03/29/12 – Anthony Gregory – The Scott Horton Show

All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
And coming up next is our first guest, Anthony Gregory, the plumb line, walking libertarianism, possessor of the unified field theory of human liberty.
He is a research analyst at the Independent Institute, a moderator of The Beacon, which is the Independent Institute's blog, policy advisor to the Future Freedom Foundation, that's fff.org, of course, and columnist for lewrockwell.com.
He guest edits Strike the Root, and he's doing something now, aside from just writing occasionally, for anti-war.com.
Welcome back to the show, Anthony.
How are you doing, man?
I'm doing good, Scott.
How are you doing?
I'm doing good.
Appreciate you joining us.
Tell me, what's the job that you have working for anti-war.com now?
Oh, I just do a little bit of editorial help, just not much, just kind of low-key.
Keeping the writing consistent with the English language.
Yeah, that's a nice way of putting it.
Okay, good.
Well, I'm sure happy to have you.
All right, well, now, so the reason that I have you here today is because you're the plumb line.
You are walking libertarianism.
You define who is a libertarian and who doesn't, and what you say goes.
It's as simple as that.
So, I decided that I would put my old friend and new sidekick, Zoe Greif, through the ringer and have you give him the Anthony Gregory test and see whether this guy is a libertarian or not.
Well, I know you've brought this idea up before and I'm glad to do it.
I'm guessing you know what you're doing in terms of making good radio.
We'll see.
Yeah, I wouldn't assume too much about that.
This is something that I want done.
If people like listening in, fine.
Okay, yeah.
Hey there, Anthony, this is Zoe.
I guess, you know, I'm stretching.
I'm getting ready.
You can't see me, but yeah, fire away, I guess, whatever.
Oh, okay.
Or if you want to just talk about it some, that's cool too.
I stand ready to take the test whenever.
Here's the thing.
The article at Lew Rockwell, what, yesterday, right, was called, Are You Libertarian Enough?
And it's you recommending that libertarians should always ask themselves that until they're as libertarian as you are, basically, right?
So, you know, you're just the man to conduct this examination.
Well, I should make a clarification real quick.
In that article, I'm picking on my fellow libertarians, including myself, who I would say are certainly qualified as libertarians, but who can always try to question themselves to make sure they're libertarian enough.
The other discussion you and I, Scott, often have is whether someone's a libertarian at all, and we could define that broadly or narrowly.
In that article, I'm getting so narrow that there are plenty of people who I don't think are libertarian enough, but are still libertarians, I suppose.
Sure.
Yeah, it's a separate issue, but still, you are ordained with the authority to announce that someone is not a libertarian and have that stick.
That's what I think.
Yeah, yeah, that's true, that's true.
That's right.
When I declare someone not a libertarian, it ruins their life.
Yes, exactly.
It pushes them to the margin of intellectual existence.
Unless they're trying to get a job with the government.
Right, well, which they can get, because they're still hiring.
Yeah.
80 grand a year for the cops.
Yep.
80 grand a year.
All right, anyway, so go ahead, then, punch this clown and see whether he bounces back up again.
Well, Zoe, you're Scott's friend, so I'm guessing that means you're pretty anti-war.
Oh, yeah, I try to be.
Okay, so, jeez, this is, I feel like I'm libertarian McCarthy here.
Are you, have you, are you, or have you ever been in, so are you against all war?
Yes, I am now.
I had some romantic attachments to the Revolutionary War back when I was younger and dumber, and I believe I have gotten over that, and all war is bad, always, period.
See, that's great.
See, even if you had some romantic attachment to the American Revolution, I think you'd still, you know, slide by and not be disqualified and cast into darkness, but if you're against all war, then I guess you passed the war test.
I don't see how you could, you could be.
Well, you gotta ask follow-up questions, like, oh, yeah, well, what if the Mexican army invaded Texas?
That kind of thing.
Okay, what if, what if the Mexican army invaded Texas?
Well, it seems unlikely, but what if, okay, I'll tell you what, I wouldn't wait around for the National Guard or the U.S. Army or anybody else.
I would grab my Glock and start shooting the Mexican army.
I'd start walking or driving or pogo-sticking south, whatever, and I'd get together with all my other buddies and be like, yo, the Mexican army is invading.
Let's defend our property and our lives, but is that really a war or is that just people defending their land?
I don't know.
We could get caught up on, you know, the meaning of words and all that, but I like self-defense if it's, like, legitimate and true, but I do not like war, especially not state-sponsored war.
Hate it.
Well, sure.
I'm sorry.
Well, no, that's, I think that is perfectly fine to defend your community from invading armies.
The second the state starts to rally the troops and turn it into a war and start requisitioning goods and taking over people's homes and conscripting and, I mean, when the...
I forgot who it was that said when you're invaded or when you're at war, the state doesn't protect the people.
It forces the people to protect it, and so there is a distinction there between fighting back and supporting the the cause of your local state.
So that's good.
So that's pretty hardcore.
So what do you think of taxes?
Oh, I hate them.
There shouldn't be any.
It's coercion.
It violates the non-aggression principle, the non-coercion principle, and I just can't, you know, be down with anything that violates the non-aggression principle, including taxes.
So if you're against all, all, okay, I'd like to point out being against all wars and all taxes, you're already better than all but a handful of libertarian presidential candidates over the years.
Well, that's good to know.
Well, so some people would say you're too radical already, but not me.
So what do you think about, I'm guessing you oppose all the regulations, government regulations of business?
Oh, they're horrible.
I wish they would all go away from, you know, the minimum wage laws to the whole way that they make you do with withholding to this whole thing about licensing.
And I mean, I could go on and on and on, but yeah, I'm against all of it as best as I can.
The only limitation is that I don't know enough about it to be against it as much as I should be.
But yeah, I'm trying.
How about immigration?
Well, I say if anyone wants to come here, it doesn't bother me.
National borders don't really seem to me to be a good idea.
You know, it's not really an area of like intense interest for me.
But yeah, I say if people want to come here, let them.
You know, I don't see why it has to be a big deal.
I know in the Constitution it says we have to have borders and all that, but I question the wisdom of that.
So maybe that's not a complete answer.
But yeah, I just don't think we need the border patrol and what we have right now.
What's the real libertarian answer, Anthony?
Well, I think that you hit it pretty much out of the park.
I'd say that the Constitution, all these constitutionalists assume the border controls are constitutional, but I don't actually see the the case for it.
I don't think that Article 1, Section 8 authorizes plenary control of the borders just to regulate immigration.
They can stop invasion, but unless we want to be on a permanent war footing, even putting aside our permanent war footing, I don't think that it is constitutional for a peaceful republic under the Constitution to have border controls.
Of course, the Constitution itself, I take it you don't think that it morally binds the people, right?
Oh no, no, no.
I read some Lysander Spooner, and I never signed the Constitution, and I don't see how I'm automatically obliged to be under it, so to speak.
It sounds like he's pretty libertarian, but we'll have to finish this up on the other side of the break.
It's Anthony Gregory from the Independent Institute, making sure he's always libertarian and enough for this show.
We'll be right back.
All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show here.
It's Anti-War Radio.
I'm Scott Horton.
I got Zoe Greif over here on mic one.
Old friend, new sidekick, and Anthony Gregory.
My old friend from the Independent Institute, the Future Freedom Foundation, loubrockwell.com, who defines libertarianism as he breathes, is on the telephone, and he's putting Zoe through his paces, giving him the Gregory test to see if he's libertarian enough.
So, where do we leave off with immigration?
Yeah, I think so.
Well, I asked if he thought the Constitution found us, and he said Lysander Spooner, which is correct.
Yeah, that's all you need is Spooner, the social contract theory, and all that, huh?
Yeah.
So, guns.
Should anyone be allowed to buy any gun?
Absolutely, Anthony.
I wish that I could buy my own, you know, Trident-class nuclear submarine and keep it in my backyard.
Not that I would ever do anything with it, but by that I mean to say, I don't think there should be any, you know, state restrictions on any of that.
Not a bit.
Now, do you think nuclear weapons are— That's the exception, because nuclear weapons are immoral, I think.
Just the very concept is an evil idea, but just possessing them is— I don't know if it's a war crime or whatever, but it's immoral in my opinion, and the fact that the United States has actually deployed them against men, women, and children is deplorable to say the least.
I'm very much ashamed of that part of American history, and I think nukes should be abolished, you know, fired off into the sun or whatever.
Get rid of them.
But how should we abolish nukes?
Well, that's a tricky question.
I mean, it would have to be, I suppose, and you know, you have to agree with the Russians and the Chinese and everybody else, because, I mean, I don't know, man, about the politics and all that, I'm not sure what that would look like or how that would actually play out, but the goal of having a nuclear weapon free— or at least, if they can't be nuclear weapon free, get it down to where every, you know, only have like 10 or 20 to where, you know, you can't actually destroy humanity, hopefully, you know, only one country or another.
But even that's bad.
That's not good, but that would be less bad than what we have now, I guess.
I don't know.
What's the correct answer, Anthony?
Well, it is the toughest one, because the thing is, I don't think the state should prohibit people from having them, but I don't think anyone should have them.
So I think any entity or corporation or government or individual as them should just get rid of them.
Well, yeah, I certainly agree with that.
How about— this gets trickier—what about psychiatric issues?
Do you believe in compulsory psychiatric treatment?
Uh, no.
Not at all, man.
That was one of the Soviet Union's favorite tricks.
Oh, you don't like the Soviet Union?
You must be crazy.
We're going to take you to the, you know, psychiatric institution kind of thing.
I do not believe in coercing anyone, really, but certainly not like that.
This used to be a trickier issue, I think, among libertarians before my time, anyway, before Thomas Sawes and his important work about mandatory treatment, because it's just, we used to have—it's still bad, but it used to be much worse in this country before the 70s when people were, by far greater numbers, coerced into psychiatric treatment, into the asylum system.
People just assumed it was normal.
What do you think of jail?
Do you think that people should, that the police should be able to detain someone before they've been proven guilty?
What do you think of the whole criminal justice system?
Well, I just don't like the fact that the Austin Police Department, for example, can't get fired, ever.
There's no competition.
There's no choice.
I mean, they have a monopoly on the use of deadly, potentially deadly force, and certainly, you know, coercion, and I don't like that.
I think that that's bad.
I think that it shouldn't be like that.
Now, all the drug laws should be completely, you know, burned, and the dust scattered to the four winds, and all the drug offenders should be forgiven, or let out, or what have you.
I hate the criminal injustice system with extreme passion, actually.
I'm not quite sure what the best way would be to dismantle it, however, but I sure would like to see it dismantled.
I'd throw a party.
How about all the people who are in prison, not for drugs, but for other offenses?
Well, see, that's the thing, is there should be some laws, a very few, and they should be enforced, I think, and there should be serious punishment that's proportional and represents, you know, the nature and seriousness of the crime.
I just don't think that, you know, you need one government body, like, say, Austin Police Department, or the FBI, or anybody else, to do it.
There's got to be a better way, you know?
This whole notion of modern policing started in London in, what, the 19th century?
It's relatively a new idea in Western civilization, and I think it's a bad one, and we should, you know, stick it on the shelf and come up with something better.
But for the people in prison for theft or for aggravated assault, should there be a transition?
If, let's say, private law took over, what do we do with all these people?
That's a good question, and one that I have not paid proper attention to.
Thank you for bringing it up.
I'm not sure, really.
I suppose to get a retrial, maybe?
I don't know.
What do you think, Anthony?
Oh, well, I mean, I'm way off the charts.
I think they should be released.
I think the state...
I think that the criminal justice system is abhorrent, and that the people in cages, even when they're guilty, I mean, let's say, let's think of one of the most brutal crimes other than murder would be rape, right?
You put rapists in prison.
Well, does that even decrease the amount of rape in society?
Now you've got all of these people in cages with other people, and the brutality continues.
It's just you swept it under the rug, and I think that the entire system is so morally bankrupt that anything would be preferable, practically.
It's a terrible thing, and maybe Walter Block takes the moderate position that before you release people, you have to give the free market five minutes to figure out what to do when the people leave the prisons.
Yeah, that's a good point.
But I think that you can take a position far less radical than mine, which is very radical, and still be a libertarian.
I was just curious how far you'd go on that.
Well, honestly, I hadn't thought about it, really, like I should have.
But yeah, what you're saying makes a lot of sense, and I would rather let a hundred people that for sure are just guilty out than continue this horrendous miscarriage of justice system that we have right now.
Another way to put it is they say, you know, the classic thing is you'd rather let 10 guilty people go than put one innocent person in prison.
Yes, I would.
Well, my guess is the prison has more than 10 percent innocent people.
I bet so, too.
So, what about children?
This is a difficult case.
Do children have rights?
Do they own themselves like adults?
Do they have the right to do what they want, or should this...
This is a difficult question for me, too.
I don't think that the answers to these questions are 100 percent satisfactory at the extremes, but I'm wondering your general take on all the children's rights issues.
Well, that's another one that I haven't put as much thought into as I should.
I'm picturing a nine-year-old child buying a bottle of whiskey, and I'm thinking, hmm, that's probably not the best outcome that everyone could wish for.
On the other hand, what the hell is the guy owning the liquor store selling to a nine-year-old for?
I mean, come on, you know.
Kids gotta grow up sometime.
Well, it used to be a nine-year-old could go to a store and buy something like that because the culture was, you know, the assumption was, oh, the kid's buying it for their parents.
The kid would go to the store and buy stuff from the pharmacy.
A kid could buy heroin from the store.
All kinds of goodies.
So, maybe we need to adjust our behavior before we would be able to deal with the consequences of free policy on that, but I actually don't think that's that tricky.
I think nine-year-olds should be able to buy liquor.
I mean, what are they going to do?
They can probably grab liquor from the cabinet at home.
Yeah, that's a good point.
The nine-year-old could stand on the chair and access liquor.
Most nine-year-olds can probably find liquor, so I think nine-year-olds should be able to buy liquor, but do you think that the do you think parents own their kids or can kids run away?
Whoa, yeah, that's a difficult one, I guess.
I suppose that kids ought to be afforded as much freedom as is possible.
The question is, is it possible to afford a child as much freedom as an adult?
Gosh, I don't know.
That is a bit of a sticky wicket there.
We're running out of time here.
What do you think, Anthony?
Rothbard said parents can set rules and the kids can run away.
Okay, one last thing.
Intellectual property, for it or against it?
Totally against it.
Totally against it.
Artists and creators should be compensated, remunerated, but the current system is bad, bad, bad.
We can do much, much better, much better.
I want to do away with all the copyright laws totally.
Well, hey, Scott, Zoe, you know, we didn't get into everything, but I'd say so far he's batting pretty, I don't know the metaphor.
He's doing very well.
I'd say he sounds pretty damn libertarian to me.
All right, well, good.
Thanks, Anthony.
Appreciate it.
Yeah, it was fun.
Yeah, Zoe, you did good.
All right, everybody, that's the great, that's the heroic Anthony Gregory.
Walking libertarianism.
Independent.org.
Lou Brockwell.com.
FFF.org.
AnthonyGregory.com.