Freedom from Choice (2014) - full transcript

- If you listen to Benito Mussolini,

he knew a thing of two about fascism.

He said that fascism is the merger

of state and corporate powers.

Now people will deny that and they'll say

that's not exactly what he said,

but if you really look into
it, that's what he said.

(cheerful piano tune)

- [Voiceover] Milk is an
important part of every good diet.

Use the best grade of
milk available to you.

Disease may be contracted through



drinking unsanitary raw milk.

(milk splashes)

(sirens wail)

- [Voiceover] In 2010, there
was a simultaneous raid

on two different locations in California.

Heavily armed agents stormed
into private properties

arresting several US citizens

for dealing in a restricted substance.

Now drug raids happen
quite frequently in the US,

it's just one of the ways the authorities

keep us free from malicious
and harmful substances.

Only this wasn't a drug raid.

The substance being sold
wasn't crack or crystal meth,

or even bootleg hooch.



It was milk.

- This is an example of
just how heavy handed

the government is in routing
out disfavored parties.

In this case, the government operates

on a public interest
argument that raw milk

is inherently unsafe,
it is a breeding ground

for bacteria and because
it is not pasteurized,

the argument is, it
carries with it an enormous

increased risk for consumers such that,

it shouldn't be available, this is the

position of the Food
and Drug Administration.

And the government cracks
down on this one segment,

and they do so with brute force,

sending in storm troopers essentially,

and shutting down the milk
plant in it's entirety,

and confiscating all of the milk,

regardless of whether
it's contaminated or not.

- [Voiceover] The FDA raided
this organic market in order

to keep us safe from the
dangers of unpasteurized milk,

buying and selling
unpasteurized milk that is.

They have no problem with
you drinking raw milk,

if, say, you find a
stray cow on the way home

and decide to milk it yourself,

(mooing)

but a reputable farmer trying to

sell some to willing
customers, that's a big no no.

Although this organic market was a club,

with each member having
signed a waiver acknowledging

the potential risk of drinking raw milk,

this was not good enough for the FDA.

Had these people not realized that

raw milk is a gateway food, what next,

people eating cheese, knocking back

raw oysters, sushi, or
heaven forbid, eggs?

Luckily the FDA was there to step in

and save these adults, at gunpoint,

from the dangers of raw milk.

- The reason why pasteurized milk

doesn't come under this scrutiny,

and the reason why raw
milk, as opposed to cheese,

eggs, raw oysters, sushi, why they don't

come under the same FDA scrutiny,

is that the major milk manufacturers,

are a principle lobby within the FDA.

They have very small
profit margins per unit,

and so if in Whole Foods and other places

there are significant numbers of consumers

who come in to buy raw milk products.

It is a significant economic effect

on the large milk processors.

- [Voiceover] The California milk raids

were not an isolated event.

Over the past few years,
there have been raids

all across the US to crack down

on the sale of many organic products,

but despite any claims of
safety concerns or risk,

one thing is clear, the actions of the

regulatory agencies, and by extension,

the politicians that manage them,

are not motivated by any
notion of public good.

They're motivated by the desire

to stay in power, that takes money.

- The problem with the US political system

is that it revolves around money.

And so, immediately, that
sets off this dichotomy

of those who can afford to play

in the system and those who can't.

To run for office, you need
one and a half million dollars,

you need about 11 million
dollars to run for the Senate.

So if you don't have
money, where do you go?

You go to the people who have a hand

stretched out with money,

ready to fund your campaign,

but they're gonna want
something in return,

because, of course, they're not giving

this money for charitable reasons.

It very clearly advantages big businesses

because they have more capacity

to devote resources to influence buying.

- [Voiceover] Political
influence has become

just another arsenal in the marketing

tool box of large companies.

Only instead of promoting themselves,

they use this influence to
suppress the competition,

and the key to it all are lobbyists.

- People think that we live in a

free market society, and we don't.

Big government and big business

are way too closely aligned today,

especially in the United States,

and this, you know, is
because of lobbying basically.

We have cronyism, we don't have capitalism

in the United States, especially when it

comes to the military, and then

big medicine, big food, like Monsanto,

you know, with all the GMOs and stuff.

Most people don't want it, but yet

it's being forced on
us because Monsanto has

such leverage in Congress through

all the lobbying of the food industry.

- [Voiceover] So, what is lobbying?

Well, simply, lobbying is the act of

influencing decisions made by legislators,

and regulatory agencies, you know,

the guys who make the
rules, and the people

who exert this influence
are called lobbyists.

Well connected professionals with

slick suits and slicker tongues.

Lobbyists tend to be experts in

the fields they lobby for,

they advise law makers on how to make sure

Americans are getting the most

benefit from the laws they pass,

while also reducing potential harm.

It's a good idea, why wouldn't
you want an expert's advice?

Here's where things get screwy.

Sometimes the law makers decide

the cash is greener on the other side,

so they become lobbyists themselves.

They leave government and join

a private company, taking their

connections and influence with them.

This phenomenon is called
the revolving door,

people going from regulating an industry

to working in that same industry,

and sometimes back and
forth multiple times.

Corporations love having
such powerful people

on their payroll, so they do everything

they can to lure them over,

and for their part,
the regulators help out

by making a few choice laws to

benefit their future employers.

And with the spin of the door

comes a host of new laws that benefit

some companies, hinder others,

but business keeps rolling and in the end,

no one really gets hurt,
except, of course, the people.

- You'll see members of Congress

who will take on issues defending

one particular special interest,

and then go out to work for that

special interest after they leave,

and the same is true of
all government agencies.

Iin fact, that's considered the normal way

to do business in Washington.

- Big government and big business

essentially are the same, are they not?

What's the difference
between a corporation

and a government agency,
when the corporation

buys the politicians
with campaign donations

and the politicians do as they're told

in passing laws that the corporation

would have passed had the
corporation been the government.

- [Voiceover] Sadly, this
phenomenon is all too common today

and it's not specific
to just one industry,

rather, it seems that many of the agencies

which have the power to influence

our daily lives are corrupted
by the revolving door.

- When you have delegated
power to committees

and government officials and agencies

to regulate the economy, it
always leads to corruption.

It's too tempting for people not to use

that power for their own personal agendas,

and the revolving door is merely proof

of the fact that when you give government

and it's agencies the
power to regulate commerce,

it always, always, will
lead to corruption.

- Nine tenths of all Federal law

is not the product of those we elect,

but rather the product
of the unelected heads

of these bureaucratic agencies.

So we do not have a
limited Federal Republic

in the United States, what we have instead

is an unlimited bureaucratic alogarten

in which these bureaucratic agencies

operate largely without
any accountability.

- This isn't a representative
form of government,

they only represent the most powerful

and the people that give them
the most amount of money.

The corporations, the multi nationals

have taken over, whether it's agriculture,

whether it's broadcasting, whether it's

pharmaceutical, whether it's retail,

you name the field, a few control it all.

- [Voiceover] Slow down,
you'll kill somebody.

- [Voiceover] Laws and regulations

are essential to any modern society.

There were some activities that need

to be controlled or prevented for the sake

of the common good, which side of the road

you can drive on, whether a five year old

should be able to buy a bottle of Jack,

how many return trips you can make

to a buffet in a single sitting.

(glass shatters)

Okay, maybe scratch that last
one, but you get the idea.

But with so much collusion
between regulators

and the industries they regulate,

the laws governing our daily lives

are becoming excessive, unnecessary,

and often, downright nonsensical.

Keeping the public safe and free

is no longer the primary goal
for a number of our lawmakers.

- There is little done
by the Federal Government

that is not influenced by a choice

to favor one special
interest over another.

A lot of regulations are adopted

with a public interest veneer,

but underneath they're the product of

negotiation between industry
leaders and government

to create a barrier to
entry, and many of these

actions taken have enormous
economic consequences,

both eliminating competition to a company,

and enhancing their economic status.

- [Voiceover] This relationship between

big business and government agencies

not only affects their
competition and the economy,

but all of us in our day to day lives.

- What you wanna do in economy

is you wanna produce the
products and services

that are in greatest demand,

and no one knows that except the market,

but when politicians come in and they

substitute their own judgement,

generally they're not even trying

to outguess the market, and figure out

what's best for us, they're generally

just trying to give an advantage

to one particular individual or

a group of individuals at
the expense of another,

and so there are clear winners and losers.

Whoever's on the receiving
end of a subsidy,

or, you know, a government expenditure,

versus who's getting regulated or taxed,

but regardless of the
individual winners and losers,

collectively we lose,
because wealth is destroyed,

resources are allocated in
a less than optimal way.

- If you can pay enough money,

you can make sure that you win

on whatever issue you are concerned about.

Maybe it's stopping legislation,

maybe it's to get something passed,

but ultimately, you're
looking to shape policy,

and that policy has real
impact in our daily lives.

It shapes what kinds of product
we can buy at the store,

it shapes how safe those products are,

it shapes what we are allowed
to know about those products.

- [Voiceover] The FDA's war
against unpasteurized milk

is just one example of the way

large food producers are
using their connections

in Washington to limit our
choices at the grocery store,

while increasing their own profits,

but it is by no means the only example.

- Big government is in a
collusion with big agriculture.

There were never any scientific studies

that determined that GMO food

is equivalent to
conventionally grown food.

The Food and Drug Administration in

the United States said,
"Well, Monsanta has vouched

"for the safety of GMO
food, and Monsanto said

"the FDA has certified it is safe."

That's big business, and
big government together.

(peaceful music)

- [Voiceover] But, some
small, independent farms

are choosing not to
use patented GMO crops,

or work for larger agribusiness concerns,

some just wanna supply their local area

with nutritious, farm fresh food.

One such farmer is Joel Salatin.

He runs his farm based on an innovative

and radical new technique which he calls,

letting his animals out to pasture.

Sounds crazy, but maybe
he's on to something.

- We have a very different set of,

of production and processing criteria.

First of all, our animals move,

they're not in great big confinement

animal feeding operations, our animals

don't do drugs, we don't vaccinate,

we don't medicate, and we run our farm

on the closed carbon cycle, as opposed to

buying in chemical
fertilizer from outside.

So, you know, the localization,

the carbon cycle, animals move around,

the lack of pharmaceuticals, all of that

is 180 degrees different than today's

industrial, global,
petroleum based food system.

- [Voiceover] It turns out,
there is a healthy market

for traditionally farmed meat and produce,

so why are there so few independent farms

operating around the country?

- [Voiceover] The story of Chicago

and its great stock yards
symbolized the amazing

economic revolution that was underway.

On the farms, machines
and improved techniques

of agriculture began to
produce an abundance of food

for consumption both at home and abroad.

The new world of mass production

required increasing
concentrations of capital,

pooling the investments of many people,

the corporation became the means

to starting vast new enterprises.

- The globalization and
corporatization of everything

is gradually making it
more and more difficult

for independent farmers,
independent people

in the food system to
market to their neighbors,

to friends, to family, to whatever,

and you do think everyday about

what bureaucrat is going
to invade my life today.

Every single time the government

penetrates the market place, it always

favors the biggest players
because they're the ones

that are able to buy favors to curry

concessionary privileges
in a regulatory climate.

And so I know that many of the

consumer advocacy folks
mean well when they say,

"We need more oversight,
we need more regulations

"for this bad thing that
happened over here.".

What they don't realize
is that by the time

that regulation actually gets enacted,

and filters down to the farm level,

it always, always, always,
hurts small producers

and helps the large producers.

- It's the revolving door, don't
eat healthy, only eat crap.

A few companies control everything,

there's only a small group
of agribusiness companies

that control the entire food production.

They're putting everybody out of business.

They don't want any competition.

- The small farmer's always a threat.

If 50 million people in the United States

decide on their own that they would

prefer to buy their
produce from small farmers

or at Farmers Markets because
they think it's healthier,

that's a defection out of the system.

The government doesn't want that,

and Monsanto certainly doesn't want it

nor do any of the big
agribusiness companies want it.

So better to do anything possible

to wipe out the small farmer in America,

make him go bankrupt,
make him sell his land,

which is then taken over by some larger,

agricultural entity,

until eventually the entire
food chain is controlled

by big corporations and big government.

- [Voiceover] The regulations forced upon

small independent farms like Joel's,

have created a hurdle which limits

the size and scope of his operation,

and whether these regulations
are well intentioned,

or imposed just to give an
unfair advantage to the big guys,

the end result is that
many of the products

Joel would like to sell
have been deemed illegal.

- The things that we would like to do

from curing meat to selling
raw milk, for example,

you know, we would love to sell raw milk,

and we have customers who would love

to get raw milk, but it's illegal.

We just had a health department inspector,

they told us that our slaughtering shed

for the poultry was illegal,
and wanted to close us down,

and their contention was
that if it's actually

open to the air, it's
inherently unsanitary.

(chickens clucking)

What's so fascinating is a feed lot,

in deplorable conditions,
with no trespassing signs,

gets away with almost anything,

but because we are extremely transparent,

outdoors, you know, out
here, it makes us vulnerable

to the anthropomorphism
of ignorant people.

- [Voiceover] You're
probably thinking that

these agricultural regulations
are meaningless to you.

If these regulations are
limiting your choices,

how come you can walk down any aisle

in the supermarket and find
dozens of different brands,

and hundreds of different foods?

I mean, how much choice do we really need?

- The average person walks
into the supermarket right,

and they see all this
stuff on the shelves.

They say, "What do you
mean I don't have choice?

"I can get Count Chochula
breakfast cereal,

"Fruit Loops, Cracker
Jacks," whatever, okay,

"I can get potato chips from
10 different companies."

You know, "What do you
mean I don't have choice?"

And so, it's a hard sell, because people

have a hard time understanding
what they can't get.

You know, what you can't get is raw milk,

what you can't get is
backyard slaughtered poultry

that never went through a
great big processing plant.

There's a tremendous amount of

artisanal heritage type food
that is unavailable now,

because it has been
criminalized and outlawed.

- [Voiceover] In the end,
it comes down to risk.

Some things, like raw
milk, are just too risky

to let out to the public.

After all, contaminated raw milk could,

theoretically, be as harmful as poison.

(plane engine roars)

Actual poison, on the other
hand, is apparently fine.

- If you wanna talk about risk,

isn't it fascinating that the
very entity that gave us DDT,

that gave us Mad Cow,
that gave us cloning,

that gave us GMOs, these
are very risky things.

I mean, whether or not
you believe in 'em or not,

you have to appreciate those
are all very high risk things.

And they're the ones that we say,

"I wanna put my faith in you for my food."

I think people participate in
risky behavior all the time.

You know, I think if
you're feeding your kids

pasteurized milk, Cocoa
Puffs, Count Chochula cereal,

and Fruit Loops, that's risky behavior.

But the government has decided that

that's not risky behavior.

What's risky behavior is
drinking a glass of raw milk.

- [Voiceover] When it comes down to it,

not being able to get raw
milk isn't that big a deal.

I mean, who needs raw milk when

you can get deep fried mozzarella sticks,

or tasty, tasty chicken fingers?

After all, food is food, right?

- I think it's important to realize

that in 1979 when the first
USDA Food Pyramid came out,

you know, with grains on the bottom,

that was the beginning of the
obesity and Type II epidemic

because it put
carbohydrates on the bottom.

And, you know, it's
quite a profound reality

that America today would
be far, far healthier

if the government had
never told us what to eat.

(oil sizzles)

- [Voiceover] So, maybe
you overdue it slightly

on the saturated fats
and the imitation cheese,

who cares, we've got access to
the best drugs in the world.

Whether you have a
resting heart rate of 116,

that third cheeseburger has you sweating

like Shaq at the line, or
you're just feeling queasy

from all the drugs you're taking.

There are drugs out there to help you,

and we can all agree, if there's one area

where we want strict regulations,
it's pharmaceuticals.

After all, no one wants unsafe medicine

getting out to the public.

- There are, of course, several drugs,

many drugs, that are
helpful, but what concerns me

is that a significant minority,

significant minority
of drugs that have been

approved by FDA, have been
approved over the FDA's

own medical reviewers'
objections on safety grounds,

and many, many, unsafe
drugs have been admitted

into the marketplace that actually

cause death, liver
failure, kidney failure,

heart attacks, these
drugs are on the market,

many of them still, and
are approved yearly.

- [Voiceover] It is thanks to
such rigorous quality control

by the FDA that a drug
like Vioxx, which caused

over 100,000 heart attacks,
tens of thousands of deaths,

was swiftly pulled from the market,

after only five years, and 2.5 billion

in profit for the
pharmaceutical giant Merck.

- When an FDA commissioner
knowingly approves

an unsafe drug like Vioxx and keeps it

on the market even though there are

140,000 heart attacks from Vioxx,

and 60,000 deaths from it, and still

stands in defense of that company Merck,

there's something wrong here,

there's something dreadfully wrong.

Why can't that person be held accountable,

and yet they get away with it.

Not only do they get away with it,

but in the case of the
commissioner who did that,

Mr. Crawford, he ends up being employed

by a company called Policy Directions Inc

at a very high capacity, and that

company represents Merck.

(dramatic music)

(machine hisses)

- [Voiceover] Perhaps the Vioxx

incident was just a one off event.

There are a whole host of
helpful drugs in the marketplace,

and the FDA shouldn't be
scrutinized for one little slip up.

I mean, it's not like this
is happening regularly.

- The FDA says that all of these

pharmaceutical drugs that
are everywhere in America,

they're safe and
effective, that's how they

get out into doctors
offices and drugstores,

and that's why people ingest them.

Well, 106,000 people every
year in the United States

are killed by FDA approved
pharmaceutical drugs.

The FDA admits this on their own website,

but they say nothing about
taking responsibility for it,

it's just another medical fact to them.

- [Voiceover] Huh, over 100,000 deaths

from prescription drugs every year.

You'd think with all the stringent testing

the FDA does before it lets
a drug out onto the market,

they'd detect some of these
life threatening side effects.

- [Voiceover] These are
the bottles which finally

will find their way to doctor's offices

and clinics all over the country.

Even as they reach the end of the

production line, other
tests are in progress

and samples are sent to the government.

The manufacturer's protocol is

first reviewed, then subjected to

a whole battery of
complex, scientific tests.

- The FDA's whole system
of drug review is bogus.

It's designed to protect and advance

the interest of the drug industry.

A lot of people don't realize this,

but FDA never tests the drugs it approves.

FDA does no independent testing at all.

It relies entirely on the testing

done by the drug advocate, the proponent

of the drug application that has

a self interest and a
conflict of interest,

that party is looked to for
all of the drug testing.

They do their own testing.

- [Voiceover] So the FDA
does no independent testing

of the drugs it approves, but with so many

new drugs being manufactured,
can you blame them

for outsourcing the testing

to the drug companies themselves?

After all, if you can't
trust a multi-billion dollar

pharmaceutical conglomerate,
who can you trust?

- There have been multiple
instances of corruption

in this process where negative information

has been kept away from the FDA

so the FDA will approve a drug.

In fact, Sanofi-Aventis,
with this drug Ketek,

relied principally on a clinical trial

that FDA's medical reviewers
were sharp on the case

discovered didn't even happen.

They made it up.

And there were FBI
investigations and prosecutions.

But what did the FDA do?

The medical reviewers said
that the commissioner,

gee, they relied on a
fraud for this application.

We should deny it.

But the FDA commissioner granted it.

He put Ketek into the market.

So you see, it's that degree of influence

and corruption that makes it impossible

for the American people to be protected.

- [Voiceover] With drugs
being approved by the FDA,

despite the objection of
their own medical reviewers,

there can be little
doubt the revolving door

is alive and well in the
pharmaceutical industry.

And just in case you do have some

tiny shred of doubt remaining,

consider the case of Billy Tauzin.

You may want to have some
anti-nausea pills on standby.

- Congressman Billy
Tauzin was the head of the

energy and commerce
committee in the House.

He was the man assigned
the task of ensuring

that a provision would be put into the law

that would prevent the entire government

from negotiating down the
per unit price of drugs

required to be acquired
under Medicare Part D,

based on volume.

So in other words, they're forced to pay

whatever price the drug
industry sets per unit

for the drugs purchased
under Medicare Part D.

And that is something that
could enable a drug industry

at its will to bring the nation
to its knees financially.

And so it is that this
provision was put into

the law and the Bush Administration.

Tauzin left the government,
left his position in Congress,

became the head of the
Pharmaceutical Research

and Manufacturers Association.

And made the highest
salary they had ever then

paid to that date, $2.5 million a year

as a compliment for his
selling out the nation

to protect the drug industry.

- [Voiceover] So while the
government may be choosing,

often poorly, which food
and drugs they think

are safe for us to have,
at least they aren't

trying to force any of them on you.

Except, perhaps, for vaccines.

George Lambert is a representative of

the New Hampshire statehouse.

He has a leading proponent for

vaccination of choice in his state.

- When I got to the
statehouse, somebody asked me

if I would work on a bill
for vaccination choice.

The more research I did,
the more I found out that

in the risk of an
epidemic, they can go out

and vaccinate everyone without choice.

- To say that vaccines are compulsory,

which in the US is the struggle right now,

every state has their own exemptions

that parents can claim.

But now, the push is on to say

that we're gonna force
you to get vaccinated,

whether you like it or not.

You don't have the freedom to decide.

- If we talk about medical
safety and freedom,

everybody should have the choice

as of what medical procedures they want.

You can get a medical exclusion,

you can get a religious exclusion,

but you can't get a
consciousness exclusion.

We had an issue in New Hampshire

a couple years ago where there were some

injections that were contaminated,

that might actually contain meningitis.

But if you were required
to get a vaccination

or an injection, how do you know

the injection isn't contaminated?

But if you want your
children to go to school

or participate in any of
these other activities,

the government says, "You either do this,

"or you're excluded."

That's the problem because
when the news says,

"There's something that
puts your life at risk,"

you should be able to
make an educated decision.

- [Voiceover] That's what freedom really

comes down to in the end.

The freedom to decide, for good or bad,

how you wanna live.

And that freedom should not be overruled

by the government, except
in the most extreme cases.

Or to keep us safe from the
most diabolical threats.

- [Voiceover] Weed, grass,
ganja, joint, dooby,

doo, chronic, haste,
lobo, loco, loveboat, bud,

buddah, blunt, pot,
pat, pin, cheeba-cheeba,

four two zero, and
hasheesh or hash for short.

No matter what you call it,
no matter what hip street led

it's referred, or reefer to buy,

it all comes from the same stash.

It's all marijuana.

(chilling scream)

- [Voiceover] Marijuana, one of the most

dangerous drugs known to mankind.

Responsible for almost
as many deaths per year

as asteroids or shark attacks,

it can cause an otherwise
healthy adult to giggle,

or get a bit hungry.

Thankfully the brave men and women

from numerous agencies
have been waging a tireless

and expensive war against this

dangerous plant for decades.

- The war on drugs is a war on the people.

It's a war to fight the
pharmaceutical industry.

So they get to sell
their psychotropic drugs.

I mean, Jesus, how many people?

Then I hear horror stories
from their children

whacked out on Vicodin.

Oh, that's a beaut.

Yeah, how about a little Oxycontin,

you know, to make you happy.

Feel some pain, this'll get rid of it.

But don't get high, man.

No weed, it's gonna kill ya.

You saw Reefer Madness.

- [Voiceover] Reefer Madness
is a celebrated PSA film,

produced for the US government.

Known for its even-handed
and unbiased approach to

the subject of marijuana,
which it claims is

worse than heroin, it saved generations

from the dangers of marijuana.

Even a single puff of Mary Jane

can make you dance like a fool,

laugh uncontrollably,

(bellowing laugh)

or violently murder your friends.

(thud) How embarrassing.

NORML is a nonprofit
organization whose aim

is to legalize cannabis
throughout the United States.

- There are 800,000 people a year

arrested in the United
States on marijuana charges.

90% for possession only.

So over a 40 year period now,
that's roughly 27 million

people have been arrested
on marijuana charges.

So it's created a huge universe of people

who have been effectively
screwed by the government.

When we sued the DEA in the
classic case, NRML versus DEA,

the judge ruled in 1988
in his final decision

that marijuana quote "is the safest,

"therapeutic substance known to man."

That's a pretty strong indictment

against the rest of the drugs.

- [Voiceover] So the courts acknowledged

that marijuana is the most therapeutic

substance known to man, but
since as early as the 1930s,

marijuana has been the
subject of countless,

heavy-handed, and fallacious propaganda.

- [Voiceover] Long-term use of marijuana

can lead to a psychological dependency.

Soon, you'll be taking all sorts of

measures to get your fix.

People will start calling you names like

Pothead, or Smokey McBongwater,

losing all motivation,

it's likely that you'll
drop out of school,

take a sudden liking to sitar music,

and maybe even get felt
up by a cop or two.

- Marijuana has been propagandized by the

United States government
and its surrogates

at the state level for at least 75 years.

There are 1,200 Partnership
for Drug-Free America ads,

and 85 to 90 percent of those ads

have been against marijuana.

And the name alone, Drug-Free America,

deserves nothing but pure laughter.

Drug hypen Free America?

This is the most drug-adult
society in human history.

And the Drug-Free America Association

was originally founded by the

alcohol, tobacco, and
pharmaceutical companies,

which, last I checked,
their business model

is distributing drugs.

- [Voiceover] Personal
feelings about marijuana aside,

there is no denying the fact that

criminalization of the substance

bears little parity with other
substances in the same area,

such as alcohol or tobacco.

But with all the millions being
spent on preventing its use

and prosecuting individuals who use it,

who stands to gain?

- There are entities out
there that strongly lobby

for the status quo to stay in place.

Law enforcement, the
very government agencies

born of the prohibition, like the

Partnership for Drug-Free America,

the D.A.R.E. program, the
DEA, the drugs are his office,

they will always oppose legalization.

Three would be the alcohol, tobacco,

pharmaceutical companies that
play both ends of the middle.

They try to start things like the

Partnership for Drug-Free America,

but pretty clearly don't wanna really have

a drug-free America.

The fourth entity are companies that

are able to make money
off of the prohibition.

And that would be private prisons,

drug-testing companies,
this is probably the most

naked of our opposition,
because if you get caught

with marijuana, you can
either choose the route

of prosecution and potential conviction

and then going to jail,
or you go to rehab.

Well, even the director of NORML,

if I got caught by police with

a small amount of marijuana,
I'm given a choice

between going to jail and going to rehab,

I'm gonna pick rehab.

And so 80% of their
clientele are effectively

pushed in the door by the government.

So this is an incestuous relationship

that has been set up between the

drug rehabilitation profiteers

and the government that
brings their clients

right to their door,
and we, the taxpayers,

pay for the rehabilitation.

- Now, in the language the
addicts use among themselves,

they never say to each other,

"Let's smoke a marijuana cigarette."

They say, "Let's turn on,"
or, "Let's blast a joint."

- [Voiceover] As with drinking raw milk,

smoking a marijuana cigarette

carries with it obvious health risks.

But whether you want to blast a J

or buy an outdoor slaughtered chicken

from your local farmer,
powerful lobbying groups

have colluded with regulatory agencies

to limit your freedom of choice.

- When the government
violently kicks down your door,

and comes onto your
property with guns drawn

trying to get you to stop,
engaged in a certain behavior

that's harming nobody else,
that is a social injustice.

(sirens wail)

I personally think of cannabis

as just a metaphor for freedom.

I think of it almost
purely, at this point now,

as a discussion over personal freedom

and how much can the government
intervene in your life,

and intervene violently, with guns drawn.

- [Voiceover] Okay,
we've talked a lot about

food and medicine and lobo,

but enough of that hippy talk.

Everyone knows the world
revolves around one thing

and one thing only, milk.

I mean, money.
(cash register dings)

But similar to independent farmers,

small firms in the
financial sector also face

heavy regulations, which
benefit the large players.

- I act in the securities industry,

and there's all sorts
of rules and regulations

that I have to abide by.

The vast majority of it
doesn't protect my customers,

the individual investor.

And that's not why I believe it's there.

That's the excuse that the
politicians give the voters,

but the real reason is
because there are very large

banks and brokerage firms that don't like

small firms like mine competing with them.

And so they wanna tie us up in red tape.

See, they can afford to
pay for the regulations.

It's the small firms that can't.

But they didn't do it
to help the investor,

they did it to help
the big brokerage firms

that wanted protection from competition.

And so that's what
happens, but, of course,

the revolving door is when
these guys leave Washington,

they get cushy jobs at the
companies they used to regulate.

And, in fact, they go back and forth.

They go from the industry
to the government,

back to the industry to the government,

and what they're really doing,

is they're pedaling their influence.

They go to Washington to get clout,

to get influence, to make friends,

and then they sell the influence

to the highest bidder when they leave.

- [Voiceover] Sadly, the
finance industry may be

the best illustration of the intertwining

of government and big business.

For example, the current
Secretary of the Treasury,

Jacob Lew, was reportedly
given a $950,000 bonus

by his former employer, Citigroup,

just for taking a job at the Treasury.

(light piano music)

- If you want to see the proof of fascism,

all you have to do is
look at four simple words,

too big to fill.

The larger state and corporate powers,

we, in America, had a
financial crisis in 2008.

(snaps fingers) The whole game changed.

The banks got in trouble,
they bring out Henry Paulson,

the US Treasury Secretary,

former CEO of the Goldman Sachs gang.

It says we have to bailout the banks,

they're too big to fill.

- [Voiceover] The subprime
mortgage crisis of 2008

was the biggest economic crash
since the Great Depression.

In the midst of the
crisis, the financial media

demanded stricter regulations
on the financial industry.

Economist, Peter Schiff,
who predicted the crisis

years in advance,
believes that not only was

Wall Street to blame,
but more importantly,

it was the regulators colluding
with the financial industry

who were responsible for the crisis.

- Well the regulators caused the crisis.

It was the regulation
that created the problem.

I was talking about the
coming housing crisis

in 2002, three, four, five, six,

and I was pointing out exactly how

the government and the FED
were creating the problem.

See, the people that now said we didn't

have enough regulation,
where were they back then?

Why didn't they say we needed more

regulation in 2004, in 2005?

The fact of the matter
is it was the regulations

that were in place that
caused the problem.

The Federal Reserve, in order
to stimulate the economy,

brought interest rates down to 1%.

And what that did is it enabled people

to borrow money more
cheaply to buy houses.

In the meantime, too,
the government was also

guaranteeing the mortgages,
and this was the real problem.

The way the market regulates banks

is that individuals want a
safe place for their money.

And so they will shop
around for a safe place.

Therefore, market
pressures force the banks

to do prudent things to attract deposits.

But once the government comes in and says,

"Your money is safe no matter what,"

now the customer doesn't
value safety anymore

because the government has guaranteed it.

But the problem with the
government regulation

is it's ineffective and it
ends up being politicized.

Because if you remember,
during the housing days,

as lending standards kept being

lowered and lowered and lowered,

it was the government that was leading

the charge to lower standards.

Because the voters wanted
to buy more houses.

Because housing was thought
of as a way to get rich.

And the only obstacle
was the down payment,

their credit score, and
so it was the government

that was pressuring banks, hey
forget about credit scores,

lower those down payments.

So the banks are risky,
the mortgages are risky,

nobody cares about anything
because the government's

trying to make everything good.

The government is trying to say,

"Don't worry about risk,
because if you fail,

"we're there to catch you,
we're there to prop you up."

And then when it doesn't work,
capitalism gets a bad name,

as if any of this has anything
to do with capitalism.

- [Voiceover] Skipping ahead to 2011,

we find the story of MF Global,

a commodities brokerage firm
headed by former Senator,

turned Governor of New
Jersey, Jon Corzine.

- [Voiceover] It wasn't a pleasant return

to Capitol Hill for former
Senator, Jon Corzine.

He was subpoenaed to tell lawmakers how

the company he headed,
MF Global, collapsed,

and what happened to $1.2 billion dollars

of customers' money.

- I simply do not know where the money is

or why the accounts have
not been reconciled to date.

- [Voiceover] Don't you
hate it when you can't find

your keys, your phone,
or a billion dollars

of other peoples' money?

It's so frustrating.

But as uncomfortable as
Corzine may have been,

sitting there and pretending to feel bad,

others felt a little more
M-Fed by the situation.

- I got burned by the MF Global scandal.

That's when Jon Corzine,
the former Governor,

democratic Governor of New Jersey,

and former Senator of New Jersey,

and former head of the Goldman Sachs gang,

after he did his stint with those,

he was the head of MF
Global, yeah MF, perfect.

MF Global went into my segregated account

and stole my money.

Six figures, and I work hard for my money.

I wasn't speculating in the markets.

He went in and stole my money.

- [Voiceover] While
investigating how this money

was stolen out of his account without

the financial regulators intervening,

Mister Celente's investigations found the

telltale squeak of the revolving door.

A CFTC is the agency which regulates

brokerage firms like MF Global.

At the time of the MF robbery,

the CFTC was headed by one, Gary Gensler,

a close colleague of Corzine's.

- Gary's never once let his team forget

what this is all about,

the American people.

- Do you know what the Commodity's
Future Trading Commission

did to Jon Corzine,

after robbing me and thousands of others?

Nothing, nothing.

Gary Gensler was his
lieutenant at Goldman Sachs.

And he's the head of the

Commodity's Future Trading Commission?

You wanna, I mean, to say that the fox

is watching the chicken coop is stupid.

That's, it's worse than that.

- [Voiceover] The MF Global collapse

is an example of the alliance between

regulators in big business
in the financial industry.

But a more troubling
phenomenon called a bail-in

was recently seen in Cyprus.

- Even in my diarist
predictions in this parliament

over the years, about the
way EU bosses were behaving,

never did I think that they would

in a completely unprecedented manner

resort to stealing money
from peoples' bank account.

(shouts of protest)

- Recently in Cyprus, the
banks had been irresponsible

and it was the public,
all of the depositors,

that paid the price, and
they called it a bail-in

to make it sound different from a bailout.

- What happened was many
of the banks in Cyprus

bought a lot of Greek government debt.

And as you know, over the last few years,

Greek government debt
has all but collapsed.

So that made the Cyprus
banks all but insolvent.

And they went, just like always,

the big banks went with the government

and said, "Hey, we're broke.

"Can you help us out
and steal money for us?"

And that's what they did.

They just said, "Take 50%
of anyone over $100,000.

Take 50% of all their
money, just take it."

- Just the term, bail-in, is a lie.

This is something that is a marketing tool

to basically cover up a theft.

A bailout, they whip up currency

and they give it to the banks,

and then the public eventually

pays for that through
a tax called inflation.

Because there's now more
currency in existence,

a bail-in, they skipped the
part of creating currency

and they just take it from the depositors.

But basically the banks win at

the public's expense either way.

- [Voiceover] But that
was Cyprus, not the US.

There's just no way the
citizens of North America

would allow something as
underhanded as a bail-in.

- Canada actually put in their 2013 budget

a bail-in clause, the exact same thing.

They said if the Canadian
banks have problems,

that they can just take
it from Canadian citizens.

The US has been talking about it, as well.

The governments allow these banks

to do these kind of things.

- Cyprus was the model to see if

they could get away with it.

They got away with it, and

so, now it's proven successful

so it is a solution they
can use in the future.

- [Voiceover] In hindsight,
it seems obvious that the

financial sector would be rife

with corruption and backdealing.

Finance, education, the prison system,

the military industrial complex.

Almost every industry in which
there is money to be made,

has been effected by the revolving door.

Even relatively new agencies
are subject to its spin.

If you need proof, try to take some

nail clippers onto a domestic flight.

(plane engine roars)

- When you go to the
airport, the TS agents,

you know, wanna go out
and they wanna invade

your privacy, they wanna
look through your bags,

they wanna do all of this stuff.

And you don't have the option to say no.

Once you get in line, you can't get out.

Now, what is the point
of the entire TSA system?

It's security theater.

It's to make people feel scared,

not to make people feel safe.

Because the more they can
actually make people feel scared,

the more they can actually take

a little bit of their
rights away all the time,

and constantly remind them that they need

the government to make
sure that their safety

is well taken care of.

- [Voiceover] The body
scanners that stop you

from taking dangerous objects,
like bottles of water,

onto planes were installed
due to TSA regulations.

As head of the Department
of Homeland Security,

Michael Chertoff, required
every airport in the country

have those scanners installed.

For our safety, of course.

- This technology allows
us to detect any item

concealed on a person's body,

including molded plastic
hidden under clothing.

- [Voiceover] The scanners
themselves are built

and installed by a
company called Rapiscan.

- Oh yeah, I remember, let me see.

Chir, Chirkoff, Jerkoff, Chirkoff,

somebody Jerkoff Chirkoff,

he was the head of the Homeland Security

right after the underpants bomber.

Right after that happened,
Chirkoff, Jerkoff,

whatever his name is,

he appeared on all the national media.

We have to get them
X-ray machines in there.

Rapiscan, Rapidscan, somebody's scan,

this name of the company.

You know, they X-ray ya.

They X-ray ya.

Oh, son of a gun.

Wow.

Chirkoff is a consultant for that company

after he left Homeland Security.

(playful music)

- [Voiceover] Okay,
let's get this straight.

GMOs safe, raw milk unsafe,

preparing poultry in the
open air is unsanitary,

but drugs that cause
heart attacks are fine.

Blasting a joint will make you wanna kill.

Getting X-rayed at the airport

is vital to national security,

and stealing from your customers is okay,

provided you do it a
billion dollars at a time.

With regulatory agencies
so deeply entangled

with big business, it's
almost impossible to know

whether the rules we live
by are there for our safety

or someone else's financial benefit.

Whatever the reason, the
end result is our lives

are now so heavily manipulated
by the desires of others,

and our choices are becoming
more and more limited.

- That's what government
regulation is all about.

It's all about limiting your choices.

The government wants to
make those choices for you.

They wanna take away
your freedom to choose,

the choices that you make,

the types of food that you eat, right.

All of this is determined
for you by the government.

And why can't we make choices?

Alright, that's what freedom is about.

The politicians think that, hey,

it's important that we all vote.

They can trust us to vote,

but they can't trust us to
make these basic decisions

about whether we should buy a house,

or whether we should rent a house.

Or should we use this
broker or that broker,

or should I put on my seatbelt,
or should I wear a helmet,

or should I smoke
cigarettes, or, you know,

all these choices need to
be made by the government,

but somehow we're smart enough to vote,

but we're too dumb to do
just about anything else.

- [Voiceover] This
over-regulation has implications

other than just limiting our choices.

By giving government
agencies the authority

to regulate our lives, even
in the name of protection,

it has led to an expansion
of government power

at the expansive of individual freedoms.

What's the old saying, give them an inch,

and they'll take your money, life,

and favorite dairy products?

Something like that.

- The more laws there are,
the more rules and regulations

there are, the more taxes there are,

the less freedom you have.

I mean, that's what freedom is.

It's freedom from government.

So when people are free,
it means that they do

what they want, they don't have to do

what the government tells them.

- Career bureaucrats
are usually dedicated,

pro-regulatory people.

They are fans of state paternalism.

A government making individual choices,

and the result of that is to really

deprive individuals of sovereignty.

It makes individuals mere
functionaries of the state,

rather than people who
can pursue their own

self-interest and enjoy the benefits

and blessings of liberty.

- It really does come down to,

who owns me?

Who owns the individual?

You can't have a system
that denies choice,

trying to protect us from
the risk of bad choice.

And preserve the freedom
to make good choices.

That's the problem.

You can't have it both ways.

Freedom requires risk.

- [Voiceover] Should I wear a seatbelt?

Is this bank a safe
place to keep my money?

Do I need insurance?

We're all so busy with our daily lives

that making important decisions

can become overwhelmingly daunting.

A lot of people prefer the
freedom from making choices.

Even if it means the choices being made

for them aren't the best.

- The idea that government
should make our choices for us,

is one that a lot of people prefer,

rather than to make their own choices.

But once the point is reached,

like in the form of Soviet Union,

when choices are made
for you by the government

to such an extent that
it destroys the economy,

that it destroys free agency,

that it renders everyone a servant,

and the state a master.

Then at some point, individuals
come in large numbers

to the conclusion that they're not getting

what they were promised,
that they are over-taxed,

they're over-regulated, that
their choices are limited,

the paternalism is disgusting,

it's caused me heartache
and I'm going to reject it.

I want my freedom.

- [Voiceover] Until that point is reached,

most people will be content
with their comfortable lives

and the choices still available to them.

- The hardworking people don't have time

to watch or hear what's going on.

They're working 24/7, they're
tryin' to make ends meat.

So, what does America watch?

Hey, you know, Kim Kardashian's pregnant,

she's gonna have a kid real soon.

- The media makes sure
we don't dwell very long

on any really serious issue.

We've all seen the
phenomenon where there's

something very serious that comes up

involving the serious aspects of

what's going on in the world.

And it gets on the news for
a very brief period of time.

And all of a sudden, now
that's been switched off

and we're soon distracted
with Soapbox Operas,

and Dancing with the Stars,
and all kinds of things

that are entertaining, and I'm not saying

anything against them,
but it's not as serious

as the lack of everybody's freedom

through a new amendment to
the Patriot Act, for example.

- [Voiceover] The media may try their best

to give us a fair and balanced
opinion of world events,

but there are now other avenues available

for those seeking unfiltered news.

- The way that the net
and the web were built

involves a lot of decentralization.

It moves power into the
hands of the peoples

sending and receiving messages,

as opposed to the people in the middle

that are handing them off.

And that is a scary prospect
for entrenched stakeholders.

- Any alternative media, other than the,

the corporate media that
is so rigidly controlled,

is a threat.

The internet is certainly a threat,

because the internet gives almost anyone

access to the world.

So, now, are we surprised when the

political figures who don't like that

are constantly worried
about how can we stop this?

Well, the formula has been tried and true,

and it's always worked.

Just tell the people that
there's a threat out there

that only the government can control.

I mean, there's a threat
of child pornography,

or crime, or terrorism, or
cyber-terrorism, or something.

We have to control the
internet for your good, folks.

Otherwise you're gonna have a big problem.

That's why they're
working around the clock

to try and scare people into thinking

that the internet must be controlled

by our fine, trustworthy
political figures.

They wanna be the ones
that control the internet

and tell the world what is
proper and what is improper.

- If you look at the history
of communications media,

people said, "With cable television,

"we'll finally be free of centralization

"and with the telegram,

"we'll finally be free of centralization."

And really, the worse
case scenario would be

if we saw that history
just repeat itself exactly.

If we saw this amazing
decentralized distribution method,

the most effective one ever produced

in the history of humanity.

If we saw it captured by a handful

of centralized stakeholders.

And them controlling and surveiling

the communications that go through it.

(burger sizzles)

- [Voiceover] Good things,

unlike processed cheese, never last.

In an attempt to regulate yet
another slice of our lives,

legislative bills are already in the works

to try and control the internet.

But rather than wait for pesky red tape,

like passing laws, the
government has been proactive

in trying to censor the internet,

for our safety, of course.

For example, with the help of their good

buddies in big finance,
they were almost able

to shut down the controversial
website, WikiLeaks.

- Think what you will about WikiLeaks,

the point is that
members of the government

were able to just speak
with payment processors

and create this blockade and say,

"You cannot transfer money
to this organization."

And it's not much of a leap
to say, "Wait, hold on."

The government, or in
some cases companies,

can decide that nobody can do
business with these people,

or that nobody can see what
these people are publishing?

That's obviously a problem in our,

in our tradition of free speech.

- [Voiceover] WikiLeaks
was able to survive,

thanks mostly to a very new concept.

Decentralized money.

Unlike most currencies in the world,

which are created and
regulated by central banks,

decentralized currency, such as Bitcoin,

is created by the people.

And as such, is almost
as impossible to control.

- Bitcoin's a decentralized
peer to peer currency.

It's actually an internet protocol,

kind of like SMTP, that's
how you send emails.

Well, it's money over internet protocol.

It's how we can send
money over the internet,

and we can use it to transfer value

without having a middleman.

That means we don't need a bank

or a money transmitter between us,

someone like Western Union.

We can just send money
like we send an email.

- Bitcoin's, I'm incredibly
excited about it,

because it's the first
free market private money

that's also a technological money,

it's electronic currency.

The great thing about it
is it's not controlled

by a central bank, it's
not controlled by anyone.

It's actually really the people's money.

So it gives a lot of freedom.

Why do we have this supply of money

and the cost of money
or interest rates set by

some bureaucrats 3,000 miles
away in Washington, D.C.?

How efficient is that for our economy?

Because interest rates that
regulate production over time,

and they regulate all the
production within the economy.

You know, whether we should save

or whether we should build something.

Bitcoin liberates that interest rate,

because it's a censorship
resistant currency.

So we don't have to use
their money system anymore.

- [Voiceover] Decentralized
currencies like Bitcoin

offer an alternative
to the highly regulated

and controlled national
currencies of the world.

But as with the government's
push to regulate the internet,

attempts to regulate the purchase

of Bitcoin have already been seen.

- I recently tried to
start up a Bitcoin ATM.

I hired some lawyers in
the US and they told me,

"You're under five different
regulators in the US,

"you're under banking, finance, money,

"even telecommunications 'cause
we're using the internet."

And we looked into the total cost

just to start a Bitcoin
ATM, a very basic product,

no less than 25 million dollars,

because we need all
kinds of insurance bonds,

there's a money transmitter.

This is how they keep competition out,

'cause they don't want competition.

- [Voiceover] These attempts to control

increasing amounts of our personal lives,

have some people very concerned.

And with each successive
law or regulation,

the temptation to opt out entirely

becomes more and more appealing.

- There are some people
that are abandoning ship.

They see the ship is
sinking, they don't know

whether it's gone sink for
sure, or stay afloat somehow.

They don't wanna stay around to find out.

They're just leaving
while the getting's good.

Now, I'm not gonna tell
somebody not to leave,

'cause I don't know for sure
how bad it may or may not get.

- [Voiceover] Jeff
Berwick is someone who has

already decided to opt out.

To this end, he formed a
expat community in Chile,

hoping to create a haven
for freedom-loving people

who can no longer tolerate the government

encroachment in their personal affairs.

- We started this community
because we've really

recognized that a lot of
people around the world

want to get out of
these western countries.

Rising taxation, rising regulation,

people are getting put in jail in the US

all the time for nothing,
victimless crimes.

People have done nothing, except for maybe

drink raw milk, or have
some plants in their pocket,

called marijuana.

What we're trying to attract
and what we've been attracting

is more freedom-minded people.

Everyone has their own personal story,

sometimes it's as simple as someone's been

pulled over like 10 times in
a month and been searched.

I've seen people who've had their entire

businesses taken away through regulation

and fascism in the US.

There was one doctor
who came down recently.

He had a practice in the US,

he had almost 100% cure
cancer rate within one month.

And he had about 30 swat
team come in one day

and everything taken by the government.

And so many people are just had enough of

being pushed around, stolen, beaten,

put in cages for nothing,
to have most of their money

taken away, and even sometimes

their entire livelihood taken away.

- [Voiceover] Not all of us can just

pack up our lives and move to Chile.

So what practical options are left?

Identifying the root of the problem

is a good place to start.

- The issue is there's this merger of

what would appear to be private enterprise

and government.

And the only way to
break it is to restrict

the power of the state.

Once you give the state the power,

the authority over our
lives in all these areas,

then there's no stopping
it because then the

individuals who are in those fields

are providing medical services, money,

monetary services, banking services,

power, and gas, and oil,
and all these services,

they will gravitate to the government,

buy off the politicians, make the mergers,

pass the laws to their best interest,

and the average, you know,
the gum-chewing public thinks,

"Oh, well, isn't that nice,
well we voted for these guys

"so I guess it's in our best interest."

They don't get it.

If you take all the temptation,

all the power away from political office,

the only people who will go into it

will be those who wanna
serve their country.

'Cause there's no way to
steal anything anymore.

- The only idea that I have, as far as

trying to make government smaller,

is that you, in the United States,

we've got the Constitution,
but every government

could pass some sort of amendment to

their Constitution or whatever,

that says that for every
law, Act, Code, or regulation

that these screwballs wanna pass,

that they've gotta find two old

laws, Codes, Acts, or regulations
that they have to repeal.

That's the only way that I can think of

making government smaller,
and the same thing goes

for all of the agencies.

If they wanna open up some other agency

or department, they've gotta close two.

- [Voiceover] Individual freedom
is what defines humanity.

Although, laws and regulations can make us

feel safe from the threats we may face.

All the safety in the world means nothing

without the freedom to live as you choose.

- Freedom is the most
important and indispensable

characteristic of mankind.

We can be induced by
promises from government

to depart from our liberty,
but there's nothing

more profound for an individual

than when they are denied
something they very much need.

Because they made a decision earlier on

to part with their freedom.

And so, when you're terminally ill,

and you suddenly discover
that you can only

have access to FDA approved
treatments for your disease.

And you're told by the
doctors treating you

that there is no drug
to treat your condition.

And then, to survive,
you're going to have to find

something else, and you
discover that your desire

and your freedom of
choice to attain that end

are blocked by the Food
and Drug Administration.

And so, when you need
your freedom the most,

it's been taken away from you.

When you've been in a family that has had

a milk farm for 300 years or more,

and suddenly federal agents come in

and they do a raid on your farm

as if you were a drug kingpin engaged

in international drug sales,

and you're only selling milk.

And then you realize your whole life

has been turned upside down.

Or you are a small businessman

who discovers that just
to operate a gas station,

you have to comply with EPA regulations

that will cost you more than it will

to run the gas station and profit.

Or you find out that you wanna have

a food establishment, a restaurant.

And you discover that federal, and state,

and local regulations effecting
your food establishment

are so great, that you have to lawyers,

and you have to have accountants,

and you have to have individual,

specially trained to
comply, and you have to fill

out all these forms, and you
have to pay all these fees,

and you have to get separate licenses

just to be in the
business of reselling food

others have already manufactured
and put in the marketplace.

It's the end of liberty.

- How you regain freedom
is a huge question.

The individual knows
that he's or she's alive.

The individual knows
that he or she is free

to choose a future and a life,

if they want.

We either have free societies or we don't.

There's such a thing as
individual freedom or there isn't.

That is the bottom line.

If you want to live a life, a real life,

then freedom must exist.

So people have to step up to the plate

whenever they see individual
freedom threatened

along any channel of human activity.

That's where you start from.

- When I was growing up, New
York was an ugly, ugly city,

where there's violence in
the streets all the time.

And the way that they cleaned it up

was by going and getting people to go out

and say, "No more."

Well that worked to stop the gangs,

the same thing works when
you get honest people

who engage in government.

And maybe we can stop the government gangs

from sitting there and dictating

the terms of our lives and preventing us

from having the freedom and liberty,

which we were guaranteed
in an open democracy.

- [Voiceover] We are all individuals.

We have the ability to think,

to decide, and most
importantly, to be heard.

(milk splashes)

It may be time to start
crying over spilled milk.

- Crap, I just spilled this.

This is not gonna be good.

- Boy, I just saw those pictures
of Kim Kardashian pregnant.

I said, "Man, how could a chick like that,

"why does everybody wanna look at her?"

Ya know, (chuckles) yeah, she's a star.

- Well, ah,

you don't want him in there?

Go down, go downstairs there, Gepetto.

- No, I don't know where
you can get any weed.

(laughs)

That's a lie.

(laughs)

That's a blatant lie, too.

No, no more today.

(playful music)