>> you started tonight singing one of the reasons he wrote the book is to say who is marion barry so my question springs from that. what do you think is the biggest misconception people have about marion barry over the years. the biggest misconception in my life is taken up with junk and scandals and corruption. most people know me even in dc from 152nd sound bites and the united states government send the tape to every ambassador in the world from the president of every country in the world to

other propaganda and they ran on television many peoples memory. but there were so many haters that contributed to it but that is a part that we all have to go through. i am not phased by it. knowing that gives us some hope and some help. [applause] did you get that? >> they want to thank you so much for coming here tonight and i also wanted to give you -- is as a precious object i don't know if you have gotten one of these before in the press club

coffee mugs. thank you so much for coming and we will be outside signing your books. i'm sorry, right over here signing your books. up next after words with s. post tim carney of the american enterprise institute. this week that schema then don't hurt people and don't take their stuff. he argues politicians and

corporate leaders have been eroding constitutional rights for decades. the tea party component present his plan to restore individual freedoms and this program is about one hour. >> host: call your book a libertarian manifesto. explain what libertarianism is specifically as it relates to conservatism. guess that there is an argument between libertarians and conservatives and neocons an and keep our ears and fill in the blank there's all these silos that we are apparently in.

the idea that you would take the cover of thpower of the states a certain set of behaviors either subsidize them or punish them. the individual response of these communities solving problems and on the other hand has a supposedly. of the tendency in europe to use government to really control and dictate and redesign people's lives and of course in europe even today a liberal is closer to what we would call a conservative or libertarian.

i'm a community organizer i get the views from the crowd that's what the boston tea party was. >> host: i want to walk you through some of them. the first is don't hurt people. explain why that is rule number one. >> guest: you don't mess with other people. you don't threaten them or hurt them and expect them to treat you the same way and libertarians have a fancy term if you are in the know and you know the secret handshake you don't even say that. it's common sense and you wouldn't have civilized society without that.

it's also important to understand the big government the experiment experiment of thg government are not theoretical. any radical islam or third world dictator that uses religion or some rationale. it's kept in a locked cage. the government is force and the threat of force ultimately there is a gun and you can point to mao but if we feel like the government is saying you have to buy more efficient light bulbs or the tax rate is going to be

15% of the marginal dollar is that going to be hurting people or isn't that just doing things together as barney frank says. >> guest: is forcing people to do what they otherwise wouldn't and it is literally at the point of a gun. you don't get to choose if you pay your taxes even though the irs talks about voluntary compliance there is nothing voluntary about it. there's nothing voluntary complying with epa regulations or frankly any bureaucratic dictator. now it is different in the united states because being forced is a fundamentally act iii crashing. but in eastern europe and a place like lithuania or the country of georgia and talk to the people there, they remember seeing their family members shot in the street by the government that's different and in the sensa senseamericans don't apprt the government is all about the

way it operates in the country is more benign. >> host: the liberal pushback is r&d different in kind isn't the press of communist bloc dictatorship or just any dictatorship it really is different. >> guest: the government that isn't hurting people into taking their stuff in history would back that up. we can have unlimited power and it leads to really bad unintended, unintentional consequences and the rationale for the government is a good thing. maybe it is wrapped in the language of compassion and in practice it doesn't work out that way. >> host: this is based on the idea of property.

isn't that alternately based on government? we don't have property unless you are standing on the board of the shotgun or the police are willing to protect your property rights. are we stepping away from anarchy is on or how does that work to put such an emphasis on property. >> guest: those things were not in any way fundamentally distinct from each other. frederick iraq would argue that the revolution of the common law comes out of people doing things together that work and that it happens over time there's a reason why you drive on a certain side of the road there is a reason why you don't take other people's stuff and why you don't hurt them. and those are what a lot of conservatives and. called natural law. conservativeconservatives and ls believe that a limited government, the proper role of government should be in defense of life, liberty and property

but nothing else. the rules the government enforces are codified versions of civil society developed has worked. >> host: to take more responsibility say more about that. >> guest: this was the president of strawman about the community and in rolling stone magazine he takes a shot at ayn rand and creates the strawman either you believe in the individual and those of us that did or you believe in the robust community coming at you can't have both and he says when you grow up you start to realize it isn't about you can do whatever you want, but i think that individual freedom that i get is all about responsibility. it's not a blank check to do whatever you want. it's the responsibility you get when you look in the mirror trying to figure out that you

get it done, did you get it done if you don't who is going to do it for you that as the basis of what makes up for the community, people solving problems and coming together. it's what we do together is what he says. i think that unwinds the community and the fabric that was altogether to not take responsibility. >> if you take the responsibility to care for the poor and to feed the hungry if you take that away from the government, does it fall onto the individual and can you have the responsibility to feed a hungry person and help the poor people? >> guest: i think you do and our evidence in the united states and our evidenc a residee communities that have been left through shows that that is exactly what happens when people are left to solve problems. you care a lot about your

community. it's harder to care about something that is 3,000 miles away or six countries away. it should have been from the bottom up. once they got to a third party even if it is a voluntary organization or a governmental organization, somebody else's agenda comes in and you don't know who needs help and who is getting the system. that's why local works so well. >> host: you suggested that when the government steps in if the roads the civil society aspects of the community and actually weakens the sort of neighborliness and charity is that right? >> guest: absolutely. and you see it happen everyday. on the ground you saw a topic with george w. bush's initiative i would call a classic example of the big government conservatism. although these people that were trying to solve at the local levels up to doing what they were doing and started lobbying

for an earmark and this is what happens when you outsource it it shifts the incentives and there is always a middleman gets the payout and i would argue that it is never really been about transferring money from the rich to the poor. it's about transferring money from the politically unconnected to the connected in washington. >> host: rule number four is work for it. what do you mean by that? >> guest: i quoted -- jen -- quoted ashton kutcher. he said every job i have looks like a blessing and a letter to a better job and i loved the opportunity that i had and that is how i got to be who i am today. and this should not have been controversial. it should have been points given to any young person today that it was different. and i think that work is another word that we need to rehabilitate you take it back

from the left and be used as a pejorative. it is really offensive. work is the opportunity to do something that no one has ever done before. they talk about entrepreneurship as judgment and the ability to look around at the future corner of history and do something that everybody tells you you can't do. that is the awesomeness of the work and if we lose that in this country i think we lose the nature of what has made america great. >> host: there's a difference between being a creative entrepreneur and the work that most of us do that the average guy if his job is going to be at a factory or he's good to be a schoolteacher he has the sort of

narrow confines in which he's going to do his work. does that have to seem sort of value that you were talking about and ashton kutcher is talking about? >> guest: i think so and he was talking about minimal wage jobs like washing dishes and mowing yards and that kind of thing. i think it's about achievement. about taking responsibility and doing something that every of those things that you do and i've done all of those jobs to get where i am today are viewed as a stepping stone to something you don't even know about today. i love the open ended mess of the system. >> host: do you still think that is true when of the big themes in the political debate today is about immobility. that is when a lot of people that maybe you and i have got to the point in the career there is an upward ladder but the guy that graduated high school of good paying factory jobs and he

kind of does have a glossy -- >> guest: you used the word nobility and part of it would be the willingness to rethink what your future is all about. check out monster.com if you don't belie delete me and we wie in the most mobile society has ever. you can go online and find opportunities that you and i. wheiwhen we were 21 couldn't hae you got. i think that end worth the workr at the expense of the employers. it's liberating for people without job skills yet. people that are trying to develop a better product to sell to a better employee or. >> host: in mind your own business what do you mean by that? >> guest: there is a lot of confusion that goes back to the big government conservatism and i talk about something that's

probably the most controversial thing in this book. i talk about my marriage and my very brief argument with my now wife over whether or not we should have to get the government approval to get married. and i was a young libertarian. i read all the books and i really be leaved this stuff and all of a sudden unbeknownst to me to get married eventually wanted to do i have to get the government's approval and license and i thought that cheap" was the most important relationship in my life and i asked the question in this book i is it that the government should get involved and really important social institutions. she won the debate with her grandmother and to the priest and he won the debate but i didn't really care what the government thought and i think it's a mistake to let the

government insert itself in the things. >> host: is that the extent because a lot of people say that's not the government to you as your neighbor if my neighbor thinks i shouldn't let my kids run around the backyard and just their diapers, is it one of your rules to say no don't let his kids put on clothes and don't worry about the sunburn or if i think for instance that the catholic teaching is right you shouldn't have sex before marriage and i see that in public in my mind in somebody else's business or is it the government -- >> guest: i'm talking about the government. i think period sure and values and being willing to stand up for what's right is a good thing and we should have an open society that allows you to say that without coming down on you like a ton of bricks into getting you fired from the examiner. but to have been codified the version of the truth at the expense of other deeply held

values based on the long traditions and religions, i think that's where you get into trouble because i don't think that you should diminish your values by leading them to the political process. if you want them to codify the definition of marriage i think that is insane. >> host: would it be on the federal level? >> guest: no i don't think so and i don't know how far you go with that. you can impact that process in a more cost-effective way once you get to washington, d.c. it gets

harder and harder to have a voice and a system, but i still think that as much as we can keep out of the government from even the countandeven the counta better way to go. >> host: so the rule fight the power that sounds a lot like the 1960s liberal and my parents used to say that wearing flowers in their hair so how is this a libertarian idea and not political? esko and we organized the march on washington and some people were upset by that going back to the founding it was very clear that you have george washington's farewell address he made it very clear that you and i have a responsibility to keep the government in check. but it was on the shoulders of the american people, and somewhere along the way particularly the conservatives and libertarians we started reading the right books when it arrives to the top and the

politics to the rights of the market that's not true that markets work differently and if we don't take that responsibility and step up and fight the power, you lose. somebody shows up and the government goes to those that show up and by abandoning the field of play i think we've let the government get out of control and -- >> host: it feels like a liberal busybody to go to the lobbying in washington and to be able to hold their rallies and be a community organizer. is that not sort of behaving like a liberal you often and eight against washington but you were here and this is at the heart of a lot of what you do. >> guest: if you go to the training manuals for the left organizations they are the model for direct action and the boston tea party. and the first time i saw that i

smiled and i said they stole our stuff and this was long before there was an actual tea party. i think the very nature of the american experiment had everything to do with populism and grassroots into people on the speech at the boston harbor. and you wouldn't have the founding without sam had done and that rising on the streets who literally pressured the new york delegation that was in bed with business community and government. we wouldn't have in america today without that grassroots activism sweeping think it is leftist. i think it is very much in our tradition to do that. >> host: if i want to raise my family and forget about the government, you're saying that i'm advocating responsibility because i am not fighting the power? >> guest: you might benefit of having to worry that the government ogovernment is that y to think that if you leave them alone they will leave you alone. so it is a responsibility that

you have if you care about your children's future and their freedoms. >> host: when you say fight the power do you mean government power because there is also corporate power and local school. maybe it is a private school or are there other powers were fighting or that's part of fighting the power? >> guest: i think a lot of the corporate power d. rides from the big government and you can look at -- the nice thing about the free market is the products fail in the marketplace and consumers are always right and businesses that don't meet the demands that out of the us. the problem is if you are general electric and failing to provide a better product to consumers you can hop on and sit down with the committee chairmen and get a special deal. if it's happening more and more because washington is more

involved in things and it's a chicken and a and an egg thing a fact of the matter is corporate power and government cover it's hard to tell the difference is in some instances because they are still in collusion with each other and see this problem right now with the nsa and a lot of the fallen data companies it's hard to tell where one starts and the other stops. >> host: traditionally the conservatives when i was a young conservative you were pro-business because you were standing up to ralph nader who is trying to kill capitalism and replace it with socialism. you use it almost as a slur in your book. >> guest: i was a young economy is because it would have been my job to defend the tax

increase to figure out how to do that is that the spirit of enterprise right on the front of the door and i believe about two years later because they just endorsed hillary care and i realized i was talking about balancing the budget and raining and ostensibly comes from the big government is from the big guys. they wanted to sit at the table during hillary care and they finally got one in obamacare. it took been a few years to do that. but that was one of those teaching moments for me and i realize that the big business is very much a part of the coalition of insiders against the american people. >> host: milton friedman once said that social responsibility of the corporations to maximize its profits. doesn't this create a problem for libertarians if the general

electric is to lobby for the light bulb wall that forces people to buy their higher profit margin do you think this is the responsibility to maximize the profits or should g. lobby for a policy that doesn't maximize their process? >> guest: the responsibility is to hold ge accountable, and i think the shareholder activism is another form of fighting the power of a company is using their relationship with government typically you should show up and i do think that in this decentralized world we live and people have a lot of power if they are willing to practice what it corporations are hypersensitive to public opini opinion. all of a sudden you get these responses back and they are paying attention.

>> host: do you think corporations can be brought in line with your libertarian manifesto or are they going through just sort of consumer pressure that you're talking about or do you think they are only occasionally allies? >> guest: we should make its toxic to provide to the corporations because they are both pushing and pulling and holding accountable for the behavior that we should take certain policies off the table and that can be done through the political process as well. one of my favorite congressmen has a really powerful idea to limit the amount of deposit insurance that would be available to every single bank and it's a very free market way of limiting and breaking up because the big banks are a product of regulatory favoriti

favoritism. >> host: but that isn't taking the banks of stuff? >> guest: it's not meddling at all. the goal is to move all public policy back to work a simple principle of justice, treat everybody just like everybody else. there should be no favoritism and there should and be an advantage to being well-heeled. there shouldn't be an advantage to being a particular type of industry that is deemed too somebody to be of national importance. everyone should be treated the same. >> host: how much do you think they have it in sparking the tea party server? >> guest: i think it was everything and i remember just a handful of organizations in washington were actually opposed at the time and i joke at time that you could have put all of us into a bus and that would have been the entire movement at least in washington and a lot of

conservative groups and think tanks joined the bandwagon proposing to defend the free market but at that moment you had a son on the grass roots ofs opposition i think in large part driven by facebook and social media and things that were available to them and they killed the first house bill. that was the beginning of the tea party. it had nothing to do with president obama. he had to do with senator mccain coding to pass the 700 billion bailout of wall street. >> host: and that is one of the themes you have in the book is the bipartisanship of the problem. you don't think that the republicans are the answer or that the democrats are the answer.

>> guest: it is a duopoly of sorts. something happens when politicians come to dc and i don't think it is that hard to understand they are literally surrounded by all of these interests that aren't even slightly interested in balancing the budget. they aren't interested in patient driven health care. they are interested getting a better deal for their companies and it's a particular big problem for republicans since the takeover in 1994. remember the project and all of these staffers became super lobbyists and so whatever you read in the paper, republican strategists, that person works for a big lobbying shop and you can talk about a bunch of these alphabet agencies that employ so-called conservative lobbyists, but they are not

interested in the republican party or good government. they are defending the interests of their clients and typically their clients are looking for something from the government. >> host: is that the way the business is corrupt government but some of what you write here there is no telling where it begins so you don't think it is quite a feat. >> guest: i think the democrats are equally guilty the difference being that they are in fact the party of big number and it. their goals are equally corrupt. let's say that the goal of health care reform is single-payer or the corporate interests corrupted that or the health care companies at hospital lobbyists and pharmaceutical companies all got in and got their piece particularly invite the individual mandate that sat in

the bottom lines of corporations. it's about corruption is nonpartisan as well. i think the bigger challenge on our side is that we are supposedly for less government we are supposedly for simplifying the tax code and shifting towards treating everybody just like everybody else. who is going to lobby for that if it doesn't work quite as no one comes to washington to be left alone. they just hope that you do. >> host: we are going to take a quick break.

>> host: you say our values define our tactics. what do you mean by that? >> guest: this is my thought rereading it for the dozen times i realized how manipulative the rules for the radicals ar are io that there's no principles in this book. it's all about fooling somebody into doing something they wouldn't do otherwise and that seemed to be consistent with their ideas of the rule of man or over the rule of law. we are different in the sense that our values don't hurt people or take their stuff or treat everybody like you would want to be treated. very much a fine not only who we are or what we believe, but how we would fight to restore liberty. and i love to quote frederick dayak in a spontaneous order and how it was that all of these disparate individuals with their personal knowledge of time and place and us with your family needs and with your aspirations

are and how they all come together and create something that is so much bigger than anyone of us could have done. but look at the tea party movement as a small example. nobody designed this. it was a free people coming together to do something that they hadn't dreamed they could do alone. to me that's how we take this country back and how we restore liberty. and i think the internet is a fundamental piece of that and it doesn't need to be dictated. it's not about evacuating certain people to show up. it's about people coming together into doing things that they haven't done before. and that's why the rules for liberty are so clear and could equally define our political strategy in a way that is more compelling than being manipulated into doing something just because you have a personal facebook post from george

clooney. >> host: do you think most people are libertarians in america? >> guest: i think if you take away the wording to take away the grass in the charts i'd take away the values i have in this book and there is a growing plurality of active americans i think automatically a majority. i used to think that the libertarian strategy was very much a guerrilla warfare in the sense that sam adams did or even saw lewinsky because of the internet and the cost to find out what's going on and you connect with other people to think the way that you do i think there is a new majority out there of people that just were not willing to get involved because they sound politics in washington offputting and were rational to think so.

>> host: people voted overwhelmingly for barack obama both times and very few people self identified as libertarian. and democrats often say a good way to attack republicans is that all they are trying to do is deregulate and cut taxes for the rich so there is a lot of evidence the majority of the country doesn't share the libertarian view but actually want the government about the size that we have now. >> guest: i think a lot of it is our inability to communicate in english because the goal of the fundamental tax reform is not cutting three points off of your marginal tax rates. rate. the goal was to tax reform is treating everybody just like everybody else and making sure that those rich enough to hire a lobbyist don't get a special break. i think that value proposition is more compelling to people than whether or not they save money on their taxes and i think we've made a mistake in the past

of wailing everything down to kind of a transactional thing. that's what the democrats do. they offer something for nothing even if it is an empty promise. i think our outreach to the new voters has to be more value-based. >> host: you said if the democrats go out and offered to be santa claus or ronald reagan strategy would have to be a second santa claus and offer them tax cuts that you are saying instead of offering other christmas presents we are going to offer than the fairness and you think that is a winning approach? esco i think offering them opportunities and fairness not being screwed by insiders gaming the system that ashton kutcher talked about opportunity looks a lot like hard work versus we are going to give you a family tax credit so that you get a piece

of washington, to back. >> host: you talk about the complexity industrial complex. this also benefits the special interests. >> guest: this is the oldest tactic if you create so many laws and regulation that create a bureaucracy that can add to their discretion and fo force certain ones and not others is basically the way of creating tremendous power at the hands of the bureaucrats and of course lois lerner would be a classic example of that. nobody can figure out what the rules are for the 501 c. four yet they were able to turn -- who infamously targeted the mom and top tea party at the expense of other applications.

>> host: they showed that five different chapters so why is that such a big deal to you? >> guest: because i think that we are reaching the point in the country we have this unaccountable faceless class of pure cracks that have this infinitely complex set of rules and laws and regulations to impose on us. they are never going to do it fairly and they are never going to do it without a bias to the federal bureaucrats would have and as it turns out they are like anybody else. they want job security and the more power and th budget and if they can use that power to punish people that might take it away from them and reward people why wouldn't they do that? that's human nature and that's why we never wanted that sort of

complexity. but by the way the authors that you pointed out in obamacare that were underpaid if i that sd up all night and made up as they went along we are now very well-paid consultants and lobbyists hired by corporations to turn back around and a game the system and carve out a little piece for themselves. that happens in the tax code and it happens all across the federal government. so the revolving door is steep and went on complexity and on more regulations. if you had a taxpayer that treated everybody like everybody else you would destroy the entire year in the tree of insiders. >> host: so a congressman that creates this complex law and benefiting. is that why they do it come is that why they make it so complex and increase government or are they public servants who are trying to give everybody

health-care? >> guest: i think it is a mixed stew of all of that that come to the elected office wanting to do the right thing i think the system itself forces them to come form into that and once they get here they realized i could become trent lott someday and i am not makin i'm t much relative to trent lott as a u.s. senator but if i become an expert on homeland security there is a cash cow after i leave office. >> host: most people probably don't know that the former congressman almost means lobbyist. the other thing you touch on in the individual chapters is the mandate, that aspect that forces people to buy health insurance. why does that deserve so many

mentions? >> guest: it is to be on me onef the most offensive aspects of obamacare because it forces young healthy less wealthy people to buy something they don't want or need. they are not offered very low-cost catastrophic plans. they are forced to buy something for lots more bells and whistles into services they couldn't possibly need as young people and the reason it works that way is because that's the only way that the health insurance industry is able to take on all of these other demands that the government healthcare has. so it is a reverse robin hood situation to give to the wealthy and the less wealthy and they take a cut and if it doesn't work out there are things called risk corridors that guarantee

they never lose money. it is a classic example of what i was talking about earlier where all of the wealth transfer isn't from the rich to the poor. in this case it's the opposite but the middleman, the insurance companies and the government are taking this cut. >> host: not just the individual mandate would you say it sucks to be young today. >> guest: if you think about the perfect storm of the obama years is a jobless unemployment and historically the highest right now it's hard to find a job. you have to student loan crisis where a lot of young people literally have more in college debt than they can reasonably expect to earn over a lifetime so it's about pay off and on top of that you have the individual mandate that forces them to buy something with the discretiona

discretionary. it's a continuation of a long-term trend that shifts the burden of too much government on people that are either young or haven't even been worn yet. it's called generational theft james buchanan talk about and the ideas that these were to destroy democracy, a legacy of lord keynes but in practical terms it's young people getting screwed and i think there's a lot of buyers remorse about iraq obama not just because of this but because the nsa and a lot of broken promises that they thought they had from this president and a new reason to hold shows that it's up for grabs there is a potential libertarian generation, the young looking at the political parties that don't see it right now but that is an entrepreneurial opportunity to

focus market. >> host: you don't think it can be barack obama and that you think the young republican party needs to change drastically to get the voters. >> guest: if we get bob dole again they've traditionally gotten the nomination and it's nothing compelling to young people in mitt romney and john mccain that should be obvious without having to say it but the good news is i think we have some pretty come -- compelling people to think about. >> host: you mentioned ron paul and speak of the filibuster talking about barack obama's drone strike some people including american citizens. this was an interesting moment for me i was in the house chamber watching it and to watch

the republican party become almost a party of peace is this something that you think is a movement or just partisan opportunism? >> guest: i think it is with the tradition of national defense has been. you go back to the way that george w. bush ran against the office he ran against nationbuilding and i thought the more interesting question about the filibuster was the way that everybody was laughing to rand paul when he went to the well and by the time he was done he had created an international conversation with twitter. everybody had participated and even the old guard republicans showed up on the senate floor to join in that it shows they respond to incentives and that ideas can come from the bottom up and that if we are owing to participate even if it is driving the brand on twitter

that had an impact. you emphasize the role technology can have been giving the libertarian cause or strength than i had in the past and you think it helps libertarians as opposed to others? where they can as well? >> guest: this goes back to the strategic question of conservatism when it comes to the political strategy to follow the bells and whistles and talk about the bottom-up and top-down strategy. they dictate and depend on a liter to tell them what to do in the technology helps that. they are talking about the spontaneous orde order and i lio call its beautiful chaos. it's the same thing that try to do there are all of these bloggers and news outlets competing and frankly if they don't get the story right i

think that chaos produces a better understanding of what is going on in the world trade they same is true about politics we can connect with more people and engage them and mobilize them if we let them free to pursue the values they want to defend. >> host: even if there isn't a benefit to the cause they can at least there's not as much effort to push the cause that makes it easier. that is a zero marginal cost and the cost of hitting the button is much lower. [inaudible] so that is where i was going to go next it's very upsetting

almost anybody that has a hierarchical structure, whether it is corporate, political or anything has got to be very nervous about some of the democratizing effects of the technology and social media. to not put a fine point on it and they are freaking out right now and everybody is writing about the civil war within the gop but it is a paradigm shift that's taking power away from these old entrenched institutional structures and going through the same process. to find out how to work in this new decentralized world and how to connect with those values we

in the future. >> host: they are won by the libertarians with a tea party in the last few years. >> guest:. there would be no rand paul if the rules of the game had changed. >> host: he wouldn't have been able to beat him in the past and he is thhe's the co- chairman oe democratic super pack so that says something about the old choices of the battle trend and mitch mcconnell cut off his money and in the state of kentucky he did an end run and raised money much like his dad into the presidential bid that you can tell the same story about ted cruz and the young

libertarian republicans that have beat the system and sometimes i think that's sort of onthat sort ofone indication ofm shift. >> host: the technology and social media are they noticing anything of the filibuste in ths there a legislative when? >> guest: the conversation is fundamentally different today and that steering the big government is like the titanic and hopefully we can say what we be talking about the national debt. would we be trying to do any of these things. they are talking that he'd party and freedom and fiscal

responsibility. they were not doing that before. that is not to say that we are winning because i think we have a way to go but i do think that the politics are the last thing that's going to change into the real revolution is happening with people's better understanding of ideals and the ability to connect with other people to share those ideas. >> guest: >> host: the idea like the nsa spying on people, is this a trade-off to say the government is going to listen to phone calls or have the ability to record the phone i will live with that if they are going to catch a terrorist. it's wrong to listen to other peoples phone calls and almost even if that allows the to happen if it allows for libertarians are a different parwere a differentpart in most. >> guest: i wonder about that

because there is a natural skepticism among the american people in the concentrated pow power. to go up to the lowest learner example in the government you believe that bureaucrats with lots of power would want to do the right thing but didn't you go after about corruption in the irs with tremendous vigor because he wanted to give that out to the nsa i think that americans are skeptical of power and also skeptical of bureaucracy i don't think that the nsa or the obama administration made a compelling argument that they are saving lives. they are just testing it because they can and there are examples, may be triviamaybe trivial exame nsa employees stalking their boyfriends and girlfriends and using this data but they are not allowed to use what happens when it is all gathered in the hub as

obamacare and you are collecting the dod data and health information and fill-in the blank whatever else they are going to know about you because they know all of your phone calls and everything we wanted d they selectively abuse the power? i think that we be leaving the limited government of power and it's particularly important when it comes to privacy and speech. >> host: you say that you're disappointed in the left for not being with the libertarians on some of these issues including the individual mandate for some parts of the left on some of the natural security policy is that the way you feel that there can be more of a left libertarian alliance? >> guest: i think there could be that they would have to be comfortable. as i would argue that a lot of us were when we challenged george w. bush on tarp it's loyal to criticizes democratic

president. they have not generally been willing to challenge obama. ..

>> >> one of the of hallmarks of a legitimate for dissident is authenticity. to your actions reflect that? oh what of people say the republican party is corrupt the beginning of the tea party movement is to be a separate political party. so people say you work within the existing power structure. >> fating is pretty much who i am with the internet and politics but i do think that it is loose which is why i

worked with the republican party and will continue to do so if they do not nominate another bob dole there will be another party but the republican party dye's may be the of liberty party emerges as the alternative but i don't see any way to get out of the two dominant parties that does not mean you cannot putd3e ideas back in to the party. event considered insane the radical during the bill clinton years with nancy pelosi and barack obama. >> host: you say that division at times looks like all out to warfare?