PJTV Interviews Libertarian Radio Host Larry Elder About Interviewing Bill Ayers, Wobbly Republicans, & Non-Essential Gov't Workers
Excellent interview with libertarian radio host Larry Elder by Joe Hicks of PJTV. I can't embed the vid, but here's the link.
Reason talked with Elder in 1996. Here's a snippet:
As we use it right now, the term conservative typically means somebody who wants to reduce spending, reduce taxes, reduce the size of government. But it also has come to mean somebody who feels that government has an active role to play in our private lives. So, if that's the definition of a conservative, that ain't me.
What I am is somebody who believes that government is way too big, and people are being taxed way too much. The government is assuming responsibilities it should not be assuming. The government is intruding in our private lives. Republicans ought to be talking about ending farm subsidies. They ought to be eliminating the Departments of Education, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development. They are taking a pocket knife to a problem that requires a machete.
Social Security should be part of it, too. To me, it's an improper role of the government to take current workers' money and give it to somebody else. I would like private safety nets. This would have to be done in the context of the dramatic reduction of taxes so people have more disposable income.
Elder's official website is here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Love Larry Elder. I wish our local fishwrap carried him.
Love Larry Elder.
Agreed. It's pretty sad that he seems to have fallen off the map?
To me, it's an improper role of the government to take current workers' money and give it to somebody else.
I'm betting he makes an exception for the military.
I'm thinking when he says "give it to somebody else", he means "make a gift of it to somebody else", not "pay it to somebody for services rendered."
It's either thieving or it isn't.
Wha? It's not thieving to pay employees, even gov't employees. It's theft to take funds from workers and give it to retirees, who happen to be the richest demographic in the country.
t's not thieving to pay employees, even gov't employees.
It is if the money you are paying them with is stolen.
Re: Don Mynack,
If a thief steals from me to pay his landscaper, it is still thievery. And if the landscaper knows the money came from thieving, he is just a thief as the person that stole from me.
Ergo, Government employees are thiefs, just as the IRS agents who take my money at bayonet point to pay the these "employees."
What about the guy who runs the grocery store who knows that the landscaper works for the government? Is he thief if he doesn't shun the landscaper?
Re: CracketyAssCracker,
Who's paying the landscaper: the grocer or the government? I mean, I work for the government a fourth of my working time - for free. And I am reminded of that fact every April 15th.
The government pays the landscaper. And the landscaper pays the grocer.
Since "thief" to you means something besides "guy who takes money in a non-consensual manner", I was just trying to figure out how many consensual transactions are necessary before the thieving cooties rub off the money.
Your statement takes Elder's words out of context, but I appreciate the gist of your statement. Elder isn't giving an opinion on how the government should, or shouldn't raise revenue in order to fund the government. In the case of Social Security, which his comment specifically references, the government has creates a specific payroll tax to fund the program. Their is no such payroll tax designed exclusively to fund the military.
An area that I may agree with you on, is that it is hypocritical to argue in support of a massive military, and to use the military beyond the scope of "the common defense", then turn around and argue against massive entitlement programs. Just as it is hypocritical to argue for massive entitlement programs, but against a massive military.
I guess I don't see the moral distinction. SS isn't an entitlement program, it's a simple generational transfer program. It's about the least progressive form of a safety net possible. You pay in while you work, you get benefits when you retire. That a specific tax is set aside for it would seem to be in its favor as far as voluntariness goes. Simple.
Yeah, it's voluntary to pay SS tax. You're a fucking idiot, Tony.
Nobody is forcing you to work or accept government-backed money. You seem to want the benefits of society without paying for its upkeep (including a simple transfer payment for a safety net). That's thieving.
Are you kidding me? Just like when a boss requires an employee to "voluntarily" perform sexual favors, in order to keep his/her job. After all, no one is forcing them to work.
Re: Tony,
The problem resides in the fact that people are fleeced to pay for the program, not in accepting the money.
Nobody is forcing you to work or accept government-backed money.
So the government doesn't force you to accept it's federal notes as the sole form of currency?
Fail, Tony.
SS isn't an entitlement program, it's a simple generational transfer program
That's what I should have called it! Too bad I couldn't enforce mine with guns 🙁
Of course you don't.
Re: Tony,
You have a problem with concepts, Tony. If people receive a payment from the government as a matter of right, then it is an entitlement, regardless of the mechanism used by government to obtain the money.
Which gives anyone a frightening image of what a more progressice form of a safety net would look like.
It's not a savings program. You look like a fool when arguing that it is.
Re: Tony,
He does, many times. He is not a true libertarian: voluntaryst, anarcho-capitalist.
I'm betting you would make an exception for anything else save the military.
I think people should be free to buy what they want.
Re: Tony,
You're bullshitting me. Don't do that - it's unbecoming.
Fan-freaking-tastic! I don't want to buy income insurance from the federal government. Where can I pick up my waiver form?
Who knew? Tony wants to get rid of the FCC, the FDA, the SEC, the ATF, Department of Labor, Department of Education, Obamacare, etc, etc, etc.
Except with the portion of their income that the government collects and uses to buy what it wants, you mean.
Why would such a quaint idea occur to you?
He is a big war on terror guy, so yeah just another conservative
Poor Larry Elder.
Years ago, every-other caller would accuse him of being a self-hating black. And every-other-other caller would say "I get what you're saying about affirmative action and drug laws, etc. But why do you hate black people?"
Maybe that doesn't happen to him so often these days. I wouldn't know, because I don't listen to him any more because he's so goddamn boring.
Re: Irresponsible Hater,
Oh, you found out as well?
At least some of the more obnoxious talkradio hosts are more entertaining than Larry, despite the fact that Larry is a very cool and knowledgeable guy.
That's Larry Elder? Why did I think he was an old man?
Surname?
You cracked it.
I'd be much more interested in this post if it had a picture of Sallie James...
I've listened to, and read, Larry Elder in the past. I remember one time he was a guest on Chris Rock's show and Chris was just instantly antagonistic. No pretense of neutrality at all. I don't remember Chris showing any actual interest in LEARNING something from Larry.
So, I filed that away in my "things to remember about Chris Rock" file.
Hey I remember this guy! My kind of libertarian: After 9/11 happened, I read three or four articles by [past Libertarian Party presidential candidate] Harry Browne, and the first one blamed American interventionism: If we hadn't been sticking our nose in other people's faces, it never would have happened. I went ballistic about that. He wrote another one saying, "that's not what I meant," but it was what he meant. I don't want this to sound disrespectful. Harry [now deceased] and his wife and I knew each other for a number of years, and we were very good friends. But the series of columns he wrote after 9/11 was, to me, appalling.
http://www.atlassociety.org/tn.....arry-elder
May the Larry Elders, with Objectivist help, beat back the noninterventionist cargo cult of the libertarian movement.
I know, WTF? Why can't we just murder people on a whim for living in the wrong place? Isn't that the whole point of being a superpower?
Why can't you just come up with a real argument and not make love to a strawman? I win you lose.