 Our guest this weekend is Michael Bolden. Michael runs the 10th Amendment Center, which you may be familiar with, an activist group that works and strives to promote decentralization and secession and nullification. And coming on the heels of last week's Brexit vote, I thought this would be a good time to ask Michael about tactics. So today we're discussing tactics, strategy for unyoking ourselves from Washington or from Brussels or any other central government agency or authority. And what's the best way for us as libertarians to go about taking back some control over our lives and decentralizing this terrible political process we find ourselves in. So stay tuned for a great interview. Well Michael Bolden from the 10th Amendment Center, welcome to Mises Weekends. I don't believe we've had you on before, so it's good to hear from you. So in my political transition from probably hard left kind of commie type pro-government guy to someone who believes in liberty, Mises was a fantastic tool for me. So it's really cool to be here. Well great. You know, I was talking to you off air that I'm not a big fan of political activism generally. I think a lot of people who are involved with the Mises Institute share that sentiment. But the one kind of political activism I can get behind is the kind of stuff you do, the kind of stuff the 10th Amendment Center does with an eye towards decentralizing, unyoking ourselves whether that's from Washington DC or Brussels or the UN or whatever it might be. So with that in mind, why don't we start off, just give me some of your off the cuff thoughts about the Brexit vote and what it means for us. Well first of all one of the most important things that I think that we do and we do a lot of stuff. Just hit our 10 year anniversary at the end of June. One of the most important things I think we do is providing people with the strategy and the tools that they need to advance the cause or causes that they believe in. For me it's liberty and the way to accomplish that in our view and I think some leading thinkers over a period of two centuries or so that at least I adhere to have focused on decentralization as the path forward. So a few years ago I wrote a column over a 10th Amendment Center dot com that said basically well actually it said literally forget that the 202 area code even exists. Don't call these people, don't lobby them, don't march on DC, don't give money to their candidates, don't vote for them. I mean I've never even voted in my life. So wasting your time on a national political contest and except maybe in a very rare situation like the Brexit one is just not going to get you the results that you want. Let me ask you a devil's advocate question. You've named your organization explicitly after a particular constitutional amendment. What do you say to libertarians or people on the left who simply don't care much about the Constitution or believe that the Constitution necessarily applies to them or has any relevance today? Well I would say first of all most people have actually written it off and said that even the people who claim that they're constitutionalists, you get these guys like Ted Cruz who's like a constitutionalist against the Affordable Care Act but he wants to go nuts with foreign policy or spying or whatever it may be. Most people really aren't constitutionalists. So for me it really gets down to speaking to people in terms that make sense to them and I know you for example, Jeff, you were on Tom Wood's show, his podcast recently talking about issue-based activism and that's really where we find the most effect. There's no one who's going to, well maybe there's a few people who are going to be with us on all issues all the time but we find that we make a lot more connections and have a lot more effect when we focus issue by issue building coalitions to get what we want done and done. So a few years ago we had released some legislation to turn off water and other resources to NSA facilities. We were definitely a little ahead of the game at that point strategically. If we were thinking in a chess match, we probably were moving our Rook a little too fast on that one but we still actually pushed that. But when that was out for example, we made an alliance with Greenpeace and flew a blimp over the NSA data center in Bluffdale, Utah. Now there isn't too much else so for example, we're also on the same side as shutting down the EPH, shouldn't even exist. Environmental regulations actually make the environment worse and I'm sure over there Mises, there's probably a lot of great commentary on this but people at Greenpeace are for more nationalized, centralized, maybe even globalized environmental control. So we can actually have effect working with one organization or one individual or one group on one issue and even though they may fight us on other ones. So at the same time, we're working with Greenpeace on one issue, we can be working with gun owners of America or oath keepers or whatever group on a different issue, right to keep and bear arms, marijuana legalization or decriminalization and things like that. Well, Michael, I have to say I love that approach of issue by issue advocacy and I wonder and I cringe to even think this but I wonder what a concerted effort by libertarians, the sort of the good remnants of the paleo-conservative right along with the anti-war code pink left could have done during W's term to prevent these horrific invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean, when you look back on it and you talk about an opportunity missed, I think this is what you're speaking about. Well, so I started my, I guess, political career as an anti-war activist. I had been interested in some stuff. I always thought government should be in charge of things, but then when the Iraq war started, the days the bombs dropped, I was out protesting in the street. I started getting involved with here in Los Angeles, some very left wing or probably just full on Marxist organizations, anti-war groups. But I learned over time that they really weren't that anti, I mean, they were kind of anti-war, but over time they're really not or they're not willing to build coalitions. In fact, I have a friend here locally, he's a longtime liberty activist, and he's done a lot of end the Fed type work, and he went to the answer coalition. This is one of the leading anti-war groups around the country. And he said, hey, you know what, how about, you know, I've got small anti-war events and you guys have some small ones now. How about I drop some of the other things, the federal reserve stuff and you drop the pro health care stuff. And let's just do an event focused just on war and peace. And they said, no way, they wouldn't even be interested. And now this is not kind of just exclusive to people on the far left. The same things happen to people on the right. Some gun rights organizations won't want to work with people on other parts of the political spectrum. So it's, I think people, if they focused more on just getting the goal done instead of like what team people are involved with, they'll probably get a lot more accomplished in time. Well, I certainly agree. I mean, we worry too much about people's motivations. Don't we? If someone was only against the Iraq war because they hated Bush. Right. And they shut up about war when Obama became president. That doesn't change the fact that we missed an opportunity to prevent those war. Yeah. And I'm mad at them for only being against war because Bush was an office. I mean, he was awful. I started my organization in 2006. This is the height of Bush belligerency. But certainly we all come from someplace. We all learn from some point. I started as a commie, a hard left winger. And now I believe in liberty. And I probably 10 years from now, Jeff, we'll have a conversation and we'll laugh at where I am today, maybe. Who knows? But to basically bemoan or demean someone because they aren't pure, isn't going to get anything done. I think we want to encourage the good that they're focused on and try to draw them into more. And that's one of the things that we do with these coalitions, for example. So we work with ACLU on a lot of things. And I find a lot of stuff that ACLU does is actually pretty good. And some of their local chapters are very willing to be very aggressive against the central state. So for example, here in Los Angeles, they had no problem pushing for legislation locally that would aggressively go against surveillance tactics. Now that's not going to happen in every part of the country. They want to focus on courts. I don't think courts are even, I wouldn't waste a moment in a court if I didn't have to. But again, coalitions, issue-based, I really believe are really important. And we focus a lot of our strategic ideas on two thinkers that probably maybe listeners of this podcast wouldn't expect to be from the same place. And that is the Constitution guy, James Madison, back in 1788. He wrote some advice on how to deal with the federal government when it doesn't do what you want it to do in a paper called Federalist 46. But then at the same time, we find almost the same, like if you're a movie fan, you'll understand the term story arc. You find the almost same kind of story arc in Hans-Hermann Hoppe's What Must Be Done, His Great Speech from 1997. And there are four points from Madison, three from Hoppe that, to me, are a real big deal. But the one that really connects is at this stage, and Hoppe says this at least a couple of times in his speech, at this stage of the game, what we should be focusing on is refuse to comply with the central government. And James Madison used almost the exact same language. He says, when the federal government does things that are either a constitutional or constitutional, but just bad policy, the way that you can deal with it, he doesn't say go vote the bums out, sue in federal court, none of that stuff. He actually says use a quote, refusal to cooperate with officers. Now coming from such varying backgrounds that these people are saying, OK, this is how you deal with this stuff, I think that led some serious credence to it. Michael, when you talk about non-compliance, let's say Irish democracy of a sort, I think sometimes we forget that even with the military factored in, the total number of federales is only three or four million people. And so it becomes a matter of logistics. How can the federal government enforce its preemptive laws upon states? And we've seen, I think, with the medical marijuana issue. It has a very difficult time doing so when states simply. Yeah, and that's the Hoppe quote that I will never forget. I can say this in my sleep. He says, without local enforcement, by compliant local authorities, the will of the central government is not much more than hot air. That's the same thing that Madison, the guy, if I have a problem with my Apple laptop, I go to the Apple store and they say, OK, here's how you deal with it. Well, I mean, even if you don't care about the Constitution, if you think it's just garbage, the guy who is known as the person who wrote it or the father of the Constitution is going to have pretty good advice on how to use it. And he also gives that same advice, refuse to cooperate with officers. So if we really want to deal with this type of government overreach, that, again, at this stage, the number one step is look inward, look locally, forget the 202 area code exists, and stop complying. Now, we see this actually happening. Weed is a great example. I've been talking about this for a long time. And in fact, we've actually done some research and found the numbers, how much it actually costs them. And for example, here in Los Angeles, at its peak, the number of dispensaries, we can call them marijuana stores, really, in practice, limited retail stores, was about 1,000 or 1,200, more than they said at the time. Starbucks or 7-Eleven's combined. We don't have an actual number. It could actually be higher than that right now. But from our estimates, it would take 40% of the DEA's yearly budget just to aggressively shut down one city Los Angeles. We're not counting Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Denver, pretty soon Anchorage. They just do not have the resource. And I think this should be applied to everything else. In fact, a few years ago, I gave a speech at a gun rights policy conference that said, hey, look, this weed approach is the blueprint. Now, why don't you gun rights activists have the same courage as the weed people? You know, start opening up, start opening up stores that defy these federal gun bans. They exist. Some people are okay with the status quo, but they forget about laws passed in 1934 and 1968 that already restrict our natural right to defend ourselves. And I think the approach is very effective. Turning to the left, which you brought up earlier. Well, I think one of the great ironies in modern politics is the left is deeply opposed to decentralization and secession movements. They tend to be the great centralizers, the great federalizers, the great nationalizers, the great universalizers. But if we talk about what the left wants, which presumably is socialism in their lifetimes, they could have everything they want here and now if they were simply willing to devolve into smaller political units. In other words, let Scotland be Scotland, let the San Francisco Bay Area be the San Francisco Bay Area. Why does the left resist the obvious answer that's staring them in the face, which is a decentralized approach? I don't know if they necessarily do. So first of all, I would say, and we call it nullification, all these different versions of resisting federal power. When you refuse to cooperate, whether it's on a state government or a local government or an individual level. So for example, before all these weed laws have been passed, now there's 25 states that are defying Washington DC on weed. People smoked, sold, bought, grew, pot. Well before there was ever any state or local laws authorizing it. It's just that we see that a combination of individual non-compliance backed up by states or other political subdivisions backing those people up against a larger organization can be extremely effective. Now I would say that most of the most effective actions on this type of approach have actually come from the left. So we look at weed, we can also talk about sanctuary cities, whatever one may think of immigration as a policy. Sanctuary cities refusing to enforce some federal immigration laws actually is pretty effective for what they're trying to accomplish. We can also talk about Common Core, nationalized education program. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of just flat out refusing to participate opting out there's an opt out Common Core movement. And that's primarily coming from the left at least in places like New York state. And then again, in Colorado, there's an amendment on the ballot this fall for single payer healthcare. I think it's an absolute horrible thing. But I think that the left tends to be more issue based. In fact, they're more effective on these things. So right now issue based, there's so much power in the central government. Of course they're going to love centralized power. I would think that if the central government had very little power, they would do what would be most effective. They would focused solely on state and local levels if they couldn't take over the central government. But the opposition party or the opposition grassroots on a national level I think the base principles aren't too much different. It's still okay, government can fix or solve problems. So the right tends to think that government's going to solve the problem in Washington DC of scary terrorists and caves in other countries. So again, the base principle tends to be the same. So of course that's going to draw all power and all activism that way. But the left has been very effective on a state and local level. But when you're dealing with people on both sides of the aisle, how do you approach mindset? In other words, the fundamental problem here is getting people to understand that the only way for us all to peacefully coexist is not to drive progressives into the ocean or to drive these redneck Bible thumpers in Alabama into demographic non-existence, but to coexist in a way that people who see the world very differently don't kill each other. And the answer to that is decentralization. How do you approach people in terms of their mindset? Well, I'm kind of hoping that maybe you'll give me a couple more ideas because there's a long way to go on that. And in fact, the way you describe it is pretty much how a lot of people in the mainstream actually look at things like, oh, okay, if you're from the right, you're an embarrassment. Oh, I don't want to talk to my cousin because they're that horrible left-winger. You know, you go to Thanksgiving, it's like, oh goodness, I'm going to have to hear from my gun control brother-in-law or whatever. But you know what, we're all human beings we all make a lot of mistakes in our lives. And I think, again, focusing on the positive, reaching more people, there's a long, long way to go. So we can go back to Brexit. I mean, my view on Brexit, and I know you talked with Ryan on this just maybe a week ago, I'm not sure that it's gonna be, I think in general, it is a net win because you're talking about rising up against the political class, rejecting it. But again, the mentality in Britain tends to be very socialist still. So that could end up being used against it in the long run, for example, will they impose their own kind of bureaucratic state as it was just in the first place? Or will they learn that less bureaucracy is better for the economy, better for their own pocket book, better for their own lives? I'm not sure time will tell, of course. No, I agree. I don't think the Brexit vote was motivated by libertarian impulses whatsoever. The point is that let Britain do what it wants, free from Brussels, and let San Francisco do what it wants. If San Francisco wants to get together and develop a single payer system for the six or seven counties in Northern California, God bless them, get to it. I don't think it'll work very well. I think lots of free rider and public goods problems will come in to play, but knock yourselves out. I mean, it seems to me that libertarians and liberty-mining conservatives have to get over this and understand that, and frankly, progressives have to get over this too, and understand that we can't just eradicate or change people's minds. We have to find a way to unyoke ourselves from that. And that, going back to Hoppe's, what must be done, in fact, he called it an implied or implicitly seceded area. He was focused not necessarily on states like we do, but on local communities refusing to participate or enforce federal programs, federal laws, whatever they may be. He actually used the phrase implicitly seceded. At this stage, you first start refusing to participate, and then over time, when you stop, you have enough communities implicitly seceding from the central government, then you can take it to the next level and accomplish more that you want to accomplish for liberty. And that's basically the same thing that, for example, Ron Paul would say on speed. He talked about a de facto nullification, not necessarily like some kind of arm standoff like in the Wild West. A lot of people have fantasies about going head-to-head with the feds. I think this absurd approach, it is a bad choice, a passive resistance and non-cooperation is really the way to go. And if you're trying to control and get to your point, conservatives and liberals, libertarians, everyone has to kind of get over the idea that, well, most of the world probably doesn't agree with you, so don't try to force your view on other people. We don't want a great libertarian central power either. No one's gonna force liberty on it because you're just gonna have pockets of resistance to that. You have to allow people, live the way that they wanna live, learn from their mistakes, and it's the marketplace of ideas. I believe that liberty is the best way. So if you open the door for more liberty, then eventually people will learn, and I don't think it's gonna happen in our lifetime. I don't wanna give any false cells here, but eventually I think the marketplace of ideas will show that liberty is the best path forward. Well, it's interesting to me, you alluded to another form of activism, i.e. going to court against the federal government in its own courts and you kind of pooped that. Why it's so interesting to me is just a couple nights ago, Clint Bullock, who of course started the Institute for Justice is now on the Arizona Supreme Court, gave a talk at a dinner where he basically said just that. He said, to the extent there's any action to be had litigating against government, it is purely at the state and local level and litigating against the federal government in its own courts is basically a fool's errand. So it sounds like the 10th Amendment Center is not pursuing or involved in litigation effort. Oh God, no, no, we don't, I mean, again, I'm a non-voter. I mean, I guess I would vote for something. I might vote for a proposition here in Los Angeles or in California possibly. I'm not a purest non-voter. I've just never found anyone worth my energy or time. I did try to vote for Ron Paul in 2008, but I got a letter in the mail a few months later that said your vote didn't count. We didn't get your registration. So I'm a technical non-voter. So I believe it in the right situation. But as an organization, certainly we actually advise people to not waste their time on national political contests. And that's the same thing that Hoppe basically said in his speech to, we don't waste time in any lawsuits. We did actually sign on to an amicus brief once because we were able to participate in this really nice basic white paper. But that was really the only reason for it. We don't expect to win. We think it's, in fact, it is a, I would say it actually works against us because a lot of people tend to rely on the federal courts. They're like, oh, okay, well, I heard my governor is gonna stand up to DC in the paper. And then you really look into it. All they are is filing some useless lawsuit that will never win. And then when they lose, they're just going to obey the will of the central government again. What's the point? So generally these things lose. The federal courts are part of the federal government. So if you wanna stop the federal government, you need something outside of the federal government to do that job, not part of it. So absolutely not, we're not participating. That's the short version, I guess. Well, final question for you then. Given that, what would you say to someone who is out there listening to you today and saying, what can I do at the extreme local level? Where can I start? What would be a first step for me to begin pursuing these kind of approaches in my hometown? Well, okay, so I'm understanding that, I'm on a Mises podcast, so I have to appreciate that there are gonna be people who reject the idea of political activism and some people who actually like the idea of political activism. So depending on which market niche you're part of, if you're part of political activism, I would start at the local level, pick an issue, a single issue that's important to you, find other people or other groups that are interested in that issue, and work to maybe get your city council or county commission to pass legislation that supports the cause that you believe in. Whatever it may be. I mean, it could be a good cause or a bad cause. Now, if you're not part of that political kind of community and you're apolitical or you reject political activism, I think the answer is just one word. It's agorism, build structures that work without the state. There was a guy here that I met. It was a 23 year old kid who was working for San Bernardino County and he decided, he was watching, this is one of the poorest governments or poorest counties with a lot of government spending in the country. And he was seeing all these so-called services kind of go away and he and a group of his friends decided to open a medical marijuana dispensary. And he was still working for the government and after time he switched over just to running the dispensary because it was doing well and they had decided to go around the neighborhood. I wish I had an article to verify this but this was a personal conversation that I had with him but he told me that him and his crew they walked around the neighborhood and told people that since the city government wouldn't be able to provide any Thanksgiving dinner for homeless people that the dispensary would do it. Now, this is a great way. I mean, this is absolutely awesome. A great way of showing the community that you don't necessarily need government that entrepreneurs can come in, step in, care about other people and do things for them. And I think that really, I mean, it may not be a specific answer on what people should do but I think the example can maybe resonate and people can take that and run with it. Michael, how can people find you? How can they find the 10th Amendment Center via Twitter or otherwise? So Twitter is at 10th Amendment All Spelled Out. Our website is 10thamendemencenter.com. Again, All Spelled Out. Facebook at 10th Amendment Center or just Google. I mean, we've been around for 10 years so we pop up really high in search results. Well, congratulations on 10 years and thanks for your time. Ladies and gentlemen, have a great weekend.