have said, but instead of -- thank you for voting. remember to visit facebook.com/teamcavuto. please keep your thoughts and comments coming in. have a wonderful christmas. stossel: hi, i'm fatcat. health insurance boss. obamacare promised me lots of new customers. but wait a second, it says here i have to cover diet countlessing, diet rehab, maternity care and more. i'll to have raise my rights or i'll lose money, unless i can get you taxpayers to bail me out. uncle sam, we don't call them bailouts. we don't want anybody to know what they're talking about. we'll call them risk corridors. uncle sam will race down a corridor with lots of your money and give it to companies that the politicians want to please. here, have some tax money. see, isn't obamacare

great? >> it's not just obamacare that controls us. control freaks are all over government and proud of their work. >> it takes a long time to put the legislation together to control the people. >> has there been due process? >> no. >> the nanny state is alive and well. >> they're such control freaks, and that's stossel's show tonight. announcer: and now john stossel. stossel: the control freaks in washington really want to run your life. we start tonight with obamacare. the administration and its eagerness to pass a law that would let government rule over health insurance wanted to make sure insurance companies are on its side. how could it do that? obamacare forces insurance companies to cover much more stuff. ensures new democrats

wouldn't sharply raise rates. they would tell insurance companies, if you lose money, don't worry. we'll bail you out. but they didn't want to call it a bailout. they're unpopular. instead, the administration used an obscure term, risk corridors. that's why i embarrassed myself by dressing as uncle sam and doing those silly stunts. risk corridor sounds meaningless. you can't get your brain around it unless you watch someone demonstrate it. but is it really this bad? am i exage rating? is this really this bad? >> it is. it is corrupt. you're fooling the public using the public's own money. you're saying to these insurance companies, price your plans lower than what you actually need to cover your costs. we'll come around to the

back door with the money to offset the lawsuits. there it is in section 1342. stossel: she carries obamacare with her whenever she goes. >> this is why it's so telling. this bailout expires right after the 2016 election. stossel: they didn't want to make it permanent because permanent bailouts to companies would be really horrible, but it expires after he leaves office. >> so the plans are supposed to look affordable until he's out of office. everybody knows the insurance companies couldn't possibly price them that way. they have to cover, as you pointed out, so many extra things. stossel: alcohol rehab coverage. diet care. talk therapy. birth control. wellness business. >> most people didn't want to pay for this. they would have been there in the first

place. passing a law where the only car you're allowed to buy is a fully loaded cadillac. stossel: he sweetened the corridors after the las law was passed. >> he, to enhance these risk corridors and offer insurance companies even more than the law allows. circumventing congress. he said you can keep your plan longer. the insurance company said that will cost us a bundle. then the president said, don't worry, we'll make it up to a quietly with john's money again. let me tell you something, we're entering the perfect storm for repeal. this provision ought to be the first thing repealed. stossel: the bill says the permissible profit margin is 3%. now it's 5%. >> big increase. plus, insurance companies can incur other expenses such as salaries and profit margins that they didn't

have before. so it gives sweetness to them. but it violated the constitution because the president is not allowed to change the law by himself. stossel: bad enough it's in there. just about no reporting on this because it's boring. bailouts you can get your brain around. risk corridors. >> they were very deceptive. took a term, risk corridors and pretended it's the same thing. but it's not. stossel: of course, obamacare happened in the first place because democrats and some republicans, let's not forget romney care, this consumers can't be trusted for their health care. some people don't buy health insurance. some people wait until they get sick. then they rush to high-cost emergency rooms. whatever we think -- whatever we critics of obamacare say, it's true, more people have health insurance. obama: the final score speaks for itself. there are seven and a half million people

across the country that have the security of health insurance. most of them, for the very first time. stossel: that's fewer than they had predicted. now they're saying nine and a half million will have signed up. but they originally thought it would be 13 million. still, 7 million new people have health insurance. (?) dr. kathleen london is thrilled about that. but roy say she and the president miss the point. what do you mean? >> the number of people who signed up on the exchange isn't the number of people with new insurance. 5 million people lost their insurance. if you ask the people who got insurance, the people who got insurance through medicaid and the people who lost their insurance through various means, probably more like 5 million. stossel: why are you so happy? >> still allowing people to get coverage who had no means. when you look at people being married to their job, having employer based insurance keeps

them stuck. stossel: you're a practicing physician. >> i'm a family medicine physician. one of my colleagues saw this girl in the er who came in pale unknown fever. high weight count. had the unfortunate news to break that their child had leukemia. dad had quit his job a month ago to start a new business. guess what, doesn't have insurance. now, instead of the first question is my child will be okay, his question was how do i pay for cancer treatments? stossel: what do you say to people like that? not everybody can afford health care. >> free market advocates have advocated just that kind of a system. where instead of getting insurance through your employer, you own that tax break yourself and you can shop for whatever plan you want and you can take it wherever you want. the problem with obamacare is that actually the story you

described is the exception. the much more common scenario is the law discourages people from staying in the work force. in order to maintain those benefits, their income has to be low that they can't seek work. >> i was there in 2007. i was living in massachusetts. had my own practice. romney stood up with the heritage foundation, when the individual mandate was a wonderful thing. stossel: came from a republican think tank. >> why is it now bad? please explain to to me. >> the average price is 49% higher than it was last year because obamacare mandates and regulates how insurance plans can be designed. >> is it apples to apples. that's not what you're seeing out of kaiser. a lot of those plans went away when you needed them. that's buyer beware. if you want to be fiscally conservative,

single-payer. stossel: government pays for everybody. gives us all we want. >> it's not. it's saying we will set the things that are absolutely necessary, preventative care, urgent care, things like that, we would have insurance for the rest of it. it's what every industrialized country does and does well. stossel: they freeload off us. >> i'll give you an example of another real world story. a woman being wheeled in having a heart attack. being wheeled into the lab. who yells, stop. let me see if my insurance covers this. her husband had died four years before. she has a 16-year-old. doesn't want to leave her children with giant medical bills. stossel: no hospital refuses to treat the truly neededy. if you're having a heart attack, they'll treat you. >> the number one cause of bankruptcy in america is still medical. >> that's not true. here's the thing, you

want to have catastrophic insurance -- let me talk for a second. you had a lot of time to talk. for routine health expenditures, you don't need health insurance to pay for that. if you have car insurance to pay for wiper fluid and tire changes, the car will cost more money. if you look at the countries where they don't insure for the routine expenses, health care costs a lot more. it's like a difference between an open bar or cash bar. if you have an open bar, the in-laws wedding, the single malt scotch. >> when we had that before, people don't do their preventative care. they wait until it's expensive. if you come when your diabetes are out of control, it's a whole lot easier -- stossel: there's no evidence that preventative care is saving american's money. >> the states that expanded medicaid, we had a lower premee

birthrate. stossel: we're getting stuff that would have never been a problem. the doctors overtreat. >> we could have a rational insurance that allows people to pay for routine health expenditures. that's not what we do. that's not what obamacare does. stossel: obamacare forbids it. >> that's exactly right. obamacare doubles down on the things that are bad about the system and spends more money on it. stossel: i see why you like it. you have patients who are getting paid. and they're coming in and getting everything. but how can america afford this? >> it was the first step, and it was the best plan we could get through that congress. stavment thank you. to join this argument. please follow me @fbnstossel. use the #no they can't. we pick that because washington control freaks say they can make our lives better if they control more of it. i say no they can't. i said it in that great book.

we individuals make our lives better, but for the most part washington can't. anyway, please tweet us or like my facebook page so you can post on my wall. we want to know what you think. coming up, how washington's control freaks use this little animal to torture property owners. but next, some of the businesses that freak out the control freaks.

stossel: at this shooting range in maryland, everyone is shooting bullets made by a company called tom cat. cat zero connor owns the company. she's here with brian wise who runs the group users coalition. both set out for a project called operation choke point. so, brian, what is that. >> a program that the department of justice is pursuing. that essentially intimidates banks and payment processors to stop do business with people they don't like. people like cat are being affected and losing the ability to

provide their services and products. stossel: industries like cat make ammunition. companies as seen on tv. i have this list. it got leaked. firearm makers. payday loan sellers. pornography. surveillance equipment. tobacco sales. lots of companies. >> they didn't want this program to be released to the public at all. but most of these industries are industries they've tried to legislate out of existence over the past 20 or 30 years. they haven't been able to do that. the obama administration under the direction of eric holder at the department of justice has decided we'll come up with a creative way to go after these industries. we'll find the one unifying factor that brings together these industries. what is that? everyone needs a bank. everyone needs a payment processor. so we'll go to the banks. we'll intimidate them into stopping their client relationships with all these -- these

companies. stossel: so, cat, how did you find out you were choked by operation choke point. >> we were told twice that we were rejected due to our industry. stossel: you couldn't use your paypal account. >> we could use the credit processing that links to your website. they would not approve our application. stossel: you tried to open a bank account. >> i was told by the branch manager, you can have your bank account, you can't have gateway services due to your industry. stossel: that means credit card processing. >> exactly. i don't have it right now. >> thousands of companies throughout the country are right now receiving letters from their banks saying they can no longer have bank accounts and they can no longer use credit card processing services. that's only the ones we know about. stossel: here's a tweet from a porn star. presley tweets. thank you chase for closing my personal

account i've had since i was 18. >> the department of justice started with industries like payday lending and pornography companies. and they have now moved into check cashing. debt collection services and all the way to guns and ammunition sales and tobacco sales. the letter they received from the bank doesn't say operation choke point on it. after 25 years of doing business, they receive a letter saying we can no longer bank you. you need to move your money somewhere else. stossel: the people who support big government love this. choke point hits the mark. unfortunately, some people in congress were upset enough to some of the few justice departments to a hearing. >> who has determined fraud? you're the attorney at the doj. has there been due process? has there been a hearing? a adjudication fraud?

>> your lawyers recognize that legitimate businesses were, in fact, being harmed, but decided that the ends justified the means. >> yeah, it's great to see members of congress doing their duty pushing back against the control freaks. so were the abusive lawyers and the doj cringing with guilt? no. >> our policy is to investigate specific unlawful conduct based on evidence that consumers are being defrauded. stossel: and so and on he went. we asked the department of justice to come on this show and explain that what they're doing is okay. but they did not respond. so do they respond to your complaints? >> ironically, the only response we get is when we go out and talk about this publicly. stossel: some people would say it's not a threat. ammunition isn't good. you really should be policed. bullets kill people. >> i have a federal firearm license and i

have two licenses from the state of maryland to deal in firearms. it's highly regulated already. stossel: they don't repai pare m back. they always want more. coming up, the control freaks plan to ban tobacco sales. >> i find smoking to be one of the most disgusting habits anybody could possibly do. stossel: and i love to bet on sports. and why not? it's my money. isn't it my choice. no, say the control freaks. that's next.

stossel: governor chris christie signed a bill that partially legalizes sports betting in the garden state. stossel: okay. it's about time. millions of us bet on sports. finally some politicians will make it legal. except, they only want to legalize betting in casinos. in other state

controlled facilities. even that was too much for the control freaks. they threatened lawsuits. >> if someone wants to stop us, they'll have to take action to try to stop us. stossel: and they did. the big sports leagues. the pros sued block legal sports betting. and a judge stopped it at least for now. people in times square agreed. government should prevent us from gambling. >> should betting on sports be allowed? >> never. >> it encourages poor people to spend money they don't have. stossel: it does. sometimes, but aren't free americans allowed to do what we want with our own money? no, says rob wall gate, the american policy roundtable. why not? >> people are free to gamble on sports. it's legal in spots right now. stossel: if you bet with a friend, it's legal in some parts of the country. not all.

>> in some parts of the country. but what chris christie and others have tried to do is clearly illegal. they've tried to get around it by forcing courts to action. stossel: it may be illegal only because foolish control freaks have made it illegal. why should it be illegal? why can't i do what i want to do with my money? >> are you advocating for the ability to bet on any sport from your mobile device -- stossel: yes. >> if we put this everywhere, it will open up a can of worms. i'm not here to defend the sports leagues or the nca. when you look at nca athletes and what they've sold recently when it comes to their personal merchandise that they've gotten in trouble for. $5,000 is a lot of money. you may see college sports go away, as you know, it. when we expand it, there will be -- and i know you're labeling it control freaks. (?)

stossel: i'm sorry about that. >> i've been called worse. when you read the federalist papers, we see what james madison says. if men were angels, we'd no laws. stossel: so we have the laws. but it doesn't stop athletes from occasionally fixing games. we have this james winston, a freshman heisman trophy winner. allegedly shaved points in one game. >> well, there's allegedly, and some stuff being talked about. stossel: an nba ra raphe ref is. >> it's happened in tennis scandals. golfers are able to wager on themselves in england. that's an individual sport. it's different. to think of james winston or tim, that happened in an illegal environment. if it becomes legal on every street corner, the thought it won't happen more, and taxpayers will

be left to hold the bill to subsidize -- stossel: i don't know about tennis games in britain, all we could find, the bbc said in 19648 players were jailed for fixing a soccer game. the previous incident we could find was from 1915. >> when we study gambling and the expansion of gambling around the world, it is on the decline everywhere. the thought -- and i know -- stossel: gambling on the decline? fewer people gamble? >> the government gets less money. the problem is they're sucking the money from the economic engine of certain states. the more money people gamble, the less they can spend on cars, washers and dryers and homes. stossel: why isn't it my choice? >> it is your choice. gambling is a legal activity. you can gamble right now. stossel: i can't bet on the nhl. unless i can find someone who will take the other side.

>> gamble on the nfl is legal in the state of nevada. stossel: i have to fly to nevada? >> that keeps the people that can afford it able to gamble. >> it's nanny state gone wild. stossel: they want to police what you do for pleasure. how you eat, and why this like this little animal a lot more than they like you.

. >> the nanny state is alive and well. stossel: it sure is, and the control freak always want more. they want to protect us from ourselves by limiting what we eat, what we do for pleasure, even how we give to charity. they think it's their duty, and i admit i was guilty of this kind of thinking, as a young consumer reporter, i did all

this research on what doctors said was bad for us, and i wanted to help stamp it out. after all, lives were at stake. and people have lives, they don't have time to check everything out and find out what's harmful. it's important that the state protect us. the concept of individual freedom was not on my radar screen. i apologize. i was ignorant, and arrogant. but at least i had no real power. i couldn't force consumers to avoid unhealthy things. i couldn't force any business to stop selling something. only government can do that. and sadly, government's filled with people just as ignorant and arrogant as i was, but they get to use force, economist matthew mitchell covers the data center. he wised up to the control freaks much more quickly than i did. the regulations save lives. >> the truth is a lot of the regulations have unintended consequences, so take seat

belt, this is often argued surely seat belts save lives. >> this is the best one thrown up against libertarians. thousands of lives saved. >> sure, if you think about the costs that you bear for driving recklessly, if you lower the cost of driving recklessly by making it less likely you will be injured when you drive recklessly, people will demand greater speed. economist sam peltsman looked at the data and found sure enough, people drove more recklessly, accidents increased, now the possibility of getting injured during an accident did fall, but the two effects roughly canceled out. there's one factor that wasn't canceled out. that is that pedestrian deaths and cyclist deaths who are not protected by seat belts, those rose. >> consumers make trade-offs in other ways, backup cameras, this discourages people from

buying new cars. now you drive around in clunkers that are more dangerous for other reasons. stossel: talk about secondhand smoke, i'm amazed how willingly people give up freedom. it started by saying some bars could ban smoking, but now in 24 states, smoking in bars is illegal in every bar. can't the smokers have some bars? >> this is another one of unintended consequences. the areas where they introduced bans on smoking, you saw an increase in accidents related to alcohol. the theory is that people are driving longer distances in order to find bars that you have outside seating or outside of the jurisdiction. stossel: and were you surprised that smokers didn't resist? people give up. i don't smoke. i don't mind it. but a third of the country did at the time? >> interesting how quickly people are willing to give up

freedoms. stossel: that's not what america is supposed to be about. and now control freaks in massachusetts want tobacco sales banned altogether. >> officials in westminster want to make it illegal to sell tobacco products to anyone including adults. stossel: last week, the town held a herring about that. 500 people showed up. i like what this guy said. >> i find smoking to be one of the most disgusting habits anybody could possibly do. on top of that, i find this proposal to be even more of a disgusting thing that anybody could ever give any town in the united states of america. stossel: yes, eventually the town officials shut down that meeting. but maybe people are wising up now and saying enough. >> well, you know, we often think are accustomed to think about the federal government and federal overreach. a lot of most intrusive regulations happen at local level like this. stossel: the regulators make a

pretty good argument that smoking hurts people and seat belts save lives, but the regulators want more things like you mentioned. >> beginning march 12th, sugary beverages will no longer be sold in food establishments in portions greater than 16 ounces. stossel: the proposals keep coming. berkeley, california passed a tax on sweetened drinks. a tax at least is less onerous than a ban. >> anything the government wants to accomplish with regulation, it can accomplish with a tax. we know from a previous earlier supreme court, john marshall says the power to tax is the power to destroy. so there's some point beyond which taxation really can accomplish whatever a government wants. stossel: as i said earlier, members of the media act like control freak's cheerleaders, and i was one once, msnbc is still one. but now maybe the states have

gone so far that the most ridiculous people get upset. >> is feeding the homeless a crime? a new law in one florida town says it is. >> two pastors and a 90-year-old volunteer are facing jail time after they were arrested for feeding the homeless. stossel: what? really? yes, ft. lauderdale passed rule on public food sharing. how and where you can give people food. and boy, when al sharpton gets upset about the nanny state, they have gone overboard. we e-mailed the mayor, the 90-year-old man was not arrested. what's your take. >> this is a guy feeding the hoelts homeless in a park for over 35 years. stossel: he's a chef. >> he's been doing it, the mayor's take is that he's not trying to outlaw this, just trying to make it safe. simple economics tells you if you raise the cost of giving food away, people give less food away and homeless people

find the next meal is harder to come by. stossel: this one is the weakest case, the one al sharpton embraces, there is something called the public square, in florida, merchants are saying vagrants, urinating in front of store. the diners can't eat outdoors. town gets to police the public square? >> you can make a regulation for a public square than a private bar and a privately owned piece of property. in this case, it may be possible for them to find another place for them to feed the homeless. stossel: thank you, matthew mitchell of the wonderful mercaida center. next, control freak as always. a lot more. they say if these guys visit your backyard, you don't really own your property anymore. don't these yards, you don't own your property

. stossel: isn't that cute little animal? a utah prairie dog, environmentalists and other governments say it's endangered and therefore you must not harm one. they go further, you must not harm it or pursue it, hunt it, shoot, it wound it, trap it,

kill it, collect it or harass it. harass it? yes two men harassed manatees by doing this. >> ready? >> yeah, get one.. stossel: he jumped in the water next to one and posted this video of that. the two guys were sent to jail for this. you don't mess with the control freaks at the fish and wildlife service. this man did. he messed with them by fighting them in court. he was upset because he's owned land he hasn't been able to develop because it's infested with prairie dogs. last year he came on the show to complain about the government. this month bruce is back because you won! congratulations. the court ruled the constitution doesn't gift feds the right to forbid him from driving prairie dogs off his land. his lawyer is jonathan wood of the pacific legal foundation. so tell us about this court decision. >> this is the first time a

federal court enforced the constitution's limits on endangered species act. the court held that congress' power to regulate commerce doesn't extend to regulating species, only one small part of utah. stossel: what got me is the prairie dog isn't all this rare. there are 40,000 of them around. >> of the utah prairie dog. stossel: and more black tailed prairie dogs? >> correct, the only difference between the utah prairie dog and the millions of others is the color of its tail. stossel: it's the in the only difference, the utah prairie dog only grooms itself, the black tail groom each other. stossel: i didn't know that. >> the environmentalists say that makes a unique species, if you can't develop your land, so be it. >> we're not governed by laws from the congress or judiciary

or courts, laws, administrative laws written by bureaucrats. so a bureaucrat can tell me what i can and cannot do with my own property, and they hold a big hammer over my head to make sure i do it. the fine for prairie dogs, if i were to harm or harass even one is $10,000 and five years in federal prison. stossel: for one, and you have about 85 on your property. >> correct. stossel: there's a process to remove them. there's a waiting list. >> there was a waiting list that took about three years to get to the first of the list, and then i could remove ten of my 85 prairie dogs and then i went down to the bottom of the list again and had to wait. so in reality, it was an impossibility to ever rid myself of prairie dogs. stossel: now, it's kind of hard to get your brain around why he so needs to get rid of them and what prairie dogs can do to people like bruce, fox's los

angeles reporter did a good job showing how prairie dog holes make it dangerous for kids to play, and they do other nasty things to a neighborhood. >> we have another hole. >> here in iron county utah, they've had enough. the critters have threatened it's taking over, from real estate and development, to a local church where the pastor says it's too dangerous for kids to play. >> god's given us dominion over the animals. animals have dominion over us. >> reporter: connie robinson is mayor of periggonia utah. >> the cemetery is falling apart. >> they started undermining the stones and tipping over. >> most people are getting sick and tired of putting up with them because they have more rights and better paid lawyers than we do. stossel: better paid lawyers, you're working for free on this case here? animals are helpless, property owners are rich people. >> i don't think that's true. so there are a lot of powerful,

wealthy environmental groups on the other side paying attention to the issue and are lobbying for species to be added to the list by the hundreds. stossel: a group called friends of animals is saying that we're going to appeal the tenth circuit, will make short work of this embarrassing judicial work. the government partners with these environmental groups. >> that's right, the friends of animals came in on the side of the government to help them defend the lawsuit, and thankfully they weren't enough. as i said, the court ruled that the commerce clause limits apply and people like bruce should be able to use their property. stossel: don't you want to protect god's creatures? >> we have plenty, and, yes we want to protect them. on the day that the ruling came down and they said are you going to run out and kill all the prairie dogs on your property? and i said no! we're not interested in killing prairie dogs, we're simply interested in our constitutional rights of private property, which we currently don't have. stossel: control freak.

thank you, bruce, jonathan. coming up, my take and what it means for freedom when congressmen say things like this -- >> it takes a long time to put the legislation together to control the people. you pay your auto insurance premium every month on the dot. you're like the poster child for paying on time. and then one day you tap the bumper of a station wagon. no big deal... until your insurance company jacks up your rates. you freak out. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? hey insurance companies, news flash. nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance.

they take us to worlds full of heroes and titans. for respawn, building the best teractive entertainment begins with the cloud. this is "titanfall," the first multi-player game built and run on microsoft azure. empowering gamers around the world to interact in ways they never thought possible. this cloud turns data into excitement. this is the microsoft cloud.

. stossel: did you notice how i opened this show with a clip of a congressman saying this -- >> it takes a long time to put

the legislation together to control the people. stossel: politicians work hard to control the people. that was no ordinary congressman, that's john dingell. he's been in office 59 years. yes, 59. here he is with president truman. dingle's father was a congressman too, elected in 1933. he died in office and was replaced by his son. dingell junior will retire this year. he will be replaced by a younger person, a woman, debbie dingell, wait. same name? yes, his wife. the family made millions from gm while congressman dingell pushed for five bailouts from gm. aside from protect his hometown automaker, dingell's been as

much of a control freak as anyone in congress. dingell's website says he wrote the esa, i wonder what debbie will control? she's almost 30 years younger than john, maybe she'll stay in office 59 years, too. that will give her plenty of time to ban lots of things. do they ever unban anything? occasionally. >> from this day on, the 18th amendment is doomed. stossel: they did legalize alcohol after they banned it. and now a few states legalized weed, but generally, the control freaks only increase control. take cigarettes, at first it was just warning labels, then bans on tv ads, then required restaurants to have no smoking sections, then came the bans on airplanes, school, workplaces, entire restaurant, then bars, too. and now sometimes apartments and outdoor spaces even. frankly, i like the bans, i

don't smoke, i've come to hate the smell of secondhand smoke, can't smokers have some bars? no one has to come in here. can't a smoker who after work looks forward to a cigarette in his hand have this moment? no. in about half of america this is illegal and state by state, the smokers just take it. and by the way, the secondhand smoke scare turns out to be bunk. but the smokers still take it. when the nanny state gives its commands, everyone quietly gives up freedom. that's why i was encouraged by last week's town meeting where after that town wanted to ban tobacco sales. hundreds of people showed up and complained. >> i find smoking to be one of the most disgusting habits anybody could possibly do. on top of, that i find this proposal to be even more of a disgusting thing that anybody

could ever give any town in the united states of america. stossel: maybe that pushback will stop that ban in that town, but the control freak always want more. >> there are about 50 cities with their own plastic bag ban. >> the ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines. >> boycott the sale of alcohol. >> you should be banned from coming to the united states. >> we should use every reasonable precaution. stossel: it's always more on, this show i talk a lot about economic freedom. world now knows economic freedom is what creates prosperity. prosperity is a big deal, but the free part which sounds vague is just as important. individual choices matter. i object to restrictions on choice not because i like choice or not just because i like choice, it's a moral objection. when government limits our control over our own lives, we become less. something changes in our

character. we become smaller. people on the left and right believe government should promote good things, discourage bad once. if you're on the right, maybe you think government should promote marriage or religious charities. maybe you think it should ban porn, pot and violent video games. if it's government's job to promote what's good and suppress the bad. that's a license for the control freaks to stick their noses into everything we do. politicians and voters can dream of controls in our constantly changing world. no more destructive gambling. every prairie dog is preserved. high-interest loans vanish. your health care is paid for efficiently by strangers in washington. politicians can dream about that but can't do it. no. they can't. and they shouldn't try. as frederick hayek said the curious task of economics is to

demonstrate them in how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. they can't. that's our show. see you next week. e you next wee retirement, that's tomorrow night. 6:00 p.m. lose dobbs, next. lou: (?) good evening, everybody. breaking news, new york city mayor bill de blasio creating what may be an irrepairable rip between himself and the new york police department. and tonight, the anti-police demonstrators and their spiritual leader al sharpton have openly divide thdefied the mayor. listen to new york city's mayor earlier today lobbying the police department and calling for the public suddenly to respect law enforcement while holding a moment of silence for the two slain officers. >> we need to protect and respect our police just