Posted on 07/03/2007 11:38:09 PM PDT by goldstategop
Last week, I bemoaned New York Times columnist David Brooks's eagerness to have government impose force on others. He was promoting programs like "National Service." Why are many conservatives so eager to wield force? Conservatives used to complain when so-called liberals did that.
That same week I happened to interview filmmaker Michael Moore for "20/20." Moore wants government to monopolize health care. His new film, "Sicko," argues that Canada and France approach paradise because their governments provide health care and more. This brought him standing ovations in Cannes.
"But government is force," I said to him. He was incredulous.
Michael Moore: Why do you see it as force?
Me: Because government takes money with force from people and gives it to others.
Moore: No, it doesn't, actually. The government is of, by, and for the people. The people elect the government, and the people determine whether or not they'll allow the government to collect taxes from them.
Is it really necessary to explain that government is force? When the Salvation Army asks you for a donation, you are free to say no, and you suffer no consequences. When the U.S. government demands a tax return and a check on April 15, you can't say no and go about your business. You comply or face fines or imprisonment. Yes, you get to vote for candidates periodically. But having an infinitesimal say in who will coerce you doesn't change that fact that they are using force.
Increasingly, it seems that the biggest difference between conservatives and "liberals" is that the conservatives know government is force. But that doesn't stop them from using it.
Michael Moore may not have thought about it, but there are only two ways to get people to do things: force or persuasion. Government is all about force. Government has nothing it hasn't first expropriated from some productive person.
In contrast, the private sector -- whether nonprofit or a greedy business -- must work through persuasion and consent. No matter how rich Bill Gates gets, he cannot force us to buy his software. Outside government, actions are voluntary, and voluntary is better because it reflects the free judgment of creative, productive people. As I wrote in "Give Me a Break" [http://tinyurl.com/2bx2ut]: "If government would just back off, the private sector will provide many of the same services faster, better, and cheaper." There are plenty of examples that should astound the socialists, like better private water works, ambulance services, roads, even air-traffic control.
Of course, I'm talking about a private sector that gets no privileges from the state. That doesn't describe our private sector now. For years government has bestowed all kinds of favors on special interests, from trade restrictions on foreign competitors to cash subsidies and cheap loans to corporate tax deductions for health insurance. People in and out of government have conspired to pollute the voluntary private sector with force and regimentation. That's why we have a mixed rather than a free economy.
Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Was he ever right! Liberty yields as well-intentioned busybodies try to "fix" the world by stopping you from using gasoline or forcing you to finance antipoverty programs.
No behavior is too small or private to escape the schemers. When a New Zealand couple recently named their child "4real," the Washington Times said it was "unfortunate" that the government doesn't forbid that. The "conservative" newspaper named the couple "Knaves of the Week."
That prompted Donald Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, to write the editor: "I choose you as my 'Knave of the Week' for asserting that the decision on naming a child should belong to politicians and bureaucrats rather than exclusively to that child's parents. True knaves are those who arrogantly impose their tastes and preferences upon others."
Exactly. "Live and let live" used to be a noble approach to life. Now you're considered compassionate if you demand that government impose your preferences on others.
I prefer "live and let live."
John Stossel is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
©Creators Syndicate Live and Let Live By John Stossel Wednesday, July 4, 2007 Send an email to John Stossel Email It Print It Take Action Read Article & Comments (4) Trackbacks Post Your Comments
Last week, I bemoaned New York Times columnist David Brooks's eagerness to have government impose force on others. He was promoting programs like "National Service." Why are many conservatives so eager to wield force? Conservatives used to complain when so-called liberals did that.
That same week I happened to interview filmmaker Michael Moore for "20/20." Moore wants government to monopolize health care. His new film, "Sicko," argues that Canada and France approach paradise because their governments provide health care and more. This brought him standing ovations in Cannes.
"Sicko" director Michael Moore, right, greets actor Joshua Jackson, left, on the red carpet at a special screening of the film at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences in Beverly Hills, Calif., Tuesday, June 26, 2007. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello) Related Media: VIDEO: Michael Moore Receives Sick E-Mails VIDEO: "Sicko" Provokes Health Care Debate VIDEO: Michael Moore: Money Rules Healthcare
"But government is force," I said to him. He was incredulous.
Michael Moore: Why do you see it as force?
Me: Because government takes money with force from people and gives it to others.
Moore: No, it doesn't, actually. The government is of, by, and for the people. The people elect the government, and the people determine whether or not they'll allow the government to collect taxes from them.
Is it really necessary to explain that government is force? When the Salvation Army asks you for a donation, you are free to say no, and you suffer no consequences. When the U.S. government demands a tax return and a check on April 15, you can't say no and go about your business. You comply or face fines or imprisonment. Yes, you get to vote for candidates periodically. But having an infinitesimal say in who will coerce you doesn't change that fact that they are using force.
Increasingly, it seems that the biggest difference between conservatives and "liberals" is that the conservatives know government is force. But that doesn't stop them from using it.
Michael Moore may not have thought about it, but there are only two ways to get people to do things: force or persuasion. Government is all about force. Government has nothing it hasn't first expropriated from some productive person.
In contrast, the private sector -- whether nonprofit or a greedy business -- must work through persuasion and consent. No matter how rich Bill Gates gets, he cannot force us to buy his software. Outside government, actions are voluntary, and voluntary is better because it reflects the free judgment of creative, productive people. As I wrote in "Give Me a Break" [http://tinyurl.com/2bx2ut]: "If government would just back off, the private sector will provide many of the same services faster, better, and cheaper." There are plenty of examples that should astound the socialists, like better private water works, ambulance services, roads, even air-traffic control.
Of course, I'm talking about a private sector that gets no privileges from the state. That doesn't describe our private sector now. For years government has bestowed all kinds of favors on special interests, from trade restrictions on foreign competitors to cash subsidies and cheap loans to corporate tax deductions for health insurance. People in and out of government have conspired to pollute the voluntary private sector with force and regimentation. That's why we have a mixed rather than a free economy.
Thomas Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Was he ever right! Liberty yields as well-intentioned busybodies try to "fix" the world by stopping you from using gasoline or forcing you to finance antipoverty programs.
No behavior is too small or private to escape the schemers. When a New Zealand couple recently named their child "4real," the Washington Times said it was "unfortunate" that the government doesn't forbid that. The "conservative" newspaper named the couple "Knaves of the Week."
That prompted Donald Boudreaux, chairman of the economics department at George Mason University, to write the editor: "I choose you as my 'Knave of the Week' for asserting that the decision on naming a child should belong to politicians and bureaucrats rather than exclusively to that child's parents. True knaves are those who arrogantly impose their tastes and preferences upon others."
Exactly. "Live and let live" used to be a noble approach to life. Now you're considered compassionate if you demand that government impose your preferences on others.
I prefer "live and let live."
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
This single sentence invalidates anything Moore has to say about anything. That he doesn't grasp that even in a constitutional republic, in which the people vote for their representatives, the only source of power the government has is the threat of FORCE, is so telling.
Don't pay your taxes, Mike, and then tell me you weren't dealing with a government that FORCES.
John Stossel is a national treasure.
Socialists, that feminized fascist force, is overwhelming freedom.
Conservatives sometimes do not understand the consequences of blurring the lines between themselves and socialists on government as force.
We need to again be the party that lets you alone to live your life as you please.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
And what happens when things, like -Islamist totalitarianism- rears it's ugly head and threatens your "live and let live" and "don't tread on me" paradise?
We are neither a Libertarian free for all, never were and never were meant to be, nor a socialist marxist police state.
We are a constitutional republic, and this constitution republic, a foundation of law, is what gives us the maximum amount of freedom possible.
Ping for later read.
I find a great deal to agree with in Stossel’s article. Libertarianism seems to be the political philosophy I agree with most these days, even as both the Left and the Right find reasons to use government to impose their wishes on the public.
Then you would be well advised to use force to defend yourself. Force used in self defence against those trying to violate your rights is rightful, good and proper.
I don't believe that for a second. We'd LIKE it to mean that, but I see zero indication that Americans replaced the GOP because they perceived it had become a "big government," because they replaced it with a "bigger government" party.
The American people didn't say "We're sick of big government! Out with the GOP, in with the party of healthcare for all!" Where is the evidence of this "credit" due the American people? I WISH it were so.
Voters replaced the GOP because Republicans always show them how the world is full of threats. Most people don’t want to hear it. They just want to get back to their barbeques and entertainment. The normal human reaction is to avoid problems instead of tackling them. And the Foley scandal didn’t help either.
Your handle is the most accurate on FR.
What good insight. I can say I learned something beneficial today.
IN principle, any force that can morally be exercised by an individual, such as force to protect life or property, can by asserted by a group or a society collectively.
Force that CANNOT be morally exercised by an individual, such as force used to commit theft, i.e. robbery, can never become moral just because it was accomplished collectively.
Forcibly extracting money from individuals is immoral and illegal when done for a purpose that lacks fundamental underlying moral force, whether carried out by indiviuals or gangs, no matter how large or well organized. But, in the hands of Socialists this particularly insidious form of robbery becomes a cause for self-congratulation. There is no self-satisfaction quite as repulsive as moral gloating bought with someone else’s money.
Yet, Democrats never see it this way. They have a moral blind spot that is quite malignant and very persistent.
Yes, I do not disagree with you. I also have read Bastiat’s “The Law.”
This is the reason, IMHO, that Liberal talk radio never gets off the ground. As long as the government subsidized NPR exists and the not-even-remotely-about-profit AirAmerica operates, Liberal talk radio will never have the opportunity to develop appealing and profitable programming.
The failure of Liberal talk radio is just another example of Liberal good intentions and government largesse supressing innovation and risk taking and preventing the very thing they mean to promote.
John Stossel rocks!
I hadn’t had that book in mind, but yes, it is particularly well reasoned and consistent in its uncompromising outlook. When you’re right you’re right.
John Stossel speaks the truth.
More governement means less liberty or more liberty means less government - hmmm, that sounds like Walter Williams’ recent book... another national treasure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.