Myth-Busters: Government's Subjugation of Moral Authority
How very strange that so many have succumbed to the idea that government has moral authority to feed the hungry, or to monitor personal habits, or to create "equality". Government inherently has nothing! Everything it acquires, it must first take by force, like a thief. How did government get away with the subjugation of moral authority? Ron Paul discusses on this week's Myth-Busters!
Be sure to visit http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com for more libertarian commentary.
How very strange that so many have succumbed to the idea that government has moral authority to feed the hungry, or to monitor personal habits, or to create "equality". Government inherently has nothing! Everything it acquires, it must first take by force, like a thief. How did government get away with the subjugation of moral authority? Ron Paul discusses on this week's Myth-Busters!
Be sure to visit http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com for more libertarian commentary.
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
Today is the day we do MythBusters and co-host is Chris Rossini.
Chris, welcome to the program today.
Great to be back with you, Dr. Paul.
Thank you.
Well good.
Do you have a couple subjects that we might talk about today?
Yes, today we're going to discuss different areas where government has subjugated moral authority where they've grabbed it for themselves and at the same time American people, the American people have granted it to them.
So we'll start with American exceptionalism and this is the idea that the United States and the United States government has this moral authority to spread freedom around the world, strangely via military force.
And ironically, we're in this process of spreading American exceptionalism.
We're losing freedom at home and there's surely no more freedom outside of the United States.
So Dr. Paul, please discuss American exceptionalism and how government somehow got this moral authority.
Well I'd like to know how they think they should have gained this moral authority because it's led to a lot of trouble.
This whole idea that we are so good and so great and so exceptional that we therefore have the moral authority to go and tell the world what to do.
Now, you could make the case and say, well, you know, there are some good things about America, and I would agree, and we should influence the world, and we have sometimes to a very positive thing.
But that's quite a bit difference when a government, and in this case, our government will use force and intimidation to tell people that they better do it.
And that's what it's gotten into.
We're not setting an example for the world and practicing free market economics, protection of civil liberties, and having a sound currency.
No, we're saying we are naturally exceptional, and that we have this moral authority to go, and that it is our obligation.
So a lot of people put it in that tone.
And they say, well, yes, we have this obligation because we are better, we're richer, and we're smarter, and therefore we have to do good in the world.
But that was the same thing that motivated those who promoted the French Revolution, the Jacobins.
They believed that they were moving them toward democracy and wonderful things, but it ended up with a guillotine.
And we ended up with drones and a lot of other things and wars that are preemptive wars, all because we have convinced ourselves we're doing a good thing.
But the moral authority comes by the assumption of people either they're deluded or they have some sinister motives.
There are some people who will use this as an excuse to go and protect our oil or something like this.
But most of the time when it comes to a vote in the Congress, it would be, well, we're going there to save the people of Iraq and to save the people of Libya and to save the people of Ukraine because they're being abused by their governments.
And yet too often we've been lied to.
But we do not have the moral authority to do that, even if there were legitimate problems overseas.
And that some people say, you know, I really don't know, like what's happening overseas, and I want to do what I can to help.
Well, you have the moral authority to do something if you want as long as it's voluntary.
But I, if I'm in the government and our government doesn't have this authority, they don't have this authority and the power to go and force people to promote this so-called goodness around the world.
And sometimes it just means taking money, which is, I think, terrible.
You know, the whole principle of foreign aid is you take money, it ends up really hurting the poor people in our country and enriching people in another country.
Then when it comes to the military, we're going to go and preserve peace, we end up with more war.
I think the basic flaw is the assumption that somehow or another we or any other government has this authority and they feel good about it and say that we have the moral high ground because we're doing some good things for other people.
At the same time, even if some good did come from it, it would be at the expense of doing something bad to the people who have to pay because the authority and the force would make somebody else be the victim.
So it might mean, well, we shouldn't make anybody suffer.
We'll just take the money from the rich.
But it doesn't work that way.
We will get involved with military operations as well as welfare obligations around the world.
And it takes spending, so it takes taxation, and that's the use of force.
And it takes deficits and takes the printing press to do this.
And the victims are usually invisible.
They're usually people who lost their jobs or they can't pay their bills because of inflation and all these things because this moral authority has been misplaced and they don't have this moral authority to go and impose the will on another country.
And I think that's what our problem is because conservatives have one reason for throwing their weight around the world and liberals have another reason.
And both of them generally in the recent decades have endorsed so much of the violence and the wars going on.
And therefore, they come down on the side of always subsidizing the military-industrial complex.
And since there's no successes overseas, the penalty, the profits may go to a group here in this country, but it will also be paid for by the middle class and those people who lose their jobs.
But the flaw and the fallacy and the myth here is that somehow or another we can justify moral authority to do these so-called good things around the world.
Yes.
Next, Dr. Paul, we're going to cover, it's a very peculiar one, at least to my mind, and that's government's moral authority to feed the poor.
And it's very odd because government doesn't create anything and everything that it has, it must first take from someone else.
So to paint a picture for our viewers, imagine a mugger on the street who mugs somebody, an innocent pedestrian, and gets caught and tells the cops, but I was going to feed the poor or feed my hungry family with this money that I stole.
Now the mugger goes to jail.
That's not an excuse.
You can't steal to feed your family.
But when it comes to government, that all gets overlooked.
And somehow they've ended up with the moral authority to take money by force and feed the hungry.
What do you think about this, Dr. Paul?
Well, it doesn't work, and it's immoral, is what it is.
It reminds me of a cartoon that was on the internet recently.
And that was one individual was talking to a government official and wanting stuff for free.
And the question was, you know, how are you going to pay for this?
Of course, his arm at the same time was reaching around and taking the wallet of this individual, the taxpayer, who was wondering how it was going to be paid for.
And of course, they get talked into it.
Well, it's going to be free.
And just how I think about this current campaign going on on all the solutions, whether they're military solutions or welfare solutions, it's going to be free stuff, free education.
But what they fail to mention, you know, it seems like in the moral sense, they get tempted to say, well, morally, shouldn't we care about the poor?
I think that's reasonable.
The first thing you do, if you want less poor people in the world, make sure you take care of yourself and take care of your family.
That would eliminate a lot of poverty.
But then there'll be others that still will have trouble.
So if you look at history and you look at morality of what freedom is all about, the government doesn't get involved.
You know, authoritarianism, whether it's of the interventionist type or fascist type or socialist type or communist type, is all done with the moral authority that we're going to take care of the poor and we're going to feed them.
But it never works.
It's based on the fallacy that they have some type of authority.
Where did they get this authority?
Because it requires stealing.
And this is the whole problem is that most people know you can't steal from your neighbor.
You can't go in their house and take what you want.
But everybody, it seems, fortunately not everybody, but so many people accepted this principle for a long time that you can do this.
Now one of the gripes I have and the more difficult one to convince people of is that so many will say, you're right, Ron, you're right.
We don't need a welfare state, but we've got to take care of those who are destitute.
And I think, well, you know, that's a powerful argument.
But if you give up that principle that it's the government's moral authority to do it, you've lost it.
Then it's only on where are you going to draw the line.
And the other argument is you don't care about people.
People are going to starve under your system and you have no compassion, which I strongly disagree with.
And then we throw it out, well, you know, in the marketplace, freedom and free markets and sound money produces more wealth.
I don't want to hear about that.
I want free stuff.
But, you know, last year wasn't the best year in economics.
We weren't suffering quite as much as we have in the past.
But there were a lot of people unemployed.
Probably there was the bottom half in big trouble.
The other half did okay.
But when they say, well, there's not enough money out there to take care of people voluntarily.
But even under these circumstances, the waste overseas and the waste here at home and the bureaucracy and all the mess we have, last year there was $383 billion donated in charitable causes just in one year.
And a large proportion of this was done by individual donors.
And I kept thinking, you know, that's a lot in spite of all these problems.
And I keep thinking, you know, if we had a healthy economy and we had more prosperity and we didn't have Wall Street fighting Main Street and we had a more equitable system with sound money, you know, the amount of donations easily could have been a trillion dollars, I think.
And there would be more people working, there'd be less people hungry, more money available.
And this country, in spite of all these problems, we have a lot of generosity there.
But the most generous thing anybody can do is, of course, know and understand how the system works, assume responsibility for oneself and one's family.
Help people when you know them, if they're close to you, if they're in a voluntary organization in your churches or whatever, and help people.
And then if you have a free society based on the moral principle that the government doesn't have the authority to interfere, the government has just the moral authority to provide for your liberty and to protect your liberty, believe me, we wouldn't have a problem with poverty.
So the more government that we have, if you look at the last 50, 60 years, ever since the Depression, there's more people in poverty, more people on food stamps, the standard of living going down.
The other day we talked about why the standard of living, real wages have not gone up since the total breakdown of the gold standard, the finishing off of the gold standard in 1971.
Real wages haven't gone up.
Some people will say there, you need government to redistribute the wealth.
No, you need to figure out what happened in 1971, and that was that government was allowed to print money and to try to help people.
Government's Role in Public Interest00:08:06
But guess what?
It helps Wall Street.
It helps the military-industrial complex, the politicians, and all the special interests, but it never helps the poor.
So if people want to understand how to help the poor, they have to accept the idea that they want to fully understand how free markets work and the limited moral responsibility the government has not to impose their moral will and run the economy, but to morally protect the freedoms of all individuals.
Next up, Dr. Paul, we're going to cover personal habits.
And each and every individual on this planet, 7 billion of us, we've been endowed with our own unique, one-of-a-kind life.
We all have our own minds, which are like our personal kingdoms where we can think what we want, believe what we want, choose our values.
And then we have government that comes along and tries to regulate our personal habits, what we could put in our bodies, eat, drink, smoke.
And then on the other side, we have the political correctness movement that tries to monitor and police our thoughts.
Where does government get this authority to take individuality and make it into some kind of cookie-cutter human being?
Well, the government takes it from the individual and they undermine liberty and they put it in the hands of government busy bodies because they want to do something which they think is good.
I think where the real crisis started to occur was probably 100 years ago in the progressive era.
The founders understood, they didn't talk about economic liberty and social liberties.
They didn't talk about the right to read your own books and write and speak and meet.
And then they said about, well, there's a different subject too, and that is the morality of the individual.
They assumed there was only one type of liberty.
But 100 years ago or so, for some reason, our country decided that there are two different things, even in speech.
There's social speech and political speech.
They try to protect, but political correctness is about destroying that.
But then there's economic liberty, and they think there's two different things.
But liberty is liberty.
You should have the right to manage your own life as you see fit, and you have that moral authority.
But assuming this moral authority to run your own life also means you have the moral obligation to accept the consequences.
But governments think that there's a lot of mischief out there.
They might recognize, well, well, on sexual habits and religious habits, we won't interfere with that, which is good, that principle.
But they don't apply it to economics either.
So we're living under conditions today where this moral authority has been given to the government to sort out everything, have everything equal, have everything doing the right things and eating the right food and avoiding this and avoiding that, instead of through education and common sense.
And once the government gets involved, whether it's through the FDA and protection of food, and nobody quite realizes it, many times they just make things much worse.
But it always boils down to where does the authority come from for a politician to think that he can manage the affairs of others.
And you can do it in money.
Where does the government get the moral authority to think they know how to define money and print money and make things much worse?
So under these conditions, they just make things worse.
The saying has been around for a long time, you can't legislate morality.
Well, that's a good statement.
In a personal sense, you can't.
And yet, at many times, we're trying to do it all the time.
We're trying to do that in many different ways.
But I think the greatest harm right now is in the area of economic manipulation and trying to make people better and to teach them their habits.
But just think of the drug war.
The drug war is a consequence of this moral authority that government has that we're going to take care of people.
In the 19th century, that wasn't the case.
They didn't have a drug war going on, war on drugs.
That didn't exist.
It only came when people started thinking, well, we've got to make people better.
We're going to have prohibition of alcohol.
And finally, that wasn't very practical.
And right now, the country is waking up.
It's not working on drugs either.
But they're just looking at the practical thing, which is good.
It's practically, it doesn't help because it causes more trouble than it helps.
But they should look at the fundamental thing.
Who has the moral authority to try to make an economy better, make the world better, or make the individual better?
You don't have the authority.
And besides, it costs a lot of money and it never works.
Finally, Dr. Paul, let's finish up with protecting the public's interest.
And we see it all the time with politicians saying the American people want this or the American people want that, but there is no such thing as there is no entity called the American people.
So please explain how there is no quote-unquote public interest that is separate or superior to an individual's right to life, liberty, and property.
Well, the people who promote this idea of the public interest are the ones who are the want to be dictators because they want to define what the goals are and they want to define how to do it and how it's going to be financed.
So they want to define the public interest.
But the whole problem there is that you have different factions.
I want to define it, somebody else wants to define it, and they compete.
You have political parties picking it.
Well, it's in the public interest instead of looking at it as individual rights.
Individual rights are universal and it has nothing to do with what they call the public interest.
Well, it's in the public interest that everybody has a job and therefore we have to do something to give people jobs.
Well, there's inequities in a free enterprise system.
Sure, there's going to be some inequities.
And the public interest means that we have equality.
Well, those are fallacies.
It's the wrong way to go.
But I think it's those individuals who want to dictate and rule the world.
They want to set the standards and they want to reject property is what they want.
And voluntary exchanges because in order to fulfill this desire in the public interest, they have to interfere with voluntary associations, especially in the economic sphere.
They want to manipulate the whole thing in order to deal with what they perceive as the public's interest.
But of course, the relationship of governments to the individual should be very, very limited.
And the general population should be best served by the government, recognizing that if anything, what they should be doing is protecting liberty.
And then the people decide what things will serve the majority of the people.
And it's going to vary.
And as long as people reject the notion of using force and violence, either the use of the government or as individuals, they can help set what appears to be the public interest and the public notions and their likes and dislikes.
But it would all be done voluntarily on private property and voluntary agreements, and it would be done in a much different way.
So there would be a public perception of what would be best, but we would achieve it in a voluntary free market sense, and it wouldn't be achieved by an authoritarian using the iron might of the government,
the iron fist of government, to dictate these rules to match what they think is in the person, in the public interest, because the public interest is nothing more than somebody's fiction of what they think should be done and how they should regulate people and regulate their money and regulate their lifestyle.
Public Perception vs. Government Force00:00:14
None of that is very appealing to somebody who loves liberty.
Chris, I want to thank you for being with us today on our program of MythBusters.
Thank you again, Dr. Paul.
And I want to thank our audience for being with us today.