antitrust lawsuit to break up the media and to basically adopt a policy. we need a policy whereby candidates who are candidates in good standing are on the ballot in enough states that they could win it, they need to be covered by media. we need to hold debates which are inclusive so the public not only has a right to vote, they have a right to know who they can vote for and where those candidates stand. the public airways need to serve the public, like c-span does, but c-span should not be the only exception. we need to have many venues where people hear about the critical issues and the candidates and their views. host: jill stein, green presidential nominee. she is on the web. >> "washington journal" continues.

host: welcome back to "washington journal." we are joined now by chase oliver, the libertarian presidential nominee. welcome to the program. guest: thank you for having me. i look forward to speaking with you and the c-span audience. host: tell us about the libertarian party and what the main tenets of your platform are. guest: the libertarian party is the party of returning power back to the individual, or the most local government as possible. broadly speaking we want to cut taxes and keep your civil liberties protected is the main thrust of it. and it all involves our idea around the idea of non-aggression. if we are not aggressing against somebody there is no need for the government to involve itself in our private affairs. generally speaking keep government limited to size. host: what was your first introduction to the libertarian party? guest: yeah, so, my political

background started in antiwar activism during the bush years. i reflexively became a democrat because george bush was a republican. up until 2008 when barack obama made a lot of promises and felt to deliver on those promises, that pushed me out of the democratic party. i was an independent for a little while and then i finally found libertarian party in 2010. i started voting libertarian and become a party member in 2014 because they spoke to the antiwar sentiment that i held and that many did. and i found out that later on much of the philosophy really fits in with my personal philosophy. i was really a libertarian all along. host: we will have jill stein on later in the program, but i wanted to get your take on the differences between the libertarian party and the green party. guest: the biggest difference would be the apparatus of government being used to solve problems. you know, i think the green

party, or green party members, and many libertarians, identify the same problems that exist within our politics and country. but the solutions are going to be rooted in the free market, in private. whereas you are going to see a much heavier hand coming from government coming from the green party. he's like huge amounts of government subsidy and climate change and things like that. so, it is really about the philosophy of where government should belong. i don't think government needs to be used to solve the problems of today and i think any times government is inefficient at solving the problems we face. and that can be much better done around individual cooperation with other people, voluntary exchange, and organizations outside the structure of government monopoly of force, which it enjoys. host: if you would like to call in and ask a question, make a comment for our guest, chase oliver, the presidential candidate for the libertarian party, you can do so. our lines are spit -- split up

by party. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002 if you are a member of the libertarian party you can call us on (202) 748-8003. that is the same number you can use to text us. your party's nominating convention in may you secure the nomination after seven rounds of voting, winning 60.6%. i did it take seven rounds of voting? is the libertarian party split at this point? >> there is always going -- guest: there is always going to be different factions. why it took a seven rounds is because we had a lot of quality candidates running for president. the first round was quite split. the way we vote in the libertarian party is we eliminate the lowest vote-getter and continue voting in subsequent rounds until someone gets over 50%.

in round six, with myself and other candidates, and none of the above, i got 49 .5%. i was just under the threshold and we had to go through that last round of voting. it speaks to me about the fact that we had a really good slate of candidates this year that were splitting the party up. not along ideological lines or spite, but because people were having trouble making up their minds. i think that can be a signal of strength. host: what do you think the decision by president biden to withdraw from the race? what kind of impact has that had on your candidacy? i know initially you were saying that the american people deserve a better choice than trump and biden. they need something new and fresh, and the argument now is camino, vice president harris is new and fresh. what do you think of that? guest: first off, i think joe

biden probably recognized he was probably not going to win the election if he stayed in, and that is why he dropped out. as far as new and fresh, kamala harris is 20 years younger than joe biden, she still backs much of the proposals he did during his time as president. i don't think it is new and refreshing if we are throwing a fresh coat of paint on the same ideas. and to me that is, you know, i understand there might be some excitement around changing the ticket, but for me i do not see anything majorly different coming out of kamala harris that we were not going to be seeing coming out of joe biden. other than the fact that she is 20 years younger and can articulate those ideas better on a debate stage with donald trump, which is what led to so many in his own party wanting him to leave. host: obviously rfk junior has all -- has suspended his campaign. and endorsed former president trump. what impact do you think that is going to have on your campaign,

and are you making a pitch for those rfk junior voters? and what are you saying to them? guest: we are making a pitch for those voters and we have already seen good response from folks about that. the main pitch i have is, if you were voting for robert kennedy out of frustration, i joined you, and i think many of the policy areas robert kennedy was highlighting are things that can be attractive to a voter if they look at the libertarian party. so, i welcome the robert kennedy voters. if you are feeling frustrated with the two-party system, will come home to the libertarian party. grow into your libertarianism. we want you to vote for us so we can build an apparatus that can actually challenged -- challenge the two-party system. if you vote for me, you are voting for ballot access in states all over the country to get your party status. that can help build a vehicle that will challenge the two-party system in the long haul. this is not about one election.

it is about challenging a two-party system that continues to fail the american public. if you are frustrated robert kennedy voter that thinks i cannot vote for donald trump or kamala harris, give us a look, check us out. check out our cap -- check out our platform. i think you will like what you see. host: can you talk about your view on abortion and what your policy would be? guest: find somebody that believes your body is your body. i am a pro-choice candidate. i think we should have protections for women to choose to have an abortion up to the point of viability. post-viability there should be a doctor intervening if the life of a mother is at risk. overall i think it is something that should be available to people who need it. and i don't want to restrict people's health care choices. that being said, the pro life

community, i think there are things we can team up on to reduce the number of abortions. first of all, make abortion over the counter so there is not an unwanted pregnancy to begin with. you want to reduce the redtape around becoming an adopted parent some more people choose to become an adoptive parent. these are steps we can take that will concretely lower the number of abortions without taking away a woman's right to choose. without taking away her medical freedom and privacy. of course i will continue to always support the hyde amendment, and i think that should be something that is continued to be supported, which is no federal funding going to abortion, because this is a contentious topic. host: and what about gun control? guest: i am a two-way all day guy. i'm somebody who believes in the right to defend yourself and i think the gun restrictions we

have, or government removing our sovereignty, the constitution is clear. shall not be infringed is the wording. i push back against any infringement on someone's right to own a firearm, including the bump stock ban that was recently thrown out in the supreme court. i do not support hands-on crystal braces or any of those things. that should be in the realm of, if you are not harming anybody, it doesn't matter what firearm you have. the only crime is if you use that in an offensive manner. we have millions of guns that are not used in violence every single day. host: a final point on gun control. are you in favor of universal background checks, any red flag laws, things like that? guest: i am in favor of basic background check to make sure someone is not a violent felon or something like that, but on the whole minot, i think you should be able to own a gun. you should be able to sell a gun if you want to.

red flag laws are saying, let's remove due process. there are processes to take guns away from dangerous people. going through a court system involves due process and red flag laws fly in the way of that. i do not support those. i do not support trump's assumption of, take the guns first. i think you should have the presumption of innocence, and that includes when you are having to decide whether a gun is being taken away because someone is dangerous. you should not be able to arbitrarily take those guns away from people. host: let's talk to college. richard is first in baltimore. caller: good morning. i'm old enough to remember how things were before we had an epa , before we had osha. the cuyahoga river in downtown cleveland caught on fire because it was so badly polluted. the air in pittsburgh was so corrosive that the u.s. steel steel headquarters building was

rusting away and discoloring nearby buildings. without an epa, a federal agency, we could not have solved those problems. in the same with our food supply. the same with our water supply. without a strong federal government we cannot protect those and protect people from those resources and environments being polluted. would you be in favor of removing the epa? guest: yes, eventually i would be. i believe there are ways we can attack polluters and protect our air and water. the common, so to speak. without having a heavy-handed epa making those determinations. my biggest policy there is to actually move this to the rome of the judicial realm, which is where you should be suing these polluters into group c by removing tort caps.

much of the ability that we see people to pollute is they know even if they get sued they are going to have a limit to what they can be punished under. they already built that into their cost, many of these companies. remove tort caps, that way if you are poisoning water or air you can take you to court and bankruptcy four. this will create pause for these companies to be harming the air or water. it will give them incentive to clean up their act. we don't have to do that through the heavy-handed executive branch. we can do that through the power of a citizen jury. you know, citizens want clean air and clean water. consumers want these things. he would be incumbent on the market to provide these options, which is what we are saying. some of that might be due to standards changing, but i think most of that is due to people wanting cars that go further with less amounts of gas. we had a huge want for electric

vehicles in this country and the federal government killed the electric car. if you look in much of the regulation rounded. i think get the government out of the way, let consumers decide what technologies they want. host: let's talk to a libertarian party member in auburn, maine. good morning. michael, are you there? caller: yes i am. good morning. yes. i want to ask a question about the housing market. we are seeing rental prices that i never thought were possible. many millennials, and i'm also thinking about gen z, they are going to work and so much of the money is simply going to rent and basic set cities. no, we are not in a situation where we are able to put money

aside and afford a home, put down a down payment, etc. what is your plan to help with the housing crisis, to lower some of these costs so new families, young families can finally get that opportunity to own their own home? guest: well, i think there are two things we need to look at. first on the federal policy, the way we lower the cost of living across the board is we stop pulling trillions of dollars a year out of thin air by deficit spending. that is the highest driver of inflation. both trump and biden have contributed to this, as well as every president of my lifetime with the exception of a couple years of the clinton administration. housing in particular, much of this is a supply problem and it is created because we have zoning regulations that prevent low income housing and high density housing being built in this country. it is the knot in my backyard

attitude we see in localities across america. we need to remove barriers to building these homes. it is better to have low-cost housing. much of what is getting in the way is the regulation and zoning happening across the country. you cannot fix that as president of the united states. all you can do is use the bully pulpit. i want to see lower housing in atlanta, which is seen -- which has seen an explosion of housing costs. i have been renting most of the time. for me, i feel that stress. i feel the stress people of my generation are feeling. i'm not somebody who was born into privilege or who has existed within the federal government structure and living off the government. somebody who has had to get up and work 40 hours a week and see that cost of living going up and up. i feel that stress. the best way to reduce that is at the federal level to stop reducing what is -- producing

what is the highest drive of inflation. that means we have to have a balanced budget. during the clinton years that was a rational idea. now it seems to be a radical idea. but it should not be radical. it should be normal for a government to be taking in as much as it is spending and not having a huge deficit. for me that is what the highest driver of all of the costs, everything going up, including housing. remove the regulations to build new homes. host: this is in detroit. alexis. you are next. >> i have always wanted to ask a libertarian a couple of these things. i hope you give me a moment. i look at historical examples even prior to my birth of where the government was needed. i think of the situation where kennedy sent in the national guard to enforce school integration down in all little

rock. that sort of thing. i think the recent examples, such as sam brownback's libertarian paradise that he tried to create in kansas, and now they have a female democratic governor because that worked out so well. the final example i will bring up, although there are many, is the portland experiment with, hey, everybody use every jug you want to use, it is your body, no problem. and they have rescinded that. i wanted to know, in a case where somebody has a child that was born profoundly ill and will have lifetime expenses, let's say they have, you know, a cognitive problem, or in another case, somebody is working their whole life and all of a sudden at 55 they have a tragic accident, become a paraplegic, and are unable to work again, tell me, or is the government's role in those situations?

-- where is the government's role in those situations? guest: sam brownback is a republican, so i do not want to claim him. the government's role in much of this is inefficient and it does not do very well. we can better allocate resources to help members of our community outside the federal government, which is bloated, which is full of red tape. it is full of bureaucracies that water down your dollar. they will tax you a dollar and you will get back in time in service. that is because it has to go through that washington, d.c. mission. libertarians, one of the biggest things i think i can get out there is, just because i don't want government doing it doesn't mean i don't think there is a need for something with the ability to get it done. i happen to think trying to run a welfare program through the federal government is inefficient in terms of the way it allocates the dollars and provides help. when there is much more mutual and direct aid programs we can set up outside the room of government. that individuals can actually

help those in their community in a more impactful way than saying, let the government tax me and they will take care of it. because often times the government does not take take -- does not take care of it. they are inefficient and that is not helping the maximum number of people. me, i think the greatest role is, as we transition ourselves away from the state government program, this does not happen overnight. it is not like flicking a light switch. you reduce piece by piece, bit by bit so you produce the least harm possible. as you remove these programs from the federal docket you are going to end up seeing mutual and programs across the country coming online. host: alexis did mention portland. can you clarify what your drug policy would be? guest: i am for full decriminalization. the way portland handled it has been a bit haphazard, but the truth is that you should own your body. should put what you want into your body. and i think the biggest problem we see in terms of drugs is

overdose. much of that is the opiate crisis. the reason why is because fentanyl gets brought here and they press it into a pill to look like a xanax. people don't know what they're taking in they end up overdosing on it. the nation of portugal, which decriminalized the drugs, if you have a drug you can take it to a pharmacist and tested to know if there is fentanyl or anything else in it. or mutual aid programs like share the stigma in oklahoma, that passed out free narcan and fentanyl testing strips and can help gain the trust to find their way into a rehab. these are steps we can do to reduce drug addiction across the country, but also say, if you are not harming anybody you should be able to do what you want with your body and we should not have a hundreds of billions of dollars going to a federal war on drugs which, let's be real, people are using more drugs than they used to. drugs are cheaper and more

potent than they used to be. in the war on drugs, drugs won. host: this past sunday talked about being in touch with you. i'm going to play a short portion and get your input. >> there were reports citing an official from your camp, and also a democratic official saying there has been outreach to the harris campaign to possibly discuss you working within the harris administration in exchange for an endorsement of her. is that true? and what happened with that? >> i reached out to them on the same basis i reached out to president trump. i actually talked to other presidential candidates, including chase oliver and the libertarian party, about figuring out ways we could in the polarization and hatred and vitriol and start talking about issues. host: chase oliver, can you elaborate on that outreach from rfk junior? guest: we had a brief meeting in

washington, d.c.. we were both in town for freedom fast. it was the day that trump got shot. i will always remember that is the day i met him. he was on the tv as we were having our meeting. but really it was mostly a get to know each other kind of a thing to discuss the tone and temperament of the campaign. i have tried to run a very positive campaign. i've not in -- been in the weeds with attack ads. much of it was nice to meet with him. he was a pleasant meeting, but not a lot of substance got discussed. but camino, hopefully folks can say, i can talk to anybody. i have no fear of talking to anyone in any room, what i don't think it was, like, it did not really lead to a whole lot camino, now in the subsequent weeks he has dropped out and endorsed trump. i do not anticipate me doing anything like that. in fact, that door is completely closed. i'm not sure what would be discussed. host: dan, a republican in

indiana. you are next. caller: yeah, you talked about the housing market, and you never mentioned the interest rate went from 1.4% to 8.5%. i mean, that is where all the money went. my son bought a house last weekend he is paying outrageous money under the harris-biden administration. i did not hear you mention that. i'm wondering why. guest: interest rates are huge concern. i think it is ridiculous that we have 12 men who get in a room that decide basically the interest rates of this country via the fed. i am an audit and in the fed kind of guy. i don't think we need central bankers. that is what is leading to the stress in the interest rates. have for a long time made the american dream that, he must own a home.

this is the great signifier whether or not you are doing well or not. that has led to us pushing more and more people into homes they cannot afford and this leads to a crisis where interest rates go up. to me much of this has to do with the fact that we cannot build enough homes quickly enough. the homes that are being built are being taught wholesale by giant corporate interests and then they rented out a full. to me much of this has to do with the government having way more of a heavy hand in the free market does. this is over decades and decades and it is leading us to having this housing crisis. there is no easy one-step solution other than starting to push the government back out of this process and actually starting to see more market forces push their way in. and stop letting the government-subsidized people and give them loans that they are not ready to be paying off because that leads to the housing bubble and burst that we saw in 2008 and 2009. we are still recovering from that. it is a series of years and

years. i do not necessarily think it is one administration or the other. every administration has been blowing up the housing bubble because they want to raise the rates of phone number -- of homeownership. host: we have a text from greg in dallas. he is a libertarian. he says it is nice toe antiwar, but if -- but are you one of those antiwar people that make an exception for israel? it is imperialism and genocide. guest: i am antiwar to the core. i want to remove the united states footprint from everywhere, including in israel and gaza. what happened on october 7 was horrible and if it happened in the united states we would be demanding some kind of response. but the response has been so heavy-handed that it has killed tens of thousands of people. the rebuilding process is going to take forever to bring this back from the brink and so many innocent people have suffered

because of this. that is not the right way to respond to an attack. that inflames tensions. it makes it more difficult and less safe to be the average is rarely because you are radicalizing more people and in the neighboring arab countries. you are creating tension with iran. the united states should not have a heavy hand in this. we should be removing ourselves from the war zone and everywhere else across the world. it is not our job to police the world. the purpose of the military is to protect us from sovereign invasion. it is not the job of the united states military to engage in ores around the world, and certainly not the job of our u.s. taxpayers to be funding wars around the world via funding weapons programs and military aid to israel, as well as nations around the world. we are funding israel right now but it was during the trump administration that he sold hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons to the saudi's, use that to kill you many people in

their civil war. i would like to stop seeing the united states being in the business of exporting death around the world. i think there is far better ways we could export our values and far better things are industries could build than bombs and tanks and planes. boeing can find some other product that would be useful to the united states. host: virginia, independent line. good morning. caller: my first question you kind of already answered. it was going to be about the rfk interview on fox news. my follow-up question is going to be, how do you differ from past libertarian candidates like gary johnson? guest: in terms of policy and platform there might not be a huge amount of difference because i always joke that, you know, if you ask the question should the government do this, the likely libertarian answer is, probably not. i think the difference might be lived experience. i am a 30 nine-year-old, so i, from the millennial generation.

i am somebody who has a professional background in the service industry. i spent 13 years working at restaurants, working my way up from being a dishwasher. i was a consultant to help new people open the restaurant, then i moved into the world of logistics, where i helped move goods. i have been in the private marketplace for a long time. jo jorgensen was a college professor. then gary johnson was somebody who had worked in the realm of government, was a handyman. so, there might be a difference in personal background and in times of temperament i am someone who is running a positive campaign. and recognizing that this election is not just about me. it is about building up the libertarian party, the libertarian message. in terms of policy, there might be differences here and there on the margin, but in the large

realm of things the libertarian party has been consistent because our platform is quite consistent. i think maybe some of the things i stressed might be different, you know, from piece to piece. but just off of the top of my head i know i was proud to vote for gary johnson. i was honored to vote for jo jorgensen. and him happy to be carrying the flag for them in this party in 2024. host: paul in connecticut. morning. caller: good morning. how far are you going to go with this libertarian cabin? i understand the philosophy. i understand the philosophy. eileen libertarian. however, the 1.6 million recipients of dollars in housing, are you going to throw them out? and second, what about unfettered capitalism and the

role of government in regulating that exportation? and then i will correct you. there will be no rebuilding of gaza with a military occupation. and that is what we are supporting. there is an escalating war in lebanon and israel. your words ring hollow. your voice in the wind, wavering. so, housing, and your view that gaza will be rebuilt. guest: well, on federal housing, you don't throw people out. i say that any move away from government is not flipping the lightswitch. it is gradual. we did not get to the scope of government we have overnight. it took many steps to get there. it will take many steps for us to refuse this. eventually we are going to have to remove the federal housing programs. these things can be better functioned without the state

level if the states decide that is what they want to do, or we can facilitate private organizations that can facilitate transitional housing for those who need it. but with regards to gaza, i understand. gaza is not going to be understand -- rebuilt law -- until israel leaves gaza. it is under military occupation. it is the raising tensions that has been happening as a result of israel's assault in gaza. now we are seeing lebanon being involved and we are seeing hezbollah being involved. if we continue this escalation it is only a matter of time before iran involves itself. once iran involves itself we are in a world war. we need to be disengaging from this, speaking out for the innocent people of gaza who have been murdered by these airstrikes. but you are right, no rebuilding will happen in gaza until the occupation ends. until the occupation and we are going to be seeing massive suffering in gaza at the hands of the netanyahu government.

much of this is because netanyahu wants to continue this war, because as soon as the war and the questions start getting asked. mainly number one, how did you allow october 7 to happen to begin with? and number two, netanyahu was facing questions of corruption before october 7, and those will start eating asked again. i think much of this is happening because netanyahu wants to keep the war going as long as possible. host: let's talk to craig in rockford, illinois. independent good morning. guest: good morning. i think -- caller: good morning. i think ronald reagan said it best. government is not the answer, it is the problem. i believe that he needs to be talking more about housing as part of the low cost housing solution, because the actual

framed houses, the building materials have more than tripled since the last house i built was in 2011. and a sheet of plywood was $17, and now it is almost $70. two by fours are six dollars. there is just no way to have low cost housing when the building materials themselves are going to make the price over $200,000. host: all right, craig. go ahead, chase oliver. guest: much of that had to do with costs rising when we had inflation rising year after year. everything from the food you eat, the plywood you put on a home. it tripled in cost. there are two drivers at that. much of that is inflation, and

the other is the supply chain crunch we had during the covid years that we are still trying to recover from. but the primary driver is the inflation. the government putting -- printing more and more out of thin air, which devalues every dollar you have. that is going to make the cost of goods rise. it's going to make the cost of everything rise much faster, and then unfettered capitalism, the last person, the best way to handle it free-market is quit letting the government protect those who fail in the marketplace. we say, this firm is too big to fail, we have to protect them by bailing them out using taxpayer money. no, let those firms fail. they will fall apart, they will liquidate, and those assets will be reallocated. this is the problem we have with our system. it is not unfettered capitalism. it is capitalism that protects those at the top and pushes those to the bottom even further down.

we need to actually have a true free market that is not rewarding those at the top via subsidies and tax breaks and giveaways that make it far more expensive to compete as a small business in the marketplace because we are giving giveaways to these large firms that have the carveouts, and it lowers the cost for them to do business and makes it more difficult for the mom-and-pop shops. that is why we have seen hollowed out downtowns. large corporate firms are able to prosper while the average business is suffering the consequences. host: chase oliver, regarding your education policy, i know the plan is to close the department of education. would you put that function back to the states, as former president trump has advocated? or would it be completely private so every family would pay for their own child's education? guest: ideally i would like to get government out of it altogether, but what you do is get rid of the department of education, and you allow for 50

laboratories of innovation to take place. 50 different methods of doing things. those that work the best will be adopted by the other states. i argue for a system where you are funding students and not systems. if you are going to find it via taxpayer money, fund student directly so parents and students can find the best school for their child. have great public schools where you live. you're probably going to keep going there because you have the infrastructure. if you are from a place like atlanta where administrators were colluding and got rico charges to raise test scores, maybe want better options for your kid than a school that has to cheat to get test scores up. so, there is a realm there for that. i want to see more frequent -- free-market practices in out -- in education. fund the student, not the system, and do that directly. we will start seeing a lot of schools popping up that are

higher quality than many of their failing public schools we have now and also allows for specialization of schools. let's say your kid is likely to be a great engineer or is involved in science and math. let's say your kid is going to be at julliard, they are going to be the next dancer on broadway. a performance artist or sculptor or whatever it is. send them to an art school that is going to allow them to flourish. if your child has educational challenges there could be schools that are specifically set up to help those who were suffering from things like dyslexia or other education challenges. i think there is just a better possibility to have more places of education when we break it away from that funding system, that individual county system, and send money directly to the students. this also >> we are going to leave this program at