cruz to be the nominee. i'm sure the republican establishment is listening carefully. that's it for us tonight. thanks for being with us. have a great weekend. . >> i happen to think that the majority of people in this country are libertarian. they just don't know it. john: is that true? are you economically conservative and socially liberal? then you're a libertarian. >> it's the first nationally televised debate. john: in part one of our presidential forum, we heard these three libertarians debate. >> gay marriage. >> i met austin in a gay bar. [ laughter ] >> it was different from republican-democrat debates. libertarians focus on getting government out of the way. >> i didn't create a single job, government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. >> the second amendment wasn't
for hunting, to shoot at tyrants. >> all governments will eventually become corrupt. john: after all, look at the kinds of people who want power over you. two kind of awful people. >> too virulent status. candidates is better than donald or hillary. we hear more from the now in part 2 of our libertarian presidential forum. . john: welcome back to part 2 of our libertarian presidential forum. it's relief to hear from libertarians after months of listening to clinton and trump talk about reducing our liberty. the three libertarian presidential candidates are -- former new mexico governor gary johnson. software entrepreneur, john
mcafee. libertarian republic founder austin petersen. [cheers and applause] . john: right to it. governor johnson, what would do about illegal immigration? >> i would make it as easy as possible for those illegal immigrants to get a work visa as long as they haven't committed any crimes. [ applause ] >> agreement? disagreement? >> our country was found on the principle of open arms. all of our ancestors were immigrants, so why are we trying to shut our borders and keep people out. if i have to be documented, then immigrants as well should have to be documented and made legal. [ applause ] >> petersen? >> we can incentivize legal immigration to cut down on illegal immigration. if we make a simpler path to citizenship then people will not break the law if they know there's a chance they can be
here. john: simple path for the 11, 12 million illegals already here just -- >> they are already here, adding to the economy. make it so they can find a path to citizenship. john: because they lied to get in, it's an insult to the people who followed the rules. >> if you were living in a third-world country and starving to death, who would not cross that wall? >> we are an immigrant nation, my last name is petersen spelled s-e-n. the danish came through ellis island. disease check, security check, done. john: any disagreement? >> well, the reality is you've got mexicans in juarez that can see jobs that exist in el paso, but they can't get across the border to take those jobs. they have to cross illegally and taking jobs that u.s. citizens don't want. john: americans say they're taking our jobs?
>> that's not the case and not an issue either of lower pay. it's lower pay when language is an issue and they're the first ones that recognize this. we're getting the cream of the crop when it comes to workers from mexico, i'm speak as a border governor. >> go ahead. >> i'd like to say something, you said they lied to get in. i'm not going to claim hypocrisy. however, who of you have not lied? has anybody had an affair here? has anybody smoked weed in a state where it's illegal. come on, sir, that was an absurd statement, i'm sorry, i have to say that. john: fair enough. libertarianish republican rand paul said we got to worry about terrorism. put a hold on immigration from certain parts of the world. do you agree? disagree? >> i disagree. i think we should be taking our fair share and i think you phrased that question just right.
rand paul, libertarianish, is about half of what he has to say, i agree wholeheartedly of republican candidates. he was my guy. bottom line he's a republican, not a libertarian. john: any ban on muslims coming in? >> you can't enforce something like that. the first amendment of the u.s. constitution says the government should stay out of religion, the government cannot set the standards or quotas. [applause] >> what are you going to do? ask them what religion is when they come here? that's un-american. we've got to have a simpler path to naturalization, they are coming here because they want to work when. immigrants come to the united states, they don't just take jobs, they give labor, create wealth. that's how the free market economy works and we should encourage that. beside, if they wanted free welfare, they would go europe. [applause] >> here in the united states is the land of opportunity, it still is. welcome the people who want to come here. john: let's talk about that. mr. mcafee, you said as the
milton friedman, you can't have open borders and the welfare state. you should shut down the border until you take down the welfare state? >> i'm not saying i agree with the statement, which i do not. i don't believe they have anything to do with one another. the attitude of the government toward the citizens that creates the welfare state. i would like to say about letting muslims in. what are we trying to protect ourselves from? is it not ourselves? did we not create terrorism by interfering in the affairs of foreign nations? [ applause ] >> i want to say you left out a part of milton friedman's statement, when he said you can't have open borders in welfare state, he followed up by saying illegal immigration is superior. why? because then they don't qualify for benefits. [laughter] >> if we had a simpler path to naturalization, we wouldn't have a problem. we should build a wall around the welfare state. [ applause ] >> next topic, donald trump supports free trade but only
fair free trade. he says our bad deals with other countries have cost americans jobs. that leaves to a question posted on facebook from joe rafferty. how will free trade help the working class by way of employment, not just lower the price of goods? mr. johnson? >> free trade. who benefits from free trade but you and i as consumers. if china wants to subsidize the goods and services they send to the united states, who benefits? we do. and ultimately china pays the price. john: some american workers lose jobs. >> i'm advocating eliminating income tax and corporate tax and if we did that, in my opinion, along with the irs, we would create tens of millions of jobs in the country because why would you locate a business anywhere in the world other than the united states, given a zero corporate tax rate? >> if we have a problem with
jobs and they're not enough, it has nothing to do with free trade. our government has placed so many barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and new businesses. if the government would get out of our way, we would have more than enough jobs for people. this is the fundamental issue. john: some people lose jobs when china subsidizes steel, some steelworkers lose jobs. >> consumers benefit from lower prices. nobody is talking about the third party in the equation, that's the consumer. right? when you're allowed to purchase things from overseas, you can buy things at a lower price. that lifts people out of poverty. the purchasing power. if the federal reserve would stop destroying our dollars, we could buy more. john: governor? >> nobody is talking about entrepreneurship in all of this. really, the model of the future is uber. it's uber everything. it's uber accountant, uber doctor, it's uber electrician, uber plumber. eliminating the middle man and allowing the person who
provides the goods and services direct payment as opposed to having a middle man, and it's also airbnb. we can subsidize our own incomes. getting government out of the way. [cheers and applause] . john: this is a new approach to jobs. presidential candidates, all this talk about jobs. >> i will be the greatest jobs president that god ever created. i tell you that. we need a president that can create jobs. >> create good paying jobs. john: that's what they say all the time. governor what would you do to create jobs? >> in 2012, they did an analysis because rick perry was beating his chest over being the biggest create offer jobs. they did an analysis, and guess what? it was gary johnson -- [ applause ] >> and my response then was the same as when i was governor. i didn't create a single job. government doesn't create jobs,
the private sector does. [cheers and applause] >> government can create this level playing field. and i think i contributed to that. john: mr. mcafee? >> i have to for once agree completely with governor johnson. jobs are created by industry, by private business and reduced when we impose barriers. when imposed income taxes in order to start a business, i have to fill out a thousand forms and report to osha. this is the fundamental problem. if we remove the barriers, industry will take care of itself and jobs will improve. >> liberty is the occupation of license. we have to get rid of occupational licensing in this country. why do you need a license to braid hair? the government has to get out of the way. [ cheers ] >> the institute of justice is stepping into. this why do i need a certificate to cut hair? ladies and gentlemen, this is ridiculous, occupational licenses is the greatest threat
to entrepreneurship that we have and taking away the liberty that we have. john: governor? >> i got to tell you i vetoed a few of those. >> good. john: thank you. we'll have more coming up. we thank you our viewers who follow us on social media and submitted questions for the candidates. if the rest of you want to get in on this action, please follow me at twitter@john stossel, use the hashtag stossel and post your comment. on twitter, one good question from darrel perry, he says -- that's a good question, and i'll take the wrap for that. it's my decision, if you have too many people, you don't learn that much about any one candidate. these three seem to be the right amount to me. candidates who placed lower in the early polls, i apologize,
and i just learned that darryl w. perry is one of the candidates -- [laughter]. john: sorry, darryl. when we return. more on terrorism, privacy, weed and pollution. also questions from skeptical fox news hosts. >> you see the man. >> when it comes to protection of the environment. when you think about success, what does it look like? is it becoming a better professor by being a more adventurous student? is it one day giving your daughter the opportunity she deserves? is it finally witnessing all the artistic wonders
. john: welcome back to our libertarian presidential forum. recently, the government managed to break into the iphone used by the san bernardino terrorist. apple had refused to help the government, and most libertarians supported apple. fox news host eric bolling asks this -- >> if an iphone contained the exact time and date of imminent terror attack in america, should apple break the encryption to find out where and when that will be? john: mr. mcafee is a computer expert. i go to you first. >> absurd concept to think that a single telephone can predict a terrorist attack. it doesn't work that way. john: what if they had
intelligence on this phone is the plan? they might have intelligence that said that. >> that's never happened, sir. this is my business, we're in something i know something about. i can promise you that has never happened. john: it might have. >> i debated on cnn the fbi mouthpiece who came on and said this is an issue of privacy versus security. i said maybe for you, but far more important an issue of more insecurity to the american public by giving a master key to telephones. [applause] >> you have to believe me, there is not a situation. do you actually think terrorists are going to put their plan on an iphone? when they throw phones away every day. they're smarter than this, sir. the world doesn't work that way. i wish it did. john: petersen? >> timid men receive the calm of defertism, i would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than too little. [applause]
>> this is always the argument and no evidence that with all the metadata that's being collected. 110 million verizon users being monitored, that there has ever been an instance of thwarting an act of terrorism. so this is always the question, this is always the hypothetical but just doesn't exist, and if we create, look, it's one thing to open up one phone, but i'm siding with apple that they can't just do that. they have to provide a master key and if they did that, it could be the immediate death sentence if the chinese government got ahold of that, when it comes to a lot of chinese citizens. [ applause ] >> all right, moving on. you all support the second amendment. individual's right to own a gun, but some people with criminal records some, mentally ill people get guns, some commit terrible crimes. should there be any limit, mr. -- governor johnson?
>> i think we should be open to a debate and a discussion over limiting guns to mentally ill. but i haven't heard an argument -- [booing] . >> we should be open to that. we should be open to it, but i got to tell you that i haven't seen it. i haven't seen any argument that, at some point, isn't going to prevent me from getting that gun. i'm going to fail some sort of litmus test to have to do that. >> don't you think king george would have declared the columnist to be mentally ill. the government sets the standard. >> yeah! >> the government has no right to take away our form of self-defense. it is an individual right to bear arms. we, the people, are the militia and should have every right to defend ourselves. i would overturn the national firearms act so fast, your head would spin. because nobody should be forced to pay $200 to put a suppressor on the end of ar-15.
i built my first one last year and use it frequently for hunting. the second amendment isn't for hunting, it's to shoot at tyrants. [applause] >> if anyone doubts my position on the second amendment, you've never seen a single photograph of me. [laughter] >> but i'd like to say that the constitution gives us the right not just to own guns, not to own guns, it says to bear arms, to carry them on our person, without restriction, and austin is right. who makes the laws? who is going to say who's insane, or who is a criminal? someone who smokes marijuana and is sentenced to 15 years in federal prison is a felony, are they a criminal and should not use a gun? that is terrible. john: >> could we get the governor on what he thinks the government should do in terms of background checks. >> i signed conceal and carry
in new mexico. my political advocacy group has been talking about don't limit the caliber -- >> take it easy, don't act so crazy, we might take your gun, governor. who do you think should be restricted in terms of owning guns? who do you think is mentally unstable? >> somebody who is. >> how would you determine that. what gives the federal government the right to determine that? >> are you listening? >> i find it difficult to come up with a piece of legislation that would address that. that's what i said. john: we won't solve that in this segment. when we come back, a question from dana perino. [applause] ♪
cervical, ovarian and uterine cancers - have symptoms. so pay attention. if your body says something may be wrong.... please listen if it goes on for two weeks, see a doctor, it may be nothing but find out. learn the symptoms. get the inside knowledge about gynecologic cancers. bacteria can hide in food and make you ill. wow! announcer: but you can keep bacteria from ruining your day with 4 simple steps: clean, separate, cook, and chill. the roadchip to food safety starts at foodsafety.gov.
. john: we're back at the three leading libertarian presidential candidates. first the question from hosts of the five, dana perino. >> what should the role of the federal government be when it comes to protecting environment? >> mr. mcafee, it's something we say government should do? >> i'm sorry. john: is that something government should do? >> no, let me tell you why, if you have a truly free market then the environment will be protected by the market support or lack of support. why do we have electric cars now? not because they're mandated, but because people prefer them. i'm doing something to help the environment. so how is the government going create anything based on science which is constantly changing and contradicting itself. john: pollution controls have made the air and the water cleaner. if i have a factory, my smoke goes to someone else's yard. >> you haven't been to detroit
recently if you think water is clean, sir. have they removed the sulfides from the exhaust that we do not have acid rain, what have they added in terms of carcinogens into the earth? a lot. john: you would have no epa? >> absolutely, sir. >> mr. petersen? >> the epa are unelected bureaucrats with assault rifles. >> you would abolish the epa? >> the president does not have the authority to abolish anything, we have to obey congress. john: would you ask congress do? >> i would, i would ask them to regulate the epa to original enforcement role. it is not to harass oregonians or murder oregonians, they were supposed to provide scientific evidence in cases where property rights were in dispute. if the epa is to exist, that's all they should be doing, providing scientific expertise -- [ applause ] >> i don't believe in gun
control but think we need to control the government's uses of arms, disarm the feds. john: all right, no epa governor johnson? this seems like one agency we did need? >> i think that government exists to protect us against individuals, groups, corporations that would do us harm, and there are polluters out there. in new mexico, there was a mine polluting a river in northern new mexico. it had been allowed to pollute for decades. my biggest ace in the hole was i was going to make them a superfund site if, in fact, they didn't come to the table because they were bad actors. if it weren't for federal epa shutting them down, they would still be polluting that river. i put this in the context of protecting us against harm. john: what about global warming? should they protect us from that? >> whether global warming is true or not, government should play no role. it's not the job of the government to protect us from these things.
government is actually the biggest polluter. did you know? let's get the government out of the business of polluting. the reality is, ladies and gentlemen, there is a scientific consensus that states there is a warming trend, but the truth is there may be benefits to the warming trend. scientists are good at looking at the facts on the ground but terrible at predictions, they're not nostra damus. china won't come to the table, they're a great polluter. what is the federal government going to do to force china and india to come to the table? why crack down on the americans? why always tax the americans? that's the problem, we are not the biggest polluter. it's hypocritical for the government to enact this legislation on this. john: mcafee? >> 10,000 years ago where we were sitting was under a mile of ice. that ice occurred over a 100-year period and disappeared just as rapidly.
earth has gone through unimaginable cycles and changes. i'm not saying what we're doing is not increasing global warming. we can't stop the warming and the cooling cycle as it spin, wobble around the axis. i'm sorry. john: if you had the power, you would approve the keystone pipeline? >> what power should we have to approve or disapprove anything of that nature? that's the issue i'm asking. because you're assuming we are gods as the government, that we have elected the smartest people and the smartest scientists, well, we haven't, and we can't because we cannot know that. so no, we should not have that power, sir. >> so private pipeline companies would build those things and should they have the right of eminent domain to lay the pipe? >> absolutely not. absolutely not. no one else says that's the right thing to do. to take away my property or cross my property without my permission. absolutely not, sir. therein lies the issue. john: how would they get the right of way?
>> maybe they won't. maybe that's a good thing, they wouldn't have the pipeline. let the market do its own thing, sir. >> governor? >> eight years as governor of new mexico, not once did i enact eminent domain for anything. [applause] >> the keystone pipeline, i support the keystone pipeline but i don't know how much of that release on eminent domain, and i'd be hard pressed to condemn property to see that take place. with regard to global warming, i think a great example right now is free markets and the fact that we don't want carbon pollution. so the free market has basically bankrupted coal in this country, and it's a decision that you and i have made. we don't want carbon emission. we want less of it. and great example, like i say, right now, it's playing itself out. no more coal plants are being built. john: next, gambling and prostitution and drinking and
. john: welcome back to our libertarian presidential debate. most libertarians say the drug war does much more harm than good. adults ought to be allowed to our own bodies whatever we want, that leaves many other americans to say things like this. >> here's my question for the libertarian geniuses. you see the damage that heroin is doing all over the united
states. you see it. because it's cheap, and the cartels in mexico are smuggling it here with very, very little interference. imagine, if heroin and other hard drugs were legalized here and distributed here, how much damage would occur? how can you support that? john: mr. mcafee? >> okay, i don't know how many of you were alive in the 50s, you could buy opium off the shelf anywhere in this country. there was no opium epidemic because it was available legally. absolutely not. common sense. if you were buying it and your parents found out, you get a whipping whi is what they did in the 50s. so by saying we're going to legalize drugs, increase the consumption, absolutely not. the reverse usually happens, why? children always want to do something which is a little bit bad.
exciting. if it's legal and you see people buying it and have you heroin addicts on the street, what is the damage they're doing to society? that's my question. the damage they're doing is to themselves, and the damage that we do is assuming that we know what's right for you. you're going to be a better person if you stop doing heroin. [ applause ] >> mr. petersen. >> i am saying bill o'reilly is being a pin head on this one. sorry bill. they are dangerous. we saw this with prohibition when they were making bathtub gin. if you knew what dosages you were taking when it came to illegal drugs, you might know what the danger is. [applause] >> thank you, drug dealers don't check id's. spent a trillion dollars on no win war on drugs. it's ridiculous, we've got to stop this. this is where we get the violence on the border. if you guys want to have a more secure border, you've got to end the war on drugs.
we'll be a safer, freer nation. john: governor johnson? >> we've got an example through the with zurich, switzerland, they made free heroin available. you had to register, but you got as much heroin as you wanted. the idea was to reduce death, disease, crime and corruption. i met with the chief of police from zurich, switzerland when he came to albuquerque for a worldwide drug conference in 2002, and he said when they came out with this program in zurich, i and all of law enforcement could not have been more opposed to this. death, disease, crime and corruption was going to skyrocket. i'm here to tell you that all of those things improved and the citizens of zurich reupped on this program. when you realize that only 8,000 people a year die from heroin overdose, and people say, well, that's because it's illegal. gee-whiz, if it were legal, if it were controlled, meaning, quality, quantity known, you
might not have any death. people will still commit suicide, doing anything. john: some people will get addicted so geraldo rivera has a related go. >> when covering the new hampshire political primaries, the presidential primaries, we found an epidemic of heroin, abuse, and overdose deaths like i've never seen before. as a libertarian candidate would you be in favor of government programs to help the addicts, to help the addicts and stem this epidemic of overdose deaths? john: mr. mcafee? government programs? >> here's the problem, we're assuming can you help a heroin addict that does not want to be helped. as a former addict and i alcoholic, i can promise you until you hit bottom and you're ready to reach up for help, there is nothing anybody can do. if i want my heroin fix all of the goodwill in the world is nothing more than the interference of into my life.
you view me as something alien and improper. i'm the heroin addict and therefore need to be fixed. you can't do it. i've got to want to be fixed and want to reach out first. you can't fix this. john: lightning round, should we legalize prostitution, sex work? governor johnson, yes or no. >> it's more than a yes, and no. if you engage in prostitution where, is the safest place in the world that you can do that? it's nevada. and so, yes. empower women, protect women from the abuses that occur with prostitution. john: mr. mcafee? >> my wife was forced into prostitution at the age of 20, and for 10 years suffered unimaginable hardships and physical abuse, mental abuse, for ten years under a vicious pimp. i personally rescued her 3 1/2 years ago and married her. my opinion is it has to be legalized, else it is the most
inhuman of all things as being criminalized. [ applause ] >> to gambling, should gambling be legal? >> absolutely. yes. john: all forms? >> best example of crony capitalism, the licenses that get issued have to be inside. john: when we return, a question from judge napolitano. [applause] when you think about success, what does it look like? is it becoming a better professor by being a more adventurous student? is it one day giving your daughter the opportunity she deserves? is it finally witnessing all the artistic wonders
. john: we're back with our libertarian presidential forum. here's a question for you from senior judicial analyst, judge napolitano. >> what would you do to protect the constitution today in an era in which no one alive has consented to it, and the president regularly violates it, and the congress treats it like a blank check? john: mr. petersen. >> what do the founders mean when they left something to postert. the constitution was a gift us to, they fought hard to restrict the power of government. john: he's asking how would you protect it? >> how would you protect it?
by obeying it, understanding it, reading it, which i do every single day. the president has a responsibility to obey the law. the government is set with checks and balances and have to remind people that the president doesn't write the law. that's the congress' job. i would protect the constitution by obeying it. [applause] >> the founding fathers were smart enough to know that all governments will eventually become corrupt. this is what happens. as you gain more power, you gain more corruption, this is the facts of life. embedded within the constitution is the fail safe. the constitutional convention which can be convened by congress or two-thirds majority of the states which we're already close to. so they anticipated that we would, at some point, need something else, and gave us the option to do so through the constitutional convention. they were smart people. and we have reached that point. if anyone thinks our government is not insane, has not turned inward. has not invaded your privacy
and not serving you, not serving you and instead they are becoming your mother and father to order you around, this is the reverse role. john: governor johnson? >> governments invade our privacy but do not let us invade its privacy. this is the problem. so the constitution has the means to save itself. john: governor johnson? >> we should obey the constitution and recognize that we can change it. if there's one thing i would change about the constitution, it's the 17th amendment of the constitution which allows the direct election of u.s. senators as opposed to senators being appointed by the states. if that were the case, we would not have the biggest problem facing the country today, which is government spending. >> and 16th amendment, spending. >> and i'm advocating to the same, eliminating it. [cheers and applause] . john: closing statement time. each candidate gets 45 seconds, we begin with austin petersen.
>> my fellow americans, you and i have a rendezvous with destiny, we must nominate a candidate or continue with stagnation. i might seem like an energetic youth. in first timothy it says don't let anyone look down you on because you are young. i believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all individuals regardless of age, race, faith, nonfaith or sexuality. we're all made of the same star stuff, people, and all endowed with the same individual rights. may the light of liberty shine on humanity forever and especially on my beloved united states of america. john: mr. mcafee? >> in my opening statement, i said i hope that through this debate you would see the value of liberty in all things, and i hope that in the two hours that we have been debating and
answering these sometimes very difficult questions, have you seen that some fundamental principles are all that we need to live together in a sane and harmonious fashion. we cannot hit one another, cannot take each other's stuff. we must keep our word, agreements and contracts, and that personal privacy and personal freedom are paramount to any society in which i would want to live and you, i hope. [ applause ] >> governor johnson? >> if you want someone who will tirelessly advocate for smaller government, less taxes, more individual freedom and liberty, free markets, embracing immigration as really a good thing, a skeptic when it comes to our military interventions, term limits, ending the drug war, crony capitalism. women's equality. i'm your guy.
i will relentlessly pursue all of these things with common sense that all of you will be proud of. >> go, gary! [applause] . john: thank you, candidates, good luck to you all. they now go back to the campaign trail, the libertarian convention will be held next month in orlando. at that time, the party will pick its nominee. i assume it's one of these three. we hope this debate helped you decide who you would choose. when we return, analysis from reason magazine's matt welsh and fox business host kennedy.
. john: we've now heard almost two hours of debate from the libertarian presidential candidates. who made the best case? ask two smart libertarians, "reason" magazine editor matt welsh and fox business host kennedy. you first? >> if you end the war on drugs, you make the border much more secure. >> austin stuck the landing, i thought really well right at the very end after making sweet
love to the constitution for a long time in the founding generation. >> sweet love. >> my fellow americans. >> 1802. but talking about the importance of ballot access and making the libertarian party a lasting -- i mean it already is the biggest third party in this country, the only third party going right now. i don't want to disrespect the green party. john: oh, let's. >> it's doing well right now. he made a good point with ballot access. it was very interesting to note the different ways they agreed with each other. many of the agreements -- john: before you go to that, you think austin petersen won the debate? >> i don't think he won the debate by a long shot. john: did anybody win? somebody best? >> i thought gary johnson made the best practical case to a curious mainstream audience, especially when he talked about entrepreneurship. >> gary, god love him, he still is a little tentative about believing what he believes, so
legalized prostitution, yes or no, well, it's complicated, blah, blah, blah. >> whereas john mcafee, this goes to differences, john is very issue oriented, john mcafee is like you own your life, man. [laughter] >> i'm from california, i think that's cool. he's actually making things into first principle and turned to one of your audience members just for that. coming out of the gate, you own yourself, it is out of freedom and citizenship that you own your own body. there's a pragmatic case for libertarianism and deep philosophical case, and mcafee makes that case. >> he scored points on prostitution, when you criminalize prostitution, you're creating a much more inhumane state. >> gary hems and haus. john: and give details, he doesn't meet the guy from zurich, he meets him in new
mexico, who cares, in 2012. >> at the same time, austin and mcafee were rigid when they talked about environmental regulation. john: we're going to live without an epa? >> probably could live without an epa now. however, if you make a short list of what's going to survive the libertarian bloodbath, epa would be on the list because you have a property rights problem with pollution. who owns the air? who owns the water? you got to sort that out. >> who owns the federal land? >> i would be so happy if this viewpoint was out on the main stage, because whether it's -- . john: what, this is the main stage, this is a main stage. >> john, a mainer, on things like illegal immigration, the drug war, foreign intervention, government spending, shutting things down, all of that, there is no viewpoint like this and won't be a viewpoint, anything like this on the main stage. we forget, we think in terms of two seconds in american political commentary here.
pretty soon we're going to have eight consecutive months of nothing, but these two kind of awful people, and people are going to be desperate to have any kind of alternative. these alternatives would be great. >> you have two virulent statists. if we're talking about hillary and trump, you have two people who are so invested in authoritarianism, and creating more government to make themselves more powerful, it's terrifying. i thought mcafee made a really good point when he was talking about apple and how you can create more insecurity for the public when you grasp at the security through government coercion. >> and again, that is a point that is the exact opposite of what hillary and donald trump say, they're inseparable. they want the government on the phone, shut down parts of the internet. both of them, not just trump. they wouldn't go near that. john: thank you, matt welsh. kennedy. that's it for the first ever televised libertarian debate, nationally televised. hope you learned something useful. thank you for joining us.
good night. [cheers and applause] kennedy: that music means it's time to start the show and end the week. i'm watching the democratic race and watching both brain dead fighters tap dancing in between wind mills. both candidate look like they are actually showing up to fight. the wisconsin showdown has turned into a throwdown as each is trying to disqualify the other with a series of new barbs. >> she thick i'm quote-unquote