Don't Tread on Liberty

Live.......and Let Live

January 25, 2022 Jason Davis Season 3 Episode 3
Don't Tread on Liberty
Live.......and Let Live
Show Notes Transcript

Remember the saying Live and Let Live? Ever wonder if we could get back to that in America? Just live your life and let others live their lives -- however they want. Today Let's have conversation about live and let live with freedom minded attorney Marc Victor. Marc is the managing partner of the Attorneys for Freedom Law Firm and he's running for US Senate in Arizona. He's also PRO FREEDOM. We like that. Now what does Marc have to say about the state of the country, mandates, gun rights, and the Constitution? Tune in to find out. Don't miss this!

Attorneys for Freedom - https://attorneysforfreedom.com/

Peace Radicals Podcast - https://youtu.be/-_yJTrrluXI

Live and Let Live Movement - https://www.liveandletlive.org/

Live and Let Live Principle - https://www.liveandletlive.org/the-principle

Marc Victor for US Senate - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhTofwDhz3Y

Support the show
Intro:

fighting back against the left's non stop attacks on liberty, freedom. And America, America. This is don't tread on liberty. Jason Davis is on the air.

Jason Davis:

Alright, welcome back to don't tread on liberty. I'm Jason Davis uncuffed, your former law enforcement officer. now free to say, whatever I want pretty much. I'm really excited. Because there's obviously a lot to talk about. There always is over the last year and a half, two years. And today, we have an absolute legal expert on the show. And hopefully we can get some clarity around a lot of issues that a lot of people are struggling with. But without further ado, I want to bring him in. He's the president and managing partner of the attorneys for freedom law firm. He's also one of the hosts on the free radicals podcast, and I hear he's running for US Senate. He's basically like the Harvey Specter of Arizona. For those of you who wants suits. I'm talking about attorney Mark Victor. Counselor, thanks for being here. How are you?

Attorney Marc Victor:

I'm awesome. It's a pleasure to be on your show. Jason, thanks for inviting me.

Jason Davis:

I really appreciate you making time. And like I said, I am really excited to talk to you. And actually, I know how valuable your time is. So I'm going to jump right in. I want to start with the podcast, free radicals podcast. I've actually checked out several episodes, I really enjoy it. We we've actually had some of the same guests on Sheriff Mack and so forth. But I you know, you're obviously you're running a law firm, you have a firm and you got an office in Hawaii and Arizona, and you're been in all these high profile cases. And so you're a very busy guy. So I'm just kind of curious, how did the podcast come about? Or what made you want to start that?

Attorney Marc Victor:

Well, the podcast we call peace radicals. And really, it supports the living that live movement. And, you know, my firm is a pro Freedom Law Firm. When I first started practicing, I was at a very conservative law firm. And what do you know, they didn't like the fact that I was talking about legalizing marijuana and getting rid of victimless crimes and things like this. So it wasn't exactly a perfect fit. So I hung out a shingle started my own firm and called myself the attorney for freedom. And my attitude was, hey, you know, if 90% of the people don't like, what it is, I'm saying, but 10% of the people are happy. I'm just a guy from Boston out here in Arizona, and I didn't, nobody knew me. So this sounded like a great plan. And as it turned out, lots more than 10% of the people are actually pro freedom. And other people started applying for work at my law firm saying, Hey, you're a pro freedom law firm, I want to work for a pro Freedom Law Firm, I'm a pro freedom guy myself. And so the attorney for freedom turned into the attorneys for freedom. And then, you know, after years of pushing for a free society, and, you know, free market principles, and the notion that we should be in charge of ourselves, competent adults should be in charge of themselves. If I started scratching my head and saying, Look, this is so obviously, the right answer in terms of how humans ought to relate with each other. Why is it we're still in the minority here? I don't understand it. And after years of really scratching my head, and just being completely perplexed, why such an obviously, my opinion, correct idea wasn't the majority idea, it occurred to me that were at fault. I'm at fault. I pled guilty, because, you know, I usually would start the conversation with something like, Hi, my name is Mark. I think methamphetamine should be legalized, or I think taxes are theft or something like that. And this just doesn't, as you may know, this doesn't actually get you very far in conversation, people just tune out. And we just never lead with the principle. It always bothered me that, you know, if we, if we could convince people of the underlying principle, then we win all of the issues, why fight one issue at a time and so after trying to get more and more pro freedom people to kind of put the freedom argument into a certain format, we sort of gave up on that and said, You know what, let's just start something new. Let's do it the right way. And let's just I felt completely free to talk not just about legal things, but also to talk about ethics and moral things because I we need to say this stuff with the world right now is there's some rot going on in the world. And I think the only way to fix this is to get out there and start talking about the right values. Yeah, I said value But in the context of, you're free to ignore everything I say, in the ethics and moral round, because this is a very important point, people need to understand the difference between a legal principle and a moral principle. But this doesn't mean that moral principles aren't important. They're very important. So this is what gave rise to the live and let live movement. And I am firmly in meshed in this movement, which frankly, is growing much faster than I had anticipated.

Jason Davis:

Yeah, and, you know, it's very simple live and let live you basically saying like, Hey, as long as you're not hurting somebody else, no problem. Right? That's basically it. Right?

Attorney Marc Victor:

Yeah, I think, you know, I tell people, if people say, Gee, Mark, live in I live, it sounds great. What does it mean? And I say, Well, it means exactly what it says live and let live. It's not that confusing. There's two parts to the analysis live. That's part one, right? What does it mean to live to me, this means this is pretty easy. You're in charge of you live your life, you're in charge of your body, property, money and time. You're the iron fisted dictator of you. So long as you're a competent adult. That seems pretty clear. And so that's the end of that. But you know, there's some things that that I can recommend here. And anything else I would say about how you should live is just a suggestion. But I think that there's some important suggestions. And this, of course, has evolved into our moral principle, which is we summarize it simply by saying be a good human. And so this gives rise to the aspirational values. What does it mean to be a good human? Well, you know, how about some act to act with open mindedness towards other people and tolerance and voluntary kindness. Notice I said voluntary, not involuntary forced, coerced kindness, but real kindness, which is the kind you do when you don't have to do it. And civility, I can't believe the world has sort of degenerated into this position now, where we can't have civilized conversations with people with whom we disagree with is crazy. I think we should really hold this as an important value in things like justice and truth in facts and rational inferences. Why do we care about this stuff? Well, because we want to optimize human happiness and decrease human suffering. So yeah, live your life. But we got some suggestions you're free to ignore. The other part of the analysis is also pretty simple. Let live, what we just talked about for you to live, you got to let other people do exactly the same thing as they should be in charge of their bodies, property money in time, it's really not that confusing. I tell people all the time. If you like, live and let live and you think I got something wrong here. I'm trying to stay as close to live and let live as as possible, then, if you think you've got a better idea of what live and let live means, tell me because I'm a big fan of live and let live. But we think we got this right. And it boils down to the moral principle, which I just talked about, we describe as be a good human, and the legal principle, don't be an aggressor, right. Because when you aggress against other people, you are not allowing them to live, you're violating the let live part of the role. So what's an aggressor, uh, don't don't initiate force against another person or their property, don't engage in fraud, don't engage in coercion, and don't do anything that would put another person or their property at a substantial risk of harm. I said that like a lawyer, right. But you know, the kinds of things I'm talking about recklessly firing a gun up into the air, drunk driving down the road, you're on the wrong side of the road, you're endangering other people don't do that stuff. Why? Because they got to stop what they're doing and deal with the reckless mess that you have created now, right? You're interfering with another person's life, you are not letting them live. It's really that simple. And fortunately, this movement has really resonated around the world. We have a chat, we haven't even launched the movement yet. It doesn't launch until March of 23. And yet, we have chapters in many, many different countries all over the world. Team Africa, as they call themselves, they got about 10 countries right now. They're really fired up about living let live. They're holding their own events and conferences over there. In fact, I got to get up at four o'clock in the morning here soon to appear and be a speaker at one of the live in that live chapter conferences in Africa. But I'm happy to do it because I think this is important enough that we need to put some effort in right we need to reclaim and as I like to say the reasonable people of the world need to stand up and reclaim reason and rational thought and this look, we know that this is going to raise standards of living around the world. And so, you know, in that realm of time that I spend in Peru The world I'm not dedicating every moment of my life to it, and neither should you or anybody else. But you should do something, I think to improve the world. And to the extent I've got time and energy and money to help improve the world, I'm going to spend 100% of it on the new global peace movement that we call live and let live.

Jason Davis:

That's absolutely fantastic. And I mean, I pretty much agree. And and here's the funny thing, right? I would describe myself as a constitutionalist. But what you're describing is essentially the same thing, like when you follow the Constitution, the way it was intended. As long as you're not hurting anybody, you should be free to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Right. That's essentially what that is. And I think we're saying the same thing. So I love it.

Attorney Marc Victor:

Well, sort of, I could push back a little bit here. And to the extent that the Constitution is in favor of living let live, I think it's fine, but that we shouldn't pretend that everything about the Constitution is sort of pro live and let live, for example, the Constitution allows for eminent domain, which means that the government can come in and seize your property anytime it wants, as long as the government decides whatever just compensation is, okay, that that's not consistent with living let live, we started out with a constitution that totally allowed slavery, right. So there are many things about the Constitution, that as written, don't comport with live and let live. And then there are other things that I think were intended to comport with live and let live. But I've been twisted and contorted by people who don't have live and let live in their heart to interpret things into ways that the framers of the Constitution absolutely never intended.

Jason Davis:

Yeah, I totally agree with that. Now, let me let me pivot to you some legal questions, because, and let me just say this before, I have the utmost respect for what you do. I almost became an attorney. But I took a left turn or maybe a right turn and I went to law enforcement. But anyway, I am a student of the law. So just like, yeah, absolutely. You are, it's your job. So just like a lot of things, right. I feel like we have a lot of bad judges, we have bad cops, there's bad attorneys, right. All that. So if this is outside of the area of your practice, and you don't want to comment, that's totally fine. But I want to ask you about vaccine mandates. Okay, I think it's I think it's blatantly unconstitutional and unethical. You know, you just said it yourself. You're the Iron Fist, the dictator of your own body. So two part question first, what are your personal thoughts about this? And second, what are your legal thoughts about it? Is it legal? Well,

Attorney Marc Victor:

let me first start with the legal thoughts on it. Because I think that's what's most important. I mean, who cares what my personal opinion is, this is like, do you like chocolate or vanilla? But as a legal matter in terms of vaccine mandates, it really comes down to who's mandating right, because if the government is mandating, okay, then I have a problem, right? The government is now making decisions over other people's bodies and properties. However, an employer can certainly a private employer can certainly say, Look, I don't want to employ anybody who is not taking a vaccine they can they say lots of things, right? You have to, and also a store owner can say certain things as well. Store owners can say, I'm not going to serve you if you don't have a shirt on, I'm not going to serve you if you don't have shoes on. Okay, but

Jason Davis:

let me stop you there. Okay, because there are federal laws that protect people's medical status, such as HIPAA, Ada. And so this is illegal, really, for them to even ask you about your medical condition. How is that possibly legal? And how is OSHA or CMS or anybody else? A regulatory agency? How are they able to just create law out of thin air?

Attorney Marc Victor:

Well, that there are federal laws, that that mandate all kinds of things doesn't end the analysis for me. I think that many of these federal laws, I think the federal government has no business getting involved in I, I believe, like the framers of the Constitution, that the federal government should get involved in what's listed in Article One, Section Eight. In fact, those are the only things by the way, vaccine mandates I didn't see in there. And so you know, this most of this stuff is always hung on the Congress's right to our power, I should say, to regulate interstate commerce. Okay, this is another huge bastardization of what was intended anticipated to just simply be in when they talked about regulating commerce. What they meant is a free trade zone. We don't want one state erecting tariffs against goods and services coming in from another state. That's what they meant to do. regulate commerce to make sure it's working properly. What this has turned into is anything that in any way, however small touches, touches commerce, which means you use the phone, you faxed you use the product that was made in another state. However, crazy analysis is used to give Congress power to do something. So almost all of the things that Congress has done based on the Commerce Clause, not all of them, but almost all of them, I would say should be unconstitutional are beyond the reach of what was anticipated by the framers. But even other things in there. Like, for example, running a post office, I don't think we need the federal government to run a post office, I think the UPS and FedEx, they do sit, they do a great job delivering mail, I think they could properly deliver first class mail as well. So you know, the Constitution is great, to the extent it can be squared with live and let live and to the extent it can't, then I would be against it. So I guess bringing it back to vaccine mandates. I don't know why an employer wouldn't have the right apps and federal law to say, you have to disclose whatever it is about your health status. If you want to work here, just like an employer can say, I'm not disclosing anything, or I want you to disclose things about the work environment that you don't want to disclose. Look, this is just really a contract and employment contract is a contract. And it should be treated like every other contract. If people want to make a deal for employment and whatever terms they want to put in there. That's their business. I don't know why we'd want the federal government, the state government or any other government interfering with the right of parties to make contracts. In fact, people don't know this, because it's not talked about very much. But there is a part of our Constitution. We call it the contracts clause that specifically prohibits the state from interfering in contracts we don't get most people haven't heard about this, because the courts haven't given it any power, just like the Ninth Amendment. There's a great Ninth Amendment in there that says, look, there's a whole pile of other rights that we haven't mentioned in the Constitution that you still have. Nobody talks about it because the courts haven't found any rights there. And it's just because the people interpreting don't have the right things in their hearts.

Jason Davis:

Yeah, and but the problem here is now you have companies doing this, but the thing is, they would never have had that idea. If the government hadn't turned around and mandated it. I mean, here we are 200 years into the country's existence, and there's never been a vaccine mandate to work anywhere. And now all of a sudden, they're everywhere. And why do you think that is? It's because OSHA says they have to write?

Attorney Marc Victor:

Um, well, they're trying to say that for bigger companies, but smaller companies don't have any kind of mandate on them for right now. And yet, some of them still adopt rules about masks in vaccines. Look,

Jason Davis:

because the government put all that into their head. I mean, look here and here in Arizona, nobody would have required a mask if Doug Ducey didn't say you had to do that to open your business?

Attorney Marc Victor:

Well, I don't know if that's true or not. But nor do I think that's relevant to the analysis. Because let me give you an analogy. I get gun guys come into my office on a not so much anymore. And so frequently, but they used to come in all the time and say, Mark, I want to sue, this business says no guns allowed. And I always say back to them look, the wisdom or lack thereof of the rule that the property owner chooses that I'm not passing on that, what I'm saying is the property owner gets to make the rule just like you get to make the rule at your home, the business owners should get to make the rule and if they decide to make rules that I think are crazy. So there's my personal opinion about wearing masks to come into the store. And the only reason I say that is because it seems to me the evidence is fairly clear right now that in terms of Corona GNOME, this may be different for other viruses and bacteria. But in terms of Corona, the evidence certainly is not strong to say that masks make any difference at all. But that notwithstanding, I would defend the rights of a business owner to have a mask mandate for people who enter the business and people who work at the business, even though I think it's crazy.

Jason Davis:

Yeah, you're right. I mean, they have the right to do that on private property. Just like we have the right not to shop there anymore. But I just have a problem with this whole vaccine mandate business in businesses for employment because they would have never done that had the government not started this whole rigmarole. Now maybe

Attorney Marc Victor:

that's true, but why they're doing it to me is not really relevant. If a business like for example, if at my law firm and we don't have masked man dates, we've never had a masked mandate. In fact, through the entire pandemic, the rule here at the attorneys for freedom has always been you decide if you want to wear a mask wear it, this has been the case for both employees. And for clients who come in the entire time, that's been our position. But I could certainly make a rule here that says, you have to wear a mask to work here, you have to wear a mask to come in, you have to be vaccinated to work here, you have to be vaccinated to come in, I could say you got to wear a blue shirt to come in, or you can't wear a blue shirt to come in. To me, that's what freedom is about the property owner should make the rule and other people should decide whether they want to enter the property or not based on that rule, and we can debate whether or not the rules are smart or not smart. That's a different question to me.

Jason Davis:

Yeah, I mean, there's definitely a distinction to be made there. Like you said before, there's some suggestions, we could make ethically about things, but you don't have to follow it if you don't want to. So another regulatory agency, that's absolutely off the rails, since you brought up firearms is the ATF, the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, they've always been this way they like to change the rules in the middle of the game, you know, and essentially create law out of thin air as a regulatory agency. So we've seen them go after that trigger company, and Chandler and bump stocks and silencers. And you know, now they're after pistol braces. And so my legal question for you is, where does the ATF Power Stop? If they can just make up all these rules and change the law, essentially, just by Fiat?

Attorney Marc Victor:

Well, interesting, you bring that up, I was just on the local news here the other night, commenting on the this new trigger pole, which is a very, very small trigger pole that technically maybe still a semi automatic, but you can pull the trigger. So quickly, now it functions almost like an automatic, I don't know how this is going to come out, at the end of the day, this will be a court will make this decision. But look, ATF is a regulatory agency, they come out with positions on what they think the law means. And oftentimes, we can challenge that in court, sometimes it's upheld, sometimes they're found to overstep their authority. Everybody gets excited when ATF comes out with a new regulatory position, because for the most part, the US Attorney's Office is going to file that the follow that that means people are going to be prosecuted. And even if, at the end of the day, you're shown to be correct, who the heck wants to go through a big federal prosecution, where you might be looking at a bunch of prison time to make the case. And it's why I like the idea of maybe trying to challenge some of these things, and being on the offensive and bring what we call it declaratory action or something like that. So you're not being a criminal defendant challenging the law. That's the worst way, in my opinion, to challenge a lot. But, you know, it's part of it is it's like you're a police officer, right. And so police officers, at least until fairly recently, were arresting people, competent adults for peacefully smoking marijuana in their own backyards. Do we blame the cop for that? Or do we blame the law? for that? It's a hard question. I think because, you know, to some extent, police officers, the job of a police officer is not to judge the law to determine which to enforce and which not to enforce. I don't think we want that. But on the other hand, to make a more extreme example, we didn't say we didn't accept, I'm just following the law and the Nuremberg Trials either at some point, you're held accountable for following ridiculous laws. So I think this is a very difficult question. I think the same could be said about ATF agents, right. And frankly, I've talked to a lot of them off the record. Not all of them, of course, because as you point out, there are good and bad and there's a bell curve in every profession. But there are certainly many ATF agents who actually are pro gun. And think that some of these crazy regulatory laws like for example, or the barrel of your weapon is less than 16 inches or you have a silencer or the the serial number is scratched out or something like that any of these kind of crazy regulatory things have nothing to do with initiating force fraud, coercion, or creating a substantial risk of harm to another person. So these are all victimless crimes, that ATF agents enforced. These is really, in my opinion, the same type of an issue as a police officer arresting somebody for marijuana. Do we blame the ATF agent? Do we blame the cop here? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not so sure. I focus my energies on trying to get the law changed. I think that's what we need to do. And that's not going to happen until we get people to accept the proper principles in their hearts and minds first, that's what living that lives in. About

Jason Davis:

a bright, and you do have to get the laws changed. When I was on the job, okay, we exercise a lot of discretion. So and as you well know, there's a lot of rules on the books that were written a long time ago, and they have no relevance in today's world at all. And they're not enforced. And, you know, this is where I feel like good cops are really important. I mean, when you have good cops, they can exercise good discretion. But when you have bad cops, you have all kinds of bad things happen. So the laws just need to be changed, it has to be a lot more clear. And it should be a lot more simpler. Because a lot of these things can get very complicated, especially when you're out on the street and you go somewhere, these situations can get pretty chaotic.

Attorney Marc Victor:

Absolutely, there's countless areas here. You know, one quick, easy example I like to use is the speeding rules, right? Everybody speeds. And, you know, if the speed limit says 35, a police officer, as you know, can make a lawful traffic stop for 36. So what this means is anybody can be pulled over at any time. And so police officer in my opinion here has too much discretion. I don't want a police officer, feeling like they can pull anybody over at any time for virtually any reason, right weaving within a lane, or taillights out somewhere or a tires or little ball, there could be a safety problem, their windshield is cracked or something, it's too much discretion in my view here. I think if the vehicle is unsafe, and is creating a risk of harm to other people find pull them over speed limits, we should redo these to make them more reasonable, you know, to have a speed limit where 95% of the people are speeding at all times just as a free pull over. It's an invitation for police officers, bad police officers, which I believe, by the way are in the minority, to just harass people if they want, so we need to change the laws.

Jason Davis:

Yeah. But again, I feel like discretion is a good thing. You know, because if you have a good cop, they're not going to enforce anything that's blatantly unconstitutional. So that's more protection for the people. But I want to talk a little bit about Kyle Rittenhouse. Because, you know from the very beginning, I said, Well, that's a justified shooting. And he of course did get acquitted. What are your thoughts on that verdict?

Attorney Marc Victor:

Well, if people are interested in that they could go to peace radicals which they can by the way, check out at live in let live.org myself and my partner Andy mark, Intel did a full episode on the Rittenhouse trial. But I can summarize this by simply saying I would love to get a self defense case anywhere near as good as this case was. I just don't get them this good. This This was better than any case I've ever had for self defense. There were obviously lots of politics going on here. This in my opinion is the case that should not have even been charged. I think it was an outrage. I think that this was of course made into like so many other things a racial issue where maybe one didn't exist at all, but I don't care what color skin somebody has. What I care about in the self defense realm is was there an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury at the time he used deadly physical force, and I don't care what color anybody's skin was. That's the question that matters. And it seems to me very clear, especially if you listen to the government's own witnesses who said Yeah, I was pointing the gun at him as I was approaching him. Okay, this is a this is a criminal defense attorneys fantasy. To get a case of this good up there on this channel, not to mention the fact that the prosecutor is aiming firearm at people in the court room with finger on the trigger in opening up with commenting on defendants right to remain silent. This thing was almost a complete circus of a case. I sure hope people don't look at this and think this is representative of how the justice system works.

Jason Davis:

For those of you who don't know, Mark's firm runs a program called attorneys on retainer. Full disclosure, I am a member. And I'm assuming that if Rittenhouse was on your membership plan there mark, you would have taken that case, right. If

Attorney Marc Victor:

Rittenhouse had signed up on the attorneys on retainer program for $25 a month. He would have gotten himself charged with this thing and we would have defended him without any legal fees at all all the way through trial. Yeah, you heard me right. 25 bucks a month. If you get charged with a case and you claim self defense, we will defend you for free Now legal fees, you may have expert fees or some court things or stuff like that, but very, very small, wouldn't have been anything near to what was paid to these lawyers. But anyways, yeah, we do lots and lots of gun cases, as you know, I think I think it's very fair for me to say I'm easily the most well known pro gun lawyer in the state of Arizona. And to be fair about it, I'm really pro freedom. And that's what makes me pro gun. Not exactly pro gun I, I think competent, responsible adults should do whatever they want, as long as they don't violate the legal principle. And people who are competent, responsible adults shouldn't be allowed to have guns, if you're not competent and responsible, then shouldn't have a gun, right? Their four year olds shouldn't have guns. They're not competent people who are mentally ill shouldn't have guns. They're not competent people who have passed violent felonies on their record, we have good reason to think that there is substantial risks with a firearm because they've proven that to us. This is not to say that everybody with a felony on their record, I think the law here is far too broad, right? If you have a felony theft, or some other thing on your record that has nothing to do with violence, I don't know why we take firearms away from such people. The only thing I care about is, is the person either violating the rule by initiating force with a firearm, or are they creating a substantial risk of harm with a firearm? If they're doing either one of those things? We should stop them? If they're not, we should leave them alone.

Jason Davis:

I couldn't agree more. Last question, Mark, I hear you're running for US Senate. Is that true?

Attorney Marc Victor:

It is true. Last time I ran for us. And it was several years ago, I understand that the VA RS didn't like that I took so many votes from them, I got over 100,000 votes without really spending too much time on it. So they changed the law here to make it more difficult to get on the ballot, if you're not an R or D. But I my team has informed me that we're going to get on the ballot, no problem. So I'm happy to get into a debate with them. I can't wait to get into a debate with them. I will describe myself very simply as a live and let live guy. And I will take that position as to every issue at all times. If you're not violating that legal principle, my position will always be that you should be left alone. And if you are violating that legal principle, my position will be that you should always be stopped immediately with what you're doing. I can only hope they let me get involved in the debates. I think it'd be super fun

Jason Davis:

now. So I would assume that if you were elected, and you did take a seat, you're going to be pushing to actually get these laws changed, right?

Attorney Marc Victor:

I will use the speech in Debate Clause of the US Constitution, which says that I can say anything I want on the floor of the US Senate with with complete immunity. So I will definitely have a lot to say, but I'm not under any illusions that one person in the Senate is going to be able to get everything done. Of course, what I think I would do is immediately meet with every single senator one on one and have a tough conversation with them about whether they're really for freedom or not, and try to convince them to get them on on our side here. But I'm not under any illusions that we can actually get them on our side, I think the secret to getting things done really is always the been the same. We need more people who take that our position in their hearts in their minds, when that happens, just like the American Revolution wasn't voted in either. When that happens, things will change. And until that happens, nothing will change. So the key here is to get more people on our team. I make an analogy to the fact of how marijuana was legalized. This wasn't this didn't come from politicians. This came from when enough people said, You know what we want to legalize marijuana, politicians, either a woke up in the morning and change their position and said, You know what, this is a great idea. I know I've been against it for decades, but now all of a sudden I'm for it, or B, they got voted out and other politicians got voted in. So it always flows from when there's enough people who get together and say this is going to happen. That's when it happens. And until enough people get together, it's not going to happen. So I don't think the secret here is sneaking the right person into office, we got to have a real lasting change. That means I would use that position to convince as many people as possible and as forceful away as I possibly can that we should all be living let livers

Jason Davis:

Yeah, I mean, I can't really disagree with anything you say. I think a lot of it is just controlled by money. Now there's too much corruption in Washington. We need more people with your philosophy about what freedom really is. Really appreciate you taking a few minutes to come on and chat with me. Thank you.

Attorney Marc Victor:

Hey, thanks for having me, brother. It's a real pleasure to be on your show. Thanks a lot.

Intro:

Thanks for listening to don't tread on liberty with Jason Davis. Subscribe on Google Play iTunes or your favorite platform. For more liberty news, check out www dot don't tread on liberty.com And subscribe to the blog or join the conversation