might. >> i missed one other very practical point, which is some of our military enemies come from traditional societies and their soldiers are terrified of being killed by a woman. that's a simple fact, that facing it might be honorable to be killed by a man, but to be killed by a woman is dishonorable.
there's another factor there that's practical. i think there are many ways this could strenghten us. >> i think where i struggle with this debate at the macro level is that the reason we're discussing integration is that we've been using, needing, women on the ground operationally for the last decade. i trained mail clerks and attached them at the squad level to infantry units. we have already been using them. this isn't the choice for the niceties of citizenship, it's a choice because operationally we are, have been, and in the future we'll need to use these female service members. so it becomes difficult, because absolutely we will be stronger if we train them and equip them at the entry level, if we allow them to cohesively bond with units that we're going to operationally employ them with.
so i do think that theoretical perspective is really important. but looking at the realities on the grown the last decade for me is where the rubber meets the road. >> professor davidson has a question. >> i'm caroline davidson. i'm a professor, i worked at fort bragg. you'll imagine some of our questions come from -- or my students' questions who i'm channelling today come about the distinction or whether there is a distinction -- and many seem more willing because they've had woman on the most elite units working alongside them already. actually, many of the comments you just made spoke to a few other points i wanted to emphasize, one of which, i'm teaching this course this year that emphasizes the use of natural sciences in terms of thinking about strategy. and, of course, one of the main
points that really struck our students was this idea of variation, being absolutely key towards evolving and improving. and everything you're seeing heterogeneity helps us with that so much. in terms of csts, one of the things that really struck me -- and it's an anecdote, but i thought it was pointed -- i live outside of fort bragg. there was a group of csts who came down for a book talk. they were not invited on to fort bragg. that book talk happened at the small independent bookstore in southern pines. and my impression, just from talking to a few of them over dinner, one of them was an injured veteran, was that they feel like they're not -- no one is paying attention to what they have to say about their experience, which is really alarming to me. i don't know whether you can explain that just because there were very few of them, and whether it is just relegated to anecdotal. it's horrendous to me they
didn't take more information from them and interview them more seriously. and then ms. hunter, the other thing that i think we had a presentation on that i thought was very striking, there's a very clear myth out there that the public don't like this idea. and from what i understand the polling actually demonstrates that the public do expect and want women to be serving, that they're fine with that.
so why does that myth perpetuate? and do any of you have any more information on how that has shifted and how that affects what we're discussing as well? thank you. >> so i have a theory about the csts and why they haven't been included in this research, and here's my theory. i proposed this research, i was on the staff of the army war college. i wanted to do it through the war college. and they thought it was a great idea. he was onboard, thought it would be great research. then we got into his staff and suddenly we began to get some pushback. initially they provided large scale support backing the research. literally four days before these women were supposed to show up here in d.c., we had 33 registered, ten of them dropped out that weekend because they were told by their leadership at fort bragg that they were not -- this was not officially sanctioned and that they were not allowed to participate in the research. so i think there's a disconnect between what senior leaders -- some senior leaders, at least in this case, socom, is saying and then there's mid level pushback from leadership that says oh, we don't want to participate. it's really about organizational change and resistance to this type of change. and you're going to see it throughout every organization. you're going to see mid level leaders who don't agree with it and they become spoilers. they make every effort to stop the forward progress or the full integration of women.
i think that's what happened with the csds. after we did our research in august -- or in july, august socom actually did have a little small conference with the csts. they invited them to come to madil where they spent a short weekend with them. but the csts reported back to me that it was very much backward-looking and not forward-looking. they wanted to capture what they had done. they weren't asking them about how can you inform us about how we should move forward with this. so they were disappointed with that. i've heard from the csts that there's going to be another research conference with the csts down at madill. remember, this isn't fort bragg. different leadership. i do think you're seeing internal resistance at different levels. >> so this actually, i think, leads a lot to your question as to why there's still this perception that it's not wanted. if you look at the public in
general, they're like yeah, fine, great. if it makes everything better, it's better. so a lot of it is this mid level area. and i think there's something of this sort of mid level leaders that they feel like it's almost their way to get noticed and make their mark. if they can oppose this, people will know who they are. and on the -- as someone who has written quite a bit openly and publicly about why this is important, and i know jeanette can speak to the same thing, the comments and the responses that come back to it is like you'll get one or two kind of mid level males or one very notorious in particular retired senior level male who will publicly make these big statements about how i was in combat and this is all wrong. that gets a lot of attention. because they attach their accolades to it. whereas those of us who have
been very vocal about why it matters have really taken the road that, you know, passion needs to come out of this, emotion needs to come out of it. let's just look at the facts. let's look at what women have done. as kate really brings up, it has been an operational necessity. so now, how do we ensure that there is success in this continued operational necessity. and facts and dispassionate discourse isn't as sexy as some guy running up screaming, but all of the dead women. it plays again to this spoiler. again, this is sort of my theory of being involved with it, is that it's a way they feel they can make a mark and get known. now they're the guy who fought the change and was taken over by the social experiment. and they use all this really
emotional passioned language that doesn't reflect reality of what's actually happening. >> in front? >> i'm david, a fellow here. my question is about that emotional aspect of it. from personal experience and from listening to this ed bait in public, there seems to be a growing acceptance or realization that this is a good idea. being in the air force myself and having fought alongside female fighter pilots, it ems very natural from my perspective. but from where i see pushback is this idea of opportunity versus responsibility. everybody i speak to agrees that women should have the opportunity to do this. but when you use the selective service, and when you flip it and say responsibility, then the answers tend to change. so i'm wondering your opinion.
is that a societal thing that we need to get past? when you ask a father, do you want your daughter to be able to serve in combat if she wants to? but should she have to if the nation reinstitutes a draft. often times they say no. >> i think you're talking in general about people who haven't served. i have yet to meet a woman yet who says women shouldn't register for selective service. i think that's just unanimous. i think the women who are looking for the opportunity themselves also think that there's a responsibility. you know, in terms of society, the selective service argument is, i think, a smokescreen. i'm -- my two cents, i don't think we're going to have a draft again in this country until the aliens attack. at which point, all hands on deck, i'm just saying. [laughter]
>> i don't think there's anyone who's asking for opportunity who wouldn't also say i would take on the responsibility. for me, i do agree with a lot of things kai says. i think that there's a bias among those of us who have served to say, we think that universal service is really important to citizenship. we think that everybody should have an equal stake in that. but i get that there are people, you know, if you do a broad opinion poll, should women be drafted, it's a different answer. i just don't know how relevant it is to reality that's just me. >> when we're talking about emotion. society has to change. if you're saying like -- it's really a three-part question there. do you want your daughter forced to go fight in combat? so a, is like the way that question is even asked. it's just wrong.
over the past 15 years where we have been in sustained combat operations, the longest time that the u.s. has ever been involved in a continuous militarized dispute, how many 18 to 26-year-old males who did not volunteer for the force lie awake at night fretting over getting called to afghanistan the next day? it just didn't -- it didn't happen. it's not like -- it's not a thing. never once if you ask that father who has a son, do they think their son is going to go off and die in a war if he doesn't join the military. it's not even a thought. but we can again wrap all this emotion around like -- oh, well, our daughter is getting drawn off to war. registering for selective service is not getting drug off to war the next day. that is the reality. second, i think tied to the first, just the way we frame the questions that we're asking.
the way that we are expecting difference from men and women. and third, with the cultural change that yes, there absolutely needs to be one. if there is, it's this idea of equal opportunity is equal responsibility. and it should be. you know, the same side of the debate, not to get too much into cultural society and gender, but you're seeing a big push more in the social sphere of equality in parenting. there needs to be equal parenting responsibilities. i think it's almost the opposite side of the same coin there, that we're kind of engaging in a society -- and this goes a lot to your questions of generation where gender roles and equality in gender roles in society is becoming something that's being talked about a lot more. i would hope, and i think everybody here on the panel would hope that this responsibility really gets wrapped up into that conversation.
and that it's reframed in a way that registering for the selective service isn't getting drug off to war and you're not going to die the next day. and even if you are called up in a draft, it's not guaranteed -- nobody is putting a rifle in your hand and sending you off to fight in a trench. that's not the way warfare is fought anymore. so we also -- with this this conversation need to evaluate what selected service is. t it.re vocal abou hopefully this debate will bring up a lot of these citizenship questions again. what is your responsibility? >> i really enjoyed an article kai wrote on this recently. one of the sub headings is it's time to take the emotion out of the debate. i'm the mother of a boy. i don't frame that selective service any different for him than i would for a daughter.
my bias is from having served and feeling strongly about the responsibility of service for men and for women. but it's an emotional debate that we're ten years past it being emotional anymore. >> all right. well, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately we're out of time. we need to take a break. but please, i bet the panelists will probably stay around. if you have a question, please come up and ask them. the ladies at benjamin r the corner. but i cannot please give a round of applause. [applause] -- with that, please give a round of applause. [applause] >> wanted out on the communicators, the broadcasts from boston sponsored by the national cable and telecommunications association that will feature a pendleton discussion test panel discussion commissioners.
the group will discuss competition in the cable industry, the consolidation of media coverage, broadband deployment, and getting that to lower income homes. the commissioners are joined by a telecommunications reporter for bloomberg. there is so much the agency can, and should be doing. instead, we spend a great many staff hours out things like the top talks proceedings or forcing out cable for special attention in the special access market. they took the risk to deploy the connectivity.n those are the things that distract us from the core mission, which we have under the law to make sure that industry is able to compete on a level playing field to deliver opportunity to all americans. >> watch monday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. >> madam secretary, we give 72
[applause] believe this is a new era for the libertarian party. that is why i want to ask you now, volunteers are working their way through the room with these cards. a beautiful new logo, beautiful branding. on the front of the card you will read the beautiful pledge that i certified, i opposed the initial force to achieve social or political goals. you can help us usher in this new era by using this card in the envelope to renew your membership, or better yet become
a monthly pledger. if you want to be a monthly pledger you have to ride in the amount per month. simple. i want to talk about the importance of the pledge program. i am a monthly pledger. every month i support our fight to bring freedom to the american people. i knew that hundreds of you out there also do the same. i would ask all of you to consider what is it worth a month to you to fight for .reedom what are you willing to give up to fight for freedom? how much is it worth to you to live free?
felle that out and out these cards. we have libertarian party signs in front of all of the candidates' podiums. we have one more. because this is such an historic event, and each candidate comes out they will stop at that sign and they will sign their name. [applause] to my knowledge it will be the only document with the signatures of all five candidates in this debate. , afterend of the debate the candidates leave the stage i offereturn, and i will one of you the opportunity to take that piece of history home with you for a market rate.
[applause] i know volunteers are passing through with the donation cards. please give the best gift you can give. this is an opportunity for us to go so much farther than we have gone. now, without further i do i would like to introduce the jeffed libertarian mayor, hewitt. [applause] jeff: we are the rodney dangerfield of cities. it is hard to start a
revolution. but this is a start. [applause] libertariansak to as a libertarian because you people hold the bar to excellence so high. now.stumble you let me if i say something profound, that is expected. [laughter] sought the reason why i -- thought the man tonight is perfect for this job. this is our last opportunity to hold these five fine candidates feet to the fire and see what their meadowlands. -- metal is. [applause] for 24 years, the man i am talking about has been
recruiting libertarians primarily on the west coast, but he is on radio and other markets. he competed with ron paul in our area to bring people to the libertarian party. up for the lead role in straight out of compton. [laughter] however, 24 years ago he did secure and maintain the lead role as the sage from south-central. now on over 200 stations on a nasty syndicated radio show , he is had, he has earned a star on the hollywood walk of
fame, and with great pleasure i introduce to you larry elder. [applause] larry: thank you. thank you for the introduction. hello everyone. i'm anderson cooper. [laughter] a brief forward about the libertarian party. in 1971 as ad reaction to the vietnam war and concern over the direction of u.s. monetary policy. status we earned ballot in all 50 states. or as president obama says, all 57 states. in 2012 the former new mexico governor, jerry johnson was -- gary johnson was the candidate. i will now iroduce the
candidates. i would like them all to sign in. mr. john mcafee. [applause] mr. mcafee has a degree in mathematics from roanoke college . he is an internationally recognized pioneer in cyber security. he developed the first antivirus protection system. [applause] larry: good luck. mr. dell peary. [applause] born and raised in birmingham, a career ashas had
an author and host in tv and radio. he is cofounder and cochair of new hampshire tea party and owner and managing editor of free press publications. [applause] larry: governor gary johnson. gary"] chanting " larry: after a successful career as a business he became the republican governor from new mexico from 1994 to 2003. he was the libertarian party presidential candidate in 2012, votes than anymore lp candidate in history.
from northwestern with a degree in philosophy. he is an anesthesiologist and practiced at john hopkins for 11 years. i want to welcome you all. these are the 2016 libertarian presidential candidates. [applause] [crowd chanting] larry: contain your enthusiasm. we are going to have each candidate given opening statement for 30 seconds. each will have 30 seconds to answer if he invokes the name of
another candidate that candidate will have a 32nd rebuttal. there will be a 62nd close. -- 60 second close. the first category is the economy. i have two general questions i would like to begin with. mr. mcafee. watching awho are libertarian party debate for the first time and have no clue what a libertarian is, please tell us what is a libertarian. what is the difference between a libertarian and a conservative? >> is this part of my opening statement? larry: all right. you have 30 seconds for an opening statement. debated each
other multiple times. there is not one iota of difference between us. marijuana.ze in the madness of our education system. dea and lete bea out people of prison from nonviolent crimes. now, if i get one more question about what we will do first day in office, i will lose it. i want questions on how we can help the grassroots of this country. please, thank you. [applause] perry.mr. mr. perry: i represent the libertarian wing of the libertarian party. you as most of these men will recognize as the
most libertarian presidential candidate seeking the libertarian party presidential nomination. i ask each and every one of you vote for me so i can walk off as the libertarian party presidential candidate. larry: governor johnson. mr. johnson: i would like to be your nominee. if you are looking for someone who will tell the truth regardless of the consequences, if you are looking for somebody who will acknowledge miss takes because the quickest way to fix mistakes is to acknowledge them as quickly as possible. if you want somebody who knows what it is to put one foot in front of the other and dogged pursuit of any goals set, in this case to raise the profile of the libertarian party nationwide, please, give me your vote. [applause] mr. peterson.
mr. peterson: does the government work for us or do we work for the government? are the rights of men limited or are they more numerous than the stars? are we prepared to shoulder the responsibility of governments of the united states will our distaste for power causes to allow our enemies to take the field? i we members prepared to go to war against the forces of democratic socialists and populist nationalism? out of manynum, one. our campaign is prepared to leave too great victories. no matter the outcome of tomorrow's election at the end of the day we will stand together united and we will fight arm in arm for the future of our nation, in the future of liberty itself. thank you. [applause]
larry: dr. feldman. dr. feldman: i represent the libertarian party wing of the libertarian party. this is a big night for the feldman family. not because of this. shower is the wedding for my son and his beautiful bride. i love you aron and robin. she said you are going out of town anyhow because of something. i appreciate you are all here. believe in yourself, trust in ,ourself, empower yourself decide for yourself. thank you. will now begin
the questions. , for those who were listening to a libertarian debate for the first time and don't know what a libertarian is, please explain what a libertarian is, and what is a difference between a libertarian and conservative? mr. mcafee: we believe our bodies along to ourselves, what we insert into our bodies or our minds is their own business, we do not harm one another, we don't take each other's stuff and we keep our word. what simpler thing can there be to explain to the american populace? we must do that. we have to stop sitting around the table arguing with ourselves and go out and speak to america. these principles are simple and they work. [applause] larry: mr. perry. y: ellomay capital
me to answer the other half of the question. how are they different from conservatives? someone who supports the status quo. the status quo is tyranny. libertarians believe in freedom. the two things are polar opposites. [applause] larry: governor johnson? mr. johnson: libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. let's not forget that originally a classic liberal was a conservative. conservatives bottom line are about smaller government, libertarians are about smaller government. larry: mr. peterson? arepeterson: libertarians fiscally conservative and socially whatever you want provide it you don't force it on
anyone else. and culture, generally conservatives tend to believe that government should enforce morality upon society. this is distinct from libertarianism. you should be put to do with it as you please provided you harm no one else and the government should stay out of our personal lives. larry: most libertarians think -- >> does dr. feldman get to answer? feldman: oh good. a conservative will fight to live free. a libertarian fights for everybody to live free.
if you want to be free to carry guns that you want, you also have to fight for the freedom of your neighbor to marry who he wants or she wants, to smoke what he or she wants. that is freedom for everybody. [applause] question, mr.nd perry, most libertarians think both major parties are bad but the republican party is at least the lesser of two evils. what do you say to people who believe in the best case scenario libertarian candidates might get 10%. they will likely take more votes from the republicans making more likely hillary will win the election? what is your argument? history andath and
evidence. there aretion cycle exit polls that are done. and questions asked of voters that vote for libertarians. if the libertarian were not in the race who would you have voted for? it is almost even split between democrat and republican with a sizable number that would say i would not have voted otherwise. governor johnson? factually speaking my name has appeared in three national polls. 10%, 10% and 11%. they actually did an analysis fromold more votes away hillary than from trump. at the end of the day you pull equally from both sides. the idea isn't just to get to 10%. the idea is to actually get to 15% and be in the presidential debates creating a real
opportunity to tell the people of the world a different view on all of these topics. mr. peterson. when faced with the opportunity to choose between two evils vote for neither. showedlls and virginia he polled more for the democrats than from the republicans. to arrive at left or right you could be born a republican or democrat. one mustibertarian first think to arrive at our position. [applause] course, they always say you look like you have had too much to think. vote libertarian. [applause]
dr. feldman. is it possible for me to win the nomination, to be the next president of the united states? of course it is. all it takes is a miracle. miracles happen. who makes miracles happen? i'm looking at them right now. larry: mr. mcafee. throughee: i have lived 14 presidential elections. or republicansts have gotten in my life has been worse. there has been more government control. i have lost my freedom and my privacy. my taxes have gone up. to me i don't care. i want to know who the wizard is
behind the curtain that creates these clowns we are voting for. please. [applause] larry: let us turn to the economy. governor johnson. donald trump am a when asked to name three functions of government said national security, health care and education. where did he go wrong? [laughter] mr. johnson: i really don't even want to comment on donald trump. i really don't. when donald trump talks about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants, that is just wrong. we talked about building a fence across the border that is wrong. when he talks about killing the fat -- families of muslim terrorists that is wrong. when he talks about a 35% tariff, that is wrong. when he says he's going to bring
back waterboarding or torture, whatever, he is just wrong. [applause] larry: mr. peterson. mr. peterson: i would like to build a wall around donald trump and make bernie sanders pay for it. it is writing to see what has become of our nation when a man who is truly the definition of a fascist that the top of the republican ticket. we will stand united against the forces of populist. nationalism is only ever a means to an and. not the end itself. knew in the fathers course of human events it becomes necessary for us to lift the cause of our separation.
if donald trump wins the nomination we should revolt. larry: dr. feldman. glad thatn: i'm asshole finally got something right. it is not the government to do it. it is our job. it is our money. it is our job. i don't want to tell our government leave us alone. i want to tell our government relax, we've got this. [applause] mcafee.r. mr. mcafee: we have port $100 billion into education and we are near at the bottom. another hundred billion and we will be illiterate. please, god that is our second
largest expense in this country. you ask veterans are they benefiting? no they are not. thank you. larry: mr. perry? mr. perry: i would say a that is a flawed question asked of mr. john. -- trump. , the declaration of independence does say governments exist with the consent of the governed and are supposed to protect life, liberty and property. think you are smart enough to be your own government. [applause] larry: this next question is to mr. peterson. should illegal immigration be stopped? what does open borders mean? mr. peterson: i believe a free market and labor is just as
effective lifting people out of as aty is just as helpful free commodity. borders are drawn on a map by politicians. the nationstate things it only serves the needs of the individuals. i believe we as libertarians can offer to the american people a solution we have had in our history shows during the alicessive era, we had an island -- ellis island policy. you are out of time. dr. feldman. mr. feldman: america is the land
of opportunity. i will streamline this immigration system and we will have liberty for americans and be welcoming immigrants under my administration. dr. feldman. mr. feldman: like all libertarians i believe every human being has human rights. they don't matter which side of an imaginary line you were born on. we have illegal immigration because the multinational corporations and the wealthy corporate leaders like illegal immigration. they like having low skilled, low-paid workers. we need to empower them and open the borders. thank you. larry: the question is about open borders. immigrant. i am an
i came over when i was two years old. my father was an american serviceman. all of your ancestors were immigrants. what does the legal mean? our first immigrants had to stay in america for six months to become an american. what is wrong with that? open every border. we need diverse the. we need creative people. do you think people escaping oppressive governments are a problem? only if we are an oppressive government. [applause] larry: mr. perry. mr. perry: no human being is illegal. what would open borders look perry?nder president we already have the policy in place. the wet foot dry foot policy. if you have dry feet and you are
from q but you get to stay in the united states. we need to implement that for every person around the globe, where theywet foot are sent back to tyranny. larry: governor johnson. mr. johnson: we should make it as easy as possible for someone who wants to come into this country to get a work visa. they should entail a background check and social security card. we should not build a fence across the border. we should not depart 11 million illegal immigrants. we need to embrace immigration in this country and recognize these are the cream of the crop when it comes to workers coming across the border. they are not taking jobs u.s. citizens want. isis not lower pay unless it an issue of language. they are the first ones who recognize that. [applause] larry: dr. feldman.
oruld taxpayers pay for subsidize education at any level . mr. feldman: yes. for their children. people should be empowered to educate themselves and their kids. we shouldn't take that responsibility away from people. larry: mr. mcafee. mr. mcafee: there is an offensive word. taxpayer. taxpayers should pay for nothing that they do not receive goods or services four. [applause] larry: mr. perry. mr. perry: there should not be government run schools. i love education. i never let my schooling get in the way of my education.
every one of you in this room and watching at home can get an m.i.t. education right now, absolutely free. they have put their courses online. you can take them right now. go to con academy. you can learn anything you want for free. [applause] 4 governor johnson. mr. johnson: i was more outspoken than any governor in the country regarding school choice. for six straight years i toposed a voucher program bring competition to public education. unleash tens of millions of entrepreneurs to deliver better education in this country with guard to the federal role, abolish the federal department of education. state $.11 out of every school dollar.
it comes with 14 sense of strings attached. obama wants to add a bathroom to that. now it is $.16. you took all my good applause lines. america became the greatest nation in the world because of the one-room schoolhouse. nothing more than a pencil and piece of paper. now we spend more than in the civilized nation in the world. it is not an issue of money. it is an issue of centralization , central economic planning. we must stop their control over the lives of our children. we need more homeschooling. we need to allow the state to decide these problems. we need in the federal department of education once and for all. [applause] larry: mr. mcafee.
even president obama said the three biggest entitlement wordsms are in his unsustainable. they comprise 50% of the federal budget. what would you do about them? mr. mcafee: we have committed to people who have paid a substantial percentage of their work and salary into this program. i don't think anyone under the age of 40 believes he will get any of that back. the rest of these entitlement programs i'm sorry, it sounds unsavory perhaps, even uncaring. they are not helping. certainly not our nation. larry: mr. perry. mr. perry: as with everything, i believe they should be completely voluntary. how many people in here love
grandma's? how many of you would donate money to feed grandma? i do not see a single person that did not raise their hand. that is how you find social security, medicaid and medicare. way youson: the only are for medicaid and medicare is to devault those functions to the -- dissolve those functions to the states. mexico, if of new given a fixed amount of money i could have delivered health care to those on welfare and those over 65. with regards to social security it is absolutely fixable but it is raising the retirement age. it is having a fair means testing. it's being able to self direct those funds in a way you see fit. one of the great inequities in our country is poor people who andinto social security
die, that reverts to the government as opposed to their heirs. [applause] larry: mr. peterson. mr. peterson: it's time to allow people to opt out of social security. [applause] but they stole the money from us in the first place. they should have to give it back. when it comes to how we can get out of social security problems, if we did implement a flat tax, we would get more revenue. as of now only 27% of suckers pay their taxes. if we had a flat tax perhaps we would get more revenue and could plug the gap as we allow young people to opt out. it's time for us to opt out. [applause] larry: dr. feldman. mr. feldman: government programs are always bad deals. we need new ideas. i have the idea. let people on social security
voluntarily invest in student debt. that decreases student debt from then increases the return to our secure -- social security, up from 1% to 2%. doubling their benefits. care of theake educational opportunities for kids. when the kids get jobs, they can support retirements of their elders. thank you. [applause] if you don't believe government should force people into some sort of social security or forest saving system, what halperin's -- what happens when someone has grown old or two irresponsible to set aside savings. what should happen? people here that like grandma would donate to grandma. you would have voluntary aid programs as we did before the
government took over social security. forcing people to do things is always wrong. larry: governor johnson? mr. johnson: i'm not advocating it should be abolished. it should be self-directed as much as possible. as president i would sign legislation that would allow 100% of social security to be self-directed. i don't think they are going to pass that. in the meantime, the reforms that are needed, raise the retirement age for you could have a means testing, self-directed fund and allow those that pay into social security and died before the amount of money they paid and was paid back, that could be passed on to their heirs and be a part of a fair means testing. larry: mr. perry.
-- mr. peterson. right it is: damn pre-no one was dying in the street before social security. two in social welfare programs for all. when the pilgrims came they had a system. from each according to his ability. starving to death. how did we create the cornucopia? they had private property rights and free markets. that is how we will take care of the poor. [no audio] [applause] mr. feldman: the easier it is for private organizations to give them help. they don't need help at the point of the government gun. [applause]
mr. peterson: none of us are going to pass a child drowning in a river. you don't think about it. you save the child. everyone has a neighbor, a friend, someone who is going to care. libertarianism is not heartlessness. it is the opening of your heart to your neighbor and other human beings. [applause] larry: does global warming or climate change was threat to the planet? >> the real question is, is carbon emissions. we should be as consumers, we are looking to reduce carbon emissions. in that context the free market has bankrupted cold -- coal.
it is something that has happened. i'm not smart enough to say whether it is man-made. there is climate change that is occurring. does that have to do with the sun and the earth? harrison schmitt to walk on the moon and was senator from new mexico questions whether global warming takes place or not. carbon emissions is something that we genuinely as human beings want to see reduced. coal is a good example of having been bankrupted by the free market. these are free market sources at work that have refused to put any money into coal. it is a fact. [crowd boos]
>> the free market didn't bankrupt the coal industry. it was regulations and president obama. the greatest polluter on earth is the u.s. federal government. the free market can solve problems of the environment. what use is a clean environment if we have no freedom? whether or not global warming is true or not, the government should stay the hell out of it. i am not smart enough to know whether i'm it change is killing us. but it was not a free market that bankrupted the coal industry. hillary clinton has said she will end it. canmust nominate me so we restore liberty for every industry. larry: i have been asked to
ask you gentlemen to remove your cell phones. that is causing interference. >> i don't know that i should know. we all should know. even if there is a consensus on the problem of global climate change, there is no consensus on the solution. this isn't being used as an issue for furthering science and humanity. it's an issue that is used to take our resources and control our lives. [applause] mr. mcafee pre-does global warming or climate change poses threat to the planet? mr. mcafee: of course it does pretty oceans are rising. inever, with all the money our government, has anything changed? the military is the largest
polluter on the planet. government can't fix it. give us a chance. maybe we can work it out. [applause] larry: mr. perry. been ary: has there global warming? allow me to present exhibit a. there once was in ice age. and now there is not. the question is, should the government do anything about it? i say no. [applause] larry: mr. peterson. what taxes do you believe in? how should government fund its essential duties and obligations? mr. peterson: a voluntary society, freely. if we have taxes, why not a lottery? it is just a tax on people who are bad at math. [laughter] our first president did sign
lottery taxes. they said how we going to build the roads? he found a way without coursing his citizens to allow a chance for us to find the best way for us to serve one another. the question is and who will build the roads. we will build the roads. --n it comes to taxation, [inaudible] [applause] the end. [laughter] larry: dr. feldman. mr. feldman: we have a responsibility to take care of each other. we can do that without government stealing from us. taxation is theft. it is the worst kind of theft. our government convinces people whatwould belong to them belongs to the government. it is our money. it is not their money.
>> this nation survive without no income taxes. how is that possible? we had a government doing reasonable things at small costs. theaxation that involves sweat of your brow could possibly be legal. government this voluntarily. we have national parks. road, want to drive on a pay a dollar for every thousand miles you drive, we can do this. insanity oftop the a government out of control. and growing like a weed. we can do that. .r. perry mr. perry: your question is invalid. it presumes there are essential duties of government. if you want nasa to exist and send things into space, write a
check to nasa. if you want the u.s. military to drone bomb children in the middle east, write a check to the military but don't force me to pay for it. [applause] larry: governor johnson. mr. johnson: i've always had the best example of a libertarian tax is a gas tax. you use gas, you drive on the highways. it gets co-opted for other things. taxation is theft. i am running for president of the united states. i'm going to pass any legislation that reduces taxes in this country. however that is. would advocate is eliminating income tax corporate tax, and we would then be able to abolish the irs. which is about as to radical as it gets. [applause] would be elected president of the united states of the united states.
i don't think congress is going to abolish corporate tax without replacing it with something. they could replace it with a consumption tax. i would ask you to look at the fair tax to dock the eyes and 's on how to accomplish one federal assumption tax. [crowd boos] [applause] dr. feldman. mr. feldman: are we skipping austan? >> i answered. larry: dr. feldman. should there be a minimum wage. preventou present -- employees from exploiting workers? mr. feldman: the minimum wage is always zero.
ask anybody who doesn't have a in because the government is control of the economy. we should raise wages for everybody by making more demand from working people to be productive. thank you. [applause] larry: mr. mcafee. do we need a minimum wage in a free market? where you are worth a certain amount and you are not getting paid, and you may walk across the street at your free will and get paid what you deserve. it will happen. minimum wages are an illusion. it has nothing to do with whether we are men or women. it has to be what can you do and what is that worth? that is the free market. larry: mr. perry. mr. perry: i have a question for those that support a minimum wage. hopefully it is no one in this
room. as a small business owner, there are times when i don't make the minimum wage based on the hours i work versus what i bring in. my question is if you support a minimum wage, who should die steal the money from to make the difference? [applause] larry: governor johnson? mr. johnson: i think we are missing the bow on this argument. $15 minimum wage. let's raise it to $75. let's be the most prosperous nation in the world. when you think about it, somebody -- you can't do that. you can do $15 or $12? minimummum wage is the wage. it is not a living wage. it is a starting wage.
mr. peterson. mr. peterson: it was originally passed to stop black laborers from competing with white labor. it was racist. the real minimum wage is zero dollars. it is harmful for the poor. it harms the people who are unemployed, unskilled, and able to get jobs. if you have to pay $15 an hour you have to hire the best worker you can and not the boy next door. we have to stop the minimum wage so we can pull the poor out of poverty. [applause] government fund infrastructure, roads, bridges? electrical grids? if government doesn't do it who or what will? mr. mcafee: each of those are separate problems. we have interstate highways. there are issues involved in
right-of-way, and intricate problems involving eminent domain. we have to address that differently than local problems with solar power and new technologies. local facilities can be created to generate that. the government should ask the maximum be involved in the minimum part in this issue. larry: mr. perry. mr. perry: i will do my best to answer this in 30 seconds. hotels thrive on having customers stay in their hotel area people need to get to their hotel. people are probably coming to visit and do stuff. all of these places thrive on customers. they need a flat surface to come and go from. businesses will be incentivized to have these flat surfaces called roads. we don't need to steal the
money. let the people who thrive from them pay for them voluntarily of course. larry: governor johnson. mr. johnson: infrastructure is the best example of how you can privatize this through user fees to accomplish that. should government be in charge of that process? you're probably going to have government administrators over it a request for proposals to see this happen. the government shouldn't be involved in this pretty private sector can be involved in this. they can apply the best taxes possible which are user fees by those that in fact use the infrastructure. larry: mr. peterson. mr. peterson: the old who will build the roads. rhodes, roads. where we are going we don't need roads. [applause] the truth is in the future we
will have a jet pack. whereon't see a future freedom can solve the problems that are created by government. the free market can solve these problems. take a look at hurricane katrina when there was no electricity. people stepped in and started offering generators. they are charging for these generators more than the free market but they called them price gougers. supply and demand work. i'm out of time. who will build the roads? we don't need roads through we don't need government to build roads [applause] . the constitution of the united states says all the government can do is what is necessary and proper. my balancing credit states sayse government candidate is what is necessary and proper. put the american and control of every dollar paid if they do not
want to send money to the irs, they can take care of gray mom, take care of veterans, and to do all of the things that would need to be done. and there is nothing necessary and proper for the government to take care of. [applause] larry: mr. perry. mr. perry: assume that somebody cannot get health insurance, what would you do about it? mr. perry: it is not the president responsibility to make sure that anybody has health insurance. look at saint jude hospital, they take her of children with cancer, they do not charge the families a dime, they thrive off of voluntary contributions. [applause] larry: governor johnson? mr. johnson: when it comes to health care, we need a free market approach. by the way, health card is as --
health care is as far removed from the free market as it possibly could be. we will have health insurance to cover illness and it would be pay-as-you-go in a system that is affordable. ,e would have stitches are us x-rays are us, for pre-existing conditions -- look, before president obama's affordable health care plan, nobody was going without health care in the --ntry, and in fact became nobody with a pre-existing condition was always receiving health care, it was an issue of you paid for it. i think that we have looked at this, the supreme court justice roberts was right when he said myt health care is a tax and premiums have quadrupled and i have not seen a doctor in four years. larry: mr. peterson? mr. peterson: if you own a fire insurance company and people were allowed to buy insurance
after the house caught fire, you would go bankrupt. supply and demand will catch up with them and it forces insurance companies into an economic situation, because the communists want single-payer health care, we need to let the market work and allow people to purchase insurance across state lines. [applause] larry: dr. feldman? mr. perry: i support -- dr. feldman: i support universal health care, people should care about their own health, universally. with a balancing credit program that provides billions of dollars for individuals to decide how to spend their money to support their fellow man, women, children, and when they are donating money to do that, because the budget is balanced, the government will have to decide where to cut, cut, and cut, where the private sector is
already doing things better. [applause] larry: mr. mcafee? mr. mcafee: in 1950, health care was 4%, it is now 20%. have we become that much sicker? what has happened. now, they are terrified of doing anything because of malpractice and all of the other barriers to doctors making a living. if we got back to a rational cost, health insurance would be far most important. we see this. [applause] st, health insurance would be far most important. we see this. [applause] larry: governor johnson. on trade, would you continue trading with partners who impose tariffs on american goods into those who engage in, as donald trump put it, manipulation? mr. johnson: there should not be
terrorists anywhere in the united states can lead by example. when you talk about a terrorist iff oneign goods -- tar foreign goods, we pay for it. larry: mr. peterson? mr. peterson: this foreign countries want to throw rocks in their harbor, let them. we should be the beacon of free trade. lifts peoplests -- out of poverty. billions of dollars saved. that is what i would champion. [applause] larry: dr. feldman, would you continue trading with partners who impose tariffs on american goods and those who engage in currency manipulation? we can be fair and is they will not trade with us, we will trade with somebody else. i give my barber money and he gives me haircuts.
he never gives me money. we need free-trade and it does not need an agreement. [applause] mcafee?r. mr. mcafee: free-trade is not need government approval if -- approval, if there is a terrace and i -- tariff and i am a private business, i can say, this makes sense and i can do it. it is a big world and everybody is producing something. [applause] larry: mr. perry? mr. perry: the federal reserve is currently currency manipulation, so if i as president were to say that nobody can do any trading of goods or services with a country that is involved in currency manipulation, then nobody could do trade with the u.s., because we currently manipulate. regarding free trade, i have it written right here, the role of
government shall interfere with the trade of goods -- shall not interfere the trade of goods and services. that is all you need. [applause] larry: mr. peterson, what should be done about the federal reserve? is there a legitimate function for the fed? mr. peterson: it is time to kill the bank. [applause] as andrew jackson said, you are a den of vipers and i will -- you out. if we can't allow gold, silver and bitcoins to compete against the federal reserve, we will have monetary institutions. we have gone for the central bank three times in our history, thomas jefferson believed we do not need a central bank. money is a creation of the marketplace, allow a free market and money and we will restore
prosperity in america once again. [applause] -- y: [cheering] larry: the fed is not very popular in the room. theneterson: end the fed, end the fed. [applause] [chanting] larry: mr. mcafee? mr. mcafee: we got along without the fed for 150 years and we were doing fine. there is no purpose for the fed other than to feed money into the pockets of the powerful and special interests. it can and -- end as easy as it started. [applause] [chanting] larry: mr. perry?
mr. perry: let's repeal the laws that allowed -- to go to prison for competition with the fed and then we can and -- end the fed. [cheering] [applause] larry: governor johnson? is johnson: as president, congress -- if congress amended legislation to end the reserve, i would sign it. i do not think they will send that to me, i do not think it will happen. if they did, i would sign it and those functions could be taken up by regional banks. it is a rigged game, when banks can get money and 0% and they can take away our opportunities, for example, 2008 financial crisis where we could have stepped in and actually bought
at a -- bought houses bargain, but we were not allowed into the banks scooped that up for themselves and now we have a re-inflation bubble in regards to housing, so it is rigged it we need to audit the federal reserve -- rigged. we need to audit the federal reserve and we have not because it is so frightening, they are buying across the world and it if theyuse a collapse, were actually known. [applause] what: dr. feldman, government cabinet departments would you eliminate? dr. feldman: i would not eliminate any one of them. i was that the american people eliminate all of them. by replacing them with voluntary, private sector programs that are more efficient, productive, and better for america. [applause] larry: mr. mcafee, what
government positions with you eliminate? dr. feldman: i think -- mr. mcafee: i think everyone is spending money that we have provided to the government. all of them, and we will start from scratch to see what is needed after everything is gone. [applause] mr. perry, are there any government cabinet positions that you would retain? mr. perry: no. the question is, which i would eliminate first. we will just go alphabetical, that is the easiest [applause] way. [applause] -- easiest way. [applause] larry: governor johnson? mr. johnson: as the president, it is subject to what the congress submits to you. on me to sign off on anything these agencies.
if i was a dictator and could wave a magic wand, it would be commerce, education, drug enforcement administration, nsa -- [applause] is an executive order, 12333, signed undertreatment. turn the satellites away from us. it has been turned on the enemies, us, and this is the government. this is tyranny. [applause] larry: mr. peterson, what government cabinet positions with you eliminate? mr. peterson: i am from missouri and we love our guns and whiskey, so i think that the -- and should not be a government agency. the president of the u.s. has the authority to effectively --
institutions of the federal government and that is the dea. we can have a war on drugs by telling the tape of the dea to bring all drugs to zero, this would effectively kick the war back to the states. and we could end the dea that way. [applause] larry: we will turn our attention to foreign policy. mr. mcafee, what do you think of the iran deal, does it pose a threat to israel and is that a concern for america? mr. mcafee: the iran deal, where we pay an enemy hundreds of billions of dollars to do what? ideasweapons, systems and to destroy ourselves? we need to get out of the internal affairs with all of these nations and bring our troops home and stop giving military aid. [applause] larry: mr. perry, the iran deal?
mr. perry: despite the fear mongering, iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons, they were trying to build nuclear energy. to continueows them to build that, but there is a lot of taxpayer money going to iran, so there are parts that are good, parts that are bad. i've not read the document, so i do not know if the good outweighs the bad. but probably not. larry: governor johnson? mr. johnson: on the surface, i initially supported the iran deal, it just made sense. it turns out that iran is categorically proven to finance terrorism, they are the number one financiers of terrorism around the world and because we released $165 billion, secretary kerry himself admitted that some of the money would go to terrorists.
no, we should not have signed the deal, we should not have unfrozen those assets, we could have engaged in an ongoing free-trade, but to release the $165 billion, there will be terrorism funded out of that. [applause] larry: mr. peterson? mr. peterson: there comes the wonky journalist who has actually done the research. it was problematic because it was and i -- executive agreement. the congress is supposed to ratify treaties, not the president. congress authorized the president to make a deal. i believe that we should have free trade with all countries, despite weather status is. capitalism brings down tyranny around the world. [applause] larry: dr. feldman, that iran deal? behind the deal are two groups of people whose crazy
hatred of each other are putting the whole world at risk of war, i am talking about democrats and republicans. [applause] dr. feldman: we have plenty of issues here to deal with and plenty of people to trade and health around the world -- help efored the world b dealing with these military adventures. larry: mr. perry? mr. perry: president obama has called the hiroshima bomb an active evil, do you agree? mr. perry: absolutely, when kill, -- nuke a city and what, millions of people, it is deplorable. president obama visited but he did not apologize. but i will, as soon as possible. [applause] larry: president -- governor johnson, he called it evil, do
you agree? mr. johnson: i do not to judge actions that have been so many years ago, president truman was phased -- faced with a challenge millions of lives being lost. one question i have regarding the bomb, one bomb was dropped, and perhaps this is in history and i am not aware, but after one bomb was dropped, why was there not as much outreach as possible to prevent the second bomb? it is a difficult decision made in difficult times and millions of lives were lost and so many of them are american lives and we lost hundreds of thousands -- we would have lost hundreds of thousands more if we had to invade. [applause] larry: mr. peterson? offense, you no started and i will end it.
when it comes to the bomb, it is like another weapon, like a drone or a gun. if you fake an exit essential threat, you have the right to defend yourselves and under no circumstances would i endanger the national security of the united states. the japanese were killing 6000 civilians a month, the baton death march. we have a right to defend ourselves using any means necessary, absolutely. [applause] larry: dr. feldman? is evilman: often who and who is desperately trying to survive depends on which side of the gun you are on. unfortunately, you have to do with you -- what you have to do, so whether it is evil, i do not know. there was tremendous suffering and it was it was not necessary, as i am sure that everybody does. the question is, what is the
president going to do when there are tough decisions to be made, we have to make safer and more peaceful world, where we take care of each other instead of fighting with each other. [applause] larry: mr. mcafee? costcafee: an apology buy?ng, but what might it this is not an emotional issue, somebody felt offended. good lord, have you never apologize to a spouse for something you do not remember doing? what does it cost and what does it gain? larry: governor johnson? do you believe radical islam poses a threat to europe, america, to western civilization itself? mr. johnson: i am sorry?
larry: do you believe that radical islam poses a threat to europe, america, with some civilization itself? mr. johnson: i do. congress has added gated desk and ticket response ability to the president and military and we need an open discussion on how we do it this. like i say, this is something that has not happened [applause] . -- happened. [applause] larry: mr. peterson? mr. peterson: the most dangerous religion in the world is stadium is a -- statism. we must do things constitutionally, not only through force of arms. liberal thinking must be defended and if i say, if we are going to fight radical islam, we must do so within the law and never go outside the powers of the executive branch.
only go to war if there is a declaration of war, that is the only way that the president has any authority to defend the u.s. , using the u.s. military. [applause] feldman?. dr. feldman: there is no islamic terrorism. there are muslim terrorists. we need the people to take the blame, not a religion. [applause] is not a war, it is a crime. we know how to fight crime, you fight them as criminals. [applause] larry: mr. mcafee? mr. mcafee: terrorism of course poses a threat, but there is a far greater threat and that is the actions of our government, which created this terrorism. we dropped bombs on families,
hospitals, on innocent people as was perhaps the guilty. my god, you would be angry too. you would be frustrated and what would you do? if we are the source of the problem, the biggest threats to us is our government. please, we must stop our own aggression. [applause] larry: mr. perry? mr. perry: we the members of the libertarian party rise in opposition to the called of the omnipotent state. hidesy is tyranny and behind many religions, but the tyrants are doing the hiding. freedom is the answer, not war, not more government, not blaming people's religion because tyranny is the problem. [applause] larry: mr. peterson?
was it wrong for america to intervene in world war i, was it wrong for them to have intervened and fought in world war ii? mr. peterson: it was in world war i, because they found that the thinking of we should take sitania, it did have arms and it was challenging the embargo. and we would of never gotten involved in world war ii if we had stayed out of world war i. [applause] larry: dr. feldman? dr. feldman: there were a lot of right people and i am sure if they could find a way not to get into war, they would not have done it. i do not have the egoism to say that i have a better idea at that time, it was a horrible situation and i do not know if anything could have been done differently. larry: mr. mcafee?
was it wrong for america to have intervened and fought in world war i, was it wrong for america to intervene and have fought in world war ii? mr. mcafee: world war ii, our entire pacific fleet was destroyed, what would have happened if we do not go into the war? world war i, it was a far more complex affair, and before my time, i do not have the answer. [applause] larry: mr. perry? mr. perry: you have the right to defend yourself, but you do not have the right to provoke somebody to attack you in order to defend yourself. the united states military had a boat off the shore of japan to provoke an attack from japan, so they could claim self-defense. was it wrong to intervene, yes. i am not touching you, i am not touching you, that becomes aggression. [applause] governor johnson, was it
wrong for america to intervene in world war i and world war ii? mr. johnson: i do not know. [applause] larry: dr. feldman, we spend more on our military then the next 15 nations combined, how large should our military be? do we spend too much and where would you cut? am agnostic, i do not know how big the government should be. larry: military? part of it. that is i want every american to decide how much taxes to sense of the government for drones and surveillance and all of the things that support the military industry. weaponsto manufacture
to support the war effort, now we manufacture war efforts to support our weapons industries. [applause] larry: mr. mcafee? mr. mcafee: america claims to love peace and yet we are the nation on the planet, name a country that has not been affected by our military activities, directly or indirectly, so if you can name one, i will be one of my shoes. we do not need to have troops overseas. we can find a use for them here. some people may have noticed, we have real problems at home. [applause] larry: mr. perry? mr. perry: we do not need troops in 150 something countries in nearly 900 military bases. i would say that we do not need a standing army, but at the least, i will say that it should
not be funded through theft and coercion. the military should be as big as it can be offered donations and bake sales. [laughter] [applause] larry: governor johnson, we spend more on the military than the next 15 countries combined, how large should it be? where would you cut? mr. johnson: i think we spend more than all of the countries come by, more than all of the countries in the world combined. i would look to reduce the size of the military. i say that it is offense and i would be looking to reduce expenditures by 20% and that would not be going back but a handful of years. i think that you need a skeptic at the table when it comes to military budget. the fact that we have 100,000 troops on the ground in europe, does anybody see logic in that,
yet it continues to go on. as i mentioned earlier, we have executive treaties, not implemented by congress. it is with 69 countries that we are obliged to defend their borders, it does not seem right. the fact that we have bases anywhere in the world where now we can fly aircraft from the refuelingecause of capabilities, we do not need air force bases. let's start with a 20% reduction in the military, which would not reduce our ability to provide for an impenetrable national defense. defense. [applause] mr. peterson. my pick for: secretary of defense said, the polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody that you need.
we need a strong national defense, but the focus is on defense. we have not had an audit since 2011. i will demand an audit of the pentagon. trillion and.5 they cannot compete with the f-16. i will find -- and we will make meaningful cuts to the military and we will put a stop to the industrial complex in the united states. [applause] mr. mcafee, would you as president pull the united states out of nato, the international monetary fund, and or you the united nations -- and or the united nations? mr. mcafee: all three of them, no doubt. larry: mr. perry? mr. perry: as soon as possible. larry: governor johnson? mr. johnson: we should have
diplomacy and engage ourselves in diplomacy to avoid what would in fact and is in fact, a military complex. the greatest threat in the world is north korea, at some point kim will have ballistic missiles that work. how about engaging china in a hand in hand, let's do something about north korea. let's do something about kim unifying the koreas and being able to withdraw 40,000 troops in south korea. larry: mr. peterson? when you pull the u.s. out of nato, the international monetary -- , and mr. peterson: absolutely. larry: mr. feldman? like it, it tells
us who our friends are. and it is a big waste of time. [laughter] [applause] larry: mr. perry? [laughter] larry: are libertarians isolationists? absolutely not, call me an isolationist for not wanting to invade poland is like saying i do not want to invade my neighbor's fridge. switzerland has one of the best foreign policies in the world and they are not isolationists. has anybody ever had swiss chocolate, swiss cheese, or a swiss army knife? it is not isolation. larry: governor johnson? mr. johnson: if the united states is attacked, we will attack back. and we should have an invincible national defense, not offense. so diplomacy to the health, --
hilt, engage countries in unitesting, free trade the world and it is something that needs to be always promoted. but no, the united states, as president, no. i am not an isolationist. perry -- mr. peterson? mr. peterson: it is those bomb foreign countries and caused people to hate us which causes us to be more isolated. some are isolationists. isn't it splendid? we have homage in the country -- amish in the country, people are to be free to be isolated if they desire. it is time for the government to h--out of the middle east and bring troops home. [applause]
larry: dr. feldman? dr. feldman: we are not isolationists, we just believe in intervening by dropping philanthropy and free speech and free trade on other countries, instead of bombs. [applause] mr. mcafee? is a country minding its own business isolationism? is a country opening doors to free-trade and immigration isolationism? no, it is the opposite of isolationism. isolationism is wanting to impose your will, culture, and their own way of life. and our own arrogance on to others in the world. [applause] larry: let's turn our attention to social policy. governor johnson, between the
democratic party or the republican party, which is the most anti-freedom, anti-libertarian -- or from a libertarian point of view, which is the lesser of two evils? mr. johnson: they are both equally, they both equally have their quirks -- warts. let's engage them in civil dialogue, the opportunity exists this election to really take from both sides and point out that each side has their strong points and that is with the libertarian party represents, the strong points on each side. [applause] larry: mr. peterson? mr. peterson: they call us the third-party mobile i think that we feel like we live in a one-party state, because they are two wings of the same bird. one wing is