Stoner: Interesting video.

Buckeroo: One of the GREATEST modern US Presidents speaks out about being a libertarian.

Reagan's statement shows that he had respect for the ideals of libertarianism ...

REASON: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you're doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?

REAGAN: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals—if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

REASON: Governor, could you give us some examples of what you would consider to be proper functions of government?

REAGAN: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the individual. Maybe we don't all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments—again the protection of the people.

REASON: Are you suggesting that fire departments would be a necessary and proper function of government?

REAGAN: Yes. I know that there was a time back in history in which fire departments were private and you insured your house and then had an emblem on the front of your house which identified which company was responsible for protecting it against fire. I believe today, because of the manner in which we live, that, you can make a pretty good case for our public fire departments—because there are very few ways that you can handle fire in one particular structure today without it representing a threat to others.

REASON: How would you distinguish "socialized" fire departments and "socialized" fire insurance companies? Or would you be in favor of socialized fire insurance also?

REAGAN: No. Nor am I in favor of socialized medicine. But, there's bound to be a grey area, an area in there in which you ask is this government protecting us from ourselves or is this government protecting us from each other.

I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle—the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he's stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that's one of our sacred rights—to be stupid.

But to show you how these grey areas can creep in, the other day I was saying this to a man who happens to be a neurosurgeon, and who has treated many cases of this particular kind of injury and accident, and he disagreed with me on this issue. He disagreed with me on the basis of the individuals who become public charges as a result of permanent damage—he has pointed to an area where it does go over into not just hurting the individuals directly involved but now imposes on others also. I only use this extreme example to show that when we come down to government and what it should or should not do for the good of the people and for protecting us from each other, you do come into some grey areas and I think here there will be disagreements between conservatives and libertarians.

So, I think the government has legitimate functions. But I also think our greatest threat today comes from government's involvement in things that are not government's proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure.

REASON: Could you give some examples of what areas you're talking about?

REAGAN: Well, many of them in the regulatory fields of our private enterprise sector. We've noticed, for example, that for half-a-century the railroads have been saying that they could take care of themselves and would have no problems—if they could be freed from a great many government regulations and the ICC. Finally their plight was such that the government had to take over the passenger traffic with Amtrak and one of the first things that Amtrak did was ask to be relieved of the ICC regulations!

REASON: Are you in favor of decontrolling the railroads and the other regulated industries?

REAGAN: Yes. Again this comes down to the point at which we get into regulations that are for the protection of the people. I don't think anyone suggests that we should do away with those regulations which insure safety for the passengers in transportation. I don't think that we should do away with those regulations in the field of pure foods and so forth, that make sure that some unscrupulous individual can't sell us canned meat that gives us botulism. But, we start with those legitimate areas and then we go on and regulations just keep spreading like spores of a fungus until we find that they literally are taking away the rights of management to make business decisions with regard to their competition.

REASON: Governor, are you familiar with economist Sam Peltzman's work on the Food and Drug Administration, where he pointed out the high cost of entry now and the very high cost of developing and bringing in new drugs to the market?

REAGAN: Well, I've used some figures of my own—maybe he's responsible for them. I've been trying to keep track of some of these things and in my own talks have pointed out that now we've added about $200,000,000 to the cost of drugs because of these regulations. I know of one particular drug firm, which just a few years ago, could license a drug with some 70 pages of supporting data. Today it takes that same company 73,000 pages for an additional drug. I know that there's been about a 60 percent drop in the development of new drugs in this country.

But here again, it's the degree to which it's done. We want the protection of knowing that a drug on the shelf is not going to poison us or have an adverse effect, and yet the FDA has gone beyond that point. It's a little bit like the cyclamate question: feeding 20 rats cyclamates and then destroying millions of dollars of artificially sweetened soft drinks because it's "hazardous to our health," and then only years later, do we find out that to eat an amount of cyclamate equivalent to what the rats were given we'd have to drink 875 bottles of soft drink a day!

REASON: Don't you think the Food and Drug Administration basically serves the Big Brother role, the protectionist role, and that the free market could adequately deal with it in the absence of the regulations?

REAGAN: Well, if they would. And I'm sure the free market would today, but remember that the FDA was born at a time when people in this country were being killed. Back in the Spanish American War, for instance, we lost soldiers who were sent poisoned canned meat and this is when the scandal erupted that led to the pure food laws.

Maybe what we should look at are those areas where government should be a "Big Brother" in ensuring that the private sector is doing the job. In other words, suppose the whole food industry would police itself. Then I think government would have a legitimate place in keeping a watchful eye on them to make sure that industry did not gradually, for profit, erode the standards. This I think could hold true with a great many other things.

REASON: What about higher education? Is there a proper role for government in providing a university education?

REAGAN: Well, I think here there's been an exaggeration. Originally public education was based on the idea that you cannot have our kind of society without a literate citizenry. If you're going to have government of, by and for the people, then you're going to have a citizenry that is able to read, and to make decisions at the polls. It then extended to higher education because there was a segment of our society that could not get education. Now you wonder why government didn't think in terms of saying, "We will provide an education for the individual that can't provide for himself, but we'll do it by way of the private sector universities." Then they would have expanded and there would be more private universities and they would be far cheaper than they are today.

REASON: These days, most private universities are the recipients of Federal funds. Do you think that it's proper to use tax revenue to finance higher education?

REAGAN: Well, if I answer that question then I'm answering that we should do away with our state universities and frankly I haven't given enough thought to what could be a counter-system.

At first, there was a great opposition to most of the Federal revenues that are going to education on the part of many educators. Once the money was there, however, it was like the farmer who went into the woods and came back with the wagon loads of wild pigs. When they asked him how he had done it—they'd been wild for a hundred years—he said, "I built a fence and I put corn down and fed them, and they got used to eating the corn there, so l extended the fences's sides and finally I had an enclosure and I corralled them." He said, "If I can get them to take food from me, I'll own them." And this is what really happened with Federal aid to education. You know, the Federal Government could have done it differently if the Federal Government did not at the same time want control.

REASON: Many students at universities are middle class or upper middle class and tax support means that a lot of the lower class/lower income people are paying for that education. Don't you feel that there's something immoral or unethical about redistributing wealth from the lower class up to the middle class.

REAGAN: Yes. And I used that argument in my fight to get tuition in the University of California. I have to tell you about that fight with the University of California—they were very much opposed! They wanted it kept totally free, as it had been. The tuition I was proposing was less than 10 percent of the actual cost of educating the student—which is more than $3,500 now, and at that time was roughly $3,000. I was proposing $300 tuition—and I used the exact same argument you're using. Finally, tuition was instituted.

But, I had always said that tuition should never be a block to anyone getting an education who could not otherwise afford to go to the university. I fought for a plan that would have allowed the financially needy student to defer until after graduation all or part of his tuition. And the same university administration that had fought me and did not want tuition at all, fought me equally hard on deferred tuition and did not want that benefit for the students!

REASON: Let us shift for the moment from education to your Proposition One initiative that you campaigned so hard for. How would you describe the purposes of Proposition One, Governor?

REAGAN: Well, first of all, we realized that at the state level we could not do an awful lot to reduce the vast tax burden that the people of America carry. Right now, virtually half of every dollar earned in the United States is taken by governments— Federal, state or local. And governments in the United States are all growing at about the same rate, which is about 2½ times as fast as the increase in population. We couldn't do anything with the Federal rate, which is the big villain. Nor could we impose on local governments. But we said that if the biggest state in the Union can put itself on a basis of establishing a percentage of the people's earnings above which government cannot go in taxation without the consent of the people, and if it works, then it sets an example that makes it almost impossible for the Federal government not to follow suit and do the same thing. And hopefully local governments also.

So I appointed a task force and this task force talked to economists like Milton Friedman who then volunteered to help. The task force report came back with all the facts and figures. We concluded that we could over 15 years reduce the percentage the California state government was taking—from about 8-3/4 cents out of every dollar down to 7 cents out of every dollar. It doesn't sound like much, but at the end of 15 years the difference would be that you could triple the present budget of California at a seven percent rate, and you'd have a budget three times the present size of the budget. We thought the growth of the economy was such that people could recognize that you could have this tax rate reduction without doing away with any useful government service.

Now we could have probably passed Proposition One if we had settled for the percentage the state is now taking and proposed freezing the percentage at the present level. But you see, the opposition was very dishonest. (And when I say this I include the State Employees Association, the whole educational establishment of California that opposed it, and the League of Women Voters, who made it very plain that they were going to oppose anything that limited government's ability to get more money.) These people dishonestly campaigned and convinced the people that to reduce the state's share we were going to dump the load on local government, so that the local property taxes would go up. We couldn't make clear the fact that in our plan there was a distinct prohibition on the state transferring this cost over to local government without lowering the percentage comparably. And so we lost. I still think it's an idea whose time has come.

REASON: Governor, given the way that Prop. One was misrepresented in California by these very strong interest groups (which would exist in other states as well), how would you restructure a campaign to sell it to the people, to counteract that kind of misrepresentation?

REAGAN: Well, as I say, it was so complicated. Maybe if we had to do it all over again, I shouldn't be so greedy. Maybe we should have settled for the present percentage, and then just held at the present spending, while waiting for people to realize that maybe you could then reduce spending in the future as you were successful with it. That would have robbed our opponents of their argument. You see, if they hadn't been able to say, "They're going to reduce the money the state's getting—so they must be going to get it from someplace else"—if they hadn't been able to say that, we could have refuted anything else they said by saying, "Wait a minute—if they don't want it frozen at the present percentage they must be telling you that they're going to raise taxes if they have their way."

REASON: Governor, isn't it true that in your first year in office there was actually a 24 percent increase in the state budget?

REAGAN: Oh, for heavens sakes, I don't know what the percentage was—but you see, the problem was that the state budget we inherited didn't mean anything. We got in and found that to get through the election year, the previous administration had changed the bookkeeping and had a budget that was financed by 15 months' revenue. By changing to an accrual method of bookkeeping, what they really were doing was postponing until after the election what they knew was going to have to be a tax increase. We won and found that out to our surprise—because we were quite unable, even in the period between election and inauguration, to get very much information from the outgoing administration. It was not an orderly transition! In fact, the Director of Finance in his briefing said to one of my representatives, "Look, we're spending a million dollars a day more than we're taking in—I've got a golf game—good luck." That was our briefing in finance! We had to—much as we objected—institute a gigantic tax increase, and put the state back on a solvent basis. I said at the time that I did not recognize that as permanent—that we were going to try to give the money back to the people, just as we could institute reforms. Over the eight-year period we gave back in the form of one-time rebates, tax cuts and even bridge toll cuts $5.7 billion—which comes pretty close to giving back the amount of that increase.

REASON: Let me ask you—still in the area of tax reform, Governor—how you feel about the Liberty Amendment, which would abolish the income tax. Is that something you're in favor of?

REAGAN: Well, let me tell you where my doubts are there. I am very critical of the income tax—the progressive features and the complications of it—it's the one instance in your whole fiscal experience in life in which you figure out what you owe and government reserves the right to come back and tell you your figures are wrong. If you're going to have a tax the people should know what the tax is and the government should be able to tell them without the people having to go to the expense of figuring it out themselves.

On the other hand, I have always felt that taxing income is probably as fair a method of raising revenue for government as any. Let's take a simple case. Suppose 100 of us were shipwrecked on an island and we knew there was little chance of release and we established a community to get along—to survive there. I n a sense we set up a government. What you'd probably do is ask each individual to dedicate a certain amount of his time to such things as standing guard or hunting and fishing to keep the people alive and providing fresh water and so forth, so you'd probably each one contribute a certain amount of service to the community. You'd basically be on your own except for X amount of time. Well, this in a sense is what you do with your income tax.

REASON: Of course, if you're talking about starting from scratch—the shipwrecked people on the island—you're really talking about a voluntary approach, aren't you— as against taxation?

REAGAN: Well, we're inclined to think that our government here is a voluntary approach and that we've set up a government to perform certain things, such as the national protection, etc.

REASON: Aren't we deluding ourselves to talk in terms of consent, though? When we talk about taxation, aren't we really dealing with force and coercion and nothing less than that?

REAGAN: Well, government's only weapons are force and coercion and that's why we shouldn't let it get out of hand. And that's what the founding fathers had in mind with the Constitution, that you don't let it get out of hand.

But you say voluntary on the island. Let's take a single thing. Let's say that there was some force on the island, whether it's hostiles or whether it was an animal, that represented a threat and required round he-clock guard duty for the safety of the community. Now I'm sure it would be voluntary but you get together and you say look, we're all going to have to take turns guarding. Now what do you think would happen in that community if some individual said "Not me; I won't stand guard." Well, I think the community would expel him and say "Well, we're not going to guard you." So voluntarism does get into a kind of force and coercion where there is a legitimate need for it.

REASON: You said earlier that government doesn't exist to protect people from themselves. Let's take the desert island shipwreck situation. Would you be in favor of any laws against gambling in the shipwrecked island situation?

REAGAN: You've named an issue that is one of the most difficult for me to reconcile. I know this gets into the whole area of the sin laws and here again I think you're in one of the grey areas. There's one side of me that says I know this is protecting us from ourselves; there's another side of me, however, that says you can make the case that it does get into an area in which we are protecting us from each other. cannot go along with the libertarian philosophy that says that all of the sin laws can be ruled out as simply trying to protect us from ourselves. You car take the case of the father who gambles his money away and thus leaves his family dependent on the re' of us. You can take surrounding areas—the necessity for protection against dishonest gambling—which requires added government duties and obligations—

REASON: But isn't it really very selective law enforcement when it comes to nonvictim crime areas?

REAGAN: Well, now, you know the nonvictim crimes. Here again I think you're in a grey area that requires certainly more study than I've given it. Prostitution has been listed as a nonvictim crime. Well, is anyone naive enough to believe that prostitution just depends on willing employees coming in and saying that's the occupation they want to practice? It doesn't.

REASON: Well, it partly depends on the options. There are a lot of jobs that people might find distasteful in a free market. I suppose that if you work in a paint shop and you're breathing paint fumes all day, it might not be a very desirable job either.

REAGAN: Yes. But get into the seamy side. Talk to law enforcement people about the seamy side of how the recruiting is done, including what in an earlier day was called the white slave traffic—and you will find that the recruiting for prostitution is not one of just taking an ad in the paper and saying come be a prostitute and letting someone walk in willingly.

REASON: Yes, but, Governor, we really haven't lived in a time when prostitution has been decriminalized.

REAGAN: Yes, we have lived in such a time. In many areas of the country in the old days, prostitution operated with local control and there was no problem and they even claimed inspection and so forth. Once, at the beginning of World War II, I asked the medical officer at our post (it was in New Orleans) why they were closing up the brothels with so many military bases there. And he gave me a pretty hard, cold answer. He said the army isn't interested in morals. The army's interested in keeping soldiers healthy. He showed me the difference in the statistics. He said the average girl in a house handled roughly 40 to 50 customers a night. And he said if you give her a five day week, that's 200 to 250. Suppose the first man infects her and here are 200 to 249 men that follow suit during that week and he said the most often that you could possibly inspect would be once a week. He said we also know statistically that by putting a girl out on a street because of the difficulty of soliciting and getting to a place and getting back out on the street again, they only handle about 9 customers. Now, he said, the first thing that's done when they're picked up is inspection. So every 10 days she averages inspection—and there's only been 90 customers in between. Now, you stop to think of the public health situation of this. You have to, then, take on certain regulatory chores if you're going to have this.

REASON: Back to taxes, you've been very critical of the People's Lobby and the League of Women Voters' drive to change the Constitution to do away with the 2/3 majority requirement for raising bank taxes…

REAGAN: If they're really a People's Lobby, why aren't they going to do what we tried to do and were opposed all the time that I was governor. Don't change that part of the law—change the other part of the law that says the rest of us can be taxed by a simple majority. If they really want to put a referendum on the ballot, why don't they go out and say to the people, do you want to change this and make it so that a simple majority can increase that tax or do you want to make it that it requires a two-thirds majority of the legislature to change any tax?

REASON: You're sounding like a libertarian, now, Governor. We'd like to go all the way to 100 percent requirement for taxes!

REAGAN: Well, I don't know if that would work or not…but I think that this other one will. Look—you've got a legislature that takes two-thirds to pass the budget, it takes two-thirds to pass an appropriation bill, a spending bill—so why shouldn't it take a two-thirds majority to say whether you're going to raise the taxes. But these are fools who are circulating this petition, and again the League of Women Voters have explained that they are against any effort on the part of government to restrict government's ability to meet the needs and so forth. In other words to spend your money.

But they are fools in thinking that business somehow is getting a special break. Who pays the business tax anyway? We do! You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects taxes. And if they can't be passed on to the customer in the price of the product as a cost of operation, business goes out of business. Now what they're going to do is make it easier for demagogic politicians—and you've got plenty of them in the state legislature—to say to the people, look, we need money for this worthwhile project but we're not going to tax you, we're going to tax business, now that we can do it by a one vote margin. So they'll tax business and the price of the product will go up and the people will blame the storekeeper for the rise in the price of the product, not recognizing that all he's doing is passing on to them a hidden sales tax.

If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread—it accounts for more than half the cost of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat. Any simpleton can understand that if that farmer cannot get enough money for his wheat, to pay the property tax on his farm, he can't be a farmer. He loses his farm. And so it is with the fellow who pays a driver's license and a gasoline tax to drive the truckload of wheat to the mill, the miller who has to pay everything from social security tax, business license, everything else. He has to make his living over and above those costs. So they all wind up in that loaf of bread. Now an egg isn't far behind and nobody had to make that. There's a hundred taxes in an egg by the time it gets to market and you know the chicken didn't put them there!

REASON: Governor, how did you develop your philosophy of individualism?

REAGAN: Oh, Lord! I suppose I did it myself and I did it by way of the mashed potato circuit. I started out in life as a New Deal Democrat, and I campaigned many times for that. In later years—you know if you don't sing or dance and you're in show business as I was, you find that you either wind up as the toastmaster or the after- dinner speaker—there were two or three of us in the business who were used quite widely: the industry would always call on us to represent show business someplace where speaking was to be done. But if you make a speech about Hollywood, for example, and the sorrows and problems of the motion picture industry, you've got to tie it into the people you're talking to and why they should be interested. I used to use the very obvious comparison that if one industry could be discriminated against taxwise and otherwise as ours had been—threats of censorship and all—then how long could it be before this happened to their industry. Pretty soon businessmen were coming to me and saying, " Let me tell you what's already happening to our industry!"

Finally after years of this I came back home once from a speaking trip and said to Nancy, "Look, you know it's just occurred to me that I go out and make all these speeches of things that I'm against and then I go out and campaign for the Democrats who are making it happen. I'm going to stop." Now it took me a while to get around to reregistering. But I started campaigning even though I was still a Democrat, for people on the other side; and then finally I didn't want to become one of those professional Democrats who goes all his life saying he's never voted for a Democrat, so I reregistered.

REASON: You said you were speaking out against censorship at that time?

REAGAN: Oh yes, yes.

REASON: Are you still against censorship?

REAGAN: Yes. I believed in the voluntary motion picture code. I think the motion picture industry is destroying itself and I think it is displaying bad taste in its lousy theatre.

REASON: Would you allow anything to go by way of hard core pornography as long as there are willing and consensual buyers?

REAGAN: I didn't want the picture industry doing it. I just think it's bad business. But I'm opposed to outside censorship.

REASON: Now that you're in the minority party, how do you feel about other prospects for minor parties or third party activities?

REAGAN: Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind —the side we're out to defeat wins. I have been doing my best to try to revitalize the Republican Party groups that I've spoken to, on the basis that the time has come to repudiate those in our midst who would blur the Republican image by saying we should be all things to all people in order to triumph. Lately, we find that of the 26 percent of the people who didn't vote, more than half of them now say they didn't vote because they don't see any difference between the parties. I've been urging Republicans to raise a banner and put the things we stand for on that banner and don't compromise, but don't try to enlarge the party by being all things to everyone when you can't keep all the promises. Put up a banner and then count on the fact that if you've got the proper things on that banner the people will rally round.

REASON: Do you have any views as to the effectiveness of the Libertarian Party?

REAGAN: I'd like to see the Libertarian Party—I don't say they should quit being a party—I'd like to see them, I'd like to see the conservatives, I'd like to see some of these other parties maybe come to this remnant of the Republican Party which is basically conservative in its thinking and, I think, akin to the philosophy I'm talking— I'd like to see them all come in (and this would include a large segment of the Democratic Party in this country, that certainly proved in 1972 that they do not follow the leadership of the Democratic Party any longer) and be able to say to them, OK we're not saying to you give up what you're doing, but, can't we find a common meeting ground in order at least to defeat first of all those who are doing what they're doing to us (and this present Congress is an example)? I think this is the most irresponsible and most dangerous Congress, in my experience, that this country has ever had. I think we're seeing it in the crumbling now of our position worldwide, their attitude in Indochina. Maybe many of the young people that you write for, with their hatred of war and disillusionment with what went on, don't feel this way and any thought of Indochina is going to be a red flag to them; but, for the first time in 200 years, the United States has violated its word, has abandoned an ally that it pledged to help and we're seeing the result. Mr. Kissinger came home from the Middle East empty handed because even the Israelis said, "What? Give up the passes on the basis of your word that you will help us? We now see evidence that maybe you won't help us. You can't guarantee your promise." So the dominos fall. To me this is what's most important—if we could all make a change in that Congress that now has a two-thirds majority.

I think the Republican Party should take the lead and, as I say, raise that banner and say this is what we stand for. And what we stand for would be fiscal responsibility. I know that you can't get a balanced budget instantly, but at least an end to deficit spending. Then the goal, established as quickly as possible, of a balanced budget, and begin the retirement of the national debt, or the reduction of it certainly. I think that it should be a government, or a party, that has a position that makes it plain that even though there are social faults that may lead to people turning to crime the individual must be held accountable for his misdeeds. That on the world scene we're going to do whatever is necessary to insure that we can retain this free system of ours; in other words, we will maintain a defensive posture that is sufficient to deter aggression.

REASON: Are you thinking in terms of a Fortress America approach or a world policeman approach?

REAGAN: No. Fortress America is just what Lenin wanted us to have—whether it is world policeman or not. You know, Lenin said the Communists will take Eastern Europe, they will organize the hordes of Asia, he said they will then move into Latin America, and he said the United States, the last bastion of capitalism, will fall into their outstretched hands like overripe fruit. And that's all that Fortress America is. Now, you don't have to come through someone's beachhead—you just go over them with missiles; and one of these days, under the present policies of the Congress, the United States will stand alone as Lenin envisioned it and then face the ultimatum from the enemy.

REASON: Do you think that the war in Indochina represents any real military threat to the security of the United States?

REAGAN: Not in the sense that the North Vietnamese are going to attack the United States. But if anyone keeps asking why we are involved in Vietnam, they also should ask the question, why is Russia involved in Vietnam. Why is Russia sponsoring the aggression of the North Vietnamese?

REASON: Well, to the extent that you may have wrongdoers or criminals elsewhere in the world, is that a justification for the American government to use conscripts and tax funds to send American boys half-way around the world?

REAGAN: Well, of course, we never should have sent them halfway around the world. You see, the Eisenhower policy had always been one of logistical support— help the South Vietnamese to be able to resist and take care of themselves, maintain themselves as a nation. It was John Kennedy who sent the first division in there. And he had to do it and when he did it he had to know that they were going to be followed by hundreds of thousands of men, that you couldn't do it with just one division. I'm not privy nor is anyone else privy to the information that a President has when he makes such a decision, but, then came the mistake. Once you are going to commit yourself to a combat role and you're going to ask young men to fight and die for your country, then you have a moral obligation as a nation to throw the full resources of the nation behind them and to win that war as quickly as possible and get it over with, and this is where we made the mistake: to pour half a million men in there, to kill 54,000 young men in a cause that Washington, that the government was unable or unwilling to win. And don't tell me that we couldn't have licked the North Vietnamese—my God! their gross national product is the equivalent of that of Cleveland, Ohio!

REASON: Let me ask you do you believe in conscription?

REAGAN: Only in time of war.

REASON: What about in the last 10 years?

REAGAN: I disagreed with it, and I'll tell you why: I believe Lenin also on that. Lenin said that he would force the capitalist nations to maintain military conscription until the uniform became a symbol of servitude rather than patriotism.

REASON: Governor, what about the United Nations? Are you in favor of the United States withdrawing from the UN?

REAGAN: Well, I am in favor of certainly a different policy than we've had. I think the United States should have taken a very drastic action; perhaps it should have staged a walk-out at the time of the recognition of Red China. I think that the United Nations today is virtually impotent when you stop to think that countries representing two-thirds of the votes of the United Nations represent less than 10 percent of the world population. It's a funny thing that everybody who wants one man-one vote doesn't hold it true for the United Nations!

REASON: Governor if the Republicans were to nominate a candidate that was unacceptable to you in 1976, could you support a Libertarian third party candidate?

REAGAN: I have to wait and see what you're doing and what you are standing for.

REASON: Are there any particular books or authors or economists that have been influential in terms of your intellectual development?

REAGAN: Oh, it would be hard for me to pinpoint anything in that category. I'm an inveterate reader. Bastiat and von Mises, and Hayek and Hazlitt–I'm one for the classical economists.…

REASON: What about Rand or Rothbard?

REAGAN: No. I haven't read Ayn Rand since The Fountainhead. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. The last few years, I must say, have been a little rough on me for doing that kind of reading—for eight years I found that when I finished reading the memorandums and reports and so forth, then I found myself digging into nonfiction, economists and so forth, for help on the problems that were confronting me.

REASON: As far as problems confronting us, a quick response if you could, Governor: the pro and con assessment of Jerry Brown. How do you think he's doing so far?

REAGAN: Well, he is an enigma. I am overjoyed, of course, at his budget approach. And I just assume that that probably stems from his Jesuit training—that that has him thinking in terms of property and economy. I think he's going to find that some of his own appointees are not sympathetic to his budgetary approach. They've got their own constituencies and pretty soon they're going to be wanting to do things for those constituents and that's going to call for spending and then he's going to find that he might be battling the legislature on one side and his own appointees on the other.

REASON: Governor, you've taken a lot of time out of your busy schedule and we appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Austrian Econ Disciple (AED) a member on the Ron Paul Forums summed up Reagan’s libertarianism best when he said:

“He [Ronald Reagan] killed the libertarian movement in the 70s by stealing our talking points and then doing the exact opposite in every area. I do not like RR whatsoever.”

Unlike the freedom-hating poster here who has spammed the site with at least a dozen articles, mostly from left-wing sites, trying to discredit libertarians.

Your quote from Reagan shows he had some respect for libertarians.

Reagan said libertarianism is the heart of conservatism. He was conservative. For him to say that shows respect. You don't have to do something to respect it.

Reagan said libertarianism is the heart of conservatism.

As opposed to Gatlin who says that authoritarianism is the heart of conservatism.

Why do you make stuff up to embellish your criticism?

Don't you ever read his posts?

Reagan said libertarianism is the heart of conservatism.

Gatlin who says that authoritarianism is the heart of conservatism.

... in no way did I ever imply that.

Sure Parsons.

[Ronald Reagan] One of the GREATEST modern US Presidents speaks out about being a libertarian.

What Reagan missed was the trajectory the "private" corporate/Military Industrial cabal was on, right under his nose....

If the glass is filled to within 99% of the brim you'll claim, "the glass is almost empty".

Chyeah; Like ONE man was supposed to stop the previous 40 years of established Military-Industrial Complex shenanigans.

What YOU "miss" is Reagan's unprecedented record of ZERO wars and military occupation of nation during his ENTIRE TWO TERMS. That's right: ZERO WARS...

Plus he accelerated The Wall getting taken down (AS he demanded) and the final demolition of Communist USSR.

You also overlook the general good cheer and optimism of the 1980s, overwhelmingly regarded by many as America's best decade. CREDIT: REAGAN

Greatest Failures of President Reagan

The Iran-Contra Affair in which arms were traded for hostages and the proceeds were given to the anti-communist rebels, the Contras in Nicaragua.

Documents:

• A Memorandum sent January 17, 1986 titled, Covert Action Finding Regarding Iran, from John Poindexter to Reagan recommends the sale of 4000 TOW weapons to Iran for the release of American hostages. The memo is authorized with Reagan’s signature. This document is significant because it provides undeniable proof that Reagan was clear that his administration trading arms for hostages and was doing so with his authorization.
(Link: —  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/15- Reagan%20Finding%201-17-86%20(IC%2002181).pdf)

• Personal notes from Oliver North taken in 1986 in regards to his meeting Manuel Noriega. North proposed that in return for Noriega’s assassination of Sandinista leadership and helping the Contra’s, U.S. pressure would subside in regards to Panama’s drug smuggling and the U.S. would help “clean up” their image. There is also mention of establishing training camps in Panama for Contra operatives. These notes signify Noriega’s. involvement and what the U.S. would give in return for his assistance.
(Links: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/9- North%20notes%208-24-86.pdf |
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/9a-North%20notes%209- 22-86.pdf)

• Personal notes from Caspar Weinberger that describe conversations which Reagan was determined to trade arms for hostages, quote “President sd. he could answer charges of illegality but he couldn't answer charges that 'big strong President Reagan passed up chance to free hostages.” Weinberg and Secretary of State Shultz objected to Reagan’s position vehemently. These notes represent the point in which leaders in his own administration disagreed with him and attempted to sway the President from his course.
(Link: —  http://www.gwu.edu/~n sarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/14- Weinberger%20Diaries%20Dec%207%20handwritten.pdf)

• Document written on April 4, 1986 by Oliver North which makes the clear connection between the arms for hostages deals and the backing of the Contras. Before the release of this document, it was unclear that a connection existed between the two events.
(Link: —  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/16- Diversion%20Memo%204-4-86%20(IC%2002614).pdf)

• Excerpts from George H.W. Bush’s diary between November 4-5, 1986 which note his full understanding of the entire affair. This is significant because Bush failed to disclose his diary  to investigators and then pardoned several players in the affair.
(Link: —  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/19- Bush%20Diary%2011-4-86.pdf)

• Memorandum For Record by Caspar Weinberger on November 10, 1986 which describes an important meeting in the Oval Office with the President and other members of the administration. This is significant because it is the first of several attempts by the administration to produce a unified response to the scandal which was growing in popularity.
(Link: —   http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB210/20- Weinberger%20Memo%2011-10-86%20(IC%2003732).pdf)

• November 13, 1986 Reagan addressed the nation, denying a variety of charges and stating: "We did not—repeat—did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages, nor will we."
(Link: —  href=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36728

• Subsequently Reagan appointed the Tower Commission (Special Review Board for the National Security Council) which issued a report highly critical of his management.
(Links: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33991 and http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/PS157/assignment%20files% 20public/TOWER%20EXCERPTS.htm

---

The Robert Bork appointment to the Supreme Court and Reagan’s refusal to withdraw the nomination even after it was a clear and certain failure. This was not only an embarrassment to the Reagan administration, but hurt his relationship with the Senate and created tremendous amounts of ill will.

Documents:

• The first announcement to the public on July 1, 1987 that Robert Bork would be nominated to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court. This announcement to reporters came before the radio address to the public on July 4, 1987.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=34503)

• Statements regarding Bork’s American Bar Association rating on September 9, 1987. Bork received the highest rating possible from the ABA. Reagan emphasized this and portrayed Bork as the most qualified person for the job. However, the Democrat opposition ignored this important fact.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=34771)

• This statement on the Senate floor by Senator Kennedy set the tone for the Bork opposition and had a deep negative impact on the Bork appointment. The accusations of racism, sexism, and strong prejudices impacted the American public, thus diminishing public support for Bork’s appointment.
(Link: —  http://home.att.net/~midni ghtflyer/teddyk.html)

• Bork’s five day testimony before the Senate proved unimpressive. Bork answered questions in a strange manner and with awkward responses. The hearing also caused his public approval to diminish. This Washington Post-ABC news poll taken during and after the five day testimony shows the drop in public approval of the nominee.
(Link: —  http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1345074.html)

• A radio address on October 3, 1987 given by Reagan that attempts to gain support and momentum for Bork despite the overwhelming evidence that his nomination will fail. This clearly shows Reagan’s mistake of not withdrawing the nomination in the face of certain defeat.  
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33500)

• Statement on October 23, 1987 by Reagan in which he announces the failure of Robert Bork’s appointment and his sadness about the political attacks Bork received.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33597)

• This radio address on October 31, 1987 signifies the end of the battle for Bork and the nomination of a new judge, Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg. This time Reagan hopes the misery Bork had to endure will not be repeated to Ginsburg.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33627)

---

The failure in Lebanon. Reagan encouraging the Israel invasion and sending in the Marines with insufficient forces for their mission proved to be two dreadful mistakes compounded upon one another.

Documents:

• In this address to the nation on October 3, 1983, Reagan states a position that would later change with the bombing of the Marine barracks and pressure from congress. Additionally, this position was not supported by any of his generals or secretary of defense. This was the position of U.S. holding its ground in Lebanon with a continued presence of the armed forces.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40612)

• According to Lou Cannon, The Role of a Lifetime, Reagan ignored the counsel of his military advisers that our forces should be pulled out of Beirut and their vulnerability there.
(Link: —  Not Available)

• On October 23, 1983 a suicide bomber detonated his vehicle inside the marine barracks killing hundreds of servicemen and women. Remarks given to reports indicate that at that time Reagan was still determined to stay the course in Lebanon. (Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40673)

• After immense pressure from Congress and public opinion, the withdrawal of U.S. forces in Lebanon was ordered on January 3, 1984.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=39694)

---

Strengthened the Power of the Presidency

Exercised his removal power by firing the air traffic controllers who went on strike, forced his White House Chief of Staff to resign, and many other removals strengthened the presidential power and his commitment to the unitary executive.

Documents:

• On August 3, 1981 Reagan announces the strike and their unfair demands which would be burdensome to taxpayers. He declared if they do not return to duty in 48 hours, their jobs would be forfeited.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=44138)

• The removal of Secretary of State Alexander Haig who was forced out when it became clear that he was not doing a good job and his administration’s goals could be better served without him. This is the letter accepting Haig’s resignation and Haig’s announcement to Reagan.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42681)

• Reagan also forced the removal of Donald Regan from Chief of Staff and picked Baker over Meese. This statement on February 27, 1987 reflects this event.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33911)

• Members of the United States Commission on Civil Rights were thought to be insulated from Presidential power. However, Reagan strengthened the executive by exercising his removal power and removed three of the commissions members in 1983.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40818)

• The removal of 12 Inspectors general in 1981 without informing Congress of his reasons for removal which is a statutory Requirement.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43592)

---

Asserted the power to control the execution of laws directly. For example, the continuation and expansion of the regulatory review program.

Documents:

• Two executive orders, #s 12,291 and 12,498, expanded Reagan’s control over the agencies. They did so by allowing OMB to eradicate the publications of regulations that they disapproved, and also mandating the substantive criteria that agencies had to use when issuing regulations.
(Links: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43424 | http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=38024)

• Reagan’s objection of the legislative veto that would involve congress in the daily implementation of the law which is a responsibility allocated only for the President under the constitution.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=43400)

---

Extensively controlled and carefully picked appointments under his administration. The appointees had deep loyalties to Reagan and his agenda, and no real loyalty to past programs or policies.

Documents:

• The appointment of Robert C. McFarlane as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs on October 17, 1983.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40654)

• The appointment of Donald Rumsfeld to the President’s personal representative to the Middle East on November 3, 1983.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=40713)

• The appointment of Philip C. Habib as Special Envoy to Central America.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=36956)

• The appointment of Kenneth M. Duberstein as Deputy Chief of Staff to the President on March 12, 1987.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33970)

---

The Berlin Wall speech on June 12, 1987 where Reagan memorably demanded that Mr. Gorbachev "tear down this wall" came to crystalize for many the rhetorical power of the Reagan prsidency.

Document:

• Regan’s remarks given on East-West relations at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin.
(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=34390)

---

The pocket veto of the proposed Whistleblowers Protection Act of 1989. This would have amended the Civil Service Reform Act in such a manner that would have taken away from the unitary executive.

Document:

(Link: — http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=35314)

(D)onald Trump got elected with 4 words: YOU'D BE IN JAIL.

He lied.

1. He won because of Facebook and its inability or unwillingness to crack down on fake news - The social network and others like it became a clearinghouse for fake news. Not simple partisan spin, but outright lies peddled as objective truth by shady actors both inside the US and abroad.

2. Because of social media, generally - The medium made the man -- much as radio won the presidency for Franklin Roosevelt and television boosted John Kennedy, social media allowed Trump and his allies to drive the narrative.

3. Because of low voter turnout - For a variety of reasons, from an enthusiasm gap to voter suppression, turnout in 2016 was lower across the board, but especially among Democrats. And it cost Clinton the election.

4. Because celebrity outlasts substance - Trump's name ID, celebrity and media- savvy overmatched Clinton's policy acumen and data-driven turnout operation.

5. Because of white women - They were just as "racist" as their white male counterparts, with whom they identify more than women from minority groups.

6. Because of white male resentment - Forget economic anxiety -- exit polls show people making the least money voted for Clinton -- and focus on identity. The best evidence lies in Trump and his supporters' calls to "take our country back."

7. Because of Russia after all? - The Russian deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said in an interview with state media that, contrary to Trump's denials, "quite a few" people from his "entourage" have "been staying in touch with Russian representatives."

8. Because the left and coastal elites shamed Trump supporters - The left has pressed on with an "ideology of shame" directed at the right, most notably now Trump supporters. In short: "The racism, sexism and xenophobia used by Mr. Trump to advance his candidacy does not reveal an inherent malice in the majority of Americans."

9. Because rural Midwesterners don't get out of the house enough - It's not just that elites are abandoning or ignoring Middle America -- the "rural midwest" is doing the same, becoming more isolated and resistant to the diversity (of identity and thought) on the coasts.

10. Because the Democratic Party establishment didn't push Bernie Sanders - By raising up Clinton over Sanders, the Democratic Party establishment (and its voters?) showed they favored the company and support of comfortable professionals over those beset by economic injustice.

11. Because Reagan Democrats surged in Michigan and Midwest - The so-called "Reagan Democrats" -- white, working class voters who tend to lean Democrat but bend right for special candidates like Ronald Reagan and, now, Trump -- are the story of this election.

12. Not because of millennials - But do blame the media for focusing too much on them and not enough on the older white males who were the great, underreported story of 2016.

13. Because of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein - Clinton lost for lots of reasons, most notably the millions of voters who turned out for Johnson and Stein, thus denying the Democratic support she might have received in narrowly lost states like Pennsylvania.

14. Because political correctness set off a nasty backlash - Trump's promise to "destroy" political correctness, which has run rampant on college campuses and other more liberal enclaves, won him the culture war and, thus, the presidency.

15. Because he simply listened to the American people - The political class (on the coasts) did not listen to or care enough for Middle America. Trump did. So he won.

16. Because college educated Americans are out of touch - Trump spoke to working- class voters, here mostly defined as those without college degrees, about the things they cared about: religion, liberty, marriage, sexuality, abortion and gun rights. And because "professorial sorts" who have spent time at universities drift into an "insular political culture," their candidate was doomed to lose.

17. Because Americans are biased -- but not against any race, ethnicity or gender - The election was, simply, a referendum on the ruling class in Washington, D.C. None of the other issues, be they cultural or racial, came close to mattering as much.

18. Because voters believed the system was corrupt - Voters believed their political apparatus was corrupt and Trump was the only one who reliably affirmed that belief and promised to fix it.

19. Because he remembered 'forgotten men, women' of America - While Hillary Clinton held campaign rallies with Beyoncé and Jay-Z, Trump was out talking about the "forgotten" working class, which in turn exacted a "revenge" on the political elite by voting for him.

20. Because Democrats focused more on turning out supporters than growing the base - The party and the left "have given up/abandoned/lost touch with the working class" -- as evidenced by their lame effort to persuade people outside their base. By focusing on them, Democrats ceded all else.

21. Because the Democratic National Committee selected the less competitive candidate - The party tipped the scales for Clinton, thus "defeating the purpose of running a primary" and in turn denying Sanders, a better candidate, the chance to win.

22. Not because of racism - Never mind the backlash to the country's first African- American president, this wasn't about race in the slightest. If race were an issue, then Obama wouldn't have won two terms and many of the states Trump himself prevailed in on Tuesday.

23. Because of Comey - The FBI director's decision to revive the Clinton email circus with a letter to Congress two weeks before Election Day killed the Democrat's momentum and derailed her plans to finish the campaign with a more uplifting message. It also distracted from things like Trump's comments in the "Access Hollywood" tape.

24. Not because of Comey - Clinton lost because exit polls showed more than half of voters believed she was "corrupt." And that was her own fault, not Comey's.