Politics Video Transcript
Welcome to Truly Right View Political Thought
Let The Truth Be Told!
Are you ready to hear the real truth unfiltered by bias media or government intervention?
Subscribe to the Truly Right View YouTube Channel
Subscribe to the Truly Right View Rumble Channel
I go back to this question of mission right A lot of people who make Arguments for the Department of Education aren’t aware why the Department of Education was created in the first place actually so that might be a useful place to start is that this thing was created it had a purpose presumably what was that purpose might be at least a relevant question to ask before we decide what are we doing with it or not what was the purpose of this thing that we created it’s not a it to me seems to make a highly relevant question yet in this discussion about government reform it’s interesting how eager people are to skip over that question and just to talk about okay but we got the status quo and it’s just going to be disruptive versus asking the question of okay this institution was created it had an original purpose is that purpose still relevant is this organization at all fulfilling that purpose today to me those are some relevant questions to ask so let’s talk about that for the Department of Education its purpose was relevant at that time which was to make sure that localities and particularly states were not siphoning dollars taxpayer dollars away from predominantly black school districts to predominantly white ones and that was not a theoretical concern at the time it was happening or there was at least some evidence that that was happening in certain states in the South and so you may say you don’t like the federal solution you may say you like the federal solution but like it or not that was the original purpose of the US Department of Education to make sure that from a federal perspective states were not systematically disadvantaging black school districts over predominantly white ones however Noble and relevant that purpose may have been six decades ago it’s not a relevant purpose today there’s no evidence today of States intentionally mapping out which are the black versus white school districts and siphoning money in One Direction versus another to the contrary one of the things we’ve learned is that the school districts in the inner city many of which are predominantly black actually spend more money per student than other school districts for a worse result as measured by test scores and other performance on a per student basis suggesting that there are other factors than the dollar expenditures per School determining Student Success and actually suggesting that even the overfunding of some of those already poorly run schools rewards them for their actual bureaucratic failures so against that backdrop the Department of Education has instead extrapolated that original purpose of what was a racial equality purpose to instead Implement a different vision of racial equity through the ideologies that they demand in the content of the curriculum that these public schools actually teach so Department of Education funding so Federal funding accounts for about you know I’m giving you round numbers here but around 10% of the funding of most public schools across the country but that comes with strings attached so in today’s Department of Education this didn’t happen Back in 1970 but it’s happening today ironically it’s funny how these things change with the bureaucracies that fail they blow Oak smoke to cover up for their own failures what happens with with today’s Department of Education they effectively say you don’t get that funding unless you adopt certain goals deemed at achieving racial or gender Equity goals and in fact they also intervene in the curriculum where there’s evidence of schools in the midwest or in the Great Plains that have been denied funding because Department of Education funding so long as they have certain subjects like archery there was one instance of a school that had archery in its curriculum I I find that to be pretty interesting actually I think that I think you have different kinds of physical education this is one that combines mental focus with physical aptitude but hey maybe I’m biased doesn’t matter whether you like archery or not I don’t think it’s the federal government’s job to withhold funding from a school because they include something in their curriculum that the federal government deems inappropriate where that locality found that to be a relevant locus of education so what you see then is an abandonment of the original purpose that’s long passed you don’t have this problem that the Department of Education was originally formed to solve of siphoning money from black school districts to white school districts and laundering that effectively in public funds that doesn’t exist anymore so they find new purposes instead creating a lot more damage along the way so you asked me to steal man it and could I say something constructive rather than just you know pounding down on the other side one way to think about this is for a lot of these agencies were many of them formed with a positive intention at the outset yes where that positive intention existed I’m still a skeptic of creating bureaucracies but if you’re going to create one at least make it what should we call it uh a task force make it a task force a task force versus an agency means after it’s done you celebrate you’ve done your work pat yourself on the back and then move on rather than creating a standing bureaucracy which actually finds things to do after it has already solved or addressed the first reason it was born in the first place and I think we don’t have enough for that in our culture right I mean even if you have a company that’s generated tons of cash flow and it’s solved a problem let’s say it’s a let’s say it’s a biopharmaceutical company that developed a cure to some disease and the only thing people knew at that company was how to develop a cure to that disease and they generated a boatload of cash from doing it at a certain point you could just give it to your shareholders and closeup shop and that’s actually a beautiful thing to do you don’t see that happen enough in the American Consciousness in the American culture of when an institution has achieved its purpose celebrate it and then move on and I think that that culture in our government would result in a vastly restrained scope of government rather than today it’s a one-way ratchet once you cause it to come into existence you cause new things to come into existence but the old one that came into existence continues to persist and exist as well and that’s where you get this metastasis over the last century so what kind of things do you think government should do that the private sector the forces of capitalism would create drastic inequalities or create the kind of pain we don’t want to have in government so so the question is what what should government do that the private sector cannot I’ll give you one protect our border I mean capitalism it’s never going to be the job of capitalists or never going to be the capability or inclination of capitalists to preserve a national border and I think a nation it’s literally uh I think one of the chapters of this book okay a nation Without Borders is not a nation it’s almost a tipology an open border is not a border capitalism is not going to solve that what’s going to solve that as a nation part of the job of the federal government is to protect the homeland of its nation in this case the United States of America that’s an example of a proper function of the federal government to provide physical security to its citizens another proper role of that federal government is to look after or or in this case could be state government to make sure that private parties cannot externalize their costs onto somebody else without their consent it’s a fancy way economists would use to describe it what does that mean means if you go dump your chemicals in somebody else’s River then you’re liable for that it’s not that okay I’m a capitalist and so I want to create things and I’m going to do hell or high water whether or not that harms people around me the job of a proper government is to make sure that you protect the rights of those who may be harmed by those who are pursuing their own rights through a system of capitalism and seeking Prosperity you’re free to do it but if you’re hurting somebody else without their consent in the process the government is there to enforce what is really just a different form of enforcing a private property right so I would say that those are two Central functions of government is to preserve National boundaries and the National Security of a Homeland and number two is to protect and preserve private property rights and the enforcement of those private property rights and I think at that point you’ve described about 80 to 90% of the proper role of a government what about infrastructure look I think that most infrastructure can be dealt with through the private sector I mean you can get into specifics you could talk infrastructure that’s specific to National Security no I do think that military-industrial base is essential to provide National Security that’s a form of infrastructure I don’t think you could rely exclusively on the private sector to provide the optimal level of that protection to a nation but you know interstate highways you know I think you could think about whether or not that’s a common good that everybody benefits from but nobody has the incentive to create I think you could make an argument for the existence of of interstate highways I think you could also make powerful Arguments for the fact that actually you could have enough private sector co-ops that could cause that to come into existence as well but you know I’m not going to be I’m not I’m not U dogmatic about this but broadly speaking 80 to 90% of the goal of the federal government I’m not going say 100 80 90% of the goal of the existence of a federal government should be to of government period should be to protect National boundaries and provide security for the people who live there and to protect the private property rights of the people who reside there if we restore that I think we’re well on our way to a Revival of what our founding fathers envisioned and I think many of them would give you the same answer that I just did so if we get government out of Education would you be also for reducing the size of government in the states for educ for something like education I think here if it goes closer to municipalities and States I’m fine with that being a Locus for people determining as for example let’s just say school districts are tax at the local level for that to be a matter for municipalities and townships to actually decide democratically how they actually want that govern whether it’s balance between a public school district versus making that same money available to families in the form of vouchers or other forms of of ability to educational savings accounts or whichever mechanism it is to opt out of that if that’s done locally I’ll have views on that that tend to go further in the direction of true educational choice and diversity of choice the implementation of charter schools the granting of State Charters or even lowering the barriers to granting one I favor those kinds of policies but if we’ve gotten the federal government out of it that’s achieved 75 % of what I think we need to achieve that I’m focused on solving other problems and leave that to the states and municipalities to to cover from there so given this conversation uh what do you think of elon’s proposal of the Department of government efficiency in in the uh Trump Administration or really any Administration I’m I’m uh of course biased because El and I had discussed that for the better part of the last year and a half and I think it’s a great idea something that’s very consistent with the core premise of my presidential candidacy I got to know him as I was running for US president in a couple of events that he came to and then we built a friendship after that so obviously I think it’s a great idea who do you think is more hardcore on The Cutting you or Elon well I think uh Elon is elon’s pretty hardcore um I I said 75% of the federal bureaucrats and while I was running for president he said you need to put at least 75% so so I agree with him I think I would U I think it’d be a fun competition to see who wins up who ends up more hardcore I think he and I I don’t think there’s someone out there who’s going to be more hardcore than here or I would be and the reason is I think we’re both we share in common a willingness to take the risk and see what happens I mean the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west that much I guarantee you is there going to be some broken glass and some damage yes there is there’s no way around that but once you’re willing to take that risk then it doesn’t become so scary anymore and and here’s the thing Lex it’s so it’s easy to say this let’s talk about what the rubber hits the road here even in even in second Trump term this would be you know the discussion president Trump and I had this conversation but I think we would continue to have this conversation is where does it rank on our prioritization list because there’s always going to be a tradeoff if you have a different policy objective that you want to achieve a good policy objective whatever that is right you could talk about immigration policy you could talk about Economic Policy there are other policy objectives you’re going to trade off a little bit in the short run the effectiveness of your ability to carry out that policy goal if you’re also committed to actually thinning out the federal government by 75% because there’s just going to be some clunkiness right there’s just going to be frictional costs for that level of cut so the question is where does that rank on your prioritization list to pull that off to pull off a 75% reduction in the size and scale of the federal government the regulatory State and the headcount I think that only happens if that’s your top priority you could do it at a smaller scale but at that scale it only happens if that’s your top priority because then as president you’re in a position to say I know in the super short run that might even make it a little bit harder for me to do this other thing that I want to do and use the regulatory state to do it but I’m going to pass on that I’m going to pass that up I’m going to bear that hardship and inconvenience because I know this other goal is more important on the scale of decades and centuries for the country so it’s a question of priority ation and and certainly my own view is that now is a moment where that needs to be a top priority for saving this country and you know if there’s one thing about my campaign I was if I was to do it again I would be even clearer about because I talked about a lot of things in the campaign and we can cover a lot of that too but if there’s one thing that I care about more than anything else is dismantling that bureaucracy and more moreover it is a it’s an assault and a Crusade on the nanny State itself and that Nanny State presents itself in several forms there’s the entitlement State that’s the welfare state presents itself in the form of the regulatory State that’s what we’re talking about and then there’s the foreign Nanny state where effectively we are subsidizing other countries that aren’t paying their fair share of protection or other resources we provide them if I was to summarize my ideology in a nutshell it is to terminate The Nanny state in the United States of America in all of its forms the entitlement State the regulatory State and the foreign policy in any state once we’ve done that we’ve revived the Republic that I think would make George Washington proud
Experience Free Speech
Welcome to the Conversation on Free Speech!
Welcome to Truly Right View!
We’re here to explore real, unfiltered truths—unswayed by media bias or government agendas.
What do you think? Are you ready to hear insights you won’t find elsewhere?
👉 Subscribe to the Truly Right View YouTube Channel | Rumble Channel and join our community dedicated to open dialogue.
What Does Free Speech Mean to You?
In today’s world, where tech giants and news outlets hold so much influence, is free speech at risk?
From silencing certain viewpoints to heavy censorship, the freedom to speak without fear is under threat.
Tell us your thoughts:
- Is free speech still a right everyone enjoys?
- Do you think we’re protecting it well enough?
🔍 Let’s dive into the heart of this discussion. Add your voice below!
Will You Speak Up or Stay Silent?
In the end, the future of free speech rests in our hands. We can either stand idly by as it is eroded by corporate and governmental overreach, or we can take action to protect and preserve it.
Will you speak up for your rights, or will you allow them to be taken away piece by piece?
The choice is yours.
Subscribe to the YouTube channel and the Rumble channel for Truly Right View today, and support our patriots shop together, let’s ensure that free speech remains the bedrock of our Constitutional Republic.
