All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 31, 2008 - Rush Limbaugh Program
35:13
December 31, 2008, Wednesday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
That is absolutely right, Johnny Donovan.
And we're pushing back the frontiers of ignorance.
And this is, again, Walter Williams sitting in for the vacation rush limball.
Tomorrow, Mark Stein will be on.
And then Monday, Rush comes back.
But you can be on with us at 800-282-2882.
Now, here's my question.
I wrote a syndicated column, oh, let's see, early, I guess November, early November.
And the title of it was Evil Concealed by Money.
Now, here's my question to you.
Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street.
She has neither the strength to mow her lawn or enough money to hire someone to do it.
Now here's my question to you, and I'm almost afraid of an answer.
Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to go mow the lady's lawn each week?
And if he failed to show up and mow her lawn, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrests, fines, and imprisonment?
Now, I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery.
And what is the essence of slavery?
It's the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Now, I think we're kind of clear on that.
Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing the person to actually go down and physically mow the lawn, if the government, and instead the government forced the guy to give the lady $40 out of his weekly pay to have somebody to be able to hire somebody to mow the lawn?
Would you be satisfied with that?
I would say that there's little difference between the two mandates.
That is, both forcibly use one person to serve the purpose of another.
Now, probably, most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and the government would send a weekly sum of $40 so that a lady could hire somebody to mow the lawn.
Now, this mechanism makes the victim invisible, but it still is the same thing.
The forcible use of one person to serve the purpose of another.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is why socialism is evil.
That is, it employs evil means, namely coercion or the taking of property, to accomplish what are seen as good goals, namely helping your fellow man.
I don't disagree.
I think helping one's fellow man is a good goal.
But if you employ evil to reach that goal, I think it's unworthy.
That is, as I said earlier in the show, reaching into your own pockets to help your fellow man in need is laudable.
Reaching in somebody else's pocketbook is despicable.
Now, some people might contend, oh, well, Williams, look, we're a democracy where the majority agrees to forcibly use one person.
Well, I would, well, first of all, I would tell the person where the framers did not intend for us to be a democracy.
They intended for us to be a republic.
And if you don't believe me, I mean, do we pledge allegiance to the flag for the democracy for which it sands?
Or do we sing the battle hymn of the democracy?
No, it's a battle hymn of the republic.
Now, but, however, a majority rule does not establish morality.
That is, just because the majority decides to do something doesn't make it moral.
And so, I believe that a large part of the nation's problems today are a result from our straying away from morality.
And also, it's straying away from the Constitution.
That is, the Constitution represents our rules of the game.
And yes, as Thomas Paine said, government under the best of circumstances is a necessary evil.
Under the worst of circumstances, an intolerable one.
So, we do need some government.
I'm not talking about anarchy.
What do we need government to do?
What should be the essential function of government?
The essential function of government, the essential legitimate function of government, is to stop one person from using force against another person when that person has not used force against him.
That is, the moral function or the legitimate function of government is to protect you and I from violations of our private property.
Now, don't just think when I say private property, I'm not talking about your car, only your car, your house.
I'm talking about you.
You are your private property.
That is, you belong to yourself, and I belong to myself.
I am private property.
And that's the role of government.
That's the legitimate role of government in a free society.
But it turns out that government today is the major violator of private property.
And so, we're going to have these big problems so long as we ignore these moral values that were the underpinning of our nation, and so long as we ignore the United States Constitution, which are rules of the game.
Now, you'll get some crackpot lawyer or some crackpot legal scholar saying, Oh, well, this guy Williams, he's kind of very narrow interpretation of the Constitution because we have a living Constitution.
The Constitution is a living document.
Well, anybody tells you the Constitution is a living document, he's telling you we don't have a Constitution because for the rules of the game to mean anything, they must be fixed.
How many of you, for example, would like to play me poker and the rules be living?
That is, maybe my two-pair can beat your full house depending on the circumstances.
So, again, I'm repeating that there are two major problems that I think that I think there are two major areas that lie at the core of any problem.
And I challenge anyone to show me anything different.
That is, if you point out a major problem in our country today, I can show you that it is a result of our straying from the United States Constitution, or it is a result of our engaging in immoral behavior, namely taking the property of one person and giving it to another, or giving one American a favor that will be denied another American.
And we can talk more about this after the break.
We're back, Walter Williams sitting in.
And before we go to the phones, my colleague Thomas Sowell, he writes some brilliant columns.
And I just want to comment, kind of go through a list of one that he's go through some of the items and one that he's.
It's titled Postponing Reality.
And he says some of us.
He begins with pointing out that some of us were raised to believe that reality is inescapable.
But that shows just how far we are behind the times.
And he said today reality is optional, at the very least it can be postponed.
And he starts off by saying, kids in school not learning, no problem, just propose, just promote them to next grade and call it compassion.
Can't meet college standards.
Denounce those standards as arbitrary barriers to keep out the underprivileged.
Can't do math or science after they're in college.
Denounce those courses for their rigidity and insensitivity.
We see this once they're out in the real world with diplomas but no real education.
Well, at least the day of reckoning has been postponed, 50 for 15 years.
Now here's what we're talking about today.
The current bailout extravaganza is applying the postponement of reality democratically to the rich as well as the poor, to the irresponsible as well as the responsible.
We're told that big three automakers in Detroit would have repercussions across the country, so let's postpone reality for them, that's.
Thomas Sowell has done some really brilliant writing.
Matter of fact, I think he's on his 36th book and I think it's classic books.
I think it's worthwhile reading.
One is called basic economics and one is called applied economics, but this is a very, very good column and you'll find it.
It was December 17th in the Jewish World Review and that's what we Americans do.
That's what we want in school.
That is we, you know.
We want to postpone reality, and postponing reality does not hide reality.
It just makes you less able to face reality.
Let's go to the phones to John in Brownfells, Texas.
Welcome to the show.
Well, it's actually New Bronfel's, right outside at San Antonio, where I first heard you on the WAI Carl Wigglesworth show.
Yeah yeah, years ago.
Yeah, I've been enjoying your efforts and it's good to hear that you're at the plate still swinging and slugging away.
Oh yeah, I'm gonna hang in there and I'm gonna.
I'm gonna hang in there until I'm 107.
Me too.
Okay.
I had a, maybe this is a little off point, but your analogy of mowing the elderly lady's lawn and the fact that that is a form of slavery.
I was wondering how does the military draft fit in that?
Of course, we don't have it now, but it's embedded into my life.
Well, I was drafted and it's hanging around the corner.
I wouldn't even call it a draft.
I do not call it a draft as a euphemism for what is actually confiscation of labor services.
That's what it is.
Back in 1959, I was driving a taxi cab in Philadelphia, and I was making about $400 a month, and that was good money back then.
And I got a letter which essentially said, Williams, you're going to stop making $400 a month and begin to make $68 a month by being in our Army.
And they said, if you don't make us happy, we're going to put you in jail.
You don't come to the Army.
And I think that the draft is, again, it's forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.
And I think it's immoral.
And I think that if we have to fight wars, we should do it with a volunteer.
By the way, you point out that we no longer have a draft, but people have to register for the draft, don't they?
They certainly do.
Just waiting in the wings.
And I'd be worried about that.
I'd be just as worried if someone said, well, Williams, we're never going to have slavery again, but we want you to sign up.
I mean, I'd be worried about that, wouldn't you?
Yes, sir.
Well, thanks for calling.
Let's go to Richard in San Francisco.
Welcome to the show.
Yes, hello, Walter.
And I'd like to wish you a happy new year to you and your family.
Well, thank you.
Thank you very much.
And I wanted to call and respond to the soldier that's going to Fort Campbell and to think about the bailout of the UAW and their pension this way.
When he joined the service, he knows that if he signs up for 20 years, he gets a retirement.
And all those people that worked there for years and years, they went to the retirement with the understanding they would have this pension.
And now when everybody talks about the pension and how it's dragging down the big three, I think that it's not a good thing.
And as a soldier, he can think about the 20-year retirement and see how he would like it if someone came back at him and said, hey, your retirement, we want to take it from you.
Well, I don't know whether they're talking about taking it.
I mean, a pension is a contract.
And so what one can talk about is, look, you made some stupid pension agreements.
That is, you made some unsustainable pension agreements.
I think that's what they're talking about.
I don't know whether they're talking about taking them away from people who have already established those contracts.
Perhaps they're talking, the people are continuing to work for GM.
Maybe they're talking about renegotiating it and doing some horse training.
I don't know whether they're talking about saying we're going to cancel your pensions.
But the big problem, the big issue is the national pension program called Social Security.
How come nobody's worried about that?
Well, I am worried about that.
I don't think that's.
That is the disaster in the wings.
Absolutely right.
But thanks a lot for calling in.
Let's go to John in Stockholm, New Jersey.
Welcome to the show, John.
Hi.
I was listening earlier, and you brought up something regarding government spending in James Madison.
Yeah.
And how two-thirds of our government spending is spent on things that are unconstitutional.
Yes.
So I was just wondering how we can put an end to that.
I was thinking about even with different agencies within the government.
I mean, a lot of them are not provided for in the Constitution.
That's absolutely right.
And I think, now I'm not a legal scholar, but I think that no one in the United States has standing in court to force the government to obey the United States Constitution.
Okay.
I don't think anyone does.
Right.
Okay.
At some time ago, this is during the 80s, and Ron Paul, he's a congressman from Texas.
He brought suit in the federal district court for an unconstitutional act by Congress.
That is, I think that the TEFRA or some big tax act originated in the Senate.
And according to the Constitution, taxes, tax laws, supposed to originate in the House of Representatives.
And he brought suit, and the court told him he didn't have any standing.
Okay.
And here's a congressman, does not have standing to force the Congress to obey the United States Constitution.
Right.
Okay.
And so there's the question.
Well, do Americans even want obedience to the United States Constitution?
Do you think they do?
I don't think a majority of Americans do, but I do.
I sure do.
And that's why I listen to programs like this.
It just seems like we're just helpless subjects to the government.
I mean, it's so different than living under a monarchy or any other tyranny.
Well, we're moving in that direction.
You know, it's rather remarkable that the founders of our nation, they went to war with the mightiest nation in the world, namely the United Kingdom, because one of the major reasons is that they did not want to work for King George from January 1st and May to January 15th.
Now here, we Americans, we are working to pay federal, state, and local taxes from January 1st until the 1st of May.
And what does that mean?
It means that we're going on five months out of the year, and we do not have the rights to decide how the fruits of our labor will be used.
Somebody else makes that decision.
Now, keep in mind that a working definition of slavery is that you work 12 months out of the year, and you do not have a right to decide how the fruits of your labor will be used.
And we're moving in that direction.
Now, Milton Friedman, my longtime friend, now deceased, very eminent economist, he said that I'm understating it because if you include the regulatory burden on Americans, that is the cost of regulations, the average American works from January 1st to July something to pay for all the services that he gets from government.
And he said, he always said, we all ought to be thankful that we don't get as much government as we pay for.
We'll be back with more of your calls after this.
Well, folks, it's the last half hour of the show for this year.
But we'll be back next year and the year after that.
But let me just tell you, folks, before we get back to phones, give you a quotation by Thomas Jefferson.
And I feel compelled to tell you these things, folks, because if I don't tell you, you're going to spend the rest of your lives not knowing it, unless you check on my website.
Here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson, because I know soon as you talk to some of your friends, they'll say that Williams guy is crazy about what's in the Constitution, because the Constitution says that the government is supposed to promote the general welfare.
Well, here's what Thomas Jefferson said about the general welfare.
He says, Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.
Jefferson and I mean Madison and others said roughly the same thing.
So when anybody talks about the general welfare, just remind them of what Thomas Jefferson said.
And if you forget, just go to walterewilliams.com and you can see those quotes.
Plus, for you ladies, you'll see a handsome photograph at that site as well.
But let's go to Mark in Newport News, Virginia.
Matter of fact, that's where my grandmother was born and raised in Newport News.
Welcome to the show, Mark.
Hey, Professor Williams.
Yes, how are you?
Good.
Good to talk to you.
I'm glad I was off today.
I got to hear you more than I normally would have.
Okay.
Quite a treat.
But I was getting back to you on the lady with the grass getting cut.
Yeah.
And I wrote to you soon after it came out in the editorials about that.
And, you know, some houses in a neighborhood are worth more than others.
And the whole neighborhood goes down if one house can't get their grass cut, can't be kept up properly.
So far, you're right.
So those stand to get hurt more than the other houses.
So now once we've decided that we're going to tax everybody.
Well, no, wait, wait, wait.
You missed a step there.
I know I did.
I figured you were going to catch me on that one.
You're a pretty good professor.
But you know, it brings up the question, you know, just how much of this country does belong to the general public and how much belongs to those who have invested in the means of production themselves.
You know, does any part of the country belong to the general public?
Well, I guess you have to make the distinction between private property and public property.
Exactly.
My private property, I would assume that it belongs to me.
That's right.
You belong to yourself, like you said.
That is right.
Now, see, that's simple.
I can understand that, but how much of me belongs to somebody else, that's complicated.
Well, but as poor a job as our monetary system does of keeping value, so to speak.
And you talked about before the purpose of government is to defend us against somebody that would bully us around.
And the government's the main person bullying us around.
Well, but the boss of the person who has capital is able to bully around those who doesn't.
Oh, no, no, no.
Don't think so.
That is real.
For example, Bill Gates is the richest person in the world.
I mean, he has $60 billion worth of assets.
Now, you tell me what Bill Gates can make you do.
Oh, well, he can.
I mean, can he force your children to go to a school that you don't want them to go to?
Well, let's take Warren Buffett.
He's a better example because he can diversify into many different aspects of the economy.
Every one of them that he diversifies, if he's able to diversify enough, the theory is that one of them will produce and the other one doesn't.
Well, Mark, no, no, no.
I'm asking a more basic question.
I'm saying, what can Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, these are two richest people in the United States, I think they both have assets around $60 billion.
What can they make you do?
What can they make Mark do?
Well, they can monopolize something that I have to have.
Like what?
I mean, again, like a communication tool that works with the same tool.
I think you're reaching.
But here's my point.
Bill Gates and Warren Buffett do not have as much power over you as some GS-15 or some clerk at the city hall in Newport News.
A clerk in the City Hall at Newport News can mess up your life in ways that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett can't.
Yeah.
Well, I understand that.
I wasn't getting at the relative concept.
I was getting at the absolute concept.
No, can't somebody affect us at all.
Well, that's what I'm pointing out.
That in a free society that is wealth, I mean, a power is very, very distributed.
I mean, it's very weak.
There's not huge concentrations of power.
Now, Bill Gates and rich people, they can make you do things, but they must get permission from the United States Congress.
That is, they can rip you off, but the Congress has to enable them to do that.
And so all I'm saying to you is that Congress and the politicians and the leftists can get us to focus away from the really coercive aspects of our government by getting us to focus on the rich people.
I've often said that I wish there was a humane way of getting rid of rich people so that we could get down to what's in the best interest of the 99, 44, 100% of the rest of us.
That's what we need to worry about.
It would be called practical antitrust law.
They're not practical.
Well, and by the way, I'm going to let you go at this, but by the way, if you see monopolies and other forms of restraints of trade, they exist at the hands of government.
That is, government, for example, let's say in the sugar industry, government, of course, with generous contributions from the sugar lobby in the United States, government keeps out foreign sugar so they can charge so that the domestic producers can charge you and me higher prices.
That's how, and so that is a restraint of trade, but you need government.
Matter of fact, most of the agencies in Washington, Department of Labor, Department of Congress, Department of Agriculture, and other departments, their major function is the promotion of collusions and cartels in the restraint of trade.
And I'll tell you, one way to identify, you have to take my class and actually look at, read the book, pick up Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism, and I give you some lectures in there about how to identify a collusion, a seller collusion.
Just look for a minimum price.
Whenever you find a legally mandated minimum price for selling anything, I don't care whether it's minimum wages or minimum price for cotton or minimum price for sugar, you know that you have a seller's collusion.
And the only way that you can have a seller's collusion is with government support.
And we'll be back with more of your calls after this.
We're back, and it's Walter Williams closing out the EIB year for Rush Limbaugh.
And in case I don't have time to tell you, I wish you, on behalf of all the EIB people, a happy new year, and I hope it's prosperous.
And you better be here tomorrow because Mark Stein is going to be here.
And next week, Rush will be back.
But for now, let's go to the phones to Pat in Orlando, Florida.
Welcome to the show, Pat.
Hi, Walt.
Thanks for taking my call.
I wanted to ask: what is a true conservative, economic conservative, supposed to do when a Republican Treasury Department spends all the money to take away ball hazard from the supposedly capitalist investment banks and investment houses on Wall Street?
What hope is there?
Well, it doesn't seem to be a lot.
However, you know that there's a connection between the Treasury and Wall Street.
And so one might think.
But what you just said a little while ago, what we have done is now we have delayed consequences.
Oh, that's absolutely right.
That's absolutely right.
Or another way of putting it, we've delayed consequences and we've spread it among the American people.
We've spread it among the American taxpayers, and there's no justification for doing that.
Well, I agree.
And I just wish that more could be done from the conservative side, public radio, et cetera, to point out the collusion that you're talking about, basically, between the Treasury Department and the big Wall Street bank.
Well, look, I think that what we're doing, when you mentioned conservatives or Republicans, I think that what we ignore is that we cannot change our country by trying to change the people involved.
That is, by saying, oh, we're going to put this group of people in.
We're going to put that group of people in.
What we have to do is write the rules of the game so that everybody will have incentives to behave as according to the rules of the game.
That is, soon as we ignore the Constitution, we're in trouble.
I don't care whether you have Democrats in there or Republicans in there.
We're in trouble because we've ignored the Constitution.
It's not just a Democrat issue, which I don't like.
It's also the Republicans that have really undermined our currency and the Treasury Department, what they're doing.
You're absolutely right.
And I've frequently said that if you look at the Democrats and liberals, they want to take your money and my money and give it to poor people in cities.
Conservatives and Republicans, they want to take your money and my money and give it to banks and farmers.
They both agree on taking our money, but they just disagree on what to use it for.
Well, thank you.
That is very true, Walt, and I appreciate it being stated so that people can be aware of, you know, it's not just the Democrats and poor people.
It's the rich that are profiting by the socialized system.
In fact, it may even be the modus operandi to socialism, what's going on between the Treasury Department and the investment bank.
Yes, you have.
And matter of fact, a person can only become Secretary of Treasury if he pleases the investment community.
A person can only become Secretary of Agriculture if he pleases the farmers.
So we have to get out of the business of government being able to do what it wants and what it wants, do to and for people.
We'll be back with your calls after this.
We're back, and it's the last segment of the year, but before we close up shop, let's go to Tim in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Welcome to show, Tim.
How are you doing, Dr. Williams?
Okay.
I think you let one slide by a little earlier when there was a comparison made between the retirement benefits, UAW workers and soldiers.
Oh, well, are you talking about the magnitude?
They differ.
Yeah, they differ, but it's not just the retirement benefits.
I mean, this guy was comparing, he kept talking about the soldiers and how the soldiers should realize that the commitment was there.
There's also the 20 years of salary difference, the 20 years of benefit difference, the 20 years of work conditions difference.
He was comparing a 2008 Lincoln to a 1974 Dodge pickup.
He may very well have done it, but I don't have an appreciation for the magnitude, so I didn't call him on that particular point.
But I'm glad that you brought it up.
Thanks a lot.
Let's go to Estelle.
Welcome to show, Estelle.
Hi, Dr. Williams.
A pleasure talking to you.
You didn't talk about Mrs. Williams this year to make me laugh.
Well, actually, it turns out, I know you don't know, but it's nothing to make you laugh.
Last December 29th, Mrs. Williams passed away.
Oh, I'm so sorry.
I know.
We had been married 48 years and 50 years together altogether.
Oh, my God.
And it was, you know, the first couple months, I couldn't get through a day without tears.
But now it's getting better.
But fortunately, Mrs. Williams left me with a very lovely daughter.
She lives in Los Angeles, and she's been home seven times in the interval.
And she says that she's coming home a lot to take care of her aging father, which I don't go along with that much.
Of course, aging.
But Mrs. Williams, and right now I'm kind of over it a lot, but not completely.
And my thoughts today turn to the fact that we've accomplished so much.
When we started, when we moved to Los Angeles in 1961, we had $700 between us.
And we had my 1951 Mercury and pulling 4x6 U-Hauled trailer, and it wasn't in full with all of our worldly possessions in it.
And we made it from that point to being very, very well off as we were.
So I look at our accomplishments, and I mentioned some of those in the acknowledgments in my new book, if you care to get it.
What's the name of your new book?
It's called Liberty versus the Tyranny of Socialism.
And if you forget it, just go to my website.
It's walterewilliams.com.
And all the way at the bottom, I have it listed there.
You can just click on it and order it from Hoover Institution.
And it only costs about $15.
I'm so sorry, Gary.
I just, my heart's breaking for you and your daughter.
Yeah, I had, well, you know, Mrs. Williams, she would not want, she was a very unpretentious person.
And matter of fact, she always made me promise that there would be no funeral, no big announcements.
And what she wanted, the 35 years that we were in this house together, has been the most happiest years of her life.
And she told me to, when she died, to cremate her and spread her around the property so that she'd always be there.
And so I understand and I thank you for your concern.
It's been a wonderful marriage and it worked out very well.
And I would say that we had a whole lot of help from many people along the way because nobody goes from poverty to affluence without some people on the side giving them help.
But thanks a lot, Estelle, for calling.
God bless you and your daughter.
And thank you very much.
And thank all of you out there.
Well, this has been a very, very trying year.
But a lot of people are concerned about the new president.
But here's what I tell people.
The first order of business for most presidents is when they get into office, they seek to appease their enemies by sacrificing their friends and wind up not appeasing their enemies and losing their friends.
And I'm quite sure Obama has lost all of his extreme left-wing friends.
So just watch that next year.
And at the same time, tune in and Rush will get us started for 2009 that follows 2008.
Yeah, okay.
▲
Export Selection