So you have one candidate say, I support Trump 100% of the time and I always will. And the other candidate says, no, no, I support Trump 120% and I always will. And the other person says, I support him 150%. I'll support him more than you will. And then at the end you go, well, what are they really for? Are they for the Constitution? Are they for balanced budgets? Are they for smaller government? Will they vote to increase spending or decrease spending? Are they for overseas wars? Are they fine with the president taking us to war without a vote of Congress? and all you hear is I'm going to support the president. It's like, oh, that disappoints me. It gives me a sick feeling. Welcome back to another episode of Voices of Liberty, powered by Young Americans for Liberty. I'm your host, Sean Tima, and today we are joined by one of the most independent and principled voices in Washington, Senator Rand Paul. Senator Paul, thank you for being here. Glad to be with you. Thanks for having me. And thanks for all that YAL does. Absolutely. Thank you. So, Senator Paul, you have inspired so many people to discover and embrace the ideas of liberty. But I want to hear your origin story. How did you first come to discover and embrace the ideas of liberty? You know, people always ask, you know, whether things are nature or nurture. And I guess in my case, it was probably both. You know, I was born to a famous libertarian. You may have heard of him. My dad's Ron Paul. So I grew up in a political family. I was around a lot of liberty literature of the Austrian economists, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, you know, all the great voices of limited government were around the house, you know, not in person, but their books and the discussions. From a young age, I helped my dad in political campaigns, door to door, going to rallies, you know, listening to his interviews. And so I think that's the nurture part. But I think also some people are maybe born more independent than others. There are some who may be born and like the idea that, you know, the individual should submit to the collective and that they will trade their liberty for security. And I think that's always sort of, you know, the conflict, the back and forth and deciding, you know, how big a government's going to be or what a society wants. And there may be a little bit of difference in cultures. I think the American culture is a more independent, wild, wild west. Leave me alone. Leave me the hell alone. I want small government. Don't tell me what to do. I went out west seeking freedom, getting away from Europe, then getting away from the big cities in America. And people kept spreading out, spreading out. And it's sort of in our DNA in the sense that we had people seeking religious liberty. We also had people seeking secular liberty. We had people wanting the opportunity to own land. You know, most of the land was already owned by somebody else, you know, in Europe. It tended to be handed down and inherited. Large blocks of it were tied up by families and royals for generations. So, you know, I think it's in our DNA. I think it's in my DNA. I think it's nature, nurture. But also I have a great interest in history, a great interest in, you know, what makes our country tick, what makes a country prosperous. And, you know, I think without question, our economic system, you know, Trump likes to talk about, you know, make America great again. And it's a great slogan, but I always respond by saying to make America great, you have to understand what made America great in the first place. And that was the economic system, a political system. It was liberty. It was being left alone. It was understanding, you know, Adam Smith's, you know, discussion of the division of labor. You know, when you let the division of labor multiply and spread, not only within a country, but around the world, people become more prosperous. I'm a big fan of the work they do at humanprogress.org. This is a segment of Cato. And they talk a lot about not only how trade has made us richer, but the statistics are just extraordinary. 137,000 people leave poverty every day in the world. In 1820, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, 98% of people lived on $2 a day. using constant dollars as you get to the current day today, it's less than 10%. So you go from 98% of people living in abject poverty to less than 10% worldwide. This is the entire world. And that's why it's important. And even though I get some grief from some in my party, it's important to stand up to the president on the fallacy that someone's being ripped off by trade. It's actually impossible to be ripped off by voluntary trade. You know, if I decide I want to buy that capitalism cures poster behind you and offer you 50 bucks for it, you only give me the poster if you want my 50 bucks more. So we have to both be happy or the trade doesn't occur. So it's impossible for either one of us to be ripped off. This is true of any trade in the marketplace. Now, if we then after the transaction, we don't ask whether you're happy or whether I'm happy, we say, hmm, where were those posters made? Oh, they were all made in Vietnam. And I'm unhappy because my aunt makes posters in Peoria and she's, you know, being out competed by Vietnam. So it's a whole different argument, but it doesn't mean I got ripped off in the trade. It just means somebody else is mad because one country makes more of something than another. But at every step we get richer. And this is such a bad fallacy that if it takes off and it swallows the Republican Party, we'll go back to sort of the Luddite era of being against technology and against trade. And there are some in the party that are already there. They're against big corporations or against business. They actually are becoming the antithesis of a libertarian. And it worries me because some of these people have become sort of like a right-wing version of Bernie Sanders, you know, up here. And our parties, the Republican parties become infected with this. Well, I'll tell you, you know, part of me wants to say that that poster behind me is priceless. The other part of me says, you know, 50, I can do $65, maybe not 50 but we can discuss offline There you go That what the marketplace is There a negotiation There a song and a dance But the other half of that that I think is really important about capitalism is that if you ask me I in government you know posters are expensive And that poster, you know, everybody's, you know, thinking it's worth $100. Should we, why don't we have government say that the price should be $90 or $50? Let's let the government set prices because the prices have gotten exorbitant. But the thing is, is government doesn't know the correct price. And because they don't know the correct price, only the market knows it. And, you know, Hayek was big in talking about this, that it's the distributed knowledge of everybody in the marketplace interacting, you know, instantaneously and millions of people that creates prices. But if you try to destroy that and try to bring in, say, oh, a moral price or a good price that should be the right price and no one should have to pay more than this, you wind up with Venezuelan socialism or Russian socialism, which means the stores are empty. You know, you either have too much of it, it rots on the shelf if you make the price too high. If you make the price too low, it's all gone. And then someone sells it on the black market. There's a great story. I wrote a book called The Case Against Socialism. And in that, we tell this story of a guy going, he's behind the Iron Curtain and he goes into a store and he says, are you are you the store that doesn't have any toilet paper? And he says, oh, no, no, we're the store that doesn't have any eggs, the store that I mean, toilet papers across the street. And, you know, the people in Russia just thought this was not hilarious, tragically comic, because that's the way it always was. there was always a shortage. They were always out of stuff and basic stuff. But it's because in communism or socialism, people said, well, toilet paper is a necessity. So it should be either free or it should cost 10 cents. You know, in a market economy, maybe it's $2.50, but the market figures this out. And prices do tend to come down over time. But setting prices doesn't work. And it's an arrogance to think that anybody should be given the power to set the prices. But, you know, we're getting to a point where many in the Republican Democrats don't have a clue. They don't know anything about economics or care. But it's sad that within the Republican Party, which was the party of Adam Smith, it was the party of, you know, understanding freedom economics, that this knowledge is being lost. And we are entering into the Luddite era where you break machines and you set prices. And, you know, at least from my perspective as a Republican, I think it's the job of libertarian-leaning Republicans or capitalist-leaning Republicans to make sure that that wing of the party continues to exist, because I think we're in a danger of extinction at this point. Yeah, I think if you pull the average American, they don't want to ultimately become, you know, a country with an economy like socialist Venezuela or socialist Russia. And that's the logical extension of where government intervention in the economy leads to. And speaking of Venezuela and Russia and geopolitics, you know, the mainstream media, the Trump administration, depending where you look, they might tell you that the biggest threat to this country comes from Iran or from China or from Russia. But you've commented on how sometimes the biggest threats to America don't necessarily come from abroad, but from within. So I'm curious, thinking ahead to the next decade or so, what would you say is the biggest threat to American liberty? Without question, it's our debt and or our loss of confidence in freedom, our loss of confidence in capitalism. And but they're combined. But we're not in danger of being invaded. Now, some would say, well, you know, it's not completely true. And it's because we have this great military. I think it's, you know, a reasonable thing to have a strong military to repel attacks. But I think a military that stays largely at home and only repels attack and only acts in self-defense might not have to be as large. You know, our military currently is bigger than the next 10 countries combined. And yet the president's now calling to increase it by 50%. So we spend a trillion on the military and President Trump's budget wants it to go to 1.5 trillion. But that's not the whole price. The Iran war, they say, is costing about 200 billion. So they want to increase from a trillion to 1.5 trillion and then add another 200 billion. So we're really talking about a 70% increase in the military in one year. That to me is just a recipe for disaster. It's a recipe for getting us so far behind the eight ball, we'll never get out from under this. And this is in addition to the institutional debt of Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and Social Security, which go on to infinity. Nobody's doing anything about these. They're called mandatory spending, which means nobody does anything about reforming them. They're on autopilot increasing much faster than any kind of revenue is increasing. But then you add in this enormous expense for military. You know, I fear where we are and we're the party that's supposed to stop the big spending. But the Republicans have become just as big a spenders, if not bigger spenders than the Democrats. And speaking of the Democrats, right, you faced accusations of not being enough of a team player. Right. You've stood up and often been the lone vote against these omnibus spending bills, the growth of government. Recently, you were the one vote to call for a war powers resolution for a congressional vote on Iran in the Senate. So what would you say to the folks who say, hey, you know, we need to beat the Dems. We need to be on Team R all the time. What's your message to those people? You know, I think that my team is the taxpayer, you know, the citizen. And I really don't think I think it's a mistake to make your team one political party to the other and to have allegiance to a party or allegiance to a person. You know, the oath of office is an oath or an allegiance to the Constitution. You don't say I take this oath to always support the Republican Party or to always support the Republican president. And I thought more people would get that, that, you know, I've been involved in politics for a while now, and I've been very explicit and very consistent in saying I believe in a small limited constitutional government that balances its budget And then people act shocked that I not willing to vote you know to add billion in new spending Or with the big beautiful bill it increased the debt ceiling by trillion And people are shocked. I can't believe you're not, you know, why aren't you on the team? It's shirts and skins. And we're the skins on this one. And all the skins are going to vote for $5 trillion in debt because we're going to be team players. And I was like, really? I don't want to be on that team. And I don't know. I would think that there's enough people, hopefully at home, that pay attention or saying, well, you know, I may not always be right, but maybe the president's not always right. And maybe someone is at least faithful to something that they explain. I'm faithful to small government. I'm faithful to keeping the taxes as low as we can, to keeping the spending as low as the taxes are, equal to the taxes, that there are enough people who want that and not just blind allegiance. But I don't know. I mean, we have a Senate race going on in Kentucky right now for the other Senate seat, and it seems to be a competition for who can pledge more complete fidelity to Trump than the other. So one candidate say, I support Trump 100 percent of the time and always will. And the other candidate says, no, no, I support Trump 120 percent and I always will. And the other person says, I support him 150 percent. I'll support him more than you will. And then at the end you go, well, what are they really for? Are they for the Constitution? Are they for balanced budgets? Are they for smaller government? Will they vote to increase spending or decrease spending? Are they for overseas wars? Are they fine with the president taking us to war without a vote of Congress? And all you hear is I'm going to support the president. And it's like, oh, that disappoints me. He gives me a sick feeling. And it isn't because I dislike Trump. I actually kind of like Donald Trump. I've played golf with him many times. He's an engaging person. He's done some good things. I mean, the tax cut in the first administration is still bringing rewards for the country. And now that more of it's permanent, all good things. I mean, that's good. It just it pains me that some of them recently now are paired with increases, dramatic increases in federal spending. and just makes it hard for me to support if the bills are laden with new spending. Absolutely. And speaking of races in Kentucky, Thomas Massey, your counterpart in Congress, is in the most expensive congressional race, I believe, in recorded history in this country. What do you make of that race? What's the significance of how that race ends up? It's without question even bigger than Thomas Massey. I'm a big friend and fan of Thomas Massey, he is without question the most liberty-minded congressman, most fiscally conservative, and the most inclined to defend your liberty against big government encroachment, without question. He's also the most libertarian-leaning. And so if you want there to be a free market, limited government, libertarian-leaning wing of the party, if they roust him out, it removes the best person we've got in the house, but also if they roust him out, it's a message to everyone else. Behave or they'll roust you out too. And so we really do need him to win. I've been doing as much as I can, helping raise money for him. I've campaigned with him and he is ahead in the polls, but just barely. And I think at least 20 million will be spent against him in a primary. It's insane. This much money has never, ever been spent. He has been able to start raising some money online, but they'll probably outspend him five to one, six to one. I mean, he's going to be outspent by a great deal, but he is fighting back and he's not compromising his principles. And so to me, it's the most important race in 2026, really. More important than any other race. And it's really the only race that's motivated me to get involved. I sometimes have gotten involved in more races. I've gotten a little more pessimistic towards some of the people out there that are running, and I've decided this is the race. And so we're putting all our eggs in a basket to try to make sure he gets through. If he gets through, it is a message then that they aren't going to be able to stamp out independent voices in the Republican Party. And speaking of important races, you've expressed genuine consideration in running a 2028 presidential campaign. So as a preview, if there were a Paul 2028 campaign, what might it center on that's missing from the discussion in both parties right now? I think there aren't any other voices that I know of talking about the debt or talking about cutting spending. So being fiscally conservative, being true to my word and being consistent in the voting pattern, I think is something that would differentiate me. I also think, though, that part of our wealth as a nation, a significant part, comes from accepting the economic system of capitalism, free markets. But a big part of capitalism is trade, international trade, and that the more we trade with other countries, the richer we get. The more we extend the division of labor around the world, the richer we get. And I don't think there are many people saying that. The one advantage I think I would have is there is a libertarian vote. It's not that big, frankly. It might be 5% or 10% of the primary vote. But I think there's also a business portion of the vote, and it's a business portion that actually recognizes that trade is good. Within that business community are farmers. Iowa's one of the early states. Farmers are probably the biggest business in Iowa. 25% of a farmer's income comes from exporting goods. They you read the Farmers, the Farm Bureau's manual, you'll find nothing but positive things to say about free trade and international trade. So I think there's a potential to be a free trade candidate, to be the deficit hawk and then also to be the Republican who is different on war, who says war should be the last resort, that war is expensive, both in human lives and in dollars, that war adds to the debt, the debt makes us weaker, less strong, and that if we have to go to war, we go to war when we're attacked, but we vote on it, that Congress would vote on it. And I think between war, trade, and debt, you know, I don't think that there are any other candidates out there even talking about any of those three. So I don't know that it could be successful and haven made a decision I don necessarily want to do it just to do it frankly It a lot of work to travel the country try to raise the money I would do it if I thought that there was a potential to win And I think there is a coalition between debt trade and perhaps the Maha movement freedom in health and freedom to make your own decisions, the right to choose and try different therapies that may or may not be approved by the establishment. I think that that movement has legs as well. And if I think each of those sort of movements were combined, there actually may be enough votes to actually win a primary between libertarian leaning people on the debt, people who don't necessarily like us to be involved in so many wars, and then health freedom and business community that is inclined more towards trade. I think those different coalitions are all lean libertarian or lean free market to a certain degree. I think there may be enough of them to actually cobble together a majority. Well, we're coming to the end of our time here, Senator, but I want to comment on the fact that your independence and you taking a stand for what you believe in has come at a price. I mean, you've had presidents lash out at you or, you know, most recently truth out at you on truth social. You've been surrounded and heckled by mobs in D.C. You deal with nasty campaign ads during the campaign season and even been physically attacked and in your own neighborhood suffered six broken ribs. So for the young people who are out there listening, who want to stand boldly for liberty in their campus or their community, but might be hesitant, might be scared, you know, what message would you give to them on how to stay courageous? You know, I think that actually our strength is with young people, actually. I'm motivated every time I speak at a Yale conference, every time I see the young people that are attracted to liberty. And the great thing about liberty, and my dad used to always say this, liberty brings people together. So you and I might be different. I might go to church. You might not. You might have a different lifestyle than me or this and that. But we can get along because not only is any of my business what you do in your private life, and it's really none of your business what I do. But we can't harm each other. You know, you can't use violence on another. The whole idea of the non-aggression principle is basically I leave you alone, you leave me alone. And the rules are out there to keep people from committing violence. You have to have police. You've got to have some laws against violence. But for the most part, we leave the marketplace free. And then trade is beneficial. When you and I trade domestically or whether you live in another country and we trade, it is a benefit. And this miracle of capitalism, the evidence is there's no greater economic system. And so for young people, I don't think it's about fear. I think it's about optimism and about somebody who believes strongly that there is great potential. You know, I'm not somebody who says to young people, oh, woe is me. Everything's bad and it's terrible and you're not going to have any future. I'm the opposite. I think we live in the best of times. I speak at a lot of college campuses and I tell them, what do you think? Is it the best of times or the worst of times? And I think there is still optimism among young people. Some people are pessimistic, but I tell them not to be. Don't be a victim. Don't say, oh, you know, the color of my skin keeps me down or who I am, what I do in my personal life, people are going to pick on me. I say, go out there. People don't care as much as they did at one time about any of these things. People care a lot less about that or more accepting, more open. And we live in really the best of times. There's less racism. There's less bigotry. There's more wealth. It's a good time to be alive. And I think that message of hope and optimism, I don't know. I think people, particularly young people, are hoping and yearning for something like that. That's tremendous stuff. And my last and perhaps most consequential question, whereas you are the senator from Kentucky, there's a big day coming up. Do you have a horse in the race for the Kentucky Derby? Yeah, but I don't give away that information for free you think i'm going to come on this show you're not even paying me an honorarium and i'll trade you the poster for your intel we can discuss offline we'll have to talk off air actually i haven't looked at the list of horses yet i will be there it is a fun day and i have a an algorithm but it you know it's it's top secret and you have to you know subscribe to my my newsletter where i'll you know give you the inside advice now i don't think my wife and i pick horses based on whether or not the name of the horse sounds similar to a restaurant or a place that we visited, or we have someone's friend whose child has the same name. So it's not very scientific. And as a consequence, we usually come home with less money than we start with. I believe there's many such cases of that at the Derby. You mentioned your newsletter. If people want to follow along with the work you're doing, where should they go? You know, you can go to RandPaul.com or on Facebook or on Instagram or on X. We're very active on X. And I have two accounts on X, one for my official office and one for campaign. They're pretty easy to find. I think one Senator Rand Paul and one is just Rand Paul on X. And we're pretty active on there. And also big believers in the news aggregating nature of X. You know, if you have 20 people you like, you know, you like Hayek or Thomas Sowell or Mises Institute or Libertarian this or Yao, By the time you follow them and they're posting articles and I'm posting articles, you really are able to get a large selection of news because, you know, if you follow me on X, you know, I'll put up one or two interesting articles a day that I've found. You follow somebody else who find, you know, I think the news aggregating nature of finding articles of interest is amazing what you can do through X. And easier to people say, how do I find news or how do I find news that's subjective? well all the people you follow are trying to do the same thing and so i think it's actually easier to find news than it used to be we are the media now some people are saying i'm not saying that but some people are senator ran paul thank you so much for joining us today and keep up the fight in washington thank you for being a voice for liberty thanks for having me thanks for being with us today if you enjoyed today's episode subscribe to voices of liberty on spotify Apple Podcasts, Pandora, or YouTube. And to learn more about how you can be a part of the movement advancing freedom in our lifetime, visit YALIberty.org. I'm Sean Tema, and thank you for listening to Voices of Liberty, where we keep the torch of liberty burning by telling the stories of those who carry it forward. See you next time.
