First time I've seen Mr Caldara, but he's an exceptional interviewer. Devil's Advocate is a perfect description of him. (No need to add praise for Mr Williams, of course.)
The "Pete Townsend" of economics. Sweet. I'm going to be repeating that a lot. Prof. W is a superstar, that's for sure. I want to see what it would like to have Tom Sowell and Walter Williams in the same room. That would be pretty sweet.
Those of you pissing and moaning about how the host was so bad, the show is called "Devil's Advocate" for a reason. His whole job is to disagree with Williams to help the conversation flow.
Much respect for Walter E. Williams. Liberty is treated as a trend current day and is out of style. The American flag maligned. We’re so arrogant in our naïveté, stupidity and complacency. The unthinkable is inevitable as a result. 🇺🇸
to study how to ask questions; (and learn to sit quietly and listen): this video is a good example of the mistake nearly all interviewers make: yes, ask your question; then be quiet ............ please ...........................
In 2001, I flew to Texas. During the TSA inspection, they found a couple of small electronic components that I had left over from a repair project that summer. They wouldn't let me take them on the plane. These components were diodes, 3/16" long black cylinders with leads on each end. I threw them in the trash. When I got to where I was going, I was going through my backpack and found a snapblade knife. But thank god, i got rid of my diodes.
I’m not American but here is why I think court challenges to your Constitution end up creating changes that Dr. Williams believes we’re not the intent of the drafters of your Constitution. In court you only get two kinds of justices, those who want to interpret law and those who want to make law. When a majority of Supreme Court Justices want to make law, the original intent or restrictions provided for in your Constitution don’t stand a chance. Laws are interpreted by precedence, and the way precedence changes is when justices want to make new law.
I am in disbelief that Walter E. Williams said early on in this interview that airline safety could be had by allowing everyone on the plane to carry a pistol .... OMG. That tell's me a lot about how his mind actually works.
That would be an entertaining debate but would it actually accomplish anything. Both of them would come with diametrically opposed views that don't reveal anything new.
“For the sake of safety” Look where we are now..😷 If we all had carryons many would think twice, if they make a wrong choice, it would most likely result in one for one.
Um.. So the bailouts came in which industries, those that are most regulated or those that are least regulated? Hint: I wouldn't be asking unless I thought it was good for my side. For example, there are 100's of federal agencies charged with regulating banks. The regulations run to many 10's of thousands of pages, and have penalties with maximums of $billions and 10's of years in jail. That's why there were bailouts for banks and not computer companies.
This is an excellent article that discusses the relationships governing federal regulations over banking: www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-179414/
I don't personally have any overarching moral objection to taking to give, but I do agree that the government in the current political landscape is incapable of doing it. Perhaps a greater fear of mine is that even given the right systems to allow people to flourish are Americans ready for it and how long would it take to change. We definitely aren't a third world country on social, economic, etc issues, but we fall decades behind others already in such areas.
You would object if a thief entered your home, beat you into submission, and stole your belongings. It is no different in principle from a government that holds people at gunpoint through unconstitutional laws with the threat of being beaten and thrown into prison if they do not hand over the money they worked to earn to take care of their own families. By forcibly taking money from one person to give it to another, the government is lowering the standard of living for the entire household of the person whose money was taken. Through that process we have lost the ability to afford to give independently to those we know are in need. We have lost the ability to independently help our own children rise above our own lowered standard of living. As a result, entire households of lower middle class and their future generations are now locked into poverty through being forcefully made to bear the weight of many households that they cannot afford to support. The lower middle class lives to pay bills, buy groceries, keep up with their growing children's needs for clothing, and provide even more funding to the state for school projects, field trips, sports and music programs we were told taxes would pay for, and the list goes on and on. By threat we live to serve the State at the pleasure of the State whether we can afford it or not, whether it damages our standard of living or not.
Didn't Archie Bunker say the very same thing in an episode of All in the Family? Preventing skyjackings. "Hand out pistols to all passengers before the flight and collect 'em up when the flight is over."
Why shouldn't it be constitutional? It's popular. Um, because the constitution doesn't provide that popularity of a law is included as a basis for congressional authority.
If you elect representatives and they allocate 60% of your charitable giving the way you see fit (very generous), you are still losing 40% of efficiency in allocation. Why not let people allocate their own social giving voluntarily? You don't need government to organize and pool resources. There are many large charities who operate on money given voluntarily by the benevolence of individuals. You have a built-in inefficiency when you grant a taxing body the right to redistribute your money because at least some of it will go to efforts that you think are misguided. I believe in the moral superiority of personal liberty and also the economic advantages of removing all of the redistributive policies of our government.
It would be the same as if I said "I don't have any overarching moral objection to taking a life, but..", It sounds horrible when spoken, but most people in practice have the same opinion. There are situations where people would say it was morally justified to take a life under very strict circumstances (be it self defense, war, or otherwise). Same here - I wouldn't go as far as to say its NEVER morally justified to take from someone (most people, when phrased like that, would agree).
"Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University, joins host Jon Caldara to talk about the current state of the free market in America." There is no "free market" in America. The economic system is largely a corporatist oligopoly. That is why there is such a thing as trillion dollar bailouts.
Are U sure Christopher??????????? The Bail out Package TAPR it is not the same as the Stimulus Package what a confusion I bet U Walter Williams hasnt even read niether legislations so how come I can give his opinion on it
He didn't explain what should be done, to help the old lady sleeping, homeless, cold on the street. I think Walter Williams in his way of thinking, is to just leave her !
personal responsibility ≠ government responsibility Indeed, the increase of government responsibility allows more and more of us to ignore our personal responsibilities - so that the panhandler should apply to a program instead of become part of my life and my personal concern. I suspect Prof. Williams way of thinking is closer to mine: - Don't give them money, give them your phone number and your time. - Don't prop up phony community with programs; build real community with relationships. Healthy habits and better outcomes will follow. Last thing: "What needs to be done" is up to us as individuals and families. Politicians sell "what needs to be done" and despite sounding great and compassionate, it usurps our responsibility for our own, our families', and our communities' outcomes.
I believe It’s self explanatory, go into your own pocket and give to the woman on the street and not someone else pocket. Simple logic and true benovelence.
May Professor Williams rest in peace! 12/01/2020
Thank you Walter Williams for your service to your country
I love this man. I wish he were my dad. He is so logical, intelligent, eloquent and inspiring. Yes, brilliant even. My idol for the past 3 decades.
Great way to get educated from a great man during quarantine
What an inspiring, brilliant man.
Yes! We need Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell running the country.
Prof. Williams is a great, courageous man! Kudos!
Iam Sad. RIP ,Great man and American Patriot, educator
"would you trust me with a pistol... " "if I had one too". for the win!
this guy is one of my 3 or 4 heros
First time I've seen Mr Caldara, but he's an exceptional interviewer. Devil's Advocate is a perfect description of him. (No need to add praise for Mr Williams, of course.)
The "Pete Townsend" of economics. Sweet. I'm going to be repeating that a lot. Prof. W is a superstar, that's for sure. I want to see what it would like to have Tom Sowell and Walter Williams in the same room. That would be pretty sweet.
"There aren't even any adults watching." Lol. This host is great and Walter Williams is a god damned national treasure.
Walter E. Williams “Black by Popular Demand”!! I love when he says that! 😂 he is brilliant.
Walter E. Williams an intellectual juggernaut, rest well patriot.
Dr. Williams is the Jimi Hendrix of Economics.
Those of you pissing and moaning about how the host was so bad, the show is called "Devil's Advocate" for a reason. His whole job is to disagree with Williams to help the conversation flow.
Excellent !
Watching this in December 2020, now the rate that we build debt exceeds GDP. US debt clock says we are now at 128.87%.
Long live freedom and democratic communism
Walter Williams is awesome. Hope he can become US president some day!
Sadly he passed last year, but your right, he would have been a great president!
Much respect for Walter E. Williams. Liberty is treated as a trend current day and is out of style. The American flag maligned. We’re so arrogant in our naïveté, stupidity and complacency. The unthinkable is inevitable as a result. 🇺🇸
to study how to ask questions; (and learn to sit quietly and listen): this video is a good example of the mistake nearly all interviewers make: yes, ask your question; then be quiet ............ please ...........................
this was great
funny how the host changes the subject every time walter answers correctly
No he didn't.
@@David53D
Re-listened, your correct. He did challenge him some. Sure enjoy listening to Walter.
Things sure have changed.
Legend
Great vid
RIP Walter Williams
In 2001, I flew to Texas. During the TSA inspection, they found a couple of small electronic components that I had left over from a repair project that summer. They wouldn't let me take them on the plane. These components were diodes, 3/16" long black cylinders with leads on each end. I threw them in the trash. When I got to where I was going, I was going through my backpack and found a snapblade knife. But thank god, i got rid of my diodes.
Thugs Standing Around :P
RIP Dr Williams
I’m not American but here is why I think court challenges to your Constitution end up creating changes that Dr. Williams believes we’re not the intent of the drafters of your Constitution. In court you only get two kinds of justices, those who want to interpret law and those who want to make law. When a majority of Supreme Court Justices want to make law, the original intent or restrictions provided for in your Constitution don’t stand a chance. Laws are interpreted by precedence, and the way precedence changes is when justices want to make new law.
I am in disbelief that Walter E. Williams said early on in this interview that airline safety could be had by allowing everyone on the plane to carry a pistol .... OMG. That tell's me a lot about how his mind actually works.
I could listen to Mr. Williams all day long. 2022s debt of 31 trillion, it's 150% of our GDP, that hole keeps getting deeper...
Yeaaaaaa Peace Frog!
7:54 - 8:07 . . .
And here we are!
We are giving up too much freedom for safety.
6:00 I d love to see his thoughts on free private cities. It is government with consent.
We need a debate between Richard wolff and Walter Williams!
That would be an entertaining debate but would it actually accomplish anything. Both of them would come with diametrically opposed views that don't reveal anything new.
❤
The Doors intro. Awesome.
“For the sake of safety”
Look where we are now..😷
If we all had carryons many would think twice, if they make a wrong choice, it would most likely result in one for one.
Um.. So the bailouts came in which industries, those that are most regulated or those that are least regulated?
Hint: I wouldn't be asking unless I thought it was good for my side. For example, there are 100's of federal agencies charged with regulating banks. The regulations run to many 10's of thousands of pages, and have penalties with maximums of $billions and 10's of years in jail.
That's why there were bailouts for banks and not computer companies.
This is an excellent article that discusses the relationships governing federal regulations over banking: www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-179414/
I don't personally have any overarching moral objection to taking to give, but I do agree that the government in the current political landscape is incapable of doing it. Perhaps a greater fear of mine is that even given the right systems to allow people to flourish are Americans ready for it and how long would it take to change. We definitely aren't a third world country on social, economic, etc issues, but we fall decades behind others already in such areas.
You would object if a thief entered your home, beat you into submission, and stole your belongings. It is no different in principle from a government that holds people at gunpoint through unconstitutional laws with the threat of being beaten and thrown into prison if they do not hand over the money they worked to earn to take care of their own families. By forcibly taking money from one person to give it to another, the government is lowering the standard of living for the entire household of the person whose money was taken. Through that process we have lost the ability to afford to give independently to those we know are in need. We have lost the ability to independently help our own children rise above our own lowered standard of living. As a result, entire households of lower middle class and their future generations are now locked into poverty through being forcefully made to bear the weight of many households that they cannot afford to support. The lower middle class lives to pay bills, buy groceries, keep up with their growing children's needs for clothing, and provide even more funding to the state for school projects, field trips, sports and music programs we were told taxes would pay for, and the list goes on and on. By threat we live to serve the State at the pleasure of the State whether we can afford it or not, whether it damages our standard of living or not.
Superstar
Didn't Archie Bunker say the very same thing in an episode of All in the Family? Preventing skyjackings. "Hand out pistols to all passengers before the flight and collect 'em up when the flight is over."
Why shouldn't it be constitutional? It's popular. Um, because the constitution doesn't provide that popularity of a law is included as a basis for congressional authority.
in fairness you can't have nail clippered last time I checked which is less dangerous than that
I'm not sure what "your side" is or how your comment denies anything I wrote.
If you elect representatives and they allocate 60% of your charitable giving the way you see fit (very generous), you are still losing 40% of efficiency in allocation. Why not let people allocate their own social giving voluntarily? You don't need government to organize and pool resources. There are many large charities who operate on money given voluntarily by the benevolence of individuals. You have a built-in inefficiency when you grant a taxing body the right to redistribute your money because at least some of it will go to efforts that you think are misguided. I believe in the moral superiority of personal liberty and also the economic advantages of removing all of the redistributive policies of our government.
It would be the same as if I said "I don't have any overarching moral objection to taking a life, but..", It sounds horrible when spoken, but most people in practice have the same opinion. There are situations where people would say it was morally justified to take a life under very strict circumstances (be it self defense, war, or otherwise). Same here - I wouldn't go as far as to say its NEVER morally justified to take from someone (most people, when phrased like that, would agree).
Host needs to pick up his game.
Walt pisses excellence.
Yup. Perfect example of an utter lack of common sense by TSA and pure knee-jerk-ism all under the guise of 'security'.
"Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University, joins host Jon Caldara to talk about the current state of the free market in America."
There is no "free market" in America. The economic system is largely a corporatist oligopoly. That is why there is such a thing as trillion dollar bailouts.
We need to pray because America is a Christian nation , our leaders are not constitution minded.
I don't know how much Pete Townsend is a complement anymore. He should have said Jimi Hendrix and not just because he's black.
Are U sure??????????? what about after war world one.
No offense but I can't get past your first sentence.
This is the kind of interview they don't want you to see...
devils what?
Are U sure Christopher??????????? The Bail out Package TAPR it is not the same as the Stimulus Package what a confusion I bet U Walter Williams hasnt even read niether legislations so how come I can give his opinion on it
Do you do the nation a favor and throw Ron Paul or his son in to?
He didn't explain what should be done, to help the old lady sleeping, homeless, cold on the street.
I think Walter Williams in his way of thinking, is to just leave her !
personal responsibility ≠ government responsibility
Indeed, the increase of government responsibility allows more and more of us to ignore our personal responsibilities - so that the panhandler should apply to a program instead of become part of my life and my personal concern.
I suspect Prof. Williams way of thinking is closer to mine:
- Don't give them money, give them your phone number and your time.
- Don't prop up phony community with programs; build real community with relationships. Healthy habits and better outcomes will follow.
Last thing: "What needs to be done" is up to us as individuals and families. Politicians sell "what needs to be done" and despite sounding great and compassionate, it usurps our responsibility for our own, our families', and our communities' outcomes.
Not the topic !
I believe It’s self explanatory, go into your own pocket and give to the woman on the street and not someone else pocket. Simple logic and true benovelence.
Well, allowing guns on an airliner is just stupid. lol
How about allowing explosives?
They're both hacks-Williams and Sowell.
And you're a disgrace.
Bruno TaTa OF course you guys revel in propaganda as fact,.That's why you're so misinformed.
How are Dr. Williams & Dr. Sowell hacks?
***** That's what Progressives call people who smack them down. They haven't got a logical counter argument so they revert to name calling.
Ray R That is why I support the Libertarian Party.