The Libertarian Vision: A Conversation with Chase Oliver - Libertarian Presidential Nominee - 07-29-2024

Chase Oliver is the presidential nominee for the libertarian party

>> Will Wright: Hey, welcome back, faithful politics listeners and watchers. If you're watching our YouTube channel, I am Will Wright, your resident Democrat and political host, and I'm joined by Pastor Josh Bertram, your resident Republican and faithful host. How's it going, Josh?

>> Josh Bertram: Doing well, thanks.

>> Will Wright: And today we have a treat for you all. We have with us Chase Oliver, who is the presidential nominee for the libertarian party and is dubbed the most influential libertarian in America by Rolling Stones. Oliver is a champion of the rights of the individual against the growing power of the state, and he began his political activism opposing the war in Iraq under George Bush, a war which I fought in aligning with the libertarian party after an encounter at the Atlanta Pride festival in 2010, which I'd love to hear more about. So welcome to the show, Chase.

>> Chase Oliver: Thank you for having me. I look forward to speaking with you and your, listeners or viewers. what have you today. Thank you for having, me on to have a great conversation.

>> Josh Bertram: Yeah, thanks so much, Chase. It's, really, it's a pleasure.

Will: What motivated you to run for president as a libertarian

So I got to ask, what motivated you to get into this, crazy world of politics and run as a, president for the. As a libertarian? Run for president as a libertarian. And what kind of. Maybe you can share a few personal experiences that have kind of shaped your political philosophy for our audience.

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, well, what got me involved in running for president is because I had run previously as a libertarian in some other races, notably, for the US Senate in 2022, where I forced the runoff between Herschel Walker and Raphael Warnock. That was the most expensive US Senate race in history to date. I think it was a quarter of a billion dollar race. And with $20,000, I forced the runoff. So a lot of people were very impressed by that performance and being able to kind of punch above my weight and have an outsize impact with minimal resources, which is what you need as a third party candidate. And, ah, so people thought I was an effective communicator, but what got me involved in politics in general, as Will was just mentioning, was my opposition to the wars and seeing wars happen overseas with, the United States, particularly, the war on terror years, where we saw both at home, our freedom being curtailed through the Patriot act and other post 911, domestic bills, and then also seeing wars being spread overseas, particularly the war in Iraq, which we know now, and we should have known then, was being manipulated by CIA Cherry picking the data and kind of feeding that into the executive branch to the point of where we even saw Colin Powell kind of retroactively make a fool of himself. It's probably one of the most shameful things Colin Powell ever did was argue for that war in the UN. And, I was tired of seeing people that I went to school with going to fight in those wars, which I thought were based on mistruths and lies. And it was wrong to be sending those people there. It was wrong to be harming and displacing the people of Iraq. and so that's what got me initially motivated in politics. And, yeah, and from there on, once I became a libertarian, I got involved in all sorts of other, activism spaces. And that's kind of the candidate that I am, is. I'm not an academic. I'm not somebody who is an attorney. I'm somebody who is an on the streets activist who has a bullhorn in my hand and is more comfortable being in a jeans and t shirt, in the streets than I am being in a suit and tie and saying, you know, in front of a committee, which is something that I've had to learn to overcome as I've become a politician. So. But, that's kind of my background is, that I've been a candidate plenty of times before, and that my background really starts in, being an anti war activist.

>> Will Wright: Yeah, you know, that's really interesting. And m this is sort of like a piggyback on Josh's question, but this is like a crazy time to be a politician. even crazier to be, you know, somebody that's running for president. And, you're somebody that I've wanted to speak to, ever since, your convention was over, and we finally were able to secure a date to interview you about a month ago, which, in, like, today's terms, feels like a lifetime ago. but since then, we've had an assassination attempt on the GOP presidential nominee. The presumptive democratic presidential nominee stepped down. The Supreme Court told us that presidents are immune, basically, from official actions. And by the time people listen or watch this, the newest Deadpool movie will be in theaters, that's not necessarily a bad thing. but you, you know, I point out all this just to say, like, people are anxious, they're unsure about the direction this country is going. So what could we expect from an Oliver administration to address this anxiety and unite, you know, this politically divided nation?

>> Chase Oliver: Well, I think, much the reason why we are so divided and why we have this partisanship and polarization is a result of us having a two party system where we only have two major parties that really have any kind of say so or power. And so people feel like if you're not with us, you're against us. This kind of mindset, one of the things I think having a libertarian, excuse me, elected, would change is this need to feel so divided, because, you know, we can understand that there's actually more than two actions that need to be taking place. So we have more than two choices. And one of the things I think that is brilliant about libertarianism is that because we are a philosophy that basically seeks to keep the government out of it, you can personally be as conservative or as progressive as you like to be. just all that's required of you as a libertarian is that you don't want to use the government, as a tool or a force against people. And so for me, I think it is a, unifying political message that says it doesn't really matter what you personally believe. It matters that you don't want to personally use the power of government to spread those beliefs to other people, that you can do that through the free exchange of ideas and community. and I think that's a unifying force for a lot of people who are frustrated with being either or. I have to be Republican, I have to be Democrat, I have to be left, or I have to be right. Why can't you just be somebody who embraces the concept that you're going to be the way you're going to be, and your neighbors might believe differently, and as long as we can agree not to use the government, we'll live more peacefully.

>> Josh Bertram: Yeah, that's really good. I have a lot of sympathies, towards that view, you know, thinking about the ballot, access, because I'm thinking about the issues that you face as a third party, and they must feel like, you know, you're kind of that, that ancient punishment where you roll a, boulder up a hill, only at the end for it to roll back down, you have to do it all again. you know, that was an ancient form of h***, I think, in ancient Greece or the gods punishment on people. but now it kind of feels like it's just politics in America.

Oliver: We're looking at likely to be on 48 state ballots

What kind of, like, issues have you been facing trying to get, ballot access? And do you think that people will be able to see your name in all 50 states on the ballot, this year?

>> Chase Oliver: Well, there's definitely a couple of states that have provided real challenges, and so we're looking at likely to be on 48 state ballots, maximum because Illinois and New York have already passed their signature gathering phase, and we didn't hit the numbers they needed, which have been arbitrarily higher than most the rest of the country, particularly New York, who shortened their window and then tripled their signature, gathering numbers, between election cycles in an effort to try to make sure there weren't other choices on the ballot. but we are going to be certified writing candidates in both those states, so libertarians can still cast their vote for the libertarian ticket of myself and Mike Termotte. they just, you know, it will be as a write in candidate. And the other 48 states, we're going to be on the ballot. We're currently involved in ballot access drives all over the country. we still have states like Virginia and Kentucky and Pennsylvania, and Minnesota and Alabama and a few others that we are still in the signature gathering phase. But we are likely going to hit those numbers everywhere and be able to be on the ballot for each and every voter across the country, other than those who vote in New York, Illinois, who just have to know how to write the name chase Oliver, which luckily is a pretty easy name to write. so, that will be great for us. But you know, really we're going to be providing a choice for voters across the country, and we're likely to have the highest number of ballot access across the country of any, alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. that'll be the fourth or fifth election cycle where that's the case. so we're really building the libertarian party up as the true alternative party, to the Republicans and Democrats, and one that can be built up foundationally across the country. And that's one of the reasons why I'm running. the challenge of being elected is certainly an uphill climb. I think that's an understatement, as you said, rolling the boulder up the hill. but there are a lot of victories we can win along the way to the ultimate victory. We can, win ballot access, we can win major party status. We can help elect local libertarians. We can raise our party membership, and build a fundraising network. So there's lots of goals that we can have outside of the outright victory that are themselves their own version of victory. And ultimately we can try to push the discussion towards those libertarian ideas. And that's its own form of victory by changing the discussion.

>> Will Wright: You know, it seems like, most of the country is kind of with where you're at, where the libertarian party is at. and I mean, m this is just anecdotal, so I don't have any numbers to back this up. But I remember, like when we spoke to, the libertarian chair, Angela McArdle. She proposed some ideas, kind of that libertarians generally believe or advocate for, and most of them sounded pretty good. It's just like, hey, stay out of my health care. Let me choose who I want to marry. Let's have a serious discussion about taxes. A lot of this minimal government intervention, which I don't see a whole lot of people necessarily say, no, I want more government intervention in my life. but government's sort of like a necessary evil, right? You need it for certain things like, say, inflation or economic inequality in the United States. What would be sort of your approach to handle those things while at the same time minimizing how much government does?

>> Chase Oliver: so first, yeah, we're a broad tent in the libertarian party. we do range from everything from the constitutionalist all the way down to the anarchist. We do have members of our party that don't believe that we need a government at all. I'm what's known as a minarchist. I do believe that there is a need for a government as a structural framework to civilization. but I believe that we need the minimal state. Namely, we need a state that's sole purpose is to secure the civil liberties of one person from being violated by another or another force. And so to that end, I believe the necessary components of a nation state and of a government is to have a military to protect you from invasion. Right. You don't want to be having your liberty violated from outside of your borders via an invasion. and to have courts to adjudicate disputes between individuals and parties that may be disagreeing with one another. So that way you can argue that in front of a judge who can be a neutral court, and of course, a criminal court to adjudicate when your liberty is violated. and those violations result in criminal offenses. and then, you know, really outside of, and then of course, the law enforcement component to, help, address those, civility violations. So outside of that, really, that's where the minarchist is. So I want to try to get the state down to its minimal level. when it comes to things like, how do we address, inflation? I think we address inflation by actually taking the government's hand off of it and really realizing that the largest driver of inflation is actually our government's creation of debt and deficits. That the fact that we print trillions of dollars a year out of thin air because we, of course, spend more than we take in. And what that does is it devalues the dollar. And so it's basically a tax on every American on the back end. And it's not. And it's certainly a regressive tax because that inflation hits the poorest Americans the hardest. If you're living high on the hog, if you're somebody who's gotten six figures a year, you may, recognize that the grocery bill has gone up, but it's not affecting you nearly as much as if you're the single parenthood who's trying to raise a couple kids on a job or two jobs. And you see the grocery cart just not filling up the same way that it used to with your paycheck. and so it's insidious that we have politicians in Washington DC who continue to want to spend more than we take in. And that's leading to income inequality, because you're seeing the rich maintaining being rich, and you're seeing the poor get poor because more and more of their income is eaten away, by that cost of living increase, of which the primary driver is the inflation caused by government. The other primary driver of that inflation is the fact that we give favors to the largest corporations in this country. We give them carve outs, deductions, all sorts of favors, because they have an army of tax attorneys who can work through the tax code, and they have an army of lobbyists to buy and pay for our congress. That's wrong. To me, what I would rather see is us removing all of those carve outs, all of those deductions, and just lowering the cost of doing business overall. Why? Because that allows the entrepreneur to have a lower ladder rung to start from that new entrepreneur that wants to start a business that can then grow and become a medium or a large size business and compete. And what we have right now is top down economic control from the top, which is why we have these large economic, or these large firms rather earning the majority of the money when it's really the truth is that small business has always been the largest driver of employment in this country. They employ the most number of people, they generate the most economic activity. But why don't they get the favoritism? Because they don't sit on top and they're not consolidated. So I'm a free marketer. I think we can all agree at this table that what we have in this country is not a free market. It is a crony capitalist market that has been controlled by those who are buying and paying for our Congress. One of the reasons why I want government to do far less is because when they do less things, you're not having to purchase them, you're having to actually compete in the real marketplace, instead of just buying favoritism with your local congressman.

>> Josh Bertram: Yeah. Again, I feel very sympathetic to what you're saying. The, idea that the government can come in and do it better than the free market forces that can allow for creativity, competition to do its magic. The way that we even injected so much money into the, economy, that essentially, like you said, was printed at the end of the, Trump presidency. It's so funny to me how many people have gotten upset about this in conversations I've had. But the amount of money that Trump injected into the system, ah, goes, ah, against every republican understanding that I've interacted with. Of course, Bush did the same kind of thing. But, what kind of specific policies, like thinking about our economics, thinking about even specifically the debt, what kind of policies would you be able to implement that would reduce the national debt without compromising essential public services and maybe even giving a sense as to what are essential public services? I mean, you mentioned some, like law enforcement. Are there any beyond that? And then if they're not, what is the, you know, what would be a kind of plan to cut those services off in a way that wouldn't cause mass chaos.

>> Chase Oliver: So, I think we need to be working our way back towards a balanced budget. it's something that's, you know, that sounds radical to some people when you say it, but the truth is, is we had a balanced budget the last two years of the Clinton presidency. and during the Clinton presidency, when we were cutting deficits and moving towards a balanced budget, is when we had the last, largest growth of the middle class in this country. Those things are not unrelated, because when you see your economy and you see your government working within its own means, it gives strength and confidence to our economy and to those who want to, buy treasury, buy t bills and things like this, and buy bonds. So that's a good thing. So we want to get ourselves back towards a balanced budget that's going to require us to cut a lot of fat, a lot of redundancy, and frankly, touch a lot of the sacred cows that too many in Washington, DC are afraid to talk about. the biggest one being, I, think, is, we need to look at entitlement spending. We need to look at, really how much we're spending in the marketplace in terms of government intervention into so much of this. but I would immediately ask for a balanced budget that's going to require us to do major Pentagon cuts. But we do need to be cutting that because we have bases all over the world.

We've been militarizing the world. So we need to signal that, that we're reducing our military footprint

We've been militarizing the world. and I don't feel like that's the best way to export our values. So we need to signal that, that we're going to be actually reducing our military footprint around the world, in favor of, actually, we can still have a military that can protect us from invasion, that can protect the sea lanes from piracy, to make sure that goods can still move from one place to another. But we don't need having wars all over the world. I just don't think that extends the goodwill of the United States. we're going to have to cut a lot of basically government programs that frankly can be better done outside of the auspices of government. Some of these research grants and these kinds of things, that can be better facilitated through private charity in the private marketplace. one of the biggest misconceptions about libertarians is that because we don't want the government to do something, we don't think it should be done. many times we want those things to be done. We just think it's actually really badly, managed by having the government manage it through its bureaucracy and red tape. One of those big things would be like welfare and charity program, you know, welfare programs. I want to help the less fortunate in the world. I just think that the government does a really terrible job of doing it. They'll tax you a dollar and you get back a dime in service because of how it gets washed through this bureaucracy of inefficiency. I think it's far better to let people have, the means to allocate resources at the community level through mutual and direct aid to help those who are in need. In fact, I participate in all sorts of programs that allow for that. In fact, I've had to fight for people who are doing things as simple as wanting to feed the homeless in their communities and being prevented by government, calling them, an attractive nuisance, because they want to help feed the homeless. Right. so I'm all about, taking power out of the hands of government and re empowering people to make those decisions, how to help their communities. And part of that is cutting so much of what government does and trusting that people will still want to see those things done. They just don't need a government to be debt spending out of control to get them done. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, it's far more efficient to do many of these things through a private marketplace. and that even goes to, I would like to deregulate the energy market, remove all subsidies for oil and natural gas, but also remove all subsidies for any kind of green technology, and remove the regulation and red tape around nuclear power so these things can compete in the marketplace. And guess what? More and more consumers want cleaner and cleaner power, and that's going to lead them to more green technology and more nuclear and starting to move away from oil and natural gas and petroleum based fuels just because that's what consumers are demanding, as opposed to the government picking winners and losers, which creates backlash and all sorts of things. So, yes, I kind of rambled there for a minute, but long answer is, we would cut an off government. So much of what government does would be gone, including entire departments.

Louisiana recently passed a bill requiring teachers to put the Ten Commandments in classrooms

>> Will Wright: So, as a podcast called faithful politics, we talk a lot about religious liberty. We've had folks on, you know, that, have spoken on both the pros and cons of, keeping religion out of politics. And, I'd love to kind of get your thoughts on that, especially given Louisiana just passed a bill recently that required teachers to put the ten commandments in all of their classrooms. so how would you balance people's personally held beliefs, religious beliefs, you know, with some of the religious liberty provisions provided in the m first amendment?

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, well, just, to kind of give a background of my faith background. so I'm from the south. I grew up in the evangelical church. but of course, I am also lgbt. and so once I identified as such, I was no longer welcome in my church, that I was growing up in. And so I have kind of. I kind of left my faith traditions behind until, a few years back when I kind of reignited. I always felt there was some sort of hole in my heart that just wasn't getting filled. and I met people when I was like, there wasn't room for me in the church as a gay person. And the person I said that to was like, hey, man, I'm actually a gay minister. And this. And I was at a convention, so there's a lot of people. And he goes, and that guy over there is a. He's a gay lutheran minister, and that guy over there is a deacon in the episcopalian church. And, you know, his husband, you know, they're a wonderful couple. So, like, don't say there's not room for you here. And so I sat down with those folks and we had a really great conversation that brought me, really, back into my faith tradition. And so now I'm an identifying Episcopalian. I like the church because I believe, not only does it affirm who I am as a human being and treat me with the love and respect that God would treat, me with. Right. Because we're all his children. I also feel like their mission is just a wonderful mission. The way they express God's love to communities across the country, and really just the way, they worship really speaks to me. And so, I will never tell anybody that one church or another is right or wrong, because I feel that that's wrong to do to people. But I found great comfort in the episcopalian church, and so I encourage people to, check us out. that being said, getting to religious liberty, as far as the ten Commandments thing in Louisiana, I'm very much against that. And here's why. because when you give government that inch, they will eventually take the mile. And this inch is saying you must display religious imagery in our classroom. The mile that's going to eventually be taken is that the government will be deciding what is and is not the correct religious imagery, what is and is not the correct interpretation of the church. Even the christian church, with its many denominations, has many different faith traditions and belief structures. And I don't want a state government at all picking which is the right one and which is the wrong one. And so I'm wanting the government to completely be separated off and walled off from deciding those things. And that requires us to have, if we're going to have public schools, a secularized public school that allows us to teach about religion and to teach about faith and to talk about these things in the context of history, in the context of culture, in the context of world events and modern history. We need to, you know, especially as you get into high school and kids get older enough to be able to comprehend those ideas on a, on a level like that. I think it's important to be able to teach those things. But no, we shouldn't be having indoctrination in our schools. I'm happy that as a high school student, I was exposed to all sorts of faith traditions, from Judaism to Islam to Buddhism to, Catholicism and other forms of Christianity. Like, I'm glad I learned about those traditions, but I'm also glad that I wasn't compelled to have to believe one or the other, or certainly not to have to see a teacher, have to display these things. By the way, there are atheist teachers in the state of Louisiana. Do we want atheist teachers to be teaching religious, doctrine to our kids? I don't. I would much rather me decide the church that my kids get to go to and let a pastor be the person that helps guide them through their faith tradition, or, bring them up into the faith or allow them to decide for themselves or explore these things for themselves. Like, that's far better to me than saying, let the teacher do it. Like, that is so taking the responsibility away from the family, the parent and the church. and to me, that's just a failure here. And it's just a further failure of continuing to say, ah, we don't need to do it. Let the school do it. Let the government take care of it. No, no. Do not let the government take care of our faith. We need to take care of our faith. And so I'm a, I'm a one, a absolutionist. I believe you have the full freedom to believe what you want to believe and recognize the faith you want to have. But I also believe we need to completely separate government from making those determinations as to what is right and what is wrong and what is faith and what is not.

>> Josh Bertram: Yeah, yeah, I appreciate that answer. You know, one of the things that I've been that, that came to mind as, like, we're having this discussion, like, because the whole idea is, at what level should the government. That if one exists, which at some point, I don't, I don't think you're going to be able to have anything like a nation state in a modern sense of that term, without some kind of government. that that brings, like, if I could be an anarchist, maybe I would be, but I just, I don't think I can get there in terms of, like, just my understanding of reality and human nature and what people will or not will not allow.

>> Chase Oliver: I have anarchist friends, and I'm not there. You know, we have many discussions about it. They continue to try to convince me. I continue to try to convince them that we need some sort of minimal state. It will continue to be a discussion that happens till the end of time. But, let us continue to exercise, where we're at right now in the world, which is where there is a government and there is, a nation state. So, I think that's where we keep the discussion going, even as we continue to pare it down. And eventually, one day, we'll really get to have that real discussion, in practice. But right now, in practice, we have a government and we do have to manage it.

>> Josh Bertram: Yeah, absolutely. And it kind of is this idea of like, the idea of the tragedy of the commons, when there's something that is there that won't be taken care of because nobody has responsibility over it. Right. The kind of the idea that the private market, there are some things that it cannot address because, the incentives of a market won't allow it to be addressed in the way that it should be. Some people would argue that, you know, global warming, these ecological issues, some of these things have to be addressed by government or like getting the whole United States ready for electric cars and the grid and things like that.

A lot of protection of the commons lies in the judicial branch

What are those areas that are like, distinctly, like, I guess you had already mentioned it, but I would love for you to go into more depth, like, is there anything beyond, law enforcement and border enforcement, kind of to make sure the military. And then, Yeah, is there anything beyond that you would have government?

>> Chase Oliver: I think a lot of the protection of the commons lies in actually the branch of government that I'm not running for, which is the judicial branch. the defense of common property and things like clean air and clean water should be coming out of a trial jury where people are, suing, say, a polluter for polluting your community. The problem is that right now we have tort caps that allow for us to have slap on the wrist, basically that we have these maximum penalties for these things in civil court. that basically these giant multinational firms just build into their budget every year. They say, eh, we're probably going to get suede even if we get the maximum penalty. Yeah, we'll throw a few million dollars into the account over there to just pay out anything that happens, because we plan for that. The truth is, without tort caps, citizen juries could bankrupt polluters. They could say, you've poisoned our kids, you've given our kids cancer or some other disease through your poisoning of our water or our air. and we believe that you should be bankrupted for that. What that does is that creates a true market incentive for these organizations to be much more careful about what they do, be transparent about the practices that they make, report what's going on to the local communities, that communities have more visibility about what's going on, in their community with these giant firms and these factories and things like this. This is the true way to actually hold people accountable. and so we can do these things outside of having government control, by having citizen control via the citizen jury. But we have to untie the hands of those juries and allow for tort caps to be removed. Much, of what, and then when we look at things like the electrical grid for electric cars, there's a vested interest in electrical car manufacturers to start building that grid. I feel like Tesla has put together supercharger stations all over the country. Now, some of that was with taxpayer money and taxpayer subsidy. And, of course, no, one's going to argue with an entrepreneur for not leaving money on the table, right? If the money is available, they're going to use it. But I'm also inclined to believe that a guy who's got billions and billions of dollars and who has $45 million a month to donate to Donald Trump can, also afford to actually be investing into his own company and building those superchargers themselves. and they would, because they want to see Tesla survive. By the way, I also heard that Elon Musk is not very happy about the fact that Donald Trump, at his convention thing, said that electric cars are for not manly men, and he doesn't want to see them exist. Maybe there's a difference of opinion there. Now, I don't know if he's going to be contributing all that money, but the point is that Elon Musk could be building this infrastructure if he wanted to, for Tesla and for other electric charge vehicles. we don't need the government to actually facilitate that. What we do need the government to facilitate, actually, is an electrical grid, and some sort of means, because while those are privately owned, they do need to be made sure they're maintained so we don't have wildfires like we've had in Hawaii. And I would like to see us, utilizing 21st century nuclear technology, to be able to have small plants that can power cities all over the country with low risk, and actually not have to be building on this huge extra grid technology to make that happen, like you would with traditional nuclear power. So there's lots of areas where I feel like much of it can be handled in the courts. There's very few areas where I feel like we need direct government interaction, more like we need government oversight of what private companies are doing. but really, for me, a lot of what we call the commons can be handled through the citizen jury and through removing these tort caps.

How would you handle the situation with undocumented immigrants coming across the border

>> Will Wright: let's talk about immigration for a moment. I mean, it seems like if you. I don't necessarily watch, like, cable news. But I do follow a lot of, like, the local immigration reporters that are on the border, and, you know, a lot of their coverage does indicate that there seems to be an issue. Like, then, you can kind of categorize that issue as either a good thing or bad thing, depending on where you stand on the issue. But how would you handle the situation with undocumented immigrants coming across the border? meaning as children, and even if you can just talk about how you feel or how you would approach dacae.

>> Chase Oliver: Mm Well, first, I think it's important for us to overcome the scare tactics of the media. we are not in the middle of an immigrant crime wave. A migrant crime wave. That is a term that Donald Trump himself says that he created to try to push the idea. He said, I created the term migrant crime wave. Let's call it the Biden migrant crime wave. Like, he literally says this to people, and so he's manufacturing fear when the truth is, is that all violent crime, immigrant or non immigrant alike, is actually near lows. Like, we've had a slight spike during COVID because during desperate times, people get desperate and they commit more crime. but as we've recovered from the pandemic, those crime levels have dropped back down to where they were, which is historic lows. And so we need to not be terrified and think that every immigrant's going to come out of the corner like gugge booga and scare us, right? And attack us. That's just not the way it is, you know? it's just. It's just not true. And that's scare tactics created by the media. Now, that being said, we do have a crisis at our southern border. that crisis is not created merely by immigrants. It's created by our government's inability to properly process immigrant workers who want to come here and work and contribute and do the jobs that we know we need workers for. And so, I want to see a 21st century Ellis island to address the issue. If you want to come here and work, come through a port of entry, declare who you are, go through a basic background check in vetting, and be able to come right in with documentation to work. This would solve the streamlining of the problem. This would solve the amnesty court backlog that we have, because less people would claim amnesty if they could just properly process themselves through instead of getting tied up in that process. Amnesty could be reserved for legitimate political prisoners and people like that. you would see this being better for the american worker because no longer would you have undocumented labor being forced through exploitation and be having their wages driven down out of fear of deportation? They would be competing with legal documentation for the same wages as the american worker. So this would prevent worker wages from being driven down, but, it would create more competition in the marketplace for employers, which is a good thing for employers. This, would also, allow us to laser focus our law enforcement at the border on those who are doing crimes, namely human trafficking for the purposes of labor or sexual exploitation, or for those who want to defraud people by pressing fentanyl into xanax tablets and then bringing them north of the border to sell them to the next person to overdose on. All of those things are things that need to be addressed by law enforcement. But if they can't see the forest from the trees, well, then we're not able to keep, you know, another metaphor is keeping their eye on the ball. Let's let them laser focus on that and let these peaceful people come through and work. As for DACA, these are kids who came through through no fault of their own. Their parents brought them across the border many times. America is the only home they've ever remembered or ever known. English is the only language they've ever spoken. and this culture is the only culture they've ever been exposed to. So the idea that we're going to send those kids back is ridiculous to me. They need to be given legal status and ideally, citizenship as quickly as possible, because, again, this is the only land they've ever known. and while I wouldn't want every guest worker who comes through to be given instant citizenship, because many of them are going to take their money and go back home or work seasonally, I do think we do need to streamline the process of citizenship for those who do want to finally settle down permanently in the United states and start their american dream, because we're a nation that's been built by immigration, the reason why I call it a 21st century Ellis island is because the 19th and 20th century Ellis island is what helped build this nation up. It's what allowed us to become the strongest force in the world. Because we imported so much of the world's culture into ours, we adapted it, we made it americanized, and then we exported it back out into the world. That's what allows us to be so connected to every single culture in the world. It's because there's an american version of that here in the United States. And, I'll finish with this. to any Republicans who might be listening, who are scared of what I'm saying. Ronald Reagan put it best when he said, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact language, but he said something like, you know, you can go to France and live in France for decades, but you'll never be a Frenchman. You can go to Japan or Germany or Turkey, but you'll never be Japanese, German, or Turk. But anyone from anywhere can come to the United States and become an American. That is what makes us exceptional. That is really what makes America great. And the fact that we have Donald Trump running on a moniker of mass deportation while also saying, let's make America great again. What made America great in the first place was the diversity in the patchwork quilt that built this country and the principles on which it was founded, which we are continuing to perfect over and over again. And so I am pro immigration. I want to see more immigrants come to this country. I want to see more people contributing because they build the economic pie. If you look at the number of businesses that are created, so many of them are founded by immigrants or children of immigrants, actually more so than by native born people. If you look at Fortune 500 companies, so many of them are headed right now by immigrants or children of immigrants who are creating so many jobs and so much innovation in the marketplace. If we stifled that, if we all of a sudden said that that's not important and we want to start deporting everybody, that's not a world I want to live in, because I don't want to live in a world that removes that diversity from our lives. And I don't want to live in a world where we have a national security state that's so expanded that we're going to be going door to door asking for papers and committing mass deportations. Not only is that completely expensive and would add to our debt, it's also immoral and inhuman and would make every one of our neighbors who's below a certain shade, suspect. And that's wrong.

>> Josh Bertram: Yeah, yeah, I hear what you're saying. You know, one of the issues that all of us are facing in terms of, like, the cost of living and, you know, we've mentioned inflation, we've mentioned how our grocery bill is getting bigger and the wages aren't necessarily increasing with that to help us, it's, our ability is getting smaller and smaller to get what we want and what we need and thinking about needs with the healthcare system, I think anyone who's involved in the healthcare system, it's very confusing. It's just confusing as to where the money is going, what the money is doing, why something seems so expensive, why insurance covers certain things and doesn't cover others. It's all very, it's very confusing. And it leaves the normal person just like, well, I guess I have to pay this whatever amount bill that I just received because it says it's $30,000 otherwise or whatever. I mean, it's like, it's just wild.

What kind of policies need to be implemented to improve accessibility and affordability of health care

What kind of policies need to be implemented, to reform the accessibility and affordability of health care for Americans?

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, it's a great question. And, of course, it's one of the largest drivers of our economy. It continues to grow, as a part of our economy, certainly as the population ages and retires, too. For me, I think what we need to do is we need to, a, get the government out of the way of things that could prevent, or that could, allow for cost savings, so namely, allowing to buy health insurance across state lines. I think this would create more competition in the marketplace, and you would see a lowering of premiums overall. I think we honestly need to separate ourselves from having, and this is something that's just going to have to culturally start happening away from the employer issued insurance to where we can actually join. Just give us our full paycheck. No longer make that a fringe benefit, just pay us more so that way we can purchase the health insurance pool that we want to purchase into ourselves, as opposed to being beholden to whatever our job is. because this also locks people into a job, too. You might have a job you hate and think is misery, but, you stay there because, well, they have insurance and that's, you know, whatever. I can get my insurance there. you might be more inclined to switch jobs or to go somewhere else if your insurance wouldn't have to be interrupted in doing that.

One of the reasons why medication is so expensive in the United States is because

another thing is being able to buy prescription drugs and medications across national boundaries. one of the reasons why medication, is so expensive in the United States is because we have a closed marketplace. drugs are far cheaper in Canada or Mexico, and in fact, there's entire tour groups that tour themselves in Mexico to visit the pharmacy to fill up their bags. You'll see buses full of old people going down there to get all their prescription meds because it saves them a lot of money. And God bless them for doing it. They're smart to do that. I also think there's a lot of handicapping of the marketplace to make things artificially expensive. One of the things that Biden and the Democrats have touted is that we made insulin $25 for the end user. Well, that's $25 for the end user. It doesn't mean that insulin costs dollar 25. It now means that that has been spread across the taxpayer of those who are using Medicare and Medicaid. What would really lower the cost of insulin is to remove the patent evergreening. That allows for the continued renewal of patents because they just slightly change the delivery service. And so this keeps insulin in the hands of a very small, limited marketplace where we don't have generics. If you could have generic insulin, it would be on Mark Cuban's pharmacy website tomorrow at a very reduced cost. and this is actually much of the hog tying of the pharmaceutical marketplace that is caused by government itself, through its patent evergreening, patent protectionism, and not allowing us to buy drugs overseas. this basically hog ties the pharmaceutical market, allows them to gouge the s***, sorry, gouge the terribly, our prices.

>> Will Wright: It's fine.

>> Chase Oliver: so for me, that is what allows for these firms to kind of do this stuff. And so I would like to see us removing those barriers, to lower the cost of, drugs overall, lower the cost of insurance. But also let's tout the competition to traditional insurance, namely things like direct primary care, model healthcare, where you as a consumer or a family pay a monthly rate to your doctor's office and you're in that network, and then you're paying anything at a cost. So instead of relying on your insurance copay to cover the cost of an x ray, you just pay the $100 for the x ray or the $200 for the x ray or the MRI or what have you. this can actually be a model that saves a lot of consumers money. this won't save everybody money. but what it does is say, if you're like lower middle class to middle class, this is a model, particularly if you're younger, that can save you thousands of dollars a year as opposed to the traditional insurance model. And then you would still have catastrophic insurance for if you get hit by a bus or diagnosed with cancer or something major. and again, that would also create more competition within the insurance marketplace. So I think there's a lot of market forces we can put in without just expending more federal dollars and more federal dollars to cover more people. Also, Obamacare touts its numbers. but I was somebody who used the healthcare exchange. And when I was a server in a restaurant, yeah, I was insured, but my deductible was $10,000, which is money that I never had saved up being paycheck to paycheck as a server. And so, yeah, while I was technically insured, that insurance was mostly unusable for me, in many cases. And so, if I was to get really sick, I would still be near bankrupt or bankrupted to have that. And yet I was mandated by law to pay for it, a, ah, service that I wouldn't be able to use in my most dire of need. So, I'm very much against kind of continued government intervention in the marketplace, because anytime the government intervenes in the marketplace, prices rise faster than inflation. Look at it like education, healthcare. these are the two areas of the economy that have risen so much faster than inflation, whereas other areas of the economy, maybe not so touched by government, have, like, drastically decreased, such as things like consumer electronics or, mobile phones. these things have gotten cheaper and cheaper, whereas these other marketplaces have continued to rise. And you can just look at direct government influence and see why.

>> Will Wright: I don't know if I'm just, like, jaded from politics, listening to Trump and formerly Biden, answer questions from the media, that it's so refreshing just to hear you explain things in a way that actually kind of makes sense. so I definitely want to thank you for that.

If you win the presidency, you would be the first openly gay president

but I am curious. You mentioned earlier that you're part of the LGBTQ, community, so if you win the presidency, you would be the first openly gay president in our history. as a Democrat and progressive, I think we're long overdue. but I'm curious, what changes would you make to ensure that people in the LGBTQ community enjoy all the same rights and privileges like most americans have?

>> Chase Oliver: Well, one of the things that I think I'm proud of for being a libertarian, one of the things that makes me proud to be a libertarian, rather, is that since our founding in 1971, we've believed that any interaction with the government, should be equality under the law. So, meaning that you should have equal marriage rights and adoption rights and service in the military. And really, where. Anywhere where there's interaction with the government, we should be treating people equally. now, as part of the libertarian theory, we do believe in free association and the free marketplace. But, recognizing that the world is constantly changing and that if we allow culture to naturally just move forward, it's going to be more tolerant of more people because we're becoming a more and more diverse nation. I mean, 30% of Gen Z identifies as LGBTQ. So I have no fear that as we move forward, we're going to be a more lgbtQ, affirming and friendly nation. Now, does that mean that we're not seeing cultural backlash right now? We absolutely are. I think anytime that government mans the cultural swing, it's going to swing one way and then swing the other. And so for me, the best thing that I can do as being the first openly gay president is to continue to live my life, as I would be, and to be an example for people to show that, to demystify that being gay is not some sort of boogeyman, it's not some sort of terrible thing that you can be gay and you can be a person of faith. You can be a gay man, and you can be somebody who raises a family. you can be a trans person of faith. You can be a trans person who raises families. In fact, I know trans people who are raising kids right now with their spouses, and they're doing a wonderful job of it. and so for me, the best thing that I think we can do is be visible as LGBTQ people and not seek to force affirmation on anybody, because I think when you do that, you create that cultural backlash. But I think what we need to do is continue to live openly and honestly. and at the community level, I hope that we can demand more empathy from people and we can see more visibility. I think with more visibility, well, eventually, you're always going to see that initial fear. That's what happens every time. right after Stonewall, ah, there was kind of a cultural backlash against gay people initially because there was that fear. But as we moved through and certainly past the HIV AIDS crisis, being gay became a more accepted part of society. We went through the bush years, and that kind of flew the pendulum back again. And now we're at a place where LGBTQ acceptance is. Even now, they've erased, apparently, in the latest republican platform, anything having to do with anything LGBTQ now, they say. Still against woke, which to me is a lot of times code word for LGBTq people. but nominally, you're seeing a lot more, even across the left right spectrum, support for LGBTQ people. I would be very happy to be the first openly gay president. I think there are young queer people who deserve to see themselves represented in our government, and when they do, they feel more inspired to get involved and be active. and I think we've seen that across the spectrum. We've seen that with the rise of, We've seen that with the rise of, women politicians, that more women are getting involved in the political marketplace. Getting involved, as not just activists, but also people who work as staffers and lobbyists. As much as I hate lobbyists but involved in the process. The same thing has happened with black and latino voices in our political system. and the same is now happening with lgbtq voices in our political system. Why? Because we are a republic that is supposed to be representative of the population, and the population is more comfortable and more affirming of LGBTQ people. Doesn't mean they didn't exist beforehand. It just means that we're being seen now. And with that visibility comes representation, and that's a good thing. And you're right. I'm the first openly gay candidate for president, and I would be the first openly gay president. But we never should forget that we had, Buchanan, the 15th president, who was a horrible president, but also objectively was just roommates with a guy for his entire life.

>> Josh Bertram: That's funny.

Should there be federal regulations on abortion? Should it be left up to states

So, kind of moving over to the idea and concept of abortion, and obviously, it's a very divisive issue, has been, Walk us through your stance on abortion rights and balancing the rights of women with the rights of the unborn child. Some people's definition, unborn life and other people's definition. should there be federal regulations on abortion? Should it be left up to the states to decide? What do you think?

>> Chase Oliver: So, first I want to say that it is a choice that should be allowed to be made. I am pro choice now. I want abortion to be decided at the most local government level. Now, when I say that some people go, wait, you want, like the mayor to decide? No, no. The most local government is your own self governance. It's your own decision making, and it's your own body. And that's because I believe in the concept of bodily autonomy. You have the right to determine what is done with your body and in which manner. And so that with that, I do believe in the standard of Casey and Roeze, which is that we should have abortion rights for women up to the point of viability. Post viability, there should be a sign off from a doctor saying that the health and life of the mother is at risk. I do believe in that standard, a because I do think it protects those who are viable. once you get to a certain point, your pregnancy is viable to be born. And we have to remember that less than 1% of all abortions happen post viability. That is a very rare thing. but up to the point of viability, I do believe in the bodily autonomy of women to decide that for themselves. because pregnancy is a major health, it can cause major complications to your body. It can be a change that affects you for the rest of your life, even just one pregnancy. That being said, I don't support, I mean, rather I do support the Hyde amendment that prevents federal funds from funding abortion. I think that should be something that is done outside of the auspices of government. I'm a libertarian. I don't want taxes to fund a lot of things. but I also think there are steps we can take to reduce the number of abortions, particularly elective abortions, in our society. Number one, make birth control over the counter so women can access contraception. That allows them to better plan and better decide their pregnancy. two, remove some of the red tape and restrictions around adoption rights, so it can be more accessible for more parents to become adoptive parents. That provides more options for people who become pregnant to become, than a surrogate for someone else. and I think lastly, we have to have conversations with our kids, with our young people, about practicing, family planning and understanding. I think the biggest thing that we need to have is that couples who are about to engage in sex need to engage in a conversation. Is this for the purposes of having a child? And if it's not, what steps are we taking to prevent us from getting pregnant? And that kind of comes from maturity. And that maturity only comes from having frank conversations with your kids as they grow up about the nature of sexuality, the nature of parenthood, the nature of what sex can cost you if you're not being careful or if you're not being cautious. that's not something government can do, though. That's something that parents have to do. That's, in the realm. Again, I don't want the government to be having those conversations, just like with faith. No, I want parents to decide those values for their kids and to be having those frank conversations, because that's where it belongs. But the things we can do for government is remove those barriers that make, abortion a more likely scenario. So make birth control over the counter and remove barriers to adoption. But that right should be a right for women to have, because bodily autonomy is sacrosanct in this country and in the notion of freedom that you own your own body. If you do not own your own body, you're not free.

>> Will Wright: Yeah, that a breach.

What do you think are your two biggest weaknesses facing President Trump

you know, in this politicized environment and this is our last question. you know, it seems like it's so difficult to say any nice things about, like, the opposition. I mean, as a Democrat, like, I I do find it difficult to say something nice about Trump, you know, but we just celebrated Juneteenth recently, and I was like, hey, like, we have the day off. You know, you can thank Trump for that, I guess. so, so I would love for you to say what you think is the biggest strength of, you know, your two opponents. now, Kamala Harris, and Donald Trump. But because you are running against them, I do have to add the qualifier question. What do you think are their greatest weaknesses? so I'd love to get your thoughts on that.

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah, I'll actually go through all three, because Biden was recently and he's out now. But, I'll say something nice about all three. Donald, Trump. I appreciate his right to try legislation, the ability to allow those who are terminally ill to try experimental medications outside of the, auspices of FDA authorization, because this could be the next breakthrough that allows somebody to be saved, particularly with rare issues, rare diseases or terminal diseases, that if a, ah, breakthrough could be found through kind of somebody deciding to self experiment, that's good. And so I support the right to try legislation. I also support the first step act, which was allowing for some criminal justice reforms. I do think it was aptly named the first step act, because as soon as it was passed, Donald Trump tried to say, I did criminal justice reform. no, you did the first step. There's more steps that need to be happening. but I'm thankful that he took that first step. Right. and so I will say that, I think Donald Trump's biggest weakness is his own narcissism, his belief that everything has to be about him. That even when he was asked, like, why did you choose JD vance? Well. Cause he's a big fan of mine. Because he likes me. He didn't like me, and now he likes me a whole lot. So I thought, that's a great partner for me. Didn't even mention policy or principles or anything. That his own belief that he is the only person who can have any kind of say so, I think is his biggest weakness, because people see that. And ultimately, when people see narcissism, they see weakness, because if all you talk about is how great you are, really, there's a lack of security there. There's a very big insecurity that we see. So, that has just rank authoritarianism, the fact that he just thinks he can wield the government like a dictator and do what he wants. that's the biggest concern with him, is that he's just going to just completely fly in the face of the constitution and do whatever he feels like he wants to do and that he is such a strong personality and he's surrounded by such weak yes men that they'll just do it. that's my biggest fear with him now. Joe Biden. I'll say something nice about Joe Biden. he is, somebody who I believe is a committed family Mandev, you know, ah, some people tried to attack him on the voicemail where he left with Hunter saying that, you know, I still love you, and even though you're going through this addiction, I love you. You know, to me, that was about one of the most humanizing things that I've ever seen come out of Joe Biden is that he is a loving father. Like, you saw this from the time when he lost his, you know, he lost his daughter and his wife, to a car crash, right when he got started in politics. And you see the photos of him at the bedside of his kids. So nobody can say that he's not a devoted family man. I do believe that he is. I also think that he does care about, you know, he does, you know, he has evolved on issues, I think, particularly LGBTQ issues, that are good because he used to not be a very friendly voice to gay people, and now he is one. So I will give him props on that. his biggest weakness is the fact that he was a creature of Washington for 50 years, and that so much of the problems that we see today are directly resulted of much, of the legislation that he passed that passed, I think, the 94 crime bill being one of the biggest ones that much of the criminal justice reform we need in 2024 is a result of the crime bill he authored and championed in 1994, and still hasn't fully come to terms with. and then he's just also just been a very aloof leader that he's clearly not the Joe Biden that he was as vice president or the Joe Biden he was in 2008 when he was running for president. he has definitely had a slip. And that's just why I think he himself has admitted now that after six months from now, it's done for him that he doesn't want to go through another four years. Kamala Harris, I will say that it's positive that she's somebody who's actually generationally different than Biden and Trump, that she's a younger voice, maybe, not as young as me or that I would like, but that she is. And I do think that she is, somebody who's trying to embrace, not looking to the past, but trying to move things forward is kind of her moniker now. we're not going back as her big thing. but I think, unfortunately, if you do go back into her record, there's lots there that leaves much to be desired, particularly her time as a prosecutor and time as attorney general in California, where she had jailed, people, thousands of people, for using cannabis. even while she admitted she had been using cannabis in the past, where she had laughed about jailing parents of truant students, or when she, kept people in their sentence longer than they needed to be because they wanted to continue to have free volunteer firefighter labor in California, that they needed to fight the wildfires. So let's keep people beyond their normal sentence. and that there's a compelling case that she withheld evidence that would have kept somebody off of, a potential death, row case, or potential life in prison, rather. and so those things, I think, need to be examined, because that speaks to your character as a prosecutor. and I look forward to, if I'm on a debate stage asking you those questions and asking what made you change your tune. Now she talks about, you know, decriminalizing cannabis. Was that just a political move, or did you have a real change of heart? but, yeah, that is my. But I do see her as somebody who. I'll say one more nice thing about her, though. She is the mom in a blended family, and I think people who are attack her for being childless are ridiculous. She's been a co parent, ever since she's been married to her current husband. the ex wife of her current husband. Even talks about how great of a stepmother she's been. And if anybody knows any divorced families, to hear somebody talk about how great of a step parent somebody's, being speaks to the character, because it takes a lot to admit that and to say that a lot of the times. And so, I think attacking her for her family values is ridiculous. Also for people like JD Vance, who say, this nation is being founded by childless people and run by childless people, George Washington and Martha Washington had no children.

>> Will Wright: So there you go, childless cat ladies. I think it was the,

>> Chase Oliver: I can't speak to if Washington had cats or not, but I do know that he had no children.

>> Will Wright: Well, thank you so much, chase. I guess, you know, probably the more important question is, like, how can people, you know, get a hold of you, contribute, participate, you know, sign up, you know, help, help with everything that you're trying to do.

>> Chase Oliver: Yeah. so if you want to check out my website, it's votechaseoliver.com dot. From there, you can join our mailing list, become a donor supporter or a volunteer. We'd love to have your support there, but, of course, there's access to lots of media links and our platform, and you can really find out all sorts of cool stuff about the campaign, including where we're going to be next. and then if you want to find us on social media platforms, search Ace for Liberty. that's chase, f o r, Liberty. So, chase for Liberty, find us on all the major platforms. We're trying to really expand our reach, particularly on TikTok. So if you're on TikTok, make sure you follow us. we'll be doing more and more lives on that platform to try to, appeal to the gen z voter. But we're on x, we're on Facebook, we're on YouTube, and, like I said, we're on TikTok. So find Chase for Liberty and Instagram as well.

>> Will Wright: Awesome. Well, thank, you so much, everybody. This is Chase Oliver, the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party. And regardless of who you vote for, just make sure you go out and vote. And to our audience, make sure you keep your conversations not right or left, but up. and we'll see you next time. Take care.
00:49:09