.
MARK: HELLO, AMERICA, I'M
LEVIN, THIS IS "LIFE, LIBERTY &
LEVIN," AND IT IS A GREAT HONOR
TO HAVE MY FRIEND WALTER
WILLIAMS ON.
>> HELLO.
MARK: FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
DON'T KNOW WALTER, ALL THREE
PEOPLE, YOU ARE THE
DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF
ECONOMICS AT GEORGE MASON.
KNOW YOU AS SYNDICATED
COLUMNIST, AUTHOR, NUMEROUS
BOOKS, ESSAYS,
LIBERTARIAN/CLASSICAL LIBERAL,
I WOULD SAY.
>> FAIRLY RIGHT.
MARK: IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT?
>> AND YOU WRITE FOR TOWN HALL,
JEWISH WORLD REVIEW, HUNDREDS
OF NEWSPAPERS ACROSS AMERICA.
LET'S JUMP RIGHT INTO THIS.
LET'S START WITH FUNDAMENTALS.
LET'S START WITH THE BASICS.
HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE LIBERTY?
>> WELL, I DEFINED IT AS PEOPLE
BEING ABLE TO ENGAGE IN
PEACEABLE, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE
WITHOUT INTERFERENCE BY OTHERS,
AND TYPICALLY AND NOW THROUGH
MANKIND'S HISTORY, LIBERTY IS
NOT THE NORMAL STATE OF
AFFAIRS, THAT IS THROUGHOUT
MANKIND'S HISTORY, HE'S BEEN
SUBJECT TO ARBITRARY ABUSE AND
CONTROL BY OTHERS, AND SO THE
AMOUNT OF LIBERTIES THAT
AMERICANS HAVE AND PERHAPS
WESTERN EUROPE AS WELL, THE
AMOUNT OF IT, IS RELATIVELY
RARE IN HUMAN KIND, AND I THINK
THAT THE DANGER THAT WE FACE IS
THAT SOME HISTORIAN MAYBE 200
YEARS FROM NOW, MIGHT BE
WRITING, LOOK THE NORMAL STATE
OF AFFAIRS IS ARBITRARY ABUSE
AND CONTROL BY OTHERS, AND
THERE'S THIS LITTLE TINY
CURIOSITY WHERE, A 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?
THAT THERE'S A PARADOX BECAUSE
PEOPLE WHO ARE UNWILLING ABOUT
LIBERTY CAN USE LIBERTY TO
DESTROY LIBERTY?
>> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THEY CAN USE LIBERTY TO DESTROY
LIBERTY.
THEY CAN USE THE -- IF YOU LOOK
AT TOTALITARIANS AROUND THE
WORLD, THEY ALWAYS START AT
THEY ARE 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 WANT TO
ELIMINATE FREE SPEECH, AND YOU
SEE THIS ALL THE TIME.
YOU WILL SEE THIS ALL OVER THE
WORLD, AND BEGINNING TO SEE IT
IN THE UNITED STATES, THAT IS
IN BERKELEY, THE SEED OF THE
FREE SPEECH MOVEMENT, BUT NOW
AT BERKELEY, THEY DON'T WANT
ANY FREE SPEECH WHATSOEVER.
SO, AGAIN, I THINK THAT WE HAVE
TO BE VERY, VERY CONCERNED
BECAUSE WE'RE LOSING OUR
LIBERTY, AND IF YOU ASKED THE
QUESTION, WHICH WAY ARE WE
MOVING, TINY STEPS AT A TIME,
ARE WE HEADED TOWARDS MORE
PERSONAL LIBERTY OR TOWARDS
MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER
OUR LIVES?
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE
UNAMBIGUOUSLY THE LATTER.
MARK: WHEN I WAS ABOUT 20 YEARS
OLD, MY FATHER AND I VISITED A
CENTER BY THE NAME OF PAUL ALAN
GREENSPAN -- PAUL AGSALT.
EVERY DAY CONGRESS MEETS WE
LOSE A LITTLE BIT OF OUR
LIBERTY.
IT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE THAT
WAY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LARGELY DO
NOT LIKE POLITICIANS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LARGELY DO
NOT LIKE CONGRESS, AND ALL THE
POLLS COME THROUGH, CONGRESS
RATES IT VERY LOW, BUT IT SEEMS
LIKE WHEN THERE'S A PROBLEM,
THERE'S A BIG PERCENTAGE OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE ON HEALTH CARE
OR HOUSING OR GUN LAWS OR WHAT
HAVE YOU, THEY IMMEDIATELY SAY
GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO SOMETHING,
THEY DON'T TRUST THE
BUREAUCRACY, DON'T TRUST
WASHINGTON, DON'T TRUST
CONGRESS, BUT GOVERNMENT SHOULD
DO SOMETHING, HOW DO YOU
EXPLAIN THAT PARADOX?
>> I THINK THERE'S THE
TEMPTATION AMONG ALL HUMANS 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 IT BE FARMERS,
THEY WANT THE FARM SUBSIDIES,
POOR PEOPLE, FOOD STAMPS,
BUSINESS BAILOUTS.
LET'S SAY THE CASE OF A FARMER,
IF THE FARMER IS HAVING TROUBLE
AND IF HE COMES AND PUTS A GUN
TO ME AND SAYS GIVE ME YOUR
MONEY, HE'S GOING TO GO TO
JAIL.
BUT IF HE GOES 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.
SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS PEOPLE
LIKE TO USE THE GOVERNMENT TO
LEGALIZE THEFT.
MARK: AND WHAT'S INTERESTING
ABOUT THAT TOO IS IT'S DEFINED
AS COMPASSIONATE.
IN OTHER WORDS, USING
GOVERNMENT, THE LAW, THE POWER
OF GOVERNMENT TO TAKE SOMETHING
FROM SOMEONE AND GIVE IT TO
SOMEBODY ELSE.
OR TO TAKE SOMETHING FROM A
GENERATION THAT'S NOT YET BORN.
WE HAVE $200 TRILLION IN
UNFUNDED LIABILITIES, $21
TRILLION FISCAL OPERATING DEBT.
A TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT THIS
YEAR.
THEY JUST VOTED ONE OF THE
MASSIVE BUDGETS IN AMERICAN
HISTORY, THE REPUBLICANS DID,
THE PRESIDENT SIGNED IT.
THREE GENERATIONS FROM NOW, TWO
GENERATIONS FROM NOW, THOSE
KIDS HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS.
WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR OWN
CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN DO
YOU THINK PARENTS WHO LOVE
THEIR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN DELUDE THEMSELVES
INTO THINKING THAT'S THEM,
THAT'S THE AMBIGUOUS FUTURE
GENERATION, MY KIDS WILL BE
FINE?
WHAT'S THE MIND-SET THERE?
>> I THINK -- HERE'S THE
PROBLEM IS 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, THE MAJOR BIG PROBLEM
IN OUR SPENDING IS SOCIAL
SECURITY AND MEDICARE.
ANY CONGRESSMAN TALKING ABOUT
DOING SOMETHING ABOUT SOCIAL
SECURITY, DOING SOMETHING ABOUT
MEDICARE, HE'S GOING TO BE RUN
OUT OF OFFICE.
AND BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OVER
65 WHO VOTE 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 THINK NO.
IT'S UNREASONABLE FOR US TO
EXPECT THAT OF A POLITICIAN, SO
OUR POLITICIANS ARE RUNNING --
A CONGRESSMAN, HIS TIME HORIZON
IS 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 A CIRCULAR
PROBLEM, THEN, BECAUSE THESE
PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT
THEY'RE DOING, THESE
POLITICIANS.
IN FACT THEY GRAB MORE AND MORE
POWER FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR,
FROM THE INDIVIDUAL, AND YET
THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY
EITHER BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC OR
BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN LACK OF
WILL TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE
DONE 20, 30, 40 YEARS OUT.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
MARK: SO WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR
COUNTRY?
>> WELL, PEOPLE WILL SAY WHAT
CAN WE DO?
I ASK ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AS HUMAN BEINGS, ARE WE ANY
DIFFERENT FROM THE SPANISH?
THE PORTUGUESE?
THE FRENCH?
THE BRITISH?
GREAT EMPIRES OF THE PAST WHO
WENT DOWN THE TUBES FOR DOING
ROUGHLY WHAT WE'RE DOING, BREAD
AND SERVICES, MAYBE WE'RE NOT
THAT DIFFERENT, AND MAYBE WE'RE
GOING TO SHARE THE SAME FUTURE
AS THE OTHER GREAT EMPIRES OF
THE PAST.
KEEP IN MIND, WE HAVE BETRAYED
THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF OUR
COUNTRY.
IF YOU LOOK AT FEDERALIST PAPER
45 WHEN JAMES MADISON IS RIDING
FEDERALIST PAPER 45, HE WAS
TRYING TO CONVINCE THE CITIZENS
OF NEW YORK TO RATIFY THE
CONSTITUTION AND THEY WERE
AFRAID TO RATIFY THE
CONSTITUTION, AND HE SAID THE
POWERS THAT WE DELEGATED TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE FEW AND
WELL DEFINED, AND RESTRICTED
MOSTLY TO EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.
POWERS LEFT WITH THE PEOPLE IN
THE STATE ARE INDEFINITE AND
NUMEROUS.
IF YOU TURN THAT UPSIDE DOWN,
HAVE YOU WHAT WE HAVE NOW, THE
POWERS OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT ARE INDEFINITE AND
NUMEROUS.
MARK: WOULD YOU -- TO FOLLOW UP
YOUR POINT, A POST
CONSTITUTIONAL PERIOD?
IT'S NOT REALLY A FEDERAL
REPUBLIC SINCE THE STATES LIVE
AT THE BEHEST OF THE FEDERAL
REPUBLIC.
HAVE YOU THIS MASSIVE
ADMINISTRATIVE STATE WITH 2
MILLION CIVIL SERVANTS,
BUREAUCRATS AND NOT REALLY A
CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC WHEN
FIVE INDIVIDUALS ON THE COURT
CAN DECIDE, IN A 5-4 VOTE, IF
SOMETHING IS FUNDAMENTAL OR NOT
FUNDAMENTAL?
OR DECIDE NOT TO NATIONALIZE AN
ISSUE AND THERE'S NO RECOURSE.
WHAT KIND OF A GOVERNMENT IS
THIS RIGHT NOW?
>> WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS
TOTALITARIANISM.
THAT IS I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE A
TOTALITARIAN NATION YET, BUT
WHICH WAY ARE WE HEADED?
TINY STEPS AT A TIME.
MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER
OUR LIVES OR MORE LIBERTY?
AND IT'S THE LATTER, MORE
GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER OUR
LIVES.
AND SO -- AND THE TRAGIC THING
ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE HAVE CONTEMPT FOR THE
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
CONTEMPT AND IGNORANCE BECAUSE
ANY POLITICIAN WHO DECIDED TO
UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION, HE WOULD
NOT GET ELECTED TO OFFICE BY
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
THAT IS -- IF HE SAYS, LOOK,
NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION IS
THERE AUTHORITY FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED IN
EDUCATION.
SO IF YOU SEND ME TO
WASHINGTON, I'M NOT GOING TO
BRING BACK BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN AID TO HIGHER EDUCATION
BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
HE'D BE RUN OUT OF TOWN.
MARK: DO YOU THINK, THEN, THAT
PROGRESSIVISM, THIS
ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL,
ANTI-REPUBLIC IDEOLOGY, BORNE
OF, IN MY OPINION, RUSSO AND
HAGGLE, MARX AND THEIR PROGENY,
DEWEY, CROWLEY, WILSON, YOU
THINK THEY'VE SUCCEEDED?
>> WELL, THE JEFFERSONIANS AND
ANTI-FEDERALISTS, THEY HAVE NOT
SUCCEEDED, SO THE PROGRESS I
HAVE SUCCEEDED VERY WELL.
THE WILSONIAN OBJECTIVES OR
VISION IS HARD SET IN OUR
ECONOMY.
OR IF YOU LOOK AT COMMUNIST
MANIFESTO WRITTEN BY MARX AND
ENGELS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
THINGS THAT THEY WANT, THE TEN
THINGS THEY WANTED, WE'VE
ACCOMPLISHED IT IN OUR COUNTRY.
MARK: AND SO THERE ARE PEOPLE
OUT THERE, THE TEA PARTY
MOVEMENT, THE OLD REAGAN
REVOLUTION, CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSERVATIVES, I TALK TO THEM
EVERY DAY 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 5,
CONVENTION OF STATES, AND I
STUDIED IT, STUDIED THE HISTORY
BEHIND IT, I STUDIED THE GEORGE
MASON PROPOSED IT, TWO DAYS
BEFORE THE END OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
THAT MADISON STOOD UP AND
SUPPORTED IT, THAT MADISON
ARGUED FOR IT WHEN THERE WAS
THIS NULLIFICATION EFFORT
TAKING PLACE, AND THIS IS A
MOVEMENT, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE
SUPPORTING IT, IT'S A VERY
DIFFICULT MOVEMENT, IT'S IN THE
CONSTITUTION, RATHER THAN
AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION
THROUGH CONGRESS WHICH MASON
SAID WOULD ONE DAY BE A
OPPRESSIVE, IT NEEDS TO BE
CONTROLLING THE GOVERNMENT.
THE STATE LEGISLATURES GET
TOGETHER, IT'S A CONVENTION OF
STATES, IT'S A MEETING.
THEY USED TO HAVE MEETINGS.
SEND DELEGATES, THEY COME UP
WITH IDEAS AND SEND THEM
THROUGH THE SAME RATIFICATION
PROCESS, WHICH IS VERY
DIFFICULT, 38 STATES HAVE TO
RATIFY.
I'VE GOTTEN BEHIND THIS BECAUSE
I'VE CONCLUDED, THE SUPREME
COURT'S CONSTANTLY REWRITING
THE CONSTITUTION.
PRESIDENTS ARE REWRITING THE
CONSTITUTION, EVERYBODY IS
REWRITING THE CONSTITUTION.
>> OR IGNORING IT.
MARK: OR IGNORING IT.
HOW ABOUT WE PUT THE GOVERNMENT
BACK IN A BOX, AND IF THERE IS
A WAY TO DO THAT, IT'S EITHER
THAT WAY OR I CAN'T THINK OF
ANY OTHER WAY?
>> WELL, I WORRY ABOUT THAT
BECAUSE IF WE HAVE A
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
MARK: IT'S CALLED CONVENTION OF
STATE.
>> IT'S CALLED CONVENTION OF
STATES.
WELL, WHO ARE THE KIND OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE
THERE?
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE BENJAMIN
FRANKLIN.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE GEORGE
MASON.
MARK: BUT HERE'S THE THING --
>> BUT IT'S GOING TO BE PEOPLE
LIKE NANCY PELOSI.
MARK: NANCY PELOSI MAY BE
THERE, BUT SHE WON'T BE THERE
FROM 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 IT WAS THOSE MEN AND WOMEN
WHO DECIDED, OR MEN, AT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THAT
THERE NEEDED TO BE A VALVE.
I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO TAKE A
SERIOUS LOOK AT THIS.
>> THE ARTICLE 5.
MARK: THE ARTICLE 5.
THERE'S A LOT OF TALK OF
FEARMONGERING, BUT THE
DIFFICULTY IS GETTING IT DONE.
.
>>> WHEN WE COME BACK, I WANT
TO ASK BUT SOCIALISM, WHICH
SEEMS TO BE VERY POPULAR THESE
DAYS.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, JUST SO
YOU KNOW, EVERY WEEK NIGHT YOU
CAN WATCH ME ON LEVIN TV BY
GOING TO CRTV.COM OR GIVING US