Interns Debate: Libertarianism vs. Conservatism (Cato vs. Heritage)

thank you all for joining us this evening for the annual libertarianism first conservatism in turn debate for those who don't know me I am Neal Saul and I am the student programs coordinator here at the cato institute and am honor to introduce tonight tonight's event as the heritage interns go head-to-head with the cato interns to debate is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy which political philosophy provides better answers to today's most important political questions of course each of us have always had much to agree upon limited governments free markets and individual liberty are all pillars of the political philosophy that we both value and uphold which have often led us to the same policy preferences and conclusions yet what each of us envision in a free society without governmental and regulatory intrusion often does look quite different policy preferences surrounding foreign policy immigration drug legalization sex work emerging technologies marriage and family just to name a few create cleavages that emerge from differences between our political philosophies and as we've seen in today's political climate seldom are these differences laid out through constructive civil discourse in recent days the protection of free speech has been under threat by those who claim the harms of certain kinds of speech outweigh its protection that there's more sensible approach to the regulation of this kind of expression tribalism has sown skepticism and doubt into the very institutions that have brought absolute power under the rule of law that have enshrined our inalienable human rights for the preservation of freedom which brings us here tonight on this stage as an opportunity for the exposure and articulation of ideas values disagreement discourse and debate these interns have worked tirelessly the summer to parse out these nuance policies differences through fun logical and rational debate but before we begin I'd like to mention a few housekeeping items after the conclusion of this debate please join us outside in the auditorium in the winter garden as well as on the second floor for a reception also join the conversation throughout the debate by using the hashtag lvc debate as you see on screen will be drawing your questions during the Q&A portion from this feed for for the debate portion and furthermore if you're on snapchat please check out our special snapchat filter if you send snaps to at Cato Institute one word they may be featured on social media one important thing to keep in mind especially when posting on social media is that the opinions you'll be hearing tonight are those of our debaters and not the Cato Institute nor the Heritage Foundation we would also appreciate your participation in our post debate survey you'll receive this by email and it gives you a chance to express who you think prevailed as well as your opinion on a number of the issues that will be at hand and raised this evening and the spirit of debates another debate this time on whether capitalism or socialism has better benefited women will be held here at Cato on September 16th at 6:30 p.m. and I would definitely encourage you all to attend or to watch online lastly I'd like to express my thanks for our incredible conference staff for putting this event together Elena Richardson and Colleen Harman of the Heritage Foundation for their hard work coordination and collaboration Matthew Feeney and Wilda field for their invaluable assistance with debate preparation on the Cato Institute side Christian towns in in the front row who agreed to serve as an alternate and also provided extensible research and preparatory work as well and lastly a big THANK YOU to Charles CW cook who's agreed to moderate tonight debate Charles CW Cooke is the editor of National Review Online a co-host of the mad dogs and Englishmen podcast and the author of the conservatory n' manifesto Charles is a graduate of the University of Oxford at which he stuttered modern history and politics his work is focused on anglo-american history British Liberty free speech Second Amendment and the American exceptionalism Charles is a frequent guest on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher and his broadcast for BBC MSNBC Fox News and Fox Business he immigrated to the u.s. in 2011 and became an American citizen in 2018 he lives in Florida with his wife their two sons and their dog a black lab please help me welcome Charles CW kook [Applause] thank you very much for coming thank you to Kato and to heritage for having me here and asking me to moderate this debate it's it's a pleasure to be involved in an argument about political ideas that doesn't ultimately come down to the question of whether the participants like David French or not I think I keep being invited back to do this because well other than Boris Johnson is busy now because I wrote a book on this topic called the conservator in manifesto in which I attempted to tease out the differences between conservatism and libertarianism and to offer a way forward that fuses them where possible I was not I suspect invited back for my predictive abilities given that one thing I wrote in that book was that America's next president might well be a quiet retiring humble modest non-invasive sort of guy who would remove the celebrity cult from our national politics and reduce the executive branch the more limited role the founders had imagined and then we elected Donald Trump who my colleague Kevin Williamson has described as a man with a sensibility halfway between Caligula and Liberace so as you'll imagine my my wife doesn't allow me to place bets over about five dollars anymore but this does remain an important debate especially at this moment because we are obsessed in America with our two political parties and with the presidency our political culture has a tendency to flatten all non left ideologies into just the right kaito for example is often described as conservative when it is no such thing heritage is presumed to be on board with every libertarian innovation when it is not anyone who doesn't want to vote for a Democrat is put into the same camp a good example of there was the way in which despite having very different jurisprudential approaches and personal political views both Neel Gorsuch and Brett Cavanaugh were assumed to be indistinguishable during their respective hearings and that tendency to in the last Supreme Court term has led to great shock among some legal commentators when they noticed how much they diverged which is to say we're not here this evening to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but rather to ask more foundational questions such as whether angels actually exist whether if they do they should be dancing on pins in the first place whether they're dancing on pins is good or bad for society whether pins make us safer or we need more robust pin control whether the injuries sustained as a result of dancing on pins should be paid for by the pin dancers or by everyone else and so on and so forth this is not going to be a pin free zone so before we start a couple of House Rules please don't clap or boot during the debate you can cheer and boo and throw your clothes at the end and please make sure your cell phones don't ring and if they do ring please don't answer them I've equipped all of the debaters tonight with tasers and they'll know what to do if they're interrupted the resolution tonight is is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy we will start off with an opening statement from the conservative side followed by an opening statement from the libertarian side followed by rebuttals from each thank you all for coming as you know tonight we're hosted in Hayek auditorium named for economist Friedrich Hayek to paraphrase his Nobel Prize acceptance speech if man is to do more good than harm in his efforts to improve the social order then he won't shape the results as the craftsman shapes his handiwork but rather cultivate growth by providing the appropriate environment like the gardener does for his plants hikes gardener has two choices one he can abandon his plants to subsist alone dehydrate shrivel up and die or to the gardener can water his plants place them in good sunlight and give them nutrient-rich soil so that they can bloom into magnificent flowers the point of Hayek's garden is this when the government sets the right conditions the political community flourishes that is not to say that the gardener will micromanage or engineer his plants according to a landscape design but he can create the environment where they produce fruit conservatives and libertarians have enjoyed a mutually beneficial alliance together we have rallied support for the free market and defeated communism but in the tradition of the founders conservatives recognized that unfettered liberty must never come at the expense of our society and our humanity at the heart of today's debate is a central question what kind of country do we want to live in and our descendants to inherit conservatism is a political philosophy that is designed to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty to the next generations by creating an atmosphere of morals virtue and law faith family and responsibility unlike the axiomatic no size fits all ideology called libertarianism conservatism is a balancing pendulum with order on one end and liberty on the other but libertarianism ignores the tension between order and liberty the end result is excessive liberty and almost no order in the name of live and let live libertarianism removes the social scaffolding around our society and the moral compass from our nation and we see what happens when libertarians tried to implement their ideals always and everywhere that libertarianism causes societal decay the libertarian said legalize drugs entire regions of this country suffered under the opioid epidemic the libertarian said the right to abortion is a Liberty as fundamental as property abortion became available on demand and life and Liberty was robbed from 60 million innocent unborn the libertarian said opened the borders the American taxpayer foot the bill for illegal immigration either by forfeiting his job or his money to a larger welfare state the libertarian said marriage doesn't matter children got trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty and fatherless broken homes libertarianism is a utopian idea ideology that wants to build an impossible Society but the ideal world that libertarians want is not worth striving for it's pretty much the farthest stretch from anything our founding fathers envisioned tonight we'll set the record straight on the founders vision for America looking back to Hayek's Garden the Americans do not want a broken wasteland of atomized individuals we do not want weeds and briars to tear up our inherited plot what we want is a thriving garden [Applause] good evening everyone thank you for taking the time to come to Cato or watch online I also want to extend a special thank you to our moderator tonight charles cook as well as to the heritage interns for coming to the lion's den as we weigh the relative merits of these two philosophies we must consider an essential question what is the purpose of government well even volumes of text may not provide a fully comprehensive answer the Declaration of Independence provides the best concise answer governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that right there is the libertarian vision for government simply put libertarianism does a better job than conservatism at secure in these most vital and precious of Rights libertarians unlike our conservative and progressive friends recognizes that each adult has the right and responsibility to make decisions about how best to go about their life so long as those decisions do not infringe on the rights of another libertarianism resists that most base and human desire to impose one's beliefs on another through force and that through force is essential to understand we do not reject the fundamental importance of virtue but believe that Liberty is the best means of achieving such a virtue we recognize and cherish the vital role of civil society in any Republic the Tocqueville so clearly identified in democracy in America yet the imposition of moral values by force of law is not only unethical but actually crowds out the most essential roles of civil society if we abdicate all responsibilities to some conservative in Washington who thinks that they know how to order liberty or some progressive who believes that they can transform society at the push of a button all will be lost a conservative who believes that the government can centrally manufacture a virtuous society falls victim to the same fatal conceit of a Marxist who centrally plans the economy virtue imposed by force is hardly virtue at all rather virtue must be inculcated by vital community institutions true liberty when civil society is allowed to flourish sustains virtue in thinking about good governance we hold a lot in common with our conservative friends we believe in the rule of law and a vibrant judiciary that insures contracts and property rights so fundamental to any free society are upheld we recognize the importance of a criminal justice system that ensures that those who infringe on the fundamental rights of others face adequate discipline we believe in a military that provides for the national defense but we have a different conception of the limits of government than our conservative friends accordingly I do have one key request for the audience tonight be wary of what George Orwell would call political language throughout this debate make sure to consider what the true ethical implications are when conservatives argue for certain interventions to uphold the social order smart drug policy means locking people in cages for choosing - putting in toxic and other than alcohol in their body likewise protect the institution of marriage really means prevent those with a different sexual orientation than I from raising a child protect our Liberty all too often means propping up a despotic regime like that of Saudi Arabia let us at least be honest about what certain conservative principles truly entail when assessing their merits libertarianism stems from a deep intellectual humility that we may not have it all figured out when we enact government policy rather than unilaterally decide on some social policy libertarians placed their faith in what Adam Smith called natural Liberty the natural Liberty that emerges when fundamental rights are protected is how best to ensure that our society prospers that not government coercion is how we preserve life and liberty and give people the best chance at secure and happiness for themselves and their posterity thank you [Applause] now we'll have two minute rebuttals first from the conservative side our opponents talked a lot about the imposition of moral values claiming that we conservatives fall victim to the fatal conceit of collectivism and as it follows authoritarianism but we would contend that it's actually libertarianism that backfires and ultimately invites the slippery slope government intervention that we all want to avoid the problem is the individual choices that libertarians hold so near and dear sometimes produce large-scale unintended consequences that can rot civil society and leave ordinary people stuck picking up the pieces drugs haven't just stolen freedom from individuals they've debilitated entire regions of this country from rural Appalachia all the way to the west spell about the rest belt so when the social fabric starts unraveling who but the government is called to stop it that's the problem it's the state that will get involved to cure the societal ills that libertarianism created because libertarianism atomizes individuals to ultimately seek meaning in the state but we must ask ourselves is it really authoritarian to protect our national sovereignty and our citizens by securing the border is it really unjustified to deter foreign adversaries and aggression abroad so that we don't face invasion or extortion tomorrow is it really a violation of civil liberties to get people off of welfare and out of poverty by promoting marriage is it really tyrannical to want to get drug addicts off the street and parents are off of drugs so that children aren't driven into the foster care system the deceptive simplicity of libertarianism is that they don't often see the difference between banning the big gulp and banning black tar heroin the problem is that if we fail to care for our civil society and if we take individual freedom too it's axiomatic extreme and balk at the chance to save our country the only freedom libertarians preserve is the freedom to decline and fall [Music] [Applause] I'd like to remind you all that no matter how pretty the language from the conservative side is fear-mongering isn't an argument and this is a debate and we're here to make arguments so throughout I think you really need to keep in mind what's an argument and what's something that sounds really great but isn't supported by facts libertarianism at its core is supported by facts if you look at the data that we're going to give you throughout this speech for example in regard to the opioid epidemic you'll see that actually by limiting the government's restriction on drugs you do see fewer drugs you do see more people not doing drugs that's hard data the other important thing that you need to remember is that in none of that did the Conservatives tell you why the government needs to be doing all of these different policy decisions do you know it's a really effective way of not being addicted to drugs going to NA going to Narcotics Anonymous going to your local church being involved with your families and communities to see what they can do for you at its core libertarianism is about the belief that freedom is something that is important by no means is it unlimited that would be a bad policy choice that once again is not supported by the data but at its core when we look at institutions we believe that a society can have pluralistic values we believe that religious freedom applies and extends to Jews Muslims and Mormons just as much as it does Christians and at its core when conservatives talk about Family Values they talk about one type of family and this is why you should prefer libertarianism as a political philosophy because we believe that you should be wary of the considerations that the government makes for you we don't have a lot of say of what happens in Washington we don't have a lot of say of what happens at our government we do have a say for what happens in our personal lives and libertarianism is the only political philosophy between the two of us that believes that you have the ability and that you have the right to make choices for your own life for your own family and for your own communities and that is why you should prefer libertarianism to conservatism [Applause] more specific topics each side will speak for four minutes on that topic in an Obi one minute for each four rebuttals the first topic and the Libertarians will start this one does government have a responsibility to restrict citizens from consuming drugs known to cause addiction and physical harm conservatives say that drugs can do harm to change things up will concede that point now what the question at hand is whether the government has a responsibility to restrict drugs and to that we respond no first let's address a historical argument do you know what the most dangerous drug is on June 25th the global Commission on drug policy looked at several dimensions in the context to both harm to users and harm to others in nearly every category alcohol a drug deemed by the government to be appropriate for people to consume was deemed the most harmful and the United States tried to ban alcohol before in 1920 prohibition didn't work and here are the effects that it brought a 24% increase in crime over the course of one year in 30 major US cities a forty five percent increase in drug addiction that spawned the creation of Mexico's oldest drug cartel a burdened legal system and a 50 percent increase in deaths from alcohol from 1920 to 1921 and a 66 percent increase in deaths from alcohol from 1921 to 1926 and in the decade prior to Prohibition these deaths had been steadily decreasing next let's look at today 14 percent of adults smoke cigarettes in 2017 one in seven US adults used marijuana an estimated seventy-three percent of the adult population drinks alcohol these users are people and locking them up for wanting an escape is wrong if you wouldn't lock up your buddy for having a beer during happy hour then why would you ask your government to do it for you and there are different ways that we consume intoxicants downing a bottle of Granite State vodka is different from having a single glass of a balloon eat banning substances does not work it never has it never will and when substances are banned the narrative surrounding drugs begins to ignore the human aspects of drug addictions because banning drug does not drugs does not address the root cause of drug addiction and studies done on rats testing the appetite of rats for heroin given the choice between drugs are playing with their fluffy friends rats consistently chose social interaction and studies on humans have come to the same conclusion when people are engaged with good communities they're less likely to fall prey to drug addiction and we've seen this before during the Vietnam War soldiers used heroin literal heroin when they came home and were no longer surrounded by war and communists they simply stopped doing drugs if people are isolated like in the prisons where we currently throw drug users then they are more likely to become addicts and experience the negative side effects of using drugs as an escape drugs are about human nature thus our final argument is a moral one if drugs are bad shouldn't you want people to refuse to do them without anyone telling them to don't you want someone to have the moral character to know that drugs are bad and refused to do them it's not against the law to cheat on your significant other but that doesn't mean you should do it it's probably still a bad thing to do in the world where drugs are legal communities are strong and resilient in the face of drug use if someone finds themselves at a bottom of a bottle friends families and non-government institutions can help them many people in this auditorium know someone who struggles with addiction do you really think that throwing them in jail would be the right call it should be noted that even decades of drug prohibition later we still cannot manage to keep drugs out of our prisons at its core this argument is about one thing in particular when a well-meaning person makes a mistake the answer is not to make them a criminal the answer is to let things like family values and community ethics show them the way forward because families and communities are better than a detached unfeeling government you cannot ban human nature guv are incapable of addressing the root causes of drug use the state can only put you in a cage and we've seen how that works out and thus the government should not ban drugs thank you the same question for the conservative side does government have a responsibility to restrict citizens from consuming drugs known to cause addiction and physical harm because of the societal damage that drug consumption causes the government has a clear responsibility to restrict them more people died from drug overdoses in 2017 than all the US military casualties in Vietnam in Iraq war is combined but it seems libertarians only care about the death toll when it involves the military libertarians say drugs are a victimless crime well JD Vance author of hillbilly elegy certainly felt like a victim at 12 years old Vance watched his mother deteriorate from drug addiction in Ohio one of the pill mills of the Rust Belt drugs were the reason he grew up in a chaotic and dysfunctional home and the reason why he lived with his grandparents for much of his childhood drugs through his family and town into a downward spiral of intergenerational poverty and we can look to the documentary Seattle is dying and to find some more victims half-naked homeless people life drained from their faces watering the streets chasing drugs currently 2 million people are addicted to opioids on average 130 Americans die every day from opioid overdose drugs inflict real harm not just on individuals but on families entire neighborhoods and cities and to say otherwise is ignorant of reality this is not the society the next generation deserves drugs like cocaine meth and heroin haven't liberated people they've enslaved them how was an individual free is if a sense of reality is completely hijacked how can he continue to act as a free agent if his cognitive faculties are under attack by these substances but don't take it from me take it from libertarian scholar walter block of the Mises Institute he wrote drugs are sold destroyers when enslaved by addictive drugs all too often the very intention of freedom becomes atrophied welcome to the libertarians brave new world where human dignity is reduced to nothing drugs also hurt a third party children after all 70% of abused and neglected children lived with addicted parents and they had no say in that children from drug infested homes are far more likely to struggle in school suffer from mental health issues commit suicide or develop drug addictions themselves can libertarians really say that legalization will not exacerbate the situation of course not legalization won't fix America's drug problem it will normalize it the rules of supply and demand tell us that legalization will increase availability and cheapen prices therefore lead to ever escalating drug use and as drug consumption proliferate so will hospitalizations and traffic fatalities the government is a social signal or whether we like it or not and people will follow the signals if it legalizes and D stigmatizes drugs our opponents talked about the failure of the drug war mass incarceration policing costs in the black market and how all this points to full-fledged legalization sure the war on drugs hasn't been 100% successful but the war on murder hasn't been a hundred percent successful either there's never perfect compliance so what do we quit and let a national purge happen because enforcement is difficult are we not even going to try to end the drug epidemic the question our ponents need to answer is will legalization make these communities better or worse it's clear under libertarian watch America will waste away I asked the libertarians how many teenagers need to die from black tar heroin before the government should get involved ten thousand a hundred thousand a million how many towns need to rot from drug addiction this is starting to sound less like Liberty and more like a slow societal suicide thank you now we have a rebuttal from the libertarians well I would first like to answer that question legalization will make these communities better how do I know this well our conservative friends correctly point out the drugs can harm people you know what invariably harms people the war on drugs that we've been waging for the last almost century and they talk about the toll of the opioid crisis and I'm not sure they're taking it fully seriously well we can look at the example of pork Portugal in 2001 faced a heroin crisis where 1% of the population was addicted to opioids what did they do they counter-intuitively decriminalized all narcotics what happened death rates plummeted if the United States could reach death rates analogous to that of Portugal we would save one life every 10 minutes think about what that could do for our communities rather than locking drug addicts in cages like our conservative friends proposed we should give them treatment just like we give alcoholics treatment we drug legalization will clearly make these communities better thank you and I one minute rebuttal from the conservatives libertarians can talk at lank about the failure of the drug war but they haven't proven that legalization will make these communities better or worse and they talked about alcohol earlier and the prohibition of that but what they didn't mention is that there is a self regulating self moderating culture in America around alcohol after work coworkers will head to the bar to grab a couple of drinks while they head to the cocaine vending machine I don't think so unlike the big gulp drugs are inherently addictive substances and the government is just social signaler as I already mentioned and drug abuse spans the cost across entire regions of this country so when drug addiction takes over an entire community it's not a lifestyle choice anymore it's a disease Portland Seattle San Francisco are some examples of where libertarian policies like this have led they've surrendered to drugs and they've been crippled by it how can they say they've improved thank you our next topic is immigration the Conservatives will go first the question is undocumented migrants do not pose a threat to the United States so it's kind of sad that we have to debate this issue border security is a fundamental exercise of national sovereignty any countries our right to decide who and what enters it therefore illegal immigration is affront to the dignity of the country and its citizens now this is not to say the Conservatives oppose immigration far from it we recognize that we are a country of immigrants that said we further understand that an intrinsic component of any sovereign country is the ability to control its borders now the prompt states undocumented migrants do not pose a threat to the United States so our opponents burden of proof is clear they must demonstrate that illegal immigration poses no threat to the country while we must prove in some capacity that it does and the evidence is clearly on our side illegal immigration presents a physical threat to the United States every year ice apprehends illegal aliens responsible for roughly eighty thousand duis seventy six thousand drug offences and fifty thousand assaults there's an extensive network of human trafficking associated with illegal immigration threatening US citizens and migrant families alike gangs such as ms-13 run amok because we refuse to enforce our laws now our opponents they'll try to counter this point by presenting their own data claiming that illegal aliens on the whole commit fewer crime than citizens but they're using flawed studies the truth is no one knows the full breadth of a legal alien crime because we don't even know how many of them are here a further illegal alien the illegal alien population is far less likely to report crime because they fear deportation and even when they do come forward how are we supposed to get accurate numbers when sanctuary cities won't even report them but the end of the day this is irrelevant every single crime committed by an illegal alien is a crime which would have never occurred in the first place this debate is not about probabilities it's about people like Ed anujan a mother of three and a grandmother of six who in May of this year was repeatedly stabbed and killed by an illegal alien after forcing his way into her home it's about Ariana Funes Diaz a fourteen-year-old girl who in April this year was brutally murdered by two ms-13 gang members one armed to the bat and the other with a machete can our opponents seriously say with a straight face that illegal immigration poses no threat to people like them of course not illegal immigration also imposes an undue financial burden in our country now our opponents will say that open borders will boost economic productivity but they neglect one important reality the United States has an advanced welfare system illegal aliens tend to be low skilled workers who easily qualify for government assistance we estimate that there are at the very least 11 million illegal aliens living within the United States the average illegal alien household receives about fourteen thousand dollars more in government benefits than it pays in taxes the estimated net costs on our country for the lowest estimate of 11 million illegal aliens is 1.5 trillion dollars this is why Milton Friedman famously said you cannot have open borders and a welfare state so if you follow the libertarian logic of free movement of labor and open borders then you are advocating for the expansion of welfare now our opponents will likely say they get rid of welfare well as a conservative I find this appealing but as a conservative I don't live in a libertarian fantasy I understand that there are political realities and that welfare isn't going anywhere soon another common libertarian argument is build a wall around welfare don't give assistance to non-citizens now this is yet again politically unreasonable and morally cruel countries like the United Arab Emirates deny government assistance immigrant workers they've become an economic powerhouse than middle-east off the back of migrant workers who now represent about 90% of their population but their policy has created a de facto second-class citizen rate this system is detrimental to any free society and conservatives will not allow to happen in the United States so now I have to ask my opponents if you truly believe there is no threat associated with illegal immigration if you want open borders then how do you reconcile that with allowing criminals into the country how many citizens and migrants are likely to be killed by ms-13 before you believe the government should do something and further if you are you content where they expand a welfare state or do you just want to deny immigrants government assistance thank you and now the libertarians have a chance to answer that and make their own opening statement few issues are as prone to rampant misinformation and outlandish claims as immigration policy the human brain seems hardwired to create us-versus-them dichotomies our president and our conservative friends know this all too well let's be clear undocumented immigrants do not pose a threat to the United States to understand why let's unpack the gross misconceptions surrounding the immigration debate our conservative friends correctly note that the vast majority of firearm crimes are committed by a small number of people so I trust they will welcome the similar truth found in immigration crime statistics and conducts policy accordingly it is often alleged that undocumented immigrants are exceptionally violent and pose a national security threat that simply isn't true Texas is the only state to track statistics for specific crimes by immigration status and in Texas which is hardly a state known for its soft treatment of undocumented immigrants the homicide rate conviction rate for human immigrants was 44% below that of native-born Americans in 2016 nationwide undocumented immigrants are 47 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives the academic literature has consistently found a negative correlation between crime and immigration we have to be honest about the statistics fear mongering is common one study out of Switzerland found that the media was twice as likely to report on a crime committed by an immigrant as compared to a native citizen nevertheless the annual chance of dying in an attack by a foreign-born terrorist including 9/11 which accounts for almost 93 percent of all the terrorist deaths in this data set is 1 in 3.8 million the annual risk of dying in a car crash is one in a hundred three you would be a fool to suggest banning cars because they offer been obvious benefits to society the same logic applies to undocumented immigrants and immigrants in general this brings us to our second misconception that undocumented immigrants hurt our economy the truth is just the opposite the economic literature consistently finds that immigration has a positive impact on long-run economic growth and little to no effect on the real wages of native-born Americans most estimates find a positive impact overall on these native-born Americans importantly as well undocumented immigrants are ineligible for federal means-tested welfare so they hardly pose a threat to entitlement spending which is already out of control from 2002 to 2009 immigrants as a whole subsidized Medicare making fourteen point seven percent of contributions but only consuming seven point nine percent of expenditures a third common misconception is that undocumented immigrants won't assimilate if you compare today's immigrants to the immigrants who came over from Ireland in Italy to groups that nobody would dare call a threat to American culture today you will see that they assimilate at the same rates three generations in voting patterns in self-identification as an American our identity non recent immigrant families one important facts should be emphasized assimilation doesn't necessarily mean adopting Heritage Foundation values yet if we truly want to protect our heritage we must continue to allow for robust immigration with the exception of the blatantly racist Exclusion Act of 1882 the very conception of an illegal immigrant did not really exist in our country until 1924 almost everyone in this room is descended from someone who was fleeing persecution or seeking better opportunity for their families those same people wouldn't make it to America under current law when you hear conservatives say get to the back of the line remember that there is no line our current system lacks any sort of meaningful due process we lock children in cages away from their parents we demonize people trying to provide for their family our policies create criminals out of good people undocumented migrants are not a threat to the United States unless we made someone q a rebuttal from the conservative side okay so we have to remember that we're having this conversation within the context of the status quo a world where we have Border Patrol and agencies like ice now what do you think will happen if we just remove these security measures now instead of what happens you think we'll just remove these security measures contra to what our opponent have said karte debts are not the same thing as ms-13 we're gonna see an influx of crime on the border should we not even try to stop criminals from crossing into our country our opponents content with ms-13 killing men women and children how long do we have to wait before we do something moreover I have yet to hear an answer about how we should handle the welfare system and it doesn't only affect the federal government affect state governments as well twenty-six states also give welfare benefits to non-citizens if our country is unwilling to build a wall around welfare or around the border what makes you think it's willing to build a wall around welfare we let's talk about numbers let 1.75 million people legally into the country last year if we allow more and think of it think of the additional people who come in the government estimates that the current 11 million illegal alien population will cost us 1.5 trillion dollars what will happen to that we just add in ten fifty a hundred million more people rebuttal I never thought I would hear libertarians argue for the expansion for the welfare state we have one minute for the libertarians to respond so just to explain the welfare state thing first immigrants are not eligible for welfare second if you look at a country like Sweden we saw that influx of immigration led to people in the home state so citizens voting against welfare programs because they didn't want immigrants to get it is it xenophobic yes might it lead to decreasing the welfare system also yes take your pick also when we look at what happens in regard to policy based decisions we're not saying that there's no threat at hand from immigrants what we're saying is that it's not worth it to say oh we're gonna not allow anyone in we're going to over extend what the threat actually is instead of addressing the data we gave you clear data in our speech that undocumented immigrants are less of a threat than native-born Americans so there's 50,000 homicides a year from undocumented immigrants how are how many are there from native-born Americans a lot more when we address the question at hand it's important to remember that we don't identify all immigrants as ms-13 members just as we don't identify all Christians as members of Westboro but we're Westboro Baptist Church in a country with a close border is active thank you okay third topic as libertarians we'll start this one a larger defense budget will not enhance American national security to understand the impact of a larger defense budget on American national security we should look at what we're getting with the 716 billion dollars requested by the Department of Defense in 2019 unfortunately nobody really knows where that money's going just this past November the Pentagon failed an audit that cost the taxpayer more than 400 million dollars in a remarkable statement deputy deputy secretary States Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan noted that quote we failed the audit but we never expected to pass it anyone who believes in a strong national defense should find this deeply troubling equally troubling are the many areas of our defense budget that do nothing to enhance national security you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that the Air Force spending $1300 on coffee cups or $14,000 on a 3d printed toilet seats makes us safe over the course of four years the Department of Defense spent 294 million dollars the equivalent of nearly four US Air Force f-35 Joint Strike Fighters on erectile dysfunction medication no seriously you can look it up in 2016 the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon buried an internal study on a hundred and twenty five billion dollars in internal waste amid fears that Congress would use the findings as an excuse to slash the defense budget if we were talking about the Department of Education failing an audit and calling it a success conservatives would not be calling for increasing the department's funding and we are spending more to get less the deleterious impact of this bureaucracy is stark as former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan John Lehman notes it now takes an average of 22 and a half years to deploy new weapons instead of the four years it took during the Cold War contrastingly China and Russia are producing fifth-generation ships and fighters in four years and why is this it's because our bloated budget inhibits innovation the world that we will fight in the future will increasingly depend on innovation we will need more advanced technology but a bigger what but a bigger budget will not improve our national security if we keep providing adverse incentives to keep projects slow and expensive and incentives are important and a larger budget would do nothing to streamline the Pentagon's bureaucracy I have one final question that conservatives must answer to make an effective argument if our current levels of spending aren't sufficient what level is and wide how much more do we need to be taking from future generations to ensure adequate national security I'll help them out on may 15th the Heritage Foundation stated that we needed a three to five percent growth in spending each year do the math by the end of Trump's third term that would be over a trillion dollars and how much safer is that really going to make us our defense spending is almost equal to that of the next eight highest spending countries combined and five of those countries are our allies so what additional spending really make the average American any safer ultimately one of the best things that America can do for its national security is to remain the world's economic powerhouse and over funding in a lab elaborate bureaucracy is certainly not the way to do that former joint chief of staff chairman Admiral Michael Mullen famously remarked that the most significant threat to our national security is our debt and we're not advocating to cut the budget we're just spending we're just saying don't spend more on it and all of this there are important points that get missed is it beneficial to America's national security to engage in unconstitutional wars that kill civilians should we be spending American tax dollars on drones to kill civilians in the Middle East because we're not making friends when we bomb weddings in Pakistan conservatives must not only answer why we must increase our spending that has spending money supporting places like Saudi Arabia makes American civilians safer our military has no grand strategy accordingly we do not know what a successful cap on military spending looks like but spending infinitely is certainly not the answer thank you and now an opening statement from the conservatives George Washington once said to be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace and his words ring true today the United States is plain and simple a global power with global interests interests like protecting international free markets the freedom of navigation on the high seas and regional stability we cannot protect these interests without a robust military capable deterrence and without a defense budget to support it why must we project power across the globe well what would the world look like if we shrink from our commitments China has gradually taken over the South China Sea jeopardizing our Asian allies and international trade prospects will China stop at the United States withdrawals from the region know they would escalate their expansion Iran is a major sponsor of terror and aspiring nuclear hegemon of the Middle East with LaRon stops at the United States were two burtraw from the region know they would continue to sponsor terror and they would complete the nuclear program North Korea is developing nuclear weapons and Russia has proven with its deceitful invasion of Crimea that it wishes reclaimed former Soviet influence will they suddenly stop at the United States withdraws when those regions know North Korea would seriously consider an invasion of South Korea and Russia would continue its aggression United States military deterrence works our Navy has kept trade lanes open within the South China Sea in the Strait of Hormuz our ground forces stationed overseas have deterred invasions of countries like Taiwan South Korea in the Ukraine our air power is disrupted terrorist operations abroad the United States must project power to maintain international interests but we are currently handicapped by budget constraints the defense budget of recent years is insufficient to meet these challenges our opponents they've already said what do you mean the United States already spends so much more when compared to other countries now this is true however aggregate expense is not an accurate measure of power we have commitments across the world which our military must meet unlike other countries we're not concentrated in one region take China for an example the United States Navy on the whole may be larger than the Chinese Navy but our navy spans the globe whereas China is concentrated in their backyard the 7th fleet which is part of our Pacific Fleet has about 50 ships when compared to China's 200 are we able to defectively deter Chinese aggression within the South China Sea when we don't even have regional power parity of course not we need a military capable deterrent suggesting otherwise is ignoring the reality we live in another common libertarian argument is that it wouldn't be the military industrial complex but the suggestion is incorrect yes there is waste in the defense budget which is why conservatives have proposed policies like rollover accounts for defense spending and Base Realignment enclosure programs but when Eisenhower warned the country of the military industrial complex he was warning us of an economy driven by defense spending when I shower was president defense spending represented 9% of the economy and 52% of the federal budget today it represents 3% of the economy and 16% of the federal budget conservatives want to spend our tax dollars effectively but the mere potential for waste does not negate the underlying principle of a military deterrence driven by a robust military so I have to ask our opponents how do you seriously plan to provide for a common defense do you really believe that a diminished budget and a diminished military will keep the United States safe one of the reasons we can have this debate today is because of our robust military budget don't sit here and tell us that you don't like wastes in the budget what is your plan for the us how much should we be spending on the military anyone can sit around for around criticisms and offer no solutions thank you so now we have one minute for each rebuttal starting with the libertarians as I hear the threats raised by the conservatives I'm reminded by a quote from Frederick the Great of Prussia who said he finn's everything defends nothing let's address some of these threats and why spending more money is not the best way to address them our conservative friends mention the threat that Iran poses to the region and I'd like to remind them that the biggest threat would be nuclear proliferation we had a deal that barred them from acquiring a nuclear weapon they also talked about how Iran sponsors terrorism well newsflash were aligned with the Saudis who are waging a war of aggression in Yemen and it's also big sponsors of terrorism in the region why are we destabilizing the region further by aligning with such a despotic regime additionally they raised the threat of Russia and I'd like to remind them that our NATO allies are more than capable of responding to the threat of Russia Russia is an economy Russia has possessed as an economy the size of Italy finally I'm not understanding how all of these commitments around the globe make us safer for example our 18 year long war in Afghanistan that is not how we've improved readiness if we rather than dumping more money perhaps we stopped ended waging the war in Afghanistan to improve readiness thank you thank you and now a conservative or button I despite what my opponents might say this isn't like a game of Risk grittiness pick up the pieces and restart we're dealing with real-world threats here the reality is that we're a global power of global interests we need to play a world on we need to play a role in the world stage because we don't we leave ourselves vulnerable do you really expect Russia China North Korea Iran and jihadi groups to declare well now that the United States has withdrawn its military presence we can finally just live in peace and trade with them no that's ridiculous I want US ships in the South China Sea today so there aren't Chinese ships off the coast of Los Angeles tomorrow I want US planes to strike Isis targets today so there aren't large-scale attacks on Western cities tomorrow I want you with soldiers in Europe today so there isn't a Russian invasion of the Ukraine tomorrow now what's our opponents plan Nicoll act neglect the budget and hope people play nice how do you plan to protect your coveted free markets when Iran begins to restrict the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz because the United States Navy isn't there to deter them we cannot effectively maintain global interest without a robust military and a strong defense budget to support it thank you before we move on to our final topic just to remind you this this hashtag behind me you could submit questions to it which I will then pose to both sides during the Q&A section which follows so please please use that if you're so inclined final question and the conservatives will go first on this one final topic is the decline of marriage necessarily a bad thing the decline of marriage is an existential threat to the United States in principle and in practice where seventy-two percent of Americans were married in 1960 only about half are married now but it doesn't take two ticks to understand that marriage is one of those things that gives life meaning since the dawn of civilization some kind of marriage has existed it's a support system a solid foundation to build a life upon and escape from loneliness and in many cases poverty not only that it's the building block of society the bedrock of civilization and the vehicle by which we care for the next generations it also turns out that marriage is America's greatest weapon against welfare dependence and child poverty because of the lack of economic stability and the psychological impact of single parenthood the erosion of the institution of marriage is detrimental to children according to the US census the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2009 was 37 point one percent while the rate for married couples with children was 6.8% children with only one parent are less likely to finish school more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol or more and more likely to commit violent crimes over half of incarcerated youths are from single-parent homes and we must ask ourselves is this the future we want for our children of course not children need parents where else to the libertarians expect to get their generation of innovators and scientists without parents to guide them the fact is marriage is the best model for raising leaders and good citizens how can we justify denying children the tried-and-true effective environment upbringing I asked our opponents why are you so experiment with children's livelihood not to mention marital decline burdens society through a larger welfare state instead of finding a spouse many people today are marrying the American taxpayer the overwhelming majority of benefits to families with children goes to single-parent households as a result over reliance on government assistance has deprived children of the love and security they would have received from two parents Michael brendan doherty argued that it was the culture of personal fulfillment and convenience that replaced traditional meaning and led to the dissolution of his parents marriage and eventually led to his own identity crisis Doherty story showed that marriage is not just a lifestyle choice or a contract for a tax break children depend on it and there's something we can do right now to save the institution of marriage conservatives understand how to balance limited government and the crisis of marriage our opponents will say that we want to micromanage marriage but it's just the opposite we don't want welfare to take the place of the family breadwinner we don't want people married to the government we want people married to each other a good step in the right direction is removing the penalties against marriage inherent in the welfare system and ending the subsidizing and incentivizing of single parenthood given all this evidence we can't give up on marriage we simply can't afford to thank you now an opening statement from the libertarians there is a rich and vibrant history of conservatives lamenting the decline of marriage in our country at various points in our nation's history conservatives have stated that the right for women to own property women's suffrage interracial marriage and same-sex marriage would all undermine the institution alas here we are and the institution of marriage has survived obergefell V Hodges nevertheless conservatives who are always put - note their support for limited government are as steadfast as ever in their support for government interference in marriage and the essential question when considering whether the decline of marriage is necessarily a bad thing is what the government should do about it let's examine conservative policy prescriptions and as we do so keep another question in mind which past era of marriage would conservatives wish to return us to conservatives often implicate the legalization of same-sex marriage as a key factor driving the decline of marriage yet why should two adults not have the Liberty to marry and raise a child together there is nothing ethical about preventing such a marriage and doing so actually arms the future of our country the academic literature has consistently found that children raised by same-sex parents fair just as well as children raised in traditional marriages when the necessary confounders are controlled for I would love for conservatives to lecture Kenneth Faried an NBA player who was raised in New Jersey by two mothers on how a father is required to instill masculinity and a child another policy proposal favored by some conservatives to address the alleged decline of marriage is limiting no-fault divorce no-fault divorce allows a spouse to terminate a marriage without showing faults by the other party conservatives argue that no-fault divorce has compromised the institution of marriage some have proposed ending no-fault divorce for married couples with children yet such a repeal would not only be harmful to mothers but also to the very children it would aim to protect marriages that should be terminated would endure and the social science literature has shown that parents born to a children born to high conflict marriages are actually worse off than those born to single parents although marriage may be preferable to single parenthood on average only one blissfully divorced from reality can argue that it is better for parents to remain together in a conflict ridden household and separate and under a repeal of no-fault divorce mothers would invariably be hurt research by the economist Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers found that states that introduced unilateral divorce saw a female suicide decreased by 8 to 16 percent domestic violence decreased by roughly 30 percent and spousal murder decreased by 10 percent make no mistake about it the repeal of no-fault divorce laws that many conservatives favor will lead to the deaths of mothers such a proposal is a textbook case of the treatment being worse than the cure other proposals such as strong tax incentives are equally foolhardy for one they devalue the institution that conservatives cherish consider the marginal marriages created by such incentives would parents linked together only by financial incentives really provide a healthy environment for their children besides a cursory glance at history including the failed attempts by the Soviet Union to regulate religion illustrates why governments have no business interfering with such core social values such as one's choice of partner or religion conservatives would greatly benefit from absorbing in this wisdom it is not the role of government to regulate marital choices that is instead the domain of private individuals and associations including churches that favor traditional marriages the state should play no role in distorting one of the most fundamental choices of any individual the choice of partner it's simply wrong for the state to choose your partner for you thank you first rebuttal while our opponents mentioned alternatives to traditional marriage the fact is that the arrangement of traditional marriage is the best known environment for raising children by every metric biologically and psychologically speaking children don't need parenting they need mothering and fathering and our opponents claim that these other arrangements for raising children are just as just as probably superior but I find that interesting because the logical extension of libertarianism as exhibited by Murray Rothbard a co-founder of Cato is that parents shouldn't even be obliged oka or coerced into feeding their own children let alone raising them so at that point I think the familial structure is probably irrelevant to libertarians but it's not to us in the libertarian rebuttal so for those of you who didn't chime in last year we publicly disavowed Murray Rothbard last year and let us do it again he has horrible ideas and also I would like to remind you throughout thank you that think of the children is not actually an argument when we look at the decline of marriage we need to look at why it's happening and that's because people are getting married later in life because they think it's an important decision that should have some thought behind it and that divorce rates are going down so while divorce rates peaked in the 1980s we're seeing them lower now which is still higher than the 60s because there was no fault there was no no-fault divorce then which is when you saw all of the bad side effects that will told you in his opening statement fundamentally this is an argument about choice marriage today is about love it's a fundamentally different institution it's probably good for children they'd given you great data let's believe them but at its core when we look at what the government's role in marriage should be it shouldn't be involved at all because you know what's best for you you know what's best for your partner and yes you should feed your children together thank you when out the Q&A section and I'm going to pose the first question to the libertarians either review 2 min 2 minutes for this one you said in the segment on drugs both that liberalizing drug laws would help in that it would lead to fewer people with problems few addicts there was also a moral case made for doing that not locking people in cages for putting things into their body let's assume that we don't see the response that you've proposed and we liberalized the drug laws and we do see all sorts of Horrors where does that put that moral case I love morals they're great so it would put us in a slightly difficult situation I can see to the conservatives that there are some cases where drugs can destroy agency an agency is super important but at its core if we look at the data not on whether people get addicted but on what's the most effective way to get them not addicted we have seen really good success in regard to AAA and na there are systems put in place that are not run by the government that help us determine what is the best solution for combating addiction an addiction is something really difficult like there no one's disputing that but when we look at what the policy prescription should be it's important to remember that ethical and effective policy goes hand in hand we look at important things and we're saying what's the best way for the government an institution with a legitimate use of force on you it has a monopoly on it and we say what happens if we put the government in charge of something so what would the government realistically do to addicts not sure it would probably involve some penalty and with something like addiction when your choice is taken away it might be that your first cigarette was something that you chose but your second or third cigarette probably wasn't and if the government said that they were going to penalize addiction then that's a bad policy because you're now penalizing people for something outside of their control so the response with addiction is always going to be something involving rehabilitation it's always going to be something that engages communities because as you look at the data about what helps addiction it helps people to be involved with communities and no matter what way you try to spend things the government is not a community thank you and a related question for the Conservatives given what you said about the effects of drugs how strong is the case for banning alcohol or cigarettes cigarettes are addictive and why should we ban marijuana but not alcohol given that there is some evidence to suggest one causes many more problems than the other so I know libertarians often side marijuana is like their winter case and I have to concede that it's a little bit more compelling because it's a leaf I get it however it does shrink the size of your brain that's important to note but the thing about alcohol is that the FDR administration deemed it essentially on a cost-benefit analysis the cost of prohibition capital prohibition exceeded the benefits of prohibition because we were fighting a war and as I mentioned earlier it was an established convention in American culture to casually drink alcohol that is not the case unfortunately with black tar heroin or meth and ultimately you could argue of course that alcohol has imposed greater societal harm if you take the metrics you look at traffic fatalities you look at hospitalizations it by far takes the cake there but this is about aggregate harm if you add hard drugs into that equation you legalize those two what will the aggregate harm be we acknowledge that alcohol imposes great harm on society but what else will happen if we also legalized meth and heroin and cocaine all right thank you this is a question for both the libertarians and the conservatives should social media companies be permitted to sell their users data libertarians first yes [Music] operation if users consent that's the key yeah just clarify that one again social media companies or private companies the government shouldn't tell them what they can and can't do with their market and even though it makes us sound icky like feel icky when it happens if you read the terms and conditions which I highly recommend that you do you did agree to it so and there are market forces that prohibit the most egregious uses of data people push back to those against those egregious uses of data conservatives we actually agree or I actually group the libertarians I mean these are private companies that are allowed to do you know what they will with is if people contract away the information then they're allowed to sell it and increase ad revenue better targeted ads that way and I think just a general rule of thumb whatever you put online is gonna stay online so so long a companies right now they're not poaching data that they're not they're not they're not poaching data that's unreasonable of stuff that we put on there and we should have the expectation that's gonna stay there okay and a question for the Conservatives what would you say is the most serious social problem that the state is incapable of successfully addressing it's a very good question you can blame the hashtag not me I honestly would say the decline of marriage like whether we like it or not no nation is meant to endure forever and this is a civilizational this is a civil this is an existential threat to our civilization and the United States at large marriage rates are really really low and I talked to my parents I talked to their parents and it's it's just a situation that we haven't seen before and we have to ask ourselves why is there this culture why is this culture of convenience and self-fulfillment so pervasive and should we reassess that looking forward okay and a question for the libertarians what non-governmental institutions does libertarianism need to exist for libertarianism to thrive a lot of libertarians obviously said well we don't want the government involved in this area is it a free-floating ideology or do you need a set of preconditions if so what are they so there's lots of different types of libertarianism if you ask a virtue libertarian they would probably say the church because that's what those people happen to have like the ideas just happened to be in accordance with your average church if you ask a libertarian that's probably more of a classical liberal they might say some sort of education system it might not look like our current education system but it might be someplace where you go and maybe maybe it's a charter school and maybe it's a private school it's not an easy question to ask I like to answer directly because there is a lot of diversity within the libertarian movement about what sorts of institutions are good which one should we keep around and which one should be support okay and then a question for both sides two minutes each have you needed should the government regulate pornography conservatives first the government should most definitely ensure that adult pornography is only reserved to audiences that are ages 18 and plus but pornography such as like child pornography yes the government should clearly be forbidding that from entering the marketplace because we it would be corrupting my and you have people are unable to give consent so yes the government does have a role in ensuring that that type of pornography does not enter the marketplace libertarians so will concede on child porn it causes harm to children that's bad when you look at the larger question about pornography it's really complicated so if you want a good case study you should look at the United Kingdom and see what they're doing with their porn laws in 2014 there was something called a facesitting protests outside of parliament near Christmas time because the UK used a bad piece of legislation from the 1970s to ban a lot of different sexual acts one of them was face setting hence the reason why it was called the face setting protest because you had members of the porn community come out and enact facesitting in order to illustrate that it wasn't functionally different from other pornographic acts that were allowed on camera so when it comes to whether the government should regulate pornography I would say in theory you might have reasons why the government should if it in terms of something like revenge porn where it's a contract violation and absolutely harms privacy it's a horrid moral thing but when you look at the practice of pornography overall and like mostly tube sites it becomes really difficult because there's first of all a lot of data and the government's not super equipped to handle that and the second reason is that when you look at what banning porn does it's normally not an overall band normally it bans specific types of pornography that end up a verse ly affecting minority groups so certain sexual acts on women are not allowed certain sexual acts on men are allowed and that sort of inequity in the law is just something that shouldn't happen frankly and so the externality the externalities involved with banning porn are really complicated and any government should really think through their position carefully before they attempt such a ban this is probably the first debate in the history of the United States which we've mentioned both Milton Friedman and facesitting [Music] ten minutes of one another another question for the Libertarians what is the proper role of America's military in the world we've waste decide what should we be doing I think the best way to look at it is the difference between isolationism and enter non isolation being isolationist and being interventionist part of me and the key is to provide for the National Defense and to do whatever it takes to provide for the National Defense and respond to threats appropriately and question for the conservatives you were accused early of wanting to put people in cages more than is necessary is mass incarceration a problem in America and if it is what's the primary solution you'd propose so the reference about putting children in cages I'd like to point out at the border I hope this is common knowledge by now but the reason why that's happening first of all what's happening during the last administration is because of a loophole in our in our laws in our border security laws I think what's called Flores amendment what what that did is essentially mandated that children be separated from their parents at the border and as a result they they are separated from their from their parents at the border and put into separate detainment facilities so solution there is if we close the loopholes we disincentivize migrants from making that treacherous journey through Central America through Mexico buying children along the way because they know it helps and improves their case for either to claim asylum or to gain admittance through other through other claims leave immigration aside for me just in general do we have too many people in prison do we have too many laws and if we do what should you do about it I mean the fact is that crime deserves incarceration Dimmit to along the spectrum depends on what the crime is I don't believe in mandatory minimum sentences personally but in terms of greater crimes more severe crimes what is the alternative to incarceration because you committed a crime punishment is due and that that is the legitimate free course a question for both we'll start with the Conservatives should the u.s. support the organization of NATO the United States most definitely support NATO because it's one of the greatest deterring uttering forces of the latter half of the 20th century into the 21st century so through NATO we've been able to determine Lee the Soviet Union but Russian aggression and it's and I know there are concerns today about certain NATO countries not meeting their military expenditures but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't support the institution or that we should withdraw our support from it and or that we should diminish our military spending as a result NATO is a force for good and we should and it's a corner piece of u.s. foreign policy and we should absolutely support it libertarians should be supporting NATO I agree with our conservative friends the NATO has had an important deterrent role particularly in the twentieth century with the Soviet Union and continues to do so with Russia where we might have a point of disagreement is over this subsidization where we are subsidizing much of the defense of European countries when they are more than capable of defending for themselves we also might disagree on what NATO should be used for for example the intervention in Libya in 2011 that is essentially created a failed state in Libya and propagated terrorism and that was a NATO operation so we met our points of a green disagreement there as well okay and the final question is a tough one I think but an important one especially given our present debate this is for both sides libertarians can go first should the United States government via American taxpayers pay reparations to the descendants of slaves there's no easy answer to this and I think you're not gonna get a great one from either of us frankly and this country was built on the back of slaves there's no way around that the way that we have historically treated people of color in this country is awful and there is probably something that we morally need to do about it when you look at the issue of reparations it breaks down to you how do you provide reparations in a way that addresses all facets of this very complicated issue and there's not a good way to do that there have been certain things proposed in regard to you giving all descendants of slaves a block grant if you want to know why this might be a good idea it's really funny so Robert knows it probably supports reparations in this way when he talks about stolen property so if you want to read an Archie stayed in Utopia and talked about his concept of like time slice history versus everything and like the way that property gets exchanged rightfully he might give you an answer to support that there are other ways where you talk about supporting institutions and I have not given a lot of thought I want my personal opinions on this issue as there's a lot of disagreement there's a lot of really good points raised on all different sides and I think one thing that I can say with certainty is that our country really needs to think about the way that we treat all members of everyone who lives inside of its borders kind of regardless of their circumstance because we're all stuck here together and we can definitely treat people better thank you conservatives all right so first off slavery obviously condemned it was a terrible institution it definitely let left many people disadvantaged at the same time unfortunately it is not the role of the government to fix every single historical injustice a better way I think to address the issue is to try to get communities who are affected off a long cycle of government dependence and that I think one of the greatest reasons as to why particularly the African community African American communities had difficulty progressing past slavery is because they have become reliant upon the government based off of old democratic policies from the Jim Crow South so I think that reforming the welfare state and reforming how we address these communities is a far better solution than just redistributing wealth from a generation who did nothing to to inflict slavery upon people all right thank you well we're now in the final portion of deceiving this evening's debate the conclusions we're going to start with a four minute conclusion from the libertarians we're going to have a four minute conclusion from the conservatives oh we're on the other way around so throughout this debate we've demonstrated that we should all be conservatives because we should ultimately want to be more like Friedrich Hayek and less like John Maynard Keynes now the libertarian ideology much like Keynesian economics it's focused on the short term demands individual autonomy in the presence and now this is certainly seductive but the conservative like Friedrich Hayek thinks in the long run Hayek does not look he looks to the future because he does not subscribe to the Keynesian position that in the long run were all dead he understood that a narrow view of the present yields disastrous results in the future seems true for our politics our opponents told you a drug addiction will liberate you but we know that drug addiction will enslave you addiction was intensely felt by those struggling with it and by society at large these harmful substances have laid waste to entire regions of this country drug legalization would be a surrender not a victory for liberty because drugs condemn not only you but your children and your community and your posterity to serfdom our opponents they told you that illegal immigration poses no threat to the United States but we know that it undermines our basic sovereignty illegal immigration presents a real threat it's a citizens and migrants alike and open borders will burden us with an ever-growing welfare state if we do not secure the border and future Americans cannot call themselves a sovereign nation anymore our opponents told you that our presence in the world stage creates chaos but the world is safer through American leadership military dependents of holds our military deterrence upholds international norms protects free markets and ensures the ultimate security of the nation only through a strong defense budget can we maintain a military capable of meeting today's challenges without military strength we will leave our children at the mercy of foreign powers our opponents told you that the decline of marriage should be no cause for alarm but we know that it will rip the building block of society right back right under us the gradual dismantlement of marriage inhibits the prosperity of children and denies them a stable upbringing single parenthood encouraged incentivized by the welfare state levies a de facto tax and handicap on our children we should promote the family unit through reforming the welfare system if not future generations will be helpless against an unraveling social fabric and a deteriorating civilization libertarians and their dogmatic devotion to absolute autonomy is destructive and leads to a future where the torch of Liberty will be snuffed out conservatives understand that absolute autonomy does not yield absolute good and it can fact harm the ultimate preservation of Liberty conservatives in tradition with the founding belief government ultimately exists to serve society and country but is restrained and guided by a respect for fundamental liberties we are not born into this world as individuals rather were born into something greater than ourselves our families local communities and country conservatives want to fight for the civil society so that our children will be able to exercise liberty and pursue happiness if we blindly follow absolute autonomy today than we do so at the expense of our civil society tomorrow so I implore when libertarian colleagues to think more like Friedrich Hayek look in the long run and you'll see that a free society needs a civil society the namesake of this auditorium understood that Western civilization depends on its traditional and moral practices in order to preserve our fundamental liberties we must uphold civil society family community and country therefore only conservatism can guarantee that the torch of Liberty will continue to burn brightly for generations to come thank you [Applause] this is a debate about political philosophy and above all else the best political philosophies are consistent in their application of moral principles so what principles do conservative stand for Family Values and preserving institutions but what does it look like to apply those values because as we've seen throughout this debate not all families are considered good enough for conservatives and oh there's obviously not going to be a bright line for where we need to do away with some institutions you have heard how conservatives have cried wolf on the destruction of marriage when women got the right to vote just as they do now you have heard how conservatives criticize certain intoxicants while giving alcohol an exception because somehow it makes more economic sense you have heard conservatives say that the Department of Defense is above reproach when it comes to government rate waste in regard to incentives now you could look at me and say Sam inconsistency by itself isn't a problem the real world needs real solutions and sometimes these real solutions require compromise and that's a fair point but as we've shown you these conservative inconsistencies breed tangible harms the libertarian position remains consistent policies should be founded on choice and prioritize small government accordingly we use data and we don't continually strawman our conservative friends both the libertarian world and the conservative world will have flaws the main difference is that the libertarian world would give you a choice to be a conservative the conservative world would deny libertarians in the libertarian world you can still preserve family values and religious institutions the conservative world imposes conservative beliefs on its citizens and uses state sanctioned force when individuals peacefully dissent and here's why at its core libertarianism breaks down into two key features a strong belief in the importance of equal freedom and a skepticism surrounding government institutions equal freedom is the idea that I am free to do whatever I wish as long as I do not violate the freedom of other a skepticism surrounding government institutions is just that a skepticism there are cases where the government can ethically effectively engage in policies to preserve freedom however our modern government does so so much more than that and in doing so often infringes on equal freedom throughout this debate conservatives have missed the point they've declared us isolationists and Bridget individualist s' who want to see communities fall and advocate for policies that spell an existential threat to America that's not what libertarianism is libertarianism empowers individuals and communities to decide what choices they ought to pursue most simply our legal system is founded on the idea that people can be held accountable for their actions that people can choose to do the right thing accordingly it does make sense to prioritize freedom in establishing a political philosophy but freedom is more than this pragmatic value whatever your conception of the good is whether it be supporting your church or even something as ridiculous as making it your goal in life to walk an alligator across I 95 on a Tuesday it's important that people freely choose to pursue it interest in being a moral agent is by far the most important part of being a good person we do not want people to do the right thing because someone told them to you would find it incredibly concerning if the only reason I didn't torture people was because it was against the law or someone told me that I shouldn't because torture is wrong people should do the right thing because they want to be a good person who does good things and when you place all of your trust in institutions you diminish the standing of personal responsibility out of all of the political philosophies libertarianism is the only one that fully prioritizes moral choices and communities and that's why you should believe in libertarianism as a political philosophy I should say as a new Floridian I just want a day in which I don't have to take an alligator across sigh 95 in the afternoon all right to the end I we could have a round of applause for both sides of the debate [Applause]

Channel: The Cato Institute

Views: 127,651

Keywords: Capitalism, debate, conservatarian, classical liberalism, socialism, ideologies, Heritage Foundation, Trump, Gary Johnson, Rand Paul, Hayek vs Keynes, Edmund Burke, Presidential Election, Republicans, Democrats, Republican Party, Justin Amash

Id: akYYm47pCP4

Length: 86min 58sec (5218 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 19 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/QuantumR4ge]

I wish Libertarianism was an actual political force here. Conservatives and Socialists want to control you.