Good evening. Thank you all for joining us this evening for the libertarianism versus conservativism intern debate. I am the student Programs Coordinator at the Cato Institute. I am honored to host the debate tonight, as the heritage interns go head to head with the cato interns to debate is libertarianism or conservatism superior political philosophy. Which political philosophy provides better answers to todays most important political questions . Each of us has had much to agree upon, limited government, free markets, individual liberty are pillars of the philosophy we both value and uphold, which have led us to the same policy preferences and conclusions often. Yet, what each of us envision in a free society often does look quite different. Policy preferences surrounding foreign policy, immigration, drugs, sex work, emerging technology, marriage and family, just to name a few, create cleavages that emerge between differences between our political philosophy. As we have seen in todays political climate, seldom are these differences laid out in constructive civil discourse. In recent days, the protection of free speech has been under threat by those who claim that the harms of certain kinds of speech outweigh the protection, that there is a more sensible approach to the regulation of this kind of expression. Tribalism has sown skepticism and doubt into the very institutions that have brought absolute power under the rule of law, that have enshrined our inalienable human rights for the preservation of freedom, which brings us here tonight on this stage, as an opportunity for the exposure and articulation of ideas, values, disagreement, discourse and debate. These interns have worked tirelessly this summer term parse out these policy differences through fun, logical and rational debate. Before we begin, i would like to mention a few housekeeping items. After the conclusion of this outside inse join us the auditorium, the winter garden, as well as the second floor for a reception. Also, join the conversation throughout the debate by using the hash tag lvcdebate. As you see on the screen. We will be drawing your questions during the q a portion feed for the debate portion. Furthermore, if you are on snapchat, check out our special snapchat feature. If you send snaps to catoinstitute, one word, they may be featured on social media. One important thing to keep in mind, especially when posting on social media, is that the views you will be hearing tonight are those of our debaters, and not of the Cato Institute nor the Heritage Foundation. We would also appreciate your participation in our postdebate survey. Email. Receive it by it will give you a chance to express your opinion on a number of issues raised this evening. In the spirit of debate, another debate on whether capitalism or socialism have better benefited women, will be held here at cato on september 16 at 6 30 p. M. I would definitely encourage you all to attend or to watch online. Lastly, i would like to express my thanks for our incredible conference staff for putting this event together. And the Nela Richardson and Colleen Hartman for their hard work and collaboration. Matthew feeney and will for their debate preparation. Christine townsend in the front row, who agreed to serve as an alternate and also provided Extensive Research and preparatory work as well, and lastly, a big thank you to charles c. W. Cooke for moderating tonights debate. He is editor of National Review online, a cohost of the mad dogs and englishmen podcast, and theor and all of conservatory and manifesto conservatarian manifesto. His work focuses on free speech, angloamerican history, british liberty, the Second Amendment and american exceptionalism. Charles is a frequent guest on hbos realtime with bill maher, and has appeared on msnbc, fox news and foxbusiness. He emigrated to the u. S. And became an american citizen in 2018. He lives in florida with his wife, their two sons, and their dog black lab. , aplease help me welcome charles c. W. Cooke. [applause] charles thank you very much for coming, thank you to cato and heritage for having me and asking me to moderate this debate. It is a pleasure to be involved in an argument about political ideas that doesnt ultimately come down to the question of whether the participants are french or not. I think i keep being invited back to do this because other than Boris Johnson is very busy now, it is because i wrote a book on this topic in which i attempted to tease out the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, and offer a way forward where possible. That fuses them where possible. Suspect, invited back for my predictive abilities, given one thing i wrote in the book was that americas next president might well be a quiet, retiring, humble and honest noninvasive , kind of guy who would remove the celebrity culture of our National Politics and reduce the executive branch to the more limited role the founders had imagined. [laughter] then, we elected donald trump, who my colleague Kevin Williamson has described as a man with the sensibility halfway between caligula and liberace. [laughter] you will imagine, my wife doesnt allow me to place bets over five dollars anymore. An this does remain important debate, especially at this moment. Because we are obsessed with our two Political Parties and the presidency, our political culture has a tendency to flatten all nonleft ideologies into just the right. Cato, for example, is often described as conservative when it is no such thing. Heritage is presumed to be on board with every libertarian innovation, when it is not. Anyone who doesnt want to vote for a democrat is put into the same camp. A good example of this is the way in which despite having very different jurisprudential approaches and political views, both neil gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were assumed to be indistinguishable during their respective hearings. That tendency during the last Supreme Court term has led to great shock among some legal commentators when they noticed , which ishey diverged to say, we are not here this evening to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a morebut rather, to ask foundational questions such as whether angels actually exist whether, if they do, they should , be dancing on pins in the first place, whether dancing on pins is good or bad for society, whether pins make us safer or we need more robust pin control, whether the injuries sustained as a result of dancing on pins should be paid for by the pin dancers or by everyone else, and so on and so forth. This is not going to be a pinfree zone. Before we start, please dont clap or boo during the debate. You can cheer and boo and throw your clothes at the end, and please make sure your cell phones dont ring, and if they ring, please dont answer them. I have equipped the debaters with tasers, and they will know what to do if they are interrupted. The resolution tonight is, is libertarian or conservatism the superior political philosophy . We will start off with an Opening Statement from the conservative side followed by an Opening Statement from the libertarian side, followed by rebuttals from each. Thank you all for coming. As you know, tonight, we are auditorium. Yek economist friedrich hayek. A quote he once said was if man is to do more good than harm in efforts to improve the social order, he wont shape the result as a craftsman shapes his handiwork, but rather cultivate growth by providing the appropriate environment, like the gardener does for his plants. Hayeks gardener has two choices. One, he can abandon his plants to subsist alone, shrivel up and die. Or two, the gardener can water his plants, place them in good sunlight, and give them nutrient rich soil so they can loom to be magnificent flowers. The point of hayeks garden is this, when the government sets the right decisions, the Political Community flourishes. That is not to say the gardener will micromanage or engineer his plants according to a landscape design, but he can create the environment where they produce fruit. Conservatives and libertarians have enjoyed a mutuallybeneficial alliance. Together, we have rallied support for the free market and defeated communism, but in the tradition of the founders, conservators recognize that unfettered liberty must never come at the expense of our society and our humanity. At the heart of todays debate is a central question, what kind of country do we want to live in, and our descendents to inherit . Conservatism is a political philosophy designed to secure and perpetuate the blessings of the next generation been creating an atmosphere of moral virtue and law, faith, family and responsibility. Unlike the axiomatic no sides no size fits all ideology called libertarianism, conservatism is a balancing pendulum with order on the one end and liberty on the other. But libertarianism ignores the tension between order and liberty. The end result is excessive liberty and almost no order. In the name of live and let live, libertarianism removes the social scaffolding around our society and the moral compass from our nation. We see what happens when libertarians try to implement your ideals. Always and everywhere that libertarianism causes societal decay. The libertarian says legalize drugs. Entire regions of this country suffer under the opioid epidemic. The libertarians say, the right to abortion is a liberty as fundamentalist property. Abortion became available on demand. And life and liberty was robbed from 60 million innocent unborn. The libertarians said, open the borders. The american taxpayer foots the bill for illegal immigration, either by forfeiting his job or his money to a larger welfare state. The libertarians said, marriage doesnt matter. Children got trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty and fatherless, broken homes. Libertarianism is a utopian ideology that wants to build an impossible society, but the ideal world that libertarians want is not worth striving for. It is pretty much the farthest stretch from anything our Founding Fathers envisioned. Tonight, we will set the record straight on the founders vision for america. Looking back to hayeks garden, the americans dont want a broken wasteland of itemized individuals. We dont want weeds and briars to tear up our inherited plot. What we want is a thriving garden. [applause] [laughter] good evening, everyone. Thank you for taking the time to come to cato or watch online. I also want to extend a special thank you to our moderator tonight charles cooke, at the as well as the heritage interns, for coming to the lions den. As we weigh the merits of these two philosophies, we must consider, what is the purpose of government . While even volumes of text may not provide a comprehensive answer, the declaration of independence provides the best , concise answer. Governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is the libertarian vision for government. Simply put libertarianism does a , better job than conservatism at securing these most vital and precious of rights. Libertarians recognize each adult has the right and responsibility to make decisions about how best to go about their life, so long as those decisions do not infringe on the rights of another. Libertarianism resists that most basic human desire to impose beliefs on another through force, and force is essential to understand. We do not reject the fundamental importance of virtue, but believe liberty is the best means of achieving such a virtue. The recognize and cherish the vital role of Civil Society in an old republic, so clearly identified by the tocqueville in democracy in america. If the imposition of moral values by force of laws not only unethical, it crowds out the essential roles of Civil Society. If we abdicate responsibility to some conservative in washington who thinks that they know how to order liberty, or some progressive that believes they can transform society with the push of a button, all will be lost. A conservative who believes government can centrally manufacture a Virtuous Society falls victim to the same conceit of a marxist who centrally plans the economy. Virtue imposed by force is hardly virtue at all. Rather, virtue must be inculcated by Vital Community institutions. True liberty, when Civil Society is allowed to flourish, sustains virtue. In thinking about good governance, we hold a lot in common with our conservative friends. We believe in the rule of law, and a vibrant judiciary that ensures contract and property rights, so fundamental to any free society, are upheld. We recognize the importance of the criminal Justice System that ensures that those who infringe on the fundamental rights of others face adequate discipline. We believe in a military that provides for the National Defense. But we have a different conception of the limits of than ourt that conservative friends. Accordingly, i have one request for the audience tonight. Be wary of what George Orwell would call political language throughout this debate. Make sure to consider what the true implications are when conservatives argue for certain interventions to uphold the social order. Smart drug policy means locking people in cages for choosing to put a toxin other than alcohol into their body. Likewise, protecting the institution of marriage really means prevent those of a different Sexual Orientation the night of raising a child. Project in the pretty all too often means propping up a despotic regime like that of saudi arabia. Lets be honest about what certain conservative principles truly entail, when assessing their merit. Libertarianism stems from a deep intellectual humility that we may not have it all figured out when we enact government policy. Rather than unilaterally decide on some social policy, libertarians place their faith on what adam smith called natural liberty. The natural liberty that emerges when fundamental rights are protected is how best to ensure that our society prospers. That, not government coercion, is how we preserve life and liberty and give people the best chance at securing happiness for themselves and their posterity. Thank you. [applause] charles now, we will hear two minute rebuttals, first from the conservative side. Caroline our opponents talked about moral values, saying that we conservatives fall victims to the fatal conceit of collectivism and authoritarianism. We would contend that it is actually libertarianism that backfires and ultimately invites the slippery slope of Government Intervention we all want to avoid. The problem is the individual choices that libertarians hold so near and dear sometimes produce largescale unintended consequences that can rot Civil Society and leave ordinary people stuck picking up the pieces. Drugs have not just stolen freedom from individuals, they have debilitated entire regions of this country, from appalachia to the rust belt. So when the social fabric starts unraveling, who but the government is called to stop it . That is the problem. It is the state that will get involved to cure the societal ills that libertarianism created, because libertarianism itemizes individuals to ultimately seek meaning in the state. But we must ask ourselves, is it really authoritarian to protect our National Sovereignty by securing the border . Toit really unjustified deter adversaries and foreign aggression abroad so we dont face invasion or extortion tomorrow . Is it really a violation of Civil Liberties to get people off of welfare and out of poverty by promoting marriage . Is it really tyrannical to want to get drug addicts off the streets and parents off drugs so that children arent driven into the foster care system . The simplicity of the per turn if we fail to care for our Civil Society and take individual freedom to its axiomatic extreme and balk at the chance to save our country, the only freedom libertarianism preserves is the freedom to decline and fall. [applause] ever like to remind you all that matter how pretty the language from the conservative side is, fear mongering is not an argument. This is a debate and we are here to make arguments. So throughout, i think you really need to keep in mind what is an argument, and what is something that sounds really great but isnt supported by facts. Libertarianism is supported by facts. If you look at the data we are going to give you throughout this speech, for example in regard to the opioid epidemic, you will see that by limiting the governments restriction on trucks, you do see fewer drugs, you do see more people not doing jobs. Thats hard data. The other important thing you need to remember, none of the conservatives tell you why the government needs to be doing all these different policy decisions. Do you know what is it really effective white of not being addicted to drugs, going to narcotics anonymous, going to your local church, being involved with your families and communities to see what they can do for you. At its core, libertarianism is about the belief that freedom is something that is important. By no means is it unlimited. That would be a bad policy that is once again not supported by the data. But at its core, when we look at institutions, he believed a society can have pluralistic values. We believe religious freedom applies and extends to jews, muslims and mormons as much as it does christians. And at its core, when conservatives talk about family values, they talk about one type of family. This is why you should prefer libertarianism as a political philosophy, because we believe you should be wary of the considerations that the government makes for you. We dont have a lot of say in what happens in washington, what happens in our government, we do have a say for what happens in our personal lives. And libertarianism is the only political philosophy between the two of us that for these that you have the ability that believes that you have the ability to have the right to make choices for your own life, your family, and for your communities. That is why you should prefer libertarianism to conservatism. [applause] charles we now move on to morespecific topics. Each side will speak for two minutes on each topic and there will be one minute each for rebuttals. The first topic, libertarians will start, does government have a responsibility to restrict citizens from consuming drugs known to cause addiction and harm . Sam conservatives say drugs do harm. To change things up, he will concede that point. Now what . The question is whether government has a responsibility to restrict drugs, and we respond no. Do you know the most dangerous drug . The Global Commission on drug policy looked at several dimensions in the context of both harm to users and harm to others, and in nearly every category alcohol, a drug aimed deemed by government as a drug appropriate for people to consume, was deemed most harmful. The United States tried to ban alcohol before in 1920. Prohibition did not work. Here are the effects it brought. A 24 increase in crime over the course of one year in 30 major u. S. Cities. A 45 increase in drug addiction that spawned the creation of mexicos oldest drug cartel. A burdened legal system, and a 50 increase in deaths from alcohol from 1920 to 1921 and a 66 increase in deaths from alcohol from 1921 to 1926. In the decade prior to deathstion, these debt have steadily been decreasing. Lets look at today. 14 of adults smoke cigarettes. In 2017, 1 in seven u. S. Adults used marijuana. An estimated 73 of adults drinks alcohol. These users are people, and locking them up for wanting an escape is wrong. If you wouldnt lock up your buddy for having a beer during happy hour, what would you ask your government to do it for you . There are different ways we consume intoxicants. Downing a bottle of vodka is different from having a single glass. Banning substances doesnt work. It never has. It never will. When substances are banned, the narrative surrounding the drugs ignores the human aspects of drug addiction, because banning drugs does not address the root cause of drug addiction. Done on rats, testing the appetite for drugs on harrowing, given the choice between drugs or playing with their friends, rats consistently chose social interaction. Studies on humans have come to the same conclusion. When people are engaged with good communities they are less likely to fall to drug addiction. We have seen this before. During the vietnam war, soldiers literal heroin. When they came home and were no longer surrounded by war, they simply stopped doing drugs. If people are isolated like in the prisons, where we currently throw drug users, they are more likely to become addicts and experience the negative side effects of using drugs as an escape. Drugs are about human nature. Thus, our final argument is a moral one. If drugs are bad, shouldnt you want people to refuse to use them without anyone telling them to . Dont you want someone to have the moral character to know that drugs are bad and refuse to use them . It is not against the law to cheat on your significant other, but it doesnt mean you should do it. It is probably still a bad thing to do. In a world where drugs are legal, communities are strong and resilient in the face of drug use. If someone finds themselves at a bottom of a bottle, friends, families, and nongovernment institutions can help them. Many people in this auditorium know someone who struggles with addiction. Do you think throwing them in jail would be the right call . It should be noted that even with decades of drug prohibition later, we still cannot manage to keep drugs out of prisons. At its core, this argument is about one thing in particular, when a wellmeaning person makes a mistake, the answer is not to make them a criminal, the answer is to let things like family values and Committee Ethics show them the way forward, because families and communities are better than it detached, unfeeling government. You cant ban human nature. Governments are incapable of addressing root causes of drug use. The state can only put you in a cage, and weve seen how that works out. And thus, the government should not ban drugs. Charles thank you. The same question for the conservative side, does government have a responsibility to restrict citizens from consuming drugs known to cause addiction and physical harm . Caroline because of societal damage that drug consumption causes, the government has a clear responsibility to restrict them. Died from drug overdoses in 2017 than all the military casualties in the vietnam and iraq war combined. Libertarians only care about the death toll when it affects the military. Libertarians say drugs are a victimless crime. At 12 years old, an author watched his mother deteriorate from drug addiction in ohio, one of the pill mills of the rust belt. Drugs were the reason he grew up in a dysfunctional home and why he lived with his grandparents for much of his childhood. Drugs through his family and his town into a downward spiral of poverty. Look at the documentary seattle is dying, to find more victims. Half naked people wandering the streets chasing drugs. Currently, 2 Million People are addicted to opioids. Americans die every day from opioid overdoses. Drugs inflict harm on entire families, entire neighborhoods and cities. O say otherwise is ignorant. This is not the society the next generation deserves. Drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin have not liberated people, they have enslaved them. How is an individual free if his sense of reality is hijacked . How can he act as a free agent if his faculties are under attack by substances . But dont take it from me, take it from libertarian scholar walter block of the mises institute. He wrote, drugs are soul destroyers. The veryften, intention of freedom becomes atrophy. Welcome to the libertarians brave new world, where dignity is reduced to nothing. Drugs also hurt a thirdparty, children. 70 of abused and neglected children live with addicted parents, and they had no say in that. Children from drug infested homes are far more likely to struggle in school, suffer Mental Health issues, commit suicide, or develop addictions themselves. Can libertarians really say legalization will not exacerbate the situation . Of course not. Legalization wont fix americas drug problem, it will normalize it. The rules of supply and demand will increase availability and demand tell us that legalization will increase availability and decreasing prices and therefore, lead to escalating drug use. As consumption proliferates, so will hospital and traffic fatalities. The government is a social signaler, whether we like it or not, and people will follow the signals if it legalizes and destigmatizes drugs. Our opponents talk about the failure of the drug war, mass incarceration, policing and the black market. And how all this points to a reason for legalization. Sure, the war on drugs hasnt been 100 successful. But the war on border has not been perfectly successful either. There will never be perfect compliance. Do we let a national purge happen . Are we not going to try to end the drug epidemic . The question our opponents need to answer is will legalization make his communities better or worse . It is clear, under a libertarian watch, america will waste away. I asked the libertarians how many teenagers need to die from heroin or the government should get involved . 10,000, 100,000, one million . Tell rottowns need t from drug addiction . This is starting to sound less like liberty and more like a slow, societal suicide. Charles thank you. We have a rebuttal from the libertarians. And would first like to answer the question. Legalization will make these communities better. How do i know this . Our conservative friend correctly points out that drugs can harm people. You know what else harms people . The war on drugs that we have been waging for almost a century. They talk about the toll of the opioid crisis. Im not sure they are taking it seriously. We can look at the example of portugal. Portugal in 2001 faced a heroin crisis where 1 of the population was under it to opioids. What did they do . They decriminalized all narcotics. What happened . Death rates plummeted. If the United States could save reach death rates analogous to that of portugal, we could save one life every 10 minutes. Think about what that could do for our communities. Rather than locking drug addict in cages, like our conservative friends propose, we should give them treatment, just like we give alcoholics treatment. Legalization will make these communities better. Charles thank you. Now, a oneminute rebuttal from the conservatives. Caroline libertarians can talk about the failure of the drug war, but they havent proven that legalization will make communities better or worse. They talked about alcohol and the prohibition of that. What they did not mention is that there is a selfregulating, self moderating culture in america around alcohol. After work, coworkers head to the bar to grab a couple of drugs. D to the cocaine vending machine, i dont think so. Drug abuse spans across entire regions of the country. So when drug addiction takes over entire communities, it is not a lifestyle choice anymore, it is a disease. Portland, seattle, San Francisco are examples of where libertarian policies like this have led. They have surrendered to drugs and they have been crippled by it. How can they say they have improved . Charles thank you. Next topic is immigration. The conservatives will go first. Charles our next topic is immigration. The question is, undocumented migrants dont pose a threat to the United States. Will Border Security is a fundamental exercise of National Sovereignty. Any country has a right to decide who and what enters it. Therefore, illegal immigration is a front to the country and its citizens. This is not to say the conservatives oppose immigration. Far from it. We recognize we are a country of immigrants. That said, we further understand that an intrinsic component is the ability to control borders. Undocumented migrants do not pose a threat to the United States. It is clear, they must demonstrate that illegal immigration poses no threat to the country, while we must prove in some capacity that it does. Illegal immigration presents a threat. I. C. E. Every year of her hands illegal aliens responsible for thousands of crimes. There is an Extensive Network of Human Trafficking associated with illegal immigration, threatening u. S. Citizens and migrant families. Gangs like ms13 run amok because we refuse to enforce our laws. Our opponents will try to counter these points claiming illegal aliens on the whole commit fewer crimes than citizens, but they are using flawed studies. The truth is no one knows the full breath of illegal alien crimes because we dont know how many are here. The illegal alien population is far less likely to report crime because they feared deportation. It even when they come forward, how do we get the numbers when sanctuary cities wont even report them . Every crime committed is a crime that should have never occurred in the first place. This debate is not about probabilities. It is about people like evan nugent, a mother of three this year who was repeatedly stabbed and killed by an illegal alien after forcing his way into her home. It is about the 14yearold girl m who in april this year, was brutally murdered by two ms 13 gang members. Can our opponents seriously say with a straight face that illegal immigration poses no threat to people like them . Of course not. Illegal immigration also poses an undue financial burden on our country. Some say that open waters boost economic activity, but that neglect one reality, the United States has an advanced welfare system. Illegal aliens tend to be low skilled workers who qualify for government assistance. There are at the very least 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States. The average illegal alien household receives about 14,000 more in government benefit than it pays in taxes. The estimated net cost on our country for the lowest estimate of the 11 million is able aliens, is 1. 5 trillion. This is why Milton Friedman famously said you cannot have open borders, and a welfare state. If you follow the libertarian logic of free welfare and open borders, you are advocating for the expansion of welfare. Get rid of welfare as a conservative, i find this appealing, but i is understand that there are political realities. Welfare is not going anywhere soon. Another libertarian argument is build a wall around welfare. This is politically unreasonable and morally cruel. Countries like the uae that deny assistance to migrant workers. They become an economic powerhouse on the back of migrant workers, but the policy secondclassfacto citizen state. Conservatives will not allow it to happen in the United States. If you truly believe there is no threat associated with illegal immigration, if you want is, how do you reconcile that . How many citizens and migrants alike need to be killed by by ms13, before the government should do something . Do you want to deny immigrants government assistance . Will a few issues. Prone to allies as immigration policy, the human brain seems hardwired to create its own dichotomy. Our president and conservative friends know this all too well. Lets be clear, undocumented immigrants do not pose a threat to the United States. To understand why, lets unpack the gross misconception surrounding the immigration debate. Our conservative friends correctly note that the vast majority of firearm crimes are committed by a small number of people. I trust they will welcome the similar truth found in immigration statistics and conduct policy accordingly. It is often alleged that undocumented immigrants are exceptionally violent and pose a National Security threat. That is simply not true. Texas is the only state that tracks statistics of crimes but immigration status. Texas is hardly a state known for its soft treatment of undocumented immigrants. The homicide conviction for illega undocumented immigrants was 44 less likely than that of citizens. Nationwide, undocumented immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than citizens. We have to be honest about the statistics. Fear mongering is common. One study out of switzerland found that the media was twice as likely to report on a crime committed by an immigrant as compared to a needy citizen. Nevertheless, the annual chance of dying in an attack by foreign 9 11,errorist, including which accounted for nearly 92 of deaths in the data set is 1 in 3. 8 million. The annual chance of dying in a car crash is one in 983. You would be a fool to suggest banning cars because they offer obvious benefits. The same logic applies to undocumented immigrant and immigrants in general. This brings us to the misconception that undocumented immigrants hurt our economy. The truth is just the opposite. The economic literature consistently finds that immigration has a positive impact on Economic Growth and little to no effect on real wages for nativeborn americans. Most estimates find a positive impact overall on nativeborn americans. Importantly as well, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for federal welfare, so they hardly pose a threat to entitlement spending, which is already out of control. From 20022009, immigrants as a whole subsidized medicare, making 14. 7 of contributions but only consuming 7. 9 of expenditures. A third common misconception is that undocumented immigrants wont assimilate. If you compare todays immigrants to the immigrants who came over from ireland and italy, two groups that no one would dare call it threat to American Culture today, you would see that they assimilate at the same rate. Three generations in, voting patterns and self identification as an american are identical to nonrecent immigrant families. One important fact should be emphasized. Assimilation does not mean necessarily adopting Heritage Foundation valleys. Yet if we truly want to protect her heritage, we must continue to allow for robust immigration. With the exception of the blatantly racist chinese exclusion act of 1882, the very conception of Illegal Immigrants did not exist in our country until almost everyone in this 1924. Room is descended from someone who was fleeing persecution or seeking better opportunities for their families. Those people wouldnt make it to america under current law. When you hear conservatives to say to get to the back of the line, remember that there is no line. We lock children in cages away from their parents, demonize people trying to provide for their families, our policies create criminals out of good people. Undocumented immigrants are not a threat to the United States, unless we make someone. Charles thank you. Rebuttal from the conservatives. Wellington we have to have ever we have to remember that we are having this conversation in the context of the status quo, a world where we have agencies like i. C. E. What would happen if we removed these security measures . Contrary to what our opponents have said, we will see an influx of crime on the border. Should we not try to stop criminals from crossing into our country . Men, womenkilling and children . How long should we wait . I am yet to hear an answer about how we should handle the welfare system. It not only affects the federal government, it affects the state governments as well. Is not willing to build a wall around the border, what makes you think it is willing to build a wall around welfare. 1. 7 5 Million People legally came into the country last year. If we allow more, think about the additional people. It would cost us 1. 5 trillion. What happens to that . 10, 50, 100dding million more people . I never thought i would hear libertarians argue for the expansion of the welfare state. [laughter] charles one minute for the libertarians to respond. So just to explain the welfare state thing come up immigrants are not eligible for first, welfare. If you look at a country like sweden, we saw that the influx of immigration led to people in againstal state voting welfare programs because they didnt want immigrants to receive them. Is it xenophobic . Yes. When we look at what happens in regards to policybased decisions, we are not saying there is no threat at hand. We are saying it is not worth it to say we will not allow anyone in. We will overextend what the threat actually is instead of addressing the data. We give you clear data that undocumented immigrants are less of a threat than native born americans. There are 50,000 homicides a year from undocumented immigrants, how many are there from nativeborn americans . A lot more. When we address the question at hand, it is important to remember that we dont identify all immigrants as ms 13 members. Address all dont conservatives as members of the Westboro Baptist church. In a country with a closed border charles your time is up, thank you. Third topic. The libertarians will start this one. A larger Defense Budget will not enhance american National Security. Sam to understand the impact of a larger Defense Budget on american National Security we at what we are getting from the 700 16 billion requested by the department of defense in 2019. Unfortunately, nobody knows where the money is going. Just this past september, the pentagon failed an audit this past november that cost the taxpayers 400 million. Deputy secretary of defense Patrick Shanahan noted that we we failed in the arctic but we pass it. Ected to anyone who believes in a Strong National defense should find this deeply troubling. Equally troubling are the many areas of National Defense that do nothing to enhance National Security. Youd be hardpressed to convince me that the air force spending 1300 on coffee cups or 14,000 on a toilet seat makes us safe. Over the course of four years, the dod spent 294 million, the equivalent of nearly four u. S. Joint strike5 firefighters on the erectile dysfunction medicine. Look that up. The Washington Post reported the pentagon buried in an internal study on 125 billion in internal waste, and you use the findings as an excuse to slash the Defense Budget. If we were talking about the department of education failing an audit and calling it a success, conservatives would not be calling for increasing the departments funding. We are spending more to get lost. The david tereus bureaucracy is stock a deleterious bureaucracy is stock. As former secretary of the Navy John Lehman notes, it now takes an average of 22. 5 years to deploy new weapons, instead of the four years it took during the cold war. China and russia are producing fifthgeneration ships and fighters in four years. Why is this . A bloated budget inhibits innovation. The world we will fight in the future will increasingly depend on innovation. We need more advanced technology. But a bigger budget will not improve our National Security if we keep providing adverse incentives to keep logix slow and expensive. Incentives are important. A larger budget will do nothing to streamline the pentagon bureaucracy. I have one final question that conservatives must answer to make an effective argument. If our current levels of spending arent proficient, what level is . And why . How much more do we need to be taking from future generations to ensure adequate National Security . I will help them out. On may 15, the Heritage Foundation stated we needed a 3 to 5 growth in spending each year. Do the math. By the end of trumps third term , that would be over 1 trillion. [laughter] how much safer will that make us . Our defense spending is almost equal to that of the next eight highestspending countries combined, and five of those countries are our allies. Additional spending really make the average american in a safer . Ultimately, one of the best things in america can do for its National Security is to remain the worlds economic powerhouse. And a bureaucracy is running not the way to do that. Former joint chiefs of staff admiral Michael Mullins remarked that the most significant threat to our National Security is our debt. We are not advocating to cut the budget, we just saying, dont spend more on it. You are some points that get missed in all of this. Is it beneficial for american National Security . Should we be spending american tax dollars on drones to help desk to kill civilians in the middle east . Because we are not making friends when we bump and attack pakistan. Conservatives must not only answer why we must increase spending but how spending money in places like saudi arabia makes civilian safer. Our military has no grand strategy. We dont know what a successful cap on military spending looks like. But spending charles thank you. Infinitely is sending out the answer. Charles thank you. A rebuttal from the conservatives. Wellington George Washington once said to be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace. Interests like protecting the freedom and navigation of the high seas, International Free markets, and regional stability. We cannot protect these interest without a robust military and a without a Defense Budget to support it. Why must we project power across the globe . What with the world look like without that . China has taken over the South China Sea jeopardizing asia allies and our International Trade prospects. Will china stop at the United States withdraws from the region . They would expand. Will iran stopped if a United States were to withdraw from the region . No, they would continue to sponsor terror and complete their nuclear program. North korea and russia clearly wishes to proclaim soviet influence. Will they stop if the United States withdraws . No, north korea would consider an invasion of south korea, and russia would continue its aggression. The United States military deters force. Our Ground Forces overseas have deterred invasions of countries like taiwan, south korea, and ukraine. Our airpower has disrupted terrorist operations. The United States must project power to maintain international interest, but we are currently handicapped by budget constraints. The Defense Budget is insufficient to meet these challenges. The United States already spent so much more compared to other countries, this is true. However, aggregate expense is not a measure of power. We have commitments around the world that our country must meet. Unlike russia, we are not concentrated on one region. The navy, for example. The United States navy as a whole may be larger than chinas but our navy spans the globe. The seventh fleet, which is part of our pacific fleet, has about 50 ships, compared to chinas are we able to effectively deter 200. Chinese aggression when we dont have Regional Power . Of course not. Another common libertarian argument is that it would exacerbate a militaryindustrial complex. That suggestion is incorrect. There are ways that the Defense Budget, which is what conservatives have proposed policies like rollover and closure programs. When eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex, he was warning about the bloating of the budget. It represented 9 of the economy and 52 of the budget. Today, it represents 3 of the economy and 16 of the budget. Conservatives want to spend our tax dollars effectively. I have to ask our opponents, how do you seriously plan to provide for common defense . Do you believe a diminished budget and diminished military will keep the United States safe . One of the reasons we can have this debate today is because of our robust military budget. Dont sit here and tell us you dont like waste. What is your plan for how much we should be spending on the military . Anyone can throw out criticisms and offer no solutions. Charles thank you. One minute for each rebuttal starting with the libertarian. Will i hear the threats raised by the conservative. I am reminded of a quote from frederick the great of pressure that says he who defends everything defends nothing. Lets address some of these threats and why spending more money is not the best way to address them. Our conservative friend mentioned irans threat to the region. The biggest threat would be nuclear proliferation. We had a deal that barred them from acquiring nuclear weapons. They also talk about how iran sponsors terrorism. Newsflash, we are aligned with the saudis who are waging a war, of aggression in human and also destabilizing the region. Why armenia lined with such a despotic regime . They mentioned the threat of russia. I would like to remind them that our nato allies are more than capable of responding to the threat of russia. Russia possesses an economy the size of italy. Understand howt these commitments around the globe make us safer. War onple, our 18year afghanistan, that is not how we improve readiness. How is waging the war in afghanistan in proving readiness . Thank you. Wellington despite what my opponents might say, this isnt risk, where you can just pick up the pieces and restart. We are dealing with realworld threats. We need to play a role in the road stage, because if we dont, we leave ourselves vulnerable. You really expect russia, china, north korea and jihadi groups to declare war, now that we have retreated, we can just make peace with them . No, that is ridiculous. I want u. S. Ships in the south genesee so they are not chinese ships off the coast of los angeles tomorrow. I want u. S. Soldiers in europe today so there isnt a russia invasion of the ukraine tomorrow. What is our opponent that you plan . Neglect the budget and hope people play nice. How do you plan to protect your coveted free markets when the United States navy is not there to deter iran from closing off the strait of hormuz . We cant maintain global interest without a robust military and strong Defense Budget to support it. [applause] charles before we move on to our final topic. Want to remind you that the hashtag behind me, i will pose questions to both sides during the q a section. The conservatives will go first on this one. Final topic is the decline of marriage necessarily a bad thing . Caroline it is an existential threat to the United States in principle and in practice. Where is some to 2 of americans were married in 1960, only half are married now. It doesnt take statistics to understand marriage is one of those things that give life meaning. Since the dawn of civilization, some kind of marriage has existed. It is a support system and a Solid Foundation to build a life upon and escape a life of loneliness and in many cases, of poverty. It is a Building Block of society, the bedrock of civilization, and the vehicle by which we care for the next generation. It turns out marriages americas marriage is americas greatest weapon against welfare dependent and child poverty. Because of the lack of economic stability and the psychological impact of single parenthood, it is detrimental to children. The poverty rate for children in the United States in 2009 was 37. 1 . While the rate for married couples with children was 6. 8 . Children with only one parent are less likely to finish school abuse drugs and alcohol or commit violent crimes. Over half of incarcerated youth are from singleparent homes. We must ask, is this the future we want for our children . Of course not. Children need parents. Where else do libertarians expect to get their next generation of innovators and scientists without parents to guide them . The fact is marriage is the best model for raising leaders and good citizens. How can we justify denying children the tried and true effective environment for up ringing . I ask our opponent, why are you so eager to experiment with childrens livelihood . Not to mention, marital decline through a larger welfare state. The overwhelming majority of benefits of families with children go to singleparent household. As a result, overreliance on government assistance has deprived children of the love and security they would have received from two parents. Michael brendan dority argued it was the culture of personal fulfillment and convenience that replaced traditional meaning and eventually led to his own identity crisis. His story showed average is not showed that marriage is not just a lifestyle choice or a contract for a tax break, children depend on it. There are things we can do now to save marriage. Conservatives understand how to Balance Limited government and the crisis of marriage. Our opponents will say we want to micromanage marriage. But it is just the opposite. We dont want welfare to take the place of family breadwinner. We dont want people merit to the government. You want people married to each other. A good step in the right direction is removing the penalties against marriage inherit in a welfare system and ending the subsidizing and incentivizing of single parenthood. Given all this. Evidence, we cant give up on marriage. We simply cant afford to. Charles thank you. Now, an Opening Statement from the libertarians. Will there is a rich and vibrant history of conservatives lamenting the decline of marriage. In our nations history, conservatives have stated the right for women to own property, womens suffrage, interracial marriage, and samesex marriage would all undermine the institution. Alas, here we are, and marriage has survived. Nevertheless, conservatives, who are always quick to note the support for limited government, are as steadfast as ever in the support of their governments interference in marriage. The question whether the decline marriage is a good thing, is what the government should do about it . Lets examine conservative policy. As we do so, keep one question his mind, which past hero of marriage would the conservatives wish to return us to . Conservatives often implicate the legalization of samesex marriage as a key factor. There is nothing ethical about preventing such a marriage. The academic literature says they fare just as well as traditional averages. Look at kenneth faried, an nba player who was raised by two mothers. The alleged decline of marriage is limiting nofault divorce. It allows a spouse to terminate a divorce without showing fault. Some have proposed ending nofault divorce for married couples with children. Such a repeal would be hurtful to the mothers and the children it aims to protect. The social Science Literature has shown that children born to high conflict marriages are worse off than those born to single parents. Although marriage may be preferable on average, only when blissfully divorced from reality could they argue that it is better for parents to remain together in a conflict ridden household. Mothers would invariably be hurt. Research by the economist, says states that introduce unilateral divorce saw female suicide decrease by 8 15 . Domestic violence decreased by 30 . The repeal of nofault divorce laws will lead to the deaths of mothers. Such a proposal as a textbook case of the treatment being worse than the cure. Other proposals such as strong tax incentives are equally full hearted. Fool hardy. Consider the marginal marriages. Wood links by financial it illustrates that governments have no business interfering with such social values. Conservatives would greatly benefit from absorbing this wisdom. It is not the role of government to regulate marital choices. That is the domain of private individuals including churches that favor traditional marriages. The state should play no role in distorting one of the most fundamental choices. The choice of partner. It is wrong for the state to choose your partner for you. Charles thank you. First rebuttal. Caroline our opponents measured mentioned alternatives to traditional marriages. The arrangement is the best known environment for raising children under every metric. Biologically and psychologically speaking, children dont need parenting, they need mothering and fathering. They claim that the alternatives are probably superior, i find that interesting. They say parents should be coerced into feeding their own children, let alone raising them. I think the familial structure is irrelevant to libertarians. But it is not to us. Charles the libertarian rebuttal . Sam i would like to remind you throughout we need to look at why marriage is happening , people are getting married later in life. They think it is an important decision that should have thought behind it, and divorce rates are going down. While divorce rates peaked in the 1980s, we are seeing them lower now. It is still higher than the 60s, because there was no nofault divorce. Which is when you saw the bad side effect will told you about in the Opening Statement. This is an argument about choice. Marriage today is about love. It is fundamentally different, it is probably good for children. At its core, marriage shouldnt be involved at all. You know what is best for you. You know what is best for your partner. You should feed your children together. Charles thank you. We are now at the q and a section. I will pose the first question to the libertarian. You said in the segment on drugs liberalizing drug laws would help and lead to fewer addicts. Lets assume that we dont see the response you propose and we see horrors. Where does that put the moral case . Sam it would put us in a difficult situation. There are some cases where drugs can destroy agencies. At its core, if we look at the data on what is most effective way to get not addicted. We have seen good success regarding aa and na. There are systems put in place that help us determine what is the best solution for combating addiction. An addiction is something really difficult. There is no one disputing that. When we look at what the policy prescription should be, it is important to remember that ethical policy goes handinhand. We are saying what is the best way for the government, and institution with a legitimate use of force, has a monopoly on it. What happens if we put the government in charge of something. What would the government realistically do . Not sure. It would probably involve some penalty. When your choice is taking away, it might be your first cigarette you chose but your third or fourth probably wasnt. If the government will penalize addiction, that is a bad policy because you are penalizing people for something outside of their control. The response will always be the communities. No matter what way you tried to do it, the government is not a community. Charles a related question. Given what you said about the effects of drugs, how strong is the case for banning alcohol or cigarettes . They are addictive, why should we ban marijuana but not alcohol given that there is some evidence that suggests one causes more problems than other. Caroline libertarians site marijuana as the winner case. I get it. It does shrink the size of your brain. The thing about alcohol, the fdr administration deemed alcohol essentially the cost of prohibition exceeded the benefits of prohibition because we were fighting a war and as we mentioned earlier, it was a part of American Culture to drink alcohol. That is not the case with heroin or meth. You could argue that alcohol has posed greater societal harm. If you look at traffic fatalities, hospitalizations. It is by far taking the cake. This is about aggregate harm. If you legalize those two, what will the aggregate harm the . Harm be . We acknowledge alcohol imposes great harm. What else will happen if we legalize meth, heroin, cocaine . Charles this is a question for both. Should social Media Companies be permitted to sell users data . Will yes, they should be, it is a market operation if users consent. Sam the government shouldnt tell social Media Companies what they can or cannot do. If you read the terms and conditions, you did agree to it. Will there are Market Forces that prohibit the egregious uses of data. Wellington i have to agree. These are private companies. They are allowed to do what they will with people contracting away the information. They are allowed to sell it and increase ad revenue. It is the general rule of thumb. What you put online will stay online. Companies right now are not poaching data that is unreasonable. It is stuff we put on there. Charles what would you say is the most serious social problem the state is incapable of successfully addressing . Wellington that is a very good question. Charles blame the hashtag, not me. Caroline i would say the decline of marriage, whether we like it or not, no nation is meant to endure forever. This is an existential threat to our civilization and the United States at large. Marriage rates are really low. I talked to my parents, talk to their parents, it is a situation we havent seen before. We have to ask why is there this culture so pervasive . Charles for the libertarians, what nongovernmental institutions do libertarianisms need to exist for this to thrive . Is it a freefloating ideal . Sam there are lots of different types of libertarianism. A true libertarian would say the church. That is what those people happen to have. The ideas happen to be in accordance with your average church. If you ask a libertarian that is more of a classical, they might say some sort of education system. It might not look like our Current System but it might be someplace where you go and maybe it is a Charter School or private school. It is not an easy question to answer directly. There is a lot of diversity about what sorts of institutions are good. Charles a question for both sides. Should the government regulate pornography, conservatives first . Wellington the government should most definitely ensure that adult pornography is reserved for audiences 18 plus. Child pornography, the government should be forbidding that from entering the marketplace. It would be corrupting miners ors. The government does have a role in assuring that type of pornography does not enter the marketplace. Sam we will concede on child born, it causes harm to children. When you look at the larger question about pornography, it is really complicated. A good case study is the United Kingdom and see what they are doing. In 2014 there was something called a face sitting protest. The u. K. Used a bad piece of legislation from the 1970s to ban a lot of different sexual acts. You had members of the porn Community Come out and enact face sitting in order to illustrate it was not functionally different from other pornographic act that were allowed. When it comes to whether the government should regulate pornography, i would say in theory you might have reasons why the government should. In terms of Something Like revenge porn where it is a contract violation, when you look at the practice of pornography overall, it becomes really difficult. The government is not super equipped to handle a lot of data. The second reason is when you look at what banning porn does, it is normally not an overall ban. Certain sexual acts are not allowed on women. That is something that should not happen. The externalities involved are really complicated in any should and any government should think carefully. Charles probably the first debate in the history of the United States in which we have named Milton Friedman and face sitting within 10 minutes of one another. [laughter] [applause] charles another question for the libertarians, what is the proper role of americas military in the world . Will the difference between being isolationist and being interventionist. The key is to provide for the National Defense. To do whatever it takes to provide and respond to threats. Charles you were accused earlier of wanting to put people in cages. Is mass incarceration a problem in america . What is the primary solution you propose . Caroline the reference about putting children in cages. At the border, the reason why it was happening during the last administration. That is because of a loophole in our Border Security laws. What that did is essentially mandated children be separated from their parents at the border. As a result, they are separated at the border and put into separate facilities. If we close the loopholes we disincentivize migrant from making that journey through Central America and mexico, buying children along the way because they know it helps their case to claim asylum or get admitted through other claims. Charles do we have too many people in prison . What should we do about it . Caroline crime deserves incarceration. It depends on what the crime is. I dont believe in mandatory minimum sentences personally. In terms of greater crimes, more severe crimes, what are the alternatives to incarceration . Punishment is due for crimes, that is the legitimate recourse. Will should the United States support nato . The United States should definitely support nato. Weve been able to deter not only the soviet union but russian aggression. I know there are concerns today about certain nato countries not needing military expenditures, their military expenditures, that doesnt mean we should withdraw our support. Nato is a force for good. It is a corner piece of u. S. Foreign policy. We should support it. Will i agree with our conservative friends. Nato has had an Important Role in the 20th century with the soviet union and continues to do so with russia. We might have a point of disagreement over the subsidization where we are subsidizing much of the defense, we might disagree on what nato should be used for. For example, the intervention in libya, that has created a failed state. That was a nato operation. We might have points of disagreement there as well. Charles the final question is a tough one but important, especially given our present debate. This is for both sides. Should the United States government via taxpayers pay reparations to the descendents of slaves . Sam there is no easy answer to this. You are not going to get a great one either of us frankly. This country was built on the back of slaves. There is no way around that. The way we have historically treated people of color is awful. There is probably something we morally need to do about it. When you look at the issue of reparations, it breaks down to how do provide reparations in a way that addresses all facets of the complicated issue. There is not a good way to do that. There have been certain things proposed in regard to giving all descendents of slaves a block grant. If you want to know why this might be a good idea. Talking about stolen property. If you want to read anarchy state and talk about this, the way property gets exchanged rightfully. He might give you an answer to support that. There are other ways we talk about supporting institutions. I have not given a lot of thought about what my personal opinions on this issue is. There is a lot of disagreement and a lot of really good points raised. One thing i can say with certainty is that our country needs to think about the way you treat all members of everyone, who lives inside its borders. Regardless of circuit dance. Regardless of circumstance, we could treat people better. Wellington slavery, obviously condemn it. It is terrible. At the same time, unfortunately it is not the role of government to fix every historical injustice. A better way to address the issue is to try to get communities who are affected off the long cycle of government dependence. One of the greatest reason as to why the Africanamerican Community has had difficulties is because they have become reliant upon the government based on old policies from the jim crow south. Reforming the welfare state is a far better solution than redistributing wealth from a generation that did nothing to inflict slavery upon people. Charles we are in the final portion of this evenings debate. We will start with a four minute conclusion. We will have a four minute conclusion from the conservatives. Wellington throughout the debate we have said we should all be conservatives. [laughter] the libertarian ideology is focused on the short term. Demands the economy and the present. Demands individual autonomy in the present. A conservative thinks in the long run. He looks to the future because he does not subscribe to the keynesian position that in the long run we are all that. The same is true for our politics. We told you drug addiction will liberate you but will enslave you. It is harmful substances that have laid waste to entire regions of the country. Drug legalization would be a surrender, not a victory because drugs condemn not only you but your children in your community. Our opponents, they told you illegal immigration poses no threat to the united date. United states. We know it undermines sovereignty. Open borders will burden and evergrowing welfare state. If we dont secure the border in then future americans cannot call themselves a sovereign nation anymore. Our opponents told you, the world is safer through american leadership. Military deterrence upholds international norms, protects free markets, and ensures the security of the nation. Only through a strong Defense Budget can we maintain a military capable of making the challenges. Without military strength, we mercyour children at them at the mercy of foreign nations. Our opponents told you that the decline of marriage should be no cause for alarm but we know it is a Building Block of society getting ripped out from under us. It inhibits the prosperity of children and denies them a stable upbringing. Single parenthood encourages the well for state. We should promote the family unit. If not future generations will , be helpless against unraveling social fabric and deteriorating civilization. Libertarians and their dogmatic devotion to autonomy is destructive and leads to a future where the torch of liberty will be snuffed out. Conservatives understand that absolute autonomy does not yield absolute good. It could harm the ultimate preservation of liberty. Conservatives believe government exists to serve society. It is restrained and guided by fundamental liberties. We are not born from individuals. We are born into something greater than ourselves. Family, community, country. Conservatives want to fight for the Civil Society so our children exercise liberty and pursue happiness. If we blindly follow absolute autonomy, then we do so at the expense of our Civil Society tomorrow. I implore my libertarian colleagues to think about how we need a Civil Society. Western civilization depends on its traditional and moral practice. In order to preserve our fundamental liberties, we must uphold Civil Society. We must uphold Civil Society. Family, community, country. Only conservativism can guarantee the torch of liberty will burn brightly for generations to come. Thank you. [applause] sam this is a debate about political philosophy. Above all else, the best political philosophies are consistent in the application of moral principles. What principles do conservatives stand for . Family values and preserving institutions, what does it look like to apply those . As we have seen throughout this debate, not all families are considered good enough for conservatives. There is obviously not going to be a bright line for we need to do away with some institutions. You have heard how conservatives cried wolf on the destruction of marriage. You have heard how conservatives criticized certain intoxicants while giving alcohol an exception because it makes more economic sense. You have heard conservatives say the department of defense is above reproach when it comes to government waste. You can say inconsistency is not a problem. The real world needs Real Solutions. Sometimes these Real Solutions require compromise. That is a fair point. As we have shown you, the conservative inconsistencies breed harm. The libertarian position remains consistent, policies should be founded on choice. We use data and we dont continually strongarm our conservative friends. We do not continually strawman our conservative friends. The liberal world and conservative world, the main difference is the libertarian world gives you a choice to be conservative. The conservative world would deny libertarian. In the libertarian worldview you can preserve family values and religious institutions. The conservative world imposes conservative belief on citizens and uses force when individuals peacefully dissent. Heres why. At its core, libertarianism breaks down into features. A strong belief in the importance of equal freedom and skepticism surrounding government institutions. Equal freedom is the idea that i am free to do whatever i wish as long as i do not violate the freedom of other individuals. Skepticism surrounding government is just that. There are cases where the government can ethically engage in policies to preserve freedom. However, our modern government is so much more than that. In doing so, it often infringes on equal freedom. Throughout this debate, conservatives have missed the point. They have declared us isolationist who want to see communities fall and advocate for policies that have an existential threat to america. That is not libertarianism. Libertarianism empowers individuals and communities to decide what choices they ought to pursue. Our legal system is founded on the idea that people can be held accountable. That people can choose to do the right thing. It makes sense to prioritize freedom in establishing a political philosophy. Freedom is more than the pragmatic value. Whatever your conception of the good is, whether it be supporting a church, or even something as ridiculous as making it your goal in life to walk an alligator across i95, it is important that people pursue it freely. We do not want people to do the right thing because someone told them to. We would find it incredibly concerning if the only reason people didnt torture people was because it is against the law. Torture is wrong. People should do the right thing because they want to be a good person. When you place all of your trust in institutions, you diminish personal responsibility. Out of all the political libertarianism is the only one that prioritizes more choices and community, and that is why you should believe in it libertarianism as a political philosophy. [applause] charles as a new floridian, i just want a day where i dont have to take and alligator across i95. Right to the end. [laughter] if we could have a round of applause for both sides. [applause] we have heard some sharp disagreements this evening. I think that in true conservatarian fashion, we will come together to deal as one with the existential threat posed by my threeyearold son who is currently auditioning to be head tyrant at the irs. Whenever he takes away his brothers toys he always says i , am helping him not have them anymore. [laughter] there is nothing that raises the hackles of conservatives and libertarians alike than talk like that. Thank you so much. If you head outside, you will be plied with alcohol. [laughter] [applause] please give it up one more time for our debaters. [applause] and another huge round of applause for charles. [applause] there are libations outside the auditorium on the first and second floor. I hope to see you all there. Thank you. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the house will be in order. For 40 years cspan has provided america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and Public Policy events from around washington, d. C. In 1960 nine,le cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Your unfiltered view of government. Next, a look at the military compliance between the military alliance between the u. S. , south korea, and japan. This