EDITOR’S NOTE: Originally broadcast on 10 July, 2012, on The Mike Church Show on SiriusXM Patriot
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Audio and Transcript – Please don’t say “nobody” or “no one”. You’re talking about semantical arguments, the nomenclature of “The One,” that being, of course, President Obama — he is, of course, “The One” — and the way that he uses the words. This is very common amongst liberals, to use the terminology ‘us,’ ‘we.’ ‘We’ is the one I hate the most. Someone should write a book with a giant ‘We’ on the cover. You could even use the ‘we’ from Gouverneur Morris’ script of “We the People” on the original version of the Constitution and put the Ghostbusters strikeout symbol over it. I don’t want to hear ‘we’ anywhere. Who’s ‘we’? We? We? Who conscripted me in this? How did I get involved in the ‘we’?
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Caller: I just wanted to talk a little bit more about this. I know we’ve been beating this horse to death, the Obama speech. I listened to it several times and it really struck me as odd, the way he talks about taxes and financial situations within the government. He acts like — it’s kind of like a dark look into the soul of what Obama really believes, that all of the money in the United States, all the money in the world belongs to him and it’s up to him to dole it out to us as he sees fit.
Caller: When you look at the way he uses the words in his speech, it’s really striking to me how he says it’s going to cost us trillions in taxes, when that’s not the case.
Mike: Yeah, who’s ‘us’?
Mike: The people that have the wealth confiscated to them and whose children have to pay all the debt back, that’s who ‘us’ is.
Caller: Right. It’s just funny that — his ideology is so engrained that he can use words like that and it passes and nobody pays attention to that stuff. Well, I won’t say nobody.
Mike: Yeah, please don’t say nobody or no one. You’re talking about semantical arguments, the nomenclature of “The One,” that being, of course, President Obama — he is, of course, “The One” — and the way that he uses the words. This is very common amongst liberals, to use the terminology ‘us,’ ‘we.’ ‘We’ is the one I hate the most. Someone should write a book with a giant ‘We’ on the cover. You could even use the ‘we’ from Gouverneur Morris’ script of “We the People” on the original version of the Constitution and put the Ghostbusters strikeout symbol over it. I don’t want to hear ‘we’ anywhere. Who’s ‘we’? We? We? Who conscripted me in this? How did I get involved in the ‘we’?
Caller: ‘We’ is a socialist term.
Mike: Well, ‘we’ is a collectivist term. In most instances, you don’t have much of a choice of joining the collective. Let’s just say that we had a voluntary collective. Let’s just call it the Knights of the Dude. As you and I, Mike, as Knights of the Dude, let’s say we made it our goal to eradicate consumption of less than four dollars per six pack of beer for men that were employed. You like this cause, don’t you? I like it, too. Let’s just say then, for pooh-poohs and giggles, that in order to accomplish our goal, we had determined that we were going to need, let’s say $2 million, just to do it in the State of North Carolina. If ‘we’ were actually trying to judiciously do this without compulsion, then ‘we’ would then be responsible or would then have to go and get people to voluntarily give us the funds needed to get to the $2 million mark. Then ‘we’ could distribute the booty, so to speak, to those men who were consuming sub-four dollars per six pack beer on weekends.
In that instance there, at every step of the chain, there was voluntary action, what Dudewig von Mises would call human action. You chose and I chose to form the Dudes of the Round Table to address this problem. I left one other part out. We would only advertise the service and ask those that wish to participate in it to voluntarily show up at some location to receive their subsidy for their less than four dollar per six pack beer, so they could get their subsidy and they could buy seven dollar per six pack beer.
At every stage of the exercise, there was voluntary action, there was human action. That’s a ‘we’ that I can live with. The ‘we’ that I can’t live with and that I reject and I don’t wish for my children to live under is the ‘we’ where you’re not given the choice, where the ‘we’ was a group of guys meeting in a city council, statehouse or congressional chamber. Then ‘they’ decided that the rest of the ‘we’ out here needed to fork over, let’s just say one-half of one percent of everything that we earn so they could do exactly what you and I did. Then they decided, “Wait a minute. We’re going to have to hire people in order to do this and pay them benefits.” You can follow the exercise out.
It doesn’t work without the compulsion of the government being able to tax. Then you have the compulsion of the government then saying that it is now legal for the royal ‘we,’ meaning “we the government,” to address this concern now. That has removed the human action from the equation. It hasn’t totally removed it, but it has removed it in the key parts where actual capital had to be surrendered and then had to be marshaled and had to be put to use.
What if there were competing Dudes of the Round Table groups? What if Babes of the Round Table said, “We can do what those dudes are doing and we can do it for less”? I’m just thinking out loud here. There would be no restriction. You could have Babes of the Round Table. You could have Kids of the Round Table groups. My point is that the incarnation of solutions and of individuals with freewill to address those problems is probably limitless and endless; whereas once you have made the fatal conceited choice that in order to do this, you must turn it over to a legislative body who will then use the brute force and power of government to achieve allegedly or ostensibly the same end, now you have eliminated the other choice. Then it will probably be illegal, unless you agree that you’re not going to make a profit on it or something to that effect, to do what the Dudes and Babes of the Round Table were to do.
Caller: Right. That is what you’re talking about.
Mike: The problem is never explained like that. It’s an either or. Either we have this government program and subsidize the sub four dollar per six pack guy and gets him into some good beer, or we don’t and he dies underneath an overpass to starvation, or something to that effect, or of rotgut from bad beer. It’s an either or. When you leave it to the community or the hamlet or the market, the possibilities are endless. The most beautiful part about it is the possibilities are always changing and they’re free to change and adjust because there’s freewill there, human action involved.
Caller: What you’re talking about is basically a select group of personnel, let’s just call them elected officials, come up with ideas that they believe to be best for the people, ‘we,’ and we get what we elect, basically.
Mike: Well, I guess that’s the short cliff note version of it. The point of the exercise is, we can just call this one of dude’s parables. We should have a theme song we play for my parables. The point of the parable is to demonstrate that when you leave that public need in the public and you don’t turn it over to the central authority, the solutions for it are almost limitless. They are left to the freewill of people, meaning they’re going to be done more effectively and efficiently as well because people don’t like squandering their own money, you don’t and I don’t. Government doesn’t care because it has a gun and a jail cell. It can compel anyone to participate in it and it doesn’t matter how effective it is, unless there’s an election to be held, and even then, if you have a willing, complicit, complacent media to go along with it, who’s going to rat out those who are ostensibly doing the good work, providing the appropriate high-quality beer to the less than four dollar a six pack crowd?
Caller: You’re only going to hear about it on talk radio.
Mike: You’re not even going to hear about it on talk radio. Who else is going to tell you the story that I just told you?
Caller: That’s why I listen to your show every morning.
Mike: Name them. Who else? Who else is going to sew a parable out of whole cloth and totally remove government influence from it 100 percent?
End Mike Church Show Transcript