tv Life Liberty Levin FOX News January 2, 2021 4:00pm-5:00pm PST
deliver a healthy baby girl. >> congratulations. that's how "fox report" sum is first saturday of 2021. i'm jon scott. see you tomorrow for a special edition of "the fox report" starting at 3:00 p.m.. mark: hello america. i'm mark levin and this is a special edition of "life, liberty and levin" and by special i mean special. a brave man a brilliant man made of liberty a man of the constitution. we did our non-girl show with walter williams. we thought now is the appropriate time to play it for you again. enjoy.
>> a does a great honor to have my friend walter williams on with me. how are you? for another girl show i want walter williams. those who don't know you all three people out there, you are the distinguished professor of economics at george mason. we know you as a syndicated columnist numerous books and essays a libertarian/classical liberal i would say. is that about right and of course you write for town hall wellness daily world review hundreds of newspapers across america. let's jump right into this. let's start with the fundamentals. let's start with the basics. how would you define liberty? >> i define it as people being able to engage in peaceable voluntary exchange without interference by others and typically down to mankind's history liberty is not a normal
state of affairs. throughout mankind's history he has been subject to arbor where -- arbitrary abuse and control by others and so the amount of liberty that americans have and perhaps western europe as well, the amount of it is relatively rare in humankind. and i think the danger that we face is that some historian maybe 20 years from now might be writing and he says look the normal state of affairs is arbitrary abuse by others. there's this tiny curiosity where relatively few people had a large amount of liberty for a short amount of time but it all went back to the normal state of affairs, that is arbitrary abuse and control by others. mark: do you think liberty has the seeds of its own demise and is a paradox because people who don't support liberty or who
were unwitting about liberty can still use liberty to destroy liberty? >> that is absolutely right. they can use liberty to destroy liberty. if you look at totalitarians around the world they always start at the armed force for free speech. that is because they need free speech to get their foot in the door but after their foot is in the door they will eliminate free speech and you see this all the time. you will see this all over the world and you can see it in the united states. that is in berkeley that was the seed of the free speech movement if i remember correctly. so again i think we have to be very very concerned because we are losing our liberty and if you asked the question, which way are we moving, tiny steps at
a time, are we headed towards merce -- more personal liberty or government control over our lives? it has to be unambiguously the laughter. mark: when i was about 20 years old my father and i met someone named paul? all close to ronald reagan and one of the things he said to me that has stuck with me ever since, every day congress we lose a little bit of our liberty. it wasn't supposed to be that way. the american people largely do not like politics. the american people largely do not like congress and all the polls that come through congress. but it seems like when there's a problem of a percentage of the american people in health care or housing or gun laws are what have you, they immediately say government should do something. they don't trust the bureaucracy. they don't trust washington, they don't trust congress the government should do something. how do you explain a paradox?
>> i think there's a temptation among all to want to live at the expense of somebody else. that is the american people and it's sad to say this, is that the american people love to live at the expense of somebody else, that is whether they are farmers and they want farm subsidies or food stamps, and business bailouts. so let's say in the case of a farmer, for farmers having trouble and puts a gun to me and says give me your money he's going to go to jail but if he goes to washington and gets a congressman to write a law enabling the irs to take my money, he doesn't go to jail. so what people like to use government to do things that if they did the same thing, they would go to jail. what i'm saying is that people like to use the government to legalize theft.
mark: what's interesting about that too, if it's defined as compassion is so in other words using government, the law and the power of government to take someone -- something from someone and give it to somebody else but it takes something from a generation that's not yet learned. we have to at a trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. there is going be a trillion dollar deficit this year. we just voted one of the mass -- most massive budgets and the president signed it. two generations from now those kids will have to deal with this so when it comes to their own children and grandchildren do you think parents who love their children and grandchildren, and you think they delude themselves into thinking well that is this ambiguous future generation, my kids will be find? what is the mindset? >> here is the problem, that the big collapse will not come until 2030 or 2040 and any congressman
who will take steps now to prevent the big collapse, he's going to be thrown out of office. that is a major big problem in our spending is social security and medicare. any congressman talking about doing something about social security in doing something about medicare will be run out of office by the people who are over 65 who voted in large numbers. we have to ask ourselves the question, is it reasonable for us to expect a politician to do what he considers to be political suicide? i would say no. it's unreasonable for us to expect that of a politician so politicians are running a congressman this time two years. not 15 or 20 years, it's two years and so that's what we have to live with. mark: so that is the circular
problem because these people will continue to do what they are doing, these politicians. in fact they grab more war power from the private sector and from the individual and yet they don't have the ability either because the public or their own lack of will to do what needs to be done 20 or 30 years also what happens to the country? >> well people will say what can we do and i ask what are the american people as human beings, are we any different from the spanish, the portuguese, the french, the british? great empires in the past who went down the tubes for doing roughly what we are doing and i say well maybe we are not that different and maybe we are going to share the same future as those other great empires of the past. keep in mind we have the trade the founding fathers of our country. if you look at 45 when james
madison was writing the federalist papers and 45 he was trying to convince the citizens of new york to ratify the constitution and they were afraid to ratify the constitution. you say the powers that we delegate to the federal government are few and well-defined and restricted mostly to external affairs. the powers left with the people in the state are numerous. if you turn that upside down we have what we have now, the powers of the federal power and that is numerous. mark: in many respects to follow up on your point we have oppose constitutional. not. it's not really a federal republic that the states limit has to have government. this mask administrative state with 2 million civil servants and bureaucrats and it's not really constitutional republic when five individuals on the court can decide in a 5-44 vote
of something as fundamental are not fundamental or they decide to nationalize an issue there is no recourse. what kind of the government is this right now? >> we are moving towards totalitarianism. i'm not saying we are a totalitarian nation yet but which way are we headed? tiny steps at a time. more government control over our lives and it's the latter more government control over our lives in so and the tragic thing about this is that the american people have contempt for the united states constitution, contempt because any politician who decided to uphold and defend the united states constitution, he would not get elected to office by the american people. if he says look, nowhere in the constitution is their authorities for the federal government to be involved in
education so send me to washington. i'm not going to bring back aid to higher dictation. he would be run out of town. mark: do you think then that progressives, these anti-constitutional and to rip public ideology born of my opinion russo, marks and their progeny, and do we, cruelly, wilson do you think they have succeeded? >> well the jeffersonians and anti-federalist have-nots seceded so the progressives have succeeded very well. the wilsonian objectives or vision is hard said in our economy or if you look at "the communist manifesto" written by marx and engels and if you look
at the things that they want come to think of things they want we have accomplished this in our country. mark: there are people out there, the tea party movement the reagan revolution, constitutional conservative. i talked to them everyday on my radio show. they say what can we do about this? what can we do about this? i initially was strongly opposed to article v convention of the state and i studied it and studied the history behind it. i studied the george mason proposed it 10 days before the end of the constitutional dimension and madison certainly supported it. madison argued for it. when there was this nullification taking place and this is a movement with millions of people supporting it. it's a very difficult movement. in the constitution but rather than amending the constitution to congress which mason said
will one day be oppressive. there needs to be a way for people to move their state legislatures and control the government so basically that process is the state legislatures get together. it's a meeting. they used to have meetings. they send delegates and come up with their ideas and they send them through the same ratification process. it's very difficult. 38 states have to ratify it. that's behind us because i've included the supreme court is constantly rewriting the constitution. presidents are rewriting the constitution. everybody is rewriting the constitution or ignoring it. how about if we put the government back in a box and the way to do that, it's either that way or i can't think of another way. >> well i worry because we have a constitutional convention. mark: it's called convention of state. >> or convention of state. who are the people who are going
to be there? it's not going to be george mason but it's going to be people like nancy pelosi. mark: pelosi may be there but she won't be there for kansas. the problem now is we don't have any of those men or women on the supreme court or in congress or in any court and so those men and women who decided the constitutional convention and there needed to be a golf so i would encourage people to take this seriously, the article v. i know there's a lot of talk and fear-mongering but the difficulty is getting it done. when we come back i want to ask you about socialism. it seems to be very popular. new year, new bedroom
mark: walter williams let me ask you about socialism. bernie sanders is out there pushing socialism. they don't call it socialism because that word is not popular but that's what it is. free college, free health care they talk about scandinavia. the socialism. wealth and opportunity and success? >> we might start off with what is socialism and socialism or
communism is government ownership and/or control over the means of production and in that sense we have a lot of socialism already in our country and we find people asking for more of it. if you look around the world and you ask in what countries are people better off, let's say have a higher per-capita income and if you can rank countries towards countries on the free market and moving towards it and countries moving towards the socialist end of the spectrum you'll find those countries towards the free market, people are richer and also something else that is rather remarkable you can rank countries according to freedom house or amnesty international to find greater protections of personal liberty and those countries towards the free market or the end of the
economic spectrum. if you want to find poverty and abuse and human rights violations you find them in the socialist/communist countries all over the world. so anybody asking for socialism in our country they are asking for us to be less free and we have a large amount of socialism right now. we are not nearly as free as individuals as we used to be. just one argument here is that the founding fathers, they went to war with the most powerful nation on the face of this earth because they did not want to work two weeks for king george. but you and i, we are working for months out of the year in order to pay taxes. mark: do you think part of the problem here is branding, marketing and the lack of
articulate conservatism among the republican party? i mean i rarely hear them talk about first principles come individualism and liberty. you know they talk about millennials but they are in many respects lacking authority and we don't explain our ideas and their philosophies but i hear republican leaders in congress talk like their gs 13 at the department of education or something. the left is out there pushing their ideology which it's like -- i'd like your opinion on this but i think it's populism but in the end it has nothing to do with it. about centralization and fiscal control but so-called conservatives and republicans they don't even count the stuff stuff. am i right? >> i think you're absolutely right and i think the real job we have is to somehow be able to sell our fellow americans on the
moral superiority of personal liberty. we have to convince our fellow americans on the moral superior d of limited government. the average american, he hides the tierney from himself. let's say there is a lady down the street. she can't mow her lawn. she doesn't have enough money to pay somebody to mow her lawn. you ask the average american would you support the government forcing someone to go in mow her lawn each week? they would say no we wouldn't do that or he'd say well would you support somebody having to go down at the end of each week and pull money out of his wallet to give her money and he would say no. if you ask what about if we put our money in a government pot and the government sends our money out to this lady likes they would say that's different,
that's okay but all these three examples i just gave involve the forcible use of one person to serve the purpose of somebody else. but that's what the american people want. too many of us want that. to serve the purpose of somebody else and that's the definition of slavery. mark: when you bring up the congress in this country the left immediately talks about slaveowners, that they were slaveowners. but first of all all of them weren't. some of them were. some own and wanted to get rid of the whole notion of slavery but they couldn't. abraham lincoln talked to this great, this great 1858 speech debate with douglas and i want to know your opinion of this. he said these are the men that wrote the declaration of independence. there's not a word of slavery in
there and there's not a word about race and their two resolve what they could not resolve. how do you answer that? >> first of all we need to recognize that slavery has been mankind's normal state of affairs for centuries. as a matter of fact the word comes from slavs. they were among the first. it turns out the africans were the last people to be enslaved and it turns out also that the western world most notably great britain, france and the united states paid a huge cost to get rid of slavery whereby in other parts of the world slavery still exists today in some places in the middle east. but the west, they made a great effort to get rid of slavery and also we have many quotations from the founders that they look at slavery as an abomination.
what we could not have been a nation, we could not have had the ratification of the constitution without allowing the south to maintain slavery. mark: that annex one point prenab awards if there hadn't been a union there would have been a civil war. obviously one of the primary purposes of the civil war it was to eliminate slavery. over 700,000 casualties but i also find it interesting that this will be raised and it said dark mark on american history. we understand that that many people who raise it and excuse 100 million death resulting from marxism which you pointed out earlier and they push that ideology that is progeny in my view is progressivism. progressivism, is it not part and parcel to that ideology? >> that's right and communism
accounts for the greatest destruction of human life. that is hitler did not compare to stalin and mao in numbers and again you look at the third reich, communism weather stalin or mao or whatever, these are all ideologies and the whole point of our constitutional system is to ensure government is limited so that the people are as free as they possibly can be in order to avoid circumstances. >> you are utterly right. mark: when we return i want to ask dr. williams about our bill of rights and what he thinks about them. nicorette knows, quitting smoking is freaking hard. you get advice like: just stop. get a hobby.
>> a live from "america's news headquarters" i'm jon scott. the final sprint is underway in georgia democrat ascended candidate jon ossoff wrapping up his fourth rally with three days to go until the election. he and fellow democrat raphael warnock are facing off against incumbent david perdue and kelly loeffler. both of them are hoping for big boost from president trump who is set to hold a rally for the republican candidates on monday. a shooting in a walmart in virginia has left for injured including a police officer and the suspects.
the incident occurred sometime late this afternoon after the officer suspected the robbery was taking place. all four have been taken to a nearby hospital to undergo treatment. i'm jon scott. you can catch me tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. eastern or special "fox report" and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern. now back to "life, liberty and levin." mark: walter williams we have this debate that goes on after these mass murders. and i'm watching the news with great trepidation. we are not really getting facts. we aren't getting information or we get it initially and it turns on a dime the debate of the 2nd amendment. what i'm noticing about this really does debate over the 2nd amendment and i'm curious your thoughts on this as the debate over the first amendment.
gun control but they also want debate control to kiss people who dare to say wait a minute they be localities ought to figure this out. maybe there are to be police and the schools, maybe washington doesn't have the answers and you want to outlaw weapons, whatever. this kind of free-flowing debate many of our universities nonexistent now and it's limited. this is the media we have anymore groupthink is being promoted so what do you think about this? >> i think americans need to be educated on why the founders of our nation gave us the 2nd amendment in the first place and they gave us the 2nd amendment not to do duck hunting and not to do dear hunting and to protect our houses. they explicitly said they want us to have the arms to protect ourselves against abuse of government. mark: what you just said is true. factually and historically true
and get its crazy to the left. >> that is absolutely right what another question about gun control in terms of reducing crime keep in mind that guns are inanimate objects. one can put a gun right here and it can be there for a century and it's not going to do anything. now the people who are arguing for gun control as a way to reduce the slaughter that we see in the united states, they are kind of saying with cars you know like if 30 people are killed each day by drunk drivers in our country so what do you want to do? you want to have car control or it turns out that rifles kill -- rifles and shotguns are used to kill 550 people each year according to fbi statistics but
in terms of knives, knives and -- knives are responsible for 1500 deaths each year so what do you want knife control? you can use the same reasoning that people use about guns to cars and knives and you'd have background checks and background checks when you buy a car. what we fail to realize is that what has happened to our society in terms of morality and keep in mind today it's more difficult to get a gun or rifle than it has ever been in our country. if you look in the sears roebuck catalog of 1908, there are 35 pages of sales of guns and what you do at the sears catalog you send them the money and they send you the gun or when you
walk into a hardware store or for a long time a birthday present for a 12-year-old or a 14-year-old from his father was a 22 rifle. the schools had gun shooting clubs and so you say well you might say, well what has happened to guns between now and between 1920 and today? water guns doing differently? guns aren't doing anything differently. you have to us to question what has happened to people since the 1920s and there has been a decline in morals. this is what you find happening all over our country. you can say that we want gun control to protect our kids in schools. that's just plain nonsense. mark: and yes it's being pushed. it's almost monopolizing the debate and i have to shut it off.
i see guests who come on who have a different point of view and they are shut down. i see one cable channel, "cnn" at this event the other night with marco rubio and others who were shouted down because they were for gun control. the host used to work for it gun control organization. whether climate change, abortion, gun control it seems to be we are always debating on the grounds of the terms set at the left. why is that? >> i think it's that the left is very very effective at selling their point of view to the american people than the right or libertarians or conservatives. that is, we are not as good with messaging as the left. the left appears so caring and whereby the right do not appear as carrying.
what we have to do, we have to be able to sell the moral superiority of personal liberty and just morality in general. mark: are there enough of us left or willing to do at? thereunder allotting congress i'll tell you that. >> or college campuses either. ♪ aging is a journey. you can't always know what's ahead. since 1995, seniors have opened their doors to right at home for personalized care.
what confuses me a little bit. you go into a grocery store today, they have megastores. you can get anything from anywhere. not just the united states, all over the world meats, poultry and fish. if you have certain types of illnesses or allergies there's a whole section for that. you have whatever section over there and whines all over the country, wines from all of the world 10 different types of bread, five different types of hotdog runs, 10 different types of hot dogs. that's available to any person in the united states. there aren't people on the face of the planet who have ever lived like we live, it hangs, queens amber's. we want to travel across the country we get annoyed if our plane is delayed for an hour or two. we get off the plane that is
air-conditioned or he did whatever it is, it's fairly comfortable. we complain about tight spaces and so on and so forth flying from the east coast to the west coast in about five hours. never before in human history. capitalism, individualism, liberty get this bum rap. if i wake up at 2:00 in the morning i can go to a 7-eleven and buy anything i need. if you needed drug because you have an illness you get it the same day or the next day. how can you explain that the live and i mean all americans quite frankly have access to these. the vast majority of us live in the lap of luxury. created by us and our ancestors yet it goes absolutely unnoticed. >> as a matter of fact i would add to that even more people in our country today think they are of kings microwave ovens are
conditioning etc. etc. and i think all this riches, it's a fruit of capitalism and a fruit of human ingenuity and sometimes i ask my students, i will say how come george washington did not have a cell phone? you could have then offended immensely from having a cell phone to stay in contact with his troops. well, i will tell them all the material to make a cell phone was around at the time of george washington and it was also around at that time but what was different and why we have a cell phone today and george washington didn't, it has to do with the human brain. human ingenuity, human beings being free to explore things. that is why we have, that is why we enjoy the riches that are
unprecedented in history. it's the human brain allows us to be free to do those things and lying at the root of it is people's desire to have more of something and in the free market system the way that you have more of something is to please your fellow man. why is bill gates so rich? did he take your money? he didn't rob you. what he did, he found some way to please you. he found a way to please millions and millions of people and they voluntarily plunked down $400 for his windows or you look at ford who made the model t, he did something to please his fellow man. he enabled his fellow man to be able to buy a cheaper car so that's the root of richness. the human mind and the desire
for each of us to want to have more for ourselves and in the free market system the way you get more for yourself is by pleasing your fellow man, prior to capitalism the way that people became rich was through plundering and enslaving their fellow man but the free market made it possible for people to a mass huge amounts of wealth by serving and pleasing their fellow man. mark: in socialism and communism they in destroyed an entire market. >> that is right, absolutely. mark: socialism and communism are about -- they are not about creating wealth and opportunity. >> they are about taking from some people and giving to other people. mark: when i come back i want to ask you about this. what did this framers and the
i discovered my great aunt ruth signed up as a nursing cadet for world war ii. she was only 17. bring your family history to life like never before. get started for free at ancestry.com five blades and a pivotingglide flexball to life like never before. designed to get virtually every hair on the first stroke, while washing away dirt and oil. so you're ready for the day with a clean shave and a clean face.
mark: professor williams equality, we here at all the time. wage equality or income inequality and it is spoken of as the government should step in and make sure people are on the same playing field. is that what the framers meant by equality? >> no, i don't think so. i think it was put best by my late colleague famous economist milton friedman. he said that those people who put equality before liberty are not likely to have much of either but those people who put liberty before equality are likely to have a large measure of loath. and so when people talk about inequality, inequality of income in a free society the where
reason there is inequality of income is because one person satisfies his fellow man more than another but then there are other issues that produce inequality that is caused by government such as occupational licensing laws like new york city. at one time to own and operate one taxi you had to go out and buy a medallion a license that costs $700,000. that gives nine people the right to get into taxicabs in these taxicab owners will pay politicians political contributions to keep such a restriction. i think what we need to do, we need to make sure that there is what some people call a level playing field that each person has a right to pursue his own objectives without interference by others. mark: isn't that the point of the constitution which basically
says government this is what you are involved in. the founders were saying look equality means we want to be treated the same way under the law as everybody else. we don't want to be targeted via the crown or whatever were mistreated. you should be treated the same in our justice system regardless of race, religion height weight to anything else as best as we can do it in a perfect world but you can't possibly have the quality when you have individual human beings in a relatively free society pursuing their own interests? some people may work harder than others and some people may be smarter than others and as you point out they can produce more things that more people want and again we get logged down in this space about anti-capitalist arguments about equality. >> that equality that is consistent with liberty is
quality in the law. any other equality is inconsistent. mark: even look at these harshest police tape regimes that continue to wrench liberty to individuals out of their society in the name of the people. equality. >> or they are equally oppressed. >> they are very poor and starving. we will be right back. two medical societies have strongly recommended to doctors to treat acute, non-low back muscle and joint pain with topical nsaids first. a formulation they recommend can be found in salonpas. a formulation they recommend can be found in salonpas. salonpas. it's good medicine. hisamitsu. ..
since you're heading off to school, i got you this brita. dad... i just got a zerowater. but we've always used brita. it's two stage-filter... doesn't compare to zerowater's 5-stage. this meter shows how much stuff, or dissolved solids, gets left behind. our tap water is 220. brita? 110... seriously? but zerowater- let me guess. zero? yup, that's how i know it is the purest-tasting water. i need to find the receipt for that. oh yeah, you do.
optimistic right now. but unless we grab the reins of personal liberty, we are going to be like the other great empires of the past. back in 1887 during queen victoria's jubilee that britain would become a third-rate nation, you would have been put into an insane asylum. mark: argentina. >> that's right. i hope that's not our fate as a nation. but we have to get busy now if we are going to save ourselves. we need to get busy selling our fellow americans on personal liberty and limited government. mark: we need to make the case to our fellow americans. for americanism.
that's the bottom line. >> that's right. mark: it's been an absolute pleasure having you on to educate me and the rest of the country. thanks for watching this special episode of "life, liberty & levin" in honor of the late great walter williams. [♪] dan: happy new year, welcome to "watters' world." i'm dan bongino in for jesse watters. the control of the senate hangs in the bam in one state, georgia. no candidate got more than 50% of the vote on november 3. here is senator perdue. >> kelly loeffler and i are leaving it all on the field. the