tv Heritage Foundation Cato Institute Interns Debate CSPAN August 13, 2018 12:28pm-2:14pm EDT
time. starting tonight at 8:30 p.m. the voting acts rights. and from the freedom fest debate, is faith compatible with reason. wednesday at 8 p.m. michael eric dyson with his book "what truth sounds like. rfk, james baldwin and our unfinished conversation with race in america". thursday, microsoft president brad smith with the future computed. artificial intelligence and its role in society. on friday, talking about publishing authors from the political right and left. watch book tv this week in prime time on c-span2. >> summer interns for the cato institute and heritage debate
policy, physician assisted suicide, foreign policy and the opioid epidemic. [applause] >> and welcome to the heritage foundation. my name is colleen harman and i'm the program goeshlt with the young leadership program. ty moment please silence your phones and devices. it's my pleasure to welcome dr. kim holmes who will be giving introductory remarks in our libertarian versus conservati conservativism debate. dr. holmes? >> everybody, what a great event. really honored to be able to welcome all of you to the heritage foundation.
this is an event that all of us have eagerly anticipated. the annual event of the heritage and cato intern debate. interns at both of the institutions have been hard at work all summer. they have come to the end of this, of their time in washington and this debate makes a fitting capstone to the experiences you've had this year. i want to thank everyone here for their attendance and here at the bottom line. this is the first time, perhaps the first time ever that this event has been here at heritage. i want to welcome everyone, all of you from the cato to the heritage foundation. and i want to welcome our cato colleagues that helped make it possible. mark howser, student program managerment katie, the student programs coordinator and thank our moderator this evening,
stephanie slade from reason magazine. of course, welcome all of you to heritage and to cato. all of you involved in the intern debates and the interngs to do much hard work for this year, much research and much thought and precipitation have gone in to make this a great event. libertarian advocate individual liberty, iment willed government and free markets and sometimes the shared values lead libertarians and conservatives to the public policy. they are similarities we should recognize, but they're doing in looking at the policy issues facing our nation. we are here this evening to investigate and to debate these principles from different angles, from different viewpoints and from different
frames of reference. >> there will be points scored. there will be arguments defended and refuted and a lively exchange. there will be a discussion, of course, about who won and who lost and that proposition is, is libertarianism or conservative superior political philosophy. but our efforts here this evening, frankly, are not all about policy or political philosophy, or even differences of opinion or who wins or loses. as we look across the landscape of public discourse there is a sense that the lines around civil free speech are hardening. in the news, on college campuses and on social media. the debate no longer seems a catalyst for individual group, but instead for group confrontation. i think we're gathered here to
affirm our commitment from the air heritage foundation and cato, it could be done in a spirit of civility and in good fellowship. that the free exchange of ideas and opinions and the right to express these conditions is the cornerstone of american public life. the great initial poet john milton said, give me the liberty to know, to utter, to argue freely according to conscience and to have these above all liberties. a respectful of exchange and debate provide the opportunity to learn from others and also to schorpen one's own thinking, which after all are the hallmarks are a free and engaged and informed citizenry. now, i hope that all of you enjoy tonight's debate. it's something that i'm sure will allow us to strengthen and defend the commitments we have to free speech and to civil
public discourse i hope all of you will take back to your work places, to your schools and friends and families that you have. the advocates of these principles wherever you, and however you can, and know that these principles of free speech and freedom of thought will be on display here tonight. notwithstanding the differences they may have on how they interpret them. so, i wish all of them up here to have the very best of luck. i'd like to get started, but i want to also say, as i said to you in private, let the best philosophy win. thank you very much. [applaus [applause] >> thank you, dr. holmes. i do have a few notes to our audience before our debate begins. we will have a reception immediately following the conclusion of the debate.
in allison flair and our rooftop. there will be ushers in the auditorium who will guide you, through the stairs, and we ask the audience to be quiet and have respect to our panelists who are not debaters, however, there will be time during the political debate for questions from the audience. please wait to be called upon for the moderator and wait for the microphone to reach you. if you're viewing in overflow or on-line, send your questions to speaker heritage.org. and share with the social media with a #on twitter and instagram which you can see on your screen. we would encourage your thoughts on the debate with a quick survey after the debate. and what questions and exchanges were interesting and
who you think ultimately won the debate. it's libertarianism versus conservativism. not heritage or cato. and the debate will not speak on behalf of either think tank. and keep that in mind as you post publicly about the debate. we'd like to add gratitude to colleagues, lectures, seminars and media, and event planning for assisting with the logistics of the event and thank mark, neil and mckenzie at cato, lastly, i'll regret to tell you as you probably know, our scheduled moderator, charles cook was unable to make it from national review due to an emergency. we wish him the best. perhaps it's a testament as a popularity of the topic and importance of the debate we quickly found a moderator ready to meet the challenge. it's my pleasure this evening to introduce you to stephanie
slayed, the managing editor of "reason" magazine. she was selected to the robert novac journalism fellowship. in 2013 named a fellow or the prize of journalism. previously she worked as a pollster, a writer for news world and report. please join me in welcoming stephanie slade. [applaus [applause] >> all right. thank you so much for having me, i am excited to be here. a few of you may have noticed i'm not charlie cook. i can show you that no one is more disappointed about that than me, he's brilliant and it's rather intimidating to try to fill his shoes, but i will do my best tonight. when i found out this position of debate moderation for libertarianism versus conservativism, couldn't make
it, i identify as a small libertarian. on the other hand virtually all of my colleagues, i actually go to church. [laughter] >> exceptional for that reason. that makes me basically the token conservative around there. tonight's debate will take the form of five sections. there will be first introductory remarks and responses from both seems. second will be a topical debate, so i've selected four topics and each people will debate and discuss those topics. the third is persuasion. each team will try to convince you why the other side should come over to the dark side, as it were. the fourth section, question and answer, a chance for you to weigh in and i'll take questions from the audience and those who e-mail who might be watching from on-line and then
each side will have a chance for concluding remarks. first up tonight is going to be our conservatives to give their opening statement and then we'll move along to the libertarians and invite you up to the podium at this time. >> thank you all for coming. once told a parable about a canary, and professor thought he thought the canary would be happier outside the cage. the canary flew around the room and out the window and eaten by a presumably much bigger and hungrier bird. it was simple, just because a man is lib rated from his
restraints doesn't necessarily make him free. conservatives and libertarians share a love for liberty and it's made us potent political parters on a number of issues. our support for the free market. our opposition to the regulatory state and support for the rights of all individuals, but where we disagree and where the crux of this debate lies is over the nature and extent of that freedom. the question of tonight's debate is not should we desire freedom, but rather, what kind of freedom should we desire. we conservatives think we have a few answers. conservativism as a political philosophy is animated by the preamble of the constitution, the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. this historic phrase teaches us two important lessons. first, not all liberty needs to blessings. just ask the canary.
only bordered liberty does that. the and second, we have a duty to preserve liberty for our descendents. but if we're to pass the torch of liberty from us to our children and from our children to their children, our society must promote things like personal responsibility, the value of face and family, and positive duties to others in our communities. we can rob the future of their freedom by both overregulation and excess. and it's this separation that separates us distinctly from our libertarian colleagues. libertarianism freedom and government in so far as it protects the freedom. in their minds the sum and substance of all political philosophy is let me do what i want and i'll let you do what you want. it's deceptively simple and self-indulgence. the art of politics is not that
simple. french reformer rowland was eventually beheaded by french revolutionaries and went to the guillotine with the words, oh, liberty, what crimes have been committed through your name. her cry rings through today. in the liberty, the traditional family, leading to intergenerational poverty. in the name of liberty, abortion access was leading to the death of 60 million innocent children and in the name of liberty, drugs were spread from one corner of this country to the next destroying individuals and communities. this is the problem with the libertarian project. not that they desire social destruction, but that their quest for liberty knows no moderation. they said order was the firts need of the soul and therefore, the first need of society. hers is the wisdom of the ages. in the end, conservativism
better protects liberty because it creates the kind of society where liberty can thrive. it was ordered liberty that was the bedrock principle of the founding generation, the principle that has secured the last 250 years of american prosperity, and it's a principle that should be neither forgotten nor forsaken. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> at this time i'd like to invite the libertarian team to give their opening remarks. >> we would like to thank the heritage foundation for hosting this debate. a firm belief and necessity of individual rights and limited government anaimates.
if libertarian fears he fights not beside an ally, but a friend of convenient. cast an eye over conservatives for freedom when it's so often forgotten in practice. individual liberty is not an heirloom of merely sentimental value to be pawned for other ends. it's the guiding principle fundamental to america's material and mortal progress which no libertarian will abandon. a simple observation provokes the libertarian's distrust. conservatives forget the primary importance of liberties and their enthusiasm for the way of life that has arisen under its blessings. in a democracy, the beliefs of the majority enjoys a prosperity that is into custom, so misled by traditionalism, conservatives have elevated these in competition with liberties.
perhaps aware that the subordination of individual rights to other principles is tyranny, conservatives endorse that secondary values like the moral rejection of drugs can receive political priority without danger to freedom. yet, if at the expense of our rights, we bend too far toward a lesser principle. we threaten all of our values. for we compromise the support that perceives them. the liberty of one goal among many with the tyranny zealously disavowed. suppresses liberties at home and imposes his will abroad. libertarians like conservatives appreciate the virtues from which as a foundation americans have raised a great nation, the courage of our soldiers, the genius of our scholars, the quiet strength of 0 our families, but we understand that these virtues cannot survive under the specter of
d despotism. libertarian holds that each may, respecting equal rights of others, determine the standard of her own happiness free of coercion and the libertarian society, therefore, latches the door against tyranny. conservatives who believe sincerely that imposing certain values by force is the means of preserving liberty rather than its negation should it tend to the consequences of their policies. instead of peaceful foreign relations grounded in free exchange, free movement and national defense. conservatives offer the gladiatorial specter of arms in the language of fear and built in the sacrifice of our dollars, our privacy and our lives. their wars for the expansion of liberty are the practice of jacobions not jeffersonnions.
they continue to endorse interference with sex, identity and end of life decisions. tonight we present an alternative to the inconsistencies of the conservative attitude. that all t alternative is the society. ramparts against tyranny, the individual undisturbed by the grasping hand of government pursues his aspirations and forms his convictions in personal safety and peaceful tolerance of his neighbors like endeavors. tested in the open competition of ideas, driven forward for the reward of property rights, distributes its fruits to the median of voluntary exchange harmonizing success of the citizen and his community. we believe that this society in which each individual, together with his fellow citizens, is free to make up his life the most he can should appeal to the conservative as well. therefore, conservatives rally again to the cause of liberty.
together, we can restore the free society. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> the conservative team will now give a two-minute rebuttal. >> so our libertarian friend just accused of us of being the one who have forsaken the cause of liberty, but i think we would contend that it's actually conservativism that allows us to get the best of liberty avoiding the pitfalls. rather than the conception of ordered liberty. i think it's a caricature accusing us in a two minute stretch. the problem with libertarian, their quest for individualism is respectful and alternative society that conservativism was composed largely of individual choice for economic growth that
conservatives agree with. what libertarians don't acknowledge is what they call personal choices often metastasize into political catastrophes. i mean, take, for example, the abuse of prescription drugs, oip yoids a little drug. that's not just destroyed individuals, it's destroyed regions like appalachia. and they say that's big department of the and they're going to turn it against you and turn into tyranny some day and there's certainly a risk of power being accused, we conservatives were the first to say that when we wrote the confusion constitution. [laughter] >> , but liberty can be just as dangerous. james madison said that freedom is threatened equally by abuses of power and abuses of liberty. and remember that we're not just talking about this generation. the licenses of this generation can be the fetters of the next,
which is why it's the conservative who doesn't dislike liberty. we want to order it and direct it so that today's people and our descendents can enjoy the liberty that needs to prosperity rather than slavery. >> and now we'll hear a two minute rebuttal from the libertarians. >> so, i think our conservative friends disserve husba us by categorizing us. we think that the country should have much, much fewer laws. but not anarchy. people should live their lives however they want so long as they don't harm another human being or infringe upon the rights of another human being. you have to ask yourself how
conservatives with prosperity. think about the long term effects in this country. do we protect prosperity, with the taking more and more privacy rights. we're giving away rights to the government that future generations won't be able to enjoy. i'm thrilled that the conservative brought up the war on drugs and the harms of the opioid crisis. i can't think of a bigger failure of a government policy that they still apparently defend because all the harms of opioid use, as are because the government made opioids illegal and created a black market. that's why you see 50% of ep yo yoid-- opioids are because of the effects of the fentanyl market.
the government tending to prohibit, taking away more of our rights and it's incredibly ineffective and it creates more violence by creating disorder. libertarianism actually protects liberty. because we understand that this is a cherished gift given to us by the founding fathers and conservatives have abandoned the founding fathers by expanding the principles and making it more unsach. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> next up is our topical debate. we're going to start with the libertarians for this one. you'll have three minutes to answer-- to respond and then three minutes, one minute and one minute. >> the first topic that i'd like to hear from the libertarians on is is this:
civil society must be protected with prohibitions on people's devices. >> liberty should be when it comes to politics. we believe there's more to life than liberty. civil society rests on a sense of responsibilities and morality. we're skeptical of government deck tating to us what it believes to be correct morals and values. libertarian and conservatives agree that government gets many issues wrong. alcohol prohibition, longstanding interracial marriage should have taught us examples of government overreach. yet conservatives want government intervention when it comes to drug use, pornography and prostitution. and libertarians understand that it can know the be imposed by the government. and such have costs. and curbing these does not protect civil society and harms it while taking away our rights as well. our personal belief might led
us to scorn such activities, but people we disagree with have rights as well. this also sets up the precedent of taking away liberties that future generations won't enjoy. the only morality reprehensible activity that the government may justly stop is those that i think fringe on the rights of others. not activities thought to be by a bureaucrat. the next bureaucrat might decides that sugary beverages and gun ownership are what the government must curb. without a doubt the government should serve justice to those who murder, steal and rape, but not those who engage in consensual activities. when the government defines this. a person swore in a club and
was arrested. why would we trust the government to know what is proper moral conduct. morals are attempting to prohibit vices is a vain efforts. people will engage in activities anyway about you the attempt to prohibit creates a world that's more violent. the war on drugs increases violence by transferring to the black market. and illegal prostitution with sex workers. in order to live in a free society, we must be able to tolerate the activities that may not align with our moral values. we must remember that the government gets things wrong. by accepting this we will achieve a freer and just society for us and free speech
for everyone. thank you. [applause] >> conservatives. >> in george washington's farewell address you can find this statement: religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society. both libertarians and conservatives understand that government needs to prohibit certain conduct, such as murder in order to protect civil society. the problem is that libertarians have ignored how law shapes culture and how culture shapes beliefs and actions. it seems libertarianism assumes the virtues of character that sustain a free market, are spontaneous and can be satisfied by mere self-interest. we recognize the free market teaches certain values, among them are thriftiness, and politeness. however, the economy on its own cannot fulfill the goals of the
political community. let me be clear, conservativism does not say that all vices should be prohibited. rather, the question that conservativism asks us to ask is at what point do individual vices reverbate-- >> is this my three minutes response? i'm confused by the response. my apologies. i asked the question a second ago. at what point are they reve reverberating through the economy? if i take my own life, that's a tremendous tragedy, however, that does not mean the government should step in and try to ban or regulate everything that could be used to commit suicide, but it's if the medical community is involved and the art of healing is transformed into the art of
killing, there's a clear imperative for the government to step in and prevent the cheapening of leave on a societal scale. if someone decides to go on a drug-fueled vision quest in the mojave desert, there's a legitimate argument the government need not get involved. when you have hundreds of thousands of people, particularly young people, destroying their lives, their families and their communities through addiction to meth or heroin, how can it be anything, but callus to continue insisting no level of government has any responsibility to its citizens to intervene? a man once said release man from the context of communities you get not freedom or rights, but aloneness and subjects to passion -- there's a partnership of the dead, the
living and unborn. libertarianism depends to orders up spontaneously, but conservativism understand the kind of civilization in which we live is painful through much trial and error through the centuries. it's because of this long memory that conservativism better protects liberty than libertarianism. conservativism creates a society in which they thrive across generations. that's why our great majority heritage is a conservative heritage. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> now we'll hear a one-minute rebuttal from the libertarians. >> so, liberty preserves our special society and preserves those institutions that the government isn't involved in, such as the family, marriage,
religion, et cetera. when government interferes in these realms, they are the consequences are often disastrous. take the laws, for example, that bend in a racial marriage. this is a government trying to curb a vice by saying two people of different races couldn't marry. if we couldn't trust the government then, why would we trust the government now? this is an example of many things that infringes upon the rights of others. conservatives create more violence by attempt to go prohibit sings such as drugs. the reason that so many people are having their lives ruined by heroin and meth is because these products are more insafe on the black market. this is because when you can't have this in a legal market, they're more likely to be contaminated and this is why there are more overdoses. out of time.
libertarian skepticism of government intervention in the economy, especially on the federal level. the founders had the same view but also recognized a proper goal for people, especially in the regulation of devices -- >> thank you. >> and i don't think anyone here would call the founders sadists. thank you. [applause] >> for the next topic, we're going to start over here on my left, and the prompt that you'll be responding to is restraint should be the guiding principle of u.s. foreign policy. >> thank you. conservatives agree that restraint should be a guiding principle of foreign policy because conservatives are desensitive realists. conservativism shares
libertarian's concern about the tendency of a robust national defense to strengthen the national government. but we also recognize that we must have a balance between maximizing freedom at home and protecting citizens from threats beyond our borders. because in an age of globalized threats, we require u.s. commitments abroad. a conservative foreign policy is one that emphasizes prudence over dogma, because national security is not a single-player game. while history can inform con them area solutions, it -- contemporary solutions, statesmanship is required. we have to take other nations' actions into account which means there's no predictable formula for how to conduct foreign policy. our lin arertarian friends -- our libertarian friends would certainly agree that information is decentralized. no more true than in foreign
policy. the question before us tonight is what does restraint look like in the real world. libertarianism is fond of saying the united states needs to reduce its role in the world but rarely, if ever, can it tell you by how much. the constitution establishes guiding principles. for example, it includes measures designed to prevent national security from becoming an instrument of tyranny. but it also allows flexibility. the founders could never have conceived of. the enduring challenge for conservatives is how to maintain the flexibility required to make national security effective without hijacking it for partisan political ends. and we believe that the way to meet that challenge is through prudence, not through rigid axioms that cannot realistically be expected to guide foreign policy in a globalized and constantly-changing world. nato is a great example of such a prudent policy. it protected europe, and by extension, the united states during the cold war. today it serves as a bulwark against a resurgent russia.
i'd say that's well worth our investment. finish cato vice president david bose likes to say that libertarian principles can be understood by kindergarteners. well, i'm sorry to break it to him, but foreign policy in the real world is a lot more complicated than kindergarten. and only a conservative foreign policy is up to the task of keeping america safe. thank you. [applause] >> three minutes to the libertarians. >> thomas jefferson's pledge in his first inaugural address was to create peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. as libertarians, we share thomas jefferson's vision and believe a restrained foreign policy is the best way to secure our liberties and secure our country. the united states is not more powerful when we involve ourselves in unnecessary conflicts. a restrained foreign policy will
give us a military that can protect us when legitimate threats emerge. we save lives, money and preserve our own freedom when we do so. we are not naive pacifists. intervention is justifiable when there's a compelling u.s. national security interest at stake. we know how to pay for it, we have a precise mission and public support and we're sure that we've exhausted all other means. under these criteria, the invasion of afghanistan, world war ii and the war with the barbary states are all justifiable. iraq and vietnam wars are not. conservatives mistakenly assume restraint and military strength are mutually exclusive. the opposite is true. when our military is overextended and fighting half a dozen wars at once without clear missions, we are weaker. if russia and china do pose a threat to us, do we want our military's readiness to be compromised by being spread thin and having resources depleted, or do we want to have a strong, focused military ready to defend
ourselves? in addition, we must consider the costs of the current u.s. foreign policy. the defense budget costs $700 million a year. we spend more on our military than the next seven countries combined, and this attributes to an astronomical national debt that makes us weaker, not stronger. we've lost countless soldiers to avoidable wars. we owe it to our troops to not only give them missions that are defined and winnable, but they also deserve the right to know that the missions they serve in are necessary as well. we should never forget that people at home feel the effects of war. the national security agency, a product of the cold war, has expanded exponentially throughout the 20th century as u.s. military entanglements have increased. as a result, millions of americans have lost their privacy rights under big brother's eye. the tsa, the patriot act and the u.s. freedom act won't go back into pandora's box when the war ends. our children and grandchildren will never know the liberties
that we gave away. we are not a beacon of democracy when we impose our beliefs and values that can only emerge organically. the best way to show the strength of our country is only by wielding power when necessary. to parafrays john quincy adams -- paraphrase john quincy adams, we should be a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all and champion and vined vined -- vindicator only by our own. we shall be a beacon of liberty only by having restraints in foreign policy. thank you. [applause] >> and now a rebuttal from the conservatives. >> well, our libertarian colleagues both want a smaller budget for our military, but also greater readiness to meet threats such as china and russia. the reality -- the claim that we don't need a cold war-sized military, the question, i mean,
look at the multiplicity of threats we face today. the idea that a weak military, emaciated by obama-style sequestration, can adequately defend americans is both callous and unrealistic, and it causes me to wonder whether libertarians would rather save money than lives. conservativism can provide a real foreign policy solution because it allows for flexible responses while still remaining rooted in the key guiding principle of peace through strength. thank you. [applause] >> and now we'll hear a one minute rebuttal from the libertarians. >> greater military readiness will be achieved by making the military smaller than it is. we are more powerful, i repeat, we are more powerful when we are more -- when we are ready to respond to conflicts that immediately threaten us as opposed to fighting a dozen wars that have no relevance to us
whatsoever. this policy would save lives. the assertion that we want to save money instead of lives is absurd, because we're the ones advocating for restraint. we are the ones advocating that we should not be sending more men and women into battle if they truly do not need to be there. we will be a safer country if we have a truly restrained foreign policy. we do not need the size of the military in the united states to be the size it's been. and they say that it's not realistic, but the fact of the matter is that we are more powerful than all of the other militaries, and we would still do well to defend ourselves and our liberties by practicing more restraint. thank you. [applause] >> okay. a prompt for the libertarians. three minutes, please. physician-assisted deaths should be legal.
>> a limited legal framework for physician-assisted death allows terminally ill individuals to end their lives with dignity and according according to their own wishes. to force these individuals to endure unnecessary suffering is an exceptional power for the government to assume over the lives of its citizens, and as such, it requires an exceptional justification, one which demonstrates that overwhelming harm to society would follow without the violation of individual rights. our country, which already guarantees patients' right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and requests sedation to unconsciousness without nutrition, will struggle to justify according to this standard the prohibition of similar actions by which patients may end their lives. in contrast to the dutch model, a reasonable law restricts physicals-assisted death to terminally ill adults of sound mind whose consent is verified and whose medication is
self-administered. state laws exist in our country that, despite imperfections, substantially reflect these principles, and they have retained them unchanged for as many as 20 years. under these laws, rather than a culture of abuse, we have seen a small number of participants. in oregon, less than four-tenths of a percent of those dying annually. the america of permissive european-style euthanasia remains a mirage. an alternative to a humane end of life regime with safeguards against misuse is, as current experience proves, not a regime of life, but a regime of desperation. dangerous objects are in every home in america, and those who cannot end their lives in deliberate comfort will rashly avail themselves of these crude means of self-destruction to the distress of their families. far better to give them a structured method that confirms their prognosis, enjoins their reflection and identifies coercive pressures. patients, under a system whose
safeguards require them to confront the gravity of their choice, can be certain that they have made a thoughtful decision. indeed, a significant proportion of those prescribed lethal doses under state the laws choose not to end their lives. far better as well to protect doctors who today must choose between their duty to alleviate the suffering of their patients and their duty to the law. the legalization of physician-assisted death does not compel doctors to prescribe lethal doses, nor should it permit them the recommend self-administration. it merely allows doctors the option to advise patients who ask of all possible remedies to their distress including the most humane, least traumatic way of ending their lives. the libertarian position embraces the dignity of human life by insisting that in our compassion for our neighbors we take seriously their sufferings and desires. anything less is the paternalistic reduction of the human being to an object to be managed rather than a person deserving of empathy. libertarians offer understanding
to their fellow citizens faced with the tragic choice between agony and death, whichever path they choose. thank you. [applause] >> three minutes on the same prompt for the conservatives. thanks. >> for centuries one of the foundational principles of medicine was do no harm. but libertarians are content to see this line erased from the hippocratic oath in favor of their favorite substitute, a market system, a free exchange of goods and services. except here the good is death, and the service is euthanasia. be no -- no such market should exist. a society that sanctions such conduct cannot hope to long maintain its respect for human dignity. this is why we conservatives believe in the inherent value of life from conception to natural death and oppose physician-assisted suicide.
of there's two primary reasons why rejecting our traditional respect for life is so dangerous. and the first is that physician-assisted suicide inevitably evolves into death by coercion. the arguments presented inevitably break down in practice. now, the libertarian position just advanced is an interesting one because they said about consent. people should be able to choose this if they're in agony. but then why, as they suggest, do we need to limit it to end of life cases or the terminally ill? if it's just about consent, why can't anybody choose to die? in fact, that's just what happened in the netherlands last year when a woman who was 40 years old elected for suicide. she had tonights, which is a tingling in the ear which is 100% treatable, and she had two children who she left orphaned. eventually, the argument started to fade and people start to care more about quality of life than just concept. but when, of course, it's all about quality of life, then who gets to make that call?
is and even when you say the individual does, that also isn't how it works in practice. again in the netherlands, some studies estimate that up to 50% of physician-assisted suicides happened without explicit consent including a dutch woman who was literally pinned to an operating table last year as she screamed, "i don't want to die," and was lethally injected by her family. when life stops becoming meaningful for life's sake, consolidations -- considerations like the cost of living and the quality of life become elevated. and this is why, secondly, the it erodes the dignity of the human person. the reason that hasn't happened in the united states yet like it has in europe and the few states that have legalized it is because of us, the conservatives, who have advocated for a right the life from birth to death and haven't accepted this transformation of the community that is supposed to heal and to dispensers of death. inevitably, when society
sanctions physician-assisted suicide, it invites a cost benefit analysis into the worth and the dignity of a human person, especially when they're going through suffering. and it's quick -- it's not a slippery slope before society starts to see the ellerly and even children -- elderly and even children as a burden. patients put their lives into the hands of doctors. society shouldn't empower those same doctors to end them. [applause] >> one-minute rebuttal, please. >> we are not the the netherlands, and we are not sliding toward the dutch. [laughter] the laws in oregon for physician-assisted death in 1997, year, 2018, hawaii passed a law allowing physician-assisted death. guess what? it looks a lot like oregon. and if the conservatives want to
pat themselves on the back for insuring that hawaii passed a similar law, that's just fine with me. they can. americans have different values than europeans, and they don't seem to be changing. we're not going to be euthanizing anybody, we don't support euthanizing anybody, and i don't think you do either. moreover, we are not suggesting this is some sort of cost benefit analysis that the family should do for other individuals. that is why we have safeguards, and that is why we advocate safeguards. even the faulty safeguards we have now are not doing a terribly poor job at protecting individuals. those who are surveyed that participate in physician-assisted death regimes far and away respond most often that they have made their decision because they have lost the ability to enjoy their lives. it is a far greater percentage than those who say they feel like a burden to their family or feel financial pressure. >> thank you. one-minute response? >> the libertarian reformers in the netherlands didn't pitch the idea of physician-assisted
suicide with we're going to kill your children and elderly against their concept. it started with an a argument from consent. we want people who are suffering to be able to choose to die the way they want to. the problem is that almost inevitably slides. it almost inevitably turns into a slippery slope, because there is a difference between refusing treatment -- which is currently allowed in the united states -- and active killing or allowing the medical community to participate in a person choosing to kill themselves, because the latter gives medical practitioners a new ability and something new that they can recommend. for example, in belgium we learned just last week that children aged 9 and 11 were given lethal injections. 9 and 11. belgium didn't adopt assisted-suicide laws because they thought that was going to happen, but it was an inevitable consequence of laws which stopped protecting the right to life which is why conservatives
insist we don't make the devil's bargain now. [applause] >> the fourth and final prompt that we'll debate tonight, and this one will go, let's see, who's up next? to my -- to the left here, to my left, your right -- [laughter] the conservatives. [laughter] your right. immigration reform should start with the enforcement and implementation of current laws. >> speaking at the united nations, the president said our government's first duty is to its people, to our citizens, to serve their needs, to insure their safety, to preserve their rights and to defend their values.
conservativism agrees with this understanding of government, and consequently, recognizes two goals in regards to u.s. immigration policy that has historically governed our nation. first is maintaining and enhancing the unique culture of the u.s. and the second is preserving the public safety of american citizens. to accomplish these goals, therefore, conservativism demands we enforce our current immigration laws in order to stem illegal immigration. make no mistake, conservativism is pro-immigration. we recognize the work ethic of many immigrants, both past and present, but illegal immigration damages our prosperity by threatening the safety of our citizens and undermining american society by replacing the melting pot with the salad bowl. in 2008 tony bone bologna were brutally murdered by an ms-13
gang member. even though he was an illegal immigrant, he had never been deported. and this isn't the only such story. a recent texas department of public safety report shows that out of 245,000 criminal aliens incarcerated between 2011-2018, 66% were in the country illegally. they were convicted of 600 murders, 30,000 assaults, 3300 sexual assaults, 38,000 drug crimes and 274 kidnappings. this is why the constitutional duty to enforce our current immigration laws is essential to protecting american lives and american values. we continue to be the most generous country in the world when it comes to immigration, allowing in more than one million illegal immigrants per year out of a nation of 330 million. but nobody has the right to be an american. it's up to us, the sovereign people, to decide who we want to
accept. and that is why the constitution explicitly grants the federal government the power over naturalization. we cannot ignore the damage that illegal immigration has done to american culture. a hundred years ago we assimilated large numbers of immigrants through an education system dedicated to americanization. but what happens now that we live in a time where not only is assimilation not practiced, but actively discouraged by a culture being torn apart by identity politics? conservativism understands that addressing the problem of assimilation is critical, otherwise we risk facing the same threat -- or same fate as europe. it's just like president reagan said, "a nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation." thank you. [applause] >> three minutes. >> a typical immigrant sets out
for our country because he believes in the american experiment and his place in it. he is, on average, more educated than his former countrymen, yet receives lower wages than his future countrymen. but he often joins a community of other immigrants facilitating financial and cultural assimilation. he is also more likely to start a business than natives, more likely to innovate than natives, and within a decade or so, he will earn the wage of natives. ambition, community and entrepreneurship propel them to success. nevertheless, our current laws are anti-immigrant, stifling free movement. waiting lists today are millions long, and visa eligibility rules would exclude most americans' ancestors. en reasonably severe restrictions, punished law-abiding applicants interjects state control into the labor market. some conservatives support our exclusionary laws for fear that immigrants end danger our -- endanger our culture. we share concern for responsible citizenship, but immigrants are
not the threat conservatives imagine. by standard measures, immigrants assimilate well. more than 90% of their children learn english. intermarriage rates with natives are high too. direct measures are equally encouraging. surveyed immigrants share similar views on free speech, wealth redistribution, health policy and crime spending with non-immigrants. this is no surprise. american culture has reached many potential immigrants, and the self-reliance, entrepreneurship and innovation of those who do immigrate demonstrate their pre-assimilation into the culture. creativity is good for growth, and immigrants are responsible for a quarter of new businesses and patents. in an era of low fertility rates, immigration also provides workers for domestic businesses, increasing production and demand. from immigration we have more customers and more goods. this is because immigrants do not simply replace natives. even skeptical researchers find negligible or even positive effects of immigration on wages. immigrants add to the economy
because their skills complement native ones. immigrants can choose destinations that need their abilities, making both natives and immigrants more productive. this free market intuition, verified by decades of empirical analysis, is now economic consensus. despite favorable economic evidence, some conservatives oppose liberalized immigration on security grounds. libertarians, too, value security and accept background checks. however, immigrants -- legal and illegal -- commit less violent crime than natives, and from 1975 to 2015, the chance of dying from a foreign-born terrorist attack wasless than .003 of a percent. the criticisms of immigration are far too weak to support our restrictive, centrally-planned system of controls. no good can come from perpetuating bad laws that only degrades our legal institutions. liberalized immigration is a step toward freedom, innovation and prosperity. thank you.
[applause] >> a one-minute rebuttal, please. >> to be honest with you, i really do think that taylor actually made a lot of good points in terms of what immigration's been able to do for this country, legal immigration. and i started by saying that we are pro-immigration. but i have to question whether he answered the question -- whether he answered the prompt, which is that illegal reform -- immigration reform should start with the implementation and enforcement of current laws. and that was my focus. because illegal immigrants clearly do not respect american values in breaking the law to come here. and the question isn't whether or not illegals commit crimes at a higher or lower rate than normal americans, but rather that none of these crimes would have occurred at all if our immigration laws were not properly -- or were properly enforced. what conservativism advocates is the rule of law. what conservativism advocates is
enforcing our current laws to encourage and reward legal immigrants, not to put them on the same as those who -- level as those who skirt or the rules to come here legally. we promote continuing the greatness of american culture through proper assimilation. thank you. [applause] >> a final one-minute rebuttal. >> indeed, we believe we have answered the prompt. there is no way to say that our current laws are pro-immigrant and conservatives who support them cannot themselves be pro-immigrant. moreover, to argue for them on the basis of the rule of law is to argue that the enforcement of bad laws increases respect for law. that is ridiculous. moreover, the conservatives suggest that we have a constitutional duty to enforce these laws. i would ask them to find in the constitution the words "immigration and customs
enforcement." [laughter] i can tell them they will not find it. it is true that we have rules allowed by the constitution for naturalization, and it is true that we should limit citizenship to those who show that they can join productively in our national life who have joined our culture, but i would ask them if they believe that illegal immigrants who risk every day being grabbed and thrown from the life that they have chosen in this country and that they have -- and to be taken from there and taken back to their country which they have voluntarily left do not value america. >> thank you both. [applause] >> for the fourth section of the debate, we're going to dial up the persuasion a little bit more. [laughter] so we're going to start with the conservatives this time. and i'm going to ask somebody from the conservative team to come up to the podium and to answer the following question:
why should libertarians be conservative? >> look, my pitch is pretty simple . if you really love liberty, be a conservative. look, i understand the libertarian impulse. human freedom is a beautiful thing, and big government is usually a threat to it. but i can't speak for every individual who calls themselves a conservative, but conservativism as a political philosophy be, certainly are, desires freedom. but conservatives also understand something additional and essential. unfetteredded autonomy, when abused, can be just as harmful as authoritarianism. not just to the common good, but to the liberty that we prized in the first place. this is why we believe, as conservatives, that government has a limited but important role in ordering liberty. just as we thwart abuses of
power through the checks and balances of the constitution, we thwart abuses of liberty through the rule of law. and i think there are two implications of this reality that i'll ask my libertarian friends to consider. the first is that this is why social issues, so-called, are political issues. many libertarians recoil from conservativism because they accuse us of, quote-unquote, legislating morality. forgetting that all law legislates morality from prohibitions on murder to protections of rights. those are laws based on moral claims and understandings. the question has never been the law legislate morality but, rather, what morality will the law legislate. in answering this question, conservatives have understood the impact that individual choices have on the political community. the only moral limits that libertarians would impose on such liberty is the non-aggression principle. the problem is, is that many
choices may not directly threaten property but still affect others' freedom in more subtle but no less pernicious ways. those who are pro-choice deny freedom to the unborn. those who are addicted to drugs burden the freedom of their families, and those who have crossed the border to commit crimes have sometimes stolen the freedom of their victims forever. this is why de tocqueville once called freedom an art. what he meant is that politics is a difficult and creative balance between limiting some choices so that freedom on the whole can prosper. secondly, politics is more than just economics. many of my libertarian friends are very excellent economists, including, as i understand, taylor over here. but economics can only do so much. libertarians as economists fall prey to the hammer problem which is when all you have is a hammer, everything kind of looks like a nail.
they -- wielding the hammer of free markets in the china shop of civil society -- threaten the viability of the entire enterprise. economics can tell you how a market will act, but it can't tell you if there should be a market in the first place. should there be a market for prostitution, for elective death, for child pornography? those are moral and political questions upon which the health of our republic depends. hayek once said that tradition and convention make liberty possible. he didn't mean any old tradition like no-shave november or not changing your pants during the playoffs. he meant morality and civility. put simply, even the idea of libertarianism is a luxury made possible by generations of conservativism. those who hope to maximize freedom for ourselves and our descendants should join the conservative team the. the conservative emphasis on ordered liberty and civil
society is not meant to detract from the value of liberty. it is precisely because we value liberty that we insist on them. thank you. [applause] >> and now i'd like to invite up the libertarians to answer the reverse prompt, which is why should conservatives be libertarians. >> in 1975 conservative ronald reagan said, "i believe the very heart and soul of conservativism is libertarianism." many american conservatives were drawn to conservativism because of its rhetoric about freedom and individualism. reagan became one of the most beloved presidents for his promises to defeat communism and make the government small, not because of his support for gun
control. few were attracted to william f. buckley for his arguments supporting segregation, but because he was a freers critic of leftist -- fierce critic of leftist authoritarianism. at the end of the day, libertarianism is the only consistent political philosophy being represented on the stage. take reagan's quote again, "i believe the very heart and soul of conservativism is libertarianism." think about how much conservativism has changed since his era. would there still be a place for someone with reagan's free trade principles in the conservative movement which is dominated by president trump and his trade wars? what about the time when george h.w. bush and ronald reagan debated over which one of them supported mexican immigration more while vying for the republican nomination in 1980? in 2018 we have the heritage foundation's foremost philosophical conservative say that of all his living -- all
living politicians his favorite is donald trump for being an advocate for free speech principles. president trump who once called the press the enemy of the people. antonin scalia would rightly identify this as pure applesauce. [laughter] libertarianism, on the other hand, is guided by the simple principle that individuals have the liberty to live their lives however they want as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. conservativism is riddled with inconsistencies. conservatives will rush to the defense of property rights when it comes to the relaishes baker, but many won't when it comes to conservative platforms. conservatives take these approaches with the goal of protecting prosperity, but what has that looked like? the implementation of the patriot act which will continue to violate the rights of our children and children. it looks like countless unnecessary wars that are launched in the name of freedom and protecting strategic interests but end undraining
our -- end up draining our treasury and making new enemies. it looks like spending more than $1 trillion on the war on drugs which compounds the the inherent risk of drug use and contributes to the debt that no generation may be able to pay off. conservatives like to paint libertarianism as a radical philosophy be, attempting to lump all libertarians of thinking child pornography is fine, not true. not realizing that their intellectual forefathers all had much more respect for libertarianism than they do, and when one looks critically, libertarians have been right all along. the war on drugs has been a failure, countless unnecessary and harmful military interventions have failed, moral panics about homosexuality and rock music were unfounded, and capitalism and individual rights have succeeded. so the conservatives in the audience who value liberty most, ask yourselves seriously if you are more incline ared to
libertarianism than you may have thought previously. there may be a difference between what you thought conservativism represented and what it actually represents. thomas jefferson said, "a wise government shall restrain men from injuring one another and leave them otherwise free to -- [inaudible] if you are truly and consistently devoted to the principles of small government and individualism, know that you are free to join a movement that fights to secure your rights, your neighbors' right asks and your children's rights from a tyrannical government whether it lean ares right or left. thank you. [applause] >> thank you to both teams for that. that was great. this is the part of the night when we open up the floor to questions. so i understand that there are, there's at least one mona's going to be coming -- one mona's
going to be -- microphone that's going to be coming around. for a sentence to be a question, it has to have a question mark at the end of it. [laughter] and i know that, because i'm an editor. [laughter] if you say more than about one and a half sentences without getting to the question mark, you're not following the rules. finish do we have any questions. >> the war on terror started 17 years ago. how would you grade it? >> is this for anyone? both sides? is. >> either side. start with the conservatives. the war on terror, and how would you grade the past 17 years. >> do you want like a letter grade? do you want like a thumbs up or thumbs down? [laughter] >> to be honest with you, for the united states, remarkably well.
since 9/11 there have been no comparable sides of terror attacks. we look at europe where they have a considerably less stringent foreign policy, they value their national security a lot less, they have open borders, and the number of terror attacks seem to be endless in terms of what we hear about. conservativism, on the other hand, a conservative foreign policy, we're not going to argue over every little point of history or every single decision by a president with an r next to his name is absolutely right and should be taken in line with the entire vision of conservativism. but we will argue that a conservative foreign policy and active, strong role in the world has resulted in, for instance, under this administration the complete destruction of isis and that a foreign policy that keeps america strong helps preserve peace. thank you. [applause] >> can each of you address the
question of unfetteredded corporate cronyism and whether it amounts to social welfare for the rich and whether it constitutes true -- when are it jeopardizes a true free market economy? >> let's start with the libertarian the. >> well, obviously, any sort of government support or subsidization or corrupt legislation in favor of business is, yes, welfare for business, and it is something that libertarians would not support, and it is something which we've done a lot to combat since the gilded age, and is we've seen a lot of improvement since then because of our work against it. it's something that we continue to fight against. >> yeah. i mean, cronyism is a problem. although ill point out probably that -- i would point out probably from the perspective after the general public often times especially when it comes to large corporations, we have a tendency to both demonize them and to think that they have monopolies a lot quicker than they do, and that through
cronyism and other ways people have cornered the market when they haven't. the best example is the iphone. there was a time when people were saying there is no competitor to the iphone, apple has monopolized the market, until samsung made, arguably, a better phone. now they have about equal market share. the market can work a lot of these problems out by itself, and conservatives believe that just as much as libertarians do. >> let's go right here. >> to the libertarians, the conservatives mentioned murray rothbard and his quote that the law may not properly compel a parent to feed a child or keep it alive. do you hold that cato's founder was speaking on behalf of the libertarian ethic? thank you. >> that was to publicly -- allow us to publicly disallow him. thank you. >> yeah. cato cut ties from murray rothbard very early on, and also
we don't represent the cato institute, we represent libertarianism. but, no, i'm not a murray rothbard supporter, taylor isn't. i can't think of a single person at the cato institute who is so, no, we think that parents should feed their children. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you all very much for being here. for the libertarian side, you all have been critical of american governmental policy -- social, foreign policies. can you name another country that better exemplifies these libertarian ideals, preferably one that doesn't -- you know, preferably one that doesn't live under the american military umbrella. >> well, the american military umbrella is just about everywhere you would like to go in the world. so i'm sorry, but from your list of two countries, i can't pick one. [laughter]
however, i would like the suggest to you that we are not arguing against america. we think america is a great country found by libertarians who wrote their constitution. nevertheless, we think it is an excellent country which thrives on libertarian principles and which has fallen away from them in areas. we would like to improve those because we think america can be better with libertarian policies. >> do we have any questions for the conservatives? we had two for the libertarians in a row. all right. let's come up -- >> the libertarians sometimes are very critical to have federal reserve, thinking that it essentially plans the economy by artificially lowering interest rates that raise the value of all the assets of people who have the assets, making the. rich:er and destroying the free market. so what's the conservatives' views about the federal reserve and its central planned economy
that they basically control? >> of course, i'm really glad you asked that, actually. finish no, we agree. the federal reserve has drastically expanded its power since its creation in 1913. and like other administrative agencies which conservativism opposes, it eliminates accountability and hinders the free market. so we really believe in doing three things when it comes to reforming the federal reserve. first, we want to decrease the regulatory and supervise risely powers of the fed because it eliminates competition for larger banks. second, we want to insure that it does not serve as a lender or of last resort which creates moral hazard and shifts the incentives towards expansionary or inflationary policies. and third and finally, we need to move away from just the discretion the fed has at the hands of bureaucrats, because no economist -- however good -- can centrally plan a nation's monetary circulation effectively. so we agree that the fed is an agency that has burdened our economy far more than it's helped it.
it's grown beyond its original charter, and we think it needs to be significantly reformed and audited. thank you. [applause] >> we have a question down here. >> thank you. i would appreciate if you could, both of you could give perspective on trade issues, especially on american current trade war with china. thank you. >> sorry. >> go first? okay, yeah. i mean, not only has the heritage foundation officially probably been most critical of trump in this area, but so have we privately -- he wouldn't know us. [laughter] free trade and the free market system has done more to lift people out of poverty in the last 50 years than any other system ever devised by man. i mean, if you look at the u.n.'s numbers, any sort of private numbers, the people living in crippling poverty around world has decreased
exponentially since freer markets have happened, since the collapse of the soviet union and before then. so tariffs are taxes on american consumers, basically. so they are harmful to not only our economy, but in the long run, everyone's economy. and so we believe in free trade. >> i don't think we can add too much to that. the idea that there are grave national security concerns being addressed by ouren present tariffs is laughable. if i were a laughing personality, i would be laughing right now. [laughter] [applause] >> [inaudible] >> second to the last row. yep. [laughter] >> this question is for the conservatives. so given that between 1930 and 2005 one million of the two million people deported from the
united states were actually american citizens, how would you see immigration policy enforced where it didn't affect u.s. citizens? that severely? >> well, i have to apologize, but i do take issue with your numbers. i just don't think -- the fact of the matter is that we believe in deporting illegal immigrants. we believe controlling immigration because we want to reward the legal immigrants who stay who are part of our process and go through all that time. we're not saying the immigration laws we currently have need to be entirely reformed. we're not. we're saying the first step, which was prompt, is to enforce our laws because it's critical. the opponents brought up at one point, i think in their rebuttal, how does enforcing bad law generate respect for rule of law? under that logic, the government should just choose -- not even the federal government, the cities and states -- choosing
which laws they think are good and bad and enforcing based on the that ethic. or as a society that's rooted in the rule of law, rooted in a constitution, we believe that we should have an immigration policy that's followed, and if appropriate revisions need to be made, it should be done through a legislative process. just one last thing. i don't want to go too long. the idea is, well, that this is an immigrant -- current immigration policy is not in accordance with the will of the american people is simply false. gallup polls show less than 30% of americans support increased immigration. i think our legislate to haves and administrators should listen to the will of the people on this issue and begin enforcing immigration laws. so we don't have more incidents like tony bo loney's family or kate steinle's murder. thank you. [applause] >> i want to take a couple of our internet-based questions. the first one for the liberty
libertarians. what is the philosophical basis for libertarians respecting other human beings? why are human beings worthy of dignity, in your view? [laughter] >> i wish i could take credit for that question. >> i mean, libertarianism is based on like a natural rights tradition and that, the beliefs that -- not all libertarians believe this, but the founding fathers who were libertarians believed that your rights were given by deity. i think is the question why we should respect human beings? >> yep. why are they or worthy, why are human beings worthy of dignity, in your view? >> yeah, go ahead. >> it suggest if that principle isn't self-evident to you, that you not shake my hand afterwards, i would like to avoid meeting you. [laughter] >> humanity is, like, a beautiful thing. there's lots of things that go bad in the world, but the amount of progress we've achieved, the
inherent good in people. i don't know, i'm sure conservatives think the same thing. i don't think this is a libertarian versus conservative issue. i don't know. >> the question for the conservatives, if as was mentioned the word "naturalization" is in the constitution but not immigration, how does the government have the right to control who crosses borders? >> do you want to -- >> i'd like to take that. >> go for it. [laughter] >> so two things. one, i'd like to see one quote from a supposed libertarian founder saying we should have open borders. i'd like the see that. and i'd like us to think through the implications that the government should control naturalization but not have any say whatsoever in immigration. i mean, of all people, i know they've been disavowed by our libertarian opponents, though not all would disavow murray rothbard. even he was against open borders. he was against freedom of association, that allowing people into a community without the community's public consent
using transit and services, that was unjust. and i'd like to point to a final thing as well in terms of arguing about the founding. one of the very first acts passed by congress was the naturalization act of 1790. it regulated immigration. it was an immigration act, and you can look this up. so the reality is, is that america's always had immigration policy, and we've always understood to have a nation we have to have federal government control over that. and that's why the constitution explicitly gives the federal government the power to regulate immigration. [applause] >> we had a hand up here. >> thanks. i have a question for the conservatives. you said earlier in your talk that expanded access to opioids led to -- [inaudible] i'm, i would like to know what your response then would be to the fact that since 2011 the
government has actually made it harder to get opioids and opioid prescribing has decreased per capita and yet opioid overdoses have increased by 84%? >> yeah. so it's a complex crisis, but i think there's an important lessons for us as we're dealing with drug policy. the first is the fact that there was a black market for illicit opioids even while there was still a legal market. the problem with opioids in particular is how addicting they are, and so people and entire communities were hooked on opioids and are hooked on opioids. and so they can get them legally, they can get them illegally. the point is that this sort of cultural phenomenon and the individual addiction drives the desire to get opioids more than the legal status does. and point of this is that analogy is passed often times in drug policy misleading because vims may not even show -- individuals may not even show a propensity to get addicted to something, and an entire
community can get addict. sometimes making something legal doesn't have much of an effect. legalizing marijuana in colorado hasn't really changed usage rates. but opioids, there's a far greater rate of addiction and societal dependence. so increasing availability actually does, seems lodge create to correlate with increased addiction. the problem with the the libertarian position is that it is committed fundamentally to people being able to choose these things. and so being able to purchase them without restriction. i mean, in the libertarian world, there's little they can say philosophically to prevent heroin from being sold on amazon. and i struggle to imagine how that won't increase use. if you thought the heroin crisis was bad now, imagine what this country could do with free two-day shipping. [laughter] [applause] >> question for conservatives. if conservatives are not willing to accept the several hundred
thousand undocumented migrants coming across the border from countries especially many of them from countries with some of those draconian anti-abortion laws on earth, what makes you think that that you'll be able to accommodate the 50 million additional americans born instead of aborted under roe v. wade? be that's my question. >> sure. i think josh's point was not that the country demographically just couldn't handle that many people like this is a chart where we're running out of space. but, rather, because our current culture is so inundated with identity politics and segregating people based on cultural and ethnic lines rather than assimilating them, it would be much harder to assimilate groups of people that wouldn't be educated in our values than it was in 1900. this is as opposed to if we were to stop abortions -- which i believe is the greatest tragedy
of the 20th century -- those children ideally would be brought up in homes and in families. and the society as a whole should do their best to make sure that that happens which is a completely different situation than bringing in massive amounts of people over the border combination of legally and illegally. >> can i adjust one thing to that real quick? thank you. no, i think, i think chris hits at a very important point, the assimilation point. it's not a numbers thing. here's the thing, a people as the declaration acknowledges in its very first sentence is a distinct group. and in america what defines us as a people, to paraphrase john jay, is we are people of diverse backgrounds, but what makes us an american people is our shared language, history and reverence for the political principles found in our founding documents. the self-government is a virtue. it has to be taught and cultivated. america isn't -- we aren't the united markets of america.
we aren't just radical individuals floating around associating with markets. we are a people. if we lose that idea of being bound together by a shared heritage and shared political virtues and political principles, we no longer have a nation. >> do we have a last question for the libertarians? all right. >> so why would libertarians be against, say, child porn if it were generated by a machine? it makes a market, it only seems to -- doesn't seem to harm anyone. i just want to hear a principled d. >> you arguing that child pornography does not harm children? >> not if it's made by, like, by a computer or something like that, which it actually is. and that's what there's been a lot of debate. a lot our child pornography's used to ban manga or something like this from japan, and i just want to hear a principled argument from this if it doesn't
harm children. thank you. [laughter] >> child pornography would not be compatible with libertarianism because it involves infringing upon the rights of another human being who cannot consent to the activities. i have no idea about what this machine is, so i can't comment be on that. [laughter] i will only -- >> [inaudible] like a picture. if someone, like, an artistic -- [inaudible] like why would you be against it? >> i guess i'll just wait to see when that becomes a problem in the future and let the supreme court decide. i don't -- what would you say, taylor? >> i didn't think this would be the relevant experience i would need for the debate. they should have chosen a different debater if it was. [laughter] >> okay. thank you all for your
questions. i'm sorry we couldn't take more. [laughter] [applause] we do have one last section, so if we could bring the volume down a bit. the last thing we're going to do is hear closing remarks from both sides. we're going to start with the libertarians. they'll have four minutes, and then we'll turn to the conservatives, and they'll close it out with their four minutes. >> now you face a choice. consider your freedom, your material well-being too. ask yourself whether you side with those who are dedicated to each or those who have promised both and delivered neither. if you, like me, would choose the former, all that remains is to honestly assess whether, as we have argued this evening, conservative policies have failed to make us more free or more prosperous.
a broad conservative policy has been a circus of gratuitous force. spendthrift showmanship promming security by military -- promising security by military parade. .. >> still, we should not impugn the motives of the conservative who have often viewed an expensive foreign-policy as a tool and a noble attempt to assess the rights of others, but we must regret that such efforts have largely failed. if by wizardry conservatives could create liberal democracies from ashes, they might be willing to reconsider their message but
experience insist their magic wand is nothing more than a stick. on the border, conservatives denounce free markets in the language of immigration control. why here do they set aside liberty when they proclaim it so loudly elsewhere? why do conservatives reject the entrepreneurship of immigrants and speak of domestic businesses who would hire them? immigrants commit less crimes than natives. it cannot be prosperity. immigrants increase our human capital. perhaps it is fear for the sake of american values but american culture is not monolithic. it is defined by its dynamism. it participates in that one american tradition and driving wagon trains and frontier towns, new life and new faiths. the quest for freedom and opportunity. at all, even at home conservatives led by a nostalgia for an idealized past bare their fists
suppressing individual liberties and voluntary exchange. concern for others rights does not dissuade them from futile compulsion. instead, they dictate to their neighbors how they should live and how they should die. they grenades and rifles to the streets to the task of prohibition. but conservatism has stumbled. it has betrayed itself through inconsistency, conservatives should not despair. their attitude through coercion contains the kernel of political wisdom and appreciation of liberty. as long as conservatives fail to respond to their own priorities their policies will continue to be ineffectual but holding fast to freedom, they find and achieve their goals through consistency. their wealth in large part by exchange and their belief protected by law.
tonight we offered to competing visions. a solid familiarity and the opportunity of freedom. do not settle for the warm familiarity of conservatism . find behind tranquility hides force. choose liberty. choose command of your own life and reject the paternalism of the state however it might bedisguised . our hope as humans rests in the intimation of the past or the wisdom of the few but in the writing of each of us, together in communities and independent in bought to claim for ourselves the lives of our aspirations. choose libertarian. thank you. [applause] >> republican self-government
is a rare and fragile thing. it is as reagan said never more than one generation away from extinction. the question before us tonight is how do we as a civil society cultivate self-governing citizens capable of passing the torch of liberty to the next generation? conservatism argues that this is the most important issue facing americans today, even more important than the question of how to restore limited government because you can only have limited government and individual citizens are capable of self-governing. libertarianism on the other hand is a contradiction in terms. it desires the most minimal government possible while demanding the maximum degree of license forindividuals to destroy themselves . it is so concerned with the freedom of the present generation that does not
bother to concern itself with building a political community community capable of passing freedom on to future generations. what will happen, we should ask, if the radical individuals incited by libertarianism find citizen so upset with indulging in their private lives that they no longer see capable of defending liberty from internal or externalthreats ? libertarians will tell you about the importance of liberty but they have nothing to say about the importance of using it well. in the long run this problem of neglecting to think about the future is what makes libertarianism fundamentally unsustainable is why libertarianism has never governed a community and it never will. tonight we have demonstrated how a conservative foreign-policy believes in residential restraint.
our libertarians talk a lot about restraint and it's interesting they don't seem to care much about the concept of restraint when it comes to shooting heroin but they're all about restraint when it comes to cutting the budget of our men and women in uniform. >> rather than be inflexibly dogmatic conservatism and embraces a foreign-policy dedicated to securing american independence through every available means. we have demonstrated how the legalization of assisted suicide rather than decreasing or increasing individual autonomy actually fatally undermined. the conservative police in the intrinsic worth of every human being places upon a duty to protect the right to life at every stage from conception throughnatural death . the right to life must never become a duty. liberty must never become cheaper than karen. we have demonstrated how an immigration policy which ignores the importance of americanization eats away at our national foundation area rather than turning the flood
of illegal immigration into a tsunami, we must instead begin vigorously enforcing our current laws to protect american lives and american values. >> conservatism recognizes that the american of today has no right to squander the blessings of liberty to the americans of the future. conservatism is the only political philosophy capable of protecting liberty. because it creates the type of society where sustainable liberty andtry . responsible self-governance is the guiding principle of the american founding and the foundation of american greatness. we should not abandon it. for the fools gold that is libertarianism. thank you and good night. >>.
[applause] >> i want to be the first to congratulate all four of our debaters on a fantastic job well done and it was really thanks, i remember the first libertarianism versus conservatism i watched almost a decade ago and i remember being so impressed back then and i'm even more impressed now that you all look so known to me that i'm now inmy 30s. it was great . thank you to heritage for hosting us, thank you to my friend for giving me this opportunity. if you enjoy this event, you may be interested in the magazine which is a coincidence we will be out and about so it's not going to get into the sort of conservative side of things quite as much but it's for libertarians who disagree with each other andwe got people on both sides are doing both .
>> tonight on the communicators, a 5g, the next generation of wireless technology and new infrastructure. joining us on the program sbc commissioner and the president of and ceo of the wireless infrastructure association jonathanedelstein , interviewed by bloomberg news telecom reporter tashi. >> i'm interested in 5g, a lot of people probably are.
what are the benefits of 5g, what do you do with all this easy?you have smart cities where you can read the garbage meters, do all your services online, traffic will be improved and the benefits go on and on. individual devices working better but overall society being better connected the economy going faster if we get it right. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8 pm eastern on c-span2 . class tv is in prime time with a look at some of the local authors from some of the cities we visited the store. >> in his book the rise and fall of the voting rights, author he daddy revealed the history behind the voting rights act, its impact on the united states and the consequences that follow. and beyond the impact of lynching on black culture and memory. author carlos will examine the history of lynching in
america and how the response of african-americans you've all the overtime. in out, a courageous woman 30, lou and sue share the struggle of fighting for homosexuality in texas for six years. tv, all this week in prime time on c-span2. >> tonight p.m. on c-span, the conversation with justice stephen breyer the aspen institute in colorado. >> let's go through the pre-civil war day or let's go through the civil war day or less go through reconstruction. one must go through eight years just about of legal segregation. and do you think those were days were pragmatic, adaptive? they were adaptive, but i didn't see it. and so we lived through lots of history in the united states and some of it has turned out pretty well and some of it has not.
>> tuesday 8 pm mother jones reporter and author barry berman at the clinton historical societytalking about voting rights .>> the supreme court's decision when john roberts said racial discrimination voting was largely a thing of the past, north carolina was one of the most progressive states passed a sweeping rewrite of its election laws. strict voter ideas, voting and eliminating same-day voter registration, eliminated citizens awareness months which the state ran to encourage people to register, all of this in one bill a month after the supreme court noted the voting rights act . >> listen on the free c-span radio c-span2 area. >>. >> the administrator for the us agency for international development is mark green. he talks about his recent trip to latin america and what usaid is doing to promote democracy within the