The Hoff on the Hot Seat

Today we turn the tables on Steve and ask HIM the hard hitting questions!

Rebel Rabbit infused seltzers.  Get a free Microphone Monkey's button with purchase at Inlet Dispensary in Murrell's Inlet.

Tune In for Microphone Monkeys

Transcript

SPEAKER_02 1:06

Welcome everybody to a very special, highly unauthorized edition of Conversations with the Hoff. This is the only episode where the host is officially trapped in his own hot seat. Go ahead, Hoff, and give us our kickoff.

SPEAKER_03 1:23

It's a beautiful day on the Grand Strand.

SPEAKER_00 1:36

Leaning close. Got a question.

SPEAKER_03 1:41

I'm Steve Hoffman, the host of Conversations with the Hoff.

SPEAKER_02 1:44

And today I'm in the hot seat. Yes, he is. And today we are flipping the script and turning the interrogation lamps directly on Steven Hoffman. Steve used to be is used to steering the ship, tossing out the prompts, and keeping things comfortably within his navigation zone. But not today. Today we're locked in the green room, intercepted his notes, and prepared a psychological gauntlet of rapid-fire questions that he hasn't seen, hasn't prepped for, and definitely wouldn't have approved. Yeah, I think it's payback time for me. No talking points, no polished PR-vetted pivots. We are here to pepper the hoff until we break through the armor and get a raw, unfiltered look into the beautiful, contradictory mind of a self-proclaimed conservatarian. Is he a free market purist, a traditionalist with a rebellious streak, or just a guy who hates taxes but loves well-paved road? We're about to find out. Buckle up, folks. Let's see how the Hoff handles heat when he is answering the questions. Okay, Hoff. I'm not gonna let you go into any any historical, you know, diatribes. I'm not gonna let you do any explanations, I'm not gonna let you sit there and try to explain your way out of things or define things or anything else. We're gonna go straight into questions. And you, you, my dear man, are going to answer them. Now, the first one should the federal government have the power to regulate speech if it considers misinformation? And who gets to define the term without turning disagreement into a crime?

SPEAKER_03 3:41

Well, even though I'm a conservatarian who believes in a limited government, and the government does have some rights to um preserve what you might say our culture, I uh vehemently, I would vehemently vehemently uh oppose any restrictions on the free speech. I I I am, even though I'm a conservatarian, I am um also a um adherent to the libertarian principles of limited government, individual, and economic freedom. And I believe in classical uh liberalism, as defined by John Locke. And of course, uh, free speech is one of the inalienable rights of every human being. So the government should never re pass any law or regulation that restricts the speech of its individuals.

SPEAKER_02 4:37

Even if it is contrary to preserving.

SPEAKER_03 4:42

Well, you say misinformation. That's easily you can you can say, well, you you're getting in the hate speech there. Well, imagine if uh the the our founding fathers, they also would have been prosecuted for hate speech because they were advocating separation from the United Kingdom. And uh it just it's a matter of perspective. Misinformation to you may be facts to me. I mean, look at the uh the people what are they called, the the the uh who who know that uh there's things going on, you know, and that nobody else knows about. And uh conspiracy theories? Yeah, the conspiracy theory is things. The only difference between conspiracy theory and reality is like six months.

SPEAKER_02 5:28

Yeah. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 5:29

So misinformation today is actual facts tomorrow.

SPEAKER_02 5:34

Okay. All right. Well, if conservatives oppose federal control of education, should they also oppose state laws that dictate what books, subjects, or viewpoints schools may permit?

SPEAKER_03 5:48

Okay, here again, the federal government, actually to begin with, should never have should have never got any control over education. Conservatarian, I'm also a constitutional type of libertarian. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that the government, federal government, has any right to interfere with education. Education is like any commodity, it should be open to the free market, it should not be controlled by government.

SPEAKER_02 6:22

Mm-hmm. Okay. And and that goes along with the books, subjects, and viewpoints.

SPEAKER_03 6:28

They should have no say on what school books are out there, what subjects are being taught. That should be up to like the Tenth Amendment. What's not in the Constitution goes is under the purview of the individual states or the individuals themselves. Okay.

SPEAKER_02 6:47

If progressives believe health care is a human right, does that also mean doctors, taxpayers, and insurers can be compelled to provide or fund it?

SPEAKER_03 6:58

Okay, I'm a conservatarian. Let's get one thing straight right from the beginning. The progressive movement has no bearing on libertarian thought. To be a progressive is to believe in government control of your life. To be a libertarian is to believe that you control your body, you control your life, and with minimum government interference. So whenever the progressives say, well, we should do this, this is actually the progressive way to do this, I say, bullshit. It's total nonsense. If you start talking the progressive way of doing anything, you're talking uh eventual increased government control that'll eventually lead to tyranny and dictatorship.

SPEAKER_02 7:40

Okay. And um you also probably have a feeling about when they interject human rights as opposed to individual rights that are.

SPEAKER_03 7:50

Okay, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is I'm sorry, go ahead. No, go go go ahead. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, uh partially created and pushed by Eleanor Roosevelt, was one of the most progressive documents there is. There they they they don't believe in human rights. They don't believe that you have individual and economic freedom. They'll publish these lists of rights that you should supposedly have. But Article, I think it's Article 26 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, has a clause that says anything that counters the objectives of the United Nations is precluded. You can exempt this particular right if it stands in the way of the objectives of the United Nations. In other words, if government gives you a right, they can easily take it away. And that's not how our government was formed.

SPEAKER_02 8:48

See, folks, we got his heart pumping. He's going.

SPEAKER_03 8:51

Our government was formed to preserve individual and economic freedoms and to make sure that government could not interfere or infringe upon those freedoms. Where the uh progressive definition of rights is totally nonsense. It's government. Oh, look at this friendly government's going to give you this right and give you that right. Well, no, that's total BS.

SPEAKER_02 9:16

Well, now take this next question in regard to also thinking about public airways, when I give it to you. Should the government be allowed to pressure private companies to censor political speech even when it avoids issuing a formal censorship order and or giving equal speech?

SPEAKER_03 9:51

I think that has happened in in the recent history. And that's probably why we're seeing more people tuning into alternative forms of media, like podcasts, you know, uh cable TV uh news used to be the one we would go to because we we got upset with the the mainstream media, you know, CB, CBS, NBC, ABC, you know, the the the uh fake media, as uh Trump would say. We we realize that a lot of what's coming out of media is influenced by government. They can withhold funding, they can withhold licensing, so they can't do kind of cater to big government.

SPEAKER_02 10:32

Yeah, the FCC right now is trying to enforce equal time law with those companies.

SPEAKER_03 10:40

I say go ahead, let them. But w the the user, the consumer is always a king. The consumer is gonna see what's happening, and they're just not gonna watch regular media. The FCC can do everything they want, but pretty soon you're gonna see a massive proliferation of alternative ways of communication.

SPEAKER_02 10:58

So sh sh the government should not be allowed to have any influence, even the uh equal time law, on public airways.

SPEAKER_03 11:08

Okay. If you wanted me to give an answer to that, uh well, no, they should not be allowed. But if they are allowed, they're gonna die, they're gonna lose either way.

SPEAKER_02 11:18

Okay.

SPEAKER_03 11:18

I I'm I'm a little uh You're saying yes and no. The government should not be allowed to try to influence uh media outlets. Okay. But they're gonna do it. You know, it's like the it's like the uh scorpion and defraud.

SPEAKER_02 11:35

They're going to do it.

SPEAKER_03 11:35

They're going to do it because they're government.

SPEAKER_02 11:37

Okay.

SPEAKER_03 11:38

Big government only knows how to be big government. All right. All right. That's why we have to fight big government. Okay.

SPEAKER_02 11:46

If mega voters distrust Washington bureaucrats, why should Washington have greater power over immigration, trade, marriage, drugs, or education?

SPEAKER_03 11:59

Why did you have to start off with mega voters?

SPEAKER_02 12:04

Uh repeat your question. If mega voters distrust Washington bureaucrats, why should Washington have greater power over immigration, trade, marriage, drugs, and education?

SPEAKER_03 12:18

Well, first off, mega voters, if they had the capability to really think, they would not be uh mega, they would be independents. They would start realizing that government should not have control over these types of issues that you talked about. But unfortunately, they they don't worship at the altar of free market capitalism or worship at the altar of individual and economic freedom or limited government. They worship at the altar of Donald Trump. So they're basically the cult, the cult of the personality. And any group of people that worships at the cult of the personality, they will soon find out that individuals disappoint. Principles don't disappoint. If you follow a basic set of principles, you will have a clear path to a good, pure outcome. Or if you worship on for an individual, the individual will eventually disappoint you, and they'll they'll do things that are counter to uh the basic uh freedoms that our country was was founded upon. Even Donald Trump, today he's doing things that are definitely counter to what our founding fathers envisioned for this country.

SPEAKER_02 13:45

Okay.

SPEAKER_03 13:46

So mega is not one of the words that I I appreciate, and I I and I'm sorry if I react to it.

SPEAKER_02 13:53

That's okay. That's why I'm throwing those words out there to make you react. Okay. If socialists oppose corporate power, should they also oppose government policies that protect large corporations through subsidies, bailouts, licensing barriers, and regulatory favoritism?

SPEAKER_03 14:13

Okay, say say it one more time.

SPEAKER_02 14:15

If socialists opposed or Marxists opposed corporate power, should they also oppose government policies that protect large corporations through subsidies, bailouts, licensing barriers, and regulatory favoritism?

SPEAKER_03 14:33

Well, see, the the issue here is a socialist big government and a thing called corporatism. Yeah, big corporate power is not a good thing because corporations use their power to influence government decisions. So if we as libertarians or conservatarians were successful and just having limited government, the corporations would never get that power. They could not use their power to influence government policy. Socialists themselves are big government types. So they're gonna do everything they can to grow the size and scope of government, to get government to influence everything you do in your daily life, and at the same time, they're rather hypocritical when they see that the corporations are trying to do the same thing. They're both two sides of the same evil.

SPEAKER_02 15:32

Well, look let me let me put out uh the example that I'm trying to show you of where I'm saying the socialists say they oppose corporate power, yet they do subsidies, bailouts, licensing barriers, and f favoritism. The Green New Deal.

SPEAKER_03 15:50

Yeah, the Green New Deal is the government picking winners and losers in the marketplace. And like I've said before, the government should have no business in any marketplace, whether it's the medical marketplace, the automobile marketplace, the energy marketplace, they need to stay out of that marketplace. Let the free market work its wonders. Let the chaos rain, because out of chaos comes efficiency and effective support to the consumer. How about chip manufacturing?

SPEAKER_02 16:22

Stay out of that too?

SPEAKER_03 16:23

Oh, that's one of the biggest mistakes Donald Trump ever did when he spent billions of dollars buying in the shares of some of our U.S. chip manufacturers. Because now the socialists have picked up on that and say, well, we need to have more control over the means of production in the United States. And here Trump left the door open for him. He he set the precedent for them. That was one of the worst mistakes of his administration was uh to interfere and start buying, uh, having the government buy into some of our private corporations.

SPEAKER_02 16:59

Yeah. Well, how about this? Should police be allowed to seize property without a criminal conviction? And if not, why does civil asset forfeiture still exist?

SPEAKER_03 17:14

Civil asset forfeiture is one of the most heinous policies of any government. The uh the rights organization, uh, the biggest rights organization, Institute for Justice, rates my own state, South Carolina, as either a D or an F when it comes to civil asset forfeiture. You can be driving down the road with uh, let's say $1,000 in a bill and an envelope in your car because you're going to another city to buy a new car or a used car. And the the police pull you over for a a rear light being out or something, and they see the envelope. They can seize the envelope because they can say, Oh, you must be going on a drug run. You're a you're a drug dealer, so we're gonna take that from you. No trial, no charge, no conviction, they've got your money, and you're probably not gonna get it back. It's very, very difficult to get it back. And uh, this is called policing for profit. It should never be allowed in the United States. It's a heinous infringement on our due process rights.

SPEAKER_02 18:25

Okay. If the left opposes discrimination, should government have the power to force private individuals, religious institutions, and small businesses to associate or speak against their beliefs.

SPEAKER_03 18:43

Well, it's just a matter of do you believe in free speech or not? And do you believe in in individual freedoms or not? You should have now I'm gonna say this, it's gonna sound really weird, but you should have the freedom to hate whoever you want to hate. I mean, it's just words. You should be able to speak out against any group you want, as long as you do not interfere with their personal property rights or harm them in any way, you should have the right to talk negatively about any group. Even if it comes close to hate speech. That's one of our basic freedoms.

SPEAKER_02 19:22

Well, I always think my my the thing that comes to mind for me is when they say everybody should have the right to choose. But if you have the right to choose, that means you discriminate against one of your other choices.

SPEAKER_03 19:35

Well, my mother said, you know, it's better to sit there in silence and to be thought an idiot rather than to start talking and prove the point. You know, so so yeah, people who people can sometimes be idiot, idiots, and they should really be quiet because when they start talking, other people will see that, well, this person really doesn't understand the basic concepts of individual and economic freedom. They don't understand the principles upon which this country was was was founded, and uh the hate the hate speeches are gonna eventually uh show their their true colors and and most people are not gonna follow them.

SPEAKER_02 20:15

That's true. That's true. Well, and and something today that I'm thinking of too is the uh people that are having a hard time uh I guess dissecting the um criticism of the government of Israel to um being a uh anti-Semite. Um it's just it's uh and I think APAC and those people have a very strong uh influence on that type of warped uh kind of I guess you know pushback.

SPEAKER_03 20:57

There's a lot of confusion between Zionism and antisemitism. I mean, Zionism is one thing, anti-Semitic behavior is another thing. And criticism of a government, a foreign government is a third thing. Right. So it's it's it's apples and oranges, you know, it's not the same thing. Yeah. But our people are not the basic uh person on the street today has not is not intelligent enough or is not well read enough to know the difference.

SPEAKER_02 21:30

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 21:31

So they say a lot of things. And here again, I believe it is of their right to say ridiculous things.

SPEAKER_02 21:38

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 21:39

Even though they are ignorant.

SPEAKER_02 21:41

Yes, yes, there you go. Should the government be able to spend future taxpayers' money without their consent, especially through deficits, emergency packages, and entitlement promises.

SPEAKER_03 21:57

Okay, um, conservatarians like myself, we do believe in the libertarian premise that all taxation is theft. No matter how you look at it, whether it's through inflation, whether it's through excessive spending, where the value of your dollar gradually decreases because they print more and more and more bills, it's all theft. The government is stealing your money in more ways than one. Not just through taxation, but through all kinds of other mechanisms that you've just just mentioned.

SPEAKER_02 22:33

Well, and it also goes to the uh taxation without representation. If I'm not even born yet, or I'm not able to vote yet, and you're spending my money, I'm not being represented.

SPEAKER_03 22:47

To believe that you're being represented in Congress today by our illustrious politicians is totally illusionary. You're not, they don't represent you, they represent special interests. We talked about corporatism. The corporations have gotten so powerful that the politicians want one thing they want to get either elected or re elected, and they need money to get to do that. Are they going to get the money from the average citizen on the street? The answer is no. They get the money from corporations. The lobby

SPEAKER_02 23:20

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 23:21

I talked to my program a little while back about the third branch of government, the lobbyist branch. It's one of the most heinous uh things that have happened to American government is the fact that the lobbyist branch has become way, way too powerful and we no longer have a representative government. They don't represent the people anymore. They represent the people who will put them on office and will help keep them in office.

SPEAKER_02 23:48

Heinous is our word of the day. Yeah. Write that down. There we go. Well, if the right believes in law and order, should that include holding police, prosecutors, intelligence agencies, and federal agents to the same legal standards as ordinary citizens in this country?

SPEAKER_03 24:10

Okay. Um the police are I would not want to be a cop because you're between a rock and a hard place. Yes, you have a responsibility to uphold order, to preserve society, to um serve and protect the people. But on the other hand, there's a large group of people who want to kill you just because you're a cop and have no respect for law and order. Are we the rule of law or not? If you don't respect the rule of law, then you're heading down a pretty slippery slope to anarchy or tyranny. Uh we don't want to ever become the rule of men, we want to stay the rule of law, and it's up to the police to enforce the rule of law. So that question I'm not going to give you a definite answer. Why?

SPEAKER_02 25:08

Why can't you say they should be to the same standards as ordinary citizens? Is it because you think that they have a target on their back?

SPEAKER_03 25:18

I think they need safeguards because there are times when the media and the people will gang up on the police force when all they were doing was upholding the law. Like uh like this guy in Minnesota uh that that he they they over they they used a little bit too much strength on him and he died. And the media said it was because of the police actions, or it could have all probably been a fact that the guy was also on drugs.

SPEAKER_02 25:50

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 25:51

So so what you hear on the news is not necessarily the the whole truth. There are extenuating circumstances. So I believe that the police uh I don't believe in this uh what's this immunity that they call? Um they should not have that kind of immunity. They should be upheld to the same law that American citizens have to abide by.

SPEAKER_02 26:14

Yeah. And uh everybody should withhold, just like our standards, withhold their uh opinions until the uh proof comes in and assume everybody is innocent.

SPEAKER_03 26:24

I mean, the the the whole group of Americans today that love to riot and loot, they want their freebies. So they're looking for any kind of instance of police brutality so that they can start looting and getting all this free stuff.

SPEAKER_02 26:38

Yeah. Yeah. That's not right. No. And then we've got uh that Wisconsin uh judge that is shocked, shocked that she's not getting immunity for letting uh for letting the person out the back door, so to speak.

SPEAKER_03 26:55

Yeah, for letting the illegal alien escape justice. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 27:00

And and when she was asked if uh if it was just a regular person that did that, she said, well, yeah, they they could be prosecuted. Now, this is the same woman said, Yeah, they should be prosecuted, but I have qualified immunity. Should be quali have qualified immunity because I have judicial uh preference, yeah. Okay.

SPEAKER_03 27:22

But but yes, uh to really answer your question, everybody should come under the rule of law, including the police. Yeah. But I am also saying that I would not want to be a cop because, like I said, to begin with, they're between a rock and a hard place. They have to enforce the law, but yet the the public and the media are are definitely uh give out what you might call misinformation about the police every day.

SPEAKER_02 27:51

Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, it's and there are a lot of other uh occupations that have the same same problem. I mean, we have uh uh corporate uh types being murdered in the streets and people cheering. So I mean the yeah, the bad press goes out. Yeah, the bad pr press goes out and and uh and does this stuff to people. If the left supports uh bodily autonomy, should that principle also protect peaceful adults who choose to smoke, drink, eat, ingest, and do with their own bodies?

SPEAKER_03 28:28

You you're blaming this on the left, but the right also does the same thing.

SPEAKER_02 28:33

You know, uh the yeah, the uh but the right doesn't believe in bodily autonomy.

SPEAKER_03 28:40

Okay, so so the left believes that you should be able to do with your body whatever you want.

SPEAKER_02 28:45

Oh, right, including abortion.

SPEAKER_03 28:47

Including abortion. So if you're a libertarian, you you probably b believe in individual freedom. Now, abortion is a third rail in uh the libertarian politics or libertarian.

SPEAKER_02 29:02

That aside, I mean, that's just talking about bodily autonomy. But let's concentrate on should peaceful adults choose to smoke, drink, eat, and just and do with their own bodies.

SPEAKER_03 29:14

Yes, they should. You should be able to imbide anything and put anything in your body that you want without government interference. And unfortunately, the the major stomach block to doing that today is not the left. They agree with or would agree with you. It's the right. It's the conservative Republicans who say, oh, we have to protect society, we have to protect the children, so we have to outlaw any kind of uh marijuana. We we have a war on plants, we have a war on the marijuana plant and a war on the hemp plant because we're here to protect the children. Well, Steve, let me point something out to you.

SPEAKER_02 29:52

Okay. We've had multiple uh Democratic left uh majority governments in our country, and they have not moved one iota to legalizing marijuana during their reign. It was actually Republicans that had Republicans who pushed for legalizing marijuana and getting that pushed through the Congress. Now, doesn't that kind of throw in the face of the left being supportive of these things? I think they give mouth, you know, a lot of mouth to it, but I don't think they actually have their heart. The left is hypocritical.

SPEAKER_03 30:36

Yeah, they'll say those things to buy group uh votes, but once they get in power, yeah, here again, they're pro-big government, they're pro-big government to control your life.

SPEAKER_02 30:46

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 30:46

And if it happens to be pro controlling what you put in your body, yeah, they're not gonna be against it once they're in power.

SPEAKER_02 30:52

Yeah, yeah. And and exactly. And they can't have their NGOs and everything else being uh uh uh supported by money if those problems get solved. Right.

SPEAKER_03 31:03

Um yeah, so but here again, let's talk about the Republicans again. Um yes, Donald Trump did take marijuana off schedule one.

SPEAKER_02 31:13

No, no, before before this is long before uh uh and I think you're mix mixing up my my my my my state governments with the with the uh federal governments. These were state governors that were Republicans and state uh states that had 50-50 to 40-60 uh Republicans that got legalization within their states. Um but the the the thing about uh Trump federalizing it is Okay, let's go back to the uh uh constitutionalist type thought.

SPEAKER_03 31:47

Yeah. It's not the purview of the federal government to regulate drugs or anything that we put in our body.

SPEAKER_02 31:54

Right.

SPEAKER_03 31:54

The the the what do you what would you call it? The recreational marketplace, yeah, the medical marketplace, they need to stay out of it. How about the free marketplace? That would be left the free marketplace. That would be left up to the individual states or the individual. Now I have no problems with having with one state totally stomping down and putting all kinds of restrictions on what you put in your body. If they want to do that, go ahead. But you have the you have the ability to walk and go to another state that doesn't have those restrictions. That's what a that's what a republic is. It's a confederation of states, of sovereign states that have their own cultures and their own values.

SPEAKER_02 32:35

Kind of like that uh the uh mayor of that uh Seattle, Washington going bye-bye to the millionaires. Right. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 32:46

And that's that town is gonna be going, it's gonna become like uh our favorite president says, it's gonna become another shithole real fast.

SPEAKER_02 32:54

Uh it is already is. Already is, okay. I think it's past tense on that. Should the United States continue using military force overseas without formal declaration of war? And what constitutional limit would either party actually enforce?

SPEAKER_03 33:13

We've only had three wars that have followed the constitutional process. In other words, the war was declared by Congress, not by the executive branch. All of our wars overseas are on constitutional right now. They um matter of fact, our founding fathers were very uh leery about too much executive power. That's why they they had Congress only fund the army two years at a time. It's like right there in the in the Constitution that the army could only be funded in uh two years at a time. So you couldn't you you weren't really supposed to have a large standing army.

SPEAKER_02 33:54

Right.

SPEAKER_03 33:55

And that's what we have today. We basically have an imperialist army where the executive branch uses that army to go out and interfere with the sovereign with sovereign nations. If you don't follow our trade policy, why we're gonna just send uh battleships after you. If you don't follow our trade policies, we're gonna send special ops after you, or we're gonna kidnap your leaders, or we're gonna kill your leaders. Uh sorry, I don't think that's what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

SPEAKER_02 34:24

No, no. Now I'm gonna get you all amped up again. If mega politics is about America first, should American taxpayers be forced to subsidize foreign governments, overseas wars, multinational corporations, or international institutions?

SPEAKER_03 34:45

There is such a thing today that is uh the most uh and I'm not gonna say egregious. It is the heinous the most the most or eggs egregious. I can say that egregious that's another word, write it down. That's right. The most egregious existential threat to America is the national debt. And for our government to actually giving other countries uh financial aid only does one thing. It only increases our debt. They need to stop spending, they need to stop interfering in the politics of other countries. Uh yes, have diplomacy, trade with other countries, but don't inter don't use uh our military-industrial uh complex as a uh as a a national policy, as an um international policy. It should never be a part of international policy. Trade negotiations, cultural exchanges. I mean, the Berlin Wall fell primarily because of the Hungarians uh realized that, hey, things are better over across the border than than they were in the Soviet Union. And through cultural exchanges and uh diplomacy, the Berlin Wall fell. Not because we attacked, we didn't attack Russia, we didn't send our military over there. We won that battle based on trade and diplomacy. We can win the battle of people's minds through trade and diplomacy better than sending tanks over the border.

SPEAKER_02 36:24

True.

SPEAKER_03 36:25

And there's a phrase to that. There's somebody once said, uh, I'm not sure who it was, um, if uh goods can't cross borders, if trade can't cross borders, then armies will.

SPEAKER_02 36:36

Yeah, that me in the bathroom, I think the other I was saying. If socialism promises equality, how does concentrating more power over wages, housing, energy, banking, and employment and government avoid creating a politically connected ruling class?

SPEAKER_03 36:57

I think I'm gonna need one of my gummies for this one.

SPEAKER_02 37:01

What was the first sentence? If socialism does socialism promises equality, how does concentrating more power over wages, housing, energy, banking, and employment in government avoid creating politically connected ruling class?

SPEAKER_03 37:16

Number one, socialism never promises equality, it promises equity that everybody would be the same. And if everybody is legislated to be the same, then you don't have equality. You don't have uh freedom. Uh it it's it's the antithesis of equality. Now, if um the socialists did get in power and we lived under big government, then yes, you would have an elite political uh class of people who just like uh the old Soviet Union, the regular uh citizen of the Soviet Union couldn't get all of the groceries they wanted. They had the very limited supply of product available to them in the stores, but yet the ruling elite had all the food and wine and caviar that that they wanted, because the marketplace was shifted to them to serve their needs, not the needs of the population.

SPEAKER_02 38:16

Well, I think it's the uh famous line from Animal Farm: all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

SPEAKER_03 38:24

And that's the basic socialist philosophy. As a matter of fact, if you're a young person today and you're uh you're in you just love socialism, and they you have people that use you to do go to door to door and a campaign for socialist people, the actual socialists at the top, they call you one thing. They call you a useful idiot. Yeah. Yep.

SPEAKER_02 38:50

Okay. So when both parties claim to defend democracy, why are they so willing to support ballot restrictions, gerrymandering, surveillance, censorship, emergency powers, and rules that protect incumbents?

SPEAKER_03 39:07

I love these questions. For one thing, no one should ever, ever defend democracy. Democracy is nothing but mob rule. Democracy will always end up with a dictatorship. In democracy, the majority rules, and there are no rights for the minority. So let's let's start off with that, that democracies are actually inherently evil. Now, let's continue on with your question. What was the remaining?

SPEAKER_02 39:36

Well, even if it there was even if they were for mob rule, okay. Why would they be so willing to support ballot restrictions, gerrymandering, surveillance, censorship, and emergency powers and rules that protect incumbents?

SPEAKER_03 39:52

Well, the incumbent class, like I say, their main goal is to stay in power. I mean, we've we've got uh a big problem right now with the voting with the illegal with the illegal immigrants, that uh due to the congressional apportion apportionment process, if these illegal immigrants are allowed to vote in certain states and allowed to become actual citizens of those states or countered in the census, that particular state will get more representation in Congress. And that's why the um liberals, let's say, really oppose anything that would restrict uh ballot access for those uh illegal immigrants, because they want to they can get more power if they have more voters. So um we really if we want to maintain our own cultural here again, conservatarians, we believe in preserving the culture also. If we want to preserve the culture of the United States, one that really aggressively supports the rights of the individual, then we need to have very stringent restrictions on who can vote. I mean, you oh Steve, how can you say that? You how can you want the only citizens to vote? Well, if you look at about every other country in the world, including Mexico, in order to vote in Mexico, you have to have a voter ID card. You have to prove you're a citizen of Mexico. For any country to maintain its cultural heritage, you have to have a restriction on who can vote. You just can't let anybody in the country who has no idea of what your culture is, no idea what your history is, no idea of what the founding principles of your country are to come in and vote. Because you'll end up with a totally different country and one that probably won't meet your needs, or one that won't be supportive of you as an individual.

SPEAKER_02 41:49

Okay, Steve, you can wipe that sweat from your brow. Because we have finished up the questions today, and I just want our listeners to know if you like this type of content and you like this kind of banter uh where we put Steve on the hot seat, give us a give us a shout out or a comment and let us know. Uh next week we will be returning back to the old adage of interviewing somebody. So uh we're gonna surprise you with an incredible interview uh for the next week's show. And um, so tune in for more conversations with the Hoff. And if you like these uh these shows and content like it, uh support us by going to LibertyCraftmedia.com and hit the donate button. Um we didn't have quite the successful campaign for our 2027 uh campaign, but we still need to need uh some funds for giving us questions until next week. Tune in to the camp of the camp of the city.

SPEAKER_01 44:12

Old school and freedom.