The Blaze Network came together with Nevada's Libertarian Party to bring libertarians, as well as disillusioned conservatives and liberals alike, to see their potential third party candidate in action. The debate was aired on The Blaze - a nationally televised network - all throughout the weekend and is now available online. I will provide a link at the end of my analysis if you happened to miss the debate for whatever reason. And without further ado....
The final Libertarian Party debate was moderated by no other than Nevada's own Penn Jillette, a skilled magician, comedian, and libertarian. Penn also had a couple segments of his own before commercial breaks where he talks about his friendship with Christian conservative Glenn Beck. Penn points out that freedom is the only way their friendship would be allowed to exist. Overall, I thought Penn served as a great moderator - he asked some tough questions, he let Austin Petersen and Governor Gary Johnson go at it a bit, but not too much, and the candidates unleashed his boisterous laugh on several occasions.
The debate was divided into four separate segments. The first was a 'Town Hall' style approach where each candidate came to the stage individually and answered some questions. The second segment featured a slew of questions from an array of celebrities. The third segment was questions asked by the audience, and mostly by those running for positions in Nevada's government as Libertarian representations (who are the real unsung heroes and down this blogging road we are traveling together I will elaborate on state and local elections and how real change will come through that method in the long run). And finally, the fourth segment was a lightning round where Penn asked as many questions as possible. The debate ended with a two minute closing segment from each of the candidates.
I am going to give a recap on each round, and pick who I think the winner of each round was, and the debate overall. Later this week, I will make my case for the candidate that I think the delegates need to select to best spread the messages of Liberty. So let's dive in!
Round One - Town Hall Approach
John Mcafee started the evening with his town hall. During his opening segment he made references to the MGT company, where he became CEO and boosted MGT's stock over 700%. While at first this seemed like an outlandish way to begin things, it is obvious that Mcafee was demonstrating his value, something he possesses quite a bit of. Additionally, he was able to clear up the Belize story for the audience. He wasn't terribly charismatic or terribly boring, but interesting nonetheless.
Next to trot out onstage was Austin Petersen. Austin Petersen began his opening statement by saying, "In every American beats the heart of a libertarian." He's already giving reasons for non-libertarians to open up to his ideas. He continued by saying we can change other's beliefs by simply listening to them, having an actual conversation before telling them that the solution they so desperately seek is Liberty. Petersen also touched on the use of technology and its role if we are not allowed in the Presidential debates. Overall, Petersen is a tremendous public speaker, his voice was dynamic, his words were inspiring and his enthusiasm for Liberty is undeniable.
The last portion of round one was filled by Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson began his spiel once again talking about how our party has no chance if we are not in the Presidential debates. He reiterated what hardcore libertarians have heard, quite frankly, all throughout the primary season and even way back to 2012, when he was the Libertarian candidate. He clarifies that he is not the candidate yet, despite polls featuring him as the candidate - a move that some like Mcafee feel is somewhat shady. But Johnson looked beat, he sounded lethargic and he was repeating the same rhetoric that has often had me yawning - until he got fired up! Towards the end of his opening statement Johnson finally showed some ambition saying, "We got our asses kicked in 2012", and that he will make this campaign a winner this year. Well, its about damn time Governor!
It's important to note that Johnson also stumbled through his words a little as he raised his intensity, which would be disastrous thing to happen if you are sharing a stage with Mr. Trump. Which leads me to select Austin Petersen as the winner of round one. He came off as inspiring, dynamic, energetic and young - the lather being lacked by all the other candidates in the race, whether libertarian, republican, or democrat. Mcafee was intriguing but not intriguing enough, and I liked Johnson getting fired up - but they were not nearly as dynamic and concise enough to sway opinions.
Round Two - Celebrity Questions
This might have been my favorite segment of the debate, having celebrities ask questions adds some kind of unofficial recognition that will help with mainstream success. Also, the left dominates the entertainment industries, so it was refreshing to see celebrities who might not agree with the Hollywood status quo of politics. Some of the most interesting celebrities included Dee Snyder from Twisted Sister, comedian Jeff Ross, Drew Carey from The Price is Right, comedian Carrot Top, Clay Aiken, Arsenio Hall, and many others. But let's get into what the actual candidates had to say.
For this segment, rather than look at each question and response individually, I'm going to cherry pick the answers I thought were the best, worst, or most intriguing. When asked what a Libertarian was, I thought Austin had the best message. His spoke of how Libertarianism is the American Dream. That empowering an individual is at the hilt of the American Dream itself. I think young voters are realizing that the American Dream is dying - regulations are getting too burdensome, its too hard to find a job, etc. - and I think Petersen can capitalize on this simple theme by connecting to a mass amount of people, from the left and the right. Mcafee had quite an interesting response, rooted in the idea that even bad publicity is good publicity, Mcafee said we should run naked through the streets holding signs that say 'I am a Libertarian'. In a sense he is right, but that might be a little bit too bizarre for mainstream America.
The next response we are going to look at again comes from Austin Petersen. When Drew Carrey asked how do we move America to a three or more party system, Austin responded that we need to build friendships first. Once you become friends with people, they are more open to your ideas, and you patiently mold them to realize the ideas of Liberty would benefit them. He finished by saying, "The Libertarian message is a message of love," and if we can't all rally behind love, then what will be the idea that can rally enough people to change the political landscape?
The next question is on the issues of the LGBT community and the whole restroom debacle that faces America. Before we get into Mcafee's outstanding philosophical and moral breakdown of the argument we are going to dissect how awkward what Governor Gary Johnson said was. Johnson said he supported the right for transgenders to use the bathroom they identify with, which begs the question is that a role for government to handle? Furthermore, the way Johnson answered this question was unbelievably awkward. Penn had no idea he was done speaking, and it led to an awkward silence. Again, not the best thing if you're biggest desires are sharing a stage with Donald Trump. Mcafee won this question though, so let's focus on his answer. Mcafee, when asked the bathroom issue responded, "I've traveled in Third World countries where people frequently use the streets, my God people, we have real issues in this country". I don't even need to elaborate, just think that through yourself.
When confronted about campaign donations, Governor Gary Johnson had the wittiest of responses in an area where all candidates agreed that private donations to campaigns are fine as long as there is transparency as well. Johnson wants presidential candidates to dress up like NASCAR drivers, head to toe, with the biggest donors having the biggest logos. It sure would make it easy to distinguish where all this money in politics is ultimately coming from, which would make it easier to recognize the motives of the donors.
The last question of this section dealt with government support of scientific research. All three candidates had some compelling arguments, with slightly different twists in them.
Mcafee thought it was the responsibility of entrepreneurs to fund scientific research that may have no identifiable short term or even long term rewards. His basis is that government funding leads to government interference which ultimately ends with government corruption. Hard to argue that especially when considering 'global warming' - wait, I mean 'climate change' as it is newly defined - is attacking those with opposite views, and some are even suggesting they need silenced by jail time.
Petersen had a similar argument, saying that private charities can fund it, and he brought up an interesting situation. He posed this question to the audience, "If an asteroid was headed to Earth, and we needed a laser to destroy it, would you donate?". The obvious answer is yes.
Johnson, again agreed that government should stay out of it, but he offered a creative solution to better government funding. He insisted on government prizes where the best research receives a cash prize for funding, for example, he offered $1 billion for the cure to cancer. While I could see potential negative unintended consequences and overall difficulty in promoting that idea, it could be an interesting short term fix to wean off the science community from government funding.
In my notes, I starred what I deemed the best answer to any individual question. And once again, Austin Petersen is the guy with the most amount of stars by his answers. Johnson and Mcafee were good at times, other times they came off as awkward or a tad bit crazy, respectively. Overall, Petersen was the most consistent, dynamic, and more engaging than the other candidates.
Round Three - Audience Questions
Again, for this part I will cherry pick some of the best questions and responses, as I will break down the argument between Gary Johnson and Austin Petersen towards the end of this segment.
The first question invoked some real thought provoking answers from Petersen and Mcafee, while Johnson had the watered down, less inspiring, but same message of the three. The question dealt with how government can get out of the way of entrepreneurship.
Petersen mentioned how backwards occupational licensing is, but then made a point that could change some Bernie supporters minds. Petersen pointed out how big businesses don't like capitalism, that the competition scares them and he closed by saying that we need to have a separation of state and corporations.
Mcafee, answering last, reiterated on the previous two answers that entrepreneurship is the best way to create jobs. Mcafee went on to explain that he has personally created 35,000 jobs, and articulated that if he had to restart today, given the political and economical landscape, hiring that many people would've been impossible. America desperately needs to hear these ideas.
The next question brought up another boring, unsatisfying reply from the Governor. When asked how the best way to raise money and a suggestion on how local candidates could do it, Johnson responded back with his whole spiel about the presidential debates again. I realize the debates will help enormously, but if we are banking on that then we could be setting ourselves up for failure. We need a back up plan. To that degree, Petersen and Mcafee answered that technology is the key to the future; and Petersen boasted he raised $42,000 in the first quarter of this year by live streaming and connecting with fans.
A question about how to solve the corrupt problems of the VA got the candidates in agreement. They each had their special method of achieving their means, but all conceded that veterans are the heroes of America and they deserve better, and that they should have access to private care if they choose.
Johnson redeemed himself for past slip ups when a question was posed about how government can promote entrepreneurship and small business. He called for the elimination of the income tax and the IRS, and proposed the fair tax. The fair tax is essentially a consumption tax, and he made the point that everybody in the world would want to open a business in America, where there is no income tax. Hard for any Bernie supporter to argue that. Petersen also brought up the elimination of the payroll tax explaining that he could hire a whole new employee if the payroll tax was eliminated. Remember folks, #taxationistheft.
And then finally, the audience got to experience Johnson and Petersen in action. So the question dealt with the LGBT community and the recent rise of Religious Freedom Laws. The audience member wanted to know if those laws are rooted in actual religious freedom, or if they are rooted in LGBT discrimination. Before we look into what Johnson and Petersen said, Mcafee made a solid point, that could resonate with mass appeal. Mcafee said that with a world based on Libertarian ideals one wouldn't need religious freedom laws because it would be an oxymoron. That's a simple message both sides can get behind. But on to the battle...
Petersen answered first and thought it was a mix of both. In some cases they do want religious freedom, while in other cases they are promoting bigotry. Petersen said it was unfair to force a Pastor to marry a gay couple because it goes against what he morally believes. Whether you personally agree or not is not up to debate, the Pastor is a person just like a liberal is a person. Petersen went on to explain that he does not support hate, he supports love, and because of that he supports the rights of gays to get married, and be treated as our equal.
Johnson, on the other hand, thought that the only basis behind religious freedom laws were to promote discrimination against the LGBT community, and further explained that he does not think the Libertarian Party should engage in discrimination in any sort. Any one having déjà vu? Yeah, me too.
Petersen then enthusiastically attacked Johnson asking, "Doesn't Liberty mean the right to discriminate... Should government make you a better person? You should be free to discriminate, just don't promote hate." When Johnson began he was interrupted by Petersen's powerful voice, and after bickering Jenn stepped in and let Johnson respond. Gary posed the simple question of should the Libertarian Party support legislation of discrimination without really defending himself or answering Petersen's questions. Petersen was able to make the distinction that private individuals should be free to discriminate, but government should not.
As with the Stossel debate, and other various Libertarian debates where there has been confrontation between Johnson and Petersen, Petersen displayed that he has the upper hand. He understands the philosophy behind how Libertarianism works far better than Johnson and proves it every time discrimination is brought up. Furthermore, Petersen is more comfortable in confrontational conversation than Johnson is, which is an issue I hold in high regard in the chance that our candidate shares a stage with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. With that being said, it would be pretty hard to not select Petersen as the winner of this round. Mcafee and Johnson made some great points at time, but overall Petersen is the most polished.
Round Four - Lightning Round
Mcafee had some of the best highlights in this round, which only allowed for a 10 second response. Some of his best responses include: "Everything should be available without a prescription", "We should end the war on everything", "Why do we invade anyone, I do not understand it", "We should legalize everything", and finally "If you want to take them [stem cells] as drugs, that's fine by me, whatever, it's your body. I'm serious people, I am, we should have absolutely no control over that." I know Mcafee isn't the most electable candidate, but you've got to have love for him and his brutal honesty.
The rest of this round, generally had all the candidates agreeing, or relatively agreeing about some common Libertarian based questions. All candidates agreed there should not be a cap on immigrants, that we need to end the war on drugs, that government shouldn't fund stem cell research but rather make it easier for private organizations to use them, that we should not have fiscal stimulants, or government bailouts, and that they don't support eminent domain, among many others.
Johnson had another extremely awkward answer when asked if free trade would help Americans in the long run. Johnson simply answered, "All Americans" and again left Penn and the audience hanging. Petersen explained that even Paul Krugman, New York Times Keynesian Economist, submitted that free trade helps raise people out of poverty.
Though candidates were not allowed to answer each other in this round, Petersen noted that the President doesn't have control over humanitarian crises abroad, that Congress actually has control when Johnson answered that he wouldn't just sit back and ignore a holocaust. I agree with Johnson's claim, but we do not need the President to have any more unconstitutional power. Mcafee believed we have enough heart to take care of those problems through our private sector. I agree.
There were many other questions in this round, but the candidates largely agreed, and I'm sure most libertarians would agree as well, so I'll leave you to watch that on your own. Overall, I think Mcafee had the strongest performance in this round. He was funny, insightful, and intriguing enough to shadow your doubts on him, even if only for a moment. Petersen seemed to try too hard, and sounded too much like he did in the Fox debate, where he focused on sound bites and seemed overly rehearsed. Again, Johnson just seemed tired and unmotivated.
Closing Statements
In reverse order of the opening statements, Johnson went first. Johnson made the point that we've never had it better than we do in America now. He sees the only way to continue to make it better is to shrink the size of government and restore power and money to individuals. He ended by speaking on military interventions and why we need to end them - to be safer and more financially secure.
Petersen pulled on his past with acting and quoted the famous Shakespearean quote, "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts". He went on to elaborate that he will respect the law, the limitations of his power, and respect the constitution. He concluded by quoting George Washington when he was up against the British Empire, "Don't worry because Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth".
Mcafee took a different route than both his predecessors, focusing more on the revolutionary aspect of his candidacy, exclaiming that the first step in change is changing yourself. He went on to bring up another philosophical lesson saying, "You might think you have learned something while watching this debate, I assure you, you have learned nothing at all". He led on that to explain that because of television and media compacting candidates into soundbites, one does not learn anything in debates. That isn't the way their supposed to work. Mcafee thinks its madness. Trump is madness. He went on to explain how this is a cause to the rise of Trump, and offered complete transparency and brutal honesty if he is elected. Mcafee said he would let anybody into his life at any time, and made the point that Donald Trump would never be that transparent or honest.
Though Mcafee is sometimes too brutally honest, and it may be off-putting to voters outside the libertarian circle, he is an incredibly gifted and intelligent individual. I thought he had the best closing statement because he focused on the corruption of the whole system, and how it thrives off of an empire of lies. He got just philosophical enough, and offered the American people something that has been out of politics for far too long - honesty.
And The Winner Is....
As I'm sure you were able to guess my opinion by the end of reading it, some closure is necessary. I believe that Austin Petersen handedly won this debate. He displayed the most consistent charisma, enthusiasm, intelligence on the subjects, and presence. His voice was dynamic - raising it in times he thought needed emphasis, and lowering it at others. As I mentioned earlier, I think he was the most polished and I think he is the best candidate to represent us. I'll get into that subject later this week.
Mcafee has continued to impress me with his understanding of libertarian principles despite being a very new member to the party. Unfortunately, his past is too daunting and his personality might be too hard to understand for the average voter. Sometimes his honesty is his downfall, and it's a giant step to have the ability to say that about any politician or presidential candidate. Too much honesty, what a world that would be. I believe Mcafee is more inspiring and entertaining than Johnson, while being more clear and concise. For that, I would give him second place in this debate.
Johnson bored me yet again, he has been repeating the same exact lines this whole primary season, and he even seems tired and lethargic. He looks foolish when he is attempting to defend himself, he comes off as awkward, unprepared, uninspiring or just high. He disagrees with some fundamental libertarian principles and doesn't make the best cases as to why people should rally behind him and his ideas. But that is not to say that I wouldn't support him or love to see him on the debate stage - I am just approaching that conclusion with caution. And again, I'll dive into that later this week.
As promised, if you missed the Libertarian Debate hosted by The Blaze and Nevada's Libertarian Party, you can check out the whole thing here!
The final Libertarian Party debate was moderated by no other than Nevada's own Penn Jillette, a skilled magician, comedian, and libertarian. Penn also had a couple segments of his own before commercial breaks where he talks about his friendship with Christian conservative Glenn Beck. Penn points out that freedom is the only way their friendship would be allowed to exist. Overall, I thought Penn served as a great moderator - he asked some tough questions, he let Austin Petersen and Governor Gary Johnson go at it a bit, but not too much, and the candidates unleashed his boisterous laugh on several occasions.
The debate was divided into four separate segments. The first was a 'Town Hall' style approach where each candidate came to the stage individually and answered some questions. The second segment featured a slew of questions from an array of celebrities. The third segment was questions asked by the audience, and mostly by those running for positions in Nevada's government as Libertarian representations (who are the real unsung heroes and down this blogging road we are traveling together I will elaborate on state and local elections and how real change will come through that method in the long run). And finally, the fourth segment was a lightning round where Penn asked as many questions as possible. The debate ended with a two minute closing segment from each of the candidates.
I am going to give a recap on each round, and pick who I think the winner of each round was, and the debate overall. Later this week, I will make my case for the candidate that I think the delegates need to select to best spread the messages of Liberty. So let's dive in!
Round One - Town Hall Approach
John Mcafee started the evening with his town hall. During his opening segment he made references to the MGT company, where he became CEO and boosted MGT's stock over 700%. While at first this seemed like an outlandish way to begin things, it is obvious that Mcafee was demonstrating his value, something he possesses quite a bit of. Additionally, he was able to clear up the Belize story for the audience. He wasn't terribly charismatic or terribly boring, but interesting nonetheless.
Next to trot out onstage was Austin Petersen. Austin Petersen began his opening statement by saying, "In every American beats the heart of a libertarian." He's already giving reasons for non-libertarians to open up to his ideas. He continued by saying we can change other's beliefs by simply listening to them, having an actual conversation before telling them that the solution they so desperately seek is Liberty. Petersen also touched on the use of technology and its role if we are not allowed in the Presidential debates. Overall, Petersen is a tremendous public speaker, his voice was dynamic, his words were inspiring and his enthusiasm for Liberty is undeniable.
The last portion of round one was filled by Governor Gary Johnson. Johnson began his spiel once again talking about how our party has no chance if we are not in the Presidential debates. He reiterated what hardcore libertarians have heard, quite frankly, all throughout the primary season and even way back to 2012, when he was the Libertarian candidate. He clarifies that he is not the candidate yet, despite polls featuring him as the candidate - a move that some like Mcafee feel is somewhat shady. But Johnson looked beat, he sounded lethargic and he was repeating the same rhetoric that has often had me yawning - until he got fired up! Towards the end of his opening statement Johnson finally showed some ambition saying, "We got our asses kicked in 2012", and that he will make this campaign a winner this year. Well, its about damn time Governor!
It's important to note that Johnson also stumbled through his words a little as he raised his intensity, which would be disastrous thing to happen if you are sharing a stage with Mr. Trump. Which leads me to select Austin Petersen as the winner of round one. He came off as inspiring, dynamic, energetic and young - the lather being lacked by all the other candidates in the race, whether libertarian, republican, or democrat. Mcafee was intriguing but not intriguing enough, and I liked Johnson getting fired up - but they were not nearly as dynamic and concise enough to sway opinions.
Round Two - Celebrity Questions
This might have been my favorite segment of the debate, having celebrities ask questions adds some kind of unofficial recognition that will help with mainstream success. Also, the left dominates the entertainment industries, so it was refreshing to see celebrities who might not agree with the Hollywood status quo of politics. Some of the most interesting celebrities included Dee Snyder from Twisted Sister, comedian Jeff Ross, Drew Carey from The Price is Right, comedian Carrot Top, Clay Aiken, Arsenio Hall, and many others. But let's get into what the actual candidates had to say.
For this segment, rather than look at each question and response individually, I'm going to cherry pick the answers I thought were the best, worst, or most intriguing. When asked what a Libertarian was, I thought Austin had the best message. His spoke of how Libertarianism is the American Dream. That empowering an individual is at the hilt of the American Dream itself. I think young voters are realizing that the American Dream is dying - regulations are getting too burdensome, its too hard to find a job, etc. - and I think Petersen can capitalize on this simple theme by connecting to a mass amount of people, from the left and the right. Mcafee had quite an interesting response, rooted in the idea that even bad publicity is good publicity, Mcafee said we should run naked through the streets holding signs that say 'I am a Libertarian'. In a sense he is right, but that might be a little bit too bizarre for mainstream America.
The next response we are going to look at again comes from Austin Petersen. When Drew Carrey asked how do we move America to a three or more party system, Austin responded that we need to build friendships first. Once you become friends with people, they are more open to your ideas, and you patiently mold them to realize the ideas of Liberty would benefit them. He finished by saying, "The Libertarian message is a message of love," and if we can't all rally behind love, then what will be the idea that can rally enough people to change the political landscape?
The next question is on the issues of the LGBT community and the whole restroom debacle that faces America. Before we get into Mcafee's outstanding philosophical and moral breakdown of the argument we are going to dissect how awkward what Governor Gary Johnson said was. Johnson said he supported the right for transgenders to use the bathroom they identify with, which begs the question is that a role for government to handle? Furthermore, the way Johnson answered this question was unbelievably awkward. Penn had no idea he was done speaking, and it led to an awkward silence. Again, not the best thing if you're biggest desires are sharing a stage with Donald Trump. Mcafee won this question though, so let's focus on his answer. Mcafee, when asked the bathroom issue responded, "I've traveled in Third World countries where people frequently use the streets, my God people, we have real issues in this country". I don't even need to elaborate, just think that through yourself.
When confronted about campaign donations, Governor Gary Johnson had the wittiest of responses in an area where all candidates agreed that private donations to campaigns are fine as long as there is transparency as well. Johnson wants presidential candidates to dress up like NASCAR drivers, head to toe, with the biggest donors having the biggest logos. It sure would make it easy to distinguish where all this money in politics is ultimately coming from, which would make it easier to recognize the motives of the donors.
The last question of this section dealt with government support of scientific research. All three candidates had some compelling arguments, with slightly different twists in them.
Mcafee thought it was the responsibility of entrepreneurs to fund scientific research that may have no identifiable short term or even long term rewards. His basis is that government funding leads to government interference which ultimately ends with government corruption. Hard to argue that especially when considering 'global warming' - wait, I mean 'climate change' as it is newly defined - is attacking those with opposite views, and some are even suggesting they need silenced by jail time.
Petersen had a similar argument, saying that private charities can fund it, and he brought up an interesting situation. He posed this question to the audience, "If an asteroid was headed to Earth, and we needed a laser to destroy it, would you donate?". The obvious answer is yes.
Johnson, again agreed that government should stay out of it, but he offered a creative solution to better government funding. He insisted on government prizes where the best research receives a cash prize for funding, for example, he offered $1 billion for the cure to cancer. While I could see potential negative unintended consequences and overall difficulty in promoting that idea, it could be an interesting short term fix to wean off the science community from government funding.
In my notes, I starred what I deemed the best answer to any individual question. And once again, Austin Petersen is the guy with the most amount of stars by his answers. Johnson and Mcafee were good at times, other times they came off as awkward or a tad bit crazy, respectively. Overall, Petersen was the most consistent, dynamic, and more engaging than the other candidates.
Round Three - Audience Questions
Again, for this part I will cherry pick some of the best questions and responses, as I will break down the argument between Gary Johnson and Austin Petersen towards the end of this segment.
The first question invoked some real thought provoking answers from Petersen and Mcafee, while Johnson had the watered down, less inspiring, but same message of the three. The question dealt with how government can get out of the way of entrepreneurship.
Petersen mentioned how backwards occupational licensing is, but then made a point that could change some Bernie supporters minds. Petersen pointed out how big businesses don't like capitalism, that the competition scares them and he closed by saying that we need to have a separation of state and corporations.
Mcafee, answering last, reiterated on the previous two answers that entrepreneurship is the best way to create jobs. Mcafee went on to explain that he has personally created 35,000 jobs, and articulated that if he had to restart today, given the political and economical landscape, hiring that many people would've been impossible. America desperately needs to hear these ideas.
The next question brought up another boring, unsatisfying reply from the Governor. When asked how the best way to raise money and a suggestion on how local candidates could do it, Johnson responded back with his whole spiel about the presidential debates again. I realize the debates will help enormously, but if we are banking on that then we could be setting ourselves up for failure. We need a back up plan. To that degree, Petersen and Mcafee answered that technology is the key to the future; and Petersen boasted he raised $42,000 in the first quarter of this year by live streaming and connecting with fans.
A question about how to solve the corrupt problems of the VA got the candidates in agreement. They each had their special method of achieving their means, but all conceded that veterans are the heroes of America and they deserve better, and that they should have access to private care if they choose.
Johnson redeemed himself for past slip ups when a question was posed about how government can promote entrepreneurship and small business. He called for the elimination of the income tax and the IRS, and proposed the fair tax. The fair tax is essentially a consumption tax, and he made the point that everybody in the world would want to open a business in America, where there is no income tax. Hard for any Bernie supporter to argue that. Petersen also brought up the elimination of the payroll tax explaining that he could hire a whole new employee if the payroll tax was eliminated. Remember folks, #taxationistheft.
And then finally, the audience got to experience Johnson and Petersen in action. So the question dealt with the LGBT community and the recent rise of Religious Freedom Laws. The audience member wanted to know if those laws are rooted in actual religious freedom, or if they are rooted in LGBT discrimination. Before we look into what Johnson and Petersen said, Mcafee made a solid point, that could resonate with mass appeal. Mcafee said that with a world based on Libertarian ideals one wouldn't need religious freedom laws because it would be an oxymoron. That's a simple message both sides can get behind. But on to the battle...
Petersen answered first and thought it was a mix of both. In some cases they do want religious freedom, while in other cases they are promoting bigotry. Petersen said it was unfair to force a Pastor to marry a gay couple because it goes against what he morally believes. Whether you personally agree or not is not up to debate, the Pastor is a person just like a liberal is a person. Petersen went on to explain that he does not support hate, he supports love, and because of that he supports the rights of gays to get married, and be treated as our equal.
Johnson, on the other hand, thought that the only basis behind religious freedom laws were to promote discrimination against the LGBT community, and further explained that he does not think the Libertarian Party should engage in discrimination in any sort. Any one having déjà vu? Yeah, me too.
Petersen then enthusiastically attacked Johnson asking, "Doesn't Liberty mean the right to discriminate... Should government make you a better person? You should be free to discriminate, just don't promote hate." When Johnson began he was interrupted by Petersen's powerful voice, and after bickering Jenn stepped in and let Johnson respond. Gary posed the simple question of should the Libertarian Party support legislation of discrimination without really defending himself or answering Petersen's questions. Petersen was able to make the distinction that private individuals should be free to discriminate, but government should not.
As with the Stossel debate, and other various Libertarian debates where there has been confrontation between Johnson and Petersen, Petersen displayed that he has the upper hand. He understands the philosophy behind how Libertarianism works far better than Johnson and proves it every time discrimination is brought up. Furthermore, Petersen is more comfortable in confrontational conversation than Johnson is, which is an issue I hold in high regard in the chance that our candidate shares a stage with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. With that being said, it would be pretty hard to not select Petersen as the winner of this round. Mcafee and Johnson made some great points at time, but overall Petersen is the most polished.
Round Four - Lightning Round
Mcafee had some of the best highlights in this round, which only allowed for a 10 second response. Some of his best responses include: "Everything should be available without a prescription", "We should end the war on everything", "Why do we invade anyone, I do not understand it", "We should legalize everything", and finally "If you want to take them [stem cells] as drugs, that's fine by me, whatever, it's your body. I'm serious people, I am, we should have absolutely no control over that." I know Mcafee isn't the most electable candidate, but you've got to have love for him and his brutal honesty.
The rest of this round, generally had all the candidates agreeing, or relatively agreeing about some common Libertarian based questions. All candidates agreed there should not be a cap on immigrants, that we need to end the war on drugs, that government shouldn't fund stem cell research but rather make it easier for private organizations to use them, that we should not have fiscal stimulants, or government bailouts, and that they don't support eminent domain, among many others.
Johnson had another extremely awkward answer when asked if free trade would help Americans in the long run. Johnson simply answered, "All Americans" and again left Penn and the audience hanging. Petersen explained that even Paul Krugman, New York Times Keynesian Economist, submitted that free trade helps raise people out of poverty.
Though candidates were not allowed to answer each other in this round, Petersen noted that the President doesn't have control over humanitarian crises abroad, that Congress actually has control when Johnson answered that he wouldn't just sit back and ignore a holocaust. I agree with Johnson's claim, but we do not need the President to have any more unconstitutional power. Mcafee believed we have enough heart to take care of those problems through our private sector. I agree.
There were many other questions in this round, but the candidates largely agreed, and I'm sure most libertarians would agree as well, so I'll leave you to watch that on your own. Overall, I think Mcafee had the strongest performance in this round. He was funny, insightful, and intriguing enough to shadow your doubts on him, even if only for a moment. Petersen seemed to try too hard, and sounded too much like he did in the Fox debate, where he focused on sound bites and seemed overly rehearsed. Again, Johnson just seemed tired and unmotivated.
Closing Statements
In reverse order of the opening statements, Johnson went first. Johnson made the point that we've never had it better than we do in America now. He sees the only way to continue to make it better is to shrink the size of government and restore power and money to individuals. He ended by speaking on military interventions and why we need to end them - to be safer and more financially secure.
Petersen pulled on his past with acting and quoted the famous Shakespearean quote, "All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts". He went on to elaborate that he will respect the law, the limitations of his power, and respect the constitution. He concluded by quoting George Washington when he was up against the British Empire, "Don't worry because Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth".
Mcafee took a different route than both his predecessors, focusing more on the revolutionary aspect of his candidacy, exclaiming that the first step in change is changing yourself. He went on to bring up another philosophical lesson saying, "You might think you have learned something while watching this debate, I assure you, you have learned nothing at all". He led on that to explain that because of television and media compacting candidates into soundbites, one does not learn anything in debates. That isn't the way their supposed to work. Mcafee thinks its madness. Trump is madness. He went on to explain how this is a cause to the rise of Trump, and offered complete transparency and brutal honesty if he is elected. Mcafee said he would let anybody into his life at any time, and made the point that Donald Trump would never be that transparent or honest.
Though Mcafee is sometimes too brutally honest, and it may be off-putting to voters outside the libertarian circle, he is an incredibly gifted and intelligent individual. I thought he had the best closing statement because he focused on the corruption of the whole system, and how it thrives off of an empire of lies. He got just philosophical enough, and offered the American people something that has been out of politics for far too long - honesty.
And The Winner Is....
As I'm sure you were able to guess my opinion by the end of reading it, some closure is necessary. I believe that Austin Petersen handedly won this debate. He displayed the most consistent charisma, enthusiasm, intelligence on the subjects, and presence. His voice was dynamic - raising it in times he thought needed emphasis, and lowering it at others. As I mentioned earlier, I think he was the most polished and I think he is the best candidate to represent us. I'll get into that subject later this week.
Mcafee has continued to impress me with his understanding of libertarian principles despite being a very new member to the party. Unfortunately, his past is too daunting and his personality might be too hard to understand for the average voter. Sometimes his honesty is his downfall, and it's a giant step to have the ability to say that about any politician or presidential candidate. Too much honesty, what a world that would be. I believe Mcafee is more inspiring and entertaining than Johnson, while being more clear and concise. For that, I would give him second place in this debate.
Johnson bored me yet again, he has been repeating the same exact lines this whole primary season, and he even seems tired and lethargic. He looks foolish when he is attempting to defend himself, he comes off as awkward, unprepared, uninspiring or just high. He disagrees with some fundamental libertarian principles and doesn't make the best cases as to why people should rally behind him and his ideas. But that is not to say that I wouldn't support him or love to see him on the debate stage - I am just approaching that conclusion with caution. And again, I'll dive into that later this week.
As promised, if you missed the Libertarian Debate hosted by The Blaze and Nevada's Libertarian Party, you can check out the whole thing here!